That doesn’t matter. We go by what is known. And to date, not one protocell has gone beyond the myth status.
In other words, to say that life began as a protocell, is a speculation of mythical proportions.
Do you know why the atheists refrain from making the claim that life began as a complex cell?
Well, here’s why. THEY KNOW BETTER. They know it is evolution ending to claim a cell as complex as one of the cells present today, to have formed from chemicals.
That’s it. So, they concocted up the speculation that a less complex cell could have been formed from chemicals, and then evolve into a more complex cell.
But, they can not provide any evidence that there ever was such a thing as a protocell.
So, they don’t push the issue, claiming that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Which is a false claim completely.
The fact is all cells are known to be crazy designed. To the point they are thought to be by some irreducibly complex.
"Wilhelm Huck chemist , professor at Radboud University Nijmegen
A working cell is more than the sum of its parts. “A functioning cell must be entirely correct at once, in all its complexity Protocells May Have Formed in a Salty Soup | sixdaysblog”
Source: Abiogenesis: The cell is irreducibly complex
Please read the rest of the evidence from this site.
You aren’t going to have any effect on atheists unless you realise that your particular version of ‘God’ is only one of many thousands - including myriad versions of the Biblical ‘God’ - and unless you specify it in far more detail than just ‘God’ you might as well not bother.
“Atheists who think life is designed are pretty rare”
The number is neither here nor there. The fact remains there are others who are not Christians and who also reject the idea that is just could have occurred by chance. So, they look for an intelligence that although they would not consider as God, still more of higher intelligence than what man currently possesses.
"You aren’t going to have any effect on atheists unless you realise that your particular version of ‘God’
I do not need to effect anyone. That is the work of the Holy Spirit. My responsibility is to make known what needs to be revealed.
And there is only one God. He is the one who created.
“I don’t. The Bible doesn’t say that God designed anything. You’re the one embellishing here.”
The Bible says God created. Who would God have turned to, for the design for what He created?
What am I rejecting for political reasons?
“No, we are citing it. From dust. aka abiogenesis.”
No. You are claiming it. But, failing to provide any evidence in support of it.
Professor James Tour, has completely demonstrated that life without an intelligence is beyond the ability of chance.
"As these functional differences accumulate over deep time, very complex systems of proteins will result that, to the naive observer, will appear as if it had been “designed” by an intelligent being.
The giveaway, however, is that we only ever witness complex systems that could have arisen thru this process of variation over time, and never one that could have been assembled de novo from many interacting parts all at once.
In this narrow sense, Behe is actually correct: Any structure or system that could not have arisen thru a series of modifications of structures/systems that existed in earlier generations could not have been produced by evolution. Where he goes wrong is in misperceiving that any such systems actually exist. Just the opposite is the case: None do."
He does not go wrong. Those who think those systems could have been shared or added to those organisms with the individual components, have completely failed to demonstrate this had ever occurred.
Whenever you look at the fossil record you see those organisms with what they have already in use.
THERE ARE NO ORGANISMS BUILDING UP TO HAVING THEM. Indeed, even if they were growing them, since they were not of any use, according to the evolutionists they would have been nixed as vestigial and phased out.
It is difficult to think of a scientific phenomena with more mountainous piles of evidence behind it than the overwhelming ubiquity of evolutionary processes.
YECism is simply a convenient abbreviation for the beliefs of Young Earth Creationists and the movement they’ve energized, especially as expressed by an entire industry of YEC ministries, including Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International, Institute for Creation Research, Creation Today, Core Academy of Science, and many others.
“It is difficult to think of a scientific phenomena with more mountainous piles of evidence behind it than the overwhelming ubiquity of evolutionary processes.”
And yet another one of the constantly referred to cries of the evolutionists. But, when asked to provide the empirical evidence to support it, they come up with nothing that can be submitted as empirical evidence.
Now, I’ll tell you straight out. Produce what you think is your best of that mythical mountain of evidence, and I’ll show you just how void of empirical science it really is.
Here’s a free course, “Evidence for Evolution”, at the Khan Academy website which will get you started on the basics. My “best” is irrelevant because I have no need to reinvent-the-wheel when so many others have written excellent and detailed tutorials on these topics:
They also have an excellent lesson within their AP College Biology course at:
No, now, I’m not asking you to pass me onto some blackhole of a void website, that spouts the same thing you are claiming to be science.
Give me what you claim is the best piece of science that you feel supports our faith in common descent evolution.
That should be easy to do, if you are a biologist, (evolutionary, well we’ll see).
Among my personal favorite evidences for evolution is the consistency of the sequence of fossils from the oldest to the most recent.
The history of this realization among scientists is quite interesting:
I’m not a biologist. I’m a Bible-affirming Christ-follower who is a retired seminary professor, retired university professor of computer science, and an ordained minister.
Because brilliant but whacked out people exist, majority consensus matters. You cannot appeal to authority, and then dismiss the weight of authority. Go to any university campus and there is next to no regard for Intelligent Design.
That cannot be true, as he has never published such an argument in any scientific journal.
Just a technical pointer…
When you are responding to posts, the best way to quote is to highlight the part of the post, and note that a ltag appears above the highlighted section. Click on it, and it will paste into your comment with the identity of the poster you are responding to.
“Among my personal favorite evidences for evolution is the consistency of the sequence of fossils from the oldest to the most recent”
You are kidding, aren’t you? Darwin cast doubt on them. Patterson, Gould and Eldredge all leading evolutionists following Darwin, all echoed Darwin’s doubt about the there not being any transitional fossils to support Darwin’s prediction of transitional fossils in the fossil record.
You do realize that there should be billions upon billions of transitional fossils for all of the billions of years the evolutionists claim as the age of the earth.
For every generation of organisms, there should be way, way more of transitional fossils.
And yet, these evolutionists and others have voiced their concern as to the few transitional fossils compared to what they should be able to provide.
Now, please provide those before and after of each from what they evolved from to what they evolved into?
All there are, are either the fossils of the organism, or a drawn renditions of what it is supposed to have looked like.
There are no bread crumb trails of fossils clearly showing the progression from one kind of organism into the lineage of another.
The evolutionists have found something that they say is a transitional fossil, but out of the millions upon millions of years, they claim has passed, they do not even have a few generations of fossils leading from and into and upto what they claim to be a transitional fossil.
As I said, I’ll show you what you are claiming as evidence, is far from being true empirical evidence.
Like what? For example?
Well, just take a look around you. Dogs mate and they give birth to dogs. Birds mate and a baby bird hatches from an egg laid by the mother bird. Cats mate and baby cats are born.
All apes mate and the resulting descendant offspring are always apes.
And whenever humans mate and a baby is born, it has always been another baby human.
This is empirical evidence that shatters the speculation of common descent evolution.
Not once has this pattern failed to demonstrate what has always been seen.
So, try again. You missed the mark. https://www.icr.org/article/a-150-years-later-fossils-still-dont-help-darwin/
Evolution is often defined as a change in allele frequencies within a population. That is perhaps not universally agreed or comprehensive definition, but the point is biologists of course expect dogs to give birth to dogs, and so forth, and that does nothing to shatter anything. You do not seen to understand what biologists actually say, perhaps that “Evidence for Evolution” course may be helpful.
These books by paleontologist Donald Prothero address just that, and are a great read:
No @rtmcdge, it is you who appear to have been “kidded”. “Patterson, Gould and Eldredge” have all been misrepresented by out-of-context creationist quotemines.
Gould himself was particularly scathing of this:
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists – whether through design or stupidity, I do not know – as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.[1]
Then stop shirking your responsibility and learn about the topics involved, because you will never make anything known to anybody if you continue to come across as an unreliable and uninformed gull.
