The Big Bang Theory is dead.

[IndigoChild5559]

I will ask you the same questions I asked another poster since the concepts and answers are relevant to the discussion. Is life on earth possible according to science without a beginning, meaning by that does the emergence of life come from non-living material?

Science does not know how life came from non-life. Abiogenesis is a major hypothesis, but lacks evidence. But certainly, we know that at one time, there was no life on the earth, and then, later, there was. Certainly all life is made out of the same chemicals that the earth is made of.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Actually I'm not debating, even though this is called a debate forum. I am just registering my thoughts in certain respects.

Actually, when you make a claim that "there is not one iota of 'evidence' scientifically that is the 'origin' of the universe" in response to a request to share evidence based theory on the origin of the cosmos, your are debating whether you want to believe that or not.

I'm not debating, though, whether or not you're debating. I'm just registering my thoughts in certain respects.

I'm sorry if i offended you, I did not mean to.

I appreciate that, but I don't offend.

I do recall the supercilious replies of many here on the scientific side of the argument, calling those who do not agree with the concept of evolution as not educated telling them to take a course, etc., rather than those believing in evolution explain their positions succinctly, clearly and logically.

I do appreciate quality superciliousness.

People in this thread have explained their positions quite succinctly, clearly, and logically. You just choose to accuse them of being wrong with nothing to support why. The reason they tell you to educate yourself by taking a course is so you can defend your position succinctly, clearly, and logically.

So if you'd like to tell me again what you did not understand I hope I can help you to understand it.

I would very much appreciate that. So let's try again...

there IS not one iota of "evidence" scientifically that is for the "origin" of the universe.

Why are the words evidence and origin in quotes?

As someone said, scientific theories can be wrong and less wrong.

Who said this?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Is life on earth possible according to science without a beginning? meaning the emergence of life coming from non-living material.

If I thought you were serious and hadn't had this question and numerous like it answered by many in the past, I would take more time here. But since I don't have reason to trust that this isn't just more of the same, I'll tell you the conclusion of science is no. There is no evidence for perpetual life.

The evidence does however indicate that living things did not exist on earth prior to about 3.8 billion years ago. Then evidence for living things appears in the strata and that evidence continues to be found in chronologically ever more recent strata through to the present time. How it got there remains unknown at this point, but there are many unsupported claims outside of science and hypotheses within science. What I believe about that is irrelevant to your question regarding science. Just saying.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Your reasoning is flawed

First, creationists are not science deniers.

Sure you are as an individual and as a group. There is no reason to doubt that.

We love science but reject false science like evolution and billions of years.

Not by any evidence I have ever seen. And responses from others that are interested in science support my position. Your posts support that you reject science.

Without a first living creature there are no living things.

That is not a revelation.

And without a second living, there are no living things today.

Again, the obvious. It is not really a point of contention. Not sure why you keep repeating it.

The same goes for next 100 living creatures.

Wow! Rinse and repeat has not been misapplied to the anti-science position.

Abiogenesis is impossible.

Heart transplants were "impossible" once too. Your claim is unfounded, but I know from experience this will not change your mind or stop you from repeating this and many other baseless claims. You seem to thrive on baseless claims. There is a fallacy that fits this evidence.

That is why evolutionists are scared out of their minds and try so desperately to hide from abiogenesis.

I don't know that anyone that accepts the positions of science are scared about these unknowns. That was why science was invented in the first place. To find out what we don't know. That seems like a logical response to curiosity and not fear.

Now posting the same thing over and over and over and over in a vacuum seems more consistent to a fear response to me. Having a closed mind with fingers in the ears and constantly repeating mantras to drive away the conclusions of science and those that accept them seems like fear to me.

But they even try to skip the first 100+ living creatures.

A circular conclusion based on your desires and not any rational conclusions of the evidence.

So what was the first living creature and what features did it have?

And here is one of those mantras.

But if you just want to start with evolution working in living things, then you need to start with the first living creature and show what was the second living creature and what features did it have?
then the 3rd, …

Evolution would start with the first populations that acquired heritable differences from the previous populations. Ignorance of science is another typical feature of creationist positions and one that supports the claim of fear of science in creationists driving the rejection of science.

Sorry to have to be one of the series of so many to break the news to you yet again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And why are so many people questioning the Big Bang?
Because the evidence refutes it.

Nobody who actually understands it, let alone is qualified to actually work on it, questions it.

So far, those who claim it is "false" or can "refute" it, are people like you who are so willfully ignorant on the matter, it's not even funny

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So the scientists are questions that idea that God does not exist.

Scientists lose no more sleep over gods not existing then they do over undetectable pink graviton pixies not existing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Without abiogenesis, there is no evolution or life forms.
And of course then the fossil rock layers have no dating because evolution does nit happen without a first living creature

Evolution doesn't happen without living things that reproduce with variation and which are in competition with peers over limited resources.

But living things that reproduce with variation and which are in competition with peers over limited resources DO exist. So evolution happens.
It matters not how they exist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

some people just either don't want to get that or they willfully misrepresent the TRUTH.

The theory of evolution simply could not have emerged etc. without abiogenesis.

Evolution happens when life exists that reproduces with variation and is in competition over limited resources.
Does life that reproduce with variation and is in competition over limited resources exist?
Answer: YES.

So evolution happens.

Period.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I do recall the supercilious replies of many here on the scientific side of the argument, calling those who do not agree with the concept of evolution as not educated telling them to take a course, etc.,

Nobody is telling anyone such merely because they don't agree with it.
People are telling others that when they demonstrate that they don't understand it. Such failure of understanding becomes apparant when they say things like
"...but they remain lions..."
or
"micro evolution happens but macro evolution doesn't"
or
"species do not change kinds"
or
"without abiogenesis evolution is false"

I'm sure some of those will ring a bell with you.

rather than those believing in evolution explain their positions succinctly, clearly and logically.

In my experience many people here go out of their way to do exactly that, like when things like the above are said, it is explained very clearly and in non-jargon, non-technical words how evolution doesn't work that way.
Or how abiogenesis is out of scope for evolution and why.

But the problem is that those who this is being explained to simply ignore it all and only double down on their falsehoods as if they were never explained how they were wrong.

I'm sure that rings a bell with you as well.


People will only try to help you understand so many times before simply telling you to go away and study up before continuing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I realize I am in the losing position by popular decree. Because I had doubts about the theory of evolution I decided to examine what evolutionists believe and think. And while I am sure many here know a lot about the theory, I have learned a lot about those beliefs. It has not moved me to accept evolution starting with abiogenesis as the way life came to be as we know it.

Please....

I can't even count the amount of times I explained how you argue strawman only to see you return to them time and again.
Like in this very post. How many times must it be explained to you that how life originated has absolutely no bearing on the proces of evolution that already existing life is subject to?

There's only so many times people will throw you a bone and be understanding of your misapprehension.
After being explained dozens and dozens of times what your mistake is, people stop taking you seriously when you then still continue to repeat it.
At some point, people tend to get rightfully annoyed with such behavior.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Except you are flat out ignoring the explanations.
Why?
Now we need to get into the fact that not only are you ignoring the explanations, you are flat out claiming they do not exist.

Like I said, extremely difficult to take you seriously.

I don't know what explanations you're talking about.

The irony is so huge, it is no longer funny.
@McBell says it's extremely difficult to take you seriously

In light of posts like the above, I'll go one step further and say it's downright impossible to take you seriously

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Like so many science deniers, you're missing the point. Of course we need life* for evolution to happen but evolution does not depend in any way at all on how it got there and the evidence for evolution stands regardless of how life got going.

So the first life form could be due to one of the scientific abiogenesis hypotheses or any other reason you might want to make up: god-magic, planted by aliens, manufactured by life pixies all called Eric, whatever you want. Literally anything.

The point is the evolution happened afterwards and we have endless evidence that it did that puts it way beyond reasonable doubt. Even if the start was magic, science can and does tell us what happened next.

---

* Self-replication with inheritance and variation in a limited environment.

I put 1 million dollars on "this will be ignored and within his next 20 posts he shall simply repeat his 'objection' to evolution that it doesn't address abiogenesis"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your reasoning is flawed

First, creationists are not science deniers.
We love science but reject false science like evolution and billions of years.
Without a first living creature there are no living things.
And without a second living, there are no living things today.
The same goes for next 100 living creatures.
Abiogenesis is impossible. That is why evolutionists are scared out of their minds and try so desperately to hide from abiogenesis.
But they even try to skip the first 100+ living creatures.

Without living things, there is no evolution.
There are living things.

Period.

 

[Polymath257]

Is life on earth possible according to science without a beginning? meaning the emergence of life coming from non-living material.

Yes. At some point, there were no loving things. At a later point, there were living things. So living things came from non-living things.

Now, you want to claim that God is alive and gave life to the first living things. But, in the relevant sense of complex chemistry, that is simply false: no supernatural being is alive because of complex chemistry. And *that* is the sense relevant to Pasteur's experiment.

In other words, invoking God as an explanation for life on Earth fails: it does not help to understand how complex chemistry arose from previous complex chemistry.

 

[YoursTrue]

If I thought you were serious and hadn't had this question and numerous like it answered by many in the past, I would take more time here. But since I don't have reason to trust that this isn't just more of the same, I'll tell you the conclusion of science is no. There is no evidence for perpetual life.

The evidence does however indicate that living things did not exist on earth prior to about 3.8 billion years ago. Then evidence for living things appears in the strata and that evidence continues to be found in chronologically ever more recent strata through to the present time. How it got there remains unknown at this point, but there are many unsupported claims outside of science and hypotheses within science. What I believe about that is irrelevant to your question regarding science. Just saying.

The Bible itself says that living things did not exist on the earth until they did.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes. At some point, there were no loving things. At a later point, there were living things. So living things came from non-living things.

Now, you want to claim that God is alive and gave life to the first living things. But, in the relevant sense of complex chemistry, that is simply false: no supernatural being is alive because of complex chemistry. And *that* is the sense relevant to Pasteur's experiment.

In other words, invoking God as an explanation for life on Earth fails: it does not help to understand how complex chemistry arose from previous complex chemistry.

Right now what I am saying is that life as we know it was not always on the earth. One thing more... without abiogenesis the concept of scientists regarding evolution would also not have happened.

 

[wellwisher]

The word evolution (from the Latin evolutio, meaning "to unroll like a scroll") was initially used to refer to embryological development; its first use in relation to development of species came in 1762, when Charles Bonnet used it for his concept of "pre-formation," in which females carried a miniature form of all future generations. The term gradually gained a more general meaning of growth or progressive development.[46]

Where science deviated from the original vision and definition of evolution was by including random premises. The embryo develops in an orderly fashion, more or less retracing the stages of evolution, from the most primate states of life; single cell forward. The definition was originally consistent with the gist of intelligent design; based on logic, order and reason, instead of dice and cards. God was a man of vision and purpose, and not a drunk walking in a gambling casino, winning where he falls.

Dice and cards may have been an Atheist influence on biology, since order and intelligent design; original evolution of growth and progressive development, made Religion and Science not too far away. Science had more details. The Big Bang Theory was coined by a Catholic Priest and it does not have the same holy war mentality between Atheism and religion, as does evolution, which uses the magic of a god of dice and cards.

 

[Polymath257]

Right now what I am saying is that life as we know it was not always on the earth. One thing more... without abiogenesis the concept of scientists regarding evolution would also not have happened.

And that is false. Scientists were convinced of evolution long before they started thinking about abiogenesis.

The fossil evidence is why scientists originally were lead to the conclusion that species change over time. That is evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Right now what I am saying is that life as we know it was not always on the earth. One thing more... without abiogenesis the concept of scientists regarding evolution would also not have happened.

So God could not have made a single celled organism. Are you sure about that?

Where did bacteria come from?? Where did amoebas come from?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The Bible itself says that living things did not exist on the earth until they did.

I think everyone agrees that living things didn't exist until they did. It's the sort of statement that wins a prize for being obvious.