God is disproven by science? Really?

[Hockeycowboy]

You can't explain why matter is neither created nor destroyed, nor why it exists even if it can't be destroyed.

Matter can be destroyed. Fire does it all the time. The energy within it is another ‘matter’ (pardon the pun!); it simply transforms.

Yes, a lot of unanswered questions; but still, conclusions are made.

Is that part of an argument that it is probably incorrect?

I will simply post this:

Artificial gene synthesis - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

This is great! But I’ll tell you one thing about this… these lab-controlled experiments demonstrate that it took an intelligent mind to accomplish them.

Show me how this could be done by natural means, de novo, and you’ll have my attention.

Show me how natural processes formed the first bacterial flagellum, or the first cell membrane, or the first one of the dozens of other cell machinery, and began their cooperation.

Or how, through mindless natural processes, the first symbiotic relationship originated.

I’m interested in learning how these systems began.

I’ve stated many times, that adaptation / evolution has produced the diversity we observe, I accept that. And that’s a lot. The evidence supporting evolution within families of organisms is everywhere.

But the first one of each of these (for lack of a better encompassing word) systems? Both living & non-living? It required an intelligence. And to me, it also took a Mind for setting the fine-tuned parameters in place to establish & promote the flourishing environment for living things….

List of Fine-Tuning Parameters

“Fine-tuning” refers to various features of the universe that are necessary conditions for the existence of complex life, including the initial conditions and “brute facts” of the universe…

intelligentdesign.org

Same question: Is that part of an argument that it is probably incorrect?

Regarding Panspermia? Taking in all that is considered, from the life-killing vacuum of space, to the lack of evidence for it, I would say yes. In whole.

The idea of panspermia is old, but more recent evidence in support of Martian abiogenesis and the possibility of lithopanspermia (microscopic life traveling through space in rocky vessels) has made it more plausible.

It's a very real possibility because if life could arise on Earth, it probably could have arisen on Mars as well, and if so, it would have occurred before it did on Earth, which was too hot to generate or support life for far longer than Mars. And if there were a realistic mechanism for that life to get from Mars to Earth, then the possibility that it happened is realistic, too.

I’m sorry…. I know you won’t like this….but that requires a lot of faith.

I hope you’ll have a great rest-of-the-day!

You’re one of the few atheists here, with whom I enjoy discussing these topics.
I appreciate your mildness.

Others on RF, seem to get all bent out of shape, and resort to Ad-Hom attacks on my intelligence, lack of knowledge, or honesty.

Using it to distract, really demeans their own argument imo.

 

[Audie]

Matter can be destroyed. Fire does it all the time. The energy within it is another ‘matter’ (pardon the pun!); it simply transforms.

Yes, a lot of unanswered questions; but still, conclusions are made.


I will simply post this:

Artificial gene synthesis - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

This is great! But I’ll tell you one thing about this… these lab-controlled experiments demonstrate that it took an intelligent mind to accomplish them.

Show me how this could be done by natural means, de novo, and you’ll have my attention.

Show me how natural processes formed the first bacterial flagellum, or the first cell membrane, or the first one of the dozens of other cell machinery, and began cooperating.

Or how, through mindless natural processes, the first symbiotic relationship originated.

I’m interested in learning how these systems began.

I’ve stated many times, that adaptation / evolution has produced the diversity we observe, I accept that. And that’s a lot. The evidence supporting evolution within families of organisms is everywhere.

But the first one of each of these (for lack of a better encompassing word) systems? Both living & non-living? It required an intelligence. And to me, it also took a Mind for setting the fine-tuned parameters in place to establish & promote the flourishing environment for living things.

Regarding Panspermia? Taking in all that is considered, from the life-killing vacuum of space, to the lack of evidence for it, I would say yes. In whole.




I’m sorry…. I know you won’t like this….but that requires a lot of faith.

I hope you’ll have a great rest-of-the-day!

You’re one of the few atheists here, with whom I enjoy discussing these topics.
I appreciate your mildness.

Others on RF, seem to get all bent out of shape, and resort to Ad-Hom attacks on my intelligence, lack of knowledge, or honesty.

Using it to distract, really demeans their own argument imo.

" Matter can be destroyed"

So you know more than any physicist on earth and
didnt even have to study.

Droll.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Matter can be destroyed. Fire does it all the time. The energy within it is another ‘matter’ (pardon the pun!); it simply transforms.

Yes, a lot of unanswered questions; but still, conclusions are made.

No, fire does not destroy matter. It still exists after burning, just in another form.

I will simply post this:

Artificial gene synthesis - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

This is great! But I’ll tell you one thing about this… these lab-controlled experiments demonstrate that it took an intelligent mind to accomplish them.

Show me how this could be done by natural means, de novo, and you’ll have my attention.

Show me how natural processes formed the first bacterial flagellum, or the first cell membrane, or the first one of the dozens of other cell machinery, and began cooperating.

Or how, through mindless natural processes, the first symbiotic relationship originated.

I’m interested in learning how these systems began.

I’ve stated many times, that adaptation / evolution has produced the diversity we observe, I accept that. And that’s a lot. The evidence supporting evolution within families of organisms is everywhere.

But the first one of each of these (for lack of a better encompassing word) systems? Both living & non-living? It required an intelligence. And to me, it also took a Mind for setting the fine-tuned parameters in place to establish & promote the flourishing environment for living things.

Regarding Panspermia? Taking in all that is considered, from the life-killing vacuum of space, to the lack of evidence for it, I would say yes. In whole.

Yes, it takes an intelligence to make a gene de novo. But that is now what happens in evolution so it does not help you with that argument.

As to discussing abiogenesis with the ignorant I am happy to do so, provided that they acknowledge that they just admitted that evolution is a fact by moving the goalposts. Evolution does not rely on natural abiogenesis. It just needs life from some source. Though highly unlikely a god could have magically poofed the first life form into existence. If you want to own up to the fact that you moved that goalposts and that all of the evidence does support evolution (which it does of course) then we can discuss abiogenesis. A person has to show at least a minimal amount of honesty to be able to make demands.

I’m sorry…. I know you won’t like this….but that requires a lot of faith.

I hope you’ll have a great rest-of-the-day!

You’re one of the few atheists here, with whom I enjoy discussing these topics.
I appreciate your mildness.

Others on RF, seem to get all bent out of shape, and resort to Ad-Hom attacks on my intelligence, lack of knowledge, or honesty.

Using it to distract, really demeans their own argument imo.

No, I need to remind you that you keep yourself scientifically illiterate. You do not understand the science behind abiogenesis one iota. But until you own up to moving the goalposts, always a foolish move if one does not want to own up to their previous failures, then there is no way that you can be honest enough to discuss abiogenesis.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If you want to own up to the fact that you moved that goalposts…

I haven’t moved anything! You keep misrepresenting (misunderstanding?) my beliefs….

You do know that I accept evolution in the sense that organisms change over time, right? I always have. All species that we observe, have evolved from their first ancestral forms, and branched out from them — but those first forms were created, probably for most at their respective Family taxon level. So I only claim that there are limits to what evolution has accomplished / created.

The above post is from 2021. I’ve stated it several times, one of which you even replied to (with your usual denigrating abrasiveness.) You just seem to be inept at remembering my stance.

“The science behind abiogenesis”; that’s funny!

What faith you have.

I guess hope springs eternal.

Good bye.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I haven’t moved anything! You keep misrepresenting (misunderstanding?) my beliefs….

The above post is from 2021. I’ve stated it several times, one of which you even replied to (with your usual denigrating abrasiveness.) You just seem to be inept at remembering my stance.

“The science behind abiogenesis”; that’s funny!

What faith you have.

I guess hope springs eternal.

Good bye.

Oh my,, more hypocrisy. The problem with your stance is that it has been refuted countless times. And yes, you did move the goalposts. You do not accept the fact of evolution and when you move the goalposts to abiogenesis, you were discussing that not me, you have in effect admitted that you were wrong about evolution whether you realize it or not. Try to be honest and others will not seem to be so "abrasive".

 

[Audie]

Oh my,, more hypocrisy. The problem with your stance is that it has been refuted countless times. And yes, you did move the goalposts. You do not accept the fact of evolution and when you move the goalposts to abiogenesis, you were discussing that not me, you have in effect admitted that you were wrong about evolution whether you realize it or not. Try to be honest and others will not seem to be so "abrasive".

At least he is open about how all
he has is just his belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

At least he is open about how all
he has is just his belief.

Well at least he is better than my most recent fun. I made a comment that the sky was blue and a poster went berserk on me.

Well to be more accurate I said that Ron Wyatt was a fraud. Thinking that over it is a far less controversial c!aim.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Matter can be destroyed. Fire does it all the time.

Matter can be converted to energy the way ice can be converted to liquid water with conservation of the sum of the ingredients. More of one means less of the other and vice versa. What's destroyed is the form, not the substance.

these lab-controlled experiments demonstrate that it took an intelligent mind to accomplish them.

What those experiments demonstrate is that intelligence was required to get the ingredients together in a lab in order to observe nature doing what it does outside the lab as well in natural environments. We don't actually have to make the chemicals react and combine. It's enough to bring them close together.

Show me how this could be done by natural means, de novo, and you’ll have my attention. I’m interested in learning how these systems began.

You'll need to do some studying to learn the state of the art. There's a lot of material available on the Internet. We now know that amino acids, peptide chains, nucleotides, RNA, lipid layers and microspheres, and even a basic version of the Krebs cycle, can be found arising from processes that can occur in known natural environments.

• Inorganic matter to amino acids (organic matter) - http://www.abenteuer-universum.de/pdf/miller_1953.pdf
• Amino acids to ribonucleotides - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/909793
• Ribonucleotides to RNA (self-replicating molecule)- http://wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

This is eight years old now, but is a good starting point. Chemists report today that a pair of simple compounds, which would have been abundant on early Earth, can give rise to a network of simple reactions that produce the three major classes of biomolecules—nucleic acids, amino acids, and lipids—needed for the earliest form of life to get its start:

https://www.science.org/content/article/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum

Regarding Panspermia? Taking in all that is considered, from the life-killing vacuum of space, to the lack of evidence for it, I would say yes. In whole.

Lithopanspermia - life traveling within rocks between heavenly objects - is a real possibility. We know that rocks have traveled from Mars to Earth naturally following Martian impacts. Could spores, for example, embedded near the surface of such rocks survive the ejection impact, the vacuum of space, and the landing impact? Maybe. From Scientists Discover Exposed Bacteria Can Survive in Space for Years

"Now, new findings published today in Frontiers in Microbiology, based on that experiment on the International Space Station, show that the bacteria Deinococcus radiodurans can survive at least three years in space. "

’m sorry…. I know you won’t like this….but that requires a lot of faith.

I wrote, "It's a very real possibility because if life could arise on Earth, it probably could have arisen on Mars as well, and if so, it would have occurred before it did on Earth, which was too hot to generate or support life for far longer than Mars. And if there were a realistic mechanism for that life to get from Mars to Earth, then the possibility that it happened is realistic, too."

There's no faith there. Faith is required to believe it happened, since it hasn't been confirmed, but not to believe that it may be true.

And thanks for the kind words. I enjoy our discussions as well.

 

[Audie]

Well at least he is better than my most recent fun. I made a comment that the sky was blue and a poster went berserk on me.

Well to be more accurate I said that Ron Wyatt was a fraud. Thinking that over it is a far less controversial c!aim.

So easy for itchin' ears to be taken in
by the most outlandish religious frauds

 

[Audie]

Matter can be converted to energy the way ice can be converted to liquid water with conservation of the sum of the ingredients. More of one means less of the other and vice versa. What's destroyed is the form, not the substance.

What those experiments demonstrate is that intelligence was required to get the ingredients together in a lab in order to observe nature doing what it does outside the lab as well in natural environments. We don't actually have to make the chemicals react and combine. It's enough to bring them close together.

You'll need to do some studying to learn the state of the art. There's a lot of material available on the Internet. We now know that amino acids, peptide chains, nucleotides, RNA, lipid layers and microspheres, and even a basic version of the Krebs cycle, can be found arising from processes that can occur in known natural environments.

• Inorganic matter to amino acids (organic matter) - http://www.abenteuer-universum.de/pdf/miller_1953.pdf
• Amino acids to ribonucleotides - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/909793
• Ribonucleotides to RNA (self-replicating molecule)- http://wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

This is eight years old now, but is a good starting point. Chemists report today that a pair of simple compounds, which would have been abundant on early Earth, can give rise to a network of simple reactions that produce the three major classes of biomolecules—nucleic acids, amino acids, and lipids—needed for the earliest form of life to get its start:

https://www.science.org/content/article/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum

Lithopanspermia - life traveling within rocks between heavenly objects - is a real possibility. We know that rocks have traveled from Mars to Earth naturally following Martian impacts. Could spores, for example, embedded near the surface of such rocks survive the ejection impact, the vacuum of space, and the landing impact? Maybe. From Scientists Discover Exposed Bacteria Can Survive in Space for Years

"Now, new findings published today in Frontiers in Microbiology, based on that experiment on the International Space Station, show that the bacteria Deinococcus radiodurans can survive at least three years in space. "

I wrote, "It's a very real possibility because if life could arise on Earth, it probably could have arisen on Mars as well, and if so, it would have occurred before it did on Earth, which was too hot to generate or support life for far longer than Mars. And if there were a realistic mechanism for that life to get from Mars to Earth, then the possibility that it happened is realistic, too."

There's no faith there. Faith is required to believe it happened, since it hasn't been confirmed, but not to believe that it may be true.

And thanks for the kind words. I enjoy our discussions as well.

What matter is destroyed or converted
in a fire? I don't know that kind of physics

 

[Hockeycowboy]

At least he is open about how all
he has is just his belief.

Oh brother! The Cambrian Explosion, with the fossil record revealing numerous new life forms appearing suddenly without any obvious precursors, is just one piece of evidence among others that supports an ID interpretation. Cellular machinery, and the lack of evidence that natural selection could build those complex structures, is another.

“The force - er, faith - is strong in this one.”

 

[metis]

The Cambrian Explosion, with the fossil record revealing numerous new life forms appearing suddenly without any obvious precursors, is just one piece of evidence among others that supports an ID interpretation.

Not really as there is most likely an increasing trend then whereas individual cells evolve enough to form multicell organisms, and a simple example of a transition set of species may well be like sponges.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

…most likely…

…may well be like…

This is not science. This is philosophy.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Oh brother! The Cambrian Explosion, with the fossil record revealing numerous new life forms appearing suddenly without any obvious precursors, is just one piece of evidence among others that supports an ID interpretation. Cellular machinery, and the lack of evidence that natural selection could build those complex structures, is another.

“The force - er, faith - is strong in this one.”

That is bogus and you well know it since we've all pointed it out to you every single time you try posting this.

 

[Audie]

Oh brother! The Cambrian Explosion, with the fossil record revealing numerous new life forms appearing suddenly without any obvious precursors, is just one piece of evidence among others that supports an ID interpretation. Cellular machinery, and the lack of evidence that natural selection could build those complex structures, is another.

“The force - er, faith - is strong in this one.”

You grossly overestimate your education.

 

[Audie]

That is bogus and you well know it since we've all pointed it out to you every single time you try posting this.

What do you expect?

Its impossible to be an intellectually honest
creationist.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

That is bogus and you well know it since we've all pointed it out to you every single time you try posting this.

Then explain the Cambrian evidence that supports evolution. You can’t.
The excuse “the fossil record is incomplete “ doesn’t wash, because the matrix in which many of those fossils from the Cambrian are preserved, reveal details of their soft-tissue anatomy.

You’re just echoing what others have told you.

You should examine it, for yourself.
Examine all the radiation events.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Then explain the evidence to support evolution. You can’t.
The excuse “the fossil record is incomplete “ doesn’t wash, because the matrix in which many of those fossils from the Cambrian are preserved, reveal details of their soft-tissue anatomy.

Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt (at least 3 times in the past). Now you trot it out again like it never happened which I'm pretty sure I pointed out the last two times you did it. Your claims about the Cambrian explosion are bunk. Right down to your claim of it being "sudden."

You’re just echoing what others have told you.

You should examine it, for yourself.

You're echoing inaccurate claims from creationist sites.

I'm not echoing anything. I've been to the Canadian Precambrian Shield to see the oldest known rocks on earth several times in my life.

Ontario's fossil story | Wat On Earth

By: Kristina Anderson, assistant curator

uwaterloo.ca

One of the Oldest Canadian Shield Stromatolites

One of the Oldest Canadian Shield Stromatolites

www.fossilmall.com

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.221.4609.455

Burgess Shale - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Oldest Microfossils On Earth Found In Canada

New research published in Science Advances describes complex structures in rocks from Quebec, Canada, estimated to be between 3.75 and 4.28 billion years old, and of possible organic origin.

www.forbes.com

 

[ChristineM]

Oh brother! The Cambrian Explosion, with the fossil record revealing numerous new life forms appearing suddenly without any obvious precursors, is just one piece of evidence among others that supports an ID interpretation. Cellular machinery, and the lack of evidence that natural selection could build those complex structures, is another.

“The force - er, faith - is strong in this one.”

Suddenly? 53+ million years is not suddenly. Also you are not taking into account the oxygenation of the planet which increased from -10% to +50% of present oxygen levels during that period.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You're echoing garbage from creationist sites.

Nope. I’ve posted numerous links to CD-evolution-supporting websites
Here’s one:

The sudden appearance of diverse animal body plansduring the Cambrian explosion - PubMed

Beautifully preserved organisms from the Lower Cambrian Maotianshan Shale in central Yunnan, southern China, document the sudden appearance of diverse metazoan body plans at phylum or subphylum levels, which were either short-lived or have continued to the present day. These 530 million year old...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

You do further research.

Because I doubt you really have.