Creationist - The necessary steps to evolution and what has been proven

a reply to: borntowatch

I dont believe in evolution because I see a failure in science

You get an F in logic and reason.
The failure is your constant misinterpreting and willful ignorance of the science.
You state.. "abiogenesis stops me believing in evolution."
How does a unproven hypothesis stop you from believing a natural phenomenon we observe on a daily basis? Don't answer, I know it's nothing but an excuse to be lazy, it's like saying.. I don't believe in planets cause I don't believe in physics and chemistry.
In the end you can never articulate or show this "failure in science" you pretend to see. Why.. cause that means being honest and we can't have that, now could we?

My position is first based on faith, science (you have yet to prove) comes next.

This is refreshing.. a glint of truth, you admit all your denial is faith induced. It's telling you believe in unevidenced claims, yet need proof for science that can be observed? I bet this hypocrisy sounded better in your head.

I'm sorry, but your not any better at refuting the proven science of evolution than the guy who thinks flying pigs should describe evolution. The only thing you guys do is drool nonsense without fact checking, encouraging bullsh#t to propagate, leading to the dumbing-down of ATS.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Andrew Crosse generated living bugs that responded to external stimuli. He initially thought it was some sort of contamination, but further experiment made him conclude that this was not the case. Even more interesting, the three main ingredients he used (silicates, water, and electricity) are the same initial conditions claimed in Genesis 1:1-3; the earth is comprised majorily of silicates, light is an indication of electromagnetic radiation, and water is explicitly stated. It was successfully recreated by William Weekes; all of the original papers written by them can be read in 'abiogenesis and life from dirt'

In his book 'Man, Minerals, and Masters', Charles Littlefield discusses his experiments in which mineral water would generate intelligible forms (Animal forms, the Alphabet, etc) according to his words/thought. This is remniscent of Genesis in which God creates form by his word, and is also further disambiguated in the beginning of the Gospel of John.

The experiments of Morley-Martin were similar to that of Crosse. He uses what he called a mineral 'protoplasm', similar to Crosse and Littlefield's ingredients, and he was able to generate the forms of "crustacean, (microscopic) fish, and even (microscopic) amphibian forms" www.rexresearch.com...

There are also the experiments of Wilhelm Reich which gave rise to protozoans via non-biological means. Recreation seen here: www.youtube.com...

In all of these experiments there are 3 things in common; silicates, water, and electromagnetic energy. These are the three initial conditions in Genesis.

These scientists were able to observe the tip of the iceberg of the Creative Force.

a reply to: Isurrender73

As a Creationist Xian your argument is "Intelligent design", isn't it?

As a Xian.... you worship a dead human being as god...don't you?

You do realize you can't be taken seriously...don't you?

People that worship dead human beings as god are pagans, aren't they?

And sadly you havnt learned to understand I dont care what you think about evolution and abiogenesis.

Get it yet, your opinion is important to you, not me so much.

My opinion is important to me, irrelevant to you.

Your argument is pointless as it refuses to accept my position. Evolution is invalid without life, supernatural or otherwise.

God could create life that evolves, many christians who I know accept and believe that.
I dont, I dont see the evidence in the fossil record
I dont see evidence of speciation
I see evidence of de evolution not evolution

Its great that you fight for the freedom of religion, I also fight for the freedom of atheism, I fight for the rights of gays choosing their lifestyle, I dont agree with them but they have that right. I fight for christians who believe in evolution though I think they are wrong.

Now fight for my right to link evolution and abiogenesis irrespective of what you believe.


"Science hasn't figured out the abc yet," though thinks it has the answers to all spelling competitions.

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: borntowatch

I dont believe in evolution because I see a failure in science

You get an F in logic and reason.
The failure is your constant misinterpreting and willful ignorance of the science.
You state.. "abiogenesis stops me believing in evolution."
How does a unproven hypothesis stop you from believing a natural phenomenon we observe on a daily basis? Don't answer, I know it's nothing but an excuse to be lazy, it's like saying.. I don't believe in planets cause I don't believe in physics and chemistry.
In the end you can never articulate or show this "failure in science" you pretend to see. Why.. cause that means being honest and we can't have that, now could we?

My position is first based on faith, science (you have yet to prove) comes next.

This is refreshing.. a glint of truth, you admit all your denial is faith induced. It's telling you believe in unevidenced claims, yet need proof for science that can be observed? I bet this hypocrisy sounded better in your head.

I'm sorry, but your not any better at refuting the proven science of evolution than the guy who thinks flying pigs should describe evolution. The only thing you guys do is drool nonsense without fact checking, encouraging bullsh#t to propagate, leading to the dumbing-down of ATS.

Oh no..... a BIG BOLD F from some unknown person on the internet, how will I live through the rest of my life?

Yes my beliefs are faith based, THEN......I said science has yet to prove evolution.
Let me reiterate my stance.

I accept christians who believe in evolution are christians, no qualms
If I found evidence that proved evolution beyond question well then I would.

Your strawman attack on me, yes you have to attack me because you have nothing valid to say, is as valid as your big bold F

Dont get angry and swear at me, prove your position.
Calling me lazy and you have oFFered a grade, well let me grade your argument and evidence.

Hey go read the OP and prove it wrong, then you win the whole internet.

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: Isurrender73

Andrew Crosse generated living bugs that responded to external stimuli. He initially thought it was some sort of contamination, but further experiment made him conclude that this was not the case. Even more interesting, the three main ingredients he used (silicates, water, and electricity) are the same initial conditions claimed in Genesis 1:1-3; the earth is comprised majorily of silicates, light is an indication of electromagnetic radiation, and water is explicitly stated. It was successfully recreated by William Weekes; all of the original papers written by them can be read in 'abiogenesis and life from dirt'

Science must be repeatable observable and testable.

You had better be careful you might get an F grade around here

a reply to: borntowatch

Oh no..... a BIG BOLD F from some unknown person on the internet, how will I live through the rest of my life?

Well.. lucky for you we've tamed our living environment and protected ourselves from the vagaries of nature, but don't get too cocky, human stupidity is not immune to the forces of natural selection.

Yes my beliefs are faith based, THEN......I said science has yet to prove evolution. Let me reiterate my stance.

We are well aware you ignore evidence that does not fit your preconceived beliefs.

I accept christians who believe in evolution are christians, no qualms If I found evidence that proved evolution beyond question well then I would.

Evolution does not require belief, it's not a belief system, it's our word to describe observed natural phenomenon. Confirmation bias corrupts any evidence, leading you to your current state of delusion.

Your strawman attack on me, yes you have to attack me because you have nothing valid to say, is as valid as your big bold F

Fallacies being your forte there's no excuse to cry strawman except to draw attention away (red herring) from the very valid questions I have brought up about your intellectual dishonesty.

Dont get angry and swear at me, prove your position. Calling me lazy and you have oFFered a grade, well let me grade your argument and evidence.

In your condition you are in no position to grade anybody. You lack objective reasoning, this is critical in grading any of my arguments.

Hey go read the OP and prove it wrong, then you win the whole internet.

I got a better idea.. You go read the OP and try to understand why it's wrong. Then you will win my respect.

borntowatch

Where has abiogenesis been proven, (conditions?) thats sounds like religious talk to me

I have no idea how that qualifies as religious talk..


In 2014, a group of researchers managed to produce all four components of RNA by simulating an asteroid impact in primordial conditions.

A 2015 paper showed that the chemical precursors for the synthesis of amino acids, lipids and nucleotides, which would be required in a primitive cell, could have all arisen simultaneously through reactions driven by ultraviolet light.

According to your beliefs
Your beliefs, abiogenesis is irrelevant you have chosen your beliefs based on what you have interpreted by others, to you

Incidentally so have I and abiogenesis remains.

Just because you cant answer the questions so choose to remain ignorant to the issue that doesnt mean I choose ignorance.

You dont decide for me, Abiogenesis remains valid

You can protest all you want, abiogenesis stops me believing in evolution

Science doesn't care about belief. Its findings stand alone independent of personal or subjective belief. That's what's so great about it, and what makes it scientific.

You can't use personal belief to disprove scientific findings. You have to use scientific method to dispute scientific findings.

Evolution has been directly observed in nature, and is a well documented, proven theory. If the fact that abiogenesis has not been directly observed in nature is what prevents you from accepting evolution as fact, then you simply do not understand the theory.

originally posted by: Isurrender73


Step 1 - Abiogenesis

The first requirement for life to evolve is to become.

Currently we have no evidence that this is possible. The simplest form of known life could not have spontaneously arose. Currently there is no evidence to suggest that life simpler than a cell has ever existed.

Viruses, according to Occoms Razor, must be viewed as mutations or defective cells, as they can not reproduce outside of a viable host cell.

DNA and the human genome are irruducibly complex.

The null hypothesis states otherwise for abiogenesis. Life/DNA is made up of chemical reactions. There is no evidence that shows life goes against the principals of organic chemistry, which is evidence for abiogenesis. Really, now it is a matter of determining under what conditions abiogenesis is most likely to occur. Miller/Urey is another example of evidence showing organic molecules can form in specific conditions.

Secondly, irreducible complexity is bad science. The makeup of DNA in every living organism on this planet is the same. The difference is the amount and sequence of genes. We know the mechanisms and chemical principals that govern DNA. Behe is an idiot for not understanding this simple concept.

Step 2 - Cross Kingdoms

Currently we are unable to prove that a living creature can evolve outside of it's kingdom.

Step 3 - Cross Phylum

Currently we are unable to prove that a living creature can evolve outside of it's Phylum.

Step 4 - Cross Class

Currently we are unable to prove that a living creature can evolve outside of it's Class.

Step 5 - Cross Order

Currently we are unable to prove that a living creature can evolve outside of it's Order.

Step 6 - Cross Family

Currently we are unable to prove that a living creature can evolve outside of it's Family.

Step 7 - Cross Genus

Currently we are unable to prove that a living creature can evolve outside of it's Genus.

Didn't really see the point in listing 6 points which are the same point.....Try to understand what taxonomy means.

Step 8 - Cross Species

Currently we can prove that flies can no longer procreate when separated for several generations and are subjected to different external conditions.

In the 8 steps that science has defined for itself we have only been able to scratch the surface of step 8.

Evolution has become the science of imagination. If you can imagine it happened then you can be a scientist.

I am a creationist who believes that when God speaks of the animals according to their kind, he is talking about the class/phylum. I put both because I believe it is possible we still have much to learn about class/phylum and the adaptation of life, which is also known as micro evolution.

Micro evolution is a taxonomic term not a process. The term "kind" as you and creationists use it has no true definition. It also requires micro and macro to be separate processes, which they are not. As I said at the top of the post, DNA in every organism is made up the same way, there is no barrier separating species through their genes, which is what derives the traits by which we classify them. That barrier would be required if the micro and macro evolutions were separate processes.

originally posted by: borntowatch

No Barcs its not wrong.
It may be wrong to you
You dont get to set the agenda, if its valid to s then deal with it

You are wrong in this case

Abiogenesis is absolutely imperative for evolution and to deny that is absurd.
Biological evolution needs life and saying otherwise.... your comments disqualify your logic.

Abiogenesis remains valid to many irrelevant what you deem to dictate at others.

Learn to deal with what others believe because you have no authority to dictate

abiogenesis is relevant, the fact you cant answer the concern is the only reason you demand its wrong

You are right, biological evolution requires life to exist; however, it doesn't matter how life arose. Abiogenesis and evolution are two separate processes. Therefore, evolution does not require abiogenesis. If someone cannot understand or refuses to understand that concept it is on them.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Just wanted to add one more step.

After Abiogenesis

Step 2 Single Cell to Multi-Cellular

Currently we are unable to prove that a single cell organism can evolve into a multi-cellular organism.

This is a true deal breaker for evolutionist.

Please don't link to the study that shows single cells organisms becoming specified when working together.

The farmer, the blacksmith and the tailor all work together, but they will never conjoin to become a three headed man.

a reply to: Cypress

Yes but you need to first prove a single cell organisms can evole into a multi-cellular one.

That is Step 1 of evolution, and it has yet to be duplicated in a lab.

I am supposed to imagine it happened, like the rest of evolution. If you can imagine it you can be a scientist.

a reply to: Cypress

When a pig can mate with a monkey, then tell me their is no barrier.

Their are at least 7 barriers to life that science cannot explain by evolution, without it coming from thier imagination.

Picture or it didn't happen.

I can use my imagination however I want, and it doesn't make me ignorant. You imagine evolution, I imagine creation.

a reply to: Agartha

This is a horrible comparison.

I don't need to do the experiments to understand the lab results.

Being a doctor is hands on.

So no, a medical doctor is not the same as a scients.

a reply to: Verum1quaere

Thank you for your support of this thread. I appreciate what you have added.

a reply to: spygeek

That study amounts to nothing more than mixing chemicals in a pan.

Nature can mix chemicals.

How is mixing chemicals, which we have assumed possible for decades, prove life arose naturally?

You know that you are grasping at straws when you call mixing chemicals in a pan Abiogenesis.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Agartha

This is a horrible comparison.

I don't need to do the experiments to understand the lab results.

Being a doctor is hands on.

So no, a medical doctor is not the same as a scients.

Understanding lab results doesn't make anybody a scientist: I work with lab results every day, but that doesn't make me a scientist, I just decide my interventions according to those results, nothing more.

Even without a degree you still need to employ the scientific method, research, check your experiments and then publish your findings possibly peer reviewed. Scientists work hard trying to help our understanding of our world/universe around us, they don't just read and discuss, they experiment endlessly to prove their ideas (right or wrong).

Medicine is hands on and so is science.

Proving creationism:
1. Creationism predicts that all life was made fully formed, with complete and complex information stored in the DNA of each lifeform. There has not been any record of information being added to DNA, therefore organisms were made with their existing information.
2. Creationism predicts that man was created suddenly. DNA proves this to be correct, as there has not been enough time to mutate DNA to make humans. The human DNA has 6 billion dipolar base pairs. You would have to have two successful mutations per year, every year, since life began on Earth, to create humans.
3. Creationism predicts that there would be helium in rocks. Helium loss in rocks shows the Earth is in the neighborhood of 7000 years old. Any older, and there would not be any helium in rocks.
4. Creationism predicts that there would be soft tissue in dinosaur bones. There is. Soft tissue cannot exist past about 4000 years.
5. Creationism predicts that carbon 14 will be present in fossils, and that it will show that fossils do not date older than about 7000 years, adjusting for atmospheric changes following a major flood. It does, as all fossils on Earth contain Carbon 14, and none test older than an adjusted date of about 7000 years.
6. Creationism predicts that polonium halos would exist in granite if the Earth was made in one day. Scientific evidence concerning polonium halos in granite show that the halos could only form if the granite cooled in just a few minutes. www.halos.com
7. Creationism predicts that man and dinosaurs coexisted, being made within a few days of each other. Dinosaurs and man show intermixed footprints in stone at the Paluxy River in Glen Rose, Texas and other sites on Earth.
8. Creationism predicts that there was nothing, and it was made into the Universe within 6 days. Using Einstein's E=mc^2 formula, we find that the time for the stretching forth of the Universe from Earth to 13.5 billion light years away took 5.5 days at the speed of light times the speed of light. After this expansion began to slow below the mc^2, it transformed from light (E) into mass (m), with light stretched out in the space-time continuum between all objects.
9. Creationism predicts that the creation spread out from a centerpoint, Earth, to the rest of the Universe. Hubble confirmed that this was one of two possibilities but argued that he could not accept a favored position for Earth and chose the second possibility. However, since Hubble, we have discovered that quantum red shift puts Earth at the center of the Universe within 100 light years (the Milky Way is 100,000 light years across), which would allow for motion in the Milky Way galaxy to move our position from exact center to slightly off center.
10. Creationism predicts that red shift will show that the Universe was spread out at speeds increasing with distance. Red shift confirms that the Universe was indeed spread out at speeds increasing with distance from Earth.
11. Creationism predicts that this Universe is a special creation by God for man to inhabit Earth. Due to recent studies of the fine-tuning of the Universe, scientists now know that the chance of this Universe existing and being suitable for life for man is 1x10^140,000. Scientists explain this by stating that the infinite Universe is surrounded by more infinite universes and that we were lucky to be in ours. This scientific counterpoint can never be proven to eliminate the facts proven that support creationism.

Only creationism predicts these true results.

a reply to: Jim Scott

Gish Gallop

The Gish Gallop is the debating technique of drowning an opponent in such a torrent of small arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer or address each one in real time. More often than not, these myriad arguments are full of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments

Fits like a glove, so much made up nonsense in your post.....

a reply to: Jim Scott

This is all a bunch of nonsense (not to mention ALL unsourced). Deny ignorance.