Posted on 01/25/2016 9:35:02 AM PST by fishtank
Why do I need a version of anything to point out that creationism is such nonsense on stilts that, in my view, nobody with half a brain and the willingness to use it can take it seriously.
Even the most simple forms of life are so complex as to require 100's of interacting biological systems to be viable. It is just not possible statistically speaking for that to happen randomly.
You cannot address the fundamental problem with evolution. Life form no. 1, the first viable living cell.
“Walk me thru that process. So one billion years ago on a Thursday evening some electromagnetic ray beamed down hit a rock and lichens appeared? LOL. “
That is a remarkably ignorant, false, and strawman comment. If that is the sort of nonsense you choose to believe about science, it is no wonder you cannot begin to fathom it. Where were you when they were teaching valence in school?
So instead we have some magical Guy who whips out His magical wand and >poof< everything gets made out of whole cloth; only His inventions are poorly-made - they’re the biological equivalent of Yugos, the infamous Yugoslavian attempt at entering the US auto market - that they barely last 30 or 40 years before they start breaking down. Yeah, right.
The fact that your imagination is too weak to fathom how something might evolve is not proof that evolution is false and neither is the fact that it cannot be fully and satisfactorily explained yet.
Those are things that science continues to work on. Which is as it should be.
The nature of God is still unknown so don't be so rigid. You are confusing religious dogma about the origins of life with a higher power that obviously was way more intelligent than man will ever be. There is more intelligent design in one plankton than in all of the evolutionist theory combined.
There is no evidence for intelligent design and plenty of evidence for dumb design. The human being being a perfect example. If God made every species as you imply, then God is one heck of a poor designer.
You actually believe the universe expanded and organized itself into stars, planets and moons, and that life evolved from rain on rocks. What Faith you have!!!
“What does atomic valence theory have to do with the first single cell creatures on earth?”
Everything. The fact that you ask such a question is in itself the demonstration of your willful ignorance and neglect of the way in which inorganic molecules have the inherent property of self organizing increasingly more complex molecular chains that ultimately acquire the capability for replication in the ways which define forms of Life.
“You cannot even give a theory because there isn’t a viable one That is the problem with evolution”.
On the contrary, the mechanism at its most fundamental levels utilizes the electromagnetic bonds of physics and chemistry to self organize into ever more complex forms under certain conditions.
“You got just gloss over that nagging detail of the very first cell/creature.”
There you go again with an another demonstration of ignorance about the subject. The first forms of life were not cellular life forms. Cellular life forms were a much later and far more advanced level of complexity after the much simpler life forms had been around for a very long time.
“If you can just get over that hurdle everything else is just random chance and statistics. Well I am not letting you off that hook.”
So, now you are speaking about a hurdle which implies reproducing organic molecules which are not cellular do not meet your definition of a life form. So, does this mean when Humans do create a form of cellular life, you are going to move your goal posts further beyond cellular life to what in order to satisfy you that Humans can in fact create artificial life from inorganic chemical substances?
Recreate the steps of inorganic molecules forming organic molecules and then forming a viable organism and get back to me. I will even spot you some amino acids to begin with and billion dollar budget.
I have both studied science, math and probability as an undergraduate. I have been in the engineering field for 30 years. This random theory of evolution cannot explain the jump from organic compounds to a living creature.
It requires faith and belief, just like creationism.
And no I don't believe the earth is 6000 years old.
“Your theory requires more faith than creationism. It is all gobble gook.”
Faith has nothing to do with it, because the work on abiogenesis is based upon a very extensive body of observations that have experimentally reproduced most of the major steps outlined for the self ordering of inorganic substances into multicellular life forms. The last few remaining gaps are the current subject of research and experimentation with very encouraging results, especially the proposed means by which proteinoids produced in close contact with hot lava provide a potential pathway to the production of proto-cells. The Wikipedia article on abiogenesis is a fair representation of the ongoing research and past results.
“Recreate the steps of inorganic molecules forming organic molecules and then forming a viable organism and get back to me. I will even spot you some amino acids to begin with and billion dollar budget. “
No, you won’t. You’re just talking, turning a deaf ear, and turning a blind eye towards any information which disproves your ideological prejudices. If the scientists successfully conducted a laboratory experiment that cooked up a single celled life form from inorganic chemicals right before your eyes, you would break your neck in a search for any means by which you could deny the reality of the results and deny the existence of the new life form.
“I have both studied science, math and probability as an undergraduate. I have been in the engineering field for 30 years.”
If I had a dollar for every scientist and engineer who denied the existence of a real world fact, I would be a millionaire hundreds of times over and over again. I still remember being given a failed grade because I wrote a paper in the 60s which reported on the role of Continental Drift in the formation of the continents, because the professor claimed Continental Drift and plate tectonics were based upon a non-scientific belief and faith. It’s rather obvious that too often some people allow their personal ideology to motivate them to deny and ignore any information which is contrary to their chosen prejudices.
“This random theory of evolution cannot explain the jump from organic compounds to a living creature.”
That statement betrays your lack of comprehension of the science behind abiogenesis. Random selection pertains only to certain facets of the processes. The self ordering is not random in those aspects related to spontaneous chemical bonding, which in turn is based upon the molecular bonds created by the electromagnetic properties of the molecules and their catalytic chemical reactions.
“It requires faith and belief, just like creationism.”
That is a totally false statement. The study of abiogenesis relies on experimental observation of real world events and real world objects, following the preliminary conjecture and hypotheses which were used to guide such experimental observations to their successful conclusions. Your comment simply denies the existence of the real world events. Most of the major steps of abiogenesis are well proven, and the last major step/s are close to being proven, so they are cannot honestly be regarded as a faith that will never be subject to an experimental observation of its existence.
“And no I don’t believe the earth is 6000 years old.”
Didn’t say you did.
Actually that would be amazing.
“Actually that would be amazing.”
Many of the experimental results in the last 60 years have been very amazing. The research related to the RNA world has been very productive. The efforts to use devolution as a means of discovering preceding forms and processes has been amazing. The role of volcanoes in the production of proteins and their organization into microspheres is an amazing exploration into what may someday be a viable explanation for the development of single cell life forms.
Abiogenesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.