Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Subduction Zone]

So abiogenesis does not offer any idea as to WHAT might have been the first form of life, is that what you are saying? I remember you didn't like a dictionary definition of abiogenesis, so how about the following, do you want to refute it also by saying oh, they don't know what they're talking about maybe?

Incorrect. We have an idea, but it is a rather limited one. I have gone over that with you because so many creationists get what the first life would have been like terribly wrong since the compare what first life would have been like to existing life.

wikipedia under abiogenesis
" biology, abiogenesis (from Greek ἀ- a- 'not' + βῐ́ος bios 'life' + γένεσις genesis 'origin') or the origin of life is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities on Earth was not a single event, but a process of increasing complexity involving the formation of a habitable planet, the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes. Many proposals have been made for different stages of the process, but the transition from non-life to life has never been observed experimentally."

Remember it says natural process. The Bible does not say "natural process." But yes, that God caused life to be on the earth.

Which is why I used a qualifier. Remember when you gave your own definition for abiogenesis? I said that by the definition that you gave that you believed in abiogenesis Now you are using a different definition so of course I will give a different answer when you do that.

My comment -- uh - yeah...and like to walk out of class if I could because there ain't gonna be any answers except um, we don't know now -- maybe later. Maybe you think wikipedia is wrong when they say the transition from non-life to life has -- never been observed experimentally. About the Urey-Miller experiment, it also says: "The classic 1952 Miller–Urey experiment demonstrated that most amino acids, the chemical constituents of proteins, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early Earth. External sources of energy may have triggered these reactions, including lightning, radiation, atmospheric entries of micro-meteorites and implosion of bubbles in sea and ocean waves. Other approaches ("metabolism-first" hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems on the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication."
But they don't KNOW that.
So again, even the Urey-Miller experiments are contrived and not demonstrating in reality how life got started on the earth. Maybe you have more information.

And another false claim. I have offered to help you to learn countless times. You never took me up on that. When you take a class you do not get to tell the teacher how to teach or what he can teach. And the importance of Miller-Urey experiment has been explained to you countless times too. Why did you even bring it up? Were you not listening? Have you not noticed lately how almost everyone who understands evolution has been chewing you out for how you do not listen and will not learn?

People cannot help you the way that you want them too because your way is incorrect.

 

[John53]

gotta go but again, it sure has been interesting speaking (?) to you guys. bye for now...

Hello, gotta run, don't forget insofar as I know no one on Noahs Ark built a hospital or university. Goodbye, hooroo, farewell, adios, cheerio, ciao, godspeed, adieu. May your chooks lay 1,000 eggs a day.

Before I go I will add that an ark is still an ark and has never turned into an aircraft carrier. That's all I have to say about that.

Bye bye. Have a great summer winter spring autumn.

I'm departing now. Bon voyage.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Also considering gender and biological sex are different things I'm not sure I see any issues here.

That’s true most gender issues are really mental illness and demonic where a male or female are determined biologically.

 

[The Hammer]

That’s true most gender issues are really mental illness and demonic where a male or female are determined biologically.

I disagree, but you're entitled to your opinion.

I didn't realize social constructs were a mental illness (hint they arent).

 

[ElishaElijah]

I disagree, but you're entitled to your opinion.

I didn't realize social constructs were a mental illness (hint they arent).

Uh, yes they are, we cast out demons in the Name of Jesus Christ that are behind this torment and confusion, they get a thrill out of making a mockery of people who are created in Gods image. They like nothing more than to mutilate and destroy people and families.
You have evil people taking advantage of little kids making suggestions to them that they were born the wrong sex.

 

[The Hammer]

Uh, yes they are, we cast out demons in the Name of Jesus Christ that are behind this torment and confusion, they get a thrill out of making a mockery of people who are created in Gods image. They like nothing more than to mutilate and destroy people and families.
You have evil people taking advantage of little kids making suggestions to them that they were born the wrong sex.

I'm glad you believe that. And are free to keep your opinions. I'm not a Christian, so that doesn't really sway my opinion any. And I'm not going to attempt to change yours.

 

[The Hammer]

Uh, yes they are,

I'm not going down the rabbit hole to.explain to you why social constructs are not only real, but illusory at the same time. Good night to you.

 

[shunyadragon]

So it’s biased and incomplete and you’re good with your “echo chamber”. The paper that I posted referenced some of your sources and brought up the problems with the view you are in agreement with. Here is just one problem:

A literature search of published articles in peer-reviewed journals on the evolution of chambered hearts reveals that no one has even attempted to outline how the many major changes could occur while allowing the animal to survive during the transition from one heart design into another heart type.

One study admitted that while “currently there are no reasons to doubt that chambered hearts originated from peristaltic pumps, the actual sequence of events is not clear” (Xavier-Neto and Carvalho 2012, 39). They then outlined three very different possibilities, namely the sequential hypothesis, the recruitment hypothesis, and the patterning hypothesis, all of which are very hypothetical and contradictory. Another heart study, this one of the zebra fish heart development, noted its development will be explained by some “yet-to-be revealed mechanisms and evolutionary origins” (Kemmler et al. 2021, 8). Many other similar studies exist involving the heart, all of which were consulted and revealed a similar lack of viable theories on heart origins and evolution (Salazar-Ciudad 2006).

You and your your source are arguing from ignorance based on a biased religious agenda Intelligent Design for which there is no objective evidence to confirm it. Your selective use of sources is dishonest.

The sciences of evolution do not claim to have all the answer, but like the eye the basic genetic and physical evolution of the heart is known,

 

[ElishaElijah]

You and your your source are arguing from ignorance based on a biased religious agenda Intelligent Design for which there is no objective evidence to confirm it. Your selective use of sources is dishonest.

The sciences of evolution do not claim to have all the answer, but like the eye the basic genetic and physical evolution of the heart is known,

There is no argument, like begets like, intelligence and design mean there is a designer. So simple a child can understand.
You’re arguing is similar to looking at a computer program and saying the code and language came about by natural processes.
Well, God wrote the code for creation, His fingerprint is all over it.
Evolution as far as origin of life fell flat and now science has to back track to save face and it’s not working, frauds.

 

[shunyadragon]

There is no argument, like begets like, intelligence and design mean there is a designer. So simple a child can understand.
You’re arguing is similar to looking at a computer program and saying the code and language came about by natural processes.
Well, God wrote the code for creation, His fingerprint is all over it.
Evolution as far as origin of life fell flat and now science has to back track to save face and it’s not working, frauds.

You and your your sources are arguing from ignorance based on a biased religious agenda Intelligent Design for which there is no objective evidence to confirm it. Your selective use of sources is dishonest.

No, a child cannot understand the science involved, and your intentional ignorance of science as usual.

There is nothing more egregious, bigoted and dishonest than accusing Hitler for thousands f years of persecution and violent ethnic cleansing of Jews and Roma based on the sciences of evolution. The Christians of Europe are responsible and Hitler could not do anything without the enthusiastic support of Christians.

How could Hitler do what he did without the support of Christians?

 

[ElishaElijah]

You and your your sources are arguing from ignorance based on a biased religious agenda Intelligent Design for which there is no objective evidence to confirm it. Your selective use of sources is dishonest.

There is no objective evidence to support your view on just the heart, I posted one such problem in a peer review paper so answer that one objection and will give you some more.

This cannot happen in your evolutionary view, all you have is made up, what ifs:

To evolve a one-chambered-heart type into another requires major changes in everything from the veins and arteries surrounding the heart to the interior heart design. It also requires a major redesign of the artery and venous circuit that interacts with the lungs, as well as other structural changes in the heart walls and valves. Furthermore, “chambered hearts in vertebrates and mollusks cannot be traced back to a common origin in a more primitive clade of animals (i.e., a homology due to the presence of a chambered heart in a common ancestor [is lacking]). Thus, there are arguments in favor of a completely independent evolution for vertebrate and mollusk hearts (evolutionary convergence), or in support of a parallel origin in a distant ancestor” (Xavier-Neto and Carvalho 2021, 39). Another study using comparisons of hearts used in aquatic and terrestrial life-styles determined the changes required, but admitted “little is known about the exact shifts linked with this rearrangement” (Olejnickova, et al. 2021).

Changes required to evolve the four-chambered heart from the three-chambered design include the development of a forked abdominal aorta into a single aorta and a major alteration in the heart septum in order to create a separate ventricle chamber. For an animal to survive, these changes must be made in such a way that the heart can effectively function while the heart is evolving until the many major alterations are completed.

 

[shunyadragon]

There is no objective evidence to support your view on just the heart, I posted one such problem in a peer review paper so answer that one objection and will give you some more.

This cannot happen in your evolutionary view, all you have is made up, what ifs:

To evolve a one-chambered-heart type into another requires major changes in everything from the veins and arteries surrounding the heart to the interior heart design. It also requires a major redesign of the artery and venous circuit that interacts with the lungs, as well as other structural changes in the heart walls and valves. Furthermore, “chambered hearts in vertebrates and mollusks cannot be traced back to a common origin in a more primitive clade of animals (i.e., a homology due to the presence of a chambered heart in a common ancestor [is lacking]). Thus, there are arguments in favor of a completely independent evolution for vertebrate and mollusk hearts (evolutionary convergence), or in support of a parallel origin in a distant ancestor” (Xavier-Neto and Carvalho 2021, 39). Another study using comparisons of hearts used in aquatic and terrestrial life-styles determined the changes required, but admitted “little is known about the exact shifts linked with this rearrangement” (Olejnickova, et al. 2021).

Changes required to evolve the four-chambered heart from the three-chambered design include the development of a forked abdominal aorta into a single aorta and a major alteration in the heart septum in order to create a separate ventricle chamber. For an animal to survive, these changes must be made in such a way that the heart can effectively function while the heart is evolving until the many major alterations are completed.

You and your your sources are arguing from ignorance based on a biased religious agenda Intelligent Design for which there is no objective evidence to confirm it. Your selective use of sources is dishonest.

No, a child cannot understand the science involved, and your intentional ignorance of science as usual.

There is nothing more egregious, bigoted and dishonest than accusing Hitler for thousands f years of persecution and violent ethnic cleansing of Jews and Roma based on the sciences of evolution. The Christians of Europe are responsible and Hitler could not do anything without the enthusiastic support of Christians.

How could Hitler do what he did without the support of Christians?

 

[ElishaElijah]

You and your your sources are arguing from ignorance based on a biased religious agenda Intelligent Design for which there is no objective evidence to confirm it. Your selective use of sources is dishonest.

No, a child cannot understand the science involved, and your intentional ignorance of science as usual.

There is nothing more egregious, bigoted and dishonest than accusing Hitler for thousands f years of persecution and violent ethnic cleansing of Jews and Roma based on the sciences of evolution. The Christians of Europe are responsible and Hitler could not do anything without the enthusiastic support of Christians.

How could Hitler do what he did without the support of Christians?

I gave you the support for how people can be influenced by evolutionary views :
The paper and sources for this have been posted in the thread and the people involved.
You don’t even know who is a Christian and who isn’t. You use is as a generic term for people without understanding what that means. Just because people go to a church building doesn’t mean they are Christian. Many people were deceived to allow that. A Christian is someone who is born again and would not support genocide but it is funny that you probably think the pro life people are wrong for standing up to the abortionists.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Is this right?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They were

This is an accurate paper with sources which you probably didn’t read. You’re very dishonest.
I don’t have a dishonest view of evolution because it can’t be supported by science as far as how we have the variety of species. The biblical account for Creation is what we see and the environment we live in. I posted 2 other papers supporting my view, there are many more

You didn't post papers. You posted religious propaganda.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So it’s biased and incomplete and you’re good with your “echo chamber”.

Says the guy who can only post articles from his flavour of religious propaganda, which requires all its members to sign a "statement of faith" where they commit, a priori, to the answers before even starting to ask the questions.

So ironic.

A literature search of published articles in peer-reviewed journals on the evolution of chambered hearts reveals that no one has even attempted to outline how the many major changes could occur while allowing the animal to survive during the transition from one heart design into another heart type.

Please learn how evolution works. In gradualism, there is no such thing as "half a heart".
There are no crockoducks in evolution. You've been lied to. This is the type of nonsense you get when you get all your intel from lying propaganda sources.

One study admitted that while “currently there are no reasons to doubt that chambered hearts originated from peristaltic pumps, the actual sequence of events is not clear” (Xavier-Neto and Carvalho 2012, 39).

"admitted".
Your choice of words reveals your hidden agenda and your use of fallacious attempts at arguments from ignorance.
How about "acknowledged" instead?

See, this is what honest people do.... acknowledge uncertainty or ignorance when and where it is the case.

They then outlined three very different possibilities, namely the sequential hypothesis, the recruitment hypothesis, and the patterning hypothesis, all of which are very hypothetical and contradictory. Another heart study, this one of the zebra fish heart development, noted its development will be explained by some “yet-to-be revealed mechanisms and evolutionary origins” (Kemmler et al. 2021, 8). Many other similar studies exist involving the heart, all of which were consulted and revealed a similar lack of viable theories on heart origins and evolution (Salazar-Ciudad 2006).

I don't know anything of worth about this subject.
But once again, taking all this at face value, all you are doing is appealing to ignorance to then push your own religious a priori narrative.

It's just fallacy after fallacy.
You don't make assumed conclusions any less fallacious by trying to support them with fallacious appeals to ignorance, you know............

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

ah yes, the apologists

Apologetics is something creationists must get into.
Science has no need for such.

will say that the theory of evolution has no bearing on how it all started (abiogenesis).

And it doesn't. And it has been explained to you billions of times how it doesn't.

But they think they know what the first form of life was (is). How it happened is apparently not connected with evolution, so it is said.

It isn't indeed.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

so is or is not a beginning of life essential to the start of evolution?

At best, a beginning of competition is essential for evolution to start.

For evolution to start, it requires:
- life to exist
- that life must reproduce with variation
- that life must be in competition over limited resources

When you have those 3, evolution happens.
It matters not how or why any of these 3 originate. It only matters that they are present.

You know this, because I personally have brought this to your attention a bazillion times already.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is this right?

LOL!! Creationists claiming that someone else lacks integrity. At the very best you have a pot calling the kettle black situation. By the way, a heavily edited video, especially by creationists, screams of quote mining. I guess that means it is okay to refute the existence of God with the Bible. After all it does say "There is no God".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution?

Not in the way you would like to say it has, anyway.