Imagine believing in Abiogenesis in 2019

>Implying that animals are smart enough to understand evolution.
Only humans are smart enough to understand evolution. That's what makes us so awesome.

>Implying that abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are the same.
Spontaneous generation was the belief that, for example, mice can spawn from grain. The idea that life can never emerge from non-life ignores the fact that the simplest cells in nature are little more than bubbles made from phospholipid bylayers. The phrase "Life only comes from life." only makes sense for more advances cells, which do not resemble the earliest cells.

>no idea how such a thing could have possibly occurred
>all scientific evidence points to it having been impossible

Attached: 1531203622335.png (326x296, 161K)

God can literally speak things into existence.

you should ask him to speak yourself a bigger brain to fill that cavernous skull

The scientific evidence doesn’t point to it being impossible. There is ample evidence that RNA can serve as both genetic code/information AND as an enzyme that drives reactions, including self-reactions.

It’s called RNA world hypothesis. Therefore all you’d need is RNA to form via abiogenesis inside of a cell, and plasma membranes can form spontaneously in water.

RNA world hypothesis
Miller-Urey experiments

Look those up.

What do you believe then

>I believe in micro evolution but not macro evolution!
I believe that I could drive one mile in one hour, but the idea that I could drive 24 miles in a day is absurd!

That's how you sound.

I doubt that they are even attempting to understand it.

>everything has a mouth
>everything has a butthole
Evolution confirmed.

Imagine posting with a nazi flag and worshiping a Jewish god.

Attached: Abiogenesis.jpg (602x583, 49K)

He will not commit to anything, after all you can't lose and argument if you can manipulate it into a constant offensive.

If you want to know how things came to be, invent a time machine. People have argued this shit for at least the past 2k years and will continue to do so.

Just wanna add to this that a lot of exiciting discoveries have been made to support this that aren't commonly taught in Biology courses.

We have been able to synthesize 4 different nucleotide bases to show how life on other planets could have adopted a different system (Hachimoji DNA).

Another is being able to synthesize glucose from gaseous methanol in outer space and solar radiation.

More money is being pump into labs to study astrobiology, pretty exciting to see what is to come.

I know lel. That's why I asked him to call his bluff.

>Miller-Urey experiments

hahaha holy shit you're retarded, even hardcore evolutionary biologists no longer accept that experiment as worth anything.

>More recent evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a composition different from the gas used in the Miller experiment

and even if you could create complex proteins it wouldn't fucking matter because proteins don't serve as genetic material and don't reproduce themselves

the most up to date guess at how scientists try and explain abiogenesis is that a single piece of self replicating RNA spontaneously formed and created life, but even that is wildly criticized for a host of reasons

Get with the times you moron. At the end of the day scientists have no idea how it even could have happened, and have resorted to insane theories like an alien space ship dumped its waste on the planet billions of years ago and life formed from there

Attached: 1549656152657.jpg (601x720, 185K)

>inbred cats coming out weird looking is the same as a rock fucking a lightning bolt and birthing a fish

I already know about RNA hypothesis and how absurd it is, and how there is no evidence to support it only vague speculation

There are 0 proofs for the bullshit >scientific theory.

Keep the boomer memes off Jow Forums

If God is perfect, he must be infinitely creative. If he is infinitely creative, the world must be full of creatures that look all different and humans must be entirely different from animals since human are special.

In reality, animals that look unrelated on the surface often share skeletal characteristics upon closer inspection. Also, humans have the same basic biochemistry as apes. We are far more intelligent than apes because our brains are larger and more complex, but we are still apes from a morphological and biochemical perspective.

Also, in science fiction you often see silicon-based life forms and organisms with trilateral symmetry. Human sci-fi authors are more creative than God!

Attached: evidences-of-evolution-biology-lesson-powerpoint-39-638.jpg (638x479, 77K)

>complains about lack of proof for science's explanation
>believes in God with exactly 0 proof
lmao brainlet

Wew, imagine not knowing that Ammonia Gas isn't possible without an atmosphere.

That pic and your language put me right off reading past line 2.

>Abiogenesis wasn't spontaneous.

Go learn what a strawman is, shekelgrubber.

This isn't about me, this is about your stupid beliefs. Your only argument is to deflect having to defend your position.

Speaking things into existence is literally magic.

>Miller-Urey experiments
They still keep it in their books, though.

>intelligent life creates a few amino acids
>somehow this means life is not intelligently designed

Attached: Campbell Biology 2017.jpg (826x997, 310K)

>uses the anology of a car rolling forward to explain away irreducible simplicity in biological design verses notion that a fish can someday become a man

Attached: 1553086611825.jpg (222x293, 19K)

No that is power of the living God. Pic related is literally magic.

>death creates life it just works bruh

Attached: public school.jpg (1272x700, 61K)

I could provide more proof, but why bother? Jow Forums thinks that science is Jewish and therefore bad.

The earth always had an atmosphere. It just wasn't the same as the atmosphere today.

Most objects in space have at least some sort of atmosphere ... though it isn't very large in a lot of cases.

>I could provide more proof
Theoretical or real?

Attached: 16908539_152639818588094_6706798892509298688_n.jpg (482x482, 28K)

You likely come from a long lineage of men and women more familiar with the Bible story than 99% of humans on the planet today. But youre smarter than all of them and you don't even know who Joab is. Read the Bible.

Not significant enough to stop the UV rayz which destroy NH3.

>Implying that science is Jewish and therefore bad.
LOL Jow Forums never changes.

Is this a boomer, or a schizophrenics anonymous meeting?
>inb4 both.

Nice argument, leafkike. There is nothing about abiogenesis, Big Bang, or any evolution prior to speciation that adheres to the Scientific Method.

Attached: images (1).jpg (327x154, 13K)

>Muh irreducible complexity
The eye isn't irreducibly complex. A nautilus has an eye with no lens, but it still functions better than no eye at all.

>a fish can someday become a man
It makes perfect sense when you remember that many fish can breathe air, and remember that small changes add up over millions of years.

>mfw you actually read it but couldn't come up with a counter argument, so you decided to shit post

Attached: 1548887128667.jpg (1252x1252, 655K)

>No that is power of the living God.
It's still literally magic. Poofing things into existence is magic. Same thing.

>That pic
That episode of South Park was created to MOCK creationism you clueless moron. Notice how the lesson is being given by an unhinged old tranny.

Belief in God is a matter of faith, not science. It is alright. It is literally impossible for science to disprove God. Evolution is how the more temporally minded of us explain reality. It cannot harm God.

Even theoretical models make more sense than the Eden narrative. The entire Eden narrative is a evidence-free ass pull.

>and have resorted to insane theories like an alien space ship dumped its waste on the planet billions of years ago and life formed from there

That is a pretty dishonest statement at best. You know that. The modern interpretation of that hypothesis is that RNA came from asteroids containing it, and synthesis pathways showing how it came to be have been proven.

The basic premise is correct, that it took a random event like bombardment from outer space, but Earth is bombarded all the time. Hardly far fetched.

You brought up some valid points, and that's how science works man. Models are create to fit reality and are always under scrutiny. Thing is, they are updated too. For example, the Urey experiment shows how these compounds could be synthesized even under the newly discovered atmospheric composition of the Earth. That actually makes the updated model stronger as it shows that it doesn't have to be those exact conditions in order for us to yield these compounds.

You also bring some other valid points that the original Urey experiment does not show RNA synthesis. However, other experimenters (Juan Oro in 1961) have reported Adenine using these conditions.

There's still a lot to discover, but discrediting these hypothesis of being just trash is ridiculous. Yes, there's competing hypothesis on what exactly caused abiogensis. However, the fact that there's several discoveries pointing to how bioorganic compounds are synthesized naturally under several different conditions gives strong evidence for abiogenesis.

So you got nothing. At least other posters are trying in the discussion.

So no

Christians are disgusting people.

>You likely come from a long lineage of men and women more familiar with the Bible story than 99% of humans on the planet today.
Not likely. My mom is a Christian, but she admits that I have read the Bible more than she has.

>But youre smarter than all of them
Straw man. Many of my ancestors lived before the evidence for evolution was made public. The creationists of the past had an excuse. The creationists of today do not.

>and you don't even know who Joab is
He was King David's nephew.

>Read the Bible.
I agree. Read the Bible. See how much bullshit and cruelty is in it.

NH3 is water soluble though. It can exist in the deep sea, where UV rays cannot easily reach.

>That episode of South Park was created to MOCK creationism you clueless moron. Notice how the lesson is being given by an unhinged old tranny.
So showing an evolutionary chart that schools still teach children today is mocking creationism? You are aware trannyism is propped up by abiogenesis, right? If all life came from one asexual organism then what is stopping a man from being a woman or a woman from being a man? Or being anything since a pineapple is related to a whale.

Imagine not understanding how mutations accumulate over time and selective pressure from the enviroment can make certain mutations thrive while others go extinct.
Imagine using a memeflag.

I actually do not think god is incompatible with modern science by the way.

Then your god is not the Christian God.

>So showing an evolutionary chart that schools still teach children today is mocking creationism?
Look at the actual scene in question.
youtube.com/watch?v=BL9S-TUikfg

>You are aware trannyism is propped up by abiogenesis, right?
WHAT?

>If all life came from one asexual organism then what is stopping a man from being a woman or a woman from being a man?
You seem to be forgetting that evolution occurs from generation to generation, not within the lifetime of a single individual.

>Or being anything since a pineapple is related to a whale.
Well ... a pineapple is not the entire organism. The pineapple is just what the pineapple plant uses to spread its seeds. You might as well say that a whale is related to a human uterus.

Thomas Aquinas begs to differ.

This is an acceptable position.

No True Scotsman fallacy

There are no proofs for your shitty book either.
But no need to worry, since the scientific method doesn't look for proofs anyway, but for testable (falsifiable) hypotheses.

Evolution or not. I think we can all agree there's some weird shit going on here.

If you're still a materialist in 2019 you're the elite of the fucking idiots.

youtube.com/watch?v=IMtDuv48XsQ

I'm not christian, but you have no evidence and no arguments.

is it a divide and conquer thread? we all basically agree, unless we are the black nationalist or communist types, that ethnonationalism is the answer. stay focused whether you hold to the old gods, the new gods, or to no gods, whether you hold to evolution or not, stay on task.

>Yet many people have no problem believing in a floating man living in the sky

Jewish religion should be globally outlawed. The only good thing about it is that it self-identifies retards, like tattoos or being a tranny.

*tips fedora*
Also show real flag faggot

Why can't he heal amputees?

Did death come before or after sin? Does evolution require death? Does God use suffering and death to create life?

Pic related is what's being taught. All life from one organism. ALL life from ONE single-celled self-replicating organism.

>imagine if we humans could turn around and walk backwards on the branch of our own evolutionary history.
Just ~I~M~A~G~I~N~E~

Attached: all from one.png (1636x443, 40K)

The first and third question could be explained by reading more Thomas Aquinas, he explains this better than I can.

To answer your second question: Yes it does. genetic evolution is defined by changes in genetic composition in populations across generations, which would imply deaths and births occur. Probably not the answer you wanted though.

>The first and third question could be explained by reading more Thomas Aquinas, he explains this better than I can.
He isn't scripture.

>To answer your second question: Yes it does. genetic evolution is defined by changes in genetic composition in populations across generations, which would imply deaths and births occur. Probably not the answer you wanted though.
So the God of the LIVING uses death to create life even though death came after Adam and Eve sinned? Have you ever read the bible?

>The modern interpretation of that hypothesis is that RNA came from asteroids containing it
This is one of the most obnoxious arguments out there.
>earth is literally the most perfect place for life to evolve in the universe that we know of
>Goldilocks zone
>water
>"well we can't figure out how life could arise here, so it must have been fuggin space rocks or something"
>"what? Someone murdered Tim, and you have a list of likely suspects? Fuck that, it was totally space aliens!"

>He isn't scripture.
I trust his interpretations of the bible way more than yours. I don't mean that in a cunty way, but that man dedicated his life to biblical study and thought. He has a stronger interpretation of god's word than you and I combined.

>So the God of the LIVING uses death to create life even though death came after Adam and Eve sinned? Have you ever read the bible?
See above.

Lol how in the fuck are creationists still a thing??

>This is one of the most obnoxious arguments out there.
Fair enough, you do not have to like it for it to have supporting evidence. I was only correcting you.
>earth is literally the most perfect place for life to evolve in the universe that we know of
No one has said that and in fact experiments have been done showing how abiogensis could occur in different conditions.
>"well we can't figure out how life could arise here, so it must have been fuggin space rocks or something"
I told you the other ways it could have arises in that same post.

Same reason Jews are.

Romans 5:12 King James Version (KJV)
>12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Have you EVER read the bible? I'll even use the Catholic bible

>"12. Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned." Romans, 5 - Bíblia Católica Online

Attached: 1552099898234.jpg (750x726, 261K)

>DNA didn't come from nowhere! It came from RNA!
>RNA came from nowhere! haha checkmate theists

Nobody fucking says that.. retards

What does my flag matter?

>KJV
HAHAHAHAHAHA. Good on you for using a source from the catholic one though. Glad it is fairly similar.

>Have you EVER read the bible? I'll even use the Catholic bible
Given how you can only quote the bible without providing robust discussion, I can say you haven't. The bible begs to be discussed on God's word, and is how we got our tenants for western civilization. What you're doing is no better than some Islamist quoting the Quran.

>more creative than God
>can not imagine anything without using data that already exists

Atheists get so butt blasted when you point out the fact that abiogenesis is an absurdity. They only know surface level biology, but when it comes to advanced biochemistry and how complex even a single cell is, they magically pull the absurd notion that lightning struck a swamp and created life out of their fedoras. Time to shave that neck rug and get your chubby ass to the pews, evolutards.

Attached: A1010F12-6B50-4A38-AA61-5EEF81A744AB.jpg (785x594, 102K)

>Given how you can only quote the bible without providing robust discussion

>bible says death entered by sin
>bible says sin is transgression of the law
>bible says the wages of sin is death
>bible says man sinned by transgressing the law and by transgressing the law death entered into the world
>you: "but Thomas Aquinas"

What is wrong with you?

Attached: 1551128246241.png (900x1042, 90K)

>Fair enough, you do not have to like it for it to have supporting evidence. I was only correcting you.
But it literally has no supporting evidence. It is conjecture at best, fantastical at worst.
This is what irritates me about atheists, they will literally believe in: multiple universes, space rock DNA, space alien seeding, and spontaneous RNA creation with out a real shred of evidence.
Then they have the audacity to say that believing a a creator is unintellectual.

That's literally the theory of evolution. Everything came from one accidental single-cell organism that spontaneously emerged from a pool of random atoms that formed random molecules some of which happened to be just the right amino acids to form just the right proteins in just the right way to create a "living" single-celled organism that was capable of self replication. And that perfect environment created an organism imperfectly adapted to it and so natural selection caused adaption and thus evolution.
It's laughable.

Alright you dense motherfucker.

"Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned"

Sure, if you gave me this at face-value and didn't know much else about the bible. However, the entirety of Ephesians 2 contradicts your claim. I can't post it since it is past the word limit, but Ephesians 2 claims that we were already dead, implying god meant spiritual death. This is further backed up as early as Genesis 2:17, where Adam lived for years despite being threatened death upon eating the fruit.

Your arrogance in believing your interpretation of god's word is better than god's himself is arrogant. God is way too complex for us to just take his word at face value, and it pains me that you do.

You just don’t understand it because your brain is made of nigger

Nice bait. Look how many people bit lmao.

Imagine not believing we came from monkeys.
With some not as far along as others. Like OP

Attached: dindu - chimp mob jumps in when chimp loses.webm (466x582, 2.52M)

God does not lie.

Genesis 2:17
>But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 5:5
>And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

2 Peter 3:8
>But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Adam died within the time frame God said he would.

In that case, what constitutes as evidence for you?

As mentioned, I do not believe the christian god isn't incompatible with modern science.

exactly

Attached: getkekd.png (1024x1024, 74K)

>But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

"Thousand" was translated from the Hebrew word for a general term meaning a very long time and not an exact measure of time.

That's whats tricky about using translations, and why you shouldn't take a translation as literally god's word.