Will creationists ever understand that the fact that abiogenesis isn't proven DOES NOT disprove evolution?

Don't forget the Big Bang. Many of them believe that be Big bang, abiogenesis and evolution is all the same thing. Silly theists.

Abiogenesis has to be linked ultimately to evolution because evolution traces the origins of all life back to the LUA (last universal ancestor). Some people refer to this concept as the Tree of Life.

Somewhere, we have to find a anaerobic bacterium that was able to survive in the higher oxygen levels of early Earth. It had to have a working, complete cell wall as well as the more easily assembled genetic code, and even top-paid scientists in the 21st Century have been unable to recreate that.

While viruses are thousands of times more likely to mutate (have genetic copying errors) than mammals, you still have to have a viable population of animals that contain the same beneficial mutation to make any change in that population, let alone a species. Since most mutations are neutral, showing no effect in the offspring, and most others are harmful, that leaves only the smallest fraction that could possibly bring benefit to an animal. Then, no harm must befall that original mutated animal, he mustn't get killed, eaten, starved to death, or fail to find a mate and reproduce.

If we believe that life sprung up suddenly with complete cellular structure out of the ooze at the edge of a tidal pool (and possibly aided by direct lightning strikes!) out of a primordial soup that was miraculously not too dilute, then we have to imagine that all the rest of the evolutionary tale continued on from there.

The bacterium went on to become, many generations later, a man.

Even without a Biblical explanation, it's a pretty tall order to believe that everything went so right from beginning to end. I'm not a religious creationist, but I am a huge skeptic of the "lucky chance" explanation.

In my experience if you ask young Earth creationists a specific question most of them cannot stay on the point. The stuff they are fed by apologists contains many specific lies, most of which are constantly repeated despite having being refuted virtually every time they are told. That goes back to decades before the world wide web existed.

They are constantly fed the lie that biological evolution includes abiogenesis. In the more extreme versions of this lie, biological evolution is also supposed to contain theories of the origin of the Universe and the formation of the Earth. This goes to the extent that the big bang is supposed to have immediately formed galaxies, stars, planets satellites etc. No matter how often this nonsense is refuted, it keeps coming back.

Ask them if the second law of thermodynamics, properly expressed, precludes evolution and they will go on about transitional fossils. Believer's answer in the cited example is a case in point. I asked therm to stay on the point and they can't. GC could only make a blanket claim that fossils were frauds.

The real reason is that virtually none of them know what they are writing about. Assorted lies from the likes of Answers in Genesis or jw.org bounce around in empty heads and when they read or hear a claim that one of these lies is a lie, they have no way to counter it. So they grab whatever nonsense passes through and "answer" with that. They have nothing else

In the rare cases where they do appear to have some idea of what they write about, it is usually a copy and paste or paraphrase of some material from an apologetics site which contains direct and indirect lies. Apologetics organisations, which generate these lies do have people who do know what they write about and are careful to insert lies or leave out important facts.

As a part of evolution how do plants and animals come from the same theorized cell. there is no evidence, only reverse hypothesis. that isn't science. Darwin said that if any part of his theory couldn't survive scrutiny then the entire theory collapses. i'm not saying that evolution is wrong but in it's current theoretic state it is not feasible. same thing with the big bang... it needs a beginning a cycling big bang/ crunch doesn't make sense, it must begin. and to have a string theory multiverse isn't an answer either, that is only expanding the problem of needing a beginning. to return to your point of Newtonian law... a beginning is a reaction without an action. so using scientific logic science must have a push. the big bang and evolution need a designer.

the theory of everything will lead to the creator

We're about 85% of the way to demonstrating it in the lab. Only one small factor remains. If we can do it in the lab, then nature, which is far more capable, can certainly do it as well. Whether or not we ever find the "smoking gun" is irrelevant ... if it CAN be done, then we know for a fact that abiogenesis is possible via chemistry and all the creation hoopla is unnecessary.

We can turn inorganic material into organic material.

We can create RNA in the lab.

We can create DNA in the lab.

The only thing missing, is that we have to use a preexisting blank cell.

Inorganic to Organic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey

Lab created RNA:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucl...

Lab created DNA:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/04/12...

I always find it funny how they make such a claim despite the fact that their creation story details the concept of abiogenesis (life from non-life).

What was Adam made from? Dirt.

Regardless of whether or not an Almighty Creator breathed life into the mound of dirt sculpted to look like a human - dirt is dirt (i.e. inorganic). It is not alive.

Then their god breathed life into the dirt and VIOLA! Humans.

Life from Non-Life = Abiogenesis.

Adam from Dirt = Abiogenesis

Of course, their story is utter nonsense, but the fact remains: they have such an adamant stance against it, and yet it is detailed very specifically in one of the first fables written in their bible. It is absolutely fascinating to me how they simple can not make the connection.

Will creationists ever understand that the fact that abiogenesis isn't proven DOES NOT disprove evolution

- That would take thinking and the last thing a creationist does is think.

The Bible disproves evolution-I would rather belief GOD than imperfect sinful men and their theories.

DARWIN’S TREE CHOPPED DOWN

In recent years, scientists have been able to compare the genetic codes of dozens of different single-celled organisms as well as those of plants and animals. They assumed that such comparisons would confirm the branching “tree of life” proposed by Darwin. However, this has not been the case.

What has the research uncovered? In 1999 biologist Malcolm S. Gordon wrote: “Life appears to have had many origins. The base of the universal tree of life appears not to have been a single root.” Is there evidence that all the major branches of life are connected to a single trunk, as Darwin believed? Gordon continues: “The traditional version of the theory of common descent apparently does p. 23not apply to kingdoms as presently recognized. It probably does not apply to many, if not all, phyla, and possibly also not to many classes within the phyla.”29*

Recent research continues to contradict Darwin’s theory of common descent. For example, in 2009 an article in New Scientist magazine quoted evolutionary scientist Eric Bapteste as saying: “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.”30 The same article quotes evolutionary biologist Michael Rose as saying: “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.”31*

===================

Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor?

Darwin thought that all life might be traced to a common ancestor. He imagined that the history of life on earth resembled a grand tree. Later, others believed that this “tree of life” started as a single trunk with the first simple cells. New species branched from the trunk and continued to divide into limbs, or families of plants and animals, and then into twigs, all the species within the families of plants and animals alive today. Is that really what happened?

What do many scientists claim? Many give the impression that the fossil record supports the theory of a common origin for life. They also claim that because all living things use similar “computer language,” or DNA, that all life must have evolved from a common ancestor.

What does the Bible say? The Genesis account states that plants, sea creatures, land animals, and birds were created “according to their kinds.” (Genesis 1:12, 20-25) This description allows for variation within a “kind,” but it implies that there are fixed barriers separating the different kinds. The Bible account of creation also leads us to expect that new types of creatures would appear in the fossil record suddenly and fully formed.

==========

@@@@dogofman-The truth is still the truth especially if its Bible related. Many science books are copied and pasted also.

==========

It might not disprove evolution but it sure does lend to the idea that life needed a creator. We know life can not come from non life yet we have life. We know energy can not be created or destroyed by natural forces yet we have energy. Therefore it must come from a supernatural source or be eternal. Most scientist agree that the universe had a beginning and is not eternal so we are back to the supernatural.

No, creationists are too ignorant.

Yun@ Maybe god created life? Huh? After all that's what you believe anyway! You still don't understand what the asker talks about. Evolution is about how organisms changing. There is evidence they do. There is no evidence that spirts exists and no evidence that magic works and can create elephants out of nothing.

But even if the first life life was created evolution works. So ******* simple.

I have always made the distinction... Of course unlike you I also distinguish between Natural Selection and Common Descent which are also two different things - one is proven (Natural Selection) the other is not (Common Descent)..

That being the case Evolution (Natural selection) is in no way in conflict with Genesis or creation.