 |
I do. Post some and let's look at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
That is quite a concession on your part.Quote:
There will never be enough evidence for evolution for your standards.
I have.Quote:
Like I said if you would put half of the standards for truth that you apply to evolution towards your own religion we wouldn't be having this debate.
Okay, so it appears that the evolutionists are conceding (passively or actively) that there is no evidence for life having come from non-living substance, and it appears that the evolutionists do not even have a feasible guess as to how this occurred. Some evolutionists say that they don't even want to deal with this as part of evolution. I can understand why they prefer not to deal with it.
So step one in evolution goes down in flames.
Okay guys, let's move on to step 2. Since you want to start with life having already existed, this should be much easier for you.
Question 2: Describe this first living cell.
I think that refusing to acknowledge that you've lost an argument doesn't make you the winner. If you want to read about biogenesis, go ahead. We aren't defeated, just bored.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
So far, no one has directly asked you to provide definitive proof for and a plausible mechanism for God creating the universe, or Godogenesis, for that matter. How can you use God as an explanation for the creation of life if you don't know where God came from? If you want to present that, I'll return the favor with a summary of the main ideas of biogenesis (which I haven't wanted to do because that's very much a busman's holiday for me). You definitely go first on this one, though. So how did God come into existence? How did God create the universe? How did God create life? I want to see detailed plausible mechanisms and proof.
I have been asking for days how non-living subsatnces can become the first living cell, and no one has come forward with anything but personal attacks and claims that this is not covered by the theory of evolution. Watching silence on the part of most and the rest running from the question, it seemed useless to continue to ask, and under those circumstances, in the complete absences of anyone even having a guess, it seems appropriate to assume no one had an answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
If you think that you have a feasible argument, then by all means spout forth. Don't claim victory by sitting back in the shadows and not coming forward when asked to do so. Why you chose to wait until after I started to go on to the next stage is beyond me, but I am willing to step back and listen to your theory.
Now, take the podium and let's hear your theory.
As for your questions about God, to avoid folks claiming that I am pushing religion, I plan to stay focused, at least in this thread, on the scientific evidence for evolution. If you want to discuss God, please start a new thread.
Absolutely not if you can make a prediction based on your religion and they come true every time I would be very likely to believe it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoked
The other difference is that if there was evidence that contradicted evolution, I'd drop the evolution theory just as your signature says I would.
The difference between us that you're not noticing is that we are more than willing to admit we don't know something. We might have ideas on how something happened but we aren't sure. The fact that we aren't sure and not a single one of us is willing to claim that we are sure on this is fairly amazing. That we fight for evolution so adamantly but when it comes down to where the first cell comes from we concede that we don't know. This in itself should show you something about the character of the people you are debating. The reason we fight for evolution is because it exists and it would be a terrible shame to give up on knowledge that has served us so well over the last 150 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Then why don't you simply admit that you have no idea how life started and how the first living cell came about?Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
Are you even reading what we type?
Yep - are you?Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
Tj, You've made it clear that your alternate hypothesis to evolution IS God. (And I hasten to acknowledge that not everyone sees those as mutually exclusive by any means, as you appear to.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
If we are really talking Science, then your hypothesis, God, needs to be tested like any other hypothesis. God can't be put forward as a scientific hypothesis and then excused from the same rules of objective evidence on the grounds that it makes you uncomfortable. If you want to have a scientific discussion, present an alternate theory that is a legitimate and testable natural explanation.
Biogenesis and, separately, evolution are science. We don't need to prove this here because it's incontestable if you've even glanced at a university curriculum lately or picked up any sort of scientific journal that even touches on biology. Look in the Encyclopedia Britannica... You don't have any power to change that. No scientist, biologist or otherwise, would take "God did it" as a scientific explanation of anything. Religion by any name is not science.
Note that so far, it is only your side that has brought religion into this discussion. I, on the other had, see no contradiction between science and God, and am quite prepared to evaluate evolution based upon science. Why aren't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
In-contestable? Nothing in science is in-contestable. Once you call it incontestable, you have turned it into a religion because, even a "law" in science (which evolution is most assuredly NOT), can be challenged if new evidence arises.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
If you are saying that it is "in-contestable", then clearly you are not open to looking at the scientific evidence.
Interesting, eh? Here I am a believer in God, and I want to examine the scientific merits of evolution, and you who are opposing creationism, and you are now saying that we cannot question it.
"Why should I waste my time when you will simply deny that you see it ???"Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
The reason for this evasive reply is rather simple : it has nothing to do with how I will react on real OSE.
The real reason is that YOU KNOW THAT YOU CAN NOT REPLY TO MY QUESTION BECAUSE YOU CAN NOT PROVIDE THE BY YOU CLAIMED AVAILABLE OSE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD !!! .
We all know that you can not provide that. You are the ONLY ONE here who denies that. How sad!!
Thanks Tom for another proof of your unreliability and hypocrisy !
:rolleyes: ;) :p ;) :rolleyes:
John, everyone can see your behaviour. If you were sincerely interested, you would have already responded to my postings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Tom, everyone can see YOUR behavior. If you were sincere in having that OSE , you would have posted it on all Internet boards !Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
:D :rolleyes: :p :rolleyes: :D
·
John, I do not go out and spam boards. Perhaps you do, but I do not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
I do note that you are choosing not to engage the scientific questions that I am raising with respect to evolution.
No Tom, neither do I, though you like to suggest that time and time again...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Almost as it you have no other - valid - arguments to support your own ideas.
Indeed I don't. Because in many ways you are not worth a reply to that, in view of your own negative and hypocrite approach and attitude. Unlike most people who support the Evolution Theory, and who are all able to admit that the theory is not 100% covered by OSE (but in general is valid), you can not even admit that your insistence to have OSE for god's existence was more wish than reality, you have to hide behind all kinds of steer produce to sidestep your own promise to post that OSE for everyone to see. Simply because no such OSE for god's existence exists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Evolution is real, Tom, if you like it or not.
But god's existence is a religious claim, until it is supported with OSE.
:rolleyes:
·
I have seen otherwise,Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
John, I stated up front that I am prepared to use science alone to evaluate evolution. If you are unable to tolerate that approach, then that is fine.Quote:
Indeed I don't. Because in many ways you are not worth a reply to that, in view of your own negative and hypocrite approach and attitude. Unlike most people who support the Evolution Theory, and who are all able to admit that the theory is not 100% covered by OSE (but in general is valid), you can not even admit that your insistence to have OSE for god's existence was more wish than reality, you have to hide behind all kinds of steer produce to sidestep your own promise to post that OSE for everyone to see. Simply because no such OSE for god's existence exists.
So far you have yet to post anything but personal attacks in any case.
EXACTLY WHY YOU SEE I DROPPED OUT OF THIS MYSELF!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
And I have seen you suggesting that same misrepresentation of reality time and time again...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
No personal attacks, Tom. I just will remind you again and again of your own uninvited promise to supply OSE for the existence of god. I never asked you for that till you offered to do so yourself, and than failed to post that OSE ever since. All you ever posted was a lame list of subjective arguments, but no OSE.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Till you do you are not worth the effort of any reply or reaction, other than to remind you of your promise to post OSE for god's existence, or post your statement that you can not supply such OSE. It is up to you Tom. Don't blame me for your own insincerity and hypocrisy.
:rolleyes:
·
Well, if you deny it, that tells me more about you as a person.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
As I did.Quote:
No personal attacks, Tom. I just will remind you again and again of your own uninvited promise to supply OSE for the existence of god.
Now, if you want to join the discussion, then do so, if not then please note that you are off topic.
I understand very well.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
It is interesting that it is nigh on impossible to get evolutionists to discuss the scientific basis for evolution. Quite telling actually.
Going to cut in here. I admit I don't know allot about science, nope, not my subject at all.
As a believer in God I can honeslty say that I also believe in Evolution. There's too much proof of Evolution, and though I hate to admit it, none if any that God actually created the earth, other than what's written in the bible.
My belief, that both Science and God had a hand in creating the earth, but that's just my belief, don't ask me to back it up, I can't.
I believe God 'used' what we call science to create the universe. While I believe the Bible basically I also think Christians take a good bit of it out of context yet at the same time science IS in the Bible. I do not believe in evolution from a single cell etc...
I used to be an evolutionist because I believed, as some of the folk on here do, that the scientific evidence was un-deniable. That was before I took the time to examine it in detail. Once I did, I was shocked at what the evidence actually indicated. Too often book and displays intended for the non-scientific community are not presenting scientific evidence, but rather the interpretation of one or more persons without stating the numerous assumptions that have gone into that interpretation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Altenweg
The problem with that is that when it is presented as fact, most people believe that what they are reading is in fact proven by the evidence, when in fact many of the most critical details have in fact no evidence whatsoever to validate them.
The reason that I started looking into this topic in more detail at the time was to be better prepared to defend evolution when debating the issue with fellow Christians who opposed evolution. What I found went in a much different direction than I anticipated, and I believe that it is important to follow truth, even when it heads in directions that are contrary to whgat you currently believe.
I am amazed at how well science and the Bible agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
YepQuote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Science and the Bible
And Maury 'discovered' underwater sea currents BY reading the verse in Psalms
Not off topic at all. Tom : my posts are about YOUR OWN unwillingness to supply evidence for God's existence based on arguments referring to evolution and religion. So on topic in "Evolution" (or "Origin of the Universe") and religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
See your own post on SUPPOSED OSE for God's existence here ! (LINK)
:rolleyes:
·
So you have found one of my posts (no doubt you have done some edits), so when you said that you did not see my posts, you were not being honest!Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Perhaps you should try answering some of the questions. If you remember, before we started the discussion, we all agreed that there were two options, either creation was by God or by natural causes (no doubt you will deny that now :D ), so now you have absolutely no reason or excuse for refusing to provide answers (as you have in the past).
I look forward to your answers!
Not true Tom. As usual you are twisting the truth . I took me a lot of time finding your posts on Answerway. All I did was retrieving and reposting it here. I did not do any editing other than deleting some misspelling and references to others on Answerway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Once again you show with such statements your own approach and subsequent mistrust for others who however do not cheat .
You are just measuring my corn with your bushel...
No Tom : you decided yourself that that was so. Why would I and others agree with your logical fallacy ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
There is no reason for (religious) creation Tom. Creation is not more than a religious claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
But I have provided answers to every point you made, Tom. Several times in fact. And every time (at least 10) all you did was reposting "Blindness is no excuse" and a repeat of your list.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
:rolleyes:
·
John, I wonder sometimes if you remember what the truth really is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
John, you'd argue to the death to avoid appearing to be wrong no matter what. As you see by other comments on here, people know you and how you behave.Quote:
No Tom : you decided yourself that that was so. Why would I and others agree with your logical fallacy ?
Quote:
But I have provided answers to every point you made, Tom. Several times in fact. And every time (at least 10) all you did was reposting "Blindness is no excuse" and a repeat of your list.
Good, then if you have answers you should have no problem posting them as well. I look forward to seeing them!
Now that you have another thread for that topic, let's keep this one on topic moving forward shall we, and we can keep the discussion of those other questions on that thread.
Okay, not that we hopefully have the distraction out of the way, let's get back to the topic at hand.
So far I have not seen anyone post a feasible manner by which life comes from non-living substances, and some folk are even saying that they don't want to deal with this as part of the theory of evolution (even though it is critical).
So we will move on from Question 1 and just leave it that evolutionists have no answer.
Okay guys, let's move on to step 2. Since you want to start with life having already existed, this should be much easier for you.
Question 2: Describe this first living cell.
Hmmm maybe he answered that?
What I want to know is how the first living cell evolved and
How humans developed/evolved
Reply #3 never really did state any more than cell structure in the reply though.
A good guideline to what you call the "truth" is to start with doubting whatever you state to be the "truth"...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
All I have is a clear opinion. An opinion you disagree with. The difference between us is that I clearly state and reason my views, while you focus on innuendo and posting "misrepresentations of reality", Tom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
This topic is about "Evolution" or "Origin of the Universe" and religion. So far you yourself have pushed it completely into the evolution corner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Your list is about "Evolution" in your religious support of OSE for god's existence. So it can be discussed here just as well. It is completely on topic here !
:rolleyes:
·
John I am not interested in your continued abuse of this thread and its users.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
I have a much more detailed drawing of what a cell is like. It appears no one on here can provide a feasible guess as to how non-living substances became living.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
Now if this diagram is what John thinks that the first cell looked like, that is an immense leap from a bunch of chemicals to a very organized structure.
I am trying to go through this a step at a time to see which steps these experts in evolution on here can provide feaible explanations for.
So I am in YOUR continued abuse of this thread and its users.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
:rolleyes:
·
Let's see if John can explain how non-living substances turned into a living single cell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I'll see to that tomorrow. I'm now off to horizontal mode for a couple of hours...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
:D
·
EXACTLY! I agree and it seems like an immense leap of faith to believe in a bunch of chemicals to a very organized structure. I also have yet to see Cred0 answer and as you can see we are all the way up to reply #200 and still haven't gotten an answer when Cred0's Original post topic clearly states all you have to do is ask.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:06 PM. |