Elements coming together and bumping into each other to form matter? Sounds like spontaneous generation
Elements are matter
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Elements coming together and bumping into each other to form matter? Sounds like spontaneous generation
To me it is just a semantic game, most evolutionists believe in abiogenesis too, so whether if you what to call it evolution or not, abiogenesis is still part of your world view and you still have to support it……… evolutionists tend ask questions about the ark and creationists usually don’t say “I won’t answer because the ark has nothing to do with the creation account”
To me it is obvious and easy to understand when creationist talk about “kinds” it is obvious that dogs and wolves are the same kind and Dogs and Bannanas are a different kind…….you are not quoting from a technical article, the article is meant to be a simple reading, for anyone to understand.
What you call evolution is widely accepted by all creationists, the problem is that what you call evolution does not necessarily imply common ancestry, nor that complex organs came from simpler organs by a process of random mutations and natural selection.
Really? I have yet to see a creationist correctly represent evolution. They tend to present a steady diet of strawman arguments. At least they are high in fiber.That might be true for some creationists, but in general IMO creationists tend to represent “evolution” correctly.
But in general terms I agree the article is silly.
There's no have to about it. The difference is that evolution by natural selection is an extremely well established scientific theory, whereas the mechanism of abiogenesis is unknown. An argument against (natural) abiogenesis has no bearing on the theory of evolution. If somebody wants to do a "god of the gaps" argument and accept evolution while maintaining that natural abiogenesis is impossible, they taking a radically different (and somewhat less absurd) view from those who deny evolution.
I dislike the word proof in the context but it's correct that evolution by natural selection and common decent is "proven" (or established) way beyond any reasonable doubt.
Not tautological, just blatantly obvious. If I let go of this rock it will fall down. What makes it not tautological is that it is testable. It is conceivably falsifiable, just as it is conceivable that a rock could fall up. That neither happens when tested does not mean that an idea is tautological.By that logic, evolutionist shouldn’t ask creationists about the global flood, because the global flood has nothing to do with “creation”…any argument against the flood has no bearing on whether if creation is true or not ….. the point that I am making is that usually evolutionists deny answering questions about abiogenist, but expect creationists to answer question about the flood.
I still see why is common descent beautiful parsimonious , elegant and the best explanation but I think there is room for reasonable doubt. After all we do find discordances in the tree of life.
As for evolution by natural selection, it is a tautology, it is circular logic,
1. Fitness determines survival.
2. Survival is proved by all the organisms that exist, or ever did.
3. Therefore, existence proves fitness, & all life-forms prove natural selection’s correctness.
This kind of circular proposition is as unshakably true (and unscientific) as the statement, “I am my mother’s son”.
As such, it is not scientific, since it’s unfalsifiable under ANY experimental test.”
By that logic, evolutionist shouldn’t ask creationists about the global flood, because the global flood has nothing to do with “creation”…any argument against the flood has no bearing on whether if creation is true or not ….. the point that I am making is that usually evolutionists deny answering questions about abiogenist, but expect creationists to answer question about the flood.
I still see why is common descent beautiful parsimonious , elegant and the best explanation but I think there is room for reasonable doubt. After all we do find discordances in the tree of life.
As for evolution by natural selection, it is a tautology, it is circular logic,
1. Fitness determines survival.
2. Survival is proved by all the organisms that exist, or ever did.
3. Therefore, existence proves fitness, & all life-forms prove natural selection’s correctness.
This kind of circular proposition is as unshakably true (and unscientific) as the statement, “I am my mother’s son”.
As such, it is not scientific, since it’s unfalsifiable under ANY experimental test.”
To me it is just a semantic game, most evolutionists believe in abiogenesis too, so whether if you what to call it evolution or not, abiogenesis is still part of your world view and you still have to support it……… evolutionists tend ask questions about the ark and creationists usually don’t say “I won’t answer because the ark has nothing to do with the creation account”Show me the statistics that support most evolutionists believe in abiogenesis. I do not believe in it. I accept the evidence that is available and sound and reasonable state of hypotheses that have been formulated. A natural process is the only thing that science can evaluate and coming up with hypotheses about that is reasonable and part of the scientific method. The fact is, we do not know how life originated.
Evolution is not dependent on abiogenesis for the origination of life.
Most of the time it is creationist claiming that the flood of Noah happened and others pointing out the lack of evidence, the history of the story, the inconsistencies and the impossibilities in response to those creationists.To me it is obvious and easy to understand when creationist talk about “kinds” it is obvious that dogs and wolves are the same kind and Dogs and Bannanas are a different kind…….you are not quoting from a technical article, the article is meant to be a simple reading, for anyone to understand.It is not obvious and dogs and wolves are not the same kind. Though they are related and there are similarities, there are many differences as well. Dogs have on average more copies of the gene for amylase than wolves do. This is a significant advantage consider the difference in diet between wolves and dogs.
Yes. I know. They are still dogs.
What you call evolution is widely accepted by all creationists,Not from what I have seen.
the problem is that what you call evolution does not necessarily imply common ancestry, nor that complex organs came from simpler organs by a process of random mutations and natural selection.That is exactly what is meant by evolution. Common ancestry. Change in populations over time. Natural selection. There is nothing else to the theoretical basis than those three things.
That might be true for some creationists, but in general IMO creationists tend to represent “evolution” correctly.I am still laughing at this. No creationist I have ever debated represents it correctly. They tend to misrepresent it, dismiss it without reason or twist it to some straw man that bears little resemblance to the theory and science.
But in general terms I agree the article is silly.The only point we agree on. I would say it is disturbing as well as silly. I did not know whether to laugh or feel sick.
The flood never happened. Now that the issue is settled, we no longer have to worry about anyone asking about it.By that logic, evolutionist shouldn’t ask creationists about the global flood, because the global flood has nothing to do with “creation”…any argument against the flood has no bearing on whether if creation is true or not ….. the point that I am making is that usually evolutionists deny answering questions about abiogenist, but expect creationists to answer question about the flood.
I read that as any doubt you can come up with regardless if it is reasonable or not.I still see why is common descent beautiful parsimonious , elegant and the best explanation but I think there is room for reasonable doubt.
So we can jump to the unsupported conclusion that evolution never happened or the theory is wrong? Where is the logic in that? When you see the term discordance in relation to the tree of life, do you understand what it means and the context?After all we do find discordances in the tree of life.
Scientists do not say that. Natural selection is not a tautology. Why does this silly claim keep popping up?As for evolution by natural selection, it is a tautology, it is circular logic,
1. Fitness determines survival.
2. Survival is proved by all the organisms that exist, or ever did.
3. Therefore, existence proves fitness, & all life-forms prove natural selection’s correctness.
It also is not used in science.This kind of circular proposition is as unshakably true (and unscientific) as the statement, “I am my mother’s son”.
Then it is a good thing that it is not the definition used in science.As such, it is not scientific, since it’s unfalsifiable under ANY experimental test.”
By that logic, evolutionist shouldn’t ask creationists about the global flood, because the global flood has nothing to do with “creation”…any argument against the flood has no bearing on whether if creation is true or not ….. the point that I am making is that usually evolutionists deny answering questions about abiogenist, but expect creationists to answer question about the flood.
I still see why is common descent beautiful parsimonious , elegant and the best explanation but I think there is room for reasonable doubt. After all we do find discordances in the tree of life.
As for evolution by natural selection, it is a tautology, it is circular logic,
1. Fitness determines survival.
2. Survival is proved by all the organisms that exist, or ever did.
3. Therefore, existence proves fitness, & all life-forms prove natural selection’s correctness.
This kind of circular proposition is as unshakably true (and unscientific) as the statement, “I am my mother’s son”.
As such, it is not scientific, since it’s unfalsifiable under ANY experimental test.”
What evidence for evolution do creationists try to explain with a flood?.... Explain what exactly do you mean by evolution in this context.Well the question of whether the universe was magicked into existence 6000 years ago is indeed a different one as to whether there was a global flood. However many creationists want to use the flood to 'explain' some of the evidence for evolution.
Where did you get that from? If it was from a creationist source that kind of makes the point that creationists misrepresent evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory that has nothing at all to do with the circular logic that you've given here.
As for falsifiability, as J. B. S. Haldane once pointed out, fossil rabbits in the Precambrian would falsify it. .
What evidence for evolution do creationists try to explain with a flood?
What do you mean by evolution in this other context?
what do you mean by evolution?
The fossil record.
Evolution by natural selection as the mechanism for producing the complexity and variety of life on earth, i.e. common descent.
Did you read the article?
Evolution : change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
I posted earlier in this thread about a few animals that are currently being observed evolving through mutation.
I would like to add the African elephant. Observed to be evolving a tuskless species due to natural selection. Those with smaller tusks have a better chance of surviving ivory poachers.
Using that definition of evolution, then no creationists would deny evolution.
That definition does not imply common ancestry nor that complex organs came from simpler organs by a proces of random mutations and natural selection.
The point is that creationists do not missrepresent evolution, the problem is that evolution has many different meanings .
You are mixing things, common descent could be true and evolution by natural selection wrong or viseverza , both are different and independent ideas.
The point is that creationists do not missrepresent evolution, the problem is that evolution has many different meanings .
Correct. Common descent and natural selection are independent, but related, theories.You are mixing things, common descent could be true and evolution by natural selection wrong or viseverza , both are different and independent ideas.
They claim that the fossils, especially those found on uplifted mountains, are evidence of animals killed in the flood. They also make claims about the number of animals that were on the ark and speculate that all the diversity has evolved from a small number of animals on the ark or embryos, or juvenile animals on the ark. It is all silly.Exactly what evidence for evolution in the fossil record is explained by a flood by creationists ?
I agree.The Lie of Evolution and the Stupidity of Those Who Believe It | Wisdom of God
Just couldn't resist talking about this. This is kind of silly.
For example...
Yet never have elements, nor molecules, nor dirt, nor rocks, nor even water made themselves form into living organisms
Evolution doesn't cover abiogenesis.
Meaning only one pair of a male and female of the kind “dog” was created, only one pair of a male and female of the kind “horse” was created, and from these parent kinds, came forth many varieties within their kinds.
Evolution isn't about a dog birthing a completely new breed. It is about a gradual change in each species. Depending on environment an external forces, some changes allow better chances for survival and just because they survive better and procreate more, that genetic trait becomes dominant in the species.
The big problem here IMO is these folks have a strawman idea idea of what evolution is and are stuck on attacking the strawman instead evolution.
I agree.
many theists don't bother taking the time to understand what evolution is, yet they claim it is false.
Unfortunately, the same goes for many atheists who make the same claims about God
The Lie of Evolution and the Stupidity of Those Who Believe It | Wisdom of God
Just couldn't resist talking about this. This is kind of silly.
For example...
Yet never have elements, nor molecules, nor dirt, nor rocks, nor even water made themselves form into living organisms
Evolution doesn't cover abiogenesis.
Meaning only one pair of a male and female of the kind “dog” was created, only one pair of a male and female of the kind “horse” was created, and from these parent kinds, came forth many varieties within their kinds.
Evolution isn't about a dog birthing a completely new breed. It is about a gradual change in each species. Depending on environment an external forces, some changes allow better chances for survival and just because they survive better and procreate more, that genetic trait becomes dominant in the species.
The big problem here IMO is these folks have a strawman idea idea of what evolution is and are stuck on attacking the strawman instead evolution.