toldailytopic "Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life"
- Thread starter 7djengo7
- Start date
And your side is the one who made the straw man that it was. So....
Alate_One
Well-known member
The origin of species IS evolution. Getting from an original single celled life form to a tree a bird or a fungus is a pretty incredible feat no? Many many species appeared along the way, the far and away highest number of species that have ever existed.
So it's like complaining that a book about the evolution of modern car design didn't cover how the very first internal combustion engine was created.
Yes to both.
If I ask you your origin, would you immediately go back to Adam and Eve or would you explain your parents and their ancestry and so on?
Nope.
Evolution is just a theory.
How long will the Darwinists use the anti-science fallacy of begging the question?
Will they ever engage sensibly?
The creation account is the foundation of the scientific theory of creationism. It's as "scientific" as anything else.
The challenge is: Will its proponents look to falsify it? Will they copy the Darwinists and simply assert its primacy?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
You weren't stonewalled against. You were given direct answers including a link that completely debunks your ill thought out OP.
Here it is again:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12052-010-0225-1
Your seeming inability to differentiate between the evolving of life and the origination of life itself is a common mistake but it's one that you should now accept.
You're not the first to drop the ball on that score and you won't be the last either. However, you can still pick it up.
The creation account of Genesis is totally unfalsifiable. There is absolutely nothing "scientific" about it.
God created day and night on "the first day" according to Genesis 1:5. Then, on the 4th day, God created the sun (Gen 1:16, 19). Delineate for me scientifically how there could have been days and nights before God created the sun. Provide scientific evidence for the existence of the Tree of Life and the serpent in the garden that could walk and talk.
Yeah, on another evolution thread I posted an article that clearly demonstrates that "science" is as much of a religion as religion is. Go refute the article. Not a one of you have touched the article. You're all avoiding it like the plague. But, that's to be expected. You'll never admit that science is based on faith in assumptions. Not a one of you. It just shows your basic dishonesty.
Btw, here's a link to an article written a doctoral level biologist who speaks to the limitations of science. .
http://www.shawndove.com/assumptions-of-science/
Of course it is falsifiable.
Any idea can be "scientific." It's not about the idea, it's about the way we deal with it. Deal with it in a rational and systematic way and you're doing science. Or we could use your approach and attack it with logical fallacies, ignorance and spam.
There was light.
Genesis 1 and 2.
Keep the easy questions coming. :up:
Alate_One
Well-known member
:doh:
I guess Stripe shall now be known as "no one". :chuckle:
You need natural evidence, rock layers, fossils etc.
Right Divider
Body part
:rotfl:
Your Nobel Prize awaits you, sir.
When you've got a sensible response to anything, let us know.
We do. Moreover, we start with a scientific and rational worldview.
:troll:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Except you don't. You start with an unshakable conclusion that the earth can be no older than 10,000 or so years. That isn't scientific, science plays no part in that. You disregard any actual science that contradicts your religious beliefs no matter how conclusive or compelling the evidence. That's not a "scientific and rational worldview".
Right Divider
Body part
Like radiometric dating?
It was entitled On The Origin Of Species. It was not entitled On the Origin of Life.
on the origin of species
No, they are not "life" in the way you are using the word. They are alive, same as a dog. But they are not Life in the wider sense of the word.
No, They are not "life itself".
You have been playing a semantic game since the beginning of the thread. It is dishonest.
Evolution is change, not origin. Species are alive, not Life Itself.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Define "Life Itself"
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?
The exact definition of "Life Itself" isn't critical here, but feel free to use Webster's definition, if you like:
1b: a state of a living thing marked especially by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
Edit: If 7djengo7, who used the term "Life Itself" wants to define it differently- let us know.
A dictionary is a useful thing. For example, here's Webster's definition of Evolution:
Note that the Origin of Life is not mentioned here.
Definition of evolution
1a: descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations
Evolution is a process of continuous branching and diversification from common trunks. This pattern of irreversible separation gives life's history its basic directionality.
— Stephen Jay Gould
also : the scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms (such as natural selection, genetic mutation or drift, and hybridization)
1a: descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations
Evolution is a process of continuous branching and diversification from common trunks. This pattern of irreversible separation gives life's history its basic directionality.
— Stephen Jay Gould
also : the scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms (such as natural selection, genetic mutation or drift, and hybridization)
Note that the Origin of Life is not mentioned here.