On Evolution & Creation

[Argentbear]

A fine example of why that first quote "does not compute".
The willful ignorance is astounding.

There was a time when there were no finches at all. Somewhere along the line they evolved. Isn't that itself enough to disprove evolution?

 

[Valjean]

Now that I've gotten used to the word magic as some estimate it, the unverified theory of abiogenesis and the first living cells thereafter constitutes magic as some would have it but few would admit to it. (Have a nice day, Valjean, as time marches on...relentlessly...)

No, abiogenesis is not effect without mechanism. It doesn't violate any of the physical laws or constants. It's ordinary, everyday chemistry, which we understand and work with all the time. Nothing supernatural is claimed.

OK, I understand. You have no verifiable evidence that fruit flies evolved to something other than fruit flies. Thank you very much. Oh, and finches, despite their changing beak sizes or color or feather variations are observed to stay finches. Not enough time perhaps to notice finches evolving to something other than i the finch "family"? :

Are you actually incapable of grasping the effects of accumulation? Can you not extrapolate?

 

[Pogo]

If you are a eukaryote how in the world are you able to type on your computer?

Well I am using all those cells in my body that have nuclei and organelles in concert with all the interrelations they have developed over my evolutionary history. I suspect everyone here is doing likewise though there might be a few creationist AI trolls since they lack the ability to learn.

Or did you forget a smilie?

 

[YoursTrue]

No, abiogenesis is not effect without mechanism. It doesn't violate any of the physical laws or constants. It's ordinary, everyday chemistry, which we understand and work with all the time. Nothing supernatural is claimed.

Are you actually incapable of grasping the effects of accumulation? Can you not extrapolate?

That has nothing to do with the imagining things such as fish evolving to humans.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, abiogenesis is not effect without mechanism. It doesn't violate any of the physical laws or constants. It's ordinary, everyday chemistry, which we understand and work with all the time. Nothing supernatural is claimed.

Who said anything about "violating" physical laws? Nevertheless, there is nothing to really show that life as we know it, and under the theory of evolution as it stands, happened as posited by many scientists. You believe the theory as it stands; I do not. But just for clarification, I do believe that animals can interbreed up to a point.

 

[Valjean]

That has nothing to do with the imagining things such as fish evolving to humans.

...And you can't even see the relevance. Astonishing

Who said anything about "violating" physical laws? Nevertheless, there is nothing to really show that life as we know it, and under the theory of evolution as it stands, happened as posited by many scientists. You believe the theory as it stands; I do not. But just for clarification, I do believe that animals can interbreed up to a point.

You did, when you brought up your claims of magic as the source of life on Earth.
I've explained to you several times what magic is, and this is one of it's features or implications. You are positing magic as more probable than chemistry or physics. You seem to have a problem both remembering things and putting ideas together.

Who said anything about interbreeding?

 

[YoursTrue]

Who said anything about interbreeding?

I did.

 

[YoursTrue]

...And you can't even see the relevance. Astonishing

You did, when you brought up your claims of magic as the source of life on Earth.
I've explained to you several times what magic is, and this is one of it's features or implications. You are positing magic as more probable than chemistry or physics. You seem to have a problem both remembering things and putting ideas together.

Who said anything about interbreeding?

Scientists cannot explain how life started on this earth. It's as simple as that.

 

[Valjean]

That has nothing to do with the imagining things such as fish evolving to humans.

So what's the source of the theory, in your opinion.

Scientists cannot explain how life started on this earth. It's as simple as that.

And why do you think that?
At one time science couldn't figure out heavier-than-air flight or how to treat heart disease either.

Better: "Scientists haven't yet discovered the complete sequence of steps in the genesis of life."
YT, I don't think you understand the basics of evolution, or how far science has progressed in discovering the mechanisms of abiogenesis.

 

[YoursTrue]

...And you can't even see the relevance. Astonishing

You did, when you brought up your claims of magic as the source of life on Earth.
I've explained to you several times what magic is, and this is one of it's features or implications. You are positing magic as more probable than chemistry or physics. You seem to have a problem both remembering things and putting ideas together.

Who said anything about interbreeding?

Scientists cannot explain how life started on this earth. It's as simple as that.

 

[Valjean]

Scientists cannot explain how life started on this earth. It's as simple as that.

Science can't explain a lot of things. That doesn't falsify the not yet understood things. At one time science couldn't explain how bumblebees flew, but it was perfectly obvious that they did.

Today science can't yet explain the complete sequence of abiogenic steps, but its perfectly obvious that it occurred.
The proposed alternative: magic poofing? -- not so clear.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Scientists cannot explain how life started on this earth. It's as simple as that.

You seem to think that that means more than that there is still work to do. Your religion explains nothing at all. It has zero predictive or explanatory power, so obviously, correct answers don't actually matter to you.

That the work of science hasn't ended yet doesn't do anything for theism. It's one of the many poor creationist explicit or implied arguments (ignorantiam fallacy) for their gods along with incredulity fallacies (I just can't imagine it so it didn't happen) and special pleading fallacies (that cell is way too complex to exist undesigned, so I'm saying an undesigned deity did it and I offer no answer for how such a thing can exist).

 

[John53]

Scientists cannot explain how life started on this earth. It's as simple as that.

Neither can creationists. The difference being that scientists are honest about it.

 

[icant]

Evolution is not based on belief

Oh, I believe in evolution just not your brand of evolution.
Your brand of evolution requires life to begin to exist from non-life. Do you actually believe non-life can produce life?
If so, show me the evidence.

Enjoy,

 

[YoursTrue]

Science can't explain a lot of things. That doesn't falsify the not yet understood things. At one time science couldn't explain how bumblebees flew, but it was perfectly obvious that they did.

Today science can't yet explain the complete sequence of abiogenic steps, but its perfectly obvious that it occurred.
The proposed alternative: magic poofing? -- not so clear.

How can one "falsify" something not yet understood?

 

[YoursTrue]

Neither can creationists. The difference being that scientists are honest about it.

The "explanation" that those who believe what the Bible says about creation is yes, that God created the heavens and the earth and caused life to be on the earth. The details as to what some would say about the causation of physical laws involved beyond that are not discussed in the Bible. Not all those you call creationists have the same viewpoint about what the Bible says.

 

[icant]

OK, I got news for you. I can't explain right now everything that is written in the Bible. I logically give credence to the understanding that when God placed the man in the Garden of Eden, He did so in a manner that enabled him to eat. When Moses is resurrected as well as others, I hope to learn more as to how he learned what happened in the Garden and the creation account. Thanks.

That is an easy one.

Moses spent 40 days and nights on the mount with God in the wilderness not just once but twice in a row.
When Moses started back the second time God told him to write all these things down in a book, which he did. God explained it to Moses and he wrote it down for us to have.

Enjoy,

 

[John53]

The "explanation" that those who believe what the Bible says about creation is yes, that God created the heavens and the earth and caused life to be on the earth. The details as to what some would say about the causation of physical laws involved beyond that are not discussed in the Bible. Not all those you call creationists have the same viewpoint about what the Bible says.

Do you ever read what people posted and respond to it? Or just make random responses?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is an easy one.

Moses spent 40 days and nights on the mount with God in the wilderness not just once but twice in a row.
When Moses started back the second time God told him to write all these things down in a book, which he did. God explained it to Moses and he wrote it down for us to have.

Enjoy,

The true explanation is even easier.

 

[YoursTrue]

You seem to think that that means more than that there is still work to do. Your religion explains nothing at all. It has zero predictive or explanatory power, so obviously, correct answers don't actually matter to you.

I look forward to the future. As outlined and described in the Bible. That of new heavens and a new earth where righteousness will be.
2 Peter 3:13 brings this out.
"But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells."