Explain Why You Don't Accept Biological Evolution as a Fact

[Regnum Dominae]

It's not copy pasta when you wrote it yourself.

The point stands. When did Miller Ulray or any other scientist for that matter, produce life from amino acids?

/ threadjack.

Irrelevant.

First of all, to actually see any meaningful results you would have to wait many, many, millions of years. Abiogenesis, like evolution, is/was a very slow, incremental, gradual process.

Also, you don't need to directly observe something to have proof of its existence. Electrons weren't directly observed until 2010, does that mean there was no proof for the existence of electrons before 2010?

[Libertarian California]

What is the zealous fanaticism behind creationism? It really makes no sense.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Sure, let's just sit a Miller-Urey experiment down for 50 million years instead of ignoring the sequence through which life is created. Self-replicating proteins are evidence enough that life comes from these conditions if you understand the composition of cells.

Well were are the new living cells from the experiment?

The building blocks of cells were created within a human lifetime. Do you have any idea how long it takes for any biological changes to occur? It takes, and I'll say it again, MILLIONS OF YEARS. It was never going to create a fucking cell before we checked the results. The point of the experiment is that non-organic matter was turned into organic matter within a human lifetime and that's evidence enough to support abiogenesis unless you get your dick hard pretending facts don't matter.

[The Serbian Empire]

But I do accept it as fact. So I wear my sunglasses at night.

Don't mess around with the guy in shades, oh no.

That's just a law of science.

So I can, so I can declare it a law of science.

[Vazdania]

The point stands. When did Miller Ulray or any other scientist for that matter, produce life from amino acids?

/ threadjack.

Irrelevant.

First of all, to actually see any meaningful results you would have to wait many, many, millions of years. Abiogenesis, like evolution, is/was a very slow, incremental, gradual process.

Also, you don't need to directly observe something to have proof of its existence. Electrons weren't directly observed until 2010, does that mean there was no proof for the existence of electrons before 2010?

oh lord help us all....Fine, I'll leave it at this, as this is the same argument I use for God, yet you for some reason can't accept this same argument as valid...

/threadjack.

[Llamalandia]

The Miller Ulrey experiment was an experiment designed to simulate the conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life. It created amino acids....it didn't however, produce life.

Until you produce life with such an experiment, I've no choice but to assume that abiogenesis didn't occur.

Purden of proof is on you to prove to me that life can be created through those means.

Abiogenesis wasn't an instantaneous event of simple chemicals forming right into fully functional bacteria. Just like evolution, it was a slow gradual process that happened over very long periods of time.


Creationist argument:
"The probability of abiogenesis is so low that it is essentially impossible."

Creationists often calculate ridiculously low probabilities of abiogenesis successfully taking place. However, these probabilities are based on serious fundamental misunderstandings of abiogenesis. Creationists often understand abiogenesis as being a hypothetical process by which a fully functional life-form arises by random chance out of basic chemicals. However, this could not be farther from the truth.

For example, take note of the popular creationist claim that the probability of life forming through abiogenesis is only 1 in 2.04 * 10³⁹⁰. This is based on the probability of a 300-molecule protein forming purely out of random chance. This makes it seem like abiogenesis is a ridiculous idea; by comparison, there are only roughly 10⁸⁰ atoms in the universe. However, there are several things wrong with this claim.

Abiogenesis is not an event by which a complete, fully functional life form arises out of simple chemicals. Instead, abiogenesis is a process much like evolution itself; a long, complex process by which natural selection caused self-replicating chemical compounds to arise out of the metaphorical primordial ooze, after which the chemicals very gradually became increasingly more complex until they possessed all the features that are considered essential to life. Natural selection does not apply only to fully-formed lifeforms, but also to simpler chemical structures.

The smallest known theorized self-replicating structure is a peptide made up of only 32 amino acids. It has been calculated that the probability of this peptide spontaneously forming is roughly 1 in 10⁴⁰. Yes, that is still a very low probability, but it is much more realistic when the conditions of primordial Earth are taken into account. At every moment, many billions of amino acid reactions were taking place, leading to many of these peptides arising very quickly in geological time:

[If] we assume the volume of the oceans were 10²⁴ liters, and the amino acid concentration was 10^-6M (which is actually very dilute), then almost 10³¹ self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 10⁴⁰, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed.

With these self-replicating peptides established and existing in massive quantities, natural selection caused the peptides to grow more and more complex, eventually reaching what we would consider to be life.

The difference between the creationist perception of abiogenesis and the actual process of abiogenesis is represented in this diagram: (the process of abiogenesis shown here is greatly simplified, but it still gets the point across)

the great thing about this argument is it should be incredibly easy to settle just as soon as life can be fully synthed from non-life in a lab and the process of evolutions (sped up a few billion times) to create multi cell life from inorganic molecules. You can't deny what you can actually observe (well normally anyway) problem with evolution is it's hard to observe and expieriment with and people don't like that.

[Neo Rome Republic]

What is the zealous fanaticism behind creationism? It really makes no sense.

For some people the truth hurts.

[Vazdania]

Well were are the new living cells from the experiment?

The building blocks of cells were created within a human lifetime. Do you have any idea how long it takes for any biological changes to occur? It takes, and I'll say it again, MILLIONS OF YEARS. It was never going to create a fucking cell before we checked the results. The point of the experiment is that non-organic matter was turned into organic matter within a human lifetime and that's evidence enough to support abiogenesis unless you get your dick hard pretending facts don't matter.

mhm....so basically you're using an argument for God, to defend science.

[Regnum Dominae]

Irrelevant.

First of all, to actually see any meaningful results you would have to wait many, many, millions of years. Abiogenesis, like evolution, is/was a very slow, incremental, gradual process.

Also, you don't need to directly observe something to have proof of its existence. Electrons weren't directly observed until 2010, does that mean there was no proof for the existence of electrons before 2010?

oh lord help us all....Fine, I'll leave it at this, as this is the same argument I use for God, yet you for some reason can't accept this same argument as valid...

/threadjack.

Here's the difference. There is no meaningful evidence for "god", whether it be direct or indirect. Everything that has been cited as proof of "god", science has been able to provide a scientific explanation.

[Wolfmanne]

oh lord help us all....Fine, I'll leave it at this, as this is the same argument I use for God, yet you for some reason can't accept this same argument as valid...

/threadjack.

Here's the difference. There is no meaningful evidence for "god", whether it be direct or indirect. Everything that has been cited as proof of "god", science has been able to provide a scientific explanation.

But the problem with this is that God is a mysterious spirit, being, or whatever you would like to call it, which is very much impossible for humanity to conceive, and in most cases, prove. You can try and find evidence of the existence of God, but you probably won't. Anyway, I believe in a theistic interpretation of biological evolution. Creationism is an outdated view in my opinion. If you're a Christian, it's important not to take the Bible literally and to keep an open mind to the world around you. The Bible is like a set of guidelines to what the world is; the actual world itself can be connected to the Bible and from there, more precise interpretations can be found. I accept biological evolution as fact, however I believe that God caused the Big Bang and also created the Laws of Science with the intention of causing the things as described in Genesis, in regards to Earth, which, just as the Levant is the Holy Land to Christians, the Earth is the 'Holy World' that God lords over.

[The Rich Port]

Here's the difference. There is no meaningful evidence for "god", whether it be direct or indirect. Everything that has been cited as proof of "god", science has been able to provide a scientific explanation.

But the problem with this is that God is a mysterious spirit, being, or whatever you would like to call it, which is very much impossible for humanity to conceive, and in most cases, prove. You can try and find evidence of the existence of God, but you probably won't. Anyway, I believe in a theistic interpretation of biological evolution. Creationism is an outdated view in my opinion. If you're a Christian, it's important not to take the Bible literally and to keep an open mind to the world around you. The Bible is like a set of guidelines to what the world is; the actual world itself can be connected to the Bible and from there, more precise interpretations can be found. I accept biological evolution as fact, however I believe that God caused the Big Bang and also created the Laws of Science with the intention of causing the things as described in Genesis, in regards to Earth, which, just as the Levant is the Holy Land to Christians, the Earth is the 'Holy World' that God lords over.

You know what else is mystical and transcendent?

My girlfriend in Canada.

[Regnum Dominae]

Let's end the does-god-exist threadjack before it gets out of control.

[Wolfmanne]

But the problem with this is that God is a mysterious spirit, being, or whatever you would like to call it, which is very much impossible for humanity to conceive, and in most cases, prove. You can try and find evidence of the existence of God, but you probably won't. Anyway, I believe in a theistic interpretation of biological evolution. Creationism is an outdated view in my opinion. If you're a Christian, it's important not to take the Bible literally and to keep an open mind to the world around you. The Bible is like a set of guidelines to what the world is; the actual world itself can be connected to the Bible and from there, more precise interpretations can be found. I accept biological evolution as fact, however I believe that God caused the Big Bang and also created the Laws of Science with the intention of causing the things as described in Genesis, in regards to Earth, which, just as the Levant is the Holy Land to Christians, the Earth is the 'Holy World' that God lords over.

You know what else is mystical and transcendent?

My girlfriend in Canada.

Totally.

If that's your interpretation of God, then ok, fair enough.

[Vazdania]

Here's the difference. There is no meaningful evidence for "god", whether it be direct or indirect. Everything that has been cited as proof of "god", science has been able to provide a scientific explanation.

But the problem with this is that God is a mysterious spirit, being, or whatever you would like to call it, which is very much impossible for humanity to conceive, and in most cases, prove. You can try and find evidence of the existence of God, but you probably won't. Anyway, I believe in a theistic interpretation of biological evolution. Creationism is an outdated view in my opinion. If you're a Christian, it's important not to take the Bible literally and to keep an open mind to the world around you. The Bible is like a set of guidelines to what the world is; the actual world itself can be connected to the Bible and from there, more precise interpretations can be found. I accept biological evolution as fact, however I believe that God caused the Big Bang and also created the Laws of Science with the intention of causing the things as described in Genesis, in regards to Earth, which, just as the Levant is the Holy Land to Christians, the Earth is the 'Holy World' that God lords over.

Please don't threadjack.

[Pandeeria]

Obviously creationism is right even though it's irrational, easily refutable, no-evidence, anti-progressive, thousands of years old, written by dehydrated crazy desert men, and much of it has been proven scientifically incorrect.

[Wolfmanne]

Let's end the does-god-exist threadjack before it gets out of control.

Well ok then. I'll just get my point across simply:

Do I accept biological evolution as fact?

Yes.

Do I take an atheistic interpretation of it?

No.

[Wolfmanne]

But the problem with this is that God is a mysterious spirit, being, or whatever you would like to call it, which is very much impossible for humanity to conceive, and in most cases, prove. You can try and find evidence of the existence of God, but you probably won't. Anyway, I believe in a theistic interpretation of biological evolution. Creationism is an outdated view in my opinion. If you're a Christian, it's important not to take the Bible literally and to keep an open mind to the world around you. The Bible is like a set of guidelines to what the world is; the actual world itself can be connected to the Bible and from there, more precise interpretations can be found. I accept biological evolution as fact, however I believe that God caused the Big Bang and also created the Laws of Science with the intention of causing the things as described in Genesis, in regards to Earth, which, just as the Levant is the Holy Land to Christians, the Earth is the 'Holy World' that God lords over.

Please don't threadjack.

I said I accept biological evolution as fact. I answered the question, henceforth it isn't a threadjack.

[Saint Kitten]

Because screw science, my 3000 year old book is always right.

This

[Pandeeria]

Let's end the does-god-exist threadjack before it gets out of control.

Well ok then. I'll just get my point across simply:

Do I accept biological evolution as fact?

Yes.

Do I take an atheistic interpretation of it?

No.

I believe the bible disagrees that evolutionism is true, but I'll have to look into that.

[Divair]

Well ok then. I'll just get my point across simply:

Do I accept biological evolution as fact?

Yes.

Do I take an atheistic interpretation of it?

No.

I believe the bible disagrees that evolutionism is true, but I'll have to look into that.

*Evolution.

No such thing as "evolutionism".

[Vazdania]

Well ok then. I'll just get my point across simply:

Do I accept biological evolution as fact?

Yes.

Do I take an atheistic interpretation of it?

No.

I believe the bible disagrees that evolutionism is true, but I'll have to look into that.

It really doesn't.

[Wolfmanne]

Well ok then. I'll just get my point across simply:

Do I accept biological evolution as fact?

Yes.

Do I take an atheistic interpretation of it?

No.

I believe the bible disagrees that evolutionism is true, but I'll have to look into that.

But you can't take the Bible literally. All of the Prophets and the Gospels used the world around them to make an accurate interpretation. Now with Science, this can be done easier; Science is an excellent method of keep an accurate view of the world for Christians and those in other religions. Ahmadiyya Muslims and many Hindus use science to make accurate interpretations for their faiths.

[Keronians]

Because I do not believe in the use of logic and reasoned discussion to prove a point.

[The Rich Port]

You know what else is mystical and transcendent?

My girlfriend in Canada.

Totally.

If that's your interpretation of God, then ok, fair enough.

She exists just about as much as God.

Prove to me that she doesn't exist.

[Pandeeria]

I believe the bible disagrees that evolutionism is true, but I'll have to look into that.

*Evolution.

No such thing as "evolutionism".

Oh yeah, sorry about that.

I believe the bible disagrees that evolutionism is true, but I'll have to look into that.

It really doesn't.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

Genesis 1:26

I guess this kind of goes against evolution since it says god created us in his image.