# Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on



## abu afak (Sep 10, 2019)

No, we don't have all the answers, but we're still looking.
We'll never have all the answers as they just generate new questions.

*Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on Earth*
Mike McRae - 4 Mar 2018 - sciencealert.com
Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on Earth

Roughly 4 billion years ago an assortment of complex organic compounds went from being mere carbon soup to replicating biochemistry – the first steps to life on Earth.

The order of these steps has been a source of debate for decades. Now, a recent discovery about a common protein structure could help tip the balance, bringing us closer to understanding just how we came to be here.

Researchers from Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (ETH) in Zürich have demonstrated that short strands of amyloid protein structures can direct the selection of amino acids to build even more amyloids.

If the word amyloid doesn't sound familiar, they're a protein structure that's increasingly being found all over the place in nature.
[.....]​

`


----------



## abu afak (Sep 10, 2019)

JULY 12, 2019 - By MATT WILLIAMS
*Researchers May Have Found the Missing Piece of Evidence that Explains the Origins of Life*
Researchers May Have Found the Missing Piece of Evidence that Explains the Origins of Life - Universe Today

The question of how life first emerged here on Earth is a mystery that continues to elude scientists. Despite everything that scientists have learned from the fossil record and geological history, it is still not known how organic life emerged from inorganic elements (a process known as abiogenesis) billions of years ago.

One of the more daunting aspects of the mystery has to do with peptides and enzymes, which fall into something of a “chicken and egg” situation. Addressing this, a team of researchers from the University College London (UCL) *recently conducted a study that effectively demonstrated that peptides could have formed in conditions analogus to primordial Earth."...."*


`​


----------



## harmonica (Sep 11, 2019)

not true--god used an energizer to beam life onto Earth


----------



## Frannie (Sep 11, 2019)

abu afak said:


> No, we don't have all the answers, but we're still looking.
> We'll never have all the answers as they just generate new questions.
> 
> *Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on Earth*
> ...


Nonsense because proteins including the ones mentioned are themselves created by DNA so what you propose is quite backwards and impossible


----------



## Monk-Eye (Sep 11, 2019)

*" Convenience Of Likelihood Realms "*

** Should It Must In Some Way **


Frannie said:


> Nonsense because proteins including the ones mentioned are themselves created by DNA so what you propose is quite backwards and impossible


A completeness theory rationalizes that a thing cannot be separate from itself , such that any creator would be intrinsic with its creation , such that creation would be intrinsic with its creator , and such that creation and creator would be one and the same .

Naturalism simply ascribes that nature , though not personified , is the creation and creator .

Amyloid and the origin of life: self-replicating catalytic amyloids as prebiotic informational and protometabolic entities
_The cross-β sheet structure of amyloid, in addition to providing remarkable stability, can convey multifunctionality to peptides [12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26]. Even very short peptides may express diverse catalytic, replicative, and informational properties when adopting the amyloid conformation. This is in contrast to native peptides, which are easily denatured under harsh conditions, and whose functionality requires longer peptide sequences, the synthesis of which, again, would require an existing metabolic apparatus. Thus, under early Earth conditions, the amyloid fold would, obviously, have provided a substantial advantage for the survival and propagation of prebiotic peptides._
_..._
_From a prebiotic perspective, the demonstrations of template-assisted ligation of fibrillogenic peptides from two shorter building blocks [23, 24, 25] and of amyloid-directed synthesis of its constituent peptides from amino acids [26] are important._

Anthropic principle - Wikipedia
_The *strong anthropic principle* (*SAP*), as explained by John D. Barrow and Frank Tipler, states that this is all the case because the universe is in some sense compelled to eventually have conscious and sapient life emerge within it._

_The *anthropic principle* is a philosophical consideration that observations of the universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it._

_Some critics of the SAP argue in favor of a *weak anthropic principle* (*WAP*) similar to the one defined by Brandon Carter, which states that the universe's ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias (specifically survivor bias): i.e., only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing and reflecting on the matter._

A priori and a posteriori - Wikipedia
_The phrases "*a priori*" and "a posteriori" are Latin for "from what comes before" and "from what comes later" (or, less literally, "*from first principles, before experience*" and "after experience"). They appear in Latin translations of Euclid's Elements, of about 300 BC, a work widely considered during the early European modern period as the model for precise thinking._


----------



## james bond (Sep 11, 2019)

Monk-Eye said:


> A completeness theory rationalizes that a thing cannot be separate from itself , such that any creator would be intrinsic with its creation , such that creation would be intrinsic with its creator , and such that creation and creator would be one and the same .
> 
> Naturalism simply ascribes that nature , though not personified , is the creation and creator .



The anthropic principle is expressed in two ways by nature:  1) very slight changes in the laws of nature would have made it impossible for life to exist, and 2) human life would not have been possible were it not for the occurrence in the past of a large number of highly improbable events.  The secular or atheist scientist sees such a sequence of occurrences as mere “lucky accidents.”  The creationists believe in God.  When you got two chances -- slim and none -- go with God.

>>The question of how life first emerged here on Earth is a mystery that continues to elude scientists.<<

The other thing I noticed was the above sentence contradicts what the atheists here claimed already happened.  It seems they are wrong again.


----------



## Frannie (Sep 12, 2019)

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Convenience Of Likelihood Realms "*
> 
> ** Should It Must In Some Way **
> 
> ...



You are the creator by the way as you were created in his image and as such have or will have the power to travel to new places and bring life with you.

How do you feel about the above?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 12, 2019)

abu afak said:


> No, we don't have all the answers, but we're still looking.
> We'll never have all the answers as they just generate new questions.
> 
> *Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on Earth*
> ...


One of many to be discovered, no doubt.


----------



## Monk-Eye (Sep 12, 2019)

*" Definitions Of God Insufficient And Usually Pretentious "*

** Chemically Unconscious Anxiety **


james bond said:


> The anthropic principle is expressed in two ways by nature:  1) very slight changes in the laws of nature would have made it impossible for life to exist, and 2) human life would not have been possible were it not for the occurrence in the past of a large number of highly improbable events.  The secular or atheist scientist sees such a sequence of occurrences as mere “lucky accidents.”  The creationists believe in God.  When you got two chances -- slim and none -- go with God.


A theory of natural selection for sentient beings would presume that a probability for success in survival improves with ability and opportunity to select more advantageous options . 

An issue of investigation is whether it is at least possible that a propensity exists within inchoate elements of nature for them to assimilate into sophisticated physical states that eventually includes sentience . 

The evidence of self replicating protein structures supports a theory that a propensity exists within inchoate elements of nature for those elements to assimilate into sophisticated physical states .

Amyloid and the origin of life: self-replicating catalytic amyloids as prebiotic informational and protometabolic entities
_In the encryption process,* environmental information is encoded in the three-dimensional structure *of the amyloid conformer [27, 28]. _
_The nucleation-dependent replication system is *in-put sensitive, chiroselective, and error correcting*. _

** Projections And Personification Of Natural Reflex **


james bond said:


> >>The question of how life first emerged here on Earth is a mystery that continues to elude scientists.<<
> The other thing I noticed was the above sentence contradicts what the atheists here claimed already happened.  It seems they are wrong again.


Those offering creation in full form as a valid explanation over natural processes unbounded by time would do well to consider extraterrestrials as their creator .


----------



## Monk-Eye (Sep 13, 2019)

*" Weighing Existential Projection "*

** Evaluating Whether Possible Where **


Frannie said:


> You are the creator by the way as you were created in *his* image and as such have or will have the power to travel to new places and bring life with you.
> How do you feel about the above?


One may observe many images in nature with not all of them male and not all of them hue mammon .

Would to personify that hue mammon is exclusively an image of gawd be by definition a vain self portrait , as would it not necessarily expect that gawd is exclusively an image of hue mammon , or is that interpretation an unintentional assumption ?

** Options Further Out **

Naturalism - Wikipedia
_Naturalism (philosophy) is any of several philosophical stances wherein all phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural are either false or not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses._

Those discussions personifying natural reflex as deities exercising will to interact with nature would begin a contest to prove a possibility for existence of a deity from natural facility .

Can a projection of potential through an exercise of will by a microcosm be magnified into a macrocosm and vice versa ? 

Potential well - Wikipedia
Particle in a box - Wikipedia
Quantum well - Wikipedia
Quantum nonlocality - Wikipedia


----------



## Confounding (Sep 15, 2019)

It's kind of annoying when science denying idiots pollute topics in the science section with their ignorance. I don't want to deal with your stupid shit so I stay out of the religion section. It would be real nice of you all to do similarly with the science section.


----------



## fncceo (Sep 15, 2019)

harmonica said:


> not true--god used an energizer to beam life onto Earth


----------



## james bond (Sep 15, 2019)

Monk-Eye said:


> A completeness theory rationalizes that a thing cannot be separate from itself , such that any creator would be intrinsic with its creation , such that creation would be intrinsic with its creator , and such that creation and creator would be one and the same .
> 
> Naturalism simply ascribes that nature , though not personified , is the creation and creator .



This is just hypothesis.  Nothing to do with science except jump to conclusions for evolution.

Instead, we find that there is intelligence behind the complex design in nature and how nature works.  Thus, we need a creator who is timeless, spaceless, all-powerful, and intelligent -- God -- instead of regular nature.



Monk-Eye said:


> A theory of natural selection for sentient beings would presume that a probability for success in survival improves with ability and opportunity to select more advantageous options .



NS would be to explain the variations within a species like humans or wolves.  What you are referring to is survival of fittest which includes both favorable and unfavorable traits to a change in environment.  It is not an immediate nor necessarily a positive change for all.



Monk-Eye said:


> An issue of investigation is whether it is at least possible that a propensity exists within inchoate elements of nature for them to assimilate into sophisticated physical states that eventually includes sentience .
> 
> The evidence of self replicating protein structures supports a theory that a propensity exists within inchoate elements of nature for those elements to assimilate into sophisticated physical states .
> 
> ...



We still have to show amino acids form proteins outside the cell through abiogenesis.  Besides that, the odds of forming life is using natural process including self-replicating catalytic amyloids is still virtually nil.  Forming life is much more complex than using existing life already to form new life.  Many scientists think instead of abiogenesis that panspermia was the method that life arrived on Earth.  However, that means our knowledge is even further out into space as we do not know how a meteor, comet, or other space vehicle was able to bring life to Earth.

What you are doing by this piece of news is jumping to conclusions of how evolutionary mechanisms would form life by itself in nature.  You still have not shown abiogenesis.


----------



## Monk-Eye (Sep 21, 2019)

*" Does Nature Include A Facility For Intuition "*

** Complexities With Simple Beginnings **



james bond said:


> This is just hypothesis.  Nothing to do with science except jump to conclusions for evolution.
> Instead, *we find that there is intelligence behind the complex design in nature and how nature works.  Thus, we need a creator who is timeless, spaceless, all-powerful, and intelligent -- God -- instead of regular nature.*
> NS would be to explain the variations within a species like humans or wolves.  What you are referring to is survival of fittest which includes both favorable and unfavorable traits to a change in environment.  *It is not an immediate nor necessarily a positive change for all.*


Is it correct to equate timelessness with eternal ?

A fundamental _a priori_ premise ascribes that constructs of nature be self evident .

For something to be intelligible and form complex systems its subsystems would include a basis for order .

Those theories for monism posit a monad as an identity element , an infinitesimal , an irrational number with a geometry , as a basis for order .

An esoteric allusion for an irrational number is a quality of infinitude as an eternal state of being and becoming through some transition , with all comprised emulating the quality ; progeneration is an example of being and becoming through some transition .


** Implicit Capacity For Projection **


james bond said:


> We still have to show amino acids form proteins outside the cell through abiogenesis.  *Besides that, the odds of forming life is using natural process including self-replicating catalytic amyloids is still virtually nil.  Forming life is much more complex than using existing life already to form new life. * *Many scientists think instead of abiogenesis that panspermia was the method that life arrived on Earth. * However, that means our knowledge is even further out into space as we do not know how a meteor, comet, or other space vehicle was able to bring life to Earth.
> What you are doing by this piece of news is jumping to conclusions of how evolutionary mechanisms would form life by itself in nature.  *You still have not shown abiogenesis.*


I was impressed with embedded information in amyloid conformer ; because , geometry includes projection that could facilitate the means to introspection .

Amyloid and the origin of life: self-replicating catalytic amyloids as prebiotic informational and protometabolic entities
In the encryption process,* environmental information is encoded in the three-dimensional structure *of the amyloid conformer [27, 28]. The nucleation-dependent replication system is *in-put sensitive, chiroselective, and error correcting*. 


** Mono The Is Them Arguing Form And Function **

Infinitesimal - Wikipedia
_In mathematics, *infinitesimals* are things so small that there is no way to measure them. *The insight with exploiting infinitesimals was that entities could still retain certain specific properties, such as angle or slope, even though these entities were quantitatively small.[1] *The word infinitesimal comes from a 17th-century Modern Latin coinage infinitesimus, which originally referred to the "infinity-th" item in a sequence. Infinitesimals are a basic ingredient in the procedures of infinitesimal calculus as developed by Leibniz, including the law of continuity and the transcendental law of homogeneity. * In common speech, an infinitesimal object is an object that is smaller than any feasible measurement, but not zero in size—*or, so small that it cannot be distinguished from zero by any available means. Hence, when used as an adjective, "infinitesimal" means "extremely small". To give it a meaning, it usually must be compared to another infinitesimal object in the same context (as in a derivative). Infinitely many infinitesimals are summed to produce an integral._

Monism - Wikipedia
_*Monism* attributes oneness or singleness (Greek: μόνος) to a concept e.g., existence. Various kinds of monism can be distinguished: _


_Priority monism states that all existing things go back to a source that is distinct from them; e.g., in Neoplatonism everything is derived from The One.[1] In this view only one thing is ontologically basic or prior to everything else._
_Existence monism posits that, strictly speaking, there exists only a single thing, the Universe, which can only be artificially and arbitrarily divided into many things.[2]_
*Substance monism asserts that a variety of existing things can be explained in terms of a single reality or substance.[3] Substance monism posits that only one kind of stuff exists, although many things may be made up of this stuff, e.g., matter or mind.*

** Infinity Numbers Algebraic And Transcendental **

This video is fantastic .



** Intransigent Even Four Awe Goad **

Golden ratio - Wikipedia
Hyperreal number - Wikipedia

Transcendental number - Wikipedia

Fibonacci number - Wikipedia

Natural logarithm - Wikipedia
_By Lindemann–Weierstrass theorem, the natural logarithm of any positive algebraic number other than 1 is a transcendental number._


----------



## abu afak (Feb 7, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> One of many to be discovered, no doubt.


And RingtDingTone can't be happy about the OP.
His touchiest subject/Premise error is abiogenesis is impossible.

`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 7, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > One of many to be discovered, no doubt.
> ...


Which is very stupid and is just a reflexive convulsion on his part. Abiogenesis is a fact and is a foregone conclusion.


----------



## Innocynioc (Feb 7, 2021)

People can only validly claim to know how life began on Earth when they are able to duplicate the process by creating life from non living ingredients.  Until that happens all is just hand waving.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 7, 2021)

Innocynioc said:


> People can only validly claim to know how life began on Earth when they are able to duplicate the process by creating life from non living ingredients.  Until that happens all is just hand waving.


That would be to know HOW abiogenesis worked. How it occured. What is a fact is that it did occur. Once there was no life on Earth. Then, there was. Abiogenesis connects these two states.


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 23, 2021)

Innocynioc said:


> People can only validly claim to know how life began on Earth when they are able to duplicate the process by creating life from non living ingredients.  Until that happens all is just hand waving.



Creating life from non-living organic precursors cannot be naturally observed, let alone demonstrated/duplicated in the first place.  Not now, not ever!  Biochemical engineering is not abiogenesis.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 23, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Creating life from non-living organic precursors cannot be naturally observed, let alone demonstrated/duplicated in the first place.


Coming from the guy who insists on magical sky fairies and magical miracle tricks that cannot be observed, this is pretty funny stuff. Make sure to stomp your feet and say it with conviction! Hahahah....


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 23, 2021)

Confounding said:


> It's kind of annoying when science denying idiots pollute topics in the science section with their ignorance. I don't want to deal with your stupid shit so I stay out of the religion section. It would be real nice of you all to do similarly with the science section.



Are you claiming that abiogenesis is possible or not?


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 23, 2021)

Frannie said:


> Nonsense because proteins including the ones mentioned are themselves created by DNA so what you propose is quite backwards and impossible



Precisely!  But the true believers on this thread do not grasp the difference between abiogenesis and biochemical engineering.


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 23, 2021)

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Does Nature Include A Facility For Intuition "
> 
> * Complexities With Simple Beginnings **
> 
> ...



Timelessness = the eternal now


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 23, 2021)

abu afak said:


> JULY 12, 2019 - By MATT WILLIAMS
> *Researchers May Have Found the Missing Piece of Evidence that Explains the Origins of Life*
> Researchers May Have Found the Missing Piece of Evidence that Explains the Origins of Life - Universe Today
> 
> The question of how life first emerged here on Earth is a mystery that continues to elude scientists. Despite everything that scientists have learned from the fossil record and geological history, it is still not known how organic life emerged from inorganic elements (a process known as abiogenesis) billions of years ago.​​One of the more daunting aspects of the mystery has to do with peptides and enzymes, which fall into something of a “chicken and egg” situation. Addressing this, a team of researchers from the University College London (UCL) *recently conducted a study that effectively demonstrated that peptides could have formed in conditions analogus to primordial Earth."...."*`​




From where, precisely, were these  self-replicating catalytic amyloids harvested and from which even more complex organic material were they produced?  

_crickets chirping_

Do you or do you not grasp the distinction between abiogenesis and biochemical engineering?


----------



## ding (Feb 23, 2021)

abu afak said:


> No, we don't have all the answers, but we're still looking.
> We'll never have all the answers as they just generate new questions.
> 
> *Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on Earth*
> ...


That's nice.  There weren't any proteins until after life developed.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 23, 2021)

ding said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > No, we don't have all the answers, but we're still looking.
> ...


That's nice. The article you didn't read is on protein fragments.


----------



## ding (Feb 23, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...


Again... There weren't any proteins until after life developed, fragments or otherwise.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 23, 2021)

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


False. That's literally the point of the research. But i am sure the scientists involved would get a good laugh out of you telling them that.


----------



## badger2 (Feb 23, 2021)

If there is an intelligent definition of god, it would be that the earth and cosmos is god, though when H. sapiens anthropomorphizes it, H. sapiens loses it. The ‘hands’ on a clock is the pathology.


----------



## ding (Feb 23, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Google proteins; they come in two flavors, animal and plant.


----------



## badger2 (Feb 23, 2021)

The Miller-Urey experiment shows that amino acids are produced. You start with electricity and volcanic gases.


----------



## ding (Feb 23, 2021)

badger2 said:


> The Miller-Urey experiment shows that amino acids are produced. You start with electricity and volcanic gases.


Volcanic gases?  Tell me more.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 24, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> *Creating life from non-living organic precursors cannot be naturally observed, let alone demonstrated/duplicated in the first place.  Not now, not ever!*  Biochemical engineering is not abiogenesis.


*Were much closer to demonstrating/duplicating natural abiogenesis than  you are with god!
LOFL!
Glad you Porked yourself with YOUR standard.
Like I said. NOT in my league

Time for some more poetry LOSER.
How many mbs LAUGHED You off so far?

`*


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 24, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > *Creating life from non-living organic precursors cannot be naturally observed, let alone demonstrated/duplicated in the first place.  Not now, not ever!*  Biochemical engineering is not abiogenesis.
> ...



You have absolutely no grasp of the realities of the matter.  

Abiogenesis is the formation of life from nonliving organic material up from the most fundamental, precursor-molecular level by strictly natural means in raw nature.  

By strictly natural means in raw nature!  

Abiogenesis is not biochemical engineering.   How could we ever demonstrate/duplicate, let alone observe, such a thing in the lab?


----------



## Hollie (Feb 24, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


I know, right?

“Man will never map the human genome”.

“How could we ever demonstrate/duplicate, let alone observe, such a thing in the lab”?


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 24, 2021)

Hollie said:


> I know, right?
> 
> “Man will never map the human genome”.
> 
> “How could we ever demonstrate/duplicate, let alone observe, such a thing in the lab”?



It's as if atheists like Hollie are lobotomized zombies or something. . . .

You're not merely comparing apples to oranges, but elephants to mosquitoes.  The human genome exists!  Mapping it was a matter of technological development.

What don't you understand about abiogenesis being the formation of life from nonliving organic material *up from the most fundamental, precursor-molecular level by strictly natural means in raw nature?*

Prebiotic organic precursors are pristinely segregated and manipulatively combined by intelligence in laboratories.  That's not abiogenesis, you 'tard.


----------



## Kilroy2 (Feb 24, 2021)

Well self replication and the different possibilities that can go wrong or right  would be the only logical reason for life to begin. If you could replicate the same thing over and over again then it would be kind of boring.  Things in the process have to go wrong  to make it interesting.  Still it doesn't matter as people still need a reason to not kill one another.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 24, 2021)

ding said:


> Google proteins; they come in two flavors, animal and plant.


Google research protein fragments being constructed by other chemicals as precursors of life. You know, since you are in a thread about that topic.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 24, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


To help replicate Several Billion years of chemical combinations and conditions... any extant combos are fair to use.
The infinite amount of conditions over that period and every thinkable condition/combination is fair to try.
Especially those that we are all made up of and ingest to live.

And there are many molecular tendencies. As simple as bonding (O2) or the formation of Crystals, etc, etc.
And there similarly are naturally occurring more complex molecules that have tendencies to organize in certain ways in the presence of others and other conditions. Erath 3.5 Bil yrs ago (first known life) was very different than today.

To reproduce early earth conditions which no longer exist, it's perfectly fair to do so in a lab.
And that's what Miller-Urey did, and did successfully.

Wiki: The classic 1952 Miller–Urey experiment and similar research *demonstrated that most amino acids, the chemical constituents of the proteins used in all living organisms, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early Earth. Scientists have proposed various external sources of energy that may have triggered these reactions, including lightning and radiation. *Other approaches ("metabolism-first" hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems on the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication.[20]​
*This is well more coherent (and justified by the fossil record) than an Impossible/Laughable singular Genesis creation event, or a blundering trial-and-error 3 billion year (ID-not/Engineered-not) version of that goofy myth.

And let's be clear, you are a [specific religion] nut trying to justify scientifically any god, to be able to hold onto yours.
Of course, you have NO evidence, no one ever has, and your are going nowhere with your wittle philosophical clap trap version of God of the Gaps/the GodDidIt Fallacy. (aka Argument from Ignorance)

`*


----------



## Hollie (Feb 24, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > I know, right?
> ...


What exactly is ''raw nature''? Your melodrama is really childish. There is no obvious, known mechanism that would prevent abiogenesis by natural means, and natural occurring phenomenon are the only phenomenon that humankind has any history of. 

How would abiogenesis occur by other than natural means? 

I understand you will insist on supernatural means performed by supernatural gods but you have made no case for any of your supernatural gods who would have performed supernatural phenomenon.

So, I would suggest that before you insist others are to accept supernatural creation, you first make a case for a supernatural creator.

So do that. Make your case for a supernatural creator. Show us the magic.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 24, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > I know, right?
> ...


It's as though your tender sensibilities are offended when your nonsense claims are addressed as nonsense claims. Yes, the human genome exists. Nothing magical or supernatural about it. The technical achievement to map and to understand the chemistry and biology of DNA was a technical achievement. 

How strange that magic and supernaturalism played no part in that science achievement. 

Let's have the angry, religious extremist calculate the total number of chemical interactions occurring over billions of years and ''what are the odds'' that combinations of chemical interactions will eventually be just right to produce the conditions, in the right environmental conditions, to produce life.

Let's also have the angry religionist calculate the total number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.


----------



## james bond (Feb 24, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Scientists have proposed various external sources of energy that may have triggered these reactions, including lightning and radiation.



Where did these external sources of energy come from?  I asked where did all the energy in the universe that it ever needs come from and there were no answers.

Let's face it.  Science does not back up evolution.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 24, 2021)

james bond said:


> Where did these external sources of energy come from?  I asked where did all the energy in the universe that it ever needs come from and there were no answers.


Same energy they mentioned/used. Lightning  and radiation.



> Let's face it.  Science does not back up evolution.


Let's face it:  Science not only backs/IS evolution, it crucially makes a mockery of Genesis.


----------



## ding (Feb 24, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Google proteins; they come in two flavors, animal and plant.
> ...


Those aren't proteins.  Those are chains of organic molecules that mimic proteins or so they believe.


----------



## james bond (Feb 24, 2021)

abu afak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Where did these external sources of energy come from?  I asked where did all the energy in the universe that it ever needs come from and there were no answers.
> ...



You were discussing formation of amino acids (really need proteins to build a cell) and then had lightening and radiation activity from nothing.  Where did the energy for lightening and radiation come from?

Science does not back up your evolution because your explanation is too lacking.  OTOH, God created light or the EMS first.  He separated it into day and night to signify time.  Evolution doesn't have any of this nor any explanation.  It's a fairy tale until you are able to explain.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 25, 2021)

james bond said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


It is a shame that science doesn't have supernaturalism or the ''... because I say so'' argument used by ID'iot creationers.

"The gawds did it'' is so convenient.


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 25, 2021)

Hollie said:


> It is a shame that science doesn't have supernaturalism or the ''... because I say so'' argument used by ID'iot creationers.
> 
> "The gawds did it'' is so convenient.



Behold the scientism-of-the-gaps fallacy:  science did it!


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 25, 2021)

badger2 said:


> If there is an intelligent definition of god, it would be that the earth and cosmos is god, though when H. sapiens anthropomorphizes it, H. sapiens loses it. The ‘hands’ on a clock is the pathology.



Meanwhile back to reality:  the Universe (your god) began to exist in the finite past.


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 25, 2021)

abu afak said:


> To help replicate Several Billion years of chemical combinations and conditions... any extant combos are fair to use.
> The infinite amount of conditions over that period and every thinkable condition/combination is fair to try.
> 
> Especially those that we are all made up of and ingest to live.
> ...



Laying aside your imbecilic notion that biochemistry is abiogenesis, your fantasy that we are somehow closer today to achieving that which is manifestly impossible (i.e., demonstrating/observing abiogenesis in the lab or anywhere else), indeed, your delusion that we are any closer today to explaining how the mere chemistry of nature arranged the prebiotic, organic precursors of life to produce anything more than a dead-end pile of organic gobbledygook than we were 70 years ago, your failure to answer my question regarding the origin of the self-replicating catalytic amyloids (peptide enzymes), your failure to answer my questions regarding the origin  and identity of the even more complex compounds that produced them, your false and boorish ad hominem, your feloniously abject contention that the Miller-Urey experiments reproduced early-earth conditions. . . .

(By the way, a warrant for your arrest has been issued for the latter, and I'm about to serve it.)

Well, since you want to discuss Miller-Urey, let's start here.  As I need not repeat myself, the following is copied-and-pasted from my (Michael Rawlings', a.k.a., Ringtone's) article "*Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism".*

The underlying hypothesis of Miller-Urey has been falsified for years.  Also, the experiment’s conditions were shown to be incongruent and the results, negative.  The reasons for this are legion and complex, yet textbooks continue to relate this experiment with the same sort of fanfare in the above as if it were still something more than a historical footnote.  An avalanche of innumerable Internet sites—most of them that of atheist know-nothings—continue to tout it as being something that still matters along with theory that is years, even decades, behind current science.​​For example, it doesn’t appear that . . . *[abu afak's]* source knows that the Earth’s atmosphere was oxygen-rich much earlier than he supposes, generally more oxidizing than reducing—necessary for life, but not friendly to the formation of amino acids.  In other words, the actual conditions were considerably more hostile to the prospects of abiogenesis than those of the Miller-Urey experiments.  The primordial soup keeps getting driven deeper and deeper into the ocean, where, once again, another battery of problematic conditions confound the imbecilic notion of chemical evolution. . . .​​. . .  What was actually produced in the published Miller-Urey experiment of 1953 were 5 amino acids (3 of the 20 fundamentals of life) and the molecular constituents of others.  The dominant material produced in the experiment was an insoluble, carcinogenic mixture of tar—large compounds of toxic melanoids, a common end product in organic reactions.  However, it was recently discovered that the published experiment actually entailed the production of 14 amino acids (6 of the 20 fundamentals of life) and 5 amines in various concentrations.  In 1952, the technology needed to detect the other trace amounts of organic material was not available.  But the unpublished Miller-Urey experiments conducted over the next several years show that a modified version of Miller’s original apparatus featuring a volcanic-like, spark discharge system, which increased air flow with a tapering glass aspirator, produced 22 amino acids (9 of the fundamentals of life) and the same 5 amines.​
Question, *abu afak: *what of ultimate significance, precisely, did the Miller-Urey experiments falsify relative to their underlying hypothesis?


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 25, 2021)

Kilroy2 said:


> Well self replication and the different possibilities that can go wrong or right  would be the only logical reason for life to begin. If you could replicate the same thing over and over again then it would be kind of boring.  Things in the process have to go wrong  to make it interesting.  Still it doesn't matter as people still need a reason to not kill one another.



May I ask, Kilroy, and this is not a criticism, what exactly is your point?  I'm genuinely interested in what you may be getting at.   Thanks.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 25, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > To help replicate Several Billion years of chemical combinations and conditions... any extant combos are fair to use.
> ...


You keep citing/SPAMMING your own Idiotic essay.
(and been LAUGHED off many boards)

You have nothing to say and still NO EVIDENCE of god.
Just the usual, if unbelievable wordy.. God of the Gaps.
You're an OCD clown.
Just the usual religious nut bag.

`

`
`


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 25, 2021)

abu afak said:


> You keep citing/SPAMMING your own Idiotic essay.
> (and been LAUGHED off many boards)
> 
> You have nothing to say and still NO EVIDENCE of god.
> ...



What boards would those be?

So you don't want to discuss Miller-Urey after all?  It's your thread.  You raised the issue, not I.

Question, *abu afak: *what of ultimate significance, precisely, did the Miller-Urey experiments falsify relative to their underlying hypothesis?


----------



## abu afak (Feb 25, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Question, *abu afak: *what of ultimate significance, precisely, did the Miller-Urey experiments falsify relative to their underlying hypothesis?


Fallacious non sequitur
They showed something was perhaps more possible than thought with the condition/materials at the time.

*Is there any evidence for any god?
Is your god Insta-god more likely than the juxtaposition of existing materials/non-organic long chain molecules?
No.*

`


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 25, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Fallacious non sequitur
> They showed something was perhaps more possible than thought with the condition/materials at the time.
> 
> *Is there any evidence for any god?
> ...



I don't know why you're asking a question to which you already know the answer.  You know I hold that abiogenesis is impossible from previous discussions.  What you don't know is why.

As for your allegation that my question is a non sequitur, you raised the Miller-Urey experiments, not I, and to say that the most significant discovery of these experiments has no bearing on the matter is ridiculous!

Actually, what the experiments showed is that any attempt to retain even the most basic organic precursors in the laboratory experiments of abiogenetic research, they must be systematically removed from the synthesizing medium, but that's only of marginal significance relative to the falsification of the experiments' underlying hypothesis.  In that wise, what was falsified?

(By the way, _fallacious non sequitur_ is redundant.  Non sequiturs are inherently fallacious.)


----------



## Hollie (Feb 25, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > It is a shame that science doesn't have supernaturalism or the ''... because I say so'' argument used by ID'iot creationers.
> ...



I always get a laugh when the religious extremists are reduced to cutting and pasting cartoons.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 25, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Fallacious non sequitur
> ...


You hold a specious opinion common among religious extremists. What you haven't done is refute the fact of biological evolution. Yes, the evidence for evolution and common descent is overwhelming and the fact of abiogenesis points overwhelmingly to naturally occurring mechanisms.

We're still waiting for that ID'iot creationer ''*General Theory of Supernatural Creation*''. Offering even the slimmest of evidence for the magic of creation by your gods would be a start. Yet, you offer nothing.


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 25, 2021)

Hollie said:


> You hold a specious opinion common among religious extremists. What you haven't done is refute the fact of biological evolution. Yes, the evidence for evolution and common descent is overwhelming and the fact of abiogenesis points overwhelmingly to naturally occurring mechanisms.
> 
> We're still waiting for that ID'iot creationer ''*General Theory of Supernatural Creation*''. Offering even the slimmest of evidence for the magic of creation by your gods would be a start. Yet, you offer nothing.



A chorus of crickets roll their eyes
And dance beneath the cloudy skies.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 26, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > You hold a specious opinion common among religious extremists. What you haven't done is refute the fact of biological evolution. Yes, the evidence for evolution and common descent is overwhelming and the fact of abiogenesis points overwhelmingly to naturally occurring mechanisms.
> ...


The religious extremist slinks away.

Winning!


----------



## Monk-Eye (Feb 26, 2021)

*" Non Mutually Exclusive Craziness *

* Trifling False Conclusions A Bout Reductio Ad Absurdum With Out Rig Gore Of Non Necessary Point Of Origin For Current Time Frame **



Ringtone said:


> Timelessness = the eternal now


*t*imeless <=> unaffected by time <=> without end if without time <=> non existent where time is necessary

An origin of expansion for the local universe is supposed , thus the op argument neglects to suppose a state of origin for the local universe .

As a theory , a thing can not be separated from itself , thus ask whether nature exists eternally , and thus ask which elements of nature would not be an image of gawd ?

As sophisticated physical states are necessary for sentience and sapience , frequencies from mind of sentient and sapient beings could set states of potential wells through electromagnetic projection through non local realism .

Obsessions from sophisticated physical states with sentience and sapience could interact with deity gawds  , or conceive deity gawds through electromagnetic projection .

A theory for deism as projections of aspirations from collective minds is not deemed non natural by naturalism .

Some claim scientific correlations between peace of mind physical arrangement of environments according to geometry , while others boast to mantra of crafted sigils  codex .

My suggestion is to aspire to do good things so that good things will happen , and respect principalities of nature that determine cause and effect , and remember the scenario of ate that occurs in the eighth scene of greed tragedy when a hero succumbs to the exceptional qualities which made their actions heroic .









						Anthropic principle - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



_The *strong anthropic principle* (*SAP*), as proposed by John D. Barrow and Frank Tipler, states that the universe is in some sense compelled to eventually have conscious and sapient life emerge within it. _









						Reductio ad absurdum - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



_In logic, *reductio ad absurdum* (Latin for '"reduction to absurdity"'), also known as *argumentum ad absurdum* (Latin for "argument to absurdity"), *apagogical arguments, negation introduction* or the *appeal to extremes*, is the form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction.[1][2] It can be used to disprove a statement by showing that it would inevitably lead to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion,[3] or to prove a statement by showing that if it were false, then the result would be absurd or impossible.[4][5] Traced back to classical Greek philosophy in Aristotle's Prior Analytics[5] (Greek: ἡ εἰς τὸ ἀδύνατον ἀπόδειξις, lit. "demonstration to the impossible", 62b), this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as in debate.[6]

The "absurd" conclusion of a reductio ad absurdum argument can take a range of forms, as these examples show:_

_The Earth cannot be flat; otherwise, we would find people falling off the edge._
_There is no smallest positive rational number because, if there were, then it could be divided by two to get a smaller one._
_The first example argues that denial of the premise would result in a ridiculous conclusion, against the evidence of our senses. The second example is a mathematical proof by contradiction (also known as an indirect proof[7]), which argues that the denial of the premise would result in a logical contradiction (there is a "smallest" number and yet there is a number smaller than it).__[8]_

** Any Interest To Inquire In Other Stanza *



Monk-Eye said:



			" Does Nature Include A Facility For Intuition "

* Complexities With Simple Beginnings *
		
Click to expand...

*


Monk-Eye said:


> Is it correct to equate timelessness with eternal ?
> 
> A fundamental a priori premise ascribes that constructs of nature be self evident .
> 
> ...





Monk-Eye said:


> *" Definitions Of God Insufficient And Usually Pretentious "
> 
> * Chemically Unconscious Anxiety **
> 
> ...


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 26, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> badger2 said:
> 
> 
> > If there is an intelligent definition of god, it would be that the earth and cosmos is god, though when H. sapiens anthropomorphizes it, H. sapiens loses it. The ‘hands’ on a clock is the pathology.
> ...


How do you know your God didn't also have a beginning?  Maybe is just the last in a long line?  Would the universe look any different if that were true?


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 26, 2021)

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Non Mutually Exclusive Craziness *
> 
> * Trifling False Conclusions A Bout Reductio Ad Absurdum With Out Rig Gore Of Non Necessary Point Of Origin For Current Time Frame *
> 
> ...



Why did you "gift" me with this incoherent collection of jargon? Can you summarize your point, whatever it is, in a few sentences, i.e., the thrust of it. Thanks.


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 26, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> How do you know your God didn't also have a beginning?  Maybe is just the last in a long line?  Would the universe look any different if that were true?



Did you have a stroke?


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 26, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > How do you know your God didn't also have a beginning?  Maybe is just the last in a long line?  Would the universe look any different if that were true?
> ...


No need to answer, I know the answers already.


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 26, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> No need to answer, I know the answers already.



So you know that God created God, who created God, who created God, who created God ad infinitum, eh?  If not a stroke, is it dope?  Crack?  LSD?  Shrooms?  A little of the ol' wacky weed?  Did you go ask Alice when she's ten feet tall again?


----------



## james bond (Feb 26, 2021)

Hollie said:


> It is a shame that science doesn't have supernaturalism or the ''... because I say so'' argument used by ID'iot creationers.
> 
> "The gawds did it'' is so convenient.



If it was I say so, then somewhere along the line there would be a contradiction since I don't have all the answers.

I think I told you the best point or statement an atheist ever made, which I had no answer for, but God had an answer for him already with, "Every eye will see" in the Biblical prophecies..  Another is the swan neck experiment which shows abiogenesis is impossible.  The Perserverance land rover getting ready to go spelunking on Mars will show no alien organisms.  That is more evidence for God, creation, and the Bible.  The atheists lose and creationists win again.

"It was God who did it" isn't really convenient because of Adam's sin, but that's a discussion for another day in the R&E forum.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 26, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > No need to answer, I know the answers already.
> ...


Other than your usual "... because I say so", sidestep and dodge, it's valid to require the supernaturalist to explain the hierarchy of gods who created those gods lower on the hierarchical ladder. 

Now would be a good time to present that "_*General Theory of Supernatural Creation". *_


----------



## Hollie (Feb 26, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > It is a shame that science doesn't have supernaturalism or the ''... because I say so'' argument used by ID'iot creationers.
> ...


Abiogenesis is not impossible since we know with certainty it occurred.

"Adam's sin" is hardly a supportable claim.


----------



## james bond (Feb 26, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> How do you know your God didn't also have a beginning?  Maybe is just the last in a long line?  Would the universe look any different if that were true?



That's explained in the Bible as well as the Trinity.  God is infinite so doesn't have a beginning nor end.

Would the universe look any different?  The actual infinity can only exist in the supernatural.  I'm assuming for not Adam's sin, I think it would look different.  We all would be in heaven on Earth and never die.  Things would be much easier for us such as growing organic foods.  There would be better beauty and complexity.  We would all worship God and learn about the Trinity and his history.


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 26, 2021)

james bond said:


> The actual infinity can only exist in the supernatural.



Please explain to God and everybody what that statement means.  Nobody knows but you, and you're very slippering about it.  Thanks.


----------



## james bond (Feb 26, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Abiogenesis is not impossible since we know with certainty it occurred.
> 
> "Adam's sin" is hardly a supportable claim.



Abio is impossible b/c of the swan neck experiment.  The scientific method cannot be fooled.

We know Adam committed the first sin and lost the domain of the world (heaven) to Satan b/c it says so in the Bible.  The Bible is a supernatural book of God written by humans.  Atheists do not get this and thus Darwin was able to make up an explanation for evolution.


----------



## james bond (Feb 26, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > The actual infinity can only exist in the supernatural.
> ...



Haha.  I already did.  3x now (twice to you and once to alang1216 ).  God is the actual infinite and has no beginning and end.  He also has infinite powers so he can create space, time, the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  We know he did b/c of the Bible.  After we die and are arisen, then we get to experience the actual infinite.

After you die, you will be taken away from this Earth and universe in the fastest way possible.


----------



## Monk-Eye (Feb 26, 2021)

*" Much Two Due About Subscribing Through A Creed Getting From Hear To There "

* Macrocosm And Microcosm Limits Of Existentialism **


james bond said:


> Haha.  I already did.  3x now (twice to you and once to alang1216 ).  God is the actual infinite and has no beginning and end.  He also has infinite powers so he can create space, time, the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  We know he did b/c of the Bible.  After we die and are arisen, then we get to experience the actual infinite.
> After you die, you will be taken away from this Earth and universe in the fastest way possible.


The issue with most goad arguments is a poor definition of gawd .

Some believe that death is as deep sleep without memory and a final day of reckoning would seem to be apparent immediately and consequent to the instance of death .

There are those which bury their own in wooden boxes after three days that suppose it takes 10 days from death for ones spirit to entirely leave ones body , does anyone know where one can rest comfortably for 10 days after death without being in a stifling box ?

At issue is where theists which exclaim the gist of their deity as a supreme example of some quality among deities , and some mono theists further exclaim there to be only one deity .

An issue with theories on monotheism is its reliance upon theories for monism that are premised upon a monad , an infinitesimal , an identity element , a member of an infinite set that is closed and complete , a smallest geometric entity of which all creation is comprised , an object with the qualities and properties of infinitude .

Consider where a monad is determined to be an irrational number with a quality of infinitude , although an irrational numbers is bound in a dimension of size and possesses some geometry , its qualities of infinitude are those of being and becoming through some transition .

Though a monad would include bias through its geometry , to presume that infinitesimals would be sentient or sapient , or to presume that a complete collective of an infinite set of monads is sentient or sapient , omniscient , with omnipotent will , rather than reflexive and  open ended with a generic quality of substantive indifference to event outcomes - free will , seems less compelling than the latter .

All in existence would emulate the quality of infinitude from monads by induction , and by deduction one affirms that procreation is an emulation of  being and becoming through some transition which are qualities of infinitude .

An after life , a chance for eternal life , transmutation of souls , reincarnation , being born again , the life to come , are all metaphors for passing on ones genetic identity through ones offspring , one haploid at a time , so that others both literally and figuratively as ones self may have an opportunity to experience sentience and sapience of life , where failures to procreate in perpetuity are described by the metaphors of final judgment with eternal damnation .

Though life is temporary , though there is suffering , would existence be better where sentience and sapience were not available to exist ?


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 26, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > No need to answer, I know the answers already.
> ...


Do you *know *that there was only ever one God?  How do you know?  Did He tell you?


----------



## Hollie (Feb 26, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Abiogenesis is not impossible since we know with certainty it occurred.
> ...


Abiogenesis is possible because we know with 100% certainty it occurred.

How did humans come to write a supernatural book of the gods?

“... because it says so in the Bible” is not a convincing argument. Now, if you had written “... because it says so in the Book of the Dead”, that... _that, _would be a convincing argument.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 26, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > How do you know your God didn't also have a beginning?  Maybe is just the last in a long line?  Would the universe look any different if that were true?
> ...



Ah, the cultist gets rattled.


----------



## james bond (Feb 27, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Do you *know *that there was only ever one God? How do you know? Did He tell you?



Yes, he did thru the Bible.


----------



## james bond (Feb 27, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Abiogenesis is possible because we know with 100% certainty it occurred.
> 
> How did humans come to write a supernatural book of the gods?
> 
> “... because it says so in the Bible” is not a convincing argument. Now, if you had written “... because it says so in the Book of the Dead”, that... _that, _would be a convincing argument.



No, science does not back up abiogenesis.  You are delusional and believe in fairy tales like all atheists.

What is the Book of the Dead?  Atheists life story?


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 27, 2021)

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you *know *that there was only ever one God? How do you know? Did He tell you?
> ...


And you know the Bible is correct because He said it was.  I think the circular reasoning has made you dizzy.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 27, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Abiogenesis is possible because we know with 100% certainty it occurred.
> ...


What fairy tales do evilutionist atheists believe in?

Did you never research the Egyptian Book of the Dead?


----------



## james bond (Feb 27, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



How can it be circular if He said it first and was the only witness for creation?  Furthermore, science backs him up.

Moreover, you just don't have _*it*_ and thus has been led down the wrong path of your own _circular_ reasoning.  You may as well be a round peg in a square hole.


----------



## james bond (Feb 27, 2021)

Hollie said:


> What fairy tales do evilutionist atheists believe in?



That God isn't the creator and there is no God.



Hollie said:


> Did you never research the Egyptian Book of the Dead?



You brought it up.  You should be able to explain it in your own words.  Or is it the reason why you can't bring up a topic on your own?


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 27, 2021)

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Your book said he said it and had it put in the book, the book that said he said it.  Perfectly circular.


----------



## james bond (Feb 27, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



This is your square head in the round hole talking now using circular and evolutionary logic. With that kind of logic, no one can write an auto-biography. People are laughing their arses off now .  You embarrassed yourself in front of all these people.  No use answering your questions as atheists cannot figure things out correctly.


----------



## Monk-Eye (Feb 27, 2021)

*" Naturalism Nay Sayers Appreciation Inn Limited Accolades "

* Individual Liberty Versus What Others Claim As An Entitlement To Enforce **


james bond said:


> That God isn't the creator and there is no God.
> You brought it up.  You should be able to explain it in your own words.  Or is it the reason why you can't bring up a topic on your own?


Some are hailing to control imminent domain without an adequate definition of gawd .

Theories of naturalism resign that all of which is comprising of nature includes order , disorder , projection , opportunity , energy transition , and that super natural is actually exceptional circumstances of nature .

Theories of naturalism would not expect to presume enforcing delimiters of time upon nature , or presume that nature had not ever existed ; how is such a presumption different from descriptions alluded to of gawd ?

The veneration of naturalism for the provisions from all that is nature is unquestionable ; would naturalism presume that gawd were equivalent with nature ?

Those individuals espousing deities in religious almanacs for genetic perpetuity should be evaluated based upon the tenets and edicts in the creed of each religion .

A comparison between religions is evaluating whether it ascribes to a creed for non violence principles - legitimate aggression , or ascribes to a creed of non aggression principles - no aggression pacifism.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 27, 2021)

james bond said:


> That God isn't the creator and there is no God


You can believe both of those things and still accept evolution as fact. Lots of people do.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 27, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > What fairy tales do evilutionist atheists believe in?
> ...


There have been thousands of gods invented by humans. Your polytheistic gods are just a conglomeration of all the earlier ones.

The Egyptian Book of the Dead predates the Bible and is obviously true and accurate vs. the Bible which is not


----------



## Monk-Eye (Feb 27, 2021)

*" Potential Spirit Wells Of Collective Common Mind Transmissions To And From Ground "

* Living Gawds And Guidance Themes From Social Organizations **


Hollie said:


> There have been thousands of gods invented by humans. Your polytheistic gods are just a conglomeration of all the earlier ones.
> The Egyptian Book of the Dead predates the Bible and is obviously true and accurate vs. the Bible which is not


Disparaging references to information others find useful is less adequate to explain a want or need by individuals to be relieved of accountability for mistakes and amend in ways for improving quality , duration and perpetuity of life .


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 27, 2021)

james bond said:


> With that kind of logic, no one can write an auto-biography.


Obviously that's not true.  In fact I wrote an autobiography.  It tells all about how I started Amazon and then became President of the United States.  You can believe me since in my book I said it was all true.


----------



## james bond (Feb 27, 2021)

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Naturalism Nay Sayers Appreciation Inn Limited Accolades "
> 
> * Individual Liberty Versus What Others Claim As An Entitlement To Enforce **
> 
> ...



It's God, not gawd.  Four of the 10 Ten Commandments are for him.

You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall make no idols.
You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
Keep the Sabbath day holy.
Naturalism is kaka haha.  Your takes are . For example, how can something wonderful as the human brain come from ?  It can't.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 27, 2021)

james bond said:


> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> > *" Naturalism Nay Sayers Appreciation Inn Limited Accolades "
> ...


What a neurotic god he is. If someone were willing to god-shop, they would find much less neurotic and more benevolent gods in other religions.


----------



## james bond (Feb 27, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > That God isn't the creator and there is no God
> ...



That's how atheists, their scientists, and ags end up in the other place.  It is a _gross violation_ of the 10 commandments and believing evolution is a fact when it's a lie.

It was backed up by the Biblical prophecy of people exchanging the truth of God for a lie.

If the Bible was not true, then it would not have been backed up by science and have been contradicted already.  Instead, we get no aliens nor organisms on Mars.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 27, 2021)

james bond said:


> That's how atheists, their scientists, and ags end up in the other place.


No. That's how many Christians end up believing evolution. It was literally the entire point, and you are too terrified a little sissy to address it. They see it is fact, and just accept it was God's way of doing things. Very easy.


----------



## james bond (Feb 27, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > That's how atheists, their scientists, and ags end up in the other place.
> ...



Evolution contradicts the Christian God in every way, but actual science backs up God and Bible.  Aren't these people exchanging the truth of God for a lie?

I already offered the challenge of discovering no life nor organisms on Mars b/c of no abiogenesis.  The swan neck experiment _proved_ it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 27, 2021)

james bond said:


> Evolution contradicts the Christian God in every way


False. It only contradicts the Biblical creation myth, if the myth is taken literally. Don't try to put a tuxedo on your turd, Bond. What I just stated is the ONLY reason you have wasted your time and energy embarrassing yourself in a debate you lost 160 years ago. Any other reason you state is a LIE and should be ignored completely.


----------



## james bond (Feb 27, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > With that kind of logic, no one can write an auto-biography.
> ...



With your autobiography, it will not sell.  For example, many people already know who started Amazon.  Thus, they found a contradiction and you failed  .

Just look at what the best selling book in the world is -- the Bible 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 27, 2021)

james bond said:


> For example, how can something wonderful as the human brain come from ?  It can't.


You mean to say YOU can understand how it could happen but ergo no one can.  Supreme arrogance.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 27, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > For example, how can something wonderful as the human brain come from ?  It can't.
> ...


Arrogance arising from happy ignorance, at that. Children find evolution fairly easy to understand. Bond knows less than nothing about it.


----------



## Monk-Eye (Feb 27, 2021)

*" Remanding Proof Of Origin For Document Espoused As Absolutely Valid For Normative Standards "

* Gawd Goading Deities Garb And Other Addorned Tappestries "*


james bond said:


> It's God, not gawd.  Four of the 10 Ten Commandments are for him.
> 
> You shall have no other gods before Me.
> You shall make no idols.
> ...


A supposition in a bout for or against naturalism should suppose that pundits for naturalism would subscribe to adopt ideas and techniques from diverse resources that collectively aid in determining methods of behavior which are functional .

Disparaging accusations against naturalism and against its principles to acquire a basis of equilibrium does not explain whether deities exist with free will and whether a means to issue reciprocity exists through some schema of controls exacted by such a deity .

Upon which supposition is there to validate a referenced text to determine whether it was inscribed by a deity and not adulterated or embellished by an addition of perspectives from hue mammon ?

The core issue is whether doctrines claimed to have been issued by a deity are or are not in fact decrees from an extraterrestrial society .

Lore is that the qurayn is a direct dictation from an angel , with insistence that the address against transgressions of abstainers who reject the premise should be stern .


** Catholic Versus Protestant Error Arrogance Dealers Missing Volumes **

The doctrines of creed for the three abrahamic religions are the torah , gospel and qurayn .

The city state laws for the genetic religion of torhanism would not be expected to apply outside of isreal .

The city state laws for the genetic religion of qurayshism would not be expected to apply outside of hejaz .

The city state laws for the genetic religion of christianity are divided between the protestant following the seven laws of noah and the catholic following the decalogue .









						Seven Laws of Noah - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



_The seven Noahide laws as traditionally enumerated in the Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 56a-b and Tosefta Avodah Zarah 8:4,[2][4][10][11] are the following:[1][2][3][4][5]_

_Not to worship idols._
_Not to curse God._
_Not to commit murder._
_Not to commit adultery, bestiality, or sexual immorality._
_Not to steal._
_Not to eat flesh torn from a living animal._
_To establish courts of justice._
_According to the Jewish law, non-Jews (gentiles) are not obligated to convert to Judaism, but *they are required to observe the Seven Laws of Noah to be assured of a place in the World to Come (Olam Ha-Ba), the final reward of the righteous.[2][3][4]**[5]*[*7]**[8][9] The non-Jews that choose to follow the Seven Laws of Noah are regarded as "Righteous Gentiles" *(Hebrew: חסיד אומות העולם‎, Chassid Umot ha-Olam: "Pious People of the World").[2][3][5][7][8]__[9]_









						Ten Commandments - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



_According to the book of Exodus in the Torah, the Ten Commandments were revealed to Moses at Mount Sinai.__[1]_
_The Ten Commandments form the basis of Jewish law,[59] stating God's universal and timeless standard of right and wrong – *unlike the rest of the 613 commandments in the Torah,* which include, for example, various duties and ceremonies such as the kashrut dietary laws, and now unobservable rituals to be performed by priests in the Holy Temple.[60] *Jewish tradition considers the Ten Commandments the theological basis for the rest of the commandments.
In Catholicism, Jesus freed Christians from the rest of Jewish religious law, but not from their obligation to keep the Ten Commandments.[79]* It has been said that they are to the moral order what the creation story is to the natural order.__[79]_


** Dichotomy Of Good Versus Evil More Dramatized As Hue Mammon Phenomenon In Theater **

As much as some claim that a creed originating from a deity set auspices establishing social foundation , greek and roman culture also adorn its social foundations .

The greek perspective on cosmogony of creation in the known universe was written as a cosmological explanation , wherein timelines of celestial events were described as actions by celestial deities .


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 27, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Do you *know *that there was only ever one God?  How do you know?  Did He tell you?



As a matter of fact, He did.


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 27, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Obviously that's not true.  In fact I wrote an autobiography.  It tells all about how I started Amazon and then became President of the United States.  You can believe me since in my book I said it was all true.



Ah!  But did you get a second term?


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 27, 2021)

Confounding said:


> It's kind of annoying when science denying idiots pollute topics in the science section with their ignorance. I don't want to deal with your stupid shit so I stay out of the religion section. It would be real nice of you all to do similarly with the science section.



It's kind of funny when atheist know-nothings pretend to be the arbiters of truth.


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 28, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you *know *that there was only ever one God?  How do you know?  Did He tell you?
> ...


A voice in your head, a burning bush, or the Bible?  Regardless, you still don't know if he was joking, lying, or ignorant of other gods.


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 28, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously that's not true.  In fact I wrote an autobiography.  It tells all about how I started Amazon and then became President of the United States.  You can believe me since in my book I said it was all true.
> ...


Read the book.


----------



## abu afak (Mar 2, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > It's kind of annoying when science denying idiots pollute topics in the science section with their ignorance. I don't want to deal with your stupid shit so I stay out of the religion section. It would be real nice of you all to do similarly with the science section.
> ...


Just asking for evidence .. as we DO have an overwhelming amount for evolution.
vs NONE for your Flying Spaghetti Monster.


`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 2, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> It's kind of funny when atheist know-nothings pretend to be the arbiters of truth.


But what would be even funnier would be watching you fail a 7th grade science quiz.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 2, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Read the book.



Can I get an autographed copy?


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 2, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Just asking for evidence .. as we DO have an overwhelming amount for evolution.
> vs NONE for your Flying Spaghetti Monster.





The fact that you're not embarrassed to write such gibberish is really quite hilarious.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 2, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



So logic lies?!

That's weird.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 2, 2021)

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Naturalism Nay Sayers Appreciation Inn Limited Accolades "
> 
> * Individual Liberty Versus What Others Claim As An Entitlement To Enforce **
> 
> ...



Say what?


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 2, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Read the book.
> ...


Do you have a signed copy of the Bible?  Now that would be something.


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 2, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


No logic is involved here, just your faith.  Own it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 2, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> So logic lies?!


No, you lie. Garbage in, garbage out.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 4, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> No logic is involved here, just your faith.  Own it.



False.  By faith I believe that the imperatives of logic are reliable.  Please explain why you _believe_ they're not.  Thanks.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 4, 2021)

abu afak said:


> If the word amyloid doesn't sound familiar, they're a protein structure that's increasingly being found all over the place in nature.​[.....]​
> 
> `



Hey, abu afak, I thought you wanted to discuss Miller-Urey.


----------



## abu afak (Mar 4, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Hey, abu afak, I thought you wanted to discuss Miller-Urey.


You're a FRAUD and you know it.
You're Finished here.
You're nothing but a one Emoticon/one Line/one Poem Troll.
Look above, look everywhere.

You've done nothing but link your original one line essay.
When you have some REAL/Tangible Evidence FOR god, or Against evolution, come back
IOW, NEVER.

`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 4, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> By faith I believe that the imperatives of logic are reliable. Please explain why you _believe_ they're not.


Garbage in, garbage out. Get it through your head.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 4, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > If the word amyloid doesn't sound familiar, they're a protein structure that's increasingly being found all over the place in nature.​[.....]​
> ...


Hahahahahaha


Miller Urey?

What a joke.


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 4, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > No logic is involved here, just your faith.  Own it.
> ...


By faith you believe the creation of the universe is somehow connected to a man who lived and died on Earth some 2,000 years ago.  That is highly illogical.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 6, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...




Why is that illogical, alang?


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 6, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, abu afak, I thought you wanted to discuss Miller-Urey.
> ...



Ah, shut up.  You were shut down by more than 6 posters on your own thread due to your ignorance regarding the difference between abiogenesis and biochemistry, the origin of the proteins you're going on about, and the origin of the organic compounds that made them.  You don't even grasp why demonstrating, much less, observing, abiogenesis is impossible.

Relative to the underlying hypothesis of the Miller-Urey experiments, what was falsified?  Thanks.


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 6, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


Complete and total absence of evidence.  Or do you have something that connects an act of creation 14 or so billion years ago with events that took place 2,000 years ago.


----------



## Ringtone (Mar 6, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Complete and total absence of evidence.  Or do you have something that connects an act of creation 14 or so billion years ago with events that took place 2,000 years ago.



We've already been over this.  You don't accept the ramifications of the evidence per the imperatives of logic, mathematics and science.  Remember?  And you never offer any coherent refutation of those ramifications.  Remember?  You don't do the imperatives of logic, mathematics and science at all.  You just do slogan speak.  Remember?


----------



## Hollie (Mar 6, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Complete and total absence of evidence.  Or do you have something that connects an act of creation 14 or so billion years ago with events that took place 2,000 years ago.
> ...


The ramifications of the imperatives of logic, mathematics and science point toward a natural world as opposed to your fantasy world of magic and supernaturalism.


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 6, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Complete and total absence of evidence.  Or do you have something that connects an act of creation 14 or so billion years ago with events that took place 2,000 years ago.
> ...


We have and you have yet to provide an answer to my question: do you have something that connects an act of creation 14 or so billion years ago with events that took place 2,000 years ago?  All your "imperatives of logic, mathematics and science" you claim point to a creator, you offered no logic, mathematics or science to make the connection between a creator of the universe and Yahweh.   

Or you can do the opposite, prove Erebus was not the creator of the universe as Greek mythology holds:
Once there was Light and Day, *Gaea*, the earth appeared. Then *Erebus* slept with Night, who gave birth to Ether, the heavenly light, and to Day the earthly light.​


----------



## abu afak (Jan 7, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Complete and total absence of evidence.  Or do you have something that connects an act of creation 14 or so billion years ago with events that took place 2,000 years ago.


He doesn't have any evidence, just an illogical philosophy.
`


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 7, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> We have and you have yet to provide an answer to my question: do you have something that connects an act of creation 14 or so billion years ago with events that took place 2,000 years ago?  All your "imperatives of logic, mathematics and science" you claim point to a creator, you offered no logic, mathematics or science to make the connection between a creator of the universe and Yahweh.
> 
> Or you can do the opposite, prove Erebus was not the creator of the universe as Greek mythology holds:
> Once there was Light and Day, *Gaea*, the earth appeared. Then *Erebus* slept with Night, who gave birth to Ether, the heavenly light, and to Day the earthly light.​


2000 years ago?  What _are_ you babbling about?

As for Greek mythology, it's your metaphysics that mirror those of classical paganism, not the Bible's.  

As for the pertinent logical and mathematical imperatives. . . .

An actual infinite is an absurdity.
An infinite regress of causality/temporality cannot be traversed.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 7, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> 2000 years ago?  What _are_ you babbling about?


Let's say you've proven there was a Creator of the universe (you haven't but let's say you have).  What evidence can you provide to show that that Creator was the same Creator as described in the Bible?


----------



## badger2 (Jan 7, 2022)

The Miller-Urey experiment circa 1959 explains how life on earth began. Sorry, there is no god.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 8, 2022)

badger2 said:


> The Miller-Urey experiment circa 1959 explains how life on earth began. Sorry, there is no god.





Ringtone said:


> An actual infinite is an absurdity.


The universe has no obligation to make sense to our tiny minds.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 8, 2022)

Innocynioc said:


> People can only validly claim to know how life began on Earth when they are able to duplicate the process by creating life from non living ingredients.  Until that happens all is just hand waving.


Simply wrong, because that assumes there is only one path to abiogenesis.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jan 28, 2022)

If this adds to our knowledge, I'm all for it!

OP, please update this thread when these ideas move beyond the "mights" and "coulds" phase.


----------



## badger2 (Jan 28, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The universe has no obligation to make sense to our tiny minds.


Stupids such as yourself, including a non-existent god, also have no obligation to read or understand the science behind the Miller-Urey experiment. That is why Stupidity always gets precisely the reality it deserves, and CIA-cathoplic puppets such as POSPOTUS JoeXi can easily traffic genuflectors across the Mexican border.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 28, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> If this adds to our knowledge, I'm all for it!
> 
> OP, please update this thread when these ideas move beyond the "mights" and "coulds" phase.


And what would that look like? 

Be specific.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jan 28, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And what would that look like?
> 
> Be specific.


Sure!

For example, instead of saying:



> Researchers from Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (ETH) in Zürich have demonstrated that short strands of amyloid protein structures *can* direct the selection of amino acids to build even more amyloids.


It would say:



> Researchers from Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (ETH) in Zürich have demonstrated that short strands of amyloid protein structures *did* direct the selection of amino acids to build even more amyloids.  *And the proof is______ _______________ and___________ ________ _________ .*



Most fields of science rely on proofs, and experimentation.  For some reason the purported sciences of origins of life on Earth and evolution of life on Earth, asks us to take it on faith.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 28, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Sure!
> 
> For example, instead of saying:
> 
> ...


Oops, you forgot to fill in the blanks. That was your job. What's with the sissy dodge?


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jan 28, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oops, you forgot to fill in the blanks. That was your job. What's with the sissy dodge?


No, that would be the job of whoever is claiming that such proof exists.

Logic isn't your strong suit, I see.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 30, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oops, you forgot to fill in the blanks. That was your job. What's with the sissy dodge?


He doesn't say anything factual
NOTHING.
He won't even answer me when I do.
He likes pitter-pattering with Fort Fun though
Seymour Flops  is a FRAUD.

`


----------



## zaangalewa (Jan 31, 2022)

abu afak said:


> No, we don't have all the answers, but we're still looking.
> We'll never have all the answers as they just generate new questions.
> 
> *Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on Earth*
> ...



I ask myselve whether this has also to do with Prions and how dangerous such processes are able to be in general. As well Amyloids and Prions seem to have to do with Jakob-Creutzfeld for example. We have anyway not any really good weapon against the relativelly very big virusses - except the pre-activation of the human immune system by vaccinations.  So we are nearly helpless in case of virusses - but in case of such much more little self-reproducing structures we are absolutelly helpless if they are able to infect us with whatever effect.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jan 31, 2022)

abu afak said:


> He doesn't say anything factual
> NOTHING.
> He won't even answer me when I do.
> He likes pitter-pattering with Fort Fun though
> ...


Your posts are nonsensical.  They give me nothing of substance to which to respond.


----------



## abu afak (Mar 3, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Your posts are nonsensical.  They give me nothing of substance to which to respond.


LOL
You can never respond save for a few things you THINK might work but end up being losers too.
`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 3, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Your posts are nonsensical.  They give me nothing of substance to which to respond.


Why are you still talking?

You already tapped out, just like you did in the other thread. By the same submission.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 3, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Sure!
> 
> For example, instead of saying:
> 
> ...


It's real buffoonery to suggest anyone needs faith relative to biological evolution and life sciences. 

Here's just _one_ example of _one_ university that spills nonsense on your pointless prattle. 





__





						Home
					






					biology.dartmouth.edu
				




It's remarkable that you didn't know the leading research universities have doctoral programs for the STEM fields. Odd, that you didn't know most every college and university in this country has STEM field programs. 

The Disco'tute has played a cruel joke on you.


----------

