On The Impossibility Of Abiogenesis.

I will leave judgment about who is logical and who is not to others as I fear any comments I make otherwise may me construed as a break in Forum rules.

 

Yes, evolution is strongly rooted - it's a foundation of all modern biology.

That doesn't make it a tautology, though.

Any and all may pose an alternative scientific theory.

Beyond that, Wedawar was an atheist who isn't noted for any alternative to or detraction from evolution.

 

You know.....I literally don't get it.

How is it possible for anyone to so completely deny the reality and yet continue to call others who do know the reality ignorant???

AA

 

Posting logical and rational comments is no break in Forum rules.
I hoped but didn't expect you would ever post any.

- - - Updated - - -

No, I just wanted to make sure that there no objective truth except things you post.

 

What!!??

If I post a fact I state it is a fact and any member including YOU can challenge this and provide a link to a VIABLE UNBIASED SOURCE.

If I post an OPINION...I state that as well.

AA

 

This has been my problem for decades, in this 'debate'.. ironic that you assume you are in the 'know'.

IMO, the rabid evolutionists are too fully invested, emotionally, to critique their own 'theory'. I have readily & willingly admitted to being an 'origins agnostic'.. since i don't see ANY empirical evidence for either theory. But the pseudo scientists who defend the ToE demand total scientific credentials for their 'theory' while attributing 'myth' or 'superstition' for any alternate views. I find that woefully bigoted, & completely unscientific. You have absolutely NO evidence for the ToE, other than extrapolated beliefs.. your formulas & babbling about quantum theory & mathematical proofs are absurd, & border on the ridiculous, yet you defend them with jihadist zeal.. you certainly are an enigma, AA.. I have many doubts as to your claims of grandeur, based on the rationale of your arguments. But what you lack in reason & knowledge, you more than make up for in ridicule & ad hominem.. that is where you really excel. I know you can dish it out, & i hope you are not greatly offended if i toss some back, every now & then.

I used to think DD was a reasonable debater, but too many of his ToE cronies have spoiled him, i fear, & he is stuck in the 'groupthink' loyalty box.

This is kind of a different look & feel, in the 'science' subforum. There are several threads running concurrently about this topic, with several posters daring to challenge the Majority Belief. I like the different perspectives that everyone brings, & find it a refreshing change from the constant barrage of ridicule & mocking from the peanut gallery, who seem to feel it is their sacred duty to harass anyone who dares question The Prophet (may peace be upon Him). But most of the conclusions & speculations from Darwin are mere false equivalencies.. assuming accumulated, small changes in to larger, macro ones. For over 100 years, evolutionists have been desperately trying to prove this theory, but reality has brought them back to earth every time.

But i look forward to a witty comeback.. something like, 'you're stupid', or 'science denier!!' I used to enjoy some of the creative ways evolutionists could insult, but i guess they haven't evolved enough, recently.. i wonder if this means they will survive the Brave New World of mandated science? Will wit & ridicule no longer be needed, & die off, & go extinct? I sure hope not.

 

Fixed it for you.

 

Is it a fact or an OPINION?

 

Why in the world would I want to make a mean comeback?

The only time I do that is if I am provoked to do so and I shouldn't even do it then.

Evolution is not some belief or religion as it has been definitely proven.

And every single sect of Christianity with the exception of the Baptists acknowledges the reality of Evolution.

AA

- - - Updated - - -

Is what?

If you mean Evolution it is a fact.

Undeniable....proven mathematically upon a Molecular/Atomic level.

AA

 

Is what you said a fact or an OPINION?

 

Fact.

AA

 

Thank you for your opinion.

 

It's not opinion.

The science and math is all there.

It is undeniable.

AA

 

Who is denying that everything you say you back up with The science and math?
Einstein himself wouldn't.

 

So....why the issue?

AA

 

The legend of dragons is world wide spread. Surely a legend that far spread has at least some truth to it. As for Nessie, last I heard over 11,000 has claimed to see it. Are they ALL lying? Did they ALL misidentified? We're they ALL drunk when they saw it? I think you have to have a lot of faith to NOT say that there is something to this.

 

Interesting. So it's a religious belief NOT to believe in a god. I thought religion WAS believing in a god.

And I predict you will go on spouting nonsense

Signed Trevor Nostradamus.

 

Thank you.

 

"Since the Cambrian explosion five further major mass extinctions have significantly exceeded the background extinction rate."

How can evolution not account for modern forms of diversity?

 

The magic word, "evolution," from 1859, does not automatically *explain* everything you claim it does simply by default, simply because it is the only theory you have. That is NOT science. It is anti-science. What should be emphasized, and what is perfectly adequate, is "We don't know."
You only pretend to know. Old ideas die hard, and this one is very old, and very, very tired. Paleontology has falsified all the grandiose promises Darwin made, and the final nails in the evolutionary coffin were modern biochemistry and the insuperable statistics of polypeptide synthesis.
"Fact, fact, fact" just doesn't suffice for Neo-Darwinism any more, except for those who are kidding themselves, and trying to drag the rest of us along with them.

 

Wow, another Nobel Prize winner in the making. You and usfan should present your findings together! I can see it now, two stalwart protectors of the faith, battling the corrupt, Godless scientists who have been brainwashed by that evil Darwin. Of course, if you guys were ever to actually argue your case among real scientists, they would laugh their asses off as they totally destroyed your arguments.

 

Modern Science no longer views abiogenesis as extremely improbable. In fact they are well on the way to proving how it happened.

One of the big problems was that science could not show how self replicating molecules were created. Self replication is key. They have now shown how this happened.

http://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

The second "massive" problem with the fellows argument is that showing how a computer can not be created "naturally" somehow debunks abiogenesis.

This is absurd. Computers do not assemble themselves naturally. The are created by beings that were created via abiogenesis or by some creator.

That computers are not assembled by abiogenisis does not mean abiogenesis did not create live which led to humans.

That computers are not assembled by God does not men that God did not create humans.

Fallacyland.

 

What we do know is that chemical evolution happens. The Miller-Urey experiment proved it.

How can (chemical) evolution not account for modern forms of diversity?

 

It seems like a fallacy of false Cause.

Are you claiming a monkey could not put a computer together, given enough time?

Time is the key factor here.

The dinosaurs were around for about one hundred fifty million years, and became extinct due to circumstances beyond their control. Man has been around less than five million years.

 

I think you must have misread my post as I do not make that claim nor is there anything in my post that I intended to suggest that.

It was the offspring of the monkey that put the computer together.