How many creationist here think that atheism and evolution go together?

[bhsmte]

Yes. Evolution, a Creator, or Unknown.
No other options.

You haven't answered this question:

What does evolution say about the origin of life?

 

[The Cadet]

Yes. Evolution, a Creator, or Unknown.
No other options.
Atheists choose either evolution, or unknown.

Great. Now define what those terms mean, then demonstrate why no other option is possible.

 

[juvenissun]

You haven't answered this question:

What does evolution say about the origin of life?

Unknown. So not included.
Actually, it is a very coward attitude.

 

[The Cadet]

Unknown. So not included.
Actually, it is a very coward attitude.

There's nothing cowardly about admitting to not knowing something when you don't know it.

 

[bhsmte]

Unknown. So not included.
Actually, it is a very coward attitude.

I know, you like when things are simply, made up.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Unknown. So not included.
Actually, it is a very coward attitude.

How is it cowardly to acknowledge that a theory doesn't cover a certain item? How life changes over time and generations isn't considered to be connected to how life originated, so there is no reason for evolutionary theory to address the origin of life any more than gravitational theory should address how diseases spread.

Furthermore, admitting being unsure about something is the opposite of cowardly. Generally speaking, humans don't handle being uncertain very well, so it takes a degree of mental strength and fortitude to be willing to admit ignorance rather than claim to have an answer to a question that hasn't really been answered. And before you try to claim that the bible has all the answers, it really doesn't, and is physically too short to cover everything. The bible certainly doesn't answer how electricity works, or tides, or air currents, and many other things. If we just claimed god and left the issue there, we would have never found the real answers.

 

[juvenissun]

How is it cowardly to acknowledge that a theory doesn't cover a certain item?

Evolution studies the change of life. Why shouldn't it include the processes in which life emerged?
Is the study of DNA part of evolution? Why not include the study of DNA which made the first life form?
The answer is very simple: Because that kind of study is too hard and it makes evolution look bad. So, sorry, it is not included.

 

[juvenissun]

There's nothing cowardly about admitting to not knowing something when you don't know it.

True.
So, why not include that part of process into the theory of evolution?
I can even suggest a few chapter names: 1. formation of protein, 2. formation of amino acid, 3. formation of DNA. etc.
Say what we know and leave the rest open.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution studies the change of life. Why shouldn't it include the processes in which life emerged?
Is the study of DNA part of evolution? Why not include the study of DNA which made the first life form?
The answer is very simple: Because that kind of study is too hard and it makes evolution look bad. So, sorry, it is not included.

Because science answers the questions that it can answer first. How evolution occurred is much easier to understand than how life itself started. You are trying to be dishonest by moving the goalposts. This is an effective admission by you that the theory of evolution is correct. I am sure that it has been explained to you many times that regardless of what the first source of life was we know that it evolved after that.

Why do you cling to the Adam and Eve myth so desperately? It is not as if your religion is based upon that myth. In fact it has some very evil false morals that goes with it. It assumes that the sins of the father are the sins of the child. That would imply that if you can execute a murder you would be justified in executing his children for the crime that the father did.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Evolution studies the change of life. Why shouldn't it include the processes in which life emerged?

I already answered that in the rest of my previous post: because where life came from is irrelevant to how it changes over time. If god made the first life out of inorganic matter, or if abiogenesis explains how life arose, it wouldn't make the process of evolution any different. Theories don't cover irrelevant material that, if disproven, wouldn't disprove the parent theory or demand changes in it. Seeing as life being created by a deity wouldn't inherently render evolution invalid (even if creatures were made like humans, we do still observe change over time. All that would change is charts of ancestry, and perhaps timescale).

Is the study of DNA part of evolution? Why not include the study of DNA which made the first life form?

Well for one thing, DNA doesn't stand the test of time well enough to make that study even possible, but we would certainly study it if we could. Additionally, evolution explicitly only studies that which is alive (and viruses, as they are a weird case). While evolution would cover the first generation of life on Earth, it has no bearing on what preceded it. Basically, if you tied in a specific origin of life into the theory that covers how life changes over time, it bears the risk of taking valid ideas out of science should the origin of life component be disproven. Since how life originated has no direct impact on how life changes over time (there are multiple ways life as we know it could have developed), it has no disproving power over evolution in and of itself. Furthermore, evidence for how life came to be doesn't serve as evidence for how life changes over time, and visa versa, so it is entirely counterintuitive to shove the two together into a shared theory.

The study of DNA is a part of evolution, but not in how it came to be, but in how it changes over time.

The answer is very simple: Because that kind of study is too hard and it makes evolution look bad. So, sorry, it is not included.

No, more because that kind of study is literally impossible. Evolution is not some prized possession; disproving it would probably be considered the greatest scientific achievement in biology ever. Sure, some people might be bummed because we are emotional beings, but progress is progress. If evolution really doesn't represent reality, we'd rather know that then hold on to an incorrect concept. Disproving theories that are wrong is more scientifically progressive than finding evidence to support theories, arguably.

 

[SkyWriting]

You haven't answered this question:

What does evolution say about the origin of life?

Evolution of Life and Origin on Bacterial Curves, Allies

Team identifies ancient mutation that contributed to evolution

How Did Multicellular Life Evolve?

Cosmic Evolution Origin Of Life: Extraterrestrial Life

From single cells to multicellular life

How Did Life Become Complex, And Could It Happen

Centipede's genome reveals how life evolved on our planet

New Study Finds Oceans Arrived Early to Earth

 

[PsychoSarah]

...

I deleted the ones from the list that don't actually state that abiogenesis is a component of evolutionary theory... oh, wait...

Yeah, cosmic evolution and biological evolution are not the same thing, fyi.

 

[juvenissun]

No, more because that kind of study is literally impossible.

You mean the study of abiogenesis is not possible?
Evolutionists are afraid of studying it. "biochemists" are not.

 

[SkyWriting]

That would imply that if you can execute a murder you would be justified in executing his children for the crime that the father did.

You've already taken their father away.
Likely they will suffer, thank you.

 

[Laury]

Evolution studies the change of life. Why shouldn't it include the processes in which life emerged?

Because how it started has nothing to do with how the already existing life changes over time.
I don't get what's so hard about that.

Maybe this video could help you out:

 

[Chris B]

Five seconds is not viable. But popped into existence is another term for creation.

Only if an entity with awareness and intent was involved.
I'm far from up on the latest data and modelling, but I think there are two or three ideas concerning the beginning of space and time which fit observed nature but do not require an entity (which in no wise rules one out, of course.)
But if no sentient creator, then calling the universe "a creation" is to introduce an unnecessarily loaded term.

Options needed re-thinking when it was realised that a vacuum was not a perfect "nothing" at all, but a seething mass of virtual of transient particles, precisely popping in and out of existence.

Five seconds ago, or more often last Thursday, is perfectly viable on any acceptance of the idea of deliberately created "apparent age" in the universe.

 

[Abraxos]

Darwinian Evolution is baseless without a good theory of Abiogenesis, which it does not have.

 

[Hoghead1]

I think you should read Darwin, Abraxos. He argued God was at the base of Abiogenesis. However, I have trouble here, because I don't believe in passive, inert, dead matter. I think mind and matter are one. Even atoms are alive, have tiny minds.

 

[Abraxos]

I think you should read Darwin, Abraxos. He argued God was at the base of Abiogenesis. However, I have trouble here, because I don't believe in passive, inert, dead matter. I think mind and matter are one. Even atoms are alive, have tiny minds.

So you agree that God started life?

 

[Chris B]

I didn't make such a claim about the significance of a numerical majority.

I was just covering the other side of the coin.