Proof of Creationism made by NASA

[BilliardsBall]

No, as a "hypothesis" simply is not a "faith-based claim":
Scientific hypothesis, an idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon or a narrow set of phenomena observed in the natural world. The two primary features of a scientific hypothesis are falsifiability and testability, which are reflected in an “If…then” statement summarizing the idea and in the ability to be supported or refuted through observation and experimentation. The notion of the scientific hypothesis as both falsifiable and testable was advanced in the mid-20th century by Austrian-born British philosopher Karl Popper.

The formulation and testing of a hypothesis is part of the scientific method, the approach scientists use when attempting to understand and test ideas about natural phenomena... -- scientific hypothesis | Definition, Formulation, & Example | Britannica

I understand, abiogenesis has been proven so far as falsified since attempts to test it/duplicate it in a controlled environment show no progress.

It would be more correct to say it is a faith-based claim (atheist faith looking for an alternative to creation) than to say it is a fact or even a testable hypothesis.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I apologize for the confusion. A better way might be "there are no transitory fossils showing half-formed/developing structures, and no modern species likewise".

This still makes no sense. Transitional forms are not "half-formed/developing structures". They are always complete, developed organisms. Nothing is "half-formed", nor would it be.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I understand, abiogenesis has been proven so far as falsified since attempts to test it/duplicate it in a controlled environment show no progress.

Actually, we already know that base protein forms can form under natural, early-earth conditions. Of course, replicating billions of years of chemistry in a lab is difficult.

It would be more correct to say it is a faith-based claim (atheist faith looking for an alternative to creation) than to say it is a fact or even a testable hypothesis.

How does it take faith to believe humanity is a result of chemical processes, like every other living thing that has ever been produced ever?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Oooh, a Gish Gallop. Fun stuff.

This dude you're citing doesn't know what he's talking about. He just cuts and pastes large swaths of texts from scientific sites without knowing what any of it means.

Hey ....

And yet--not one skeptic on this forum addressed any of these properly in context.

And of course, it's not a Gish Gallop. There are numerous issues with abiogenesis theory--which is why a century of lab experiments have almost nothing of substance to tell us.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sorry, where are the insults?

If we were to observe any species of creature giving birth to any other species of creature, evolution would be falsified. So as you can see, your view of evolution is absurd and inaccurate. This has been pointed out to you countless times by countless different posters at this point in time.

I still have no idea what you mean about "complete" anything, but it sounds like it's based on yet another inaccurate representation of evolution that we see on a lot of creationist websites. Evolution doesn't expect to find half-formed creatures or whatever you're talking about.

Also, are you not aware of genetics?

There are several issues--here's one: "Evolution doesn't expect to find half-formed creatures or whatever you're talking about." Yet it's been said it takes only 400,000 years to form a simple eye. No fossils with half-formed simple eye sockets, etc., etc., etc., etc.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Oh, so you're ok with extrapolating observations to bigger conclusions. So for example, since we see the evolution of new species now, when we see different species in the fossil record, it's reasonable to conclude that they too came about via evolution.


Has anyone said otherwise?

Oh indeed, yes. Many skeptics here are foaming at the mouth as if what's been done to date shows how it all happened.

 

[metis]

I understand, abiogenesis has been proven so far as falsified since attempts to test it/duplicate it in a controlled environment show no progress.

It's a "work in progress", thus it has not been "proven" to be false.

It would be more correct to say it is a faith-based claim (atheist faith looking for an alternative to creation) than to say it is a fact or even a testable hypothesis.

That is nonsense, and you should be ashamed to posting the above. Keep repeating a falsehood does not miraculously make it the truth.

Scientists are not inherently "atheists", and I am just one of a great many who certainly aren't. When you post such nonsense, you cheapen both yourself and your religious beliefs because it is so utterly wrong to use such a stereotype.

 

[metis]

No fossils with half-formed simple eye sockets, etc., etc., etc., etc.

Look up "euglena".

Here, I've done it for you: Euglena - Wikipedia

 

[SkepticThinker]

I understand, abiogenesis has been proven so far as falsified since attempts to test it/duplicate it in a controlled environment show no progress.

It would be more correct to say it is a faith-based claim (atheist faith looking for an alternative to creation) than to say it is a fact or even a testable hypothesis.

You should catch up on some of the science then, by the sound of it, because it's been demonstrated that it's at least possible that life could have arisen from simple organic compounds ....

Primordial Soup's On: Scientists Repeat Evolution's Most Famous Experiment
Wayback Machine
Science | AAAS
The origin of life: what we know, what we can know and what we will never know
Evolutionary transition from a single RNA replicator to a multiple replicator network | Nature Communications
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2021.0814

 

[SkepticThinker]

And yet--not one skeptic on this forum addressed any of these properly in context.

And of course, it's not a Gish Gallop. There are numerous issues with abiogenesis theory--which is why a century of lab experiments have almost nothing of substance to tell us.

Because it's a Gish Gallop - a distraction. You can go online and read long refutations of that dude's cut and paste job. Sorry, but he just doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There are several issues--here's one: "Evolution doesn't expect to find half-formed creatures or whatever you're talking about." Yet it's been said it takes only 400,000 years to form a simple eye. No fossils with half-formed simple eye sockets, etc., etc., etc., etc.

Nobody expects to find such creatures. You're thinking about Kirk Cameron junk like crocoducks and such.
Evolution doesn't predict such things should exist. And that's probably why we don't find them - because the theory is an accurate reflection of reality.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Look up "euglena".

Here, I've done it for you: Euglena - Wikipedia

How about mudskippers? Are they "half-formed?"
Mudskippers: Unusual Fish That Live on Land and in Water

 

[metis]

How about mudskippers? Are they "half-formed?"
Mudskippers: Unusual Fish That Live on Land and in Water

Good point. There's also climbing fish that can stay in trees for a while.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

There are several issues--here's one: "Evolution doesn't expect to find half-formed creatures or whatever you're talking about." Yet it's been said it takes only 400,000 years to form a simple eye. No fossils with half-formed simple eye sockets, etc., etc., etc., etc.

But there is no such thing as a "half-formed simple eye socket". It's not as if evolution works by somehow "predicting" a trait that will be necessary in the future and then "working towards" that trait. Evolutionary traits develop by improving on existing structures.

For example, the most likely early precursor to eyes is a small patch of light-sensitive cells, allowing an organism to detect the presence of light. This then becomes "cupped" so that the direction of light can be detected. The cup then deepens into a pinhole, allowing for greater detection of direction. Eventually, lenses form the produce an even better light and more refined detection of light.

Note how each step in the above process is not "half an eye" or "half an anything". Each is a "complete" trait on its own, each one conferring a particular advantage that makes that trait desirable in evolutionary terms, and yet each trait being a clear building block on top of which future forms can develop.

Do you understand? I could probably explain it better?

 

[Jose Fly]

Oh indeed, yes. Many skeptics here are foaming at the mouth as if what's been done to date shows how it all happened.

"Many"? Names please.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are incorrect.

Nope, that would be you. Go ahead. See if you can find a valid source that claims in the scientific method that events have to be repeatable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I apologize for the confusion. A better way might be "there are no transitory fossils showing half-formed/developing structures, and no modern species likewise".

You mean that there would be no dinosaurs with feathers on its arms that would be no good for flying, but would be useful when brooding eggs. Let's say that the feathered arms allowed it to sit on a larger batch of eggs that it was trying to hatch. But those nonbirds could not exist according to you since they would have "half a wing".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are incorrect.

No, he's not.

Do you accept that Super Novae happen?
Has anyone ever "reproduced" a super nova in a lab?

Do you accept that black holes exist?
Has anyone ever "reproduced" a black hole in a lab?

Do you believe this house burned down?

Can you repeat this exact fire in a lab?



Do you believe a car crash happened here:

Can you repeat this exact car crash in a lab?





The answer to all these "can you repeat in the lab" questions is NO.
In EVERY one of these examples though, it is THE EVIDENCE that is repeatable.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I apologize for the confusion. A better way might be "there are no transitory fossils showing half-formed/developing structures, and no modern species likewise".

Either you are lying, you are terribly misinformed, or you are just honestly ignorant.

In all cases, you are wrong. Plenty of transitionals exist.

Off course, it would also help if you would actually understand what a "transitional fossil" really is.

Hint: nobody expects to find crockoducks.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I understand, abiogenesis has been proven so far as falsified since attempts to test it/duplicate it in a controlled environment show no progress.

It would be more correct to say it is a faith-based claim (atheist faith looking for an alternative to creation) than to say it is a fact or even a testable hypothesis.

Please. I bet you couldn't give an accurate summary of any of the abiogenesis hypothesis under investigation today. Not even if your life depended on it.

Likely you can't even properly articulate the difference between today's abiogenesis hypothesis and yesteryear's "spontaneous generation" idea.

I bet the only thing you can articulate about it without looking anything up, is that abiogenesis deals with the origins of life. And that's about it.