Evolution has been Disproven

Hmmm, looks like J has, like Elvis, left the building. Pity, it was starting to get interesting...

prove that people are not part of the biological world. i dont care what you've read.

Monkeyman72, If you are replying to a particular post please use the little green marked reply button at the bottom right of the post. This allows us to understand what it is you are talking about and may notify the person you are replying to.Your post all by itself isn't easy to figure out.Thanks.

Evolution does not require life com from non-life?
Please, then, explain how life came about.-Big Bang: Non-Life
-Today: LifeThe way I see it, Life has to come from Non-Life if evolution is true.

---

...it was like that when I got here.

No, not really.Evolution is independent of how life came to be. Poofed into existence by the Judeo-Christian God, arising naturally from a bath of chemicals on the early Earth, seeded by aliens from another dimension, whatever ... it just doesn't matter. Evolution is about what happened after life came into existance.

This is an old question that comes up regularly. Evolution and the Theory of Evolution say nothing about the intial formation of life. Evolution only deals with what happened afterwards.There is another field, called Abiogenesis, which explores the origins of life. As you might expect, it is primarily chemistry and has little to do with biology.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Doesn't creation according to the Bible, similarly, require that life came from non-life?I think you need to frame the parameters of your question a little better. People are responding to you as though you asked "doesn't evolution require that life came from non-life naturalistically, via nothing more than the laws of physics?"If that's not what you meant to ask, I'd say so if I were you.

I actually agree! Life had to exist for evolution to be true.It is not for science to say, one way or the other, but maybe God created the first life from non-life, and then (biological) evolution happened.Moose{Added by edit: See what happens when I leave a topic sitting on my computer for an hour before I respond to a message.}This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 04-13-2005 05:56 PM

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

All life you see around you comes from non-life. Plants use dirt and sunshine to create plant matter, we eat plant matter, so we are dirt.The Bible says as much.

And if you go further and ask where the dirt came from...you get back to the early stages of the Universe.
Is it easier to believe in eternal creation? In other words, is it easier to believe in an infinite expanding/collapsing universe?
And if all thought actually originated with matter, is this not circular reasoning??

---

"How we spend our days is, of course, how we spend our lives."-- Anne Dillard"Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive."
Elbert Hubbard

So you agree that all the life we see around us comes from non-life?It's pretty easy to believe in the universe I see around me.No, it's not circular reasoning, because I actually made an assertion that all life we see is the result of non-life. your reply seemed to agree but the move the goalposts back to ultimate origins.This message has been edited by DHA, 04-14-2005 03:54 AM

The goalposts were moved because the playing field is bigger than you may imagine. No. As a creationist, I believe: Evolution has not been disproven, nor need it be. Creation has not been disproven either, although it cannot be proven except through belief. Belief does not take a backseat to empiricism, however. Not in the world I know.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 04-14-2005 03:26 AM

But there is a difference between a plant using nutrients to create more cells and a cell springing up spontaneously from those same nutrients.I would compare it to two people making a baby, and a baby occurring by chance in a vat of hydrocarbons.

quote:

---

I would compare it to two people making a baby, and a baby occurring by chance in a vat of hydrocarbons.

---

As far as I'm aware, the big difference between your comparison and what scientists claim is that no-one proposes that something as complex as a baby could arise from a vat of hydrocarbons. In fact, nothing even nearly as complex as a baby's kidney could arise, or indeed, nothing as complex as a single cell you'd find in a baby's kidney.Furthermore, I think I'm right in saying that scientists don't believe anything as complex as DNA could arise, from nothing, in a vat of hydrocarbons. So I think their claims are much more modest than your comparison would suggest.Cheers,[edited for typos and other badness]This message has been edited by Tusko, 04-14-2005 07:52 AM

I agree - I was just keeping the metaphor simple.(Example: When I use bad metaphors too much, it's like when a baby throws his mashed potatoes at the wall. Only there's more steel involved in the process.)