Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

Facts? You're saying that life evolving from the first cells on earth that move to multiply is a fact? Still thinking about the very complicated, intricate substance of DNA. And scientists propose this evolved? Without an intelligent force behind it?

When all of the reliable evidence supports only one idea it is considered to be a fact.

Is gravity a fact? Is it a fact that matter is made up of atoms?

 

[idea]

Or... life is as old as energy and matter, has always existed, no beginning.

 

[YoursTrue]

When all of the reliable evidence supports only one idea it is considered to be a fact.

Is gravity a fact? Is it a fact that matter is made up of atoms?

Gravity is a force or situation that is established to the extent that we cannot rise up in the air without wings or a mechanical device. So far humans have not grown wings. Does this mean gravity is always so without equivocation? No, it does not. But we can warn children that they can't jump off the roof without consequences and we can hope people wouldn't try it. Gravity is not evolution though. Gravity is not life. But is certainly connected to life on the earth.

 

[YoursTrue]

When all of the reliable evidence supports only one idea it is considered to be a fact.

Is gravity a fact? Is it a fact that matter is made up of atoms?

Matter made up of atoms does not mean the matter or the atoms are alive. So I hope you have a good night.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Gravity is a force or situation that is established to the extent that we cannot rise up in the air without wings or a mechanical device. So far humans have not grown wings. Does this mean gravity is always so without equivocation? No, it does not. But we can warn children that they can't jump off the roof without consequences and we can hope people wouldn't try it. Gravity is not evolution though. Gravity is not life. But is certainly connected to life on the earth.

You missed the point. How did you manage to do that? Gravity is pretty much a fact. Since there is more evidence for evolution than there is for gravity it would be unwise to treat it as anything but a fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Matter made up of atoms does not mean the matter or the atoms are alive. So I hope you have a good night.

Are you doing this on purpose? If so it is not exactly honest. Once again, it is a fact that matter is made up of atoms and by the same standard evolution is a fact.

The question is why do you treat one fact so differently than you treat others? Why does the fact of evolution bother you so much? You should see if you can answer that question. It puts your whole faith in doubt if your personal beliefs cause you to discriminate against certain facts.

 

[Valjean]

Sorry. The situation (not proof, of course) is that there is no real evidence for evolution as proposed by scientists.

You keep making this assertion after being corrected a hundred times. Please get some biology textbooks from a library, or some biology journals from a bookstore. Read.

The concept of evolution is apparently that from a chance meeting of some cells life emerged.

No, that's not the concept.

Even though there are similarities of DNA among organisms and fossils, ducks may resemble dinosaurs, etc., there is no proof (yes, proof) that evolution occurred so as to cause beetles, trees and monkeys.

And it's only you demanding "proof." There is no "proof" of a round Earth, either, but I don't see you denying that.
The probable steps of chemical and special evolution have been explained to you more than once, yet you keep coming back with the same misrepresentations.

If I were there when the lineages supposedly came out of the "Unknown Common Ancestor" of monkeys, bonobos, humans, I might be surprised. But of course we were not, and neither were the teeth and partial skeletal remains of organisms that have died. Obviously people are going to believe what they will believe and our minds tell us logically to believe from the idea that humans look like gorillas among other things. But that is no longer how I see it.

It's based on a lot more than a superficial appearance -- as you know -- nor do you need every single pug mark to track something.

 

[Valjean]

Ag

Actually, the idea that non-living matter became somehow suddenly alive by "natural" means, makes it more fantastic. And of course, not to mention, had the cells multiply.

Again, do some reading on chemical evolution, or google some YouTube videos.
I still don't understand your belief that never witnessed magic poofing is a more rational "explanation" than familiar, observable, testable processes we see every day.

 

[Valjean]

Something turned from lifeless to life. Somewhere, somehow in the realm of evolution starting from...lifeless stuff. Naturally you might say well, uh, that's abiogenesis and not evolution. Without life starting from cells, you'd have...nothing? Soil, clay, dust, came to LIFE. Or maybe bubbling water, then eventually after lots of multiples by chemical reaction, came dinosaurs and flying birds.

But asserting that it was magic that created the first life is not the most likely or reasonable "explanation," is it? It's both unevidenced and unneeded.
As for "starting from cells," you know that this isn't what abiogenesis asserts. You're being either incredibly obtuse or disingenuous.

 

[Valjean]

Let me ask you a question. Don't scientists conjecture that life or the first cells may have come from water? Or from minerals that may have fallen to the earth?

The hypothesis, as you know, is that life emerged gradually from a series of chemical interactions, which probably did take place in water.

Facts? You're saying that life evolving from the first cells on earth that move to multiply is a fact? Still thinking about the very complicated, intricate substance of DNA. And scientists propose this evolved? Without an intelligent force behind it?

"The first cells on Earth" were, by definition, already alive. Abiogenesis is the process by which the first cells came to be.
Our differences? You assert magic. We assert chemistry.

 

[YoursTrue]

The hypothesis, as you know, is that life emerged gradually from a series of chemical interactions, which probably did take place in water.
"The first cells on Earth" were, by definition, already alive. Abiogenesis is the process by which the first cells came to be.
Our differences? You assert magic. We assert chemistry.

I'm not refuting chemistry. Proven, that is, of course. Because I know that two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen makes water.
What I am saying is that life did not come about by itself, i.e., just like that., without a superior defining force with intelligence. For Adam to receive what is termed as the breath of life into his body that was described to be formed from the ground tells me that life is different than something that is deemed to not be alive, and that it did not come about just like that, as in sheer chemical reaction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not refuting chemistry. Proven, that is, of course. Because I know that two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen makes water.
What I am saying is that life did not come about by itself, i.e., just like that., without a superior defining force with intelligence. For Adam to receive what is termed as the breath of life into his body that was described to be formed from the ground tells me that life is different than something that is deemed to not be alive, and that it did not come about just like that, as in sheer chemical reaction.

Yes, in the mythical story of Adam and Eve Adam was made with a golem spell.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, in the mythical story of Adam and Eve Adam was made with a golem spell.

However it happened, Moses received information as to their creation. And I believe Moses insofar as the creative process goes more than I believe you insofar as things you've heard. Yes, however Moses knew and however he described it, life began in Adam after the "molecules" were put together. Bye for now. I won't say any more now because I could go on to why people and not gorillas or cockroaches have in mind god, gods, or God, however they want to determine it. Maybe later.

 

[Subduction Zone]

However it happened, Moses received information as to their creation. And I believe Moses insofar as the creative process goes more than I believe you insofar as things you've heard. Yes, however Moses knew and however he described it, life began in Adam after the "molecules" were put together. Bye for now. I won't say any more now because I could go on to why people and not gorillas or cockroaches have in mind god, gods, or God, however they want to determine it. Maybe later.

Moses was fictional too. Haven't you ever studied the history of the Bible at all?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, in the mythical story of Adam and Eve Adam was made with a golem spell.

However you want to look at it, life came from -- nonlife. Unless you have more info about that. I no longer accept the scientifically popular idea that humans more or less grew from an Unknown Common Ancestor of gorillas, bonobos and others in that category.
Upon looking at it, Where did life originate? - Understanding Evolution (berkeley.edu)--that (scientific) supposition like billions of years (they counted I suppose, or is it estimated) that maybe life popped up somehow from a superheated vent in watery deep, cells emerged and somehow -- -- life began -- grew. From a scientific article about changes from sealife to land animals: "Yet still we barely understand the ecological settings that drove these early animals out of the sea."
Like it or not, at least scientists recognize that sea life came before landrovers, which is in harmony with the Bible's description of the emergence of living organisms. Moses wrote that on the fifth day, and can ascertain that it wasn't a 24-hour 'day,' but rather an expression of a period of time with a beginning and an end, came the sea-dwelling creatures as well as flying creatures, after that came land animals, and I know you don't accept this, but after that came man. Because many classify man as an animal. I do not, so I hope we won't argue over that. Regardless of how it happened microscopically Moses wrote that first came sealife and flying creatures, then land animals.

 

[YoursTrue]

Moses was fictional too. Haven't you ever studied the history of the Bible at all?

LOL, I know some believe that. Meantime, he wrote that sea life and flying creatures came before land dwellers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

However you want to look at it, life came from -- nonlife. Unless you have more info about that. I no longer accept the scientifically popular idea that humans more or less grew from an Unknown Common Ancestor of gorillas, bonobos and others in that category.
Upon looking at it, Where did life originate? - Understanding Evolution (berkeley.edu)--that (scientific) supposition like billions of years (they counted I suppose, or is it estimated) that maybe life popped up somehow from a superheated vent in watery deep, cells emerged and somehow -- -- life began -- grew. From a scientific article about changes from sealife to land animals: "Yet still we barely understand the ecological settings that drove these early animals out of the sea."
Like it or not, at least scientists recognize that sea life came before landrovers, which is in harmony with the Bible's description of the emergence of living organisms. Moses wrote that on the fifth day, and can ascertain that it wasn't a 24-hour 'day,' but rather an expression of a period of time with a beginning and an end, came the sea-dwelling creatures as well as flying creatures, after that came land animals, and I know you don't accept this, but after that came man. Because many classify man as an animal. I do not, so I hope we won't argue over that. Regardless of how it happened microscopically Moses wrote that first came sealife and flying creatures, then land animals.

Sorry, you already admitted that you were wrong about that by bringing up another topic that you do not understand.

And Moses could not have written anything since he was fictional.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL, I know some believe that. Meantime, he wrote that sea life and flying creatures came before land dwellers.

No, some people know that. You should try to learn the difference between knowledge and belief.

 

[gnostic]

I'm not refuting chemistry. Proven, that is, of course. Because I know that two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen makes water.
What I am saying is that life did not come about by itself, i.e., just like that., without a superior defining force with intelligence. For Adam to receive what is termed as the breath of life into his body that was described to be formed from the ground tells me that life is different than something that is deemed to not be alive, and that it did not come about just like that, as in sheer chemical reaction.

That your religious belief, your superstition that you believe that you do, from ancient stories written by people who have no understanding of how nature really works.

The authors of Genesis exhibited no knowledge and no intelligence on astronomy, on physics, on chemistry, on biology, etc.

Basically, if he these authors were alive today, they would be considered idiots.

The facts are, humans have be reproduced naturally through sexual intercourse by two parents, women get pregnant, they give birth to offspring, and it have been going on even before the Homo sapiens, by older species of the genus Homo.

No one was ever created directly from “dust on the ground”, or from some types of soil, like silt or clay, mould into shape of human, then brought to life by blowing air into soil.

This is pure myth from Genesis 2:7, not biology. It is certainly not chemistry.

There are no single evidence that humans ever popped into exist from the ground.

And in this day and age, that you would believe this absurd story to be true, make me wonder of your knowledge in biology is even worse than the authors of Genesis.

You can believe what you want believe, but your belief in superior being with intelligence and power isn’t science.

Genesis Creation isn’t science. And Intelligent Design, as developed by the Discovery Institute, is also not science.

Both are works of fictions. If you want to believe in fiction that’s your prerogative, and your problem.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

However you want to look at it, life came from -- nonlife. Unless you have more info about that. I no longer accept the scientifically popular idea that humans more or less grew from an Unknown Common Ancestor of gorillas, bonobos and others in that category.
Upon looking at it, Where did life originate? - Understanding Evolution (berkeley.edu)--that (scientific) supposition like billions of years (they counted I suppose, or is it estimated) that maybe life popped up somehow from a superheated vent in watery deep, cells emerged and somehow -- -- life began -- grew. From a scientific article about changes from sealife to land animals: "Yet still we barely understand the ecological settings that drove these early animals out of the sea."
Like it or not, at least scientists recognize that sea life came before landrovers, which is in harmony with the Bible's description of the emergence of living organisms. Moses wrote that on the fifth day, and can ascertain that it wasn't a 24-hour 'day,' but rather an expression of a period of time with a beginning and an end, came the sea-dwelling creatures as well as flying creatures, after that came land animals, and I know you don't accept this, but after that came man. Because many classify man as an animal. I do not, so I hope we won't argue over that. Regardless of how it happened microscopically Moses wrote that first came sealife and flying creatures, then land animals.

I thought you had been involved in discussions about dating. Dating of the earth is done using modern radiometric techniques. Applying those techniques to strata containing no evidence of living things and then strata with evidence of living things gives us estimates of the age of living things. These are estimates using validated techniques and not guesses or speculation.

If cells emerged from some volcanic vent billions of years ago, the emergence of cells was the start of life. Once you have living cells, you have living things.

The evidence indicates that flight evolved well after the colonization of the land. Insects were the first to exploit the atmosphere as a medium of transit. Sometime, between 350 and 400 million years ago. Which puts it significantly much more recent than the estimated age of life on Earth at 3.5 billion years.

Though you are probably correct that life began in water.