The first living thing could not have come into being by random chance, therefore, God Almighty created all things. Just 1 proof.

[King Phenomenon]

Thanks. Sometimes you have to know when it is a worthless endeavor to try and reach someone that doesn't want to be reached.

And it took you 57 pages??

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And it took you 57 pages??

I didn't know there was a specific cutoff.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No worries.
Nonexistence means no calories..
Right?

The nonexistence diet. Live well through nonexistence.

 

[setarcos]

Evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. How many thousands of times do you need to be told this?

While I understand your arguments I take exception to the phrase "does not rely on". While the theory of Evolution proper, strictly speaking, is limited in its scope to actually existing life forms and therefore hasn't much to say about how life first arose we can conclude logically that again "strictly speaking" its very existence as a theory does rely on the fact that life did indeed have a beginning. That isn't to say though that that fact may add to or subtract from whether or not Evolutionary theory is true I'll grant you that.

 

[setarcos]

Evolution is observed.

This caught my eye. Couple of questions....what kind of evolution are you talking about and give an example of that observation please. I do so enjoy these good natured give and take questions and answers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

While I understand your arguments I take exception to the phrase "does not rely on". While the theory of Evolution proper, strictly speaking, is limited in its scope to actually existing life forms and therefore hasn't much to say about how life first arose we can conclude logically that again "strictly speaking" its very existence as a theory does rely on the fact that life did indeed have a beginning. That isn't to say though that that fact may add to or subtract from whether or not Evolutionary theory is true I'll grant you that.

Then you have not been following the argument, or perhaps the context. Yes, life had a beginning. I have never denied that. It is necessary for the theory. He has been complaining about natural abiogenesis. There was some sort of abiogenesis event. Even he believes that.. But he believes in a magical event where God spoke a spell and poofed life into existence. A god, if one existed, could have magically poofed the first cell into existence and evolution took over after that.

So a beginning? Yes. But it doesn't have to be natural. It was almost certainly natural, but evolution would work with a magical start too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This caught my eye. Couple of questions....what kind of evolution are you talking about and give an example of that observation please. I do so enjoy these good natured give and take questions and answers.

A question first. If you were shown a series of photos, shown in proper chronological order, of a baby growing from infant to adult, say a thousand photos. Would you count that as a form of observation?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

A question first. If you were shown a series of photos, shown in proper chronological order, of a baby growing from infant to adult, say a thousand photos. Would you count that as a form of observation?

There were no cameras. Big fail.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There were no cameras. Big fail.

You do not understand the concept of analogy. Big fail.

 

[setarcos]

So a beginning? Yes. But it doesn't have to be natural

Fair enough. I simply took exception to your phrase. Perhaps it was nitpicking on my part. Seems you understand the implications though.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fair enough. I simply took exception to your phrase. Perhaps it was nitpicking on my part. Seems you understand the implications though.

Yes,I may not have said it in that post, but in previous responses I made his error clear. Many many times. So I do not always repeat the full argument. I can understand your objection, you probably have not been following this thread too closely. A wise move on your part.

 

[setarcos]

A question first. If you were shown a series of photos, shown in proper chronological order, of a baby growing from infant to adult, say a thousand photos. Would you count that as a form of observation?

I would consider that an observation yes. An observation that would take some analysis though, in order to glean some meaning out of it. Most of the time that analysis is done automatically and subconsciously. Humans are very good at assuming what seems obvious.
For instance, to be duly diligent I would have to somehow show that the photos were indeed in proper chronological order, that they weren't artificially altered or incomplete in some fashion, and that the baby observed in the early photos is indeed the same being as the adult being observed in the later photos.
We usually don't take the time, or have the time, to fill in those details though so we take it all for granted...a good portion of the time.
I would definitely say that it was an observation though to answer your question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would consider that an observation yes. An observation that would take some analysis though, in order to glean some meaning out of it. Most of the time that analysis is done automatically and subconsciously. Humans are very good at assuming what seems obvious.
For instance, to be duly diligent I would have to somehow show that the photos were indeed in proper chronological order, that they weren't artificially altered or incomplete in some fashion, and that the baby observed in the early photos is indeed the same being as the adult being observed in the later photos.
We usually don't take the time, or have the time, to fill in those details though so we take it all for granted...a good portion of the time.
I would definitely say that it was an observation though to answer your question.

Those precautions are all reasonable.

One way that we can observe evolution is through the fossil record. There are millions of fossil species and confirming chronological order is of utmost importance. It is never assumed.

 

[setarcos]

There are millions of fossil species

Yes. But relating one observed fossil species as the originator of another fossil of a unique species requires a lot of speculative reasoning. Sort of like comparing two pictures of babies and determining by the pictures whether the babies were related or not. Or taking a picture of an adult from 1950 and comparing it to a picture of a child from 2023 and determining if the child were a descendent of the adult. Same skin color, same hair style, same bone structure, same eye color, look vaguely similar...must be related. Of course I'm aware this analogy is childishly simplistic but you get the idea. Fossil relationships are purely speculative.

confirming chronological order is of utmost importance.

I would agree except for the "never assumed part". There are assumptions in the fossil record.
I have read instances where a supposed ascendant species fossil has been discovered which predates its supposed descendant. And as I noted in an earlier post the fossil record seems to show the exact opposite of what the evolutionary theory would expect to produce. That is a bottom-up development of taxonomic hierarchy. Instead we seemingly see a bottom-down hierarchy from the fossil record.
In reality I think there's precious little "fact" to be gleaned from the fossil record as far as a descendant or ascendant relationship goes.
As with anything though, I may be wrong.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Yes. But relating one observed fossil species as the originator of another fossil of a unique species requires a lot of speculative reasoning. Sort of like comparing two pictures of babies and determining by the pictures whether the babies were related or not. Or taking a picture of an adult from 1950 and comparing it to a picture of a child from 2023 and determining if the child were a descendent of the adult. Same skin color, same hair style, same bone structure, same eye color, look vaguely similar...must be related. Of course I'm aware this analogy is childishly simplistic but you get the idea. Fossil relationships are purely speculative.

I would agree except for the "never assumed part". There are assumptions in the fossil record.
I have read instances where a supposed ascendant species fossil has been discovered which predates its supposed descendant. And as I noted in an earlier post the fossil record seems to show the exact opposite of what the evolutionary theory would expect to produce. That is a bottom-up development of taxonomic hierarchy. Instead we seemingly see a bottom-down hierarchy from the fossil record.
In reality I think there's precious little "fact" to be gleaned from the fossil record as far as a descendant or ascendant relationship goes.
As with anything though, I may be wrong.

But the worldwide flood ends this line of speculation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes. But relating one observed fossil species as the originator of another fossil of a unique species requires a lot of speculative reasoning. Sort of like comparing two pictures of babies and determining by the pictures whether the babies were related or not. Or taking a picture of an adult from 1950 and comparing it to a picture of a child from 2023 and determining if the child were a descendent of the adult. Same skin color, same hair style, same bone structure, same eye color, look vaguely similar...must be related. Of course I'm aware this analogy is childishly simplistic but you get the idea. Fossil relationships are purely speculative.

Not really. What you are arguing is a strawman version of what scientists do. "Speculation" is definitely the wrong term to use. For example they very rarely claim that Species A was the ancestor of Species B, unless that is strongly supported by evidence. The term for most fossils is that of transitional species. A transitional species has some of the traits of an older form and some of a younger form. t is not considered "proof positive" of direct decent. But it is still evidence for evolution since the existence of transitional species is predicted by the theory. It is indicative of a relationship. Probably most of the time what we see are "uncle or aunt" species (definitely not an official term since I just made that up myself). Rather than a species being a direct ancestor of others most of what we find will be merely related to the ancestor. As chimps are related to us.

If you ever look closely at cladograms a proper one always has the species slightly off to the side indicating that we do not know for sure if it was ancestral.

I would agree except for the "never assumed part". There are assumptions in the fossil record.
I have read instances where a supposed ascendant species fossil has been discovered which predates its supposed descendant. And as I noted in an earlier post the fossil record seems to show the exact opposite of what the evolutionary theory would expect to produce. That is a bottom-up development of taxonomic hierarchy. Instead we seemingly see a bottom-down hierarchy from the fossil record.

You need some specific examples. You may be confused. The popular press often get concept wrong. For example, Tiktaalik it still a transitional form, even though we have found older more terrestrial fossils than it. There is no law that says that a species has to go extinct. The tiktaalik fossils that have been found are almost certainly not ancestral. But they are still transitional. They still have the traits of both older and younger species. That is why I asked for specific examples. It is the pattern of the fossils that show evolution. We do not have to see the exact path to know that it happened.

In reality I think there's precious little "fact" to be gleaned from the fossil record as far as a descendant or ascendant relationship goes.
As with anything though, I may be wrong.

That is somewhat true. There are no "absolute" ancestors or descendants. That idea comes from the popular press. It is simpler to get the idea across that way, but errors are introduced. What we see are relatives of the ancestors and descendants usually. But that does not mean that fossils are not clear evidence for evolution.

 

[setarcos]

But the worldwide flood ends this line of speculation.

Not necessarily. Presumably fossils would have been deposited before, during, and after the so called great flood. Since Noah would have collected a snapshot of the genetic diversity of animal life at the time and we can speculate other species that were capable may have survived outside of the ark the processes of evolution would continue from there with little interruption other than the natural limitations that's been proposed above.
Or.....maybe I don't understand what you mean by or how it would have "ended that line of speculation"?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Not necessarily. Presumably fossils would have been deposited before, during, and after the so called great flood. Since Noah would have collected a snapshot of the genetic diversity of animal life at the time and we can speculate other species that were capable may have survived outside of the ark the processes of evolution would continue from there with little interruption other than the natural limitations that's been proposed above.
Or.....maybe I don't understand what you mean by or how it would have "ended that line of speculation"?

They did not survive outside the ark,

 

[John53]

Noah had fish and marine mammals on the ark!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Noah had fish and marine mammals on the ark!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not according to Genesis 6-7