A Note of Thanks to Creationists and Science Deniers

[Subduction Zone]

The subject was about soil to soil. The jury (scientific one, that is) is out. They have not come to a conclusion.

No, there was discussion about whether it was on the sea or on land.

And you are correct. Abiogenesis is still in they hypothetical stage. There are still significant unanswered questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone oh, and remember -- in science, there is no proof. So? whatcha gonna do with that? You can't prove it and neither can scientists.

So what? That does not stop evolution from being a fact. Do we need to go over those basic concepts too?

 

[YoursTrue]

Then by your standards there is "proof of evolution". Scientists do not like the word " proof" because it tends to close people's minds. Science is evidence based and if you deny that there is massive evidence for the theory of evolution then you need to go back to middle school at least.

Scientists don't like to use the word "proof" because it closes people's minds, you say? You're kidding, surely. They themselves can't agree -- so much for proof of ANYTHING in the scientific realm...particularly in the science of how life began -- dust to dust or ashes to ashes or soil to soil. I don't need to go back to middle school, I have all the "scientific" journals to read. And the disputes among scientists about where, what and how. Now here's something you can debate, if you want to: can you have life and evolution without abiogenesis? Whatcha think?

 

[YoursTrue]

So what? That does not stop evolution from being a fact. Do we need to go over those basic concepts too?

Now THAT made me laugh out loud. Go over the "basic concepts," you say? Scientists can't even figure it out -- so you think maybe you can?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now THAT made me laugh out loud. Go over the "basic concepts," you say? Scientists can't even figure it out -- so you think maybe you can?

This is arrogant ignorance on your part. It does not make you look good. It also demonstrates a Black and White fallacy in your reasoning. It seems that you think that because we do not know everything that we cannot know anything. When written out like that you should be able to see how that is not a wise way to think at all. I need to remind you that gravity is not proven . Would you allow someone to drop a ten pound rock above your head since it has not been scientifically proven that it will fall? Even though we do not understand gravity fully it is clearly still a fact. Do not let someone drop a ten pound rock on your head. And just because we do not know all of the details about evolution it is still a fact. Even more so than gravity since we have more evidence for the theory of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Scientists don't like to use the word "proof" because it closes people's minds, you say? You're kidding, surely. They themselves can't agree -- so much for proof of ANYTHING in the scientific realm...particularly in the science of how life began -- dust to dust or ashes to ashes or soil to soil. I don't need to go back to middle school, I have all the "scientific" journals to read. And the disputes among scientists about where, what and how. Now here's something you can debate, if you want to: can you have life and evolution without abiogenesis? Whatcha think?

Yes, they cannot agree. They also know that there are unanswered questions in all of the sciences so "proof" is still a bad term to use. But they will use the term "fact".


And your last question was poorly asked. What scientists are investigating is natural abiogenesis. We know that there was an abiogenesis event. Your God is not "alive". Here is how you will agree. Things that are alive can die. Is your God alive? If you say that he cannot die then you need another term. "alive" is already taken. So somehow life came from nonlife. The question is was it a natural event or a supernatural event.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. You believe that your mythical version of God could have made Adam and Eve, but he could not have made a single cell that could reproduce moderately reliably.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, there was discussion about whether it was on the sea or on land.

And you are correct. Abiogenesis is still in they hypothetical stage. There are still significant unanswered questions.

Be honest. There is no consensus as to how it all started. We were talking about getting bodies from dust. And the rest of the opinions scientifically is == not history...you can insult me all you want to as you have been doing, and that is what I have come to expect from you and certain others. Meantime, you can't prove evolution. Obviously some think they CAN prove evolution. As you seem to be saying. But they can't, in any sense. Not in fact and not in conjecture. (theory) I am sure (1) you will object to that, and (2) many others will object to that. To say it's a fact is absurd and untrue. It's a fact only in the minds of certain ones. But not in reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Be honest. There is no consensus as to how it all started. We were talking about getting bodies from dust. And the rest of the opinions scientifically is == not history...you can insult me all you want to as you have been doing, and that is what I have come to expect from you and certain others. Meantime, you can't prove evolution. Obviously some think they CAN prove evolution. As you seem to be saying. But they can't, in any sense. Not in fact and not in conjecture. (theory) I am sure (1) you will object to that, and (2) many others will object to that. To say it's a fact is absurd and untrue. It's a fact only in the minds of certain ones. But not in reality.

Are you not listening to me. I said that there was no consensus. We do not know how abiogenesis occurred. There is evidence for natural abiogenesis. There is none for "God did it". But evolution itself is a different topic and that is still a fact. Abiogenesis and evolution are different topics largely because abiogenesis is still in the hypothetical stage.

 

[YoursTrue]

Are you not listening to me. I said that there was no consensus. We do not know how abiogenesis occurred. There is evidence for natural abiogenesis. There is none for "God did it". But evolution itself is a different topic and that is still a fact. Abiogenesis and evolution are different topics largely because abiogenesis is still in the hypothetical stage.

I heard you. I believe, unlike you, that God created the heavens and the earth in the "beginning." I also believe that various factors are inborn, given by God, to various entities, however you want to call them. I do not believe you can evidence/demonstrate/conjecture/prove how bees know to build a hive. Nope, sorry. You can believe they evolved to do so. I'm sure there's a theory about that.

 

[YoursTrue]

Are you not listening to me. I said that there was no consensus. We do not know how abiogenesis occurred. There is evidence for natural abiogenesis. There is none for "God did it". But evolution itself is a different topic and that is still a fact. Abiogenesis and evolution are different topics largely because abiogenesis is still in the hypothetical stage.

Here is what I think, and it's time for me to close up. You or I or anyone on earth will never -- ever -- find out how the first forms of life came about "scientifically," in other words, by physical/chemical means. Never. Ever. And how they burgeoned. Ever. (Never.) I hope I made my sentiments clear. And you also can never prove/show/demonstrate/evidence why humans need to go to sleep according to the theory of evolution. Later, maybe. See you maybe after I get some rest.

Oh yes, fossils exist. Or rather they show something lived and died.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I heard you. I believe, unlike you, that God created the heavens and the earth in the "beginning." I also believe that various factors are inborn, given by God, to various entities, however you want to call them. I do not believe you can evidence/demonstrate/conjecture/prove how bees know to build a hive. Nope, sorry. You can believe they evolved to do so. I'm sure there's a theory about that.

No, I can know that life is the product of evolution. You can only believe that life was magicked into existence because you refuse to learn how to test your ideas properly.

As to those other traits I would not be so sure. It is outside my area of expertise so I could not test it properly and we know that you could not. But that does not mean that others could not do so. Do not be so quick to jump to conclusions when it comes to the ability of others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is what I think, and it's time for me to close up. You or I or anyone on earth will never -- ever -- find out how the first forms of life came about "scientifically," in other words, by physical/chemical means. Never. Ever. And how they burgeoned. Ever. (Never.) I hope I made my sentiments clear. And you also can never prove/show/demonstrate/evidence why humans need to go to sleep according to the theory of evolution. Later, maybe. See you maybe after I get some rest.

What abiogenesis may ultimately show is the various possible pathways that may have been followed. There appears to be more than one possible path to life and we may never know if it was one path or another or a mixture of paths. But what it does look like right now is that sooner or later we will find at least one possible natural pathway to life. And remember, that means that we will have very strong scientific evidence for all aspects of abiogenesis. We may never have evidence of a god. Now what is a pity is that there are creationists with a scientific education. But they never use their science to find evidence for creationism. They foolishly only try to find evidence against evolution and they almost always fail at that. Disproving evolution would not help them at all when it came to proving that their beliefs were right.

Oh yes, fossils exist. Or rather they show something lived and died.

They tell us much more than that. They also point towards their ancestors and their offspring.

 

[blü 2]

"For in six days the lord made the heavens and the earth..."

How exactly did God do that?

Talk me through the process if you'd be so kind ─ I've never understood exactly what was involved.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, I can know that life is the product of evolution. You can only believe that life was magicked into existence because you refuse to learn how to test your ideas properly.

As to those other traits I would not be so sure. It is outside my area of expertise so I could not test it properly and we know that you could not. But that does not mean that others could not do so. Do not be so quick to jump to conclusions when it comes to the ability of others.

You canNOT know that "life is a product of evolution." Put the word magic into your equation that "life is a product of evolution." Ridiculous. Talk about ignorance. Now you don't like the God as portrayed in the Bible. I understand your position. I also understand your position about evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

So what? That does not stop evolution from being a fact. Do we need to go over those basic concepts too?

Hmm, let's see, I'll help you "go over" the basic concepts, shall we?
Now let's see ==
"A widespread current model of the evolution of the first living organisms is that these were some form of prokaryotes, which may have evolved out of protocells, while the eukaryotes evolved later in the history of life.[37] Some authors have questioned this conclusion, arguing that the current set of prokaryotic species may have evolved from more complex eukaryotic ancestors through a process of simplification.[38][39][40]
Others have argued that the three domains of life arose simultaneously, from a set of varied cells that formed a single gene pool.[41] This controversy was summarized in 2005"

And more, of course. Just in case someone says, "So?" -- the answer is, so--according to science, no one knows what the first living organism was. OR how it came about. I believe cells ARE fascinating. The process of life and dying is fascinating, biologically speaking, that is. But -- no one really knows physically and scientifically HOW life came about or WHAT the first living organism was.

Prokaryote - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hmm, let's see, I'll help you "go over" the basic concepts, shall we?
Now let's see ==
"A widespread current model of the evolution of the first living organisms is that these were some form of prokaryotes, which may have evolved out of protocells, while the eukaryotes evolved later in the history of life.[37] Some authors have questioned this conclusion, arguing that the current set of prokaryotic species may have evolved from more complex eukaryotic ancestors through a process of simplification.[38][39][40]
Others have argued that the three domains of life arose simultaneously, from a set of varied cells that formed a single gene pool.[41] This controversy was summarized in 2005"

And more, of course. Just in case someone says, "So?" -- the answer is, so--according to science, no one knows what the first living organism was. OR how it came about. I believe cells ARE fascinating. The process of life and dying is fascinating, biologically speaking, that is. But -- no one really knows physically and scientifically HOW life came about or WHAT the first living organism was.

Prokaryote - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes, there is some debate about very early life. So what?

You make such poor and desperate arguments. It appears that you know that you are wrong when you argue this way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You canNOT know that "life is a product of evolution." Put the word magic into your equation that "life is a product of evolution." Ridiculous. Talk about ignorance. Now you don't like the God as portrayed in the Bible. I understand your position. I also understand your position about evolution.

Sure I can. Magic is not needed. That is your belief. Look at how you have to acknowledge that you are wrong by constantly trying to move the goalposts. By doing so, even after being corrected many many times you yourself have admitted that you are an ape.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, there is some debate about very early life. So what?

You make such poor and desperate arguments. It appears that you know that you are wrong when you argue this way.

"Some debate"? Hmmm. No, sorry, sir, the scientists do not know and throw out conjectures as to how maybe life started.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Some debate"? Hmmm. No, sorry, sir, the scientists do not know and throw out conjectures as to how maybe life started.

Now, now, you are breaking the Ninth when you say " conjecture". And worse you are back to abiogenesis. You keep forgetting that even creationists accept the fact that there was some form of abiogenesis. That is unsure. We are not sure how abiogenesis happened. Evolution is not. We know how it happened, when it happened and why it happened.

 

[YoursTrue]

Now, now, you are breaking the Ninth when you say " conjecture". And worse you are back to abiogenesis. You keep forgetting that even creationists accept the fact that there was some form of abiogenesis. That is unsure. We are not sure how abiogenesis happened. Evolution is not. We know how it happened, when it happened and why it happened.

You don't believe or like the God that made the commandment so you make no sense when you tell me what to do or not to do. Meantime, there is no basis for the "conjecture" of abiogenesis and -- evolution from that point on. Can't even figure about how prokaryotes started, much less figure how it all really happened.