The true context of science. It is just a model, get over it.

[Mountainmike]

And yet you are unable to point out a single flaw in the reasoning - preferring to point out a typo instead.

It is what we expect from atheists. Long on insults and pseudoscience, absence of reasoning and understanding of even what science is , let alone what it dictates.

I repeat.
These are facts.
1/ The minimum cell as we know it, did not pop into existence as a single event in chemistry. That is laughable in quantum chemistry. The sheer complexity of it. Even the simplest cell has more complex pathways than any chemical factory. They dont spring into existence either..
So...the only option you have left is..
2/There is no evidence of any intermediate complexity self reproduing cell to the simplest living cell ever having existed indeed no other cells except those with a DNA genome. That first cell must be so simple it can occur in chemistry, complex enough to evolve on. There is not even conjecture astto what the missing link is.

3/ Since genomic DNA does not naturally occur, the first cells you conjecture must have had a simple genome - so where are the cells without DNA genome? They should exist if that can happen -

4/ You have No process for how inert chemicals became that first living cell.
5/ No process for how it evolved to the minimum complexity DNA genome cell we observe today, eg Prokaryotes.

So in conclusion you cannot repeat it. It is not seen to repeat. You have no process for how it opccurred

So you have NOTHING but your faith that it happened.

Not even a valid hypothesis as far as science is concerned.

Spare me the usual smokescreen of amino acids etc...bricks are not evidence of self building houses either. Whether or not they are used to build houses.

And that is the verdict of science.
Of course atheist pseudoscience has to believe it happened, because of your faith dogma of "life as a chemical accident"
And it wastes volumes of publications in the hope of filling the hole in the theory of life as an accident.

It is a faith so strong Ian on this thread wont even look at evidence that disagrees with him!

Goodness me!
What a pile of word-salad, misconceptions, straw-men and gibberish!
The spelling of "shoud" nicely captures the essence of that post.
"Now do you understand?"

 

[SelfSim]

And yet you are unable to point out a single flaw in the reasoning - preferring to point out a typo instead.

It is what we expect from atheists. Long on insults and pseudoscience, absence of reasoning and understanding of even what science is , let alone what it dictates.

My goodness! You really are one very angry individual aren't you?

See, the thing is ... you wouldn't have a clue what beliefs I hold, nor my background in science!
I am yet to encounter any 'dictates' in science, also. Care to show me these operationally defined 'dictates'?

Such a statement instantly gives away your skewed and extreme bias against science, doesn't it?

I repeat.
These are facts.

Repeating your rant doesn't make 'em 'facts', sunshine!

1/ The minimum cell as we know it, did not pop into existence as a single event in chemistry. That is laughable in quantum chemistry. The sheer complexity of it. Even the simplest cell has more complex pathways than any chemical factory. They dont spring into existence either..

What is laughable is that you seem to have the need to have all that you say as Truth! The subsequent justification of your bold statement of supposed 'fact' here, is merely the fallacy of argument from personal incredulity.
You call that 'scientific', eh?

So...the only option you have left is..

Who are you trying to kid?

2/There is no evidence of any intermediate complexity self reproduing cell to the simplest living cell ever having existed indeed no other cells except those with a DNA genome. That first cell must be so simple it can occur in chemistry, complex enough to evolve on. There is not even conjecture astto what the missing link is.

Why are you speaking as though a supposed absent 'conjecture' (about your 'the missing link') adds weight to your initial supposed statement of 'fact' of an absence of evidence?

3/ Since genomic DNA does not naturally occur, the first cells you conjecture must have had a simple genome - so where are the cells without DNA genome? They should exist if that can happen -

Non-sequitur.

4/ You have No process for how inert chemicals became that first living cell.

Unsupported claim (regardless of its validity or otherwise) .. but for some reason, stated as (supposed) 'fact'(?)

5/ No process for how it evolved to the minimum complexity DNA genome cell we observe today, eg Prokaryotes.

No supporting constrained objective specification of the definitions (or process) stated in this supposed 'fact'

So in conclusion you cannot repeat it. It is not seen to repeat. You have no process for how it opccurred

An unsupported assertion .. with a host of hidden assumptions implied .. and not a question.

So you have NOTHING but your faith that it happened.

Waffle!

Not even a valid hypothesis as far as science is concerned.

Its such a personal disappointment that the entire community of theoretical biologists don't meet with your expectations!
I'm sure they'll be most upset!

Spare me the usual smokescreen of amino acids etc...bricks are not evidence of self building houses either. Whether or not they are used to build houses.

Never even occurred to me! Should it have?

And that is the verdict of science.

So science is now on trial is it?
And you're the judge?
How did that happen?

Of course atheist pseudoscience has to believe it happened, because of your faith dogma of "life as a chemical accident"
And it wastes volumes of publications in the hope of filling the hole in the theory of life as an accident.

It is a faith so strong Ian on this thread wont even look at evidence that disagrees with him!

Can't speak for 'ianw' but if he sees what I do in your 'arguments', I wouldn't worry to much about putting in any serious efforts!
Have a nice day, eh?

 

[Jimmy D]

Can't speak for 'ianw' but if he sees what I do in your 'arguments', I wouldn't worry to much about putting in any serious efforts!

I just play "logical fallacy bingo!" when reading such diatribes.

 

[DogmaHunter]

1/ The minimum cell as we know it, did not pop into existence as a single event in chemistry.

Indeed, it didn't.
The "minimum cell as we know it", is the result of some 3.8 billion years of evolution.
We have NO examples of first life as it existed 3.8 billion years ago.

So...the only option you have left is..

Well, at least one option left is being actually honest and not argue strawmen.
Like acknowledging that the SIMPLEST of life forms we find TODAY, are the result of 3.8 billion years of evolutionary development.

2/There is no evidence of any intermediate complexity self reproduing cell to the simplest living cell ever having existed indeed no other cells except those with a DNA genome. That first cell must be so simple it can occur in chemistry, complex enough to evolve on. There is not even conjecture astto what the missing link is.

You keep talking about "cells". Who says first life was a "cell"? You know... a cell... it has membranes and a nucleus and stuff. There is no reason to assume that all this stuff was in place 3.8 billion years ago.

3/ Since genomic DNA does not naturally occur, the first cells you conjecture must have had a simple genome - so where are the cells without DNA genome? They should exist if that can happen -

Why would it need to have a genome? Again you are making assumptions. DNA most likely is the result of evolution itself. Likely, it was preceded and evolved from something like RNA. And before that, who knows. I'm sure an abiogenesis researcher can give you a few informed and interesting hypothesis.

Bottom line anyway: you make the classic mistake of looking at living things that have been evolving for 3.8 billion years and pretending that their 3.8 billion year old ancestors were similar in function, build-up and complexity. Why would you think or suggest that?

4/ You have No process for how inert chemicals became that first living cell.

Idd, which is actually the whole point of the field of abiogenesis: to try and find out.
What else do you propose to do?

5/ No process for how it evolved to the minimum complexity DNA genome cell we observe today, eg Prokaryotes.

Have you ever heared of evolution?
It's an observable biological process that explains the development and divergence of biological variation.

So in conclusion you cannot repeat it. It is not seen to repeat. You have no process for how it opccurred

Neither do you.

The difference is that we are being honest about it and are trying to find out by doing honest research, by actually studying and investigating the matter.

You? You like to pretend to know, because you happen to believe in some religion, right?

ps: ginormous appeal to ignorance and incredulity in this post of yours....

So you have NOTHING but your faith that it happened.

It factually happened. No faith required.
Life hasn't always existed and it exists today. So, factually, life originated somewhere, somehow. Abiogenesis researchers try to find out where and how.

Not even a valid hypothesis as far as science is concerned.

Again dishonest and / or seriously ill-infomed.
Seriously, read up on abiogenesis research. To say that there are no hypothesis being investigated is nothing short of utterly false.

Spare me the usual smokescreen of amino acids etc...bricks are not evidence of self building houses either

They are a start though.
Also, before science found out how the building blocks of life can happily form through natural means in various circumstances, people like you were screaming that "science doesn't know, therefor god!" and "building blocks are too complex to be natural!!!".

And that is the verdict of science.

Your verdict.

Of course atheist pseudoscience has to believe it happened, because of your faith dogma of "life as a chemical accident"

Everybody accepts that "it" happened. "it", being that life originated somewhere, somehow.
Even creationists agree that life originated at some point.

The difference between creationists and the rest however, is that the rest isn't pretending to know how it happened.

And it wastes volumes of publications in the hope of filling the hole in the theory of life as an accident.

Perhaps you consider scientific investigation to tackle hard questions about reality "a waste", but I don't.

It is a faith so strong Ian on this thread wont even look at evidence that disagrees with him!

Projection.

 

[tas8831]

All of this condescending ranting and bloviating, all to admit that you have ZERO evidence for your dopey 'eucharistic miracles' and to AVOID admitting that you are not educated enough to address the references I presented.

Just another empty shirt creationist, high on his own bloated ego.

It is sad you dont seem to know what abiogenesis is.
Or the lack of any evidence or process for it.

According to the conjecture (it is not a theory or even a valid hypothesis) much as atheist pseudoscientists try to pretend it is such.

The first cell appeared according to those who hold to the conjecture as a result of random chemistry.(presumably a prokaryote to keep it simple so spare us the waffle about species similarity or evolution)

So either the entire cell popped into existence. Which is laughable in quantum chemistry terms..
So instead the only way the conjecture can be true...
There is a lowest intermediate as a self replicating and evolving minimum cell, capable of becoming the complexity of the simplest DNA genome cell, but also simple enough that it did pop into existence as a result of random biochemsitry.

Except that...nobody has a conjectured process or such a minimum intermediate.
It has never been observed as either a process, or the intermediates found!
( which if it were possible, where are they?)
It cannot be made to happen.
So it fails ALL of the requirements for valid hypotheis.

i might even agree with it, but if I did is just an act of faith. Not a hypothesis.
It is the name for a big hole in the sceptic paradigm "life from random chemistry" - it is not a name for an actual process.


On the other hand bread became flesh has evidence it has actually occurred. And has defied explanation by fraud.

I dont need to account for how, any more than the chinese did not need to account for "moss on the north wall of a church yard" curing people for it to be true.

So there is far more evidence for life from eucharistic miracles than there is for life originating by abiogenesis - the paradigm that assumes first cell as a biochemical accident.


Now do you understand?

I only need to "explain" it, (which simply means linking to other existing concepts in the model, it is not a fundamental explanation ) to put it in the scientific model. Which is just a model of repeatable things.
Why shoud it be there?

 

[tas8831]

Poor mikey, can't handle the evidence...


Why repeat a pathetic lie? Why not address real evidence?

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it - I have posted this more than a dozen times for creationists who claim that there is no evidence for evolution:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "




Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."​

Now show us the tested mechanisms for turning bread into cardiac muscle, and you may be on equal footing. And them maybe explain WHY such a thing is supposed to be evidence for Jehovah.

The creationist has nothing but egotism and wishful thinking.

 

[tas8831]

Get a load of this...

And yet you are unable to point out a single flaw in the reasoning - preferring to point out a typo instead.

It is what we expect from atheists. Long on insults and pseudoscience, absence of reasoning and understanding of even what science is , let alone what it dictates.

I repeat.
These are facts.
1/ The minimum cell as we know it, did not pop into existence as a single event in chemistry. That is laughable in quantum chemistry. The sheer complexity of it. Even the simplest cell has more complex pathways than any chemical factory. They dont spring into existence either..
So...the only option you have left is..
2/There is no evidence of any intermediate complexity self reproduing cell to the simplest living cell ever having existed indeed no other cells except those with a DNA genome. That first cell must be so simple it can occur in chemistry, complex enough to evolve on. There is not even conjecture astto what the missing link is.

3/ Since genomic DNA does not naturally occur, the first cells you conjecture must have had a simple genome - so where are the cells without DNA genome? They should exist if that can happen -

4/ You have No process for how inert chemicals became that first living cell.
5/ No process for how it evolved to the minimum complexity DNA genome cell we observe today, eg Prokaryotes.

So in conclusion you cannot repeat it. It is not seen to repeat. You have no process for how it opccurred

So you have NOTHING but your faith that it happened.

Not even a valid hypothesis as far as science is concerned.

Spare me the usual smokescreen of amino acids etc...bricks are not evidence of self building houses either. Whether or not they are used to build houses.

And that is the verdict of science.
Of course atheist pseudoscience has to believe it happened, because of your faith dogma of "life as a chemical accident"
And it wastes volumes of publications in the hope of filling the hole in the theory of life as an accident.

It is a faith so strong Ian on this thread wont even look at evidence that disagrees with him!

This one belongs to the "If Science hasn't PROVED this yet, it NEVER WILL and thus I am free to claim that my favorite ancient middle eastern tall tales are totally true forever!" club...

 

[tas8831]

So says a man who has not even looked at the evidence so knows nothing about it..

So says the man that, when presented with clear examples of the use of tested methods in evolution, totally ignores them to rant about silly made up bread=pained hearts hoaxes.

You sceptic pseudoscientist atheists are all the same. Your faith blinds you

You people that engage in obvious psychological projection are a hoot!

Like a parachute, a mind works better when it is open, and fails completely when as closed as yours.

More of the same!

As a past employer of many PHd scientists

, I can say your attitude would not even get an interview, let alone a job. You clearly do not have an enquiring mind, nor any clue what science really is or how evidence is assessed. You start by looking at the evidence.

Isn't it time to whine to the mods that the mean educated people are being mean meanies and have them close the thread for dosing you with some of your own medicine?

 

[tas8831]

On the other hand bread became flesh has evidence it has actually occurred. And has defied explanation by fraud.

I dont need to account for how

Another Don Rickles in our midst!

 

[tas8831]

3/ Since genomic DNA does not naturally occur, the first cells you conjecture must have had a simple genome - so where are the cells without DNA genome?

There are single and doubled-stranded RNA viruses. Did not of the PhD scientists that 'worked for you' (LOL!) tell you about this?


You know what else does not occur naturally? An ancient middle eastern tribal deity breathing into dust and a fully formed adult human male walks out, eager to chose "am helpmeet" from among all the other non-human animals that this same deity makes by magic.

Yet here you are, believing it all.

 

[Mountainmike]

Which proves what I said
You have neither evidence nor process for abiogenesis (or life by that means)
You may believe it, but that is pure faith "humanist" says it all

I have forensic grade evidence of eucharistic miracles ( and life from that source)

I shall ignore the rest of your waffle and ad hominems.

Indeed, it didn't.
The "minimum cell as we know it", is the result of some 3.8 billion years of evolution.
We have NO examples of first life as it existed 3.8 billion years ago.



Well, at least one option left is being actually honest and not argue strawmen.
Like acknowledging that the SIMPLEST of life forms we find TODAY, are the result of 3.8 billion years of evolutionary development.



You keep talking about "cells". Who says first life was a "cell"? You know... a cell... it has membranes and a nucleus and stuff. There is no reason to assume that all this stuff was in place 3.8 billion years ago.



Why would it need to have a genome? Again you are making assumptions. DNA most likely is the result of evolution itself. Likely, it was preceded and evolved from something like RNA. And before that, who knows. I'm sure an abiogenesis researcher can give you a few informed and interesting hypothesis.

Bottom line anyway: you make the classic mistake of looking at living things that have been evolving for 3.8 billion years and pretending that their 3.8 billion year old ancestors were similar in function, build-up and complexity. Why would you think or suggest that?



Idd, which is actually the whole point of the field of abiogenesis: to try and find out.
What else do you propose to do?



Have you ever heared of evolution?
It's an observable biological process that explains the development and divergence of biological variation.



Neither do you.

The difference is that we are being honest about it and are trying to find out by doing honest research, by actually studying and investigating the matter.

You? You like to pretend to know, because you happen to believe in some religion, right?

ps: ginormous appeal to ignorance and incredulity in this post of yours....



It factually happened. No faith required.
Life hasn't always existed and it exists today. So, factually, life originated somewhere, somehow. Abiogenesis researchers try to find out where and how.



Again dishonest and / or seriously ill-infomed.
Seriously, read up on abiogenesis research. To say that there are no hypothesis being investigated is nothing short of utterly false.



They are a start though.
Also, before science found out how the building blocks of life can happily form through natural means in various circumstances, people like you were screaming that "science doesn't know, therefor god!" and "building blocks are too complex to be natural!!!".



Your verdict.



Everybody accepts that "it" happened. "it", being that life originated somewhere, somehow.
Even creationists agree that life originated at some point.

The difference between creationists and the rest however, is that the rest isn't pretending to know how it happened.



Perhaps you consider scientific investigation to tackle hard questions about reality "a waste", but I don't.



Projection.

 

[tas8831]

Indeed, it didn't.
The "minimum cell as we know it", is the result of some 3.8 billion years of evolution.
We have NO examples of first life as it existed 3.8 billion years ago....

Come on, bro - the guy had PhD scientists working FOR him! He is totally the expert on all science!

 

[DogmaHunter]

Which proves what I said
You have neither evidence nor process for abiogenesis (or life by that means)
You may believe it, but that is pure faith "humanist" says it all

I have forensic grade evidence of eucharistic miracles ( and life from that source)

I shall ignore the rest of your waffle and ad hominems.

Did you even read the post you are replying to?

It sounds like you didn't.

 

[tas8831]

I shall ignore the rest of your waffle and ad hominems.

Ad hominems like "It is what we expect from atheists. Long on insults and pseudoscience, absence of reasoning and understanding of even what science is , let alone what it dictates."

Stained glass houses, champ.

Stained glass houses.

 

[tas8831]

Did you even read the post you are replying to?

It sounds like you didn't.

But dude - didn't you know that forensic labs' job is to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt?

I mean, I was not aware that the job of a forensic evidence lab was to help prove a DA's case, I thought it was to gather, catalog, and examine evidence, but hey - the amazing forensics labs that tests for cardiac muscle having come from stale crackers cannot be reckoned with!

 

[Mountainmike]

The usual ridiculous answer.
RNA is almost as complicated and genome RNA did not come out of primordial soup.

Repeating what I said.
You have neither process nor evidence for abiogenesis or life by that means.
Nor have you observed it, nor can you repeat it.

To produce even a valid hypothesis you would need to conjecture a minimum complexity self replicating and evolving cell , which since it came from random chemistry - the genome must exist in random chemistry. And then you must conjecture a route from that to DNA genome cells.

And you cant.

The rest is the usual waffle.

I tire of batting back the same old waffle from atheists, who think a few amino acids are a smoking gun for abiogenesis. Which is as wrong as conjecturing a roof tile is proof of a self replicating house

But most atheists are too stupid to see it.

There are single and doubled-stranded RNA viruses. Did not of the PhD scientists that 'worked for you' (LOL!) tell you about this?


You know what else does not occur naturally? An ancient middle eastern tribal deity breathing into dust and a fully formed adult human male walks out, eager to chose "am helpmeet" from among all the other non-human animals that this same deity makes by magic.

Yet here you are, believing it all.

 

[Mountainmike]

But dude - didn't you know that forensic labs' job is to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt?

I mean, I was not aware that the job of a forensic evidence lab was to help prove a DA's case, I thought it was to gather, catalog, and examine evidence, but hey - the amazing forensics labs that tests for cardiac muscle having come from stale crackers cannot be reckoned with!

But then at least there is evidence for life from eucharistic miracles.
Beyond reasonable doubt by your own admission.

There is none at all for life from random chance chemistry

I tire of stating it.
I might even agree with abiogenesis! but If I do it is pure belief. It is not the scientific slamdunk atheists hold it to be, and it is not even a valid hypothesis. That is just telling science how it is

I am a scientist. I like precise definition.

 

[Speedwell]

The usual ridiculous answer.
RNA is almost as complicated and genome RNA did not come out of primordial soup.

Repeating what I said.
You have neither process nor evidence for abiogenesis or life by that means.
Nor have you observed it, nor can you repeat it.

To produce even a valid hypothesis you would need to conjecture a minimum complexity self replicating and evolving cell , which since it came from random chemistry - the genome must exist in random chemistry. And then you must conjecture a route from that to DNA genome cells.

And you cant.

The rest is the usual waffle.

I tire of batting back the same old waffle from atheists, who think a few amino acids are a smoking gun for abiogenesis. Which is as wrong as conjecturing a roof tile is proof of a self replicating house

But most atheists are too stupid to see it.

What exactly do you mean by "random chemistry?" Chemical reactions are not normally considered to be random events. Is "random chemistry" something new?

 

[Mountainmike]

What exactly do you mean by "random chemistry?" Chemical reactions are not normally considered to be random events. Is "random chemistry" something new?

To distinguish it from "Guided" chemistry - ie the presupposition that life was a random accident of the right molecules happening to be in the right place at the right time, with the right energy, and the rest is history.

Except the intellectual leap that that happened is FAR bigger than is commonly perceived.

As I said - the idea that the minimum cell jumped into existence from one set of lucky accidents is ridiculous in random chance terms. The pathways of even the simplest cells are bigger than any of our chemical factories.
And what of the ingredients? Take for example the DNA strands, which would have to exist in primordial soup. There is no evidence that was ever so.

The only way round the impasse is to conceive of the irreducible minimum replicating and evolving cell in which ALL of its consituents existed in soup. Then a frankenstein accident with energy knocks it into existence. From which it evolved to the present cells.

BUT...
First you have to conjecture the structure of such a cell
And show it could have happened by chance.
And then conjecture a path to the current minimum DNA genome cell
And then conjecture ar eason why none of the bits in this evolutionary chain are still being created, and why the smaller ones no longer exist, and why none have ever been found.

All of those are a MASSIVE intellectual leap.
From a first cell to man, is a tiny leap in comparison. From chemicals to the first cell is a far bigger leap.

 

[tas8831]

The usual ridiculous answer.

Oh, the AD HOMINEMS!

RNA is almost as complicated and genome RNA did not come out of primordial soup.

What is "genome RNA"? I thought you pretended to understand science and stuff?
What "primoridal soup"? Is misrepresenting those you hate and fear a requirement for religious fanatics, or just an added bonus?

Repeating what I said.
You have neither process nor evidence for abiogenesis or life by that means.
Nor have you observed it, nor can you repeat it.

And the same goes for your beliefs (as well as your hoax miracles).

The difference is, as has been explained to you several times, at least non-creationists are doing research to find out about abiogenesis. What are you doing? You are just spamming a forum with these laughable bread miracle hoaxes.

To produce even a valid hypothesis you would need to conjecture a minimum complexity self replicating and evolving cell , which since it came from random chemistry - the genome must exist in random chemistry. And then you must conjecture a route from that to DNA genome cells.

It is so fun to watch creationists with embellished backgrounds bloviate and misrepresent current scientific thinking.

Tell us all about the valid hypotheses surrounding your hoax miracles - or better yet, your creation tall tales.

A tribal deity making a man from dust - rich! Oh, right - that is just a 'belief' based on ancient tales, no science needed for blind acceptance.

And you cant.

I can't. That is true. You see, unlike you, I do not pretend to be the ultimate authority on all fields of science and theology. I am not the one advocating abiogenesis - just defending the concept from attacks from someone that thinks ancient middle eastern tales are 100% true

The rest is the usual waffle.

Projection.

I tire of batting back the same old waffle from atheists, who think a few amino acids are a smoking gun for abiogenesis. Which is as wrong as conjecturing a roof tile is proof of a self replicating house

Wow, your amazing science talk is so convincing!
Just like how your amazing bread zapped into pained heart muscle in backwater catholic churches hurting for money totally happened!

But most atheists are too stupid to see it.

And we end with the usual condescending well poisoning ad hominem from Johnny Christian.

You've got nothing but an ego and a desire for your fairy tales to be true. Sad.