Why do creationists redefine and/or make up words out-of-context?

[Clint Edwards]

Without actually knowing what you are talking about... it seems you are saying that scientist are recognizing this, whatever it is, as a currently unexplained problem.

Then there's your answer, isn't?
It's unexplained. Unknown. As in not yet understood properly.

Without even asking what exactly you are talking about, why is this a problem?
Obviously there's lot's of stuff we don't know yet... that's why we still train scientists- so they can try and change that.

When you are ignorant about something, the only path forward is rolling up your sleeves and getting to work to get answers.

Not stitting back and just being content with some faith based assertion...



Abiogenesis is a work in progress.
Currently the origins of life are unknown.

Is that what you wanted to hear?



Except that it isn't.

I have made NO faith based assertion. I stated that those who believe in abiogenesis had no explanation for the required inherent information required for a functional precursor organism based upon the encoded DNA to RNA to function model of all life on earth, except for many viruses who must parasatize DNA to reproduce. I stated it as a fact, based upon my SCIENTIFIC study of the matter. Obviously, by stating that I was inviting someone who could explain it within the framework of abiogenesis. No one did. I did hear about how I couldn't understand, how I was ignorant, etc, etc, ad nauseum. No one here yet has simply offered a reasonable solution to the problem, or even a totally unreasonable one. There are massive problems with abiogenesis, this is just the newest one.

It seems someone is operating in the faith realm, and that faith is being defended, but not with explanations.

Thank you for your honest answer. From the purely scientific perspective, the origin of life is unknown, at least for now.

 

[HitchSlap]

There are massive problems with abiogenesis, this is just the newest one.

Fine, you don't accept current hypotheses regarding abiogenesis.

So how do you think life on earth began?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I have made NO faith based assertion. I stated that those who believe in abiogenesis had no explanation for the required inherent information required for a functional precursor organism based upon the encoded DNA to RNA to function model of all life on earth, except for many viruses who must parasatize DNA to reproduce.

Check out the work of Jack Szostak, his abiogenesis experiment produced replicating protocells in 2013. They aren't viruses.

I stated it as a fact, based upon my SCIENTIFIC study of the matter. Obviously, by stating that I was inviting someone who could explain it within the framework of abiogenesis. No one did.

-_- trillions of lipid bubbles formed around RNA as a consequence of how lipids and water interact, and some of those lipid bubbles formed around collections of RNA capable of replicating themselves. Being selectively permeable is a natural trait of lipid bilayers, which these bubbles are, and as they slowly expand as they take in materials from the outside, they do a slow pop and form two lipid bubbles with the contents of the original split between them. The RNA of protocells doesn't take part in the replication of the whole, just itself, frequently mutating due to having no adaptations to prevent it... yet.

And that's how cells got their beginnings, as simply as I could put it.

I did hear about how I couldn't understand, how I was ignorant, etc, etc, ad nauseum. No one here yet has simply offered a reasonable solution to the problem, or even a totally unreasonable one. There are massive problems with abiogenesis, this is just the newest one.

I just did, there you go.

It seems someone is operating in the faith realm, and that faith is being defended, but not with explanations.

Thank you for your honest answer. From the purely scientific perspective, the origin of life is unknown, at least for now.

Sure, that's why abiogenesis is a hypothesis, not a theory. Yes, even with Jack Szostak's experiment being very successful, it's still a hypothesis. That stuff needs to be repeated quite a few times to reach theory status.

 

[pitabread]

No, that cannot be the case, because genetic related information is defined as something that leads to an action of two or more possibilities.

I've never seen a definition of genetic information described like this. Quite frankly, I don't know what you are trying to say.

DNA and RNA cannot be the result solely of chemical reactions because chemical reactions themselves do not contain information.

That's what an emergent property is, though. It's a property that arises as a result of the combination of individual parts where the parts themselves don't contain the property.

If there is indeed 'information' within DNA or RNA, it could simply be an emergent property of the arrangement of those particular compounds.

You can read more about it here: Emergence - Wikipedia

Even if they did, and could randomly create bits of information, this doesn´t address the issue of these thousands of bits randomly ordering themselves in a perfect chain to operate a cell that could not have existed without the cell reading the DNA in the first place.

I wouldn't exactly call DNA strands a "perfect chain". Life isn't about perfection, it's about whatever works.

You glossed over the fact that the study in question shows not genetic intermediary connections between species.

I haven't looked into the relevance of that particular part yet.

 

[Clint Edwards]

Check out the work of Jack Szostak, his abiogenesis experiment produced replicating protocells in 2013. They aren't viruses.



-_- trillions of lipid bubbles formed around RNA as a consequence of how lipids and water interact, and some of those lipid bubbles formed around collections of RNA capable of replicating themselves. Being selectively permeable is a natural trait of lipid bilayers, which these bubbles are, and as they slowly expand as they take in materials from the outside, they do a slow pop and form two lipid bubbles with the contents of the original split between them. The RNA of protocells doesn't take part in the replication of the whole, just itself, frequently mutating due to having no adaptations to prevent it... yet.

And that's how cells got their beginnings, as simply as I could put it.


I just did, there you go.


Sure, that's why abiogenesis is a hypothesis, not a theory. Yes, even with Jack Szostak's experiment being very successful, it's still a hypothesis. That stuff needs to be repeated quite a few times to reach theory status.

Thank you for your explanation. You aren't contending that this replicating RNA is a living organism, are you ? Do any organisms exist that are Solely RNA based ? Is RNA solely the worker in relation to DNA " instruction", or does it have information to both direct and operate an organism ? Is there any evidence that these replicating permeable lipid bubbles and self replicating RNA can combine to form a living cell ? Is there any evidence that this self replicating RNA can evolve into DNA ? Thanks !

 

[HitchSlap]

Thank you for your explanation. You aren't contending that this replicating RNA is a living organism, are you ? Do any organisms exist that are Solely RNA based ? Is RNA solely the worker in relation to DNA " instruction", or does it have information to both direct and operate an organism ? Is there any evidence that these replicating permeable lipid bubbles and self replicating RNA can combine to form a living cell ? Is there any evidence that this self replicating RNA can evolve into DNA ? Thanks !

So how do you think life began?

 

[Clint Edwards]

Fine, you don't accept current hypotheses regarding abiogenesis.

So how do you think life on earth began?

My OPINION is that, based upon the big bang, the resultant physical laws of the universe, the specific distribution of stars and design of the universe, the place of earth in the universe and in relation to the sun in our solar system, no more evidence for the natural creation of life as for the supernatural, I believe it began supernaturally. Further, Having had formal classes in the discipline of logic, and exposure to significant philosophy, both when I was an atheist,both these support the idea of a supernatural God, to me. It is really ultimately a choice, based upon ones evaluation of the available evidence, or lack of said evidence, isn't it ? Pascals wager makes sense to me.

 

[AV1611VET]

So how do you think life began?

When I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Saviour.

 

[pitabread]

Further, Having had formal classes in the discipline of logic, and exposure to significant philosophy, both when I was an atheist,both these support the idea of a supernatural God, to me. It is really ultimately a choice, based upon ones evaluation of the available evidence, or lack of said evidence, isn't it ? Pascals wager makes sense to me.

Pascal's Wager only really makes sense if you buy into certain theological premises to begin with.

 

[Clint Edwards]

I've never seen a definition of genetic information described like this. Quite frankly, I don't know what you are trying to say.



That's what an emergent property is, though. It's a property that arises as a result of the combination of individual parts where the parts themselves don't contain the property.

If there is indeed 'information' within DNA or RNA, it could simply be an emergent property of the arrangement of those particular compounds.

You can read more about it here: Emergence - Wikipedia



I wouldn't exactly call DNA strands a "perfect chain". Life isn't about perfection, it's about whatever works.




I haven't looked into the relevance of that particular part yet.

The definition I used is this. Information in action can lead to two or more possible reactions, controlled by the information. Information in a cell, as an example, might control the release of a specific protein leading to a specific result, when other specific proteins could be released leading to different results. The specific protein and its result being what is required for the function of the cell at that particular time. The result of the right protein at the right time is the result of information. Without the information controlling the release of the specific protein, any could be released from the possibilities, a random, process killing the organism. Whew, I hope that is semi understandable

 

[Speedwell]

My OPINION is that, based upon the big bang, the resultant physical laws of the universe, the specific distribution of stars and design of the universe, the place of earth in the universe and in relation to the sun in our solar system, no more evidence for the natural creation of life as for the supernatural, I believe it began supernaturally. Further, Having had formal classes in the discipline of logic, and exposure to significant philosophy, both when I was an atheist,both these support the idea of a supernatural God, to me. It is really ultimately a choice, based upon ones evaluation of the available evidence, or lack of said evidence, isn't it ? Pascals wager makes sense to me.

That's cool, but we're not talking about the existence of God right now.

 

[Clint Edwards]

Pascal's Wager only really makes sense if you buy into certain theological premises to begin with.

No, it ultimately very logically says, " If I am right, I gain everything, and you gain nothing. If you are right, I lose nothing." So, why not bet on the possibility of winning everything ?

 

[HitchSlap]

My OPINION is that, based upon the big bang, the resultant physical laws of the universe, the specific distribution of stars and design of the universe, the place of earth in the universe and in relation to the sun in our solar system, no more evidence for the natural creation of life as for the supernatural, I believe it began supernaturally. Further, Having had formal classes in the discipline of logic, and exposure to significant philosophy, both when I was an atheist,both these support the idea of a supernatural God, to me. It is really ultimately a choice, based upon ones evaluation of the available evidence, or lack of said evidence, isn't it ? Pascals wager makes sense to me.

So, faith...

It never really had anything to do with the evidence, did it? And all your claims of studying this or that was just a smokescreen to declare, goddidit. But rather than bolster your case of the supernatural with evidence, you tear down the natural evidence we do have.

As for Pascal's wager, one doesn't choose their beliefs, and an omniscient god would know this.

 

[Clint Edwards]

That's cool, but we're not talking about the existence of God right now.

No, and I have no desire to get involved in that discussion. However, if I believe life was a supernatural creation, I must logically believe in a supernatural God.

 

[pitabread]

No, it ultimately very logically says, " If I am right, I gain everything, and you gain nothing. If you are right, I lose nothing." So, why not bet on the possibility of winning everything ?

Because it assumes a particular theological belief on the "winning" side (i.e. Christianity).

There are far more beliefs to potentially choose from; on top of that there is also the possibility that no theological belief is right and that the true theology may not be a known choice. Essentially it's not a binary wager; it's betting on an unknown probability space.

 

[pitabread]

As for Pascal's wager, one doesn't choose their beliefs, and an omniscient god would know this.

Exactly. And viewing theology as a form of "insurance" seems an insincere reason to believe in the first place.

 

[Clint Edwards]

So, faith...

It never really had anything to do with the evidence, did it? And all your claims of studying this or that was just a smokescreen to declare, goddidit. But rather than bolster your case of the supernatural with evidence, you tear down the natural evidence we do have.

As for Pascal's wager, one doesn't choose their beliefs, and an omniscient god would know this.

I don't believe God is omniscient. No, My study allows me to say that there is no more evidence that itdidititself than to say Goddidit. In fact, especially in cosmology, the itdidititself theory becomes much more tenuous than in biology.

 

[pitabread]

My study allows me to say that there is no more evidence that itdidititself than to say Goddidit.

In such a case, then Occam's Razor would suggest the former is more reasonable than the latter given the former requires less entities.

 

[HitchSlap]

I don't believe God is omniscient. No, My study allows me to say that there is no more evidence that itdidititself than to say Goddidit. In fact, especially in cosmology, the itdidititself theory becomes much more tenuous than in biology.

Appealing to a mystery to explain a mystery does not make the first position more tenuous.

 

[Clint Edwards]

Because it assumes a particular theological belief on the "winning" side (i.e. Christianity).

There are far more beliefs to potentially choose from; on top of that there is also the possibility that no theological belief is right and that the true theology may not be a known choice. Essentially it's not a binary wager; it's betting on an unknown probability space.

As to creation, the choice appears absolutely binary, either God, or supernatural forces were the agent in creation, or everything created itself. If there is a third option, enlighten me, please.