How The Multiverse Can Unite Religions

[SelfSim]

Why would a creationist mention a first cell popping into existence, when God "popped" some 57,308,738 square miles of angiosperms into existence in less than a day?

Who cares what creationists (etc) 'mention' .. when we already know that molecular reproduction occurs spontaneously as a phase transition in a sufficiently complex peptide 'soup' of autocatalytic sets, under the right conditions? Protocells then form from rudimentary lipid based vesicle structures. We have then completed Abiogenesis and then move into the protocell Evolutionary phase of the process.

There's also no need for scripture based stories in any of this empirically produced and independently verifiable objective knowledge.

Hypotheses are then proposed based upon all of this .. for the sole purpose of making testable predictions.

 

[Mountainmike]

Clearly autocatalytic reactions do form part of living cells.

The existence of some autocatalytic reactions does not invalidate what I said!

Context is everything.

The components so far shown to appear from chemical soup are not autocatalytic self starting processes leading to cells. They are building blocks. Which do not demonstrate self building houses.

the fact some component of a house can self design, doesn’t mean houses can self design,

The rest as I say is conjecture.

As yet no specifuc intermediate to the minimum cell is postulated , nor has it ever been observed, nor can it be reproduced, and without that no specific process can be postulated.

There is a just big fat void. The rest is speculation, not hypothesis.

Notice what I didn’t say. I didn’t say nor will any ever be found.
I’m just pointing at the state of abiogenesis science. The belief in such is just belief. There are disconnected ideas. Nothing else.

You are also engaging on another type of falasy, I described in a previous post. The fact you can get closer to the moon walking up a mountain does not mean you can get to the moon walking up a mountain. The fact an autocatalytic reaction might help get part of the way, doesn’t mean you can get there that way, or that it happened that way.

Without an end to end process , all there is is speculation.

It’s fascinating. It might even be true.
But all that is there is conjecture and belief at present.

Meanwhile There is actual forensic evidence of theistic origin of life:
The white cells and heart myocardium of so called Eucharistic miracles. The intimate fusion of bread and flesh cells that cannot be faked. Blood forcing its way out of bread not in. ( tixtla) Heart cells that show signs of trauma. They should not be alive in vitro but white cells prove they are.

To disprove them a number of independent credible forensic labs and pathologists in several countries must be wrong, whose day job is criminology. Study them.

If it’s true it also disproves Darwin’s ToE using the test Darwin himself set to disprove it.

There is much more....

Statues bleed live on camera whose forensics show both traumatised skin cells and even cells seemingly Thorns. From where? For a plaster head with no channels visible on CT scan witnessed by many with live cameras rolling over months. That’s quite a party trick ( Cochabamba)

Not the point. You started this with:
So, I'm saying that there is hard evidence that autocatalytic reactions in organic chemistry (specific sets of them) are self-sustaining, thus drawing parallels with your analogy, whilst pointing out that autocatalytic reactants do, in fact, produce 'self designing self building houses'. Ie: your claim is falsified by this objective observation.

Autocatalysis plays a major role in the processes of present-day life .. and was also present as base chemistry before life emerged, courtesy of chemical kinetics. Autocatalysis therefore becomes known as pre-biotic chemistry for the purposes of making testable predictions (and thus is not just idle speculation or conjecture).

PS: Just for informational purposes: 'A set of chemical reactions can be said to be 'collectively autocatalytic' if a number of those reactions produce, as reaction products, catalysts for enough of the other reactions that the entire set of chemical reactions is self-sustaining given an input of energy and food molecules (an autocatalytic set)'.

 

[SelfSim]

The components so far shown to appear from chemical soup are not autocatalytic self starting processes leading to cells.

Yes they are .. they are peptides which form self replicating molecules. A peptide bond forms when the amino group of one amino acid bonds to the carboxyl group of another amino acid. A peptide is two or more amino acids joined together by peptide bonds, and a polypeptide, is a chain of many amino acids. A protein contains one or more polypeptides.

They are building blocks. Which do not demonstrate self building houses.

the fact some component of a house can self design, doesn’t mean houses can self design,

I don't care about your analogy .. the implication it makes, is just not true in the real example of autocatytic reaction networks.

The autocatalytic network hypothesis goes:

Given that:
i) autocatalytic sets are highly likely to exist in chemical reaction networks;
ii) that they are able to evolve and become more complex and;
iii) that they exist in present day real chemical and biological networks and;
iv) have been demonstrated as being able to form basic protocells when enclosed in lipid vesicles and;
v) the molecules required as a 'food source' for the reactions were present in the prebiotic Earth environment;

then, the hypothesis part is:

'Perhaps life started with a spontaneous formation of one or more cataytic sets, which gradually diversified and evolved into more and more complex chemical networks, eventually leading to metabolic networks ... or in other words, life arising as a co-operative effort among diverse molecule types, in catalytically closed and self-sustaining reaction networks'.

The predictions of this hypothesis sets the scene for other testable hypothesis which can be carried out on moons and planets within our technological reach.

It is not based on pure belief. It is based on lab demonstrable reactions and is supported by the principles of theoretical chemistry and reaction network theory.

The rest as I say is conjecture.

Your word on this is insufficient when going up against the mountain of empirical evidence which stand contrary to your claims of 'speculative' and 'conjecture'.

As yet no specifuc intermediate to the minimum cell is postulated , nor has it ever been observed, nor can it be reproduced, and without that no specific process can be postulated.

Bogus assertion .. Simply not true.
Autocataytic subsets have been shown to exist within a sets of reactions. The hierarchical subset structure of nested reactions facilitates the concept of the existence certain types of protocells. Lipid based vesicles have been shown (separately) as self-forming and are capable of containing these individually nested reactions, which then qualify as testable protocells.

There is a just big fat void. The rest is speculation, not hypothesis.

Bogus, unevidenced arm-waving claim!
...

I’m just pointing at the state of abiogenesis science.

Sorry .. you are not the one explaining any science whatsoever, here. Yours is just another unsupported, bogus claim.

The belief in such is just belief.

What a totally useless and unthinking statement .. ie: 'a belief is just a belief'! Duh! Doh!
Completely hilarious!

You are also engaging on another type of falasy, I described in a previous post. The fact you can get closer to the moon walking up a mountain does not mean you can get to the moon walking up a mountain. The fact an autocatalytic reaction might help get part of the way, doesn’t mean you can get there that way, or that it happened that way.

Its a testable hypothesis which makes predictions of what to look for, and where look for it!
You are the one making the straw-man of some claim made up by you, that someone said: 'it happened that way'.
In fact, you need that straw-man for you to argue your beliefs and I, for one, will not fall for it .. (sorry if you thought I would).

 

[Mountainmike]

Meanwhile.

I will believe abiogenesis if and when an intermediate to the minimum cell is postulated, or found, process to the minimum cell and from soup to the intermediate.

For all the blather, all there is only speculation of possible bits of process that may or may not Be involved, for some ( unspecified) part of it. That is a fair summary of the possible involvement of autocatalysis.

a process that may or may not self produce a brick is not evidence of an 18000 protein self evolving chemical factory. It is a Minor plausibility test.

I like science.
You are welcome to speculation.
I may even agree with you on the plausibility of some of it.

But you are letting pure speculation be treated as Dawkins would state it “ evolution as close to a fact as it can be” as explanation for life. When Dawkins has no idea whatsoever how life started. Just speculation.

Meanwhile there is actual real forensic evidence of so called= Eucharistic miracles - heart myocardium with live cells- where once was only bread. I’m happy to accept a disproof of them - like a credible mechanism by how they were faked - but none has been forthcoming.

So on pure forensic evidence stakes for origin of life.
Creation at least 5 I know of,
evolution absolutely 0 . Zip.

incidentally those are sufficient assuming real to disprove Darwin’s theory by the criterion Darwin himself set.

Let me know if that changes.
If abiogenesis gets further than speculation.
Ie a demonstrated cell far less sophisticated with potential to become the minimum cell we know.

You also fail to address an issue equally important.
Is consciousness just a chemical process , therefore confined to brain.

There is plenty of evidence it isn’t. If that is so, the physical being, evolution, is only part of the answer to life, not all of it.

Yes they are .. they are peptides which form self replicating molecules. A peptide bond forms when the amino group of one amino acid bonds to the carboxyl group of another amino acid. A peptide is two or more amino acids joined together by peptide bonds, and a polypeptide, is a chain of many amino acids. A protein contains one or more polypeptides.
I don't care about your analogy .. the implication it makes, is just not true in the real example of autocatytic reaction networks.

The autocatalytic network hypothesis goes:

Given that:
i) autocatalytic sets are highly likely to exist in chemical reaction networks;
ii) that they are able to evolve and become more complex and;
iii) that they exist in present day real chemical and biological networks and;
iv) have been demonstrated as being able to form basic protocells when enclosed in lipid vesicles and;
v) the molecules required as a 'food source' for the reactions were present in the prebiotic Earth environment;

then, the hypothesis part is:

'Perhaps life started with a spontaneous formation of one or more cataytic sets, which gradually diversified and evolved into more and more complex chemical networks, eventually leading to metabolic networks ... or in other words, life arising as a co-operative effort among diverse molecule types, in catalytically closed and self-sustaining reaction networks'.

The predictions of this hypothesis sets the scene for other testable hypothesis which can be carried out on moons and planets within our technological reach.

It is not based on pure belief. It is based on lab demonstrable reactions and is supported by the principles of theoretical chemistry and reaction network theory.
Your word on this is insufficient when going up against the mountain of empirical evidence which stand contrary to your claims of 'speculative' and 'conjecture'.
Bogus assertion .. Simply not true.
Autocataytic subsets have been shown to exist within a sets of reactions. The hierarchical subset structure of nested reactions facilitates the concept of the existence certain types of protocells. Lipid based vesicles have been shown (separately) as self-forming and are capable of containing these individually nested reactions, which then qualify as testable protocells.
Bogus, unevidenced arm-waving claim!
...
Sorry .. you are not the one explaining any science whatsoever, here. Yours is just another unsupported, bogus claim.
What a totally useless and unthinking statement .. ie: 'a belief is just a belief'! Duh! Doh!
Completely hilarious!
Its a testable hypothesis which makes predictions of what to look for, and where look for it!
You are the one making the straw-man of some claim made up by you, that someone said: 'it happened that way'.
In fact, you need that straw-man for you to argue your beliefs and I, for one, will not fall for it .. (sorry if you thought I would).

 

[Mr Laurier]

Most atheists worldview is so rigid it doesn’t allow new information in. sad but true.

You have never met an atheist, have you.

 

[Mountainmike]

You have never met an atheist, have you.

Since much of the world is atheist, we all know many people, you must know that isn’t true. So Why say it? What does it add? How unscientific!

In my discussion with atheists , when we stray on to contentious ground, they refuse to even look at ( for example) my arguments or evidence on shroud or Eucharistic miracles, before give a conclusuon on them.

By way of example: Which one of you has since looked up “ sudarium of Oviedo” or “ tixtla eucharistic miracle.”? Have you?

I distinguish atheist. Actively against Theism.

From agnostic, don’t know or don’t care. A more respectable academic position, where atheism is a faith.

I will say this.

A scientist addresses evidence and argument. See a precis of some of my thoughts above. Not my thoughts on posters.
So indeed does self-sim. I’m interested in his arguments.

You can tell between believers and scientists:
- sceptic scientists address the arguments. They play the ball,
- sceptic believers address the person. They play the man. Most of the recent posts.

Now which were you?
I’m happy to talk evidence.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Since much of the world is atheist,

... with "much" meaning a very small percentage.

 

[Mountainmike]

... with "much" meaning a very small percentage.

A survey of British Social Attitudes in the UK put it at 25% and growing 2 years ago , I dont think that is small, and it begs another question: of those who declare a religious affiliation, many are nominal only. eg were baptized.

Speaking to people I would put the percentage far higher, particularly of those who think that somehow science has displaced God. That all is somehow "explicable" by science so express there is no God. So many "nominal" affiliations are de facto atheist when you argue deeper.

It surprises me that more do not declare the far more academically justifiable "agnosticism" I doubt many respondents understand the fundamental difference.

I notice you dont comment on evidence.
Faith based atheists generally comment on posters not the evidence.

Lets try again.

Have you studied eucharistic miracles such as Tixtla? It matters because it is evidence of life without evolution. Im happy to accept evidence it was a fraud. But there is none to date, indeed it is hard to see how it can be faked.

Have you heard of the sudarium of oviedo? How The forensic evidence and how it destroys the notion that (a) the shroud is a fake (b) it is mediaeval.

Do you accept there is no evidence of the existence of, past or present, or any proposed structure for an intermediate between chemical soup and the minimum cell we know of (with 10000+++ proteins manufactured!) lots of genes. ie...."life from soup" is a belief, not evidenced. Im happy to accept it exists. If some evidence can be produced. There is none.

How did a statue with no internal channels bleed on live continuous rolling TV, and which blood was found to contain skin cells by forensics? Cochabamba as example if you want to look it up.

Do you regard consciousness as a chemical process confined to the brain? If you do, how do you explain evidence that it may not be?

etc

All fascinating questions. I rarely find evolutionist atheists willing to even engage on them. They prefer to insult those who post.

 

[Speedwell]

A survey of British Social Attitudes in the UK put it at 25% and growing 2 years ago , I dont think that is small, and it begs another question: of those who declare a religious affiliation, many are nominal only. eg were baptized. Speaking to people I would put the percentage far higher, particularly of those who think that somehow science has displaced God. That all is somehow "explicable" by science so express there is no God.

Which is a failure on the part of religious education. Any church which passively allows its adherents to come to the belief that science is antagonistic to religion or can displace God has failed at the Great Commission.

So many "nominal" affiliations are de facto atheist when you argue deeper.

It surprises me that more do not declare the far more academically justifiable "agnosticism"
I doubt many respondents understand the fundamental difference.

I notice you dont comment on evidence.

According to Pew, here we are running at 4% atheists and 5% agnostics, who make up a part of the 26% who claim no religious affiliation.

 

[AV1611VET]

It surprises me that more do not declare the far more academically justifiable "agnosticism" I doubt many respondents understand the fundamental difference.

In God's eyes, one is either a believer or an unbeliever.

Hebrews 3:19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

As Adam Clarke so aptly puts it:

"It was no decree of God that prevented them, it was no want of necessary strength to enable them, it was through no deficiency of Divine counsel to instruct them; all these they had in abundance: but they chose to sin, and would not believe.

Unbelief produced disobedience, and disobedience produced hardness of heart and blindness of mind; and all these drew down the judgments of God, and wrath came upon them to the uttermost."

 

[AV1611VET]

Any church which passively allows its adherents to come to the belief that science is antagonistic to religion or can displace God has failed at the Great Commission.

Fail? or Pass?

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

And before you grade it, take especial note of #4.

 

[Estrid]

Demonstrating you don’t understand the problem of abiogenesis or the scientific method.

Miller Urey at best showed how a few bricks could appear.

It doesn’t take genius to recognise bricks may be evidence of ability of a someone to build houses , it has nothing whatsoever to say about self designing self building houses.

The quantum chemistry ( which I am guessing I understand better than you do) says the likelihood of an 18000 protein factory ( minimum cell) popping into existence is zero.

To postulate abiogenesis you need to DEFINE an intermediate , a process to it by PROBABLE random chance chemistry, and a process from there to our minimum cell. Or observe it, or reproduce it, neither of which anyone can. There also needs to be an explanation for why it cannot be observed still occuring.

You have none of the above. Zip, Nada. No hypothesis, no experiment. Just blind faith. You are welcome to it: but accept what it is :atheist speculation.

Since you seem to doubt that. Miller Urey suggested a route to small molecule biochemicals, That’s all. Barely bricks.

So put a pile of bricks on your drive, see how long they take to self design into a a house. Abiogenesis so far is pseudoscience not the real thing.


It is pure speculation dressed up as a scientific theory, it doesn’t qualify, or even as a hypothesis.

but then I’m a scientist so I care about abuse of terminology.


ive also pointed out serious problems with postulation of some macro evolutionary jumps. Again because I understand the science.

I've been around a lot of scientists.
You sure don't talk like one.

 

[AV1611VET]

I've been around a lot of scientists.

It shows.

 

[durangodawood]

I ask atheists who call me bonkers, the same question.

Then they all claim it all has to conform to ( their) reason instead. Ie not bonkers.

I point out their reason is just a sum of experience of repeatable things, and the assumption the moon is there before they look at it is part of their world view, so a philosophy based on scientific reality is bonkers,

I then point out the religion of atheism ( more correctly scientific realism) can’t accept the moon isn’t there till they look....

So I suggest we are all bonkers.

Well youre going way beyond the sort of bonkers I was allowing for. I mean, I think humans are well equipped to grasp reality at the human scale. Im not ready to throw out the human baby with the quantum bathwater as you seem to propose.

 

[durangodawood]

Fail? or Pass?

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

And before you grade it, take especial note of #4.

You say "Bible says".

Why dont you say instead: "bible means"?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Incidentally a neutrino or neutron storm would be plenty enough to wreck RC dating.

A neutrino 'storm'? what's that, what neutrino energies are you suggesting, and how would it make any difference to RC dating?

 

[AV1611VET]

You say "Bible says".

Why dont you say instead: "bible means"?

Because the Bible means what It says.

 

[durangodawood]

Because the Bible means what It says.

So some people are actually salt because Jesus said so?

 

[Estrid]

A neutrino 'storm'? what's that, what neutrino energies are you suggesting, and how would it make any difference to RC dating?

The exact details.

 

[AV1611VET]

So some people are actually salt because Jesus said so?

Luke 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.