The battle of evolution vs creationism

[McBell]

If God exists, and he used evolution as a method for his creation...that still would kick atheism right up the a%$ now, wouldn't it?

no, it wouldn't.
God existing would, yes, but not if god used evolution.

 

[McBell]

I must be in the twilight zone lol. Changes in life depends on life being here. If you take God out of the equation, that means that life came from nonlife. Point blank, period. But you don't know whether life came from nonlife, that is what you ASSUME.

So from this point, anyone that will continue to deny the simple fact that evolution depends on abiogenesis so it can't be a fact because abiogenesis isn't a fact...anyone that isn't intellectually honest enough to admit that, just stop talking to me.

This is elementary logic here and I cant keep arguing simple stuff.

Except your "elementary logic" does not explain what life god came from, so even if we were to use your "goddidit" response, we are STILL at square one where with life came from.

Now since evolution is not concerned with where life came from, all this beginning of life nonsense you keep dredging up is nothing more than irrelevant diversion.

Your unwillingness to understand this fact does not change the fact that the beginning of life is not something that evolution addresses.

 

[McBell]

It does require it to be true. If it were found out tomorrow that it is impossible for life to come from nonlife then guess what, there is no theory of evolution.

Except, of course, for the small inconvenient fact that this is just plain flat out not true.

I have reasons to believe in God and I admit that my belief is a belief of faith. The evolutionists is not so modest.

There is no need for "faith" in evolution.
Unlike your faith in your chosen deity, evolution has been shown accurate.
Well, to those who are actually interested in the really real world.

 

[McBell]

Not interested in anything other than an answer to the question that I asked.

Why the deception?
The fact of the matter is you are only interested in the answer you want to hear.

In order for evolution to occur, life has to exist.

That is correct.

If God doesn't exist, that means that life came from nonlife.

Except you cannot prove this claim...

If you can't prove how life can come from nonlife, your theory is an assumption and not a fact.

The theory of evolution does not require anything other than there be life.
It matters not how said life began.

OASN:
Why do keep ignoring the question of where your god came from?

If what it depends on is not a fact, then the theory itself cannot be a fact. Therefore, at best, evolution is just a theory.

Since the ONLY thing evolution "depends upon" is there being life and it is a fact that life exists....

Evolution does not require life to come from non-life.
This is a classic example of you creating a strawman in order to attack evolution.
now is this strawman being created by you out of honest ignorance, or are you being dishonest?

If you can't answer my question, no point in discussing this any further with you. I will ask again: Can you prove that life can come from nonlife? Yes or no?

Yes, in fact the links to show it have been presented a number of times in this very thread.
Your choosing to ignore them does not make them cease to exist.

 

[Skwim]

EVOLUTION DOESN'T DICTATE THAT LIFE MUST COME FROM NON-LIFE.

End of story.

I must be in the twilight zone lol. Changes in life depends on life being here. If you take God out of the equation, that means that life came from nonlife. Point blank, period. But you don't know whether life came from nonlife, that is what you ASSUME.

Remarks like this is why it's so difficult for people to get through to Christian creationists. Rather than looking into what evolution is all about, you take the tripe that's been dished out by dishonest creationist and run with it. Not giving a damn whether or not what they've said is true or not.

As to this single point let me put it as clear as I can: Evolution is NOT concerned with first causes. And please repeat this out loud as you read it again.

EVOLUTION IS NOT CONCERNED WITH FIRST CAUSES.

or, as SkepticThinker put it:

EVOLUTION DOESN'T DICTATE THAT LIFE MUST COME FROM NON-LIFE.

What this means is that evolution stands as an explanation of the diversity of life on earth regardless of how life arose on the planet. It could have been started by an act of god, a spontaneous combination of non-living carbon based elements in some primordial soup (abiogenesis), or was brought here from elsewhere in space, a notion known as panspermia. However, whatever the case, this is of no concern to evolution. Pick whichever explanation you wish. It doesn't matter.

I know this may come as a disappointment because it's one of the debating points creationists are so fond of; seeing it as a sticking point and inherent weakness of evolution. But the fact is, it simply isn't. As I say, evolution does not concern itself with the issue, and couldn't care less which first cause you want to run with.

However, once you've made your choice; be it the work of the Christian god, some primordial soup, panspermia, Pangu of Chinese lore, or a rendering of Tungusic creation mythology, the next issue on the table is to explain the incredible number of species we've come across (estimated to be around 8.7 million), and this is where evolution FIRST comes into the picture.

According to Christian creationists, god created all 8+ million species at once. And if you need to believe this, fine. No one is going to much care. However, lacking any evidence of such a claim, other than the say-so of a single book of allegories, prophecies, poetry, etc. science found a far better explanation; evolution. An idea that arose from the evidence they came across and continue to uncover. The various species we have are the result of having evolved from fore-bearers quite unlike themselves. Put in more formal prose, "Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations."
(Source: Wikipedia)
Please note the use of the word "change."

In a nutshell then, evolution only concerns itself with change, another notion you may want to repeat out loud.

EVOLUTION IS ONLY CONCERNED WITH CHANGE.


​

So next time you feel scrappy and want to take on evolution, please leave comments like

So from this point, anyone that will continue to deny the simple fact that evolution depends on abiogenesis so it can't be a fact because abiogenesis isn't a fact...anyone that isn't intellectually honest enough to admit that, just stop talking to me.
This is elementary logic here and I cant keep arguing simple stuff.

behind, because trotting out such rubbish only makes you look like a fool. Your choice of course.
​

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Well thank you for being the only person on here besides myself that is willing to keep it real by admitting that the theory does in fact imply life from non-life. That is a given. A lot of intellectual dishonesty going on here.

Indeed. You're willing to keep insisting something that is patently false, and cannot be substantiated in the slightest. You cannot find a single citation from any academic journal, biology textbook, or any other credible source that states that evolution must also account for abiogenesis, despite being distinct theories concerned with explaining completely different phenomena. You also haven't provided any argument here, simply bare assertions, and you've completely ignored everyone who has tried to correct you on this elementary factual error you're making.

It does require it to be true. If it were found out tomorrow that it is impossible for life to come from nonlife then guess what, there is no theory of evolution.

Nope. It would mean abiogenesis would be disproven. But since the theory of evolution makes no claims about how life arose, and only assumes that life arose somehow (abiogenesis, divine creation, whatever), this would have no effect on the theory of evolution.

I must be in the twilight zone lol. Changes in life depends on life being here.

Yep. And so evolution only needs to assume that life is here- not how it got here.

So from this point, anyone that will continue to deny the simple fact that evolution depends on abiogenesis so it can't be a fact because abiogenesis isn't a fact...anyone that isn't intellectually honest enough to admit that, just stop talking to me.

If you can't figure out a cogent reply to the counter-argument, just say so- don't accuse people of intellectual honesty just to get yourself out of a pickle.

This is elementary logic here and I cant keep arguing simple stuff.

If its so simple, why are you having such a hard time coming up with an argument? Your strategy of argument so far-

-Patently and demonstrably false assertions about the relation between abiogenesis and evolution, disprovable by opening ANY biology textbook or scholarly articles on evolution or abiogenesis

-Ad hominems, accusing those who make claims and arguments with which you disagree (and to which you cannot muster ANY counter-argument) of intellectual dishonesty... since anyone who appears to disagree with you must be being dishonest, right?

-Appeals to incredulity

Needless to say, not putting on a very good showing; if this is the best that God's Holy Warrior can do, we can go ahead and conclude that God's cause is a lost one.

 

[outhouse]

We are not having a debate here at all. First there is no real debate.


At this point it looks like some people are trolling out of stubborn willful ignorance.

 

[Parsimony]

Evidence has to be interpreted within a philosophical framework of prior understanding, which is why all the evidence for evolution came after the theory. From observable change, came the imaginary and philosophic framework that is used to interpret all future biological data. That is why any and all biological scientific data is looked at like this “how do we understand this data in the concept of Darwinian evolution?” “We know it happened, we just have to figure out how.” Any and all observable data can be interpreted multiple ways and can fit multiple models of change. If it isn’t understood, then the interpreter just says that it will take time to understand this within the framework of ___________. There is no data that fits Darwinism only.

It seems that I missed this post earlier. If what you say is true, then creationism should be able to explain all of the evidence as well. With that in mind, tell me how creationism can answer the questions that I raised in post #466 on page 47. If creationism is at least as valid as evolution, then it can answer the questions.

 

[idav]

Yes



Um, because he is God, perhaps?



The creationist doesn't try to account for life from nonlife. We believe that life came from life (God). Two different things.



Right, by my presupposition is a good one because the alternative is logically absurd, so I have good reasons to believe in a metaphysically necessary intelligent designer known as "God" created the universe and everything in it.

So you just assume life to exist in order to make life a possibility. There are several logical fallacies there, assuming the consequent and begging the question just to start.

 

[Parsimony]

The inability for the creationists here to answer the truly challenging questions I've posed leaves me rather satisfied. That lets me know that if I had taken them on one-on-one, that I would have won the debate by now (you can't just ignore one or more of your opponent's arguments in a one-on-one debate, now can you? Failure to address them results in losing the debate).

 

[Looncall]

So you just assume life to exist in order to make life a possibility. There are several logical fallacies there, assuming the consequent and begging the question just to start.

We should not be surprised by this. It is just yet another demonstration of ths noxious effects of religion on the human intellect and on human morality.

 

[Simurgh]

Here is an interview that puts everything together rather neatly,there is not much else to do but laugh about those creationists who have no clue.

Maybe they do realize that they are completely wrong, but have too much invested in affirming creationism as the answer to all life's questions in their feeble minded in their attempts to deny the science that actually has answers.

[youtube]w8ilFvqxtWY[/youtube]
Idiot YEC Interviews Lawrence Krauss part 1 - YouTube

 

[johnhanks]

You can see electrons, john.

Keeping up your usual impressive level of scientific accuracy. I see, Call. Go on, tell us what an electron looks like.

Evolution can't see, think, or anything, yet it is able to do something that intelligent human beings with sight cant do, and that is to have animals create different kind of animals ... It has to start with one animal at a time. There is always that very first initial change, and that occurs with ONE individual.

The elements of population genetics aren't difficult to grasp, Call. Just give it a try.

Oh, but that would be "bio-babble", wouldn't it? We all understand, I'm sure, how vital it is for you to keep your non-acquaintance with biological realities intact: start to understand too much, and you might find your comfortably simplistic certainties beginning to crumble.

 

[adi2d]

Well at least we can be done with the cat creates cat. Dog creates dog. No life can create a different KIND of life
The wild man thinks God is alive and created life. All the different kinds of life


I'm so glad. I was sick of the dog dog cat cat spiel

 

[s2a]

It occurred to me today how silly this is.

Evolution a scientific study
Creationism a philosophical study

The 2 are not even related so that they can be compared.

1)Biology Scientists need to make it clear that evolution has no bearing on the condition of God.

Scientists do.

2)Religions need to make it clear that scientific studies are human studies.

If we want to teach both evolution and creationism they should be taught under there (sic)appropriate studies(Science or Philosophy). Evolution should never be brought up in a religious environment and Creationism should never be brought up is a scientific environment.

Amen?

If Scientists and Religions make this clear we will no longer need this debate room. If Scientist just do their part we can call this room Creationism (Philosophy or Science)

The "clarity" both exists, and has continued in "the clear" for decades...

Consider the simple premise of any "Belief" founded upon or within religious faith...

A "belief" can never be contradicted by available "fact", as no literal "fact" is likely to be expunged by single claim or belief absent otherwise avalable facts or evidences.

"Faith" (religious) has NO correlation to "fact".

Belief (that "something" is TRUE) is the only measure of "truth" that matters.

That's ok, but it will never be "scientific"

 

[Parsimony]

This may be of some interest: Computer-simulated life forms evolve intelligence

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Keeping up your usual impressive level of scientific accuracy. I see, Call. Go on, tell us what an electron looks like.

Wikipedia. Its right there!!!

Oh, but that would be "bio-babble", wouldn't it? We all understand, I'm sure, how vital it is for you to keep your non-acquaintance with biological realities intact: start to understand too much, and you might find your comfortably simplistic certainties beginning to crumble.

If you can give me an example of an animal producing a different kind of animal, I will become an evolutionists. Until then...

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

no, it wouldn't.
God existing would, yes, but not if god used evolution.

You just don't get it, do you Mest?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Except your "elementary logic" does not explain what life god came from

God didn't come from any life, Mest.

, so even if we were to use your "goddidit" response, we are STILL at square one where with life came from.

God is metaphysically necessary, Mest. Once you educate yourself on the nature of necessity, then you will find out how silly it is to ask such questions.

Now since evolution is not concerned with where life came from, all this beginning of life nonsense you keep dredging up is nothing more than irrelevant diversion.

First off I never said evolution is concerned with where life came from. I said evolution depends on the notion that life can come from nonlife, which has yet to be scientifically proven. Evolution assumes that life can come from nonlife, which is begging the question.

Your unwillingness to understand this fact does not change the fact that the beginning of life is not something that evolution addresses.

Since I never said that evolution addressses life from nonlife, there is no need for me entertain the above quote any more than I am now.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Nope. It would mean abiogenesis would be disproven.

And if abiogenesis is disproven, there is no life. And if there is no life, then there is no evolution.

Yup, twilight zone.

But since the theory of evolution makes no claims about how life arose

Never claimed that it did.

, and only assumes that life arose somehow (abiogenesis, divine creation, whatever), this would have no effect on the theory of evolution.

And that is the problem. If you take away abiogenesis then you are left with NOTHING but divine creation...thus, God exist. So that would still be a defeater of naturalism/atheism all day, every day.

Yep. And so evolution only needs to assume that life is here- not how it got here.

Don't need to do to much assuming there. The fact that life is here is a given. Tell me something I don't know.