Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[Mountainmike]

TL DR past your first denial. You made multiple claim of your scientific acumen yet you have yet to provide a testable and repeatable hypothesis for your nonsense claims about abiogenesis. You deny science in which there have been multiple noble prizes and have made zero effort to support your claims. I don't know how you can claim to be a scientists if you are unable to provide some research support your denials.
See:
Undefining life's biochemistry: implications for abiogenesis | National Institute of Medicine

In the mid-twentieth century, multiple Nobel Prizes rewarded discoveries of a seemingly universal set of molecules and interactions that collectively defined the chemical basis for life....​

​

We may never know everything but you are denying the multiple scientific experimentation and hypothese, some of which resulted in Nobel Prizes, for what we do know. Denial is a serious condition. Perhaps the Serinity Prayer could help you overcome your denial not because it is a Christian prayer but because it offers the common sense of what Jung referred to as higher education.

And by the way for those actually capable of reading and understanding science... Lets take a sample quote from your speculative/review paper.

The paper says for example this
" many suggestions have been made for the identity of a possible evolutionary precursor to RNA most have come from an RNA-world way of thinking, and none has gained consensus support".
Which is the tacit admission that RNA world is FAR too complex to have been the first step.

And nobody knows what preceded it. Or how that was possible.
Obviously.

It is Not news for anyone who has ever studied more than "confirmation bias " soundbites, who assume it all happened, as you do.

So Big fat no idea on what the first genome was. How it came to exist. How it came to become RNA. So big fat no idea on how life started.
The talk of nucleic acids is predicated on the later genome structure. Nobody knows what bases were used if they do not know the first genome.
Sure "self catalysis" is interesting. Nobody can say whether it WAS part of the process. It just might have been. Possibly. Maybe . Perhaps.
When you are clutching at straws that is as good a straw to clutch to as any. It might even be right, but it is a million miles from being able to conclude that.

And from simple logic, if you do not know what the first building was, you cannot say whether or what bricks were needed to build it, whether they existed, or the likelihood of the reaction....

So big fat dont know. Is the status.

Abiogenesis is pure speculation, where what and how it happened. And without a process you do not have a hypothesis. So no theory possible either.

That does not make it not "science" . It is cleary science to study and speculate.
I have been following it for 50 years and I am disappointed how little they still claim to know.
In this case it is ALLLLL speculation.

Science is messy. It has twists and turns. Yesterdays success is tomorrows failure in hindsight.
It is not the 8th grade simple process you perceive.
I will start a thread about science for those who do not seem to get it yet.

 

[Frank Robert]

And by the way for those actually capable of reading and understanding science... Lets take a sample quote from your speculative/review paper.

The paper says for example this
" many suggestions have been made for the identity of a possible evolutionary precursor to RNA most have come from an RNA-world way of thinking, and none has gained consensus support".
Which is the tacit admission that RNA world is FAR too complex to have been the first step.

And nobody knows what preceded it. Or how that was possible.
Obviously.

It is Not news for anyone who has ever studied more than "confirmation bias " soundbites, who assume it all happened, as you do.

So Big fat no idea on what the first genome was. How it came to exist. How it came to become RNA. So big fat no idea on how life started.
The talk of nucleic acids is predicated on the later genome structure. Nobody knows what bases were used if they do not know the first genome.
Sure "self catalysis" is interesting. Nobody can say whether it WAS part of the process. It just might have been. Possibly. Maybe . Perhaps.
When you are clutching at straws that is as good a straw to clutch to as any. It might even be right, but it is a million miles from being able to conclude that.

And from simple logic, if you do not know what the first building was, you cannot say whether or what bricks were needed to build it, whether they existed, or the likelihood of the reaction....

So big fat dont know. Is the status.

Abiogenesis is pure speculation, where what and how it happened. And without a process you do not have a hypothesis. So no theory possible either.

That does not make it not "science" . It is cleary science to study and speculate.
I have been following it for 50 years and I am disappointed how little they still claim to know.
In this case it is ALLLLL speculation.

Science is messy. It has twists and turns. Yesterdays success is tomorrows failure in hindsight.
It is not the 8th grade simple process you perceive.
I will start a thread about science for those who do not seem to get it yet.

TL DR

No need to read denials after denials and your uninformed opions. Perhaps if you began your diatribe against pre-biotic chemistry with a reference to a legitimate scientific resource that we can intelligently discuss you could gain a modicum of responsibility. Denial (refusing to admit the truth or reality of something unpleasant) is not open to discussion by its very nature.

TBS I do scan your comments for such links to legitimate science sources, such as NIH.
The origin of life: what we know, what we can know and what we will never know

 

[Astrophile]

Tell me should I believe the clay or the One Who formed it?

You should believe the clay, because you can study it directly and analyse its composition, whereas you can't directly study the One Who supposedly formed it.

Do you know exactly how the universe was created or is it theory?

No, I don't. Professional astronomers and cosmologists have a better understanding of the matter. However, I do know that the universe was not created in six days, as Genesis 1 says it was. Of course Big Bang cosmology is theory, just as the thermodynamic theory of heat, kinetic theory, and Einstein's special and general theories of relativity are theories. What makes you think that the fact that something is theory renders it invalid?

Do you know without any doubt that carbon dating is exact science and has never evolved since time began?

The first carbon and nitrogen atoms were not formed until about 300 million years after the beginning of time, so before that time carbon dating was impossible. There is an error attached to all radio-carbon dates, but there is an error attached to all scientific measurements, so that fact doesn't invalidate radio-carbon dating. Also, carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years, so it can only be used to measure ages of organic material that is less than 50,000 years old. It is not used to measure the age of the Earth or of ancient rocks.

What evidence do you have outside of theory?

If you were to visit me at home, you would see that my house is crowded with thousands of books that present the evidence for evolution and for the great age of the Earth and the universe.

No man knows how life began.

Probably not. But I suspect that women know more about this matter than men do.

 

[Mountainmike]

TL DR

No need to read denials after denials and your uninformed opions. Perhaps if you began your diatribe against pre-biotic chemistry with a reference to a legitimate scientific resource that we can intelligently discuss you could gain a modicum of responsibility. Denial (refusing to admit the truth or reality of something unpleasant) is not open to discussion by its very nature.

TBS I do scan your comments for such links to legitimate science sources, such as NIH.
The origin of life: what we know, what we can know and what we will never know

My assessment of abiogenesis chemistry is spot on.

All pure speculation In absence of evidence.
.
I agree with the authors ( since I actually understand the paper)
That RNA almost certainly wasn’t the first genome. Complexity rules it out.
But there is no consensus or even a structure for a prior genome or any pathway too it / from it.
So nothing to agree or disagree with, no structure or process,

That paper by the way was not science, it was a review of science. The two are very different.

You would not know whether that paper is useful - you can’t read past three paragraphs you say,
TL DR and you clearly don’t undertand what you do read. I just explained it.

If you want to disagree tell me the structure of the first genome.


Alas science is not for people who just like soundbites and conformation bias of what you believe a priori.
Stick to something you understand. And there is no “we” Know. You are not part of the we or a scientist, so say “ they” think they know. Which is all they or you can say about billions of years ago.

 

[Neutral Observer]

All pure speculation In absence of evidence.

Hence the only truly wise man is the solipsist.

 

[Frank Robert]

My assessment of abiogenesis chemistry is spot on.

Thanks for your 2¢, but the bank found it hilarious. When you are able support your claims let us know and we can have a discussion that is not solely your denial of the science.

 

[Belteshazzar(Daniel)]

You can not know for certain what you believe actually took place in the way you believe.

What you are proclaiming is an apologetic for a literal bible which a majority of Christians do not share. I would not argue that your belief is incorrect just as I would not argue that the Hindu, or the Islamic or the Jewish beliefs are incorrect. However, I do think the evidence for a natural universe whether or not created by a deity is overwhelming. You can call it belief, a theory or anything else that you like but when you do keep in mind that it is a belief that can change with new information that firmly contradicts it.

So you soundly do not take God at His Word? But rather enlighten yourself with science created by man which changes as each great theory evolves. In the end does it matter if you know how you were formed? What will man gain from such knowledge that will improve mankind? We abort babies daily so do we care about life or its origin? The matter being, science does not lead to Salvation. You can explain all things but without Christ you are lost. So be my guest to chase the proverbial tail in the end you have gone nowhere and gained nothing. May Jesus be more in your life than trying to figure out where it came from. Man's knowledge is foolishness to God. I care not how stupid or ignorant you may precieve me to be but I will Sir forever be a "FOOL" for my SAVIOUR JESUS. I only need 1 book written by God inspired men to explain creation to me not a library full of man's ideas. With this a bid you farewell. No longer will I trouble such a wise man as yourself.

 

[Frank Robert]

So you soundly do not take God at His Word?

Your starting point is your belief in the Christian God. My starting point is a lack of knowledge of a creator deity. I am open to the possibility that a deity created the natural laws that are responsible for the universe and for life.

But rather enlighten yourself with science created by man which changes as each great theory evolves. In the end does it matter if you know how you were formed?

I find science fascinating. I am also well aware of its limitations. Like me science is agnostic to a creator deity. There are many scientists from many religions who have who have no problem with both a creator deity and evolution.

What will man gain from such knowledge that will improve mankind?

The most obvious benefit from the science is the modern world that we live in.

We abort babies daily so do we care about life or its origin?

We could easily cut back on the vast majority of abortions and vernal disease with risk reduction sex education especially in the US. It would also help if the people against abortions would provide help for teens and others who are forced to have children that they are unable to support and unable to provide decent shelter, health care and education. Just check out the cost raising a child costs.

The matter being, science does not lead to Salvation. You can explain all things but without Christ you are lost.

You have a belief in what salvation for Christians will be. There are many different beliefs not only among among other religions but also among the ~4000 christian denominations.
I think that if there is an afterlife those who lead a decent life regardless of there religious beliefs or lack of beliefs will share in salvation. The best advice I have come across is from the TAO te Ching

Behave simply and hold on to purity.​

Lessen selfishness and restrain desires.​

So be my guest to chase the proverbial tail in the end you have gone nowhere and gained nothing. May Jesus be more in your life than trying to figure out where it came from. Man's knowledge is foolishness to God. I care not how stupid or ignorant you may precieve me to be but I will Sir forever be a "FOOL" for my SAVIOUR JESUS. I only need 1 book written by God inspired men to explain creation to me not a library full of man's ideas. With this a bid you farewell. No longer will I trouble such a wise man as yourself.

 

[Ophiolite]

That paper by the way was not science, it was a review of science. The two are very different.

Science is a methodology.
Science is the observations made using that methodology.
Science is the hypotheses that arise from those observations.
Science is muliple things and review articles are one the things that constitute science.
Now rather than debate definitions what do you factually and evidentially find faulty in @Frank Robert's position?

 

[BeyondET]

Science is a methodology.
Science is the observations made using that methodology.
Science is the hypotheses that arise from those observations.
Science is muliple things and review articles are one the things that constitute science.
Now rather than debate definitions what do you factually and evidentially find faulty in @Frank Robert's position?

I thank God for science I got a heart valve that saved my life.

 

[juvenissun]

The primary objection to evolution from creationists seems to be centered on human evolution specifically. For some reason the fact of sharing hereditary ancestry with other species causes creationists no end of grief.

However, if we didn't share ancestry with other species, why are we made of all the same 'stuff' as other animals? Especially in regards to our closest relatives (other primates), we share the same body plan, organs, cell structure, majority of our genetic makeup and so on.

If it was really important that we be distinct from other animal species, why didn't God make us wholly unique? Why not give us a completely unique physical makeup and genetic structure?

Evolution at least can explain this via genetic inheritance. Independent creation... not so much.

And before you say, "God just reused common parts":

a) Why would God reuse common parts in a manner that is perfectly consistent with genetic inheritance and biological evolution?

b) Why would it matter if we consider ourselves physically "related" to animals if we're all made from the same stuff to begin with?

If you want to design a good body for an alien, how would you make it? Human form (internal/external) would be the best one you can imagine.

The creational difference between human and "animals" is on the intelligence of human. Creationists called it the "spirit". So, a human has body, soul, and spirit. But animals only have body and soul. The body, the soul, and functions are not that much different. It is the spirit which can not be evolved and has to be created. That is why human can conquer the earth but no other animals could.

 

[juvenissun]

Then would it matter if the human form was created from an evolutionary process versus being independently created?

The evolutionary process including the lineage thereof is well documented (regardless of whether you believe it or not).

Morphologically, evolution can be imagined and, if one do not think too much, can be accepted.
But spiritually, everyone can easily see that evolution does not fit. No "wiser" animal could be evolved from human. Are you more intelligent (not more knowledgeable) than stone-age people? Was the love of people 10,000 year ago inferior in quality than yours?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Morphologically, evolution can be imagined and, if one do not think too much, can be accepted.
But spiritually, everyone can easily see that evolution does not fit. No "wiser" animal could be evolved from human. Are you more intelligent (not more knowledgeable) than stone-age people? Was the love of people 10,000 year ago inferior in quality than yours?

It's a very bad idea to say that historically people were dumber than we are today. They had the same intelligence we have, but the information they had on the world was limited by what they knew about the world.

 

[Estrid]

Morphologically, evolution can be imagined and, if one do not think too much, can be accepted.
But spiritually, everyone can easily see that evolution does not fit. No "wiser" animal could be evolved from human. Are you more intelligent (not more knowledgeable) than stone-age people? Was the love of people 10,000 year ago inferior in quality than yours?

Your failure to study and think is your issue,
and that of others faced with the simple reality
that it's impossible to be an informed creationist
and have intellectual integrity.
Cannot do both.


If facts don't fit (your notion of) "spiritual" then
the problem is in your notions, not data.

The notion that people are at max intelligence and
could never evolve to be smarter is something
you simply made up and stated as fact.

See "intellectual integrity".

 

[juvenissun]

A lot creationists I engaged with on this forum seem outright offended at the notion of being related to animals.

Insofar as scripture goes, that depends on one's POV. IMHO, Genesis 1 clearly describes an evolutionary process involved in diversifying the biosphere of the planet.

Human physiology seems to be "related" to that of animals.
But human spirituality is what animals do not have. That is why we call bad person "animal".

 

[Estrid]

Human physiology seems to be "related" to that of animals.
But human spirituality is what animals do not have. That is why we call bad person "animal".

It's not related. People are animals.

And of course no other animal has hunan anything.


And you are confident that animals with brains biggervthan ours have no
" sirituality".

I'd not call a bad person an animal.

You might recall Msrk Twains experiments proving an anaconda is more moral than a frenchman.

 

[Frank Robert]

Human physiology seems to be "related" to that of animals.
But human spirituality is what animals do not have. That is why we call bad person "animal".

Do Animals Have Spiritual Experiences? Yes, They Do.​

We're not the only spiritual beings. ​

We can also ask if animals experience the joy of simply being alive? And if so, how would they express it so that we would know they do? Wild animals spend upwards of 90 percent of their time resting: What are they thinking and feeling as they gaze about? It would be nice to know. Again, science may never be able to measure such emotions with any precision, but anecdotal evidence and careful observation indicate such feelings may exist.​

 

[trophy33]

But human spirituality is what animals do not have. That is why we call bad person "animal".

Sayings are not too relevant. For example, when somebody is really bad, we say "he is worse than animal". Does it prove something? No, its just a saying.

People can make more good than animals, but also more evil than animals. Animals have various degrees of development, but many socialized mammals have very similar emotions to ours, namely the ones we keep as pets.

 

[juvenissun]

It's not related. People are animals.

And of course no other animal has hunan anything.


And you are confident that animals with brains biggervthan ours have no
" sirituality".

I'd not call a bad person an animal.

You might recall Msrk Twains experiments proving an anaconda is more moral than a frenchman.

Not sure what is your point.

 

[juvenissun]

Do Animals Have Spiritual Experiences? Yes, They Do.​

We're not the only spiritual beings. ​

We can also ask if animals experience the joy of simply being alive? And if so, how would they express it so that we would know they do? Wild animals spend upwards of 90 percent of their time resting: What are they thinking and feeling as they gaze about? It would be nice to know. Again, science may never be able to measure such emotions with any precision, but anecdotal evidence and careful observation indicate such feelings may exist.​

Animals have "soul". That is what you are talking about.
You should tell soul from spirit.
Do you see the significant difference? If you don't, you can't tell human from animal.