Evidence of NOAH's FLOOD

[YoursTrue]

The reason that you were wrong is because you posted as if there was one overarching version of "abiogenesis". That is not the case right now. It is still in the hypothetical stage. It has been broken down into various areas and all of those areas that have well developed hypotheses are falsifiable.

But I can think of a case that would refute abiogenesis. It seems that you think that magic poofing is a possibility So if one had a lab set up where there were there was no life, and identifiable life appeared without any precursors that would refute abiogenesis. Abiogenesis says that life had to arise in a at least somewhat orderly fashion from nonlife. Life arising in some other unknown fashion, such as magic poofing, would refue it.

No, it is not base on faith. Where did you get that insane idea from? That paper did not go over any of the specifics. It only gave an overview. It is not even a proper peer reviewed paper. It may have been published in a peer reviewed journal, but it has no research in it. Quoting terms that you did not understand out of context does not help you either.

Let he help you with one part of it. Let's jump to the conclusion that has the term that you did not understand:

"In conclusion, it seems probably that we will never know the precise historic path by which life on the Earth emerged, but, very much in the Darwinian tradition, it seems we can now specify the essence of the ahistoric principles by which that process came about. "

Let me interpret this for you. As we learn more about how abiogenesis almost certainly occurred, we can see that it would have followed many of the same principals as evolution. I could probably dig up some papers on that for you, but you would probably ignore them or misinterpret them. But lets go on. It says that we will probably never know the precise historic path" <my bolding, their italics>"by which that process came about."

Okay, what does that mean? It means that we know from the evidence that life almost certainly arose naturally because there as of right now almost all of the steps have been solved. Some have not. But if you remember all of the "abiogenesis couldn't have happened because of . . . " those problems have been solved. But why can't we know the precise path? Because when they solved some of those problems they found more than one way that they could have been solved. So if you ask "How did they solve the of the racemic nature of nucleic acids when they form naturally" It turns out that there is more than one solution and they could have occurred in different steps of the process. It is on the order of determining the exact path that someone took in crossing a city with a grid layout of streets when one started at the Northeast corner and went down to the southwest corner. There could be countless possible paths, but we can be very sure that the person did not sprout wings and fly.

So we know most of the answers to how it would have happened. We have evidence for most of the steps. So it is not a faith based belief.

You on the other hand have a belief that is not supported by any reliable evidence at all. Worse yet, many of your beliefs are refuted by the existing evidence. You not only have a faith based belief. You have to deny reality to maintain it.

Let's do this again. I say out of respect for you and the subject: SCIENTISTS are now saying that the earth was likely completely covered with water ok BILLIONS of years ago, and that better yet -- ""active volcanism produces abundant sediment that is rapidly delivered to sites of deposition, " Go argue with those scientists. https://volcanology.geol.ucsb.edu/facies.htm#:~:text=contiguous basins of deposition. Sediment is carried from,quiescent volcanism, smaller volumes of pyroclastic, hydroclastic and

 

[shunyadragon]

In the hypothetical stage? LOLOL, sorry, I laugh easily..sometimes...

Reflects your intentional ignorance of science.

I understand the use of 'hypothetical' but disagree with the use here because it really does not reflect the state of abiogenesis research and knowledge. It also opens the door for the manure spreaders to make their contributions.

I subscribe to Google research on abiogenesis and get 10 to 20 articles a month on the chemical stages, and environmental issues of abiogenesis.

This is not the subject of the thread. When fundamentalist Christians can respond to the fact that the accounts of Noah's Flood are physically impossible they change the subject and open the barn doors.

Refer to the new thread on abiogenesis

 

[John53]

In the hypothetical stage? LOLOL, sorry, I laugh easily..sometimes...

Been reading your own posts?

 

[Subduction Zone]

In the hypothetical stage? LOLOL, sorry, I laugh easily..sometimes...

Yes, because you have no clue. I doubt if you have any idea at all of what the problems of abiogenesis even are.

When you have a belief that is no different than a belief in the Easter Bunny do you seriously think that you should be laughing at others that have real evidence for their beliefs? You are only making yourself look bad.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's do this again. I say out of respect for you and the subject: SCIENTISTS are now saying that the earth was likely completely covered with water ok BILLIONS of years ago, and that better yet -- ""active volcanism produces abundant sediment that is rapidly delivered to sites of deposition, " Go argue with those scientists. https://volcanology.geol.ucsb.edu/facies.htm#:~:text=contiguous basins of deposition. Sediment is carried from,quiescent volcanism, smaller volumes of pyroclastic, hydroclastic and

Okay, so you did not understand that article about volcanism.

Yes, volcanoes provide massive amounts of sediment at times. I know why. You do not. That is because you do not even understand the terminology used.

Instead of making yourself look foolish why don't you ask questions. Here is a hint. The article did not say or imply that lava has sediment in it.

 

[shunyadragon]

Let's do this again. I say out of respect for you and the subject: SCIENTISTS are now saying that the earth was likely completely covered with water ok BILLIONS of years ago, and that better yet -- ""active volcanism produces abundant sediment that is rapidly delivered to sites of deposition, " Go argue with those scientists. https://volcanology.geol.ucsb.edu/facies.htm#:~:text=contiguous basins of deposition. Sediment is carried from,quiescent volcanism, smaller volumes of pyroclastic, hydroclastic and

I responded to this and you have not responded, continue misrepresenting sources you do not remotely understand. This compounds your foolishness concerning lava. These hydrothermal volcanoes eject local volumes of sediment, seawater, groundwater, and gases, and not deep geologic water.

To put it simply the water involved here is recycled local mud, groundwater and seawater.

Hydrothermal solutions

'Hydrothermal solutions' published in 'Geochemistry'

link.springer.com

Hydrothermal solutions​

• Robert J. Bodnar

Part of the Encyclopedia of Earth Science book series (EESS)

Sources of water and energy​

In their simplest form, hydrothermal solutions represent water that has been heated to some temperature above ambient surface temperature as a result of natural geologic processes. Often, hydrothermal solutions contain significant amounts of dissolved gases and solids in addition to water. White (1957a) used the term hydrothermal to refer to any water (aqueous solution) that is warm or hot relative to its surrounding environment, with no genetic implications. In its current usage, a fluid in thermal equilibrium with its environment would still be considered a hydrothermal solution. The sources of the water making up hydrothermal solutions are varied, and may include (Figure H7): (1) water that was recently involved in atmospheric circulation and which originates as precipitation at the Earth's surface (meteoric water); (2) seawater; (3) interstitial water that is buried along with the enclosing sediments and has been out of contact with

 

[shunyadragon]

My statement,

was met with these responses:


&

Apparently, you both aren’t aware of what one of your own beloved ‘science gods’ says…

“The conclusion seems clear: speculation regarding the precise historic path (of Origin Of Life) from animate to inanimate—the identity of specific materials that were available at particular physical locations on the prebiotic Earth, together with the chemical structures of possible intermediate stages along the long road to life—may lead to propositions that are, though thought-provoking and of undeniable interest, effectively unfalsifiable, and therefore of limited scientific value.

Given that awkward reality, the focus of OOL research needs to remain on the ahistoric aspects — ….”

The origin of life: what we know, what we can know and what we will never know - PMC

The origin of life (OOL) problem remains one of the more challenging scientific questions of all time. In this essay, we propose that following recent experimental and theoretical advances in systems chemistry, the underlying principle governing the ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

So, own up to the fact that your hope in it, is based on faith.

And IMO, misplaced.

I read this article more carefully, even though I object to how the article approached the ongoing research concerning abiogenesis. It was more of a philosophical approach and not citing specific research nor approach to the issues, but . . . it was not entirely negative as you would like to see from the 'science gods' you would like to see. I doubt you fully read the article.

The origin of life: what we know, what we can know and what we will never know - PMC

The origin of life (OOL) problem remains one of the more challenging scientific questions of all time. In this essay, we propose that following recent experimental and theoretical advances in systems chemistry, the underlying principle governing the ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

In conclusion, it seems probably that we will never know the precise historic path by which life on the Earth emerged, but, very much in the Darwinian tradition, it seems we can now specify the essence of the ahistoric principles by which that process came about. Just as Darwin, in the very simplest of terms, pointed out how natural selection enabled simple life to evolve into complex life, so the recently proposed general theory of evolution [1,7] points out in simplest terms how simple, but fragile, replicating systems could have complexified into the intricate chemical systems of life. But, as discussed earlier, a detailed understanding of that process will have to wait until ongoing studies in systems chemistry reveal both the classes of chemical materials and the kinds of chemical pathways that simple replicating systems are able to follow in their drive towards greater complexity and replicative stability.

 

[shunyadragon]

Okay, so you did not understand that article about volcanism.

Yes, volcanoes provide massive amounts of sediment at times. I know why. You do not. That is because you do not even understand the terminology used.

Instead of making yourself look foolish why don't you ask questions. Here is a hint. The article did not say or imply that lava has sediment in it.

I object to 'volcanoes produce massive amounts of sediment at times.' This statement greatly exaggerates the amount of sediment hydrothermal volcanoes produce compared to the natural sediment produced by all other sources primarily erosion of hundreds of millions of years. Also hydrothermal 'mud' volcanoes are rather temporal and unstable. The source of sediment, water, and gases is local as the reference previously cited.

 

[YoursTrue]

Been reading your own posts?

Seems you can't offer anything close to understanding that the earth was surrounded by water many, many years ago and no land was showing? Yes, there are times even now when I laugh at comments...hey, have a good one. I'm sorry about the suffering you had to endure, truly.

 

[YoursTrue]

Been reading your own posts?

Yes, hypothetical even now is making me laugh...(have a good one). One day life will be better, much better than it is today.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I object to 'volcanoes produce massive amounts of sediment at times.' This statement greatly exaggerates the amount of sediment hydrothermal volcanoes produce compared to the natural sediment produced by all other sources primarily erosion of hundreds of millions of years. Also hydrothermal 'mud' volcanoes are rather temporal and unstable. The source of sediment, water, and gases is local as the reference previously cited.

Okay. it was not well worded. You are right. Let me try again. Volcanoes can produce massive amount of material that can easily become sediments. For example volcanic ash is easily eroded and tends to form much steeper mountains than lava does. Steep slopes and loosely consolidated minerals can easily become eroded and be a source of sediements.

Of course if the volcanic ash does not erode that is just tuff.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Seems you can't offer anything close to understanding that the earth was surrounded by water many, many years ago and no land was showing? Yes, there are times even now when I laugh at comments...hey, have a good one. I'm sorry about the suffering you had to endure, truly.

No, as usual, the misunderstanding is all yours.

 

[John53]

Seems you can't offer anything close to understanding that the earth was surrounded by water many, many years ago and no land was showing? Yes, there are times even now when I laugh at comments...hey, have a good one. I'm sorry about the suffering you had to endure, truly.

What have I said that makes you think I doubt the idea? I watched a documentary on it several years and have done some reading on the topic. So if you've been repeating it 20 times for my benefit you can stop.

What I doubt is a vengeful God destroying the world and getting some old dude to build a boat to carry all the animals in the world. Then his cunning plan turns into a massive failure because the world becomes just as bad as before.

 

[YoursTrue]

What have I said that makes you think I doubt the idea? I watched a documentary on it several years and have done some reading on the topic. So if you've been repeating it 20 times for my benefit you can stop.

What I doubt is a vengeful God destroying the world and getting some old dude to build a boat to carry all the animals in the world. Then his cunning plan turns into a massive failure because the world becomes just as bad as before.

As far as the vengeful God business, you probably believe in evolution anyway and that leads to death so of course you can't be angry or hate evolution, can you? Or maybe a person can, I don't know. Put it another way, you can't hate nature, can you? Since you do say the world is just as bad as before and I tend to agree, remember that Jesus did say just as it was in the time of Noah so it will be when the son of man arrives.
"For just as the days of Noah So will be the presence of the Son of Man;" Matthew 24:37. That is a passage that can be misunderstood by many but some do not take the time to pray and look at it properly. But anyway -- it compares the arrival (also translated as presence) of the son of man (Jesus) to the conditions in Noah's day. Many, many people even without knowledge of the Bible are realizing things just aren't what they 'should be.'

 

[John53]

As far as the vengeful God business, you probably believe in evolution anyway and that leads to death so of course you can't be angry or hate evolution, can you? Or maybe a person can, I don't know. Put it another way, you can't hate nature, can you? Since you do say the world is just as bad as before and I tend to agree, remember that Jesus did say just as it was in the time of Noah so it will be when the son of man arrives.
"For just as the days of Noah So will be the presence of the Son of Man;" Matthew 24:37. That is a passage that can be misunderstood by many but some do not take the time to pray and look at it properly. But anyway -- it compares the arrival (also translated as presence) of the son of man (Jesus) to the conditions in Noah's day. Many, many people even without knowledge of the Bible are realizing things just aren't what they 'should be.'

So you agree that if there is a God and the Noah story is factual then the whole thing was a massive failure?

 

[YoursTrue]

So you agree that if there is a God and the Noah story is factual then the whole thing was a massive failure?

No. But it's late and my eyes are getting tired. Later...

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. But it's late and my eyes are getting tired. Later...

Then you are once again being inconsistent in your reasoning.

 

[John53]

No. But it's late and my eyes are getting tired. Later...

Great get some sleep and when you're rested you can explain to me how if things are just as bad nowadays it wasn't a failure.

Actually it's 4 failures if the Bible is factual (that I know of), he failed at the very beginning when half the angels he created rebelled, then Adam and Eve went off the rails condemning all of mankind, then the Noah debacle and finally when he sent his son down to sort things out.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My statement,

was met with these responses:


&

Apparently, you both aren’t aware of what one of your own beloved ‘science gods’ says…

“The conclusion seems clear: speculation regarding the precise historic path (of Origin Of Life) from animate to inanimate—the identity of specific materials that were available at particular physical locations on the prebiotic Earth, together with the chemical structures of possible intermediate stages along the long road to life—may lead to propositions that are, though thought-provoking and of undeniable interest, effectively unfalsifiable, and therefore of limited scientific value.

Given that awkward reality, the focus of OOL research needs to remain on the ahistoric aspects — ….”

The origin of life: what we know, what we can know and what we will never know - PMC

The origin of life (OOL) problem remains one of the more challenging scientific questions of all time. In this essay, we propose that following recent experimental and theoretical advances in systems chemistry, the underlying principle governing the ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

So, own up to the fact that your hope in it, is based on faith.

And IMO, misplaced.

Here is your mistake:


...speculation regarding the precise historic path (of Origin Of Life) from animate to inanimate...


Abiogenesis studies how chemistry can turn into biology. It is known that there are multiple pathways to obtain the same molecules.
What your article is saying that we likely will never know what the exact historic path was that happened on early earth.

But don't let intellectual honesty get in your way. By all means, continue to spew your willful ignorance all over the forum.

 

[shunyadragon]

Seems you can't offer anything close to understanding that the earth was surrounded by water many, many years ago and no land was showing? Yes, there are times even now when I laugh at comments...hey, have a good one. I'm sorry about the suffering you had to endure, truly.

Still waiting for you to respond to my scientific references that document your selective dishonest interpretation of citations without any knowledge of the science involved.