Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered - ...

“Live and Let Live”

Since: Aug 13

West Plains, MO

#184 Oct 6, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Evolution and abiogenesis are different. Springing from science doesn't change that.
We don't know if there is life on other planets or not. All we can do is speculate intelligently based on what we know about life on Earth.
Science isn't trying to eliminate God.
I find it very amusing that evolutionists say abiogenesis and evolution are totally different/have nothing to do with each other but yet say creation and ID are the same thing.

Abiogenesis and creation both are about how life came to be.-The start of life

ID and evolution are about on how we came to be where we are today.

Creation and ID are just as different as abiogenesis and evolution.

Yep that right there is very amusing.

“Live and Let Live”

Since: Aug 13

West Plains, MO

#185 Oct 6, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, there are clear cut rules of what is and what is not evidence.
Those arose from the existence of deniers. Other branches of science besides evolution has had denying fools that oppose ideas. As a result scientists devised a definition of evidence so that people could not deny it.
That is also why I can legitimately say there is no evidence for creationism and there is tons of evidence for evolution.
Do you have a list of those clear cut rules? And do those clear cut rules in science support your rule that a picture is clearly scientific evidence?

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#186 Oct 6, 2013
suncore wrote:
<quoted text>
I find it very amusing that evolutionists say abiogenesis and evolution are totally different/have nothing to do with each other but yet say creation and ID are the same thing.
Abiogenesis and creation both are about how life came to be.-The start of life
ID and evolution are about on how we came to be where we are today.
Creation and ID are just as different as abiogenesis and evolution.
Yep that right there is very amusing.
Finding it amusing means nothing. The statements that abiogenesis and evolution are different and that ID is a form of creationism is correct.

Abiogenesis amounts to several hypotheses surrounding how life originated. Evolution deals with existing life and changes in that life through time.

Creationism and ID both include a creator. ID is not science in the same way that creationism is not.

“Live and Let Live”

Since: Aug 13

West Plains, MO

#187 Oct 6, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Finding it amusing means nothing. The statements that abiogenesis and evolution are different and that ID is a form of creationism is correct.
Abiogenesis amounts to several hypotheses surrounding how life originated. Evolution deals with existing life and changes in that life through time.
Creationism and ID both include a creator. ID is not science in the same way that creationism is not.
So lets go by your logic of Creationism and ID both include a creator;

As well as evolution includes abiogenesis for a start. With out abiogenesis there would be no evolution of existing life.

Same as without a creator there would be no ID that has advanced existing life.

Both abiogenesis and a creator are a starting point of life.

Both Evolution and ID are how life advanced into existing life.

That is so clear even a blind man can see it and a deaf man can hear it.

“Live and Let Live”

Since: Aug 13

West Plains, MO

#188 Oct 6, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Finding it amusing means nothing. The statements that abiogenesis and evolution are different and that ID is a form of creationism is correct.
Abiogenesis amounts to several hypotheses surrounding how life originated. Evolution deals with existing life and changes in that life through time.
Creationism and ID both include a creator. ID is not science in the same way that creationism is not.
Of course then again evolution could be possible from a creator that started life. Then the argument would be did man evolved through species to where he is today or ID(design) is what brought man to where he is today.
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#189 Oct 6, 2013
The story of Adam and Eve is an allegorical, metaphoric, parable. It is not meant to be taken literally and attempts to explain the origin of mankind and the existence of evil and a being called "Satan". There were other humanoid species before the creation of Adam and Eve but they did exist and we are all descended from them. All of these other peoples were destroyed in Noahs flood. It mat be because of the intermarriage of these people (Genesis 6:2) that provoked God to destroy all of them except Noah and his family, who remained pure.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#190 Oct 6, 2013
suncore wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have a list of those clear cut rules? And do those clear cut rules in science support your rule that a picture is clearly scientific evidence?
Yes is the answer to your first question and it depends is the answr to your second.

“Live and Let Live”

Since: Aug 13

West Plains, MO

#191 Oct 6, 2013
susanblange wrote:
The story of Adam and Eve is an allegorical, metaphoric, parable. It is not meant to be taken literally and attempts to explain the origin of mankind and the existence of evil and a being called "Satan". There were other humanoid species before the creation of Adam and Eve but they did exist and we are all descended from them. All of these other peoples were destroyed in Noahs flood. It mat be because of the intermarriage of these people (Genesis 6:2) that provoked God to destroy all of them except Noah and his family, who remained pure.
You say 'All of these other peoples were destroyed in Noahs flood. It may be because of the intermarriage of these people (Genesis 6:2) that provoked God to destroy all of them except Noah and his family, who remained pure.'

Now after the flood Noah and his whole family had to become un-pure and dabble not only into intermarriage but also into interbreeding to re-populate the earth don't ya think?

That pretty much blows away your theory of inter-anything.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#192 Oct 6, 2013
suncore wrote:
<quoted text>
So lets go by your logic of Creationism and ID both include a creator;
As well as evolution includes abiogenesis for a start. With out abiogenesis there would be no evolution of existing life.
Same as without a creator there would be no ID that has advanced existing life.
Both abiogenesis and a creator are a starting point of life.
Both Evolution and ID are how life advanced into existing life.
That is so clear even a blind man can see it and a deaf man can hear it.
You are mixed up. Logic doesn't dictate that creationism and ID include a creator. That is stated explicitly by both.

The theory of evolution does not make any statements about how life started.

I agree that both a creator and abiogenesis are answers adressing the the origin of life. I also agree that evolution and ID address the development of life.

You are moving the argument around like a man on fire. Evolution does not include statements regarding the origin of life. It does not need to answer that question to fully describe change in life over time.

Intelligent Design may try to address the same things that evolution does, but it goes further in tying in the origin of life with a creator the same as biblical creationism.

You can hem and haw all you want, but it won't change those facts.

“Live and Let Live”

Since: Aug 13

West Plains, MO

#193 Oct 6, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes is the answer to your first question and it depends is the answr to your second.
A word is all you can produce. Can you not produce the list of those clear cut rules and the rule/s that support your picture rule?

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#194 Oct 6, 2013
suncore wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course then again evolution could be possible from a creator that started life. Then the argument would be did man evolved through species to where he is today or ID(design) is what brought man to where he is today.
It is certainly possible that a creator started the ball rolling and left life to develop through the theory of evolution. However, there is no scientific evidence of such a creator and anything associating such a creator to science is based on faith. Again we are back to religion.

“Live and Let Live”

Since: Aug 13

West Plains, MO

#195 Oct 6, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You are mixed up. Logic doesn't dictate that creationism and ID include a creator. That is stated explicitly by both.
The theory of evolution does not make any statements about how life started.
I agree that both a creator and abiogenesis are answers adressing the the origin of life. I also agree that evolution and ID address the development of life.
You are moving the argument around like a man on fire. Evolution does not include statements regarding the origin of life. It does not need to answer that question to fully describe change in life over time.
Intelligent Design may try to address the same things that evolution does, but it goes further in tying in the origin of life with a creator the same as biblical creationism.
You can hem and haw all you want, but it won't change those facts.
All one has to do is look UNDER evolution and it clearly says

'Origin of life

Further information: Abiogenesis and RNA world hypothesis

Highly energetic chemistry is thought to have produced a self-replicating molecule around 4 billion years ago, and half a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed.[245] The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions.[246] The beginning of life may have included self-replicating molecules such as RNA[247] and the assembly of simple cells.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Evolut...

As I have stated previously. Abiogenesis and evolution go hand in hand like Creation and ID go hand in hand.

The latter of both relies on the former of both to be where we are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Evolut...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#196 Oct 6, 2013
suncore wrote:
<quoted text>
A word is all you can produce. Can you not produce the list of those clear cut rules and the rule/s that support your picture rule?
Yes, I can.
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#197 Oct 6, 2013
suncore wrote:
<quoted text>
You say 'All of these other peoples were destroyed in Noahs flood. It may be because of the intermarriage of these people (Genesis 6:2) that provoked God to destroy all of them except Noah and his family, who remained pure.'
Now after the flood Noah and his whole family had to become un-pure and dabble not only into intermarriage but also into interbreeding to re-populate the earth don't ya think?
That pretty much blows away your theory of inter-anything.
There were 8 people on the ark. Noah and his wife, his three sons and their wives. There was no intermarriage. They are the only ones that survived.

“Live and Let Live”

Since: Aug 13

West Plains, MO

#198 Oct 6, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>There were 8 people on the ark. Noah and his wife, his three sons and their wives. There was no intermarriage. They are the only ones that survived.
As I said 'After the flood Noah and his whole family/his three sons and their wives had to become un-pure and dabble not only into intermarriage but also into interbreeding to re-populate the earth don't ya think?

“Live and Let Live”

Since: Aug 13

West Plains, MO

#199 Oct 6, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I can.
You always say you can produce things but the amusing thing is you never do. Again I have to leave soon and won't be back until next Sunday. I doubt if even by then you can or will produce anything but you words, which by your rules, words are meaningless without evidence.

“Live and Let Live”

Since: Aug 13

West Plains, MO

#200 Oct 6, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>It is certainly possible that a creator started the ball rolling and left life to develop through the theory of evolution. However, there is no scientific evidence of such a creator and anything associating such a creator to science is based on faith. Again we are back to religion.
And what scientific evidence is there for abiogenesis? I will be back next Sunday to read such scientific tested and observed evidence if you can produce any.

For to my knowledge there is just as much evidence for abiogenesis as there is for God.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#201 Oct 6, 2013
suncore wrote:
<quoted text>
All one has to do is look UNDER evolution and it clearly says
'Origin of life
Further information: Abiogenesis and RNA world hypothesis
Highly energetic chemistry is thought to have produced a self-replicating molecule around 4 billion years ago, and half a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed.[245] The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions.[246] The beginning of life may have included self-replicating molecules such as RNA[247] and the assembly of simple cells.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Evolut...
As I have stated previously. Abiogenesis and evolution go hand in hand like Creation and ID go hand in hand.
The latter of both relies on the former of both to be where we are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Evolut...
Where does it say "origin of life" under evolution?

They may go hand in hand, but that does not mean that evolution is dependent on a knowledge of origins. You have already contradicted that by claiming ID and evolution state the same things. By your own words, two different origins are called for.

You don't really seem to have an argument. Just rambling back and fort.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#202 Oct 6, 2013
suncore wrote:
<quoted text>
And what scientific evidence is there for abiogenesis? I will be back next Sunday to read such scientific tested and observed evidence if you can produce any.
For to my knowledge there is just as much evidence for abiogenesis as there is for God.
This may be a lie like it was last Sunday. I haven't made an argument for or against abiogenesis. You are moving the goal post to attack me on points not in evidence. My argument is independent of the validity of abiogenesis and I previously stated that abiogenesis is composed of a series of hypotheses and not a fact.

I have answered your questions quite satisfactorily and you are not dodging and moving the goal posts. There is nothing in this that indicates I have argued in support of abiogenesis.

I can't wait to see what BS you come up with next.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#203 Oct 6, 2013
suncore wrote:
<quoted text>
And what scientific evidence is there for abiogenesis? I will be back next Sunday to read such scientific tested and observed evidence if you can produce any.
For to my knowledge there is just as much evidence for abiogenesis as there is for God.
I wonder who will show up next?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 8 min Aura Mytha 204,947
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 32 min One way or another 43,202
Carbon and isotopic dating are a lie 34 min One way or another 2
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr It aint necessari... 18,550
Current Education And Its Huge Flaws 8 hr One way or another 2
Questions about first life 19 hr FallenGeologist 1
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 20 hr It aint necessari... 914
More from around the web