Is evolution a fact or theory?

[Phil 1:21]

How easy it is to deceive the whole world, top to bottom !

Come up with a theory the world loves, a theory a few years old that contradicts all that is true, and opposes the one true God and Savior Jesus Christ,
and they will practically lay down their lives for that "love of the world"
instead
of seeking God and repenting ! EVERYONE NEEDS A NEW HEART !

Amen, brother. The Church of Darwin.

 

[Job 33:6]

Then show us the “observations” connecting humans to the primordial soup. Can’t? Yeah, we know.

Why do you think "primordial soup" and its existence is necessary for proof of the theory of evolution?

Did you see anywhere in either of the definitions provided, anything about primordial soup?

 

[Job 33:6]

Hold on, lets get some more definitions here...just so we are all on the same page.
https://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~mcclean/plsc431/popgen/popgen5.htm

Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection

1. More individuals are produced each generation that can survive.
2. Phenotypic variation exists among individuals and the variation is heritable.
3. Those individuals with heritable traits better suited to the environment will survive.
4. When reproductive isolation occurs new species will form.

These are the basic tenets of evolution by natural selection as defined by Darwin.

All of the above are readily observable in current times. The fundamental tenants are proven.

Does everyone understand this? Does anyone see anything about primordial soup in there? No? ok then.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Proven ? Not for all, no way.

 

[Job 33:6]

This should help.

5:45 is where we can find the definition of evolution.

 

[The Barbarian]

Then show us the “observations” connecting humans to the primordial soup.

This goes to the heart of your difficulty. You have no idea what evolution is, or what evolutionary theory has to say about it.

Evolution is not about the origin of life. Nor does evolutionary theory say humans evolved from "primordial soup."

You've imagined some weird misunderstanding about how it works, and insist that we provide you evidence for your misunderstanding.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Why do you think "primordial soup" and its existence is necessary for proof of the theory of evolution?

Did you see anywhere in either of the definitions provided, anything about primordial soup?

So if you trace supposed “evolution” back far enough you get what exactly? What did Darwin call it? That’s right, “primordial soup.”

Still waiting.

 

[The Barbarian]

So if you trace supposed “evolution” back far enough you get what exactly? What did Darwin call it? That’s right, “primordial soup.”

Well, let's take a look...

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
Charles Darwin, last sentence of The Origin of Species, 1872

Darwin had no theory for the way life appeared; he merely assumed that God did it.

 

[Job 33:6]

So if you trace supposed “evolution” back far enough you get what exactly? What did Darwin call it? That’s right, “primordial soup.”

Still waiting.

The question of if evolution occurs, is a question that is independent of the origins of life.

To make an analogy, lets say there is a person riding a bicycle down the street. And some creationist says "that person cannot ride a bike, prove it!". The scientist in the discussion takes a photograph of the person riding the bike and says "here, it is proven".

The creationist says "but you cant prove to me where the bicyclist was born!"

The creationist is incorrect in suggesting that where the bicyclist was born is relevant to the discussion.

Just the same, the questions pertaining to primordial soups and the origins of life, are irrelevant to the question of if life evolves.

Whether the bicyclist started riding his bike 10 miles away or 20 miles, or even 1000 miles away, is irrelevant to the question of if the bicyclist rides.

You asked for proof that evolution occurs, and it was given. It is only after you acknowledge that evolution is in fact an observed reality, that you can then begin to ponder what it means beyond what is readily observed.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Darwin had no theory for the way life appeared; he merely assumed that God did it.

Darwin had no theory for the way life appeared; he merely assumed that God did it.

And yet, Darwin also theorized that life may have begun in a “warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes”. Having later been overwhelmingly refuted by science, we know that...gasp...Darwin was wrong.

Darwin wrong? Perish the thought.

 

[Job 33:6]

And yet, Darwin also theorized that life may have begun in a “warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes”. Having later been overwhelmingly refuted by science, we know that...gasp...Darwin was wrong.

Darwin wrong? Perish the thought.

Indeed, Darwin is known for his theory of evolution. He is not known for his hypotheses of the origin of life. Which are two different things.

 

[Phil 1:21]

The creationist is incorrect in suggesting that where the bicyclist was born is relevant to the discussion.

Evolutionists only think it’s irrelevant because it shows their god is made of wood and stone. And nope, they can’t have that.

 

[Job 33:6]

The evolutionist only thinks it’s irrelevant because his/her dogma dies at that point.

Re read the analogy.

You asked about evolution. And you were provided proof for evolution and observed instances of it.

The question of whether or not life evolves, is indeed a different question from how life began. Just as the question of where the bicyclist came from, is a different question than whether or not he is riding his bike.

And what you are doing now, is denying the theory of evolution (that the byciclist is riding his bike), on the basis that you want to know where the bicyclist originated.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Re read the analogy.

You asked about evolution. And you were provided proof for evolution and observed instances of it.

The question of whether or not life evolves, is indeed a different question from how life began. Just as the question of where the bicyclist came from, is a different question than whether or not he is riding his bike.

Translation: your emperor has no clothes.

 

[Job 33:6]

Here is another analogy.

A baby grows.

The creationist says "prove to me that babies grow".

The scientist takes measurements over time and proves that the baby is growing and that babies grow.

The creationist says "well, show me the sperm entering the egg".

The question of the origins of the baby is irrelevant to whether or not the baby grows.

Indeed, biological evolution is observed fact, regardless of how life began.

@Phil 1:21 Do you understand how these two concepts are different? How the question of how life began, is different from the question of if currently existing life changes?

 

[Phil 1:21]

No clothes at all. Not even a fig leaf.

 

[Job 33:6]

Ok, so you are unable to understand how life evolves through time, and unable to ponder the question of whether or not evolution is true, because you are stuck on the topic of how life began.

 

[Phil 1:21]

“Babies evolved from something else.”

“Where did babies come from?”

(Crickets)

“Where babies came from is irrelevant. Babies evolved from something else.”

 

[Job 33:6]

“Babies evolved from something else.”

“Where did babies come from?”

(Crickets)

“Where babies came from is irrelevant. Babies evolved from something else.”

Where life originated, is in fact, a different question than whether or not life evolves.

You can laugh all you want, but at the end of the day, this is the reality ^.

And you cant say..."show me the primordial soup", because the primordial soup is irrelevant to the question of whether or not life evolves.

Also, your analogy is inaccurate because we can in fact see babies grow, much in the way we can see life evolve. And this observation reigns true, regardless of where the baby or life, came from.

 

[Job 33:6]

Here is a hypothetical, just to demonstrate my point further.

Lets say God, hypothetically created mankind. And lets say that hypothetically mankind, rather than originating as some sort of soup, was created human.

That same man, could in fact, still evolve. And evolution could in fact, still be an accurate truth. Because the question of where life originated, is different than the question of if evolution is true.

And with this^ first and foremost, we must ask, what are the fundamental tenants of the theory of evolution?

It is a description of descent with modification via the fixation of mutations by natural selection. All of which are observed and proven.