Macro-Evolution

[AV1611VET]

I never thought I'd say this but I think AV actually improved a thread for once.

--- It takes a village.

 

[biggles53]

To all those barking on about the "incompleteness" of the fossil record - you do realise, of course, that a heck of a lot has progressed since Darwin's time, do you not?

It is safe to say that, due to this progression in knowledge, particularly in the field on molecular biology, that the evolutionary theory would stand just as strongly, even if a single fossil had never been unearthed...!!

The availability of fossil evidence adds to the support for the theory - it is not its sole foundation....!

 

[AV1611VET]

To all those barking on about the "incompleteness" of the fossil record - you do realise, of course, that a heck of a lot has progressed since Darwin's time, do you not?

It is safe to say that, due to this progression in knowledge, particularly in the field on molecular biology, that the evolutionary theory would stand just as strongly, even if a single fossil had never been unearthed...!!

The availability of fossil evidence adds to the support for the theory - it is not its sole foundation....!

Good --- glad to hear that.

I've been saying all along that the fossil record can take a hike.

 

[biggles53]

Good --- glad to hear that.

I've been saying all along that the fossil record can take a hike.

Indeed it could - but then you'd still have all those other disciplines to overcome, before you invalidated the theory..........

 

[AV1611VET]

Indeed it could - but then you'd still have all those other disciplines to overcome, before you invalidated the theory..........

Not exactly; I argue from evolution's antithesis: theology.

As I like to say:

• Genesis 1 pwns evolution.
• Genesis 1:1 pwns atheism.
• Genesis 1:1a pwns abiogenesis.

 

[biggles53]

Not exactly; I argue from evolution's antithesis: theology.

As I like to say:

• Genesis 1 pwns evolution.
• Genesis 1:1 pwns atheism.
• Genesis 1:1a pwns abiogenesis.

You just have one minor problem with your...ahem...'argument'.

This is the real world. It presents us with evidence. That evidence supports evolutionary theory. In bucketloads. It presents NO support for the ramblings found in Genesis..........

 

[MoonLancer]

Not exactly; I argue from evolution's antithesis: theology.

As I like to say:

• Genesis 1 pwns evolution.
• Genesis 1:1 pwns atheism.
• Genesis 1:1a pwns abiogenesis.

and Gilgamesh... dare i say 'pwns' Genesis.

 

[Cabal]

You just have one minor problem with your...ahem...'argument'.

This is the real world. It presents us with evidence. That evidence supports evolutionary theory. In bucketloads. It presents NO support for the ramblings found in Genesis..........

I don't know if you've noticed or not but "the real world" isn't a strong point of creationists.

 

[Nostromo]

I argue from evolution's antithesis: theology.

I see your Theology and raise you two witchdoctors and a scientologist.

 

[Assyrian]

Not exactly; I argue from evolution's antithesis: theology.

As I like to say:

• Genesis 1 pwns evolution.

Unfortunately Genesis 2 pwns the Creationist literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

• Genesis 1:1 pwns atheism.

It certainly does, since it is the word of God in the first place. However I would think this is more a matter of spiritual enlightenment than pwning in a debate.

• Genesis 1:1a pwns abiogenesis.

Gen 1:1 says nothing about the origin of life, however even a literal reading of Gen 1&2 says that God formed living creatures out of non living matter, Gen 1:24 "And God said let the earth bring forth living creatures..." Gen 2:19 ''And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast...''

 

[AV1611VET]

Gen 1:1 says nothing about the origin of life, however even a literal reading of Gen 1&2 says that God formed living creatures out of non living matter, Gen 1:24 "And God said let the earth bring forth living creatures..." Gen 2:19 ''And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast...''

Um ... Assyrian ... you're overlooking God, Himself.

In the beginning, God...

Which existed first, life or non-life?

 

[BananaSlug]

Um ... Assyrian ... you're overlooking God, Himself.

In the beginning, God...

Which existed first, life or non-life?

What is your working definition for what you consider "life"?

 

[Tomatoman]

Which existed first, life or non-life?

Is God alive?

 

[Assyrian]

Um ... Assyrian ... you're overlooking God, Himself.

In the beginning, God...

Which existed first, life or non-life?

Your question is irrelevant, abiogenesis means life arising from non living material, where the the non living material came from does not change that, neither does the non living material being created by God, or God being life.

Is God life and was God there first before any matter or biological life? Yes, but unless you claim we are biologically descended from God, then life arose from non living matter which is called abiogenesis.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your question is irrelevant, abiogenesis means life arising from non living material, where the the non living material came from does not change that, neither does the non living material being created by God, or God being life.

So long as you understand though, that life can exist apart from material.

Is God life and was God there first before any matter or biological life? Yes, but unless you claim we are biologically descended from God, then life arose from non living matter which is called abiogenesis.

Your word choices are misleading though.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but abiogenesis presupposes that the ingredients in this material had to be just right, or life could not have originated from it.

Is this correct?

Yet God could...

... for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

 

[Assyrian]

So long as you understand though, that life can exist apart from material.

And as long as you don't confuse the two.

Your word choices are misleading though.

You need to show where they are misleading.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but abiogenesis presupposes that the ingredients in this material had to be just right, or life could not have originated from it.

Is this correct?

Don't know how 'just right' the ingredients have to be. There is certainly a lot of Goldilocks in the laws of physics, the chemistry of the carbon atom and water, and in the position of earth in the solar system. But given those conditions, do you need very specific ingredients coming together, or if you created a such planet with its ocean rich in amino acids will life arise spontaneously?

Yet God could...

God could, God could also create a world where life can arise spontaneously in accordance with his will and purpose. Not sure what your point is there. Saying God could create life miraculously, does not mean he didn't make it through the natural processes he created. And that certainly seem to be what Genesis is suggesting when it describe God commanding the earth to produce life.

 

[sandwiches]

Tagging for later.

 

[MoonLancer]

Um ... Assyrian ... you're overlooking God, Himself.

In the beginning, God...

Which existed first, life or non-life?

If god cant be killed is he alive? not really.

 

[AV1611VET]

If god cant be killed is he alive? not really.

That makes no sense whatsoever, MoonLancer.

 

[Bushido216]

Remember,

You cannot ground, that which cannot be grounded...