Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[Hans Blaster]

Speaking of not citing ones sources...

Copy and Paste
Copy and Paste

 

[Subduction Zone]

It shouldn't go unnoticed that just about every claim made (to me) by @chad kincham, over the last several pages of this thread, has been demonstrated objectively, (by linking to peer reviewed journal materials), as being completely and utterly false!
You are more than justified in saying his basis of argument is pure belief .. (as I predict he will continue to demonstrate, by showing no logic or objective science basis for his claims).

Denial is the only strategy left for him and his sort.

Do you think that he will find a peer reviewed paper of Tour's? I wish him luck. I can easily find and link peer reviewed papers by Szostak. You and I both know what will be missing from his peer reviewed work. It will not have all of the shortcuts that he used in work for amateurs. Peer reviewed works are often rather dry and boring because one must be formal in those articles. Lectures, letters, etc. allow a bit more leeway.

 

[SelfSim]

For @chad kincham's consideration (I know .. here come the optimistic icons ..):

'A belief is that which I hold to be true out of preference that does not follow from objective tests and is not beholden to the rules of logic'.

ETA: What gets me here is that his beliefs have blinded him so much as to produce an almost perfect 'false' count on just about all of his claims thus far!
Maybe Tour is driven to blindness in the same way(?) .. as Hurd claims.

 

[Astrid]

We probably would. Of course we do not have the same environment that existed when life arose. Life itself will consume the precursors to life. The existence of life makes new life very hard if not impossible to rise again.

There is scientific evidence for abiogenesis. Those opposing it cannot seem to find any scientific evidence for their beliefs. They cannot even formally state those beliefs.

How? You don't even know what life is.
And if some microscopic lil bit of life came along somewhere,
this is a big place to be checking with electron microscope for
who knows what.

Besides the first paramecium that came along would just eat it.

Could be a super common event but it's going to be super hard to ever see it.

 

[Astrid]

For @chad kincham's consideration (I know .. here come the optimistic icons ..):

'A belief is that which I hold to be true out of preference that does not follow from objective tests and is not beholden to the rules of logic'.

ETA: What gets me here is that his beliefs have blinded him so much as to produce an almost perfect 'false' count on just about all of his claims thus far!
Maybe Tour is driven to blindness in the same way(?) .. as Hurd claims.

What creationist ever got a better score

 

[chad kincham]

For @chad kincham's consideration (I know .. here come the optimistic icons ..):

'A belief is that which I hold to be true out of preference that does not follow from objective tests and is not beholden to the rules of logic'.

ETA: What gets me here is that his beliefs have blinded him so much as to produce an almost perfect 'false' count on just about all of his claims thus far!
Maybe Tour is driven to blindness in the same way(?) .. as Hurd claims.

The irony of your statement is incredible.

 

[SelfSim]

The irony of your statement is incredible.

Your personal incredulity makes no difference.

Throughout our interchanges here, I have only responded to your claims .. by testing them and then finding lots of objective evidence to the contrary.

There is no 'irony' coming from that .. its just testing .. followed by results.

 

[Shemjaza]

No, amino acids are not a DNA precursor.

DNA is complex information encoded in a biological programming language, and amino acids build protein chains.

There is no mechanism in nature that can write information in a four letter biological programming code.

Scientist Francis Collins who headed the human genome project, wrote a book called The Signature of God about DNA and the fact that it requires intelligence from a mind to write DNA - and many others acknowledge that DNA is a four letter biological programming code, just as computer programming language is a two letter (binary) code that requires a programmer.

The fact that life only comes from life precludes the abiogenesis fairy from magically causing organic chemicals to come to life.

Abiogenesis remains completely unproven, in any possible prebiotic scenario - where there’s no one in a white lab coat to use purified chemicals and stop reactions they get before they continue and polymerize and become useless, etc.

Two major issues.

First: Information, how is it objectively measured and in what metric.
(No creationist has ever been able to answer this question in a way that prevents its increase by non-intelligent mechanisms).

Second: You assertion that the "Law of biogenesis" is an absolute fact has not been supported.
What is the evidence that abiogenesis is actually impossible?

 

[Frank Robert]

Still very laughable and irrelevant, and a perfect example of the baloney foisted upon the public.

Miss the forest for the trees. The Miller-Urey experiment alone kick-started an entirely new field of study: Prebiotic Chemistry as well as spurring new research into RNA and DNA.

They created no living cell. The took a living cell with its membrane and endless related components that no one can make, and without which a cell couldn’t exist, and replaced the biological programming code that is the operating system for the cell, and wrote a segment of DNA which they inserted into the cell.

They may appear minor to you but what it is teaching us about cells is massive. The research has relevance for enzyme therapy, gene therapy, drug release and delivery. hemoperfusion and many others

That’s like me learning to write computer programming language, and replacing Windows 10 with a different operating system, then bragging I created a computer.
I couldn’t possibly make a mid tower case, power supply, motherboard, hard drive, sound card, video card, etc, of my own from scratch - and they can’t even come close to producing a living cell, they merely hijacked a living cell and reprogrammed a segment of DNA code.

Your analogy is based superficial comparisons.

Once again, Professor James Tour explains in detail how complex the simplest cell is, and why no one can build one from scratch.

See: Argument from incredulity

 

[Mr Laurier]

Okay ... I watched the first 2 minutes of this.

Why am I not surprised.

Your attempts to make this issue with the Abrahamic Covenant (Israel being in her "promised land") a racial thing with the Palestinians [sic] is not cutting it with me, Dan.

Yes. You tend to reject the truth in favour of fantasy.

There is one race on the earth: the human race.

Tell that to the settlers in Palestine

Or, as the Bible calls us: mankind.

... which it does not.

This means that, whether it was the Mongoloids, Negroids, or Caucasoids that are demanding Israel's land for peace ... it doesn't matter.

... which they are not.

The aforementioned Halloween Monster didn't care.

Thats nice.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Dan, I have now watched your video in its entirety.

I'd like to clarify again that my issues are not race-related at all.

My issues here are with anti-Biblical science: science that does not comport to a literal translation of the Bible.

You can call me "antiscience" or a "science hater" or whatever else you can think of; but to do so, you have to deny my heuristics:

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

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

When people scoff at my directives, which they would have to do, then I don't really take their accusations against me seriously.

Wow. Such a sad waste of human potential.

 

[Frank Robert]

And there’s only several million more steps required to build a living cell. Gee, they’re so close!

See: Argument from incredulity

 

[chad kincham]

Miss the forest for the trees. The Miller-Urey experiment alone kick-started an entirely new field of study: Prebiotic Chemistry as well as spurring new research into RNA and DNA.

That experiment proved nothing.

The main substance that developed was tar, and there had to be a trap/filter in it to capture and separate out the elements they wanted to get, then had to remove them quickly before they deteriorated.

There’s no mechanism for abiogenesis in any primordial earth scenario.

 

[Frank Robert]

That experiment proved nothing.

The main substance that developed was tar, and there had to be a trap/filter in it to capture and separate out the elements they wanted to get, then had to remove them quickly before they deteriorated.

There’s no mechanism for abiogenesis in any primordial earth scenario.

Some people see the glass as half fill others wear creationists' blinders that block them from seeing the glass at all.

If you don't search for the mechanism you will never find it if it is there.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

That experiment proved nothing.

The main substance that developed was tar, and there had to be a trap/filter in it to capture and separate out the elements they wanted to get, then had to remove them quickly before they deteriorated.

There’s no mechanism for abiogenesis in any primordial earth scenario.

Not much of a scientist are you. They demonstrated something that had not been seen before. A scientist would ask, where do we go from here with this new information.

 

[Frank Robert]

deleted

 

[Astrid]

Not much of a scientist are you. They demonstrated something that had not been seen before. A scientist would ask, where do we go from here with this new information.

A lot of people get their ignorance from movies that feature a
scientist forging out far ahead of all others with dramatic leaps.

99.999etc percent of all basic research is in tiny steps that may
or may not ever lead even to another tiny step.

That anyone even talks about Miller and Co. decades later as
if its somehow a relevant to the state of the art is a true
Sign of 'science" knowledge restricted to creationist site lies.

 

[Frank Robert]

deleted

 

[AV1611VET]

“Life is not a miracle,” Urey said.

Urey's in aitch.

 

[SelfSim]

There’s no mechanism for abiogenesis in any primordial earth scenario.

Yet another bogus claim:
Autocatalysis:

Autocatalytic sets also have the ability to replicate themselves if they are split apart into two physically separated spaces. Computer models illustrate that split autocatalytic sets will reproduce all of the reactions of the original set in each half, much like cellular mitosis. In effect, using the principles of autocatalysis, a small metabolism can replicate itself with very little high level organization. This property is why autocatalysis is a contender as the foundational mechanism for complex evolution.