Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It’s a statement of fact. To all evidence we are alone.

False, since we havent taken inventory of all the evidence. Or even a tiny bit if it.

Ok give me a tiny bit of it.

Huh? You are the ne that referenced the evidence. The sum total of all the data we have is far too small to conclude anything from it, save for saying that life likely has evolved elsewhere.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I think not

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.
And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light.

Yes, sounds like an ignorant child's description of the universe. Clearly they were totally ignorant.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Present some evidence that life evolved twice.

Oh, that's simple. It formed and evolved here, and the universe is huge. And there you have it. Good cirumstantial evidence.

It's not proof, nor is anyone saying it with 100% certainty.. So spare me that red herring.

 

[james bond]

You didn't pose questions, you made statements you could never hope to support.

Your unsupported claims to your gods creating everything is identical to those promoting different gods creating everything. Not surprisingly, none of the claims to any of these creator, designer gods are supportable.

I provided scientific statements backed up by observable evidence. What did you provide? Did you continue with peptide bonding? Its thesis was an air-water interface for peptide bonding because the water below it would dissolve the amino acids (which is what I said). Not much primordial soup in an air-water level. Also, why was Miller-Urey abandoned? Was it the oxygen problem? The primary volcanic gases do not form amino acids of which I provided a video of an experiment. Your claim was the lesser gases of methane and sulfur did the work with no evidence nor explanation for it. What happened?

Why don't you read this instead of your false websites -- Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible Don't just read to learn about how your process works, but down to the end to see it debunked.

 

[james bond]

Hardly. He believes the universe has always existed. I believe it was created from nothing.

You even format your answers in the weird way as BreezeWood. He doesn't even know how to use the forum tools properly.

As described in the first two chapters of Genesis or ...

"It is possible to believe in both evolution and the Catholic church’s teaching on creation, Pope Francis has said, as he cautioned against portraying God as a kind of magician who made the universe with a magic wand.

“The big bang, which is today posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creation; rather, it requires it,” the pope said in an address to a meeting at the pontifical academy of sciences.

“Evolution of nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation because evolution presupposes the creation of beings which evolve.”

Francis, 77, said it was easy to misinterpret the creation story as recounted in the book of Genesis, according to which God created heaven and Earth in six days and rested on the seventh.

“When we read the creation story in Genesis we run the risk of imagining that God was a magician, with a magic wand which is able to do everything,” he said.

“But it is not so. He created beings and let them develop according to internal laws which He gave every one, so they would develop, so they would reach maturity.”

Pope Francis: evolution and creation both right
Pope Francis: evolution and creation both right

BTW, what does the Tanakh say BreezeWood book of antiquity? How did he get to eternal universe from that? Are you lying?

 

[ding]

Hardly. He believes the universe has always existed. I believe it was created from nothing.

You even format your answers in the weird way as BreezeWood. He doesn't even know how to use the forum tools properly.

As described in the first two chapters of Genesis or ...

"It is possible to believe in both evolution and the Catholic church’s teaching on creation, Pope Francis has said, as he cautioned against portraying God as a kind of magician who made the universe with a magic wand.

“The big bang, which is today posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creation; rather, it requires it,” the pope said in an address to a meeting at the pontifical academy of sciences.

“Evolution of nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation because evolution presupposes the creation of beings which evolve.”

Francis, 77, said it was easy to misinterpret the creation story as recounted in the book of Genesis, according to which God created heaven and Earth in six days and rested on the seventh.

“When we read the creation story in Genesis we run the risk of imagining that God was a magician, with a magic wand which is able to do everything,” he said.

“But it is not so. He created beings and let them develop according to internal laws which He gave every one, so they would develop, so they would reach maturity.”

Pope Francis: evolution and creation both right
Pope Francis: evolution and creation both right

BTW, what does the Tanakh say BreezeWood book of antiquity?

What is your perception of God?

 

[DOTR]

It’s a statement of fact. To all evidence we are alone.

False, since we havent taken inventory of all the evidence. Or even a tiny bit if it.

Ok give me a tiny bit of it.

Huh? You are the ne that referenced the evidence. The sum total of all the data we have is far too small to conclude anything from it, save for saying that life likely has evolved elsewhere.

You fall farther into superstitious mysteries by the second.

So let’s try it this way....what’s the “sum total” of evidence of life outside our current terrestrial tree of life?

 

[james bond]

Hardly. He believes the universe has always existed. I believe it was created from nothing.

You even format your answers in the weird way as BreezeWood. He doesn't even know how to use the forum tools properly.

As described in the first two chapters of Genesis or ...

"It is possible to believe in both evolution and the Catholic church’s teaching on creation, Pope Francis has said, as he cautioned against portraying God as a kind of magician who made the universe with a magic wand.

“The big bang, which is today posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creation; rather, it requires it,” the pope said in an address to a meeting at the pontifical academy of sciences.

“Evolution of nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation because evolution presupposes the creation of beings which evolve.”

Francis, 77, said it was easy to misinterpret the creation story as recounted in the book of Genesis, according to which God created heaven and Earth in six days and rested on the seventh.

“When we read the creation story in Genesis we run the risk of imagining that God was a magician, with a magic wand which is able to do everything,” he said.

“But it is not so. He created beings and let them develop according to internal laws which He gave every one, so they would develop, so they would reach maturity.”

Pope Francis: evolution and creation both right
Pope Francis: evolution and creation both right

BTW, what does the Tanakh say BreezeWood book of antiquity?

What is your perception of God?

Hardly. He believes the universe has always existed. I believe it was created from nothing.

Let's not change the subject. We are discussing the above.

What did you mean by you believe "it was created by nothing?"

 

[Hollie]

You didn't pose questions, you made statements you could never hope to support.

Your unsupported claims to your gods creating everything is identical to those promoting different gods creating everything. Not surprisingly, none of the claims to any of these creator, designer gods are supportable.

I provided scientific statements backed up by observable evidence. What did you provide? Did you continue with peptide bonding? Its thesis was an air-water interface for peptide bonding because the water below it would dissolve the amino acids (which is what I said). Not much primordial soup in an air-water level. Also, why was Miller-Urey abandoned? Was it the oxygen problem? The primary volcanic gases do not form amino acids of which I provided a video of an experiment. Your claim was the lesser gases of methane and sulfur did the work with no evidence nor explanation for it. What happened?

Why don't you read this instead of your false websites -- Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible Don't just read to learn about how your process works, but down to the end to see it debunked.

I couldn't find any "scientific statements" you claim to have made. As your earth history and human experience on the planet only date back 6,000 years, the angst you project regarding the planet's biological history means little.

Your reference to Jerry Bergman is actually laughable. As you should know, the charlatans at the ICR are hacks who do no research and publish in no peer reviewed journals. Their "Statement of Faith" is another laughable joke.

Encyclopedia of American Loons: #23: Jerry Bergman

Our next loon is a young earth creationist at the Institute for Creation Research.

Another staunch and thoroughly confused front fighter whose main argument is how persecuted the dissidents to the tyranny of evolution are – in short, your standard ‘I cannot discuss the evidence, so I’ll try to frame my opponents instead’. Admits that ID doesn’t really have a strong theory, but that it doesn’t need it since it’s got all the facts (whatever that means). Discussed here.

Bergman is a dishonest whiner, snower and conspiracy theorist who fabricates stories about persecution of religious scientists. His most nauseating feature is his tendency to snow debates and avoid dealing with devastating objections. Bergman is utterly crazy and ignorant, and his version of the irreducible complexity argument is bizarre even for that mess of an argument.

A summary of a debate Bergman was involved in, which well describes his tactics, is here.

Diagnosis: typical village idiot; despicably dishonest, crazy, paranoid wingnut and kook, and another extreme case of confirmation bias and persecution complex. His ardent efforts seem to have gained him some level of influence among his peers, and he is a medium threat to school curricula everywhere.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You fall farther into superstitious mysteries by the second.

Yeah, you're always good for such flashy declarations. You really seem to be lacking in the "supporting argument" department, though.

what’s the “sum total” of evidence of life outside our current terrestrial tree of life?

I already answered that. Pay attention!

 

[DOTR]

You fall farther into superstitious mysteries by the second.

Yeah, you're always good for such flashy declarations. You really seem to be lacking in the "supporting argument" department, though.

what’s the “sum total” of evidence of life outside our current terrestrial tree of life?

I already answered that. Pay attention!

There is no evidence that life originated more than once. And little chance. So you couldn't have. Unless you made it up.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There is no evidence that life originated more than once.

Oops, that's not stated correctly. You mean, in our pitifully small sample of empirical evidence, we have no empirical evidence yet of life elsewhere. And, seeing how small our sample is compared to the entire universe, no determination can be made from our sample.

Of course, there is good circumstantial evidence.

 

[DOTR]

There is no evidence that life originated more than once.

Oops, that's not stated correctly. You mean, in our pitifully small sample of empirical evidence, we have no empirical evidence yet of life elsewhere. And, seeing how small our sample is compared to the entire universe, no determination can be made from our sample.

Of course, there is good circumstantial evidence.

You spend your days bellyaching about evidence when attacking Christians...and running from it yourself. Your science is pitiful but i think your logic even worse.

Take a poll..i doubt you have convinced anyone of your magical aliens.

 

[ding]

Hardly. He believes the universe has always existed. I believe it was created from nothing.

You even format your answers in the weird way as BreezeWood. He doesn't even know how to use the forum tools properly.

As described in the first two chapters of Genesis or ...

"It is possible to believe in both evolution and the Catholic church’s teaching on creation, Pope Francis has said, as he cautioned against portraying God as a kind of magician who made the universe with a magic wand.

“The big bang, which is today posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creation; rather, it requires it,” the pope said in an address to a meeting at the pontifical academy of sciences.

“Evolution of nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation because evolution presupposes the creation of beings which evolve.”

Francis, 77, said it was easy to misinterpret the creation story as recounted in the book of Genesis, according to which God created heaven and Earth in six days and rested on the seventh.

“When we read the creation story in Genesis we run the risk of imagining that God was a magician, with a magic wand which is able to do everything,” he said.

“But it is not so. He created beings and let them develop according to internal laws which He gave every one, so they would develop, so they would reach maturity.”

Pope Francis: evolution and creation both right
Pope Francis: evolution and creation both right

BTW, what does the Tanakh say BreezeWood book of antiquity?

What is your perception of God?

Hardly. He believes the universe has always existed. I believe it was created from nothing.

Let's not change the subject. We are discussing the above.

What did you mean by you believe "it was created by nothing?"

I didn’t say by. I said from.

And I wasn’t changing the subject. I was correcting you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You spend your days bellyaching about evidence when attacking Christians...

The difference being, OBVIOUSLY, that they are making several extraordinary, magical claims,with 100% certainty, without a shred of evidence....


....while I, on the contrary, am making the rather mundane assertion, without 100% certainty, that, in a universe with 100s of billions of galaxies, with 100s of billions of planets in each, if life can form once, it can form twice, and probably has.

This determination is supported by the following, empirical facts:

1) life formed at least once
2) there are 100s of billions of galaxies with 100s of billions of planets in each
3) life is composed of the most common elements in the universe, in a virtually 1:1 ratio
4) life formed rather quickly, once the conditions on Earth allowed it

So, no son, it's not even close. There is no comparison.

 

[Ringtone]

A New Clue to How Life Originated

Found the abstract: https://www.researchgate.net/public..._and_stabilize_prebiotic_fatty_acid_membranes

 

[Ringtone]

How do you scientifically prove magical creation? No, I think I’ll stick with science.

Magical creation?! Whatcha talking about, Willis?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How do you scientifically prove magical creation? No, I think I’ll stick with science.

Magical creation?! Whatcha talking about, Willis?

Your ID nonsense. You are insisting upon magic. Everyone knows this.

 

[DOTR]

You spend your days bellyaching about evidence when attacking Christians...

The difference being, OBVIOUSLY, that they are making several extraordinary, magical claims,with 100% certainty, without a shred of evidence....


....while I, on the contrary, am making the rather mundane assertion, without 100% certainty, that, in a universe with 100s of billions of galaxies, with 100s of billions of planets in each, if life can form once, it can form twice, and probably has.

This determination is supported by the following, empirical facts:

1) life formed at least once
2) there are 100s of billions of galaxies with 100s of billions of planets in each
3) life is composed of the most common elements in the universe, in a virtually 1:1 ratio
4) life formed rather quickly, once the conditions on Earth allowed it

So, no son, it's not even close. There is no comparison.

Life formed rather quickly *once*. And if it is unique on this, a planet we know to be conducive to life, it bodes no good for the chances of it forming anywhere else.
You want it to be very badly. Maybe you will mature someday to the understanding that wanting doesn’t make it so. Keep looking around for “earth like” exoplanets while standing on one.
It scares the bejesus out of you this simple little fact that all evolutionary theory is based on. Universal common descent.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Life formed rather quickly *once*.

Correct, which definitvely shows it can form quickly.

And if it is unique on this, a planet we know to be conducive to life, it bodes no good for the chances of it forming anywhere else.

So, if it is unique...then it's probably unique? Wow, that is some..... Special logic.

You want it to be very badly.

Irrelevant. Try to focus.

And of course, you got nothing else.

Tackling the actual argument has proven, it appears, to be much tougher for you than grappling with shit you make up to argue against.