SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Dude, you completely misunderstood the analogy.
-
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!
Evolution is the only theologically plausible answer
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
They got almost everything wrong. No one takes that experiment seriously now.
Chemicals do not produce life; only complex structures such as DNA and enzymes produce life.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
They didn't. There were complaints about the atmosphere, but now even that one may be false. They were highly successful. But then, you do not likely know what the goal of the experiment was.
You need something stronger than ignorant denial if you want to make a point.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Nope.
NASA Astrobiology
https://phys.org/news/2014-09-revisits-miller-urey-quantum.html
Amino-acid Synthesis from Hydrogen Cyanide under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions - Nature
A Reassessment of Prebiotic Organic Synthesis in Neutral Planetary Atmospheres - Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres
Primordial Soup's On: Scientists Repeat Evolution's Most Famous Experiment
CB035.3: Amino acids from simple atmosphere
The Origin of Life
I don't expect you'll read any of that though, given that I'm pretty sure I've corrected you on this before and you're still repeating it.
You're several decades behind on your science.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes please, if you've got the time, I would much appreciate that.
The tab was still open.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Lucky me! Thank you so much. Can't wait to watch.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Really? Then prove it. We have evidence for it. You do not seem to have any against it.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Quite a few possible natural reactions. The Miller Urey experiment showed that it was possible. Even if they were wrong amino acids from meteorites show that those reactions do occur in nature.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Evolution is just plain old common sense-- all material things appear to change over time.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Yes.
I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church that taught the evolution was against the Gospel, and the first time I heard that this is not the case was when I talked with a Catholic priest about this, and I was 16 at the time.
But they're not balanced in the sense of orderly. Earth abounds with examples of poor and overcomplicated 'design', and outer space is a virtual pinball game.
If there was a designer, he was probably drunk.
Only in the technical sense that an organism's clade remains part of its predecessor's. In the colloquial sense, felines and canines were not always felines and canines.
For the hundredth time, how do small changes not accumulate into big changes, given time?
If someone puts a tiny (.) red dot on a large theater screen on his 21st birthday, and his firstborn does the same on his 21st birthday, and his firstborn does the same, and his and his.... pretty soon -- in a geological sense -- that screen is going to be completely red.
I've already linked you to examples of speciation within living memory, and explained some of the mechanism, yet you keep coming back with the same refuted claims that changes can't accumulate and evolution doesn't happen. Are you hearing anything we've been posting? Do you have any evidence at all that species just magically pop into existence?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And you of course are still an ape. Not only that, you are still a monkey too using cladistics. There is no change of kind in evolution. That is a creationist strawman. You are supporting evolution with your argument.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
I only wish I could move like a monkey.
No change of kind, huh? Then there's no way to get from there to here.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Because a lizard to a bird, for example is an impossible leap.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Still didn't answer the question. Quit dancing.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
No you don't. You have zero evidence for abiogenesis.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Amino acids aren't life. What a crock.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Wrong gas's, wrong atmosphere, wrong everything.
We've already expained that. You don't listen. You're appealing to inncredulity again, and trying to support Goddidit with an argument from ignorance.
The compounds came from existing matter, like everything else. They assembled themselves by ordinary chemistry.
Life from non-life? How are you defining life? It appears to be a series of chemical interactions. Is there some secret, magical, ingredient you have in mind, that we've overlooked?
We see sugars, monomers, polymers, amino acids, nucleobases, membranes and vesicles, &c in nature. We see self assembling and self reproducing structures. The needed 'stuff' is already there, in nature.
Lab experiments aimed at understanding origins and life processes are going on all over the world:
Scientists Create First Self-Replicating Synthetic Life
Pac-Man-shaped blobs become world's first self-replicating biological robots
Chemistry accounts for everything else we see around us in the natural world, why should life, whatever it is, be an exception? Why does life need magic?
You find familiar, observed, natural processes incredible, even 'impossible', yet magic poofing seems perfectly reasonable.
This is nonsense. If it were clear there would be general agreement, backed by clarifying evidence.
The Bible is an anthology of folklore, by unknown authors, not a science book or technical manual.
The ToE doesn't claim to deal with origins, it deals with change, and it works.
Abiogenesis is a different discipline, and an active area of research. The fact that all the steps involved have not yet been worked out does not support a Goddidit! hypothesis. Most of what we know about the world was unknown till recently.
It does seem counter-intuitive to suggest that something has no cause, but reality gets very weird when you look closely enough. Neither relativity nor quantum mechanics seem to make rational sense. Both seem impossible -- yet they work.
Abiogenesis and evolution don't seem impossible. They seem like common sense.
-
Not necessarily, Not necessarily, and Non sequitur.