Evolution happens

[AV1611VET]

The position that you are implying is not technically a Christian position.

I don't understand what you're saying, Think.

I don't believe in Intelligent Design; I believe in Creationism.

I believe God created the universe in six literal days, using a series of miracles that raised the level of mass/energy in the universe from zero to what it is today.

 

[Gene2memE]

It's always sad that the people who demonstrably have the least knowledge about evolution are the ones who are most confident about it being wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's always sad that the people who demonstrably have the least knowledge about evolution are the ones who are most confident about it being wrong.

Evolution right:

Evolution wrong:

 

[Yttrium]

Nature by itself cannot produce a species change

Well, you say so, but I don't see why not. Changes do happen. Changes can add up.

 

[Astrid]

It's always sad that the people who demonstrably have the least knowledge about evolution are the ones who are most confident about it being wrong.

Dismissing as false something one knows nothing about
is sad, sure. But also very foolish.

 

[AV1611VET]

Dismissing as false something one knows nothing about is sad, sure. But also very foolish.

Yup -- like dismissing as false the Creation Week, the Flood, the Exodus, the Virgin Birth, Resurrection -- just to name a very few -- is very foolish.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

In other words, your camp has absolutely NO CLUE how life began besides God's Creation. You just tell a story about what happened AFTER the most critical part.

You misunderstand. The field of abiogenesis is the study of the possible origins of life. There is a variety of ideas for how it may have happened and a great deal of progress has been made in working out and demonstrating possible stages and parts of that process.

That's about as good as "Once upon a time there was nothing ... THEN IT EXPLODED AND BECAME EVERYTHING!!!"

If you mean the big bang, that's not the claim. Again, it would help if you knew the basics of what you want to argue about. Try this: Big Bang - Wikipedia.

I made my point very clear. Abiogenesis is a PART of the science that explains how all of life came about. Call it whatever you like, it is the complete opposite of Creationism.

Yes, but this discussion is about 'creation and evolution', not 'creation and abiogenesis'. Evolution does not explain how life came about, it explains how life became diversified after it came about. That's what matters in this discussion.

It wouldn't be a problem for evolution if the earliest life turned out to have been created or planted by aliens (although it would mean a lot of abiogenesis researchers looking for other things to do ).

 

[Ophiolite]

Meanwhile, back at the OP:

• Evolution happens and we have a vast body of research that supports the notion that the Modern Synthesis and various amendments to it provide the bext explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. There is no meaningful, alternative evidence based explanation.
• The theory of evolution does not account for the origin of life. As yet no comparable theory has been developed to account for that origin. However, extensive research has provided many useful insights that point to a chemical origin will contribute to a fuller understanding.

Attacks on evolution that assert "It just ain't so" are pointless and, if repeated incessantly become fatuous, or worse. Attacks on evolution that recognise and address the quality and quantity of evidence for it are the ones that will be accorded respect and attention. Outright denials without an ounce of support (other than more denials and false claims) will rightly be dismissed offhand.

Dismissing as false something one knows nothing about
is sad, sure. But also very foolish

And very obvious. I can never understand why someone would expose their ignorance in that way. One should expose ones ignorance as part of the process of removing it, not as a way of reinforcing it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Attacks on evolution that assert "It just ain't so" are pointless and, if repeated incessantly become fatuous, or worse.

What about those who, despite the fact that they can hardly spell the word, agree wholeheartedly? are they sheeple?

 

[Astrid]

.

 

[Gene2memE]

There has never once been found, and thoroughly documented, an animal in a state of transition between 'kinds'. Animals evolve within their 'kinds.' NONE evolve from one 'kind' to another 'kind.'

What anatomical features would you consider transitional between 'kinds'?

How would you know whether an animal was in a state of transition or not? What features/changes would you expect to see?

In depth DNA research proves that it is absolutely impossible.

It has never happened. Ever.

What does the word 'homeobox' mean to you?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's always sad that the people who demonstrably have the least knowledge about evolution are the ones who are most confident about it being wrong.

It's an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Shemjaza]

False.

Non-life doesn't appear into a multi-celled organism in a trillion trillion spontaneous chance scenarios.

Fail.

I didn't say that.

I was talking about single celled life to complex life... which is what you were bringing up.

The transition of lifeless chemistry to very simple life is mysterious... but also irrelevant to the evidence for the evolution and diversity of life.

 

[Shemjaza]

In other words, your camp has absolutely NO CLUE how life began besides God's Creation. You just tell a story about what happened AFTER the most critical part.

The theory of evolution would not be falsified by a demonstration that the origin of life was miraculous or intelligently designed.

However the evidence for the evolution and diversification of life over millions of years is absolutely evidence against the YEC narrative.

That's about as good as "Once upon a time there was nothing ... THEN IT EXPLODED AND BECAME EVERYTHING!!!"

I've seen no evidence that nothing is even possible let alone it being a necessary part of formation of the Universe.

I made my point very clear. Abiogenesis is a PART of the science that explains how all of life came about. Call it whatever you like, it is the complete opposite of Creationism. And that's what matters in this discussion.

Yes, it is. But just because science can't explain everything, doesn't mean science can't explain anything.

What science can explain in detail is how life develops and diversifies.

 

[Astrid]

I didn't say that.

I was talking about single celled life to complex life... which is what you were bringing up.

The transition of lifeless chemistry to very simple life is mysterious... but also irrelevant to the evidence for the evolution and diversity of life.

Are you sure there is a distinction between an ' alive"
chemical or its reactions, and one that is not?

 

[YeshuaFan]

According to them, there have been countless cat-dog remains found strewn all throughout history.

Haven't you heard?

Maybe the Minotaur also?

 

[YeshuaFan]

Of course not. Why do you ask?

Did you learn that science does not do proof? I mentioned that s
some time ago but you did not respond.

Evolution has no proof

 

[YeshuaFan]

In other words, your camp has absolutely NO CLUE how life began besides God's Creation. You just tell a story about what happened AFTER the most critical part.

That's about as good as "Once upon a time there was nothing ... THEN IT EXPLODED AND BECAME EVERYTHING!!!"

I made my point very clear. Abiogenesis is a PART of the science that explains how all of life came about. Call it whatever you like, it is the complete opposite of Creationism. And that's what matters in this discussion.

Even Theistic Evolutionists have to admit God was original creator of Universe and of life

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe the Minotaur also?

QV please: Post 111