Religion Creation vs. Darwin's MacroEvolution Myth

[Procrastinator35]

Abiogenesis is the process by which life arises naturally from non-living matter. 'Darwinism' says nothing about Abiogenesis. All this shows is your continuing ignorance of evolution. Or your repeated tendency to troll. Perhaps both.

Oh really?.....And here I was naively believing, that Darwinin evolutionary theory, continues to evolve & incorporate such notions of 'abiogenesis' into it's over-arching 'MACRO' (See the title sugar-pie) thesis.....My bad.

Yes, it's rhetorical, my dear one-dimensional, hard-headed, materialist friend.

And as to how 'Life arises naturally from non-living matter' really is anyone's guess.....Last I checked, the premise that life comes from non-life incorporated the notion of 'Miraculous'.

In other words, herein lies the BIG LIE, sneakily incorporated in as 'SCIENCE', when it's nothing of the sort, but pure speculative faith.

Nice try but.

 

[Barry Roundhouse]

Ya pushing shit up hill trying to debate Roylion on evolution and creationism.

Maybe go to a different thread and hope he doesn't pop in to call you out on your bullshit.

 

[Barry Roundhouse]

Oh really?.....And here I was naively believing, that Darwinin evolutionary theory, continues to evolve & incorporate such notions of 'abiogenesis' into it's over-arching 'MACRO' (See the title sugar-pie) thesis.....My bad.

Yes, it's rhetorical, my dear one-dimensional, hard-headed, materialist friend.

And as to how 'Life arises naturally from non-living matter' really is anyone's guess.....Last I checked, the premise that life comes from non-life incorporated the notion of 'Miraculous'.

In other words, herein lies the BIG LIE, sneakily incorporated in as 'SCIENCE', when it's nothing of the sort, but pure speculative faith.

Nice try but.

1000's of scientists agree with evolution. What is the end goal of deceiving everyone? What's the point of pushing that thoery over creationism?

 

[Roylion]

Oh really?.....And here I was naively believing, that Darwinin evolutionary theory, continues to evolve & incorporate such notions of 'abiogenesis' into it's over-arching 'MACRO' (See the title sugar-pie) thesis.....My bad.

Rubbish. Do some reading.

The above statement is just a sample of your ignorance on the subject.

I can only conclude that either:

1) you do simply do not understand the nature of evolutionary theory. In not having a clear idea about what evolution is, you mistakenly include ideas which do not belong. This failure to understand the topic sheds some interesting light on attempts to critique it.

OR

2) is that you do understand evolution and are being consciously and deliberately dishonest. Perhaps you imagine that by confusing people as to the true nature of evolution, you will be able to gain more support for your own position which is more in accordance with the will of God / Christian doctrines or whatever other belief system you hold.

Or you're just trolling. Very possible.

If it's the first and it's all too difficult for you to read anything of a reasonable length and/or the concepts are too difficult for you, here is the short version.

"Scientists have not developed a clear explanation of how life might have developed from non-living material. That has no impact on evolution.

Even if life did not begin naturally but was started due to the intervention of some 'divine power', evolution would still stand on the overwhelming empirical evidence that has been collected to date (and continues to be collected).

At no point was evolution, nor natural selection, about explaining the origin of life - just as we don't fault chemistry for not explaining where atoms come from: it explains how substances behave once they exist, not how they came about."

I can't make it any clearer than that.

In other words, herein lies the BIG LIE, sneakily incorporated in as 'SCIENCE', when it's nothing of the sort, but pure speculative faith.

Empirical evidence on the possibility and nature of 'abiogenesis' continues to be assembled.

And here is a sample of what has been observed so far.

In the 1950s, several experiments by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey verified that the natural formation of amino acids, components of proteins, and other organic compounds out of inorganic materials was possible under the atmospheric conditions of Primordial Earth.

In 2001 Jennifer Blank at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory reported: "Through subsequent chemical analysis, the team discovered that the initial amino acids in the mixture had linked together to form peptides, from which proteins can be formed."

A 2015 paper from a a team of chemists working at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, at Cambridge in the UK, published in the journal Nature Chemistry, 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.

In 2015, NASA scientists studying the origin of life managed to reproduce uracil, cytosine, and thymine (known building blocks of life) from an ice sample containing pyrimidine under conditions found in space.

A 2016 study showed that the building blocks of life can be replicated in deep-sea vents. These experiments have for the first time demonstrated that RNA molecules can form in alkaline hydrothermal chimneys.

Once again. None of the above is conclusive, but empirical evidence for the possibility of abiogenesis existing does exist. And abiogenesis will continued to be investigated by science.

Evolution on the other hand is fact. Every piece of empirical evidence (and there are multiple hundred of thousands of pieces across a variety of fields including biochemisty, comparative anatomy, bio-geography, comparative embryology, molecular biology, palaeontology and radioisotope dating amongst others) collected thus far supports that theory / model.

Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the supporting evidence is so overwhelming.

 

[Thats Wright]

Oh really?.....And here I was naively believing, that Darwinin evolutionary theory, continues to evolve & incorporate such notions of 'abiogenesis' into it's over-arching 'MACRO' (See the title sugar-pie) thesis.....My bad.

Yes, it's rhetorical, my dear one-dimensional, hard-headed, materialist friend.

Mate, surely you aren't the conspiracy, botherer version of Kidd.

I'd be upset if you were just a sad troll.

I'm hoping you are just infatuated with this hottie off Russia Today.



Or even the whiny Keiser who sure knows his dollars.



Oksana is major charisma but surely you can't be such a simpleton to live your life through 'watching the Hawks'.

Or can you? Share some dictionary if you have the time.

 

[Procrastinator35]

1000's of scientists agree with evolution. What is the end goal of deceiving everyone? What's the point of pushing that thoery over creationism?

Numbers do not a truth make.

Any literal creationist nutter could also just as easily claim that Adam & Eve are perfect exemplars for how life 'Naturally arises from non-living matter'.

Nomenclature & the claims to the ownership thereof do not an argument make....Concepts do not subsume nature....And nor does Macro-Darwinism offer any universally definitive account for the origins & nature of life on earth, by any stretch of the imagination.

View attachment 390352
Ya pushing shit up hill trying to debate Roylion on evolution and creationism.

Maybe go to a different thread and hope he doesn't pop in to call you out on your bullshit.

LOL.....Fanbois have no place on the SRP board snookums.

Roy struggles with cosmology & philosophy big time....He knows it & I know it.

 

[Thats Wright]

Numbers do not a truth make.

Any literal creationist nutter could also just as easily claim that Adam & Eve are perfect exemplars for how life 'Naturally arises from non-living matter'.

Nomenclature & the claims to the ownership thereof do not an argument make....Concepts do not subsume nature....And nor does Macro-Darwinism offer any universally definitive account for the origins & nature of life on earth, by any stretch of the imagination.



LOL.....Fanbois have no place on the SRP board snookums.

Roy struggles with cosmology & philosophy big time....He knows it & I know it.

How does it go P35?

If nobody has told you today, I loves you?

Inside joke for us truthers.

 

[RupieDupie]

Somehow, this current discussion has deviated from the point of the thread, methinks.

Which is: The notion of competing cosmological theories for the origins of life.....Accident, or Design.

People who want to discuss the origins & nature of Christ & the Monotheistic God, can find other threads which already cater to these topics.

Most religions & mythologies offer a Creationist reading for the origins of life on earth.....Only Darwinism offers up 'Accidental mutation' & 'abiogenesis' as an alternative competing theory to the collective mind-set & common-sense accounts, that flourish throughout mankind's history.

And Darwinism, in spite of many scientific nerds opinions to the contrary, still remains a theoretical construct only.....And a rather absurd one, at that.

Just add time to the recipe & 'Shazam'....Life appears.....One miraculous, yet meaningless Myth, is offered in place of another, more meaningful one.

Well God used Evilution in The Bible, snakes used to walk about on legs and talk before God altered them to crawl on their belly.

But jokes aside, would you say that you're more closely related to Alfred Hitchcock or your parents?

 

[Long Live HFC]

Abiogenesis is the process by which life arises naturally from non-living matter. 'Darwinism' says nothing about Abiogenesis. All this shows is your continuing ignorance of evolution.

you're wasting your time. i've explained this fact to him in many ways, and on multiple occasions. 12 or 18 months ago he'd never even heard the word before. you're trying to reason with someone who thinks the moon landing was a hoax because he doesn't understand how radiation works.

Another example of your ignorance. Do you understand what a 'scientific theory' actually is?

no, he doesn't. something else i've explained to him. at length. several times.

 

[Roylion]

And nor does Macro-Darwinism offer any universally definitive account for the origins & nature of life on earth, by any stretch of the imagination.

Is basic comprehension beyond your capabilities?

Here is the short version again. Clearly you have difficulties with anything longer. I've helped you further with some of it in bold.

"Scientists have not developed a clear explanation of how life might have developed from non-living material. That has no impact on evolution.

Even if life did not begin naturally but was started due to the intervention of some 'divine power', evolution would still stand on the overwhelming empirical evidence that has been collected to date (and continues to be collected).

At no point was evolution, nor natural selection, about explaining the origin of life - just as we don't fault chemistry for not explaining where atoms come from: it explains how substances behave once they exist, not how they came about."

Roy struggles with cosmology & philosophy big time....He knows it & I know it.

So we're changing the subject now, are we?

'Evolution' a bit beyond you is it? I've hope you've finally learned at least a little something about this very important scientific fact over the past few posts. Let me know if you have any further questions.

Cosmology is the branch of astronomy involving the origin and evolution of the universe, from the Big Bang to today and on into the future. I'm very happy to further discuss cosmology if you wish. I hope you understand cosmology better than you do evolution.

And of course I'm very happy to continue to discuss the broader "Creation" vs. "Macro-evolution" too. You were advocating sticking to the thread topic a few posts ago werent you?

 

[Roylion]

you're wasting your time.

It's not really for his benefit. The self proclaimed expert on philosophy appears to be little more than a troll.

i've explained this fact to him in many ways, and on multiple occasions. 12 or 18 months ago he'd never even heard the word before. you're trying to reason with someone who thinks the moon landing was a hoax because he doesn't understand how radiation works.

I wouldn't call it 'reasoning' exactly. 'Educating' is more accurate. Anyway I'm used to repeating myself in different ways to those that have difficulty grasping concepts.

no, he doesn't. something else i've explained to him. at length. several times.

It's not really for him. I would hope that others reading this don't get the idea that evolution has anything to do with life developing from non-living material (in other words anything to do with the origins of life).

 

[Long Live HFC]

It's not really for his benefit. The self proclaimed expert on philosophy appears to be little more than a troll.



I wouldn't call it 'reasoning' exactly. 'Educating' is more accurate. Anyway I'm used to repeating myself in different ways to those that have difficulty grasping concepts.



It's not really for him. I would hope that others reading this don't get the idea that evolution has anything to do with life developing from non-living material (in other words anything to do with the origins of life).

ha, fair enough then. it is fun to watch, at any rate.

 

[Bennett.]

Is basic comprehension beyond your capabilities?

Here is the short version again. Clearly you have difficulties with anything longer. I've helped you further with some of it in bold.

"Scientists have not developed a clear explanation of how life might have developed from non-living material. That has no impact on evolution.

Even if life did not begin naturally but was started due to the intervention of some 'divine power', evolution would still stand on the overwhelming empirical evidence that has been collected to date (and continues to be collected).

At no point was evolution, nor natural selection, about explaining the origin of life - just as we don't fault chemistry for not explaining where atoms come from: it explains how substances behave once they exist, not how they came about."



So we're changing the subject now, are we?

'Evolution' a bit beyond you is it? I've hope you've finally learned at least a little something about this very important scientific fact over the past few posts. Let me know if you have any further questions.

Cosmology is the branch of astronomy involving the origin and evolution of the universe, from the Big Bang to today and on into the future. I'm very happy to further discuss cosmology if you wish. I hope you understand cosmology better than you do evolution.

And of course I'm very happy to continue to discuss the broader "Creation" vs. "Macro-evolution" too. You were advocating sticking to the thead topic a few posts ago werent you?

I like the shifting frames of reference Roy, but without life evolving from nothing, evolution is a moot issue.

 

[Roylion]

I like the shifting frames of reference Roy, but without life evolving from nothing, evolution is a moot issue.

Shifting frames of reference?

"At no point was evolution, nor natural selection, about explaining the origin of life - just as we don't fault chemistry for not explaining where atoms come from: it explains how substances behave once they exist, not how they came about."

However life appeared, it has little to do with the scientific fact of evolution. That's been made clear from the start.

 

[Bennett.]

Shifting frames of reference?

"At no point was evolution, nor natural selection, about explaining the origin of life - just as we don't fault chemistry for not explaining where atoms come from: it explains how substances behave once they exist, not how they came about."

However life appeared, it has little to do with the scientific fact of evolution. That's been made clear from the start.

Think bigger though. NONE of this, evolution or whatever would be possible without life from emptiness. It's all well and good to say "well, evolution this and that" , but it ignores the bigger question OF creation ex nihilo

 

[Long Live HFC]

Think bigger though. NONE of this, evolution or whatever would be possible without life from emptiness. It's all well and good to say "well, evolution this and that" , but it ignores the bigger question OF creation ex nihilo

do you realise that you're essentially saying that questions we don't have answers for are "bigger" than questions we've already answered? incredible deductive reasoning right there.

and why stop at abiogenesis? why not go right back 15 billion years when it all began? abiogenesis ignores the bigger question of the creation of the universe ex nihilo, lol.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Think bigger though. NONE of this, evolution or whatever would be possible without life from emptiness. It's all well and good to say "well, evolution this and that" , but it ignores the bigger question OF creation ex nihilo

Precisely Bennett....Unfortunately, Roy & his legion of fanbois in here, continue to betray the fact that they do not understand the over-arching theme or premise of this thread.

Once more exposing their thorough-going non-comprehension for cosmological theory, in their desperation to drag the debate down to the usual 'Darwinian/Anti theist' argument, they ply ad nauseum in every other thread.

It's a pretty sad state of affairs & exposes some very compartmentalized & closed minds indeed.

 

[Bennett.]

do you realise that you're essentially saying that questions we don't have answers for are "bigger" than questions we've already answered? incredible deductive reasoning right there.

and why stop at abiogenesis? why not go right back 15 billion years when it all began? abiogenesis ignores the bigger question of the creation of the universe ex nihilo, lol.

Ummmm, yeah that's kind of the point right? Otherwise all you're doing is piecing together warious threads that really need to be looked at in the light of the bigger questions. Do you need to go back to the start of a movie you've not seen to understand the story, or do you watch with a few minutes to go, pick up a point or two and then deduce the whole plot from that?

 

[Bennett.]

Precisely Bennett....Unfortunately, Roy & his legion of fanbois in here, continue to betray the fact that they do not understand the over-arching theme or premise of this thread.

Once more exposing their thorough-going non-comprehension for cosmological theory, in their desperation to drag the debate down to the usual 'Darwinian/Anti theist' argument, they ply ad nauseum in every other thread.

It's a pretty sad state of affairs & exposes some very compartmentalized & closed minds indeed.

Absolutely. You can study and champion evolution all you want but what you're essentially doing is getting lost on a back road, chasing your tail when we should be looking at who built the highway in the first place

 

[Procrastinator35]

Absolutely. You can study and champion evolution all you want but what you're essentially doing is getting lost on a back road, chasing your tail when we should be looking at who built the highway in the first place

Lets just humor our opposition for a moment by assuming that abiogenesis is in fact true.....You still then need to explain how all the pre-conditions necessary for life to evolve in the first place, came to be.....Again, another ginormous 'happy-accident'.

Even then....You still need to show how something organic can evolve from something inorganic.....A different kind of magic to be sure.

The earth as it is & as we know it, is life itself.....To postulate a theorem whereby life never existed upon it is utterly non-sensical & self-defeating in extremis.

At the beggining point of the creation of life, a miracle of sort is postulated by both sides of the argument, as the human conception & imagination dictates by it's very own creative nature......Darwinism merely follows the exact same teleological premise that inheres in all cosmologies.....LOL.

 

[M Malice]

I'll give P35 some kudos, he keeps coming back for more even though Roy destroys him every time. Roy also deserves praise for his ever impressive knowledge and patience.

#sciencetrumpsfairytales.

 

[RupieDupie]

I like the shifting frames of reference Roy, but without life evolving from nothing, evolution is a moot issue.

I don't think anyone is claiming life evolved from nothing, also, interestingly, evolution is not 100% dependent on life (viruses are arguably not living yet they evolve by Crom), and taking this latter point, evolution as a process can be recreated to create algorithms that also evolve (genetic algorithms). Secondly God of The Old Testament changed a species from His perfect vision, the snake, which could once walk and talk to a legless creature unable to talk (is Evilution so impossible that even God couldn't do it?). Thirdly, would you state that I am more closely related to you than your parents?

 

[Bennett.]

I don't think anyone is claiming life evolved from nothing, also, interestingly, evolution is not 100% dependent on life (viruses are arguably not living yet they evolve by Crom), and taking this latter point, evolution as a process can be recreated to create algorithms that also evolve (genetic algorithms). Secondly God of The Old Testament changed a species from His perfect vision, the snake, which could once walk and talk to a legless creature unable to talk (is Evilution so impossible that even God couldn't do it?). Thirdly, would you state that I am more closely related to you than your parents?

How are viruses arguably not living?

Also, and I cant believe I have to say this again, the Genesis account is a poetic account.

 

[Roylion]

Think bigger though. NONE of this, evolution or whatever would be possible without life from emptiness.

That might be so, but they are separate issues.

The very title of this thread is "Creation vs. Darwin's MacroEvolution Myth". As I have explained ad nauseum, there is no issue between the two. In whatever way life appeared on earth, evolution still exists. To try and pit one against the other shows a lack of understanding of what evolution actually is. And that is the point I'm making.

It's all well and good to say "well, evolution this and that" , but it ignores the bigger question OF creation ex nihilo

Evolution has never attempted to explain the "bigger question of creation ex nihilo". "Creation vs. Macro-evolution" is a non-issue.

 

[RupieDupie]

How are viruses arguably not living?

Also, and I cant believe I have to say this again, the Genesis account is a poetic account.

Viruses do not metabolise and require other cells to function, but they are replicators with genetic information and therefore can and do evolve.

A poetic account of a creator unable to conceive a process such as evolution?