Proof of Creationism made by NASA

[Tiberius]

If what you say is true, please explain to me how abiogenesis worked--I will then recommend you to the Nobel committee for that prize.

Do you know what an enzyme is? It is a chemical that can change the rate of a chemical reaction, but not actually be used up in that chemical reaction.

So, imagine you have some water, and in it are molecules of chemical A and chemical B. Every so often, a molecule of A will bump into a molecule of B and they will bind together. But this relies on randomness and could be pretty slow.

Now, imagine there is an enzyme in the water. It takes A and B and joins them together. Because of this enzyme, A and B are joined together much faster. So, we would see that the reaction that joins A and B has now increased. Enzymes are usually named for whatever chemicals they work on, with a suffix like "ase." So the enzyme that work on lactose is called Lactase, for example. In our case, since we are talking about an enzyme that works on A and B, we could call the enzyme Abase.

But, now here's the thing... What if Abase was just a molecule of A joined to a molecule of B? Then Abase is going around making copies of itself. And if that copying process is ever altered, then selective pressures will have an effect. Maybe a molecule of abase is able to pick up a molecule of A even better, for example. And then we even have something that natural selection can influence, and we've got evolution. And that's just with basic chemicals, the sort of thing that would have been all over the place. Given enough time, this process would lead to more and more complex arrangements of molecules until it starts being the sort of thing we'd call life.

Now, did it definitely happen this way? Maybe, maybe not. We can't really know unless we develop time travel and go back in time to take a look. But what I presented here is entirely consistent with known laws of chemistry. So I don't see how you can claim abiogenesis is implausible.

 

[Tiberius]

Abiogenesis disobeys other principles, not just entropy.

What other principles does it violate? Please describe in detail how abiogenesis violates said principles.

If I told you the Sun shone on bricks in a pool of water, and then lightning struck the water, and then there was a nearby active volcano, then millions of years later a skyscraper was formed without a designer, you would find that so implausible you might even use the word "impossible".

Ah, but the problem there is that you are specify a specific end result ahead of time and then pointing out how unlikely it is for that one end result to be reached when there are so many other possible end results.

But the fact is that evolution has no specific end goal that it is aiming towards.

Or perhaps you would explain abiogenesis here so I can send you to the Nobel committe for your prize.

Please see my previous post.

 

[Tiberius]

Why?

So we know you're not full of it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What other principles does it violate? Please describe in detail how abiogenesis violates said principles.



Ah, but the problem there is that you are specify a specific end result ahead of time and then pointing out how unlikely it is for that one end result to be reached when there are so many other possible end results.

But the fact is that evolution has no specific end goal that it is aiming towards.



Please see my previous post.

He could never show how it violates the laws of thermodynamics. He relied on the mangled creationist version of it (which actually makes life itself impossible) rather than the real l thing.

 

[rational experiences]

Yes, life isn't that complicated. That's why scientists have created life from simple proteins, nucleic acids and carbohydrates, just as you've suggested. Plus, all biologists, chemists and evolutionists agree on how exactly life arrived without Creation--how abiogenesis worked, and they've duplicated abiogenesis in the laboratory.

But you're not any god. You are a physical human only who thinks. Who chooses. You apply. You then see a fake result...fake as you manipulated it.

If a scientist can make plastic by personally man u all change any type of base chemical in nature. He proves he can form unnatural presence.

How is that not what your advice says...if you say now. If you say now a holographic is building...all you'd have to do would activate...to own by science instant human.

As it didn't then it hadn't and it won't.

A creationist says there's a base component that everything belongs to.

Well guess what liars I'm not a sun O cell sitting in space.

You ..just a self possessed man. Said all cells function by a base ideal...O presence...G doing of O cooling DD split by heat cooling to OO.

You said what the base ideal of presence was yourselves just as a man.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Do you know what an enzyme is? It is a chemical that can change the rate of a chemical reaction, but not actually be used up in that chemical reaction.

So, imagine you have some water, and in it are molecules of chemical A and chemical B. Every so often, a molecule of A will bump into a molecule of B and they will bind together. But this relies on randomness and could be pretty slow.

Now, imagine there is an enzyme in the water. It takes A and B and joins them together. Because of this enzyme, A and B are joined together much faster. So, we would see that the reaction that joins A and B has now increased. Enzymes are usually named for whatever chemicals they work on, with a suffix like "ase." So the enzyme that work on lactose is called Lactase, for example. In our case, since we are talking about an enzyme that works on A and B, we could call the enzyme Abase.

But, now here's the thing... What if Abase was just a molecule of A joined to a molecule of B? Then Abase is going around making copies of itself. And if that copying process is ever altered, then selective pressures will have an effect. Maybe a molecule of abase is able to pick up a molecule of A even better, for example. And then we even have something that natural selection can influence, and we've got evolution. And that's just with basic chemicals, the sort of thing that would have been all over the place. Given enough time, this process would lead to more and more complex arrangements of molecules until it starts being the sort of thing we'd call life.

Now, did it definitely happen this way? Maybe, maybe not. We can't really know unless we develop time travel and go back in time to take a look. But what I presented here is entirely consistent with known laws of chemistry. So I don't see how you can claim abiogenesis is implausible.

Do you think it is correct or oversimplifying to say "the simplest life is just enzymes"?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Not possible. Not that it is impossible to explain abiogenesis. If you cannot understand the simpler fact of evolution there is no way that you are going to understand the more complex problem of abiogenesis.

If it's not impossible to explain abiogenesis as you claim above, please do so here, even for one as dumb as I. Then collect that Nobel prize.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If it's not impossible to explain abiogenesis as you claim above, please do so here, even for one as dumb as I. Then collect that Nobel prize.

Sorry, but you still are not making any sense. You were the one that tried to refute it. That puts a burden of proof upon you. Even if scientists cannot explain it that does not mean that it is not a fact.

There are unanswered problems in abiogenesis, but there is no point in going over them with a science denier. You seemed to think that you could refute the idea by making false claims about it. You were called out and ran away because you were just repeating lies told to you and you did not know how to defend those lies.

The question is why don't you ever get mad at the people that lied to you? They make you look vey foolish when you believe their lies.

 

[Tiberius]

Do you think it is correct or oversimplifying to say "the simplest life is just enzymes"?

I never said that, did I?

I don't think there was ever a clear delineation between non-life and life.

 

[Tiberius]

If it's not impossible to explain abiogenesis as you claim above, please do so here, even for one as dumb as I. Then collect that Nobel prize.

Post 161.

 

[Tiberius]

So we know you're not full of it.

@BilliardsBall please don't forget to give us an example of a secular scientist who says that life can not arise naturally even with billions of years, as you claimed in post 150.

 

[gnostic]

Single-celled animals are vastly complex, one reason both abiogenesis and creation are faith-based claims.

There are no such thing as single-celled animals, collectively called Protozoans.

Protozoans are single-celled eukaryotes or the eukaryotic version of microorganisms (as opposed to the single-celled prokaryotic microorganisms, such as those belonging to the Bacteria domain and Archaea domain).

Protozoa is own a separate phylum or kingdom in the Eukaryota domain. So Protozoa are separated from the Animalia kingdom, just as the Plantae kingdom and Fungi kingdom are separate kingdom from the Animalia.

What you call "single-celled animals" are out-of-date usage, belonging to the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Protozoa should not be confused with Bacteria and Archaea.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are misrepresenting my position. Molecules and compounds exist in nature. Single-celled animals are vastly complex, one reason both abiogenesis and creation are faith-based claims.

First life is immensely complex, so much so that I've seen secular scientist who claim even simple life isn't possible, given billions of years, to arise naturally. If we saw a building, would you be given to think it arose when the sun shone on the ocean with vulcanism, even for millions of years of time?

No, modern single celled organisms are vastly complex.

You are making a gross error of comparing modern single celled life to the original. Even the simplest organism has a three billion year history of evolution behind it. Why is modern day life so complex? Because if it was not it would be instantly consumed and would be no more.

What would the first single celled organism have lacked? All sorts of things. It probably would have no means of propulsion. It would have simply drifted to is food by luck and if an early version was cut off from food for too long it would have died. It would have no means of defense against other organisms since there was no need at all yet. I am sure that a cellular biologist could identify all sorts of modern mechanisms that the earliest of life forms would have lacked.

The first life was probably just a simple cell wall, and those will naturally form from chemicals present in water. A means for amino acids to enter, and I do believe that has been solved, and a method of reproduction. Just making one moderately complex molecule would do that. Other factors would have evolved later.. I do not know the date of the first prokaryote but I have a feeling that it is at least a billion years after the first life appeared. In just 600 million yeas we went from something that was a complex worm with out a backbone to humans. There has been a LOT of time for the complex inner workings of modern single celled organisms to evolve.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sorry, but you still are not making any sense. You were the one that tried to refute it. That puts a burden of proof upon you. Even if scientists cannot explain it that does not mean that it is not a fact.

There are unanswered problems in abiogenesis, but there is no point in going over them with a science denier. You seemed to think that you could refute the idea by making false claims about it. You were called out and ran away because you were just repeating lies told to you and you did not know how to defend those lies.

The question is why don't you ever get mad at the people that lied to you? They make you look vey foolish when you believe their lies.

You are obfuscating or attempting to do so to win an argument.

Abiogenesis is now not observable nor has it ever been duplicated in a controlled environment which makes it science conjecture, not science fact. Creation and abiogenesis are faith-based claims.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, modern single celled organisms are vastly complex.

You are making a gross error of comparing modern single celled life to the original. Even the simplest organism has a three billion year history of evolution behind it. Why is modern day life so complex? Because if it was not it would be instantly consumed and would be no more.

What would the first single celled organism have lacked? All sorts of things. It probably would have no means of propulsion. It would have simply drifted to is food by luck and if an early version was cut off from food for too long it would have died. It would have no means of defense against other organisms since there was no need at all yet. I am sure that a cellular biologist could identify all sorts of modern mechanisms that the earliest of life forms would have lacked.

The first life was probably just a simple cell wall, and those will naturally form from chemicals present in water. A means for amino acids to enter, and I do believe that has been solved, and a method of reproduction. Just making one moderately complex molecule would do that. Other factors would have evolved later.. I do not know the date of the first prokaryote but I have a feeling that it is at least a billion years after the first life appeared. In just 600 million yeas we went from something that was a complex worm with out a backbone to humans. There has been a LOT of time for the complex inner workings of modern single celled organisms to evolve.

You are making unobserved/unduplicated conjectures here, for example "The first life was probably just a simple cell wall," and "It probably would have no means of propulsion" when one of the lovely proofs against both abiogenesis and "macro evolution" is that ONLY fully formed species exist currently and in the fossil record. Of course "a simple cell wall" requires immensely unlikely things to occur to form them if your assumptions are true.

You are making faith-based claims here.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Post 161.

That post is a series of "what ifs" and "just so stories" that amount to a faith-based claim. At least to someone as skeptical as I.

 

[BilliardsBall]

@BilliardsBall please don't forget to give us an example of a secular scientist who says that life can not arise naturally even with billions of years, as you claimed in post 150.

I read some articles on this years ago and again more recently, and some books. A recent brief Google search turned up little, of course, because the opposing side gloms up Google.

Let me be frank--I deemed it not a good use of time to research for more than a few moments because I do not see you agreeing with the proofs as presented.

You are already claiming that "simple life" is, well, simple! Or that abiogenesis is possible or plausible because of just so stories. Let's not waste more time here.

 

[BilliardsBall]

There are no such thing as single-celled animals, collectively called Protozoans.

Protozoans are single-celled eukaryotes or the eukaryotic version of microorganisms (as opposed to the single-celled prokaryotic microorganisms, such as those belonging to the Bacteria domain and Archaea domain).

Protozoa is own a separate phylum or kingdom in the Eukaryota domain. So Protozoa are separated from the Animalia kingdom, just as the Plantae kingdom and Fungi kingdom are separate kingdom from the Animalia.

What you call "single-celled animals" are out-of-date usage, belonging to the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Protozoa should not be confused with Bacteria and Archaea.

Thank you for the correction. I need to take more care when I write. I still find that both Creation and Abiogenesis are faith-based claims, neither observable in nature nor duplicable in a lab or controlled environment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are obfuscating or attempting to do so to win an argument.

Abiogenesis is now not observable nor has it ever been duplicated in a controlled environment which makes it science conjecture, not science fact. Creation and abiogenesis are faith-based claims.

There is no argument here. When it comes to the sciences you are simply wrong.

And of course abiogenesis is not observable. So what? And we cannot duplicate it. Again, so what? That does not make it "conjecture". Your inability to understand the sciences does not make them conjecture. Now if you understood the scientific method you might be able to raise a valid argument, but you refuse to learn that. You probably understand that understanding how science is done would mean that you could not object to the arguments used by those in the sciences.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are making unobserved/unduplicated conjectures here, for example "The first life was probably just a simple cell wall," and "It probably would have no means of propulsion" when one of the lovely proofs against both abiogenesis and "macro evolution" is that ONLY fully formed species exist currently and in the fossil record. Of course "a simple cell wall" requires immensely unlikely things to occur to form them if your assumptions are true.

You are making faith-based claims here.

No, they are not. Once again you are back to your problem of refusing to learn the scientific method..

And of course "macroevolution" has been observed in real time. What you demand is to see the sort of evolution occur that would refute the theory. If you wish we could go over the basics of science and then apply those concepts to abiogenesis and evolution and you could see how these ideas are properly supported. There is no point in helping you until you drop your ostrich defense.