Evolutionist "poof" theory

[imind]

So... go back to this thread and give me a similar explanation as to how just the first cell animated without any form of life to animate it. Also, include what that first living cell used for food. All life needs to feed off of biological material in order to reproduce... how could the first cell have gotten the energy to live long enough to split

ok, here's what happened: an alien life form came to earth and planted the seeds for life, and the alien life form is so alien, and its "physiology" so dissimilar to ours, that we can't explain it until one of their vehicles crashes into earth; this will happen soon. this is just as probable as your theory. end of story.

 

[dad]

give me a break. even as a christian, i can say that even the belief in god is illogical, let alone giving him credit for creation, as described literally in the bible.

Illogical? I say it's a lot more logical than the big bang from nothing (yet contained everthing) story!!

 

[Jet Black]

Illogical? I say it's a lot more logical than the big bang from nothing (yet contained everthing) story!!

interesting, you don't even know what the claims of the Big Bang are. I suggest you go away and learn.

 

[Dennis Moore]

There's a complete detailed hypotheses which consists of "We don't know yet."

Don't twist my words. There are hypotheses out there which are being investigated. Right now, we do not know much that isn't tentative. It's neither contradictory not ilogical. We don't know for sure, but we're working on ideas that will help us find out.

That's exactly what confuses me. Creationists have a complete explanation as to how everything happened.

Yes, one that they took from a 3000 year old cultural myth, and then said, "Yes, this must be the way it happened!" And then they went for coffee.

It's a complete, logical theory (although unproven).

You're right on one count: it is complete.

Scientists refute it as nonsense.... but I havn't heard of a better theory... just "we don't know yet" ... But it can't be a god... because that's silly... We don't believe in magical god fairies floating around making life... but we believe life magically made itself... with no fairies at all... ?

A complete and utterly false strawmanning of the scientific position. It's becoming increasingly obvious that you have no interest in learning about abiogenesis studies, just in making yourself feel better about believing in Creationism. Since you refuse to do the work yourself, here are a few more articles (again from nice, easy-to-read Wikipedia, so it won't even be a difficult or lengthy chore) to lay out some parts of modern abiogenesis hypotheses:

The RNA World Hypothesis

Proteinoids

Panspermia (not likely, but interesting)

And just because so many Creationists have no clue what it actually did, a write-up in the Miller-Urey Experiment.

honestly, I'm not trying to bash anyone here, I'm just having fun playing with words and pointing out holes in the theory. I know there are HUGE holes in the theory that I choose (creationism), but I like looking at other people's holes sometimes too.

You're playing with words, all right. The difference between the holes, however, is that science is actively seeking to fill them with knowledge, while Creationists prefer to fill them with "Goddidit!"

 

[Sotek]

I'd like to point out that "We have no idea" is a MUCH better 'theory' (using the word very loosely) than "The invisible pink pixies inside my anus did it."

Now, I'm not saying god = invisible pink pixies in an unpleasant place, but from a scientific viewpoint, if there's no possible evidence that could disprove a theory, it simply ain't a theory.

And a "theory" CAN be worse than "we have no idea"; it can be proven to be wrong.

 

[JesusFreak786]

I believe that there is no such thing as evolution. God made every living creature withen 2 days. 1 day he made the sea creatures the next day he made all land creatures including humans. If anything we are getting worst not better for the Bible says we are sinners and have gotten to the point of being worthless, yet Jesus died for us. Look up Romans 3:10 it says things pritty clearly

 

[Dennis Moore]

I believe that there is no such thing as evolution.

Then your belief is an irrational thing that flies in the face of observed and universally accepted facts. Evolution--populations changing over time via mutation and selection--is a fact that even YECs can no longer deny.

I suspect you meant that you don't believve in "macro" evolution, i.e. the theory of common descent and speciation via mutation and natural selection. Which is still irrational, but at least slightly better justifiable.

 

[Dal M.]

I believe that there is no such thing as evolution. God made every living creature withen 2 days. 1 day he made the sea creatures the next day he made all land creatures including humans. If anything we are getting worst not better for the Bible says we are sinners and have gotten to the point of being worthless, yet Jesus died for us. Look up Romans 3:10 it says things pritty clearly

You are, of course, welcome to believe this. But don't delude yourself into thinking that your beliefs can compete with the theory of evolution in the scientific arena.

 

[Hands Open]

I believe that there is no such thing as evolution. God made every living creature withen 2 days. 1 day he made the sea creatures the next day he made all land creatures including humans. If anything we are getting worst not better for the Bible says we are sinners and have gotten to the point of being worthless, yet Jesus died for us. Look up Romans 3:10 it says things pritty clearly

Um... evolution is a scientific fact. Your belief is not needed to make that so. The common misconception is that evoulution = big bang. But they are two separate things. But the fact that things evolve is not a theory. Only the mechanism by which evolution occurs is stil stated as "in theory."

And one other thing. Many of us in here are quite familiar with the often quoted verses, but as you may have noticed for many of us, just because the bible says it doesn't make it true. You are entitled to your opinions but expect them to be challenged in these forums.

 

[dad]

interesting, you don't even know what the claims of the Big Bang are. I suggest you go away and learn.

If you want to masquerade childishness as high knowledge, you'll need to work on a better disguise. The expanding little universe came from where? The first lifeform came from where? Go ahead, prove it was no disguise, and answer. I'll tell you right now, you will have no more of a clue than any scientist will. Christians have more than a clue, they have the blueprint.
Someone said evolution was proved, but this is not true. You may call some after creation process 'evolution' if you want. To me, evolution is the old fable that life sprung from someplace, somehow, by some chain of flukes, and proceeded to be responsible for all life on earth. Any process you can ever imagine or detect is simply an after creation process, and never will you or anyone on earth even begin to hope to prove otherwise.
Zero proof now, zero proof before, and zero to came. All talking about the little zero fables said to have in effect created all life, and the whole known universe! Utter rubbish.

 

[Arikay]

"To me, evolution is the old fable that life sprung from someplace, somehow, by some chain of flukes, and proceeded to be responsible for all life on earth"

Since evolution says nothing about where life came from, I would suggest you take his advice and learn about these things before attacking them. Although it seems like you are saying you wont learn because you are much happier with your strawman. If that's the case, don't expect people to take you seriously.

 

[MaynardGKrebbs]

The expanding little universe came from where?

Well cosmologists and theoretical physicists have some ideas, nothing conclusive yet, but they're working on it.

The first lifeform came from where?

It's obvious the first lifeform arose from inorganic materials. Bio chemists are working out just how this happened.

Go ahead, prove it was no disguise, and answer.

Disguise?? Maybe I missed something. And science doesn't deal in 'proof'.

Christians have more than a clue, they have the blueprint.

Christians have the myths of the Bible, no blueprint. And while these completely unsubstantiated myths might have an important spiritual message, they have absolutely no value as science.

Someone said evolution was proved, but this is not true.

The theory of evolution is a tenative fact. That evolution occurs is a fact, it is observable, testable. Evolution is accepted on the basis of the evidence, valid predictions are made all the time based on evolution. It is an integral part of modern agriculture, it is an integral part of modern medicine. You have failed to present any data that falsifies it.

To me, evolution is the old fable that life sprung from someplace, somehow, by some chain of flukes, and proceeded to be responsible for all life on earth.

See, that's your problem! You don't know what evolution is! Evolution doesn't deal with where life came from, that's abiogenesis. And neither evolution or abiogenesis is dependent on chance or 'a chain of flukes'.

Any process you can ever imagine or detect is simply an after creation process, and never will you or anyone on earth even begin to hope to prove otherwise.

So what? Evolution could very well be an 'after creation process', but since God is unfalsifiable, science doesn't even try to prove otherwise. What you can't do is prove that an intelligent super being did create anything, let alone the universe.

Zero proof now, zero proof before, and zero to came. All talking about the little zero fables said to have in effect created all life, and the whole known universe! Utter rubbish.

Typical response from someone who can't account for the evidence, stick your fingers in your ears and repeat "there is no evidence, there is no evidence, there is no evidence.....". Sorry, there is an avalanche of evidence supporting evolution, your denial doesn't change reality.

 

[The Gregorian]

Evolution SPECIFICALLY does not say how life started in the first place. It all traces back to a primordial ooze where proteins were randomly floating around in a puddle, then... umm... a living, functional cell existed... then started splitting, and "evolving" into all life today.

wrong. If we were playing snakes and ladders you have just steppeed on that really long snake and have to go back to square one and start your education again. This is not what evolution requires, and it is a strawman misrepresentation of abiogenesis, and many "Evolutionists" even believe that God created the first living organism.

... make up your mind. You have two choices:

1: There is a clear explanation as to how the first living cell animated (if so, please give a breif summery).
2: It is generally admitted that no one knows how it animated... just that... something... happened "over a long period of time". example:

~Ahem~
We dont know for a fact what happened.

we don't know, but we're sure gonna keep looking!

Abiogenesis is still a theory in development, however we do know a bit.

we don't know everything yet. Do you have an issue with the answer 'we don't know yet'? Some of the vagueness of abiogenesis does stem from our incomplete knowledge of the subject.

for the 100th time...WE DON'T KNOW!!

lol look at this one to:

why can't we just admit that there is not sufficient evidence for certain things to come to any reasonable conclusion on the matter.

Yes, JetBlack... YOU scolded me for not accepting the fact that no one has "any reasonable conclusion" as to how abiogenises could work without outside intelligent stimuli. If there are no reasonable explanations... why is it unreasonable to go with the most logical choice until a reasonable explanation is given?

 

[Arikay]

the problem is you are missing possibility 1.5

1.5) We don't know for a fact but we have a few promising ideas.
Things aren't always black and white, it is possible to say "We don't know but this is what we think based on current evidence)."

 

[The Gregorian]

to reword this...scientists have proven it did not happen as described by creationists.

How can you accept spontanious biogenises as proof against creationism when YOU (among others... see the above post) admit that there is no complete explanation for how life started? Example:

nobody here, save the creationists, are willing to do this. BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW!!

i.e. creationists have a complete explaination as to how it happened... there is NO scientific explaination for how life actually started... therefore, what "proof" is there against the only explaination we have?

[imind]ok, here's what happened: an alien life form came to earth and planted the seeds for life, and the alien life form is so alien, and its "physiology" so dissimilar to ours, that we can't explain it until one of their vehicles crashes into earth; this will happen soon. this is just as probable as your theory. end of story.[/quote]

well... that .... is my theory. according to the bible God made earth, therefore God cannot be FROM earth, therefore God is an alien. The only difference is, I assume you mean an alien from another planet... then... how did that alien's planet generate life? (because we don't know what planet it's from, there's no evidence that life didn't ALWAYS exist on the planet, so that's an imaginable explaination... assuming you don't believe in the big bang. But if the alien lives on a planet that was at one point formed, then life couldn't be on it when it formed, then life couldn't have "always" existed on it.)

See... pros and cons... not just insults. I'm excited.

interesting, you don't even know what the claims of the Big Bang are. I suggest you go away and learn.

again so quick to judge. Here's a breif tidbit on the big bang... I got more if you want it, but it'll have to be in another thread:

According to the theory a universal singularity exploded to create all matter in the universe. However, a singularity is infinitely small, therefore has infinite density, therefore an infinite escape vilocity (more than the speed of light). This qualifies the origonal universal singularity as a black hole, and you're a believer in special relativity which states that nothing can escape a black hole because nothing can go the speed of light (let alone an infinite speed).

Also, if matter COULD go an infinite speed to escape the infinite gravitational pull of an infinitely dense, infinitely small universal singularity, it would take an infinite force to counteract the force used to propel the matter outword. No such force exists, so if the big bang happened, we should still be traveling at an infinite speed... again, according to special relativity, this should mean time has stopped, and if time stopped, then no distance could be covered away from the universal singularity, which means we must still be in it, because, since we're going so fast, we must still be unable to move.

 

[corvus_corax]

[/size][/color][/font]again so quick to judge. Here's a breif tidbit on the big bang... I got more if you want it, but it'll have to be in another thread:

Yep....a seperate thread is probably the way to go.
And the forumite wasnt directing that comment at you, but rather to someone else who has (time and again) demonstrated his complete lack of understanding of BB theory.

 

[The Gregorian]

A complete and utterly false strawmanning of the scientific position. It's becoming increasingly obvious that you have no interest in learning about abiogenesis studies, just in making yourself feel better about believing in Creationism. Since you refuse to do the work yourself, here are a few more articles (again from nice, easy-to-read Wikipedia, so it won't even be a difficult or lengthy chore) to lay out some parts of modern abiogenesis hypotheses:

I'm truely sorry, I come to learn. I may not have asked this clearly before, so

Please give a brief summery of ANY theory as to how the first living cell animated.

This means... you. Don't link me to another page. I've read those pages. I want to know what YOU know, because obviously you have an understanding that I don't have, and that I didn't attain from those pages. So far I've clicked on all your links, and they've ALL said how proteins can polymirize or how amino acids can form, or how this or that part of a cell can form... but NONE have given any hint to what made a mixture of inanimate chemicals actually animate. So copy and paste if you must... but skip over the inanimate stuff, and everything after the point where the cell's animate.... I just want that ONE part. Can anyone... please... give me that ONE part?

I'd like to point out that "We have no idea" is a MUCH better 'theory' (using the word very loosely) than "The invisible pink pixies inside my anus did it."

I havn't heard anyone here hypothisize that an anal dwelling light red sylph of some sort created the world... But at least it's an idea. (wrong because if it lives in your anus, then it could not have created your anus, nore anything your anus needs to survive).

Also... I'd appriciate it if you didn't call my God an anal dwelling fairy... I don't know... some people might find that a bistchen offensive.

I believe that there is no such thing as evolution. God made every living creature withen 2 days. 1 day he made the sea creatures the next day he made all land creatures including humans.

it also says he created the universe in one day... but that includes the earth, and how could he create something in the time it takes for an object to spin around it's axis one time before that object existed. It's unlikely that those "days" were 24 hours.... rather just a "period of time" (maybe 1 second, maybe 5,365,892 billion years... no way to keep track because the earth wasn't around to rotate around the sun 5,365,892 billion times.

Um... evolution is a scientific fact.

evolution can't be a "fact" because there still is no explanation as to how it started. Therefore it's not even a complete idea yet.

Since evolution says nothing about where life came from, I would suggest you take his advice and learn about these things before attacking them. Although it seems like you are saying you wont learn because you are much happier with your strawman. If that's the case, don't expect people to take you seriously.

How are we to learn when no one has anything about how it started. In over 50 posts, the best explanation I've got was about a pink anal dwelling sprite. Because there is no completion to this theory, what is more logical than to try to explore the possibility that it MIGHT not be true?

 

[warispeace]

To me, evolution is the old fable that life sprung from someplace, somehow, by some chain of flukes, and proceeded to be responsible for all life on earth.

Could you please come up with some new word for your fable? The word 'evolution' is already taken.

 

[corvus_corax]

evolution can't be a "fact" because there still is no explanation as to how it started. Therefore it's not even a complete idea yet.

1- Abiogenesis is not evolution. Evolution is not abiogenesis. One may follow the other, but the creation of the first pre-protocell (if even that) is not evolution (see #2)
2- So if you dont think that evolution is a fact, then you believe that alelles do not actually change in frequency over time?

 

[The Gregorian]

Disguise?? Maybe I missed something. And science doesn't deal in 'proof'.

I think he was talking to JetBlack. Jet Black keeps taking the fundamentalist standpoint: "You don't absolutely and unquestioningly accept my faith?! you must not have any comprehension of it... Go somewhere and read about it, because I have no clue what it says either... but at least I know little enough about it to blindly accept it as the absolute truth." (BTW, I hate when this happens, whether someone's talking like JetBlack, or they're one of those ministers who think that if you don't go to their church and pay them money you're going to burn in some firey pit of death forever)

Christians have the myths of the Bible, no blueprint. And while these completely unsubstantiated myths might have an important spiritual message, they have absolutely no value as science.

how do you like this: "myth" or not, it's a complete explanation. It's physically possible. There is some evidence for it, no evidence against it, it's been historically documented in multiple places, and it's a generally sound theory. Just because it involves morality doesn't mean that anything some crackpot in a lab coat dreams up is more likely.

The theory of evolution is a tenative fact. That evolution occurs is a fact, it is observable, testable. Evolution is accepted on the basis of the evidence, valid predictions are made all the time based on evolution. It is an integral part of modern agriculture, it is an integral part of modern medicine. You have failed to present any data that falsifies it.

Natural selection is a fact. Evolution has never been proven in any way. When you can put two cats in a room and come out with a frog, I'll give you $10,000. Traits within a given species DO change due to natural selection. THAT can be observed, and is an integral part of modern agriculture, it is an integral part of modern medicine.

See, that's your problem! You don't know what evolution is! Evolution doesn't deal with where life came from, that's abiogenesis. And neither evolution or abiogenesis is dependent on chance or 'a chain of flukes'.

But evolution, as a "chain" must have some beginning. Abiogenisis IS a seperate "theory" but without that theory, evolution is an imcomplete explaination as to where a given species came from.

example:
Where'd chickens come from: ancient birds
Where'd ancient birds come from: Dinosaurs
Where'd dinosaurs come from: smaller dinosaurs
Where'd the small dinosaurs come from: fish
Where'd those fish come from: Small sea creatures
Where'd those sea creatures come from: bacteria
Where'd the bacteria come from: I don't know, that's abiogenisis' problem (that's the break in the chain, therefore, it's an incomplete theory until you can complete the chain. Unfortunately, once you can explain how the first cell animated, you have to explain how the earth got here, and the big bang theory will end up as part of evolution)

That is kinda funny though.... assuming abiogenisis... that means we evolved, not from monkies... but... from a puddle.

1.5) We don't know for a fact but we have a few promising ideas.
Things aren't always black and white, it is possible to say "We don't know but this is what we think based on current evidence)."

k... maybe I havn't asked clearly enough. I do not expect to get an absolute difinitive answer... just one of the possibilities... since EVERYONE but me knows that "we have a few promising ideas" would you mind sharing one of 'em.... Because everywhere I've looked and everyone I've asked has said the same thing: "Oh... there's an explaination all right... just don't ask me." Well, if you know of one, who did you ask? Because someone's got to have some clue what one of these possibilities are (other than the sarcastic anal pixie theories).

Again... I don't want to know how various inanimate parts of the cell formed... I've seen those theories all over the place... I want ONE possible theory showing how that inanimate cell came to life.

Yep....a seperate thread is probably the way to go.
And the forumite wasnt directing that comment at you, but rather to someone else who has (time and again) demonstrated his complete lack of understanding of BB theory.

Yea, but I just try to answer everything I can... that's why posts like this one are so long (sorry). I just wanted to make sure everyone knows one more time that I'm having fun with this. I know I sound like I'm freaking out at you and saying "EVERYONE'S WRONG" and being a general butt about things, but this is just how I exchange ideas. I'm not mad at anyone...although I'm starting to get a little flustered at JetBlack... but other than that (including you corvus... even though I've come down on you like 3 times today) I'm honestly enjoying this conversation and I don't want any hard feelings.