Evolution Demonstrated In A Laboratory

[Learner]

If you accept lightning can start a chemical reaction then logically you can not dismiss abiogenesis as impossible, just because it conflicts with a belief in a few ancient lines of text.

Yeah - logically. But practically, dismissing abiogenesis as a possibility is a requirement for anyone wanting to accept superstitious magic creation stories.
I think you know what you’re dealing with here.

I think I'm possibly dealing with egos.

 

[Learner]

Learner

Lightning strikes a forest starting a chemical reaction we call fire, It is self sustaining chain reaction until fuel is exhausted.

Yes of course obviously, otherwise you'd be saying the earth and all the things in it would always have been er.... ad infinitum.

Abiogenesis would be a self sustaing chemical reaction starting with a source of energy. Simulated lightning strikes into water thought to be the same content as early oceans creates amino acids, building blocks.

Yes this is a logical theory I understand and accept that. Logical in terms of... within human comprehension.

If you accept lightning can start a chemical reaction then logically you can not dismiss abiogenesis as impossible, just because it conflicts with a belief in a few ancient lines of text.

Nature and it's everyday processes doesn't conflict with the bible.

Science follows the evidence, not supernatural claims. If you reject the abiogenesis hypothesis then you reject the demonstrated efficacy of science, on which your modern life depends.

Science is science... It doesn't give teachings about human relationships - and there are religious individuals who are scientists too - there's no conflict between science and having a faith belief.

Religious faith doesn't "require science experiments" to love your neighbours!

You misunderstood. While around people I can and do respect beliefs even when I don't get it bck from Christians. I think it is the right thing to do.

That being said this pseudo scientific Christian attempts to refute cosmology and evolution are just plain silliness, childish. Laughable, and I mean literally. Roll on the floor laughing.

Did you notice any posts highlighting 'there are' differences between the having logical conclusions and scientific conclusions? I never refuted evolution nor claimed abiogenesis never happened. What is silly is the 'need' to keep to the same generic script even when in error like another poster.

 

[Elixir]

If you accept lightning can start a chemical reaction then logically you can not dismiss abiogenesis as impossible, just because it conflicts with a belief in a few ancient lines of text.

Yeah - logically. But practically, dismissing abiogenesis as a possibility is a requirement for anyone wanting to accept superstitious magic creation stories.
I think you know what you’re dealing with here.

I think I'm possibly dealing with egos.

That would be a far more productive pursuit than trying to use reason to advance bible stories as [possible] fact. As you have shown, though …
Elevating magical creation to the same level of possibility as abiogenesis requires trying to bring abiogenesis down to the impossibility level of magical creation, regardless of anyone’s ego. Incomprehension of the science involved is the first step.

 

[Thomas II]

Learner

Lightning strikes a forest starting a chemical reaction we call fire, It is self sustaining chain reaction until fuel is exhausted.

Yes of course obviously, otherwise you'd be saying the earth and all the things in it would always have been er.... ad infinitum.

Abiogenesis would be a self sustaing chemical reaction starting with a source of energy. Simulated lightning strikes into water thought to be the same content as early oceans creates amino acids, building blocks.

Yes this is a logical theory I understand and accept that. Logical in terms of... within human comprehension.

If you accept lightning can start a chemical reaction then logically you can not dismiss abiogenesis as impossible, just because it conflicts with a belief in a few ancient lines of text.

Nature and it's everyday processes doesn't conflict with the bible.

Science follows the evidence, not supernatural claims. If you reject the abiogenesis hypothesis then you reject the demonstrated efficacy of science, on which your modern life depends.

Science is science... It doesn't give teachings about human relationships - and there are religious individuals who are scientists too - there's no conflict between science and having a faith belief.

Religious faith doesn't "require science experiments" to love your neighbours!

You misunderstood. While around people I can and do respect beliefs even when I don't get it bck from Christians. I think it is the right thing to do.

That being said this pseudo scientific Christian attempts to refute cosmology and evolution are just plain silliness, childish. Laughable, and I mean literally. Roll on the floor laughing.

Did you notice any posts highlighting 'there are' differences between the having logical conclusions and scientific conclusions? I never refuted evolution nor claimed abiogenesis never happened. What is silly is the 'need' to keep to the same generic script even when in error like another poster.

 

[Elixir]

Nature and it's everyday processes doesn't conflict with the bible.

1) Nature and it's everyday processes don't conflict with the bible.
2) Processes don't argue with books. Humans do. Humans draw reasoned predictions about the future and conclusions about the past from observation of processes. Those conclusions conflict with religious notions of necessary superbeings. Get over it.
3) Nobody is out to disprove your personal god or anyone else's. The antagonism, where it exists, is toward organized religions that have long established, abominable records of avarice, mendacity, perversion and even genocide done 'in the name of' whatever scripture's supposedly divine advice.

 

[bilby]

Logical in terms of... within human comprehension.

So your position is that your understanding of how life began and subsequently evolved is better than that of evolutionary biologists, because evolutionary biologists are only human, and cannot therefore grasp the reality of how things occurred?

 

[steve_bank]

Nothing to do with egos. It is about a Christian on the forum insisting on not growing up to facing reality and living in a childlike fairy tale.

Nature and it's everyday processes doesn't conflict with the bible.

What do you mean by nature?

If the Noah tale is true in the biblce cretionist tie line, in order for civizations like Egypt and Asia with all the human gnetc diversity to ae arose form 8 people changes would have to occur very fast. A white coupe has a baby with black African or Asian features.

Simple calculations show that breeding pairs of every surface creature could not fit in the reputed dimensions of the Ark. It is a fairy tale. The idea that known global populations that existed shortly after the alleged flood coming from 8 people is a fairy tale.

The bible is an ancient cultural fairy tale.

Learner I gave you an example of lightning and related it to abiogenesis. Do you or do you not consider abiogesnis possible?

If you say yes then you are saying your religious belief is in qusetion. If you say know yiu are rejecting a hypothesis based on observation and established science, the same science that makes the ligt go on when you flip a switch. The same science that creates vaccines based in genetics and mutations.

If all these Christians collectively focused their efforts on solving real problems instead of debating fairy tale theology the world might be a better place. There is no god there is only reality we humans have to deal with to survive.

 

[Learner]

Logical in terms of... within human comprehension.

So your position is that your understanding of how life began and subsequently evolved is better than that of evolutionary biologists, because evolutionary biologists are only human, and cannot therefore grasp the reality of how things occurred?

Thanks for asking.

My position on this, was to do with 'evolution demonstrated in the lab', which I say is not good evidence imo for the 'no god necessary' notion. To clarify, I initially said that it would be more ideal for the 'no god necessary' if abiogenesis was demonstrated in the lab as well. The conversation is becoming about God now.

(Apologise to Cheerful.. when I arrogantly came in with the line "call me [...] ' on this thread as I don't think he wanted that type of conversation. I usually keep to the religion section. That's where I'll be, if one wants to continue there, not running away. At least if I'm sneakily promoting God, I am in the right section of the forum. And i don't want to talk religion all over the forum, I'm sure you wouldn't either.
Anyway I like to keep close to the thread guidelines, as a forum member.

 

[Elixir]

My position on this, was to do with 'evolution demonstrated in the lab', which I say is not good evidence imo for the 'no god necessary' notion.

Uh, EVERYTHING is evidence that no god is necessary, unless you can prove that something necessarily requires a god. Whatever that thing might be, it’s not evolution. That’s what is shown by evolution in a lab.

As usual you are operating under a fallacy; demanding proof of a negative. But yeah sure, take heart: abiogenesis has not quite been demonstrated in a lab. Yet. You should be preparing your response, though - it’s getting very close.

 

[Learner]

My position on this, was to do with 'evolution demonstrated in the lab', which I say is not good evidence imo for the 'no god necessary' notion.

Uh, EVERYTHING is evidence that no god is necessary, unless you can prove that something necessarily requires a god. Whatever that thing might be, it’s not evolution. That’s what is shown by evolution in a lab.

Ah ok there may be a difference between our God concepts, which is the norm. With 'no god necessary' the context to the creation perspective is that: nature is merely running on auto-pilot, but nature is the creation.

As usual you are operating under a fallacy; demanding proof of a negative. But yeah sure, take heart: abiogenesis has not quite been demonstrated in a lab. Yet. You should be preparing your response, though - it’s getting very close.

I see.. then in this case...the 'call me when it happens' line, I'll use here.

 

[Elixir]

Uh, you’ll certainly be notified if/when life is produced from non-life in a lab. Also if an anti-matter power generator is developed.

Meanwhile, back at this thread, evolution has yet again been demonstrated in a lab.
It is religious nonsense to believe humans did not evolve from previous forms, like every other known organism. There is ZERO evidence to support that.


As for Special Creation, call me when it happens.

 

[steve_bank]

Is Learner going to answer my question on abiogenesis?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

"Science is science... It doesn't give teachings about human relationships....

Sociology, anthropology, psychology, uhmmmm, yes, science has MUCH to say about human relationships.

 

[steve_bank]

Hard sciences vs soft sciences.

 

[bilby]

Thanks for asking.

You're welcome.

Did you want to answer?

The rest of your post had nothing whatsoever to do with my question.

 

[Learner]

Uh, you’ll certainly be notified if/when life is produced from non-life in a lab. Also if an anti-matter power generator is developed.

Wonderful. Anti-matter generators then the dream to make sky lifts into reality.

Meanwhile, back at this thread, evolution has yet again been demonstrated in a lab.
It is religious nonsense to believe humans did not evolve from previous forms, like every other known organism. There is ZERO evidence to support that.

Just observing some natural processes in the lab is all it is.
Works a little like clockwork doesn't it? Perhaps not quite to you...you couldn't 'logically' fathom it to be otherwise. Just need that bit you're waiting for to happen in the lab. Create from scratch ...no cheating.

As for Special Creation, call me when it happens.

I hope you join us by then.

 

[Learner]

Is Learner going to answer my question on abiogenesis?

What was the question again?
I asked you if you could consider hypothetically (or philosophically as you mentioned, discussing in that vein) just pondering on the thought... that if a contained field of energy/could become 'consciously aware of its existence' given that there are no limits of time for having its own 'cosmic' evolving processes, nothing to do with the Biblical God. (I gave it a curious thought some years s back...before I became a BA Christian) You responded anyway only about me having a belief

(I'll have to look back at your question my eye sight is not good with limited screen space on this phone.)

 

[Learner]

"Science is science... It doesn't give teachings about human relationships....

Sociology, anthropology, psychology, uhmmmm, yes, science has MUCH to say about human relationships.

CC you're an intelligent fellow. You know they don't demand or compare in the same way as love your enemies and neighbours etc. as Jesus did.
Don't do what some of the forum comrades do. Technical speak, is useful to some, trying to maintain some edge in a debate but it's not good when it's seen.

 

[Learner]

Thanks for asking.

You're welcome.

Did you want to answer?

The rest of your post had nothing whatsoever to do with my question.

Ok looking back...

No I don't say I know better than those scientist mentioned. It isn't the show stopper. I'm debating with people on the thread. I mention previously in a post, evolution is not an issue for some theists. Others on this thread have sensibly pointed out sone experiments are not possible... and logical conclusions still proceed to be made despite of it.

And in the realm of things being of scientific expertise - you should consider reasoning as to why scientists who are also religious, in all of the science desciplines you mentioned... are still religious.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The sciences that touch on human cultures is useful for studying human failings. Looking at the long history of religious failings, forced conversions, heresy hunts, religious oppression, religious wars etc does not fill me with great expectations for religioous morality. Today we see the excesses of right winged evangelism, religious Americans support for right winged politics, anti-intellectualism, anti-science, and racism. I don't have a high opinion of Christianity for very good reasons.