Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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?
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...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...
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.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.
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.
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".
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.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.
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).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!.
I am well aware of all of it.
Guess what, I read before comment.
I’ve read many papers and I’ve been disappointed.
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.
the Only valid hypothesis for abiogenesis must base around that structure. Not bricks. Not cellular development from very complex to horrendously complex.
I also know I have actual forensic evidence of abiogenesis in so called Eucharistic miracles.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
Sure, that's how science works, particularly during research programmes. But there are no certainties even for established scientific theories.your post says.
May.
May
Could
Could.
Conjecture
Possibly
Maybe.
Might be.
I'll withdraw the question, if it's too hard to answer.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.
Once or twice.Have you actually read the Bible?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?