How the Smallest Cells Give Big Evidence for a Creator

[pitabread]

Chromosome Fusion? It’s Getting Harder and Harder to Believe. – Proslogion

Curious that the author makes zero mention of the presence of telomeres (repetitive sequences normally found at the end of chromosomes) within the chromosome 2 near the centromere.

If chromosome 2 wasn't the result of a fusion, it sure was made to appear that way.

 

[pitabread]

What you do have is a dogmatic conviction to atheism which ignores actual evidence and science method in favor of unscientific ad hoc rescues when the going get rough.

Uh-huh. Tell you what: you provide some legit, scientific evidence for the existence of supernatural creator of life on Earth that doesn't merely boil down to an argument from incredulity and I'll consider it.

Otherwise, you're just wasting everyone's time.

Good luck.

 

[dmmesdale]

Uh-huh. Tell you what:

Sarcasm is not a rational response.

you provide some legit, scientific evidence for the existence of supernatural creator of life on Earth that doesn't merely boil down to an argument from incredulity and I'll consider it.

Otherwise, you're just wasting everyone's time.

Good luck.

Science is not the only way to deduce the truth.
Argument from incredulity is simply regurgitated, Dawkins. It can be rationally addressed at any apologetics site.

As far as wasting everyone's time. That is just another fiction. I do not control everyone's time nor am I responsible for their beliefs. If you consider my posts a waste of your time then do not respond. You do not speak for everyone. Your atheistic convictions blind you from evidence.

 

[dmmesdale]

What was your source for this quote? It appears to be from a bogus source.

The source does not matter if the information is correct. Besides it is easy enough to find if you know what you are doing.

 

[bhsmte]

The source does not matter if the information is correct. Besides it is easy enough to find if you know what you are doing.

Can you provide evidence to show the information is correct?

 

[pitabread]

Your atheistic convictions blind you from evidence.

I've repeatedly challenged you to post this so-called evidence, and so far you've posted diddly-squat.

 

[bhsmte]

Sarcasm is not a rational response. Science is not the only way to deduce the truth.
Argument from incredulity is simply regurgitated, Dawkins. It can be rationally addressed at any apologetics site.

As far as wasting everyone's time. That is just another fiction. I do not control everyone's time nor am I responsible for their beliefs. If you consider my posts a waste of your time then do not respond. You do not speak for everyone. Your atheistic convictions blind you from evidence.

Judging by the content of this thread, this appears to be projection.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The source does not matter if the information is correct. Besides it is easy enough to find if you know what you are doing.

I question it because it does not appear to be correct.

But thanks for confirming that it was wrong and that it was a bogus source. One that had gotten their claim from a proper source would have linked it without shame.

 

[dmmesdale]

I question it because it does not appear to be correct.

How so? Is Dawkins incorrect? If u say so?

But thanks for confirming that it was wrong and that it was a bogus source. One that had gotten their claim from a proper source would have linked it without shame.

The source does not matter if the information is correct and i have linked it in the past. This is not the first time it has been used. Besides, if you knew what you are doing then you could find the link. I am not here to spoon feed you. Do your own work.

Wrong again. In the lab they attempt to mimic early Earth conditions. That is the only way that abiogenesis can be observed again.

LOL! What was that about magic?

''As Elliot Sober points out, many possible pasts often correspond to any given present state. Establishing the past with certainty, or even beyond reasonable doubt, can therefore, be very difficult.''

And you are making the error of comparing modern day life, that has had over 3 BILLION years of evolution behind it, to the first life. The first life would have been extremely simple compared to today's life.

And you know that how? That being if it was 3 bil years ago? More ad hoc rescues?

That is merely because you are taking a bogus approach. And no, LUCA is well evidenced. You keep making the mistake of forgetting that there is no evidence for creationism at all.

Luca is nonexistent. If they have a footprint of bigfoot then they have more evidence then they have of LUCA. Not one shred of actual evidence anywhere. More faith on display. They are imaginary.

The first life would not even qualify as "bacteria."

Bacteria is the simplest life and what you are stating is more evidence free assumptions about the deep past based on an atheistic paradigm. Not interested in your blind faith or your atheistic creation myths. What can you show with empirical evidence?

Do you know what problems Szostak has solved yet?

His money problems? If the possibility of life arising from nonlife is almost zero then its alternative of life arising from a living source is virtually guaranteed.

 

[dmmesdale]

Judging by the content of this thread, this appears to be projection.

Not interested in your judgements nor your cheap shots. If you have a rational case then make it.

 

[bhsmte]

Not interested in your judgements nor your cheap shots. If you have a rational case then make it.

I was just waiting for you to support your claims with evidence, as others are.

 

[dmmesdale]

I was just waiting for you to support your claims with evidence, as others are.

The problem is not with the evidence. Which is overwhelming. I would like to see some of your evidence for life from nonlife. Seeing as how evidence is so important to you. Or is it another do as you say and not as you do? If evidence was important then you woud not be an atheist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How so? Is Dawkins incorrect? If u say so?

That does not look like Dawkin's work.

The source does not matter if the information is correct and i have linked it in the past. This is not the first time it has been used. Besides, if you knew what you are doing then you could find the link. I am not here to spoon feed you. Do your own work.

Of course the source matters. Creationist sources tend to lie through quote mining and distorting the work of real scientists. And you do not seem to realize that it is part of YOUR work to supply a link for your quotes when one is requested. By not doing so it makes you look like you are the one that is lying and I am sure that you do not want that.

LOL! What was that about magic?

''As Elliot Sober points out, many possible pasts often correspond to any given present state. Establishing the past with certainty, or even beyond reasonable doubt, can therefore, be very difficult.''

Another quote out of context. Do you not understand the concept of quote mining? Quote mining is done when someone quotes someone or something out of context in an attempt to distort what was said or outright lie. For example the Bible says 12 different times "there is no God". If I used those quotes out of context to support atheism would that be dishonest?

And you know that how? That being if it was 3 bil years ago? More ad hoc rescues?

You don't seem to know the meaning of the word "ad hoc". Life evolves once it exists. It is very obvious that the life from the far past would not be the same as life of today.

And there is no"if" about it. Do you understand how materials are dated? Do you understand that creationists do not have any explanations that are not self contradictory.

You are not letting yourself reason.

Luca is nonexistent. If they have a footprint of bigfoot then they have more evidence then they have of LUCA. Not one shred of actual evidence anywhere. More faith on display. They are imaginary.

Wrong again, but then you more than likely do not even know what evidence is. So far I have yet to meet one creationist that is even willing to discuss the subject. Most know that they are wrong and run away from the topic. Are you going to keep it 100%? If you don't understand the concept of evidence you can't claim "faith". At least not honestly.

Bacteria is the simplest life and what you are stating is more evidence free assumptions about the deep past based on an atheistic paradigm. Not interested in your blind faith or your atheistic creation myths. What can you show with empirical evidence?

Until you demonstrate that you understand the nature of evidence you are in no position to demand any. Show me that you understand what is and what is not evidence and then I will honor your request.

His money problems? If the possibility of life arising from nonlife is almost zero then its alternative of life arising from a living source is virtually guaranteed.

Oh my, even as a joke one should not bear false witness against another. You could have at least admitted that you have no clue.

And no one has demonstrated that the possibility of life from nonlife is "almost zero". Al that I have ever seen are strawman arguments at best. Identify the strawman and the argument falls apart.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not interested in your judgements nor your cheap shots. If you have a rational case then make it.

Oh my! Massive projection.

I am more than willing to help you. But first you really need to learn what evidence is.

 

[pitabread]

I was just waiting for you to support your claims with evidence, as others are.

Evidently, they have none.

At this point, we're probably just being trolled.

 

[bhsmte]

The problem is not with the evidence. Which is overwhelming. I would like to see some of your evidence for life from nonlife. Seeing as how evidence is so important to you. Or is it another do as you say and not as you do? If evidence was important then you woud not be an atheist.

i cant recall making a claim about life from non life. Feel free to give me a post number. So are you going to share this over whelming evidence?

 

[dmmesdale]

i cant recall making a claim about life from non life.

Have you denied it? Are you now? No you are not.

Feel free to give me a post number.

Don't waste my time.

So are you going to share this over whelming evidence?

If you are an atheist and the subject is origin of life then the default is life from nonlife. Are you asserting you do not believe all life here is from nonlife? Atheists can claim ignorance but their actions speak louder then anything they say since they will run to any nonliving hypo out there like fly's to dog poo. Atheists pick up one end of the stick and they pick up the other. To be atheist is to assume all life here is from nonlife and everything is from nothing. There is no middle ground. No room for ignorance. Not given the totality of the evidence.

Now provide evidence for life from nonlife. Do your job.

 

[bhsmte]

Have you denied it? Are you now? No you are not. Don't waste my time.
If you are an atheist and the subject is origin of life then the default is life from nonlife. Are you asserting you do not believe all life here is from nonlife? Atheists can claim ignorance but their actions speak louder then anything they say since they will run to any nonliving hypo out there like fly's to dog poo. Atheists pick up one end of the stick and they pick up the other. To be atheist is to assume all life here is from nonlife and everything is from nothing. There is no middle ground. No room for ignorance. Not given the totality of the evidence.

Now provide evidence for life from nonlife. Do your job.

Dont waste my time.

 

[Lily of Valleys]

They do. Too bad that all you can find are dishonest sources. When one can only find bad resources it indicates that they are wrong.

Feel free to address the content of those links directly and point out where and why they are wrong with the backup of evidence.

 

[Lily of Valleys]

Curious that the author makes zero mention of the presence of telomeres (repetitive sequences normally found at the end of chromosomes) within the chromosome 2 near the centromere.

If chromosome 2 wasn't the result of a fusion, it sure was made to appear that way.

If you are interested, here is a more recent peer-reviewed technical paper published in February this year with more detailed explanations on the topic including telomeres:

Debunking the Debunkers