The battle of evolution vs creationism

[McBell]

God didn't come from any life, Mest.

Then you just undermine your own argument.

Remember, your argument is that life MUST come from life.
That is why you are proclaiming god.
Now if life HAS to come from life, then god must a life.
Since God must be a life and life MUST come from life, then god had to come from a life as well.

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.

You keep making this claim, but have not shown it to be anything but wishful thinking.

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.

And you are STILL flat out wrong.
The only thing evolution requires is life.
It matters not how life began, just that life exists.

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.

You claim that evolution requires life come from non-life...

 

[Parsimony]

I'm still waiting on you, Call_of_the_Wild.

 

[Ouroboros]

Pre-life components found in interstellar space: DNA and amino-acid precursor molecules discovered in interstellar space | KurzweilAI

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Then you just undermine your own argument.

Remember, your argument is that life MUST come from life.

The kalam argument applies here as well. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Life on earth began to exist. Therefore life on earth has a cause. God did not begin to exist, Mest.

That is why you are proclaiming god.
Now if life HAS to come from life, then god must a life.
Since God must be a life and life MUST come from life, then god had to come from a life as well.

Based on your false assumptions as I demonstrated above, I can disregard the above quote.

And you are STILL flat out wrong.
The only thing evolution requires is life.
It matters not how life began, just that life exists.

If life can't be proven to come from nonlife, then that requirement is not met. It assumes that the requirement was met. Question begging.

You claim that evolution requires life come from non-life...

It is a requirement. Life from nonlife COULD be a false premise, and if it COULD be false, then the alleged result of it (evolution) cannot be a fact.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Pre-life components found in interstellar space: DNA and amino-acid precursor molecules discovered in interstellar space | KurzweilAI

Pre-life? Pre-life is not life.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I'm still waiting on you, Call_of_the_Wild.

I don't have the brain stamina to go over all of that stuff with you, to be honest. We can discuss it on messenger if you like. Trust me, I am not fazed by none of that stuff :no:

 

[Simurgh]

I am going to undoubtedly reiterate things that have been said before, but this time, let's do it with visuals to make it simpler.

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

Why is a god a metaphysical necessity? Millions of us have no need for such a figurehead. Please, explain the necessity.

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.

Might be time to brush up on your scientific knowledge. Evolution does not assume anything concerning life coming from non-life. I am sure that I am not the first one to state this here, but evolution concerns itself with the development of life. Still, here are two videos that allow you to get the basics of how life began.
[youtube]ofFhHcvasHA[/youtube]
How Did Life Begin? - YouTube

Once you’ve seen that, listen to what Kraus has to say and that might help you understand how the RNA formed. It would be better if you took the time and listened to the whole lectures that Kraus gives, the ORIGINS lectures are on YouTube.

[youtube]thOuPVFsEGU[/youtube]
Lawrence Krauss presents "Something from Nothing and the Magic of Reality" Part 1 - YouTube

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.

Try Neil DeGrasse Tyson, he can give you the short version. And no, it does not defeat atheism in any way shape or form—it reaffirms it.

[youtube]0azoN7t3UhM[/youtube]
The Astounding Fact About The Universe - Neil Degrasse Tyson - YouTube

 

[Ouroboros]

Pre-life? Pre-life is not life.

Define life.

 

[McBell]

The kalam argument applies here as well. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Life on earth began to exist. Therefore life on earth has a cause. God did not begin to exist, Mest.

You might accept this bait and switch tactic, but I do not knot.
Your claim is that all life MUST come from life.

So either god is not life, which renders your claim useless, or god is life and had to come from life.

Make up your mind.

Based on your false assumptions as I demonstrated above, I can disregard the above quote.

No, you are disregarding it because it shows just how wrong you are.
As per your standard MO.

If life can't be proven to come from nonlife, then that requirement is not met. It assumes that the requirement was met. Question begging.

Except that life coming from non-life is not a requirement for evolution...

It is a requirement. Life from nonlife COULD be a false premise, and if it COULD be false, then the alleged result of it (evolution) cannot be a fact.

Merely repeating your nonsense does not make your nonsense any more true than the first time you stated the nonsense.

Evolution does not require life to come from non-life.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Why is a god a metaphysical necessity?

For a couple reasons. 1. It is logically possible for God to exist, and all possible necessary truths must be true. 2. An uncaused cause is necessary because if you take God out of the equation, you are stuck with the absurd notion of an infinite chain of events leading up to the present moment, which is irrational.

Millions of us have no need for such a figurehead. Please, explain the necessity.

You may be able to live your life without such a figurehead, but you wouldn't be able to have life without such a figurehead. And the necessity was explained, see above.

Might be time to brush up on your scientific knowledge. Evolution does not assume anything concerning life coming from non-life.

If life can't come from nonlife, then there would be no life for evolution to take off in the first place.

I am sure that I am not the first one to state this here, but evolution concerns itself with the development of life.

Maybe you are the one that need to brush up on your science. Evolution does not concern itself with the developement of life. It concerns itself with the developement of species.

Still, here are two videos that allow you to get the basics of how life began.
[youtube]ofFhHcvasHA[/youtube]
How Did Life Begin? - YouTube

Lets not fool ourselves. We do not know how life can come from nonlife. The closest we've ever come was the Miller experiment and even that still had miles to go. Life from nonlife is one of the biggest mysteries of science. Don't know what that video is about and I don't pay attention much to links or videos posted on here. I can easily post videos and links supporting my position as well, as they are also out there.

Once you’ve seen that, listen to what Kraus has to say and that might help you understand how the RNA formed. It would be better if you took the time and listened to the whole lectures that Kraus gives, the ORIGINS lectures are on YouTube.

[youtube]thOuPVFsEGU[/youtube]
Lawrence Krauss presents "Something from Nothing and the Magic of Reality" Part 1 - YouTube

Krauss was already dismantled by Bill Craig. The only videos that are made now are by his ghost.

Try Neil DeGrasse Tyson, he can give you the short version. And no, it does not defeat atheism in any way shape or form—it reaffirms it.

[youtube]0azoN7t3UhM[/youtube]
The Astounding Fact About The Universe - Neil Degrasse Tyson - YouTube

I've never seen Neil Degrasse Tyson have a debate with anyone regarding these subjects. Until I see him engage in a formal or informal debate regarding these issues where his position is attacked and critiqued, and he has to go through the motions of defending his position, then I don't want to be bothered with him.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You might accept this bait and switch tactic, but I do not knot.
Your claim is that all life MUST come from life.

God did not begin to exist, Mest. Life on earth did.

So either god is not life, which renders your claim useless, or god is life and had to come from life.

Make up your mind.

I've argued previously that God is a metaphysically necessary being, Mest. That in itself would suggest that God never had a beginning. So please, stop it.

Except that life coming from non-life is not a requirement for evolution...

If life cant come from nonlife, how would evolution get to take off? Answer the simple question, Mest.

Evolution does not require life to come from non-life.

If life cant come from nonlife, how can you get to the point of changes in life? Answer the simple question, Mest.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Define life.

Dictionary.com

the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

 

[McBell]

God did not begin to exist

Another claim that has not been shown to be anything more than wishful thinking.

I've argued previously that God is a metaphysically necessary being, Mest. That in itself would suggest that God never had a beginning. So please, stop it.

You have made the claim numerous times.
You have NOT shown the claim to be anything more than wishful thinking.

If life cant come from nonlife, how would evolution get to take off? Answer the simple question, Mest.

The question is completely irrelevant to evolution.
Evolution only requires there be life.
There be life.
How life began is irrelevant to evolution.

So your claim that evolution requires life to come from non-life is just plain flat out wrong.

If life cant come from nonlife, how can you get to the point of changes in life? Answer the simple question, Mest.

what does non-life have to do with changes in life?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Another claim that has not been shown to be anything more than wishful thinking.

So is evolution.

You have made the claim numerous times.
You have NOT shown the claim to be anything more than wishful thinking.

So did you regarding evolution.

The question is completely irrelevant to evolution.
Evolution only requires there be life.
There be life.
How life began is irrelevant to evolution.

Right, evolution requires life. But if abiogenesis is FALSE then it would not met that requirement. If you believe in evolution you have to believe that either a supernatural creator orchestrated the process, or you have to believe that life came from nonlife, because evolution depends of preexisting life.

If you don't believe in God, which im sure you don't, then you believe that life came from nonlife, but that ISN'T a fact. It isn't a fact that life can come from nonlife. So if it is FALSE that life CAN'T come from nonlife, then evolution is also false.

And if you want to claim that God could have orchestrated the process, ok, fine, but guess what, that is not an example of life from nonlife...and it also means that Goddidit. So either way, uphill battle.

So your claim that evolution requires life to come from non-life is just plain flat out wrong. what does non-life have to do with changes in life?

If life cant come from nonlife, how will you reach changes in life?

 

[SkylarHunter]

Conclusion: people believe what they want.

 

[Skwim]

Dictionary.com

the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

Interesting that you agree with a definition that includes:

"the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally" ​

 

[Ouroboros]

Dictionary.com

the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

Are procaryotes alive? Eucaryotes? Bacteria? Virus? Prions?

Where did this definition in Dictionary.com first originate? From science (biology), from church, or from some prophet who had a revelation from god in a dream?

 

[Skwim]

double post

 

[Ouroboros]

Interesting that you agree with a definition that includes:

"the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally" ​

Yup.

He also have no problem accepting a definition based on scientific terms while rejecting the same science based on an old fairy tale.

I'd like to know what the definition of life is in the Bible. It's either breath (ability to breathe air), having blood, or having a liver. I don't remember if there are other definitions, but they're nothing about metabolism for instance in the Biblical definition. Where's the citric acid cycle explained? Why do we eat dead, non-life matter and break it down and build new cells from those parts? Every 7 years most of our cells are replaced by copies built from dead matter.

 

[Parsimony]

I don't have the brain stamina to go over all of that stuff with you, to be honest. We can discuss it on messenger if you like. Trust me, I am not fazed by none of that stuff :no:

Alright then. Send me a private message here on the board with your refutations when you get the chance.