Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
I don't hold it to a different standard. I have no issue with abiogenesis and evolution being separated by study. I only have that one issue with that I pointed out.
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.
I don't hold it to a different standard. I have no issue with abiogenesis and evolution being separated by study. I only have that one issue with that I pointed out.46And2 said: "You said that we don't need to know how gravity started to observe that it exists. Can you explain to me why you hold evolution to a different standard?"
You gave nothing in reply, only the claim that Darwin thought that abiogenesis and evolution were linked and left it at that. You did not say why you agree that gravity doesn't need a beginning but evolution does.
So why do you hold that view?
I don't hold it to a different standard. I have no issue with abiogenesis and evolution being separated by study. I only have that one issue with that I pointed out.
Do they all?Creationists constantly claim that abiogenesis and evolution are and must be linked otherwise evolution is false.
In response to that claim I have been asking this question and thus far, the responses have ranged from evasion to crickets.
Here are 4 possible sources for the origin of life on earth. Tell me how any of them effect evolution in any way.
1. Abiogenesis
Usually used as a 'cop out' because of the impossibilities of abiogenesis.2. Panspermia
So 3 and 4 are basically the same: "design (purpose)".3. Fiat creation by God
4. Something weird like being a science project for hyper-dimensional high schoolers.
The one spoken of in the OP.What issue? That over a hundred (nearly put hundreds) years ago, the man who was first putting the theory down suggested that life could have come about via abiogenesis, included it in his theory, which we now know to be a wholly separate theory? Well, hypothesis on the part of abiogenesis, but still.
Do they all?
Maybe they do because it boils down to 2 options for the lot of our reality:
Chance or design (purposeful or purposeless even).
This is part of the whole of evolutionary / naturalistic thinking / conviction.
It's the "chance (purposeless)" option.Usually used as a 'cop out' because of the impossibilities of abiogenesis.
However, the supposed 'spermiation' is often thought of as a result of abiogenesis outside of the solar system.So 3 and 4 are basically the same: "design (purpose)".
Intelligence, skills and a will are involved in 3 and 4.
The one spoken of in the OP.
Gravity can be proven to exist any moment of time with simple experiments, but that fact that stuff falls down should be enough i.m.h.o.Gravity isn't moving (is it?). Evolution is a *process* but gravity is not. A process must have a beginning, just as gravity had a beginning.
Gravity can be proven to exist any moment of time with simple experiments, but that fact that stuff falls down should be enough i.m.h.o.
This is obviously not the case with speciation (beyond the kinds) by selections of random mutations.
Creationists constantly claim that abiogenesis and evolution are and must be linked otherwise evolution is false. In response to that claim I have been asking this question and thus far, the responses have ranged from evasion to crickets.
So, Creationists, can any of you step up to the plate and answer my question?
Cutting out the origin is a copout. Evolution removes
God and creation from the origin of life, so it's up to
those who believe in evolution to explain how life began
without God's intervention. The same goes with the
beginning and formation of the universe.
Every time a new species is found, evolution is tested.
Every time a new fossil is found, evolution is tested.
Every time a new genetic comparison is made, evolution is tested.
Every time a new embryo is studied, evolution is tested.
Every time....
Evolution has been subjected to, and passed, hundreds of thousands of more unique tests than gravity.
I don't understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp.
What issue? That over a hundred (nearly put hundreds) years ago, the man who was first putting the theory down suggested that life could have come about via abiogenesis, included it in his theory, which we now know to be a wholly separate theory? Well, hypothesis on the part of abiogenesis, but still.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, etc. That is like saying
"Every time I jump, I defy gravity".
I feel the same. When you describe anything, where
do you begin? At the beginning. Even the bible starts
with God creating the universe and everything in it,
including man.
Evolution today cannot be falsified.
Do they all?
Maybe they do because it boils down to 2 options for the lot of our reality:
Chance or design (purposeful or purposeless even).
This is part of the whole of evolutionary / naturalistic thinking / conviction.
Gravity can be proven to exist any moment of time with simple experiments, but that fact that stuff falls down should be enough i.m.h.o.
This is obviously not the case with speciation (beyond the kinds) by selections of random mutations.
Evolution today cannot be falsified.
That is the proof of it being a religion, not science.
Evolution
has been disproven hundreds of time
http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html
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?