What would you consider to be evidence for God?

[Pat Mustard]

Can you hear yourself? "My book says ... so it must be true." Can you seriously not see a problem with such a statement?

No, it's possible Darwin could be right about some things and wrong about others. If he "had enough evidence" for whatever God, it has not been preserved for us to examine. A quote from him, in context or otherwise, is not evidence of anything but his state of mind.

We don't believe (some of) his ideas just because he said them. We believe them because they have passed scrutiny. And I should note that his models of evolution have been significantly improved upon in the mean time. Again, by scientific testing. Not by appeals to authority.

Well, just no other way to say this: Abiogenesis has been dealt a death blow. It turns out the DNA module is not stable as formerly thought but is in need of continuously repair and maintenance which is performed by the cell itself. This means that the DNA and the cell couldn’t have arisen independent of each other; the cell repairs the DNA, and the DNA preserves the cell’s genetics by copying the original (after repairs, if needed) via cell division.
“The reason our genetic material does not disintegrate into complete chemical chaos is that a host of molecular systems continuously monitor and repair DNA. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2015 awards three pioneering scientists who have mapped how several of these repair systems function at a detailed molecular level”.* C'est la vie evolution, you been found wanting.

*http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/c...press.html

Evolution is not solely about genetics. Ever hear about epigenetics, the study of evolutionary change which isn't based on DNA molecules? We've known for years that DNA is subject to radical mutation (one of the main vectors of genetic evolution, the other being reproductive recombination), and we've also known for years that there are defences against mutation in this way(some genetic, some non genetic). And we also know that some strands of DNA code for proteins in different shape, radically altering their purpose, depending on the stressors affecting a body.

Despite what your peabrain thinks, you are pointing to research which strengthens evolution, not destroys it.

[snowtracks]

Abiogenesis is not evolution...

How many times can we say it I wonder?

Read and weep.
Abiogenesis -
 1. The original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/def...biogenesis

The point is that the cell and DNA would both need to have independent simultaneous spontaneous generation from some hypothetical, unguided, mindless set of processes, but it's perfectly fine you believe that.

[Redbeard The Pink]

Abiogenesis is not evolution...

How many times can we say it I wonder?

Read and weep.
Abiogenesis -
 1. The original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/def...biogenesis

The point is that the cell and DNA would both need to have independent simultaneous spontaneous generation from some hypothetical, unguided, mindless set of processes, but it's perfectly fine you believe that.

OK, so Oxford chose unfortunate wording for their definition, you quote-mining little shit.


Abiogenesis, technically and honestly speaking, is the process by which life arises from non-living matter.That's all. Evolution, as in biology's Theory of Evolution, is the process by which living things change from generation to generation. Those are not the same process, and our levels of knowledge about them are not the same either. Regardless of how much or little we know about Abiogenesis, Evolution is a well-established fact. Deal with it.


Part of the definition of life is that it must include at least one "cell" (or at least that was still the definition they were teaching us when I was learning this stuff). The cellular level is the dividing line between life and non-life, but that doesn't mean that it's the simplest level at which organic chemistry or even biochemistry occurs. Viruses, for instance, can display various types of cellular motility, and they are able to house and use RNA to hijack DNA and harvest the material needed to replicate themselves. Viruses have several of the parts and characteristics of cells, but they're not complete cells and cannot replicate by cell division, so they're not technically considered "alive" by scientists using the strictest definition of the word. Still, they are an example of something that is simpler than a cell that can still move and thrive by some of the same materials and mechanisms, so it stands to reason that complete cells may have arisen from genetic and biochemical agents simpler than themselves (like something similar to a virus, for instance).


Regardless, though, your only real goal here is to get someone to admit that we don't know that much about Abiogenesis, at which point you will assert (without evidence) that the supernatural intervention of your personal deity is required for it to occur, and if pressed for evidence you will insist upon somebody proving you wrong, which is an argument from ignorance and a misplaced burden of proof, respectively.


Either that or you're trying to claim that it is a logical absurdity that a complete cell with DNA in it could have formed over time out of things simpler than itself, but that isn't true for reasons I just explained.

[Blueyedlion]

Abiogenesis, technically and honestly speaking, is the process by which life arises from non-living matter.

Actually, there's no such thing as 'non-living' matter. Everything is alive. So Abiogenesis is just a miss labeling of what the the human experience is able to identify as life, when in reality, the process of Abiogenesis is really to identify when life begins to appear more active then when it is in it's, perhaps, 'dormant state' or 'un-reproductive state.'

There's science to back this up, but i dont have the time to look it up again right now. If you request it, ill spend the time searching for it for you.

[ignoramus]

You might be right there.

I was wondering why my salt and pepper shakers started walking around the table on their own?
Good to know....



Forever chasing god genes and god particles I see.
With all the time invested, you could've actually learnt quite a bit of science.

[Pat Mustard]

Abiogenesis is not evolution...

How many times can we say it I wonder?

Read and weep.
Abiogenesis -
 1. The original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/def...biogenesis

The point is that the cell and DNA would both need to have independent simultaneous spontaneous generation from some hypothetical, unguided, mindless set of processes, but it's perfectly fine you believe that.

Care to address any of the points I made, rather than quote mining from dictionaries? Generally in a discussion, when somebody counters your ideas, you either show their counterpoints as invalid or accept your being wrong. As it stands all you're doing is a slow motuon Gish gallop.

[Jackalope]

Define the properties this "god" supposedly clearly and without misunderstanding and I could perhaps answer that question. I wouldn't be interested in doing so until that's been done. There's also the possibility that no evidence would be sufficient if said god is claimed to be sufficiently outside of experience. Furthermore, if the god isn't falsifiable at least in principle, it would be a pointless exercise I think.

Without those parameters, you may as well ask what would be evidence for a gorble fiznit

[Redbeard The Pink]

Abiogenesis, technically and honestly speaking, is the process by which life arises from non-living matter.

Actually, there's no such thing as 'non-living' matter. Everything is alive. So Abiogenesis is just a miss labeling of what the the human experience is able to identify as life, when in reality, the process of Abiogenesis is really to identify when life begins to appear more active then when it is in it's, perhaps, 'dormant state' or 'un-reproductive state.'

There's science to back this up, but i dont have the time to look it up again right now. If you request it, ill spend the time searching for it for you.

Ummm...OK...yeah, I'm gonna need to see that science, bro. "Life," as defined by science, begins at the cellular level (though there is and has been some debate as to whether the definition should be expanded to include incomplete cells, such as viruses), and it always involves nucleic acids, proteins, and carbohydrates. If the scientific consensus is that life is now defined to include all matter in the Universe, even matter that is not organic and/or not engaged in biochemistry of some sort, then that would have been a MAJOR paradigm shift as to how life is understood and defined, and I would like to see some evidence that this shift has actually happened.

[madog]

  then that would have been a MAJOR paradigm shift as to how life is understood and defined, and I would like to see some evidence that this shift has actually happened.

Its in the bible, they just haven't got around to interpreting or adding something yet LOL

[robvalue]

Some people just won't be educated.