Abiogenesis or God?

meebs · #21 19th September 2004, 12:34 PM

I say, that God started life from non living matter so BOTH!

LewisWildermuth · #22 19th September 2004, 01:49 PM

Well, since even a literal reading of Genesis says that God used abiogenesis to create life (Adam was molded from non-living clay after all) this pole is left without reason to exist.

mark kennedy · #23 19th September 2004, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by gladiatrix

I would as the same question of you because you obviously don't know what abiogenesis is or you wouldn't make such statements as this:

Where is there any comparable evidence for your God? The reason I ask for comparable evidence is that you also speak of BOTH science and theological concepts like your God using methodological naturalism:

I am well aware of the endless rationalizations I ran into in the abiogenesis thread. I spent hours going over this nonesense and it was one deadend after another.

In other words, you god is NOT "NATURAL", so to use for you to contend that BOTH science and theology (which is founded on concepts NOT NATURAL and hence not testible by methodological naturalism) to be quite ridiculous. However, since YOU have put your god into the same "class" (methodological naturalism) as science, I await your empirical evidence that your god exists (even one single solitary piece of empirical evidence). You dug yourself into this "methodological naturalistic" hole (so to speak), let's see you dig yourself out of it.

What in these bizzare allegations would lead me to suspect that you followed a word of all the mess lucaspa sprung on me. For one thing God is not directly testable through inductive testing or obervation. What I have rejected is that methodological naturalism represents the only means by which we can determine truth.

If you can't produce empirical evidence for your "NOT natural" being, then I strongly suggest that you stop

If you don't have an intelligent argument for abiogenesis then I suggest you stop spaming the lucaspa exchanges.

Now while lucaspa had some interesting points he was in the bad habit of making double posts that turned the whole thing into a huge mess. I have been in a number of very interesting debates elsewhere that taught me a great deal about biology and genetics. Here what I encountered is the assertion that it is not a part of evolution, followed inevitably by the burning sarcasm of antitheistic satire, and the occasional substantive point. I have encountered chaos theory, the Fox experiments, the technology that manufactures symetrical amino acids. What I encounted in that particular thread was a huge labyrith of disjointed quote mining.

Oh, by the way, it may interest you to know that I challenged him to a formal debate to limit the length of his posts. It was ironic that after he had posted to another formal debate he was not invited into, but when I offered to debate him formally, he declined. It may also interest you to know that abiogenesis is pure supposition based on radical naturalistic methology. There is precious little in the way of real world proof for it and informed evolutionists are aware of this.

Now if you want to know my postion is on abiogenesis then try this link.

Abiogenesis and evolution

You may well want to check out the Talk Origins discussion of abiogenesis before you jump headfirst into the shallow end of the subject.

Brahe · #24 19th September 2004, 09:14 PM

Originally Posted by mark kennedy

Number one don't respond to my post by addressing other people. Thats what PMs are for, it rude and I don't appreciate it.

Number one: stop lying, mark. That's what the creationist board is for and I don't appreciate it. And I don't mean in this thread, I mean this entire forum.

God doesn't fit the general biological definition that His earthly creatures do. You insinuate that I just define God into existance and then you try to define Him out. Pedantic satire is not science, its circular sarcasm that makes a mockery of both religion and natural science.

Gosh, mark. If god isn't alive, then why did you post this and this? It seems to me that if god isn't alive, then there's no need to consider god and abiogenesis at such odds. If god did create life on Earth, it certainly would be abiogenesis, it's just supernatural.

mark, I'm not trying to define anything out of existence. I leave those pointless games to others. You can say that "god is alive by definition," but the obvious problem is that if god isn't alive, then your definition is terribly inaccurate. And if god is alive, then it isn't by virtue of your definition. To put it another way, if you were to tell me that sharks, by definition, had laser beams attached to their heads, then it doesn't mean that the animals everyone else recognizes as "sharks" actually have laser beams attached to their heads.

And I suggest you look up "satire," as you clearly know satire no better than you know myth. If someone tells me that an object orbits the sun, I'd be justified in asking the orbit's eccentricity, period, and so on. If you tell me that god is alive, then I'm justified in asking what god eats, how he defecates, and so on.

Yes, I know both the popular usage definitions and the etymology of the word. Having had an academic interest in modern an anchient myticism for a number of years so I am well aquainted with the principles and particulars of mythology. You obviously are not.

mark, you forgot to tell us just how evolution or abiogenesis qualities as myth. With that failure in mind, I somehow must doubt your assertions here. In fact, given your past behaviour, it seems more likely that you're just confusing your arrogance for actual knowledge.

If you are talking about the Krebs urea cycle its a product of metabolism. I have no idea what you are getting at here and I'm not sure you do either.

Gee, mark, it was rather clear what I was responding to and why. Here's a hint: go back to where I quoted you. Those words that I quote are yours, mark. The words that follow are mine, in response to those words of yours.

Hmm, you need more? Sure, I'm always happy to help you through your creationism, mark. "Abiogenesis is not only a rejection of God as a source for life, but life as a source for life." Now read those words of yours, then read the following: "If abiogenesis is a rejection of anything, it's a rejection of the vitalistic spark that was thought to differentiate life from non-life. However, it's long been known that the chemisty in humans and other living creatures is entirely possible outside of living beings. Or do you think that urea can only be produced by "living" chemical reactions." Hopefully it's all clear by now, because I really can't explain this response thing any better.

Naturalistic methodology is a view that only naturalistic explanations in science are acceptable. Natural selection is a prime expression of this materialistic and atheistic world view. It is a catagorical rejection of anything theistic and this is obvious to even the most casual observer.

Gee, mark. All science uses methodological naturalism. Gravity, electromagnetics, natural selection, and atoms are all products of this. Would you agree that the concept of atoms is a prime expression of this materialistic and atheistic world view? Will you be giving up your religion, or refuse to accept atomic theory, mark?

And you seem somewhat bitter that science doesn't include the supernatural. You do know that this is not arbitrary, don't you mark?

Do you even know what abiogenesis is, how it would conceivably work, or what the major problems for it are in natural science and natural history. You have expressed an interested in writing scathing satire and mock theistic reasoning but as yet you haven't said anything about abiogenesis.

I have some idea of what abiogenesis is, though I'm not expert. But perhaps you'll tell me what the "major problems" are. You see, mark, I'm so tied up in correcting your...misconceptions, there's just not much time for anything else.

You know nothing of religious thought, mysticism or other wise, and have succeded only in mocking things you know nothing about. Don't condesend to me, I've heard these childish headtrips before from far better read evolutionists then you.

Once more you confuse your arrogance for knowledge, mark. You tell me that I know nothing of religious thought, but you've done less than nothing to show that this assertion is in any way true. And when you claim that evolution is a myth and then refuse to support this claim, it's rather difficult to not talk down to you, mark. If you could only correct your errors, things might be different.

HRE · #25 19th September 2004, 09:38 PM

Running low on patience, Brahe?

Brahe · #26 19th September 2004, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by HRE

Running low on patience, Brahe?

So it would seem. Perhaps it's time to take a quick break from the endless PRATTs and false dichotomies.

mark kennedy · #27 19th September 2004, 10:43 PM

Originally Posted by Brahe

Number one: stop lying, mark. That's what the creationist board is for and I don't appreciate it. And I don't mean in this thread, I mean this entire forum.

Like I said, I don't appreciate you posting a response to me and talking about me in the third person. If you don't like me calling you on it, then don't do it.

Gosh, mark. If god isn't alive, then why did you post this

If you mean this:

Originally Posted by Mark Kennedy"

Wrong answer! God is by definition alive, abiogenesis is the emergence of life from nonliving sources.

Its because its true that the Living God is not defined in biological termonology. If you have some kind of a point I wish you would make it and stop this little headtrip you are into.

It seems to me that if god isn't alive, then there's no need to consider god and abiogenesis at such odds. If god did create life on Earth, it certainly would be abiogenesis, it's just supernatural.

By what distortion of logic did you get the impression that since I believe that God is alive by definition, abiogenesis is life from nonliving material and God is dead? I have fielded some ridiculas twists of logic but this one is off the charts.

mark, I'm not trying to define anything out of existence. I leave those pointless games to others. You can say that "god is alive by definition," but the obvious problem is that if god isn't alive, then your definition is terribly inaccurate. And if god is alive, then it isn't by virtue of your definition.

What on earth could you possibly be talking about? I said that God is alive by definition, you just got things twisted around to mean that I think he is dead. You are going in circles so fast it is making making me dizzy, you keep useing the same tied, baseless assertions and pretending that it makes perfect sense.

And I suggest you look up "satire," as you clearly know satire no better than you know myth. If someone tells me that an object orbits the sun, I'd be justified in asking the orbit's eccentricity, period, and so on. If you tell me that god is alive, then I'm justified in asking what god eats, how he defecates, and so on.

God neither eats nor has any defects nor any of the other absurd notions you are rambling on about. By the way, while you are thumbing through your dictionary looking up words, look up God. I never offered a definition I just said that by definition God is alive, which you keep saying means that he is dead. So while you are at it look up alive.

mark, you forgot to tell us just how evolution or abiogenesis qualities as myth. With that failure in mind, I somehow must doubt your assertions here. In fact, given your past behaviour, it seems more likely that you're just confusing your arrogance for actual knowledge.

Ok, so while you are looking up alive and God, look up evolution, abiogenesis, arrogant and knowledge.

You can forget me going back and looking up any of the statements you have posted to this or any other thread. If you want to quote me, then quote me, but stop with the headtrips your wasting my time.

Hmm, you need more? Sure, I'm always happy to help you through your creationism, mark. "Abiogenesis is not only a rejection of God as a source for life, but life as a source for life." Now read those words of yours, then read the following: "If abiogenesis is a rejection of anything, it's a rejection of the vitalistic spark that was thought to differentiate life from non-life. However, it's long been known that the chemisty in humans and other living creatures is entirely possible outside of living beings. Or do you think that urea can only be produced by "living" chemical reactions." Hopefully it's all clear by now, because I really can't explain this response thing any better.

Look, I have 20/20 vision and I caught your ... opinion the first time and responded with my own. I know that urea is produced by living creatures as a by product of metabolism and thats it. That is the extent to which you statements and questions have gone and unless you want to elaborate, thats all I really have to say about that.

Gee, mark. All science uses methodological naturalism. Gravity, electromagnetics, natural selection, and atoms are all products of this. Would you agree that the concept of atoms is a prime expression of this materialistic and atheistic world view? Will you be giving up your religion, or refuse to accept atomic theory, mark?

That is an all time low even for you, giving up my religion so I can accept atomic theory? You are really out there aren't you?

And you seem somewhat bitter that science doesn't include the supernatural. You do know that this is not arbitrary, don't you mark?

I'm not bitter, or even mildly concerned about what you think science does or does not include.

I have some idea of what abiogenesis is, though I'm not expert. But perhaps you'll tell me what the "major problems" are. You see, mark, I'm so tied up in correcting your...misconceptions, there's just not much time for anything else.

Once more you confuse your arrogance for knowledge, mark. You tell me that I know nothing of religious thought, but you've done less than nothing to show that this assertion is in any way true. And when you claim that evolution is a myth and then refuse to support this claim, it's rather difficult to not talk down to you, mark. If you could only correct your errors, things might be different.

While your being condesending maybe you could tell me how abiogenesis happened. I posted this to a formal debate and was told that it had nothing to do with evolution. Now if you need anymore basic biology I'm here for you but only if you learn how to use a dictionary.

"Among the icons (idols) of modern mysticism there is one that reigns supreme. It is the myth of evolution. We scoff at the gods of the anchient pagans as if we were untouched by their superstition and yet we mystify our science with the likes of Darwin, the high priest of natural selection. Darwin taught a fable that started in a warm little pond and through a process that has became known as gradualism (minute changes over eons) all life arose out of a primordial soup.

Sit back and close your eyes because you will need your imagination for this one. It all began billions of years ago when the elements were forging the impersonal, elemental, primordial world and cooking something I like to call primordial soup. The first part in our mythical trilogy is the emergance of life from biochemical nothingness.

There are basic things that have to be functional before chemicals become the 20 amino acids of life (there are many chemical amino acids but only 20 in living organisms) and the nucleic acid sugars ribose and deoxyribose. Basically the chemistry has to make a transition that will create (for lack of a better word) RNA or something like it. RNA is the key to life replicating itself. Some how Amino acids form into chains forming polypeptides, this polypeptide chains are the building blocks of proteins. These proteins are folded into three dimensional structure called conformation. This as far as I know is the fundamental process that makes up the mechanisms that build into the most basic form of life, the cell. Now mind you the cell at this point has yet to be built but the basic tools and materials have been formed.

There is a need for nitrogen containing compounds called nitrogenous bases: (A), guanine (G), thymine (T), cytosine (C ) and uracil (U) for the double helix to be formed. This requires RNA to facilitate its formation. This is required for the information in DNA to be expressed and utilized. RNA is used in all biologic functions. We know this from observation and experimentation so there is little room for speculation here. The nucleic acid RNA (ribonucleic acid) has to be present for amino acids (asymmetrical) to produce proteins and nucleic acids.

Now there is a lot of debate about this asymmetrical relationship of nucleic acid sugars ribose and deoxyribose. There is no question that this relationship is absolutely necessary for chirality to occur. The problem here is that when they are produced in labs they are symmetrical. Both sides can be produced independently but they are never together. These molecules have to be mirror images of one another even though both sides have identical molecules. My point being.

Life is not chaotic it is orderly and requires replication. Without this you just have a lot of chemicals mixing in an infinite variety. The reason that life must be derived from life (biogenesis) in the minds of most is that this is the only way we have ever seen it happen. "You can imagine anything you like but you can only understand the truth" as Newton said. Now if amino acids are the mirror image of nucleic acid sugars and this in true of all living things then we are limited to this as fundamental to life. This in my opinion is the fundamental first step and it cannot happen peicemeal, it all has to happen all at once."

Jet Black · #28 20th September 2004, 03:00 AM

Originally Posted by mark kennedy

God and abiogenesis are mutually exclusive, there is no substantive difference between abiogenesis and materialistic atheism.

false. it's like saying God has nothing to do with gravity.

ernest_theweedwhackerguy · #29 20th September 2004, 09:40 AM

First of all, how DOES nothing evolve into something? How could that be proven, or even thought of as true? Just like atheists say,"Prove there is a god.", I'll have to say,"Well, where did the dust come from in the universe to create earth, by getting compact soo much that its smaller than a period at the end of this sentence.****at one, then just blowing up and creating the earth. Prove that."And then people stumble around it. I've said this before, I believe God created the earth, just like you believe he didn't. Its all a belief thing. You atheists and scientists will say its not....But you know it is.

Mistermystery · #30 20th September 2004, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by ernest_theweedwhackerguy

First of all, how DOES nothing evolve into something? How could that be proven, or even thought of as true? Just like atheists say,"Prove there is a god.", I'll have to say,"Well, where did the dust come from in the universe to create earth, by getting compact soo much that its smaller than a period at the end of this sentence.****at one, then just blowing up and creating the earth. Prove that."And then people stumble around it. I've said this before, I believe God created the earth, just like you believe he didn't. Its all a belief thing. You atheists and scientists will say its not....But you know it is.

It's not, and your "understanding" of the theory of evolution, the big bang theory, and abiogenesis is sadening. and shocking.