A Note of Thanks to Creationists and Science Deniers

[Subduction Zone]

You have some scientists saying one thing, and other scientists saying something else, etc. and etc. It's all conjecture.

That is not what conjecture means. You should look up the term.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not my argument. We can keep going with this, but you and I were made with a union of two cells that multiplied, as far as I am concerned, miraculously. Say what you will, I will never be convinced that there is no God involved with creation and life.

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?

 

[Pogo]

It's not my argument. We can keep going with this, but you and I were made with a union of two cells that multiplied, as far as I am concerned, miraculously. Say what you will, I will never be convinced that there is no God involved with creation and life.

It was not my argument that no god was involved, but that abiogenesis occurred even by your definition and evolution also occurs whether by a endless series of interventions or by preset processes determined by the laws of chemistry.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

all this argument about abiogenesis is a complete waste of time...you are arguing about something that has never even been observed...

Many proposals have been made for different stages of the process, but the transition from non-life to life has never been observed experimentally. Abiogenesis - Wikipedia.​

​

It really makes little difference to the Christian as life coming from non life in the physical domain is not anti creation. We cannot observe God unless He chooses to make
himself visible to us...its a non issue that we cannot see Him create from nothing.

​

Gensis 1 clearly says:​

​

The First Day​

​

3And God said, “Let there be light,”a and there was light.​

​

The Sixth Day​

​

24And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, land crawlers, and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. ​

​

The only evidence in the creation story where a physical being could have observed any part of God creating was in the making of Adam and Eve. The animals would have seen Him doing that...

​

26Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness,​

Genesis 2 describes exactly how Adam was created in more detail...

7Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being.d​

 

[YoursTrue]

No, that is the way that it works. Hitchens' Razor is a recognition of that fact.

Nope. In your way you say whatever. The truth is that what scientists say about this is... conjecture. And you do too. So watch out for that 9th commandment you keep citing against yourself even though you don't believe it.

 

[YoursTrue]

It was not my argument that no god was involved, but that abiogenesis occurred even by your definition and evolution also occurs whether by a endless series of interventions or by preset processes determined by the laws of chemistry.

It's conjecture by scientists as to how life began on the earth. They think or guess, therefore it may not be. There cannot be evolution without a life start. And scientists do not KNOW how life started.

 

[YoursTrue]

all this argument about abiogenesis is a complete waste of time...you are arguing about something that has never even been observed...

Many proposals have been made for different stages of the process, but the transition from non-life to life has never been observed experimentally. Abiogenesis - Wikipedia.​

​

It really makes little difference to the Christian as life coming from non life in the physical domain is not anti creation. We cannot observe God unless He chooses to make
himself visible to us...its a non issue that we cannot see Him create from nothing.

​

Gensis 1 clearly says:​

​

The First Day​

​

3And God said, “Let there be light,”a and there was light.​

​

The Sixth Day​

​

24And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, land crawlers, and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. ​

​

The only evidence in the creation story where a physical being could have observed any part of God creating was in the making of Adam and Eve. The animals would have seen Him doing that...

​

26Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness,​

Genesis 2 describes exactly how Adam was created in more detail...

7Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being.d​

@Subduction Zone -- what do you think. Has abiogenesis ever been observed?

 

[YoursTrue]

It was not my argument that no god was involved, but that abiogenesis occurred even by your definition and evolution also occurs whether by a endless series of interventions or by preset processes determined by the laws of chemistry.

No, sorry. The point is that there is no consensus by scientists as to what might have happened to produce life. They think it might happened from a primordial soup or something that dropped from the sky, among other possibilities. But they don't know. (There is no proof.) Those ideas of starting life is, I believe, called abiogenesis. These ideas are conjectural possibilties. Or simply conjectures. Since no one knows,technically speaking, and, as I have said any idea as to what elements may have joined together to produce the force called "life," I agree that does not mean that there is a God. But then -- there aren't too many possibilities left. In my opinion, of course.

 

[YoursTrue]

It was not my argument that no god was involved, but that abiogenesis occurred even by your definition and evolution also occurs whether by a endless series of interventions or by preset processes determined by the laws of chemistry.

My definition of abiogenesis? My idea (not definition) is that evolution (and I do not believe in the Darwinian model of evolution) is absolutely deeply intertwined with the premise and possibilities of abiogenesis. Therefore, abiogenesis must be part of evolution, even though most who believe in the model of evolution as set forth by the many is absolutely necessary and an integral, unremovable part of evolution (the theory of). Meanwhile, since no one knows how life burgeoned out in the beginning, they really cannot say what is the first living organism. No matter they say it is prokaryote, it does not make sense. But that's me, I've been insulted many times by believers in the model as proposed by Darwin because I do not go along with it as said by (many) scientists, but yes, unlike Darwinian model and its adherents, I believe that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

 

[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?

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

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

When you run away from reasonable questions about your beliefs it does not look good.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My definition of abiogenesis? My idea (not definition) is that evolution (and I do not believe in the Darwinian model of evolution) is absolutely deeply intertwined with the premise and possibilities of abiogenesis. Therefore, abiogenesis must be part of evolution, even though most who believe in the model of evolution as set forth by the many is absolutely necessary and an integral, unremovable part of evolution (the theory of). Meanwhile, since no one knows how life burgeoned out in the beginning, they really cannot say what is the first living organism. No matter they say it is prokaryote, it does not make sense. But that's me, I've been insulted many times by believers in the model as proposed by Darwin because I do not go along with it as said by (many) scientists, but yes, unlike Darwinian model and its adherents, I believe that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

No, it looks as if you are just looking for an excuse to deny reality. I can understand this sort of behavior if one is in one of the more cult like sects of Christianity. One can lose one's family if one stands up for reality in those sects.

 

[metis]

As I have said and will keep saying, the Bible does not change, science textbooks change.

Which is a good thing since new evidence can alter and/or add to theories.

 

[metis]

"Abiogenesis" is a scientific hypothesis, and the basic process of the ToE is not just based on hypotheses. Nor does "belief" equate to "evidence" in the realm of science.

 

[YoursTrue]

Which is a good thing since new evidence can alter and/or add to theories.

(Which is kind of what I have been saying for a while now. )he
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...)

 

[YoursTrue]

"Abiogenesis" is a scientific hypothesis, and the basic process of the ToE is not just based on hypotheses. Nor does "belief" equate to "evidence" in the realm of science.

Well now, do scientists really know what is the first living organism? And how it -- the first lifeform -- evolved? I know it is presumed(?) or said to be prokaryotes, but = ! - do they KNOW? I'm not talking about hypothesis but rather know? OK, gotta a lot of things to do--thank you for your responses anyway even though I have a lot of things to take care of today. Bye for now.

 

[YoursTrue]

@metis - so now again -- going back to abiogenesis -- did prokaryotes emerge from "abiogenesis"? I mean at this point the hypothesis about abiogenesis is unclear but surely without abiogenesis (or the theory as to how "life" started naturally and physically) how would there be evolution (the theory of). OK, going now -- later maybe for more.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well now, do scientists really know what is the first living organism? And how it -- the first lifeform -- evolved? I know it is presumed(?) or said to be prokaryotes, but = ! - do they KNOW? I'm not talking about hypothesis but rather know? OK, gotta a lot of things to do--thank you for your responses anyway even though I have a lot of things to take care of today. Bye for now.

You are not being reasonable. We will never know the specifics of the first life form. That does not mean that we will not know its source.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@metis - so now again -- going back to abiogenesis -- did prokaryotes emerge from "abiogenesis"? I mean at this point the hypothesis about abiogenesis is unclear but surely without abiogenesis (or the theory as to how "life" started naturally and physically) how would there be evolution (the theory of). OK, going now -- later maybe for more.

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.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Even IF anythings evolved, the theory as promoted by scientists is beyond absurd.

The things you believe about evolution are beyond absurd. That's for sure.
Good thing it's a complete misrepresentation of what evolution actually is.