Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

[james bond]

Wrong Moron.
Everyone being "perfect" would be your dept: god/Dog.
`

You're just jealous because I would know what to do and you don't. Tsk.

 

[Ringtone]

You are far, far, far away from your primordial soup becoming proteins

Nonsense....they form virtually spontaneously from peptides in literally every experiment we do...

I see you have decided to pop in and just start making stuff up....

Please cite these experiments wherein coherent, extensive peptide chains spontaneous form.

crickets chirping

 

[abu afak]

From the beginning.
One Gutted portion after another.
Pt 1

Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks...

Actually there is a Negative correlation between Religiosity and IQ.
You are just more evidence.

They are either breezily unaware of their metaphysical biases or unwilling to objectively separate themselves from them long enough to engage in a reasonably calm and courteous discussion about the tenets of their religion: namely, abiogenesis and evolution.

WTF is a "metaphysical bias"? Not believing something without evidence?
And one can be a moderate religionist/believer while still Acknowledging the theory and Fact of Evolution.
Most probably are.
Except blindly Indoctrinated literalist godders like you.

While the historical presupposition for science is not a methodological naturalism wherein philosophical naturalism serves minimally as a regulative principle, most of today’s practicing scientists insist that origins must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of an intelligent agent of causation and design.

Evolution has Tons of evidence.
Indeed, in the 160 years since it was put forth, there has been an explosion in Science/New Sciences. (DNA, Isotopic dating, Millions more Fossils in the correct strata, etc)
Any one of those new sciences could have show it wrong. None have of course.
And all relevant ones are consistent with or outright help affirm it.

The range of scientific inquiry is inordinately curtailed accordingly. Though any rational evaluation of the empirical data might recommend them, potentialities outside the boundaries of this range of inquiry are flatly dismissed. Hence, should one reject the guesswork of an arbitrarily imposed apriority that conflates agency and process, one is said to reject science itself, as if the fanatics of scientism owned the means of science.

Why don't you post any EVIDENCE from the "range Oustide" that of hard Science?
Why not the FSM/Flying Spsaghetti Monster/Pastafarianism.

Ultimately, the essence of this perversion is not merely naturalism on the steroids of logical positivism, but Neo-Darwinism run amok: mere theory elevated to an inviolable absolute of cosmological proportions and superimposed on the discipline of science itself. Never has so much been given over to so little.

Stupid bashing with NO content.

I’m well-versed in the various hypothetical models of abiogenesis, in the research and findings thereof. Also, I understand evolutionary theory and it’s putative evidentiary support.

You are a goofy clown who conflates Evolution and abiogenesis in every post.
Evolution is a Theory and a Fact.
While abiogeneis is a mere hypothesis.
God/ID/Kweationism is baseless bullshlt.

I know the science, and I’m current. Indeed, I’m light years ahead of the vast majority of atheists who unwittingly expose their ignorance about the sciences and the tremendously complex problems that routinely defy their dogma as they sneer at theists. These are the sheeple blindly following an ideologically driven community of scientists, which, since Darwin, is determined to overthrow the unassailable. God stands and stays. Science can neither prove nor disprove God’s existence; it’s not equipped to venture beyond the empirical data of the material realm of being. But this does not mean that the empirical data do not testify to His existence. Science is a contingent source of wisdom, not the beginning or the end of it. And science in the hands of scientific materialists is the stuff of fairytales.

'Because you believe in Baseless Godism for which you have shown not a shred of evidence, you resent/demean 'materialism'/REALITY as it ruins your wittle magic show/tooth fairy beliefs.
There is NO "god in evidence. Zero.
You have put up None/ZERO.

BTW Pilgrim.. Which/Witch 'god' is that?
There are so many contradictory ones that at least 75% of believers are necessarily wrong even if one stepped in it.

There is huge and overwhelming "Materialistic"/HARD evidence for Evolution and NONE for god.

End of pt 1 of the Destruction of the Rawlings bizarro and fallacious fantasy rant.
An IDIOTIC treatise it took 10 years to "perfect."
`

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You are far, far, far away from your primordial soup becoming proteins

Nonsense....they form virtually spontaneously from peptides in literally every experiment we do...

I see you have decided to pop in and just start making stuff up....

Please cite these experiments wherein coherent, extensive peptide chains spontaneous form.

crickets chirping

Like, this?

In situ observation of peptide bond formation at the water–air interface

Not that it matters...you are delusional and strident. I could post 100 such studies, and you will just change lanes.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I really don't get this embarrassing tirade. The IDers insist upon a designer... But their designer is not smart enough to design abiogenesis within the constraints of physical laws?

That definitively shows that what they REALLY insist upon is MAGIC. Period. And they are lying, if they say otherwise.

 

[james bond]

Like, this?

In situ observation of peptide bond formation at the water–air interface

Not that it matters...your are delusional and strident. I could post 100 such studies, and you will just change lanes.

Sorry, she starts with a peptide like Darwin started with a single cell. Her experiment is to explain how peptide bonding works. She is trying to form the bond. Also she confirms what I said about water being a solvent and it dissolves the peptide bond. Thus, the water-air interface. What she won't be able to do is grow the peptide bond into protein in the water-air interface. You need to chill.

 

[james bond]

I really don't get this embarrassing tirade. The IDers insist upon a designer... But their designer is not smart enough to design abiogenesis within the constraints of physical laws?

That definitively shows that what they REALLY insist upon is MAGIC. Period. And they are lying, if they say otherwise.

I think I would've done well in biochemistry. I would guess the IDers understand that their arguments are based on the beauty and complexity in this world. Both beauty and complexity just does not happen, but is designed by an intelligent creator. We are discussing peptides becoming proteins and we see the protein synthesis is a complex process. Thus, even if all the chemicals are present, it takes the cell to put the process into place. This is the complexity part. Thus, the protein is not formed outside the cell or it would take some miracle for it to happen.

Protein synthesis - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

 

[Ringtone]

You are far, far, far away from your primordial soup becoming proteins

Nonsense....they form virtually spontaneously from peptides in literally every experiment we do...

I see you have decided to pop in and just start making stuff up....

Please cite these experiments wherein coherent, extensive peptide chains spontaneous form.

crickets chirping

Like, this?

In situ observation of peptide bond formation at the water–air interface

Not that it matters...you are delusional and strident. I could post 100 such studies, and you will just change lanes.

Oh, it matters! You claimed that peptide chains spontaneously form. And you answered my question with precisely the sort of thing I expected you to cite. Such experiments entail alternately controlled molecular and irradiation techniques predicated on the know processes of peptide synthesis in living cells. We're talking about abiogenesis, not biochemical engineering. Had you read my article would have also read the following:

On the other hand, a team of scientists may soon synthesize ribonucleotides using a subunit, scaffolding process for the sugar-base connection, but this reaction will only be induced under the most controlled laboratory conditions after several years of trial and error. Notwithstanding, the team believes it’s now very close relative to this recently conceived approach. Now It seems to merely be a matter of finding the right combination of compounds of a nitrogenous or oxygenous chemistry (See update under Additional Notes below.).​

These kinds of experiments are a dime a dozen, but once again, we're not talking about biochemical engineering. The latter entails intelligence guiding the process. We're talking about abiogenesis. No peptide chains of any coherency or extensive length form spontaneously in raw nature!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You claimed that peptide chains spontaneously form.

Yes, in our experiments. You left that out, because you are a fraud.

Then you demanded an example. I easily provided one.

Then,as predicted, you moved the goalposts.

Because you are a fraud.

 

[Hollie]

Shame, shame, shame that you never attended a 7th grade earth science class. Conditions on the planet changed over millions upon millions of years. Of course, that presents an unresolvable dilemma for you. None of the chemistry referenced in the article means anything with the earth being only 6,000 years old.

You mean thousands of years. Even if it the atmosphere did change over the years, the amino acid experiment shows proteins does not happen outside the cell. Dr. Louis Pasteur for the block -- 10 Most Famous Scientific Theories That Were Later Debunked.

You seem to be rattling on with no direction. There’s no question that the planets atmosphere did change over time.

Otherwise, your reference to Pasteur and amino acids is a classic falsification of Pasteur’s experimentation. What Pasteur's experiment showed was that life does not currently spontaneously arise in complex form from non-life in nature.

Thanks for helping debunk that frequently used falsification from the crank fundie ministries.

So, we’re left to pose a question to the fundie cranks: “what experiments can you cite that are being undertaken to prove your polytheistic gods”?

 

[james bond]

You seem to be rattling on with no direction. There’s no question that the planets atmosphere did change over time.

I thought I made it clear even if the atmosphere changed on Earth and the rest of the universe that no proteins can form outside the cell. Thus, life was only created here and nowhere else in the universe. I think you cannot figure the logical sequence because you do not know nor understand the Bible and the first two books of Genesis. I've read evolution and its history and have provided the two websites I use as reference for today and in the past. What do you have to help you understand the Bible?

I even provided the Miller Urey experiment website and I doubt you used it or tried. What kind of fool are you?

Otherwise, your reference to Pasteur and amino acids is a classic falsification of Pasteur’s experimentation. What Pasteur's experiment showed was that life does not currently spontaneously arise in complex form from non-life in nature.

Thanks for helping debunk that frequently used falsification from the crank fundie ministries.

I am a proud Christian fundamentalist, but do not believe in the crank ones. Which ones are your referring to? Can you give an example? I don't think you can provide the details nor answer my questions because you don't know. Maybe there are crank ideas that came out of their beliefs like the Billy Graham rule. I can answer them if you don't know. That said, I know you're just like to make hasty generalizations which is a fallacy. This is why we are discussing abiogenesis or what I now consider is another form of spontaneous generation.

As for Pasteur, his experiment referred to all life. Not just complex or simple life forms from non-life. What one should understand is only life begats life. Otherwise, where are the aliens? Where are the new proteins being formed? God only gave humans access to the molecular level which is quite a gift. Yet, you do not appreciate it. You just want to worship other humans and natural processes which they have control or knowledge about. To me, I am saddened by this.

So, we’re left to pose a question to the fundie cranks: “what experiments can you cite that are being undertaken to prove your polytheistic gods”?

There is no proof of an unprovable God. There is only evidence which I've provided. What it takes is sincere faith from your heart to believe and then God will reveal himself to you. No matter what age you are, it takes faith in God first. You make me discuss and post religion in the S&T forum, but there is no other way besides what I've posted to make you believe. You have to take the first step.

 

[Ringtone]

I really don't get this embarrassing tirade. The IDers insist upon a designer... But their designer is not smart enough to design abiogenesis within the constraints of physical laws?

That definitively shows that what they REALLY insist upon is MAGIC. Period. And they are lying, if they say otherwise.

You're not smart enough to know the difference between abiogenesis and biochemical engineering. Here's some more examples also discussed in my article of what we can do nowadays:

In the laboratory, researchers have designed enzymatic RNA compounds that can affect a ligative production system that in turn can fabricate self-replicating strands of RNA. 36 The initial stage of the procedure is front-loaded, not by the mechanism of natural selection, but by the preordained manipulations of sentient beings. The second stage of the procedure arguably entails the mechanism of natural selection, but only on the basis of recombinant mutation, not transmutation. Biochemists also designed a ribozyme with catalytic properties that consists of only five nucleotides! 37 And in 2007 a team of scientists at the Venter Institute transplanted the native genome of the M. mycoides into a M. capricolum, transforming the M. capricolum into a M. mycoides; and in 2009 the same team cloned the entire genome of the M. mycoides (prokaryote) in yeast (eukaryote), modified the bacterium’s chromosome and then successfully transplanted the modified chromosome into a M. capricolum, creating a new bacterial strain. 38

(The genome synthesized from “scratch” in 2008 by a team of scientists of the Venter Institute, which could not be successfully transplanted, was necessarily predicated on the extant biological system of the bacterium Mycoplasma genitalium. 39 The transplantation problem, of course, was solved in the 2009 study, and the Venter Institute will soon create and boot up the first, mostly synthetic genome, i.e., construct the first self-replicating, mostly synthetic bacterial lifeform, albeit, once again, one necessarily predicated on the extant biochemistry of nature. See updates under Additional Notes below.)

​

Biochemical engineering, not abiogenesis! Intelligence design!

By the way, are you unwittingly and quite contradictorily presupposing God's existence, as if you were God, knowing the way God should do things; you know, the God that according to you doesn't exist in the first place? If God imbued mere chemistry with the ability to effectuate life, you would argued that the evidence affirms ontological naturalism, not God's brilliance. LMAO! By definition, God could have done it either way, but if God wanted us to know that he exists, arguably he would make it obvious by not imbuing mere chemistry with that ability! Yes? No? Are you now admitting that it's not so obvious that mere chemistry pulled it off as you claimed before? Are you admitting that God may have chosen not to it that way in order to make his existence obvious to us or not? What are you arguing? Do you know?

LOL!

Do you make it a habit of opening your mouth and just letting things fall out without first thinking about the implications?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You're not smart enough to know the difference between abiogenesis and biochemical engineering.

And you're a desperate shaman and conman trying hard to squeeze his silly vodoo into any gap in our understanding. And clearly you are willing to abandon ethics and honesty to do so. Go find some children to con, your act isnt going over,here.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Please identify and describe the magical properties you attribute to mindless, raw nature that overcame the following obstacles discussed in the article:

No magic is required. It is simply, "selection". You have confused yourself again. You are the one proposing magic.

No. Not magic. Something beyond space and time capable of creating the material world.

Something more like a mind without a body as the matrix for the material world.

So it’s not magic. It’s beyond your comprehension and you use ancient texts to confirm your bias because you are too lazy, ignorant or of limited vision (or all three) to consider anything beyond your preconceived notions.

This fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

 

[Hollie]

You seem to be rattling on with no direction. There’s no question that the planets atmosphere did change over time.

I thought I made it clear even if the atmosphere changed on Earth and the rest of the universe that no proteins can form outside the cell. Thus, life was only created here and nowhere else in the universe. I think you cannot figure the logical sequence because you do not know nor understand the Bible and the first two books of Genesis. I've read evolution and its history and have provided the two websites I use as reference for today and in the past. What do you have to help you understand the Bible?

I even provided the Miller Urey experiment website and I doubt you used it or tried. What kind of fool are you?

Otherwise, your reference to Pasteur and amino acids is a classic falsification of Pasteur’s experimentation. What Pasteur's experiment showed was that life does not currently spontaneously arise in complex form from non-life in nature.

Thanks for helping debunk that frequently used falsification from the crank fundie ministries.

I am a proud Christian fundamentalist, but do not believe in the crank ones. Which ones are your referring to? Can you give an example? I don't think you can provide the details nor answer my questions because you don't know. Maybe there are crank ideas that came out of their beliefs like the Billy Graham rule. I can answer them if you don't know. That said, I know you're just like to make hasty generalizations which is a fallacy. This is why we are discussing abiogenesis or what I now consider is another form of spontaneous generation.

As for Pasteur, his experiment referred to all life. Not just complex or simple life forms from non-life. What one should understand is only life begats life. Otherwise, where are the aliens? Where are the new proteins being formed? God only gave humans access to the molecular level which is quite a gift. Yet, you do not appreciate it. You just want to worship other humans and natural processes which they have control or knowledge about. To me, I am saddened by this.

So, we’re left to pose a question to the fundie cranks: “what experiments can you cite that are being undertaken to prove your polytheistic gods”?

There is no proof of an unprovable God. There is only evidence which I've provided. What it takes is sincere faith from your heart to believe and then God will reveal himself to you. No matter what age you are, it takes faith in God first. You make me discuss and post religion in the S&T forum, but there is no other way besides what I've posted to make you believe. You have to take the first step.

As for Pasteur, your characterization of his experiments was completely false. I see that as a pattern of behavior among religious extremists. While I can understand your need to vilify science because it contradicts the fear and superstition promoted by religion, I have every right to call out tactics of the religious extremists that are dishonest.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

As for Pasteur, your characterization of his experiments was completely false.

Bwahahaha...he trotted out that horseshit again? Dang, how much embarrassment can one guy tolerate?

 

[Ringtone]

There is huge and overwhelming "Materialistic"/HARD evidence for Evolution and NONE for god.

End of pt 1 of the Destruction of the Rawlings bizarro and fallacious fantasy rant.
An IDIOTIC treatise it took 10 years to "perfect."
`

You hurt my feelings. That was a really, really mean post.

What exactly does this incontrovertible proof that the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism is necessarily true consist of? After all, that is precisely what the hypothetical extrapolation of Darwin's unobservable and indemonstrable notion of a transmutationally branching, evolutionary speciation from a common ancestry is predicated on. We observe the cyclically limited range of adaptive radiation via genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection only. Please cite the peer-reviewed paper that proved naturalism is true and falsified theological realism. Also, when does the scientist get his Nobel Prize? For what field, exactly, is it being awarded? Philosophy? Sounds like you're unwilling to objectively separate yourself from your metaphysical biases long enough to engage in a reasonably calm and courteous discussion about the tenets of your religion.

You are a goofy clown who conflates Evolution and abiogenesis in every post.
Evolution is a Theory and a Fact.
While abiogeneis is a mere hypothesis.

Nonsense! The wise know that both abiogenesis and Darwin's evolutionary extrapolation are indemonstrable hypotheses. You need to talk to Hollie and Fun. They're the ones who think that abiogenesis is a fact.

 

[abu afak]

There is huge and overwhelming "Materialistic"/HARD evidence for Evolution and NONE for god.

End of pt 1 of the Destruction of the Rawlings bizarro and fallacious fantasy rant.
An IDIOTIC treatise it took 10 years to "perfect."
`

You hurt my feelings. That was a really, really mean post.

What exactly does this incontrovertible proof that the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism is necessarily true consist of? After all, that is precisely what the hypothetical extrapolation of Darwin's unobservable and indemonstrable notion of a transmutationally branching, evolutionary speciation from a common ancestry is predicated on. We observe the cyclically limited range of adaptive radiation via genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection only. Please cite the peer-reviewed paper that proved naturalism is true and falsified theological realism. Also, when does the scientist get his Nobel Prize? For what field, exactly, is it being awarded? Philosophy? Sounds like you're unwilling to objectively separate yourself from your metaphysical biases long enough to engage in a reasonably calm and courteous discussion about the tenets of your religion.

Is this just STUPID, or an attempt at Disingenuity?
False Challenge/Demand endless detail Fallacy.

Further Dishonesty/Inadequacy...
You left out the Vast majority of my post answering the fair version of the question.
(Tons of Evidence, all New sciences, etc)
You whiffed.
You were going to Whiff completely but, were probably embarrassed into 'reply.'

IAC, Science doesn't deal in "Proof"/"Incontrovertible" you Moron.
Science deals in theories affirmed over time.
Again, dealt with in my last. 160 years of it.

What is YOUR evidence (forget proof/POOF) for god/dog/ID?
ZERO
WHIFF, while I did answer with Evidence, you had None for your god/dog/ID position.

You are a goofy clown who conflates Evolution and abiogenesis in every post.
Evolution is a Theory and a Fact.
While abiogeneis is a mere hypothesis.

Nonsense! The wise know that both abiogenesis and Darwin's evolutionary extrapolation are indemonstrable hypotheses. You need to talk to Hollie and Fun. They're the ones who think that abiogenesis is a fact.

You lying Jerk
Even sane opponents (not you) admit Evo is a Theory not a mere hypothesis, though, like you, they don't understand the term.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense - Scientific American
JOHN RENNIE, editor-in-chief
June 2002

1. Evolution is Only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.Scientists do Not use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is
"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are Not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the Theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the FACT of evolution."..."​

Your posts are all full of False Challenges, Burden Shifting, Omitted meaty opponent quote parts, Completely illogical self-deduction, Labeling, etc.
You're a Dishonest Kweationist Klown trying one dumb fallacy after another.

`

 

[Ringtone]

Your posts are all full of False Challenges, Burden Shifting, Completely illogical self-deduction/Labeling, etc. Your a Kweationist Klown

Blah, blah, blah. I say the unobservable and indemonstrable evolutionary extrapolation is predicated on nothing more than the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism. I say it's not a theory. At best, it's a hypothesis, at worst, a mathematical and engineering monstrosity—the stuff of magic, fairy tales, myth, feverish dreams . . . your pappy's last bowel movement. It's a long con, the bump on Darwin's head, the pimple on Dawkins' ass. I say your appeals to authority and burden-shifting are tiresome. I say your insults and emotional outbursts are unhinged. I say you're a conformist. Your nature god is a spaghetti monster, a big mac daddy in the sky, the atheist in the gaps.

What's next? Catastrophic global warming? Cow farts? Plastic straws? Wind power?

 

[DOTR]

And the closing of the academic mind by Marxists will continue to damage science.

Oh please....as if you know fuck all about science....

Entertain us with some of your alien stories.

I don't have any stories about Melania Trump. Wrong guy.

Oh no it’s you. You are the one who insists on alien life because “there must be”.
Sorry bud. Not interested in attacking your myths or religion but it looks like we are all alone here.