Evidence of miracles.

[Opdrey]

2 straw men.
1 non sequitur
1 utter irrelevance
1 ad hominem.

0 discussion of evidence
When you want to discuss evidence, using critical thinking, not apriori opinions of Fatima let me know.

OK, let's talk evidence. What EVIDENCE do you have that the Shroud of Turin's dating was horribly mishandled?

And why do you think the 14-C dating comes in to be almost EXACTLY when the Shroud is first mentioned in any historical document (14th Century)?

What was the problem?

 

[Opdrey]

Show me 1/ the structure of the first conjectured cell.

Have you ever put soap in a sink full of water? They spontaneously create something called a MICELLE. A micelle is not dissimilar to a cell wall. A cell wall is actually, if I recall correctly, a double-walled micelle.

So it's pretty easy to figure out that the first "cells" were probably little more than micellar type structures

2/ The inert process by which it happened from non living constituents. ( the abiogenesis step).

Various mineral surfaces like carbonates and clays can act as substrates on which chemicals can conduct "pre-biotic" living processes. See HERE. The cool thing about this hypothesis is that things like carbonates selectively adsorb the same kind of stereoisomers that dominate life on earth. (HERE)

3/ What structure of genome it had?

Earliest life was probably RNA-based.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You have spent a LOT of time now telling us about your library and its monetary value. Kudso.

Once you've paid good money for proper books, with real pages & all, it's that much harder to question what they say - you might discover you've been fleeced...

 

[Opdrey]

Once you've paid good money for proper books, with real pages & all, it's that much harder to question what they say - you might discover you've been fleeced...

Oh I've got my fair share of hardcopy books that I value as well! I didn't realize, however, that simply telling people I have a lot of books on various subjects and they have a monetary value of $XXXX that I would have a perfect "QED".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You used a series of generic tropes that failed to address the specifics in the hope enough smoke equated to fire.

In at least 3 of the cases I cite - the pathologist took their own samples.

So chain of custody was an irrelevance, and even if it mattered:
there is no known means of falsifying them certainly by a priest!
You cannot take heart samples whose DNA does not sequences or take samples that have white cells in vitro for more than hours.
Robert Lawrence used the words “ compelling evidence of creation … of heart tissue from a wafer”

You haven’t contested it , and so I still take the pathologists view, until you have a compelling narrative to disregard it, you don’t.

What I accuse you of most is intellectual laziness, driven by confirmation bias. You want to dismiss them so look for the easiest argument you can find, regardless of whether it is relevant. And even use skepdic as a source knowing it is unreliable.

We've already been over this. I question it all. So far, all you've provided are unsupported claims, and you've failed to answer the questions originally asked.

 

[Mountainmike]

I am well aware of all of it.
Guess what, I read before comment.
I’ve read many papers and I’ve been disappointed.

Your post was.
Could be.
Probably.
Possibly.
Maybe.
All Conjecture. Plausibility arguments.

A few roof tiles , or a damp proof membrane are NOT evidence of self designing, self evolving , houses. Certainly not evidence of how a self evolving 10000 protein factory came to be.

None of what you say evidences the critical step from non life to evolving life. The actual step of abiogenesis, There is a problem of irreducible complexity. What is so simple it can form from non life, but complex enough to evolve from there?
There is so far no answer.

the Only valid hypothesis for abiogenesis must base around that structure. Not bricks. Not cellular development from very complex to horrendously complex.

nobody has yet answered why if that first step was likely enough, why do we not see it repeat, and where are the chain of lesser lifeforms.

I know exactly where the science is at.

I also know I have actual forensic evidence of abiogenesis in so called Eucharistic miracles. 4 Times analyzed ( out of many occurred)

There is none for abiogenesis from soup. It is all conjecture. I’m open to persuasion, but it needs a valid hypothesis. Ie A structure for that first cell or evidence it actually happened, or evidence you can make it happen. There is none.

Have you ever put soap in a sink full of water? They spontaneously create something called a MICELLE. A micelle is not dissimilar to a cell wall. A cell wall is actually, if I recall correctly, a double-walled micelle.

So it's pretty easy to figure out that the first "cells" were probably little more than micellar type structures



Various mineral surfaces like carbonates and clays can act as substrates on which chemicals can conduct "pre-biotic" living processes. See HERE. The cool thing about this hypothesis is that things like carbonates selectively adsorb the same kind of stereoisomers that dominate life on earth. (HERE)



Earliest life was probably RNA-based.

 

[Mountainmike]

Oh I've got my fair share of hardcopy books that I value as well! I didn't realize, however, that simply telling people I have a lot of books on various subjects and they have a monetary value of $XXXX that I would have a perfect "QED".

I point out my opinion on Fatima and shroud are far better informed than yours. Your comparison with Ganesh proves you have no idea what it was but you still think you have an opinion? Some scientist!

on the second point information costs money. If you want to know how the shroud daters cheated, you have to pay for that research. Yes cheated , you read it right. They fiddled their results in Nature. Everyone one of them should have been sacked.

If you want to know the actual chemistry of the shroud , and how the test sample had nothing in common , it will cost you £40 to find out. Buy adlers book and Rogers. Information is not free. Only disinformation on skepdic, that’s free.

 

[Mountainmike]

We've already been over this. I question it all. So far, all you've provided are unsupported claims, and you've failed to answer the questions originally asked.

Yep. You question it all. You have No valid argument to do so. But still you question it. Tell me - if they were faked how was it done consistent with the evidence? I’m fascinated. I’m open to persuasion. But whatever theory you have MUST be compatible with the tests.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Show me 1/ the structure of the first conjectured cell.
2/ The inert process by which it happened from non living constituents. ( the abiogenesis step).
3/ What structure of genome it had?
4/ The pathway from that cell to present cells
Till you have 2 you no have no potential experiment therefore no hypothesis that confirms abiogenesis.

You have nothing except a few plausibility arguments that miss the hardest puzzle of all. Oh… and literally a library of failed attempts at answering the above. A poor return for billions.

if you do have a structure, show me, I’m fascinated.
But then since the experiment if successful would be in every newspaper in the western world I doubt it!.

As I said before this is not the place to go through the details of abiogenesis hypotheses, it's a big field. But if you search for 'abiogenesis lipid vesicles' you'll get some articles on proposals for protocells. For example, here's a paper that gives an overview of one hypothesis: The minimotif synthesis hypothesis for the origin of life (nih.gov).

The earliest protocells may not initially have had explicit genomes, as I already mentioned, they may have started with self-replicating reaction sequences which later acquired genomic features by modification of enzymatic RNA, or something similar.

The pathway from the earliest cells to present days cells was evolution by natural selection.

The question with 2/ is by what criteria do you decide when a collection of non-living chemical reactions have become life. There is no universal definition of life. We already have self-assembling protocells that grow and divide. We already have simple self-sustaining metabolic cycles, we already have self-replicating RNA, and many other features commonly associated with life. They haven't yet all been put together, but I suspect it's just a matter of time.

As mentioned a while ago, it's useful, when deciding the criteria for the simplest form of life, to consider whether fire would satisfy those criteria, and whether viruses are alive.

 

[Opdrey]

I am well aware of all of it.
Guess what, I read before comment.
I’ve read many papers and I’ve been disappointed.

So much bluster.

None of what you say evidences the critical step from non life to evolving life.

Except that there is LITERALLY nothing different between living and non-living chemistry. There is no magical "life" essence.

The actual step of abiogenesis, There is a problem of irreducible complexity.

I though you read a lot on this topic. Irreducible complexity is, in most cases, just things where Creationists don't know how evolution works.

the Only valid hypothesis for abiogenesis must base around that structure. Not bricks. Not cellular development from very complex to horrendously complex.

Your utter lack of any content that even remotely looks like biochemistry indicates you don't really have as much information on this topic as you claim.

I also know I have actual forensic evidence of abiogenesis in so called Eucharistic miracles.

Then get to it and make some life. All you need is some eucharist and a priest. Get to it. Unless it only happens occasionally which is kind of strange for a miracle which is supposed to happen every time you have Mass.

Can you tell us which Mass ceremonies the miracle happens and which ones it doesn't happen in?

 

[Opdrey]

As I said before this is not the place to go through the details of abiogenesis hypotheses, it's a big field. But if you search for 'abiogenesis lipid vesicles' you'll get some articles on proposals for protocells. For example, here's a paper that gives an overview of one hypothesis: The minimotif synthesis hypothesis for the origin of life (nih.gov).

The earliest protocells may not initially have had explicit genomes, as I already mentioned, they may have started with self-replicating reaction sequences which later acquired genomic features by modification of enzymatic RNA, or something similar.

The pathway from the earliest cells to present days cells was evolution by natural selection.

The question with 2/ is by what criteria do you decide when a collection of non-living chemical reactions have become life. There is no universal definition of life. We already have self-assembling protocells that grow and divide. We already have simple self-sustaining metabolic cycles, we already have self-replicating RNA, and many other features commonly associated with life. They haven't yet all been put together, but I suspect it's just a matter of time.

As mentioned a while ago, it's useful, when deciding the criteria for the simplest form of life, to consider whether fire would satisfy those criteria, and whether viruses are alive.

You DO realize what Mountain has set up is going to be impossible to respond to, right? The ONLY thing he will accept is if you can find a lab that has taken raw C and H2 and N2 and O2 and, in a set of beakers, created a pangolin. That's the bar.

Mountain lacks the necessary chemistry and biochemistry background to understand that the field is still in the process of pulling all the pieces together.

Unlike MIRACLES which explain EVERYTHING PERFECTLY FROM THE BEGINNING.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yep. You question it all. You have No valid argument to do so. But still you question it. Tell me - if they were faked how was it done consistent with the evidence? I’m fascinated. I’m open to persuasion. But whatever theory you have MUST be compatible with the tests.

I've put forward my arguments as questions about the claims you've made, based on the absence of verifiable evidence. Neither the answers nor the evidence has been forthcoming, just more vehement assertions mixed with more claims about unrelated miracles. I've already described some of the potential flaws in the story, but if you can't produce the evidence, you can't expect it to be critiqued.

 

[Mountainmike]

You can agree with each other all you like.
your post says.

May.
May
Could
Could.
Conjecture
Possibly
Maybe.
Might be.

No evidence it occurred.
No method to repeat it.
No process for repeating it.
No evidence it repeats.

So it is a piece of valid conjecture.
Fascinating at that.
If anyone proves it bravo!
Not yet a testable hypothesis or anywhere close.


Yet five samples are actual evidence , four of heart myocardium, one epithelial cells they Appeared in inert matter and a forensic pathologist has said “ credible evidence of created cells”

I like evidence. I prefer to conjecture,

Sceptics like confirmation bias.

As I said before this is not the place to go through the details of abiogenesis hypotheses, it's a big field. But if you search for 'abiogenesis lipid vesicles' you'll get some articles on proposals for protocells. For example, here's a paper that gives an overview of one hypothesis: The minimotif synthesis hypothesis for the origin of life (nih.gov).

The earliest protocells may not initially have had explicit genomes, as I already mentioned, they may have started with self-replicating reaction sequences which later acquired genomic features by modification of enzymatic RNA, or something similar.

The pathway from the earliest cells to present days cells was evolution by natural selection.

The question with 2/ is by what criteria do you decide when a collection of non-living chemical reactions have become life. There is no universal definition of life. We already have self-assembling protocells that grow and divide. We already have simple self-sustaining metabolic cycles, we already have self-replicating RNA, and many other features commonly associated with life. They haven't yet all been put together, but I suspect it's just a matter of time.

As mentioned a while ago, it's useful, when deciding the criteria for the simplest form of life, to consider whether fire would satisfy those criteria, and whether viruses are alive.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You DO realize what Mountain has set up is going to be impossible to respond to, right? The ONLY thing he will accept is if you can find a lab that has taken raw C and H2 and N2 and O2 and, in a set of beakers, created a pangolin. That's the bar.

Mountain lacks the necessary chemistry and biochemistry background to understand that the field is still in the process of pulling all the pieces together.

Unlike MIRACLES which explain EVERYTHING PERFECTLY FROM THE BEGINNING.

Yes, of course, that's been clear for some time. But it's worth pointing out to anyone reading ('lurkers') that his view on this is deeply uninformed, and pointing them in the direction of some relevant information.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

your post says.

May.
May
Could
Could.
Conjecture
Possibly
Maybe.
Might be.

Sure, that's how science works, particularly during research programmes. But there are no certainties even for established scientific theories.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't know what to do with this question. Was Jesus real? If so was he actually the Son of God and homoousios with God?

The more I think about it the more fascinating your question becomes. Because it rests on an assumption that, as in all things in faith, requires faith that it is what it claims to be. What happens if the single most important being to EVER trod the planet earth left no real trace of his physical presence? No contemporary writings about him, nothing?

Thomas was allowed a touch to confirm his doubts. Was Thomas damned to hell for doubting? Did God not realize that the world has a LOT of Thomases? Given that we are forbade any wound to touch are we thus damned?

You are fortunate because you "believe". How hard was it for you? Don't tell me about your misspent youth and how you stumbled on the truth of God and found peace. No, once you learned about God how hard was it to believe so perfectly that your faith in unshakable?

For a lot of people it is automatic.

Does God simply want people like me who fail to "feel his presence" to just pray anyway? Should I create a potemkin faith so that I dot all the "i's" and cross all the "t's"? Is that something that God would like very much?

I'll withdraw the question, if it's too hard to answer.

 

[Ophiolite]

I'll withdraw the question, if it's too hard to answer.

You got a well constructed and informative answer. Your response is dishonest.

 

[Opdrey]

I'll withdraw the question, if it's too hard to answer.

Sorry, AV, I actually worked with it.

Have you actually read the Bible? I ask because you seem to have missed Luke 6:31. Unless you are telling us all you want everyone to blow off your points with total disregard?

Is that it? Because you never really engage meaningfully while others do. I guess that's what you want. You want people to treat you the way you treat them: dismissed.

May I ask you something else? If you want everyone to dismiss your points without any real thought why do you bother to load up these forums with so MANY posts?

Just curious why you waste your time.

 

[Opdrey]

You got a well constructed and informative answer. Your response is dishonest.

I fear AV missed Luke 6:31...or he wants everyone to respond to his posts similarly.

 

[AV1611VET]

Have you actually read the Bible?

Once or twice.