Abiogenesis Fact?

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Did you read what I wrote?

Sure, just read it again. Not sure what you are getting at, other than you don't like the fact that I don't bother to edit much. This is just an internet board, but once you get spanked on the topic, it is typical to attack the person.

Originally posted by @eladar
Sure, just read it again. Not sure what you are getting at, other than you don't like the fact that I don't bother to edit much. This is just an internet board, but once you get spanked on the topic, it is typical to attack the person.

I wrote "We are not accepting anything by faith." Then you wrote "You accept it by faith."

Originally posted by @wildgrass
I wrote "We are not accepting anything by faith." Then you wrote "You accept it by faith."

Of course you are, you just refuse to see it. No true believer, of any faith, believes he is accepting anything by faith. True believers think that what they believe is simply fact. They have all sort of reasons in their heads to convince themselves of how they believe fact and truth and others believe things based on faith.

Originally posted by @eladar
Of course you are, you just refuse to see it. No true believer, of any faith, believes he is accepting anything by faith. True believers think that what they believe is simply fact. They have all sort of reasons in their heads to convince themselves of how they believe fact and truth and others believe things based on faith.

What, exactly, are you talking about?

What, exactly, did I say was a fact? What, exactly, did I say was being accepted by faith?

Originally posted by @wildgrass
What, exactly, are you talking about?

What, exactly, did I say was a fact? What, exactly, did I say was being accepted by faith?

Just goes to show the word games you play to insulate yourself from reproach.

Just know that evolution is taught as fact. Many people around here admit they believe it is fact. You and your ilk accept it as fact but you refuse to admit it so you can play games.

You can either give up your façade or we are done.

Originally posted by @eladar
Just goes to show the word games you play to insulate yourself from reproach.

Just know that evolution is taught as fact. Many people around here admit they believe it is fact. You and your ilk accept it as fact but you refuse to admit it so you can play games.

You can either give up your façade or we are done.

There are no "games" being played when teaching the theory of gravity. It is taught as science because the evidence in its favour is overwhelmingly strong, just as it is for evolution. That the scientific findings of mankind make you uncomfortable is unfortunate for you.

Originally posted by @eladar
Just goes to show the word games you play to insulate yourself from reproach.

Just know that evolution is taught as fact. Many people around here admit they believe it is fact. You and your ilk accept it as fact but you refuse to admit it so you can play games.

You can either give up your façade or we are done.

You're mixing up your words, not me. I think ultimately, theory vs. fact is a semantical debate when it comes to theories that are grounded in overwhelming empirical evidence, as is the case with evolution.

But no scientific theory is truly beyond reproach. In my opinion, calling a theory a fact is problematic, in that it misrepresents what science is all about. Science is a method for testing hypotheses. In reality, we are continuously modifying and improving and critically evaluating theories and hypotheses. The facts inform the theory, and the theory is a coherent explanation of the facts.

The problem with this, of course, is that it gives you a window to say "see I told you evolution isn't a fact." without providing any additional facts that would in any way change the working theory or hypothesis. You can't even come up with a coherent experimental design to test your theory without a time machine that doesn't exist. For science, these arguments are irrelevant. Yet to some who cannot appreciate that uncertainty is built into the equation, the uncertainty can be exploited and incorrectly referred to as a "false assumption."

In school, I was never taught that evolution was a fact. You start with the factual evidence that informs the theory of evolution. Your contention that it is taught as fact is either misinformed or semantic. The facts inform the theory.

By the way, did you ever figure a way to test your experimental model that the squirrel and tree appeared de novo in that spot, dead as doornails? This experiment, it seems, would be your window to proving everyone else wrong on evolution.

Originally posted by @eladar
Just goes to show the word games you play to insulate yourself from reproach.

Just know that evolution is taught as fact. Many people around here admit they believe it is fact. You and your ilk accept it as fact but you refuse to admit it so you can play games.

You can either give up your façade or we are done.

What do you attribute the changes we see in ancient fossils that we call evolution? We have seen evolution in action not just the change in fossil characteristics. So what do you want to call the science of the study of live changes?

Originally posted by @sonhouse
What do you attribute the changes we see in ancient fossils that we call evolution? We have seen evolution in action not just the change in fossil characteristics. So what do you want to call the science of the study of live changes?

You are going off on a tangent. What must first be agreed upon is the truth of the situation.

People believe that evolution is fact.

People believe that abiogenesis is a fact.

Before we can go on we must find ground for agreement. Without this, there is not discussion, only word games.

Originally posted by @eladar
You are going off on a tangent. What must first be agreed upon is the truth of the situation.

People believe that evolution is fact.

People believe that abiogenesis is a fact.

Before we can go on we must find ground for agreement. Without this, there is not discussion, only word games.

People believe evolution as fact. People do not believe abio as fact, it is one possibility. Untill it is proven it is just a hypothesis.

So what do you think the fossil record means?

Originally posted by @wildgrass
You're mixing up your words, not me. I think ultimately, theory vs. fact is a semantical debate when it comes to theories that are grounded in overwhelming empirical evidence, as is the case with evolution.

But no scientific theory is truly beyond reproach. In my opinion, calling a theory a fact is problematic, in that it misrepresents what science is ...[text shortened]... ls? This experiment, it seems, would be your window to proving everyone else wrong on evolution.

As long as evolution is not taught as fact and does not negate other origins beliefs, I am fine with that.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
People believe evolution as fact. People do not believe abio as fact, it is one possibility. Untill it is proven it is just a hypothesis.

So what do you think the fossil record means?

As fact is what wildgrass and I have a problem.

Abiogenesis is required for a natural explanation.

Originally posted by @eladar
As fact is what wildgrass and I have a problem.

Abiogenesis is required for a natural explanation.

Ok, Abio is not real. Given that, how do you interpret the hundreds of fossils collected over the centuries? Do you claim to be expert in that and creation also?

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Ok, Abio is not real. Given that, how do you interpret the hundreds of fossils collected over the centuries? Do you claim to be expert in that and creation also?

I believe God created a Universe based on natural laws with the history in place. In other words God could have imagined the universe from a big bang then instantaneously created the universe as it would have been if the big bang actually happened. This would also include life and the fossil record.

Of course that is just my personal belief.

Originally posted by @eladar
I believe God created a Universe based on natural laws with the history in place. In other words God could have imagined the universe from a big bang then instantaneously created the universe as it would have been if the big bang actually happened. This would also include life and the fossil record.

Of course that is just my personal belief.

All you are disputing here is the timing of the events?