Evolution: The Deal Breaker (page 6)

cofty

we simply can't definitively say whether evolution was kickstarted by some random event or by an intelligent being.

So?

ttdtt

By the way - EVOLUTION is the explanation of the process by which different kinds of living organisms have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

Not how life came about.

Jehalapeno

I'd rather have unanswered questions than unquestionable answers.

It's unrealistic to expect all your existential questions to be answered at this moment in the stream of time. Which is why it's unreasonable to say "magic happened."

It's far more reasonable to admit, "I don't know," and be okay with not knowing.

Hadriel

No. Those of us who accept the fact of evolution have a testable answer that explains the last 3.8 billion years of life on earth.

...and I get this but if intelligence initiated life you must conclude that the evolution that ensued could very well be a result of that design.

In other words this proof could be proof of life by happenstance or by design.

Without the important piece of the initial driver I don't see how anyone can be absolute.

Hadriel

Just so you guys know I believe it to be rather convenient to not want to concede that because you can't explain the driver or abiogenesis that somehow it doesn't matter.

It does because if that catalyst was intelligent then you'd be left with intelligence cause evolutionary results.

Creationism has the very same problem. If you can't solve that puzzle you can't disprove that a single cataclysmic event cause a reactionary event which resulted in the chain of evolution starting.

if there was a reasonable explanation for self replicating RNA it might be more clear however as it stands there's simply no such animal unless I'm missing something.

TheLiberator

Hadriel: Just so you guys know I believe it to be rather convenient to not want to concede that because you can't explain the driver or abiogenesis that somehow it doesn't matter

Yes. You got that right. "Abiogenesis" is that magic word that turns a "nice" evolutionist into a bipolar monkey.

Evolution is irrelevant. Abiogenesis is the real issue. Have you read comments from those who believe in evolution and try to explain possibilities of abiogenesis? They remind me of junior high students who have an answer for EVERYTHING. Oh, and they remind of the Watchtower...apparently... most likely...obviously.. without a doubt... Evolution/ Abiogenesis theories is a book that you make up as it goes along. Such ones are in a bubble. The idea that nothing exists beyond your physical eyes is the essence of close mindedness.

God being the beginning is natural. We are hard wired to believe in a higher power that started the whole process. That is what verse 19 is all about.

Romans: 1: 19. because that which is known of God is revealed in them, for God revealed it to them. 20. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse."

Those words bring chills to me everytime. So powerful. So authoritive. So definitive. So natural.

Mephis

Just so you guys know I believe it to be rather convenient to not want to concede that because you can't explain the driver or abiogenesis that somehow it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter to evolution, the subject you started a thread on. It's a fascinating topic in its own right all the same.

Science doesn't work like a religion. Saying 'don't know' is the driver to try and find out. What's at the bottom of a black hole? We don't know. Therefore black holes don't exist? Or reason to fund research into finding out?

cofty

Evolution is irrelevant. Abiogenesis is the real issue

Classic god-of-the-gaps apologetics.

Every living thing evolved from a common ancestor over millions of years.

How can that fact be irrelevant?

Hadriel

As I said from the get go...I see evidence of evolution and/or adaptation

However its evidence does prove a catalyst by happenstance nor does it prove intelligence as the catalyst.

If you argue this you're not being realistic. Why? Because the driver is unknown.

You can have the believe that it was happenstance/chance however you cannot prove that catalyst anymore than a creationist can prove an intelligent being kicking it all off.

cofty

Because the driver is unknown.

The driver is natural selection.

Evolution: The Deal Breaker

Share this