Atheists... how did evolution come into existance?

[Hollie]

Joeb:

Well, uh, no.

The problem you guys have is that if you really believe what the bible (sic) says about creation (as opposed to the creation myths of all the other religions, which are equally silly.) then how do you explain dinosaurs?

Nested in Weatherman's response was this silliness from Joeb pasted above.

Joeb is a Bible thumper, bringing up the Holy Bible in response to my citing the insuperable statistics of original polypeptide synthesis. Richard Dawkins and other evolutionary biologists' nonsense of "A>B>C>D" doesn't cut it. It's nonsense, not science. No biochemistry book or chemical reaction on earth ever says anything so meaningless and inane as "A>B>C>D" but Darwinists pretend this is "science" and parrot it with straight faces.

Now if you, Joeb, can explain the mechanism for the original synthesis of the very first human hemoglobin molecule, please proceed. We will all be amazed at your scientific prowess. I will then ask you to provide plausible scientific mechanisms for Cytochrome C, carboxypeptidase, rhodopsin and finally titin, 33,450 amino acid residues in length. You will find none of these terms in the "bible" (sic), as you so ignorantly and disrespectfully cite it.

P.S. We cannot synthesize human hemoglobin today in a laboratory despite having the formula for it! The best we can do is pull blood out of one human to transfuse into another.

"Nature laughs at science until we can make one blade of grass." - Thomas Edison

It’s comical to watch the hyper-religious copy and paste “science sounding” terms from ID’iot creationer websites.

Rather, I’m always struck by how shallow and naive arguments by the hyper-religionists really are. ID’iot creationism is a dead-end because the creationers claim that the reason things are as they are is because their Gods want it that way.

I’m sure the ID’iot creationers can find something in their Bibles to tell us why their hierarchy of gods made it impossible to synthesize human hemoglobin. I suppose that’s just the way the gods want it to be. It’s a sin to ask. Don’t question the gods. It’s odd that where Omni-everything gods might be expected to perform their magic in terms of optimal design, and where mere mortals might demand their gods to be perfectionistic, anal-retentive supernatural designers who must get everything just right, these gods seem to be incompetent designers, designing faulty and over complicated designs.

How strange that for all the claims made by ID’creationers for their gods, we have no evidence for these gods.

 

[james bond]

And abiogenesis fails. No mention of it in science.

"In order for the principles of mutation and natural selection in the theory of evolution to work, there have to be living things for them to work on. Life must exist before it can to start diversifying. Life had to come from somewhere, and the theory of evolution proposes that it arose spontaneously out of the inert chemicals of planet Earth perhaps 4 billion years ago.

Could life arise spontaneously? If you read How Cells Work, you can see that even a primitive cell like an E. coli bacteria -- one of the simplest life forms in existence today -- is amazingly complex. Following the E. coli model, a cell would have to contain at an absolute minimum:..."

Read what is needed here for the E. coli model -- https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/evolution11.htm

 

[Hollie]

Big Bang and Evolution are two different theories...

Neither of which you seem to understand, apparently.

Yes, Big Bang was proposed by Father Georges Lemaitre. The explanation for it is God. The evolutionary thinkers do not have any one explanation of how time and space could start before it. Evolution is ToE attributed to Charles Darwin and uniformitarianism by Charles Lyell. Before that it was atheist farmer James Hutton who influenced Lyell.

Since Darwin, Lyell and Hutton, science has brought us astounding discoveries in medicine, science, the planet and the cosmos.

Religion has brought us what?

 

[james bond]

Big Bang and Evolution are two different theories...

Neither of which you seem to understand, apparently.

Yes, Big Bang was proposed by Father Georges Lemaitre. The explanation for it is God. The evolutionary thinkers do not have any one explanation of how time and space could start before it. Evolution is ToE attributed to Charles Darwin and uniformitarianism by Charles Lyell. Before that it was atheist farmer James Hutton who influenced Lyell.

Since Darwin, Lyell and Hutton, science has brought us astounding discoveries in medicine, science, the planet and the cosmos.

Religion has brought us what?

You are too infatuated with me and my posts.

ETA: I've already answered your "Religion has brought us what?" many times. You should find someone else to argue with. I'm more focused on learning the other religions of Christianity and how they are against Catholicism.

 

[Hollie]

And abiogenesis fails. No mention of it in science.

"In order for the principles of mutation and natural selection in the theory of evolution to work, there have to be living things for them to work on. Life must exist before it can to start diversifying. Life had to come from somewhere, and the theory of evolution proposes that it arose spontaneously out of the inert chemicals of planet Earth perhaps 4 billion years ago.

Could life arise spontaneously? If you read How Cells Work, you can see that even a primitive cell like an E. coli bacteria -- one of the simplest life forms in existence today -- is amazingly complex. Following the E. coli model, a cell would have to contain at an absolute minimum:..."

Read what is needed here for the E. coli model -- How Evolution Works

Ahhh. So you’re reduced to “it’s complicated. Therefore the gods did it”

By the way, the planet is thought to be more like 4.5 billion years old with organic life emerging somewhere around 4.3 billion years ago shortly after oceans formed.

 

[Hollie]

Big Bang and Evolution are two different theories...

Neither of which you seem to understand, apparently.

Yes, Big Bang was proposed by Father Georges Lemaitre. The explanation for it is God. The evolutionary thinkers do not have any one explanation of how time and space could start before it. Evolution is ToE attributed to Charles Darwin and uniformitarianism by Charles Lyell. Before that it was atheist farmer James Hutton who influenced Lyell.

Since Darwin, Lyell and Hutton, science has brought us astounding discoveries in medicine, science, the planet and the cosmos.

Religion has brought us what?

You are too infatuated with me and my posts.

ETA: I've already answered your "Religion has brought us what?" many times. You should find someone else to argue with. I'm more focused on learning the other religions of Christianity and how they are against Catholicism.

You need to be corrected. You are too comfortable with your misstatements and misinformation

 

[toobfreak]

Be specific.
I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.

You mean I CAN'T drop a bomb on an empty field of dirt and result in a big gleaming glass and steel city?


Shit.

 

[alang1216]

the mechanism for the original synthesis of the very first human hemoglobin molecule

Abstract
Insights into the evolution of hemoglobins and their genes are an abundant source of ideas regarding hemoglobin function and regulation of globin gene expression. This article presents the multiple genes and gene families encoding human globins, summarizes major events in the evolution of the hemoglobin gene clusters, and discusses how these studies provide insights into regulation of globin genes. Although the genes in and around the α-like globin gene complex are relatively stable, the β-like globin gene clusters are more dynamic, showing evidence of transposition to a new locus and frequent lineage-specific expansions and deletions. The cis-regulatory modules controlling levels and timing of gene expression are a mix of conserved and lineage-specific DNA, perhaps reflecting evolutionary constraint on core regulatory functions shared broadly in mammals and adaptive fine-tuning in different orders of mammals.

 

[alang1216]

And abiogenesis fails. No mention of it in science.

"In order for the principles of mutation and natural selection in the theory of evolution to work, there have to be living things for them to work on. Life must exist before it can to start diversifying. Life had to come from somewhere, and the theory of evolution proposes that it arose spontaneously out of the inert chemicals of planet Earth perhaps 4 billion years ago.

Could life arise spontaneously? If you read How Cells Work, you can see that even a primitive cell like an E. coli bacteria -- one of the simplest life forms in existence today -- is amazingly complex. Following the E. coli model, a cell would have to contain at an absolute minimum:..."

Read what is needed here for the E. coli model -- How Evolution Works

Cells took billions of years to evolve. The first life was infinitely simpler.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I’m sure the ID’iot creationers can find something in their Bibles to tell us why their hierarchy of gods made it impossible to synthesize human hemoglobin. I suppose that’s just the way the gods want it to be. It’s a sin to ask. Don’t question the gods. It’s odd that where Omni-everything gods might be expected to perform their magic in terms of optimal design, and where mere mortals might demand their gods to be perfectionistic, anal-retentive supernatural designers who must get everything just right, these gods seem to be incompetent designers, designing faulty and over complicated designs.

How strange that for all the claims made by ID’creationers for their gods, we have no evidence for these gods.

True, but back in '91 we actually managed to get some human hemoglobin from pigs. What's happened to that tech since seems a well kept secret. But, yeah. Regardless, who the fuck cares? What does producing hemoglobin have to do with the price of tea in China? Wacko city!

Gee, we can't make spaceships yet to slingshot us around the universe at will. Damn, god musta done it!

 

[james bond]

You need to be corrected. You are too comfortable with your misstatements and misinformation

I am comfortable with the truth. It's you who are comfortable with lies.

 

[james bond]

And abiogenesis fails. No mention of it in science.

"In order for the principles of mutation and natural selection in the theory of evolution to work, there have to be living things for them to work on. Life must exist before it can to start diversifying. Life had to come from somewhere, and the theory of evolution proposes that it arose spontaneously out of the inert chemicals of planet Earth perhaps 4 billion years ago.

Could life arise spontaneously? If you read How Cells Work, you can see that even a primitive cell like an E. coli bacteria -- one of the simplest life forms in existence today -- is amazingly complex. Following the E. coli model, a cell would have to contain at an absolute minimum:..."

Read what is needed here for the E. coli model -- How Evolution Works

Cells took billions of years to evolve. The first life was infinitely simpler.

We haven't lived billions of years. Earth and the universe haven't been around that long. Thus, abiogenesis and ToE are wrong. The ToE side rejects radiometric dates that do not fit their ToE. Thus, creation science rejects radiometric dates that do not fit their theory.

ETA: How can one falsify ToE?

 

[Hollie]

You need to be corrected. You are too comfortable with your misstatements and misinformation

I am comfortable with the truth. It's you who are comfortable with lies.

Such melodrama.

 

[james bond]

Here is the argument for abiogenesis from the website I use for evolution -- https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/origsoflife_02.

That said, it didn't happen that way. The evidence is no other life in our solar system and likely the universe. The fine tuning facts were discovered by the atheist scientists. Evolution tries to explain that away by saying okay, we are fine tuned and admit life is rare. If life is so rare as to Earth being the only planet to have it, then it favors creationism.

 

[Hollie]

Here is the argument for abiogenesis from the website I use for evolution -- https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/origsoflife_02.

That said, it didn't happen that way. The evidence is no other life in our solar system and likely the universe. The fine tuning facts were discovered by the atheist scientists. Evolution tries to explain that away by saying okay, we are fine tuned and admit life is rare. If life is so rare as to Earth being the only planet to have it, then it favors creationism.

You refuted the silly ID'iot creationer ''fine tuning'' meme in your earlier post.

 

[esalla]

Here is the argument for abiogenesis from the website I use for evolution -- https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/origsoflife_02.

That said, it didn't happen that way. The evidence is no other life in our solar system and likely the universe. The fine tuning facts were discovered by the atheist scientists. Evolution tries to explain that away by saying okay, we are fine tuned and admit life is rare. If life is so rare as to Earth being the only planet to have it, then it favors creationism.

You refuted the silly ID'iot creationer ''fine tuning'' meme in your earlier post.

Hollie we are still waiting to hear about the species that was observed being speciated

 

[Hollie]

Here is the argument for abiogenesis from the website I use for evolution -- https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/origsoflife_02.

That said, it didn't happen that way. The evidence is no other life in our solar system and likely the universe. The fine tuning facts were discovered by the atheist scientists. Evolution tries to explain that away by saying okay, we are fine tuned and admit life is rare. If life is so rare as to Earth being the only planet to have it, then it favors creationism.

Why cite a source and then immediately reject that source?

Evolution does not say ''we are fine tuned''. Do your gods approve of such dishonesty?

 

[alang1216]

And abiogenesis fails. No mention of it in science.

"In order for the principles of mutation and natural selection in the theory of evolution to work, there have to be living things for them to work on. Life must exist before it can to start diversifying. Life had to come from somewhere, and the theory of evolution proposes that it arose spontaneously out of the inert chemicals of planet Earth perhaps 4 billion years ago.

Could life arise spontaneously? If you read How Cells Work, you can see that even a primitive cell like an E. coli bacteria -- one of the simplest life forms in existence today -- is amazingly complex. Following the E. coli model, a cell would have to contain at an absolute minimum:..."

Read what is needed here for the E. coli model -- How Evolution Works

Cells took billions of years to evolve. The first life was infinitely simpler.

We haven't lived billions of years. Earth and the universe haven't been around that long. Thus, abiogenesis and ToE are wrong. The ToE side rejects radiometric dates that do not fit their ToE. Thus, creation science rejects radiometric dates that do not fit their theory.

ETA: How can one falsify ToE?

What dates have been rejected by evolutionists?

How can one falsify ToE? Easy, find a fossil that doesn't fit into the ToE. Every one of the trillions found so far fit just fine. Maybe find a fossil with wheels?

 

[Grumblenuts]

FOSSIL
2010-11-16by Chris

FOSSIL

I think it's a starfish, but more horizontally mobile than most. Linearly at least.

 

[Grumblenuts]

About half of Americans--46 percent, in the latest Gallup Poll--believe human beings weren't created by evolution.

Over at the Daily Dish, Andrew Sullivan says this is a grave problem. "I simply do not know how you construct a civil discourse indispensable to a functioning democracy with this vast a gulf between citizens in their basic understanding of the world."