Have some scientists been too fanatical?

This is simply not true - the ToE deals with life once it has started, not before. But it's such a universal mis-understanding by creationist that it would be useful if you told us why you think it is the case.

Hi sinematic, Actually, that is a prediction of the theory, not the theory.

quote:

---

Introduction to Evolution:

​

(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.

. . . the process of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.

​

(2) The process of divergent speciation involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.

. . . The process of divergent speciation with the subsequent formation of a branching nested genealogy of descent from common ancestor populations is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.

​

(3) The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of evolution over generations, and the process of divergent speciation, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.

---

Note that A common ancestor (population) is the parent population of the daughter populations when divergent speciation occurs.Other statements of the theory of evolution can be found atAn introduction to evolution - Understanding Evolution (an excellent resource)

quote:

---

The Definition:
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

---

and The Process of Speciation

quote:

---

We begin with two working definitions of biological evolution, which capture these two facets of genetics and differences among life forms. Then we will ask what is a species, and how does a species arise?

​

Definition 1:

​

Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation

​

Definition 2:

​

The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity

---

Note that evolution and the theory of evolution start with an existing population of life. Nope. You have to have life to have evolution, be definition.Enjoy

When investors buy stock in Creation-based mining or oil companies because they are finding deposits, THEN you know Creationism has a leg to stand on scientifically. I don't use evolution theory in my day to day job, but it certainly is applicable. Specific fossils tell us where we are in a stratigraphic section as well as what depositional environment we're looking at. And these data are incorporated into our exploration models to help us delineate exploration targets. And it works. Predictability works.Creationism does not work. It has no applicability. It can't find oil or mineral deposits; therefore, it is a bankrupt *science.* Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.

Hi roxrkool: This sort of thing is said all the time but it makes no sense to me. I assume that particular fossils could orient a person looking for minerals or oil by their position in the strata just as well from a creationist point of view as an evolutionist point of view. Likewise the other features of the area, which you call "depositional environment," would also figure in the recognition of the likelihood of such deposits and their location and be the same whichever interpretive system is being applied. The location is going to be the same in either case, the time factor is irrelevant.Has any sort of OTHER "creationist" attempt to find oil or minerals even been tried or are you just speaking rhetorically? I can't imagine why it would be. The fossils are where they are and the strata are where they are in either interpretive system.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well thats what I got when I did an internet search for the theory of evolution and I pasted the section described as darwin's theory of evolution.Heres another one that clearly says the same, that life came from non-life. I just realized the first site I pasted from may have been from a non-mainstream source.(I didnt look much at the site just clicked on the first one I saw)http://curiosity.discovery.com/...hat-is-theory-of-evolutionI know this isnt an official scientific site but again it says the same.After trying to find an official site with the most current definition as it apparently has changed quite a bit, I came up empty. I think the theory only technically says that life evolves lol. Think we all know this already. Can someone maybe link what the official theory says?It would seem to me though that science believes in cause and effect. This would presume to say that life came from non-life unless you believe that in the singularity or pre big bang that life already existed.I do know that almost everytime I hear of evolution on television, the notion of life springing up in a primordial soup is almost always mentioned. It should be clear why this is a common misunderstanding of what the theory says and I dont think its unique to just creationists. Edited by sinamatic, : No reason given.

The problem here is that your understanding of science is derived not from science but from cherry picking random googles on the bloody internet.Can't you see how that might get you the wrong answers?

Well, you could do geology like that, but you could make no advances in geology by doing that. Someone who didn't believe in electricity could still follow a set of instructions and build a radio. He wouldn't understand why it worked, but he could still build it and it would work. On the other hand, the electricity-denier could never figure out how to build a better radio. And the fact that he could build one at all would depend crucially on the existence of people who do believe in electricity.The same with "flood geologists". I suppose they could make practical use of the fact that real geologists are always right, and then they could say: "oh, but real geologists are actually always wrong, and the real explanation for all the facts of geology is MAGIC WATER!" But they can never advance the science of geology, they can just use it for all practical purposes while simultaneously denouncing it as the work of the devil. To advance the science, they'd have to understand the principles by which it works.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Yes, that is absolutely what science tells us. But it is not what the theory of evolution tells us, because the theory of evolution is about something else.Creationists seem to call every scientific fact that upsets them "the theory of evolution". But the theory of evolution is quite a specific thing. It's like if an environmental extremist called every thing that upset him a "car". Whether he is right or wrong to be upset, some of the things that upsets him are not cars. If he points to a nuclear power station and says: "That is an evil pollution of Mother Earth!", then we might debate whether he's right or wrong. But if he points to a nuclear power station and says: "That is a car!" then he's just plain wrong.

Well, these are weasel words. We all agree that life started from non-life. The Book of Genesis says that God made man out of clay, a non-living aluminosilicate mineral. The question that divides us is whether the origin of life occurred as a result of chemical processes or by God doing magic. But we both agree that life had an origin, we just disagree about whether it was caused by magic.And so of course a belief in common ancestry does not imply that the common ancestor arose in a non-magical way. Why would it? Common sense may tell us this, but if we merely believe in common ancestry then it doesn't matter at all from the point of view of that theory whether the common ancestor was produced by real processes or magicked into existence by God.

There is no Creationist model that even comes close to adequately explaining why certain fossils exist where they do within the stratigraphic record. All of their explanations are simplistic and do not at all reflect what geologists actually see in the field. It's far more complex that what the Creationists assert. In addition, flood theory cannot explain how all the lithologies in the rock record came to be, because you cannot fit the entire history of the rocks we see on this planet into a YEC time frame. In a YEC timeframe, beaches, coral reef, black smokers, hot springs, igneous systems, etc. do not have time to form.If Creationists can provide credible research showing how SedEx, volcanogenic massive sulfide ore deposits (VMS), layered intrustion-hosted PGE deposits form and plutons / batholiths can cool in a fraction of the time that we think they do, let's see it.The old earth paradigm does explain why we see what we see and it does it so well, we can make predictions based upon it. If we can use fossils to identify certain geological formations (like a reef structure) that we know are good reservoirs for oil/gas or for metallic resources, we can use them to help us find these deposits. Which we do. Stratigraphy is a huge part of natural resource exploration and understanding it well is critical to good exploration programs. But WHY are they where they are are? If you don't have a good model explaining why certain rocks form in certain areas, in specific relationships, and so on, you have nothing. Why does limestone form where it does and not sandstone, or shale? Why are black shales enriched in metals? How do chert layers form? How do reef complexes form in the middle of a flood?I have perfectly reasonable explanations for most of these things and I don't have to resort to, "It could have been ______ or _______."I've heard rumors and stories about some YEC-based exploration attempts, but have neither heard nor read of any success stories.In the meantime, us heathen geologists are finding deposits right and left (relatively speaking) and making billions in the process.

Thats what I meant by somewhere somehow, might have been a poor choice of words but I was simply try to say that common ancestor implies that life started from non-life by some scientific means. I would also argue that most christians believe God to be a living god. The Living word, the living lord etc. Saying we all agree that life started from non-life is not really as simple a statement as you might think.I do see your point though, and I would agree that if someone said that life came from non-life with a common ancester that evolved into everything that existed, that would not necessarily specify wether or not God was involved. Common sense tells me it does though, so thanks for the compliment.

Why?Supposing that life started from non-life, then why does that have to be by "some scientific means."Why does life have to have started? Maybe there was always life. Try looking up "panspermia".Personally, I think it likely that life started from non-life by entirely natural means. But that is not a required assumption. We can study biological evolution without any such assumption.

I'm not sure how I missed your post, but I did and thank you for a great site that I can more accurately say what I mean to express in the future.

panspermia is a pretty interesting idea and one that I used to give thought to. I just can't imagine how any life would survive the big bang though. I think it just kind of kicks the can down the road on the question of life's origination. I see it as an idea that isn't widely accepted but may one day be the mainstream if evidence is found.I think that a lot of people try to use science to explain everything. I think this is a flaw because how can science explain what or why someone thinks a thought or makes a choice? If it ever did explain it then people would not be responsible for any action or thought they ever had, good or bad, because science did it. People would not have a choice in how they behaved because the chemical processes in their brain made them do it.I know this is getting really off topic but I find it interesting to hear how science explains thoughts and choice. Seems to me that if it can be explained scientifically, then humans havent discovered a single thing. It was just the product of chance and science that we know what we do now, and it determines what someone is going to post on this forum next. I might not even be me, there is no me, only matter and energy behaving with the laws of the universe.Back to you though nwr, you make valid points and I hear what you are saying.

Say what? Panspermia does not involve life predating the big bang, so it does not require that life survive the big bang. The above is a strawman that you have put together and then dismissed. Scientific explanations of a phenomenon does not mean that the phenomenon is deterministic.