alexis:
MacCantStopMe



Really! "Single Life" theory is scientific? - . Cha - your parents wasted their money

Which one is this single life theory?

It is called the theory of evolution.........





Go and read

MacCantStopMe

Which one is this single life theory?

I asked how did life begin; how can humans, animals trace their origin; you came up with the "first life" statement

It is called the theory of evolution

Exactly what it is - A THEORY. When you get the chance, read up the definition of a theory. There is a BIG difference between a scientific theory and a theory? Not only that; the evolution theory doesn't follow any known scientific laws. That is why it amazes me when folks talk about evolution theory as if it's a proven scientific law or fact.

When rubbish is repeated often especially by so called "intellectuals"; the ignorant and gullible followers, drop their brains, drop their reasoning and go along with the "experts" advice.

So, I will ask you one more time - can you prove scientifically using your theory of evolution how life began without requiring faith or belief.

alexis:
MacCantStopMe



I asked how did life begin; how can humans, animals trace their origin; you came up with the "first life" statement



Exactly what it is - A THEORY. When you get the chance, read up the definition of a theory. There is a BIG difference between a scientific theory and a theory? Not only that; the evolution theory doesn't follow any known scientific laws. That is why it amazes me when folks talk about evolution theory as if it's a proven scientific law or fact.

When rubbish is repeated often especially by so called "intellectuals"; the ignorant and gullible followers, drop their brains, drop their reasoning and go along with the "experts" advice.

So, I will ask you one more time - can you prove scientifically using your theory of evolution how life began without requiring faith or belief.

Let me help you with some facts that you have just opposed in your comments


1) Evolution starts after the first life (or lives). It has nothing to do with the origin of the first living organism. Evolution is a process of life and not the other way round. Life first, then evolution.


2) No one knows how the first life or living organisms came about


3) Evolution is a scientific theory!!!! It is one of the most challenged scientific theories which has stood its ground.


4) Go and read.

MacCantStopMe

1) Evolution starts after the first life (or lives). It has nothing to do with the origin of the first living organism. Evolution is a process of life and not the other way round. Life first, then evolution.

Can you please explain how the first life came about i.e. what was it's origin? Whilst you are working on your "first life" theory - please try and align it with the laws of bio-genesis

2) No one knows how the first life or living organisms came about

Of course you don't that is why it's a theory. More importantly, you believe it yet can't use any scientific method to prove it; do you know what that is called? BLIND FAITH. There is no known scientific laws that can support this argument - all the more shocking that you will claim it's scientific.

3) Evolution is a scientific theory!!!! It is one of the most challenged scientific theories which has stood its ground.

If one is patient with you evolutionist; you will always shoot yourself in the foot. You just claimed that no one knows the origin of first life which is an evolution theory yet you call it a scientific theory. A scientific theory can be OBSERVED and it's claims or predictions TESTED. Can you please reconcile how we can test your "first life" scientific theory?

4) Go and read.

Go and read what exactly - the proponents of evolution or the opponents of it? All I am asking you to do is provide proof that it is scientific.

alexis:
MacCantStopMe



Can you please explain how the first life came about i.e. what was it's origin? Whilst you are working on your "first life" theory - please try and align it with the laws of bio-genesis



Of course you don't that is why it's a theory. More importantly, you believe it yet can't use any scientific method to prove it; do you know what that is called? BLIND FAITH. There is no known scientific laws that can support this argument - all the more shocking that you will claim it's scientific.



If one is patient with you evolutionist; you will always shoot yourself in the foot. You just claimed that no one knows the origin of first life which is an evolution theory yet you call it a scientific theory. A scientific theory can be OBSERVED and it's claims or predictions TESTED. Can you please reconcile how we can test your "first life" scientific theory?



Go and read what exactly - the proponents of evolution or the opponents of it? All I am asking you to do is provide proof that it is scientific.

Gone are the days that I would waste time explaining and linking to scientific sources for ignorant fellows like you.

Go and read

MacCantStopMe

Gone are the days that I would waste time explaining and linking to scientific sources for ignorant fellows like you.

I will say it again - if you don't have anything to say; sit down and shut-up. Every-time I asked you for specifics; you continue with your mantra that I should go and read.

What kind of scientist will say - I don't know the origin of life BUT all the assumptions I have shows that it's scientific? Truly pathetic!

alexis:


Can you take us back to the first life and what gave rise to it and from the first life how we have different species i.e. he-goat; chickens, humans etc.

life started from a simple reproducing organism, the variation in species is caused by the variation in the distribution of heritable traits which occurs when the organism reproduce and also through mutation over a period of billion of years in earth's case. which is essentially what evolution is mean

alexis:
MacCantStopMe



I will say it again - if you don't have anything to say; sit down and shut-up. Every-time I asked you for specifics; you continue with your mantra that I should go and read.

What kind of scientist will say - I don't know the origin of life BUT all the assumptions I have shows that it's scientific? Truly pathetic!

Origin of life and evolution are two different things entirely


GO AND READ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

MacCantStopMe

Origin of life and evolution are two different things entirely

I didn't claim they are the same but you can't explain one without the other. Evolution is based upon the origin of life expect you are from a different planet

alexis:
MacCantStopMe



I didn't claim they are the same but you can't explain one without the other. Evolution is based upon the origin of life expect you are from a different planet

#ignorance

pesty100:
life started from a simple reproducing organism, the variation in species is caused by the variation in the distribution of heritable traits which occurs when the organism reproduce and also through mutation over a period of billion of years in earth's case. which is essentially what evolution is mean

Was the simple reproducing organism created from non living organism or where they created from other organism?

One funny difference btw a theist and an atheist is ; an atheist will read the bible but the theist wouldn't read about science

alexis:


Was the simple reproducing organism created from non living organism or where they created from other organism?

there wasn't any other organism, life gets simpler and simpler as we go back in time, and the most promising idea right now is that life evolved from chemistry.

pesty100:
One funny difference btw a theist and an atheist is ; an atheist will read the bible but the theist wouldn't read about science

Is this a response to the question I asked above? There is nothing scientific about evolution because all of evolution claim doesn't hold up to scientific laws. Adherents of evolution require blind faith. For example; you claim life started with a simple organism; is that something we can observe or test? Also, how does that statement fit with the law of bio-genesis?

pesty100:
there wasn't any other organism, life gets simpler and simpler as we go back in time, and the most promising idea right now is that life evolved from chemistry.

So life came from nothing?

alexis:


So life came from nothing?

if you want to say chemistry is nothing or chemical reaction is nothing, then no p

pesty100:
if you want to say chemistry is nothing or chemical reaction is nothing, then no p

You have to be specific. The study of Chemistry is not the study of living organism. Your claim sounds as if you are stating that life came from non living chemicals; Is that your statement?

alexis:


You have to be specific. The study of Chemistry is not the study of living organism. Your claim sounds as if you are stating that life came from non living chemicals; Is that your statement?

yap life came from non living chemical which is something, and not nothing as you put the question in ur oda post

alexis:

So life came from nothing?

pesty100

yap life came from non living chemical which is something, and not nothing as you put the question in ur oda post

Okay, this raises some questions:

1. How can you reconcile that non living chemicals produced living organism with the scientific law of bio-genesis?
2. Are you claiming your statement is scientific or an assumption?
3. Where did the non living chemicals come from?

alexis:


1. How can you reconcile that non living chemicals produced living organism with the scientific law of bio-genesis?

Bio genesis says living comes from living...but it doesn't answer how the first living appeared, what this idea tries to achieve is just that. Bio genesis talks about biological evolution why this idea talks about chemical evolution

alexis:

2. Are you claiming your statement is scientific or an assumption?

This is the question you ought to ask first, if you looked at my previous post you would see I said the most promising idea right now is that life might have come from non living chemicals

alexis:
]
3. Where did the non living chemicals come from?

Science have the hints that life came from non living chemicals... But science still has many questions to answer like this one; and there are also many hypothesis available to answer it

pesty100

Bio genesis says living comes from living...but it doesn't answer how the first living appeared, what this idea tries to achieve is just that. Bio genesis talks about biological evolution why this idea talks about chemical evolution

Bio-genesis is a SCIENTIFIC LAW i.e. it is established in the entire scientific community. Scientifically, we know that non living things/chemicals can't produce living organisms. Your claim of the first living thing from chemicals is an IDEA, it has no scientific basis

This is the question you ought to ask first, if you looked at my previous post you would see I said the most promising idea right now is that life might have come from non living chemicals

This has been my stand the entire time - evolution is based on blind faith and not on any scientific principles. You have confirmed that and honestly, thank you - other evolutionists here don't have the balls to be this honest

Science have the hints that life came from non living chemicals... But science still has many questions to answer like this one; and there are also many hypothesis available to answer it

Your entire statement is based on assumption but I appreciate your honestly. The theory of evolution is not a scientific one; it is based on assumptions and belief. Hence the reason, it shocks me when people talk about evolution as if it's proven.

alexis:




Bio-genesis is a SCIENTIFIC LAW i.e. it is established in the entire scientific community. Scientifically, we know that non living things/chemicals can't produce living organisms. Your claim of the first living thing from chemicals is an IDEA, it has no scientific basis

A scientific law is a statement based on
repeated experimental observations that
describes some aspect of the universe.

When a chemist by the name of Fredrick whooler accidentally produced urea in his lab without urine. It got scientists to think again that life might have been powered by normal chemical reactions.

Chemist have been able to re-create numerous nucleus and cellular activities have been recreated in the lab... Suggesting further that life might have come from non chemicals

alexis:

This has been my stand the entire time - evolution is based on blind faith and not on any scientific principles. You have confirmed that and honestly, thank you - other evolutionists here don't have the balls to be this honest

Evolution isn't based on blind faith, it is a based on pure science, Check the earlier definition of evolution I gave you.

alexis:

Your entire statement is based on assumption but I appreciate your honestly. The theory of evolution is not a scientific one; it is based on assumptions and belief. Hence the reason, it shocks me when people talk about evolution as if it's proven.

To be frank some of my statements are based on assumption not all... Just read up on the theory of evolution

pesty100

A scientific law is a statement based on
repeated experimental observations that
describes some aspect of the universe.

I will assume you have some scientific background; let's be honest and not play semantics. You don't have to go to wikipedia to copy and paste the definition. A scientific law is a proven and tested phenomena that can be observed, tested and replicated. For example, we can test gravity with relative certainty. We can test and observe the laws of thermodynamics and bio-genesis because we can observe them, repeat them with certainty. Evolution is not even a scientific theory because the hypothesis brought forward can't be supported with any empirical data. It is a theory and that is where it ends.

For example, you have stated clearly that you don't know how life began and evolution has no answer either. You are assuming that it began from chemical reactions when you have no empirical data to support this claim. We can't observe this phenomena, neither can we monitor it to deduce any experimental answers. All you are doing is repeating what others are saying; that is why it's called a THEORY; howbeit not a scientific one.

When a chemist by the name of Fredrick whooler accidentally produced urea in his lab without urine. It got scientists to think again that life might have been powered by normal chemical reactions. Chemist have been able to re-create numerous nucleus and cellular activities have been recreated in the lab... Suggesting further that life might have come from non chemicals

They didn't create living organisms from non living chemicals; if they did - they would have refuted the law of bio-genesis and we can both be sure that scientific laws are rarely or never refuted.

Evolution isn't based on blind faith, it is a based on pure science, Check the earlier definition of evolution I gave you.

If it was, why don't you know how and when living organisms came on the scene? Evolution is based on a theory but it's not scientific. You can't provide any empirical data of evidence that it's scientific. All you have done is provided assumptions i.e. it could have come from chemicals but I have no evidence; I don't know how it all started but I believe science will find the answers - these are your premises but they are based on faith

To be frank some of my statements are based on assumption not all... Just read up on the theory of evolution

I have taken evolution in college and in summary this is what my professor said - "If the experts said it was true; it's true". That sound no different than believing in a flying hippo

alexis:



I will assume you have some scientific background; let's be honest and not play semantics. You don't have to go to wikipedia to copy and paste the definition. A scientific law is a proven and tested phenomena that can be observed, tested and replicated. For example, we can test gravity with relative certainty. We can test and observe the laws of thermodynamics and bio-genesis because we can observe them, repeat them with certainty. Evolution is not even a scientific theory because the hypothesis brought forward can't be supported with any empirical data. It is a theory and that is where it ends.

An we can test evolution with certainty

alexis:

For example, you have stated clearly that you don't know how life began and evolution has no answer either. You are assuming that it began from chemical reactions when you have no empirical data to support this claim. We can't observe this phenomena, neither can we monitor it to deduce any experimental answers. All you are doing is repeating what others are saying; that is why it's called a THEORY; howbeit not a scientific one.

You shouldn't say we can't, you should say we haven't being able to. science evolves, and even we have been able to monitor the processes, though we haven't been able to re-create it, that doesn't mean recreating it is impossible.

alexis:

They didn't create living organisms from non living chemicals; if they did - they would have refuted the law of bio-genesis and we can both be sure that scientific laws are rarely or never refuted.

Science isn't rigid, read this wikipedia page a bit more

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

alexis:

If it was, why don't you know how and when living organisms came on the scene? Evolution is based on a theory but it's not scientific. You can't provide any empirical data of evidence that it's scientific. All you have done is provided assumptions i.e. it could have come from chemicals but I have no evidence; I don't know how it all started but I believe science will find the answers - these are your premises but they are based on faith

Evolution has been observed and it is still being observed

alexis:

I have taken evolution in college and in summary this is what my professor said - "If the experts said it was true; it's true". That sound no different than believing in a flying hippo

Well the most funniest thing is that, the expert hasn't and wouldn't mention a flying hippo

pesty100

An we can test evolution with certainty

If we can, you sure haven't been able to. I asked your evolution take on how life came about; you said you have no clue.

You shouldn't say we can't, you should say we haven't being able to. science evolves, and even we have been able to monitor the processes, though we haven't been able to re-create it, that doesn't mean recreating it is impossible.

This is where faith comes in; you believe in something that hasn't been proven yet. For example, you claim that we can get living organisms from non living chemical reactions. If this was the case; why aren't there multiple occurrences of this phenomena. Why can't simple life-forms pop up from random chemical reactions all over the place?

Also, you can't argue from the impossible stand; scientist don't do that. It's like saying, you have an empty garage, you leave it for 50 years and come back and expect a brand new BMW to be in it. You wait for 100 years and there is nothing. Your generations wait for 100 million years and still there is nothing BUT somehow you believe the BMW will appear. All I am asking is for empirical evidence to support your theory and so far you have provided none

Science isn't rigid, read this wikipedia page a bit more. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

When it comes to evolution; it doesn't comply with the laws of science; that is and has been my point

Evolution has been observed and it is still being observed

Can you provide empirical data and evidence of this observation?

Well the most funniest thing is that, the expert hasn't and wouldn't mention a flying hippo

You are right; the expert we have seen is someone that possesses blind faith

alexis:



If we can, you sure haven't been able to. I asked your evolution take on how life came about; you said you have no clue.

I now see where you get it all wrong, evolution doesn't tell us how life began, what it tells us is how life became what it is now.

alexis:

This is where faith comes in; you believe in something that hasn't been proven yet. For example, you claim that we can get living organisms from non living chemical reactions. If this was the case; why aren't there multiple occurrences of this phenomena. Why can't simple life-forms pop up from random chemical reactions all over the place?

I gave you instances that further strengthened my proposition.
Faith is believing without proof, evolution has proofs... The instance I gave you were enough proof to tell us chemical evolution has a solid standing

alexis:

Also, you can't argue from the impossible stand; scientist don't do that. It's like saying, you have an empty garage, you leave it for 50 years and come back and expect a brand new BMW to be in it. You wait for 100 years and there is nothing. Your generations wait for 100 million years and still there is nothing BUT somehow you believe the BMW will appear. All I am asking is for empirical evidence to support your theory and so far you have provided none

You re the one arguing from the impossibility stand say because it hasn't been done yet, then its impossible... In the case of the empty garage if you work hard for fifty years you will have enough money to put a bmw in the empty garage... Science is working towards chemical evolution, biological evolution has already being proven

alexis:

When it comes to evolution; it doesn't comply with the laws of science; that is and has been my point

Evolution definitely comply with science... Or else it would have been discarded a long time ago

alexis:

Can you provide empirical data and evidence of this observation?

Am not a scientist, but look at malaria you could once treat is with chloroquine, but now malaria is immune to chloroquine... This is where evolution comes in... How did malaria get immune to chloroquine

alexis:

You are right; the expert we have seen is someone that possesses blind faith

Expert don't possess blind faith, experts have faith based on what they have experimented on.

JEITO:
I have noticed the animosity with which atheists generally, react to anything that has to do with religion. Often making a meal out of it..

Well, I won't dwell on that; I just wan to ask this question to all atheist:

Does the fact that you don't believe in God for whatever reason, rule out the POSSIBILITY of his existence and Power or influence?

If "yes", who made you the judge over what is right or wrong and am I as a religious person not entitled to my own opinion/freedom of worship?
If "no", why then do you refer to/ see religious people as gullible and also fight against the public expression of religion or religious tenets?

Religion and the unproven existence of a supreme god has been imposed on all of us. It is only a reflex reaction to criticise and ridicule the idea. Show me the evidence of ur god and i will believe you.

ifeness:


Religion and the unproven existence of a supreme god has been imposed on all of us. It is only a reflex reaction to criticise and ridicule the idea. Show me the evidence of ur god and i will believe you.

you see! This is the challenge with atheist.

Any way, let me ask you: what is you definition of what can be termed "an acceptable proof of the existence of God"? Maybe we can start from there

pesty100:
One funny difference btw a theist and an atheist is ; an atheist will read the bible but the theist wouldn't read about science

who says theists don't read about science?
Why do atheists read the Bible? Is it to find the truth in the scriptures or to find evidence to support their disbelieve?

"Religion is the opiate of the people" Just like "Marxism is the opiate of the Marxist". Plain and simple. If you get my drift.

JEITO:
who says theists don't read about science?
Why do atheists read the Bible? Is it to find the truth in the scriptures or to find evidence to support their disbelieve?

well I tried to find truth...