Mycroft
Ministry of Serendipity
Actually it didn't. Gravity came into being as higher-mass objects began to form. Such as stars and planets, etc.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The battle of evolution vs creationism
- Thread starter bobhikes
- Start date
Actually it didn't. Gravity came into being as higher-mass objects began to form. Such as stars and planets, etc.
As a people that have an imagination, anyone can also presume to know the origins of everything in existence as well. The bible presumes with no factual or objective basis to support such a claim. We have never encountered evidence that suggets anything but natural occurences in the universe. Saying the explanation is magic existed in order for existence to be is unsatisfactory to say the least. My main point is nobody knows for sure and certainly not Iiteral bible creationists.
mycorrhiza
Well-Known Member
Then please do so, using peer-reviewed scientific papers.
My point was that we don't need to know how the Universe started just to know how gravity works, and the same goes for evolution. It doesn't matter how the Universe started or the first living organisms appeared, because that doesn't affect the theory of evolution as it only deals with how organisms evolved after they first started existing.
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
Nice
I can dig it. Lets start with the first one, speciation. I am not gonna ask you to define speciation for me, I want you to give me an EXAMPLE of it.
And you're still missing the point. If evolution, in the vast majority of cases, takes many, many human lifetimes, how is it that "knowing how it is done" should allow us to skip over this inconvenient limitation?
And I said that it only takes long because of the trial and error that comes with a mindless and blind process. If you know how it can happen, you should be able to simulate the right circumstances at which it will happen.
Or does "knowing how evolution works" imply knowing how to become immortal, or at least exponentially extend the human life expectancy? Does evolutionary theory have to cure mortality, as well as account for abiogenesis (and probably provide a Theory of Everything for physics while its at it) before delusional creationists finally concede defeat? (since late is better than never)
That isn't the POINT. Evolution assumes that life can come from nonlife...which is speculation..question begging...presupposed...and any other word one can use to express how irrational it is to believe in such a thing. Not only has life never been proven to come from non-life, but there are arguments that can be made which provide evidence AGAINST such a notion.
Typical. The skeptic asks for evidence for macroevolution, and the evolutionists gives evidence for microevolution. Natural selection is not evolution. There is no new kind of animal. It is the same kind of animal, just a different type. So this is not an example of a dog producing a non-dog.
First off species is not as clear defined in biology as you may like, which is why above i don't care for the definition, I just want an example of speciation. I guarandamntee it will all go back to microevolution.
It is assumed and there is no empirical evidence for it. First off, we can handle this quickly just by me asking you the following question; Can you prove that life can come from non-life? The answer is obviously NO. So if the answer is NO, there is no way you can claim that evolution is true if its truth value is based on something that you can't PROVE. This is the cart before the horse fallacy at its best.
Enaidea, how the HECK can you get to the point of "diversity about biological life" if you DON'T HAVE LIFE? If life doesn't exist, how can you reach the point of diversity in biological life? You can only have diversity in biological life if you HAVE LIFE. If life doesn't exist, then there is no macroevolution.
If God farted out the first-single-celled organism, then that would still be life (organism) from life (God). It wouldn't be life from non-life. God is living, right? Wow.
Because you can't get to the point of changes in life before you get to the point of the origins of life. This is an elementary cart before the horse fallacy and im surprised that you, the "master of all logic and reasoning" isn't aware of this.
We are past asking "where does thunder come from", or "why is the sky blue". We are asking the big boy questions....like "what is the origin of life"......and "what is the absolute origin of all space, time, and matter". These are my questions...so if you are so much in to science, answer them for me.
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
It depends on the claims being made. With evolution you are telling me that this process is the "origin of species". That I am the product of this long, trial and error process. I am saying there is no evidence for it.
Now if you want to make wild and wacky claims about gravity and its effects, then we will handle it accordingly.
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
Regardless of how you want to put it, gravity would not exist without the existence of the universe. No universe, no gravity.
Abiogenesis is the study of how life arose from non-living matter and is more about chemical evolution, not biological evolution. Biological evolution is the study of how life evolves once biology exists.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
But we have seen it and in different ways but you keep ignoring it. We see it with speciation. We see it in the fossil record. And why would pretty much all geneticists recognize evolution as they do if these genetic changes leading to different "kinds" was not possible?
All species are transitional as any geneticist will tell you-- evolution never stops, at least so it appears. As far as transitional fossils are concerned, check this out with just one "kind": Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Of course you're not going to accept this, and this is only for one reason-- you don't want to accept this. I know because I was there in terms of being brought up in a fundamentalist Protestant church whereas "evilution" was roundly condemned. But then I did the research, eventually going on to become an anthropologist, which I taught for 30 years.
BTW, over those 30 years, teaching an average of five sections per year, I issued confidential surveys to my students at the beginning of the course and at the end of the course, asking them if they believed in evolution. With the pre-course survey, the students were relatively evenly split between "yes", "no", and "don't know". With the post-course survey, only one student in all those years said "no", and there were a small scattering of "maybe".
Now, either I'm the greatest snake-oil salesman ever or the evidence speaks for itself, and let me tell ya it's not the former.
outhouse
Atheistically
YOU refuse to even look.
If you opened your eyes just once, even partially, you would see
outhouse
Atheistically
Yes, but you have less then no credibility, you have BAD credibility.
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
There are numerous pages on the web that give many, many examples of speciation. Here's one, discussed in an article in Scientific American-
"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."
Except, "knowing how it can happen" doesn't really help when the "how it can happen" requires a timespan much longer than a human life. Sort of a major practical limitation there, wouldn't you say?
It's not question-begging, and evolution does not assume that anyways.
Right. And 2+2=5. Stating something so demonstrably false isn't going to get you anywhere; and denying well-documented and well known scientific evidence only undermines your credibility and makes you sound like a total and complete crackpot. If the only way creationism can gain traction is by denying that grass is green, that 2+2=4, or that all the thousands of papers and studies supporting evolution are fictitious, that's a VERY bad sign.
It basically is tantamount to admitting that creationism is only true if you live in La La Land.
Except, evolution doesn't require that life came from non-life. Oopsies.
We know we "have life"- we can look around. We can also see that life is different- there are different forms of life. This diversity is what evolution explains. And this diversity still exists, and stands in need of explanation, regardless of whether life came from non-life, whether life has always existed, or whether life appeared as the result of divine flatulence.
Sure. And since evolution doesn't claim that "life came from non-life" (that's abiogenesis, not evolution) , only that the diversity of life is a function of these various factors (natural selection, mutation, heredity, etc.), this wouldn't be a problem for evolutionary theory.
That's because you're mistakenly diagnosing a fallacy here. Don't worry, happens to the best of us.
Um.. What? What does me answering them have to do with the point at hand- that science answers questions, regardless of whether they are the questions you or anyone else is particularly interested in, whether theology begs them?
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
I am talking about animals. I could care less about plant life.
Except, "knowing how it can happen" doesn't really help when the "how it can happen" requires a timespan much longer than a human life. Sort of a major practical limitation there, wouldn't you say?
And as I said, for the 3rd time now, it only requires a timespan longer than human life if the process occurs without intelligence.
Hmm, I asked you can you prove that life can come from non-life, and you did not answer. So since you failed to answer it, there is no point in engaging in further discussion with you, since that question is the smoking gun as to whether you can logically hold the absurd position based on your belief that evolution doesn't presuppose abiogenesis, which is completely ridiculous position in every sense of a ridiculous position. So until you answer my question, no point in discussing this further with you. No more time wasting here.
Miacids some 60 million years ago eventually spit into feline and canine. The transitional fossils are plenty. Thanks to evolution, technically every single fossil is transitional. Looking at a timeline of animals coming into existance shows the transitions and the transitions match the geological and fossil evidences.
Miacids - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So if you want to talk about abiogenisis why do you keep asking about evolution. Genesis isnt any better an explanation. Your missing the point completely about evolution. I can assume one of two things. God made all the animals or animals came about by natural processes. Neither scenario should go against evolution, if the animals exist then they change over time, pretty simple. Problem is there is a progressive development of mammals over millions of years, there were no humans riding dinos. Unless god slowly created animals to make it fit a timeline of slow progression, in which case god would be playing tricks with us.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
To me, evolution is just plain old common sense based on objective observations. All matter and energy appears to change over time, and this logically would include genes as well. This is not mere speculation as this has been observed over and over again.
The unfortunate reality is that some people use various scriptures written thousands of years ago by people who we don't know and cannot verify as far as their accuracy is concerned as if they were experts at the study of genetics, biology, and anthropology, amongst other disciplines. What's even just as unfortunate is that some people do not even consider that certain narratives often have a symbolic and/or allegorical meaning that does teach morals and values, which is really the important part of these narratives. To insist that one must take these literally tends to miss the point of why the text was undoubtedly written and passed on to us in the first place. As one who has taught theology for many years, too many seem to miss the points of these narratives through their denial of these poetic values.
They also miss the point that these narratives were not written by modern westerners with strong affinities for science and objectivity. My fellow Jews back then tended to have a much more subjective approach, along with very little knowledge of what we would call genetics, biology, and anthropology today. We also are quite certain that they took a Babylonian narrative of creation and quite sharply modified it to reflect our own morals and values.
The unfortunate reality is that some people use various scriptures written thousands of years ago by people who we don't know and cannot verify as far as their accuracy is concerned as if they were experts at the study of genetics, biology, and anthropology, amongst other disciplines. What's even just as unfortunate is that some people do not even consider that certain narratives often have a symbolic and/or allegorical meaning that does teach morals and values, which is really the important part of these narratives. To insist that one must take these literally tends to miss the point of why the text was undoubtedly written and passed on to us in the first place. As one who has taught theology for many years, too many seem to miss the points of these narratives through their denial of these poetic values.
They also miss the point that these narratives were not written by modern westerners with strong affinities for science and objectivity. My fellow Jews back then tended to have a much more subjective approach, along with very little knowledge of what we would call genetics, biology, and anthropology today. We also are quite certain that they took a Babylonian narrative of creation and quite sharply modified it to reflect our own morals and values.
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
Because you can't logically claim evolution is true if you don't know whether abiogenesis is true. That is a BIG problem. You can't just skip over abiogenesis and jump to evolution. All I want for you people to admit that evolution is just a theory. It is not a fact. Once you claim it is a fact, then you need to explain how life can come from non-life first. If you don't know whether life can come from non-life, then your evolutionary theory does not even begin to take place.
Actually it does. In Genesis God said they will bring forth after their kind, and that is exactly what we observe, animals bringing forth after their kind.
It is amazing that people will go through such lengths to not believe in God. Amazing.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I'm still waiting to see a giant turd give birth to a strawberry milkshake. If evolution is true, then why hasn't anybody ever seen this? Intelligent creationism wins again.
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
2 Peter 2:13
2 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be afalse teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction 1does not slumber.