Noah's Ark

[OldWiseGuy]

You seem to not understand what a scientific theory is. If it contained magic it wouldnt be science.

So no, your statement is false.

When such a 'theory' is so fantastic I call it magic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I meant understand the process, not just the concept.

The process is not that hard to understand either. If you want to know all of the details that will take some serious study. But one does not need to become an expert in evolution to know that all life is the product of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When such a 'theory' is so fantastic I call it magic.

Yes, that is an example of Clarke's Law.

It only takes education to see that it is what one would expect.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Non sequitur, try again. It does not take a huge education to understand evolution. You could get a very good start by watching YouTube videos by people that do understand the theory.

I've watched but it didn't help. They fail to explain how life began, or the incredible process that was waiting in the wings to transform the simplest life form into the complexity we see today. It's just too much.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The process is not that hard to understand either. If you want to know all of the details that will take some serious study. But one does not need to become an expert in evolution to know that all life is the product of evolution.

So there are no assumptions in the theory?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So the assumptions that I see in most articles about evolution really don't exist?

What "assumptions"? Assumptions of any note are not allowed in the sciences. In the sciences when they "assume" something they are usually assuming that something previously shown to be correct is true.

 

[Obliquinaut]

You are mistaken.

You aren't really in a position to know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've watched but it didn't help. They fail to explain how life began, or the incredible process that was waiting in the wings to transform the simplest life form into the complexity we see today. It's just too much.

You just admitted that you lost. You are trying to move the goalposts.

The theory of evolution explains how life got to its present state once life existed. And the explanation of how it happened is well explained. You seem to be not letting yourself learn. That is a common problem with most creationists. Most creationists won't even let themselves learn what evidence is.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You just admitted that you lost. You are trying to move the goalposts.

The theory of evolution explains how life got to its present state once life existed. And the explanation of how it happened is well explained. You seem to be not letting yourself learn. That is a common problem with most creationists. Most creationists won't even let themselves learn what evidence is.

Evolution must explain the origin of life, and then replicate it. Then I might take a closer look.

The relationship between 'life' and 'evolution' is that of a 'nut' and a 'bolt'. You can't just say they have nothing to do with each other. Together they make sense, separated they don't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution must explain the origin of life, and then replicate it. Then I might take a closer look.

Nope, and you lost again. See previous post.

The relationship between 'life' and 'evolution' is that of a 'nut' and a 'bolt'. You can't just say they have nothing to do with each other. Together they make sense, separated they don't.

Yes, they work together. So what? You are only spewing nonsense now.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You aren't really in a position to know.

It's as good an explanation as any.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Nope, and you lost again. See previous post.



Yes, they work together. So what? You are only spewing nonsense now.

I'm saying they must have a common origin. You don't make nuts without bolts. That's a vast difference right there. How to we bridge that?

If life didn't exist would there be 'natural selection' floating around somewhere anyway?

 

[lesliedellow]

I meant understand the process by actually observing it, not just the concept.

Did you observe Italian evolving from Latin?

How unfortunate that didn't happen on the timescale of a human lifetime. Clearly then, it cannot be known that it did happen.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm saying they must have a common origin. You don't make nuts without bolts. That's a vast difference right there. How to we bridge that?

If life didn't exist would there be 'natural selection' floating around somewhere anyway?

What? You are not making any sense.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Did you observe Italian evolving from Latin?

How unfortunate that didn't happen on the timescale of a human lifetime. Clearly then, it cannot be known that it did happen.

Science doesn't seem to be hampered by vast timescales. They report no missing links or processes and can account for even the smallest change.

 

[Obliquinaut]

I know why you don't believe it. You have told me in great detail.

We don't believe it because:

1) there is no physical evidence

2) there is no need for the Noachian Flood story to be literal history (I am not speaking for SZ here but certainly as far as I can tell there's no need for it to be literal for the proper understanding of Christian Theology/Soteriology and as an atheist there is OBVIOUSLY no reason for it to be literal history. It is an extraneous "factor" that doesn't add explanatory value to the model).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What? You are not making any sense.

Was the appearance of life and the law of natural selection a package deal, or were they, as you say, separate events/processes that later found each other?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

We don't believe it because:

1) there is no physical evidence

2) there is no need for the Noachian Flood story to be literal history (I am not speaking for SZ here but certainly as far as I can tell there's no need for it to be literal for the proper understanding of Christian Theology/Soteriology and as an atheist there is OBVIOUSLY no reason for it to be literal history. It is an extraneous "factor" that doesn't add explanatory value to the model).

The narrative is presented as an actual event, not allegory, therefore I believe it was an actual event.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Sorry, quoting from a prejudiced book does not support your claims.

It's worse than that: it's another Unfalsifiable Claim. OWG claimed he knew all his morality even before understanding God and the Bible is saying that everyone does because the Law is written on their hearts. Meaning that if you are an atheist and your morality has NOTHING to do with God it is still God because God wrote the Law "on your heart". (And presumably that is a metaphor and not literal).

It's win-win for Christians because they get to have the superior morality because they know where it comes from, but even the poor atheists among us are getting our Truth from their God too! It's like we're all Christians ANYWAY except the atheists will still burn in the end.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Was the appearance of life and the law of natural selection a package deal, or were they, as you say, separate events/processes that later found each other?

You are still asking strange questions.

You are conflating abiogenesis and evolution. Abiogenesis is how the first life arose. It is similar but separate from evolution.