The Evolution Big Lie; Evolution Proves Metapysical Nauralism

[M.D. Rawlings]

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]

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?

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’d begin to awaken from your dream . . . or maybe not.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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]

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?

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’d begin to awaken from your dream . . . or maybe not.

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]

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



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.

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.

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?

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]

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.

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?

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 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.

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]

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?

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’d begin to awaken from your dream . . . or maybe not.

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.

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]

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?

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 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.

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]

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 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.

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?

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]

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]

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.

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?

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.

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]

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?

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.

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. . . .

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]

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]

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!........

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]

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!........

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.

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]

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.

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. . . .

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.

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.

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

And they are?

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?

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]

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]

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. . . .

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.

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.

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.

And they are?

17 out of 20 amino acids used inprotein synthesis

All the purines and pyrimidines used in nucleic acid synthesis

polyols — 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)

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?

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.

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

Examples?

Actually, all of them are found in biologic systems.

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]

(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."

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

Actually, they have.

Synthetic DNA Created, Evolves on Its Own

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.

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.

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]

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.