About fossils -- would you say this is true?

[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.


A

If I thought that you could or would explain what you would post about I might go along and look at the links. I am sure you cannot and will not explain. If I'm wrong about that, let's 'test it out' and see.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Wait a second. You believe that God can create a man but that he cannot create a single cell. Are you sure about that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If I thought that you could or would explain what you would post about I might go along and look at the links. I am sure you cannot and will not explain. If I'm wrong about that, let's 'test it out' and see.

I could explain it but I need some sort of sign of honesty. The problem is that if I explained you could not understand. You would simply deny, which is not an honest way to debate. If someone gives you evidence you have to do more than deny.

But I could post a photograph that refutes your idea of moving sediments or however you want to phrase it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.

I agree with you, Yours True, that abiogenesis in connected to evolution. Actually abiogenesis also is evolution - from molecules to self-replicating chains of molecules (RNA and DNA) and then to living beings.

 

[Apostle John]

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

No offence but the millisecond I read this two seagulls started laughing outside my French doors. I like to believe happenings like this are messages from God as I observe the supernatural a lot.

So what is the difference between theory and guesswork?

 

[Mock Turtle]

No offence but the millisecond I read this two seagulls started laughing outside my French doors. I like to believe happenings like this are messages from God as I observe the supernatural a lot.

So what is the difference between theory and guesswork?

Your second sentence of course.

 

[Audie]

Your second sentence of course.

Coz seagulls don't laugh?

 

[Audie]

I agree with you, Yours True, that abiogenesis in connected to evolution. Actually abiogenesis also is evolution - from molecules to self-replicating chains of molecules (RNA and DNA) and then to living beings.

In the sense that origin of the universe is also auto mechanics

 

[Aupmanyav]

In the sense that origin of the universe is also auto mechanics

That again is true. No intervention or any 'hand of God' needed after 'inflation'. Neither for life not for the universe.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Coz seagulls don't laugh?

I'm sure they do, but it was more about the difference between guessing and theories.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No offence but the millisecond I read this two seagulls started laughing outside my French doors. I like to believe happenings like this are messages from God as I observe the supernatural a lot.

So what is the difference between theory and guesswork?

Scientific theories are ideas that have been tested and confirmed countless times. The problem is that the uneducated have no idea on how certain concepts can be tested. They make the error of assuming that because they have no clue how to test an idea that no one else can do so either. Don't lower your thinking level to that of seagulls, unless you only want to steal other people's food and then crap on them. If that is your life's goal, have at it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your second sentence of course.

I think that he genuinely does not know. It it much easier to be a creationist if one is uneducated. One does not have to lie to oneself. One only has to pretend that they know as much as those that have studied a concept all of their lives.

The one's that irritate me to no end are those that do know better and openly lie to support their beliefs.

 

[Apostle John]

Birds are communicative and helpful according to the Bible.

 

[YoursTrue]

I agree with you, Yours True, that abiogenesis in connected to evolution. Actually abiogenesis also is evolution - from molecules to self-replicating chains of molecules (RNA and DNA) and then to living beings.

I am happily impressed, aupmanyav, that someone actually agrees with me about something that makes sense! Sometimes people don't make sense in my view, so thank you for saying you agree with what seems coherent. One simply cannot have evolution unless it started somewhere, somehow, and that is abiogenesis. I am pretty sure the jury is still out about how they say it 'really' happened.

 

[YoursTrue]

I agree with you, Yours True, that abiogenesis in connected to evolution. Actually abiogenesis also is evolution - from molecules to self-replicating chains of molecules (RNA and DNA) and then to living beings.

As a matter of fact, Aupmannyav, I started reading about DNA and RNA, protons and electrons, etc. today. V-e-r-y complicated as far as I am concerned, and I think I'm about ready to give up trying to learn about it. I got as far as x-rays somehow uncovering some details then it seems the article went to Einstein and curved light and time -- WAY BEYOND ME NOW, that's for sure. What is not so complicated is that even these small particles are complex. Later...

 

[YoursTrue]

I think that he genuinely does not know. It it much easier to be a creationist if one is uneducated. One does not have to lie to oneself. One only has to pretend that they know as much as those that have studied a concept all of their lives.

The one's that irritate me to no end are those that do know better and openly lie to support their beliefs.

If you can explain Einstein's theories to me that would be great. Then maybe explain more about gravity.

 

[YoursTrue]

Wait a second. You believe that God can create a man but that he cannot create a single cell. Are you sure about that?

Did I say that? I don't think so.

 

[Audie]

Birds are communicative and helpful according to the Bible.

Occasionally the Bible gets some obvious thing correct.

 

[YoursTrue]

That again is true. No intervention or any 'hand of God' needed after 'inflation'. Neither for life not for the universe.

Since I wasn't there when these cellular meetings occurred, since it seems atomic structure is complicated enough, and because the Bible says that the various types of life such as plants and animals were created by God in sequence (and I suspect that scientists don't know beyond trying to figure it out theoretically either in terms of the real lowdown on what happened to produce plants and animals) I leave it there. I am a bit taken by gravity, since no one really r-e-a-l-l-y knows (from what I have read about it) what gravity is -- but we believe it (gravity) is there -- and since a well known scientist like Stephen Hawking seemed to have said that gravity was there before the universe, all I can say is -- ok -- (whatever...) I still choose to believe the biblical account that God's power caused life as we know it to appear on the earth after He prepared the earth to sustain human, animal, and plant life. Hope that helps to explain my view.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am happily impressed, aupmanyav, that someone actually agrees with me about something that makes sense! Sometimes people don't make sense in my view, so thank you for saying you agree with what seems coherent. One simply cannot have evolution unless it started somewhere, somehow, and that is abiogenesis. I am pretty sure the jury is still out about how they say it 'really' happened.

Right, and no God involved either in creation of the universe or life on earth. Science is unrolling it bit by bit.

What is not so complicated is that even these small particles are complex. Later...

Are there any particles or just waves? At times like particle, at other times like waves.

Hope that helps to explain my view.

Yeah, it does, but that is different from my views.