Why is evolution even still a debate?

[TagliatelliMonster]

And big deal if it wasn’t self sustaining, still a failure.
You don’t know what the environment was on ancient earth, just a guess.

Either you are being deliberately stubborn, or you're really not getting it.

The point is that there IS a natural chemical pathway by which the building blocks of life can spontaneously form in nature. Complex organic molecules that creationists like to call "too complex" to occur naturally and that some god had to "make" them.

The fact is that they quite happily can and do form naturally all the time.
Even in space.

It's been some 70 years since that experiment. Bio-chemistry hasn't stood still in the meantime.
Miller is very very very old news.

It seems you still haven't caught up.

 

[rational experiences]

The topic is evolution, which concerns the origins of species. It concerns processes existing life is subject to.
Scope: it matters.

And yes, the origins of life are currently unknown (which doesn't mean that we are completely clueless about it - there's quite a lot of stuff we do know about abiogenesis).

The history of a man isn't a human topic. It is chosen as a subject discussed by humans as humans.

It will only ever be beliefs of human's always.

Topic human topic I believe in evolution is chosen only by humans.

As machines did not invent presence.

No machine just earth plus it's heavens with present humans choose the topics.

A belief is a subject chosen to be discussed by a human with humans as human thinking conditions.

The subject does not exist by itself hu man's infer it does.

By thinking only. Thinking only displaces the subject by being human relative human knowing I exist I'm human ...to a thesis by a human.

No human life as consciousness human knows as we biologically all die.

No human no subject to argue by choice a human thinker.

No machines either so subjects used as machine studies by human's are non existent also.

The human says if human's died out animals having sex would continue life by animal baby births. Knowing all observations humans as complete death biology. Animals pregnant continue animal life.

With no human theorising.

Not owning any status as a human... I look back pretending I know everything as only a human.

Looking back in time a human by term human is destroyed totally when science theories fused cold dusts in a fission reaction. Actually as comparing human living biology to a ground reaction.

 

[rational experiences]

Either you are being deliberately stubborn, or you're really not getting it.

The point is that there IS a natural chemical pathway by which the building blocks of life can spontaneously form in nature. Complex organic molecules that creationists like to call "too complex" to occur naturally and that some god had to "make" them.

The fact is that they quite happily can and do form naturally all the time.
Even in space.

It's been some 70 years since that experiment. Bio-chemistry hasn't stood still in the meantime.
Miller is very very very old news.

It seems you still haven't caught up.

Do you forget that ground earth water with microbes evaporates above to water mass cool star particle and gas burning causes that leaves with earths water but becomes heavy so falls to the ground.

Humans a whole lot of humans only lie. Claim it's proof about life.

The proof is that the presence sun star took water life away from us. Earth owned only.

Is not how you discuss the topic as you wanted life to have begun in space as you wanted a new resource themed that you aligned to a humans subject atmosphere experiment term.

I will finally know everything you already agreed and wanted.

All applied by humans with greedy wants my machine must have life in its future.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Of course!!! Anyone who doesn't agree with what you believe is "science" simply doesn't understand it.

Even if one doesn't argue facts with an expert they are still wrong if they interpret evidence or experiment differently.

It has absolutely nothing to do with what I personally believe is 'science'. Valid science is determined by a vigorous scientific method carried out by individuals educated in this methodology. It is a methodology that has been by far the most successful way human beings have thus far come up with for accurately determining how the universe functions.

It all depends on what you mean by interpret evidence or experiment differently. If it means that they misinterpret evidence or use faulty experimentation methods that don't conform to the scientific method then yes, they are wrong.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I don't even own a clam. Lighten up buttercup.

Sure thing Tinkerbelle.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Either you are being deliberately stubborn, or you're really not getting it.

The point is that there IS a natural chemical pathway by which the building blocks of life can spontaneously form in nature. Complex organic molecules that creationists like to call "too complex" to occur naturally and that some god had to "make" them.

The fact is that they quite happily can and do form naturally all the time.
Even in space.

It's been some 70 years since that experiment. Bio-chemistry hasn't stood still in the meantime.
Miller is very very very old news.

It seems you still haven't caught up.

Seems all they’ve managed to accomplish is bio warfare.

 

[ElishaElijah]

The miller experiment created complex organic molecules which serve as the building blocks of life.
It didn't create life.

Well yeah and what I meant, apparently giving more credit than due, the point is though abiogenesis concept is a bust as of now.
Genesis 1 is what I see as the only viable option and is known by the spiritual law of faith as Hebrews 11 defines

 

[Valjean]

Well then I think that’s the closest scientists have come, yet you believe in the natural process apart from God is the answer to life.

Science is an ongoing research project. First a thing is unknown, then partially known, then well known. The Big Bang is partially known.
There are two processes:
Nature is observable, testable and involves mechanisms dictated by the fixed laws and constants of physics.
Magic has never been observed, is untestable, involves no mechanism and operates independent of the laws of physics.

Nature is familiar and observable fact. Magic is fantasy. Which is the more reason-able basis for belief?

God? More fantasy. Please show me any observable, or testable, or necessary evidence for this invisible, magical being.
Till a god is established as a factor, in anything, I'll reserve judgement.

By the way, this is a religious forum so brush up on the terminology, magic is satanic and just a counterfeit to the living God and Creator of the Universe.

Magic is effect without mechanism; effect independent of the laws of nature.
Magic is the primary mechanism underlying most religious doctrine. A miracle is magic. The Bible's full of miracles.

 

[Valjean]

You know every kid should be properly “home schooled “, whether they go to public, private school or not. Maybe that was where you went off course in your communication and ethics.

I think I'm communicating pretty clearly. As for my ethics, Seriously? What do you know of my ethics? I'll bet I adhere more to "Christian values" than you do.

 

[Valjean]

And no life created as some have falsely said in the past. If scientist can’t even sustain that life form in a lab, no way could it be sustained in the
Universe apart from the life source - Jesus Christ.

Because technology hasn't advanced enough to create life, it must needs be a product of magic? How does that follow?
Life can't be sustained in the universe without a magical creator? This is your reasoning? This explains anything?
Do you know what a non-sequitur or false dilemma is?

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.”
‭‭Colossians‬ ‭1:15-18‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

Why are you quoting religious scripture? What does this have to do with reality?

This is one reason why we call this the religious forum and not the science forum. Science cannot explain much about life.

Religion "explains" nothing about life, it only adduces an agent. Only science offers any explanation. Only science proposes a mechanism.
Sorry, but you've got it all backwards.

So a 'religious forum' should exclude facts, evidence, reason or logic?
OK, that seems fair enough. Religion involves none of these things.

But is Religious Forums really a sounding board for the religious, or is it something more... ecumenical?

 

[Valjean]

This is a religious forum and The Bible is the true account of Creation so I do have my science right.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Because technology hasn't advanced enough to create life, it must needs be a product of magic? How does that follow?
Life can't be sustained in the universe without a magical creator? This is your reasoning? This explains anything?
Do you know what a non-sequitur or false dilemma is?

Like I said Magic is satanic and a counterfeit to the authentic Creator who has life in Himself, created and sustains His creation as recorded in Scripture.

 

[Brian2]

Do you think it was written for the people of India, and China, and Japan, and other Pacific nations even though they had their own narratives, texts, beliefs, rituals, and religions?

Yes the Bible tells the truth to all peoples.

The two Genesis myths don't agree with each other, don't agree with evolution, and no Gods are known to exist. So three strikes to finish your post.

I see the 2 accounts as agreeing because the 2nd is not an account of all of creation, it is just a focus on the creation of man and what happened to man.
If you take note you can see that God started forming the man even before the plants were in the ground. This was not on day 6 but maybe on day 3 of Genesis 1. So God started to form the body of man (in an evolutionary sense) that early in the creation. Maybe the beginning was the organising of molecules that could eventually become the first animals.

 

[Brian2]

That's why we keep saying y'all don't understand. We do see new life happening all around us.

I don't see any new kinds of animals being produced. All the kinds were produced on day 6 of creation and man was the last kind.

 

[Brian2]

Biology isn't the only reason Genesis can't be true.

Genesis fits nothing of what we know of how the universe, our solar system, and Earth came to be.

First we see the days of Genesis 1 as long periods of time.
Then we see that there were clouds on the earth and ocean near the beginning, which science and the Bible tell us.
Then we see the land being formed and the atmosphere as the Bible and science tell us.
Then we see the first life being plants as science and the Bible tell us.
In ways like that and realising that what the Bible is telling us is what God did initially in embryonic form and which has been changing and evolving ever since into what we have now.

 

[Brian2]

Assuming that you mean the theory of biological evolution, the two narratives contradict one another in several places such that they cannot both be factual. If Genesis is correct, Darwin was wrong, and vice versa. If animals (kinds) appeared on earth without prior evolution, then Darwin is wrong. If Darwin is correct, the appeared over eons from a last common ancestral cellular population. Both of these did not happen, making one of them incorrect. If you think otherwise, please make the argument that shows that they could both be correct.

In Genesis God does not tell us how He formed and created the plants and animals so I don't think you can say it did not happen through evolution.
But of course the initial creation of the molecules and environment and the giving of life and the making of the DNA system of data storage and use etc etc are all works of God, as is probably a rearranging and or adding to the DNA at various stages etc etc. God does not go into detail about how He did it, as I said, but Darwinianism seems compatible with the Bible except that God is definitely a needed mechanism along the way.
There always has to be things that God did that science does not tell us God did. Science does not mention God.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't see any new kinds of animals being produced. All the kinds were produced on day 6 of creation and man was the last kind.

Except that if go into the fossil record, there were no cats or dogs or elephants or giraffes 60 million years ago. Those are ALL 'new kinds' that have been produced since life got started.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Except that if go into the fossil record, there were no cats or dogs or elephants or giraffes 60 million years ago. Those are ALL 'new kinds' that have been produced since life got started.

Have you considered that the dating method could be wrong?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Seems all they’ve managed to accomplish is bio warfare.

And "woooosh!" once again.

 

[Polymath257]

Have you considered that the dating method could be wrong?

Of course. That is why it is tested and investigated. We know *when* and *how* it can go wrong and only look at samples where those conditions don't hold. Different dating methods are subject to different issues. When they all agree, we can have a good amount of confidence in their results.

A dating method, say KAr dating, can be wrong. In the case of KAr, it can give artificially *low* ages because Argon is a gas and can leak out of the sample. Porous rocks are not generally used for this method because of that effect.

But, even for a porous rock, we can have a general idea. The date given won't be off by a factor of 2.

But, and this is also important, the absolute dates are not even as relevant for my argument above as the relative dates. We know that at some point in the past, dogs, cats, elephants, and giraffes simply did not exist (other animals did). Now, all of those do exist. So there are 'new kinds' that have arisen since life got started (even quite late in the process). The specific dates are less relevant than the order in which species appear.

THAT ALONE is enough to show the evolution happened.