What is abiogenesis?

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

YOU DO NOT GET ANYTHING I'VE PRESENTED

Revinh

Parhaps that's why. Notably this is exactly why creationists are not taken seriously, they don't present any evidence while simultaneously choosing to disregard science for something which has no evidence. In the end one side presents evidence, while creationists arguments just account forlittle more than whining.

I can say the same thing. You haven't presented any while simultaneously disregarding arguments from creation and you're just whining.

The fossil record

Junk DNA,

Redundant DNA

continental distribution

vesigle structures.

antibiotic resistance

ect. ect.

dear god it's like talking to a child, it seems no matter how many times we present evidence, you just disregard it.

Because you're evidences HARDLY supports evolution.

Conversing with YOU is like talking to a child. And I'm pretty sure you're like what, 14? Giving me links to like the basic definitions of evolution and mutation from wikipedia. My recommendation: do further research.

The fossil record does NOT support evolution, it supports creation. Any honest evolutionist/paleontologist will tell you there are no legitimate transitional forms.

I've explained in the superior thread that mutation don't really change the being.

Then there's the human difference that evolution simply cannot satisfactory explain away.

And God went on to say: "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every moving animal that is moving upon the earth." -Genesis 1:26

That makes so much more sense than any story evolutionists can come up with.

Of course, you'd just say, "huh? what? um, uh, you still haven't given any evidences!?" :roll:

Please explain to me how mutations that dna have attained over the years to make them immune to antibacterial soaps isn't an evidence of evolution.

or how the fossil record is not.

or how redundant dna is not.

or how vestigle structures are not.

I've given so much evidence it's unbelievable that you are still in denial, meaning you are either some confused 13 year old, or an incredibly blind adult.

again you seem to think that no evidence is better than alot of evidence.

Back in the superior thread I've explained why they're hardly evidences and I've given so much evidence on my side it's unbelievable that you are still in denial, meaning you are either some confused 13 year old, or an incredibly blind adult.

This is why creationists are taken to be jokes by the scientific community, they ignore evidence, and then base their beliefs upon nothing, coming across as borderline retarted with things like this. You're nothing but a lying blind individual, you keep lying that you've presented evidence when you've shown none. No matter how much information you're shown you ignore it because in your mind I guess tons of information for evolution doesn't compare to the non existence of evidence for creationism.

In your mind no evidence is better than alot of evidence, and to put it blunt that's incredibly stupid.

Really this seems to go beyond religion, you're just in need of an education.

Shut up already.

Oh, and I think you'll find this amusing.

family guy can be funny from time to time.

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="luke1889"]The misconception of abiogenesis by the theists in this thread is astounding, which highlights once more their atrocious grasp on science.

When we refer to life coming from the non-living, we are not talking about a rock just deciding to jump up and start running around. Stop making this mistake.

What we are saying is that if certain non-living elements come together, react and combine in the correct way, the chemical reactions give the appearance of life.

Let us not forget that, although we appear to be these infallible, conscious beings, we are just a walking mound of chemical reactions. Reactions which are caused by NON-LIVING elements.

Nothing more.bman784

I've known that since the thread started. Something is either dead or alive. You can combine all the nonliving elements you want and make chemical reactions, it wouldn't go to the area of biology. You could say "we are just a walking mound of chemical reactions, that doesn't change the fact that we're alive, that doesn't mean a bomb is alive, that doesn't change the fact that there's nonliving and living (made of nonliving things).

not dead :P

If you believe in abiogenesis you might as well believe you can cut yourself and die from blood loss and then putting your blood back into you will resurrect you back to life!

If combining the necessary components of life, if simply forming a cell would make it come to life, then it'd be an immortal organism since you can kill it and then simply reforming it again would bring it back to life.

Nonliving things, however you arrange it, will never become alive.

evolutionists: evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life ...but we'll keep trying to squeeze it in this thread anyways!

:lol:

...

Alright, this is it. I've already given so many arguments and explanations in other threads. There's a bunch of evidence here, here and here. But what would you say? Quickly assume that they're unreliable websites like wikipedia and youtube are all that reliable. :roll: It's obvious there's no point in continuing. I think for now we can just give our reasons why or why not we believe which.

There's no use for you to keep trying 'cause evolution is just wrong in so many levels (though I have a hard time explaining). Man's difference alone is enough to shatter the stupid theory to pieces.

But you probably won't be able to relate to that, it seems you guys' thinking has become so linear and narrow, like you aren't even humans anymore.

As you should know I've heard enough paleontologists that say transitional forms are extremely rare, call it quote-mining or whatever but you cannot easily discredit them. Millions upon millions of fossils have been unearthed already and the record is almost complete its imperfection is no longer a valid excuse. I argued so many times that the fossil record show sudden appearances of fully formed animals and remained virtually unchanged echoing creation. Whatever proposed transitional forms I think...

I'll tell you this for the first time, mutations don't ever create anything new! Macroevolution assumes that mutations provide the raw materials for it to be possible, but every experiment shows it's hopeless to expect that. That's right, mutation does absolutely nothing to change a living thing from what they are. You'll never get new features and biological structures by altering the same genetic information. Without new, additional information, there's no way for them to become anything else, in which case they've always been and will always be the same living thing and must have been created to begin with. They've already done billions of mutations for decades and no change has ever come up that's a progression to something different. Resistance to antibiotics and nylon eating bacteria aren't changes that shows evolution to something else.

"Survival of fittest" doesn't even support the theory at all. Example, there are light and dark colored peppered moths, the environment changed (darkened trees) and the dark color has become beneficial (camouflaged), the light ones were more vulnerable and the dark ones became dominant. Natural selection, yes. Evolution? No. The peppered moths didn't really change and no such process can ever really make a lifeform "evolve."

Adaptation is just that, adaptation, nothing more. Living things can adapt. :roll: but does that mean all living things are consanguineous? No. You're giving adaptation WAY too much credit if you think living creatures have become themselves just from a series of adaptations.

Variations, slight changes in shapes, size or colors don't actually change a living thing no matter how much that accumulates.

The nested hierarchy is zero evidence for evolution. It's just cIassification. God created plants and animals, he created different kinds of plants, created different kinds of animals (birds, fishes, reptiles,..) he created different kinds of birds (flamingo, eagle, penguin,..) so on and so forth. The connections in taxonomy is purely your imagination.

Vestigial structures - some structures like tonsil and appendix were thought to be vestigial. Not knowing the purpose of a feature doesn't mean it has no use.

Genesis 1:26 is the best explanation to me regarding the human difference, any speculation that evolutionists can come up with is just pathetic and they'll never be able to replace that.

Objective reasoning says life can only come from preexisting life and living creatures only forever reproduce themselves.

So [for me], abiogenesis and macroevolution are irrational and undesirable to science.

this is clearly fictional

and this is a moronic portrayal of man's origin

There you go. I've given my reasons and I already know yours, it may not be a lot of evidence but they're enough and stronger than all the weak, little ones for evolution, and most importantly, those make sense to me so that's what I believe.

You go believing you came from ape-like animals and I'll believe I'm specially created.

Ok? Bye.

Holy crap this is still going! WOW!battlefront23

That is because Revinh refuses to give into reason, using the same arguments over and over again, despite the evidence against his arguments, which means he's basically trolling at this point.

If you believe in abiogenesis you might as well believe you can cut yourself and die from blood loss and then putting your blood back into you will resurrect you back to life!

If combining the necessary components of life, if simply forming a cell would make it come to life, then it'd be an immortal organism since you can kill it and then simply reforming it again would bring it back to life.

Nonliving things, however you arrange it, will never become alive.

Revinh

[QUOTE="battlefront23"]Holy crap this is still going! WOW!The_Ish

That is because Revinh refuses to give into reason, using the same arguments over and over again, despite the evidence against his arguments, which means he's basically trolling at this point.

evolutionists: evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life ...but we'll keep trying to squeeze it in this thread anyways!

:lol:

...

Alright, this is it. I've already given so many arguments and explanations in other threads. There's a bunch of evidence here, here and here. But what would you say? Quickly assume that they're unreliable websites like wikipedia and youtube are all that reliable. :roll: It's obvious there's no point in continuing. I think for now we can just give our reasons why or why not we believe which.

There's no use for you to keep trying 'cause evolution is just wrong in so many levels (though I have a hard time explaining). Man's difference alone is enough to shatter the stupid theory to pieces.

But you probably won't be able to relate to that, it seems you guys' thinking has become so linear and narrow, like you aren't even humans anymore.

As you should know I've heard enough paleontologists that say transitional forms are extremely rare, call it quote-mining or whatever but you cannot easily discredit them. Millions upon millions of fossils have been unearthed already and the record is almost complete its imperfection is no longer a valid excuse. I argued so many times that the fossil record show sudden appearances of fully formed animals and remained virtually unchanged echoing creation. Whatever proposed transitional forms I think...

I'll tell you this for the first time, mutations don't ever create anything new! Macroevolution assumes that mutations provide the raw materials for it to be possible, but every experiment shows it's hopeless to expect that. That's right, mutation does absolutely nothing to change a living thing from what they are. You'll never get new features and biological structures by altering the same genetic information. Without new, additional information, there's no way for them to become anything else, in which case they've always been and will always be the same living thing and must have been created to begin with. They've already done billions of mutations for decades and no change has ever come up that's a progression to something different. Resistance to antibiotics and nylon eating bacteria aren't changes that shows evolution to something else.

"Survival of fittest" doesn't even support the theory at all. Example, there are light and dark colored peppered moths, the environment changed (darkened trees) and the dark color has become beneficial (camouflaged), the light ones were more vulnerable and the dark ones became dominant. Natural selection, yes. Evolution? No. The peppered moths didn't really change and no such process can ever really make a lifeform "evolve."

Adaptation is just that, adaptation, nothing more. Living things can adapt. :roll: but does that mean all living things are consanguineous? No. You're giving adaptation WAY too much credit if you think living creatures have become themselves just from a series of adaptations.

Variations, slight changes in shapes, size or colors don't actually change a living thing no matter how much that accumulates.

The nested hierarchy is zero evidence for evolution. It's just cIassification. God created plants and animals, he created different kinds of plants, created different kinds of animals (birds, fishes, reptiles,..) he created different kinds of birds (flamingo, eagle, penguin,..) so on and so forth. The connections in taxonomy is purely your imagination.

Vestigial structures - some structures like tonsil and appendix were thought to be vestigial. Not knowing the purpose of a feature doesn't mean it has no use.

Genesis 1:26 is the best explanation to me regarding the human difference, any speculation that evolutionists can come up with is just pathetic and they'll never be able to replace that.

Objective reasoning says life can only come from preexisting life and living creatures only forever reproduce themselves.

So [for me], abiogenesis and macroevolution are irrational and undesirable to science.

this is clearly fictional

and this is a moronic portrayal of man's origin

There you go. I've given my reasons and I already know yours, it may not be a lot of evidence but they're enough and stronger than all the weak, little ones for evolution, and most importantly, those make sense to me so that's what I believe.

You go believing you came from ape-like animals and I'll believe I'm specially created.

Ok? Bye.

Revinh

Unfortunatly, you don't seem to understand how to search for valid information, just fyi, anybody can create a site on the net claiming anything, but anything scientific that isn't from a university, goverment study, or credible news outlet, the source isn't reliable.

try again.

[QUOTE="battlefront23"]Holy crap this is still going! WOW!The_Ish

That is because Revinh refuses to give into reason, using the same arguments over and over again, despite the evidence against his arguments, which means he's basically trolling at this point.

At this point you are trolling, not contributing to anything and saying I'm wrong 'cause you said so.

Wow, you've finnally generated some evidence, I'm amazed.

Unfortunatly, you don't seem to understand how to search for valid information, just fyi, anybody can create a site on the net claiming anything, but anything scientific that isn't from a university, goverment study, or credible news outlet, the source isn't reliable.

try again.yoshi-lnex

Unfortunately, you don't understand how to search for valid information. Wikipedia has been criticized for its reliability and the sites I gave has sources from universities, etc.

This just proves that you're in denial and closed-minded.

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]Wow, you've finnally generated some evidence, I'm amazed.

Unfortunatly, you don't seem to understand how to search for valid information, just fyi, anybody can create a site on the net claiming anything, but anything scientific that isn't from a university, goverment study, or credible news outlet, the source isn't reliable.

try again.Revinh

Unfortunately, you don't understand how to search for valid information. Wikipedia has been criticized for its reliability and the sites I gave has sources from universities, etc.

This just proves that you're in denial and closed-minded.

Anyway, I look at evidence

You do not.

I figure that makes more open minded in this case

it can't just source a university study. It's not uncommon for people to take things out of context to get their point across.

Anyway, I look at evidence

You do not.

I figure that makes more open minded in this caseyoshi-lnex

There's much more than just quotes and you're assuming they're taken out of context, they're clearly not and there's numerous of them.

Anyway, you only look at evidence when it goes with your belief

Saying I don't is presumptuous on your part.

You're still in denial and closed-minded.

["Of course it's ok. Because it's just logical that the intricate cell was consciously formed. And it's logical that a living God breadth life into the form and gave it life since life only comes from preexisting life and not nonliving matter came to life."

I've given explanation and you know it.

By calling people who accept Evolution 'brainwashed zealots' of Darwin, that pretty much sums it up.

I guess so... Granted, it's trying to counter it by doing the same wrong thing, but I just couldn't help it.

The house and painting argument is logical. Nothing happens to living things but replication, copying, just like photocopying a picture of a dragonfly and every copy of it there's a slight modification, but no amount of slight modification ever changes it from being a dragonfly. Yes, living things can adapt but adaption hardly changes or creates the being. It's just adaptation, it doesn't really change the living creature no matter how much that happens.

Life does not come from nonlife. I don't even have to prove that. Common sense and logic dictates so, but evidently evolutionists like to defy logic and reason. I already said Pasteur proved life only comes from preexisting life, it's the law of biogenesis. But there's the excuse that that might not have been the case a long time ago. Still, the idea that nonliving materials would come to life is so remote it's not even possible to conceive.

Yes, chemicals can bond, components of life can stick together but that's still far from forming even the simplest cell.

Even if a cell can be formed by chance or "naturally," it'd still be dead. Simply forming one isn't going to make it come alive.

If simply forming a cell would make it come to life then if it dies simply reforming it should resurrect it.

There is nothing wrong with us trying to find out how God did it. What is wrong is thinking the formation of insanely complicated cell was formed and designed without a conscious Creator and that it became alive without a pre-existing life giving life to it.

Revinh

1. "Because it's just logical"? How on Earth do you think that stands up to scientific theory? Where is your evidence? You've given nothing but speculation and your misunderstandings of Evolution to 'support' you ideas. Further still, you're debunking chemistry simply because you don't think it's logical? This is a huge flaw in your argument because you're using your subjective beliefs as evidence, and belief does not equal truth.

Well you know what? I think it's 'just logical' that life formed through the natural laws of chemistry. But of course you nor anyone else would accept that, hence why I gave you a link to The Origin of Life Made Easy explaining how chemicals naturally compound to form strings of RNA and DNA within a proto-cell. Natural laws of chemistry aren't logical?
"Common sense and logic dictates so". Common sense and logic applied through proven chemistry has shown that organic molecules do form naturally.
Believing in God and his miracles defy logic, as any of his miracles are illogical/impossible things that only he has the power to do.

"I already said Pasteur proved life only comes from preexisting life, it's the law of biogenesis"
How did he prove life only comes from an intelligent creator? Biogenesis doesn't explain the origin of life, simply that life creates other life. Abiogenesis has more proof opposing this idea.
Even then Revinh, Biogenesis is still in keeping with the Earth being 4.5 billion years old and Evolution and that the fossil record and the fact that lifeforms did not pop out of nowhere (or were made from dust) fully formed by a superior being, so you really shouldn't be using this as it contradicts your beliefs.

If you're referring to chilarity, then someone else here has already debunked it. It has already been accounted for in the scientific community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis#Human_attempts_to_create_life

Likewise, this shows a brief list of human attempts to create life. The Miller-Urey experiment only failed because the amino acids broke down in our atmosphere. However, given that scientists accept that our early atmosphere was anaerobic, then they could have formed without our current oxygen-rich atmosphere eroding them.
Scientists have also created their own viruses.

2. By retaliating with the exact same replies is pretty immature. And given your religious piety, you would think it's a bit beneath you.

3. Houses and paintings are not living, reproducing organisms. It doesn't get any more simple than that. I shouldn't even have to point that out to a 10 year old, Revinh. If you want to refute science you have to use science, not ridiculous comparisons.

4. "Life does not come from nonlife. I don't even have to prove that". You don't have to prove that? Since when were you an authority on science? Even then, what gives you the right to say that cellular life doesn't form naturally when you demand that we back up everything? Another double standard.
"Yes, chemicals can bond, components of life can stick together but that's still far from forming even the simplest cell." Ahhh... yes Revinh, that's what happened. They did stick together to form the simplest cell.

5. What do you define as living and dead? Any working organism is essentially 'alive' especially if it is self sustaining and self replicating. If a proto cell forms, then isn't that 'living'? Revinh, you must understand that we are all composed of inanimate matter. What defines 'life' is simply the way in which it all interacts.

6. If simply forming a cell would make it come to life then if it dies simply reforming it should resurrect it. If this is your hypothesis, what experiments can you do to prove it? You've stated your idea so back it up, just like every scientist who studied Evolution had to do.
This sentence also confuses me. If a cell dies, it decomposes and the chemicals which made it are absorbed by other things. If all the material comes together again, then yes, it should be alive. Cells aren't like lego-blocks, Revinh, there's all manner of things happening around them that affect them. Your statement is a naive approach on a complex idea. Chemistry isn't a "2+2" sort of equation.

7. "What is wrong is thinking the formation of insanely complicated cell was formed and designed without a conscious Creator and that it became alive without a pre-existing life giving life to it."
Okay, clearly there is a big misconception here. Believing in Abiogenesis and Evolution does not reduce one's religious beliefs in any way. The astounding complexity in which life formed and evolved could just be another one of God's great works, millions of Christians believe this. Proving abiogenesis and Evolution to be true does not in any way discredit that their may be a God. Abiogensis/Evolution does not equal Atheism. Science cannot say anything about God because it can only study the natural world. Whatever it proves within the natural world has no bearing on religion.
That being said, you yourself believe that the Bible is literal, so are you saying that those Christians who follow science are wrong in their beliefs?
Likewise, some people don't believe in God at all. So far, Science has provided a much more detailed and logical perspective on life than Genesis in the Bible.

Lastly, my question to you. You say that life doesn't form from non living material.
You say that organisms don't evolve.
So, how do you KNOW that? HOW?

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]it can't just source a university study. It's not uncommon for people to take things out of context to get their point across.

Anyway, I look at evidence

You do not.

I figure that makes more open minded in this caseRevinh

There's much more than just quotes and you're assuming they're taken out of context, they're clearly not and there's numerous of them.

Anyway, you only look at evidence when it goes with your belief

Saying I don't is presumptuous on your part.

You're still in denial and closed-minded.

If you actually have an argument, look it up on some decent sites like harvard university or Berkley's site for instance, they're both excellent sources for science, being among the top schools in the world after all. So if you're views are correct you should be able to find them there.

Personally I just think being able to look for good sources is part of becoming an intelligent adult. For example if my proffesor or employer asked me to look something up and I just gave them a random site instead of a good source I would have some negative marks.

looking for good sources isn't close minded, it's just smart.

Also

evolutionists: evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life ...but we'll keep trying to squeeze it in this thread anyways!

:lol:

...

Alright, this is it. I've already given so many arguments and explanations in other threads. There's a bunch of evidence here, here and here. But what would you say? Quickly assume that they're unreliable websites like wikipedia and youtube are all that reliable. :roll: It's obvious there's no point in continuing. I think for now we can just give our reasons why or why not we believe which.

All your links are related to the fossil record.

Again, the same misconceptions.

1. There are gaps because fossils are hard to form and a lot are still to be unearthed. That alone is reasonable enough

2. All these quotes of 'there are no transitional fossils' is ludicrous because there is no instantaneous moment when one animal becomes another. It is a slow and gradual change, just like you don't notice yourself growing up. It's been explained, Revinh. Every animals is a transition from the one before it and in to the one after it, even you should be able to grasp this with your ideas of variation.

There's no use for you to keep trying 'cause evolution is just wrong in so many levels (though I have a hard time explaining). Man's difference alone is enough to shatter the stupid theory to pieces.

The Evolution of humans has been thoroughly explained if you've watched a few good documenteries on Discovery Channel. Again, not something I can find currently. Likewise, I have explained to you that our brains aren't that exceptional. There are other animals with complicated speech, man other primates use tools. Even Seagulls know to smash shells on rocks to get to the food inside.
Our altruism is a means of surviving in a social environment. Scratch someone's back and they'll scratch yours. Even animals help each other out.

Another big question for you, if God created mankind full formed 6000 years ago, then how do you account for neanderthals?
They clearly aren't typical apes. They used tools, communicated, drew on cave walls, there is evidence they had superstitious beliefs yet they aren't humans. Us modern humans came from cro-magnons and the neanderthals died out. Thoughts?

As you should know I've heard enough paleontologists that say transitional forms are extremely rare, call it quote-mining or whatever but you cannot easily discredit them. Millions upon millions of fossils have been unearthed already and the record is almost complete its imperfection is no longer a valid excuse. I argued so many times that the fossil record show sudden appearances of fully formed animals and remained virtually unchanged echoing creation. Whatever proposed transitional forms I think...

Again, the fossil record will never be 100%. Ever. But there are thousands of different species throught time showing a transition. Note that there is no such thing as a 'transitional form'.

I'll tell you this for the first time, mutations don't ever create anything new! Macroevolution assumes that mutations provide the raw materials for it to be possible, but every experiment shows it's hopeless to expect that. That's right, mutation does absolutely nothing to change a living thing from what they are. You'll never get new features and biological structures by altering the same genetic information. Without new, additional information, there's no way for them to become anything else, in which case they've always been and will always be the same living thing and must have been created to begin with. They've already done billions of mutations for decades and no change has ever come up that's a progression to something different. Resistance to antibiotics and nylon eating bacteria aren't changes that shows evolution to something else.

Mutations change old things into slightly new things. Bacteria evolve to become immune to medicine, bacteria have evolved to eat nylon (invented in the 20th century), you yourself admit that fruit flies mutate and can grow more wings or no wings or no legs, isn't that essentially a change from the old? (Which is what mutation is?). Clearly they have mutated to something else, you don't even need to understand genetics to know that if bacteria couldn't eat nylon, then suddenl they did that they've change. Again Revinh, you're twisting the definition and ignoring my explanations. Mutations are errors from genetic codes, meaning that they do originate from something previously there and they are not 'new' things.

"Survival of fittest" doesn't even support the theory at all. Example, there are light and dark colored peppered moths, the environment changed (darkened trees) and the dark color has become beneficial (camouflaged), the light ones were more vulnerable and the dark ones became dominant. Natural selection, yes. Evolution? No. The peppered moths didn't really change and no such process can ever really make a lifeform "evolve."

Yes it does, entirely. It's part of the theory. Remember, we're the ones who've studied Evolution, we know what the theory states, not you. So don't go pretending you know what it's about. Natural Selection Made Easy

Adaptation is just that, adaptation, nothing more. Living things can adapt. :roll: but does that mean all living things are consanguineous? No. You're giving adaptation WAY too much credit if you think living creatures have become themselves just from a series of adaptations.

Variations, slight changes in shapes, size or colors don't actually change a living thing no matter how much that accumulates.

The nested hierarchy is zero evidence for evolution. It's just cIassification. God created plants and animals, he created different kinds of plants, created different kinds of animals (birds, fishes, reptiles,..) he created different kinds of birds (flamingo, eagle, penguin,..) so on and so forth. The connections in taxonomy is purely your imagination.

Yes, this is true. But the Bible is also wrong in ****fying animals. And no, it's not 'imagination'. It's more solid to look at animals and see the similarities between different species than to believe an invisible deity created everything.

Vestigial structures - some structures like tonsil and appendix were thought to be vestigial. Not knowing the purpose of a feature doesn't mean it has no use.

Vestigial structures go beyond organs. What about the bones in a whale's fin that look like fingers? There are also similar bones in the hands of a Panda and Grizzly Bear, where you can clearly see how one has changed and become useless. If you watched the videos I posted you'd have seen it.

Genesis 1:26 is the best explanation to me regarding the human difference, any speculation that evolutionists can come up with is just pathetic and they'll never be able to replace that.

Bible is not scientific. Enough said.

Objective reasoning says life can only come from preexisting life and living creatures only forever reproduce themselves.

So [for me], abiogenesis and macroevolution are irrational and undesirable to science.

Objective reasoning would mean that you approach these theories with an open mind and without your agenda for God.
By saying that "for me... are irrational and undesirable" already shows that you've made a subjective decision.
And again, there's no such thing as macroevolution. I've already explained this to you and you've clearly ignored it. It is a term coined by people who do not understand Evolution.

this is clearly fictional No it isn't. There was even a whole documentary a saw exploring the evolution of whales, their ancestry and the numerous transitional species they found within the same area dispersed over millions of years.

and this is a moronic portrayal of man's origin
It is an artist's concept of what man's evolution could have looked like. No one has ever used this as 'fact'.

There you go. I've given my reasons and I already know yours, it may not be a lot of evidence but they're enough and stronger than all the weak, little ones for evolution, and most importantly, those make sense to me so that's what I believe.

You really haven't given that much. Just those three links to how the fossil record is incomplete.

You go believing you came from ape-like animals and I'll believe I'm specially created.

Yes you are special, Revinh. Special-ed.
Do the Universe a favor and go to University and learn about and argue Evolution to the Scientific community if you're that opposed.

Revinh

1. "Because it's just logical"? How on Earth do you think that stands up to scientific theory? Where is your evidence? You've given nothing but speculation and your misunderstandings of Evolution to 'support' you ideas. Further still, you're debunking chemistry simply because you don't think it's logical? This is a huge flaw in your argument because you're using your subjective beliefs as evidence, and belief does not equal truth.

Well you know what? I think it's 'just logical' that life formed through the natural laws of chemistry. But of course you nor anyone else would accept that, hence why I gave you a link to The Origin of Life Made Easy explaining how chemicals naturally compound to form strings of RNA and DNA within a proto-cell. Natural laws of chemistry aren't logical?
"Common sense and logic dictates so". Common sense and logic applied through proven chemistry has shown that organic molecules do form naturally.
Believing in God and his miracles defy logic, as any of his miracles are illogical/impossible things that only he has the power to do.

"I already said Pasteur proved life only comes from preexisting life, it's the law of biogenesis"
How did he prove life only comes from an intelligent creator? Biogenesis doesn't explain the origin of life, simply that life creates other life. Abiogenesis has more proof opposing this idea.
Even then Revinh, Biogenesis is still in keeping with the Earth being 4.5 billion years old and Evolution and that the fossil record and the fact that lifeforms did not pop out of nowhere (or were made from dust) fully formed by a superior being, so you really shouldn't be using this as it contradicts your beliefs.

If you're referring to chilarity, then someone else here has already debunked it. It has already been accounted for in the scientific community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis#Human_attempts_to_create_life

Likewise, this shows a brief list of human attempts to create life. The Miller-Urey experiment only failed because the amino acids broke down in our atmosphere. However, given that scientists accept that our early atmosphere was anaerobic, then they could have formed without our current oxygen-rich atmosphere eroding them.
Scientists have also created their own viruses.

2. By retaliating with the exact same replies is pretty immature. And given your religious piety, you would think it's a bit beneath you.

3. Houses and paintings are not living, reproducing organisms. It doesn't get any more simple than that. I shouldn't even have to point that out to a 10 year old, Revinh. If you want to refute science you have to use science, not ridiculous comparisons.

4. "Life does not come from nonlife. I don't even have to prove that". You don't have to prove that? Since when were you an authority on science? Even then, what gives you the right to say that cellular life doesn't form naturally when you demand that we back up everything? Another double standard.
"Yes, chemicals can bond, components of life can stick together but that's still far from forming even the simplest cell." Ahhh... yes Revinh, that's what happened. They did stick together to form the simplest cell.

5. What do you define as living and dead? Any working organism is essentially 'alive' especially if it is self sustaining and self replicating. If a proto cell forms, then isn't that 'living'? Revinh, you must understand that we are all composed of inanimate matter. What defines 'life' is simply the way in which it all interacts.

6. If simply forming a cell would make it come to life then if it dies simply reforming it should resurrect it. If this is your hypothesis, what experiments can you do to prove it? You've stated your idea so back it up, just like every scientist who studied Evolution had to do.
This sentence also confuses me. If a cell dies, it decomposes and the chemicals which made it are absorbed by other things. If all the material comes together again, then yes, it should be alive. Cells aren't like lego-blocks, Revinh, there's all manner of things happening around them that affect them. Your statement is a naive approach on a complex idea. Chemistry isn't a "2+2" sort of equation.

7. "What is wrong is thinking the formation of insanely complicated cell was formed and designed without a conscious Creator and that it became alive without a pre-existing life giving life to it."
Okay, clearly there is a big misconception here. Believing in Abiogenesis and Evolution does not reduce one's religious beliefs in any way. The astounding complexity in which life formed and evolved could just be another one of God's great works, millions of Christians believe this. Proving abiogenesis and Evolution to be true does not in any way discredit that their may be a God. Abiogensis/Evolution does not equal Atheism. Science cannot say anything about God because it can only study the natural world. Whatever it proves within the natural world has no bearing on religion.
That being said, you yourself believe that the Bible is literal, so are you saying that those Christians who follow science are wrong in their beliefs?
Likewise, some people don't believe in God at all. So far, Science has provided a much more detailed and logical perspective on life than Genesis in the Bible.

Lastly, my question to you. You say that life doesn't form from non living material.
You say that organisms don't evolve.
So, how do you KNOW that? HOW?Red-XIII

1. I wasn't saying it's the truth. I was just saying it's ok (for me at least) because it's more logical for an intricate cell to have been consciously created than not.

When I said "common sense dictates so" I was referring to nonliving things, however that's been arranged, becoming alive, not the part where chemicals can bond.

I agreed that organic molecules can form naturally (not sure about DNA though) but again, that's far from forming into a very complicated cell.

Believing in God and his miracles is not illogical, we can possibly understand how his miracles worked, just 'cause we lack the understanding of something doesn't mean it's illogical.

Biogenesis proves that life ultimately has come from a living Being that has always existed.

I don't know what you mean by biogenesis is still in keeping whatever those you said, it has nothing to do with them so I don't know how they contradict my beliefs.

I think I said this before, the atmosphere in early earth may be anaerobic but the UV rays would've destroyed amino acids.

2. I don't know what the heck you just meant there.

3. House and paintings are not living, reproducing organisms, but the analogy is still logical because nothing happens to living things but replication... It seems 10 year old Red-XIII only knows how to read the first sentence and ignores everything else.

4. Um, no. Chemicals that has stuck together doesn't mean it has formed a cell. It would require much more than that. I don't think you have any idea how complicated a cell is. But let it be if you wish, I'm more concerned about 6.

5. I think protocells just mimic the membranous structures found in life forms and are not self replicating and functioning cells. "You must understand that we're composed of inanimate matter." You must understand that I have acknowledged that a long time ago.

6.. Ok, you didn't even get what I just said there. It's an argument of logic, not a hypothesis.

"[If a living cell (assumed to be a single-celled organism here for simplicity purposes) dies] if the material comes together again, then yes, it should come back to life." Yeah, you might want to rethink what you just said.

7. I was never saying proving abiogenesis/evolution discredit that there maybe God (thought that could be the case for atheists). I'm just saying it's unbelievable for me to think the astounding complexity of a cell could've been unconsciously formed (meaning without the involvement of God), and if it did, that it became alive without another life (God) giving breadth life to it.

I believe the Bible is literal. That doesn't mean I don't follow science (as you seem to have implied), I don't know how not believing it's literal means you are or are not following science, and I don't know why (as you seem to say) following science would mean the Bible being literal is wrong.

The Bible is not a science textbook. The Genesis account only gave an overview of the origin of life. "Science has provided much more details.." I never said we should be restricted to what the Bible says and not learn about the details.

"Science has provided a logical perspective.." If in that context by science you mean abiogenesis and evolution then those are logical explanations in your opinion. I consider them pseudoscience.

Lastly...fine, I'm not saying I KNOW but that I believe since I lack the skills to explain it. I don't believe those two, I explained it in 6 for the first and I gave my reasons to yoshi-Inex earlier for evolution.

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]it can't just source a university study. It's not uncommon for people to take things out of context to get their point across.

Anyway, I look at evidence

You do not.

I figure that makes more open minded in this caseyoshi-lnex

There's much more than just quotes and you're assuming they're taken out of context, they're clearly not and there's numerous of them.

Anyway, you only look at evidence when it goes with your belief

Saying I don't is presumptuous on your part.

You're still in denial and closed-minded.

If you actually have an argument, look it up on some decent sites like harvard university or Berkley's site for instance, they're both excellent sources for science, being among the top schools in the world after all. So if you're views are correct you should be able to find them there.

Personally I just think being able to look for good sources is part of becoming an intelligent adult. For example if my proffesor or employer asked me to look something up and I just gave them a random site instead of a good source I would have some negative marks.

looking for good sources isn't close minded, it's just smart.

Also

Whatever. If you're not happy with my sources then that's your freaking problem. I'm certainly not happy with your wikipedia and family guy crap. I'm done with you.

[QUOTE="Revinh"]

Good on ya for putting forth a comprehensive post Revinh. I'll do my best to critique it.

Alright, this is it. I've already given so many arguments and explanations in other threads. There's a bunch of evidence here, here and here. But what would you say? Quickly assume that they're unreliable websites like wikipedia and youtube are all that reliable. :roll: It's obvious there's no point in continuing. I think for now we can just give our reasons why or why not we believe which.

First of all the top ten arguments against evolution page was last revised in 1995, recent articles tend to be more reliable. Second of all it's a bloody quotes page. Quote mining just isn't a good a good way to get around an issue like this because it is very easy to take the things that people say out of context or to concentrate upon things that have since been discovered to be unfounded. The same criticism applies to the IDEA site but it is compounded by the fact that every other page gives me a 404 error. The evolution fact or fiction site is much better but it still clearly has a preconcieved idea that evolution is wrong and that creation is right.

There's no use for you to keep trying 'cause evolution is just wrong in so many levels (though I have a hard time explaining). Man's difference alone is enough to shatter the stupid theory to pieces.

We've presented the fossils for you more than once but none of your criticism have stood.

But you probably won't be able to relate to that, it seems you guys' thinking has become so linear and narrow, like you aren't even humans anymore.

Oh the irony.

As you should know I've heard enough paleontologists that say transitional forms are extremely rare, call it quote-mining or whatever but you cannot easily discredit them. Millions upon millions of fossils have been unearthed already and the record is almost complete its imperfection is no longer a valid excuse. I argued so many times that the fossil record show sudden appearances of fully formed animals and remained virtually unchanged echoing creation. Whatever proposed transitional forms I think...

Quote mining is not an acceptable form of argument when it comes to something like evolution where there is a clear alterior motive for not believinhg in it.

I'll tell you this for the first time, mutations don't ever create anything new! Macroevolution assumes that mutations provide the raw materials for it to be possible, but every experiment shows it's hopeless to expect that. That's right, mutation does absolutely nothing to change a living thing from what they are. You'll never get new features and biological structures by altering the same genetic information. Without new, additional information, there's no way for them to become anything else, in which case they've always been and will always be the same living thing and must have been created to begin with. They've already done billions of mutations for decades and no change has ever come up that's a progression to something different. Resistance to antibiotics and nylon eating bacteria aren't changes that shows evolution to something else.

In no way is the knowlege and experiments that we have from the 150 odd years since Mendel commensurate with the great number of years involved in speciation that you expect to see.

"Survival of fittest" doesn't even support the theory at all. Example, there are light and dark colored peppered moths, the environment changed (darkened trees) and the dark color has become beneficial (camouflaged), the light ones were more vulnerable and the dark ones became dominant. Natural selection, yes. Evolution? No. The peppered moths didn't really change and no such process can ever really make a lifeform "evolve."

You're assuming that both variations of moths already existed when the environment changed. If the change in colour was due to a mutation then yes that would indeed be an example of evolution by natural selection. Give it 100,000 more years and perhaps those moths would grow bigger, develop wing colouration which imitated that of a predator and speciate from their ancestors.

Adaptation is just that, adaptation, nothing more. Living things can adapt. :roll: but does that mean all living things are consanguineous? No. You're giving adaptation WAY too much credit if you think living creatures have become themselves just from a series of adaptations.

Variations, slight changes in shapes, size or colors don't actually change a living thing no matter how much that accumulates.

Is a lion just the same as a housecat then?

The nested hierarchy is zero evidence for evolution. It's just cIassification. God created plants and animals, he created different kinds of plants, created different kinds of animals (birds, fishes, reptiles,..) he created different kinds of birds (flamingo, eagle, penguin,..) so on and so forth. The connections in taxonomy is purely your imagination.

Take your point up here

Vestigial structures - some structures like tonsil and appendix were thought to be vestigial. Not knowing the purpose of a feature doesn't mean it has no use.

Is this still true even when that structure harms the organism? Do you think that structures like the appendix are efficient at what they do, could not the same function be carried out by something that was just designed a bit better? Furthermore a vestigial structure is not something thathas no use, it's just something that is rudimentary or atrophied.

Genesis 1:26 is the best explanation to me regarding the human difference, any speculation that evolutionists can come up with is just pathetic and they'll never be able to replace that.

Great. Now just prove that that passage is the inspired word of God and you have an argument.

Objective reasoning says life can only come from preexisting life and living creatures only forever reproduce themselves.

So [for me], abiogenesis and macroevolution are irrational and undesirable to science.

I disagree therefore abiogenesis and macroevolution is true. Wow making unbased assertions is fun!

this is clearly fictional

I haven't studied this line of evoultion therefore I am not qualified to comment on it. I trust you follow the same principles Revinh?

and this is a moronic portrayal of man's origin

Is that an opinion that you personally hold or a valid argument for creation?

There you go. I've given my reasons and I already know yours, it may not be a lot of evidence but they're enough and stronger than all the weak, little ones for evolution, and most importantly, those make sense to me so that's what I believe.

You go believing you came from ape-like animals and I'll believe I'm specially created.

Ok? Bye.

Ok but who is most likely to be right? Belief is kind of irrelevant here.

What's more is that your post was almost entirely made up of criticisms against evolution. The only things that would suggest creation in your argument is the passage from genesis and your unfounded assertion that life cannot come from pre-existing life. Biblical authority and assertions based from opinion are not really the best arguments I reckon.

1. I agreed that organic molecules can form naturally (not sure about DNA though) but again, that's far from forming into a very complicated cell. Another member posted the basic steps in Abiogenesis. It does not instantly form a complex cell. It forms a basic cell, a proto cell and continues to develop from there. If you watched the video you would see the progression all expressed. You can even go and study the chemical equations they give you for it.

Believing in God and his miracles is not illogical, we can possibly understand how his miracles worked, just 'cause we lack the understanding of something doesn't mean it's illogical.

Believing in God is not, but to believe in miracles over the natural world we have studied around us is a bit farfetched. My beef isn't with your beliefs, Revinh, it's that you dispute scientific studies about the natural world but regard religious belief as somehow more superior or logical.

"just 'cause we lack the understanding of something doesn't mean it's illogical." - There Revinh, you've said it yourself. You think Abiogenesis and Evolution is illogical, on several occassions you've shown you don't fully understand. You're contradicting your own ideas. If you can keep an open mind about your religion, why not do the same for Science? Evolution is a solid, accepted theory. There may be holes but that may be because of our lack in understanding. It works both ways.

Biogenesis proves that life ultimately has come from a living Being that has always existed.

No it doesn't. No scientific theory every ultimately proves anything. Biogenesis states that life comes from other life, yes, but it is not the current accepted theory and as it stands abiogenesis has more study and evidence behind it.

I don't know what you mean by biogenesis is still in keeping whatever those you said, it has nothing to do with them so I don't know how they contradict my beliefs.

Biogenesis states that there had to be life to create life, not a God. So that 'life' could have been a single cell that existed for eternity and evolved. Says nothing about Creationism.

I think I said this before, the atmosphere in early earth may be anaerobic but the UV rays would've destroyed amino acids.

Not necessarily. Any other number of gases present could have. I would dig up my copious notes on Earth Science if I hadn't thrown them out.

2. I don't know what the heck you just meant there.

3. House and paintings are not living, reproducing organisms, but the analogy is still logical because nothing happens to living things but replication... It seems 10 year old Red-XIII only knows how to read the first sentence and ignores everything else.

Nothing happens to living things but replication? Who's a 10 year old now? When something reproduces, the RNA of the male and RNA of the female combine to form DNA of a new living thing. For one, it is not pure replication because you have a combination of both genes. Secondly, there are errors when it copies resulting in mutations and sometimes birth defects.

A house is built by a builder according to a specific plan. A painting is painted by a painter. People have to make these things. They do not reproduce, they are not subject to natural selection. Your argument is inane. I read the entirety of that statement and deleted my response because the logic doesn't add up. You talk about photocopying. Well what happens if you make a photocopy and then photocopy that photocopy? It doesn't look anywhere near as good as the original. Errors.

4. Um, no. Chemicals that has stuck together doesn't mean it has formed a cell. It would require much more than that. I don't think you have any idea how complicated a cell is. But let it be if you wish, I'm more concerned about 6.

I do, actually, considering I had to study the reproductive system in Physical Health and Education, again in science about DNA and genetics as well as how cells maintain homeostasis within our bodies. Did you know Revinh that cells use osmosis to get their nutrients?

I don't think you have any idea how complicated Science in general is.

5. I think protocells just mimic the membranous structures found in life forms and are not self replicating and functioning cells. "You must understand that we're composed of inanimate matter." You must understand that I have acknowledged that a long time ago.

Well the video on Abiogenesis explained that these protocells did replicate. And they aren't mimicking. These membranous structures do form naturally. "I think" doesn't cut it without backup.

6.. Ok, you didn't even get what I just said there. It's an argument of logic, not a hypothesis.

"[If a living cell (assumed to be a single-celled organism here for simplicity purposes) dies] if the material comes together again, then yes, it should come back to life." Yeah, you might want to rethink what you just said.

I know what you're getting at. Your original comment didn't make much sense to me. If the cell dies, then it's dead. It breaks down. Assuming you reassembled the parts that broke apart then you'd have the cell back. I'm just trying to follow your logic here, not stating what happens.

7. I was never saying proving abiogenesis/evolution discredit that there maybe God (thought that could be the case for atheists). I'm just saying it's unbelievable for me to think the astounding complexity of a cell could've been unconsciously formed (meaning without the involvement of God), and if it did, that it became alive without another life (God) giving breadth life to it.

That's just fine by me. I find the complexities of life to be astounding, but that doesn't mean I should refute something entirely I do not know.

I believe the Bible is literal. That doesn't mean I don't follow science (as you seem to have implied), I don't know how not believing it's literal means you are or are not following science, and I don't know why (as you seem to say) following science would mean the Bible being literal is wrong.

The Bible is not a science textbook. The Genesis account only gave an overview of the origin of life. "Science has provided much more details.." I never said we should be restricted to what the Bible says and not learn about the details.

Well that's what I'm getting at Revinh. How can you downright deny Abiogenesis and Evolution in the favour of Creationism?And if the Bible is not a science textbook, then why use it to argue science? I have no problem with your belief in God, or that God may have influenced life. It's that you refute science for Intelligent Design and Creationism, which stem from the Bible and as you said isn't scientific?

No offense, but people laugh at Creationism simply because it has no grounding in the scientific method.

"Science has provided a logical perspective.." If in that context by science you mean abiogenesis and evolution then those are logical explanations in your opinion. I consider them pseudoscience.

Perhaps you consider them pseudoscience because you don't understand them.
"Pseudoscience is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

Considering that Evolution is a Scientific Theory, it does indeed comply with the scientific method.

Abiogenesis is not yet a Theory, but for it to be given such attention and study it has to comply. Even at it's most basic form, chemistry, that complies with scientific methods.

Yet you believe in Creationism, no? And that is more sience than Evolution and Abiogenesis?

Lastly...fine, I'm not saying I KNOW but that I believe since I lack the skills to explain it. I don't believe those two, I explained it in 6 for the first and I gave my reasons to yoshi-Inex earlier for evolution.

Lack the skills to explain how it's wrong? To explain that is wrong you'd have to spend 5 years at University to even begin to understand the complexities of it. Science is not about believing something 100%. You don't even have to believe it, but you can appreciate still what science has proven. Even I'm not willing to doubt science that I don't understand because it is a whole lot more complicated than anything you'll find on the net or a highschool textbook.

Likewise, I will not argue the Bible with you, Revinh, because I know you are well versed in it.

Revinh

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]it can't just source a university study. It's not uncommon for people to take things out of context to get their point across.

Anyway, I look at evidence

You do not.

I figure that makes more open minded in this caseRevinh

There's much more than just quotes and you're assuming they're taken out of context, they're clearly not and there's numerous of them.

Anyway, you only look at evidence when it goes with your belief

Saying I don't is presumptuous on your part.

You're still in denial and closed-minded.

If you actually have an argument, look it up on some decent sites like harvard university or Berkley's site for instance, they're both excellent sources for science, being among the top schools in the world after all. So if you're views are correct you should be able to find them there.

Personally I just think being able to look for good sources is part of becoming an intelligent adult. For example if my proffesor or employer asked me to look something up and I just gave them a random site instead of a good source I would have some negative marks.

looking for good sources isn't close minded, it's just smart.

Also

Whatever. If you're not happy with my sources then that's your freaking problem. I'm certainly not happy with your wikipedia and family guy crap. I'm done with you.

I'm opposed to the theory alright, but I'm just here in GS forum giving my input.

"Remember, we're the ones who studied it and know what it's about, not you."

LOL Epic. 'Cause only those who accepts it has studied it?

The rest of your reply were ignored. I'm done with you as well. There's no reaso!!" to move forward when you've failed to grasp the past explanations. I'm done arguing with animals.

Revinh

oh and "yeah, we won"