Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.

[stu]

Quote from Ricter:

For a one paragraph debunking it's done quite well.

Not sure jem's and a few others' denials supported by false and illogical assertion can be classed as debunking.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

"We" have been informed of that in this thread. Your persistent dumb refusal to acknowledge it, does not mean it isn't there..

we have been informed you were lying your ass off when you made such an ignorant statement. And, we proved it numerous times.

 

[jem]

Just look at the trolls words to ricter and now look at true science.

Stu, claimed there was plenty of science showing life evolving from non life.

yet, the chorus of science says this.

Quote from jem:

This is a summary of the science in a paper from MIT... you can see Stu's conclusions are the delusional rants of an et atheist who can not accept science conflicts with his desire for evolution by random chance.


http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf

We now know that the probability of life arising by chance is far too low to
be plausible, hence there must be some deeper explanation that we are yet to
discover, given which the origin of life is atleastreasonably likely. Perhaps we
have little idea yet what form this explanation will take—although of course it
will not appeal to the work of a rational agent; this is would be a desperate
last resort, if an option at all—but we have every reason to look for such an
explanation, for we have every reason to think there is one.
In a detailed survey of the field, Iris Fry (1995, 2000) argues that although
the disagreements among origin of life theorists run very deep, relating to the
most basic features of the models they propose, the view sketched above is a
fundamental unifying assumption (one which Fry strongly endorses). Some
researchers in the field are even more optimistic of course. They believe that
they have already found the explanation, or at least have a good head start
on it. But their commitment to the thesis above is epistemically more basic,
in the sense that it motivated their research in the first place and even if their
theories were shown to be false, they would retain this basic assumption.
3
There is a very small group of detractors, whom Fry (1995) calls the “Almosta Miracle Camp” including Francis Crick (1981), ErnstMayr (1982),
and Jaques Monod (1974), who appear to be content with the idea that life
arose by chance even if the probability of this happening is extremely low.
4
According to Crick “the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a
miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to been satisfied
to get it going” (1981: 88); the emergence of life was nevertheless a “happy
accident” (p. 14).
5
According to Mayr, “a full realization of the near impossibility of an origin of life brings home the point of how improbable this
event was.” (1982: 45). Monod famously claimed that although the probability of life arising by chance was “virtually zero. . .our number came up in the
Monte Carlo game” (1974: 137). Life, as Monod puts it, is “chance caught
on a wing” (p. 78). That is, although natural selection took over early to produce the diversity of life, its origin was nothing but an incredibly improbable
fluke.Does Origins of Life Research Rest on a Mistake? 459
However, the vast majority of experts in the field clearly define their work
in opposition to this view. The more common attitude is summed up neatly
by J. D. Bernal.
[T]he question, could life have originated by a chance occurrence of atoms,
clearly leads to a negative answer. This answer, combined with the knowledge
that life is actually here, leads to the conclusion that some sequences other than
chance occurrences must have led to the appearances of life. (quoted in Fry 2000:
153)
Having calculated the staggering improbability of life’s emergence by chance,
Manfred Eigen (1992) concludes,
The genes found today cannot have arisen randomly, as it were by the throw of
a dice. There must exist a process of optimization that works toward functional
efficiency. Even if there are several routes to optimal efficiency, mere trial and
error cannotbe one of them. (p. 11)
It is from this conclusion that Eigen motivates his search for a physical principle that does not leave the emergence of life up to blind chance, hence
making itreproducible in principle:
The physical principle that we are looking for should be in a position to explain
the complexity typical of the phenomena of life at the level of molecular structures and syntheses. It should show how such complex molecular arrangements
are able to form reproducibly in Nature. (p. 11)
According to Christian de Duve (1991),
. . .unless one adopts a creationist view,. . .life arose through the succession of an
enormous number of small steps, almost each of which, given the condition at
the time had a very high probability of happening. . .the alternative amounts to
a miracle. . .were [the emergence of life] not an obligatory manifestation of the
combinatorial properties of matter, it could not possibly have arisen naturally.
(p. 217)
Not all theorists follow De Duve so far as suggesting that life’s emergence
mustbe inevitable. While nota specialistin the area, Richard Dawkins (1987)
captures the attitude that appears to dominate scientific research into life’s
origin. According to Dawkins,
All who have given thought to the matter agree that an apparatus as complex as
the human eye could not possibly come into existence through [a single chance
event]. Unfortunately the same seems to be true of at least parts of the apparatus
of cellular machinery whereby DNA replicates itself (p. 140)460 NOUS ˆ
In considering how the first self-replicating machinery arose, Dawkins asks
“Whatis the largestsingle eventof sheer naked coincidence, sheer unadulterated miraculous luck, that we are allowed to get away with in our theories,
and still say that we have a satisfactory explanation of life?” (p. 141) And
he answers that there are strict limits on the “ration of luck” that we are
allowed to postulate in our theories.
6
According to Dawkins, an examination
of the immense complexity of the most basic mechanisms required for DNA
replication is sufficient to see that any theory which makes its existence a
highly improbable fluke is unbelievable, quite apart from what alternative
explanations are on the table


http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

we have been informed you were lying your ass off when you made such an ignorant statement. And, we proved it numerous times.

So which one of your twin identities is referring to the other as "we" now?

There's nothing arrogant in the statement I made particularly when considering how science has already proved the point I was making .
Not the same as the statement you said I made, which was not only arrogant but downright dishonest of you.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

Just look at the trolls words to ricter and now look at true science.

Stu, claimed there was plenty of science showing life evolving from non life.

yet, the chorus of science says this.





Quote from jem:

This is a summary of the science in a paper from MIT... you can see Stu's conclusions are the delusional rants of an et atheist who can not accept science conflicts with his desire for evolution by random chance.


http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf

We now know that the probability of life arising by chance is far too low to
be plausible, hence there must be some deeper explanation that we are yet to
discover, given which the origin of life is atleastreasonably likely. Perhaps we.................[]

It’s been pointed out on numerous occasions there is no science in there, let alone a 'chorus of science' . It is philosophy written by a philosopher.
The science in abiogenesis IS science however, and that shows how those ubiquitous (oops… new word there.. watch out) elements of all life can and do come from inorganic material.

Just for your information. Science is what’s known, philosophy what isn’t.
Hope that helps. But by the way you keep repeating yourself even in the face of all contrary evidence, I think you’re probably past help.

 

[jem]

exactly, science states that is unknown how or if life evolved from non life.
This is scientific fact... yet stu pretends it is philosophy.

Stu is the picture of the emotional atheist refusing to bend his it must be random chance world view. You can give him quotes from the top nobel prize winners stating there is no proof nor complete pathway from non life to life... yet he will lie about it the next page.


----
note to einstein... amino acids are not living organisms.

from mirriam websters...
Definition of ABIOGENESIS

: the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter

it did not say inorganic to organic or amino acids... the dictionary said living organisms to lifeless matter.

--

You can lead an et atheist to science but you can not make him think.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from jem:

You can lead an et atheist to science but you can not make him think.

LOL

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
exactly, science states that is unknown how or if life evolved from non life.
This is scientific fact... yet stu pretends it is philosophy

Exactly not.
Science states and proves how the essential components of all life can and do start from 'non life'.

Quote from jem:
Stu is the picture of the emotional atheist refusing to bend his it must be random chance world view. You can give him quotes from the top nobel prize winners stating there is no proof nor complete pathway from non life to life... yet he will lie about it the next page.

Well certainly I’m not going to bend to the false assertions and accusations, and the word and meaning changes you employ to develop your silly red herring arguments

Quote from jem:
from mirriam websters...
Definition of ABIOGENESIS

: the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter

it did not say inorganic to organic or amino acids... the dictionary said living organisms to lifeless matter.

--

... the dictionary said living organisms to lifeless matter. .

Did it? Living to lifeless? That’s the theist just simply not thinking as usual is it ?
Perhaps that’s why you can’t understand what is actually being said.

What does become all forms of life, can and has been proved to originate completely naturally from inorganic matter.
The dumb approach of yours is essentially equal to suggesting inorganic material can only let life get a little bit pregnant.

How it synthesizes once formed is the question, not a scientific refutation of abiogenesis, no matter how much you may wish it to be.

That's it , isn't it? You read completely different words to those written.
You're suffering religyslexia

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from stu:

Science states and proves how the essential components of all life can and do start from 'non life'.

Components of life are the same as life itself?

A dead body has all the "components of life".

 

[jem]

as I stated before...

amino acids are not living organisms.

from mirriam websters...
Definition of ABIOGENESIS

: the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter

can you read... Stu.. why can't you think... is it too emotional for you? too hard to admit there is no proof of random evolution from non life to life...

It says "supposed"... in the dictionary. there is no proof. You are guessing that non life just evolved into life by random chance. It could have come here from outer space... the evolution could have been directed, a minor still think it could have been random chance...

but... no credible scientists pretends what you pretend.

Once again it is Stu's delusional atheism against science and dictionaries.