Why the theory of evolution is so important

[MJFlores]

Non-life does not 'make' living things, and this foolishly anthropomorphic. Life evolved from non-life in what is called abiogenesis, and at present it is the only viable hypothesis based on the evidence.

Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

Non-life does not 'make' living things

 

[Polymath257]

Non-life does not 'make' living things

Of course it does. None of the atoms in your body is alive. Yet the combination of them *is* alive. That is an example of non-living things making living things.

The only difference is that in abiogenesis the non-living things build up in complexity until they are alive.

 

[shunyadragon]

Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

Non-life does not 'make' living things

Oh my! Oh so true of of your responses with mindless cartoons and silly pictures, but I guess this is best you can do. Science is apparently beyond your comprehension.

 

[shunyadragon]

Of course it does. None of the atoms in your body is alive. Yet the combination of them *is* alive. That is an example of non-living things making living things.

The only difference is that in abiogenesis the non-living things build up in complexity until they are alive.

I have objected to his sarcastic anthropomorphic rhetoric that things are 'made' in nature.

 

[MJFlores]

Non-life does not 'make' living things, and this foolishly anthropomorphic. Life evolved from non-life in what is called abiogenesis, and at present it is the only viable hypothesis based on the evidence.

Of course it does. None of the atoms in your body is alive. Yet the combination of them *is* alive. That is an example of non-living things making living things.

The only difference is that in abiogenesis the non-living things build up in complexity until they are alive.

Now I am confused....see how confusing it is?

So I took the liberty of googling something up.

"You are alive, and so am I. The dog I can hear barking is alive, and so is the tree outside my window. However, snow falling from the clouds is not alive. The computer you’re using to read this article is not alive, and neither is a chair or table. The parts of a chair that are made of wood were once alive, but they aren’t any longer. If you were to burn the wood in a fire, the fire would not be alive either.

What is it that defines life? How can we tell that one thing is alive and another is not? Most people have an intuitive understanding of what it means for something to be alive. However, it’s surprisingly hard to come up with a precise definition of life. Because of this, many definitions of life are operational definitions—they allow us to separate living things from nonliving ones, but they don’t actually pin down what life is."

What is life?

But afterwards, it is still confusing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now I am confused....see how confusing it is?

So I took the liberty of googling something up.

"You are alive, and so am I. The dog I can hear barking is alive, and so is the tree outside my window. However, snow falling from the clouds is not alive. The computer you’re using to read this article is not alive, and neither is a chair or table. The parts of a chair that are made of wood were once alive, but they aren’t any longer. If you were to burn the wood in a fire, the fire would not be alive either.

What is it that defines life? How can we tell that one thing is alive and another is not? Most people have an intuitive understanding of what it means for something to be alive. However, it’s surprisingly hard to come up with a precise definition of life. Because of this, many definitions of life are operational definitions—they allow us to separate living things from nonliving ones, but they don’t actually pin down what life is."

What is life?

But afterwards, it is still confusing.

Then perhaps you should learn a bit more before saying that something can or cannot be done.

 

[Polymath257]

Now I am confused....see how confusing it is?

So I took the liberty of googling something up.

"You are alive, and so am I. The dog I can hear barking is alive, and so is the tree outside my window. However, snow falling from the clouds is not alive. The computer you’re using to read this article is not alive, and neither is a chair or table. The parts of a chair that are made of wood were once alive, but they aren’t any longer. If you were to burn the wood in a fire, the fire would not be alive either.

What is it that defines life? How can we tell that one thing is alive and another is not? Most people have an intuitive understanding of what it means for something to be alive. However, it’s surprisingly hard to come up with a precise definition of life. Because of this, many definitions of life are operational definitions—they allow us to separate living things from nonliving ones, but they don’t actually pin down what life is."

What is life?

But afterwards, it is still confusing.

No matter what, those things that are alive are made from atoms. And those atoms are not alive. So, non-living things can give rise to life.

It really is that easy.

 

[MJFlores]

No matter what, those things that are alive are made from atoms. And those atoms are not alive. So, non-living things can give rise to life.

It really is that easy.

Living things are composed of atoms
Non living things are composed of atoms
Therefore Living things are Non living things.

 

[Polymath257]

View attachment 28245

Living things are composed of atoms
Non living things are composed of atoms
Therefore Living things are Non living things.

Nope. That does not follow. What *does* follow is that both living things and non-living things are composed of atoms. And that is true.

The key to being alive isn't the composition, but the arrangement of the parts and how they interact.

 

[MJFlores]

The key to being alive isn't the composition, but the arrangement of the parts and how they interact.

How they interact - OK DO KI

an energy field created by all living things.
It surrounds us, penetrates us,
and binds the galaxy together.

Have a good day.

 

[Polymath257]

How they interact - OK DO KI

an energy field created by all living things.
It surrounds us, penetrates us,
and binds the galaxy together.

View attachment 28246

Have a good day.

All energy is the energy of some particle. And yes, when we study atoms, it is one collection of atoms studying another. Is that a problem?

 

[MJFlores]

All energy is the energy of some particle. And yes, when we study atoms, it is one collection of atoms studying another. Is that a problem?

I with you here.
Just following the flow...

 

[SkepticThinker]

ONLY God could have possibly Authored the Book of Genesis and got all the scientific details correct. No man of 3k years ago could have correctly told us the Big Bang was on the 3rd Day. (Gen. 2:4) That Adam, the first human was made long BEFORE our Solar system was made, (Gen. 2:4-7)... that every living creature, except humans, was created and brought forth from the water on Day 5, some 3.7 Billion years ago, in man's time. Only God knew and correctly showed that we live in a Multiverse. Gen. 1:6-8 and Gen. 2:4

Then, God gives us the Formula for passing Adam's superior intelligence to early man. When you mix the sons of god (Prehistoric man whose ERVs came from the common ancestor of Apes) and the descendants of Adam, today's modern humans are the offspring. That is HOW human civilization was spread to the whole Earth. Genesis 6:4

This event happened on the FIRST Heaven/Earth and it also happened on our present Earth when Noah's grandsons found - like Cain - that they had NO other humans to marry. They married and produced today's humans with the prehistoric people who were here when Noah arrived. This reveals that we will find life throughout the Universe where we find liquid water.

To be specific about ERVs, they show that prehistoric man did evolve from the common ancestor of Apes.....BUT....Humans did NOT. Humans were made billions of years BEFORE prehistoric man proving that we did Not evolve from any Ape. Humans are the descendants of Adam. Only Adam's descendants and God have the highest form of intelligence. Gen. 3;22

The Theory of Evolution is opposite of God's Truth and reveals that mankind will dream up anything in order to avoid facing God's Truth that ever man is appointed once to die and after that the Judgment. God is real and evolution is nothing more than Adaptation. Godless men have twisted scientific facts and are currently teaching their religious foolishness to our children. They don't believe God now, but soon, their knees will bow. That's God's Truth about ERVs. Refute it at your own peril for God is not mocked.

This is all a bunch of nonsense, unless and until you can demonstrate the veracity of any of these claims. Most of them don't even make sense, so good luck with that.

 

[shunyadragon]

Now I am confused....see how confusing it is?

So I took the liberty of googling something up.

"You are alive, and so am I. The dog I can hear barking is alive, and so is the tree outside my window. However, snow falling from the clouds is not alive. The computer you’re using to read this article is not alive, and neither is a chair or table. The parts of a chair that are made of wood were once alive, but they aren’t any longer. If you were to burn the wood in a fire, the fire would not be alive either.

What is it that defines life? How can we tell that one thing is alive and another is not? Most people have an intuitive understanding of what it means for something to be alive. However, it’s surprisingly hard to come up with a precise definition of life. Because of this, many definitions of life are operational definitions—they allow us to separate living things from nonliving ones, but they don’t actually pin down what life is."

What is life?

But afterwards, it is still confusing.

Your lack of basic science education, self-imposed ignorance of science, and being blinded by an archaic religious agenda leads to your confusion,

abiogenesis ends and evolution begins when self-sustained and reproduction of life begins primarily with the rise of viruses and other microbes.

 

[The Anointed]

Your lack of basic science education, self-imposed ignorance of science, and being blinded by an archaic religious agenda leads to your confusion,

abiogenesis ends and evolution begins when self-sustained and reproduction of life begins primarily with the rise of viruses and other microbes.

Yep, the wheel had to be created first, before the creator of the wheel could create the space station that evolved from the wheel.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yep, the wheel had to be created first, before the creator of the wheel could create the space station that evolved from the wheel.

The problem remains science. It is possible to consider the evidence in terms of natural causes or Creation by God, but you must consider the objective verifiable evidence of science. God does not Create contradiction in the evidence we literally see in our physical existence. Your cartoons and silly pictures will not change the evidence.

 

[The Anointed]

The problem remains science. It is possible to consider the evidence in terms of natural causes or Creation by God, but you must consider the objective verifiable evidence of science. God does not Create contradiction in the evidence we literally see in our physical existence. Your cartoons and silly pictures will not change the evidence.

So can your science explain how the eternal energy which has neither beginning or end, and which has become this entire universe and all herein, became the viruses and other microbes, which evolved into mankind in who develops the SON OF MAN, which was the very plan from the outset?.

 

[osgart]

Every side of this is hypothetical. An arrangement or configuration of atoms producing life is hypothetical.

 

[shunyadragon]

So can your science explain how the eternal energy which has neither beginning or end, and which has become this entire universe and all herein, became the viruses and other microbes, which evolved into mankind in who develops the SON OF MAN, which was the very plan from the outset?.

Are you proposing an 'argument from ignorance' to support your case? I simply appeal to the known evidence form the scientific perspective of the nature of our physical existence based on the knowledge of science through Methodological Naturalism, which makes no claims as to whether God exists and Created our existence, or our physical existence is simply eternal based on the Laws of Nature.

There is simply no evidence that our physical existence has a beginning nor end. At present the objective verifiable evidence of physics and Quantum Mechanics proposes different possible models for the nature of our universe and possible multiverse, beyond this we do not know..

 

[shunyadragon]

Every side of this is hypothetical. An arrangement or configuration of atoms producing life is hypothetical.

Atoms would not produce life. The laws of nature and a suitable environment would determine the result of life, and the evolution of life. As far as science goes every side is not hypothetical. There are, of course, many unknowns as far as the science of abiogenesis is concerned there are no known scientific alternatives for the origins of life. The different views of the possibility of Creation would proposes by the many varied religions and belief systems would the hypothetical versions.