Evidence of miracles.

[Opdrey]

See my last post to opdrey.
He accepts the distinction of non living to living things.

I don't know what you are saying I accept here. I think I've been pretty clear that living and non-living organic chemistry is pretty much the same thing.

That is the reason I focus on that step which is generally considered to be the first cell that could self replicate and self evolve.
All prior to that were not living.

It is interesting that literally all the building blocks were there chemically. And even RNA life could self-replicate. We have a great inorganic explanation for chirality in living things and we have evidence of things like amino acids on meteorites.

So it really looks like the transition to life from non-life was pretty simple to envision and chemically makes sense.

It certainly has more support for it than "GOD DID IT".

The structure of that first cell is the critical step. It has the problem of complexity and irreducibility.

You REALLY need to learn the failures of irreducible complexity. It has been shown to fail over and over and over again. Every example put forth has any number of precedents showing it could evolve quite naturally. Even the EYE!

Too complex and it cannot have come from a random chance

See, this is where your lack of chemistry knowledge shows. Yes there are random, stochastic processes in chemistry but reactions are a bit more nuanced than just random chance.

Look at the DNA molecule. The reason we have the base pairs in DNA is because they are CHEMICALLY COMPATIBLE and create these nice stable hydrogen bonds which hold the stuff together. It's amazingly elegant and pretty chemically simple.

My remark was the logical conclusion of his statement that the chemistry was the same. Reductio ad absurdum, Either he is dead or his computer is living both of which are clear nonsense.

You really should look up terms before you use them. Just sayin'.

 

[Mountainmike]

Straw man.
Easy. You misrepresent my arguments, then attack the misrepresentation.
Your false analogy of Fatima to Ganesh, to allow a false conclusion based on Ganesh
Most of your posts contain errors of critical thinking.
The ones that do not attack me personally that is.

I do not feel the need to air qualifications here.
Clearly 2+2=4 is true even if an idiot says it.
“Nonsense is still nonsense if spoken by a world class physicist”

On chemistry why the need for me to reproduce chemistry here?
I let a porphyrin chemist Adler detail the blood , and other chemistry he found on the shroud. I let world class forensic scientists detail what they find in Eucharistic miracles. I let EDICES - a group of forensic scientists describe the chemistry of the sudarium.

if you want to contest any of it, you ( who has never seen these samples) are arguing with respected scientists who did analyse them, not me.

as for the shroud all I said is true, including Tite hiding the sample cutting away from camera ending with samples that didn’t add up, releasing dates of control fabrics , then being aware of the daters removing outlying samples to get within chi squared bounds. It is sad they did- if they had not have cheated, they would have noticed a date progression across distance which would have told them something strange was going on. It is sad they did not listen to meacham who told them to keep to sampling protocols and chemically profile the Samples before test. Meacham told them beforehand that association in fabric testing was a problem.

The rest you can find out reading books. Like Fantis 3 testing methods. Rogers observed the lack of vanillin in the shroud body showed it was ancient. Not so the radio sample.

But I am not minded to continue this. I am tired of attempts at belittling. Believe what you will.












c

May I ask why you are so unrelentingly unpleasant? Is it part of your faith that requires this?



Wow. I'm impressed. Are you a member of MENSA? (If you are I'm extremely surprised you didn't mention that!)



Maybe you could look up the term first so you don't misapply it.



Well, see, unlike you, I actually got graduate degrees. MS and PhD. I didn't have to say "I am a postgraduate..."



You don't even know what a "Strawman Argument" is, do you? Don't tell anyone else, they'll knock a couple standard deviations off that IQ score.

And since when are AMINO ACIDS found on meteorites a "Strawman"????



What would that be? There is LITERALLY nothing about the chemistry of living things that is fundamentally different from basic regular chemistry.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

See my last post to opdrey.
He accepts the distinction of non living to living things.
It is also the meaning of abiogenesis.

That is the reason I focus on that step which is generally considered to be the first cell that could self replicate and self evolve.
All prior to that were not living.

OK, that's a reasonable definition.

The structure of that first cell is the critical step. It has the problem of complexity and irreducibility. Too complex and it cannot have come from a random chance meeting of non living things.
Too simple and it cannot replicate or evolve.

Forget 'irreducible complexity', it's bunk. The complexity issue is why many popular abiogenesis hypotheses involve chemical 'evolution', with a progressive increase in complexity and efficiency of 'competing' reaction cycles, either before or after vesicle encapsulation. I've given you links to sources for abiogenesis - if you want to know the details, use them.

 

[Mountainmike]

OK, that's a reasonable definition.

Forget 'irreducible complexity', it's bunk. The complexity issue is why many popular abiogenesis hypotheses involve chemical 'evolution', with a progressive increase in complexity and efficiency of 'competing' reaction cycles, either before or after vesicle encapsulation. I've given you links to sources for abiogenesis - if you want to know the details, use them.

It is not surprising it is a reasonable definition, I am quoting many that think the same.

The argument on complexity of the first living thing is also critical.
As I keep repeating. It cannot be ARBITRARILY simple and STILL self replicate , and still Self evolve. The simplest chemical - take a hydrogen molecule cannot do it. That is the very definition of “irreducible complexity”. What is The simplest structure you can conjecture that is living? What were the antecedents? That IS the step they call abiogenesis.

Whatever your views on irreducible complexity from other places, the argument is very valid in this context. As for THE trial , behe picked a bad example. He should have picked this, the judge contradicted his own argument in the judgement, so the judgement was ridiculous in critical thinking. But then that is lawyers for you…

 

[Opdrey]

Straw man.

Please, Mike, look up the phrase before you misuse it again. I know it sounds all intellectual and stuff and you have a 4-sigma IQ and all, but this is just sad.

Easy. You misrepresent my arguments, then attack the misrepresentation.

I have done no such thing.

Your false analogy of Fatima to Ganesh,

Both are miracles. One just happens to be in a religion YOU don't personally believe in but millions upon millions do.

to allow a false conclusion based on Ganesh
Most of your posts contain errors of critical thinking.

Oh just STOP IT!

I do not feel the need to air qualifications here.

YES YOU DO! You just got done telling us about your 4-sigma IQ!!! Sheesh!

On chemistry why the need for me to reproduce chemistry here?

Because abiogenesis is a chemistry topic.

as for the shroud all I said is true, including Tite hiding the sample cutting away from camera

And by extension you are saying that the Church itself was in on the scam. There was an ARCHBISHOP there when they took the samples.

The rest you can find out reading books. Like Fantis 3 testing methods.

You mean his NON-STANDARD SPECTROSCOPIC METHODS? The ones that aren't normally used in archaeology to date things?

By all means. Run away. It's OK with me. You believe in miracles. That's actually QUITE FINE! People should be allowed the faith they want.

And that's the key. FAITH. You probably don't believe any of these things because of the EVIDENCE, you believe in them because they confirm your faith and you have been able to find confirming writings. That's fine. The "science" you have found from whatever sources confirms your desires for the miracles to be true.

That's the nature of faith and you are free to have it.

 

[SelfSim]

That is the reason I focus on that step which is generally considered to be the first cell that could self replicate and self evolve.

Self-replication is an insufficient basis for diagnosing life.
You have already pointed out the problem with diagnosing viruses as life. Similarly, autocatalysis is all about self-replication, yet no-one says an autocatalytic reaction is life.
I have no idea what you mean by 'self-evolution'. It seems like a term you made up.

All prior to that were not living.

From what I've pointed out above, it seems much following what you mean by 'self-replication' happens in the mainstream molecular evolution model, before anyone would diagnose life.

This has been pointed out to you numerous times, yet you continue to (virtually) scream out the same tired old rhetoric, claiming it as 'being so'. It is not 'so' .. do you get that yet?

 

[Opdrey]

The argument on complexity of the first living thing is also critical.

And you have been shown a number of non-supernatural systems which may very well have been able to do that thing.

I will also note YOU HAVE NEVER PROVIDED EVIDENCE OF SUPERNATURAL CREATION OF A LIVING CELL.

I get it that you want evidence of abiogenesis despite your lack of chemical knowledge. And it's a fair question. The data is still coming in. We see the building blocks and we can easily imagine how it was done. We may never know.

But I can guarantee you 100% you will NEVER find evidence of supernatural creation of a living cell. So your explanation is by definition not superior.

Whatever your views on irreducible complexity from other places, the argument is very valid in this context.

So an arguement that has been repeatedly shown to be trash WORKS IN THIS SPECIAL CASE? That's not robust reasoning.

 

[Mountainmike]

In this case you need to look straw man up.
I use the classic definition. Even wiki will tell you that.
Your comparison of Fatima to Ganesh is just such.

Please, Mike, look up the phrase before you misuse it again. I know it sounds all intellectual and stuff and you have a 4-sigma IQ and all, but this is just sad.



I have done no such thing.



Both are miracles. One just happens to be in a religion YOU don't personally believe in but millions upon millions do.




Oh just STOP IT!



YES YOU DO! You just got done telling us about your 4-sigma IQ!!! Sheesh!



Because abiogenesis is a chemistry topic.



And by extension you are saying that the Church itself was in on the scam. There was an ARCHBISHOP there when they took the samples.



You mean his NON-STANDARD SPECTROSCOPIC METHODS? The ones that aren't normally used in archaeology to date things?

By all means. Run away. It's OK with me. You believe in miracles. That's actually QUITE FINE! People should be allowed the faith they want.

And that's the key. FAITH. You probably don't believe any of these things because of the EVIDENCE, you believe in them because they confirm your faith and you have been able to find confirming writings. That's fine. The "science" you have found from whatever sources confirms your desires for the miracles to be true.

That's the nature of faith and you are free to have it.

 

[Opdrey]

Self-replication is an insufficient basis for diagnosing life.

In a very real sense CRYSTAL GROWTH is a "self-replicating system". It relies on a substrate and chemical coordination on that substrate.

But I'm guessing MountainMike won't say making ice in the fridge is making life.

I have no idea what you mean by 'self-evolution'. It seems like a term you made up.

When one has a 4-sigma IQ and is a "postgraduate" they are allowed to be their own lexicographer.

 

[Opdrey]

Your comparison of Fatima to Ganesh is just such.

I bet the believers in the Ganesha milk miracle are just as sure of their faith as you are of yours.

 

[SelfSim]

I
As I keep repeating. It cannot be ARBITRARILY simple and STILL self replicate , and still Self evolve. The simplest chemical - take a hydrogen molecule cannot do it.

Yes .. it seems your definitions are inadequate for the conversation you insist on having .. (and attempting to repeat, as if that makes any difference).

That is the very definition of “irreducible complexity”. What is The simplest structure you can conjecture that is living? What were the antecedents? That IS the step they call abiogenesis.

Rubbish! Abiogenesis is a process .. not some arbitrary 'step' in that process.

Whatever your views on irreducible complexity from other places, the argument is very valid in this context.

Your context falls way short of mainstream thinking .. you need to update it if you wish to continue with a more precise discussion.

 

[Mountainmike]

The forensic pathologist ( son of a Nobel laureate) who examined both the Cochabamba statue and the Buenos airies so called Eucharistic miracle thinks it is compelling evidence.

Since you have never looked at the evidence, and despite your ego you are not a forensic pathologist, I defer to him. Oh… and the 20? Or so pathologists involved in all of those phenomena..

As for the phrase “ despite your lack” opdrey , 3 strikes and you are out. As I pointed out these are not my arguments, they are being ,ade by capable biochemists, so insulting me will not change an iota.

Read the books if you want to find out more, if your pride will let you!

And you have been shown a number of non-supernatural systems which may very well have been able to do that thing.

I will also note YOU HAVE NEVER PROVIDED EVIDENCE OF SUPERNATURAL CREATION OF A LIVING CELL.

I get it that you want evidence of abiogenesis despite your lack of chemical knowledge. And it's a fair question. The data is still coming in. We see the building blocks and we can easily imagine how it was done. We may never know.

But I can guarantee you 100% you will NEVER find evidence of supernatural creation of a living cell. So your explanation is by definition not superior.



So an arguement that has been repeatedly shown to be trash WORKS IN THIS SPECIAL CASE? That's not robust reasoning.

 

[SelfSim]

In a very real sense CRYSTAL GROWTH is a "self-replicating system". It relies on a substrate and chemical coordination on that substrate.

But I'm guessing MountainMike won't say making ice in the fridge is making life.

Phase transitions very much play a role in modern thinking on the topic. The conversation usually then moves to discussing information models and not using inferior grossly inadequate (and quite superficially ignorant) terms as 'life' or 'non-life'.

When one has a 4-sigma IQ and is a "postgraduate" they are allowed to be their own lexicographer.

.. or maybe extremely insecure about one's intellectual prowess .. (?)

 

[Opdrey]

Rubbish! Abiogenesis is a process .. not some arbitrary 'step' in that process.

It is a step in the context of Mountainmike's contention that there is some significant specialness to changing from non-living materials to living materials.

Barring the finding of that magical dust that transforms non-living into living it will be impossible to prove the point.

The problem with arguing abiogenesis with the religious is that we simply don't have any real-world examples where life was made from scratch in the lab. I wonder if that will ever happen. I think for me the most troublesome part of the debate is on the special creation side. Since they are free to propose a magical special supernatural creation without any evidence for it. And in support of their position they DEMAND evidence for non-supernatural development of life.

It's not a fair debate if one side gets to claims special privileges that they can then deny the other side.

 

[Mountainmike]

I think Mr Dawkins holds the same view, so spare your insults for him…

Yes .. it seems your definitions are inadequate for the conversation you insist on having .. (and attempting to repeat, as if that makes any difference).

Rubbish! Abiogenesis is a process .. not some arbitrary 'step' in that process.

Your context falls way short of mainstream thinking .. you need to update it if you wish to continue with a more precise discussion.

 

[SelfSim]

The forensic pathologist ( son of a Nobel laureate) who examined both the Cochabamba statue and the Buenos airies so called Eucharistic miracle thinks it is compelling evidence.

Oh for goodness sake! How insanely weak do arguments get? Who cares? Who cares who his father was!? Nobel Laureates have fallen short in many scientific debates before also! Get real, man!

 

[Opdrey]

The forensic pathologist ( son of a Nobel laureate)

The SON of a Nobel Laureate??? Well, that changes everything!

Since you have never looked at the evidence, and despite your ego you are not a forensic pathologist, I defer to him.

And I'm fine with that. You are correct. I have not studied the various writings of people who think it was a real miracle. It sounds like there might have been the possibility of a bacterium which gave some of the chemical markers but I don't know much in detail about it.

I am curious, though, given that the Eucharist always transsubstantiates in the Mass wouldn't this experiment be easy enough to run over and over and over again? Several times on Sunday or Saturday evening?

As for the phrase “ despite your lack” opdrey , 3 strikes and you are out. As I pointed out these are not my arguments, they are being ,ade by capable biochemists, so insulting me will not change an iota.

Read the books if you want to find out more, if your pride will let you!

I will probably do so once I get a bit more time and I'm more bored. In the meantime I'll wait for more data to come in from the literally millions of transsubstantiations that occur every week across the globe in Catholic Churches all over the world.

Remember: you are the one on here that is the postgraduate scientist.

 

[SelfSim]

I think Mr Dawkins holds the same view, so spare your insults for him…

Ok .. Dawkins can take 'em .. Do you think I care/worry about Dawkins opinions anyway?

 

[Mountainmike]

If you discount Eucharistic miracles and the statue of Cochabamba. But then at least There is evidence of created life.
Life from soup there is none.

Even you recognised there is a difference between non living and living. Of course the real problem with your disavowal of the distinction of non living to living is that that is the meaning of abiogenesis. How can you discuss it, if you do not accept the definition in the first place? Strange!

It is a step in the context of Mountainmike's contention that there is some significant specialness to changing from non-living materials to living materials.

Barring the finding of that magical dust that transforms non-living into living it will be impossible to prove the point.

The problem with arguing abiogenesis with the religious is that we simply don't have any real-world examples where life was made from scratch in the lab. I wonder if that will ever happen. I think for me the most troublesome part of the debate is on the special creation side. Since they are free to propose a magical special supernatural creation without any evidence for it. And in support of their position they DEMAND evidence for non-supernatural development of life.

It's not a fair debate if one side gets to claims special privileges that they can then deny the other side.

 

[Opdrey]

I think Mr Dawkins holds the same view, so spare your insults for him…

Since you are a postgraduate scientist I would think you would handle debate a bit better. Instead you scream about everyone insulting you while you insult them.

Scientists can definitely be nasty in debates and fight pretty harshly, but you seem to come outta the gate swinging. Maybe dial it back a bit.