Tired of Defending.

[AV1611VET]

Why is it that no Creationists can make this statement, they state there IS evidence. This being the case, I would like to see it.

As I said, either offer up compelling evidence or admit there is none.

They can't do the former, and refuse to do the latter.

Yet I am quite willing, along with all scientists and understanders of science to state that we have no solid evidence for the origins of life.

Interesting change of terminology.

Would you be willing to use the same terminology for your side as well?

To wit, saying:

"Yet I am quite willing, along with all scientists and understanders of science to state that we have no compelling evidence for the origins of life."

 

[Old Ned]

Interesting change of terminology.

Would you be willing to use the same terminology for your side as well?

To wit, saying:

"Yet I am quite willing, along with all scientists and understanders of science to state that we have no compelling evidence for the origins of life."

No, the evidence for evolution IS compelling, it IS there and it CAN be seen with your very own eyes.

Now, if you were to say... Ok, I see the evidence, it's clearly good, solid evidence, but it contradicts my belief and I do not like that, therefore I will continue to believe what I believe and discount Evolution.

Now THAT, I would accept, and THAT is pretty much what you do Av, which is why I have more respect for you than I do for most creationists.
You know how it works, you can see the evidence and accept it as evidence, I know you do.... but you don't like it and don't want it, so you simply tell it to "Take a Hike"

This is much more respectable than saying it doesn't happen, there is no evidence etc etc etc.

Edit: Reread your post, misunderstood first time I think. I happily state there is no compelling or solid evidence for the origin of life.
But as you well know, the Origin of Life is not Evolution. 2 different things.

 

[Michael]

Interesting change of terminology.

Would you be willing to use the same terminology for your side as well?

To wit, saying:

"Yet I am quite willing, along with all scientists and understanders of science to state that we have no compelling evidence for the origins of life."

I'd agree with the origins issue, but it's still a separate issue (and theory) from evolutionary theory.

 

[Paulos23]

Interesting change of terminology.

Would you be willing to use the same terminology for your side as well?

To wit, saying:

"Yet I am quite willing, along with all scientists and understanders of science to state that we have no compelling evidence for the origins of life."

Nothing wrong with that AV. You have been told science is a process, and just becuase we don't know now doesn't mean we will never know.

At least it is honest, rather then basing a claim off an old book with no other evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, the evidence for evolution IS compelling, it IS there and it CAN be seen with your very own eyes.

If you are referring to microevolution (adaptation), I will agree with you.

Macroevolution, on the other hand, has never been observed.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'd agree with the origins issue, but it's still a separate issue (and theory) from evolutionary theory.

Yes, I know.

Evolutionists have conveniently disassociated themselves with abiogenesis.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nothing wrong with that AV. You have been told science is a process, and just becuase we don't know now doesn't mean we will never know.

At least it is honest, rather then basing a claim off an old book with no other evidence.

You have just as much evidence for abiogenesis, as we have creatio ex nihilo -- none.

Only you call what you believe "science," and what we believe "myth."

Why is that?

 

[Michael]

Yes, I know.

Evolutionists have conveniently disassociated themselves with abiogenesis.

IMO it's a necessary thing to do. They are separate theories after all. I can personally accept *both* theories as being true within the context of my theistic belief without any scientific conflict whatsoever. That may not be true for all theists of course, but it happens to be true in my particular case. I'm also open to the possibility that the first forms of life were 'intelligently designed' to spread various forms of life around the universe. In fact, as I see it, abiogenesis may be true, and DNA might *still* be intelligently designed.

I'm open to almost any possibility scientifically speaking, but they are actually separate theories, I see them as separate theories, and they really do need to be considered separately IMO.

 

[Old Ned]

Yes, I know.

Evolutionists have conveniently disassociated themselves with abiogenesis.

Not true, they are 2 different things.

Abiogenesis is very interesting and I happily associate myself with the ideas.
But it is a different subject to Evolution.

Abiogenesis is the Origins of life.
Evolution is what happened after the Origins.

We don't know how Abiogenesis worked, we have ideas but we cannot prove them yet.
Evolution is well founded and well proved and is arguably the most well proven fact in Science.

The difference Av, is that we will admit when we do not know something and are excited at the prospect of the journey of finding out.

But you already know all this, and the Micro/Macro evolution thing, sorry but if you accept micro, then macro is built in. It's just a wider view.

How can you not, walk a mile one step at a time?

 

[Old Ned]

You have just as much evidence for abiogenesis, as we have creatio ex nihilo -- none.

Only you call what you believe "science," and what we believe "myth."

Why is that?

This is why I respect you Av.

Return the respect in that we acknowledge there is no hard evidence for abiogenesis.

But again, that has nothing to do with Evolution.

Most people do not know how to make bread, but most people know how to make a sandwich.
But making bread and making a sandwich are 2 different things.
The sandwich cannot be made without the bread, but that doesn't mean we cannot make sandwiches because we don't know how to make bread.

 

[AV1611VET]

IMO it's a necessary thing to do. They are separate theories after all. I can personally accept *both* theories as being true within the context of my theistic belief without any scientific conflict whatsoever. That may not be true for all theists of course, but it happens to be true in my particular case. I'm also open to the possibility that the first forms of life were 'intelligently designed' to spread various forms of life around the universe. In fact, as I see it, abiogenesis may be true, and DNA might *still* be intelligently designed.

I'm open to almost any possibility scientifically speaking, but they are actually separate theories, I see them as separate theories, and they really do need to be considered separately IMO.

Do you consider the other types of evolution as well?

Chemical evolution, stellar evolution, and the others?

All rolled up into one ball called non-biological evolution?

 

[Michael]

Do you consider the other types of evolution as well?

Chemical evolution, stellar evolution, and the others?

All rolled up into one ball called non-biological evolution?

Actually the whole of spacetime is a living and biologically evolved being IMO. I buy the basic "concept" of stellar evolution, but I don't think it works the way the mainstream does. My beliefs about solar physics and astronomy are rather 'unique' to say the least.

 

[AV1611VET]

Abiogenesis is very interesting and I happily associate myself with the ideas.

"Abiogenesis" is simply saying: NOT FROM BIOGENESIS.

That's all the word means -- and it's a useless term.

Imaging a CEO asking his CFO, "Who parked this car in my spot?"

And the CFO answering, "Not Charlie."

 

[AV1611VET]

Return the respect in that we acknowledge there is no hard evidence for abiogenesis.

Okay with you, then, if I tell abiogenesis to take a hike?

 

[Old Ned]

"Abiogenesis" is simply saying: NOT FROM BIOGENESIS.

That's all the word means -- and it's a useless term.

Imaging a CEO asking his CFO, "Who parked this car in my spot?"

And the CFO answering, "Not Charlie."

So you don't like that word?
Ok, it has another name... Biopoiesis.
Better?

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually the whole of spacetime is a living and biologically evolved being IMO. I buy the basic "concept" of stellar evolution, but I don't think it works the way the mainstream does. My beliefs about solar physics and astronomy are rather 'unique' to say the least.

As in panentheism?

 

[Old Ned]

Okay with you, then, if I tell abiogenesis to take a hike?

Absolutely

You are more than entitled to your opinion.
The issue stands with making false claims and incorrect statements.

I've said it a number of times.

Believe or don't believe, that's your choice. But don't discount science based on misinformation.
Otherwise we go back to people not believing the bible because Jesus was born in Miami.

 

[Michael]

As in panentheism?

Pretty much. I think we're living inside of God.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you don't like that word?
Ok, it has another name... Biopoiesis.
Better?

No ... it's a lie.

Here's the definition of biopoiesis:

biopoiesis, a process by which living organisms are thought to develop from nonliving matter, and the basis of a theory on the origin of life on Earth.

According to the Bible, life did not originate from "nonliving matter."

God is Life, and He created it.

Thus we have Life creating life.

I know the definition stipulates "on Earth," but I have to ask:

How did angelic life get started?

What "nonliving material" kick-started it?

 

[Old Ned]

No ... it's a lie.

Now now Av, you are twisting words.

Lets look at your quote.

biopoiesis, a process by which living organisms are thought to develop from nonliving matter, and the basis of a theory on the origin of life on Earth.

As we have said, it's not an outright claim of factual knowledge, it's a hypothesis. Life is "Thought" to come from non living matter in the scientific community.
It's not a lie if it is simply alleged. It could only be a lie if it were stated as fact.