Scientific Debate: Why I assert that Darwin's theory of evolution is false

[Heywood]

[FatAndFaithless]

Bacteria evolves into bacteria, fish evolve into fish, primates evolve into primates, etc.

Uhhhh....you are aware that "Fish" isn't a species, right? Neither is "Primate" or "bacteria".

[Jackie]

Um I cant stand theists debating evolution it shows their scientific ignorance. Get over it. God did not do any of this, DNA did, just like lightening does not need Thor to cause it. Just like a hurricane does not need Poseidon to cause it.

Every religion in the world attacks science in hopes to fill in the gap with their own particular club and god. It does not work when anyone does it. There is no Jesus based evolution, no Allah based evolution, no Yahweh based evolution, no Hindu based evolution. There is just evolution.

[Heywood]

Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation, the idea that life spontaneously appears, but that's not what abiogenesis hypothesizes will happen. In abiogenesis, a series of chemical reactions, over time and in an environment very different to modern day earth, can give rise to simple life. We even have experimental results confirming this as possible; the Miller-Yurey experiments and John Oro's work demonstrates that in certain conditions the building blocks of life form naturally. It's not spontaneous or magic, it's simple chemical reactions in accordance with the laws of physics. Unfortunately for your argument, Pasteur has long been left behind.

Pasteur did not disprove spontaneous generation. Someone could always claim that spontaneous generation occurs/had occurred....we just haven't observed it yet......kinda like abiogenesis.

What Pasteur did was show that observations which were once thought to be spontaneous generation were actually observations of some other process.

Oh...and Miller-Yurey's demonstration of a way amino acids could form doesn't suggest abiogenesis actually happens any more than Hoyle's Triple alpha process for carbon formation.

[Cyberman]

Of course not, but it does show that a god isn't a requirement for it to happen.

[Heywood]

Of course not, but it does show that a god isn't a requirement for it to happen.

Negative.

For it to happen you have to have unchanging Laws of Nature. Laws of Nature are about something other than themselves. The law of conservation of momentum is about conserving momentum and not about conserving itself. In order for the Law of conservation of momentum to be conserved, something must exist which conserves it. That something could very well be God.

[FatAndFaithless]

Or it could very well not be.

[Cyberman]

I don't think the conservation of momentum means what you think it does, especially if you think it's relevant to the topic of abiogenesis. When herring is on the menu, we're pretty much done. Time to tip the waiter and call a taxi.

[Esquilax]

Pasteur did not disprove spontaneous generation. Someone could always claim that spontaneous generation occurs/had occurred....we just haven't observed it yet......kinda like abiogenesis.

Yes, yes, we've all heard your equivocation before. We get it, "some support is exactly the same as no support ever!" Just shut up about it.

Oh...and Miller-Yurey's demonstration of a way amino acids could form doesn't suggest abiogenesis actually happens any more than Hoyle's Triple alpha process for carbon formation.

Uh huh. And combustion engines have nothing to do with the construction of cars.

[Heywood]

Or it could very well not be.

I agree but remember Stimbo's claim was that Miller-Urey experiments show that amino acids could form without the aid of God. I showed that not to be necessarily true. In order for Stimbo to back his claim, Stimbo must show that the laws of nature are conserved without the aid of God. Stimbo hasn't done that and consequently his claim is in doubt.

---

Uh huh. And combustion engines have nothing to do with the construction of cars.

Some cars don't have combustion chambers. Some Lawnmowers do have them. What is your point?