Skip to main content

Ask different questions. And don't be an azz dong it.

 

And if you will look back, I put up both definitions of abiogenesis and evolution.  One is the origin, the other is the process from that. Evolution will occur no matter how life began, but without life beginning, there is no evolution.

So to say that a bird evolved from a reptile stills needs to have a reptile to start with.

Maybe, maybe not. But that is avoiding the discussion of evolution and abiogenesis. Even if they share a common ancestor, without that ancestor, evolution has no point.

 

http://www.pbs.org/lifeofbirds/evolution/



The ancestors of all today's birds evolved later, he says, between 65 and 53 million years ago, independently of the dinosaurs. This is the "big bang theory" of birds. Feduccia and his fellow sceptics - it must be stressed they are in the minority - regard any similarity between birds and dinosaurs as an example of convergent evolution, by which two independent groups grow to look alike.

However the dinosuar-to-birds theory took another startling turn recently with the discovery of two species of feathered dinosaurs in China, dating from between 145 million and 125 million years ago.

"This is the most important dinosaur discovery of this century," said Philip J. Currie of the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Paleontology in Drumheller, Alberta. "The credibility of the dinosaur-to-birds theory takes a gigantic leap ahead with these specimens."

Originally Posted by A. Robustus:
Originally Posted by FirenzeVeritas:
AR also wants everyone to "understand" there is a difference between abiogenesis and evolution. The definition of abiogenesis is "biological life arising from inorganic matter through natural processes." Now, if we substitute the word "evolving" for the word "arising," is there a difference?

 

===

What?!?! Why the hell would you substitute words in a definition that do not mean the same thing? Please use a dictionary to 'understand' the difference between the words "evolve" and "arise". There is a world of difference between the two. They are in no way congruent or synonymous and your statement, which arises solely from ignorance, is ridiculous.

 

No, most who study and teach evolution, do not attempt to explain abiogenesis, because they can't, but it makes it no less part of the process--much like attempting to teach a class on pregnancy without first teaching the process of fertilization.

 

===

To use your simple pregnancy example, Evolution is like the study of the development of a fetus without concern to the moment of conception. Abiogenesis is like the study of conception without concern for fetal development. Feel free to ask questions if you still don't get it. And feel free to rely on an English dictionary to understand the not-so difficult distinction between the words evolve and arise. You and b are smarter than this, aren't you?

 

Why don't we use a dictionary of synonyms? There seem to be numerous synonyms for arise, but only six listed for evolve. That should make it easier.

 

Yet, of the six synonyms listed for "evolve," two are also listed for "arise." They are "develop": and "change." Now returning to a regular dictionary, develop involves change, but change does not always involve develop(ing) in the standard sense. This narrows things down.

 

Can man evolve if God created him? Certainly. Can man evolve from material that was created via abiogensis? If we're going to say yes to abiogenesis, we would have to say yes to your definition of evolution, but remember you're asking us to beleive not one, but two distinct events that "just happened."

 

Am I "smarter than this?" I am intelligent enough to present my position without using vulgarities. Are you?

 

FV,

...So the answer to finding the difference between arise & evolve can best be achieved by first going to a dictionary of synonyms lol to cherry pick words from each and then plugging the user-selected words back into a regular dictionary so as to then p**** the true meanings? (all uncited btw). Is that the way it's done? ...Oh, the lengths a religious mind will publicly stretch to without shame, in silly attempts at defending the indefensible. Got to love it!

 

On your second point, do you not realize that you are asking "us" to believe not one, but two distinct events that "just happened": The Abrahamic god existing without being itself created, and that very same god creating man out of inert substances, hmmm. However, you have the temerity to do so without the backing of any evidence whatsoever, just faith. Nice.

Lastly, I used no "vulgarities". Nothing I typed was censored by this ever hyper-sensitive forum software, or was it even something that would be censored on TV or radio in all 50 states lol. On the other hand, I do think that trying to veil weak arguments by acting like an overly-sensitive prude is in itself, pretty intellectually vulgar.

I pray that your future responses be less hole-ly.

Apparently.

As for God just existing and then man just appearing:

Science has us believe that order formed out of chaos of an exploding universe that had no cause and that this order produced a planet of the proper size and distance form a star to cause the formation of amino acids in a pond of scum that over millions of years 'evolved' into millions of species of different plants, animals and in-betweens. Add to that, the explosion is still ongoing and the speed is INCREASING from the epicenter contrary to all laws of physics.

 

Makes about as much sense either way.

Originally Posted by A. Robustus:

LOL

p****  =  par se

 

Am I being vulgar again?

 

Yes, Amy Vanderbilt is reeling in her grave, if she hasn't been reincarnated into Jimi.

 

Simply stating the two words that are synonymous with both evolve and arise is not cherry picking--it is stating fact. I'm also quite sure if I had an OED at hand, I could find more than two words that are synonymous with both.

Originally Posted by b50m:

...Science has us believe that order formed out of chaos of an exploding universe that had no cause and that this order produced a planet of the proper size and distance form a star to cause the formation of amino acids in a pond of scum that over millions of years 'evolved' into millions of species of different plants, animals and in-betweens. Add to that, the explosion is still ongoing and the speed is INCREASING from the epicenter contrary to all laws of physics.

 

Makes about as much sense either way.

===

What makes sense to the ignorant is of no value. What ignorant minds interpret as "chaos" or "order", aren't necessarily chaotic or orderly in the common usage of those words. Your example is poorly selected. Also, do you really think that science posits that there was no cause to the Big Bang? As to your last sentence, I urge you to 1) look up dark energy & dark matter, 2) understand that cosmic acceleration is relatively recent and was preceded by a deceleration, 3) relax, no laws of physics are being broken and 4) be careful what you assert, especially if you don't know what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by FirenzeVeritas:

Simply stating the two words that are synonymous with both evolve and arise is not cherry picking--it is stating fact. I'm also quite sure if I had an OED at hand, I could find more than two words that are synonymous with both.

How about using the OED for, oh I don't know, maybe direct definitions of words? You crack me up! What silly things will you think of next?

Originally Posted by A. Robustus:
Originally Posted by b50m:

...Science has us believe that order formed out of chaos of an exploding universe that had no cause and that this order produced a planet of the proper size and distance form a star to cause the formation of amino acids in a pond of scum that over millions of years 'evolved' into millions of species of different plants, animals and in-betweens. Add to that, the explosion is still ongoing and the speed is INCREASING from the epicenter contrary to all laws of physics.

 

Makes about as much sense either way.

===

What makes sense to the ignorant is of no value. What ignorant minds interpret as "chaos" or "order", aren't necessarily chaotic or orderly in the common usage of those words. Your example is poorly selected. Also, do you really think that science posits that there was no cause to the Big Bang? As to your last sentence, I urge you to 1) look up dark energy & dark matter, 2) understand that cosmic acceleration is relatively recent and was preceded by a deceleration, 3) relax, no laws of physics are being broken and 4) be careful what you assert, especially if you don't know what you're talking about.

LOL, ignorant minds? Must be an atheist thing. Everyone else is ignorant.


Science says nothing arose and then it exploded.  If a grenade explodes, you get fragments every where. They don't coalesce into nice little pieces of matter that then suspend themselves in space. That explosion also follows a a predictable path and can be traced with accuracy and  it's radius slows down as it losses energy.

 

 Where is your proof of dark matter?  Where is your proof of dark energy? They are theories, guesses, 'fill in the gap' things. That darn 'GAP' theory that DF loves so much and uses it on the religious.

 

Since I am too ignorant for you, maybe your genius intellect would be much happier at a physics forum.

 

But since this is a friendly discussion, I'm sure that you would want to enlighten me on all your vast factual knowledge of of the theories of dark energy and dark matter.

 

Say AR, do you believe in reincarnation?

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×