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

[Arthur Brain]

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.

Lying about what exactly? I don't have a commitment to the earth being any particular age but I'm not going to ignore the abundance of science that states that it's a whole lot older than the YEC model. Frankly, your criticisms of scientific methods are hardly something to be taken seriously.

 

[Right Divider]

Lying about what exactly?

That my belief is influenced by some "pre-set" blah blah blah.

I don't have a commitment to the earth being any particular age but I'm not going to ignore the abundance of science that states that it's a whole lot older than the YEC model.

Perhaps you could address some of the "old earth" abundance of evidence.... start with radiometric dating.

Frankly, your criticisms of scientific methods are hardly something to be taken seriously.

What "scientific methods"? Don't say radiometric dating or I might split a gut laughing.

 

[Arthur Brain]

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.

The "blanks" were filled pages ago. That your ego apparently can't withstand your OP being debunked is only on you. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life itself. Really is as simple as that.

 

[Right Divider]

The "blanks" were filled pages ago. That your ego apparently can't withstand your OP being debunked is only on you. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life itself. Really is as simple as that.

The large number of atheistic materialist evolutionists would disagree with you.

 

[Arthur Brain]

That may belief is influenced by some "pre-set" blah blah blah.

Well isn't it? Do you believe that the earth is or can't be older than 10,000 or so years? If you do then how are you going to give credence to any science that contradicts your belief?

Perhaps you could address some of the "old earth" abundance of evidence.... start with radiometric dating.


What "scientific methods"? Don't say radiometric dating or I might split a gut laughing.

They already were and your dismissive attitude towards radiometric dating and other methods is hardly much in itself. Microwave cosmic background radiation is something else you might want to laugh at?

 

[Arthur Brain]

The large number of atheistic materialist evolutionists would disagree with you.

Funny, I don't see any lining up in this thread to say that the theory of evolution explains how life originated, in fact I can't recall any person on TOL, no matter what their belief doing so either.

:AMR:

 

[Alate_One]

The origin of species IS the evolution of what?]

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.

Let's make this specific.

The domestic chicken. An organism mentioned in scripture. This species originated in India as the red jungle fowl. It was domesticated by humans (possibly involving hybridization with other jungle fowl species) and brought east by the time of Christ. The Jungle fowl, part of the Phasanidae (Pheasant family) evolved from other Galliformes (includes other fowl like quail and peacocks) which themselves evolved from a subgroup of the Galloanseriforms (Fowl and Ducks) which evolved from another group of birds the neognaths (new jaw) birds which themselves evolved from within the birdlike dinosaurs, Eumaniraptora which themselves evolved from within theropod dinosaurs which evolved from other reptiles which evolved from within amphibians which evolved from within lobe finned fish which evolved from simpler fish without fins and jaws (agnathans) which evolved from chordates similar to sea squirts which evolved from some kind of bilaterian organism which evolved from multicellular eukaryotic organisms which evolved from single celled eukaryotes which arose from a combination of two or more prokaryotic organisms and a proto-eukaryotic cell (which may have involved a virus in its origin) which themselves all evolved from some kind of original cellular ancestor which has an unknown origin.

The last organism as Darwin posited may have been directly created but there is currently no good scientific evidence to definitively describe its origin.

Happy Now?

 

[Stripe]

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?

First you asked for evidence, now you're asking for an explanation.

Which is it?

Answer: You're a troll.

 

[User Name]

First you asked for evidence, now you're asking for an explanation.

Which is it?

How 'bout both?

 

[Right Divider]

Well isn't it? Do you believe that the earth is or can't be older than 10,000 or so years? If you do then how are you going to give credence to any science that contradicts your belief?

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.

They already were and your dismissive attitude towards radiometric dating and other methods is hardly much in itself.

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".

Microwave cosmic background radiation is something else you might want to laugh at?

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

 

[Right Divider]

Funny, I don't see any lining up in this thread to say that the theory of evolution explains how life originated, in fact I can't recall any person on TOL, no matter what their belief doing so either.

:AMR:

I wasn't limiting it to TOL.

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

 

[Alate_One]

The large number of atheistic materialist evolutionists would disagree with you.

No, they would agree that the origin of life is a separate issue to the Theory of Evolution. There are a variety of competing ideas for the origin of life. No scientist I know of would definitively state they knew how it happened.

 

[Right Divider]

No, they would agree that the origin of life is a separate issue to the Theory of Evolution.

Wrong.

There are a variety of competing ideas for the origin of life. No scientist I know of would definitively state they knew how it happened.

And yet the evolutionists here keep claiming that the KNOW that all life is descended from a SINGLE COMMON ANCESTOR

Funny stuff..

 

[7djengo7]

The "blanks" were filled pages ago. That your ego apparently can't withstand your OP being debunked is only on you. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life itself. Really is as simple as that.

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

The "blanks" were filled pages ago.

rather than

I, Arthur Brain, filled in your--7djengo7's--blanks, pages ago.

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 __________.

 

[7djengo7]

I wasn't limiting it to TOL.

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

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!

 

[Alate_One]

Wrong.

Why because you say so? How many biology classes have you had? How many biology textbooks and papers have you read? And no we're not talking creationist ones.

I've taught from quite a few textbooks and none give definitive answers for the origin of life or pretend it's part of evolutionary theory. Plus I read papers on the origin of life as they come out, and they do not have anywhere near certainty on their ideas for the origin of life. Evolutionary theory by contrast is quite well established.

And yet the evolutionists here keep claiming that the KNOW that all life is descended from a SINGLE COMMON ANCESTOR

Funny stuff..

The evidence points to a single common ancestor. Now by that we don't mean one cell, but a population of cells that may have exchanged genetic information with other similar cells that come from now otherwise extinct lineages.

What evidence? The universal genetic code for one. Every life form, from bacteria to plants to humans uses the same meanings for the bases of DNA.

The common functions of all cells, Transcription, translation, DNA, RNA ribosomes, enzymes etc.

If God had wanted to clearly distinguish different life forms, He could have given each group a different genetic code or a different functional format. Or unique DNA sequences for each species (this is quite possible). But He didn't because He used evolutionary processes to create them and the evidence remains in our genome and that of all other organisms.

 

[Stripe]

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?

:yawn:

If you were paying even a modicum of attention, you'd have seen our explanation of this. The Bible says there was light (evidence); we have an idea of how that might happen (theory); the discussion should be over the evidence (science); you bring nothing of value to this process (troll).

 

[Stripe]

How 'bout both?

Explanation: God created light.
Evidence: Genesis 1.
Troll: User.

 

[User Name]

The Bible says there was light (evidence); we have an idea of how that might happen (theory); the discussion should be over the evidence (science); you bring nothing of value to this process (troll).

Ok, so you say that there was sunlight without any sun. What is the theory and the evidence for sunlight without sun?

 

[User Name]

Explanation: God created light.
Evidence: Genesis 1.