An important aspect of science is being open to and even seeking out that which might disprove your theory. [Spirituality & Religion]

@GodSpeed63

I'm afraid simply declaring something to be true (true or not) is simply unconvincing as an argument. You understand that as a concept, i'm sure of it.

[quote]Evolution never happened, it would've broken every law that there is.[/quote]

A bold claim. But unfortunately rather too vague to be useful.
That's what this thread is all about, my dude! Let's get specific!🙂 Why don't you pick a couple of the laws you think evolution is breaking and discuss them.

@Pikachu [quote]I'm afraid simply declaring something to be true (true or not) is simply unconvincing as an argument[/quote]

That's true if mere men were declaring it. So, why do you keep declaring that evolution is true when God already says it isn't true?

@GodSpeed63

I am always happy to describe the evidence which indicates that evolution has occurred and i have done so many times before. It is dishonest to suggest that i only declare evolution is true.

But let's not get sidetracked.
You said "Evolution never happened, it would've broken every law that there is."
Let's dig into that. Please be [i]specific[/i] this time.

Ready when you are🙂

@Pikachu [quote]I am always happy to describe the evidence[/quote]

What evidence would that be?

@GodSpeed63

[quote]What evidence would that be?
[/quote]

I think such evidence will necessarily come up as part of our discussion.
So let's begin. I don't know why you're dragging your feet.

You said "Evolution never happened, it would've broken every law that there is."
Let's dig into that. Please be specific this time.

Ready when you are🙂

@Pikachu [quote]I think such evidence will necessarily come up as part of our discussion.[/quote]

I take it that you have no evidence for evolution? I figured you wouldn't.

@GodSpeed63


Seems like what's happening here is that you made a bold claim but can't back it up and so you're trying to shift the focus.
Sorry, i won't allow you to do that.
I [i]promise[/i] you that we will discuss evidence for evolution as part of our discussion and if we do not then i will be happy to discuss it afterwards.

There.
Now you have [b]no excuses [/b]not to back up your claim. If you refuse to engage now then it will become obvious that it is because you are afraid to do so.
I shall give you just one chance to meet this head on like a man.

[c=#BF0000][b]You said "Evolution never happened, it would've broken every law that there is."
This is EXACTLY the kind of claim this thread is made to address.
Be specific. Heck, at LEAST name [i]one single law[/i] that is broken.
Cards on the table because I'm calling your bluff, son.
So show me what you got[/b][/c]🙂

@Pikachu [quote]Seems like what's happening here is that you made a bold claim but can't back it up and so you're trying to shift the focus.[/quote]

Evolution itself doesn't break the laws of science because its just a word. Evolutionists can't break the laws of science, only lie about them. If evolution was possible, then the laws of science, as we know today would have been broken. Two examples of the laws are: life comes from life and like comes from like.

@GodSpeed63


Ah, now we're getting somewhere!

Now to be clear, neither of those are "laws" of science. If you disagree then i invite you to find me a scientific publication saying that they are.
That said, i am happy to address your concerns so please don't start arguing about whether or not these are laws and ignoring the actual substance of this post. Thanks🙂

1)[quote]life comes from life [/quote]

In our experience, yes. Although we have shown that inorganic molecules can spontaneously form organic molecules so that rule may not be as had and fast as you think. Secondly (and i think i've explained this before) the theory of evolution [c=#BF0000]does not attempt to describe the ultimate origins of life[/c]. It describes how life on this planet diversified. In the same way that the theory of gravity (TGR) does not describe how [i]matter[/i] came to exist but readily explains how matter interacts.
In short, we need not know the [i]origin[/i] of life in order to observe the evidence that it has since evolved.

2)[quote]like comes from like[/quote]

Now this is even less of a "law of nature" than the first and in a moment you'll realize why.
The idea that like produces like is demonstrably false and can be observed to be false both in your own life and in the laboratory.
The fact is that life reproduces...with variation. Organisms produce offspring which are much like them but which may differ subtly. Even over a few generations we can see this actually turn into an isolated breeding group; a new species.
So then what happens when these breeding populations become separate and
changes compounded over time? Well now they're not so subtle. Now you've got a mechanism for life diversifying.
Now laws broken whatsoever.

@Pikachu [quote]Now to be clear, neither of those are "laws" of science.[/quote]

I don't know what science book you're reading but all science books have those laws in them.

@GodSpeed63

Excuse me, i spent some time responding to your points in detail. Please show me the same respect and address my responses. Thank you.

1)
life comes from life

In our experience, yes. Although we have shown that inorganic molecules can spontaneously form organic molecules so that rule may not be as had and fast as you think. Secondly (and i think i've explained this before) the theory of evolution does not attempt to describe the ultimate origins of life. It describes how life on this planet diversified. In the same way that the theory of gravity (TGR) does not describe how matter came to exist but readily explains how matter interacts.
In short, we need not know the origin of life in order to observe the evidence that it has since evolved.

2)
like comes from like

Now this is even less of a "law of nature" than the first and in a moment you'll realize why.
The idea that like produces like is demonstrably false and can be observed to be false both in your own life and in the laboratory.
The fact is that life reproduces...with variation. Organisms produce offspring which are much like them but which may differ subtly. Even over a few generations we can see this actually turn into an isolated breeding group; a new species.
So then what happens when these breeding populations become separate and
changes compounded over time? Well now they're not so subtle. Now you've got a mechanism for life diversifying.
Now laws broken whatsoever.

[quote]I don't know what science book you're reading but all science have those laws in them.
[/quote]

So link me to one. Just one. 🙂

@Pikachu [quote]Secondly (and I think I've explained this before) the theory of evolution does not attempt to describe the ultimate origins of life.[/quote]

It can't because it never happened. Those inorganic compounds forming organic compounds your talking about doesn't prove evolution.

[quote]The fact is that life reproduces...with variation. Organisms produce offspring which are much like them but which may differ subtly. Even over a few generations we can see this actually turn into an isolated breeding group; a new species. So then what happens when these breeding populations become separate and
changes compounded over time? Well now they're not so subtle. Now you've got a mechanism for life diversifying.[/quote]

Wrong. Dogs will always be dogs and cats will always be cats. They will never interbreed as Yahweh intended. The lion is a breed of cat as is the tabby but they are still cats. The wolf is a breed of dog as well as the beagle but they are still dogs. BTW, evolution never took place within the breeds.

@GodSpeed63

[quote]It can't because it never happened.
[/quote]
Actually i'm going to need you to meet this one head on.
Evolution does not describe how life began, it describes how it diversified. Just as you needn't know how matter arose in order to observe its interactions, you don't need to know how life [i]began[/i] in order to observe the evidence that it has since [i]evolved[/i].
Please give your rebuttal to this argument: If you disagree then explain specifically why we must know how x began in order to observe its interactions.


[quote]Wrong[/quote]

What's wrong? The idea that life reproduces with [i]variation[/i]?
No that's actually quite irrefutably correct and documented.
So since you acknowledge that offspring can change subtly from their parents and their offspring can be slightly different from them and [i]those[/i] offspring can be different still, you now understand how a population can change over time into something quite different.
Just the way a language starts out one way but within different populations begins to alter gradually until it is an entirely different language.
The roots of that language can still be identified as being related to other languages just as species can still be identified as sharing distant relationships with a common ancestor.

[quote]I don't know what science book you're reading but all science have those laws in them.[/quote]

Still waiting for you to link me at least one of ALL SCIENCE books with those "laws" in them.
Are you going to produce such a link or are you conceding that point?

@Pikachu [quote]Evolution does not describe how life began, it describes how it diversified. Just as you needn't know how matter arose in order to observe its interactions, you don't need to know how life began in order to observe the evidence that it has since evolved.[/quote]

That's not science. That's just plain ignorance disguising itself as supped intelligence. You can't take pieces of science and say that it's science. You need to take science as a whole or it's not science at all. FYI science itself has a beginning and an end.

[quote]Still waiting for you to link me at least one of ALL SCIENCE books with those "laws" in them. Are you going to produce such a link or are you conceding that point?[/quote]

You show me one that doesn't.

@GodSpeed63



[quote] You need to take science as a whole or it's not science at all.[/quote]

Wrong.
Categorically, objectively wrong.

You don't look to chemistry to explain weather patterns, you don't use geology to study the anatomy of the cell, you don't take the germ theory of disease and try to explain how stars were formed and on and on and on.
Are you getting the picture here? Evolution is a theory which describes how life diversifies [b]so you don't attempt to use it to explain life origin because that is not what it is for.[/b]

Science is not some monolithic all or nothing entity. It's a way of examining the world around us. It's a tool kit and you use the right tool for the right job.

So sorry but you could not be more wrong.

The theory of evolution does not explain how life ultimately began any more than the general theory of relativity explains how matter began or the germ theory of disease explains the origin of bacteria.

I raise this challenge to you again and if you ignore it i will raise it again and again until you finally answer it:

[c=#BF0000]Explain why it is necessary to know how life originated in order to observe the evidence that it has since evolved. Or if you find it easier, explain why it is necessary to know how matter arose in order to observe its gravitational interactions.[/c]


[quote]You show me one that doesn't.[/quote]

lol so...you want me to show you an example of something that doesn't exist because you can't support the claim you pulled right out your ass? lol how much time did you think that would buy you?
Ok, sure. And [i]that way[/i] you'll have no excuse not to respond with an example showing these "laws of science".

Here's a link to a PDF of a textbook i have at home. Funnily enough there's no mention of the "law of science" that life only comes from life or that like comes from like.
http://tfssbio.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/54980708/Biology_for_the_IB_Diploma.pdf

Now you back up your claim or you just [i]back down[/i]🙂

@Pikachu Ah, his usual incoherently feeble attempts at argument.

@Bushranger

It does become fairly obvious when he's out of his depth. I anticipate an "i'll pray for you" any post now...

@Pikachu Car park puddles are too much for him.

@Bushranger

lol well no need to be rude.

@Pikachu @Bushranger [quote]Wrong. Categorically, objectively wrong.[/quote]

I figured you wouldn't have any science books that do not contain those laws of science. You two are something else.

@GodSpeed63 Can you give me any logical reason why a physics, chemistry, geology or astrophysics textbook would have such "laws" in them? As @Pikachu has previously pointed out, science is a collection of disciplines. The common factor is the reliance on the scientific method. Oh, and didn't @Pikachu actually link to a textbook? Or did you just conveniently ignore that? So why don't you stand up to the challenge and link to one that does.

@Bushranger [quote]Can you give me any logical reason why a physics, chemistry, geology or astrophysics textbook would have such "laws" in them?[/quote]

I noticed that you didn't mention biology. Interesting.

@GodSpeed63 None of the real biology textbooks mention those supposed "rules." You know why not? Because they are the invention of creationists.

But that doesn't really deal with the point I was making in my previous post. That is, you obviously have a poor understanding of what real science is about. You rely way too much on limited information provided by creationists and Christian apologists.

@GodSpeed63

[quote]I figured you wouldn't have any science books that do not contain those laws of science.[/quote]


Hahahahaha!

Seriously, dude?
I literally linked you to a [b]biology textbook[/b].😂

http://tfssbio.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/54980708/Biology_for_the_IB_Diploma.pdf

There is is again.


Next time show a little intellectual integrity and take the time to read the entire post so you can avoid making a fool of yourself again.

@GodSpeed63

I raise this challenge to you again and if you ignore it i will raise it again and again until you finally answer it:

[b][c=#BF0000]Explain why it is necessary to know how life originated in order to observe the evidence that it has since evolved. Or if you find it easier, explain why it is necessary to know how matter arose in order to observe its gravitational interactions.[/c][/b]