Abiogenesis

[HARK!]

What does any of that have to do with what I wrote?

You're entitled to your opinion.

 

[Larniavc]

The bit about 60 years of failed experiments is factual. The quotation is his words, not made up. Of course he would slip and slide and try to find a way to justify abiogenesis. He must, because for him, the alternative destroys his belief system. Good old science. Start off with a false premise, and build a case on it.

You’ve been caught quite mining. Everyone can see.

What does the Bible say about bearing false witness? You should feel ashamed of yourself.

 

[muichimotsu]

Hebrews 1:3
He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.

he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.


It's quite inclusive. God being the source of what you are asking.

Pretty sure they weren't talking about atoms, that's a post hoc rationalization of a verse that was talking in a pre scientific notion of stability and foundation of the universe as they understood it (which didn't include atoms)

 

[muichimotsu]

You're entitled to your opinion.

So just deflect? Don't even address the question, because then you might have to admit you're wrong, so instead just saying "you're entitled to your opinion," in a passive aggressive redirect

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You're entitled to your opinion.

Indeed I am. And I'm also in the right to point out that calling something that is scientific a 'myth' just because you don't like it is honestly... well, I can't really use the word that I want to use since this forum is pretty good with no cursing, so I'll say sucky.

 

[HARK!]

So just deflect? Don't even address the question, because then you might have to admit you're wrong, so instead just saying "you're entitled to your opinion," in a passive aggressive redirect

It's right on point.

 

[Larniavc]

Again, can you quantify the probability with numbers; or are you just working on a hunch?

Of course I can’t. This isn’t an episode of Star Trek where the Captain asks Mr Spock for a probability that something is true.

 

[muichimotsu]

I've been asking for a simple measurement of nothing more than the mere probability. Nothing.

So you haven't even taken the time to research in regards to the experiments I'm pretty sure a lot of more scientifically literature people can reference to you about abiogenesis? Seems to me you're setting up a disingenuous "competition" that you can "win" because you have absolute certainty on your answer while science doesn't

 

[HARK!]

Indeed I am. And I'm also in the right to point out that calling something that is scientific a 'myth' just because you don't like it is honestly... well, I can't really use the word that I want to use since this forum is pretty good with no cursing, so I'll say sucky.

Thank you for your opinion.

 

[muichimotsu]

It's right on point.

It's a dishonest tactic, you're not addressing objections, you're flippantly dismissing them as "conjecture" or the like, because you seemingly don't want a genuine exchange, just an excuse to condescend to people about your "answer" being "correct"

 

[SkyWriting]

What does that have to do with abiogenesis?

It's the foundation and source of it and the engine that powers it, of course.
That would make it fairly relevant.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's the foundation and source of it, of course.

Not really. Bible verses aren't the foundation and source of anything outside of the Bible.

 

[HARK!]

Of course I can’t. This isn’t an episode of Star Trek where the Captain asks Mr Spock for a probability that something is true.

So you went from definitely, to probably, to probably; but I can't express the probability?

Is this science?

 

[SkyWriting]

Not really. Bible verses aren't the foundation and source of anything outside of the Bible.

True. Its the ideas in the words that define reality, not the words used.
That's why we can have so many translations. The speak about the
source of existence, but are not the source themself.

 

[klutedavid]

Again, can you quantify the probability with numbers; or are you just working on a hunch?

I will give you a probability estimate.

The early universe was a sterile environment and the probability of the existence, of life was always zero.

 

[HARK!]

So you haven't even taken the time to research in regards to the experiments I'm pretty sure a lot of more scientifically literature people can reference to you about abiogenesis?

I shared discussions with a microbiologist and a genetics engineer over the course of about 10 years.

She didn't believe it. She told me all kinds of problems with the notion; but I'm still open to new information.

 

[HARK!]

I will give you a probability estimate.

The early universe was a sterile environment and the probability of the existence, of life was always zero.

Did you vote?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

True. Its the ideas in the words that define reality, not the words used.
That's why we can have so many translations. The speak about the
source of existence, but are not the source themself.

That makes sense. The ideas in the Bible don't define the world. The Bible only defines Christianity.
Reality defines reality.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I shared discussions with a microbiologist and a genetics engineer over the course of about 10 years.

Rrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

 

[SkyWriting]

That makes sense. The ideas in the Bible don't define the world. The Bible only defines Christianity.
Reality defines reality.

There you go!

Knowing Reality Through Answered Prayer - Steps 1, 2, & 3 | Christian Forums