On Evolution & Creation

[Audie]

oh oh oh I love cats.

Dragon tiger phoenix

 

[Audie]

James Tour, a prominent chemist, publicly expresses skepticism regarding the idea that species directly evolve into entirely new species, often arguing that the complexity of life and the mechanisms of evolution are not fully understood, particularly when it comes to the origin of life, and that the scientific evidence does not definitively support the idea of large-scale evolutionary leaps between distinct species.

There is over 1,000 Scientists that signed a paper..

Funny how you creos always identify your
scientists as “brilliant” or at least prominent.

Even though none have even one fact to disprove
evolution.


Tthose few scientist's who actually do
reject evolution are simply dishonest. Like
tobacco scientists.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

James Tour, a prominent chemist, publicly expresses skepticism regarding the idea that species directly evolve into entirely new species,

So. He's a chemist, not a biologist and being skeptical tells us about him and nothing about the science. Scientists are a skeptical group requiring evidence and reason to convince them. Being an expert in one science does not make an expert in all science. Odd that a prominent biologist of comparable expertise hasn't been found to promote Tour's message.

often arguing that the complexity of life and the mechanisms of evolution are not fully understood,

I don't know that anyone is arguing that any science is fully understood. They wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But we do have a massive body of knowledge and evidence on the subject and it all points to species evolving. Funny that the rejection of science is always based on some random opinion or ideology and never against the evidence.

If things were fully understood, we would not need science.

particularly when it comes to the origin of life,

That is a different subject from evolution. In my experience, and I think that of many others that are more informed, creation supporters often wrongly conflate origins and evolution. Oddly, Tour, as a chemist, could hold a better position in a rational discussion of origins.

and that the scientific evidence does not definitively support the idea of large-scale evolutionary leaps between distinct species.

But the evidence does support speciation and evolution. That is the problem that has gotten ideologists so in a funk.

There is over 1,000 Scientists that signed a paper..

That's old news. The list was compiled in 2001. There are millions of scientists in the US alone. If it were only a million, that list would represent only 0.1% of them. Not whelming, let alone overwhelming. And again, being skeptical of a theory is not evidence invalidating the theory. Scientists are supposed to be skeptical. It doesn't really say anything but that a group of scientists are skeptical and have doubts. And of that before scratching the surface of the chicanery employed to get people on that list.

It is an empty weapon employed to manipulate those ignorant of science and already inclined to reject the science primarily on ideological grounds and not on any evidence or awareness and understanding of any evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That’s humbug, but more to the point,
not one of them has one fact contrary to
ToE.
So those few scientist's who actually do
reject evolution are simply dishonest. Like
tobacco scientists.

Or tricked into signing the list. Interesting how those that claim the moral high ground must soil themselves to hang on to it.

 

[metis]

Oh, I believe in evolution just not your brand of evolution.
Your brand of evolution requires life to begin to exist from non-life.

That is one hypothesis within the ToE, thus it is not accepted as a gimmee by us.

 

[Audie]

Interesting how those that claim the moral high ground must soil themselves to hang on to it.

Without exception.

Lying for Jesus.

What a sleazy fraud.

 

[icant]

Science starts with theory..

Science starts with an assumption and works it's way from there.

My question if life started to exist on earth as you posit where did the carbon and nitrogen come from?

Enjoy,

​

 

[icant]

That is one hypothesis within the ToE, thus it is not accepted as a gimmee by us.

Then what else you got? Share with us some magnificent discovery!!!!

Enjoy,

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Science starts with an assumption and works it's way from there.

It starts with observations and questions leading to hypotheses to test and goes from there.

My question if life started to exist on earth as you posit where did the carbon and nitrogen come from?

Where does it come from now? Do you have reason to conclude it wasn't the same source before? Or is it just to argue from ignorance and draw the conclusions you came in with?

Enjoy,

​

I have "enjoyed" this sort of thing for far too long. I've seen too much more than my share of sand and holes and ostriches.

 

[Pogo]

Science starts with an assumption and works it's way from there.

My question if life started to exist on earth as you posit where did the carbon and nitrogen come from?

Enjoy,

​

An earlier generation of stars that had gone supernova in the past.
For starters,
AI Overview
Learn more…Opens in new tab

Nitrogen nucleosynthesis refers to the process by which nitrogen atoms are created in stars, primarily through a cyclic nuclear reaction called the CNO (Carbon-Nitrogen-Oxygen) cycle, where hydrogen is fused into helium using carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen as catalysts, with nitrogen being a key intermediate product in this process; essentially, most nitrogen in the universe is formed within stars as a byproduct of hydrogen burning through the CNO cycle.


Key points about nitrogen nucleosynthesis:

• CNO cycle:
  The primary mechanism for nitrogen creation is the CNO cycle, where carbon nuclei capture protons (hydrogen nuclei) to form nitrogen, which then further reacts to produce oxygen, eventually regenerating the carbon nucleus to continue the cycle.
  
  
  
• Stellar mass dependence:
  While all stars produce some nitrogen, more massive stars tend to produce significantly more nitrogen due to their hotter core temperatures which facilitate faster CNO cycle reactions.
  
  
  
• Secondary production:
  Some nitrogen can also be produced from pre-existing carbon and oxygen in a star through secondary nucleosynthesis during its later evolutionary stages.
  
  

Generative AI is experimental.

Which will bring us back to the Big bang, where that came from, we don't know, you are welcome to believe anything you want.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Then what else you got? Share with us some magnificent discovery!!!!

Enjoy,

And what really do you have? In a discussion of facts, where are yours?

 

[YoursTrue]

And what really do you have? In a discussion of facts, where are yours?

Do pleasure yourself with that.

How about you?

 

[metis]

Then what else you got? Share with us some magnificent discovery!!!!

Enjoy,

You have repeatedly shown you really don't care what the truth is or may be as you elevate hearsay theology over objective science. And to think that I believed the same as you do on this when in my mid-teens.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The "explanation" that those who believe what the Bible says about creation is yes, that God created the heavens and the earth and caused life to be on the earth.

God did it is no more of an explanation than saying that Norm did it. You have no god to demonstrate nor any mechanism for it to do anything if it did exist.

James Tour, a prominent chemist, publicly expresses skepticism regarding the idea that species directly evolve into entirely new species

So what? He's a creationist. Of course he makes an incredulity argument. He has to if he wants to defend his faith-based beliefs. It's not like we don't understand such people's agenda, methods, and ethics, which are antithetical to scientific biologists.

Your brand of evolution requires life to begin to exist from non-life.

It looks like you don't know what the theory of evolution is or says. Evolution allows for prior creationism.

Do you actually believe non-life can produce life? If so, show me the evidence.

What do you suppose are the ingredients living cells use to make more living cells? Lifeless atoms and molecules. Life is being assembled from nonliving ingredients.

You might not realize it, but as a creationist, you already believe that the first life didn't come from previous life. Some creationists would call their god alive, but don't believe that it derived from prior life. And for those who don't consider disembodied mind life, then the life it is believed to have created is life that didn't come from prior life.

Your education is your responsibility. You'll need to do something like what the people you are asking to teach you have done. You'll need to begin with courses in chemistry including organic chemistry and biochemistry. Then you'll need some biology. You'll need to understand what a cell is and what metabolism is. You'll need to learn about nucleic acids, proteins, carbohydrates and lipids and their constituents.

I recommend a university education in biology.

If that's not accessible to you because of time, distance, or economic constraints, you might try an online course in abiogenesis. I searched and the only thing I found was from creationist James Tour. I would avoid such sources, but you might benefit from his series. Remember, though, that he is looking for reasons why abiogenesis didn't occur, and good science doesn't have such an agenda. The ID people demonstrated that for us. Their agenda was not to discover the truth whatever than might be, but to prove that their god exits, and they went down the rabbit hole of faux irreducible complexity. But you might learn some science from Tour even if his thinking is tendentious and his agenda pseudoscientific. Here's first in a series of videos. I didn't watch it except to sample a few seconds. It's a bit technical, but at 14:45, he went full Hoyle of junkyard 747 fame on us comparing cells to cars (screen shot below), which confirmed my suspicion that he's peddling creationism and not science:

Jack Szostak is a prominent and reliable name in abiogenesis research. Here are a few videos form him, but this isn't really entry level material and looking at it might discourage you.

This video is more digestible for an entry level viewer, but also less technical, and this is a technical topic:

Alternatively, get yourself a lay discussion or textbook on the subject, but you probably will need a chemistry background of some sort to understand a textbook

You probably aren't really interested in making such an effort, which is fine - most creationists asking for evidence on these threads don't actually look at it - but you're not going to learn this material without it.

 

[icant]

My brand?
That's not a brand , that's science.
And that question is a misconception.
I can just reverse it to inorganic and organic.

You believe in the assumption that life began to exist on earth as you believe it did.
Is that science or wishful reasoning

Enjoy,

Those who want to re-make life are not worth of reading.
The chemistry happens under certain conditions , which is in deep water.
The pressure in deep water is at least 250x greater then at sea level.

Just how deep would the ocean have been 4 billion years ago?
Pangea did not break up until about 200 million years ago.

BTW what is that about a nest under your avatar?

 

[YoursTrue]

God did it is no more of an explanation than saying that Norm did it. You have no god to demonstrate nor any mechanism for it to do anything if it did exist.

So what? He's a creationist. Of course he makes an incredulity argument. He has to if he wants to defend his faith-based beliefs. It's not like we don't understand such people's agenda, methods, and ethics, which are antithetical to scientific biologists.

It looks like you don't know what the theory of evolution is or says. Evolution allows for prior creationism.

What do you suppose are the ingredients living cells use to make more living cells? Lifeless atoms and molecules. Life is being assembled from nonliving ingredients.

You might not realize it, but as a creationist, you already believe that the first life didn't come from previous life. Some creationists would call their god alive, but don't believe that it derived from prior life. And for those who don't consider disembodied mind life, then the life it is believed to have created is life that didn't come from prior life.

Your education is your responsibility. You'll need to do something like what the people you are asking to teach you have done. You'll need to begin with courses in chemistry including organic chemistry and biochemistry. Then you'll need some biology. You'll need to understand what a cell is and what metabolism is. You'll need to learn about nucleic acids, proteins, carbohydrates and lipids and their constituents.

I recommend a university education in biology.

If that's not accessible to you because of time, distance, or economic constraints, you might try an online course in abiogenesis. I searched and the only thing I found was from creationist James Tour. I would avoid such sources, but you might benefit from his series. Remember, though, that he is looking for reasons why abiogenesis didn't occur, and good science doesn't have such an agenda. The ID people demonstrated that for us. Their agenda was not to discover the truth whatever than might be, but to prove that their god exits, and they went down the rabbit hole of faux irreducible complexity. But you might learn some science from Tour even if his thinking is tendentious and his agenda pseudoscientific. Here's first in a series of videos. I didn't watch it except to sample a few seconds. It's a bit technical, but at 14:45, he went full Hoyle of junkyard 747 fame on us comparing cells to cars (screen shot below), which confirmed my suspicion that he's peddling creationism and not science:

View attachment 98761

Jack Szostak is a prominent and reliable name in abiogenesis research. Here are a few videos form him, but this isn't really entry level material and looking at it might discourage you.

This video is more digestible for an entry level viewer, but also less technical, and this is a technical topic:

Alternatively, get yourself a lay discussion or textbook on the subject, but you probably will need a chemistry background of some sort to understand a textbook

View attachment 98755

You probably aren't really interested in making such an effort, which is fine - most creationists asking for evidence on these threads don't actually look at it - but you're not going to learn this material without it.

My time is limited. Biologists and others in that field of evolution have limited time also. I place my trust in God, not those touting the theory of evolution as it currently stands. Please try to understand if you will. Thank you. If you believe everything evolutionists say about how life started and continued, best to you. But it no longer makes sense to me. Bye again.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

God did it is no more of an explanation than saying that Norm did it. You have no god to demonstrate nor any mechanism for it to do anything if it did exist.

So what? He's a creationist. Of course he makes an incredulity argument. He has to if he wants to defend his faith-based beliefs. It's not like we don't understand such people's agenda, methods, and ethics, which are antithetical to scientific biologists.

It looks like you don't know what the theory of evolution is or says. Evolution allows for prior creationism.

What do you suppose are the ingredients living cells use to make more living cells? Lifeless atoms and molecules. Life is being assembled from nonliving ingredients.

You might not realize it, but as a creationist, you already believe that the first life didn't come from previous life. Some creationists would call their god alive, but don't believe that it derived from prior life. And for those who don't consider disembodied mind life, then the life it is believed to have created is life that didn't come from prior life.

Your education is your responsibility. You'll need to do something like what the people you are asking to teach you have done. You'll need to begin with courses in chemistry including organic chemistry and biochemistry. Then you'll need some biology. You'll need to understand what a cell is and what metabolism is. You'll need to learn about nucleic acids, proteins, carbohydrates and lipids and their constituents.

I recommend a university education in biology.

If that's not accessible to you because of time, distance, or economic constraints, you might try an online course in abiogenesis. I searched and the only thing I found was from creationist James Tour. I would avoid such sources, but you might benefit from his series. Remember, though, that he is looking for reasons why abiogenesis didn't occur, and good science doesn't have such an agenda. The ID people demonstrated that for us. Their agenda was not to discover the truth whatever than might be, but to prove that their god exits, and they went down the rabbit hole of faux irreducible complexity. But you might learn some science from Tour even if his thinking is tendentious and his agenda pseudoscientific. Here's first in a series of videos. I didn't watch it except to sample a few seconds. It's a bit technical, but at 14:45, he went full Hoyle of junkyard 747 fame on us comparing cells to cars (screen shot below), which confirmed my suspicion that he's peddling creationism and not science:

View attachment 98761

Jack Szostak is a prominent and reliable name in abiogenesis research. Here are a few videos form him, but this isn't really entry level material and looking at it might discourage you.

This video is more digestible for an entry level viewer, but also less technical, and this is a technical topic:

Alternatively, get yourself a lay discussion or textbook on the subject, but you probably will need a chemistry background of some sort to understand a textbook

View attachment 98755

You probably aren't really interested in making such an effort, which is fine - most creationists asking for evidence on these threads don't actually look at it - but you're not going to learn this material without it.

The latter is why I'm becoming less and less interested in joining these discussions and debates. Answering the same questions over and over only to have my responses ignored and seeing the same questions raised again as if never answered. Where is the morality in taking on such tactics? Where are the Christian ethics being employed by those claiming Christianity, but only seeming to provide a lip service to it, when it is really their "version" that is being served by tactics that are supposed to be disowned by Christianity?

 

[icant]

What do you suppose are the ingredients living cells use to make more living cells? Lifeless atoms and molecules. Life is being assembled from nonliving ingredients.

Yes the first life form on earth was formed from the dust of the ground.
But it was lacking one thing. The breath of life which had to be supplied from a living life form.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes the first life form on earth was formed from the dust of the ground.
But it was lacking one thing. The breath of life which had to be supplied from a living life form.

I take it your answer is to wave away all the evidence as if it doesn't exist and go with your personal interpretation of the Bible as the one true answer. Thanks for letting me know there is no point in further attempts at discussion with you. When no amount of evidence would convince you that your interpretation might be wrong, then there is no point in wasting the time trying.

Have a wonderful day

 

[YoursTrue]

You have repeatedly shown you really don't care what the truth is or may be as you elevate hearsay theology over objective science. And to think that I believed the same as you do on this when in my mid-teens.

Honest, Metis, from what I have seen and learned, science is based on hypothesis. While many are assured that the theory of evolution as Darwin and his successors put it, fossils such as Tiktaalik do not confirm the theory of mutations, from fish, let's say, leading to humans and then of course, not to leave out saying humans are fish, as some declare