Post by Radrook Admin on Jul 29, 2022 22:50:37 GMT -5
Abiogenesis Plausible?
Your Remark
>If we go by the way that atheist scientist speak
. Science its trying to prove the origin of life, regardless of the outcome, divine or not.
My Response
I never claimed otherwise.
Remark
But you cant prove divine, so they go with nature. And science is, after all, the study of nature as the divine cannot be studied, there is no manifestation of it in reality.
My Response:
Of course the divinc can be proved, But notto people who practic ivincible ignorancve attitude such as you.
My statement
>life arising from non-life, is a very common
Your Remark
It is not.
My Response
LOL! Didn't take very long for you to shoot yourself in the foot-did it? Now that declaration is really a humdinger! All the human and animal births are nothing, All the plans that come from seeds are nothing? You know what you call that kind of response, invincible ignorance.
Excerpt:
The invincible ignorance fallacy, also known as argument by pigheadedness, is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word. The method used in this fallacy is either to make assertions with no consideration of objections or to simply dismiss objections by calling them excuses, conjecture, etc. or saying that they are proof of nothing, all without actually demonstrating how the objection fit these terms. It is similar to the ad lapidem fallacy, in which the person rejects all the evidence and logic presented, without providing any evidence or logic that could lead to a different conclusion.
Remark:
>we would assume that abiogenesis,
There we go. You ASUUME Despite all the evidence to the contrary you assume. BTW I notice that you proudly say we? I truly hope that you mean atheists and not scientists since your claim to being a scientist would unbelievable. Why? Simple, because of your manner of treating this subject indicates otherwise. A high school education, perhaps. But you are definitely no scientist.
Remark
Once you break down life, the basic components are aminoacids (the building blocks) and the cell. Which is very complex in the chemistry, but very simple compared to multicellular life.
My Response:
Gee! Well, umm,' there we go again Jimmy. That's very basic knowledge but you seem to treat it as if it were extremely profound treasure just recently discovered. Well, considering your previous declarations, you probably have.
Remark
Now, its not a blind assumption. There was a series of experiments called Miller-Urey (because the last name of the scientist). They discovered that organic materials (not life yet) arise from non organic materials.
My Response
The famous experiment showed that a mixture of gases and water could produce amino acids and other biomolecular precursors. However, new research shows that an unexpected factor may have played a major part in the result: glassware. Complex experiments need good controls, and the Miller-Urey experiment failed in this regard.
bigthink.com/hard-science/miller-urey/
So much for your experiment:
Remark
The aminoacids form naturally in a variety of envirnmets with a variety of conditions, not in all conditions, but with a wide enough range that we know happened on earth a couple bilion years ago.
Response:
Assumptions are nothing but assumptions. Desperate appeals to billions of years doesn't make the utterly impossible possible as my example of the chimps pounding typewriters illustrated.
Remark
So there is a gap in knowledge on how amino acids formed RNA.
That's because that's because they can't spontaneously form RNA nor DNA. They are very complex molecular machines. One transmits info, and the other reads it. BTW Coded info meant to be deciphered always comes from a mind. There has never bee found to be any exception. They started making an exception with the DNA code in order to sustain their atheistic idea. That is not science as the scientific method demands That is dishonest quackery.
Remarked
We assume RNA formed before that DNA because RNA produces DNA and it also replicates itself.
Well, at least you are honest in constantly reminding us that your ideas are merely assumptions.
Remark
We dont know all the details there, but there is enough evidence to have a very educated guess that abiogenesis happens naturally. There are gaps between the dots, but the dots show a big enough picture to understand the picture as a whole.
Educated guesses? Don't know the details? Gaps in the dots? Not very convincing my friend. Seems like just trying to evade the obvious in preference for the nebulous in order to avoid a conclusion deemed disagreeable.
Remark
So, its not blind assumption, and its not religious/antireligious driven. Its just knowledge. Its only that happens to contradict scripture, but knowledge (i should say nature instead) has contradicted scripture more and more over time. And if knowledge contradict scripture, you bet atheist will use it.
My Response:
Still seems like blind assumption to me since the basis for all the conjectures is an untenable premise.
Also, classifying something as just knowledge no matter how absurd i might be brings it into the realm of the feasible? Another false premise. It doesn't.
Your remark
DNA is not a code. its just chemistry bonding together aminoacids. It is called a code figuratively I don't know why you didnt get the memo.The rest is rubbish.
My Response:
That's a blatant lie.
Your Remark:
Miller -Urey experiments. Give it a read. There you have a lot of evidence.And once you read it, you will understand that this can potentially happen in a variety of environments. Its not an empty claim. Its an educated guess based on the evidence.
I have read it. and do not believe it can happen. Those chemicals do not constitute evidence if a biogenesis. Abiogeesis is an unsubstantiated assumption. Claiming it to be something more is dishonesty. Additionally, it the experiment has been proven to be defective. Yet you are totally unaware of it? The statement of "Must be..." is a poignant example of the fallacy called wishful thinking.
Your Remark:
I take for granted that you claim you understand evolution. But i am 100% positive that you really don't even understand the cladistic system. Aron ra has a playlist called the "systematic classification of life" if you want to understand how evolution works explained from someone who actually understand how it works. Since the way you express yourself, looks like you learn it from the likes of Kent Hovind (he doesnt know how it works, just to make it clear).
Response:
Where did I claim to understand evolution. This thread is about abiogenesis. You are also wrong about learning about evolution from Hovind. I have been studying your evolution ideas for many years. I simply find them totally unconvincing-including its assumptions based on cladistics.
Furthermore, there are former evolutionist scientists who are very intimately familiar with all the evolutionist convoluted nuances and who decided that evolution is totally bogus. So your assumption that rejection of evolution is invariably related to ignorance of its intricacies, is false.
Your Remark
Its irrelevant if its easy or not. It is highly likely, as the evidence suggests.
My Response
There is no evidence to support that belief. .
We dont know if there is any chance involved. The process may be inevitable once the natural conditions are met. And if you want to call probabilities, here is one for you. From all the planets and moons we know, we can only tell for sure that the only conditions to have the proper environment happened on earth, and earth has life. So, ATM, there is a 100% of chance of life happening when the conditions to form life are met.
RESPONSE
LOL! You don't know? But you choose to assume it happens? That's quackery, not science. What prevents atheists from providing conclusive evidence of abiogenesis by showing it happening in a lab? Or from observing it happening in some pond here on earth. NOTHING prevents it except that it doesn't happen. Otherwise they would have shown it happening by now.
We are still debating if the conditions happened in other bodies in the solar system, if that's the case, the probabilities will drop, but at the moment, as i said, 100% chance. Now, once life happens, there is little chance in the process. It is called evolution, the survival of the fittests, not the luckiest.
It's fittest, not fittests. Please note that the idea that no luck is involved was debunked decades ago. Research prevents unsubstantiated statements of that kind.
Your Remark
Its called chemistry. And not a code.
My Response
Not according to the following sources:
Definition of code
transitive verb
: to put in or into the form or symbols of a code
intransitive verb
1: to specify the genetic code
a gene that codes for a protein
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/code
So do these:
According to Bill Gates, one of the founders of Microsoft, “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.
Gates, B., The Road Ahead, Penguin Group, New York, p. 188, 1995.
Here is a detailed Rebuttal to your Declaration that DNA is not a code.
evo2.org/dna-atheists/dna-code/
www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1962/crick/lecture/
According to the Field Museum, DNA base pairs are “codes, or instructions, that specify the characteristics of an organism, from a body’s sex to the color of a pea” and says “the discovery of DNA’s structure unlocked the chemical code to heredity.” (Notice that the words code and codes are not in quotation marks but are used quite literally.
Your Remark:
Not by chance. What you call accidents, its just nature.
My Response:
Which explains nothing. But even worse very dishonestly inaccurate, Please note that your own atheist scientists describe such hypothetical events as totally random and dependent on statistical improbabilities which mathematicians have shown to be statistically impossible for all practical purposes. That is the flimsy foundation on which your abiogenesis idea depends.
Your Remark:
Being illogical is forming bad premises and not following the evidence. It has nothing to do with a mind, it has everything to do with following the methodology of logic, which you aren't.
Response
Being logical or illogical is a product of mind-activity. Declaring otherwise gives the impression of being completely out of touch with reality.
.
Your Remark:
And the funny part is that you called yourself well versed in the topic.
My Response:
The feeling is mutual. Please note that no science degree is not essential for detecting illogical BS expounded in any subject when it violates cogent reasoning. So once more-your premise is flawed.
Your Remark
>If we go by the way that atheist scientist speak
. Science its trying to prove the origin of life, regardless of the outcome, divine or not.
My Response
I never claimed otherwise.
Remark
But you cant prove divine, so they go with nature. And science is, after all, the study of nature as the divine cannot be studied, there is no manifestation of it in reality.
My Response:
Of course the divinc can be proved, But notto people who practic ivincible ignorancve attitude such as you.
My statement
>life arising from non-life, is a very common
Your Remark
It is not.
My Response
LOL! Didn't take very long for you to shoot yourself in the foot-did it? Now that declaration is really a humdinger! All the human and animal births are nothing, All the plans that come from seeds are nothing? You know what you call that kind of response, invincible ignorance.
Excerpt:
The invincible ignorance fallacy, also known as argument by pigheadedness, is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word. The method used in this fallacy is either to make assertions with no consideration of objections or to simply dismiss objections by calling them excuses, conjecture, etc. or saying that they are proof of nothing, all without actually demonstrating how the objection fit these terms. It is similar to the ad lapidem fallacy, in which the person rejects all the evidence and logic presented, without providing any evidence or logic that could lead to a different conclusion.
Remark:
>we would assume that abiogenesis,
There we go. You ASUUME Despite all the evidence to the contrary you assume. BTW I notice that you proudly say we? I truly hope that you mean atheists and not scientists since your claim to being a scientist would unbelievable. Why? Simple, because of your manner of treating this subject indicates otherwise. A high school education, perhaps. But you are definitely no scientist.
Remark
Once you break down life, the basic components are aminoacids (the building blocks) and the cell. Which is very complex in the chemistry, but very simple compared to multicellular life.
My Response:
Gee! Well, umm,' there we go again Jimmy. That's very basic knowledge but you seem to treat it as if it were extremely profound treasure just recently discovered. Well, considering your previous declarations, you probably have.
Remark
Now, its not a blind assumption. There was a series of experiments called Miller-Urey (because the last name of the scientist). They discovered that organic materials (not life yet) arise from non organic materials.
My Response
The famous experiment showed that a mixture of gases and water could produce amino acids and other biomolecular precursors. However, new research shows that an unexpected factor may have played a major part in the result: glassware. Complex experiments need good controls, and the Miller-Urey experiment failed in this regard.
bigthink.com/hard-science/miller-urey/
So much for your experiment:
Remark
The aminoacids form naturally in a variety of envirnmets with a variety of conditions, not in all conditions, but with a wide enough range that we know happened on earth a couple bilion years ago.
Response:
Assumptions are nothing but assumptions. Desperate appeals to billions of years doesn't make the utterly impossible possible as my example of the chimps pounding typewriters illustrated.
Remark
So there is a gap in knowledge on how amino acids formed RNA.
That's because that's because they can't spontaneously form RNA nor DNA. They are very complex molecular machines. One transmits info, and the other reads it. BTW Coded info meant to be deciphered always comes from a mind. There has never bee found to be any exception. They started making an exception with the DNA code in order to sustain their atheistic idea. That is not science as the scientific method demands That is dishonest quackery.
Remarked
We assume RNA formed before that DNA because RNA produces DNA and it also replicates itself.
Well, at least you are honest in constantly reminding us that your ideas are merely assumptions.
Remark
We dont know all the details there, but there is enough evidence to have a very educated guess that abiogenesis happens naturally. There are gaps between the dots, but the dots show a big enough picture to understand the picture as a whole.
Educated guesses? Don't know the details? Gaps in the dots? Not very convincing my friend. Seems like just trying to evade the obvious in preference for the nebulous in order to avoid a conclusion deemed disagreeable.
Remark
So, its not blind assumption, and its not religious/antireligious driven. Its just knowledge. Its only that happens to contradict scripture, but knowledge (i should say nature instead) has contradicted scripture more and more over time. And if knowledge contradict scripture, you bet atheist will use it.
My Response:
Still seems like blind assumption to me since the basis for all the conjectures is an untenable premise.
Also, classifying something as just knowledge no matter how absurd i might be brings it into the realm of the feasible? Another false premise. It doesn't.
Your remark
DNA is not a code. its just chemistry bonding together aminoacids. It is called a code figuratively I don't know why you didnt get the memo.The rest is rubbish.
My Response:
That's a blatant lie.
Your Remark:
Miller -Urey experiments. Give it a read. There you have a lot of evidence.And once you read it, you will understand that this can potentially happen in a variety of environments. Its not an empty claim. Its an educated guess based on the evidence.
I have read it. and do not believe it can happen. Those chemicals do not constitute evidence if a biogenesis. Abiogeesis is an unsubstantiated assumption. Claiming it to be something more is dishonesty. Additionally, it the experiment has been proven to be defective. Yet you are totally unaware of it? The statement of "Must be..." is a poignant example of the fallacy called wishful thinking.
Your Remark:
I take for granted that you claim you understand evolution. But i am 100% positive that you really don't even understand the cladistic system. Aron ra has a playlist called the "systematic classification of life" if you want to understand how evolution works explained from someone who actually understand how it works. Since the way you express yourself, looks like you learn it from the likes of Kent Hovind (he doesnt know how it works, just to make it clear).
Response:
Where did I claim to understand evolution. This thread is about abiogenesis. You are also wrong about learning about evolution from Hovind. I have been studying your evolution ideas for many years. I simply find them totally unconvincing-including its assumptions based on cladistics.
Furthermore, there are former evolutionist scientists who are very intimately familiar with all the evolutionist convoluted nuances and who decided that evolution is totally bogus. So your assumption that rejection of evolution is invariably related to ignorance of its intricacies, is false.
Your Remark
Its irrelevant if its easy or not. It is highly likely, as the evidence suggests.
My Response
There is no evidence to support that belief. .
We dont know if there is any chance involved. The process may be inevitable once the natural conditions are met. And if you want to call probabilities, here is one for you. From all the planets and moons we know, we can only tell for sure that the only conditions to have the proper environment happened on earth, and earth has life. So, ATM, there is a 100% of chance of life happening when the conditions to form life are met.
RESPONSE
LOL! You don't know? But you choose to assume it happens? That's quackery, not science. What prevents atheists from providing conclusive evidence of abiogenesis by showing it happening in a lab? Or from observing it happening in some pond here on earth. NOTHING prevents it except that it doesn't happen. Otherwise they would have shown it happening by now.
We are still debating if the conditions happened in other bodies in the solar system, if that's the case, the probabilities will drop, but at the moment, as i said, 100% chance. Now, once life happens, there is little chance in the process. It is called evolution, the survival of the fittests, not the luckiest.
It's fittest, not fittests. Please note that the idea that no luck is involved was debunked decades ago. Research prevents unsubstantiated statements of that kind.
Your Remark
Its called chemistry. And not a code.
My Response
Not according to the following sources:
Definition of code
transitive verb
: to put in or into the form or symbols of a code
intransitive verb
1: to specify the genetic code
a gene that codes for a protein
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/code
So do these:
According to Bill Gates, one of the founders of Microsoft, “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.
Gates, B., The Road Ahead, Penguin Group, New York, p. 188, 1995.
Here is a detailed Rebuttal to your Declaration that DNA is not a code.
evo2.org/dna-atheists/dna-code/
www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1962/crick/lecture/
According to the Field Museum, DNA base pairs are “codes, or instructions, that specify the characteristics of an organism, from a body’s sex to the color of a pea” and says “the discovery of DNA’s structure unlocked the chemical code to heredity.” (Notice that the words code and codes are not in quotation marks but are used quite literally.
Your Remark:
Not by chance. What you call accidents, its just nature.
My Response:
Which explains nothing. But even worse very dishonestly inaccurate, Please note that your own atheist scientists describe such hypothetical events as totally random and dependent on statistical improbabilities which mathematicians have shown to be statistically impossible for all practical purposes. That is the flimsy foundation on which your abiogenesis idea depends.
Your Remark:
Being illogical is forming bad premises and not following the evidence. It has nothing to do with a mind, it has everything to do with following the methodology of logic, which you aren't.
Response
Being logical or illogical is a product of mind-activity. Declaring otherwise gives the impression of being completely out of touch with reality.
.
Your Remark:
And the funny part is that you called yourself well versed in the topic.
My Response:
The feeling is mutual. Please note that no science degree is not essential for detecting illogical BS expounded in any subject when it violates cogent reasoning. So once more-your premise is flawed.