People reject evolution

Most people reject evolution. When I say evolution I mean the kind that starts with a single celled creature and over time transforms into a fish, then a frog, then a bird or snake etc etc.

I think most people agree with adaptation. We can see it happening. There is loads of evidence for it. But there is no evidence to support the notion life as we know it arose from lowly single cell creatures.

If life did arise without a creator, it would need to come into existence with the ability to eat, remove waste, process food, grow, and reproduce. That would be a much bigger miracle than having a creator make it.

The next step is how life began from non-living matter when biogenesis (scientific fact) says all life comes from existing life.

We all know the theory of abiogenesis (the unsupported theory that life came from non-living material) strikes in the face of science, yet people who reject the notion of a creator must assume this is how life began.

Their beliefs cause them to close their eyes to science when it shows their beliefs to be wrong. So in a way, one could say people on both sides of the issue depend on their beliefs to guide them through science.

Most people believe in demons, too. So what? Gee, could it just be that they don't understand evolution? Kinda like you?

And why do we need our 4,826th evolution thread?

It's not too late to go to college, Kevn.

<packs up the family>
<relocates to bomb shelter hastily constructed out of cardboard>
forget ending well, this won't end at all!

Been there, done that, but the indoctrination didn't affect me. Much like the way the indoctrination of a given church has no affect on some who attend.

btw, that's no way to debate, you lose.

I've been around the block on this issue enough times with you to know you're not interested in debate. Give it a rest.

If you don't want to discuss my original post, and try to debate it, why chime in at all? Are you concerned some might agree with me? Do you think people who agree would stop agreeing based on snide comments from atheists?

You must know better.

wait for it, WAIT FOR IT! Here it comes...

but but but.... without the bible there wouldn't be a block....

And when you say most people, do you mean most people in your immediate family, most people in your church, most people in your town...?


We do? Maybe you should tell that to the biologists who are experimenting with methods to proceed from simple organics to complex proteins to life...

Or are you purposefully trying to twist things yet again by using the specific concept of abiogenesis that was around hundreds of years ago...maggots that spontaneously appear on rotten meat, and so on?

Kevn, the 53% of people polled in the US is not "most people".

Do you have anything to back up such a grand and sweeping comment? You might as well have said “most people like cucumbers”. They both have about the same merit.

I notice that you speak as though evolution totally eliminates the possibility of a Creator (to use your word). What's wrong with the idea that the Creator is the one who set evolution in motion in the first place?

That's really what most people believe after all.

1. Most people in the USA.

2. If scientists ever are able to create life, it will be an example of intelligent design.

3. Abiogenesis is what it is...
a·bi·o·gen·e·sis ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b--jn-ss)
n.
The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter.

Dear Kevn,

Have you ever had a cold?

Signed,
Science

Most means more than any other group. Only 15% believe in evolution to the point there was no creator. That would be the opposite of most, or we say it's the "least".

So most people agree with your definition of evolution and not the one used by biologists? And then they reject what you call "evolution" without addressing at all the real definition of evolution? So what you really mean is, "Most people reject my simplistic, uninformed definition of evolution." And, yep, you're probably right. Most of us do.



And just how do animals and plants pass down this "adaptation" to their offspring? Do you have any evidence that an animal "adapting" to an environment somehow alters its own DNA? Is it your contention that baby giraffes have long necks because their parents stretched their own necks to reach the highest leaves?



It's seems to be a bigger miracle because you start halfway through the story. If life arose with a creator, that creator would have had to have arisen from nothing, become all knowing and all powerful before there was anything to know or have power over, and then have created the entire universe from nothing. And then he or she or it or them moved on to create life. Start at the beginning of your story and it gets a lot more complicated.



There are no scientific "facts." There are hypotheses, theories, and paradigms. Biogenesis says that flies and other animals didn't arise from rotting meat as was formerly thought. It does not address the issue of the evolution of unicellular life.



Again, you misuse biogenesis and abiogenesis. I love how you call abiogenesis an unsupported theory, but biogenesis is a fact. LOL.



Except the key is to change your beliefs to fit the evidence, and anybody who is still using "God" as a "theory" hasn't done that.

Yes, I killed it.

But it'll be back next year.

Why is that?

I feel no need to theorize about the origin of life. It's not my field of study. Obviously I favor scientific theory, but I don't rule out the possibility of some sort of creator. When science has proof one way or another I'll adjust my beliefs accordingly. You reject science out of hand because it conflicts with your dogma. You've been given hundreds of well though out, articulate, posts to consider on this subject and you summarily ignore them all as if you are completely incapable and unwilling to incorporate new information. You consider blind assertion as somehow equal to the weight of scientific evidence. In my book that makes you incredibly narrow minded, not someone interested in debate or learning. You preach, you don't debate, and I'm tired of wasting my time. After dozens of these threads I'm convinced that you're simply trolling with the intent to antagonize and I treat you with the respect I think you're due... very little.

So again I ask, what is your point in posting to this thread?

Evolution is such a crock. Inconceivable crap.

It's SO obvious that the human species is derived from a guy who impregnated a rib torn out of his chest. Who could deny the logical sensible reason of that?

()

<runs across the thread with hands on his head>
sorry out of beer

<runs back across to his cardboard bomb shelter>

Maybe most people like cucumbers because most people evolved from cucumbers. Personally, I don't really like cucumbers...so I guess that I spontaneously came into existence.


Source please.


So those scientists would then be gods? And could we have been created by "aliens"?



Using that definition, how does abiogenesis "strike in the face of science"? Real science, mind you.

So, 53% of people in the US is "most people in the world"? Interesting.