Universe's Origins

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
Exactly, and the two sides of the same coin never meet.

In the middle they do.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
According to our understanding of evolution, organs gradually evolved from much simpler lifeforms. So if you reject this, then you reject evolution altogether.

No I accept the change just not the starting block. Be careful we have already established the beginning is not the evolutionary process.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
According to our understanding of evolution, organs gradually evolved from much simpler lifeforms. So if you reject this, then you reject evolution altogether.

Change is change the amount doesn't matter.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
No I accept the change just not the starting block. Be careful we have already established the beginning is not the evolutionary process.

The theory of evolution implies - and the evidence shows - that the "starting block" was very simple lifeforms. These very simple lifeforms did not have "organs," meaning they must have evolved. If you reject that organs can evolve, then you reject the theory of evolution in its entirety.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
That means what? You think that those two are different universes or something?

That doesn't mean that they don't speak to and share truth about the same universe. If God is real for example science may be blind to Him, but that doesn't mean He is not real.

Methods of how to treat the reality is totally different between religion and science.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
The theory of evolution implies - and the evidence shows - that the "starting block" was very simple lifeforms. These very simple lifeforms did not have "organs," meaning they must have evolved. If you reject that organs can evolve, then you reject the theory of evolution in its entirety.

No, if you want to use the term "implies" then you open up abiogenesis, because that is where your going. Small mutations over time altering life in any direction is evolutionary, there is no imply.

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
Methods of how to treat the reality is totally different between religion and science.

Don't matter, reality doesn't care how we view it, it is what it is no matter what we believe, think, or do!

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
The theory of evolution implies - and the evidence shows - that the "starting block" was very simple lifeforms. These very simple lifeforms did not have "organs," meaning they must have evolved. If you reject that organs can evolve, then you reject the theory of evolution in its entirety.

One other point, the word (implies) suggests a conclusion. I could say each life form mating with offspring implies God is the creator.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
No, if you want to use the term "implies" then you open up abiogenesis, because that is where your going. Small mutations over time altering life in any direction is evolutionary, there is no imply.

The theory of evolution implies - and the evidence shows - large changes over time due to accumulating small changes. We know that life emerged as very simple lifeforms and then gradually became more complex.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
The theory of evolution implies - and the evidence shows - large changes over time due to accumulating small changes. We know that life emerged as very simple lifeforms and then gradually became more complex.

Does the theory of evolution imply that something is living?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
The theory of evolution implies - and the evidence shows - large changes over time due to accumulating small changes. We know that life emerged as very simple lifeforms and then gradually became more complex.

Again conclusions, the observation is what we see you are jumping into what that means.

Originally posted by @eladar
Does the theory of evolution imply that something is living?

It would be up to the community of scientists to define the observable criteria to say "This is alive" or "this isn't alive." Of course then the everyday people and the politicians would weigh in.

The question becomes more simple if we imagine being able to time travel back in time and visit earth ever so often and look around and say yep, there's evidence of life right there by your boot or no that's not evidence of life. But we'd still need the criteria.

What are your criteria for whether something is evidence of life?

Originally posted by @js357
It would be up to the community of scientists to define the observable criteria to say "This is alive" or "this isn't alive." Of course then the everyday people and the politicians would weigh in.

The question becomes more simple if we imagine being able to time travel back in time and visit earth ever so often and look around and say yep, there's evidence ...[text shortened]... 'd still need the criteria.

What are your criteria for whether something is evidence of life?

That it was an ancestor of something alive today?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Again conclusions, the observation is what we see you are jumping into what that means.

You are, of course, free to reject what we know about the world because it makes you feel uncomfortable.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
You are, of course, free to reject what we know about the world because it makes you feel uncomfortable.

You are attempting to prove a point by suggesting that the very term on its face declares you are right. That word describes a process only.