Evolution Hole #1 - Origin of Life (page 4)

shadow

This is #1 which implies that another thread might be coming . . .

It is an attempt at full disclosure. Humans are notorious for slanting evidence to support their position and disregarding evidence to the contrary.

Hadriel

Humans are notorious for slanting evidence to support their position and disregarding evidence to the contrary.

Well if we take anything from this topic this should be it.

Anders Andersen

Do I pretend to understand this creator and how the creator originated? Not at all and why should humans expect to? What have humans discovered about our place in the universe? We can't even begin to comprehend the visible universe.

I'm glad you have this point of view.

Do you agree then, that given the fact that currently neither creationists nor those who accept the evidence for evoltution have a decent understanding of how life began, it's fair to not use that argument against the other side?

So, not understanding where God came from does not invalidate any evidence for His existence, and the fact that abiogenese is not currently understood is no evidence against evolution.

And in that case, please present evidence against evolution other than 'we don't know how life started'.

And maybe start presenting some evidence that support creation?

Island Man

The origin of life - abiogenesis - has nothing to do with the change in the gene pool over time, observed in populations of living species. Evolution has nothing to do with, and does not attempt in any way to address the question of the origin of life. You're conflating two different subjects together.

What you've done is as silly as someone trying to deny that it is possible to ride a bicycle and arguing that the biggest hole to the theory that it is possible to ride a bicycle is scientists inability to explain scientifically, the forces that keep a moving bicycle upright.

It's also like someone denying that a John Doe is human because they can't determine his origin - who his parents are. How foolish!

Presenting the lack of a definitive explanation for the origin of life as being a hole in the theory of evolution, only reveals a massive gaping hole in the OP's knowledge and/or intellectual honesty.

And bringing in the subject of the evolution of the universe is tantamount to the fallacy of equivocation. The word evolution as used of the universe is completely different to biological evolution. Biological evolution has to do with reproduction and genetics. The evolution of the universe has nothing to do with reproduction and passing on traits. The only thing they have in common is the common spelling of the world evolution. So just because the origin of the universe might be relevant to the subject of the universe's evolution does not mean that the origin of life has to be relevant to the subject of the evolution of life.

Island Man

[DUPLICATE POST]

wizzstick

This is #1 which implies that another thread might be coming

Try not to screw the next one up at the first hurdle.

Seriously - argue against evolution using empirical evidence, not different subjects.

sir82

Humans are notorious for slanting evidence to support their position and disregarding evidence to the contrary.

First reasonable thing you've posted on this thread.

Anders Andersen

BTW, regardless of everyone's position on the subject, I just love to be able to discuss this topic freely (as long as personal attacks and insults are left behind)

I can say whatever I want without fear of being shunned.

I love being out of the Borg :-D

Hadriel

With @Anders here you simply can't take a hard and fast position and feel satisfied that there is unequivocally no evidence of the contrary opinion.

If your honest about I just don't see where either side of the coin is absolute.

You may feel strongly one way or the other but I don't think that equates to an absolute position.

Honestly now that I've left I don't feel the need to be right as it were either. What if neither position is right?

cofty

Ridiculous title and OP that demonstrates a determination to misunderstand the subject.

Every living thing evolved from a common ancestor over millions of years - this is beyond sensible debate.

How biochemistry emerged from geochemistry is a different question. Whatever the answer proves to be will not affect the fact of evolution one iota.

Just for the sake of argument let's propose that god created LUCA and evolution did the rest.

Actually there has been some amazing progress in the field of abiogenesis. The most interesting ideas IMO relate to alkaline vents under the ocean. I might write up the details when I get time.

Your first thread in this series is 100% fail. Let's hope you have better ideas in mind for the rest of the series.

Evolution Hole #1 - Origin of Life

Share this