10 facts evolutionists don't want you to know

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
[b]What about virus? What about prions? What about isolated DNA? What about things without DNA but another information carrier? And there are self-replicating molecules that certainly has no life but nonetheless reproduces.

You must have very keen eyesight.

Are you a super hero? A visitor from another planet, who has come here to help us fight for truth, justice and the American way?[/b]

How do you mean now? Do you think the questions are offensive?

Originally posted by @apathist
The first cell is a myth.

I don't understand - myth?

There are cells now, right?
On time in history there were no cells, right?
Then somewhere in between there must have to be one first cell some time! I see this as obvious...

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
I don't understand - myth?

There are cells now, right?
On time in history there were no cells, right?
Then somewhere in between there must have to be one first cell some time! I see this as obvious...

No, in LL's dogma, all the living things were created within 7 days so there was in that mythology, no first cell, trillions of cells generated by goddidit at once.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
No, in LL's dogma, all the living things were created within 7 days so there was in that mythology, no first cell, trillions of cells generated by goddidit at once.

Samo, samo.

First there were no cells and voilà there were cells. If trillions of cells was magically created at the same time, then one of them, any of them, was the first one.

But of course this is nonsense, we are at Science Forum now.
In the Spiritual Forum they can have whatever myths.

Same goes for their myth "Nothing can come from nothing". Well, goddidit, then it is possible, and the myth fail. Why is it impossible when universe went into being from nothing when goddidit from noting?

This is why I usually say that "Science is science and religion is religion and they never meet".

Originally posted by @sonhouse
No, in LL's dogma, all the living things were created within 7 days so there was in that mythology, no first cell, trillions of cells generated by goddidit at once.

Smooth move.
Put words in my mouth, then tell me to "Take it to the Spirituality Forum".


par for the course

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
How do you mean now? Do you think the questions are offensive?

Not offensive. Irrelevant.

I doubt you have the supernatural ability to "sense" anything as small as molecules or DNA. We mere mortals need to use highly sophisticated equipment for "sensing" things like that.

Originally posted by @apathist
I thought irreducible complexity had been debunked.

The first cell is a myth. The components were bubbling all over the planet, and they wrapped up in a membrane millions of times, and died. Until they didn't. All over the place.

I thought irreducible complexity had been debunked.

It's funny you should say that, because I thought punctuated equilibrium had been debunked. I guess we were both wrong.

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
Smooth move...
Put words in my mouth, and then tell me to "Take it to the Spirituality forum".


par for the course

So you deny being a creationist? Your statment was first cell was a myth or something close, I answered it. If the life from mud theory is correct, life was the result of quadrillions and quntillions of little chemical experiments, sometimes leading to more complex molecules and then more complex molecules leading to ever increasing complexity till something like RNA was made, maybe in a deep water super hot vent, maybe in a shallow water lake on a clay shore, whatever, but in that scenerio, there would have been a LOT of 'first cells', maybe one such lived longer than the rest and won out by out reproducing the other ones, fast forward a couple billion years and bo and leehold, here we is.

Notice I did not say that was THE way life came about here. Religious types can have free reign to mythologize all they want, at least till we prove exactly how life got here.

If and when we prove how life got here, hopefully without invoking a goddidit scenerio, Then the creationist crowd will be forced to change their story a bit, I would be they would stick to the plot till the end of humankind but that would be their choice.

If you are not creationist, my apologies. Will you deign to declare your own religious docrine?

Originally posted by @sonhouse
So you deny being a creationist? Your statment was first cell was a myth or something close, I answered it. If the life from mud theory is correct, life was the result of quadrillions and quntillions of little chemical experiments, sometimes leading to more complex molecules and then more complex molecules leading to ever increasing complexity till somethi ...[text shortened]...
If you are not creationist, my apologies. Will you deign to declare your own religious docrine?

Will you deign to declare your own religious docrine?

Take it to the Spirituality Forum.

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
[b]there may be some preconditions that came about to make it very likely or even inevitable

At the time life is believed to have arisen the environmental conditions were very different. At that time it was considered hostile to life, so I can't imagine what sort of desirable preconditions you might be alluding to.

the fact that we are here ...[text shortened]... nd) disputes a starting point. But calling this "evidence" of abiogenesis is a bit of a stretch.

At the time life is believed to have arisen the environmental conditions were very different.

correct.

At that time it was considered hostile to life

wrong. It would have been hostile to modern life that requires O2.
It would have been actually very hospitable to modern anaerobic bacteria that require no O2

the fact that we are here and life must have had a starting point is evidence for abiogenesis

We are here, therefore we evolved?

No. How many times must we point out to you the obvious fact that abiogenesis is NOT evolution.

calling And as far as I know no one (in their right mind) disputes a starting point. But calling this "evidence" of abiogenesis is a bit of a stretch.

Not any stretch at all to any rational mind; if abiogenesis isn't responsible for the first life coming into existence then there is no credible and reasonable alternative explanation to how it happened.
I challenge you to offer a credible and reasonable alternative explanation to how it happened based on evidence...

Originally posted by @humy

At the time life is believed to have arisen the environmental conditions were very different.

correct.

At that time it was considered hostile to life

wrong. It would have been hostile to modern life that requires O2.
It would have been actually very hospitable to modern anaerobic bacteria that require no O2

[qu ...[text shortened]... offer a credible and reasonable alternative explanation to how it happened based on evidence...

Life on Earth could also have happened from a meteorite from Mars, the thinking goes like this: Mars was more hospitable to life early on than Earth (Hypothesis) and life developed there, but asteroid hits transported early life forms like bacteria inside rocks could have been launched into space and some of them landing on Earth and surviving the trip, landing on Earth and advanced seeding Earth to make life start here.

But if true, it still begs the question of how did life start on MARS then. Back to abiogenesis but for Mars.

Also there is the hypothesis about interstellar clouds containing complex chemicals but pre-biotic, hit this part of the galaxy, and seeded a bunch of star systems say for 50 light years around or so and some of that prebiotic stuff contributed to the incresing complexity of molecules on Earth and Mars and maybe Europa and other moon of Jupiter.

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
I don't understand - myth?

There are cells now, right?
On time in history there were no cells, right?
Then somewhere in between there must have to be one first cell some time! I see this as obvious...

There were uncounted first cells, millions of them, and they all died without propagating. But since the conditions were right, there were millions more. They died too, probably. Life is dangerous and harsh. Colonies of single-cell life must have done well until they didn't. Eventually this colony survived, and so did this one, and that one, and life spread across the planet like rust on iron.

I think its a fallacy to suppose a big change happens at a given point. When does a blank canvas become a painting? The first stroke of the paintbrush? The last one? This is an important concept.

All life on this planet did not derive from a single cell. Instead, cells grew all over the place and then the survivors intermingled. Seems to me.

Reveal Hidden Content

Originally posted by @humy

At the time life is believed to have arisen the environmental conditions were very different.

correct.

At that time it was considered hostile to life

wrong. It would have been hostile to modern life that requires O2.
It would have been actually very hospitable to modern anaerobic bacteria that require no O2

[qu ...[text shortened]... offer a credible and reasonable alternative explanation to how it happened based on evidence...

The suggestion that you (or anyone else) can find abiogenesis--- the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances--- as a "credible and reasonable" explanation is the very picture of faith.
Laugh out loud to that embarrassingly obvious lack of logic is that you call it an "alternative explanation."
Really.
Alternative to... what, exactly?

Get thee to a patent office and ask them if they grant them for perpetual motion machines, cuz that's what you got, cuz.

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
I thought irreducible complexity had been debunked.

It's funny you should say that, because I thought punctuated equilibrium had been debunked. I guess we were both wrong.

Except that I am not wrong here. Irreducible complexity has no scientific support, it is a mere ploy made by creationists. Punctuated equilibrium is viable, afaik.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
The suggestion that you (or anyone else) can find abiogenesis--- the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances--- as a "credible and reasonable" explanation is the very picture of faith.
Laugh out loud to that embarrassingly obvious lack of logic is that you call it an "alternative explanation."
Really.
Alter ...[text shortened]... ice and ask them if they grant them for perpetual motion machines, cuz that's what you got, cuz.

In other words, you have no alternative explanation to give; just moronic insults.