• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Science Disproves Evolution

Pahu said:
... it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes (a).
Click to expand...


I realise I am late to this and if I would only read the next few posts I would see that this has already been addressed, but:
1. By whom is it called the law of biogenesis?
2. The theory of evolution has no more to say about the origin of life than it does about the works of Shakespeare.
Carry on.
 
Pahu said:
The Law of Biogenesis

Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed.
Click to expand...

Correct.

All observations have shown that life comes only from life.
Click to expand...

That comes from the above, however, deliberate observations only include certain conditions. Pasteur proved that normally easily spoiled materials would stay sterile if insulated from the surroundings. We routinely use this for conservation of food.

What is not proved is that life may not come into existence under such conditions that existed on early Earth. Quite the contrary, some experiments indicate that under such circumstances, complex molecules that are the building blocks for life are in fact created.

This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis.
Click to expand...

No, it is not.

The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes (a).
Click to expand...

As repeatedly pointed out, this is wrong. While the evolution scenario assumes biogenesis, lack of it does not falsify evolution.

More importantly, as also mentioned, lack of biogenesis actually falsifies creation, because if life cannot be created spontaneously, then how was the creator created? - And if you say the creator needs no creator, why does life?

Hans
 
Pahu said:
The Law of Biogenesis

Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes (a).

...

Edited for compliance with Rule 4. Do not copy and paste lengthy tracts available elsewhere. Instead, just cite a short quote and a link to the other source.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL
Click to expand...

Pahu is quoting from (yet failing to cite) Walter Brown's self-published creationist book. I engaged in a lengthy written debate with Brown about the quality of his book and many of the arguments in it, in the pages of the Creation/Evolution journal, back in 1989-90:

http://ncse.com/cej/9/1/examination-research-creationist-walter-brown

http://ncse.com/cej/9/2/further-examination-research-walter-brown

http://ncse.com/cej/10/1/final-response-to-walter-brown
 
MRC_Hans said:
Correct.



That comes from the above, however, deliberate observations only include certain conditions. Pasteur proved that normally easily spoiled materials would stay sterile if insulated from the surroundings. We routinely use this for conservation of food.

What is not proved is that life may not come into existence under such conditions that existed on early Earth. Quite the contrary, some experiments indicate that under such circumstances, complex molecules that are the building blocks for life are in fact created.
Click to expand...


The experiments by Harold Urey and Stanley Miller, conducted in 1953, are often mentioned as showing that the “building blocks of life” can be produced in the laboratory. Not mentioned in these misleading claims are:

1) These “building blocks” are merely the simpler amino acids. The most complex amino acids have never been produced in the laboratory.
2) Most products of these chemical reactions are poisonous to life.
3) Amino acids are as far from a living cell as bricks are from the Empire State Building.
4) Half the amino acids produced have the wrong handedness.
5) Urey and Miller’s experiments contained a reducing atmosphere, which the early earth did not have, and components, such as a trap, that do not exist in nature. (A trap quickly removes chemical products from the destructive energy sources that make the products.)

In fact, most of what was produced in the Miller-Urey experiments was a sludge of simple organic chemicals that are not found in living organisms. Only about 2% was amino acids. Of this 2%, 95% was the simplest amino acid of all, glycine.

Chemist Robert Shapiro describes the widespread current acceptance of the results of Miller and Urey's experiments as “mythology rather than science.”

Oxygen is deadly to the Miller-Urey experiments: the 'building blocks of life' simply would not have formed in an oxygen-rich atmosphere. Oxygen reacts with methane to form carbon dioxide and water, and with ammonia to form nitrogen oxides and water. If you introduce oxygen into the apparatus, along with methane and hydrogen, and then put a spark through it, you do not get amino acids: you get an explosion.

But scientists still often claim that the atmosphere of the early Earth did not contain oxygen. When asked why, they reply that oxygen-less conditions are needed for life to develop. Now, call me naive, but in any other circumstances I think we would say this was arguing in a circle.

“All nucleotides synthesized biologically today are righthanded. Yet on the primitive earth, equal numbers of right- and left-handed nucleotides would have been present. When we put equal numbers of both kinds of nucleotides in our reaction mixtures, copying was inhibited.” Leslie E. Orgel, “The Origin of Life on the Earth,” Scientific American, Vol. 271, October 1994, p. 82.

“Many researchers have attempted to find plausible natural conditions under which [left-handed] L-amino acids would preferentially accumulate over their [right-handed] D-counterparts, but all such attempts have failed. Until this crucial problem is solved, no one can say that we have found a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. Instead, these isomer preferences point to biochemical creation.” Kenyon, p. A-23.

All of the above show why intelligence and design are necessary to produce even the simplest components of life.

Further Reading: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/abiogenesis.asp


As repeatedly pointed out, this is wrong. While the evolution scenario assumes biogenesis, lack of it does not falsify evolution.
Click to expand...

I don't understand how you can conclude that. Biogenesis is simply the observed fact that life always comes from life of the same kind. Evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. It looks like evolution or biogenesis is true, not both. Since biogenesis is an observed fact and evolution is not, doesn't that falsify evolution?

More importantly, as also mentioned, lack of biogenesis actually falsifies creation, because if life cannot be created spontaneously, then how was the creator created? - And if you say the creator needs no creator, why does life?
Click to expand...

The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and since the universe is everything that exists, could it exist before it existed? Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed.
 
Pahu said:
[snip]

The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and since the universe is everything that exists, could it exist before it existed? Something cannot bring itself into existence.
Click to expand...

Why not?

Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by greater?

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed.
Click to expand...

What, you mean like the big bang? And why must it always have existed?
 
Pahu said:
The Law of Biogenesis
[snip]
Click to expand...
So now you're back, eh? Well, time to put up this post again:

I'd like to take a moment to get back to Pahu's quote mining, before he turns up with more of it after his suspension is up. In particular, I'd like to remind him about the following posts:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6434473#post6434473
This post is a response to Brown's claim of the Chinese characters supporting the "global flood" idea. It tells several interesting facts about chinese characters, and as it turns out, Brown is simply lying, because the facts don't support the claims.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6434636#post6434636
Here we see one of the quote-mined George Wald. Well, that's not entirely accurate. It's not even quote-mined, it's simply made up. Since Pahu seems to have an aversion of clicking links, I'll quote the post:

Mirrorglass said:
For those of you interested, I seriously doubt the accuracy of the Huxtley quote, and the above, at least, is a bald-faced lie. While George Wald did write an article for Scientific American (quite possibly to the issue cited), the sentence above appeared nowhere in it. This 'quote' is twisted to vaguely resemble one of Wald's statements, but of course with the meaning completely twisted around. It's one of the nastiest examples of fundamentalist dishonesty out there.

I've unfortunately lost the link to my source; if anyone else happens to have it, I'd by grateful if you posted it.

ETA: Never mind, here it is. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html

The article is from 1958, and as said, contains nothing with much resemblance to the above quote.

ETA2: No, sorry, 1954 after all. Think before posting, think before posting..
Click to expand...
So here we have nothing but a pure, simple lie. Another poster even asked Pahu to retract his claim, which is something every decent, moral person would do. There are no posts of Pahu doing this.

Oh, and more posts showing examples of Pahu/Brown quote-mining, or simply making up quotes to suit his needs:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6434848#post6434848
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6436860#post6436860 <-- Take a real good look here, Pahu.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6455304#post6455304
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6458080#post6458080
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6462607#post6462607
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6462712#post6462712
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6465076#post6465076 <--- Slightly different, as pahu was showing quotes that may be accurate, but made by people whose ideas have been disproved a long time ago.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6479291#post6479291

A post daring Pahu to prove that one of his "these folks support Brown's conclusion" are actually correct: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6479995#post6479995

So basically, whenever Pahu's shown quotes that appears to support Brown's religious beliefs, someone has taken the time to search out those quotes and see if they are accurately representative. As it turns out, not only is Brown quote-mining, he's going so far as to simply make up quotes whenever he needed.

And how does Pahu respond to all these posts showing evidence of him doing nothing but repeating lies of Brown? He runs away from them. He starts a new series of quotes and does the evasion dance all over again.

Let me ask you this, Pahu. You must have read those posts. You clearly ignore responding to them, but you've read them. Now, when you have already been exposed to post made-up quotes, why do you think it's a good idea to throw in some new quotes? I mean, if Brown's been caught lying half a dozen times with his quote mines - and again, the evidence is there in the posts I've linked - what makes you think another half a dozen of quotes are more believable? Shouldn't you instead actually be conserned enough about the truth to check the veracity of these quotes yourself? Heck, why didn't you even check the veracity on the Chinese characters? Such an easy task to do, yet you failed even at that.

And what makes you think we will believe another one of your quote-storms when you still haven't apologised or admitted to the previous ones being false? What makes you think you can just run away from repeating Brown's lies? What makes you think you won't be held accountable for them? What makes you think telling falsehoods will establish any credibility?

Now, you may be tempted to ask something like "why would Brown lie?", in defense. But see, that only works if there is any doubt that he lied. There isn't any doubt that he did. All the evidence points to Brown lying, again and again. Instead, you should ask yourself "Why didn't Brown tell the truth about the Chinese characters?" and similar questions. Why didn't he get support from other scientists without quote-mining them? Why didn't he refrain from making up quotes to support his position?

I urge you... No, I plead with you to ask yourself those questions before making another post filled with nothing but C&Ped stuff from Brown's website, accepted by you without a single critical question, especially in the light of all the evidence shown to you that the man is a liar. I beg you to start admitting your errors. If not to us, then at least to yourself. I want you to especially read that post I quoted. There is no doubt about Brown simply making up a quote supposedly made by George Wald. Any honest person would reckognise that. Any person with decency and morals would admit to their mistake.

So there you have it, Pahu. And while you will surely be tempted to ignore this post - or only take a few parts of it that you think you can respond to and ignore the rest - I'm not going to let you. Every time you post another of your C&P posts, I will repeat these facts. I will not allow you to run away from Brown's lies. I will tell you the truth again and again until I see you doing the thing that Brown could never, ever do: The moral, decent, honest thing.

This is the second time I've posted this list of you lying, Pahu. And despite your "truth frees" sigline, you still haven't shown any honesty.
 
Hawk one said:
So basically, whenever Pahu's shown quotes that appears to support Brown's religious beliefs, someone has taken the time to search out those quotes and see if they are accurately representative. As it turns out, not only is Brown quote-mining, he's going so far as to simply make up quotes whenever he needed.

And how does Pahu respond to all these posts showing evidence of him doing nothing but repeating lies of Brown? He runs away from them. He starts a new series of quotes and does the evasion dance all over again.
Click to expand...

I haven't dealt with Pahu before, so what follows is not an accusation of dishonesty on his part. I am merely raising a possibility. I will allow you to judge whether or not it applies.

Ken Miller has a lecture that you can view on Youtube. It's over an hour long, and very good. In it, he addresses two questions:

1. Of all the scientific issues that rile up the Christians, why evolution?
2. Why does the anti-evolution crowd fail to accept the evidence?

These questions are a lot more similar than they might initially appear. For many religious people, a belief in evolution is seen as the source for all kinds of bad things, such as racism, slavery, and genocide. This is wrong, of course, but let's analyze this mindset for the sake of argument.

So if someone does believe that the teaching of evolution will lead to these awful things, then our two questions above have very simple answers. The Christian is now fighting evolution as a means to fighting genocide and racism. The Christian doesn't care about the evidence for evolution, because he's going to fight it regardless of its truth. Hell, he'll even lie, cheat, and steal if he has to. It's all in the name of what is good and holy.

This style of arguing is commonly seen by Ray Comfort. He says something that is wrong. He is then given the correct information. He then repeats the same wrong information. Repeat ad infinitum. Why? His actions are certainly inconsistent with someone attempting to come to a rational conclusion, but that's not who Ray Comfort is. He's a salesman. He doesn't want you to buy the best product. He wants you to buy the one he's selling. If moral and intellectual dishonesty will further that goal, so be it.
 
Hawk one said:
So now you're back, eh? Well, time to put up this post again:

I'd like to take a moment to get back to Pahu's quote mining, before he turns up with more of it after his suspension is up. In particular, I'd like to remind him about the following posts:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6434473#post6434473
This post is a response to Brown's claim of the Chinese characters supporting the "global flood" idea. It tells several interesting facts about chinese characters, and as it turns out, Brown is simply lying, because the facts don't support the claims.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6434636#post6434636
Here we see one of the quote-mined George Wald. Well, that's not entirely accurate. It's not even quote-mined, it's simply made up. Since Pahu seems to have an aversion of clicking links, I'll quote the post:


So here we have nothing but a pure, simple lie. Another poster even asked Pahu to retract his claim, which is something every decent, moral person would do. There are no posts of Pahu doing this.

Oh, and more posts showing examples of Pahu/Brown quote-mining, or simply making up quotes to suit his needs:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6434848#post6434848
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6436860#post6436860 <-- Take a real good look here, Pahu.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6455304#post6455304
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6458080#post6458080
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6462607#post6462607
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6462712#post6462712
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6465076#post6465076 <--- Slightly different, as pahu was showing quotes that may be accurate, but made by people whose ideas have been disproved a long time ago.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6479291#post6479291

A post daring Pahu to prove that one of his "these folks support Brown's conclusion" are actually correct: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6479995#post6479995

So basically, whenever Pahu's shown quotes that appears to support Brown's religious beliefs, someone has taken the time to search out those quotes and see if they are accurately representative. As it turns out, not only is Brown quote-mining, he's going so far as to simply make up quotes whenever he needed.

And how does Pahu respond to all these posts showing evidence of him doing nothing but repeating lies of Brown? He runs away from them. He starts a new series of quotes and does the evasion dance all over again.
Let me ask you this, Pahu. You must have read those posts. You clearly ignore responding to them, but you've read them. Now, when you have already been exposed to post made-up quotes, why do you think it's a good idea to throw in some new quotes? I mean, if Brown's been caught lying half a dozen times with his quote mines - and again, the evidence is there in the posts I've linked - what makes you think another half a dozen of quotes are more believable? Shouldn't you instead actually be conserned enough about the truth to check the veracity of these quotes yourself? Heck, why didn't you even check the veracity on the Chinese characters? Such an easy task to do, yet you failed even at that.

And what makes you think we will believe another one of your quote-storms when you still haven't apologised or admitted to the previous ones being false? What makes you think you can just run away from repeating Brown's lies? What makes you think you won't be held accountable for them? What makes you think telling falsehoods will establish any credibility?

Now, you may be tempted to ask something like "why would Brown lie?", in defense. But see, that only works if there is any doubt that he lied. There isn't any doubt that he did. All the evidence points to Brown lying, again and again. Instead, you should ask yourself "Why didn't Brown tell the truth about the Chinese characters?" and similar questions. Why didn't he get support from other scientists without quote-mining them? Why didn't he refrain from making up quotes to support his position?

I urge you... No, I plead with you to ask yourself those questions before making another post filled with nothing but C&Ped stuff from Brown's website, accepted by you without a single critical question, especially in the light of all the evidence shown to you that the man is a liar. I beg you to start admitting your errors. If not to us, then at least to yourself. I want you to especially read that post I quoted. There is no doubt about Brown simply making up a quote supposedly made by George Wald. Any honest person would reckognise that. Any person with decency and morals would admit to their mistake.

So there you have it, Pahu. And while you will surely be tempted to ignore this post - or only take a few parts of it that you think you can respond to and ignore the rest - I'm not going to let you. Every time you post another of your C&P posts, I will repeat these facts. I will not allow you to run away from Brown's lies. I will tell you the truth again and again until I see you doing the thing that Brown could never, ever do: The moral, decent, honest thing.

This is the second time I've posted this list of you lying, Pahu. And despite your "truth frees" sigline, you still haven't shown any honesty.
Click to expand...
Specifically regarding the portion I've highlighted, this is exactly the same tactic Pahu's fellow evolution-denier randman uses; he posts some quotes (Grasse appears to be his favourite), they're duly exposed as lies, distortions, edits, quote-mines or fabrications and then he posts them again, perhaps in the hope that people won't remember his previous exposure. :rolleyes:
I assume he's just using a set of "arguments" from a creationist source and is simply incapable of original thought.
 
dafydd said:
He/she won't get many sales here. You can buy toilet paper a lot cheaper than that.
Click to expand...

yes, toilet paper is much cheaper than the 22" LCD monitor I use. But I suppose that if Pahu gave me free leaflets with his stupid nonsense, I might end up using it as toilet paper.
 
Pahu said:
.


All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed.
Click to expand...

Sentence two contradicts sentence one, therefore sentence three is redundant.
 
Pahu said:
Oxygen is deadly to the Miller-Urey experiments: the 'building blocks of life' simply would not have formed in an oxygen-rich atmosphere. Oxygen reacts with methane to form carbon dioxide and water, and with ammonia to form nitrogen oxides and water. If you introduce oxygen into the apparatus, along with methane and hydrogen, and then put a spark through it, you do not get amino acids: you get an explosion.
Click to expand...

what oxygen rich atmosphere?? Earth´s atmosphere only got free oxygen (O2) AFTER cyanobacteria created it, causing the largest mass extinction event on Earth (the oxygen catastrophe) and possibly a snowball Earth (Huronian glaciation) about 2.4 billion years ago.
 
AcesHigh said:
what oxygen rich atmosphere?? Earth´s atmosphere only got free oxygen (O2) AFTER cyanobacteria created it, causing the largest mass extinction event on Earth (the oxygen catastrophe) and possibly a snowball Earth (Huronian glaciation) about 2.4 billion years ago.
Click to expand...


Is it fair to fight ignorance with facts?

Thanks! That was fun.
 
Pahu said:
The experiments by Harold Urey and Stanley Miller, conducted in 1953, are often mentioned as showing that the “building blocks of life” can be produced in the laboratory. Not mentioned in these misleading claims are:
Click to expand...

They are the building blocks of life, or some of them.

1) These “building blocks” are merely the simpler amino acids. The most complex amino acids have never been produced in the laboratory.
Click to expand...

They are still building blocks.

2) Most products of these chemical reactions are poisonous to life.
Click to expand...

What kind of life? There is hardly a poison on the planet without a life-form that can survive it.

3) Amino acids are as far from a living cell as bricks are from the Empire State Building.
Click to expand...

They are still building blocks.

4) Half the amino acids produced have the wrong handedness.
Click to expand...

Chirality is an interesting problem. but ... see below.

5) Urey and Miller’s experiments contained a reducing atmosphere, which the early earth did not have,
Click to expand...

Yes, it did. There was no free oxygen before the advent of plants.

and components, such as a trap, that do not exist in nature. (A trap quickly removes chemical products from the destructive energy sources that make the products.)
Click to expand...

No, what they did was simulate lightning with a constant spark. Since lighting in not constant in any one spot, they had to move it around. For convenience, they moved the chemicals instead.

In fact, most of what was produced in the Miller-Urey experiments was a sludge of simple organic chemicals that are not found in living organisms. Only about 2% was amino acids. Of this 2%, 95% was the simplest amino acid of all, glycine.
Click to expand...

And? Most of Earth is still not life.

Chemist Robert Shapiro describes the widespread current acceptance of the results of Miller and Urey's experiments as “mythology rather than science.”
Click to expand...

Well your comments seem to confirm that there is a lot of mythology about it.

Oxygen is deadly to the Miller-Urey experiments: the 'building blocks of life' simply would not have formed in an oxygen-rich atmosphere. Oxygen reacts with methane to form carbon dioxide and water, and with ammonia to form nitrogen oxides and water. If you introduce oxygen into the apparatus, along with methane and hydrogen, and then put a spark through it, you do not get amino acids: you get an explosion.
Click to expand...

There was no oxygen on early Earth. It's a fact.

But scientists still often claim that the atmosphere of the early Earth did not contain oxygen. When asked why, they reply that oxygen-less conditions are needed for life to develop. Now, call me naive, but in any other circumstances I think we would say this was arguing in a circle.
Click to expand...

It would be circular, if it was the argument, but it is not. No lifeless planet we have ever observed has free oxygen. In fact, free oxygen can be taken as a marker of at least plant life. Free oxygen is very reactive and is constantly consumed by all kinds of natural chemical reactions. It only exists if constantly replenished. Plants do that, here.

“All nucleotides synthesized biologically today are righthanded. Yet on the primitive earth, equal numbers of right- and left-handed nucleotides would have been present. When we put equal numbers of both kinds of nucleotides in our reaction mixtures, copying was inhibited.” Leslie E. Orgel, “The Origin of Life on the Earth,” Scientific American, Vol. 271, October 1994, p. 82.

“Many researchers have attempted to find plausible natural conditions under which [left-handed] L-amino acids would preferentially accumulate over their [right-handed] D-counterparts, but all such attempts have failed. Until this crucial problem is solved, no one can say that we have found a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. Instead, these isomer preferences point to biochemical creation.” Kenyon, p. A-23.
Click to expand...

My highlight. The highlighted part might hold the explanation: Both chiralities were present, but complexity could only happen when the same ones happened together; the very earliest example of natural selection. There are several other theories.

All of the above show why intelligence and design are necessary to produce even the simplest components of life.
Click to expand...

All of the above shows why intelligence is necessary to produce even the simplest coherent argumentation.

I don't understand how you can conclude that. Biogenesis is simply the observed fact that life always comes from life of the same kind. Evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. It looks like evolution or biogenesis is true, not both. Since biogenesis is an observed fact and evolution is not, doesn't that falsify evolution?
Click to expand...

How do you expect to discuss biogenesis and evolution when you seem to not understand even the basics of either?

Biogenesis: The appearance of life from non-living matter, through natural processes.

Evolution: The evolution of diverse life forms from one or several ancestral forms.

Neither presupposes or excludes the other.

The combined theory: A single life form appeared through biogenesis and evolved into all the life forms that exist and have existed on Earth.

The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old.
Click to expand...

Nobody claims otherwise. Do yourself and everybody else a favour and find out if various claims exist before you embark on refuting them.

Therefore, the universe had a beginning and since the universe is everything that exists, could it exist before it existed?
Click to expand...

Since time is part of the universe, it makes no sense to say before the universe. However, there must exist the condition of 'no universe'. We have no idea what that is.

Something cannot bring itself into existence.
Click to expand...

We don't know this. Within this universe, it appears to be true, but in the 'no universe' condition, who knows?

Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.
Click to expand...

That argument is self-defeating. If nothing can start to exist without something to bring it into existence, then this must apply to the creator as well. If it does not apply to the creator, why must it apply to the universe.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed).
Click to expand...

You can have an infinite regression without crossing infinity. Read up on fractals.

Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed.
Click to expand...

There must presumably be at least one acausal event, but it does not have to have existed always (assuming 'always' has any meaning outside the universe).

The Big Bang could be this event.

Hans
 
Before you post you need to think things out. Making a post title about evolution and then discussing the credibility of Noahs flood nonsense is not a good idea. It makes you look silly. I know because I get in trouble for doing the same thing myself. A good rule of thumb is to discuss the titles post and not something else entirely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom