• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Creation Science House Bill 3826

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
Whether there is a creator or not is irrelevant to the discussion.

Blind faith in a concept that appears impossible is a great thing, you have it re abiogenesis.

Believing it happened in no way counts for anything in determining if it did, the evidence for it is paltry, at the very best
You are right blind faith does not support anything but ones own belief such as in an intelligent designer. You have no evidence that is supportive yet there is evidence for the development of complex organic compounds especially in an environment devoid of life that could utilize such complex organic compounds. Creator vs Intelligent Designer explain the difference in what you believe. Still if you have the evidence - any reliable evidence I would like to know.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
" The analogy that comes to mind is that of a golfer, who having payed a golf ball through 18 holes, then assumed the ball could play itself around the course in his absence. He has demonstrated the possibility of the event, it is only necessary to presume that some natural force, earthquake, wind, flood etc,could present the same result given enough time. No physical law need be broken for spontaneous RNA formation to happen, but the chances against it are so immense, that the suggestion implies that the non living world had an innate desire to generate RNA. The majority of origin of life scientists who support the RNA first theory either accept this concept or feel that the immensely unfavorable odds were overcome by sheer luck. Many chemists, confronted with these difficulties, have fled the RNA first hypothesis as if it were a building on fire " Dr. Robert Shapiro, Science News Feb. 12 ,2007. " A Simpler Origin For Life ". Shapiro is a long time and well respected investigator for abiogenesis, obviously, an atheist.

As he points out, the RNA world is crumbling, and I could quote many in the bio chemical field to show it is so.

BTW, you still aren't clear as to what biological information is. I could give you some references if you choose

Interesting. From what I can see, the RNA world is healthy and being actively investigated. In fact, as we learn more, the probabilities increase at every stage. I notice your quote is rather old....
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
My beliefs are irrelevant. You don't know what I believe.

I am discussing abiogenesis to show that it is a scientific impossibility.

You may have faith that it occurred, and that science will some day explain it, but that means absolutely nothing.

And the experts in the field seem to think you are wrong in this assessment. I wonder who I should trust on this?
 

ecco

Veteran Member
My beliefs are irrelevant. You don't know what I believe.
Your beliefs are not irrelevant. People who believe Genesis cannot also believe abiogenesis. It's impossible.

I am discussing abiogenesis to show that it is a scientific impossibility.

You are discussing abiogenesis to voice your opinion. I doubt you have the education to make a scientific conclusion regarding abiogenesis. If I am wrong, then you should be writing scientific papers to educate all those scientists who are spending a lot of time researching abiogenesis.

You may have faith that it occurred, and that science will some day explain it, but that means absolutely nothing.

My opinion means nothing more than your opinion. However, I do have faith that the scientists who are researching the subject will be able to explain it just as they have been able to explain the origins of humans.

I linked to several papers in another thread. A YEC thought he found a "gotcha". Check out my post #486 here...
The creator did it.
 
Lord have mercy, i just came on intending to respond to yesterdays posts and now i got 16 other posts.

Sorry folks, its not gonna be possible for me to respond to all of this due to time constraints. That said. I will get to work now responding to a post from yesterday and make my way forward.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Interesting. From what I can see, the RNA world is healthy and being actively investigated. In fact, as we learn more, the probabilities increase at every stage. I notice your quote is rather old....
Nothing has changed in 10 years. Te same old platitudes that believers in aboigenesis continues to use, more and more is being learned, it is just a matter of time ..........................................................................................................

This is simply not true, abiogenesis research is stagnant and so far from the goal as to make what has been learned in biochemistry paltry.

The probabilities as you put it have not increased, in fact, at each step problems have arisen that do not to increase the probability but reduce it.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
You are right blind faith does not support anything but ones own belief such as in an intelligent designer. You have no evidence that is supportive yet there is evidence for the development of complex organic compounds especially in an environment devoid of life that could utilize such complex organic compounds. Creator vs Intelligent Designer explain the difference in what you believe. Still if you have the evidence - any reliable evidence I would like to know.
Where is the evidence you speak of ? Cite it
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Nothing has changed in 10 years. Te same old platitudes that believers in aboigenesis continues to use, more and more is being learned, it is just a matter of time ..........................................................................................................

This is simply not true, abiogenesis research is stagnant and so far from the goal as to make what has been learned in biochemistry paltry.

The probabilities as you put it have not increased, in fact, at each step problems have arisen that do not to increase the probability but reduce it.[/QU
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Nothing has changed in 10 years. Te same old platitudes that believers in aboigenesis continues to use, more and more is being learned, it is just a matter of time ..........................................................................................................

This is simply not true, abiogenesis research is stagnant and so far from the goal as to make what has been learned in biochemistry paltry.

The probabilities as you put it have not increased, in fact, at each step problems have arisen that do not to increase the probability but reduce it.
And how do you know this? And how do you calculate the probabilities? I have as of yet to see a creationist odds argument that cannot be refuted without any math at all.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Where is the evidence you speak of ? Cite it
How would you be able to judge it? Most creationists do not even understand the concept of evidence. The concept of scientific evidence is well defined. It is too bad that creationists will not let themselves learn what is and what is not evidence.
 
DNA is a chemical. It interacts via chemical laws. It acquires its information via chemical laws.



Because it and its information can be produced without intelligent intervention, via only the chemistry of the components.

Thats like saying a book is not made from intelligence because the letters on the page are ink chemicals that bind to the paper via set law interactions.

The fact remains though, that the letters are still aranged to form sentences and paragraphs in order to conmunicate a message.

Likewise, yes, granted, the DNA has a chemical base ladder like structure, with 4 chemical letters.

But, this 4 letter alphabet is arranged to formulate instructions on how to build proteins and body parts. This looks uncanny to an intelligent author.
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
Not only is it a ligitamate theory, its a better one then the alternatives. The problem is the politics in science, certain people having unrational bias who are in power making the rules.
What background do you have to make such a sweeping statement? It is hard to take you seriously when you show no mastery of the issues and evidence, can not spell "legitimate" and use words that do not exist (unrational ... I suspect that you mean irrational).
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Thats like saying a book is not made from intelligence because the letters on the page are ink chemicals that bind to the paper via set law interactions.
False equivalence. We are fully aware of the process which creates books and are unaware of any natural process that produces them. DNA reproduces naturally.

The fact remains though, that the letters are still aranged to form sentences and paragraphs in order to conmunicate a message.

Likewise, yes, granted, the DNA has a chemical base ladder like structure, with 4 chemical letters.

But, this 4 letter alphabet is arranged to formulate instructions on how to build proteins and body parts. This looks uncanny to an intelligent author.
But it isn't the same thing, no matter how you try and interpret it. It is still just physical forces acting in accordance with physical laws. You first have to demonstrate an intelligence exists that created it before you can meaningfully assert design.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
A pretty lame response if you ask me.
Yes, it is a pretty lame response when creationists ask for something, and upon receiving it, dismiss it,.
So then, a lab created functioning cell is defacto evidence that in nature a cell organized itself, built itself, and operated itself based upon chance combinations of chemicals ?
Why would creationists ask for that, then?
The mantra "if it could happen, it did happen" is a pretty shoddy substitute for fact.
If only that is how this discussion actually goes. Of course, one has to wonder if that criterion applies to "God said it, I believe it, and thats that", or "the bible says creation, that is all I need to know." I suspect that creationists are OK with that kind of "reasoning."
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Thats like saying a book is not made from intelligence because the letters on the page are ink chemicals that bind to the paper via set law interactions.

The fact remains though, that the letters are still aranged to form sentences and paragraphs in order to conmunicate a message.

Likewise, yes, granted, the DNA has a chemical base ladder like structure, with 4 chemical letters.

But, this 4 letter alphabet is arranged to formulate instructions on how to build proteins and body parts. This looks uncanny to an intelligent author.

So, now, let's consider whether the arrangement of 'letters' on the strand of DNA is more likely the result of a guiding intelligence as opposed to the more complex process of natural selection.

Sometimes, you see, the best signal for an intelligence is the *simplicity* of the design. Think of a well designed machine: every part fits together perfectly with every other part. There is efficiency and simplicity of common design.

Things that are produced by natural selection, on the other hand, are unnecessarily complex. They are jury-rigged, have things that are spliced together, have duplications that have no effect, use similar structures for wildly different tasks, etc. The whole still works, but it is far from being streamlined or simple.

What do we see in DNA? The second and not the first. The 'book' has randomly ordered directions, often conflicting, often turned off, often duplicated, repetitious in unnecessary ways, having a lot of nonsense (strings of the same letters in the same order over and over), etc.

This is what is produced by selection and NOT by a designer!
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
What I believe on that issue is irrelevant to the discussion. I am pointing out the massive flaws in the hypothesis of abiogenesis.
Awesome. You have an extensive background in things like geochemistry, do you?
While we certainly are a long way from knowing how life began, at least there are scientists looking into the matter - can't say the same for 'creation scientists', whose sole purpose, as far as I have been able to tell after reading their pap for almost 30 years, is to just try to convince lay folk that there are problems with evolution.

Regarding research into abiogenesis, I present the following - all just from one guy and his collaborators (only a partial listing due to this forum's message size constraints):

2017

Moore EK, Hao J, Sverjensky DA, Jelen BI, Meyer M, Hazen RM and Falkowski PG Geological and chemical factors that impacted the biological utilization of cobalt in the Archean Eon. (in review)

Hao J, Sverjensky DA and Hazen RM Limits on the partial pressure of H2 in the Archean atmosphere during weathering of basaltic minerals. Geochemica et Cosmochimica Acta (in review)

Estrada C, Sverjensky DA and Hazen RM Selective adsorption of calcium-aspartate ligands onto [Mg(OH)2]-brucite: Implications for calcium in prebiotic chemistry. Astrobiology (in review)

Estrada C, Sverjensky DA and Hazen RM Enhanced and inhibited adsorption of D-ribose with Ca2+ and Mg2+ onto brucite [Mg(OH)2]. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta (in review)

Hazen RM Chance, necessity, and the origins of life. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A (in review)

54. Estrada CE, Mamajanov I, Hao J, Sverjensky DA, Cody GD and Hazen RM (2017) Aspartate transformation at 200 °C with brucite [Mg(OH)2], NH3, and H2: Implications for prebiotic molecules in hydrothermal systems. Chemical Geology 457:162-172

53. Gherase D, Hazen RM, Krishnamurthy R and Blackmond DG (2017) Mineral-Induced Enantioenrichment of Tartaric Acid. Synlett 28(1):89-92

Wenge J, Pacella MS, Athanasiadou D, Nelea V, Vali H, Hazen RM, Gray JJ, McKee MD (2017) Chiral acidic amino acids induce chiral hierarchical structure in calcium carbonate. Nature Communications 8:15066



2016

Ertem G, Ertem MC, McKay CP and Hazen RM (2016) Shielding biomolecules from effects of radiation by Mars analogue minerals and soils. Astrobiology 6(3):280-285

Grew ES, Krivovichev SV, Hazen RM and Hystad G (2016) Evolution of structural complexity in boron minerals. Canadian Mineralogist 54(1):125-143



2015

Liu X-M, Kah LC, Knoll AH, Cui H, Kaufman AJ, Shahar A and Hazen RM (2015) Tracing Earth’s O2 evolution using Zn/Fe ratios in marine carbonates. Geochemical Perspective Letters 2(1):24-34

Estrada C, Sverjensky DA, Pelletier M, Razafitianamharavo A, Hazen RM (2015) Interaction between L-aspartate and the brucite [Mg(OH)2]-water interface. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 155:172-186 [pdf]

Grosch EG, Hazen RM (2015) Microbes, mineral evolution, and the rise of micro-continents: Origin and co-evolution of life with early Earth. Astrobiology 15(10):922-939

Nance JR, Armstrong JT, Cody GD, Fogel ML, Hazen RM (2015) Preserved shell-binding protein and associated pigment in the Middle Miocene (8 to 18 Ma) gastropod Ecphora. Geochemical Perspectives Letters 1:1-8

Grew ES, Dymek RF, De Hoog JCM, Harley SL, Boak JM, Hazen RM and Yates MG (2015) Boron isotopes in tourmaline from the ca. 3.7–3.8 Ga Isua supracrustal belt, Greenland: Sources for boron in Eoarchean continental crust and seawater. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 163:156-177



2014

Hazen RM (2014) Enantioselective adsorption on rock-forming minerals: A thought experiment. Surface Science 629:11-14

Lee N, Foustoukos DI, Sverjensky DA, Cody GD, Hazen RM (2014) The effects of temperature, ph and redox state on the stability of glutamic acid in hydrothermal fluids. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 135:66-86

Lee N, Sverjensky DA, Hazen RM (2014) Cooperative and competitive adsorption of amino acids with Ca2+ on rutile (α-TiO2). Environmental Science and Technology 48:9358-9365

Lee N, Foustoukos DI, Sverjensky DA, Cody GD, Hazen RM (2014) Hydrogen enhances the stability of amino acids in hydrothermal environments. Chemical Geology 386:184-189



2013

Livi KJT, Schaffer B, Azzolini D, Seabourne CR, Hardcastle TP, Scott AJ, Hazen RM, Erlebacher JD, Brydson R, Sverjensky DA (2013) Atomic scale roughness of rutile and implications for molecular surface adsorption. Langmuir 29:6876-6883

Noffke N, Christian D, Wacey D, Hazen RM (2013) Microbially induced sedimentary structures recording an ancient ecosystem in the ca. 3.48 billion-year-old Dresser Formation, Pilbara, Western Australia. Astrobiology Journal 13(12):1103-1124

Hazen RM (2013) Paleomineralogy of the Hadean Eon: A preliminary species list. American Journal of Science 313(9):807-843



2012

Hazen RM (2012) Geochemical origins of life. Fundamentals of Geobiology, eds Knoll AH, Canfield DE, Konhauser KO (Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford) pp 315-332

Hazen RM (2012) An accident waiting to happen (That’s Life). Eureka, The Times 33:14-19

Cleaves II HJ, Scott AM, Hill FC, Leszczynski J, Sahai N, Hazen RM (2012) Mineral-organic interfacial processes: potential roles in the origins of life. Chemical Society Reviews 41:5502-5525

Lee N, Hummer DR, Sverjensky DS, Rajh T, Hazen RM, Steele A, Cody GD (2012) Speciation of L-DOPA on nanorutile as a function of pH and surface coverage using surface-enhance Raman spectroscopy (SERS). Langmuir 28:17322-17330 [pdf]



2011

Bahri S, Jonsson CM, Jonsson CL, Azzolini D, Sverjensky DA, Hazen RM (2011) Adsorption and surface complexation study of L-DOPA on rutile (TiO2) in NaCl solutions. Environmental Science and Technology 45:3959-3966

Grew ES, Bada JL, Hazen RM (2011) Borate minerals and the origin of the RNA world. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 41:307-316

Parikh SJ, Kubicki JD, Jonsson CM, Jonsson CL, Hazen RM, Sverjensky DA, Sparks DL (2011) Evaluating glutamate and aspartate binding mechanisms to rutile (a-TiO2) via ATR-FTIR spectroscopy and quantum chemical calculations. Langmuir 27:1778-1787 [pdf]

Cleaves II HJ, Crapster-Pregont E, Jonsson CM, Jonsson CL, Sverjensky DA, Hazen RM (2011) The adsorption of short single-stranded DNA oligomers to mineral surfaces. Chemosphere 8:1560–1567 [pdf]

Livi KJT, Schaffer B, Azzolini D, Seabourne CR, Sader K, Shannon M, Sverjensky D, Hazen RM, Brydson R (2011) Imaging the surface of Rutile by STEM and its implication for organic molecule bonding. Proceedings of the Microscopy Conference 2011 (MC2011), August 28-September 02, Kiel/Germany, p M6_P621



2010

Cleaves II HJ, Jonsson CM, Jonsson CL, Sverjensky DA, Hazen RM (2010) Adsorption of nucleic acid components on rutile (TiO2) surfaces. Astrobiology 10:311-323 [pdf]

Hazen RM, Sverjensky DA (2010) Mineral Surfaces, Geochemical Complexities and the Origins of Life. Origins of Cellular Life, eds Deamer DW, Szostak JW, Cold Springs Harbor Perspectives in Biology [pdf]

Jonsson CM, Jonsson CL, Sverjensky DA, Cleaves II HJ, Hazen RM (2010) Adsorption of L-asparate to rutile (a-TiO2): Experimental and theoretical surface complexation studies. Geochemica et Cosmochemica Acta 74:2356–2367 [pdf]

Hazen RM (2010) How old is the Earth, and how do we know? Evolution: Education and Outreach 3:198-205 [pdf]

Marshall-Bowman K, Ohara S, Sverjensky DA, Hazen RM and Cleaves HJ (2010) Catalytic peptide hydrolysis by mineral surface: Implications for prebiotic chemistry Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 74:20:5852-5861
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
So, now, let's consider whether the arrangement of 'letters' on the strand of DNA is more likely the result of a guiding intelligence as opposed to the more complex process of natural selection.

Sometimes, you see, the best signal for an intelligence is the *simplicity* of the design. Think of a well designed machine: every part fits together perfectly with every other part. There is efficiency and simplicity of common design.

Things that are produced by natural selection, on the other hand, are unnecessarily complex. They are jury-rigged, have things that are spliced together, have duplications that have no effect, use similar structures for wildly different tasks, etc. The whole still works, but it is far from being streamlined or simple.

What do we see in DNA? The second and not the first. The 'book' has randomly ordered directions, often conflicting, often turned off, often duplicated, repetitious in unnecessary ways, having a lot of nonsense (strings of the same letters in the same order over and over), etc.

This is what is produced by selection and NOT by a designer!
And that jury rigging is not seen only in DNA, we also see it in the structures that DNA produces in the body. The recurrent laryngeal nerve is a classic example of a biological kludge. In giraffes the nerve takes a fifteen feet detour. It is the perfect example of how evolution works on "good enough" rather than on intelligent design:

Recurrent laryngeal nerve - Wikipedia
 
Top