toldailytopic "Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life"

[JudgeRightly]

Scientists the world over are sitting on the edges of their seats, with baited breath, eagerly awaiting your totally scientific and fact-based theory that explains, logically, how there were days and nights upon the earth during the three days before God created the sun, stars, or other heavenly bodies.

I'm curious, how will you spend your Nobel Prize money?

Are you so unfamiliar with scripture that states, clearly and explicitly, that there was night and day before God created the Sun and stars and moon?

Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. - Genesis 1:3-5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1:3-5&version=NKJV

 

[7djengo7]

The origin of species IS evolution.

The origin of species IS the evolution of what?

the evolution of modern car design

Is the origin of species the evolution of modern car design? Obviously, you don't want to say that the origin of species IS the evolution of modern car design. But now, see, you've put yourself in the position where you have to tell me what, exactly, the origin of species IS the evolution OF, unless you think it better to stonewall against the question.

Q. The evolution of species IS the evolution of what? A. The evolution of species IS the evolution of _________.

Can you meaningfully fill in the blank, or will you stonewall against the question?

 

[way 2 go]

Scientists the world over are sitting on the edges of their seats, with baited breath, eagerly awaiting your totally scientific and fact-based theory that explains, logically, how there were days and nights upon the earth during the three days before God created the sun, stars, or other heavenly bodies.

I'm curious, how will you spend your Nobel Prize money?

1 rotation of the earth = 1 day

day one earth and light without form Gen 1:3,4

day two and three gave form to the earth

day four form to the light Gen 1:14

 

[7djengo7]

Species are alive, not Life Itself.

It's funny that you actually admit that you've read everything I've written since the beginning of the thread, because, numerous times, therein, I have asked Arthur Brain what (if anything) he means by the phrase, "life itself", and whether or not what he calls "life itself" is life. So far, he has persistently stonewalled against this challenge, and will, of course, continue to do so, as you will be forced to do. What's funny, too, is that Arthur Brain, at least, didn't even go so far as you've just gone: Arthur Brain, at least, had enough sense not to make his phrase, "life itself", into a proper noun, as you've just done.

Is what you call "Life Itself" life? Yes or No?

If what you call "Life Itself" is not life, then why would you expect anybody to take you for a rationally-thinking person?

 

[User Name]

Are you so unfamiliar with scripture that states, clearly and explicitly, that there was night and day before God created the Sun and stars and moon?

1 rotation of the earth = 1 day

day one earth and light without form Gen 1:3,4

day two and three gave form to the earth

day four form to the light Gen 1:14

Of course I am aware of these things! The challenge for you is to explain, scientifically, how there was light and darkness, day and night, without the sun. That should be easy for you. After all, Genesis is a science textbook!

Challenge accepted?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Of course I am aware of these things! The challenge for you is to explain, scientifically, how there was light and darkness, day and night, without the sun. That should be easy for you.

God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

God divided the light from the darkness.

God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night.

That's as simple as it gets. That you can't comprehend it isn't our problem.

After all, Genesis is a science textbook!

Straw man.

 

[User Name]

God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

God divided the light from the darkness.

God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night.

That's as simple as it gets. That you can't comprehend it isn't our problem.

Ok, that's called "faith." Well and good. Now, where's the science that explains it?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Ok, that's called "faith." Well and good. Now, where's the science that explains it?

There is a supernatural Being called God who performed the above actions.

You should ask Him how He made light and divided it.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Ok, that's called "faith." Well and good. Now, where's the science that explains it?

In other words, you're asking for a natural explanation for a supernatural event.

Something which my paradigm of beliefs accounts for, while yours cannot.

 

[User Name]

There is a supernatural Being called God who performed the above actions.

You should ask Him how He made light and divided it.

In other words, you're asking for a natural explanation for a supernatural event.

Something which my paradigm of beliefs accounts for, while yours cannot.

So...no science to see here?

Got it. :thumb:

 

[Right Divider]

So...no science?

Got it. :thumb:

You don't even know what science is, so just keep beating your straw-man.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Ok, that's called "faith." Well and good. Now, where's the science that explains it?

So...no science to see here?

Got it. :thumb:

Now faith is . . . evidence of things not seen. - Hebrews 11:1 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews11:1&version=NKJV

:think:

 

[7djengo7]

The exact definition of "Life Itself" isn't critical here, but feel free to use Webster's definition

Translation:

I, chair, mean absolutely nothing by my phrase, "Life Itself", and so I am forced to stonewall against your question when you ask me, "What (if anything) do you mean by your phrase, "Life Itself?"" As you know, I, chair, have absolutely nothing meaningful to say about my use of my phrase, "Life Itself". chair wanna cracker. Squaaaawwwwk.

Webster's gives a definition for your proper noun, "Life Itself"??????????????????????

 

[7djengo7]

So...no science to see here?

Got it. :thumb:

But, since all you mean by "science", here, is the cloud of pompous nonsense you, as a Darwinism cheerleader, call "the theory of evolution", what (if anything) is your point? Why do you call nonsense "science"?

 

[7djengo7]

You weren't stonewalled against. You were given direct answers including a link that completely debunks your ill thought out OP.

• Side A of your broken record is a recording of your stonewalling against my questions.
• Side B is a recording of you lying about that by saying that you never stonewalled against my questions, and that you have answered my questions.

Only a hardened liar will claim (and, repeatedly, at that) that he has filled in the blanks, when he knows, as well as everybody else knows, that he has never filled in the blanks.

Here are a couple of the blanks never yet filled in by Arthur Brain:

Q. What is the cause of species? A. __________ is the cause of species. Q. Evolution is the cause of what? A. Evolution is the cause of __________.

Arthur Brain knows that, no matter what he would choose to fill in those blanks with, he would, necessarily, embarrass himself by filling them in. That is why he chooses to stonewall against filling in the blanks, and then lies by saying that he has filled them in.

 

[7djengo7]

Species are alive, not Life Itself. Evolution is change, not origin.

Would you say that in the death of, say, a horse named Fancy Free--that is, in Fancy Free's change from being alive to being no longer alive--Fancy Free has undergone evolution, evolved? If not, why not? Would you say that, in Fancy Free's death, Fancy Free has evolved from an alive horse into a dead horse? If not, why not? Also, would you not say that Fancy Free's change from being an alive horse to being a dead horse is the origin of a dead horse--the origin of a horse carcass? Why not?

Which (if any) change would you say evolution is?

In the case of, say, the evolution of Joe's pet bulldog, Vinnie, what change would you say Vinnie's evolution is, since you say that evolution is change?

When a surfer's right leg gets bitten off by a shark, the surfer changes from being a man with a right leg to being a man without a right leg. Would you say that the man has evolved from a man with a right leg into a man without a right leg? If not, why not?

 

[Arthur Brain]

• Side A of your broken record is a recording of your stonewalling against my questions.
• Side B is a recording of you lying about that by saying that you never stonewalled against my questions, and that you have answered my questions.

Only a hardened liar will claim (and, repeatedly, at that) that he has filled in the blanks, when he knows, as well as everybody else knows, that he has never filled in the blanks.

Here are a couple of the blanks never yet filled in by Arthur Brain:

Q. What is the cause of species? A. __________ is the cause of species. Q. Evolution is the cause of what? A. Evolution is the cause of __________.

Arthur Brain knows that, no matter what he would choose to fill in those blanks with, he would, necessarily, embarrass himself by filling them in. That is why he chooses to stonewall against filling in the blanks, and then lies by saying that he has filled them in.

The only one who is embarrassing themselves on here is you Djengo. Here is the link that once again completely undermines your OP:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12052-010-0225-1

The rational and honest thing to do would have simply been honest enough to acknowledge a basic error on the subject. You weren't the first to conflate the theory of evolution with the origin of life itself and you won't be the last. You've been shown this basic error multiple times now and you should just swallow some pride and admit the mistake. We all drop the ball on occasion, it's part of being human.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Like radiometric dating?

Well, if you start with a pre-set conclusion that can't be altered then you're going to disregard anything that runs contrary to it. So with young earth creationism that has to include science that doesn't support a young universe/earth so any dating method or biological process that can't be shoehorned into the YEC premise is given short shrift no matter how well supported the evidence is.

 

[Right Divider]

Well, if you start with a pre-set conclusion that can't be altered then you're going to disregard anything that runs contrary to it. So with young earth creationism that has to include science that doesn't support a young universe/earth so any dating method or biological process that can't be shoehorned into the YEC premise is given short shrift no matter how well supported the evidence is.

You're just lying.

Your pre-set commitment to old earth has you believing that radiometric dating is a scientific method, even though it's not.

 

[7djengo7]

The only one who is embarrassing themselves on here is you Djengo. Here is the link that once again completely undermines your OP:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12052-010-0225-1

The rational and honest thing to do would have simply been honest enough to acknowledge a basic error on the subject. You weren't the first to conflate the theory of evolution with the origin of life itself and you won't be the last. You've been shown this basic error multiple times now and you should just swallow some pride and admit the mistake. We all drop the ball on occasion, it's part of being human.

You're never going to answer my questions by sicking your automated messaging assistant on me, Arthur Brain. So far, you've not answered them; so far, you've not filled in the blanks. Trying to divert attention from the fact that you've never answered the questions I've repeatedly asked you, by your mention of my OP, is just one of the trite features of your perpetual stonewalling against my questions.