Creationists and atheists agree there is no such thing as evolution primer-fertilizer

[Hans Blaster]

I am the Creationist - not the atheist -- when I start with a barren lifeless planet I then talk about "evening and morning" number 6 - where God creates all life on land in a single evening-and-morning.

Maybe you should be asking an atheist that question.

Why not ask a Hindu? They don't believe in any of this 6-day stuff.

 

[Ophiolite]

What question are you addressing since there is more than one in the block quote of my post that you included?



sounds like we agree on that point.

What "else" does the atheist "add"... if not "evolution fertilizer" which we all agree... does not exist.

(For two threads this has been hanging out there for atheists to clarify -- no one steps up so far)



A distinction without a difference. Is this some sort of "game?"

Sounds like semantics to me - my initial statements in both threads do not say "from rocks but not at all from off a rock" - I don't distinguish between the scraping from a rock vs the rock as a source. Either one fits.



Pushing back the source question to some other planet that started out as barren rock -- is shell-gaming. The point is that for the atheist everything must start from the barren rock state and the argument that earth was never a barren rock does not fly - not even with atheists - the argument that other barren rocks out in space showered earth with "more" rocks covered in amino acids that all magically had the right chiral orientation is a "story" that only begs the question... it is shell gaming.

I look forward to more productive exchanges once you have taken these points on board.

You are either deliberately misunderstanding what has been posted, or you are incapable of understanding it. In either case further attempts on my part are pointless. TNPSW.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

all of them unless they believe in evolution-fertilizer or God.

That's not an example, that's a generalizing statement.

 

[BobRyan]

OK, at what level of biochemical complexity would you deem "life" to have begun?

I think you are confused at this point.

I am the Creationist - not the atheist -- when I start with a barren lifeless planet I then talk about "evening and morning" number 6 - where God creates all life on land in a single evening-and-morning.

Maybe you should be asking an atheist that question.

But if you are asking whether I consider a prokaryote to be alive -- the answer is 'yes'

Why not ask a Hindu? .

on a thread titled "Hindus and atheists agree there is no such thing as evolution primer-fertilizer"

Feel free to start such a thread ... and may the hindus join in as you expect.

 

[BobRyan]

Please actually answer the question: Please provide one example of an atheist, or anyone for that matter, saying that life only came from rocks alone.

all of them unless they believe in evolution-fertilizer or God.

(you start with a rock and a glass of water and then expect it to "do something" ... so the burden of proof is on "you" in that scenario)

That's not an example, that's a generalizing statement.

You are skipping a detail.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

all of them unless they believe in evolution-fertilizer or God.

(you start with a rock and a glass of water and then expect it to "do something" ... so the burden of proof is on "you" in that scenario)



You are skipping a detail.

So you don't have an actual examples and are just lying through your teeth on this topic. Smart move on your part. Very Christian.

 

[Ophiolite]

(you start with a rock and a glass of water and then expect it to "do something" ... so the burden of proof is on "you" in that scenario)

You have been corrected on this misunderstanding mutliple times. Your persistent repetition is deliberately provocative as you now know it is a lie. You really don't want to do that. Last warning.

 

[HARK!]

No, it takes more than just rocks; e.g. water, light, heat, gases, etc.

I've been experimenting with wet rocks for years.

I left my wet rocks in the sun, and the open air; but no monkeys popped out. How much heat should I use? What is the "ect" part? I want to get this experiment right.

 

[Shemjaza]

I've been experimenting with wet rocks for years.

I left my wet rocks in the sun, and the open air; but no monkeys popped out. How much heat should I use? What is the "ect" part? I want to get this experiment right.

Easy!

Just get a billion, billion litres of water, mix in a soup of organic chemicals and leave it for a billion years.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I've been experimenting with wet rocks for years.

I left my wet rocks in the sun, and the open air; but no monkeys popped out. How much heat should I use? What is the "ect" part? I want to get this experiment right.

If you want to replicate the hypothesised origin of life on Earth, you need to replicate the conditions on Earth at the appropriate time. As was said previously, surface conditions were very different from conditions on Earth today (e.g. carbon dioxide, methane, & ammonia atmosphere with no oxygen, widespread hydrothermal activity).

There are a variety of early Earth environments where it has been hypothesised life might have arisen, including coastal shallows and/or tidal pools, volcanic pools, deep-sea hydrothermal vents, and subsurface clays; research into each of these possibilities is ongoing. See abiogenesis.

Once you have a suitable experimental setup, off you go. Don't expect to get monkeys for a while. It took a whole planet and at least 500 million years for the first life to appear, then over 1.5 billion years for single-celled cyanobacteria to oxygenate the atmosphere, and another 1.5+ billion years for the first multicellular life to arise ~750 million years ago. Since then, things have speeded up.

Best take a flask of coffee and a camping stool.

 

[HARK!]

If you want to replicate the hypothesised origin of life on Earth, you need to replicate the conditions on Earth at the appropriate time. As was said previously, surface conditions were very different from conditions on Earth today (e.g. carbon dioxide, methane, & ammonia atmosphere with no oxygen, widespread hydrothermal activity).

There are a variety of early Earth environments where it has been hypothesised life might have arisen, including coastal shallows and/or tidal pools, volcanic pools, deep-sea hydrothermal vents, and subsurface clays; research into each of these possibilities is ongoing. See abiogenesis.

Once you have a suitable experimental setup, off you go. Don't expect to get monkeys for a while. It took a whole planet and at least 500 million years for the first life to appear, then over 1.5 billion years for single-celled cyanobacteria to oxygenate the atmosphere, and another 1.5+ billion years for the first multicellular life to arise ~750 million years ago. Since then, things have speeded up.

Best take a flask of coffee and a camping stool.

Monkeys don't take that much time to gestate. Why would it take so long to make one in the lab?

I'll settle for a setting my sights on a simpler experiment.

How about Chara Linnaeus? What's the process for making this simple life form from inorganic matter?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Monkeys don't take that much time to gestate. Why would it take so long to make one in the lab?

I'll settle for a setting my sights on a simpler experiment.

How about Chara Linnaeus? What's the process for making this simple life form from inorganic matter?

I'm not biological expert, but you would need something to jump-start the process of inorganic matter becoming single-celled organisms.
As an experiment, that is the best way to go.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm not biological expert, but you would need something to jump-start the process of inorganic matter becoming single-celled organisms.
As an experiment, that is the best way to go.

having some sort of proven "evolution fertilizer" where you can take a barren lifeless rock pour on the fertilizer and see it sprout prokaryote single-celled organisms would be helpful.

Normally we don't credit rocks 'alone' - with having such skill/talent and so far no one was come up with he barren-rock-plus-fertilizer evolution experiment that an atheist scenario might wish for.

 

[HARK!]

I'm not biological expert, but you would need something to jump-start the process of inorganic matter becoming single-celled organisms.

Jump start? What's that? Sounds like trying start a car with a dead battery. I never learned about that in chemistry. Can you give me a basic explanation of the process?

 

[BobRyan]

If you want to replicate the hypothesised origin of life on Earth, you need to replicate the conditions on Earth at the appropriate time.

Its all just chemistry. If the atheist belief is that a barren planet earth would sprout prokaryotes given the correct chemical/fertilizer they would have produced it by now -- or at least try.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

having some sort of proven "evolution fertilizer" where you can take a barren lifeless rock pour on the fertilizer and see it sprout prokaryote single-celled organisms would be helpful.

Normally we don't credit rocks 'alone' - with having such skill/talent and so far no one was come up with he barren-rock-plus-fertilizer evolution experiment that an atheist scenario might wish for.

It's nothing to do with skill or talent. And your idea of it being 'fertilizer' is... I will just admit it, it's a stupid word to use.
The most common thing I've seen described as a way to create early, single-celled lifeforms on an early Earth, which wasn't ever just a barren lifeless rock mind you, there would have been pools of water (not the water we have today, mind, the chemical balance would have been off) would have been electricity. Aka, lightning, and since the early Earth would have been a hotbed of tectonic activity and that volcanic lightning is a thing, a lightning strike would have been able to do whatever process it does to create a single-celled organic life.
I can't say what the exact process would be because my main interest is military history not biology.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Jump start? What's that? Sounds like trying start a car with a dead battery. I never learned about that in chemistry. Can you give me a basic explanation of the process?

Electrical discharges into liquid matter filled with inorganic lifeforms. Heck, even looking up the Miller-Urey experiment and their work with what the potential early 'soup' of an early Earth would have been, electrical discharges did create amino acids, which then can form protein chains which then form single cellular life.

 

[HARK!]

It's nothing to do with skill or talent. And your idea of it being 'fertilizer' is... I will just admit it, it's a stupid word to use.
The most common thing I've seen described as a way to create early, single-celled lifeforms on an early Earth, which wasn't ever just a barren lifeless rock mind you, there would have been pools of water (not the water we have today, mind, the chemical balance would have been off) would have been electricity. Aka, lightning, and since the early Earth would have been a hotbed of tectonic activity and that volcanic lightning is a thing, a lightning strike would have been able to do whatever process it does to create a single-celled organic life.
I can't say what the exact process would be because my main interest is military history not biology.

So what was the chemical balance of the water at that time? It would stand to reason that the oceans would have had a lower mineral concentration at that time; but lets just say that lighting hit some muddy water, at a river delta; and an incredibly complex chemical composition popped out in cellular form? Wow! Then what? What did it feed on?

 

[BobRyan]

Electrical discharges into liquid matter filled with inorganic lifeforms. Heck, even looking up the Miller-Urey experiment and their work with what the potential early 'soup' of an early Earth would have been, electrical discharges did create amino acids, which then can form protein chains which then form single cellular life.

except that did not happen.

all they got was a few amino acids with racemized chiral orientation. which means the protein chains would never be included in a single cell life form -- they had a "dead end". All living cells have levro chiral orientation in their amino acid chains comprising their protein chains. Not only could they not get to abiogenesis... they could not even get to the "bricks" needed to make the house in the first place.

They hit that "dead end" about 70 years ago and have not gotten off the dime since

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So what was the chemical balance of the water at that time? It would stand to reason that the oceans would have had a lower mineral concentration at that time; but lets just say that lighting hit some muddy water, at a river delta; and an incredibly complex chemical composition popped out in cellular form? Wow! Then what? What did it feed on?

I honestly cannot say because I do not know. I just did a quick google search for information that would be relevant. You do know how to search for things on google, right?