"Life comes from Life"!

[Audie]

I think it beyond ignorance to think that anyone can disagree with something that they don’t understand, never even bother learn to learn the basic.

Prior to 2003, which was before I joined my first forum, I didn’t know anything about creationism and evolution.

Sure, I knew about creation from reading Genesis, Hesiod’s Theogony and Norse creation, but I have never heard of the word “Creationism” or people who called themselves “Creationists”, before joining the Free2Code forum.

My sister got me my first bible when I was 15. So I believe what I read, and thought creation and flood were true, and I didn’t even try to make science or history to fit in with Genesis creation.

And my biology knowledge don’t go beyond Year 9 high school level (this was way back when I was 14 in 1980). I do remember vaguely about learning about basic genetics, but they didn’t me Evolution, nor anything like Natural Selection, Mutations or speciation. I didn’t even know about Charles Darwin.

Free2Code only one tiny section for discussion and debate on Religion, but mainly it was forums for programmers and IT professionals.

I didn’t know what they were talking about. So I left it alone, until I could learn more about both topics.

It was the right to do. In 2003, I borrowed my cousin’s old biology textbook and read up on Evolution.

And though I already understood Genesis creation to an extent, I didn’t really explore deeper the meanings and the historical background behind the authorship of the Genesis. Back then, I was younger and far too inexperienced to do a proper research, and I didn’t do any cross-checking.

The more read, learn and understand about both sides, the more I became convinced that it is Genesis is unrealistic and unnatural.

My point, especially to @shmogie if you are reading this, I didn’t have opinions on either sides, until I was able grasp the basics from both sides. It is absurd to argue something that you don’t understand, @shmogie. And I think most creationists have exactly the same problems.

Most are very ignorant of science but there are
well educated exceptions.

 

[shmogie]

Still waiting for a coherent response based on science . . .

What science do you propose I cite to show that science doesn't know how abiogenesis occurs?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Christianity is based on a triune God, or for the Arians, a God that can have a Son. Islam rejects the Christian view of the very nature of God.

Christians believe that a blood atonement must be made for sin, the very basis of Christianity. Muslims totally reject this.

Christians believe that God, through Christ created all that is created, Muslims reject this.

Christians believe that Christ on earth was the incarnation of a pre existent divine being. Muslims believe Christ was just a man, though a prophet.

Christians believe that Christ was raised physically from the dead. Muslims emphatically reject this.

Christians believe that Christ made the required atonement for all sin that is accompanied with repentance. Muslims reject this.

Irrelevant to my argument, which is that Christianity and Islam would be manifest similarly, including the authoritarian brutality of modern Islam in the East and the analogous authoritarian brutality of the West in the Middle Ages - the rack, boiling in oil, the pear, etc..What kind of people do this? Christian and Muslims permitted to. Why do Muslims still cut off hands and burn people alive in cages. but Christians do not?

Don't look to the Gospels for answers. They existed in the Middle Ages, when brutality and sadism often occurred unchecked. Those words didn't prevent the Christian church torturing people than. Those irrelevant differences you named existed then, and didn't make Islam and Christianity different, and there is no reason to believe that they would now, either. The gifts of humanism and the modern, liberal, democratic state with church-state separation and guaranteed personal liberties are all that protect you from those people.

That's my argument and some of my evidence. Here is more evidence, which you conveniently ignored when previously posted

• "Why stoning? There are many reasons. First, the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost...executions are community projects--not with spectators who watch a professional executioner do `his' duty, but rather with actual participants...That modern Christians never consider the possibility of the reintroduction of stoning for capital crimes indicates how thoroughly humanistic concepts of punishment have influenced the thinking of Christian." - Christian Dominionist Gary North bemoaning the influence that humanism has had

This Christian is visibly upset that humanist values prevent him from stoning you. Here are more examples from authoritarian Christians happy that rose to power within the ranks of Christianity, who are happy to let you know what they would do to America given the chance:

• "I hope to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be." - Jerry Falwell

• "There will never be world peace until God's house and God's people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world." - Pat Robertson

• "I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good ... our goal is a Christian nation. We have the biblical duty, we are called on by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism"- Randall Terry, Director of Operation Rescue

Your list of differences would be just as irrelevant to these people as they were to the Spanish Inquisition, and certainly wouldn't protect you any more today than they did in the Middle Ages. You need to find a different reason for the two religions being rendered so differently today, and the answer is obvious.

That is the argument. I don't believe that you can rebut it, just dismiss it as nonsense with a few more examples of irrelevant doctrinal differences, or ignore it altogether as you did these quotations the last time they were posted..

objective fact has not proven it possible, or impossible

That makes it possible as already explained, the second definition of possible, i.e., not known to be impossible. You ignored that as well. Some things have been proven to be possible (first definition - we know they can happen, perhaps because they have happened before), and others proven impossible. Everything else is possible (second definition, not known to be impossible.)

It does not exist as a valid theory, now. It may conform exactly to my opinion, and be impossible

Your opinion is irrelevant. It is faith-based and unsupported..

So, with your knowledge of biology, refute the claim.

Your syllogism has been refutted, which refutation you have also ignored.

Your claim about abiogenesis being a work in progress rather than a largely completed scientific theory needs no refutation, since it's also irrelevant, yet another point made to you that you ignored.

You have refuted the following ? Abiogenesis is the result of a totally unknown process, that has never been observed or replicated.

The process is not totally unknown, although it could be and that fact would also be irrelevant to matter of the truth of the history of life.

If the process was known, it would be observable and could be replicated. It isn't, and can't be. Why does that fact bother you so much?

Why do you think that that argues against the possibility of abiogenesis. It doesn't a fact you have also been told repeatedly and ignored.

Also, as is common for you, you offer arguments that, if offered to you mutatis mutandis,you would reject. Arguments against creationism that point out that you cannot observe or repeat creation would be as irrelevant to you as yours are here.

Your double standard is glaring. Even if we had zero evidence for abiogenesis, that would only put it on an even footing with creationism, not make creationism to default position as you are hoping with your attacks on science.

I never said it was an argument. I said it was a fact.

It's part of an implied argument. You never actually explicitly say that, "You don't have a well-developed theory yet, therefore abiogenesis didn't occur, therefore God."

But that is your position, an ignorance fallacy, one of the two classic forms (if you can't show how it happened, it didn't), the other being, "If you can't prove it didn't happen, it did" Sorry, but that's a logical fail.

A premise that life was created by natural forces is just as unsound, it cannot be established.

That's not the premise. The premise is that life may have arisen by natural forces. Your fallacy this time straw man. You've chosen to reject an argument not being made.

Incidentally, Christian creationism with its vague "kinds" isn't just a rejection of the abiogenesis theory, it's also a rejection of the theory of evolution. You don't have a prayer there. The theory has already ruled out Christian creationism. The evidence that is the basis of the theory doesn't go away even if evolution is falsified, another argument you've ignored. And that evidence rules out the Genesis story and Christian creationism however it's interpreted.

your assumption is that progress has been made.

That's a fact, not an assumption. Your unwillingness to look at the evidence is also irrelevant to those who have seen and understood it.

But do you know where zero progress has been made? Creationism, whether by you here in this thread arguing in vain against abiogenesis, nor the ID program spearheaded by the Discovery Institute. As abiogenesis research marches forward year after year, creationism remains stuck at the starting line.

That's the sine qua non of a wrong idea : It's sterile. They also made no progress in astrology for the same reason. Wrong ideas generate nothing. Right ideas accumulate progress.

Biochemical progress has been made, and that is all you can truly say.

Yes, but you have been saying the opposite. You have been saying that there is no evidence for abiogenesis, yet scientists keep showing us that when certain molecules are in proximity in the proper ambient environment, that spontaneously create more complicated biomolecules. That's what the Miller-Urey work showed us - how amino acids could form from natural processes. Since then, much work has been been done to show how these monomers polymerize into polypeptides and eventually proteins.

Similar work has been done for nucleic acids, also polymers that build up step by step spontaneously under the proper circumstances.

Likewise with membranes, which also form spontaneously under the proper circumstances.

That's the progress that you have been denying has occurred.

I said nothing about anything supernatural except that it was within the realm of possibility.

Not as possible (likely) as abiogenesis, which needs nothing supernatural to exist.

 

[shmogie]

I think it beyond ignorance to think that anyone can disagree with something that they don’t understand, never even bother learn to learn the basic.

Prior to 2003, which was before I joined my first forum, I didn’t know anything about creationism and evolution.

Sure, I knew about creation from reading Genesis, Hesiod’s Theogony and Norse creation, but I have never heard of the word “Creationism” or people who called themselves “Creationists”, before joining the Free2Code forum.

My sister got me my first bible when I was 15. So I believe what I read, and thought creation and flood were true, and I didn’t even try to make science or history to fit in with Genesis creation.

And my biology knowledge don’t go beyond Year 9 high school level (this was way back when I was 14 in 1980). I do remember vaguely about learning about basic genetics, but they didn’t me Evolution, nor anything like Natural Selection, Mutations or speciation. I didn’t even know about Charles Darwin.

Free2Code only one tiny section for discussion and debate on Religion, but mainly it was forums for programmers and IT professionals.

I didn’t know what they were talking about. So I left it alone, until I could learn more about both topics.

It was the right to do. In 2003, I borrowed my cousin’s old biology textbook and read up on Evolution.

The same old tired attack, you don't know about abiogenesis, so no matter the validity of a simple statement you make, it is wrong.

The statement that science does not know how abiogenisis occurred is true, even if my dog wrote it in the sand.

I have followed the hypothesis of abiogenesis to the extent that I am familiar with the various versions of it, and the more dramatic research accomplishments. I understand the functions of proteins, RNA, DNA in a cell, which, if abiogenesis exists, will probably be found there.

Nothing changes the fact that how the alleged abiogenesis occurred, is not known.

And though I already understood Genesis creation to an extent, I didn’t really explore deeper the meanings and the historical background behind the authorship of the Genesis. Back then, I was younger and far too inexperienced to do a proper research, and I didn’t do any cross-checking.

The more read, learn and understand about both sides, the more I became convinced that it is Genesis is unrealistic and unnatural.

My point, especially to @shmogie if you are reading this, I didn’t have opinions on either sides, until I was able grasp the basics from both sides. It is absurd to argue something that you don’t understand, @shmogie. And I think most creationists have exactly the same problems.

 

[gnostic]

@shmogie

Please don’t put your reply in the quote box?

I would appreciate if you would edit your replying.

 

[shmogie]

Irrelevant to my argument, which is that Christianity and Islam would be manifest similarly, including the authoritarian brutality of modern Islam in the East and the analogous authoritarian brutality of the West in the Middle Ages - the rack, boiling in oil, the pear, etc..What kind of people do this? Christian and Muslims permitted to. Why do Muslims still cut off hands and burn people alive in cages. but Christians do not?

Don't look to the Gospels for answers. They existed in the Middle Ages, when brutality and sadism often occurred unchecked. Those words didn't prevent the Christian church torturing people than. Those irrelevant differences you named existed then, and didn't make Islam and Christianity different, and there is no reason to believe that they would now, either. The gifts of humanism and the modern, liberal, democratic state with church-state separation and guaranteed personal liberties are all that protect you from those people.

That's my argument and some of my evidence. Here is more evidence, which you conveniently ignored when previously posted

• "Why stoning? There are many reasons. First, the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost...executions are community projects--not with spectators who watch a professional executioner do `his' duty, but rather with actual participants...That modern Christians never consider the possibility of the reintroduction of stoning for capital crimes indicates how thoroughly humanistic concepts of punishment have influenced the thinking of Christian." - Christian Dominionist Gary North bemoaning the influence that humanism has had

This Christian is visibly upset that humanist values prevent him from stoning you. Here are more examples from authoritarian Christians happy that rose to power within the ranks of Christianity, who are happy to let you know what they would do to America given the chance:

• "I hope to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be." - Jerry Falwell

• "There will never be world peace until God's house and God's people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world." - Pat Robertson

• "I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good ... our goal is a Christian nation. We have the biblical duty, we are called on by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism"- Randall Terry, Director of Operation Rescue

Your list of differences would be just as irrelevant to these people as they were to the Spanish Inquisition, and certainly wouldn't protect you any more today than they did in the Middle Ages. You need to find a different reason for the two religions being rendered so differently today, and the answer is obvious.

That is the argument. I don't believe that you can rebut it, just dismiss it as nonsense with a few more examples of irrelevant doctrinal differences, or ignore it altogether as you did these quotations the last time they were posted..



That makes it possible as already explained, the second definition of possible, i.e., not known to be impossible. You ignored that as well. Some things have been proven to be possible (first definition - we know they can happen, perhaps because they have happened before), and others proven impossible. Everything else is possible (second definition, not known to be impossible.)



Your opinion is irrelevant. It is faith-based and unsupported..



Your syllogism has been refutted, which refutation you have also ignored.

Your claim about abiogenesis being a work in progress rather than a largely completed scientific theory needs no refutation, since it's also irrelevant, yet another point made to you that you ignored.



The process is not totally unknown, although it could be and that fact would also be irrelevant to matter of the truth of the history of life.



Why do you think that that argues against the possibility of abiogenesis. It doesn't a fact you have also been told repeatedly and ignored.

Also, as is common for you, you offer arguments that, if offered to you mutatis mutandis,you would reject. Arguments against creationism that point out that you cannot observe or repeat creation would be as irrelevant to you as yours are here.

Your double standard is glaring. Even if we had zero evidence for abiogenesis, that would only put it on an even footing with creationism, not make creationism to default position as you are hoping with your attacks on science.



It's part of an implied argument. You never actually explicitly say that, "You don't have a well-developed theory yet, therefore abiogenesis didn't occur, therefore God."

But that is your position, an ignorance fallacy, one of the two classic forms (if you can't show how it happened, it didn't), the other being, "If you can't prove it didn't happen, it did" Sorry, but that's a logical fail.



That's not the premise. The premise is that life may have arisen by natural forces. Your fallacy this time straw man. You've chosen to reject an argument not being made.

Incidentally, Christian creationism with its vague "kinds" isn't just a rejection of the abiogenesis theory, it's also a rejection of the theory of evolution. You don't have a prayer there. The theory has already ruled out Christian creationism. The evidence that is the basis of the theory doesn't go away even if evolution is falsified, another argument you've ignored. And that evidence rules out the Genesis story and Christian creationism however it's interpreted.



That's a fact, not an assumption. Your unwillingness to look at the evidence is also irrelevant to those who have seen and understood it.

But do you know where zero progress has been made? Creationism, whether by you here in this thread arguing in vain against abiogenesis, nor the ID program spearheaded by the Discovery Institute. As abiogenesis research marches forward year after year, creationism remains stuck at the starting line.

That's the sine qua non of a wrong idea : It's sterile. They also made no progress in astrology for the same reason. Wrong ideas generate nothing. Right ideas accumulate progress.



Yes, but you have been saying the opposite. You have been saying that there is no evidence for abiogenesis, yet scientists keep showing us that when certain molecules are in proximity in the proper ambient environment, that spontaneously create more complicated biomolecules. That's what the Miller-Urey work showed us - how amino acids could form from natural processes. Since then, much work has been been done to show how these monomers polymerize into polypeptides and eventually proteins.

Similar work has been done for nucleic acids, also polymers that build up step by step spontaneously under the proper circumstances.

Likewise with membranes, which also form spontaneously under the proper circumstances.

That's the progress that you have been denying has occurred.



Not as possible (likely) as abiogenesis, which needs nothing supernatural to exist.

Once again, I did not bother to read your defense of your indefensible statement re Islam and Christianity.

Miller Urey was about as far from "natural" as can be imagined. The alleged primordial environment of the experiement is now considered to be totally incorrect. It is evidence of manufactured amino acids.

I am familiar in general with the work on polymers, and self replicating proteins.

You assume these are evidences in support of abiogenesis, which they might be, yet you cannot say they are, because you do not know what the actual process of abiogrnesis is. For all you know, it actually was the result of something totally different, like radiation or electricity.

So, there are experiments showing some extremely interesting things, fact.

They might be evidence of abiogenesis, if they are actually part of the process that biochemically produced life.

Of course, the environment in which these things occurred has yet to be seriously considered. Abiogenesis proposes that life emerged in the extant NATURAL environment. Most of these evidences occurred in rigorously controlled and continually tweaked environments. So a bridge must be shown to exist between "intelligent design" and the natural world, and the factor of chance or randomness.

I am doing a little research now on ideas as to how many of these alleged precursor organisms would have to have existed at the same time to ensure a sustainable population. An organism or two from non living matter is wonderful, yet the house of cards is based on a thriving sustainable population. So, did abiogenesis suddenly produce 500 of them, or a 1,000 ? They had, of course, no natural predators, but what other factors may have been present that would cut into this population?

A an example, the encoded long chains of DNA required to operate the organism must, obviously stick together as a chain, yet the environment most conducive to life, seriously limits this ability if the DNA is not protected within a cell. Yet, a cell cannot exist without long strands of encoded DNA to create it. So, the idea that bits of DNA naturally over time attached to one another in the proper order while floating around in the primordial sea, to then create life seems really far fetched.

There is much to consider, and I keep track of what I can.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I did not bother to read your defense of your indefensible statement re Islam and Christianity.

Then why did you list differences between them? And why do you call a position that you haven't "bothered to read" indefensible?

It's possible that when I made the case recently that the two ideologies would both be brutal, authoritarian religions if not for the tempering influence of humanism in the West but not in the Islamic world, that it was a different thread.

When I saw your attempt to show me differences between Christianity and Islam, I assumed that it was a reaction to my list of similarities between the two that account for the similarities between historic Christianity before modernity, and modern Islam. If not, I don't know why you produced your own list.

Miller Urey was about as far from "natural" as can be imagined. The alleged primordial environment of the experiement is now considered to be totally incorrect. It is evidence of manufactured amino acids.

We have also found amino acids in nebulae and meteorites. Are you calling those manufactured as well?

Chemistry is natural. Nobody can force an amino acid to form if conditions aren't right, nor stop it when they are whether that be naturally on prebiotic earth, interstellar nebulae, or asteroids, or by design in labs like the Miller-Urey labs. That's the salient point of the Miller-Urey experiments.

I used to watch Myth Busters. Those guys used contrived tests to answer questions about natural phenomena. I remember one test to determine whether running through rain keeps you drier than walking through it. They set up artificial rain and tested. The results are just as valid as if they had waited for natural rain. But why wait?

Likewise, I've seen shows that exonerated a suspected arsonist by demonstrating that the fire could have occurred naturally. How? By artificially recreating the pre-fire environment and applying heat from a dropped, burning cigarette - processes that occurred naturally once, and artificially the second time. They're still valid. So again, why wait for another such fire to start spontaneously, which probably wouldn't answer any questions if nobody was present to document the event from the beginning? It might take decades.

And why wait for abiogenesis to occur spontaneously again in a lab? That took millions of years the last time.

You assume these are evidences in support of abiogenesis, which they might be, yet you cannot say they are, because you do not know what the actual process of abiogrnesis is.

The actual processes of abiogenesis would be the chemistry that converted atoms and simple molecules. It's a long chain of transformations, a chain that today is missing many links. But gaps in knowledge here are shrinking every year. Eventually we should have a continuous chain of chemistry that is thermodynamically sound and leads to de novo life.

There are likely several paths to first life, and the first path elucidated in the laboratory may be to a creature that never lived, but could have served as the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) of all life on earth had it been there first.

I don't expect that we will ever know what that LUCA was like other than a unicellular marine replicator with the basic building blocks common to all life.

I've got a weapon for you to use in your apologetics. I don't think that the abiogenesis hypothesis is falsifiable. I can't imagine a finding that would rule out the possibility, even finding a god. That doesn't mean that abiogenesis didn't occur, just that there may be no way to falsify (rule out) that it did if it didn't..

And unless we find a fossilized member of the LUCA in a form that allows us to discern its anatomy and chemistry, we may never be able to demonstrate what happened so many billions of years ago.

For all you know, it actually was the result of something totally different, like radiation or electricity.

Irrelevant. The point is that amino acids can form spontaneously under the right conditions. We may never know exactly what those were when life first formed.

a bridge must be shown to exist between "intelligent design" and the natural world, and the factor of chance or randomness.

We have that bridge. Contrived experiments are used to generate rules that can predict natural events as I illustrated above with Myth Busters and Forensic Files.

I am doing a little research now on ideas as to how many of these alleged precursor organisms would have to have existed at the same time to ensure a sustainable population. An organism or two from non living matter is wonderful, yet the house of cards is based on a thriving sustainable population. So, did abiogenesis suddenly produce 500 of them, or a 1,000 ?

All we need know is whether any population could grow from one cell to a sustainable population. There is no known barrier to that.

It's clear why the first life had to reproduce asexually (without mates). After the first cellular division of this first cell, as long as at least one daughter cell survived, the process can continue.

A an example, the encoded long chains of DNA required to operate the organism must, obviously stick together as a chain, yet the environment most conducive to life, seriously limits this ability if the DNA is not protected within a cell. Yet, a cell cannot exist without long strands of encoded DNA to create it. So, the idea that bits of DNA naturally over time attached to one another in the proper order while floating around in the primordial sea, to then create life seems really far fetched.

Well, you only have two possibilities for the first life - naturalistic abiogenesis or intelligent creation. Both seem unlikely, yet it seems that one must have occurred - unless you can think of a third possibility (panspermia and intelligent aliens aren't different categories, just variations on the naturalistic category once removed from earth).

This means that we cannot rule an idea out because it seems far-fetched, not only because that would be a logically invalid incredulity fallacy ("I just can't imagine how a living cell could have assembled itself without an intelligent designer, therefore it didn't, and there must be an intelligent designer"), but also, because once you are done eliminating the unlikely, you have nothing left.

What is more unlikely - a cell existing undesigned, or a god existing undesigned? What could possibly be more unlikely to exist undesigned than a god, and what is the value of positing something even more complex to account for something less complex because you consider the latter too complex to self-assemble?

I made an argument earlier that despite your claim that life only comes from life, even as a creationist, you don't believe that. You either believe that your god is a living thing, in which case it is life not preceded by earlier life, or you don't consider consider an immortal, disembodied mind to be life, in which case the life you believe it created was life not preceded by other life.

You have ignored that argument twice now, and will likely ignore it a third time now.

Can we conclude that your evasion of this question is because you have no response you want to post? You were quick to contradict me on Christianity versus Islam when you thought that you could make a counterargument. The obvious conclusion is that you thought that you could take on the one but not the other.

EDIT - and thanks for keeping the derogatory language out of your posting lately.

 

[shunyadragon]

Wow, So it is improper for me to say that abiogenesis has not been shown to be possible.

Yes it is improper, because it is based on a religious agenda on your part and not science, which you have no knowledge.

Apparently I MUST say that abiogenesis has been shown to be possible, even though I know this is a flat out false.

Very logical.

Actually it is best for you to say neither, because you have no knowledge as to what is possible.

 

[shunyadragon]

What science do you propose I cite to show that science doesn't know how abiogenesis occurs?

You have not shown anything in terms of science, because in part you have no knowledge of the science involved and you are basing your view on a religious agenda not science. It is your problem to come up with the peer reviewed published research to justify your assertions.

 

[Audie]

If life proceeds from non life due to a particular arrangement of molecules, what is so special about that arrangement that life becomes of it?

You have not explained life by material necessity. The best you can do is show how the channel to life is created with your special arrangement.

Life is its own unique properties not reducible to any material knowable.

This is an endless argument and how you perceive your sequiturs is going to determine if you are a believer or non believer. It's a materialist intuition that life comes from non life, and merely accessing life doesn't prove anything about where life came from.

There will always be the explanatory gap even when abiogenesis reaches it's ultimate potential. The gap is the experience to the material. That gap is permanent and thus no doors will ever be shut from belief in the spiritual.

It's a battle of intuitions. Side A says case closed, Side B says the door is wide open for the spiritual. It will always be.

Two vastly different intuitions and each side will solidify their logic and be totally unable to convert the other.

There is no slam dunk for either side.

If it is god-poof v science there is no more contest
than flat earth v spheroid.

Inability of those who want to stay in the Bronze Age to
move on is a thing, but on a par only with things like
water witching, alchemy, astrology and other dreary
relics of a superstitious past.

 

[osgart]

If it is god-poof v science there is no more contest
than flat earth v spheroid.

Inability of those who want to stay in the Bronze Age to
move on is a thing, but on a par only with things like
water witching, alchemy, astrology and other dreary
relics of a superstitious past.

I am only interested in how naturalists draw their conclusions about the contingency of consciousness as an emergent property.

Only trying to gather information.

I don't believe in God. I consider consciousness to be fundamental. I am an experiencer to experiences.

I'm trying to focus on consciousness as evidence of life, and part of it's definition. Without consciousness then you have unconscious life.

I'm quite fine with your view of it.

I wouldn't post so much if I had a book on the logic of materialist naturalism.

 

[shmogie]

You have not shown anything in terms of science, because in part you have no knowledge of the science involved and you are basing your view on a religious agenda not science. It is your problem to come up with the peer reviewed published research to justify your assertions.

LOL, you are kidding, right? The same lame and erroneous attack "YOU have no knowledge, YOU have an agenda".
First, I have not mentioned religion one time. You apparently have an agenda in dragging religion into the discussion.

Second, if the process of abiogenesis was known, the world would know.

I would appreciate your advice as to which scientific journals I should search to find a peer reviewed article that explains that no one knows how abiogenesis occurs.

The fact of the matter is that you hate the message, cannot refute it, so you attack the messenger.

Others who believe in abiogenesis have acknowledged this, because they know it is a fact, because they are reasonable people who have no problem with seeing reality.

I suggest that you dump your personal prejudices, and emulate them. Right now your faux role of an objective prophet of the scientific method is pretty well shredded.

 

[shunyadragon]

LOL, you are kidding, right? The same lame and erroneous attack "YOU have no knowledge, YOU have an agenda".
First, I have not mentioned religion one time. You apparently have an agenda in dragging religion into the discussion.

Second, if the process of abiogenesis was known, the world would know.

I would appreciate your advice as to which scientific journals I should search to find a peer reviewed article that explains that no one knows how abiogenesis occurs.

The fact of the matter is that you hate the message, cannot refute it, so you attack the messenger.

Others who believe in abiogenesis have acknowledged this, because they know it is a fact, because they are reasonable people who have no problem with seeing reality.

I suggest that you dump your personal prejudices, and emulate them. Right now your faux role of an objective prophet of the scientific method is pretty well shredded.

Still waiting . . .

No science just personal attacks.

 

[shmogie]

Yes it is improper, because it is based on a religious agenda on your part and not science, which you have no knowledge.



Actually it is best for you to say neither, because you have no knowledge as to what is possible.

What might be possible is totally irrelevant to what actually is.

Your intended personal attack regarding my knowledge of abiogenesis and the research related to it, is baloney, you simply do not know what knowledge I have.

However, one needs absolutely no knowledge related to it, to know that science cannot say how the alleged process works. A person need not know how the internal combustion engine operates to know that cars drive down the road.

In the same vein, one need not be a geologist to know that all rocks are not gold.

One need not be a biochemist to know that science has not discovered the secret of abiogenesis.

The knowledge thing is your personal way to avoid admitting this. Sad.

 

[shmogie]

Still waiting . . .

No science just personal attacks.

Personal attacks? Nice try. Here is your science. No one knows how the process of non living matter turning into life operates. A purely scientific statement. Why? Because science is about truth, and this is the truth that cannot be refuted.

 

[shunyadragon]

Personal attacks? Nice try. Here is your science. No one knows how the process of non living matter turning into life operates. A purely scientific statement. Why? Because science is about truth, and this is the truth that cannot be refuted.

Still waiting . . .

No science just personal attacks.

 

[Thief]

Chemistry is man-made knowledge or discipline, based on observation of chemical structures and chemical reactions.

This “God did it” offered no merits or understanding of chemistry.

God would know His chemistry

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What science do you propose I cite to show that science doesn't know how abiogenesis occurs?

Everybody on this side of the table has no problems acknowledging that the puzzle of abiogenesis hasn't fully been solved.

The real question is: why do you feel it is so important to keep repeating the obvious?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Personal attacks?No one knows how the process of non living matter turning into life operates.

So?

 

[shmogie]

So?

I see your so, and raise you one. So?