Are you back to being a sort-of-evolution-skeptic?

TOE includes no mechanism that evidences life evolves from lifelessness.
Obviously evolution needs life to exist before it gets going.

'

s called the current state of science. 

Oh please. I hardly need you to highlight the current state of science for me.

ant wrote:TOE includes no mechanism that evidences life evolves from lifelessness.
Obviously evolution needs life to exist before it gets going.

Let's assume a god created proto-life, then that life evolved through the process as described by the TOE. Skepticism toward the TOE still isn't warranted. It is still supported by evidence concerning it's explanatory scope. Where life originated doesn't change this. Biogenesis vs abiogenesis doesn't logically carry over; try to form an argument and you'll see there's no way to make it work. Where it does carry over is to the debate between naturalism / supernaturalism. Evolution does not need to explain the origins of life in order to be a true theory. This has been repeated many times now.

Interbane wrote:

ant wrote:TOE includes no mechanism that evidences life evolves from lifelessness.
Obviously evolution needs life to exist before it gets going.

Let's assume a god created proto-life, then that life evolved through the process as described by the TOE. Skepticism toward the TOE still isn't warranted. It is still supported by evidence concerning it's explanatory scope. Where life originated doesn't change this. Biogenesis vs abiogenesis doesn't logically carry over; try to form an argument and you'll see there's no way to make it work. Where it does carry over is to the debate between naturalism / supernaturalism. Evolution does not need to explain the origins of life in order to be a true theory. This has been repeated many times now.

No

I stated a fact.
There are no assumptions in science that should survive or be allowed to masquerade as Fact.

I stated a fact about what TOE does not address.

Youre welcome to play the pretend game all you want

Someone please call me an Abiogenesis denier.

ant wrote:
No

I stated a fact.
There are no assumptions in science that should survive or be allowed to masquerade as Fact.

I stated a fact about what TOE does not address.

Youre welcome to play the pretend game all you want

It's a fact that everyone acknowledges and has no bearing on the status of evolution. You seem to want to argue that not addressing abiogenesis is a shortcoming of evolution and is a reason for skepticism. Once again, you're arguing against no one in order to avoid stating your position clearly.

You say you know all about science but you're confused by basic definitions, as well as the amount of evidence for evolution that is universally acknowledged by every non-creationist.

You say you know all about science but you're confused by basic definitions, as well as the amount of evidence for evolution that is universally acknowledged by every non-creationist.

Oh goodie! Its time for a science pop quiz again!


And i was almost called a evolution denier!

bob says,

1) DNA evidence that no matter or being reproduces anything OTHER THAN THEMSELVES.
2) The Law of Thermal dymanics ll teaches that all matter breaks down instead of getting better (trees, burned, charcoal, dust, nothing).
3) uniquely complex beings can't reproduce a different animal because they would have to die if left with their present complex abilities. (i.e. Giraffe, bombardier beetle).
4) Man has never observed evolution.
5) Animals may slightly modify without becoming a totally different being (dog, cats, donkeys, finches).
6) Proof of a Young Earth is overwhelming with the over 70 "clocks" measuring the age of the earth.
7) Carbon dating has been proven to be inaccurate.
8 +) biblical creation is proven to be accurate when fully understood and explained.

1) every single case of sexual reproduction produces something SPECIFICALLY not identical to either parent. Generating variations from the starting template is part of the process. It's ingrained. These changes are exactly the changes that propel evolution.

2) Check out this thread regarding evolution and the second law of thermodynamics.

http://www.booktalk.org/evolution-and-t ... 14718.html

I've spent some time on this topic. Chip in there if you would like to discuss.
You will find thermodynamics is perfectly compatible with building ordered things, including life.

3)that's not true. There are variations of every species, including different kinds of giraffe.

4)False. We have observed speciation events in laboratories and in the wild. We've seen it so many times, in fact, that we have different categories for different kinds of speciation events that we've witnessed and grouped into diagnostically distinguishable classes. I will look up numerous examples and post here if you like.

5) That's true, and exactly how evolution works. These slight modifications from generation to generation do not produce a new species in one genetic jump. Only compiled alterations over many generations can eventually lead to a speciation event, and those alterations must be selected through outside pressures.

6) False. Every indication that has ever been verified conclusively refute a young earth.

7) False. Radiometric dating is accurate and different kinds of radiometric dating cross-verify and agree with eachother. For those who don't understand, and i'm talking to you bob, radiometric dating revolves around measuring the quantities of radioactive elements in samples and comparing that to the known half-life decay rates of those radioactive elements. It is known.

8 ) False. Nearly everything in the bible, including and especially the creation myth is wrong and has been known to be wrong for hundreds of years.

johnson1010 wrote:Bob,

Check out this thread regarding evolution and the second law of thermodynamics.

http://www.booktalk.org/evolution-and-t ... 14718.html

I've spent some time on this topic. Chip in there if you would like to discuss.
You will find thermodynamics is perfectly compatible with building ordered things, including life.

There is no law that has evidenced 2nd law inevitably leads to conscious life, or even cellular life that is able to multiply and exhibit autonomy.
Stop tryint to make garbage up for the sake of reinforcing your worldview, Johnson.

Johnson said:

I've spent some time on this topic. Chip in there if you would like to discuss.
You will find thermodynamics is perfectly compatible with building ordered things, including life.

Which is different from what Ant is talking about.

There is no law that has evidenced 2nd law inevitably leads to conscious life, or even cellular life that is able to multiply and exhibit autonomy.

Stop tryint to make garbage up for the sake of reinforcing your worldview, Johnson.

Right, as seen in the very post where you try to push this off onto me... that's your job.

johnson1010 wrote:

Johnson said:

I've spent some time on this topic. Chip in there if you would like to discuss.
You will find thermodynamics is perfectly compatible with building ordered things, including life.

Which is different from what Ant is talking about.

There is no law that has evidenced 2nd law inevitably leads to conscious life, or even cellular life that is able to multiply and exhibit autonomy.

Stop tryint to make garbage up for the sake of reinforcing your worldview, Johnson.

Right, as seen in the very post where you try to push this off onto me... that's your job.

Right, but you do realize there is no evidence either for or against an intelligence that "breathed fire into the laws of Nature" right?

Your extrapolation of current laws (like the 2nd) back to a starting point that lead to "intelligence" is just an empty unsubstantiated stab at esplaining creation, right?

Your dumb and "blind" nature is just that - your dumb and blind nature your(our) micro second evolved brain conjectures about.