[Tj3]

Right and since Darwin's time we have had 150 years of fossil discoveries and all fossil discoveries since Darwin's time has pointed towards evolution. It's no wonder you don't understand it if your still looking at 150 year old information.

Actually, that is not true. The fossil evidence still is a weak link in the whole theory.

As I just said to someone else, take some time and check out the mounds of assumptions upon which the theory of evolution is based.

[michealb]

I have and I don't have a problem with a single one of them. Evolution no matter how you slice it is the best theory to explain how life came to be so complex on this planet. If there was another theory that explained things better then we might have a debate but until then you are a just flat-earther. Trying to confuse the public in order to spread your religion.
BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | Do they really think the earth is flat?

[asking]

Actually, that is not true. The fossil evidence still is a weak link in the whole theory.

As I just said to someone else, take some time and check out the mounds of assumptions upon which the theory of evolution is based.

Tj3,
Darwin was specifically concerned about the rate of evolution, whether it happened quickly or slowly, not whether it happened.

For Darwin, the questions were all about mechanism. In other words, what makes the refrigerator work, not whether it keeps things cold. Biologists know the refrigerator stays cold and want to know how that works. We know that evolution happened and continues to happen. We continue to study how it produces the kinds of results it does.

Today we understand vastly more about the mechanisms by which evolution occurs and we know that most of Darwin's doubts about HOW evolution occurred were unjustified. There was so much biology that hadn't been uncovered yet and so he didn't have access to the information we have today. For example, in his day, no one even knew about genes or DNA. He had no idea how information could be passed from parent to child. But he was not in doubt that evolution had happened. And, in 150 years of research in biology, no information has arisen that would cast doubt on the fact of evolution having occurred.

The fossil record is probably the single strongest piece of evidence for evolution, since it is an actual record of past events. The fossil record speaks to several issues. It tells us that evolution occurred. It tells us in what order different kinds of organisms evolved. And it tells us which animals and plants changed quickly and which ones changed hardly at all over long periods. Nothing about the fossil record is "weak." I think what you take to be "assumptions" are just things you may not have understood or accepted because you didn't have enough information.
I can recommend a good book. :)

[asking]

BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | Do they really think the earth is flat?

Good article!

And while we all respect a degree of scepticism towards the authorities, says Ms Garwood, the flat-earthers show things can go too far.
"It is always good to question 'how we know what we know', but it is also good to have the ability to accept compelling evidence - such as the photographs of Earth from space."

I found myself wondering what flat earthers think when they fly in a jet at 35,000 or 40,000 feet and can see the curve of the Earth beneath them. Have any of them taken a polar route flight between Europe and North America? What do they think when they look down? Do they think airlines are all in on creating a customized hoax for every passenger on every flight? Talk about expensive! No wonder the airline industry is in trouble.

[Tj3]

Today we understand vastly more about the mechanisms by which evolution occurs and we know that most of Darwin's doubts about HOW evolution occurred were unjustified.

Really? If we understand anything about the process, then how did the first cell originate?

The fossil record is probably the single strongest piece of evidence for evolution, since it is an actual record of past events.

I agree that it is the strongest piece of evidence for evolution, and yet it is full of extremely serious problems, which most who believe in evolution prefer to overlook. It is the strongest thing upon which evolutionists hang their hat, but yet what the fossil record therefore shows is how weak the theory reqally is.

[asking]

Really? If we understand anything about the process, then how did the first cell originate?

In the strict sense, that is not evolution. Evolution is change from one form of life to another. So there has to be life first and life consists of living cells.

Evolution is shrew-like mammals evolving into primates, or bacteria whose DNA is just in a blob in the center of the cell evolving into eukaryotic cells that keep their DNA inside a membrane. Life is, by definition, made of cells. So until the first cells came into being you are talking about processes that are different from evolution in subtle but important ways. How those first cells came into being very likely involved processes that resemble or include evolution. But the formation of the first cells is not considered evolution, which begins with the first cells.

Some faithful people accept the evolution of one species into as another as consistent with Biblical teaching, and even the evolution of all species, families, and kingdoms of plants and animals, but they believe that God must have got the ball rolling by creating the first cells and creating the rules by which evolution occurs. Is that what you believe?

I agree that [the fossil record] is the strongest piece of evidence for evolution, and yet it is full of extremely serious problems, which most who believe in evolution prefer to overlook. It is the strongest thing upon which evolutionists hang their hat, but yet what the fossil record therefore shows is how weak the theory reqally is.

How so?

[Tj3]

In the strict sense, that is not evolution. Evolution is change from one form of life to another. So there has to be life first and life consists of living cells.

It is evolution. Unless a non-living substance evolves into living matter, then, according to the theory, there is no chance for life. So this is absolutely critical to your whole theory.

Your argument is like saying that you don't need to explain how a plane gets off the ground to explain flight. We just assuming that somehow through some unexplained magical process, it started flying.

[asking]

It is evolution. Unless a non-living substance evolves into living matter, then, according to the theory, there is no chance for life. So this is absolutely critical to your whole theory.

I think you've confounded different things, Tj3. The origin of life is certainly of critical interest to biologists and there couldn't have been evolution without an origin of the first cells. But not being able to explain the origin of the first cells doesn't undermine the fact that evolution happened anymore than not knowing where the pizza delivery man was born keeps me from knowing whether he is standing in the doorway and has brought me a pizza. He has brought the pizza whether he was born in Poughkeepsie or Brighton. Evolution happened. It's recorded in the fossil record over and over again.

Your argument is like saying that you don't need to explain how a plane gets off the ground to explain flight.

In fact, you don't. It's perfectly reasonable to study flight without understanding how takeoff occurs. It's common for scientists (and engineers :)) to study the simpler part of something. First I study how the plane flies. Later, I study the specifics of takeoff and landing, which involve more complex problems.

You are confusing understanding something with justifying it, and you've reversed the problem too. Evolution isn't about justifying anything. On the other hand, to turn your argument around, unless you can personally prove that no cells ever originated anywhere, you cannot disprove evolution with your reasoning.

[Tj3]

I think you've confounded different things, Tj3. The origin of life is certainly of critical interest to biologists and there couldn't have been evolution without an origin of the first cells. But not being able to explain the origin of the first cells doesn't undermine the fact that evolution happened anymore than not knowing where the pizza delivery man was born keeps me from knowing whether he is standing in the doorway and has brought me a pizza. He has brought the pizza whether he was born in Poughkeepsie or Brighton. Evolution happened. It's recorded in the fossil record over and over again.

Even scientists who are straightforward about the evidence would not make such a statement. There is not and never has been a single proven case of macro-evolution. Further, the fact that there is no means whatsoever of the single cell having come into existence is fatal. Believeing that it must simply have happened because otherwise your theory falls apart is a matter of faith not of science.

[michealb]

The evidence is there the only people who don't see it are people with a religious agenda. Which I have no problem with you pushing your religious agenda just be honest about it say "I don't care about evidence for evolution I believe god did it cause the bible says so." instead of trying to hide your agenda with faulty science specifically meant to confuse the general public.

[asking]

Further, the fact that there is no means whatsoever of the single cell having come into existence is fatal. Believeing that it must simply have happened because otherwise your theory falls apart is a matter of faith not of science.

The theory that we are all related does not fall apart just because we can't be certain about the origins of the first cell. That's like saying that you can't know who your father and grandfather were unless you know the names of all 32 of your great-, great- grandparents. Logically, you are making the same argument. We know pretty far back, just not all the way. But we don't need to know the whole way back.

We don't need to know the origin of the first cells to know that birds evolved from dinosaurs or that mammals evolved from early reptiles. We can study the process starting just about anywhere. You could wipe out the whole fossil record starting back 1 billion years ago and still be able to deduce that evolution had occurred--there's so much information in the fossil record, it's overwhelming.

The evidence in the fossil record shows the order in which life appeared, stratum by stratum, just like the pages of an immense book. If there's a book of life, the fossil record is it. It shows that it happened, and that's what is important. How it works is immensely interesting to a lot of people, but for the average person, all that matters is that evolution is the simple, mindless process that got us here. What they want to make of that is an individual choice.

[Credendovidis]

For asking and michealb

The evidence is there ...//... instead of trying to hide your agenda with faulty science specifically meant to confuse the general public.

I know Tom Smith (Tj3 - Toms777) now for about a decade. He will never admit that he does precisely that.
He likes to run in religious based circular arguments, and will switch from one to another argument to support his religious views, while attacking non-religious items like evolution.
Tom knows perfectly well that abiogenesis is not part of evolution. Over the years I and others have told and explained that to him more than 50 to 100 times, but he keeps using that non-argument time and time again.
Toms main intent with this method is exhausting his opponent into dropping the argument, not in to a true discussion of the matter involved.

Asking : my compliments for your stamina, firmness, and clear explanations and argumentations.

;)

[Tj3]

The theory that we are all related does not fall apart just because we can't be certain about the origins of the first cell.

That is not what we are discussing. It is not certainty - it is that there is not even a feasible guess.

We don't need to know the origin of the first cells to know that birds evolved from dinosaurs or that mammals evolved from early reptiles.

You know that, eh? Well we could get into some discussions around some of the steps of progression later in the so-called evolutionary cycle, if you are agreeing that the step from non-living to living is one that yopu just accept on faith as having happened even though you cannopt come up with any idea as to how it mioht have happened and have no evidence as to it happening.

[Tj3]

For asking and michealb

I know Tom Smith (Tj3 - Toms777) now for about a decade. He will never admit that he does precisely that.
He likes to run in religious based circular arguments, and will switch from one to another argument to support his religious views, while attacking non-religious items like evolution.
Tom knows perfectly well that abiogenesis is not part of evolution. Over the years I and others have told and explained that to him more than 50 to 100 times, but he keeps using that non-argument time and time again.
Toms main intent with this method is exhausting his opponent into dropping the argument, not in to a true discussion of the matter involved.

Asking : my compliments for your stamina, firmness, and clear explanations and argumentations.

;)

Hey John, I see that instead of sound, fact based arguments, you keep going after the person.

[asking]

That is not what we are discussing. It is not certainty - it is that there is not even a feasible guess.

The research on this is so feasible now that I hesitate every time I write that we don't know how the first cells came into existence! We nearly do... which I suppose is bad news for you, since if those ideas become widely accepted as scientific dogma, it will be harder for you to make this argument. In the mean time, I am content to observe that it makes no difference to our understanding of what happened afterward.

if you are agreeing that the step from non-living to living is one that yopu just accept on faith as having happened even though you cannopt come up with any idea as to how it mioht have happened and have no evidence as to it happening.

No. I don't accept it (on faith or otherwise). I neither accept it nor reject it. I simply don't know about it and I'm content to not know. Science is full of things we don't know. (I don't know whether you carry the BRCAII gene, but that doesn't prevent me from discussing evolution with you or assessing your intelligence and values. I don't have to know everything about something to know something about it.) Scientists are able to separate what they know from what they don't without just making something up to fill the gap. Filling in the gaps with faith-based assertions that have no basis in reality is a religious approach.

[asking]

Credendovidis wrote:

Asking : my compliments for your stamina, firmness, and clear explanations and argumentations.

Thanks!
Asking

[Credendovidis]

Hey John, I see that instead of sound, fact based arguments, you keep going after the person.

No Tom ! Fortunately I am not like you. All I did was informing them who you are and how you normally operate !

Tom : I welcome your presence here at AMHD. I also note that you were suspended from Answerway for aggressively attacking people there. Please be aware that they also suspend people here on AMHD !

By the way : when was the last time YOU provided "sound, fact based arguments" ???
Surely not when you posted that list of which you claimed it contained objective supporting evidence towards the existence of your "god".
I guess that if you ever did provide that, it must have been when you were still an atheist!!

:rolleyes:

·

[Tj3]

No Tom ! Fortunately I am not like you. All I did was informing them who you are and how you normally operate !

Heh heh heh, John, I think that everyone knows how you operate!

Tom : I welcome your presence here at AMHD. I also note that you were suspended from Answerway for aggressively attacking people there.

Actually, that is not true. You were, as we know, but the owner did not like me raising the question of inconsistent enforcement of the rules. Anyway, this is off-topic for this board. If you wish to discuss old times, PM would be the best way.

Please be aware that they also suspend people here on AMHD !

I know - speak to some of your old friends from AW who used to be on here ;)

[Tj3]

The research on this is so feasible now that I hesitate every time I write that we don't know how the first cells came into existence! We nearly do...which I suppose is bad news for you, since if those ideas become widely accepted as scientific dogma, it will be harder for you to make this argument.

You know, I have been in so many of these discussions, and the vast majority of time, the only answer that I get is that "it has been proven", or "there is a lot of evidence", but rarely does anyone actually try to provide any evidence of substance to substantiate claims such as this.

[asking]

You know, I have been in so many of these discussions, and the vast majority of time, the only answer that I get is that "it has been proven", or "there is a lot of evidence", but rarely does anyone actually try to provide any evidence of substance to substantiate claims such as this.

Well, I haven't discussed the origin of cells stuff, but I have discussed the evidence for evolution extensively on this forum. But I haven't got very good responses to actual science, and since this is, bafflingly, still the "religious discussions" board, I hesitate to get into it here. I'll start a separate thread sometime in Science called What is the Evidence for Evolution and we can take that up there. And maybe one for biogenesis as well. Would that be good?