No one should believe in evolution!

[ecco]

Evolution pushes as fact a spontaneous appearance of cellular life as a core tenet but at t this point I might point out that even Dawkins says in his book the God delusion that the onset of cellular life as proposed by evolutionists was a matter of luck.

Dawkins in not a scientist who studies abiogenesis. In an interview with Ben Stein he says:
Prof Dawkins: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.
Ben Stein: Right and how did that happen?
Prof Dawkins: I’ve told you, we don’t know.
Ben Stein: So you have no idea how it started.
Prof Dawkins: No, no, nor has anyone.

What you, and all Creationists, do is what man has done for 100,000 years. When faced with IDunno, you interject GodDidIt.

Just because we cannot currently explain a process like abiogenesis is no reason to interject GodDidIt. GodDidIt has never been the correct answer.

God does not make volcanoes erupt.
God does not cause lightning.

It's lucky for us that abiogenesis occurred on this planet, but abiogenesis is not a matter of luck any more than two hydrogen atoms "sticking" to an oxygen atom is a matter of luck.

 

[ecco]

How life started is simply beyond our ability to know, and chances are high we may never know.

We figured out how atoms work.
We figured out Plate tectonics.
We figured out DNA.
We figured out orbital mechanics.

Do you really think the "chances are high we may never know" how "life" began?


It's just chemistry.



ETA: However, we do know Creationists will never accept it. Some people with fundamental religious views still don't accept the earth is a sphere.

 

[ecco]

Faith can be proven just like a theory or evidence. Just because I say no to evolution doesn't mean I accept creation.

• Not ToE.
• Not Creation.

Then what?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I am of the firm opinion that no one should ever believe in evolution. Belief is based of placing faith in something. Evolution is a scientific theory. No should ever accept a scientific theory by faith. One can believe in many things properly, such as the innate value of people, or that your favorite sports team is the greatest. But scientific theories aren’t like those. Scientific theories can be accepted as correct, or assented to, or tested and verified, or a host of other empirical and scientific actions. But to believe in a scientific theory is an oxymoron.

Whenever I encounter someone that says they believe in evolution I roll my eyes metaphorically and think to myself that here is someone that lacks a genuine understanding of evolution and science.

I will now don my asbestos suit and await comments.

Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself as such.. and so cannot question itself.

You are only turning your position on evolution from a belief into a superstition..

 

[metis]

Do you really think the "chances are high we may never know" how "life" began?


It's just chemistry.

We may get an idea because there have been experiments along this line that have gone on for many decades now, but we are not likely to know what what the exact composition of the first life form(s) were nor exactly what created it. My "solution": whatever happened happened.

To me, if I was to assume there was no "divine creation", the biggest question is not so much what may have been the spark that started life but how and why would it reproduce? If you think it through, that's a very complicated process, plus what would be the impulse for it to even divide in the first place?

I don't presume to know the answers-- I just ask some of the questions.

 

[Audie]

Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself as such.. and so cannot question itself.

Have you considered a bound volume of
your "Thus sayeth" quotes?

 

[ecco]

To me, if I was to assume there was no "divine creation", the biggest question is not so much what may have been the spark that started life but how and why would it reproduce?

That is what science is trying to determine. GodDidIt has never been a correct answer.

If you think it through, that's a very complicated process,

Complexity does not imply divinity.

plus what would be the impulse for it to even divide in the first place?

What is the impulse for two hydrogen atoms to "stick" to an oxygen atom?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself as such.. and so cannot question itself.

You are only turning your position on evolution from a belief into a superstition..

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

29+ times where scientists have questioned evolution.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

29+ times where scientists have questioned evolution.

I'm looking for just one example, I don't see it there, point me to it if I missed it

But what do you think, personally, is the very best example of macro evolution ever empirically observed?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just because you say Evolution is fact, does not make it so, You might try and suggest hereditary traits o

I'm looking for just one example, I don't see it there, point me to it if I missed it

But what do you think, personally, is the very best example of macro evolution ever empirically observed?

How about the fact that it has been directly observed? I have a very strong feeling that you do not understand the terms that you use at times.

 

[MonkeyFire]

• Not ToE.
• Not Creation.

Then what?

I believe in singular eternity and "always before," in contrast to everafter.

 

[Thaif]

Dawkins in not a scientist who studies abiogenesis. In an interview with Ben Stein he says:
Prof Dawkins: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.
Ben Stein: Right and how did that happen?
Prof Dawkins: I’ve told you, we don’t know.
Ben Stein: So you have no idea how it started.
Prof Dawkins: No, no, nor has anyone.

What you, and all Creationists, do is what man has done for 100,000 years. When faced with IDunno, you interject GodDidIt.

Just because we cannot currently explain a process like abiogenesis is no reason to interject GodDidIt. GodDidIt has never been the correct answer.

God does not make volcanoes erupt.
God does not cause lightning.

It's lucky for us that abiogenesis occurred on this planet, but abiogenesis is not a matter of luck any more than two hydrogen atoms "sticking" to an oxygen atom is a matter of luck.

Hey thanks for your post ecco, I had to go back to my post to see if I mentioned God because I thought I deliberately avoided that to avoid your kind of rant. The only time I seem to have mentioned it is as part of Dawkins book title. I'm a little confused, You are replying to my post, right?

As far as Dawkins is concerned, you are correct, here is a polular well known Athiest scientist who will not commit to supporting abiogenesis, and I have really looked both on-line and in print. I actually don't much like the guy and I wish I would get a refund for The God Delusion and for that matter, the Selfish Gene also.

 

[ecco]

But what do you think, personally, is the very best example of macro evolution ever empirically observed?

My existence.

 

[ecco]

• Not ToE.
• Not Creation.

Then what?

I believe in singular eternity and "always before," in contrast to everafter.

I'm glad you clarified that.

 

[Thaif]

I guess it was a rant if you say so. All I read was this sentence:

Evolution pushes as fact a spontaneous appearance of cellular life as a core tenet

"Evolution" "pushes" nothing. Even the use of the word 'push"
is deliberately invidious. Science does not "do" facts,
it does probabilities. Far from being at the core, abio is not even a part of the ToE, which-btw- operates exactly the same with or without divine intervention or other odd means of life originating

And, finally, science does not do "tenets".

Where ever you got these ideas is an ill-informed
source at best,or more likely is deliberately
distorting and misrepresenting science for its
own purposes.

Okay, I'm going to redact that, you are correct, abiogenesis is probably a once off, maybe never to be repeated event and perhaps never replicated anywhere in the universe, and while I have my thoughts about whether certain scientists have tenets, maybe not religious in the strictest sense, I'll go along with saying there are a number of scientists who hold firm to an idea, even when that idea has been peer proven to be false. Would you like some examples of that?

 

[Thaif]

On the flip side of this whole discussion is how people can disbelieve in a theory with absolutely no knowledge of the facts or the theory of evolution itself.

Let's just dissect the above statement, shall we? You define evolution as change from one species into another species. You then say that lizards evolving into birds is evolution. Neither lizards nor birds is the name of a species. You also claim that the theory of evolution is untested, which isn't true:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

There are 29 tests at the link above.

So how can someone not believe or not accept a theory that they know nothing about, and a field of science that they know nothing about?



False.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"

If the first life forms were created by God and all the species we see evolved from that original ancestor then the theory of evolution would be unchanged. The theory of evolution could care less where the universal common ancestor came from.

Darn it, 29 evidences and the text actually says 30, and the guy is a PHD which trumps anything I have by miles and also, he posts references galore, I'll get back to you on this, I'm about to go on a few weeks leave but watch this space, I'm not the kind of guy who whimpers away at a challenge. He has a crummy website, there is hope.

 

[ecco]

Dawkins in not a scientist who studies abiogenesis. In an interview with Ben Stein he says:
Prof Dawkins: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.
Ben Stein: Right and how did that happen?
Prof Dawkins: I’ve told you, we don’t know.
Ben Stein: So you have no idea how it started.
Prof Dawkins: No, no, nor has anyone.

What you, and all Creationists, do is what man has done for 100,000 years. When faced with IDunno, you interject GodDidIt.

Just because we cannot currently explain a process like abiogenesis is no reason to interject GodDidIt. GodDidIt has never been the correct answer.

God does not make volcanoes erupt.
God does not cause lightning.

It's lucky for us that abiogenesis occurred on this planet, but abiogenesis is not a matter of luck any more than two hydrogen atoms "sticking" to an oxygen atom is a matter of luck.

Hey thanks for your post ecco, I had to go back to my post to see if I mentioned God because I thought I deliberately avoided that to avoid your kind of rant. The only time I seem to have mentioned it is as part of Dawkins book title. I'm a little confused, You are replying to my post, right?

The only alternatives to abiogenesis and evolution is GodDidIt. You didn't have to explicitly mention god to make it clear that your belief is GodDidIt.

As far as Dawkins is concerned, you are correct, here is a polular well known Athiest scientist who will not commit to supporting abiogenesis,

But he does support abiogenesis:

Prof Dawkins: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.​

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, I'm going to redact that, you are correct, abiogenesis is probably a once off, maybe never to be repeated event and perhaps never replicated anywhere in the universe, and while I have my thoughts about whether certain scientists have tenets, maybe not religious in the strictest sense, I'll go along with saying there are a number of scientists who hold firm to an idea, even when that idea has been peer proven to be false. Would you like some examples of that?

It appears that there may have been several paths to life. That means we may never know the one single right nswer, though we may know several possible right answers.

Also, life is thought to be likely to be common. Abiogenesis appears to be almost a certainty.

 

[Audie]

Okay, I'm going to redact that, you are correct, abiogenesis is probably a once off, maybe never to be repeated event and perhaps never replicated anywhere in the universe, and while I have my thoughts about whether certain scientists have tenets, maybe not religious in the strictest sense, I'll go along with saying there are a number of scientists who hold firm to an idea, even when that idea has been peer proven to be false. Would you like some examples of that?

You actually agree that abio is not a "core tenet" or even part of ToE? That is encouraging!
You did not acknowledge though that science does not do proof.

That whole "once of, never etc", what is that all about?
Whose Idea is that? Seems very improbable that there is not life elsewhere. "Inevitable" would be more likely.

I also said that whatever your source for your ill informed
opinions is either totally ignorant, or is deliberately spreading falsehoods.

You did not respond to these things, but went off in another direction. I will discuss your mistaken ideas about ToE,
I dont want to talk about whether researchers are human with human faults, which is self evident anyway.

 

[Audie]

Darn it, 29 evidences and the text actually says 30, and the guy is a PHD which trumps anything I have by miles and also, he posts references galore, I'll get back to you on this, I'm about to go on a few weeks leave but watch this space, I'm not the kind of guy who whimpers away at a challenge. He has a crummy website, there is hope.

Why do you only pick someone with a "PhD" who agrees with you?

I know plenty of people with advanced degrees, and that,
plus some data, will get you a Starbux.