The Origin of Life on Earth According to the Theory of Evolution

[Necrosis]

Evolution is far from fact, lie number 1, and the theory has not been tested in a lab, lie number 2. You can claim anything you want but doesn't make it so. Do you think Christain's disregard the entire theory? Really?..... the theoy is not a matter of 1 tiny subject, most of it is based on assumptions. Are there portions that are true, Of course every Christian on the planet believes in micro evolution. That we came from monkeys?, no, and there is no proof of this whatsoever. So the few aspects that have been tested or contribute to science, we don't have an issue with that or it doesn't contradict the Bible at all. You are very close-minded thinking that the only thing Christians know about evolution are based on a few creation videos on youtube, lol,

thanks for proving my point, evolution has been tested in a lab this is a fact, want the evidence?

we didn't come from monkeys, you don't even know the basic claim, find where any evolutionary scientist claims we came from monkeys or evidence of this.

im not closed minded i just know that you have no idea what your talking about and you prove it post after post.

most of it is based off assumptions? like what lol....list these assumptions

the fact that you are seperating micro and macro into completely seperate categories shows how much you know. Macro as claimed is the apperance of a new species that can no longer mate with its original lineage, this has been witnessed in a lab, done in a lab. Just because you are unaware or unwillingly to believe it doesn't make it so.

[OTHstrong]

thanks for proving my point, evolution has been tested in a lab this is a fact, want the evidence?

we didn't come from monkeys, you don't even know the basic claim, find where any evolutionary scientist claims we came from monkeys or evidence of this.

im not closed minded i just know that you have no idea what your talking about and you prove it post after post.

most of it is based off assumptions? like what lol....list these assumptions

the fact that you are seperating micro and macro into completely seperate categories shows how much you know. Macro as claimed is the apperance of a new species that can no longer mate with its original lineage, this has been witnessed in a lab, done in a lab. Just because you are unaware or unwillingly to believe it doesn't make it so.

lol, funny guy, hate to burst your bubble but macro evolution has never occured nor will it ever occur, not in a lab not anywhere, sorry.,.. Simply no such thing

[Necrosis]

lol, funny guy, hate to burst your bubble but macro evolution has never occured nor will it ever occur, not in a lab not anywhere, sorry.,.. Simply no such thing

great response, i thought you were serious, but no one can be this stupid so u=troll.

[avxo]

lol, funny guy, hate to burst your bubble but macro evolution has never occured nor will it ever occur, not in a lab not anywhere, sorry.,.. Simply no such thing

Oh, well, I'd some guy on getbig with so scientific credentials asserts unequivocally, with no evidence but lots of hand waving, that something is completely impossible, then I guess it must really be impossible. It's a good thing I saw this post on time and learned the truth!

[Radical Plato]

 

[Dr Loomis]

Great post       Atheists are the stupidest humans to grace the planet.

[Radical Plato]

Great post       Atheists are the stupidest humans to grace the planet.

[Dr Loomis]

Not a Christian or Catholic, but anyone who thinks they evolved from a single cell has a deeper detachment from reality than a bible thumper, no contest. Most people who refer to themselves as atheists happen to be self indulged, self absorbed people who rationalize their way through life.

[Necrosis]

Not a Christian or Catholic, but anyone who thinks they evolved from a single cell has a deeper detachment from reality than a bible thumper, no contest. Most people who refer to themselves as atheists happen to be self indulged, self absorbed people who rationalize their way through life.

lol we didnt evolve from a single cell, at least read some biology.

[OTHstrong]

lol we didnt evolve from a single cell, at least read some biology.

Ha in your face, and all you say is the same crap, "read some biology" lol,

[Butterbean]

lol we didnt evolve from a single cell, at least read some biology.

Haven't read a lot thread but will you please inform us in a short summary in your own words?  Thanks!

[Man of Steel]

Haven't read a lot thread but will you please inform us in a short summary in your own words?  Thanks!

I love these kinds of posts! 

Nonbeliever:  "Why is your God the only real God?  I can think of a dozen other Gods exactly like yours.  Christians are stupid and so is religion."
Butterbean: "Would you mind listing out the dozen other Gods and their similiarities with the Christian God?  Have a nice day!!"
Nonbeliever: ***crickets***

[Necrosis]

I love these kinds of posts! 

Nonbeliever:  "Why is your God the only real God?  I can think of a dozen other Gods exactly like yours.  Christians are stupid and so is religion."
Butterbean: "Would you mind listing out the dozen other Gods and their similiarities with the Christian God?  Have a nice day!!"
Nonbeliever: ***crickets***

ya because i should take my time to educate someone else when they can't take the time to read about something themselves, how rude of me. It doesn't matter anyway you are close minded all of you, you know god exists, you will not change your mind.

Answer this question, is it possible that god does not exist and that you are simply delusional?. You answer this question and ill teach you biology. I posted study after study showing macro evolution and the believers claim (one time hard) was to simply say no thats false, it cant happen and never will, why after finding out someone is completely out to lunch would i respond with a post detailing something he wont even read.

Ha in your face, and all you say is the same crap, "read some biology" lol,

lol i hope you are a gimmick dude, if you are pm me would ya, lol. His claim was false, im not going to spend time disproving something that evolution doesn't even claim, how is that relevant? It's like me saying anyone who believes jesus could shoot lasers out of his eyes and shapeshift is out of touch with reality, when in fact, christianity makes no claim.

u guys aren't open to debate you are closed minded and no amount of talking can convince you.

Ask yourself, is it possible god does not exist and im delusional? if you can't at least have the possibility that this is the case then you are completely closed minded, you will discard facts if they go against your beliefs, you will ignore reality in order to maintain your bias.

Just so you know, yes i do believe that there is a possibility that god exists, i would like him to, im open to anything, however, i will not believe in something that has no evidence simple as that.

[OTHstrong]

But it does make those claims, you just choose to acknowledge the correct and only the correct terminology and the words he uses are different then your theory, but they mean the same, tell me how can you say evolution doesn't claim that we orginate from a single cell, HOW/...HOW...HOW... Please eplain this to me and please explain the proper wording to use. think about it, evolution claims a Cosmic origin with no life form right, and now we have life so stop playing dumb and stop making fun cause we don`t choose those stupid words you hide behind

[Necrosis]

But it does make those claims, you just choose to acknowledge the correct and only the correct terminology and the words he uses are different then your theory, but they mean the same, tell me how can you say evolution doesn't claim that we orginate from a single cell, HOW/...HOW...HOW... Please eplain this to me and please explain the proper wording to use. think about it, evolution claims a Cosmic origin with no life form right, and now we have life so stop playing dumb and stop making fun cause we don`t choose those stupid words you hide behind

no it doesnt, evolution says nothing about cosmic origin, not one word on cosmology because cosmology says nothing about biology. U don't even have a basic understanding of something you claim cannot happen. Evolution states that we as a species evolved from an ancestor that is shared with the great apes. if you were to restart evolution or perhaps before it and begin with abiogenesis then onto evolution we may not even evolve because evolution has no end goal, it's not pre determined.

what you are doing by saying we evolved from a single cell is making evolution seem impossible as big steps like that never occurred. You might as well claim we evolved from hydrogen instead of a single cell, but to say that single cells formed aggregates to make multicellular organisms like yeast etc is much less of a step and easier for people without knowledge of evolution to imagine.

answer my question would you?

ask me anything you want about evolution but i would like you to reciprocate and answer the question posed above.

[OTHstrong]

Wow, you have got to be the most hard headed person on here, serious thanks for proving my point, you see everyone here knows "evolution" pertains to biological changes but we don't argue one aspect of what opposes creation we argue everything including the big bang theory and Darwinian evolution, but since everyone (*except for you) knows what we are referring to we simply categorize all of the points into one subject, afterall 99% of people that oppose creation agree on all subjects across the board, Big bang, Darwin etc...don't be so sensitive on the terminolgy, so here is my point what you believe in " the big bang" has a cosmic beginning right, and the evolutionary process starts with life form already in existance right? so how if you believe in both theories did this occur, see my point,....

geeeez.....and your sitting here arguing with me about me referring to the big bang as evolution, who care what it's called, really call it a can of tomatoes, how did this occur according to your beliefs?

 Now, to answer your question, I have had an experiment as real as you looking in the mirror and seeing yourself and knowing that it's is you in that mirror, so now I can ask you is it possible that who you are looking at in the mirror is not you and you are just being delusional and if you answer yes to that being possible then I will also answer yes.

[Necrosis]

Wow, you have got to be the most hard headed person on here, serious thanks for proving my point, you see everyone here knows "evolution" pertains to biological changes but we don't argue one aspect of what opposes creation we argue everything including the big bang theory and Darwinian evolution, but since everyone (*except for you) knows what we are referring to we simply categorize all of the points into one subject, afterall 99% of people that oppose creation agree on all subjects across the board, Big bang, Darwin etc...don't be so sensitive on the terminolgy, so here is my point what you believe in " the big bang" has a cosmic beginning right, and the evolutionary process starts with life form already in existance right? so how if you believe in both theories did this occur, see my point,....

geeeez.....and your sitting here arguing with me about me referring to the big bang as evolution, who care what it's called, really call it a can of tomatoes, how did this occur according to your beliefs?

 Now, to answer your question, I have had an experiment as real as you looking in the mirror and seeing yourself and knowing that it's is you in that mirror, so now I can ask you is it possible that who you are looking at in the mirror is not you and you are just being delusional and if you answer yes to that being possible then I will also answer yes.

why lump two disparaging things together? i dont because evolution could be wrong, or the big bang or both so why would i clump them together when they have nothing to do with each other.

ya it is possible i dont exist, that im a computer simulation, all things are possible in an infinite and eternal universe, its up to us to figure out the truth and rule out these things.

im not hard headed but i wont lump two completely different theories together, why would organic matter act like inorganic matter?

what is you question again?

[avxo]

Wow, you have got to be the most hard headed person on here, serious thanks for proving my point, you see everyone here knows "evolution" pertains to biological changes but we don't argue one aspect of what opposes creation we argue everything including the big bang theory and Darwinian evolution, but since everyone (*except for you) knows what we are referring to we simply categorize all of the points into one subject, afterall 99% of people that oppose creation agree on all subjects across the board, Big bang, Darwin etc...don't be so sensitive on the terminolgy, so here is my point what you believe in " the big bang" has a cosmic beginning right, and the evolutionary process starts with life form already in existance right? so how if you believe in both theories did this occur, see my point,....

The Big Bang Theory is distinct from and completely unrelated to the Theory of Evolution. I don't know what you're referring to. You are grouping two distinct things together and claiming they form a coherent whole. That's simply not accurate.

I don't believe that "'the big bang' has a cosmic beginning" especially since that claim seems somewhat nonsensical to me. Based on the evidence available to me, I find that the Big Bang theory explains many aspects of the early Universe we observe experimentally and know theoretically and, with a high degree of certainty, claim the theory is correct but I am open to revisiting that view if new scientific evidence becomes available that contradicts it.

As for evolution, I believe that the diverse lifeforms we observe on earth today have all evolved from a common ancestor, through a process called natural selection, where (generally) mutations that are beneficial in a given environment thrive and flourish, while mutations which are not wither and die.

As for "how", experiments have proven that given the right chemicals and conditions, proteins can spontaneously form. Even if the probability of this happening is vanishingly small, when one considers the time-scale involoved and the vast number of distinct planets...

geeeez.....and your sitting here arguing with me about me referring to the big bang as evolution, who care what it's called, really call it a can of tomatoes, how did this occur according to your beliefs?

What happened before the Big Bang is something that is outside the purview of science.

Now, to answer your question, I have had an experiment as real as you looking in the mirror and seeing yourself and knowing that it's is you in that mirror, so now I can ask you is it possible that who you are looking at in the mirror is not you and you are just being delusional and if you answer yes to that being possible then I will also answer yes.

Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? No. After all, I can take my time to inspect the reflection, perhaps even examine the mirror itself and convince myself that there's nobody behind the mirror. I can look for other symptoms of delusion, or have someone else look examine me and tell me, and so on.

Just because human beings are capable for error doesn't mean that every statement they make is erroneous, which is what you seem to suggest.

[OTHstrong]

The Big Bang Theory is distinct from and completely unrelated to the Theory of Evolution. I don't know what you're referring to. You are grouping two distinct things together and claiming they form a coherent whole. That's simply not accurate.

I don't believe that "'the big bang' has a cosmic beginning" especially since that claim seems somewhat nonsensical to me. Based on the evidence available to me, I find that the Big Bang theory explains many aspects of the early Universe we observe experimentally and know theoretically and, with a high degree of certainty, claim the theory is correct but I am open to revisiting that view if new scientific evidence becomes available that contradicts it.

As for evolution, I believe that the diverse lifeforms we observe on earth today have all evolved from a common ancestor, through a process called natural selection, where (generally) mutations that are beneficial in a given environment thrive and flourish, while mutations which are not wither and die.

As for "how", experiments have proven that given the right chemicals and conditions, proteins can spontaneously form. Even if the probability of this happening is vanishingly small, when one considers the time-scale involoved and the vast number of distinct planets...

What happened before the Big Bang is something that is outside the purview of science.

Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? No. After all, I can take my time to inspect the reflection, perhaps even examine the mirror itself and convince myself that there's nobody behind the mirror. I can look for other symptoms of delusion, or have someone else look examine me and tell me, and so on.

Just because human beings are capable for error doesn't mean that every statement they make is erroneous, which is what you seem to suggest.

Very good post

[Man of Steel]

The Big Bang Theory is distinct from and completely unrelated to the Theory of Evolution. I don't know what you're referring to. You are grouping two distinct things together and claiming they form a coherent whole. That's simply not accurate.

I don't believe that "'the big bang' has a cosmic beginning" especially since that claim seems somewhat nonsensical to me. Based on the evidence available to me, I find that the Big Bang theory explains many aspects of the early Universe we observe experimentally and know theoretically and, with a high degree of certainty, claim the theory is correct but I am open to revisiting that view if new scientific evidence becomes available that contradicts it.

As for evolution, I believe that the diverse lifeforms we observe on earth today have all evolved from a common ancestor, through a process called natural selection, where (generally) mutations that are beneficial in a given environment thrive and flourish, while mutations which are not wither and die.

As for "how", experiments have proven that given the right chemicals and conditions, proteins can spontaneously form. Even if the probability of this happening is vanishingly small, when one considers the time-scale involoved and the vast number of distinct planets...

What happened before the Big Bang is something that is outside the purview of science.

Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? No. After all, I can take my time to inspect the reflection, perhaps even examine the mirror itself and convince myself that there's nobody behind the mirror. I can look for other symptoms of delusion, or have someone else look examine me and tell me, and so on.

Just because human beings are capable for error doesn't mean that every statement they make is erroneous, which is what you seem to suggest.

Yes, controlled experiments with appropriate conditions in place can produce proteins, but the mathematical likelihood that even a single protein was derived out of the cosmic chaos defies Borel's Law by leaps and bounds.  Regardless of the expanse of time the probablility of such an event is mathematically impossible.  Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this is what I've understood.

[Butterbean]

I posted study after study showing macro evolution and the believers claim (one time hard) was to simply say no thats false, it cant happen and never will, why after finding out someone is completely out to lunch would i respond with a post detailing something he wont even read.

Neck, I've seen something you've posted that claimed to prove macro evolution and it did not show macro evolution.  Maybe we are referring to it in an incorrect term but we are talking about one species changing into a completely different species.  Have you posted something for that?  I haven't seen it if so...but if you have could you please link me or post again and I will read/watch it.

Also, my earlier post was probably unclear but I am asking if you could please post in a short summary what you believe was the origin of life.  If you simply have no explanation, that's fine but I'm wondering if you do have a theory.

[avxo]

Yes, controlled experiments with appropriate conditions in place can produce proteins

No. Controlled experiments with conditions similar to those that, according to our scientific understanding, prevailed at the time. That's quite important. Because it shows that it can happen.

but the mathematical likelihood that even a single protein was derived out of the cosmic chaos defies Borel's Law by leaps and bounds.  Regardless of the expanse of time the probablility of such an event is mathematically impossible.  Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this is what I've understood.

That it happened in a lab, in conditions similar to what prevailed at the time on Earth shows that it's not all that improbable and certainly not "mathematically impossible." But even if I were to grant you that the chances of it happening are vanishingly small (say, 1/(2¹²⁸, which is approximately equal to 3×10^-39. That number is vanishingly small. But it's not impossible. Consider also that, to the best of our understanding and knowledge, the age of the Universe is 13 billion years give or take a few hundred million... Given that much time, and perhaps concurrency, all of a sudden, it doesn't seem all that impossible, does it?

Now, about Borel's Law. I've read about one guy who twisted Borel's Law and used it to wave his hands and make grandiose claims. I believe he stated that "mathematicians agree events with odds beyond 10⁵⁰ don't happen" (I'm paraphrasing his exact quote; I don't remember the original phrasing) which is, to put it bluntly, complete and utter bullshit. After you stop laughing at the whole 10⁵⁰ bit (which by itself shows that the man was clueless about statistics and probability theory), which mathematicians agree with that statement? Certainly not all - I have a degree in mathematics and I don't agree with that phrasing. Besides, even if they all agreed, what does the consent of mathematicians mean vis-à-vis unlikely events actually occuring? Why not quote the consent of astrologers? Or poker champions? Or New York-based chefs?

The reality is that he most likely misunderstood and misinterpreted what he was reading. Borel claimed that, even in the cosmic scale, an event with a probability of 10^-50 has a negligible probability of occurring, which is certainly true. But a negligible probability is not the same as "it's impossible." It's exceedingly improbable to flip a coin 512 times and get 512 heads -- specifically it's 1/(2⁵¹²) which is approximately equal to 7.5 × 10^-155. That number is vanishingly small. But it's not impossible and exceedingly unlikely events do happen.

[Necrosis]

Neck, I've seen something you've posted that claimed to prove macro evolution and it did not show macro evolution.  Maybe we are referring to it in an incorrect term but we are talking about one species changing into a completely different species.  Have you posted something for that?  I haven't seen it if so...but if you have could you please link me or post again and I will read/watch it.

Also, my earlier post was probably unclear but I am asking if you could please post in a short summary what you believe was the origin of life.  If you simply have no explanation, that's fine but I'm wondering if you do have a theory.

ok, first define species for me.

[OTHstrong]

ok, first define species for me.

There you go again with your over analyzing  stupid terms, define species?, are you serious? and you claim I am dumb...........woooooooo ooosh, Horse, Zebra, Donkey=1 species,............. Tiger, Lion= 1 species.............C'mon, this ain't grade 2. Horse having a Lion as an ancester is an example of Macro evolution

[avxo]

There you go again with your over analyzing  stupid terms, define species?, are you serious? and you claim I am dumb...........woooooooo ooosh, Horse, Zebra, Donkey=1 species,............. Tiger, Lion= 1 species.............C'mon, this ain't grade 2. Horse having a Lion as an ancester is an example of Macro evolution

Horses, zebras and donkeys aren't the same species you buffoon - they are all distinct species. Hell, zebras are, actually, several distinct species. They are all the same genus: equus. And "species" is not the same thing as "genus".

That's why the terminology is important and why you need to define what you mean... Because in your case, your words are meaningless because you don't even know what you mean!