Evolution backed up by Hoaxes and Desperate Lies

Originally posted by 1nf1del
Where do organic chemicals come from? Living cells? How do you have organic chemicals if you don't have organisms to create?

You misunderstand.

Organic chemistry is a specific branch of chemistry dealing with complex carbon molecules. That's it. It doesn't deal with the more weighty subjects of biochemistry, which I think you are confusing it with.

Any molecule containing carbon, is by definition an organic molecule.

To answer your question, then, organic compounds are rife in nature. And no, you do not need living cells to produce them.

New discoveries disprove evolution



How the latest discoveries by paleontologists offers many more problems for the theory of evolution because of the incredible lack of and intermediate species and yet the discovery of species that have simply gone extinct yet again with no intermediate fossils.


FROM YOUR OWN SCIENTISTS MOUTHS

"We must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." -- Franklin Harold, Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Colorado State University, in an Oxford University Press text.


"Darwinian evolution -- whatever its other virtues -- does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit. None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however, mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones for tangible breakthroughs." --U.S. National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell

"[The] Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by the religious ferocity of its rhetoric." --National Academy of Sciences member Lynn Margulis

"Mutations have a very limited 'constructive capacity' ... No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." --Past president of the French Academy of Sciences Pierre-Paul Grasse

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." --Late American paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould

"Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves." --The father of molecular systematics, Carl Woese

"Most of the animal phyla that are represented in the fossil record first appear, 'fully formed,' in the Cambrian ... The fossil record is therefore of no help with respect to the origin and early diversification of the various animal phyla." --Invertebrate Zoology Textbook

"It remains a mystery how the undirected process of mutation, combined with natural selection, has resulted in the creation of thousands of new proteins with extraordinarily diverse and well optimized functions. This problem is particularly acute for tightly integrated molecular systems that consist of many interacting parts..."
--Two leading biologists in Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics

"New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates." --Eminent evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr

Argue with them.

Many have proven that it is possible but have yet to prove it as fact, regardless of any opinion stated in this thread Abiogenesis is still just hypothesis!

Originally posted by 1nf1del

Originally posted by Pardon?

Originally posted by 1nf1del

Originally posted by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

You keep mentioning that science has disproven abiogenesis. Can you please show how and where.

edit on 20-8-2013 by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing because: Praying the words into place

That is the point it isn't proven either, there isn't any evidence to back it up! Any of the alternative theories are just as plausible! Is it that hard to think the universe and everything in it is eternal?

It's not the point at all.
You've stated that it "couldn't happen" and that it's been "disproven by science" several times now and as yet have still to back them up.

In my long post above I've shown why the "evidence" you cite to say it couldn't happen is wrong.
I've also given you a little hint as to actually how probable it WAS.
You've also been countered with the attempt to disprove the Miller-Urey experiment.
Irrespective of any other evidence whatsoever, this means that it is entirely possible doesn't it?

No, the alternative theories are not theories they are hypotheses. Yes, the word makes a huge difference.
The alternative hypotheses are called that as they have no evidence and are not testable.
Therefore they are not plausible at all.

Your last sentence reeks of desperation.

I haven't once stated it was dis-proven, that would be a stupid claim, I HAVE repeatedly stated it is NOT proven, you do know the difference, right? Abiogenesis is a hypothesis too, so what? You have proven nothing!

< In pantomime style > Oh yes you have!!

Quote: "Abiogenesis was disproved by science decades ago".

Read your posts again.
You're going around in circles now.

Originally posted by 1nf1del
Many have proven that it is possible but have yet to prove it as fact, regardless of any opinion stated in this thread Abiogenesis is still just hypothesis!

It's actually a very well-supported hypothesis and is very much on its way to being promoted to a theory.
And you still haven't disproven it or even proved it wrong have you?

How's your creationism doing again?

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
New discoveries disprove evolution

How the latest discoveries by paleontologists offers many more problems for the theory of evolution because of the incredible lack of and intermediate species and yet the discovery of species that have simply gone extinct yet again with no intermediate fossils.


FROM YOUR OWN SCIENTISTS MOUTHS

"We must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." -- Franklin Harold, Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Colorado State University, in an Oxford University Press text.


"Darwinian evolution -- whatever its other virtues -- does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit. None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however, mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones for tangible breakthroughs." --U.S. National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell

"[The] Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by the religious ferocity of its rhetoric." --National Academy of Sciences member Lynn Margulis

"Mutations have a very limited 'constructive capacity' ... No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." --Past president of the French Academy of Sciences Pierre-Paul Grasse

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." --Late American paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould

"Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves." --The father of molecular systematics, Carl Woese

"Most of the animal phyla that are represented in the fossil record first appear, 'fully formed,' in the Cambrian ... The fossil record is therefore of no help with respect to the origin and early diversification of the various animal phyla." --Invertebrate Zoology Textbook

"It remains a mystery how the undirected process of mutation, combined with natural selection, has resulted in the creation of thousands of new proteins with extraordinarily diverse and well optimized functions. This problem is particularly acute for tightly integrated molecular systems that consist of many interacting parts..."
--Two leading biologists in Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics

"New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates." --Eminent evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr

Argue with them.

But that doesn't disprove evolution at all does it?
It certainly creates more questions around it but tell me, how does it disprove it?

Originally posted by Pardon?


< In pantomime style > Oh yes you have!!

Quote: "Abiogenesis was disproved by science decades ago".

Read your posts again.
You're going around in circles now.

edit on 20/8/13 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)

Now you resort to lying to bolster your argument? Please quote my post directly because this is an outright lie!

Originally posted by Pardon?

Originally posted by 1nf1del
Many have proven that it is possible but have yet to prove it as fact, regardless of any opinion stated in this thread Abiogenesis is still just hypothesis!

It's actually a very well-supported hypothesis and is very much on its way to being promoted to a theory.
And you still haven't disproven it or even proved it wrong have you?

How's your creationism doing again?

edit on 20/8/13 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)

Yup still just a hypothesis that I don't have to prove wrong because it hasn't even been proven right!

Originally posted by 1nf1del
Abiogenensis couldn't have happened

Originally posted by 1nf1del
Many have proven that it is possible

Hmmm.

Cognitive Dissonance is the discomfort experienced while holding two contradicting viewpoints.

Sorry, but the psychology is fascinating..

reply to post by 1nf1del


My sincere apologies, it was Unifiedserenity who posted that.

Originally posted by Pardon?


How's your creationism doing again?

edit on 20/8/13 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)

Is that what it is, you falsely ASSume I'm a creationist so you have to prove me wrong? Were your parents creationists, is that why you apparently have a chip on your shoulder and are adamantly trying to prove me a liar? Why are you still trying to prove me wrong when I haven't claimed anything but fact?

Originally posted by 1nf1del

Originally posted by Pardon?

Originally posted by 1nf1del
Many have proven that it is possible but have yet to prove it as fact, regardless of any opinion stated in this thread Abiogenesis is still just hypothesis!

It's actually a very well-supported hypothesis and is very much on its way to being promoted to a theory.
And you still haven't disproven it or even proved it wrong have you?

How's your creationism doing again?

edit on 20/8/13 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)

Yup still just a hypothesis that I don't have to prove wrong because it hasn't even been proven right!

You've already tried and failed though with that "paper" from Arthur Chadwick.
If you didn't need to then why bother posting that?

Originally posted by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Originally posted by 1nf1del
Abiogenensis couldn't have happened

Originally posted by 1nf1del
Many have proven that it is possible

Hmmm.

Cognitive Dissonance is the discomfort experienced while holding two contradicting viewpoints.

Sorry, but the psychology is fascinating..

edit on 20-8-2013 by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing because: Pay my pennance to satan..

Yeah, no I have no conflicting beliefs, I am keeping an open mind to any possibility as I simply don't know, I'm not going to put faith in any one idea and I will continue to ask questions of those who gnash their teeth and fight tooth and nail for a dogmatic belief because we simply can't settle for one thing we think might be the answer, when you investigate you investigate ALL possible avenues!

Originally posted by 1nf1del

Originally posted by Pardon?


How's your creationism doing again?

edit on 20/8/13 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)

Is that what it is, you falsely ASSume I'm a creationist so you have to prove me wrong? Were your parents creationists, is that why you apparently have a chip on your shoulder and are adamantly trying to prove me a liar? Why are you still trying to prove me wrong when I haven't claimed anything but fact?

I think it 's a very good assumption considering that several of your references have been from creationist people or sites.
Particularly the Arthur Chadwick one.

Stop try to derail the thread, I'm proving you wrong because you ARE wrong.
That's all.

Originally posted by Pardon?


You've already tried and failed though with that "paper" from Arthur Chadwick.
If you didn't need to then why bother posting that?

I didn't try anything and I didn't prove anything because there is nothing to prove except that this whole discussion is moot if you're not going to discuss with an open mind, you have been trying to prove me wrong for two pages now even though I have made no claims only speculation, so please if you think you can prove my opinion wrong, do continue!

Originally posted by 1nf1del

Originally posted by Pardon?


< In pantomime style > Oh yes you have!!

Quote: "Abiogenesis was disproved by science decades ago".

Read your posts again.
You're going around in circles now.

edit on 20/8/13 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)

Now you resort to lying to bolster your argument? Please quote my post directly because this is an outright lie!

Responding to Pardon here, just what is circular? That I believe in science? To say I do not because I don't accept evolution is to pretend that macro evolution is science. We already agree on changes within a species which is called micro evolution, but since you cannot offer any proof of changes from one species to another and you cannot witness this evolution you are basing the belief in how life developed on a belief system and that is not science, but religion. In this case, it's the religion of humanism.

Evolution is the opiate of atheists in their need to disprove God, and live without any hope or responsibility in life. It's all just an accident and there are no right or wrong behaviors. You can believe you came from a rock or monkey, but you can't prove it.

Originally posted by 1nf1del

Originally posted by Pardon?


You've already tried and failed though with that "paper" from Arthur Chadwick.
If you didn't need to then why bother posting that?

I didn't try anything and I didn't prove anything because there is nothing to prove except that this whole discussion is moot if you're not going to discuss with an open mind, you have been trying to prove me wrong for two pages now even though I have made no claims only speculation, so please if you think you can prove my opinion wrong, do continue!

posted on 20/8/13 @ 11:37 this post reply to post by Pardon?


You need proof of common knowledge?

Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis

Oh crap I'm not supposed to copy paste, how do I get this info to you, snail mail?


signature:
I am not enlightened only awake!

reply to post by 1nf1del


The truly open mind would be equally open to the scientific view as well.

But we don't often see that here..

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by 1nf1del

Originally posted by Pardon?


< In pantomime style > Oh yes you have!!

Quote: "Abiogenesis was disproved by science decades ago".

Read your posts again.
You're going around in circles now.

edit on 20/8/13 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)

Now you resort to lying to bolster your argument? Please quote my post directly because this is an outright lie!

Responding to Pardon here, just what is circular? That I believe in science? To say I do not because I don't accept evolution is to pretend that macro evolution is science. We already agree on changes within a species which is called micro evolution, but since you cannot offer any proof of changes from one species to another and you cannot witness this evolution you are basing the belief in how life developed on a belief system and that is not science, but religion. In this case, it's the religion of humanism.

Evolution is the opiate of atheists in their need to disprove God, and live without any hope or responsibility in life. It's all just an accident and there are no right or wrong behaviors. You can believe you came from a rock or monkey, but you can't prove it.

There's been plenty of proof offered to you but you dismiss it.
That's fine. That's entirely up to you.
Accept what you want based upon any criteria you want but please don't tell me or any others to do the same.

I would turn your second paragraph around on you there.
Evolutionists do not go out of their way to disprove anything, let alone god.
It's more the godders who do that with evolution.
I'd suggest that instead of an opiate for you lot it's more like crack coc aine in most cases.

So talking about circles the whole basis for your argument against evolution is that it's not 100% proven.
Is that it?
So show me how much proof there is for your god again...

This is a copy paste so you don't have to come back and state the obvious but it is logic nonetheless!

Some think that forming life's building blocks in the lab helps prove abiogenesis. This is absurd. Scientists have found the minimum complexity of life to be about 2000 genes for a self supporting microbe, and about 400 genes for the simplest parasitic microbe, not capable of surviving on its own. So it is not enough that there be life's building blocks present - they must be arranged in a precise order (and all amino acids must be left-handed) in order for life to function at all.

Creating amino acids or nucleotides in the lab and saying it proves abiogenesis is like someone saying the complete works of Shakespeare arose from naturalistic processes by pointing to a bowl of alphabet soup.

It is one thing to create life's building blocks in the lab, it is another for us to believe that those building blocks will be stable long enough for life to spontaneously arise from them. Many people know of the Miller-Urey experiment that produced amino acids from a hypthetical (now known to be wrong) early earth atmosphere. What many people don't know, however, is that those building blocks of life were unstable. Miller stopped the experient when he got the most favorable results. If the experiment continued, the building blocks of life were broken down by the same environment that produced them.

Also, from what is now known of the early earth, life had to have formed under hostile conditions. And while life, if appropriately designed, can survive under extreme physical and chemical conditions, it cannot originate under those conditions. There are extremeophiles that can live in harsh environments, but these organisms have mechanisms built in to them to survive those conditions. If the building blocks of life were present, they would have a very short half-life. Also, the early earth was very acidic. Acidic conditions frustrate key prebiotic reactions. Acidic conditions also promote the breakdown of key biomolecules like proteins and DNA.

There is not enough time for life to have arisen on its own. After the molten earth had cooled, there is evidence that there was some water on earth between 4.4 and 4.2 billion years ago. Then the Late Heavy Bombardment occurred from 4.1 to 3.8 billion years ago, causing the crust to become molten again. The first evidence for life that we have is from 3.8 billion years ago. Allowing for the possibility that extremeophiles could have survived the Late Heavy Bombardment, the best case scenario for the time the origin of life had is between 400 and 600 million years. But during the majority of this time period, the earth's environment was extremely unfit for life.

And for those who say that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution:

Evolution and abiogenesis are both the products of the philosophy of naturalistic materialism. Although not formally part of Darwin's theory, abiogenesis forms the core of the evolutionary paradigm. Life must have its beginning in exclusively physical and chemical processes for evolutionists to legitimately explain life’s diversity throughout Earth’s history from a strictly materialistic standpoint. If abiogenesis lacks scientific credibility, the foundation of evolutionary theory crumbles. Moreover, if life can be shown to have a supernatural origin, then the door opens for viewing all phenomena in biology from an intelligent design perspective.

Some scientists are trying to create life from 'scratch' in the laboratory. (It is not really from 'scratch,' but based heavily on design concepts already found in living cells.) This is different from abiogensis and has no bearing on it because the life they are trying to create would be *designed.* Recently scientists have created an enzyme from scratch. But it took about 30 researchers working hard and the use of supercomputers to do it. This shows obvious DESIGN, not abiogenesis: which is life arising on its own from strictly naturalistic processes, and without intelligent direction.