Why do you reject the theory of evolution? [Spirituality & Religion]

@Celine He's talking about how you gave up posting debates in favour of something more proveable.

@Celine So in your pet theory what is life and how does it come to exist?

Don't mind if I just sit here and watch?

@hippyjoe1955 Life is a self-sustaining chemical system that is capable of Darwinian evolution (we've discussed this before, but I'm happy to work through it again).

Abiogenesis is a different subject (we've discussed this before, but I'm happy to work through it again).

@newjaninev2 So it is nothing more than chemicals. What then is the purpose of debate or discussion?

@hippyjoe1955 I write 'Life is a self-sustaining chemical system that is capable of Darwinian evolution' and you characterise that as 'nothing more than chemicals'.

The entire universe is 'nothing more than chemicals'.
You remind me of someone I once spoke with who said that she never ate anything that contained chemicals (it still makes me chuckle).

@newjaninev2 So then there is nothing to debate. Life is just chemicals and not ideas or understanding or anything else. Everything is predetermined by the chemicals.

@hippyjoe1955 Don't forget the electrical impulses in your brain.

@hippyjoe1955 I offered a definition of life. You characterised it as 'nothing more than chemicals'. I pointed out to you that your characterisation is a mere over-simplification that avoids addressing the really interesting aspects of the definition ([i]self-sustaining[/i] and [i]Darwinian evolution[/i]), and all you do is repeat your original over-simplification.

You're saying that 'there is nothing to debate' simply because you're trying to avoid the parts of the definition that are worthy of debate

@FearfulHarmony49 Merely physical reactions based on simply chemistry. Nothing to debate. Chemicals aren't smart.

@hippyjoe1955 You're so unreasonable it's cute.

@FearfulHarmony49 What is reasonable? We are simply chemicals and electrical impulses.

@hippyjoe1955 You know what, I think I agree with you. It's not like people, when working in conjunction with each other, can accomplish greater things than can one person. Nah, there are definitely no comparable examples for my previous argument.

@FearfulHarmony49 Who cares? There is only chemicals and electricity.

@hippyjoe1955 Why are you so loathe to discuss [i]self-sustaining[/i] and [i]capable of Darwinian evolution[/i]?

@newjaninev2 What is the point of discussing anything with a chemical reaction? I could just as easily talk to a bon fire. Same import.

@hippyjoe1955 Unfortunately for you, I doubt that anyone here is looking at the squirrel... I'm certainly not.
What I [i]am[/i] looking at is your obvious reluctance (and apparent inability) to discuss the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

Given that such discussions have consistently resulted in exposure of the threadbare and risible nature of your claims, I can well understand your reluctance.

No matter.

@newjaninev2 What squirrel? The chemical reaction that climbs the other chemical reaction AKA trees? There is nothing to debate. We are simply chemical reactions that burn out in a short span of time.

@hippyjoe1955 What point are you trying to make? [i]Are[/i] you trying to make a point?

@newjaninev2 The point is you can't see the futility of debating chemical reactions. Might as well be talking to the camp fire. It's a chemical reaction too.

@hippyjoe1955 I'm not trying to debate 'chemical reactions'... whatever that means (you [i]still[/i] haven't said).
Do you have anything to say about the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection?

@newjaninev2 You said you were a chemical reaction. For me to engage in a debate with you would be me debating a chemical reaction. I would rather talk to the camp fire. It makes more sense.

@hippyjoe1955 [quote]You said you were a chemical reaction[/quote]

No, I didn't.

So, [i]do[/i] you have anything to say about the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection?