Scientist explains why abiogenesis is impossible.

[Mr.Right]

A real scientist explains why abiogenesis is impossible.

Jerry Bergman has seven degrees, including in biology, psychology, and evaluation and research, from Wayne State University, in Detroit, Bowling Green State University in Ohio, and Medical College of Ohio in Toledo. He has taught at Bowling Green State University, the University of Toledo, Medical College of Ohio and at other colleges and universities. He currently teaches biology, microbiology, biochemistry, and human anatomy at the college level and is a research associate involved in research in the area of cancer genetics. He has published widely in both popular and scientific journals.

Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible

 

[Porker]

I have no doctorates in any science, whatsoever. But Doctor Bergman said in 25 or 30 thousand words what I already knew. That liberal bullshit is just that, total bullshit.

 

[Mr.Right]

I have no doctorates in any science, whatsoever. But Doctor Bergman said in 25 or 30 thousand words what I already knew. That liberal bullshit is just that, total bullshit.

Ok. I'm confused. What do liberals have to do with anything?

 

[Sunni Man]

Ok. I'm confused.

You've been that way since day one. .....

 

[Porker]

I have no doctorates in any science, whatsoever. But Doctor Bergman said in 25 or 30 thousand words what I already knew. That liberal bullshit is just that, total bullshit.

Ok. I'm confused. What do liberals have to do with anything?

Evolution versus creation by GOD? You've got to be kidding in asking that question.

 

[Mr.Right]

I have no doctorates in any science, whatsoever. But Doctor Bergman said in 25 or 30 thousand words what I already knew. That liberal bullshit is just that, total bullshit.

Ok. I'm confused. What do liberals have to do with anything?

Evolution versus creation by GOD? You've got to be kidding in asking that question.

Tell you what, genius. I'll bet you didn't even read the article. So why are you even commenting here. Read the article. Then you might be able to show some intelligence by refuting it. Otherwise, shut your ignorant mouth.

 

[Sunni Man]

Yea, you tell'em Mrs. Right. ....... .

 

[TheOldSchool]

So what does he think is possible?

 

[Mr.Right]

So what does he think is possible?

When you have eliminated the impossible, what remains, no matter how improbable is the truth.

 

[TheOldSchool]

So what does he think is possible?

When you have eliminated the impossible, what remains, no matter how improbable is the truth.

He did not eliminate anything. He only stated that he does not have the means to prove or disprove anything.

 

[Mr.Right]

So what does he think is possible?

When you have eliminated the impossible, what remains, no matter how improbable is the truth.

He did not eliminate anything. He only stated that he does not have the means to prove or disprove anything.

Assuming you read the entire article, which would you say is more probable. Life happening on its own, or life having a designer? There are so many problems with a naturalistic origin of life, it's a wonder that anyone can take it seriously.

 

[TheOldSchool]

So what does he think is possible?

When you have eliminated the impossible, what remains, no matter how improbable is the truth.

He did not eliminate anything. He only stated that he does not have the means to prove or disprove anything.

Assuming you read the entire article, which would you say is more probable. Life happening on its own, or life having a designer? There are so many problems with a naturalistic origin of life, it's a wonder that anyone can take it seriously.

Well there is absolutely zero evidence of a designer having anything to do with anything. So that's not a good starting point.

Actually if a designer created life then there is no way we will ever have any chance of figuring out how life came to be. So going that route is completely pointless.

What we CAN do is examine what forces in the universe are at work that could have made the formation of life a possibility. Which is exactly what we're doing. And we come closer to that explanation every day. Why just a few months ago we proved that phenomena we have already observed in the universe is capable of creating the 4 chemical building blocks of RNA; a simpler relative of DNA.

Scientists re-create what may be life s first spark Daily Mail Online

Of course, like I said earlier, the article in your OP which was written 15 years ago did not have the means to test that. Which is why the conclusion to draw from his paper is that he didn't have the means to prove or disprove anything.

 

[Mr.Right]

So what does he think is possible?

When you have eliminated the impossible, what remains, no matter how improbable is the truth.

He did not eliminate anything. He only stated that he does not have the means to prove or disprove anything.

Assuming you read the entire article, which would you say is more probable. Life happening on its own, or life having a designer? There are so many problems with a naturalistic origin of life, it's a wonder that anyone can take it seriously.

Well there is absolutely zero evidence of a designer having anything to do with anything. So that's not a good starting point.

Actually if a designer created life then there is no way we will ever have any chance of figuring out how life came to be. So going that route is completely pointless.

What we CAN do is examine what forces in the universe are at work that could have made the formation of life a possibility. Which is exactly what we're doing. And we come closer to that explanation every day. Why just a few months ago we proved that phenomena we have already observed in the universe is capable of creating the 4 chemical building blocks of RNA; a simpler relative of DNA.

Scientists re-create what may be life s first spark Daily Mail Online

Of course, like I said earlier, the article in your OP which was written 15 years ago did not have the means to test that. Which is why the conclusion to draw from his paper is that he didn't have the means to prove or disprove anything.

There is one thing missing from every naturalistic origin of life theory. Information. More precisely, complex specified information. I'll be posting more about this in my own thread.

 

[TheOldSchool]

So what does he think is possible?

When you have eliminated the impossible, what remains, no matter how improbable is the truth.

He did not eliminate anything. He only stated that he does not have the means to prove or disprove anything.

Assuming you read the entire article, which would you say is more probable. Life happening on its own, or life having a designer? There are so many problems with a naturalistic origin of life, it's a wonder that anyone can take it seriously.

Well there is absolutely zero evidence of a designer having anything to do with anything. So that's not a good starting point.

Actually if a designer created life then there is no way we will ever have any chance of figuring out how life came to be. So going that route is completely pointless.

What we CAN do is examine what forces in the universe are at work that could have made the formation of life a possibility. Which is exactly what we're doing. And we come closer to that explanation every day. Why just a few months ago we proved that phenomena we have already observed in the universe is capable of creating the 4 chemical building blocks of RNA; a simpler relative of DNA.

Scientists re-create what may be life s first spark Daily Mail Online

Of course, like I said earlier, the article in your OP which was written 15 years ago did not have the means to test that. Which is why the conclusion to draw from his paper is that he didn't have the means to prove or disprove anything.

There is one thing missing from every naturalistic origin of life theory. Information. More precisely, complex specified information. I'll be posting more about this in my own thread.

There's one thing missing from every divine origin of life theory too. Actually, pretty much everything is missing. Evidence, information, rationale...

 

[Mr.Right]

When you have eliminated the impossible, what remains, no matter how improbable is the truth.

He did not eliminate anything. He only stated that he does not have the means to prove or disprove anything.

Assuming you read the entire article, which would you say is more probable. Life happening on its own, or life having a designer? There are so many problems with a naturalistic origin of life, it's a wonder that anyone can take it seriously.

Well there is absolutely zero evidence of a designer having anything to do with anything. So that's not a good starting point.

Actually if a designer created life then there is no way we will ever have any chance of figuring out how life came to be. So going that route is completely pointless.

What we CAN do is examine what forces in the universe are at work that could have made the formation of life a possibility. Which is exactly what we're doing. And we come closer to that explanation every day. Why just a few months ago we proved that phenomena we have already observed in the universe is capable of creating the 4 chemical building blocks of RNA; a simpler relative of DNA.

Scientists re-create what may be life s first spark Daily Mail Online

Of course, like I said earlier, the article in your OP which was written 15 years ago did not have the means to test that. Which is why the conclusion to draw from his paper is that he didn't have the means to prove or disprove anything.

There is one thing missing from every naturalistic origin of life theory. Information. More precisely, complex specified information. I'll be posting more about this in my own thread.

There's one thing missing from every divine origin of life theory too. Actually, pretty much everything is missing. Evidence, information, rationale...

That's your opinion. I could say the same thing about abiogenesis. There is zero evidence that it happened, or is even possible.

 

[TheOldSchool]

He did not eliminate anything. He only stated that he does not have the means to prove or disprove anything.

Assuming you read the entire article, which would you say is more probable. Life happening on its own, or life having a designer? There are so many problems with a naturalistic origin of life, it's a wonder that anyone can take it seriously.

Well there is absolutely zero evidence of a designer having anything to do with anything. So that's not a good starting point.

Actually if a designer created life then there is no way we will ever have any chance of figuring out how life came to be. So going that route is completely pointless.

What we CAN do is examine what forces in the universe are at work that could have made the formation of life a possibility. Which is exactly what we're doing. And we come closer to that explanation every day. Why just a few months ago we proved that phenomena we have already observed in the universe is capable of creating the 4 chemical building blocks of RNA; a simpler relative of DNA.

Scientists re-create what may be life s first spark Daily Mail Online

Of course, like I said earlier, the article in your OP which was written 15 years ago did not have the means to test that. Which is why the conclusion to draw from his paper is that he didn't have the means to prove or disprove anything.

There is one thing missing from every naturalistic origin of life theory. Information. More precisely, complex specified information. I'll be posting more about this in my own thread.

There's one thing missing from every divine origin of life theory too. Actually, pretty much everything is missing. Evidence, information, rationale...

That's your opinion. I could say the same thing about abiogenesis. There is zero evidence that it happened, or is even possible.

Cool beans

If it's divine in origin you'll never no how. Then there is literally no point in any further investigation for you. Why are you wasting your time?

 

[mamooth]

At least one of Bergman's doctorates comes from a phony correspondence university.

Court Orders Columbia Pacific University to Cease Operating Illegally in California

Faking credentials does not inspire confidence. He was booted from BGSU for ranting about how "Darwinism is racism!". That is, he's a kook.

His spiel is the old irreducible complexity nonsense. He says everything is irreducibly complex because ... he can't imagine that it's not. It's argument from personal incredulity, so nobody pays any attention to it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, having and claiming just one of those phony degrees is enough to destroy any credibility he may have had.