How did we get here?

[Loudmouth]

Did you see that?

Yes, I saw how they differentiated between change that occurs in living things and change that occurs in geology and astronomy. You never made this distinction. Instead, you implied that the theory of biological evolution was needed in all scientific fields, which it isn't. That was the implication of your opening post, and every post thereafter.

I guess my statement still stands about evolutionists demanding anyone who wishes to be in an area of scientific study to know and embrace evolution.

Do you accept the observation that the use of electronic media has changed over the last 20 years? If you answer yes, does this make you an evolutionist since you believe in change over time?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Am I missing something, or does GB's argument go something like this:

He's angry because one cannot reasonably be expected to be good at calculus, trigonometry, or geometry without first being proficient in algebra, but he refuses to learn anything about algebra because it refuses to address where the numbers come from?

I mean really, "1," "2," "3," You can't explain how they got there!

And he's angry because the anti-Algebra crowd gets mocked by those people who not only do understand algebra, but have seen how it, as well as calculus, trigonometry, and geometry, have advanced our lives? (whereas anti-algebrism has advanced the causes of foot-stamping and excuse-making)?


So, am I missing something, or does that more or less sum it up?

 

[good brother]

[/color]

Yes, I saw how they differentiated between change that occurs in living things and change that occurs in geology and astronomy. You never made this distinction. Instead, you implied that the theory of biological evolution was needed in all scientific fields, which it isn't. That was the implication of your opening post, and every post thereafter.


Do you accept the observation that the use of electronic media has changed over the last 20 years? If you answer yes, does this make you an evolutionist since you believe in change over time?

Man, it just kills you all to be wrong, don't it? Now you want to play a game of semantics with implied and explicit terms and somehow what can limit all future references to what might have been implied at one point in time. And I never once said that my definition of "evolution" was limited solely to a biological standpoint.

"Great change over great amounts of time" is something that every kind of evolution relies on for each's theory to sound even remotely intelligible so in that they absolutely are interconnected. You couldn't have biologists state that life has been evolving on earth for billions of years if geologists declare that the Earth isn't that old. And you can't have geologists stating the Earth is billions of years old if astronomers claims that the universe isn't that old. Every bit of evolution is so closely interconnected that there is no way to every pry the different fields apart while keeping the ToE in one piece. If anything, my OP should be applied across the board to ask all areas that question of, "How did we get here?" since it would be up to the astronomers to put the elements on the planet, it would be up to the geologists to put together the correct combination that led to life, and it would be up to the biologists to explain how life could arise from non life when we do not see that happening around us or at have ever seen it at any other time in history other than the supposed beginning.


Since you all will never actually admit this interconnection, I suppose the best thing you all could do is try to best answer the OP's question and move along to the next thread.

In Christ, GB

 

[good brother]

.

 

[Loudmouth]

Am I missing something, or does GB's argument go something like this:

He's angry because one cannot reasonably be expected to be good at calculus, trigonometry, or geometry without first being proficient in algebra, but he refuses to learn anything about algebra because it refuses to address where the numbers come from?

Actually, it goes something more like this. He think that his dentist should know where all of the matter in the universe came from because the matter in your teeth had to come from somewhere and a dentist should know that. If the dentist is going to claim that the development of teeth and tooth decay are caused by naturalistic, non-God mechanisms then the dentist must be an atheist who believes in abiogenesis too boot.

 

[good brother]

Actually, it goes something more like this. He think that his dentist should know where all of the matter in the universe came from because the matter in your teeth had to come from somewhere and a dentist should know that. If the dentist is going to claim that the development of teeth and tooth decay are caused by naturalistic, non-God mechanisms then the dentist must be an atheist who believes in abiogenesis too boot.

No, it actually goes something like this:

If you claim that all life forms on this entire planet came from one common ancestor, where did that supposed one common ancestor come from? Did it come in on a comet, and if so, where did the comet come from? Did it come in on the Tooth Fairy Express?

Evolutionists expect us to swallow this pill of one common ancestor, but have no idea where that one common ancestor could have possibly come from because they know that life only produces life. That is the only thing that has EVER been observed is life producing life. Evos try to dismiss it with a big word like "abiogenesis" but don't want to delve any deeper for fear of how such an idea would sound like sheer lunacy if actually investigated. Biological evolutionists will claim that "it's not their area" though their area cannot even exist without life appearing on this planet.

Just swallow the pill of evolution and don't ask any questions or propose anything to the contrary. Move it along people, nothing to see here. Nothing to see.


In Christ, GB

 

[Loudmouth]

Now you want to play a game of semantics . . .

No, I want you to stop playing semantic games with the word "evolution".

And I never once said that my definition of "evolution" was limited solely to a biological standpoint.

So someone who believes that the use of electronic media has changed over time is an evolutionist?

When you asked for the opinion of evolutionists in the opening post who were you referring to? Wasn't it a question posed to people who accept the theory of biological evolution?

Every bit of evolution is so closely interconnected that there is no way to every pry the different fields apart while keeping the ToE in one piece.

We can be entirely wrong as to the evolution of stars and still be right as to the evolution of species because they operate through different mechanisms. It is the MECHANISMS that are important, not your semantic game of using the same word to describe two different things. DNA mutations filtered through environmental selective pressures has nothing to do with the evolution of galaxies, as another example. However, it has EVERYTHING to do with the evolution of species.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

No, it actually goes something like this:

If you claim that all life forms on this entire planet came from one common ancestor, where did that supposed one common ancestor come from? Did it come in on a comet, and if so, where did the comet come from? Did it come in on the Tooth Fairy Express?

Evolutionists expect us to swallow this pill of one common ancestor, but have no idea where that one common ancestor could have possibly come from because they know that life only produces life. That is the only thing that has EVER been observed is life producing life. Evos try to dismiss it with a big word like "abiogenesis" but don't want to delve any deeper for fear of how such an idea would sound like sheer lunacy if actually investigated. Biological evolutionists will claim that "it's not their area" though their area cannot even exist without life appearing on this planet.

Just swallow the pill of evolution and don't ask any questions or propose anything to the contrary. Move it along people, nothing to see here. Nothing to see.


In Christ, GB

Actually, it's because people ask questions and make proposals that makes ToE as robust a theory as there is, precisely.

 

[good brother]

No, I want ...

You want to know what I want? I want you to tell me where you think that supposed first and common ancestor came from. If you can't do that then you need to move on to another thread. This thread is for the discussion of that, which no evolutionist has seemed to be able to do so.

Thank you again for your cooperation in this thread.


In Christ, GB

 

[good brother]

Actually, it's because people ask questions and make proposals that makes ToE as robust a theory as there is, precisely.

I literally lol'd. Thanks.

In Christ, GB

 

[Loudmouth]

I want you to tell me where you think that supposed first and common ancestor came from.

No one knows that answer.

This thread is for the discussion of that, which no evolutionist has seemed to be able to do so.

Since we have no evidence of where this ancestor came from, how could we know? However, this has no bearing on the subsequent evolution of life which we do have evidence for.

 

[Jamin4422]

And he's angry because the anti-Algebra crowd gets mocked by those people who not only do understand algebra, but have seen how it, as well as calculus, trigonometry, and geometry, have advanced our lives?

I hate algebra, but I think trig and geometry are wonderful. I never took calculus.

 

[Jamin4422]

I want you to tell me where you think that supposed first and common ancestor came from.

Do u mean common ancestor like Adam and Eve or common ancestor like our friend the slug? All life is carbon based, so all life has that in common.

 

[good brother]

No one knows that answer.

Perhaps there never was a common ancestor?

Since we have no evidence of where this ancestor came from, how could we know? However, this has no bearing on the subsequent evolution of life which we do have evidence for.

No, what we have is animals and organisms just appearing out of nowhere. There is no common ancestor to be found because there is no common ancestor. All there is is life appearing on the scene, and many life forms at one time!

In Christ, GB

 

[Jamin4422]

Do you accept the observation that the use of electronic media has changed over the last 20 years? If you answer yes, does this make you an evolutionist since you believe in change over time?

Technology is based on Moore's law, not Darwin's theory. Basicly the cost to develop technology increases at the same time the actual cost to mass produce the technolgy decreases. Right now they are forced into having to develop diamond chips or diamond semi conductors because of the heat involved with the increase in speed. The cost to develop this technology is very high but the cost to produce this will be very low and we should find diamonds in our phones and computers at some point in the future. Now, what is the connection between this and Darwin's theory of common ancestors and natural selection? Because that theory is based on artificial selection that goes back at least as far as Adam in the Bible. Seems to me that Darwin owes creationism a debt of gratitude, not the other way around as you seem to be trying to establish.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No, it actually goes something like this:

If you claim that all life forms on this entire planet came from one common ancestor, where did that supposed one common ancestor come from? Did it come in on a comet, and if so, where did the comet come from? Did it come in on the Tooth Fairy Express?

OR... we can simply substitute "common ancestor" with "God," ask the exact same question, and then handwave it away as something which always existed, needs no origin, and how dare you blaspheme for even to think of such a question!

See? easy-peasy!

 

[sfs]

No, it actually goes something like this:

If you claim that all life forms on this entire planet came from one common ancestor, where did that supposed one common ancestor come from?

And the answer continues to be, "we don't know." You still haven't explained why it matters. I have very good evidence that I am descended from my grandmother, but I have only a vague and fragmentary idea of where she came from. So what?

Evolutionists expect us to swallow this pill of one common ancestor, but have no idea where that one common ancestor could have possibly come from because they know that life only produces life. That is the only thing that has EVER been observed is life producing life. Evos try to dismiss it with a big word like "abiogenesis" but don't want to delve any deeper for fear of how such an idea would sound like sheer lunacy if actually investigated.

Sorry, but you're slipping into complete nonsense now. Where did you get the idea that we don't want to delve into the origin of life? You do know that scientists are vigorously studying the origin of life, don't you?

Just swallow the pill of evolution and don't ask any questions or propose anything to the contrary. Move it along people, nothing to see here. Nothing to see.

Nonsense. Ask any questions you want. Propose any alternative you want. Just engage in the process seriously. Propose alternatives and then see where they take you. How well do they explain the data? How well do they predict new data? We've got vast amounts of biological data -- genetic data, fossil data, geographical distributions, morphological data -- to judge any theory by. Engage seriously with that data and you'll be taken seriously. You'll also be nearly unique among creationists.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Every day I hope that some day people will outgrow their debilitating fear of the unknown, and get over their "If we don't know everything, we might as well know nothing," attitudes. On such a day they will see their religious myths for what they really are, and will (I honestly believe) grow a great deal in their understanding of whatever it is they choose to call "God."

Every day I'm a little bit disappointed.

But, hope springs eternal.

 

[freezerman2000]

And You'll also be nearly unique among creationists.

I have yet met a Creationist here that doesn't walk in lockstep with their dogma.None are unique nor do I think they want to be.

 

[Loudmouth]

Now, what is the connection between this and Darwin's theory of common ancestors and natural selection?

I would love to see good brother explain that to us. From what I can tell of GB's other posts, it seems that an evolutionist is someone who believes that something changes over time, and it really doesn't matter what that something is.