Religion and Science are 1000% Opposite

[KevinM1]

I don’t understand why these people insist on smashing themselves in the face with this particular hammer. It’s not as though the Christian salvation myth stands or falls on a stubbornly mindless reading of Genesis.

Not being a fucking moron is always an option.

I think it's because they view god, the creator, as being at least as important as the salvation myth. It's not enough that Jesus lived, died, was magical, and gave people an out when it comes to eternal life, but that god is all-powerful, built the universe, and that anything regarding creation reinforces the potency of the salvation.

So, we get people going "Nah, man, it's totally plausible that the genetic diversity we enjoy today stemmed from a handful of animals per 'kind' that were trapped on a boat for a long time." Ignoring that, in reality, it takes thousands of animals to maintain a viable population, millions of years for the kind of evolutionary diversification we observe today to work, and, oh yeah, other logistical things like:

How would they separate predator and prey?
How would they account for waste?
How would they account for food (especially for predators, who need meat)?
How would they account for disease, not just among the animals, but animal-to-human transmission?
How would they account for the fact that many larger mammals are extremely territorial (see: bears, wolves, large cats, etc.)?

It's utterly ridiculous all around, and that's not even getting into the idea of a global flood, of which there's absolutely no residual evidence of. But because it comes from the bible, and reinforces the power (if not morality) of their god and chosen avatars of that power, they keep truckin' with it.

---

False, because that scientist said nothing of the sort.  Indeed, he gave a plausible account of how the first cells could've been formed, and how they could've evolved into what we see today.

Like I asked, did you even watch the video?  Because he very clearly said "Our cells, today, wouldn't allow for abiogenesis, but here's the thing: organisms aren't the only things that evolve.  Cells do, too.  And here's a way in which it could've happened."

Wait... Am I missing something?

I simply stated that scientists theorize that abiogenesis would be impossible based on how modern cells work.

Was that statement true or false?

False, because that scientist said nothing of the sort.

Because he very clearly said "Our cells, today, wouldn't allow for abiogenesis,

Isn't that exactly what I said? wouldn't "our cells today" be classified as modern cells?

You're making an unwarranted leap. There's no need for whatever was the first life created during abiogenesis to have a modern cell structure. Which is exactly what the video pointed out. That doesn't mean that abiogenesis would be impossible, but rather that cellular evolution would be necessary.

---

Seriously, I can't decide whether you're being willfully ignorant in your desperate attempt to prove one of us wrong, or if you have legitimate issues with reading comprehension. Nothing about our modern cell structure makes abiogenesis impossible. And the video you showed illustrated a very plausible mechanism, based on already observed behavior, for abiogenesis.