The Questions That Abiogenesis Needs To Answer, Before Evolution.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Evolution explains the diversity of life, not it's origins.

It seems that every so often a creationist comes across this argument on a creationist website and suddenly thinks they've found the 'perfect storm'......is that you in this instance?

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Evolution explains the diversity of life, not it's origins.

It seems that every so often a creationist comes across this argument on a creationist website and suddenly thinks they've found the 'perfect storm'......is that you in this instance?

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.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Evolution explains the diversity of life, not it's origins.

It seems that every so often a creationist comes across this argument on a creationist website and suddenly thinks they've found the 'perfect storm'......is that you in this instance?

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.

You are one of the very few people on ATS that make me literally facepalm myself whenever you post.

By your own logic, you can't believe in the Bible because there is no explanation for the origin of god. How can you not see the ironic ignorance in your argument?

A simple question for you: where did god come from?

Oh, you don't know? Well that means the Bible is just a load of bull doesn't it?

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Evolution explains the diversity of life, not it's origins.

It seems that every so often a creationist comes across this argument on a creationist website and suddenly thinks they've found the 'perfect storm'......is that you in this instance?

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.

Yeah sure, if we don't know gawd, we can't know anything......

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Evolution explains the diversity of life, not it's origins.

It seems that every so often a creationist comes across this argument on a creationist website and suddenly thinks they've found the 'perfect storm'......is that you in this instance?

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.

You are one of the very few people on ATS that make me literally facepalm myself whenever you post.

By your own logic, you can't believe in the Bible because there is no explanation for the origin of god. How can you not see the ironic ignorance in your argument?

A simple question for you: where did god come from?

Oh, you don't know? Well that means the Bible is just a load of bull doesn't it?

That is simple and you know it.

God has no beginning and no end, God always was and will be.
As pertains to his creation, he is at the beginning of creation and will be at the end of creation, continuing on all Godly as only a God can do.

Duh!

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Can you prove this? No Seriously.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Evolution explains the diversity of life, not it's origins.

It seems that every so often a creationist comes across this argument on a creationist website and suddenly thinks they've found the 'perfect storm'......is that you in this instance?

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.

You are one of the very few people on ATS that make me literally facepalm myself whenever you post.

By your own logic, you can't believe in the Bible because there is no explanation for the origin of god. How can you not see the ironic ignorance in your argument?

A simple question for you: where did god come from?

Oh, you don't know? Well that means the Bible is just a load of bull doesn't it?

That is simple and you know it.

God has no beginning and no end, God always was and will be.
As pertains to his creation, he is at the beginning of creation and will be at the end of creation, continuing on all Godly as only a God can do.

Duh!

Ok. What's your explanation for the diversity of life seen on this planet?

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Can you prove this? No Seriously.

Don't need to, that is the story follow along. It is not any different than atheists pretending they don't need a start of life because they can't find one.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Evolution explains the diversity of life, not it's origins.

It seems that every so often a creationist comes across this argument on a creationist website and suddenly thinks they've found the 'perfect storm'......is that you in this instance?

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.

You are one of the very few people on ATS that make me literally facepalm myself whenever you post.

By your own logic, you can't believe in the Bible because there is no explanation for the origin of god. How can you not see the ironic ignorance in your argument?

A simple question for you: where did god come from?

Oh, you don't know? Well that means the Bible is just a load of bull doesn't it?

That is simple and you know it.

God has no beginning and no end, God always was and will be.
As pertains to his creation, he is at the beginning of creation and will be at the end of creation, continuing on all Godly as only a God can do.

Duh!

Ok. What's your explanation for the diversity of life seen on this planet?

An all knowing God could have set up the conditions for evolution to transform first life as we see it. This removes the need of micromanagement and the God can stay outside of the Creation instead of continual maintenance from within.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

That then makes you a hypocrite. Your argument is thus invalid. Oh and as I repeatedly say, one does not have to be an atheist to agree that evolution is real, or abiogenisis/proteogenisis occurred.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TinfoilTP

That then makes you a hypocrite. Your argument is thus invalid. Oh and as I repeatedly say, one does not have to be an atheist to agree that evolution is real, or abiogenisis/proteogenisis occurred.

Then atheists don't have a leg to stand on either if you take that view.

A creationist can believe evolution is real.
A creationist attributes the abiogenesis from God doing the abiogenesis.
The ones who believe in a spontaneous abiogenesis need to demonstrate it in the lab, which will never happen. No different than the God view because God does not perform tricks on demand so it can never be demonstrated in front of your eyes that way either.

Believing in a God is no different than an Atheist, but somehow the atheist thinks they get a pass at believing in something they cannot demonstrate either.
Oh and in this way, they both require FAITH, the dirtiest word in the atheist dictionary.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TinfoilTP

That then makes you a hypocrite. Your argument is thus invalid. Oh and as I repeatedly say, one does not have to be an atheist to agree that evolution is real, or abiogenisis/proteogenisis occurred.

Then atheists don't have a leg to stand on either if you take that view.

A creationist can believe evolution is real.
A creationist attributes the abiogenesis from God doing the abiogenesis.
The ones who believe in a spontaneous abiogenesis need to demonstrate it in the lab, which will never happen. No different than the God view because God does not perform tricks on demand so it can never be demonstrated in front of your eyes that way either.

Believing in a God is no different than an Atheist, but somehow the atheist thinks they get a pass at believing in something they cannot demonstrate either.
Oh and in this way, they both require FAITH, the dirtiest word in the atheist dictionary.

The difference is, Atheists don't believe that abiogensis happened a particular way because there's a lack of evidence.

I don't understand why you refuse to grasp the basic principle: atheists only accept evidentiary findings. You keep trying to sound like an authority on atheists but you're clueless.

Atheists don't have faith in anything... atheists accept evidence. For now, the answer to the abiogensis question is "I don't know but scientists have a few ideas."

Religious people fill the "I don't know" gap with "god did it."

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Evolution explains the diversity of life, not it's origins.

It seems that every so often a creationist comes across this argument on a creationist website and suddenly thinks they've found the 'perfect storm'......is that you in this instance?

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.

You are one of the very few people on ATS that make me literally facepalm myself whenever you post.

By your own logic, you can't believe in the Bible because there is no explanation for the origin of god. How can you not see the ironic ignorance in your argument?

A simple question for you: where did god come from?

Oh, you don't know? Well that means the Bible is just a load of bull doesn't it?

That is simple and you know it.

God has no beginning and no end, God always was and will be.
As pertains to his creation, he is at the beginning of creation and will be at the end of creation, continuing on all Godly as only a God can do.

Duh!

Ok. What's your explanation for the diversity of life seen on this planet?

An all knowing God could have set up the conditions for evolution to transform first life as we see it. This removes the need of micromanagement and the God can stay outside of the Creation instead of continual maintenance from within.

You're absolutely right... that COULD have happened. Life could have also sprung from the same conditions caused merely by happenstance.

As it stands, we can't prove either version, can we?

So now you admit that evolution is legitimate but, because science hasn't explained the origins of life, god started it all and atheists are hypocrites for accepting the evidence of evolution but refusing to accept a fairy tale version for how life started in the first place?

a reply to: Answer

Not all religious people act this way (Oh wait I'm a Neopagan so do I count?)

What irks me is that people (mostly creationists and antivaxers) mistake theory (scientifically speaking) for "just a vague idea" and then assumeabiogenisis/protoeogenisis for being that far through the process. Its not.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Answer

Not all religious people act this way

(Oh wait I'm a Neopagan so do I count?)

What irks me is that people (mostly creationists and antivaxers) mistake theory (scientifically speaking) for "just a vague idea" and then assumeabiogenisis/protoeogenisis for being that far through the process. Its not.

The one thing that the vast majority of evolution-deniers and creationists have in common is a lack of scientific education and/or understanding.

originally posted by: Astyanax

Life is merely a label given to a well-known complex of physical processes. It is a semantic label, not a real entity.

Brilliant. You can say this about everything.

At some point the process that began life had to become evolutionary processes. 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.

My conclusion:

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

a reply to: PhotonEffect

At some point the process that began life had to become evolutionary processes. It's plausible to me, that both processes are probably very similar, or involved similar aspects.

And yet they continue to say they are two completely separate scientific issues and totally unrelated, but your critical thinking brought you to a logical conclusion, that so many deny.

I am glad to see somebody is actually thinking in scientific concepts rather than scientific semantics, and they finally posted in this thread. We need just a little bit more of that around here.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Perhaps, however the more stupid debate is trying to ram unrelated ideas (abiogenisis/proteogenisis and evolution in this case) together.

So I will do just that , one must understand gravity before one understands chemical kinetics. mmmK? No?

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

They are separate.

One deals with first life.

One deals with diversity of life.

QED Not the same thing.

End of debate.