More News on the Changing Evolution Scene :-) !!! :-)

[Subduction Zone]

One cannot have the "theory" of evolution without having life start SOMEWHERE. Therefore -- (I'll sum it up for you) -- evolution cannot have 'happened' without a start. Ya think?

Correct. Life had to start somewhere. But how it started does not matter.

Look into the theory of evolution for yourself. It describes what happened after life started.

Do you understand this?

 

[SkepticThinker]

One cannot have the "theory" of evolution without having life start SOMEWHERE. Therefore -- (I'll sum it up for you) -- evolution cannot have 'happened' without a start. Ya think?

All that is needed for the theory of evolution is life. Because it's a scientific theory about the diversity of life on earth. That's why it doesn't start at "before life."

 

[night912]

One cannot have the "theory" of evolution without having life start SOMEWHERE. Therefore -- (I'll sum it up for you) -- evolution cannot have 'happened' without a start. Ya think?

And the Theory of Evolution is not dependent on a specific start.

 

[metis]

Darwinian theory is that which means that surviving species or kinds in the matter of category come about as a matter of "natural selection" or sometimes described as that which is "survival of the fittest," that is without any divine guidance, but rather a result of natural forces more or less coming about by themselves.

But Darwin didn't propose that, especially since he was a lay minister in the Anglican Church. Today his body rests in Westminster Abbey, which is sort of the Anglican "Vatican". Late in life he turned more agnostic, quite possibly more due to the fact that he was being verbally assaulted and slandered by all those "good Christians".

In order to define "divine creation," one must understand that, according to the Bible (since that is the divine book I go by), Adam and Eve were "divinely created," as well as Jesus.

That is not science, nor in any way provable objectively. As far as being a belief, that's fine, but "beliefs" are not synonymous with "facts".

Also, the real question that should be considered is "What started the evolutionary process?", and it's here that Divine creation has it's place as a hypothesis.

The proof of divine creation is life itself.

Not since there may be other possibilities, thus it's best to keep an open mind on this, imo.

 

[ecco]

One cannot have the "theory" of evolution without having life start SOMEWHERE. Therefore -- (I'll sum it up for you) -- evolution cannot have 'happened' without a start. Ya think?

If you mean The Theory of Evolution, sure, it needs life. What's your point?

How many times have you and your fellow Creationists been told that the study of the origins of life is called abiogenesis, not evolution?

How many times have you and your fellow Creationists been told that currently science has not determined the process that led from atoms to molecules to amino acids to peptides to cells?

Two hundred years ago science could not tell you that water was hydrogen and oxygen atoms combined in a very specific way. If you were alive back then would you have argued there was no water because science couldn't specify how atoms became molecules?

When would you have stopped arguing that the world must be flat because people would fall off a rapidly rotating sphere?

 

[Bear Wild]

One cannot have the "theory" of evolution without having life start SOMEWHERE. Therefore -- (I'll sum it up for you) -- evolution cannot have 'happened' without a start. Ya think?

Yes you can. The theory for the start for life is abiogenesis and is a separate theory. Evolution is only the theory about how life (once started) changes with time.

Please give us your explanation for fossils. Ignoring them does not make them go away.
They exist and are evidence. What is your explanation for them since you insist they are not evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

One cannot have the "theory" of evolution without having life start SOMEWHERE. Therefore -- (I'll sum it up for you) -- evolution cannot have 'happened' without a start. Ya think?

Yes. Life has to exist before it can evolve.

Looking around, it seems like a safe assumption that life exists.

 

[night912]

Yes. Life has to exist before it can evolve.

Looking around, it seems like a safe assumption that life exists.

That's only an "assumption," and not even a "theory."

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes you can. The theory for the start for life is abiogenesis and is a separate theory. Evolution is only the theory about how life (once started) changes with time.

I know that. Thank you though. The theory guesses as to how life started.
Fossils are there because animals that died left remains of their bodies that were not completely dissolved. The "life" left them in other words, they (including ants and cockroaches) were no longer alive.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes. Life has to exist before it can evolve.

Looking around, it seems like a safe assumption that life exists.

Let me ask you this: do you think life exists outside the body? Or a body, including plants?

 

[Bear Wild]

I know that. Thank you though. The theory guesses as to how life started.
Fossils are there because animals that died left remains of their bodies that were not completely dissolved. The "life" left them in other words, they (including ants and cockroaches) were no longer alive.

I know what they are, I was asking you to explain them and their meaning in the stratified rocks. Most of the species represent animals and plants that no longer exist. You seem to be claiming they do not support evolution theory so what I your explanation for them (not how they were made). Since you have a better explanation than evolution this should be an easy task but I would like to learn from you.

 

[night912]

Yes you can. The theory for the start for life is abiogenesis and is a separate theory. Evolution is only the theory about how life (once started) changes with time.

I know that. Thank you though. The theory guesses as to how life started.

Apparently you don't.

When being taught, those who close their eyes, cover their ears and open their mouth, remains being ignorant.

 

[Astrophile]

But I have pointed out the basic major flaws. That is (1) there is no proof other than like a mystery story (piecing fossils together as if this means evolution),

How do you interpret the fossil record if you do not accept evolution? For example, if you have one assemblage of fossil trilobites from the Middle Cambrian epoch and another assemblage of fossil trilobites from the Late Devonian (separated by about 130 million years) and the two assemblages have no species in common, how can the Devonian trilobites have come into existence except by descent with evolution from the Cambrian trilobites?

 

[YoursTrue]

Apparently you don't.

When being taught, those who close their eyes, cover their ears and open their mouth, remains being ignorant.

So because I don't agree with the idea that you can't have evolution without considering that there MUST BE a beginning means I don't know what it is? Hmmm, we disagree there. Just like I do not accept the idea that humans are animals (I'm sure you do), I don't accept the idea that evolution does not include the theory or idea of "abiogenesis." Anyway, enjoy the day or night. Yes, humans are in a different category than -- apes, gorillas, and insects, etc. (Anyway.) You can say you're an animal, I can say you're an animal, but our words have different meanings. (Bye for now...)

 

[YoursTrue]

How do you interpret the fossil record if you do not accept evolution? For example, if you have one assemblage of fossil trilobites from the Middle Cambrian epoch and another assemblage of fossil trilobites from the Late Devonian (separated by about 130 million years) and the two assemblages have no species in common, how can the Devonian trilobites have come into existence except by descent with evolution from the Cambrian trilobites?

Who's to say your ancestor was a gorilla? I mean what happened to genetic analysis with ancestry? Or -- some Unknown Common Ancestor. ? You can believe you evolved from a gorilla type animal. I can say you''re not an animal unless you act like one in not such a good sense. To say someone is as busy as a bee doesn't mean he descended from a bee, does it? It doesn't mean he's an insect, does it, no matter what category it's in. When someone says, "Oh, he's an animal," it usually isn't said in the most flattering of contexts. I am convinced by this time that humans did NOT descend from whatever evolutionists say whatever ape came before. Meantime, my question remains: since fossils demonstrate that an animal (or human) was alive, where did the life go once the body died? After all, in order for evolution to occur, considering the theory, , there has to be life, doesn't there? Questions...what happens to the life? Can't have evolution of any sort (whether it's inbreeding or the 'theory') without life, can you?

 

[YoursTrue]

I know what they are, I was asking you to explain them and their meaning in the stratified rocks. Most of the species represent animals and plants that no longer exist. You seem to be claiming they do not support evolution theory so what I your explanation for them (not how they were made). Since you have a better explanation than evolution this should be an easy task but I would like to learn from you.

I am saying that however any plant or animal or human came about, the basic undertaking is not simple mechanics, as in mechanical engineering i.e., evolution and "survival of the fittest." Now you're a bright enough person, so I expect that with or without the theory of evolution as it stands today, life is greater than that. No matter how the process works.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you mean The Theory of Evolution, sure, it needs life. What's your point?

How many times have you and your fellow Creationists been told that the study of the origins of life is called abiogenesis, not evolution?

How many times have you and your fellow Creationists been told that currently science has not determined the process that led from atoms to molecules to amino acids to peptides to cells?

Two hundred years ago science could not tell you that water was hydrogen and oxygen atoms combined in a very specific way. If you were alive back then would you have argued there was no water because science couldn't specify how atoms became molecules?

When would you have stopped arguing that the world must be flat because people would fall off a rapidly rotating sphere?

My point is (sorry that you didn't get it), that without life there is no movement, however you want to classify it. So when an animal or plant dies, what happened to the LIFE that is necessary for biologic movement? It disappeared???? Maybe you say life isn't necessary for evolution? Hey, maybe that's what some believe. So life of an animal or plant evaporates into what? elements? The life went on or didn't go on? What do you think? And -- since you can't have evolution withoiut life, whether it's called abiogenesis or not, what happens (happened) to the LIFE??????? ????

 

[Polymath257]

Who's to say your ancestor was a gorilla? I mean what happened to genetic analysis with ancestry? Or -- some Unknown Common Ancestor. ? You can believe you evolved from a gorilla type animal. I can say you''re not an animal unless you act like one in not such a good sense. To say someone is as busy as a bee doesn't mean he descended from a bee, does it? It doesn't mean he's an insect, does it, no matter what category it's in. When someone says, "Oh, he's an animal," it usually isn't said in the most flattering of contexts. I am convinced by this time that humans did NOT descend from whatever evolutionists say whatever ape came before. Meantime, my question remains: since fossils demonstrate that an animal (or human) was alive, where did the life go once the body died? After all, in order for evolution to occur, considering the theory, , there has to be life, doesn't there? Questions...what happens to the life? Can't have evolution of any sort (whether it's inbreeding or the 'theory') without life, can you?

Yes, humans ARE animals.

1. We are living things.
2. Our cells have a bilipid membrane, but not cell wall.
3. The cells are surrounded by an extracellular matrix of glycoproteins and collagen.

So we are animals.

But, even further, we have spines, so we are vertebrates.

We maintain bodily temperature, have specialized teeth, and give birth after development in a uterus along with a placenta. So we are placental mammals (as opposed to marsupial mammals).

We have a collar bone, flat finger nails, eye sockets made from bone, stereoscopic vision, and an enlarged cerebral cortex. So we are primates.

We also have color vision, lack of cheek pouches, no tail, a fused frontal bone (forehead), downward pointed nostrils, and a broad chest. So...wait for it....we *are* apes.

 

[Polymath257]

My point is (sorry that you didn't get it), that without life there is no movement, however you want to classify it. So when an animal or plant dies, what happened to the LIFE that is necessary for biologic movement? It disappeared????

Life is a chemical process. When oxygen is no longer accessible to the tissues, the chemical processes of life stop. That is what it means to die.

Maybe you say life isn't necessary for evolution?

Living things are what evolve. They do so by changes to their genetics over generations.

Hey, maybe that's what some believe. So life of an animal or plant evaporates into what? elements?

No, once again, life is a process, not a thing. The processes stop. it is that simple.

The life went on or didn't go on? What do you think? And -- since you can't have evolution withoiut life, whether it's called abiogenesis or not, what happens (happened) to the LIFE??????? ????

Individuals die. Those that reproduce make new individuals. Over the course of generations, the characteristics of the individuals in a population change to become more adapted to the environment. That *is* evolution.

 

[Polymath257]

My point is (sorry that you didn't get it), that without life there is no movement, however you want to classify it.

Simply false. The planets move and they are not alive. All that is required is a force. Forces produce changes in velocity (speed and direction of movement).

So when an animal or plant dies, what happened to the LIFE that is necessary for biologic movement? It disappeared???? Maybe you say life isn't necessary for evolution?

I say that life isn't necessary for movement. In fact, movement withiut life is common.

Evolution is not about individuals changing. It is about *populations* changing. Each generation is slightly different than its parents. Those difference add up over time and generations to produce larger changes.

Hey, maybe that's what some believe. So life of an animal or plant evaporates into what? elements? The life went on or didn't go on? What do you think? And -- since you can't have evolution withoiut life, whether it's called abiogenesis or not, what happens (happened) to the LIFE??????? ????

What happens to the electricity when you turn off the light?