15 questions evolutionists cannot adequately answer

How about you reply to the actual question, rather than trying to slight of hand to a different answer. Are you in politics?!?!

Simple questions needs a simple answer. I said, show me one empirical observation of life being able to form without the use of another living organism.

 

You're mixing subjects again. I don't have much interesting to say about abiogenesis.

I was just responding to your statement about DNA being programmed by "chance". If (hypothetically for your sake) DNA evolved it would most likely have been gradually over hundreds of millions of years, with hundreds of millions of tiny (non-random) environmental adaptations. And it would have started from something much simpler that if you saw today you wouldn't think was so impressive, and gradually increased in complexity. Obviously scientists don't claim that the first self-replicating organism started out with a full modern DNA double-helix, or anything remotely close to that, which is what your objections are implying (straw man).

 

No it's quite simple. And ignoring this because you can't prove it is stupid.

I haven't argued that once DNA or RNA is already formed, the mutations can occur and change the organism. And there have been countless observations to prove this claim.

What can't be proven is a living organism has never manifested from a non life soup. And you can choose to say silly things like "I'm not concerned with abiogenesis" all you want. If you don't have the answers, just say so...

So you agree that abiogenesis is a theory that can't be observed currently? <--- glad I finally was able to answer from your straddling of the fence. Way to dodge around the entire question still.

 

In the theory of evolution by natural selection the selected mutations FORM DNA/RNA (form all parts of living organisms), they do not just change what already exists. Under the right circumstances scientists observe that complexity IS increased, and they can extrapolate backwards to the complex features of organisms we observe today having much simpler plausible non-complex beginnings.

Science actually isn't concerned with "proof", only finding explanations that best fit the evidence. If you want to justify belief in God by arguing scientists can't directly observe what happened before humans existed, good for you. It's just not a very compelling or interesting objection to evolution (or abiogenesis). If anyone ever invents a time machine I'll call you.

 

Call it what u want, but until it's observed or backed through testing or mathematics, it's just a educated guess.

And I'm still missing where I said evolution is not possible. You keep bringing this up like I say it's impossible. You have me confused.

 

I hope some day even you can see the laughable hypocrisy and double-standard in your statements and questions.

You love to attack science for not knowing EVERYTHING, and then when anyone questions religion with the same level of critique, you sit back and simply say, "faith", like that's supposed to mean something.

Science at least tries to find answers, instead of religion which pretends it already knows the answers, since afterall, it was written in some man-made book thousands of years ago by people who weren't even sure the world was round. Of course THEY would know the origins of life, the purpose of life, what comes after life, and all the answers to the universe...

 

Please explain my hypocrisy... I believe in evolution. I believe the universe is 13.8 billion years old. And I believe in science. What I don't put my bet on are theories that can't be observed.

My science hat is black and white. My spiritual side is about faith. I don't like mixing the two.

 

I already did, but I'm happy to do so again.

There's your hypocrisy. Let me know if you have any additional inquiries.

 

Lmao how is that hypocrisy? That is nothing more than someone that loves to read romance novels and scientific journals. Keep them separate to fill the different parts of your soul.

You seem a bit drab and assume I'm out to get science. That is farthest from the truth. As I said, I believe in evolution. And I think it's funny how I question abiogenesis and you people get all defensive. Who really are the sheep following the flock?

 

Glad u used the kjv. Most accurate translation of the Greek translation.

 

That's cute that you're willing to equate the bible to some romance novel, but it makes it all the more perplexing why you'd blindly accept the romance novel as truth and get defensive when others critique it. It's just a stupid trashy romance novel, who cares

I find it hypocritical as it pertains to this conversation - seeking answers to the origin of life, etc. If you're willing to just take it on faith that God created man in his own image, without any evidence, then it's hypocritical of you to say that another theory needs to be held to a higher standard. Why is that? Because you say so? Why does your particular belief get to skate by on simple "faith"? If you're willing to question your own beliefs by the same standard and burden of proof, then by all means, question away on the limitations of science.

 

I'm seeking answers to the origins of life? No I am questioning abiogenesis. So I can't question it? I think it's cute that you went an entirely different topic. Have I talked about the bible? Am I using my opinion in my faith? No you are.

How about u start getting back on track and debate me about the topic shall we?

 

Abiogenesis is by definition the natural process by which life arose from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds, so yes, if you're questioning that you're seeking answers to the origins of life.

I already said you can question that process or whatever else, I just wish you'd also question religion and faith in the same way... you know, one in which evidence means something... but perhaps that's too scary a proposition for you.