Why is there so much assault on what it doesn't say?

[Smidlee]

Why do you think the topic of abiogenesis is relevant when discussing ToE with TE's, when you must know that they believe in a creator God and thus the supernatural component is not off the table?

Why do you try so hard to distance yourself with abiogenesis and try to link evolution with gravity.
I have yet to have a evolutionist say evolution is a theory just like abiogenesis is just a theory. The reason they pick gravity is because everyone knows gravity exists just like we know life exists (not ToE or ToG)
Gravity or life itself does not depend on our theories to be true to exist.

 

[gluadys]

Why do you try so hard to distance yourself with abiogenesis and try to link evolution with gravity.
I have yet to have a evolutionist say evolution is a theory just like abiogenesis is just a theory. The reason they pick gravity is because everyone knows gravity exists just like we know life exists (not ToE or ToG)
Gravity or life itself does not depend on our theories to be true to exist.

You have yet to show that you understand the relationship of theory to existence.

Gravity exists.
Life exists.
Life evolves.

These are all facts.

Why does gravity exist? How does it work? The most complete explanation we have so far is the Theory of Relativity. It is not a perfect theory as there are still unanswered questions about how gravity works, but it's a pretty good theory.


Why does life exist? How did it come to be? This is the question researchers in abiogenesis are working on. When they figure it out we will have a Theory of Abiogenesis.

Why does life evolve? How does biological evolution work? The most complete explanation we have is the Theory of Evolution. Like the Theory of Relativity it is not perfect, but it is a very good theory, and stronger in many respects than the Theory of Relativity.

Gravity, life and evolution all exist and none of them depend on our theories to be true to exist.

The point of theories is to go beyond simply noting that something exists and work out some of the whys and hows of their existence.

 

[metherion]

Why do you try so hard to distance yourself with abiogenesis and try to link evolution with gravity.

Abiogenesis is not evolution. The validity of abiogenesis has nothing to do with the validity of evolution. Attacking abiogenesis is not only wasting time when talking about evolution, but also counterproductive. It is counterproductive in that it isn’t even on topic. It is counterproductive in that it shows a severe lack of understanding on what it is you’re even attacking.

I have yet to have a evolutionist say evolution is a theory just like abiogenesis is just a theory.

But abiogenesis ISN”T a theory. It is a collection of hypothesis at the moment. So to equate the two as theories would be a falsehood, as the ToE is but abiogenesis isn’t.

The reason they pick gravity is because everyone knows gravity exists just like we know life exists (not ToE or ToG)

No, the reason we pick gravity is because both are scientific theories. So is atomic theory, so is germ theory, so is general relativity... any of those would work. Gravity is usually chosen because we DON”T know the mechanism for it while we DO for evolution, so... we know less but both are still theories.

Gravity or life itself does not depend on our theories to be true to exist.

No, they do not depend on our theories. In this you are correct. However, the theories are our understandings of them. They are evidently correct in that the evidence backs them up.

And again, this has said nothing about the validity of the ToE by anything included in the ToE.

Metherion

 

[philadiddle]

Why do you try so hard to distance yourself with abiogenesis and try to link evolution with gravity.
I have yet to have a evolutionist say evolution is a theory just like abiogenesis is just a theory. The reason they pick gravity is because everyone knows gravity exists just like we know life exists (not ToE or ToG)
Gravity or life itself does not depend on our theories to be true to exist.

 

[shernren]

I have yet to have a evolutionist say evolution is a theory just like abiogenesis is just a theory.

And I have yet to hear you argue that believing in God is just like believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.

 

[Darkness27]

Why do you think the topic of abiogenesis is relevant when discussing ToE with TE's, when you must know that they believe in a creator God and thus the supernatural component is not off the table?

I haven't been following the discussion closely, so forgive me if I say something too stupid, but as someone who accepts both abiogenesis and evolution, evolution has quite a bit to do with abiogenesis. Even when talking strictly on scientific terms - as abiogenesis goes through a 'natural selection' which is essentially the same as that in evolution, and it carries over many features (like evolution) that are embeded in the cell due to its evolutionary/abiogenesis history. On another note, I do agree with what TEs have said so far in the context of what I've read so far.

 

[crawfish]

Why do you try so hard to distance yourself with abiogenesis and try to link evolution with gravity.
I have yet to have a evolutionist say evolution is a theory just like abiogenesis is just a theory. The reason they pick gravity is because everyone knows gravity exists just like we know life exists (not ToE or ToG)
Gravity or life itself does not depend on our theories to be true to exist.

Gravity is also just a theory like abiogenesis. However, if you are judging a theory by how much evidence we have found and how far our theory goes towards explaining what it is about, the list would be this (from best supported to worst supported):

Evolution
Gravity
Abiogenesis

...and there is a huge gap between the last two.

However, that is not my question. A TE believes in the supernatural, and fully accepts that God is the ultimate cause of the creation process. So, why do you think that tying ToE to abiogenesis makes a whit of difference to TE's?

 

[Papias]

Smidlee wrote:

Gravity or life itself does not depend on our theories to be true to exist.

Smidlee, are you familar with the difference between the terms "theory" and "hypothesis"? Might you sometimes mean "hypothesis" when you say "theory", or sometimes hear the meaning of "hypothesis" when you hear "theory"?

Papias

P.S. - your previous reply to my post has been answered well, so I'll leave it at that.