Science debunks Abiogenesis.

[SixFoot]

Depends on how you view God.

Panentheism is not that widespread because it is not well understood.

And if you can show me where the Universes "brain" might be, perhaps a discussion would be fruitful.

But God (as the Creator) is outside the flow of space/time, not within it. Any definition of God that places Him within the flow of space and time is deficient, lacking His most important Eternal qualities.

You're thinking of Pantheism, which is just another term for "polite atheism".

God the Creator, is synonymous with Existence. Obviously, I can no better prove my opinion as you can yours. However, I can continue earning my STEM degree and find out more as I go.

Pantheism is not "polite atheism". Pantheism believes in many gods and accepts all gods. Pretty much the opposite of atheism.

I never said I coined the phrase, either.

You may feel free to blame the American education system, as this is part of the course I've been being taught for the last two months in college.

I don't care who coined the phrase. For you to claim that Pantheism is just polite atheism requires that you do not know the definition of one of the terms. That is not on the education system. That is on you.

Right. So here's the thing.

You're an angry little man on the internet that hates everything he doesn't agree with, and you haven't been taught anything past what you can Google in the heat of an argument in a very long time.

I forgive your rudeness as you dig deeper into your own ignorance.

 

[there4eyeM]

As far as is scientifically known, the elements that make life possible were produced in the fires of the first stars. They did not pop into being at the 'big bang'. For those who want a 'God' sitting on a throne somewhere, keep that in mind. Any 'God' that exists is not like any 'God' being presented by a major religion.

 

[RWNJ]

Something else to consider. Proteins are created by information stored in DNA. DNA cannot exist without proteins. Neither one can exist without the other. Where does that leave us?

With "proto" proteins that did not require information from DNA?

Scientists claim that RNA filled the roll of DNA, at one time. All you have to do is ignore the fact that no one has seen this RNA, or even how it might have functioned, and it makes sense.

Another scientific fact. Nothing physical can create itself. So, where did energy come from? Scientists tell us that it has always existed, yet they refuse to admit the possibility of a eternal God. Go figure.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Attempting to break down my thoughts on the matter more metaphorically, I see the physical realm we exist in as the manifestation of the Holy Spirit.

"Spirit" implies energy, and as we've all come to learn, all matter is merely contained energy.

God the Father having seeded Existence, or as the catalyst that caused our Universe/Multiverse.

Jesus the Son, being the bridge that connects it all.

Although, none of this has any bearing on timelines from an objective point of view, so it's also easy for me to also accept other ideas like the 14.x billion years of development, or mankind branching from primates.

Things like this and the mind-boggling concepts it represents are what push my thoughts into studies.

Coming full circle back to my original post on String Theory; it's the Math that demands God, not me.

We seem to be wrestling over semantics.

Do you believe that God exists independent of the Universe, but that the Universe cannot exist without God?

IF so you are holding to the basics of Christian views on the Trinity and its relationship to the Universe as I understand it.

If not, then you are wayward, and I hope you read more of the Orthodox view of the Trinity and Creation.

 

[WinterBorn]

Panentheism is not that widespread because it is not well understood.

And if you can show me where the Universes "brain" might be, perhaps a discussion would be fruitful.

But God (as the Creator) is outside the flow of space/time, not within it. Any definition of God that places Him within the flow of space and time is deficient, lacking His most important Eternal qualities.

You're thinking of Pantheism, which is just another term for "polite atheism".

God the Creator, is synonymous with Existence. Obviously, I can no better prove my opinion as you can yours. However, I can continue earning my STEM degree and find out more as I go.

Pantheism is not "polite atheism". Pantheism believes in many gods and accepts all gods. Pretty much the opposite of atheism.

I never said I coined the phrase, either.

You may feel free to blame the American education system, as this is part of the course I've been being taught for the last two months in college.

I don't care who coined the phrase. For you to claim that Pantheism is just polite atheism requires that you do not know the definition of one of the terms. That is not on the education system. That is on you.

Right. So here's the thing.

You're an angry little man on the internet that hates everything he doesn't agree with, and you haven't been taught anything past what you can Google in the heat of an argument in a very long time.

I forgive your rudeness as you dig deeper into your own ignorance.

LMAO!! Sorry, that doesn't work either. First you show you don't know the meaning of a word. Then you try to blame it on the education system. And now it is about my rudeness???

Lol. Not even close.

 

[RWNJ]

As far as is scientifically known, the elements that make life possible were produced in the fires of the first stars. They did not pop into being at the 'big bang'. For those who want a 'God' sitting on a throne somewhere, keep that in mind. Any 'God' that exists is not like any 'God' being presented by a major religion.

Think about this. God is all powerful. Why couldn't He have done things just as the scientists say they happened? He could have accelerated the process, after all. In any event, you cannot have a creation without a Creator, since nothing physical can create itself. Two choices. Everything popped into existence on it's own, or it was created. Which makes more sense?

 

[JimBowie1958]

As far as is scientifically known, the elements that make life possible were produced in the fires of the first stars. They did not pop into being at the 'big bang'.

Big Bang - Wikipedia

The first subatomic particles to be formed included protons, neutrons, and electrons. Though simple atomic nuclei formed within the first three minutes after the Big Bang, thousands of years passed before the first electrically neutral atoms formed. The majority of atoms produced by the Big Bang were hydrogen, along with helium and traces of lithium. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies, and the heavier elements were synthesized either within stars or during supernovae.​

For those who want a 'God' sitting on a throne somewhere, keep that in mind. Any 'God' that exists is not like any 'God' being presented by a major religion.

Well, not a God as you understand them.

In Judaism and in Christianity, I believe that the concept of God is that He exists before space/time existed and that He truly has no humanoid form, but when such is alluded to in scripture these are merely homo-morphisms and not literal descriptions of God.

 

[SixFoot]

Attempting to break down my thoughts on the matter more metaphorically, I see the physical realm we exist in as the manifestation of the Holy Spirit.

"Spirit" implies energy, and as we've all come to learn, all matter is merely contained energy.

God the Father having seeded Existence, or as the catalyst that caused our Universe/Multiverse.

Jesus the Son, being the bridge that connects it all.

Although, none of this has any bearing on timelines from an objective point of view, so it's also easy for me to also accept other ideas like the 14.x billion years of development, or mankind branching from primates.

Things like this and the mind-boggling concepts it represents are what push my thoughts into studies.

Coming full circle back to my original post on String Theory; it's the Math that demands God, not me.

We seem to be wrestling over semantics.

Do you believe that God exists independent of the Universe, but that the Universe cannot exist without God?

IF so you are holding to the basics of Christian views on the Trinity and its relationship to the Universe as I understand it.

If not, then you are wayward, and I hope you read more of the Orthodox view of the Trinity and Creation.

I believe God exists independent of the Universe, and that He is also the Universe. He is the sum of all Existence.

Giordano Bruno was ahead of his time as well.

Giordano Bruno (Italian: [dʒorˈdano ˈbruno]; Latin: Iordanus Brunus Nolanus; 1 January 1548 – 17 February 1600), born Filippo Bruno, was an Italian Dominican friar, philosopher, mathematician, poet, and cosmological theorist.[3] He is remembered for his cosmological theories, which conceptually extended the then novel Copernican model. He proposed that the stars were just distant suns surrounded by their own exoplanets and raised the possibility that these planets could even foster life of their own (a philosophical position known as cosmic pluralism). He also insisted that the universe is in fact infinite and could have no celestial body at its "center".

Not bad for a man who grew up and died before Jamestown was even founded.

Much like a Bronze Age man in the Mesopotamian desert giving a staggeringly accurate account of Creation when compared side-by-side with the theory of the Big Bang/Evolution.

 

[SixFoot]

You're thinking of Pantheism, which is just another term for "polite atheism".

God the Creator, is synonymous with Existence. Obviously, I can no better prove my opinion as you can yours. However, I can continue earning my STEM degree and find out more as I go.

Pantheism is not "polite atheism". Pantheism believes in many gods and accepts all gods. Pretty much the opposite of atheism.

I never said I coined the phrase, either.

You may feel free to blame the American education system, as this is part of the course I've been being taught for the last two months in college.

I don't care who coined the phrase. For you to claim that Pantheism is just polite atheism requires that you do not know the definition of one of the terms. That is not on the education system. That is on you.

Right. So here's the thing.

You're an angry little man on the internet that hates everything he doesn't agree with, and you haven't been taught anything past what you can Google in the heat of an argument in a very long time.

I forgive your rudeness as you dig deeper into your own ignorance.

LMAO!! Sorry, that doesn't work either. First you show you don't know the meaning of a word. Then you try to blame it on the education system. And now it is about my rudeness???

Lol. Not even close.

You're still on my nuts? Apologies, I didn't know you were also gay on top of uneducated.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Almost any event has such a tiny probability of happening as to be nearly impossible. That is not a measure of anything except the extent to which probability theory can be useful. All that can be said now is that some people choose to believe what they want and other people know that they don't know.

A "simple" one celled creature is hardly "simple"

Something else to consider. Proteins are created by information stored in DNA. DNA cannot exist without proteins. Neither one can exist without the other. Where does that leave us?

Er, random molecules bumped together, er, or something

 

[JimBowie1958]

All you have to do is ignore the fact that no one has seen this RNA, or even how it might have functioned, and it makes sense.

Um,no, we have RNA operating in our cells now, and it is well known and documented.

RNA - Wikipedia

 

[RWNJ]

All you have to do is ignore the fact that no one has seen this RNA, or even how it might have functioned, and it makes sense.

Um,no, we have RNA operating in our cells now, and it is well known and documented.

RNA - Wikipedia

True. But what I meant was that RNA was, supposedly, a precursor to DNA, that filled the role that DNA does now. Something that there is absolutely no evidence for.

 

[SixFoot]

All you have to do is ignore the fact that no one has seen this RNA, or even how it might have functioned, and it makes sense.

Um,no, we have RNA operating in our cells now, and it is well known and documented.

RNA - Wikipedia

True. But what I meant was that RNA was, supposedly, a precursor to DNA, that filled the role that DNA does now. Something that there is absolutely no evidence for.

Like this?

Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory

"Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they couldn’t explain how these ingredients might have formed."

 

[JimBowie1958]

All you have to do is ignore the fact that no one has seen this RNA, or even how it might have functioned, and it makes sense.

Um,no, we have RNA operating in our cells now, and it is well known and documented.

RNA - Wikipedia

True. But what I meant was that RNA was, supposedly, a precursor to DNA, that filled the role that DNA does now. Something that there is absolutely no evidence for.

I think the current theories that postulate DNA arising from RNA baseit on RNA being somewhat more simple in behavior and ease of composition.

But I dont know as I am not a scientist nor a theologian; just speaking for myself.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Like this?

Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory

"Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they couldn’t explain how these ingredients might have formed."

Has RNA been found in nature independent of a lab or living organism?

 

[WinterBorn]

Pantheism is not "polite atheism". Pantheism believes in many gods and accepts all gods. Pretty much the opposite of atheism.

I never said I coined the phrase, either.

You may feel free to blame the American education system, as this is part of the course I've been being taught for the last two months in college.

I don't care who coined the phrase. For you to claim that Pantheism is just polite atheism requires that you do not know the definition of one of the terms. That is not on the education system. That is on you.

Right. So here's the thing.

You're an angry little man on the internet that hates everything he doesn't agree with, and you haven't been taught anything past what you can Google in the heat of an argument in a very long time.

I forgive your rudeness as you dig deeper into your own ignorance.

LMAO!! Sorry, that doesn't work either. First you show you don't know the meaning of a word. Then you try to blame it on the education system. And now it is about my rudeness???

Lol. Not even close.

You're still on my nuts? Apologies, I didn't know you were also gay on top of uneducated.

Uneducated? From the guy who did not know the actual definition of pantheism? That is hilarious.

Funny, when I point out your error, you spend post after post attacking me. No admission that you were wrong. Just attack the messenger. And you have the gall to call me uneducated and angry?

 

[SixFoot]

Like this?

Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory

"Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they couldn’t explain how these ingredients might have formed."

Has RNA been found in nature independent of a lab or living organism?

Now that I have no clue on. I will be taking basic chemistry courses for electives and general studies credit, but my field will be Mathematics.

But, what little I do know on that particular subject, I feel it's a very important step in reverse-engineering the "code" that ultimately became us.

 

[SixFoot]

I never said I coined the phrase, either.

You may feel free to blame the American education system, as this is part of the course I've been being taught for the last two months in college.

I don't care who coined the phrase. For you to claim that Pantheism is just polite atheism requires that you do not know the definition of one of the terms. That is not on the education system. That is on you.

Right. So here's the thing.

You're an angry little man on the internet that hates everything he doesn't agree with, and you haven't been taught anything past what you can Google in the heat of an argument in a very long time.

I forgive your rudeness as you dig deeper into your own ignorance.

LMAO!! Sorry, that doesn't work either. First you show you don't know the meaning of a word. Then you try to blame it on the education system. And now it is about my rudeness???

Lol. Not even close.

You're still on my nuts? Apologies, I didn't know you were also gay on top of uneducated.

Uneducated? From the guy who did not know the actual definition of pantheism? That is hilarious.

Funny, when I point out your error, you spend post after post attacking me. No admission that you were wrong. Just attack the messenger. And you have the gall to call me uneducated and angry?

Yes, I called you that, and I've been smiling as you come crawling back every time for the last word, on command.

Good boy.

 

[RWNJ]

Like this?

Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory

"Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they couldn’t explain how these ingredients might have formed."

Has RNA been found in nature independent of a lab or living organism?

Anyone who knows anything about information theory knows that DNA could not evolve on it's own. DNA is a high level language. It has syntax and meaning. It accepts input and produces output, just like a computer. Information has nothing to do with matter or energy. It exists independently of both. Matter and energy are simply the medium that information uses. So, one mast ask oneself. Where did information come from? Information has been shown to come from a single source. Intelligence.

 

[there4eyeM]

Like this?

Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory

"Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they couldn’t explain how these ingredients might have formed."

Has RNA been found in nature independent of a lab or living organism?

Anyone who knows anything about information theory knows that DNA could not evolve on it's own. DNA is a high level language. It has syntax and meaning. It accepts input and produces output, just like a computer. Information has nothing to do with matter or energy. It exists independently of both. Matter and energy are simply the medium that information uses. So, one mast ask oneself. Where did information come from? Information has been shown to come from a single source. Intelligence.

But, this poster includes the answer to his/her conundrum; "Information has been shown to come from a single source." O.K., just ad this little codicil: ", so far". We know life is. We don't know how it came about. All else is speculation from what is (more or less) known.