The origin of life and evolution

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The rest doesn't pass the test of theory either, but dogma's rarely do.
That is why they are usually a sign of religious beliefs.

Do you not see the inherent irony in a religious person, calling a scientific theory a religion?
Although of course, you've never been able to show any actual scientific evidence that shows that evolution is wrong. Only links to non-scientific blogs claiming to be scientific when all they peddle is misquoted science, Gish Gallops of misinterpreted date and just outright lies.

 

[bhsmte]

Has anyone done that in this thread?

The truth always comes out eventually, no matter how much evasion is used.

You are correct, no one has done so in this thread. Some folks, are just irked silly, that science does not mention a god and they need to manufacture these types of claims.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are correct, no one has done so in this thread. Some folks, are just irked silly, that science does not mention a god and they need to manufacture these types of claims.

I was travelling over the weekend, and was discussing similar matters over a few pints with an old friend of mine. Do you suddenly become more patriotic because you stand and sing a song during the 7th inning stretch? I don't think so. My friend didn't think so. So what is the purpose? At times, it can give you that creepy "1984" vibe.

There seems to be this strain of thinking that if we force people to sing a nationalistic anthem or say a deities name that we will somehow be bent to think like they do. Some people need other people to agree with them in order to feel justified in their beliefs, and this is especially true for beliefs supported by religious faith.

 

[46AND2]

The one spoken of in the OP.

You didn't address anything from the opening post. The opening post dealt with the claim by many creationists that if abiogenesis is false, so too must evolution be.

 

[Loudmouth]

Creationists constantly claim that abiogenesis and evolution are and must be linked otherwise evolution is false. In response to that claim I have been asking this question and thus far, the responses have ranged from evasion to crickets.

Here are 4 possible sources for the origin of life on earth. Tell me how any of them effect evolution in any way.
1. Abiogenesis
2. Panspermia
3. Fiat creation by God
4. Something weird like being a science project for hyper-dimensional high schoolers.​

So, Creationists, can any of you step up to the plate and answer my question?

I like to pose the same question with one change. How would it change the Germ Theory of Disease? If you accept the scientific Germ Theory of Disease, do you also have to accept the scientific explanation of abiogenesis as the origin of those germs?

I have yet to find a creationist who will honestly answer those questions.

 

[USincognito]

I look at it this way. I realize that abiogenesis is not strictly related to evolution from the scientific standpoint and the definition of the terms. However, I think of evolution as a series of falling dominoes. Domino "A" fell on "B" fell on "C" etc. (over millions of years, of course). But where did "A" come from, and what caused it to fall? It seems to make sense to me that these questions belong in the same bucket as evolution since without "A" falling there would be no evolution.

Let's say A is the origin of life on earth. If A happened by any of the listed methods how do any of those methods effect evolution (B, etc.)?

 

[USincognito]

Do they all?
Maybe they do because it boils down to 2 options for the lot of our reality:
Chance or design (purposeful or purposeless even).

This is part of the whole of evolutionary / naturalistic thinking / conviction.
It's the "chance (purposeless)" option.Usually used as a 'cop out' because of the impossibilities of abiogenesis.
However, the supposed 'spermiation' is often thought of as a result of abiogenesis outside of the solar system.So 3 and 4 are basically the same: "design (purpose)".
Intelligence, skills and a will are involved in 3 and 4.​

That's nice, but your chance/design canard didn't address how evolution would be effected if any of those were the source for the origin of life on earth

 

[USincognito]

The one spoken of in the OP.

THE OP ISN'T ABOUT ABIOGENESIS.

 

[USincognito]

Cutting out the origin is a copout. Evolution removes
God and creation from the origin of life, so it's up to
those who believe in evolution to explain how life began
without God's intervention. The same goes with the
beginning and formation of the universe.

You didn't answer the question in the OP. Care to try again and with less screed this time?

 

[USincognito]

Wrong, wrong, wrong, etc. That is like saying
"Every time I jump, I defy gravity". Then it turns
on and I fall. Evolution fell long ago.

Evolution today cannot be falsified. That is the
proof of it being a religion, not science. Evolution
has been disproven hundreds of time, yet scientists
would rather promote a lie than say God is the only
viable explanation for everything.

http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html

Everything in this post is wrong. It also doesn't address the OP, please stay on topic per the forum rules.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You didn't address anything from the opening post. The opening post dealt with the claim by many creationists that if abiogenesis is false, so too must evolution be.

I'm sorry I read it wrong. So you are right.

 

[Oncedeceived]

THE OP ISN'T ABOUT ABIOGENESIS.

Why all caps? I read it wrong, my mistake.

 

[USincognito]

I like to pose the same question with one change. How would it change the Germ Theory of Disease? If you accept the scientific Germ Theory of Disease, do you also have to accept the scientific explanation of abiogenesis as the origin of those germs?

I have yet to find a creationist who will honestly answer those questions.

Or the origin of the earth and geology or more specifically plate tectonics.
1. Accretion
2. Fiat creation by God.
3. Magratheans.

 

[dougangel]

Or the origin of the earth and geology or more specifically plate tectonics.
1. Accretion
2. Fiat creation by God.
3. Magratheans.

Do you think anybody really knows for sure precisely how God did it. God can do miracles. Or he can use science. He sure is at the moment using science to keep the universe functioning. Adaptation is a fact.
So I would say I don't know. It is possible he used the big bang and evolution and gave us a spiritual nature.

 

[pat34lee]

Of course it can. But not by one odd data point we can't explain. One outlier does not debunk the preponderance of evidence. It's the same thing with all science. If we drop a helium balloon, it rises instead of falls. Does that mean that gravity is falsified? Of course not. We look for an explanation for the apparent contradiction.

The problem isn't with one or a few items and outliers.
Nothing in evolution stands up to scrutiny. With the
thousands of fossils found, surely you would have one
or twe definitive missing links for each species and kind.
Where are the dino-birds, the sort-of amphi-fish or fishtiles?
Where do bats and platypus come into the record? The tree
of evolution has more holes than tree. In fact, it's more like a
lawn, with nothing interconnected past a few in the same kind.

 

[Hieronymus]

That's nice, but your chance/design canard

Canard?
Do you want me to explain it to you?

didn't address how evolution would be effected if any of those were the source for the origin of life on earth

O, sorry, indeed.
No, it wouldn't make a difference.

 

[pat34lee]

Every single time evolution faces a test it has the potential to be falsified.

Go to a biomedical research lab and make this claim. You'll be promptly laughed out of the building.

Try telling a scientist how you can disprove evolution once and for all,
and see if he gives you the time of day. You will only find closed doors
and even more tightly closed minds. There are two main dogmas in the
world of science today, and neither are scientific. Evolution and global
warming.

 

[pat34lee]

LOL. You're going to claim that evolution has been falsified followed by a link to a conspiracy theory site?
Care to provide any actual scientific research to support your claims?

Why would I try? It isn't as if you would actually think
for yourself and see if what I post is true or not. It's
much easier to label it conspiracy or lunatic or fringe
and ignore the truth, isn't it? You are free from thinking
at all.

 

[pat34lee]

Do you not see the inherent irony in a religious person, calling a scientific theory a religion?
Although of course, you've never been able to show any actual scientific evidence that shows that evolution is wrong. Only links to non-scientific blogs claiming to be scientific when all they peddle is misquoted science, Gish Gallops of misinterpreted date and just outright lies.

Names, names. and no real argument against them.
Just smear a little mud and hope the truth goes away.
Funny how those who say others are lying never show
how. As if your opposition magically lose all credibility
because you say so.

 

[Tree of Life]

Creationists constantly claim that abiogenesis and evolution are and must be linked otherwise evolution is false.

As far as I can tell, abiogenesis is the best explanation for the origins of life for the atheist. So abiogenesis and atheistic evolution are certainly connected.

Panspermia is just abiogenesis once removed and option 4 creates much more problems that it solves (also it's absurd).