My abiogenesis challenge

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟254,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
It is precisely because I DO read the science I knew about potential oxygen levels .
Really? Then why did you ask
I assume that Is a conclusion of model regression propagation not actual geochemical evidence?
It would be a change if mr Bungle read ANYTHING about the matters he comments on!
Have you read serafinis book on a cardiologists analysis of eucharistic miracles yet? Or do you just prefer to comment on them?
Haven't read it and you refuse to post anything from it. Note that where I post from your beloved sources and point out the problems, you completely ignore those points. So there's probably nothing to be gained reading it because you won't discuss it anyway.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Rocket surgeon
Mar 11, 2017
14,888
11,877
54
USA
✟298,679.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
There is no reason to think they don’t either.

A water based planet is limited in how far anything can shift and still keep the water! Shallow pools are vulnerable to even moderate climate change.

What water-based planet?

I only point out that postulating the idea of a change that wiped out earlier forms is as much of an unevidenced assumption as the process that is supposed to have created them in the first place. It’s one more unanswered question in a maze of unanswered questions.

It's a common pattern in ecology. I'm not sure why you're hung up on this.

Perhaps you know more than I do on this. But The one major supposed shift is the increase of oxygen levels? But I assume that Is a conclusion of model regression propagation not actual geochemical evidence?

Are you talking about the Great Oxygenation Event? That's the byproduct of life, specifically the development of photosynthesis and its waste product -- molecular oxygen.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,592
66
Northern uk
✟561,189.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Really? Then why did you ask

Haven't read it and you refuse to post anything from it. Note that where I post from your beloved sources and point out the problems, you completely ignore those points. So there's probably nothing to be gained reading it because you won't discuss it anyway.
You made no significant point other than to disagree with multiple pathologists for reasons unstated.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,674
5,236
✟301,750.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You just added one more piece of pure speculation to an argument based on pure speculation. Since you can’t say, when , where , how many times abiogenesis happened or how or what happened , neither can you say the conditions under which it happened or whether or how any of the conditions have changed to inhibit early life forms either.

That doesn't mean it implausible.

You can't say anything about your 43rd great grandfather, yet you obviously have one. By your logic, if you can't say when, where, or how he lived, he obviously didn't exist!
 
Upvote 0

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟254,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
You made no significant point other than to disagree with multiple pathologists for reasons unstated.
Nice. You have no idea what points I raised, do you? I guess that makes it easier to handwave them away, right?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Frank Robert
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,592
66
Northern uk
✟561,189.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
That doesn't mean it implausible.
I did not say it was.
But like everything else abiogenesis needs evidence. The belief in it runs way ahead of the science.

I noted You did the hop from "abiogenesis" to "evolution" in your argument ie to talk about recent generations.
So your argument is a straw man in this context.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,888
10,771
71
Bondi
✟253,190.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I did not say it was.
But like everything else abiogenesis needs evidence. The belief in it runs way ahead of the science.

I noted You did the hop from "abiogenesis" to "evolution" in your argument ie to talk about recent generations.
So your argument is a straw man in this context.

The evidence that abiogenesis has occured doesn't even need addressing. There IS no evidence for HOW it occured. You have been told that umpteen times. So there IS no 'belief in abiogenesis'. The only options are that it happened naturally - which science will continue to investigate...OR that it was a supernatural event by the god of your choice. For which there can never be any evidence.

If you want to believe the latter then go for it. But how we got to 269 posts just so you could explain that is a bigger mystery than the subject matter itself.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Bungle_Bear
Upvote 0

Frank Robert

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2021
2,276
1,121
KW
✟127,503.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
But like everything else abiogenesis needs evidence. The belief in it runs way ahead of the science.
It is statements like the above that make me question that you are a scientist. Whether you label abiogenesis belief or theory it is still scientific inquiry which precedes established science. You are basically claiming that until there is rock solid evidence to prove abiogenesis the default is your own puzzling religious belief.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,592
66
Northern uk
✟561,189.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
It is statements like the above that make me question that you are a scientist. Whether you label abiogenesis belief or theory it is still scientific inquiry which precedes established science. You are basically claiming that until there is rock solid evidence to prove abiogenesis the default is your own puzzling religious belief.


On abiogenesis you cannot say When. Where. What. Whether. You cannot give a structure for the first cell. The pathway too it. The pathway from it. You cannot reproduce it, and it does not reproduce.

In short you have pure speculation. Not even a valid hypothesis. A line of inquiry.
It is because I am a scientist, I can give it true status.

Where by way of comparison there is ACTUAL forensic pathology evidencce for eucharistic miracles, that have reoccurred, the means to duplicate them (ie create them by fraud) is presently unknown to science.
A pathologist stated is "compelling evidence for creation of tissue".
That is why I am inclined to believe them. A SCIENTIFIC belief.
Score on actual evidence for demonstrated origin of life.
Creation 4. Abiogenesis 0
However weak that evidence is , it is better than yours.

You are welcome to your belief from faith, but so far you have little to go on with abiogenesis. Other than excessive hype. So I find your faith in it puzzling.
I might believe it if there is ever sufficient evidence.
 
Upvote 0

Frank Robert

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2021
2,276
1,121
KW
✟127,503.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
On abiogenesis you cannot say When. Where. What. Whether. You cannot give a structure for the first cell. The pathway too it. The pathway from it. You cannot reproduce it, and it does not reproduce.

In short you have pure speculation. Not even a valid hypothesis. A line of inquiry.
It is because I am a scientist, I can give it true status.

Where by way of comparison there is ACTUAL forensic pathology evidencce for eucharistic miracles, that have reoccurred, the means to duplicate them (ie create them by fraud) is presently unknown to science.
A pathologist stated is "compelling evidence for creation of tissue".
That is why I am inclined to believe them. A SCIENTIFIC belief.
Score on actual evidence for demonstrated origin of life.
Creation 4. Abiogenesis 0
However weak that evidence is , it is better than yours.

You are welcome to your belief from faith, but so far you have little to go on with abiogenesis. Other than excessive hype. So I find your faith in it puzzling.
I might believe it if there is ever sufficient evidence.
Thanks for the excellent demonstration of a misrepresentation of scientific inquiry.

Scientific inquiry now has a reason to fold up and die. /s
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,050
51,497
Guam
✟4,907,141.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

Frank Robert

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2021
2,276
1,121
KW
✟127,503.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
On abiogenesis you cannot say When. Where. What. Whether. You cannot give a structure for the first cell. The pathway too it. The pathway from it. You cannot reproduce it, and it does not reproduce.
You are ignoring the breakthroughs and progress that is being made in the RNA World Hypothesis.

What you are basically saying is that if science science does not have all the answers it must be something else. And we know what your else is.

In short you have pure speculation. Not even a valid hypothesis. A line of inquiry.
It is because I am a scientist, I can give it true status.
You keep providing excellent examples of projection. Keep them coming.

Where by way of comparison there is ACTUAL forensic pathology evidencce for eucharistic miracles, that have reoccurred, the means to duplicate them (ie create them by fraud) is presently unknown to science.
There are also excellent examples of shaman and yoga and Buddhist miraculous events. There are many, many cases of spontaneous remissions of cancer as well as other seemly incurable diseases. The human body is biology garden. Read the full literature of miraculous cures.

A pathologist stated is "compelling evidence for creation of tissue".
That is why I am inclined to believe them. A SCIENTIFIC belief.
Score on actual evidence for demonstrated origin of life.
Creation 4. Abiogenesis 0
However weak that evidence is , it is better than yours.
Opinions, opinions and more opinions.
I actually have studied with people who have worked with shamans and studied such cures such as Mrs. Marie Coleman Nelson who integrated concepts relating in sorcerers’ ritual of initiation into her psychoanalytic theory and practice. Mrs. Nelson was also a former managing editor the Psychoanalytical Review.

I have also studied the work of Milton Ericson in depth.

From: Commonalities Between Ericksonian Psychotherapy and Native American Healing
There are many commonalities between the techniques used in Ericksonian
psychotherapy and the healing rituals used in traditional Native American tribes. Milton
H. Erickson had some Indian heritage and may have derived some of his therapeutic
techniques from his study of tribal healing practices. A review of the literature shows that
both approaches emphasize symbolic healing through the use of story telling, metaphors,
ambiguous tasks, ordeals, and rituals.​

It's highly likely that many miraculous cures can be attributed to the body being a biology garden.

You are welcome to your belief from faith, but so far you have little to go on with abiogenesis. Other than excessive hype. So I find your faith in it puzzling.
I might believe it if there is ever sufficient evidence.
What I am not doing is misrepresenting science with excessive hype. I can't stop you from labeling mine and other's trust in the scientific method as faith. Perhaps it serves as a purpose in giving your own religious faith a boost.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟254,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
A pathologist stated is "compelling evidence for creation of tissue".
This sums up your argumentation. No pathologist claimed this (though one may have said something similar).

If you can't even be bothered making sure you have some basic facts straight, why should we accept anything you assert?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Frank Robert

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2021
2,276
1,121
KW
✟127,503.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
QV please: Lines of Evidence

I'd like your thoughts on this.

From the article:
Unfortunately this is wrong, and there is no single "Scientific Method" as such. Scientists don't follow a rigid procedure-list called "The Scientific Method"
The writer is not wrong. The scientific method is basically cycling between developing new ideas and testing them with care. Doing so can get quite complected and with all the ways to cycle how do you put it into a definition that 6th graders will understand. I don't see anything wrong with preliminary description for sixth graders or even hs students to give them an example of the cycling that they can understand.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,050
51,497
Guam
✟4,907,141.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
From the article:
The writer is not wrong. The scientific method is basically cycling between developing new ideas and testing them with care. Doing so can get quite complected and with all the ways to cycle how do you put it into a definition that 6th graders will understand. I don't see anything wrong with preliminary description for sixth graders or even hs students to give them an example of the cycling that they can understand.
Okay -- thank you, Frank.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,674
5,236
✟301,750.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I did not say it was.
But like everything else abiogenesis needs evidence. The belief in it runs way ahead of the science.

I noted You did the hop from "abiogenesis" to "evolution" in your argument ie to talk about recent generations.
So your argument is a straw man in this context.

You are desperate to invent some reason to discount my point.

I was saying that you can't say there's no evidence for X if we can see the result of X. It doesn't matter if we haven't observed any direct evidence for X itself.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums