Genesis Creation vs. Macroevolution Myth

[beyondism]

3 minutes ago, Guyver said:

 even if it could be proven that abiogenesis could occur naturally.

Err..

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron–sulfur_world_hypothesis

It is proven through retrodiction that it can occur. It just hasn't been observed yet.

 

[beyondism]

11 minutes ago, Piney said:

Have you read the universal Law of Increasing Functional Complexity? 

No.

[Guyver]

6 minutes ago, beyondism said:

Err..

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron–sulfur_world_hypothesis

It is proven through retrodiction that it can occur. It just hasn't been observed yet.

 

Ok, well that seems to be the same thing as not proven to me….so, anyway….carry on.

[Piney]

3 minutes ago, beyondism said:

No.

It's interesting and could mean life can develop everywhere as long as water is present. Even in nebula.

[beyondism]

13 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Ok, well that seems to be the same thing as not proven to me….so, anyway….carry on.

It's one working model for how life arose independently on this planet by metabolism predating genetics. We have no working model for how life was artificially designed because creationists don't need to think about that. 

[Piney]

11 minutes ago, beyondism said:

It's one working model for how life arose independently on this planet by metabolism predating genetics. We have no working model for how life was artificially designed because creationists don't need to think about that. 

They use the term "irreducible complexity" not understanding how increasing functional complexity actually works. 

But the JW who started this thread has me on ignore so I just throw shots in for the readers.

[beyondism]

14 minutes ago, Piney said:

They use the term "irreducible complexity" not understanding how increasing functional complexity actually works. 

But the JW who started this thread has me on ignore so I just throw shots in for the readers.

I've never heard that term before. 

[Piney]

1 hour ago, beyondism said:

I've never heard that term before. 

Behe came up with it. Pennsylvania's token young earth biologist. 

[Alter2Ego]

4 hours ago, beyondism said:

Biochemistry and natural selection trump religion and new-age twaddle.

Beyondism:

Natural selection is a fallacy.  Even pro-evolution paleontologists have been forced to admit it.

[Alter2Ego]

mmmmmm

Edited August 8 by Alter2Ego

[Alter2Ego]

4 hours ago, Guyver said:

even if it could be proven that abiogenesis could occur naturally.

  

4 hours ago, beyondism said:

Err..

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron–sulfur_world_hypothesis

It is proven through retrodiction that it can occur. It just hasn't been observed yet.

beyondism:

That's false.  Abiogenesis theory aka spontaneous generation (life coming to life from non-life by itself) was debunked more than 150 years ago by Louis Pasteur.

 

"The debate over spontaneous generation continued well into the 19th century, with scientists serving as proponents of both sides. To settle the debate, the Paris Academy of Sciences offered a prize for resolution of the problem. Louis Pasteur, a prominent French chemist who had been studying microbial fermentation and the causes of wine spoilage, accepted the challenge.

....

Pasteur’s set of experiments irrefutably disproved the theory of spontaneous generation and earned him the prestigious Alhumbert Prize from the Paris Academy of Sciences in 1862."

https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Microbiology/Microbiology_(OpenStax)/03%3A_The_Cell/3.01%3A_Spontaneous_Generation

Edited August 8 by Alter2Ego

[beyondism]

17 minutes ago, Alter2Ego said:

  

beyondism:

That's false.  Abiogenesis theory aka spontaneous generation (life coming to life from non-life by itself) was debunked more than 150 years ago by Louis Pasteur.

 

"The debate over spontaneous generation continued well into the 19th century, with scientists serving as proponents of both sides. To settle the debate, the Paris Academy of Sciences offered a prize for resolution of the problem. Louis Pasteur, a prominent French chemist who had been studying microbial fermentation and the causes of wine spoilage, accepted the challenge.

....

Pasteur’s set of experiments irrefutably disproved the theory of spontaneous generation and earned him the prestigious Alhumbert Prize from the Paris Academy of Sciences in 1862."

https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Microbiology/Microbiology_(OpenStax)/03%3A_The_Cell/3.01%3A_Spontaneous_Generation

Spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are not the same. Never have been. 

Edited August 8 by beyondism

[beyondism]

40 minutes ago, Alter2Ego said:

Beyondism:

Natural selection is a fallacy.  Even pro-evolution paleontologists have been forced to admit it.

Any names?

[beyondism]

Louis Pasteur had no notion of DNA or RNA. Spontaneous generation is an antiquated notion which shouldn't be conflated with abiogenesis. Abiogenesis has circumstantial evidence in the Miller-Urey experiment.

[Piney]

53 minutes ago, Alter2Ego said:

Beyondism:

Natural selection is a fallacy.  Even pro-evolution paleontologists have been forced to admit it.

Which ones? 

[Alter2Ego]

1 hour ago, beyondism said:

Spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are not the same. Never have been. 

beyondism:

They are the same.  Some websites try to separate them, but they are synonyms of each other.  Both theories rely on the long debunked claim that life can result from non-life by itself.

 

"Spontaneous generation (abiogenesis) is the mistaken hypothesis that living organisms are capable of being generated from non-living things. Mankind for many centuries (even till the time of Aristotle in 4^th century BC) previously believed that non-living things such as meat and even decaying organic matter can generate living things (e.g. maggot). The belief that life can emanate from non-life was widely accepted as at the time even by scientists who could have experimented on it to either disprove or accept the theory.

https://microbiologyclass.net/spontaneous-generation-abiogenesis/

 

"The Theory of Spontaneous Generation

The Greek philosopher Aristotle (384–322 BC) was one of the earliest recorded scholars to articulate the theory of spontaneous generation, the notion that life can arise from nonliving matter. Aristotle proposed that life arose from nonliving material if the material contained pneuma (“vital heat”). As evidence, he noted several instances of the appearance of animals from environments previously devoid of such animals, such as the seemingly sudden appearance of fish in a new puddle of water."

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-microbiology/chapter/spontaneous-generation/

 

"abiogenesis, the idea that life arose from nonlife more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth."

https://www.britannica.com/science/abiogenesis

 

 

 

[jmccr8]

1 minute ago, Alter2Ego said:

beyondism:

They are the same.  Some websites try to separate them, but they are synonyms of each other.  Both theories rely on the long debunked claim that life can result from non-life by itself.

 

"Spontaneous generation (abiogenesis) is the mistaken hypothesis that living organisms are capable of being generated from non-living things. Mankind for many centuries (even till the time of Aristotle in 4^th century BC) previously believed that non-living things such as meat and even decaying organic matter can generate living things (e.g. maggot). The belief that life can emanate from non-life was widely accepted as at the time even by scientists who could have experimented on it to either disprove or accept the theory.

https://microbiologyclass.net/spontaneous-generation-abiogenesis/

 

"The Theory of Spontaneous Generation

The Greek philosopher Aristotle (384–322 BC) was one of the earliest recorded scholars to articulate the theory of spontaneous generation, the notion that life can arise from nonliving matter. Aristotle proposed that life arose from nonliving material if the material contained pneuma (“vital heat”). As evidence, he noted several instances of the appearance of animals from environments previously devoid of such animals, such as the seemingly sudden appearance of fish in a new puddle of water."

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-microbiology/chapter/spontaneous-generation/

 

"abiogenesis, the idea that life arose from nonlife more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth."

https://www.britannica.com/science/abiogenesis

 

 

 

HI Alter

Why are you using information that is 2300 years old, you do know that science has progressed significantly since then? 

[psyche101]

8 hours ago, beyondism said:

I'm astounded you've never heard of this person.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Günter_Wächtershäuser

 

Of course 

Did you miss this part perhaps?

 

Scientists Just Recreated The Chemical Reaction ....

Repeatability is everything. 

[psyche101]

4 hours ago, Alter2Ego said:

Beyondism:

Natural selection is a fallacy.  Even pro-evolution paleontologists have been forced to admit it.

If you have to lie to maintain a belief how good is it? 

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

HI Alter

Why are you using information that is 2300 years old, you do know that science has progressed significantly since then? 

Haha 

It's the same science that deducted maggots spontaneously materialise in meat. 

 

AKA not science 

Edited August 8 by psyche101

[Antigonos]

11 hours ago, Alter2Ego said:

Beyondism:

Natural selection is a fallacy.  Even pro-evolution paleontologists have been forced to admit it.

Links please.

[Coil]

On 5/3/2013 at 3:24 AM, Alter2Ego said:

According to macroevolution theory, after the first living organism developed from nonliving matter in the ocean and formed into a "primordial soup," it resulted in a "common ancestor" from which came all the different forms of life that have ever existed on planet earth, including humans. All of this is believed to have been accomplished by itself (abiogenesis), without input from a supernatural God aka Jehovah who intervened and guided the outcome. Non-living matter simply decided one day to come to life--by itself--and bring forth intelligent life by unintelligent means. (Sources: (1) LIFE--How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? Pages 10-11; (2) Encyclopedia Britannica (1978), page 1018)

CREATION, on the other hand, is the conclusion that the appearing of living things, each uniquely different, can only be explained by the existence of Almighty God who designed and made the universe and all the basic kinds of life on the earth just as they are, with the ability for each "kind" of creature to produce variations of itself up to a set point.

As long as science remains material, the emergence of life from gases and chemical elements will be an inexplicable mystery for it. They explain the emergence of life by the emergence of amino acids and nucleotides and the combination of proteins and metals. But this does not explain how life appears from nonliving things. Then we must admit that matter is alive or life enters nonliving things from the outside.

Religion gives a correct understanding of the process that there is nothing purely material in the world and matter always has consciousness. In the atom there is the consciousness of God, which unfolds into a more complex being when conditions for this are created (water vapor, electrical discharges, broth from chemical elements and the right temperature). Behind nature there is God, who controls the evolution of the development of creatures. Specifically, human and animal forms were brought to our planet by archangels who carried within themselves a man, a lion, and a calf, an eagle, which developed into the corresponding species on earth. Symbolically, these animals and man are represented in the sphinx as a prototype of what evolution man went through.

Evolution from man from an animal went through the following stages: fish, amphibian turtle, mammal boar, lion walking on two legs, dwarf man, man with an axe, man with a bow (our race). All this is shown in the Indian ten dashavatars. That is, evolution is an increase in consciousness and body and each race develops a new body and consciousness. God is a perfect man so evolution from man will move to the superman and further to the divine man. Since the goal of our planet is the divine world, divine-immortal bodies with divine consciousness.

 

[Alter2Ego]

On 8/8/2024 at 11:33 PM, Coil said:

Evolution from man from an animal went through the following stages: fish, amphibian turtle, mammal boar, lion walking on two legs, dwarf man, man with an axe, man with a bow (our race). All this is shown in the Indian ten dashavatars. That is, evolution is an increase in consciousness and body and each race develops a new body and consciousness. God is a perfect man so evolution from man will move to the superman and further to the divine man. Since the goal of our planet is the divine world, divine-immortal bodies with divine consciousness.

 

Coil:

When are you going to present the rest of us with credible evidence that says any of that occurred?

 

Edited August 11 by Alter2Ego

[Alter2Ego]

On 8/7/2024 at 5:47 PM, Alter2Ego said:

Beyondism:

Natural selection is a fallacy.  Even pro-evolution paleontologists have been forced to admit it.

 

On 8/8/2024 at 5:18 AM, Antigonos said:

Links please.

Antigonos:

First, let me show you the definition of "natural selection," then I will provide actual quotations from paleontologists, some of them pro-evolution, who were forced to admit it doesn't work that way.

 

Definition of Natural Selection:

"Natural selection, process that results in the adaptation of an organism to its environment by means of selectively reproducing changes in its genotype, or genetic constitution."

https://www.britannica.com/science/natural-selection

Edited August 11 by Alter2Ego

[WorldMysteries]

There is substantial evidence supporting macroevolution, which refers to large-scale evolutionary changes that occur over long periods, leading to the emergence of new species and higher taxonomic groups. Here are some key pieces of evidence:

 1. Fossil Record: The fossil record shows a chronological sequence of life forms, documenting the gradual changes in species over millions of years. Transitional fossils, such as those showing the evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs, provide direct evidence of these changes.

 2. Comparative Anatomy: Similarities in the anatomical structures of different species suggest common ancestry. For example, the forelimbs of humans, whales, birds, and bats have different functions but share a common structural framework, indicating they evolved from a common ancestor.

 3. Generic Evidence: DNA comparisons reveal that all living organisms share a significant amount of genetic material. The more closely related two species are, the more similar their DNA sequences. This genetic similarity supports the idea of common descent.

 4. Biogeography: The geographic distribution of species provides insights into their evolutionary history. For instance, the unique species found on islands often resemble those on the nearest mainland, suggesting they evolved from common ancestors that migrated to the islands.

 5. Embryology: The study of embryonic development shows that many organisms go through similar stages, reflecting their evolutionary relationships. For example, vertebrate embryos exhibit similar features, such as gill slits and tails, during early development.

 These lines of evidence collectively support the theory of macroevolution and the concept of common descent, which posits that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor.

 http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/comdesc.pdf

 https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/macroevolution-examples-from-the-primate-world-96679683/