Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

[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.

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.

I fail to see what Jimmy Swaggert's sex scandal has to do with abiogenesis. Aren't you just setting up a straw man in Jimmy Swaggert in order to win an argument instead of finding evidence for your position? And I pointed out Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Haeckel's fake embryo drawings to counter macroevolution. Moreover, there are no aliens to counter your abiogenesis and panspermia positions? We didn't get to panspermia, but that's in the atheist scientists popular theories for origins of life on Earth.

Dr. Louis Pasteur showed spontaneous generation was false and I said abiogenesis is the same as spontaneous generation. You haven't demonstrated that it is not, but rolled out a straw man. What is so different about abiogenesis that Miller-Urey failed to show. Even if there was amino acids created and they fell into the ocean or water, we find water dissolves amino acids. Fort Fun Indiana's paper on peptide formation showed that. They had to go to air-water layer. Even that has problems and that is a far cry from geysers. I thought amino acids were supposed to evolve in geyers in order to beat the oxygen problem. How was the oxygen problem resolved anyway?

As usual, I doubt you and Fort Fun Indiana will be able to answer my questions.

 

[james bond]

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

And you still haven't demonstrated amino acids in geyers or anywhere else. The peptides in air-water even if it does happen is a far cry from proteins. Eventually, they fall into the water and dissolve, no?

Also, what other secular/atheist scientists can you name? You only named Elizabeth Griffith and Veronica Vaida. Stephen Hawking is another, but I brought him up with singularity and big bang. We need to find the names of people who are wrong .

 

[james bond]

s 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.

Basically, your science is biased science. Like I said secular scientists systematically eliminated their main competition. That's why these atheist scientists findings are usually wrong. For one, the evidence for God is the universe, Earth, and everything in it. We are here when we shouldn't be. The Bible explains how creation happened while evolutionary thinking's big bang theory cannot even explain how light happened, Higgs filed and Higgs boson, or how everything was densely packed in a quantum particle? What quantum particle has such density and mass? Besides the infinite temperature and infinite density is a dead giveaway for fake science as it violates the laws of physics. Universe ex nihilo should have been shown if there really is a theory of everything. There isn't. That's what you guys have come up with. And what about the fine tuning facts that the big bang investigators found? It helped the creation side and so has been ignored. It's still fact that life is rare and doesn't just happen anywhere. Isn't it time you admit you are wrong and let creation scientists back in on peer reviews in order to help ascertain the way things work? Otherwise, how can today's science find out if it is right or wrong. So far, it has contradicted what it says in the Bible even thought it didn't try to be. Isn't that evidence for Satan? What new has been added as value added?

 

[Ringtone]

I’m not sure this article belongs here but it’s interesting, concise and sort of related so I’m going to offer it.

A New Clue to How Life Originated

Actually, this seems to be a significant development, possibly the most significant since Sutherland et. al (2009 & 2015), which you can read about in my article under "Additional Notes (Updates)"; however, I can think of half a dozens reasons it doesn't mean what you think. I need to hunt down the paper on it and we need to see what further research shows. This is brand new. I try to keep up, but somehow I missed this in my end of the month survey. I have an account with Cornell.

 

[Ringtone]

s 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.

Basically, your science is biased science. Like I said secular scientists systematically eliminated their main competition. That's why these atheist scientists findings are usually wrong. For one, the evidence for God is the universe, Earth, and everything in it. We are here when we shouldn't be. The Bible explains how creation happened while evolutionary thinking's big bang theory cannot even explain how light happened, Higgs filed and Higgs boson, or how everything was densely packed in a quantum particle? What quantum particle has such density and mass? Besides the infinite temperature and infinite density is a dead giveaway for fake science as it violates the laws of physics. Universe ex nihilo should have been shown if there really is a theory of everything. There isn't. That's what you guys have come up with. And what about the fine tuning facts that the big bang investigators found. It helped the creation side and so has been ignored. It's still fact that life is rare and doesn't just happen anywhere. Isn't it time you admit you are wrong and let creation scientists back in on peer reviews in order to help ascertain the way things work?

This is the thing I don't understand about YEC. The standard Big Bang model as adjusted by inflationary theory is not incompatible with Creationism, and quantum mechanics must necessarily prevail at the Planck scale No one really believes that there ever was an initial singularity, and, of course, had theoretical physicists and cosmologists paid attention to theist mathematicians, theologians and philosophers of the 20th Century, Hawking's radiation might have been discovered earlier. Theists were actually the first to predict that black holes must be "bleeding out" some undetectable form of radiation. Of course actual infinities are absurd!

 

[Ringtone]

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.

Trailer trash. You did not raise your initial claim in the name of biochemical engineering. That makes no sense at all, and you know it. We're talking about abiogenesis. YOU KNOW VERY WELL THAT MY INITIAL CHALLENGE TO WHICH YOU RESPONDED WENT TO ABIOGENESIS. YOU WERE CLEARLY MAKING THAT CLAIM IN THE NAME OF ABIOGENESIS. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, that you merely conflated them in your head, which is not an uncommon mistake. No big deal. But instead of owning up to it, instead of learning and moving on, you give me this brazen rash of filth again. You are a sociopath. I'm done with you. You're a pathological liar.

 

[james bond]

This is the thing I don't understand about YEC. The standard Big Bang model as adjusted by inflationary theory is not incompatible with Creationism, and quantum mechanics must necessarily prevail at the Planck scale No one really believes that there ever was an initial singularity, and, of course, had theoretical physicists and cosmologists paid attention to theist mathematicians, theologians and philosophers of the 20th Century, Hawking's radiation might have been discovered earlier. Theists were actually the first to predict that black holes must be "bleeding out" some undetectable form of radiation. Of course actual infinities are absurd!

The importance of Genesis is that it describes our relationship with God. We are given heaven and eternal life and the one thing we must obey is not to disobey God and that was what the tree of knowledge represented. We had free will just like Lucifer. However, in short time Adam and Eve disobeyed God and you know the rest. They were swayed by the lie and trickery of Satan in telling them that they will not die by eating the fruit and disobeying God's one command. A negatvie test. The second part is that it is the only supernatural that we are to believe in regards to today's science and world that is described in the first two chapters or books. God created the universe and the world in six days and rested on the seventh. With this belief and understanding of what happened, then we are one with God and understand that we live in a fallen world. The evidence is that we will all die and that Noah's Flood killed all of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve except for Noah's family. Like them, we are given a second chance, but this time God gave us a positive test in John 3:16 which you know, as well. "For God so loved ithe world, jthat he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." Many people start their Christian life with this verse. This is what they believe.. However, they may not understand their relationship with God and that he created adult humans and animals and provided the universe and everything it it to us. They are easily swayed or cannot believe such a thing could happen in the natural world. It wasn't natural to begin with. There was no space and time. It had to have a beginning. People believed in an eternal universe before the big bang instead of an eternal God. When the CMB was discovered, then they knew it had a beginning because of evolutionary thinking science and that story changed to the big bang. What they believed about the eternal universe before became pseudoscience while the big bang replaced it. Jesus warns us about the false prophets to the believers and that they will be misled. Satan is devious in that he masquerades as the angel of light. All of evolution contradicts what God said in regards to Genesis. It was there in ancient times, as well. Jesus understood the power of Satan as the "god of the world and the prince of the power of the air." He knew he had the power to give him that power if he would bow down to him and worship him. However, Jesus instead states one should only worship the Lord thy God and for Satan to get lost. You may think it is only today that we do not believe the first two books of Genesis, but those in ancient times didn't believe it either. The Jews prized science and they didn't buy into it. There are even some today who do not believe the Jesus was the Messiah for he didn't deliver the paradise of Israel to them -- Genesis As Allegory | My Jewish Learning.

 

[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.

I fail to see what Jimmy Swaggert's sex scandal has to do with abiogenesis. Aren't you just setting up a straw man in Jimmy Swaggert in order to win an argument instead of finding evidence for your position? And I pointed out Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Haeckel's fake embryo drawings to counter macroevolution. Moreover, there are no aliens to counter your abiogenesis and panspermia positions? We didn't get to panspermia, but that's in the atheist scientists popular theories for origins of life on Earth.

Dr. Louis Pasteur showed spontaneous generation was false and I said abiogenesis is the same as spontaneous generation. You haven't demonstrated that it is not, but rolled out a straw man. What is so different about abiogenesis that Miller-Urey failed to show. Even if there was amino acids created and they fell into the ocean or water, we find water dissolves amino acids. Fort Fun Indiana's paper on peptide formation showed that. They had to go to air-water layer. Even that has problems and that is a far cry from geysers. I thought amino acids were supposed to evolve in geyers in order to beat the oxygen problem. How was the oxygen problem resolved anyway?

As usual, I doubt you and Fort Fun Indiana will be able to answer my questions.

It was explained to you earlier. What Pasteur's experiment showed was that life does not currently spontaneously arise in complexform from non-life in nature.

It is a standard theme in ID’iot creation cults to play out the theme that if science cannot account for the origin of life, evolution is false, and that "spontaneous generation" was disproven, so therefore evolution is false. This fails, because evolution (that is, common descent and transmutation of species) occurs whether or not life arose by chance or by supernatural design.

The fact that life exists on the planet actually does prove that abiogenesis did occur. It is the precise mechanism(s) that is in question. There is no plausible case against it. While the ID’iot creation cults (fundie Christian cults), insist their gods are responsible for a fully formed planet / humans 6,000 years ago, we have hard science to discredit those claims, The only attempts to discredit abiogenesis are silly calculations that result in the “it’s too complicated” meme.

As we see with certainty, it is the ID’iot creation / YEC crowd that rails against abiogenesis. It’s predictable that they are unable to defend their claims to magic and supernaturalism so they are left to attack science. It’s not at all ironic that science is the mechanism that will lead us to rational conclusions s opposed to religious extremism which is the opposite of rationality.

 

[ding]

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.

How so?

 

[james bond]

It was explained to you earlier. What Pasteur's experiment showed was that life does not currently spontaneously arise in complexform from non-life in nature.

Pasteur's experiment shows any life doesn't spontaneously arise, period. Also, what's the point of posting the second and third experiments by biologist Dr. Jonathan Wells to falsify Miller-Urey and abiogenesis when you do not watch? It goes to show that you are delusional about abiogenesis and in denial. It's happens by magic. Moreover, you did not answer the questions I asked you. What is so different about abiogenesis that Miller-Urey failed to show? Water is a solvent, so amino acids dissolve in water. Thus, you had the air-water peptide bond thesis. How does that work to form proteins? What about the abiogenesis experiements with the geyser? How do you overcome the oxygen problem in Miller-Urey? You have no answers for this, so it's magic that any amino acids formed. There isn't any primoridal soup anywhere. You do not understand that for organic complexity, one has to have a creator. For example, if I start with proteins, then I can create a blade of grass. Without the single-cell, you cannot do it.

As for the rest, it's your biased, hateful, and stupid rant that I've had to endure time and time again. This is because you are a frustrated individual who cannot demonstrate anything to do with origins with your fake science of evolution. You need to create the single-cell, but all you have access to is the molecular level. What about the protein synthesis process that I posted of what happens inside the cell? That is a complex process which cannot be re-created outside the cell.

This is another question that you cannot or will not answer.

Thus, we are done. You and Fort Fun Indiana can tuck your tails between your legs and go home now . Creation science has won again.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You are the one who insists on alien life because “there must be”.

Hmm,no, I think there is a small chance, however tiny, that there is no other life in the universe. I just think it is overwhelmingly likely that there is or has been. As does every scientist on the planet.

But, if you have an argument to the contrary, let's hear it. No religious crap allowed.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

but it looks like we are all alone here.

I hope that is not your argument, because that is not a good argument.

 

[Hollie]

It was explained to you earlier. What Pasteur's experiment showed was that life does not currently spontaneously arise in complexform from non-life in nature.

Pasteur's experiment shows any life doesn't spontaneously arise, period. Also, what's the point of posting the second and third experiments by biologist Dr. Jonathan Wells to falsify Miller-Urey and abiogenesis when you do not watch? It goes to show that you are delusional about abiogenesis and in denial. It's happens by magic. Moreover, you did not answer the questions I asked you. What is so different about abiogenesis that Miller-Urey failed to show? Water is a solvent, so amino acids dissolve in water. Thus, you had the air-water peptide bond thesis. How does that work to form proteins? What about the abiogenesis experiements with the geyser? How do you overcome the oxygen problem in Miller-Urey? You have no answers for this, so it's magic that any amino acids formed. There isn't any primoridal soup anywhere. You do not understand that for organic complexity, one has to have a creator. For example, if I start with proteins, then I can create a blade of grass. Without the single-cell, you cannot do it.

As for the rest, it's your biased, hateful, and stupid rant that I've had to endure time and time again. This is because you are a frustrated individual who cannot demonstrate anything to do with origins with your fake science of evolution. You need to create the single-cell, but all you have access to is the molecular level. What about the protein synthesis process that I posted of what happens inside the cell? That is a complex process which cannot be re-created outside the cell.

This is another question that you cannot or will not answer.

Thus, we are done. You and Fort Fun Indiana can tuck your tails between your legs and go home now . Creation science has won again.

When you get your “science” from YEC creationist cults, you will, of course, be limited in your science knowledge. Although the work of Pasteur and others did demonstrate the falsity of spontaneous generation in specific circumstances and conditions, abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation. Abiogenesis predicts that the first cells came from the self-organization of molecules and cellular parts (such as organelles) according to the results of chemical reactions subject to the environment of the early Earth.

It’s a shame you never bothered to actually explore what the Pasteur experiment intended to investigate. Pasteur showed that current organisms do not come from non-living material, which is a very different notion to there being a singular occasion when chemical reactions became self-sustaining and self-reproducing. Nothing in the Pasteur experiments demonstrated the impossibility of life arising in simple form from non-life by way of a series of chemical steps/selections. Further, the Pasteur experiment disproved the "spontaneous generation" of whole complex organisms (particularly flies & maggots). His results are not applicable to the science of abiogenesis. Pasteur dealt only with large fully-formed organisms, whereas abiogenesis deals with the smallest possible molecular life forms.

I’ll remind you that abiogenesis did, in fact, happen as life on the planet demonstrates that.

As to your questions regarding proteins and cell biology, they are standard cut and paste tripe from YEC creation ministries. You whine about, “What about the protein synthesis process that I posted of what happens inside the cell? Well, what about it? The stereotypical “it’s too complicated, therefore the gods did it”, is rather pointless in the face of a planet that is billions of years old.

You failed to show what ID’iot creationism has “won”. Your childish exercise of declaring religious extremism as winning something is silly when your argument makes appeals to polytheistic gods which you have provided no evidence in support. Your insistence of a 6,000 year old planet and all of existence being at the hands of polytheistic gods would suggest that you need to offer something in support of those odds; the methods they used and the contradictions to science discovery.

I’ll await the response you offer from creation.com.

 

[Hollie]

This is the thing I don't understand about YEC. The standard Big Bang model as adjusted by inflationary theory is not incompatible with Creationism, and quantum mechanics must necessarily prevail at the Planck scale No one really believes that there ever was an initial singularity, and, of course, had theoretical physicists and cosmologists paid attention to theist mathematicians, theologians and philosophers of the 20th Century, Hawking's radiation might have been discovered earlier. Theists were actually the first to predict that black holes must be "bleeding out" some undetectable form of radiation. Of course actual infinities are absurd!

The importance of Genesis is that it describes our relationship with God. We are given heaven and eternal life and the one thing we must obey is not to disobey God and that was what the tree of knowledge represented. We had free will just like Lucifer. However, in short time Adam and Eve disobeyed God and you know the rest. They were swayed by the lie and trickery of Satan in telling them that they will not die by eating the fruit and disobeying God's one command. A negatvie test. The second part is that it is the only supernatural that we are to believe in regards to today's science and world that is described in the first two chapters or books. God created the universe and the world in six days and rested on the seventh. With this belief and understanding of what happened, then we are one with God and understand that we live in a fallen world. The evidence is that we will all die and that Noah's Flood killed all of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve except for Noah's family. Like them, we are given a second chance, but this time God gave us a positive test in John 3:16 which you know, as well. "For God so loved ithe world, jthat he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." Many people start their Christian life with this verse. This is what they believe.. However, they may not understand their relationship with God and that he created adult humans and animals and provided the universe and everything it it to us. They are easily swayed or cannot believe such a thing could happen in the natural world. It wasn't natural to begin with. There was no space and time. It had to have a beginning. People believed in an eternal universe before the big bang instead of an eternal God. When the CMB was discovered, then they knew it had a beginning because of evolutionary thinking science and that story changed to the big bang. What they believed about the eternal universe before became pseudoscience while the big bang replaced it. Jesus warns us about the false prophets to the believers and that they will be misled. Satan is devious in that he masquerades as the angel of light. All of evolution contradicts what God said in regards to Genesis. It was there in ancient times, as well. Jesus understood the power of Satan as the "god of the world and the prince of the power of the air." He knew he had the power to give him that power if he would bow down to him and worship him. However, Jesus instead states one should only worship the Lord thy God and for Satan to get lost. You may think it is only today that we do not believe the first two books of Genesis, but those in ancient times didn't believe it either. The Jews prized science and they didn't buy into it. There are even some today who do not believe the Jesus was the Messiah for he didn't deliver the paradise of Israel to them -- Genesis As Allegory | My Jewish Learning.

Genesis as an account of some alleged relationship with the gods is quite a dilemma. Per the fable, the gods lied to the only humans in existence.

I wouldn’t describe a relationship founded on lies as a worthy relationship.

 

[Ringtone]

This fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

You're the missing the point. Hollie demanded to know how God created life, and Fort Fun Indiana thought that was a sensible demand. Obviously, by definition, God is all power and has all knowledge. Creating life would be a sneeze, a yawn, a thought, a spoken word. Also, they both insist that abiogenesis is an absolute fact. I'm not God, and any answer I would give would be mocked. That was, of course, the very essence of their demand in the first place, namely, mockery. Hence, your comment is silly. You new atheists mindlessly spout "logical fallacy!" like robots.

 

[DOTR]

I’m not sure this article belongs here but it’s interesting, concise and sort of related so I’m going to offer it.

A New Clue to How Life Originated

Actually, this seems to be a significant development, possibly the most significant since Sutherland et. al (2009 & 2015), which you can read about in my article under "Additional Notes (Updates)"; however, I can think of half a dozens reasons it doesn't mean what you think. I need to hunt down the paper on it and we need to see what further research shows. This is brand new. I try to keep up, but somehow I missed this in my end of the month survey. I have an account with Cornell.

I dont have an opinion as to what it means...other than what the two scientists working on it say it means. I dont second guess people with that level of prestige. Its just another piece of the puzzle but where does it fit? I did write Dr Keller about it when I first read it and her answers were, for lack of a better word, surreal. She is as cautious of falling into heresy with Marxist academia as any teacher in Iran would be. Or else she herself is a true and fanatical believer.
And that is a sad state of affairs.
But the work was interesting.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That was, of course, the very essence of their demand in the first place, namely, mockery.

Correct, somewhat! Mockery of your silly dishonesty, circular arguments, and insistence upon magic.

But, if a simple question like asking you to explain something after you have rejected all other explanations is "mockery", then your point was stupid to begin with.

 

[james bond]

Genesis as an account of some alleged relationship with the gods is quite a dilemma. Per the fable, the gods lied to the only humans in existence.

I wouldn’t describe a relationship founded on lies as a worthy relationship.

Where did God lie in Genesis? Can you prove he lied with evidence just like in a court case?

Instead, it was Satan who lied as he contradicted God in everything he said with evolutionary thinking and history over the years. You have to agree that both the Bible and evolutionary history were written separately over the years. One big lie Satan told through Charles Darwin was to contradict nature's laws do not happen by chance and they were designed by an intelligence. Even Einstein said God does not play dice. Instead, Darwin said that it was a "designed law" having come together by chance. Darwin first causes doubt and then uses his lie. This is Satan's technique. Many people think Charles Darwin was wrong on this they do not argue things happening in nature by a designed law using chance or randomness anymore.

Anyway, you're not going to answer my questions I ask here, so we should cut this off.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Can you prove he lied with evidence just like in a court case?

Of course not, because one of the premises to be proven would have to be that god is omniscient. Of course, nobody could prove such an idiotic, magical idea.

So, apply the same standard to your magical claims. And then watch them wilt like lettuce in the Sun.

 

[Ringtone]

I’m not sure this article belongs here but it’s interesting, concise and sort of related so I’m going to offer it.

A New Clue to How Life Originated

Actually, this seems to be a significant development, possibly the most significant since Sutherland et. al (2009 & 2015), which you can read about in my article under "Additional Notes (Updates)"; however, I can think of half a dozens reasons it doesn't mean what you think. I need to hunt down the paper on it and we need to see what further research shows. This is brand new. I try to keep up, but somehow I missed this in my end of the month survey. I have an account with Cornell.

I dont have an opinion as to what it means...other than what the two scientists working on it say it means. I dont second guess people with that level of prestige. Its just another piece of the puzzle but where does it fit? I did write Dr Keller about it when I first read it and her answers were, for lack of a better word, surreal. She is as cautious of falling into heresy with Marxist academia as any teacher in Iran would be. Or else she herself is a true and fanatical believer.
And that is a sad state of affairs.
But the work was interesting.

Ah! I see. Well, my primary point in that post was that your contribution to the thread is good stuff. It's a fascinating discovery, easily the most startling new development in years. I shall have to watch it carefully and update my article accordingly.