If You Don't Believe In Evolution, What Do You Believe?

[semaj550 0]

The bible doesn't say 'discreet periods of time' it says DAYS.

The bible wasn't originally written in English, you know.http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/day.html

[BWToth 0]

The bible wasn't originally written in English, you know.http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/day.html

looks like a credible resource.

[crowTrobot 2]

How could evolution explain abiogensis? The spontaneous generation of amino acids from inert chemicals would have nothing at all to do with natural selection.

spontaneous generation of the building blocks of life is just a precurser to abiogenesis. something still had to put them together - and it's quite possible a form of natural selection working on a simplistic non-living but self-replicating system of some kind started the process.

[semaj550 0]

spontaneous generation of the building blocks of life is just a precurser to abiogenesis. something still had to put them together - and it's quite possible a form of natural selection working on a simplistic non-living but self-replicating system of some kind started the process.

Chemical affinity was debunked as a possible explanation for abiogensis over 20 years ago.

[semaj550 0]

looks like a credible resource.

Then provide an alternate one which reliably demonstrates that the only possible translation of the Hebrew in Genesis is "days" and should be interpreted to mean a period of exactly 24 hours.

[crowTrobot 2]

Chemical affinity was debunked as a possible explanation for abiogensis over 20 years ago.

you presumably are speaking of some study that made no consideration whatsoever of natural selection. natural selection making use of molecular bonding leading (presumably in millions or billions of incremental steps of slowly building complexity) to abiogenesis has absolutely not been debunked. to do so you would have to rule out all possible paths natural selection could have taken, which is for practical purposes impossible with our current understanding. scientists are just starting to explore the possibilities. we simply don't know for sure what was or wasn't possible at this point.

[Jesus H Christ 0]

I can assure you evolution isnt real. Its just made up scientific mumbo jumbo, like the female orgasm, for example.

[Jdr999 0]

I can assure you evolution isnt real. Its just made up scientific mumbo jumbo, like the female orgasm, for example.

Like you would know anything about the female orgasm.

[Jesus H Christ 0]

Like you would know anything about the female orgasm.

ask your mom, son.

[semaj550 0]

you presumably are speaking of some study that made no consideration whatsoever of natural selection. natural selection making use of molecular bonding leading (presumably in millions or billions of incremental steps of slowly building complexity) to abiogenesis has absolutely not been debunked. to do so you would have to rule out all possible paths natural selection could have taken, which is for practical purposes impossible with our current understanding. scientists are just starting to explore the possibilities. we simply don't know for sure what was or wasn't possible at this point.

Anything beyond a vague idea of what may have contributed to a completely naturalistic abiogeneis has certainly been debunked. You may as well be claiming that the Easter Bunny or *gasp* God did it.

[hblask 1]

Anything beyond a vague idea of what may have contributed to a completely naturalistic abiogeneis has certainly been debunked. You may as well be claiming that the Easter Bunny or *gasp* God did it.

I don't know how you can say this. Simple self-replicating molecules have been generated in experiemental conditions similar to primordial earth. They don't qualify as life, of course, but more like the first hints of DNA.Separately, simple shells have been spontaneously generated in other setups, using only conditions thought to exist on primordial earth. These are eerily similar to the cell membranes of simple organisms.There are stll a few steps to go.1) Having them occur simultaneously2) Making the self-replicating molecules complex enough to consider them life-like.But it's not that big of a step, really.

[semaj550 0]

I don't know how you can say this. Simple self-replicating molecules have been generated in experiemental conditions similar to primordial earth. They don't qualify as life, of course, but more like the first hints of DNA.Separately, simple shells have been spontaneously generated in other setups, using only conditions thought to exist on primordial earth. These are eerily similar to the cell membranes of simple organisms.There are stll a few steps to go.1) Having them occur simultaneously2) Making the self-replicating molecules complex enough to consider them life-like.But it's not that big of a step, really.

You make it sound like it's a matter as simple as walking to the corner store and picking up the needed ingredients. To go from simple proteins to life would be a step of greater proportion than any product of science to date. It is an absolutely enormous task.

[crowTrobot 2]

Anything beyond a vague idea of what may have contributed to a completely naturalistic abiogeneis has certainly been debunked.

that's just a creationist lie. there are several rather specific theories that based on current information seem to work in principal.

You may as well be claiming that the Easter Bunny or *gasp* God did it.

the easter bunny and god don't have the pattern of explanatory power being consistently proven by empirical evidence supporting them that natural selection has. whenever we've found evidence allowing us to explain ANYTHING at all relating to life, the explanation has involved natural selection. since that pattern of explanation has been 100% consistent so far, there is no reason to think we won't eventually prove it extends back to the beginning.

[hblask 1]

You make it sound like it's a matter as simple as walking to the corner store and picking up the needed ingredients. To go from simple proteins to life would be a step of greater proportion than any product of science to date. It is an absolutely enormous task.

The hardest step is the spontaneous creation of self-replicating molecules. That has happened under labratory conditions. Everything after that is just random luck. 4.5 billion years is a long time for trial and error.

[semaj550 0]

The hardest step is the spontaneous creation of self-replicating molecules. That has happened under labratory conditions. Everything after that is just random luck. 4.5 billion years is a long time for trial and error.

The time between the earth reaching the proper temperature to allow for the creation of life and the earliest life is only a few hundred million years. Much too short a time to actually believe that elements left to themselves could have resulted in those earliest life forms.

[semaj550 0]

that's just a creationist lie. there are several rather specific theories that based on current information seem to work in principal. the easter bunny and god don't have the pattern of explanatory power being consistently proven by empirical evidence supporting them that natural selection has. whenever we've found evidence allowing us to explain ANYTHING at all relating to life, the explanation has involved natural selection. since that pattern of explanation has been 100% consistent so far, there is no reason to think we won't eventually prove it extends back to the beginning.

What empirical evidence is there to suggest that natural selection is resonsible for originating life? Natural selection's ability to account for speciation says nothing of it's ability to account for abiogensis. There is no hard evidence to warrant the assumption of these "eventualities".

[crowTrobot 2]

Natural selection's ability to account for speciation says nothing of it's ability to account for abiogensis.

why not?

There is no hard evidence to warrant the assumption of these "eventualities".

the power of natural selection to explain the pattern of building complexity of life IS hard evidence that it may also explain abiogenesis. again, there is no evidence that abiogenesis and speciation are radically different types of phenomena, and every reason to suspect they are similar - part of the SAME pattern.

[semaj550 0]

why not?

Natural selection deals specifically with reproductive life forms. Inert chemicals either neither reproductive or life forms.

the power of natural selection to explain the pattern of building complexity of life IS hard evidence that is may also explain abiogenesis. again, there is no evidence that abiogenesis and speciation are radically different types of phenomena, and every reason to suspect they are similar - part of the SAME pattern.

I've bolded the word life in your response because it's ability to explain the changes in already living things says nothing of the ability to create life in the first place.That's like me saying that because the maintenance records for my car explain how it got to the condition it is in today the mechanic who worked on it must have also built it.

[crowTrobot 2]

Natural selection deals specifically with reproductive life forms. Inert chemicals either neither reproductive or life forms.

of course natural selection isn't going to work on inert chemicals. a self-replicating system of some kind is required - however that system does NOT have to be "living". the principals behind natural selection will work on variations in any self-replicating system living or not. some astrophysicists theorize that the same principals are at work in different aspects of the evolution of the universe itself.

That's like me saying that because the maintenance records for my car explain how it got to the condition it is in today the mechanic who worked on it must have also built it.

bad analogy because natural selection is not "fixing" life. it IS BUILDING it up - from simple to complex in small steps. going from something like a simplistic non-living self-replicating crystaline structure to a proto-bacteria by selectively building complexity in countless small increments over millions of years is in principal NOT a different phenomenon than going from a fish to a human.

[semaj550 0]

of course natural selection isn't going to work on inert chemicals. a self-replicating system of some kind is required - however that system does NOT have to be "living". the principals behind natural selection will work on variations in any self-replicating system living or not. some astrophysicists theorize that the same principals are at work in different aspects of the evolution of the universe itself.bad analogy because natural selection is not "fixing" life. it IS BUILDING it up - from simple to complex in small steps. going from something like a simplistic non-living self-replicating crystaline structure to a proto-bacteria by selectively building complexity in countless small increments over millions of years is in principal NOT a different phenomenon than going from a fish to a human.

All we had after the big bang was a collection of inert chemicals. They had to from a self-replicating system somehow and you seem to be asserting that natual selection somehow explains that.

[crowTrobot 2]

All we had after the big bang was a collection of inert chemicals. They had to from a self-replicating system somehow and you seem to be asserting that natual selection somehow explains that.

obviously the big bang didn't just spew out inert chemicals. how we got from a fraction of a second after the big bang to planets with a wide variety of complex molecules on their surfaces is very well understood by science. also simple non-living self-replicating systems with the potential to build complexity are not theoretical. they exist in nature today.

[solderz 0]

semaj550 has obviously been tought his "science" from his church or other religous source. Valiant effort to argue with this clown crow, but it won't do any good. A basic understanding of science is required for him to understand what you are telling him.

[semaj550 0]

obviously the big bang didn't just spew out inert chemicals. how we got from a fraction of a second after the big bang to planets with a wide variety of complex molecules on their surfaces is very well understood by science.

This says what, exactly, about the origin of species (life)?

also simple non-living self-replicating systems with the potential to build complexity are not theoretical. they exist in nature today.

Therein lies the problem. We have vast numbers of complex molecules and vast numbers of species but nothing is between.

[crowTrobot 2]

This says what, exactly, about the origin of species (life)?

that the building blocks and a highly active naturalistic mechanism were potentially available to make it happen. the pre-life situation was not just inert chemicals lying around as you seem to think.

Therein lies the problem. We have vast numbers of complex molecules and vast numbers of species but nothing is between.

you have to understand evolution (you don't) to understand why if life evolved from a simple self-replicating system making interactive use of complex molecules, we wouldn't expect the intermediate steps to still be around.

[semaj550 0]

that the building blocks and a highly active naturalistic mechanism were potentially available to make it happen. the pre-life situation was not just inert chemicals lying around as you seem to think.you have to understand evolution (you don't) to understand why if life evolved from a simple self-replicating system making interactive use of complex molecules, we wouldn't expect the intermediate steps to still be around.

Then why would we have the beginning ones?