My abiogenesis challenge

[Bungle_Bear]

cannot have been deposited on the sample as a fraud

Really? How would you demonstrate that?

 

[Bradskii]

I assume you mean the intercalated discs which the report specifically says they couldn't find?

I suggest you read your own sources before making up these claims.

And the only reference I can find to 'various cardiac specialists' innregard to Buenos Aires are two guys. One in Sydney, who was reported to be John Walker from Syney Uni. Except there was no-one at the faculty by that name at the time the 'miracle' was tested.

The other being Frederik Zugibe from NY. And in various articles and interviews, nothing is mentioned whatsoever about it.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

And the only reference I can find to 'various cardiac specialists' innregard to Buenos Aires are two guys. One in Sydney, who was reported to be John Walker from Syney Uni. Except there was no-one at the faculty by that name at the time the 'miracle' was tested.

The other being Frederik Zugibe from NY. And in various articles and interviews, nothing is mentioned whatsoever about it.

Frederick T Zugibe - the "independent" pathologist, and author of such unbiased works as "The Cross and the Shroud: A Medical Inquiry into the Crucifixion" later revised and republished as "The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry". Not to mention his multiple TV programmes about the Shroud, stigmata, and various other supposed miracles. No apparent conflict of interest there.....

 

[Bradskii]

Frederick T Zugibe - the "independent" pathologist, and author of such unbiased works as "The Cross and the Shroud: A Medical Inquiry into the Crucifixion" later revised and republished as "The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry". Not to mention his multiple TV programmes about the Shroud, stigmata, and various other supposed miracles. No apparent conflict of interest there.....

Of course not. He'd be the first person on anyone's list to give an impartial and unbiased (and oddly unpublished) report. What's not to doubt?

 

[Mountainmike]

I assume you mean the intercalated discs which the report specifically says they couldn't find?

I suggest you read your own sources before making up these claims.

Do you never actually READ what is written?

1/ it only matters that there is evidence of created tissue - type is only incidental, so the criticism is not pertinent.

2/ but I also spoke of the positive identification of cardiac tissue on the OTHER EM - Buenos - legnica - sokolka etc including intercalated disks and pyknosis . They follow a pattern.

On this the tissue was muscular but showing signs of autolysis with features not directly identifiable, however a later Colombian cardiac specialist anaya noted this is TYPICAL of infarcted or traumatized heart which was his opinion.

3/ Zugibe was both a county pathologist and a multiply published heart specialist, and expert witness. Can I discount all comments of experts who believe in abiogenesis about abiogenesis?


Disregarding who zugibe was , the features on the slides speak for themselves. Then others such as Barbara Engels on legnica. Many cardiac specialists and pathologists involved.One of the best general books is written by , you guessed it - a cardiologist. Serafini.

The strength of the science case for EM is the independence of multiple events and experts.

4/ on bias, don’t make me laugh!
The scientific community bends over backwards to pretend they have evidence of abiogenesis when they don’t!
They cannot say. When. Where. What. How. A postulated structure of the first living cell , the process to it , or the process from it.
A total blank. No evidence whatsoeverof the critical steps. Whether they occurred or how. It is therefore not even a valid hypothesis.

Tell me…. What would you say of i told you I had evidence of a miracle , but I couldn’t tell you what happened, where, how, When , what happened before or after? And yet abiogenesis supporters expect me to believe their unsubstantiated guess?

So I repeat , there is far more scientific and forensic evidence for created cells in such as EM or such as the bleeding statue of Cochabamba than there is for abiogenesis from chemical soup.

If you wish to continue the discussion on EM , do it on a separate Thread. I raised them , here only as a comparison of evidence. The score - Creation by EM 4. Abiogenesis from soup. 0

 

[Bradskii]

Do you never actually READ what is written?

1/ it only matters that there is evidence of created tissue - type is only incidental, so the criticism is not pertinent.

2/ but I also spoke of the positive identification of cardiac tissue on the OTHER EM - Buenos - legnica - sokolka etc including intercalated disks and pyknosis . They follow a pattern.

On this the tissue was muscular but showing signs of autolysis with features not directly identifiable, however a later Colombian cardiac specialist anaya noted this is TYPICAL of infarcted or traumatized heart which was his opinion.

3/ Zugibe was both a county pathologist and a multiply published heart specialist, and expert witness. Can I discount all comments of experts who believe in abiogenesis about abiogenesis?


Disregarding who zugibe was , the features on the slides speak for themselves. Then others such as Barbara Engels on legnica. Many cardiac specialists and pathologists involved.One of the best general books is written by , you guessed it - a cardiologist. Serafini.

The strength of the science case for EM is the independence of multiple events and experts.

4/ on bias, don’t make me laugh!
The scientific community bends over backwards to pretend they have evidence of abiogenesis when they don’t!
They cannot say. When. Where. What. How. A postulated structure of the first living cell , the process to it , or the process from it.
A total blank. No evidence whatsoeverof the critical steps. Whether they occurred or how. It is therefore not even a valid hypothesis.

Tell me…. What would you say of i told you I had evidence of a miracle , but I couldn’t tell you what happened, where, how, When , what happened before or after? And yet abiogenesis supporters expect me to believe their unsubstantiated guess?

So I repeat , there is far more scientific and forensic evidence for created cells in such as EM or such as the bleeding statue of Cochabamba than there is for abiogenesis from chemical soup.

If you wish to continue the discussion on EM , do it on a separate Thread. I raised them , here only as a comparison of evidence. The score - Creation by EM 4. Abiogenesis from soup. 0

We are still waiting for you to tell us how you think abiogenesis ocurred. And the evidence if you think you do know.

But I have an awful feeling that you're going to tell us that because some people claim that some material presented on a wafer was human then that's enough to claim that the first life was created.

Please tell me that you haven't taken over 200 posts to do that. Please tell me that contaminated bread and crying statues aren't your evidence.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Do you never actually READ what is written?

1/ it only matters that there is evidence of created tissue - type is only incidental, so the criticism is not pertinent.

2/ but I also spoke of the positive identification of cardiac tissue on the OTHER EM - Buenos - legnica - sokolka etc including intercalated disks and pyknosis . They follow a pattern.

On this the tissue was muscular but showing signs of autolysis with features not directly identifiable, however a later Colombian cardiac specialist anaya noted this is TYPICAL of infarcted or traumatized heart which was his opinion.

3/ Zugibe was both a county pathologist and a multiply published heart specialist, and expert witness. Can I discount all comments of experts who believe in abiogenesis about abiogenesis?


Disregarding who zugibe was , the features on the slides speak for themselves. Then others such as Barbara Engels on legnica. Many cardiac specialists and pathologists involved.One of the best general books is written by , you guessed it - a cardiologist. Serafini.

The strength of the science case for EM is the independence of multiple events and experts.

4/ on bias, don’t make me laugh!
The scientific community bends over backwards to pretend they have evidence of abiogenesis when they don’t!
They cannot say. When. Where. What. How. A postulated structure of the first living cell , the process to it , or the process from it.
A total blank. No evidence whatsoeverof the critical steps. Whether they occurred or how. It is therefore not even a valid hypothesis.

Tell me…. What would you say of i told you I had evidence of a miracle , but I couldn’t tell you what happened, where, how, When , what happened before or after? And yet abiogenesis supporters expect me to believe their unsubstantiated guess?

So I repeat , there is far more scientific and forensic evidence for created cells in such as EM or such as the bleeding statue of Cochabamba than there is for abiogenesis from chemical soup.

If you wish to continue the discussion on EM , do it on a separate Thread. I raised them , here only as a comparison of evidence. The score - Creation by EM 4. Abiogenesis from soup. 0

I notice you haven't addressed a single point raised beyond your usual arrogant dismissal and handwaving.

You have nothing beyond assertions, bluster and dishonesty.

Bye bye.

 

[Mountainmike]

I notice you haven't addressed a single point raised beyond your usual arrogant dismissal and handwaving.

You have nothing beyond assertions, bluster and dishonesty.

Bye bye.

Called presenting evidence that substantiates all I said.
You can’t handle rational argument can you?

Repeat. There is far more forensic and scientific evidence for creation of life in so called Eucharist miracles than there is for abiogenesis for which there is none.

For em: where, what, when defined. Multiple independent cases and independent pathologists and cardiac specialists. Lots of forensic evidence and a pathologist willing to go on record saying it was “ compelling evidence of creation”

For abiogenesis
Not where. Not when. Not how. Not what. No postulated structure for minimum cell. No postulated process from it to current cells. No postulated process from it. No samples to test or forensic evidence.

I am a scientist. So the first wins the evidence game.
Abiogenesis is just an unsubstantiated belief.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Called presenting evidence that substantiates all I said.
You can’t handle rational argument can you?

If you ever present evidence I may re-engage. If you just want to continue making unsupported assertions and pretending that counts as evidence I have nothing further to say. I pointed out errors in your claims, you ignored them. I asked you to point to evidence, you declined.

You have nothing beyond assertions, bluster and dishonesty.

 

[Mountainmike]

We are still waiting for you to tell us how you think abiogenesis ocurred. And the evidence if you think you do know.

But I have an awful feeling that you're going to tell us that because some people claim that some material presented on a wafer was human then that's enough to claim that the first life was created.

Please tell me that you haven't taken over 200 posts to do that. Please tell me that contaminated bread and crying statues aren't your evidence.

You have no evidence. None. Not a jot.
Not where, when , how, or postulated process.
Clearly your belief is strong.


I may even believe it too if you get evidence.
The jury is not out. It’s yet to sit.
There is no present evidence case for abiogenesis.

The evidence for EM is substantial.
Many credible pathologists whose testimony any court would accept.


Since Most of life preceded EM, there are clearly other instances of start of life. But on scientific evidence there is only a nul hypothesis for those. All either of us have is belief.

 

[Mountainmike]

If you ever present evidence I may re-engage. If you just want to continue making unsupported assertions and pretending that counts as evidence I have nothing further to say. I pointed out errors in your claims, you ignored them. I asked you to point to evidence, you declined.

You have nothing beyond assertions, bluster and dishonesty.

I repeat.

Called presenting evidence that substantiates all I said.
Read Serafinis or tesorieros book for more
You only accept a pathologists view if it aligns with your own?

Repeat. There is far more forensic and scientific evidence for creation of life in so called Eucharist miracles than there is for abiogenesis for which there is none.

For em: where, what, when defined. Multiple independent cases and independent pathologists and cardiac specialists. Lots of forensic evidence and a pathologist willing to go on record saying it was “ compelling evidence of creation”

For abiogenesis
Not where. Not when. Not how. Not what. No postulated structure for minimum cell. No postulated process from it to current cells. No postulated process from it. No samples to test or forensic evidence.

I am a scientist. So the first wins the evidence game.
Abiogenesis is just an unsubstantiated belief.

 

[Mountainmike]

Really? How would you demonstrate that?

I don’t need to. That was pathologists conclusion.

They used variously: scanning electron microscopes to show blood pushed out of bread not in. The intimate intermingling of bread and flesh. DNA which was clearly not from an identifiable victim. Life that should not have been in the samples, but was. They don’t think it can be fraud so why do you?


You only accept experts if they agree with you seemingly.

Now show me any evidence of your version of abiogenesis.
When, where and what happened? Show me the cell(s) formed?
Slides. Cross sections. sEM photos. A dozen pathologists reports? Dna analysis? Mtdna analysis?
You can’t , you don’t have any. At all.

 

[Frank Robert]

Back to facts on your speculation of abiogenesis.

You either do not read my comments or you purposely mangle them just like you mangled the NASA report.

You have rallied against the theories/hypothesis of abiogenesis but you have not falsified them. You make a logical claim ID/IR from one sentence in NASA's 240+ pages which was written as a astrobiology challenge. As I pointed out your logic fails unless you can falsify the current hypotheses. You opinion that they are flimsy does fly.

 

[Bradskii]

You have no evidence. None. Not a jot.
Not where, when , how, or postulated process.

Your comprehension is lacking somewhat. I have constantly told you that there is no evidence for how abiogenesis ocurred. Science doesn't know. I don't know. And you don't either, but you seem to have the greatest difficulty in saying so.

Yet again, do you know how abiogenesis ocurred? If you don't then we're in agreement. If you do then present your evidence.

 

[Mountainmike]

Your comprehension is lacking somewhat. I have constantly told you that there is no evidence for how abiogenesis ocurred. Science doesn't know. I don't know. And you don't either, but you seem to have the greatest difficulty in saying so.

Yet again, do you know how abiogenesis ocurred? If you don't then we're in agreement. If you do then present your evidence.

No.
We are both nul hypothesis.
All we both have is belief.
And I’ve said it ten times over.

 

[Bradskii]

No.
We are both nul hypothesis.
All we both have is belief.
And I’ve said it ten times over.

235 posts and you eventually say that you have exactly the same as that which everyone else has. Which is no evidence at all.

Colour me unsurprised...

 

[Hans Blaster]

But I have an awful feeling that you're going to tell us that because some people claim that some material presented on a wafer was human then that's enough to claim that the first life was created.

Given the definition focused aspects of the first post in this thread (despite its flaws), I had hope that the thread wouldn't devolve into equating abiogenesis with the "miraculous" transformation of plant cells into animal cells. (Both are eukaryotic and more closely related to each other than either is to bacteria cells.) But alas it was not the case. Real discussion of abiogensis is so much more interesting to discuss.

 

[Mountainmike]

Sounds more like exegesis. That's not the way we roll in science. Science is all about the data. If you think science is all about arguing about definitions, then you've completely misunderstood the things you've seen from the outside.

I didn’t say it was “all about” definitions.

However there are two prime tracks from science.

One is extrapolating the axiomatic model, via logical manipulation of axioms and derivations from them , to identify what might be observed, ie theoretical science.

The other track is starting with observations and looking at patterns in them and the impact they may have on the model. Empirical science.

Observations are closer to nature ( the universe itself, unknowable ) than extrapolating of the model.

Sadly present scientific realism , which is an abuse of the philosophical significance of science , seems to regard model extrapolation AS nature, that can be used to reject observations that don’t fit the model! A cart truly before a horse.

Lets not dwell here on the specifics of them but suffice to say there are many types of observations you will not accept because they don’t fit your model or preconceptions of what should be in it, and they never will.

 

[Mountainmike]

Given the definition focused aspects of the first post in this thread (despite its flaws), I had hope that the thread wouldn't devolve into equating abiogenesis with the "miraculous" transformation of plant cells into animal cells. (Both are eukaryotic and more closely related to each other than either is to bacteria cells.) But alas it was not the case. Real discussion of abiogensis is so much more interesting to discuss.

I was focussed on definitions and consequences.

You and others stated it was a “ natural process”, which presumes evidence and knowledge of process you do not have. It took the thread in a different direction.

My comparison was as used only as a barometer to show how weak the evidence is , that abiogenesis was a natural process,
by presenting far stronger actual forensic evidence that you will not accept.

It amazes me how unscientific , scientific people are when it suits them.

If I stated to you , that XYZ happened, when I couldn’t tell you what , where , how, or any process for it, no evidence it did actually happen , I had no means to repeat it. You would tell me it was wishful thinking. A matter of belief not science. You would be right. Yet there are things for which there is plenty of evidence you do not accept because they offend your world view.

If I conjectured the first life came in on the boots of extraterrestrials or was put here by them, you have no basis to disagree, because the case for natural abiogenesis is no stronger than “ came from elsewhere”.
Don’t know “ but I believe ABC” is the only honest answer. You could argue extraterrestrials don’t exist, but it’s arguing one weak case against another. A matter of belief.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

If I stated to you , that XYZ happened, when I couldn’t tell you what , where , how, or any process for it, no evidence it did actually happen , I had no means to repeat it. You would tell me it was wishful thinking. A matter of belief not science. You would be right. Yet there are things for which there is plenty of evidence you do not accept because they offend your world view.

There's your problem. You assert these things happened with zero credible evidence, you can't repeat them, you don't know how they happened, yet you declare that, because you want the evidence to be credible, it must be credible. Anyone who attempts to disagree is shouted down and objections are handwaved away.