The creator did it.

[Truly Enlightened]

To your first claim, they would break the legs of those on the cross to cause suffocation. Jesus gave up his own life on the cross,(no one took it) and as prophesied, not one bone was broken. God required them to sacrifice their best because God the Father sacrificed his best, Jesus, for the remission of your sins! So, yes to your second sentence.

Here's a simple test for you. Sit in your chair, and raise your outstretched arms above your head, and hold it there. If you are like the rest of us humans, you might find it, over time, more than just a little uncomfortable. You might find it becoming harder to exhale, thus unable to properly oxygenate the blood. Breaking the leg bones(crurifragium) would only hasten the asphyxiation process. I won't bother you with the 7-8 muscles restricting the exhalation process, or the secondary problems associated with the inability to rid the body of Carbon Dioxide. Remember the old-fashioned method of resuscitating unconscious drowning victims to expel water from their lungs. Why do you think rescuers raised the victims arms above their head, and then back to their chest again? Basic anatomy and physiology were clearly not your best subjects.

According to John Jesus died in 3 hrs, and in the other gospels in 6hrs, Jesus's arms would have been tied(not nailed) almost parallel with his head. Death would have occurred within 1 hr. Poking the side of Jesus with a spear, and "blood and water gushing out..", is extremely problematic. It is also problematic that Joseph took the body off the cross and not the Roman executioner, in case the victim was still breathing. It is even more curious that, “Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulcher wherein was never a man yet laid.” John 19:41. And, “...when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out of the rock, ”Matthew 27: 59–60. This doesn't sound like Golgotha to me. It sounds to me like the crucifixion took place on the private property of Joseph of Arimathea. In this way, the Resurrection could be “staged” away from prying eyes. I mean, for a live man to come out of a tomb, it only makes sense that a live man went into the tomb.

You stated, "Secondly, it is important to understand that at that time before Jesus came in human flesh, sacrificial offerings to God were performed with the most perfect animals one had. Why? Because God sacrificed his only son who was perfect and bled to death on the cross for the remission of sins....". I can understand sacrificing your best to a God out of the systemic ignorance of the time. But sacrificing your best because of an idea that didn't even exist(before Christ), is not logically consistent. Like celebrating the Vikings winning the Super Bowl. It has not happened yet! So these Bronze Age Iron Age peasants may have sacrificed there bests to a God, but not because a God sacrificed His best for them. Do you even understand what I am challenging?

 

[Audie]

Here's a simple test for you. Sit in your chair, and raise your outstretched arms above your head, and hold it there. If you are like the rest of us humans, you might find it, over time, more than just a little uncomfortable. You might find it becoming harder to exhale, thus unable to properly oxygenate the blood. Breaking the leg bones(crurifragium) would only hasten the asphyxiation process. I won't bother you with the 7-8 muscles restricting the exhalation process, or the secondary problems associated with the inability to rid the body of Carbon Dioxide. Remember the old-fashioned method of resuscitating unconscious drowning victims to expel water from their lungs. Why do you think rescuers raised the victims arms above their head, and then back to their chest again? Basic anatomy and physiology were clearly not your best subjects.

According to John Jesus died in 3 hrs, and in the other gospels in 6hrs, Jesus's arms would have been tied(not nailed) almost parallel with his head. Death would have occurred within 1 hr. Poking the side of Jesus with a spear, and "blood and water gushing out..", is extremely problematic. It is also problematic that Joseph took the body off the cross and not the Roman executioner, in case the victim was still breathing. It is even more curious that, “Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulcher wherein was never a man yet laid.” John 19:41. And, “...when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out of the rock, ”Matthew 27: 59–60. This doesn't sound like Golgotha to me. It sounds to me like the crucifixion took place on the private property of Joseph of Arimathea. In this way, the Resurrection could be “staged” away from prying eyes. I mean, for a live man to come out of a tomb, it only makes sense that a live man went into the tomb.

You stated, "Secondly, it is important to understand that at that time before Jesus came in human flesh, sacrificial offerings to God were performed with the most perfect animals one had. Why? Because God sacrificed his only son who was perfect and bled to death on the cross for the remission of sins....". I can understand sacrificing your best to a God out of the systemic ignorance of the time. But sacrificing your best because of an idea that didn't even exist(before Christ), is not logically consistent. Like celebrating the Vikings winning the Super Bowl. It has not happened yet! So these Bronze Age Iron Age peasants may have sacrificed there bests to a God, but not because a God sacrificed His best for them. Do you even understand what I am challenging?

You seem to like researching this so here is a q-

I thought that the Romans would leave executed
people on the cross to rot away, as a display for
others. Sometimes they would be nailed up after
they were dead. Am I wrong?

The special treatment for yet another rebel seems
improbable.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Where did you learn that?

Just passing on to you what it says on that subject, take it or leave it, your choice.

Boy, you really have a gift of twisting words! I think you know exactly whats going on with the biblical quote I gave, but hey, nice try.

Science validates "God did it" from everything in existence, from the cosmos to the micro. Why? Because science has no reasonable answers and cannot validate evolution. But science falls in harmony with creation because it validates creation.
"Our human traits are genetically expressed, as they relate to our environment and our social conditioning. Nothing more, nothing less. How do you think we would behave if we could not communicate, and were not self-aware?"
This is great! Explain to me how meaningless, purposeless matter like yourself, developed self-consciousness? Why are you communicating to me? You should be barking or chirping or grunting! By the way, explain to me how you go from grunting to abstract language? Out of one side of your mouth you claim you are nothing more than animal, and yet you posses self-consciousness that completely separates you from the animals! Boy oh boy! Think about it.

Well, hold on to that thought, the moment you die, it will all be clear
". No resurrection have every been verified." I assume you mean no one has been brought back from the dead?

"This death has been no stranger to me for 14.8 Billion years."
Say whaaaaat?
The billions of others have been reached by those missionaries who brought the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ all over the world, and like you, they have a choice to make., accept it or reject it. Jesus paid your penalty for your sin so you wouldn't have to. It's a free gift, and like all free gifts, you can accept it or reject it.
If you are wrong you will suffer an eternity in hell forever! That's not my opinion, but it would seem to me that any reasonable person when confronted with would consider, oh wait, you are just an animal of your surroundings, never mind. Good luck.

Where did you learn that?

Somewhere between "In the beginning God created...", and "Satan hates you because you are the pentacle of God's creation". All serious dialogue died from that point on. However, after considering the number of people with de-evolved cognitive abilities, I'm incline to agree that the Theory of Evolution may indeed need more scrutiny. Either you are purposely committed to your faith due to very creative logic, or it is a chronic condition of cognitive dissonance. Unless you have only the reasoning abilities of an 8 year-old, you must know that it is totally irrelevant whether or not science can/can't prove anything. The goal of any argument is not only to prove that the other's position is wrong, but also to prove that your position is right. We have all given you objective, independent, testable, predictable, and observable evidence, that all supports the underlying rationale behind the Theory of Evolution, and Atheism. You may not agree with the facts, data, or its consistency, but you can't simply dismiss the evidence without presenting evidence for an even more convincing argument. Simply asserting that "God did it all", because "the Bible tells me so", are simply not rational arguments. They are just your opinions and personal beliefs. Science certainly CAN validate Evolution, as well as providing an explanation for what we observe in our Universe. In fact, the only thing science CAN"T validate is the existence of anything supernatural, spiritual, or outside of our Universe. Maybe you can fill in that gap? In other words, stop misrepresenting and falsely equivocating the tenets of science to support your own presuppositional and confirmation biases.

You sermonize and quote-mine because you have no other objective means of circumventing Biblical fiction into rational facts. Your logic is to simply hope that if you say something long enough, and believe in it hard enough, that it will somehow become objectively true. Fortunately science does not work in the same way. If it did, we would become a world based on faith, not on knowledge.There are three words in science that don't exist in any religious mindset, "We don't know". So I choose to "leave it".

Did you just insult me? "Explain to me how meaningless, purposeless matter like yourself, developed self-consciousness". But unlike your fake pseudo-religious persona, I am not in the least threatened by anything that comes out of your mouth. Any more so, then someone claiming to be the reincarnation of the Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte. If anything I am amazed at this level of gullibility, ignorance, and obstinance. You have clearly demonstrated that religion creates elitism, intolerance, and separatism. The only thing worst than having a little knowledge, is not having any wish to know more.

Explaining genetics and allele expression would require baby steps for you. There are many introductory videos that might explain why WE are the example of 'meaningless, purposeless matter", that have evolved into our self-consciousness and self-awareness. Our self-consciousness was the obvious evolutionary extension of our language and endocrine functions. But as we develop, it is our unconscious mind that drives how we perceive reality. It does this through our subconsciousness, self-consciousness and introspection. Again, another waste of time to explain without the necessary baby steps first. All animals have some rudimentary form of self-consciousness, or they couldn't be self-aware of changes in their environment and adapt. It would also be difficult to explain why self-consciousness is delusional and completely subjective. But it is, unless you have the ability to free yourself from your subjective perspective. You don't.

I'm afraid the last paragraph was more raving than reasoning,. More conflicted than unambivalent. Unless you have been alive for 14.8 Billion years, I think you can understand why I am no stranger to death. If I have NOT suffered(or aware of suffering) for 14.8 Billion years before I was born, why would I suffer(or be aware of suffering) after I'm dead? Because you say so? Because a 3000 year old book says so? Or, because I'm just gullible enough to believe so? So, spare me the imaginary guilt mongering, to justify an imaginary belief, about an imaginary father figure, that will never leave me alone. Even when I am dead. You are truly an example of how a religion of the Dark Ages, is still the only science for the ignorant.

 

[ecco]

Well, since you are the one who made the proposal, you should be the one who should be able to state the evidence you can produce.

Thomas said "I will not believe until I put my finger into the nail prints in his hands and put my hand into His side. Thomas had a very high threshold of skepticism to overcome. Later on Thomas would lay down his life in India preaching the good news, bearing witness to the resurrection of his Lord and Savior , Jesus Christ.

So you got nuttin on your own "challenge". I'm not surprised.

 

[ecco]

The year today is 2019, the date counted from the birth of God the Son in the flesh. Mary was not raped, she accepted the messenger of God and was willing to be the one chosen to bring Gods' Son into our world. What I read here by many people is simply a pathetic attempt at misinformation also known as facticion, a combo of fact and fiction.

A holy ghost suddenly appears to a young virgin. He tells her she is going to be impregnated with the Son of God. She acquiesces.

Is the above misinformation? Or is the above an accurate summary of events as written in the Bible?

If a King tells a servant to take off her clothes and then has sex with her, do you consider that rape?

Do you think the servant really had any choice in the matter?

The Holy Ghost is far greater than any King. Yet somehow you want to believe that Mary accepted "the messenger of God".

You really need to get a better understanding of what constitutes rape.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Thomas said "I will not believe until I put my finger into the nail prints in his hands and put my hand into His side. Thomas had a very high threshold of skepticism to overcome. Later on Thomas would lay down his life in India preaching the good news, bearing witness to the resurrection of his Lord and Savior , Jesus Christ.

So apparently, according to the story, Doubting Thomas didn't believe until he was given evidence. Where's your evidence that backs up your claims?

 

[SkepticThinker]

First, when we learn things, we should be very careful that source we are learning from, say text books etc., that the information by the author is true and correct. I believe that the scriptures are true and accurate because they have proven to be so over millennia. So I have full confidence that the inspired Word of God is true.
This command—that the Passover lamb not have its legs broken—carries symbolic weight. When Jesus, whom John the Baptist proclaimed to be “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29), was crucified, not one of his bones was broken. John 19:31-34 tells us that when the soldiers came to Jesus to break his legs to hasten his death, they found that he was already dead, so they pierced his side with a spear but did not break his legs.
As John testifies, “These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: ‘Not one of his bones will be broken’” (John 19:36). The Exodus 12:46 rule is also echoed prophetically in Psalms 34:20: “He protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken.” To the last detail of his death, Jesus fulfilled the prophecies concerning the Messiah, verifying that he was, as John the Baptist claimed, the sacrificial Lamb of God. I know, because I believe the historical account.
You know such things about evolution in much the same way do you not? You trust what people say happened in the far past with no evidence it is
tenuously possible at all! So how earth could you know such a thing? And dont say evidence because you dont have any. And you say I have a big problem making claims I cant back up!

So you just believe whatever claims the Bible makes. Got it. Then you go on to claim that the scriptures are true and accurate because they've been proven to be so. When did that happen? Or is it that you have to believe that happened because you think it fulfills some kind of prophecy?

That's not evidence.

We have actual evidence for evolution occurring. Mountains of it. From multiple different groups of independent scientists from multiple fields of science - all converging on the conclusion that evolution is a fact of life.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A holy ghost suddenly appears to a young virgin. He tells her she is going to be impregnated with the Son of God. She acquiesces.

Sounds reasonable to me, but then I believed the letters in the Penthouse Forum.

 

[Rapture Era]

Here's a simple test for you. Sit in your chair, and raise your outstretched arms above your head, and hold it there. If you are like the rest of us humans, you might find it, over time, more than just a little uncomfortable. You might find it becoming harder to exhale, thus unable to properly oxygenate the blood. Breaking the leg bones(crurifragium) would only hasten the asphyxiation process. I won't bother you with the 7-8 muscles restricting the exhalation process, or the secondary problems associated with the inability to rid the body of Carbon Dioxide. Remember the old-fashioned method of resuscitating unconscious drowning victims to expel water from their lungs. Why do you think rescuers raised the victims arms above their head, and then back to their chest again? Basic anatomy and physiology were clearly not your best subjects.

I understand everything you said. Honestly, they were not my best subjects only because at the time I was into auto shop and high performance cars. I understood these subjects but they didn't excite me to peruse them in a professional way. The point I was trying to make was Breaking the leg bones would only accelerate the asphyxiation process., but, this act didn't happen.

According to John Jesus died in 3 hrs, and in the other gospels in 6hrs, Jesus's arms would have been tied(not nailed) almost parallel with his head. Death would have occurred within 1 hr.

The Jews and the Romans used different standards for reckoning the hours of the day, although both systems divided the day into two periods of 12 hours. A new day for the Romans began at midnight (as it does for us today), whereas a new day for the Jews began in the evening at what we would call 6 p.m.
Various clues within the fourth gospel indicate that John was using the Roman system. This makes sense given that John was writing outside of Palestine to a Hellenistic audience. That Mark used a Jewish system makes sense in light of the strong tradition that his gospel account follows sermons delivered by the apostle Peter. As always, it's important to take into account the context, as well as cultural differences between the Jewish and Gentile worlds.

Poking the side of Jesus with a spear, and "blood and water gushing out..", is extremely problematic.

How so?

It is also problematic that Joseph took the body off the cross and not the Roman executioner, in case the victim was still breathing.

He wasn't breathing, he was already dead which is why they didn't bother to break his legs. They did nail him to the cross and therefore the sodiers had to remove the nails before they could take the body. I'm sure that's exactly what they did.

This doesn't sound like Golgotha to me. It sounds to me like the crucifixion took place on the private property of Joseph of Arimathea. In this way, the Resurrection could be “staged” away from prying eyes. I mean, for a live man to come out of a tomb, it only makes sense that a live man went into the tomb.

My wife and I were there in 2013. Golgotha isn't very high, I had always envisioned it to be much bigger than it actually was. I can tell you that the face of the rock formation has the look of a skull. The Garden is very close to this site, and when I say close, I'm estimating about 50 yards. Also in the Garden area was a tomb. They don't know exactly if this was the actual tomb, but there wasn't another one closer that this one, so it would make sense that Josephs tomb was close by and not miles away. As far as a fake resurrection, it was a fact the Jesus died and to make sure, it was three days just as he the scriptures proclaimed. Now on top of that, when he did resurrect himself, over 500 people witnessed seeing him. And on top of that, he ate and drank. which further authenticates his resurrection back to life from the dead as a flesh and blood human being and not some kind of ghost.

I mean, for a live man to come out of a tomb, it only makes sense that a live man went into the tomb.

This makes no sense at all, what would be the point of putting a live person in tomb? Did he not die on the cross? If he didn't die on the cross, the requirements for the penalty of sins was not paid, which was the point of him becoming incarnate and dwelling among us in the first place? God himself in human flesh overcame the grave! This is epic news! I don't know of anyone, in any other religion other than Christianity that has demonstrated their love toward mankind than Jesus, NO ONE. And this is only part of why this sets Christianity above every other religion in the world!
Also, there were guards posted at the tomb that understood what would happen to them if they allowed anyone to come and roll the massive stone covering the entrance and take the body. When we were in Israel, we saw such tombs with this huge "wheel" stone that would be used to block the entrance. This things weigh tons!

I can understand sacrificing your best to a God out of the systemic ignorance of the time. But sacrificing your best because of an idea that didn't even exist(before Christ), is not logically consistent. Like celebrating the Vikings winning the Super Bowl. It has not happened yet! So these Bronze Age Iron Age peasants may have sacrificed there bests to a God, but not because a God sacrificed His best for them. Do you even understand what I am challenging?

Systemic ignorance? They were commanded by God to do so. Here, take a look at this, if you don't understand we can go over what might be troubling you.
Why did the sacrificial system require a blood sacrifice?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Systemic ignorance? They were commanded by God to do so. Here, take a look at this, if you don't understand we can go over what might be troubling you.
Why did the sacrificial system require a blood sacrifice?

Because blood is magic is not much of a reason.

 

[Rapture Era]

So you just believe whatever claims the Bible makes. Got it. Then you go on to claim that the scriptures are true and accurate because they've been proven to be so. When did that happen? Or is it that you have to believe that happened because you think it fulfills some kind of prophecy?

That's not evidence.

We have actual evidence for evolution occurring. Mountains of it. From multiple different groups of independent scientists from multiple fields of science - all converging on the conclusion that evolution is a fact of life.

Mountains of evidence huh? You guys cant get past how life started in the first place let alone have evolution continue! You have mountains of evidence all right, that evolution is impossible! That's your evidence.
But you are so blindly entrenched, you just believe whatever claims evolutionists make, because you cannot trump supernatural creation by natural means!
You and others are so desperate in your need to disprove an omnipotent God and his magnificent creation of heaven and earth, you fall over yourselves with ridiculous unsubstantiated claims that "nature did it." Again, this isn't what it says about God, it's what it says about you!

 

[Rapture Era]

Because blood is magic is not much of a reason.

Okay, lets remove your blood and see how magical it not!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, lets remove your blood and see how magical it not!

It appears that you can't even follow your own argument. Removing a person's blood had nothing to do with it. Try again.

The excuse in the article was that blood was thought to be magic. That was all. It was an extremely poor argument. It did not answer the question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Mountains of evidence huh? You guys cant get past how life started in the first place let alone have evolution continue! You have mountains of evidence all right, that evolution is impossible! That's your evidence.
But you are so blindly entrenched, you just believe whatever claims evolutionists make, because you cannot trump supernatural creation by natural means!
You and others are so desperate in your need to disprove an omnipotent God and his magnificent creation of heaven and earth, you fall over yourselves with ridiculous unsubstantiated claims that "nature did it." Again, this isn't what it says about God, it's what it says about you!

Once again you tacitly admit evolution to be a fact. Are you sure that you want to do that?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Mountains of evidence huh? You guys cant get past how life started in the first place let alone have evolution continue! You have mountains of evidence all right, that evolution is impossible! That's your evidence.

Yes, mountains of evidence. From multiple groups of independent researchers. From multiple different fields of science. Collected over the course of 150+ years.

Google Scholar

Abiogenesis (how life started) is not evolution. Neither is germ theory nor gravitational theory. They're different fields of study. Of course, that's already been pointed out to you several times now.

But you are so blindly entrenched, you just believe whatever claims evolutionists make, because you cannot trump supernatural creation by natural means!
You and others are so desperate in your need to disprove an omnipotent God and his magnificent creation of heaven and earth, you fall over yourselves with ridiculous unsubstantiated claims that "nature did it." Again, this isn't what it says about God, it's what it says about you!

No, I don't just believe whatever claims "evolutionists" (whatever that means) make. The thing about their claims is that they are demonstrable and repeatable. Their evidence is accessible so that I do not need to take anyone's "word" for anything, like we have to do with the Bible.

Supernatural claims lack demonstrable evidence. There is no reason to believe the supernatural exists in the first place. Do you have some evidence to demonstrate that it does? (Remember, we're talking about your claims).

I'm not desperate to disprove any god(s). It's not my job. It's the job of the people asserting the existence of god(s) and the supernatural demonstrate that they exist in the first place.

Now, back to your claims about the Bible ....

 

[Rapture Era]

Did you just insult me? "Explain to me how meaningless, purposeless matter like yourself, developed self-consciousness".

No, I didn't insult you, just following your own description, "We are just another species in the animal kingdom. Our human traits are genetically expressed, as they relate to our environment and our social conditioning. Nothing more, nothing less."
The fact that you don't concern yourself with how life started in an evolutionary manner, you just believe it did without scientific evidence demonstrates your inability to critically think. If evolution came about from nothing into something without intelligence, meaning, purpose and design, and it's ability to transform from simple (which by the way is impossible in the first place) to complex defies the scientific method of procedure. Because of this, matter coming about in an evolutionary way has no intelligence, meaning, design or purpose, it's just matter. You admit you are just another kind in the animal kingdom did you not?
So, if you are a product of meaningless, unintelligent, purposeless matter that evolution dictates, I don't have to insult you with these facts, you admit it openly.
"Our human traits are genetically expressed"?
How does this explain self-consciousness being developed from evolutionary matter? You don't see the problem here do you? We are the only species on the planet with the abstract ability of self awareness. We know we are alive, animals don't know this in a cognitive way. Yes they react to their environment, a dog will get out of the way of an oncoming car, but it doesn't have the ability to reason why it needs to. This is what separates us from the animal kingdom. God expressed this in Genesis when he said "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."
You are not just another kind of animal, but if you want to believe that, up to you, wait, what am I saying, you already believe that, silly me.
"social conditioning"? Why should you have any more of an ability to socialize any differently than a cow in a field with the rest of the cows? What gave you this unique ability that the other animals don't have? What makes you so special? Remember, you nothing more or nothing less than a product of your meaningless, purposeless, unintelligent, design-less, directionless evolutionary environment. Where did your capacity to express love, hate, or to articulate your condescending words towards others in a calculated way actually develop? What was the process?

 

[Rapture Era]

No, I don't just believe whatever claims "evolutionists" (whatever that means) make. The thing about their claims is that they are demonstrable and repeatable. Their evidence is accessible so that I do not need to take anyone's "word" for anything, like we have to do with the Bible.

Let me ask you something. What is the left hook in this evolutionary hypothesis that made you believe so strongly in it? That beyond any shadow of a doubt that is absolutely true?

Supernatural claims lack demonstrable evidence. There is no reason to believe the supernatural exists in the first place. Do you have some evidence to demonstrate that it does? (Remember, we're talking about your claims).

Again, the evidence of supernatural claims is smacking to in the face everywhere you look? From the cosmos to the micro we see order, design in all life forms, Eco-systems, reproduction, on and on and on. The amount of faith you exhibit that any evolutionary process of something from nothing you admit cannot be verified (how it all started) over trillions of guwazillions of years is just mind boggling! I realize abiogenesis is a separate study from evolution. What I find fascinating, is that you blindly believe in a process (evolution) without the scientific proof of life starting to allow evolution to ever operate! Do you see the problem?

I'm not desperate to disprove any god(s). It's not my job. It's the job of the people asserting the existence of god(s) and the supernatural demonstrate that they exist in the first place.

Of course you are, otherwise you wouldn't be so forceful and confident that supernatural creation is a lie. The thing is, you are held to the same standard through science that evolution is possible without a comprehensive understanding of how it started in the first place. Your claims fall flat on its face and no one can demonstrate that in any honest and meaningful way that is is remotely possible! You throw out links that are full of, maybe, could have, might be, we just don't know at this point kind of language which is a pathetic attempt to abuse and prostitute the false narratives of evolution in place of true science. This causes you to step outside of true science and speculate with hypotheses and all kinds of nonsense that put you into a fantasy world outside of the very discipline you say you adhere to! It's absolutely remarkable!

 

[gnostic]

Mountains of evidence huh? You guys cant get past how life started in the first place let alone have evolution continue! You have mountains of evidence all right, that evolution is impossible! That's your evidence.

The evidences are related to Evolution, hence “biodiversity”, not to the origin of “first life”, which is Abiogenesis.

People who are studying human evolution, would only need to examine fossils of the last 2.5 million years, not about 4.2 billion years ago.

If you are studying only the genus Homo, you don’t even need to study when the dinosaurs died out 65 million ago. You would only go this far back, you were studying the earliest primate species of the order Primates, particularly the first appearance of the “great apes” or more precisely the family Hominidae.

But you don’t find any Homo remains until the last 2.3 million years, with Homo habilis being the earliest humans.

You don’t need to focus 4.3 billion years ago, not unless you are researching in Abiogenesis.

Evolution is well-developed Scientific Theory, Abiogenesis isn’t a scientific theory because more evidences are required. However Abiogenesis is ongoing and work-in-progress falsifiable hypothesis, And there are already some evidences available for Abiogenesis, but not enough to reach consensus as to how first life happened.

One of the reasons why Abiogenesis isn’t a scientific theory now, is because we are yet to determine which versions of Abiogenesis is the right one. The other reason is we still haven’t determined how to get from organic matters (eg proteins and DNA/RNA) into a living organism, a single-celled organism.

Most biologists don’t need to study Abiogenesis, because they focused on the current extant species. Most biologists have never study paleontology, which is specialized field that work with fossils. And you don’t need to touch fossils in order to understand evolution.

Do not confuse Abiogenesis with the biodiversity of evolution.

 

[ecco]

Sounds reasonable to me, but then I believed the letters in the Penthouse Forum.

True or not, they were a fun read.

 

[ecco]

You guys cant get past how life started in the first place

We can and do get past it. We honestly admit that we currently do not know. There are many people researching this very field to someday provide answers.

One hundred fifty years ago no one understood plate tectonics. Today it can be explained in detail and is accepted science.

One hundred fifty years ago no one understood the origin of humans. Today it can be explained in detail and is accepted science.

Science moves forward, even if some people still prefer to rely on the simplistic ideas of ignorant people 6000 years ago.