The origin of life and evolution

[Kenny'sID]

Then the God of the Bible IS constrained by the Bible and in this case, YOUR reading of the Bible.

That's cool.

You don't want to answer my question...that's cool.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You keep making these incorrect generalizations. In all your posts critiquing "religion", you make the same mistake. Again: Not all "religious" people see the world the way you characterize them as seeing it.

Exactly.

 

[dysert]

Are they related? Sure. Does one require the other? No.

Again I ask, if we don't know where domino A came from, and how it fell, does that mean we can't observe dominos K-O falling?

I disagree. Evolution does require that domino A exist and that it got tipped. The fact that we can observe K-O falling implies there was an A.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Where did domino A for gravity come from? What caused it to fall? (pun intended)

If we cannot answer these questions for evolution, does it mean we cannot observe dominos K-O falling?

In scientific study, we can separate evolution from Abiogenesis and we have no need to worry about the origins of life. There is no problem, it only comes up when non-believers claim that evolution makes God obsolete and unnecessary. IN the whole realm of reality, evolution is not separated due to life being a necessary element for evolution.

 

[bhsmte]

Didn't you just say 2/3 didn't believe?

What an odd reply....you think it's hilarious I agreed with you?

LOL

 

[46AND2]

He did and he didn't separate origins from his theory.

Not surprising, he was a religious man. What's the point? You think that we believe he was correct in everything he said? He got a lot of things wrong.

Let's look at it this way, let's say god created simple life billions of years ago, and left it to evolve. Could our understanding of evolution be exactly the same as it would be if life began through natural mechanisms?

 

[bhsmte]

You don't want to answer my question...that's cool.

Projection.

Thats cool and fully anticipated.

 

[46AND2]

In scientific study, we can separate evolution from Abiogenesis and we have no need to worry about the origins of life. There is no problem, it only comes up when non-believers claim that evolution makes God obsolete and unnecessary. IN the whole realm of reality, evolution is not separated due to life being a necessary element for evolution.

Evolution does not address god in any way. If a person claims that evolution makes god obsolete, or even unnecessary, then that person is making his or her own assertions which are not substantiated with the science of evolution.

 

[Kenny'sID]

LOL

Projection.

Thats cool and fully anticipated.

Weird...maybe "delusional" isn't the half of it...then again, I do know some Atheists that have their head on pretty straight.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not surprising, he was a religious man. What's the point? You think that we believe he was correct in everything he said? He got a lot of things wrong.

Let's look at it this way, let's say god created simple life billions of years ago, and left it to evolve. Could our understanding of evolution be exactly the same as it would be if life began through natural mechanisms?

I don't believe most would agree that he was a religious man, in fact he himself said agnostic would fit him best.

Of course he got a lot of things wrong, that isn't the point. Originally he claimed he saw no reason not to believe that life began in some warm little pond somewhere and he didn't separate that until pressure was on him and he then didn't comment again about origins as far as I know.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Evolution does not address god in any way. If a person claims that evolution makes god obsolete, or even unnecessary, then that person is making his or her own assertions which are not substantiated with the science of evolution.

Again, I agree.

 

[46AND2]

I don't believe most would agree that he was a religious man, in fact he himself said agnostic would fit him best.

Of course he got a lot of things wrong, that isn't the point. Originally he claimed he saw no reason not to believe that life began in some warm little pond somewhere and he didn't separate that until pressure was on him and he then didn't comment again about origins as far as I know.

I'm sorry, but I just fail to see how this is relevant.

You said that we don't need to know how gravity started to observe that it exists. Can you explain to me why you hold evolution to a different standard?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm sorry, but I just fail to see how this is relevant.

You said that we don't need to know how gravity started to observe that it exists. Can you explain to me why you hold evolution to a different standard?

What I am saying is that the first theory of evolution did not separate abiogenesis and evolution as two separate things. It was only later with scientific study was it separated.

 

[46AND2]

It was only later with scientific study was it separated.

But you seem to have an issue with that.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What I am saying is that the first theory of evolution did not separate abiogenesis and evolution as two separate things. It was only later with scientific study was it separated.

But your not answering the question.

 

[Oncedeceived]

But you seem to have an issue with that.

I have no issue with that. What I have an issue with is when naturalistic unbelievers make assertions that evolution explains life and that God is not necessary.

 

[Oncedeceived]

But your not answering the question.

Really, why not?

 

[46AND2]

I have no issue with that. What I have an issue with is when naturalistic unbelievers make assertions that evolution explains life and that God is not necessary.

Has anyone done that in this thread?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Really, why not?

46And2 said: "You said that we don't need to know how gravity started to observe that it exists. Can you explain to me why you hold evolution to a different standard?"

You gave nothing in reply, only the claim that Darwin thought that abiogenesis and evolution were linked and left it at that. You did not say why you agree that gravity doesn't need a beginning but evolution does.
So why do you hold that view?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Has anyone done that in this thread?

Does that matter, the OP is making a claim that creationists always link them, I am saying that is why they always link them.