Now there is a nice bit of fiction - who ELSE argues the abiogenesis angle - other than blind faith evolutionists.
Current abiogenesis theory is meh in terms of evidence supporting it. I wouldn't bat an eye if it was disproven. I actually have almost no interest in the theory.
Oh no wait! - you were just about to argue that the God of the Bible exists - created the entire universe, came here and created bacteria ... then left. (no -- in fact you were not going to go there ... as we both know).
That would be very Newtonian, theologically speaking (in that, Isaac Newton thought as much). I certainly view that as more likely than the bible being literally word for word true, although I don't personally believe it. I have, however, defended that position on here multiple times, just ask some of the regulars in these debates to confirm as much. Since I am here to improve my social skills and not convince anyone of anything, I feel free to switch sides in the debate as I please. No one says you have to actually agree with the position you defend. Normally, I only flop to the creationist side if I feel the ratio of creationists and evolutionists in a thread causes the creationist side to be severely outnumbered, or if individual creationists are getting bashed around because of inexperience in these debates, or because some of the regulars are being aggressive and impolite.
This thread seems to be pretty even, so I went with the position that represents my real thoughts. But, since I know biology and other related sciences so well, I am better at defending the creationist position than most creationists on here. It is exceedingly rare, though not unheard of, for me to even defend a YEC position (typically certain aspects of it rather than the position as a whole)
Because we see proteins doing this all the time in the lab - organize themselves into self-replicating molecules then become bacteria then turn into amoeba... then onward and upward to "rabbit"!
It takes too much time to see all of that, but ongoing abiogenesis experiments show proteins forming rings and even simple cell membrane-like structures. Furthermore, individual proteins can replicate themselves, in that they can incite other proteins they come into contact with to rearrange into the same shape. That's how Mad Cow disease works. Replication in modern cells is no more than rearranging materials that already exist through a series of steps. Steps that don't work will not be represented in the future, and those that do, will be. In that regard, abiogenesis is similar to evolution.
Yes - yes we know about all those 'never seen in an actual lab - stories'.
I never doubt that the many-storied mythology exists... just that the fiction it describes - is never observed and never happened in all of time. the dirt-to-bunny story is DOA.
You know, I could tutor you on what abiogenesis theory actually claims. It would make you way better at debating against it.
In that case - "good job"!
Secondly -- I don't mind if you want to substitute "rocks, dust and gas" in for my "dirt" element in the abio fiction.
Yeah, proteins aren't rocks, dust, or gas either. Chemistry, my good sir, makes amino acids readily link up with each other to form chains. In fact, it would be an uphill battle for them not to do that. Be thankful for that much, as current life couldn't maintain itself otherwise. Yes, the same process that keeps us going could also form life independently. It would happen still if bacteria and other microbes didn't eat any life in earlier stages of development.
But if you are claiming that you 'need God for your self-replicating' molecule that 'needs no host cell to replicate' -- and that magically becomes a full fledged bacteria "because that is what proteins do when left alone" -- well I don't blame you for wanting God to help that story out.
A host cell is just a safe place for replication, as modern microbes would eat any exposed proteins and amino acids. Based on the abiogenesis experiments, it seems that cell membranes actually predate DNA,so host cell predates DNA. Plus, cell membranes are lipid bilayers so simple that you can form them pretty much instantaneously by putting phospholipids in water. Just explaining an aspect of the theory for you, and the chemistry minor helps. Also, DNA doesn't need a host cell to replicate; it just needs the conditions around it not to destroy it.
Here you equivocate between "dirt painting the Mona Lisa" and "an artist doing it" as if they are "the same thing.. the same leap of logic".
In doing so - you show again the flaw in the mythology of evolutionism's religion. Such gross equivocation is "needed" to support evolutionism. But not the God of the Bible.
More like I am comparing a natural river to a manmade one. Both are rivers, but there are ways to tell which one was made by humans, and which occurred naturally.
The many gaps of logic in your stories has already been pointed out - but your response that you don't care about the lack of logic in your mythology - you dearly loving having the 'worst upside' AND the 'worst downside' in your selected solution no matter how full-of-holes the logic to support it... then my answer to you is "you have free will".
"you can lead a horse to water..."
in Christ,
Bob
What "gaps in logic" have you pointed out, exactly? As I recall, any of your concerns, I have countered. The threat of hell doesn't make belief in anything a logical choice, but an emotional one driven by fear of a possibility that has no evidence to back it. Would you wear a tinfoil hat 24/7 at the suggestion that you are being brainwashed by aliens, and the only way to stop it is to wear such a hat? Of course not, but with sufficient evidence, you probably would. But, if you raised a child and constantly stated that the aliens existed, and that they had to wear the hat OR ELSE, they'd probably be so scared as to do as you said, but that wouldn't make it true or justify the belief.
Perhaps you should not threaten me with the hell I don't believe in, and think I will be moved any more than the threat of leprechauns trained in the art of assassinating anyone that doesn't believe in them would move you. I guess you better force yourself to believe it, or they're going to get you one of these days
Better be buried with coins on your eyelids in case you have to pay to get into the afterlife to.
And have your body preserved, so that your soul has a vessel to be attached to, just in case the Egyptians were right.
"But Sarah, those religions can't possibly be true, and I want to keep my false dichotomy that treats Christianity as the only important thing as if no other existing or possible religions have any possibility of tenets that conflict with my beliefs". To that inevitable reasoning, I say, no special treatment for you just because this is a Christian site.
