Seun:
Yep. The first 'living' creature is believed to be a simple self-replicating molecule, which slowly evolved into the first primitive bacteria.

All scientific research indicates that life cannot spring from non living matter- Fact!

Seun:
Yep. The first 'living' creature is believed to be a simple self-replicating molecule, which slowly evolved into the first primitive bacteria.

Is it not better to live as pure and holy as possible then at the end find out that there is no God than to live unrighteous and unholy and at the end find there is a God!??....You do not stand to lose anything if you find out there is no God but it will be a great disappointment to find out there is a God that will judge..... I don't like involving myself in religious argument because am not in position to speak for God. Please, please and please seek God while He is near to avoid regrets. God bless you and everyone

tempem:

And you formed evolution? where's the root? From your own source?

An education?

I got a proper biology education and came to a thorough understanding of the concept by studying with a genuine desire to comprehend it. That's quite different than copying and pasting other people's flawed and poorly researched arguments from biased creationist websites, in attempts to refute a concept I don't even understand the basics of.

Jerrypolo:
Is it not better to live as pure and holy as possible then at the end find out that there is no God than to live unrighteous and unholy and at the end find there is a God!??....You do not stand to lose anything if you find out there is no God but it will be a great disappointment to find out there is a God that will judge..... I don't like involving myself in religious argument because am not in position to speak for God. Please, please and please seek God while He is near to avoid regrets. God bless you and everyone

1. Classic Pascal's Wager. What makes this a fallacy is that there isn't just one "God" option, but thousands. The Christian God is relatively new on the religion scene. Before and after Yahweh, there were thousands of gods created and worshiped throughout hundreds of cultures across the globe. So if being "wrong" gets you sent to eternal torture, then Christians are nearly as likely to go to hell as atheists are -- that is, if any of the thousands of gods are real. Which is highly unlikely given the evidence.

2. If "righteousness" and "holiness" means simply being a kind and compassionate person, then according to Christianity that isn't enough. You have to believe that Jesus is the son of God and that Yahweh is the one true god, in order to get to Christian heaven. Simply being good doesn't cut it. It's simply a matter of who decides to believe, at the expense of all other far more likely possibilities, that Christianity is true.

Seun:
Yep. The first 'living' creature is believed to be a simple self-replicating molecule, which slowly evolved into the first primitive bacteria.

believed to be what? so you are not too sure

please my advice for you is to get a copy of ben carson book...take the risk...just go straight to chapter 10..after doing that...I would love to know if evolution still make sense you.

cloudgoddess:

1. Classic Pascal's Wager. What makes this a fallacy is that there isn't just one "God" option, but thousands. The Christian God is relatively new on the religion scene. Before and after Yahweh, there were thousands of gods created and worshiped throughout hundreds of cultures across the globe. So if being "wrong" gets you sent to eternal torture, then Christians are nearly as likely to go to hell as atheists are -- that is, if any of the thousands of gods are real. Which is highly unlikely given the evidence.

2. If "righteousness" and "holiness" means simply being a kind and compassionate person, then according to Christianity that isn't enough. You have to believe that Jesus is the son of God and that Yahweh is the one true god, in order to get to Christian heaven. Simply being good doesn't cut it. It's simply a matter of who decides to believe, at the expense of all other far more likely possibilities, that Christianity is true.

Even if what u r saying is true.
Still doesnt change the fact that the probability of eternity for the aethist is ZERO. In other words, the grave is the best endpoint, if not worse.
While that for the person who believes in God isnt ZERO.
That sums it.

Seun:
Yep. The first 'living' creature is believed to be a simple self-replicating molecule, which slowly evolved into the first primitive bacteria.

Is believed!! lol. a molecule cant exist on its own na.
haba, but na d molecule finally evolve to plants?

OP, as regards your topic, why exactly are you calling out atheists and not evolutionist if you needed some clearance on evolution?

Seun:
Yep. The first 'living' creature is believed to be a simple self-replicating molecule, which slowly evolved into the first primitive bacteria.

"Believed"?
You are not even sure. You have no single proof of the evolution. You are merely forcing yourself not to believe in the existence of the almighty God. The giver of life

Seun:
Yep. The first 'living' creature is believed to be a simple self-replicating molecule, which slowly evolved into the first primitive bacteria.

Seun:
Yep. The first 'living' creature is believed to be a simple self-replicating molecule, which slowly evolved into the first primitive bacteria.

Whenever you try to deny God, this is the resultant.

Wisdom upside-down!

tempem:

You feeling it?

yea kinda...though half of wat dey're saying is uncomprehending to me

naijadeyhia:


Second rebuttal.


According to the most-widely accepted theory of evolution today, the sole mechanism for producing evolution is that of random mutation combined with natural selection. Mutations are random changes in genetic systems. Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, which retains the "good" mutations and allows the others to pass away.

Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. Nevertheless, the evolutionist insists that each complex organism in the world today has arisen by a long string of gradually accumulated good mutations preserved by natural selection. No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process. For some reason, however, the idea has a certain persuasive quality about it and seems eminently reasonable to many people—until it is examined quantitatively, that is!

For example, consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense.

Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.

But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."

The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021.

All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible!

*drops mic again and walks away*

Completely false. There are experiments that show that it is wrong to call most genetic mutations negative. The Lenski experiment had shown us that organisms can undergo successive beneficial mutations to give rise to new traits. Look it up.

naijadeyhia:



Let me start from here.

The dominant life form was the now-extinct sea creature known as a trilobite, up to a foot long, with a distinctive head and tail, a body made up of several parts, and a complex respiratory system. But although there are many places on earth where 5,000 feet of sedimentary rock stretch unbroken and uniformly beneath the Cambrian layer not a single indisputable multi-celled fossil has been found there. It is ‘the enigma of paleontological enigmas,’ . Darwin himself said he could give ‘no satisfactory answer’ to why no fossils had been discovered. Today’s scientists are none the wiser”

Question: If, after almost two centuries of digging beneath all the world’s continents, no previous ancestor of this first hard-bodied creature has been found, how then did the ubiquitous trilobite evolve? There should be some previous ancestor if evolution were true.

It’s like finding an exquisite watch on the seashore and yet never finding any previous primitive models of the watch on earth. If you reasoned as an evolutionist, you would deny there was a need for a watchmaker at all, maintaining that time, water, sand, minerals and actions of the elements are sufficient to producing a fully functional watch that runs.

The simple reason you don't find many soft-bodied multicellular organisms is because non-calcified animal remains do not readily fossilize. Organisms with hard exo- or endoskeletons ate far more likely to fossilize.

CoolUsername:


The simple reason you don't find many soft-bodied multicellular organisms is because non-calcified animal remains do not readily fossilize. Organisms with hard exo- or endoskeletons ate far more likely to fossilize.

So if the trilobite had a hard exo or endoskeleton what did its ancestor have ? Surely for it to have an endo skeleton somewhere in its ancestral line there must have been one with an endoskeleton as well as that endoskeleton did not suddenly appear. If it did suddenly appear then I can also demand to see a turtlebird appear too.

cloudgoddess:

The sequence of events you're presenting here is incorrect, and the bolded statements are false.

The earliest life forms didn't need oxygen or ozone to arise. They were anaerobic, like many archaebacteria, bacteria, and even some eukaryotic single-celled organisms (like yeast) still are today. And since they lived in the ocean, UV protection was not required.

Cyanobacteria were one of these early life forms, and they slowly generated the oxygen in the atmosphere via photosynthesis (a process which requires only CO2 and water). Protective mechanisms to avoid oxidation began to evolve in these microbes as the atmosphere's oxygen content increased, and the microbial species that lacked said mechanisms died out (natural selection in action).

The ozone layer that formed after sufficient oxygen had been added to the atmosphere made it possible for land life to evolve. Prior to that all life was in the ocean.

EDIT:
After writing out my response I realized you copied and pasted your entire argument from the Institute of Creation Research http://www.icr.org/article/few-reasons-evolutionary-origin-life-impossible/
Really?

Again I will respond to you in simple terms because you do not even understand what you typed. Its unfortunate I wasnt here when you conveniently did a guerrilla response.

The earliest life forms didn't need oxygen or ozone to arise. They were anaerobic, like many archaebacteria, bacteria, and even some eukaryotic single-celled organisms (like yeast) still are today. And since they lived in the ocean, UV protection was not required.

Your statement above supports the big bang theory. So if the early life forms lived in oceans, where did this oceanic body come from? Also what was the origin of this anaerobic organisms?

Cyanobacteria were one of these early life forms, and they slowly generated the oxygen in the atmosphere via photosynthesis (a process which requires only CO2 and water). Protective mechanisms to avoid oxidation began to evolve in these microbes as the atmosphere's oxygen content increased, and the microbial species that lacked said mechanisms died out (natural selection in action).


This your post above shows you havd zero knowledge of microbiology and rely only on lecture room and text book teaching. Let me help your ignorance.

As with all life, water is central to the life cycle of cyanobacteria. Because they are small in size and so simple that they cannot work cooperatively, each living cell needs to have access to a continuous supply. [/b]At the same time, they make food by photosynthesis, using chlorophyll. That is, as with complex, advanced plants, [b]they absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and use the energy from the sun to build it into complex energy-containing sugars, while releasing oxygen. To carry out this process, each cell needs to be bathed in bright sunlight. To satisfy these two critical requirements - access to water and sunlight - the cyanobacteria grow at the shore of the ocean or the edges of ponds or pools of water. Single cells would be easily dislodged from this location and would float to regions where they could not survive, so the bacteria live in sheet-like films (thin enough so each cell has access both to water and sunlight) that are held together by a slime that they secrete. The stringlike ones can glide toward light at a speed of a few millimeters per hour, and become tangled in their competition to get positioned to receive sunlight. Thus, they develop into a felt-like structure that makes a particularly robust living mat. [b]Another complication for stromatolites on the early Earth is that the gases in the atmosphere did not absorb ultraviolet photons from the sun well. Although stromatolites are somewhat UV-resistant, it is likely that they tended to grow just under the surface of the water to gain some additional protection. For colonies exposed to direct sunlight, a top level of bacteria killed by the UV light may have served to protect lower-lying layers.
The cyanobacteria form a veneer over a complex, layered colony. Underneath them is another layer of photosynthetic bacteria that absorb sunlight at wavelengths where the cyanobacteria are transparent. [/b]These bacteria are poisoned by oxygen, so they are termed "anaerobic"; the mat of cyanobacteria acts as a protective shield. Additional underlying layers, which can be millimeters or centimeters deep, contain other forms of anaerobic bacteria. Because they do not receive sunlight and do not conduct photosynthesis, these bacteria feed on dead photosynthetic bacteria that have been left behind by the gliding of the live ones toward the sun.
This structure by itself would be a stable colony. However, from time to time some external event - say a rainstorm - causes the top layer of the mat to be buried in a layer of mud. The cyanobacteria then stop secreting slime and, freed from the mat, glide upward toward the faint light filtering through until they are once again in the sun. The underlying anaerobic bacteria follow along, since their survival depends on the colony structure. In this way, a new layer grows on top of the silt, and after many repetitions the process yields a multi-layered structure that can grow to a foot or more in height. As the old, underlying layers dry out and are compressed, the silt in them solidifies into rock.


What I just showed you is extremely simple so anyone can understand it.

Anaerobic bacteria havd no mutative link with cyanobacteria as both serve totally different functions so if anaerobic bacteria has been proven to be unable to transform to cyanobacteria via science how then can you say cyanobacteria which is a phylum of bacteria came from aenerobic bacteria?

If the ocean body was composed of co2 the essence of this thread is to trace the essence or source of the first life on earth? You and I know that bacteria though a one celled organism is alive so if it is the living first organism that you claim evolved to be a cyanobacteria (which is totally false) how did a living thing exist on its own?

Cc seun

CoolUsername:


Completely false. There are experiments that show that it is wrong to call most genetic mutations negative. The Lenski experiment had shown us that organisms can undergo successive beneficial mutations to give rise to new traits. Look it up.

So the new traits are called evolution?

Seun:
Yep. The first 'living' creature is believed to be a simple self-replicating molecule, which slowly evolved into the first primitive bacteria.

You and cloudgoddess are at opposite ends. She says life began from a bacteria while you say life began before bacteria as that molecule evolved to become bacteria.

Let me help you seun. Bacteria is a living organism so if it presumably came from a molecule how did it come alive when molecules are not alive?

Cc cloudgoddess

The Great Oxygenation Event (GOE), also called the Oxygen Catastrophe, Oxygen Crisis, Oxygen Holocaust, Oxygen Revolution, or Great Oxidation, was the biologically induced appearance of dioxygen (O2) in Earth's atmosphere.[2] Although geological, isotopic, and chemical evidence suggest that this major environmental change happened around 2.3 billion years ago (2.3 Ga),[3] the actual causes and the exact date of the event are very contested amongst the scientific community.[4] It has been argued that current geochemical and biomarker evidence for the development of oxygenic photosynthesis before the Great Oxidation Event has been mostly inconclusive.[5]


Cloudgoddess that post up there is from Wikipedia. If science is caling your theory of the GOE INCONCLUSIVE, What experiment did you carry out to arrive at your CONCLUSIVE theory on evolution?

Please share with everybody here so we can learn. Maybe you know something greater minds than you do not. Or perhaps you just hit a breakthrough in science. Or perhaps like I said, all you have is text book or lecture hall knowledge.

Which one is it? Share with all and sundry and evolve our primitive minds.

Cc seun

CoolUsername:


Completely false. There are experiments that show that it is wrong to call most genetic mutations negative. The Lenski experiment had shown us that organisms can undergo successive beneficial mutations to give rise to new traits. Look it up.

Did you read where I said in my statement that no scientist has observed a mutation occur in its natural environment and not lenskis conveniently prepared lab experiment. Was lenskis carried out using naturally occuring elements in the environment? CAPITAL NO. Prove to me that he did and I will shut up.


Richard Lenski incorrectly included generations of the E. coli already known to contain Cit+ variants in his experiments. Once these generations are removed from the analysis, the data disprove Lenski's hypothesis

It was error to include generations of the E. coli already known to contain trace Cit+ variants. The highly improbable occurrence of four Cit+ variants from the 32,000th generation in the Second Experiment suggests an origin from undetected, pre-existing Cit+ variants.

The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two experiments based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance. Lenski's paper applied the Whitlock Z-transformation incorrectly, perhaps intentionally so, in making a claim that Lenski's results were "extremely significant". Lenski's "whether or not" refers to two incorrect applications of the Whitlock technique, obscuring how the straightforward, correct weighting based on sample size was not used. Lenski paper deliberately conceals the misapplication.

Lenski's paper claims that "During 30,000 generations, each population experienced billions of mutations, far more than the number of possible point mutations in the approximately 4.6-million-bp genome. This ratio implies, to a first approximation, that each population tried every typical one-step mutation many times." Lenski's conclusion is nonsensical because it assumes that the mutations are completely random and that each mutation has a roughly equal probability.


Again I ask you to show me the natural environment behind lenskis experiment. His experiment has been disapproved many times by science and statistics same way I just showed you in this post.

You know why I love science but hate scientists? Science gives you as it is but put a scientist in the mix and what you get are convenient lies to boost their reputation. Perhaps you need to research on lenski yourself

Cc seun, cloudgoddess

Lemme call on a witness the mighty monicker, the defender of of the atheist "otemanudonno"

cloudgoddess:



EDIT:
After writing out my response I realized you copied and pasted your entire argument from the Institute of Creation Research http://www.icr.org/article/few-reasons-evolutionary-origin-life-impossible/
Really?

@Naijadeyhia, what's your response to this?

Freiburger:

@Naijadeyhia, what's your response to this?

What you should be asking her since she is a microbiologist is if that submission is wrong. I am a scientist myself and for purpose of speed had to quickly drop that as it is 100% correct and I deliberately wanted her to refute that. Not with an assumption but with actual real fact becaue I posted detailed scientifically understandable fact which she can try to deny.

felixomor:


Even if what u r saying is true.
Still doesnt change the fact that the probability of eternity for the aethist is ZERO. In other words, the grave is the best endpoint, if not worse.
While that for the person who believes in God isnt ZERO.
That sums it.

Interesting.

But you must remember that believing in something doesn't make it true. No matter how emotionally & psychologically attached someone is to their God concept, at the end of the day, if he/it isn't real (which is extremely likely for several reasons), all they're doing is wasting their limited time on earth praying to a nonexistent entity. I'd rather live my life to the fullest than waste it tied to false hopes.

Do you truly think spending a large fraction of your time dedicated to beliefs that are only .001% likely to be true, is a valuable use of your time? Do you think a loving God, if he actually existed, would allow people to believe in so many false gods without giving clear, irrefutable evidence showing which one is true? Would he/it purposely allow such confusion?

Everyone, no matter what beliefs they hold on their brains, will lose all cognitive function upon death. What you guys are claiming is that after your brain (responsible for all of your senses and self-identity) shuts down, you will somehow still be conscious. That is what atheists are extremely unconvinced of. There is simply no evidence to suggest that consciousness can live on without a functioning brain. Even living people can lose their consciousness, senses, & personality by suffering brain damage.

Seun:
The first picture shows what a pitbull terrier used to look like. The second picture shows what a pitbull terrier looks like now. That's evolution.

U tink it is not crossbreed??

tempem:

All scientific research indicates that life cannot spring from non living matter- Fact!

What is your definition of life?

naijadeyhia:



What you should be asking her since she is a microbiologist is if that submission is wrong. I am a scientist myself and for purpose of speed had to quickly drop that as it is 100% correct and I deliberately wanted her to refute that. Not with an assumption but with actual real fact becaue I posted detailed scientifically understandable fact which she can try to deny.

You do not even understand the word science before you can call yourself scientist. Because you can copy and paste from christian apologetic sites like answergenesis and ICR does not make you a scientist.

No science oriented person would waste his or her time in engaging you in fruitless argument, I am surprised cloudgoddess and Oga Seun are wasting their time trying to educate you. You can believe what you want to believe, those who want to learn will learn.

wirinet:


You do not even understand the word science before you can call yourself scientist. Because you can copy and paste from christian apologetic sites like answergenesis and ICR does not make you a scientist.

No science oriented person would waste his or her time in engaging you in fruitless argument, I am surprised cloudgoddess and Oga Seun are wasting their time trying to educate you. You can believe what you want to believe, those who want to learn will learn.

I will not succumb to your attempt to beguile me or make me retort out of spite. If you have an answer or proof to my question in order to help clear the air do so and stop throwing an unsolicited tantrum.

wirinet:


What is your definition of life?

If you want to teach him why not just tell him your definition of life and not wait for his answer so you use it against him and claim he knows nothing when you have not said anything.

@cloudgoddess,

Wow!!! You beat me to it!!! I knew he was copying and pasting from one of those creationist websites!!! This is why he has been trying so hard to avoid pasting his links as to where he is getting all his erroneous information!!!


P.S.: Definition of a creationist website=It is not possible for a rat and a mouse to share a common ancestor, SOMEONE MUST HAVE CROSSBRED THEM!!!

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

Niflheim:
@cloudgoddess,

Wow!!! You beat me to it!!! I knew he was copying and pasting from one of those creationist websites!!! This is why he has been trying so hard to avoid pasting his links as to where he is getting all his erroneous information!!!


P.S.: Definition of a creationist website=It is not possible for a rat and a mouse to share a common ancestor, SOMEONE MUST HAVE CROSSBRED THEM!!!

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

I guess cloudgoddess is supposed to be the goliath you guys have. Well have you gotten any proof yet or are you here to vent as usual.

Niflheim:
@cloudgoddess,

Wow!!! You beat me to it!!! I knew he was copying and pasting from one of those creationist websites!!! This is why he has been trying so hard to avoid pasting his links as to where he is getting all his erroneous information!!!


P.S.: Definition of a creationist website=It is not possible for a rat and a mouse to share a common ancestor, SOMEONE MUST HAVE CROSSBRED THEM!!!

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

I guess cloudgoddess is supposed to be the goliath you guys have. Well have you gotten any proof yet or are you here to vent as usual.

Meanwhile all cloudgoddess posited have bedn debunked. Did she provide any proof or she just stated assumptions same way everyone else did.