Why is atheistic evolution absurd? [Spirituality & Religion]

@hartfire Beautifully said my friend.

First I said atheistic evolution. Darwinianism. Second of course sciencE can only show us the mechanism not the agency. It is a hugE error to assume because we know the mechanism we can dispense with the agency. Of course an atheist has to say that life evolved from nothing. Else their atheism is invalid. The chances of a single cell evolving by chance are so small it would be more likely that Schrödinger’s cat would be found outside the box in the given time frame. It just doesn’t work. There is still quite a bit of bogus science that only exists in the computers of the theoreticians. @hartfire

@Speedyman Piffle. Why are you trying to re-label Evolution by Natural Selection as ‘Darwinism’? Evolution by Natural Selection is a perfectly apt and understood term.

Evolution is the process, and Natural Selection is the mechanism.

You’re simply trying to cram your magical entity into the Theory when, in fact, none is needed.


and again (yet again) you confound evolution and abiogenesis. Your error has been pointed out so often that I must now assume that you are trying to be wilfully duplicitious. Abiogenesis concerns itself with the origin(s) of life, and evolution concerns itself with what happens after life has begun.

You know this (you’ve been told often enough), so why do you keep repeating the same falsehoods?



and again (yet again) you try to take the development of cells as the starting point of evolution. This second error error has been pointed out so often that I must now assume that, as above, you are trying to be wilfully duplicitous. Cells developed from something slightly simpler, which in turn developed from something simpler, which in turn... well, you get the idea (unless you prefer not to, I suppose).

You are against trying to say that because we understand the mechanism we can do without the agency. This is complete rubbish. Why do you keep repeating the same falsehoods? Why do you keep assuming that life has just begun when we know that everything is against life forming from non-living matter? Everything is against your theory. This whole thing about cells developing is absolute crap because they didn’t and we know they didn’t because they can’t. This was something that Darwin assumed but we know now that celks are far more complicated thing then we went to thought it was. You are about 100 years behind the times in your science@newjaninev2

@hartfire I agree with most of that but atheism is only that you do not believe in god, not that you can’t accept the existence of god. The way that you worded that makes it sound more like being stubborn than being rational.

Atheism as propounded by Richard Dawkins is completely irrational in that it says that because we understand the mechanism we can do without the agency. He is also excepting as a fact something that he still a theory and still has plenty of holes despite the frantic attempts of scientists to fill it in. In fact Darwinism is far more of a philosophy than a science. It is interesting that Dawkins criticises people of faith as being irrational and yet he is totally irrational himself in his acceptance of something which is unproven when it suits his philosophy. The problem is because we can explain something does not mean to say there wasn’t an originator behind that explanation and that is where Dawkins becomes completely irrational@MsAnnThropy

@Speedyman .

I’ll type this slowly for you, so that you can keep up. Evolution is the agency... it’s constant change in the frequency and distribution of alleles.

No eternal magical entities required... they’re surplus to requirements.

Not. Needed.


Are you saying that there’s no life on Earth?


Are you saying that there are no cells on Earth?

Or are you just making an unsubstantiated and self-serving pronouncement?

@Speedyman
????

Atheism is having no gods.

That’s all it is

There aren’t various ‘schools' of atheism, with different atheisms being espoused across them (oh wait, that’s religion, yes?)

@newjaninev2 Evolution is not an agency. It is simply random chance and circumstance. If you believe that random chance and circumstance is sufficient to explain anything then you are one extremely confused individual. Even the neo Darwinist evolutionists are trying to re jig their pet theory since it simply doesn't work They held a conference in 2016 to do just that and came away with "We don't know" as an explanation. Too Funny. Don't worry toots you can deny you silly post in the morning. You do it all the time. You are the queen of denial.

Oh that just shows your lack of understanding. Evolution does not cause anything. It is a process which has to have a cause. You are the one with a magical entity @newjaninev2

@Speedyman 1. Darwin was not an atheist; he was an Anglican Christian. He never once proposed that God did not exist. He did offer an alternative theory for how life on earth came into being.

2. You said, "The chances of a single cell evolving by chance are so small it would be more likely that Schrödinger’s cat would be found outside the box in the given time frame."
That estimate of the chances is incorrect.
The atoms that make up the building blocks of life exist in the sea in such prolific abundance that the quantities are beyond human imagining; they are everywhere, continually churned around by ocean currents and tides. Interesting for believers, the original text of Genesis does speak of a sea, the Aramaic and Hebrew words literally mean "primordial soup."
Under these conditions, as the atoms collide their chemical properties (the imbalances of electrons leads to sharing electrons with a different atoms in order to find a stable state) causes the atoms to cluster into molecules. Because there are so many different kinds of atoms, they can form into many different kinds of molecules, but certain kinds are very stable. One of these is Cytocine (C); it is made up of 2 hydrogen, 2 nitrogen, 1 oxygen, and 1 combined molecule of 1 nitrogen with two hydrogen atoms. The three other most significant molecules are adenine (A), guanine (G), and uracil (U): together they make up a much larger molecule which looks like a spiralling ribbon. It's called Ribonucleic acid or RNA.
Likewise the orders of magnitude of A, C, G and U meant that billions upon billions of RNA strands are continually floating around in the oceans, and so they cannot not collide and form into chemically and structurally stable clusters around which other elements form to become living cells.
We don't have one first living cell, we have billions upon billions all forming simultaneously because the conditions in the sea are so perfect.
What this means is that is was impossible for life not to evolve in these conditions.

Dreaming the Haploid

It was no chance
that atoms linked 
twixt light and heat
in the seas of primal brines.

Nor that atoms touched,
grasped, coalesced,
then grew green,
and covered the Earth.

For they collided countless zillion times,
to build the first of RNA,

and chancy as it seems, 
what happed 
could never not.

54 words @ 120 ppm = 0.45 min / ½ a min
© Manna Hart, Tyalgum, 5 May, 2018

@Speedyman I'm sorry Speedyman, but when you say "we now know", I don't know who you mean by "we".
Scientists do know how living matter formed from non-living matter. The processes have been reliably replicated in test tubes. Here is a sample of some of the science involved: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4215205/

@hartfire I guess you don't know a thing about science. Sorry to burst your bubble but scientists have not even come close to replicating life forms. What you just posted is an outdated lie. Where did you find such nonsense?

@hippyjoe1955 Did you check out the site?

@hippyjoe1955
what do you mean by ‘replicate’?

What’s a ‘life form’?

and why would we want to replicate one?

@newjaninev2 Yes toots you are that oblivious. Don't worry You can deny this all in the morning. You do it all the time.

@newjaninev2
In the context of the sentence "replicating" is used as a verb, not an adjective.
A life form is any form of life, an organism that can live, reproduce and die. "A living organism" might have been a better choice of words.

There would be scientific value in replicating the processes by which the first living cells came into existence.
So far, no completely artificial cell capable of self-reproduction has been synthesized using the molecules of life, and this objective is still in a distant future although various groups are currently working towards this goal.

In 2018, Petra Schwille, at the Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry in Martinsried, Germany came very close. Using just just eight ingredients: two proteins, three buffering agents, two types of fat molecule and some chemical energy, she created a flotilla of bouncing, pulsating blobs — rudimentary cell-like structures with some of the machinery necessary to divide on their own.

There are many similar experiments going on world wide, all coming closer and closer to producing cells that can reproduce.

When they do, the mechanisms of exactly how cells evolved will have a level of proof that would be difficult to refute.

@hippyjoe1955 This will get you started (which is also where you’ll doubtless end)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4427786/

@hartfire Max Planck did not even come close to creating anything. At the end of his experiment he had a bit of soot with a few 'organic chemicals' mixed in it. That is so far from a life form as to be laughable that anyone would cite that failed experiment. The point of fact is that even if such an experiment were successful it would be a failure since the experiment was done on purpose. Evolution has no purpose.

@newjaninev2 Too Funny!!! Did you even read that bit of nonsense? Doesn't appear so. The fact is that nothing was proven. Certainly not evolution. Evolution can not have human intervention trying to create something. Abiogenesis requires no purpose or intent or intervention.

@hippyjoe1955
Why do you continue to confound evolution and abiogenesis?

I mean, really, it’s not difficult to see that they’re separate topics, yet you constantly try to use one of them as a bolthole from discussing the other.


So why do you keep trying to insert your purposeful, intentional, magical entity?

Run along now... the adults are chatting

@Speedyman There is no need for an agency. The Law of Cause and Effect operates by itself, without the need for any conscious being or entity to kick start it.

@newjaninev2 The fact is that evolution can not get started without abiogenesis. Silly you want to have it both ways. Cut the nonsense. Don't worry toots you can deny this in the morning. You do it all the time.

@hippyjoe1955 That's not quite correct. It was proven that proteins are attracted to membranes that have a long axis, and will bond and detach from the membrane in a pulsating and wave-like manner. This action is one of the mechanical properties required for cell division and replication.
These things are not discovered by single great leaps, by very gradual and minute increments. That's how science works.
You're right that it doesn't yet prove evolution, but it comes a significant step closer.

The difference between this and faith is that faith requires no proof whatsoever - and no one in over two thousand years has been able to prove the existence of God either empirically or by logic.

Whereas the evidence to support the theory of evolution has been accumulating for scores of decades now. The work will continue until it's absolutely conclusive. And after that more work will continue to increase the depth of understanding of all the details.

In the meantime, as with discoveries like the mapping of the human genome, incredible spin-offs in medicine and biology will arise. Techniques that can heal genetic abnormalities, produce richer nutrients in plant foods, produce better fabrics, and so on.

Can you honestly say that you won't use electricity or medicine because you believe in God and not science?

@hartfire If you think life is a self forming membrane. Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!