If evolution is true, then obviously "Jesus" is not real.

I asked first so answer my question. Or is this your usual dodge to avoid
answering anything that challenges your world view?

 

Okay I read it, the bold type, and it says exactly what I meant it to say. wog
contradicted himself, i.e. first they're living (which they never were) and now
they aren't (which is atoms aren't alive).

 

What defacto statement. Evolution is little more than extrapolation with artistic renderings.

Who has proved abiogenesis wrong? No I. You maybe?
Bait and switch? Good try but there isn't one.

How do you believe evolution can take place without there first being life?
I'd like to know how you can explain that fairy tale. By the way, please don't
give the usual "science doesn't have all the answers" regurgitation. That is
the king of cop outs. Provide something that supports you opinion.

 

abiogenesis is a drawing room game that went out of fashion in the 1800's

 

Evolution is a proven theory.

I never claimed that abiogenesis has been proven wrong. You need to upgrade your reading comprehension.

Why would I provide support for something that I did not claim ? I never stated evolution could take place without there first being life.

Evolution is a proven theory. The idea that Jesus "was the God of Abraham" is a fairy tale.

 

"proven theory"? It's a theory which is more probable than not. But it is not an absolute truth. I think we tend to forget that it is a theory, which means it's a theory, not truth, Right?

We can only say it is more probable than not, plus there are many different things in that theory, not just one thing.

We have had theories in science that were later replaced by a new theory. So the first theory while it looked probable, turned out not to be.

What would seal the theory of evolution, is if we could produce a simple one cell living organism, completely new, from inorganics, and then watch it evolve into very complex organism. Since it was supposed to happen by chance and time, we could help it out quite a bit, in a lab. Afterall, what happened without intelligence being involved should be able to be reproduced with the scientific knowledge of today, which should be exponentially greater than randomness, chance and time. Intelligence should be able to bypass the great time needed by randomness and chance.

So where are the man created single cell organisms that are brand new, created from inorganics? Are we no better than a random happening, a chance?

 

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

 

Abiogenesis is not at all a pre-requisite of the theory of Evolution.
Biogenesis is not at all a pre-requisite of the theory of Evolution.
Alien seeding is not at all a pre-requisite of the theory of Evolution.

I would expect you to know that.

I don't know. I have never claimed to know. Science doesn't know NOR has it claimed to know.
I am aware of a number of hypotheses which the more reasonable of are being actively pursued by scientific experimentation.

I do not evade and am certainly not afraid to admit the limits of my knowledge and that of science.

Actually it consistently predicts the process of speciation throughout the history of life on this planet.

No wonder some theists don't "believe" in evolution. they have swallowed the misrepresentations of other theists as they attempt to defend scripture.

You are talking out of your hat. Here is a source that will hopefully assist you attaining understanding.


http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13091/creation-of-matter-in-the-big-bang

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/126504/when-they-say-that-the-universe-cooled-after-the-big-bang-where-did-the-heat-go


Naturally you didn't answer the original question. Exactly as I predicted.
Maybe I should dub it "theory of prunepicker" since it seems my original hypothesis is able to predict a prunepicker's behavior.

 

Evolution remains a theory (no laws can as yet be derived from it), while Jesus is at best an hypothesis.

 

LOL! Now that's funny. The truth be known abiogenesis is a thorn in the side of
many who refuse to fathom an alternative to their world view. Fred Hoyle was a
famous astrophysicist who had the courage to admit it shook his atheistic view.

- - - Updated - - -

A hypothesis doesn't have eye witnesses and historical background.

 

No it isn't.

You're the one who brought that up. My reading comprehension is fine
you truth factor isn't.

You dissed abiogenesis. Deal with it. Also you're the one who brought
up abiogenesis as being wrong. Not I.

Good grief.

 

Then please explain how lifeless matter, which you can't explain from whence it came,
could possibly produce life. Abiogenesis is very much a prerequisite for evolution.

Please, none of the "science doesn't have all the answers dodge", i.e. urls that
don't provide sufficient evidence.

Your lack of a knowledge of science is quite profound.

 

I don't doubt the man existed, despite the dearth of archeological evidence to that effect.
In fact there is only one contemporary non-biblical source mention of him. While Paul, the #2 guy the development of Christianity has numerous references.

OTOH, It is entirely hypothetical he was the off spring of Yahweh and Mary.

There is absolutely NO evidence other than the bible and stories documented decades after his supposed death that he performed ANY miracle let alone the ones attributed to him.

In fact, correct me if I am wrong but I believe NONE OF THE NEW TESTAMENTS AUTHORS had even met Jesus.
So the veracity of those "eyewitness" accounts might be a tad suspect considering human nature regarding the authors' EXTREMELY BIASED agendas and the "broken telephone" nature of the authors; sources.


And you still fail to answer the original question.

 

what part of 'we don't know' do you have the most trouble with? is it the belittling by inference you feel when people are honest and humble enough to happily admit they don't know? or is it that you think this is in the way of a school yard competition ... ie, that 'knowing' what you think you know is somehow better (and therefore a 'win') than not knowing?

the point you miss here, as always, is that you win nothing by engaging in the falsehood of pretending to know. no one on earth actually knows, so the only thing you gain by claiming you do is a reputation for dishonesty.

 

there were eyewitnesses (and an historical recording of) of the birth of the lord Buddha from the 'side' of his mother. there were eyewitnesses to the alien autopsies carried out in area 51. there were eyewitnesses and historical recordings of thousands of other magical and miraculous events around the world, since the beginning of recorded history. are you saying they're all true?

 

I do not know how lifeless matter could possibly produce life. Scientists are heavily involved in attempting to answer that specific question, with considerable progress in our understanding of biochemistry.

However, you apparently are not familiar with the definition of a prerequisite.

abiogenesis is not NECESSARILY a prerequisite as I pointed out by providing three possibilities of the "spark of life" hypothesis. Evolution is a theory about how LIFE transforms and evolves.

IT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO CLAIM OR EVEN HINTS AT HOW LIVING CELLS ORIGINATED.

So science doesn't have all the answers is now a dodge? am I to understand that you believe its not science if it can't answer a specific question to your satisfaction?

considering just the above demonstration of your scientific knowledge, I can completely understand your need for such a psychological projection.

 

Evolution and Abiogenesis are two separate things. Evolution is about how living species on planet earth have evolved. Abiogenesis is a "hypothesis" on how living things came into existence.

A hypothesis is something that is not yet proven. A theory is something that has been proven.

Evolution is not a hypothesis. It is a theory.

Evolution is simply how species change/evolve over time and we know this happens and we know a lot about why it happens.

There is a difference between a statement of fact "The sun rises in the east" and the theory on why the sun rises in the east.

Evolution is the statement of fact (species change over time). We know this (like the sun rising in the east) because of observation.

There are explanations of why this happens. We not have this completely figured out yet but most of it. How mutations happen and so on.

"WE KNOW MUTATIONS HAPPEN" this is evolution. Why it happens we can speculate on but the fact that this happens is a fact.

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis on how life came to be on planet earth. There are other hypothesis ... From a meteorite, From Aliens , From God,

 

You are such a disingenuous poster. You put words into peoples mouths and then when this is pointed out you try and dodge the issue rather than correcting your mistake.

It is one thing to make a mistake. Correct the mistake and get on with it. To wallow in a pit of denial and try to avoid responsibility for mistakes is the mark of a .... (you fill in the blank) .

 

Have you ever heard of a Liger? or a mule? they are both crosses, The mule is neither Horse nor donkey, The Liger is neither Lion nor tiger, True they are both types of cats, and/or equierians. but quitedifferent.

 

The great majority of Christians in this world believe that evolution is the explanation for how life is. Try another strawman.

 

No, that isn't obvious thothere are thos who say differently. I personally believe he was a person, and a strong believer, and a martyr to his cause.

 

Paul wasn't part of the development of Christianity. It was all Jesus.

Eye witness accounts were available. Whether or not your accept them
is your problem. Much like someone denying Homer wrote the Iliad.

They all met Jesus and walked with him except Paul who met Him on the road to
Damascus. I knew you weren't very knowledgeable of the Bible but the
statement you just made says you don't know even the basics.

Not true. That's what you want to accept.

I'm awaiting for you to answer the abiogenesis question that I asked first, i.e.
what caused life? Evolution can't happen without there first being life.

 

All of it. I'm not allowed to say that, why should you or anyone else be able
to?

You're being very dishonest in your claim. You know very well that "science
doesn't know all the answers" is the king of cop outs. Now you're refusing
to answer a simple question. It must be because it shakes your dogma to
acknowledge that life can't be created by lifeless matter.

 

What considerable progress? Would you please expound? And please don't use
some silly statement that I won't understand. We're in a discussion that I'm
considerable well versed.

Not true, I'm very, very familiar with what a prerequisite is. That's why I've been
asking for one. However, all I'm getting is a dodge, as with this following statement
you made:

They can't be verified. The spark of life had to have created life from something
other than life. How?

And evolution needs a prerequisite before it can take place. What was it?

Which makes abiogenesis all the more important to this discussion.

Yes.

No.

Just because I'm better educated in science than you, your posts have certainly shown
this to be the case, doesn't mean you get to make unqualified statements. If anyone
is relying upon such a psychological projection it's you and the others on this thread.

 

That's your modus operandi, not mine. Deal with it.