My favorite quotes from evolutionists

[SaturnV]

I assume you refer to the Physicist, Dr. Hubert P. Yockey. I actually agree with him about a lot of things, and I think what he's referring to when he calls the origin of life, and the origin of the Universe "unknowable" is the fact that every question answered creates two more.

I agree with him about the beginnings of the Universe, as every answer about what created the Universe raises a question about how that event happened, and we eventually end up at an infinite regress. The Earth, however, had a definite beginning, so the question about the origin of life on Earth has to have a definite answer. It might not be one that we see in our lifetime, but it can be solved.

His webpage, which is being run by his daughter, is here for anyone who wants to visit it. He definitely has a lot of interesting things to say.

[SaturnV]

Fortunately, I already know how it originated.

Do you?

Did God create the first organism ex nihlo or from previously present compounds? What was the first genome? What was the first organism God created?

Interjecting God into the equation might make the explanation more palatable, but it still does not tell us anything about what physically happened.

[tdrehfal]

Fortunately, I already know how it originated.

Do you?

Did God create the first organism ex nihlo or from previously present compounds? What was the first genome? What was the first organism God created?

Interjecting God into the equation might make the explanation more palatable, but it still does not tell us anything about what physically happened.

I wasn't dealing with an over-specific definition of the word "how". "How" in the general sense. The words you're using in this sentence are all

recently invented and thus the argument cannot be answered because God doesn't speak about things in the "overly specific" sense. From

a scientific standpoint these questions seem important, but from a theological standpoint they're really not important at all.

Your question should have been "do you know EXACTLY how, according to modern science?"...

[SaturnV]

Do you?

Did God create the first organism ex nihlo or from previously present compounds? What was the first genome? What was the first organism God created?

Interjecting God into the equation might make the explanation more palatable, but it still does not tell us anything about what physically happened.

I wasn't dealing with an over-specific definition of the word "how". "How" in the general sense. The words you're using in this sentence are all

recently invented and thus the argument cannot be answered because God doesn't speak about things in the "overly specific" sense. From

a scientific standpoint these questions seem important, but from a theological standpoint they're really not important at all.

Your question should have been "do you know EXACTLY how, according to modern science?"...

That was actually my point. There is a fundamental difference between the explanations science is trying to find, and the ones that theology has already decided.

Invoking divine intervention gets us nowhere closer to understanding the physical processes that led to the origin of life. If you'd like to use God to explain "why," please do, but the "how" is what I want to know.

What I meant by "how" in that post was the specific events. If, as you say, God does not speak in specifics, why would abiogenesis even matter to a believer? For the faithful, would the combination of nucleotides and phosphates on early Earth not just be another testament to God's will? I really can't understand why the search for a specific explanation to such a fundamental question is so threatening to believers. In principle, it's just looking for more information about what you already know to be true.

If God has no bearing on the specifics, science and religion shouldn't even affect each other. That's why I really don't really mind if you want to say that everything happened because God wanted it to, since beliefs don't affect me. It's the actions taken because of them that do.

[artsylady]

Good quotes and I don't believe they are 'out of context'. Out of context would mean that the meaning of the words spoken by the speaker had been changed or manipulated when quoted, which I doubt these were.

[SaturnV]

Good quotes and I don't believe they are 'out of context'. Out of context would mean that the meaning of the words spoken by the speaker had been changed or manipulated when quoted, which I doubt these were.

I've only been able to find a few of them in their original context, but those I have are definitely being used out of context or in a deliberately misleading way. If I can get to a library to check the rest, I'm sure the same thing will prove true of them, too.

"When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: "It happened." Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd." - Simon Conway Morris (palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK), "Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11

When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be:

[artsylady]

Hi Saturn:

Judging by the context you provided, they still don't seem at all to be out of context. In fact, the context seems to just clarify the original quote even moreso.

An example of an out of context quote: Sandra Bullock says in an interview "I love Keanu. We have become great friends while filming. I have plans to get together with him and his wife next month."

The enquirer then takes the quote "I love Keanu" and runs with that and we know that after reading the full context, well that's not really what she meant. Since the meaning of what she was quoted changed, then we call it out of context.