Darwinian evolution has two major premises: a) chance or random events isclaimed to have initiated life and b) survival of the fittest of that organisms which eventually evolved to produce us humans.
Now, it has never been shown or demonstrated by science of lifeless matter spontaneously acquiring biological life as we know it.
While survival of the fittest is an every day occurences, like big fish swallowing up the small fish, random events as the INITIATOR of life is a complete denial of the role of the CREATOR OF LIFE or God or of His divine personalities.
Darwinian evolutionists should know by now that LIFE IS NOT INHERENT IN MATTER, otherwise today's rocks that have existed billions of years ago or billions of years old would be teeming with COMPLETELY NEW LIFE dateable to within decades or years that can be counted using the fingers of just our one hand from this very day.
Without God seeding matter (earth) with life and guiding life's evolution from dust and organic matter to the point of producing all the plants and the animals, and eventually us humans, the earth would have remained BARREN to this day. Evolution CANNOT begin until God seeded this earth with that seed of life.
See my earlier post on this article.
Dr. I. S. Alcordo, Ph.D.
55 comments
Abiogenesis is not properly part of the theory of evolution, Darwin's or the many improved versions since.
Science is suggestive but not conclusive that organic compounds could self-assemble into primitive life. Nobody but creationists suggest life spontaneously sprang from rocks; conditions have to be just right, and what all those conditions are we've yet to discover.
An alternate theory posits a "seed of life", but not necessarily your God's. A god doesn't need to "guide" evolution, either, and the myriad blind alleys and sub-optimal designs show indicate at best a god who wasn't very good at his job.
But I'm wasting my words here.
"Darwinian evolutionists should know by now that LIFE IS NOT INHERENT IN MATTER"
The Higgs-Boson, discovered just a couple of days ago, via the LHC at CERN. Without such, even in organic matter wouldn't exist. Next question.
"Evolution CANNOT begin until God seeded this earth with that seed of life."
PROTIP: The film "Prometheus" is not a documentary. Even the seeder had to have been seeded in the first place. Even the watchmaker had a mother & father. Everything has an origin. No Exceptions.
You seem only to be arguing the veracity of premise 1, which is not a premise of evolution in the first place.
Congratulations, you're an idiot. Although not as much of an idiot as some, since you're not actually saying anything about the factuality of evolution.
"Now, it has never been shown or demonstrated by science of lifeless matter spontaneously acquiring biological life as we know it. "
However there is never ending evidence that a giant man with a long white beard who lives on clouds poofed everything into existence 6000 years ago.
Except if that's true, why is there still dirt?
"like big fish swallowing up the small fish"
Hey! I saw that cartoon too!
Speaking of cartoonish logic...
Maybe "God did it" and that's the answer to abiogenesis.
And maybe it's not.
You don't mind if we keep looking do you? As Richard Dawkins says, the biggest problem with religion is it tells us to be satisfied with being ignorant.
I don't know where they get this idea that all live evolved from rocks.
And then they claim that man was created by God from a pile of dirt.
And "survival of the fittest" doesn't mean going around killing anyone and anything weaker than you.
Are you a doctor like Kent Hovind is a doctor? Or do you have an actual PhD and are merely the intellectually laziest doctor in the world? Because abiogenesis=/=evolution and any scientist knows that, plus invoking magic to explain life, especially with our modern knowledge and research, is just lazy.
Evolution does not deal with the non-life to life part of the equation. That's abiogenesis. Second, survival of the fittest is somewhat outmoded as a concept. Evolution deals with populations not individuals. Your information is out of date and your argument is full of holes.
"It has never been shown or demonstrated by science of lifeless matter spontaneously acquiring biological life as we know it." Nor has anything like a deity ever been shown or demonstrated by science, capable of spontaneously creating life, or otherwise. Occam's razor comes in handy here: Don't multiply possible explanations, go for the simplest one. The idea of such an unlikely being as a deity being involved is completely extraneous to an explanation.
"Darwinian evolution has two major premises: a) chance or random events isclaimed to have initiated life and..."
Wrong! First fuckin' sentence, and you're already lying. Abiogenesis, asshole, not evolution, which only deals with adaptations in existing life.
"Dr. I. S. Alcordo, Ph.D."
Either you're a liar or extremely arrogant. Real Ph.D. holders almost never go by "Dr." unless they're being addressed professionally, and will instead just tack on Ph.D. to their name, if that. Not only that, actual Ph.D. holders would certainly not title themselves "Dr." and "Ph.D." at the same time, unless they're incredibly egocentric.
So, either you're a liar and hold no such degree or you're both a medical doctor and a Ph.D. holder, which I highly doubt given this tripe.
Cow's milk has two major ingredients, water and white stuff, and neither is alive therefore God makes cheese merp a-derp derp derp! Furthermore, it gives me a hard-on when I pontificate absolute nonsense and still manage to impress the gullible because I sound so much like I know what I'm talking about even when I have not a single clue so I'll tack on a toilet paper degree to seal the deal.
GOD'S MAGIC SPOOGE!
See my earlier post on which came first, the booger or the nose?
Ahem.
Dr Isabelo S Alcordo of Mindanao University in the Philippines... A PhD in agricultural sciences...
Clearly the curriculum in the Philippines is a little bit different than in North America, but it's still a little bit surprising that Dr Alcordo doesn't have even the most basic idea of how evolution works, or what its basic premises are.
I don't really think theistic evolution is fundie.
Sure, he could use some research on Abiogenesis, but otherwise he's not as nutty as the real fundies on this site.
a and b are wrong. That's not the basics at all.
That life is not inherent in matter does not matter (see what I did there?) AT ALL.
Re-read these books again, you obviously did not get them.
@ Leighton Buzzard
No shit. Guy's a "doctor" and thinks rocks springing to life is the ToE?
I'm a doctor, too. A doctor of letters.
The good doctor is assuming that the conditions under which abiogenesis took place still exist today. Far from it. The biological chemicals produced by the earliest life forms radically altered the chemical makeup of the atmosphere and oceans, so abiogenesis cannot occur today. It's at least plausible and much more satisfying than "Gawd did it".
Living things use no more or less energy for the processes of life than the same energy reactions do for lifeless chemical reactions.intelligent design are firing on only one cylinder.arguendo their premise that these are a consequence of sin, their argument makes it necessary that these are designed consequences of sin, and the Deity they worship, a monster of evil.
You have never studied evolution, right? It has nothing to do with the beginning of life, but much to do with the diversity of life.
What are you doctor of? Theology? Philosophy? I bet it isn't chemistry, which actually HAS a bit to do with the beginning of life.
While the rest is just the normal creationist lying for Jesus bullshit, this part is interesting:
today's rocks that have existed billions of years ago or billions of years old
Apart from the horrible grammar, what a strange thing for a creationist to say. Billions of years?
I guess he's not a 'young Earth' creationist, but one of those 'intelligent design" hypocrits.
Intelligent design = "I know creationism is all silly bullshit but I want to believe in the Bible, so I'll think up some goofy crap to work around the obvious truth and lie for Jesus."
Dr. I. S. Alcordo, Ph.D.
Your first sentence contains a flawed premise that the rest of your argument is built upon. Do you understand that once that premise is removed, you have no argument at all?
My doctorate cost me $20 online. If you paid any more than that, you need to ask for a refund.
Well, you're in luck, because the initiation of life is NOT evolution. It is a different field known as abiogenesis, for which there are many competing theories, but the basic answer is 'We do not know at this time'.
Besides which, weren't there some experiments that showed that under certain atmospheric and environmental conditions, some chemical chains can coalesce into organic proteins and aminos?
ooh a DR and PhD. well wrong anyway. The TOE does not make any claims about the origin of life. none. It does say that once you have life you can expect change over time and selection processes that mean the change with greater reproductive advantage is likely to become more common in a gene pool.
try searching abiogenesis and see what they are finding.
"Eventually"? You're not the pinnacle of creation, get over it. You are different from humans 100 thousand years ago, though not necessarily in things you consider good - for one thing, your teeth are weaker, on the other hand you are much more resistant to infectious diseases, especially those we picked up from livestock.
Also, abiogenesis, yawn.
Now, it has never been shown or demonstrated by science of lifeless matter spontaneously acquiring biological life as we know it.
Nor has it ever been shown or demonstrated by creotards that a magic sky-fairy created mud-man and rib-woman.
Life is simply matter. You... Don't have it inherent in anything, even in life forms. If you ground down each and every cell of any life form, you would not find a single particle of Life.
I wonder if he's this Dr. I. S. Alcordo:
No mention of where he gets his "Ph.D.", but according to another site , he lives in the Phillipines on a $500/mnth pension. Apparently being both a doctor and a Ph.D doesn't pay very well...
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
