My Abiogenesis Challenge

[Loudmouth]

Does the theory of evolution include how life got started?

No. The theory of evolution only includes how life changed once it did appear. How the first simple replicator came to be 3+ billion years ago is irrelevant to the theory that explains how life changed after that point.

We would all agree that germs had to come from somewhere. However, the Germ Theory of Disease does not deal with the origin of germs. Germ theory only deals with how germs cause disease regardless of the ultimate origin of germs billions of years ago.

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

Evolution doesn't discuss either one of them.

 

[KWCrazy]

Why you creationists think explaining how unlikely spontaneous creation actually is furthers their cause in favoring spontaneous creation I'll never understand...

Not unlikely, impossible.
The creation was not spontaneous. It was a reaction to the will of God saying "Let there be...."
That's what YOUR Bible teaches. That's what YOUR religion states.

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

Except it doesn't evolve, it adapts. Adaptation is a conservative process. It works with existing genetic information. Radiating fruit flies was supposed to dramatically increase mutations and force evolution. It only proved the stasis of the species. All radically mutated offspring were sterile. remove the radiation and subsequent generations were born normally.

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".

What does your pastor think about the notion of "miraculous creation?"
I can tell you what the Southern Baptist Convention has to say on the matter.
WHEREAS, The theory of evolution has never been proven to be a scientific fact, and
WHEREAS, Public school students are now being indoctrinated in evolution-science, and
WHEREAS, Creation-science can be presented solely in terms of scientific evidence without any religious doctrines or concepts, and
WHEREAS, Public school students should be taught all the scientific evidence on the subject of the origin of the world and life, and
WHEREAS, Academic freedom and free speech should be encouraged rather than inhibited.
Therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Southern Baptist Convention in session in New Orleans, Louisiana, June 1982, express our support for the teaching of Scientific Creationism in our public schools.

You don't even actually know what scientists say

Nonsense. The internet is cluttered with their quotes.
Evolution is not the fulfillment if science. It is the twisting of science into something it was never intended to be.

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

Which of those alternatives are found in your Bible?

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. quite]the opposite. I've never met one who did not. Does your weatherman still say sunrise and sunset? Is he a flat earth believer?
Psalms 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us. At either pole one can only head in the opposite direction, but east never meets west. How did David know this?

It takes scientific observations and theories to figure out science, not the Bible.

Science and truth are not synonyms.
Evolution is a theory of origins. It has never been observed.
Adaptation has been observed, but it's a conservative process.
Over 6,000 years of man's relationship with God has been observed.

You flat earth believers

Please retract that lie.
Your resulting to insult will not be tolerated.

God will bring that subject up against you on judgement day.

Is that what your pastor teaches?
Please message me his name and location. I'm sure that the baptist church will have some questions about his heresy.

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 .

I sincerely doubt you possess any great understanding of the Bible.
If you did, you wouldn't reject a third of it to subordinate to the the theory of evolution.
What did God say about how HE created man?
What did Jesus affirm about the truth of the Scriptures?
By one man's sin (Adam) was sin and death brought into the world and by one man's sacrifice (Jesus) the sins of man can be forgiven. If not for the fallen nature of man through Adam, why was Jesus even needed?
In Job we read that God hangs the earth on nothing. That was many years before we learned that the earth floated in space.
Job also mentions electrical and magnetic waves, only recently discovered. "Can you send lightnings?"
The Bible talks of sea currents we only recently discovered.
Medical science has only recently discovered that blood-clotting in a newborn reaches its peak on the eighth day, then drops. The Bible consistently says that a baby must be circumcised on the eighth day.
Isaiah 40:22 tells us the earth is round.
Solomon described a "cycle" of air currents two thousand years before scientists "discovered" them. "
Luke 17:34–36 says the Second Coming of Jesus Christ will occur while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night at the same time.
The Bible is not a science book, but science cannot demonstrate it to be inaccurate.

 

[Loudmouth]

Except it doesn't evolve, it adapts. Adaptation is a conservative process. It works with existing genetic information.

If we are able to show that random mutations produce a new phenotype that is then selected for, would you accept that as evolution?

 

[Loudmouth]

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."

Do you also reject the Germ Theory of Disease for the same reasons? It also lacks that first rung.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Bacteria don't count? Huh?

 

[driewerf]

I'm not moaning, I'm stating the disingenuous nature of evolution proponents. They are all out there trying to push their religious beliefs

The ToE is not a religion, it lacks all the features of e religion:

• it has no sacred text or book, unlike the bible, the quran, the book of Mormon etc
• it requires no initiation ritual: no baptism, no circumcision
• it imposes no sexual morality: it doesn't impose or forbids no sex before or after mariage, says nothing about masturbation or homosexuality.
• it doesn't impose food rules, like hallal - haram for the muslims or kosher for the jews
• it doesn't claim exclusivity, you can accept the Toe and remain christian, muslim, jew or satanist.
• it doesn't say anything about the after life, nothing about a heaven or hell, and it doesn't threaten the "non believers" with hell

 

[driewerf]

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.

Copying to the reproductive system? Do you even know how genetics work?

 

[KWCrazy]

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

But that IS the only possibility. It is not eternal, so it had to have a beginning. However, it cannot have a beginning because it cannot be created. The only conclusion that fits within the laws of nature is that it doesn't exist.

 

[KWCrazy]

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.

No, that was exactly what they said.
That's why it was so memorable.
Their contention was that matter can simply pop into existence because "We see it at the quantum level."
Another poster proclaimed that the universe was simply popped into existence from a collapsing black hole in a parallel universe. I thought that was particularly charming.

 

[Loudmouth]

But that IS the only possibility. It is not eternal, so it had to have a beginning.

Why can't mass/energy be eternal?

 

[Speedwell]

But that IS the only possibility. It is not eternal, so it had to have a beginning. However, it cannot have a beginning because it cannot be created. The only conclusion that fits within the laws of nature is that it doesn't exist.

Why can't it be eternal? According to physicists, so far as we can tell mass/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. We don't know if it is eternal, but it certainly is not impossible. It's not even an atheist position; creation ex materia is entirely consistent with scripture and is even today taught by some Christian groups

 

[HitchSlap]

But that IS the only possibility. It is not eternal, so it had to have a beginning. However, it cannot have a beginning because it cannot be created. The only conclusion that fits within the laws of nature is that it doesn't exist.

Don't be so glib. We all know it was Tuesday purple farting pixies.

 

[KWCrazy]

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

Oh, enthrall me. Do tell how life began.
Please source and validate your claims.

WHO SAID YOU CAN'T ASK WHERE THAT CELL CAME FROM?

Everyone who says the origin of the first cell has nothing to do with evolution. No first step, no second step.

So far it seems more probable that a single life origin can account for all the kingdoms of life.

We call that origin "Lord."

Scientists are working on how life could originate naturally. They may or may not succeed.

Life comes only from life.
The conditions required to form a single protein from amino acids never existed on earth. The odds of amino acids randomly forming 200 left handed proteins in sequence is beyond astronomical.

Sorry, I don't accept your limitations on my beliefs.

You admittedly believe in conflicting things?

You believe you were born to human parents and made by God . . . . that's no more or less contradictory,

No offense, but that's probably the single craziest thing I've ever heard.
Do you seriously not see the contradiction required in a six day creation and a 13.5 billion year evolution?
Here is wisdom. Embrace it. The only way you can believe in the Bible and evolution is to understand neither. They are mutually exclusive.

Idolatry is worshipping idols, not rejecting scripture.

Loving anything more than God or his word is idolatry.
Placing the claims of man above the word of God is idolatry.
q

Besides, once evolution is recognized as an aspect of creation, all those so called conflicts with scripture melt away.

So called?
Ever stop and think how much of the Bible you have to reject to embrace the lies of man? The creation, the Fourth Commandment, Adam and Eve, the fall of man, Eden, Noah, the great flood, Jesus quoting Genesis, the notion that man needed a savior etc.

There is simply no way of reshaping the Bible into a book that also somehow supports the theory of evolution. If we are brave enough to accept the creation account at face value, then theistic evolution becomes impossible to believe. We cannot believe both the Bible and evolution. Both Old and New Testaments consistently support the account of the divine creation of Adam and Eve. source

 

[KWCrazy]

Why can't it be eternal?

All matter is in a state of increasing entropy. Unless you consider eternity to me a more or less evenly distributed mass of unusable energy, the future of the universe is disintegration to oblivion.

 

[Speedwell]

All matter is in a state of increasing entropy. Unless you consider eternity to me a more or less evenly distributed mass of unusable energy, the future of the universe is disintegration to oblivion.

No, that won't do. I know you would like very much to accuse atheists of asserting that the universe came into existence from nothing without a cause--but they don't, and your falsehoods are beginning to become tiresome. Give it up.

 

[Speedwell]

Ever stop and think how much of the Bible you have to reject to embrace the lies of man? The creation, the Fourth Commandment, Adam and Eve, the fall of man, Eden, Noah, the great flood, Jesus quoting Genesis, the notion that man needed a savior etc.

No need to reject any of the Bible. All you have to do is to reject the magical properties creationists invest it with: literal inerrancy, perspicuity, self-interpretablility and plenary verbal inspiration.

 

[miknik5]

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.

Because?
They want to know the details of the original design?

They were given somewhat the details of the original design but all that can be done now is a backing into what is physically present up to a point and can not go any further

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Oh, enthrall me. Do tell how life began.
Please source and validate your claims.

Clearly you are willing to ignore the difference between "I know that life began" and "I know how life began". You can do that, but is it honest?

Everyone who says the origin of the first cell has nothing to do with evolution. No first step, no second step.

But scientists don't put the origin of first life as part of the theory of evolution. They can define their theory in spite of your objections.

The conditions required to form a single protein from amino acids never existed on earth.

Why couldn't God see that they did?

The odds of amino acids randomly forming 200 left handed proteins in sequence is beyond astronomical.

So creation by "poof" is hard. We all know that. So that's why your scenario isn't being pursued by those studying abiogensis.

No offense, but that's probably the single craziest thing I've ever heard.
Do you seriously not see the contradiction required in a six day creation and a 13.5 billion year evolution?

Of course, if you insist it must be interpreted literally, you are then proven wrong in your religion and drive people away from your religion. But if you can relax the literal "day" and accept that it can refer, symbolically, to longer periods, you're halfway there. Millions do that, you know, and have the advantage of not being out of touch with reality.

Here is wisdom. Embrace it. The only way you can believe in the Bible and evolution is to understand neither. They are mutually exclusive.

Ho hum. No, I will not insult God by refusing to listen to what He tells us in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes.

Loving anything more than God or his word is idolatry.
Placing the claims of man above the word of God is idolatry.

Thank you for permission to reject your claims.

 

[miknik5]

I don't think anyone's really denying evolution

What i think is being denied is the idea that somehow mankind and creation is moving forward "progressing" to a better state of being

 

[KWCrazy]

No, that won't do. I know you would like very much to accuse atheists of asserting that the universe came into existence from nothing without a cause-

It's not about atheists. It's about science.
1st LOT:Nothing comes from nothingness. The universe could not be created.
2nd LOT:Everything that exists is breaking down. The universe is not eternal.
3rd LOT: In the absence of energy, nothing will ever happen. Before everything; nothing. Beginning with nothing; nothing.

The only logical conclusions:
1. Nothing exists.
2. Creation occurred outside the boundaries of natural law.

And don't bother quoting your favorite description of the laws of thermodynamics. They all say the same thing in different words.