shmogie
Well-Known Member
Then say evolution of life. many things beside life have evolved and are evolving.
-
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!
Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe
- Thread starter Wandering Monk
- Start date
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Evolution stands alone ? Like the evolution of the universe, or the alleged chemical evolution on early earth?
In a scientific discussion, evolution means the changes in species that happen over geological time periods. It is *always* evolution of life unless there is some sort of modifier to it.
So, if I mean the stages that stars go through, I will talk about stellar evolution. This is also completely irrelevant to abiogenesis (except for the fact that the elements that form the Earth and Sun came from previous generations of stars).
What other things are you suggesting are meant by the term 'evolution' in this context?
In context, evolution means biological evolution. The evolution of the universe is simply a phrase used to describe the stages the universe has gone through and is NOT a part of the scientific theory of evolution.
dad
Undefeated
? I am not asking if the sun exists or if good and bad spirits exist.
dad
Undefeated
You have a guess as to why someone believed something. Turn your little guessing power to try and help you defend your religion, you'll need all the help you can get.
dad
Undefeated
Not here to question trusted eyewitnesses of historical realities. We are here to see you defend your beliefs as to why you claim time exists the same in deep space. (light speed there)
dad
Undefeated
More bible babble. Try to get to defending the foolish so called science beliefs you posit here, rather than trying to hide under the skirt of various other beliefs. Man up.
dad
Undefeated
No, not so clearly.
dad
Undefeated
Nor you deny that this is your bible...
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
I mean biological evolution in general and the evolution of life on earth in particular. Was that really unclear?
tas8831
Well-Known Member
That they do.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Not unclear, imprecise
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Scared of the truth?
I don't understand this repeated, misleading mantra of yours - are you one of those people that, at least when it comes to non-bible stuff, think that we must know 100% about something before it can be mentioned?
Me and my science?
I am not an OOL researcher, I study the evolution of mammals.
Hadn't you heard? OOL is irrelevant to evolution of life.
How life began has no bearing whatsoever on the ToE. It could have even been created by the Hindu deities, it wouldn't matter to the ToE.
But the classic disingenuous tactic for the desperate is to conflate OOL and evolution, decry the dearth of solid evidence for OOL, and then try to claim that the ToE is wrong.
Classic logical fallacies are employed and revered.
So your continued insistence upon this tactic means that you must now answer for Islam and 9/11, since you are a religioniionist and all religions rely on each other.
It seems to bother you folks a lot, seeing as how you engage in these years-long campaigns of disinformation to attack evolution via whining about OOL.
Still waiting for your interview with 12-years dead Stanley Miller.
Right...
And TRUE believers in middle eastern tall tales MUST pretend to understand the science involved, even when it is clear they do not, MUST copy-paste the same, tired complaints and lies from their archives and from their fellow creationist science-rejects, MUST then whine about how mean everyone is when your deceptive and refuted tactics are exposed.
I've seen it hundreds of times. You are no different.
Apparently they think that shielding an alleged supernatural process that nobody knows anything about to a natural one for which people are at least doing research into supports their faith in ancient middle eastern tales with ZERO evidence.
Why lie?
I have posted for you on a dozen occasions links to and/or quotes/citations from OOL research. You dismiss it all by claiming to 'be familiar with it' and that is where it ends. I have exposed your oft-repeated fibs about the Miller-Urey experiments, but you just keep repeating them to make it look like you have something legitimate to claim, I guess.
I bring up the obvious when it becomes clear that you have no desire - and probably no ability - to discuss any of the actual research.
Cool projection, bro.
Can't wait until you present that "recent interview" with a 12-years dead Stanley Miller in which he declared his experiments to have been a failure.
I'm sure you will present that totally not made up interview right after you acknowledge the fact that many, many other experiments inspired by Miller's, using updated info on what the early earth's atmosphere was probably like, using different combinations of chemicals, different energy sources (to include freezing), etc. produced even more bio-organic molecules, to include asymmetrical chirality and so many other outcomes that creationist layfolk have been ordered to carry on about over the years regardless of the actual state of affairs, information that the overconfident Dunning-Kruger effect ambassadors for Jesus will dismiss by claiming to 'be familiar with it' then not writing a thing about any of it.
Bring it on. But at least acknowledge that your beliefs are built on whims and desires, while what I accept is founded on things that you clearly cannot deal with.
Last edited:
tas8831
Well-Known Member
The creationist MUST MUST MUST conflate abiogenesis with evolution, for it is ONLY via this dishonest conflation that they can pretend to have a justification for rejecting evolution in favor of their 100% evidence free tales.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
That, my friend, as you probably know is how about 90% of these science-haters operate.
Once had a YEC graphic designer declare evolution false because 80% of mutations were shown to be bad. After weeks of hounding him for his source, he linked to a paper that was something about categorizing identified mutations as good, bad, neutral. The only place 80% was mentioned was where the authors indicated that they had been able to characterize 80% of the mutations they had identified...
They see what they want to see, and that is usually what they see in other YEC posts/websites or via keyword searches that they don't bother to read (or in dad's case, watch) and can't understand if they do.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
No it isn't - that is creation-talk. What NONSENSE creationists must employ to prop up their position!
As someone that actually understood the issues once said - Evolution is consistent with abiogenesis, but it is not dependent on it (Carl Sagan).
Who will support your contention - some half-wit creationist with a website?
No. Other than your hackneyed mantras and paraphrased slogans and conflation of disparate issues, do you? That is, do you have a scientific reason to do so that does not entail an a priori commitment?
Can't wait to see that "recent interview" with a 12-years dead Stanley Miller wherein he claims his original experiments were failures!
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Creationist love to hurl false accusations in their projective antics.
It is all they can muster, for the truth makes them look like fools.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Why is this so hard for creationists to grasp?
I submit that it ISN'T that hard for them, but they do this because they have nothing else, and they are generally not so honest or informed on these issues.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Oh, right - so are you now going to be one of those guys that wants to declare that because in some cases abiogenesis is referred to as "chemical evolution" that it really is part of 'evolution' as such because, you know, the word 'evolution' is used?