Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Note to Creationists

Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 6:55:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Note to Creationists: ABIOGENESIS =/= EVOLUTION!

A friend from church asks, "Ok, if evolution is true, how then did we get on earth?"

I do not know HOW many times I have heard the common misconception that evolution explains how life got on earth. Well, newsflash: IT DOESN'T! Evolution explains the DIVERSITY of life not the ORIGIN of life.

We did NOT come from monkeys

Here is what a friend from my old church said:

"OK LISTEN u r an embosil if u think tht evolution is true because Gods word never lies in the beginning GOD NOT charles darwin ok so u need to stop believing evolution and believe creation and ur creator the one who created u NOT A STUPID MONKEY"

This is so bad, AiG notes:

"In an evolutionary worldview, mankind did not evolve from apes but from an apelike ancestor, from which both humans and apes of today supposedly evolved."

http://www.answersingenesis.org...

Here are some good resources to clear up common misconceptions

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

(Sorry, as an honours biology student, I couldn't help but rant).
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
Zarathrusa
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 6:58:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If you want people to take evolution seriously, you have to have an explanation for abiogenesis. Of course, there are plenty- all of which are completely plausible.
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 6:59:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 6:58:22 PM, Zarathrusa wrote:
If you want people to take evolution seriously, you have to have an explanation for abiogenesis. Of course, there are plenty- all of which are completely plausible.

............................................________
....................................,.-‘"...................``~.,
.............................,.-"..................................."-.,
.........................,/...............................................":,
.....................,?......................................................\,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:"........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....}
...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../
...,,,___.\`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-"
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,...........................`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
inferno
Posts: 10,689
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 6:59:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 6:55:49 PM, Microsuck wrote:
Note to Creationists: ABIOGENESIS =/= EVOLUTION!

A friend from church asks, "Ok, if evolution is true, how then did we get on earth?"

I do not know HOW many times I have heard the common misconception that evolution explains how life got on earth. Well, newsflash: IT DOESN'T! Evolution explains the DIVERSITY of life not the ORIGIN of life.

We did NOT come from monkeys

Here is what a friend from my old church said:

"OK LISTEN u r an embosil if u think tht evolution is true because Gods word never lies in the beginning GOD NOT charles darwin ok so u need to stop believing evolution and believe creation and ur creator the one who created u NOT A STUPID MONKEY"

This is so bad, AiG notes:

"In an evolutionary worldview, mankind did not evolve from apes but from an apelike ancestor, from which both humans and apes of today supposedly evolved."

http://www.answersingenesis.org...

Here are some good resources to clear up common misconceptions

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

(Sorry, as an honours biology student, I couldn't help but rant).

No. We did not come from monkeys because the evolutionary process would be taking place as we speak.
According to them, we will look much different than we do today.
And monkeys and other primates like them, will also become human.
Zarathrusa
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 7:02:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 6:59:24 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 7/31/2012 6:58:22 PM, Zarathrusa wrote:
If you want people to take evolution seriously, you have to have an explanation for abiogenesis. Of course, there are plenty- all of which are completely plausible.

............................................________
....................................,.-‘"...................``~.,
.............................,.-"..................................."-.,
.........................,/...............................................":,
.....................,?......................................................\,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:"........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....}
...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../
...,,,___.\`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-"
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,...........................`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\

Life can't evolve if there is no life. However, the distinction of "life" is subjective and more than often irrelevant if you are advancing a theory of evolution that begins with stable molecular composition- in which mutations occur during the copying process.
Zarathrusa
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 7:06:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 6:59:40 PM, inferno wrote:
At 7/31/2012 6:55:49 PM, Microsuck wrote:
Note to Creationists: ABIOGENESIS =/= EVOLUTION!

A friend from church asks, "Ok, if evolution is true, how then did we get on earth?"

I do not know HOW many times I have heard the common misconception that evolution explains how life got on earth. Well, newsflash: IT DOESN'T! Evolution explains the DIVERSITY of life not the ORIGIN of life.

We did NOT come from monkeys

Here is what a friend from my old church said:

"OK LISTEN u r an embosil if u think tht evolution is true because Gods word never lies in the beginning GOD NOT charles darwin ok so u need to stop believing evolution and believe creation and ur creator the one who created u NOT A STUPID MONKEY"

This is so bad, AiG notes:

"In an evolutionary worldview, mankind did not evolve from apes but from an apelike ancestor, from which both humans and apes of today supposedly evolved."

http://www.answersingenesis.org...

Here are some good resources to clear up common misconceptions

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

(Sorry, as an honours biology student, I couldn't help but rant).

No. We did not come from monkeys because the evolutionary process would be taking place as we speak.

It is; take the very first humans who lived (about 100 000 years ago) and compare them to modern day humans in physical structure and psychology.

According to them, we will look much different than we do today.

Lol why?

And monkeys and other primates like them, will also become human.

If our current form is the best mutation for survival and reproduction then eventually monkeys will speciate into humans. However, it is possible that they go on a completely different (and possibly better) evolution route.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 7:14:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 6:55:49 PM, Microsuck wrote:
Note to Creationists: ABIOGENESIS =/= EVOLUTION!

A friend from church asks, "Ok, if evolution is true, how then did we get on earth?"

I do not know HOW many times I have heard the common misconception that evolution explains how life got on earth. Well, newsflash: IT DOESN'T! Evolution explains the DIVERSITY of life not the ORIGIN of life.

We did NOT come from monkeys

Here is what a friend from my old church said:

"OK LISTEN u r an embosil if u think tht evolution is true because Gods word never lies in the beginning GOD NOT charles darwin ok so u need to stop believing evolution and believe creation and ur creator the one who created u NOT A STUPID MONKEY"

This is so bad, AiG notes:

"In an evolutionary worldview, mankind did not evolve from apes but from an apelike ancestor, from which both humans and apes of today supposedly evolved."

http://www.answersingenesis.org...

Here are some good resources to clear up common misconceptions

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

(Sorry, as an honours biology student, I couldn't help but rant).

I reject Evolution, myself, but you ought not throw an insult at someone (e.g. imbecile) if you can't even spell it, especially one that questions the intelligence of the person you're trying to insult.
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 7:23:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 7:14:40 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/31/2012 6:55:49 PM, Microsuck wrote:
Note to Creationists: ABIOGENESIS =/= EVOLUTION!

A friend from church asks, "Ok, if evolution is true, how then did we get on earth?"

I do not know HOW many times I have heard the common misconception that evolution explains how life got on earth. Well, newsflash: IT DOESN'T! Evolution explains the DIVERSITY of life not the ORIGIN of life.

We did NOT come from monkeys

Here is what a friend from my old church said:

"OK LISTEN u r an embosil if u think tht evolution is true because Gods word never lies in the beginning GOD NOT charles darwin ok so u need to stop believing evolution and believe creation and ur creator the one who created u NOT A STUPID MONKEY"

This is so bad, AiG notes:

"In an evolutionary worldview, mankind did not evolve from apes but from an apelike ancestor, from which both humans and apes of today supposedly evolved."

http://www.answersingenesis.org...

Here are some good resources to clear up common misconceptions

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

(Sorry, as an honours biology student, I couldn't help but rant).

I reject Evolution, myself, but you ought not throw an insult at someone (e.g. imbecile) if you can't even spell it, especially one that questions the intelligence of the person you're trying to insult.

True that!
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 8:29:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 7:14:40 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/31/2012 6:55:49 PM, Microsuck wrote:
Note to Creationists: ABIOGENESIS =/= EVOLUTION!

A friend from church asks, "Ok, if evolution is true, how then did we get on earth?"

I do not know HOW many times I have heard the common misconception that evolution explains how life got on earth. Well, newsflash: IT DOESN'T! Evolution explains the DIVERSITY of life not the ORIGIN of life.

We did NOT come from monkeys

Here is what a friend from my old church said:

"OK LISTEN u r an embosil if u think tht evolution is true because Gods word never lies in the beginning GOD NOT charles darwin ok so u need to stop believing evolution and believe creation and ur creator the one who created u NOT A STUPID MONKEY"

This is so bad, AiG notes:

"In an evolutionary worldview, mankind did not evolve from apes but from an apelike ancestor, from which both humans and apes of today supposedly evolved."

http://www.answersingenesis.org...

Here are some good resources to clear up common misconceptions

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

(Sorry, as an honours biology student, I couldn't help but rant).

I reject Evolution, myself, but you ought not throw an insult at someone (e.g. imbecile) if you can't even spell it, especially one that questions the intelligence of the person you're trying to insult.

The Fool: Hey, . but spelling is of memory not of processing. Secondly, can you demonstrate why it is not a valid historical account?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 8:32:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 7:06:43 PM, Zarathrusa wrote:
At 7/31/2012 6:59:40 PM, inferno wrote:
At 7/31/2012 6:55:49 PM, Microsuck wrote:
Note to Creationists: ABIOGENESIS =/= EVOLUTION!

A friend from church asks, "Ok, if evolution is true, how then did we get on earth?"

I do not know HOW many times I have heard the common misconception that evolution explains how life got on earth. Well, newsflash: IT DOESN'T! Evolution explains the DIVERSITY of life not the ORIGIN of life.

We did NOT come from monkeys

Here is what a friend from my old church said:

"OK LISTEN u r an embosil if u think tht evolution is true because Gods word never lies in the beginning GOD NOT charles darwin ok so u need to stop believing evolution and believe creation and ur creator the one who created u NOT A STUPID MONKEY"

This is so bad, AiG notes:

"In an evolutionary worldview, mankind did not evolve from apes but from an apelike ancestor, from which both humans and apes of today supposedly evolved."

http://www.answersingenesis.org...

Here are some good resources to clear up common misconceptions

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

(Sorry, as an honours biology student, I couldn't help but rant).

No. We did not come from monkeys because the evolutionary process would be taking place as we speak.

It is; take the very first humans who lived (about 100 000 years ago) and compare them to modern day humans in physical structure and psychology.

According to them, we will look much different than we do today.

Lol why?


And monkeys and other primates like them, will also become human.

If our current form is the best mutation for survival and reproduction then eventually monkeys will speciate into humans. However, it is possible that they go on a completely different (and possibly better) evolution route.

The Fool: if you are saying this things you dont even know what you are arguing against. I think people have been teaching others false representions of evolution. There is no way you could think this.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Zarathrusa
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 9:18:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 8:32:33 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/31/2012 7:06:43 PM, Zarathrusa wrote:
At 7/31/2012 6:59:40 PM, inferno wrote:
At 7/31/2012 6:55:49 PM, Microsuck wrote:
Note to Creationists: ABIOGENESIS =/= EVOLUTION!

A friend from church asks, "Ok, if evolution is true, how then did we get on earth?"

I do not know HOW many times I have heard the common misconception that evolution explains how life got on earth. Well, newsflash: IT DOESN'T! Evolution explains the DIVERSITY of life not the ORIGIN of life.

We did NOT come from monkeys

Here is what a friend from my old church said:

"OK LISTEN u r an embosil if u think tht evolution is true because Gods word never lies in the beginning GOD NOT charles darwin ok so u need to stop believing evolution and believe creation and ur creator the one who created u NOT A STUPID MONKEY"

This is so bad, AiG notes:

"In an evolutionary worldview, mankind did not evolve from apes but from an apelike ancestor, from which both humans and apes of today supposedly evolved."

http://www.answersingenesis.org...

Here are some good resources to clear up common misconceptions

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

(Sorry, as an honours biology student, I couldn't help but rant).

No. We did not come from monkeys because the evolutionary process would be taking place as we speak.

It is; take the very first humans who lived (about 100 000 years ago) and compare them to modern day humans in physical structure and psychology.

According to them, we will look much different than we do today.

Lol why?


And monkeys and other primates like them, will also become human.

If our current form is the best mutation for survival and reproduction then eventually monkeys will speciate into humans. However, it is possible that they go on a completely different (and possibly better) evolution route.

The Fool: if you are saying this things you dont even know what you are arguing against. I think people have been teaching others false representions of evolution. There is no way you could think this.

Precisely which part? Everything I said is pretty much fact.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 9:34:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 6:58:22 PM, Zarathrusa wrote:
If you want people to take evolution seriously, you have to have an explanation for abiogenesis. Of course, there are plenty- all of which are completely plausible.

You don't have to have an explanation for abiogenesis to take evolution seriously. Evolution happens to life, regardless of how life got there. Evolution is completely agnostic to the origin of life.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 10:41:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 6:59:40 PM, inferno wrote:
At 7/31/2012 6:55:49 PM, Microsuck wrote:
Note to Creationists: ABIOGENESIS =/= EVOLUTION!

A friend from church asks, "Ok, if evolution is true, how then did we get on earth?"

I do not know HOW many times I have heard the common misconception that evolution explains how life got on earth. Well, newsflash: IT DOESN'T! Evolution explains the DIVERSITY of life not the ORIGIN of life.

We did NOT come from monkeys

Here is what a friend from my old church said:

"OK LISTEN u r an embosil if u think tht evolution is true because Gods word never lies in the beginning GOD NOT charles darwin ok so u need to stop believing evolution and believe creation and ur creator the one who created u NOT A STUPID MONKEY"

This is so bad, AiG notes:

"In an evolutionary worldview, mankind did not evolve from apes but from an apelike ancestor, from which both humans and apes of today supposedly evolved."

http://www.answersingenesis.org...

Here are some good resources to clear up common misconceptions

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

(Sorry, as an honours biology student, I couldn't help but rant).

No. We did not come from monkeys because the evolutionary process would be taking place as we speak.
According to them, we will look much different than we do today.
And monkeys and other primates like them, will also become human.

The Fool: no this doesn't mean that. Evolution progresses from the past model. They are split in another way. And we have gone in another direction. Only the shared ancestor could have the change to become either or based on thier enviroment. Its the habitat and surval strategies which seperated us onto difference paths.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 10:49:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 9:18:05 PM, Zarathrusa wrote:
At 7/31/2012 8:32:33 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/31/2012 7:06:43 PM, Zarathrusa wrote:
At 7/31/2012 6:59:40 PM, inferno wrote:
At 7/31/2012 6:55:49 PM, Microsuck wrote:
Note to Creationists: ABIOGENESIS =/= EVOLUTION!

A friend from church asks, "Ok, if evolution is true, how then did we get on earth?"

I do not know HOW many times I have heard the common misconception that evolution explains how life got on earth. Well, newsflash: IT DOESN'T! Evolution explains the DIVERSITY of life not the ORIGIN of life.

We did NOT come from monkeys

Here is what a friend from my old church said:

"OK LISTEN u r an embosil if u think tht evolution is true because Gods word never lies in the beginning GOD NOT charles darwin ok so u need to stop believing evolution and believe creation and ur creator the one who created u NOT A STUPID MONKEY"

This is so bad, AiG notes:

"In an evolutionary worldview, mankind did not evolve from apes but from an apelike ancestor, from which both humans and apes of today supposedly evolved."

http://www.answersingenesis.org...

Here are some good resources to clear up common misconceptions

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

(Sorry, as an honours biology student, I couldn't help but rant).

No. We did not come from monkeys because the evolutionary process would be taking place as we speak.

It is; take the very first humans who lived (about 100 000 years ago) and compare them to modern day humans in physical structure and psychology.

According to them, we will look much different than we do today.

Lol why?


And monkeys and other primates like them, will also become human.

If our current form is the best mutation for survival and reproduction then eventually monkeys will speciate into humans. However, it is possible that they go on a completely different (and possibly better) evolution route.

The Fool: Evolution doesn work like that. Its not a fact. Its ignorance. YOu have been lied to. Insects survive for maybe a day, but they are around because they just keep reproducing in masses Its not about survical of the fittest but rather species survive as a whole by being able to reproduce.

The Fool: if you are saying this things you dont even know what you are arguing against. I think people have been teaching others false representions of evolution. There is no way you could think this.

Precisely which part? Everything I said is pretty much fact.

The Fool: The first problem I am getting at is that you don't have even know the necessary facts to even know any better.

It is; take the very first humans who lived (about 100 000 years ago) and compare them to modern day humans in physical structure and psychology.

The Fool: 100 000yrs defeats creationalism. ANd nobody has any justifcation to reinterpated Gods words.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Zarathrusa
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 8:47:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 10:49:45 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/31/2012 9:18:05 PM, Zarathrusa wrote:
At 7/31/2012 8:32:33 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/31/2012 7:06:43 PM, Zarathrusa wrote:
At 7/31/2012 6:59:40 PM, inferno wrote:
At 7/31/2012 6:55:49 PM, Microsuck wrote:
Note to Creationists: ABIOGENESIS =/= EVOLUTION!

A friend from church asks, "Ok, if evolution is true, how then did we get on earth?"

I do not know HOW many times I have heard the common misconception that evolution explains how life got on earth. Well, newsflash: IT DOESN'T! Evolution explains the DIVERSITY of life not the ORIGIN of life.

We did NOT come from monkeys

Here is what a friend from my old church said:

"OK LISTEN u r an embosil if u think tht evolution is true because Gods word never lies in the beginning GOD NOT charles darwin ok so u need to stop believing evolution and believe creation and ur creator the one who created u NOT A STUPID MONKEY"

This is so bad, AiG notes:

"In an evolutionary worldview, mankind did not evolve from apes but from an apelike ancestor, from which both humans and apes of today supposedly evolved."

http://www.answersingenesis.org...

Here are some good resources to clear up common misconceptions

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

(Sorry, as an honours biology student, I couldn't help but rant).

No. We did not come from monkeys because the evolutionary process would be taking place as we speak.

It is; take the very first humans who lived (about 100 000 years ago) and compare them to modern day humans in physical structure and psychology.

According to them, we will look much different than we do today.

Lol why?


And monkeys and other primates like them, will also become human.

If our current form is the best mutation for survival and reproduction then eventually monkeys will speciate into humans. However, it is possible that they go on a completely different (and possibly better) evolution route.

The Fool: Evolution doesn work like that. Its not a fact. Its ignorance. YOu have been lied to. Insects survive for maybe a day, but they are around because they just keep reproducing in masses Its not about survical of the fittest but rather species survive as a whole by being able to reproduce.

The main driving force in evolution is not the survival of the species but the survival of the gene. Evolution happens at the genomic level and preserving the mutated gene is the only way that a species can speciate and/or evolve.

Also, most insects live more than a day.

The Fool: if you are saying this things you dont even know what you are arguing against. I think people have been teaching others false representions of evolution. There is no way you could think this.

Precisely which part? Everything I said is pretty much fact.

The Fool: The first problem I am getting at is that you don't have even know the necessary facts to even know any better.

It is; take the very first humans who lived (about 100 000 years ago) and compare them to modern day humans in physical structure and psychology.

The Fool: 100 000yrs defeats creationalism. ANd nobody has any justifcation to reinterpated Gods words.

I'm not a creationist.....
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 12:44:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 6:58:22 PM, Zarathrusa wrote:
If you want people to take evolution seriously, you have to have an explanation for abiogenesis. Of course, there are plenty- all of which are completely plausible.

But wait, Adam was made from the dust and dust is non living. Therefore life (Adam) came from non-life (dust). We all believe in abiogenesis. You just don't realize it.

That aside, life evolving from non-life is not at all a neccessary belief in evolution. Please refrain from being an idiot.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 12:46:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 12:44:19 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/31/2012 6:58:22 PM, Zarathrusa wrote:
If you want people to take evolution seriously, you have to have an explanation for abiogenesis. Of course, there are plenty- all of which are completely plausible.

But wait, Adam was made from the dust and dust is non living. Therefore life (Adam) came from non-life (dust). We all believe in abiogenesis. You just don't realize it.

That aside, life evolving from non-life is not at all a neccessary belief in evolution. Please refrain from being an idiot.

I need to check myself. That was completely uncalled for as well as untrue. I appologize.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Zarathrusa
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 1:20:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 12:44:19 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/31/2012 6:58:22 PM, Zarathrusa wrote:
If you want people to take evolution seriously, you have to have an explanation for abiogenesis. Of course, there are plenty- all of which are completely plausible.

But wait, Adam was made from the dust and dust is non living. Therefore life (Adam) came from non-life (dust). We all believe in abiogenesis. You just don't realize it.

That aside, life evolving from non-life is not at all a neccessary belief in evolution. Please refrain from being an idiot.

If you trace back evolution far enough, then you get to a point in which non-life (molecular compounds) evolved into living cells. The distinction of life by itself is somewhat fuzzy but at a specific point- and therefore mutation- life was created from molecular compounds.

If you don't believe in abiogenesis, then there is no way that non-life could have evolved into life. Please refrain from being an idiot?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 2:13:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 1:20:01 PM, Zarathrusa wrote:
At 8/1/2012 12:44:19 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/31/2012 6:58:22 PM, Zarathrusa wrote:
If you want people to take evolution seriously, you have to have an explanation for abiogenesis. Of course, there are plenty- all of which are completely plausible.

But wait, Adam was made from the dust and dust is non living. Therefore life (Adam) came from non-life (dust). We all believe in abiogenesis. You just don't realize it.

That aside, life evolving from non-life is not at all a neccessary belief in evolution. Please refrain from being an idiot.

If you trace back evolution far enough, then you get to a point in which non-life (molecular compounds) evolved into living cells. The distinction of life by itself is somewhat fuzzy but at a specific point- and therefore mutation- life was created from molecular compounds.

If you don't believe in abiogenesis, then there is no way that non-life could have evolved into life. Please refrain from being an idiot?

Once you get to non-life, you are no longer talking about evolution. Evolution starts with life. Before that is irrelevant (to evolution).
Zarathrusa
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 2:26:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 2:13:25 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 8/1/2012 1:20:01 PM, Zarathrusa wrote:
At 8/1/2012 12:44:19 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/31/2012 6:58:22 PM, Zarathrusa wrote:
If you want people to take evolution seriously, you have to have an explanation for abiogenesis. Of course, there are plenty- all of which are completely plausible.

But wait, Adam was made from the dust and dust is non living. Therefore life (Adam) came from non-life (dust). We all believe in abiogenesis. You just don't realize it.

That aside, life evolving from non-life is not at all a neccessary belief in evolution. Please refrain from being an idiot.

If you trace back evolution far enough, then you get to a point in which non-life (molecular compounds) evolved into living cells. The distinction of life by itself is somewhat fuzzy but at a specific point- and therefore mutation- life was created from molecular compounds.

If you don't believe in abiogenesis, then there is no way that non-life could have evolved into life. Please refrain from being an idiot?

Once you get to non-life, you are no longer talking about evolution. Evolution starts with life. Before that is irrelevant (to evolution).

Not at all. Evolution also happens in molecular structures that can copy themselves (Replicator Theory). The molecules form stable structures which copy themselves into identical copies. Sometimes, mistakes are made during the copying process (mutation) and depending on whether they are positive or negative, a new version of the molecules forms which can compete for scarce resources (primeval soup) better. Eventually, better types of molecules will evolve which leads to "life."
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 2:33:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 6:58:22 PM, Zarathrusa wrote:
If you want people to take evolution seriously, you have to have an explanation for abiogenesis. Of course, there are plenty- all of which are completely plausible.:

But one has nothing to do with the other, is what he's pointing out. Just because we don't/know with empirical certainty how life FIRST began does not in any way, shape, or form affect what we do know after that point.

Simple illustration: Detectives come upon a scene of what appears to be a dead woman laying in a field. The coroners office confirms that she is in fact dead, not merely sleeping or comatose. But the detectives are mystified as to how she died.

But it's important to note that just because you don't know how a woman died in a field doesn't mean that you don't know whether or not she's dead.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 2:35:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 2:26:53 PM, Zarathrusa wrote:
At 8/1/2012 2:13:25 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 8/1/2012 1:20:01 PM, Zarathrusa wrote:
At 8/1/2012 12:44:19 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/31/2012 6:58:22 PM, Zarathrusa wrote:
If you want people to take evolution seriously, you have to have an explanation for abiogenesis. Of course, there are plenty- all of which are completely plausible.

But wait, Adam was made from the dust and dust is non living. Therefore life (Adam) came from non-life (dust). We all believe in abiogenesis. You just don't realize it.

That aside, life evolving from non-life is not at all a neccessary belief in evolution. Please refrain from being an idiot.

If you trace back evolution far enough, then you get to a point in which non-life (molecular compounds) evolved into living cells. The distinction of life by itself is somewhat fuzzy but at a specific point- and therefore mutation- life was created from molecular compounds.

If you don't believe in abiogenesis, then there is no way that non-life could have evolved into life. Please refrain from being an idiot?

Once you get to non-life, you are no longer talking about evolution. Evolution starts with life. Before that is irrelevant (to evolution).

Not at all. Evolution also happens in molecular structures that can copy themselves (Replicator Theory). The molecules form stable structures which copy themselves into identical copies. Sometimes, mistakes are made during the copying process (mutation) and depending on whether they are positive or negative, a new version of the molecules forms which can compete for scarce resources (primeval soup) better. Eventually, better types of molecules will evolve which leads to "life."

At which point we are simply equivocating when we say "evolution." The Theory of Evolution in the field of biology strictly pertains to already living organisms.

While the principles in the theory may be applicable to other areas involving non-life the fact remains: regardless of how life got here (primordial soup, primordial sandwich, pansermia, god) the principles of the Theory of Evolution apply in full force. They don't change, nor are invalidated, simply because we don't know the full details of how live originated.

Similarly, the principles of Chemistry aren't invalidated by not knowing how atoms came to be. Yes, we know how atoms came to be now but that wasn't always the case. That didn't prevent us from developing the field of Chemistry. Chemistry is the rules that apply to atoms regardless of how they got there. Likewise, Evolution is the rules that apply to life, regardless of how it got there.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 2:41:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If you trace back evolution far enough, then you get to a point in which non-life (molecular compounds) evolved into living cells. The distinction of life by itself is somewhat fuzzy but at a specific point- and therefore mutation- life was created from molecular compounds.

If you don't believe in abiogenesis, then there is no way that non-life could have evolved into life.:

Everybody gets that part. It's mystifying, and everyone wants to know how it all came to be. The problem is that in the absence of clear evidence, many people simply insert God as the answer, which is just as improvable as inorganic matter inexplicably becoming organic matter.

So everyone is right back to where we started. For now, "we don't presently know" is just going to have to suffice.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 4:14:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 6:59:40 PM, inferno wrote:
At 7/31/2012 6:55:49 PM, Microsuck wrote:
Note to Creationists: ABIOGENESIS =/= EVOLUTION!

A friend from church asks, "Ok, if evolution is true, how then did we get on earth?"

I do not know HOW many times I have heard the common misconception that evolution explains how life got on earth. Well, newsflash: IT DOESN'T! Evolution explains the DIVERSITY of life not the ORIGIN of life.

We did NOT come from monkeys

Here is what a friend from my old church said:

"OK LISTEN u r an embosil if u think tht evolution is true because Gods word never lies in the beginning GOD NOT charles darwin ok so u need to stop believing evolution and believe creation and ur creator the one who created u NOT A STUPID MONKEY"

This is so bad, AiG notes:

"In an evolutionary worldview, mankind did not evolve from apes but from an apelike ancestor, from which both humans and apes of today supposedly evolved."

http://www.answersingenesis.org...

Here are some good resources to clear up common misconceptions

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

(Sorry, as an honours biology student, I couldn't help but rant).

No. We did not come from monkeys because the evolutionary process would be taking place as we speak.
According to them, we will look much different than we do today.
No.
And monkeys and other primates like them, will also become human.
This is a common misconception amongst creationists.
I've included a video about Richard Dawkins bringing light onto a subject obscured by renowned gadfly Stephen Baldwin.
turn down for h'what
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 11:36:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 1:20:01 PM, Zarathrusa wrote:
At 8/1/2012 12:44:19 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/31/2012 6:58:22 PM, Zarathrusa wrote:
If you want people to take evolution seriously, you have to have an explanation for abiogenesis. Of course, there are plenty- all of which are completely plausible.

But wait, Adam was made from the dust and dust is non living. Therefore life (Adam) came from non-life (dust). We all believe in abiogenesis. You just don't realize it.

That aside, life evolving from non-life is not at all a neccessary belief in evolution. Please refrain from being an idiot.

If you trace back evolution far enough, then you get to a point in which non-life (molecular compounds) evolved into living cells. The distinction of life by itself is somewhat fuzzy but at a specific point- and therefore mutation- life was created from molecular compounds.

No. The very beginning of life could have been created with all post-life evolving from the first life.

If you don't believe in abiogenesis, then there is no way that non-life could have evolved into life.

Almost everyone believes life came from non-life. They just disagree if the first life was evolved or created.

Please refrain from being an idiot?

I actually misread your post, which was improper and hasty. I apologized imediately afterwards if you didn't see it
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 5:21:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 6:59:40 PM, inferno wrote:
At 7/31/2012 6:55:49 PM, Microsuck wrote:
Note to Creationists: ABIOGENESIS =/= EVOLUTION!

A friend from church asks, "Ok, if evolution is true, how then did we get on earth?"

I do not know HOW many times I have heard the common misconception that evolution explains how life got on earth. Well, newsflash: IT DOESN'T! Evolution explains the DIVERSITY of life not the ORIGIN of life.

We did NOT come from monkeys

Here is what a friend from my old church said:

"OK LISTEN u r an embosil if u think tht evolution is true because Gods word never lies in the beginning GOD NOT charles darwin ok so u need to stop believing evolution and believe creation and ur creator the one who created u NOT A STUPID MONKEY"

This is so bad, AiG notes:

"In an evolutionary worldview, mankind did not evolve from apes but from an apelike ancestor, from which both humans and apes of today supposedly evolved."

http://www.answersingenesis.org...

Here are some good resources to clear up common misconceptions

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

(Sorry, as an honours biology student, I couldn't help but rant).

No. We did not come from monkeys because the evolutionary process would be taking place as we speak.

It is.

According to them, we will look much different than we do today.
And monkeys and other primates like them, will also become human.

Absolutely not. Let me just clear the whole monkey issue up right now- the primates that we see today evolved from the same ancestor that humans did. WE DID NOT EVOLVE FROM THE PRIMATES OF TODAY. They are descendants of past primates, just like we are.

Monkeys are and always have been evolving, just like humans.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2012 6:43:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 6:55:49 PM, Microsuck wrote:
Note to Creationists: ABIOGENESIS =/= EVOLUTION!

A friend from church asks, "Ok, if evolution is true, how then did we get on earth?"

I do not know HOW many times I have heard the common misconception that evolution explains how life got on earth. Well, newsflash: IT DOESN'T! Evolution explains the DIVERSITY of life not the ORIGIN of life.

We did NOT come from monkeys

Here is what a friend from my old church said:

"OK LISTEN u r an embosil if u think tht evolution is true because Gods word never lies in the beginning GOD NOT charles darwin ok so u need to stop believing evolution and believe creation and ur creator the one who created u NOT A STUPID MONKEY"

This is so bad, AiG notes:

"In an evolutionary worldview, mankind did not evolve from apes but from an apelike ancestor, from which both humans and apes of today supposedly evolved."

http://www.answersingenesis.org...

Here are some good resources to clear up common misconceptions

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

(Sorry, as an honours biology student, I couldn't help but rant).

I hate to be nitpicky, but this is something of a hot button for me, and as an honor student, I think it's important for you to understand this, so I'm going to be nitpicky and challenge your contention.

I think that as far as the creationism/evolution debate goes, it is a self defeating intellectual dodge of a very important issue, it's a "mincing of words" distraction at best, and a gross misrepresentation of the theory at worst. Abiogenesis is absolutely implied by the theory of evolution and to deny that is to deny the unity of science and the associated profound implications of the theory of evolution, in the end, it seriously weakens the evolution argument.

What makes the theory of evolution so important is that it is the great unifying principle of biology, as powerful a model to biology as Newton's model was to physics. The conceptual framework of the theory of evolution makes sense of an astoundingly wide range of scientific facts and it does it in a magnificent and comprehensive way, that is its strength and the primary reasoning behind its scientific validation. It provides a principle of unity, a framework by which science can attempt to explain, to unify, and to order, a vast amount of disparate data into a consistent whole providing tremendous coherence and clarity. To deny evolution you must bring into question the entire interwoven fabric of scientific research, in effect, denying its direct implication of abiogenesis does the same thing.

Consequently, the denial of the theory of Evolution requires the concomitant denial of an astounding range of scientific disciplines, not just the disciplines of geology, paleontology, archeology, radiometric dating, genetics, and zoology but also such fundamental disciplines as physics, astronomy, astrophysics, chemistry, biochemistry, geophysics, biology, botany, microbiology, and meteorology, cosmology, and many others. Because of the interrelated aspect of the sciences you can't really propose that the theory evolution is false without being fundamentally anti-scientific. You can certainly contend that the theory of evolution is incomplete, but nobody claims it is complete. The theory has had such a profound impact on the entire world of science that if you could in fact, deny the theory of evolution, it would, in effect, unravel the world of science.

The theory of evolution has profoundly expanded since Darwin wrote "Origin of Species", the book wasn't even about the subject of its title, it was really only about the evolution of species, the title was only implied by the theory, in the same way that abiogenesis is implied by the theory. It's extrapolated implications were used to title the book, and if you can't give it reference to abiogenesis, then you can't really give it reference to "speciation" either. Its conceptual framework is what is most important, and consequently, its power as a theoretical construct regarding how we look at the world and what date we include has continued to increase in scope till it is no longer just a theory of biology, it is much more than that. We now apply the overriding concept on a cosmic scale to talk about the evolution of the universe, it s power and significance as a scientific theory comes from the manner of looking at the big picture against long term time frames, it is comprehensive by its very nature which is why it has had such a revolutionary effect on the entire scientific world.

I just don't think it serves the debate to deny that, exempting abiogenesis may come in handy at certain points in a debate, but in effect, it's a dishonest tactic that diminishes the theory and weakens the argument.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2012 6:59:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
@Side:

That was a well written and enpassioned post. While you have valid points vis-a-vis arbirary rejection of specific theories at the end of the day the statement that evolution implies abiogenesis is not founded.

Evolution happens wherever there is life. Evolution happens regardless of how that life got there. Yes, you're right in a sort of "meta" sense, in that denying abiogenesis is to deny the scientific process and, therefore throws the baby out with the bath water, but that's out of the scope of the discussion.

It isn't dishonest or mincing of words to separate and distinguish the two, especially given the fact that scientific disciplines are already so divided.

The fact is, evolution applies to life, regardless of how life arrived on the scene. That's just the way it is.

http://talkorigins.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2012 8:07:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/4/2012 6:43:15 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 7/31/2012 6:55:49 PM, Microsuck wrote:
Note to Creationists: ABIOGENESIS =/= EVOLUTION!

A friend from church asks, "Ok, if evolution is true, how then did we get on earth?"

I do not know HOW many times I have heard the common misconception that evolution explains how life got on earth. Well, newsflash: IT DOESN'T! Evolution explains the DIVERSITY of life not the ORIGIN of life.

We did NOT come from monkeys

Here is what a friend from my old church said:

"OK LISTEN u r an embosil if u think tht evolution is true because Gods word never lies in the beginning GOD NOT charles darwin ok so u need to stop believing evolution and believe creation and ur creator the one who created u NOT A STUPID MONKEY"

This is so bad, AiG notes:

"In an evolutionary worldview, mankind did not evolve from apes but from an apelike ancestor, from which both humans and apes of today supposedly evolved."

http://www.answersingenesis.org...

Here are some good resources to clear up common misconceptions

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

(Sorry, as an honours biology student, I couldn't help but rant).

I hate to be nitpicky, but this is something of a hot button for me, and as an honor student, I think it's important for you to understand this, so I'm going to be nitpicky and challenge your contention.

I think that as far as the creationism/evolution debate goes, it is a self defeating intellectual dodge of a very important issue, it's a "mincing of words" distraction at best, and a gross misrepresentation of the theory at worst. Abiogenesis is absolutely implied by the theory of evolution and to deny that is to deny the unity of science and the associated profound implications of the theory of evolution, in the end, it seriously weakens the evolution argument.

What makes the theory of evolution so important is that it is the great unifying principle of biology, as powerful a model to biology as Newton's model was to physics. The conceptual framework of the theory of evolution makes sense of an astoundingly wide range of scientific facts and it does it in a magnificent and comprehensive way, that is its strength and the primary reasoning behind its scientific validation. It provides a principle of unity, a framework by which science can attempt to explain, to unify, and to order, a vast amount of disparate data into a consistent whole providing tremendous coherence and clarity. To deny evolution you must bring into question the entire interwoven fabric of scientific research, in effect, denying its direct implication of abiogenesis does the same thing.

Consequently, the denial of the theory of Evolution requires the concomitant denial of an astounding range of scientific disciplines, not just the disciplines of geology, paleontology, archeology, radiometric dating, genetics, and zoology but also such fundamental disciplines as physics, astronomy, astrophysics, chemistry, biochemistry, geophysics, biology, botany, microbiology, and meteorology, cosmology, and many others. Because of the interrelated aspect of the sciences you can't really propose that the theory evolution is false without being fundamentally anti-scientific. You can certainly contend that the theory of evolution is incomplete, but nobody claims it is complete. The theory has had such a profound impact on the entire world of science that if you could in fact, deny the theory of evolution, it would, in effect, unravel the world of science.

The theory of evolution has profoundly expanded since Darwin wrote "Origin of Species", the book wasn't even about the subject of its title, it was really only about the evolution of species, the title was only implied by the theory, in the same way that abiogenesis is implied by the theory. It's extrapolated implications were used to title the book, and if you can't give it reference to abiogenesis, then you can't really give it reference to "speciation" either. Its conceptual framework is what is most important, and consequently, its power as a theoretical construct regarding how we look at the world and what date we include has continued to increase in scope till it is no longer just a theory of biology, it is much more than that. We now apply the overriding concept on a cosmic scale to talk about the evolution of the universe, it s power and significance as a scientific theory comes from the manner of looking at the big picture against long term time frames, it is comprehensive by its very nature which is why it has had such a revolutionary effect on the entire scientific world.

I just don't think it serves the debate to deny that, exempting abiogenesis may come in handy at certain points in a debate, but in effect, it's a dishonest tactic that diminishes the theory and weakens the argument.

The Fool: Do you want to have this debat??? ;)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL