Life From Dirt?

[Revoltingest]

Either way, however the posits go, you can't have evolution without whatever was supposed to happen at abiogenesis. Then you have to wonder which abiogenesis led to plants, which led to animals, etc. The theory no longer makes real sense to me. Unreal sense maybe. But not real sense.

The development from which ever abiogenic
mechanism occurred is too complex for me
to address in the time I have. If you want
to understand the whole field, you can find
much material on the internet.

 

[YoursTrue]

The development from which ever abiogenic
mechanism occurred is too complex for me
to address in the time I have. If you want
to understand the whole field, you can find
much material on the internet.

No matter how many posits are issued, they are all speculation as to how it may have happened.

 

[Revoltingest]

No matter how many posits are issued, they are all speculation as to how it may have happened.

Everyone speculates.
"God did it."
"Abiogenesis & evolution"
But only the last option employs
science, & conducts experiments.

 

[YoursTrue]

Everyone speculates.
"God did it."
"Abiogenesis & evolution"
But only the last option employs
science, & conducts experiments.

I understand what you mean but since I've been examining the prospect of evolution I find it is not well substantiated.

 

[Revoltingest]

I understand what you mean but since I've been examining the prospect of evolution I find it is not well substantiated.

More so than "God diddit".

 

[Soandso]

I understand what you mean but since I've been examining the prospect of evolution I find it is not well substantiated.

Do you think you would still feel this way if you didn't have a literalist interpretation of the Bible? Do you think your biases color the way you see evolution or other fields of science that contradict what's written in the Bible?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

More so than "God diddit".

I'd like to repost what I wrote earlier in this thread relating to the theory of evolution.

I believe the theory of evolution is a more reasonable explanation for the origin of mankind than believing that a god created a man from dirt, breathed air into him and made him alive, created a woman from this man's rib, and that a talking serpent cunningly deceived both the man and the woman into disobeying the god by taking a bite of a forbidden fruit from a magical tree of life, or that the rest of mankind is supposedly descended from these two individuals. In comparison to these stories, believing that human beings evolved from an ancient primate ancestor doesn't seem so unreasonable to me.

 

[Brian2]

You must see that you got your claims wrong. You really should have admitted that. As to using prophecy, you can't because when analyzed properly they fail. That is when uses the same limitations applied to the Bible that you would to any other source the prophecies of the Bible fail. It is a special pleading fallacy to rely on only one as "evidence". That is just one of the reasons that they are rightfully ignored, not presumed to be wrong. by historians. I already mentioned the one about Jesus predicting that he would return before the last of his apostles died. There is no proper way to reinterpret that one. One has to lie to oneself to even try.

You were wrong about others when you were told that they did not presume the prophecies to be incorrect. They just did not bother with them since too many have been shown to be wrong. What you call an "attack" is merely a correction. You want to use your false beliefs as an excuse for a very short time period between the death of Jesus and the writing of the Gospels. When you make errors on several levels that you use as a base for your reasoning it is not an attack to correct those beliefs.

@shunyadragon says that academia is neutral but when quizzed further that does not mean that academia does not use the prophecies to determine when the gospels and other parts of the Bible have been written.
So his "neutral" is really active anti supernatural. It's a blind spot he and academia and it seems you also have.

I rely on all the prophecies as evidence of the truth of the Bible. Why do you say I rely on only one?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand what you mean but since I've been examining the prospect of evolution I find it is not well substantiated.

Then you have to be not looking very seriously at all. One thing that you need to understand about scientists. Many of them have very serious egos. They are not easily led. Yet 99% of all scientists accept that evolution is a fact. If it was not well substantiated the numbers would not be anywhere close to that.

And one thing that you keep resisting is learning the basics of science. If you did that you would see for almost every question that you can come up with is that there is evidence supporting evolution in answer to that question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@shunyadragon says that academia is neutral but when quizzed further that does not mean that academia does not use the prophecies to determine when the gospels and other parts of the Bible have been written.
So his "neutral" is really active anti supernatural. It's a blind spot he and academia and it seems you also have.

I rely on all the prophecies as evidence of the truth of the Bible. Why do you say I rely on only one? Saying that is just you presuming that the other prophecies are not true, but the only way you can do that is to presume that the prophecies were written after the events prophesied about.

You do not get it. Ignoring prophecies is being neutral. You should be thankful for that because there are far more failed prophecies than fulfilled ones.

 

[shunyadragon]

see post

• #3,116

This post does not help your case and your history of posts, Again . . .

You are not neutral, because you believe the subjective scripture is evidence for the existence of God.

see post

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you think you would still feel this way if you didn't have a literalist interpretation of the Bible? Do you think your biases color the way you see evolution or other fields of science that contradict what's written in the Bible?

In order for you to make more sense you'd have to delineate what "literalist" interpretation you are talking about.

 

[ratiocinator]

I understand what you mean but since I've been examining the prospect of evolution I find it is not well substantiated.

How have you 'examined' it and how come you still seem to know nothing at all about it and the evidence that supports it? If you understood even the most basic facts about the science you wouldn't be trying to link and its evidence it to abiogenesis.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

(Isn't that what evolution does, starting with abiogenesis?)

There you go again with your strawman

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Correct me if I'm wrong in your eyes. Would there be evolution without abiogenesis?

Yes.

I say no. What do you say?

I say that this has been explained to you more times then I can count.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that abiogenesis is not connected to, or necessary for the process of evolution to have started. Is that correct?

That is correct and it has been explained to you ad nauseum how and why this is the case.

After you answer, I'd like to hear your perspective as how the first living matter started and what it was.

Let's just say we don't know. It matters not to evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Industries built around evolution? Please explain what type of industries that would be.

I worked in one.

As a software engineer, I was part of a team that worked on business optimization modules which used genetic algoritms.
A genetic algoritm literally is the modelling of evolutionary processes to optimize systems.

So evolution theory even has practical applications that have nothing to do with biology.
Because as a process, it works.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Just the way you express it, that these self replicating molecules turned up..no evidence of this, is there?. They turned up,? From...??? Yes, I know ,, outer space or water...or maybe volcanoes. And then what happened after they supposedly turned up. Would the transition from non life to life be considered abiogenesis? I've heard statements that maybe way out there evolution has occurred in other areas of the universe. No evidence. Just maybe.

If "out there in the universe", there are systems that reproduce with variation and which are in competition over limited resources, then those systems will be undergoing evolution. It's inevitable.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I detect the undetectable God by faith that He exists and allowing Him to show Himself to me.
I have evidence for God that is evidence in my eyes even though you say you want more and better evidence.
How do you propose that evidence that God exists can be verified to be true or shown to be false?
I don't know how to do that, you don't know how to do that, science does not know how to do that.
How can anything be evidence for God if (as skeptics say to me ) I first need to show that a God exists? iow I have to give evidence for God before I can give evidence for God.

Textbook confirmation bias.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is no purpose for my existence or for the existence of anything without a creator, the outside force.
I determined the purpose from faith in the creator and listening to Him.
The purpose of life for us is to find the creator and to serve the creator and enjoy the creator and thank the creator.

Emotional pleading