The Scientific Impossibility of Evolution

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: edmc^2
As an engineer, it takes an engineer to replicate the trunk of an elephant. We can test it and replicate it many times over because it's a product of design.

Evolution theory, on the other hand, can't be tested since the basis is blind chance. Without outside guidance, biological evolution can't be falsified.

This is extremely dishonest. He claims that because an engineer can replicate a trunk that ID is proved and that is his standard (nothing testable), but then blindly denies an entire scientific theory that has been rigorously tested with pure conjecture and assumption.

This just proves these guys are zealots with double standards and don't care about what's true or false. Denial of evolution is like denial of gravity or germs. You can't refute a scientific theory without proving the evidence wrong or offering testable evidence for an alternative, and you have failed at both. In fact every single creationist on this website does the same exact thing. They just post conjecture and expect people to be dumb enough to believe the BS but not once has EVER refuted the evidence or research, they just arbitrarily dismiss it over their religious faith.

How can someone disprove a conjecture?

fish eventually turning into humans, what fairy tale is this? It makes a mockery of science.

a reply to: edmc^2

Avoiding my question again?

Do you have a testable alternative to evolution?

originally posted by: Barcs
He claims that because an engineer can replicate a trunk that ID is proved and that is his standard (nothing testable)

An engineer can recreate an elephant's trunk. Random chance will not.

You'll deny this obvious fact to avoid the obvious answer. you'll over-complicate things to avoid the simple conclusion.

originally posted by: edmc^2
How can someone disprove a conjecture?

fish eventually turning into humans, what fairy tale is this? It makes a mockery of science.

No YOU make a mockery of intelligence. You can't call something conjecture when it's backed by evidence. I posted the link with supporting research and you ignored it blindly. You are not honest, end of story. If you were honest you would analyse the evidence and refute it, but you can't, so you don't even try. You just keep your silly crusade of lies going.

originally posted by: cooperton
An engineer can recreate an elephant's trunk. Random chance will not.

You'll deny this obvious fact to avoid the obvious answer. you'll over-complicate things to avoid the simple conclusion.

How is that even an argument? It's an unsubstantiated assumption. Where have you proved that DNA was designed? Well??? You literally just keep stating BS and pretending it's a fact. So much dishonesty these days. Humans replicate nature all the time. That doesn't make the nature itself designed. The sheer stupidity....

a reply to: puzzlesphere

> If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits.

To answer this challenge, you'll need to define what "identical DNA" is. Is it 100% copy of the exact DNA? Must be, otherwise, the result will be subjective. Any deviation will introduce inaccuracy. Now the question is, where in nature can we get a 100% copy of the real thing? If you know please let me know and I can start from there. Then, there's also Nature and Nurture to consider. Which one do you think has a greater influence? And what are the parameters and safeguards for keeping out the influences/pressures coming from nature and nurture? If you have one please let me know and I'll try to get some heavy funding to build such an apparatus for testing a perfect DNA copy.

If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.

If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.

These two are trick questions/challenge since there's no correct way to show as there's no such thing a PERFECT DNA. Every LIVING THING dies (including humans), so finding a perfect DNA that doesn't mutate and doesn't die will be a (gasp) miracle. The challenge is akin to saying, if it can be shown that no one makes mistakes, then there's no such thing as death.

And since you don't believe in miracles, your trick challenge is impossible to answer. Tricky fellow you are.

> If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.

Now how can you tell if someone's traits are not due to mutations passed down from past generations and not due to nature or nurture? You can't. It's all subjective. For example, finches grow different beaks in certain regions and at a certain time. What drives these birds to have different beak sizes? Is it Nature/adaptability/Nurture inherited from past generations/mutations? if it's a mutation, why the pendulum effect?

Also, how do you gage such change? What Delta is acceptable for measuring such change?

> If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.

Again it's all subjective. Since there are sooooooo many variables to consider in order to arrive at a proper conclusion, your trick question can't be answered accurately.

Consider a very sick bird: when cared for with utmost sensitivity and love then survives and thrives and produces healthy offspring, was it the environment or nurture that gave it the best chance of survival? Can it NATURALLY survive without the care? Of course not. The same thing with humans, if a person stops smoking tobacco and stops drinking too much liquor and exercises, his chance of survival will greatly increase.

> If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species.

Again subjective and it also depends on how do you define SPECIES.

For example, are the different kinds/varieties of birds considered individual species or is it just ONE bird species?

Are long-beaked finches a different species from that of the short-beaked finches?

How about the different kinds/varieties of dogs, butterflies, insects, fish, whales, even trees and plants? Are they individually called a species?

So like I said - it all depends.

ciao

a reply to: edmc^2

Wow! You really don't understand the concept of falsifiability, do you?

Some of your arguments against those statements confirm them as being falsifiable... so thank you for arguing for the falsifiability of evolution... and YES, you should get funding, define a research agenda, and show one of these things (or one you conceive on your own) to be FALSE... then you would be doing real research and contributing to the body of literature.

Though... it is hard to get funding to prove a negative, so I suggest trying to frame your research to show a potential positive outcome, with a real-world application (you know... commercialisation and all that... something like the development and application of Evolutionary Algorithm (an amazingly useful tool-set) based on evolutionary theory).

I think a good one could be to "Test the removal of environmental factors on discreet, identical DNA samples to understand the influence on differences in genetic traits." So, your positive research outcome would be to show how different environmental factors, influence different genetic traits, and I could imagine many potential valuable real-world application of such knowledge (which of course you would define in your research proposal).

Also, you get to spend all that time looking for an example that would falsify evolution! Funny how academia works!

So, your statement earlier about evolution not being falsifiable, is false.

Now, it's great to see you keep adding to arguments about evolution, but it's a lot of effort you go to in avoiding answering my simple question (why won't creationists answer this question!?!... if evolution is wrong, there MUST be an alternative!)... so I will ask it again:

Can you suggest a testable alternative to evolution?

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: edmc^2

Wow! You really don't understand the concept of falsifiability, do you?

Some of your arguments against those statements confirm them as being falsifiable... so thank you for arguing for the falsifiability of evolution... and YES, you should get funding, define a research agenda, and show one of these things (or one you conceive on your own) to be FALSE... then you would be doing real research and contributing to the body of literature.

Though... it is hard to get funding to prove a negative, so I suggest trying to frame your research to show a potential positive outcome, with a real-world application (you know... commercialisation and all that... something like the development and application of Evolutionary Algorithm (an amazingly useful tool-set) based on evolutionary theory).

I think a good one could be to "Test the removal of environmental factors on discreet, identical DNA samples to understand the influence on differences in genetic traits." So, your positive research outcome would be to show how different environmental factors, influence different genetic traits, and I could imagine many potential valuable real-world application of such knowledge (which of course you would define in your research proposal).

Also, you get to spend all that time looking for an example that would falsify evolution! Funny how academia works!

So, your statement earlier about evolution not being falsifiable, is false.

Now, it's great to see you keep adding to arguments about evolution, but it's a lot of effort you go to in avoiding answering my simple question (why won't creationists answer this question!?!... if evolution is wrong, there MUST be an alternative!)... so I will ask it again:

Can you suggest a testable alternative to evolution?

Wow! not even a suggestion where to get a perfect DNA?

OK.

As for this:

So, your statement earlier about evolution not being falsifiable, is false.

Of course, coming from you, what to expect?

In any case, evolution is not falsifiable because you have so many missing links.

No clear, cut to the chase, black and white, undeniable evidence of transitional creatures - i.e. from fish to amphibian.

All studies and experiments done by evolution proponents have 0 evidence of fish GRADUALLY CHANGING into amphibians. Not one. You can't test something that doesn't exist.

Can you suggest a testable alternative to evolution?

Sure I can, but who's the judge - you? And what criteria? Dr. Popper's?

In other words, present an alternative based on evolution.

Wow! Kinda like, playing a game under the opponent's rule, court, and hired judges. How falsifiable is that?

a reply to: edmc^2

It's your research, you figure out how to get two identical cells (mitosis?)!... or account for the differences at the outset of your experiment... or come up with a completely novel way that I or no-one else has thought of before... or realise this was a thought experiment related to any number of real world examples (such as... over 500,000 directly related literature to evolution), and this one falsifiable example of an aspect of evolution is shining a spotlight on your academic dishonesty.

Also, still not answering the question... lots of words to obfuscate your non-answer.

No, not my rules... one rule: testable... not based on evolution, an alternative to evolution... since, you know, evolution is wrong.

"Sure I can... "... well come on then, this is a discussion forum about Origins, so why the reluctance to share your insights?

What is your testable alternative to evolution?

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: edmc^2

It's your research, you figure out how to get two identical cells (mitosis?)!... or account for the differences at the outset of your experiment... or come up with a completely novel way that I or no-one else has thought of before... or realise this was a thought experiment related to any number of real world examples (such as... over 500,000 directly related literature to evolution), and this one falsifiable example of an aspect of evolution is shining a spotlight on your academic dishonesty.

Also, still not answering the question... lots of words to obfuscate your non-answer.

No, not my rules... one rule: testable... not based on evolution, an alternative to evolution... since, you know, evolution is wrong.

"Sure I can... "... well come on then, this is a discussion forum about Origins, so why the reluctance to share your insights?

What is your testable alternative to evolution?

How about this:

Origins+Evolution = non-living to living.

Origins+Creation = Living to Living/Life begets life.

Which one is 100% testable and credible?

Be honest.

a reply to: edmc^2

Cryptic, not clear or testable, and still not a direct answer to my question, but let's try to unpack it.

"Origins+Evolution = non-living to living"... so -> abiogenesis (or similar origin theory) to evolution? (is that what you mean?... you're not being clear).
While not completely discovered, there are credible tests in both these areas, still with varying results and more tests needed, but yes 100% testable, and credibility really comes down to the integrity of the individuals doing the research (some bad some good... most average).

"Origins+Creation = Living to Living/Life begets life"... so -> God (or similar higher entity) to endless tinkering and individual species creation? "Life begets life"... -> universal recursiveness?... it's life all the way up (turtles all the way down)?... is that what you mean? (sounds like philosophy, not science)... not sure how to test that.
I can't think of any tests at all to test "God"... so 0% testability currently?.. until we can conceive of a way to test the divine that is... and credibility really comes down to the integrity of the people who wrote the religious texts or originally imagined the religions... were they correct? Was there actually divine intervention? What were their motives? Which religion is correct? Can we test that?... ummmm... no.

So, after all of that, can you actually suggest a testable alternative to evolution?

Or is your position that evolution is wrong, there is no testable alternative... and the only possible alternative, is the currently non-testable ideas of god and creation, that must be taken totally on faith and belief, with no potential for further scientific inquiry?

Be honest.

If so, I will inform all of the engineers, architects, programmers, data analysts, doctors, game developers, industrial designers, etc. etc. etc., that they should stop using Evolutionary Algorithms to optimise their buildings, mining activities, systems, code, big data, etc. etc. etc. for the betterment of society and for the computer you are using, since you know... evolution is obviously not testable, leads to no real world benefits, and is wrong.

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: edmc^2

Cryptic, not clear or testable, and still not a direct answer to my question, but let's try to unpack it.

"Origins+Evolution = non-living to living"... so -> abiogenesis (or similar origin theory) to evolution? (is that what you mean?... you're not being clear).
While not completely discovered, there are credible tests in both these areas, still with varying results and more tests needed, but yes 100% testable, and credibility really comes down to the integrity of the individuals doing the research (some bad some good... most average).

"Origins+Creation = Living to Living/Life begets life"... so -> God (or similar higher entity) to endless tinkering and individual species creation? "Life begets life"... -> universal recursiveness?... it's life all the way up (turtles all the way down)?... is that what you mean?... not sure how to test that.
I can't think of any tests at all to test "God"... so 0% testability currently?.. until we can conceive of a way to test the divine that is... and credibility really comes down to the integrity of the people who wrote the religious texts or originally imagined the religions... were they correct? Was there actually divine intervention? What were their motives? Which religion is correct? Can we test that?... ummmm... no.

So, after all of that, can you actually suggest a testable alternative to evolution?

Or is your position that evolution is wrong, there is no testable alternative... and the only possible alternative, is the currently non-testable ideas of god and creation, that must be taken totally on faith and belief, with no potential for further scientific inquiry?

Be honest.

If so, I will inform all of the engineers, architects, programmers, data analysts, doctors, game developers, industrial designers, etc. etc. etc., that they should stop using Evolutionary Algorithms to optimise their buildings, mining activities, systems, code, big data, etc. etc. etc. for the betterment of society and for the computer you are using, since you know... evolution is obviously not testable, leads to no real world benefits, and is wrong.

I thought I made simple enough.

But let me clarify further:

Origins = whatever you want it to be. Could be the Flying Spaghetti Monster or an Alein from the Planet X12345.

Point is the origin must already be existing or non-existing.

And, sure you can test Origins+Evolution = non-living to living. No issue there, but what's the conclusion? What's the result?

Can a non-living material become a living thing? What does the evidence show after testing it? If living, then is it credible to accept it as a fact?

Can you get life from an inanimate thing?

Yes or no?

As to this:

If so, I will inform all of the engineers, architects, programmers, data analysts, doctors, game developers, industrial designers, etc. etc. etc., that they should stop using Evolutionary Algorithms to optimise their buildings, mining activities, systems, code, big data, etc. etc. etc. for the betterment of society and for the computer you are using, since you know... evolution is obviously not testable, leads to no real world benefits, and is wrong.

Huh? I thought the topic is BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION? You know, from non-living things to living things evolving/morphing into a totally different species - as in from fish to amphibians?

Don't be silly.

a reply to: edmc^2

Masterful avoidance... you just will not answer the question directly, will you?

The jury is still out on abiogenesis... we just don't know yet... so there isn't a "yes or no" answer... the answer is "we will keep looking". There are currently multiple experiments being conducted around the world in this area though, relating to a few different hypotheses (none of which are creation... though it would be cool if there was something testable to the creation fantasy... if you could come up with just one testable idea, I'm positive there are many religious groups that would fund you!).

"Huh?..." What?... you don't get why I brought Evolutionary Algorithm into the debate? Are you being obtuse?

Evolutionary Algorithm is directly based on evolutionary theory... if evolution was wrong, as you are suggesting, then Evolutionary Algorithm would not work.

It does...

... very well, and as expected, and is currently being used in almost every field and industry that uses computers. so quite relevant I would say. Are they all wrong?

The point is (here we go again... not expecting an answer... but I'll try): Can you offer a viable, testable alternative, that provides as much real world value and benefit, as evolutionary theory?

ETA: You didn't answer my other question either: ... is your position that evolution is wrong, there is no testable alternative... and the only possible alternative, is the currently non-testable ideas of god and creation, that must be taken totally on faith and belief, with no potential for further scientific inquiry?

Can I have direct answers to my two questions?

I'll even give you couple of example answers as a guide:

No, I have no testable alternative to evolution.
Yes, that is my position.

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: edmc^2

Masterful avoidance... you just will not answer the question directly, will you?

The jury is still out on abiogenesis... we just don't know yet... so there isn't a "yes or no" answer... the answer is "we will keep looking". There are currently multiple experiments being conducted around the world in this area though, relating to a few different hypotheses (none of which are creation... though it would be cool if there was something testable to the creation fantasy... if you could come up with just one testable idea, I'm positive there are many religious groups that would fund you!).

"Huh?..." What?... you don't get why I brought Evolutionary Algorithm into the debate? Are you being obtuse?

Evolutionary Algorithm is directly based on evolutionary theory... if evolution was wrong, as you are suggesting, then Evolutionary Algorithm would not work.

It does...

... very well, and as expected, and is currently being used in almost every field and industry that uses computers. so quite relevant I would say. Are they all wrong?

The point is (here we go again... not expecting an answer... but I'll try): Can you offer a viable, testable alternative, that provides as much real world value and benefit, as evolutionary theory?

ETA: You didn't answer my other question either: ... is your position that evolution is wrong, there is no testable alternative... and the only possible alternative, is the currently non-testable ideas of god and creation, that must be taken totally on faith and belief, with no potential for further scientific inquiry?

Can I have direct answers to my two questions?

I'll even give you couple of example answers as a guide:

No, I have no testable alternative to evolution.
Yes, that is my position.

Avoidance? Not sure what you're talking about. I'm tackling it head-on. It's you that's avoiding my simpleton question.

But in any case, based on evolutionary theory, can a non-living inanimate material be optimized to become a living thing? What does your evidence show?

Yes or no?

I'm sure the so-called "Evolutionary Algorithm" can easily answer my question.

Without any outside influence (just evolution), can this "Evolutionary Algorithm" optimize a pint of dirt and transform it into a living tissue?

This should be an easy question for you knowing how powerful this so so-called "Evolutionary Algorithm" is.

all of the engineers, architects, programmers, data analysts, doctors, game developers, industrial designers, etc. etc. etc., that they should stop using Evolutionary Algorithms to optimise their buildings, mining activities, systems, code, big data, etc. etc. etc. for the betterment of society and for the computer you are using, since you know... evolution is obviously not testable, leads to no real world benefits, and is wrong.

let the testing begin.

Remember = from non-living to living = evolution theory+whatever origin theory you want to use.

a reply to: edmc^2

Avoidance = You (or any creationist) have never actually provided a straight forward answer to my question: What is a testable alternative to evolution?

I answered your question, multiple times, how are you missing it?: Abiogenesis = We don't know. There is currently no "yes or no" answer to the question "can inanimate material self-configure into life", but the question is being looked into.

Currently we know that inanimate material can self-configure into all of the known amino acids (building blocks) in existing life, and many more that aren't in our current understanding of life, and those amino acids can self configure into many different complex structures, but we are yet to see if those amino acids will self-configure into "life" as we know it.

So, we don't know. Has that answered your simpleton question? Please indicate if so, so we can put that one to the side.

Why don't you look into evolutionary algorithm instead of mocking and ridiculing it?... (the sign of someone who actually doesn't have a solid argument... childishly attack introduced concepts, rather than learning about them and intelligently refuting/discussing them), you are coming off petulant and quite obviously uneducated in your comments on evolutionary algorithm.

Let what testing begin? All the current experiments into abiogenesis and evolution in general? Some of them began decades ago. There's lots of testing going on in evolutionary theory. Big amounts. Yuge! All the time.

Onus is on you to provide a test for creation, or offer a testable alternative to evolution.

So, your turn.

What is a testable alternative to evolution?

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: edmc^2

Avoidance = You (or any creationist) have never actually provided a straight forward answer to my question: What is a testable alternative to evolution?

I answered your question, multiple times, how are you missing it?: Abiogenesis = We don't know. There is currently no "yes or no" answer to the question "can inanimate material self-configure into life", but the question is being looked into.

Currently we know that inanimate material can self-configure into all of the known amino acids (building blocks) in existing life, and many more that aren't in our current understanding of life, and those amino acids can self configure into many different complex structures, but we are yet to see if those amino acids will self-configure into "life" as we know it.

So, we don't know. Has that answered your simpleton question? Please indicate if so, so we can put that one to the side.

Why don't you look into evolutionary algorithm instead of mocking and ridiculing it?... (the sign of someone who actually doesn't have a solid argument... childishly attack introduced concepts, rather than learning about them and intelligently refuting/discussing them), you are coming off petulant and quite obviously uneducated in your comments on evolutionary algorithm.

Let what testing begin? All the current experiments into abiogenesis and evolution in general? Some of them began decades ago. There's lots of testing going on in evolutionary theory. Big amounts. Yuge! All the time.

Onus is on you to provide a test for creation, or offer a testable alternative to evolution.

So, your turn.

What is a testable alternative to evolution?

"can inanimate material self-configure into life"?

The answer is a big fat NO! I'm 100% confident in that.

It's not "we don't know". It's emphatically NO.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense, even a child can easily answer the question with NO. It's only evolutionists who are either coward, doesn't have the guts or too dumb to admit that the answer is NO.

Scientific Methodology can confirm this to be so. The Urey/Miller/Szostak experiments confirmed this to be so. Evolution theory+abiogenesis or whatever evolutionistic dogma or ideas you have in mind simply can't produce life out of non-living things. If this happens, guess what, you're now a G. And I think you don't want to cross that boundary.

As to "evolutionary algorithm". Great, you can call it whatever you want it to be, call it the Spaghetti Monster Algorithm for all I care. To me, it's just an advancement in human knowledge and thinking based on years and years of experience.

As to testable alternative to evolution.

I already answered it:

The ONLY ALTERNATIVE to evolution (non-living to living) is to admit that ONLY Life - begets - life. This process can be repeated a million times over, even to infinity. we can only do where we are at, i.e. existing life! In fact. and that's what we've been doing even though you don't want to admit it.

Evolution, on the other hand, is a dead end.

a reply to: edmc^2

Hahaha! Thank you!

You have just broadcast your absolute ignorance, and your inability to understand the concepts of testability and proof, meaning I can effectively ignore you from the conversation as a deluded religious zealot.

The answer is a big fat NO! I'm 100% confident in that. It's not "we don't know". It's emphatically NO.

Your religious zealotry does not constitute proof... your 100% confidence is completely meaningless, beyond a desperate desire on your part for it to be so... if you can't see that, then you are quite literally deluded.

The Urey/Miller/Szostak experiments have not proved that life can't be created from inanimate matter... they have shown that amino acids (the building blocks of life) can self-configure from inorganic matter, and that amino acids can further self-configure into complex structures. Their experiments haven't created a complex structure that we recognise as life YET, but they have all the precursors, meaning the ONLY HONEST answer based on the data is "We don't know if life can self-configure from inorganic matter!".

As to "evolutionary algorithm". Great, you can call it whatever you want it to be, call it the Spaghetti Monster Algorithm for all I care. To me, it's just an advancement in human knowledge and thinking based on years and years of experience.

Yes... an advancement directly based on the science of evolutionary theory... you conveniently left that bit out... without the study of evolution we would not have that particular tool-set... so yeah... you are so very intellectually dishonest!

... and now the crux of the biscuit.

Thank you for answering my question, but as I suspected you have offered an alternative which isn't currently TESTABLE... creation.

You have also highlighted the fact that there is currently no known, testable alternative to evolution by saying the "ONLY ALTERNATIVE is life-begets-life"... that's philosophy, not science, as you have not proposed a mechanism for testing (unless you are suggesting that baby making is the never ending test?)... or in the case of religion, fantasy and make believe.

Only, the ever-more irrelevant, religious hold-outs can't accept that evolution is fact, and quite literally the most well supported scientific theory of all time. With many valuable current real world applications based on the theory. Many that you are directly benefiting from... no real world applications of creationism though (unless baby making?!?... lol).

You are so deluded by your beliefs that you are substituting philosophy in for facts and science, so it is not worth having this discussion with you anymore.

Good day.

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: edmc^2

Hahaha! Thank you!

You have just broadcast your absolute ignorance, and your inability to understand the concepts of testability and proof, meaning I can effectively ignore you from the conversation as a deluded religious zealot.

The answer is a big fat NO! I'm 100% confident in that. It's not "we don't know". It's emphatically NO.

Your religious zealotry does not constitute proof... your 100% confidence is completely meaningless, beyond a desperate desire on your part for it to be so... if you can't see that, then you are quite literally deluded.

The Urey/Miller/Szostak experiments have not proved that life can't be created from inanimate matter... they have shown that amino acids (the building blocks of life) can self-configure from inorganic matter, and that amino acids can further self-configure into complex structures. Their experiments haven't created a complex structure that we recognise as life YET, but they have all the precursors, meaning the ONLY HONEST answer based on the data is "We don't know if life can self-configure from inorganic matter!".

As to "evolutionary algorithm". Great, you can call it whatever you want it to be, call it the Spaghetti Monster Algorithm for all I care. To me, it's just an advancement in human knowledge and thinking based on years and years of experience.

Yes... an advancement directly based on the science of evolutionary theory... you conveniently left that bit out... without the study of evolution we would not have that particular tool-set... so yeah... you are so very intellectually dishonest!

... and now the crux of the biscuit.

Thank you for answering my question, but as I suspected you have offered an alternative which isn't currently TESTABLE... creation.

You have also highlighted the fact that there is currently no known, testable alternative to evolution by saying the "ONLY ALTERNATIVE is life-begets-life"... that's philosophy, not science, as you have not proposed a mechanism for testing (unless you are suggesting that baby making is the never ending test?)... or in the case of religion, fantasy and make believe.

Only, the ever-more irrelevant, religious hold-outs can't accept that evolution is fact, and quite literally the most well supported scientific theory of all time. With many valuable current real world applications based on the theory. Many that you are directly benefiting from... no real world applications of creationism though (unless baby making?!?... lol).

You are so deluded by your beliefs that you are substituting philosophy in for facts and science, so it is not worth having this discussion with you anymore.

Good day.

Whadda matter? Stumped you?

I've proven to you that unless you're God, you can't create life from non-living material.

From life comes life - creation at its very core.

From non-life comes non-life - evolution at its very core.

It's so simple that a caveman can understand it.

Off you go then.

a reply to: edmc^2

Hasn't been explained like... a million times... that evolution isn't about how life started

Its about how it changes over time

Funny how that never seems to hit home with you people

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: edmc^2

Hasn't been explained like... a million times... that evolution isn't about how life started

Its about how it changes over time

Funny how that never seems to hit home with you people

nah, it's just two peas in a pod I call evolution.

you know, abiogenesis+biological evolution = evolution theory. It keeps it simple and makes people like you remain confused.

Then again there are many more theories besides abiogenesis, but I'll just keep it there for simpletons like me.