There is notion from proponents of evolution that nothing is created and everything evolves into another thing. It implies living being evolved from non-living.
I have gone through many other discussion boards where i watched proponents of evolution fluctuating on accepting the existence of life.
Why so?
Re: Existence of life
You need to study Evolution. The theory of evolution never claimed that the living evolved from non-living. Nobody yet knows where life on planet Earth came from but everything did evolve from the first living organisms.
What exactly do you mean by nothing is created? I don't understand this statement.
Re: Existence of life
Your conflating abiogenesis (Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) with evolution. Evolution only speaks of evolution, not where life came from.
Re: Existence of life
"abiogenesis" is one of the theories that is under the evolution umbrella ... just like "natural selection" and "speciation" ...
Evolution is not a single theory - but a grouping of several theories some of which are demonstrable and others which are not.
But if you read the OP again you will see he says the proponents of evolution say ... so he is still okay.
Re: Existence of life
"abiogenesis" is one of the theories that is under the evolution umbrella ... just like "natural selection" and "speciation" ...
Evolution is not a single theory - but a grouping of several theories some of which are demonstrable and others which are not.
But if you read the OP again you will see he says the proponents of evolution say ... so he is still okay.
This is completely false! Nowhere do evolutionists, in the theory of evolution, speak of how life arose. They speak of only what happened after it arose, how life evolved. People may speculate, but that speculation isn't encapsulated within evolution. Any attempts to tie the two are done for the cause of ambiguity.
Evolution is a single coherent, verifiable, testable, demonstrable theory. It is a scientific fact that evolution occurred, on par with the theory of gravity or relativity. Perhaps even more concrete than the latter two.
The OP is wrong. Evolution does not have proponents. It has evidence. People know it by the sheer weight of it correctness and data. The OP is conflating two unrelated issues.
Re: Existence of life
go through following link before you people think that you have knocked me out technically which says A key component of Darwinian evolution through natural selection is that life arose from non-living matter.
Actionbioscience | Darwin’s Deliberations about Origin of Species
maybe you bella88 and Theorist need to think again what i said.
and as i said in OP, if life is evolved from non-living object then that implies life does not exist. that is the fluctuation i am talking about.
lolz, this is funny. you will be right people will strat saying law of evolution instead of theory of evolution
Re: Existence of life
You need to study Evolution. The theory of evolution never claimed that the living evolved from non-living. Nobody yet knows where life on planet Earth came from but everything did evolve from the first living organisms.
read my post above.
just bit off-topic thought..
Do you think that the consciousness of living beings is objectively different from consciousness of non-living objects like super computers?
[QUOTE]
What exactly do you mean by nothing is created? I don't understand this statement.
[/QUOTE]
Talking about people who deny the existence of the Creator.
Re: Existence of life
read my post above.
just bit off-topic thought.. Do you think that the consciousness of living beings is objectively different from consciousness of non-living objects like super computers?
Talking about people who deny the existence of the Creator.
We talked about this. Yes, it is different. I am not going to debate it again but I will say this; the two have very different forms of existence. While it is possible that we are in some sort of a simulation made by aliens, the matter with which we and computers are created are different. However at the subatomic level, we are still the same! It's like when we create a game, we create all of it using the same programming, graphics, and animation. However, the characters inside the game behave as though they are living but everything else is non-living.
If you ask a human if computers continue to exist, we would say no they don't because they don't have souls. We think we have souls, what if our creator who put us in this simulation knows we don't have souls. What if wanting to live on after death is our wishful thinking and hence we think we have souls and have all these mystical experiences as a result of it?
Re: Existence of life
Stop trying to make evolution sound like it’s some sort of religious doctrine. It’s not! Darwin came up with the theory and it was excellent but his words were not written in stone. The theory itself has evolved because it’s Science. Show me where modern evolution that is taught in schools says life arose from non-living matter.
Re: Existence of life
Sell it to someone else dude … I’m not budging.
The blue part is a lie …If it was true then define Evolution in a sentence and show each point above to be true … Show it’s
a) Coherent Nature - by showing how there are no gaps yet to be identified.
b) Show it is verifable byproviding the evidence.
c) What tests are conducted and what is the meausring citeria?
d) Other than the proliferation of life - what demonstrable theory is there?
Re: Existence of life
Stop trying to make evolution sound like it's some sort of religious doctrine. It's not! Darwin came up with the theory and it was excellent but his words were not written in stone. The theory itself has evolved because it's Science. Show me where modern evolution that is taught in schools says life arose from non-living matter.
The truth in evolution is present but limited to the theory itself ... not to living organisms ... not yet.
I always believed that evolution is true, but part of a grand design. In short, it was created or programmed into the grand scheme of things.
My thing is this that if Allah created us and he really wanted us to believe in the creationism as we know it, then why did he not go the extra mile and removed all the evidences (as false as they maybe) that denies the theory of creationism?
It's just like theory of quantum mechanics and theory of gravity. Both defy each other, but both are so real that one has no choice but to look for the theory of unification.
It's about time we should stop pooh pooing one theory or the other, but to start looking for a happy median.
Re: Existence of life
^ so you have one theory that appears to have withstood the test of time. Another based purely on faith. Which varies even WITHOUT a religion.
There is no happy compromise between the two. One is universally accepted. The other -depends on if person is from Tirunalveli, Sialkot, Alberta or Mongolia.
Re: Existence of life
One person’s ruminations on the effects of the Origin or Species, a book, and the Intelligent Design movement are not negations of a scientific theory. Perhaps in your google search, you failed to look at the context of your argument.
Second, educate yourself on the weight of scientific theories and what it means: Scientific theory - Wikipedia
This is the great thing about science, whether you believe it or not it’s remains true. Unlike gods…that demand faith and belief, otherwise fade away.
I wonder how many legions believed in the power of Zeus and Ra. When was the last time a sacrifice was made to Zeus? Shouldn’t he be angry now? Yet here we are…we know where lighting comes from and what the sun is made of.
If you want to debate evolution, I’m here for you. If you don’t know it already, then go educate yourself.
Evolution hasn’t stood the test of time as we like to claim. It’s the best theory yet, because it agrees with most of the observations. But it could be proven wrong in the future. Newtonian theory of gravity stood strong for few centuries before Einstein completely shifted our mind and gave us a brand new theory.
Forget about religion, what if Eric von Deniken is right and we are the result of controlled DNA implantation by the extra terrestrial beings? There is huge amount of indirect evidence through Inca landing strips, ancient cave drawings and stories of flying beings in scriptures, that supports the notion that we were frequently visited by beings from outer space in the past.
Daniken has a whole section in his book that just talked about the mystery behind why human beings lived a very simple and plain life for centuries and centuries, and all of a sudden, within the period of few decades, we started seeing unlinked and independent advancement in every field of science; medical, engineering, computer, you name it. There are more discoveries and inventions happen just in first two decades of 1900, then in the whole human history. Theory of evolution can’t describe the sharply rapid growth in intelligence. Daniken argued that it was programmed that way in our DNA. Human race was suppose to become a technologically advanced society overnight, which could only happen through predetermined design, and not through evolution, he debated.
Re: Existence of life
Evolution hasn't stood the test of time as we like to claim. It's the best theory yet, because it agrees with most of the observations. But it could be proven wrong in the future. Newtonian theory of gravity stood strong for few centuries before Einstein completely shifted our mind and gave us a brand new theory.
Forget about religion, what if Eric von Deniken is right and we are the result of controlled DNA implantation by the extra terrestrial beings? There is huge amount of indirect evidence through Inca landing strips, ancient cave drawings and stories of flying beings in scriptures, that supports the notion that we were frequently visited by beings from outer space in the past.
Daniken has a whole section in his book that just talked about the mystery behind why human beings lived a very simple and plain life for centuries and centuries, and all of a sudden, within the period of few decades, we started seeing unlinked and independent advancement in every field of science; medical, engineering, computer, you name it. There are more discoveries and inventions happen just in first two decades of 1900, then in the whole human history. Theory of evolution can't describe the sharply rapid growth in intelligence. Daniken argued that it was programmed that way in our DNA. Human race was suppose to become a technologically advanced society overnight, which could only happen through predetermined design, and not through evolution, he debated.
Good post. No one is saying that the modern evolution is be all end all. It is an ongoing search for new findings and new evidence. However, for what we know, it has occurred and continues to occur. Even if rapid growth in intelligence is somewhat a mystery, the gap could be filled in later when we do have the technology and evidence. It is just like any other discipline in the sciences, they will tell you what they find. Science doesn't tell you what you want to hear or what don't want to hear. It is a process and we constantly know better each day.
Re: Existence of life
Bigger question is - why don't I get notification when TLK quotes me? Must be some sort of Design thingy?
Southie, I think when we quote each other using phone app, it does not send out notifications.
Theorist, I have to re read your post to comprehend. :D Will answer later
Re: Existence of life
Stop trying to make evolution sound like it's some sort of religious doctrine. It's not! Darwin came up with the theory and it was excellent but his words were not written in stone. The theory itself has evolved because it's Science. Show me where modern evolution that is taught in schools says life arose from non-living matter.
Yes' for you, evolution is religous doctrine. It may provide you some evidences but you don't have the guts to openly admit that evolution from rocks is blatantly wrong.
Re: Existence of life
What does guts have to do with this discussion? Why boil this down to who is more courageous?