Summations Only

You forgot to mention the widdle ol' fact that "common ancestry" is an assumption.
Here's how it goes:
The fact that the DNA system is common to all living things is used by Darwinists as evidence of common ancestry. Cytochrome c performs a similar role in cellular respiration in many different organisms, and this fact is also used as evidence of common ancestry. Fair enough, but such facts can also be used as evidence of a Creator who decided to use the same biological machinery in lots of different creatures.
So when an evolutionary biologist says something like "based on common ancestry", what he is really saying is, "it is assumed by the Darwinist paradigm to be based on common ancestry".
Furthermore, the assumption of common ancestry is not what is useful in biology - it is the facts that led to the assumption that are useful in biology.Of course, the science of Darwinism - which is inherently dishonest and deceitful - would have us believe that common ancestry is not only an undeniable and demonstrable fact, but that it is eminently useful in applied biology. I'd love a dollar for every biology student who has been brainwashed into believing this mendacious cult nonsense.You can't fool all of the people all of the time.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

What if spontaneous generation occurred twice, and one died and everything else came from the other one? There'd still be a universal common ancestor.What if it happened 100 times, and 99 died? Same deal.A single occurrence isn't required.

There is a basic requirement of the recipient of being able to understand what is presented.If the example is text and you do not know how to read anything, then what possible example could we present that would be simple enough even for you? What form of text would be simple enough for someone incapable of reading text?Or even more propos, what possible text example could ever be acceptable to someone who rejects all forms of text?You need to learn enough to understand the explanations you are given.For example, I am a social dancer. Part of dancing is turning and spins. That is quite simply a matter of conservation of angular momentum, basic physics. Now try to explain that to someone with no knowledge of physics nor any desire to learn any.You are in the category of having no desire to learn.

It never ceases to amaze me that in this day and age there are educated adults who believe that dead matter can somehow produce life. Superstition will never die.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

That possibility is covered in the quote from Dobzhansky.

From Taq's Message 897 (bet you thought you had buried it too deep for us): So what's your assumption here? Blind random luck producing those results? Yet more of your deceptive lies. And yet you continue to behave as if you believed that evolution contradicts the idea of a Creator. Where do you get such nonsense from? I know where, from your creationist handlers who are feeding you lie after lie.What about "creation science" itself? A deliberately crafted deception.You have been fooled and you continue to be played for a fool.

Unless God is involved, I suppose.

quote:

---

Genesis 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

---

Source, King James versionMight not God have started a very simple form of life from "the dust of the ground"? (Theistic abiogenisis/evolution in action). Such as Genesis 2:7?MooseAdded by edit - Might the above be modified into:Might not God have started man via a very simple form of life from "the dust of the ground"? (Theistic abiogenisis/evolution in action).Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added by edit.

Dead matter can't produce life.
Humans can't produce life from dead matter.
God can produce life from dead matter.

Nope. The opposite. It's a conclusion. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

OMG, CRR. Most people here don't have the mentality of a kindergarten child. You using different colours and fonts and stuff like that trying to impress people shows your mentality.

You object to his use of colors and fonts? I think that shows more about YOUR childish mentality than his. How about commenting on the substance of his post? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I guess either can be called a superstition if that's your point, but Genesis 2:7 gives the essential difference between life spontaneously coming out of matter and God creating life by using matter, which is that, according to the Bible, the life doesn't come from the matter, God breathes life into the matter after He's formed the material body. Matter can't breathe life into itself, even if it could somehow come up with the material shell, which of course it couldn't without the life in it. In other words life is something entirely different from matter, matter is just the vehicle for life to be able to function in the physical universe. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, and as I pointed out your references did not address the issue. Entail: 1. Involve (something) as a necessary or inevitable part or consequence. NOT ABIOGENESIS since it starts with simple forms of life existing. Also no mention of abiogenesis being an assumption underlying the ToE. Yep, that's our conclusion from the evidence and the ToE.Do you even read what you write? You are trying to prove that common descent is a starting assumption of the ToE, not a conclusion. Quotes that do not address that question are irrelevant. Yes, an important event. No, not an assumption of the ToE. You're not even trying. How are you selecting these quotes? Something that is "suggested" is not assumed. Duh. Yep, another conclusion from the evidence based on the ToE. No mention of any assumptions underlying the ToE.I suggest you start looking for quotes that actually are relevant.Oh, and if you want to establish Kerkut as a valid authority, you're going to have to address all of his "assumptions" and more.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

See the logic error there?Of course not.

Conclusion, not assumption. Note how CRR is failing miserably at trying to establish that it's an assumption.