Evolutionists?

Question

Evolutionists believe in something called abiogenesis. Basically, this means that all life originally came from a combination of rocks and chemicals. My question is this, a dog and a cat cannot have a Kuppy, so how can a rock and a chemical produce a child together? Moreover, seeing as how they cannot move, how could they possible have done the deed to procreate?
Abiogenesis relies on rocks and chemicals being in the right condition, and we have not been able to get rocks and chemicals to breed even once since we first thought this theory up. Why then do we believe in this? Isn't it obvious that Rocks and Chemicals, like Dogs and Cats cannot have babies, and their babies would definitely look more like rocks and chemicals than tiny microscopic organisms, wouldn't they? Why do we not have a rocky coating? Surely, that ancestor of ours, the rock, has some very interesting survival devices. Why did these strengths not get passed down?
This again proves that evolutionarianism 100% wrong.

I'm glad at least a few of you can spot satire when you see it.

Answer 1

Nice try, but I've never met a real fundie who could spell abiogenesis.

Answer 2

Posting a science question in the religion and spirituality section often means the asker does not really want an answer. His goal is to ask a question that he believes proves some scientific knowledge to be wrong, or that science does not yet answer, and make the implicit claim that the only other explanation is a god, and specifically, the same god he happens to believe in.

It's the "god of the gaps" - intellectually bankrupt, since it favors ignorance instead of knowledge, and because of the contained logical fallacy.

However, on the off chance that you really want to know the answer:

* There is no such thing as "evolutionists". Do you "believe in" gravity? Are you a gravitationist?
* Evolution is every much a fact as the theory of gravity.
* Over 99.8% of scientists in relevant field accept evolution.
* There are no alternative scientific theories.
* There is a huge amount of evidence in support of evolution...
* And zero evidence against it.
* The 'discussion' is actually educated people trying to educate others.
* The more intelligent a person is, the more likely they are to understand and accept evolution.
* The "discussion" only happens in backward places like Turkey and parts of the united states.

Claim CB010:
The proteins necessary for life are very complex. The odds of even one simple protein molecule forming by chance are 1 in 10113, and thousands of different proteins are needed to form life. (See also Primitive cells arising by chance.)

Response:

1. The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001).

2. The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.

3. The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.

4. The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.

Links:
Musgrave, Ian. 1998. Lies, damned lies, statistics, and probability of abiogenesis calculations. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Stockwell, John. 2002. Borel's Law and the origin of many creationist probability assertions. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html
References:

1. Spotts, Peter N. 2001. Raw materials for life may predate Earth's formation. The Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 30, 2001. http://search.csmonitor.com/durable/2001/01/30/fp2s2-csm.shtml

Claim CB020:
Abiogenesis assumes life was created by processes still operating today, so new life should still be appearing today.

Response:

1. Conditions today are different from conditions in the past in two important ways: First, there was little or no molecular oxygen in the atmosphere or oceans when life first appeared. Free oxygen is reactive and would likely have interfered with the formation of complex organic molecules. More importantly, there was no life around before life appeared. The life that is around today would scavenge and eat any complex molecules before they could turn into anything approaching new life.


Please, just stop. You're embarrassing both christians and americans in general (I don't need to ask if you're a christian or american, your question gave it away).

Answer 3

This is pretty shitty as arguments for or against evolution go.


The theory of biological evolution does not have abiogenesis as one of its main tenets. It simply explains how one living or reproducing (in case you don't count viruses as "living") thing can change in grades over a period of time by
genetic drift, gene flow, mutation, natural selection and speciation. It doesn't really address efficient causality (in the "Aquinas sense" of the word), one way or the other.

It's people like you who try to prove the keystone of modern biology wrong with hare-brained statements like this one that give truly intellectual Christians a bad name.

Get a clue.

*I just saw your detail. The sad and scary thing is that I believed you really meant this. I go to a Christian university and I've had several people make this exact same arguement. Usually these are the same people who tell me I'm going to Hell for being an Anthropologist, even if I am a Christian.

Answer 4

The truth to them is so bitter. Isn't it amazing that such "educated" individuals have such gutter vocabulary when they are backed into a corner. Then they try the old "well 99% believe" this or that, so what, 99 % are stark raven fools. Just look at the American education systems standing in the past 40 years, 1st to low 30's. You know what terrifies an evolutionist? Critical thought. Once you teach these kids in school to think, instead of just accepting what a biology teacher tells them, they start throwing rocks at the idiots how try to shove this tripe down their throats. good post.

Answer 5

There is no debate about evolution being a proven scientific theory. There are only people who believe differently and allow their beliefs to stand in the way of the facts.

Edit:

Dr Dino should be in jail for the fabrications and intentional deceptive method that he used to presents his "evidence". About the only accurate thing on that site is his spelling.

Answer 6

Actually, how dense you are argues a strong case for your being evolved from rock, despite the fact that evolution does not assume so.

Answer 7

"Evolutionists believe in something called abiogenesis."
-- Not necessarily. Since your premise is flawed I don't need to read the rest.

Answer 8

Evolutionists believe creatures change over time-it states nothing about origination.

But if you had any knowledge in bio, you would know DNA is made of proteins. Get proteins in the right order, and you have DNA.

Its pretty simple if actually research the field instead of spending your time making fun of something you know absolutely nothing about.

Answer 9

perhaps if rocks and chemicals went out on a nice date

Answer 10

So this is what happens when one has a little - very little - knowledge about a subject.

By the way, have you ever heard of the Miller-Urey experiment? Look it up sometime for enlightenment.