3. There is not one book that demonstrates anything at all, you can say that anything is a theory. Einstein had one doosy, Prior to scientists embracing the notion that the universe was created as the result of the Big Bang, it was commonly believed that the size of the universe was an unchanging constant—it had always been the size it was, and always would be. The idea stated that that the total volume of the universe was effectively fixed, and that the whole construct operated as a closed system. The theory found its biggest adherent in Albert Einstein—the Static Universe is often known as “Einstein’s Universe"—who argued in favor of it and even calculated it into his theory of general relativity. 4. You don't even believe in spontaneous generation as evolutionary theory demands that you must. In fact you never heard of spontaneous generation in relation to evolutionary theory, and you said that I made it up.You're deliberately trying to not understand what I'm saying. Let alone agree with it. Your thing about Einstein is a story about how science works. The greatest scientists in history were all wrong in some way. We keep doing science and we build on what they showed us. I didn't know what you were talking about with spontaneous generation because it is outdated, something I don't need to know about. It's history. Once I realized what you were referring to, to an archaic notion about mice spontaneously generating out of dirty rags, it made more sense why you were making these wild claims about Darwin being disproven. But you're wrong, disproving spontaneous generation does not disprove Darwin. The quote you provided from Britannica says archaic. You highlight the part about it being a theory of the origin of life, but the important part of that quote is that it is archaic. We have better science now that has led to better theories. The tolweb site is full of information, looking at the first page is not going to give you the answers you seek.
3. There is not one book that demonstrates anything at all, you can say that anything is a theory. Einstein had one doosy, Prior to scientists embracing the notion that the universe was created as the result of the Big Bang, it was commonly believed that the size of the universe was an unchanging constant—it had always been the size it was, and always would be. The idea stated that that the total volume of the universe was effectively fixed, and that the whole construct operated as a closed system. The theory found its biggest adherent in Albert Einstein—the Static Universe is often known as “Einstein’s Universe"—who argued in favor of it and even calculated it into his theory of general relativity. 4. You don't even believe in spontaneous generation as evolutionary theory demands that you must. In fact you never heard of spontaneous generation in relation to evolutionary theory, and you said that I made it up.You're deliberately trying to not understand what I'm saying. Let alone agree with it. Your thing about Einstein is a story about how science works. The greatest scientists in history were all wrong in some way. We keep doing science and we build on what they showed us. I didn't know what you were talking about with spontaneous generation because it is outdated, something I don't need to know about. It's history. Once I realized what you were referring to, to an archaic notion about mice spontaneously generating out of dirty rags, it made more sense why you were making these wild claims about Darwin being disproven. But you're wrong, disproving spontaneous generation does not disprove Darwin. The quote you provided from Britannica says archaic. You highlight the part about it being a theory of the origin of life, but the important part of that quote is that it is archaic. We have better science now that has led to better theories. The tolweb site is full of information, looking at the first page is not going to give you the answers you seek. "The greatest scientists in history were all wrong in some way." Ok then please tell us what Newton was wrong about? Or Hubbell for that matter? You just want all great scientist to be as dumb as Darwin, and this just is not the case. Again, if you believe that spontaneous generation is outdated, then you CAN NOT accept evolutionary theory which depends 100 percent upon spontaneous generation for the genesis of life. Archaic, yes tweet it to the World, archaic is the important word, and since evolution is dependent upon an archaic theory for it's heart and soul, then evolution is also archaic as well. You make my point with every word that you say, come on tell the truth, you are a Nun or a Monk or something right..........................or are you working for the United church of God, the Heartland Institute or perhaps Fox News, sheesh, you believe more in ID than I do. But hey, yer a lot of fun.....
I answered this when I quoted the guy who defined “spontaneous generation” and “Abiogenesis”. You ignored that. No doubt because it destroys your argument.
There are a bunch of articles here. Pick one.] Quit listening to that garbage from the Discovery Institute.
Newton experimented with alchemy. I can’t pick every scientist in history and instantly come up with an explanation of what they did and how we’ve expanded on them, so I don’t know about Hubble.
I answered this when I quoted the guy who defined "spontaneous generation" and "Abiogenesis". You ignored that. No doubt because it destroys your argument. There are a bunch of articles here. Pick one.] Quit listening to that garbage from the Discovery Institute. Newton experimented with alchemy. I can't pick every scientist in history and instantly come up with an explanation of what they did and how we've expanded on them, so I don't know about Hubble.What is wrong with Newton's gravitational calculations then..... So how has Darwin's warm pond been expanded upon? Please tell us, the National Enquirer wants to know. Do you know a physicist that you can call, someone with a positive IQ, or at least one over 100, which is average. Do you know your IQ, shrinks test mine all the time. Then they say what the hell are you doing here anyway, or something to that effect. 133
You’ve changed the subject away from Abiogenesis and asked nonsensical questions. Demonstrating that is your weak point.
You've changed the subject away from Abiogenesis and asked nonsensical questions. Demonstrating that is your weak point.No, I have ask you to expand upon Darwin's warm pond idea of spontaneous generation of life. You can not do this, and in fact never heard the term spontaneous generation as you said that I made the entire idea up. When I posted text that the term is real and in fact archaic, you agreed, which means that you also agree that evolution is in fact itself an archaic idea. Again, every post on the internet, could be stored on DNA as binary code, this proves that DNA is a perfect hard drive for modern computer information........ Seriously I like you, because you respond, however the multitude of other persons here are not responding, because they fully see that spontaneous generation is as fallacious an idea as is the postulation of evolution in the first place, as evolution does not even rise to the level of theory. So prove me wrong.
You've changed the subject away from Abiogenesis and asked nonsensical questions. Demonstrating that is your weak point.No, I have ask you to expand upon Darwin's warm pond idea of spontaneous generation of life. You can not do this, and in fact never heard the term spontaneous generation as you said that I made the entire idea up. When I posted text that the term is real and in fact archaic, you agreed, which means that you also agree that evolution is in fact itself an archaic idea. Again, every post on the internet, could be stored on DNA as binary code, this proves that DNA is a perfect hard drive for modern computer information........ Seriously I like you, because you respond, however the multitude of other persons here are not responding, because they fully see that spontaneous generation is as fallacious an idea as is the postulation of evolution in the first place, as evolution does not even rise to the level of theory. So prove me wrong. There is nothing more to say about Darwin's pond idea. I showed you what I understand the definition "spontaneous generation" is. I showed that it is not related to Abiogenesis. What you keep saying is, spontaneous generation of life could not have occurred in a pond. I agreed, several times. At one time earlier in this conversation, I didn't understand what you were referring to as "spontaneous generation", I've since corrected that, but you can't let that go. Now that I understand what you mean, we both know it is an archaic explanation of the beginnings of life on earth, it is not relevant. It would have been relevant in Darwin's time, so him referring to it in a letter or two is not an issue either. Darwin's work did not depend on the origin of life, he studied how a new species arises from existing species. Evolution is not an archaic idea because people since Darwin have expanded on it and re-proved it and discovered new mechanisms that show how it works. That's what makes it a theory, that it can be used to verify other things. It's nice that you like me, but I think what you really like is attention. You think that by not trying to learn, but calling people names, by making them lookup bad and outdated science, you will continue to get attention. Maybe you should take a break and spend some time with family. If you are alone, go find a volunteer job somewhere, there are lots of them during the holidays. It's not my job to teach you evolution, so you can demand that all you want. Others are not responding because they see you don't care what other people think. They don't expect anything new or interesting from you. And you keep proving them correct.
You've changed the subject away from Abiogenesis and asked nonsensical questions. Demonstrating that is your weak point.No, I have ask you to expand upon Darwin's warm pond idea of spontaneous generation of life. You can not do this, and in fact never heard the term spontaneous generation as you said that I made the entire idea up. When I posted text that the term is real and in fact archaic, you agreed, which means that you also agree that evolution is in fact itself an archaic idea. Again, every post on the internet, could be stored on DNA as binary code, this proves that DNA is a perfect hard drive for modern computer information........ Seriously I like you, because you respond, however the multitude of other persons here are not responding, because they fully see that spontaneous generation is as fallacious an idea as is the postulation of evolution in the first place, as evolution does not even rise to the level of theory. So prove me wrong. There is nothing more to say about Darwin's pond idea. I showed you what I understand the definition "spontaneous generation" is. I showed that it is not related to Abiogenesis. What you keep saying is, spontaneous generation of life could not have occurred in a pond. I agreed, several times. At one time earlier in this conversation, I didn't understand what you were referring to as "spontaneous generation", I've since corrected that, but you can't let that go. Now that I understand what you mean, we both know it is an archaic explanation of the beginnings of life on earth, it is not relevant. It would have been relevant in Darwin's time, so him referring to it in a letter or two is not an issue either. Darwin's work did not depend on the origin of life, he studied how a new species arises from existing species. Evolution is not an archaic idea because people since Darwin have expanded on it and re-proved it and discovered new mechanisms that show how it works. That's what makes it a theory, that it can be used to verify other things. It's nice that you like me, but I think what you really like is attention. You think that by not trying to learn, but calling people names, by making them lookup bad and outdated science, you will continue to get attention. Maybe you should take a break and spend some time with family. If you are alone, go find a volunteer job somewhere, there are lots of them during the holidays. It's not my job to teach you evolution, so you can demand that all you want. Others are not responding because they see you don't care what other people think. They don't expect anything new or interesting from you. And you keep proving them correct. Mistakes in your thinking. You said that Darwin, "he studied how a new species arises from existing species" This is wrong, as Darwin never even postulated this, all Darwin did was to show that existing species evolved. You say that Darwin discovered new mechanisms that show how evolution works. Can you please elaborate on what mechanisms Darwin discovered after the publication of the bird watching chronicles,, that show how evolution works. Please be detailed, as I am trying to learn, and have learned several things here already, such as the origin of the species, has nothing to do with any species origin. I have made you look up outdated science? how, you may have done this, but clearly this was your choice. As for what you say that I should do with my time, you might look in the mirror of reflection, as you are here too. PS. I am about to take a 10 to 20 mile bike ride with my dog, along which her DNA will have her chasing several squirrels and perhaps a whitetail deer or two.
There is nothing more to say about Darwin's pond idea. I showed you what I understand the definition "spontaneous generation" is. I showed that it is not Mistakes in your thinking. You said that Darwin, "he studied how a new species arises from existing species" This is wrong, as Darwin never even postulated this, all Darwin did was to show that existing species evolved..I'm not going to argue this kind of detail. Evolution is one thing, there is no micro or macro or degrees of it. The way species evolve is the same way we end up with new species.
You say that Darwin discovered new mechanisms that show how evolution works. Can you please elaborate on what mechanisms Darwin discovered after the publication of the bird watching chronicles,, that show how evolution works. Please be detailed, as I am trying to learn, and have learned several things here already, such as the origin of the species, has nothing to do with any species origin.I don't think I said that. I meant the mechanisms were discovered by others afterward. Your statement about being willing to learn is disingenuous.
I have made you look up outdated science? how, you may have done this, but clearly this was your choice. As for what you say that I should do with my time, you might look in the mirror of reflection, as you are here too. PS. I am about to take a 10 to 20 mile bike ride with my dog, along which her DNA will have her chasing several squirrels and perhaps a whitetail deer or two.The links you provided were bad science and "spontaneous generation" is outdated science.
There is nothing more to say about Darwin's pond idea. I showed you what I understand the definition "spontaneous generation" is. I showed that it is not Mistakes in your thinking. You said that Darwin, "he studied how a new species arises from existing species" This is wrong, as Darwin never even postulated this, all Darwin did was to show that existing species evolved..I'm not going to argue this kind of detail. Evolution is one thing, there is no micro or macro or degrees of it. The way species evolve is the same way we end up with new species.
You say that Darwin discovered new mechanisms that show how evolution works. Can you please elaborate on what mechanisms Darwin discovered after the publication of the bird watching chronicles,, that show how evolution works. Please be detailed, as I am trying to learn, and have learned several things here already, such as the origin of the species, has nothing to do with any species origin.I don't think I said that. I meant the mechanisms were discovered by others afterward. Your statement about being willing to learn is disingenuous.
I have made you look up outdated science? how, you may have done this, but clearly this was your choice. As for what you say that I should do with my time, you might look in the mirror of reflection, as you are here too. PS. I am about to take a 10 to 20 mile bike ride with my dog, along which her DNA will have her chasing several squirrels and perhaps a whitetail deer or two.The links you provided were bad science and "spontaneous generation" is outdated science. I agree that spontaneous generation is outdated science, and since Darwin's evolutionary theory can not exist without spontaneous generation, you agree with the narrators of the links that I provided, that Darwin's theory makes no sense, and in fact does not even rise to the level of theory. PS. It's interesting how you must have learned that Darwin never touched on how a new species arises from an existing species, as you now ignore this, and how you can not elaborate on what mechanisms Darwin discovered. Seems that you are learning.
I agree that spontaneous generation is outdated science, and since Darwin's evolutionary theory can not exist without spontaneous generation, you agree with the narrators of the links that I provided, that Darwin's theory makes no sense, and in fact does not even rise to the level of theory. PS. It's interesting how you must have learned that Darwin never touched on how a new species arises from an existing species, as you now ignore this, and how you can not elaborate on what mechanisms Darwin discovered. Seems that you are learning.The only thing I've learned is that intelligent design proponents use the outdated notion of spontaneous generation in an attempt to discredit Darwin. It was never anything more than speculation and is not required for biological evolution. You need to first understand the difference between "speculation" and "scientific theory". Neither one is 100% proven true, but one has a lot more facts and evidence to back it up and is a lot more useful. When I was learning what evolution is, I found stories like one about a salamander that split it's population as it migrated around a mountain range. As they continued to migrate, they evolved on different paths. When the two populations met again at the other end of the mountain range, they were different species, they couldn't mate. I didn't save the link or the name of the salamander, because I don't teach evolution. If you want to learn it, go find someone who has the curriculum. A link to Talkorigins was provided on one of the first threads you commented on, why do you ignore it? Oh, and here's one of those lists of transitional fossils that I didn't save, but just happened to happen upon.]
I agree that spontaneous generation is outdated science, and since Darwin's evolutionary theory can not exist without spontaneous generation, you agree with the narrators of the links that I provided, that Darwin's theory makes no sense, and in fact does not even rise to the level of theory. PS. It's interesting how you must have learned that Darwin never touched on how a new species arises from an existing species, as you now ignore this, and how you can not elaborate on what mechanisms Darwin discovered. Seems that you are learning.The only thing I've learned is that intelligent design proponents use the outdated notion of spontaneous generation in an attempt to discredit Darwin. It was never anything more than speculation and is not required for biological evolution. You need to first understand the difference between "speculation" and "scientific theory". Neither one is 100% proven true, but one has a lot more facts and evidence to back it up and is a lot more useful. When I was learning what evolution is, I found stories like one about a salamander that split it's population as it migrated around a mountain range. As they continued to migrate, they evolved on different paths. When the two populations met again at the other end of the mountain range, they were different species, they couldn't mate. I didn't save the link or the name of the salamander, because I don't teach evolution. If you want to learn it, go find someone who has the curriculum. A link to Talkorigins was provided on one of the first threads you commented on, why do you ignore it? Oh, and here's one of those lists of transitional fossils that I didn't save, but just happened to happen upon.] Lausten, in order for any species of salamander to split off on a different evolutionary path, you must first have a salamander, can you grasp this? Sure evolution is proved, I have agreed with that, but evolution can not happen without first having a species to evolve, Darwin skipped over this little part, and people like you just ignore it as well, this is scientifically illiterate. You may use the term abiogenesis if you choose, instead of spontaneous generation, it makes no difference. But unless evolutionary theory shows where life came from in order to evolve, it is meaningless. Does talk origins explain how billions of lines of suspiciously like computer code were formed in a warm pond, without an intelligence? NO it does not, talkorigins may say that it does not matter, but it does. I do not have to watch nonsense, if talkorigins could answer the important questions, we would all already know the answer.
You do know that the things you typed before are still there right? The parts where you said Darwin was just a birdwatcher, and that his theory is wrong? Or are you going to tell me there is some difference between Darwin’s theory and the theory of evolution? I’ve already talked about how the theory has expanded, so let’s not go over that again. I can “grasp” that there is that theory and some more speculative ideas about Abiogenesis. That those are two things is where you are having trouble. Evolutionary theory does not need to know where life came from. That’s just silly.
I’ve also already explained how a complete DNA strand did not suddenly appear in a pond. You have no evidence for that, or any other evidence for an intelligent designer. What you have is an argument from ignorance, look it up.
You do know that the things you typed before are still there right? The parts where you said Darwin was just a birdwatcher, and that his theory is wrong? Or are you going to tell me there is some difference between Darwin's theory and the theory of evolution? I've already talked about how the theory has expanded, so let's not go over that again. I can "grasp" that there is that theory and some more speculative ideas about Abiogenesis. That those are two things is where you are having trouble. Evolutionary theory does not need to know where life came from. That's just silly. I've also already explained how a complete DNA strand did not suddenly appear in a pond. You have no evidence for that, or any other evidence for an intelligent designer. What you have is an argument from ignorance, look it up.Sheesh, "Where's the Tylenol", Ok, here goes again, my German Shorthaired Pointer is real, she has a few genes that are German Shorthair genes and the rest are Wolf genes, as my German shorthair is descended from Wolves, she actually uses Wolf tactics every time she runs loose in the forest. Thus I believe in evolution, however Darwin's theory of evolution fails, because it does not make any mention of where the species that are evolving came from. Are you following? this is where Darwin's letter to his friend Joseph Hooker comes in, and where Darwin let out his real idea about a warm pond full of phosphoric salts, where life was formed. There is no evidence for this anywhere, not from anyone. Why don't you just find out where Darwin said the finches came from in the first place, the ones that he also said were evolving? or does the Darwinian bird observations skip this small little thing. Does Darwin imply that life popped in from another dimension? or is abiogenesis the theory of life genesis associated with the Darwinian attempt at a theory. Prove me wrong, at least you know that spontaneous generation is not something that I made up at this point.
So you believe in evolution, but evolution fails. That makes no sense. Of course, you believe in an intelligent designer, which is even a bigger failure, so I guess it’s not surprising.
So you believe in evolution, but evolution fails. That makes no sense. Of course, you believe in an intelligent designer, which is even a bigger failure, so I guess it's not surprising.It makes perfect sense, my dog is clearly a product of evolution, however the Wolf that my dog is evolved from, had to come from somewhere, Darwin never explained where any species came from, including the finches he observed, this is where his theory fails. What part do you not grasp?
I answered that a half dozen times already.
I answered that a half dozen times already.You haven't quoted the topic that you claim to have answered, thus we have no idea of what you are referring to. As usual.
So you believe in evolution, but evolution fails. That makes no sense. Of course, you believe in an intelligent designer, which is even a bigger failure, so I guess it's not surprising.It makes perfect sense, my dog is clearly a product of evolution, however the Wolf that my dog is evolved from, had to come from somewhere, Darwin never explained where any species came from, including the finches he observed, this is where his theory fails. What part do you not grasp? Have you explained where any species came from, with objective evidence? Has anyone? If so, let us know. Anybody can make up a story and claim it's true with no evidence. That's one reason Darwin did not try to explain how life began. He had no objective evidence to support any explanation. That's the difference between a scientist and a theist. A scientist won't claim he has knowledge when he doesn't. Theists do it all the time. P.S. the Bible is not objective evidence. It's as subjective as your interpretation is. Lois
3. There is not one book that demonstrates anything at all, you can say that anything is a theory. Einstein had one doosy, Prior to scientists embracing the notion that the universe was created as the result of the Big Bang, it was commonly believed that the size of the universe was an unchanging constant—it had always been the size it was, and always would be. The idea stated that that the total volume of the universe was effectively fixed, and that the whole construct operated as a closed system. The theory found its biggest adherent in Albert Einstein—the Static Universe is often known as “Einstein’s Universe"—who argued in favor of it and even calculated it into his theory of general relativity. 4. You don't even believe in spontaneous generation as evolutionary theory demands that you must. In fact you never heard of spontaneous generation in relation to evolutionary theory, and you said that I made it up.You're deliberately trying to not understand what I'm saying. Let alone agree with it. Your thing about Einstein is a story about how science works. The greatest scientists in history were all wrong in some way. We keep doing science and we build on what they showed us. "I didn't know what you were talking about with spontaneous generation because it is outdated, something I don't need to know about. It's history. Once I realized what you were referring to, to an archaic notion about mice spontaneously generating out of dirty rags, it made more sense why you were making these wild claims about Darwin being disproven. But you're wrong, disproving spontaneous generation does not disprove Darwin. The quote you provided from Britannica says archaic. You highlight the part about it being a theory of the origin of life, but the important part of that quote is that it is archaic. We have better science now that has led to better theories. The tolweb site is full of information, looking at the first page is not going to give you the answers you seek." Quote from Lausten----->"You’re making up things like “spontaneous generation". You’re assuming a universe that existed for billions of years with no life, something we actually agree on, but then you leap some version of life that you haven’t described and calling that “spontaneous". You’re going from 0 to 60 and saying that’s impossible. That would be right. So, maybe life didn’t go from 0 to 60, maybe the universe was not created in 6 days, I think we agree on that too. " Your own words say that you do not accept that Darwin's theory could possibly have merit, and clearly spell out that you were 100 percent not familiar with the term spontaneous generation. True, I never said where life came from, what I have said is that hundreds of thousands of lines of DNA code, that are needed for evolution, could not be the product of abiogenesis, in a pond, and explained that this is the point where Darwin's theory fails. I have also said that if and when the human race moves life off of this planet to another, the mystery of what is God vanishes, because we have just acted like God and seeded another planet with life. Sure this has not happened yet, but I challenge anyone to put forth any reason why this is not possible, other than the size of space itself. I also have never speculated once on how the universe was created, and have never once said that the universe was created by God, with that you are attributing the ideas of others to me, because this is easy.