Evolution

I know you do.

 

I guess it could be possible but there does seem to be a barrier to life developing from the inanimate in nature; in a lab, the building blocks of life can be formed but they have to be quickly removed from the “atmosphere” that they were formed in or they quickly break down in that “atmosphere“, making it seemly impossible for them to go on and make more complex forms.

So, God could do it but it seems nature could not.

But if you want to say God created the first life on Earth and everything evolved from that would be more possible but to me that would even seem unlikely given the seeming barrier between different kinds.

 

Possible? Perhaps, all sorts of things can be imagined possible, my being married to Elle Macpherson is possible but in this universe, it ain't going to happen.

As I just pointed out, it very well could be that for life to be sustained you would need an "atmosphere" that would not allow for life to evolve. If that is the case, you could give evolution forever to work it's magic but the laws of the universe would not let it happen.

 

You make no sense.

 

For example suppose you wanted to save time by making LSD and meth in the same beaker and at the same time, do you think that is possible? It may sound like a real good time saver but the "atmosphere" needed for one will not allow the other.

So what I'm saying is the "atmosphere" that we have right now that is so good at sustaining our lives and the other plants and animals can not spontaneously generate the synthesis of compounds of biological interest and so an "atmosphere" that is different and deadly to life as we know it is necessary, so some where there has to be a tipping point in the "atmosphere" that changes from being able to spontaneously generate the synthesis of compounds of biological interest, to being able to sustain those compounds, then to sustaining life when it's formed. Whereas if you start with already created life you only need one "atmosphere".

So what I'm saying is there very well may be no circumstances that would allow for evolution to take place.

 

You do realize Earth's atmosphere has not always been as it is today correct?

It's actually theorized that one of Saturn's moons Titan may be similar to Earth's early atmosphere, who knows maybe there's simple life already thriving on it's surface?

 

There "may" be a lot of things. You have neither proved nor evidenced nor even coherently conjectured anything anyone really should be bothering with here.

 

There may be no circumstances in which God would be able to create Man and the universe. This is an important issue and I think everyone needs to spend as much time as possible being distracted by it.

 

I'm never really clear on what Dawkins' beliefs are, tbh. He seems like a pretty run of the mill forum troll who just happens to have a publishing deal. But, chicken/egg, I guess.

I guess we can go on the evidence. We can deduce that the Christmas lights could have gotten that way without some outside agent (and/or rather, we can determine that they are NOT in a state that could ONLY be achieved through an outside agent, i.e. they're not tied in bows or anything), and we can explore the likelihood of an outside agent being in the vicinity. If there's faith involved in this (and in evolution), it's faith in the odds. Even if there was no archaeological evidence to support evolution on this world, the sheer law of averages would indicate that it's almost definitely happened/happening somewhere in the universe, so I guess the leap of faith is: if it's bound to happened somewhere, why not here?

We all constantly rely on faith just to maintain some coherent understanding of the world around us. But I find that some people curb it when it impairs their judgment, while others roll around in it like a pig in its own filth.

 

Have you posted a link or any other supporting evidence to suggest that anything you've just said is even true? Because there's a lot of "may" and "to me" in a lot of your arguments and to be honest, it gets tiresome.

"Kinds", as we've established, is a term that has no basis in science, taxonomy, or in fact anything other than the arbitrary labelling of species based on appearance thousands of years ago.

 

Thanks for your opinion.

 

Although it has been theorized that the Earth's atmosphere has not always been as it is today, I don't know that it has been proven that it was ever radically different than it is today.

 

If you have something to say, say it but your nit picking my figures of speech is tiresome.

It is based on what God calls kinds, not on science's arbitrary labeling of species.

 

The truth is just a Google search away.


Originally Earth was molten rock surrounded by an atmosphere of Hydrogen and Helium, as it slowly cooled it formed a solid crust which led to volcano's spewing out gasses, like water vapor, carbon dioxide and ammonia. This early toxic atmosphere was nothing like the atmosphere we have today.

Like all things in life the creation of the atmosphere we have today was the product of stages and incredibly long expanses of time.

 

How would you want people to prove it?

What is it that you think I'm leaving unsaid? I have commented on your tendency to use the word "may" a lot. I believe that it points to a desire to undermine a theory with nothing more than uncertainty. The atmosphere of the Earth may have prevented evolution, but you cite no source. Since you've demonstrated over and over again that you have neither knowledge of evolutionary theory nor any will to acquire any, the fact that you have doubts about it shouldn't really bother anyone. You use "may" and "to me" as a means to continue asking the same questions long after they've been answered and to keep on making the same tired points long after they have been rebutted.

I think that I have said all of the above many times before. Consequently, I do not eagerly await your response.

And by God you of course mean the people who wrote the Bible and may have been transcribing the word of God because they said so.

Anyhoo, I think I would like you to explain your eye-rolling at this comment:

There may also be no circumstances in which you do not molest children. I do not have any evidence to support the above statement, but you should still take it very seriously and waste as much time as possible proving that it isn't true. Because if you don't, you do molest children.

 

Oh no.

Because you know what he's going to say, don't you. He's going to say that it hasn't been proved. He's going to say that, and he's going to say it without feeling the need to retract his previous statement about how God's "kinds" of animals are less arbitrary than scientific taxonomy, even though the only proof of this is that it says so in a book, and he'll do that because he doesn't care about being right or adding anything to any debate.

 

Dang, I didn't know Google was around millions of years ago.

 

There would be no answer for it. Just speculation. It cannot be proven true or false until it is either proven true or false. A positive or negative value cannot be assumed.

Besides, this isn't an oxford debate. It's a thread where everyone can come to give their opinions on the OP's topic question. It's supposed to be a chilled out place where people come to state their opinions, no one is under any pressure, nor should they be.

 

Has it been proved?

Are you aware that "science" has been changing some of it's "scientifically" proven "kinds" because they now feel the genetics of their "kinds" is now more important than their previously used "scientific" methods?

And thanks this adds so much to the debate.