Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[Parsimony]

Suddenly we are bobbing and weaving, so let me be perfectly clear. A living organism cold not have been produced from a primordial sea containing any combination of chemicals, minerals or any other non living substance, period.

A still-unproven statement.

Did that cover everything for you, or add what you choose, s long as it isn't life. I have supported it, how much more do you require ? Pages ? I can produce pages. Volumes, I think I can do that. Atheist biochemists and Biologists, ? I can do that. Many many highly qualified scientists that are creationists, easily done.

How about some proof? No proof so far. No one has proven abiogenesis impossible.

In fact, I really think the burden of proof is on you.

Only if I had asserted that abiogenesis certainly happened, which I have not.

You apparently accept this idea, so, produce proof that it occurred, could have occurred, with supporting evidence.

Nope, I accept that it is a possibility, but not as something that has been proven.

I certainly can produce evidence that it did not and could not, and already have.

Nobody's ever proven abiogenesis impossible. If they had, then the scientific world would be in an uproar over it. I've seen no such spectacular news, so I must conclude that it has not happened yet. The vast majority of "proofs" I've seen against the modern concept of abiogenesis are straw-men either using analogy with the old concept of abiogenesis (such as flies from rotting meat), using faulty assumptions of probability (such as assuming that abiogenesis posits the formation of a fully-functional modern peptide chain in the exact correct order from raw amino acids) or using the argument from ignorance or incredulity ("we don't know how it could happen, therefore it can't" or "I can't believe something like that could have happened").

I don't think you understand what randomness and probability really are. At least, according to the class I took on the subject, you don't. Randomness always exists within parameters, because parameters are restrictive doesn't mean what randomly happens within those parameters is less random. Otherwise, nothing could be random. The resting of a ball on a roulette wheel is totally random, even though the wheel restricts the ball from flying across the room or diving into the earth

Just like with the roulette wheel analogy, the laws of physics and chemistry restrict certain events while allowing or even promoting others. This is one of the problems I've seen with abiogenesis-"refuting" calculations: assuming that all possible combinations of atoms or molecules are equally likely to occur given the same starting ingredients is just wrong (just as wrong as assuming that all the different parts of the first cell had to come together at the same time spontaneously from simple chemicals). This is especially true if the sequence of chemicals in something like a nucleotide strand is subject to Darwinian selection as would be the case in a self-catalyzing ribozyme. We've already synthesized replicating ribozymes capable of undergoing such Darwinian selection, although so far they cannot completely self-replicate (they rely on other enzymes to replicate them). It is, however, an example of a nonliving system adapting to its environment in a non-random way. Similar to a simple living thing.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So now we have gone from the pat faith in spontaneous generation

Again you go with this. Why do you keep bringing it up even though we've told you more than a dozen times that no one believes in it? No one accepts it. Science has discarded it. There is no need or use for it. But why do you persist on bringing it up?

I find it howlingly amusing that you are so hell bent on denying God

I don't deny some sort of god may exist (the existence of god or not is ultra low on my list of priorities - down at the very bottom of the list along with keeping up with shows like American Idol). I deny your god exists. And I'd rather not stop at a "god did it" excuse. I would much rather know the exact reason. Even if religious/mystical experiences are legit experiences with some unknown entity, they can still be seen as brain activity. Even if a committee of gods guided the development of life, we know it evolved over time. Why should we not strive for concrete answers? After all, even many earlier scientist in the era of modern science viewed learning about creation, and adding more than just a "god explanation," was to honor god by learning about his creation.

I get really confused with the cabal members. It's kind of imprecise.

If the pronoun "she" confuses you, I don't know what to say.

 

[viole]

Please, I know all about it. Like Pilate, you are now trying to wash your hands of of that oh so fundamental first step of the magical mystery tour of evolution, that chemically produced very first living organism that started the show. Well, you can't have a chicken without the egg. So, are you confirming that life can only come from life, or are you hedging your bet ?

I am just reminding you that the theory of evolution is not concerned with the origin of life. It just explains the development of life, starting with pre-esisting life. In the same way chemistry is concerned with reactions and relationships between atoms and not with the origin of atoms.

We macro know today how life developed complexity from simpler forms, but we do not know how this very simple initial life originated, yet. In the same way we know the evolution of many things, e.g. In cosmology, or astrophysics, without not knowing precisely the plank scale mechanisms that "originated" the Universe.

I wonder what is so complicated about that.

And yes, I obviously believe that life comes from not life, I am a naturalist. Yet, even if life originated from God, the fact remains that we originated from fish. C'est la vie, literally.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

No, Hoyle was an atheist. Interesting statement.

Yes, an atheist who believed in intelligent design. Designed by not intelligently designed aliens, presumably. I would say he was pretty confused.

For sure, I would not quote Hoyle to justify my atheism, or to justify anything at all as a matter of fact, lol. I actually very rarely quote authorities to make my points, unless asked or in cases of pointers to technical books or articles. Appeals to authority are usually fallacious.

The desperation seems to be on the part of the believers in spontaneous generation. More and more honest scientists, regardless any belief or non belief they might hold, are realizing the impossibility of what they have believed. Hoyle's odds calculation is quite modest compared to some others done by atheists-, biochemists, statisticians, biologists etc. Proud believers in your religion are having to recant because the theology of the faith, objective scientific inquiry, is proving the foundation to be rotten. Some, as Dr. Wald, whom I quoted, choose to believe the impossible ( spontaneous generation) rather than accept the other alternative. No, the desperation is not with creationists, it is with those who must abandon the grail of magical natural processes, and realize we have been right all along

It could be rotten at its foundations, but it seems to work pretty well. The fact that we can communicate like this seems more the product of hard science than spiritual stuff, don't you think?

But maybe you know a better method with a better track record. So, where is it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[JoStories]

Why? Maybe because those who are not getting answers are not going to the Creator God asking the questions. I believe that God desires a one on one relationship and personal interaction with each person because that is what each human being was created for. If one ignores God or assumes they already have all the answers without seeking what He may have to say then why would answers or enlightenment be expected?

You are assuming here that the God you speak of is the only correct version of God that there is. Do you think someone who is Hindu would appreciate being told that their versions of God are wrong? How would you feel if someone said to you that your version is wrong? Would that then get your dander up? I think it would. You speak of this relationship with God but do you not see that many people of other faiths also think they have a relationship with God? Did you know that there is a very lovely celebration of the God Surya on the river each year? Or what about the holiday of Yom Kippur for those who follow Judaism? I get answers from my path quite regularly. Are you willing to tell me the because I am Buddhist, that those answers are not from God?

 

[shmogie]

Yes, an atheist who believed in intelligent design. Designed by not intelligently designed aliens, presumably. I would say he was pretty confused.

For sure, I would not quote Hoyle to justify my atheism, or to justify anything at all as a matter of fact, lol. I actually very rarely quote authorities to make my points, unless asked or in cases of pointers to technical books or articles. Appeals to authority are usually fallacious.



It could be rotten at its foundations, but it seems to work pretty well. The fact that we can communicate like this seems more the product of hard science than spiritual stuff, don't you think?

But maybe you know a better method with a better track record. So, where is it?

Ciao

- viole

Hard science re spontaneous generation, or using sophistry, abiogenesis doesn't exist. In fact science pretty much shreds it. So, your faith or mine, roll the dice. Hoyle was a brilliant man. Certainly not always right. Nevertheless, the adage applies here, if you cannot attack the message, attack the messenger. You remain silent on the more elaborate quotations I posted from significant authorities. We can "speak" because of hard science ? That is an oxymoron

 

[shmogie]

I am just reminding you that the theory of evolution is not concerned with the origin of life. It just explains the development of life, starting with pre-esisting life. In the same way chemistry is concerned with reactions and relationships between atoms and not with the origin of atoms.

We macro know today how life developed complexity from simpler forms, but we do not know how this very simple initial life originated, yet. In the same way we know the evolution of many things, e.g. In cosmology, or astrophysics, without not knowing precisely the plank scale mechanisms that "originated" the Universe.

I wonder what is so complicated about that.

And yes, I obviously believe that life comes from not life, I am a naturalist. Yet, even if life originated from God, the fact remains that we originated from fish. C'est la vie, literally.

Ciao

- viole

Well, of course there are singular and significant problems with the macro evolution model. You must know this.The smooth progression from simple to complex organisms presented to the uneducated or ignorant, is really a jumble of unresolved conflict. "plank scale" ? Do you mean Planck scale, or are you using another term with which I am not familiar ?

 

[shmogie]

Again you go with this. Why do you keep bringing it up even though we've told you more than a dozen times that no one believes in it? No one accepts it. Science has discarded it. There is no need or use for it. But why do you persist on bringing it up?

I don't deny some sort of god may exist (the existence of god or not is ultra low on my list of priorities - down at the very bottom of the list along with keeping up with shows like American Idol). I deny your god exists. And I'd rather not stop at a "god did it" excuse. I would much rather know the exact reason. Even if religious/mystical experiences are legit experiences with some unknown entity, they can still be seen as brain activity. Even if a committee of gods guided the development of life, we know it evolved over time. Why should we not strive for concrete answers? After all, even many earlier scientist in the era of modern science viewed learning about creation, and adding more than just a "god explanation," was to honor god by learning about his creation.

If the pronoun "she" confuses you, I don't know what to say.

Spontaneous generation, abiogenesis, essentially the same. Pure sophistry to deny magical chemical creation of fairly complex organisms, to replace it with magical chemical creation of simple organism's. I question, based on the application of sound scientific method your statement "we know it evolved over time". Evolved from the most simple organism's to the most complex ? You KNOW that ?

 

[shmogie]

A still-unproven statement.

How about some proof? No proof so far. No one has proven abiogenesis impossible.

Only if I had asserted that abiogenesis certainly happened, which I have not.

Nope, I accept that it is a possibility, but not as something that has been proven.

Nobody's ever proven abiogenesis impossible. If they had, then the scientific world would be in an uproar over it. I've seen no such spectacular news, so I must conclude that it has not happened yet. The vast majority of "proofs" I've seen against the modern concept of abiogenesis are straw-men either using analogy with the old concept of abiogenesis (such as flies from rotting meat), using faulty assumptions of probability (such as assuming that abiogenesis posits the formation of a fully-functional modern peptide chain in the exact correct order from raw amino acids) or using the argument from ignorance or incredulity ("we don't know how it could happen, therefore it can't" or "I can't believe something like that could have happened").

Just like with the roulette wheel analogy, the laws of physics and chemistry restrict certain events while allowing or even promoting others. This is one of the problems I've seen with abiogenesis-"refuting" calculations: assuming that all possible combinations of atoms or molecules are equally likely to occur given the same starting ingredients is just wrong (just as wrong as assuming that all the different parts of the first cell had to come together at the same time spontaneously from simple chemicals). This is especially true if the sequence of chemicals in something like a nucleotide strand is subject to Darwinian selection as would be the case in a self-catalyzing ribozyme. We've already synthesized replicating ribozymes capable of undergoing such Darwinian selection, although so far they cannot completely self-replicate (they rely on other enzymes to replicate them). It is, however, an example of a nonliving system adapting to its environment in a non-random way. Similar to a simple living thing.

So you give no evidentiary value to the quotations and observations from extremely highly qualified scientists I have cited ? You have addressed none of them. It is not a matter of :"all combinations", it is a matter of any possible, or impossible combination of chemicals, minerals, gasses, environment, whatever being hostile to any formation of living organisms. I am aware of a synthesized "organism" that took ten years of planning and experiment by multiple groups of many scientists manipulating the environment and inserting specially constructed and programmed DNA. This is as far from abiogenisis as an F-22 Raptor is from a balsa wood toy glider. DNA is information in a very complex sequence designed to provide an organism "instructions" to live. Reproduction, processing waste material, some form of respiration or absorption or adsorption, breakdown and utilization of "food", protection from potentially harmful environmental factors, on and on. To think that these strands of DNA constructed themselves from chemicals with the correct information, in the right order, to program even the simplest organism to survive and reproduce then evolve into a more complex organism boggles the mind. Especially when every imaginable combination of environment and recipe of the alleged "primordial soup" has proven ill fitted to DNA being created or bonding into strands. It is as likely to not bond as to bond, to disassemble as assemble, much much more likely for a critical bit of information to be absent as all being present. Which begs the question, where did the information come from in the first place ?

 

[Parsimony]

So you give no evidentiary value to the quotations and observations from extremely highly qualified scientists I have cited ? You have addressed none of them.

I jumped into the thread late and so haven't seen much of what you've posted in that regard. In any case, if any of those extremely highly qualified scientists you mentioned are against the idea of abiogenesis being possible, then they must represent the minority of biochemists and biologists and had been unable to demonstrate their claim of the impossibility of abiogenesis. If they had proven it impossible, we'd stop looking for it.

It is not a matter of :"all combinations", it is a matter of any possible, or impossible combination of chemicals, minerals, gasses, environment, whatever being hostile to any formation of living organisms.

Not all of which have been investigated yet.

I am aware of a synthesized "organism" that took ten years of planning and experiment by multiple groups of many scientists manipulating the environment and inserting specially constructed and programmed DNA. This is as far from abiogenisis as an F-22 Raptor is from a balsa wood toy glider.

Are you talking about that bacterium with a synthetic genome? That's not what I was talking about. I was talking about self-replicating ribozymes, which are far, far simpler than a cell.

DNA is information in a very complex sequence designed to provide an organism "instructions" to live. Reproduction, processing waste material, some form of respiration or absorption or adsorption, breakdown and utilization of "food", protection from potentially harmful environmental factors, on and on.

DNA as we know it today with all of that information in it is a product of evolution. If things started off with ribozymes, then the requirements for "survival" are far simpler.

To think that these strands of DNA constructed themselves from chemicals with the correct information, in the right order, to program even the simplest organism to survive and reproduce then evolve into a more complex organism boggles the mind.

Sounds kind of like you're going along the whole "it all had to happen at once" route which is a straw-man of abiogenesis.

Especially when every imaginable combination of environment and recipe of the alleged "primordial soup" has proven ill fitted to DNA being created or bonding into strands.

Since when have we investigated every possible combination of environment and chemicals?

It is as likely to not bond as to bond, to disassemble as assemble, much much more likely for a critical bit of information to be absent as all being present.

I know that, at least with RNA, such is not always the case. The experiment I mentioned earlier had stable RNA strands forming in solution after being synthesized by an enzyme. Carbonyl sulfide, a simple, naturally occurring chemical, has also been shown to catalyze the formation of peptide bonds.

Which begs the question, where did the information come from in the first place ?

Mutation.

 

[shmogie]

I jumped into the thread late and so haven't seen much of what you've posted in that regard. In any case, if any of those extremely highly qualified scientists you mentioned are against the idea of abiogenesis being possible, then they must represent the minority of biochemists and biologists and had been unable to demonstrate their claim of the impossibility of abiogenesis. If they had proven it impossible, we'd stop looking for it.

Not all of which have been investigated yet.

Are you talking about that bacterium with a synthetic genome? That's not what I was talking about. I was talking about self-replicating ribozymes, which are far, far simpler than a cell.

DNA as we know it today with all of that information in it is a product of evolution. If things started off with ribozymes, then the requirements for "survival" are far simpler.

Sounds kind of like you're going along the whole "it all had to happen at once" route which is a straw-man of abiogenesis.

Since when have we investigated every possible combination of environment and chemicals?

I know that, at least with RNA, such is not always the case. The experiment I mentioned earlier had stable RNA strands forming in solution after being synthesized by an enzyme. Carbonyl sulfide, a simple, naturally occurring chemical, has also been shown to catalyze the formation of peptide bonds.

Mutation.

 

[shmogie]

RNA is not DNA. The very first living organism from abiogenesis had to have properly sequenced DNA to survive. It didn';t mutate, to have the DNA, it had to have it and the information when it popped into existence. It could not have. Of course it had to happen at once. Combined chemicals to a living organism. Either there is, or isn't life. Nothing is part dead and part alive. It either is non living matter, or alive. All the chemically produced so called "building blocks" aren't life. Well, the "investigation" into environmental and chemical combinations from what could have come from rocks being pounded by rain and heated runoff into that famous soup, as well as interstellar possible additions has been going on for well over a century. As the research progresses, the possibility of abiogenesis or spontaneous generation regresses.To the point that Nobel Laureate biochemist and atheist George Wald cites it as being impossible. Others don't say it is impossible, they cite the odds of it occurring from 10 to 40,00th power, to 10 to the 100,000th power. None of these odds were calculated by creationists. Another addresses it a different way, "there has not yet been enough time for that first organism to come into existence".

 

[Parsimony]

RNA is not DNA.

Granted.

The very first living organism from abiogenesis had to have properly sequenced DNA to survive.

Not if it was a ribozyme or some other RNA-based organism. Ribozymes don't have DNA. Nor do retroviruses for that matter.

It didn';t mutate, to have the DNA, it had to have it and the information when it popped into existence. It could not have.

Not if it was a ribozyme.

Of course it had to happen at once.

Not if it was a ribozyme.

Combined chemicals to a living organism. Either there is, or isn't life. Nothing is part dead and part alive. It either is non living matter, or alive.

I'd argue that life comes in degrees, and we see things that blur the boundaries between living and non-living, such as viruses, prions, viroids and certain ribozymes.

All the chemically produced so called "building blocks" aren't life.

If you're talking about simple molecules and polymers, I'd agree.

Well, the "investigation" into environmental and chemical combinations from what could have come from rocks being pounded by rain and heated runoff into that famous soup, as well as interstellar possible additions has been going on for well over a century. As the research progresses, the possibility of abiogenesis or spontaneous generation regresses.

An interesting claim given that, over that century of investigation, we've actually figured out a lot of things that were once a mystery regarding abiogenesis (such as the abiotic formation of nucleotides, the discovery of amino acids in meteors, the Miller-Urey experiment, the successful demonstration of evolution of ribozymes and so on).

To the point that Nobel Laureate biochemist and atheist George Wald cites it as being impossible.

And what was his justification for making that statement? Was he an expert on abiogenesis?

Others don't say it is impossible, they cite the odds of it occurring from 10 to 40,00th power, to 10 to the 100,000th power. None of these odds were calculated by creationists.

Ah, there it is. Calculation of odds. I want to know the assumptions that went into those calculations. If it's anything like what I've seen before, those calculations are based on straw-men.

Another addresses it a different way, "there has not yet been enough time for that first organism to come into existence".

What are the assumptions behind the statement?

 

[shmogie]

Granted.

Not if it was a ribozyme or some other RNA-based organism. Ribozymes don't have DNA. Nor do retroviruses for that matter.

Not if it was a ribozyme.

Not if it was a ribozyme.

I'd argue that life comes in degrees, and we see things that blur the boundaries between living and non-living, such as viruses, prions, viroids and certain ribozymes.

If you're talking about simple molecules and polymers, I'd agree.

An interesting claim given that, over that century of investigation, we've actually figured out a lot of things that were once a mystery regarding abiogenesis (such as the abiotic formation of nucleotides, the discovery of amino acids in meteors, the Miller-Urey experiment, the successful demonstration of evolution of ribozymes and so on).

And what was his justification for making that statement? Was he an expert on abiogenesis?

Ah, there it is. Calculation of odds. I want to know the assumptions that went into those calculations. If it's anything like what I've seen before, those calculations are based on straw-men.

What are the assumptions behind the statement?

Well, as I understand a ribozyme, or any RNA based molecule, it isn't an organism, correct ? or no ? Further, aren't they synthesized, not found in nature ? Miller-Urey is outdated. Wald is a Harvard university biochemist, is he an expert on abiogenesis ? Hmmm, what would be involved in being an expert on something that has never been observed, replicated, or described ? Since he very clearly fully understands the theory, has done work in the field, and emphatically declares it an impossibility based upon his own research and that of all the others, I think his conclusion must be given high value. some people believe in Yeti, though none have been found, none have been objectively scientifically observed, and no one knows where they came from. Poof ! a fairy tale. Infinitely more likely than abiogenesis

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Spontaneous generation, abiogenesis, essentially the same.

No, they are not.

RNA is not DNA.

I don't really have anything to add as Parsimony beat me to it. Odd, though, that he is a Christian, much like you, but he isn't going on about dated, obsolete, and discarded ideas. It's more proof that you do not hold a monopoly on what it means to be a Christian.

Either there is, or isn't life. Nothing is part dead and part alive. It either is non living matter, or alive.

Ever hear of a virus? They don't appear to live, but they do have some characteristics of life.

 

[shmogie]

Granted.

Not if it was a ribozyme or some other RNA-based organism. Ribozymes don't have DNA. Nor do retroviruses for that matter.

Not if it was a ribozyme.

Not if it was a ribozyme.

I'd argue that life comes in degrees, and we see things that blur the boundaries between living and non-living, such as viruses, prions, viroids and certain ribozymes.

If you're talking about simple molecules and polymers, I'd agree.

An interesting claim given that, over that century of investigation, we've actually figured out a lot of things that were once a mystery regarding abiogenesis (such as the abiotic formation of nucleotides, the discovery of amino acids in meteors, the Miller-Urey experiment, the successful demonstration of evolution of ribozymes and so on).

And what was his justification for making that statement? Was he an expert on abiogenesis?

Ah, there it is. Calculation of odds. I want to know the assumptions that went into those calculations. If it's anything like what I've seen before, those calculations are based on straw-men.

What are the assumptions behind the statement?

You are very fond of the rhetorical construct of "straw men". It appears to mean to you, any concept with which you disagree. I'll tell you what, I will give you the names of these odds makers, and you can research them for yourselves. You can begin with Sir Fred Hoyle, and I will get back to you with the names of the others. Are there transitional forms of viruses evolving to something else ? Do viruses form by abiogenesis in nature ?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well, as I understand a ribozyme, or any RNA based molecule, it isn't an organism, correct ? or no ? Further, aren't they synthesized, not found in nature ?

RNA is crucial in DNA division. Without it, there is no cellular division.

 

[shmogie]

No, they are not.

I don't really have anything to add as Parsimony beat me to it. Odd, though, that he is a Christian, much like you, but he isn't going on about dated, obsolete, and discarded ideas. It's more proof that you do not hold a monopoly on what it means to be a Christian.

Ever hear of a virus? They don't appear to live, but they do have some characteristics of life.

Did I every claim that I have a monopoly on what it means to be a Christian ? No. I did claim that the NT has a monopoly on what it means to be a Christian, if he doesn't agree with that, he disagrees at his own peril. See the questions I presented to him re viruses

 

[shmogie]

RNA is crucial in DNA division. Without it, there is no cellular division.

OK, no problem with that. However, RNA isn't DNA

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Hard science re spontaneous generation, or using sophistry, abiogenesis doesn't exist. In fact science pretty much shreds it.

Isn't that what God did though, turn dirt into an organically human being?

I am aware of a synthesized "organism" that took ten years of planning and experiment by multiple groups of many scientists manipulating the environment and inserting specially constructed and programmed DNA. This is as far from abiogenisis as an F-22 Raptor is from a balsa wood toy glider. DNA is information in a very complex sequence designed to provide an organism "instructions" to live.

Much effort is probably needed because we don't know all the details yet AND we can't sit around for a million years waiting for it to happen. You're welcome to show scientifically how dirt can be turned into a human being, though.

The very first living organism from abiogenesis had to have properly sequenced DNA to survive.

In what sense? Why is DNA necessary for something like bacteria or viruses?