About fossils -- would you say this is true?

[YoursTrue]

No, that is a false dichotomy. If you throw a rock up in the air does it "fall by chance"?


Hawking was pointing out how the theory of gravity (It supplanted the Law of Gravity) leads to the Big Bang and the possibility that the universe started from nothing. The evidence supports the Big Bang too. And if it did start from "nothing" that does not violate any laws of physics.

Nonsense. Hawking was pointing out that matter can come from ... nothing. Evidently from what I conclude about his remarks and your remarks is that the laws of physics can come from nothing as well. So nothing can produce essential laws of physics and these laws can also produce something from nothing. I guess. right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nonsense. Hawking was pointing out that matter can come from ... nothing.

Yes, and it can. Are you aware of the matter energy equivalency? You know, go old Al's equation?

 

[YoursTrue]

Context matters. Also, I have a rule for discussing abiogenesis. Since evolution does not rely on it anyone that demands to discuss it has to be informed and honest enough to admit that evolution is a fact. If one cannot be honest enough to admit that evolution is a fact they will never understand abiogenesis. When you bring up abiogenesis you are moving the goalposts. In effect you are admitting that evolution is a fact.

In effect, as far as I am concerned, you are a poor teacher and expositor for your cause. Bye again.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you are truly interested in learning about evolution, this seems to be a good place to start. I researched about 46 sites trying to find one that would be good for you. Many are too simplistic, many too complicated for beginners, some biased towards religion, and a few extremely outdated or just plain wrong. Here you can begin and there are tons of links to various short videos explaining in plain English, different aspects of evolution. I hope you enjoy and I hope they will answer your questions about evolution.

Evolution 101 & how natural selection works – NOVA PBS

What is evolution, how has it created Earth's biodiversity, and how can a phylogenetic or evolutionary tree—a tree of life—help us better understand how

thekidshouldseethis.com

Can you please refer me to the explanation of dating again? Is it the one up above? If not, please do re-post it, thanks.

 

[gnostic]

I don't believe that. Furthermore, you say "life" is the product of evolution? so tell me, when did life start, do you know?

I was responding to @Subduction Zone 's statement post #763 in which he said, "it too leads to the conclusion that life is the product of evolution."
Could be I misunderstood that statement where he really meant instead that life in not the product of evolution. If it is, I'd like to know how and if it is not the product of evolution, perhaps you can also say how. Either way, I'm willing to listen.

Yes, you did misunderstand @Subduction Zone comment, because you are only focusing on one sentence, and not his whole post.

Re-read his post:

Once again you claim to understand the concept of evidence. You can always ask questions as to why something is scientific evidence. But you cannot claim to understand what is and what is not evidence if you refuse to learn a very simple concept.

It appears that you know that you would have to be a liar if you wanted to deny the theory of evolution if you understood scientific evidence.

This is rather basic logic. But logic is another tool that you cannot use since it too leads to the conclusion that life is the product of evolution.

In the middle paragraph, he was clearly referring to the “theory of Evolution”, not to the “origin of life”, which is Abiogenesis.

You’re the one putting words SZ didn’t say. By bringing up “when did life start” when SZ was talking about Evolution, you are changing the subject, and using strawman tactics.

His comment were on Evolution, the life is the “production of evolution”, as in biodiversity through genetic variation and reproduction, not how life first started.

Yes, you did misunderstand SZ.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you please refer me to the explanation of dating again? Is it the one up above? If not, please do re-post it, thanks.

Dating has already been explained to you.

 

[Astrophile]

No, not at all, no one has witnessed the whole life span of a star. It’s total guesswork.

It is theory based on physics, not guesswork. There is a difference.

 

[wandering peacefully]

Like getting to Carnegie hall.

Study study study.

An unpopular route for creationists.

It's all quite interesting after one understands it.

 

[Audie]

It's all quite interesting after one understands it.

Of course.

A just as a general rule the real
thing is always better than the cartoon.

 

[Audie]

It is theory based on physics, not guesswork. There is a difference.

People who just make things up
probably think everyone is similarly childish.

 

[YoursTrue]

Dating has already been explained to you.

To an extent that is so. I can easily look up dating processes on the internet, I have done so, no problem there. The questions arise in the particulars. Have a good one.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, you did misunderstand @Subduction Zone comment, because you are only focusing on one sentence, and not his whole post.

Re-read his post:



In the middle paragraph, he was clearly referring to the “theory of Evolution”, not to the “origin of life”, which is Abiogenesis.

You’re the one putting words SZ didn’t say. By bringing up “when did life start” when SZ was talking about Evolution, you are changing the subject, and using strawman tactics.

His comment were on Evolution, the life is the “production of evolution”, as in biodiversity through genetic variation and reproduction, not how life first started.

Yes, you did misunderstand SZ.

I don't believe so. Either life came about as a result of evolution, or it did not. It is amazing how you (& SZ) turn about. So again -- either life came about as a result of evolution, or it did not. So when DID life start, any idea? His comment about evolution, namely that the life is the “production of evolution”, as in biodiversity through genetic variation and reproduction, not how life first started, doesn't allude to when "life started" then? When evolution started, that life is the production of it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't believe so. Either life came about as a result of evolution, or it did not. It is amazing how you (& SZ) turn about. So again -- either life came about as a result of evolution, or it did not. So when DID life start, any idea? His comment about evolution, namely that the life is the “production of evolution”, as in biodiversity through genetic variation and reproduction, not how life first started, doesn't allude to when "life started" then? When evolution started, that life is the production of it?

He had it right.

Now life probably did arise through natural abiogenesis. I am curious as to why anyone would believe anything else. There is evidence for it. There is no evidence for a magic god poofing.

Evolution is still a separate process from abiogenesis. Evolution deals with changes after life exists so the original life could not "come about as a result of evolution". You just demonstrated once again that you do not understand the concept of evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, and it can. Are you aware of the matter energy equivalency? You know, go old Al's equation?

So the law of gravity existed before the universe made itself because of that law, per a possibility Hawking offered, is that correct?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So the law of gravity existed before the universe made itself because of that law, per a possibility Hawking offered, is that correct?

Hard to say. That is far far outside of my knowledge base. It could have arisen simultaneously. Go talk to a specialist in astrophysics for that one.

On second thought your wording is rater poor. "The law of gravity' is only an observation of how matter reacts. That would not even exist until quite a while after the Big Bang. You should have used the more general term "gravity".

 

[YoursTrue]

He had it right.

Now life probably did arise through natural abiogenesis. I am curious as to why anyone would believe anything else. There is evidence for it. There is no evidence for a magic god poofing.

OK, so now we have it down moreso. Life probably arose through natural abiogenesis, you say. Which leads me to the next question -- well, ok, two points -- one is your use of the word 'probably.' And don't you usually clearly separate abiogenesis from evolution? In other words, do you think ABIOGENESIS started it all? "It all" meaning -- life arising through natural abiogenesis. Then moving onward to evolution. From, uh, "life probably arising through natural abiogenesis." OK, I can see it. -- First a couple of molecules or atoms somehow got together (you know like falling from outer space or bubbling up(?) from water and soil or maybe just plain water (if there is such a thing) and things kind of collided such as ultraviolet rays causing some kind of growth that led to the first living organisms. What do you think?

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, so now we have it down moreso. Life probably arose through natural abiogenesis, you say. Which leads me to the next question -- well, ok, two points -- one is your use of the word 'probably.' And don't you usually clearly separate abiogenesis from evolution? In other words, do you think ABIOGENESIS started it all? "It all" meaning -- life arising through natural abiogenesis. Then moving onward to evolution. From, uh, "life probably arising through natural abiogenesis." OK, I can see it. -- First a couple of molecules or atoms somehow got together (you know like falling from outer space or bubbling up(?) from water and soil or maybe just plain water (if there is such a thing) and things kind of collided such as ultraviolet rays causing some kind of growth that led to the first living organisms. What do you think?

I have always separated evolution from abiogenesis. You tried to make a connection where non existed.

Second I say "probably" because abiogenesis is supported by evidence. Quite a few of the problems, but not all, of abiogenesis have been solved. Meanwhile there is no evidence for anything else. Why would you believe that a unicorn ate the last piece of raspberry licorice when Aunt Jane has a suspicious red stain around her mouth?

And "moving towards evolution" is once again poorly stated. Once there were enough organisms so that they began to compete for limited resources evolution was inevitable.

And it would he hopeless to even to try to explain abiogenesis to you so I simple won't. I will just state the simple facts about it.

 

[YoursTrue]

I have always separated evolution from abiogenesis. You tried to make a connection where non existed.

Second I say "probably" because abiogenesis is supported by evidence. Quite a few of the problems, but not all, of abiogenesis have been solved. Meanwhile there is no evidence for anything else. Why would you believe that a unicorn ate the last piece of raspberry licorice when Aunt Jane has a suspicious red stain around her mouth?

And "moving towards evolution" is once again poorly stated. Once there were enough organisms so that they began to compete for limited resources evolution was inevitable.

And it would he hopeless to even to try to explain abiogenesis to you so I simple won't. I will just state the simple facts about it.

I realize you would not any longer be expected to give an explanation about much, except what you have learned about evolution and your staunch belief that it is correct. Abiogenesis is absolutely connected to, integral to evolution (the theory of). You may say it is not connected to evolution. I see abiogenesis as essential to the theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I realize you would not any longer be expected to give an explanation about much, except what you have learned about evolution and your staunch belief that it is correct. Abiogenesis is absolutely connected to, integral to evolution (the theory of). You may say it is not connected to evolution. I see abiogenesis as essential to the theory.

The lack is your own doing. When you refuse to learn what evidence is no one has any duty to provide you with any. You should be aware of that

And what good would it do to give you evidence. You were given an article about varves to read. You did not read it. So, not only do you not understand the concept of evidence. You do not read it when it is given to you. You make your demands a joke with that sort of behavior.

I have offered to go over the concept of evidence with you countless times. With the promise of endless evidence if you took that reasonable action. You cannot accuse me of hypocrisy. The only hypocrisy has been coming from you.



Please prove that abiogenesis is "integral to evolution". Since you do not understand either I do not think that you will be successful.


A

 

[YoursTrue]

The lack is your own doing. When you refuse to learn what evidence is no one has any duty to provide you with any. You should be aware of that

And what good would it do to give you evidence. You were given an article about varves to read. You did not read it. So, not only do you not understand the concept of evidence. You do not read it when it is given to you. You make your demands a joke with that sort of behavior.

I have offered to go over the concept of evidence with you countless times. With the promise of endless evidence if you took that reasonable action. You cannot accuse me of hypocrisy. The only hypocrisy has been coming from you.



Please prove that abiogenesis is "integral to evolution". Since you do not understand either I do not think that you will be successful.

Without abiogenesis there would (apparently, according to you) be no growth defined as evolution.