The origin of everything

Stellar evolution and planetary evolution are not the same as biological evolution. No, they don't. The biologists need only concern themselves with biological evolution. Yes. They are human, just like you.

Let's start with a simple analogy. What powers a gasoline or diesel car; what makes it go? If not Vishnu nor a nuclear reactor, then what? Obviously, petroleum products that we call gasoline (or petrol or Benzin) or diesel, depending on the design of the car's engine. The electrical power in the car is provided by a generator or alternator which converts the mechanical energy from the burning of the fuel and which recharges a storage battery which provides the electricity needed to start the engine and also electricity for when the engine is turned off. Nuclear reactors has nothing to do with it (though we could make a slightly different argument for electric vehicles).IOW, you are engaging in the fallacy called the "False Dichotomy" (which we have seen you do often in other discussions). We can use a process of elimination of all possible alternatives to narrow our choices down to a very few or even one -- this is the famous Sherlock Holmes quote:

quote:

---

"You will not apply my precept," he said, shaking his head. "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? We know that he did not come through the door, the window, or the chimney. We also know that he could not have been concealed in the room, as there is no concealment possible. When, then, did he come?"

​

The Sign of the Four, ch. 6 (1890)

---

Indeed, that is used in mathematical proofs as Proof by Contradiction in which you assume the opposite of what you are trying to prove and try to prove that (eg, to prove that the square root of 2 is irrational, try to prove that it is rational (ie, can be written as the ratio of two integers), so when that proves to be impossible (ie, leads to a conclusion which is false or self-contradictory) then that proves the opposite, that the square root of 2 is irrational).However, for either proof by contradiction or a true dichotomy to be valid, all possible choices must be taken into account. A false dichotomy fails because it artificially (or deceptively) chooses only a few or even just two alternatives while ignoring all the other alternatives (including the actual true one(s)). That is what happens in the false dichotomy that gas/diesel cars get their power from either Vishnu or a nuclear reactor and nothing else, or restricting the creation of planets or life to either God or evolution (which only happens once life has come into existence).So the "it" in your question, " ... what process or method creates life?", would be natural processes. Which, BTW, an actual creationist (though sadly not a fake creationist like a YEC) would identify as having been created by their God. 
The fundamental problem that candle2, you, and all other YECs (let's use the term "creationists" to refer to them) that we have encountered have is that none of you know what evolution is nor how it works. As a result, everything that creationists say about "evolution" makes absolutely no sense and is blatantly and obviously false. That includes how they have created some kind of nonsense that has nothing to do with evolution and yet they mislabel it as being "evolution" as they blame everything they don't like on it. Their "evolution" (Dredge and I have arrived at referring to it as "evilution", which he volunteered as being what makes all creationists evil) is nothing but a boogeyman with which to scare themselves. That is why everything they say about their "evolution" is not even wrong, because it's not talking about evolution, not even remotely -- eg, as per my analogy they'd be admonishing us for being careless in disposing of our gasoline car's spent reactor fuel rods while we'd see them as complete idiots who refuse to even hear an actual explanation.That is why I have been asking creationists for decades what they are talking about. More specifically, what they think evolution is and how it works. In all those decades, I cannot recall even a single creationist trying to answer those very basic questions. candle2 is a prime example of that, as is EWolf.Now it's your turn to answer that question: Until we can establish what you people are talking about, discussion will continue to be impossible. Creationists will continue to be evasive and promulgate lies and we will denounce them for their gross dishonesty. 
And also, please note that since evolution happens because of life doing what life naturally does, evolution will happen because live exists so it does not matter how life came into existence, be it through natural or supernatural means.Therefore, there is no inherent conflict between evolution and Divine Creation. Unless one insists on really stupid ideas about either evolution or Creation or both (though most of their stupid is inflicted on Creation).

I don't have to. You already did.You provide no evidence for you fantasy. There is nothing you can cite to support your dream. Without evidence you show your twisted views are nothing but fantasy.You are the one who insists your errant visions are real. It is incumbent upon you to provide evidence. You can't do that. You have nothing.What you assert without evidence is rejected and I don't have to show why!Without evidence of efficacy your fantasies remain just that.You already show it is fantasy. Bullshit. That's a requirement from a desperate dishonest creationist.Evolution need only explain the diversity of life on this planet. That is all. Your attempts to twist this into something more is intellectually dishonest.

Edited by AZPaul3, : words

Edited by AZPaul3, : word

You are asking a creationist to define his terms. Do you really expect him to do that? Did the latest weather report in Hell forecast a frost?In addition, I would like to know what he (or you too) thinks a atheist is. And given his/your definition, whom he (or you) would identify as being an atheist.For example, if the definition is "does not believe in God" (in which "God" is defined as his/your particular sect's version of the Christian God), would he/you consider a Hindu to be an atheist? I have certainly seen a number of "true Christians" take that kind of position, such that all non-Christians (including many Christians who are not "the right kind") would be considered atheists.But you are on the right track in asking for the definitions of terms so that both sides can know what the other is talking about. My formal logic professor taught us that the very first step in any debate or discussion is to agree on the meaning of the terms to be used in that debate/discussion.

Edited by dwise1, : Clarified the first paragraph by adding "Do you really expect him to do that?"

Science doesn't try to "disprove" anything, least of all somebody's beliefs. Science tests - and your beliefs about Genesis have failed every test that can be tested. It has nothing to do with faith. But there are people here who can explain those things to you. You are limited by a made-up version of the Bible story. And I am limited by reality; I don't have the luxury of wishful thinking. Why do you assume that I have beliefs that need defending?

Not necessarily.I have mentioned before that I have a book that purports to be the actual biography of the actual James Bond. I re-read it recently. I still don't know if it is fiction or non-fiction. That's right. I don't know who any of them are. Your jury will stay out until they promise to deliver the verdict you want to hear. Yours is a kangaroo court. I'll give Him a toonie and ask him not to be too hard on you.
​

Phat, I think the concept of evolution can be defined as
change over a period of time. But, the change must be
by natural processes.Some believe that cosmic; planetary; stellar; chemical;
and, abiogenesis came to be by a natural process.Some believe that the universe came to be by intelligent
design, but that life evolved, without supernatural
involvement.My understanding of the evolutionary process is that
change must be by a natural process.Whenever an evolutionist does not want to, nor cannot,
answer a specific question they reply "you just don't
understand what evolution is."

And there is a reason for that. You don't.Did you see Message 78?

Ringo, you are still not giving any answers to
questions. You must be a politican. They can talk
all day without saying anything.

I know what ringo would say. He would say "so can preachers".The peanut gallery would argue that evolution is not a belief in the sense that they believe it to be true. They are all critical thinkers and the researchers seek to always throw out stuff so that they can test new stuff. (Or verify their ideas about the current stuff)And jar always used to ask me "How do you know it's God?". This is always a good question to steer back on course with reality. Sometimes I get frustrated in feeling as if I have to ask it every other day. Why can't I know that I know that it's God?

Do you mean like when you claimed that evolution was a dog giving birth to kittens? And you wanted us to prove that that happens? Which does not happen and cannot happen because that's not how it works! And you don't know that and cannot understand that, which directly demonstrates that you do not understand evolution!What part of that do you refuse to understand? The word first appeared around 1610 and basically means "turning out", hence how something develops over time. It was a couple centuries later that it came to be applied to biological evolution, which is what the word now means when it stands alone, just as the term "evolutionary process" only applies to biological evolution.Yes, the word can be used to describe the development of other things and systems, but not what it stands alone. In all other usages, it is specified.In order to explain to you how English works, by analogy:

• When we say "towel", it's something made of cloth. But when we say "paper towel", then it's made of paper. We do not simply say towel to refer to a paper towel.
  ​
• The same applies to napkins: "napkin" versus "paper napkin". Though that has been shifting as paper napkins have become more common and everyday than the traditional cloth ones. However, while we might simply say "napkin" for a paper napkin, we would specify a cloth napkin by saying "cloth napkin".
  ​
  This is also analogous to how we now drop "biological" for evolution because we that is what we are commonly referring to.
  ​
• Tomato ketchup is labeled as such, because it is one special kind of ketchup (an entire family of condiments, the next most common having been made with mushrooms). Most people will simply say "ketchup" for tomato ketchup because that's the only kind they have ever seen.
  ​
• A computer used to have to be specifically called an "electronic computer", because traditionally a computer was a person who performed calculations. But since that profession has become less common, we now drop the "electronic" modifier.

Even though what's common does evolve over time, the convention still holds that whenever we use a word differently to refer to something less common, we modify it with a label.Therefore, we don't call stellar evolution simply "evolution", because it is not the same thing as biological evolution. Nor are the physical processes in stellar evolution even remotely similar to those of biological evolution. Trying to lump them together makes absolutely no sense.The same applies to cosmic evolution, planetary evolution, the evolution of a river valley, the evolution of aviation, the evolution of military doctrine, the evolution of music, the evolution of Christianity, the evolution of God, etc. None of those have anything to do biological evolution, nor do any of them work through the same processes as the others.And don't forget Navy evolutions, which do not need to be specified because we sailors know full well what the context is. IOW, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING, SO STOP LUMPING THEM ALL TOGETHER!The word "evolution" standing alone refers to biological evolution (eg, "Darwinian evolution"). All other usages of the word "evolution" will be specified by adding a modifier (eg, "stellar evolution"). Attempts to misconstrue all kinds of evolution as all being the same thing are nothing short of gross dishonesty.First, I must reiterate by stating yet again that there is no such thing as a single evolutionary process! Every single different kind of evolution has its own processes. Which should be obvious to everybody, yet we keep finding ourselves having to repeat the obvious.Second, everything we observe comes from natural processes. So what else would be expect? 
Question:
You seem to consider natural processes to be unclean. But didn't God say something to the effect of "Do not call unclean that which I have created clean."? 
The question still stands, though we have hopefully finally started to make some progress:

If I have missed any questions, feel free to ask again. As I have said before, I could do a thousand posts standing on my head. What you get out of them is up to you.The problem we usually have with creationists and religionists around here is that they run away before we're finished with them. Stay as long as you like and ask whtever you like. My bet is that you won't last long.

Wrong again. I didn't say that. Because you're not omniscient.

Ringo, it is indeed possible to prove/disprove by a
scientific method.We have crystal clear proof the Earth's moon rotates.
Just by observing it for centuries we had assumed that
since the same side of the moon always faced us that
it did not.By the same method we have proved that the moon
revolves around the earth; that the earth revolves around
the sun; and, that our solar system revolves around the
center of the MW Galaxy.Every science experiment conducted in biology proves
that life comes from previously existing life of its own
kind.And, you are right in that you are totally unable to express
your own paradigm of life. I doubt that you even know
what it is.

Do we have to go through this nonsense again like we did with Dredge?NO. Science does NOT deal in proof. Science deals in evidence. Evidence can always be over-ruled by new evidence. We have EVIDENCE that the moon rotates. If you want to discuss science around here, you had better learn the terminology. Nobody questions that.The question is where the FIRST life came from. Did it come from chemical reactions, which we know a lot about? Or did it come from some spook that we know nothing about using magical methods that we know nothing about?Science goes from what we DO know to try to learn more. Magical designers have no place in science because we know nothing about them. We have no place to start from. I don't know what you mean by "my own paradigm of life". If you tell me what the hell you're talking about, I'll discuss it till you beg me to stop.