God is disproven by science? Really?

[F1fan]

I feel the opposite.

Feelings are unreliable.

Science leads to God.

Not within science itself, so I suggest your feelings are misguiding your thinking.

As we learn more about how intricate and complex things are it becomes too much for pure coincidence.

Saying "coincidence" suggests there is some other assumed scenario, and that might be a problem for those fixated on a specific scenario, like one that theists might assume is true and valid. When facts challenge these beliefs there can be a problem for the theist accepting fact over faith.

 

[John53]

WTF!!!

Mr ID has become Mr Potty Mouth <pm>.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Abiogenesis is a plausible and natural phenomenon that has some level of success in experimentation with the Urey-Miller test. Otherwise your question has no relevance to what science has shown to be true about evolution.

Scientists are miles beyond the Miller Urey experiment, but as everyone knows, life is a complex problem. Sometimes getting the answer to part of it creates new questions that need to be answered. That is the nature of science. It is how we advance. If one stopped at the first question that had not been solved we might still have never have learned how to make fire.

One example of an answer creating another question was the very first successful abiogenesis experiment. Some molecules can be right handed or left handed. That refers to the geometry of a specific chemical. In the body our nucleic acids are all left handed. And I believe that our sugars are all right handed. Right handed nucleic acids will not work with left handed ones. And the nucleic acids made in the Miller Urey experiment were racemic, or roughly fifty fifty left and right handed. How did we get to left handed only molecules? I am not going to go into that right now, but scientists have found more than one possible solution. As a result we may not know exactly the path that was followed, but we do know that chirality or handedness is no longer a problem.

What they have moved on to was how did first proteins form and it appears that we may have that answer as shown in this article:

Origin of life theory involving RNA–protein hybrid gets new support

And please note, that may not even be "the answer". Like chirality there may be more than one possible solution. Scientists appear to be very close to solving all of the significant problems of abiogenesis. They have solved quite a few of them, but there are still some left to solve. And as in any complex problem as they solved it their solutions sometimes raised new questions that they could not have even answered earlier, but with the new information that led to those questions appropriate experiments could be formed an ran to answer them.

Meanwhile creationists do not even attempt to find any evidence for their God beliefs. One has to wonder why.

 

[ElishaElijah]

This is an example of how Christian extremism negatively affects those influenced by religion.


Abiogenesis is a plausible and natural phenomenon that has some level of success in experimentation with the Urey-Miller test. Otherwise your question has no relevance to what science has shown to be true about evolution.


Science reports it's findings as it progresses over time. The bias by Christian extremists is irrelevant. The disinformation by creationists is irrelevant.

Science reports of what question? Look how the universe is expanding, watch what happens when these atoms collide, they go outward, see that’s how we got here. See how we rely on facts and evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science reports of what question? Look how the universe is expanding, watch what happens when these atoms collide, they go outward, see that’s how we got here. See how we rely on facts and evidence?

What!?

I don't think you understand what the evidence is for the current expansion of the universe at all. That is not how we know that the universe is expanding.

 

[Watchmen]

is biological cell intelligently designed or not?

No.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Abiogenesis is a plausible and natural phenomenon that has some level of success in experimentation with the Urey-Miller test. Otherwise your question has no relevance to what science has shown to be true about evolution.

You need to revisit Ulrey-Miller test it was really a bust and why not anything since, so the scientists or intelligent designers of the experiment could only produce some amino acids and that’s it, nothing happened after that and a dead experiment. Not even a tadpole

 

[Subduction Zone]

You need to revisit Ulrey-Miller test it was really a bust and why not anything since, so the scientists or intelligent designers of the experiment could only produce some amino acids and that’s it, nothing happened after that and a dead experiment. Not even a tadpole

What makes you think that is the case? It proved exactly what it set out to prove. You are probably confused again because you have been listening to lying sources.

And it is not 100% your fault. Quite a few people misunderstand what the test proved. At that time science deniers, also known as creationists, claimed that abiogenesis was impossible because nucleic acids could not form on their own. This was actually a rather stupid argument since they based that only on the fact that no one at that time knew how nucleic acids could form on their own. And that was the basis of the test. It showed one possible way, and once again it turned out that there were others so this was not the only source of nucleic acids, that nucleic acids could form naturally. so Miller and Urey used a sealed container with a mixture of gases that they thought were in the early Earth atmosphere. They used an electric arc to simulate lightning. And water to simulate the seas that the material may have accumulated in. They ran it and guess what? They found quite a few different nucleic acids. Later science put doubts on that particular mixture of gases. So it was tried again, with various different possible early Earth atmospheres. They always got nucleic acids.

That was what the experiment set out to prove and it did it multiple times. But where some get it wrong is that they assumed that meant "abiogenesis was proved". No scientist that worked on abiogenesis thought that. They knew that only the first problem of abiogenesis had been solved.

So tell us, how was the experiment a "bust". Or are you just blowing smoke again?

 

[John53]

You need to revisit Ulrey-Miller test it was really a bust and why not anything since, so the scientists or intelligent designers of the experiment could only produce some amino acids and that’s it, nothing happened after that and a dead experiment. Not even a tadpole

A tadpole is a very complex thing. What makes you think it's the first step after amino acids?

 

[ElishaElijah]

Is this your “best guess”?
What Is the Big Bang Theory?
You all are in some thick soup.

 

[ElishaElijah]

A tadpole is a very complex thing. What makes you think it's the first step after amino acids?

Well what happened to those amino acids since 1952? They dead?

 

[ElishaElijah]

A tadpole is a very complex thing. What makes you think it's the first step after amino acids?

Tadpole shouldn’t even be considered much should it? Should be easy

 

[John53]

Tadpole shouldn’t even be considered much should it? Should be easy

And that shows your lack of knowledge on the subject. No further discussion required. Thanks for your time.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I summarized intelligence in one universal definition and explanation, and apply that, for example, in Biology. As a result, I falsified Evolution and replaced Evolution.

You haven't falsified evolution. You haven't come up with anything meaningful regarding intelligence. All you have are claims going nowhere.

 

[ElishaElijah]

You haven't falsified evolution. You haven't come up with anything meaningful regarding intelligence. All you have are claims going nowhere.

I disagree

 

[John53]

You haven't falsified evolution. You haven't come up with anything meaningful regarding intelligence. All you have are claims going nowhere.

I agree

 

[Subduction Zone]

I disagree

That is because you, like the OP, are scientifically illiterate. But you need not be. If you got serious you could do quite a bit of catching up rather quickly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Tadpole shouldn’t even be considered much should it? Should be easy

No, a tadpole is as complex as you are. This again confirms about a fifth grade level of science education at best. Tadpoles, like you and I have over a three billion year history of evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Let us assume that I believe in FLAT EARTH. So, I can invent predictions and explanations and falsifications criteria of Flat earth, no matter wrong they are, if many people will call them science since they had no alternatives, then, they will believe in a lie. That is simply Evolution.

Look, Darwin had equated Artificial Selection to Natural Selection... thus, how could you falsify that?

It amazes me that you constantly reveal how little you know about the work of Darwin or the theory of evolution. The theory Darwin formulated isn't even the current state of the theory. You are attacking a dead guy that, great as his contribution was, is no longer relevant. It is a straw man attack.

Artificial selection mimics natural selection. How hard is it to understand? Not really hard at all, since high schoolers know it.

You should stop wasting your time with this nonsense and go back to school and study science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I disagree

You are wrong. There has been no falsification of the theory of evolution posted on this forum ever.

Denial is not falsification.