The Theory of Evolution is supported by the evidence.

[The_Evelyonian]

Why didn't he just say he didn't want to discuss the subject 59 pages ago? I don't understand some people. But then, my salvation isn't dependent on denying reality.

I think he was just intent on confusing the subject. YEC's are big on trying connect Evolution to Atheism and Abiogenesis. I don't think he wanted to attack Evolution directly but rather attack the other two. Probably because he thinks that they would be easier to refute.
He tried several different methods to get there but you just kept on with Evolution, Evolution, Evolution (I applaud your patience by the way).
Finally, I think he realized that he wouldn't be allowed to make the connections and he left.

 

[Autodidact]

I think he was just intent on confusing the subject. YEC's are big on trying connect Evolution to Atheism and Abiogenesis. I don't think he wanted to attack Evolution directly but rather attack the other two. Probably because he thinks that they would be easier to refute.
He tried several different methods to get there but you just kept on with Evolution, Evolution, Evolution (I applaud your patience by the way).
Finally, I think he realized that he wouldn't be allowed to make the connections and he left.

Oh, I see. Yeah, that makes sense. It must be hard to base your life on denying science.

 

[Autodidact]

O.K. but explain me this. If you really, really, don't want to know about the evidence, then why create so many posts asserting that there isn't any? I mean, that's just plain dishonest.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Presuppositions are crumbled thru reason.

Well yours certainly aren't.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

O.K. but explain me this. If you really, really, don't want to know about the evidence, then why create so many posts asserting that there isn't any? I mean, that's just plain dishonest.

I know this one from my time as a YEC, as well as speaking to other YEC's about that very subject.

YEC's make those assertions, that the evidence doesn't exist, because that's what they honestly believe. They actually think it's not only possible for science to conspire to hide evidence for creationism and fabricate evidence for evolution but they believe that that's exactly what's going on.

The sickest part of it is, when they come on to a site like this and post that the evidence doesn't exist, the responses that they get claiming that they're wrong, delusional, dishonest, etc. actually strengthen their belief that they're right, that the evidence for evolution doesn't exist.

"They wouldn't be fighting me so hard if I wasn't right."

"Look how upset they get. They'll question my faith but they don't like it when someone questions theirs"

"See, if the evidence for evolution was so strong, they wouldn't need to fight so hard to protect it."

Any legitimate evidence that is posted is ignored. Remember, they honestly believe that science is conspiring against them, therefore any scientific evidence comes straight from the mouth of the serpent.

Honestly, YEC's have some of the most bizarre logic (if it can be called that) I've ever seen. They are really in a class all their own.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

It must be hard to base your life on denying science.

Ignorance is the key there.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

After these questions are settled then we can resume the debate in the evolution thread.

Resume the debate? Did you say "resume" the debate?

On a technicality, I would offer that the debate must "commence" before it can "resume".

 

[Tristesse]

I think the pregnancy is an important part of human life. Seems you like to steer clear of the things you can't answer. If we need another thread for you to answer my last two questions, then giddyup.

Her point was that your questions have nothing to do with evolution. And given that this thread is about evolution her objection sands. But that aside, you do realize that not all creatures need a partner to reproduce? there are asexual species that reproduce without sex.

 

[Tristesse]

I'm done here. We need to talk about abiogenesis, and the method by which the first cell converted energy into food. After these questions are settled then we can resume the debate in the evolution thread.

START A THREAD ABOUT ABIOGENESIS! This isn't the place for it. But if you're interested in abiogenesis I suggest you look up the miller urey experiments. Those experiments demonstrated that under the right conditions, it is possible to get life from non-life, or the basic building blocks for life.

 

[Commoner]

OK, but I think we have the cart before the horse. Before we discuss evolution any further I think we need a plausible scenario for abiogenesis as to how it could happen.

Really? You just went through 60 pages of everyone explaining to you that abiogenisis is not the topic and that we're not discussing how life got started...

You know, that's pretty bad, any way you look at it.

 

[Autodidact]

Has there ever been an experiment where chemicals formed a living cell? Has there ever been an experiment where pond scum came to life. If evolution can be observed we should be able to observe such demonstrations.

Ok, now you're speaking of a different scientific study. Abiogenesis. Which says nothing about evolution. Please stick to the subject at hand.

I don't know, why you don't you start a thread about abiogenesis and we can talk about it?

So do you actually not know that abiogenesis is a completely different subject than evolution, or are you also dishonest?

What is the first stage of evolution?

Single-celled organisms.

The thread is about the evidence supporting the theory of evolution. You are straying off into abiogenesis, which is another question altogether (which, of course, you already know, since you obviously spend so much time studying biology).

I'll lay it out for you one more time, since I've only been on this forum for about 2 days. Everyone else is probably sick to death correcting you on this.

Evolution states that species will change over time due to environmental pressures, which will select for beneficial mutations. Evolution makes no statement about the origin of life. That theory is called abiogenesis.

The amoeba poofed out of thin air ? Science does know how the first amoeba came about don't they?

If you are interested in the subject of abiogenesis, please start a thread. This one is about evolution. I'm assuming you have nothing to say on that subject?

Now, Danmac, did you not know this, or did you know it and not care? That is, are you ignorant, or dishonest?

I am sure you meant to say the first self replicating molecules or perhaps Ur-cells.
But that would be abiogenesis, a biochemical event. Not evolutionary biology.

The Story of Evolution​

Once upon a time, (a few hundred million years ago), there lived a little one-celledanimal called "Amoeba". No one really knew where Amoeba had come from

You seem fascinated by abiogenesis. I agree, it's an interesting, although speculative area. I suggest you start a thread to discuss it.

As for ToE, we can assume that the first living thing was magically poofed into existence by your God and still have the entire ToE.

2) Yes, scientists do understand how this life arose. It is called abiogenesis. If you wish to discuss this further, start a new thread.

OK, but I think we have the cart before the horse. Before we discuss evolution any further I think we need a plausible scenario for abiogenesis as to how it could happen.

Abiogenesis is irrelevant when discussing evolution. Because whether or not abiogenesis happened has no barring on whether or not evolution happens.

How can you have evolution without abiogenesis?

You can. Evolution can occur without abiogenesis. Ask most religious people who accept evolution, most of them believe that "god" got it started, so, abiogenesis really doesn't have any bearing on the issue.

No, we don't. It doesn't matter how life got started, ToE is still correct.

Tell you what, let's assume that God magically poofed the first living thing into existence, O.K.?

Now can we talk about evolution?

What I want to know is, if your goal is to avoid discussing evolution, why are you in this thread?

As soon as you have imperfect replication and limited resources, you have evolution, regardless of how life got started.

How about we get an answer to my last to questions before we proceed any further.

EVOLUTION.
This is a thread about evolution. Anything else is off topic. I thought you agreed to stick to that subject? Oh, that's right, your word means nothing to you. I forgot.

If you want to talk about abiogenesis, you should start a thread.

I'm done here. We need to talk about abiogenesis ... After these questions are settled then we can resume the debate in the evolution thread.

Danmac: in training for the olympic squirming event.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Here Danmac, since you were unable or unwilling to start your own thread on Abiogenesis, I took the liberty.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/97944-danmac-abiogenesis.html

Maybe now this thread can stay on the topic of Evolution

 

[fantome profane]

Definitely a circle.

um… actually…










[FONT=&quot]it’s a parallelogram.[/FONT]

 

[David M]

Strange no one pointed out Danmac's error here.

You are reducing humans to mere animals when you agree with the one common ancestor theory. God created humans as the highest from of life. The "only" species that possesses morality.

hmm, I can't post links yet.

The telegraph in the UK has an article published a year ago titled "Animals can tell rigt from wrong"

it contains just a brief precis of some of the occurences of morality observed in animals, here is one example they give:

CHIMPANZEES
Known to be among the most cognitively advanced of the great apes and our closest cousin, it is perhaps not surprising that scientists should suggest they live by moral codes.


A chimpanzee known as Knuckles – from the Centre for Great Apes in Florida – is the only known captive chimpanzee to suffer from cerebral palsy, which leaves him physically and mentally handicapped.



Scientists have found that other chimpanzees in his group treat him differently and he is rarely subjected to intimidating displays of aggression from older males.



Chimpanzees also demonstrate a sense of justice and those who deviate from the code of conduct of a group are set upon by other members as punishment.

But even if he return to this thread I expect he will ignore the evidence that he is wrong.

 

[David M]

As that was my 15th post I can now give you the linky.

Animals can tell right from wrong - Telegraph

 

[Danmac]

Here Danmac, since you were unable or unwilling to start your own thread on Abiogenesis, I took the liberty.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/97944-danmac-abiogenesis.html

Maybe now this thread can stay on the topic of Evolution

All for me? Thank you. Now I will take my ball and go to my own thread. You guys have fun patronizing one another.

 

[Danmac]

I'll lay it out for you one more time, since I've only been on this forum for about 2 days. Everyone else is probably sick to death correcting you on this.

I have my own abiogenesis thread now, but one last thing before I go. Your resistance to talk about abiogenisis is just a red herring to keep the discussion away from evolution. You evolutionists want to start the race from the fifty yard line. I'm sorry, but that's cheating. You cannot have evolution unless you have something to evolve. Peace:jam:

 

[The Voice of Reason]

All for me? Thank you. Now I will take my ball and go to my own thread. You guys have fun patronizing one another.

I thought you'd go at least 50 pages, while dodging, ignoring, twisting, and misquoting sources - all in an effort to avoid learning anything. You really dissapoint me, Danmac. More importantly, you dissapoint the Lord.


Remember - no one likes a quitter.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I have my own abiogenesis thread now, but one last thing before I go. Your resistance to talk about abiogenisis is just a red herring to keep the discussion away from evolution. You evolutionists want to start the race from the fifty yard line. I'm sorry, but that's cheating. You cannot have evolution unless you have something to evolve. Peace:jam:

That's telling 'em, Danny boy.

I knew you'd come back!

Don't let a little logic get in the way! Throw out the nonsequiturs like there's no tomorrow, and keep that head firmly in a dark, moist place! Fight the good fight! Why, I'm just sure God is smiling down on His creation!

 

[Commoner]

I have my own abiogenesis thread now, but one last thing before I go. Your resistance to talk about abiogenisis is just a red herring to keep the discussion away from evolution. You evolutionists want to start the race from the fifty yard line. I'm sorry, but that's cheating. You cannot have evolution unless you have something to evolve. Peace:jam:

Do you know how nonsensical that sentence is? Do you really not understand that abiogenesis is not evolution? Evolution is not contingent upon a specific hypothesis regarding how life got started - whether by abiogenesis or by divine spark or by something else entirely - it makes no difference.

It's almost impossible for you not to realize it, considering the number of times this had been pointed out to you. So you're doing it on purpose - you're intentionally being dishonest - now that's cheating.

Hope you're wrong about the heaven/hell thing.