He has Risen!
JESUS IS LORD FOR HE HAS RISEN FROM THE DEAD
Thank you ecco for proving my point,
take care,
Jesus both loves you and everyone else on this thread enough to die for.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The creator did it.
- Thread starter A REAL CHRISTIAN
- Start date
take care,
Jesus both loves you and everyone else on this thread enough to die for.
gnostic
The Lost One
There is no agenda in understanding how biology works, Rapture Era.
Science is based on evidences supporting the explanation, and hence, required the most important procedure of Scientific Method:
TESTING
Testing involved observation and recording the findings. These observation can either by finding or discovering the evidences, or by setting up experiments in the lab environment.
The tests can only be true/verified or false/refuted if there are more than one evidence or perform than one experiment. Repeatable evidences or repeatable experiments are the hallmark of objective verification or refutation of a hypothesis.
Testing is the part of scientific method that determine if the EVIDENCES reveal the hypothesis or theory to be:
- PROBABLE, and thus “true”, so that validity of the “explanation plus the predictions” (ie hypothesis/theory)
- or NOT PROBABLE, which would reveal the hypothesis/theory not true, the evidences would refute them.
The hypothesis is also never true, if there are no evidences to refute or verify the hypothesis, eg 100 experiments yielded no evidences whatsoever.
THE ONLY TIME a hypothesis is true, if 100 experiments or near enough, were successful.
When I say “near enough”, I mean sometimes experiments go wrong because one of the equipments/devices might give contrary results due to measuring device hasn’t been properly calibrated (human error) or the device has simply malfunctioned (device or equipment failure).
This is why x-number of experiments are rigorously performed, to ensure that errors are minimized and for verification. This why you don’t just perform one or two experiments, because the test results could give false positive.
The people who followed Scientific Method is to ensure that bias are mitigated, no cheating. Peer review also ensure there are no errors and no cheating.
Michael Behe is a qualified biochemist, but also adherent of Intelligent Design creationism. His paper on Irreducible Complexity and his book (Darwin’s Black Box) that support his Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design are neither falsifiable or tested (Scientific Method).
Behe admitted in the Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District trial (2005) that Intelligent Design (as well as his Irreducible Complexity) have never been tested, and have never been reviewed by peers. The only data Behe have, are computer-generated simulation.
The reasons with computer simulation isn’t trustworthy evidence, because anyone can fix a computer program that provide false and biased data. Behe have not tested his Irreducible Complexity (IC), so he has no evidences, and his data that he used cannot be trusted.
Behe have also claimed that he is a theoretical scientist, but that’s not true as well. If he was theoretical biologist, then he must have mathematical proofs (proof in the form of solved mathematical equations) that showed his IC is mathematically feasible.
His only data is just computer-generated, which almost every biochemists and biologists found to be biased, as well as unfeasible. In another word, Behe is trying to deceive us with false data. He has shown no evidences for the “Designed”, let alone evidences of the Designer.
The only cheaters I see, belonged to the Discovery Institute (ie Intelligent Design movement) or those that call it “Creation Science”. Behe, Phillip Johnson, Stephen Meyer, Ken Ham (founder of AiG and the absurd Creation Science Ministries and even more ridiculous Creation Museum and supporter of YEC) are the creationists have been caught repeatedly trying to deceive the public with Christian Creationism.
Last edited:
Rapture Era
Active Member
No, there is no agenda in understanding how biology works. What I said was "You don't need to inject science with evolution unless you have an agenda. Is there an agenda on how biology is presented? How does evolution fair with the scientific method and your explanation above? That's my point. Does it pass or not? If not, stop speculating and deceiving people by inferring that evolution is at all probable. Just teach what science knows, not what it doesn't know. Listen, if any evidence could be found in defense of the theory, you can be assured the evolutionary world be quick to flash it all over the planet! The problem is, its still metaphysical and not science. But everyone calls it science, why? So what is going on that this theory hasn't been trashed a long time ago? Can you think of a reason?
Truly Enlightened
Well-Known Member
No, I didn't insult you, just following your own description, "We are just another species in the animal kingdom. Our human traits are genetically expressed, as they relate to our environment and our social conditioning. Nothing more, nothing less."
The fact that you don't concern yourself with how life started in an evolutionary manner, you just believe it did without scientific evidence demonstrates your inability to critically think. If evolution came about from nothing into something without intelligence, meaning, purpose and design, and it's ability to transform from simple (which by the way is impossible in the first place) to complex defies the scientific method of procedure. Because of this, matter coming about in an evolutionary way has no intelligence, meaning, design or purpose, it's just matter. You admit you are just another kind in the animal kingdom did you not?
So, if you are a product of meaningless, unintelligent, purposeless matter that evolution dictates, I don't have to insult you with these facts, you admit it openly.
"Our human traits are genetically expressed"?
How does this explain self-consciousness being developed from evolutionary matter? You don't see the problem here do you? We are the only species on the planet with the abstract ability of self awareness. We know we are alive, animals don't know this in a cognitive way. Yes they react to their environment, a dog will get out of the way of an oncoming car, but it doesn't have the ability to reason why it needs to. This is what separates us from the animal kingdom. God expressed this in Genesis when he said "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."
You are not just another kind of animal, but if you want to believe that, up to you, wait, what am I saying, you already believe that, silly me.
"social conditioning"? Why should you have any more of an ability to socialize any differently than a cow in a field with the rest of the cows? What gave you this unique ability that the other animals don't have? What makes you so special? Remember, you nothing more or nothing less than a product of your meaningless, purposeless, unintelligent, design-less, directionless evolutionary environment. Where did your capacity to express love, hate, or to articulate your condescending words towards others in a calculated way actually develop? What was the process?
Clearly your comment was an insult. If you hadn't added, "..like yourself..", your comment might almost be rational. Since you seem to be the master of faulty logic and inferences, let me ask you, are Homo sapiens a part of the animal kingdom or are they something separate? Do you think that genetic traits are not expressed by genes? If your answer is yes, then you also agree with me. If your answer is no, then only your body exist in this reality. So what do these facts have to do with your contrived comment "..you are a product of meaningless, unintelligent, purposeless matter that evolution dictates,"? How does an admission(that you also agree with) of truth, justify your insult?
It is confirmation/presuppositional bias, and cognitive dissonance that prevent you from critically thinking. Your entire psyche simply hides behind any religious superstition, any moral absolutes, and anything that can't be falsified(fairy tales, fables, myths, absolutes, etc.). You appear more than a little elitist(manic), in claiming special knowledge into the nature and mind of a God. Especially, since you don't have to demonstrate how you know this. You KNOW nothing. You only BELIEVE you know something because you want to believe it. This belief fills the knowledge void, gives a false sense of self-worth, and placates the fear of death. There are many books that have inspired a generation(Grimm's Fairy Tales, The Lord of the Rings, The Lord of the Flies, Star Wars and Star Trek, Shakespeare, etc.). These, and other books have inspired and influenced the lives of millions. But no one is unable to discern the difference between what is fact, and what is fiction. The Bible was meant to encourage and stimulate the imagination in children, and to instil in adults the consequences of their actions. In other words, it was meant to control the behavior and minds of the population.
Think about it. What is the only difference between the church and its people? The church is sinless, and its people are sinful. If the church was sinful, how could it offer any path towards absolution? However, considering the number of corrupt and sinful religious leaders, the ideals preached by these leaders, seem more than just a little hypocritical to me. The Bible is not a book of facts. It is a book of allegories. It was never meant to be taken literally. Do I need to fill this post with examples of how inerrant the Bible is? So stop quoting nonsense from characters that don't exist, from a 3000 year old man-made book of stories and myths.
I get it. You can't factually support any Biblical claims, so you must focus only on attacking scientific claims, with the expected close mindedness. I said "self-consciousness" was the only expected outcome of our specialized language abilities. This was dismissed and ignored. I stated that all creatures have some form of self-awareness or self-consciousness. If they didn't, they would be unaware of their position in space and time, and unable to adapt to changes in their environment. Including, learning how to avoid predators. They would not have the ability to reason, and thus the ability to learn. Since the animals we see today exist, they must carry the knowledge genes from their survivors, not the ignorance gene from their failures. This logic was also dismissed and ignored. How much of your day is devoted to being conscious of yourself? Do you think being self-conscious is essential for survival? Never mind. These questions require at least an inquiring mind.
The results of evolutionary trial and error, our herding and solitary instincts, pattern recognition, our cognitive and language development, genetic and hormonal expression, negative and positive social feedback loops, and the brains ability to compartmentalize information, will answer some of these questions. Our biological purpose is to survive long enough to procreate, and pass on new genetic information to our offspring. That's it. The fundamental forces and probabilities in nature, is what dictates the direction and the design of all life. None of us are perfect. Fortunately, our survival was not dependant on being the fastest, the smartest, the strongest, or seeing the farthest. Our survival was dependant on how well we cooperated with each other as a group. Just like our closest relatives. We are the living law of natural compensation. Whenever we excel on one area, we underperform in another. We are a blend of being visceral, rational, or emotional. Were Einstein and Newton the victims of Asperger's Syndrome? We also have no direct control over the color of our eyes, hair, skin, or our height, organs, and internal biology. We don't even have control over at least 60% of our persona. To imply that we are not evolutionally linked to all other animals, only typifies your dire need to take baby steps first.
Looncall
Well-Known Member
Evolution is one of the best evidenced theories in science.
You are spouting falsehoods because (I charitably presume) you have been conned by scoundrels.
The creation science/I'd crowd sign on to a '" statement of faith" that obliges them to lie through their teeth.
Once again, NO IT IS NOT. The evidence for evolution (how life changes over time) is independent of abiogenesis (how life got started).
No matter *how* life got started, whether it was from deep sea vents, from little ponds, or from divine intervention, IT DOESN'T MATTER FOR EVOLUTION.
The theory of evoution *only* deals with how life changed after it got started. That's it.
Here's an analogy. We understand how to use the theory of gravity to predict the motions of the planets. We have understood this for the last 300+ years.
But *how* planets *form* in the first place is not understood in detail. It is an interesting and important question, but it has nothing to do with how orbits are found since then.
In general, the question of origins is distinct from how things work after they got started. This is as true of planets and it is true of life. Evolution is how life has changed since it got started.
Abiogenesis is a fairly new area of study, only really beginning in the 1950's. But it has *absolutely* nothing to do with evolution. And evolution *is* a scientific theory with mounds of evidence in its favor.
Well, that is what scientific research does. it answers questions, often in exquisite detail. Before the research, or during it, we do not have details and may not understand much. But after the research has been done, we (hopefully) do have details and deeper understanding.
I agree it is a question of significant importance. The only *way* to get to a *scientific* answer is to do scientific research. And that is currently being done. We are learning more and more about what life is, the conditions of the early Earth, and the relations between the different chemicals and chemical reactions that comprise life.
The 'supernatural' isn't an explanation. it doesn't give details. it doesn't give anything testable. And, ultimately, it gives no understanding.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The theory of evolution is the only scientific explanation out there right now. As to how it fares under the scientific method I just say extremely well. It has been tested millions of times and has passed all major tests and minor failures have allowed the theory to be tweaked to the point that it is so reliable that most scientists will say that it is both a fact and a theory. Just like gravity in that respect.
The 'agenda' is to learn how the universe works. In the case of evolution, the goal is to learn how living things changes over time. And there is *plenty* of evidence for the processes involved in this.
No. That is NOT how things work! We frequently learn how things work before we learn their origins. Yes, the issue of origins is important and interesting. But it is different than the question of how things work. Furthermore, knowing how things work is often a piece of the puzzle of origins. So it is *usually* the case that we learn about later processes first and only then learn about origins.
So, for example, we can learn how cells function without knowing where they come from. We can study rocks without knowing the geological processes that produce them. We can study planets without understanding how they form. And we can understand how life changes without knowing how it got started.
And *nobody* is saying that they know the processes involved in the origin of life. There are several different lines of evidence, but at this point, nothing is conclusive.
Simply false. In most areas of study, we learn how things work *long* before we understand the origins. We can, and do, study many subjects long before we understand how they came into being.
Your demand that we understand abiogenesis before we understand evolution reasonable or how things typically are done int he sciences. And *it doesn't matter* for the evidence for evolution.
Rapture Era
Active Member
Let me try this a different way. You believe you are a product of evolution regardless of how it got started. Matter exploded from the "Big Bang" all over the universe. Somehow our planet through all of this chaos ended up in the right place at the right time. And somehow over enormous amounts of time all of a sudden life appears (No one knows how, no one knows why) and over bazillions of years, somehow, formed into something like a cell. How does evolution account for the information in the cell? Vast amounts of information. Information is intelligence and design. Information does not come about from nothing, that's a scientific fact. Matter has no intelligence, so consequently, if you are a product of meaningless, directionless, purposeless, unintelligent and design-less matter, "like yourself" fits perfectly. It's not an insult, its who you are and you admit it openly, whats the problem?
Trial and error? How does that work exactly?
"Fundamental forces"? What are those essential forces exactly?
"Probabilities in nature"? The word "Probabilities" means (chances, odds) you realize that right.
"is what dictates the direction and the design of all life." The word "dictates" means (orders, commands), you realize that right?
"direction and the design of all life." The word "direction" means (route or path), you realize that right?
And lastly, the forbidden words of any evolutionist is "design" of life.
Sounds to me like you are describing the intelligent design of creation!
Okay, whatever.
sooda
Veteran Member
Let me try this a different way. You believe you are a product of evolution regardless of how it got started. Matter exploded from the "Big Bang" all over the universe. Somehow our planet through all of this chaos ended up in the right place at the right time. And somehow over enormous amounts of time all of a sudden life appears (No one knows how, no one knows why) and over bazillions of years, somehow, formed into something like a cell. How does evolution account for the information in the cell? Vast amounts of information. Information is intelligence and design. Information does not come about from nothing, that's a scientific fact. Matter has no intelligence, so consequently, if you are a product of meaningless, directionless, purposeless, unintelligent and design-less matter, "like yourself" fits perfectly. It's not an insult, its who you are and you admit it openly, whats the problem?
Trial and error? How does that work exactly?
"Fundamental forces"? What are those essential forces exactly?
"Probabilities in nature"? The word "Probabilities" means (chances, odds) you realize that right.
"is what dictates the direction and the design of all life." The word "dictates" means (orders, commands), you realize that right?
"direction and the design of all life." The word "direction" means (route or path), you realize that right?
And lastly, the forbidden words of any evolutionist is "design" of life.
Sounds to me like you are describing the intelligent design of creation!
Okay, whatever.
Why is it so hard to understand that scientists know a lot about evolution and nearly nothing about how life began?
That is what the evidence shows. So, yes.
No, this is NOT what the Big Bang scenario says. It is NOT a case of something exploding outward into the universe. it is a case of space itself expanding. There is a huge difference here.
Um, no. The universe is around 13.7 billion years old. The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. The Earth is only about 1/3 of the age of the universe. There were two generations of stars before the sun and its planets (including the Earth) formed. the 'right place' for the Earth is simply being the right distance from the sun.
Actually, once the Earth formed and cooled enough for there to be liquid water, the first life appeared very quickly. We have evidence of life on Earth from about 3.8 billion years ago. Now, that was bacterial life. More complicated life (multicellular) didn't come until much later.
It doesn't. Evolution deals with life that already exists and investigates how species change over geological time.
Actually, the scientific fact is that information is produced all the time in every causal event. if 'A' causes 'B', then the existence of 'B' is information about 'A'.
Matter didn't have consciousness until some living things developed consciousness. Now, there is such a thing as conscious matter. We are examples.
For evolution? Mutation and natural selection.
Gravity, Electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force. The last two are seldom involved in macroscopic events.
Yes, the universe is probabilistic.
Nope. it can also mean the action of physical laws.
Rapture Era
Active Member
Yes, I understand this! Ok look, lets set origins aside for the moment. Life changing over time. You don't concern yourself with the materials for life beginnings but you do concern yourself with what happens after that right? So if whatever this "life" was millions and billions of years ago, what directed it to do or be anything at all? Please explain to me at which point you guys jump in and say, this is where evolution begins? What was creature and what was the instructions for it to do anything but die? How did it reproduce? How did it change from one animal to another? What intelligence was involved in producing a female, and how did that come about? Oh wait! I used the word intelligence, sorry. Let me rephrase, what process do you hold to that brought into existence the female? The complexity of reproduction is screams design, not some malfunction junction directionless process known as evolution. What was the evolutionary function of knowing it needed to do anything? You see the nonsense in all of this evolutionary upward movement? And lastly, How is it at all possible for one living thing to change (evolve) its structure, internal organs including the brain, its chemistry, male and female and it's reproduction capabilities into a different animal? You must have a fully functioning male and female to reproduce! Otherwise its impossible! So I'd be interested in how your critical thinking mind works through these steps of evolving and reproduction.
Well, the first cells reproduced by division. But reproduction is part of what we mean by 'life'. So you are still asking about the origin of life here.
Well, have you studied any biology? You realize that one-celled creatures don't have females, right? You grasp that in many animals the same individual can be *both* genders, right? You realize that in other animals, the individual can change genders during its lifetime, right?
Well, the way to answer such questions is to look at the variety of life and see how different species reproduce in very different ways. have you done so?
ecco
Veteran Member
And exactly what do you think that agenda is?
Furthermore, why single out evolution? You must also disparage/disbelieve geology, physics, paleontology, astrophysics, and biology all of which support evolution - all of which show Genesis to be nothing more than 6000-year-old stories.
ecco
Veteran Member
That's exactly the kind of response fundies give over and over when they are required to examine their own beliefs.
You can't rationally explain why you prefer 6000-year-old myths to the accumulated knowledge of man.
You need to avoid acknowledging that blind faith usually results from childhood indoctrination.
You need to duck and dodge when confronted with the evils depicted and approved in your holy scripture.
Jesus did not die. God, via the Holy Ghost, impregnated a young virgin resulting in an earthly presence of a god-part. Thirty years later that earthly presence returned to his sky part. Considering that god is eternal, thirty years on earth for one-third of himself is a blink of an eye. The "death" of jesus is less than a mosquito bite to god. God sacrificed nothing.
Evolution begins when there is life: reproduction, mutation, different survival based on different genes.
First of all, individuals do not change from one animal to another. Populations are what change. Every population has variations in it. The environment in which the population lives also changes over time. As the environment changes, the variations that are well-adapted to the environment change. Those more adapted are more likely to surviva and to reproduce, meaning the types of genes in the population change over the generations. That *is* evolution. if the opulation splits, the two smaller populations can change in different ways. That is what leads to new species.
On the contrary, even single celled life can share information between individuals. Some single celled life has *two* ways of reproduction: one involving simple cell division and the other involving merger of two individuals and then splitting. The second is what evolved into what we know of as sex: the merger of the egg and the sperm is a process like the merger between those single celled lifeforms. This developed *long* before life was multi-cellular. In other words, long before there were even plants and animals.
When we look at the different species of life on Earth *today* and the different ways of reproduction, we can see the stages that happened to bring us up to the place where mammals can only reproduce through sex with an opposite gender that is genetically determined. For example, earthworms have *both* male and female methods of reproduction in the same individual. The genders are not separated. In a mating pair, the exchange of cells that merge goes both ways.
In many species of fish and even amphibians, individuals can change gender during their lives. So, these fish can be male at one time, female at another, changing back and forth as the conditions change. The gender is not determined genetically, but instead it is determined environmentally.
Finally, in mammals, we find that gender is determined genetically. Birds do the same.
On the other end of the spectrum, there are species of fungi that have *hundreds* of different genders. They are not limited to the two we see in animals and plants.
Once again, no individual does that. The population changes over time in small increments each generation.
The easy analogy is with languages. If you go back 2000 years, there was no Spanish or French language. They simply didn't exist. They both are derived from Latin, but the shift from Latin to either of these languages happened slowly over many generations, with each generation understanding both the previous and the next generations languages.
The variety of ways life actually reproduces shows your simple statement is wrong. For simpler forms of life, it is NOT necessary for both males and females to exist. And sometimes, they do exist, but in the same individual.
gnostic
The Lost One
I was never a biology student, and in my high school’s days, my knowledge of education in biology ended with year 9 Science that didn’t include Evolution in the subject’s syllabus. I chose to focus on maths, physics and chemistry in Year 10 to 12, before doing coursein civil engineering.
I didn’t pick up biology again until I started reading my cousin’s old biology textbook in late 2003, just to understand what people were talking about, when I joined my first Internet forums (not this one here).
Because my reading in my free time, I don’t have any formal education, (no teacher, no lecturer and no examination and assignment), therefore I have no qualification in any biology field. And I understand that reading a few chapters of this textbook make me no expert in biology or in evolution in particular.
There are many things that interested me, which I have read in my own time, but have no qualification or experience in these subjects, eg history, astronomy, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, fine arts, etc.
At universities, when I learned physics, they were mostly related to the courses I was doing, because there are applications. So in 1984-1988, the physics I needed were Newtonian mechanics and gravity, but they never taught me General Relativity, because it wasn’t relevant in my engineering course. When I started on new career, a change away from civil engineering, in computer science (1994-1999), the physics I learned were mainly focused on electricity (because of electrical and electronic components in computers), optics (because of fibre optics) and electromagnetism (mostly microwave and infrared, because of networking).
My point is that I have learned a lot of things, particularly that I didn’t study in high school or at universities, after 2003, were private readings.
But the thing is, when I read your posts, I see that you are no expert in biology too.
We are in forums, where we can freely express our opinions, share our knowledge whether we have the qualifications and experiences or not.
And although you and I can express our opinions in threads like this one, you and I, are no experts in evolutionary biology.
And even though I don’t have experience in biological matters, I can see that you are talking gibberish about evolution.
In biology (at university or college level, not high school level, because no studies at high school make anyone “expert”), understanding evolution, even just learning the basics, is essential to all biological fields of study.
Abiogenesis, or the origin of life, not so essential in most courses. Most biology courses wouldn’t touch abiogenesis, because it isn’t a scientific theory, yet.
As @Polymath257 have pointed out to you, abiogenesis is a field that started in the 1950s, as a hypothesis, and it is still hypothesis today, because there are different versions of abiogenesis, and scientists haven’t yet agree which version is more likely.
So unless you are student in theoretical biology, if you were to talk to as many biology students at your local universities or colleges, they may have heard of “abiogenesis” but they wouldn’t have studied it. And if you to ask them about the Miller-Urey experiment or the Murchison meteorite, most of them probably wouldn’t have about either of these.
So this whole thing about people studying evolution, MUST KNOW the “Abiogenesis” or the “origin of life” is a total BS, Rapture Era.
You don’t need to learn the origin of life to understand evolution. It (abiogenesis) is not necessary, because (A) it is still hypothesis, and (B) because learning abiogenesis don’t teach you anything about life that are extant or extinct.
How many times, must everyone tell you, you don’t need abiogenesis to understand evolution?
Ignorance isn’t a bad thing, because if you are curious, you can learn something that you didn’t know before.
I certainly did. Before 2003, I was ignorant about evolution, and I changed that by picking up a textbook and read up on evolution. Yes, it doesn’t make me an expert, but at least I am no longer ignorant.
(Actually, I am still ignorant, because the textbook only talk about basic 1st-year evolution. I didn’t read more advanced subjects on evolution, which would contain more deeper exploration on the subject.)
You, on the other hand, you refuses to learn from your mistakes. You keep repeating your errors over and over again, without listening and learning what others have been trying to explain to you.
Willful ignorance is not a virtue, RE.
I hoped sooner rather than later, you will stop repeating this illogical rubbish about learning evolution requiring learning “origin of life”, because you are making fool of yourself.
gnostic
The Lost One
Ok, Rapture Era.
Let me give you example, and asked you some questions. Perhaps, this example will help you understand that it not necessary to understand the origin with current experiences.
One of the earliest tools made and used by man were knives and hand axes.
We still use knives today, to cut things, like food for instance.
I know that manufacturers of knives, are all operated by machines to mass produce particular knives for different uses, for home and work. But people used to make these tools by hand.
The blades are more often made of alloy steel.
The earliest primitive knives were made of stones or flints, during the Palaeolithic period (so before 10 or 11,000 BCE).
My questions are:
The people who would know about Palaeolithic knives are archaeologists and anthropologists.
Likewise, biology students are required to learn biology, but not about the origin of life. They don’t need to know how the first proteins, first RNA or DNA, first cell form.
Evolution is about life - that already exist - change over time, like speciation.
Evolution required life to have already existed, that have the capacity to pass genetic traits to the next generations.
Do you understand, RE?
Sure it is important to learn everything we can possibly can, including the origin of life, but for most biology courses, students don’t need to learn how life came to be.
Currently, the study of abiogenesis are reserved for researchers only, not available to students in most biology courses.
Let me give you example, and asked you some questions. Perhaps, this example will help you understand that it not necessary to understand the origin with current experiences.
One of the earliest tools made and used by man were knives and hand axes.
We still use knives today, to cut things, like food for instance.
I know that manufacturers of knives, are all operated by machines to mass produce particular knives for different uses, for home and work. But people used to make these tools by hand.
The blades are more often made of alloy steel.
The earliest primitive knives were made of stones or flints, during the Palaeolithic period (so before 10 or 11,000 BCE).
My questions are:
- Do modern knife makers or people who work in knife-making factories needs to learn how to make knives from stone or flint?
- Do people who use knives in their daily life, like at home or at work (eg butchers, fishermen or fishmongers, those in the restaurant businesses, etc) required to know how Palaeolithic knives were made?
The people who would know about Palaeolithic knives are archaeologists and anthropologists.
Likewise, biology students are required to learn biology, but not about the origin of life. They don’t need to know how the first proteins, first RNA or DNA, first cell form.
Evolution is about life - that already exist - change over time, like speciation.
Evolution required life to have already existed, that have the capacity to pass genetic traits to the next generations.
Do you understand, RE?
Sure it is important to learn everything we can possibly can, including the origin of life, but for most biology courses, students don’t need to learn how life came to be.
Currently, the study of abiogenesis are reserved for researchers only, not available to students in most biology courses.
Last edited:
Bear Wild
Well-Known Member
Do you really want to know or are you just listing so many things to make it sound impossible because you really do not want to know or you have know knowledge in biology. If you really want to know and are not just making a smoke screen for the fact that really do not want to understand then ask specific questions one at a time. Otherwise you will get nowhere with useless arguments. Start with one question and we can proceed from there if you are truly interested in understanding.
He has Risen!
JESUS IS LORD FOR HE HAS RISEN FROM THE DEAD
To Most Posters on this thread,
Evolution is based on mutational progression and the ability to pass on to future progeny their DNA. What most posters here are missing is the evidence for the increase of information through mutation from a single cell to you and me. It may sound like a good theory, but the evidence does not support increasing information within the DNA. Darwinian evolution is a non-evidence based theory. Gregor Mendel (1822–84) was a true scientist whose theories have become law.
I know I posted I would not continue on this thread, but to read the non-sense attacks on Rapture Era not knowing what he is saying is evident that most people here, with the exception of Rapture Era, don't have a firm grasp on the real understanding of what it would take to evolve from nothing to something to living cells to muti-cell life to fish to ape to you.
Evolution is based on mutational progression and the ability to pass on to future progeny their DNA. What most posters here are missing is the evidence for the increase of information through mutation from a single cell to you and me. It may sound like a good theory, but the evidence does not support increasing information within the DNA. Darwinian evolution is a non-evidence based theory. Gregor Mendel (1822–84) was a true scientist whose theories have become law.
I know I posted I would not continue on this thread, but to read the non-sense attacks on Rapture Era not knowing what he is saying is evident that most people here, with the exception of Rapture Era, don't have a firm grasp on the real understanding of what it would take to evolve from nothing to something to living cells to muti-cell life to fish to ape to you.