Dinosaurs

[Itinerant Lurker]

Let me give you more stupidity:

Awesome.

George Kerkut: "...there is the theory that all living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called 'The General Theory of Evolution'."

George Gaylor Simpson: [Evolution] "is a fully natural process, inherent in the physical properties of the universe, by which life arouse in the first place and by which all living things, past or present, have since developped, divergently and progressively."

While proponents of abiogenesis naturally include it into their views of evolution biological evolution and abiogenesis remain logically distinct ideas. In any kind of applicable or useful context using "evolution" as an umbrella term for a global worldview is misleading and basically just non-smart. As an aside, both these quotes are from 1960.

Wynn & Wiggins: "Aristotle believed that decaying material could be transformed by the "spontaneous action of Nature" into living animals. His hypothesis was ultimately rejected, but... Aristotle's hypothesis has been replaced by another spontaneous generation hypothesis, one that requires billions of years to go from the molecules of the universe to cells, and then, via random mutation/natural selection, from cells to the variety of organisms living today. This version, which postulates chance happenings eventually leading to the phenomenon of life, is biology's Theory of Evolution".

Textbooks are notoriously "general" in their approach to trying to provide an overview of the sciences. Again, in any kind of meaningful discussion such defnitions aren't applicable. . .and like my signature says: Observation without application is useless.

[crawfish]

Let me give you more stupidity:

George Kerkut: "...there is the theory that all living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called 'The General Theory of Evolution'."


George Gaylor Simpson: [Evolution] "is a fully natural process, inherent in the physical properties of the universe, by which life arouse in the first place and by which all living things, past or present, have since developped, divergently and progressively."


Julian Huxley: "The concept of evolution was soon [after its appearance] extended into other than biological fields. Inorganic subjects such as the life-histories of the stars and the formation of the chemical elements on the one hand, and on the other hand subjects like linguistics, social athropology, and comparative law and religion, began to be studied from an evolutionary angle, until today we are enabled to see evolution as a universal and all pervading process. Furthermore, with the adoption of the evolutionary approach in non-biological fields, from cosmology to human affairs, we are beginning to realize that biological evolution is only one aspect to evolution in general."

Wynn & Wiggins: "Aristotle believed that decaying material could be transformed by the "spontaneous action of Nature" into living animals. His hypothesis was ultimately rejected, but... Aristotle's hypothesis has been replaced by another spontaneous generation hypothesis, one that requires billions of years to go from the molecules of the universe to cells, and then, via random mutation/natural selection, from cells to the variety of organisms living today. This version, which postulates chance happenings eventually leading to the phenomenon of life, is biology's Theory of Evolution".

John Waldon: "The term "evolution" is used to refer to the general theory that all life on earth evolved from non-living matter and progressed to more complex forms in time; hence, it refers to macroevolution and not microevolution."

I said nothing about conspiracy.

Nice job picking quotes from people who either are not held in high esteem in the world of evolutionary science or whose accomplishments happened many decades ago.

Let me ask you this: presuming you are an evangelical Christian, what if someone worked to demean your faith by pointing out lapses in logic of Catholicism? Is questioning Maryism a solid point in arguing against your beliefs?

Don't peg one's opinions by framing them against another group that you deem similar.

[Jorge S]

While proponents of abiogenesis naturally include it into their views of evolution biological evolution and abiogenesis remain logically distinct ideas.

They may be separate areas of study but they remain mutually dependant. You can't explain how life "evolved" without accounting for how life began in the first place.

[Jorge S]

Nice job picking quotes from people who either are not held in high esteem in the world of evolutionary science or whose accomplishments happened many decades ago.

Let me ask you this: presuming you are an evangelical Christian, what if someone worked to demean your faith by pointing out lapses in logic of Catholicism? Is questioning Maryism a solid point in arguing against your beliefs?

Don't peg one's opinions by framing them against another group that you deem similar.

What exactly are you reacting against here?

There are only two mutually exclusive explanations:

a) Naturalistic: Big Bang + molecule-to-man evolution over unbelievably vast periods of time, or

b) Biblical: Creatio ex-nihilo in six solar days a few millennia ago.

[crawfish]

What exactly are you reacting against here?

There are only two mutually exclusive explanations:

a) Naturalistic: Big Bang + molecule-to-man evolution over unbelievably vast periods of time, or

b) Biblical: Creatio ex-nihilo in six solar days a few millennia ago.

Both of those views.

[crawfish]

They may be separate areas of study but they remain mutually dependant. You can't explain how life "evolved" without accounting for how life began in the first place.

While this is true, the answer is that evolution simply depends on *some* form of primitive life existing at some point in time. The method of exactly how that life came to be does not matter; if that life was generated spontaneously, came via meteorite or placed there intentionally and supernaturally by God doesn't really matter. In other words, the theory of evolution, even in its most naturalistic state, doesn't depend on any particular method of delivery of that initial life.

[Itinerant Lurker]

They may be separate areas of study but they remain mutually dependant. You can't explain how life "evolved" without accounting for how life began in the first place.

Not even a little bit. They may compliment each other but since they rely on different mechanisms they are, in no way, dependent.

[fishbowlsoul]

[quote=th1bill;2010588]

... You have dug into the very core truth of this issue, my friend. You are trusting self (and other human beings) to provide the answer and I am trusting God as a small child does their father. You see, for any finite man to ever set out to explain the things of God is vanity in it's cheapest form. The creation cannot explain the creator and what He has created.
... God is the only awesome thing in this creation!

Well I am trusting in the common sense God gave me.

Man it's cool if you want to believe that the earth and universe is only 6000 thousand years old even if the Bible no where states that. And to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 also but it will never be science. A literal interpretation will always remain a theological argument.

God bless

[Itinerant Lurker]

What exactly are you reacting against here?

There are only two mutually exclusive explanations:

a) Naturalistic: Big Bang + molecule-to-man evolution over unbelievably vast periods of time, or

b) Biblical: Creatio ex-nihilo in six solar days a few millennia ago.

And they are mutually exclusive because. . . .?

[th1bill]

Well yes but I think my point is still relevant regardless: If you have to claim a supernatural origin for a phenomena because observable evidence reveals that there is no natural mechanism that can account for it you cannot then turn around and say that observation supports your conclusion. If I'm missing something in my logic here feel free to point it out. The rest of your post doesn't really make much sense to me. . .but that could be a character flaw on my part.
[/color]

... And I point out that you were flaming Soupy for an offense he/she never never committed. Intentional flaming can even result in your being dismissed/banned from the forum and to build a straw man for you to then ride down on your 'white?' charger is hypocracy in one of it's worst forms. I have seen a number of places in this string that you might have injected your point but instead you chose to use it as a straw man that you then killed.

[Philemon9]

... And I point out that you were flaming Soupy for an offense he/she never never committed. Intentional flaming can even result in your being dismissed/banned from the forum

Well that's one way to win an argument. Can you direct me to IL's offense again? I seemed to have missed it.

[losthorizon]

Really? I don't remember making any specific claim. . .the conversation went something like this:

Actually the conversation went this way – I quoted John Eddy’s abstract from the late 1970s that there is not much in the way of the “observational evidence” found in astronomy that would conflict with Bishop Ussher’s value for the age of the Earth and Sun. You took exception to Eddy’s statement and suggested new revelation proved otherwise. I challenged you to provide your observational evidence that proves the sun is 4.5 billion years old and all you can pull out of your hat are empty words minus the evidence and a few fluffy illustrations from some 8th grade textbook that prove little.

Again, do you have the observational evidence required or are you simply blowing smoke. Remember – if you don’t have the evidence just say you don’t and we will all understand. If you do, post it for review.

[losthorizon]

While this is true, the answer is that evolution simply depends on *some* form of primitive life existing at some point in time. The method of exactly how that life came to be does not matter; if that life was generated spontaneously, came via meteorite or placed there intentionally and supernaturally by God doesn't really matter. In other words, the theory of evolution, even in its most naturalistic state, doesn't depend on any particular method of delivery of that initial life.

But you miss the point – if atheistic Darwinism is correct then your door #3 above - “supernaturally by God”- must be eliminated because as we all know the atheist-guys do not allow god-talk. And your door #2 – life “via meteorite” (panspermia) – simply escalates the argument up a notch to life originating on another planet and were did it originate, etc, etc. So in truth Darwinism only allows for your door #1 - “life was generated spontaneously” – and that notion creates its own dilemma – ie – such spontaneous generation has never been observed in nature and modern biology clearly tells us that “life cannot arise from the nonliving under conditions that now exist upon our planet” (David Kirk).

So you see Darwinists must have life forms on which to build their theory that rocks magically and mindlessly (by dumb chance) turned into people over “a long period of time” and they are stuck with the scientifically poor choice of spontaneous generation. Do you have evidence (verifiable) that chemical evolution is a reality or is Darwinism dead on arrival? Did God create life “in the beginning” as stated in Holy Writ?

Origin-of-life experiments by anything living can only demonstrate what we all know, namely that life comes only and always from life similar to itself.
The point I want to make is that if macroevolution and abiogenesis are not demonstrable today, then we only engage in speculation, not in science. On my part I am convinced that macroevolution and abiogenesis are not demonstrable today because they are simply the figments of the imagination. ~ Kazmer Ujvarosy

[Itinerant Lurker]

I challenged you to provide your observational evidence that proves the sun is 4.5 billion years old and all you can pull out of your hat are empty words minus the evidence and a few fluffy illustrations from some 8th grade textbook that prove little.

Are you disputing that nuclear fusion powers the sun? That photons originate in the sun's core? That they are absorbed and re-emitted when they run into charged particles? Is there a problem with the estimated densities that can be adjusted for to account for a young earth within the time frame you support? Which words, in particular, do you find "empty. . .minus the evidence"? Are the illustrations provided inaccurate? If so, how? Did my links not work? Were you unable to follow them? Are many 8th grade textbooks illustrated by NASA?

If you're going to ask for evidence you need to engage that evidence once it's been presented to you.

Again, do you have the observational evidence required or are you simply blowing smoke. Remember – if you don’t have the evidence just say you don’t and we will all understand. If you do, post it for review.

Already done, if there's anything you need cleared up about a specific argument given let me know.

[Itinerant Lurker]

But you miss the point – if atheistic Darwinism is correct

You can stop right there. The assumption that biological evolution is synonymous with "atheistic darwinism" is, to put it mildly, a bad one which renders the rest of your argument superfluous in it's mind-numbing inaccuracy.