Primordial Soup Based Origin of Life

[TheBeardedDude]

Goldschmidt Conference :: Geochemical Society

1) According to Naturalists (and the subgroup, Evolutionists): how did life start on earth?

2) According to Naturalists: what were the physio-chemical-biochemical conditions that led to the origin of life on earth?

3) According to Naturalists: when did earth provide these conditions?

4) What evidence do Evolutionists provide to prove their Primordial Soup Theory is evidence based?

At the 2013 Goldschmidt Conference on geochemistry last week in Florence, Italy, this subject was presented.

One paper presented was: PNAS | Mobile

That abstract is from a study not yet published and is (as most abstract are) without data. If all you can do is grab abstracts to try and find claims within them you think indicate you are correct, we call that special pleading.

Life is a series of redox reactions (respiration, photosynthesis, chemosynthesis). And redox reactions occur abiologically. Redox reactions are your ancestor.

 

[Heissonear]

.

Naturalists have no true knowledge of how life on earth started, but every moment the one who Created Life is watching everything they do.

Man can be so foolish, foolish before all, and not even remotely recognize it. Such are those who are wise in their own eyes, and clever in their own sight!

.

 

[TheBeardedDude]

You are kind of an idiot, aren't you?

 

[bhsmte]

.

Naturalists have no true knowledge of how life on earth started, but every moment the one who Created Life is watching everything they do.

Man can be so foolish, foolish before all, and not even remotely recognize it. Such are those who are wise in their own eyes, and clever in their own sight!

.

You should have been a preacher, Heiss.

 

[Heissonear]

.

So called smart scientists walkinig in Scientism view life originated on earth through natural processes, but the do not have a clue of the One watching them each and every moment. These so called smart scientists declare great thing for us to believe but they have no apprehension of Him who Created life on earth.

It's like the Spiritual Realm does not exist. And God is no where to be found.

.

 

[TheBeardedDude]

.

So called smart scientists walkinig in Scientism view life originated on earth through natural processes, but the do not have a clue of the One watching them each and every moment. These so called smart scientists declare great thing for us to believe but they have no apprehension of Him who Created life on earth.

It's like the Spiritual Realm does not exist. And God is no where to be found.

.

It is like the spiritual realm doesn't exist. I hate to break this to you, but candyland is also imaginary and dare I say it? Middle-Earth is....fiction.

 

[Heissonear]

.

The Naturalistic Scientific Community is solving the unknowns about the origin of life on earth.

However, their acquired knowledge is pure guesstimations: all in the guise of what looks and sounds like science.

From the article previously posted:

The Early-Earth "Weak, Cold Sun" Paradox --Enigma of Origins of Life


"Scientists at the CRPG-CNRS University of Lorraine, The University of Manchester and the Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris have ruled out a theory as to why the planet was warm enough to sustain the planet's earliest life forms when the Sun's energy was roughly three-quarters the strength it is today during the Archean Epoch, between 3.8 and 2.4 billion years ago. The weak Sun should have meant the planet was too cold for life to take hold at this time; scientists have therefore been trying to find an explanat
ion for this conundrum, what is dubbed the 'faint, young Sun paradox'.

The above is pure guesstimations about events and conditions that never occurred.

.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The above is pure guesstimations about events and conditions that never occurred.

Your proof for that being...?

 

[Heissonear]

Your proof for that being...?

Who's proof are you putting to the test? Are you letting your own scientific researchers decieve you ..... ?

.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Who's proof are you putting to the test? Are you letting your own scientific researchers decieve you ..... ?

.

You claimed that such conditions "never" occurred. Cite the evidence that proves this conclusion beyond all reasonable doubt. And try to do it without all that sputtering indignation, please.

 

[Heissonear]

You claimed that such conditions "never" occurred. Cite the evidence that proves this conclusion beyond all reasonable doubt. And try to do it without all that sputtering indignation, please.

You try to turn the content around, on what the OP subject pertains to?

The Naturalists on this site are quick to state "evidence please", don't they. But they do not like the tables when they are turned.

Read your godless researchers published statements. Look at the guesstimations, conjecture, unsupported statements.

That's what this thread is about. You learn slow? You want the "old ways back" of posting replies?

.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I do believe I said no sputtering indignation...

You try to turn the content around, on what the OP subject pertains to?

I'm calling you on your claim, no more, no less. If you want to retract your claim, that's fine, but at least be a man and admit your error (or, indeed, stand by your claim and substantiate it). One or the other. Now, please.

The Naturalists on this site are quick to state "evidence please", don't they. But they do not like the tables when they are turned.

Wait, are you seriously saying it's wrong to request supporting evidence?

Read your godless researchers published statements. Look at the guesstimations, conjecture, unsupported statements.

That's what this thread is about. You learn slow? You want the "old ways back" of posting replies?

I want you to cite the evidence for your claim. You claim aforementioned conditions "never" occurred. You didn't say "scientists can't prove the conditions occurred". You didn't say "the evidence cited for the conditions is flawed".

You said "the conditions never happen". That is a positive claim in its own right, and the onus is on you to prove it.

So... where's your evidence? I mean, is the best you have "I think the literature is flawed, therefore that's conclusive 100% proof it absolutely did not happen"?

 

[Heissonear]

I do believe I said no sputtering indignation...


I'm calling you on your claim, no more, no less. If you want to retract your claim, that's fine, but at least be a man and admit your error (or, indeed, stand by your claim and substantiate it). One or the other. Now, please.


Wait, are you seriously saying it's wrong to request supporting evidence?


I want you to cite the evidence for your claim. You claim aforementioned conditions "never" occurred. You didn't say "scientists can't prove the conditions occurred". You didn't say "the evidence cited for the conditions is flawed".

You said "the conditions never happen". That is a positive claim in its own right, and the onus is on you to prove it.

So... where's your evidence? I mean, is the best you have "I think the literature is flawed, therefore that's conclusive 100% proof it absolutely did not happen"?

A little slow to catch on to what is being "proofed". Once again, from your favorite method to derail posts, as above, the content is about the below.

Keep trying, you will eventually proof the right material presented.



From the article previously posted:

The Early-Earth "Weak, Cold Sun" Paradox --Enigma of Origins of Life


"Scientists at the CRPG-CNRS University of Lorraine, The University of Manchester and the Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris have ruled out a theory as to why the planet was warm enough to sustain the planet's earliest life forms when the Sun's energy was roughly three-quarters the strength it is today during the Archean Epoch, between 3.8 and 2.4 billion years ago. The weak Sun should have meant the planet was too cold for life to take hold at this time; scientists have therefore been trying to find an explanation for this conundrum, what is dubbed the 'faint, young Sun paradox'.

.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

A little slow to catch on to what is being "proofed". Once again, from your favorite method to derail posts, as above, the content is about the below.

Keep trying, you will eventually proof the right material presented.

You made a claim, and I am calling you on it. It is telling that, instead of simply substantiating your claim, you sputter and rant about inconsequential things. Substantiate your claim, or retract it.

In fact, I'll make it easy for you: if your next post isn't a substantiation of your claim, then we can all take that as an admission of failure and your retraction of said claim.

And no, squawking about how we're supposed to be discussing something else doesn't get you off the hook.

 

[Heissonear]

You made a claim, and I am calling you on it. It is telling that, instead of simply substantiating your claim, you sputter and rant about inconsequential things. Substantiate your claim, or retract it.

In fact, I'll make it easy for you: if your next post isn't a substantiation of your claim, then we can all take that as an admission of failure and your retraction of said claim.

And no, squawking about how we're supposed to be discussing something else doesn't get you off the hook.

What is your university education in science? Or are you a debater and argue issues?

.

 

[bhsmte]

What is your university education in science? Or are you a debater and argue issues?

.

So predictable.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What is your university education in science? Or are you a debater and argue issues?

Why the obsession with my qualifications all of a sudden? Is that seriously the only arrow left in your quiver?

I have three Ph.Ds, five doctorates, and a 132 bachelors, therefore, everything I say is correct. Just trust me. And call me the Doctor.

Oh, wait, qualifications don't work like that...

 

[Heissonear]

Why the obsession with my qualifications all of a sudden? Is that seriously the only arrow left in your quiver?

I have three Ph.Ds, five doctorates, and a 132 bachelors, therefore, everything I say is correct. Just trust me. And call me the Doctor.

Oh, wait, qualifications don't work like that...

What is your science degree?

 

[bhsmte]

diversionary tactics and a weak one at that.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What is your science degree?

I don't care to divulge personal information on the Internet, so I'll thank you to mind your own business.

However, thank you for admitting defeat and acknowledging you couldn't, in fact, justify your nonsense claim (post #347, for those who want to check). If you ever want to be a man and stand by your claims, you know where to find me.