[Tj3]

The problem is that you don't look at the evidence presented so it doesn't matter what I post.

I do. Post some and let's look at it.

There will never be enough evidence for evolution for your standards.

That is quite a concession on your part.

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.

I have.

[Tj3]

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.

[asking]

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.

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.

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.

[Tj3]

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.

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.

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.

[michealb]

I think this goes both ways..just saying.

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.
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.

[michealb]

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.

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.

[Tj3]

The difference betwen us that your 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.

Then why don't you simply admit that you have no idea how life started and how the first living cell came about?

[michealb]

Are you even reading what we type?

[Tj3]

Are you even reading what we type?

Yep - are you?

[asking]

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.

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.)

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.

[Tj3]

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.)

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?

[Tj3]

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...

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.

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.

[Credendovidis]

Funny ! That is just the thought I had about your evasive reply regarding your statements on the OSE for the existence of god.
Why don't YOU simply admit that you can't supply that?

John, I got a laugh when I first saw your tagline ""Credendovidis" translates into "I believe it as soon as I see it !"", because every time that I posted something in the past which disagreed with what you wanted to believe, you did one of two things - claim that you did not see it, or go after me. Now have a look at all your posts in this thread. :D No matter how many times something was posted, one of your first responses was to claim to not see it. Why should I waste my time when you will simply deny that you see it. Why do you try to distract from the question at hand? I think that we know. Now we are discussing the scientific basis for evolution, and I am sticking to the science of the issue - staying on the topic. Tom

"Why should I waste my time when you will simply deny that you see it ???"

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:

[Tj3]

"Why should I waste my time when you will simply deny that you see it ???"

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 !!! .

John, everyone can see your behaviour. If you were sincerely interested, you would have already responded to my postings.

[Credendovidis]

John, everyone can see your behaviour. If you were sincerely interested, you would have already responded to my postings.

Tom, everyone can see YOUR behavior. If you were sincere in having that OSE , you would have posted it on all Internet boards !

:D :rolleyes: :p :rolleyes: :D

·

[Tj3]

Tom, everyone can see YOUR behavior. If you were sincere in having that OSE , you would have posted it on all Internet boards !

:D :rolleyes: :p :rolleyes: :D

·

John, I do not go out and spam boards. Perhaps you do, but I do not.

I do note that you are choosing not to engage the scientific questions that I am raising with respect to evolution.

[Credendovidis]

John, I do not go out and spam boards. Perhaps you do, but I do not.

No Tom, neither do I, though you like to suggest that time and time again...
Almost as it you have no other - valid - arguments to support your own ideas.

I do note that you are choosing not to engage the scientific questions that I am raising with respect to evolution.

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.

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:

·

[Tj3]

No Tom, neither do I, though you like to suggest that time and time again...

I have seen otherwise,

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.

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.

So far you have yet to post anything but personal attacks in any case.

[N0help4u]

I have seen otherwise,

So far you have yet to post anything but personal attacks in any case.

EXACTLY WHY YOU SEE I DROPPED OUT OF THIS MYSELF!

[Credendovidis]

I have seen otherwise,

And I have seen you suggesting that same misrepresentation of reality time and time again...

... So far you have yet to post anything but personal attacks in any case.

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.

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:

·