"Darwinian" Evolution (Common Descent) Confirmed

Photosynthesis

Are you saying that photosynthesis is a mechanism that arranges non-living chemicals into living ones? I thought you were smarter than that.

No...

And that is abiogenesis, not evolution.

Last Edited by synapsid on 03/17/2014 01:27 PM

The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation.

Good. Now we know what definitions are.

Please explain how photosynthesis proves evolution as you ascerted above.

Better yet, as a Dartard, explain where/how life originated and quit moving the target around.

"Photosynthesis" was aimed at

"Adding sunlight only increases entropy in non living chemicals."

Photosynthesis converts light energy from the sun into chemical energy which can then be used by living organisms.

I have no idea how the very first life on earth started. No one does. We could have hitched a ride on a meteor after abiogenesis had occurred on a better fit planet. A god could have created the very first life. Aliens could have created the very first life. All we DO know is evolution is responsible for life on earth as we know it.

Last Edited by synapsid on 03/17/2014 01:50 PM

OK.
Aiming photosynthesis at the comment "Adding sunlight only increases entropy in non living chemicals."
seems to be a diversion as I specifically said "non-living".

Our original argument last night centered around how "abiogenesis" is impossible no matter how long a time given.
Entropy makes a statistical impossibility, even more impossible.

So now we default to the meteor or alien bullshit. It's clear that your original thread title is bullshit also, as you have absolutely proven nothing and are now leaning on ET.

Fossils show no evolution.
Biology shows no evolution.
The Law of Information, Entropy and Thermodynamics show no evolution.
Only a bunch of atheistic knuckleheads circular reasoning circle jerk keeps this bogus lie afloat.

As I stated above, it takes more faith to believe current scientific thought on origins than to believe in a Creator.

The problem is that a creator implies a moral code and some people JUST CAN'T HAVE THAT. Damn the torpedo's and facts.

Repost for clarification

OK.
Aiming photosynthesis at the comment "Adding sunlight only increases entropy in non living chemicals."
seems to be a diversion as I specifically said "non-living".

Our original argument last night centered around how "abiogenesis" is impossible no matter how long a time given.
Entropy makes a statistical impossibility, even more impossible.

So now we default to the meteor or alien bullshit. It's clear that your original thread title is bullshit also, as you have absolutely proven nothing.

Fossils show no evolution.
Biology shows no evolution.
The Law of Information, Entropy and Thermodynamics show no evolution.
Only a bunch of atheistic knuckleheads circular reasoning circle jerk keeps this bogus lie afloat.

As I stated above, it takes more faith to believe current scientific thought than to believe in a Creator.

The problem is that a creator implies a moral code and some people JUST CAN'T HAVE THAT. Damn the torpedo's and facts.

I am confused by your terms, "non-living chemical" ??? how can a chemical be living/non-living? Do you mean organic compounds?


The sun gives earth energy. That is a fact. Earth has an unlimited supply of energy as long as the sun is around. And plants are not the only ones who use photosynthesis. Some bacteria have their own version. This bacteria happened to be around 3.5 billion years ago. Around when life is thought to have first been formed! That bacteria is called Cyanobacteria.

No one has debunked my opening post yet. Every attempt has been debunked long ago by actual scientists.

Last Edited by synapsid on 03/17/2014 02:41 PM

In your definition, what is an organic compound?

Your opening post was refuted by a previous poster. As for debunking, neither you or I can "debunk" either assertion.
My point is that it is the height of arrogant ignorance to proclaim your "theory" as truth, especially with so many logical and physical conundrums.

Now, please prove this bacteria is 3.5 billion years old.
Don't use the geologic column, as this dating device has been shown to be mostly in error due to bias and ignoring physical laws and facts, and is a circular reasoning nightmare.

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

It would be that. I don't make up my own terms or give scientific terms my own meanings like a lot of creationists do.

No it wasn't. That website has a huge misunderstanding of ERVs.

No it hasn't. Only if done by creationists since they have no idea what they are doing. [link to www.ucmp.berkeley.edu]

I have to go now, i will be back in 5 or 6 hours so i wlll add more then

Last Edited by synapsid on 03/17/2014 09:23 PM