evolutionist professor claims spontaneous generation

[Mountainmike]

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.

This isn’t about miracles. that is just a name. I always use “ so called” as a prefix to that.
The evidence speaks, which is true whatever you call them.

You have zero evidence for abiogenesis ( your kind) . Doodly squat. None at all.

I have plenty for cardiac tissue that did not come from a corpse, nor did it come from progressive small change of the type Darwin claimed,

This is about the wholesale misundestanding of you , and other materialist relativists, of the abiogenesis faith about the process of science, you clearly don’t know it.
Any of you!! Or you would not pretend you have evidence of
I did for a living so I had to. I modelled physical observations. That’s how I know what science is.

Your faith/ belief based attitude to abiogenesis gives you away
you have zero evidence of what happened, where , how or when.

You have no process or structure Or genome for the first living thing.
You have nothing but blind faith it happened the way you think.

Asfor the irrelevance of self catalysing reactions that do not fit your definition of Abiogenesis , they are irrelevant! They do not fit other than your wishful thinking.
Science is axiomatic. It relies on definitions. Study science.

I despair of discussion with non scientists about science.
this forum is full of believers in scientism , not science.
it is time all of you studied the philosophy of what you can know.

 

[Estrid]

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.

Evidence? Don't need no stinking
evidence! He just made it up

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory​

by Hubert P. Yockey

"The Darwin-Oparin-Haldane “warm little pond” scenario for biogenesis is examined by using information theory to calculate the probability that an informational biomolecule of reasonable biochemical specificity, long enough to provide a genome for the “protobiont”, could have appeared in 10⁹ years in the primitive soup. Certain old untenable ideas have served only to confuse the solution of the problem. Negentropy is not a concept because entropy cannot be negative. The role that negentropy has played in previous discussions is replaced by “complexity” as defined in information theory. A satisfactory scenario for spontaneous biogenesis requires the generation of “complexity” not “order”. Previous calculations based on simple combinatorial analysis over estimate the number of sequences by a factor of 10⁵. The number of cytochrome c sequences is about 3·8 × 10⁶¹. The probability of selecting one such sequence at random is about 2·1 ×10⁻⁶⁵. The primitive milieu will contain a racemic mixture of the biological amino acids and also many analogues and non-biological amino acids. Taking into account only the effect of the racemic mixture the longest genome which could be expected with 95 % confidence in 10⁹ years corresponds to only 49 amino acid residues. This is much too short to code a living system so evolution to higher forms could not get started. Geological evidence for the “warm little pond” is missing. It is concluded that belief in currently accepted scenarios of spontaneous biogenesis is based on faith, contrary to conventional wisdom."

SOURCE

 

[Hans Blaster]

A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory​

by Hubert P. Yockey

"The Darwin-Oparin-Haldane “warm little pond” scenario for biogenesis is examined by using information theory to calculate the probability that an informational biomolecule of reasonable biochemical specificity, long enough to provide a genome for the “protobiont”, could have appeared in 10⁹ years in the primitive soup. Certain old untenable ideas have served only to confuse the solution of the problem. Negentropy is not a concept because entropy cannot be negative. The role that negentropy has played in previous discussions is replaced by “complexity” as defined in information theory. A satisfactory scenario for spontaneous biogenesis requires the generation of “complexity” not “order”. Previous calculations based on simple combinatorial analysis over estimate the number of sequences by a factor of 105. The number of cytochrome c sequences is about 3·8 × 10⁶¹. The probability of selecting one such sequence at random is about 2·1 ×10−65. The primitive milieu will contain a racemic mixture of the biological amino acids and also many analogues and non-biological amino acids. Taking into account only the effect of the racemic mixture the longest genome which could be expected with 95 % confidence in 109 years corresponds to only 49 amino acid residues. This is much too short to code a living system so evolution to higher forms could not get started. Geological evidence for the “warm little pond” is missing. It is concluded that belief in currently accepted scenarios of spontaneous biogenesis is based on faith, contrary to conventional wisdom."

SOURCE

Oh great {eye roll}, information numerology. I wish one of the "math guys" would bother just doing some experiments.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh great {eye roll}, information numerology. I wish one of the "math guys" would bother just doing some experiments.

Do you know the difference between numerology and information?

 

[Shemjaza]

A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory​

by Hubert P. Yockey

"The Darwin-Oparin-Haldane “warm little pond” scenario for biogenesis is examined by using information theory to calculate the probability that an informational biomolecule of reasonable biochemical specificity, long enough to provide a genome for the “protobiont”, could have appeared in 10⁹ years in the primitive soup. Certain old untenable ideas have served only to confuse the solution of the problem. Negentropy is not a concept because entropy cannot be negative. The role that negentropy has played in previous discussions is replaced by “complexity” as defined in information theory. A satisfactory scenario for spontaneous biogenesis requires the generation of “complexity” not “order”. Previous calculations based on simple combinatorial analysis over estimate the number of sequences by a factor of 10⁵. The number of cytochrome c sequences is about 3·8 × 10⁶¹. The probability of selecting one such sequence at random is about 2·1 ×10⁻⁶⁵. The primitive milieu will contain a racemic mixture of the biological amino acids and also many analogues and non-biological amino acids. Taking into account only the effect of the racemic mixture the longest genome which could be expected with 95 % confidence in 10⁹ years corresponds to only 49 amino acid residues. This is much too short to code a living system so evolution to higher forms could not get started. Geological evidence for the “warm little pond” is missing. It is concluded that belief in currently accepted scenarios of spontaneous biogenesis is based on faith, contrary to conventional wisdom."

SOURCE

System doesn't work.

It assumes the only specific structure used by extant life is possible as a structure of life and ignores that precursors can be favourable "survivors" in the mix and thus increase the odds of further increased complexity.

 

[SelfSim]

The evidence speaks, which is true whatever you call them.

Yet again you declare yourself as a truth seeker .. (and not a scientific thinker).

You have no process or structure Or genome for the first living thing.

Read the title of this presentation (reposted yet again as an aid to help your comprehension issue):
Origins of Life: Early Life - Autocatalytic Sets - A cooperative origin of life:

Science is axiomatic. It relies on definitions. Study science.

Mathematics is axiomatic. Science is not.
Science tests its definitions.

Yet again, you reveal your fundamental misunderstanding.

 

[Frank Robert]

A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory​

by Hubert P. Yockey

"The Darwin-Oparin-Haldane “warm little pond” scenario for biogenesis is examined by using information theory to calculate the probability that an informational biomolecule of reasonable biochemical specificity, long enough to provide a genome for the “protobiont”, could have appeared in 10⁹ years in the primitive soup. Certain old untenable ideas have served only to confuse the solution of the problem. Negentropy is not a concept because entropy cannot be negative. The role that negentropy has played in previous discussions is replaced by “complexity” as defined in information theory. A satisfactory scenario for spontaneous biogenesis requires the generation of “complexity” not “order”. Previous calculations based on simple combinatorial analysis over estimate the number of sequences by a factor of 10⁵. The number of cytochrome c sequences is about 3·8 × 10⁶¹. The probability of selecting one such sequence at random is about 2·1 ×10⁻⁶⁵. The primitive milieu will contain a racemic mixture of the biological amino acids and also many analogues and non-biological amino acids. Taking into account only the effect of the racemic mixture the longest genome which could be expected with 95 % confidence in 10⁹ years corresponds to only 49 amino acid residues. This is much too short to code a living system so evolution to higher forms could not get started. Geological evidence for the “warm little pond” is missing. It is concluded that belief in currently accepted scenarios of spontaneous biogenesis is based on faith, contrary to conventional wisdom."

SOURCE

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations​

Every so often, someone comes up with the statement "the formation of any enzyme by chance is nearly impossible, therefore abiogenesis is impossible".​

​

Problems with the creationists' "it's so improbable" calculations​

​

1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.​

2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.​

3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.​

4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.​

5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.​

​

Read more... be sure to check out: #3​

 

[Hans Blaster]

Do you know the difference between numerology and information?

Yes, but I question whether Hubert Yockey does.

 

[AV1611VET]

Every so often, someone comes up with the statement "the formation of any enzyme by chance is nearly impossible, therefore abiogenesis is impossible".

Did you read the first sentence of that link?

It reads:

"The Darwin-Oparin-Haldane “warm little pond” scenario for biogenesis is examined by using information theory to calculate the probability that an informational biomolecule of reasonable biochemical specificity, long enough to provide a genome for the “protobiont”, could have appeared in 10⁹ years in the primitive soup."

That sounds like a VERY SPECIFIC thing his is talking about.

He even gave it a name: "protobiont."

Now YOU post with a quote that says:

"They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events."

Since when is a "protobiont" a "modern protein"?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes,

* cough *

Coulda fooled me.

 

[carloagal]

This isn’t about miracles. that is just a name. I always use “ so called” as a prefix to that.
The evidence speaks, which is true whatever you call them.

You have zero evidence for abiogenesis ( your kind) . Doodly squat. None at all.

I have plenty for cardiac tissue that did not come from a corpse, nor did it come from progressive small change of the type Darwin claimed,

This is about the wholesale misundestanding of you , and other materialist relativists, of the abiogenesis faith about the process of science, you clearly don’t know it.
Any of you!! Or you would not pretend you have evidence of
I did for a living so I had to. I modelled physical observations. That’s how I know what science is.

Your faith/ belief based attitude to abiogenesis gives you away
you have zero evidence of what happened, where , how or when.

You have no process or structure Or genome for the first living thing.
You have nothing but blind faith it happened the way you think.

Asfor the irrelevance of self catalysing reactions that do not fit your definition of Abiogenesis , they are irrelevant! They do not fit other than your wishful thinking.
Science is axiomatic. It relies on definitions. Study science.

I despair of discussion with non scientists about science.
this forum is full of believers in scientism , not science.
it is time all of you studied the philosophy of what you can know.

Hey if human heart tissue come from the eucharistic that is a simple host isn't a sort of abiogenesis/spontaneous generation that claim that life born spontaneous from non living matter with vial streams?

 

[carloagal]

Or is considered a creation of human heart muscle tissue from a simple host? Because if biogenesis or spontaneous generation is right the human heart tissues should have appeared even in the others hosts or in others foods or things.

 

[carloagal]

This isn’t about miracles. that is just a name. I always use “ so called” as a prefix to that.
The evidence speaks, which is true whatever you call them.

You have zero evidence for abiogenesis ( your kind) . Doodly squat. None at all.

I have plenty for cardiac tissue that did not come from a corpse, nor did it come from progressive small change of the type Darwin claimed,

This is about the wholesale misundestanding of you , and other materialist relativists, of the abiogenesis faith about the process of science, you clearly don’t know it.
Any of you!! Or you would not pretend you have evidence of
I did for a living so I had to. I modelled physical observations. That’s how I know what science is.

Your faith/ belief based attitude to abiogenesis gives you away
you have zero evidence of what happened, where , how or when.

You have no process or structure Or genome for the first living thing.
You have nothing but blind faith it happened the way you think.

Asfor the irrelevance of self catalysing reactions that do not fit your definition of Abiogenesis , they are irrelevant! They do not fit other than your wishful thinking.
Science is axiomatic. It relies on definitions. Study science.

I despair of discussion with non scientists about science.
this forum is full of believers in scientism , not science.
it is time all of you studied the philosophy of what you can know.

Hey, for Eucharistic Miracles we can have two scientific definition I think:
1) cardiac human tissues created in the eucharistic a simple host by a creator.
2) Spontaneous Generation: Generation of complex life from non living matter like mice and maggots.

 

[Mountainmike]

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations​

Every so often, someone comes up with the statement "the formation of any enzyme by chance is nearly impossible, therefore abiogenesis is impossible".​

​

Problems with the creationists' "it's so improbable" calculations​

​

1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.​

2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.​

3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.​

4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.​

5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.​

​

Read more... be sure to check out: #3​

You mean the problem with the far fetched abiogenesis believers assumption it is probable.

Its up to you to prove something for which you have zero evidence, either of what where, what or how, without which you cannot comment on it,. You have no process, no structure, no pathway, you cannot repeat it , it does not repeat. Nothing has ever been found in the places your faith caims it happens like post volcanic environments. You have nothing at all.

You have no first living structure defined ,yet you want everyone else to believe it!
But you do love your straw men. That abiogenesis disbelievers claim a modern bacterium appeared by random chemistry.
Not they do not, but it is the other massive hole in your combined theories. You not only have zero idea of what the first life was, you have zero idea of how it got from there to be a modern bacterium. So you know nothing about evolution or abiogenesis!

There is a minimum complexity for a first living thing forced by the definition of life
Creations did not decide that, origin of life abiogenesis believers did.
So defend your own faith. Life defined as self sustaining " capable of darwinian evolution" involves multiple structures. Therefore is complex.

Your faith is strong, your science is non existent.

 

[Mountainmike]

Yet again you declare yourself as a truth seeker .. (and not a scientific thinker).

Read the title of this presentation (reposted yet again as an aid to help your comprehension issue):
Origins of Life: Early Life - Autocatalytic Sets - A cooperative origin of life:

Mathematics is axiomatic. Science is not.
Science tests its definitions.

Yet again, you reveal your fundamental misunderstanding.

YOU have a total misunderstanding of science.
I wish people on these threads woruld study more.

The scientific model is all axiomatic. Based on definitions.
For example the oft quoted formula for resistance is not a law. It is certainly NOT ohms law.
It is a definition of resistance.

The permeability of free space at 4pi E-7 is not a nice bit of symmetry in the universe.
It is simply a consequence of the definitions.

Recently it has become no longer possible to measure C .
Because it is now defined, as is time, so Length is now the swing factor.
It think because the physics world was embarassed about the small - but noticeable and significant variations in measurements of C, it changed the definitions.

Experimental law tests how well it fits. But the scientific model does not live in the universe or underpin it. It is simply an observation model.


But then I am a physics math modeller. So I Know.

Every time they post, I am ever more convinced those posting here know little of real science (other than such as Hans when he decides to post in science rather than his more normal disbeliever mode, which is generally worth reading when he does!)

So abiognesesis is DEFINED as the step from non life to life.
LIFE is DEFINED as "self sustaining capable of darwinian evolution" Ask harvard and or NASA

That means no chemistry from non living to non living is relevant to abiogesis either.

That means your autocatalytic structures are interesting but totally IRRELEVANT to abiogenesis because of the definitions
IT IS SIMPLE LOGIC APPLIED TO DEFINITIONS!!
No chemistry living to living is relevant to abiogenesis either.

All that matters is the first structure abiogesis believers postulate came from non living.
The non living antecedents to it. And the quantum or chemical process they claim happened to jump from one to other.

THE REALITY IS ALL OF YOU TRY TO BLUR THE BOUNDARIES BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOTHING EITHER EVIDENCE OR PROCESS FOR NON LIFE TO LIFE AND YOU HOPE NOBODY HAS NOTICED THAT ABIOGENESIS OF YOUR KIND IS PURE FAITH!!!!
Even the high priest of the atheist faith, Prof Dawkins says he "has no idea how life began". Who are you all to argue??

Just as No liquid to liquid phase reaction matters to defining evaporation.
No vapour phase to vapour phase matters.
Only liquid to vapour phase. BecauseThat is the definition of it.

How I wish you would all study science., then you would see it is axiomatic.
What did maxwell do? He did complex extrapolation of vector fields from definitions and as a result produced the equations.
As any electromagnetics student knows they are simply derivable from definition. He backed up faraday with the math.
Most of us had to prove them in one exam or another.

Science is not what most people here think it is.

Then there are empirical laws and measurements that show how badly the universe fits the axiomatic model.
Dark matter is a name for an error term that says in places it does not fit well.

 

[SelfSim]

YOU have a total misunderstanding of science.
I wish people on these threads woruld study more.

The scientific model is all axiomatic. Based on definitions.
For example the oft quoted formula for resistance is not a law. It is certainly NOT ohms law.
It is a definition of resistance.

The permeability of free space at 4pi E-7 is not a nice bit of symmetry in the universe.
It is simply a consequence of the definitions.

Recently it has become no longer possible to measure C .
Because it is now defined, as is time, so Length is now the swing factor.
It think because the physics world was embarassed about the small - but noticeable and significant variations in measurements of C, it changed the definitions.

Experimental law tests how well it fits. But the scientific model does not live in the universe or underpin it. It is simply an observation model.


But then I am a physics math modeller. So I Know.

Every time they post, I am ever more convinced those posting here know little of real science (other than such as Hans when he decides to post in science rather than his more normal disbeliever mode, which is generally worth reading when he does!)

So abiognesesis is DEFINED as the step from non life to life.
LIFE is DEFINED as "self sustaining capable of darwinian evolution" Ask harvard and or NASA

That means no chemistry from non living to non living is relevant to abiogesis either.

That means your autocatalytic structures are interesting but totally IRRELEVANT to abiogenesis because of the definitions
IT IS SIMPLE LOGIC APPLIED TO DEFINITIONS!!
No chemistry living to living is relevant to abiogenesis either.

All that matters is the first structure abiogesis believers postulate came from non living.
The non living antecedents to it. And the quantum or chemical process they claim happened to jump from one to other.

THE REALITY IS ALL OF YOU TRY TO BLUR THE BOUNDARIES BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOTHING EITHER EVIDENCE OR PROCESS FOR NON LIFE TO LIFE AND YOU HOPE NOBODY HAS NOTICED THAT ABIOGENESIS OF YOUR KIND IS PURE FAITH!!!!
Even the high priest of the atheist faith, Prof Dawkins says he "has no idea how life began". Who are you all to argue??

Just as No liquid to liquid phase reaction matters to defining evaporation.
No vapour phase to vapour phase matters.
Only liquid to vapour phase. BecauseThat is the definition of it.

How I wish you would all study science., then you would see it is axiomatic.
What did maxwell do? He did complex extrapolation of vector fields from definitions and as a result produced the equations.
As any electromagnetics student knows they are simply derivable from definition. He backed up faraday with the math.
Most of us had to prove them in one exam or another.

Science is not what most people here think it is.

Then there are empirical laws and measurements that show how badly the universe fits the axiomatic model.
Dark matter is a name for an error term that says in places it does not fit well.

So, again, you provide yet another resounding reconfirmation of your faith in the existence of truth and demonstrate your singular focus in seeking that Holy Grail of yours, eh?

Meanwhile, science continues its investigations by ignoring such nonsense .. (due to the lack of a practical use for such articles of faith).

I'll repost, yet again, one investigative model for OOL research, (along with its structures) .. which you deny exists:

 

[SelfSim]

Its up to you to prove something for which you have zero evidence, either of what where, what or how, without which you cannot comment on it,.

Not if there is no claim for any of it being 'the truth' .. (the latter which you appear completely unable to visualise).

 

[Mountainmike]

So, again, you provide yet another resounding reconfirmation of your faith in the existence of truth and demonstrate your singular focus in seeking that Holy Grail of yours, eh?

Meanwhile, science continues its investigations by ignoring such nonsense .. (due to the lack of a practical use for such articles of faith).

I'll repost, yet again, one investigative model for OOL research, (along with its structures) .. which you deny exists:

You have blind faith in abiogenesis with no evidence at all.
And sadly your faith blinds you - you cannot even see it.

Your faith in abiogenesis is not science. It is not backed up by science. It is not backed up by evidence.


ONLY the step from nonlife to life is abiogenesis. By OOL research definitions not mine. You have no model. You have no process. You have no structure. No evidence it happened, how where, or when. It does not repeat, you cannot repeat it, so it fails on any valid entry point into scientific process.

Autocataltic structures are not "non living to living" . They are "non living to non living" So they are irrelevant.
Definitions matter.

All you have is blind faith in abiogenesis.

The difference between us, is I am able to separate the things I can substantiate, from the things I believe through faith.
Yet there is plenty of evidence which points at my faith.

Your illogic reminds me of an argument that rages elsewhere in the theist sections of the forum.
The pure logical argument that sola scriptura (ie all necessary truth is in scripture) fails, because unless scripture says "all necessary truth is in scripture" explicitly then it is self defeating on simple logic. The best that sola scripture advocates can do is come up with a verse that says "all scripture is valuable" which is nothing like the same logical construct and therefore irrelevant to the question..

Just as those of the abiogenesis faith pointing at autocatalytic structures as evidence of abiogenesis is nothing like the same logical proposition. It is therefore irrelevant however interesting you think it is.

You all need a course in logic, as well as science.

The model of science is axiomatic. It fits observations of the universe more or less well, but it is only an internally consistent model restricted to what can be observed, and more precisely that which repeats or can be repeated or that which can be derived from prior axions. For abiogenesis you have none of it. No process. No structure. No evidence. Nothing. Nada.


I will start to get interested the day one of you proposes the structure of the first living thing, (by your definition of living) and a process for how it came only from non living precursors. But in 50 years since I first read about protocells, those of your faith have never even got close.

The eucharist as real flesh and blood however, at least I can point at some evidence. They exist. They do not cease to exist because you do not "like" the evidece. When where and what happened is documented. Which blows darwins theory out of the water using the test Darwin himself provided for falsifying his theory!!.
It is that serious for your material world

 

[carloagal]

Hai una fede cieca nell'abiogenesi senza alcuna prova.
E purtroppo la tua fede ti acceca - non riesci nemmeno a vederla.

La tua fede nell'abiogenesi non è scienza. Non è supportato dalla scienza. Non è supportato da prove.


ONLY the step from nonlife to life is abiogenesis. By OOL research definitions not mine. You have no model. You have no process. You have no structure. No evidence it happened, how where, or when. It does not repeat, you cannot repeat it, so it fails on any valid entry point into scientific process.

Autocataltic structures are not "non living to living" . They are "non living to non living" So they are irrelevant.
Definitions matter.

All you have is blind faith in abiogenesis.

The difference between us, is I am able to separate the things I can substantiate, from the things I believe through faith.
Yet there is plenty of evidence which points at my faith.

Your illogic reminds me of an argument that rages elsewhere in the theist sections of the forum.
La pura argomentazione logica secondo cui sola scriptura (cioè tutta la verità necessaria è nelle scritture) fallisce, perché a meno che le scritture non dicano esplicitamente "tutta la verità necessaria è nelle scritture", allora è controproducente per la semplice logica. Il meglio che i sostenitori delle scritture sola possono fare è inventare un versetto che dice "tutte le scritture sono preziose" che non è niente come lo stesso costrutto logico e quindi irrilevante per la domanda.

Proprio come quelli della fede nell'abiogenesi che puntano alle strutture autocatalitiche come prova dell'abiogenesi non assomigliano per niente alla stessa proposizione logica. È quindi irrilevante per quanto interessante tu pensi che sia.

Avete tutti bisogno di un corso di logica, oltre che di scienze.

Il modello della scienza è assiomatico. Si adatta più o meno bene alle osservazioni dell'universo, ma è solo un modello internamente coerente limitato a ciò che può essere osservato, e più precisamente a ciò che si ripete o può essere ripetuto oa ciò che può essere derivato da assioni precedenti. Per l'abiogenesi non ne hai niente. Nessun processo. Nessuna struttura. Nessuna prova. Niente. Nada.


Inizierò ad interessarmi il giorno in cui uno di voi proporrà la struttura del primo essere vivente (secondo la vostra definizione di vivente) e un processo per come sia venuto solo da precursori non viventi. Ma in 50 anni da quando ho letto per la prima volta delle protocellule, quelli della tua fede non si sono mai nemmeno avvicinati.

L'eucaristia come vera carne e sangue tuttavia, almeno posso indicare alcune prove. Loro esistono. Non cessano di esistere perché non ti "piace" l'evidenza. Quando dove e cosa è successo è documentato. Il che spazza via la teoria di Darwin dall'acqua usando il test che lo stesso Darwin ha fornito per falsificare la sua teoria !!.
È così serio per il tuo mondo materiale

Eucharistic Miracles are a phenomenons that we didn't know yet how it happens, but for the believers like myself is when In particular cases a simple host turn into cardiac human heart tissue that this supposed to be of Jesus Christ. I want to ask how the eucharistic miracles disproven the Darwin's law and if this is a sort of spontaneous generation that heald that living creatures could arise from non living matter and that such process were commonplace and regular or a creation?