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

[Speedwell]

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. 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.

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.

It is 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.

You're right, at this point abiogenesis is little better than conjecture. However, the constraints you lay on that conjecture are obstructive, I think intentionally so.

 

[Mountainmike]

I am pointing at evidence for eucharistic miracles.

The fact they defy "common sense" is as Einstein would say , that common sense is the net sum of all prejudice. I notice you use the word "ridiculous" yet I will wager you have never even looked at the forensic evidence! So that is an apriori belief on your part.

What i said was spot on about abiogenesis.
I appreciate it does not line up with your beliefs. Which is why you ridicule it.

Those scientists would do better studying eucharistic miracles.
Or indeed many other phenomena I could point at.

At least they would have some evidence to look at.
This is a waste of time TAS for as long as you refuse to look at evidence, preferring your beliefs.

Oh, the AD HOMINEMS!

What is "genome RNA"? What "primoridal soup"? Is misrepresenting those you hate and fear a requirement for religious fanatics, or just an added bonus?

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.

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.

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

Projection.

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!

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

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

 

[tas8831]

But then at least there is evidence for life from eucharistic miracles.

No, there really isn't. I can't believe a super scientist like yourself - I mean, golly, you had PhD scientists WORKING for you! how can you be wrong about anything??? - got duped by these laughable claims.

Beyond reasonable doubt by your own admission.

LOL!
Right, I totally claimed your bread hoaxes are 'beyond reasonable doubt'.. Yup..

There is none at all for life from random chance chemistry

What is "random chance chemistry"?
Is that similar to 'random backwater church puts beef heart in place of eucharist, calls it a miracle, millions of fools believe it' religion?

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.

You are not a scientist.

A scientist would be able to use appropriate terminology, not loaded monikers. A scientist would understand the job of forensics labs. A scientist would actually be skeptical of the claims of miracles that cannot be corroborated. And so on.

Pity you ignored the evidence I presented. But that is what non-scientist religious fanatics do.

 

[Mountainmike]

You're right, at this point abiogenesis is little better than conjecture. However, the constraints you lay on that conjecture are obstructive, I think intentionally so.

I think you should consider what I said - it is spot on.
A current cell did not leap into existence out of ingredients present in soup. Not least some of them do not exist outside complex life.

So For abiogenesis to be true.
At some point, there was a first cell.
Simple enough to be formed from random chemistry and ingredients present in chemical soup. Complex enough to self replicate and evolve.

There is no other possibility.

Both are a massive leap.
A far bigger intellectual leap , than the first primitive cell to man.

And it is just as much a mystery to solve why the intermediates have never been seen, if the process to them and from them is viable (ie in energy, entropy or tunnelling) . In English, why did it not carry on?.


Not obstructive at all. Just saying it how it is.

 

[Mountainmike]

You will never know until you look at the evidence.

And I cant be bothered answering you any more.
I shall ignore the rest of the adhominems.

No, there really isn't. I can't believe a super scientist like yourself - I mean, golly, you had PhD scientists WORKING for you! how can you be wrong about anything??? - got duped by these laughable claims.

LOL!
Right, I totally claimed your bread hoaxes are 'beyond reasonable doubt'.. Yup..


What is "random chance chemistry"?
Is that similar to 'random backwater church puts beef heart in place of eucharist, calls it a miracle, millions of fools believe it' religion?


You are not a scientist.

A scientist would be able to use appropriate terminology, not loaded monikers. A scientist would understand the job of forensics labs. A scientist would actually be skeptical of the claims of miracles that cannot be corroborated. And so on.

Pity you ignored the evidence I presented. But that is what non-scientist religious fanatics do.

 

[Speedwell]

I think you should consider what I said - it is spot on.
A current cell did not leap into existence out of ingredients present in soup. Not least some of them do not exist outside complex life.

So For abiogenesis to be true.
At some point, there was a first cell.
Simple enough to be formed from random chemistry and ingredients present in chemical soup. Complex enough to self replicate and evolve.

There is no other possibility.

Ah, yes. The first cell just magically assembled itself from a sea of inorganic chemicals. And we have to believe this ridiculous claim because we're so afraid of admitting that God might have had something to do with it. Is that about it? So now we have to stand an watch in awe while you demolish this fatuous straw man.

 

[tas8831]

I am pointing at evidence for eucharistic miracles.

No, you are swallowing it hook, line, and sinker. Why would a tribal deity waste his time performing silly "miracles" like that? Why not do something meaningful? Isn't it odd that major "miracles" stopped happening when more effecting means of communication were developed? Time was we had the dead rising from their graves, seas splitting, etc., now we get dubious bread=heart muscle, stains on windows look like Jesus!, etc.

How sad.

The fact they defy "common sense" is as Einstein would say , that common sense is the net sum of all prejudice.

Common sense? No, they defy rational thought.

I notice you use the word "ridiculous" yet I will wager you have never even looked at the forensic evidence!

Nor have you.

So that is an apriori belief on your part.

You have not looked at the forensic evidence, either. You have simply accepted at face value the reports of Catholics saying it is real. My a priori position, given the history and dubious nature of supposed miracles, is that they are fake or silly unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary. Jesus' face on burnt toast is ridiculous, yet may religionists accept that as a miracle. People drove thousands of miles just to see that water stain on the side of a building in Texas a few years back that was said to look like the silhouette of Mary - a miracle. And people buy into the more elaborate hoaxes - like a eucharist turning into 'pained heart' tissue - for the same reasons.

What i said was spot on about abiogenesis.
I appreciate it does not line up with your beliefs. Which is why you ridicule it.

Is that why you ridicule abiogenesis? Because it does not comport with your religionism? Interesting admission.

Those scientists would do better studying eucharistic miracles.

Perhaps - it would be easy to demonstrate them as hoaxes, I suspect. Much easier than trying to find out relevant, meaningful stuff.

Or indeed many other phenomena I could point at.

LOL! Right - you mean like "random chance chemsitry" or maybe "genome RNA"?

At least they would have some evidence to look at.
This is a waste of time TAS for as long as you refuse to look at evidence, preferring your beliefs.

More projection.

Wow, you do that a lot.

My 'beliefs' are premised on the track record of science. Your's are premised on really wanting ancient middle eastern tall tales to be true.

 

[tas8831]

You will never know until you look at the evidence.

And I cant be bothered answering you any more.
I shall ignore the rest of the adhominems.

You mean you will ignore much of your own posts? Like where you wrote "But most atheists are too stupid to see it."?

Don't answer me - well, you never really answer, you just bloviate and dodge - not a biggie for me. Won't make your fake miracles real. Won't make your embellished and obviously misrepresented background reality. Won't make you the expert on all science that you really, really, really want people to think you are.
But do what you want.

 

[Jimmy D]

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.

Isn't "I don't know" the intellectually honest answer? Still, what would I know, being a "stupid" atheist.

 

[tas8831]

- 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.

You mean the strawman of the presupposition of others?

As I said - the idea that the minimum cell jumped into existence from one set of lucky accidents is ridiculous in random chance terms.

Really? As an amazing scientist, surely you can DEMONSTRATE the ridiculousness of this in "random chance terms".

Right?

 

[Mountainmike]

Spare me.
I thought we were having and intelligent discussion about abiogenesis.
My evaluation was spot on.

And as for the evidence I ask all to consider there is nothing" ridiculous" about something that actually happens , which phrase is indicative of a statment of your apriori prejudice against it

Study the evidence - if it was faked , how was it done? It has beaten forensic scientists.
There are several factors that need accounting to even hint at fraud.
1. How do you get cardiac tissue to intimately intermingle with bread at the edges?
2. Why does the blood appear to force out of the bread rather than in?
3. Why are leucocytes still viable months or years after, when they die in hours in vitro
4. Why does the tissue fail toyield the DNA signature of a once living person, why are there no corpses? If it was a fraud?
5. How has one instance survived 800 years still recognisable as human tissue and blood without preservatives/
And so on...

If people start thinking like scientists, and put down the apriori prejudice, they are in for a fascinating journey - on this and many other phenomena.

But your attitude demonstrates why it is so little disseminated.
Most refuse even to look, before judge, as you did using the word "ridiculous"
Which was unscientific.

Ah, yes. The first cell just magically assembled itself from a sea of inorganic chemicals. And we have to believe this ridiculous claim because we're so afraid of admitting that God might have had something to do with it. Is that about it? So now we have to stand an watch in awe while you demolish this fatuous straw man.

 

[Mountainmike]

Isn't "I don't know" the intellectually honest answer? Still, what would I know, being a "stupid" atheist.

That is a fine answer. Not stupid at all.

 

[Speedwell]

That is a fine answer. Not stupid at all.

Then why do you spend so much effort condemning and misrepresenting abiogenesis researchers for saying pretty much the same thing?

 

[Mountainmike]

Then why do you spend so much effort condemning and misrepresenting abiogenesis researchers for saying pretty much the same thing?

I dont.
I challenge those that think it is other than pure conjecture.
Particularly those who use words like "theory " or "fact" when it is none of those.
And people who use the smokescreen that because "bricks" are seen in nature, they are evidence of self building houses (not)
Most do not seem to understand just what a massive intellectual leap abiogenesis is. They seem to think that evolution from first cell to man is the "Big" puzzle solved. When in reality it is tiny as an intellectual leap in comparison to the first cell from chemicals. I get irritated by people who say "RNA" when I say the first genome had to be far simpler. (ie something existing in chemical soup) They dont seem to know what RNA is then - it is barely simpler.


And I challenge people who seem to think science "explains" anything at a fundamental level. Those people need to study the philosophy of science .It is an observation model, in a limited sensor space. No more and no less. It explains what things that repeat no,rmally do, not what they are or why they are.
.
So why do you condemn those who look at evidence of things that have happened and need explanation, regarding it as "ridiculous" or some how less "scientific" than the pure conjecture which is abiogenesis??

Sure there are religious hoaxes and frauds. But just like there are paintings which are fake, the existence of fakes does not make all artworks fake. And there are many phenomena not just eucharistic miracles - not easily explained away as fraud.

You are allowing a priori prejudice to replace reason.

 

[Speedwell]

I dont.
I challenge those that think it is other than pure conjecture.
Particularly those who use words like "theory " or "fact" when it is none of those.

There is at this time no fully developed theory of abiogenesis and no scientist claims so. Likewise no scientist claims it is a fact. Perhaps you are confused because while abiogenesis is not a "fact" it is certainly more likely to be true than biblical creationism.

 

[dad]

Yes it does involve the Bible whether you like or not.

I like the bible.

You have admitted a base line exists in the solar system therefore the Earth revolves around the Sun.
This contradicts the Bible.
End of argument.

Don't you wish. The argument was regarding the basis used by science to determine distances to stars. Since you seem unable to address that, we find you instead grasping at some old wives tale so called interpretations of Scripture.

I’m quoting chapter and verse like any programmable fundamentalist and there are no misconceptions as the Bible makes it perfectly clear the Earth does not revolve around the Sun.

The verses you posted do nothing of the sort. They have so far shown that you have no ability to understand what you are reading.

For the benefit of lurkers, I will look at each verse you posted here, with my interpreations following.

1 Chron 16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved. 31 Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice: and let men say among the nations, The LORD reigneth. 32 Let the sea roar, and the fulness thereof: let the fields rejoice, and all that is therein. 33 Then shall the trees of the wood sing out at the presence of the LORD, because he cometh to judge the earth.

What I see here is prophesy. Beautiful prophesy. One day there will be stability on the earth after He returns. (to interpret this as if it meant the earth doesn't move is truly offensive to the spirit of the text)

Psalm 93:1: 1 The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

In the same verse we see that this refers to the time when Jesus will reign of earth!!


Psalm 96:10: 10 Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.

Again, clearly prophesy and clearly referring to a future this earth will be forever time when the world and all people on it will be safe and secure and established forever and ever. For anyone to try and twist these things into some insult to Scripture and the intelligence of God is ugly and low and disgusting.



Psalm 104:5: Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

So now we have the creation of the world. Here, the word translated as foundations means this from the Hebrew... "fixed or established place".

Since we know from Scripture that the Almighty will Himself descend from heaven to forever live on this earth, one would certainly say He build the foundations to last!!! With a deeper understanding of the bible and prophesy of what is coming, we would also notice that the surface of the earth will be burned up. But the earth itself sits on more sure foundations, so it will no more be destroyed by this than an iron frying pan is destroyed by frying an egg on the fire. It is fixed, established on the foundations.



Isaiah 45:17 But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end. 18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

So once again, this refers to the time when Israel will be saved! That is, for the prophesy savvy folks here, at the return of Christ at the end of the great tribulation. Then it tells us of how God made this ol world to last forever and for people to live on it forever. Wonderful verses.

Are you so utterly deluded as to think the Biblical quotes I supplied support a heliocentric model?

In the verses you quoted, it has nothing to do with that.

If you think the terms and excerpts in Biblical quotes supplied describing the Earth such as “firm”, “immovable”, “fixed”, “foundation”, “never can it be shaken” and “himself fixed it fast” can be interpreted as a moving Earth, there is no doubt who is the real dummy here.

I just showed that the verses you try to insult and malign mean nothing similar to your pathetic accusations. From the beginning of the bible we see that God moves, He moved over the waters, and we see that He set up seasons and day and night. No matter what moves where or how, seasons take some movement!!! Your interpretations are utterly devastated.

Martin Luther one of the most brilliant theologians in history who was by no means “dumb” provided this commentary about Copernicus.

He did not really have much of a clue about some things. Looking at wiki I see that he had views that today would be considered terrorism.

"

• "First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools … This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians …"
• "Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed."
• "Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them."
• "Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb …"
• "Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside …"
• "Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them …"
• "Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow … But if we are afraid that they might harm us or our wives, children, servants, cattle, etc., … then let us emulate the common sense of other nations such as France, Spain, Bohemia, etc., … then eject them forever from the country …"

Martin Luther and antisemitism - Wikipedia

And I suggest you look at your own behaviour before moralizing.

Your star witness to foolish cosmology was just shown up to be a terrorist and you preach about morals???

To use God as a justification for calling people who disagree with you as sinister, bad and evil is morally repugnant.

Ideas that denigrate Scripture and try to make God seem like an imbecile are bad. I took the time to show that the verses you tried to use to do so were actually wonderful, lovely verses, rich in prophesy and promise and that display the awesome wisdom of God.


///for the win!

 

[dad]

How would you know? Have you personally been to every square cm in belgium to test if gravity works the same everywhere?

Well, there may be some gravity wells and minor variations, but nothing that violates fishbowl gravity rules!! The evidence is billions of people living all over this world. Not one witness it is the same out in the edges of the universe.

When I want to define reality, I base it on what I actually observe in reality, instead of on what I read in a bronze age book.

One minute you question gravity in Belgium, next minute you claim observations are your basis. Which is it?

 

[dad]

I disagree.
Since I consider gods to being fictional, I can't really insult them.



If you aren't aware of exposed creationist liars, then it can only be because of lack of looking.

You can start with the term cdesign proponentsists.

That term has become like a meme by now, symbolic of creationist dishonesty.
It is off course just one example among many, many examples of creationists caught lying.



No, like all creationists, you are demonstrably wrong also.

But I already explained to you why it's impossible for you to realise that.
You literally stated that if the evidence of reality disagrees with your beliefs, then you assume that reality is wrong.

So you dissmiss evidence that counters your beliefs. And you dissmiss it ONLY for that reason: that it counters your beliefs.

There is no evidence to dismiss or accept or do anything else with regarding what time is like in deep space. You have beliefs.

I'm an atheist. I don't have a religion.

That depends if you embrace the belief system of origin sciences. Apparently you do.

 

[DogmaHunter]

To distinguish it from "Guided" chemistry -

Same question....
I only know of "chemistry". What is "random" and "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.

Isn't that true for every molecule coming out of a chemical reaction?
The "right molecules" being in the "right place" at the "right time"?

I mean, after all, if 2 H atoms and an O atom are not in eachothers immediate surroundings, or if the temperature or pressure is not what it needs to be, then no H2O will be forming, right?

So how is it different?

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

That's what they used to say about the building blocks of life, like amino acids.
And then we discovered how such molecules happily form through spontanous chemical reactions in whatever circumstances it is that triggers such reactions.

Do you think it's possible that you are just as wrong about this, then they were about that?

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.

There you go again, pretending that first life was similar to "minimum cells", wich are the result of 3.8 billion years of evolution.

And what of the ingredients?

What of it? You mean the building blocks, that we actually know happily form in nature, by natural processes?

Take for example the DNA strands, which would have to exist in primordial soup

Not a single abiogenesis researcher that I know off, says this.
It's been a while, but just about every hypothesis I ever encountered concerning abiogenesis, had DNA evolving later on. Ever heared of the "RNA world" idea? In that hypothesis, DNA evolves from RNA.

There is no evidence that was ever so.

Which is kind of expected, considering we are talking about primitive microscopic life from 3.8 billion years ago (at least).

It's actually one of the reasons why abiogenesis is such hard a problem to tackle and investigate.

But I get it... just saying god-dun-it, takes much less effort.

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.

Nice collection of fallacious nonsense.
I suggest you read up a bit before continuing.

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.

If you say so.
On the flip side, saying "god-dun-it" and pretend it is an answer, is a MASSSIVE intellectual insult.

From a first cell to man, is a tiny leap in comparison. From chemicals to the first cell is a far bigger leap.

Not as a big a leap as the creationist claims, which actually require the suspension / violation of natural laws.

At least abiogenesis researchers are looking for answers that don't involve magic.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well, there may be some gravity wells and minor variations, but nothing that violates fishbowl gravity rules!!

How would you know? Again: have you been in every square inch in belgium and tested it out? Have you even been in Belgium at all?

[qutoe]
The evidence is billions of people living all over this world.[/quote]

How do you know that? Have you personally spoken to these billions of people?
How many % of the earth is covered with these human witnesses? It can't be much, considering that 70% of the surface is covered with water. Of the remaining 30%, much of it is uninhabitable mountain regions, permafrost ice caps, deserts,...

So you have no human witnesses for most of the earth's surface.

So, you just assume that gravity and time in the US works the same as it does on the north pole or some uninhabitable region in Tibet?

Not one witness it is the same out in the edges of the universe.

Not one witness is in the middle of the arctic either.

One minute you question gravity in Belgium, next minute you claim observations are your basis. Which is it?

I'm asking YOU, while demonstrating how your "logic" is utter nonsense and that the null hypothesis is that things can assumed to work the same unless there actually is a valid reason to think otherwise.

But I'm sure that your fundamentalists beliefs will prevent you from thinking it through and realising how utterly insane your "reasoning" is.