Posted on 05/13/2019 1:51:58 PM PDT by EveningStar
So far you have made about 3 or 4 posts and managed to say nothing whatsoever. You have not even taken a position on the topic of the original thread. You are incinuating at least to have an in depth knowledge of Molecular Evolution yet have demonstrated nothing of the sort. I don't think I'm alone on this thread when I say I have no idea what you are talking about. I myself believe in both creation and evolution. God created the first bit of life which eventually evolved into Man as well as all other living things.
In the final analysis, Creation doesn't really matter. What can be studied is a blast.
Maybe I can send you some hints from beyond the grave, ;-D
Assuming He is actually there, of course.
I don’t care what you believe about evolution.
Clearly you know nothing but like to make sweeping statements you cannot back up.
I asked you two simple questions based on definitive statements you made.
Fair questions you should be able to easily answer.
Darwin's theory doesn't concern the origin of life any more than Newton's theory concerns the origins of matter. Darwin's book was called The Origin of Species, not The Origin of Life. Since evolution of species depends on reproduction, evolution could not have caused the first living thing, any more than gravity could have formed the first atom of matter.
As to where the first life came from, Darwin did have an answer. From the last paragraph of The Origin of Species:
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
Well, if you want to take that chance . . .
Darwin was half right, natural selection does mutate species over time. That is observable fact. But mutating into NEW and DIFFERENT species is laughable concept.
“there is no distinction between life and non-life in the physical-materialist worldview”
True, and this is one reason why anyone who tries to argue that materialism doesn’t lead to hedonism and nihilism is either stupid, or a hypocrite.
Part of the problem is the definition of “species.”
Small differences are being used to declare the discovery of a “new” species.
It came to my attention the other day that the only difference between two “species” of giraffe is the pattern of their spots. The Masai Giraffes have rough edges to their spots where Reticulated Giraffes have smooth edges to their spots. Their is enough genetic similarity that the two can interbreed, although they rarely do so in the wild.
If the same criteria we use to define species were used on human beings, we would be broken up into many different species!
I think this issue has two points of genesis - one, the notoriety that comes with discovering a species has led to the lowering of the bar. Two, the more species we have, the more shocking it is that “millions” of species are endangered.
Really quite silly.
“It’s science, it happens and it’s proven.”
Ah, a bold statement. Please specify what is the “proof” of common descent. You can’t have evolution without that, so obviously, if evolution is proven, then common descent must have previous been proven, and not simply taken as an assumption, as Darwin did. So, who, subsequent to Darwin, proved common descent, and by what methodology?
“Unfortunately, creationism cannot be studied from a scientific point of view, as creation starts with an absolute that has yet to be proven (God).”
Kind of like evolution starts with the assumption of common descent, which has yet to be proven?
Then why are you asking me questions? Why don’t you explain creation and evolution since I know nothing? Lets hear it.
You think it's laughable that dogs, coyotes and wolves had a common ancestor? Or that polar bears, brown bears and grizzly bears had a common ancestor?
“As to where the first life came from, Darwin did have an answer. From the last paragraph of The Origin of Species”
Yes, an answer that he later admitted in private correspondence that he didn’t really believe and regretted including in his work because it was simply a concession to blunt the inevitable outrage of Christians against what he was advocating. Privately, he admitted that he believed some materialistic explanation for the origin of life would be found and it would be necessary to find this explanation in order to truly confirm his theory.
How does this new specie breed? If the coyotes came first ( through some magic) and single female coyote gestated a wolf who was going to breed with this new weird looking one off species?
Well, it is no coincidence that the definition of species is so ambiguous and subjective, since in the viewpoint of a believer in evolution, the distinctions between species are ethereal and ever-changing. If you really believe that a rat can become a pig or a dog, then you don’t worry so much about where you draw the lines between them, as it is all a bit arbitrary.
On the other hand, having a clear definition of species (or some similar division) is essential to understanding some of the strongest arguments against evolution. I think, though, to avoid confusion, its best to just use some alternative terminology. If we use terms like “species” then we are acceding tacitly to the definitions preferred by the evolutionary scientists who are the gatekeepers of taxonomy, when we should be dismantling the arguments in favor of their definitions as a prerequisite to a fair and honest debate on the subject.
“If the coyotes came first ( through some magic) and single female coyote gestated a wolf who was going to breed with this new weird looking one off species?”
It’s even worse than that, since at least a coyote and wolf can interbreed (as we know they have common ancestors and are just divergent forms of some original type).
However, for evolution to really work, you would need speciation events where the new creature was so radically divergent from its parent species that it would not be able to interbreed. This would of course need to happen millions of times throughout history, and in each case, the new creature would find it absolutely statistically impossible to find a mate to breed with. This one argument alone destroys the feasibility of evolution as it applies to any sexually-reproductive creatures.
“Then why are you asking me questions?”
I asked questions based on your statements.
It’s called a discussion.
To review.
Q1
“Evolution is not a theory. It’s science, it happens and it’s proven.”
What “proved” evolution?
—
Q2
“Origin is the beginning point for the very first bit of life.”
Tell us how you define this “Origin” event?
No, it’s just laughable that:
a) evolutionists get to define species and then use that definition they have tailored around their own theory to try to answer the objections of their critics
AND
b) only species like these (where proof of common descent is obvious due to their ability to interbreed) are ever offered as examples to support this most radical proposal of evolution, thus avoiding the actual point of contention, which is that common descent of the vast majority of species, which do not have the ability to interbreed, has never actually been established.
I have already given several examples and stated my position clearly. It’s your turn, explain creation and evolution to the class.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.