10 Reasons Why Evolution Is A Lie:Science Cannot Create Life

speakout said:

Did you notice that "Grand Unification Theory" was in brackets? What does that tell you?

Click to expand...

That you are intellectually vacant and require a remedial course in grammer and usage.

No offense, but you did ask.

Ahhhh, the "evolution is just a THEORY" objection. Right. Ever heard of "atomic theory", "gravitational theory", or .....

There is the law of evolution and the theory of evolution. That biological evolution occurs is a fact. HOW evolution occurs is the theory.

If this confuses SPEAK OUT, think of the "law" of gravity and the the "theory" of gravity. The former acknowledges gravity as a reality. The former sets out to explain how gravity works. See the difference? And no, intentional ignorance is not acceptable.

10 Reasons Why Evolution Is A Lie:Science Cannot Create Life

Click to expand...

Abiogenesis =/= Evolution

/thread

Pwnzerfaust said:

Abiogenesis =/= Evolution

Click to expand...

Oh, really?

If you reverse engineer evolution, where will it end?

AV1611VET said:

Oh, really?

If you reverse engineer evolution, where will it end?

Click to expand...

Evolution begins after the first life appears. It does not matter how this life appears. It could even have been your god poofing the first most basic pre-cells into existence. However life got here doesn't matter. As long as there is life, there is evolution.

Pwnzerfaust said:

Evolution begins after the first life appears. It does not matter how this life appears. It could even have been your god poofing the first most basic pre-cells into existence. However life got here doesn't matter. As long as there is life, there is evolution.

Click to expand...

So evolution was just sitting there waiting for life to begin, is that correct?

Just by coincidence, the engines of evolution started up the moment life [somehow] appeared?

And please understand my question. I'm asking if evolution started up co-incidentally with life.

Did whatever (or however) started life, also kick-start evolution?

AV1611VET said:

So evolution was just sitting there waiting for life to begin, is that correct?

Just by coincidence, the engines of evolution started up the moment life [somehow] appeared?

And please understand my question. I'm asking if evolution started up co-incidentally with life.

Did whatever (or however) started life, also kick-start evolution?

Click to expand...

Are you..[another self edit, never mind]

AV1611VET said:

So evolution was just sitting there waiting for life to begin, is that correct?

Just by coincidence, the engines of evolution started up the moment life [somehow] appeared?

Click to expand...

No, it was not 'just by coincidence'. I know what you're trying to do here;

This question is akin to asking, "Just by coincidence, I started sweating the moment the sun [somehow] caused the temperature around me to rise?


It is glaringly obvious that if something needs life to act on, then it will not act if life is not there yet. And that it will begin acting if life should show up.

You can't turn this into some sort of what are the chances, coincidence game.

AV1611VET said:

So evolution was just sitting there waiting for life to begin, is that correct?

Just by coincidence, the engines of evolution started up the moment life [somehow] appeared?

And please understand my question. I'm asking if evolution started up co-incidentally with life.

Did whatever (or however) started life, also kick-start evolution?

Click to expand...

You speak about evolution as if it's some kind of entity.

Abiogenesis is the field of how life started, evolution is the field of how life changed and adapted.

AV1611VET said:

So evolution was just sitting there waiting for life to begin, is that correct?

Just by coincidence, the engines of evolution started up the moment life [somehow] appeared?

And please understand my question. I'm asking if evolution started up co-incidentally with life.

Did whatever (or however) started life, also kick-start evolution?

Click to expand...

Evolution is a property of life, it's not some mystical external force. Asking whether evolution was waiting for life to appear is as strange as asking whether reproduction was sitting around waiting for life to appear. Reproduction and evolution is simply what life does.

Peter

Jester4kicks said:

You speak about evolution as if it's some kind of entity.

Abiogenesis is the field of how life started, evolution is the field of how life changed and adapted.

Click to expand...

It never ceases to amaze me , how apologists for evolution immediately distance themselves from the field or swamp of abiogenesis whenever and however the issue arises. If the truth be known both of these fields of metaphysical science are overwhelmingly dependant on each other in order to be considered thinkable and true. The fully naturalistic understanding of life's history that the contemporary term "evolution" demands, requires that the paddock of abiogenesis be given equal respect amongst the evolutionary establishment. To hand wave it away is naive in the extreme.

tanzanos said:

Click to expand...

Foolish is the Greek posting monstrosities

truth above all else said:

It never ceases to amaze me , how apologists for evolution immediately distance themselves from the field or swamp of abiogenesis whenever and however the issue arises. If the truth be known both of these fields of metaphysical science are overwhelmingly dependant on each other in order to be considered thinkable and true. The fully naturalistic understanding of life's history that the contemporary term "evolution" demands, requires that the paddock of abiogenesis be given equal respect amongst the evolutionary establishment. To hand wave it away is naive in the extreme.

Click to expand...

How so? The only thing we can be sure about is that life exists today and evolves. How the first organism came to be is an interesting subject, but does not have any impact on evolution - a purely naturalistic explanation would be just as acceptable as a supernatural one. The only thing that the ToE does is explaining what life did after it arose, what happened before doesn't matter.

MrGoodBytes said:

How so? The only thing we can be sure about is that life exists today and evolves. How the first organism came to be is an interesting subject, but does not have any impact on evolution - a purely naturalistic explanation would be just as acceptable as a supernatural one. The only thing that the ToE does is explaining what life did after it arose, what happened before doesn't matter.

Click to expand...

Are you serious that a supernatural explanation would be acceptable ? or are you simply hand waving away the only question that matters? By allowing the Divine to participate in the creation process and then pushing Him aside to allow methodological atheism to take over can only be satisfying to the most limited and stunted of minds.

truth above all else said:

It never ceases to amaze me , how apologists for evolution immediately distance themselves from the field or swamp of abiogenesis whenever and however the issue arises. If the truth be known both of these fields of metaphysical science are overwhelmingly dependant on each other in order to be considered thinkable and true.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. I've said it many times and I'll say it again: Even if the first life forms were literally miracled into existence by whatever god you choose, it would not reduce the validity of evolution as an explanation of the diversity of life on earth.

The fully naturalistic understanding of life's history that the contemporary term "evolution" demands, requires that the paddock of abiogenesis be given equal respect amongst the evolutionary establishment. To hand wave it away is naive in the extreme.

Click to expand...

To have a full understanding of life's history you need to have a complete theory of abiogenesis one way or another. Science doesn't have a complete theory of abiogenesis yet. This doesn't somehow nullify the scientific knowledge we do have.

Then again, there is no complete non-naturalistic theory of abiogenesis either. "Goddidit" provides next to no detail, zero predictive power, and no supporting evidence. It is laughable to call that an "understanding" of how life arose.

truth above all else said:

Are you serious that a supernatural explanation would be acceptable ? or are you simply hand waving away the only question that matters? By allowing the Divine to participate in the creation process and then pushing Him aside to allow methodological atheism to take over can only be satisfying to the most limited and stunted of minds.

Click to expand...

Why not put a God down as the creator of everything, including evolution?
when a God had finished making everything, the God then made evolution to oversee it's development,
do you honestly believe a God would make 100,000 different types of fly? (that we know of)
No, a God would leave that to an underling, like evolution.

Surly that would be a much better way to believe how things came to be as they are?

I will call it CREVOLUTION.

As I have just come up with a new religion called CREVOLUTION,
anyone wishing to be considered for membership will need to send me 50 dollars,
contact details will be posted shortly, thankyou.

truth above all else said:

Are you serious that a supernatural explanation would be acceptable ? or are you simply hand waving away the only question that matters? By allowing the Divine to participate in the creation process and then pushing Him aside to allow methodological atheism to take over can only be satisfying to the most limited and stunted of minds.

Click to expand...

Check your reps ---