It's a fine answer to your question. God thinks. No non-living things think.

As I recall mentioning already: "Biological life" is redundant. Biology is the "study of life."

No it isn't. Do you believe that books write themselves? Or occur naturally?

Everything that hasn't always existed was created.

Something can't come from nothing.

From nothing, nothing comes.

I am not frustrated. Might be projection on your part, but who knows?

I have less than 0 understanding about evolution because the more you learn about it the less it makes any logical or rational sense.

I call the bluff of evolution being one big fat lie.

I thought this short video was a nice intro/overview to evolution:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg

Lol all life comes from common ancestor but there’s too much life so we have to compartmentalize.. they literally admit right there and then their lofty claims have no proof.

They "compartmentalize" and focus just on cetaceans BECAUSE there is so much evidence that it helps to focus on just one branch of the tree.

Are you for real or just trolling?

So everything came from a common ancestor so you want to only look at one branch that has commons traits?

Are you trolling?

BeaucoupFish:

All religions are classified as cults, including the Religion of Atheism--of which I suspect you are a member.

That remark you made about me being a "Flat Earther" (bolded in pink) is laughable, considering the fact I believe what is stated in Jehovah's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible, which made it clear centuries before humans confirmed it that earth is circular.

The Judeo-Christian is always accurate.


Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

You can do it with any branch.

Bladesman87:

The supposed "common biological ancestor" is crucial to evolution theory. Atheists say there is no Jehovah who created life. More than 150 years ago, Louis Pasteur proved by laboratory experiments that life cannot result from non-life by itself, and in so doing, debunked abiogenesis theory.

So you are stuck with a supposed "common biological ancestor" that nobody can explain how it came to life by itself.

No common biological ancestor. No evolution.


Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

Bladesman87:

"Purported" is the key word here. Not only did Ernst Mayr admit there are no transitional forms, many other pro-evolution scientists and paleontologists have had to lap their tails and admit it. Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould admitted to it as well.


"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189.)


"He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search....It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong." (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)


When Stephen Gould and Niles Eldridge were forced to admit the fossils record is filled with nothing but gaps (that is, there are no transitional fossils showing how one creature evolved slowly into something entirely different), they decided to save face by teaming up together. The result of their team work was to DREAM UP the theory of "punctuated equilibrium" which says it is okay for the fossils to show wide gaps.

Talk about scientific dishonesty. Gould and Eldridge could not find what was supposed to be in the fossils (transitional fossils), so they came up with their own revised theory of evolution.


Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

A circle is flat and two-dimensional. So you are a flat Earther after all?

You probably shouldn't have picked an example that falsifies that claim.

What would be a good response to someone with zero understanding on a topic, who was behaving as if they know enough to completely refute it?

Lol no, it's a terrible answer. Even if no non-living things think, most living things don't think.

Let's try the old standby of asking you what you think my point is.



Re-read my comment. I didn't say you were frustrated.

Maybe this quote from the Ruckman Reference Bible might help:


The First Cause of limitless space must be limitless.
The First Cause of endless time must be eternal in duration.
The First Cause of perpetual motion must be endless in power.
The First Cause of unbounded variety must be omnipresent.
The First Cause of infinite complexity must be omniscient.
The First Cause of consciousness must be personal.
The First Cause of feeling must be emotional.
The First Cause of will must be volitional.
The First Cause of ethics must be moral.
The First Cause of religion must be spiritual.
The First Cause of love must be loving.
The First Cause of life must be living.

Science's god is amoral, unfeeling, neuter, impersonal, and unable to hold any creature accountable. He is sterile and senile.

-Quoted from Appendix 20, pg. 1705

You can describe it any way you want. The actual meaning of Biology is "the study of life."

Perhaps my earlier answer to this was as "clear as mud" do to my unfamiliarity with the term "natural biological life." Please define that term. Specifically:

1. What would be an example of "non-natural biological life."

2. What would be an example of "non-biological life."

Thanks, BF.

I don't think any of this is controversial or unclear:

Biology is a Natural Science, therefore biological life would be natural.

Unless you think God is natural, then your comment about God would be about non-natural life, usually the term 'supernatural' is used.

Biology has nothing to say about the supernatural.


You are claiming that there is no difference between what I called natural life and supernatural life - it's all "biological life". As I've already asked, how do any of the ways we try to define biological life apply God? Does god grow, move, reproduce etc.?

The answer you've given so far is something that doesn't apply to most life.

The onus of proof is on the evolutionists who make extraordinary claims like a single ancestor.. at some point the claims are so bold that God becomes more likely from a statistical standpoint

BeaucoupFish:

You are starting to sound desperate, accusing me of being a "flat Earther" merely because scripture says the earth is circular. You know perfectly well that earth is circular but that it is not two-dimensional. But to win the argument, you are now claiming that everyone who believes Earth is circular is a "flat Earther," yourself included.

Wow!


Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18[/QUOTE]

[/QUOTE]

And you are guilty of stretching the plain meaning of words to make it seem as though the Bible writers had some knowledge their contemporaries lacked. The earth is by no definition “circular”. Circular presumably means shaped like a circle. A circle is not a three dimensional shape. To be super pendantic, a circle is a one dimensional shape with extrinsic curvature when embedded in a two dimensional space. (You can tell it’s one dimensional since any location on a circle can be completely determined by giving a single number). A circle is defined as the set of all points [B]in a plane[\B] that are equidistant from a center point. The bold is important; it means the shape of the earth is not circular.

Now, many other cultures have writings that refer to the earth as circular. This makes sense. If you stand and look at the horizon in all directions, the horizon appears to be equally distant regardless of which way you look — ie a circle. The Greeks were one major exception to this; they knew the true shape of the earth, spherical, not circular. They even gave a pretty good estimate of the circumference of the earth.

To be extra super, duper pendantic, even the Greeks did not get the shape right since the earth isn’t actually a sphere , but bulges at the equator and is flattened at the poles (plus some other deviations from true sphericity). One can excuse that error, though, as they were more nearly right than the Bible writers. Now the Greeks presumably figured it out on their own, while the Bible writers supposedly had the assistance of an omnipotent deity. One has to wonder why the Greeks did better.

Ascribing great significance to the quote "the circle of the earth" seems a bit weak. If the there were a quote in the bible that said something like: "And behold! In every manner of beast and plant alike, god placed the holy instructions of life. FOUR shall be the count of instruction codes, entwined in two twisted ladders spiraling together!"

THEN... I'd be impressed! ;-)

I'm calling you a flat Earther because you decided to offer scripture describing the Earth as circular as an example of the bible always being accurate!

I certainly don't think the Earth is circular. Whose fault is it you don't know the difference between a 2d shape (circle) and a 3d form (sphere)?


Q. Do you think describing a sphere (or close enough) as a circle is accurate?

A common ancestor is NOT abiogenesis. All life could have evolved from a common ancestor but that common ancestor was created.

I don't know the context of those quotes nor do I care. I'm not bound to the words of your quote mines.

I know "purported is key, that's why I said it. I said "purported" because I was making a specific point to try and clarify what the position being discussed even is, and this post doesn't help me with that.

The question is whether you're saying nobody claims to have transitional fossils or whether you're saying that the purported transitional fossils are something else?

What I'm saying is that there in fact a great many fossils claimed to be transitional. You finding a quote from some book I don't have access to doesn't change that. So what we're going to need is some reason to think that the purported transitional forms aren't what they're claimed.

This dance of "there aren't any" without expanding on it isn't a criticism of evolution, it's an indirect way of you asking me to explain the theory to you.

It doesn't matter what analogy you use here. Art, a painting, a book, a watch, a plane. I'll grant that those things require a creator.

The question is whether life is the same type of thing. Pointing to more things that need a creator doesn't answer that question. If you now tell me a building requires a builder then I'll grant that too, but we aren't buildings either. We're humans. And the question is whether humans require a creator.

But the problem gets worse than that. It's not like you can point me to anything that isn't designed in your view. There's nothing about humans in particular that scream designer because rocks and sand and lakes are also designed. All you're really saying is that "everything needs a designer". And when you say things like "art requires an artist" it's arbitrary, you might as well say "rocks requires a rockist". Well, okay, maybe they do, but that's an argument you have to make and it isn't made by pointing to random objects and saying "That needs a designer".