How would you define science (and faith)

[waynepii]

BTW I think a Wildebeest with a lion would be spelled 'L', 'U', 'N', 'C', 'H'.

You haven't seen the Discovery documentary where a lioness, confused apparently, lives with and "protects" a calf of some sort for 2 or 3 days?
.
.

No, I don't think so, but I'm not surprised. There have been a number of instances where a domesticated mother carnivore's maternal instinct apparently overrides her hunting instinct and she nurtures a young member of a prey species. Sometimes she'll even nurse it if she's lactating.

[BavarianWheels]

.
.
Sorry...made the topic go askew...
.
.

[waynepii]

.
.
Sorry...made the topic go askew...
.
.

Guilty as well

Let the games continue, although I am still interested in jlay's take on hybrids.

[Barabus]

That's a dodge, thus the argument stands. If you can't refute it, you concede your error.

In any case, if you are going to ignore an entire post that shows the fundamental error in your thinking, it would be something of a waste of time for me to give you anything like a response.

JAC3510,

I have wasted pages and pages debating you on other forums. Your tactics haven't changed. I'm not surprised you so quickly jumped to cheap debate tactics. I didn't dodge your question. It was my way of telling you that you don't know what you are talking about. Pardon me if I'm skeptical of a theologian's view of science.

As to the rest of your post, again, why waste time going down a road where I know it will end. On this forum, it will likely get me banned. On the last one, it took pages of arguments until you finaly gave up dodging my questions and moved on with your life, mysteriously disapearing into some other corner of the internet.

Yes, there are other ways to come to a conclusion other than science. I'd still like to know why one dismisses a line of reasoning, in this case the scientific method, while accepting others that are no more valid. No where did I see a case made for that. All you said is that science doesn't apply to God just like it doesn't apply to history. Was that your attempt at a strawman, or did you just misunderstand the point i made?

Pardon me, but I wish no more discourse with you unless you directly answer my question.

So, you have three problems:

1. You've not interacted with my answer to your question;
2. The argument I presented shows that jlay's point about observation and testability is valid; if you don't answer his argument, then, you must concede the point; and
3. The counter argument you tried to give (which I answered, and you ignored) is irrational in the first place. You must then reformulate your argument or concede your error.

I know you are smarter than this, but likely assume that I am not.

1. You did not present an answer, but rather a non sequitor.
2. No it didn't. You gave an incorrecet definition of science and merely displayed your own misunderstanding of the subject.
3. If you can grasp number 1, you will understand your error in number 3.

Again, I'm waiting for my questions to be answered.

[Gman]

If you have a lab with a long enough lease (a couple million years should suffice) to accumulate enough "microevolutionary" changes to qualify as a "macroevolutionary" change.

Yes exactly… It can't be proven.

The inclusion of "designers" in our hypothetical experiment brings up an interesting point - the presence of a "designer" should result in drastically faster change (shown by the speed at which domesticated plants and animals are designed). So if a "designer" were involved in real-world development of species, why did the process take so long? Was the designer deliberately trying to mask his involvement for some reason? Was the designer just less capable than we at using his own tools?

Why did the designing take so long? Perhaps God's time is a different time period than ours. Meaning that time is just another dimension of space… I don't think the designer was masking his involvement. Are you saying that we could have the capability to understand and build life? Not just the body but even the human consciousness or soul?

[Gman]

I don't see how that is relavent. What does producing life from non-life have to do with evolution?

Well… Everything. If you can't create life from non-living matter, then how are you going to get this common ancestor that supposedly all life came from? It all has to start somewhere doesn't it?

Lets assume from some new fangled science experiment I was able to prove that God created life out of nothing....lets even say that I could prove that he wiped out the dinosaurs and *poof* created lots of tiny mamals 65 million years ago. In addition to this I was able to prove that, in fact, you cannot create life from the combination of non-living chemicals. So what? What does that have to do with the evolution of that life from point A (life with DNA) to point B (different life with DNA)?

That's your problem. Technically you don't even have A to point to B or visa versa through Darwinism. If you want to play the science game and claim that you have all the answers via natural selection, then you have to back your claims up. If you don't have any testable proof for science, then we will have to assume that all you have are opinions and assumptions. A belief system…

So the answer to your first question is that it is an irrelavent question. It seems that you are conflating abiogensis with evolution. Perhaps you are also conflating it with the Big Bang theory and the concept of a Godless universe....or rather one absent of design. Again, I can only assume, but I have had these discussions before and the topic of abiogenesis is usally the first step toward derailing the discussion toward "how did this all happen without God?

Your statement is incorrect. It is not an irrelevant question. Scientists go through extreme processes to try to explain the origin of life (abiogenesis). The explanation of origins is very much a topic concerning evolution.. Entire books and chapters are devoted to it claiming that all species arose from early prokaryotes over the course of time. This puts naturalism at the forefront, not an intelligent designer.

"

.....which is odd because I stated up front that I believe God is the creator of everything.

Do you mean theistic evolution? That God created everything via evolution? Well, this idea is in direct conflict with mainstream evolution. In my biology, anthropology and astronomy classes their claim was that life originated through naturalistic means. No intelligent designer was required at all… Nature is king, natural selection is the process, and through nature (not and intelligent designer) all life is explained...

[jlay]

I don't really have a "take" on mules. I assume you are saying they "prove" something.
But all I see is that man has been able to manipulate genetics through selective breeding over about 5,000 years.

Science says that the donkey is a domesticated member of the HORSE family.
So breeding a horse with a horse doesn't prove Darwinism at all. That again sheds a negative light on that muddy speciation.

You could even observe how this is evidence of genetics preventing evolution. In other words, diversity has its dead ends. In fact without human manipulation you would likely see a very quick move back to homology as opposed to diversity, and perhaps extinction of the most diverse breeds. Similar to what happens with cats and dogs. without human manipulation, "breeds" would quickly dissapear.

But is interesting that God planned the donkey before time began and wove the lowly donkey into the script of the cross.

[Barabus]

Well… Everything. If you can't create life from non-living matter, then how are you going to get this common ancestor that supposedly all life came from? It all has to start somewhere doesn't it?

What does a common ancestor have to do with anything? God could have created 2 ancestors. he could have created a million ancestors. He could have created the first ancestor.

Again, I can't tell if you are using a debate tactic or a just mixing up your topics. Evolution presuposes life with replicating DNA exists. Just like I can run an experiement to show you the Bernuli effect without creating air from nothingness, the Theory of Evolution does not have to address the source of life....only that life existed.

That's your problem. Technically you don't even have A to point to B or visa versa through Darwinism. If you want to play the science game and claim that you have all the answers via natural selection, then you have to back your claims up. If you don't have any testable proof for science, then we will have to assume that all you have are opinions and assumptions. A belief system…

You keep saying that such data does not exist and I keep telling you that there are libraries full and have been accepted by every academy of science on the planet. Your refusal to accept this does not make it a belief system.

Again, the argument you and others have presented here is that scientists don't understand science. I think the onus is on you to at least provide a rationale for such a claim.

Your statement is incorrect. It is not an irrelevant question. Scientists go through extreme processes to try to explain the origin of life (abiogenesis). The explanation of origins is very much a topic concerning evolution.. Entire books and chapters are devoted to it claiming that all species arose from early prokaryotes over the course of time. This puts naturalism at the forefront, not an intelligent designer.

It is still completely irrelavent on the discussion of evolution. As I have explained already, I am in the middle of a 300 page book devoted to the subject and not once does it mention abiogenesis. Evolution in the world of science aparently means something completely different than it does to the Christian fundamentalist evolution denier. It doesn't matter that "scientists" devote time studying it. It is a DIFFERENT field. Whether or not they ever answer that question has absolutely nothing to do with what happens to life that clearly exists.

I don't suggest you use this line of reasoning if you ever need a heart transplant as those doctors don't know where life came from either, but they know how your body works.

Do you mean theistic evolution? That God created everything via evolution? Well, this idea is in direct conflict with mainstream evolution.

It most certainly is not. What books are you reading? Can you cite me a source?

In my biology, anthropology and astronomy classes their claim was that life originated through naturalistic means.

Anthropology and astronomy classes told you this?

Astronomy class???????

You made that up, didn't you.

[Gman]

What does a common ancestor have to do with anything?

What does a common ancestor have to do with anything? You don't think that macroevolution has anything to do with a common ancestor? This is news to me…

God could have created 2 ancestors. he could have created a million ancestors. He could have created the first ancestor.

God? My science books tells me that natural selection created the millions of ancestors, not God. Where does it say anything about an intelligent designer?

Again, I can't tell if you are using a debate tactic or a just mixing up your topics. Evolution presuposes life with replicating DNA exists. Just like I can run an experiement to show you the Bernuli effect without creating air from nothingness, the Theory of Evolution does not have to address the source of life....only that life existed.

So now you are accusing me of mixing up topics? I've asked you this before, when are we going to talk about science? How is evolution going to create DNA in the first place?

You keep saying that such data does not exist and I keep telling you that there are libraries full and have been accepted by every academy of science on the planet. Your refusal to accept this does not make it a belief system.

Barabus, we have gone over this many many times. Where is this magical data? Where is this scientific evidence for macroevolution? Until you provide us with this scientific information then I'm going to have to label your science as a belief system. Simply put, your philosophy… Simply put your faith. It is based on faith since you can't use science to explain it...

Again, the argument you and others have presented here is that scientists don't understand science. I think the onus is on you to at least provide a rationale for such a claim.

Then how can certain scientists say that macroevolution is just like gravity? Where is the mathematical formula that creates the divergence of species we see here today from a common ancestor?

It is still completely irrelavent on the discussion of evolution. As I have explained already, I am in the middle of a 300 page book devoted to the subject and not once does it mention abiogenesis. Evolution in the world of science aparently means something completely different than it does to the Christian fundamentalist evolution denier. It doesn't matter that "scientists" devote time studying it. It is a DIFFERENT field. Whether or not they ever answer that question has absolutely nothing to do with what happens to life that clearly exists.

I don't suggest you use this line of reasoning if you ever need a heart transplant as those doctors don't know where life came from either, but they know how your body works.

Ok, this is a bold face lie… Please stop making untruthful statements… Every person I've debated here has talked about abiogenesis and evolution.. Perhaps abiogenesis is new for you. Abiogenesis is very much on the table for evolution. This Biology book below called "Biology: Concepts and Connections" (copyright 2008) explains very clearly the origin and evolution of microbial life through prokaryotes and protists. I want you to purchase this book then read the various sections on "The Origin of Species" and the "The Origin and Evolution of Microbial Life: Prokaryotes and Protists."



Contents

1. Biology: Exploring Life

I. THE LIFE OF THE CELL
2. The Chemical Basis of Life
3. The Molecules of Cells
4. A Tour of the Cell
5. The Working Cell
6. How Cells Harvest Chemical Energy
7. Photosynthesis: Using Light to Make Food

II. CELLULAR REPRODUCTION AND GENETICS
8. The Cellular Basis of Reproduction and Inheritance
9. Patterns of Inheritance
10. Molecular Biology of the Gene
11. How Genes Are Controlled
12. DNA Technology and Genomics

III. CONCEPTS OF EVOLUTION
13. How Populations Evolve
14. The Origin of Species
15. Tracing Evolutionary History

IV. THE EVOLUTION OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
16. The Origin and Evolution of Microbial Life: Prokaryotes and Protists
17. Plants, Fungi, and the Colonization of Land
18. The Evolution of Invertebrate Diversity
19. The Evolution of Vertebrate Diversity

It most certainly is not. What books are you reading? Can you cite me a source?

You have got to be kidding me… Read the above book…

Anthropology and astronomy classes told you this?

You made that up, didn't you.

What? Are you accusing me of making this up? My anthropology book, called the “Essentials of Physical Anthropology” clearly says on pages 45 that all life on earth can be traced back at least 3.7 billion years, in the form of prokaryotic cells.. Structurally more complex cells appeared approximately 1.2 billion years ago, and these are referred to a eukaryotic cells in which all species arose from early prokaryotes over the course of time.

Astronomy class???????

Yeah astronomy class.. You haven't heard of the big bang? The origins of the universe? How do you think that got started?

[jlay]

Yikes Barabus, I think Gman just made you his mule.

Mules are hybrids. They get better grass mileage.

[Barabus]

What does a common ancestor have to do with anything? You don't think that macroevolution has anything to do with a common ancestor? This is news to me…

But refuting whether or not that single common ancestor exists does not refute the process of evolution moving from one species to the next to the next. You seem to be confusing all of the information and ideas concerning evolution with the actual theroy itself.

I'm not saying that there is not a common ancestor or that scientists don't storngly believe there is one. The only point I'm making is that lack of evidnce for one, or even if you were able to directly refute one, does not then refute the entire process.

God? My science books tells me that natural selection created the millions of ancestors, not God. Where does it say anything about an intelligent designer?

You misunderstood my point. Natural selection gets you from point A to point B. I'm stating that God could have created them at point A. Your science book doesn't state that because its not a scientific conclusion. Its a religious belief.

So now you are accusing me of mixing up topics? I've asked you this before, when are we going to talk about science? How is evolution going to create DNA in the first place?

Evolution doesn't "create" anything. I already told you, evolution presupposes the existence of DNA. Something needing a prior condition certainly can't "create" that condition, nor can that condition "evolve" if it is needed to evolve.

The question you are asking is "how did DNA get there in the first place." The answer is it does not matter. I don't need to know where a rock came from to know that I can pick it up and hit you in the head with it. Its a pre-existing condition. In order to hit you in the head with a rock, I need a rock. There,...theory complete.
'
Your biggest problem is that evolution does not answer the questions that you want it to answer......but its not supposed to.

Where did DNA come from? Probably abiogensis, but even if good just poofed it there, it would still have the capacity to evolve.

Again, the several questions I asked above that you continue to dodge.......why would God create nature in such a way to do what it does, but then place an undetectable unatural restriction on it? What rationale do you use to believe this?

Barabus, we have gone over this many many times. Where is this magical data? Where is this scientific evidence for macroevolution? Until you provide us with this scientific information then I'm going to have to label your science as a belief system. Simply put, your philosophy…

Same question to JACxxx: Why do you think every academy of science on the planet accepts this as a scientific theory? The data is out there. Go get it.

Ok, this is a bold face lie… Please stop making untruthful statements… Every person I've debated here has talked about abiogenesis and evolution.. Perhaps abiogenesis is new for you. Abiogenesis is very much on the table for evolution. This Biology book below called "Biology: Concepts and Connections" (copyright 2008) explains very clearly the origin and evolution of microbial life through prokaryotes and protists. I want you to purchase this book then read the various sections on "The Origin of Species" and the "The Origin and Evolution of Microbial Life: Prokaryotes and Protists."

How about you pull out a quote that says abiogenesis is universally accepted in the field of science as part of the Theory of Evolution.

Yeah astronomy class.. You haven't heard of the big bang? The origins of the universe? How do you think that got started?

What does the big bang have to do with abiogenesis or Evolution. It would be like using the Koran to argue Christianity. Just because they are both religions and one sprang out of the other doesn't make them the same.

[Jac3510]

JAC3510,

I have wasted pages and pages debating you on other forums.

Other forums? I don't believe we've ever spoken?

Your tactics haven't changed. I'm not surprised you so quickly jumped to cheap debate tactics. I didn't dodge your question. It was my way of telling you that you don't know what you are talking about. Pardon me if I'm skeptical of a theologian's view of science.

Are you using the word "skeptical" on purpose, or is it just a nice one to toss around? If so, you can add a genetic fallacy to your tu quoque. If not, then you can feel free to post which part of my view of science you disagree with.

As to the rest of your post, again, why waste time going down a road where I know it will end. On this forum, it will likely get me banned. On the last one, it took pages of arguments until you finaly gave up dodging my questions and moved on with your life, mysteriously disapearing into some other corner of the internet.

Again, I'm not sure when we have ever had a discussion? As of now, you have posted 18 times. You haven't had the time to go "pages and pages."

Yes, there are other ways to come to a conclusion other than science. I'd still like to know why one dismisses a line of reasoning, in this case the scientific method, while accepting others that are no more valid.

Where did I say I did? Quotes, please.

No where did I see a case made for that.

Precisely. I made no case for it because I never asserted it. With that cleared up, how about you get back to the points I did make?

All you said is that science doesn't apply to God just like it doesn't apply to history. Was that your attempt at a strawman, or did you just misunderstand the point i made?

I said quite a bit more than that. jlay made a specific point as to evolution's lack of observability and testability, the hallmarks of the physical sciences. Your rather weak response to that objection was to claim that belief in God is not observable or testable, and therefore, he had the same problem (hence, the tu quoque, as if proving jlay had a problem would resolve your own). Against that, I proved that you erred in your response to J by implying that ALL knowledge must be observable and testable, a claim he never made. He said scientific knowledge (of which, you claim evolution to be) must be observable and testable. I, however, distinguished between scientific and philosophical facts, the latter being just as real as the former without, by their nature, being subject to observation and testing. Thus, jlay (and others) DOES have a basis for believing in God, even though such beliefs are not grounded in observable and testable data.

That is hardly a straw man. It takes your point on directly. Further, it shows your response to j is inadequate, requiring further engagement on your part.

Pardon me, but I wish no more discourse with you unless you directly answer my question.

If you can't see how your questions have been directly engaged, perhaps the problem is on your end?

I know you are smarter than this, but likely assume that I am not.

And let's add an ad hominem to the list. Barabus, I must say, you are racking up quite a list of logical fallacies. You do know that people who come to conclusions based on fallacious reasoning are irrational, and that by definition, don't you?

1. You did not present an answer, but rather a non sequitor.

Either you have misdefined a non-sequitor or you didn't bother to read my post. Nothing I said did not necessarily follow from the premises. In fact, the first problem you responded to was a simple statement of fact. That can't be a non sequitor. The fact can be false (you can try to show where you had responded to my arguments), but it most definitely cannot be a non sequitor, and thus, your rebutall fails, and you still have the problem

2. No it didn't. You gave an incorrecet definition of science and merely displayed your own misunderstanding of the subject.

Ah, it was incorrect. So science is NOT a branch of knowledge that comes from the observed (physical) world, based on tests and observation?

Well, since I am only a theologian, let me give you the benefit of the doubt and look it up in a standard resource somewhere I'm sure you will respect. Let me try the Encyclopedia Britannica. I'm sure that's a little better than, say, wikipedia? So, what do THEY say?

• any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation.

Hmm... I wonder if they know they have a bunch of theologians on their staff?!? Well, I suppose I'll just go with them. So, since you disagree with them, would it be safe to say that you are the one who "merely displayed your own misunderstanding of the subject"?

Or, perhaps, being the theologian I am, I should point out that your definition of faith as "belief in something absent of concrete substantial evidence" most definitely shows your ignorance on the subject? I've already given you the correct definiton here. So, if you don't understand what faith is, and you don't understand what science is (or at minimum, you have some understanding of science that goes against what something so basic as Britannica has to say), then why should any of us continue responding to anything you have to say in this thread?

3. If you can grasp number 1, you will understand your error in number 3.

If I can grasp the non sequitor, then I can grasp the error in #3, namely, that "The counter argument you tried to give (which I answered, and you ignored) is irrational in the first place." Well, considering the fact that it is logically impossible for #1 to be a non sequitor, and since I've shown AGAIN that you have this problem, I am going to give you the chance to respond again.

I'm waiting for my questions to be answered.

Ditto.

So, here's the deal: if you want to engage my points directly, feel free, and we can have a rational discussion (assuming, of course, you can drop the logical fallacies). If you choose not to be so kind as to answer my questions, as I have so fully engaged yours, then you can continue to argue with Gman or whoever else will put up with your rants. After all, without engagement, your "arguments" are really nothing more, are they? Without engagement, you are nothing more than a preacher.

[waynepii]

The Big Bang is the current model for the very beginnings of the universe and deals ONLY with the beginnings of the universe. The Big Bang is predicted by General Relativity. Several of relalativity's other predictions have been verified by observation, but obviously the Big Bang has not. I believe the Big Bang is still a hypothesis.

Abiogenesis deals ONLY with origin of life and it currently has several different models, but none of them is accepted by a preponderance of the scientific community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_models). Abiogenesis is clearly also a hypotheses.

Evolution is the scientific theory explaining how organisms adapt genetically to their environment. It includes both small changes to a species and development of new species right on up to a new kingdom (although a new kingdom hasn't happened in a very long time). Like any scientific theory, it is constantly being reevaluated in light of any new evidence (DNA sequencing for example) and its predictions being evaluated. It has and will be revised as new evidence becomes available. That is not to say a scientific theory it is dynamic or fluid. Only that it will change if warranted. A scientific theory is not a dogma or belief system. This article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_ ... y_and_fact) discusses the meaning of a "theory" (not that I expect it to do any good).

Each of these three terms and concepts are completely independent of one another. We know matter and life both exist and that life evolves. Whether the universe started with a Big Bang, a divine "poof", or has always existed has no bearing on how life came about, nor on how it changes and adapts over time. None of the three possible origins of the universe listed (Big Bang, divine intervention, or eternal), nor any other hypothesis, has any impact on the origin of life. (if the universe came about by divine intervention, it becomes almost certain that life originated in the same way - why would God have created the universe then stopped there?) But, regardless of how the universe came about, life might or might not not have resulted (clearly it did, obviously).

AFAIK There is neither "microevolution", "macroevolution", nor Darwinian evolution", just evolution. Evolution is observable for small changes (adaption), but larger changes are not usually observable because they take place over extremely long time frames. But, there IS plenty of evidence for large changes, just as there is plenty of evidence for plate tectonics (another process that takes place over very long time frames, making direct observation difficult to impossible). The "Evolution as Fact and Theory" article (linked above) also discuss some of the evidence). More recent discoveries in other fields (esp genetic sequencing) correlate extremely well with evolutionary theory, and provide strong evidence for a very small set of ancestors

[Barabus]

So, here's the deal: if you want to engage my points directly, feel free, and we can have a rational discussion (assuming, of course, you can drop the logical fallacies). If you choose not to be so kind as to answer my questions, as I have so fully engaged yours, then you can continue to argue with Gman or whoever else will put up with your rants. After all, without engagement, your "arguments" are really nothing more, are they? Without engagement, you are nothing more than a preacher.

Back to the main point: What is your rationale for why every academy of science on the planet accepts Evolution as a scientific theory when, supposedly, it is not?

I'll fall asleep to the crickets as I don't expect an answer.

......and yes, we have met before. Barabus isn't my only name.

[Gman]

But refuting whether or not that single common ancestor exists does not refute the process of evolution moving from one species to the next to the next. You seem to be confusing all of the information and ideas concerning evolution with the actual theroy itself.

Confusing what? So you think refuting the common ancestor approach doesn't conflict with your evolution? Why did Darwin and other scientists talk about it then in their interpretation of the evolutionary process? How do you get a common ancestor in the first place? Where is this evidence that they are all linked together from one common ancestor? I asked you for the scientific proven facts for Darwinian evolution and you provided me with nothing. You have no real information, just assumptions…

I'm not saying that there is not a common ancestor or that scientists don't storngly believe there is one. The only point I'm making is that lack of evidnce for one, or even if you were able to directly refute one, does not then refute the entire process.

Again.. What proof? What process? You have no proof for Darwinian evolution. It's simply a belief. When are we going to talk about science here?

You misunderstood my point. Natural selection gets you from point A to point B. I'm stating that God could have created them at point A. Your science book doesn't state that because its not a scientific conclusion. Its a religious belief.

Natural selection can't prove anything. It cannot get you from point A to point B and it cannot even adequately explain where A came from. If it can, then show me that data… What are you waiting for? Maybe the belief in Darwinian evolution is a religious/philosophical belief as well…

Evolution doesn't "create" anything. I already told you, evolution presupposes the existence of DNA. Something needing a prior condition certainly can't "create" that condition, nor can that condition "evolve" if it is needed to evolve.

I know that evolution can't create anything. That is why it is a belief.. Your evolution presupposes the existence of DNA? Again, where are you getting this? I'm sorry to be upfront, but have you really confronted evolutionary literature before?

The question you are asking is "how did DNA get there in the first place." The answer is it does not matter. I don't need to know where a rock came from to know that I can pick it up and hit you in the head with it. Its a pre-existing condition. In order to hit you in the head with a rock, I need a rock. There,...theory complete.

Then why are certain scientists going through great lengths to try to explain the origin of life through naturalistic means? I'm sorry.. You haven't heard of the Stanley Miller experiment?
'

Your biggest problem is that evolution does not answer the questions that you want it to answer......but its not supposed to.

Baloney… Did you get that book I told you to order? I got that from my local college here a few weeks ago.. Go to chapter 15 under the subject “Tracing evolutionary History” and you will see the conditions on early earth which made the origin of life possible (according to evolutionary beliefs). It clearly depicts the observations and experiments that have led scientists to believe that chemical and physical processes on early earth have produced very simple cells through a sequence of 4 main stages:

1. The abiotic (nonliving) synthesis of small organic molecules, such as amino acids and nucleotides

2. The joining of these small molecules into macromolecules including proteins and nucleic acids

3. The packaging of these molecules into "protobionts,” droplets with membranes that maintain an internal istry different from that of their surroundings

4. The origin of self-replicating molecules that eventually made inheritance possible. In the next two modules, we examine some of the evidence for each of these four stages. “

This is clearly an evolutionary process from the books perspective. The whole chapter devotes itself to evolution and how life arose from nonliving matter… Evolution IS being used by scientists to explain the origins of life.. Plain and simple.

Where did DNA come from? Probably abiogensis, but even if good just poofed it there, it would still have the capacity to evolve.

Oh so now you are admitting that DNA came from abiogenesis... Interesting. It would still have the capacity to evolve? How do you know that?

Again, the several questions I asked above that you continue to dodge.......why would God create nature in such a way to do what it does, but then place an undetectable unatural restriction on it? What rationale do you use to believe this?

Again where is your proof that all the species of the earth had one common ancestor? Where are the links? What rationale do you use to believe this?

Same question to JACxxx: Why do you think every academy of science on the planet accepts this as a scientific theory? The data is out there. Go get it.

The academy of science is not an authority for me when it comes to Darwinism. Many may say that they accept the ToE but a lot of it also has to do with their scientific philosophy or bias. Plus that is what they get paid to uphold the evolutionary belief…

How about you pull out a quote that says abiogenesis is universally accepted in the field of science as part of the Theory of Evolution.

I already did… Buy the book.

What does the big bang have to do with abiogenesis or Evolution. It would be like using the Koran to argue Christianity. Just because they are both religions and one sprang out of the other doesn't make them the same.

Oh… Everything. There are two opposing worldviews, two opposing explanations, two opposing interpretations of reality. Simply put, one says that God created everything we know and see, plants and animals, humans, etc., after their own kind. The other view states in the beginning there was nothing but particles in the universe possibly from the big bang. Then somehow the particles and the impersonal laws of physics came into existence, the particles somehow became complex living stuff (abiogenesis), and the stuff imagined God, but then discovered evolution. So these are the two truth claims..