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

[JudgeRightly]

Ok, so you say that there was sunlight

NO.

There was LIGHT. The Bible does not say "sunlight."

It says "light."

without any sun. What is the theory and the evidence for sunlight without sun?

Straw man.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You're still stonewalling, and still lying about it. You have never yet filled in the blanks I provided for you in which to answer the questions I asked you. Your exact language, here (viz., "The "blanks" were filled pages ago."), is so transparently the language of lying, while trying to make your lie appear as soft and nebulous as you can make it appear. Notice that you did not say, "I filled in your blanks pages ago," but, rather, you don't even outright refer to yourself as having filled in my blanks, and you don't even outright refer to the fact that the blanks in question are my blanks. Plus, you put quotes around the word, 'blanks', for some reason. Why the quotes, Arthur? Are they somehow not real, genuine, bonafide blanks? Did I only use the "underscore" key on my computer, rather than the underscore key?

In other words, you chose to write



rather than



Because, obviously, any rational person--any honest person who understands such a simple thing as the difference between a blank having been filled in and a blank having not been filled in--will have no difficulty admitting that, in not a single post, thus far, has Arthur Brain yet filled in either of these blanks:

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 __________.

Djengo, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with how life itself orignated/came into being. End of. You can formulate any and all manner of questions, it isn't going to make any difference to your initial and badly thought out premise for this thread. You've had it pointed out to you over and over again. Why be petulant about it? You're wrong. Just accept it and address other things. As before, you're not the first and nor will you be the last to make the mistake that you did.

 

[Stripe]

You say that there was sunlight without any sun.

You're too stupid to talk to any more.

 

[User Name]

NO.

There was LIGHT. The Bible does not say "sunlight."

It says "light."

Right, it says "light," meaning daylight, because it says that God created days and nights 3 days before creating the sun. How is that scientifically possible?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Wait, does Arthur Brain profess to not be an atheistic materialist? Astounding, if so, because the way he persistently, shamelessly lies, he sure conducts himself in accordance with the "ethical standards" of atheistic materialism!

Oh, plenty of people attach their own perceptions and pompous judgements on people on here at times, your above being a case in point. No, I'm not an "atheistic materialist" and nor have I lied on this thread.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I wasn't limiting it to TOL.

You do know that atheistic materialist evolutionists claim that chemicals evolved into life, right?

No. If you're referring to abiogenesis then that's not the same thing as life "evolving" at all.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Right, it says "light," meaning daylight.

Now you're moving the goalposts, and equivocating.

It says light, meaning light itself.

[

Strong's h216 - Lexical: אוֹר - Transliteration: or - Part of Speech: Noun Feminine - Phonetic Spelling: ore - Definition: a light. - Origin: From 'owr; illumination or (concrete) luminary (in every sense, including lightning, happiness, etc.). - Usage: bright, clear, + day, light (-ning), morning, sun. - Translated as (count): light (28), the light (18), and the light (6), for light (5), a light (4), in the light (4), Your light (4), as the light (3), Of light (3), to light (3), as a light to (2), for a light (2), His light (2), their light (2), With the light (2), an light (1), and a light (1), and as for the light (1), and He has given light (1), and light (1), And like the light (1), and your light (1), as a light (1), at light (1), at the light (1), bright (1), broad (1), by His light (1), dawned (1), from light (1), her light (1), His bright (1), His lightning (1), in Your light (1), it is daylight (1), it was light (1), its light (1), lightning (1), lights (1), like sun (1), like the light (1), morning (1), my light (1), shall be light (1), the sun (1), they had] light (1), to the light (1), to your light (1), with a light (1).

God created days and nights 3 days before creating the sun.

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

It's simple enough a third-grader could understand it. Why can't you?

 

[User Name]

It's simple enough a third-grader could understand it. Why can't you?

I understand it quite clearly. But it isn't science. It's faith. That's my only point here.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I will believe any valid evidence. Growing up in public schools, I was taught that the earth was very old. But now I know better.

"Know better how"? What valid evidence have you got that dismisses the vast majority of scientific understanding?

They already were what? I don't have a "dismissive attitude". That is a mischaracterization that you are trying to pin on me.

As you been shown many times, radiometric dating is based on a MINIMUM of THREE ASSUMPTIONS. Until you can coherently discuss this SERIOUS PROBLEM, you have no grounds to keep calling these "scientific methods".


Once we discuss the ASSUMPTIONS of radiometric dating... maybe can move on to other concepts.

Sure you do. You were apparently ready to have a laughing fit if someone mentioned radiometric dating a few posts ago. The whole reasoning behind the various methods of determining the age of the universe are there at the click of a search and in detail at that. What have you got to bring to the table that invalidates the accepted age of the universe as being over 13 billion years old?

Let's see it and discuss.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I understand it quite clearly.

Maybe.

But it isn't science. It's faith. That's my only point here.

Sure it's science. Because, as you learned (or, at least, were taught) before, faith is evidence.

Just like the Bible is evidence.

That's two witnesses.

God said two or three establish a matter.

Consider the matter to be established. God created light, divided the light from the darkness, and called light Day, and darkness Night, and there was evening, and there was morning, Day One.

 

[Right Divider]

No. If you're referring to abiogenesis then that's not the same thing as life "evolving" at all.

Your argument is with the AME's.

 

[User Name]

Sure it's science. Because, as you learned (or, at least, were taught) before, faith is evidence.

Faith is the evidence of things not seen, meaning that they are spiritually discerned. My opinion is that science cannot touch upon the spiritual matters because science deals only with physical matters.

Consider the matter to be established. God created light, divided the light from the darkness, and called light Day, and darkness Night, and there was evening, and there was morning, Day One.

This is a statement of faith. As such, it cannot be physically verified to my knowledge.

 

[7djengo7]

The evolution of the species we see alive today. Thus the origin of the species of all living organisms we see around us, i.e. Species.

Are what you call "the species of all living organisms we see around us" life, or non-life?

Let's make this specific.

The domestic chicken.

Be very specific, indeed, please. Who owns this particular domestic chicken you speak of? Is it male? Is it female? Has it laid eggs yet? Does the chicken's owner let it range freely, or is it usually cooped up in a cage? Has the owner given him or her a pet name? If so, what is this particular chicken's name?

If this particular chicken (call her "Betty") laid an egg, and a chick (call him "Gary") hatched out of that egg, then Gary is a descendant of Betty, no? So, did this female chicken, Betty, evolve into this male chick, Gary?

An organism mentioned in scripture.

Oh, so you're not talking about a chicken that's presently alive. You're talking about some chicken that died thousands of years ago, back in Bible times.

This species originated in India as the red jungle fowl.

Whoa, there. You just jumped, with no notice, from talking about an organism--a chicken, to be specific--to talking about a species.

Is an organism a species, or is it a member of a species?

Is a species an organism, or is it a group of organisms--like a group of chickens, for instance?

Is a chicken a species--a group of organisms--or is a chicken an organism, and a member of a group of organisms called a "species"?

A chicken can die, right? Can a species--a group of organisms (for instance, a group of chickens)--die? When the farmer wrang the neck of the chicken you ate yesterday, did that chicken--that organism--die, or did it go extinct?

It was domesticated by humans (possibly involving hybridization with other jungle fowl species) and brought east by the time of Christ.

I got news for ya, then: If it was domesticated by the time of Christ, that chicken has been dead for at least a couple thousand years. I'd imagine lots of chickens--both roosters and hens--were domesticated by the time of Christ, just as many chickens are domesticated in our day. Would you disagree?

Believe you me, Professor, we're just getting started here.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Your argument is with the AME's.

"AME's"? Yeah, it really isn't but you carry on bracketing people into some silly group or some such if you need to.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Faith is the evidence of things not seen,

I didn't see God make light. Did you? Yet light exists, and the God says that He created it. I would tend to believe Him.

meaning that they are spiritually discerned.

So?

My opinion

Has no real place in a discussion of facts.

is that science cannot touch upon the spiritual matters because science deals only with physical matters.

That's because you don't actually know what science really is.

This is a statement of faith. As such, it cannot be physically verified to my knowledge.

Rather, it's a statement of fact made by the Creator of the universe.

Why don't you believe Him?

 

[Right Divider]

"Know better how"? What valid evidence have you got that dismisses the vast majority of scientific understanding?

More elephant hurling. Don't your arms get tired?

You were apparently ready to have a laughing fit if someone mentioned radiometric dating a few posts ago.

Yes, if you keep calling it a "scientific method", I will continue to laugh.

What have you got to bring to the table that invalidates the accepted age of the universe as being over 13 billion years old?

Once again, instead of begging the question, discuss the method of radiometric dating and the MULTIPLE ASSUMPTIONS that it REQUIRES.

Let's see it and discuss.

:rotfl:

Do you need some help finding information on radiometric dating?

 

[Right Divider]

"AME's"? Yeah, it really isn't but you carry on bracketing people into some silly group or some such if you need to.

I didn't group them, they chose their own group.

They are first, atheists. Since they are atheists, they believe that only the material world exists. That make them also materialists. They also believe in evolution.

So.... that makes them atheistic materialist evolutionists (AME).

 

[7djengo7]

You can formulate any and all manner of questions

You will continue to refuse to answer any of the questions I've asked you, and you will continue to lie and say that you have answered them, and you will do the same regarding all further questions I may ask you. Why are you so proud of yourself for your dismal failure at dealing with my questions?

 

[Arthur Brain]

I didn't group them, they chose their own group.

They are first, atheists. Since they are atheists, they believe that only the material world exists. That make them also materialists. They also believe in evolution.

So.... that makes them atheistic materialist evolutionists (AME).

Ah, so anyone who claims to be an atheist or perhaps anyone who doesn't have what you consider faith would also fit into this group? There's humanists who don't believe in Christianity but they're hardly "materialists" and show more concern and empathy than plenty who profess faith. Accepting science doesn't automatically confine anyone to a group. Calling people "evolutionists" is just a silly mantra as it is.

 

[7djengo7]

and nor have I lied on this thread.

And there you have lied once again.

Also, what's with the two conjunctions in a row: "and nor"? Did you really need to conjoin "have I lied on this thread" with "and"?