I apologize for the novel - I missed a large portion of the convo. Cycel covered a lot of your questions so I won't retread anything unless I feel I can add to his response or if I feel it necessary to reiterate something.
so...Darwin was right in his theory of evolution but Pasteur was wrong in this theory of biogenesis? What if it was the other way around? Whose to say Pasteur was wrong, since we have no evidence that life came from non life?
Abiogenesis is still an incredibly young scientific study, but scientists have concluded that life most likely came from proteins. I'm not well versed in abiogenesis enough to explain why scientists feel it's currently the most reliable theory.
Ok....I understand what u are saying but....according to the evolutionary process, bees evolved from wasps and yet wasps are predators and bees are pollen collectors and have a symbiotic relationship with plants. Would this not imply that bees are "lower" than their predator ancestors? Also, aren't there pollinating wasps who perform the same pollinating process as bees? Why would evolution be necessary if both currently still exist?
A few points:
1. Bees did not evolve from the wasps we see today.
2. Species aren't "lower" or "higher" than other species.
3. Speciation occurs when two or more groups of a single species migrate away from each other. They evolve separate from each other according to the environments that they're in. Over time, the descendants of one branch may migrate back into an area occupied by another branch.
Ring species is an interesting evolutionary phenomenon that highlights speciation. Here's a video that explains it quite well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8
The platypus doesn't look like a collection of different species combined into one animal....it is a collection of different species combined into one animal. It lays eggs like a reptile; it suckles it's young like a mammal; has a single ventral opening for elimination, mating and birth, as well as claws like a reptile; it can detect electrical currents like some fish; it has a bill similar to that of a bird; webbed forefeet like those of an otter; a flat tail like a beaver; it can inject poisonous venom like a snake. All these characteristics being in one animal doesn't merely suggest a collection but scientifically proves a collection into one organism.
The platypus is a part of the order Monotreme. Platypus and echidnas are the only surviving monotremes alive today. In a different scenario, the ancestors of our present monotremes could have thrived - and if they had, we would have a lot more egg laying mammals.
The platypus isn't some sort of exception to the rule regarding mammals, but rather it's a creature who lacks any surviving cousins. Most egg laying mammals died out long ago.
Here are some facts about the platypus:
Platypus Facts | Duck-billed Platypuses | Monotremes
One thing to note is that their bill is leathery, like a snout. So it's not like the bill of any bird we know of. (I gave up trying to find the video that went into more depth about the bill). However, the description of the bill being leathery should be enough to disprove the idea that it's a birdlike bill.
This is a wonderful video discussing the platypus:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hG4dcTj408
Overall, the platypus is a difficult animal to study. Not because it's such an anomaly but because there aren't many other surviving species under that order.
The platypus is a lot like a whale in ways. Whales look like giant fish to the untrained eye. But an understanding of it's genes and anatomy will show that it isn't a fish. The fins of a whale and shark might appear similar, but open them up and you'll notice they're completely different. The platypus is the same.
I'll try to find more elaborate sources later since all the videos seem to touch up on different aspects about the platypus. I may have to search articles instead.
"We at biologos believe that God used the process of evolution to create all the life on earth today. While we accept the science of evolution, we emphatically reject evolutionism. Evolutionism is the atheistic worldview that says life developed without God and without purpose. Instead we agree with Christians who adhere to Intelligent Design and Creationism that the God of the Bible created all life. "
The way biologos uses the terms "evolutionism", "creationism", and "intelligent design" are all at odds with how these words are commonly used. Most people refer to evolutionism as the gradual change of species over time, whether or not God has a role in this isn't acknowledged or denied. Most people who refer to creationism or intelligent design refer to the event in which a god created all life as is.
Honestly, it doesn't matter what words we use as long as we understand what they mean in context. In context, however, most people refer to creationism as god creating animals as they are today. In context, evolution refers to both theistic and atheistic evolution.
AnswerInGenesis teaches intelligent design/creationism. And the entire website is based on debunking evolution - which completely contradicts biologos and their idea that creationism simply refers to there being a designer. Biologos is trying to differenciate creation-evolution from secular/atheist-evolution. But it tries to argue that creationism refers to theist-evolutionists which is something AnswersInGenesis and other creation sites would strongly disagree with.
I would say that they differ greatly from atheistic evolutionists who think that nothing guided evolution, even though they fail to recognize that this too is a point of faith devoid of evidence.
That's like saying you need faith not to believe in bigfoot. You don't need faith to believe God doesn't intervene.
I wasn't providing an arguement. I was replying to another poster who implied that Pasteurs reasoning was flawed, and I was interested to know on what grounds he could say that.
If you're referring to me, what reasoning are you referring to? Pasteur was correct in that life doesn't spontaneously appear. (Keep in mind, most scientists believe life is something that evolved over time - where at one point in time there was an intermediate between life and non-life).
Biologos rejects atheistic evolution that says there is no intelligent designer, but instead God used evolution as His process of creation. They are not trying to change the meaning of evolution, they are just asserting that God started the natural process of evolution.
The theory of evolution does not suggest God didn't cause it. This is similar to how heliocentrism doesn't refer to whether or not God is holding the planets in place or not.
The miller Urey experiment did not use oxygen in the simulated atmosphere... They did not produce life by chance but had to remove a element that was in abundance in the atmosphere to produce a protein, if they used oxygen: the protein would have never formed due to oxidation of the chemicals needed. The Urey expirement can not be used as a symbology of life producing itself to any honest mind.
The very first organisms were not oxygen dependent, nor was the Earth covered in oxygen at the time.
Let's evaluate what Cycel said, "
That said, you are probably familiar with the Miller-Urey experiment that succeeded in producing more than 20 of the essential amino acids that life requires."
The experiment had to do with essential amino acids since what we call life now and what life was back then differed greatly. To suggest that the first living organisms needed oxygen would be incorrect.
Furthermore what if I told you they found chariots of Pharaoh's army under water... Exactly where the bible says they crossed the Sea and went towards their promise land. Would this not be evidence? Or would it?
Where at? What else did they find? How were the chariots buried? What sources of information are you referring to?
If we find chariots buried under water where a town flooded, that wouldn't be proof of the event you're likely referring to.
since there is no evidence of life arising from non life, unless u already presuppose that there is no God...than that really isn't proof at all, is it? ( a typical Christian response I suppose) lol
This is precisely why scientists are studying amino acids. Because the honest answer is - we don't know. Not knowing isn't proof of God, nor is it proof that there is no God. It's also not proof that there is or is no Allah, Ra, Vishnu, etc.
now...what will u say when u meet the God of the Universe and realize that He really did set everything into motion?
"Why the ambiguity? Why have people rely on faith to believe in you in the same way other religions relied on faith to believe in other gods that don't exist? Why punish people for refusing to accept the Bible as true due to lack of evidence supporting it or the contradictions that rest within current translations of it? Why punish people for genuinely not knowing and being HONEST about not knowing and rewarding people who believed in spite of what they felt contrary to all the things that made your religion no different from other religions? And why couldn't you at least send me a sexy model to marry who wouldn't leave me and take everything I own?"
They didn't accurately model the Earth's early atmosphere, which means that things didn't exist in the proportions they thought.
Cycel said, "The point of this experiment, and others that followed, was to demonstrate that complex organic molecules necessary to life could form under natural conditions."
The experiment isn't conclusive evidence that life formed from amino-acids. It simply showed that amino-acids could form naturally. The study is still in its infancy.
I disagree with you both, if God used evolution, God is not a god worth worshiping... PERIOD!
A god that used a series of deaths to finally get perfection is not my God! It is not supported by the Bible and never will be, evolution is a religion.
1. You're insinuating that humans and/or other animals are "perfect" is flawed. There's no such thing as a perfect animal.
2. And this one I REALLY want a response for because it's a huge kicker...
You claim that God wouldn't be worth worshiping if he relied on a series of deaths to finally get to perfection. Yet, you are perfectly happy to accept that God relied on wars to help protect his followers. You worship a God who supposedly killed everyone in Sodom and Gamorrah as well as drowned the entire earth, killing everything except for those on the ark. Lastly, you have no problem worshiping a God who relied on the death of his own son to cleanse our sins - even though God is supposed to be omnipotent and could have easily washed away our sins without the blood sacrifice.
What's the common argument against God using death in the OT? Christians often argue that death only seems significant to us, and that it is simply a means for God to accomplish his wonderful plans? Is this the argument you use for the deaths in the OT? If so, why does death suddenly become too significant even for God to justify it?
My argument, if u will, rests on the fact that there is no evidence for abiogenesis.
Lack of evidence is not evidence of anything other than "We don't know". Being unable to explain our origins doesn't prove God exists, it simply proves we don't know. We have an idea of how life could have started (as supported by some non-conclusive experiments), but ultimately we don't know how life began.
As I said before, not knowing how life began isn't proof of God - nor is it proof God doesn't exist. But, it also doesn't prove Voltron or Vishnu don't exist either. Is belief in Voltron or Vishnu justified? No, because it also doesn't prove their existence either.
and...we do have evidence for supernatural intervention in creation....He had it written down for us and everything
We have numerous creation accounts written in numerous languages over numerous cultures. This is why we rely on science. It's similar as to how we never rely solely on witness testimony in court - we need to find evidence that either supports or contradicts the testimonies.
I apologize so much for typing soooo much at once. I hope you do take the time to read as much of it as you can.
Also, I apologize for not distinguishing who said what in some of the quotes. 
