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

[7djengo7]

I see you can't think of anything worth discussing. I should have realised that when I first read the OP.

Stuart

These things that you keep writing in posts, are they scripts for your telephone answering machine greetings? Because, they all seem very impersonal, and like a robot is saying them, to nobody in particular.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You just denied that human life is life, by denying that the origination of human life is the origination of life.

Arthur Brain thinks that human life is not life! Amazing.



Tailoring what?



Since by "life has evolved", you pretend to not mean "life originated", then tell us what (if anything) you imagine you mean by "life has evolved".

Was Darwin's book titled On The Origin Of Species, or was it titled On The Evolution Of Species? Which?

Was Darwin's book on the origin of species, or was it on the evolution of species? Which?

Are species life? Yes or No?

Are species life itself? Yes or No?

When a chick hatches from an egg laid by a chicken, would you say that the chicken that laid the egg has evolved into the chick that hatched from it? Would you say that one, or both, of your parents evolved into you?

Your (Darwinism's) most fundamentally self-devastating, self-embarrassing problem is the very word, "evolve", itself, which is why you've been persistently committed to stonewalling and obfuscation at every turn in your postings on TOL. You will do whatever you can to weasel away from the challenge every time someone asks you to say what it is for something to evolve.

When something evolves, does it evolve into itself, or does it evolve into something other than itself?

You will never get human language to cooperate with your wishful, futile attempts to somehow cause your nonsense to be sense. And, frankly, I'm quite enjoying the spectacle of your frustration over that fact.



What is not the same thing as what?

By "life itself", are you referring to life? Yes or No? If you are referring to life, by "life itself", then to what life are you referring, by "life itself"? If you are not referring to life, by "life itself", then to what are you referring, by "life itself"?

So, again, you still haven't found anything to support that the theory of evolution has anything to do with how life itself came about then. How life evolves is a completely separate issue as to how life itself came into actual being.

You made a fundamental error in your OP by trying to mock a poster who was simply telling you the truth. It backfired and the frustration of such is more than evident on your part.

 

[7djengo7]

So, again, you still haven't found anything to support that the theory of evolution has anything to do with how life itself came about then.

You just denied that human life is life, by denying that the coming about of human life is the coming about of life. Only a fool can deny that human life is life: you just did so.

How life evolves is a completely separate issue as to how life itself came into actual being.

Here, you have just denied that life itself is life. Only a fool can deny that life itself is life: you just did so.

Hahaha! Life itself is "a completely separate issue" from life, according to you!

Arthur Brain denies that Darwin's book, On The Origin Of Species, is about the evolution of species! Astounding.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You just denied that human life is life, by denying that the coming about of human life is the coming about of life. Only a fool can deny that human life is life: you just did so.



Here, you have just denied that life itself is life. Only a fool can deny that life itself is life: you just did so.

Hahaha! Life itself is "a completely separate issue" from life, according to you!

Arthur Brain denies that Darwin's book, On The Origin Of Species, is about the evolution of species! Astounding.

No, I did no such thing. I'm simply acknowledging that the theory of evolution doesn't explain how life actually started to begin with. Something that most with any familiarity with the topic would do so themselves and acknowledge a basic error of misunderstanding once being shown their flaw. Else, find a source that states that evolution is the actual cause of the origination of life.

Good luck.

 

[User Name]

A brief scholarly article on the subject, written by science educators:

The Theory of Evolution is Not an Explanation for the Origin of Life

 

[Gary K]

No. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the actual origin of life itself. Why this continually trips you and others up is somewhat baffling. Tell you what, you find a source that states that the theory of evolution explains how life itself came into being then post it. Good luck.

That, Arthur, is a very disingenuous position to take. There is only one other possible position to take and that is the creation story of Genesis. In it the origin of life is explained and also the source of all lifeforms themselves is accounted for. So to say evolution doesn't address the origin of life is not true as it dismisses the one comprehensive position that accounts for life and lifeforms.

It is a far more accurate statement to say evolution addresses the issue of the origin of life, but it is clueless as to the answer to the question. Evolution is the blind leading the blind.

 

[Arthur Brain]

That, Arthur, is a very disingenuous position to take. There is only one other possible position to take and that is the creation story of Genesis. In it the origin of life is explained and also the source of all lifeforms themselves is accounted for. So to say evolution doesn't address the origin of life is not true as it dismisses the one comprehensive position that accounts for life and lifeforms.

It is a far more accurate statement to say evolution addresses the issue of the origin of life, but it is clueless as to the answer to the question. Evolution is the blind leading the blind.

It isn't disingenuous at all. You're entitled to your literalist beliefs involving a young earth but nobody else is obliged to be limited to such. Plenty people have no problems balancing an acknowledgement of science with having faith.

 

[Gary K]

It isn't disingenuous at all. You've entitled to your literalist beliefs involving a young earth but nobody else is obliged to be limited to such. Plenty people have no problems balancing an acknowledgement of science with having faith.

Show me where the Bible says it is faith to reject the plain word of scripture? You're not going to find such a statement in all of scripture. In fact, it says just the opposite.

When you read the following passage remember that the land of Caanan is symbolic of heaven.

Hebrews 3:7 Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says,

“Today, if you hear his voice,[SIZE=+1]8[/SIZE] do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion,
on the day of testing in the wilderness,
[SIZE=+1]9 [/SIZE]where your fathers put me to the test
and saw my works [SIZE=+1]10[/SIZE] for forty years.
Therefore I was provoked with that generation,
and said, ‘They always go astray in their heart;
they have not known my ways.’
[SIZE=+1]11 [/SIZE]As I swore in my wrath,
‘They shall not enter my rest.’”

[SIZE=+1]12[/SIZE] Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. [SIZE=+1]13[/SIZE] But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. [SIZE=+1]14[/SIZE] For we share in Christ, ^*xhif indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end. [SIZE=+1]15[/SIZE] As it is said,

“Today, if you hear his voice,do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.”

[SIZE=+1]16[/SIZE] For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses? [SIZE=+1]17[/SIZE] And with whom was he provoked for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? [SIZE=+1]18[/SIZE] And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient? [SIZE=+1]19[/SIZE] So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.

In Hebrews 4 verses 6 and 11 Paul refers back to this same group and calls their disobedience unbelief again and again. Why did they die in the wilderness? Because God told them to enter Caanan and they couldn't believe His word that they would conquer the Caananites because they were afraid of the giants in the land. When a person tosses out God's plain word in favor of a contradictory idea/concept it's called unbelief, not faith. Those are two polar opposites. They are mutually exclusive, no matter what anyone tries to justify in their own minds. You can tell yourself over and over that 2 + 3 = 4 but no matter how many times you tell yourself it is true it will never be true. You can believe it with every fiber of your being, but you're still placing yourself in a false position.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Show me where the Bible says it is faith to reject the plain word of scripture? You're not going to find such a statement in all of scripture. In fact, it says just the opposite.

When you read the following passage remember that the land of Caanan is symbolic of heaven.

You might as well argue that the book of revelation is supposed to be read literally. If you can't see the poetic narrative in the Genesis account then plenty others can. What would you expect the bible to say where it comes to matters of science? That nobody at the time would have been able to understand? If it's integral to your own belief that the earth can be no older than 6 - 10,000 years then believe that as you will. Alate herself used to be an adamant YEC and by her own testimony on here, the realization that such couldn't tie in with the evidence caused her her own crisis of faith. Thankfully, she also realized that there was no need for cognitive dissonance and that faith wasn't reliant on reading Genesis literally. A belief in an old earth and evolution and having faith are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps to you it is but as before, that needn't apply to everyone or indeed, anyone else.

In Hebrews 4 verses 6 and 11 Paul refers back to this same group and calls their disobedience unbelief again and again. Why did they die in the wilderness? Because God told them to enter Caanan and they couldn't believe His word that they would conquer the Caananites because they were afraid of the giants in the land. When a person tosses out God's plain word in favor of a contradictory idea/concept it's called unbelief, not faith. Those are two polar opposites. They are mutually exclusive, no matter what anyone tries to justify in their own minds. You can tell yourself over and over that 2 + 3 = 4 but no matter how many times you tell yourself it is true it will never be true. You can believe it with every fiber of your being, but you're still placing yourself in a false position.

As above. You can claim that there's a young earth all that you want and demand that it's the only true position to hold but that doesn't mean it's actually the case. Plenty of people have no problems with accepting science and having faith regardless of what you assert.

 

[Stuu]

the creation story of Genesis. In it the origin of life is explained and also the source of all lifeforms themselves is accounted for.

In what way does the creation myth of Genesis explain anything? Does it give mechanisms of how a god produces cells, tissues and organs from dirt and breathing?

Evolution is the blind leading the blind.

Natural selection works on the variation caused by random mutation. Mutation is random but natural selection isn't.

Stuart

 

[JudgeRightly]

Does it give mechanisms of how a god produces cells, tissues and organs from dirt and breathing?

Why do you assume the creation account has to?

 

[Alate_One]

Arthur Brain denies that Darwin's book, On The Origin Of Species, is about the evolution of species! Astounding.

Um, the Book itself says so.

Here's a quote from Origin of Species:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”

Emphasis added by me.

 

[Alate_One]

Why do you assume the creation account has to?

If you think it's science it should have an explanatory mechanism. If it doesn't maybe it's just a way of giving purpose and patterns to creation so humans understand their place in it.

 

[JudgeRightly]

If you think it's science

It's not science. It's the account of what happened during the first week of the universe's existence.

If it doesn't maybe it's just a way of giving purpose and patterns to creation so humans understand their place in it.

Or, maybe, it's an eyewitness (God's) account of the creation of the universe, the earth, the seas, and all that was in them.

 

[Alate_One]

It's not science. It's an account of historicity.

It's not like any modern account of history, and if you want to use it as a substitute for modern science, it needs a mechanism. None is given, and hydroplates are a complete mess.

Or, maybe, it's an euewtitness (God's) account of the creation of the universe, the earth, the seas, and all that was in them.

Or maybe it's an antimyth, intended to counter the narrative of ancient people that believed that the sun and the moon were deities to be worshipped.

 

[7djengo7]

Um, the Book itself says so.

Darwin's book, On The Origin Of Species, says what? That it (the book, On The Origin Of The Species) is NOT about the evolution of species?

The book purports to be ON the origin of species, does it not? Only an idiot, or a lying miscreant, would deliberately write a book that is NOT on the origin of species, and then deliberately title it as On The Origin Of Species.


Is Darwin's book, On The Origin Of Species, on the origin of species? Yes or No?

Is Darwin's book, On The Origin Of Species, on the evolution of species? Yes or No?

Are you going to stonewall against these questions, like Arthur Brain does?

 

[User Name]

It's not science.

Bingo!

 

[JudgeRightly]

Bingo!

No one claimed it was, either.

 

[User Name]

No one claimed it was, either.

Well somebody decided to come up with the term "creation science." :chuckle:

 

[JudgeRightly]

Well somebody decided to come up with "creation science." :chuckle:

And? So what? No one claimed that the creation account was scientific.

Doing science in search of information ABOUT the creation event is normal.