[_ Old Earth _] Evolution and Christianity

[RND]

I did not say this.

Intimated.

The question of how life originated says nothing about the evidential support that underlies the theory of evolution. Again, if a conscious creative force was involved in the origin of life, that force could have used naturalistic processes to cause life to begin and evolution is part of that process.

How would you know? How would you know what a "conscious creative force" can or can't do? :rolling Such hubris!

I do not know how you take this understanding from what I wrote; your comment bears no relation to the two sentences you are responding to.

It's taken from all your various responses and what they are saying.

No, let me say again that I do not believe that life came from 'nothing'.

So you believe life came from 'something.' So, where'd the 'something' come from?

Which I appear to have lost. Sorry. What was it, again?

That you have to have faith in what you believe in just as much as I do and that in order to believe in evolution one must believe that their was life existing for something to evolve from.

You missed the point I was making. Whether you believe life started as a complex or simple organism is irrelevant in the discussion of what created life in the first place. In order to believe in evolution one has to believe there was life that something could evolve from.

I do not disagree with this, except to say that belief in evolutionary theory is based on evidential support which does not require an explanation of how life originated.

Well, then that's simply a cop out and an extremely disingenuous way to postulate a theory. Evolution from phenotype without daring to explain the origin of genotype.

The evidence suggests that all life-forms that we are familiar with evolved from ancestral species.

That's evolution through phenotype without explaining genotype.

Where is the obfuscation and deflection in this observation? Your arguments would be more persuasive if you provided some examples of 'evolutionists' obfuscating and deflecting around this matter.

I've done that! Read your own statements again. You cannot answer a direct question.

Requesting clarification is neither evasion nor obfuscation (is this your favourite word, by the way, as you seem to use it a lot, almost as if it presents an irrefutable argument all by itself?). You stated that my 'argumentation casts doubts on the validity of [my] position'; I failed to understand how this was so and hoped you might explain your meaning further..

By failing to answer direct questions and deflecting points of conversation you silently answer the questions asked.

See what above? Where is your evidence that 'the evolutionist generally believes that life indeed came from nothing.' Repetitive assertion is not evidential.

From the fact that they never choose to address the point.

Then you have misread my answers. To the best of my recollection I have never said that life came from nothing.

By suggesting it's irrelevant you state the obvious in that is a point you choose to deflect and dismiss.

I think that life most likely originated by naturalistic processes.

What type of non-committal answer is that? What "naturalistic processes" are you referring to?

I have read my post that you linked to. I am unable to see where, in that post, I disagreed with your statement to the effect that 'I clearly stated that in order to believe in evolution you must first believe there was a source of life for things to "evolve" from.'

So be it. I asked a simple question. Your answer obfuscated and failed to even answer the question.

[quote:3clwkcbj]Your answer to my point that, "The fact of the matter is that in order to believe in evolution you must first believe there was a source of life for things to "evolve" from. Correct?" was pure obfuscation.

The point is that the source of that life is not directly relevant to whether or not evolutionary theory is evidentially sound. This is not obfuscation; it is a simple statement of the situation as I understand it. I'm sorry if you don't like the answer, but just because you don't like it does not make it obfuscation.[/quote:3clwkcbj] You still fail to answer the question.

Yes. And?

That was simply the point. Yes - in order for something to have evolved it had to have something to evolve from. Why not just answer the question the first time instead of playing ring-around-the-rosy?

Supporting an assertion of 'error' on the part of other Christians is not a matter of popularity; either you can show how and why they are in 'error' or you can't. I have no idea what you mean by your latter comment. What makes you think 'the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob' would win a global popularity contest?

You are seriously confused. You were making the point that most "Christians" believed in evolution. I simply stated that just because a majority of anything, be they Christian or not, believe something doesn't make it true. The word of God works the same way. Just because a majority don't believe it doesn't make it untrue.

That said, you should be aware that whether the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob wins a popularity contest or not is irrelevant to the fact that He is the creator God.

Except that science uses testable hypotheses to validate its ideas.

Which confirm that which has already existed before science confirmed it.

Those testable hypotheses seem to continually narrow the gap into which God can find room to influence the natural world.

Which to me actually proves God is indeed the creator of all.

I was not aware that the Bible made reference to quarks. Perhaps you can provide a citation?

I've already made that reference a few times. Have you ever seen a quark? Yet all things consist of them. Go figure.

That you were correct about what? That the evolution of life cannot occur in the absence of that life? Where is the argument in this?

Why is answering a simple question so difficult for you?

I don't think you can have been paying attention to my posts if this comes as such a surprise to you. I do not see why you would think that I believe that the evolution of life could take place in the absence of life itself.

OK, great so you believe life existed before evolution. Great! Outstanding!

Where did that life come from?

This is not relevant to the understanding of whether or not evolutionary theory is evidentially sound.

Why not just answer the question instead of dismissing it? This is the type of obfuscation that undermines every part of your argumentation and reveals the level of character you possess.

It proves that the evolutionist can only argue from the phenotype aspect and dismiss the genotype aspect of created life.

No, let me say again that I am of the opinion that the evidence tends to support the understanding that life originated as a result of naturalistic processes.

Again, this answer is extremely non-committal and empty. What "naturalistic processes" are you referring to? How did it come about?

You are entitled to believe what you like. I am entitled to point out that your belief has little or no evidence to support it.

Just as I have done with you!

Insofar as the idea that matter is made up of tiny, indivisible particles probably originated with Leucippus of Miletus and Democritus of Abdera in the 5th century B.C., your assertion is not entirely correct, notwithstanding the possibility of confirmation bias in the understanding you take from reading the Bible. How many other religious books make reference to unseen things?

The fact that the Bible makes this claim as fact and not just theory is consideraablly different than the philosophy of Leucippus or Democritus. Theirs was just theory. The Bible claims it as fact.

Please show me how the one understanding is superior to the other. Your assertion alone is unpersuasive and is more suggestive of reading into the Bible that which you want to read into it.

It must come down to faith then! You have none regarding the scriptures.

Before science confirmed this notion it was something that could only be taken by faith. Since science has confirmed this it is confirmation of the faith needed to believe the word of God. What else can we suppose that science confirms about the Bible!

It depends on how loose your definition is of what constitutes science in the Bible.

But that wasn't the point made was it?

What do you suppose science can confirm about the holy books of Hinduism or Sikhism?

Since I have no idea what those books postulate I'll have to pass in answering.

What about the creation myths of Dynastic Egypt, the Mayans and the Incas? Would you regard such 'confirmations' as validations of those beliefs?

Do any of those sources you referenced make the claims that the Bible itself makes?

You have yet to demonstrate that this is obvious beyond your own wish that it be so.

That's why they call it faith now isn't it? You have faith that life evolved from something but you have no idea where that something came from other than to say "naturalistic processes." Thus you must believe those "naturalistic processes" involve something coming from nothing.

Enlighten us if you are so inclined.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
That's always been the way it was with evolutionary theory. From the start. You didn't know that?

I was unable to deduce that from all the obfuscation.

Far as I can see, Lord K has been quite direct, even blunt in his response to you. Perhaps, you've been so completely indoctrinated about what creationists imagine evolution to be, his responses are hard for you to accept.

Barbarian observes:
Evolutionary theory is indifferent as to the cause,

Or unwilling to admit the obvious? Anything but give God the credit.

That would be rather unlikely, as Darwin himself suggested that God created the first living things.

Barbarian observes:
but if you can believe God, the earth brought forth living things.

Funny, my Bible tells me that God made all things.

He did. You just don't approve of the way He did it in some cases.

What Bible are you reading?

Let's take a look:

Genesis 1: 24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.
(NIV)

Genesis 1:24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
(KJV)

Genesis 1:24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.
(ASV)

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.
(Douay)

Pretty much the same, um?

One with holes in it or missing pages?

Don't think so. Some of these are missing a few books, from a Catholic perspective, but they are consistent in God's message in Genesis.

The NLT says it in a way you may better understand: "God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to reproduce more of its own kind. And God saw that it was good."

Let's take a look...

Genesis 1:24 Then God said, “Let the earth produce every sort of animal, each producing offspring of the same kind—livestock, small animals that scurry along the ground, and wild animals.†And that is what happened.
(NLT)

Darn, looks like you got a bit confused as to the passage in question...and the previous verse doesn't exactly say what you wrote here, and what it does say in in conflict with earlier Bibles, so I'm a little wary of anyone revising Scripture like that.

Barbarian observes:
Scientists are beginning to see evidence indicating that He was right.

I'd agree, just not in your interpretation of how "God made."

As you can see, even your rather different version of the Bible says that the earth brought forth living things. Nothing about the YE doctrine of "ex nihilo." Life came from nature, as God intended.

 

[RND]

Far as I can see, Lord K has been quite direct, even blunt in his response to you. Perhaps, you've been so completely indoctrinated about what creationists imagine evolution to be, his responses are hard for you to accept.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

That would be rather unlikely, as Darwin himself suggested that God created the first living things

Isn't that nice of Darwin to make that "suggestion."

He did. You just don't approve of the way He did it in some cases.

If God made all things then it wasn't left to natural processes.

Let's take a look:

Genesis 1: 24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.
(NIV)

Genesis 1:24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
(KJV)

Genesis 1:24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.
(ASV)

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.
(Douay)

Pretty much the same, um?

What about verse 25?

Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to reproduce more of its own kind. And God saw that it was good.

God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Why take one scripture an attempt to build a philosophy around it?

Don't think so. Some of these are missing a few books, from a Catholic perspective, but they are consistent in God's message in Genesis.

Are you a Catholic? That would explain alot.

The NLT says it in a way you may better understand:

Let's take a look...

Genesis 1:24 Then God said, “Let the earth produce every sort of animal, each producing offspring of the same kind—livestock, small animals that scurry along the ground, and wild animals.†And that is what happened.
(NLT)

Darn, looks like you got a bit confused as to the passage in question...and the previous verse doesn't exactly say what you wrote here, and what it does say in in conflict with earlier Bibles, so I'm a little wary of anyone revising Scripture like that.

Obviously you don't know much about Hebrew poetry. Verse 25 explains and enhances the meaning of verse 24, not the other way around. Thus the previous verse (23) doesn't confirm verse 24 verse 25 does.

Thus verse 25 explains the contextual make-up of verse 24.

Gen 1:25 "God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to reproduce more of its own kind. And God saw that it was good."

As you can see, even your rather different version of the Bible says that the earth brought forth living things.

As God made all things.

God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

In other words man didn't come from monkeys, monkeys came from the own kind. Horses, rats, kangaroos, etc., all cam from their own kind.

Nothing about the YE doctrine of "ex nihilo." Life came from nature, as God intended.

If one chooses not to exercise the faith that God gave them to believe the scriptures then you would be right.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Far as I can see, Lord K has been quite direct, even blunt in his response to you. Perhaps, you've been so completely indoctrinated about what creationists imagine evolution to be, his responses are hard for you to accept.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

But not his own facts. He is polite to you, because he's polite to everyone. That doesn''t mean he's not being direct.

Barbarian on the notion that evolutionists want to remove God:
That would be rather unlikely, as Darwin himself suggested that God created the first living things

Isn't that nice of Darwin to make that "suggestion."

Nice, I don't know. I do know that it effectively refutes the earlier claim.

Barbarian, regarding God the Creator:
He did. You just don't approve of the way He did it in some cases.

If God made all things then it wasn't left to natural processes.

He does most things by natural processes in this world. You, for example, were formed by natural processes.

Let's take a look:

Genesis 1: 24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.
(NIV)

Genesis 1:24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
(KJV)

Genesis 1:24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.
(ASV)

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.
(Douay)

Pretty much the same, um?

What about verse 25?

(altered version)
Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

(Original version)
Genesis 1:25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (KJV)

In fact your amended version is the only one I can find. I think it's a bad idea to amend scripture.

Are you a Catholic? That would explain alot.

We aren't the only Christians who hold to a traditional acceptance of His Word.
Genesis 1:24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Darn, looks like you got a bit confused as to the passage in question...and the previous verse doesn't exactly say what you wrote here, and what it does say in in conflict with earlier Bibles, so I'm a little wary of anyone revising Scripture like that.

Obviously you don't know much about Hebrew poetry.

You're literate in Hebrew? Tell us about it. I've been kinda interested in the unusual use of infixes therein. What do you know about it?

Barbarian observes:
As you can see, even your rather different version of the Bible says that the earth brought forth living things. And in doing so, it rules out the life ex nihilo claims of YE creationists.

In other words man didn't come from monkeys,

'

You actually think evolutionary theory says we did?

Barbarian observes:
Nothing about the YE doctrine of "ex nihilo." Life came from nature, as God intended.

If one chooses not to exercise the faith that God gave them to believe the scriptures then you would be right.

You don't have license to change it to suit your own preferences. If you want to be a Christian, accept all of it, without reservation.

 

[lordkalvan]

I did not say this.

Intimated.

You seem determined to insist that I stated something that I did not. When I point out that you have failed to show this, you fall back on alleging that I 'intimated' such. I am sorry that you are so desperate to support your accusations as to what I did or did not state that you are reduced to claiming that you can see the hidden meaning behind my posts. Let me say again that I have never said that life 'just happened', nor have I a priori excluded the actions of a creator in bringing life about. Stating that life probably originated naturalistically does not exclude a creator from that process. I don't know how I can state my position more clearly.

[quote:njw40hv2]The question of how life originated says nothing about the evidential support that underlies the theory of evolution. Again, if a conscious creative force was involved in the origin of life, that force could have used naturalistic processes to cause life to begin and evolution is part of that process.

How would you know? How would you know what a "conscious creative force" can or can't do?[/quote:njw40hv2]
How would you? By your idiosyncratic interpretation of the Bible that the majority of Christians appear to disagree with?

Such hubris!

A qualified statement is not hubris. It seems to me that all the hubris lies on your side as you are the one who appears so certain that your understanding of God's work is superior to anyone else's.

[quote:njw40hv2]I do not know how you take this understanding from what I wrote; your comment bears no relation to the two sentences you are responding to.

It's taken from all your various responses and what they are saying. [/quote:njw40hv2]
Then you are misreading and misunderstanding those responses. Let me say again that I do not believe life occurred as a result of 'mere happenstance'. However, let me say again that, even if it was, neither this model, nor the purely naturalistic model in which the origin of life was almost inevitable, nor the naturalistic model directed by a supernatural force, nor an entirely supernatural model exclude the multiple lines of evidence that support evolutionary theory.

[quote:njw40hv2]No, let me say again that I do not believe that life came from 'nothing'.

So you believe life came from 'something.' So, where'd the 'something' come from?[/quote:njw40hv2]
The creative impulse of the Big Bang as we currently understand it. I think I have said this to you before. Ifyou keep asking me the same question, I will keep giving you the same answer. Rephrasing it however many times you want to will not cause me to give you the answer that you want me to give you.

[quote:njw40hv2]
Which I appear to have lost. Sorry. What was it, again?

That you have to have faith in what you believe in just as much as I do and that in order to believe in evolution one must believe that their was life existing for something to evolve from.[/quote:njw40hv2]
And again I must ask so? If there is evidence to support evolutionary theory, then there is evidence to support evolutionary theory regardless of the origin of the life on which evolution works.

[quote:njw40hv2]I do not disagree with this, except to say that belief in evolutionary theory is based on evidential support which does not require an explanation of how life originated.

Well, then that's simply a cop out and an extremely disingenuous way to postulate a theory. Evolution from phenotype without daring to explain the origin of genotype.[/quote:njw40hv2]
Why do you take this viewpoint? Insofar as I have already stated that I believe life originated as a result of naturalistic processes - there is nothing supernatural in the formation of the chemical building-blocks of life, after all - the origin of genotype lies in that naturalistic process. I can postulate a theory of how individuals live and age without needing to also explain how they originate, after all. Your argument is not correct.

[quote:njw40hv2]
The evidence suggests that all life-forms that we are familiar with evolved from ancestral species.

That's evolution through phenotype without explaining genotype.[/quote:njw40hv2]
So? Just because you stamp your foot and demand that the origin of life be explained to your satisfaction does not mean that evolutionary theory is not evidentially supported. If you believe evolutionary theory is not evidentially supported, perhaps you would be better engaged in addressing that rather than the as yet unsolved question of how life originated.

[quote:njw40hv2]Where is the obfuscation and deflection in this observation? Your arguments would be more persuasive if you provided some examples of 'evolutionists' obfuscating and deflecting around this matter.

I've done that! Read your own statements again. You cannot answer a direct question.[/quote:njw40hv2]
I have answered all your questions as directly and as best as I am able to and, where I can, I have done my best to elaborate on those answers. That those answers are not the ones that you want me to give is not my problem. For your information, I am not the only 'evolutionist' in the world. Do you think Richard Dawkins, Steve Jones, Stephen Jay Gould, Francis Collins, Kenneth Miller, P. Z. Myers and all the other scientists who write and publish in this field 'obfuscate' and 'deflect'? I have asked you to provide support for your statements, but all you can do is make accusations against myself. You assertions are not very convincing.

[quote:njw40hv2]Requesting clarification is neither evasion nor obfuscation (is this your favourite word, by the way, as you seem to use it a lot, almost as if it presents an irrefutable argument all by itself?). You stated that my 'argumentation casts doubts on the validity of [my] position'; I failed to understand how this was so and hoped you might explain your meaning further..

By failing to answer direct questions and deflecting points of conversation you silently answer the questions asked. [/quote:njw40hv2]
Not giving you the answers you want is neither 'failing to answer' them, nor is it 'deflecting points of conversation'. You are projecting.

[quote:njw40hv2]See what above? Where is your evidence that 'the evolutionist generally believes that life indeed came from nothing.' Repetitive assertion is not evidential.

From the fact that they never choose to address the point. [/quote:njw40hv2]
Your unsupported assertion is not evidential. Citations and references, please.

[quote:njw40hv2]Then you have misread my answers. To the best of my recollection I have never said that life came from nothing.

By suggesting it's irrelevant you state the obvious in that is a point you choose to deflect and dismiss. [/quote:njw40hv2]
You have yet to explain how the question of the origin of life bears upon the evidence that supports evolutionary theory.

[quote:njw40hv2]I think that life most likely originated by naturalistic processes.

What type of non-committal answer is that? What "naturalistic processes" are you referring to? [/quote:njw40hv2]
Well, for example, the energy-driven networks of small molecules that are being researched by scientists such as Richard Shapiro, Jacques Monod and Doron Lancet. This research does not exclude the 'RNA-first' work of other scientists such as Steven Benner.

[quote:njw40hv2]I have read my post that you linked to. I am unable to see where, in that post, I disagreed with your statement to the effect that 'I clearly stated that in order to believe in evolution you must first believe there was a source of life for things to "evolve" from.'

So be it. I asked a simple question. Your answer obfuscated and failed to even answer the question. [/quote:njw40hv2]
You have yet to demonstrate how my answers are either obfuscation (that word again!) or a failure to answer your questions. Again, that you do not like an answer does not mean that it 'failed' to reply to the question that led to it.

[quote:njw40hv2]The point is that the source of that life is not directly relevant to whether or not evolutionary theory is evidentially sound. This is not obfuscation; it is a simple statement of the situation as I understand it. I'm sorry if you don't like the answer, but just because you don't like it does not make it obfuscation.

You still fail to answer the question.[/quote:njw40hv2]
I have answered it as best I as I am able to. This is not a failure to answer.

[quote:njw40hv2]Yes. And?

That was simply the point. Yes - in order for something to have evolved it had to have something to evolve from. Why not just answer the question the first time instead of playing ring-around-the-rosy?[/quote:njw40hv2]
I have answered this question several times. What more do you expect me to say?

[quote:njw40hv2]Supporting an assertion of 'error' on the part of other Christians is not a matter of popularity; either you can show how and why they are in 'error' or you can't. I have no idea what you mean by your latter comment. What makes you think 'the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob' would win a global popularity contest?

You are seriously confused. You were making the point that most "Christians" believed in evolution. I simply stated that just because a majority of anything, be they Christian or not, believe something doesn't make it true.[/quote:njw40hv2]
You are dodging the point and, in your own words, obfuscate and avoid answering the question. You asserted that these Christians were in 'error'. I have asked you to show me why I should understand that they are in 'error' and you are not. You appear unable and/or unwilling to demonstrate this, therefore your assertion as to their state of 'error' remains unsupported and unconvincing.

The word of God works the same way. Just because a majority don't believe it doesn't make it untrue.

The converse is equally so. You can make unsupported statements forever, but they will remain unsupported and unpersuasive.

That said, you should be aware that whether the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob wins a popularity contest or not is irrelevant to the fact that He is the creator God.

It was yourself who suggested that this God would most likely win some sort of popularity contest - '...faith isn't a popularity contest - if it was most everyone would believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.'

[quote:njw40hv2]Except that science uses testable hypotheses to validate its ideas.

Which confirm that which has already existed before science confirmed it.[/quote:njw40hv2]
And your point is?

[quote:njw40hv2]Those testable hypotheses seem to continually narrow the gap into which God can find room to influence the natural world.

Which to me actually proves God is indeed the creator of all.[/quote:njw40hv2]
I would be interested in your explanation of why this is so.

[quote:njw40hv2]I was not aware that the Bible made reference to quarks. Perhaps you can provide a citation?

I've already made that reference a few times. Have you ever seen a quark? Yet all things consist of them. Go figure.[/quote:njw40hv2]
Your reference was not evidential, but depended on post facto rationalization. Your reply here casts no further light on your claim. Vague references to invisible material cannot be adduced as a pre-scientific explanation of sub-atomic theory just because you want them to.

[quote:njw40hv2]That you were correct about what? That the evolution of life cannot occur in the absence of that life? Where is the argument in this?

Why is answering a simple question so difficult for you?[/quote:njw40hv2]
How does agreement with your basic statement that evolution of life cannot occur in the absence of life fail to answer your question? Perhaps the problem lies in how you phrase your questions and the answers that you expect to get from them.

[quote:njw40hv2]I don't think you can have been paying attention to my posts if this comes as such a surprise to you. I do not see why you would think that I believe that the evolution of life could take place in the absence of life itself.

OK, great so you believe life existed before evolution. Great! Outstanding![/quote:njw40hv2]
Again, that this comes as such a surprise to you suggests you have not been paying attention to what I have written, as opposed to what you think I have written or want me to have written.

Where did that life come from?

The organic-chemical constituents of the primordial Earth, which themselves originated in the Big Bang.

[quote:njw40hv2]This is not relevant to the understanding of whether or not evolutionary theory is evidentially sound.

Why not just answer the question instead of dismissing it? This is the type of obfuscation that undermines every part of your argumentation and reveals the level of character you possess.[/quote:njw40hv2]
Ad hominem noted. Again, the origin of life is not directly relevant to the soundness of evolutionary theory. In all your posts so far on this thread you have failed entirely to address this evidence or even concede that it exists. Why is this? Let me say again that I do not absolutely know what the origin of life on Earth was, but that I believe that the evidence supports the idea that it came about through natural processes. I cannot be more specific than this.

 

[lordkalvan]

It proves that the evolutionist can only argue from the phenotype aspect and dismiss the genotype aspect of created life.

No, it demonstrates that we (or, at least, I) are willing to acknowledge that there are some things which we do not yet know. That we are ignorant of some things is not the same as saying that we are ignornt of all things. Amongst the things that we are confident about is the robustness of the evidence that supports the idea of evolution regardless of the origin of the life upon which evolution operates.

[quote:33hda828]No, let me say again that I am of the opinion that the evidence tends to support the understanding that life originated as a result of naturalistic processes.

Again, this answer is extremely non-committal and empty. What "naturalistic processes" are you referring to? How did it come about?[/quote:33hda828]
I have answered your question as best as I am able to. You will have to be satisfied with my lack of complete knowledge and understanding on this particular subject. Sometimes the only honest answer is 'I do not know'.

[quote:33hda828]You are entitled to believe what you like. I am entitled to point out that your belief has little or no evidence to support it.

Just as I have done with you![/quote:33hda828]
There is some evidence to support the idea of a naturalistic origin for life. There is a great deal of evidence to support the theory of evolution. So far you have presented no evidence to support any of your assertions.

[quote:33hda828]Insofar as the idea that matter is made up of tiny, indivisible particles probably originated with Leucippus of Miletus and Democritus of Abdera in the 5th century B.C., your assertion is not entirely correct, notwithstanding the possibility of confirmation bias in the understanding you take from reading the Bible. How many other religious books make reference to unseen things?

The fact that the Bible makes this claim as fact and not just theory is consideraablly different than the philosophy of Leucippus or Democritus. Theirs was just theory. The Bible claims it as fact.[/quote:33hda828]
Your assertion is not alone persuasive. The fact remains that Leucippus and Democritus put forward an idea that relates to atomic theory more persuasively than do vague biblical references to invisible things. The Bible claims a number of things as fact which demonstrably are not so.

[quote:33hda828]Please show me how the one understanding is superior to the other. Your assertion alone is unpersuasive and is more suggestive of reading into the Bible that which you want to read into it.

It must come down to faith then! You have none regarding the scriptures.[/quote:33hda828]
So you are unable to show me how one understanding is superior to another.

[quote:33hda828]It depends on how loose your definition is of what constitutes science in the Bible.

But that wasn't the point made was it? [/quote:33hda828]
Then what was it? It seems to me that if you make a statement about science confirming the 'science' in the Bible, then you must have a definition of what that science constitutes.

[quote:33hda828]What do you suppose science can confirm about the holy books of Hinduism or Sikhism?

Since I have no idea what those books postulate I'll have to pass in answering.[/quote:33hda828]
But what would you make of 'confirming' science in such a case? Would you accept or reject it? What grounds would you have for either choice? How does this relate to your understanding in respect of the Bible?

[quote:33hda828] What about the creation myths of Dynastic Egypt, the Mayans and the Incas? Would you regard such 'confirmations' as validations of those beliefs?

Do any of those sources you referenced make the claims that the Bible itself makes?[/quote:33hda828]
The question pertains to scientific 'confirmations' of those myths, not to whether or not they are in some way similar to those of the Bible. All the myths demand supernatural intervention; the Egyptian creation myth has a first and only god who brings forth land from watery chaos. There are limited options available when describing the creation of a an observed world by supernatural means.

[quote:33hda828]You have yet to demonstrate that this is obvious beyond your own wish that it be so.

That's why they call it faith now isn't it? You have faith that life evolved from something but you have no idea where that something came from other than to say "naturalistic processes." Thus you must believe those "naturalistic processes" involve something coming from nothing. Enlighten us if you are so inclined.[/quote:33hda828]
I think I have made my understanding as clear as I can.

 

[Barbarian]

Just as a note, Democritus considered atoms to be an established fact, arguing for their existence because certain physical phenomena made no sense without them.

The Bible doesn't refer to atoms but to the unseen creative force of God.