Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[Shadow Wolf]

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

And no one is claiming they are.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, Hoyle was an atheist. Interesting statement. 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

Once again, nobody "believes in" spontaneous generation. It's been a dead idea for over a century.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I must have missed it, when was the third possibility he demonstrated ? Aliens ? I assume he means creatures from the universe, which begs the question........................... We won't use the term "spontaneous generation", although I don't know why you are adverse to it, since, I assume, much better qualified scientists than you use it. No matter. The combination of non living chemicals in a heated primordial sea that produces a living organism, is an obsolete concept. Better ?

I've described to you several times what spontaneous generation means and it is not that. There are no scientists that think it's a possibility.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

 

[SkepticThinker]

I quoted him for exactly what he said. I have nor had any idea what he was worried about. He was worried. You are back to the desperate thing again. You seem to assume desperation where none exists, or are you just thinking a lot about desperation ? He had no worries about evolution being attacked in public schools.Those who believe in intelligent design believe in evolution, and the issue is about a single theory being taught, especially when it is coupled with spontaneous generation. Hmmmm, kind means species, just like modern biology

1. You might know what he was worried about if you read some of his stuff. Or even just his quote, with some context.
2. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory.
3. Spontaneous generation is not considered a viable hypothesis.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Really ? According to the magazine "Astronomy" The universe is 14-15 billion light years across they state it as a firm number, with no mention of " visible or invisible": simply the size of the universe. The laws of physics within the universe are not random, the results can be. 500 golf balls dropped from 10,000 feet, under the influence of a non random law of physics, will stop bouncing and rolling into a perfectly random pattern. The laws of physics and chemistry cannot account for the creation of a living organism from inert substances, whatever they are, period. It cannot happen

"The universe is about 13.8 billion years old, so any light we see has to have been travelling for 13.8 billion years or less – we call this the 'observable universe'.

However, the distance to the edge of the observable universe is about 46 billion light years because the universe is expanding all of the time."
http://phys.org/news/2015-10-big-universe.html

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

That's probably because quoting random "authorities" is nothing more than a fallacious argument.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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 ?

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_2.html
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB015.html
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB026.html
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB000.html
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB015.html

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.

Amino acids and proteins are the building blocks that make life.

Living organisms are a composition of all kinds of different chemicals, proteins, amino acids, enzymes, ribosomes, etc., none of which are living things, on their own.

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".

As I think I pointed out to you before, the results of these studies indicate that it at least possible that more complex organic compounds can be synthesized from simple, inorganic precursors to produce life.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

Miller-Urey is not outdated because as I think I pointed out to you before, the experiment has not only been revisited, but updated and repeated by different sets of independent scientists who all found varying levels of similar results.

George Wald was known for his work with pigments in the retina.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

How does pointing that out help your case?

 

[shmogie]

How does pointing that out help your case?

Miller-Urey is not outdated because as I think I pointed out to you before, the experiment has not only been revisited, but updated and repeated by different sets of independent scientists who all found varying levels of similar results.

George Wald was known for his work with pigments in the retina.

The atmospheric of assumptions of Miller-Urey

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB015.html

Amino acids and proteins are the building blocks that make life.

Living organisms are a composition of all kinds of different chemicals, proteins, amino acids, enzymes, ribosomes, etc., none of which are living things, on their own.

As I think I pointed out to you before, the results of these studies indicate that it at least possible that more complex organic compounds can be synthesized from simple, inorganic precursors to produce life.[/QUOT " To produce life " Really? You keep saying this, but the facts say otherwise. As I have pointed out to you, no mechanism has been identified that could achieve this.

Miller-Urey is not outdated because as I think I pointed out to you before, the experiment has not only been revisited, but updated and repeated by different sets of independent scientists who all found varying levels of similar results.

George Wald was known for his work with pigments in the retina.

Well, if it was updated, it must have been outdated. The current alleged primordial atmosphere is different from Miller-Urey. What was produced in the experiment was produced in a mixture that was totally hostile to life. The few biological chemicals produced had to be isolated from water, because they could not form in water. The experiment produced equally proportioned proteins of the "left handed" and "right handed" type. These proteins together produce random chemical processes that are toxic to life. Proteins in living things are virtually always left handed amino acids. There is no known process to make just left handed proteins

 

[shmogie]

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB015.html

Amino acids and proteins are the building blocks that make life.

Living organisms are a composition of all kinds of different chemicals, proteins, amino acids, enzymes, ribosomes, etc., none of which are living things, on their own.

As I think I pointed out to you before, the results of these studies indicate that it at least possible that more complex organic compounds can be synthesized from simple, inorganic precursors to produce life.

Then why hasn't it been done ?

 

[shmogie]

Once again, nobody "believes in" spontaneous generation. It's been a dead idea for over a century.

Once again, except for one word, "complex", there is no difference between spontaneous generation ans abiogenesis

 

[SkepticThinker]

The atmospheric of assumptions of Miller-Urey

Pardon?

Well, if it was updated, it must have been outdated.

No. Miller-Urey was done over again, and even more amino acids were found than when Miller and Urey actually did it themselves. Miller himself repeated the experiment several different times, under varying conditions. One of the vials he had left behind was found years later and when it was re-examined, the scientists involved found a wider range of amino acids (they found 23) than Miller had originally reported. Carl Sagan (and others) managed to produce sulphurous amino acids in similar experiments.


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...ntityKey=fccb434c-7f66-4f15-b085-0df82a3e8de9


What I had said about these kinds of studies was that they, “indicate that it at least possible that more complex organic compounds can be synthesized from simple, inorganic precursors to produce life.” It certainly doesn’t make it impossible, as is your assertion.

The current alleged primordial atmosphere is different from Miller-Urey. What was produced in the experiment was produced in a mixture that was totally hostile to life. The few biological chemicals produced had to be isolated from water, because they could not form in water. The experiment produced equally proportioned proteins of the "left handed" and "right handed" type. These proteins together produce random chemical processes that are toxic to life. Proteins in living things are virtually always left handed amino acids. There is no known process to make just left handed proteins

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB026.html

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB035.html

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB040.html

 

[SkepticThinker]

Then why hasn't it been done ?

Why hasn't cancer been cured? How come we haven't traveled to Pluto yet? How come we don't know what happened "before" the big bang? How come we can't come up with a cure for the simple cold?

Please don't cop out now.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Once again, except for one word, "complex", there is no difference between spontaneous generation ans abiogenesis

The former asserts that fully formed living organisms that we see today can form from non-life (and on a daily basis). This is the idea that maggots will emerge from rotting meat, for example. Life should be created from non-life all the time, every day, under such a view.


The latter, doesn't predict that the fully formed living organisms we see today have formed from non-life or continue to do so on a daily basis. Rather it says that since all life is made up of chemical reactions, and that biomolecules, which are subject to these chemical reactions (e.g. amino acids, proteins, ribosomes, etc.), can self-arrange and self-replicate under certain conditions to produce primitive life forms. We’re not getting fully formed maggots every time someone leaves out a piece rotting meat, under this view. Experiments to date have shown that this is at least a possibility.


http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2010/06/25/abiogenesis-is-not-spontaneous-generation-period/


While the word “complex” is part of the difference, it’s not the only difference.

 

[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.

Well, it happens that it is not. Apart from your statements or quotes from scientists that actually make my point, you do not have a lot, I am afraid. Even puntcuated equilibrium entails common origin, as you should have known.

"plank scale" ? Do you mean Planck scale, or are you using another term with which I am not familiar ?

Thanks for noticing. Spel cheker disabled.

Ciao

- viole

 

[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

Well, I am doing your job. You should criticize the messenger, too. Hoyle concluded, out of his computation, that life did not originate on earth but in outer space via intellgent design. Aliens, to be precise, since he did not believe in God. And you also realized that this just shifts the problem to the next level.

I did not say speak. I said communicate. By changing the state of semiconductors via optical fibers or wireless communication. You name it. Can spiritual stuff do the same?

Let's make a new kind of die. One that has a face for each of the times a supernatural explanation has been superseded by a naturalistic one and that has a face for each of the times a naturalistic explanation has been superseded by a supernatural one.

Would you still suggest to roll that die?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Parsimony]

Well, as I understand a ribozyme, or any RNA based molecule, it isn't an organism, correct ? or no ?

Depends on how one defines an organism.

Further, aren't they synthesized, not found in nature ?

So far, yes. As far as I am aware, all that is necessary to discover is a way for individual nucleotides to bond into RNA naturally and then it would demonstrate that ribozymes can come into existence naturally.

Miller-Urey is outdated.

In some ways. Even today, however, it does demonstrate that complex organic compounds can form from simple, inorganic compounds naturally.

Hmmm, what would be involved in being an expert on something that has never been observed, replicated, or described ?

One can be an expert on proposed mechanisms of something not yet observed. Einstein was an expert on relativity before it was experimentally verified.

Since he very clearly fully understands the theory

This quote needs substantiation.

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.

Depends upon substantiation of the former quote.

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

Some calculations demonstrating that would be nice.

You are very fond of the rhetorical construct of "straw men". It appears to mean to you, any concept with which you disagree.

No, a straw-man is any argument that attempts to defeat a premise by twisting the meaning of said premise. So far, all of the abiogenesis-refuting calculations I've seen are based on premises that are not held to be true by actual abiogenesis researchers.

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.

Sir Fred Hoyle, from what I've seen, equivocated the old concept of spontaneous generation with the modern concept of abiogenesis. He's already presenting a straw-man understanding. That would be like equivocating the formation of snowflakes or hailstones in clouds with the formation of a life-sized ice sculpture of the White House in clouds. Immensely different probabilities and mechanisms are required for those two very different cases.

Are there transitional forms of viruses evolving to something else ?

Only into other viruses, so far as I can tell. I don't recall any virus fossils being discovered so far.

Do viruses form by abiogenesis in nature ?

The origin of viruses is not yet well understood, but one idea I've seen is that they evolved from cellular organisms and became progressively simpler through the generations because the cells that they parasitized could perform many of the functions of life for them.

Once again, except for one word, "complex", there is no difference between spontaneous generation ans abiogenesis

Except for one word, "complex", there is no difference between:
- A single grain of sand and a sand castle.
- A rubber band-powered toy airplane and an F-35 Lighting II.
- A punch-card computer from the 1800's and a modern smart phone.

So that one little word, "complex", makes a world of difference.

 

[shmogie]

As to viuses, is it not true that they need a cell for the purpose of reproduction ? ergo, unless there were self replicating viruses in the past, wouldn't a cell/celled creature have to exist before viruses ? Seems like the poor virus was treated rather roughly by evolution. I am amused at how evolutionists are so concerned and emphatic about the definitions of spontaneous generation and abiogenesis. It's like seeing your neighbor make a quarter disappear, then going to Vegas and seeing a magician make three elephants, three monkeys in the arms of three girls on the elephants disappear. Then the discussion is about "big magic", and "little magic", With no one apparently realizing that both used techniques in common for their tricks, and what they saw couldn't happen, the same element is present, matter disappearing before your eyes in an instant. What Hoyle believed is irrelevant, unless you are proposing that a brilliant scientists cheated on his mathematical model because of his beliefs ? This is a common strain of dialog employed by many evolutionists. Did you notice what you did ? You attacked his beliefs in other area's, then, believing you had impeached his credibility, you made no effort to even look at his mathematics on the issue. He was a world acclaimed mathematician. No matter. When a scientist is a creationist, she is immediately suspect, biased., An evolutionist can posit the most bizarre and ridiculous things, of course with no bias (? ha) and all the little evolutionsts twitter and clap