Is evolution as crooked as Hillary?

[Sapiens]

I can imagine the purpose of natural selection could result in evolution over millions and millions of years. But it also could have happened all at once. God created a man and woman who populated the whole earth over thousands of years. Likewise animals could have come into being the same way. Adapting, changing and filling in the niches of the earth. Where is your proof of life coming into existance where there was no life?

The observable data does not support your contention that "it all happened at once." Quite the contrary. It is clearly incorrect that there were genetic bottlenecks for humans in the range of thousands of years, so Adam and Eve as well as Noah are demonstrably fairy tales. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution and it is likely that the specific attributes of it will never be ascertained since even the artificial creation of a synthetic single cell organism will not prove that that is the way it happened, only that that was a possibility. Your problem, however, is that you've got a fairy tale to try to document and support and the facts on the ground are against you.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Someone finds a dead pony and a dead horse and puts 2 + 2 together. Or find some bones of every variety of dog and put them in order of biggest to smallest..look it's evolution. And all the God haters lap it up.

Like I said, don't actually look at the evidence provided for evolution -- instead, create a strawman for us all to gaze upon in wonder!

So where is your proof of life starting from nothing?

Having said, oh probably 500 times in my life, that Evolution SAYS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT HOW LIFE BEGAN, I hardly know why I bother replying. Evolution is about how life (once there is life) changes under natural pressures and conditions. If you want to argue about how life could not have started from nothing, go argue on a thread about Abiogenesis.

Yet another strawman.

 

[Kemosloby]

Because God started life and don'

Like I said, don't actually look at the evidence provided for evolution -- instead, create a strawman for us all to gaze upon in wonder!

Having said, oh probably 500 times in my life, that Evolution SAYS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT HOW LIFE BEGAN, I hardly know why I bother replying. Evolution is about how life (once there is life) changes under natural pressures and conditions. If you want to argue about how life could not have started from nothing, go argue on a thread about Abiogenesis.

Yet another strawman.

Well the whined when I asked them to make a mouse from an amoeba, said it would take them billions of years to recreate. So why not start with day 1. make a living organism out of inanimate matter, or even out of nothing.

 

[metis]

Because God started life....

Prove it. Provide objectively-derived evidence plus a link(s) so we can check it out for ourselves. No smart-alecky remarks-- just raw evidence please.

 

[Valjean]

Someone finds a dead pony and a dead horse and puts 2 + 2 together. Or find some bones of every variety of dog and put them in order of biggest to smallest..look it's evolution. And all the God haters lap it up.

We find a series of "horses," in different strata, with different radio-dates. They start from little foxlike things and progress over time into modern equines. The progressive changes and timeline is clear.
There is no evidence of a horse, or anything else, just popping into existence ex nihilo.

So where is your proof of life starting from nothing?

Google search Abiogenesis. Read some scolarly articles in scientific journals.

So where did it come from? Evolution starts with life already existing?

Yes. The origin of life is a separate field of study, just like cabinetmaking, lumbering, forestry and botany are separate fields.

Abiogenesis is an active area of study. Scientists may already have produced life in the lab, depending on how you define it.
It's not black and white. There is not life and non-life. There are shades of grey -- various degrees of life, on a spectrum.

 

[Sapiens]

Most all creationists fall into the Platonic Idealism trap and see everything in black and white binary, no shades of grey and they embrace the god-of-the-gap fallacy wherever and whenever they are faced with some that occurred too slowly to be directly observable or immediately reproducible. That is a natural result of a narrow view of the universe.

 

[Kemosloby]

We find a series of "horses," in different strata, with different radio-dates. They start from little foxlike things and progress over time into modern equines. The progressive changes and timeline is clear.
There is no evidence of a horse, or anything else, just popping into existence ex nihilo.
Google search Abiogenesis. Read some scolarly articles in scientific journals.
Yes. The origin of life is a separate field of study, just like cabinetmaking, lumbering, forestry and botany are separate fields.

Abiogenesis is an active area of study. Scientists may already have produced life in the lab, depending on how you define it.
It's not black and white. There is not life and non-life. There are shades of grey -- various degrees of life, on a spectrum.

So you found some foxes and horses and decided the horse came from the fox. You have a series of dogmatic articles on a theory to produce life, which results in a "gray" area of life. Got it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So you found some foxes and horses and decided the horse came from the fox. You have a series of dogmatic articles on a theory to produce life, which results in a "gray" area of life. Got it.

I'm getting a ton of evidence for my theory of willful ignorance, that's for sure.

Many years ago, a Warner Bros. cartoon of Bugs Bunny had the rabbit pull the "air breaks" on a plunging plane, and stop it just before it hit the ground. As the Rascally Rabbit said in the 'toon, "I know, this defies the law of gravity -- but you see, I never studied law."

And that, like it or no, is precisely what you are doing.

 

[Kemosloby]

I'm getting a ton of evidence for my theory of willful ignorance, that's for sure.

Many years ago, a Warner Bros. cartoon of Bugs Bunny had the rabbit pull the "air breaks" on a plunging plane, and stop it just before it hit the ground. As the Rascally Rabbit said in the 'toon, "I know, this defies the law of gravity -- but you see, I never studied law."

And that, like it or no, is precisely what you are doing.

Well that must prove it. Man evolved from a rabbit.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Well that must prove it. Man evolved from a rabbit.

No, but it you are providing a lot of compelling evidence for my Theory of Willful Ignorance.

 

[McBell]

Prove it. Provide objectively-derived evidence plus a link(s) so we can check it out for ourselves. No smart-alecky remarks-- just raw evidence please.

not going to happen.
Even if it did exist

 

[McBell]

So you found some foxes and horses and decided the horse came from the fox. You have a series of dogmatic articles on a theory to produce life, which results in a "gray" area of life. Got it.

No idea why you are unable to understand that evolution does not address the beginning of life.
So no, you do not "got it".
You are the complete opposite of "got it".

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No idea why you are unable to understand that evolution does not address the beginning of life.
So no, you do not "got it".
You are the complete opposite of "got it".

Okay then - over to you. "Address" -- as you say -- "the beginning of life." What is it exactly that you think God created? Do you have any idea why (since God is clearly not "alive" in the sense we're using the word here) would even need it?

You keep complaining you're not getting answers that say "we got it," but you've provided precisely zero for your views, as well.

And if you've got nothing, quit complaining.

 

[McBell]

Okay then - over to you. "Address" -- as you say -- "the beginning of life." What is it exactly that you think God created? Do you have any idea why (since God is clearly not "alive" in the sense we're using the word here) would even need it?

You keep complaining you're not getting answers that say "we got it," but you've provided precisely zero for your views, as well.

And if you've got nothing, quit complaining.

If you want to talk about abiogenesis, or creation for that matter, you should start a new thread.
Why?
Because evolution, the topic of this thread, does not address the beginning of life.

Again, I have no idea why so many creationists are so completely unable to understand that one little thing.

OASN:
Do you agree with him that he has "got it"?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If you want to talk about abiogenesis, or creation for that matter, you should start a new thread.
Why?
Because evolution, the topic of this thread, does not address the beginning of life.

Again, I have no idea why so many creationists are so completely unable to understand that one little thing.

OASN:
Do you agree with him that he has "got it"?

Apologies -- I completely mis-read the post included quote -- I should have been addressing @Kemosloby and not you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That man came from a monkey.

You won't be getting evidence for that because evolutionary theory doesn't say that human beings came from monkeys. It says we share a common ancestor with them. Like how my cousins and I share a common ancestor in our grandparents.

 

[Kemosloby]

You won't be getting evidence for that because evolutionary theory doesn't say that human beings came from monkeys. It says we share a common ancestor with them. Like how my cousins and I share a common ancestor in our grandparents.

But you could produce fertile offspring with your cousin. What animal can man produce fertile offspring with?

 

[SkepticThinker]

But you could produce fertile offspring with your cousin. What animal can man produce fertile offspring with?

Other humans.


We are not the direct descendants of monkeys.

 

[McBell]

Apologies -- I completely mis-read the post included quote -- I should have been addressing @Kemosloby and not you.

No worries mate.
Happens more often than you think.