What Proof Does Evolution Offer For Natural Beginning Of Life (creation, genesis)

[meogi]

Originally Posted by HelpMe

do i believe that this theory was adopted quite a bit more easily than other theories more deserving of attention?..

Which?

Originally Posted by kbc

assumptions and theories by science or personal belief are not empirical evidence.

Ok, but how exactly do you propose we speculate on things 4+Ga? AFAIK, there are no rocks (crust was unstable, like the oceanic crust today, or wait... that would be an assumption) that old. There is no hard evidence of anything before then. Rather convienient for you.

And technically, our debate on abio would be evidence for natural origins of life (I think we were in agreeance about amino acids being available for random combination... that's when I stopped). Of course, it's still theory, backed by evidence (under a certain condition), so I don't know if we actually 'agreed' on it.

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by HelpMe

'should be's often differ from truths.

I can accept that.

Originally Posted by HelpMe

do i believe that this theory was adopted quite a bit more easily than other theories more deserving of attention?..

Do you? Can you elaborate?

[The Voice of Reason]

Science has no need of proof. My science book says it is so, and therefore, if you do not agree, you are doomed to suffer eternity in a state of ignorance. I will not ask my science book to offer proof - I know it is correct because it is Darwin's Will that everything in my science book is true and above question.

Gee - I hope that doesn't sound too irrational. As a matter of fact, if you think it does sound irrational, you are wrong. The Good Book (my science book) says so - and EVERYONE knows that it is infallible. Those members of this site that insist on questioning science and demanding that it prove anything are simply refusing to embrace the love that science has for them. That is okay, though, as science loves you in spite of your ignorance.

Open minded as always,
TVOR

[HelpMe]

thanks tvor, for you evidence of a 'Natural Beginning Of Life'.honestly.

[The Voice of Reason]

You are quite welcome. Glad to have been of service. Any more questions on the mixing of science and religion?

TVOR

[HelpMe]

Originally Posted by meogi

Which?

well

Originally Posted by truthseekingsoul

Do you? Can you elaborate?

here

[YawgmothsAvatar]

truthseekingsoul touched on this, but I think I will elaborate.

The theory of evolution and any theories of the beginning of life are seperate. The theory of evolution only deals with natural selection mutating life and making it better adapted, thus creating new species. It does not deal with the first creation of life.

[kbc_1963]

Evolutionary theory needs not provide the answers for that one. Maybe you should re-word your question.

The theory of evolution depends on natural beginnings without the hand of an intelligent designer, science denies the existence of I.D. so our beginnings must depend on evolutionary happenings for life to have evolved from basic chemicals to our current state so unless you can show me a reasonable arguement for what is wrong with the question then I will proceed.

Regarding your last topic, I read it and found it interesting and well argued. Was it deleted?

[kbc_1963]

I created a thread called "Evidence FOR the creationism theory." So far, it remains blank. Perhaps you might have something to post?

yes I probably will have lots to post there as I have time I will post all I can that would give evidence of creationism, now since this is a thread about evolutions evidence do you have any evidence for here?

[kbc_1963]

I don't think the genesis of the 1st germ of life is a major focus of evolutionists. Evolutionists explore the mechanisms of the observable fact of morphological change.

although I could provide a pile of arguement to you I will instead just ask you 1 question;

when did evolution begin?