Why evolution (abiogenesis) is impossible.

Why statistics prove how life cannot originate from non-life. Also - Watch "EXPELLED" w/ Ben Stein. Rent it. Great points in that film.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• evolution
• atheist
• atheism
• creation
• intelligent design
• creationism
• arguments

[TheFallibleFiend]

Evolution does not need abiogenesis to explain anything.

Made up probabilities are not evidence.

[artworkofben]

It has been my observation and experience that nothing renews itself in the larger context of your comments concerning the Creation of Life. We may reproduce life after a species, but our best efforts to renew life fail, when time is considered. A certainty that a universal Law of chaos will prevail, and all complex organisms, in the context of this discussion, will tend toward failure in time. Even our planet, our sun, our solar system, and universe will tend toward this corruption over time.

[Radrook]

Saying "But it did happen once!" is meaningless. It's like saying "I believe in this therefore it must have happened. Otherwiese I wouldn't believe in this." Telling me that blind chance produced a supercomputer like the brain is worse than telling me to believe in Santa Clause.

[JungleJargon]

Mutations have never been seen to order anything.

watch?v=qZev7hb40uk

[5tonyvvvv]

@Gradient14 Atheists need to learn homochirality! life from non life is chemically and mathematically impossible! naturalistic origins require just as much faith as what Christians believe! and you must have the chemistry for abiogenesis, in order to get to evolution, you must have the first cell in order for it to evolve, and through natural processes this is impossible!

[5tonyvvvv]

.Atheists always tell me abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, and I always ask how do you get to evolution? and they always say through abiogenesis, LOL...It always makes them look really stupid! just a minute ago they said they have nothing to do with each other!!..



[5tonyvvvv]

@The1066Al Homochirality destroys abiogenesis!

[The1066Al]

What you are saying is absolutely true. The naturalistic theory of the origin and development of life is not just overwhelmingly improbable, but it involves, as you rightly say, exponentially increasing improbability, because a highly complex and unbroken sequence is required in a universe inherently inimical to life. Therefore the more time and resources you factor in, the LESS likely it is for life to arise. That how sequential improbability works.

[bttrflykiss7701]

It IS mind boggling! Doesn't require a designer. :-)

[halflifefan84]

@Masceraid "Insanely unlikely" You do know that the main parts of evolution ARE facts, right? We display them now, in our everyday life. The reason the changes became more apparent on the earth is because it took 500 million years, that seems long enough to diversify, and if you think the opposite, you just can't comprehend that long of time, and since most Christians can't, they say that the Earth is 6000th years old, it's a littler number that there minds MIGHT be able to grasp better.

[XGralgrathor]

« "Design demands a designer" [04:13] »

Duh.

But the *appearance* of design does *not* necessarily demand a designer.

[XGralgrathor]

« "Now it gets fun for the evolutionist who believe that life arose from non-life" [02:02] »

There are two alternatives to believing that life arose from non-life:

1) Believing that life has always existed, and thus never came into existence.

2) Believing that life does not exist, and thus never came into existence.

(2) is manifestly untrue, since life *does* exist. (1) is likely false, since both religion and science state that life did come into existence at some point.