Audie
Veteran Member
Subtext is that life requires magic juice andAren't people arguing that the ToE is untrue because abiogenesis isn't understood and, thus, goddidit?
only god can make magic juice.
Last edited:
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Subtext is that life requires magic juice andAren't people arguing that the ToE is untrue because abiogenesis isn't understood and, thus, goddidit?
So?Nope.
It may not be science now, but it is a working FALSIFIABLE hypothesis, with a lot better insight and more evidence to the early Earth than that provided by Genesis creation and the pseudoscience Intelligent Design.
I made no argument
I have stayed with the original statement because it is a fact, and watched various persons trying their best to argue with it, or me, because I said it.
I have said nothing about religion
So, the fact that that the process of abiogenesis is unknown, is actually a religious treatise
Your need to comment on me, as opposed to what I wrote, time after time, makes my point
The real problem here, is that at some point you'll use this "unknown" and pretend it is evidence of your religious beliefs. We all know it. Why else would you insist so much on repeating, and having it repeated, that science is largely still ignorant on how life can form? A statement which, again, is not in dispute by anyone.
I doubt that we will ever know for sure how life first appeared. Unless time-travel allows us to visit the very early Earth, we won't ever be able to observe the first steps in the origin of life.
Are you a prophet?
"Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood."
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia
Science has been able to solve many mysteries. It will solve this too. It is only a question of time.
LOL!!! In the 60's there was a song by a group called Buffalo Springfield. The partial lyrics of one of their songs was"paranoia runs deep, into their minds it will creep".Sure you did. You made two, one explicit in syllogistic form with an unproven premise, and one implicit, where you coyly deny that your purpose for repeatedly stating that abiogenesis isn't completely understood isn't part of an implied argument from ignorance, in explicit form looking more like if you can't prove it, it didn't happen, therefore God.
Most of us have asked you, "So what?" repeatedly, a question you evade for obvious reasons. You're not free to openly proselytize here, so you do it like the ID people, who when told that they weren't allowed to inject their religious beliefs into public school science curricula, just as insincerely asked, "What God? We never mentioned God." And not surprisingly, they got caught lying ("cdesign proponentsists") and had their lie exposed in court.
You don't need to. Your agenda is apparent. You're here to promote your religious beliefs, -you know, the religion depicted in your avatar. But you have to do it stealthily because of forum rules.
It's the first part of one of the commonest arguments from creationists.
Isn't this you commenting on others here? And you've commented on yourself plenty.
There's nothing else to comment on here but your poorly-hidden agenda. Your arguments were given early on and refuted. All that's left to discuss are your agenda and methods.
He already is. His purpose here is clear.
LOL !!! In the 60's there was a group called Buffalo Springfield, who had a song with the partial lyrics " paranoia runs deep, into their minds it will creep,"Sure you did. You made two, one explicit in syllogistic form with an unproven premise, and one implicit, where you coyly deny that your purpose for repeatedly stating that abiogenesis isn't completely understood isn't part of an implied argument from ignorance, in explicit form looking more like if you can't prove it, it didn't happen, therefore God.
Most of us have asked you, "So what?" repeatedly, a question you evade for obvious reasons. You're not free to openly proselytize here, so you do it like the ID people, who when told that they weren't allowed to inject their religious beliefs into public school science curricula, just as insincerely asked, "What God? We never mentioned God." And not surprisingly, they got caught lying ("cdesign proponentsists") and had their lie exposed in court.
You don't need to. Your agenda is apparent. You're here to promote your religious beliefs, -you know, the religion depicted in your avatar. But you have to do it stealthily because of forum rules.
It's the first part of one of the commonest arguments from creationists.
Isn't this you commenting on others here? And you've commented on yourself plenty.
There's nothing else to comment on here but your poorly-hidden agenda. Your arguments were given early on and refuted. All that's left to discuss are your agenda and methods.
He already is. His purpose here is clear.
LOL You just keep chasing the shiny object. I have said nothing about religion. Blah, blah, blah.
So, how do you think life originated?
What I believe is irrelevant to the statement.
Myeah,... I'm not buying it.What I believe is irrelevant to the statement.
Myeah,... I'm not buying it.
There must be a reason for you to keep repeating and repeating and repeating the obvious that how life originates is a puzzle that hasn't been solved by science (yet).
We all know the reason, to be frank with you. The real question is when are you going to flat out admit it?
I'll rephrase my question, if that makes it easier:
Everybody here acknowledges that scientists have not (yet) solved the puzzle of abiogenesis. Nobody disputes that at present, the full mechanism / process that can generate life from non-life, is currently unknown.
So the question is: why have you just spend post after post for several pages, basically simply repeating that fact? Do you have a point, or is your only goal stating the obvious? Because if the latter, then you are just wasting time, energy and webspace.
You do have a goal though. You do have a reason for repeating this fact ad nauseum. Please tell us all what your actual point is. Just state where you are going with this and be done with it.
I have repeated the fact in response to folk like you, who want to argue with me about it.Myeah,... I'm not buying it.
There must be a reason for you to keep repeating and repeating and repeating the obvious that how life originates is a puzzle that hasn't been solved by science (yet).
We all know the reason, to be frank with you. The real question is when are you going to flat out admit it?
I'll rephrase my question, if that makes it easier:
Everybody here acknowledges that scientists have not (yet) solved the puzzle of abiogenesis. Nobody disputes that at present, the full mechanism / process that can generate life from non-life, is currently unknown.
So the question is: why have you just spend post after post for several pages, basically simply repeating that fact? Do you have a point, or is your only goal stating the obvious? Because if the latter, then you are just wasting time, energy and webspace.
You do have a goal though. You do have a reason for repeating this fact ad nauseum. Please tell us all what your actual point is. Just state where you are going with this and be done with it.
I have repeated the fact in response to folk like you, who want to argue with me about it.
As far as I am concerned, I should have posted it once, an obvious fact, which should have agreed o by everyone..
However, folk cojldn't let it stand, they had to keep coming back, and I kept repeating what I wrote. Showing time after time, those trying to crack it, to argue, no other reason.
So, when they, and you stop, I will.
You have a goal for coming back to it, what is it?
Who are you talking about?
Can you point me to a single post concerning of someone involved in this discussion who is claiming that abiogenesis HAS been solved?
I say you can't, because nobody here is saying that - not that I've seen anyway.
So the question remains: why insist on repeating the obvious?
Who didn't agree with it? Please quote that person's claim, or at least link to the post number.
Again, who are you talking about? Be specific here... Name them and link to those post in which these people, or this person, are explicitly denying that the origins of ife are currently unknown and / or who claim that the puzzle of abiogenesis has been solved already?
Who? Which post?
I have been repeating this point for several posts already. Consistently informing you about this, but it seems to fall on deaf ears. You just continue to repeat the obvious.
I already told you: I'm looking to find out why restating the obvious so many times is so important to you. I'm thinking you have an additional point to make about it, which you aren't being up front about.
You say, and have said, that you are repeating the obvious because people are apparantly denying it and arguing against it. But frankly, i'm not seeing that happening at all, hence my request for you to linke me to specific posts by these people where this is supposedly happening.
I'm willing to bet a fair amount of money that no such links will be forthcoming. Either that, or you'll link me to a post that doesn't at all say what you claim it says.
So, here's your chance to put your money where your mouth is. Link me to a post in this discussion where someone is arguing the point that abiogenesis is an unsolved puzzle. In fact, if you actually succeed in doing that, I'll actually join you in making it clear to that person that abiogenesis hasn't been solved yet and that it is a work in progress.
But again, I'm quite positive that you'll come up empty handed.
Just as a FYI, to end with, after you fail to produce such links, I will once again ask you why you insist on repeating the obvious. Because failing to produce the links to the post you claim exists, means that that isn't actually the reason why you insist on repeating the obvious.....
Once again, you make my point.You just want to argue.Who are you talking about?
Can you point me to a single post concerning of someone involved in this discussion who is claiming that abiogenesis HAS been solved?
I say you can't, because nobody here is saying that - not that I've seen anyway.
So the question remains: why insist on repeating the obvious?
Who didn't agree with it? Please quote that person's claim, or at least link to the post number.
Again, who are you talking about? Be specific here... Name them and link to those post in which these people, or this person, are explicitly denying that the origins of ife are currently unknown and / or who claim that the puzzle of abiogenesis has been solved already?
Who? Which post?
I have been repeating this point for several posts already. Consistently informing you about this, but it seems to fall on deaf ears. You just continue to repeat the obvious.
I already told you: I'm looking to find out why restating the obvious so many times is so important to you. I'm thinking you have an additional point to make about it, which you aren't being up front about.
You say, and have said, that you are repeating the obvious because people are apparantly denying it and arguing against it. But frankly, i'm not seeing that happening at all, hence my request for you to linke me to specific posts by these people where this is supposedly happening.
I'm willing to bet a fair amount of money that no such links will be forthcoming. Either that, or you'll link me to a post that doesn't at all say what you claim it says.
So, here's your chance to put your money where your mouth is. Link me to a post in this discussion where someone is arguing the point that abiogenesis is an unsolved puzzle. In fact, if you actually succeed in doing that, I'll actually join you in making it clear to that person that abiogenesis hasn't been solved yet and that it is a work in progress.
But again, I'm quite positive that you'll come up empty handed.
Just as a FYI, to end with, after you fail to produce such links, I will once again ask you why you insist on repeating the obvious. Because failing to produce the links to the post you claim exists, means that that isn't actually the reason why you insist on repeating the obvious.....
Once again, you make my point.You just want to argue.
I never said any of my correspondents believed abiogenisis had been solved, I said they wanted to use their response to the fact, in some fashion, to draw me into an argument.
How many posts have you made, because I stated the fact. Many. Follow the thread, all of the posts and counter posts are there.
You just keep coming back, four or five posts in the same day, getting the same response, the process of abiogenesis is unknown, over and over again.
You end this one with a ploy right out of the playground. " if you don't give me your apple, that means you aren't part of our club". Pitiful.
Have you learned your lesson, or are you coming back?
As far as I am concerned, I should have posted it once, an obvious fact, which should have agreed o by everyone..
The first life arose from non life? Absolutely false. You BELIEVE it did, you have FAITH that it did, but the evidence that it did does not exist.
Once again, you make my point.You just want to argue.
I never said any of my correspondents believed abiogenisis had been solved, I said they wanted to use their response to the fact, in some fashion, to draw me into an argument.
How many posts have you made, because I stated the fact. Many. Follow the thread, all of the posts and counter posts are there.
You just keep coming back, four or five posts in the same day, getting the same response, the process of abiogenesis is unknown, over and over again.
You end this one with a ploy right out of the playground. " if you don't give me your apple, that means you aren't part of our club". Pitiful.
Have you learned your lesson, or are you coming back?
I missed it the first time around:Except that your first statement was not that the way in which abiogenesis happened in unknown, it was that it was "absolutely false":-
The first life arose from non life? Absolutely false. You BELIEVE it did, you have FAITH that it did, but the evidence that it did does not exist.
Yep, until it is true, then it is false.I missed it the first time around: