Spontaneous Life Generation in Lab is Impossible

[Loudmouth]

Simpleton? Natural process believer? Postulated?

Lack of evidence for you claims?

 

[Loudmouth]

What does heliocentric has to do with abiogenesis?

It has to do with dogmatic religious beliefs resulting in claims that something is impossible when there is no evidence that it is impossible.

Cells are not a simple "self-replicating molecule".

Modern cells are not, but then no one is claiming that abiogenesis has to produce a modern cell.

 

[Loudmouth]

There is one problem in this whole argument in case you are unaware. It hasn't happened!!! It's a pipe dream, the holy grail.

"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible."--Lord Kelvin, 1895

 

[PsychoSarah]

"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible."--Lord Kelvin, 1895

My favorite is "One day, computers might only weigh a few tons".

 

[RealityCheck]

My favorite is "One day, computers might only weigh a few tons".

Or "No one will ever need more than 64K in memory."

 

[Davian]

In terms of pure physics, that's actually untrue.

Move goalposts much?

I don't really expect atheists to be convinced of God based on anything I personally have to say.

So why are you here?

IMO the only way to find God is from internal experiences of God's presence within us all. Even Hellen Keller found that connection within herself. She may have been physically blind, deaf, and had no concept of language or the term "concept", but apparently she was not spiritually blind.

But she also could not demonstrate that her experience was anything other than an internally generated by her imagination?

How typical. Ya know...... Pattern recognition is a key component of all areas of physics and science in general. That process can lead to "false" results of course, but it also works both ways and leads to *knowledge* of reality as it truly exists.

The burden of evidence is on you to show that it is more than just a visual similarity.

They also believe in cars, boats, TV's, cell phones, computers, biology, arts, literature, music, light, gravity, etc. So what?

So now your experiences are universal?

That is because you have two different standards, one for anything related to the topic of God, and another that relates to astronomy, and physics in general.

No, I do not.

I live in a single universe, and I serve a single God. You can call him Allah, Yahweh, Jehovah, Brahman or just God. There is but one God. Can't you actually distinguish between the term "God", singular since monotheism became the "consensus" of planet Earth, and "religions" that are in fact a dime a dozen?

You refer to theistic, pantheistic, and pantheistic gods. You have your Christianity and your Boltzmann brains. I was just asking for count.

I have. I provided you with a completely *physical* definition of the term "God". I provided you with evidence that it is electrical in nature, from areas of solar physics, to galaxy formation theories, to whole *universe* theories that accurately predict the behaviors and movements of stars *without* supernatural constructs of any sort. I've shown that nature is capable of allowing "awareness" to express itself through a wide variety of forms, both large and small, right here on Earth. I've shown you mathematical models of "soul" that enjoy more empirical support in the lab than CDM. I've shown you mathematical models of "Boltzmann brains" that apparently would pop up everywhere in spacetime eventually were it not for your mythical magical supernatural inflation deity. I've shown you structures in spacetime that have both functional and mass layout similarities to biological structures that give rise to microscopic awareness on Earth. I've provided you with both mathematical models, and physical verification of *everything* I've proposed, and everything I've proposed shows up here on Earth, including awareness in a myriad of various forms.

Again: you said that your god and the Christian God are one and the same, and that your god is "100 percent empirical, 100 percent 'visible'". Back it up or retract.

What *empirical* laboratory evidence have you given me to support the 'scientific' cause/effect claims about the cosmos?

Why would I do that? They are not my claims. And, this is not a dichotomy.

I spent three full threads doing just that. If you didn't read them it's not my fault.

I did say, gods of any significance.

I (actually Penrose) <snip>

No, I asked for yours. Define "soul" for me right now, as a Christian. Something testable, demonstrable.

 

[Michael]

Move goalposts much?

So talking about the physics of God is moving the goalposts?

So why are you here?

Me? I'm here on a "Christian" website discussing topics of science with anyone who happens to show up here, presumably other Christians like myself. How about you?

But she also could not demonstrate that her experience was anything other than an internally generated by her imagination?

According to that theory by Hameroff and Penrose, it may indeed been a process that began inside her brain yet have nothing to do with her 'imagination', but rather with *structures* that are designed to give her a direct access to her creator.

The burden of evidence is on you to show that it is more than just a visual similarity.

That's what all the papers related to EU theory were about. The similarity is more than just cosmetic. Those 'threads' you see in spacetime also carry current (and information) just like the current carrying filaments in our brains.

So now your experiences are universal?

Why would I expect that? Helen was born without sight. My experiences related to 'vision' are not universal. Why would my spiritual experiences need to be 'universal' to be 'real'?

No, I do not.

You aren't busting the chops of the Lambda-magic-matter promoters are you? Why not?

You refer to theistic, pantheistic, and pantheistic gods.

No. I'm a monotheist, like every other monotheist on the planet. We *all* believe that there is only one God, and a myriad of religions. Atheists are the only polytheists left remaining on planet Earth apparently.

You have your Christianity and your Boltzmann brains.

I have Christ, and a physical definition of God. That's *way* better that your invisible sky deities have going for them.

Again: you said that your god and the Christian God are one and the same, and that your god is "100 percent empirical, 100 percent 'visible'". Back it up or retract.

How? Exactly what type of "physics" might demonstrate such a thing? Apparently you have no clue what the term 'monotheism' means. My 'beliefs about God' may not be the same as all humans on Earth. That doesn't mean multiple Gods exist. Your argument amounts that because everyone has different beliefs about the character and nature of the President, there must actually be *many Presidents all at the same time*.

Why would I do that? They are not my claims. And, this is not a dichotomy.

Then as I mentioned, I have more empirical evidence of God than all your astronomers put together and their impotent on Earth invisible sky deities.

I did say, gods of any significance.

Ignorance isn't bliss, and your lack of efforts or specific criticisms aren't impressive.

No, I asked for yours. Define "soul" for me right now, as a Christian. Something testable, demonstrable.

Hamerhoff did that for you already. Did you even read his theory about soul and the predictions he made that were *verified* in the lab, unlike all those WIMP(y) maths related to CDM that were all falsified one right after the other?

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/orchor.html

 

[Subduction Zone]

Or "No one will ever need more than 64K in memory."

Actually it seems to never have happened. And the quote usually attributed to Bill Gates had the amount of 640k.

 

[Smidlee]

It has to do with dogmatic religious beliefs resulting in claims that something is impossible when there is no evidence that it is impossible.

Modern cells are not, but then no one is claiming that abiogenesis has to produce a modern cell.

Modern cells are the evidence that abiogenesis is impossible. So now you dismiss any real evidence against abiogenesis (that is modern cells) and believe instead this science fiction Frankencell (RNA world, etc.). The origins of life is not a time problem nor having the right environment problem nor even having the right materials; it's an engineering problem as all known living cells are self-replicating cities of nano-machines.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Modern cells are the evidence that abiogenesis is impossible. So now you dismiss any real evidence against abiogenesis (that is modern cells) and believe instead this science fiction Frankencell (RNA world, etc.). The origins of life is not a time problem nor having the right environment problem nor even having the right materials; it's an engineering problem as all known living cells are self-replicating cities of nano-machines.

Very simple structures can replicate themselves.

 

[[serious]]

Modern cells are the evidence that abiogenesis is impossible.

Wait, what?

That's like saying modern cars are evidence that 17th century people couldn't have made horse drown carriages.

Also, what is frankencell supposed to mean? Do you think there was a mad scientist 3 billion years ago?

 

[Davian]

So talking about the physics of God is moving the goalposts?

No, moving the goalposts is your changing of the topic when you feel cornered. We were discussing how no one finds your EUPC line convincing that does not already believe it.

Me? I'm here on a "Christian" website discussing topics of science with anyone who happens to show up here, presumably other Christians like myself. How about you?

I am here to explore just how evasive theists can get when pressed to support their claims.

According to that theory by Hameroff and Penrose, it may indeed been a process that began inside her brain yet have nothing to do with her 'imagination', but rather with *structures* that are designed to give her a direct access to her creator.

Or she simply imagined it. That is far more parsimonious.

That's what all the papers related to EU theory were about. The similarity is more than just cosmetic. Those 'threads' you see in spacetime also carry current (and information) just like the current carrying filaments in our brains.

But you cannot actually demonstrate this. correct? Have you seen any mermaids on Mars?

Why would I expect that? Helen was born without sight. My experiences related to 'vision' are not universal. Why would my spiritual experiences need to be 'universal' to be 'real'?

And even if they were universal, they can be imaginary. That would explain why they cannot be demonstrated as being real.

You aren't busting the chops of the Lambda-magic-matter promoters are you? Why not?

Why should I? People are not knocking at my door trying to sell me on the standard model of cosmology, and how it it may affect my future.

No. I'm a monotheist, like every other monotheist on the planet. We *all* believe that there is only one God, and a myriad of religions. Atheists are the only polytheists left remaining on planet Earth apparently.

Who is this "we" for whom you speak? In a recent exchange with another theist here, he had God, Jesus, Satan, two Antichrists and the Holy Ghost on his list. Now Add your Boltzmann brains and your panentheism god to to the list.

I have Christ, and a physical definition of God. Who are you calling a polytheist?

Which God are you referring to?

How? Exactly what type of "physics" might demonstrate such a thing?

You claim, your problem. Again: you said that your god and the Christian God are one and the same, and that your god is "100 percent empirical, 100 percent 'visible'". Back it up or retract.

Apparently you have no clue what the term 'monotheism' means. My 'beliefs about God' may not be the same as all humans on Earth. That doesn't mean multiple Gods exist.

You've got God, Jesus, Satan, Antichrist(s), the Holy Ghost, Boltzmann brains and panentheism. Which ones do you believe in?

Then as I mentioned, I have more empirical evidence of God than all your astronomers put together and their impotent on Earth invisible sky deities.

Ignorance isn't bliss, and your lack of efforts or specific criticisms aren't impressive.

Give me something to work with.

Hamerhoff did that for you already. Did you even read his theory about soul and the predictions he made that were *verified* in the lab, unlike all those WIMP(y) maths related to CDM that were all falsified one right after the other?

Quantum Consciousness

You believe that the soul ceases to exist with the death of the brain? Do you not read these articles that you link to?

 

[lifetips]

My favorite is "One day, computers might only weigh a few tons".

Hi Sarah,

It's intriguing that you and Loudmouth are comparing the creation of life to flying machines and computers. Do you realize the size of mount improbable that you are trying to climb? Obviously not. Even the simplest cell is millions of times more complex than any computer of flying machine. Flying machines and computers were created by intelligent beings. Yes they designed it and they were intelligent, but dare we call them "intelligent designers" and risk offending your fragile naturalist ideology? Actually, I don't mind at all

With abiogenesis, even before intelligent designers try and create it in a lab, you have absolutely no life, nothing but dead matter. Yet you have a faith based belief system that says nothing can create something millions of times more complex that a computer or flying machine. Yes Sarah and Loudmouth, you have an amazing level of faith that I will never be able to comprehend.

But, unlike most naturalists, are you prepared to admit that your belief in abiogenesis is faith based and not based on fact? Probably not, because if naturalists admit they have a faith based belief system then what will they be able to say to the millions of creationists they ridicule for having faith in God's creation? NOTHING, or they will be exposed as hypocrites. So it's easier for the naturalist to shut their mouth and stay deluded. However, they are only deluding themselves! Will you join them?

 

[Belk]

Hi Sarah,

It's intriguing that you and Loudmouth are comparing the creation of life to flying machines and computers. Do you realize the size of mount improbable that you are trying to climb? Obviously not. Even the simplest cell is millions of times more complex than any computer of flying machine.

What quanta do you use in measuring complexity and what methodology do you use in you comparison?

Flying machines and computers were created by intelligent beings. Yes they designed it and they were intelligent, but dare we use call them "intelligent designers" and risk offending your fragile naturalist ideology? Actually, I don't mind at all

Say it all you want. Until someone comes up with a way to delineate the differences between 'designed' and 'not designed' all you have is your own credulity.

With abiogenesis, even before intelligent designers try and create it in a lab, you have absolutely no life, nothing but dead matter.

Can you explain the differences between matter that is dead and matter that is alive? Last I checked everything in the Universe is made from the same material.

Yet you have a faith based belief system that says nothing can create something millions of times more complex that a computer or flying machine. Yes Sarah and Loudmouth, you have an amazing level of faith that I will never be able to comprehend.

Equivocation will not put your religious beliefs on par with science.

But, unlike most naturalists, are you prepared to admit that your belief in abiogenesis is faith based and not based on fact? Probably not, because if naturalists admit they have a faith based belief system then what will they be able to say to the millions of creationists they ridicule for having faith in God's creation? NOTHING, or they will be exposed as hypocrites. So it's easier for the naturalist to shut their mouth and stay deluded. However, they are only deluding themselves! Will you join them?

Feel free to bring some evidence of your own forward and present your case for why we should believe you. Frankly your case is not looking very strong at this point.

 

[Michael]

No, moving the goalposts is your changing of the topic when you feel cornered.

What?!?!? You're the one that has their goalposts in overdrive. I haven't moved anything.

We were discussing how no one finds your EUPC line convincing that does not already believe it.

Then you utterly failed. I've published several scientific papers with other people that *were* convinced of my work after seeing it. So much for that claim. I thought you were talking asking me how many atheist I'd converted. (also greater than zero)

I am here to explore just how evasive theists can get when pressed to support their claims.

Projecting again are you?

Or she simply imagined it. That is far more parsimonious.

Boloney. You're subjectively ignoring that work by Penrose and Hameroff, and subjectively dismissing *anything and everything* that you don't like with a handwave.

But you cannot actually demonstrate this. correct?

Yes, I did. You clearly didn't read or respond to *any* of it.

Have you seen any mermaids on Mars?

For a guy that is defending at *least* four supernatural invisible mermaids in the sky, you really are a trip. Like I said, at least I can *see* the God that I believe to exist and provide you with a physical definition of God. You can't even do that much for your impotent on Earth invisible sky deities.

And even if they were universal, they can be imaginary. That would explain why they cannot be demonstrated as being real.

You aren't applying the same standards to CDM that you applied to the theory of soul. You aren't applying the same standard towards the theory of God that you apply toward cosmology and Lambda-CDM. It's one one big denial loop you have going.

Why should I? People are not knocking at my door trying to sell me on the standard model of cosmology, and how it it may affect my future.

Pure hypocrisy on a stick.

Who is this "we" for whom you speak? In a recent exchange with another theist here, he had God, Jesus, Satan, two Antichrists and the Holy Ghost on his list. Now Add your Boltzmann brains and your panentheism god to to the list.

Did you ask them how many God(s) they worship by chance? Apparently atheists really don't grasp the term 'monotheism'. Like I said your argument is basically that since there are so many different viewpoints about Obama, there must be a million Obama's.

Which God are you referring to?

The only one there is.

You claim, your problem. Again: you said that your god and the Christian God are one and the same, and that your god is "100 percent empirical, 100 percent 'visible'". Back it up or retract.

I did that in three threads for you. Your flippant handwaves show how desperate you are. You didn't address *any* of the materials in those threads. You simply pretend it doesn't exist.

You've got God, Jesus, Satan, Antichrist(s), the Holy Ghost, Boltzmann brains and panentheism. Which ones do you believe in?

I believe in exactly one God. Period. What don't you like about that answer?

Give me something to work with.

Keep running from that material in those threads if you like, but I gave it to you. Care to pick out a flaw in Alfvens' work for us?

You believe that the soul ceases to exist with the death of the brain?

Yep.

Do you not read these articles that you link to?

Yep, but apparently you don't, nor do you respond to anything.

 

[lifetips]

If at one point there is no life and the next moment there is life, then somehow, life came from non-life by some process. Are you really going to deny this?

Are you serious? Yes I will deny this completely that we came from non-life. Will you deny that we came from God the creator? Silly question hey! Yes we are here aren't we? Why would I deny what is painfully obvious that we are here? The difference in our views is how we got here. I'm a creationist and you are a naturalist. However, if we did come from non-life please show me the evidence.

Gods performing miracles is indistinguishable from magic. By any and all accounts, the stuff your deity of choice does IS magic.

Creation by an intelligent designer is not magic, it's an intelligent being who has the ability to design, actually designing. Almighty God is powerful! Abiogenesis is pure magic, because nothing somehow creates life. What can be more magic than that?

Natural processes are never magical.

Okay, then show me evidence of abiogenesis. First you need to provide evidence that it happened then we can examine whether it's magic or not.

Asking me to give you evidence and in the next breath demanding to exclude that evidence is dishonest.

I'm a bit confused by that one. But not to worry. The bottom line is - can you give me the evidence for abiogenesis or not?

There's more to the process of abiogenesis then just that.
The process of abiogenesis includes and starts with the formation of the building blocks of life - like amino acids. Before we discovered how these things CAN form naturally, folks like you were waving their bible and claim that it was impossible because they were "too complex" and "intelligently designed" and "irreducibly complex" and what not.

You are speaking like abiogenesis is a fact. Again and again and yet again, show me the evidence of your faith based belief system. There is a whole lot more to life than some amino acids and you should be well aware of that. I might be waving my bible around (actually not), but you are waving around your naturalist ideology claiming abiogenesis is fact, yet offering NO evidence.

Abiogenesis hypothesis REQUIRED these building blocks to be able to form in nature. The sciences involved discovered that yes, these things CAN form in nature and DO form in nature. So, these discoveries SUPPORT the hypothesis. Research is ongoing concerning the rest of the hypothesis.

Your ignorance on this scientific field is not an argument against it.

Your ignorance is claiming that abiogenesis is fact yet not offering any evidence. Some building blocks may form in nature but what you need to show me now is how these building blocks all came together without any guiding hand to form life. This is mount improbable at its greatest. Do you actually understand how complex even the most "simple" cell really is? By some amazing coincidence your ideology says that all the complex building blocks of life - amino acids, proteins, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, carbon etc, by some freakish mind numbing act of magic all combined in the necessary way without any guiding hand to form life!!! You believe this so please provide the evidence that turns this ideology from fantasy to fact. You have an amazing level of faith.

Strawmanning what I said is also not an argument against it. I didn't say that life forms in space rocks. I said we are finding building blocks of life in space rocks. Which is not the same.

Okay, no problem, accepted. But at the end of the day all I will do is keep asking you to provide evidence for abiogenesis because that is the only thing that matters. So please, do me a big favor and become a very famous person by becoming the first and only person on the planet to produce evidence for abiogenesis. You are speaking like it's a fact, but showing nothing to back up that claim. Like me, you are a person who has a faith based belief system. It amazes me the amount of denial of reality and mental gymnastics that you naturalists must perform to defend your faith.

Will you admit that you have a faith based belief system? Because until you can provide the evidence for abiogenesis, then that's exactly what you are - a person of faith, just like me!

 

[Michael]

Are you serious? Yes I will deny this completely that we came from non-life. Will you deny that we came from God the creator? Silly question hey! Yes we are here aren't we? Why would I deny what is painfully obvious that we are here? The difference in our views is how we got here. I'm a creationist and you are a naturalist. However, if we did come from non-life please show me the evidence.

I hope you at least realize that not all "naturalists" are atheists.

 

[lifetips]

What quanta do you use in measuring complexity and what methodology do you use in you comparison?

If you do some basic research on life and "simple" cells it will become quiet obvious to you how ridiculously complex life is in comparison to non life in any form.

Say it all you want. Until someone comes up with a way to delineate the differences between 'designed' and 'not designed' all you have is your own credulity.

Great! I'm very happy to say all I want. There is none more credulous than a naturalist who accepts abiogenesis as a fact when there is absolutely no evidence to support this. Speaking of designed. Was the first life on earth designed or not designed?

Can you explain the differences between matter that is dead and matter that is alive? Last I checked everything in the Universe is made from the same material.

Tell me, are you dead? Or are you living matter? If there is no difference then why not just be dead? Now, like all the others who are incapable because no evidence exists - if you have something to offer please produce the evidence to show me that non-life produces life.

Equivocation will not put your religious beliefs on par with science.

How is your naturalist faith based ideology called, abiogenesis, scientific? Show me the evidence and I will accept it.

Feel free to bring some evidence of your own forward and present your case for why we should believe you. Frankly your case is not looking very strong at this point.

Fantastic, now we are actually getting to the whole point of this. Actually, I'm not asking you to believe me at all. I will freely admit that by Faith I believe that God created life on earth. I can't give any evidence that will be satisfying to but I have very strong and logical reasons for believing this. Those reasons are not important as it is a different subject altogether.

What is important is whether you will also confess that your belief in abiogenesis is a faith based belief system. Both of us have faith, it's just in something entirely different. You cannot provide evidence for abiogenesis so it remains a faith based belief system.

 

[lifetips]

I hope you at least realize that not all "naturalists" are atheists.

Hi Michael,

The term "naturalist" has multiple applications and in this context a naturalist is someone who believes that the forming of the universe and the formation of life on earth all came about through natural processes with no supernatural intervention. Those who believe this are 100% atheist. I'm sure there are many other "naturalists" who love photographing cuddly bears and admiring pine trees and rivers who are not atheists

Cheers
Paul

 

[Smidlee]

Wait, what?

That's like saying modern cars are evidence that 17th century people couldn't have made horse drown carriages.

That's a dumb comparison since people still can have horse-pulled carriages today.
There are even dog sleds still around.
Frankencell only exist in man's imagination.