God is disproven by science? Really?

[YoursTrue]

Evolution only works if there's something to evolve. No life, no evolution.

Now how about showing us proof of your many claims. Start with the bible being the word of God.

Let's do this again, John53. You can't have growth without the elements combining to grow.

 

[YoursTrue]

Evolution only works if there's something to evolve. No life, no evolution.

Now how about showing us proof of your many claims. Start with the bible being the word of God.

Was it one, or two, or three? I am open to any idea; you are your own bosses.

Lol good question. Maybe the scientists here can answer...as if they know..

 

[John53]

Let's do this again, John53. You can't have growth without the elements combining to grow.

Exactly. You can't have evolution unless there's life to evolve. How life started is irrelevant and not known although there are varies ideas on the subject.... numerous different versions of various Gods, abiogenisis, came from outer space. I don't know how it started and ToE couldn't give a hoot.

 

[John53]

I can understand that. Ty for answering. I will tell you something about my experience. My parents did not beat me and gave me the best education they could. They did not teach me anything about God except tradition. No moral guidance. My father loved life but had a problem believing in God because of circumstances. He also wondered where was God when bad things happened. I look forward to seeing them again.

Lucky you. I hope you spare your children the terror of growing up in a strict Christian household.

 

[John53]

Lol good question. Maybe the scientists here can answer...as if they know..

You're wasting your time if you're asking me.

1. I am not and never have been a scientist. I left school at 15 and worked on a dairy, then I worked at dairy factory from 16 to 20, then from 20 until medical retirement I worked as a train driver then rostering officer on the state railway.

2. I know nothing about abiogenisis other than bare basics.

3. I have no idea how life started.

4. Evolution and the start of life are 2 separate topics.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Let's do this again, John53. You can't have growth without the elements combining to grow.

These self- replicating systems use oligonucleotides, small organic compounds, short peptides and, most recently, catalytic RNAs (ribozymes).

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(02)01423-9.pdf

 

[YoursTrue]

Good q

Lucky you. I hope you spare your children the terror of growing up in a strict Christian household.

I am sorry that you experienced such a disturbing childhood.

 

[YoursTrue]

You're wasting your time if you're asking me.

1. I am not and never have been a scientist. I left school at 15 and worked on a dairy, then I worked at dairy factory from 16 to 20, then from 20 until medical retirement I worked as a train driver then rostering officer on the state railway.

2. I know nothing about abiogenisis other than bare basics.

3. I have no idea how life started.

4. Evolution and the start of life are 2 separate topics.

Lucky you. I hope you spare your children the terror of growing up in a strict Christian household.

By the way, the husband of the couple we studied the Bible with was a railroad engineer.

You're wasting your time if you're asking me.

1. I am not and never have been a scientist. I left school at 15 and worked on a dairy, then I worked at dairy factory from 16 to 20, then from 20 until medical retirement I worked as a train driver then rostering officer on the state railway.

2. I know nothing about abiogenisis other than bare basics.

3. I have no idea how life started.

4. Evolution and the start of life are 2 separate topics.

There is no evolution without the premise of abiogenesis. Abiogenesis must happen in order for evolution to have occurred. It is integral to the process. And you're right...no one knows how it all started scientifically that is. They can postulate but no one knows.

 

[John53]

By the way, the husband of the couple we studied the Bible with was

There is no evolution without the premise of abiogenesis. Abiogenesis must happen in order for evolution to occur. We obviously have different ideas about that.

Was what?

Your 2nd sentence is rubbish. Evolution happens regardless of how life first started. You need to google the meaning of evolution and abiogenesis. Life must happen for evolution, how it happened matters not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Was what?

Your 2nd sentence is rubbish. Evolution happens regardless of how life first started. You need to google the meaning of evolution and abiogenesis. Life must happen for evolution, how it happened matters not.

Very true. It doesn't matter how life started. Whether natural or some divine origin, the evidence indicates that it changes over time. The more time, the greater the change.

The silly notion that change is predicated on origin is a dead end desperation play.

The only useful information coming out of that claim is to reveal the ignorance of science of the claimant.

 

[YoursTrue]

Was what?

Your 2nd sentence is rubbish. Evolution happens regardless of how life first started. You need to google the meaning of evolution and abiogenesis. Life must happen for evolution, how it happeneStd matters not.

Ok so we disagree. Have a good night.

 

[YoursTrue]

Very true. It doesn't matter how life started. Whether natural or some divine origin, the evidence indicates that it changes over time. The more time, the greater the change.

The silly notion that change is predicated on origin is a dead end desperation play.

The only useful information coming out of that claim is to reveal the ignorance of science of the claimant.

It doesn't matter how life started you say. But you don't know.. and you can't have evolution without something starting it. You guys are funny and sad at the same time.

 

[John53]

It doesn't matter how life started you say. But you don't know.. and you can't have evolution without something starting it. You guys are funny and sad at the same time.

Ok, you're so much smarter than me, explain how evolution needs abiogenesis along with your proof.

 

[YoursTrue]

Ok, you're so much smarter than me, explain how evolution needs abiogenesis along with your proof.

Why not explain for sure how abiogenesis began evolution. I don't say I'm smarter than you. Ask Dan since he believes in abiogenesis starting evolution. But maybe not necessarily for the process to start. Anyway have a good night.

 

[John53]

Why not explain for sure how abiogenesis began evolution. I don't say I'm smarter than you. Ask Dan since he believes in abiogenesis starting evolution. But maybe not necessarily for the process to start. Anyway have a good night.

I've already told you several times that I have no idea how life first started and my knowledge of abiogenesis could be comfortably written on the back of a postage stamp. It is your claim 1 can't happen without the other, it is up to you to explain it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The theory of evolution is an explanation for the change in existing living things over time. It has been pointed out many times, and I believe those that keep making these erroneous claims to the contrary are fully aware of this, how can they not be, that evolution does not require a specific form of the origin of life to occur.

Once heritable variation came to exist in living things, they began to evolve under selection. This works with any sort of abiogenic origin or divine origin. It only makes sense, given that if divine origin is correct and we still see change in living things over time just the same.

The silly idea is perpetuated by creationists in the face of evidence they often actually accept. How ridiculous is it then to accept evidence and claim it can't exist at the same time?

That, among much other evidence, is why I have come to view creationist attempts at arguing to be like pigeons playing chess. But a game as I see it none-the-less.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've already told you several times that I have no idea how life first started and my knowledge of abiogenesis could be comfortably written on the back of a postage stamp. It is your claim 1 can't happen without the other, it is up to you to explain it.

I'm not sure who you are debating with, but from the questions and statements of your side, I can't imagine they know that much about science or biology.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've already told you several times that I have no idea how life first started and my knowledge of abiogenesis could be comfortably written on the back of a postage stamp. It is your claim 1 can't happen without the other, it is up to you to explain it.

I'm not sure who you are debating with, but from the questions and statements of your side, I can't imagine they know that much about science or biology. You get a lot of people with little expertise attacking science, because they haven't got any sort of real argument to uphold their own claims. I find this usually means they know very little about the subjects being discussed.

The real issue seems to be the discomfort that scientific explanations and conclusions cause for those that hold very closed and rigid interpretations of religious texts. In many cases they have to take that stance or else it seems.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By the way, the husband of the couple we studied the Bible with was a railroad engineer.

There is no evolution without the premise of abiogenesis. Abiogenesis must happen in order for evolution to have occurred. It is integral to the process. And you're right...no one knows how it all started scientifically that is. They can postulate but no one knows.

No, that is wrong. Why do you keep claiming that all gods are incompetent? A god could have magically poofed the first life into existence. Do you understand that?

Now abiogenesis is probably a fact too. We just do not have as much evidence as we would like for it to make that claim. Meanwhile there is no evidence of any god poofing at all.

 

[John53]

I'm not sure who you are debating with, but from the questions and statements of your side, I can't imagine they know that much about science or biology. You get a lot of people with little expertise attacking science, because they haven't got any sort of real argument to uphold their own claims. I find this usually means they know very little about the subjects being discussed.

The real issue seems to be the discomfort that scientific explanations and conclusions cause for those that hold very closed and rigid interpretations of religious texts. In many cases they have to take that stance or else it seems.

I think calling it a debate is a gross exaggeration.