It should mean you have faith, belief without evidence for that belief. What you intend it to mean, I couldn't guess.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Lie of Evolution and the Stupidity of Those Who Believe in It
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
So you have no evidence, just belief. That is what I figured, but the way fundamentalist redefine terms, it is difficult to know.
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
You are (seemingly) not considering that DNA-based evolution could have been created -and intended before the formation of the elements (or acknowledging that Genesis does not describe the very beginning of all physical things -except in the first sentence -the rest is not the very beginning, but what took place after the earth HAD BECOME waste and ruin).
The bible does make some statements -but does not include much detail -and people make many assumptions.
Automated systems are not proof that creation did not take place -and would actually require a higher level of creative ability.
Furthermore... in the broadest sense of the word, the God of the bible is certainly described as one who has "evolved" -being the first and last, that which was, is and will be, etc.
It is written that the things of God are apparent in what was made.
It is absolutely correct to say that creativity was necessary for the present state of things -but evolution and creativity cannot be separated -and it may be that pure evolution is more true of God himself than his creation. Development from the most simple state of the sum of all things would actually explain Godlike position and abilities.
An eternal God could also not possibly be responsible for that which allows for his own existence.
He would simply be -but would also be dynamic.
The fact that God created us is actually evidence of his "evolution" -in the broadest sense of the word.
Last edited:
dfnj
Well-Known Member
The Universe is about realizing the most unimaginable possibilities. After millions of years and trillions of bubbles occurring in primordial soup had to exist before the first single cell life came into existence. If you buy enough lottery tickets you will eventually win. Life is a winning lottery ticket. The mind simply cannot comprehend the number of lottery tickets purchased before abiogenesis occurred.
dfnj
Well-Known Member
Nicely said. Reminds me of this quote:
“If you wish to see the truth… then hold no opinions.” The Buddha
Misunderstood
Active Member
Very well said and a valid thought that I tend for the most part to agree.
In agreeing with you I am also agreeing to what Hubert Farnsworth said. I have seen so many time science is presented as truth and fact, when science for the most part cannot prove anything.
Anyone who may use the most reliable evidence to look and find out more about what is around us. But to find a truth is like finding a unicorn or maybe even God. Because a truth means "Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem ...., a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem."
My view, so long as its qualified i don't see a problem, after all, proof by exhaustion is a valid mathematical concept. But as you say, each to their own.
Nakosis said:
Yes, and no, because the line between abiogenesis and evolution is rather vague. The chemical polymerization of amino acids, energy metabolism, and the early formation of early evolution of microbes, RNA synthesis, and ultimately DNA, and the natural selection process of the set of 20 amino acids, are shared by abiogenesis and early evolution. The first primitive life forms relied on natural heat sources for energy until they evolved the ability to metabolize energy themselves by feeding on other microbes..Life is an emergent process, and not something like turning on a light bulb in the difference between pre-life chemicals to primitive life forms that evolve.
The ability to internally metabolize energy in all life today is phosphate based, but early life forms began by using natural heat source evolving first to sulfur based energy sources, and the iron sulfates,and iron oxides may have been the catalyst for RNA reproduction.
From: https://phys.org/news/2017-03-biochemical-fossil-life-emerged-phosphate.html
One major mystery about life's origin is how phosphate became an essential building block of genetic and metabolic machinery in cells, given its poor accessibility on early Earth. In a study published on March 9 in the journal Cell, researchers used systems biology approaches to tackle this long-standing conundrum, providing compelling, data-driven evidence that primitive life forms may not have relied on phosphate at all. Instead, a few simple, abundant molecules could have supported the emergence of a sulfur-based, phosphate-free metabolism, which expanded to form a rich network of biochemical reactions capable of supporting the synthesis of a broad category of key biomolecules.
"The significance of this work is that future efforts to understand life's origin should take into account the concrete possibility that phosphate-based processes, which are essential today, may not have been around when the first life-like processes started emerging," says senior study author Daniel Segrè of Boston University. "An early phosphate-independent metabolism capable of producing several key building blocks of living systems is in principle viable."
Phosphate is essential for all living systems and is present in a large proportion of known biomolecules. A sugar-phosphate backbone forms the structural framework of nucleic acids, including DNA and RNA. Moreover, phosphate is a critical component of adenosine triphosphate (ATP), which transports chemical energy within cells, and a compound called NADH, which has several essential roles in metabolism. But it is unclear how phosphate could have assumed these central roles on primordial Earth, given its scarcity and poor accessibility.
In light of this puzzle, some have proposed that early metabolic pathways did not rely on phosphate. In many of these scenarios, sulfur and iron found on mineral surfaces are thought to have fulfilled major catalytic and energetic functions prior to the appearance of phosphate. One notable origin-of-life scenario suggests that the role of ATP was originally assumed by sulfur-containing compounds called thioesters, which are widely involved in protein, carbohydrate, and lipid metabolism. Despite the availability of iron and sulfur on early Earth, concrete evidence supporting these scenarios has been lacking.
To test the feasibility of the "iron-sulfur world hypothesis" and the "thioester world scenario," Segrè and his team used computational systems biology approaches originally developed for large-scale analyses of complex metabolic networks. The researchers used a large database to assemble the complete set of all known biochemical reactions. After exploring this so-called "biosphere-level metabolism," the researchers identified a set of eight phosphate-free compounds thought to have been available in prebiotic environments. They then used an algorithm that simulated the emergence of primitive metabolic networks by compiling all possible reactions that could have taken place in the presence of these eight compounds, which included formate, acetate, hydrogen sulfide, ammonium, carbon dioxide, water, bicarbonate, and nitrogen gas
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-03-biochemical-fossil-life-emerged-phosphate.html#jCp
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And probably simple hydrocarbons such as methane. Volcanic vents provide more than just heat.
exchemist
Veteran Member
That seems likely. I got moderated for calling a class of people stupid.
I like to use 'egocentrically biased,' and 'self inflicted ignorance.'
Shlomoh
Member
Elements coming together and bumping into each other to form matter? Sounds like spontaneous generation
exchemist
Veteran Member
Elements are matter.
Elements bumping into each can result in reactions, creating what are called chemical compounds. Eg 2Na + Cl₂ -> 2NaCl + heat. So spontaneous generation of compounds - and heat.
The Na+ and Cl- ions line up in a nice ordered array, creating order, while the heat is dissipated into the surroundings, creating more disorder there. In this way local order spontaneously increases while overall, more disorder is produced.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, spontaneous generation is the sudden appearance of modern life, such as flies or even mice. It is more of a creationist idea than an evolutionary one.
No elements coming together follow the constraints of the laws of nature, and is not remotely 'spontaneous generation (?)'. They do not
just 'bump into each other.'
exchemist
Veteran Member
Thanks for the interesting link. The science is intriguing, though I take issue with the headline they chose for it. There seems to be no biochemical "fossil" here, as it is purely hypothetical modelling exercise, with no evidence that these chemical pathways were ever actually used.
But the phosphorus issue is certainly an interesting one. On the question of how phosphate came to be so ubiquitous in biochemistry, there is an interesting article here, Potential 'missing link' in chemistry that led to life on Earth discovered
proposing that diamido phosphate (DAP) may have been capable of incorporating phosphate into many of the various places where it is found today. I quote what to me was the most interesting section:
QUOTE
DAP could phosphorylate each of the four nucleoside building blocks of RNA in water or a paste-like state under a wide range of temperatures and other conditions.
With the addition of the catalyst imidazole, a simple organic compound that was itself plausibly present on the early Earth, DAP's activity also led to the appearance of short, RNA-like chains of these phosphorylated building blocks.
Moreover, DAP with water and imidazole efficiently phosphorylated the lipid building blocks glycerol and fatty acids, leading to the self-assembly of small phospho-lipid capsules called vesicles -- primitive versions of cells.
DAP in water at room temperature also phosphorylated the amino acids glycine, aspartic acid and glutamic acid, and then helped link these molecules into short peptide chains (peptides are smaller versions of proteins).
UNQUOTE
So now they are hunting for possible sources of DAP on the early Earth.....
leroy
Well-Known Member
To me it is just a semantic game, most evolutionists believe in abiogenesis too, so whether if you what to call it evolution or not, abiogenesis is still part of your world view and you still have to support it……… evolutionists tend ask questions about the ark and creationists usually don’t say “I won’t answer because the ark has nothing to do with the creation account”
To me it is obvious and easy to understand when creationist talk about “kinds” it is obvious that dogs and wolves are the same kind and Dogs and Bannanas are a different kind…….you are not quoting from a technical article, the article is meant to be a simple reading, for anyone to understand.
What you call evolution is widely accepted by all creationists, the problem is that what you call evolution does not necessarily imply common ancestry, nor that complex organs came from simpler organs by a process of random mutations and natural selection.
That might be true for some creationists, but in general IMO creationists tend to represent “evolution” correctly.
But in general terms I agree the article is silly.
leroy
Well-Known Member
What exactly do you mean by “evolution” when you say it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt?
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
There's no have to about it. The difference is that evolution by natural selection is an extremely well established scientific theory, whereas the mechanism of abiogenesis is unknown. An argument against (natural) abiogenesis has no bearing on the theory of evolution. If somebody wants to do a "god of the gaps" argument and accept evolution while maintaining that natural abiogenesis is impossible, they taking a radically different (and somewhat less absurd) view from those who deny evolution.
I haven't looked for a while but I have spent a lot of time in the past looking at creationist sites and I can honesty say I've never seen one that didn't misrepresent evolution in some way or another.
I dislike the word proof in the context but it's correct that evolution by natural selection and common decent is "proven" (or established) way beyond any reasonable doubt.
That every discipline of science that has involvement in evolution has shown evolution to be valid, to have occured and is still occuring so that it can be observed.