Proof of Creationism made by NASA

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, they exist. But comparing these basic items to the simplest life form is comparing your hammer and nails to downtown Manhattan.

This is your comment that we are discussing:
"Molecules and compounds are not life--the simplest life is more complex than say, New York City, with all of its people, animals, structures, communications, etc."

Molecules and compounds are the "simplest" things that life is composed of. They are the building blocks of life. They are not nothing; they are something. So pointing out that life is composed of such molecules and compounds is not even in the ballpark of claiming that something came from nothing.

I can see that you are trying to argue that complexity implies design and a designer, right? The problem is that complexity isn't the hallmark of design - simplicity is.
And of course, if you want to continue down that road, I'd have to ask how complex you think the designer God you worship is, and I think you can see where we go from there.

 

[gnostic]

Two issues. First, organic life shares similarities, which implies similar functions that all work in our environment--this could imply good evolution and/or a good designer.

Second, you are making my point for me--even the simplest proteins are complex and speak against abiogenesis--consider even the number of proteins that in combination produce blood clotting and help us to not die of "basic" wounds!

The “Designer did it” is no more credible than the old “God did it”, because both are based on primitive or Dark Ages superstitions on an entity that have no evidence of existing.

Unless some creationists can show physical evidence of god or this Designer, then YEC creationism & ID creationism are dead in water.

If you cannot detect, measure or test the Designer, then there are no evidence for the Designer.

Since both YEC & ID are unfalsifiable and untestable, it immediately disqualified them both concepts from even being hypotheses.

 

[muhammad_isa]

.. there are no evidence for the Designer..

Is there evidence for evolution? Yes.
Why does it happen?

Now, you will say that it is a natural process that occurs..
Nothing can evolve, without something to evolve in the first place.
One can go round and around forever.
Nature is no accident !

 

[gnostic]

If you cannot detect, measure or test the Designer, then there are no evidence for the Designer.

Is there evidence for evolution? Yes.
Why does it happen?

Now, you will say that it is a natural process that occurs..
Nothing can evolve, without something to evolve in the first place.
One can go round and around forever.
Nature is no accident !

I have never said “Nature is accident”.

You had “implied” it did, if there are no Designer. That’s your faulty logic.

In sciences, especially Natural Sciences (which would include biology, physics & chemistry), required only the natural phenomena and its natural processes...

...so scientists only needs to ask some questions of WHAT & HOW...and then proposed some explanations which might be proposed solutions, which are themselves a set of explanatory models and a set of predictive models that are related to the phenomena and its processes.

The above is part of the processes of Scientific Method; there are two main steps to Scientific Method:

(A) Formulating the hypothesis.

(B) Testing the hypothesis.​

What I said in the 3rd & 4th paragraphs about explanatory/predictive models, relate to the (A) Formulating the hypothesis.

But what creationists seem to forget, that scientists don’t simply based your hypothesis on some imaginary conjectures that they invented from imagination, from dreams, from tripping on acid or smoking weeds, etc.

No, hypothesis have to be based on “preliminary observations” of the natural phenomena.

This is very important, because...

You have to always start with preliminary observations of the natural phenomena, hence it required physical evidence of this phenomena, BEFORE YOU CAN EVEN BEGIN TO WRITE THE EXPLANATORY MODELS FOR THE HYPOTHESIS.

Since this is subject on life, and on natural phenomena and natural phenomena, about “evolving”, since you brought up & wrote:

“Nothing can evolve, without something to evolve in the first place.”​

...I want to give you example of “preliminary observations” BEFORE formulating the hypothesis, from Charles Darwin.

(The example also applied to Alfred Russel Wallace too, Darwin’s contemporary, who also wrote his own hypothesis on Natural Selection, where Wallace wrote The Malay Archipelago in 1869.)

Before he wrote On Origin Of Species that was published in 1859, he had embarked on voyage onboard the HMS Beagle from 1831 to 1836, where he traveled to South America, many islands on the Pacific, Australia and South Africa.

(Wallace had his own field trips, one to the Amazon rainforest (1848-1851), and the other to the Malay Archipelago (1854-1862).)

Both Darwin and Wallace were naturalists (students of Natural Philosophy), with Darwin not only interested in animals (zoology), but also plants (botany) and geology.

Anyway, Darwin wrote and drew extensively in his travel journal on his travel, recording what he could observe, as well as collecting samples when he can, all the while, noticing the differences of wildlife (of both plants and animals).

And even when he returned home, he continued to research on both plants and animals, which included some fossils from Geological Society, Cambridge University and museums. He had published several works before his On Origin Of Species:

• Notebook B (1837)
• Narrative of the surveying voyages of His Majesty's Ships Adventure and Beagle between the years 1826 and 1836, describing their examination of the southern shores of South America, and the Beagle's circumnavigation of the globe. Journal and remarks. 1832–1836. (Published 1839)
• Journal of researches into the natural history and geology of the countries visited during the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle round the world, under the Command of Capt. Fitz Roy, R.N. 2d edition. (1845)

These observations that he recorded in his notes, and samples collected, are all considered “preliminary evidence”, before he even began to write On Origin Of Species.

My point, is that Darwin didn’t simply write something that he simply made up. He based all his writing on observations of the biodiversity of life, particularly in rainforests of South America and the Galápagos.

His observations don’t include him “OBSERVING” God, or the Creator, or the Designer...because if he had, he would have been speculating without any evidence to support it.

And that’s what every creationists have been doing for creationism and for Intelligent Design.

There are no evidence to support there being a Designer, and yet they would speculate and reason the Designer’s existence.

Sciences required physical evidence, which ID creationists don’t have.

And since, there are no observations of Designer, nor evidence for the Designer, that make Intelligent Design, “unfalsifiable” and “unscientific”.

Intelligent design don’t even qualify as being a “hypothesis”, because its concept of Designer being involved, which is purely speculative beliefs.

 

[muhammad_isa]

In sciences, especially Natural Sciences (which would include biology, physics & chemistry), required only the natural phenomena and its natural processes...

Well, what is "natural"?
What gives everything it's nature?

My point, is that Darwin didn’t simply write something that he simply made up. He based all his writing on observations of the biodiversity of life, particularly in rainforests of South America and the Galápagos.

Who's saying he made his observations up? I'm not.

His observations don’t include him “OBSERVING” God,

You don't say..

Intelligent design don’t even qualify as being a “hypothesis”, because its concept of Designer being involved, which is purely speculative beliefs.

..so if everything we see is not an accident, and there is no Creator, then what is responsible?

 

[gnostic]

..so if everything we see is not an accident, and there is no Creator, then what is responsible?

You are talking about origin of first or earliest life, whereas evolution is all biodiversity of life, hence it’s about adapting, evolving, about speciation.

Evolution don’t cover origin of life.

If you brought “evolving”, but you also want to talk about origin of first life...so my answers to origin, are mixed.

Mixed, because we already know that earlier were primitive species of the domain Bacteria, and that much we do know from the earliest known microfossils found in rocks at the Pilbara Craton, in Pilbara region, Western Australia (earliest direct evidence, 3.456 billion years old).

Sources:

Tyrell, Kelly April (18 December 2017). "Oldest fossils ever found show life on Earth began before 3.5 billion years ago". University of Wisconsin–Madison. Retrieved 18 December 2017.

Schopf, J. William; Kitajima, Kouki; Spicuzza, Michael J.; Kudryavtsev, Anatolly B.; Valley, John W. (2017). "SIMS analyses of the oldest known assemblage of microfossils document their taxon-correlated carbon isotope compositions". PNAS. 115 (1): 53–58. Bibcode:2018PNAS..115...53S. doi:10.1073/pnas.1718063115. PMC 5776830. PMID 29255053.​

I am talking about direct evidence for the earliest life, so that would mean there were life, most likely earlier than the evidence given, the exact origin is still unknown.

Bacteria species that lived in the time, when the Earth’s atmosphere had no free oxygen. Bacteria thrived for about 3 billion years before there were animals and land plants.

I think your posts related to how first life form. And I said my answers would be mixed.

The answer is that “we still don’t know”, because Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis, a work-in-progress. Not only that, Abiogenesis, different scientists are working independently on several different models.

Some scientists are working on a model where life may have begun in the hypothermal vents in the oceans, while others are focusing on model that life might have started in some bodies of water (eg lakes, streams or even something even smaller, like some ponds).

And yet, another proposed model that, since organic compounds have been found in some meteorites (eg the Murchison Meteorite in 1969). This model would indicate that organic compounds were formed in comets, meteorites, asteroids or planetesimals before they crashed on to the young Earth during the early Precambrian eons (eg Hadean eon, Archaean eon).

Currently, they don’t know which of these models are the most likely to have occurred on Earth.

But I need to remind you that Abiogenesis isn’t just about finding first life.

Abiogenesis is also about exploring the origins of biological compounds or macromolecules, like amino acids (which are the building blocks of proteins), proteins, nucleic acids (RNA, DNA), carbohydrates (eg sugars, glucoses, starch, as well as ribose sugars found in RNA and deoxyribose sugars in DNA), lipids and other biological compounds.

Without these compounds, cells wouldn’t exist, and if cells don’t exist, then neither do life.

Proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates and lipids are all essential components found in every single cells, and that’s why scientists working on Abiogenesis, needs to have understanding of biochemistry or molecular biology.

Like I said, I have only mixed answers to about origin of life.

What do Intelligent Design have to offer?

ID creationists and advocates have nothing more than their personal beliefs in Designer, that are speculative and unsubstantiated. They also frequently use analogies, eg comparing design of watches (ie Watchmaker analogy), car manufacturing (car design analogy), hardware design of computers or computer programming (ie computer analogy), and even Michael Behe’s mouse trap analogy.

They often no falsifiable modeling, and they certainly have no evidence for the existence of this imaginary Designer.

Making claims for Intelligent Design or for Designer, are not evidence.

And creating irrelevant analogies are not evidence for anything. Essentially, analogies are nothing more than False Equivalence fallacy.

Like every other supporters of ID, you don’t understand that even if you postulate the Designer being the “cause” of some designs (effects), in sciences, you would still require evidence for the “cause”.

Without physical evidence of the “cause”, then postulating a “cause”, like the “Intelligent Designer”, is nothing more than empty postulating.

 

[Tiberius]

Yes, except skeptics refuse to acknowledge the proteins of life that tell other proteins to make proteins or the "simple DNA" that connects to itself in three-dimensional space! The concept of some simple compounds and basic proteins stirring about to form simple life goes against most logic and rules of order, science and entropy.

You would be correct UNLESS there was a huge outside source of energy that provided that energy to Earth. If that were the case, then the combined system of Earth and this energy source could increase in entropy in total even if the local entropy here on Earth was reduced.

Tell me, do you know of such a source of energy?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Like every other supporters of ID, you don’t understand that even if you postulate the Designer being the “cause” of some designs (effects), in sciences, you would still require evidence for the “cause”.

Without physical evidence of the “cause”, then postulating a “cause”, like the “Intelligent Designer”, is nothing more than empty postulating.

It has nothing to do with "physical evidence".
Are you a machine, without feelings?
What do you see, when you go to places of Outstanding Natural Beauty?
It just evolved, is not a satisfactory explanation, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Tiberius]

It has nothing to do with "physical evidence".
Are you a machine, without feelings?
What do you see, when you go to places of Outstanding Natural Beauty?
It just evolved, is not a satisfactory explanation, as far as I'm concerned.

Argument from incredulity. Logical fallacy. Care to try again?

 

[gnostic]

I am still waiting on the “proof” from NASA in regards to creationism, but I see was another moronic YouTube video created by idiot in the op, who have no understanding on what NASA & JWST are doing.

 

[BilliardsBall]

This is your comment that we are discussing:
"Molecules and compounds are not life--the simplest life is more complex than say, New York City, with all of its people, animals, structures, communications, etc."

Molecules and compounds are the "simplest" things that life is composed of. They are the building blocks of life. They are not nothing; they are something. So pointing out that life is composed of such molecules and compounds is not even in the ballpark of claiming that something came from nothing.

I can see that you are trying to argue that complexity implies design and a designer, right? The problem is that complexity isn't the hallmark of design - simplicity is.
And of course, if you want to continue down that road, I'd have to ask how complex you think the designer God you worship is, and I think you can see where we go from there.

Astonishing complexity in some arenas, and extraordinary simplicity on others (the near-universality, for example, of regression to the mean or the 80/20 rule or E=MC^2, etc.) testify of God to most persons.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The “Designer did it” is no more credible than the old “God did it”, because both are based on primitive or Dark Ages superstitions on an entity that have no evidence of existing.

Unless some creationists can show physical evidence of god or this Designer, then YEC creationism & ID creationism are dead in water.

If you cannot detect, measure or test the Designer, then there are no evidence for the Designer.

Since both YEC & ID are unfalsifiable and untestable, it immediately disqualified them both concepts from even being hypotheses.

No, let's both be honest--original Designer and abiogenesis are both current faith claims. It is reasonable to infer God from many other things besides Creation.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You would be correct UNLESS there was a huge outside source of energy that provided that energy to Earth. If that were the case, then the combined system of Earth and this energy source could increase in entropy in total even if the local entropy here on Earth was reduced.

Tell me, do you know of such a source of energy?

Earth is a semi-closed system that receives outside energy, certainly. Abiogenesis requires quite a few things besides energy, so many in fact, that no one can reproduce it in a controlled environment.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

After 133 post, the real question is: why is stupid so resilient? ​

 

[SkepticThinker]

Astonishing complexity in some arenas, and extraordinary simplicity on others (the near-universality, for example, of regression to the mean or the 80/20 rule or E=MC^2, etc.) testify of God to most persons.

Weird how you didn't read the last three sentences of my post:

I can see that you are trying to argue that complexity implies design and a designer, right? The problem is that complexity isn't the hallmark of design - simplicity is.
And of course, if you want to continue down that road, I'd have to ask how complex you think the designer God you worship is, and I think you can see where we go from there.

I would add, how do you think "complexity" implies a God designer, given that we know that simplicity is actually the hallmark of design?| And on top of that, how'd you get to "the designer is the specific God I believe in and worship" ... ?

 

[gnostic]

No, let's both be honest--original Designer and abiogenesis are both current faith claims. It is reasonable to infer God from many other things besides Creation.

It is?

Is it really reasonable to still rely on the primitive and outdated “God did it” superstition, given our current knowledge of biology, molecular biology and biochemistry?

We know that every number of different organic matters are made of different cells for more complex multicellular organisms than unicellular organisms:

• Animals: blood, tissues, nerves, muscles, organs, bones, hair, etc, and all of these are made of different types of cells.
• Plants: roots, stems, leaves, needles, cones, roots, seeds, spores, etc, and all of these are made of different types of plant cells.
• Fungi: more cells.
• Bacteria are single-cellular organisms...as are species of Archaea. Hence more cells.

But in every cells, there are many components of each cell structures. And in every components are biological macromolecules (eg the most basic macromolecules within every cells, are proteins, nucleic acids (eg RNA, DNA), carbohydrates and lipids.

And each of these macromolecules are made of more biological compounds. And when you break down these compounds further, they are basically are made of atoms.

For example, proteins are made of chain of amino acids. That’s the fact.

There are 20 different types of amino acids (organic compound) that are naturally occurring building blocks of proteins (as well there are another 2 or 3 amino acids that exist in proteins in certain organisms). How these amino acids are sequenced (chained) or arranged, determine types of proteins they are.

Nucleic acids, like DNA are not made of a single compound, but are made of many compounds.

The problems here, you are the one who keep using the word “basic” or “simple” molecules, not me. You keep using simple and basic, changing what I am saying, is nothing more than strawman.

There are nothing simple about proteins.

Proteins are the building blocks of many different physical structures and functions of tissues; and there are many different types, and they are not same.

In vertebrate animals, there are tissues of muscles, connective tissues, nerve tissues are made of neurons (nerve cells), dermal tissues of skin or hide, etc, but proteins have other functions, including proteins being enzymes.

Enzymes are essential for metabolism, because enzymes are responsible for the catalysts for certain different biochemical reactions. Organisms cannot maintain life without metabolic (chemical) reactions.

With so many different functions in proteins, you keep accusing me of using molecules and compounds being “simple” or “basic” are dishonest strawman.

I have never said biological macromolecules or biological compounds being “simple”, you did.

 

[gnostic]

These steps, which I acknowledge, would be tiny, minute steps toward life--that reproduces life--from nothing.

Excuse me, but I have never said “something” coming from “nothing”.

I don’t think ANY biologist or biochemist say anything about “something” coming from “nothing”.

Even with the Abiogenesis, there are no one saying that “something” coming from “nothing”.

Every biological macromolecules (eg proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates (eg polysaccharide), lipids, etc) are made of smaller biological compounds (eg amino acids are building blocks of every known proteins). Biological macromolecules are essential within EVERY CELLS.

Biological macromolecules are not “nothing”.

And these smaller biological compounds that make up the larger macromolecules, are also not nothing.

Even these smaller biological compounds are made of atoms, eg hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, carbon, phosphorus, potassium, etc, and atoms are not made of “nothing”.

If there were such thing as “nothing”, no atoms and molecules would exist.

You keep talking about “nothing”, and yet no biochemists and no biologists proposed this “nothing” that you keep talking about.

There are none of this crap about “nothing becoming something” in Abiogenesis. That’s just more creationist’s dishonest misinformation from YEC & ID.

You keep repeating the Intelligent Design BS propaganda, without understanding the processes of Abiogenesis.

And beside...

No, let's both be honest--original Designer and abiogenesis are both current faith claims. It is reasonable to infer God from many other things besides Creation.

...there are evidence (eg Murchison Meteorite), and experiments by Stanley Miller (1952) and by Joan Oró (1961) that show that certain inorganic chemicals that would have exist in early Earth’s environments, can react chemically and form organic compounds.

And before animals, plants and fungi, all eukaryotes or eukaryotic organisms, for billions of years, only older species of Bacteria and species of Archaea flourished on Earth. The oldest evidence are found in microfossils were found in Western Australia and in Greenland. We already know that primitive species of bacteria existed before there were free oxygen in the Earth’s atmosphere.

What we don’t know is how earlier cells form from biological macromolecules that make up the structure of these cells. That’s what biochemists and biologists are trying to find out.

With evidence and a number of experiments, Abiogenesis is far from being faith-based like Intelligent Design.

Faith in superstition that this Designer exist, is blind faith because there are zero evidence for the existence of this “god”.

Members of the Discovery Institute (eg Phillip E Johnson, Stephen C Meyer, Michael Behe, etc) may avoid using the words “God” or “Creator”, but each one of them are still Christian creationists pretending that the “Designer” is a new thing, but the “Designer did it”, is still the same superstition as “God did it”. Intelligent Design is just masquerading of being “science think tank”, except there are “no science” involved in Discovery Institute’s Intelligent Design.

 

[Tiberius]

Earth is a semi-closed system that receives outside energy, certainly.

Stop playing games.

My perpetual motion machine is a semi-closed system that receives outside energy (it's plugged into a powerpoint). See how bad that argument is. It's either closed or open. If it's getting outside energy, then it's open. Don't try and trick anyone into thinking it's closed.

Abiogenesis requires quite a few things besides energy, so many in fact, that no one can reproduce it in a controlled environment.

So? The process required does not violate any known science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Stop playing games.

My perpetual motion machine is a semi-closed system that receives outside energy (it's plugged into a powerpoint). See how bad that argument is. It's either closed or open. If it's getting outside energy, then it's open. Don't try and trick anyone into thinking it's closed.



So? The process required does not violate any known science.

Technically if the Earth is a "closed system". The thermodynamic definitions have changed over the years. Now an open system is like a car engine where both matter and energy enter and leave the system. It still has to follow the laws of thermodynamics. A closed system is one where energy can enter and leave but matter cannot. Which for all practical purposes describes the Earth. An isolated system is one where neither energy nor matter can enter or leave and that is one the only one that is subject to the extremely simplified version of the Second Law of Thermodynamics that creationists rely upon. It is very clear that the Earth is not an isolated system.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It is?

Is it really reasonable to still rely on the primitive and outdated “God did it” superstition, given our current knowledge of biology, molecular biology and biochemistry?

We know that every number of different organic matters are made of different cells for more complex multicellular organisms than unicellular organisms:

• Animals: blood, tissues, nerves, muscles, organs, bones, hair, etc, and all of these are made of different types of cells.
• Plants: roots, stems, leaves, needles, cones, roots, seeds, spores, etc, and all of these are made of different types of plant cells.
• Fungi: more cells.
• Bacteria are single-cellular organisms...as are species of Archaea. Hence more cells.

But in every cells, there are many components of each cell structures. And in every components are biological macromolecules (eg the most basic macromolecules within every cells, are proteins, nucleic acids (eg RNA, DNA), carbohydrates and lipids.

And each of these macromolecules are made of more biological compounds. And when you break down these compounds further, they are basically are made of atoms.

For example, proteins are made of chain of amino acids. That’s the fact.

There are 20 different types of amino acids (organic compound) that are naturally occurring building blocks of proteins (as well there are another 2 or 3 amino acids that exist in proteins in certain organisms). How these amino acids are sequenced (chained) or arranged, determine types of proteins they are.

Nucleic acids, like DNA are not made of a single compound, but are made of many compounds.

The problems here, you are the one who keep using the word “basic” or “simple” molecules, not me. You keep using simple and basic, changing what I am saying, is nothing more than strawman.

There are nothing simple about proteins.

Proteins are the building blocks of many different physical structures and functions of tissues; and there are many different types, and they are not same.

In vertebrate animals, there are tissues of muscles, connective tissues, nerve tissues are made of neurons (nerve cells), dermal tissues of skin or hide, etc, but proteins have other functions, including proteins being enzymes.

Enzymes are essential for metabolism, because enzymes are responsible for the catalysts for certain different biochemical reactions. Organisms cannot maintain life without metabolic (chemical) reactions.

With so many different functions in proteins, you keep accusing me of using molecules and compounds being “simple” or “basic” are dishonest strawman.

I have never said biological macromolecules or biological compounds being “simple”, you did.

Sounds like you've solved abiogenesis. Can you explain it to me?