Creationists and Abiogenesis

The origin of life is a favourite target for creationists. Maybe it's the fact that it doesn't have as much evidence as evolution, maybe it's because it's easier to make a god of the gaps arguement about, or maybe it's just another arguement from incredulity to add to their PRATT lists. Whatever their reason for choosing it creationists have their share of objections and points against the natural origin of life. The purpose of this video is to debunk the most common assertions creationists have against abiogenesis.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• creationism
• evolution
• abiogenesis
• origin
• of
• life
• god
• creationist
• debunk
• refute

[JeffAY57]

Yes, abiogenesis is just a collection of hypotheses... and the hypotheses are unscientific crap! Go back and listen to your video. You're telling a story... most or all of it made up... based on your presupposition that "evolution MUST HAVE happened". Also, notice that no matter how far-out or fantastic your unsubstantiated claims are... as long as deep time is involved, well then, it surely must have happened. Science news flash... time has no creative power.

[Impaler1815]

@JeffAY57 Every scientific idea had to start out as a hypothesis. They're actually an important part of science.

I'm sorry you don't like deep time, but all evidence points to it, so science uses it.

[stevebee92653]

Why does this vid look like a bunch of Lego's assembling themselves.Part 1 assembled itself into part 2. Then came part 3, which attached itself to part 1 and 2. Then along came part 4, which.......... Do you really believe what you are saying? You SOUND intelligent like you know what you talking about. You don't have any idea. Neither does any person who ever walked the earth. Sorry to disappoint you. We humans just are not intelligent enough to catch up with living nature. Nice try.

[Impaler1815]

@stevebee92653 We do actually have ideas. We go through a lot of effort testing those ideas, and lots of them have evidence. You have ideas, but you make no effort to test them, and have absolutely no evidence they're correct.

We may not know everything about nature, because we don't have access to every piece of evidence. However, science and logic will always get you closer to the right answer than faith.

[ResidentRetro]

so, could someone explain to me how the earth was even formed? and where the materials came from? I kinda like to start things at the begining.

[Impaler1815]

@ResidentRetro Wikipedia - Timeline of the big bang. I hope you weren't expecting it to be simple.

[Impaler1815]

@2008Maricel Evolutionists don't accept defeat because we haven't actually been defeated. If you had any arguments besides PRATTs that fall apart when you apply any sort of critical thinking, we'd be able to take you seriously. Did you actually think about anything in that video? Do you believe the Miller experiment was the only ever abiogenesis experiment? Do you believe a substance only produced by life, and a substance toxic to life, is relevant when life doesn't yet exist?

[Impaler1815]

@compgrad1 Don't you think if it was rejected solely for being written by a creationist it would have rejected a little earlier, like before it was published? My point still stands, you have no examples of a paper that was rejected on unscientific grounds.

You still haven't explained why the dating methods agree with each other, or what the cost of dating has to do with anything.

[MrJonkelp]

some sweet info here

[osclarkos]

you have some great stuff here

[alexasmithy]

interesting video and very informative

[loonpolice1]

Like I said, drop a large bag of Hydrogen into space and expect Pee-wee Herman to come riding out on his bicycle.