“This could change how science perceives the life on earth began and how the planet has evolved”

[46AND2]

did you look it up? Try it. You will see it's not a fabrication of creation believers. (that is just away to avoid the issue). These are terms scientists use every day. Now instead of going on this entire red herring, trying to catch the OP on a technicality do the honest thing and debate the facts of the OP. The point is that chemical evolutionary theory on abiogenesis is changing. And it is changing because abiogenesis has no observable data to back it up. I mean think logically, does it make sense that a special recipe of certain non living material, can become alive? Sounds like a remake of Frankenstein.

1. I don't really see how that article indicates that abiogenesis hypotheses are changing. It was already suspected that it was more likely to have occurred in the ocean.

2. Logical sense? Um. Yes. You know we are made of chemicals, right? It makes FAR more sense to me that extremely simple life began through chemical reactions than it does to posit that a magical being poofed fully formed humans into existence. And more sense, even, than said magical being kick-starting abiogenesis...should that be your preferred flavor of how it happened.

 

[Speedwell]

I state that rocks, gas and dust cannot come up with an eye -- so far nobody on this thread has shown them doing it.

No one has claimed that they have done it. Self-replicating life forms came up with the eye, not rocks, gas and dust. I explained that to you already.

 

[pitabread]

And I repeatedly state that the "Eye" is a great example of something that rocks, gas, and dust cannot do

This a strawman. Nobody thinks that eyes formed directly from rocks, gas and dust.

If you're basing your incredulity on strawman caricatures of the alternatives, then that's a doubly poor argument.

I state that rocks, gas and dust cannot come up with an eye -- so far nobody on this thread has shown them doing it.

Because this is entirely a strawman invention on your part. Nobody is making that claim because that isn't how eyes evolved.

Thus far your "evidence" for creation consists of:

1) Incredulity
2) Strawman caricatures of evolution of the eye.

Not too impressive I'm afraid. Would you like to try again?

 

[Ophiolite]

Not too impressive I'm afraid. Would you like to try again?

Don't encourage him. He fired his main weapons in the opening salvo.

 

[BobRyan]

This a strawman. Nobody thinks that eyes formed directly from rocks, gas and dust.

Those who deny that God exists have "nothing but" rocks, gas and dust to work with when trying to "come up with an eye" -- what was their "other option"??

 

[BobRyan]

The eye and its development happens to be one of the better studied topics in evolutionary biology.

Sadly for them -- no one has observed rock, dust and gas being able to come up with one.

According to the atheist evolutionists themselves they are stuck with "stories easy enough to tell - but they are not science" when it comes to the storytelling about how one thing came from another.

That sort of statement from Colin Patterson goes to the very heart of "how things come about" within the doctrinal structure that you find in evolutionism.

 

[BobRyan]

However, nowhere in any of the reading (at least that I've done), does anyone suggest that "rocks, gas and dust" evolved into an eye. .

we call it "ignoring the elephant in the living room".

fine if they find rock-dust-gas to humiliating / challenging as the starting point for the "story telling" how about bacteria? Maybe they have a library of "stories" for how a fully formed "gift-to-you" prokaryote will -- via a long string of chance interactions (climbing up mount improbable as Dawkins would say) --- accomplish the "make an eye" task given enough time and chance and "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science" (in Colin Patterson's words).

 

[BobRyan]

No one has claimed that they have done it. Self-replicating life forms came up with the eye, not rocks, gas and dust. I explained that to you already.

If starting off with "non-life" is too daunting for those trying to avoid the fact that the eye proves there is God -- then fine. Lets imagine that the big bang results in lots of planets swarming with bacteria (no need to imagine self-replicating prions or that need no host cells or incredibly limited strands of RNA able to do magic). I don't mind shifting the "common sense must-be no life" starting point - to "Abundant life in the form of prokaryotes" as the "starting point".

Show us "bacteria made that eye" science in the lab -- observable, reproducible, falsifiable...

(This is wayyy too easy so far..)

 

[Ophiolite]

we call it "ignoring the elephant in the living room".

fine if they find rock-dust-gas to humiliating / challenging as the starting point for the "story telling" how about bacteria? Maybe they have a library of "stories" for how a fully formed "gift-to-you" prokaryote will -- via a long string of chance interactions (climbing up mount improbable as Dawkins would say) --- accomplish the "make an eye" task given enough time and chance and "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science" (in Colin Patterson's words).

Since all you bring to the table are your own doubts, funded out of and founded upon ignorance, I doubt you'll get too many takers among the critical thinkers - theist, or atheist. So we both have doubts. I like mine better.

 

[pitabread]

Those who deny that God exists have "nothing but" rocks, gas and dust to work with when trying to "come up with an eye" -- what was their "other option"??

Eyes are a result of biological evolution which involves biological organisms. The latter of which are not rocks, gas or dust.

 

[pitabread]

fine if they find rock-dust-gas to humiliating / challenging

Nobody finds it humiliating or challenging. More like baffling that creationists resort to such painfully bad arguments.

By making such poor arguments all you are doing is reinforcing the stereotype that creationists are ignorant of science. And is that your goal here?

 

[Speedwell]

If starting off with "non-life" is too daunting for those trying to avoid the fact that the eye proves there is God -- then fine. Lets imagine that the big bang results in lots of planets swarming with bacteria (no need to imagine self-replicating prions or that need no host cells or incredibly limited strands of RNA able to do magic). I don't mind shifting the "common sense must-be no life" starting point - to "Abundant life in the form of prokaryotic" as the "starting point".

We can start anywhere you like. The point I was making is that the origin of life is a different field of science than evolutionary biology and a different process than the process that drives evolution.

Show us "bacteria made that eye" science in the lab -- observable, reproducible, falsifiable...

(This is wayyy too easy so far..)

It only seems too easy because you haven't put in the work required to learn enough science to understand the evidence. Where would you like to begin?