The creator did it.

[Misunderstood]

Can you tell me why you would trust a source that has been shown to be dishonest and has never corrected their past behavior?

Did I say I trusted it? I just said I had not ever seen that before.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did I say I trusted it? I just said I had not ever seen that before.

You can do better than that. Why would you enjoy seeing a lie?

 

[Misunderstood]

You can do better than that. Why would you enjoy seeing a lie?

I don't recall saying I enjoyed it either. To be honest I just quickly looked at it, and would like to read it more thoroughly as it does tie into what we have been talking about, so I thanked him for sharing. But at this point I have not read enough to know whether I agree or disagree with the article. I have not used anything from the article as proof for anything I have said either as I have not yet decided if I trust it.

I do want to say I can enjoy something I do not believe just because I can find it humorous, and for no other reason. Even though I do not think this girls plan would work I still find it funny;

Little Melissa comes home from first grade and tells her father that they learned about the history of Valentine's Day. "Since Valentine's Day is a Christian saint and we're Jewish," she asks, "will God get mad at me for giving someone a valentine?" Melissa's father thinks a bit, then says, "No, I don't think God would get mad. Who do you want to give a valentine to?" "Osama Bin Laden," she says. "Why Osama Bin Laden?" her father asks in shock. "Well," she says, "I thought that if a little American Jewish girl could have enough love to give Osama a valentine, he might start to think that maybe we're not all bad, and maybe start loving people a little bit. And if other kids saw what I did and sent valentines to Osama, he'd love everyone a lot. And then he'd start going all over the place to tell everyone how much he loved them and how he didn't hate anyone anymore." Her father's heart swells and he looks at his daughter with pride. "Melissa, that's the most wonderful thing I've ever heard." "I know," Melissa says, "and once that gets him out in the open, the Marines could blow the crap out of him."

 

[Rapture Era]

If you want to claim that life starting on its own the burden of proof is upon you. Many scientists, and definitely not all atheists, think that it is possible.

Do you hear what you are saying? First of all the burden is not on me, it is on you! Honest scientists are admitting that life starting on its own is not possible from your own sources! What is your problem? Oh wait I know, denial of the facts! Every time you post some link to proof, they are riddled with skepticism beyond what is possible! You can read the words for yourself! Listen, if you had something concrete you would be able to show it but you dont! What is your best defense? If you guys had it you would flaunt it, but you don't! Nice try shifting the burden of proof. I'm still waiting for you to show any real evidence that abiogenesis is the starting point of your evolution baloney! You have to have it before you can move forward to anything else, is this too hard for you to understand? So if you can defend your hypothesis that non life can become life, lets see it! What can you offer?

 

[Rapture Era]

Well there it is. The old "you're gonna be sorry if you don't believe what I believe" nonsense. Is that actually convincing to anyone? All it sounds like to me is that the poster has run out of arguments. What more can be expected from someone declaring that life starting by natural processes is absolutely impossible.

And you have something scientific that says otherwise? Lets see your best left hook!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you hear what you are saying? First of all the burden is not on me, it is on you! Honest scientists are admitting that life starting on its own is not possible from your own sources! What is your problem? Oh wait I know, denial of the facts! Every time you post some link to proof, they are riddled with skepticism beyond what is possible! You can read the words for yourself! Listen, if you had something concrete you would be able to show it but you dont! What is your best defense? If you guys had it you would flaunt it, but you don't! Nice try shifting the burden of proof. I'm still waiting for you to show any real evidence that abiogenesis is the starting point of your evolution baloney! You have to have it before you can move forward to anything else, is this too hard for you to understand? So if you can defend your hypothesis that non life can become life, lets see it! What can you offer?

You have not been following along. Abiogenesis has repeatedly shown to be possible. There has been no evidence to show that it is impossible. All we have are claims of such by creationists. And we do have concrete evidence that it is possible.

Do you remember the first test of abiogenesis?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I think that you see me as conflicted or inconsistent. Perhaps that is true, but it is not a description of the feeling I got from reading your words. Nor does it answer the question I asked. Do you think that scientists are all atheists?

I think a valid comment about my personal views would best be described as compartmentalization.

I am not assuming anything. I am stating that I have no reason to mix my religion and science and do not and know others with religious beliefs that I feel do the same in their work. I do not follow or support intelligent design. It is not science.

I agree with all of this.

Wow. You really read a lot out of what I wrote. A lot that is not there or even hinted at. It is almost as if you were creating a straw man yourself.

I will have to check back. I thought I asked a question and followed it with an observation. Now it is a claim. I amaze me at my ability to hide claims even from me.

Again, I agree with all of this and fully agree and support your final statement.

It might be an interesting diversion to look for something like that, but why? I am not looking to support a claim I never made. A claim I have no reason to make. I am not trying to support a religious agenda in science, even if you seem bent on manufacturing one for me. I only wanted an answer to my question. I believe I have it, though it took a few paragraphs and I had to obtain it indirectly. So. You do recognize that there are scientists that are Christian. I know some that are Sikh, Muslim and Hindu as well. If I cared, I would probably find I know some Buddhist scientists as well. Most are, as you say, atheist.

I am enjoying these discussions, but you are letting your bias rewrite what I have written. I think you have trouble believing a Christian could be a scientist and keep his religious views out of discussions of science.

I think you have misinterpreted my meaning and intentions. Because of your "soul searching" and open question, I thought the word you were looking for was conflicted. I then included the definition of the word's meaning including "inconsistent". I personally do not in any way think that you are inconsistent or conflicted. I was simply offering you the word I thought you were looking for. I'll re-read my post to see if I implied anything else. It is also very self-evident that not ALL scientist are Atheists. It is also irrelevant if all scientist were believers. Either beliefs have zero influence on the scientific method of inquiry. If fact it is the very disciplines learned in science, that control the biases inherent in the human condition. It is the checks and balance(mentioned before), that eventually exposes those biases that slip through the cracks.

The paranoid assumption(or straw man) was that ones religious beliefs would effect the outcome of ones research. I stand corrected, since you claim that you do not mix your religion with your science. A point we both can agree on. Of course this was not always the case in the early years. Especially during the years where religion was the only science in town. Many of my colleagues and friends are also very religious, so I have no problem appreciating their dual-nature. Their work is certainly not affected by the nature of their belief or faith. The only people that disagree with even the basic aspects and assumptions of science, are non-scientists or fundamentalists. You are also correct, that the nature of a person's beliefs, is related to the process of how the brain compartmentalizes its information.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And you have something scientific that says otherwise? Lets see your best left hook!

Sorry, what? The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Your claim was that those of us who don't believe what you believe are going to be sorry when we die. Go ahead and back that one up.

I've never seen any evidence indicating that there is something beyond this life. Do you have any?

 

[Audie]

Do you hear what you are saying? First of all the burden is not on me, it is on you! Honest scientists are admitting that life starting on its own is not possible from your own sources! What is your problem? Oh wait I know, denial of the facts! Every time you post some link to proof,......

You really dont improve your case by laying on
the snark as with a butter knife. It does make your
post unpleasant to read, of course.

But editorial comments aside-

Lets look at a little of what you said:

Your ".....is not possible".

There are layers of misunderstanding on your part
there.

Science does not do "impossible", or "proof"
but rather, probabilities.

No link to "proof" was or ever will be offered.

It is not a fact that science has in any way shown
that abio is not possible. You must have misunderstood
what you read.

"Fact", is a word not much used in science, beyond
something like "it is a fact that this is my data."

There is no set of facts that could prove abio is not
possible.

No more than there is a set of facts to prove that
the gas laws such as you learned in high school
science will always be correct, nor for that matter,
will any other scientific law.

It is very improbable; every test ever, and all the theory
behind the gas laws has been consistent.

But until every possible test has been done-which is never-
it is only highly probable that the gas laws are correct.

It can never ever be proved.

Some hold that abio is highly improbable,and that
is fine. All reasoned ideas are welcome in the
marketplace of idea.

As for now, nobody can say it is a fact that it did
or did not occur, nor can the say how, when, or where
life started.

 

[Rapture Era]

You have not been following along. Abiogenesis has repeatedly shown to be possible. There has been no evidence to show that it is impossible. All we have are claims of such by creationists. And we do have concrete evidence that it is possible.
Do you remember the first test of abiogenesis?

You see, there you go again. You say things and then don't back them up with your scientific "Abiogenesis has repeatedly shown to be possible" Where? Produce something. The truth is, you cannot, am I right? What you and others don't understand, it is impossible to have any kind of evolution without it starting in the first place. It's very simple, and as hard as you try to say it's so, you fail miserably. So, what can you provide to back your claim?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You see, there you go again. You say things and then don't back them up with your scientific "Abiogenesis has repeatedly shown to be possible" Where? Produce something. The truth is, you cannot, am I right? What you and others don't understand, it is impossible to have any kind of evolution without it starting in the first place. It's very simple, and as hard as you try to say it's so, you fail miserably. So, what can you provide to back your claim?

First you need to understand how something is shown to be possible. The way one does that is to address individual objections. You see when you claim that something is impossible you put a burden of proof upon yourself. You have to show that that thing is impossible. You have never been able to do that. All you have been able to do is to shout without evidence. Scientists attack a problem by answering the questions that they can answer first. For example early on creationists claimed that even the formation of amino acids, the building blocks of life, could not happen without life. That was shown to be wrong with the Miller/Urey experiment. When the original atmosphere that was used was found to be possibly wrong that did not refute the experiment, it did point out a flaw in it. So the test was redone. And redone and redone, with different atmosphere. They kept coming up with amino acids. The claim that amino acids could not form naturally was shown to be wrong again and again. I can go on from there but until you can admit to this obvious fact, that this is evidence for abigiogenesis there is no point in moving on.

And since I supported my claim now it is your turn for you to support yours. Hand waving is not a valid argument.

And of course there has to be some sort of start for evolution to happen. What you do not seem to realize that what the start is does not matter. Why is that so hard to understand? By shifting the argument to abiogenesis you in effect admit that life evolved.

 

[Rapture Era]

Sorry, what? The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Your claim was that those of us who don't believe what you believe are going to be sorry when we die. Go ahead and back that one up.
I've never seen any evidence indicating that there is something beyond this life. Do you have any?

Well, let me say this, your comment about what is going to happen to you when you die? Have you ever thought about eternity? It never ends, ever, ever, ever never! I made that statement based on what the creator said and what the creator did for you to allow you to make a choice. Now, if you don't believe any of this, that's fine, the proof you will encounter when it's too late. And by the way, I dont have to back that up, God will do that for you at the appropriate time, he will grant your choice to live in an eternity devoid of him.
As far as evidence, no, testimony? Yes. There have been people who have died and told their story of what they encountered. One you might want to research is a book entitled "90 Minutes in Heaven" by Don Piper. He was in a head on collision with a tractor-trailer on a bridge and was clinically dead for 1-1/2 hours. Do you know what happens to the brain when it it is starved of oxygen for 4 to 6 minutes? This will answer your last question. Somehow I doubt you will. But there you have it.

 

[Audie]

First you need to understand how something is shown to be possible. The way one does that is to address individual objections. You see when you claim that something is impossible you put a burden of proof upon yourself. You have to show that that thing is impossible. You have never been able to do that. All you have been able to do is to shout without evidence. Scientists attack a problem by answering the questions that they can answer first. For example early on creationists claimed that even the formation of amino acids, the building blocks of life, could not happen without life. That was shown to be wrong with the Miller/Urey experiment. When the original atmosphere that was used was found to be possibly wrong that did not refute the experiment, it did point out a flaw in it. So the test was redone. And redone and redone, with different atmosphere. They kept coming up with amino acids. The claim that amino acids could not form naturally was shown to be wrong again and again. I can go on from there but until you can admit to this obvious fact, that this is evidence for abigiogenesis there is no point in moving on.

And since I supported my claim now it is your turn for you to support yours. Hand waving is not a valid argument.

And of course there has to be some sort of start for evolution to happen. What you do not seem to realize that what the start is does not matter. Why is that so hard to understand? By shifting the argument to abiogenesis you in effect admit that life evolved.

Are you sure science has shown abio is possible?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You see, there you go again. You say things and then don't back them up with your scientific "Abiogenesis has repeatedly shown to be possible" Where? Produce something. The truth is, you cannot, am I right? What you and others don't understand, it is impossible to have any kind of evolution without it starting in the first place. It's very simple, and as hard as you try to say it's so, you fail miserably. So, what can you provide to back your claim?

https://abenteuer-universum.de/pdf/miller_1953.pdf
Organic Compound Synthes on the Primitive Eart
'Lost' Miller-Urey Experiment Created More Of Life's Building Blocks
Prebiotic Synthesis of Methionine and Other Sulfur-Containing Organic Compounds on the Primitive Earth: A Contemporary Reassessment Based on an Unpublished 1958 Stanley Miller Experiment
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ar200332w?src=recsys&journalCode=achre4
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0003986161900339?via=ihub
Amino-acid Synthesis from Hydrogen Cyanide under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions
The Reaction Occurring in CO2, 2O Mixtures in a High-Frequency Electric Arc
Evolution of Amino Acid Frequencies in Proteins Over Deep Time: Inferred Order of Introduction of Amino Acids into the Genetic Code
Mineral surface chemistry control for origin of prebiotic peptides



These studies show that abiogenesis is at least possible. In other words, it is not impossible.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, let me say this, your comment about what is going to happen to you when you die? Have you ever thought about eternity? It never ends, ever, ever, ever never! I made that statement based on what the creator said and what the creator did for you to allow you to make a choice. Now, if you don't believe any of this, that's fine, the proof you will encounter when it's too late. And by the way, I dont have to back that up, God will do that for you at the appropriate time, he will grant your choice to live in an eternity devoid of him.

Do you have anything other than just empty assertion on top of empty assertion on top of empty assertion?

You don't know any of this and you can't demonstrate it, as you point out here. So what reason do I or anyone else have to take it seriously?

As far as evidence, no, testimony? Yes. There have been people who have died and told their story of what they encountered. One you might want to research is a book entitled "90 Minutes in Heaven" by Don Piper. He was in a head on collision with a tractor-trailer on a bridge and was clinically dead for 1-1/2 hours. Do you know what happens to the brain when it it is starved of oxygen for 4 to 6 minutes? This will answer your last question. Somehow I doubt you will. But there you have it.

I'm not sure how anecdotes would convince me of something. I mean, it may be enough to convince the person that experienced it, but what good is it to anyone else?

I hear these stories on occasion and I always find that when I explore them more deeply, they don't turn out to be as extraordinary as they are first claimed to be.
Furthermore, I'm not sure how you think this answers my question. How does that story demonstrate that there is life after death?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you sure science has shown abio is possible?

I was a bit sloppy in my language. So a good point.


Technically what has been shown is that individual steps are possible. If I wanted to be a bit more precise I could have said that there is evidence that it is possible. There is no evidence that it is impossible.

 

[Rapture Era]

But editorial comments aside-
Lets look at a little of what you said:
Your ".....is not possible".
There are layers of misunderstanding on your part
there.
Science does not do "impossible", or "proof"
but rather, probabilities.

Ok, enlighten me on my misunderstanding. Show me "probabilities" that would lead a reasonable thinking person that bio-a is at all possible.

"Fact", is a word not much used in science, beyond
something like "it is a fact that this is my data."
There is no set of facts that could prove abio is not possible.

Fact is a word used by anesthetists all the time when it refers to evolution. I'm holding your foot to the fire to see if you can back up your claim
You say: "There is no set of facts that could prove abio is not possible." All I'm asking is, convince me then.

No link to "proof" was or ever will be offered.

Ahhhh, now you're backpedaling as is always the case. So, let me get this straight, you believe so strongly in something that by your own discipline (science) is continually telling you that it is extremely problematic to the point of zero this could ever happen naturally, and you are on board with that?

As for now, nobody can say it is a fact that it did
or did not occur, nor can the say how, when, or where
life started.

Well I'll ask again, you just admitted there is no basis for abiogenesis to even kick start an evolutionary "tree of life" process, so what is your hope in?

 

[Rapture Era]

Do you have anything other than just empty assertion on top of empty assertion on top of empty assertion?
You don't know any of this and you can't demonstrate it, as you point out here. So what reason do I or anyone else have to take it seriously?

Ok, if I'm wrong, I have nothing to lose.
However, if you are wrong, you have everything to loose!

I'm not sure how anecdotes would convince me of something. I mean, it may be enough to convince the person that experienced it, but what good is it to anyone else?
I hear these stories on occasion and I always find that when I explore them more deeply, they don't turn out to be as extraordinary as they are first claimed to be.
Furthermore, I'm not sure how you think this answers my question. How does that story demonstrate that there is life after death?

Well, if you read the personal testimony of the person who experienced it you would KNOW how it would answer your question now would't you? Not only that, but all of those that were there confirming his physical death. So, look into it. Like I said, you more than likely wont because its easier for you to just make negative comments here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, enlighten me on my misunderstanding. Show me "probabilities" that would lead a reasonable thinking person that bio-a is at all possible.

You are not able to judge the probabilities so that would do no good. What can be done is to show you that individual steps that were thought to be impossible can be done.

And meanwhile you need to either provide evidence that abiogenesis is impossible or admit that you do not have any. If you can't support your claims and won't own up to that then your opposition has a minimal level of demand of supporting their claims place upon them. If you can't admit that you have nothing the Miller/Urey experiment alone refutes your claims.

Fact is a word used by anesthetists all the time when it refers to evolution. I'm holding your foot to the fire to see if you can back up your claim
You say: "There is no set of facts that could prove abio is not possible." All I'm asking is, convince me then.

[

That is a poor excuse for making false claims and running away. If a person cannot admit when evidence has been presented to them they cannot hold anyone's feet to the fire.

Ahhhh, now you're backpedaling as is always the case. So, let me get this straight, you believe so strongly in something that by your own discipline (science) is continually telling you that it is extremely problematic to the point of zero this could ever happen naturally, and you are on board with that?

Nope, you misunderstood what she said. Did you not notice the use of scare quotes and what that means?

Well I'll ask again, you just admitted there is no basis for abiogenesis to even kick start an evolutionary "tree of life" process, so what is your hope in?

To admit that would be a lie. There is quite a bit of supporting evidence for abiogenesis. You do not seem to have any for your position at all.

And once again you tacitly admit that evolution is a fact. How many times do we need to remind you that the source of the original life does not matter when it comes to the theory of evolution? You are trying to build a strawman of evolution. It does not rely on abiogenesis.

 

[Rapture Era]

Evolution is a fact. It happens. Sorry if that upsets you. It definitely is not impossible.

Remember this statement of fact Audie?