Originally posted by: Vic
There's nothing to be confused about. "Life" is a human word for a human concept, therefore, humans define it. I suppose to understand this it would help to understand the biggest mistake that people make when they conceptualize these types of subjects. You see, most people think they are outside looking in. Meaning that they imagine that they are observers of reality from an external and objective viewpoint, and thus their definitions and viewpoints are also external and objective. This is wrong. You are inside looking out. We are inside looking out. We are participants creating and defining our experiences and observations as we go along.Originally posted by: Quintox
/confusedOriginally posted by: Garth
Point of fact: We know that evolution does happen. Today. Still.Originally posted by: sao123
What im saying is that we know evolution could happen, not that it necessarily did happen.
I realize your question is rhetorical, but please allow me to respond by saying that evolution happens whether or not abogenesis happened. The real problem with abiogenesis is that "life" is not neatly packaged item with discrete edges that let you know where "non-life" stops and "life" begins. Instead, its kinda fuzzy. Ultimately, we humans we decide when and where life began as soon as we decide firmly what is and is not fulfilling of our definitions for "life."And if the initial conditions for it could be proven impossible to exist (AKA abiogenesis & certain other theories being proven wrong), then what happens to the theory of evolution itself?
no, we can't prove the mechanism by which gravity works. there is the theory of gravity (how it works) and the fact of gravity (that it does work and it exists). just like there is the theory of evolution and the fact of evolution.Originally posted by: Leros
All scientific evidence says that gravity does exist, but we can't prove it. So we should entertain the idea that gravity might not exist. But lets be honest, we pretty much know that gravity exists.
Similarly, all scientific evidence points that God doesn't exist, but we can't prove it. So we should entertain the idea that God might exist, but are pretty sure that there is no such thing as god.
Originally posted by: ElFenix
no, we can't prove the mechanism by which gravity works. there is the theory of gravity (how it works) and the fact of gravity (that it does work and it exists). just like there is the theory of evolution and the fact of evolution.Originally posted by: Leros
All scientific evidence says that gravity does exist, but we can't prove it. So we should entertain the idea that gravity might not exist. But lets be honest, we pretty much know that gravity exists.
Similarly, all scientific evidence points that God doesn't exist, but we can't prove it. So we should entertain the idea that God might exist, but are pretty sure that there is no such thing as god.
and there is no evidence that a god (whatever that may mean) does not exist. if you've got some, i (and the rest of the world) would love to see it.
Originally posted by: Garth
Hmm... IMO you've sorta mischaracterized evolutionary theory a bit, but what you've said is indeed a more-or-less accurate popular understanding.Originally posted by: sao123
Natural selection claims that life has as its furthest common ancestor a single cell. If it should be proven that the common ancestral single cell organism could never have existed, then what happens to the theory of what did ultimately happen from the beginning until today, not what does happen today.
Either life began or it didn't. One way or the other, life is here, and it evolves. That much is certain. Moreover, genetic and fossil evidence reveal a nested hierarchy of interrelatedness of the species. That indicates strongly the common ancestry of all biological organisms. These facts remain no matter what the "ultimate," "last," or "greatest" common ancestor was.
It is conceivable that there were multiple abiogenesis events -- that life began several times. For that reason, it is conceivable, and not incompatible with evolutionary theory that all life can be traced back to ONE OF SEVERAL common ancestors.
EDIT: I guess my point is that no matter what we know or don't know about abiogenesis, we know about common ancestry. I don't think you can dispute that abiogenesis happened. Once there was not life, then there was life. In between, whatever happened, *that* was abiogenesis. What we want to know is what happened. We can be fairly sure that something did happen.
Ok, we're going to need to untangle a few things here.Originally posted by: sao123
re-calculate the theory of evolution if the product of abiogenesis was a fully formed complex organism such as a rabbit, or a dog...
as opposed to if it was a simple cell, or single celled bacterium.
Why would that be? There would still be a finitude of resources and therefore competition for them.And the more common ancestors availabe at the period of abiogenesis would seem to negate the need for natural selection to be the methodology for speciation.
I'm sorry, but that is basically nonsense. Natural selection operates wherever there are reproducing biological organisms. Period. That's all.the current version of natural selection only is accurate if there was exactly 1 single celled simple common ancestor organism. So unless you can identify that those specific starting conditions could have or did actually exist, the theory doesnt do much.
Originally posted by: DVK916
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: DVK916
The only choice is that life arose from abiogensis, and evolved over time to form humans. Anything else is pure nonsense. Abiogensis is a FACT, that no one can dispute now.
:laugh: It's always hilarious when e-scientists think they know more than real scientists.
STFU, troll.
abiogensis is widely accepted among scientist, when I took a college course in human evolution biology, the prof made it clear that evolution isn't some theory, but is a fact, and he is confident abiogensis to be true, and will soon be accepted as fact by mainstream scientist.
Originally posted by: SSSnail
Just a quick question to the people that voted option 2, didn't you just renounced your religion?
Originally posted by: Crono
For all those who preach evolution, at what point in evolutionary history did the monkey (or whatever we developed from) develop imagination? Or how about the human soul? Or consciousness of the self? And if we humans are no different from animals, what defines morality/where does morality come from?
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
There are only two options. Either God created the universe, or it evolved and there is no God. Theistic evolution is un-Biblical.
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: SSSnail
Just a quick question to the people that voted option 2, didn't you just renounced your religion?
How so?
Maybe I should have specified Catholicism. Basically, by voted this option, you've accepted Evolution, which is not what the Bible taught right? So either God is right, or the Bible is wrong.Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process.
Originally posted by: Crono
For all those who preach evolution, at what point in evolutionary history did the monkey (or whatever we developed from) develop imagination?
Or how about the human soul? Or consciousness of the self?
And if we humans are no different from animals, what defines morality/where does morality come from?
Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
Originally posted by: Crono
For all those who preach evolution, at what point in evolutionary history did the monkey (or whatever we developed from) develop imagination?
Who says monkeys don't have some sort of rudimentary imagination now? Nothing fancy, but the sort of thing that could develop into what we have over time and many generations of natural selection. It's already been demonstrated that monkeys have the ability to understand and even communicate with humans, they're just not quite as bright as us.
Or how about the human soul? Or consciousness of the self?
Once again how are we so sure that we alone possess these things?
And if we humans are no different from animals, what defines morality/where does morality come from?
Morality is something we made up to cover our own asses. We follow the rules of morality (or what we best interpret them to be) with the understanding that most others will follow them to some degree. If someone completely abandons all morality then the rest of the moral population will align itself against them in the interest of protecting itself. It's not really different from the the actions of other social animals, we just have this need to assign a transcendental or "spiritual" quality to our more complicated version of the same thing.
Originally posted by: SSSnail
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: SSSnail
Just a quick question to the people that voted option 2, didn't you just renounced your religion?
How so?
Maybe I should have specified Catholicism. Basically, by voted this option, you've accepted Evolution, which is not what the Bible taught right? So either God is right, or the Bible is wrong.Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process.
Originally posted by: Crono
OK, so you are basically saying that humans are smarter monkeys? We're no different from animals?
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: SSSnail
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: SSSnail
Just a quick question to the people that voted option 2, didn't you just renounced your religion?
How so?
Maybe I should have specified Catholicism. Basically, by voted this option, you've accepted Evolution, which is not what the Bible taught right? So either God is right, or the Bible is wrong.Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process.
There is a false doctrine called theistic evolution that attempts to prove that God used an evolutionary process to guide his creation by interpreting the meaning of "day" in Genesis 1 as "age."
Originally posted by: Crono
The Bible says we came from dust. Evolutionists say we came from rocks and gas. So why we we, who believe in the God of infinity, called stupid and are insulted? If evolutionists actually thought about it, they would realize that they're believing in a religion of death and no hope. It's no wonder so many people commit suicide.
Originally posted by: Crono
The Bible says we came from dust. Evolutionists say we came from rocks and gas. So why we we, who believe in the God of infinity, called stupid and are insulted? If evolutionists actually thought about it, they would realize that they're believing in a religion of death and no hope. It's no wonder so many people commit suicide. Belief in evolution by country.
Originally posted by: Crono
Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
Originally posted by: Crono
For all those who preach evolution, at what point in evolutionary history did the monkey (or whatever we developed from) develop imagination?
Who says monkeys don't have some sort of rudimentary imagination now? Nothing fancy, but the sort of thing that could develop into what we have over time and many generations of natural selection. It's already been demonstrated that monkeys have the ability to understand and even communicate with humans, they're just not quite as bright as us.
Or how about the human soul? Or consciousness of the self?
Once again how are we so sure that we alone possess these things?
And if we humans are no different from animals, what defines morality/where does morality come from?
Morality is something we made up to cover our own asses. We follow the rules of morality (or what we best interpret them to be) with the understanding that most others will follow them to some degree. If someone completely abandons all morality then the rest of the moral population will align itself against them in the interest of protecting itself. It's not really different from the the actions of other social animals, we just have this need to assign a transcendental or "spiritual" quality to our more complicated version of the same thing.
OK, so you are basically saying that humans are smarter monkeys? We're no different from animals?
Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo
3rd option, I'm still religious though.
Instead of calling me stupid, why don't you post a constructive post and inform me? Or am I stupid to read and learn? :frown: Explain abiogenesis to me (if that's what you believe in) or any alternate hypothesis that explains how organic chemicals developed here on earth.Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: Crono
The Bible says we came from dust. Evolutionists say we came from rocks and gas. So why we we, who believe in the God of infinity, called stupid and are insulted? If evolutionists actually thought about it, they would realize that they're believing in a religion of death and no hope. It's no wonder so many people commit suicide. Belief in evolution by country.
Why don't you actually put some effort into educating yourself instead making all of these stupid posts? Your posts make it clear that you don't even understand the fundamentals behind the theory of evolution.