Split Rock
Conflation of Blathers
You mean "sooner or later these theories will cross paths with my semi-inerrant interpretation of scripture and get exposed for disagreeing with my opinion." Correct?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You mean "sooner or later these theories will cross paths with my semi-inerrant interpretation of scripture and get exposed for disagreeing with my opinion." Correct?Evolution doesn't concern itself with a lot of stuff --- like time.
You can't get a shark into a fishbowl.
Sooner or later these philosophies will cross paths with the Bible --- and get exposed.
Evolution doesn't concern itself with a lot of stuff --- like time.
You can't get a shark into a fishbowl.
Sooner or later these philosophies will cross paths with the Bible --- and get exposed.
Of course not, just every piece of evolutionist literature I've ever read, none of which has ever delved into origins or gone further than mentioning it in passing.Pete Harcoff said:ORLY? You speak for all evolutionists now?
I've read the same, but not in literature concerning evolution; evolution defined as "a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations." sourceI'm not really sure who these "evolutionists" of which you speak are. However, in a lot of literature I've read (books, articles, research papers) the origin of life and the "building blocks" of life comes up quite a bit. Again, this tends to be moreso when dealing with evolution at a mollecular level. Someone looking into the population genetics of an ant colony isn't going to be concerned with life's origins, but someone concerned with the base functionality of DNA likely will be.
Okay, now I see where the bee in your bonnet came from. And if one insists that the likely evolution of replicators deserves to be included in evolutionary study because these replicators may have evolved, go right ahead, but as it stands, I have yet to see any evolutionist or any theory of evolution constructed by such evolutionist included them. Which goes to your claim that "If you remove evolution from your thinking about the origin of the first replicator then it is very likely you will never understand how it happened, or what the current research on the question is about." As far as I can see, evolutionists simply don't concern themselves with abiogenesis. That they should may be subject to debate, but right now "they should" does not translate into "they do."(From Panda's Thumb)
True, of course. Just like the value of the fine structure constant or the strength of the strong force plays a role. However, life as we know it exists; that's a given. We don't need to know how it appeared in order to have a good theory of evolution.2) The origin of life will have a direct consequence on its subsequent evolution. It stands to reason that if there are multiple avenues to produce life, then the consequence of the path chosen will invariably affect the evolution of that life. This will influence the very makeup of life (chemical composition), mechanism for evolutionary change (RNA, DNA, reproduction) and so forth. Since evolutionary theory is essentially concerned with why contemporary life is the way it is, its origin invariably plays a role.
That.Hi Pete
I think that to say that evolutionary biologists are not interested in the origin of life is indeed incorrrect. I agree with you there. However, the Theory of Evolution does not encompass abiogenesis. That is the point Washington is making. Creationists think they can destroy the TOE by questioning abiogenesis... it is this tactic that Washington is trying to address.
Such a no-win situation for poor evolutionists. The failure of the M-U experiments to produce life is evidence against evolution. If they had produced life, that would be evidence for creation.There is no evidence for the evolution model. This can be seen in the many unproven assumptions held by evolutionists.
First, there is no evidence for spontaneous generation. The belief that life evolved from non-life contradicts both the cell theory and the law of biogenesis. The Miller-Urey experiments have failed to produce life in the lab (if they were successful, it would be evidence for the creation model not the evolution model).
source
Ya --- give yourselves a prize when you "discover" it --- give yourselves a prize when you debunk it.A Nobel in journalism ANd biology awaits he who has the courage.
Evolution doesn't concern itself with a lot of stuff --- like time.
You can't get a shark into a fishbowl.
Sooner or later these philosophies will cross paths with the Bible --- and get exposed.
Ya --- give yourselves a prize when you "discover" it --- give yourselves a prize when you debunk it.
Amazing --- just amazing.
I think that to say that evolutionary biologists are not interested in the origin of life is indeed incorrrect. I agree with you there. However, the Theory of Evolution does not encompass abiogenesis. That is the point Washington is making. Creationists think they can destroy the TOE by questioning abiogenesis... it is this tactic that Washington is trying to address.
Not this creationist:Creationists think they can destory the Theory of Evolution by trying to destroy abiogenesis by confusing it with spontaneous generation.
Not this creationist:
- Genesis 1 pwns evolution.
- Genesis 1:1 pwns atheism.
- Genesis 1:1a --- (first four words of the Bible) --- pwns abiogenesis.
*pats AV1611VET on the head*
That's nice. Run along now and go play with your friends, okay?
EXACTLY! thank you.Hi Pete
I think that to say that evolutionary biologists are not interested in the origin of life is indeed incorrrect. I agree with you there. However, the Theory of Evolution does not encompass abiogenesis. That is the point Washington is making. Creationists think they can destroy the TOE by questioning abiogenesis... it is this tactic that Washington is trying to address.
I've only been saying this for how long now?Evolution does NOT concern itself with origins. It only deals with the change organisms undergo. Evolution couldn't care less if it was god or Walt Disney who created first life. And the fact that the above quoted sources as well as so many other creationists don't understand this simple fact demonstrates just how ignorant they are of their arch enemy, evolution.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.Not this creationist:
- Genesis 1 pwns evolution.
- Genesis 1:1 pwns atheism.
- Genesis 1:1a --- (first four words of the Bible) --- pwns abiogenesis.
I use it as a synonym for "refutes".You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?