Atheists... how did evolution come into existance?

[JoeB131]

Either answer the OP or get reported.
But you can’t , so you go into childish personal attacks, cuz dats science.

I did answer it.

Big Bang and Evolution are two different theories...

Neither of which you seem to understand, apparently.

 

[Hollie]

As we know with certainty that abiogenesis actually occurred on the planet, we know the odds against it happening are not great at all.

Then a common scientist would be able to demonstrate it by explaining the chemical or other process. That leaves God the creator or some process that took over 4 billion years. If God, then we can find the ingredients to make up a human as those are natural, but not be able to have it come to life because ti took God's breath. There is no explanation on 4 billion year old side unless you have it. My faking it would be a chemical process where I gather the chemical needed first. Let's assume it was for a single cell organism. Then we just have to form an amoeba even though it may not be alive. We may not be able to have it hold together since it isn't alive.

Darwin said nothing about billions of years wanted for our galaxy and earth. If you’re going to argue against biological evolution and abiogenesis, you should first learn some basic concepts.

Then why did he need long time? The long time itself is countered by Fermi's Paradox. My point is Earth wouldn't survive that long; It wouldn't survive a billion years because the chances of collision are too great. You rarely explain what you think are the steps for abiogenesis nor biological evolution. Why don't you do that and maybe I'll buy it.

As for God, life happened first in a garden. Not a warm pond. It all happened in two days.

I understand that you want to defer to ''the gods did it' as a answer to every unanswered question but that is a hopeless existence. Nothing about existence points to your particular gods or anyone else's gods. Human history is littered with gods which have been abandoned as science has found natural causes for events in nature. You realize that the gods of thunder and lightning are not actually real, right?

It does not help to add the supernatural to the overall questions of existence-- in fact, it only adds an extra layer of mystery, and one that both materialists and theists alike agree precludes any answering (theists generally agree that their gods are "unknowable, incomprehensible", etc). Materialists don't see why one would add that extra impossibility to existence, and while presently the materialist is burdened with problems of "what was before existence and how do we prove we know what we know?" it is not impossible to conceive a method would be discovered to put those concerns to rest. The theist admits that his incomprehensible god guarantees no such method is available to mankind (other than the self-asserted supernatural one, but even then, the theistic explanation dead-ends at the Cul-de-sac of ''tge gods did it''.

 

[norwegen]

The Big Bang Theory has nothing to do with evolution.

To me, the two seem intricately linked. If the universe were not expanding, evolution would not be occurring.

 

[Hollie]

As we know with certainty that abiogenesis actually occurred on the planet, we know the odds against it happening are not great at all.

Then a common scientist would be able to demonstrate it by explaining the chemical or other process. That leaves God the creator or some process that took over 4 billion years. If God, then we can find the ingredients to make up a human as those are natural, but not be able to have it come to life because ti took God's breath. There is no explanation on 4 billion year old side unless you have it. My faking it would be a chemical process where I gather the chemical needed first. Let's assume it was for a single cell organism. Then we just have to form an amoeba even though it may not be alive. We may not be able to have it hold together since it isn't alive.

Darwin said nothing about billions of years wanted for our galaxy and earth. If you’re going to argue against biological evolution and abiogenesis, you should first learn some basic concepts.

Then why did he need long time? The long time itself is countered by Fermi's Paradox. My point is Earth wouldn't survive that long; It wouldn't survive a billion years because the chances of collision are too great. You rarely explain what you think are the steps for abiogenesis nor biological evolution. Why don't you do that and maybe I'll buy it.

As for God, life happened first in a garden. Not a warm pond. It all happened in two days.

Your insistence that your particular gods magically crested life in a garden (6,000 years ago), is simply partisan dogma. It is a material fact that the planet is several billion years old. That is an unresolvable dilemma for the ''god did it'ists''. You may choose to insist that the man-god Henry Morris is infallible, but such hero worship has a lot of negative consequences. Responding to your post would perhaps be more productive if you had given an actual argument against any of the evidence contained in the science literature. There's not much that can be said to "the gods did it and that's true because Henry Morris said so". The evidence for common descent is overwhwlming. The fact that you personally don't believe it doesn't really affect reality much, especially in light of the fact that your posts contain not a single substantive argument concerning any evidence at all

Further, the ''life in a warm pond'' slogan is one common among the Henry Morris worshippers. I see that misrepresented slogan routinely from the science loathing. I've noted before that those revile science and argue against it should first make an attempt to understand what they're arguing against. At no point in his published works or correspondence, (as far as I am aware), did Darwin address the origins of the universe, or even the earth. Darwin's theories addressed only the origins of species, of adaptations, and the distribution of organisms around the world.

For your edification, the ''warm pond'' slogan so often used by the ID'iot creationers is another fraud they use to denigrate science. The slogan was traced back to a letter Darwin wrote to his longstanding friend, Joseph Hooker, on 1 February 1871:

It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, &c. present, that a proteine [sic] compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed. [quoted from Janet Browne's The Power of Place, New York, Knopf, 2002, 392f]

As you see, Darwin was simply speculating as to one possibility for the emergence of life.

Answers in Genesis, like all creationer cults, grasp at straws to make their views sound halfway rational. In this case, the straws make a strawman.

 

[Hollie]

Life on the planet is indisputable evidence of abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis isn't scientific. It's not even a hypothesis, but wishful thinking of the atheists and their scientists because of their religious beliefs. What is life based on abiogenesis?

I already explained Genesis.

I don't believe you understand your own comment that ''Abiogenesis isn't scientific. It's not even a hypothesis''.

Abiogenesis certainly is a hypothesis. Here's a definition of hypothesis: What Is a Scientific Hypothesis? | Definition of Hypothesis.

I don't believe you understand the terms you use such as, ''Abiogenesis isn't scientific.'' What does that mean? The study of abiogenesis uses the methods of science to investigate how biological life first formed.

You never explained Genesis. Your reiteration of Biblical tales and fables is not an explanation of anything. It us simply a reiteration of partisan religious dogma.

 

[james bond]

It's very simple, James. "Genesis" with a capital G is a Bible term - you know, something for those stuck dragging around all "of their religious belief" baggage. All the poor bastards who can never free themselves from their youthful indoctrination and who naturally recoil fearfully from any prospect of thinking freely or critically.

Bible term means absolute truth. It explains why science backs up the Bible even though it isn't a science book.

It's just your feeble opinion that those who use the Bible, such as I, are stuck 'dragging around all "of their religious belief" baggage.'' Isn't your lying atheist group the "poor bastards who can never free themselves from their youthful indoctrination and who naturally recoil fearfully from any prospect of thinking freely or critically." My arguments are not weak asf as yours.

And why would that be? Sorry, I'm not the one banging off the walls, reflexively asserting nonsense here..

You'll just have to wait to find out.

What? Was someone here arguing against the importance of carbon for some reason? You best gather your shit and get some rest, son.

I'm the only one who brought it up. Your abiogenesis has no carbon explanation, liar.

 

[james bond]

Ready to try it without the walker now or still too nervous?

Haha, so you admit to using a walker. It's not I who has the most to lose like their rear end.

 

[james bond]

Life on the planet is indisputable evidence of abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis isn't scientific. It's not even a hypothesis, but wishful thinking of the atheists and their scientists because of their religious beliefs. What is life based on abiogenesis?

I already explained Genesis.

It's very simple, James. "Genesis" with a capital G is a Bible term - you know, something for those stuck dragging around all "of their religious belief" baggage. All the poor bastards who can never free themselves from their youthful indoctrination and who naturally recoil fearfully from any prospect of thinking freely or critically.

Meanwhile, from Wiktionary, here are the roots of the word

"abiogenesis" (a-bio-genesis)

"a" = "without"
"bio" = "life"
"genesis" = "origin", "source", "beginning"

A beginning of life from none. Wikipedia yields "informally the origin of life (OoL),[3][4][5][a] is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds"

OMG, look! There it is! "organic compounds"! Them damned Atheists are badmouthing carbon again, I just know it... Help!

It's a weak and lame explanation as you are with your walker.

You nor Hollie could explain while I did. Another stinking feces lie from your feces brain.

 

[james bond]

Abiogenesis isn't scientific. It's not even a hypothesis, but wishful thinking of the atheists and their scientists because of their religious beliefs. What is life based on abiogenesis?

It's more scientific than thinking a Magic Sky Fairy made the universe in six days and made a man out of clay.

No, abiogenesis is just make believe hypotheses for the atheists. There is no explanation of how it happens and you popping do not explain it like the others already being crucified for not explaining it like Grumblenuts and Hollie.

If it was scientific, then someone would have pointed it out by now. We've gone around 9 pages with no scientific hypotesis, i.e. explanation. for it.

 

[james bond]

Evolution occurs much faster than you realize--we went from wolf to tiny yorkie in just a few thousand years or so? It did not occur over night---it was one change at time generation after generation.

This is the kind of comment that make people distrust evolution. It needed more than 3 billion years according to Darwin and he wasn't given that until 1956. You need to read more books on evolution. We can put you down a notch from the other evos here.

 

[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.

 

[james bond]

As we know with certainty that abiogenesis actually occurred on the planet, we know the odds against it happening are not great at all.

Then a common scientist would be able to demonstrate it by explaining the chemical or other process. That leaves God the creator or some process that took over 4 billion years. If God, then we can find the ingredients to make up a human as those are natural, but not be able to have it come to life because ti took God's breath. There is no explanation on 4 billion year old side unless you have it. My faking it would be a chemical process where I gather the chemical needed first. Let's assume it was for a single cell organism. Then we just have to form an amoeba even though it may not be alive. We may not be able to have it hold together since it isn't alive.

Darwin said nothing about billions of years wanted for our galaxy and earth. If you’re going to argue against biological evolution and abiogenesis, you should first learn some basic concepts.

Then why did he need long time? The long time itself is countered by Fermi's Paradox. My point is Earth wouldn't survive that long; It wouldn't survive a billion years because the chances of collision are too great. You rarely explain what you think are the steps for abiogenesis nor biological evolution. Why don't you do that and maybe I'll buy it.

As for God, life happened first in a garden. Not a warm pond. It all happened in two days.

I understand that you want to defer to ''the gods did it' as a answer to every unanswered question but that is a hopeless existence. Nothing about existence points to your particular gods or anyone else's gods. Human history is littered with gods which have been abandoned as science has found natural causes for events in nature. You realize that the gods of thunder and lightning are not actually real, right?

It does not help to add the supernatural to the overall questions of existence-- in fact, it only adds an extra layer of mystery, and one that both materialists and theists alike agree precludes any answering (theists generally agree that their gods are "unknowable, incomprehensible", etc). Materialists don't see why one would add that extra impossibility to existence, and while presently the materialist is burdened with problems of "what was before existence and how do we prove we know what we know?" it is not impossible to conceive a method would be discovered to put those concerns to rest. The theist admits that his incomprehensible god guarantees no such method is available to mankind (other than the self-asserted supernatural one, but even then, the theistic explanation dead-ends at the Cul-de-sac of ''tge gods did it''.

All this time and you still claim "gods" for me. It's a waste of time talking with you. There is only one true God and that is the Trinity of Christianity. Anyway, we are done. I rather talk with others than keep repeating myself ad infinitum.

 

[Grumblenuts]

you popping do not explain it like the others already being crucified for not explaining it like @Grumblenuts and @Hollie.

Um, so terribly sorry there fella..

 

[ChemEngineer]

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

 

[Hollie]

As we know with certainty that abiogenesis actually occurred on the planet, we know the odds against it happening are not great at all.

Then a common scientist would be able to demonstrate it by explaining the chemical or other process. That leaves God the creator or some process that took over 4 billion years. If God, then we can find the ingredients to make up a human as those are natural, but not be able to have it come to life because ti took God's breath. There is no explanation on 4 billion year old side unless you have it. My faking it would be a chemical process where I gather the chemical needed first. Let's assume it was for a single cell organism. Then we just have to form an amoeba even though it may not be alive. We may not be able to have it hold together since it isn't alive.

Darwin said nothing about billions of years wanted for our galaxy and earth. If you’re going to argue against biological evolution and abiogenesis, you should first learn some basic concepts.

Then why did he need long time? The long time itself is countered by Fermi's Paradox. My point is Earth wouldn't survive that long; It wouldn't survive a billion years because the chances of collision are too great. You rarely explain what you think are the steps for abiogenesis nor biological evolution. Why don't you do that and maybe I'll buy it.

As for God, life happened first in a garden. Not a warm pond. It all happened in two days.

I understand that you want to defer to ''the gods did it' as a answer to every unanswered question but that is a hopeless existence. Nothing about existence points to your particular gods or anyone else's gods. Human history is littered with gods which have been abandoned as science has found natural causes for events in nature. You realize that the gods of thunder and lightning are not actually real, right?

It does not help to add the supernatural to the overall questions of existence-- in fact, it only adds an extra layer of mystery, and one that both materialists and theists alike agree precludes any answering (theists generally agree that their gods are "unknowable, incomprehensible", etc). Materialists don't see why one would add that extra impossibility to existence, and while presently the materialist is burdened with problems of "what was before existence and how do we prove we know what we know?" it is not impossible to conceive a method would be discovered to put those concerns to rest. The theist admits that his incomprehensible god guarantees no such method is available to mankind (other than the self-asserted supernatural one, but even then, the theistic explanation dead-ends at the Cul-de-sac of ''tge gods did it''.

All this time and you still claim "gods" for me. It's a waste of time talking with you. There is only one true God and that is the Trinity of Christianity. Anyway, we are done. I rather talk with others than keep repeating myself ad infinitum.

Those in different cultures claim their gods are the true gods. I see nothing that gives your gods primacy over any other gods. I don’t necessarily claim gods for you, I acknowledge your polytheism as noted in a trinity.

I agree that your repeating yourself is not forming an argument but just repetition of dogma.

 

[james bond]

you popping do not explain it like the others already being crucified for not explaining it like @Grumblenuts and @Hollie.

Um, so terribly sorry there fella..

That's not the point, but you will be and that's when your rear end becomes a target for the flames.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Please! Oh, sweet Jesus! Dear God! Pretty, pretty please! Smite me! Burn me to a crisp in your eternal flames! ASAP! ..

.. and .. crickets .. as usual ..

Sorry, James. Your attempts to intimidate just make me laugh

 

[james bond]

Sorry, James. Your attempts to intimidate just make me laugh

No intimidation. Just what the Bible states.

 

[Grumblenuts]

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.

Yeah, we can't synthesize a modern automobile under a laboratory fume hood either. But we find ways manufacture both hemoglobin and cars aplenty through other means. Nature provides. Think about it. Or continue babbling utter nonsense. Whatever floats your dinghy.

 

[Likkmee]

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.

Controlled demolition. You idiots cant even drop a building. Altho 911 fooled the masses. Getting closer