The Four Dirty Secrets Against Darwin Evolution

[TagliatelliMonster]

Now that you know of God, the b8ble specifically says you are without excuse.

So if you now refuse to then believe, you are automatically condemned.

Unless you change its kaput for you

Now that you know of the Quran, allah specifically says you are without excuse.




ps: these threats don't mean anything to me... it's like telling me that my imaginary iphone is broken.

 

[Esteban X]

I don't see overwhelming evidence regarding that.

Open you eyes

 

[YoursTrue]

The Urey-Miller experiment showed that amino acids can be produced by ordinary chemistry, without requiring the presence of living organisms. According to your link, the same experiment has been carried out using different starting mixtures of gases, and these have all produced amino acids. Also, according to a lecture that I attended recently, about 100 different amino acids have been found in carbonaceous meteorites; these amino acids must have been produced abiotically.

Please notice that the amino acids were produced from various mixtures of gases, and from carbonaceous material in meteorites; there is no suggestion that something was made out of nothing.

I don't understand your question. What do you mean by 'the start of life according to reason'? In any case, however life started, evolution would have taken place, that is, living things would have evolved into different forms.

I understand the experiment does not show that something was made from nothing. But again, and here is the question to you, Astrophile: evolution had to begin from something, didn't it? And while there have been postulations about this, have there been any certainties about the entities from which evolution started? (I don't think so, but I could be wrong...) The Miller-Urey experiment seemed to show that organic entities were produced from a set circumstance in place by the experimenters from non-organic substances. Would you agree with that? I read that the glass vials may have been a problem, but I'm overlooking that for the premise, maybe I shouldn't, but again -- the point is that evolution had to start with some-thing. (Didn't it?)
I have been reading about the Cambrian Explosion and what came before that. I find it very confusing to understand. But I may get back to that later.

 

[YoursTrue]

The Urey-Miller experiment showed that amino acids can be produced by ordinary chemistry, without requiring the presence of living organisms. According to your link, the same experiment has been carried out using different starting mixtures of gases, and these have all produced amino acids. Also, according to a lecture that I attended recently, about 100 different amino acids have been found in carbonaceous meteorites; these amino acids must have been produced abiotically.

Please notice that the amino acids were produced from various mixtures of gases, and from carbonaceous material in meteorites; there is no suggestion that something was made out of nothing.

I don't understand your question. What do you mean by 'the start of life according to reason'? In any case, however life started, evolution would have taken place, that is, living things would have evolved into different forms.

I know scientists for the most part say that evolution is the reason we (humans) are here. I specify humans because frankly I don't think chimpanzees, birds, and bees wonder about these things. Yes, I believe humans are intellectually unique and were made so by God.

 

[YoursTrue]

The Urey-Miller experiment showed that amino acids can be produced by ordinary chemistry, without requiring the presence of living organisms. According to your link, the same experiment has been carried out using different starting mixtures of gases, and these have all produced amino acids. Also, according to a lecture that I attended recently, about 100 different amino acids have been found in carbonaceous meteorites; these amino acids must have been produced abiotically.

Please notice that the amino acids were produced from various mixtures of gases, and from carbonaceous material in meteorites; there is no suggestion that something was made out of nothing.

I don't understand your question. What do you mean by 'the start of life according to reason'? In any case, however life started, evolution would have taken place, that is, living things would have evolved into different forms.

I mean that life started somewhere, somehow on earth for evolution to purportedly have taken place, didn't it? For evolution to have taken place and continued, something had to start the initial process, didn't it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now that you know of God, the b8ble specifically says you are without excuse.

So if you now refuse to then believe, you are automatically condemned.

Unless you change its kaput for you

That would apply only if the Bible was true. And it fails test after test so I do not know why anyone would believe that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I mean that life started somewhere, somehow on earth for evolution to purportedly have taken place, didn't it? For evolution to have taken place and continued, something had to start the initial process, didn't it?

Yes. Something had to start life. And it probably was abiogenesis. But it does not have to be abiogenesis.

You can pretend that God started life and let it evolve from then on already knowing that it would end up with man, if that makes you feel any better.

 

[Pogo]

I mean that life started somewhere, somehow on earth for evolution to purportedly have taken place, didn't it? For evolution to have taken place and continued, something had to start the initial process, didn't it?

Yup and nobody knows exactly how life got here, You have faith that your god exactly it happen and theistic scientists agree, but atheists and theistic scientists also agree that we don't know exactly how, it happened. This is the study of abiogenesis and it is the same study whether you believe a god controlled it or believe that it happened naturally.

 

[John53]

Yup and nobody knows exactly how life got here, You have faith that your god exactly it happen and theistic scientists agree, but atheists and theistic scientists also agree that we don't know exactly how, it happened. This is the study of abiogenesis and it is the same study whether you believe a god controlled it or believe that it happened naturally.

It's been explained to her numerous times by various members but I'm willing to bet everything the same question will be repeated in a week or two,

 

[Pogo]

It's been explained to her numerous times by various members but I'm willing to bet everything the same question will be repeated in a week or two,

Don't worry, I'm not expecting a miracle, that's her department.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yup and nobody knows exactly how life got here, You have faith that your god exactly it happen and theistic scientists agree, but atheists and theistic scientists also agree that we don't know exactly how, it happened. This is the study of abiogenesis and it is the same study whether you believe a god controlled it or believe that it happened naturally.

OK, thank you. I do have faith that life did not start without Someone to start it. That 'Someone' is God the Almighty as said in the Bible. Will anyone on earth ever find out what happened? I don't think so. But that is, of course, my opinion. I don't "know" that. There are several reasons why I believe that is the case.
1. We don't know how non-organic substances were put together, or made.
2. Because we don't know that, we cannot know how biologic life started.
3. If God wanted us to know everything about it, He would have told us.
4. It would probably take much more than the many pages of the Bible to explain or describe it, filling more than the halls of the Library of Congress in the United States.
5. He must not think it was necessary for humans to know all the in's and out's of 'how it all happened.'
6. The Bible is not a science textbook.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I understand the experiment does not show that something was made from nothing. But again, and here is the question to you, Astrophile: evolution had to begin from something, didn't it?

Are you still stuck on this strawman?
Seriously, how many times must it be explained to you?


Yes, life has to exist for evolution to set in.
HOW that life came to be MATTERS NOT.

Once life existed, it started to evolve, period.
No matter if your god created that life, aliens bio-engineered it, asteroids dropped it on earth, bio-chemistry got it started on earth, extra-dimensional cookie monsters farted it into this dimension,...... it matters not how

The Miller-Urey experiment seemed to show that organic entities were produced from a set circumstance in place by the experimenters from non-organic substances. Would you agree with that?

The experiment showed that there *are* natural circumstances where amino acids can spontanously form through chemistry without any need of an external entity to intentionally engineer those molecules.

IOW, it showed that when you find amino acids in nature, you have no reason to assume they are artificial in origins. There ARE, demonstrably, natural chemical pathways for their formation.

I read that the glass vials may have been a problem, but I'm overlooking that for the premise, maybe I shouldn't, but again -- the point is that evolution had to start with some-thing.

None of this stuff matters to evolution.
See above: how life starts, matters not

I have been reading about the Cambrian Explosion and what came before that. I find it very confusing to understand. But I may get back to that later.

And when you do, I'm sure plenty of people here will be willing to help you understand.
And somehow, I'm also sure you won't be listening and instead simply stick to your strawmen views, like you always do.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's been explained to her numerous times by various members but I'm willing to bet everything the same question will be repeated in a week or two,

A week or two?
I'll take that bet. I'm putting my money on a day or two.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

OK, thank you. I do have faith that life did not start without Someone to start it. That 'Someone' is God the Almighty as said in the Bible. Will anyone on earth ever find out what happened? I don't think so. But that is, of course, my opinion. I don't "know" that. There are several reasons why I believe that is the case.
1. We don't know how non-organic substances were put together, or made.
2. Because we don't know that, we cannot know how biologic life started.
3. If God wanted us to know everything about it, He would have told us.
4. It would probably take much more than the many pages of the Bible to explain or describe it, filling more than the halls of the Library of Congress in the United States.
5. He must not think it was necessary for humans to know all the in's and out's of 'how it all happened.'
6. The Bible is not a science textbook.

IOW: you believe that is the case based on a giant argument from ignorance combined with an assumed conclusion.

 

[exchemist]

OK, thank you. I do have faith that life did not start without Someone to start it. That 'Someone' is God the Almighty as said in the Bible. Will anyone on earth ever find out what happened? I don't think so. But that is, of course, my opinion. I don't "know" that. There are several reasons why I believe that is the case.
1. We don't know how non-organic substances were put together, or made.
2. Because we don't know that, we cannot know how biologic life started.
3. If God wanted us to know everything about it, He would have told us.
4. It would probably take much more than the many pages of the Bible to explain or describe it, filling more than the halls of the Library of Congress in the United States.
5. He must not think it was necessary for humans to know all the in's and out's of 'how it all happened.'
6. The Bible is not a science textbook.

Your (1) is incorrect. We do have an excellent theory of how "non-organic (the correct term is "inorganic") substances were put together. Elements were created by a process of fusion in stars, and then these elements formed compounds according to the well-established processes of chemistry, in regimes where the temperatures and pressures allow chemistry to take place.

Your (2) does not make sense. Not only do we have an excellent theory for the formation of inorganic substances, but knowing that does not address the key issues of how they gave rise to life. The most crucial unexplained issues are how replicating biochemical systems arose, and with a metabolism for harnessing available energy sources. What we do have, to date, is a good knowledge of from where biochemical building blocks became available, plus some possible hypotheses for parts of the process of assembling these into biochemical systems. Research continues.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your (1) is incorrect. We do have an excellent theory of how "non-organic (the correct term is "inorganic") substances were put together. Elements were created by a process of fusion in stars, and then these elements formed compounds according to the well-established processes of chemistry, in regimes where the temperatures and pressures allow chemistry to take place.

Your (2) does not make sense. Not only do we have an excellent theory for the formation of inorganic substances, but knowing that does not address the key issues of how they gave rise to life. The most crucial unexplained issues are replicating biochemical systems arose, and with a metabolism for harnessing available energy sources. What we do have, to date, is a good knowledge of from where biochemical building blocks became available, plus some possible hypotheses for parts of the process of assembling these into biochemical systems. Research continues.

From what I have seen when it comes to some Christians, specifically creationists is that her list should be changed. Let me fix it for her:
1. I don't know how non-organic substances were put together, or made.
2. Because I don't know that, I cannot know how biologic life started.
3. If God wanted me to know everything about it, He would have told me.
4. It would probably take much more than the many pages of the Bible to explain or describe it, filling more than the halls of the Library of Congress in the United States.
5. He must not think it was necessary for me to know all the in's and out's of 'how it all happened.'
6. The Bible is not a science textbook.

There, now it is accurate. All too often I see the attitude of "I can't understand it, I am a smart person. Therefore no one can understand it." And yes, there is quite a bit of hubris that is associated with that sort of belief. I only need to remember some of the science based debates that I lost badly because I had to much hubris on my part when it came to science that I did not fully understand to keep me in my place. It is why when the concept of trans people became an issue, something that I was blissfully unaware of, I knew better than to follow my instincts and listen to what the experts said and what supported them. Yes, it is hard to overthrow a lifetime of prejudice and indoctrination of whatever beliefs one grew up with. That is why losing debates can be very enlightening. I have learned more when I lost than when I have won.

 

[Sargonski]

Your (1) is incorrect. We do have an excellent theory of how "non-organic (the correct term is "inorganic") substances were put together. Elements were created by a process of fusion in stars, and then these elements formed compounds according to the well-established processes of chemistry, in regimes where the temperatures and pressures allow chemistry to take place.

Your (2) does not make sense. Not only do we have an excellent theory for the formation of inorganic substances, but knowing that does not address the key issues of how they gave rise to life. The most crucial unexplained issues are how replicating biochemical systems arose, and with a metabolism for harnessing available energy sources. What we do have, to date, is a good knowledge of from where biochemical building blocks became available, plus some possible hypotheses for parts of the process of assembling these into biochemical systems. Research continues.

Scientists have shown how self replicating biochmical systems arose -- and done it in the lab .. simulating primordial earth conditions .. including tidal forces and Sunshine(radiation) .. the tidal forces are a big deal ... the cycle of drying and re-wetting .. .. but under such conditions from very simple molecules .. over time will build up into more complex self replicating molecules - include a natual-selective membrane of some kind forming .. and you have the beginnings of the first cell.

 

[exchemist]

Scientists have shown how self replicating biochmical systems arose -- and done it in the lab .. simulating primordial earth conditions .. including tidal forces and Sunshine(radiation) .. the tidal forces are a big deal ... the cycle of drying and re-wetting .. .. but under such conditions from very simple molecules .. over time will build up into more complex self replicating molecules - include a natual-selective membrane of some kind forming .. and you have the beginnings of the first cell.

Can you supply a reference please?

 

[Valjean]

I understand the experiment does not show that something was made from nothing. But again, and here is the question to you, Astrophile: evolution had to begin from something, didn't it? And while there have been postulations about this, have there been any certainties about the entities from which evolution started? (I don't think so, but I could be wrong...) The Miller-Urey experiment seemed to show that organic entities were produced from a set circumstance in place by the experimenters from non-organic substances. Would you agree with that? I read that the glass vials may have been a problem, but I'm overlooking that for the premise, maybe I shouldn't, but again -- the point is that evolution had to start with some-thing. (Didn't it?)
I have been reading about the Cambrian Explosion and what came before that. I find it very confusing to understand. But I may get back to that later.

Evolution is change in form, It can't begins till there is a a form to change. How the original form arose is outside the transformative purview of evolution.

Species, orders and other taxa have changed, and come and gone, over time. Most creatures that lived long ago have died out. Most modern creatures did not exist in the far past. They were somehow "created" relatively recently.
How, in your opinion, did this happen?

 

[Valjean]

I know scientists for the most part say that evolution is the reason we (humans) are here. I specify humans because frankly I don't think chimpanzees, birds, and bees wonder about these things. Yes, I believe humans are intellectually unique and were made so by God.

By what mechanism? What evidence do you base this on?