Evolution is not Abiogenesis

No, I'm saying - or trying to say - that the ToE doesn't care what the first cause was, it works the same regardless of how first life started.Edited by Tangle, : bloody quotes...

Sorry Tangle, my question was addressed to marc9000

So I can't believe that my siblings and I share a common ancestor in our parents without first figuring out how life originated? Really?Do you even think these things through?

In ID, design and origin are one in the same. In evolution, they are not. According to evolution, the design we see in organisms today came about through mechanisms that acted on life that was already here. For ID, there was no life, and the design we see in life was put there at their origin.

For evolution, it doesn't matter how that first life came about. We are following the EVIDENCE which leads to the conclusion that all life shares a common ancestral pool of genes. That is simply what the evidence shows. Nothing in atheism requires a single common ancestral pool. In fact, someone could find a rare species in some deep ocean vent that does not share the same genetic features as all other life and it would fit just fine with atheism. It would also fit just fine with evolution in that evolution does not require a single common ancestor for all life.Another thing that you and other theists seem to be misunderstanding is that gods and designers can exist in the atheist worldview. All we need is evidence for these gods and designers, and then we will accept that they exist. Magical poofing as a mechansim for the first life is also allowed in the atheistic worldview, as long as there is evidence for it. We are following the evidence Marc, no more no less.

Would you accept the papers I have linked as evidence for abiogenesis or not? It is a simple yes or no.

I won't quote most of your response, since you merely dodge the questions I asked. I'm already familiar with how creationists do that. I especially enjoy the maneuver of, okay, answer my question--oh dear, run away!So I'll simply note that you cannot refute my logical demonstration that all forms of ID are furtive creationism, and that it continues to amuse me to see how, in your view, God depends on sneaky lies.But I suppose I should give you a back-handed compliment for this soupcon of honesty: Creationism's courtroom hopes depend on a religiously biased judge or jury.We know, Marc, we know.

That quote really pissed me off. As a Christian Evolutionist I've never been bought or even rented (well, maybe by a few young ladies once) and I could really use the money.

Every day I check the mail for my ACLU check.Boy are they in arrears.

The attempt to do just that is made by ID’s top theorists. But there is a difference in what we can understand about the supernatural v what we can understand about prehistoric humans. There’s nothing wrong, or religious, about disregarding technique or intent of the supernatural, and focusing on only the design itself, or maybe a time sequence of the design. From Darwin’s time through the mid 20th century, evolution’s starting point, the simplest forms of life, were thought to be pretty simple. Today, we know they’re not simple. They consist of information, complexity, order. As the scientific community tries to come up with some kind of hypothesis/theory for the development of the common ancestor that they claim all life on earth shares, they look for it to develop gradually, slowly, change over time, just like evolution. That’s what I mean when I say they don’t legitimately try to distinguish between the two, between evolution and abiogenesis. But as we see by this thread, it flip flops according to the argument. This thread’s intention was to show that they’re not related. In response to me, Taq says they are. Lucky for evolutionists that all this isn’t taken to court and examined and hammered on like ID was at Dover. Taq elaborated it for me. Well that’s pretty cool, if only ID were allowed to do changeable switchables like that! ID is so often accused of wishing to explain all of biology with supernatural action. I read your paragraph to contain two messages; 1) it could have been an acceptance that ID can accept some of the more non controversial aspects of evolution, or 2)it could have been sarcasm that ID refuses to do that. I covered them both with that simple statement. The fact is, ID does accept a LOT about evolution. It just doesn’t automatically accept naturalism when naturalism doesn’t seem capable of doing mathematically impossible things, mainly concerning the origins of life. It's not always two very different theories at all - ID harmonizes with evolution in many instances. ID usually supplements evolution, it doesn’t always compete with it. The only thing it competes with is atheism. Evolutionists seldom see that, they're stopped short by their own impatience and anger. I’m saying the common ancestor that evolution claims all life on earth descended from is very important to evolutionists. Every bit as important as any designer would be to an ID proponent.

You’re making it too complicated, it’s really quite simple. For ID, the designer is a big deal. For evolution, the common ancestor is a big deal. Both big deals can be shelved, and study about their existence (or actions) can be shelved. Both can, or neither can.

Just like we all know that the naturalism in evolution is atheism. All I ever hear is that the mere existence of theistic evolutionists disproves that. It doesn’t, especially since theistic evolutionists clearly agree with atheists on just about everything. A non active God is right next to a non existent God. It’s a reference to what you agreed with me on, when you said;

quote:

---

If by that you mean there is more evidentiary support from some parts of the Theory of Evolution than others, I agree.

---

The parts that are more lacking than others in the evidentiary support are there for a reason. They come up short on evidence, but someone (or group) WANTS them to be there. A conclusion is drawn first, then evidence is used to work backwards to that conclusion. Of course, IDists are accused of doing that, yet evolutionists do it too.

The whole of science has clearly proven that when it’s presented with something from ID that is completely non religious, it does not get excited, it gets ANGRY. Because that’s exactly what it did when the book ‘Darwin’s Black Box’ came out. Evolution being challenged by a new thought concept called irreducible complexity did nothing but make them angry.Here's a list of some "nonexistant" peer reviewed publications by ID proponents. Were you not aware that any of this existed? I haven't noticed any excitement by anyone in the scientific community.Peer-Reviewed Articles Supporting Intelligent Design | Center for Science and Culture

It only works depending on the real existence of the common ancestor that it claims all life on earth arose from.

I’ll be glad to let William Dembski answer you on that one, I’m glad to give him the credit;

quote:

---

Critics of Intelligent design who want to maintain that the number of articles in the peer reviewed biological literature that support intelligent design is ZERO are playing a losing hand. That fiction is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain. Even so, I expect it to be maintained for a time. The problem is that to get work that supports intelligent design published in the peer-reviewed biological literature, biologists who are design theorists have to play their cards very close to the vest. As Michael Behe pointed out in an interview with the Harvard Political Review, for a biologist to question Darwinism endangers one’s career. There’s good reason to be afraid. Even if you’re not fired from your job, you will easily be passed over for promotions. I would strongly advise graduate students who are skeptical of Darwinian theory not to make their views known.

---

By the way, Behe was not in the movie expelled. I suspect he got offers for a prominent part in it. He probably figured he's already had enough discrimination to last him a lifetime.