My Abiogenesis Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Does the theory of evolution include how life got started?

If not, does the theory of evolution treat abiogenesis like it treats God?

Examples:

1. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.
2. Take your discussion about abiogenesis elsewhere.
3. Leave abiogenesis at the front door.
4. Show me evidence of abiogenesis.
5. Abiogenesis can be taught after school, but not during.
6. Nonbelievers in abiogenesis know more about abiogenesis than believers do.
7. What's the Hebrew word for "organic"?
8. What's the Greek word for "organic"?
9. Books on abiogenesis were written decades after abiogenesis got started.
10. I don't believe in abiogenesis, so there's nothing to discuss.

Please note that I'm simply asking if abiogenesis is treated as "respectfully" as God is.

It's a simple YES or NO challenge.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Does the theory of evolution include how life got started?

If not, does the theory of evolution treat abiogenesis like it treats God?

Examples:

1. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.
2. Take your discussion about abiogenesis elsewhere.
3. Leave abiogenesis at the front door.
4. Show me evidence of abiogenesis.
5. Abiogenesis can be taught after school, but not during.
6. Nonbelievers in abiogenesis know more about abiogenesis than believers do.
7. What's the Hebrew word for "organic"?
8. What's the Greek word for "organic"?
9. Books on abiogenesis were written decades after abiogenesis got started.
10. I don't believe in abiogenesis, so there's nothing to discuss.

Please note that I'm simply asking if abiogenesis is treated as "respectfully" as God is.

It's a simple YES or NO challenge.

In other news, no science journals had any articles explaining the mysteries of the Trinity this month.

 

[KWCrazy]

No.
The ladder has no first rung.
Evolution believers know that they can't get over the hurdle of origination, so they state that their theory begins AFTER the origination of first life and if you try to include abiogenesis you're an ignorant flat-earther.
Pushed for an explanation they will say that science hasn't solved that problem yet any more than it has solved the problem of the origination of the universe. So cosmology begins after origination, just as evolution does.

Just imagine it as a great map in front of you and where there are questions, you see written "Here be Dragons."

 

[Jimmy D]

Does the theory of evolution include how life got started?

No

If not, does the theory of evolution treat abiogenesis like it treats God?

No

 

[Jimmy D]

Pushed for an explanation they will say that science hasn't solved that problem yet any more than it has solved the problem of the origination of the universe. So cosmology begins after origination, just as evolution does.

So the "problem" hasn't been "solved", what are you moaning about?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

No.
The ladder has no first rung.
Evolution believers know that they can't get over the hurdle of origination, so they state that their theory begins AFTER the origination of first life and if you try to include abiogenesis you're an ignorant flat-earther.
Pushed for an explanation they will say that science hasn't solved that problem yet any more than it has solved the problem of the origination of the universe. So cosmology begins after origination, just as evolution does.

Just imagine it as a great map in front of you and where there are questions, you see written "Here be Dragons."

How often we see your ilk just make stuff up about what scientists say and think!

Scientists DON'T "know" they can't get over the hurdle of origination. They do know they haven't, yet. But they are poking around.

ITS YOU GUYS who deny evolution putting fabulous notions in the margins of the maps. Scientists know its OK to say "We don't know".

And by the way, saying "God created everything" is not really an explanation. It's only a suggestion about the history. It leaves a lot of details out. Scientists want to know those details.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Does the theory of evolution include how life got started?

No.

If not, does the theory of evolution treat abiogenesis like it treats God?

Evolution theory is an explanation of a set of a facts. It does no "treating".

From a general scientific standpoint, no it is not treated the same.

Abiogenesis concerns the scientific search for the origins of life.
God concerns a religious assertion.

Obviously from a science perspective, these subjects will be treated differently.

 

[KWCrazy]

So the "problem" hasn't been "solved", what are you moaning about?

I'm not moaning, I'm stating the disingenuous nature of evolution proponents. They are all out there trying to push their religious beliefs as factual and when questioned fall back to "You just don't understand science.

I'm still waiting for someone to show a benevolent mutation advancing a species by creating new genetic information and copying it to the reproductive system. Bacteria doesn't count. Bacteria are designed to eat whatever garbage is available.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evolution believers know that they can't get over the hurdle of origination

They don't have to.

, so they state that their theory begins AFTER the origination of first life

Because life needs to exist before it can evolve. That should be rather obvious.
It matters not how first life came into existance, as far as evolution theory is concerned.

Life exists and we can study it.
We don't need to know how first life came to be to study the development of life, just like we don't need to know how first life came to be to study breeding.

and if you try to include abiogenesis you're an ignorant flat-earther.

Errr... no... The shape of the earth has little to no relevance to the sciences of biology.

Pushed for an explanation they will say that science hasn't solved that problem yet
any more than it has solved the problem of the origination of the universe

Because it hasn't. Why is that a problem?

So cosmology begins after origination, just as evolution does.

So?

The stars exist, do they?
Life exists, does it?

So what would stop us from studying those existing things and the processes they are subject to?


Tell you what.... how about you explain how evolution theory would have to be changed, if it turns out that your deity of choice planted first life on this planet?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So the "problem" hasn't been "solved", what are you moaning about?

He probably just smells a gap where he can stuff his religion in.

 

[HitchSlap]

Generally speaking, scientists respect those ideas that have cut muster.

 

[KWCrazy]

How often we see your ilk just make stuff up about what scientists say and think!

My ilk?
Would you care to clarify or should i let the mods do it?

Scientists DON'T "know" they can't get over the hurdle of origination.

Perhaps they should go back and re-examine the first law of thermodynamics. If energy/ matter cannot be created, then it cannot auto-originate. Similarly, the formation of even a single protein from naturally formed amino acids is a statistical absurdity.

ITS YOU GUYS who deny evolution putting fabulous notions in the margins of the maps.

Do you even know the analogy? It's orgins?
We don't deny evolution because of what is unknown, we recognize it as absurd based on what IS known.

And by the way, saying "God created everything" is not really an explanation.

Unless God DID create everything, which is what YOUR Bible and YOUR religion teaches. I know of NO Baptist clergyman who has ever been able to make a case for evolution using the Bible as a reference. Either you reject the Creation as told by God or you reject the notion that the Bible is the word of God. Personally, I believe that the Bible is the word of God and therefore true.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm not moaning, I'm stating the disingenuous nature of evolution proponents.

How is it "disingenuous" to exclude out-of-scope things from an explanation of other things?

Do you need to know where and how footballs are manufactured, in order to explain or play the game according to the rules of the game?

Did Newton have to know the origins of matter in order to work out the laws of motion and gravity?

They are all out there trying to push their religious beliefs as factual and when questioned fall back to "You just don't understand science.

There is nothing religious about defining a scope of explanation.

I'm still waiting for someone to show a benevolent mutation advancing a species by creating new genetic information and copying it to the reproductive system. Bacteria doesn't count. Bacteria are designed to eat whatever garbage is available.

lol

 

[Speedwell]

I'm not moaning, I'm stating the disingenuous nature of evolution proponents. They are all out there trying to push their religious beliefs as factual and when questioned fall back to "You just don't understand science.

"Evolution proponents" don't have a single or distinctive religious belief. "Evolution proponents" hold a wide variety of religious beliefs--they are Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Shinto, Buddhists, and so on, as well as atheists.

 

[Speedwell]

Perhaps they should go back and re-examine the first law of thermodynamics. If energy/ matter cannot be created, then it cannot auto-originate.

As you well know, no one claims that mass/energy "auto originated." Your assertion is a poorly disguised version of the creationist falsehood that "science claims the universe came into existence from nothing without a cause."

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

. . . .Perhaps they should go back and re-examine the first law of thermodynamics. If energy/ matter cannot be created, then it cannot auto-originate. Similarly, the formation of even a single protein from naturally formed amino acids is a statistical absurdity. . . . .

Why you creationists think explaining how unlikely spontaneous creation actually is furthers their cause in favoring spontaneous creation I'll never understand, but there you are, doing it again.

Scientists work on understanding how life evolves and species develop naturally, while accomodating the laws of thermodynamics and chemistry.

Do you even know the analogy? It's orgins?

Sure. Just like creationists stick their ideas of miraculous creation into the margins of our understanding of life, map makers used to stick funny stuff into the margins of maps, such as "here there be dragons".

Today, scientists and map makers just admit where they don't know stuff.

We don't deny evolution because of what is unknown, we recognize it as absurd based on what IS known.

You don't even actually know what scientists say, you keep getting it wrong all the time, so you are in no position to say they are wrong.

Unless God DID create everything, which is what YOUR Bible and YOUR religion teaches.

Of course God created all things. We are only discussing alternate techniques of creation, such as "poof" verses "evolution".

I know of NO Baptist clergyman who has ever been able to make a case for evolution using the Bible as a reference.

Nor can you find any clergymen making a case for the rotation of the earth as the cause of day and night from the Bible. It takes scientific observations and theories to figure out science, not the Bible. Today, we have to interpret the references in the Bible to the sun to be consistent with our knowledge that the earth rotates and moves in an orbit. The same change in thinking has to take place regarding speciation and age of the earth. It is no different. It is not a threat to true religion.

Either you reject the Creation as told by God or you reject the notion that the Bible is the word of God. Personally, I believe that the Bible is the word of God and therefore true.

You flat earth believers make believing the Bible look silly and God will bring that subject up against you on judgement day.

I'm assuming you are a flat earther because you wouldn't be a hypocrite and deny the literal teachings of the bible on the subject of the earth's shape, the sun's motions, and the unmoving state of the earth . . . while refusing others the right to make similar allowances for the discoveries of science about the age of the earth and the common descent of all life.

Or would you do just that? Along with special pleadings about why its ok for you to do that?

 

[KWCrazy]

How is it "disingenuous" to exclude out-of-scope things from an explanation of other things?

It's disingenuous to say you don't know how something originated when you KNOW it could not have done so. It's disingenuous to claim that all living things came from a single cell but you can't ask where that cell came from. What if there were several; some originating plants; some originating animals? You can't exclude what you can't falsify.

Do you need to know where and how footballs are manufactured, in order to explain or play the game according to the rules of the game?

If science tells me that the formulation of footballs is impossible and you show up with a large bag of them I'm certainly going to question their origin.

There is nothing religious about defining a scope of explanation.

However, evolution has been escalated to a religion, displacing all others to some. For example, you may believe that man was created or evolved but not both. To believe in evolution you have to reject most of the first third of the Scriptures, which makes it by definition idolatry.

 

[KWCrazy]

As you well know, no one claims that mass/energy "auto originated."

Actually, many on this website have claimed just such a thing and said the only thing not understood yet was the mechanism. Others have stated that the bonding and unbonding of subatomic particles on the quantum level shows that and entire universe could simply pop into existence the same way.

 

[Speedwell]

Actually, many on this website have claimed just such a thing and said the only thing not understood yet was the mechanism. Others have stated that the bonding and unbonding of subatomic particles on the quantum level shows that and entire universe could simply pop into existence the same way.

I think you must have misunderstood them, or read it in to what they posted because you are so anxious to pin that claim on them.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It's disingenuous to say you don't know how something originated when you KNOW it could not have done so.

I'm sorry, I happen to know life originated. In spite of your claim it couldn't have.

It's disingenuous to claim that all living things came from a single cell but you can't ask where that cell came from.

There you go again, inserting that ridiculous claim that scientists don't make. WHO SAID YOU CAN'T ASK WHERE THAT CELL CAME FROM? Certainly no scientists. It's YOU CREATIONISTS who try to forbid scientists from asking such questions. And the more you foist such fibs on folks, the more you will be called out for foisting fibs on folks.

What if there were several; some originating plants; some originating animals? You can't exclude what you can't falsify.

Well, if you want to make the hypothesis that there were a couple of origin of life events for the various kingdoms of life, make it and search for evidence. So far it seems more probable that a single life origin can account for all the kingdoms of life.

If science tells me that the formulation of footballs is impossible and you show up with a large bag of them I'm certainly going to question their origin.

Isn't it YOU trying to say the formulation of life is impossible, NOT SCIENCE? Please keep your ideas straight. Scientists are working on how life could originate naturally. They may or may not succeed.

However, evolution has been escalated to a religion, displacing all others to some.

Scientists can't be blamed for what laymen do with science.

For example, you may believe that man was created or evolved but not both.

Sorry, I don't accept your limitations on my beliefs. You believe you were born to human parents and made by God . . . . that's no more or less contradictory, its the same idea, actually. You can keep all the limitations you want on your own beliefs, but you are paying the price of being out of touch with reality.

To believe in evolution you have to reject most of the first third of the Scriptures, which makes it by definition idolatry.

You sure mix up your word definitions! Idolatry is worshipping idols, not rejecting scripture. Besides, once evolution is recognized as an aspect of creation, all those so called conflicts with scripture melt away.