A Misconception that should be rooted out

So your saying that you don't need a first organism for evolution to work? It had to start somewhere. At some point, life had to start from non-life.

and you've decide not to show any proof that you're opinion has any more merit than anyone else's. i'll respond to the rest in a bit, but why are you so convinced scientific study is clearly 100% wrong here?


Many holes in the fossil record and natural selection has never been shown to create a different specieswow, i asked for something that's not vague, and i get a vague and cryptic response. which holes in the fossil record are these? and who said anything about different species. Natural selection is more about adaptation, evolution is about separating species... but in the current issues of sciam (www.sciam.com) (http://www.sciam.com%29), it talks about recovered collagen from a T-Rex being identical to that found in chickens, helping further aid the already widely accept thought that some species (not necessarily T-Rex) evolved along that path. That's just the most recent example, but there are thousands of others.

Ok, then I guess matter just appeared from nowhere, which goes against the laws of physics. Matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed. They can only change forms.look, a hammer is a great tool, but it's not meant to be used with screws. evolution and origin are completely separate ideas. not only are you mixing up theories, you're arguing a point that no one ever made, unless you care to show me where anyone said anything about evolution breaking the laws of physics.

It seems like you're trying to debate theories you've never bothered to read, since the big bang, string theory, etc etc don't have matter coming from out of nowhere, so i have no idea what you're even trying to argue with that.

first origin is mainly thought to have occurred through somewhat random chance by either the replicator or membrane theory, both of which are fully explained, along with possible limitations in great depth on SciAm ( Science and technology information from Scientific American (http://www.sciam.com) -- great magazine, btw) if you care to learn more about them.


"Popular, palatable views of the world and how it came to be do not constitute science or truth. But decent science education requires that we share the truth we find -- whether or not we like it." ---Lynn Margulis, Distinguished Professor, University of Massachusetts Amherst.

Evolution is a simple and elegant. It's that simple. There are no holes in it and the reason it can't be proven without a doubt is because of the time scale it operates on. It most certainly makes more sense than, say, being created from mud.

If you take a bunch of mice into a lab for 25 years and intrude mutations to successive generation's gene pool you would almost certainly have a different breed of mice. And while these mutation might not drastically alter the mice to the extent that they become a different species they would most certainly be different from the mice that were not in the control group. Now if you do this over 1000 years they would most certainly be classified as different species. This is evolution, this is real and can not be dismissed so easily.

and you've decide not to show any proof that you're opinion has any more merit than anyone else's. i'll respond to the rest in a bit, but why are you so convinced scientific study is clearly 100% wrong here?
What are you talking about? Are you saying that evolution never had a start. It had to start somewhere. I know that how the first organism formed doesn't really have anything to do with with organisms evolving, but at some point, that first organism had to form where there was no life. That is not my opinion. That would have to be a fact for evolution to be true.

wow, i asked for something that's not vague, and i get a vague and cryptic response. which holes in the fossil record are these? and who said anything about different species. Natural selection is more about adaptation, evolution is about separating species... but in the current issues of sciam (www.sciam.com) (http://www.sciam.com%29), it talks about recovered collagen from a T-Rex being identical to that found in chickens, helping further aid the already widely accept thought that some species (not necessarily T-Rex) evolved along that path. That's just the most recent example, but there are thousands of others.
I already debated all this crap here (http://www.redskinswarpath.com/redskins-warpath-parking-lot/16682-civil-discussion-about-religion.html?highlight=evolution). I don't feel like doing it again.

look, a hammer is a great tool, but it's not meant to be used with screws. evolution and origin are completely separate ideas. not only are you mixing up theories, you're arguing a point that no one ever made, unless you care to show me where anyone said anything about evolution breaking the laws of physics.

It seems like you're trying to debate theories you've never bothered to read, since the big bang, string theory, etc etc don't have matter coming from out of nowhere, so i have no idea what you're even trying to argue with that.

first origin is mainly thought to have occurred through somewhat random chance by either the replicator or membrane theory, both of which are fully explained, along with possible limitations in great depth on SciAm ( Science and technology information from Scientific American (http://www.sciam.com) -- great magazine, btw) if you care to learn more about them.


"Popular, palatable views of the world and how it came to be do not constitute science or truth. But decent science education requires that we share the truth we find -- whether or not we like it." ---Lynn Margulis, Distinguished Professor, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
I never said evolution breaks the laws of physics. I said matter forming from no where breaks the laws of physics. You asked who created God. I said he has just always been there and that matter would have had to have always been there if God didn't exist. And if it hasn't always been there, which I guess is what your saying since you were disagreeing with me, then something had to have created it. Matter does not appear out of nothing. That breaks the laws of physics.

I never said evolution breaks the laws of physics. I said matter forming from no where breaks the laws of physics. You asked who created God. I said he has just always been there and that matter would have had to have always been there if God didn't exist. And if it hasn't always been there, which I guess is what your saying since you were disagreeing with me, then something had to have created it. Matter does not appear out of nothing. That breaks the laws of physics.

So you don't dispute the theory of evolution, you just think that God created the universe?

So you don't dispute the theory of evolution, you just think that God created the universe?

According to all the "laws" of physics I know, matter can spring from nothing as easily as God can spring from nothing. However, evolution doesn't address itself to the evolution of God (if there is such a thing as an evolving God) anymore than it has anything to say about how something evoluted from nothing.

Darwin didn't know how something sprang from nothing and never said he did. Nor do any of us know the answer to that question, for sure. Nor do we know or have any accepted theories about how evolution relates to first cause or not. Was first cause a sudden event or did first cause involve a process of what we now call "nothing" evolving into something?

To expect the theory of evolution to explain the origin of life or matter is asking way too much for a fairly modest theory that explains how species evolve, not how things come into existence. Creationists , being concerned with creation, tend to think evolutionists have the same concern. They don't.

Thus it appears to Creationists that there holes in the Theory. There aren't. The so called "holes" in evolution are only answers about God and Creation that they think should be there and aren't. Properly understood, there is absolutely nothing in evolution that indicates whether there's a God or not, or even speculates about how matter or life came into existence. The major problem is one of education. Creationists don't seem to know what they're talking about when they're talking about science.

The result of the above is one worth remarking on. For the most part, only Creationists who are looking for final answers have their faith tested by the Theory of Evolution. On the other hand, most people I know who accept evolution find enough room in it to accommodate God.

So you don't dispute the theory of evolution, you just think that God created the universe?
When did I say I didn't dispute the theory of evolution?

I believe in flying spaghetti monsters

What are you talking about? Are you saying that evolution never had a start. It had to start somewhere. I know that how the first organism formed doesn't really have anything to do with with organisms evolving, but at some point, that first organism had to form where there was no life. That is not my opinion. That would have to be a fact for evolution to be true.


I already debated all this crap here (http://www.redskinswarpath.com/redskins-warpath-parking-lot/16682-civil-discussion-about-religion.html?highlight=evolution). I don't feel like doing it again.


I never said evolution breaks the laws of physics. I said matter forming from no where breaks the laws of physics. You asked who created God. I said he has just always been there and that matter would have had to have always been there if God didn't exist. And if it hasn't always been there, which I guess is what your saying since you were disagreeing with me, then something had to have created it. Matter does not appear out of nothing. That breaks the laws of physics.


did you even read my post? I mean any of it? evolution SAYS NOTHING about first origin. Evolution isn't concerned about it and was never meant to address it, so, once again, i have no idea why you keep trying to harp on that.

As for theories of first origin, i'm not an expert on it, but i linked the two main theories about the creation of first life, and the theories on the creation of everything are numerous but trivial to find, and once again, NONE of them insist on matter coming out of nowhere even though you seem to think they do (even after being corrected), which means you either haven't read them, don't understand them, or don't care. Either way, mis-stating facts repeatedly really drops credibility.

When did I say I didn't dispute the theory of evolution?

You didn't, I just noticed the dispute was about how life started and not really about evolution. After reading your other posts in the other thread you hyperlinked, I know that you dispute the theory of evolution.

I do have to ask a few questions, especially since I did not have the chance to participate in the other thread. First, do you dispute the fact that the earth is more than a few thousand years old? Second, do you believe that every species that is alive today was alive at "the" beginning? Or, do you believe that X species did not exist one day and then poof...it appeared by the hand of God in an instant.