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

[JudgeRightly]

Your whole thread was ridiculous to start with.

And participating, and then continuing to participate, in a thread that you think is such says a lot about you.

You asininely attempted to mock someone (whoever it was) who was absolutely correct in that evolution is not the cause of life itself. Since then, instead of acknowledging such a basic error of misunderstanding, you've compounded it with juvenile attempts at deflection and insult.

The only one deflecting here in this thread is you, Arty, by continuing to not answer two very simple questions about what you believe.

You don't even understand the basics of the theory of evolution and dismiss it as "nonsense" with nothing in support.

And yet, when asked, you won't even explain what it IS, you just keep asserting what it ISN'T.

If you were honest with yourself you would see how much you've messed up with your own OP, but that's not too likely is it?

Do try to keep up, Arty, we've moved beyond the OP long ago.

The questions you are being asked currently are:

1. Q. What is the cause of species? A. __________ is the cause of species. 2. Q. Evolution is the cause of what? A. Evolution is the cause of __________.

 

[Arthur Brain]

And participating, and then continuing to participate, in a thread that you think is such says a lot about you.

Like what? Is continually pointing out ignorance such a bad thing?

The only one deflecting here in this thread is you, Arty, by continuing to not answer two very simple questions about what you believe.

You had your answer a number of posts ago where it comes to the topic of evolution and these "questions" are answered therein. This has nothing to do with what "I believe". Either read up or don't. Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origination of life. You can't exactly accuse me of deflecting from the OP as that's what the original (and totally misguided) thread was about to begin with.

And yet, when asked, you won't even explain what it IS, you just keep asserting what it ISN'T.

Seriously? How many times has the theory of evolution been explained on here, even in layman's terms? In context of this thread it certainly isn't about how life itself came about.

Do try to keep up, Arty, we've moved beyond the OP long ago.

The questions you are being asked currently are:

1. Q. What is the cause of species? A. __________ is the cause of species. 2. Q. Evolution is the cause of what? A. Evolution is the cause of __________.

Then do keep up yourself. The answers to these and more have already been provided. Up to you what you do with them.

 

[7djengo7]

Um, no. Your thread from the get go was a fail. Educate yourself about evolution and you won't embarrass yourself as you did at the start. Or carry on as you will. Past caring at this point...

You cared before? I saw no symptoms of decline in your performance; it was pure banality from you from the get-go. I suppose your change from caring to not caring must, then, be embodied in your going from (throughout this thread) choosing to address me by notification (through quoting me) to (in your most recent, post #100) choosing to address me without quoting me (and thus, without notification).

Hehehe, Arthur Brain. I've seen that trick fail before, like it fails you, now: "Oh, maybe I can get the last word in if I try to look like I'm actually addressing him, but without quoting him, so that, without a quote notification, perhaps he won't notice that I wrote this post and respond to it, taking away yet another one of my chances to have the last word."

 

[7djengo7]

The answers to these and more have already been provided.

Here, once again, you are lying.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You cared before? I saw no symptoms of decline in your performance; it was pure banality from you from the get-go. I suppose your change from caring to not caring must, then, be embodied in your going from (throughout this thread) choosing to address me by notification (through quoting me) to (in your most recent, post #100) choosing to address me without quoting me (and thus, without notification).

Hehehe, Arthur Brain. I've seen that trick fail before, like it fails you, now: "Oh, maybe I can get the last word in if I try to look like I'm actually addressing him, but without quoting him, so that, without a quote notification, perhaps he won't notice that I wrote this post and respond to it, taking away yet another one of my chances to have the last word."

Well, I'm quoting you directly right here.

There's something a bit unhinged about you quite frankly. I'm not interested in having the last word as you put it. You have it yourself.

Have fun.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Then do keep up yourself. The answers to these and more have already been provided. Up to you what you do with them.

Post number please?

In which post did you fill in the blanks to 7D's questions?

 

[7djengo7]

Well, I'm quoting you directly right here.

There's something a bit unhinged about you quite frankly. I'm not interested in having the last word as you put it. You have it yourself.

Have fun.

Will do.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Post number please?

In which post did you fill in the blanks to 7D's questions?

This one, answered directly to you. The "blanks" are filled by the link. Look, I know that you hold with young earth creationism but if you're going to argue against evolution then you at least have to be aware of the basics, one of them being that evolution has nothing to do with how life started.

All your questions (and anyone else's in relation) are answered via the link.

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...of-life-quot&p=5356423&viewfull=1#post5356423

 

[ok doser]

... Your Darwinist cheerleader language game is causing you to make a monkey of yourself, Arthur Brain.

oh dear

that's racist

 

[ok doser]

Nobody who is educated or familiar with the theory of evolution would be so ignorant as to state that it has anything to do with the beginning of life itself....

is evolution the cause of the beginning of human life?

 

[Right Divider]

is evolution the cause of the beginning of human life?

Let me take this one.... NO.

 

[User Name]

is evolution the cause of the beginning of human life?

Earlier in this thread I answered no to this question about evolution "causing" life. But the more I think about it, the more I think it kind of is. Evolution must be an unbroken process all the way from the singularity to the "Big Bang" to us.

 

[Right Divider]

Earlier in this thread I answered no to this question about evolution "causing" life. But the more I think about it, the more I think it kind of is. Evolution must be an unbroken process all the way from the singularity to the "Big Bang" to us.

And why "must" it be?

 

[User Name]

And why "must" it be?

If evolution is true, then it "must" have started at the beginning with the expansion of the singularity and it continued in an unbroken process from then until now.

At the start of the Big Bang, there was no matter. Then matter evolved when energy condensed to a slow vibration. The first matter in the universe was the elements hydrogen and helium. Clouds of hydrogen and helium condensed under gravity to evolve stars. The supernova explosions of these stars evolved the heavier elements which led to planets and organic chemistry. Then the most primitive life forms evolved out of the organic material. These proto-life forms evolved into larger, more complex creatures. Eventually, they produced us. We are living evolved matter--the universe come to life.

As Carl Sagan put it, "We are a way for the universe to know itself."

 

[ok doser]

It will be interesting to see if artie is as adamant at opposing your position

 

[Right Divider]

If evolution is true, then it started at the beginning with the expansion of the singularity and it continued in an unbroken process from then until now.

At the start of the Big Bang, there was no matter. Then matter evolved when energy condensed to a slow vibration. The first matter in the universe was the elements hydrogen and helium. Clouds of hydrogen and helium condensed under gravity to evolve stars. The supernova explosions of these stars evolved the heavier elements which led to planets and organic chemistry. Then the most primitive life forms evolved out of the organic material and evolved into larger, more complex creatures. Eventually, they produced us. We are living evolved matter, the universe come to life.

As Carl Sagan put it, "We are a way for the universe to know itself."

Indeed, if you take the atheistic materialist world view, then this must be the "story". That is why the materialists are vehement evolutionists!

Carl Sagan was apparently of the atheistic materialist sort. He also said something like, "The universe is all that is or was or ever will be". So much for his "science".

 

[genuineoriginal]

Nobody who is educated or familiar with the theory of evolution would be so ignorant as to state that it has anything to do with the beginning of life itself.

It looks like you are not coming into agreement about the definition of "life".
What do you mean by "life itself"?
Here are some options:

• the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
• living things collectively
• living beings of a particular kind
• living beings of a particular environment

I saw a Darwin cheerleader say

Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life.

If something is not about the origin of life, then how can it be about THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES???

When a Darwinist says "Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life," he is saying, "Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally."

When 7djengo7 asks, "If something is not about the origin of life, then how can it be about THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES???" he is asking, "If something is not about the origin of living beings of a particular kind, then how can it be about THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES???"

 

[7djengo7]

This one, answered directly to you. The "blanks" are filled by the link.

False.

It's impossible that you're stupid enough to believe what you wrote, here, and thus, you are brazenly lying.

No, you have not filled in the blanks, and the blanks have not been filled in. Were they filled in, then, um, they'd be filled in. It's impossible that you're too stupid to understand the difference between blanks that have been filled in, and blanks that have not been filled in, and so, when you say that the blanks have been filled in, you are lying.

Here are two blanks, the first having not been filled in, and the second having been filled in:

• Las Vegas is in ____________.
• Las Vegas is in New Mexico.

You see the difference between a blank that has not been filled in, and a blank that has been filled in? Your task, then is to fill in the two, following 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 __________.

if you're going to argue against evolution then you at least have to be aware of the basics, one of them being that evolution has nothing to do with how life started.

You say you are "aware of the basics", and yet, you are manifestly incompetent to fill in the two, little blanks to answer two, BASIC questions. Until either you have filled in the blanks with answers to the questions, or have become honest by admitting that your "basics" are utterly worthless when it comes to filling in the blanks with answers to the questions, you will not have ceased stonewalling against the questions I asked you.

All your questions (and anyone else's in relation) are answered via the link.

False. And, for you to say that they have been answered is for you to say that they can be answered. And yet, you, thus far, have not answered them. If they have been answered, and they can be answered, then why have you not answered them, and why can you not answer them?

evolution has nothing to do with how life started.

Then evolution has nothing to do with how humans started.

 

[7djengo7]

Earlier in this thread I answered no to this question about evolution "causing" life. But the more I think about it, the more I think it kind of is.

• "causing", rather than causing (without quotes)?
• "it kind of is", rather than "it is"?

In other words, you don't have any qualms about being all over the map concerning what Arthur Brain calls "the basics". Since--as Darwinists continually showcase--what they call "the basics" (and what they dread inviting critical inquiry upon) is nothing more than an incoherent cloud of nonsense, it is necessarily the case that the grandiose superstructure that they've piled up on top of "the basics" is, itself, incoherent and nonsensical.

So far, Arthur Brain, a professed expert with what he calls "the basics", has persistently declined to try to answer the questions I've asked him about what he calls "the basics". Would you like to try your hand at filling in those 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]

Nobody who is educated or familiar with the theory of evolution would be so ignorant as to state that it has anything to do with the beginning of life itself.

Did non-life evolve into life? Yes or No?

Did life start with non-life evolving into life? Yes or No?

If non-life evolved into life, then how ridiculous that something called "the theory of evolution" should not have "anything to do with the beginning of life itself"!