Proof of Creationism made by NASA

[TagliatelliMonster]

And yet--not one skeptic on this forum addressed any of these properly in context.

And of course, it's not a Gish Gallop. There are numerous issues with abiogenesis theory--which is why a century of lab experiments have almost nothing of substance to tell us.

Only a century?

Still better then +6000 years of religion yielding nothing but make-belief.

FYI: there's many things of substance to tell. Ignoring it, or remaining willfully ignorant about it, is not going to make it go away.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There are several issues--here's one: "Evolution doesn't expect to find half-formed creatures or whatever you're talking about." Yet it's been said it takes only 400,000 years to form a simple eye. No fossils with half-formed simple eye sockets, etc., etc., etc., etc.

/facepalm

You are replying to a post where it literally says that there is NO SUCH THING as "half formed" ANYTHINGS.
Yet here you are again, repeating the same nonsense.

Tell me, is the wing of a pinguin "half a wing" in your ignorant opinion?
How about the wing of an ostrich?
As opposed to say the wing of an eagle. Is that in your ignorant opinion then a "full wing"?




Hopefully you know realize how absurd the idea is of "half an X".

There is no such thing.

Pinguins and ostriches don't have "half a wing".
They have full wings in context of their species.

Just like a creature who's eye is just a patch of light sensitive cells, is also a "full eye" in context of their species.

As SO MANY PEOPLE have informed you already: you argue from a position of complete ignorance and are basing all your objections on a false representation / strawman of evolution theory.

What is it that you hope to accomplish by doing this?

 

[BilliardsBall]

You should catch up on some of the science then, by the sound of it, because it's been demonstrated that it's at least possible that life could have arisen from simple organic compounds ....

Primordial Soup's On: Scientists Repeat Evolution's Most Famous Experiment
Wayback Machine
Science | AAAS
The origin of life: what we know, what we can know and what we will never know
Evolutionary transition from a single RNA replicator to a multiple replicator network | Nature Communications
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2021.0814

The title here is telling "Evolutionary transition from a single RNA replicator to a multiple replicator network"

Now, please give me an example of an RNA replicator.

 

[BilliardsBall]

This still makes no sense. Transitional forms are not "half-formed/developing structures". They are always complete, developed organisms. Nothing is "half-formed", nor would it be.

Why wouldn't it be half-formed? When there are genetic malformations, we see people born without arms and etc. What is your claim?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Actually, we already know that base protein forms can form under natural, early-earth conditions. Of course, replicating billions of years of chemistry in a lab is difficult.


How does it take faith to believe humanity is a result of chemical processes, like every other living thing that has ever been produced ever?

Base protein forms? The "simplest" life requires hundred of proteins. If I placed bricks into thermal soup or vulcanic ocean, would you expect skyscrapers to form, given enough time? Why or why not?

It's a "work in progress", thus it has not been "proven" to be false.

That is nonsense, and you should be ashamed to posting the above. Keep repeating a falsehood does not miraculously make it the truth.

Scientists are not inherently "atheists", and I am just one of a great many who certainly aren't. When you post such nonsense, you cheapen both yourself and your religious beliefs because it is so utterly wrong to use such a stereotype.

Science is inherently naturalistic, it cannot and will not evidence God nor should it logically, based on its own constraints. Just because some/many scientists are religious, the concept of abiogenesis is anti-religious.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Actually, we already know that base protein forms can form under natural, early-earth conditions. Of course, replicating billions of years of chemistry in a lab is difficult.


How does it take faith to believe humanity is a result of chemical processes, like every other living thing that has ever been produced ever?

Base protein forms? The "simplest" lif

Look up "euglena".

Here, I've done it for you: Euglena - Wikipedia

Euglena is complete, functioning life.

 

[BilliardsBall]

But there is no such thing as a "half-formed simple eye socket". It's not as if evolution works by somehow "predicting" a trait that will be necessary in the future and then "working towards" that trait. Evolutionary traits develop by improving on existing structures.

For example, the most likely early precursor to eyes is a small patch of light-sensitive cells, allowing an organism to detect the presence of light. This then becomes "cupped" so that the direction of light can be detected. The cup then deepens into a pinhole, allowing for greater detection of direction. Eventually, lenses form the produce an even better light and more refined detection of light.

Note how each step in the above process is not "half an eye" or "half an anything". Each is a "complete" trait on its own, each one conferring a particular advantage that makes that trait desirable in evolutionary terms, and yet each trait being a clear building block on top of which future forms can develop.

Do you understand? I could probably explain it better?

You could explain it better with an explanation of how multiple systems improve on existing structures simultaneously, as required. For example, sea to land has to take into account prey and predators, reproduction, thermal regulation, respiration, pulmonary, etc.

 

[BilliardsBall]

"Many"? Names please.

Huh? This thread has reams of garbage like "Bu-bu-but only one RNA replicator would be needed for abiogenesis".

Name an RNA replicator here or not, and you'll see what I meant by "mouth foam".

 

[BilliardsBall]

Nope, that would be you. Go ahead. See if you can find a valid source that claims in the scientific method that events have to be repeatable.

I didn't say "scientific method" as you wrote. I'm talking about when a hypothesis is safely established or safely rejected. It is unfortunate that you must twist my words and add sophistry.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You mean that there would be no dinosaurs with feathers on its arms that would be no good for flying, but would be useful when brooding eggs. Let's say that the feathered arms allowed it to sit on a larger batch of eggs that it was trying to hatch. But those nonbirds could not exist according to you since they would have "half a wing".

You don't know what "half" is? I didn't say "apologetics exist to make fully formed wings half wings". I'm rather saying there are NO half wings in the record and no forms know showing evolution.

Neither observed nor duplicable means abiogenesis is one of several alternatives, indeed abiogenesis would be so difficult that many adhere to space seed theory, which just begs the question, of course.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't say "scientific method" as you wrote. I'm talking about when a hypothesis is safely established or safely rejected. It is unfortunate that you must twist my words and add sophistry.

Does it really matter? You were wrong no matter what terminology is used.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, he's not.

Do you accept that Super Novae happen?
Has anyone ever "reproduced" a super nova in a lab?

Do you accept that black holes exist?
Has anyone ever "reproduced" a black hole in a lab?

Do you believe this house burned down?

View attachment 68061

Can you repeat this exact fire in a lab?



Do you believe a car crash happened here:

View attachment 68062

Can you repeat this exact car crash in a lab?





The answer to all these "can you repeat in the lab" questions is NO.
In EVERY one of these examples though, it is THE EVIDENCE that is repeatable.

Supernovae, black holes, burnt houses and car accidents are all observed currently.

Abiogenesis is neither observed nor reproducible. It's an interesting hypothesis that requires suspension of belief. For example, the current claim that a sole replicating RNA kind could make life. Now all we have to do is find RNA that replicates . . .

 

[BilliardsBall]

View attachment 68063

View attachment 68064

View attachment 68065

View attachment 68067

Either you are lying, you are terribly misinformed, or you are just honestly ignorant.

In all cases, you are wrong. Plenty of transitionals exist.

Off course, it would also help if you would actually understand what a "transitional fossil" really is.

Hint: nobody expects to find crockoducks.

You are confused, yes. I know what a transitory fossil is, there are no fossils that are themselves in transitions. Anyone can compare animals with similar features or amphibians to sea and land based life and claim 1-2-3 in order.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Please. I bet you couldn't give an accurate summary of any of the abiogenesis hypothesis under investigation today. Not even if your life depended on it.

Likely you can't even properly articulate the difference between today's abiogenesis hypothesis and yesteryear's "spontaneous generation" idea.

I bet the only thing you can articulate about it without looking anything up, is that abiogenesis deals with the origins of life. And that's about it.

Spontaneous generation was based on observation and assumption, changed via the advent of microscopes and a closer, more informed look.

Abiogenesis flies in the face of modern biology, which has found the simplest life to obey rules of chirality, complexity, order and DESIGN.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't know what "half" is? I didn't say "apologetics exist to make fully formed wings half wings". I'm rather saying there are NO half wings in the record and no forms know showing evolution.

Neither observed nor duplicable means abiogenesis is one of several alternatives, indeed abiogenesis would be so difficult that many adhere to space seed theory, which just begs the question, of course.

I do. You are projecting again. And I gave an example of a " half a wing". Do you know what a strawman argument is? That is what you have been using.

As to abiogenesis your attempt to argue about that is an admission that evolution has occurred. Are you sure that you want to do that? I will gladly discuss the science that you cannot understand if you own up to that fact. If you can't do that then we are done with abiogenesis for now.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Only a century?

Still better then +6000 years of religion yielding nothing but make-belief.

FYI: there's many things of substance to tell. Ignoring it, or remaining willfully ignorant about it, is not going to make it go away.

What is "better" over that century? What has abiogenesis research yielded? That imaginary prebiotic life or imaginary self-replicating RNA made all.

 

[BilliardsBall]

/facepalm

You are replying to a post where it literally says that there is NO SUCH THING as "half formed" ANYTHINGS.
Yet here you are again, repeating the same nonsense.

Tell me, is the wing of a pinguin "half a wing" in your ignorant opinion?
How about the wing of an ostrich?
As opposed to say the wing of an eagle. Is that in your ignorant opinion then a "full wing"?




Hopefully you know realize how absurd the idea is of "half an X".

There is no such thing.

Pinguins and ostriches don't have "half a wing".
They have full wings in context of their species.

Just like a creature who's eye is just a patch of light sensitive cells, is also a "full eye" in context of their species.

As SO MANY PEOPLE have informed you already: you argue from a position of complete ignorance and are basing all your objections on a false representation / strawman of evolution theory.

What is it that you hope to accomplish by doing this?

Yes, flightless birds have full wings. Perhaps you can give an example of current species evidencing transition at this time, that may be observed?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is "better" over that century? What has abiogenesis research yielded? That imaginary prebiotic life or imaginary self-replicating RNA made all.

You just disqualified yourself from discussing abiogenesis. Abiogenesis has not been scientifically studied for over a century. And you also demonstrated a complete ignorance of the problems that they have had to answer, what they were, and which ones have been answered.

But again, we are not discussing something that you do not understand yet.

Here is a simple question for you:

Do you think that evolution relies on abiogenesis?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You could explain it better with an explanation of how multiple systems improve on existing structures simultaneously, as required. For example, sea to land has to take into account prey and predators, reproduction, thermal regulation, respiration, pulmonary, etc.

Why couldn't they? Mutations don't occur one at a time. And why would the first life forms going from sea to land have to worry about predators? And why would it change the way they reproduce or regulate temperature?

Again, look at the job the organs are doing, not simply the organs themselves. What, at a base level, do lungs do? They take oxygen from the environment and process it into energy. Do organisms without lungs have a way to do that? Yes, they do, its just a different and less specialized way of doing it. Do you understand?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You could explain it better with an explanation of how multiple systems improve on existing structures simultaneously, as required. For example, sea to land has to take into account prey and predators, reproduction, thermal regulation, respiration, pulmonary, etc.

Whoa! What steps require more than one change at a time? Citation needed. That sounds like a false claim from an ID believer. I don't know of any simultaneous changes needed.