Justify creationism over evolutionism

[Sonic247]

The acorns start from trees. And if nothing just sprouted into existence then there has always been life on earth or it was created supernaturally.

 

[CarlinKnew]

The acorns start from trees. And if nothing just sprouted into existence then there has always been life on earth or it was created supernaturally.

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Tristesse]

The acorns start from trees. And if nothing just sprouted into existence then there has always been life on earth or it was created supernaturally.

No, acorns are what trees start out as, sure, some trees have acorns growing on them, but the trees themselves start out as an acorn. Why do you assume there are only two options to life? First of all, when you say life has always been here, your not talking about evolution anymore, you want to understand abiogenesis. Which is a completely different process than evolution. Evolution deals with life after it has come into being, abiogenisis addresses the issue of origins of life.

 

[Sonic247]

They won't get really far with abiogenesis. It's just theories. I admit it would be cool if they created life in a lab, but it ain't gonna happen.

 

[CarlinKnew]

They won't get really far with abiogenesis. It's just theories. I admit it would be cool if they created life in a lab, but it ain't gonna happen.

They're making steady progress. Abiogensis is the best explanation we have for the origin of life, much more realistic than primitive creation myths.

 

[Father Heathen]

Why is it that no matter how many times we discuss evolution here, we keep seeing the same ol' tired and retarded fallacies?

 

[Sonic247]

No, acorns are what trees start out as, sure, some trees have acorns growing on them, but the trees themselves start out as an acorn. Why do you assume there are only two options to life? First of all, when you say life has always been here, your not talking about evolution anymore, you want to understand abiogenesis. Which is a completely different process than evolution. Evolution deals with life after it has come into being, abiogenisis addresses the issue of origins of life.

The thing is there can't be an acorn without a tree, so there can't be a tree without another tree. So the process your talking about is something that moves in a straight line, or perhaps one that curves up and down but goes forward along a straight line. But to tell you the truth I have my doubts as to whether seeds are really less complex, they are really just less developed. All the information for the oak tree is in the acorn already.

 

[Tristesse]

They won't get really far with abiogenesis. It's just theories. I admit it would be cool if they created life in a lab, but it ain't gonna happen.

I can't let you throw the term theory around willy nilly. So, I will explain.

When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess.The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!

Abiogenisis falls under this theory as well. So, they've gone pretty far in abiogenesis actually. They've gone so far as to actually create the basic building blocks for life, just because we don't understand everything right now, doesn't mean that we won't in the future. And to give up and say god did it, doesn't further the progress of understanding. And throughout history if we had the mentality of "god did it" we wouldn't have acheived the understanding we have now.

 

[Sonic247]

They're making steady progress. Abiogensis is the best explanation we have for the origin of life, much more realistic than primitive creation myths.

haha yeah right, what progress? Did they even make anything that's self replicating?

 

[Tristesse]

haha yeah right, what progress? Did they even make anything that's self replicating?

Yes, they have actually. They have created the building blocks for life. abiogenisis is a newer theory though, so, we haven't reached the same level of understanding as evolution. But, Their getting there.

 

[darkendless]

Why is it that no matter how many times we discuss evolution here, we keep seeing the same ol' tired and retarded fallacies?

Creationists were indoctrinated to ignore reason when it conflicts with their own particular flavour of God.

I also love the quotes we get here, Catholic sites do not count as evidence towards evolution. Why, because they're catholic. They're picking holes (and very badly) in evolution to make their little black book look a little better. Its like a bully, beating up another kid to feel tough. Pathetic really.

 

[Sonic247]

I can't let you throw the term theory around willy nilly. So, I will explain.

When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess.The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!

Abiogenisis falls under this theory as well. So, they've gone pretty far in abiogenesis actually. They've gone so far as to actually create the basic building blocks for life, just because we don't understand everything right now, doesn't mean that we won't in the future. And to give up and say god did it, doesn't further the progress of understanding. And throughout history if we had the mentality of "god did it" we wouldn't have acheived the understanding we have now.

Theroies would be higher than laws? uhh I'm not sure about that. Anyway what I mean is there isn't much evidence that abiogenesis would be possible, even in a controlled environment.

 

[CarlinKnew]

haha yeah right, what progress? Did they even make anything that's self replicating?

Yes, scientists have synthesized self-replicating RNA.

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/090111-creating-life.html

 

[Sonic247]

Creationists were indoctrinated to ignore reason when it conflicts with their own particular flavour of God.

I also love the quotes we get here, Catholic sites do not count as evidence towards evolution. Why, because they're catholic. They're picking holes (and very badly) in evolution to make their little black book look a little better. Its like a bully, beating up another kid to feel tough. Pathetic really.

Athiest were indoctrinate to ignore God when it gets in the way of their sin.

 

[Sonic247]

Yes, scientists have synthesized self-replicating RNA.

Well that would be a start. But let's see some evidence they have self replicating RNA and how they did it. Oh sorry didn't see the link, I'm reading it now.

 

[Father Heathen]

Its like a bully, beating up another kid to feel tough.

A "kid" they made themselves out of straw, that is.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Well that would be a start. But let's see some evidence they have self replicating RNA and how they did it.

Well I just provided one article. It's well-documented that scientists have created self-replicating RNA. Just do some quick googling.

 

[Tristesse]

Theroies would be higher than laws? uhh I'm not sure about that. Anyway what I mean is there isn't much evidence that abiogenesis would be possible, even in a controlled environment.

You missed my point of that, and yes theories would be higher than laws, but it's not a hierarchy, They are two completely different things. So, you can't really compare them. I was just showing you that if it was a hierarchy thats what it would be. And on what ground do you say there isn't much evidence that abiogenisis would be possible? They've actually done studies, and have created the building blocks for life, in a controlled environment.

 

[Tristesse]

Athiest were indoctrinate to ignore God when it gets in the way of their sin.

Prove it, thats a claim made by you. Prove your claim that atheists were indoctrinated to ignore "god." Without the use of any book. Otherwise it's just an empty claim made by you, in an attempt to further justify your belief.

 

[Sonic247]

So how did they "synthesize RNA" it doesn't really give alot of details. Is there any links to what kind of process they went through, because that makes a big difference.