• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evolution is False and Impossible

DarkSun

:eltiT
What do you consider the "right" RNA?

The odds are there were dozens if not more early self replicating strains of RNA competing with one another. There could easily have been millions of false starts in such basic chemistry happening around the globe every day.

Honestly we have only started to be able to produce self-replicating RNA in the lab this year (or was it last?)... It's too early to say what the odds were like back then.

wa:do

Yeah, it was this year some time, I think. It would have been earlier on.

I can remember because I was in the car, and all of a sudden, the radio was talking about a researcher at some university who claimed to have discovered a means of producing a self-replicating ribozyme (ribonucleic macromolecule with template activity). I was fascinated!

Anyway, I guess my point was, it just seems a bit unlikely that you'd have all of the purines and pyrimidines in exactly the right spot to make them bond together in the volatile conditions to begin with... but then it'd be an even greater jump to have exactly the right ones bond together to ensure that they can self replicate and maintain themselves... and it seems even more unlikely that these ribozymes would somehow find themselves chucked inside a lipid bilayer / liposome...

I can understand that it would have occured over a billion years or so, and I can understand how millions of combinations would have been happening each second... but can you see what I'm saying? It sounds just as likely that a bunch of salt would precipitate in the ocean while you're swimming there and maintain itself long enough for you to be carried out to sea. You would need everything to be in exactly the right place at the right time.
 
Last edited:

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Also DarkSun, you have to consider the statistical difference between individual, sequential trials and multiple, concurrent trials.

IOW, it's the difference between you flipping a coin, one flip at a time, and millions of people all flipping coins at the same time. The latter will produce an enormous range of outcomes in a short amount of time when compared to the former.

it just seems a bit unlikely that you'd have all of the purines and pyrimidines in exactly the right spot to make them bond together in the volatile conditions
Not if they are common and their bonding is catalyzed by a common substrate.

and it seems even more unlikely that these ribozymes would somehow find themselves chucked inside a lipid bilayer.
Unless such a primitive cell wall was catalyzed by the same substrate that catalyzed RNA strand formation. Then a self-replicating strand of RNA inside a lipid wall is virtually inevitable.
 

DarkSun

:eltiT
Also DarkSun, you have to consider the statistical difference between individual, sequential trials and multiple, concurrent trials.

IOW, it's the difference between you flipping a coin, one flip at a time, and millions of people all flipping coins at the same time. The latter will produce an enormous range of outcomes in a short amount of time when compared to the former.


Not if they are common and their bonding is catalyzed by a common substrate.


Unless such a primitive cell wall was catalyzed by the same substrate that catalyzed RNA strand formation. Then a self-replicating strand of RNA inside a lipid wall is virtually inevitable.

So now we need a substrate to be present too? :D
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
So now we need a substrate to be present too? :D

The catalytic substrate seems to be a type of clay that is very, very common (and likely was common on the early earth). So it's presence doesn't really present an obstacle (if I'm up to speed on things).
 

DarkSun

:eltiT
The catalytic substrate seems to be a type of clay that is very, very common (and likely was common on the early earth). So it's presence doesn't really present an obstacle (if I'm up to speed on things).

Would you have some links on this that I could read? :eek:
 

DarkSun

:eltiT
I read the first three. :D

I knew most of the information from the second one and I'm not sure I understood all of the third one, but I guess the main thing I didn't know about was the montmorillonite.

Thanks for that. This suddenly makes abiogenesis seem more likely. :p
 

richardlowellt

Well-Known Member
i don't think that god exists, i know he exists thats why i believe in him.

i'm claiming that humans and potatos came from the same ancestors because they have similarities with each other just like apes and humans do.

And you KNOW he exists HOW?? You may believe in this thing all you like but please don't state it as fact. Facts need evidence, where are yours?

You need to educate yourself as to how evolution works. I see the point you are trying to make, but careful as people are laughing at you behind your back.

You might want to try reading, if your brave enough, Victor Stenger's book GOD THE FAILED HYPOTHESIS---How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist.

Here, try these o for size!!

1.) if any being is God, he must be a fitting object of worship.
2.) No being could possibly be a fitting object of worship since worship requires the abandonment of one's role as an autonomous moral agent.
3.) Therefore, there cannot be any being who is God.

1.) If God exists, then the attributes of God are consistent with the existence of evil.
2.) The attributes of God are not consistent with the existence of evil.
3.) Therefore, God does not and cannot exist.

1.) if God exists, the he is perfect.
2.) If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3.) If a being is perfect, the whatever he creates must be perfect.
4.) But the universe is not perfect
5.) Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe.
6.)hence, it is impossible for God to exist.

1.) If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e. outside space and time)
2.) If God exists, he is omnipotent.
3.) To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space.
4.) to be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space.
5.) Hence, it is impossible for a transcendent being to be omnipresent.
6.) Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist.

The logic is frightening is it not!!!
 

Kurgan

Member
I read somewhere that in order to disprove scientific postulation or a theory you had to have irrefutable proof that the old data is wrong. Where is the proof?
There is a hole lot of postulatin' in thar.

The idea about thermodynamics not having any orderly structure or regularity makes me laugh. What about the “six degrees of separation”???

The activity inside a blast furnace for instance it is a very hot combustion process that is controlled and limited to about 3300 deg Fahrenheit. If you look into the peep-hole you will see about ten thousand simultaneous chemical reactions all of which are all completely out of control (so to speak) at the end of a blow we can predict exactly how much pure iron and how much slag will be produced and we will know exactly the chemical composition of the slag produced. This can be done with a plus or minus 500 lb error factor and that is pretty good considering that you are producing 250 to 500 ton batches. Also consider if you get within 50 ft of this little chemical process without protection it will melt your skin or set you on fire. This iron making process is pretty impressive and some would say mind boggling.

My point is we cannot even come close to making or destroying matter in this whole process or any other. Making and destroying matter is going all around us in the universe and we do not clearly understand any of it.

My other point is when you think you know all the answers it is a good bet you really don’t know S***. That is like going hunting for bear with a 22 cal rifle. Your thingy just ain’t big enough!
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
1.) if any being is God, he must be a fitting object of worship.
2.) No being could possibly be a fitting object of worship since worship requires the abandonment of one's role as an autonomous moral agent.
3.) Therefore, there cannot be any being who is God.
This doesn't make sense to me... No human is a truly autonomous moral agent. Society enforces morality.

1.) If God exists, then the attributes of God are consistent with the existence of evil.
2.) The attributes of God are not consistent with the existence of evil.
3.) Therefore, God does not and cannot exist.
Who's god you talking about and how do you know 2 to be accurate?

1.) if God exists, the he is perfect.
2.) If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3.) If a being is perfect, the whatever he creates must be perfect.
4.) But the universe is not perfect
5.) Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe.
6.)hence, it is impossible for God to exist.
This one is just silly... why must anything god makes be perfect?
First Nations artists will intentionally add a flaw to their work... why couldn't god do the same?

1.) If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e. outside space and time)
2.) If God exists, he is omnipotent.
3.) To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space.
4.) to be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space.
5.) Hence, it is impossible for a transcendent being to be omnipresent.
6.) Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist.
replace transcendent with omnipresent....

The logic is frightening is it not!!!
Logic is only as good as it's application. :cool:

wa:do
 

richardlowellt

Well-Known Member
This doesn't make sense to me... No human is a truly autonomous moral agent. Society enforces morality.


Who's god you talking about and how do you know 2 to be accurate?


This one is just silly... why must anything god makes be perfect?
First Nations artists will intentionally add a flaw to their work... why couldn't god do the same?


replace transcendent with omnipresent....


Logic is only as good as it's application. :cool:

wa:do

Of course humans are moral agents, do I need society to tell me rape and torture are wrong? That stealing from my neighbor is wrong, morality is not doing to someone what you would not want done to you.

It speaks to any God or God like being.

Logic and reason dictate that a God capable of creating would endeavor to achieve perfection. And what would be the point of creating anything with flaws, and imperfections?

This God of the monotheism is suppose to be both transcendent and omnipresent, it can't be both.
 

DarkSun

:eltiT
You need to educate yourself as to how evolution works. I see the point you are trying to make, but careful as people are laughing at you behind your back.

Who's laughing? I'm not. :sarcastic


1.) if any being is God, he must be a fitting object of worship.
2.) No being could possibly be a fitting object of worship since worship requires the abandonment of one's role as an autonomous moral agent.
3.) Therefore, there cannot be any being who is God.

Could you please explain how worshipping God requires the abandonment of ones own morality?

1.) If God exists, then the attributes of God are consistent with the existence of evil.
2.) The attributes of God are not consistent with the existence of evil.
3.) Therefore, God does not and cannot exist.

If God exists as a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient being, then He is incapable of error. Therefore God's existence cannot be consistent with the existence of evil, by definition.

1.) if God exists, the he is perfect.
2.) If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3.) If a being is perfect, the whatever he creates must be perfect.
4.) But the universe is not perfect
5.) Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe.
6.)hence, it is impossible for God to exist.

Point three is false. Since when does a perfect being have to create a perfect universe? I see no obligation here.

1.) If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e. outside space and time)
2.) If God exists, he is omnipotent.
3.) To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space.
4.) to be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space.
5.) Hence, it is impossible for a transcendent being to be omnipresent.
6.) Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist.

define: transcendent - Google Search

Out of all of those definitions, I see no reference to something transcendant having to exist outside of space and time.

The logic is frightening is it not!!!

Logic? Does that imply that anyone who may disagree is illogical?

*Sigh.*

I'll keep the following rant short, because this thread is about evolution, and not whether or not God exists. Believe it or not, evolution and theology are not mutually exclusive, so bringing up God as a reason to dislike evolution is absurd.

And it's funny really. What you were using wasn't logic, it was a bunch of flawed arguments. The fact of the matter is that God's existence cannot be proven or disproven by science. Whether or not you believe in God comes down to faith alone -- and yes, to disbelieve in God also requires an element of guesswork (or faith, whichever) because there is zero empirical evidence to suggest that He doesn't exist.

If you're annoyed by what I just said, then you've just proven yourself to be just like the Creationists you're against, in that you disbelieve in something so passionately you assume everyone with an opposing view is intellectually inferior. If you don't believe in a creator, so be it. But stop posting one-sided, flawed arguments and try to comprehend the alternative viewpoint.

[ / Off-topic rant ]
 
Last edited:

DarkSun

:eltiT
Of course humans are moral agents, do I need society to tell me rape and torture are wrong? That stealing from my neighbor is wrong, morality is not doing to someone what you would not want done to you.

Actually, morality is the means through which we justify our actions. What PW was saying is that for the most part, our morality is inherited from the community we grow up in.

Existence before essence. :p

It speaks to any God or God like being.

Heard of pantheism?

Logic and reason dictate that a God capable of creating would endeavor to achieve perfection. And what would be the point of creating anything with flaws, and imperfections?

No, what you're describing is a God with an ego complex, or an obsessive compulsive disorder, who has to make everything perfect or otherwise He'll feel unaccomplished. That doesn't sound like perfection to me.

This God of the monotheism is suppose to be both transcendent and omnipresent, it can't be both.

Well, if the God of monotheism is omnipotent, maybe He can.
 
Last edited:

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Of course humans are moral agents, do I need society to tell me rape and torture are wrong? That stealing from my neighbor is wrong, morality is not doing to someone what you would not want done to you.
yeah sure.... that's why none of those things happen in the real world. Because everyone is a moral agent capable of deciding for themselves what is 'good' and 'bad'.
You're right culture and circumstance play no role what so ever in how people view their actions... Americans view the morality of gun ownership the same way a Canadians or Brits.
And every nation of the planet knows that torture is evil and refuses to use it. :sarcastic

It speaks to any God or God like being.
Hardly. You need to educate yourself on various world religions more.

Logic and reason dictate that a God capable of creating would endeavor to achieve perfection. And what would be the point of creating anything with flaws, and imperfections?
Logic... you're doing it wrong.
The point is to create something unique, interesting and with potential. Make something perfect and then what?

This God of the monotheism is suppose to be both transcendent and omnipresent, it can't be both.
The god of some monotheism.... not all monotheism. And need I remind you that not all faiths share the same god concept.
And who says that God can't be both greater than the universe and able to interact with it?
It seems silly for you to call something that is supposed to unlimited in its power, unable to do things.

Like DarkSun said... this is about evolution... There is nothing in evolution that disproves god (because it, like all science, doesn't address god in any way).
Evolution and faith are compatible.... if you simply want to bash faith go do it someplace else.
If you want to talk about evolution, then do so.

wa:do
 

richardlowellt

Well-Known Member
Who's laughing? I'm not. :sarcastic




Could you please explain how worshipping God requires the abandonment of ones own morality?

Evangelical Christians hate homosexuals, if my personal morality tells me that being homosexual is not a sin against God and I want to remain in that faith, then I MUST abandon my own morality, I'm sure if you think about it you can come up with many examples illustrating what i have just explained.

If God exists as a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient being, then He is incapable of error. Therefore God's existence cannot be consistent with the existence of evil, by definition.

That is true, so logic tells us WITH the existence of evil, there can be no God.

Point three is false. Since when does a perfect being have to create a perfect universe? I see no obligation here.

The alternative is to realize this mystical being in incompetent at best, and simple doesn't care that he created huge flaws in not only the cosmos but his most prized creation, the human body.

define: transcendent - Google Search

Out of all of those definitions, I see no reference to something transcendant having to exist outside of space and time.

If I remember, the very first definition does.

Logic? Does that imply that anyone who may disagree is illogical?

*Sigh.* If I maintain that superman is real, and I tell you logic dictates he is only imagined, and you tell me that you believe he is real, then I must assume you are being illogical.

I'll keep the following rant short, because this thread is about evolution, and not whether or not God exists. Believe it or not, evolution and theology are not mutually exclusive, so bringing up God as a reason to dislike evolution is absurd.

And it's funny really. What you were using wasn't logic, it was a bunch of flawed arguments. The fact of the matter is that God's existence cannot be proven or disproven by science. Whether or not you believe in God comes down to faith alone -- and yes, to disbelieve in God also requires an element of guesswork (or faith, whichever) because there is zero empirical evidence to suggest that He doesn't exist.

I believe that science can disprove the existence of this imaginary being, and I believe that one day, as science advances and gives us more and more explanation of the unknown, that it will disprove this beings existence in the absolute.



If you're annoyed by what I just said, then you've just proven yourself to be just like the Creationists you're against, in that you disbelieve in something so passionately you assume everyone with an opposing view is intellectually inferior. If you don't believe in a creator, so be it. But stop posting one-sided, flawed arguments and try to comprehend the alternative viewpoint.

[ / Off-topic rant ]

I'm not annoyed, but I do believe SOME religious, let me clarify whom I am speaking of, Muslims, Christians, and Jews, suspend all common logic when it comes to their Gods, surely you must be aware of this, when someone believes that evolution never happened despite the mountain of scientific evidence, then you, I believe they are intellectually inferior.
 

Breathe

Hostis humani generis
I'm not annoyed, but I do believe SOME religious, let me clarify whom I am speaking of, Muslims, Christians, and Jews, suspend all common logic when it comes to their Gods, surely you must be aware of this, when someone believes that evolution never happened despite the mountain of scientific evidence, then you, I believe they are intellectually inferior.

Just thought I'd point out that just because someone doesn't accept evolution doesn't mean they are intellectually inferior (mmm, bigotry flavour). The vast majority of creationists of the "Big Three" of the Abrahamic religion do not understand evolution very well.

There are a smaller number still who view it with distrust because, forgive me - but because of people like you, who bash their faith and then blab on about evolution disproving God - connecting the two (atheism and evolution) and making it that you must be an atheist to accept evolution; this isn't true. I'm a theist and I accept evolution and all that good stuffs - and the majority of theists, even of Abrahamic religions do. :)

All that's going to happen is that it will make people go futher into literalism and view science with more suspiscion - simply put, "just calm down or you won't do anyone any favours". :)

Perhaps you should use the term 'poorly read on the subject'. :p
 

Tiapan

Grumpy Old Man
An excellent visual experience is watching the development of an embryo from fertilized egg to birth. The embryo physically progresses through many morphological stages that have the appearance of many of our biological ancestors ie the previous stages of evolution. Apart from this superficial similarity, you can watch as the tubules develop into vessels and on into organs such as the heart (mentioned earlier). You can see the human rudimentary tail that disappears by the time of birth. Quite amazing actually. An excellent example of the beauty of the evolutionary process. No need for a God on this one.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
odion said:
Just thought I'd point out that just because someone doesn't accept evolution doesn't mean they are intellectually inferior (mmm, bigotry flavour). The vast majority of creationists of the "Big Three" of the Abrahamic religion do not understand evolution very well.

You're right. It doesn't mean that they are intellectually inferior. What it does indicate, is that they are absolutely ignorant of ToE and the process of evolution.
 
Top