Creation vs. Evolution: take 139486

[Theogonia]

Abiogenesis has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution, and I have not studied it.

 

[ernest_theweedwhackerguy]

Well, you might want to get to know it.

It's the evolution of something, say a single celled organism, from absolutely nothing. Kind of like a magic act where there's nothing in the box, and then out of nowhere, there's a rabbit.

 

[gluadys]

Well, you might want to get to know it.

It's the evolution of something, say a single celled organism, from absolutely nothing. Kind of like a magic act where there's nothing in the box, and then out of nowhere, there's a rabbit.

Somebody is feeding you false information. Abiogenesis does not propose that a unicellular organism came from nothing, but from pre-existing chemical self-replicators of some kind.

 

[Theogonia]

Well, you might want to get to know it.

It's the evolution of something, say a single celled organism, from absolutely nothing. Kind of like a magic act where there's nothing in the box, and then out of nowhere, there's a rabbit.

Typical creationist mocking, oh how I am right in my assumptions.

Actually there was a test conducted in the 50s I believe where simple chemicals under certain conditions bonded and became amino acids, which are the building blocks of life.

 

[ernest_theweedwhackerguy]

Somebody is feeding you false information. Abiogenesis does not propose that a unicellular organism came from nothing, but from pre-existing chemical self-replicators of some kind.

A*bi*o*gen*e*sis-

the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.

I don't think any body's feeding me wrong information, unless the dictionary tends to tell me falsities.

 

[ernest_theweedwhackerguy]

Typical creationist mocking, oh how I am right in my assumptions.

Actually there was a test conducted in the 50s I believe where simple chemicals under certain conditions bonded and became amino acids, which are the building blocks of life.

Well, if that happened, then how come abiogenesis was proven defective and was discredited?

Hmm, that's weird...

 

[Theogonia]

Well, if that happened, then how come abiogenesis was proven defective and was discredited?

Hmm, that's weird...

Where are you getting that it was proven defective and discarded?

 

[ernest_theweedwhackerguy]

That was one of the only things that would explain how life came from nothing, hence, our planet.

So, let me ask you this. If that was discredited, then how did matter turn into a living organism, which would then evolve into what we have today?

 

[Theogonia]

WHERE the question was, was it discredited?

 

[pgp_protector]

Well, if that happened, then how come abiogenesis was proven defective and was discredited?

Hmm, that's weird...

You know lying is a sin

 

[ernest_theweedwhackerguy]

I'm not lying.
Go to www.dictionary.com and type in abiogenesis.

You'll get that definition.

 

[ernest_theweedwhackerguy]

You're gonna try to argue a point that you know nothing about?!

 

[gluadys]

A*bi*o*gen*e*sis-

the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.

I don't think any body's feeding me wrong information, unless the dictionary tends to tell me falsities.

You said : "from nothing". Dictionary dot com says "from inanimate matter".

Since when is inanimate matter "nothing"?

As for the rest of the definition, yes the dictionary is wrong--or at least outdated. Spontaneous generation was discredited. Abiogenesis, as biologists use the term today, has not been discredited.

Words tend to change their meanings and "abiogenesis" is no longer used in biology as a synonym for "spontaneous generation".

So you chose a dictionary that hasn't kept up with the language.

 

[gluadys]

Typical creationist mocking, oh how I am right in my assumptions.

Actually there was a test conducted in the 50s I believe where simple chemicals under certain conditions bonded and became amino acids, which are the building blocks of life.

That was the Urey-Miller experiment of 1953. The same and similar experiments have been done many times since with different combinations of atmospheric gases (including oxygen) and different sources of energy. So the experiment was not just successful once, but on many occasions.

There is also speculation that instead of appearing in shallow seas, the first life forms appeared near deep ocean volcanic vents which are rich in the minerals used by anaerobic organisms as an energy source.

 

[ernest_theweedwhackerguy]

Inanimate matter has no pulse.
Inanimate matter is dust and ash.
Ok, now, without a God or higher power, how exactly can this inanimate matter going to draw breath?
Dust evolves without divine help?

So tell me how inanimate matter can draw a breath.

 

[Theogonia]

That was the Urey-Miller experiment of 1953. The same and similar experiments have been done many times since with different combinations of atmospheric gases (including oxygen) and different sources of energy. So the experiment was not just successful once, but on many occasions.

There is also speculation that instead of appearing in shallow seas, the first life forms appeared near deep ocean volcanic vents which are rich in the minerals used by anaerobic organisms as an energy source.

Ah yes thank you.

 

[ernest_theweedwhackerguy]

How would that gas take form?
Unless it would be an ice cube with a pulse or something, I don't see how that experiment would work.

Go into it in further detail.
What came about from these "experiments"?

 

[Mallon]

Assuming even for a moment that abiogenesis is impossible, and God had to poof life into existence because He was incapable of creating a universe that could produce life on its own, how does any of this bear on evolution? Evolution happens regardless of how life was created.

 

[Theogonia]

How would that gas take form?
Unless it would be an ice cube with a pulse or something, I don't see how that experiment would work.

What the heck are you blathering about?

And here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

 

[R3quiem]

Well, if that happened, then how come abiogenesis was proven defective and was discredited?

Hmm, that's weird...

It was discredited that abiogenesis happens consistently, not that it never happens.

You know how when meat starts to spoil, maggots and flies start to gather on it? Well, before science explains what happens, people used to think that these things just appeared out of the decaying meat.

To find out whether this was true or not, a scientist did an experiment. He kept some meat in sealed jars, some meat in jars with a lid that lets air through but nothing else, and one piece of meat left open. Only the open piece had flies on it. He proved that these flies and maggots were not coming from the meat itself but rather from the environment. We now of course know that flies come and lay their eggs or whatever on the meat.

The point is, it's been disproven that abiogenesis happens like this on a regular basis like people once thought, not that abiogenesis never happened. Most scientists believe in evolution and it is assumed that abiogenesis occured sometime in Earth's early history.