My abiogenesis challenge

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I Didn’t say it “ must be something else”
That’s bad science.
You presume a default that does not exist.
something other than what??

The default in science is “ don’t know” . Nul hypothesis. You cannot do what you do - use your favourite assumption as default.
The rest is speculation.

RNA world is at best a step on the way. Maybe, possibly. Maybe not.

default is there is no evidence abiogenesis happened on earth, when , where or how. But There is forensic evidence of created cells , according to pathologists.

As for your obsession with shamanic cures. They are Not relevant here.
If you want to see strange mind effects try “nocebo” ( as opposed to placebo)

Scientific process is a spanner , a tool.
The scientific model is a limited model of observation. It is not the universe.
It’s called context. You trust extrapolatins of a model more than evidence ( or in the case of abiogenesis, the lack of it)

I all for speculative test of ideas. I spent much of my life doing so in some contexts. I am against promoting pure speculation as close to fact.

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.

You keep providing excellent examples of projection. Keep them coming.

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.

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.

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:
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
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?

As on most things you are wrong.
Quote Robert Lawrence “convincing evidence of creation...formation of human heart tissue from inanimate wafer”
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
So it was just some of your sloppy writing then. OK.
You suggested pools.
I presumed you meant pools of water.
You then say earth was not water based, or you queried whether it was so.
So what are your pools?
Methane?
Who is the sloppy one?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Frank Robert

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2021
2,276
1,119
KW
✟127,483.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I Didn’t say it “ must be something else”
That’s bad science.
You presume a default that does not exist.
something other than what??
Did you forgot your post on incredible complexity?

The default in science is “ don’t know” . Nul hypothesis. You cannot do what you do - use your favourite assumption as default.
The rest is speculation.
I said that the RNA world was the leading hypothesis not the default hypothesis.

RNA world is at best a step on the way. Maybe, possibly. Maybe not.
The evidence is piling up.
..the study from my OP shows that long RNA molecules, 100-200 nucleotides in length, form when nucleoside triphosphates do nothing more than percolate through basaltic glass.

"Basaltic glass was everywhere on Earth at the time,

"The beauty of this model is its simplicity. It can be tested by highschoolers in chemistry class," said Jan Špacek, who was not involved in this study but who develops instrument to detect alien genetic polymers on Mars. "Mix the ingredients, wait for a few days and detect the RNA."

The same rocks resolve the other paradoxes in making RNA in a path that moves all of the way from simple organic molecules to the first RNA.

Thus, this work completes a path that creates RNA from small organic molecules that were almost certainly present on the early Earth. A single geological model moves from one and two carbon molecules to give RNA molecules long enough to support Darwinian evolution.

"If life emerged on Earth via this simple path, then it also likely emerged on Mars," said Benner. "This makes it even more important to seek life on Mars as soon as we can."

Yes. "Important questions remain." They will be investigated scientifically while naysayers at DI, AIG, etc. will pump out more apologetics.

default is there is no evidence abiogenesis happened on earth, when , where or how.
There is life on earth. Some people offer apologetics others investigate it using the scientific method.


But There is forensic evidence of created cells , according to pathologists.
See: How Scientific Is Forensic Science?

As for your obsession with shamanic cures. They are Not relevant here.
If you want to see strange mind effects try “nocebo” ( as opposed to placebo)
My point was that Christians do not have a lock on miraculous cures

Scientific process is a spanner , a tool.
The scientific model is a limited model of observation. It is not the universe.
It’s called context. You trust extrapolatins of a model more than evidence ( or in the case of abiogenesis, the lack of it)
You have not provided a better model. You have only given opinions, opinions and more opinions,

I all for speculative test of ideas. I spent much of my life doing so in some contexts. I am against promoting pure speculation as close to fact.
You are full of opinions.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,667
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,437.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
There is life on earth. Some people offer apologetics others investigate it using the scientific method.
And those using the scientific method come up empty.

2 Kings 2:17 And when they urged him till he was ashamed, he said, Send. They sent therefore fifty men; and they sought three days, but found him not.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Frank Robert
Upvote 0

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟254,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
As on most things you are wrong.
Quote Robert Lawrence “convincing evidence of creation...formation of human heart tissue from inanimate wafer”
Did he say "convincing evidence of creation....formation of human heart tissue..." or did he say "compelling evidence for creation of tissue" which was what you claimed?

You're really making my point nicely - if you can't get the basics correct, why should we believe any of the other assertions you make?

And let's be very clear about this quote - it was made in a book review by Robert Lawrence (a catholic pathologist who investigates eucharistic miracles and Shroud of Turin, so hardly an unbiased person).

Mountainmike - the scientist whose major source is a biased book review. Lol.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Bradskii
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Did you forgot your post on incredible complexity?

I said that the RNA world was the leading hypothesis not the default hypothesis.

The evidence is piling up.
..the study from my OP shows that long RNA molecules, 100-200 nucleotides in length, form when nucleoside triphosphates do nothing more than percolate through basaltic glass.

"Basaltic glass was everywhere on Earth at the time,

"The beauty of this model is its simplicity. It can be tested by highschoolers in chemistry class," said Jan Špacek, who was not involved in this study but who develops instrument to detect alien genetic polymers on Mars. "Mix the ingredients, wait for a few days and detect the RNA."

The same rocks resolve the other paradoxes in making RNA in a path that moves all of the way from simple organic molecules to the first RNA.

Thus, this work completes a path that creates RNA from small organic molecules that were almost certainly present on the early Earth. A single geological model moves from one and two carbon molecules to give RNA molecules long enough to support Darwinian evolution.

"If life emerged on Earth via this simple path, then it also likely emerged on Mars," said Benner. "This makes it even more important to seek life on Mars as soon as we can."

Yes. "Important questions remain." They will be investigated scientifically while naysayers at DI, AIG, etc. will pump out more apologetics.

There is life on earth. Some people offer apologetics others investigate it using the scientific method.


See: How Scientific Is Forensic Science?

My point was that Christians do not have a lock on miraculous cures

You have not provided a better model. You have only given opinions, opinions and more opinions,

You are full of opinions.
Irreducible complexity is an axiomatic consequence of definition.
It’s in the model, not the universe. Change definitions and it goes away. Although how you do that

You need to go back to basics.
There is NO evidence of abiogenesis whatsoever: analysing what actually took place. There is no first living cell structure defined or process postulated to it. Not where, when , how , what or whether.

All there is, is plausibility evidence of how bits of a process might have worked, where all parts of a postulated process, which may or may not have been occurred, was created by intelligent design of experimenters, In a process supposedly unguided!

Tell me.
If I suggested a potentially miraculous phenomenon ( eg inedia , did t drink , eat, defecate, urinate for 10 years, but stayed alive and didn’t lose weight ) , but I couldn’t tell you where , when , how or what happened.
So I had no evidence it actually did: would you take it seriously?

Your “ bar” for evidence “ you like” is totally subjective.
You are a scientific realist, not a scientist.

I didn’t raise cures you did.
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Did he say "convincing evidence of creation....formation of human heart tissue..." or did he say "compelling evidence for creation of tissue" which was what you claimed?

You're really making my point nicely - if you can't get the basics correct, why should we believe any of the other assertions you make?

And let's be very clear about this quote - it was made in a book review by Robert Lawrence (a catholic pathologist who investigates eucharistic miracles and Shroud of Turin, so hardly an unbiased person).

Mountainmike - the scientist whose major source is a book review. Lol.

One was from memory, the other from text. The difference is academic .

My major source is knowing the author of the book and having copies of private communications. I have the whole letter somewhere.

Lawrence was non religious at the time of investigations.

I’ve no idea if he has since converted.

Seeing the things he has ( like statue of Cochabamba )- would indeed be a strong factor since you are more inclined to believe what you see with your own eyes, he spent time trying to debunk Cochabamba. He couldn’t.

Shall we bar all the believers in evolution or abiogenesis from having valid comment about evolution or abiogenesis? That removes all of them including you.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟254,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
The difference is academic .
Actually not. The point I made is valid - sloppy work is sloppy work and not to be trusted. You don't get to claim "near enough" is solid evidence just because you want to.
My major source is knowing the author of the book and having copies of private communications. I have the whole letter somewhere.
Oh, that makes all the difference:

Mountainmike - the scientist whose major sources are a biased book review and copies of personal communications. Lol.
 
Upvote 0

Frank Robert

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2021
2,276
1,119
KW
✟127,483.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
And those using the scientific method come up empty.
Is the empirical evidence for self-replicating RNA empty?

2 Kings 2:17 And when they urged him till he was ashamed, he said, Send. They sent therefore fifty men; and they sought three days, but found him not.
I don't have anything against religious beliefs, but I do think that people should understand the difference between religious beliefs and the scientific method.
 
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

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,667
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,437.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Is the empirical evidence for self-replicating RNA empty?
Not that I know of.

But as the saying goes: "Survival of RNA does not explain arrival of RNA."
Frank Robert said:
I don't have anything against religious beliefs, but I do think that people should understand the difference between religious beliefs and the scientific method.
That verse is full of information.

2 Kings 2:17 And when they urged him till he was ashamed, he said, Send. They sent therefore fifty men; and they sought three days, but found him not.

1. Notice the attempt to find Elijah via empirical methods.
2. Notice they didn't find Elijah via empirical methods.
3. Notice it was because a miracle had occurred.
4. Notice that miracles trump empiricism.

You'll never find what you're looking for in a lab -- (in this case: abiogenesis).

Therefore you're going to have to make it look good on paper, if you want to convince anyone.

Only when the Antichrist arrives, is he going to assist science in demonstrating abiogenesis under controlled conditions -- (which, of course, will be deception).
 
Upvote 0

Frank Robert

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2021
2,276
1,119
KW
✟127,483.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Irreducible complexity is an axiomatic consequence of definition.
It’s in the model, not the universe. Change definitions and it goes away. Although how you do that
Which is your attempt to use as an alternative to science.

You need to go back to basics.
There is NO evidence of abiogenesis whatsoever: analysing what actually took place. There is no first living cell structure defined or process postulated to it. Not where, when , how , what or whether.
I don't disagree about the evidence for the first living cell.

All there is, is plausibility evidence of how bits of a process might have worked, where all parts of a postulated process, which may or may not have been occurred, was created by intelligent design of experimenters, In a process supposedly unguided!
Keep demonstrating your misunderstanding of science inquiry.

Tell me.
If I suggested a potentially miraculous phenomenon ( eg inedia , did t drink , eat, defecate, urinate for 10 years, but stayed alive and didn’t lose weight ) , but I couldn’t tell you where , when , how or what happened.
So I had no evidence it actually did: would you take it seriously?
I am not suggesting potentially miraculous cures. We know there are thousands of reports which can not be explained from all over the world. I posited a feasible path to such cures "the body is a biology garden."

Your “ bar” for evidence “ you like” is totally subjective.
You are a scientific realist, not a scientist.

I didn’t raise cures you did.
I never claimed to be a scientist, but I worked with experts and studied experts who have years of experience working with shamans. I also have years of experience with using and teaching the relaxation response.

I recently posted on the Relaxation Response on the morals and ethic forum
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Rocket surgeon
Mar 11, 2017
14,647
11,691
54
USA
✟293,961.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
As on most things you are wrong.
Quote Robert Lawrence “convincing evidence of creation...formation of human heart tissue from inanimate wafer”

This is not abiogenesis. No life was created from non-life, just a claim that dead plant cells are somehow now dead animal cells. If accurate, still both are just dead eucaryotic cells. No pre-biotic chemistry here.
 
Upvote 0

Frank Robert

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2021
2,276
1,119
KW
✟127,483.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,667
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,437.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This is a good opportunity to discuss abiogenesis with informed scientists, creationists, theists and atheists.
How would they welcome my Post 291?
 
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