|
Post by Ed on Nov 27, 2019 10:02:02 GMT -5
As French biologist Jean Rostand asked in his book Can Man be Modified? (1956): “Have not the biologists the right to a little conceit, when they add up what they have achieved in the space of a mere half century? Would they not be justified in believing that to them all things will become possible, simply by going on deepening the trenches already dug and continuing along the lines of researches already marked out? But this is where we must remind ourselves that our successes, amazing as they are, leave the formidable riddles of life itself almost intact. The three cardinal problems of biology — the problem of how a living creature grows, the problem of how species evolve, the problem of how life originated — have been scarcely touched by the scientists. We have no more than a very vague idea of the way in which a complex organism can be contained in a germ; we have hardly any idea of the way in which the organic metamorphoses that must have gone to produce the human species from some original virus may have been accomplished in the course of ages, and we have not the slightest idea of the way in which the first lives were born.” Dr. Tour on the Origin of Life at Syracuse University (2018) “66 years of origin of life study and they’ve gotten nowhere since Miller-Urey.” “Critical for life is the origin of information; DNA or RNA. The information is primary and the matter secondary, but we cannot even get the matter (requisite carbohydrates, nucleic acids, lipids and proteins), let alone the information.” “There is much more information stored in carbohydrate assembly than in DNA. Yeah. Much more information can be stored in carbohydrates. You wanna build a massive computer? Build it based on carbohydrate assembly. Much better than DNA assembly; its just that nobody knows how to control carbohydrate assembly, nobody. But somehow, on pre-biotic earth, with nobody around, under a rock, they figured this out.” “Time is your enemy in organic chemistry.” “Without a biologically derived entity acting upon them, molecules have never been shown to evolve toward life. Never." –James Tour, Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Materials Science and NanoEngineering Dr James Tour speaking about evolution www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDPQEXa7S3I"We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;' but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists." Smith, Wolfgang (1988) "There is no theory of evolution". -Jerome Lejeune, French cytologist quoted in Why is a Fly not a Horse?, Giuseppe Sermonti Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for "all life [is] from life". –Louis Pasteur
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 27, 2019 14:59:29 GMT -5
As French biologist Jean Rostand asked in his book Can Man be Modified? (1956): “Have not the biologists the right to a little conceit, when they add up what they have achieved in the space of a mere half century? Would they not be justified in believing that to them all things will become possible, simply by going on deepening the trenches already dug and continuing along the lines of researches already marked out? But this is where we must remind ourselves that our successes, amazing as they are, leave the formidable riddles of life itself almost intact. The three cardinal problems of biology — the problem of how a living creature grows, the problem of how species evolve, the problem of how life originated — have been scarcely touched by the scientists. We have no more than a very vague idea of the way in which a complex organism can be contained in a germ; we have hardly any idea of the way in which the organic metamorphoses that must have gone to produce the human species from some original virus may have been accomplished in the course of ages, and we have not the slightest idea of the way in which the first lives were born.” Dr. Tour on the Origin of Life at Syracuse University (2018) “66 years of origin of life study and they’ve gotten nowhere since Miller-Urey.” “Critical for life is the origin of information; DNA or RNA. The information is primary and the matter secondary, but we cannot even get the matter (requisite carbohydrates, nucleic acids, lipids and proteins), let alone the information.” “There is much more information stored in carbohydrate assembly than in DNA. Yeah. Much more information can be stored in carbohydrates. You wanna build a massive computer? Build it based on carbohydrate assembly. Much better than DNA assembly; its just that nobody knows how to control carbohydrate assembly, nobody. But somehow, on pre-biotic earth, with nobody around, under a rock, they figured this out.” “Time is your enemy in organic chemistry.” “Without a biologically derived entity acting upon them, molecules have never been shown to evolve toward life. Never." –James Tour, Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Materials Science and NanoEngineering Dr James Tour speaking about evolution www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDPQEXa7S3I"We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;' but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists." Smith, Wolfgang (1988) "There is no theory of evolution". -Jerome Lejeune, French cytologist quoted in Why is a Fly not a Horse?, Giuseppe Sermonti Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for "all life [is] from life". –Louis Pasteur Evolution has never said it solved where life came from in the first place. But we do have huge amounts of data that do make it the best understanding of what happened after life was established. I don't know why creationists continually think that the process of evolution has anything to do with the start of life? It has never claimed that.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 27, 2019 15:17:43 GMT -5
I don't know why creationists continually think that the process of evolution has anything to do with the start of life? It has never claimed that. It's a combination of ignorance and a disinterest in knowing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2019 15:53:53 GMT -5
As French biologist Jean Rostand asked in his book Can Man be Modified? (1956): “Have not the biologists the right to a little conceit, when they add up what they have achieved in the space of a mere half century? Would they not be justified in believing that to them all things will become possible, simply by going on deepening the trenches already dug and continuing along the lines of researches already marked out? But this is where we must remind ourselves that our successes, amazing as they are, leave the formidable riddles of life itself almost intact. The three cardinal problems of biology — the problem of how a living creature grows, the problem of how species evolve, the problem of how life originated — have been scarcely touched by the scientists. We have no more than a very vague idea of the way in which a complex organism can be contained in a germ; we have hardly any idea of the way in which the organic metamorphoses that must have gone to produce the human species from some original virus may have been accomplished in the course of ages, and we have not the slightest idea of the way in which the first lives were born.” Dr. Tour on the Origin of Life at Syracuse University (2018) “66 years of origin of life study and they’ve gotten nowhere since Miller-Urey.” “Critical for life is the origin of information; DNA or RNA. The information is primary and the matter secondary, but we cannot even get the matter (requisite carbohydrates, nucleic acids, lipids and proteins), let alone the information.” “There is much more information stored in carbohydrate assembly than in DNA. Yeah. Much more information can be stored in carbohydrates. You wanna build a massive computer? Build it based on carbohydrate assembly. Much better than DNA assembly; its just that nobody knows how to control carbohydrate assembly, nobody. But somehow, on pre-biotic earth, with nobody around, under a rock, they figured this out.” “Time is your enemy in organic chemistry.” “Without a biologically derived entity acting upon them, molecules have never been shown to evolve toward life. Never." –James Tour, Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Materials Science and NanoEngineering Dr James Tour speaking about evolution www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDPQEXa7S3I"We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;' but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists." Smith, Wolfgang (1988) "There is no theory of evolution". -Jerome Lejeune, French cytologist quoted in Why is a Fly not a Horse?, Giuseppe Sermonti Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for "all life [is] from life". –Louis Pasteur Evolution has never said it solved where life came from in the first place. But we do have huge amounts of data that do make it the best understanding of what happened after life was established. I don't know why creationists continually think that the process of evolution has anything to do with the start of life? It has never claimed that. ummm if evilution didn't start life as we know it then what did?
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Nov 27, 2019 16:00:54 GMT -5
As French biologist Jean Rostand asked in his book Can Man be Modified? (1956): “Have not the biologists the right to a little conceit, when they add up what they have achieved in the space of a mere half century? Would they not be justified in believing that to them all things will become possible, simply by going on deepening the trenches already dug and continuing along the lines of researches already marked out? But this is where we must remind ourselves that our successes, amazing as they are, leave the formidable riddles of life itself almost intact. The three cardinal problems of biology — the problem of how a living creature grows, the problem of how species evolve, the problem of how life originated — have been scarcely touched by the scientists. We have no more than a very vague idea of the way in which a complex organism can be contained in a germ; we have hardly any idea of the way in which the organic metamorphoses that must have gone to produce the human species from some original virus may have been accomplished in the course of ages, and we have not the slightest idea of the way in which the first lives were born.” Dr. Tour on the Origin of Life at Syracuse University (2018) “66 years of origin of life study and they’ve gotten nowhere since Miller-Urey.” “Critical for life is the origin of information; DNA or RNA. The information is primary and the matter secondary, but we cannot even get the matter (requisite carbohydrates, nucleic acids, lipids and proteins), let alone the information.” “There is much more information stored in carbohydrate assembly than in DNA. Yeah. Much more information can be stored in carbohydrates. You wanna build a massive computer? Build it based on carbohydrate assembly. Much better than DNA assembly; its just that nobody knows how to control carbohydrate assembly, nobody. But somehow, on pre-biotic earth, with nobody around, under a rock, they figured this out.” “Time is your enemy in organic chemistry.” “Without a biologically derived entity acting upon them, molecules have never been shown to evolve toward life. Never." –James Tour, Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Materials Science and NanoEngineering Dr James Tour speaking about evolution www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDPQEXa7S3I"We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;' but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists." Smith, Wolfgang (1988) "There is no theory of evolution". -Jerome Lejeune, French cytologist quoted in Why is a Fly not a Horse?, Giuseppe Sermonti Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for "all life [is] from life". –Louis Pasteur Evolution has never said it solved where life came from in the first place. But we do have huge amounts of data that do make it the best understanding of what happened after life was established. I don't know why creationists continually think that the process of evolution has anything to do with the start of life? It has never claimed that. Good way to avoid interacting with the topic at hand - origin of life. I believe your faith is that after the first molecules were spontaneously generated, then evolution/natural selection took over and developed all the species? Who knows what Bob's faith is?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 27, 2019 16:13:28 GMT -5
Evolution has never said it solved where life came from in the first place. But we do have huge amounts of data that do make it the best understanding of what happened after life was established. I don't know why creationists continually think that the process of evolution has anything to do with the start of life? It has never claimed that. ummm if evilution didn't start life as we know it then what did? That's another topic, Wally. How a baby grows to be an adult is quite a separate topic from "what started the baby to begin with".
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 27, 2019 16:18:16 GMT -5
I believe your faith is that after the first molecules were spontaneously generated, then evolution/natural selection took over and developed all the species? Who knows what Bob's faith is? Bob knows what Bob's faith is. I believe I know what it takes to start a baby. I believe I don't know what it takes to start "life". I could make something up, though, if someone would pay me for it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2019 17:14:14 GMT -5
Evolution has never said it solved where life came from in the first place. But we do have huge amounts of data that do make it the best understanding of what happened after life was established. I don't know why creationists continually think that the process of evolution has anything to do with the start of life? It has never claimed that. Good way to avoid interacting with the topic at hand - origin of life. I believe your faith is that after the first molecules were spontaneously generated, then evolution/natural selection took over and developed all the species? Who knows what Bob's faith is? The question is what is the topic at hand? Is it evolution or is it the origin of life? If it is the origin of life why introduce the topic of evolution? You claim above that the topic at hand it is the origin of life but having just stated that very clearly, you immediately start discussing evolution. There’s a line of thinking that says sensible people should avoid debating with anyone who confuses the two subjects as they are not sufficiently informed to discuss either subject. It’s like attempting to discuss mathematics intelligently with someone who believes 2+2 = 5. Richard Dawkins came to the point where he simply refused to discuss evolution with creationists on the basis that such a debate was only ever beneficial to one of the parties involved (and it wasn’t him). On this basis avoiding interacting with the subject at hand certainly seems to me a wise course of action. However if you do seriously wish to engage in intelligent debate on the origin of life then I suggest you begin by setting out clearly how you believe life originated and what your basis is for believing that rather than simply posting the views of other people. And don’t even mention evolution otherwise sensible people will wisely avoid interacting. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 27, 2019 18:01:46 GMT -5
Good way to avoid interacting with the topic at hand - origin of life. I believe your faith is that after the first molecules were spontaneously generated, then evolution/natural selection took over and developed all the species? Who knows what Bob's faith is? The question is what is the topic at hand? Is it evolution or is it the origin of life? If it is the origin of life why introduce the topic of evolution? You claim above that the topic at hand it is the origin of life but having just stated that very clearly, you immediately start discussing evolution. There’s a line of thinking that says sensible people should avoid debating with anyone who confuses the two subjects as they are not sufficiently informed to discuss either subject. It’s like attempting to discuss mathematics intelligently with someone who believes 2+2 = 5. Richard Dawkins came to the point where he simply refused to discuss evolution with creationists on the basis that such a debate was only ever beneficial to one of the parties involved (and it wasn’t him). On this basis avoiding interacting with the subject at hand certainly seems to me a wise course of action. However if you do seriously wish to engage in intelligent debate on the origin of life then I suggest you begin by setting out clearly how you believe life originated and what your basis is for believing that rather than simply posting the views of other people. And don’t even mention evolution otherwise sensible people will wisely avoid interacting. Matt10 I've come to understand that, especially among creationists, people only think of life as being humans. They don't seem to grasp that "life on Mars" may only be some form of virus or very low form of plant life. The origin of life is not ]the origin of species.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 27, 2019 18:02:50 GMT -5
Evolution has never said it solved where life came from in the first place. But we do have huge amounts of data that do make it the best understanding of what happened after life was established. I don't know why creationists continually think that the process of evolution has anything to do with the start of life? It has never claimed that. ummm if evilution didn't start life as we know it then what did? We don't know and we actually say we don't know. Evolution is just about the process after life arrived on earth. That's it.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 27, 2019 18:04:27 GMT -5
Evolution has never said it solved where life came from in the first place. But we do have huge amounts of data that do make it the best understanding of what happened after life was established. I don't know why creationists continually think that the process of evolution has anything to do with the start of life? It has never claimed that. Good way to avoid interacting with the topic at hand - origin of life. I believe your faith is that after the first molecules were spontaneously generated, then evolution/natural selection took over and developed all the species? Who knows what Bob's faith is? No Ed. No one has ever said they knew how life began. Evolution has nothing at all to do with how life started. That's where creationists have got it wrong in the first place. Evolution is only about the process after life started on earth. Not how it started on Earth.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 27, 2019 18:06:28 GMT -5
The question is what is the topic at hand? Is it evolution or is it the origin of life? If it is the origin of life why introduce the topic of evolution? You claim above that the topic at hand it is the origin of life but having just stated that very clearly, you immediately start discussing evolution. There’s a line of thinking that says sensible people should avoid debating with anyone who confuses the two subjects as they are not sufficiently informed to discuss either subject. It’s like attempting to discuss mathematics intelligently with someone who believes 2+2 = 5. Richard Dawkins came to the point where he simply refused to discuss evolution with creationists on the basis that such a debate was only ever beneficial to one of the parties involved (and it wasn’t him). On this basis avoiding interacting with the subject at hand certainly seems to me a wise course of action. However if you do seriously wish to engage in intelligent debate on the origin of life then I suggest you begin by setting out clearly how you believe life originated and what your basis is for believing that rather than simply posting the views of other people. And don’t even mention evolution otherwise sensible people will wisely avoid interacting. Matt10 I've come to understand that, especially among creationists, people only think of life as being humans. They don't seem to grasp that "life on Mars" may only be some form of virus or very low form of plant life. The origin of life is not ]the origin of species. Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 27, 2019 18:38:04 GMT -5
Good way to avoid interacting with the topic at hand - origin of life. I believe your faith is that after the first molecules were spontaneously generated, then evolution/natural selection took over and developed all the species? Who knows what Bob's faith is? The question is what is the topic at hand? Is it evolution or is it the origin of life? If it is the origin of life why introduce the topic of evolution? You claim above that the topic at hand it is the origin of life but having just stated that very clearly, you immediately start discussing evolution. There’s a line of thinking that says sensible people should avoid debating with anyone who confuses the two subjects as they are not sufficiently informed to discuss either subject. It’s like attempting to discuss mathematics intelligently with someone who believes 2+2 = 5. Richard Dawkins came to the point where he simply refused to discuss evolution with creationists on the basis that such a debate was only ever beneficial to one of the parties involved (and it wasn’t him) On this basis avoiding interacting with the subject at hand certainly seems to me a wise course of action. However if you do seriously wish to engage in intelligent debate on the origin of life then I suggest you begin by setting out clearly how you believe life originated and what your basis is for believing that rather than simply posting the views of other people. And don’t even mention evolution otherwise sensible people will wisely avoid interacting. Matt10 Right on Matt!
Thank you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2019 19:45:05 GMT -5
Good way to avoid interacting with the topic at hand - origin of life. I believe your faith is that after the first molecules were spontaneously generated, then evolution/natural selection took over and developed all the species? Who knows what Bob's faith is? The question is what is the topic at hand? Is it evolution or is it the origin of life? If it is the origin of life why introduce the topic of evolution? You claim above that the topic at hand it is the origin of life but having just stated that very clearly, you immediately start discussing evolution. There’s a line of thinking that says sensible people should avoid debating with anyone who confuses the two subjects as they are not sufficiently informed to discuss either subject. It’s like attempting to discuss mathematics intelligently with someone who believes 2+2 = 5. Richard Dawkins came to the point where he simply refused to discuss evolution with creationists on the basis that such a debate was only ever beneficial to one of the parties involved (and it wasn’t him). On this basis avoiding interacting with the subject at hand certainly seems to me a wise course of action. However if you do seriously wish to engage in intelligent debate on the origin of life then I suggest you begin by setting out clearly how you believe life originated and what your basis is for believing that rather than simply posting the views of other people. And don’t even mention evolution otherwise sensible people will wisely avoid interacting. Matt10 run run away...
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 27, 2019 21:18:06 GMT -5
The question is what is the topic at hand? Is it evolution or is it the origin of life? If it is the origin of life why introduce the topic of evolution? You claim above that the topic at hand it is the origin of life but having just stated that very clearly, you immediately start discussing evolution. There’s a line of thinking that says sensible people should avoid debating with anyone who confuses the two subjects as they are not sufficiently informed to discuss either subject. It’s like attempting to discuss mathematics intelligently with someone who believes 2+2 = 5. Richard Dawkins came to the point where he simply refused to discuss evolution with creationists on the basis that such a debate was only ever beneficial to one of the parties involved (and it wasn’t him). On this basis avoiding interacting with the subject at hand certainly seems to me a wise course of action. However if you do seriously wish to engage in intelligent debate on the origin of life then I suggest you begin by setting out clearly how you believe life originated and what your basis is for believing that rather than simply posting the views of other people. And don’t even mention evolution otherwise sensible people will wisely avoid interacting. Matt10 run run away... Wally, I do think that I will have to give up on you as a hopeless case. You really put your heart into not wanting to learn anything new
There is really a beautiful wonderful world & life awaiting us to explore & learn. But you seem to prefer staying in the dark.
Even at my age, there is hardly a day goes by but what I don't learn something new that I wasn't aware of before.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2019 0:41:20 GMT -5
"A chemical mixture that continually absorbs work from its environment may exhibit steady-state chemical concentrations that deviate from their equilibrium values. Such behavior is particularly interesting in a scenario where the environmental work sources are relatively difficult to access, so that only the proper orchestration of many distinct catalytic actors can power the dissipative flux required to maintain a stable, far-from-equilibrium steady state. In this article, we study the dynamics of an in silico chemical network with random connectivity in an environment that makes strong thermodynamic forcing available only to rare combinations of chemical concentrations. We find that the long-time dynamics of such systems are biased toward states that exhibit a fine-tuned extremization of environmental forcing." (Spontaneous fine-tuning to environment in many-species chemical reaction networks. Jordan M. Horowitz and Jeremy L. England. PNAS July 18, 2017 114 (29) 7565-7570)
Is probably how.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 28, 2019 11:59:17 GMT -5
"A chemical mixture that continually absorbs work from its environment may exhibit steady-state chemical concentrations that deviate from their equilibrium values. Such behavior is particularly interesting in a scenario where the environmental work sources are relatively difficult to access, so that only the proper orchestration of many distinct catalytic actors can power the dissipative flux required to maintain a stable, far-from-equilibrium steady state. In this article, we study the dynamics of an in silico chemical network with random connectivity in an environment that makes strong thermodynamic forcing available only to rare combinations of chemical concentrations. We find that the long-time dynamics of such systems are biased toward states that exhibit a fine-tuned extremization of environmental forcing." (Spontaneous fine-tuning to environment in many-species chemical reaction networks. Jordan M. Horowitz and Jeremy L. England. PNAS July 18, 2017 114 (29) 7565-7570) Is probably how. psst ipsedixit, can you tell me what that actually means.... pretend I'm your student, a really dumb one
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2019 14:05:02 GMT -5
The question is what is the topic at hand? Is it evolution or is it the origin of life? If it is the origin of life why introduce the topic of evolution? You claim above that the topic at hand it is the origin of life but having just stated that very clearly, you immediately start discussing evolution. There’s a line of thinking that says sensible people should avoid debating with anyone who confuses the two subjects as they are not sufficiently informed to discuss either subject. It’s like attempting to discuss mathematics intelligently with someone who believes 2+2 = 5. Richard Dawkins came to the point where he simply refused to discuss evolution with creationists on the basis that such a debate was only ever beneficial to one of the parties involved (and it wasn’t him). On this basis avoiding interacting with the subject at hand certainly seems to me a wise course of action. However if you do seriously wish to engage in intelligent debate on the origin of life then I suggest you begin by setting out clearly how you believe life originated and what your basis is for believing that rather than simply posting the views of other people. And don’t even mention evolution otherwise sensible people will wisely avoid interacting. Matt10 run run away... That’s pretty much what Dawkins said. Run run away ..... very very fast ... from debating with creationist fools. And of course I didn’t run away. If you had read it properly you would have noticed that I actually invited Ed to set out his views on the origin of life, something he has yet failed to do. But of course this doesn’t prevent you setting out clearly your views on the origin of life and taking sensible questions afterwards. I wonder who’ll be running away now. And very very fast too. Matt10.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Nov 28, 2019 14:19:34 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2019 14:19:40 GMT -5
That’s pretty much what Dawkins said. Run run away ..... very very fast ... from debating with creationist fools. And of course I didn’t run away. If you had read it properly you would have noticed that I actually invited Ed to set out his views on the origin of life, something he has yet failed to do. But of course this doesn’t prevent you setting out clearly your views on the origin of life and taking sensible questions afterwards. I wonder who’ll be running away now. And very very fast too. Matt10. you already know my stance on the origins of life so ask away..don't be surprised though if you get only answers of faith instead of evilution or the big bang...
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Nov 28, 2019 14:28:45 GMT -5
Good way to avoid interacting with the topic at hand - origin of life. I believe your faith is that after the first molecules were spontaneously generated, then evolution/natural selection took over and developed all the species? Who knows what Bob's faith is? No Ed. No one has ever said they knew how life began. Evolution has nothing at all to do with how life started. That's where creationists have got it wrong in the first place. Evolution is only about the process after life started on earth. Not how it started on Earth. Many theories have been put forward by evolutionists as to how life 'started.' You are right though Snow, evolution has nothing at all to do with how life started. That is the creationist's position. This is the first time that I have heard it implied/stated that evolutionists also believe that evolution has nothing at all to do with how life started. In my lifetime, debates between creationists and evolutionists have 'always' been about the 'origins' of life. What the hang. Anything goes!
|
|
|
Post by speak on Nov 28, 2019 14:42:22 GMT -5
I found it, I found it. In Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, 42 is the number from which all meaning ("the meaning of life, the universe, and everything") could be derived. ... You know, I've always felt that there was something fundamentally wrong with the Universe.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Nov 28, 2019 14:43:39 GMT -5
I found it, I found it. In Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, 42 is the number from which all meaning ("the meaning of life, the universe, and everything") could be derived. ... You know, I've always felt that there was something fundamentally wrong with the Universe. There you go. We have it. Problem solved. Next question?
|
|
|
Post by speak on Nov 28, 2019 14:48:02 GMT -5
I found it, I found it. In Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, 42 is the number from which all meaning ("the meaning of life, the universe, and everything") could be derived. ... You know, I've always felt that there was something fundamentally wrong with the Universe. There you go. We have it. Problem solved. Next question?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2019 15:07:40 GMT -5
That’s pretty much what Dawkins said. Run run away ..... very very fast ... from debating with creationist fools. And of course I didn’t run away. If you had read it properly you would have noticed that I actually invited Ed to set out his views on the origin of life, something he has yet failed to do. But of course this doesn’t prevent you setting out clearly your views on the origin of life and taking sensible questions afterwards. I wonder who’ll be running away now. And very very fast too. Matt10. you already know my stance on the origins of life so ask away..don't be surprised though if you get only answers of faith instead of evilution or the big bang... I have no idea how you believe life originated. So here goes. From what do you believe life originated? Do you believe life originated from something or from nothing? If you believe it originated from something, what is this something that you believe it originated from? And what was the process by which you believe life involved? Was it a chemical process, a biological process or a physical process? And where in the universe do you believe life first involved? And during what time period in history do you believe life first involved? And finally, in what form do you believe life first involved? I look forward to your responses? Matt10 .
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 28, 2019 15:31:22 GMT -5
No Ed. No one has ever said they knew how life began. Evolution has nothing at all to do with how life started. That's where creationists have got it wrong in the first place. Evolution is only about the process after life started on earth. Not how it started on Earth. Many theories have been put forward by evolutionists as to how life 'started.' You are right though Snow, evolution has nothing at all to do with how life started. That is the creationist's position. This is the first time that I have heard it implied/stated that evolutionists also believe that evolution has nothing at all to do with how life started. In my lifetime, debates between creationists and evolutionists have 'always' been about the 'origins' of life. What the hang. Anything goes! I wish more people, creationists and those that think evolution is right, would both know more about what evolution really says. It's not about how life began, that is abiogenesis. They are two different branches of study. So far we don't know how life started on earth and we admit that. But we do have a huge amount of data that points to how we have evolved since life did start on earth. To know that, I think we will need a better understanding of what the earth was like when life started. Hopefully some day we will know enough to know how life started. However, I don't think we need to just say God did it, just because we can't explain it. I see no benefit to just adding God into all the spaces in our knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by speak on Nov 28, 2019 15:50:17 GMT -5
I love to see all this straining to find the answer when the answer maybe so simple as evolution is creation and creation is evolution.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 28, 2019 15:53:54 GMT -5
I love to see all this straining to find the answer when the answer maybe so simple as evolution is creation and creation is evolution. It might be, but there is no evidence that it is and it's not wise to just fill in the gaps where we don't know the answer.
|
|