Yes, but how did it all get started in the first place?

[Riverwolf]

It was 192 pages!

That's it? Quite a short book considering the subject.

It's also not enough. You must read thousands and thousands of accumulative pages, AND consider them objectively, AND reread them several in case you missed anything or misread something.

Ok, Abiogenesis does then.

I don't think there's any scientific conclusion about abiogenesis, since we simply don't know. And that's no shame.

Don't get me started on the fossil record!

Why not? It's reliable.

Exactly, cos you don't read what the other side is telling you!

What is contained within this "other side?"

 

[Atruthseeker]

Good night. I shall continue with my reasoning tomorrow! Keep up the good work!

 

[Riverwolf]

Or a monkey to write Shakespear...:run:

We're apes, not monkeys. There is a difference.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The Big Bang doesn't even really explain "true" origins. It just explains how what we know got here. Same with Evolution. It just helps to explain how what we know got here.

Thanks, seems you are right. I did a quick goole on abiogenesis and found a lot of "could have", "may have", "is thought to have". No definites, yet so many stick to it like glue. Anything to give them some hope that they are right....

That is science. There is not one single "law" of science. Just theories. That doesn't mean scientists aren't for sure of anything, it just means they can admit they do not fully understand things, and are willing and prepared to adjust theories if needed. Gravity for example, is something scientists thought they understood, but recently they realized they were essentially back to step 1 with it.

 

[Atruthseeker]

That's it? Quite a short book considering the subject.

It's also not enough. You must read thousands and thousands of accumulative pages, AND consider them objectively, AND reread them several in case you missed anything or misread something.

I have read thousands of pages etc. It called the Bible. Have you done that?

I don't think there's any scientific conclusion about abiogenesis, since we simply don't know. And that's no shame.

Then stop banging on as if you know it's right!

Why not? It's reliable.

As reliable as Vista!

What is contained within this "other side?"

The truth

 

[Riverwolf]

Right, so the very first ones knew how to do it and weren't eaten by dinosaurs!?

First of all, there were plenty of dinosaurs with long necks, and it's reasonable to assume that the population of such dinosaurs far exceeded the populations of meat-eaters, because that's the way it is today.

Second of all, mammals didn't evolve until near the end of the dinosaur ages, and back then they were simply rodents. They had evolved along separate lines from dinosaurs from similar lizard ancestors, just as birds had evolved from small meat-eating dinosaurs.

They just did it from the start, kinda instinctively. I wouldn't expect my child to be able to drive to Scotland in one go without a satnav as soon as she learns to drive. And yet, stangley animals can fly halfway across the world!? COME ON!:no:

Clearly you didn't really read that book; you just sort of glanced over it, unless it wasn't a very good book to begin with.

In natural selection, traits develop over millions of generations based on the ability for such traits to allow for reproduction. Animal instincts didn't appear right out of the blue; they developed over countless generations based on the ability to survive.

 

[Riverwolf]

I have read thousands of pages etc. It called the Bible. Have you done that?

Thousands of pages on Evolution?

I have read some of the Biblical canon. I'm currently studying the Torah on my own, reading "Essential Torah" as a supplement to my reading of "Commentary on the Torah" by Richard Elliot Friedman, "The Five Books of Moses" by Everett Fox, and for Christmas I will be getting "The Five Books of Moses" by Robert Alter. I also own a copy of the New Jerusalem Bible.

Though I haven't read every book in the Biblical canon, it's pretty clear that I've studied it far more than you've studied evolution.

Then stop banging on as if you know it's right!

I've said nothing on abiogenesis. I don't know about abiogenesis.

It's COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from evolution, of which I only have a very basic understanding.

As reliable as Vista!

How could you POSSIBLY know that if you don't even know much about evolution? That's like someone saying the Christian Bible isn't a reliable source of information on Christianity when he hasn't even read it, and only knows about Christianity through the phrase "Jesus loves you!"

The truth

And what is the support of this "truth?" Is it verifiable? Can it be tested? Can it be supported by scientific study and research?

If not, then it's unreliable information about this physical world.

 

[Malleus_de_Philosophia]

It's obvious from the above that it is you who doesn't know the differences of the issue at hand.

Funny, because when I did mention it, it was actually what the scientific community believes. How odd is that?

Please explain the giraffe's neck.

I'll humour you on this one. The initial theory was that they had evolved long necks in order to reach food that was higher up. Later on, field observations noted that giraffes would engage in male-male combat using their heads, and the longer necks served as having a longer handle on a hammer. It may take a bit longer to hit but it has more power. Hence, they became more selected upon by sexual selection, specifically directional. If we plotted the males vs. females on Bateman curves, those males with the longer necks and thicker skulls would likely have a greater slope of the curve, indicating increased fitness.

Or do you want the more precise evolutionary processes?

Or the duck billed platypuss. Or symbiology. Or how a newborn turle finds it's way to the sea. or how birds migrate and butterflies fly miles to where they have never been before. Who told them how to get there?

I'm going to stop here because of your last sentence: "who told them". Simple, nobody told them. If you begin asserting someone told the birds where and when to migrate, then we're no longer dealing with evolution but either creationism or another non-scientific concept.

However, since you gave me a list of examples, and since I answered one already, why don't you also answer one. Since you accused me of not knowing the difference between evolution and abiogenesis, implying I don't have a good grasp on either thereby showing you have more of an understanding, perhaps you could answer one.

 

[Autodidact]

A lot of people say 'Hey, I know that evolution happens, cos look at fruit flies or viruses etc...'or 'look at the fossil record.' Never mind all that. How did it all get going in the first place?

How did what get going? Evolution, life, or what?

It is mathematically impossible.

Can you please share that math with us? It would involve numbers.

As that's the case, the case for evolution is pretty much closed isn't it?

Yes, it is. The Theory of Evolution is correct, robust and well-supported, which is why the overwhelming consensus of Biologists accept it and base their work on it.

 

[Autodidact]

Evolution has everything to do with origins, as that's the main point non-creationists contest.

You're mistaken. I suggest that you look up "Theory of Evolution" (ToE) in wiki, find out what it means, and then get back to us.

If we didn't evolve, if life didn't come about by itself and by an unaided process then the theory, which by definition can not be a fact, falls down

You're mistaken. Evolution is about diversity, abiogenesis is about the origin of life. Let's say, hypothetically, that your God magically poofed the first living organism into existence, and that's all. ToE is fine with that. ToE explains what happened next.

. And it sounds to me like you are confusing micro and macro evolution.

It sounds to me like you've been getting your information from creationist websites. Didn't anybody ever tell you they're great big liar-heads? Do you know what those terms mean?

 

[Autodidact]

And no, I can’t point you to a scientific source that proves the origins of life, as none exists. That's kinda the point I'm making my friend.

That's not what Sunstone asked for. He asked for a scientific source that agrees with your assertion that the ToE deals with the origin of life.

Also, there are I imagine a lot of terms not used by evolutionary biologists. Doesn't make them invalid though does it?

It makes them not biological terms.

Many people have coined new terms to describe things. It's an needles point you are making. Micro evolution is what happens on a small scale, such as adaptation in a species, and macro evolution is when a big change comes along, such as one species becoming another and so far that has never happened.

So you are denying that any new species has ever evolved?

1. If I show a single example of scientists observing exactly that, will you withdraw this claim?
2. Would you be so kind as to lay out your hypothesis. For example, are you what we call a Young Earth Creationist (YEC): literal genesis, flood, ark, kinds, etc? Thanks.

 

[Autodidact]

Perhaps not to the level you have. But let me ask you this. Have you studied the Bible and creation to the level I have?

Yes.

And honestly, who cares if you have or not?

Well, if you're trying to persuade us something about the ToE, yes, you need to understand it.

It doesn't mean you aren't able to ask questions.

You're not asking questions; you're making (false) statements.

What if everybody you aksed a question of, brushed you off with your response? You couldn't even go to customer services at your bank cos they'd tell you to go away and get a degree in economics first.

If you have questions, I'm happy to answer them. Fire away.

Uh, not really avoiding. Like I said, evolutionists tend to argue that we got here without the help of an inteligent designer

You seem to be confusing evolution with atheism. Again, first find out what evolution is, at a minumum, if you want to have an intelligent discussion about it.

.If I get you right, are you saying that life has evolved since it was created?

No, just that ToE isn't about whether the first life was created or not. It's about diversity of species. Just go read it. Or if you're too lazy, I'll bring the info here for you.

Hey, I never said I was a creditable source. And on your point, evolutionary biologists are bound to expressly reject that distinction. If they accepted it, it would put a spanner in the works.

Why?

They have to reject anything that may prove them wrong.

Why?

They are like litigation lawyers sometimes.

And you are like a slandering liar sometimes.

Also, it seems to me that you are the one avoiding the question, which was if it's a mathematical impossibility for life to have evolved from non-life, then the theory falls down. How do you explain life's origin. Stop dodging the issue. (Typical evolutionist )

If you want to talk about abiogenesis, then start a thread on that subject. It's fascinating. But it's not evolution.

 

[Autodidact]

Hey, I never said I was a creditable source.

bolded for emphasis.

 

[Autodidact]

Very eloquent, 'tiss must be said. My argument is that it is mathematically impossible for life to have arisen unaided and by itself.

O.K. lay out your mathematical argument, It should involve mathematics.

Oh, you're arguing against atheism. Then you're in the wrong forum completely. You seem to think that science addresses the question of whether God is involved. It doesn't. If God did it, then science looks at how. Not who, how.

Therefore what other option is there? Having a designer of life is not the same as resorting to magic is it?

Only if your explanation involved magic. Does it?

And I don't content that life is impossible, despite it's existence. It's the manner in which it came about that I am arguing.

O.K., what manner do you think it came about?

Also, if science is only interested in how something happens then that would be fine, but the fact is, many people go further and discredit or reject even the remote possibility of who made the how possible. If something looks designed then chances are...

Nope. They aren't.

 

[Valjean]

I'm confused. Truthseeker, did you intend this thread to be a discussion of evolution or abiogenesis? This discussion seems to be getting very muddled.

 

[footprints]

A lot of people say 'Hey, I know that evolution happens, cos look at fruit flies or viruses etc...'or 'look at the fossil record.' Never mind all that. How did it all get going in the first place? It is mathematically impossible. As that's the case, the case for evolution is pretty much closed isn't it?

As what you ask provides much embarrassment for evolutionists, they do not want to discuss it or put it up for debate completely leave this out of some of the theories. This is one of the things some evolutionists say, is a kink which needs to be ironed out. More like a mountain than a kink at this time, but in time, you never know we may have this answer.

The most plausible and accepted suggestion at this point in time comes from abiogenesis. Debate still rages over how the amino acids first arrived on earth, the two most accepted propositions being either they were on earth after the big bang and just needed the right environment to trigger, else they landed on earth via an asteroid or meteorite and then needed the right environment to trigger. Of course then we have to look at how amino acids were formed, and then what formed the material which formed that. At the beginning of the evolution cycle it says the same as the theists belief, something was created from nothing, and why people who believe in evolution only, don't really want to discuss this point and leave it right out of their theory.

At the moment the whole evolution picture is mathematically impossible. Something was created from nothing. This though says more pertaining to mankinds limited knowledge than it does pertaining to mathematics, simply because we all know reality exists and had to be started (created) in some manner or form.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Why must we treat "life" as being something separate, something that "emerged" or was "created". How about this?...There is NO LIFE. There was nothing to be created, nothing to evolve separately like some mysterious magical entity that emerged from the rocks or was formed by a god. Nothing like that. There is simply energy. That's it, that all. Everything is just energy that can neither be created, nor destroyed, only change form. Forget evolution or creation. This thing we humans call life is just another form of energy in the process of change. Nothing more.

 

[Riverwolf]

As what you ask provides much embarrassment for evolutionists, they do not want to discuss it or put it up for debate completely leave this out of some of the theories. This is one of the things some evolutionists say, is a kink which needs to be ironed out. More like a mountain than a kink at this time, but in time, you never know we may have this answer.

The most plausible and accepted suggestion at this point in time comes from abiogenesis. Debate still rages over how the amino acids first arrived on earth, the two most accepted propositions being either they were on earth after the big bang and just needed the right environment to trigger, else they landed on earth via an asteroid or meteorite and then needed the right environment to trigger. Of course then we have to look at how amino acids were formed, and then what formed the material which formed that. At the beginning of the evolution cycle it says the same as the theists belief, something was created from nothing, and why people who believe in evolution only, don't really want to discuss this point and leave it right out of their theory.

At the moment the whole evolution picture is mathematically impossible. Something was created from nothing. This though says more pertaining to mankinds limited knowledge than it does pertaining to mathematics, simply because we all know reality exists and had to be started (created) in some manner or form.

Nobody claims that something was created from nothing. Obviously, that's impossible. The mechanics are already in place.

I believe that reality has always existed; it has just changed its form.

 

[footprints]

Nobody claims that something was created from nothing. Obviously, that's impossible. The mechanics are already in place.

I believe that reality has always existed; it has just changed its form.

For something to have always existed, never to have been created or never to have been formed, is just as mathematically impossible given our knowledge today. One might as well believe in immaculate conception.

Either something was created from nothing or something has always existed, either which way that is what I call a bloody miracle. LOL no I don't:

My belief is there is a knowledge and physics in the universe which mankind has no knowledge of yet.

 

[Amill]

I'd like to see your study on how Abiogenesis is mathematically impossible.