• 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!

The plight of atheism, is this why the incessant arguing?

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Proof is that which convinces. The Bible verses and the graphic demonstration of biblical cosmology are both convincing evidence that the Bible writers

Flatness was not the biblical cosmologists only mistake. We're also told that the earth is fixed, that it rests on on four pillars, and is enclosed by a dome which is itself covered by water. Apart from the pillars, which are sometimes omitted or not four in number, that's the way that the earth is presented in every one of the following illustrations: biblical cosmology - Buscar con Google No Biblical cosmologist of today believes this nonsense. Even if they did, it has no relation to what the Bible says. Biblical cosmologists today have doctorates in physics, cosmology, many with multiple doctorates

  • Job 11:9 - "Its measure is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea."
How long is the earth?
  • Revelation 7:1 - "And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds"
Where are its four corners?
  • Job 38:13 - that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it
Where are earth's edges?

Flatness was not the biblical cosmologists only mistake. We're also told that the earth is fixed, that it rests on on four pillars, and is enclosed by a dome which is itself covered by water. Apart from the pillars, which are sometimes omitted or not four in number, that's the way that the earth is presented in every one of the following illustrations: biblical cosmology - Buscar con Google

How do you reconcile that with a book supposedly authored by a god? Biblical Cosmology today is promoted by Phdś in physics, cosmology and astronomy. Many have doctorates in more than one discipline and many are faculty members of very well known universities. What people of the past believed or what people who lack education believe has no bearing on What the Bible says. This is a poor tactic of guilt by association on your part.
It amazes me how blinkered atheists become about literary uses of words and uses of phrases. You become total and complete literalists when it suits your purposes. Your quote from Revelation was a vision, and not to be taken literally. I once told a suspect that once he was out of jail, if he offended again I would ¨ chase him to the ends of the earth¨. Therefore I believe the earth ends somewhere, and maybe you fall off the edge, right ? To Job, God could do ANYTHING, so you take his statement as a concise, reasoned, statement on the shape of the earth ? Not hardly, he was both commenting on the power of God and his relation to evil. Find me a clear statement in the Bible that says ¨ the earth is flat¨. Not allegory, not visions, a simple statement. You guys strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel, allegory BTW



What he's telling you is that the shape of the DNA strands is just form until it is apprehended by a conscious agent. When (noumenal) form is impressed onto consciousness and becomes a conscious phenomenon, the form has entered (come IN) the mind and become IN-FORM-ation. Before that, it's just matter acting passively and mindlessly like rainwater filling a puddle and assuming the shape of the puddle. The shape of the hole is the concave equivalent of the convex shape of the bottom of the puddle. We don't need intelligence to have form or for matter to follow rules without supervision. Whoa, I like this ! So, DNA strands are apprehended. I am a retired Chief of Police, and Iĺl be damned if I can figure out how to apprehend a DNA strand, let alone get the cuffs on it, no matter. So, let me get this straight. Certainly the nature of matter adheres to the laws of physics. So far so good. I never stated that matter was intelligent. So the shape (composition ?) of the DNA chain is just matter, OK. Now, are you claiming that this chain of matter is in a certain order, or are you claiming it is random ? Lets assume it is just random. So, somehow this random DNA gets into an organism. OK. Now, this organism, being random, has a system to read the DNA, that also is random, as well as the complicated chains of acids and proteins that are ordered randomly to operate the organism as ordered by the DNA. So the result is they all float together in the primordial soup, till one day, a functioning organism results, is that it ? Gads. Frankly, that is ridiculous. I have never read of any scientists, atheist or otherwise who buys that. There has not been enough time from the dawn of time for this to occur. If this were a valid theory why are so many abandoning the random model because of the issue of information ? wishes and dreams



You might like to brush up on the theory a bit yourself. Mutations do not disappear by virtue of being useless to the species. There is no mechanism for evolution to select against a neutral mutation. The mutation must manifest phenotypically in order to be selected for or against. Yes, I would agree, A two headed cow would not be passed on in all probability, a cow with a benign lump above the right rear leg might pass that on.

Such neutral mutations simply accumulate, which is also a strong argument against intelligent design. An intelligent designer could prevent mutation from occurring and cull out useless code. Evolution can't. We find useless code from viruses that have inserted genetic material into some common ancestor that is apparently useless to us inasmuch as it has mutated in different way in different related species to the harm of none of them. You are assuming that an intelligent designer would choose to do this. There is no reason in ID why this would be so. BTW, I just read a transcript of an interview of the supreme new atheist, richard dawkins, conceding ID is a viable possibility, and that science has no idea where the universe or life came from, just different ideas with little evidence. I can refer it to you if you are interested.

And evolution has both a random and a directed aspect. Black bears in a polar clime will inevitably evolve to become white bears, whereas the white ones will not turn black, even though both populations will suffer random mutations to the opposite color. Thus, a random effect results in a directed outcome.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
First, none of your verses prove a a promotion of a flat earth. Note that the one with a tree is a VISION, a vision is can show anything to make a point, it doesn't have to be literal. Sorry, but your point fails, this has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.
Which explanation of the flat earth in Daniel's vision is VASTLY more likely to be correct?

1. That the flat earth represents the historically known flat earth views of the author's time and place?

2. That the author, who knew no better than his culture, was magically dissuaded from that meaning when he came to write it, lest some fundamentalist in the 21st century should have to face up to history?

Can you answer that dispassionately and rationally or are you only able to toe the party line?

Second, Christ is a supreme being, the devil is a powerful disgraced spiritual being. Therefore neither are looking with human eyes in this confrontation.
There is no mention of a vision in the text. You just made that up as a cheap excuse not to admit it's a flat earth, again the same flat earth view of that time and culture.

And obviously you don't need to go up on a high mountain to have a vision.

Also, you didn't tell me: if the earth is spherical

What is the 'water under the earth' with fishes in it? (Deut 4:18).

What are its 'skirts'? (Job 38:13)

What and where is the 'end of the heavens'? (Ps 19:6)

What are the 'foundations of the earth' and where are they laid? (Pss 102:25, 104:5, Is 48:13)

What would shake the earth in the absence of those foundations? (Ps 104:5)

What is 'the circle of the earth'? (Is 40:22 - apologies, in my previous post I gave Ecc 1:22)

And how can a sphere have four corners? (Rev 7:1)​

And the overarching question again: why would any disinterested but informed observer expect the writers of those passages to refer to a spherical earth when culturally they had no concept of one?

You are now resorting to word games. Information is data in order and complete that conveys a particular meaning.
So you're using 'information' as a synonym for 'data'. Thank you for clearing that up. And I'd be obliged if you just say 'data' in future.
As I have pointed out, a living organism functions by the very complicated DNA information [meaning data], working through a method that understands the information [data]
What 'method' that 'understands' the data?

Are you referring to anything other than the ordinary operations of chemistry / biochemistry here? If so, what, exactly?

which is what allows the the organism to operate, and instructs very complicated chains of acids and proteins to operate the machinery of the organism.
Yes. Advanced biochemistry.
Obviously, this information [meaning data] must exist before the organism. It does in every life form on earth being passed on in reproduction.
No need to wander around looking dazed and saying 'How? How?" You'll find a great deal of real information, deep understanding, about this in the genetics side of the modern theory of evolution. Research is ongoing, of course, but it's vastly more advanced than you seem to think. If you really want to know, go and look it up.
Where did it come from, all in order, pre programmed, with a method to process it, with a method to implement the processed information in that very first organism that randomly resulted from a random combination of chemicals. You, nor anyone else can answer the question.
Why do you think it sprang into existence fully formed? Science doesn't. Why aren't you following the progress of abiogenesis research and the ideas about how the elements of the cell might each have developed, the origin of the cell envelope, the evidence for and against, and so on?
Of course evolution is random, by chance !
No, the theory of evolution points to the obvious. In any particular situation, the creature best adapted to handle that situation is more likely to survive and pass on its genes, and the others are less likely. That likelihood ─ natural selection ─ filters reality, distinguishes the results from simple chance.

Surely you can see that for yourself?
According to the theory, in a particular group of organisms genetic changes occur, randomly, and disappear if they are of no benefit to the species.
They MAY disappear, but if they're neither beneficial nor harmful, they'll probably just hang around. The filter doesn't catch them either way.
A beneficial mutation, according to the theory, races through the species, and in time, becomes a trait of the species. Note that genetic mutations are random, nature doesn't know or care about them, nature doesn't control them or the result
You were going quite well (though 'races through the species' is only one of the possibilities) until the last sentence, when you completely overlooked the filter of natural selection.
will I abandon my faith if some scientist somewhere creates an organism from chemicals in a lab ? Of course not, that is intelligent design, in which which I believe !
Didn't think you'd take your own bet.
If you, or anyone else, could show me, in nature, organisms being created naturally from chemicals, in nature, with no human manipulation, I would have to seriously look at my faith. You can';t however, this has NEVER been observed.
The evidence that it's happened at least once couldn't be plainer ─ you're here.

And it's not necessary for science to detect a contemporary example of abiogenesis in the wild. The present conditions on earth may be inimical to such a thing, for example. What science seeks to do is demonstrate at least one possible wholly natural pathway from chemistry to life. Once it's shown that this pathway can exist, the abiogenesis question is answered in the affirmative.
 
Last edited:

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Daniel 4:8-11
Nebuchadnezzar had a dream about the tree, where you are getting the argument for a flat earth being referenced.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Which explanation of the flat earth in Daniel's vision is VASTLY more likely to be correct?

1. That the flat earth represents the historically known flat earth views of the author's time and place?

2. That the author, who knew no better than his culture, was magically dissuaded from that meaning when he came to write it, lest some fundamentalist in the 21st century should have to face up to history?

Can you answer that dispassionately and rationally or are you only able to toe the party line? A vision is a vision. It conveys and idea through visual references. Daniel in vision also saw a leopard with wings, and a giant statue made of gold silver bronze and iron, each metal represented in various parts of the statue, which was destroyed by a stone hurled at speed by no mans hand. Since I assume you are ignorant of the meanings, these things represented kingdoms and nations, they weren¨t things Daniel believed to exist. Either of your two options are simply not relevant.


There is no mention of a vision in the text. You just made that up as a cheap excuse not to admit it's a flat earth, again the same flat earth view of that time and culture. You sir, are in above your head, and your snarky remark is antithetical to decent discourse. You don¨t understand Biblical exegesis, you don understand anything about prophetic visions, their purpose and what they mean. In other words you have slim knowledge you are attempting to apply to a subject of which you are completely ignorant.


And obviously you don't need to go up on a high mountain to have a vision. Hmmmm, I never said the confrontation between Christ and satan was a vision. I said it was exactly what it was, a confrontation between two supernatural beings. Do you REALLY believe that those people were so utterly stupid as to think you could see ¨ all the kingdoms of the earth¨ from the top of a mountain in the Judean wilderness ? Are you familiar with the mountains in the Judean wilderness ? They are about like those in Britain, puny. You don think they may have climbed them, or talked to people who had ? They were ancient people, not stupid people. These two beings were capable of ¨seeing¨ whatever on earth there was to see. That is the whole point.


Also, you didn't tell me: if the earth is spherical

What is the 'water under the earth' with fishes in it? (Deut 4:18). There are caves throughout the earth, very deep caves, that have fish populations.

What are its 'skirts'? (Job 38:13) I need to check this in Hebrew.

What and where is the 'end of the heavens'? (Ps 19:6) The border of the universe. Various shapes for the universe are proposed, but it is not infinite. In fact, the alleged singularity that resulted in the big bang was outside the universe.

What are the 'foundations of the earth' and where are they laid? (Pss 102:25, 104:5, Is 48:13) Are you familiar with plate tectonics ? Those plates are ¨ the foundations of the earth¨

What would shake the earth in the absence of those foundations? (Ps 104:5) I am a native Californian who has experienced many earthquakes. If these plates move against each other, massive earthquakes would result. If one were to begin breaking up, the entire earth would experience a massive and hugely catastrophic earthquake.

What is 'the circle of the earth'? (Is 40:22 - apologies, in my previous post I gave Ecc 1:22) What do you see when you look at the full moon ?

And how can a sphere have four corners? (Rev 7:1) A vision. Look at the other things written by John that he saw in his visions, gain, visual references to convey a message, not to be taken literally​

And the overarching question again: why would any disinterested but informed observer expect the writers of those passages to refer to a spherical earth when culturally they had no concept of one?


So you're using 'information' as a synonym for 'data'. Thank you for clearing that up. And I'd be obliged if you just say 'data' in future. Information and data are interchangeable, that is why people who work on computers are called information technicians, not data technicians.

What 'method' that 'understands' the data? Every organism must have on a cellular level a physical process that requires DNA to be read and processed into instructions for the huge number of chains of proteins to operate the organism. Not just any DNA will do, it must be very specific to ẗhe organism to be processed.

Are you referring to anything other than the ordinary operations of chemistry / biochemistry here? If so, what, exactly?
Yes, much more. Chemicals in any combination do not contain information, so, no matter how they combine, a functioning organism cannot result. Biochemistry cannot explain this quandry, I have done much reading on the subject by ID and non ID biochemists, no solution has been found.
Yes. Advanced biochemistry.
No need to wander around looking dazed and saying 'How? How?" You'll find a great deal of real information, deep understanding, about this in the genetics side of the modern theory of evolution. Research is ongoing, of course, but it's vastly more advanced than you seem to think. If you really want to know, go and look it up. Oh, I have, Iĺl bet much more than you. The more genetics advances, the less likely abiogenesis becomes. Your alleged deep understanding is from someone complacently sitting on a pat and comfortable set of ideaś that generally no longer exist. You need to look at up to date and current research. Google abiogenesis and the information problem, I am sure that would be a good start.

Why do you think it sprang into existence fully formed? Science doesn't. Why aren't you following the progress of abiogenesis research and the ideas about how the elements of the cell might each have developed, the origin of the cell envelope, the evidence for and against, and so on? Either matter is alive, or it is dead. The exact same problems exist with dead pieces coming together to form a living organism. How do they integrate, how do they recognize each other and not reject one another, how do they combine in the right proportions, on and on it goes, with the final, where does the correct operating code for the organism come from ?
No, the theory of evolution points to the obvious. In any particular situation, the creature best adapted to handle that situation is more likely to survive and pass on its genes, and the others are less likely. That likelihood ─ natural selection ─ filters reality, distinguishes the results from simple chance. You think ? The mutations are by chance, so their contribution to survival of the fittest is too. An organism survives as the fittest because a chance mutation has made it by chance the fittest. Surely you can see that for yourself ?

Surely you can see that for yourself?
They MAY disappear, but if they're neither beneficial nor harmful, they'll probably just hang around. The filter doesn't catch them either way.

You were going quite well (though 'races through the species' is only one of the possibilities) until the last sentence, when you completely overlooked the filter of natural selection.
Didn't think you'd take your own bet.
The evidence that it's happened at least once couldn't be plainer ─ you're here. Utter bilge and nonsense. The evidence that it happened, at least once, is growing less and less. You are here, but it was not because of abiogenesis

And it's not necessary for science to detect a contemporary example of abiogenesis in the wild. The present conditions on earth may be inimical to such a thing, for example. What science seeks to do is demonstrate at least one possible wholly natural pathway from chemistry to life. Once it's shown that this pathway can exist, the abiogenesis question is answered in the affirmative.
Goodness, how can you claim that scientists with great educations, using equipment of the most modern kind can show a wholly natural way from chemistry to life ? As I said, that is intelligent design. They cannot even agree on what chemicals were allegedly present, wht the environmental conditions were, or what the atmosphere was like. So, if this ever happens ( which I truly doubt ), you then declare abiogenesis proven ? That is like throwing cabbage and carrots in a pot, making a graham cracker crust, dumping the over boiled cabbage and carrots into the crust, and claiming it is the finest pizza ever made
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Goodness, how can you claim that scientists with great educations, using equipment of the most modern kind can show a wholly natural way from chemistry to life ?
The reasoning is simple.

1. There's life on earth.
2. All the evidence ─ and the question has been closely examined ─ support the view that the entire range of living things on earth is descended from a single start.

So we know abiogenesis happened.

Why not have some fun and read about it? >Here's an introduction<, not too long but touching the bases for you. At the very least you'll learn how your enemy is thinking, and, who knows, you might even enjoy the learning experience!

Do you plan to respond to my flat-earth reply?
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
The reasoning is simple.

1. There's life on earth.
2. All the evidence ─ and the question has been closely examined ─ support the view that the entire range of living things on earth is descended from a single start.

So we know abiogenesis happened.

Why not have some fun and read about it? >Here's an introduction<, not too long but touching the bases for you. At the very least you'll learn how your enemy is thinking, and, who knows, you might even enjoy the learning experience!

Do you plan to respond to my flat-earth reply?
I did. I am not greatly familiar with using the system here, but I should be, and am working on it, look in the body of what was quoted. First, there is little evidence that abiogenesis happened. It has never been observed, never replicated nor has it's processes been clearly and distinctly defined. So, you accept a theory, an idea, a, to this point, fantasy based on your world view, Abiogenesis has exactly the same validity as me saying life started by God and was intelligently designed. You contend that the theory of macro evolution proves that abiogenesis must have happened. However, I am sure you have never read any of the books and articles, many peer reviewed, on the serious flaws in the theory of macro evolution. I read both pro and con, so I know what the enemy is thinking, and where the holes are in their thought. Far from being proven, macro evolution is seriously unproven, an admission made by some serious atheist scientists. Again, you are comfortable with what you believe, and have lost the edge of an inquiring mind. I look, I consider all evidence, if any is strong enough to shake my faith, so be it. So far, it hasn't happened.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
there is little evidence that abiogenesis happened.
On the exact contrary, the probability that abiogenesis happened is 1.0.
It has never been observed
Who'd be there to observe it?
never replicated
It seems so, thought we don't know it for a fact. Possibly the process that produced the first protocell produced a lot them, more or less biochemically identical. Possibly other, different, protocells happened and failed. But as you say, we have no evidence of other starts,
nor has it's processes been clearly and distinctly defined.
Just so. This is where the progress of the research is so interesting, exploring the possible pathways, accumulating clues &c.
So, you accept a theory
An hypothesis.
fantasy based on your world view,
The search for the pathway of abiogenesis is no different from any other scientific search. And as for being a fantasy, that's absurd. As I said, the probability that it occurred is 1.0, since we're both here.
I am sure you have never read any of the books and articles, many peer reviewed, on the serious flaws in the theory of macro evolution... Far from being proven, macro evolution is seriously unproven, an admission made by some serious atheist scientists.
Where? A link or two, please. And as long as we're talking about reputable journals of science, I don't need atheist scientists ─ non-fundamentalists will do.
Again, you are comfortable with what you believe, and have lost the edge of an inquiring mind.
You'll find I have time to consider an intelligent argument honestly reasoned from examinable evidence.

There's no dispute between us that no method by which abiogenesis might occur is presently demonstrated.

What do you think is the origin of life, if not chemical-to-biochemical abiogenesis?

What evidence acceptable to reasoned enquiry do you offer?
 
Last edited:

Curious George

Veteran Member
I did. I am not greatly familiar with using the system here, but I should be, and am working on it, look in the body of what was quoted. First, there is little evidence that abiogenesis happened. It has never been observed, never replicated nor has it's processes been clearly and distinctly defined. So, you accept a theory, an idea, a, to this point, fantasy based on your world view, Abiogenesis has exactly the same validity as me saying life started by God and was intelligently designed. You contend that the theory of macro evolution proves that abiogenesis must have happened. However, I am sure you have never read any of the books and articles, many peer reviewed, on the serious flaws in the theory of macro evolution. I read both pro and con, so I know what the enemy is thinking, and where the holes are in their thought. Far from being proven, macro evolution is seriously unproven, an admission made by some serious atheist scientists. Again, you are comfortable with what you believe, and have lost the edge of an inquiring mind. I look, I consider all evidence, if any is strong enough to shake my faith, so be it. So far, it hasn't happened.
(emphasis mine)
Enemy?
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
On the exact contrary, the probability that abiogenesis happened is 1.0.
Who'd be there to observe it?
It seems so, thought we don't know it for a fact. Possibly the process that produced the first protocell produced a lot them, more or less biochemically identical. Possibly other, different, protocells happened and failed. But as you say, we have no evidence of other starts,
Just so. This is where the progress of the research is so interesting, exploring the possible pathways, accumulating clues &c.
An hypothesis.
The search for the pathway of abiogenesis is no different from any other scientific search. And as for being a fantasy, that's absurd. As I said, the probability that it occurred is 1.0, since we're both here.

Where? A link or two, please. And as long as we're talking about reputable journals of science, I don't need atheist scientists ─ non-fundamentalists will do.
You'll find I have time to consider an intelligent argument honestly reasoned from examinable evidence.

There's no dispute between us that no method by which abiogenesis might occur is presently demonstrated.

What do you think is the origin of life, if not chemical-to-biochemical abiogenesis?

What evidence acceptable to reasoned enquiry do you offer?
Let me be clear, there is no evidence that abiogenesis occurred. "In the very first cell, assuming there was first cell, What came first, the protein or the DNA ? The protein could not have been first,
On the exact contrary, the probability that abiogenesis happened is 1.0.
Who'd be there to observe it?
It seems so, thought we don't know it for a fact. Possibly the process that produced the first protocell produced a lot them, more or less biochemically identical. Possibly other, different, protocells happened and failed. But as you say, we have no evidence of other starts,
Just so. This is where the progress of the research is so interesting, exploring the possible pathways, accumulating clues &c.
An hypothesis.
The search for the pathway of abiogenesis is no different from any other scientific search. And as for being a fantasy, that's absurd. As I said, the probability that it occurred is 1.0, since we're both here.

Where? A link or two, please. And as long as we're talking about reputable journals of science, I don't need atheist scientists ─ non-fundamentalists will do.
You'll find I have time to consider an intelligent argument honestly reasoned from examinable evidence.

There's no dispute between us that no method by which abiogenesis might occur is presently demonstrated.

What do you think is the origin of life, if not chemical-to-biochemical abiogenesis?

What evidence acceptable to reasoned enquiry do you offer?
" In the very first cell, assuming there was one, what came first, the DNA or the protein ? Of course the protein that reads the DNA is itself coded for by the DNA. So, the protein could not be there first, since it's code or order is contained in the DNA that it decodes. It would have to decode itself before it could exist. So obviously, without the protein there first, the DNA would never be read and the protein would never exist. Like wise, the DNA could not have been first since it is made and made by trhe proteins in the cell. Some popular theories about abiogenisis suggest that RNA came first, then evolved into DNA. But this doesn't remove the problem. RNA still has to be decoded by very specific proteins that are themselves coded by the information in the RNA. Obviously, both DNA and/or the RNA and the fully formed decoding protein system would have to be present at the same time in order for the system as a whole to work. There simply is no stepwise funcion based selection process since natural selection is not capable of working at this point in time" Dr. Sean D. Pitman, The Chicken or the Egg, DNA or Protein " article Responding to a critique of his book "Signature in the Cell" which is 900 pages of science,( I recommend it very highly) Dr. Stephen Meyer said this in response to Dr. Jon Sutherland " In chapter 14 of my book I explain and critique the entire "RNA world scenario ( leading to abiogenesis ) There I describe 5 major problems of the theory. Suthelands article only addresses partially the first and least severe of these difficuties. It does not address the more severe problem of explaining how the bases in nucleic acids (either DNA or RNA) acquired their specific INFORMATION RICH arrangenents," (caps mine)

So, there are two major problems of many, that believers in abiogenesis cannot, and I predict will not explain. The first is that that alleged very first cell wad irreducibly complex, it could not have any part removed and still function. All parts must be present in the proper order at the same time for it to live and function. Second and the stopper, is that for the cell to function a long chain of coded information must be present, in the exact proper order, for that first cell to live. Once again I ask WHERE DID THE VERY SPECIFIC OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS, IN THE DNA OR RNA IN PERFECTLY ORDERED CHAINS COME FROM ?
" If you look at the desert, all the building blocks for a supercomputer are present. Volcanic activity, lightning, and wind could provide the energy for construction. Why don't we see supercomputers assembling themselves then ? The problem is homogeny. Parts do not assemble themselves in a non homogenous way that is very far beyond the sum of the collectively functional/meaningful information contained in the individual parts themselves. Pre established information and directed energy from an outside source are required to produce a function that is very much beyond the information contained in the individual parts themselves. It is the pre established order of a living cell, to include pre formed information in the DNA that allows it to be what it is" Dr. Pitman. Google " meaningful information complexity" you will find links there. I have posted enough to explain my position and to show that beyond hopes and wishes, abiogenesis is impossible. My belief ? Intelligent design. As a raging athest and evolutionist in college, I though the concept of God ridiculous. Now, as a Christian, I think abiogenesis and resultant macro evolution ridiculous. So, tell me, is it more ridiculous to say God did it, or the entire universe and everything that exists, including life, made themselves. Only two choices
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Let me be clear, there is no evidence that abiogenesis occurred.

There is evidence that abiogenesis might have occurred. That is sufficient for now.

So, there are two major problems of many, that believers in abiogenesis cannot, and I predict will not explain.The first is that that alleged very first cell wad irreducibly complex

That is an unsupported claim.

Second and the stopper, is that for the cell to function a long chain of coded information must be present, in the exact proper order, for that first cell to live. Once again I ask WHERE DID THE VERY SPECIFIC OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS, IN THE DNA OR RNA IN PERFECTLY ORDERED CHAINS COME FROM ?

Either from an intelligent designer or blind, naturalistic processes. We may never be able to rule either in or out.

The abiogenesis hypothesis is alive and well, with new discoveries piling onto old ones on just how it might have occurred.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
there's more options than those two choices. I accept intelligent cause in evolution without God being real.

There simply is no governing justice in the world , ruling out God completely.

Creation is an intelligent hack job on mindless materials.

The universe is 99.99999% non life permitting. Life hangs in a fragile balance between violent death , hot, or cold.

if God exists, than life is the norm, and the universe should be perfectly tailored for life. This is astronomically far from that.

In a place where no life should exist at all, an intelligent miracle happened. us. There simply must be an intelligent force in nature that is alive, and by trial and error, created life. it would have to be a non physical entity, that is fiercely savage, and vastly intelligent, and crudely artistic.
 

Mister Silver

Faith's Nightmare
there's more options than those two choices. I accept intelligent cause in evolution without God being real.

There simply is no governing justice in the world , ruling out God completely.

Creation is an intelligent hack job on mindless materials.

The universe is 99.99999% non life permitting. Life hangs in a fragile balance between violent death , hot, or cold.

if God exists, than life is the norm, and the universe should be perfectly tailored for life. This is astronomically far from that.

In a place where no life should exist at all, an intelligent miracle happened. us. There simply must be an intelligent force in nature that is alive, and by trial and error, created life. it would have to be a non physical entity, that is fiercely savage, and vastly intelligent, and crudely artistic.

The problem with most people is that they need an answer to their questions immediately, and another problem with most people is that when that answer is not readily available they mumble the "god" answer as though it is the actual answer.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Let me be clear, there is no evidence that abiogenesis occurred.
The earth is loaded with life. It all comes from a common origin some 3.5 - 3.8 bn ya. That's a total clincher for me. How do you explain it if not by chemical-to-biochemical abiogenesis?
"In the very first cell, assuming there was first cell, What came first, the protein or the DNA ? The protein could not have been first,
I don't claim expertise in biochemistry. On what basis do you assert that DNA was the first replicating mechanism, for instance?

What did you find when you googled the question?
Dr. Sean D. Pitman,
He's a fundamentalist. You offered me atheists, I settled for non-fundies. Stick to the deal.
Dr. Stephen Meyer
Another fundie, for gosh sakes! This guy is one of the three heroes ─ Dembsky and Campbell are the other two ─ who filed statements to be read at the Dover trial. But then they found that if they did that, they could ─ aagh, the horror! ─ be cross-examined on those statements, and they wet their pants and fled far far away. They don't even believe their own nonsense, they just live off it.
My belief ? Intelligent design.
So, you say, Goddunnit.

That explains nothing.

Not until you tell us what a god is, such that if we encounter a real one we can tell it's a god, and the method by which he / she /it / they created the protocell.

Without those explanations we'd still have no understanding of the origins of life. Worse, we'd be vastly further away from the answer than the real (ie non-fundie) scientists.
So, tell me, is it more ridiculous to say God did it, or the entire universe and everything that exists, including life, made themselves. Only two choices
Your list hardly exhausts the possibilities.

I'm inclined to think that time and space are properties of energy, rather than that energy exists within time and space. So given energy exists, time and space can exist. I don't pretend I can prove it, but it's plausible and as an hypothesis it's much less complex, much more grounded, than yours ─ and unlike yours, is potentially falsifiable.

As for the origins of life, we know abiogenesis happened, because we're here to ask how.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
There is evidence that abiogenesis might have occurred. That is sufficient for now.



That is an unsupported claim.






Either from an intelligent designer or blind, naturalistic processes. We may never be able to rule either in or out.

The abiogenesis hypothesis is alive and well, with new discoveries piling onto old ones on just how it might have occurred.
Obviously you didn;t read what I posted. A cell is irreduceably complex, it cannot be reduced any further. to take any part away from it would kill it. Likewise, it could not have created itself piecemeal. it would have to have all the parts and information together simultaneously to survive. If you think that is unsupported ( which I did in my post) I would respectfully request that you find reputable information that supports the idea that a cell can be further reduced, and live.

Yes, the concept of abiogenesis lives and is tenaciously supported by those who, for whatever reason, cannot look at another possibility. Therefore itś adherents will keep the faith and pound away trying to come up with their particular holy grail, proof that a random conglomeration of chemicals can produce life. I keep hearing about these exciting new discoveries, but , when I look at them, they really don;t seem to count for much. Further, many are refuted quite well by scientists who support ID
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
The earth is loaded with life. It all comes from a common origin some 3.5 - 3.8 bn ya. That's a total clincher for me. How do you explain it if not by chemical-to-biochemical abiogenesis?

I don't claim expertise in biochemistry. On what basis do you assert that DNA was the first replicating mechanism, for instance?

What did you find when you googled the question?
He's a fundamentalist. You offered me atheists, I settled for non-fundies. Stick to the deal.
Another fundie, for gosh sakes! This guy is one of the three heroes ─ Dembsky and Campbell are the other two ─ who filed statements to be read at the Dover trial. But then they found that if they did that, they could ─ aagh, the horror! ─ be cross-examined on those statements, and they wet their pants and fled far far away. They don't even believe their own nonsense, they just live off it.
So, you say, Goddunnit.

That explains nothing.

Not until you tell us what a god is, such that if we encounter a real one we can tell it's a god, and the method by which he / she /it / they created the protocell.

Without those explanations we'd still have no understanding of the origins of life. Worse, we'd be vastly further away from the answer than the real (ie non-fundie) scientists.
Your list hardly exhausts the possibilities.

I'm inclined to think that time and space are properties of energy, rather than that energy exists within time and space. So given energy exists, time and space can exist. I don't pretend I can prove it, but it's plausible and as an hypothesis it's much less complex, much more grounded, than yours ─ and unlike yours, is potentially falsifiable.

As for the origins of life, we know abiogenesis happened, because we're here to ask how.
A deal is composed of two agreeing parties. You proposed, I disposed. Scientific fact is scientific fact, regardless of who presents it. Refute it if you can, but having a filter for who is right or wrong, based upon what they believe is right out of the nazi playbook. So, REFUTE IT. Well, Einstein disagrees with you re the time/space continuum being the result of energy. This is only true in that everything was created by the big bang, a great expansion of energy, which is also matter (E=MC squared), but time and the continuum were created at the bang as well. You may know abiogenesis occurred, but very few in the scientific community would agree with you. Many BELIEVE it did, and many BELIEVE it did not. I know it did not, but that is the result of faith, just as your assertion is. The scientists you allege are are unraveling the mysteries of abiogenesis are about as effective as an alchemist turning lead into gold. They are playing around at the edges without finding a way to to to simply and clearly explain the process, and they never will.
 
Top