A Note of Thanks to Creationists and Science Deniers

[SkepticThinker]

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

Which of course you already know, having been told countless times, is abiogenesis, not evolution.
But you're not really one to let facts get in your way, so I'll expect to see you claiming it again, probably in your next post.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Here is what I accept: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1.

Based on zero evidence. Just faith and wishful thinking.

Which is why your attempted critiques of science come off as disingenuous.

 

[blü 2]

"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.

Yes, that's correct. However, among the scientists there's active research into abiogenesis. It's a work in progress, as all science is.

I assume by your confident tone that you've fully informed yourself about the research and have some specific critiques of it?

Or is your church actively pursuing its own research into how life might have arisen? That's to say, into what your God actually needed to do in order to bring life into existence?

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh so now you are ignorant of extremely basic biology. Do you need some links on how cells grow and reproduce.?

Do you understand yet how you accept abiogenesis as a fact?

You're not making sense.

 

[YoursTrue]

Probably not. Prokaryote is a term that describes modern cells that have had billions of years of evolution. Also a lot of it is going to be by how one defines "first life". Like so many other complex events in biology life was probably an emergent process. Not all of the traits of life would have appeared at once. So there would be discussion, and a lot of it, of what life is when it comes to cells. There are no simple answers.

Prokaryotic Cells- Definition, Structure, Characteristics, and Examples

Prokaryotic cells are unicellular organisms without a nuclear membrane. Certain cell organelles like mictochondria, lysosomes are absent in prokaryotes.

byjus.com

But there is one good reason that the original life would probably be not a prokaryote. Part of the definition of prokaryotes is that they have DNA and the original life was probably RNA based. There are other reasons as well, but that alone would mean that first life would need its own category. And once again the border between first life and prokaryotes would be "fuzzy". Biology is full of emergent processes which have no clear boundaries.

I don't think you're reading the material correctly. Notice: The origins of life on Earth.
"Prokaryotes were the earliest life forms, simple creatures that fed on carbon compounds that were accumulating in Earth’s early oceans. Slowly, other organisms evolved that used the Sun’s energy, along with compounds such as sulfides, to generate their own energy."

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're not making sense.

Why do you say that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think you're reading the material correctly. Notice: The origins of life on Earth.
"Prokaryotes were the earliest life forms, simple creatures that fed on carbon compounds that were accumulating in Earth’s early oceans. Slowly, other organisms evolved that used the Sun’s energy, along with compounds such as sulfides, to generate their own energy."

You are reading over simplified sites and taking them a bit too literally. I went to various sites that gave the traits of prokaryotes and some of those traits would not have existed in the earliest of life forms.

 

[metis]

For me, that makes me trust the scriptures more. For one thing, since I believe God had a 'hand' in inspiring the writing of the scrolls, and using human beings (not gorillas), it is also noteworthy that nothing has been added as being inspired since the Christian Greek scriptures. (As far as I am concerned...)

"Beliefs" are not "evidence".

 

[metis]

Well now, do scientists really know what is the first living organism? And how it -- the first lifeform -- evolved?

I already said we don't as abiogenesis is a "hypothesis"-- remember?

 

[YoursTrue]

I already said we don't as abiogenesis is a "hypothesis"-- remember?

OK, but isn't the hypothesis that abiogenesis (even though no one "knows" what or how it produced the first living organism) started the road to evolution?

 

[YoursTrue]

"Beliefs" are not "evidence".

Let's be honest here. Many did not "believe" Jesus as said in the Bible and I'm not talking about not believing he existed, I'm speaking about his opposers who did not believe he was the "son of God." Is that evidence that he existed? To me it is. Obviously not to everyone. But it IS evidence that it is written he had opposers. Whether or not a person believes that evidence as truthful. Obviously one does not have to believe that. Nevertheless, it has been written and preserved as a record. Whether one believes it as truthful it is recorded.
And then, of course, we have the "evidence" written about the apostle Paul, where he also had much opposition. Why? Because people did not believe him. As it is written.

 

[GardenLady]

some things about that raise unanswered questions

Reality is messy and often not well organized. Eyewitness testimony, which some consider a gold standard, is in fact notoriously unreliable. In any case, I don't think it matters all these years later.

 

[metis]

OK, but isn't the hypothesis that abiogenesis (even though no one "knows" what or how it produced the first living organism) started the road to evolution?

We don't know for certain what [or who] started it as the ToE is not anti-theistic.

 

[metis]

Let's be honest here. Many did not "believe" Jesus as said in the Bible and I'm not talking about not believing he existed, I'm speaking about his opposers who did not believe he was the "son of God." Is that evidence that he existed? To me it is. Obviously not to everyone. But it IS evidence that it is written he had opposers. Whether or not a person believes that evidence as truthful. Obviously one does not have to believe that. Nevertheless, it has been written and preserved as a record. Whether one believes it as truthful it is recorded.
And then, of course, we have the "evidence" written about the apostle Paul, where he also had much opposition. Why? Because people did not believe him. As it is written.

There's a difference in accepting that Jesus existed versus believing that everything written about him must be accepted without question.

 

[YoursTrue]

There's a difference in accepting that Jesus existed versus believing that everything written about him must be accepted without question.

Naturally we will have questions. But a big question would be was he the Messiah? That's one question. Of course there are more.

 

[YoursTrue]

We don't know for certain what [or who] started it as the ToE is not anti-theistic.

I think we can say that it conflicts with the Genesis account of creation and -- the genealogy as written from Adam to Jesus. Which casts a lot of doubt on the Bible account. So, speaking again of evolution and following the concept of the theory of evolution, I was wondering what came before apes. (Since, of course, evolutionists put humans in the ape (animal) category -- the Bible does not, but anyway...)
Checking this out -- I wondered, what species did humans evolve from? And wikipedia says the following, under the subject:

Human evolution - Wikipedia -- "Molecular evidence suggests that between 8 and 4 million years ago, first the gorillas, and then the chimpanzees (genus Pan) split off from the line leading to the humans. Human DNA is approximately 98.4% identical to that of chimpanzees when comparing single nucleotide polymorphisms (see human evolutionary genetics)."​

So I wonder -- chimpanzees are still existing, right? (The whole thing doesn't make sense to me any more, one reason is that someone of the chimpanzee line as it changed -- evolved by mutation, supposedly very, very slowly -- and had to interbreed with another animal close enough to it and then eventually became humans, after a long time of interbreeding, losing the intermediary organisms between chimpanzees (or possibly bonobos) and humans -- of the homo sapien type. What do you think?

 

[metis]

I think we can say that it conflicts with the Genesis account of creation

Only if one takes the accounts at the literalistic level instead of the use of myth as a teaching device.

So I wonder -- chimpanzees are still existing, right?

Just because we're related doesn't imply that they must go extinct.

 

[metis]

Naturally we will have questions. But a big question would be was he the Messiah? That's one question. Of course there are more.

That depends on three things:
1.Is the concept of "messiah" accurate?
2.Did Jesus fulfill all of the messianic prophecies?
3.Is there really any such thing as a "messiah"?

Different theologians have different takes on these.

 

[Pogo]

I think we can say that it conflicts with the Genesis account of creation and -- the genealogy as written from Adam to Jesus. Which casts a lot of doubt on the Bible account. So, speaking again of evolution and following the concept of the theory of evolution, I was wondering what came before apes. (Since, of course, evolutionists put humans in the ape (animal) category -- the Bible does not, but anyway...)
Checking this out -- I wondered, what species did humans evolve from? And wikipedia says the following, under the subject:

Human evolution - Wikipedia -- "Molecular evidence suggests that between 8 and 4 million years ago, first the gorillas, and then the chimpanzees (genus Pan) split off from the line leading to the humans. Human DNA is approximately 98.4% identical to that of chimpanzees when comparing single nucleotide polymorphisms (see human evolutionary genetics)."​

So I wonder -- chimpanzees are still existing, right? (The whole thing doesn't make sense to me any more, one reason is that someone of the chimpanzee line as it changed -- evolved by mutation, supposedly very, very slowly -- and had to interbreed with another animal close enough to it and then eventually became humans, after a long time of interbreeding, losing the intermediary organisms between chimpanzees (or possibly bonobos) and humans -- of the homo sapien type. What do you think?

Oh wow, this old rotten chestnut.
If we come from monkeys how come there are still monkeys?
Which is the same as If I come from my grandparents, how come there are still cousins?
If the second one seems absurd to you, then your wonder about chimpanzees and humans is just an example of evolution. Chimpanzees are our cousins, not our direct ancestors.
In answer to your question, we came from whatever species that was extant at the time that the lineage of chimpanzee and human separated. It is also a total misunderstanding of speciation if you think this means that this n-great grandparent gave birth to a chimpanzee and a human, all it's children were the same species and kind that it was.

enough for now, but thanks for the laugh.

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh wow, this old rotten chestnut.
If we come from monkeys how come there are still monkeys?
Which is the same as If I come from my grandparents, how come there are still cousins?
If the second one seems absurd to you, then your wonder about chimpanzees and humans is just an example of evolution. Chimpanzees are our cousins, not our direct ancestors.
In answer to your question, we came from whatever species that was extant at the time that the lineage of chimpanzee and human separated. It is also a total misunderstanding of speciation if you think this means that this n-great grandparent gave birth to a chimpanzee and a human, all it's children were the same species and kind that it was.

enough for now, but thanks for the laugh.

In other words, you can't answer the question except by guessing. Thank YOU!!