Darwin's Illusion

[We Never Know]

Actually no. Not really. You are trusting some known liars. One can do a lot with creative editing. He was asked for another possibility and he came up with a very remote one.

The most likely source for life on our planet appears to be abiogenesis. After that one is getting into extremely unlikely sources. Aliens would probably be next. But I would give that less than 1%, that is just a grabbing a figure. Even more likely an magical invisible friend could have poofed the first life into existence.



No, I did not do bad. You just screwed up. Please stop accusing others of what you are doing. There is nothing wrong with positing a first life form that was very simple since it is well supported by evidence. You on the other hand have no reliable evidence at all for your beliefs.

Just because..

"The most likely source for life on our planet appears to be abiogenesis"

Then prove it and remember...

Then prove it. If you can't then it is just a belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just because..

"The most likely source for life on our planet appears to be abiogenesis"

Then prove it and remember...

I can provide evidence for it. But unfortunately the people that I am debating with do not seem to understand the concept.

Here is a test that you should be able to pass. What is the first example of scientific evidence for abiogenesis?

 

[We Never Know]

I can provide evidence for it. But unfortunately the people that I am debating with do not seem to understand the concept.

Here is a test that you should be able to pass. What is the first example of scientific evidence for abiogenesis?

"I can provide evidence for it."

Can your prove abiogenisis? Yes or no?

Remember you said

Then prove it. If you can't then it is just a belief.

I can provide evidence for a god. The bible, billions of believers, churches... But that doesn't mean a god actually exits.

Right now abiogenesis is like a god, neither one have been proven nor disproven.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"I can provide evidence for it."

Can your prove abiogenisis? Yes or no?

Remember you said



I can provide evidence for a god. The bible, billions of believers, churches... But that doesn't mean a god actually exits.

Right now abiogenesis is like a god, neither one have been proven nor disproven.

And you just totally disqualified yourself from the debate. In the sciences there is only evidence. When someone says "prove it" it is a demand for evidence.

I can give you evidence, but you have demonstrated that you lack the education to even begin to judge.

 

[LIIA]

Actually no. Not really. You are trusting some known liars. One can do a lot with creative editing. He was asked for another possibility and he came up with a very remote one.

Regardless of any claimed editing, He did come up with it.

The most likely source for life on our planet appears to be abiogenesis. After that one is getting into extremely unlikely sources. Aliens would probably be next. But I would give that less than 1%, that is just a grabbing a figure. Even more likely an magical invisible friend could have poofed the first life into existence.

So, the chances are either the 99% chance of a theory that failed to be accepted as a scientific theory after more than 100 years of scientific research or 1% Aliens from outer space. How pathetic?

There is nothing wrong with positing a first life form that was very simple

There is. Demonstrate your evidence for the claim that the simplest known life form today (single-celled organism) can be reduced much further to the alleged simpler first life. See #2493

Oops, I forgot that it bothers you when I refer to previous posts. Sorry but it’s just a more efficient way than repeating the same. See #2493

 

[LIIA]

You don't see anyone else digging and saying "This was refuted in post #02340823

I do. see # 2465 and demonstrate your response.

By the way, if you want to learn the basics of science so that you keep making such 8th grade level (and that is being kind) errors

Isn’t the 8th grade still higher than the 4th grade? (See #2497), how can you teach a higher grade? Even your nonsense is still more pathetic that your attempts of debate. You’re pathetic.

 

[We Never Know]

I can provide evidence for it. But unfortunately the people that I am debating with do not seem to understand the concept.

Here is a test that you should be able to pass. What is the first example of scientific evidence for abiogenesis?

Can your prove abiogenesis?




abiogenesis has been neither proved nor disproved.

And you just totally disqualified yourself from the debate. In the sciences there is only evidence. When someone says "prove it" it is a demand for evidence.

I can give you evidence, but you have demonstrated that you lack the education to even begin to judge.

Why don't you just admit you can't show with evidence that abiogenisis actually happened. Even science agrees the evidence they have doesn't show abiogenisis actually happened.

Thats my fun for the night

 

[Subduction Zone]

Regardless of any claimed editing, He did come up with it.

And this is just a "So what?" argument. It is refuted by those two words.

So, the chances are either the 99% chance of a theory that failed to be accepted as a scientific theory after more than 100 years of scientific research or 1% Aliens from outer space. How pathetic?

It has not "been failed to be accepted as a scientific theory". Once again this is a demonstration of utter ignorance. It is still in the hypothetical stage. It has not been presented as a theory. There are still some unanswered question. They are well over half way to having a complete hypothesis, then it may graduate to theory. Meanwhile you have a believe with no support. You have no grounds for complaint.

Plus you have in effect admitted that evolution is a fact. But you do not realize it.

There is. Demonstrate your evidence for the claim that the simplest known life form today (single-celled organism) can be reduced much further to the alleged simpler first life. See #2493

Oops, I forgot that it bothers you when I refer to previous posts. Sorry but it’s just a more efficient way than repeating the same. See #2493

To what purpose? You are not able to judge if anything that I posted in such a matter is factual or not. You are making an unreasonable demand. You would have to do quite a bit of learning first.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can your prove abiogenesis?

By the legal standard of "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt"? Yes. But scientists work with evidence. You are showing your ignorance again. I can provide plenty of evidence. Evidence that would not help you since you could not understand it.

abiogenesis has been neither proved nor disproved.

Gravity has neither been proved nor disproved. Try walking off a cliff some day and tell me how that goes.

Why don't you just admit you can't show with evidence that abiogenisis actually happened. Even science agrees the evidence they have doesn't show abiogenisis actually happened.

Thats my fun for the night

Sorry, but the ignorant cannot make demands and seriously you do not know how to facepalm.


Try again.

 

[We Never Know]

By the legal standard of "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt"? Yes. But scientists work with evidence. You are showing your ignorance again. I can provide plenty of evidence. Evidence that would not help you since you could not understand it.



Gravity has neither been proved nor disproved. Try walking off a cliff some day and tell me how that goes.




Sorry, but the ignorant cannot make demands and seriously you do not know how to facepalm.


Try again.

"You are showing your ignorance again"

"Sorry, but the ignorant cannot make demands"

Now you are doing a personal attack and calling me ignorant?

That's against the rules bub.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"You are showing your ignorance again"

"Sorry, but the ignorant cannot make demands"

Now you are doing a personal attack and calling me ignorant?

That's against the rules bub.

Not if you just demonstrated your ignorance. In this matter you are ignorant. It is not personal attack. If someone was talking about car repair and I stuck my nose in and tried to imply that they were wrong I would probably be shown to be ignorant rather quickly. We all are ignorant about some things and pointing out how you are ignorant about this topic is not a personal attack.

I always offer to go over the basics. I do believe that I did this with you. I am never taken up since those that try to argue against evolution appear to be afraid to learn even the basics of science.

So how is pointing out a fact a personal attack? I did not call you an idiot. That would clearly be wrong and be a personal attack. I did not say that you were evil. That also would be wrong and it would be a personal attack. You are not paying attention to the context of the argument.

 

[We Never Know]

Not if you just demonstrated your ignorance. In this matter you are ignorant. It is not personal attack. If someone was talking about car repair and I stuck my nose in and tried to imply that they were wrong I would probably be shown to be ignorant rather quickly. We all are ignorant about some things and pointing out how you are ignorant about this topic is not a personal attack.

I always offer to go over the basics. I do believe that I did this with you. I am never taken up since those that try to argue against evolution appear to be afraid to learn even the basics of science.

So how is pointing out a fact a personal attack? I did not call you an idiot. That would clearly be wrong and be a personal attack. I did not say that you were evil. That also would be wrong and it would be a personal attack. You are not paying attention to the context of the argument.

"I am never taken up since those that try to argue against evolution appear to be afraid to learn even the basics of science"

And you just totally disqualified yourself from the debate. My post were about abiogenesis, not evolution.

Thats a page right out of your playbook

 

[Subduction Zone]

By the way @We Never Know , it is never too late. You can always learn. There is no reason that you cannot learn about the basics of science. Science doe not refute God. It only shows some stories of the Bible to be mythical. Or if you prefer legendary. They still work as morality tales. You could say that 2 Timothy 3 16 still holds since it is still useful for correction even if i the events never happened.

[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

 

[Subduction Zone]

"I am never taken up since those that try to argue against evolution appear to be afraid to learn even the basics of science"

And you just totally disqualified yourself from the debate. My post were about abiogenesis, not evolution.

Thats a page right out of your playbook

Oh my. Talk about clutching at straws.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Can your prove abiogenesis?

Why don't you just admit you can't show with evidence that abiogenisis actually happened. Even science agrees the evidence they have doesn't show abiogenisis actually happened.

There is no other way, except the ludicrous way of a God ordering things to come up:
Day 1. Heavens and Earth,
Day 2. Light and Darkness, Sky
Day 3. Land and Water, Vegetation
Day 4. Sun, Moon, Stars
Day 5. Birds, Fish
Day 6. Land Animals, Man
Why did God need six days to do it, he could have done it in six seconds? Then he would not have required a seventh day for rest. Oh, he was in no hurry.
Tough work, a tired God?

God created vegetation before creating sun, moon and stars. Ah, it was only a matter of one day! Vegetation survived. But the sequence is defective.
Similarly light was created before the creation of sun. A difference of two days. I suppose it might have been God's own brilliance.

Abiogenesis actually happened, because its results are here.

 

[gnostic]

Can your prove abiogenesis?




abiogenesis has been neither proved nor disproved.

Spoken like someone who never study science, or was never good in science.

Natural Sciences are in the businesses of proving or disproving.

Natural Sciences test what they explain in the models & predict in the models, then they would try to find evidence or perform experiments.

“Testing” is about “OBSERVATIONS” of the physical phenomena.

“Observations” of EVIDENCE or EXPERIMENTS, include detection, measurements, analyzing the physical properties & the processes of the phenomena, compare multiple evidence, etc

That you and other creationists using the words “proving”, “disproving” & “proof” only demonstrate these words you used that you don’t understand that these are used mainly mathematics terminologies.

Scientists “test”, not “prove”. Mathematicians “prove” their equations by trying to solve their equations.

And tests are observations, and what they observe is something physical, not abstract mathematical proof (eg equations, constants, variables, etc).

Scientists, especially physicists do use equations (proofs), in their theories and hypotheses, but equations are themselves are not evidence, because equations are not physical. And using equations don’t means they are true by-default. No explanations, no predictions and no equations are ever true by-default, they all must tested be tested, including the equations.

The equations can be wrong, and if evidence or experiments don’t support or don’t verify the equations, then the equations are wrong.

Second.

Abiogenesis is much about the origin of biological compounds or biological molecules that make up cells.

And evidence showed that these organic compounds and molecules can exist naturally, or synthesize in lab experiments (eg Miller-Urey experiment, Jan Oró’s experiment).

In fact, organic matters and compounds can exist in space, as the 1969’s Murchison Meteor, have numbers of different types of amino acids (both protein-types and non-protein-types of amino acids), carboxylic acids, carbohydrates, hydrocarbon, etc. Some compounds that exist in nucleobase of RNA & of DNA were also discovered in the meteorite.

There were even water in the meteorite, though water are not organic molecule.

For you to think there are no evidence only demonstrate your flawed reasoning and ignorance on the subject of Abiogenesis.

 

[Polymath257]

Can your prove abiogenesis?

That abiogenesis happened in some form? Absolutely. Go back 5 billion years. There was no life. Go back 3.8 billion years. There was life.

So life originated in some way from things that were not alive.

abiogenesis has been neither proved nor disproved.

Why don't you just admit you can't show with evidence that abiogenisis actually happened. Even science agrees the evidence they have doesn't show abiogenisis actually happened.

Thats my fun for the night

Abiogenesis happened. We do not know the specific mechanisms, but we know it happened. At some point, things that were not alive became alive. And that is abiogenesis.

 

[We Never Know]

That abiogenesis happened in some form? Absolutely. Go back 5 billion years. There was no life. Go back 3.8 billion years. There was life.

So life originated in some way from things that were not alive.



Abiogenesis happened. We do not know the specific mechanisms, but we know it happened. At some point, things that were not alive became alive. And that is abiogenesis.

Life "could" have arrived here per meteor/comet. That would/could mean abiogenesis wasn't needed/didn't happen on earth.

 

[Polymath257]

Life "could" have arrived here per meteor/comet. That would/could mean abiogenesis wasn't needed/didn't happen on earth.

And it still would have happened elsewhere. There was no life anywhere at the time when the universe was undergoing nucleosynthesis. Now there is. So, again, at some point something that was not alive became something that is.

Once again, that is happened is beyond doubt. When and where is still up in the air.

 

[We Never Know]

And it still would have happened elsewhere. There was no life anywhere at the time when the universe was undergoing nucleosynthesis. Now there is. So, again, at some point something that was not alive became something that is.

Once again, that is happened is beyond doubt. When and where is still up in the air.

Universely, absolutely. But we weren't discussing universely. And yet some will still say it was created.