Abiogenesis is evolution

[dust1n]

ScottySatan,
All that needs to be said about your post is about the impossibility of life coming from the non living. This is impossible because God, Jehovah, has existed forever and He is the source of all life, Ps 36:9.
Scientists experimented for many years with Abiogenesis, and realized they were wasting their time, because they know life only comes from life.
For many years scientists tried to make some living thing evolve or just to show some signs of evolution, but they never could make any living thing show any signs of evolving, even with their controlled experiments in a laboratory. They then came to the preposterous conclusion that things must have been different in the distant past that allowed things to happen then that are impossible today.
Even Darwin was smart enough to state that it evolution could not be proven by the fossil record, evolution was probably wrong and another system would have to be investigated...

Believe in evolution or not, there is no reason to lie about what scientists are doing.

Last month:

"(Phys.org)—A team of chemists working at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, at Cambridge in the UK believes they have solved the mystery of how it was possible for life to begin on Earth over four billion years ago. In their paper published in the journal Nature Chemistry, the team describes how they were able to map reactions that produced two and three-carbon sugars, amino acids, ribonucleotides and glycerol—the material necessary for metabolism and for creating the building blocks of proteins and ribonucleic acid molecules and also for allowing for the creation of lipids that form cell membranes.

Scientists have debated for years the various possibilities that could have led to life evolving on Earth, and the arguments have only grown more heated in recent years as many have suggested that it did not happen here it all, instead, it was brought to us from comets or some other celestial body. Most of the recent debate has found scientists in one of three chicken-or-the-egg first camps: RNA world advocates, metabolism-first supporters and those who believe that cell membranes must have developed first.

The chemists with this new effort believe they have found a way to show that all three arguments are both right and wrong—they believe they have found a way to show that everything necessary for life to evolve could have done so from just hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen cyanide and ultraviolet light and that those building blocks could have all existed at the same time—in their paper, they report that using just those three basic ingredients they were able to produce more than 50 nucleic acids—precursors to DNA and RNA molecules."

Chemists claim to have solved riddle of how life began on Earth


Just one of many examples anyone could easily pull up to demonstrate that scientists have no nothing to do with what you said about them.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Even Darwin was smart enough to state that it evolution could not be proven by the fossil record, evolution was probably wrong and another system would have to be investigated.

Darwin did not state that abiogenisis was proven through the fossil record. That much is true. But he never stated that evolution was probably wrong. Darwin himself was actually wrong about a large number of things reguarding evolution. There is a whole book (probably several) dedicated to updating the origin of species so it is accurate enough to be represented as science as we understand it today. I say this to help you understand that Darwin is no longer the final word on evolution. He never really was. He was not even the first person to suggest what he suggested but he was the one that started the study of it by other scientists.

The fossil record actually proves beyond a doubt that evolution has never occurred, even in the distant past.

Except that it demonstrably proves that evolution occurred... So the exact opposite of what you said is true.

Think!!! If evolution was occurring, over a period of millions of years as evolutionists say, today there would be no distinct kinds, they would all be a mixture of the lower form of life and the higher, to which they were evolving. Just the opposite is true, whenever a fossil is found there is no doubt as to what it is, every fossil is determined to be of a certain kind, not a mixture.

False. Every fossil is a transitional form. Every living being is a transitional form. We have fossils of "near mammal reptiles" that have qualities of both "kinds". We have all manor of parent species that have offspring that have created different "kinds". Give me two "kinds" and I shall show you the fossil record parent of the two. Just as a challenge. If you are right I won't be able to find that information. If I am right I can. Sound fair?

If you want to realize just how preposterous evolution is, consider the process that would necessarily take place, Homoplasy, and how it could possibly work. Explain how two organisms could evolve, one male and the other female, until they were matured enough to mate. How did they live for the thousands of years of evolution before they could procreate, not even knowing there was another organism evolving to match them???877879888 As simple as it is, the question; which evolved first the chicken or the egg, is an impossibility for evolutionists..

Homoplasty actually is expected. It is to what extent is it prevalent and how similar are the individual changes? For example lets talk about fins and flippers. Newly aquatic animals such as penguins whose ancestors were birds of flight and aquatic mammals such as dolphins and whales whose ancestors were land dwelling mammals have similar but distinctly different forms of limbs. The fish have scales and ridged fins. Penguins have adapted feathers that cover wing like appendages. Mammals have a thick layer of fat or blubber that cover the muscles creating an almost rubbery fin structure. All three are distinctly different but evolved to the optimal level. This is because they evolved in similar places so the successful trends will allow for similar functions in the organisms.

A good example of how homeoplasty is different that can help make sense to you is that in whales and other mammals that are aquatic their tail fins move in a vertical direction to provide propulsion while in fish it is a horizontal mechanism. This is due to the development of the spine on land and the way that the legs had formed together over time.

 

[gnostic]

ScottySatan,
All that needs to be said about your post is about the impossibility of life coming from the non living. This is impossible because God, Jehovah, has existed forever and He is the source of all life, Ps 36:9.
Scientists experimented for many years with Abiogenesis, and realized they were wasting their time, because they know life only comes from life.
For many years scientists tried to make some living thing evolve or just to show some signs of evolution, but they never could make any living thing show any signs of evolving, even with their controlled experiments in a laboratory. They then came to the preposterous conclusion that things must have been different in the distant past that allowed things to happen then that are impossible today.
Even Darwin was smart enough to state that it evolution could not be proven by the fossil record, evolution was probably wrong and another system would have to be investigated.
The fossil record actually proves beyond a doubt that evolution has never occurred, even in the distant past.
Think!!! If evolution was occurring, over a period of millions of years as evolutionists say, today there would be no distinct kinds, they would all be a mixture of the lower form of life and the higher, to which they were evolving. Just the opposite is true, whenever a fossil is found there is no doubt as to what it is, every fossil is determined to be of a certain kind, not a mixture.
If you want to realize just how preposterous evolution is, consider the process that would necessarily take place, Homoplasy, and how it could possibly work. Explain how two organisms could evolve, one male and the other female, until they were matured enough to mate. How did they live for the thousands of years of evolution before they could procreate, not even knowing there was another organism evolving to match them???877879888 As simple as it is, the question; which evolved first the chicken or the egg, is an impossibility for evolutionists.
Another term that evolutionists do not want to hear is PRESTABILISM which means that creatures can only reproduce After Their Own Kind. This is stated several times in the Bible book of Genesis, and is a Law for both animal and plant life, Gen 1:11,12, 24,25. This Law of God allows for NO evolution!!!
Another idea is worthy of mention, Successional Speciation. If animals evolved because of the need, as evolutionists claim, why do both the lower and the higher still exist???
Sheep and giraffes are of the same kind, one still exists because it has a long neck, the other was able to keep existing because it had a short neck.
There is only one reason for the silly idea of evolution, evolutionists say the only alternative is creationism, which is unthinkable to them.

What???

 

[Sapiens]

ScottySatan,
All that needs to be said about your post is about the impossibility of life coming from the non living. This is impossible because God, Jehovah, has existed forever and He is the source of all life, Ps 36:9.

Unsupported claim.

Scientists experimented for many years with Abiogenesis, and realized they were wasting their time, because they know life only comes from life.

Unsupported claim, and wrong on so many counts.

For many years scientists tried to make some living thing evolve or just to show some signs of evolution, but they never could make any living thing show any signs of evolving, even with their controlled experiments in a laboratory. They then came to the preposterous conclusion that things must have been different in the distant past that allowed things to happen then that are impossible today.

Unsupported claim, and wrong on so many counts. Evolution (in and out of the lab) has been clearly demonstrated, and as to "different in the distant past that allowed things to happen then that are impossible today," with a lifetime is science this is the first time I've heard that.

Even Darwin was smart enough to state that it evolution could not be proven by the fossil record, evolution was probably wrong and another system would have to be investigated.
different in the distant past that allowed things to happen then that are impossible today

Unsupported claim, and wrong on so many counts, evolution stands even without any fossil evidence.

The fossil record actually proves beyond a doubt that evolution has never occurred, even in the distant past.

This is candid camera, right? Where's the camera? Hi Allan!

Think!!! If evolution was occurring, over a period of millions of years as evolutionists say, today there would be no distinct kinds, they would all be a mixture of the lower form of life and the higher, to which they were evolving. Just the opposite is true, whenever a fossil is found there is no doubt as to what it is, every fossil is determined to be of a certain kind, not a mixture.

Unsupported claim, and wrong on so many counts, genetics is not a mixing process ... read Mendel.

If you want to realize just how preposterous evolution is, consider the process that would necessarily take place, Homoplasy, and how it could possibly work. Explain how two organisms could evolve, one male and the other female, until they were matured enough to mate. How did they live for the thousands of years of evolution before they could procreate, not even knowing there was another organism evolving to match them???877879888

I have no idea what you are talking about, and neither do you. Homoplasy is convergent evolution, e.g. \ flight for bats and birds

As simple as it is, the question; which evolved first the chicken or the egg, is an impossibility for evolutionists.

Unsupported claim, and wrong on so many counts, logic dictates the egg.

Another term that evolutionists do not want to hear is PRESTABILISM which means that creatures can only reproduce After Their Own Kind. This is stated several times in the Bible book of Genesis, and is a Law for both animal and plant life, Gen 1:11,12, 24,25. This Law of God allows for NO evolution!!!

I have no idea what you are talking about, and neither do you. In the context you are using it, there is no such term as "prestabilism." It has all the meaning and weight as your bible quotes and "Law of God.," also meaningless twaddle.

BTW:
Definition of PRESTABILISM
1: the Leibnizian doctrine of preestablished harmony of body and mind
2: the Kantian view that the living organism embodies an initial tendency implanted by the first cause whereby its kind is reproduced

Another idea is worthy of mention, Successional Speciation. If animals evolved because of the need, as evolutionists claim, why do both the lower and the higher still exist???

You are setting up a strawman, no evolutionist ever claimed that something, "evolved because of need." Things evolve as a result of the meeting of ability and opportunity. Evolution is not a matter of replacement but rather allopatric (usually) bifurcation. See: If man evolved from chimps where are chimps still here.

Sheep and giraffes are of the same kind, one still exists because it has a long neck, the other was able to keep existing because it had a short neck.

Sheep and giraffe are not the same "kind" unless you are referring to even toed ungulates in which case giraffe, cattle, camels, sheep, goats and even hippopotamus – but not horses, are all the same "kind." Please provide a definition of "kind" so that we may check your work.

There is only one reason for the silly idea of evolution, evolutionists say the only alternative is creationism, which is unthinkable to them.

No, evolution is supported by real data, creationism has none save a bronze age mythology.