Blowing Up Darwin

[scruffy]

There seem to be two subjects here, The evolution of biological entities and my subject how the first living cell was created. You’re conflating it all together and dissing anyone who disagrees with you as some kind of an idiot..

You're the one moving the goalposts.

Maybe stick to the topic?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Leo123

"We are stardust"... Abiogenesis + evolution = God's plan?

Could it be that abiogenesis and evolution are both fact and are part of God's design? I understand how and why people insist on the young age of the Earth (using lineage in Abrahamic religious text). But maybe you just read it a bit wrong? Maybe, it is incomplete information? A thousand years...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[scruffy]

Have you ever ONCE considered reading up on the current science of the subject?

Even ONCE?

"I've made up my mind, don't bother me with the facts".

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"I've made up my mind, don't bother me with the facts".

He is sealioning.

Sealions are easy to spot.

"Hey everyone! I have genuine curiosity about a scientific topic! So I figured I would go to a political message board and ask my questions."

 

[Woodznutz]

No need for faith. The Theory of Evolution is among the best supported scientific theories.

Biological evolution defines a change in the genetic characteristics of populations over time. That has been confirmed by various science disciplines to include paleontology, anthropology, geology, oceanography, physics, archaeology, and other branches of science that conflict with the religious extremist ideas of the science-loathing types we see in this thread.

I believe in an ancient earth with many life forms present over the millions of years. However, I believe God created them, each being perfectly suited for the environment God created for them, no evolutionary change needed. When God created modern man, he destroyed all life forms that were not suitable to exist along with man and the environment created for man.

 

[Woodznutz]

Have you ever ONCE considered reading up on the current science of the subject?

Even ONCE?

Reading evolutionary literature is like playing "Wack-A-Mole". As soon as you read one article another pops up which renders the last one outdated. The Bible account never changes.

 

[Leo123]

You're the one moving the goalposts.

Maybe stick to the topic?

I am, Darwin has no answer to the origin of life. What is it you can't seem to comprehend?

 

[scruffy]

Reading evolutionary literature is like playing "Wack-A-Mole". As soon as you read one article another pops up which renders the last one outdated.

It's called science.

The Bible account never changes.

The Bible account is not necessarily wrong.

As long as you don't take it literally.

Both Testaments warn against the literal interpretation.

Stuff like "God said"... that word "said" is very anthropomorphic.

I might be wrong, but I don't think God speaks English.

 

[Woodznutz]

It's called science.





The Bible account is not necessarily wrong.

As long as you don't take it literally.

Both Testaments warn against the literal interpretation.

Stuff like "God said"... that word "said" is very anthropomorphic.

I might be wrong, but I don't think God speaks English.

I take it literally and metaphorically depending on the context.

 

[Leo123]

Reading evolutionary literature is like playing "Wack-A-Mole". As soon as you read one article another pops up which renders the last one outdated. The Bible account never changes.

Yes. Science is all about studying existing mechanisms, in this case, biological organisms. Science has no answer to who or what created the first living cell. All they can do is study already animated mechanisms and they have no answer as to why these mechanisms do what they do. Yet they denigrate anyone who even attempts to have a theory that does not comport with their personal opinion.

 

[abu afak]

... Where did the very first living cell come from? So far with all your lengthy posts you still have no answer.

That's Correct!
And Neither do you!
And Darwin (THE OP TOPIC) only deals the Evidence for life's subsequent evolution, NOT Abiogenesis.

And does not logically Justify Your Constant/Fallacious God-of-the-Gaps Fallacy inference.

"We don't know/Know Yet" is the most rational answer.
No need to create a new Fire, Lightening, or Fertility god for what we don't know/know yet.

God of the Gaps (well then, how did...")​

This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards. "Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?" And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner. If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.' The same...


Leo123, is a FRAUD who can never answer me, just reposts the same idiotic challenge/god inference that is NOT the TOPIC of DARWIN or This Thread.
`

 

[Hollie]

Yes. Science is all about studying existing mechanisms, in this case, biological organisms. Science has no answer to who or what created the first living cell. All they can do is study already animated mechanisms and they have no answer as to why these mechanisms do what they do. Yet they denigrate anyone who even attempts to have a theory that does not comport with their personal opinion.

It's important to point out that ID'iot creationers have no answer to the first life. "The gawds did it" is not an answer to anything.

Whst is the theory behind creation by magical means?

 

[Leo123]

It's important to point out that ID'iot creationers have no answer to the first life. "The gawds did it" is not an answer to anything.

Whst is the theory behind creation by magical means?

Science also has no answer, that was my point. That you seem to hate people who believe in God is a separate beef. There could have been a creator that doesn't mean it was the Judeo Christian God and it also doesn't mean it was not. Why do you guys try to stop anyone thinking differently than you? (give it up abu)

 

[scruffy]

Yes. Science is all about studying existing mechanisms,

Whereas engineering is about creating new ones.

in this case, biological organisms. Science has no answer to who or what created the first living cell.

Neither does anyone else.

You certainly don't.

All they can do is study already animated mechanisms and they have no answer as to why these mechanisms do what they do.

See previous posts.

Seriously man, your nonsense is getting tiresome.

Yet they denigrate anyone who even attempts to have a theory that does not comport with their personal opinion.

You need to get honest. You're attempting to gaslight your audience with nonsensical questions about origins. You're derailing the thread in an effort to defend an indefensible position.

At least woodznutz is honest, he says it's a matter of faith. If you were honest like that, there would be no argument.

But instead you're shucking and jiving, moving the goalposts, changing the topic, and burying your head in the sand about millions upon millions of pieces of evidence.

The only logical position based on the evidence is that life is a continuation of the quantum universe. There is ZERO evidence for anything else.

If you want to talk about origins, talk about quantum physics. Don't waste your time and everyone else's trying to falsely link evolution with origins.

You're giving the entire creationist viewpoint a bad name. Get honest, and stand up for your faith. It's impossible to destroy the theory of evolution at this point. Credentialed scientists have tried and failed miserably. If they can't do it, you can't either.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I believe in an ancient earth with many life forms present over the millions of years. However, I believe God created them, each being perfectly suited for the environment God created for them, no evolutionary change needed. When God created modern man, he destroyed all life forms that were not suitable to exist along with man and the environment created for man.

It would seem very odd for God to kill off one species 100 million years ago (after poofing it into existence only 150 million years ago), then poof into existence a different species that is only slightly different than the one He just killed off.

Seems absurd. Yet this is what we see over and over in the fossil record.

The evidence just doesn't seem to support your idea.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Science also has no answer, that was my point.

And it has been wrong every time you have stated it. There are in fact SEVERAL plausible explanations for the pathway from organic chemicals to the first RNA, for example.

Unlike religioners, scientists will admit they don't know which explanation is correct and will then work to find out which one is correct.

 

[Leo123]

Whereas engineering is about creating new ones.



Neither does anyone else.

You certainly don't.



See previous posts.

Seriously man, your nonsense is getting tiresome.



You need to get honest. You're attempting to gaslight your audience with nonsensical questions about origins. You're derailing the thread in an effort to defend an indefensible position.

At least woodznutz is honest, he says it's a matter of faith. If you were honest like that, there would be no argument.

But instead you're shucking and jiving, moving the goalposts, changing the topic, and burying your head in the sand about millions upon millions of pieces of evidence.

The only logical position based on the evidence is that life is a continuation of the quantum universe. There is ZERO evidence for anything else.

If you want to talk about origins, talk about quantum physics. Don't waste your time and everyone else's trying to falsely link evolution with origins.

You're giving the entire creationist viewpoint a bad name. Get honest, and stand up for your faith. It's impossible to destroy the theory of evolution at this point. Credentialed scientists have tried and failed miserably. If they can't do it, you can't either.

How is asking how the first living cell was created gaslighting anyone? I don't discount faith and neither should you because it takes faith to believe a living cell just popped up on its own. I think you just like denigrating people who might disagree with you by projecting your bullshit on others. Where did the quantum universe come from? My questions are obviously too deep for you to even consider so you insult. The refuge of idiots who are arrogant.

 

[scruffy]

How is asking how the first living cell was created gaslighting anyone? I don't discount faith and neither should you because it takes faith to believe a living cell just popped up on its own.

Science doesn't deal in faith. It deals in evidence.

I think you just like denigrating people who might disagree with you by projecting your bullshit on others. Where did the quantum universe come from? My questions are obviously too deep for you to even consider so you insult. The refuge of idiots who are arrogant.

Your questions have been answered ad nauseum.

This thread is about evolution. If you want to talk about origins, start a thread about origins.

Seems to me evolution is over your head. So you seek refuge elsewhere.

Be honest. Tell us you believe in something that has no evidence.

 

[Leo123]

Science doesn't deal in faith. It deals in evidence.



Your questions have been answered ad nauseum.

This thread is about evolution. If you want to talk about origins, start a thread about origins.

Seems to me evolution is over your head. So you seek refuge elsewhere.

Be honest. Tell us you believe in something that has no evidence.

There is no evidence of accidental creation of a living cell. You have only provided already created biomechanisms and pretend that is what created life. IOW, you use life to create life. I already acknowledged that evolution involves already created living entities. You are lying. The question, which you always avoid is what or who created the first living cell? You obfuscate, post pages and pages of already created life and it's mechanisms, etc. As I said, my question is obviously to deep for you to even consider. The thread is about blowing up Darwin, I say evolution has no explanation for the origin of life. Why should I make a separate thread, so you won't be confronted?

 

[scruffy]

There is no evidence of accidental creation of a living cell. You have only provided already created biomechanisms and pretend that is what created life. IOW, you use life to create life. I already acknowledged that evolution involves already created living entities. You are lying. The question, which you always avoid is what or who created the first living cell? You obfuscate, post pages and pages of already created life and it's mechanisms, etc. As I said, my question is obviously to deep for you to even consider.

I told you five times already, you're asking the wrong question.

I even showed you what the right question is, and a big chunk of the answer.

You're in over your head. You should quit.

Life is a continuum. Yes, life creates life dummy. That's what evolution is all about.