The battle of evolution vs creationism

[Thief]

What does any of this, has to do with what I had posted?

lost you already?

I believe in evolution
that would be Day Six.....a very lengthy day

but I suspect, having been given the ability to dominate all things.....
Man was doing so....even unto his fellowman
and using resources and having offspring way too fast
animals tend to do that

extinction would have set in long before the spirit of Man would gel

the garden event was a reboot

 

[Evie]

Evolution, doesn't have a bearing on whether God or Gods exist or not. It's focused is on how life became diverse, not how the universe was created, not how life was started, all it questions is that "we have life, there are factors that came into play that has allowed life to diversify itself, what are these factors?" Any God can exist under those conditions.

But it does challenge the concepts of God(s) as people have known them. The qualities in particular. Does that make sense?

Or did you mean something else by what doesn't?

Why did Darwin title his book The Origin of the Species? He had to appropriate something already in existence in order for a process of evolution to even begin. My question is: Whatever he appropriated that was already in existence had prior rights of ORIGIN. He built upon an already existing 'something'. Thus, how can he claim that he explained the ORIGIN of the species?.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Why did Darwin title his book The Origin of the Species?

Because it explains the process of speciation. If it had been about the origin of life, rather than about the process by which new phyla arise, it would have been called "On the Origin of Life", not "On the Origin of Species".

He had to appropriate something already in existence in order for a process of evolution to even begin. My question is: Whatever he appropriated that was already in existence had prior rights of ORIGIN. He built upon an already existing 'something'. Thus, how can he claim that he explained the ORIGIN of the species?.

See above. He explained how new species form over time through mutation and natural selection, i.e: how each species ORIGINATES.

Have you read the book?

 

[Evie]

T

Because it explains the process of speciation. If it had been about the origin of life, rather than about the process by which new phyla arise, it would have been called "On the Origin of Life", not "On the Origin of Species".


See above. He explained how new species form over time through mutation and natural selection, i.e: how each species ORIGINATES.

Have you read the book?

There can ever be only one absolute origin of anything. A very FIRST of something. And without that first existence, Darwin would have nothing whatsoever upon which yo build his theory, It had to be on something already in existence. The absolute ORIGIN which existed before any process of evolution could even begin. If it ever did.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

T

There can ever be only one absolute origin of anything. A very FIRST of something. And without that first existence, Darwin would have nothing whatsoever upon which yo build his theory, It had to be on something already in existence. The absolute ORIGIN which existed before any process of evolution could even begin. If it ever did.

That's all well and good, but it doesn't change the simple fact that Darwin's theory isn't ABOUT the "first existence" or how it came to be - it is about how living populations diversify over time. Pointing out that life has to form is no more significant than pointing out to Isaac Newton that first mass has to exist in order for gravity to exist - we don't have to know the origin of something in order to observe, test and understand how that thing functions.