Abiogenesis is impossible

[Minimalist]

You must answer how it came about.

Well, Darwin said it came about from a "creator."

To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual.

Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, Chapter 14

Ironic, isn't it. That seems to be the thing he got most wrong!

[TheBeardedDude]

You keep saying that "abiogenesis is impossible" but haven't shown how that us true. Given that life exists and came from non-life, it's clearly possible.

[Mister Agenda]

There is no proof that man evolved from some apelike creature at all.

What proof do you have of evolution changing one kind into another?

None.
It has never been observed.

Which is the mantra you would continue to repeat after being served a mountain of pictures and papers showing evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures and that the fossil record shows one 'kind' changing into another, no matter how you define kind. The transition from reptile to mammal is particularly well documented, down to each step of part of the reptilian jaw bone becoming mammalian ear bones. I know you're immune to evidence, my comments are for the edification of readers who may not accept biological evolution but are open to following the physical evidence, not yours. I'd rather you stay a creationist, frankly. You're much more useful to me that way.

So where does the theory of evolution start with, the present world?

Observable relationships between species and observation of speciation events. In the present, evolution can be observed happening, and evidence of it having happened is ubiquitous.

How can it claim that evolution explains all the different species if it cannot account fro the first cell.

Same way the theory of gravity can explain gravitation without being able to account for how gravitation came to be.

---

The Theory of Evolution starts with self-replication, variance, and selection.

It does not strictly include how replicators came about.

Why is that concept so difficult for you?

That is the great con.

You must answer how it came about.

You have no answer. Abiogenesis is impossible.

Argument from ignorance is a fallacy. That doesn't mean your conclusion is wrong, but it means that if your conclusion is right, it's only by coincidence, since your argument failed to support it.

Not knowing exactly how life began half-a-billion years ago doesn't mean abiogenesis is impossible. If it's impossible, it's for some other reason. All the other reasons you've given for it being impossible have simply been wrong. I suppose there's probably a term for the fallacy of getting your facts from creationist sources that just make them up.

---

How do you know? stop flatly asserting things. You are a real sad example of religious indoctrination

So you cannot say that there is no God.
That is flat out asserting things.
You cannot say that abiogenesis is not impossible.
That is flat out asserting things.

Well, since most of us don't say there is no God, that's not really a problem for us. Most of us don't believe in God, but we don't say God is impossible or definitely doesn't exist. We just say that what we have been shown isn't enough to convince us of the existence of God, and we try not to believe things we don't have a good reason to think are true (speaking generally, not every atheist disbelieves for the same reason, and a minority of atheists are very resolute about there being no God). Now, I'm sure a God that is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, has free will, bestows free will, created the universe and the Earth in six days then needed a day off to rest, created human beings out of simple dust rather than evolving them from microorganisms, flooded the world to the mountain tops, and sends people to hell for not believing Jesus was his son doesn't exist; because that God is a mess of internal contradictions and is in contradiction to all the evidence of what actually happened. The deist God doesn't have all those problems, so I merely don't believe in it. A pared-down Jewish or Christian God where most of the above is allegory is one I merely disbelieve in.

Maybe abiogenesis is impossible. I'm not asserting that it isn't. Somehow, the first organism showed up hundreds of millions of years ago. I can't prove it wasn't magic. So I'm not making the assertion you're saying we are, and I don't think anyone else is either. We're saying that believing it was magic is premature given that we have no convincing evidence for the existence of magic and we've never, ever, found the explanation for something we've found the explanation for to be supernatural. Claiming abiogenesi is impossible, on the other hand, is a flat-out assertion.

Maybe you could show a little humility by qualifying the absoluteness of your claims a bit. Saying you have proof means that you have an argument that is incontrovertible. Try just saying you have an argument that you think is convincing and see if we can controvert it before you call it a proof. We're more impressed by actual evidence and reason than declarations of having prooved something. The mark of real proof is that pretty much every one comes around to your way of thinking once they understand it.

For example, I've never encountered a creationist who didn't have serious misunderstandings about what the theory of evolution is and says. This leads me to think that evolution is proved, since everyone who can show they understand it, seems to accept it. I'm sure there must be someone, somewhere, who understands it well and doesn't accept it, but they're very rare, and 'pretty much every one' isn't '100% of everyone'. Some people still believe the earth is flat, that doesn't mean that it hasn't been proved to be an oblate spheroid.

[Doubting Thomas]

I suppose there's probably a term for the fallacy of getting your facts from creationist sources that just make them up.

I think it would be called "Argument from Hovind."

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

That is the great con.

You must answer how it came about.

You have no answer. Abiogenesis is impossible.

A con? Really? Let's say a god created the first simple organism then stepped back and let evolution take over. Would you accept that?

P.S. You stating that abiogenesis is impossible doesn't make it impossible. No matter how many times you say it.

If you are willing to acknowledge that God exists and that God created the first living thing, then we can discuss the rest.

[Ryantology]

If you are willing to acknowledge that God exists and that God created the first living thing, then we can discuss the rest.

Whoa there, Bubba. You haven't told us how your God came about. One step at a time.

[Esquilax]

If you are willing to acknowledge that God exists and that God created the first living thing, then we can discuss the rest.

If you are willing to provide evidence for your god, to prove that he exists, then I am willing to acknowledge it and we can go on from there.

[Ryantology]

If you are willing to acknowledge that God exists and that God created the first living thing, then we can discuss the rest.

If you are willing to provide evidence for your god, to prove that he exists, then I am willing to acknowledge it and we can go on from there.

And if he can't, by his own standards, the only conclusion he can draw is that he's wrong, his God is a lie, and abiogenesis is certain fact.

What's it like to have a brain that works like that, I wonder?

[Esquilax]

And if he can't, by his own standards, the only conclusion he can draw is that he's wrong, his God is a lie, and abiogenesis is certain fact.

That would be the corollary, yes, but for right now I'm basically entreating this guy to actually come forward and address me in actual conversation, rather than hit and run assertions. If we can pin him down, we might be able to jam some knowledge up there and make it stick.

I've put my best foot forward, Grace: will you do the same?

[Ryantology]

And if he can't, by his own standards, the only conclusion he can draw is that he's wrong, his God is a lie, and abiogenesis is certain fact.

That would be the corollary, yes, but for right now I'm basically entreating this guy to actually come forward and address me in actual conversation, rather than hit and run assertions. If we can pin him down, we might be able to jam some knowledge up there and make it stick.

I've put my best foot forward, Grace: will you do the same?

After dealing with dedicated meatheads like Drich, John V and Godschild, I have no hope but wish you luck anyway.