"Debunking Christian Circular Arguments and Assumptions"

[RickD]

I am too sick for this. So just a couple of things.

How would you be able to tell when one species had become another, what difference would you point to?

Can you show me any source for the assertion that abio is part of ToE.

Can you identify a theory of law that has been proved to be true?

I don't think abiogenesis is part of the ToE. Doesn't the ToE just attempt to explain what happened to life on earth after life already existed?

So, while those who believe in ToE, and don't believe in a creator, might believe in abiogenesis, I don't think abiogenesis and evolution necessarily have to go together.

And as far as micro/macro, the most common distinction I've heard from both sides, is that macro is at the species level or higher. Part of microevolution may actually be life evolving to the point that a new species is created.

[Mallz]

Can you show me any source for the assertion that abio is part of ToE.

ToEs bedrock is abio. Evolution is demonstrated in abio. They are interconnected, unless you want to say God used the ToE for creating different species.

I don't think abiogenesis and evolution necessarily have to go together.

They do if you're not a Theistic Evolutionist.

Part of microevolution may actually be life evolving to the point that a new species is created.

I disagree with that usage and haven't seen it defended in such a way. Care to elaborate for me?

[Audie]

I am too sick for this. So just a couple of things.

How would you be able to tell when one species had become another, what difference would you point to?

Can you show me any source for the assertion that abio is part of ToE.

Can you identify a theory of law that has been proved to be true?

I don't think abiogenesis is part of the ToE. Doesn't the ToE just attempt to explain what happened to life on earth after life already existed?

So, while those who believe in ToE, and don't believe in a creator, might believe in abiogenesis, I don't think abiogenesis and evolution necessarily have to go together.

And as far as micro/macro, the most common distinction I've heard from both sides, is that macro is at the species level or higher. Part of microevolution may actually be life evolving to the point that a new species is created.

Yes

[RickD]

"Can you show me any source for the assertion that abio is part of ToE."

Mallz wrote:
ToEs bedrock is abio. Evolution is demonstrated in abio. They are interconnected, unless you want to say God used the ToE for creating different species.

I would tend to agree that abio leads to ToE. Only because as far as I know, abiogenesis can't lead to anything else. Abiogenesis is without a creator.

And yes, TEs believe evolution is how God changes life on earth.

" I don't think abiogenesis and evolution necessarily have to go together."

Mallz wrote:
They do if you're not a Theistic Evolutionist.

Then TE is enough to say they don't necessarily go together, right?

"Part of microevolution may actually be life evolving to the point that a new species is created."

Mallz wrote:
I disagree with that usage and haven't seen it defended in such a way. Care to elaborate for me?

Off the top of my head, Darwin's finches.

[Audie]

Can you show me any source for the assertion that abio is part of ToE.

ToEs bedrock is abio. Evolution is demonstrated in abio. They are interconnected, unless you want to say God used the ToE for creating different species

I don't think abiogenesis and evolution necessarily have to go together.

They do if you're not a Theistic Evolutionist.

Part of microevolution may actually be life evolving to the point that a new species is created.

I disagree with that usage and haven't seen it defended in such a way. Care to elaborate for me?

I asked for a source, I got 4 assertions, and something about theistic evolution which may be so but is
irrelevant.
But no source.

And no, I was 100% serious earlier, not "messing" with you.
In return, I ask you not mess with me, by being unresponsive other than with assertion of facts not in evidence.

No discussion can proceed this way.
If you cannot source your statement about abio then its better to say so.

Its ok, it is a common mistake.

When you have time, there's the other things I asked about.

[Mallz]

I asked for a source, I got 4 assertions, and something about theistic evolution which may be so but is irrelevant. But no source.

I asked you something... then answered your questions, asked you questions, then you ignored mine and asked more of yours.
If you could tell me 'If abiogenesis is false you have no reason for multi cellular organisms to exist. How did these multi cellular organisms come around? Evolution... What is your explanation?', I would be better able to respond to you.

Abio. is not a part of ToE
If you cannot source your statement about abio then its better to say so.

Found a good article with a quick google search: http://www.apologeticspress.org/APConte ... ticle=1631

by being unresponsive other than with assertion of facts not in evidence.

Audie, I'd like you to demonstrate the scientific evidence life evolves.
Please prove macroeveolution to us.
Please prove abiogenesis to us.
If you could do those two things, I would believe what you say. I have yet to see an authority you use to demonstrate these two issues that remain problematic

What is you reasoning to believe macroeveolution and abiogenesis is true?

I've assumed you believe abiogenesis to be true. Am I wrong? If so, sorry.

[Audie]

M, I said Im too sick for much talk. I will get to multicellular. Im surprised, tho, why anyone with some basic biology wouod even ask.

You did respond to a question with assertions of facts not in evidence. Pointing a finger at me doesnt
make it better.

Apologetics press op ed is not a source for science.

If abio were a part of ToE then the most august institutions and greatest
scholars and even lil' ol' me would be happy to say so. No need to stoop to a citing a creationist site.

I was not surprised btw by their lead in, speaking of the "law of biogenesis" that makes abio impossible.


Do I have to explain why that is nonsense?

[Mallz]

I will get to multicellular. Im surprised, tho, why anyone with some basic biology wouod even ask.

Yeah, I'd like to know what you believe, along with all the first questions I asked you.
You seemed to be a big proponent of evolution with atheistic view. I assumed (sorry again) you could back up your claims. I asked you to and instead your trying to flip this conversation on me.
I studied this years ago, I don't have the evidence in front of me. It would take a while for me to gather it again.
Which is why I started talking to you asking you to back up your assertions, which you still never have done.

Pointing a finger at me doesnt make it better.

I pointed the finger at you with my first post. You have yet to respond to it and have only dodged proving anything.

You did respond to a question with assertions of facts not in evidence.

I'm not interested in your double standards.
If your too sick to talk. Then why did you start? I would rather you get well first then we talk. Because this is just annoying.

Oh and just so you know, reason and logic deal in facts. If you can't reason, or use logic to come to conclusions, then there really is no point in us talking.

If abio were a part of ToE then the most august institutions and greatest
scholars and even lil' ol' me would be happy to say so. No need to stoop to a citing a creationist site.

I don't care about institutions and 'great' scholars. You can either rebuke what I say and put forward, or you can't. Simple as that.
I like reason, you like observable science.
Remember, all I've been asking for is to see why you believe what you do. Can we stop losing focus now?

Do I have to explain why that is nonsense?

Yes!!! Are you getting what I'm asking you?
Read my first post again.
Maybe you could respond to it?
I came to you to learn. I'm thinking that was a big mistake.

[Mallz]

Then TE is enough to say they don't necessarily go together, right?

Yes