• 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 Creationist Lie That Just Wont Die

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Sorry, I should have worded that more clearly.
What do you mean when you use the term "dead chemistry"?
What do you mean when you use the term "the living"?
well....early on in science class.....grade school....
the discussion was made so that the kiddies could tell the difference
something moves as if alive.
but is it?

since then the discussion has gone in every direction but up
and here we are

I think it obvious to some degree
we are alive

the same chemistry can be found on your bookshelf
that gray dust you smear with your finger?......that's you

we shed and smear our chemistry almost everywhere and on everything
and it dies quickly

and when we die altogether.....dust we are
 

ecco

Veteran Member
well....early on in science class.....grade school....
the discussion was made so that the kiddies could tell the difference
something moves as if alive.
but is it?

since then the discussion has gone in every direction but up
and here we are

I think it obvious to some degree
we are alive

the same chemistry can be found on your bookshelf
that gray dust you smear with your finger?......that's you

we shed and smear our chemistry almost everywhere and on everything
and it dies quickly

and when we die altogether.....dust we are
I can agree with that.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
Hello again, I'm not aware of any experiments that have kick started life from non-life. The Miller-Urey experiment, and similar experiments haven't come close to creating life from non-life. There is effectively an infinite gap between the amino acids created in the Miller experiment and the incredible complexity of even the simplest single-celled organism.

You need to get out more-- scientists have re-animated dead cells using 100% artificial DNA, inserted into the nucleus.

That puts paid to all the silly "you cannot get life from non-life" not-arguments.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
I'm afraid you do have that flaw, we all do. Everyone has faith ......

STOP.. that is a nice Strawman you are building. It's a pity it is absolutely false.

... in the truth of things they have not directly seen or experienced (and in the case of the origins of the universe--cannot personally see or experience)..

False again. Here, you demonstrate 100% ignorance of why astrophysicists think the universe had a beginning--hint: IT WAS NOT BECAUSE OF AN ANCIENT BOOK OF MYTH (bible).
In your case, you have faith in a self-existent/self-created universe, self-existent/self-created laws of physics, self-created life which goes on to create from non-sentience the conscious human mind--none of which you have seen..

Yet ANOTHER flat lie. Projection and Strawman. Why do creationists think lying is convincing?

Oh! Lawyer..... nevermind.
I likewise believe in something that I cannot directly see or experience. Namely, the creation of the physical universe, the laws of physics and life itself by the Self-Existent, Eternal and Triune God of Scripture.

None of which has a single shred of evidence. YOU DO NOT EVEN HAVE RELIABLE TESTIMONY!

All of your "witnesses" were TAMPERED with!
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
I agree that my statement was not entirely clear in distinguishing abiogenesis and evolution..

The two subjects do not depend on one another. Evolution is entirely independent on abiogeneiss. Evolution only concerns itself with life after it got started--by whatever method.

While I do believe that abiogenesis and evolution are inseperable--it would have been clearer if I had stated "single celled creature to man" evolution or something along those lines..

Here, you demonstrate a near-total lack of comprehension of what the scope of Evolution actually is-- a very common mistake among creationists. Mostly due to the fact that they never actually studied serious papers on evolution. Rather disingenuous of them...

The problem with belief? Is that it doesn't need actual evidence of any sort to sustain it-- as you just demonstrate above.
I'm not making an argument from ignorance. .

You absolutely are. See above.
I believe the evidence supports special creation far better than it does a self-forming universe and self-forming life. I think you're confusing your logical fallacies with the question of what the suspect had for breakfast. That's a non-sequitur.

Based on? WHAT? Be specific with your ... ahem.... "evidence".

To date? I have yet to see a single qualifying fact in support of "special creation". And no-- your bronze age book of superstitious nonsense isn't evidence.

Once again, you demonstrate that belief requires zero evidence, and in fact, belief is antithetical to evidence --- and will actively resist the presentation of evidence to "preserve itself".
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Recently it's been mentioned that evolution is necessarily linked to abiogenesis, the idea that life originated from non-living material (non-life). While most evolutionists do subscribe to it, the concept has absolutely nothing to with the science behind evolution. Perhaps evolution did get its jump-start through abiogenesis, or maybe panspermia wherein life first came to earth from outer space. Or, maybe god started it all. Thing is, it... just... doesn't... matter. And anyone in the least bit conversant with evolution would know this. Even those who hate the idea of evolution. However, many of these evolution-haters, creationists, find the subject too enticing to let lie, and use it time and again to create an evolutionary straw man to do battle with. Pretending that its part and parcel of the evolutionary theory, they then challenging evolutionists to defend it. It would be like asserting that all of Jesus' teachings came about because he was a homosexual, and it was up to the Christian to explain it away.

But none-Christians don't do this because it simply isn't cricket. Yet too many Christians don't think the rules of cricket matter, and go ahead and make asinine statements like the following:

(Just to note: While a couple of the following creationists don't specifically say abiogenesis is part of evolutionary theory, the fact that they bring up abiogenesis in their creationist web sites is evidence enough they believe it's a crucial issue to raise. Just keep in mind, that in their work evolutionist don't give a rat's *** about abiogenesis.)



The lie of evolution and the stupidity of those believe it (Wisdom of god)

Yet never have elements, nor molecules, nor dirt, nor rocks, nor even water made themselves form into living organisms, as if what is not alive can make itself alive, let alone form itself into an intricate cell or a complex body made up of many cells, and make these “alive”, whether suddenly, or even slowly, it is impossible, and this is what the evolutionists believe and also teach, which is “life randomly came to be on its own after millions of years”, which is nothing more than a fantasy, something that they themselves have never even witnessed under their microscopes, that elements and molecules that are not alive suddenly or very slowly formed into living organisms, yet they choose to believe this lie, and teach it to others as if it were the truth by calling it “fact”, because they do not want to believe that life came to be in the following way written long ago,
source ...With a nod of thanks to Nakosis for alerting me to the site.

[ nice run-on sentence, which is why I had to include it all :) ]
________________________________

The Unbelievers Plan to Rid the World of God (Answers in Genesis)

Yet neither Darwin nor his successors have through scientific observation shown how either abiogenesis or the evolution of biological complexity is possible.

Further, biological observation confirms that living things do not spring into existence through the random interaction of non-living components, despite evolutionary claims about abiogenesis.
source
______________________________

Why the Miller–Urey research argues against abiogenesis (Creation.com)

Contemporary research has failed to provide a viable explanation as to how abiogenesis could have occurred on Earth. The abiogenesis problem is now so serious that most evolutionists today tend to shun the entire field because they are ‘uneasy about stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they freely admit that they are baffled’ because ‘it opens the door to religious fundamentalists and their god-of-the-gaps pseudo-explanations’ and they worry that a ‘frank admission of ignorance will undermine funding’.
source
____________________________

Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible (Creation Research Society)

If naturalistic molecules-to-human-life evolution were true, multibillions of links are required to bridge modern humans with the chemicals that once existed in the hypothetical “primitive soup”. This putative soup, assumed by many scientists to have given birth to life over 3.5 billion years

No contemporary hypothesis today has provided a viable explanation as to how the abiogenesis origin of life could occur by naturalistic means. The problems are so serious that the majority of evolutionists today tend to shun the whole subject of abiogenesis.
source
_________________________

The Improbability of Abiogenesis (creationscience.org)

According to the theory of evolution, taken in the broad sense, living matter arose at some point in the past from non-living matter by ordinary chemical and physical processes. This is called abiogenesis.
source
_________________________

Key Step in Origin of Life Declared (Creation evolution headlines)

Cornelius Hunter, an intelligent-design scientist with a PhD in biochemistry, was also charitable on his blog Darwin’s God, but had to state that abiogenesis is one of the “silliest of all the icons of evolution.”
source
__________________________

Abiogenesis, The First Cell (Greater Houston Creation Association)

The origin of the first cell is a major challenge for evolutionist.
source
____________________________

The Impossibility of Life's Evolutionary Beginnings (Institute for creation research)

The hypothetical naturalistic origin of life and its most basic biomolecules from non-living matter is called abiogenesis. This paradigm lies at the very foundation of biological evolution,
source
______________________________

More Arguments Against Evolution (Revolution against evolution)

According to evolution theory, the first step in life’s development was formation of life-like chemical molecules, which later combined into complex molecules like DNA. This presumably took place in the early oceans; it’s sometimes called “chemical evolution of life from a primordial soup.”
source
________________________________

Origin of Life: Instability of Building Blocks (True origin.org)

Evolutionary propaganda often understates the difficulty of a naturalistic origin of life.
source
______________________________

The Theory of Evolution (Biblical-science.net)

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life . . . .
source
________________________________

EVALUATING EVOLUTION: USING PHILOSOPHY, PSYCHOLOGY AND PHYSICS (Twin Cities creation science association)


Let me begin with some definitions. By "evolution" I mean the notion that we and all living things come from non-living things, and have developed by completely natural means without any outside direction or power.
source
_______________________________

Evolution (Creationism.org)

ORGANIC EVOLUTION: Life emerging from sterile non-life by believed automatic advanced chemical processes. This has also been called spontaneous generation or more recently abiogenesis.
source


So, now that it's clear that those creationists who, through their web sites are either leaders in the creationist movement, or wanna-be leaders, have no compunctions about deceiving the public through lies, do they really deserve to call themselves Christians?


.

I actually think that evolution points toward abiogenesis because at the chemical, cellular and multicellular level we have complex adaptive systems capable of forming self-reproducing, auto-catalyzing evolutionary systems.

I believe that one day science will call the abiogenesis bluff and set down a royal flush to creationist concerns.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
why people reject evolution.jpg
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
You need to get out more-- scientists have re-animated dead cells using 100% artificial DNA, inserted into the nucleus.

That puts paid to all the silly "you cannot get life from non-life" not-arguments.
Ah, but were they "dead" cells?There is a difference between inert dormant and inert structurally flawed.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
The legend for RED should read "Religious Indoctrination".
I've known nominally unreligious people who reject evolution. They didn't understand it. Much of their misunderstanding had come from Creationist misinformation, though, soooooo... I don't know how that pie graph plays out.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
I actually think that evolution points toward abiogenesis because at the chemical, cellular and multicellular level we have complex adaptive systems capable of forming self-reproducing, auto-catalyzing evolutionary systems.

I believe that one day science will call the abiogenesis bluff and set down a royal flush to creationist concerns.
And on that day...

download (7).jpg
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
Ah, but were they "dead" cells?There is a difference between inert dormant and inert structurally flawed.

Define "dead". The most logical one, with respect to a single cell: Cannot reproduce, cannot respirate, cannot take in nutrients, cannot expel wastes.

The cell had no DNA. It could not do any of those things-- just sat there, waiting to be eaten by bacteria or some other microbe.

How much deader do you need?
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Define "dead". The most logical one, with respect to a single cell: Cannot reproduce, cannot respirate, cannot take in nutrients, cannot expel wastes.

The cell had no DNA. It could not do any of those things-- just sat there, waiting to be eaten by bacteria or some other microbe.

How much deader do you need?
"dead" refers to an irreversible cessation of metabolic processes, to me. Organelles of a healthy cell can function just fine without DNA, at least for a while, hence my point that removing a cell's DNA doesn't necessarily make it "dead".
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
"dead" refers to an irreversible cessation of metabolic processes, to me. Organelles of a healthy cell can function just fine without DNA, at least for a while, hence my point that removing a cell's DNA doesn't necessarily make it "dead".

The cell in question had zero metabolic processes-- as I stated: it could not 'breathe', it could not excrete, it could not reproduce, it could not take in and digest food.

Dead, by any rational measure.

I suppose it still had a ... "soul", though... right? *sigh*
 

ecco

Veteran Member
The cell in question had zero metabolic processes-- as I stated: it could not 'breathe', it could not excrete, it could not reproduce, it could not take in and digest food.

Dead, by any rational measure.

I suppose it still had a ... "soul", though... right? *sigh*
If it was a human cell and if they weighed it before and after it "died" and there was a weight difference of 21/37,000,000,000 grams, then, yes the sole had already left and it was truly dead.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
If it was a human cell and if they weighed it before and after it "died" and there was a weight difference of 21/37,000,000,000 grams, then, yes the sole had already left and it was truly dead.

So. If the human cell dies, and goes to heaven?

Where in heaven will human cell-souls reside? Is there a special Slime Room, where all the human cell-souls will dwell forever? Are they in a single layer? Or must they wiggle and ooze over one another to get to the top layer, to bask in the light of god? That sounds kinda hellish, to me-- of course, being single-cells, they have no consciousness, so they would be unaware of the struggle. Right? One would hope.

One wonders. Perhaps it's next to the fetus room-- were we have been informed in No Uncertain Terms* that all aborted fetuses go to. Of course, considering that 4 of 5 fertilized fetuses are naturally aborted (by god, of course), and humans have been human (having a soul) for at least 50,000 years? The fetus room is roughly a cubic light year, to house all the squirming mass of heavenly feti. (feti? Is that a word? What is the plural of fetus anyway?)







* don't laugh: Pat Robertson (yes-- that Robertson) actually said this in one of his many self-aggrandizing speeches, that he dreampt of aborted fetuses hugging Jesus.

Now.... that would mean Jesus was microscopic in size, of course, as your average fetus is a fraction of a millimeter in diameter. Who knew that Jesus was a Polymorph, and could change his size like that?

Or? Maybe? Pat Robertson is just full of horse exhaust?

hmmmmm.......
 
Top