evolutionist professor claims spontaneous generation

[dlamberth]

I'm stating that we believe Melchisedec was a preincarnate appearance of Jesus Christ.

One of many.

So God was birthed into the physical world multiple times?

 

[AV1611VET]

You won't specify who this group is, and so far, the only persons that are clearly in it are you and the person who wrote that article you linked. What sub-set of Christians hold the Malchesidek thing? Is it hard to answer the question? I'm not looking for a detailed list, just some idea which kinds we're talking about and perhaps how numerous they are. Let me help you: not Catholics. Does that help you get started?

Thanks for the QED.

 

[AV1611VET]

So God was birthed into the physical world multiple times?

Hebrews 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

 

[dlamberth]

Hebrews 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

Is that a yes to my question?
Perhaps a reincarnation of Jesus?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Thanks for the QED.

I appreciate your surrender.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is that a yes to my question?
Perhaps a reincarnation of Jesus?

Mell Kizz A Deck is a Pre In Car Nate A Peer Ants

Peer EE ID

Can I make this any plainer?

 

[Mountainmike]

spontaneous generation - i.e adam being made from dust in an instant - is not abiogenesis

abiogenesis does not happen instantly, it is a series of chemical reactions that results in life. Primitive life, not a fully formed bipedal primate in 1 step

let me fix that for you.

Insert “ unevidenced series of conjectured chemical reactions for which there is no model, no process or structure, and the date, place or location of such purely conjectured and staggeringly unlikely reactions is completely unknown”

So it is pure faith on the part of those who believe it, most of whom believe it because of faith in a materialist world because they dislike the alternative.

there is far more scientific evidence for spontaneous creatin of heart tissue in eucharistic miracles, than for the pure conjecture of abiogenesis. Because there IS some actual evidence and the dates places and locations are known!

So - in your own words - chickenman “ stop spreading ignorance”

 

[SelfSim]

Insert “ unevidenced series of conjectured chemical reactions for which there is no model, no process or structure, and the date, place or location of such purely conjectured and staggeringly unlikely reactions is completely unknown”

Correction:
".. a series of theoretically likely organic physio-chemical reactions for which there are various models, processes and structures, with the date and location evidenced by the widespread occurrence of bio-organic Earth-life chemistry.

 

[Mountainmike]

Correction:
".. a series of theoretically likely organic physio-chemical reactions for which there are various models, processes and structures, with the date and location evidenced by the widespread occurrence of bio-organic Earth-life chemistry.

alas you make all the usual logical errors of typical abiogenesis faith believers.

Until you have any idea what the structure IS , so you can conjecture what the steps are , you cannot say they are likely . There is no model or process for the step from non life to life. You have no evidence it happened or where, or when Or how.

Indeed What we do know is the complexity of the first living thing is by definition so complex it is ipso facto highly Unlikely.

Since you have no idea of the structure you cannot say what precursors were needed.
So your last sentence was meaningless word mush that evidences neither date nor location.
like most Abiogenesus faith believers it is faith founded on word salad.
you have nothing but pure conjecture. You are welcome to believe it, provided you accept it as pure faith.

You can settle this very easily:

Describe the very first living thing As a specific structure.
The immediate non living precursors, and chemical process from one to the other.
then we can calculate likelihood.

So Answer basic questions: Describe Exactly What was the genome , and the size of information content of it?
(when and where would be good as well.)
you will rapidly run into problems of irreducible complexity in your description which is why the minimum is complex and unlikely.

But You can’t!!! Any of it.

As I keep saying on this,I might believe it if ever there is evidence or a process.
But there isn’t.

It’s a lot of hype,based on pure conjecture by people who want to believe in abiogenesis! They let assumptions run way ahead of the science.

It’s a worthwhile Idea. But that’s all. I’ve been studying it longer than most . 50 years since I first saw mention of protocells in new scientist. It’s remarkable how little has moved on since then.

 

[Frank Robert]

Indeed What we do know is the complexity of the first living thing is by definition so complex it is ipso facto highly Unlikely.

What evidence do you have to support the claim that the first living thing was complex?

There is no direct evidence of the first living thing, so any answer to this question is speculative.

And even if the first living thing was complex it is difficult to conclude that the first life on Earth was so complex that it was highly unlikely. It did not need to be able to do everything that living things can do today. It only needed to reproduce and pass on its genetic information.

 

[Mountainmike]

What evidence do you have to support the claim that the first living thing was complex?

There is no direct evidence of the first living thing, so any answer to this question is speculative.

And even if the first living thing was complex it is difficult to conclude that the first life on Earth was so complex that it was highly unlikely. It did not need to be able to do everything that living things can do today. It only needed to reproduce and pass on its genetic information.

Which illustrates the logical absurdity of the abiogenesis believers position

Theres no evidence of the first living thing at all.
Nor when nor how nor where it appeared.
So you have no evidence of the simplicity!
Your belief is just that, a pure belief.

YOU are the one who thinks it derived from simple things so the burden of proof is on you to say it can happen and how.

I am happy to point at fully formed cardiac tissue appeared in our time.

What I can say is from functional definition of life ( I do not want a repeat of the thread) but life defined as "self sustaining, capable of Darwinian evolution" (an abiogenesis believers statement not mine). If you want to argue, argue with NASA and Harvard not me.

By definition that involves a genome, interpreting structures for it,self reproductive structures however simple, and a process of the genome evolving) That is complexity. A hydrogen atom cant do it. It isnt complex enough. Our simplest cells are more complex than any man made chemical factory. So how does that just "happen". You are the one who thinks it can


A simple logical statement is the more things that have to be in the same place and in the right state, the less likely it becomes.
Quantum chemistry is far too complex to discuss here, but think of a poor analogy a lottery ticket. The more numbers there are on it, the more staggeringly unlikely a specific combination becomes.

Indeed the world has not change much. It supports liquid water which limits what long historic variations can have been.
Life start is clearly so unlikely nobody has ever found it still happening anywhere or in any new volcanic pool where they were supposed to be.

As I keep repeating. I might believe it if there is any evidence of a process or how it can happen.
There isnt.

The burden of proof is on you to show how something which is complex can arise from simple things. Not me.
Its your postulation not mine.

But then none of this explains evidence of the the spiritual world. Life is not just chemistry. But that is another thread.

 

[Frank Robert]

Which illustrates the logical absurdity of the abiogenesis believers position

The assumption of a natural cause is inherent in all of science. Why is that?

The simple fact is that: Science is based on the idea that the universe is governed by natural laws, and that these laws can be discovered through observation and experimentation. This allows scientists to search for explanations for natural phenomena without having to invoke supernatural forces.​

Theres no evidence of the first living thing at all.
Nor when nor how nor where it appeared.
So you have no evidence of the simplicity!
Your belief is just that, a pure belief.

You stated "What we do know is the complexity of the first living thing is by definition so complex it is ipso facto highly Unlikely."

How do you know?

YOU are the one who thinks it derived from simple things so the burden of proof is on you to say it can happen and how.

What I think is not a claim.

There is no direct evidence of the first living thing, so any answer to this question is speculative.

And even if the first living thing was complex it is difficult to conclude that the first life on Earth was so complex that it was highly unlikely. It did not need to be able to do everything that living things can do today. It only needed to reproduce and pass on its genetic information.

What I said is that it is "difficult to conclude that the first life was so complex that it was highly unlikely. The burden of proof is on you to produce the evidence of complexity.

You made the speculative claim

Indeed What we do know is the complexity of the first living thing is by definition so complex it is ipso facto highly Unlikely.​

​

​

​

I am happy to point at fully formed cardiac tissue appeared in our time.

If you are claiming such events are supernatural I am happy to point to an "appeal to ignorance" or "argumentum ad ignorantiam"

 

[SelfSim]

Indeed What we do know is the complexity of the first living thing is by definition so complex it is ipso facto highly Unlikely.

What we already know, (with the evident exception of yourself), is that the complexity arising from closed self-sustaining autocatalytic networks is highly likely.

See 8:05 min mark onwards here:

 

[Mountainmike]

The assumption of a natural cause is inherent in all of science. Why is that?

What we already know, (with the evident exception of yourself), is that the complexity arising from closed self-sustaining autocatalytic networks is highly likely.

See 8:05 min mark onwards here:

Which are not life, so nothing to do with abiogenesis. But whatever keeps you happy.

What was the first genome of the very first life (science is axiomatic, and so abiogenesis depends on a definition of life - which is "capable of darwinian evolution") so define a genome, the other structures needed then tell me how that came from non living matter.

Why is it , I am the only one on this thread reminding people of the rules of science. That abiogenesis is pure conjecture.
Not even a valid hypothesis. Without a structure or any evidence that it happened, where or how.

Whilst they try to remind me of their faith in materialist reductionism as members of the "abiogenesis faith"

I see a pile of bricks at the end of my road. It is not evdience of a self designing house. Why dont abiogenesis faith believers get basic logic? It is hard to discuss with them!

 

[Mountainmike]

@frank_robert
You continue living in your world of materialist reductionism.- It is your faith - it is nothing to do with science.
It is arrogance on your part to believe you detect all there is, or can model all there is. Indeed the history of science tells you you cannot. Our knowledge of the universe evolves but is always limited to what we detect. So only ever a small part of "what is"

The very idea of "natural cause" is a philosophical problem your 8th grade science fails to address.

One last chance at a science 101 for you. Gravity happens. Gravity is a behaviour pattern. Science models it it.
We have a good model of what it normally does.
But that is all we have. We do not know what gravity "is" or why it "is".
We do not know the limits of what is an empirical model.
All the models are what are observation models. Science is just a model. It is not the universe and does not explain it.

It is not a very good model at the fraying edges. Take in the very small world, even "existence" is not defined. Nor posistion till observation. All the normal tenets of science break down there, and so therefore the macro observations which are aggregates of micro observation break down too. The observer is an integral part of the observation.

So most of the tenets of your simplistic 8th grade science fail.

We do not know what "causes" gravity. Therefore suggesting gravity as a "cause" of anything else let alone a "natural cause" is a broken philosophical chain. . There is no such thing as "natural" or "supernatural" cause. Your distinction is a failure to understand what science "is"
If God exists in nature and interacts in nature , what He does is natural, just as if you exist what you do is natural.

Science is a useful game if you follow the rules. But abiogenesis faith believers like you dont follow the rules.
You have no idea what happened, where it happened, how it happened, you have no structure or process for it.
So you have no hypothesis, or even conjecture. Those are the rules of science

Since it is your faith and you believe it it is up to you to prove it can.
On the other hand all sorts of evidence from our real world - like veridical NDE - show materialist reductionism does not account for life, and therefore neither can abiogenesis. There is far more evidence for veridical NDE than for a first cell appearing by random chemistry model for which you have no evidence at all.

 

[Frank Robert]

Which are not life, so nothing to do with abiogenesis. But whatever keeps you happy.

What was the first genome of the very first life (science is axiomatic, and so abiogenesis depends on a definition of life - which is "capable of darwinian evolution") so define a genome, the other structures needed then tell me how that came from non living matter.

You made a claim which you have no evidence for, i.e. it is speculative. It appears you believe that speculation is anti-science but it is not.
In fact speculation is a powerful tool for scientific progress as a starting point. It becomes science when it is tested and refined through evidence and experimentation. Only then can it become a part of scientific knowledge.

I have no objection of what people believe and neither does science. But when you claim that the supernatural because there is no scientific explanation for a particular phenomenon such as abiogenesis you are arguing from ignorance. Why is that? Because you are assuming that the only possible explanation for the phenomenon is a supernatural one. However, this is not necessarily the case. There may be other explanations for the phenomenon that we simply do not yet know about.

Why is it , I am the only one on this thread reminding people of the rules of science.

Because you may have a need to project a naive understanding of science.

That abiogenesis is pure conjecture.
Not even a valid hypothesis. Without a structure or any evidence that it happened, where or how.

See above comment.

The RNA world hypothesis, the hydrothermal vent hypothesis, and the Miller-Urey experiment are all valid hypotheses for the origin of life. They are all based on scientific evidence and have been supported by experiments and observations. Obviously the research is ongoing but it is slowly getting closer to better understanding.

Whilst they try to remind me of their faith in materialist reductionism as members of the "abiogenesis faith"

The ancient Greeks had no knowledge of what caused lightening and thunder so attributed it to Zues. It took nearly three centuries before Benjamin Franklin in 1752 conducted his experiment in which he flew a kite during a thunderstorm. The kite was attached to a key, and when he brought the key near his mouth, he was able to generate a spark. This experiment showed that lightning and thunder were caused by the same force as static electricity.

The study of abiogenesis is a challenging science and scientists are motivated by challenges.

I see a pile of bricks at the end of my road. It is not evdience of a self designing house.

And you are entitled to your belief.

Why dont abiogenesis faith believers get basic logic? It is hard to discuss with them!

Contrary to your belief, the research into abiogenesis is a challenging and exciting field of study. There is not know about how life originated, but the research in this area is ongoing, and scientists are slowly getting closer to understanding this fundamental mystery of life. Also you underestimate curiosity which is strong motivator and by studying abiognesis scientists can help to satisfy our curiosity about the origin of life.

And as I have said before, religious believers shouldn't have any need to be concerned if a natural cause for abiogenesis is discovered through science as they can still believe that the natural cause was an act of their creator as many already do.

 

[Mountainmike]

You made a claim which you have no evidence for, i.e. it is speculative. It appears you believe that speculation is anti-science but it is not.
In fact speculation is a powerful tool for scientific progress as a starting point. It becomes science when it is tested and refined through evidence and experimentation. Only then can it become a part of scientific knowledge.

I have no objection of what people believe and neither does science. But when you claim that the supernatural because there is no scientific explanation for a particular phenomenon such as abiogenesis you are arguing from ignorance. Why is that? Because you are assuming that the only possible explanation for the phenomenon is a supernatural one. However, this is not necessarily the case. There may be other explanations for the phenomenon that we simply do not yet know about.

Because you may have a need to project a naive understanding of science.


See above comment.

The RNA world hypothesis, the hydrothermal vent hypothesis, and the Miller-Urey experiment are all valid hypotheses for the origin of life. They are all based on scientific evidence and have been supported by experiments and observations. Obviously the research is ongoing but it is slowly getting closer to better understanding.


The ancient Greeks had no knowledge of what caused lightening and thunder so attributed it to Zues. It took nearly three centuries before Benjamin Franklin in 1752 conducted his experiment in which he flew a kite during a thunderstorm. The kite was attached to a key, and when he brought the key near his mouth, he was able to generate a spark. This experiment showed that lightning and thunder were caused by the same force as static electricity.

The study of abiogenesis is a challenging science and scientists are motivated by challenges.

And you are entitled to your belief.

Contrary to your belief, the research into abiogenesis is a challenging and exciting field of study. There is not know about how life originated, but the research in this area is ongoing, and scientists are slowly getting closer to understanding this fundamental mystery of life. Also you underestimate curiosity which is strong motivator and by studying abiognesis scientists can help to satisfy our curiosity about the origin of life.

And as I have said before, religious believers shouldn't have any need to be concerned if a natural cause for abiogenesis is discovered through science as they can still believe that the natural cause was an act of their creator as many already do.

Usual abiogenesis believers Babble.

miller Urey proved nothing at all Of consequence.

I Didn’t ask you what you thought the very advanced later genome might have been made of.

I asked you for the exact structure of the genome you postulate for the first life .
plus all theother structures needed for life.

Things you do not know.
1/ when, where or how the first life came to be. You have no structure for it, and no process to the structure. Without that you have no idea of the necessary precursors , so whether they existed , or how they came to exist.
you know nothing . nada. Diddly squat,
2/ you therefore have no hypothesis, theory or anything else and you clearly don’t understand science or what is needed to have a hypothesis,

You and your cult of materialist reductionist abiogenesis believers have no idea.
You believe in scientism not science, which is your essential belief in a thing called natural cause,

indeed the evidence is mounting if not overwhelming that consciousness is not an epiphenomenon that can be explained as a material function of the brain. So you are on a hiding to nothing trying to trying to show life started that way since it cannot explain consciousness with is of the essence of human life.

you are like a blind cave fish trying to explain all of reality as if reality we’re limited to just what you detect .

 

[SelfSim]

One last chance at a science 101 for you. Gravity happens. Gravity is a behaviour pattern.

A 'pattern' is a model. Gravity is therefore a model.

Science models it it. We have a good model of what it normally does.
But that is all we have. We do not know what gravity "is" or why it "is".

You said above that gravity was a pattern.
A pattern is a model, therefore we do know what gravity is .. its a model.

All the models are what are observation models. Science is just a model. It is not the universe and does not explain it.

'The universe' is also an observational model.

So most of the tenets of your simplistic 8th grade science fail.

The logic is sound .. unlike yours .. as is evidenced by the illogic displayed in your above argument.

 

[Frank Robert]

Usual abiogenesis believers Babble.

Excellent demonstration of the projection of your babbling on someone else.

miller Urey proved nothing at all Of consequence.

Laughing my head off. It is absurd to dismiss the Miller-Urey experiment as insignificant.

To dismiss the Miller-Urey experiment as inconsequential is to ignore its significant contributions to our understanding of the origin of life. It is to deny the evidence that life could have arisen from non-living matter.

I Didn’t ask you what you thought the very advanced later genome might have been made of.

I asked you for the exact structure of the genome you postulate for the first life .
plus all theother structures needed for life.

You asked me many thing while ignoring mostly everything that I asked you, likely in an effort to misdirect us from your inability to provide evidence for your speculation. I am still waiting for evidence of your speculation but not holding my breath.

Things you do not know.
1/ when, where or how the first life came to be. You have no structure for it, and no process to the structure. Without that you have no idea of the necessary precursors , so whether they existed , or how they came to exist.
you know nothing . nada. Diddly squat,

I agree, I do not know how life came to be.

2/ you therefore have no hypothesis, theory or anything else and you clearly don’t understand science or what is needed to have a hypothesis,

I agree I have no hypotheses but I did state several scientific hypotheses:
The RNA world hypothesis, the hydrothermal vent hypothesis, and the Miller-Urey experiment are all valid hypotheses for the origin of life. They are all based on scientific evidence and have been supported by experiments and observations. Obviously the research is ongoing but it is slowly getting closer to better understanding.

Denying that they are is another example your naive understanding of science.

You and your cult of materialist reductionist abiogenesis believers have no idea.

There you go again. I have no idea what you mean by science being a cult. Cults often use fear, intimidation, and isolation to control their members. Science does not do this. Science is open to everyone, and anyone can participate in the scientific process.

• Science is based on evidence, not faith.
• Science is constantly evolving as new evidence is gathered.
• Science is open to everyone, not just a select few.
• Science is not a belief system, it is a way of thinking.

You believe in scientism not science, which is your essential belief in a thing called natural cause,

I agree scientism is not science neither is science a belief. Labeling science a belief is naive. Science is evidence-based, belief, on the other hand, refers to accepting something without or despite evidence. See previous comment.

indeed the evidence is mounting if not overwhelming that consciousness is not an epiphenomenon that can be explained as a material function of the brain. So you are on a hiding to nothing trying to trying to show life started that way since it cannot explain consciousness with is of the essence of human life.

I understand that there is debate but I am not aware of any definite evidence. If you say there is the burden of proof is on you.

you are like a blind cave fish trying to explain all of reality as if reality we’re limited to just what you detect .

We are discussing science but I am open to other discussions. In a previous discussion I made some comments about my study and relationship to shamanism.

 

[SelfSim]

• Science is based on evidence, not faith.
• Science is constantly evolving as new evidence is gathered.
• Science is open to everyone, not just a select few.
• Science is not a belief system, it is a way of thinking.

Also, unlike @Mountainmike's misconceptions, the various objects of science's investigations are not about uncovering preconceived 'truths'.
The notion of the existence of truths includes the existence of faith/belief-based, so-called 'miracles'.
Including those, would mean that science loses the distinction of being science and devolves into being yet another belief-based system.

IOW: @Mountainmike's central complaint about the scientific process, (ie: the exclusion of the existence of so-called 'miracles'), is actually central to what confused @Mountainmike prides himself as being 'an expert' in, but clearly isn't .. as he himself, constantly (naively) demonstrates.