Man sprouting from the ground...science or myth?

[Grandliseur]

Then please show this probability.

First, the reason I reject you statements here because they are simply ignoring most everything about life and earth. The earth contains microbes so that if a body dies, or someone defecates, in a short time this has been decomposed, if not by bugs specially equipped, made, for this. These microbes of the earth and other larger lifeforms only rarely seen and many most likely unknown, go deep into the earth. (Mysterious Microbes Found Deep in Earth's Crust) Many plants most likely cannot survive without the symbiotic relationship between microbe and plant. In this then, plants generally use light to provide the energy for these interactions where they may gain minerals, etc. Roots, naturally get material from the soil, but as I already stated, there are people way better equipped to go into these details than I.

The point here is that life feeds on life and light, or energy, if there is no light.
And your point about DNA programming evolving from compounded errors, is beyond believable. That you choose to have faith in this - is your prerogative. It is simply not rational to say it happened. If it is rational in your world is up to you. To me it is not the conclusions of a rational human being. And, I am not trying to offend. I am trying to show you that this discussion is a waste of time.
Probability
Quoting:

Even the simplest form of free-living life that we know of, Pelagibacter ubique, is incredibly complex. Although this single-celled organism has the smallest known genome of any free-living organism, it still has 1,308,759 base pairs of DNA! 1 Because its genome is only one of its many components, the odds of this organism forming spontaneously are so low as to be virtually impossible. . .
SCESR – for Simplest Conceivable Evolvable Self-Replicator
. . .
​

But how does this relate to chemical processes governed by natural laws?

The cell doesn't work without the DNA, no matter what chemical processes you invoke.

As far as Abiogenesis is concerned, it is just fairy tale nonsense hot rock mineral soup coming to life. Be real, start drinking, it

Are you aware of the work of countless scientists that indicates evolution to be true?

More nonsense to go through with more hot rock mineral soup. This has no interest for me.

You know, I am tired, and we have done this before. I think this is enough for me. Why should I study what I think is insanity?! (Again not trying to offend, but that is how it is)
I will discontinue this discussion.

 

[Grandliseur]

For me, this has nothing at all to do with whether or not God exists.

OK.

They do? How do you know that?

The ransom is depending upon its own history. Without Adam, there is no original sin; if no original sin, then no ransom is needed, and Christ died for nought.

Yes. Is there anything specific in them you wish to discuss?

No. If people still believe in evolution thereafter, that is their choice.

And what have you looked at from the evolution side?

Apart from being raised in a country that taught evolution all through the schools systems, I have read things during my life. Evolutionary material presenting the side of evolution makes no sense to me at all.

I have also read Richard Milton.

where you're trying to analogize between inanimate objects and living organisms

No, that is not my fallacy, but evolutionists! They are the ones that claim this is simple chemical reactions that are alive. Thus comparing this to any mechanical, human construct - is not at all out of bounce. Even the cellular machinery is then just that machinery, not living matter. There is no life force, no life, only chemical exchanges. That is the result of materialistic viewpoint. Our brains are not alive in the real sense, they simply exchange chemicals and electric impulses. The fact that we are aware is a side issue that cannot be separated from the simple chemical reactions and electrical currents, impulses.

Once you go the way and say that this universe is only a materialistic universe, the idea of life is an illusion - all things are mechanical, chemical, and electrical in nature. There is nothing beyond this. A computer, a car, an airplane is just as much life as I am in that sense. They are chemical (battery), electric, and mechanical machines with parts that are a little bigger, but they are mechanical parts -- all things are. Life is a lie, it is an illusion; your imagination so to say. Your brain, a computer life machine, lies to you.

The second is the fallacy of composition, where you're trying to argue that because one complex object is "designed", then all complex things must be designed.

That is a funny one. You need to tell God this one and see what he says: "For every house is builded by some one; but he that built all things is God. "
I wonder who is right, the philosopher scientist or God. We'll have to wait and see.

You might want to think on that a bit more.

I can only answer to what I see. I make mistakes and am not infallible.

Thank you for your thoughts

 

[ImmortalFlame]

1). Already stated this in original post, not that it matters since hypothesis' are all instrisic with abiogenesis and evolution theory as is.

What does that mean? How is this hypothesis necessarily a part of either?

2) It entertains both.

Fair enough.

3. Some things go without the need to mention: Dust is fine particles of matter. Soil is a mixture of organic matter, minerals, gases, liquids, and organisms that together support life.

Neither of which were mentioned in this particular article.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

First, the reason I reject you statements here because they are simply ignoring most everything about life and earth.

What statements? I asked you to present the probability you spoke of.

The earth contains microbes so that if a body dies, or someone defecates, in a short time this has been decomposed, if not by bugs specially equipped, made, for this. These microbes of the earth and other larger lifeforms only rarely seen and many most likely unknown, go deep into the earth. (Mysterious Microbes Found Deep in Earth's Crust) Many plants most likely cannot survive without the symbiotic relationship between microbe and plant. In this then, plants generally use light to provide the energy for these interactions where they may gain minerals, etc. Roots, naturally get material from the soil, but as I already stated, there are people way better equipped to go into these details than I.

The point here is that life feeds on life and light, or energy, if there is no light.
And your point about DNA programming evolving from compounded errors, is beyond believable.

I never said anything like that. I asked you how you discounted simple, self-replicating DNA (or RNA) developing through chemical interaction.

That you choose to have faith in this - is your prerogative.

I have made no statements whatsoever about my position - I am questioning your position. Please try to stay on topic.

It is simply not rational to say it happened. If it is rational in your world is up to you. To me it is not the conclusions of a rational human being. And, I am not trying to offend. I am trying to show you that this discussion is a waste of time.

So you can't actually explain why it's irrational, it just is? Is that your argument?

Probability
Quoting:

Even the simplest form of free-living life that we know of, Pelagibacter ubique, is incredibly complex. Although this single-celled organism has the smallest known genome of any free-living organism, it still has 1,308,759 base pairs of DNA! 1 Because its genome is only one of its many components, the odds of this organism forming spontaneously are so low as to be virtually impossible. . .
SCESR – for Simplest Conceivable Evolvable Self-Replicator
. . .​

​

What does this have to do with the probability of this organism arising naturally? Also, you are aware that Pelagbacter isn't anywhere near as simple as the earliest forms of life are projected to have been? There are FAR simpler and earlier forms of life that existed:
How Life Began: New Research Suggests Simple Approach
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/...lest-living-organism-possible-in-a-laboratory

The cell doesn't work without the DNA, no matter what chemical processes you invoke.

As far as Abiogenesis is concerned, it is just fairy tale nonsense hot rock mineral soup coming to life. Be real, start drinking, it

And you base this assertion on what?

More nonsense to go through with more hot rock mineral soup. This has no interest for me.

You know, I am tired, and we have done this before. I think this is enough for me. Why should I study what I think is insanity?! (Again not trying to offend, but that is how it is)
I will discontinue this discussion.

Your entire argument is little more than an argument from ignorance. It probably is best if you discontinue discussing if this is all you can offer.

 

[Jose Fly]

The ransom is depending upon its own history. Without Adam, there is no original sin; if no original sin, then no ransom is needed, and Christ died for nought.

Interesting. I hear young-earth creationist Christians say the same thing about Christians who accept the science of an ancient earth. If I'm not mistaken, you are not a young-earth creationist, correct?

Apart from being raised in a country that taught evolution all through the schools systems, I have read things during my life. Evolutionary material presenting the side of evolution makes no sense to me at all.

I have also read Richard Milton.

Can you name anything specific from the "evolution side" that you've read (Milton is a creationist)?

No, that is not my fallacy, but evolutionists! They are the ones that claim this is simple chemical reactions that are alive. Thus comparing this to any mechanical, human construct - is not at all out of bounce. Even the cellular machinery is then just that machinery, not living matter. There is no life force, no life, only chemical exchanges. That is the result of materialistic viewpoint. Our brains are not alive in the real sense, they simply exchange chemicals and electric impulses. The fact that we are aware is a side issue that cannot be separated from the simple chemical reactions and electrical currents, impulses.

Incorrect. You committed the fallacy of false analogy when you attempted to analogize between something that is non-living and doesn't reproduce (a toothpick), with things that are living and reproduce. What you're describing above is at its basic level, not an analogy, which means it can't be the fallacy of false analogy.

Once you go the way and say that this universe is only a materialistic universe, the idea of life is an illusion - all things are mechanical, chemical, and electrical in nature. There is nothing beyond this. A computer, a car, an airplane is just as much life as I am in that sense. They are chemical (battery), electric, and mechanical machines with parts that are a little bigger, but they are mechanical parts -- all things are. Life is a lie, it is an illusion; your imagination so to say. Your brain, a computer life machine, lies to you.

Sorry, but I don't see that as a sensible argument. You're basically saying that if someone doesn't believe in God, then they must also believe there are no differences between living and non-living things. But for the purposes of this discussion, there are some very fundamental differences, i.e., living things reproduce with variation, non-living things don't at all.

I can only answer to what I see. I make mistakes and am not infallible.

Thank you for your thoughts

No problem.

 

[Grandliseur]

(Post 145 ref)
[Grandliseur said: ↑
The ransom is depending upon its own history. Without Adam, there is no original sin; if no original sin, then no ransom is needed, and Christ died for nought.]

Christians say the same thing about Christians who accept the science of an ancient earth.

Here there is a tiny bit of difference the size of an elephant. In both cases, it is possible to show what is what. We can demonstrate by scripture why Christ came and had to die.

Similarly, if any YEC was willing to listen, I can demonstrate rationally from scripture that they are wrong, and that I am right.
----
What I cannot demonstrate is how old the earth is. So while I am OEC, that does not mean that I accept the 4.54 or 4.3 billion year age for the earth. I say that it is older than 6000 years, and that since I don't have a date, I don't know how old the earth is, but it is possible that scientists are right. However, since they change opinion often on many subjects, I accept the age with skepticism since I don't have anything better. The Bible simply says beginning - a vague term by purpose.

(Milton is a creationist)

When I read him a few years ago, I thought he was not a creationist. If that has changed, or what he exactly was, I forget.
I just found the following:
"Richard Milton is the author of Shattering the Myths of Darwinism (1997). (He is an anti-evolutionist rather than a creationist, but his arguments are similar to those of many creationists.)"
Milton/Foley Debate

Can you name anything specific from the "evolution side" that you've read (Milton is a creationist)?

I read about one book every day or every other day. I cannot even remember what I have read last week. My life is very stressful right now. I survive by walks, by reading all the time, by going on the Internet. However, I have always loved science, and used to read physics, astro-physics books, mathematics books were also my favored, and on occasion things about evolution. When my life was quieter, I used to sit and study math for fun about two or three months a year so as not to forget what I used to know.

At the moment I am nearly in tears (not literally perhaps) because I am in a situation where I have to throw out hundreds, if not thousands of books of mine. I tear a hole in my heart when I have to throw out books. Once gone, they cannot ever be recovered. Well, I am going the same way.

Sorry, but I don't see that as a sensible argument.

I am a meat and potatoes kind of person. Simple outlook. If you assume that life began as a chemical, mechanical, computational machine, then it is a machine, no matter where you put the cell, in the brain, the kidney, or in a one celled organism, it is either or. Life becomes a embellished term for the a chemical-mechanical-electrical-computational machine. There is nothing more, it is all mechanisms. There is only the materialistic world, nothing higher.

The assumption that our materialistic universe contains something higher than materialism is nothing but an illusion. This is why scientists still try to create life.

 

[Jose Fly]

My life is very stressful right now. I survive by walks, by reading all the time, by going on the Internet.

I'm sorry to hear that. I wish you all the best.

 

[Grandliseur]

I'm sorry to hear that. I wish you all the best.

I don't mind dying when the time comes, it is the road to that point that is the problem. I have a wife who is deadly ill. I live in a large house (not so bad, but) that I need to get out of quickly and have a life's worth of accumulated stuff that I have nowhere to put, which is just a crying shame to throw out. I have already thrown out many books, but estimate about a thousand left. Don't really know how many anymore, most are in boxes.

Thank you for you compassion.

 

[gnostic]

What I cannot demonstrate is how old the earth is. So while I am OEC, that does not mean that I accept the 4.54 or 4.3 billion year age for the earth. I say that it is older than 6000 years, and that since I don't have a date, I don't know how old the earth is, but it is possible that scientists are right. However, since they change opinion often on many subjects, I accept the age with skepticism since I don't have anything better.

The thing is, technology advances, it is called progress.

The reason why science changed, because technology have improved, getting more accurate, plus there may be new evidences, so the data may change.

As to the age of the earth, the age has not changed to drastically from tp years ago. Whether it being nearly 4.7 billion years of today or 4.5 billion years, in the mid-1960s, the updates are as extreme as you are claiming it to be.

The question to you, why shouldn’t date or age be updated, if we have more new evidences or newer and more accurate technology?

It is like you are saying that we should be driving cars today with cars built back in the late 19th century or early 20th century?

Should technology not progress?

More importantly, should science not advance? Should we continue to be stuck in 19th century science or even earlier centuries?

 

[Grandliseur]

Post ref 149

why shouldn’t date or age be updated, if we have more new evidences or newer and more accurate technology?

Of course, just don't get on your knees at every utterance a scientists makes about this or that. Many seem to believe that it is a fact that the universe is so and so old, or the earth so and so old. They are but claims, claims that we can say that 'at the moment this age seems indicated for so and so reasons.'

Everyone has the right to state things in that manner, as long as they are taken with a grain of salt. Making it a 100% certainty seems belied by the very science we use.

Here I have a difference of paradigm that affects my opinions. The thing is, if you look at the earth, with its plates, with the way it has water, oil, minerals, all for us to use, and nature that provides us with food - too me it indicates a designed earth. (I know most others don't believe this), but the point here is that if the earth is a construct, the matter that we use to measure its age only tells us how old this matter is using the dating schemes the exist. It doesn't necessary tell us when it was used to construct this earth - kind of like when people use natural stones to build their fireplace, house. The stones may be way old, but the house is not.

So, while I accept the present age given, it is accepted only because I don't have anything better to offer.
The study of acquiring knowledge, science, is one of the things we have fun with as a species. It is a gift of God. We may go at it gung ho. Just not make it a god, idol, that is worshiped.

 

[gnostic]

Here I have a difference of paradigm that affects my opinions. The thing is, if you look at the earth, with its plates, with the way it has water, oil, minerals, all for us to use, and nature that provides us with food - too me it indicates a designed earth.

To me, it indicate the natural law cause the formation of Earth, and everything else within the Earth.

Where do you think the oil come from, meaning the original sources?

Oil, like coal and natural gases, come from the decomposition of dead organisms, that have been buried under sedimentary rocks for hundreds of millions of years.

All of it, the oil, gases and coals are all hydrocarbon based. If we didn't drill for it, or mine it, they would all still be underground.

It wasn't designed. It is all natural.

Where do you think it come from? God, angels, or oil fairies?

You can believe in any sort of nonsense you like, but it didn't magically happened, nor do it require any God to design it to happen.

 

[gnostic]

It doesn't necessary tell us when it was used to construct this earth - kind of like when people use natural stones to build their fireplace, house. The stones may be way old, but the house is not.

So, while I accept the present age given, it is accepted only because I don't have anything better to offer.

How do you think scientists, and paleo-geologists date the Earth's stratas of rocks and minerals?

If you don't know, then just say so. It is better to say "I don't know" than making things up or worse believe in some sorts of supernatural mumbo-jumbo superstitions.

 

[Grandliseur]

Post ref 151

Where do you think the oil come from, meaning the original sources?

This one has a question mark. Some think that all the oil comes from decaying dead things, others think it is a combination of natural oil from minerals and chemicals coming together plus the decaying matter of dead things.

If it is 100% dead things that would explain why God (my belief system) would have caused the killing off of most living things a few times so as to provide us with fuel.

It wasn't designed. It is all natural.

That's a belief, just like mine, however different. You have the right to it. I just don't agree. Which is fine. It is good to be able to disagree.

 

[Grandliseur]

How do you think scientists, and paleo-geologists date the Earth's stratas of rocks and minerals?

If you don't know, then just say so. It is better to say "I don't know" than making things up or worse.

Do you know of the half full cup principle. When lava comes out of the ground and is measured for age, it many times carries extreme ages. Thus the dating systems that many rely on and think so accurate have inbuilt sand-hour-clock faults.
Such a discussion is better if you have it with a PhD Creationist than with me.

making things up or worse believe in some sorts of supernatural mumbo-jumbo superstitions

You know, once you begin on this line, it descends into unpleasantness. There is nothing more moronic to me that believing that hot-rock-soup-minerals caused life, that the DNA programming which needs a DNA program to be decoded in the first place wrote itself. So, that kind of 'supernatural mumbo-jumbo superstitions' nonsense only belongs in 3 year-olds.

Can you see what happens when we start down that road! I believe it is a lot less supernatural to believe someone made my computer than thinking it made itself. I believe that our brains that are the most complex machinery we know could not make themselves if a toothpick cannot.

Thus, you and I are at opposite sides of the spectrum and you are welcome to have your opinion. However, once the mud slings, everybody gets dirty.

 

[gnostic]

This one has a question mark. Some think that all the oil comes from decaying dead things, others think it is a combination of natural oil from minerals and chemicals coming together plus the decaying matter of dead things.

If it is 100% dead things that would explain why God (my belief system) would have caused the killing off of most living things a few times so as to provide us with fuel.

Again, you are making assumptions without basis in reality and without evidences to support such claims.

 

[Grandliseur]

Again, you are making assumptions without basis in reality and without evidences to support such claims.

Funny. Your reality makes itself, but denies that machines, cars, computers, etc. make themselves. And, you think this rational.
My reality needs complex designers and materials to come to be.

Again, there is no agreement between our sides. Your claim that I make assumptions is so funny in the light of your own assumptions. Remember what assumptions do to us. So, I have mine; you have yours. No need for mud slinging.

 

[gnostic]

You know, once you begin on this line, it descends into unpleasantness. There is nothing more moronic to me that believing that hot-rock-soup-minerals caused life, that the DNA programming which needs a DNA program to be decoded in the first place wrote itself.

You are doing it again, Grandliseur. You are sprouting straw man.

You are the one who keep bringing up "hot-rock-soup-minerals", not me.

 

[Grandliseur]

You are doing it again, Grandliseur. You are sprouting straw man.

You are the one who keep bringing up "hot-rock-soup-minerals", not me.

We are at opposite sides of the spectrum. That's all.

 

[gnostic]

Funny. Your reality makes itself, but denies that machines, cars, computers, etc. make themselves. And, you think this rational.
My reality needs complex designers and materials to come to be.

No I don’t think this is funny.

You argued in your older replies that you cannot accept abiogenesis as the origin of first life, for whatever your reasons may be.

eg. You cannot accept living matters can form from inorganic matters.

To me, I am still sitting on the fence on abiogenesis. I neither accept it as scientific theory, nor am I ready to give it up, because there are not enough evidences to rule anything out about abiogenesis.

I see abiogenesis is still at its “infancy” stage, as hypothesis still under active investigation and research, and still undergoing tests, experiments; it is not a “scientific theory”, because there are not enough conclusive evidences and data.

Until there are enough evidences to debunk abiogenesis, or enough to verify or validate abiogenesis, the current status of abiogenesis is that it is a promising proposed theory to how life began.

And yet, you readily accept the inorganic origin of oil:

This one has a question mark. Some think that all the oil comes from decaying dead things, others think it is a combination of natural oil from minerals and chemicals coming together plus the decaying matter of dead things.

Oil was never part of studies, when I was taking classes in geology and soil science, because it was irrelevant to my civil engineering course.

But what I have learned outside my course that oil are byproduct of dead organisms, decomposition of their body while buried under sedimentary rocks. At the same time, I heard of hydrocarbon petroleum being made of physical chemistry, not biological chemistry, and it is one of alternative explanations to the origin of oil, and it is referred to as abiotic origin of oil.

But this abiotic origin instead of organic origin, is still a hypothesis, not a theory. This hypothesis is still under reviewed, but there are not enough evidences to confirm the abiotic origin of oil, therefore it isn’t yet a scientific theory.

What I find really funny is that you reject the hypothesis of abiogenesis, but you accept another hypothesis that oil come come from inorganic origin, that of minerals.

Don’t you see the irony of what you considered to be science and what isn’t science?

The irony is that you cannot accept inorganic materials becoming organic in one hypothesis (in abiogenesis), and yet you have no problem accepting another hypothesis that propose inorganic materials turning into organic ones (abiotic origin of oil).

So much for your continuous not accepting hypothesis of hot rock mineral soup or the primordial chemical soup.

Isn’t accepting abiotic origin of petroleum, not a contradiction to you not accepting inorganic matters cannot become organic matters in abiogenesis.

That’s why I found your reply to about the origin of oil along with god creating the oil underground for humans to use, to be one of baseless claim.

Sorry, but drilling for oil is a 19th and 20th centuries idea, not that of Abraham’s, Moses’ or Jesus’ time. I very much doubt that these biblical figures knew anything about extracting oil from deep underground reservoirs.

 

[gnostic]

We are at opposite sides of the spectrum. That's all.

Again, there is no agreement between our sides. Your claim that I make assumptions is so funny in the light of your own assumptions. Remember what assumptions do to us. So, I have mine; you have yours. No need for mud slinging.

Sure, we can have different opinions.

But that’s only good for religion, or for what is our favourite color, or favourite food, or our taste in music, etc.

Opinions is pretty much like that of religious beliefs and personal faith.

But in the matter of science, we are not talking about faith or belief. We are talking about what is probable or what isn’t probable, by the number of verifiable evidences.

Faith is about conviction or acceptance of belief without evidences.

Scientific theory on the other hand, can only be accepted or rejected because of the available evidences, through repeated and rigorous testing.

Faith is about accepting what we want to believe to be true.

Science is about accepting what the evidences have to say, regardless of our desires or wants or beliefs.

Sure, you can have different opinions about science, but science is not about yours or my opinions. Our opinions are irrelevant.

There is no mud slinging here; no, it is just how each other approach science.