[_ Old Earth _] Debunking Evolution:

[Adam]

What makes the ToE "metaphysical"?

 

[Adam]

You struggle – chemical evolution (abiogenesis) has always been included in evolutionism because that worldview cannot exist without life arising from non-life via purely naturalistic means (an absurdity). Remember - classical Darwinism (atheism) does not allow a place for a Creator-God.

There is no validity to what you've said here.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
Let's test your assumption. Show us where. in the four points of Darwinian theory, there are claims about the origin of life.

(Zeke can't do it)

Neither can anyone else. You're not the first to choke on that challenge.

chemical evolution (abiogenesis) has always been included in evolutionism

I know you want to believe that, but of course, without any evidence to support it, you're out of luck.

because that worldview cannot exist without life arising from non-life via purely naturalistic means (an absurdity).

Darwin himself suggested that God created the first living things. Go do some reading on it, and learn.

Remember - classical Darwinism (atheism) does not allow a place for a Creator-God.

And now you realize your error.

 

[zeke]

What makes the ToE "metaphysical"?

As noted - the notion of universal common ancestry.

 

[zeke]

There is no validity to what you've said here.

Prove it wrong - if you can.

 

[zeke]

Show us where. in the four points of Darwinian theory, there are claims about the origin of life.

You still struggle - we are discussing Darwinism which goes well beyond your "four points of Darwinian theory". You have been misinformed. Chemical evolution (abiogenesis) has always been included in Darwinism because that naturalistic worldview cannot exist without life arising from non-life via purely naturalistic means (an absurdity). You may want to get an education on that which you fail to defend.

Darwin himself suggested that God created the first living things. Go do some reading on it, and learn.

Darwin went to his grave an atheist and classical Darwinism is atheism. No God allowed.

 

[Adam]

As noted - the notion of universal common ancestry.

Nothing metaphysical about that.

 

[Adam]

Prove it wrong - if you can.

SEE Barbarian's post above.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
Show us where. in the four points of Darwinian theory, there are claims about the origin of life.

You still struggle - we are discussing Darwinism which goes well beyond your "four points of Darwinian theory".

I suggested that you could show us where it was in the Modern Synthesis which is today's theory. You were apparently unable to do that, either. So this belief of yours seems to have no basis in reality.

You have been misinformed. Chemical evolution (abiogenesis) has always been included in Darwinism because that naturalistic worldview cannot exist without life arising from non-life via purely naturalistic means (an absurdity). You may want to get an education on that which you fail to defend.

Barbarian observes:
Darwin himself suggested that God created the first living things. Go do some reading on it, and learn.

Darwin went to his grave an atheist and classical Darwinism is atheism. No God allowed.

Well, let's take a look, then:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of The Origin of Species 1878

Darwin, a long time after he wrote his book, did admit to leaning toward agnosticism, but never described himself as an atheist. You were misled about that. I suggest you actually try to find something in modern evolutionary theory that makes claims about the origin of life. I'm guessing some scientist, somewhere might have conflated the two. But I can't think of a prominent example.

Apparently, you can't either. Which should be an important clue for you.

 

[zeke]

Nothing metaphysical about that.

Then present your evidence that man and chimp have a common ancestor. Take your time.

 

[zeke]

I suggested that you could show us where it was in the Modern Synthesis which is today's theory.

As already noted Darwinism goes well beyond the Modern Synthesis. Read about the Darwinism preached by Dawkins - he will set you straight.

 

[Barbarian]

(Zeke again declines to show where the origin of life is part of evolutionary theory)

Barbarian suggests:
I suggested that you could show us where it was in the Modern Synthesis which is today's theory.

As already noted Darwinism goes well beyond the Modern Synthesis.

Show us that theory, then and where it's being taught as evolutionary theory.

Read about the Darwinism preached by Dawkins - he will set you straight.

Dawkins freely admits that evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life. Have you actually read anything he's written?

 

[Asyncritus]

You still struggle - we are discussing Darwinism which goes well beyond your "four points of Darwinian theory". You have been misinformed. Chemical evolution (abiogenesis) has always been included in Darwinism because that naturalistic worldview cannot exist without life arising from non-life via purely naturalistic means (an absurdity). You may want to get an education on that which you fail to defend.

Darwin went to his grave an atheist and classical Darwinism is atheism. No God allowed.

In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[15] Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

"Darwin was convinced of the incredible importance of this issue for his theory and he had an amazingly modern materialist and evolutional vision about the transition of inanimate chemical matter into living matter, despite being very aware of Pasteur's experiments in opposition to spontaneous generation", Juli Peretó, principal author of this study and researcher at the Cavanilles Institute of Evolutional Biology and Biodiversity at the University of Valencia, explained to Servicio de Información y Noticias Científicas (SINC). http://www.science20.com/news_articles/darwin_and_origin_life

Life on Earth really did start on land in a "warm little pond" and not in the oceans - just as Charles Darwin said more than 140 years ago.

PS I'm impressed with the fact that you recognise this:

"classical Darwinism is atheism. No God allowed."

Substitute 'modern evolutionary theory' and you have this:

"modern evolutionary theory is atheism. No God allowed."

Curious that you, a catholic, should be such a staunch supporter, despite the vast acres of evidence which show clearly that modern evolutionary theory is a non-starter.

 

[zeke]

In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[15] Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."

Yes Darwin's "warm little pond". The concept of life arising from non-life via blind naturalistic processes remains as absurd today as it did in Darwin's day yet those who believe in classical Darwinism have no other choice - they reject a Creator-God out of hand. Theistic evolutionists (an oxymoron) remain confused but entertaining as they frantically try to reconcile atheism with theism - a magic trick that crashes and burns on take-off.

 

[zeke]

Dawkins freely admits that evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life. Have you actually read anything he's written?

Yet Dawkins presents classical evolutionism as a godless process that did not have man in mind. How do you reconcile your version of evolutionism with the evolutionism of Dawkins?

 

[Adam]

"evolutionism" is an improper word.

Do you need a refresher course in suffixes?

I wouldn't say that I follow "Christianitisity."

 

[zeke]

"evolutionism" is an improper word.

Evolutionism is what it has always been - a worldview based on naturalism at the exclusion of a Creator-God. Try to keep up.

 

[Adam]

Hate to break it to you, but I was in the lead the whole time.

It's a word you made up to describe a concept that you also made up to try to replace the definition of evolution with your own definition based on what you IMAGINE evolution is or want others to perceive it to be.

And it's still an improper word.

 

[zeke]

Hate to break it to you, but I was in the lead the whole time.

It's a word you made up to describe a concept that you also made up to try to replace the definition of evolution with your own definition based on what you IMAGINE evolution is or want others to perceive it to be.

And it's still an improper word.

Actually, you hit the proverbial brick wall at the starting line. Can you demonstrate Darwinian myth is supported by science or are your past few posts about all you have?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Dawkins freely admits that evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life. Have you actually read anything he's written?

(Zeke declines to answer)

I think we can guess the answer, then.

Yet Dawkins presents classical evolutionism as a godless process that did not have man in mind.

That's how he presents meteorology, too. I think atheists often assume that.

How do you reconcile your version of evolutionism

I have a theory of evolution. Don't know what "evolutionism" is. I see evolution as less strictly adaptionist than Dawkins does. And of course, I believe meteorology works by natural laws, but like evolution, is a creation of God.