# Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism



## Ringtone (Sep 3, 2019)

The following article reviews the most relevant findings in abiogenetic research to date and touches on the potential metaphysical presuppositions for science in the light of those findings. Where do we go when the findings seem to show that a natural mechanism of sheer chemistry for the origin of life is implausible, cannot be given and/or is indemonstrable? In light of the findings, I propose a return to the open-ended, methodological naturalism of tradition, that which was applied to the scientific enterprise before Darwin. The assumption of the Darwinian paradigm obviously begs the question and arbitrarily precludes the potential necessity of intelligent design. I say there's no way the rudimentary, self-ording properties of mere chemistry could have possibly produced the sequestered materials and information of life. 

Abiogenesis:  The Unholy Grail of Atheism
*
By Michael Rawlings
February 4, 2009


While the historical presupposition for science is not a methodological naturalism wherein philosophical naturalism serves minimally as a regulative principle, most of today’s practicing scientists insist that origins must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of an intelligent agent of causation and design.  The range of scientific inquiry is inordinately curtailed accordingly.  Though any rational evaluation of the empirical data might recommend them, potentialities outside the boundaries of this range of inquiry are flatly dismissed.  Hence, should one reject the guesswork of an arbitrarily imposed apriority that conflates agency and process, one is said to reject science itself, as if the fanatics of scientism owned the means of science.  . . .

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 mellanoids, 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  But the unpublished Miller-Urey experiments conducted over the next several years show that a modified version of Miller’s original apparatus featuring a volcanic spark discharge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. . *


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 4, 2019)

*Thread re-opened with corrections from the OP..... *


----------



## Hollie (Sep 4, 2019)

The OP appeals to every ID’iot creationist shibboleth and cliche in a desperate attempt to press his religious extremist agenda. What Miller-Urey established was that the building blocks of organic life (complex organics from simple compounds), form quite readily. 

Religious extremists have a need to discredit science discovery because knowledge and learning tend to supplant fear and superstition. 




Abiogenesis FAQs: The Origins of Life

Abiogenesis is the field of science dedicated to studying how life might have arisen for the first time on the primordial young Earth. Despite the enormous progress that has been made since the Miller-Urey experiment, abiogenesis is under constant attack from creationists, who continually claim that the origin of life by natural processes is so unlikely as to be, for all practical purposes, impossible. Following are some articles that challenge this claim and demonstrate the fundamental misconception at the core of the creationists' arguments.

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations
How likely is it that even a single bacterium could form by chance in the primordial sea? Not very likely, that's for sure, and creationists have been only too happy to provide ludicrously huge numbers purporting to be the odds against such a thing. However, even if these calculations are correct, they are irrelevant, as modern theories of abiogenesis require nothing of the kind to happen. This article briefly illustrates what abiogenesis really is and shows why the creationists' probability calculations do not matter. 

Borel's Law and the Origin of Many Creationist Probability Assertions
Creationists have asserted that a statistical principle called "Borel's Law" mathematically demonstrates that abiogenesis is impossible. This article explains what Borel's Law is and shows that Borel himself clearly understood that his law was not relevant to the probability of the origin of life. 

Spontaneous Generation and the Origin of Life
Creationists often claim that Louis Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation and hence any naturalistic origin of life. This article shows what Pasteur really demonstrated and gives a history of the subject from early ideas of spontaneous generation to modern ideas about the origin of life. 

The Origin of Life
A discussion of the main models on the spontaneous origin of life that aims to show how cellular complexity could have gradually emerged from simple systems - in contrast to the sudden appearance of complexity that creationists claim to have been necessary at the beginning of life. Central issues like the composition of the early atmosphere of the Earth and the origin of the homochirality of amino acids and sugars are reviewed as well.

Review of the Miller-Urey experiment chapter of Icons of Evolution
Jonathan Wells of the Discovery Institute has made false claims about abiogenesis research in his book Icons of Evolution.

An Index to Creationist Claims: Abiogenesis
Brief replies to various origin-of-life claims by antievolutionists.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 4, 2019)

What a stupid oped, devoid of any actual, empirical arguments. Also, while abiogenesis may contradict the silly, childish, abrahamic creation myth, it does not necessarily contradict other, theistic religious paradigms. So, what we have here is a christian nutball so steeped in his own, magical horseshit that he cant see past the end of his own nose.

So,a guy who is absolutely certain, without a shred of evidence, that his magical horseshit is absolutely true is criticizing scientists for not yet having enough evidence to be absolutely true of something, even though they are not claiming to be so anyway.

Of course.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 4, 2019)

And, worth noting:

Abiogensis is a foregone conclusion. While we may not know how it happened, we can safely assume it is a fact and did, indeed, happen.


----------



## fncceo (Sep 4, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> while abiogenesis may contradict the silly, childish, abrahamic creation myth,



It actually doesn't.

Life formed from inorganic substances and imbued with animus is a poetic description of what we suspect is the actual process.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 4, 2019)

fncceo said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > while abiogenesis may contradict the silly, childish, abrahamic creation myth,
> ...


Says you. And, trust me, i like the way you think. But not everyone is so willing to cast aside the wording of the myth as allegory, or poetry.

"God created man"...via the processes of abiogenesis and evolution. That doesn't seem so hard to accept, if one is already willing to accept the first premise.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 4, 2019)

As for coincidences in holy books:

What would we expect? When tasked with imagining how "there is no life" became "there is life", what would we expect people thousands of years ago to dream up? That it came from kryptonite, or that it arose from the merging of two black hole?

They were utterly ignorant of the universe. So, they had dirt. And air. And water. And fire. Which of these is substantial, like animals' bodies? Dirt. And voila, humans came from dirt. Oh, and magic.Of course.

Is this coincidence really supposed to impress anyone?

And is it coincidence, anyway? Not really...life formed from what he have here (not actually from dirt, but hey, we will just chalk that one up to "poetry"). The myth was imagined here, using what we have here. We dont gasp in awe when two kids on other sides of the planet make similar towers out of wooden blocks. The both had the same medium to work with.


----------



## Ringtone (Sep 4, 2019)

Hollie said:


> The OP appeals to every ID’iot creationist shibboleth and cliche in a desperate attempt to press his religious extremist agenda. What Miller-Urey established was that the building blocks of organic life (complex organics from simple compounds), form quite readily.



Since you apparently did not read my article and are not addressing it's pertinent observations regarding the objectively presented findings of abiogenetic research, your post is dismissed.  To be sure, I do evaluate what the findings tell us, but in the light of the voluminously cited, peer-reviewed research.  I have no interest in the he-said-she-said baby talk of atheist know-nothings.  This article was not written for the gullible acolytes of scientism.  Nor will I discuss the matter with such outside the content of this article.  

Off topic.


----------



## MisterBeale (Sep 4, 2019)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The OP appeals to every ID’iot creationist shibboleth and cliche in a desperate attempt to press his religious extremist agenda. What Miller-Urey established was that the building blocks of organic life (complex organics from simple compounds), form quite readily.
> ...



I did read it, and it only addressed very specific hypothetical conditions of one experiment, reproducing the hypothetical conditions of one place and one point in time in Earth's ancient history.

The planet is huge, the solar system even larger.  The possible conditions and precise time window of abiogenesis even larger.  So this article really, only refutes one localized area and time condition.  It doesn't disprove every possible scenario.

For instance, no where in there did it seek to disprove that meteorites of tholins, could have crashed into the right temperature pools of water, at just the right time, and got the ball rolling.


----------



## Ringtone (Sep 4, 2019)

fncceo said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > while abiogenesis may contradict the silly, childish, abrahamic creation myth.
> ...



fncceo, while your reading of Genesis might be compatible with the notion that God imbued chemistry with the property of organizing inorganic substances into some lifeform, I say again in the light of the findings, there's no way the rudimentary, self-ording properties of mere chemistry could have possibly produced the sequestered materials and information of life.  Of course, living creatures are comprised of the substances of the material world, but I say that's the end of the metaphor.  In other words, life was formed from nonliving material, not by nonliving material.  Abiogenesis is nonsense.  God directly formed lifeforms from inorganic substances on the spot!


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Sep 5, 2019)

Yeah, well we really don't know how life began. People who claim it is part of Evolutionary theory are mistaken as evolution is about the evolution of life already started. Abiogenesis is more of a materialistic conjecture about how it might have possibly happened, and it isn't very believable but there are few options. Stanly Miller is little more than a straw on the water.

We should realize that our Solar System formed from the remnant of a Supernovae since we have plenty of iron around in our rocky inner planets and once iron forms inside stars it is the death phase of the star. We also know from the presence of heavy elements like Platinum, Gold, etc, that a collision of two white dwarfs near us also added to our solar systems formation as well. What else might have happened while our Solar System was beginning to form? I am very interested in whether they find gold in 16 Psyche. IF there is gold within it, I think it proves that a white dwarf collision helped to form our solar system and not merely a supernovae.

So, anyway, I think it is fairly apparent that life is the result of a transpermia from a prior solar system that we really no very little about. Perhaps there was a deep dark planet of extreme heat that also had constant electrical currents moving through it? Or maybe it was  a very hot gas giant where the pressures and cloud lightning were constant enough to do the trick?

I don't know how the Creator started life, but I do know that He did it because He made the Universe for us, each one of us as individual souls.

The how is just a matter of curiosity.


----------



## Ringtone (Sep 5, 2019)

MisterBeale said:


> I did read it, and it only addressed very specific hypothetical conditions of one experiment, reproducing the hypothetical conditions of one place and one point in time in Earth's ancient history.
> 
> The planet is huge, the solar system even larger.  The possible conditions and precise time window of abiogenesis even larger.  So this article really, only refutes one localized area and time condition.  It doesn't disprove every possible scenario.
> 
> For instance, no where in there did it seek to disprove that meteorites of tholins could have crashed into the right temperature pools of water, at just the right time, and got the ball rolling.



I don't know what article you read, but it wasn't this one.  If you had, you'ld realize just how incoherent, uninformed, and essentially meaningless your post is.  The article discusses the findings of literally dozens of experiments in detail, entailing the entire gamut of environmental and atmospheric conditions from the geologically earliest period on.  It discusses the availability of indispensable materials (abiotic derivatives and organic precursors).  It discusses the available sources of energy.  It discusses the potentialities of intergalactic synthesis, the acquisition of organic materials from space debris, including comets and meteorites.  Who'ld a thunk it?  The availability of certain materials from which fundamental precursors can be synthesized under controlled laboratory conditions is of little significance in the face of the myriad and seemingly insurmountable obstacles in raw nature that would conspire against the chemical pathways of prebiotics well in front of the first stirrings of life, and the findings of Miller-Urey underscore just one of these many obstacles.  If you click on the link in red in the OP, you'll find a whole new world of science that just might cool your jets a bit for the prospects of abiogenesis—a little dose of reality.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 5, 2019)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The OP appeals to every ID’iot creationist shibboleth and cliche in a desperate attempt to press his religious extremist agenda. What Miller-Urey established was that the building blocks of organic life (complex organics from simple compounds), form quite readily.
> ...



You poor, dear. I couldn’t help but notice that your cutting and pasting included references to the most notorious charlatans and and quacks representing the industry of xtian fundamentalism. 

You included Dean Kenyon in your roll call of quacks. 

Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for Dean Kenyon

*Diagnosis: A grand old man of the wingnut fight against reality when reality don’t align with their wishful thinking. Has made major impacts and must still be considered dangerous.*
*
*
I couldn’t help but notice you also referenced the charlatans at the ICR. Perhaps you could tell us what research they do? What peer reviewed papers have the ICR quacks published?

If you’re hoping to denigrate science with the help of fundie zealots, that’s poor cricket, Laddie.


----------



## Ringtone (Sep 5, 2019)

Hollie said:


> You poor, dear. I couldn’t help but notice that your cutting and pasting included references to the most notorious charlatans and and quacks representing the industry of xtian fundamentalism.



Cutting and pasting?  What in the world are you talking about, you lunatic?  Dean Kenyon?  The ICR? 

The article does not contain or discuss one word from any work or paper or article or letter produced by these sources.  Not one!  Zilch!  Nada!  That's why they're not listed in the bibliography, you braying jackass.  They're listed under "Suggested Reading" strictly for those theists, atheists or agnostics who might be interested in reading up on abiogenesis from the perspective of creationist biologists in the field, given that I only discuss the peer-reviewed papers of the true believes in the field—the seminal papers of the leading lights of abiogenetic research from Miller-Urey on.  So once again, it's obvious that you didn't read the article.  The topic is not Hollie's contempt for all things theistic.  The topic is abiogenesis, Hollie's holy grail.  I don't appeal to the evaluations or the research of other theists in the article.  All of the research in the article is that of your people, Hollie!  Your folks.  Your scientists.  Oh, wait!  I do quote a theologian near the end of the article to underscore a point I make about Darwinism in general:

By what process of “angelization” could men have become cognizant of their random origins and spectators of all time and existence, as though from some superior and independent vantage-point?  Do the Neo-Darwinians, like so many other system-builders, desert the system of which they are the authors, claiming special cognitive principles that cannot be justified within the system? —Richard Spilsbury​
Other than that, it's all your folks against little ol' me.  Surely, you can read the article and the cited research, directly quote that research and my evaluations of it, and then show me in front of God and everybody why I'm wrong.  Hell, I even did the research for you.  Until you do that . . . 

Off topic.


----------



## MisterBeale (Sep 5, 2019)

Ringtone said:


> I say there's no way the rudimentary, self-ording properties of mere chemistry could have possibly produced the sequestered materials and information of life.




And judging from your responses in this thread?







You are not to be reasoned, engaged, or talked to about this stance in any way what-so-ever.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 5, 2019)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > You poor, dear. I couldn’t help but notice that your cutting and pasting included references to the most notorious charlatans and and quacks representing the industry of xtian fundamentalism.
> ...


Your emotional outbursts serve only to further discredit your unfounded claims. It was you who included links to quacks such as Dean Kenyon and charlatans at the ICR. When you slather your rants with such slogans as "Neo-Darwinians", it's pretty clear that you have an agenda that coincides with the most notorious of the fundamentalist Christian ministries. 

The origins of biological life on the planet are derived from the premise of biological life erupting from the basic chemical compounds that make up all life. All of the chemical elements that constitute biological life exist in the universe. The most basic compounds of biological life are in abundance in the cosmos. 

Against that, you assert that supernatural entities using supernatural means, snapped their supernatural digits and supernaturally "poofed" life into existence. 

Please make your case for Amun Ra, or any other entity / formidable collection of unionized supernatural entities responsible for life on the planet.

BTW, your appeals to "little ol'me" are odd. When you're not intellectually or emotionally prepared to accept challenges to your unfounded and unsupported statements, dont put them in a public forum.


----------



## Ringtone (Sep 5, 2019)

MisterBeale said:


> And judging from your responses in this thread?  You are not to be reasoned, engaged, or talked to about this stance in any way whatsoever.



Translation:  I believe abiogenesis happened, but I don't know enough about the topic to civilly discuss the reasons why I think chemistry did produce the materials and information of life, so I'm just going to insult Ringtone without knowing anything about him or the reasons why he's convinced that abiogenesis didn't happen.  I know, I'll make him out to be a closed-minded, intellectual bigot, because, after all, he dared to disagree with me and, of course, it logically follows that persons who are certain about things are necessarily close-minded, intellectual bigots. 

By the way, Joey Tribbiani, I'm Michael Rawlings, the author of the article.  The article is a comprehensive survey of the findings of the most seminal, abiogenetic research to date.  That's how I knew you hadn't read the article as you claimed.  Remember what you said?  You assumed the article was all about Miller-Urey, didn't you?  You're a poser, aren't you?

You don't fly anywhere near the altitude of my intellect and learning on the matter.  You're not qualified to critique my evaluation of the findings.  You're the close-minded, intellectual bigot.


----------



## Ringtone (Sep 5, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Whatever you say, looney toon.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 5, 2019)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...



That's quite a retreat.

The act of considered thought seems to defy you. Biological complexity (and the evolution of greater complexity over immense time scales), is readily observed in the fosill and biological record. 

While all of the mechanisms that allowed biological life on the planet to first spark to life are not understood, abiogenesis and then the mechanisms of evolution are fully consistent with natural processes. 

Please identify how you account for supernatural processes and the various supernatural agents who managed those processes.


----------



## Ringtone (Sep 5, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Please identify how you account for supernatural processes and the various supernatural agents who managed those processes.



Please identify and describe the magical properties you attribute to mindless, raw nature that overcame the following obstacles discussed in the article:

All _uncontrolled _conditions and all forms of _undirected_ energy readily denature the peptide bonds of proteins.  This is especially true of the sort of conditions that are known to prevail as a result of volcanic eruptions and large meteorite impacts, and the energy derived from such events is redundantly catastrophic.  The various conditions and forms of energy that can create amino acids are the very same as those that gleefully destroy proteins.

As for UV energy….

The destructive intensity of its long wavelengths exceeds the constructive facility of its short wavelengths; consequently, the quantum efficiency of the inhibitions it exerts against the polymerization of organic compounds is approximately five orders of magnitude higher than its threshold for the facilitation of their formation.  In order to produce even non-functional amino acids, for example, biochemists must not only control for a certain range of conditions—including temperature—but must also select for the compound-producing wavelengths of light energy as they screen out the compound-destroying wavelengths.  Yet both types of light are unremittingly shed by stars, under which life’s amino acids, except for glycine, readily break down.  In other words, while directed ultraviolet energy can induce the chemical reactions that produce amino acids, undirected ultraviolet energy readily inhibits their formation or destroys them.

Hence, I alluded to the various, alternative hypotheses for abiogenesis which have driven the primordial soup deeper and deeper into the ocean, actually, all the way down to the ocean floor.  Here, beyond the reach of natural light’s destructive wavelengths, it is imagined that life’s various precursors formed on the backs of crystals or clay formations and then, in accordance with their self-ordering properties, assembled themselves inside discrete hydrothermal vents.  However, in hindsight, it turns out that the problems of polymerization in the ocean are even more daunting due to the problem of dispersion and the higher probability of the toxic cross-reactions of dissymmetric molecules.

And the denaturing temperatures associated with geothermal or hydrothermal energy?

_Crickets chirping_​
Go get your buddy Joey.  Maybe he can help you figure these problems out.  He knows it all!  He knows that abiogenesis happened for sure.  He's real opened-minded, enlightened, hip, woke even.  He's a real special kind of guy, his shit don't stink.  He knows all about how the mindless properties of chemistry created life against a staggeringly complex array of factors pushing against the prospect.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 5, 2019)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Abiogenesis is more of a materialistic conjecture about how it might have possibly happened,


Not really. It's just the name given to the physical process that connects two states of affairs: no life, then life. One analogue is "star formation". Once there was no star in a location, then there was a star. What connects these two states? Star formation.

What conjecture or speculation have i undertaken to say this? None.


----------



## anotherlife (Sep 5, 2019)

Hollie said:


> The OP appeals to every ID’iot creationist shibboleth and cliche in a desperate attempt to press his religious extremist agenda. What Miller-Urey established was that the building blocks of organic life (complex organics from simple compounds), form quite readily.
> 
> Religious extremists have a need to discredit science discovery because knowledge and learning tend to supplant fear and superstition.
> 
> ...



Knowledge and learning supplant fear and superstition?  

More bad luck and loss come to you through your computers than ever before in history.  

If you had little to fear in the past, now you have plenty of reasons nonstop.  Entire new industries are founded on the new fears that come from knowledge and learning.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 5, 2019)

anotherlife said:


> If you had little to fear in the past, now you have plenty of reasons nonstop.


Only if you are irrational. And that isn't something your computer can do anything about.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 5, 2019)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Please identify how you account for supernatural processes and the various supernatural agents who managed those processes.
> ...


Oh, my. Have you been trolling Uncommon Descent? The various appeals to biology you don't understand have a familiar resemblance to one or more of the angry, fundie cranks. 

That confused assembly of reasons why biology is superseded by your various supernatural entities does nothing to make a case for those supernatural entities as a causation. It's a tactic that is stereotypical of angry fundies; to make every attempt to discredit science by reaching for some perceived flaw. 

The fact remains, however, that the building blocks of life, a infant on earth and in the cosmos, readily combine to form protein chains.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 5, 2019)

Ringtone said:


> Please identify and describe the magical properties you attribute to mindless, raw nature that overcame the following obstacles discussed in the article:


No magic is required. It is simply, "selection". You have confused yourself again. You are the one proposing magic.


----------



## ding (Sep 5, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Please identify and describe the magical properties you attribute to mindless, raw nature that overcame the following obstacles discussed in the article:
> ...


No. Not magic. Something beyond space and time capable of creating the material world. 

Something more like a mind without a body as the matrix for the material world. 

So it’s not magic. It’s beyond your comprehension and you use ancient texts to confirm your bias because you are too lazy, ignorant or of limited vision (or all three) to consider anything beyond your preconceived notions.


----------



## ding (Sep 5, 2019)

So before I address the question I am going to share with you a few videos of how molecular machines actually work so that the answer to this question can be better understood and is less of a black box and becomes more real to you such that your only possible takeaway from these videos is how incredibly intricate and complex life is.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 5, 2019)

ding said:


> No. Not magic. Something beyond space and time capable of creating the material world.


...with special magical powers, who has no creator, who is eternal and unique, and who is perfect. Ding, i don't know who you think you are fooling, but you are not referring to some guy named ned who lives in extradimensional space in a world full of neds and jacks and erics. Spare me your lies. You are embarrassing yourself.


----------



## ding (Sep 5, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > No. Not magic. Something beyond space and time capable of creating the material world.
> ...


No.  As the solution to the first cause conundrum.  Something which is eternal and unchanging.

But you are the one who needs to spare us.  Stop insulting my view of existence with your overly simplistic rendition of what I am talking about.  You lack the intellectual capacity to argue anything else and it makes you look like a fool.


----------



## Ringtone (Sep 5, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No magic is required. It is simply, "selection". You have confused yourself again. You are the one proposing magic.



Ah!  I'm confused again, eh?  Well, you're obviously an expert.  Perhaps you can explain to the author of the article how mindless nature pulled the following off.  Please, by all means, unravel this riddle for us.  See if you can do better this time around given that your magical wand of "selection" would obviously be of no avail against the energy problem  From the article:

Accordingly, today’s Neo-Darwinists believe that UV energy played only an indirect role in the polymerization of organic compounds.  Variously, nature’s abiogenic laboratories are the planet’s interior cauldrons, the oceans and outer space.  In the latter, the organic molecules in gaseous mixtures are partially converted by polarized light _inside_ cooling asteroids.  And the most interesting of these organic-bearing space debris are the “water-altered” variety with carbon-rich deposits, as their meteoric fragments contain many mixtures of amino acids that are predominately left-handed*. 4*  Much has been made of this by the zealots of scientism—the stuff of pigheaded presupposition and sensationalistic journalism (for example, “More evidence for asteroids creating life on Earth”!).  But since the leftward-leaning mixtures of the amino acids that are found in meteorites are abiotic, cooler heads recognize that their significance has been wildly exaggerated. *5*

[. . .]

Accordingly, it is believed that the chemical properties of α-dialkyl amino acids are uniquely susceptible to the manipulations of the interplanetary medium’s two-step mechanism of polarized light and aqueous alteration.  The overall quantity of _*x*_ is reduced as some portion of its _dextro_-enantiomers are optically reoriented and aqueously altered, and another portion of the same are decomposed and thereby divorced from their enanteiomeric counterparts.  The result is a smaller, altered mixture of _*x*_ with an excess number of _levo_-enantiomers.  While the finer details of the process are unknown, the outcome is manifest. *11*

*What is not manifest are the purely natural processes by which these space travelers avoided being racemized on Earth, achieved homochirality and transferred it to the α-hydrogen amino acids of extant biochemistry.*  Was homochirality transferred before or after replication?  If before, _how_ in the absence of organic information?  If after, _why_ in the presence of an established system?  Given the inevitability of racemization in heterogeneous environments (that is to say, given the vain pretensions of chemically acquired homochirality) and given the magical nature of transferring a mulishly intrinsic property from one type of amino acid to another … oh, never mind!  Behold, another of the many impenetrable riddles of abiogenesis.​


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 5, 2019)

Ringtone said:


> . Perhaps you can explain how mindless nature pulled the following off.


I can explain it in one word: selection. 

Whew, that was easy.

By the way, you are performing a parlor trick older than dirt: bait and switch.  No, it doesn't become better with age.


----------



## Ringtone (Sep 5, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > . Perhaps you can explain how mindless nature pulled the following off.
> ...




You slogan-spouting fool.  Selection?!  The chirality of nature's paltry collection of pertinent organic materials is the exact opposite of life.  From the article:

While the unfathomable reaches of intergalactic space are slightly partial to left-handed amino acids, albeit, to the wrong type with respect to known terrestrial life, there is no intrinsically apparent reason that terrestrial life could not be based on a molecular biophysics of right-handed amino acids and left-handed sugars instead.  Yet terrestrial life is decisively biased about the type and the optical form of its amino acids.  While the process would be only slightly less mysterious, insofar as it were left to the mindless devices of nature, why would the supposed prebiotic chemistry of nature take such a circuitous route as that outlined in the paragraph above this one and not simply amplify the chirality of the α-hydrogen amino acids of life?​


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 5, 2019)

Ringtone said:


> The chirality of nature's paltry collection of pertinent organic chemicals is the exact opposite of life.


Shameless lie. You are exaggerating to the point of a shameless lie. These are desperate, basless, stupid YEC talking points.

Furthermore, even if all of your shameless exaggeration were true, it STILL would not constitute evidence for your childish sky daddy fantasy.

That should give you a hint of how wrong you are.


----------



## james bond (Sep 5, 2019)

Ringtone said:


> The following article reviews the most relevant findings in abiogenetic research to date and touches on the potential metaphysical presuppositions for science (methodological naturalism, philosophical/ontological naturalism) in the light of those findings.  Where do we go when the findings show that a natural mechanism of sheer chemistry for the origin of life is implausible, cannot be given and/or is indemonstrable?  In light of the evidence, I propose a return to the open-ended, methodological naturalism of tradition, that applied by the great theistic scientists prior to Darwin, the latter of which, in my opinion, begs the question and leads to error.  I say there's no way the rudimentary, self-ording properties of mere chemistry could have possibly produced the sequestered materials and information of life.
> 
> Abiogenesis:  The Unholy Grail of Atheism
> *
> ...



I would think the atheists/agnostics here do not know how to do Miller-Urey even though they claim it worked.  They will not be able to use it to create amino acids because they do not know what gases to mix.  Here is a website where they can demonstrate their findings, failures, and successes, if any.  I am claiming most won't be successful or even try it because they can't do it.  They do not know what gases were present in the early atmosphere and screw up.  It's not that hard.

Miller-Urey Experiment


----------



## ding (Sep 5, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > . Perhaps you can explain how mindless nature pulled the following off.
> ...


No. Selection is for living things.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 5, 2019)

To give everyone else some insight into this plagiarized, discredited talking point:

Certain misguided chemists (and their plagiarists, like Ringtone) have tried to claim that life could only form in the presence of a pure source of "left handed" amino acids. They argue that, since this  pure mixture did not exist, life could not have formed.

This talking point is deacdes old. The first time scientists heard it, they laughed at it and said that it is in no way necessary that only left handed amino acids be present...


 ...and that was the end of that. But, once in a while, a YEC goober will dust off this old, charaltan's talking point and try to impress people with big words.

Pay no mind.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 5, 2019)

Ringtone said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > No magic is required. It is simply, "selection". You have confused yourself again. You are the one proposing magic.
> ...



I’m not sure what you think is accomplished with your tedious cutting and pasting.

All of your bloviating is tired and repetitious diatribes against science and discovery. As we see so often with your cutting and pasting, the crestionist ministries struggle to find some inconsistency with the established biological sciences and attempt to use that as an indictment of the entirety of the science community. It's a common tactic of the creationist crowd. They are unable to adhere to principles of the scientific method and peer review as it relates to substantiating their outrageous claims so they are left with flaccid attempts to discredit science.

We have no reason to believe any such gods or supermagical being or beings are necessary for existence, and to invoke one raises the question of evidence that the creationists are unable to present. So it is left for ID’iot/creationists to vilify science in failed attempts to justify their special pleadings for gods. That creationists arbitrarily stop at "a" point and don't ask what made god(s) is their choice to do, but its inconsistency, by definition, literally screams out as amateur.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 5, 2019)

Hollie said:


> I’m not sure what you think is accomplished with your tedious cutting and pasting.


Oh, I do. He is trying to "beguile" with fifty cent words. That's what charlatans do.


----------



## Ringtone (Sep 5, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > The chirality of nature's paltry collection of pertinent organic chemicals is the exact opposite of life.
> ...




You're still spouting slogans.  You're the liar, indeed, a sociopath like Hollie apparently.  You can't just discuss the matter in good faith, with an honest and open mind.  You have to insult, lie, get all personal.  *Introductory Biochemistry 101:  the amino acids and sugars of raw nature are right- and left-handed respectively.  Those of life are left- and right-handed respectfully.*  What's next?  Are you going to deny the laws of thermodynamics, Maxwell' equations, Hubble's law, the fundamental interactions of nature, the existence of bosons and fermions. . . .  

By the way, I'm not a young earth creationist, but then you'd know that if you had read the article, just like you'd know that the only research discussed in the article is that of the proponents of abiogenesis.  The work of creationist/Id theorists is not discussed at all.  LOL!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 5, 2019)

Ringtone said:


> *Introductory Biochemistry 101: the amino acids and sugars of raw nature are right- and left-handed respectively. Those of life are left- and right-handed respectfully.*


So what? For one, it is likely that this didn't hold on prebiotic earth, as amino acids found on earth tend to be left handed in general. Furthermore, as has been mentioned already, life does not always take advantage of the most abundant compounds. We rely on aerobic metabolism, despite oxygen not being the most abundant element in the atmospgere or the sea. It just so happens that it was eventually selected "for" to perform aerobic metabplism in organisms. 

Cells tend to use left handed amino acids (but not always). Your argument is not complicated. You say this means an intelligent, magical sky daddy made it so.

That is your entire argument. It is obviously absurd, and it is laughed off by scientists.


----------



## james bond (Sep 5, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So what? For one, it is likely that this didn't hold on prebiotic earth, as amino acids found on earth tend to be left handed in general.



Show us your biochem 101 skills.  We haven't even gotten there to discuss chirality of amino acids.  Show us where you get your primordial soup.  First, you have to form amino acids in the atmosphere.  How does one get amino acids?







The other thing you mention is left handedness.  Which amino acids are left handed?  Which amino acids are right handed?  It's too bad you didn't learn anything from Dr.  Duane Gish .


----------



## Ringtone (Sep 5, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> To give everyone else some insight into this plagiarized, discredited talking point:
> 
> Certain misguided chemists (and their plagiarists, like Ringtone) have tried to claim that life could only form in the presence of a pure source of "left handed" amino acids. They argue that, since this  pure mixture did not exist, life could not have formed.
> 
> ...



First, take the charge of plagiarism and shove up your ass.  You're the one who can't spell.  Anyone with an IQ above that of a gnat can see that the prose on this board and the prose in the article are of the same author.  Second, you're the one spouting the slogans of know-nothings.  Everybody who understands the science knows that the chirality problem is very real and that abiogenetic theorists have yet to give a satisfactory answer.  But, then, you fail to correctly state what the essence of the problem is.  Once again, the amino acids and sugars of raw nature are racemic, but those of life are decisively left- and right-handed respectfully.  The skeptics of abiogenesis, which include agnostics and theists, _do not_ assert, as you claim, that life can only arise in the presence of a pure mixture of left- and right-handed amino acids and sugars, respectively.  Of course it can!  We're here, aren't we?  

_crickets_ _chirping_

Your hackneyed account, therefore, obviously cannot possibly be the essence of the problem!

The problem is that racemic mixtures are optically inactive.  Period.  All mixtures are racemic in raw nature, and the fact that intergalactic synthesis sightly favors left-handed amino acids is of no avail.  This factor would be axiomatically diluted on Earth, yielding a fully racemic mixture of amino acids with a specific rotation of zero.  Period.     

But, ultimately, once again, the problem goes to the following from the article:  

*What is not manifest are the purely natural processes by which these space travelers avoided being racemized on Earth, achieved homochirality and transferred it to the α-hydrogen amino acids of extant biochemistry.*  Was homochirality transferred before or after replication? If before, _how_ in the absence of organic information? If after, _why_ in the presence of an established system? Given the inevitability of racemization in heterogeneous environments (that is to say, given the vain pretensions of chemically acquired homochirality) and given the magical nature of transferring a mulishly intrinsic property from one type of amino acid to another … oh, never mind! Behold, another of the many impenetrable riddles of abiogenesis.
​


----------



## Ringtone (Sep 5, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So what? For one, it is likely that this didn't hold on prebiotic earth, as amino acids found on earth tend to be left handed in general.



Shut up.  Amino acids on Earth do not tend to be left-handed in general.   

False!  ALL MIXTURES OF AMINO ACIDS AND SUGARS ARE RACEMIC IN RAW NATURE—USELESS TO LIFE!

Only _in_ life are they decisively left- and right-handed respectfully.  There's no in general about it in living organisms, you idiot!

Why did you mindlessly agree with the following? 

*"Introductory Biochemistry 101: the amino acids and sugars of raw nature are right- and left-handed respectively. Those of life are left- and right-handed respectfully."*

Answer:  because you don't know dick, because you're a mindless reactionary, because you're a mindless slogan-spouter.

The first part of that statement is totally meaningless.  Not only did you bust yourself by first calling me liar and then concede that I had the right of it, albeit, subliminally, after looking it up, but you sprung the trap I set.   .
*
The correct way to express the above would be: the amino acids and sugars of raw nature are racemically right- and left-handed; those of life are left- and right-handed respectfully.  *




Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Cells tend to use left handed amino acids (but not always).



Really?  What cells use right-handed amino acids? 

_crickets chirping_

Some bacteria can convert right-handed amino acids into left-handed amino acids so that they _can_ use them.  Is that what you meant to say?  Obviously not.  You were just making things up again. 

You've dug a very deep hole for yourself.  I can barely see the top of your head.


----------



## Ringtone (Sep 5, 2019)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > So what? For one, it is likely that this didn't hold on prebiotic earth, as amino acids found on earth tend to be left handed in general.
> ...




_All_ amino acids are either left- or right-handed.  In other words, all amino acids occur in both forms.  There's no _kind_ that are either one or the other, which is what you seem to be suggesting.


----------



## abu afak (Sep 5, 2019)

I searched the article and it not only seems to be by Michael Rawlings .. but posted by Michael Rawlings several places (and ie sweetunderlings blog) with your avatar.
No credentials whatsoever.

I don't know how your Feb 2009 date is "the Latest research" either.
But all these Stale and usual 'improbabilities' never take into account the Trillions of Planets over Billions of years with countless septillions of hourly changing conditions and micro conditions on each.

Your main probability claim about taking all the possible chemicals and conditions being tried are ergo nonsensical.
It's 'religious math' garbage.
And also the 'Argument from Ignorance/Argument from Incredulity Fallacy.
(And probably the 'Goddidit'/if we don't know it must be god Failed reasoning)

And of course once one or two proteins come together (and many inorganic molecules have tendencies to bind), it cuts the odds down dramatically.

Life could have arisen anywhere. Earth may be likely/unlikely, but so what?
'We'/they could be having this same conversation on billions of other planets, marveling at the long odds of it.

A new thread is coming probably tomorrow.


----------



## james bond (Sep 5, 2019)

Ringtone said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



Yeah, I know.  They're asymmetric with one carbon atom and form L or D-amino acids.  All _*proteins*_ are L-amino acids except glycine which is what I was asking.  Life on Earth is made almost exclusively of only left handed amino acids which is what Gish taught. The D-amino acids for living organisms form _*sugars*_ -- Chirality - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science.  Fort Fun Indiana is the one who is clueless as he ignored Dr. Duane Gish like most evos.  They only know him for his fast patter and call it the Gish gallop.  Atheists are usually wrong because they ignore real science and believe in fake science.


----------



## Ringtone (Sep 6, 2019)

abu afak said:


> I searched the article and it it not only seems to be by Michael Rawlings .. but posted by Michael Rawlings several paces (and blog) with your avatar.
> No credentials whatsoever.
> 
> I don't know how your Feb 2009 date is "the Latest research" either.
> ...



Feb. 2009 goes to the original version.  It has since been updated many times, but thank you for pointing that out.  I need to indicate the date of its latest revision.  In the meantime, if you scroll down to the additional notes, you can also read about the latest experiments of note.  I'm Michael Rawlings, the author.  I don't claim any special credentials other than a brain that can think and understands the science.  I don't give a hoot for credentials that spout nonsense.  I'm not floored by authorities.  I find that many "authorities" nowadays are leftist or materialist crackpots. 

For example, you're talking out your ass.  No peptide chains of any significance, much less proteins, form in raw nature.  You would know that and why had you read the article.  But that's just one of the many obstacles that abiogenesis would have to hurdled.  You're just spouting slogans.  There's no probability claim in my article in the sense of your probability claim relative to the vastness of the universe.  That vastness is of no significance.  The problems for abiogenesis are that of information and the limits of mere chemistry.  But I'll be happy to knockdown the feverish dreams of your materialist fanaticism, your religion and your magical god of nature, in your upcoming thread for ya.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 6, 2019)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > So what? For one, it is likely that this didn't hold on prebiotic earth, as amino acids found on earth tend to be left handed in general.
> ...



Did you mean this Duane Gish?

Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for Duane Gish

Gish has been the peddler of most known creationist arguments (short of Comfort’s banana; that one is in a class of its own), and was the inventor of several of them. Especially famous was his bombardier beetle argument, which Behe later redressed as “irreducible complexity”. In fact, Gish and Morris must be considered something like the inventors of debate-style creationism in the US and the standard set of creationist arguments.

Massimo Pigliucci, who has debated Gish five times, noted that Gish ignores evidence contrary to his religious beliefs – a heartwarmingly tactful statement. A rather creationism-friendly assessment of his work can be found here.

It may be a little less than tactful, but remember that Gish is a guy who claims there is no evidence for evolution. Then this novel came out. It is hard to avoid noticing that cover picture.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 6, 2019)

Ringtone said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



I find it hilarious that depending on what ID’iot creationist quack the fundies cut and paste from, the fundie quacks fall over themselves with their lack of understanding what they cut and paste.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 6, 2019)

Ringtone said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...



Like so many angry, self-hating fundies, you tend to lash out with emotional outbursts when your cutting and pasting is challenged.

The entirety of your cutting and pasting is not just consistent with what is dumped on the various ID’iot creation websites, it’s identical. The ID’iot creation industry exists on precisely the anti-science rhetoric displayed by the two angry fundies in this thread.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 6, 2019)

Ringtone said:


> First, take the charge of plagiarism and shove up your ass.


Hmm, no, this is a plagiarized and debunked YEC talking point. Congrats on adding the 50 cent words in place of actual substance. If that's what you mean, then okay, the word salad aspect is all yours.


----------



## Ringtone (Sep 6, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Abiogensis is a foregone conclusion. While we may not know how it happened, we can safely assume it is a fact and did, indeed, happen.



In other words, we're here, so nature did it!  LOL!

Abiogenesis strictly entails natural processes.  Please identify and describe the magical processes by which your mindless god of nature overcame these obstacles: 

But the real problem for the synthesis of amino acids in a reducing atmosphere is that in spite of the latter’s abundance of free electrons, it would _not_ have provided an ozone layer to protect the amino acids produced in it.  If the electrical energy that induced their synthesis in one instant did not reduce them to their basic elements or induce harmful reactions in the next, the entire range of UV light’s wavelengths would have slapped them silly.  And biologically useful organic compounds do not form in oxidizing atmospheres.

Perplexing.

That’s why the outgassing calculi of the 2005 study based on the chondritic model of planetary formation, which at first blush seemed to revive the reducing atmosphere hypothesis, wouldn’t resolve the problem of an abiogenic account for life’s origins*. *   In any event, the isolated credibility of the chondritic, outgassing calculi do not explain away the incontrovertible geological evidence that evince an oxidizing atmosphere for early Earth. *3*

Perplexing.

It seems that the only atmospheric model that would be favorable to the prospects of abiogenesis would entail some sort of synthesis of the two possibilities.  But even if the chemical constituents of abiogenesis were profitably given over to the thralls of a semi-reducing atmosphere all those many years ago, we see no evidence of that today.  The geological record would contain an overflowing abundance of nitrogen-rich mineral deposits.  It doesn’t.

Perplexing.

Still, despite the paltry concentrations of the organic materials produced relative to the energy expended, the best bet for amino acids would have been a semi-reducing atmosphere akin to that simulated in the unpublished experiments.  At least the pertinent, organic materials produced in those were more voluminous and diverse.  Also, it seems reasonable to assume that the dynamics of the altered atmospheric model would have moved the materials away from the lingering dangers inside the synthesizing medium, past the threats beyond, and into the primordial soup of the oceans below more rapidly.

It’s all pie-in-the-sky nonsense, of course, but as long as we’re already suspending disbelief far above any reasonable altitude, we might as well go along with the tale forever*:*  never mind the threats beyond the synthesizing medium, never mind the ubiquitous cross-reaction contaminants, never mind that water ultimately pushes peptidyl bonding backward, not forward, would disperse the precursors of proteins and condemn them to the whims of a churning and lonely isolation, and never mind most of all that the total amount of organic compounds on Earth today, relative to the overwhelming, abiotic reactions in raw nature, is less than a fraction of the lofty concentrations that would be plausibly favorable to the inscrutable processes of abiogenesis.  After all, the other precursors of life, which improbably braved and overcame the same obstacles, have need of their prebiotic cousins.  The long and arduous journey toward self-awareness must go on by way of an even more implausible series of elaborately complex and fortuitous accidents.​


----------



## Ringtone (Sep 6, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Please identify how you account for supernatural processes and the various supernatural agents who managed those processes.



LOL!  Oh, look, everybody, faith-based, Nature did it!

Please identity and describe how your mindless, magical god of nature overcame this obstacle.   

How did the many thousands of mindless proteins, which can only function within a very narrow range of conditions, aggregate and combine in the exact sequences required to build the hundreds of intricately complex and interdependent pieces of machinery minimally required by the simplest microorganisms?  The process could not have been accumulative, but had to have been instantaneously synchronous for obvious reasons.  All these things evince a certain set of preconditions and necessities which stupid materialist layman will never understand and agenda-driven scientists rarely acknowledge.

[. . .]

Since Miller-Urey, the discoveries of biochemistry and microbiology have revealed precisely why the synthesis of life out of amino acids from the ground up is a dead end.  Mere chemistry does not produce life*;*  only complex structures produce life.  Amino acids simply do not link up in nature to form proteins, not even when they are set loose in a pristine brew consisting of only left-handed ingredients.  Without high-energy compounds and enzymes, amino acids do not form the many peptides and, therefore, the many proteins needed for life.  But the most significant prerequisite of all is information, and that information resides above the chemical properties of amino acids.

Thusly, the original, underlying hypothesis of the Miller-Urey experiments has been falsified for decades.

Hence, [. . .] no matter how many experiments were conducted by planet Earth and no matter how many chemicals She might have had at Her disposal, there’s absolutely no pathway for amino acids to fabricate the hundreds of thousands of proteins found in living organisms by themselves from the bottom up.  It takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make life.  They must be assembled in a meticulously elaborate fashion in order to perform useful or desirable functions.  Without the necessary information contained in preexisting nucleic acids, the result would be a collection of gobbledygook, and nucleic acids cannot evolve without the infrastructural and catalytic properties of preexisting proteins.  In other words, DNA synthesis relies on the presence of infrastructural and enzymatic proteins, and protein synthesis relies on the encoded, genetic information in DNA and the coded translations of that information in RNA.  And while RNA polymers are simpler than DNA polymers and have both informational and enzymatic properties, they cannot evolve sans preexisting DNA.  What we have here is an interdependent circle of irreducible necessity, and the RNA-World hypothesis is riddled with prohibitive problems and paradoxes that mulishly defy resolution at every turn—the most daunting of the problems being (1) RNA polymers’ instability outside living cells and (2) their rate of fatal errors in replication sans DNA.​


----------



## anotherlife (Sep 7, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> > If you had little to fear in the past, now you have plenty of reasons nonstop.
> ...


But imagine, this means that you maybe whatever, but other external forces decide what you want and what you think, you taking the consequences though.


----------



## DOTR (Sep 7, 2019)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Please identify how you account for supernatural processes and the various supernatural agents who managed those processes.
> ...



    Ironically enough you seem to be arguing against an older theory falling out of favor (fort funs science is dated but he clings to it like the zealot he is)

   I’m not sure this article belongs here but it’s interesting, concise and sort of related so I’m going to offer it.

A New Clue to How Life Originated


----------



## DOTR (Sep 7, 2019)

james bond said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > The following article reviews the most relevant findings in abiogenetic research to date and touches on the potential metaphysical presuppositions for science (methodological naturalism, philosophical/ontological naturalism) in the light of those findings.  Where do we go when the findings show that a natural mechanism of sheer chemistry for the origin of life is implausible, cannot be given and/or is indemonstrable?  In light of the evidence, I propose a return to the open-ended, methodological naturalism of tradition, that applied by the great theistic scientists prior to Darwin, the latter of which, in my opinion, begs the question and leads to error.  I say there's no way the rudimentary, self-ording properties of mere chemistry could have possibly produced the sequestered materials and information of life.
> ...



That experiment not only failed but is now known to have been based on incorrect assumptions...correct?


----------



## Hollie (Sep 7, 2019)

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Please identify how you account for supernatural processes and the various supernatural agents who managed those processes.
> ...



These silly, tedious cut and paste diatribes are hilarious. They are all of the genre, and all very stereotypical, that follow the ID’iot creationist script:  “_it’s too complicated to have occurred naturally, therefore the gawds did it”
_
We can sum up your arguments as nothing more than the processes of biological evolution that produced gradually more complex structures; chemical compounds, cells, flagella) are so complicated that there is no conceivable path for their evolution. We have no idea how it could have happened. Therefore they must have been designed and created by the gods. That's clearly the classic God of the Gaps, and a religious, non-scientific approach. Obviously that is why your cutting and pasting is just reiteration of the flailing about performed by Meyer, Dembski and the hacks at the Disco’tute.

Religious extremists are completely uninterested in testing any ideas about how their gods designed anything and the details about how they overcame the impossibilities you attribute to nature. Your screeching out “_its’s the magical hands of the gods by magical means, because_ _it’s magic”_ is hardly an explanation for anything.  People working in abiogenesis develop and test models all the time. Of course, those models are incomplete but there are methods used in the lab to make hypotheses about the details and test them to see if they are plausible.

Here is a representative view of the “research” being done by your ID’iot creationist hacks:


*Intelligent design think tank’s “institute” is a Shutterstock image*

*Intelligent design think tank's “institute” is a Shutterstock image
*
*A green screen plus a stock image of a lab equals instant credibility. *






Hey, do the one where it looks like you're on the moon next.
Discovery Institute

As a think tank focused on intelligent design, the Discovery Institute presumably has no need for physical laboratories—its research is mostly imagination-based. So it seemed odd to Richard Hoppe of Panda’s Thumbwhen he saw a video of one of the Institute’s researchers spouting all sorts of bad science from a lab setting. Although the video was datelined from the “Biologic Institute” of the Discovery Institute, it turns out that the nonsensical rant was green-screened in front of a stock image.


----------



## james bond (Sep 7, 2019)

DOTR said:


> That experiment not only failed but is now known to have been based on incorrect assumptions...correct?



It worked for them because Urey assumed a lot of methane and you know what that is, fartsmoke.  Farts are comprised of 

Nitrogen: 20-90%
Hydrogen: 0-50% (flammable)
Carbon dioxide: 10-30%
Oxygen: 0-10%
Methane: 0-10% (flammable)
The problem for them was oxygen, O2, so they left it out.  Try the experiment and add some oxygen to see what happens.

Many scientists do not think these were the gases of the early universe, but volcanic gases.  

"The primary components in volcanic gas are water vapor, carbon dioxide and sulfur (either sulfur dioxide or hydrogen sulfide). But you can also find nitrogen, argon, helium, neon, methane, carbon dioxide and hydrogen."

The rub is with these gases amino acids do not form.

What Is a Fart Made Of?
Volcanic Gas - Universe Today


----------



## james bond (Sep 7, 2019)

Besides oxygen, O2, the atheists and their scientists have a problem with water in the oceans, seas, lakes, rivers, etc. on an early Earth.  Water is an universal solvent, so will dissolve the amino acids.  It is ironic that water being necessary to sustain organic life, dissolves the basis for forming it.  Of course, the abiogenesis folks still have in their "faith-based" science.  Abiogenesis is another name for spontaneous generation which was debunked by Dr. Louis Pasteur..


----------



## Hollie (Sep 7, 2019)

james bond said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > That experiment not only failed but is now known to have been based on incorrect assumptions...correct?
> ...



Actually, the rub is that amino acids do form and they form as conditions change. 

“The primary components in volcanic gas are water vapor, carbon dioxide and sulfur (either sulfur dioxide or hydrogen sulfide). But you can also find nitrogen, argon, helium, neon, methane, carbon dioxide and hydrogen."

Gee whiz, what a coincidence those chemical compounds are among those elements that scientists call “building blocks of organic life”.


----------



## james bond (Sep 7, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > DOTR said:
> ...



Not the water vapor, CO2, and sulfur.  Those were the primary gases.  Furthermore, proteins are the "building blocks of organic life."  You are far, far, far away from your primordial soup becoming proteins .  It only happens _in_ the cell.  You did not watch the video.  Shame, shame, shame .


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 7, 2019)

james bond said:


> You are far, far, far away from your primordial soup becoming proteins


Nonsense....they form virtually spontaneously from peptides in literally every experiment we do...

I see you have decided to pop in and just start making stuff up....


----------



## Hollie (Sep 7, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Shame, shame, shame that you never attended a 7th grade earth science class. Conditions on the planet changed over millions upon millions of years. Of course, that presents an unresolvable dilemma for you. None of the chemistry referenced in the article means anything with the earth being only 6,000 years old.


----------



## DOTR (Sep 7, 2019)

They do science based on fear and superstition.  Afraid of what they will find. And the closing of the academic mind by Marxists will continue to damage science. 
  I think the “soup” theory, Darwin’s “warm little pond”, is passé. They had been reading too much Shelley and the age following Darwin was enthralled with a mechanistic view of life as they concentrated on shedding the soul. But life is far far more than the sum of its parts. 
   Shocking a cadaver seen together from body parts will not create life. Nor will shocking a muddy flask. There are mysteries here that a closed puritanical mind cannot bring itself to investigate lest they be charged with heresy. 
   And it only happened once. But that’s not even the most bizarre thing. The filters life went through to create us were against even longer odds...and every one of them happened once and only once.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 7, 2019)

DOTR said:


> And the closing of the academic mind by Marxists will continue to damage science.


Oh please....as if you know fuck all about science....


----------



## DOTR (Sep 7, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > And the closing of the academic mind by Marxists will continue to damage science.
> ...



Entertain us with some of your alien stories.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 7, 2019)

abu afak said:


> While abiogeneis is a mere hypothesis.


Correction:

Abiogenesis is a fact. The hypotheses try to explain how it worked. That's abiogensis theory.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 7, 2019)

DOTR said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > DOTR said:
> ...


I don't have any stories about Melania Trump. Wrong guy.


----------



## james bond (Sep 7, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > You are far, far, far away from your primordial soup becoming proteins
> ...



If *I* could do that, then I'd be a billionaire many times over. * I*'d be able to make imperfect humans perfect.  Notice *I* didn't say you because you just make stuff up in your head .


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 7, 2019)

james bond said:


> If *I* could do that, then I'd be a billionaire many times over.


No you wouldnt. You would be a typical organic chemistry graduate student doing research, making no money at all. Bond, sometimes i think your scientific knowledge stopped progressing in 1930.


----------



## james bond (Sep 7, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Shame, shame, shame that you never attended a 7th grade earth science class. Conditions on the planet changed over millions upon millions of years. Of course, that presents an unresolvable dilemma for you. None of the chemistry referenced in the article means anything with the earth being only 6,000 years old.



You mean thousands of years.  Even if it the atmosphere did change over the years, the amino acid experiment shows proteins does not happen outside the cell.  Dr. Louis Pasteur for the block -- 10 Most Famous Scientific Theories That Were Later Debunked.


----------



## abu afak (Sep 7, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > While abiogeneis is a mere hypothesis.
> ...


Wiki
*Abiogenesis*, or informally the *origin of life*,[3][4][5] is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.[6][4][7][8] *While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific Hypothesis* is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.[9][10][11] Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood. *This article presents several principles and Hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred.".."
`*


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 7, 2019)

abu afak said:


> Wiki
> *Abiogenesis*, or informally the *origin of life*,[3][4][5] is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.


Yep, and that's a fact. Just as star formation is a fact. Just as volcano formation or hurricane formation are facts.  The scientific theories addressing these facts attempt to explain their mechanisms via testable hypotheses.


----------



## james bond (Sep 7, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No you wouldnt. You would be a typical organic chemistry graduate student doing research, making no money at all. Bond, sometimes i think your scientific knowledge stopped progressing in 1930.



I would be a billionaire many times over (In my greediest dreams, I'm worth $2 B), but this would make me even more.  I'd know how to make proteins pay if it happens.  You'd be just what you are now because you believe it happens already.  If you'd realized it, then your head would.


----------



## Ringtone (Sep 7, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Actually, the rub is that amino acids do form and they form as conditions change.
> 
> “The primary components in volcanic gas are water vapor, carbon dioxide and sulfur (either sulfur dioxide or hydrogen sulfide). But you can also find nitrogen, argon, helium, neon, methane, carbon dioxide and hydrogen."



Really?  Now where did I read something to that effect?  Oh, wait!  I remember now.  I wrote about these things in the article, by golly.

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 mellanoids, 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 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. *2*

Miller’s experiment did produce … amino acids, but only by continuously circulating the reaction mixture and isolating products as they were formed.  The quantities were still tiny and not in the same proportions as found in nature.  One of the causes of the low yield has been identified by [Edward] Peltzer who worked with Miller.  As the amino acids were formed they reacted with reducing sugars … forming a brown tar around Miller’s apparatus.  Ultimately, Miller was producing large compounds called mellanoids, with amino acids as an intermediate product.  — J. H. John Peet (Oct. 2005), “The Miller-Urey Experiment”, _Truth in Science_​The Miller-Urey experiments showed that under the right conditions nature might be able to build some of life’s amino acids; later discoveries in space and here on Earth confirmed that.  But that in and of itself was not the rhyme or the reason of the experiments’ underlying hypothesis, and beyond that, what have these experiments shown us?  Well, not much about that which was expected, but plenty about that which is obvious.

The natural occurrence of amino acids is light years away from life, and there exists no consistently coherent or demonstrable explanation for how they aggregated and combined via the rudimentary, self-ordering properties of mere chemistry to form the complex proteins we find in life.  And even if such a thing were possible, we’d still not be there.​


Hollie said:


> Gee whiz, what a coincidence those chemical compounds are among those elements that scientists call “building blocks of organic life”.



Gee whiz and my monkey's uncle!  Amino acids are the building blocks of life?  Stop the presses!  Are you saying that certain amino acids are actually found in raw nature outside living cells, that certain amino acids are relatively ubiquitous in raw nature?  Are you suggesting that living organisms in the universe are  actually comprised of material in the universe.  You don't say.

Thank you for affirming the observations in my article.  Now would you care to tell me something we don't know?  Your Nobel Prize awaits you, if you can.

Oh, wait!  You disingenuously meant to imply I don't understand the ABCs of biochemistry, didn't you.  Do you routinely embarrass yourself like this?  Are you a sociopath?  Has the cheese slide off your cracker?  Do you intend to discuss the matter in good faith or not?  Why are you wasting time and space with this baby talk?


----------



## abu afak (Sep 7, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Wiki
> ...


So to be clear.. (and with triple footnoted citation)
You were /are wrong.
It's a Hypothesis... or several.
Keep trying the semantic Dishonesty, but it's 100% Over.
bye.
`


----------



## james bond (Sep 7, 2019)

abu afak said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...



Heh.  The devil is in the details.  For example, how do you think Darwin became rich?  He did not invent the theory of evolution like most people think.  He just explained how it worked.  If I could make proteins outside the cell, then I'd probably would become the richest person ever in the history of the world.  Wealth greater than King Solomon.  Everyone would have perfect bodies.  Of course, I could not help improve your brain nor your thinking.

ETA:  Not only the perfect bodies, but the perfect trees, lawns, bushes, flowers, dogs, cats, anything organic.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 7, 2019)

abu afak said:


> You were /are wrong.
> It's a Hypothesis.


False. Abiogenesis is a fact. The hypotheses of its mechanisms are hypotheses. As you were kind enough to point out with your copypasta:



abu afak said:


> This article presents several principles and Hhypotheses for _how_ abiogenesis could have occurred.".



Also facts:

Star formation
Hurricane formation
Volcano formation
Galaxy formation
Planet formation


----------



## abu afak (Sep 7, 2019)

james bond said:


> Heh.  The devil is in the details.  For example, how do you think Darwin became rich?  He did not invent the theory of evolution like most people think.  He just explained how it worked.  If I could make proteins outside the cell, then I'd probably would become the richest person ever in the history of the world.  Wealth greater than King Solomon.  Everyone would have perfect bodies.  Of course, I could not help improve your brain nor your thinking.


Wrong Moron.
Everyone being "perfect" would be your dept: god/Dog.
My dept is Evolution.
Messy Trial/error/adaptation/extinction.

`


----------



## james bond (Sep 7, 2019)

abu afak said:


> Wrong Moron.
> Everyone being "perfect" would be your dept: god/Dog.
> `



You're just jealous because I would know what to do and you don't.  Tsk.


----------



## Ringtone (Sep 7, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > You are far, far, far away from your primordial soup becoming proteins
> ...



Please cite these experiments wherein coherent, extensive peptide chains spontaneous form.

_crickets chirping_


----------



## abu afak (Sep 7, 2019)

From the beginning.
One Gutted portion after another.
Pt 1


			
				[b]By Michael Rawlings[/b] (2009) [B](Revised July said:
			
		

> *Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks...*


Actually there is a Negative correlation between Religiosity and IQ.
You are just more evidence.



			
				Rawlings said:
			
		

> They are either breezily unaware of their metaphysical biases or unwilling to objectively separate themselves from them long enough to engage in a reasonably calm and courteous discussion about the tenets of their religion:  namely, abiogenesis and evolution.


WTF is a "metaphysical bias"? Not believing something without evidence?
And one can be a moderate religionist/believer while still Acknowledging the theory and Fact of Evolution.
Most probably are.
Except blindly Indoctrinated literalist godders like you.



			
				Rawlings said:
			
		

> While the historical presupposition for science is not a methodological naturalism wherein philosophical naturalism serves minimally as a regulative principle, most of today’s practicing scientists insist that origins must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of an intelligent agent of causation and design.


Evolution has Tons of evidence.
Indeed, in the 160 years since it was put forth, there has been an explosion in Science/New Sciences. (DNA, Isotopic dating, Millions more Fossils in the correct strata, etc)
Any one of those new sciences  could have show it wrong. None have of course.
And all relevant ones are consistent with or outright help affirm it.



			
				Rawlings said:
			
		

> The range of scientific inquiry is inordinately curtailed accordingly.  Though any rational evaluation of the empirical data might recommend them, potentialities outside the boundaries of this range of inquiry are flatly dismissed.  Hence, should one reject the guesswork of an arbitrarily imposed apriority that conflates agency and process, one is said to reject science itself, as if the fanatics of scientism owned the means of science.


Why don't you post any EVIDENCE from the "range Oustide" that of hard Science?
Why not the FSM/Flying Spsaghetti Monster/Pastafarianism.



			
				Rawlings said:
			
		

> Ultimately, the essence of this perversion is not merely naturalism on the steroids of logical positivism, but Neo-Darwinism run amok:  mere theory elevated to an inviolable absolute of cosmological proportions and superimposed on the discipline of science itself.  Never has so much been given over to so little.


Stupid bashing with NO content.



			
				Rawlings said:
			
		

> I’m well-versed in the various hypothetical models of abiogenesis, in the research and findings thereof.  Also, I understand evolutionary theory and it’s putative evidentiary support.


You are a goofy clown who conflates Evolution and abiogenesis in every post.
Evolution is a Theory and a Fact.
While abiogeneis is a mere hypothesis.
God/ID/Kweationism is baseless bullshlt.



			
				Rawlings said:
			
		

> I know the science, and I’m current.  Indeed, I’m light years ahead of the vast majority of atheists who unwittingly expose their ignorance about the sciences and the tremendously complex problems that routinely defy their dogma as they sneer at theists.  These are the sheeple blindly following an ideologically driven community of scientists, which, since Darwin, is determined to overthrow the unassailable.  God stands and stays.  Science can neither prove nor disprove God’s existence; it’s not equipped to venture beyond the empirical data of the material realm of being.  But this does not mean that the empirical data do not testify to His existence.  Science is a contingent source of wisdom, not the beginning or the end of it.  And science in the hands of scientific materialists is the stuff of fairytales.


'Because you believe in Baseless Godism for which you have shown not a shred of evidence, you resent/demean 'materialism'/REALITY as it ruins your wittle magic show/tooth fairy beliefs.
There is NO "god in evidence. Zero.
You have put up None/ZERO.

BTW Pilgrim.. Which/Witch 'god' is that?
There are so many contradictory ones that at least 75% of believers are necessarily wrong even if one stepped in it.

There is huge and overwhelming "Materialistic"/HARD evidence for Evolution and NONE for god.

End of pt 1 of the Destruction of the Rawlings bizarro and fallacious fantasy rant.
An IDIOTIC treatise it took 10 years to "perfect."
`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 7, 2019)

Ringtone said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Like, this?

In situ observation of peptide bond formation at the water–air interface

Not that it matters...you are delusional and strident. I could post 100 such studies, and you will just change lanes.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 7, 2019)

I really don't get this embarrassing tirade. The IDers insist upon a designer... But their designer is not smart enough to design abiogenesis within the constraints of physical laws?

That definitively shows that what they REALLY insist upon is MAGIC. Period. And they are lying, if they say otherwise.


----------



## james bond (Sep 7, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Like, this?
> 
> In situ observation of peptide bond formation at the water–air interface
> 
> Not that it matters...your are delusional and strident. I could post 100 such studies, and you will just change lanes.



Sorry, she starts with a peptide like Darwin started with a single cell.  Her experiment is to explain how peptide bonding works.  She is trying to form the bond.  Also she confirms what I said about water being a solvent and it dissolves the peptide bond.  Thus, the water-air interface.  What she won't be able to do is grow the peptide bond into protein in the water-air interface.  You need to chill.


----------



## james bond (Sep 7, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I really don't get this embarrassing tirade. The IDers insist upon a designer... But their designer is not smart enough to design abiogenesis within the constraints of physical laws?
> 
> That definitively shows that what they REALLY insist upon is MAGIC. Period. And they are lying, if they say otherwise.









I think I would've done well in biochemistry.  I would guess the IDers understand that their arguments are based on the beauty and complexity in this world.  Both beauty and complexity just does not happen, but is designed by an intelligent creator.  We are discussing peptides becoming proteins and we see the protein synthesis is a complex process.  Thus, even if all the chemicals are present, it takes the cell to put the process into place.  This is the complexity part.  Thus, the protein is not formed outside the cell or it would take some miracle for it to happen.

Protein synthesis - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science


----------



## Ringtone (Sep 7, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




Oh, it matters!  You claimed that peptide chains spontaneously form.  And you answered my question with precisely the sort of thing I expected you to cite.  Such experiments entail alternately controlled molecular and irradiation techniques predicated on the know processes of peptide synthesis in living cells.  We're talking about abiogenesis, not biochemical engineering.  Had you read my article would have also read the following:

On the other hand, a team of scientists may soon synthesize ribonucleotides using a subunit, scaffolding process for the sugar-base connection, but this reaction will only be induced under the most controlled laboratory conditions after several years of trial and error.  Notwithstanding, the team believes it’s now very close relative to this recently conceived approach.  Now It seems to merely be a matter of finding the right combination of compounds of a nitrogenous or oxygenous chemistry (See update under Additional Notes below.).​
These kinds of experiments are a dime a dozen, but once again, we're not talking about biochemical engineering.  The latter entails intelligence guiding the process.  We're talking about abiogenesis.  No peptide chains of any coherency or extensive length form spontaneously in raw nature!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 7, 2019)

Ringtone said:


> You claimed that peptide chains spontaneously form.


Yes, in our experiments. You left that out, because you are a fraud.

Then you demanded an example. I easily provided one.

Then,as predicted, you moved the goalposts.

Because you are a fraud.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 7, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Shame, shame, shame that you never attended a 7th grade earth science class. Conditions on the planet changed over millions upon millions of years. Of course, that presents an unresolvable dilemma for you. None of the chemistry referenced in the article means anything with the earth being only 6,000 years old.
> ...


You seem to be rattling on with no direction. There’s no question that the planets atmosphere did change over time. 

Otherwise, your reference to Pasteur and amino acids is a classic falsification of Pasteur’s experimentation. What Pasteur's experiment showed was that life does not currently _spontaneously_ arise in _complex_ form from non-life in nature.

Thanks for helping debunk that frequently used falsification from the crank fundie ministries.

So, we’re left to pose a question to the fundie cranks: “what experiments can you cite that are being undertaken to prove your polytheistic gods”?


----------



## james bond (Sep 7, 2019)

Hollie said:


> You seem to be rattling on with no direction. There’s no question that the planets atmosphere did change over time.



I thought I made it clear even if the atmosphere changed on Earth and the rest of the universe that no proteins can form _outside_ the cell.  Thus, life was only created here and nowhere else in the universe.  I think you cannot figure the logical sequence because you do not know nor understand the Bible and the first two books of Genesis.  I've read evolution and its history and have provided the two websites I use as reference for today and in the past.  What do you have to help you understand the Bible?

I even provided the Miller Urey experiment website and I doubt you used it or tried.  What kind of fool are you?



Hollie said:


> Otherwise, your reference to Pasteur and amino acids is a classic falsification of Pasteur’s experimentation. What Pasteur's experiment showed was that life does not currently _spontaneously_ arise in _complex_ form from non-life in nature.
> 
> Thanks for helping debunk that frequently used falsification from the crank fundie ministries.



I am a proud Christian fundamentalist, but do not believe in the crank ones.  Which ones are your referring to?  Can you give an example?  I don't think you can provide the details nor answer my questions because you don't know.  Maybe there are crank ideas that came out of their beliefs like the Billy Graham rule.  I can answer them if you don't know.  That said, I know you're just like to make hasty generalizations which is a fallacy.  This is why we are discussing abiogenesis or what I now consider is another form of spontaneous generation.

As for Pasteur, his experiment referred to all life.  Not just complex or simple life forms from non-life.  What one should understand is only life begats life.  Otherwise, where are the aliens?  Where are the new proteins being formed?  God only gave humans access to the molecular level which is quite a gift.  Yet, you do not appreciate it.  You just want to worship other humans and natural processes which they have control or knowledge about. To me, I am saddened by this.



Hollie said:


> So, we’re left to pose a question to the fundie cranks: “what experiments can you cite that are being undertaken to prove your polytheistic gods”?




There is no proof of an unprovable God.  There is only evidence which I've provided.  What it takes is sincere faith from your heart to believe and then God will reveal himself to you.  No matter what age you are, it takes faith in God first.  You make me discuss and post religion in the S&T forum, but there is no other way besides what I've posted to make you believe.  You have to take the first step.


----------



## Ringtone (Sep 7, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I really don't get this embarrassing tirade. The IDers insist upon a designer... But their designer is not smart enough to design abiogenesis within the constraints of physical laws?
> 
> That definitively shows that what they REALLY insist upon is MAGIC. Period. And they are lying, if they say otherwise.




You're not smart enough to know the difference between abiogenesis and biochemical engineering.  Here's some more examples also discussed in my article of what we can do nowadays:

In the laboratory, researchers have designed enzymatic RNA compounds that can affect a ligative production system that in turn can fabricate self-replicating strands of RNA. *36*  The initial stage of the procedure is front-loaded, not by the mechanism of natural selection, but by the preordained manipulations of sentient beings.  The second stage of the procedure arguably entails the mechanism of natural selection, but only on the basis of recombinant mutation, not transmutation.  Biochemists also designed a ribozyme with catalytic properties that consists of only five nucleotides! *37*  And in 2007 a team of scientists at the Venter Institute transplanted the native genome of the _M. mycoides_ into a _M. capricolum_, transforming the _M. capricolum_ into a _M. mycoides_; and in 2009 the same team cloned the entire genome of the _M. mycoides_ (prokaryote) in yeast (eukaryote), modified the bacterium’s chromosome and then successfully transplanted the modified chromosome into a _M. capricolum_, creating a new bacterial strain. *38*

(The genome synthesized from “scratch” in 2008 by a team of scientists of the Venter Institute, which could not be successfully transplanted, was necessarily predicated on the extant biological system of the bacterium _Mycoplasma genitalium_. *39*  The transplantation problem, of course, was solved in the 2009 study, and the Venter Institute will soon create and boot up the first, mostly synthetic genome, i.e., construct the first self-replicating, mostly synthetic bacterial lifeform, albeit, once again, one necessarily predicated on the extant biochemistry of nature.  See updates under Additional Notes below.)
​Biochemical engineering, not abiogenesis!  Intelligence design!

By the way, are you unwittingly and quite contradictorily presupposing God's existence, as if you were God, knowing the way God should do things; you know, the God that according to you doesn't exist in the first place?  If God imbued mere chemistry with the ability to effectuate life, you would argued that the evidence affirms ontological naturalism, not God's brilliance.  LMAO!  By definition, God could have done it either way, but if God wanted us to know that he exists, arguably he would make it obvious by _not_ imbuing mere chemistry with that ability!  Yes?  No?  Are you now admitting that it's not so obvious that mere chemistry pulled it off as you claimed before?  Are you admitting that God may have chosen not to it that way in order to make his existence obvious to us or not?  What are you arguing?  Do you know?

LOL!

Do you make it a habit of opening your mouth and just letting things fall out without first thinking about the implications?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 7, 2019)

Ringtone said:


> You're not smart enough to know the difference between abiogenesis and biochemical engineering.


And you're a desperate shaman and conman trying hard to squeeze his silly vodoo into any gap in our understanding. And clearly you are willing to abandon ethics and honesty to do so. Go find some children to con, your act isnt going over,here.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 7, 2019)

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Ringtone said:
> ...


This fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 7, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > You seem to be rattling on with no direction. There’s no question that the planets atmosphere did change over time.
> ...



As for Pasteur, your characterization of his experiments was completely false. I see that as a pattern of behavior among religious extremists. While I can understand your need to vilify science because it contradicts the fear and superstition promoted by religion, I have every right to call out tactics of the religious extremists that are dishonest.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 7, 2019)

Hollie said:


> As for Pasteur, your characterization of his experiments was completely false.


Bwahahaha...he trotted out that horseshit again? Dang, how much embarrassment can one guy tolerate?


----------



## Ringtone (Sep 7, 2019)

james bond said:


> There is huge and overwhelming "Materialistic"/HARD evidence for Evolution and NONE for god.
> 
> End of pt 1 of the Destruction of the Rawlings bizarro and fallacious fantasy rant.
> An IDIOTIC treatise it took 10 years to "perfect."
> `



You hurt my feelings.  That was a really, really mean post.

What exactly does this incontrovertible proof that the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism is necessarily true consist of?  After all, that is precisely what the hypothetical extrapolation of Darwin's unobservable and indemonstrable notion of a transmutationally branching, evolutionary speciation from a common ancestry is predicated on.  We observe the cyclically limited range of adaptive radiation via genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection only.  Please cite the peer-reviewed paper that proved naturalism is true and falsified theological realism.  Also, when does the scientist get his Nobel Prize?  For what field, exactly, is it being awarded?  Philosophy?  Sounds like you're unwilling to objectively separate yourself from your metaphysical biases long enough to engage in a reasonably calm and courteous discussion about the tenets of your religion.



abu afak said:


> You are a goofy clown who conflates Evolution and abiogenesis in every post.
> Evolution is a Theory and a Fact.
> While abiogeneis is a mere hypothesis.



Nonsense!  The wise know that both abiogenesis _and_ Darwin's evolutionary extrapolation are indemonstrable hypotheses.  You need to talk to Hollie and Fun.  They're the ones who think that abiogenesis is a fact.


----------



## abu afak (Sep 7, 2019)

abu afak NOT james bond said:


> There is huge and overwhelming "Materialistic"/HARD evidence for Evolution and NONE for god.
> 
> End of pt 1 of the Destruction of the Rawlings bizarro and fallacious fantasy rant.
> An IDIOTIC treatise it took 10 years to "perfect."
> `





Ringtone said:


> You hurt my feelings.  That was a really, really mean post.
> *
> What exactly does this incontrovertible proof that the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism is necessarily true consist of?  After all, that is precisely what the hypothetical extrapolation of Darwin's unobservable and indemonstrable notion of a transmutationally branching, evolutionary speciation from a common ancestry is predicated on. *We observe the cyclically limited range of adaptive radiation via genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection only.  Please cite the peer-reviewed paper that proved naturalism is true and falsified theological realism.  Also, when does the scientist get his Nobel Prize?  For what field, exactly, is it being awarded?  Philosophy?  Sounds like you're unwilling to objectively separate yourself from your metaphysical biases long enough to engage in a reasonably calm and courteous discussion about the tenets of your religion.


Is this just STUPID, or an attempt at Disingenuity?
False Challenge/Demand endless detail Fallacy.

Further Dishonesty/Inadequacy...
You left out the Vast majority of my post answering the fair version of the question.
(Tons of Evidence, all New sciences, etc)
You whiffed.
You were going to Whiff completely but, were probably embarrassed into 'reply.'

IAC, Science doesn't deal in "Proof"/"Incontrovertible" you Moron.
Science deals in theories affirmed over time.
Again, dealt with in my last. 160 years of it.

What is YOUR evidence (forget proof/POOF) for god/dog/ID?
ZERO
WHIFF, while I did answer with Evidence, you had None for your god/dog/ID position.




abu afak said:


> You are a goofy clown who conflates Evolution and abiogenesis in every post.
> Evolution is a Theory and a Fact.
> While abiogeneis is a mere hypothesis.





			
				Rawlings said:
			
		

> *Nonsense!  The wise know that both abiogenesis and Darwin's evolutionary extrapolation are indemonstrable hypotheses.  *You need to talk to Hollie and Fun.  They're the ones who think that abiogenesis is a fact.


You lying Jerk
*Even sane opponents (not you) admit Evo is a Theory not a mere hypothesis, though, like you, they don't understand the term. 

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense - Scientific American*
JOHN RENNIE, editor-in-chief
June 2002

1. Evolution is O_nly_ a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.Scientists do Not use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is
_ "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." _ No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are Not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the Theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the FACT of evolution."..."​

Your posts are all full of False Challenges, Burden Shifting, Omitted meaty opponent quote parts, Completely illogical self-deduction, Labeling, etc.
You're a Dishonest Kweationist Klown trying one dumb fallacy after another.

`


----------



## Ringtone (Sep 7, 2019)

abu afak said:


> Your posts are all full of False Challenges, Burden Shifting, Completely illogical self-deduction/Labeling, etc. Your a Kweationist Klown



Blah, blah, blah.  I say the unobservable and indemonstrable evolutionary extrapolation is predicated on nothing more than the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism.  I say it's not a theory.  At best, it's a hypothesis, at worst, a mathematical and engineering monstrosity—the stuff of magic, fairy tales, myth, feverish dreams . . . your pappy's last bowel movement.  It's a long con, the bump on Darwin's head, the pimple on Dawkins' ass.  I say your appeals to authority and burden-shifting are tiresome.  I say your insults and emotional outbursts are unhinged.  I say you're a conformist.  Your nature god is a spaghetti monster, a big mac daddy in the sky, the atheist in the gaps. 

What's next?  Catastrophic global warming?  Cow farts?  Plastic straws?  Wind power?


----------



## DOTR (Sep 7, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Oh no it’s you. You are the one who insists on alien life because “there must be”. 
   Sorry bud. Not interested in attacking your myths or religion but it looks like we are all alone here.


----------



## james bond (Sep 8, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I fail to see what Jimmy Swaggert's sex scandal has to do with abiogenesis.  Aren't you just setting up a straw man in Jimmy Swaggert in order to win an argument instead of finding evidence for your position?  And I pointed out Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Haeckel's fake embryo drawings to counter macroevolution.  Moreover, there are no aliens to counter your abiogenesis and panspermia positions?  We didn't get to panspermia, but that's in the atheist scientists popular theories for origins of life on Earth.

Dr. Louis Pasteur showed spontaneous generation was false and I said abiogenesis is the same as spontaneous generation.  You haven't demonstrated that it is not, but rolled out a straw man.  What is so different about abiogenesis that Miller-Urey failed to show.  Even if there was amino acids created and they fell into the ocean or water, we find water dissolves amino acids.  Fort Fun Indiana's paper on peptide formation showed that.  They had to go to air-water layer.  Even that has problems and that is a far cry from geysers.  I thought amino acids were supposed to evolve in geyers in order to beat the oxygen problem.  How was the oxygen problem resolved anyway?

As usual, I doubt you and Fort Fun Indiana will be able to answer my questions.


----------



## james bond (Sep 8, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Bwahahaha...he trotted out that horseshit again? Dang, how much embarrassment can one guy tolerate?



And you still haven't demonstrated amino acids in geyers or anywhere else.  The peptides in air-water even if it does happen is a far cry from proteins.  Eventually, they fall into the water and dissolve, no?

Also, what other secular/atheist scientists can you name?  You only named Elizabeth Griffith and Veronica Vaida.  Stephen Hawking is another, but I brought him up with singularity and big bang.  We need to find the names of people who are wrong .


----------



## james bond (Sep 8, 2019)

abu afak said:


> s this just STUPID, or an attempt at Disingenuity?
> False Challenge/Demand endless detail Fallacy.
> 
> Further Dishonesty/Inadequacy...
> ...



Basically, your science is biased science.  Like I said secular scientists systematically eliminated their main competition.  That's why these atheist scientists findings are usually wrong.  For one, the evidence for God is the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  We are here when we shouldn't be.  The Bible explains how creation happened while evolutionary thinking's big bang theory cannot even explain how light happened, Higgs filed and Higgs boson, or how everything was densely packed in a quantum particle?  What quantum particle has such density and mass?  Besides the infinite temperature and infinite density is a dead giveaway for fake science as it violates the laws of physics.  Universe ex nihilo should have been shown if there really is a theory of everything.  There isn't.  That's what you guys have come up with.  And what about the fine tuning facts that the big bang investigators found?  It helped the creation side and so has been ignored.  It's still fact that life is rare and doesn't just happen anywhere.  Isn't it time you admit you are wrong and let creation scientists back in on peer reviews in order to help ascertain the way things work?  Otherwise, how can today's science find out if it is right or wrong.  So far, it has contradicted what it says in the Bible even thought it didn't try to be.  Isn't that evidence for Satan?  What new has been added as value added?


----------



## Ringtone (Sep 8, 2019)

DOTR said:


> I’m not sure this article belongs here but it’s interesting, concise and sort of related so I’m going to offer it.
> 
> A New Clue to How Life Originated



Actually, this seems to be a significant development, possibly the most significant since Sutherland et. al (2009 & 2015), which you can read about in my article under "Additional Notes (Updates)"; however, I can think of half a dozens reasons it doesn't mean what you think.  I need to hunt down the paper on it and we need to see what further research shows.  This is brand new.  I try to keep up, but somehow I missed this in my end of the month survey.  I have an account with Cornell.


----------



## Ringtone (Sep 8, 2019)

james bond said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > s this just STUPID, or an attempt at Disingenuity?
> ...



This is the thing I don't understand about YEC.  The standard Big Bang model as adjusted by inflationary theory is not incompatible with Creationism, and quantum mechanics must necessarily prevail at the Planck scale  No one really believes that there ever was an initial singularity, and, of course, had theoretical physicists and cosmologists paid attention to theist mathematicians, theologians and philosophers of the 20th Century, Hawking's radiation might have been discovered earlier.  Theists were actually the first to predict that black holes must be "bleeding out" some undetectable form of radiation.  Of course actual infinities are absurd!


----------



## Ringtone (Sep 8, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > You claimed that peptide chains spontaneously form.
> ...



Trailer trash.  You did not raise your initial claim in the name of biochemical engineering.  That makes no sense at all, and you know it.  We're talking about abiogenesis.  YOU KNOW VERY WELL THAT MY INITIAL CHALLENGE TO WHICH YOU RESPONDED WENT TO ABIOGENESIS.  YOU WERE CLEARLY MAKING THAT CLAIM IN THE NAME OF ABIOGENESIS.  I gave you the benefit of the doubt, that you merely conflated them in your head, which is not an uncommon mistake.  No big deal.  But instead of owning up to it, instead of learning and moving on, you give me this brazen rash of filth again.  You _are_ a sociopath.  I'm done with you.  You're a pathological liar.


----------



## james bond (Sep 8, 2019)

Ringtone said:


> This is the thing I don't understand about YEC.  The standard Big Bang model as adjusted by inflationary theory is not incompatible with Creationism, and quantum mechanics must necessarily prevail at the Planck scale  No one really believes that there ever was an initial singularity, and, of course, had theoretical physicists and cosmologists paid attention to theist mathematicians, theologians and philosophers of the 20th Century, Hawking's radiation might have been discovered earlier.  Theists were actually the first to predict that black holes must be "bleeding out" some undetectable form of radiation.  Of course actual infinities are absurd!



The importance of Genesis is that it describes our relationship with God.  We are given heaven and eternal life and the one thing we must obey is not to disobey God and that was what the tree of knowledge represented.  We had free will just like Lucifer.  However, in short time Adam and Eve disobeyed God and you know the rest.  They were swayed by the lie and trickery of Satan in telling them that they will not die by eating the fruit and disobeying God's one command.  A negatvie test.  The second part is that it is the only supernatural that we are to believe in regards to today's science and world that is described in the first two chapters or books.  God created the universe and the world in six days and rested on the seventh.  With this belief and understanding of what happened, then we are one with God and understand that we live in a fallen world.  The evidence is that we will all die and that Noah's Flood killed all of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve except for Noah's family.  Like them, we are given a second chance, but this time God gave us a positive test in John 3:16 which you know, as well.  "For God so loved ithe world, jthat he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."  Many people start their Christian life with this verse.  This is what they believe..  However, they may not understand their relationship with God and that he created adult humans and animals and provided the universe and everything it it to us.  They are easily swayed or cannot believe such a thing could happen in the natural world.  It wasn't natural to begin with.  There was no space and time.  It had to have a beginning.  People believed in an eternal universe before the big bang instead of an eternal God.  When the CMB was discovered, then they knew it had a beginning because of evolutionary thinking science and that story changed to the big bang.  What they believed about the eternal universe before became pseudoscience while the big bang replaced it.  Jesus warns us about the_ false prophets_ to the believers and that they will be misled.  Satan is devious in that he masquerades as the angel of light.  All of evolution contradicts what God said in regards to Genesis.  It was there in ancient times, as well.  Jesus understood the power of Satan as the "god of the world and the prince of the power of the air."  He knew he had the power to give him that power if he would bow down to him and worship him.  However, Jesus instead states one should only worship the Lord thy God and for Satan to get lost.  You may think it is only today that we do not believe the first two books of Genesis, but those in ancient times didn't believe it either.  The Jews prized science and they didn't buy into it.  There are even some today who do not believe the Jesus was the Messiah for he didn't deliver the paradise of Israel to them -- Genesis As Allegory | My Jewish Learning.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 8, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



It was explained to you earlier. What Pasteur's experiment showed was that life does not currently _spontaneously_ arise in _complex_form from non-life in nature.

It is a standard theme in ID’iot creation cults to play out the theme that if science cannot account for the origin of life, evolution is false, and that "spontaneous generation" was disproven, so therefore evolution is false. This fails, because evolution (that is, common descent and transmutation of species) occurs whether or not life arose by chance or by supernatural design. 

The fact that life exists on the planet actually does prove that abiogenesis did occur. It is the precise mechanism(s) that is in question. There is no plausible case against it. While the ID’iot creation cults (fundie Christian cults), insist their gods are responsible for a fully formed planet / humans 6,000 years ago, we have hard science to discredit those claims, The only attempts to discredit abiogenesis are silly calculations that result in the “it’s too complicated” meme. 

As we see with certainty, it is the ID’iot creation / YEC crowd that rails against abiogenesis. It’s predictable that they are unable to defend their claims to magic and supernaturalism so they are left to attack science. It’s not at all ironic that science is the mechanism that will lead us to rational conclusions s opposed to religious extremism which is the opposite of rationality.


----------



## ding (Sep 8, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


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


How so?


----------



## james bond (Sep 8, 2019)

Hollie said:


> It was explained to you earlier. What Pasteur's experiment showed was that life does not currently _spontaneously_ arise in _complex_form from non-life in nature.



Pasteur's experiment shows any life doesn't spontaneously arise, period.  Also, what's the point of posting the second and third experiments by biologist Dr. Jonathan Wells to falsify Miller-Urey and abiogenesis when you do not watch?  It goes to show that you are delusional about abiogenesis and in denial.  It's happens by magic.  Moreover, you did not answer the questions I asked you.  What is so different about abiogenesis that Miller-Urey failed to show?  Water is a solvent, so amino acids dissolve in water.  Thus, you had the air-water peptide bond thesis.  How does that work to form proteins?  What about the abiogenesis experiements with the geyser?  How do you overcome the oxygen problem in Miller-Urey?  You have no answers for this, so it's magic that any amino acids formed.  There isn't any primoridal soup anywhere.  You do not understand that for organic complexity, one has to have a creator.  For example, if I start with proteins, then I can create a blade of grass.  Without the single-cell, you cannot do it.

As for the rest, it's your biased, hateful, and stupid rant that I've had to endure time and time again.  This is because you are a frustrated individual who cannot demonstrate anything to do with origins with your fake science of evolution.  You need to create the single-cell, but all you have access to is the molecular level.  What about the protein synthesis process that I posted of what happens inside the cell?  That is a complex process which cannot be re-created outside the cell.

This is another question that you cannot or will not answer.

Thus, we are done.  You and Fort Fun Indiana can tuck your tails between your legs and go home now .  Creation science has won again.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 8, 2019)

DOTR said:


> You are the one who insists on alien life because “there must be”.


Hmm,no, I think there is a small chance, however tiny, that there is no other life in the universe. I just think it is overwhelmingly likely that there is or has been. As does every scientist on the planet.

But, if you have an argument to the contrary, let's hear it. No religious crap allowed.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 8, 2019)

DOTR said:


> but it looks like we are all alone here.


I hope that is not your argument, because that is not a good argument.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 8, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > It was explained to you earlier. What Pasteur's experiment showed was that life does not currently _spontaneously_ arise in _complex_form from non-life in nature.
> ...



When you get your “science” from YEC creationist cults, you will, of course, be limited in your science knowledge. Although the work of Pasteur and others did demonstrate the falsity of spontaneous generation in specific circumstances and conditions, abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation. Abiogenesis predicts that the first cells came from the self-organization of molecules and cellular parts (such as organelles) according to the results of chemical reactions subject to the environment of the early Earth. 

It’s a shame you never bothered to actually explore what the Pasteur experiment intended to investigate. Pasteur showed that *current* organisms do not come from non-living material, which is a very different notion to there being a singular occasion when chemical reactions became self-sustaining and self-reproducing. Nothing in the Pasteur experiments demonstrated the impossibility of life arising in simple form from non-life by way of a series of chemical steps/selections. Further, the Pasteur experiment  disproved the "spontaneous generation" of whole complex organisms (particularly flies & maggots). His results are not applicable to the science of abiogenesis. Pasteur dealt only with large fully-formed organisms, whereas abiogenesis deals with the smallest possible molecular life forms. 

I’ll remind you that abiogenesis did, in fact, happen as life on the planet demonstrates that. 

As to your questions regarding proteins and cell biology, they are standard cut and paste tripe from YEC creation ministries. You whine about, “What about the protein synthesis process that I posted of what happens inside the cell?  Well, what about it? The stereotypical “it’s too complicated, therefore the gods did it”, is rather pointless in the face of a planet that is billions of years old. 

You failed to show what ID’iot creationism has “won”. Your childish exercise of declaring religious extremism as winning something is silly when your argument makes appeals to polytheistic gods which you have provided no evidence in support. Your insistence of a 6,000 year old planet and all of existence being at the hands of polytheistic gods would suggest that you need to offer something in support of those odds; the methods they used and the contradictions to science discovery. 

I’ll await the response you offer from creation.com.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 8, 2019)

james bond said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > This is the thing I don't understand about YEC.  The standard Big Bang model as adjusted by inflationary theory is not incompatible with Creationism, and quantum mechanics must necessarily prevail at the Planck scale  No one really believes that there ever was an initial singularity, and, of course, had theoretical physicists and cosmologists paid attention to theist mathematicians, theologians and philosophers of the 20th Century, Hawking's radiation might have been discovered earlier.  Theists were actually the first to predict that black holes must be "bleeding out" some undetectable form of radiation.  Of course actual infinities are absurd!
> ...



Genesis as an account of some alleged relationship with the gods is quite a dilemma. Per the fable, the gods lied to the only humans in existence. 

I wouldn’t describe a relationship founded on lies as a worthy relationship.


----------



## Ringtone (Sep 8, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.




You're the missing the point.  Hollie demanded to know how God created life, and Fort Fun Indiana thought that was a sensible demand.  Obviously, by definition, God is all power and has all knowledge.  Creating life would be a sneeze, a yawn, a thought, a spoken word.  Also, they both insist that abiogenesis is an absolute fact.  I'm not God, and any answer I would give would be mocked.  That was, of course, the very essence of their demand in the first place, namely, mockery.  Hence, your comment is silly.  You new atheists mindlessly spout "logical fallacy!" like robots.


----------



## DOTR (Sep 8, 2019)

Ringtone said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > I’m not sure this article belongs here but it’s interesting, concise and sort of related so I’m going to offer it.
> ...



  I dont have an opinion as to what it means...other than what the two scientists working on it say it means. I dont second guess people with that level of prestige. Its just another piece of the puzzle but where does it fit? I did write Dr Keller about it when I first read it and her answers were, for lack of a better word, surreal. She is as cautious of falling into heresy with Marxist academia as any teacher in Iran would be. Or else she herself is a true and fanatical believer.
  And that is a sad state of affairs.
  But the work was interesting.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 8, 2019)

Ringtone said:


> That was, of course, the very essence of their demand in the first place, namely, mockery.


Correct, somewhat! Mockery of your silly dishonesty, circular arguments, and insistence upon magic.

But, if a simple question like asking you to explain something after you have rejected all other explanations is "mockery", then your point was stupid to begin with.


----------



## james bond (Sep 8, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Genesis as an account of some alleged relationship with the gods is quite a dilemma. Per the fable, the gods lied to the only humans in existence.
> 
> I wouldn’t describe a relationship founded on lies as a worthy relationship.



Where did God lie in Genesis?  Can you prove he lied with evidence just like in a court case?

Instead, it was Satan who lied as he contradicted God in everything he said with evolutionary thinking and history over the years.  You have to agree that both the Bible and evolutionary history were written separately over the years.  One big lie Satan told through Charles Darwin was to contradict nature's laws do not happen by chance and they were designed by an intelligence.  Even Einstein said God does not play dice.  Instead, Darwin said that it was a "designed law" having come together by chance.  Darwin first causes doubt and then uses his lie.  This is Satan's technique.  Many people think Charles Darwin was wrong on this they do not argue things happening in nature by a designed law using chance or randomness anymore.

Anyway, you're not going to answer my questions I ask here, so we should cut this off.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 8, 2019)

james bond said:


> Can you prove he lied with evidence just like in a court case?


Of course not, because one of the premises to be proven would have to be that god is omniscient. Of course, nobody could prove such an idiotic, magical idea. 

So, apply the same standard to your magical claims. And then watch them wilt like lettuce in the Sun.


----------



## Ringtone (Sep 8, 2019)

DOTR said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > DOTR said:
> ...



Ah!  I see.  Well, my primary point in that post was that your contribution to the thread is good stuff.  It's a fascinating discovery, easily the most startling new development in years.  I shall have to watch it carefully and update my article accordingly.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 8, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Genesis as an account of some alleged relationship with the gods is quite a dilemma. Per the fable, the gods lied to the only humans in existence.
> ...



The men who wrote the Genesis fable were pretty careless. The gods lied, Satan told the truth. 

Yes, I can prove the gods lied with evidence just like in a court case? I spelled it out here:  if not evolution

Can you disprove the above just like in a court case? Subpoena the gods as your first rebuttal witnesses. 



“Evolutionary history” must be a term you folks use at creation.com. It’s meaningless as the process of biological evolution is an ongoing process. 

Otherwise, why blame mythical characters for the fears and superstitions that haunt you? Let go of the things that keep you a slave to fear and ignorance and you will be a slave no more. 

Ultimately, the worth of Jesus' philosophy as written in biblical tales and fables is emptied of meaning because he ultimately attempts to scare people into accepting his word. The character of Jesus was drawn with regard to the time in human history when the ebb and flow of life was dictated by a ruthlessness of societies and a nature that was largely not understood. Despite the occasional overt threat, Jesus' character focuses on the implied threat: A) There is a heaven. B) There is a hell. C) Do as I command and you'll go to heaven. Then Jesus stops speaking. But we all know exactly what D would be: D) Don't do as I command and you'll go to hell.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 8, 2019)

Ringtone said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > This fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
> ...



Clearly, it is you missing the point. Obviously, by definition, your partisan version of the gods are just hand-me-down conceptions, an amalgam of earlier gods. “All power and has all knowledge” are human derived attributes of those gods. 

More to the point, you attribute “all power and has all knowledge” to your gods and then proceed to add any number of human attributes to them. 
This is a good example of a self-contradictory assertion.

You assert the various human attributes of the gods and not the anthropomorphic ones-- you assert they are “all power and has all knowledge” and then assign to them emotions like love, jealousy, anger, vengeance, and so on. Each of those attributes assumes some _lack_ or _need_ that is required to be satisfied. This will not do in your argument, because it immediately defuses your claim that they are in some way “all power and has all knowledge”.


----------



## james bond (Sep 8, 2019)

Hollie said:


> The men who wrote the Genesis fable were pretty careless. The gods lied, Satan told the truth.



Funny.  At least, I hope you're being sarcastic.  How were the men who wrote Genesis being careless since they?



Hollie said:


> Yes, I can prove the gods lied with evidence just like in a court case? I spelled it out here: if not evolution



Hm.. okay, so you think it's allegory.  But so does ding because he's Catholic, and like a good Catholic boy, he listens to Pope Francis.  That said, allegory doesn't make it the truth.  I've said this before and that one has to use _a priori_ thinking and not a posteriori thinking to argue the evidence for God and ascertain what is truth.  Surely, as a non-believer you would agree to using rational thinking or facts, reasoning, and historical truth?



Hollie said:


> Can you disprove the above just like in a court case? Subpoena the gods as your first rebuttal witnesses.



Unfortunately, one can't subpoena God who doesn't live in this dimension.  What we have to do is present the evidence and that is the universe had a beginning.  We agreed on this because of the CMB and big bang.  That leads to Kalam's Cosmological Argument and God.  One can also use the ontological argument for God and that is:






Evolutionary thinking and history is from the ancient times when humans formulated a posteriori thinking.  It doesn't mean empiricism back then.

History of evolutionary thought - Wikipedia

You see when you state biological evolution or ToE, then we already have the single cell.  I've talked about how Darwin did not create the ToE as many people think, but just explained how it worked.  This is why we have to use evolutionary thinking and history to discuss the pseudoscience of spontaneious thinking and abiogenesis.



Hollie said:


> Otherwise, why blame mythical characters for the fears and superstitions that haunt you? Let go of the things that keep you a slave to fear and ignorance and you will be a slave no more.



This doesn't make any sense.  It's like a non sequitur.  We are not discussing mythical characters, fears and superstitions that haunt people.  We are discussing the supernatural only in the first two books of Genesis.  Maybe this chart is easier for you to understand.  My position is on the bottom. 






Water covered Earth is water vapor with volcanic gases.  God created the EMS the first day and what he deemed necessary for the heavens and Earth.  This would include oxygen, O2, Higgs field and boson, Planck's constant, volcanic gases, and more.  He started to stretch out the heavens on the first day starting spacetime.  We also have the fine tuning facts on the first two days and separation of day and night, i.e. light and dark, and the creation of the atmosphere with that of the oceans below.  Notice with the big bang, some of the details of the formations are missing and that it was assumed that the universe started from invisible quantum particles.  Where is your witness for that?  Since there are no witnesses, then how do you explain how the first two days events came into being?  Much has been made of singularity and cosmic inflation, but the details are lacking.  What were the early gases in your opinion?  I don't think you answered that.  Thus, it is hard to understand what your thesis is exactly and sounds like magic.



Hollie said:


> Ultimately, the worth of Jesus' philosophy as written in biblical tales and fables is emptied of meaning because he ultimately attempts to scare people into accepting his word. The character of Jesus was drawn with regard to the time in human history when the ebb and flow of life was dictated by a ruthlessness of societies and a nature that was largely not understood. Despite the occasional overt threat, Jesus' character focuses on the implied threat: A) There is a heaven. B) There is a hell. C) Do as I command and you'll go to heaven. Then Jesus stops speaking. But we all know exactly what D would be: D) Don't do as I command and you'll go to hell.



I tried to explain this and that it isn't based on fear of the superstitious, but understanding an all-powerful and all-knowing creator.  The metaphysical is not just on the creationist side, but now the secular/atheist scientists are using the metaphysical big bang to explain universe ex nihilo and abiogenesis to explain creatio ex nihilo.


----------



## james bond (Sep 8, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Of course not, because one of the premises to be proven would have to be that god is omniscient. Of course, nobody could prove such an idiotic, magical idea.



There are many prophecies in the Bible and the biblical scholars tell us that so far all of them have come true.  This is part of God's omniscience.  For example, do you not believe in the historicity of Jesus?  I can post William Lane Craig vids or articles, but you wouldn't read them would you?  We can go over the OT as well as the NT.  You decide which items to discuss such as how King Solomon was able to declare, "then hear in heaven your dwelling place and forgive and act and render to each whose heart you know, according to all his ways (for you, you only, know the hearts of all the children of mankind)," 1 Kings 8:39.  Or what Jesus knew when he met people.  What is difficult to discuss with you is you cannot get past God's history as some kind of magic or illusion.  If it was, then the Bible would not be considered non-fiction and historical.  I mean one can question its accuracy by going outside the Bible to find whether something is explained elsewhere and whether it matches that what is said in the Bible.  I'm not a mind reader like God, so do not know what parts you question or what parts you have heard of.  There must be some things you've heard of or else you would not hold the opinion that you do.

ETA:  What about dark matter and dark energy?  Can we discuss this?  Dark energy is God to creationists.  Dark matter is I'm not sure, but one article is here -- Dark Matter, Sparticles, and the Big Bang.  Will have to read when I get a chance.


----------



## DOTR (Sep 8, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > You are the one who insists on alien life because “there must be”.
> ...



I won’t interfere in your religion. But you shouldn’t project your superstition to “every scientist on the planet”.  Too many to count work under the “rare earth hypothesis”. 
It’s just they aren’t on the National Geographic shows you watch.


----------



## DOTR (Sep 8, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > but it looks like we are all alone here.
> ...



It’s a statement of fact. To all evidence we are alone.


----------



## deanrd (Sep 8, 2019)

How do you scientifically prove magical creation? No, I think I’ll stick with science.


----------



## ding (Sep 8, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The men who wrote the Genesis fable were pretty careless. The gods lied, Satan told the truth.
> ...


That’s news to me. 

You’re just a slightly different flavor of Breezewood.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 8, 2019)

DOTR said:


> I won’t interfere in your religion. But you shouldn’t project your superstition to “every scientist on the planet”.


Hmm, no, it's pretty much almost all of them that believe life likely evolved at least twice instead of only and exactly once. You can check for yourself, if you want. That's an ubiquitous piece of modern science. Go ahead, try to find the scientists who say life likely evolved only and exactly once in our universe. I bet you can't find a single one.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 8, 2019)

DOTR said:


> It’s a statement of fact. To all evidence we are alone.


False, since we havent taken inventory of all the evidence. Or even a tiny bit if it.


----------



## james bond (Sep 9, 2019)

Hasn't abiogenesis been destroyed in this thread?  1) There is no primordial soup.  2)  Lightning will cause hydrogen and oxygen to explode in early atmosphere.  3)  The geysers have water which dissolves the amino acids.  4) Atheists/ags and their religious scientists are usually wrong.


----------



## DOTR (Sep 9, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > It’s a statement of fact. To all evidence we are alone.
> ...



Ok give me a tiny bit of it.


----------



## DOTR (Sep 9, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > I won’t interfere in your religion. But you shouldn’t project your superstition to “every scientist on the planet”.
> ...



I’m not interested in what they “believe”. Their religion is their own business.

Present some evidence that life evolved twice.

   Not that it helps you even if it were true (which it's not). You’ve been desperately defending your religion so long you don’t even remember what you were defending against originally.


----------



## MoonPie (Sep 9, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> As for coincidences in holy books:
> 
> What would we expect? When tasked with imagining how "there is no life" became "there is life", what would we expect people thousands of years ago to dream up? That it came from kryptonite, or that it arose from the merging of two black hole?
> 
> ...



*"They were utterly ignorant of the universe"*

I think not

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters. 
 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light.​
Big Bang theory, proposed by a Belgian priest named Georges Lemaitre, hailed by Pope Pious XII in 1951 

"when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, and the elements split and churned and formed into millions of galaxies."​Atom - Wikipedia

The idea that matter is made up of discrete units is a very old idea, appearing in many ancient cultures such as Greece and India. The word _atomos_, meaning "uncuttable", was coined by the ancient Greek philosophers Leucippus and his pupil Democritus (c. 460 – c. 370 BC).[1][2][3][4] Democritus taught that atoms were infinite in number, uncreated, and eternal, and that the qualities of an object result from the kind of atoms that compose it.​
Well, not entirely accurate but that was damn good guess for a couple of guys in 400 BC.

I think by "dirt" they mean earth, and we are made of the earth. 

*"We dont gasp in awe when two kids on other sides of the planet make similar towers out of wooden blocks. The[y] both had the same medium to work with"*

It isn't the wood lol. They would make similar towers out of wood and clay.  The human brain tends to find the same patterns appealing like, for instance, spirals. 

Spiral - Wikipedia


----------



## Hollie (Sep 9, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hasn't abiogenesis been destroyed in this thread?  1) There is no primordial soup.  2)  Lightning will cause hydrogen and oxygen to explode in early atmosphere.  3)  The geysers have water which dissolves the amino acids.  4) Atheists/ags and their religious scientists are usually wrong.


Why do you think abiogenesis has been destroyed? Abiogenesis did happen. I think what has been destroyed are baseless claims to magic and supernaturalism. Religious fears and ignorance are never a good mechanism to reach an understanding of the natural world.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 9, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The men who wrote the Genesis fable were pretty careless. The gods lied, Satan told the truth.
> ...



Why would you think cartoons and silly exercises in circular reasoning are an answer to anything?


----------



## james bond (Sep 9, 2019)

ding said:


> You’re just a slightly different flavor of Breezewood.



Heh.  You agree with him on big bang .


----------



## james bond (Sep 9, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Why do you think abiogenesis has been destroyed? Abiogenesis did happen. I think what has been destroyed are baseless claims to magic and supernaturalism. Religious fears and ignorance are never a good mechanism to reach an understanding of the natural world.





Hollie said:


> Why would you think cartoons and silly exercises in circular reasoning are an answer to anything?



You could not answer my questions, so it didn't happen.  However, it doesn't matter anymore because God created everything.  Besides, Fort Fun Indiana is still hoping something comes from the geyser.  That's pretty stupid, but funny .


----------



## Hollie (Sep 9, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you think abiogenesis has been destroyed? Abiogenesis did happen. I think what has been destroyed are baseless claims to magic and supernaturalism. Religious fears and ignorance are never a good mechanism to reach an understanding of the natural world.
> ...


You didn't pose questions, you made statements you could never hope to support.

Your unsupported claims to your gods creating everything is identical to those promoting different gods creating everything. Not surprisingly, none of the claims to any of these creator, designer gods are supportable.


----------



## ding (Sep 9, 2019)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > You’re just a slightly different flavor of Breezewood.
> ...





james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > You’re just a slightly different flavor of Breezewood.
> ...


Hardly. He believes the universe has always existed.  I believe it was created from nothing.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 9, 2019)

DOTR said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > DOTR said:
> ...


Huh? You are the ne that referenced the evidence. The sum total of all the data we have is far too small to conclude anything from it, save for saying that life likely has evolved elsewhere.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 9, 2019)

MoonPie said:


> I think not
> 
> In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
> Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.
> And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light.


Yes, sounds like an ignorant child's description of the universe. Clearly they were totally ignorant.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 9, 2019)

DOTR said:


> Present some evidence that life evolved twice.


Oh, that's simple. It formed and evolved here, and the universe is huge. And there you have it. Good cirumstantial evidence. 

It's not proof, nor is anyone saying it with 100% certainty.. So spare me that red herring.


----------



## james bond (Sep 9, 2019)

Hollie said:


> You didn't pose questions, you made statements you could never hope to support.
> 
> Your unsupported claims to your gods creating everything is identical to those promoting different gods creating everything. Not surprisingly, none of the claims to any of these creator, designer gods are supportable.



I provided scientific statements backed up by observable evidence.  What did you provide?  Did you continue with peptide bonding?  Its thesis was an air-water interface for peptide bonding because the water below it would dissolve the amino acids (which is what I said).  Not much primordial soup in an air-water level.  Also, why was Miller-Urey abandoned?  Was it the oxygen problem?  The primary volcanic gases do not form amino acids of which I provided a video of an experiment.  Your claim was the lesser gases of methane and sulfur did the work with no evidence nor explanation for it.  What happened?

Why don't you read this instead of your false websites -- Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible  Don't just read to learn about how your process works, but down to the end to see it debunked.


----------



## james bond (Sep 9, 2019)

ding said:


> Hardly. He believes the universe has always existed. I believe it was created from nothing.



You even format your answers in the weird way as BreezeWood.  He doesn't even know how to use the forum tools properly.

As described in the first two chapters of Genesis or ...

"It is possible to believe in both evolution and the Catholic church’s teaching on creation, Pope Francis has said, as he cautioned against portraying God as a kind of magician who made the universe with a magic wand.

“The big bang, which is today posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creation; rather, it requires it,” the pope said in an address to a meeting at the pontifical academy of sciences.

“Evolution of nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation because evolution presupposes the creation of beings which evolve.”

Francis, 77, said it was easy to misinterpret the creation story as recounted in the book of Genesis, according to which God created heaven and Earth in six days and rested on the seventh.

“When we read the creation story in Genesis we run the risk of imagining that God was a magician, with a magic wand which is able to do everything,” he said.

“But it is not so. He created beings and let them develop according to internal laws which He gave every one, so they would develop, so they would reach maturity.”

Pope Francis: evolution and creation both right 
Pope Francis: evolution and creation both right

BTW, what does the Tanakh say BreezeWood book of antiquity?  How did he get to eternal universe from that?  Are you lying?


----------



## ding (Sep 9, 2019)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Hardly. He believes the universe has always existed. I believe it was created from nothing.
> ...


What is your perception of God?


----------



## DOTR (Sep 9, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



   You fall farther into superstitious mysteries by the second. 

So let’s try it this way....what’s the “sum total” of evidence of life outside our current terrestrial tree of life?


----------



## james bond (Sep 9, 2019)

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...





ding said:


> Hardly. He believes the universe has always existed. I believe it was created from nothing.



Let's not change the subject.  We are discussing the above.  

What did you mean by you believe "it was created by nothing?"


----------



## Hollie (Sep 9, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > You didn't pose questions, you made statements you could never hope to support.
> ...



I couldn't find any "scientific statements" you claim to have made. As your earth history and human experience on the planet only date back 6,000 years, the angst you project regarding the planet's biological history means little. 

 Your reference to Jerry Bergman is actually laughable. As you should know, the charlatans at the ICR are hacks who do no research and publish in no peer reviewed journals. Their "Statement of Faith" is another laughable joke. 

Encyclopedia of American Loons: #23: Jerry Bergman

Our next loon is a young earth creationist at the Institute for Creation Research.

Another staunch and thoroughly confused front fighter whose main argument is how persecuted the dissidents to the tyranny of evolution are – in short, your standard ‘I cannot discuss the evidence, so I’ll try to frame my opponents instead’. Admits that ID doesn’t really have a strong theory, but that it doesn’t need it since it’s got all the facts (whatever that means). Discussed here.

Bergman is a dishonest whiner, snower and conspiracy theorist who fabricates stories about persecution of religious scientists. His most nauseating feature is his tendency to snow debates and avoid dealing with devastating objections. Bergman is utterly crazy and ignorant, and his version of the irreducible complexity argument is bizarre even for that mess of an argument.

A summary of a debate Bergman was involved in, which well describes his tactics, is here.

Diagnosis: typical village idiot; despicably dishonest, crazy, paranoid wingnut and kook, and another extreme case of confirmation bias and persecution complex. His ardent efforts seem to have gained him some level of influence among his peers, and he is a medium threat to school curricula everywhere.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 9, 2019)

DOTR said:


> You fall farther into superstitious mysteries by the second.


Yeah, you're always good for such flashy declarations. You really seem to be lacking in the "supporting argument" department, though. 



DOTR said:


> what’s the “sum total” of evidence of life outside our current terrestrial tree of life?


I already answered that. Pay attention!


----------



## DOTR (Sep 9, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > You fall farther into superstitious mysteries by the second.
> ...



   There is no evidence that life originated more than once. And little chance. So you couldn't have. Unless you made it up.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 9, 2019)

DOTR said:


> There is no evidence that life originated more than once.



Oops, that's not stated correctly. You mean, in our pitifully small sample of empirical evidence, we have no empirical evidence yet of life elsewhere. And, seeing how small our sample is compared to the entire universe, no determination can be made from our sample.

Of course, there  is good circumstantial evidence.


----------



## DOTR (Sep 9, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > There is no evidence that life originated more than once.
> ...



You spend your days bellyaching about evidence when attacking Christians...and running from it yourself. Your science is pitiful but i think your logic even worse.

  Take a poll..i doubt you have convinced anyone of your magical aliens.


----------



## ding (Sep 9, 2019)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


I didn’t say by. I said from.

And I wasn’t changing the subject. I was correcting you.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 9, 2019)

DOTR said:


> You spend your days bellyaching about evidence when attacking Christians...


The difference being, OBVIOUSLY, that they are making several extraordinary, magical claims,with 100% certainty, without a shred of evidence....


....while I, on the contrary, am making the rather mundane assertion, without 100% certainty, that, in a universe with 100s of billions of galaxies, with 100s of billions of planets in each, if life can form once, it can form twice, and probably has.

This determination is supported by the following, empirical facts:

1) life formed at least once
2) there are 100s of billions of galaxies with 100s of billions of planets in each
3) life is composed of the most common elements in the universe, in a virtually 1:1 ratio
4) life formed rather quickly, once the conditions on Earth allowed it

So, no son, it's not even close. There is no comparison.


----------



## Ringtone (Sep 9, 2019)

DOTR said:


> A New Clue to How Life Originated



Found the abstract:  https://www.researchgate.net/public..._and_stabilize_prebiotic_fatty_acid_membranes


----------



## Ringtone (Sep 9, 2019)

deanrd said:


> How do you scientifically prove magical creation? No, I think I’ll stick with science.



Magical creation?!  Whatcha talking about, Willis?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 9, 2019)

Ringtone said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > How do you scientifically prove magical creation? No, I think I’ll stick with science.
> ...


Your ID nonsense. You are insisting upon magic. Everyone knows this.


----------



## DOTR (Sep 9, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > You spend your days bellyaching about evidence when attacking Christians...
> ...


 
   Life formed rather quickly *once*. And if it is unique on this, a planet we know to be conducive to life, it bodes no good for the chances of it forming anywhere else. 
   You want it to be very badly. Maybe you will mature someday to the understanding that wanting doesn’t make it so. Keep looking around for “earth like” exoplanets while standing on one. 
   It scares the bejesus out of you this simple little fact that all evolutionary theory is based on. Universal common descent.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 9, 2019)

DOTR said:


> Life formed rather quickly *once*.


Correct, which definitvely shows it can form quickly.



DOTR said:


> And if it is unique on this, a planet we know to be conducive to life, it bodes no good for the chances of it forming anywhere else.


So, if it is unique...then it's probably unique? Wow, that is some..... Special logic.



DOTR said:


> You want it to be very badly.


Irrelevant. Try to focus.

And of course, you got nothing else.

Tackling the actual argument has proven, it appears, to be much tougher for you than grappling with shit you make up to argue against.


----------



## DOTR (Sep 9, 2019)

Ringtone said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > A New Clue to How Life Originated
> ...




Have you read Nick Lane? If not then get to reading. He’s a little bit dense for popular science writings but not so much as to put him out of reach. 
   His theory is undersea vents. Makes a very thorough case for the first cells forming in olivine cavities. 
   Not only that but he describes the many filters life went through on its way to where we are now. The odds are stupendous for each of a long series of unique events...the endosymbiotic event for instance....each one as necessary as the origination event and each one as crazily unlikely. 
   But they each happened obviously.


----------



## DOTR (Sep 9, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > Life formed rather quickly *once*.
> ...



Absolutely not. You’ve been taught that sophistry trumps truth. It doesn’t though it may obscure it. 

   I don’t care to change your religion. I just care that I’ve demonstrated some science to you. While you claimed “circumstantial evidence “ lol.  

  That’s real rigorous scientific method you got there.  Bucko. “Circumstantial evidence”.  

  No wonder liberalism is destroying science.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 9, 2019)

DOTR said:


> The odds are stupendous


By what math? Trillions of reactions occurring every second over millions of years...

While the odds of something happening a certain way may seem steep, the odds of it happening at all become much less so, when one considers trillions of trillions of trillions of trials. 

Also, be careful not to fall victim to Hoyle's fallacy, or a reiteration of it, by which the probability of any event can be speciously reduced to zero.


----------



## DOTR (Sep 9, 2019)

Btw the way I’m not arguing against anything.  I’m staying a fact. By all evidence available...life originated once. 
  And that is a fact.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 9, 2019)

DOTR said:


> Absolutely not. You’ve been taught that sophistry trumps truth. It doesn’t though it may obscure it.


Irrelvant whining. Not a good substitute for an actual counterargument.



DOTR said:


> While you claimed “circumstantial evidence “ lol.


Which, nevertheless, is evidence. Just as we only had circumstantial evidence of black holes a century ago.



DOTR said:


> That’s real rigorous scientific method you got there.


What a silly comment. The scientific method enters the equation when the hypothesis is tested. In this case, when we systematically search for empirical evidence of life elsewhere (just as we searched for black holes). You know, the part YOU completely mangled with your absurd comments on "the evidence showing us there is no life anywhere else".

So, of the two of us, clearly it is only you who is beset by a severe misunderstanding of the scientific method.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 9, 2019)

DOTR said:


> By all evidence available...life originated once.




Hey, by all the evidence in my bathtub, giant squids dont exist. I should stop looking for them.


----------



## DOTR (Sep 9, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely not. You’ve been taught that sophistry trumps truth. It doesn’t though it may obscure it.
> ...




You’ve always been dishonest.  That’s another way of saying you are a liar. 
I never said “the evidence showing us there is no life anywhere else". I did say that by all the evidence we have life originated just once. 
  Debating stupid was one thing.  But stupid and dishonest? Off to ignore. Tell Penelope hello.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 9, 2019)

DOTR said:


> I never said “the evidence showing us there is no life anywhere else".


Wrong. That is the equivalent of saying that the evidence shows us life only formed once. It's the literal equivalent, in the contextbof our discussion.. Unless you would like to make the claim that you wre leaving open the possibility that there is life elsewhere, but all of it originitaed at the one place where it formed. Which, given your penchant for tantrums, you might very well dishonestly attempt.

 If this bothers you, then correct your statement and try not to make the same error in the future. Maybe brush up on the logic, too.

And you aren't fooling anyone. You are tucking tail and running , because you know your silly argument got obliterated.


----------



## DOTR (Sep 9, 2019)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Hardly. He believes the universe has always existed. I believe it was created from nothing.
> ...



The Big Bang theory was proposed by a Catholic monk at a Catholic university. Christianity doesn’t have a problem with that cosmology or evolution as a rule.


----------



## DOTR (Sep 9, 2019)

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



I believe so as well. ex nihlo.


----------



## DOTR (Sep 9, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hasn't abiogenesis been destroyed in this thread?  1) There is no primordial soup.  2)  Lightning will cause hydrogen and oxygen to explode in early atmosphere.  3)  The geysers have water which dissolves the amino acids.  4) Atheists/ags and their religious scientists are usually wrong.



The origin of life includes more possibilities than the “primordial soup”.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 9, 2019)

So science, which operates in a deterministic universe that follows laws, tells us that abiogenesis is a fact.

Just as star formation is a fact.

Who seem to be the only people who have a problem with this rather mundane, obvious fact?

Religious people. It's all right here in the thread, in black and white.


----------



## james bond (Sep 9, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You didn't answer my questions, so you are not capable of learning new things.  As for the rest, it's your usual weak arguments from the websites I just mentioned.  Thus, we are done and I am done here with another victory.


----------



## james bond (Sep 9, 2019)

DOTR said:


> The origin of life includes more possibilities than the “primordial soup”.



Primordial soup is anything with amino acids.  What else do you have?


----------



## Ringtone (Sep 9, 2019)

DOTR said:


> Have you read Nick Lane? If not then get to reading. He’s a little bit dense for popular science writings but not so much as to put him out of reach.
> 
> His theory is undersea vents. Makes a very thorough case for the first cells forming in olivine cavities.
> 
> ...



I read his _The Vital Question_ and, a few years ago, an article about his ideas, but that's all.


----------



## james bond (Sep 9, 2019)

ding said:


> I didn’t say by. I said from.
> 
> And I wasn’t changing the subject. I was correcting you.



You said BreezeWood believes in an eternal universe.  I think you lied about that.  Moreover, you didn't answer my question of creation ex nihilo or universe ex nihilo?  I'll assume you don't know.  Even your Pope Francis knows.


----------



## Ringtone (Sep 9, 2019)

james bond said:


> The importance of Genesis is that it describes our relationship with God.  We are given heaven and eternal life and the one thing we must obey is not to disobey God and that was what the tree of knowledge represented.  We had free will just like Lucifer.  However, in short time Adam and Eve disobeyed God and you know the rest.  They were swayed by the lie and trickery of Satan in telling them that they will not die by eating the fruit and disobeying God's one command.  A negatvie test.  The second part is that it is the only supernatural that we are to believe in regards to today's science and world that is described in the first two chapters or books.  God created the universe and the world in six days and rested on the seventh.  With this belief and understanding of what happened, then we are one with God and understand that we live in a fallen world.  The evidence is that we will all die and that Noah's Flood killed all of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve except for Noah's family.  Like them, we are given a second chance, but this time God gave us a positive test in John 3:16 which you know, as well.  "For God so loved ithe world, jthat he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."  Many people start their Christian life with this verse.  This is what they believe..  However, they may not understand their relationship with God and that he created adult humans and animals and provided the universe and everything it it to us.  They are easily swayed or cannot believe such a thing could happen in the natural world.  It wasn't natural to begin with.  There was no space and time.  It had to have a beginning.  People believed in an eternal universe before the big bang instead of an eternal God.  When the CMB was discovered, then they knew it had a beginning because of evolutionary thinking science and that story changed to the big bang.  What they believed about the eternal universe before became pseudoscience while the big bang replaced it.  Jesus warns us about the_ false prophets_ to the believers and that they will be misled.  Satan is devious in that he masquerades as the angel of light.  All of evolution contradicts what God said in regards to Genesis.  It was there in ancient times, as well.  Jesus understood the power of Satan as the "god of the world and the prince of the power of the air."  He knew he had the power to give him that power if he would bow down to him and worship him.  However, Jesus instead states one should only worship the Lord thy God and for Satan to get lost.  You may think it is only today that we do not believe the first two books of Genesis, but those in ancient times didn't believe it either.  The Jews prized science and they didn't buy into it.  There are even some today who do not believe the Jesus was the Messiah for he didn't deliver the paradise of Israel to them -- Genesis As Allegory | My Jewish Learning.



Actually, the CMB affirmed the Big Bang scenario implied by Friedmann-Lemaître's solution to Einstein's field equations.

From an article I recently wrote:

Recall that before the unvarnished ramifications of Einstein's theory of general relativity (1915) were disclosed, most scientists held that the universe was infinitely static (or stationary), i.e., temporarily and spatially infinite, and neither expanding nor contracting.  However, Einstein proposed a static universe that was temporarily infinite and spatially finite in 1917 when he applied the field equations of general relativity to cosmology.  Ironically, he added a positive cosmological constant to the calculi of the spacetime metric tensor as his preferred cosmology would otherwise collapse or expand forever.  In 1922, Alexander Friedmann was the first to take the field equations of general relativity at face value cosmologically and in 1924 published an exact solution giving a homogeneous, isotropic and expanding universe.  See "About the possibility of a world with constant negative curvature."   

In 1927, Georges Lemaître independently derived the same solution as Friedmann and posited that the galactic recession first observed by the astronomer Vesto Slipher is explained by an expanding universe.  (Slipher discovered the Doppler effects of redshift in 1912 before Einstein posited his revolutionary theory of gravity, so he never made the connection and assumed spiral nebulae were moving within the fixed background of space.)  Accordingly, Lemaître was actually the first to posit the essence of Hubble's law:  galaxies are receding in every direction at velocities directly proportional to their distance from each other; i.e., the greater the distance between any two galaxies, the greater their relative speed of separation.  In other words, these galaxies are not moving away from one another under their own steam within the fixed background of space; they're moving away from one another as the fabric of space itself expands.  Lemaître also made the first estimation of the rate of expansion, which is known today as the Hubble constant.  Finally, he posited what became known as the Big Bang theory, what he called "the hypothesis of the primæval atom", which he elaborated on in 1931:  https://www.nature.com/articles/127706b0.

However, like Friedmann's paper, Lemaître's "A homogeneous Universe of constant mass and growing radius accounting for the radial velocity of extragalactic nebulae" of 1927 was published in an obscure journal.  It was translated into English in 1931 and republished by the Royal Astronomical Society, but in 1929 Edwin Hubble published his paper on the velocity-distance relation with a more precise constant for the rate of expansion:  "A Relation between Distance and Radial Velocity among Extra-Galactic Nebulae".  Notwithstanding, Hubble used virtually the same input data as that previously used by Lemaître, and, once again, Lemaître was the first to unequivocally attribute the pertinent astronomical observations to the expanding universe described by the field equations of general relativity!

Lemaître got his due in 1931 for connecting galactic recession directly to an expanding universe per the pertinent calculi of general relativity, and the velocity-distance relation is sometimes more properly referred to as Hubble-Lemaître's law in the literature.  (Lemaître struck his estimation of the expansion rate from his translated paper in deference to Hubble's more accurate calculations.)  The myth that Hubble was the first to discover that the universe is expanding persists because Hubble's 1929 calculi for the rate of expansion were more accurate and because his and Milton Humason's follow-up paper "The Velocity-Distance Relation among Extra-Galactic Nebulae" (1931) provided an even more decisively comprehensive observational foundation for an expanding universe, which put the matter beyond all reasonable doubt.  What Einstein's relativity theories were to physics, Lemaître and Hubble's discovery was to cosmology—a seismic event.  Finally, in this wise, physicists Howard Robertson and Arthur Walker working together but independently of Friedmann and Lemaître, derived a variant of Friedmann's solution in 1934.  Hence, the classic solution of the Einstein field equations giving a dynamically homogeneous and isotropic universe is referred to as the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) space-time metric (or the standard model of modern cosmology). In the face of the findings of Hubble-Humason of 1931, Einstein finally accepted that the universe was expanding, of course, but rejected Lemaître's apparent beginning.

Einstein and others briefly considered the possibility of an oscillatory/cyclic universe predicated on the notion that the universe would expand for a period of time before the gravitational attraction of matter caused it to collapse, but then Richard C. Tolman showed in 1934 that entropy would only increase with each cycle.  (Beginning in the later 1960s, the oscillatory/cyclic scenario was revived and has since been variously tweaked by the theoretical mechanisms of some form of quantum or inflationary theory, but as we have seen thus far to no avail in terms of past-eternality.)  In the meantime, the Big Bang theory's main rival was the Steady State theory, which also depicted a homogeneous, isotropic and expanding universe.  However, it is said to be past-eternally expanding everywhere as matter is continuously created via the intrinsic energy of space.  Thus, while the amount of matter increases over time, the density of matter is everywhere constant.

Friedmann's solution is equally compatible with both the Big Bang and Steady State theories, but the later has always been held by many to be a faux alternative in terms of origin given that it implies, not a past-eternally expanding universe at all, but a universe with an even more decisive beginning than that depicted by the former.  As extrapolated backwards, the Big Bang model implies either "a primæval atom of maximum compaction" or an initial point of zero volume and infinite density, while the Steady State model implies an initial point of zero volume _and_ density.  In other words, the Steady State model is not so much a paradox as a scenario that implies the opposite of what it asserts.  It was assumed that some future discovery would somehow resolve this apparent contradiction.  This was thought to be necessarily so because the absolute beginning implied by the Big Bang violated the perfect cosmological principle, which states that the spatial distribution of matter in the universe is homogeneously and isotropically changeless when viewed on a large scale.  While the long-held principle is arguably consistent with a static universe, imposing it on an expanding universe is utterly arbitrary.  Hence, the key distinction between them:  Big Bang theory predicts an evolving universe that is homogeneous and isotropic in the sense that matter density is uniformly changing, while Steady State theory predicts a changeless universe that is homogeneous and isotropic in the sense that matter density is uniformly constant.

Einstein briefly regarded a steady state scenario of his own in 1931.  Long before the discovery of the CMB in 1964 and its increasingly detailed analyses drove the final nail into its coffin, he insightfully understood then what would become increasingly obvious over the next few decades from astronomical observations in general:  the Steady State model is an arbitrary contrivance and entails an improbable degree of ad hoc fine-tuning.  As for the decades of astronomical observations prior to the discovery of the CMB, the universe was definitely observed to have undergone evolutionary material change in the past.

 While virtually all of the predictions of an expanding universe with a beginning in the finite past were affirmed over the next few decades—including the prediction regarding the existence of the CMB itself!—it became apparent that an arbitrary "explosion" of energy and matter was not entirely compatible with the observed conditions of the CMB.  As discussed in the above, these discrepancies were resolved by inflationary theory beginning in 1980 ("The Inflationary Universe:  A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems", Alan H. Guth), whereby the epoch of the Big Bang state, as discussed in the above, is actually a big conversion of energy following the epoch of rapid, exponential inflation of space itself:  http://tucana.astro.physik.uni-potsdam.de/~cfech/lectures/galkos/guth1981.pdf.

 Alexei Starobinsky, Andreas Albrecht and Andrei Linde further developed the theory of cosmic inflation in the early 1980s.  They resolved the "unacceptable consequences" for which "modifications must be sought" by elaborating on the microscopic inflationary region of Guth's scenario.  They posited a coherent, natural mechanism for cosmic inflation and the metric expansion of space, specifically, a causal and regulatory scalar field which permeates the universe.  This eliminated the reliance on the percolation of a large number of small bubbles to end the inflationary epoch so that the Big Bang epoch could begin.  In Guth's scenario, inflation tunnels out of a false vacuum state, which happily sets up the condition that naturally leads to the percolation of the bubbles.  Alas, while this condition and the bubbles thereof would solve the transitional problem, it's incompatible with the condition that would solve two of the three cosmic problems.  Guth showed that inflation solved the transitional problem and, if he suppressed the condition that facilitated this, the cosmic problems.  Hence, inflation was key, but his quantum-tunneling mechanism was either incomplete or entirely wrong.  On the Starobinsky-Albrecht-Linde scenario coupled with the quantum fluctuations in the underlying field of space:  inflation smoothly ensues via a "slow roll" of a scalar field along a relatively flat potential, which gradually increases, ends exponential inflation, ignites the transitional epoch of the Big Bang and resolves all three of the cosmic problems, including the magnetic monopole problem, in one stroke.  Despite the guff of its occasional detractors, inflationary theory has not only held up against numerous challenges over the years, but has been strengthened by the proofs for several, likely scalar fields.  This fact was recently underscored again by Mishra-Sahni-Toporensky (2018):  https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.04948.pdf.​Cosmological evolution from the Big Bang doesn't necessarily imply biological evolution at all, and while none of this necessarily proves that our spacetime is the first and only to have ever existed, all of the evidence tells us that _our_ spacetime most certainly began to exist in the finite past.  Also, Lemaître's cosmogony was already known as the Big Bang before the discovery of the CMB, and, as I pointed out in the above, actually predicted it's discovery.  I don't know what *dback's* theology is, but I do know that he, like me, believes that the cosmos was created _from_ nothing.  *Breezewood* strikes me as a pantheist of the Hindu tradition, though, I might be wrong about that.  But he does hold to the Hindu notion of an eternally cycling cosmogony.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Sep 10, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And, worth noting:
> 
> Abiogensis is a foregone conclusion. While we may not know how it happened, we can safely assume it is a fact and did, indeed, happen.









No it's not. Life may very well have originated elsewhere and been brought here via meteorites and other space debris...

Panspermia - Wikipedia

In which case life may be much older than many believe. It may even date back to the beginning of everything.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## MoonPie (Sep 10, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> MoonPie said:
> 
> 
> > I think not
> ...



Seriously? How old is Genesis? 6,000+ years old? That was a profoundly intuitive guess.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 10, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



Your usual tactic. When your attempts at argument fail because your sources are hack creation ministries, you declare victory and scurry away. 

Such childish games are an embarrassment.


----------



## ding (Sep 10, 2019)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I didn’t say by. I said from.
> ...


I didn’t lie about anything. 

He believes in a cyclical universe which had no beginning or end. That’s eternal. 

I did answer it. You didn’t understand my answer.


----------



## ding (Sep 10, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So science, which operates in a deterministic universe that follows laws, tells us that abiogenesis is a fact.
> 
> Just as star formation is a fact.
> 
> ...


I consider myself religious and I have forgotten more science than you ever knew.


----------



## Third Party (Sep 10, 2019)

Ringtone said:


> The following article reviews the most relevant findings in abiogenetic research to date and touches on the potential metaphysical presuppositions for science in the light of those findings. Where do we go when the findings seem to show that a natural mechanism of sheer chemistry for the origin of life is implausible, cannot be given and/or is indemonstrable? In light of the findings, I propose a return to the open-ended, methodological naturalism of tradition, that which was applied to the scientific enterprise before Darwin. The assumption of the Darwinian paradigm obviously begs the question and arbitrarily precludes the potential necessity of intelligent design. I say there's no way the rudimentary, self-ording properties of mere chemistry could have possibly produced the sequestered materials and information of life.
> 
> Abiogenesis:  The Unholy Grail of Atheism
> *
> ...


I am still processing how the church said the world is flat-believe or die.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 10, 2019)

Third Party said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > The following article reviews the most relevant findings in abiogenetic research to date and touches on the potential metaphysical presuppositions for science in the light of those findings. Where do we go when the findings seem to show that a natural mechanism of sheer chemistry for the origin of life is implausible, cannot be given and/or is indemonstrable? In light of the findings, I propose a return to the open-ended, methodological naturalism of tradition, that which was applied to the scientific enterprise before Darwin. The assumption of the Darwinian paradigm obviously begs the question and arbitrarily precludes the potential necessity of intelligent design. I say there's no way the rudimentary, self-ording properties of mere chemistry could have possibly produced the sequestered materials and information of life.
> ...


The church, especially in Medieval Europe, was an entity with sweeping powers. The clergy was ruthless in suppressing science and discovery. They labeled mathematicians, astronomers, writers, etc., as heretics and subjected them to the most gruesome forms of torture and slow death. The church literally held back civilization for 800 years.


----------



## james bond (Sep 10, 2019)

Ringtone said:


> Actually, the CMB affirmed the Big Bang scenario implied by Friedmann-Lemaître's solution to Einstein's field equations.



The CMB, discovered in 1965, _originally caused problems for the big bang theory at the time_ because the radiation fit the steady state theory.  The Friedmann-Lemaitre was a precursor to today's big bang, but it wasn't widely accepted until Hubble's finding of an expanding universe.  Even Einstein rejected Friedmann-Lemaitre originally and thought eternal universe.

"Success was achieved in a classic paper published in 1957, where they showed how the elements could be produced by a combination of fusion in the cores of massive stars (for the lighter ones), capture of free neutrons also in stellar cores, and reaction chains that proceed rapidly in supernova explosions, basically the modern theory that we have already discussed. In the meantime, it was realized that fusion in the Big Bang would not have extended above helium and lithium, so that this event could not have been responsible for the creation of the elements. The Steady State advocates' alternative of formation in stars and supernovae was the correct explanation."

Steady State vs. Big Bang

Interesting that Penzias-Wilson got the Nobel Prize for their discovery while Gamow got zilch.

The CMB showed there was a beginning and ended up backing the big bang theory through Hubble's discovery.


----------



## james bond (Sep 10, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Your usual tactic. When your attempts at argument fail because your sources are hack creation ministries, you declare victory and scurry away.
> 
> Such childish games are an embarrassment.



I am going to change my creation arguments to use Judaism to _you_.  Their Torah discusses Genesis and they argue the same things we are arguing.  It would eliminate the hate and prejudice you have for Christians.





I sorta see you as Hilary whenever you post your screed.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 10, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Your usual tactic. When your attempts at argument fail because your sources are hack creation ministries, you declare victory and scurry away.
> ...



Christianity co-opted much of Hebrew theism and literally stole portions of Judaism. 

Do you know where the OT came from?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 10, 2019)

Damaged Eagle said:


> No it's not. Life may very well have originated elsewhere and been brought here via meteorites and other space debris...


Which would still requure abiogenesism, but at a different location.

So yes, it remains a fact.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 10, 2019)

MoonPie said:


> That was a profoundly intuitive guess.


Not really. They had to dream up a myth using the tools and materials they knew about. So, create space, then light, then the planet, then the things on it. There is nothing really intuitive about that. And, of course, no mention of any knowledge they did not have available at the time.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Sep 10, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > No it's not. Life may very well have originated elsewhere and been brought here via meteorites and other space debris...
> ...








...Or that life has existed since the beginning of time which would put in dispute abiogenesis and instead that life is a natural function of the universe..... In which case have you come up with any further explanation for the creation of the universe than that it magically appeared in a big bang approximately fifteen billion years ago? After all your version sounds a lot like the opening lines of the biblical Genesis.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 10, 2019)

Damaged Eagle said:


> Or that life has existed since the beginning of time which would put in dispute abiogenesis and instead that life is a natural function of the universe..


Interesting. By what magic, though? We already know the matter in our universe has only been around for a finite amount of time. That would include life.


----------



## Ringtone (Sep 10, 2019)

james bond said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, the CMB affirmed the Big Bang scenario implied by Friedmann-Lemaître's solution to Einstein's field equations.
> ...



_Sigh_

You're conflating important distinctions, and as a result your understanding of things is wrong.

First things first.  For some reason I referred to *ding* as *dblack*.  Brainfart.

The discovery of the CMB was essentially the death knell for the Steady State theory.  The Friedmann-Lemaitre solution is not a precursor to the Big Bang as such at all.  The solution actually supported both the Big Bang _and_ Steady State theories.  The solution gives a homogeneous, isotropic and expanding universe.  The Friedmann-Lemaitre solution in and of itself does not give a cosmological beginning.  That's why I used the term _implied_.  It implies a beginning only in terms of expansion.  A beginning does not necessarily follow from the solution alone.

Lemaitre was the first to assert an expanding universe as predicated on _his_ independently derived solution and affirmed by _his_ calculi relative to the astronomical observations made by Vesto Slipher, not Hubble!  Lemaitre was the first to posit "Hubble's" Law as well.  Lemaitre published his discovery in 1927, Hubble, in 1929.  Lemaitre was initially overlooked because his proof was first published in an obscure journal before being translated and republished in English in a journal with a wider audience.  Once again:

However, like Friedmann's paper, Lemaître's "A homogeneous Universe of constant mass and growing radius accounting for the radial velocity of extragalactic nebulae" of 1927 was published in an obscure journal. It was translated into English in 1931 and republished by the Royal Astronomical Society, but in 1929 Edwin Hubble published his paper on the velocity-distance relation with a more precise constant for the rate of expansion: "A Relation between Distance and Radial Velocity among Extra-Galactic Nebulae". Notwithstanding, Hubble used virtually the same input data as that previously used by Lemaître, and, once again, Lemaître was the first to unequivocally attribute the pertinent astronomical observations to the expanding universe described by the field equations of general relativity!

Lemaître got his due in 1931 for connecting galactic recession directly to his astronomical calculations and the pertinent calculi of general relativity, and the velocity-distance relation is sometimes more properly referred to as Hubble-Lemaître's law in the literature. (Lemaître struck his estimation of the expansion rate from his translated paper in deference to Hubble's more accurate calculations.) *The myth that Hubble was the first to discover that the universe is expanding persists because Hubble's 1929 calculi for the rate of expansion were more accurate and because his and Milton Humason's follow-up paper "The Velocity-Distance Relation among Extra-Galactic Nebulae" (1931) provided an even more decisively comprehensive observational foundation for an expanding universe, which put the matter beyond all reasonable doubt.* What Einstein's relativity theories were to physics, Lemaître and Hubble's discovery was to cosmology—a seismic event. Finally, in this wise, physicists Howard Robertson and Arthur Walker working together but independently of Friedmann and Lemaître, derived a variant of Friedmann's solution in 1934. Hence, the classic solution of the Einstein field equations giving a dynamically homogeneous and isotropic universe is referred to as the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) space-time metric (or the standard model of modern cosmology). In the face of the findings of Hubble-Humason of 1931, Einstein finally accepted that the universe was expanding, of course, but rejected Lemaître's apparent beginning.​
Also see:
Who really discovered Hubble’s Law?
Who Really Discovered The Expanding Universe?
Move over, Hubble: Discovery of expanding cosmos assigned to little-known Belgian astronomer-priest | Science | AAAS
Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia

Lemaitre went one step further and posited a beginning for the universe.  As I wrote in the above, he posited what became known as the Big Bang theory, what he called "the hypothesis of the primæval atom", which he elaborated on in 1931: https://www.nature.com/articles/127706b0.  Friedmann-Lemaitre's solution giving an expanding universe was never rejected as such; it was merely not affirmed until Lemaitre and Hubble's astronomical observations and the calculi thereof!  You're conflating the solution, which gives an expanding universe, with Lemaitre's theoretical extrapolation, which gives a cosmological beginning.  They are not necessarily the same thing.  With the falsification of the Steady State, we have the calculi of general relativity yielding a beginning to our spacetime at the very least.  Hence, Friedmann-Lemaitre, insofar as it pertains to an expanding universe, was established no latter than 1931.  It was Hubble-Humason more extensive proof of 1931 that finally convinced Einstein that the Friedmann-Lemaitre solution was correct and caused him to remark that his cosmological constant was the greatest blunder of his career.  It was Lemaitre's theoretical extrapolation—Lemaitre's cosmogony of a beginning via the primæval atom!—that Einstein rejected, not the Friedmann-Lemaitre solution of an expanding universe.  Yes.  Einstein held to an eternal universe believing that this would eventually be shown quantum mechanically.  Einstein rejected both the Big Bang and the Steady State theories.  He was averse to a beginning on one hand, and regarded the calculi of a steady state to be contrived.

The CMB _*did not*_ undermine the Big Bang scenario in any way, shape or form_ "_because the radiation fit the steady state theory" as you claim!  You're conflating things again.  On the contrary, the CMB affirmed the final state of the Big Bang epoch of cosmological development (approximately 380.000 years after the exponential expansion epoch).  Indeed, the Big Bang theory predicted the discovery of the CMB; the Steady State theory did not!  Here you're conflating the proof worked out by steady state theorists regarding the stellar nucleosynthesis of heavy elements with the CMB itself.  All this proof did was improve our understanding of the Big Bang scenario.   It was soon shown that it supported the Big Bang, not a steady state.  All the proof actually showed was that Gamow-Alpher's notion that the heavy elements were synthesized at the beginning of the Big Bang epoch was wrong.  This could not occur until after the end of the Big Bang epoch, not until after the universe had cooled enough for the mostly plasma state of matter to clump and form stars.  Gamow-Alpher correctly predicted the discovery of the CMB, but they were wrong about the order of things.  As it turns out their error did not impinge on the veracity of the Big Bang scenario at all.  Moreover, most scientists had already come to have grave doubts about the Steady State model once it was shown that bright radio quasars and galaxies were found only at large distances.  This means they existed only in the distant past.  This is precisely what the Big Bang predicted.  The Steady State predicted they would be found everywhere, distributed throughout the universe. These astronomical observations were made _before_ the discovery of the CMB.  Hence, the support for the Steady State theory had already seriously eroded in the light of the mounting evidence before the CMB was discovered.  The CMB precisely reflects what the final state of the Big Bang epoch would look like.

You read things out of my post that refute your account and read things into your source that aren't there because of the conflations in you head.  Look, the history of the development of the Big Band theory is complex, and that's not the end of the tale.


----------



## ding (Sep 10, 2019)

That the universe had a beginning cannot be refuted. The data is overwhelming.

So the question is how can energy be created from nothing and not violate the first law of thermodynamics? 

And the answer is the net energy of the universe is zero.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Sep 10, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > Or that life has existed since the beginning of time which would put in dispute abiogenesis and instead that life is a natural function of the universe..
> ...








So where did all matter come from??? Are you saying the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe out of nothing? Sure sounds like it to me and if it created all that matter why not life also...

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 10, 2019)

Damaged Eagle said:


> So where did all matter come from???


It started as a plasma of particles (not atoms). Prior to that, it was a state of energy that we cannot describe.

Did you not know this? I thought you were a science buff.

No atoms = no life.

Why would i posit a creator of any kind? I'm not a child.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Sep 11, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > So where did all matter come from???
> ...



So this plasma just decided magically that it was a good time to be set in motion one day approximately fifteen billion years ago?



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Did you not know this? I thought you were a science buff.



I know more than you about it.

*****CHUCKLE*****



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No atoms = no life.



So you know definitively and beyond doubt what constitutes life?



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Why would i posit a creator of any kind? I'm not a child.



That's debatable. You kneel at the alter of science and talk as though it is absolute fact. When in reality much of what you consider "proven" science is actually just hypotheses and theories about the way the universe works. In turn you point and say there is scientific consensus from the ministers of your faith. But the truth is most of those theories and hypotheses will probably be proven just as wrong as some of the religious dogma that others believe. However I see how having this gives you comfort and how you feel you need to fight the infidels of your just cause all for your high god of scientific consensus.







*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## MoonPie (Sep 11, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> MoonPie said:
> 
> 
> > That was a profoundly intuitive guess.
> ...


All from nothing


----------



## DOTR (Sep 11, 2019)

james bond said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > The origin of life includes more possibilities than the “primordial soup”.
> ...



OK. I didn realize the definition was that broad. But the thing is..the earth is lousy with amino acids right now. Magnitudes more concentrated. And we never see new life forming. It cant be a game of odds because it happened in a geological eyblink after the earth cooled. Almost as if it were inevitable. But never again despite an Earth becoming increasingly sodden with amino acids?
There is something interesting in that alone.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 11, 2019)

Damaged Eagle said:


> So this plasma just decided magically that it was a good time to be set in motion one day approximately fifteen billion years ago?


No, magic is for religious peole like you. You are the one proposing magic. Not me. 



Damaged Eagle said:


> I know more than you about it.


Apparently not...



Damaged Eagle said:


> So you know definitively and beyond doubt what constitutes life?


No, but now you are being magical again. Do you introduce such whimsical ideas into star formation? No, and you are only doing so because your mind is addled by magical faith.



Damaged Eagle said:


> You kneel at the alter of science and talk as though it is absolute fact.


False. I say things like, "it is likely that", and, "it is correct and safe to assume as fact".

You keep confusing yourself, crybaby. Of the two of us, only one of us makes claims with certainty. That would be you , armed eith your iron aged myths you insist , without a shred of evidence, are true.


----------



## james bond (Sep 11, 2019)

DOTR said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > DOTR said:
> ...



That's a good point you bring up about the magnitudes of amino acids.  I never thought of the times they were plentiful and times that weren't.  Trying to discuss things with atheists, we never get that far in our discussion before ad hominems .

I suppose the abiogenesis argument is that they're here, so why couldn't they have formed in primordial Earth?  I don't think many scientists believe the prebiotic gases used in Miller-Urey experiment were correct anymore.  Yet, I think that's still their main starting point and argument for amino acids on primordial Earth.  IOW, there hasn't been a newer experiment with different gases.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 11, 2019)

james bond said:


> Yet, I think that's still their main starting point and argument for amino acids on primordial Earth.


Well, You're wrong. You are referring to a hypothesis. That experiment was one devised way of testing the hypothesis.

Do you guys understand that we have done many, many other experiments since then?


----------



## Hollie (Sep 11, 2019)

james bond said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



The abiogenesis argument is not an argument at all. We know with *absolute certainty* that biological life from basic building blocks of chemical compounds took place. Either it was naturally occurring or it happened by super-magical means. We have no evidence for Amun-Ra magically starting life and we have no evidence that gods with talking pet snakes created all of existence 6,000 years ago. That tends to narrow the field to the most likely, most studied scenario where life developed due to interactions of chemical compounds.Primitive protobacteria of simple molecules slowly evolved into more cooperative self-replicating systems, then finally into simple organisms.

For all the appeals to magic and supernaturalism, it is scientists in the relevant fields of chemistry, biology, paleontology, etc., who are doing the research. The charlatans at creation ministries are doing nothing but making every attempt to discredit researchers because the religious extremists have their scared cows to protect.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Sep 11, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > So this plasma just decided magically that it was a good time to be set in motion one day approximately fifteen billion years ago?
> ...



What makes me religious in your mind? Additionally I'm not the one proposing that you can get something from nothing like you are.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > I know more than you about it.
> ...



*****ROFLMAO*****



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > So you know definitively and beyond doubt what constitutes life?
> ...



What makes the question I posed as magical? Are you a carbon/oxygen chauvinist? Sounds like it to me.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > You kneel at the alter of science and talk as though it is absolute fact.
> ...



Sure you do.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You keep confusing yourself, crybaby.



No confusion... Do you need a tissue?



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Of the two of us, only one of us makes claims with certainty...



I'm glad you admit that you're making such claims.









Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ...That would be you , armed eith your iron aged myths you insist , without a shred of evidence, are true.



Which iron aged myths would those be??? 

Why are you attempting to assert some sort of claim with absolute certainty about me.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## james bond (Sep 11, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Do you guys understand that we have done many, many other experiments since then?



Still, not much results.  Try reading some Dr. Duane Gish instead of your circular thinking types and their assumptions.

Abiogenesis is still a theory, so no life yet.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 11, 2019)

Damaged Eagle said:


> What makes me religious in your mind?


Your prior postings... Am i mistaken? Nope. 

The rest of your post was irrelevant whining. As usual.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Sep 11, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > What makes me religious in your mind?
> ...



Do I detect more certainty here? Do please point out my religiousness with your Witches Hammer Of Scientific Consensus.

*****CHUCKLE*****



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The rest of your post was irrelevant whining. As usual.



It's spelled winning.






*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## james bond (Sep 11, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > DOTR said:
> ...



Nah, I read what the Jews say, too.  Abiogenesis is just a theory.  When life happens or the building blocks of protein are formed, then someone will post an breaking news article on it.  Whoever discovers how to make proteins outside the cell will become a billionaire.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 11, 2019)

Damaged Eagle said:


> Do I detect more certainty here


Yes, quite a bit. Are you saying you are not religious? Because youve gotten pretty religious on me before.But if not... I was mistaken, but good for you!

What have you won? You did nothing but try to wedge magical mystery ideas into the gaps of our knowledge. A child can do that.

Again...as usual.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 12, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



Yes, abiogenesis is a theory. I should note that your science vocabulary is very limited so your “just a theory” comment carries with it a great deal of ignorance from your creation ministries. 

Theories can be tested. How we test for one or more of your gods? iD’iot creationists know with certainty they cannot test for their polytheistic gods. They are uninterested in testing any ideas about how their gods used magical means to create existence 6,000 years ago. Scientists working in abiogenesis develop and test models without the need for supernatural intervention.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Sep 12, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > Do I detect more certainty here
> ...








Really??? What religious teachings and doctrines have you seen me toting out to use on you?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## DOTR (Sep 13, 2019)

james bond said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



These Puritan atheists spend their days searching for “earth like “ planets in hopes of life...from the most earth line of planets where life only happened once. 
Increadible.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 13, 2019)

DOTR said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > DOTR said:
> ...


Which is the smart thing to do. Which is why brilliant scientists do it, and why you don't get it.

We don't have the means to do a comprehensive survey, and life under these conditions is the only life we know anything about.

So, it makes sense. Trust me, they have no need of your assistance or moral support.


----------



## james bond (Sep 13, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Yes, abiogenesis is a theory. I should note that your science vocabulary is very limited so your “just a theory” comment carries with it a great deal of ignorance from your creation ministries.
> 
> Theories can be tested. How we test for one or more of your gods? iD’iot creationists know with certainty they cannot test for their polytheistic gods. They are uninterested in testing any ideas about how their gods used magical means to create existence 6,000 years ago. Scientists working in abiogenesis develop and test models without the need for supernatural intervention.



One person was lying and leading people on as if abiogenesis was fact.  What I showed was there was no successful experiment even one that created amino acids.  The other person, you, kept arguing against God and ID instead of understanding what was being presented as evidence.  First, you claimed both creationism and ID were the same.

One can lead a horse to water, but cannot make them think.  1) Dr. Louis Pasteur showed that spontaneous generation does not happen with heat sterilization and without oxygen, O2.  2) Oxygen, O2, is not wanted in Miller-Urey experiement or else it causes the hydrogen to explode.  3) Miller-Urey assumed incorrectly the type of gases in the early, primordial atmosphere.  4) With the volcanic gases of the primordial atmosphere used, the amino acids do not form.  5) There are more criticisms of Miller-Urey, other abiogenesis experiments, and the basis of the abiogenesis process, but the opposition does not have to go further because amino acids do not happen through abiogenesis.  6) Amino acids form in an air-water mixture is claimed.  7) Amino acids dissolve in water. Experimental fact.  8) Life only forms in unsterilized environments, such as dirty air or water, but it was there to begin with.  9) Life only begats more life. 10) Proteins cannot be created outside the single cell.  Experimental evidence.  11) There is more, but I already showed enough in the first paragraph that both you and the other person were wrong.


----------



## james bond (Sep 13, 2019)

It just hit me that abiogenesis isn't real science because one cannot _falsify_ it.  Abiogenesis claims life happened through natural processes.  To falsify it, one has to assume life happened through a not natural process or a supernatural process.  Abiogenesis debunked through the philosophy of science.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 13, 2019)

james bond said:


> It just hit me that abiogenesis isn't real science because one cannot _falsify_ it.


You are confused and off-base. The testable hypotheses of how abiogensis occured (which comprise the scientific theory of abiogensis) are falsifiable. This is science.

"Abiogensis" is just the name given to formation of life. By your same error, one might say "star formation is not falsifiable", which, obviously, is an error and belies confusion of what science is.

Hope that helps.


----------

