The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[orangebox21]

To oversimplify: evolution is from the beginning until now. It can be broken down into three main segments: stellar evolution, chemical evolution, and biological evolution. Stellar evolution has to do with the origin of matter namely the big bang model. Chemical evolution (abiogenesis) has to do with said matter through chemical processes becoming life. Biological evolution has to do with the life created through chemical evolution becoming what we observe today. While the specific processes have been different throughout time the result is that something has become something else over billions of years and the something it has become is of greater complexity than when it began, hence evolution. Something evolved.

So, you made all that up. Literally, you invented every word of that, and I challenge you to find a single mainstream, peer reviewed scientific paper, report or textbook that even refers to stellar evolution as a necessary component of evolution as a whole, or even mentions it as a part of evolution.

From Stars to Man

Here are some of Lawrence M. Krauss' credentials: "Krauss is one of the few living physicists described by Scientific American as a "public intellectual"[12] and he is the only physicist to have received awards from all three major American physics societies: the American Physical Society, the American Association of Physics Teachers, and the American Institute of Physics. In 2012, he was awarded the National Science Board's Public Service Medal for his contributions to public education in science and engineering in the United States.[21]
During December 2011, Krauss was named as a non-voting honorary board member for the Center for Inquiry.[22]"(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_M._Krauss)

[Ryantology]

Stellar evolution and biological evolution are mutually-analogous, but they are not two processes which work according to the same principles.

[Esquilax]

So, you made all that up. Literally, you invented every word of that, and I challenge you to find a single mainstream, peer reviewed scientific paper, report or textbook that even refers to stellar evolution as a necessary component of evolution as a whole, or even mentions it as a part of evolution.

From Stars to Man

[/quote]

*Harsh buzzer*

So, let's ignore the fact that a fifty second youtube clip is not a "mainstream, peer reviewed scientific paper, report or textbook," as I asked for, because you'd be wrong even if the content of that was in report form. You've failed from the outset, but let's move on:

First of all, as Ryantology helpfully pointed out, what you showed was an analogy, not a field of scientific study. That's the important part; you're trying to overcomplicate the concept of evolution with unconnected ideas so as to invalidate evolution as it's described in real science (and if you think I'm not familiar with this Answers in Genesis, Eric Hovind bullshit, you've got another thing coming.) Yes, the atomic matter that makes us up was originally supplied by the stars, but what I think I need to note is that you originally characterized "stellar evolution" as the big bang model, and now you're talking about something else entirely. You've changed what you're talking about, and are just expecting us not to notice. Yet another failure.

Second of all, you haven't gone even an inch toward demonstrating that "stellar evolution" is present as a mainstream field of scientific study, which is what I actually care about.

And third, just to cap it off, you haven't bothered to address what I went on to say- as it invalidates the premise you were attempting to argue- which is that even if we were to accept the existence of stellar evolution, you would then be forced to admit that biological evolution, which is observed, confirmed and objectively true, could and does happen independent of the larger, stellar concept.

In essence, your entire post was a non-sequitur failure from top to bottom, and I'm also noting with interest how you ignored everything else I posted, too.

[orangebox21]

So, let's ignore the fact that a fifty second youtube clip is not a "mainstream, peer reviewed scientific paper, report or textbook," as I asked for, because you'd be wrong even if the content of that was in report form. You've failed from the outset, but let's move on:

You have given me an impossible task. You asked for a "mainstream, peer reviewed scientific paper, report, or textbook," as proof and then said "you'd be wrong even if the content of that (the video) was in report form." You've asked me to provide proof, defined what that proof is, then said you'd reject that proof even if I brought it to you. These are the words of a person without reason. You've simply appealed to yourself as the ultimate authority.

Men recognize that we must appeal to something outside ourselves. The scientist appeals to his observations and the natural laws of science. Men appeal to the moral law to determine what is right and wrong. Men appeal to the laws of reason and logic to determine the validity of arguments. While me may disagree as to what the standards of our appeal are or where we get our standards from, we do agree there are standards. If not, "Because you said so" would be a sufficient argument.

I'd be happy to continue in this conversation but at this point standards need to be established. Post your specifics and we can continue.
"You've failed from the outset" is an appeal to your own authority as supreme. No one can debate a person who talks like this.

For those reading wanting some clarification and as a goodwill offering here you are:

One of the standard textbook for graduate level stellar structure remains the one by Donald D. Clayton, Principles of Stellar Evolution and Nucleosynthesis. Not only does the word evolution appear in the title, but the word appears frequently in the book.

The 1957 one in Reviews of Modern Physics by Burbidge, Burbidge, Fowler, and Hoyle (referred to as BBFH) is quoted as saying, "It seems probable that the elements all evolved from hydrogen, since the proton is stable while the neutron is not." Of course, this is a peer-reviewed journal, and one of the authors, Willie Fowler, won the 1983 Nobel Prize in Physics.

I would also suggest looking into Virginia Trimble, who said something to the effect that researching the origin of the elements through this (stellar) evolution was her motivation for entering the field. I didn't record that quote or reference, so I can't retrieve it, but I did find similar sentiments elsewhere expressed by Virginia. It comes from her book, Visits to a Small Universe, part of the Masters of Modern Physics series published by the American Institute of Physics. This is not a fly-by-night organization.

Quoting from her preface:

"The basic scheme has not changed much in the 15-year span over which these pieces were first written. It leads from a hot, dense early universe, to galaxies that form stars where nuclear reactions transform the simpler, lighter elements into the heavier ones needed by chemically -based life, on to planets whose stable environments permit energy from stars to interact with molecules of gradually increasing complexity, and finally to self-replicating (living) molecules, intelligence, and the ability to modify the home planet almost beyond recognition."

(Note: The previous are excerpts from an email I recieved from a retired Ph. D Astronomer. Not my words, but his slightly modified.)

I do not have time presently to respond to all counterarguments, I will post them soon.

[Chas]

Please define 'life'. Are replicating molecules alive?

For the sake of this discussion life would be the moment in the evolutionary process when chemical evolution (abiogenesis) became biological evolution. This is however different than the origin of life.

That seems to be precisely the definition of the origin of life.

There was no free oxygen in the atmosphere or the water when life started. None.

Hydrolysis doesn't require free oxygen. Amino acids would not form in water because the moment they did hydrolysis would occur and the amino acid bonds would break.

No, amino acids are not broken down by water. Proteins will break down into constituent amino acids by hydrolysis.

The molecular oxygen in our atmosphere and in the oceans is a product of life.

Need a little clarification. Some here are suggesting that life began in water. You are suggesting water was created from life.

No, you seem not to understand what 'molecular oxygen' means. It is free oxygen as O2 and O3, not the oxygen atom in water.

There was no free oxygen before there was life, either in the atmosphere or dissolved in water.

[Sword of Christ]

Life will have been produced by some kind of a coming together of all the right natural process but God only had to create the universe into which these natural processes can be produced. So there's nothing particular wrong with any of the conventional scientific theories and facts or whatever.

[Bad Writer]

Life will have been produced by some kind of a coming together of all the right natural process but God only had to create the universe into which these natural processes can be produced. So there's nothing particular wrong with any of the conventional scientific theories and facts or whatever.

So he set up the dominoes to fall in place so that we would eventually come about as a species, have to worry about a bunch of arbitrary laws and commandments that include not having dirty thoughts or not mixing different kinds of woven materials, and then being absolved of sins because we killed god's son 2000 years ago, who was actually god in disguise, in order to save us from a place called hell that he invented for those people with the dirtiest thoughts. Yeah...makes perfect sense.

[Esquilax]

You have given me an impossible task. You asked for a "mainstream, peer reviewed scientific paper, report, or textbook," as proof and then said "you'd be wrong even if the content of that (the video) was in report form." You've asked me to provide proof, defined what that proof is, then said you'd reject that proof even if I brought it to you. These are the words of a person without reason. You've simply appealed to yourself as the ultimate authority.

Ah, no: what I said was that the content of that specific video doesn't say what you think it says, so if you brought me a mainstream report that says what that specific video says, you'd be wrong. I asked for a specific kind of proof, and you gave me something else that, even if it was in the correct format, does not show what you've been claiming. That's not the same thing as rejecting all proof, just rejecting insufficient proof.

I'd be happy to continue in this conversation but at this point standards need to be established. Post your specifics and we can continue.
"You've failed from the outset" is an appeal to your own authority as supreme. No one can debate a person who talks like this.

As I said, if you're going to posit something as a field of science, then what I want is a mainstream, peer reviewed work from an actual scientist that refers to it as being such. That's actually an absurdly low barrier of evidence to begin with. What you gave me was a youtube video of a scientist talking analogously about how atomic matter was forged in stars. I asked for something real, and you gave me a vague metaphor that doesn't even match up to the initial description you gave.

Is it any wonder I rejected it?

For those reading wanting some clarification and as a goodwill offering here you are:

One of the standard textbook for graduate level stellar structure remains the one by Donald D. Clayton, Principles of Stellar Evolution and Nucleosynthesis. Not only does the word evolution appear in the title, but the word appears frequently in the book.

You're aware the word has a non-scientific meaning too, right? If I wrote a book titled "the evolution of car designs," does that mean I'm implying that cars evolve and that this is science, or rather that they change over successive generations?

Your finding usages of the word "evolution" in these things doesn't exactly answer any of the questions I posed, namely the more important last one; if we accept your concept here as true, would you not then have to admit that biological evolution is a confirmed fact, and is in no way hindered by the other kinds?

Oh, and again, you started off by saying stellar evolution was the big bang model, and now you've changed what you're talking about, I'm assuming because it's harder to find single instances of the word evolution within texts about big bang cosmology.

[Sword of Christ]

So he set up the dominoes to fall in place so that we would eventually come about as a species

That's quite a good analogy, something like this takes a lot off setting up and if anything is out of place the whole system would collapse or cease to function.

have to worry about a bunch of arbitrary laws and commandments that include not having dirty thoughts or not mixing different kinds of woven materials, and then being absolved of sins because we killed god's son 2000 years ago, who was actually god in disguise, in order to save us from a place called hell that he invented for those people with the dirtiest thoughts. Yeah...makes perfect sense.

The message of Bible/Torah was through a historical bronze age people with own culture and customs and whatever but it can still be the product of an interaction between God and his creatures therefore still a genuine revelation of God to man. Not that Gods message is necessarily restricted to the the Bible but I would say Christ is the best revelation we have.

[Bad Writer]

And you believe yourself to be his sword, huh? The delusion runs deep with you; also, you can blow Christ out your ass. You guys use his story as a way to make others believe that there's some imaginary force known as sin, and the only way to get rid of this icky invisible film of sin is to kiss Christ's 2000-year old dead ass. You're no worse than a practitioner of alternative medicine trying to sell people energy crystals in order to realign a person's Qi.