Proof of Creationism made by NASA

[BilliardsBall]

Abiogenesis is a scientific hypothesis whereas Creation is a claim, thus they are not the same.

They are both faith-based claims since neither are observed in nature nor duplicable in a lab.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No it's not. For example, no one has directly observed the earth making an entire orbit around the sun, nor has it been replicated in the lab. Yet no sane person thinks of it as "scientific conjecture".

So as I noted, not only are you wrong on a very fundamental level, the fact that you make such a basic error despite years and years of attempting to debate science here, is quite an indictment.

Simply put, if you truly believe what you wrote above then you have no business lecturing others about science.

Orbiting spheres are observed in nature--for example, the Moon. Centrifigul and centripedal forces, and gravity from rotating man-made objects in space, etc. is duplicable.

Abiogenesis is neither observed in nature nor duplicable in a lab.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It doesn't happen again because there's no role for it to take. The first time, there was nothing else to compete with it. Today,. there's all sorts of life forms that would compete with it, and they all have several billion years head start.

There are reasons the conjectured abiogenesis doesn't happen again, I agree. There are reasons (biblical also) why all fossil and modern species are finished, complete. There is further a reason(s) why abiogeneis is non-duplicable in a lab.

Abiogenesis, neither observed nor duplicable, is conjecture.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why are you being nasty? I wouldn't address my worst enemy the way you do. What is your fear or trauma that causes you to be so rude, may I ask?

When a person has been shown to be wrong and corrected countless times what would you attribute the inability to learn too? The person could be a fool or an idiot. He could be a liar. Or he could be afraid to learn. Pointing out your fear was the nicest that I could have been.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Orbiting spheres are observed in nature--for example, the Moon. Centrifigul and centripedal forces, and gravity from rotating man-made objects in space, etc. is duplicable.

Abiogenesis is neither observed in nature nor duplicable in a lab.

And you have been endlessly corrected on this for example.

The scientific method does not say that events need to be repeatable. It is the evidence for those events that has to be repeatable.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

There are reasons (biblical also) why all fossil and modern species are finished, complete.

This sentence makes no sense. There is no such thing as a "complete" or "incomplete" form.

 

[metis]

They are both faith-based claims since neither are observed in nature nor duplicable in a lab.

No, as a "hypothesis" simply is not a "faith-based claim":
Scientific hypothesis, an idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon or a narrow set of phenomena observed in the natural world. The two primary features of a scientific hypothesis are falsifiability and testability, which are reflected in an “If…then” statement summarizing the idea and in the ability to be supported or refuted through observation and experimentation. The notion of the scientific hypothesis as both falsifiable and testable was advanced in the mid-20th century by Austrian-born British philosopher Karl Popper.

The formulation and testing of a hypothesis is part of the scientific method, the approach scientists use when attempting to understand and test ideas about natural phenomena... -- scientific hypothesis | Definition, Formulation, & Example | Britannica

 

[SkepticThinker]

How would the primitive Earth have generated and maintained organic molecules? All that can be said is that there might have been prevital organic chemistry going on, at least in special locations.
How would prebiotic processes have purified the starting molecules to make RNA and DNA which were grossly impure? They would have been present in complex mixtures that contained a great variety of reactive molecules.
How did the synthesis of the nitrogenic nucleobases in prebiotic environments occur?
How did fortuitous accidents select the five just-right nucleobases to make DNA and RNA, Two purines, and three pyrimidines?
How did unguided random events select purines with two rings, with nine atoms, forming the two rings: 5 carbon atoms and 4 nitrogen atoms, amongst almost unlimited possible configurations?
How did stochastic coincidence select pyrimidines with one ring, with six atoms, forming its ring: 4 carbon atoms and 2 nitrogen atoms, amongst an unfathomable number of possible configurations?
How did random trial and error foresee that this specific atomic arrangement of the nucleobases is required to get the right strength of the hydrogen bond to join the two DNA strands and form Watson–Crick base-pairing?
How did mechanisms without external direction foresee that this specific atomic arrangement would convey one of, if not the best possible genetic system to store information?
How would these functional bases have been separated from the confusing jumble of similar molecules that would also have been made?
How were high-energy precursors to produce purines and pyrimidines produced in a sufficiently concentrated form and joined to the assembly site?
How could the adenine-uracil interaction function in any specific recognition scheme under the chaotic conditions of a "prebiotic soup" considering that its interaction is weak and nonspecific?
How could sufficient uracil nucleobases accumulate in prebiotic environments in sufficient quantities, if it has a half-life of only 12 years at 100◦C ?
How could the ribose 5 carbon sugar rings which form the RNA and DNA backbone have been selected, if 6 or 4 carbon rings, or even more or less, are equally possible but non-functional?
How would the functional ribose molecules have been separated from the non-functional sugars?
How were the correct nitrogen atom of the base and the correct carbon atom of the sugar selected to be joined together?
How could right-handed configurations of RNA and DNA have been selected in a racemic pool of right and left-handed molecules? Ribose must have been in its D form to adopt functional structures ( The homochirality problem )
How could random events have brought all the 3 parts together and bonded them in the right position ( probably over one million nucleotides would have been required ?)
How could prebiotic reactions have produced functional nucleosides? (There are no known ways of bringing about this thermodynamically uphill reaction in aqueous solution)
How could prebiotic glycosidic bond formation between nucleosides and the base have occurred if they are thermodynamically unstable in water, and overall intrinsically unstable?
How could RNA nucleotides have accumulated, if they degrade at warm temperatures in time periods ranging from nineteen days to twelve years? These are extremely short survival rates for the four RNA nucleotide building blocks.
How was phosphate, the third element, concentrated at reasonable concentrations?. (The concentrations in the oceans or lakes would have been very low)
How would prebiotic mechanisms phosphorylate the nucleosides at the correct site (the 5' position) if, in laboratory experiments, the 2' and 3' positions were also phosphorylated?
How could phosphate have been activated somehow? In order to promote the energy dispendious nucleotide polymerization reaction, and (energetically uphill) phosphorylation of the nucleoside had to be possible.
How was the energy supply accomplished to make RNA? In modern cells, energy is consumed to make RNA.
How could a transition from prebiotic to biochemical synthesis have occurred? There are a huge gap and enormous transition that would be still ahead to arrive at a fully functional interlocked and interdependent metabolic network.
How could RNA have formed, if it requires water to make them, but RNA cannot emerge in water and cannot replicate with sufficient fidelity in water without sophisticated repair mechanisms in place?
How would the prebiotic synthesis transition of RNA to the highly regulated cellular metabolic synthesis have occurred? The pyrimidine synthesis pathway requires six regulated steps, seven enzymes, and energy in the form of ATP.
The starting material for purine biosynthesis is Ribose 5-phosphate, a product of the highly complex pentose phosphate pathway, which uses 12 enzymes. De novo purine synthesis pathway requires ten regulated steps, eleven enzymes, and energy in the form of ATP.
How would the primitive earth have produced high-energy precursors of purines and pyrimidines in a sufficiently concentrated form? (for example at least 0.01 M HCN).
How would the bases have been separated from the confusing jumble of similar molecules that would also have been made? - and the solutions had to be sufficiently concentrated.
How did formaldehyde concentration of above 0.01 M build up?
How did accumulated formaldehyde oligomerise to sugars?
How did the sugars separate and resolve, so as to give a moderately good concentration of, for example, D-ribose?

Oooh, a Gish Gallop. Fun stuff.

This dude you're citing doesn't know what he's talking about. He just cuts and pastes large swaths of texts from scientific sites without knowing what any of it means.

Hey ....

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not really an argument you've made, just insults.

How come five-year-olds know what a kind is but skeptics don't? Cats cannot birth dogs or vice versa because science says they are FINISHED, COMPLETE kinds. Everything in fossils and NOW, BILLIONS of species, shows "complete" in AGREEMENT with scripture.

Sorry, where are the insults?

If we were to observe any species of creature giving birth to any other species of creature, evolution would be falsified. So as you can see, your view of evolution is absurd and inaccurate. This has been pointed out to you countless times by countless different posters at this point in time.

I still have no idea what you mean about "complete" anything, but it sounds like it's based on yet another inaccurate representation of evolution that we see on a lot of creationist websites. Evolution doesn't expect to find half-formed creatures or whatever you're talking about.

Also, are you not aware of genetics?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You get an award for "BEST ANSWER OF THE YEAR". Maybe you can handwave at this next:

Open questions in prebiotic sourcing of hydrocarbons
How would an ensemble of minerals present anywhere on the primitive Earth be capable of catalyzing each of the many steps of the reverse citric acid cycle? How would a cycle mysteriously organize itself topographically on a metal sulfide surface? How would such a cycle, despite the lack of evidence of its existence, a transition to the “life-like” complexity of the Wood-Ljundahl cycle, or reverse TCA cycle, commonly proposed as the first carbon fixing cycles on earth?

In this work, we emphasize the role of selection during the prebiological stages of evolution and focus on the constraints that are imposed by physical, chemical, and biological laws. The key feature of the scenario is the participation of the UV irradiation both as driving and selecting forces during the earlier stages of evolution.

Ultraviolet radiation was then already considered as an energy source but was not used, since it was difficult to generate radiation of appropriate wavelength with sources available at that time (Miller and Urey 1959). 2 The prebiotic UV environment was exposed to high levels of UV radiation relative to the present day due to lack of UV-shielding O2 and O3. 3. High environmental fluxes of UV–C and UV–B restricting protocyanobacteria to refuges. J.B.S. Haldane (1892-1962) independently proposed the existence of a prebiotic soup in the oceans (Haldane 1954) and suggested that subjecting a mixture of water, carbon dioxide and ammonia to UV light should produce a variety of organic substances. Dauvillier (1947) was one of the first in suggesting UV radiation as an energy source for the synthesis of organic matter. In the words of Sagan & Khare (1971), “the availability of the ultraviolet solar radiation was some 100 times greater that of all the others”. It is a paradox how the molecule responsible for the replication of information has such a large absorption in the damaging UV spectral range. Sagan (1973) suggested the existence of a protecting layer of purines and pyrimidines surrounding the primitive organisms.The decrease in UV surface fluxes was essential for the access of living beings to the land and the subsequent evolution of complex life forms. 4

No prebiotic selection !!
1. Life requires the use of a limited set of complex biomolecules, a universal convention, and unity which is composed of the four basic building blocks of life ( RNA and DNA's, amino acids, phospholipids, and carbohydrates). They are of a very specific complex functional composition and made by cells in extremely sophisticated orchestrated metabolic pathways, which were not extant on the early earth. If abiogenesis were true, these biomolecules had to be prebiotically available and naturally occurring ( in non-enzyme-catalyzed ways by natural means ) and then somehow join in an organized way and form the first living cells. They had to be available in big quantities and concentrated at one specific building site.
2. Making things for a specific purpose, for a distant goal, requires goal-directedness. And that's a big problem for naturalistic explanations of the origin of life. There was a potentially unlimited variety of molecules on the prebiotic earth. Competition and selection among them would never have occurred at all, to promote a separation of those molecules that are used in life, from those that are useless. Selection is a scope and powerless mechanism to explain all of the living order, and even the ability to maintain order in the short term and to explain the emergence, overall organization, and long-term persistence of life from non-living precursors. It is an error of false conceptual reduction to suppose that competition and selection will thereby be the source of explanation for all relevant forms of the living order.
3. We know that a) unguided random purposeless events are unlikely to the extreme to make specific purposeful elementary components to build large integrated macromolecular systems, and b) intelligence has goal-directedness. Bricks do not form from clay by themselves, and then line up to make walls. Someone made them. Phospholipids do not form from glycerol, a phosphate group, and two fatty acid chains by themselves, and line up to make cell membranes. Someone made them. That is God.

If a machine has to be made out of certain components, then the components have to be made first.'

Molecules have nothing to gain by becoming the building blocks of life. They are "happy" to lay on the ground or float in the prebiotic ocean and that's it. Being incredulous that they would concentrate at one building site in the right mixture, and in the right complex form, that would permit them to complexify in an orderly manner and assembly into complex highly efficient molecular machines and self-replicating cell factories, is not only justified but warranted and sound reasoning. That fact alone destroys materialism & naturalism. Being credulous towards such a scenario means to stick to blind belief. And claiming that "we don't know (yet), but science is working on it, but the expectation is that the explanation will be a naturalistic one ( No God required) is a materialism of the gaps argument.

A Few Experimental Suggestions Using Minerals to Obtain Peptides with a High Concentration of L-Amino Acids and Protein Amino Acids 10 December 2020
The prebiotic seas contained L- and D-amino acids, and non-Polar AAs and Polar AAs, and minerals could adsorb all these molecules. Besides amino acids, other molecules could be found in the primitive seas that competed for mineral adsorption sites. Here, we have a huge problem that could be a double-edged sword for prebiotic chemistry. On the one hand, this may lead to more complex prebiotic chemistry, due to the large variety of species, which could mean more possibilities for the formation of different and more complex molecules. On the other hand, this complex mixture of molecules may not lead to the formation of any important molecule or biopolymer in high concentration to be used for molecular evolution. Schwartz, in his article “Intractable mixtures and the origin of life”, has already addressed this problem, denominating this mixture the “gunk”. 5

Intractable Mixtures and the Origin of Life 2007
A problem which is familiar to organic chemists is the production of unwanted byproducts in synthetic reactions. For prebiotic chemistry, where the goal is often the simulation of conditions on the prebiotic Earth and the modeling of a spontaneous reaction, it is not surprising – but nevertheless frustrating – that the unwanted products may consume most of the starting material and lead to nothing more than an intractable mixture, or -gunk.. The most well-known examples of the phenomenon can be summarized quickly: Although the Miller –Urey reaction produces an impressive set of amino acids and other biologically significant compounds, a large fraction of the starting material goes into a brown, tar-like residue that remains uncharacterized; i.e., gunk. While 15% of the carbon can be traced to specific organic molecules, the rest seems to be largely intractable

Even if we focus only on the soluble products, we still have to deal with an extremely complex mixture of compounds. The carbonaceous chondrites, which represent an alternative source of starting material for prebiotic chemistry on Earth, and must have added enormous quantities of organic material to the Earth at the end of the Late Heavy Bombardment (LHB), do not offer a solution to the problem just referred to. The organic material present in carbonaceous meteorites is a mixture of such complexity that much ingenuity has gone into the design of suitable extraction methods, to isolate the most important classes of soluble (or solubilized) components for analysis.

Whatever the exact nature of an RNA precursor which may have become the first selfreplicating molecule, how could the chemical homogeneity which seems necessary to permit this kind of mechanism to even come into existence have been achieved? What mechanism would have selected for the incorporation of only threose, or ribose, or any particular building block, into short oligomers which might later have undergone chemically selective oligomerization? Virtually all model prebiotic syntheses produce mixtures.

Answered earlier.

You're doing the same thing the guy you're citing does:
Cuts and pastes large swathes of texts that he doesn't understand and then claims he's disproved evolution when he's done no such thing.

Try cutting and pasting that to a scientist who knows what he's talking about and see how far you get.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, all current and fossil species appear whole in the record(s).

What else did you expect?
Crockoducks?

Please list here how macroevolution (kinds giving birth to different kinds)

That's not what macro-evolution is.
In evolutionary theory, species do not change "kinds".

That's even a law in evolution. You can't outgrow your own ancestry.
All descendants of mammals, will be mammals (or subspecies thereof).
All descendants of primates, will be primates (or subspecies thereof).
All descendants of humans, will be humans (or subspecies thereof).

Any other outcome would mean that a species jumped branches on the evolutionary tree of life, which would falsify evolution.

In evolution, cats don't turn into dogs.

has been observed in "real time" as you put it.

First perhaps learn what macro-evolution really is before asking examples of it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You do not need to duplicate something OR observe it in nature to say it is scientific fact? I know you understand science, but you are a science denier here.

First there was no life and then there was life.
Fact.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Perfectly plausible? Then why is it neither observed in nature nor duplicable in a controlled environment? That's why it's conjecture/just-so stories and not science fact.

Just a question.

Do you think the theory of relativity is a "fact"?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, now apply your analogy to abiogenesis. Fail!

How did bases and sugars come together?
How were they induced to react to make nucleosides? (There are no known ways of bringing about this thermo dynamically uphill reaction in aqueous solution: purine nucleosides have been made by dry phase synthesis, but not even this method has been successful for condensing pyrimidine bases and ribose to give nucleosides
How was joining base and sugar achieved correctly ? It had to be between the correct nitrogen atom of the base and the correct carbon atom of the sugar. This junction will fix the pentose sugar as either the a- or fl-anomer of either the furanose or pyranose forms. For nucleic acids it has to be the fl-furanose. (In the dry-phase purine nucleoside syntheses referred to above, all four of these isomers were present with never more than 8 ‘Z, of the correct structure.)
How could phosphate have been present at sufficient concentrations? (The concentrations in the oceans would have been very low, so we must think about special situations—evaporating lagoons and such things
How could phosphate have been activated? — for example as a linear or cyclic polyphosphate — so that (energetically uphill) phosphorylation of the nucleoside is possible?
How would only the standard nucleotides, the 5’- hydroxyl of the ribose be phosphorylated? (In solid-state reactions with urea and inorganic phosphates as a phosphorylating agent, this was the dominant species to begin with.
How did the activated nucleotides (or the nucleotides with coupling agent) polymerise?. Initially this must have happened without a pre-existing polynucleotide template (this has proved very difficult to simulate ; but more important, it must have come to take place on pre-existing polynucleotides if the key function of transmitting information to daughter molecules was to be achieved by abiotic means. This has proved difficult too. Orgel & Lohrmann give three main classes of problem.
(i) While it has been shown that adenosine derivatives form stable helical structures with poly(U) — they are in fact triple helixes — and while this enhances the condensation of adenylic acid with either adenosine or another adenylic acid — mainly to di(A) - stable helical structures were not formed when either poly(A) or poly(G) Were used as templates.
(ii) It was difficult to find a suitable means of making the internucleotide bonds. Specially designed water-soluble carbodiimides were used in the experiments described above, but the obvious pre-activated nucleotides — ATP or cyclic 2’,3’-phosphates — were unsatisfactory. Nucleoside 5'-phosphorimidazolides, for example: N/\ n K/N/P-r’o%OHN/\N were more successful, but these now involve further steps and a supply of imidazole, for their synthesis.
(iii) Internucleotide bonds formed on a template are usually a mixture of 2’—5’ and the normal 3’—5’ types. Often the 2’—5’ bonds predominate although it has been found that Zn“, as well as acting as an eflicient catalyst for the templatedirected oligomerisation of guanosine 5’-phosphorimidazolide also leads to a preference for the 3’—5’ bonds.
How could the physical and chemical environment have been at all times suitable — for example the pH, the temperature, the M2+ concentrations?
How could all reactions have taken place well out of the ultraviolet sunlight? that is, not only away from its direct, highly destructive effects on nucleic acid-like molecules, but away too from the radicals produced by the sunlight, and from the various longer lived reactive species produced by these radicals.
If not already activated — for example as the cyclic 2’,3’-phosphate — how were the nucleotides be activated? (for example with polyphosphate) and a reasonably pure solution of these species created of reasonable concentration. Alternatively, a suitable coupling agent must now have been fed into the system.
Longer heating gave the nucleoside cyclic 2’,3’-phosphate as the major product although various dinucleotide derivatives and nucleoside polyphosphates are also formed

DNA is more stable than RNA. uracil (U) is replaced in DNA by thymine (T)
At the C2' position of ribose, an oxygen atom is removed by hypercomplex RNR molecular machines. The thymine-uracil exchange is the major chemical difference between DNA and RNA. Before being incorporated into the chromosomes, this essential modification takes place. The synthesis of thymine requires seven enzymes. De novo biosynthesis of thymine is an intricate and energetically expensive process.
All in all, not considering the metabolic pathways and enzymes required to make the precursors to start RNA and DNA synthesis, at least 26 enzymes are required. How did these enzymes emerge, if DNA is required to make them?

Are you about done with copy pasting things that you don't even understand?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They are both faith-based claims since neither are observed in nature nor duplicable in a lab.

A hypothesis is not a claim.
Your post is an excellent example of your willful ignorance and just repeating your false claims ad nauseum.

You double down on ignorance like a true ostrich, while stuffing your ears and screaming "lalalal".

It's a pretty sad sight, tbh

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just a question.

Do you think the theory of relativity is a "fact"?

Yesterday I got lost while using GPS, so no

 

[Jose Fly]

Orbiting spheres are observed in nature--for example, the Moon. Centrifigul and centripedal forces, and gravity from rotating man-made objects in space, etc. is duplicable.

Oh, so you're ok with extrapolating observations to bigger conclusions. So for example, since we see the evolution of new species now, when we see different species in the fossil record, it's reasonable to conclude that they too came about via evolution.

Abiogenesis is neither observed in nature nor duplicable in a lab.

Has anyone said otherwise?

 

[BilliardsBall]

And you have been endlessly corrected on this for example.

The scientific method does not say that events need to be repeatable. It is the evidence for those events that has to be repeatable.

You are incorrect.

 

[BilliardsBall]

This sentence makes no sense. There is no such thing as a "complete" or "incomplete" form.

I apologize for the confusion. A better way might be "there are no transitory fossils showing half-formed/developing structures, and no modern species likewise".

 

[SkepticThinker]

I apologize for the confusion. A better way might be "there are no transitory fossils showing half-formed/developing structures, and no modern species likewise".

Nobody who understands evolution expects to find such things.

What you're describing is a caricature of evolution.