Faith.

[Moral Orel]

So how does evolution starts with abiogenesis?

Or evolution starts after God creates the first spark of life. Doesn't matter, either is fine. That's why they aren't related.

 

[dcalling]

So you do not even understand the most fundamental principles of your religion. Interesting. Why believe it then?

The fundamentals for Christianity is pretty simple, that God wants us to love each other as ourselves, and we will never be able to archive that, and the only thing that can save us is by God's grace and our repentance. By my own observations it is rather true, that we humans by ourselves is just hopeless due to our own selfish natures.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The fundamentals for Christianity is pretty simple, that God wants us to love each other as ourselves, and we will never be able to archive that, and the only thing that can save us is by God's grace and our repentance. By my own observations it is rather true, that we humans by ourselves is just hopeless due to our own selfish natures.

I thought the fundamental thing in Christianity was God sacrificing himself to himself to save us all from himself. You incorporate none of that. What you take as fundamental doctrine makes the divinity of Christ irrelevant. Are you a Mormon by any chance?

 

[dcalling]

Or evolution starts after God creates the first spark of life. Doesn't matter, either is fine. That's why they aren't related.

OK, if you believe in God then we can put the spark of life out of my question. But still the question remains, Have we even observed any single cell organisms evolved to something totally different, i.e. maybe evolve to multi cell organisms? We can't say something evolved to another just because their DNA are simlar, they have to be testable, repeatable and verifiable, means we need to either observe it in a lab or be able to simulate it in some well know computer model.

 

[dcalling]

I thought the fundamental thing in Christianity was God sacrificing himself to himself to save us all from himself. You incorporate none of that. What you take as fundamental doctrine makes the divinity of Christ irrelevant. Are you a Mormon by any chance?

Nope, just an atheist turned Christian. Trinity is something that is very hard to understand, in my mind God is spirit, not physical, so my understanding is God might have put his spirit in Jesus, so make him a total representation of God. I could be totally wrong, because how do we understand God? Either that or Jesus might be one dimension, or one aspect of God. I don't want to mislead you so you better find some one better qualified then me

I started to think God must exist after my study of computers in highschool, once you see what it really is, it is very easy to see programs is not how humans are made, there is no computer model that can archive the self awareness of humans. And if God must exists, one of our human religions will show us who God is.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Nope, just an atheist turned Christian. Trinity is something that is very hard to understand, in my mind God is spirit, not physical, so my understanding is God might have put his spirit in Jesus, so make him a total representation of God. I could be totally wrong, because how do we understand God? Either that or Jesus might be one dimension, or one aspect of God. I don't want to mislead you so you better find some one better qualified then me

I started to think God must exist after my study of computers in highschool, once you see what it really is, it is very easy to see programs is not how humans are made, there is no computer model that can archive the self awareness of humans. And if God must exists, one of our human religions will show us who God is.

Why did you turn Christian if you don't think Christianity is more reasonable?

 

[dcalling]

It points to common ancestry. There is no debate about this within the scientific community. DNA and genetics slam the door shut any any doubt about evolution. It's a fact. Take any sequenced genome from two different species and compare. They will fall into a perfect nested hierarchy, exactly what evolution predicts. You are simply moving the goal posts. You're shown a fact and then you proceed to say "Well that doesn't mean common ancestry". It's as if you must deny all facts to hold onto your deeply held beliefs. It's quite clear no matter what evidence is shown to you, you'll close your eyes and plug your ears.

Edit: remember it could have been you who closed eyes and ears. I was once atheist and I have been making arguments on your side

If you can't even show me how a single celled organism evolved to multi-celled organism in a repeatable/testable manner, how can you tell me you have proven ToE? You can't say "I must be right because I have science behind me" yet not meeting scientific standards.

How would one conduct such a test? You keep asking to demonstrate this impossible task. It's impossible because it's nonsensical. Genetic mutations are random, natural selection is nonrandom. Perhaps in your own words you can describe what genetic mutations and genetic drift is. Also, describe what type of test one would conduct in order to answer your questions.

Why is that? It is because we have very limited understanding of DNA and how it controls things. All we can do right now is trying knock out/bring in pieces of it and see the effects, and assuming how that part works.

All you need to do is give some testable/verifiable/repeatable tests, and we are all done. You keep telling me there are none and it is impossible, that means ToE can't be verified, unless you want to redefine science.

Because we share a common ancestor. You can take any two species genomes and compare them. They'll fall into a nested hierarchy, exactly what evolution predicts. You clearly do not understand genetic mutations as evidenced by your nonsensical requests.

How can fruit flies share more human DNA than dogs and other animals? Most of them don't even have human DNA.

I don't know how life started. Abiogenesis has NOTHING to do with evolution. You can say it does all you want, you'll still be wrong. Evolution describes what happens with life AFTER it is already here. Do you reject the germ theory of disease because it doesn't describe where germs came from? Do you reject atomic theory because it doesn't say where atoms came from? Do you reject the theory of general relativity because it doesn't explain where gravity came from? Now that you understand that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, you can stop including the two together. Continuing to do so would make you intellectually dishonest.



If we can't explain where germs came from, how can we claim to understand the germ theory of disease? How did we test it? Do you see how nonsensical that line of questioning is?

germ theory is testable, verifiable and repeatable, inject some germ in your system and you got sick, we don't know where germ come from but we can test germ theory. Try that on ToE, that is my main point, if it is not testable, verifiable and repeatable, you can't claim it as proven.

Just because your DNA is 60% similar to a fruit fly, does not mean a fruit fly should look like a human. This is just more ridiculous nonsense that demonstrates you don't understand what you're talking about. There are millions and millions and millions of genetic mutations that separate you over millions upon millions upon millions of generations.



If you think this is a rational line of reasoning, you should point me in the direction of any scientific, peer reviewed research paper on ERVs that reached this conclusion. You won't find any. With your limited scientific knowledge, are you better at reaching conclusions than those who have spent their entire life researching this? If you think you are, write a research paper and submit it for peer review. Are you willing to do this?



More nonsense. Substantiate your claim.



How do we know DNA evolves? Go look at yourself in the mirror. Everyone is born with between 60-100 genetic mutations. Ask yourself this question: Why do I not look identical to my siblings?



Stay not evolved? Evolution is always happening.....constantly, it doesn't stop. See much more species? There are an estimated 8.3 million species on earth and 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are extinct. This is one big giant argument from personal incredulity fallacy.



Genetic drift.

So how come goblin sharks has not changed over 100+ million years? If we all evolved as you said gradually, we should see more extincted "inbetween" species right? How come you see some species that seems to be in between many times, but not in more granular levels (i.e. should we see with fossile records that something got tiny wings, and gradually became bigger, instead of something seems to be in between dino and bird with wings all of a sudden)?

 

[dcalling]

Why did you turn Christian if you don't think Christianity is more reasonable?

I turned Christians because I think Christianity is the most reasonable out of the 4 major ones I considered

 

[Moral Orel]

OK, if you believe in God then we can put the spark of life out of my question.

Believing in God is irrelevant to evolution. That is my point. Abiogenesis is not evolution, and you can't denounce evolution because we don't have evidence of abiogenesis. If you're done doing that, then great!

But still the question remains, Have we even observed any single cell organisms evolved to something totally different, i.e. maybe evolve to multi cell organisms? We can't say something evolved to another just because their DNA are simlar, they have to be testable, repeatable and verifiable, means we need to either observe it in a lab or be able to simulate it in some well know computer model.

Have you ever counted to a zillion? How do you know a zillion exists? Sure, we could get a computer to count to a zillion, maybe, but we would have to look at all the data it produces to make sure it didn't just completely skip a step or a few million without us noticing and that would take too much time (just like counting to a zillion). So I guess you need to doubt the existence of a zillion because it can't be observed in a lab or simulated by a computer.

 

[dcalling]

Believing in God is irrelevant to evolution. That is my point. Abiogenesis is not evolution, and you can't denounce evolution because we don't have evidence of abiogenesis. If you're done doing that, then great!

Your first statement is true. However you missed my point. I am not saying evolution is false, I am simply saying evolution is not a Theory, but a hypothesis, because it is not proven yet. For something to be proven, it has to meet scientific standards, that it has to be testable, repeatable and verifiable, do you see anything wrong with that? Now is evolution testable and repeatable?

Have you ever counted to a zillion? How do you know a zillion exists? Sure, we could get a computer to count to a zillion, maybe, but we would have to look at all the data it produces to make sure it didn't just completely skip a step or a few million without us noticing and that would take too much time (just like counting to a zillion). So I guess you need to doubt the existence of a zillion because it can't be observed in a lab or simulated by a computer.

We all know zillion exists by induction, it is simple logic. If you could show us how some common DNA strand can mutate naturally to both human and chimp DNA, you have proven evolution. Or to make it simpler, if you can show how a strand of DNA for a single celled organism can mutate to a multiple celled organism, you have made yourself a much better case for evolution.

If you can't, you have failed the basic testing blocks for ToE. One of my friend who is a Christian also believe in ToE, I chanllenged him on evidence, and he can't provide much, but still believes in it, now that is how strong people's faith in ToE is

 

[com7fy8]

Why do Christians have faith?

Because God has changed me to have faith and God has proven Himself to me.

But better than believing ideas is "faith working through love" (in Galatians 5:6).

 

[Hoghead1]

Your first statement is true. However you missed my point. I am not saying evolution is false, I am simply saying evolution is not a Theory, but a hypothesis, because it is not proven yet. For something to be proven, it has to meet scientific standards, that it has to be testable, repeatable and verifiable, do you see anything wrong with that? Now is evolution testable and repeatable?



We all know zillion exists by induction, it is simple logic. If you could show us how some common DNA strand can mutate naturally to both human and chimp DNA, you have proven evolution. Or to make it simpler, if you can show how a strand of DNA for a single celled organism can mutate to a multiple celled organism, you have made yourself a much better case for evolution.

If you can't, you have failed the basic testing blocks for ToE. One of my friend who is a Christian also believe in ToE, I chanllenged him on evidence, and he can't provide much, but still believes in it, now that is how strong people's faith in ToE is

Evolution definitely is testable, actually has been observed in the lab. Actually, naturalistic observation, going out and exploring the fossils, etc., is a better way to observe.

 

[Moral Orel]

However you missed my point.

The point I replied to was that you asked for proof of abiogenesis in a discussion about evolution. Don't do that, it's inappropriate. And now that you are aware of the difference, doing it now would be dishonest.

For something to be proven, it has to meet scientific standards, that it has to be testable, repeatable and verifiable, do you see anything wrong with that?

We all know zillion exists by induction, it is simple logic.

Is the existence of a zillion testable, repeatable and verifiable in the same way that you expect evolution to be? If so, how? And if not, why the double standard? Remember, for something to be proven it has to be testable, repeatable and verifiable. No one has ever counted to a zillion, so it isn't testable. It certainly hasn't been done twice, so it isn't repeatable. And we have never verified that the proof of it's existence has been done.

One of my friend who is a Christian also believe in ToE, I chanllenged him on evidence, and he can't provide much, but still believes in it, now that is how strong people's faith in ToE is

Yet you'll accept personal testimony from an unqualified, non-expert as an anecdote to prove that believing ToE is faith based?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

If you can't even show me how a single celled organism evolved to multi-celled organism in a repeatable/testable manner, how can you tell me you have proven ToE?

First, science isn't in the business of proving anything. This demonstrates your severe lack of knowledge of how science works.
Second, you are moving to goal posts once again. No matter how much evidence is shown to you, you keep moving the goal posts back. But if you want a repeatable demonstration of a single celled organism becoming a multi-celled organism? Every pregnancy. My goodness. Did you ever take a basic biology course? This is a serious question.

Why is that? It is because we have very limited understanding of DNA and how it controls things.

Don't question dodge. Please explain what type of test you would like performed. Describe it in detail. It will demonstrate if you know what you're talking about.

All you need to do is give some testable/verifiable/repeatable tests, and we are all done. You keep telling me there are none and it is impossible, that means ToE can't be verified, unless you want to redefine science.

Where did I say there are no tests to demonstrate evolution in DNA? I simply told you your request was nonsensical because you're not describing what type of test would be conducted. It's simply you moving the goal posts when you get backed into a corner. Evolution has been repeatedly tested for 150 years. Take any two species genomes and compare them. They will fall into a nested hierarchy. Let me ask you this question: Do you deny that evolution demonstrates this nested hierarchy? This is a repeatable test. Take the human genome....compare it to several different species genomes and they will always fall into the predicted nested hierarchy. This is the definition of a repeatable test. Do you deny this?

I was once atheist and I have been making arguments on your side

Considering you have demonstrated you don't have the slightest clue about what evolution is, I highly doubt this. It's irrelevant to the conversation anyway. Atheism has nothing to do with evolution. Most Christians accept evolution. Creationists are the minority and are openly mocked for good reason by the rest of the world.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And if God must exists, one of our human religions will show us who God is.

That doesn't follow.

 

[dcalling]

Evolution definitely is testable, actually has been observed in the lab. Actually, naturalistic observation, going out and exploring the fossils, etc., is a better way to observe.

Show me how it is repeatable, testable and verifiable, how it is observed in the lab (when the best we can do for e.coli after 60k generations showed almost nothing, and we don't even understand how RNA can be produced naturally).

 

[dcalling]

The point I replied to was that you asked for proof of abiogenesis in a discussion about evolution. Don't do that, it's inappropriate. And now that you are aware of the difference, doing it now would be dishonest.

No its not, I am simply showing you that you can't even prove the simpler/easier part, and you claim you can prove the more complex part. You can't see that or you just choose to ignore the fact?

Is the existence of a zillion testable, repeatable and verifiable in the same way that you expect evolution to be? If so, how? And if not, why the double standard? Remember, for something to be proven it has to be testable, repeatable and verifiable. No one has ever counted to a zillion, so it isn't testable. It certainly hasn't been done twice, so it isn't repeatable. And we have never verified that the proof of it's existence has been done.

This is the simplest way of mathematics, anyone with a highschool degree (maybe college I am too far out to remember where it is learnt). f(n) = n + 1, by infering you know n exists, n+1 always exists. Show me this kind of prove in ToE.

Yet you'll accept personal testimony from an unqualified, non-expert as an anecdote to prove that believing ToE is faith based?

I am simply shown how most people believe in ToE, they can't produce repeatable, testable evidences and yet they believe, most likely because a lot of other people believe so.

 

[dcalling]

That doesn't follow.

OK I will change that to "one of the existing religions will most likely inspired by God and will lead us to God"

 

[bhsmte]

That doesn't follow.

This guy reminds me of justlookinla.

 

[Moral Orel]

No its not, I am simply showing you that you can't even prove the simpler/easier part, and you claim you can prove the more complex part. You can't see that or you just choose to ignore the fact?

No, no, no. You still think abiogenesis is a part of evolution, and it's not. I don't see a point in discussing anything else with you as long as you still don't understand that concept.