evolutionist professor claims spontaneous generation

Frank Robert said:

The vast majority of discussion on here is religious beliefs of a few Christians denominations vs science. My point is the we can respect that people have religious beliefs and still challenge their reasoning when they substitute their beliefs to deny the actual science.

Click to expand...

@Mountainmike claims no religious belief motivations for his argument.

He claims he has evidence for the existence of the belief he refers to as: 'so-called miracles' .. and that this somehow outweighs the rock solid biochemical principles underpinning hypotheses based on theoretically/empirically demonstrated organic chemistry.
His approach is pure, utter deception and deserves to be called out as such.
I have no respect for his approach.

SelfSim said:

@Mountainmike claims no religious belief motivations for his argument.

He claims he has evidence for the existence of the belief he refers to as: 'so-called miracles' .. and that this somehow outweighs the rock solid biochemical principles underpinning hypotheses based on theoretically/empirically demonstrated organic chemistry.
His approach is pure, utter deception and deserves to be called out as such.
I have no respect for his approach.

Click to expand...

Yes, some people point to miracles as evidence but that, as I pointed out in previous comments, that is a fallacy and so far no one has ventured to argue otherwise.

1. Miracles are events that are beyond the laws of nature.
2. The supernatural is beyond the laws of nature.
3. Therefore, miracles are evidence of the supernatural.

SelfSim said:

@Mountainmike's usage of the principles of inorganic molecular bonding to argue the infeasibility of organic molecular evolution represents a deliberate, out of context pseudoscientifc justification. Nothing could confuse science with beliefs more than using such a method.

I, for one, do not respect any belief which employs such outright deceit. These are my Christian principles at work here.

Click to expand...

You are as bad as the rest - total wish believe in abiogenesis.
Not a shred of a process or evidence, or chemistry knowledge .
You are welcome to believe it, it isnt science.

It is because I understand the chemistry ( and have an IQ bigger than a turnip)
I see the problems in your pseudo science and worse - in your faulty basic logic.

Your apparent illogic believes your proposition must be true unless someone can produce a definitive argument against it.
Reality is you have no Proposition so the null hypothesus applies.
There is no evidence to explain. I cannotrefute it since you have no proposition to refute, but - since You have no proposition, it cannot be true!. Or is that beyond your logic?


THE ONLY STATEMENT THAT MATTERS

You can settle this very easily by detailing a proposed structure for the first living thing by the definition of life OOL researchers use, then proposing how it came from non living immediate precursors .

NOW DO IT

but You not only can you not do that, you cannot say when, ,what , how ,when or therefore whether it happened.

Frank Robert has this silly idea that by default things react unless someone proves they can’t.
Utter rubbish. I gave a simple example to show it. His logic as bad as his science.

You have an army of other irreconcilable chemical problems. Like many proteins denature at very little over body temperature, and are denatured by even weak acid. The band of life is narrow.

So you not only have a massive problem with irreducible complexity, you have a massive problem with the very narrow band Of conditions in which abiogenesis could happen. You cannot put in a high temperature just to suit one drafted, You have no idea of structure, So you also have an impossible problem to show why abiogenesus desnt continue, because the planet cannot have changed much.
It’s called understanding chemistry


Why are atheists all so dishonest ?

I would not insult your intelligence by saying , “you must accept a miracle happened and it’s incredulity if you don’t” , if I could not tell you when where or even what happened, or provide any evidence it did.

Yet that is EXACTLY how you insult my intelligence with your abiogenesis wish believe….. in which you deliberately ignore all of the obvious problems!

all of you - go back and learn some chemistry, then we can have a science conversation Instead.

I’ll re enter the discussion when you give a precise projected structure for the first living thing from none living precursors.
Till then you have LOST the science argument .

Mountainmike said:

You are as bad as the rest - total wish believe in abiogenesis.
Not a shred of a process or evidence, or chemistry knowledge .
You are welcome to believe it, it isnt science.

Click to expand...

You are persistent in your fallacies.
Science is a process of gathering evidence and using it to make conclusions. When people deny science, they are essentially saying that they do not trust the evidence or the process.


There are many different ways to deny science. Some people simply ignore the evidence. Others attack the scientists who do the research. Still others, like you, create their own alternative facts like abiogenesis is a belief.

Note: The fallacy of saying abiogenesis is a belief is the appeal to ignorance fallacy. This fallacy occurs when someone argues that something must be true because it has not been proven false. In the case of abiogenesis, there is a lot of evidence that suggests that it is possible, but there is no definitive proof. However, the lack of proof does not mean that abiogenesis is not possible. It simply means that we do not know for sure yet.

Mountainmike said:

Frank Robert has this silly idea that by default things react unless someone proves they can’t.
Utter rubbish. I gave a simple example to show it. His logic as bad as his science.

Click to expand...

Add a naive understanding of logic to your naive understanding of science.

To discuss science or logic one needs to have a basic understanding of them which you have not demonstrated. If you believe my logic is faulty then show it were it is faulty. Feel free to use my examples as what needs to be done.

Frank Robert said:

Add a naive understanding of logic to your naive understanding of science.

To discuss science or logic one needs to have a basic understanding of them which you have not demonstrated. If you believe my logic is faulty then show it were it is faulty. Feel free to use my examples as what needs to be done.

Click to expand...

I have a professional view of science and evidence.

you only have wishful thinking.

Evidence of any reaction , non living to non living is not evidence of abiogenesis.

Yoy have no evidence of non living to living , which is the only evidebce that matters for abiogenesis, nor indeed any evidence of cell development from there. So a complete blank.

you believe in scientism , not science - you seemingly don’t understand the difference,

And it is seemingly pointless to give you instruction on any of it, your belief is too strong and your science is too weak.. I will not reply to you again . Pointless.

Mountainmike said:

I have a professional view of science and evidence.

you only have wishful thinking.

Evidence of any reaction , non living to non living is not evidence of abiogenesis.

Yoy have no evidence of non living to living , which is the only evidebce that matters for abiogenesis, nor indeed any evidence of cell development from there. So a complete blank.

you believe in scientism , not science - you seemingly don’t understand the difference,

And it is seemingly pointless to give you instruction on any of it, your belief is too strong and your science is too weak.. I will not reply to you again . Pointless.

Click to expand...

Claim a win and flee the interview

Estrid said:

Claim a win and flee the interview

Click to expand...

You mean I gave up waiting.

Even the most optimistic poster cannot say there is any evidence for the step from non life to life ( which is called abiogenesis. Not where, when, how or what happened.

So The ONLY other entry point science has for a hypothesis is a structure for the first cell, and a process for it that can be tested which starts with non life and ends in life. That presupposes knowing the structure of the first genome.

I asked many times , for detail of that structure , knowing it doesn’t exist.
I gave up waiting for the answer.

Just as bad there is no known process detailed to the present minimum cell either, so neither the start point nor the evolutionary journey is known. Science knows little or nothing About origin of life or evolution at cellular structure level.
I have always said , I might believe iit to if some evidence or credible structure or process were defined
We are a long way even from a valid hypothesis.

It’s not the research I object to - that is worthwhile - it is the wilful deceit on present status leading to such as Dawkins claiming it is a fact, and sadly the world believes him because the cacophony of voices repeats the myth.

it is not the idea it should be researched even the wild speculation , or even scientist faith in it - people have to think big to jump barriers , only to fall flat on their faces. That’s life. So long as they separate what they know from what they believe.

What I object to is misrepresentation of it by so many people -so that such as Frank robert believes passionately that science knows far more than it does.
I blame the scientists not Frank for that.

I pointed out elsewhere how all this happened. Ive studied it all my life,

This is the reality:
In the optimistic world of the fifties / sixties science assumed that it would find blobs of jelly in increasing sophistication from very simple in increasing sophistication to complex life .
It was a very reasonable assumption at the time.
but it isn’t any more, and science hasn’t owned up!

Sadly and increasingly reality kicked in.

DNA sequencing commenced, and the horrendous complexity of even the simplest bacteria was found, also the chemical pathways of cells were discovered and developed that showed they are many orders of magnitude more complex than our most complicated chemical factories.

And nobody now has any idea how they evolved.

Attempts to model the simplest bacteria chemistry function took many hours and hundreds of computers operating . Stripping the cell down below hundreds of genes was a fail.

I have a big book on molecular cell biology next to my desk Detailing essential pathways. Each page is a maze of comple ity, It’s far too big and thick to fit on my bookshelf. I do not think the public has any clue how complex a cell is, or how little is known of how it came to be.

So nobody can now have the optimism of the early days of miller Urey, which is irrelevant in the scheme of the known comple ity, yet science never owned up, and still science pretends it is getting closer!
it hasnt owned up to how far Away it is from even basic understanding,
It still tries to pretend it is a fact - despite no evidence, structure , or valid hypothesis

it is a dreadful indictment on the scientists for a mass con trick.
They May believe it, but it is not only not “ fact” , they don’t even have a testable structure or a valid hypothesus
they should come clean.

Mountainmike said:

I have a professional view of science and evidence.

Click to expand...

Really? Perhaps you will demonstrate that view someday.

Mountainmike said:

you only have wishful thinking.

Click to expand...

Provide the evidence for any of the claims that I have made that you believe are wishful thinking. Remember:

Mountainmike said:

Evidence of any reaction , non living to non living is not evidence of abiogenesis.

Click to expand...

I have not made that argument. You must have me confused with someone else. However, there is evidence that makes abiognesis plausible.

Mountainmike said:

Yoy have no evidence of non living to living , which is the only evidebce that matters for abiogenesis, nor indeed any evidence of cell development from there. So a complete blank.

Click to expand...

I haven't made that argument either. As I said above the evidence makes abiogenesis plausible and therefore worthy of studying.

Mountainmike said:

you believe in scientism , not science - you seemingly don’t understand the difference,

Click to expand...

I don't have any need to defend myself against nonsensical opinions

Mountainmike said:

And it is seemingly pointless to give you instruction on any of it, your belief is too strong and your science is too weak.. I will not reply to you again . Pointless.

Click to expand...

Awesome! That means I won't have any to respond to your fallacious beliefs.