Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1. I will, at least, give you credit for finding your way over here. I see that this forum ALSO draws a line between science and religion, so hopefully the mods will allow this to continue, if we can keep the focus on actual science.
3. As has been explained elsewhere, "theory" in this context does NOT mean "a wild guess," like it might in common usage. By the time something is called a theory in science, it has progressed far beyond hypothesis, been supported by facts, substantiated by multiple lines of evidence, tested and retested, challenged and prevailed... and has been broadly accepted as a reliable explanation of how the real world works.
4. In the case at hand, the Theory of Evolution (links above) is one of the most studied, best supported conclusions of how that real world really works... perhaps more than any other area of science. Of course we do not know everything, but arguing against the basics of evolution is akin to arguing against heliocentric theory, insisting that the sun and other planets really DO revolve around the earth because that's how it looks from your stationary vantage point... or that the germ theory of disease hasn't been established, and we really need to rebalance our four bodily humours via bloodletting. If those sound ridiculous, now you know how it looks to be denying everything we know about evolution.
5. Evolution does not address the origins of life, and does not rely on "spontaneous generation." The "Law of Biogenesis" is not a scientific law (here again, those apologetics websites are not serving you well), and does not even rise to the level of scientific theory. There are interesting hypotheses, but how life began is certainly much less understood than how it evolved once things got rolling. I found this website interesting, in that it lies closer to home for you, but still acknowledges what we DO know about early life forms and their evolution from simple to complex. They still assume a role (TBD) for God in kicking things off, but don't deny everything we know after that point, which is supported by cold hard evidence; that is much more defensible than pretending we don't know anything, and might be a good compromise stance for you to adopt?
6. There are MANY things that we understand and accept without seeing them occur, necessarily including those that occurred over millions of years. We didn't watch the Colorado River carve the Grand Canyon, but we know it happened over the last 5-6 million years. We weren't around for the breakup and migration from one supercontinent (Pangea) into current structure of continents, but we have clear evidence it happened. We didn't watch the Appalachian and Rocky mountains get formed, but we have a good idea how that worked, and that the former were formed several 100 million years earlier than the latter. We weren't here to watch the Chicxulub asteroid hit the Yucatan Peninsula 66 million years ago, but have clear evidence it did, and good support for the hypothesis that this contributed to the mass extinction of most species on earth, including the dinosaurs (certainly much stronger than "God decided He made a mistake," an explanation I recently saw elsewhere on CD). Evolution is as well-established, thoroughly-documented, and broadly-accepted as any of those phenomena. None of this equates to "blind faith" because there is strong evidence.
7. A change in genetic information is basically the definition of "mutation," so it's not clear what point you are trying to make by arguing that doesn't happen. That change in genetic information is, indeed, one result of evolution.
8. No one says "dinosaurs turned into chickens" or "fish turned into mammals" (see #2 above). Nor is anyone talking about hybrids (failed attempt at diversion?). We do know that current life forms (including humans) evolved from common ancestors. You appear to be demanding/expecting single discrete events that we can see happen (perhaps conditioned by reading that God producing Adam with a snap of finger?), but that isn't how life forms evolved.
9. No one needs to "prove" anything to you. The evidence is overwhelming in support of evolution as a fact, and that evidence is cited above. If you choose to respond, please provide links to evidence in support of your claims, beyond mere assertions that "no it isn't."
People have said before dinosaurs turned into chickens, I've heard it on science Channel for years. Biogenesis is always the law of nature, nobody has ever done anything to disqualify it as being law. Thats what you should focus on instead of this nonsense. Set out to disprove the law of biogenesis or dont waste my time.
People have said before dinosaurs turned into chickens, I've heard it on science Channel for years. Biogenesis is always the law of nature, nobody has ever done anything to disqualify it as being law. Thats what you should focus on instead of this nonsense. Set out to disprove the law of biogenesis or dont waste my time.
Speaking of wasting time.... all you've accomplished is documenting in two separate fora that you have no understanding of the science, and no interest in learning. You needn't have bothered to come all the way over here, for that.
My position includes that abiogenesis is scientifically impossible and that species changes is scientifically impossible.
I’m sorry, but you just ended the debate. There’s no reason to read anything else. I’m sorry. Clearly you got a lot of responses, and I was very curious about your thread. I wish you’d led with something else.
Actually you lost me with “Mythological” - which is stuff people made up. Probably under the influence of something. Arguing a theory - everyone can be right.
You shut the whole thing down, because whatever you posit that follows has to fit within this subjective opinion.
Okay you used “includes” to leave yourself an out.
My brain is too old I guess. And I read Foucault’s Pendulum and The Name of Rose. Just typing those titles gives me a headache. Oy.
I’m sorry, but you just ended the debate. There’s no reason to read anything else. I’m sorry. Clearly you got a lot of responses, and I was very curious about your thread. I wish you’d led with something else.
Actually you lost me with “Mythological” - which is stuff people made up. Probably under the influence of something. Arguing a theory - everyone can be right.
You shut the whole thing down, because whatever you posit that follows has to fit within this subjective opinion.
Okay you used “includes” to leave yourself an out.
My brain is too old I guess. And I read Foucault’s Pendulum and The Name of Rose. Just typing those titles gives me a headache. Oy.
Don't respond if you can't disprove the law of biogenesis
Speaking of wasting time.... all you've accomplished is documenting in two separate fora that you have no understanding of the science, and no interest in learning. You needn't have bothered to come all the way over here, for that.
I have done this with known science, not assertions. YOU make assertions against true science so stop with YOUR absurdities and answer my questions. Why do you argue abiogenesis is not possible? What is your scientific argument? Why is life different to non-life? What is life? If you can not answer these questions, then all you have are assertions.
Not only did I give you a scientific link, I asked YOU to explain what you mean by information.
I am answering your questions that you do not want answers to. You are evading mine.
Stop being dishonest.
Life vs non-life is simple, life grows and reproduces to some degree. Do you have any thoughts about what is non-living and grows and reproduces? Just in the case I didn't think about something.
My argument is against macroevolution, common ancestors argument, abiogenesis since atheistic evolution demands abiogenesis. Theists are hammered about the miraculous because nobody alive had witnessed a miracle yet no atheist has witnessed abiogenesis nor species change such as dinosaurs turning into chickens or other kinds of birds like so many believe.
If you believe life is just chemistry, then tell yourself that when your wife or child gets brutally raped and murdered, might make you feel so much better. Or tell that to a friend or family member who has to live through such an event.
Your link didn't offer anything about what I'm arguing. New genetic information to change species requires genes to be placed or spontaneously generated to offer new growth possibilities. If a snake doesn't have gene for wings, then its never going to have wings unless that specific gene gets there somehow. That's required for macroevolution. That's what you need to deal with. I've read many high levels studies on this dilemma and nobody has anything but suggestions to offer which doesn't validate the theory of evolution.
Like the big bang theory, it defies the laws of nature. People can't even shrink a steel ball bearing to the size of a small dot so how in the world can all the know universe have come out of a small dot size mass? It cannot, its physically impossible according to experience and therefore the laws of physics. An atheist must hold to eternality of matter but there arises other dilemmas according to the 1st & 2nd law of thermodynamics.
So what scientific law defies other scientific laws to make these lame theories valid?
Life vs non-life is simple, life grows and reproduces to some degree. Do you have any thoughts about what is non-living and grows and reproduces? Just in the case I didn't think about something.
My argument is against macroevolution, common ancestors argument, abiogenesis since atheistic evolution demands abiogenesis. Theists are hammered about the miraculous because nobody alive had witnessed a miracle yet no atheist has witnessed abiogenesis nor species change such as dinosaurs turning into chickens or other kinds of birds like so many believe.
If you believe life is just chemistry, then tell yourself that when your wife or child gets brutally raped and murdered, might make you feel so much better. Or tell that to a friend or family member who has to live through such an event.
Your link didn't offer anything about what I'm arguing. New genetic information to change species requires genes to be placed or spontaneously generated to offer new growth possibilities. If a snake doesn't have gene for wings, then its never going to have wings unless that specific gene gets there somehow. That's required for macroevolution. That's what you need to deal with. I've read many high levels studies on this dilemma and nobody has anything but suggestions to offer which doesn't validate the theory of evolution.
Like the big bang theory, it defies the laws of nature. People can't even shrink a steel ball bearing to the size of a small dot so how in the world can all the know universe have come out of a small dot size mass? It cannot, its physically impossible according to experience and therefore the laws of physics. An atheist must hold to eternality of matter but there arises other dilemmas according to the 1st & 2nd law of thermodynamics.
So what scientific law defies other scientific laws to make these lame theories valid?
You’re just doing the same thing here. Hysterical tantrums and refusal to consider learning about reality. There’s no point in wasting time to provide you with actual evidence and useful discussion. You’ll just reflexively and childishly deny, deny, deny, and basically scream that nothing will penetrate your mystical defense system. You’ll gish gallop and lamely bleat the inane apologetics from the websites where you choose to live, regardless of the fact that such websites are based in irrationality and proud of it! The Theory of Evolution is as settled and certain as the Theory of Gravity. We share most of the DNA of apes, because we ARE apes. Just advanced ones. Please go here and learn about reality: TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy
[...insert broken irony meter here]. That's a nice description of evolutionary speciation, from a credible source.... which seems to deflate several of your arguments. Well done, you!
Now, if you're wanting to score a point that, when people say "dinosaurs turned into chickens," they are referring to the long, slow, stepwise series of evolutionary changes, occurring over several million years, that transformed dinosaur ancestors into what we know today as birds... I happily concede. You got me. In the same way we can say that a "common ape-like ancestor turned into humans and chimpanzees."
My argument is against macroevolution, common ancestors argument, abiogenesis since atheistic evolution demands abiogenesis.
No such thing, and not true. You're just making yourself look silly. Atheism requires neither a belief in evolution or abiogenesis, nor does theism require a denial of established science. I tried to warn you about the pitfalls of getting all your anti-science talking points from apologetics websites:
If you believe life is just chemistry, then tell yourself that when your wife or child gets brutally raped and murdered, might make you feel so much better. Or tell that to a friend or family member who has to live through such an event.
What tha heck?????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????
Last edited by HeelaMonster; 08-24-2021 at 07:27 PM..
People have said before dinosaurs turned into chickens, I've heard it on science Channel for years. Biogenesis is always the law of nature, nobody has ever done anything to disqualify it as being law. Thats what you should focus on instead of this nonsense. Set out to disprove the law of biogenesis or dont waste my time.
No, you should focus on the posted science you call nonsense instead of your irrelevant law of biogenesis, especially as Adam from dust IS what the law of biogenesis describes. But well done for admitting Adam from dust is not possible.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Speaking of wasting time.... all you've accomplished is documenting in two separate fora that you have no understanding of the science, and no interest in learning. You needn't have bothered to come all the way over here, for that.