The Questions That Abiogenesis Needs To Answer, Before Evolution.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

No, your fearmongering goes against your espoused beliefs.

Either your concern is fake or your faith is.

Either way, you aren't going to scare me into worring about science answering A before E or GMOs.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Please post proof. I'm waiting

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
As for evolution, to have a valid argument they have to explain how the life came into being before the very first effect of the evolutionary processes started. No life, no evolution.

Wrong. We can observe genetic mutations and natural selection in action. It doesn't matter how life got here. Heck, it may have been created, but evolution of life is a fact, whether it got to earth naturally or not. I don't get why people have so much difficulty grasping this. It's not complicated in the least. There is no overlap of evolution or the mechanisms involved with abiogenesis. If you think there is, then post it.

It is plain to see Atheism is an empty religion, it has no provable mechanism for life which therefore cannot get them into the comfortable realm of spooky evolution. They just all have faith that they don't need a provable mechanism..it's just there and someday everyone will see...which is the exactly the same as believing in a God.

LMAO. Yes, keep attacking atheism for being the logical default. It's not my fault that religions are 100% blind faith and they act like it's fact when it's not even close. Their followers constantly lie and promote falsehoods as truth as you have done. BTW, no capital A in atheism. This isn't the bible where sentence structure and grammar goes out the door in favor of emotion. Everyone of your posts here attacks atheists rather than providing facts or logical argument. You falsely associate atheism with evolution, when there are plenty of religious folks that accept evolution. Every argument you make boils back down to your hatred of atheism. Try to be less obvious about that agenda. Right now nobody is taking you seriously.

Then you just admit evolution is useless alone by itself. Without an origin there is no diversity of life to explain. Evolution itself is owned by creation, as it is just a process made possible at the time of origin, the conditions set for the origins of life are the same as the conditions required for evolution to continue afterwards.

Wrong. Evolution is based on fact. The process happens, whether we know how life got to earth or not. Evolution is about the origin of SPECIES, not life. Without life here evolution cannot happen, but we know life is here so.....

Good for you but die hard atheists claim they are not religious.
But they have Faith in something so they really are but won't admit it.

Oh yes, Faith with a capital F. Just stop. There is no faith involved in trusting science as it has gotten us thousands upon thousands of answers. Faith by definition is blind. Evolution is backed by evidence. You must really have issues with atheism because your emotion just keeps shining through and making you say things that are false like claiming evolution is an atheist view rather than a scientific one. How many false things are you going to state in a single thread?

Only 11.67% of the human population don't believe in a God.
Religion is the dominant theory across the world, your minority view is irrelevant. Sorry it's just the facts.

LOL! And an appeal to popularity fallacy to top it all off! Let that anger out! Tell us why you are mad at atheists!

I gave statistics and was lambasted for it, atheists don't want facts and statistics they want to just say they are right when they cannot prove a thing, they just know (have faith) a creator didn't start life.

BTW with Atheism at only 2.01% of the human population, they cannot throw the word cult around when they are one themselves.

Bahaha. The insults just continue. How about you use SCIENCE to back up your claims and actually respond to the points that other users have made? I know that idea sounds crazy, but try it out. It works better than pigeonholing and insulting anybody that disagrees and posting rants about atheism rather than addressing the science behind evolution. It takes a special type of person to be that willfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest.

Faith is faith, science is science. It doesn't matter who believes what. It matters what the facts say. They say that you are wrong and using dozens of logical fallacies.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
At some point the process that began life had to become evolutionary processes.

Please explain why and how? I grow tired of this argument being repeated over and over again, yet you claim they are the same process. It is NOT the same process. The causes of genetic mutations are not the same causes for chemical evolution. To make this claim, you must demonstrate the overlapping mechanism. Can you do it? No others can.

It's plausible to me, that both processes are probably very similar, or involved similar aspects. As such, I never understood the ridiculous dichotomy that has remained the prevailing view held by so many ignorant people.

Nope. Genes cannot mutate without first existing. There is no similarity involved in the process at all.

It either stems from a lack of critical thinking, or it's a wedge being driven by two sides of a stupid debate.

It stems from folks reading and blindly believing creationist websites as literal truth without critical thinking, so that pretty much answers that.

Is it inconceivable that life could've evolved into existence?

Yes, because you can't have genetic mutations without genes, therefor you can't create DNA with genetic mutations. It doesn't make sense. You are equivocating different versions of the word "evolution" as 1. That's the only way you can possibly maintain that view.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Noinden

Let's try another example, something really simple.
You have a car, in it you have a motor, and a transmission, they are two distinct parts, they are separate, but they both need each other to work for the car to drive, if one fails, that car isn't going anywhere.
The car represents the totality of the two separate theories/hypotheses of both evolution & abiogenesis working together to make the entire thing plausible

Terrible example, completely invalid. Evolution doesn't need abiogenesis to function today. It is not part of it. Your example is like claiming that the motor will just keep on running without the transmission because evolution is true and still works regardless of whether or not life was designed. Sorry, but made up, invalid illogical metaphors don't prove your case. Name the overlapping mechanism or stop wasting time arguing.

That's right it's so complex it just happened by pure chance. It would be like winning the biological jackpot every single time. Like the odds of you winning the New Zealand powerball every single time it has been run for your entire life.

Once again, you claim to know these odds, but I see no numbers and no math to suggest what you are saying is true. Is this ever going to happen? Are you ever going to source your claims?

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TinfoilTP

I'm not an atheist. Yet I believe in evolution.
I'm not an atheist, yet I believe life did not need a creator.
I do not laugh at the gods.

Your logic is flawed.

It's really funny how these guys claim we are laughing at them because we correct their ignorance of science. It's only when they repeat it over and over again ad nauseum after being corrected and shown they are wrong that they get laughed at. TinfoilTP clearly has some kind of anti atheist agenda. His posts are not on topic in the least, and he has falsely associated evolution with atheism numerous times. His best argument is a complete fallacy. Funny how he NEVER has a response for the science itself, same with the OP.

originally posted by: kennyb72
Peer reviewed science has become thought control that will not allow anything that is unprovable to enter into peoples consciousness. They can't have people thinking for themselves - far too dangerous.

Really Kenny? After everything we've gone back and forth on, you're going to go back to attacking science with BS like this? Why?

I have arrived at the firm belief that atheists, simply do not have the capacity to visualise anything more complex than a colouring in book. The concept of a creator is far too big for their atrophied minds to comprehend. Brains too compartmentalized, just too small in capacity to imagine for themselves. A creator is a concept that would leave them feeling too small and vulnerable.

LMAO! So you insult the intellectual capability of atheists when the topic has nothing to do with atheism. Why equivocate atheism and evolution?

Please please please, don't tell me you are going to go back to posting lies about science.

I am juggling to see where scientists fit on a scale between politicians and lawyers in the "trust me" department.

I guess not. Kenny, last time we did this, you posted numerous lies about science and claimed that you were following Pythagoras based belief system. Now you are posting as if you are a christian creationist. I think you are completely full of crap.

The part that tries to Imply that we are not created by a higher intelligence and in consequence denies you from discovering who and what you really are. Without that understanding your life IS meaningless and hollow, you just don't realise it because it is all you know.

Evolution does not anywhere state that we were not created, and even if it did it would be because there is ZERO objective evidence in favor of god or creation. Life is what you make it. Evolution is true regardless of whether or not life was created. Why do you have trouble with this concept? It's not that complicated. Evolution doesn't require there to be no creator. Your arguments are futile.

Yes I do, you hate God and think he is responsible for many of the horrors that go on in the world through bad examples laid out in the Bible.

That wasn't God my friend, that was people, it was people who wrote the Bible, It was people who committed atrocities. It is also people who will learn from that, both victim and perpetrator.

So now you are a christian apologist? I thought you were all about Hylozoics rather than biblical creationism. I guess you have been exposed. And it's funny how you call somebody that may not believe in god a god-hater. You do realize that you can't hate something you do not think is real, right?

Evolution theory tells you that you are a piece of meat that blips into existence for an incredibly short space of time and then blips out again. NOT fulfilling at all. No meaning whatsoever!

No, evolution theory says nothing like that. That is YOUR interpretation of what it means. It could mean god created evolution as a means to design life. It could mean that the human race is the dominant race on the planet after evolving for billions of years and surviving numerous extinction level events to get to where we are today. I'd say that's just as fulfilling, if not moreso than claiming god poofed everything into existence.

volution Theory is an irritating distraction, it tell you nothing, it teaches you nothing. If you want to do something constructive go out and make some mistakes, or do something wonderful, that is your true purpose.

More lies. Evolution has taught us quite a bit about how humans became the dominant species on the planet and about the diversity of life in general. You seem to think that science doesn't matter because it can't answer the big question, but that doesn't make it invalid. Discovering how the world works is a good thing, and I can't believe you'd go back to attacking it without any base or any facts. It teaches us nothing, because I say so is your argument and it's pathetic.

a reply to: Barcs

Well all these creationist posters have a huge anti-science, and anti-atheist agenda. It boggles them that there are fellow Christians who do not agree with them (*cough* Darwin *cough*), that every other faith on the planet which is not Abrahamic:
(1) exists
and
(2) is not right behind their little crusade.

In my education I've been fortunate to be able to mix with a number of people of varying faiths. My PhD supervisor is a Buddhist, my mentor (you get one of those in a PhD not just a supervisor) is an atheist. The Professor who taught the origin of the Earth (chemically speaking) paper during my honors year, is a high up member of the Scots Presbyterian church in my home town. etc I like to think my own neo-paganism was shown to not be new age fluffy thinking. Mind you I'm more prickly than fluffy.

What I find comical yet scary is all their arguments then counter arguments fall into the same categories each and every time:

(a) Make a sweeping unsubstantiated statement. Sit back, wait.
(b) Link to a creationist site, or video. Expect us to treat it with the same respect we would a peer reviewed article.
(c) Bring morals into the argument, claim that all who are against their original idea, are atheists, and amoral
(d) When they can not argue, they ignore.

We've had all of this in this thread. Hell this thread is a repeat from a year or so ago, from the same bloody poster.

Now as to not posting to the science? They fully admit that they are not qualified, but that does not stop them. I also love the "prove who you are" I got earlier. Like I'd post my identity in an unsecured forum on the interwebs?

a reply to: Barcs

Come now, Kenny the bee is a rather simplistic creature. He fully admits to an anti scientific bent. What this post shows however is that he does not get peer review is also a tool of the arts. One can not (for example) publish in a reputable theological journal, with out it. It is a check and balance for academics. One can do science with out it, I certainly have in the years I worked in the Pharmaceutical industry. My discoveries are codified in patents, which do however have a similar level of leg work required.

It comes back to a small group of disenfranchised individuals, who rage against the system, because they can not understand it. Not because it is flawed, not because it is corrupt, but because they have not invested the time in learning beyond a poorly edited spiritual codex. I mean they could at least read some of the apocrypha, or other Abrahamic faiths texts

a reply to: Noinden

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: PhotonEffect

You started with this attitude neighbor. But here, since I may be wrong.

Link

No, I don't believe I did. Get your facts straight at least.

For the record, I seem to remember you lobbing an unprovoked and unnecessary insult my way, calling me an ID'er, in our first encounter in another thread. We were having a civilized discourse up until then. So please don't try to turn this on me. You were the one who set the tone right out the gate simply because I had a different opinion than you.

We don't have to agree, and you can say I don't understand all you want, as you're entitled to your own opinion – respectably. But, possible to do that without improperly judging and insulting someone unnecessarily?

And I would read your link, except it seems broken.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Ahh and so begin the logical fallacy attempts to hide the lack of substance in an argument. So be it.

You were exhibiting either cretionist or Intelligent Design dogma in your arguments. You deny this. IDer is not an insult, it is a description of a philosophical stance. You simply had to deny it, rather than the rant which resulted. If you show a stance in your aarguments, you will be labeled as such. Its how it works.

Your lack of understanding is implied through your refusal to engage the science. You can remove this stigma by actually engaging.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Again with the assumptions of faith or lack there of. Your agenda here is rather obvious, and flawed. I know at least one other poster on this thread you are having issues with is not an atheist. They can choose to identify themselves if they so desire. But again, I am not an atheist. Thus its a "coffee meeting" of scientifically literate people. That must intimidate you?

So lets get back to the thread, please post that proof you seem to think you have.

a reply to: Noinden

Ahh and so begin the logical fallacy attempts to hide the lack of substance in an argument. So be it.

Amen to that sister.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
I feel like we are in the basement of the atheist church for coffee and donuts, you guys all bunching up defending your faith. It is cute.

Will there be Bingo afterwards?

Thanks for proving you're a troll to anyone who had doubts.

I am not allowed to point out the obvious group hug that is going on in here, attempting to prop each other up at the expense of others?

We've had all of this in this thread. Hell this thread is a repeat from a year or so ago, from the same bloody poster.

TinfoilTP clearly has some kind of anti atheist agenda.

When you guys have to pull out the bully tactics, your side is on the downward slope.

Of course no mention on my arguments on the premise of this thread.
Scientists using evolution to change the Earth's biosphere tampering with photosynthesis when they cannot demonstrate the origin of life proving they have command of the subject matter and are qualified technicians for this planet. Changing photosynthesis on the basis of evolutionary assumptions is no little thing. Next they will want to toss out the mitochondria for a more efficient artificial symbiosis.

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: WakeUpBeer
Credibility issue to your protestation here as you must read the posts and know full well that there is a large contingent of marauding atheists that just love to devour fresh believers and agnostics.

I did have an inclination you meant something like that. However I don't look at it like you do. I don't consider any one camp any more or less militant than the other. From my perspective, it is very easy for those who believe in God or some other form of intelligent design, to immediately get defensive and feel threatened. It may have something to do with the emotional attachment they have with their beliefs. Are the people you refer to waiting to devour others like sharks? Nope. They are defending critical thinking. Also, they aren't all atheists. Some of them are agnostics, and I know at least one of them is a polytheist.

Only one side of the evolution debate supplies evidence (that stands up to scrutiny). Only one side of the debate provides worthy counter arguments. The other side, just heehaws at it all. That isn't to say threads like this are bad, or that it's not ok to question the theory of evolution. It's even ok not to believe it. Not everyone understands it, or has decided if they support it or not. The evidence that it happens is there though. But I digress.

Yes I do, you hate God and think he is responsible for many of the horrors that go on in the world through bad examples laid out in the Bible.

No, I don't hate God. I don't think he exists at all. In fact, I'm willing to go so far as to say I know he doesn't exist. When I say God, I mean the Christian God specifically and to a large extent any of the other claimed Gods from this or that culture. I am not saying there is absolutely nothing in existence that would qualify as God. That, I truly do not know. Though admittedly I think it is incredibly unlikely. Everyone's version or idea of God is shaped similarly the same way all the others have been. Show me something conclusive that I can't reject, and I will cease to be an atheist. Anything short of conclusive evidences is just stuff I can research and ponder. Not anything I can ever claim to know as fact.

That wasn't God my friend, that was people, it was people who wrote the Bible, It was people who committed atrocities. It is also people who will learn from that, both victim and perpetrator.

I completely agree. Except about the part hinting at reincarnation. I don't have any beliefs on that either way. It's an interesting topic, but one I haven't spent a great deal of time researching.

God is not who or what you think he/she, it is.

God is everything, there is nothing that isn't God. There is no pleasure or pain that God does not know about or experience. God is omnipotent and omniscient.

You are free to do whatever you desire provided you afford the same freedom to everybody else. If you break that fundamental law you will experience that same breach of your freedom as you denied another, If you hurt someone you will feel that hurt, if you kill or rape someone, at some point in your journey you will be killed or raped.

You will experience every aspect of being both a man and a woman a rich person and a poor person, every race every creed. You have already come a very long way with much pain and much joy behind you and much yet to experience.

I guess if what you say is true, I'm just going through different lessons this lifetime, than yourself.

You see I know everything about you, in as much detail as I need to know at least.

Ok. You have a general idea who I am, based on what you've read of mine at ATS.

Evolution Theory is an irritating distraction, it tell you nothing, it teaches you nothing. If you want to do something constructive go out and make some mistakes, or do something wonderful, that is your true purpose.

How is people trying to understand the world around them an irritating distraction? Think of where the world would be if there weren't people who asked questions and sought to understand reality. We wouldn't be talking on this computer, that's for sure. Nor would anyone have any hypotheses about anything. Your beliefs included. Study of the theory of evolution has lead to a large number of advancements in various fields. How has it not been constructive in a plethora of ways?

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Scientists using evolution to change the Earth's biosphere tampering with photosynthesis when they cannot demonstrate the origin of life proving they have command of the subject matter and are qualified technicians for this planet.

Man this sentence is jumbled.

Scientists using evolution to change the Earth's biosphere

Are they really using evolution to do this?

tampering with photosynthesis when they cannot demonstrate the origin of life

The premise of this thread which has been proven wrong to the satisfaction of many, except the fearmongers.

proving they have command of the subject matter and are qualified technicians for this planet.

I'm willing to bet that even if they had something you wouldn't accept it. You would be here saying that it was bogus and they still would not be professional enough for you.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

I'm sure people in the past said things like this about the pill, air travel etc just about anything that is new...should we stop because your religion is threatened by science? no.
That is the crux of it all and why your type do not accept scientific evolution and the new wonderful discoveries we will find.
I bet many in your club through the ages would have stopped so much discovery....good job many ignore your scare mongering.
Oh and you bleat (yes sheep bleat) about how science is bad and such but love the benifits it has given you....
Pffft.

originally posted by: [post=19207034]daskakik Are they really using evolution to do this?

.

It is their rubber stamp of approval, their evolutionary studies are the basis for their conclusions that photosynthesis should be made more efficient. They are spending money and resources to do just that.

Their own data shows periods of population explosions, something protein mass comes in handy for but they want to do away with it.

It is easy to contend they are irresponsible with such power. They cannot be trusted to know all of the consequences unless they demonstrate a full working knowledge of the origin of life. They only understand bits and pieces but want to make grand changes and are indeed planning to.