# The Evolution Big Lie; Evolution Proves Metapysical Nauralism



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 21, 2014)

I totally agree with the theory of evolution, macro and micro, and though I used to oppose it quite vociferously, that all changed when I realized that evolution only required methodological naturalism, the idea that science can only look at natural processes and cannot consider supernatural processes. It wasn't science or the theory of Evolution I had my disagreements with, but it was this idea that EVERYTHING is a natural process, and those things that are not natural processes are mere fiction and this idea is called 'metaphysical naturalism'.

Metaphysical naturalism is a lie. It cannot be proven and it cannot support anything that is good in our society. Is an evil and subversive idea.

The problem is not with evolution but with the liars who try to slip in metaphysical naturalism when they talk about evolution.

This is where Protestant OEC ad YEC cause more ham than good because they deflect attention away from this subtle subterfuge and put t on their pet idea that were lost a long time ago.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 21, 2014)

So what you're saying is there's a big powerful man doing it all?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 21, 2014)

There is no credible evidence that one mammal species has ever evolved into 2 or more distinctly different species.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 21, 2014)

In the fossil record, a whole world full of evidence. But you would deny it all, so why show you any of it. The willfully ignorant cannot be disabused of their ignorance.


----------



## Mr. H. (Mar 21, 2014)

More ham is always better than good. 

"Natural processes" can't occur without the presence of matter. 

Could it be that approximately 14 billion years ago a singular "supernatural process" occurred that begat the existence of matter - the physical universe?

I think so. 

And I think that since that immeasurable moment of time, all of that newly-created matter.....

evolved. Through natural processes.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 21, 2014)

Matthew said:


> So what you're saying is there's a big powerful man doing it all?



lol, no, I am not

Maybe you should read again but this time without your preconceptions?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 21, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> In the fossil record, a whole world full of evidence. But you would deny it all, so why show you any of it. The willfully ignorant cannot be disabused of their ignorance.



I don't think that these 'Creationists' would be so quick to deny it if it was NOT also packaging metaphysical naturalism along with it.


----------



## Mr. H. (Mar 21, 2014)

Time can not be measured without the presence of physical matter, however minute. 

Even in stasis, the most minute particle of matter measures time.

Because it occupies... space. 

And space itself can not exist without the presence of the most minute particle of.... matter. 

And so - either matter has existed for all eternity, or there was an event-moment that (to the best of our current knowledge) occurred about 14 billion years ago. 

I believe that "event-moment" to be the collision of pure nothingness with pure non-nothingness. 

The result? Matter. Matter on the most minute of scale. But lots of it. Contained in an infinitesimal point of newly-created space. And time. 

And THAT was the beginning of time. And the beginning of "natural process". 

And from that immeasurable moment forward,  the evolution of natural process... progressed. 

Which begat shopping malls, Justin Bieber, and latex.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 21, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I totally agree with the theory of evolution, macro and micro, and though I used to oppose it quite vociferously, that all changed when I realized that evolution only required methodological naturalism, the idea that science can only look at natural processes and cannot consider supernatural processes. It wasn't science or the theory of Evolution I had my disagreements with, but it was this idea that EVERYTHING is a natural process, and those things that are not natural processes are mere fiction and this idea is called 'metaphysical naturalism'.
> 
> Metaphysical naturalism is a lie. It cannot be proven and it cannot support anything that is good in our society. Is an evil and subversive idea.
> 
> ...



You are guilty of begging the question and circular logic.

Stop.

Go back and look at your premises.

Then study the logic and the evidence for it.

Then make your conclusion.

The stop stammering and explain it logically.


----------



## Mr. H. (Mar 22, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > I totally agree with the theory of evolution, macro and micro, and though I used to oppose it quite vociferously, that all changed when I realized that evolution only required methodological naturalism, the idea that science can only look at natural processes and cannot consider supernatural processes. It wasn't science or the theory of Evolution I had my disagreements with, but it was this idea that EVERYTHING is a natural process, and those things that are not natural processes are mere fiction and this idea is called 'metaphysical naturalism'.
> ...



And how can you request that of him without requesting anything of me?

You're the one skirting.


----------



## Moonglow (Mar 22, 2014)

When they wrote the Bible, God forgot to mention dinosaurs....


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 22, 2014)

Moonglow said:


> When they wrote the Bible, God forgot to mention dinosaurs....



Lol, or plate tectonics, roflmao.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 22, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> In the fossil record, a whole world full of evidence. But you would deny it all, so why show you any of it. The willfully ignorant cannot be disabused of their ignorance.



The fossil record does not provide a single link between one species and two or more distinctly different species that supposedly sprang from the one.

It does prove that WITHIN a species evolution occurs.

Hell we have had science for how many hundreds of years now? Why no physical evidence of a mammal species evolving into two or more distinct different species?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 22, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > I totally agree with the theory of evolution, macro and micro, and though I used to oppose it quite vociferously, that all changed when I realized that evolution only required methodological naturalism, the idea that science can only look at natural processes and cannot consider supernatural processes. It wasn't science or the theory of Evolution I had my disagreements with, but it was this idea that EVERYTHING is a natural process, and those things that are not natural processes are mere fiction and this idea is called 'metaphysical naturalism'.
> ...



I cannot be begging the question as I am not responding to someone else's question, though you seem to think I am. And there is no circular logic, though you are making unsupported/unwarranted assertions. Prove where I am making a circular argument, Einstein.



JakeStarkey said:


> Go back and look at your premises.
> 
> Then study the logic and the evidence for it.
> 
> ...



Lol, as if you would know what any of that is when you haven't demonstrated knowledge of the simplest logic yourself, n or have you provided any evidence of anything.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 22, 2014)

Jimbo said:
			
		

> It wasn't science or the theory of Evolution I had my disagreements with, but it was this idea that EVERYTHING is a natural process, and those things that are not natural processes are mere fiction and this idea is called 'metaphysical naturalism'.
> 
> Metaphysical naturalism is a lie. It cannot be proven and it cannot support anything that is good in our society. Is an evil and subversive idea.
> 
> The problem is not with evolution but with the liars who try to slip in metaphysical naturalism when they talk about evolution.



Metaphysical naturalism rejects the supernatural concepts and explanations that are part of many religions. I fail to see how it qualifies as something that is evil and subversive. It seems to me that you are having an emotional response and haven't thought this out thoroughly. I don't believe in the supernatural, and many of my family and friends will tell you that I am certainly not an evil or subversive guy. I try to be kind and considerate of others (maybe the fact that I drive the speed limit irritates others, but could hardly qualify as evil or subversive behavior), I volunteer time to public outreach as a board member of one of the best amateur astronomy groups in the country (According to Astronomy Magazine), and though I am rather poor and in poor health, I would give the shirt off my back to a friend in need. So does any of this sound subversive and evil to you? I think you owe us a better explanation for your reaction than "it is evil and subversive", or "it is a lie". How is it a lie? Why can it not be proven?  An even more important question, from my perspective is how can the supernatural be proven?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 22, 2014)

Yanno..............people should really watch "Cosmos" on FOX, as hosted by Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

It would explain a lot of what is being argued here, only thing is, they back it up with science and pretty good theories.

Did we come from a common ancestor?  Well, there are theories backed up by science and DNA sampling that say we did (check out the Nat Geo "Human Family Tree" sometime), and they all say we came from a common male and a common female.

Hmm................sounds like the Bible said, eh?  The start of the human race was from Adam and Eve.

Face it......................there are things in the Bible, and things in science that say we all came from a common place.

Why can't science and the Bible agree on occasion, especially when they say pretty much the same thing?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 22, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Jimbo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



From a Christian catholic perspective, it is evil and subversive of moral standards.



orogenicman said:


> It seems to me that you are having an emotional response and haven't thought this out thoroughly. I don't believe in the supernatural, and many of my family and friends will tell you that I am certainly not an evil or subversive guy.



I would agree you are not evil, but I would say that you cause more heat than light, more confusion and less clarity. You have displayed no concern with maintaining integrity, honest discussion nor moral compass of any kind that I have seen. You will fabricate, ignore and denounce whatever you like whenever you like with not intellectual or principles of restraint of any sort I can deduce.

That isn't evil, certainly, just maniacal frumpery.



orogenicman said:


> I try to be kind and considerate of others (maybe the fact that I drive the speed limit irritates others, but could hardly qualify as evil or subversive behavior), I volunteer time to public outreach as a board member of one of the best amateur astronomy groups in the country (According to Astronomy Magazine), and though I am rather poor and in poor health, I would give the shirt off my back to a friend in need. So does any of this sound subversive and evil to you?



I assert that the philosophical school of thought known as metaphysical naturalism is harmful to science, subversive of morality and opposed to good, which makes it evil.

That no more means that every adherent is evil no more than asserting that Communism is bad economics makes every communist a poor economist, though the odds might suggest it.



orogenicman said:


> I think you owe us a better explanation for your reaction than "it is evil and subversive", or "it is a lie". How is it a lie?



When metaphysical naturalism is presented as part of the theory of evolution or necessary effect from it, that is a lie. That there is nothing outside of our natural universe is already disproven and has been disproven many times. They simply keep expanding what their scope of what is natural contains. 

At one time things imperceptible to the human senses was not a natural object, then they expanded that when we discovered that some forms of light are imperceptible by unaided natural means. They once asserted that the idea of the universe being created from nothing in a split second was impossible and outside the scope of naturalism, but then the Big Bang was proven and they had to expand the scope of what they would admit once again.



orogenicman said:


> Why can it not be proven?



It is impossible for any system to prove the axioms on which it is based.



orogenicman said:


> An even more important question, from my perspective is how can the supernatural be proven?



The supernatural cannot be proven with the degree of certitude that science offers, nor can it be proven via scientific method. Were a supernatural idea ever proven by science it would instantly stop  being supernatural in any meaningful way, just like the Big Bang theory.

But the supernatural can be witnessed, as I myself have personally witnessed such things. 

The supernatural can be proven via records, video and situational and circumstantial evidence, for which a metaphysical naturalist would deny no matter what was presented since it violates the starting axioms.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 22, 2014)

ABikerSailor said:


> Yanno..............people should really watch "Cosmos" on FOX, as hosted by Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
> 
> It would explain a lot of what is being argued here, only thing is, they back it up with science and pretty good theories.
> 
> ...



They do agree at many points, and contradict each other at none.

The problem is that too many YECers and atheist propagandists like Dawkins make way too much money to have  a reasonable discussion, as that doesn't sell books.

So each side will only debate the most extreme opposition they can find to kick up more dust and get more attention and sell more media.

Meanwhile thousands upon thousands of theistic evolutionists just do their jobs and leave the drama for the momas.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 22, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Jimbo said:
> ...



While that may seem true from a Catholic/Christian perspective, I suspect that many non-Christians and non-theists would disagree. Moreover, I also suspect that Christians hardly have a monopoly on morality.



			
				Jimbo said:
			
		

> I would agree you are not evil, but I would say that you cause more heat than light, more confusion and less clarity. You have displayed no concern with maintaining integrity, honest discussion nor moral compass of any kind that I have seen. You will fabricate, ignore and denounce whatever you like whenever you like with not intellectual or principles of restraint of any sort I can deduce.



Is that a fact? What have I fabricate/ignored. I will admit that I denounce willful ignorance. Who wouldn't? And why should I show restraint at such willful ignorance? Why should anyone?



			
				Jimbo said:
			
		

> I assert that the philosophical school of thought known as metaphysical naturalism is harmful to science, subversive of morality and opposed to good, which makes it evil.



Since science is, by definition, the study of natural phenomenon, how can you possibly come to the conclusion that naturalism is harmful to science? Even Galileo, by everyone's admission, a very religious man, recommended that in conducting scientific research, one must set aside scripture. How is a recognition of the natural world subversive or morality, and who's definition of morality is it subverting? You are not making any sense here. Science itself is morally neutral. Morality is the realm of fallible humans, not of the scientific method.



			
				Jimbo said:
			
		

> When metaphysical naturalism is presented as part of the theory of evolution or necessary effect from it, that is a lie. That there is nothing outside of our natural universe is already disproven and has been disproven many times. They simply keep expanding what their scope of what is natural contains.



??? Evolution makes no mention of what could possibly reside outside of our known universe. In fact, it says nothing about what could reside off-world of our own planet, though the universality of the laws of nature make it probable that other planets have similar life.



			
				Jimbo said:
			
		

> At one time things imperceptible to the human senses was not a natural object, then they expanded that when we discovered that some forms of light are imperceptible by unaided natural means. They once asserted that the idea of the universe being created from nothing in a split second was impossible and outside the scope of naturalism, but then the Big Bang was proven and they had to expand the scope of what they would admit once again.



Did you have a point to make here?



orogenicman said:


> Why can it not be proven?





			
				Jimbo said:
			
		

> It is impossible for any system to prove the axioms on which it is based.



Except that science is not based on axiomatic reasoning.



orogenicman said:


> An even more important question, from my perspective is how can the supernatural be proven?





			
				jimbo said:
			
		

> The supernatural cannot be proven with the degree of certitude that science offers, nor can it be proven via scientific method. Were a supernatural idea ever proven by science it would instantly stop being supernatural in any meaningful way, just like the Big Bang theory.



And that's a problem because?



			
				jimbo said:
			
		

> But the supernatural can be witnessed, as I myself have personally witnessed such things.



And that's a problem because human witnesses are notoriously unreliable.



			
				jimbo said:
			
		

> The supernatural can be proven via records, video and situational and circumstantial evidence, for which a metaphysical naturalist would deny no matter what was presented since it violates the starting axioms.



Please provide us with at least one unambiguous instance where supernatural phenomenon was verified by the scientific method.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 23, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



True, a few would disagree but those who subscribe to the majority of the 'great' religions would agree; Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and Sikhism. 



orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > I would agree you are not evil, but I would say that you cause more heat than light, more confusion and less clarity. You have displayed no concern with maintaining integrity, honest discussion nor moral compass of any kind that I have seen. You will fabricate, ignore and denounce whatever you like whenever you like with not intellectual or principles of restraint of any sort I can deduce.
> ...



Just read what you  posted here, deliberately ignoring the point about metaphysical naturalism and responding as though you were some dull freshman, lol.



orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > I assert that the philosophical school of thought known as metaphysical naturalism is harmful to science, subversive of morality and opposed to good, which makes it evil.
> ...



Metaphysical naturalism asserts more than science can prove. MetNat says NOTHING exists outside of nature while science says no such thing as those things are outside the scope of science.

MetNAt says there is no objective morality, that Truth is only a perceived quality of a concept, nothing more. It undermines the axioms of science that there is an objective Truth about everything, pretty much.




orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > When metaphysical naturalism is presented as part of the theory of evolution or necessary effect from it, that is a lie. That there is nothing outside of our natural universe is already disproven and has been disproven many times. They simply keep expanding what their scope of what is natural contains.
> ...



Lol, you intentionally distorted what I said, an example of your lies you toss out when it  suits you. I guess you get too lazy to respond, or soemthing.

I said MetNat says there is nothing outside our natural universe, not evolution. Come on, you are not that stupid.




orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > At one time things imperceptible to the human senses was not a natural object, then they expanded that when we discovered that some forms of light are imperceptible by unaided natural means. They once asserted that the idea of the universe being created from nothing in a split second was impossible and outside the scope of naturalism, but then the Big Bang was proven and they had to expand the scope of what they would admit once again.
> ...



Yes, well read it again and maybe you will spot it.




orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > It is impossible for any system to prove the axioms on which it is based.
> ...



Yes, it is.

BillHoyt once wrote: 
The axioms of science are these:
1. There is a real, external universe
2. This universe is rational; A is not equal to not-A.
3. Their are regularities in this universe.
4. The components and processes of this universe can be described by mathematics.
5. The components and processes of this universe can be isolated and profitably analyzed in isolation.

More:
Basic assumptions of science

Every field of knowlege operates on various axioms specific to it.




orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > The supernatural cannot be proven with the degree of certitude that science offers, nor can it be proven via scientific method. Were a supernatural idea ever proven by science it would instantly stop being supernatural in any meaningful way, just like the Big Bang theory.
> ...



It isnt presented by me as a problem, at least not untill MetNat idiots come along and say something stupid like 'Prove that miracle happened with science!'

Cant happen and never will happen.



orogenicman said:


> jimbo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And yet the experimental process of the scientific method DEPENDs on people acurately and faithfully providing accounts of what they witnessed in the lab; and you are right, it is notoriously unreliable, for example, Piltdown Man, and the MIT verification experiments on Cold Fusion which were a complete fraud and they actually reported false data when the actual data confirmed LENR.



orogenicman said:


> jimbo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I already have; the Big Bang. Prior to the scientific theory, it was regarded as a miraculous event of creation and derided as 'magic' by secular heathenists. Once science proved it by natural law, it was proven to not be miraculous in the narrowest sense of the word, but providential instead.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Mar 29, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> This is where Protestant OEC ad YEC cause more ham than good because they deflect attention away from this subtle subterfuge and put t on their pet idea that were lost a long time ago.




Wrong.  The very opposite is true.  Learned proponents of ID and creationism are very cognizant of the distinction between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism, and their interpretation of the evidence is what dramatically highlights that distinction.  It's evolutionists, particularly the atheists among them, who routinely confound the distinction; in fact, most in my experience are utterly unaware of the metaphysical bias that is in fact the very essence of their belief in evolution.

Observe:



> Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks. They are either breezily unaware of their metaphysical biases or are 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. While science's historical presupposition is not a metaphysical naturalism (or an ontological naturalism), most of today's practicing scientists insist that the origins and compositions of empirical phenomena must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of intelligent causation and design. The limits of scientific inquiry are thereby reconfigured as if they constituted the limits of reality itself, the more expansive potentialities of human consciousness be damned. In other words, if something cannot be quantified by science, it doesn't exist, regardless of the conclusions that any rational evaluation of the empirical data might recommend. Hence, should one reject what is nothing more than the guesswork of an arbitrarily imposed apriority, one is said to reject science itself, as if the fanatics of scientism owned the means of science.
> 
> Ultimately, the essence of this perversion is a Darwinian naturalism run amok:  mere theory elevated to an inviolable absolute of cosmological proportions, which displaces not only the traditional conventions of methodological naturalism (or mechanistic naturalism), but is superimposed on the discipline of science itself.  Never has so much been owed to so little.
> 
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 29, 2014)

Creationist ID proves moral relativism.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 29, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I totally agree with the theory of evolution, macro and micro, and though I used to oppose it quite vociferously, that all changed when I realized that evolution only required methodological naturalism, the idea that science can only look at natural processes and cannot consider supernatural processes. It wasn't science or the theory of Evolution I had my disagreements with, but it was this idea that EVERYTHING is a natural process, and those things that are not natural processes are mere fiction and this idea is called 'metaphysical naturalism'.
> 
> Metaphysical naturalism is a lie. It cannot be proven and it cannot support anything that is good in our society. Is an evil and subversive idea.
> 
> ...



You claim there are supernatural processes affecting the world?  Can you demonstrate that claim?


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 29, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > This is where Protestant OEC ad YEC cause more ham than good because they deflect attention away from this subtle subterfuge and put t on their pet idea that were lost a long time ago.
> ...



Your belief boils down to saying "if it can't be proven scientifically, then God did it."

That's an example of non-logic.  

Atheists aren't required to prove God doesn't exist anymore than I am required to prove the purple spaghetti monster doesn't exist.  That isn't how logic works.  If you make a claim for the existence of something, then logic obligates you to prove it does, not me to prove it doesn't.


----------



## natstew (Mar 29, 2014)

All these arguments can be argued all the way back to the "Big Bang", there they bump hard into the Big

                                                                      ?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Mar 29, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > I totally agree with the theory of evolution, macro and micro, and though I used to oppose it quite vociferously, that all changed when I realized that evolution only required methodological naturalism, the idea that science can only look at natural processes and cannot consider supernatural processes. It wasn't science or the theory of Evolution I had my disagreements with, but it was this idea that EVERYTHING is a natural process, and those things that are not natural processes are mere fiction and this idea is called 'metaphysical naturalism'.
> ...



I can tell you one thing: it's a very difficult thing to illustrate while holding to an evolutionary methodological naturalism.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Mar 29, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



If that's what you're getting out of my excerpt then you're not getting what is actually being expounded at all.  Of course that would be illogical, but that argument is not to be found anywhere near the vicinity of that excerpt or, for that matter, anywhere near the vicinity of the article.  I have never argued such a stupid thing in my entire life.    



> Atheists aren't required to prove God doesn't exist anymore than I am required to prove the purple spaghetti monster doesn't exist.  That isn't how logic works.  If you make a claim for the existence of something, then logic obligates you to prove it does, not me to prove it doesn't.



The existence of God is not immediately relevant to the central issue:  the distinction between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Mar 29, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Creationist ID proves moral relativism.



Of course it does . . . not.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 29, 2014)

So was there any point to this thread, other than to set up a strawman about how awful atheists are because they fail to care about what certain people demand they care about?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 29, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > I totally agree with the theory of evolution, macro and micro, and though I used to oppose it quite vociferously, that all changed when I realized that evolution only required methodological naturalism, the idea that science can only look at natural processes and cannot consider supernatural processes. It wasn't science or the theory of Evolution I had my disagreements with, but it was this idea that EVERYTHING is a natural process, and those things that are not natural processes are mere fiction and this idea is called 'metaphysical naturalism'.
> ...



Providential and miraculous interventions are not demonstrable.

You cant put God in a test tube. What He does He does when and where He wants, and nothing repeats reliably, because it is the product of His will not some mechanism.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 29, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Why is that irrational?  Just because we know or don't know how it happened does not mean that God did not do it. Our scientific knowledge of the how is irrelevant to the who and why.



bripat9643 said:


> Atheists aren't required to prove God doesn't exist anymore than I am required to prove the purple spaghetti monster doesn't exist.  That isn't how logic works.  If you make a claim for the existence of something, then logic obligates you to prove it does, not me to prove it doesn't.



The proof lies outside of science, and that is what you choose to ignore.

No one has to give scientific proof at all for it to be proven.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 29, 2014)

mamooth said:


> So was there any point to this thread, other than to set up a strawman about how awful atheists are because they fail to care about what certain people demand they care about?



Are you sober?


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 30, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...


 
 God of the gaps fallacy.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Mar 30, 2014)

RetiredGySgt said:


> There is no credible evidence that one mammal species has ever evolved into 2 or more distinctly different species.



There is very credible evidence that all species are directly related.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Mar 30, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



There is no such thing as a God in the gaps fallacy and never has been.  Rather, there's the materialist's fallacy of confounding the distinction between mechanism and agency.

In the meantime, bripat9643's allegation regarding my supposed logical error is still false.  Indeed, his allegation is a non sequitur, just as JimBowie's follow up is.

Look here, guys.  The materialist merely assumes that all of natural history is an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect.  That's his metaphysical presupposition for science, and it is no more subject to scientific falsification than is my metaphysical presupposition for science.  

That is an incontrovertible fact, a fact that flies right over the head of the atheist, not the stuff of any logical error.

And the materialist is stuck with abiogenesis and evolution to explain the origin of life and its speciation.  

An unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect of an evolutionary kind, from the cosmological to the astronomical to the chemical to the biological . . . or a history of creative events and extinctions, i.e., thereafter subject to the dictates of the laws of nature?  The evidence would in fact look the same despite the ill-considered and unimaginative claims of the materialist.

Jim, evolution is an unwarranted compromise.  It's not in scripture.  Certainly, abiogenesis is a fantasy, and Darwinism cannot as satisfactorily account for the fossil record as creationism.  Further, the allegedly best supports for the feverish and mathematically improbable claims of evolution, vestigial organs and endogenous retro viruses, the premature and underlying assumptions thereof, are unraveling in the face of recent discoveries.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Mar 30, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > There is no credible evidence that one mammal species has ever evolved into 2 or more distinctly different species.
> ...



Hogwash.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 30, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



So to be clear, you are a "god of the gaps" atheist. Got it.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 30, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > So was there any point to this thread, other than to set up a strawman about how awful atheists are because they fail to care about what certain people demand they care about?
> ...



I'll take that as a "no", as will most other people. Your only goal here was to justify hating atheists, but you weren't honest enough to admit it. That dishonesty destroys all your claims of the moral superiority of your system. Essentially, your bad behavior disproves your own point more thoroughly than any of us could have.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Mar 30, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



So what is the God in the gaps fallacy precisely according to you?


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 30, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...



What it always has been, an attempt to claim God in every gap in our knowledge.  Example, "We don't know how life began - therefore God".


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 31, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



To say that God did it regardless of whether we know how or not is not 'God of the Gaps' fallacy.

'God of the Gaps' applies only to cases where the how is unknown and an appeal to a miraculous event is made the explanation.

If God acts providentially and not miraculously in an event and we attribute His unseen guidance, there is no gap.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 31, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Meh, you think God ran the billiard tables; I think he puts all the balls in with one shot from the very beginning.

We don't disagree on who and why, just on details of the how.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 31, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



lol, a very flawed definition, as a miraculous event is needed to be the filler for the gap, else there is no gap being explained.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 31, 2014)

mamooth said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



I don't hate atheists, just stupid cock-suckers like you.

The point to the OP which is abundantly apparent, is that secularists all too often use the theory of evolution to slip in assumptions about metaphysical naturalism.


Metaphysical naturalism is a fraud, a lie and contrary to the data we already have.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 31, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > There is no credible evidence that one mammal species has ever evolved into 2 or more distinctly different species.
> ...



Define 'directly related', ass hat.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 31, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Do you realize how much DNA you share with a banana?  It's around 50 percent.

Do you realize how much DNA you share with other mammals?  The percentage (depending on the species) is much higher, up around 95 percent.

There is currently a show on FOX network that illustrates a lot of those points quite nicely.  It was originally started under Carl Sagan, and is now hosted by Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and it's called Nova.

You should watch it sometime.


----------



## theHawk (Mar 31, 2014)

The evolutionists cannot explain how the first biological matter came into existance from a totally non-organic universe.

They have theories, but nothing has ever been proven much less duplicated.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 31, 2014)

theHawk said:


> The evolutionists cannot explain how the first biological matter came into existance from a totally non-organic universe.
> 
> They have theories, but nothing has ever been proven much less duplicated.



Actually, they have, you just have to be willing to hear the truth.

Simple amino acids can be formed when various chemicals come into contact with each other, but what turns them into DNA and RNA is electricity (which occurs naturally in clouds from the ions rubbing against one another).

Form DNA and RNA, and you get life.

BTW..................we are told in the Bible that we were made in the image of God.  Human civilization has evolved quite a bit (and so has the technology) since those times.  We went from being hunter/gatherers to farmers, to cities and so on.

Shoot................look at the way warfare has evolved over the ages.

Never mind how cities and other works of man have evolved.

If we're created in God's image, and we are able to evolve, then why can't God have made evolution in living things possible?


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 31, 2014)

theHawk said:


> The evolutionists cannot explain how the first biological matter came into existance from a totally non-organic universe.
> 
> They have theories, but nothing has ever been proven much less duplicated.



Here's the thing, dude.  The universe is not totally inorganic.  Organic compounds are found all over the universe, but particularly in stellar nurseries called Nebulae.  Many organic compounds that are vital to life as we know it readily form in nature without the presence of life.  There are even organic compounds vital to life found in meteorites and even comets.  So, care to rephrase your bullshite story?


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 31, 2014)

ABikerSailor said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Actually, it is called Cosmos.  But you are right, we share a lot of our DNA with many other species.  And our genome is far from the most diverse.  The genome of the Southern Pine tree is 7 times larger than our own.  He should think about that next time he chops some firewood.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 31, 2014)

ABikerSailor said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...




Lol, no one has yet defined what they mean by 'directly related'.  It does not mean, 'Have a lot of DNA in common', because if it did then every human being is 'directly related' to every other human being and that is not what the phrase means.

When I say that I am directly related to someone, I mean they are in my immediate family or I am a direct descendant of theirs or they are of me.

To say as Dumbass Nudley did that all species are directly related is simply hyperbole to the point of stupidity.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 31, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Why? What difference would it make?

And of course we share a lot of DNA with other species as we have the same Designer; why re-invent the wheel?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 31, 2014)

ABikerSailor said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > The evolutionists cannot explain how the first biological matter came into existance from a totally non-organic universe.
> ...



But they haven't, under controlled laboratory conditions, managed to get self generating RNA or DNA in any kind of string. They have done some things starting With RNA already assembled, but not prior to RNA.  

Even then, under laboratory conditions, they have come nowhere near the complexity of a single cell organism.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=yAbMHlXJryM#t=70]The Complexity of a Cell - YouTube[/ame]

And, once again, Evolution has ZERO to do with Abiogenesis.





ABikerSailor said:


> BTW..................we are told in the Bible that we were made in the image of God.  Human civilization has evolved quite a bit (and so has the technology) since those times.  We went from being hunter/gatherers to farmers, to cities and so on.
> 
> Shoot................look at the way warfare has evolved over the ages.
> 
> ...



He did.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 31, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


 
 Actually, they have.

Synthetic DNA Created, Evolves on Its Own


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 31, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...




From your own article:


> First, researchers made XNA building blocks to six different genetic systems by replacing the natural sugar component of DNA with one of six different polymers, synthetic chemical compounds.
> 
> The teamled by Vitor Pinheiro of the U.K.'s Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biologythen evolved enzymes, called polymerases, that can make XNA from DNA, and others that can change XNA back into DNA.
> 
> ...



So they have not generated DNA from scratch, but an artificial XNA instead.

And, they don't generate the XNA from nothing, they generate it with existing DNA.

And more.....



> *All of XNA'S actions are "completely controlled by experimentalistsit's 100 percent unnatural*," study co-author Chaput noted.
> 
> But such control means that scientists can "use [XNA] to ask very basic questions in biology," such as about the origins of life, Chaput said.



Not unguided evolution, but guided evolution, lol.

That more supports my claims of guided evolution than some godless model that just fell together by trial and error.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 31, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Bwhahahahahahahaha!!!   OMG!  EPIC FAIL!


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 31, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



lol, did you actually read the article?

If so, where am I wrong? I even quoted the text, so your laughter seems to be falling mostly on YOU, dear.


----------



## orogenicman (Mar 31, 2014)

Dipshit, when you claimed:



			
				Jimbo said:
			
		

> But they haven't, under controlled laboratory conditions, managed to get self generating RNA or DNA in any kind of string.


 I posted research refuting that claim, and your response was, predictably, more unsupportable bullshite. Hence your epic fail!


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 31, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Dipshit, when you claimed:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lol, you respond with verbose nonsense; you have not made a case by simply posting a link to an article you haven't read, doofus.

Give the argument with evidence AND a link, that is how you make a case.

roflmao


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 2, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



No.  Abiogenesis is a fairytale; therefore, it's false.  And filling in the blanks of our knowledge about the common mechanisms of the natural world, objectively speaking, has absolutely nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of a divine agency of origin.

There's no such thing as God in the gaps.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 2, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Dipshit, when you claimed:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So?  It's not abiogenesis at all, not even close.  It's the stuff of biochemical engineering, directed by an intelligent designer.  I cover that in my article, by the way.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 2, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Dipshit, when you claimed:
> ...



The article he cited didn't support what he claimed anyway. What was generated was XNA and that was based off of DNA. The XNA did not replicate itself without the people running the lab forcing it to directly.

That is so far from self regenerating DNA it isn't even in the same universe.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 2, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...



While there is no such thing as a fallacy of 'God of the Gaps' one can attribute what we do not know to the agency of God acting in the universe. Depending on the use of miraculous or providential means, what one is attributing can be either a miraculous intervention that science can never explain, or it can be a providential intervention that science can only describe how it happened but not who caused it.

So, my point is that 'God of the Gaps' is a valid answer to what we don't know at a philosophical level, though it does nothing for scientific inquiry. It certainly is not a fallacy.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 2, 2014)

ABikerSailor said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



So?  There's nothing startling or profound about that.  On the contrary, I'd be flabbergasted if there were huge variations in the DNA among the various species of the same planet.  Therefore, evolution!?  You're unwittingly presupposing evolution in your premise.  The exposure of this error commonly perpetrated on science by Darwinists is the central theme of my article linked in the above.  

Objectively speaking, if the origin and speciation of life are a series of discrete creative events, not a series of evolutionary, chemical and biological processes of a common ancestry via strictly natural mechanisms of chance variation and fortuity over time:  why would any designer not repeatedly employ the same baseline genetic motif as a matter of common function and economy? 

You should think on that for sometime.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 2, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Ah!  I consciously missed the details of his assertion, sort of mind-skimmed over them with what I know to have actually been accomplished in the background of my mind.  Do you follow?

From my article:



> I suspect that in your mind you have somehow muddled the difference between abiogenesis and biochemical engineering. Yes. In the laboratory, researchers have designed enzymatic RNA compounds that can affect a ligative production system that in its 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 a sentient being. The second stage of the procedure arguably entails the mechanism of natural selection, but only on the basis of recombinant mutation, not transmutation. Also, researchers have designed a ribozyme with catalytic properties that consists of only five nucleotides! [37] In vitro, they can even synthesis a series of oligonucleotides and assemble them into the entire genome of one bacterium, transplant it into the cytoplasm of another, and then step back and watch the transformed bacterium reproduce in accordance with the hereditary dictates of the synthetic genome. [38]
> 
> But these researchers did not devise these wonders from scratch, Bob. The basic chemical components were harvested from living cells; these were not the partially formed pieces of junk from any primordial soup. Indeed, the procedures themselves were based on the fundamentals of preexisting biotechnology, informed by the known processes of biological systems. And all of these things were achieved with a preordained outcome in mind, within pristine and insulated solutions simulating the environment and facilities of living cells.
> 
> ...



36. How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time -- ScienceDaily

37.  Scientists create tiny RNA molecule with big implications for life's origins -- ScienceDaily

38.  JCVI: Research / Projects / Synthetic Bacterial Genome / Press Release


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 2, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



My bad, I _meant_ the _fallacy of God in the gaps_.  _God in the gaps_ standing alone implies something unintended.  Thank you for that clarification.  

I follow you and agree with you wholeheartedly; however, I prefer the terms of the agency-mechanism dichotomy to make that point, primarily because the other has become a meme with a decidedly different connotation.  You realize that my query concerning the alleged fallacy was merely intended to draw orogenicman out a bit more, not in any got ya fashion, but just so I could affirm the exact nature of his personal perspective.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 2, 2014)

faith based creation "science" is a relativist system.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 2, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...



Lol, good luck with that.

Oro does not want reasonable discussion; he just wants to hate-bomb naïve Christian literalists with his memorized canned igtheistic bombast.

But if you can get him to actually discuss this with you; congratulations.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 2, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Dipshit, when you claimed:
> ...



I never said it was abiogenesis.  My point was that self-replicating molecules can be synthesized. And if stupid ole man can do it, then nature can do it.  No gods required.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 2, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



 Let me guess.  You didn't read the paper, did you?


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 2, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



You'll have to point out where I ever said I hate Christians.  Otherwise you owe me an apology and should ask your god for forgiveness for bearing false witness against me.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 2, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








 No sir.  The god of the gaps argument is never a valid explanation because it leads to the slippery slope fallacy, and because in order to make a god of the gaps argument, one has to first prove the existence of god.  And no one can do that, not you, not me.  You take the least likely explanation for the unknown and elevate it based on personal bias only.  We used to ascribe lightning to the gods but we don't do that any more.  Why?  Because we have a better explanation that doesn't require the intervention of Thor, Zeus, or any other angry alpha male figure.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 3, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...



You say it with your hostile and contemptuous behavior toward Christians. A clever hater like  you never entirely shows his cards.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 3, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...



No, it does not, and you make that fallacious argument by asserting it does, lol.



orogenicman said:


> and because in order to make a god of the gaps argument, one has to first prove the existence of god.  ...



That has been done for the last 2,000 years. It's no one else's fault that you refuse to understand these arguments other than your own fault.



orogenicman said:


> And no one can do that, not you, not me.



Maybe that is why you cant understand the arguments; you think it impossible to prove before you even look. That is called 'Closed Mindedness' and 'Confirmation Bias'.



orogenicman said:


> You take the least likely explanation for the unknown and elevate it based on personal bias only.



'Least likely'? According to you it is impossible! Lol, you should really learn how to state  your own position more clearly.



orogenicman said:


> We used to ascribe lightning to the gods but we don't do that any more.



No, *we* don't. There is no 'gods' only a Creator and yes, He is responsible for lightning, whether you can grasp that concept or not.



orogenicman said:


> Why?  Because we have a better explanation that doesn't require the intervention of Thor, Zeus, or any other angry alpha male figure.



Or fantasy stories.

The Creator is not magic, fantasy or any of that other bullshit.

The Creator is real and your attempts at muddying the waters will not prevail.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 3, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...



I read the article and I quoted directly from it. All the adaptations were FORCED by the experimenters.

lol

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...gcampaign=20131016_rw_membership_r1p_us_ot_w#



> First, researchers made XNA building blocks to six different genetic systems by replacing the natural sugar component of DNA with one of six different polymers, synthetic chemical compounds.
> 
> The team&#8212;led by Vitor Pinheiro of the U.K.'s Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology&#8212;then evolved enzymes, called polymerases, that can make XNA from DNA, and others that can change XNA back into DNA.
> 
> ...




They have not generated DNA from scratch, but an artificial XNA instead.

And, they don't generate the XNA from nothing, they generate it with existing DNA.




> All of XNA'S actions are "completely controlled by experimentalists&#8212;it's 100 percent unnatural," study co-author Chaput noted.
> 
> But such control means that scientists can "use [XNA] to ask very basic questions in biology," such as about the origins of life, Chaput said.



Not unguided evolution, but guided evolution.

It is hilarious that I quote directly from the article and you say I didn't even read it.

It is apparent that you merely skimmed it off a Google search and copied the link without having read it yourself.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 3, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


 
*(ahem) "But such control means that scientists can "use [XNA] to ask very basic questions in biology," such as about the origins of life, Chaput said*."


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 3, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Lol, I agree with that, but that is not the point of contention, Oro.

You originally said that scientists had been able to develop self-generating DNA in the lab, and that simply is not true.


Here is the exchange.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...oves-metapysical-nauralism-4.html#post8860492



orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



And again, no they have not.

Don't get me wrong; I think one day we will be able to do this. I do not think it is something that is 'magical' nor was it a miracle at life's inception.

I just think  it is an enormously complex process that we wont divine for another century, frankly.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 3, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



You are confused:



> The teamled by Vitor Pinheiro of the U.K.'s Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biologythen evolved enzymes, called polymerases, that can make XNA from DNA, and others that can change XNA back into DNA.
> This copying and translating ability allowed for genetic sequences to be copied and passed down again and againartificial heredity.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 3, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



No, you are skipping important information.



> *All of XNA'S actions are "completely controlled by experimentalistsit's 100 percent unnatural*," study co-author Chaput noted.
> 
> But such control means that scientists can "use [XNA] to ask very basic questions in biology," such as about the origins of life, Chaput said.
> 
> For instance, "it's possible that life didn't begin with DNA and proteins like we see todayit may have begun with something much, much simpler," he said.



Bah, they did not create self-generating DNA, no matter how you spin it, Oro.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 3, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Denial is not a river in Egypt. So don't even try floating there.

 By the way, the word is "metaphysical", not "metapysical".


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 3, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Lol, and bombast proves nada, dude.

State your case or shut up and go away like a little whooped school girl.



orogenicman said:


> By the way, the word is "metaphysical", not "metapysical".



No, shit, Sherlock. It's called a typo, Grammar NAzi.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 3, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


 
 I'm not the one sinking in denial.  



orogenicman said:


> By the way, the word is "metaphysical", not "metapysical".



No, shit, Sherlock. It's called a typo, Grammar NAzi.[/QUOTE]

 That's "Nazi", not "NAzi".


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 4, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Yes, you are. You don't even know what your own damned article says, lol.



orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Lol, you keep going all grammar Nazi while totally fucking up the attributions.  roflmao


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 4, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



I wouldn't have posted it had I not known what was in the article.  And you are wrong, Jimbo.  Try again.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 4, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Then prove it; explain where I am misreading the article.

I have quoted from it, cut and paste while you merely continue to keep making vague generalizations like the above.

You don't know jack shit about the article is my suspicion and you continue to reaffirm it.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Apr 5, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> You originally said that scientists had been able to develop self-generating DNA in the lab, and that simply is not true.



oh lord was he really stupid enough to claim that?.....


----------



## MaryL (Apr 5, 2014)

OK, I am an idiot. I don't understand what the gist of this  thread is ,where it is  leading to, or implies. People misuse  religion, science or anything else. But facts are facts. So?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 5, 2014)

MaryL said:


> OK, I am an idiot. I don't understand what the gist of this  thread is ,where it is  leading to, or implies. People misuse  religion, science or anything else. But facts are facts. So?



Science uses and depends on the veracity of methodological Naturalism, i.e. that everything influencing/determining the behavior of an object is natural and repeatable.

Anything that is an unnatural event, like a miracle or witchcraft, etc, or natural events that are not repeatable are not within the scope of science to address. It cannot prove or disprove such things. So the miraculous is outside the scope of sciences reach to ever prove or disprove.

Metaphysical Naturalism is a philosophical point of view that says there is NOTHING outside of the natural and nothing that gives us actual knowledge other than science. This is totally wrong as there are many fields of knowledge outside of science. But more specifically, this Metaphysical Naturalism is used to destroy and attack faith. Some use science to imply that the debate between naturalism and religion has somehow been settled with scientism the declared winner.

Nothing could be further from the Truth; Christianity is experiencing an explosion of growth in the Third World. And it is largely because the evidence today is so strong in support of a belief in God. Metaphysical Naturalists reject any such evidence out of hand as they assume that there cannot be any God that lives outside of our universe.


----------



## MaryL (Apr 6, 2014)

I think you are creating a straw man here. Metaphysics goes with science like oil and water. Religion is faith based, science is based on earthy facts,  2 +2=4 , logic gates/circuits. Science may have it's flaws, but it isn't any threat to Metaphysics or religion by a long stretch.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 6, 2014)

MaryL said:


> I think you are creating a straw man here. Metaphysics goes with science like oil and water. Religion is faith based, science is based on earthy facts,  2 +2=4 , logic gates/circuits. Science may have it's flaws, but it isn't any threat to Metaphysics or religion by a long stretch.



You are missing the point. Science is not a threat to metaphysical Naturalism. It is actually the other way around; Meta Naturalism is a threat to the public's acceptance of science, as most prefer to keep their faith and Meta Naturalism creates an artificial antagonism between religion and science.

Metaphysical Naturalism has NOTHING to do with science and does not logically derive from it or have any real coaction to it. But people opposed to religion use science as a way of slipping Metaphysical Naturalism into the discussion by sleight of hand. You may have a discussion on evolution, and think you are talking only science, but if the person starts saying things like 'Evolution makes God unnecessary' or 'Evolution shows us that the universe is not made for life' these are not scientific statements but philosophical statements drawn from Metaphysical Naturalism, not science.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 6, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > OK, I am an idiot. I don't understand what the gist of this  thread is ,where it is  leading to, or implies. People misuse  religion, science or anything else. But facts are facts. So?
> ...



Christianity, and probably Islam as well, is experiancing an explosian of growth in the third world. The cynic in me would respond, that is where most of the really ignorant people are. 

As far as evidence for a Diety, anyone's Diety, I just do not see such. Could be a problem with my perception, however, no one has shown anything I would consider as evidence for a Diety.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 6, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > I think you are creating a straw man here. Metaphysics goes with science like oil and water. Religion is faith based, science is based on earthy facts, 2 +2=4 , logic gates/circuits. Science may have it's flaws, but it isn't any threat to Metaphysics or religion by a long stretch.
> ...



Then how do you explain the fact that most Christians accept evolution, accept plate tectonics, accept the scientifically established ancient age for the Earth, for the universe, and accept the big bang?



			
				Jimbo said:
			
		

> Metaphysical Naturalism has NOTHING to do with science and does not logically derive from it or have any real coaction to it. But people opposed to religion use science as a way of slipping Metaphysical Naturalism into the discussion by sleight of hand. You may have a discussion on evolution, and think you are talking only science, but if the person starts saying things like 'Evolution makes God unnecessary' or 'Evolution shows us that the universe is not made for life' these are not scientific statements but philosophical statements drawn from Metaphysical Naturalism, not science.



They would not be scientific statements if there were no valid evidence to support them. But there is plenty of scientific evidence to support those conclusions. The fact that the vast bulk of the universe is completely uninhabitable is evidence against the notion that the universe is made for us.

In addition:


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 6, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...



Ignorant of what? The latest episodes of Walking Dead? 

The Third World is not as full of ignoramuses as you might think. Their governments go to great pains to make sure that as many can get an education as is profitable for the party ruling the  country. But some are still despotisms that see none but relatives of the ruling clique getting much education at all, but those are very rare these days.

Actually, I think the education levels of US citizens are exaggerated. We don't teach kids to think so much any more as teach  them to pass standardized tests, which is an entirely different sort of education; rote memorization and shallow grasp.

The Third wirld is the future of humanity, not the West, not any more.



Old Rocks said:


> As far as evidence for a Diety, anyone's Diety, I just do not see such. Could be a problem with my perception, however, no one has shown anything I would consider as evidence for a Diety.



What definition of 'Deity' do you use pertaining to this search?

Knowing what you are looking for is 80% of actually finding it.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 6, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...



Because it is true, and the damage being caused by Metaphysical Naturalism is growing but was mostly limited to conservative Protestant sects. Now it is poisoning the whole generation of Westerners, as mass media via Pop Culture is making the herd think that science and religion are not only incompatible but hostile to each other.



orogenicman said:


> Jimbo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, true, and there is no scientific evidence that proves or can a purely philosophical contention.



orogenicman said:


> But there is plenty of scientific evidence to support those conclusions.



No, there is not.



orogenicman said:


> The fact that the vast bulk of the universe is completely uninhabitable is evidence against the notion that the universe is not made for us.



Again, that is like saying that since most of an airplane is not capable of seating passengers that therefore the airplane is not made for passengers which is absurd.

There is nothing about ratios of primary function to support function that disproves an object cannot have been designed for the primary function. In fact the support functions almost are always bigger, more numerous and costly than the primary functionality itself in ANYTHING DESIGNED. 




orogenicman said:


> In addition:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDcZkrl-eoY



Another libtard posing as an authority on philosophical issues when he is doing nothing more than giving his own weak shallow opinion. People like him do enormous damage to the reputation of scientists and the scientific community.

As to his point of damage to the brain showing that the brain controls the mind, that is like saying that removing a cars steering wheel and making the car unsteerable proves that the car steering wheel steers the car.

The car has instrumentation that allows the driver to control the car, by interfacing between driver and car. Damaging that instrumentation does not prove that the instrumentation controls the car. Similarly, the human mind controls the brain, and the brain is the interface between the mind and body. Damaging the brain does not prove that the brain controls the body instead of the mind.

The ass hat speaking in the video is without a fucking clue, and totally absurd. He has a philosophical conclusion he wants to arrive at and so he pulls anything out of his ass he can to support it when it is plainly nothing about science at all.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 6, 2014)

Too many Christians are arguing for a metaphysical naturalism that accepts as "facts" of events that are not verifiable objectively and positively.

Thus such a person would argue the Bible by itself or a personal testimony of a revelation is factually acceptable.

As any true believing Christian would say, "I don't need a 'whomever' to overturn the laws of logic in order to believe in Christ.  First, faith, then hope, finally charity."


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 6, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Too many Christians are arguing for a metaphysical naturalism that accepts as "facts" of events that are not verifiable objectively and positively.



No, no Christians are arguing for Metaphysical Naturalism, stupid shit, as the two are  mutually exclusive.



JakeStarkey said:


> Thus such a person would argue the Bible by itself or a personal testimony of a revelation is factually acceptable.



No such person exists except in your drug damaged mind.



JakeStarkey said:


> As any true believing Christian would say, "I don't need a 'whomever' to overturn the laws of logic in order to believe in Christ.  First, faith, then hope, finally charity."



lol, yeah, only Christians that think their faith cant be proven are true Christians, roflmao.

Starkey, why don't you go sober up then try again?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 15, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?

Let's get real.  Man does not synthesize self-replicating molecules from scratch.  He can't.  He begins with the pertinent precursors harvested from extant living cells.  Out of those he synthesizes the former.  If natural intelligence can't create the precursors, let alone direct them without a blueprint (not designed by man, but extrapolated by man) and a pristine environment not found in nature, how do you figure mindless nature can?

Nature is not doing this replication that you talk about; intelligence is doing it.  The only thing _natural_ about it is that which occurs after intelligence front-loads the process with extant biotic material and with a preordained goal in mind.  Chance variation and happy coincidence is nowhere to be found in Operation Replicate.

*crickets chirping*



> Mere chemistry does not produce life; only complex structures produce life.
> 
> . . . The self-ordering chemical properties of nature are monomeric dead ends. Nature can form some amino acids and nucleobases; it can form some biotic phosphates as well as some abiotic sugars and fatty acids in calcified forms. Where does it ever form proteins or nucleosides (let alone nucleotides) outside living cells? And beyond living cells and the _in vitro _experiments conducted under laboratory conditions, where does nature ever polymerize and replicate complex compounds?
> 
> ...



Do you see where the indispensable, pre-biotic precursors are in the above?  Hint:  they're nowhere in sight before the existence of a living cell.  Do you see where _replication_ is on the list in the above on the road to a living cell?  Nature never gets to that point by itself, not even close.



> They worked with preexistent paradigms and tools and materials suspended in midair, as it were, relative to origins. They can pound on the roof all they want, that's not going to resolve the clearly insurmountable problems of *prebiotic logistics* and *polymerization* for those notions that are predicated on the processes of accumulative chemistry. Whether they be strictly natural occurrences or not, the only reasonable explanation for the origins of the building's foundation and walls entails some kind of instantaneously synchronous event or another, at some point in time or another, as several abiogenists themselves have acknowledged in exasperation. So in spite of the hypethe political speak of research fundingnone of this is new in the sense that it would lead to anything more than recycled adumbrations about the events that produced the extant biochemistry on which these researcher's endeavors are unequivocally based.
> 
> Are they going to back peddle to the very same monomeric dead ends that have already been thoroughly illustrated by others?  M.D. Rawlings



Sorry, orogenicman, but you really don't have a handle on the matter at all.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 15, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



But if and when that happens it will be intelligence that does it.  As for the notion that life to not begin by a supernatural creative event, i.e., "miracle":  that implies that life can arise in the first place via strictly natural processes and mechanisms.  Sorry, but the research resoundingly disputes that pipedream.  Do you mean something else by that term.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 15, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



They can ask, but the answer they're going to get every time is _intelligent design_.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 15, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



What research demonstrates that life cannot arise from natural processes and mechanisms?  Life itself is a natural process.  So why couldn't it arise by natural processes?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 15, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> faith based creation "science" is a relativist system.



How's that?  Let's explore that claim and watch what happens to in the hands of a master who grasps the nuts and bolts of metaphysical propositions.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 15, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > The evolutionists cannot explain how the first biological matter came into existance from a totally non-organic universe.
> ...



This is true, sort of, but so what?  What you're implying is false in any practical or meaningful sense.  Again, you really don't have a handle on the matter at all.  Did you even bother to read my article?  If you would, you&#8217;d begin to awaken from your dream . . . or maybe not.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 15, 2014)

theHawk said:


> The evolutionists cannot explain how the first biological matter came into existance from a totally non-organic universe.
> 
> They have theories, but nothing has ever been proven much less duplicated.



The term you want here, Hawk, is _non-biotic_, not _inorganic_.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 15, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



What is false? And how is it false? Are you denying that organic molecules important for life have been found in meteorites and comets?  Are you denying that organic molecules important for life have been found in stellar nurseries? Because if that is what you are denying - damn.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 15, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Read my article and get back to me.  In the meantime, whether you get it or not, your inference in the face of the actual logic of things and the known facts  remains a non sequitur.

I'll ask you a better question:  how would the paltry and utterly inadequate sum of racemic, left-handed and right-handed, pre-biotic, albeit, organic precursors found in nature (which, in both cases, relative to their respective objectives, are of the wrong hand for life) ever get off the ground in an environment incessantly pushing against the tide of conservation in the hands of nature alone?


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 15, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...



I don't need to read your article to understand that life is itself a natural process, and that it stands to reason that it arose by natural processes. The evidence that life is a natural process is all around us. And so to suggest that my inference is a non-sequitur is itself a non-sequitur.



			
				Rawlings said:
			
		

> I'll ask you a better question: how would the paltry and utterly inadequate sum of racemic, left-handed and right-handed, pre-biotic, albeit, organic precursors found in nature (which, in both cases, relative to their respective objectives, are of the wrong hand for life)



Erm, there are only two types of handed organic molecules - right-handed and left handed. Amino acids are left-handed while nucleotides and sugars are right-handed - life uses both types. And both are found as abiotic organic molecules in nature. And so the answer is that your question is a non-starter.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 15, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



No.  Quite obviously, I did not deny that _some_ of the organic molecules found in life are found in nature . . . but those that are found in nature are of an utterly useless form and number relative to actual life.  In other words, I deny what you're implying about them with the hyperbolic nonsense cuckoo that those "important for life" are found in nature.  They are not _the indispensably necessary kind, variety or number for life at all_; and we don't have the first clue as to how the right kind, variety or number could have possibly come to exist outside actual life via the incoherent processes and mechanisms of nature. 

Read my article and get back to me.  You don't have a handle on this matter at all.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 15, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Well, given the fact that I, as one who has a store of greater knowledge than you on the matter, just destroyed your naïve notion, you'd better start reading, eh?


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 15, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...



Given that I am a certified professional geologist with over 20 years of experience, I seriously doubt that.  Perhaps you should apply for a library card and see how many publications demonstrate how completely wrong you are.


----------



## MaryL (Apr 15, 2014)

Gertrude Stein said what I was thinking about this thread; there is no there there. No substance, no meaning, nothing. Debate on.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 15, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Oh?  Well, professional geologist or not, you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the abiogenetic research, and that is clear from your over-the-top claims.  Abiogenesis stands on no reason or facts at all, and the only sensible inference from that research is that life's origin is due to intelligent design.  Your inference in this instance is the stuff of sheer bluster without the facts.

One can lead a horse to water, but. . . .


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 15, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...



If that were true, millions of dollars in research wouldn't be spent on the subject. Do you honestly mean to say that scientists are so stupid that they don't know when a research topic is useless? The fact is that there are many organic compounds that are critical for life that are found abiotically in nature. Most of these compounds are reactive and so tend to form other more complex organic molecules under the right conditions. And many of those compounds are also found in biologic systems. The fact is that there is no reason (certainly not one that you have given) to assume that abiogenesis is a dead end when we keep making discoveries in the field and in the lab. We'll let you know if it turns out to be a dead end. We don't need your advise on the subject.

By the way, "an intelligent designer did it" is exactly like saying "God did it". And neither claim actually explains anything.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Apr 15, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> By the way, "an intelligent designer did it" is exactly like saying "God did it". And neither claim actually explains anything.



intelligent designer did it.....God did it.....organic chemicals did it.....shit happens, doesn't it?.....NOW you've finally explained it!........


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 16, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, "an intelligent designer did it" is exactly like saying "God did it". And neither claim actually explains anything.
> ...



There is a big difference between the first two and the third one.  When you figure it out, throw yourself a candlelight dinner for one.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Apr 16, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



and no difference between the third and the fourth.....
the difference between the first two and the last two is NOT, as you believe, that the last two comply with the requirements of the scientific method.....


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 16, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Look, if you're just going to keep wasting my time going off on tangents that have nothing to do with what I'm talking about, if you're not going to read the article and learn about the facts, if you're just going to put words in my mouth: then we can end this discussion right here.  Where did I say that abiogenetic research was a waste of time or money?  You're imagining things.

You.  Don't.  Know.  What.  You're.  Talking.  About.  



orogenicman said:


> The fact is that there are many organic compounds that are critical for life that are found abiotically in nature.



And they are?



orogenicman said:


> Most of these compounds are reactive and so tend to form other more complex organic molecules under the right conditions.



Oh, really?  Such as and under what conditions?



orogenicman said:


> And many of those compounds are also found in biologic systems.



Examples?

And who is this _we_?  My article on the findings of the leading lights of abiogenetic research, beginning with Miller.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 16, 2014)

Moonglow said:


> When they wrote the Bible, God forgot to mention dinosaurs....



Actually dinosaurs were mentioned in the Bible.

Behemoth has the following attributes according to Job 40:15-24

It eats grass like an ox. 
It moves his tail like a cedar. (In Hebrew, this literally reads, he lets hang his tail like a cedar.) 
Its bones are like beams of bronze,
 His ribs like bars of iron. 
He is the first of the ways of God. 
He lies under the lotus trees,
 In a covert of reeds and marsh. 

Leviathan has the following attributes according to Job chapter 41, Psalm 104:25,26 and Isaiah 27:1. This is only a partial listingjust enough to make the point.

No one is so fierce that he would dare stir him up. 
Who can open the doors of his face, with his terrible teeth all around? 
His rows of scales are his pride, shut up tightly as with a seal; one is so near another that no air can come between them; they are joined one to another, they stick together and cannot be parted. 
His sneezings flash forth light, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. Out of his mouth go burning lights; sparks of fire shoot out. Smoke goes out of his nostrils, as from a boiling pot and burning rushes. His breath kindles coals, and a flame goes out of his mouth. 
Though the sword reaches him, it cannot avail; nor does spear, dart, or javelin. He regards iron as straw, and bronze as rotten wood. The arrow cannot make him flee; slingstones become like stubble to him. Darts are regarded as straw; he laughs at the threat of javelins. 
On earth there is nothing like him, which is made without fear. 
Leviathan played in the great and wide sea (a paraphrase of Psalm 104 verses 25 and 26get the exact sense by reading them yourself). 
Leviathan is a reptile [a] that is in the sea. (Isaiah 27:1) 

 Dinosaurs and the Bible


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 16, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...



Actually, I think it is YOU who don't know what I am talking about. How is what I posted "off on a tangent". I responded directly to what you posted, did I not? I put no words in your mouth. I asked you a question, which, by the way,. you failed to answer. You said that abiogenesis was wrong, which implies that it is a waste of time and resources.



			
				Rawlings said:
			
		

> And they are?



17 out of 20 amino acids used inprotein synthesis

All the purines and pyrimidines used in nucleic acid synthesis

polyols &#8212; compounds with hydroxyl groups on a backbone of 3 to 6 carbons such as glycerol and glyceric acid. Sugars are polyols.

methane (CH4), 

methanol (CH3OH), 

formaldehyde (HCHO), 

cyanoacetylene (HC3N) (which in spark-discharge experiments is a precursor to the pyrimidine cytosine). 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

Inorganic building blocks such as carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and hydrogen cyanide (HCN)



=orogenicman said:


> Most of these compounds are reactive and so tend to form other more complex organic molecules under the right conditions.





			
				Rawlings said:
			
		

> Oh, really? Such as and under what conditions?



Cytosine
Guanine

These can form under conditions simulating the early Earth, and have been found ion asteroids and the last one has been found in stellar nebulae.



orogenicman said:


> And many of those compounds are also found in biologic systems.





			
				Rawlings said:
			
		

> Examples?



Actually, all of them are found in biologic systems.



			
				Rawlings said:
			
		

> And who is this _we_? My article on the findings of the leading lights of abiogenetic research, beginning with Miller.



Erm, what? Are you suggesting that Miller concluded that there was nothing to abiogenesis? Because he didn't.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 16, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Once science c an replicate a process, then that process is no longer miraculous (as it does not break natural laws) but is instead providential (God acting through natural processes and laws).

For example, I think the Big Bang to be a providential act, not a miracle, though plainly inspired by God and caused by God.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 16, 2014)

MaryL said:


> Gertrude Stein said what I was thinking about this thread; there is no there there. No substance, no meaning, nothing. Debate on.



So go play tea party or something and butt the fuck out.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 16, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



And your evidence that it is "plainly inspired by God and caused by God" is?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 16, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...



Commonsense.  But my article's about the facts of abiogenetic research, and your claims are all wrong.  If you had read my article you would know that and would be able to answer the questions I asked in the above.  

Pasteur's maxim stands:  Life comes from life.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 17, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Common sense says that if I can't see something, it likely doesn't exist.  And yet there are many things we cannot see that do exist.  So sorry,  this universe isn't as straight forward as you would have us believe.

 If you want to read something about abiogenesis research, a good place to start would be here:

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Or here:

 [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Abiogenesis-Life-Began-Origins-Search-ebook/dp/B005FY5ZAG]Amazon.com: Abiogenesis: How Life Began. The Origins and Search for Life eBook: Edward Trifonov, Nick Lane, Stephen Freeland , Michael Russell: Kindle Store[/ame]


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 17, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...



You answer few of my questions, so why should I answer yours?

I have stated my reasons repeatedly, and I cannot be faulted for you acting like a retarded jack ass who cant grasp simple notions, like the ratio of support function to primary function in any designed system.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 17, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



And Fine Tuning, and the fact that the Big Bang was described poetically in scripture thousands of years ago and the author of the Big Bang theory was a Catholic priest who was using Einstein's new theories to describe the Biblical Creation using science; and he nailed it right.



M.D. Rawlings said:


> But my article's about the facts of abiogenetic research, and your claims are all wrong.  If you had read my article you would know that and would be able to answer the questions I asked in the above.
> 
> Pasteur's maxim stands:  Life comes from life.



Oro is not interested in discussion, but only in obfuscation and trolling.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 17, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



No, it does not. Most things that exist cannot be seen by us due to distance, etc. 

You think like a child you supposes that if he closes his eyes the big bad monster goes away.



orogenicman said:


> And yet there are many things we cannot see that do exist.  So sorry,  this universe isn't as straight forward as you would have us believe.



You bring up an entirely unrelated subject to prove a different subject?

lol, your stupidity is growing daily.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 17, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



I am quite surprised that you think that "God did it" is a simple notion, particularly as no one has ever shown:

 1)  That he exists in the first place;

 2) much less demonstrated that he "did it";

 3) or how; 

 4) or why.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 17, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > You.  Don't.  Know.  What. You're.  Talking.  About.
> ...



Not so.  I answered your question.  You simply did not grasp the ramifications of the answer given.  You still have no idea what I'm talking about.  That's clear.  Also, my comment about abiogenesis implies no such thing, and in you're interpretation of that statement, you unwittingly display the extent of your ignorance, which is really quite staggering.  We have learned tons from abiogenetic research; indeed, the wisdom gained from it is foundationally indispensable to the wonders of biochemical engineering.




orogenicman said:


> 17 out of 20 amino acids used inprotein synthesis
> 
> All the purines and pyrimidines used in nucleic acid synthesis
> 
> ...



Ah!  I missed this.  So you did some googling, I see, though you could have simply read my article to get this information and learned so much more to boot?  

Good!  

I ignored the rest of your trash about Miller and such, where once again you imagine things not expressed and put words into my mouth.  More tangents.
_______________________________________

We'll take them one at a time, if you like. 

Let's start here:

*"17 out of 20 amino acids used in protein synthesis"*

*1.*  And how many of these 17 would have realistically been available under the actual conditions of nature?

*2. * In what kind of mixture do the realistically available occur in nature?

BTW, you would already know the answers to these questions as well had you read my article, *but of course you don't think I know what I'm talking about, do you?*


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 17, 2014)

Your article?  You mean the one that claimed "Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks."?  That article?  Blah, blah, blah.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 17, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Your article?  You mean the one that claimed "Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks."?  That article?  Blah, blah, blah.



Yep.  That's the one with that very statement, the truth of which you're proving right now.  It's also the article that answers all the questions I've asked you.

Now let's get back to the substance:



orogenicman said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > You.  Don't.  Know.  What. You're.  Talking.  About.
> ...



Not so.  I answered your question.  You simply did not grasp the ramifications of the answer given.  You still have no idea what I'm talking about.  That's clear.  Also, my comment about abiogenesis implies no such thing, and in you're interpretation of that statement, you unwittingly display the extent of your ignorance, which is really quite staggering.  We have learned tons from abiogenetic research; indeed, the wisdom gained from it is foundationally indispensable to the wonders of biochemical engineering.



orogenicman said:


> 17 out of 20 amino acids used inprotein synthesis
> 
> All the purines and pyrimidines used in nucleic acid synthesis
> 
> ...



Ah!  I missed this.  So you did some googling, I see, though you could have simply read my article to get this information and learned so much more to boot?  

Good!  

I ignored the rest of your trash about Miller and such, where once again you imagine things not expressed and put words into my mouth.  More tangents.
_______________________________________

We'll take them one at a time, if you like. 

Let's start here:

*"17 out of 20 amino acids used in protein synthesis"*

*1.*  And how many of these 17 would have realistically been available under the actual conditions of nature?

*2. * In what kind of mixture do the realistically available occur in nature?

BTW, you would already know the answers to these questions as well had you read my article, *but of course you don't think I know what I'm talking about, do you?*


----------



## Hollie (Apr 17, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



"Commonsense"? 

How silly.

Religious faith falls under the general heading of feeling or spiritual based doctrine. Genesis  to pick an example, is a religious claim by definition, and cannot be shown to have any evidence. This clearly and inarguably separates it from science. "God created this and that" is not science, it's a theistic claim. You may feel that miracles as depicted in the Bibles are true and inerrant, but I challenge you to provide evidence for any of it. In fact, the _only_ model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise?  How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there?  How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate?  Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon?


----------



## rdean (Apr 17, 2014)

Pat Robertson said creationists are "clowns".  Pat Robertson.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 17, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Your article? You mean the one that claimed "Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks."? That article? Blah, blah, blah.
> ...



So to summarize,  the link you would insist that we read is the same one that insults atheists, and makes the same old tired creationist claims that you crackpots have been making for going on a century.  And of course I (a professional geologist) am supposed to sit with a straight face and watch you make a fool out of yourself with such comments as "You still have no idea what I'm talking about."  Actually, I do, but that is only because I also have had a lot of training in psychology, and almost always recognize a nut case when I see one.  Congratulations.  Now take your meds and go to bed.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 17, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I would insist that you stop making crap up about something you know next to nothing about.  

You're a phony is what you are or the stupidest geologist I've ever run across.  My article is based on the peer reviewed research, and you haven't read it.  JimBowie knows the science; I know the science.  But everything out of your mouth is pseudoscientific claptrap. 

Answer the questions, you fraud:

*1.* How many of these 17 would have realistically been available under the actual conditions of nature?

*2. *In what kind of mixture do the realistically available occur in nature?


I'm talking about the science.  What are you punks talking about?

Cite from my article.  Show me where I'm wrong.

*crickets chirping*

*Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism by Michael David Rawlings

Prufrock's Lair: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

Bibliography:*

John W. Kimball (Dec. 20, 2010). "The Origin of Life". Kimball's Biology Pages.

Stephen K. Ritter (Oct. 16, 2008).  "Origin-of-Life Chemistry Revisited".  Chemical and Engineering News: Prebiotic Chemistry.

Tony Fitzpatrick (Sep. 8, 2005). "Calculations favor reducing atmosphere for early Earth: Was Miller-Urey experiment correct?". Washington University in St. Louis: Newsroom.

Nancy Neal-Jones and Bill Steigerwald (Dec. 16, 2010). "Building blocks of life created in 'Impossible' place". Physorg.com: Space and Earth, Space Exploration.

Nancy Atkinson (Jan. 18, 2011). "More Asteroids Could Have Made Life&#8217;s Ingredients". Universe Today.

Anne M. Rosenthal (Feb. 12, 2003). "Murchison&#8217;s Amino Acids: Tainted Evidence?". Astrobiology Magazine.

Elie Dolgin (March 16, 2009). "Did lefty molecules seed life?". Faculty of 1000, Post-Publication Peer Review:  TheScientist.

Daniel P. Glavin and Jason P Dworkin (Jan. 23, 2009). "Enrichment of the amino acid L-isovaline by aqueous alteration on CI and CM meteorite parent bodies" (ABSTRACT). PNAS: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Goddard Space Flight Center.

Michael H. Engel and Bartholomew Nagy (April 29, 1982). "Distribution and enantiomeric composition of amino acids in the Murchison meteorite".  Laboratory of Organic Geochemistry, Department of Geosciences, The University of Arizona.  Nature Publishing Group: Letters to Nature (296, pgs. 837-840).

Michael. H. Engel and S. A. Macko (Sep. 18, 1997). "Isotopic evidence for extraterrestrial non- racemic amino acids in the Murchison meteorite". School of Geology and Geophysics, The University of Oklahoma; Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia.  Nature: Letters to Nature (389, pgs. 265-268).

Jeffrey L. Bada, John R. Cronin, Ming-Shan Ho, Keith A. Kvenvolden, James G. Lawless, Stanley L. Miller, J. Oro and Spencer Steinberg (Feb. 10, 1983). "On the reported optical activity of amino acids in the Murchison meteorite". Amino Acid Dating Laboratory, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California; Department of Chemistry and Center for Meteorite Studies, Arizona State University; US Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California; Ames Research Center, NASA; Department of Chemistry, University of California; Department of Biophysical Sciences, University of Houston. Nature Publishing Group: Letters to Nature (301, pgs. 494-496).

J. R. Cronin and S. Pizzarello (Feb. 14, 1997). "Enantiomeric excesses in meteoritic amino acids". Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Arizona State University. Science; National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health: Pubmed.gov (275, 5302, pgs. 951-955).

S. Pizzarello and J. R. Cronin (Feb. 4, 1999; revised June 28, 1999). "Non-racemic amino acids in the Murray and Murchison meteorites". Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Arizona State University. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta (Vol. 64, Issue 2, pgs. 329-338).

Anne M. Rosenthal (Feb. 12, 2003). "Murchison's Amino Acids: Tainted Evidence?". Astrobiology Magazine.

Kate Melville (Jan. 20, 2011). "More evidence for asteroids creating life on Earth". Science A Go Go.

F Cataldo1, J R Brucato and Y Kahayan (Jan. 2005).  "Chirality in prebiotic molecules and the phenomenon of photo- and radioracemization." Soc. Lupi Chemical Research Institute, Via Casilina, Rome, Italy; INAF, Osservatorio Astronomico Capodimonte, Napoli, Italy; Istituto per lo studio dei Materiali Nanostrutturati, CNR, Rome, Italy. IOP Science: Journal of Physics, Conference Series (6, 139).

Maggie McKee (Aug. 17, 2009). "Found: first amino acid on comet". NewScientist: Space.

"Amino Acids could be produced within impacting comets, bringing life to earth". Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Public Affairs (Sep. 12, 2010).

Aqueous ammonium cyanide is a liquid compound derived from a heated mixture of hydrogen cyanide and ammonia hydroxide (ammonia-water): HCN + NH3(aq) gives NH4CN(aq).  &#8212;Michael David Rawlings

Joan Oró (Sep. 16, 1961). &#8220;Mechanism of synthesis of adenine from hydrogen cyanide under possible primitive Earth conditions".  Chemistry Department University of Houston.  Nature: Letters to Nature (191, pgs. 1193-1194).

Matthew Levy, Stanley L. Miller and John Oró (Mar. 31, 1999). &#8220;Production of Guanine from NH4CN Polymerizations&#8221;. SpringerLink: Journal of Molecular Evolution (Vol. 49, No. 2, pgs. 165-168).

Sanchez RA, Ferris JP and Orgel LE (Nov. 11, 1966). "Cyanoacetylene in prebiotic synthesis". The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, San Diego, California. Science; National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health: Pubmed.gov (154, 750, pgs. 784-785).

Sanchez RA, Ferris JP and Orgel LE (Dec. 14, 1967). "Studies in prebiotic synthesis: II. Synthesis of purine precursors and amino acids from aqueous hydrogen cyanide". The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, San Diego, California. Journal of Molecular Biology; National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health: Pubmed.gov (30, 2, pgs. 223-253).

James P. Ferris, Robert A. Sanchez and Leslie E. Orgel (May 14, 1968). "Studies in periodic synthesis: III. Synthesis of pyrimidines from cyanoacetylene and cyanate". The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, San Diego, California. ScienceDirect: Journal of Molecular Biology (Vol. 33, Issue 3, pgs. 693-704).

César Menor-Salván Dr., Dra. Marta Ruiz-Bermejo, Marcelo I. Guzmán Dr., Susana Osuna-Esteban, Sabino Veintemillas-Verdaguer Dr. (Mar. 13, 2009). "Synthesis of Pyrimidines and Triazines in Ice: Implications for the Prebiotic Chemistry of Nucleobases" (ABSTRACT). Centro de Astrobiología, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Instituto Nacional de Técnica Aeroespacial, Carretera Torrejón-Ajalvir, Torrejón de Ardoz, Madrid, Spain. Wiley Online Library: Chemistry, A European Journal (Vol. 15; Issue 17; pgs. 4411-4418; April 20, 2009).

Michael P. Robertson and Stanley L. Miller (29 June 1995).  "An efficient prebiotic synthesis of cytosine and uracil".  Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of California.  Nature Publishing Group: Letters to Nature (375, pgs. 772-774).

"Did life begin with a meteorite? Scientists discover genetic ingredient for creation of man on rock from space".  The Independent: Science (June 18, 2008).

Zita Martins, Oliver Botta, Marilyn L. Fogel, Mark A. Sephton, Daniel P. Glavin, Jonathan S. Watson, Jason P. Dworkin, Alan W. Schwartz, Pascale Ehrenfreund (June 15, 2008). "Extraterrestrial nucleobases in the Murchison Meteorite". Cornell University Library: Earth and Planetary Science Letters (270, pgs. 130-136).

James P. Ferris, Robert A. Sanchez and Leslie E. Orgel (May 14, 1968). "Studies in periodic synthesis: III. Synthesis of pyrimidines from cyanoacetylene and cyanate". The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, San Diego, California. ScienceDirect: Journal of Molecular Biology (Vol. 33, Issue 3, pgs. 693-704). 

Francois Raulin, Suzanne Bloch and Gerard Toupance (April 1977). "Addition reactions of malonic nitriles with alkanethiol in aqueous solution". SpringerLink: Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres (Vol. 8, No. 3, pgs. 247-257).

Robert Shapiro (April 13, 1999). "Prebiotic cytosine synthesis: A critical analysis and implications for the origin of life". The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, San Diego, CA. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (Vol. 96, No. 8, pgs. 4396-4401).

Edward R. Garrett and Josef Tsau (July 1972). "Solvolyses of cytosine and cytidine". Wiley Online Library: Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences (Vol. 61, Issue 7, pgs. 1052-1061).

Robert Shapiro and Robert S. Klein (July 1966). "The Deamination of Cytidine and Cytosine by Acidic Buffer Solutions, Mutagenic Implications". ACS Publications: Biochemistry (5, 7, pgs. 2358-2362).

Matthew Levy and Stanley L. Miller (July 7, 1998). "The stability of the RNA bases: Implications for the origin of life" (ABSTRACT, FULL PAPER). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (Vol. 95, No. 14, pgs. 7933-7938).

Matthew Levy and Stanley L. Miller. "The stability of the RNA bases: Implications for the origin of life".

Shapiro R. (June 25, 1995). "The prebiotic role of adenine: a critical analysis." Department of Chemistry, New York University. Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres; National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health: Pubmed.gov (1-3, pgs. 83-98).

The most interesting of the postulated pre-RNA polymers are pyranosly RNA  (pRNA).  &#8212;Michael David Rawlings

Robert Shapiro (1988).  "Prebiotic ribose synthesis: A critical analysis".  SpringerLink:  Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres (Vol. 18, Nos. 1-2, pgs. 71-85).

Robert Shapiro (Mar. 2000).  "A replicator was not involved in the origin of life."  Department of Chemistry, New York University.  IUBMB Life; National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health: Pubmed.gov (49, 3, pgs. 173-176).

"How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time". ScienceDaily: Science News (Jan. 10, 2009).

Tracey A. Lincoln and Gerald F. Joyce (Jan. 8, 2009). "Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme". Department of Chemistry, Department of Molecular Biology and the Skaggs Institute for Chemical Biology of The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA. AAAS: Science (Feb. 27, 2009; Vol. 323; No. 5918; pgs. 1229-1232).

"Scientists Create Tiny RNA Molecule With Big Implications for Life's Origins". ScienceDaily: Science News (Feb. 24, 2010).

Rebecca M. Turka, Nataliya V. Chumachenkob and Michael Yarusa (Jan. 27, 2010). &#8220;Multiple translational products from a five-nucleotide ribosome&#8221;. Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, and Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (Feb. 22, 2010).

"Venter Institute Scientists Create First Synthetic Bacterial Genome: Team Completes Second Step in Three Step Process to Create Synthetic Organism". J Craig Venter Institute (Jan. 24, 2008).

Daniel G. Gibson, Gwynedd A. Benders, Cynthia Andrews-Pfannkoch, Evgeniya A. Denisova, Holly Baden-Tillson, Jayshree Zaveri, Timothy B. Stockwell, Anushka Brownley, David W. Thomas, Mikkel A. Algire, Chuck Merryman, Lei Young, Vladimir N. Noskov, John I. Glass, J. Craig Venter, Clyde A. Hutchison III and Hamilton O. Smith (Jan. 24, 2008). &#8220;Complete Chemical Synthesis, Assembly, and Cloning of a Mycoplasma genitalium Genome&#8221;. The J. Craig Venter Institute, Rockville, MD. AAAS: Science (Feb. 28, 2008; Vol. 319; No. 5867; pgs. 1215-1220).

"First Self-Replicating, Synthetic Bacterial Cell Constructed by J. Craig Venter Institute Researchers". J Craig Venter Institute (May, 20, 2010).

Gordon C. Mills and Dean Kenyon (1996).  "The RNA World:  A Critique".  Department of Human Biological Chemistry and Genetics, University of Texas Medical Branch; Department of Biology, San Francisco State University.  Access Research Network:  Origins and Design Archives (Vol. 17, No. 1).

Gordon C. Mills and Dean Kenyon (1996).  "What do Ribozyme Engineering Experiments Really Tell Us About the Origin of Life?".  Department of Human Biological Chemistry and Genetics, University of Texas Medical Branch; Department of Biology, San Francisco State University. Access Research Network: Origins and Design Archives (Vol. 17, No. 1).

Brian Thomas, M.S. (Feb. 2010).  "Critique of 'Primordial Soup' Vindicates Creation Research".  The Institute of Creation Research.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 18, 2014)

Almost none of which supports creationism, despite what you would have the blatantly naïve believe., And sonny boy, ICR is not a scientific institution, and doesn't produce peer reviewed scientific papers.

But let's talk about you for a moment, shall we?

Incinerating Presuppositionalism: Michael David Rawlings and the Primacy of a Bad Attitude

Michael David Rawlings and the Primacy of a Bad Attitude 

Christians are notorious for having hurt feelings when their god-belief claims are not accepted as the truths they affirm on their mere say so. Their feelings are hurt even more when their arguments are exposed as the silly collections of incoherence that they are. But in spite of their hurt feelings, some Christians keep coming back for more punishment, pushing the same nonsense like a dog coming back to its own vomit, apparently expecting that his next iteration of the same nonsense, perhaps in a new guise, will somehow slide under the radar of philosophical detection. I have bad news for the believer: it wont. 

Christian apologist Michael David Rawlings is no exception to this frequently encountered quagmire. He has come posting on my blog under the guise of wanting to learn about Objectivism and peddling a highfalutin perspective on Christianity backed up by credentials which he never specifies. His pockets are loaded to bear with reality-denying assumptions and ten-cent theological jargon to give the impression that he has the answer to the age-old question, Wheres the beef? In practice, Michael Rawlings doesnt even really try to back up his assertions. On the contrary, he simply gets furiously angry when others dont accept what he says on his mere say so. And this is a guy who says that Christianity does not affirm the primacy of consciousness when human consciousness is involved. 

As the discussion has moved along, Michael has made less and less effort to contain his contempt and keep his bad attitude at bay. He has no qualms expressing his spite for atheists. On 7 Dec. he wrote:  Atheists really are notoriously bad thinkers, you know, and dishonest too boot. After all, atheism is a form of psychopathy.​Im immediately reminded of several points Cohen makes in his expose of the Christian devotional programs second device, Discrediting The World:  For the believer, there are three kinds of people, and the devotional program prescribes a clear-cut mode of conduct toward each. There are: (1) ordinary unbelievers, (2) believers, and (3) missionaries of a conflicting or competing false gospel. The Bible presupposes relatively little depth of contact between believers and ordinary unbelievers. The objects of evangelism, unbelievers are often referred to collectively as crops of various kinds to be harvested, or fish to be netted. Precious little is said on handling contacts with them. One very crucial specific instruction on evangelization is given by Jesus to the apostles: And whosever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them. [Luke 9:5] The context of the instruction indicates peripatetic movement of the apostles from one place to another, spending little time in one place. Abundant numbers of evangelistic contacts, not depth, are being mandated. If one does not get an immediate positive response, one is not to persist. When the believer is in the presence of an unbeliever, it is to preach and witness, not to listen. (_The Mind of the Bible-Believer_, pp. 172-173)​Note this last statement: When the believer is in the presence of an unbeliever, it is to preach and witness, _not to listen_. This may go a long way in explaining why Michael never seems quite able to integrate the points I have presented into his understanding of what is being discussed. 

On a related note, Cohen points out the following:  The substance of the nonbiblical view confronting the believer becomes completely irrelevant. Inasmuch as all merely human views are inherently defective, the _argumentum ad hominem_ becomes a fair argument, and the blow is softened by that arguments equal validity and impartial applicability against all, including the Christian if he weakens and lets his thinking stray outside biblical premises. Critical thinking about human affairs is simply despaired of as futile. While the Bible does not explicitly say that independent thinking is the cardinal sin  to do so would give away the game   it is the crux of any biblically authentic definition of sin. (Ibid., p. 179)​So while Michael has made certain verbal gestures to the effect that hes interested to learn more about certain aspects of Objectivism, a nonbiblical view confronting him, his actions speak louder than this. Throughout the following expose, we will see numerous instances where Michael rams his head against the unshakable principles of Objectivism while ever failing to come to grips with their implications in regard to Christian god-belief. 


*Christianity and Its Adherence to Metaphysical Subjectivism* 

Central to much of my discussion with Michael David Rawlings is the issue of metaphysical primacy, i.e., the relationship between the subject of consciousness and any objects it is said to be conscious of. While this is the most fundamental issue in philosophy (since philosophy is the attempt to provide a comprehensive view of life and reality, and necessarily involves consciousness, and therefore its objects; in his book _Ayn Rands Theory of Knowledge_, Porter writes: I think the primacy of existence is the most important issue in philosophy  p. 198), it is never addressed in any self-conscious manner anywhere in the Christian bible. And it is not something youll find commonly addressed in theological and apologetic texts. As I pointed out in a comment to the previous blog, We dont see Christians saying, Hey, thats got to be false since it contradicts the primacy of existence. And we certainly do not see this anywhere in the Christian bible. 

So when the issue of metaphysical primacy is raised in objection to Christianity, we can expect a mixture of confusion and hostility on the part of the Christian attempting to defend his mystical worldview from this type of criticism. It cuts to the very foundation of any worldview, and it quickly exposes a number of fundamental inconsistencies lurking in the believers worldview. It gets even messier when another Christian steps in and makes pronouncements underscoring the presence of previously undetected inconsistencies inherent in the theistic view of the world. 

Michael asks: Where does the Objectivist get the idea that existence has primacy over consciousness? 

The answer is simple: We get it from reality, by observing reality, by identifying what we observe, by grasping the nature of the subject-object relationship. We certainly do not get it from the bible. The bible nowhere affirms the primacy of existence, even in the case of human consciousness (contrary to assertions made by Michael himself, as we will see below); on the contrary, the Christian bible repeatedly and emphatically affirms the primacy of consciousness. The primacy of consciousness affirms the metaphysical primacy of the subject of consciousness over its objects. This is known as _metaphysical subjectivism_, since it holds that the objects of consciousness conform in some way to the subject of consciousness. The alternative to this is metaphysical objectivism, i.e., the consistent and explicit recognition of the fundamental fact that the objects of consciousness exist and are what they are independent of the conscious activity by which the subject is conscious of them. Hence, Objectivism, the Philosophy of Reason. 

Examples of metaphysical subjectivism in the bible are abundant, and include the doctrine of creation, the doctrine of divine sovereignty (everything in the universe conforms in terms of identity and action to the will of the supernatural ruling consciousness), the doctrine of miracles, the doctrine of salvation through faith (belief and confession, as opposed to works, lead to spiritual cleansing), the doctrine of prayer, the doctrines of angels and demons, and many, many more. 

Michael has made statements to the effect that such power over existence is reserved only for Christianitys god. He states Nowhere in scripture is it asserted that a finite mind (subject) can have primacy over an existent (object), where finite mind is supposed to denote human consciousness as well as the consciousnesses imagined by Christians to belong to demons and angels. Presumably it also denotes the conscious faculties possessed by non-human animals, like dogs, cats, elk, weasels, ladybugs, etc. 

Unfortunately, Michael offers no biblical citations which make any explicitly statement about the orientation between consciousness and its objects, particularly with regard to human consciousness; its authors will only strike those informed on the matter as utterly oblivious to it. Indeed, one gets the impression that Michael has not examined the content of the Christian bible now that he has become at least somewhat familiar with the issue of metaphysical primacy. Meanwhile, certain passages in the New Testament attributing the cause of diseases to demons, for instance, are a clear-cut case of affirming metaphysical subjectivism on the part of consciousnesses other than the Christian god itself. 

Then of course theres Matthew 17:20, which puts the following statement into Jesus mouth: *And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.*​I have pointed this passage out to Michael at least twice now, but in spite of his volumes of contemptuous screed, he has not addressed it. Going by his statements alone, one might never suspect that I ever referenced it. And yet, it provides explicit evidence contrary to his own affirmation regarding the human mind, the primacy of consciousness, and what the bible states. 

Other examples would include Peter walking on water by merely believing that he can (here the physics of relative density between the human body and a body of water conform to the contents of ones beliefs, an obvious case of metaphysical subjectivism), merely thinking lustful thoughts resulting in guilt of adultery, the various ask and ye shall receive passages in the gospels, faith healings, etc. 

If Michael doesnt think that these qualify as examples of a finite mind having primacy over an existent (object), one can only wonder what he thinks would qualify as such. That he insists that the bible nowhere portrays a finite mind as enjoying metaphysical primacy over the objects of its consciousness, only suggests that he has not grasped the issue of metaphysical primacy very well. 

But Michael seems to think that Objectivists have no justification in affirming the primacy of existence consistently. He listed two propositions:  1. Existence has primacy over _our_ consciousness. ​ 2. Existence has primacy over consciousness.​He then writes: These are not the same propositions at all. The latter is not contained in the inherent imperative of the original question. Its a gratuitous insertion unwittingly perpetrated by a finite consciousness in spite of existence. It didnt hear that. It tells itself that. Once again, a univocal existence cannot tell us anything we dont already know; we would necessarily have to be the tellers in that case. But thats absurd as this would violate the imperative that is proposition one. 

Again, Michael is operating here on the question-begging basis of two false dichotomies: on the one hand, there is the dichotomous division of existence into univocal vs. analogical realms. Operating on the primacy of consciousness, Christianity divides reality into two opposing realms: the realm of concretes, flesh, blood, finite consciousness and reason; and the realm of transcendence which man can access, not by means of reason and objective input from reality, but by means of introspecting the contents of scripturally guided imagination. At no point in the bible do we find a philosophically charged concern for distinguishing between reality and imagination at the foundation of knowledge. Religious imagery, constructed from various allegorical tropes and selectively culled into the indoctrinated imagination of the believer, seems immediately real to the believer given the fact that it does reside in his imagination and his ability to distinguish between reality and fiction has been systematically crippled. Given Christianitys assumption of the primacy of consciousness, the bible could offer no consistent guide on this fundamental distinction. To do so would be directly fatal to its religious impulse. 

In fact, however, there is one reality, and thats all. Existence exists. There is no objective justification for positing some supernatural or transcendent realm as something real when in fact it is merely imaginary. The assumption of the primacy of consciousness lying at the root of Christianity assures us of this fact. A belief system premised on the primacy of consciousness cannot contain its subjective influences to one aspect of that belief system; it corrodes the entire artifice. Many believers sense deep down the fact that there is no objective basis to their belief system, but they choose to suppress it, submerging it into the darker labyrinths of mystic delusion and pretending that the immediacy of imagination cancels out this concern. In the final analysis, however, the Christians belief in such a realm comes from a sacred storybook, not from facts he observes in the world around him; even on his own terms, his religious truths are not something that can be discovered by reason: according to Christianity, they need to be revealed from an agent imagined to exist in that transcendent realm. Blur the distinction between the real and the imaginary: that is the primary gimmick of religious inculcation. 

On the other hand, theres the false notion that there is such a thing as an infinite consciousness, which is implied by Michaels continued references to finite consciousness. Michael knows that the notion of an infinite consciousness is not accepted among those hes trying to persuade, and yet hes offered no sustainable justification for continuing to affirm such a notion. It is a fantasy, an imagination which is as incoherent as pure five. Weve already been through this. But Michael cant make his points without making use of already discredited ideas. He apparently thinks the fact that well-known thinkers throughout history have endorsed this idea should be sufficient basis for anyone else to accept it. Its not. 

Also, the Objectivist affirmation of the primacy of existence as a general, absolute principle is in no way gratuitous. If Michael were truly concerned with avoiding worldviews premised on gratuitous notions, he would have rejected Christianity long ago. By contrast, the Objectivist view finds only confirmation of the primacy of existence in every species of consciousness objectively observable, whether it is human consciousness, canine consciousness, bovine consciousness, avian consciousness, reptilian consciousness, etc. All evidence supports the primacy of existence. The only alternative is something we must _imagine_, but the imaginary is not real. 

Moreover, the consistent affirmation of the primacy of existence in no way violates any objectively knowable facts. I explained to Andrew Louis, who also piped into the discussion, that appealing to facts implicitly acknowledges the primacy of existence, and thereby the truth of Objectivism, since such an appeal implicitly recognizes that statements about reality need factual support to substantiate them, and also that such appeals imply awareness of the fact that wishing doesnt make it so  i.e., implicitly denying the primacy of consciousness. Indeed, there is no objectively available evidence of a consciousness to whose contents reality conforms. Again, this is a fantasy, an imagination that has run away with itself. 

So it should be clear that Objectivisms affirmation of the primacy of existence is (a) supported by evidence, (b) internally consistent, and (c) unchallenged by any legitimate evidence to the contrary. Very simply, there is no evidence to the contrary. The very proposition that there is evidence for a position or against it, assumes the primacy of existence to begin with for the reasons indicated above. So even an attempt to cite evidence to the contrary would imply the truth of the primacy of existence. There is no escape for the theist here. Assuming the truth of a principle in an effort to deny or undermine it, does not lead to non-contradictory conclusions. 

So no, it is not the case that human consciousness tells itself that as though this were some arbitrary position one simply _prefers_ to be true. Here we can see that Michaels would-be objection itself assumes the truth of the primacy of existence, the very view which he is seeking to undermine: what possible objection would one have to the view that a position is true because one _prefers_ that it is true, if not the fact that it violates the primacy of existence? Blank out. On the contrary, the primacy of existence is not something we simply affirm as a result of preferences; rather, it is something we _discover_ repeatedly without exception throughout nature, and subsequently identify on this basis. It is thus a fundamental recognition. It is not confined merely to human beings. It is the consistent testimony of the facts we discover in the case of _any_ actual consciousness. Discovering facts and identifying them by means of consciousness are operations consistent entirely consistent with the primacy of existence. There is no inconsistency between object, method and identification on the part of Objectivism here. 

Michael wrote: God is talking to us all the time. God is talking to Dawson when He tells him that the only thing that may be extrapolated from the questions inherent imperative is the first proposition. The second is an illusion. 

We can all _imagine_ a supernatural being talking to us and telling us what Michael gratuitously asserts here. Jim Jones did this. David Koresh did this. Marshall Herff Applewhite did this. Michael can call the phantasm he imagines God, the Muslim can call the phantasm he imagines Allah, the Lahu tribesman can call the phantasm he imagines Geusha, and the Blarkist can call the phantasm he imagines Blarko. But either way you slice it, it all comes up imagination. Unlike Christianity, Objectivism recognizes _explicitly_ the fundamental distinction between reality and imagination. Revelation in one form or another is the mode of knowledge affirmed by all expressions of mysticism, for mysticism assumes the impotence of human consciousness when it comes to knowledge: man is depraved, impotent, incompetent, soiled and besmirched; he cannot overcome the noetic effects of sin on his own. So any knowledge that he does possess must come from some supernatural, omniscient source; he must think his gods thoughts after him, fancying his imagination as a means of reading a supernatural mind. On such a view, knowledge is not something man _discovers_ through his own cognitive effort. Driven by the primacy of consciousness, believers are in fact just making it all up on the basis of storybook motifs which are accepted as non-negotiable, indispensable absolutes at the basis of his system. It all seems logical because a semblance of logic is applied to tie tangents, speculations and other cognitive wanderings to the bedrock of these storybook motifs. Logic is a formal concern which any worldview can adopt; but whence comes the _content_? For Objectivism, the content comes from reality. For religion, it comes from a reality-denying storybook. Appeals to logic, then, cannot immunize a position from scrutiny; a microwave will heat horse manure just as well as last nights leftovers. On the religious view, man, given his fallibility and non-omniscience, can only wind up with error if he relies on his own mind. What is missing in all this is the very epistemology man needs in order to identify and integrate the reality in which he actually exists, namely _reason_. 

Michael writes: Passive entities dont know or say anything. Persons do. Since I dont have primacy over existence and a univocal existence cannot know or tell me anything about itself, what is this existence that has primacy? 

Metaphysical primacy as Objectivism informs it does not mean reality saying anything or telling anything. Saying and telling are actions of consciousness. Nor does the primacy of existence imply that consciousness is passive. As Ive pointed out to Michael before, consciousness is a type of _activity_; the primacy of existence recognizes this outright and explicitly. Indeed, that consciousness is a type of activity speaks to the very point of affirming the primacy of existence: it tells us that, regardless of what action consciousness takes, the only right action with regard to truthful knowledge about reality must be constrained, volitionally  i.e., by means of self-regulation, by the recognition that the objects of consciousness exist and are what they are independent of whatever action ones consciousness might perform. This is why the primacy of existence is found at the root of the recognition that _wishing doesnt make it so_. 

The existence that has primacy is every thing, existent, attribute, etc., that actually exists, including consciousness itself (as an actually existing attribute of some organisms and also as a secondary object). Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification (Ayn Rand, _Atlas Shrugged_). Its not a matter of anything say[ing] anything or telling me anything about itself, as though existence were itself a conscious entity. Thats absurd. (And such absurdity is religion.) Rather, it is a matter of some entities in existence possessing a faculty of consciousness, particularly those capable of conceptual knowledge, and those entities being aware of things that exist, including themselves, and the cognitive actions they take to identify and integrate the things they perceive according to what they perceive by means of concepts. This is called _reason_. Notice that Michaels analysis does not allow for reason. It systematically and gratuitously leaves reason out of the entire equation. 

Michael summarily equates this existence with a supernatural consciousness, gratuitously asserting Its a Person. He offers no factual substantiation in support of this assertion. Rather, he puts on display for us his own primacy-of-consciousness epistemology: Michael has appointed himself the teller, telling us what reality is, offering no explanation of how he knows this and presumably having no need to do so. He just pulls it out of thin air, as in the case of all mystical revelations before it. Theres no application of reason in all of this. It is not an issue of _discovery_ on Michaels part, for if it were, he would gladly point to the facts which informed his discovery. Rather, it is an exemplification of how his worldview infests its epistemology with the primacy of consciousness: its true because he believes it, and he believes it because he imagines it, and the worldview which he has accepted does not allow him to consistently distinguish between what he knows and what he _imagines_, for it does not allow him to consistently distinguish between what is real and what is imaginary. Without imagination, there would be no Christianity. And an epistemology which restrains ones imagination to what is rational (i.e., an epistemology constrained by the primacy of existence) would never allow what Michael affirms as truth to be accepted as such. This is why authors and characters of the bible repeatedly appeal to _faith_ instead of reason. Michael has been careful to ignore the role of faith throughout his asseverations since by doing so he thinks he avoids giving away the game. But we know better than this, and we wont be suckered in by his apologetic suppression of faith, even though they lurk in the background all along. Its all about maintaining a façade. 

Michael says: God is talking to us all the time. Dawson only listens to himself. 

Heres an example of Michaels faith spilling into his pretense of rationality and his personal resentment of me clouding his judgment. He cant contain these because they cannot be constrained once Christianitys mystical premises have been accepted. Michael is a victim of his own worldviews self-immolation on the pyre of fideism. Indeed, contrary to what Michael states here, Dawson listens to many people, people who claim all kinds of things. Dawson considers what he hears others say according to the strictures of _reason_, and those who propose things that are contrary to reason resent this. Also, Dawson knows that there is a fundamental difference between reality and imagination, and he knows that many who think they are hearing the voice of a supernatural being are in fact merely _imagining_ things and misidentifying what they think theyve heard as a voice from some transcendent realm, just as some middle aged housewife on the outskirts of Albuquerque, New Mexico, will insist that the burn patterns on a tortilla are really the image of Jesus miraculously looking back at her in the heat of her religious hysteria. Its imagination provoked by irrational fear, guided by religious suggestion and tailored to suit religious expectation, that leads to Michaels Twilight Zone abruptions of crazy as well as to the middle-aged housewifes interpretation of religion-confirming burn marks on a tortilla. 

And Michael thinks what I say is embarrassing? Wow! Just wow! 

Michael writes: Until you show me otherwise, I have no reason to believe that you havent been disingenuous. All of your arguments against the existence of God, for example, amount to you obviating your own conclusions with the nonsense that God is _B_ when in fact divine perfection is _A_! 

Since Michael first inserted himself into my blogs comments, all he has presented are subjective assertions about this god hes enshrined in his imagination. And now hes expecting me to prove that Im not being disingenuous? There is really only one argument against the existence of God that I have shared with Michael in my discussion with him, and that is the following (from this blog):  *Premise 1: That which is imaginary is not real. *​ *Premise: 2: If something is not real, it does not actually exist. *​ *Premise 3: If the god of Christianity is imaginary, then it is not real and therefore does not actually exist. *​ *Premise 4: The god of Christianity is imaginary. *​ *Conclusion: Therefore, the god of Christianity is not real and therefore does not actually exist.*​I do not see where Michael has interacted with this, even though I cited this very syllogism back on 9 Nov. in the comments of this blog. So if hes been reading, he has no excuse but to be aware of it. And yet it is the only argument Ive proposed which seeks to establish the conclusion that the Christian god does not exist. 

If Michael thinks he can demonstrate that his god is real rather than imaginary, let him try. It is this very task that he would need to take up in order to sustain the charge that my argument with obviating its own conclusion with the nonsense that God is _B_ when in fact divine perfection is _A_! And yet back on 7 Nov., in this blogs comments, Michael already announced:  I have no interest in proving the Christian God's existence to anyone or proving that the Bible is a direct revelation from Him. That's silly. Each person will decide what he will or will not believe for himself.​So if he sticks with his previously stated policy, hell never be able to make the case for his accusation against me. 

BTW, the conclusion of my argument from divine lonesomeness is that Christianity begins with a starting point of divine solipsism, which is, according to a rational worldview, the ultimate expression of subjectivism  this is not the same as a conclusion affirming that the Christian god does not exist. Even here, when I spell out the nature of my own arguments conclusion, Michael seems to have confused himself. Even worse, Michaels own explicit affirmation that according to Judeo-Christianity, ultimately, consciousness does have primacy over existence, can only mean that his divine perfection ultimately reduces to divine solipsism. 

Michael recently stated: Dawson is not merely failing to listen carefully in regard to his arguments against Gods existence. He is intentionally pretending not to understand. He is well past the point of mere errors of cognitional transitions. 

And yet, the only argument that I have proposed which seeks to argue against Gods existence is the argument I quoted in full above  namely the argument which concludes that the Christian god does not exist on the basis of the sub-conclusion that it is merely imaginary. I posted the above argument back on 9 Nov. in the comments of this blog where my discussion with Michael began. But Michael has not interacted with this argument. He has completely ignored it. Should this surprise us? I trow not. 

Instead, he has focused on another argument of mine, one which he apparently believes can be answered by reciting nonsense phrases like divine perfection and the eternally existing now! which, when examined, are exposed as simply destroying the very concept of consciousness to begin with, namely by completely obliterating its objective context while retrofitting it with imaginary attributes that carry emotional weight in believers minds (like omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence coupled arbitrarily with consciousness), all the while detaching the concept of consciousness from reality, denying its active nature in order to project it outside the time-space continuum, and making what Michael himself has called Twilight Zone abruptions of crazy such as The American Revolution is occurring for God right now, as is the creation of the cosmos within which it was fought . . . not merely in His mind, but as actual existents apart from Him as an attempt to provide his god with some mind-independent object prior to it creating anything independent of itself. And while such blathering is simply bewilderingly incoherent, it ignores the point, which I raised, that Michaels own affirmation of the primacy of consciousness can only entail that, for the Christian god, there could be no mind-independent objects for it to have awareness of in the first place. As pointed out above, Michaels divine perfection reduces to divine solipsism, and a mountain full of garbage comes along with it. All of this pours hot coals on Michaels already fuming head as he erupts with another episode of fits and tantrums, name-calling and condescension. 


*Michaels Confused Yammering about Infinity* 

In regard to our disputes over the notion of an actual infinity, I stated:  Indeed, I really have no idea what an infinite consciousness could be. It is literally and utterly nonsensical.​Apparently Michael thinks that Im being dishonest by stating this, when in fact it is not a falsehood at all. This is an autobiographical statement, a statement about my own understanding. I do realize and understand _that_ Christians affirm the notion of an infinite consciousness. But it does not follow from this that the notion of an infinite consciousness has conceptual integrity so far as I can tell, and Ive presented good reasons for dismissing it. For instance, I indicated Objectivisms primary reason for denying the notion that an actual infinity does or can exist. Here I quoted Dr. Peikoff:  Infinite does not mean large; it means larger than _any_ specific quantity, i.e., of _no_ specific quantity. An infinite quantity would be a quantity without identity. But A is A. Every entity, accordingly, is finite; it is limited in the number of its qualities and in their extent; this applies to the universe as well. As Aristotle was the first to observe, the concept of infinity denotes merely a potentiality of indefinite addition or subtraction. For example, one can continually subdivide a line; but however many segments one has reached at a given point, there are only that many and no more. The _actual_ is always finite. (_Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand_, pp. 31-32).​Michael had replied to this by saying:  The always finite number of segments for a finite consciousness has no bearing on the issues of identity and actuality proper.​I responded with a needed correction:  Well, the notion of segments is only introduced in the sense of dividing something, an area where Objectivism holds that the concept infinite has at least some legitimacy (the other being the ability to continue adding to something). It is not fundamental. Entities are fundamental. That is where Rand/Peikoff are working from. Entities have identity. (Im guessing we both would agree on this?) Where we seem to part ways is over the implications that identity has for finitude. The Objectivist view makes complete sense to me: to be actual is to be specific, and the specific is always finite. The view you seem to be proposing  which seems to have in mind no definable identity that I can grasp at this point  defies rational comprehension.​Notice that the points I outline here are completely consistent with the statement I make above, just prior to the Peikoff quote. 

Notice also that Objectivism is not denying the hypothetical potential, which is what mathematicians have in mind, to continue adding or dividing units without end. What needs to be emphasized is that this is a _conceptual_ process, and therefore not a metaphysical fundamental; the potential to continue adding or dividing segments does not denote a concrete _entity_ that exists in reality apart from the mental process of conceptual integration. What is metaphysically fundamental are _entities_  concretes that exist apart from and prior to conceptual activity. It is here where Objectivism affirms that the _actual_ is always finite. And it is here where the theist needs more than his mere say-so to substantiate his assertion of the existence of an actual infinite. And indeed, it is here where Michael has not succeeded in substantiating his position or his objections against Objectivism on this matter. This should be clear to anyone who reads the quote from Peikoff carefully and considers the distinctions he makes in that quote against the reactions which Michael has offered in response to that quote. This will be important to keep in mind below. 

Michael had also stated: Simultaneously, the finite mind readily apprehends that any divisible entity may be divided without end. That is a perfectly rational, mathematical axiom. It follows, _infinity is that which is indivisible, immutable and has no beginning or end_. Thats its identity expressed philosophically.​To which I responded:  Even if we grant that it follows from the assumption that the finite mind readily apprehends that any divisible entity may be divided without end that infinity is that which is indivisible, immutable and has no beginning or end (and Im not even sure I would grant that without more context to support it), it does not follow that the concept infinity so-defined denotes something that is _actual_. And thats the dispute we seem to be having.​Michael seems to have anticipated in some way the point I was making here, for he also stated: As for infinitys actuality, on the contrary, what we have here is a very strong reason to believe that some actual realm of origin exists beyond the divisible realm of the finite, something that _can_ divide the divisible without end. Otherwise, we are aware of a mathematical axiom that is impeccably cogent if not inescapable, yet gratuitous?! Thats odd. Thats very, very odd. . . .​The mathematical axiom that is impeccably cogent if not inescapable, suggests correspondence to the hypothetical ability to continue adding and/or dividing entities which actually exist. This is a conceptual operation, just as all mathematics is. If this mathematical axiom has an objective basis, then it affirms the primacy of existence. If it is thought to denote some kind of conscious agent which only exists in ones imagination, then it springs from the primacy of consciousness and has no bearing whatsoever on what _actually_ exists. Michael needs to decide. Neither alternative poses a positive outcome for his god-belief, since the primacy of consciousness is its (his god-beliefs) fundamental premise. 

In response to Michaels overall statement, I wrote: Im not sure I follow. Again, suppose that Im dense as a pile of bricks here. You seem to be saying that our ability (in this realm) to divide a divisible entity without end (and here Binswanger would disagree that this ability is itself actual or realizable; he considers it merely hypothetical) is a very strong reason to believe that some actual realm of origin exists beyond the divisible realm of the finite. Am I reading you correctly? If so, its not at all clear what you think this very strong reason is, unless its a disguised appeal to ignorance or incredulity.​Notice that I was asking Michael for clarification here, since in a previous statement he wrote the finite mind readily apprehends that any divisible entity may be divided without end. But in reaction to my request for clarification, he comes back with more nauseating fumes of contempt:  Our ability? Who said anything about our ability in this regard? The obvious meaning of the phrase something that _can_ divide the divisible without end is that _we_, you and I, *cant!* which makes all the difference in the world. Oh, you followed that alright as your misrepresentation is the very essence of your evasion. Dense as a pile of bricks? Did I say that? I misspoke. Let me revise that. Liar. Punk. Whore. Snake. Coward. Sociopath​Simply asking the guy for clarification will get you this. But this is typical of Michaels proclivity for outbursts: he uses one little tiny thing  in this case my words our ability  as an occasion to let loose his already amply-exhibited contempt. But notice how Michael passes on the opportunity to provide more information regarding any argument he may have on the matter at hand. It should be clear that my question is concerned with how we can infer that there is what he has called a very strong reason to believe that some actual realm of origin exists beyond the divisible realm of the finite. If its not our ability to divide a divisible entity without end, is it our _conception_ of such a potential that constitutes a very strong reason to believe that some actual realm of origin exists beyond the divisible realm of the finite? He says that we have this very strong reason. But what precisely is that very strong reason? Its not clear from what Michael does write. Perhaps Michael means that the fact that the finite mind readily apprehends that any divisible entity may be divided without end is this very strong reason to suppose that there is an actual infinite which can do the dividing he has in mind. If so, its not at all clear how this apprehension on our part constitutes a very strong reason to believe that some actual realm of origin exists beyond the divisible realm of the finite, something that _can_ divide the divisible without end. His following statement  that Otherwise, we are aware of a mathematical axiom that is impeccably cogent if not inescapable, yet gratuitous?! Thats odd. Thats very, very odd  does not, so far as I can tell, translate into support for his assertion that we have a very strong reason to believe what he says. That something strikes us as odd, is not justification for appealing to some invisible magic being as the answer to the supposedly problematic issue thats being called odd. Perhaps it is in Michaels mind, but its not on an objective orientation to reality. 

Seriously, this guy Michael does not come across as a worthy spokesman for what he styles as both the creator of the universe and Truth and Love. If anything, it seems he should exhibit more patience, if not a thicker skin. But this is to be expected from Christians when their bluff is called. They have nothing else but emotion to go on, and when it spills out as it has in Michaels case, its clear that this is all he really has to go on. All his theological jargon is merely part of the grandiose self-important façade hes trying to maintain. 

Picking up on my previous line of thought, I wrote:  As for our awareness of what you call a mathematical axiom, Objectivism would say that this is implicit in the very process of concept-formation. (This might explain why it seems appropriate to call it an axiom.) Rand notes:  A concept is not formed by observing every concrete subsumed under it, and does not specify the number of such concretes. A concept is like an arithmetical sequence of _specifically defined units_, going off in both directions, open at both ends and including _all_ units of that particular kind. For instance, the concept man includes all men who live at the present, who have ever lived or who will ever live. An arithmetical sequence extends into infinity, without implying that infinity actually exists; such extension means only that whatever number of unit does exist, it is to be included in the same sequence. The same principle applies to concepts: the concept man does not (and need not) specify what number of men will ultimately have existed  it specifies only the characteristics of man, and means that any number of entities possessing these characteristics is to be identified as men. (_Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology_, pp. 17-18)​So far from suggesting that infinity really exists, or that an actual entity can in fact be infinite, the mathematical axiom which you have mentioned really points to our ability to conceptualize, not to something existing in some supernatural realm. Again, I cant over-stress the importance of a good theory of concepts. Ive found no theory of concepts in the bible, not even a bad one. But again, perhaps Im just dense.​Far from interacting with any of this in an adult manner, Michael has shown no indication that he grasps the points that Ive presented here, let alone showing them to be faulty in any way. And yet he continues to proceed as though the notion of an infinite consciousness is perfectly sensible, even going so far as suggesting that its axiomatic. 

In fact, however, certain statements of Michaels only indicate that he has not understood the Objectivist position at all very well. For he continued, stating:  What _does_ appear to be an instance of circular reasoning is Peikoffs notion that only the finite can exist. He seems to be arguing that because consciousness can only apprehend the potentiality of infinity, but not its realization, infinity doesnt exist. More at, infinity allegedly has no identity that consciousness can pin down with anything but a referent and, therefore, cannot be said to have any discernable actuality. But that appears to suggest that some sort of consciousness is imposing a constraint on existence.​In response to this, I found it necessary to quote the passage from Peikoff again (see above) and point out the following:  Notice that [Peikoff] says that an infinite quantity would be a quantity without identity. He bases this observation directly on the definition he just gave, namely that infinity means larger than _any_ specific quantity. Since the actual always exists in _some_ (i.e., specific) quantity, the actual is therefore always finite. Hes not saying that anything here which suggests or implies that consciousness puts some kind of constraint on what can or cannot exist. He cites the potentiality of indefinite addition or subtraction, not to prove his point (since its not based on this), but to demonstrate it in action: however many segments one has reached at a given point, there are only that many and no more, i.e., finite.​Clearly Peikoff is contrasting the actual with mere potentiality and notes that the actual is always finite by reference to the definition of infinite and to the fact that any actual thing is specific, meaning its attributes exist in some specific quantity. In no way is Peikoff denying the potential to continue adding or dividing units, as the mathematical axiom holds. The mathematical axiom does not state or imply that an actual infinite exists, and mathematics does not require such to be the case. The mathematical concern is answered by the Objectivist theory of concepts, as I pointed out above. Its a _conceptual_ matter. 

But it still appears that Michael has not understood the Objectivist position on the matter. This impression persists when we read the following belligerent comment by Michael:  For example, [Dawsons] nonsense about the mathematical axiom of division! Are you friggin kidding me? Thats a basic, necessary, indispensable mathematic imperative. We cannot even begin to comprehend mathematics, let alone deal with calculi of algebra, geometry, trigonometry or calculus without accepting the obviously rational fact of a linear scale of numeric infinity on either side of the 0. What do you think the implications of PI and the apparent impossibility, albeit, constructional necessity of squaring the circle are? Peikoff and Dawson are prattling lunacy! No wonder Objectivism is not respected by the academic community at large. Pseudo-mathematical blather! And you drooling idiots are giving him a pass on that?​Notice that nothing I wrote in the previous exchange seems to have sunk in for our friend Michael. Nothing in the passage that I quoted from Peikoff or what I have stated denies either the availability or the usefulness of the concept of infinity in mathematics. There is no indication in either my comments or the Peikoff quote that mathematics must dispense with the concept of infinity. So what is Michael fussing about here? What specifically is he calling lunacy? Michael has not been able to secure any rational case for the notion that an actual infinite can or does exist. And yet he still finds it necessary to lash out at me and others personally in spite of my efforts to clarify my position and correct some of his misunderstandings on the matter. Truly his behavior is inexplicable. *


The Anti-Conceptual Implications of Christianitys God* 

Michael writes: 1. First you argue that God cannot have an actually existent object by imagining Him to be an entity trapped inside the space-time continuum, obviating your conclusion. Rather, you began by arguing that he is _not_ trapped inside the continuum and then shift your premise to the other without notice. When youre shown that your god, your _B_, could not possibly be what is conceptually understood in the history of philosophical and theological proofs to be an entity of divine perfection existing outside the space-time continuum, you respond as if you dont understand. 

Ive explained all this repeatedly, and still Michael is flailing away at his own confusion. He cites what is conceptually understood in the history of philosophical and theological proofs to be an entity of divine perfection existing outside the space-time continuum, and yet even this characterization betrays a profound ignorance of the nature of concepts. Theology is riddled with stolen concepts, floating abstractions, and other anti-conceptual notions which ultimately reduce to the primacy of consciousness metaphysics which Michael has denied on the part of human consciousness. And yet its present throughout his theology, infecting every morsel of what he accepts as religious knowledge. And here we have a prime example of this. 

He makes use of the concept consciousness; on an objective orientation to reality (i.e., on one which consistently adheres to the primacy of existence metaphysics), this concept has meaning, and its meaning cannot simply be wiped away in order to make room for the imaginary. But the context in which Michael projects consciousness completely strips it of meaningful content. He likely doesnt grasp this point since he is so accustomed to misappropriating concepts on behalf of mystical notions which can have meaning only in the confines of religious imagination, and of course he wants to think this is perfectly legitimate. Its not. The consciousness he imagines in the transcendent realm is loaded with gratuitous denials of what we know about consciousness by objective methodology. For instance, his god-consciousness is not active (it couldnt be since its outside time); it is not dependent on biological structures (its magical, like Puff the Magic Dragon); it has no existential purpose (it doesnt need to identify things that it needs to live  its indestructible, immortal, eternal, in need of nothing), etc. Its pure five. Its nonsense. My argument has only helped to expose these gratuitous departures from reality. 

I explained this in an earlier comment where I stated:  To illustrate this, consider an analogous, though more benign example. On a rational view, the concept five denotes a number following the number four and preceding the number six, and it assumes equal measure in its units. But suppose someone comes along and says theres an ultimate pure five, and this pure five can do all kinds of things that the concept five as we know it cannot do, but at the same time its clear that he does not think it follows four, it does not precede six, its units are not equal in measure, it is not half of ten, and it is not the square root of 25. Its pure five, so we would be fools to expect it to be like ordinary five. On this basis he affirms such Twilight Zone abruptions as five plus four are sixty-two and five times five times five are one. Naturally you and I would find this completely absurd, given its blatant anti-conceptualism. But this is essentially what Objectivists see happening in the case of the Christians (mis)use of the concept consciousness when he projects it into this transcendent realm he imagines: he takes a concept that is perfectly legitimate in this realm and applies it to a realm which is fundamentally different from (if not opposed to) ours, all the while denying its biological nature, it need for genuinely mind-independent objects, its biological purpose, its active nature, etc. It is clearly a case of anti-conceptualism, and given its fundamental (axiomatic) importance, it is far more devastating to ones philosophy than the fellow who affirms the pure five described above.​Christianitys affirmation of a time-transcending consciousness is directly analogous to the notion of pure five as described here. It is an attempt to have ones cake, and eat it, too. It is expressly _anti-conceptual_, and theologians have been trying to get away with this kind of Twilight Zone abruption of crazy for centuries. Notice the results: theologians incessantly bickering among themselves on every little conceivable tidbit and implication that can be drawn from it. The fact of the matter is that theologians are simply going off in the direction that their imaginations, weighted as they are by their own biases, preferences, mental distortions and anti-conceptual extrapolations, might happen to take them. They departed from reality long ago and are simply running each other over on their own wheels of confusion. 

Also, as I have pointed out, and Michael still seems not to grasp, the fact that his ascribing metaphysical primacy to his god-consciousness can only mean that ultimately there are no mind-independent objects for it to be aware of. He ends up simply chasing his own tail here, since these are problems of his worldviews own anti-conceptual making, and in his frustration he seeks to lash out at me and others personally, as though this will somehow make the problem go away and/or make us come around and nod our heads in mindless agreement with his worldview. Indeed, none of this mess in Michaels worldview is my doing. But still he gets sore at me. Observe: 

Michael huffed: Fine. Youre not a liar, youre stupid. 

No, I am not a liar. As for being stupid on these matters, Ive been listening to Christians all my life. It is not my fault that they cannot connect their mystical claims to reality. I simply point this out. There may be some stupidity here, but its not on my part. Also, I am not a mind-reader. If Michael has something in mind that I am failing to understand after repeated efforts on my part to get his story clear, concise and consistent, I am not the blame for this. It is Michaels worldview which affirms the primacy of wishing over facts, anti-conceptual mishandlings of otherwise perfectly good concepts, floating abstractions, stolen concepts, unargued assertions about the nature of reality, and apparently condones his belligerent and increasingly foul-mouthed fits of condescension. 

And while he states explicitly here that I am _not_ a liar, he later came back and repeatedly called me a liar. He cannot seem to get his own ad hominems straight. As we saw above, he found it necessary to label me as follows:  Liar. Punk. Whore. Snake. Coward. Sociopath.​Why is it that the Christian worldview must always be represented by folks who apparently cannot resist the urge to resort to schoolyard bully tactics? Outbursts like this do nothing either to vouch for Michaels credibility or support his contentions. On the contrary, they can only undermine both. 

Michael continued: 2. When you are shown that the limitations of finite consciousness (your god, your _B_, in fact, yourself nancing about and spouting stupidities) are categorically distinct things from the issues of identity and actuality; when youre shown that infinity is a definitive, axiomatic, mathematical principle of necessity: you respond as if you dont understand! 

See, Cohen is right: When the believer is in the presence of an unbeliever, it is to preach and witness, not to listen. I addressed Michaels feeble attempts to refute Peikoffs argument, and I explained the conceptual basis of the concept of infinity  i.e., as it is legitimately understood. It is apparent that it was Michael who has not understood. He confused Peikoffs example of application with his proof. Then he proceeded to indulge in gratuitous, self-serving assertions which completely ignored the points raised against his imaginary infinite consciousness. 

Michael huffed again: Youre not a liar, youre stupid! 

There there. Perhaps Michael thought that this outburst would make him feel better. It didnt. His contempt is unsatiable. 

Michael wrote: 3. When you are shown that your god, your _B_, is bound by volition rather than nature and, therefore, that the construct of perfect divinity could not possibly or logically be this strawman of yours, you respond as if you dont understand. 

Here Michael is in need of correction again. For one thing, he seems to be confusing me with Rick Warden. Moreover, Michael has failed to understand my point that his assertion of the primacy of consciousness cannot be consistently maintained since it can never be complete, making it necessary to borrow from the primacy of existence. Michael even gives me the rope to hang him with in his very objection here. The view that his god is bound by its nature is evidence precisely of this: it did not create its own nature; its nature is not a product of its own conscious activity; its nature is not bound by its volition. Affirming that something is bound by its nature is an implicit affirmation of the primacy of existence, even in the confines of an imagination bent on leaving reality completely behind, as in the case of theism. And yet, on top of this, Michael states that according to Judeo-Christianity, ultimately, consciousness does have primacy over existence. He has inconsistent metaphysics coming out his ears, and he doesnt even realize it. But he still wants to say Im the stupid one. 

Michael continued: 4. When you are shown  what was, in fact, self-evident all along, i.e., that ultimate existence relative to divine perfection (_A_!) necessarily is divine consciousness, that the two are one and the same thing  you still defend following claptrap of _B_ as if you dont understand! 

Quoting me: [Y]ou have one foot on the primacy of existence, and another on the primacy of consciousness. Now, perhaps I should have worded it this way, but I didnt expect my point to raise your ire as it has. 

My point is completely accurate, and its so clear and obvious that its troubling that he continues to kick against the pricks in such a huffy manner as he does. Michael is the one who has proposed an analogical model of reality, where the primacy of existence applies to human consciousness in this realm, and that ultimately, consciousness does have primacy over existence originating in some transcendent realm. His attempts to compartmentalize all this only worsen the matter; they cannot be integrated without contradiction. Either he is simply in denial over this point, or he simply has not grasped it yet. But theres no question that the primacy of existence and the primacy of consciousness are incompatible and mutually exclusive. Theres also no question that the primacy of existence is the orientation between the subject of consciousness and its objects found in all instances of consciousness in the non-imaginary realm of existence. 

Michael goes on: No. You shouldnt have uttered this stupidity at all. But I offered you an olive branch, an opportunity recant unsustainable arguments due to your failure to grasp this particular aspect of the problem and to do so with dignity. Instead, you respond with more of the same idiocy and have the temerity to make me out to be the bad guy, the one who doesnt get it. LOL! You are beyond my ire. Its my contempt with which I regard you now. 

Michaels contempt has been variably evident from the very beginning of his participation in this discussion. It is nothing new. I strongly doubt that I am the cause of his contempt. His contempt is likely something hes been carrying around for many years, and hes simply looking for new victims to cast it on. I am not a victim, and Michael will never be able to victimize me. I still stand solid and sure, and that will only take his contempt to new heights. It is not my problem. 

Michaels worldview, premised as it is on the primacy of consciousness, can only lead to the primacy of a bad attitude in its adherents. Michael is a living example of this. 

Michael says that The problem of existence and, therefore, the construct of divine perfection is objectively self-evident to all. In other words, the idea of God objectively exists in and of itself; it imposes itself on our minds without our willing that it do so. Its axiomatic. It resides at the base of knowledge, and the atheist proves this every time he opens his yap to deny that there be any actuality behind it. 

In order to accept any of this claptrap, I would have to ignore and systematically deny the fundamental distinction, which I know exists, between reality and imagination. I can imagine Michaels god just as I can imagine the Lahu tribesmans Geusha. But nothing will ever be able to alter the fact that what Im imagining is not real, no matter what labels we want to fix it (e.g., divine perfection, the eternally existing now! etc.). 

Michael writes: In his stupid argument against theism (Divine Lonesomeness), Dawson necessarily acknowledges that the idea of God refers to a Being Who existed prior to all other existents as the Creator of all other existents apart from Him, WHICH OBVIOUSLY INCLUDES THE SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM! 

This is like saying God caused causality. It is utterly incoherent. Prior to this creative act, there could be no action whatsoever, since causality is the identity of action. Similarly with the notion of creating THE SPACE-TIME CONTIUUM. This attempt to rebut the argument incoherently (and gratuitously) posits consciousness outside of time. But as I pointed out, consciousness is a type of activity, and activity implies time  i.e., action over time. On the view Michael proposes, there could be no conscious activity prior to his god creating THE SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM, including its own alleged conscious activity. Its just more fantasy bottled up and put out for sale as philosophy. Its completely anti-philosophical, completely anti-rational, completely anti-conceptual. 

When Michael states: Dawson simultaneously argues _the eternally existent now_ and argues against it, proving its [sic] cogency as encompassed by the construct of divine perfection. 

Now Michael is straw-manning me. I did not argue _the eternally existent now_. Michael is confused. I simply explained why the notion is incoherent given the attempt to package it with consciousness. All this has gone straight over Michaels head, and he has allowed his contempt to prevent him from understanding all of this. Michaels devotion to a set of imaginary constructs informed by notions completely devoid of objective content while using the cover of legitimate concepts which have been gratuitously ripped from their rational context, has set the tone of his mission to accomplish nothing in particular in his discussion with me, save perhaps to find a new object for his growing contempt. 

Michael then flares his nostrils: Dawson, the nincompoop of nincompoops is arguing that the idea of a self-subsistent Creator Who resides outside and independently of the space-time continuum is irrational because _this idea of a self-subsistent Creator Who resides outside and independently of the space-time continuum_ would not have an actually existent object to apprehend apart from Himself in His timeless because He _doesnt_ reside outside and independently of the space-time continuum! 

Actually, the incoherence in Michaels god-belief is even worse. He makes use of the concept consciousness while denying its genetic roots, including the temporal implications of action. Consciousness is a type of activity. But positing consciousness outside and independently of the space-time continuum can only mean the consciousness in question is not capable of any action. But in this state of being outside and independent of the space-time continuum, Michael still treats it as though it were capable of action, namely creating the space-time continuum in the first place. It all collapses into stolen concept upon stolen concept, which is the hallmark of mystical incoherence. But we should use caution here: pointing this out will only leave mystics roasting in their own fumes of contempt. Want evidence? Observe Michaels behavior in the comments of my blog. 

Instead of regaining lost ground, Michael simply digs his hole deeper and deeper. 

Michael gratuitously asserts: The possibility of Gods existence cannot be rationally denied out right. It cannot be done! Any such argument will always entail an inherent, self-negating contradiction! 

For one, if there is no rational justification for positing the possibility of Gods existence in the first place, then theres no need to deny it: it is simply inadmissible at its first mention. And of course, there is no rational justification for positing the possibility of Gods existence. There is no inherent, self-negating contradiction in pointing any of this out. Nor is there any inherent, self-negating contradiction in the following anti-theistic argument:  *Premise 1: That which is imaginary is not real. *​ *Premise: 2: If something is not real, it does not actually exist. *​ *Premise 3: If the god of Christianity is imaginary, then it is not real and therefore does not actually exist. *​ *Premise 4: The god of Christianity is imaginary. *​ *Conclusion: Therefore, the god of Christianity is not real and therefore does not actually exist.*​The Christians god is a figment of his imagination, informed by a storybook worldview which likens the universe to a cartoon. 

Michael fumes: So Judeo-Christianity has no epistemology, eh? Well, one things for sure, unlike Judeo-Christianity, no atheistic system of thought can point to a rationally coherent foundation for its epistemology. 

Actually, Objectivism can: we have the primacy of existence. This is not a principle that one will learn about in the pages of Leviticus or the First Epistle to the Corinthians. It is completely incompatible with the religious view of the world, and yet one must assume it even in denying it. So Michael is simply spouting absolute falsehoods here. 

What Michael does next is an attempt to assimilate Objectivist principles as if they properly belonged to Christianity. I guess I cant blame him: since Objectivisms principles are undeniably true, one could only hope that they were on his side. But Objectivisms principles are clearly not on any theists side. He has to deny them, even though such denial is self-refuting and incoherent. 

Meanwhile, Michaels newly adopted sidekick Nide piped in with the following comment: These fellows havent been reflecting. They need to search their souls. Where the soul is, there you will find God. 

In other words, one must turn the focus of his awareness _inward_ to find God. Talk about slips of the tongue! This is a dead give-away that what the Christian calls knowledge of God is really just his own imagination. He turns his focus inward, to his imagination, and that is where he finds God. But Objectivists have been pointing this out for decades. No wonder Michaels contempt continues to break the bounds of adult civility in our discussion. Hes performatively making my case for me. 

Michael writes: The impression comes to us immediately and all at once: either (1) matter has always existed in some form or another, in some dimensional estate or another, or (2) it was caused to exist by a being who has always existed, a necessarily transcendent being of unlimited genius and power. In other words, the First Cause is either inanimate or sentient, immanent or transcendent. 

Michaels false dichotomy here notwithstanding, what the Christian needs to do is demonstrate the objective validity of the notion that matter was created by an act of consciousness. Surely we can imagine this. But imagination is not fact. If Michael has any evidence to support the assumption that matter can be created by an act of consciousness, he is welcome to present it. But if he has no such evidence, then he should come out of the closet on the matter and openly concede that he does not. 

As for me, I know of no evidence to support the notion that consciousness can create matter. Which means: I have no legitimate basis to accept such a notion as a distinct possibility. Simply imagining it is not a sufficient basis to accept it as a real possibility, let alone an actual phenomenon. Throughout my discussion with Michael David Rawlings, I have repeatedly pointed out to him that, given its emphatic affirmation and adherence to the primacy of existence, Objectivism explicitly recognizes the fundamental distinction between reality and imagination. Michael has consistently avoided interacting with this point, and we should not be surprised by this: Christianity is all about building up phantasm-constructs in the imagination of the believer which compel him through fear and break his spirit as a human being. Without these imagined phantasm-constructs, Christianity is absolutely contentless. So acknowledging the fundamental distinction between reality and imagination will only be fatal to Christian theism. So Michaels aversion to interacting with this point is to be expected: its the one pin-prick that brings the whole artifice of Christianity crashing down on itself. 


*Inconsistent Metaphysics at the Root of the Christian Worldview* 

One of the observations I had made in my discussion with Michael is the fact that Christianity cannot maintain a consistent stance on the issue of metaphysical primacy. Above we have already saw Michaels admission that according to Judeo-Christianity, ultimately, consciousness does have primacy over existence. He insists that Gods primacy over existence is absolute. So Michael admits outright that Christianity affirms the primacy of consciousness metaphysics. The primacy of consciousness is the root of metaphysical subjectivism, since it grants metaphysical primacy to the subject of consciousness in the subject-object relationship. So by affirming the primacy of consciousness, Michael admits that the essence of Christian metaphysics is subjective in nature. Its a worldview essentially premised on the view that wishing makes it so. 

Another Christian commenter, Rick Warden, sought to refute my argument that Christianity affirms the primacy of consciousness by claiming that the dogmatic premise that the Christian god did not create itself can only mean that the primacy of existence is the proper metaphysical orientation of Christianity. Of course, it is easy to see that Wardens line of argument is a non sequitur: it would not follow simply from the premise that the Christian god did not create itself, that the primacy of existence is thereby consistently affirmed throughout Christianity. 

But Wardens objection did introduce a point which I have made in past writings, namely that even with respect solely to the Christian god, the Christian cannot maintain a consistent metaphysics. The issue here is very simple, and it should not be difficult for Michael or any other Christian to grasp. Keep in mind that Christians say that their god is conscious. So there are two things to consider here: one, the orientation between the Christian god as a subject and anything it is said to have created, such as a flower, as an object of its consciousness; and two, the orientation between the Christian god as a subject and itself as an object of its consciousness. Neither of these considerations should, so far, be controversial for the Christian: the Christian maintains that his god created the flower and has awareness of it, that the flower is an object of his gods awareness; and Christians typically hold that the Christian god is self-aware, that it can have itself as an object of its own awareness, just as we can. So the Christian should not be protesting the setup of our examination, unless of course hes afraid of where it may lead and is simply not emotionally prepared for what may come. 

Michaels response to this line of inquiry has consisted of reciting a mantra phrase, namely divine perfection, and charging that my line of inquiry does not accurately take into account whatever this is supposed to mean. He says that the construct of divine perfection is universally self-evident, and yet, even if this were true (its not; if Michael actually thinks its self-evident, its because this notion is so entrenched in his imagination that it seems immediate to him; one has direct, introspective awareness of things he imagines), it would not obviate my line of inquiry since the Christian god is still maintained to be conscious of the things it is said to have created as well as of itself. 

Indeed, note the line of argument proposed by Rick Warden: Warden insisted emphatically that the primacy of consciousness is not the proper metaphysics of Christianity. This is in direct contradiction to explicit statements made by Michael. In opposed restricted senses, both are correct: on the one hand, Warden is correct that a consciousness not creating itself implies the primacy of existence, though it would not follow from this that other statements about this consciousness are consistent with the primacy of existence; on the other, Michael has affirmed outright that according to Judeo-Christianity, ultimately, consciousness does have primacy over existence and that Gods primacy over existence is absolute. The fact of the matter, however, is that neither of these two Christians can hold the metaphysical position they have affirmed _consistently_. True, the Christian god is portrayed as a consciousness enjoying metaphysical primacy over the objects it has created: it created the flower, it determined how many petals it has, it determined its quantity of pistols and stamens, it determined when and where it would grow, and how long it would live, etc. So the primacy of consciousness is the metaphysics involved in the subject-object relationship of the Christian gods consciousness when the object under consideration is something it is said to have designed and created. It is in the context of such a relationship that the Christian gods wishing makes it so. 

But when the Christian god is the object of its own awareness, when the relationship under consideration is that of the Christian gods self-awareness, as Warden was concerned about, the picture changes fundamentally. Here the Christian cannot maintain the primacy of consciousness, since, as Warden pointed out, Christianity holds that the Christian god did not create itself. And clearly it did not design and create its own nature, whatever that nature might be. Its nature as a divine perfection is not something it wished into being at some point. So when the subject-object relationship of the Christian gods consciousness has itself as its own object of awareness, the primacy of consciousness cannot be maintained. Here the Christian has no choice but to borrow the primacy of existence from the Objectivist and apply it internally within Christianity, where it, too, cannot be consistently maintained. 

This metaphysical inconsistency is apart from and in addition to the metaphysical inconsistency we saw above with respect to how the Christian worldview treats human consciousness. Recall above that Michael had insisted that Nowhere in scripture is it asserted that a finite mind (subject) can have primacy over an existent (object). And yet, we have already seen sufficient indication in scripture where the primacy of consciousness is unmistakably affirmed in the case of human consciousness. 

Michaels belligerent denials and repeated resorting to name-calling on both of these topics can only indicate that he has not fully grasped the issue of metaphysical primacy in terms of the subject-object relationship, which is an open question when any conscious activity is in play, whether that conscious activity is actual (as in the case of human consciousness) or imaginary (as in the case of theism). Or, alternatively, it indicates that he does grasp these points, but resents their implications for his position and consequently finds it necessarily to aim his hostility at those who point it out. Neither alternative justifies his frequent resorting to name-calling and other hostile actions, such as commanding other commenters to shut up. Such behavior only suggests that he cannot handle the truth and is frustrated by repeated attempts to confront him with the truth. Nor does such behavior rescue his worldview from the internal collapse of its debilitating stolen concepts. 

When I stated that I really have no idea what an infinite consciousness could be, Michael replied:  Really? Now, were you suffering from this bout of amnesia before or after you premised your argument on it in Divine Lonesomeness? that is, before you switched your premise in your futile attempt to make your argument work, a bit subterfuge that evinces a very good understanding of the distinction between them and, thus, their respective identities.​Here Michael is both confused and incoherent. One can cite a notion in an argument while confessing that it really has no meaning, especially when that notion is not native to ones own position and its meaningless has been shown to be a sufficient reason to dismantle objections raised against that argument which rely on re-affirming the notion in question as though it were conceptually valid. There is no amnesia on my part in any of this. My point in the above statement is to emphasize the fact that, from what I know to be true, the notion of an infinite consciousness not only has no referent in reality, it is literally incoherent. There really is nothing incongruous between this and earlier statements Ive made. But Michael, as evidenced by his frequent fits of belligerence and eruptions of name-calling, is clearly in desperation mode, so hes anxious to turn any statement I make, no matter how incidental or passing, into something it isnt. Observe: 

When I point out that the notion of an infinite consciousness is literally and utterly nonsensical, Michael replies:  Right. And Aristotle and Moses were buffoons. But tell me something, genius, since you dont grasp the axiomatic, mathematical necessity of infinity (you know, the pertinent imperative you left out of my argument), how did you refute you the _A_ of divine perfection? Are you saying that you dont grasp the mathematical axiom and so thats why you left it out? Or are you imply [sic] that you _do_ get it, but need not directly refute it?​See how Michael wants to read much, much more into what I state here? For one, I have never stated that Aristotle was a buffoon. This is Michaels own interpretation  his _eisegesis_ - of my position. Objectivists do not affirm everything attributed to Aristotle in the writings that have survived and have been attributed to him. Objectivists acknowledge that he did not fully extinguish the mystical implications in many ideas that he accepted from his forebears and affirmed in his own teachings. Do Christians affirm everything Aristotle taught or is thought to have taught? Indeed, Nide (who now posts as Richard  Michaels adopted sidekick) has gone on record stating Aristotle was wrong about much. It always amazes me that people take him seriously. Is Michael expecting everyone to take everything Aristotle said _seriously_? Ive never made such an assertion. Indeed, whence comes Michaels belligerent attitude? 

As for Moses, the character in the Judeo-Christian storybook, there is much in its stories that make him look like a buffoon. Indeed, the bush that was burning on the top of Mt. Sinai must have been cannabis. If Moses really existed as described in those stories, he was just one in a long line of primitive witch doctors. Michael is welcome to worship at his feet if he so chooses. 

As for the axiomatic, mathematical necessity of infinity, the mathematical use and application of the concept infinity in no way assumes or implies that infinity is some conscious, transcendent agent that created the universe and has the ability to revise the identities of its contents willy-nilly. The argument for such a notion rests on non sequiturs and a hugely false theory of concepts. There is no objective relationship between the concept of infinity as it is used in mathematics and the Christian god whatsoever. And Michael hasnt shown any. My, how surprising! 

With this, we can be assured that the headstone for Michaels Christianity can be lowered into place. The decomposing cadaver of his worldview has caused quite a stink, but time has come to lower the casket into the bowels of the earth now that the final nail has sealed it shut. 

by Dawson Bethrick


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 18, 2014)

One last thing, Michael.  What is your beef with gays?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 18, 2014)

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Spoken like a true libtard.



Hollie said:


> Religious faith falls under the general heading of feeling or spiritual based doctrine. Genesis  to pick an example, is a religious claim by definition, and cannot be shown to have any evidence.



That is utter horse shit. There has been plenty of evidence to support Genesis, for example there are several Egyptian rulers who fit the description of joseph, and other examples like the Ark of the Covenant being similar to known Egyptian god carrying devices.




Hollie said:


> This clearly and inarguably separates it from science. "God created this and that" is not science, it's a theistic claim.



Agreed, but so what?




Hollie said:


> You may feel that miracles as depicted in the Bibles are true and inerrant, but I challenge you to provide evidence for any of it.



Three billion people who believe in the same God.



Hollie said:


> In fact, the _only_ model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise?  How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there?  How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate?  Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon?



lol, that you cant explain surely proves it cannot happen, lololol.

It is impossible to have a discussion on this topic with idiots like yourself.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 18, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...



Gee, he gets political. How quaint. 



			
				jimbo said:
			
		

> That is utter horse shit. There has been plenty of evidence to support Genesis, for example there are several Egyptian rulers who fit the description of joseph, and other examples like the Ark of the Covenant being similar to known Egyptian god carrying devices.



None of which is evidence for Adam and Eve, talking snakes, the creation story, or Noah's ark. Next.



			
				jimbo said:
			
		

> Agreed, but so what?



Right, so all of your past creationist arguments have no scientific basis, that's so what.



Hollie said:


> You may &#8220;feel&#8221; that miracles as depicted in the Bibles are true and inerrant, but I challenge you to provide evidence for any of it.





			
				jimbo said:
			
		

> Three billion people who believe in the same God.



Argumentum absurdum. How many used to believe in a geocentric universe? Anecdotal evidence is not science, and neither is subjective validation.



Hollie said:


> In fact, the _only_ model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise? How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there? How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate? Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon?





			
				jimbo said:
			
		

> lol, that you cant explain surely proves it cannot happen, lololol.
> 
> It is impossible to have a discussion on this topic with idiots like yourself.



And yet here you are.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 18, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Still avoiding the pertinent issues, I see.  _Incinerating Presuppositionalism_, eh?  Are you an Objectivist, orogenicman?  LOL!

A word of advice: don't read Objectivism; read real philosophy.  Aside from the fundamentals of her political theory which she borrowed from classical liberalism proper, Rand was an idiot savant of psychopathy.  

I have no interest in your mumbo-jumbo psychobabble, the psychology that unwittingly presupposes an unfalsifiable, metaphysical naturalism as its premise for abiogenesis and evolution.  You foolishly go on affirming the substance of my charge.  

Back to the substance:  you asserted something about the findings of abiogenetic research.  Science, orogenicman, see if you can concentrate on the science.  

Answer the questions:

*1.* How many of these 17 would have realistically been available under the actual conditions of nature?

*2. *In what kind of mixture do the realistically available occur in nature?

*crickets chirping*


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 18, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...


 
 All of them.  Why wouldn't they be?  They occur in nature, and so are available IN NATURE.



			
				Rawlings said:
			
		

> 2.In what kind of mixture do the realistically available occur in nature?
> 
> *crickets chirping*


 
 They occur in the ocean - in the water, in the ocean floor, and in hydrothermal vents.  They occur in meteorites.  They occur in stellar nebulae.  They occur deep within the Earth, and on its surface.  Etc., etc., etc.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 18, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Focus, orogenicman.  

Of course they occur in nature, and so they are available in nature . . . today, and not just the 17 that can be synthesized under controlled conditions, but all 20 that prevail in living organisms.

You think to talk to me as if I were a retard.

Focus, orogenicman.  

We're talking about abiogenesis.  We're talking about prebiotic material, not post-biotic material. 

You.  Don't.  Know.  What.  You're.  Talking.  About.  Do.  You?

You're.  Not.  Cognizant.  Of.  The.  Pertinent.  Actualities.  Are.  You?

You're.  Confused.  Aren't.  You?

From my article:



> We're not talking about the organic compounds that are available _today_, i.e., the organic molecules (monomers) that are harvested from extant living cells and are used to synthesis organic macromolecules (polymers) _in vitro_. Nor are we talking about the various organic molecules that can be produced under a variety of conditions in laboratories _today_. In other words, we're not talking about the present; we're talking about the past. We're talking about that which was realistically available to Mother Nature approximately 4.2 billion years ago.
> 
> In the years since Stanley Miller's landmark experiments, scientists have synthesized 17 of the 20 fundamental amino acids in experiments simulating variously tweaked reducing atmospheres inside variants of Miller's original apparatus. But all of these procedures involved high concentrations of methane and ammonia. With respect to the actual conditions of the primordial world, the geological evidence does not support the presence of these kinds of concentrations. It's not even close. But even if it did, as discussed in the above, there would have been no ozone layer to shield the organic compounds produced, and, once again, in oxidizing atmospheres no biologically useful compounds are produced. Zilch. However, in a semi-reducing atmosphere, some of the simpler and more durable amino acids might have had a fighting chance, and we know for sure that the Murchison Meteorite contains 6 of the fundamentals&#8212;exactly the number that might have been produced in a semi-reducing atmosphere here on Earth!
> 
> . . . Due to the barely measurable presence and woeful instability of the other 11 . . . they could _not_ have existed in any significant concentrations in the primordial world beyond the environment of a living cell . The 6 are glycine, alanine, glutamic acid, aspartic acid, valine and proline.






orogenicman said:


> They occur in the ocean - in the water, in the ocean floor, and in hydrothermal vents.  They occur in meteorites.  They occur in stellar nebulae.  They occur deep within the Earth, and on its surface.  Etc., etc., etc.



Thanks, orogenicman, but I know where they're found, and you're not going to find all of the 17 you're talking about, once again, outside a living cell.  

But that doesn't answer the second question, orogenicman.  You didn't understand the second question, did you, orogenicman?

Let's try that again with a little more help from someone who does know the science and understands the matter:  in what kind of mixture are these 6 found in nature outside of living cells&#8212;homochiral or racemic?  And what is the difference?
_________________________________________________

The above was change to read correctly: " . . . Due to the barely measurable presence and woeful instability of the other 11 . . . they could *not* have existed in any significant concentrations in the primordial world beyond the environment of a living cell . The 6 are glycine, alanine, glutamic acid, aspartic acid, valine and proline.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 18, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...



You're not? Coulda fooled me.



			
				Rawlings said:
			
		

> We're talking about abiogenesis. We're talking about prebiotic material, not post-biotic material.



Thank you, Mr. Obvious.

Vitamin B3 has been found in a meteorite, as reported just today. Is that pre or post-biologic?



			
				Rawlings said:
			
		

> You. Don't. Know. What. You're. Talking. About. Do. You?



You. Just. Keep. Posting. Nonsense. Don't. You?



			
				Rawlings said:
			
		

> You're. Not. Cognizant. Of. The. Pertinent. Actualities. Are. You?




Well. If. You'ins. Don. Yus. Big. Woids. I. Mite. Be. Abel. Ta. Falla.




			
				Rawlings said:
			
		

> From my article:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## rdean (Apr 18, 2014)

rdean said:


> Pat Robertson said creationists are "clowns".  Pat Robertson.



You gotta admit, right wingers demanding "proof" when the only proof they have is a book written by bronze age people who didn't know to wash after wiping is pretty ironic.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 18, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> 17 out of 20 amino acids used inprotein synthesis
> 
> All the purines and pyrimidines used in nucleic acid synthesis
> 
> ...



Now as I said before, you could have found all of this information in my article and learned so much more to boot had you read it instead of assuming all kinds of silly things and wasting everybody's time with your irrelevant gibberish.

Starting here, not grasping what I was actually getting at earlier, you wrote:  *"17 out of 20 amino acids used in protein synthesis"*

I asked you *(1)* how many of these 17 would have actually been available to nature in the primordial world and *(2)* in what kind of mixture do they occur in nature?



orogenicman said:


> *[1]*  All of them. Why wouldn't they be? They occur in nature, and so are available IN NATURE.
> 
> . . . *[2]* They occur in the ocean - in the water, in the ocean floor, and in hydrothermal vents. They occur in meteorites. They occur in stellar nebulae. They occur deep within the Earth, and on its surface. Etc., etc., etc.



Focus, orogenicman. 

Of course they occur in nature, and so they are available in nature . . . *today*, but not just the 17 that can be synthesized under controlled, laboratory conditions, but all 20 that exist in living organisms.

You think to talk to me as if I were a retard?

We're talking about abiogenesis. We're talking about prebiotic material, not post-biotic material. 

False, orogenicman.  *(1)* For a number of complex reasons of which you are unaware, it does not follow that the 17 that can be synthesized under the controlled conditions of a semi-reducing atmosphere in an apparatus, which artificially shields them from ultra violet light and removes them from the cross-contaminant environment that would have prevailed in nature, just for starters, would have actually persisted in any significant concentrations.  Only 6 of these persist in nature outside the controlled conditions of the lab or outside living cells anywhere in the world, including the oceans, where, by the way, peptidyl bonding for protein synthesis cannot occur anyway; and *(2)* their mixtures in nature are racemic, useless to life!

*The 6 are glycine, alanine, glutamic acid, aspartic acid, valine and proline.*

Once again, from my article at this link:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...ves-metapysical-nauralism-10.html#post8955300
_________________________________

*orogenicman:  "All the purines and pyrimidines used in nucleic acid synthesis"*

Let me know when you're ready to move on to the actualities of these outside of controlled/experimental conditions. . . .


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 18, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > 17 out of 20 amino acids used inprotein synthesis
> ...



Repeating yourself isn't going to help you forward your argument.  Those 17 amino acids I was referring to?  Are found in 4.5 billion year old 
 meteorites, so your argument that they only occur today is just stupid, and isn't supported by the facts.  At least two of the four base pairs that are critical for DNA also have been found in stellar nebulae, as has vitamin B3.

 Now, I am tired of repeating myself, because it if obvious that you are willfully ignorant, and refuse to acknowledge the facts.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 18, 2014)

rdean said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Pat Robertson said creationists are "clowns".  Pat Robertson.
> ...



Lol, further proof you don't know what the hell you are talking about, liar.

The Bible spans from the bronze,  into the iron age, and into the age of steel. Iron was a chief advantage of the Phillistines by the time of King David.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 18, 2014)

This is the pertinent question:  *How many of the 17 amino acids synthesized under the controlled conditions of a simulated, semi-reducing atmosphere in the laboratory would have actually been available to nature in the primordial world?*

*Your answer:*



orogenicman said:


> All of them. Why wouldn't they be? They occur in nature, and so are available IN NATURE.



Focus, *orogenicman*. 

Of course they occur in nature, and so they are available in nature . . . _*today*_, but not just the *17* that can be synthesized under controlled, laboratory conditions, but all *20* that exist in living organisms.

You think to talk to me as if I were a retard.

*Your answer:*



orogenicman said:


> You're not? Coulda fooled me.
> 
> Thank you, Mr. Obvious.
> 
> Vitamin B3 has been found in a meteorite, as reported just today. Is that pre or post-biologic? [sic]



Look, *orogenicman*, the issue is not *how many amino acids we can synthesize under the controlled conditions of a simulated, semi-reducing atmosphere in the laboratory* _or_ *where amino acids may be found in nature*.  I already knew *how many have been synthesized under the controlled conditions of a simulated, semi-reducing atmosphere in the laboratory* _and_ *where amino acids are commonly found to exist in nature&#8212;on Earth and in various conveyances in/from outer space*.

*You would know that had you read my article. *

That was not the question that was put to you in the first place.  *The issue is how many are known to actually exist/persist in nature.* 

*The number is not 17 as you claim.  That is patently false!* 

There are only *6* that are known to exist/persist outside laboratory conditions or living cells, and they are *glycine, alanine, glutamic acid, aspartic acid, valine and proline.*

You.  Don't.  Know.  What.  You're.  Talking.  About.
_________________________

Again, from my article:



M.D. Rawlings said:


> We're not talking about the organic compounds that are available _today_, i.e., the organic molecules (monomers) that are harvested from extant living cells and are used to synthesis organic macromolecules (polymers) _in vitro_. Nor are we talking about the various organic molecules that can be produced under a variety of conditions in laboratories _today_. In other words, we're not talking about the present; we're talking about the past. We're talking about that which was realistically available to Mother Nature approximately 4.2 billion years ago.
> 
> In the years since Stanley Miller's landmark experiments, scientists have synthesized 17 of the 20 fundamental amino acids in experiments simulating variously tweaked reducing atmospheres inside variants of Miller's original apparatus. *But all of these procedures involved high concentrations of methane and ammonia. With respect to the actual conditions of the primordial world, the geological evidence does not support the presence of these kinds of concentrations. It's not even close.* But even if it did, as discussed in the above, there would have been *no ozone layer to shield the organic compounds produced, and, once again, in oxidizing atmospheres no biologically useful compounds are produced. Zilch.* However, in a semi-reducing atmosphere, some of the simpler and more durable amino acids might have had a fighting chance, and we know for sure that the Murchison Meteorite contains *6 of the fundamentals*&#8212;exactly the number that might have been produced in a semi-reducing atmosphere here on Earth!



*Your obtuse response:*



orogenicman said:


> No ozone layer, but a great big fat ocean with lots of deep water. And lots of methane on the deep ocean floor in the form of clathrates and venting out of hydrothermal fields - in a reducing environment. And there is evidence that meteorites/asteroids and probably comets rained down on the early Earth with their loads of organic compounds as well.



Pay attention.  There's nothing profound about any of this, except, of course, your claim that this is true about all of the *17* amino acids synthesized under the controlled conditions of a simulated, semi-reducing atmosphere in the laboratory.

Once again, *orogenicman*, this is only true about the *6*:  *glycine, alanine, glutamic acid, aspartic acid, valine and proline.*  Only *6* of the *necessary* *20*!  The other *14* of the necessary *20* are not known to exist/persist anywhere in nature outside living cells&#8212;not anywhere on Earth, including the oceans, or anywhere in space.

The only "oceans" in which all of the other *11* synthesized under the controlled conditions of a simulated, semi-reducing atmosphere in the laboratory "exist" is in the various, hypothetical, thermodynamic models proposed by materialists who presuppose the hypothesis of abiogenesis as a fact. 



orogenicman said:


> Says who?



It's not _who_, *orogenicman*, it's _what_.  

The known facts of biochemical science.

*Please provide the link for this landmark, peer-reviewed discovery of yours that the other 11 of the 17 amino acids synthesized under the controlled conditions of a simulated, semi-reducing atmosphere in the laboratory commonly occur in nature.*

Good luck with that.

*crickets chirping*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 18, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...






orogenicman said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...




*Liar!*

Provide the link for this landmark, peer-reviewed discovery of yours that the other *11* of the *17* amino acids synthesized under the controlled conditions of a simulated, semi-reducing atmosphere in the laboratory commonly occur in nature.
________________________________

By the way, you already slipped here. . . .

*Special treatment:  *



M.D. Rawlings said:


> Let's try that again with a little more help from someone who does know the science and understands the matter: in what kind of mixture are these 6 found in nature outside of living cells&#8212;homochiral or racemic? And what is the difference?



Let us all note from his answer that *orogenicman* still doesn't seem to understand the questions:  



orogenicman said:


> In nature, those six have been found inside of 4.5 billion year old meteorites. Moreover, PAHs have also been found in them, as well as inside of stellar nurseries, and in the earliest oceanic crust.



Yes.  I know these things, Dummy.  You haven't shared one new thing anywhere on this thread, except *(1)* your amazing claim about DNA replication, *(2)* your amazing claim about the common occurrence of the other *11* amino acids synthesized under the controlled conditions of a simulated, semi-reducing atmosphere in the laboratory and *(3)* the not-so-surprising announcement regarding the discovery of Vitamin B3 in a meteorite.

The first two claims are false, indeed, flat-out lies.  The third I had to confirm for myself as you cannot be trusted to tell the truth about anything.  

And in any event, you didn't answer the actual questions.  By the way, is your answer a concession that only the *6*  commonly occur in nature, not all of the *17* as you falsely and repeatedly claim in the above?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 18, 2014)

"God is" and "because the Bible tells me so" may be my faith but are not examples of metaphysical naturalism, which is a weak minded attempt to escape the difficulties of religion: it cannot be proved with facts.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 18, 2014)

DNA and amino-acid precursor molecules discovered in interstellar space | KurzweilAI

Found: first amino acid on a comet - space - 17 August 2009 - New Scientist

Deep Space Capable of Creating Linked Pairs of Amino Acids --Essential Building Blocks of Life

Amino acid detected in space - physicsworld.com

Life's Building Blocks Found on Surprising Meteorite | Space.com

Amino acids in meteorites. [Adv Space Res. 1983] - PubMed - NCBI


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 19, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> DNA and amino-acid precursor molecules discovered in interstellar space | KurzweilAI
> 
> Found: first amino acid on a comet - space - 17 August 2009 - New Scientist
> 
> ...



And none of which say 'DNA found generating life!'

lol

BTW, I do think that life was generated in deep space among some dark bodies that cooled down from supernova and eventually landed on other planets.

My  suspicion is that Life came about shortly after some stars spread carbon across the universe when they blew up. I do not think it all happened right here on Earth if God chose to let it happen in a natural process. Life on Earth is alien to it, I think, in all likelihood, except for the purposes of God.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 19, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > DNA and amino-acid precursor molecules discovered in interstellar space | KurzweilAI
> ...


 
 Straw man argument.  I never claimed that we did.



			
				Jimbo said:
			
		

> BTW, I do think that life was generated in deep space among some dark bodies that cooled down from supernova and eventually landed on other planets.
> 
> My suspicion is that Life came about shortly after some stars spread carbon across the universe when they blew up. I do not think it all happened right here on Earth if God chose to let it happen in a natural process. Life on Earth is alien to it, I think, in all likelihood, except for the purposes of God.



Actually, I am of a similar mind, minus the god part.  We know that our solar systems exists because of a supernova that occurred at some point prior to the formation of the sun.  It is even likely that the supernova collapsed the bok globule from which our solar system originated.  We know this because most of the elements on the periodic table can only form inside the death throes of a dying star.  And the debris from this supernova likely seeded the globule with the elements and even the organic compounds we find all over the solar system.  Titan, for instance, is loaded with more organic compounds than exists even here on Earth.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 19, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Cool, so why do most models of the sun leave out all those heavy elements that we know were generated in a star? 

I think there may be a very good chance that the surface of the sun, which is uncharacteristically cool compared to the rest of it, might have a tungsten carbide or similar hardened crust. If our sun formed from a jettisoned heavy metal fragment of a giant star, then it would seem to a dilettante like me that there could be a hardened crust.


----------



## rdean (Apr 20, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



And still, they didn't know to wash after wiping.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 20, 2014)

rdean said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Bullshit. Prove that, you ignorant fool.

Hygiene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> The earliest written account of Elaborate codes of hygiene can be found in several Hindu texts, such as the Manusmriti and the Vishnu Purana.[55] Bathing is one of the five Nitya karmas (daily duties) in Hinduism, and not performing it leads to sin, according to some scriptures.
> 
> Regular bathing was a hallmark of Roman civilization.[56] Elaborate baths were constructed in urban areas to serve the public, who typically demanded the infrastructure to maintain personal cleanliness. The complexes usually consisted of large, swimming pool-like baths, smaller cold and hot pools, saunas, and spa-like facilities where individuals could be depilated, oiled, and massaged. Water was constantly changed by an aqueduct-fed flow. Bathing outside of urban centers involved smaller, less elaborate bathing facilities, or simply the use of clean bodies of water. Roman cities also had large sewers, such as Rome's Cloaca Maxima, into which public and private latrines drained. Romans didn't have demand-flush toilets but did have some toilets with a continuous flow of water under them. (Similar toilets are seen in Acre Prison in the film Exodus.)



The Bible commands Jews to wash on a fairly regular basis and the Quran commands Muslims to only use their left hand to wipe with and to wash it afterwards.

RDean, you have to be one of the most ignorant morons on this board.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 20, 2014)

Those who deny empirical data lose the moral right to argue and should be denied a platform for their arguments.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 20, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Those who deny empirical data lose the moral right to argue and should be denied a platform for their arguments.



Lol, there you go with your fascistic belief that you have the right to say who has free speech and who doesn't, you ignorant cretin.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 20, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Those who deny empirical data lose the moral right to argue and should be denied a platform for their arguments.
> ...


I have every right to condemn that belief masquerading as evidence.

In the classroom, your silliness is not permitted.

In business, your silliness is not permitted.

In the military, your silliness is not permitted.

On this day of all days you demonstrate that you do not understand the Christ.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 20, 2014)

Metaphysical naturalism is only a fancy term for faith.

The term has nothing to do with evidence.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 20, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



We do not live in the military, or a classroom, fuckhead.

And I understand the Christ a lot better than a whiney little cock sucker like you, and that is certain.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 20, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Metaphysical naturalism is only a fancy term for faith.
> 
> The term has nothing to do with evidence.



lol, you are not only ignorant as a dry turd, you relish your ignorance and wallow in it.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 20, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > DNA and amino-acid precursor molecules discovered in interstellar space | KurzweilAI
> ...



And nothing proving his claim about the *17* either.  I will address these links tomorrow.

And that's just one of the problems with your notion that life was generated in deep space, if I understand you correctly:  some of the vital precursors to be sure, but not life.  The latter can't be assembled in deep space.  Objectively speaking, that has to occur in an environment that can sustain it.  On the other hand, that puts everything right back into a cross-contaminated environment.

However, I can mostly agree with the emboldened sentences in that other paragraph above, insofar as you are talking about the precursors that He seeded the Earth with.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 20, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Metaphysical naturalism is only a fancy term for faith.
> 
> The term has nothing to do with evidence.



Dude.  

Indeed, it is, but you're talking about your faith, not mine, and of course it is scientifically unfalsifiable, assuming you understand what the term _evidence_ means and are using it accordingly.  One cannot be sure since you obviously don't know what _metaphysical naturalism_ is.  You are an atheist, aren't you and, therefore, a materialist?  Right?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 20, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Those who deny empirical data lose the moral right to argue and should be denied a platform for their arguments.



Well, that would be guys like orogenicman and you.  I just don't have the time today to show you just how wrong he is.  Tomorrow.  It's Easter and I got quests coming.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 20, 2014)

*Perplexing!*

BTW, *orogenicman*, how is it that you imagine that so many of the vital organic precursors of biology were born on this planet, and of all places in the oceans, and yet write what you did in response to *Jimbowie's* musings?

You do understand--don't you?--that the reason scientists have shifted their focus to deep space is precisely because it has become increasingly manifest that a significant number of vital organic precursors could not have been synthesized, let alone maintained their compositions and served as the bases of polymerization, in the primordial world on which an oxidizing atmosphere and life itself appeared dramatically earlier than was previously thought possible.

And these things would have been most especially true in the oceans . . . despite your lack of appreciation for the daunting actualities and challenges thereof.

That also raises a question about the traditional evolutionary scenario that life arose from the primordial soup of the oceans first and then migrated to land.  Don't get me wrong, I _do_ believe that was the order of things given the evidence and, by the way, the testimony of God's word.  

But given the staggeringly complex and, dare I say, insurmountable challenges for polymerization in the ocean depths, away from all that ultra violet light. . . . Talk about running away from one insurmountable problem and diving head first into another. . . .  And the deeper you go, the worse things get, but you can't go shallow either.

Perplexing.  

Life in that order, by the strictly natural processes and mechanisms of chance variation and fortuity, eh?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 20, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> One last thing, Michael.  What is your beef with gays?



I don't have a beef with gays as such.  Where did you get that idea?  Certainly you didn't get that from an accurate reading of anything on my blog.  I would that all men be saved and set free of the bondage of sin and death as I was.  

Politically, I have a problem with leftists who assert civil rights protections, enforced by the government of course, against the free exercise of inalienable, natural rights.

Every sane and moral person should oppose that.

I do have a question for you.  What was the point you were trying to make about vitamin B3 being post-biotic?  Presumably you think there's something obvious about this that I should get, but just humor me.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 20, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Metaphysical naturalism is only a fancy term for faith.
> ...



Dear, you are babbling.  Faith is not factual evidence. 

Metaphysical naturalism posits a premise, moral certainty in the universe, that can be suggested but not proved.

No Christian should be threatened.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 20, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Those who deny empirical data lose the moral right to argue and should be denied a platform for their arguments.
> ...



Still hung on your misunderstanding of metaphysical naturalism, I see.

Run along and prepare.


----------



## rdean (Apr 20, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



OK, there are Hindus, Jews, Muslims and Romans.  I missed the part about the Christians.
And besides, I suspect they only washed to smell better.  They thought disease came from "bad spirits".  Like Casper, but not "friendly".


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 20, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Metaphysical naturalism is only a fancy term for faith.
> ...



Metaphysical naturalism is the philosophical belief that there is nothing outside of nature. No miraculous and nothing outside what science can measure and it is among the most deluded philosophies on the planet aside from materialism and atheism themselves.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 20, 2014)

rdean said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Christianity is a sect of Judaism and the form most familiar in the West grew from a Roman adaptation of ancient Jewish Christianity.

IT is absurd to assume they just abandoned the cultural practices regarding hygiene 'just because.'  roflmao




rdean said:


> And besides, I suspect they only washed to smell better.  They thought disease came from "bad spirits".  Like Casper, but not "friendly".



They washed to get their skin free of various matter, and smell is a good indicator of infection and bacteriological contamination. They not only washed themselves free of bad smells and visible dirt, but they also did it for health, something they did not understand scientifically but knew through experience; bad smelling dirty people are more unhealthy than clean people. And most Christians practiced the OT practices of cleanliness because they thought the laws were given for the physical benefit as well as spiritual.

Dude, you are really out of your depth here.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 21, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



My misunderstanding?!  

In this instance, I was alluding to *orogenicman's* post containing the links that he's trying to pass off as proof for his ridiculous claim about the 17 amino acids that can be synthesized in experimental apparatuses.  "Run along and prepare"?!  Are you a danger to yourself at home around kitchens knives as well?  I wrote my response to that rash of duplicity in my head as I went through the links.  I shall tap it out and post it tomorrow.

As for your gibberish about metaphysical naturalism. . . .



JakeStarkey said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I'm babbling? 

Metaphysical naturalism, which you claim to be "a fancy term for faith", is necessarily _your_ ontological presupposition, not mine.  And it's not subject to scientific falsification; i.e., it's actuality cannot be affirmed, substantiated, verified or demonstrated by science.

"No Christian should be threatened"?!    You poor, confused child, _no one_ should be threatened by these facts of cognition.  

But you don't appear to understand what *Jimbowie* and I are talking about anyway.  We're talking about the distinction between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism as it pertains to the concerns of science.

_Metaphysical naturalism_ is not "a fancy term for faith", no more than "[f]aith" is synonymous to "factual evidence"; rather, it's arguably held to be true as a matter of faith.  _Metaphysical naturalism_ is the assertion/belief that the only thing that exists is nature; i.e., the only thing that exists is the physical substance or properties of the space-time continuum:  mass-energy.   There is no supernatural or transcendent realm of being; nature is the only thing that's real.

In any event, DEAR, I never said any such stupid thing in my life, i.e., that "[f]aith is . . . factual evidence."  

But we clearly have you making this incoherent baby talk:  *"Metaphysical naturalism posits a premise, moral certainty in the universe, that can be suggested but not proved."*

So what is this "moral certainty in the universe" allegedly asserted by metaphysical naturalism "that can be suggested but not proved"?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 21, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...




Yes, Jim, I know what it is.  I've written a number of articles that touch on it, including _Abiogenesis:  The Unholy Grail of Atheism_.  Though atheism as such is not synonymous to metaphysical naturalism, all atheists necessarily hold it to be true, unless of course they're babbling some subjectivist nonsense that they exist only as a disembodied mind floating around in a field of nothingness . . .  in which case I need not bother wasting a moment of my time on them.  Materialism necessarily follows from metaphysical naturalism.  Yes, I know, there are those who argue that one can hold to metaphysical naturalism and simultaneously eschew materialism, but how exactly does the pertinent distinction make any material difference, ultimately?  Whether mental states ultimately supervene on the physiological structures and biochemical processes of the neurological system as the whole, or may be reduced to the same as the whole. . . .  Let me know when the materialist stops picking at the lint in his belly button and allows that the only distinction that makes any real difference is whether or not there be a spiritual mind that supervenes on the _sum_ of the physiological structures and biochemical processes of the neurological system as the whole.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 21, 2014)

HadwinFire said:


> Indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.



Bullshit. Facts state otherwise.

The majority set the spread on sporting events and do a far better job than 99% of professional gamblers.

But elitists like you want to think that the rest of us are idiots to justify your craven degeneracy.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 21, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > One last thing, Michael. What is your beef with gays?
> ...



 If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you are immortal?  So if you jumped off of the top of a 50 story building, you would not die?  Sorry I'm not convinced.

 Explain the difference between civil rights and inalienable natural rights?  And why should every "sane and moral person should oppose that" (civil rights)?

 The vitamin B3 found in the meteorite was pre-biotic.  That was the point.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 21, 2014)

*Amino Acids:  The Building Blocks of Life 

orogenicman posted some links!  To bad they don't back his absurd claim that all 17 of life's amino acids that can be synthesized under the controlled conditions of the laboratory are commonly found in nature.*



orogenicman said:


> DNA and amino-acid precursor molecules discovered in interstellar space | KurzweilAI
> 
> Found: first amino acid on a comet - space - 17 August 2009 - New Scientist
> 
> ...



(*Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism* by Michael David Rawlings at *Prufrock's Lair*)

Let's get something straight right now, *orogenicman's* game, with which *JimBowie* is apparently very familiar, is to incessantly camouflage pseudoscientific claims behind insinuations that those with whom he disagrees are stupid or are ignorant about the pertinent facts and ramifications of science, particularly when his adversaries are theists.  

I'm a former evolutionist who knows the pertinent science, and I'm current.  None of the information cited by *orogenicman* is news to me, and I touch on all of the relevant concerns in the information cited by him in my article at *Prufrock's Lair*, except, of course, for the discovery of cyanomethanimine, which occurred after its writing.  (By the way, it's discovery is of no major significance to the Herculean challenges to the prebiotic formulations of an abiogentic origin of life on Earth.)  

In other words, *orogenicman* thinks he can pull another fast one here, but he still doesn't seem to grasp the level of intellectual firepower he's up against. 

The reason that *Jimbowie* and I don't have a problem with each other, even though we disagree over the mechanism of origin:  we are the sort who grasp the actualities and implications of the underlying metaphysical concerns and approach science from our respective premises in good faith with an eye on the fact that the evidence, objectively speaking, may reasonably be interpreted to support either alternative . . . insofar as each is accurately portrayed in the light of a scientifically informed hermeneutics.  

This is also the reason both of us have a huge problem with *orogenicman*, who, as one who thinks he's above it all, doesn't heed the flashing red signs of the metaphysics, let alone approach science or the discussion of it with integrity. 

*I shall address the contents of these links below. . . . *


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 21, 2014)

*Amino Acids:  The Building Blocks of Life 

Putting it kindly, orogenicman's imagination knows no bounds!*



orogenicman said:


> DNA and amino-acid precursor molecules discovered in interstellar space | KurzweilAI
> 
> Found: first amino acid on a comet - space - 17 August 2009 - New Scientist
> 
> ...



Below I address the contents of each of the articles and the peer-reviewed paper at the other end of *orogenicman's* links.  Directly below each of the pertinent excerpts, the reader will find my notes.  Please be patient and carefully think about the material as you read 'til you get to the end.  As a matter of clarification owing to the ultimate concern, there's a reason why I have consistently used the phrase *exist/persist in nature* in this thread above *orogenicman's* latest stunt.  Remember, in this OP, the issue is the metaphysics of evolutionary theory.  And in this instance, chemical evolution (i.e., abiogenesis) is the issue relative to *orogenicman's* outlandish claims about the amino acids that are synthesized in the interstellar and Earth-bound laboratories of the cosmos&#8212;under both natural and controlled environments/conditions.
___________________________

(*Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism* by Michael David Rawlings at *Prufrock's Lair*)

*Bear in mind the 6 durable and commonly found amino acids as you read:  glycine, alanine, glutamic acid, aspartic acid, valine and proline.* 


*Link #1
Pertinent excerpt:*  "One of the newly-discovered molecules, called *E-cyanomethanimine* (E-HNCHCN) is one step in the process that chemists believe produces *adenine*, one of the four nucleobases that form the &#8220;rungs&#8221; in the ladder-like structure of DNA. The other molecule, called *ethanamine*, is thought to play a role in forming *alanine*, one of the twenty amino acids in the genetic code."


*Note:*  Though we're jumping ahead of the amino acids here, cyanomethanimine is believed to be one of the catalysts for adenine.  However, the synthesis for adenine also requires *(1)* _cyanoacetylene_ (or its hydrolyzed form _cyanoacetaldehyde_) and/or *(2)* the anion _cyanate_.  

_Cyanoacetylene_ is a plentiful organic compound in the universe, but it's highly reactive with other chemicals or compounds, especially in its hydrolyzed form.  _Cyanate_ is derived from the hydrolysis of cyanogen, which has an estimated half-life of less than 30 seconds on Earth beyond laboratory conditions.  

Alanine, of course, is one of the *6* durable amino acids of life commonly found in nature, albeit, in racemic mixtures outside of living cells.  Nothing new here.

Check?




*Link #2
Pertinent excerpt:*  "With only about 100 billionths of a gram of *glycine* to study, the researchers were able to measure the relative abundance of its carbon isotopes. It contained more carbon-13 than that found in *glycine* that forms on Earth, proving that Stardust's glycine originated in space."


*Note:*  Glycine, of course, is one of the *6* amino acids of life commonly found in nature outside living organisms, albeit, in racemic mixtures.  Nothing new here either, except what had long been suspected:  all glycine, being the simplest and, therefore, the sturdiest of life's amino acids, with only two hydrogen atoms on its side chain, may have originated in space.  I touch on this in my article at *Prufrock's Lair*.  This is probably true about the durable amino acids _alanine_ and _glutamic acid_ as well. 

Check?




*Link #3
Pertinent excerpt:*  "A new experiment simulating conditions in deep space reveals that the complex building blocks of life could have been created on icy interplanetary dust and then carried to Earth, jump-starting life.

. . . In the new experiment, a vacuum chamber chilled to 10 degrees above absolute zero was used to house a mix of ice, carbon dioxide, ammonia, and various hydrocarbons such as methane, ethane, and propane. When zapped with high-energy electrons to simulate cosmic rays in space, the chemicals reacted to form complex, organic compounds.

. . . The analysis revealed the presence of complex molecules &#8211; *nine different amino acids and at least two dipeptides*. . . ."


*Note:*  The dipeptides synthesized were _Gly-Gly_ (_glycine-glycine_) and _Leu-Ala_ (_leucine-alanine_).  This detail was not included in the article cited by *orogenicman*. 

In addition to the more durable *6* that commonly occur in nature and in the experimental apparatuses of synthesization, this is one of the potential ways that perhaps a few of the more fragile amino acids of life might be found in nature outside living organisms, albeit, always in racemic mixtures:  that is to say, as chemically bonded to one of the durables or isolated in encapsulated deposits, thusly protected soon after the moment of synthesis from further chemical reactions or denaturation.  Typically, they cannot maintain their composition in nature otherwise for any realistically useful period of time, except perhaps the semi-durable leucine, which is occasionally found in meteorites on Earth.  In fact, leucine is sometimes counted as the _seventh_ amino acid of life commonly found in nature, though it appears in significantly smaller concentrations than the other *6* in both nature and in the experimental apparatuses of synthesization.  Also, isoleucine was found in the Murchison Meteorite (See below.).

Check?




*Link #4
Pertinent excerpt:*  "The discovery of *glycine* in space suggests that interstellar molecules may have played a pivotal role in the prebiotic chemistry of the Earth."


*Note:*  Ya think?  Of course!  Again, glycine is one of the *6* durable amino acids of life commonly found in nature, albeit, in racemic mixtures outside of living cells.  Nothing new here either, though in the minds of atheists, the perbiotic chemistry that subsequently takes place on Earth from precursor to life . . . well, you know, nature did it! . . . all by itself.

Check?




*Link #5
Pertinent excerpt:*  "The meteorite in question was born in a violent crash, and eventually crashed into northern Sudan.

. . . Life on Earth uses left-handed amino acids, and they are never mixed with right-handed ones, but the amino acids found in the meteorite had equal amounts of the left- and right-handed varieties."


*Note:*  In other words, they're of a racemic mixture, which is always the case in nature outside of living cells.  By the way, among the amino acids found in the Sudanese Meteorite were the *6* durables of life commonly found in nature&#8212;glycine, alanine, glutamic acid, aspartic acid, valine and proline.  Of course, none of the other *14* that occur in life were present, except, perhaps, leucine and isoleucine, either as chemically bonded to one of the durables or isolated in encapsulated deposits.  However, I don't remember if the later were found in this meteorite or not.

Check?




*Link #6**:*:  _Amino acids in meteorites_, Cronin JR, Pizzarello S.; Adv Space Res.; *1983*;3(9):5-18.

*Pertinent excerpt:*  "Eight of the terrestrial protein amino acids have been found." 


*Note:*  Psst, *orogenicman*, did you not notice that when you posted the link?  That's *8* of the *20*, *orogenicman*, not *17* of the *20*!  

Now carefully read on and try to understand this time. . . .

Actually, this paper is dated.  *10* of life's amino acids have been found in the Murchison Meteorite:  the *6* durables, leucine, and also isoleucine, serine and threonine.  Altogether, *92* different amino acids of the *500* known have been found in the Murchison.  Of course, except for the *10* biotic amino acids found in the Murchison, the rest are abiotic. Of the *92*, only *19* are also found on Earth.

*Now, for the ones found in the Murchison that matter to life:

1.  The standard 6, the most durable and commonly found in nature.
2.  Leucine.
3.  Isoleucine, Serine and Threonine.*

Serine and threonine are known terrestrial contaminants that can maintain the integrity of their composition on Earth as long as they are encapsulated almost immediately.  The environmental conditions have to be just right.  Naturally, they're deposited by living organisms;  hence, they don't count and were found in the Murchison in trace amounts.  They simply weren't detected for years.  We now have the technology to see it all.  Isoleucine may also be a terrestrial contaminant.  To my knowledge, it's only been found in the Murchison in trace amounts.  For some, the jury is still out on that one, but like leucine, it's a semi-durable, so it might be legit.

Notwithstanding, as I cited from my article at *Prufrock's Lair* in the above, "[d]ue to the barely measurable presence and woeful instability of the other 11 [synthesized in experimental apparatuses], no one of any repute would have the temerity to argue that they could have existed in any significant concentrations in the primordial world beyond the environment of a living cell." 

The issue here is abiogenesis!  The problem with leucine and isoleucine is that they only show up in comparatively trace amounts in the experimental apparatuses of synthesization or in space debris.  While geologists make a lot of hay over them, the leading lights of abiogenetic research know better.  Though semi-durable, they are still more highly reactive and more subject to the forces of denaturation outside of living organisms or encapsulated deposits.

On the other hand, the standard, more durable *6* are always present in greater concentrations in the experimental apparatuses of synthesization and commonly occur in nature:  inside and outside of living organisms on Earth, or inside the planetoids, asteroids, meteorites, comets, space clouds/nebulae of outer space.  Of these *6*, the simplest and, therefore, the most durable and common are glycine and alanine.       

Bottom line:  vast amounts of usefully stable organic material would be required for the processes of an abiogenetic mechanism of origin on Earth, where all things would have had to come together regardless of where the precursors were "born"&#8212;an environment rife with cross-containments and other factors incessantly pushing against the tide of the conservation of indispensable chemical information, obstacles that are not present in the dramatically more pristine conditions of space or in those of the controlled laboratories on Earth.

And here I'm speaking objectively, as the mathematical probabilities of abiogenesis (given not only the staggering problem of concentration, but at least six other, impenetrably major problems) are astronomical.

So why do the proponents of abiogenesis go on asserting this hypothesis as an assumptive fact?  It's as simple as this:  we're here, so it must have happened just so!   The apparent necessity or potentiality of intelligent design must not be allowed even a hint of a foothold . . . or else the entire apparatus of evolutionary origins premised on metaphysical naturalism collapses.

Nature did it!

The fact of the matter is that until recently most of the leading lights of abiogenetic research, those who do or have done the real grunt work of organic synthesis, including Miller, talk about the prospects of abiogenesis in a dramatically more hushed and sober  tone.    

Check?
_______________________________

*In any event, orogenicman, we're still waiting for that link of yours that would back your ridiculous claim that all 17 of life's amino acids that can be synthesized under the controlled conditions of the laboratory are commonly found in nature.

Are you finally ready to move on to the actualities of "the purines and pyrimidines used in nucleic acid synthesis" in nature outside of living organisms and the experimental apparatuses of synthesization?

Any interest yet in facing up to the unfettered realities of their polymerization on Earth?  How about facing up to the actualities of their indispensable precursors under the unfettered conditions of nature?*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 21, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I didn't say we are biologically immortal.



> Explain the difference between civil rights and inalienable natural rights?  And why should every "sane and moral person should oppose that" (civil rights)?



Well, of course, the inalienable, natural rights of man are those that are innate:  _the right of life_, _the right of one's fundamental liberties_ and _the right of private property_.  The fundamental liberties of man, the second category of innate rights, are _the right of religious/ideological freedom_, _the right of free expression_ and _the right of free movement_.  These are not derived/granted by government, but are at the very least imbued by nature.  

As translated from the language of the state of nature into the language of the state of civil government under the terms of the social contract of the Constitution of the United States of America, for example, they are known as _the unabrigable civil liberties_ enumerated in the Bill of Rights.  These precede and, therefore, take precedence over the mere civil rights/protections afforded by government.  Insofar as the latter do not unduly conflict with the free exercise of civil liberties, they're fine, but those that would suppress the free exercise of the samethat is to say, those that would trample on the prerogatives of free-association and private propertyare the usurpative antics of statist bootlicks.



> The vitamin B3 found in the meteorite was pre-biotic.  That was the point.



Indeed.  So what is the point exactly?  Virtually any organic element or compound you care to name was either prebiotic or prebiotically non-existent.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 21, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Well, I am convinced that you are a moron if you don't grasp what he said.

The body dies but the soul lives on, shit for brains.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 21, 2014)

*Amino Acids:  The Building Blocks of Life

Let's review for the sake of those whom you have misled, orogenicman . . . like Old Rocks who gave you a thumbs up for what is nothing more than the trash talk of an embarrassingly ignorant atheist in desperate need of correction by an informed theist.*



M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > 17 out of 20 amino acids used inprotein synthesis
> ...


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Apr 21, 2014)

*The purines and pyrimidines used in nucleic acid synthesis*


Now for those who may still be scratching their heads.  Let us suppose for the moment that abiogenesis is true and that all *17* of life's amino acids that can be synthesized in experimental apparatuses were either present on Earth (the *6* durables) and/or delivered to Earth via the rain of space debris that occurred near the end of the solar system's primordial period.  Life initially got by on these *17* and acquired the other three later.  Check?  

But here's the problem:  realistically, life could have only gotten by at first on the *6* durables and would have had to pick up the other *14* later.  Why?  Because the others cannot maintain their compositions for any significant length of time outside living cells or encapsulated deposits.  Readily assessable concentrations of them are never realized in nature.  Nature could not have aggregated and polymerized isolated organic molecules, let alone go on from there to replication and recombination, and from there to transmutation and realization.  Indeed, how could nature have gotten off the ground at all, starting with aggregation, when it only had at best the *6* durables in racemic mixtures to work with?  

But more to the point, from my article:



> 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 let 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.
> 
> . . . Hence, no matter how many experiments were conducted by planet Earth and no matter how many more particulate chemicals She might have had at Her disposal, there is no way that amino acids fabricated the hundreds of thousands of proteins that are found in living organisms. It takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make life. They must be assembled in a very precise and 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.
> 
> ...



Hence, abiogenesists turned to the _RNA world hypothesis_ and the various _metabolism-first models_ thereof entailing the supposed machinations of smaller compounds containing catalytic properties _and_ information.  But of course, nature would have to get off the ground with the precursors of the pertinent nucleic acids, just for starters, for there is yet another wall that nature runs into after that.
_________________________________

*orogenicman:  "All the purines and pyrimidines used in nucleic acid synthesis"*

So once again, *orogenicman*, are you yet ready to move on to the actualities of these outside of controlled/experimental conditions? . . .


----------

