Creationist - The necessary steps to evolution and what has been proven

originally posted by: borntowatch
Abiogenesis and evolution is linked and very relevant
Life is supposed to evolve, it starts from nothing into something.

This proves what everybody has been saying about you. You don't offer any counterpoints, ever. You just repeat the argument over and over again. My post is not an opinion, it's a reflection on scientific terminology about a scientific theory. Can you prove that abiogenesis is required in order for evolution to be correct? Been asking you this for years, but I'm not expecting an answer from the undisputed champ of intellectual dishonesty on ATS.

Till the question is answered evolution theory is just pissing in the wind, people like me will stand and watch and laugh as you claim victory.

And the rest of the world will laugh at you.

If it was such a grand victory, why are you here fighting tooth and nail claiming the win. You havnt won nothing, you just look silly.

You can't win something that was never a debate in the first place. It's a schooling, not a debate, not an argument, not a discussion. You post false claims, they are corrected with facts, you get upset about it and repeat the original argument instead of defending your claims.

Born, instead of hijacking threads, why not explain with evidence how abiogenesis is absolutely required for evolution to be true. Break it down for us instead of demanding evidence that you don't read or comprehend. I'd be willing to listen to a well formulated backed up explanation, but you have yet to give one. You love to demand evidence, now it's my turn. Prove that abiogenesis is required for evolution to be valid. If that is such an obvious fact, then show us the evidence. You've been claiming this for years with nothing of substance to offer about the position aside from your personal opinion. Where are the facts, Mr. evidence demander? Good ol' double standards.

a reply to: SuperFrog

Depending on the Christians you talk to, they may tell you that there were more humans on the planet in addition to Adam and Eve. Which makes me wonder why God had to make those two personally and where did those other humans come from? Created from nothing?

Of course the alternative is incest, but no one likes to talk about THAT particular. They also like to gloss over the fact that no species of animal can avoid extinction once the population is reduced below the species' minimum viable population. Consequently, we run into the same problem after the Flood as well (if you are one to believe that there truly WAS a global flood and not just an isolated flood that covered Noah's known world).

originally posted by: Barcs


Born, instead of hijacking threads, why not explain with evidence how abiogenesis is absolutely required for evolution to be true. Break it down for us instead of demanding evidence that you don't read or comprehend.

Evolution requires life, without life there can be no evolution

So now show me the evidence I dont read or comprehend, I have been waiting a very long time.

Or get lots of skulls, line them up and say "Hey look, proof"

Its just proof you have lots of skulls, no more

originally posted by: borntowatch
Evolution requires life, without life there can be no evolution

So now show me the evidence I dont read or comprehend, I have been waiting a very long time.

Or get lots of skulls, line them up and say "Hey look, proof"

Its just proof you have lots of skulls, no more

There is no proof good enough for you to acknowledge it, not because they are not correct, but because you DO NOT want to see them.

As hypothesis of abiogenesis is not proven yet, no, we don't have yet repeatable theory for beginning of life, but we are getting close to that. Wonder, once we cross that bridge, what will be your excuse.

But before we go there, let's see - you believe planet(s), stars and everything is created by all mighty, yet we know how planets get created, what happens to stars and that even they have life cycle - and NONE of that is covered in your magic book. Actually your magic book got it wrong and thinks that moon is source of light - even kids today know that is wrong...

So to conclude, you are wrong about many things if you believe literally in what's written in your magic book, one more thing will not make any difference here or there... Enjoy your ignorance, no one will ever take that away from you... as long as you don't try to spread it under disguise of science...

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Barcs


Born, instead of hijacking threads, why not explain with evidence how abiogenesis is absolutely required for evolution to be true. Break it down for us instead of demanding evidence that you don't read or comprehend.

Evolution requires life, without life there can be no evolution

So now show me the evidence I dont read or comprehend, I have been waiting a very long time.

Or get lots of skulls, line them up and say "Hey look, proof"

Its just proof you have lots of skulls, no more

You didn't answer my question. I clearly said to explain with evidence why ABIOGENESIS is required in order for evolution to be true. I even said it more than once in the post. I thought I was being redundant but apparently it didn't even matter because you dodged it yet again. I am not saying that evolution does not require life. It definitely does. I am saying evolution does not require abiogenesis to be true in order for evolution be valid. Evolution is valid, whether abiogenesis is true or false because we see it happening in front of our eyes. Please give me your evidence that shows abiogenesis is requirement and then I'll stop bugging you. I've been asking for this for years. I will not address a single other thing about your posts until we discuss the elephant in the room here. Demonstrate how and why abiogenesis is a requirement. Thanks.

Any creationist is welcome to come in and attempt to answer this question. The OP vanished again, but I'm sure he'll be back soon to not read everyone's posts and continue on with the smear campaign of science and evolution.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
There is no proof good enough for you to acknowledge it, not because they are not correct, but because you DO NOT want to see them.

There is no proof in any of this reply thats for sure

originally posted by: SuperFrog
As hypothesis of abiogenesis is not proven yet, no, we don't have yet repeatable theory for beginning of life, but we are getting close to that. Wonder, once we cross that bridge, what will be your excuse.

Yes I agree with that, we established that, we seem no closer and I am happy to change my mind if valid evidence3 presents itself.

I love this statement
"but we are getting close to that"
Thats the most vague and pointless thing you can write, have any evidence?

originally posted by: SuperFrog
But before we go there, let's see - you believe planet(s), stars and everything is created by all mighty, yet we know how planets get created, what happens to stars and that even they have life cycle - and NONE of that is covered in your magic book. Actually your magic book got it wrong and thinks that moon is source of light - even kids today know that is wrong...

Abiogenesis or stellar evolution, gish gash.
Can you show me with evidence of the lifecycle of a star, evidence, seen one have a baby, explain how it happens and the science that is repeatable observable and testable to back it up

originally posted by: SuperFrog
So to conclude, you are wrong about many things if you believe literally in what's written in your magic book, one more thing will not make any difference here or there... Enjoy your ignorance, no one will ever take that away from you... as long as you don't try to spread it under disguise of science...

So to conclude you have just repeated what I had stated and then skated around the fringe of the issue and said I read a magic book

I am wrong and I am ignorant

Your critical thinking skills are zero, you belong here

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Barcs


Born, instead of hijacking threads, why not explain with evidence how abiogenesis is absolutely required for evolution to be true. Break it down for us instead of demanding evidence that you don't read or comprehend.

Evolution requires life, without life there can be no evolution

So now show me the evidence I dont read or comprehend, I have been waiting a very long time.

Or get lots of skulls, line them up and say "Hey look, proof"

Its just proof you have lots of skulls, no more

You didn't answer my question. I clearly said to explain with evidence why ABIOGENESIS is required in order for evolution to be true. I even said it more than once in the post. I thought I was being redundant but apparently it didn't even matter because you dodged it yet again. I am not saying that evolution does not require life. It definitely does. I am saying evolution does not require abiogenesis to be true in order for evolution be valid. Evolution is valid, whether abiogenesis is true or false because we see it happening in front of our eyes. Please give me your evidence that shows abiogenesis is requirement and then I'll stop bugging you. I've been asking for this for years. I will not address a single other thing about your posts until we discuss the elephant in the room here. Demonstrate how and why abiogenesis is a requirement. Thanks.

Any creationist is welcome to come in and attempt to answer this question. The OP vanished again, but I'm sure he'll be back soon to not read everyone's posts and continue on with the smear campaign of science and evolution.

If there is no life there can be no biological evolution, the evidence is the lack of life itself.

Evolution requires life, without life there can be no evolution

So now show me the evidence I dont read or comprehend, I have been waiting a very long time.

No life no evolution

You dont set the rules, you're not a god

a reply to: borntowatch

Evolution requires life, without life there can be no evolution

Life does exist though.....whether it arose via abiogenesis or a space ghost's magic spells is irrelevant in regards to the veracity of the theory of evolution.

No life no evolution 

You dont set the rules, you're not a god 

.....but you're setting a rule right there, does this mean you think that you're a god?....

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: borntowatch

Evolution requires life, without life there can be no evolution

Life does exist though.....whether it arose via abiogenesis or a space ghost's magic spells is irrelevant in regards to the veracity of the theory of evolution.

No life no evolution 

You dont set the rules, you're not a god 

.....but you're setting a rule right there, does this mean you think that you're a god?....

Life exists, I accept that, now you do

let's bight our tail and start with my question whether it arose via abiogenesis or a space ghost' magic spells , gods or aliens? Where?

originally posted by: borntowatch
"but we are getting close to that"
Thats the most vague and pointless thing you can write, have any evidence?

Remember posting about it, here is one of papers and researches that are closing on abiogenesis: www.nature.com...

originally posted by: borntowatch
Abiogenesis or stellar evolution, gish gash.
Can you show me with evidence of the lifecycle of a star, evidence, seen one have a baby, explain how it happens and the science that is repeatable observable and testable to back it up

Nah, God created planets, stars, universe just to have fun with things he created in his image, but he forgot to tell us about it in his explanation how and why he created all of that (For Us, his favorite product), specially for example asteroid belt (just to blow our mind) or for example occational asteroids that might kill us... just because he love us, right??

originally posted by: borntowatch
So to conclude you have just repeated what I had stated and then skated around the fringe of the issue and said I read a magic book

I am wrong and I am ignorant

Your critical thinking skills are zero, you belong here

Critical thinking... tells person who believes in ancient texts even everything points them being wrong... seriously... is this is best you can do??

a reply to: borntowatch

Life exists, I accept that, now you do

right.....so when you posted:

If there is no life there can be no biological evolution, the evidence is the lack of life itself. 

Evolution requires life, without life there can be no evolution 

You were speaking out of ignorance? Or just from your rear end?

let's bight our tail and start with my question whether it arose via abiogenesis or a space ghost' magic spells , gods or aliens? Where?

No let's just stick to the post I replied to......typical borntowatch......smh

But as superstitions like the belief in space ghosts/Gods/Ghouls etc are ridiculous and the products of minds lacking critical thinking skills, there's only one choice.

originally posted by: borntowatch
If there is no life there can be no biological evolution, the evidence is the lack of life itself.

Evolution requires life, without life there can be no evolution

So now show me the evidence I dont read or comprehend, I have been waiting a very long time.

No life no evolution

You dont set the rules, you're not a god

You dodged the question, AGAIN! Read my post and try again. I said abiogenesis, NOT LIFE. Your claim is that evolution requires abiogenesis. You've been parroting that on here for years. You just keep repeating your original argument over and over again. This is why conversations with you go nowhere. For the last time, I'm asking you to back up YOUR CLAIM, that ABIOGENESIS is required in order for evolution to be true. If you dodge it again it will only prove you wrong and intellectually dishonest. Please address the question or stop trolling the thread.

To have a default position of 'God did it' while you wait for evidence of some other way is that of the imbecile. It is far more courageous to say 'I don't know' than to credit something from fantasy.

The twisted logic of the creationists demanding scientific evidence or else there'll believe in something else with even less evidence is totally lost on the simple mind of the religious.

originally posted by: 321Go
To have a default position of 'God did it' while you wait for evidence of some other way is that of the imbecile. It is far more courageous to say 'I don't know' than to credit something from fantasy.

The twisted logic of the creationists demanding scientific evidence or else there'll believe in something else with even less evidence is totally lost on the simple mind of the religious.

You call me an imbecile for my beliefs when I just ask for evidence, evidence you cant supply or validate.

You believe what someone teaches you and cant justify it, you call me an imbecile and your hands and head are both empty.

I think its cowardly to face me over a computer screen, call me names and have nothing but insults and conjecture to back your beliefs, nothing to validate your position.

People with your faith in nothing, faith in the religion of evolutionary science, religion of belief with no evidence.
Your choice of words reflect

How about pulling up your pants and bringing evidence to the table, thats what big boys with intelligence would do.;

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: borntowatch
If there is no life there can be no biological evolution, the evidence is the lack of life itself.

Evolution requires life, without life there can be no evolution

So now show me the evidence I dont read or comprehend, I have been waiting a very long time.

No life no evolution

You dont set the rules, you're not a god

You dodged the question, AGAIN! Read my post and try again. I said abiogenesis, NOT LIFE. Your claim is that evolution requires abiogenesis. You've been parroting that on here for years. You just keep repeating your original argument over and over again. This is why conversations with you go nowhere. For the last time, I'm asking you to back up YOUR CLAIM, that ABIOGENESIS is required in order for evolution to be true. If you dodge it again it will only prove you wrong and intellectually dishonest. Please address the question or stop trolling the thread.

If there is no life there can be no biological evolution, the evidence is the lack of life itself.

Evolution requires life, without life there can be no evolution

So now show me the evidence I dont read or comprehend, I have been waiting a very long time.

No life no evolution

You dont set the rules, you're not a god

Please address the question or stop trolling the thread.

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: borntowatch
"but we are getting close to that"
Thats the most vague and pointless thing you can write, have any evidence?

Remember posting about it, here is one of papers and researches that are closing on abiogenesis: www.nature.com...

originally posted by: borntowatch
Abiogenesis or stellar evolution, gish gash.
Can you show me with evidence of the lifecycle of a star, evidence, seen one have a baby, explain how it happens and the science that is repeatable observable and testable to back it up

Nah, God created planets, stars, universe just to have fun with things he created in his image, but he forgot to tell us about it in his explanation how and why he created all of that (For Us, his favorite product), specially for example asteroid belt (just to blow our mind) or for example occational asteroids that might kill us... just because he love us, right??

originally posted by: borntowatch
So to conclude you have just repeated what I had stated and then skated around the fringe of the issue and said I read a magic book

I am wrong and I am ignorant

Your critical thinking skills are zero, you belong here

Critical thinking... tells person who believes in ancient texts even everything points them being wrong... seriously... is this is best you can do??

So no evidence AGAIN

arnt you sick of the backwards and forwards.

Scientific evidence will shut me up, go get at it, go on, you can win.

Nobody is going to supply you with evidence for the beginning of life – it can't be done unless it's evidence somewhere else or can be recreated in a lab. We're not there yet.

As for evidence of evolution, I gave you a link to a FREE Yale course, with a paper accreditation if you want one. You get to email your world-renown professor with all the questions you like, but as with what seems like your modus operandi, you have ignored it.

It's not my job nor desire to convince you of anything, I just argue your ignorance, and I would gladly do that face-to-face. If you want to get a ticket to the UK I will happily let you stay at my house and we can discuss this all you like. The first round is on you.

originally posted by: borntowatch
So no evidence AGAIN

arnt you sick of the backwards and forwards.

Scientific evidence will shut me up, go get at it, go on, you can win.

That is a lie and as I said, once abiogenesis is proven theory you will be just in farther la-la-land and look for some other excuse.

Nah, there is no backwards and forwards with science, I actually enjoy the ride and learning about all things we find now on weekly bases.

If scientific evidence will shut you up, you would agree that evidence for evolution is overwhelming and much better then 'little angry man in sky did it' option.

a reply to: borntowatch

Three strikes and you're out. Sorry Born. Nobody's buying what you're selling. I have asked you 3 times now explain why evolution requires abiogenesis and I was very clear and concise about it. I'm not saying life, I'm saying life that arose naturally via abiogenesis. What is so difficult to grasp about that? Especially since you are the one that has made a career out of claiming this. You have now dodged it for the 3rd time, yet still maintain your view that it is required for evolution. So sad that the best arguments against creationism are made by creationists themselves when they demonstrate such blatant intellectual dishonesty and willful ignorance.

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: borntowatch
So no evidence AGAIN

arnt you sick of the backwards and forwards.

Scientific evidence will shut me up, go get at it, go on, you can win.

That is a lie and as I said, once abiogenesis is proven theory you will be just in farther la-la-land and look for some other excuse.

Nah, there is no backwards and forwards with science, I actually enjoy the ride and learning about all things we find now on weekly bases.

If scientific evidence will shut you up, you would agree that evidence for evolution is overwhelming and much better then 'little angry man in sky did it' option.

I think I figured it out. The type of evidence Borntowatch wants should be handed down in a moldy tome and have been dissipated to the writer from a burning bush. All other evidence is just a logical fallacy to him. So a bush lights on fire and speaks to a schizophrenic person telling him about how evolution works, that mentally ill person then writes it down, then after 2000 years pass, that will be valid evidence. See it's simple. Go collect THAT evidence.