The future of evolution?

[oOKnights TemplarOo]

I was referring to Micro evolution with the germ tidbit, but to be fair, I didn't really specify that. And observation and experimentation don't have to be direct. For example, no one alive right now has seen Jesus Christ, yet we know He is real.

Then your entire post is The Fallacy of Irrelevance: When you introduce issues which have no logical bearing on the subject under discussion, you are using irrelevant arguments.

The topic is dealing with Macro Evolution. And your point regarding Jesus, that has nothing at all to do with the topic either.

Observation does need to be direct for it to be observed!

 

[looking_for_answers_]

Hello,

For those who believe in evolution I wondered what you believe we are currently evolving into?

Thanks

Look up "Transhumanism". You can debate the truth of biological evolution till you're blue in the face, but a genuine answer to this question lies in tech. We are rapidly expaning our relationship with computers at a rate of exponential growth which is only going to get more insanely fast over the next few decades, especially as AI/ML research, technology for brain/computer interfacing, and our understanding of the brain evolve.

Just look at startups like Ctrl-Labs, who are working on a wristband that non-invasively measures muscle activity in the wrist and uses it to control computers. So you can train your brain to directly control your phone like a new appendage (not joking, it's the same way our brains learn muscular control):

The Brain-Machine Interface Isn't Sci-Fi Anymore | Backchannel

Similarly there's no reason we can't feed the brain info from any source we want (weather report, stock market, etc.) and "train" the brain to interpret that info.

We're hitting a period where evolution is going to look very different from the past.

If you're interested, look up the term "Singularity"

 

[NobleMouse]

I was referring to Micro evolution with the germ tidbit, but to be fair, I didn't really specify that. And observation and experimentation don't have to be direct. For example, no one alive right now has seen Jesus Christ, yet we know He is real.

There were eye witness accounts of His life, His resurrection, Christian and non-Christian writings attesting to His life and His claim to be God. Christianity is not a blind faith, opposite of evolution. To be more specific, (macro) evolution has never been directly observed. What HAS been directly observed are created kinds adapting to the environment - consistent with the word of God. God absolutely created everything in 6 days (Genesis 1, also Exodus 20:11 condenses it down to one sentence), there is no denying this is what God's word says... and means, hence the 7-day week we still observe to this day.

In short, to accept macro evolution is to accept that which has never been directly observed over that which has been directly breathed out from God (2 Timothy 3:16), the One who WAS there.

 

[DreadCthulhu]

Then your entire post is The Fallacy of Irrelevance: When you introduce issues which have no logical bearing on the subject under discussion, you are using irrelevant arguments.

The topic is dealing with Macro Evolution. And your point regarding Jesus, that has nothing at all to do with the topic either.

Observation does need to be direct for it to be observed!

While the OP was about macro evolution, I was mostly rebutting Oscarr, who said the evolution as a whole was false, and I was showing examples of both macro and micro evolution. And the part about Jesus was my attempt to find something we could relate to in an attempt to further my point, which apparently has miserably failed.

 

[stevevw]

Hello,

For those who believe in evolution I wondered what you believe we are currently evolving into?

Thanks

I don't think there will be any physical change but I do think there will be an identity change. This will change us socially and we will be more effected mentally and emotionally. We have been seeing the roles of male and female becoming more blended and even to the point where males are becoming more feminine and females more masculine. There seem to be more gender neutral people as well. I think along with this we are seeing more asexuality, more women willing to put off having children and/or having a male partner. At the same time, we are using more artificial ways of having children.

IMO I think this is not a good direction because it seems we are playing with nature too much. We are doing this with genetics as well and there are some bad effects such as when we play around with nature too much it introduces a ripple effect that can upset the other living systems and can lead to the extinction of many species. We have also lost our sense of identity and seem more apathetic or even robotic. Maybe that's because everyone is becoming more the same but it seems a little unnatural. I think all this will have a big negative effect on our future and be our downfall.

 

[looking_for_answers_]

I don't think there will be any physical change but I do think there will be an identity change. This will change us socially and we will be more effected mentally and emotionally. We have been seeing the roles of male and female becoming more blended and even to the point where males are becoming more feminine and females more masculine. There seem to be more gender neutral people as well. I think along with this we are seeing more asexuality, more women willing to put off having children and/or having a male partner. At the same time, we are using more artificial ways of having children.

IMO I think this is not a good direction because it seems we are playing with nature too much. We are doing this with genetics as well and there are some bad effects such as when we play around with nature too much it introduces a ripple effect that can upset the other living systems and can lead to the extinction of many species. We have also lost our sense of identity and seem more apathetic or even robotic. Maybe that's because everyone is becoming more the same but it seems a little unnatural. I think all this will have a big negative effect on our future and be our downfall.

Tech is going to accelerate the artificial change, more and more drastically, as AI and ML develop, and as we increase our knowledge of the brain and the ability to interface with and enchance it. This will all allow us to more quickly understand and change genetics as well.

Think about the changes over the last 50 years (like the internet...). Now imagine the same amount of change in less than half that amount of time.

 

[sfs]

For Christians; however, it's without fathom why so many refuse to believe the plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face truths given in the Bible. To these Christians, I ask: What is it exactly that makes you a Christian?

Trusting in and following Christ.

Oh, please go on to elaborate beyond "I'm a Christian because I believe Jesus is the son of God" and think you've justified your Christianity because many will say Lord Lord and be told by Jesus that He never knew them.

Where on earth did you get the idea that any of us need to justify our faith to you?

How is it that you are truly following Him - being obedient to His word, believing as He believed?

You're inventing your own criteria for salvation here. Go back and read your quotation in Matthew: the ones who enter the kingdom are the ones who do the will of the Father. Not the ones who agree with NobleMouse about the proper interpretation of Genesis.

 

[JacksBratt]

Evolution is dead from the get go, for many reasons.

The biggest one is that they have absolutely no possible explanation as to what gave life to anything and everything.

They simply say that the doesn't concern them.

Well, that is like the person planning your trip, telling you that everything is set to go. The Limo will take you here and there and wait for you at every stop....Except, they have no explanation as to how the Limo is going to materialize out of nowhere.

So, until they can tell me where life comes from... then there is nothing to "evolve" anyway.

 

[NobleMouse]

Trusting in and following Christ.

Where on earth did you get the idea that any of us need to justify our faith to you?

Nobody needs to justify their faith to me... I'm just asking rhetorical probing questions in hopes it will spur self reflection - myself included. Please don't feel you need to provide answers. It's always a mixed bag of responses to being direct with folks, don't take offense - I'm not looking to be 'crucified' here on CF by simply asking a few challenging questions. We are to encourage (and admonish) one another in love for each other in faith are we not?

You're inventing your own criteria for salvation here. Go back and read your quotation in Matthew: the ones who enter the kingdom are the ones who do the will of the Father. Not the ones who agree with NobleMouse about the proper interpretation of Genesis.

Not setting the criteria for salvation. Jesus said we are either for Him or against Him, we know God will spit the lukewarm out from His mouth, and many will say they did this and that in His name but He will say depart from Me for I never knew you.

We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ - simple as that as far as salvation goes. It does beg the question though: If I don't believe the account of creation, the flood account, I may or may not believe the parting of the Red Sea, Jonah really being in the belly of a great fish, etc, etc... then what kind of follower does that make me? Do I really have a child-like faith? No, not really. Instead what I'm really doing is discrediting God's word and dishonoring Him and His character by saying, "no, it didn't really happen that way - let me enlighten you all from what science has taught us, what man knows to be true instead."

Perhaps the question for you, sfs, is to ask yourself why you take offense. You do believe we were made male and female from the beginning as Jesus said in Matthew 19:4, yes? Is this "beginning" the beginning of humans? No, Jesus is quoting scripture - in fact He is quoting the creation account in Genesis. Jesus, Peter, and others also quote the flood of Noah. Jesus said that, like Jonah who was in the belly of the fish for 3 days, He too would be in the belly of the earth for 3 days. God said He created all the kinds of life, and He did so in six days as is written in Exodus 20:11 (read it, it's as simple as "see spot run"). You do believe all these things are true... right? If not, then what you've been doing is discrediting the truth of God and His word, reading the Bible the way you want it to read, and now you're barking because you've been asked some challenging questions??! Your issue isn't with me brother - this is what His word clearly says. Again, don't feel you need to justify yourself to me. We are all accountable to the one who made us and died on the cross for us. Believe what you want about God and what is explicitly written in His word - it's not to me you'll have to give an account.

Peace, blessings, and good evening -

 

[JacksBratt]

Hello,

For those who believe in evolution I wondered what you believe we are currently evolving into?

Thanks

You are probably aware, based on my posts, that I am a firm creationist.

However, I do believe that there are some things taking place that are going to be or could be considered a type of evolution.

Christ said:

Matthew 24:37-39 King James Version (KJV)

37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.


So, what was it like "in the days of Noah"?

Well, "all flesh was corrupted". This was one of the major reasons for the flood, right? All flesh was corrupted and their thoughts were constantly evil all the time?

Genesis 6:11-12 King James Version (KJV)

11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.


12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.



Genesis 6:5 King James Version (KJV)
5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

This corruption of flesh was in such a way that it was irreversible, without starting fresh, with Noah.
Noah was "pure in his generations"


Genesis 6:9 King James Version (KJV)
9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
What does this mean? Perfect in his generations?
I believe, as many do, that this meant that Noah, his wife and his three sons, were the only people with pure human DNA. That's how corrupt the earth and it's inhabitants had become.

I also believe that science is playing with genetics. I believe that the so called "aliens" that are becoming more and more popular in the news and will continue to do so... are not actually inter planetary beings....

They are inter dimensional demons. I believe that Satan is adding a new twist to the old "angels leaving their first estate and mating, directly with human women" ....to..... harvesting embryo's, sperm and eggs from humans, during abductions and splicing them with the genetics of other beings and forming a new hybrids

I believe that the part of Revelations that speaks of a type of "immortality" for those that take the mark, is all tied together with this manipulation of the human DNA with other DNA.

I believe that this is one of, or the only reason why those that take the mark have no chance of salvation..

This being because of a synthesized and evil way for Satan to give pseudo and false "eternal life" by way of an "new Evolving" through sinister and ungodly means....

Check out this site.

As The Days of Noah Were: Return of the Aliens? – Chuck Missler – Koinonia House

 

[looking_for_answers_]

The biggest one is that they have absolutely no possible explanation as to what gave life to anything and everything.

It's not an orgin of life theory, it's a description of how life changes over time...

They simply say that the doesn't concern them.

Well, that is like the person planning your trip, telling you that everything is set to go. The Limo will take you here and there and wait for you at every stop....Except, they have no explanation as to how the Limo is going to materialize out of nowhere.

So, until they can tell me where life comes from... then there is nothing to "evolve" anyway.

In the analogy, you'd already be in the limo, it's perfectly reasonable to consider where the limo is taking you without necessarily finding out who manufactured the car and which transportation company owns it first

 

[JacksBratt]

It's not an orgin of life theory, it's a description of how life changes over time...



In the analogy, you'd already be in the limo, it's perfectly reasonable to consider where the limo is taking you without necessarily finding out who manufactured the car and which transportation company owns it first

Oh, I'm well aware of all the methods used by the evo camp that try to avoid the problem that they have no idea where life came from. They like to say that it is not what their theory is dealing with....

It's like having a bunch of cars on a lot but not an engine in any of them..

Life...... Life is what makes us tick... If you cannot tell me where that came from.... all your other arguments are null and void.

Why, you may ask?

That is because, and as a Christian you should know this... God is the only source of life. With God, you need no evolution of anything. He made everything and anything that was ever made was made by Him.


Even Richard Dawkins said they don't know.
Then he said that it must be from some past highly intelligent beings.
He never had any answer as to where they came from... No matter how far back you go.. at one point, somewhere, life had to start.
Richard even stated that we must be the result of some sort of designer... just not God.

 

[looking_for_answers_]

Oh, I'm well aware of all the methods used by the evo camp that try to avoid the problem that they have no idea where life came from. They like to say that it is not what their theory is dealing with....

It's like having a bunch of cars on a lot but not an engine in any of them..

Life...... Life is what makes us tick... If you cannot tell me where that came from.... all your other arguments are null and void.

Why, you may ask?

That is because, and as a Christian you should know this... God is the only source of life. With God, you need no evolution of anything. He made everything and anything that was ever made was made by Him.


Even Richard Dawkins said they don't know.
Then he said that it must be from some past highly intelligent beings.
He never had any answer as to where they came from... No matter how far back you go.. at one point, somewhere, life had to start.
Richard even stated that we must be the result of some sort of designer... just not God.

I still don't follow. The two are indeed unrelated. Evolution is literally a description of change in a species. Why are you rejecting it simply because it doesn't also explain the origin of life? The theory of relativity also doesn't explain the origin of life. Nor do theories about the effects of monetary policy on an economy. Should I reject Newton's laws of motion because they don't describe the origin of life? Those sneaky physicists and economists, trying to avoid the problem that they have no idea where life came from, saying that the origin of life isn't what their theories are dealing with...

 

[JacksBratt]

I still don't follow. The two are indeed unrelated. Evolution is literally a description of change in a species. Why are you rejecting it simply because it doesn't also explain the origin of life? The theory of relativity also doesn't explain the origin of life. Nor do theories about the effects of monetary policy on an economy. Should I reject Newton's laws of motion because they don't describe the origin of life? Those sneaky physicists and economists, trying to avoid the problem that they have no idea where life came from, saying that the origin of life isn't what their theories are dealing with...

OK, I understand your confusion.
Maybe it is because our brains work differently.

Let me try something...

In the "theory" of evolution (TOE) they believe that one species changed a bit.... then this changed a bit.. and so on... until a new species emerged.

So, inevitably there is an original species. Somewhere, way way way back.. there is an original organism, from what I understand.

This original organism is the foundation, the cornerstone for every living being. This little guy, or, I guess, thing.... had to have came from somewhere. So after getting over the impossibilities of how complex proteins and enzymes formed and how the even more complex DNA and RNA somehow formed, not to mention mitochondria, cytoplasm, cell walls and all the other complexities of a cell that Darwin was unaware of... all came to be...It still had no life.... None... just a blob of impossibly complex cell components and genetic information... but....no life... no running engine... just the parts.

In order for evolution and the entire TOE to function... it has to have life..

Ignoring all the other impossible components....which is kind of preposterous anyway, you need the most important one of all....... life.

SO don't go trying to say that they are not connected.

If you want to say that "not all organisms came from one single organism" then your problem is compounded.

You don't get to say:

"Ok, we have this little one celled creature, living, breathing, self replicating, eating....and every living being on the planet came from it............ but don't ask us how it got life.

No explanation of where life came from... the TOE is then ... dead.

 

[NobleMouse]

No explanation of where life came from... the TOE is then ... dead.

I agree with everything you've stated here brother! Abiogenesis is the (again false) theory behind how life came from non-life and LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor) is the term I've seen used to refer back to that original protozoan from the supposed way, way, way back time.

Neither TOE or Abiogenesis is compatible with the Bible. God created kinds on days 3 (plant life), 5 (birds and creatures of the seas), and 6 (beasts of the field, livestock, and man). No creationist I know assumes that these events were absolutely instantaneous, but rather that God "created", God "formed" and somewhere before the end of the numbered day God had a completed all the kinds intended for that assigned day (I believe these were 24-hr days, just as it reads, and is stated in Exodus 20:11 so the process of creating/forming would have been in the magnitude of seconds/minutes/hours... not billions of years). The time frames of creation and these miraculous acts of God do not fit with the characteristics of TOE nor Abiogenesis, nor can be explained in scientific terms (anymore than science can explain how Jesus was conceived in the womb of Mary, a virgin, by the Holy Spirit - science cannot explain this).

God created life and gave the command to multiply and fill the earth, and because the earth has a diversity of environments, the created kinds will also diversify (why people whose ancestry is from northern Europe look different from people whose ancestry is from central Africa)... ultimately we all go back to a literal Adam and a literal Eve, nobody evolved from LUCA. This is true for all life. The fossil record contains many extinct life forms that were among the created kinds... not transitional fossils. This trend is even continuing today... we're seeing more and more forms of life becoming extinct. Oddly enough we're not seeing fossils accumulating from the life forms going extinct today; probably because there isn't a global flood to rapidly bury them as there was in the time of Noah... but that's just a dig from me to the evo camp here and a discussion for another thread.

A scientific experiment I consider to be a creationists best friend is the Lenski E.Coli experiment (you may be familiar). After 50,000+ generations and mutations, two major things stand out to me: (1) The E.Coli adapted to being able to obtain citrate, and (2) the E.Coli remained E.Coli. In short, the E.Coli adapted to the conditions of its environment (as we would expect given God's design for life to be able to multiply and fill the earth), and E.Coli did not become some other kind of organism... it ultimately remained... E.Coli.

As for what we're evolving into as per the OP. Nothing... all existing kinds of life are going to remain exactly as was originally created (unless it becomes extinct), mildly adapting to be optimal for the environment in which it lives in accordance with how God created life and in accordance with His command to multiply and fill the earth. Humans came from humans and will remain humans, bears came from bears and will remain bears, birds came from dinosaurs (just kidding, they came from birds) and will remain as birds, and so forth...

God bless -

 

[looking_for_answers_]

OK, I understand your confusion.
Maybe it is because our brains work differently.

Let me try something...

In the "theory" of evolution (TOE) they believe that one species changed a bit.... then this changed a bit.. and so on... until a new species emerged.

So, inevitably there is an original species. Somewhere, way way way back.. there is an original organism, from what I understand.

This original organism is the foundation, the cornerstone for every living being. This little guy, or, I guess, thing.... had to have came from somewhere. So after getting over the impossibilities of how complex proteins and enzymes formed and how the even more complex DNA and RNA somehow formed, not to mention mitochondria, cytoplasm, cell walls and all the other complexities of a cell that Darwin was unaware of... all came to be...It still had no life.... None... just a blob of impossibly complex cell components and genetic information... but....no life... no running engine... just the parts.

In order for evolution and the entire TOE to function... it has to have life..

Ignoring all the other impossible components....which is kind of preposterous anyway, you need the most important one of all....... life.

Of course. But life clearly exists, so we can legitimately ask how life changes (or doesn't), regardless of whether or not we question how it began.

SO don't go trying to say that they are not connected.

They're connected in that they're both about life, but they're not so connected that we can't ask them separately.

If you want to say that "not all organisms came from one single organism" then your problem is compounded.

You don't get to say:

"Ok, we have this little one celled creature, living, breathing, self replicating, eating....and every living being on the planet came from it............ but don't ask us how it got life.

No explanation of where life came from... the TOE is then ... dead.

Suppose I have a theory about how cars run. Should I just throw it out simply because I don't know for sure who designed it's engine or manufactured it? No, they're separate questions, even though they're related.

You're really combining two questions into one. "How did life begin?" and "How does life change over time?" Yes, they are indeed on the same topic, you are correct, but that doesn't mean we necessarily need to ask them together.

Imagine we all know with 100% certainty that God created the world roughly 6000 years ago. This doesn't necessarily preclude evolution from being true, it just means that we didn't evolve from a single celled organism. Even if God created Adam and Eve as humans, it is still true that organisms with genetic traits that help them reproduce will propogate those traits, and ones with detrimental traits will not pass those traits along (the theory of evolution).

Or it could be that aliens created us millions of years ago... and evolution is completely false, we've been exactly the same ever since they created us, millions of years ago.

So if I believe that small changes in genetics eventually add up to big changes, that doesn't prevent me from believing that God started it. Or that aliens started it. Or that humans time travel and we're just a paradox.

Or, I could reject evolution. I can still believe that God created us. Or that aliens created us. Or that we eventally create time travel and are in a huge time loop. Or that we're in a simulation.

Or, someone could validly choose to belive in an answer to one of the two questions, without choosing to believe that they know the answer to the other.

 

[JacksBratt]

Of course. But life clearly exists, so we can legitimately ask how life changes (or doesn't), regardless of whether or not we question how it began.

Sorry, nope. Stop right there.

A theory that starts with a single celled being, IMO, needs to say where it came from and how it is alive.

You cannot have one organism morphing into another one if they are not alive.

So, you have to tell me how it is alive. Even on the most basic of basic levels.

Or, it cannot do anything. It cannot eat, breath, replicate or even die.. if it isn't alive.

You cannot tell me the story of all the sketches of a brilliant artist if there is no way to show me where they got a pencil.

You cannot build a fire if you don't have a spark.

They're connected in that they're both about life, but they're not so connected that we can't ask them separately.

They are so connected that you cannot evolve if you don't have life. Period.
So, saying "well, I don't know that part" is not an excuse.

You cannot say "When we are in Paris we can do this, this and this" and when someone says.. "how are you getting to Paris"? you say "I don't know, that's not connected, but when we are there we are going to do a lot of things."

Suppose I have a theory about how cars run. Should I just throw it out simply because I don't know for sure who designed it's engine or manufactured it? No, they're separate questions, even though they're related.

This isn't even about who designed life or built the engine... it's about what makes the engine run.

The fact that you know that the car engine needs a designer and a manufacturer tells us all something... there was a designer and a creator... the problem you have with the very first organism...is still.... what makes it's engine run. This is still a problem and you don't care.

You're really combining two questions into one. "How did life begin?" and "How does life change over time?" Yes, they are indeed on the same topic, you are correct, but that doesn't mean we necessarily need to ask them together.

Until you answer "How did life begin" you have no life to change over time.

You could have a gazillion organisms of all types all over the globe... but not one is going to change... without life. It is the essential motivational factor..Nothing happens, except decay.. without life.

Imagine we all know with 100% certainty that God created the world roughly 6000 years ago. This doesn't necessarily preclude evolution from being true, it just means that we didn't evolve from a single celled organism. Even if God created Adam and Eve as humans, it is still true that organisms with genetic traits that help them reproduce will propogate those traits, and ones with detrimental traits will not pass those traits along (the theory of evolution).

Even if you took the very first dogs and kept breeding dogs with shorter tails with the other dogs with shorter tails... and getting more dogs with shorter tails... they are still dogs.

Nobody argues that certain traits within a species can vary. This is micro evolution and is quite common... but....not the evolution that Darwin was speaking of. Not the evolution that makes monkeys our common ancestor.

You state in your avatar that you are a Christian... you do know that Satan lies to us and this whole evolutionary tale is just that.

God said how He did it. God said when He did it. God said how long it took.

Do you think that it wasn't possible for God to do it as He told us that He did?

Or it could be that aliens created us millions of years ago... and evolution is completely false, we've been exactly the same ever since they created us, millions of years ago.

Ya, heard that before... so.. who created the aliens... you can keep going back and back and back and back.. but sooner or later... someone created something and gave it life..

One of the only things that is the Hiccup with the God story is who created God.. but, as Christians, we know that He has always been.. It's not totally something to wrap our human heads around but you either believe that or you go with life from nothing and toss God out all together. I choose to believe that God has always been.

So if I believe that small changes in genetics eventually add up to big changes, that doesn't prevent me from believing that God started it.

Well, other than God told us He did it a different way.

Or that aliens started it. Or that humans time travel and we're just a paradox.

Ya... that's in "christian theology 101... life is a paradox... yep... not buying that one.

Oh, and the aliens again? Really.. and where did they get life again? Oh, maybe they were created by other aliens which were also created by other aliens and so on and so on and so on.......Are we going to go down that endless tale of time.

Or, I could reject evolution. I can still believe that God created us. Or that aliens created us. Or that we eventally create time travel and are in a huge time loop. Or that we're in a simulation.

OR... we could just believe Genesis... but wait.. that's too boring... right?

Ever hear of Akum's Razor....

Or, someone could validly choose to belive in an answer to one of the two questions, without choosing to believe that they know the answer to the other.

OR, I've already spent too much time on this post...explained this too many times and too many ways...

Start with life... you haven't got it, you cannot create it, you need it. God gave it... end of story...

The rest of the how stuff, like where DNA came from, protein, enzymes, the ability to eat, breath, replicate. Why it change to needing male and female.. how the male of each species mates perfectly with the female of each species but must have morphed separately...... and the list keeps going on an on....... ALL just get more ridiculously impossible.

I'll stick with "God could do it like He said...God is truth... so.... He did it like He said."

Why go looking for some other explanation?

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

Even Richard Dawkins said they don't know.
Then he said that it must be from some past highly intelligent beings.

Richard Dawkins never said that.

He never had any answer as to where they came from... No matter how far back you go.. at one point, somewhere, life had to start.

The germ theory of disease does not answer the question of where disease cells come from. Do you believe it is "dead" also?

Richard even stated that we must be the result of some sort of designer... just not God.

Richard Dawkins never said that.

 

[JacksBratt]

Richard Dawkins never said that.



The germ theory of disease does not answer the question of where disease cells come from. Do you believe it is "dead" also?



Richard Dawkins never said that.

First, I'm at work. I will find the interview with Richard Dawkins by Ben Stein. If you have time you could google "Ben Stein Interviews Richard Dawkins. It will come up immediately. This will show you, in Dawkins own words what he says about a designer and where life "may have" come from.
Basically anywhere imaginable, except from God.

Secondly, your germ theory scenario is a straw-man. Animal husbandry doesn't answer where cows come from either.

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

First, I'm at work. I will find the interview with Richard Dawkins by Ben Stein. If you have time you could google "Ben Stein Interviews Richard Dawkins. It will come up immediately. This will show you, in Dawkins own words what he says about a designer and where life "may have" come from.

So you have changed the wording and understand your error. This is good.

Ben Stein and the film crew of Explelled were deceitful. They lied about their reasons for the interview to Dawkins. They used deceitful editing to make as if Dawkins said something he would not. If you are sincerely interested in the truth, please google Dawkins discussing the interview. You will find it enlightening to realize how deceitful Expelled is.

Basically anywhere imaginable, except from God.

Dawkins was asked how life could have come to earth if it was not formed on earth. Dawkins speculated that one way was an advanced civilization could have seeded life. What is wrong with this?

And again you make incorrect statement about what Dawkins said. Please provide quote where Dawkins said the above. Thank you.

Secondly, your germ theory scenario is a straw-man. Animal husbandry doesn't answer where cows come from either.

I used your exact logic. I just used your logic on Germ Theory instead of TOE. At least you realize that your logic is fallacious. This too is good.

You acknowledge that you were wrong in your first words regarding Dawkins statement but not second statement. Please acknowledge that were also wrong about second statement so that we know we are speaking on the same page.