The creator did it.

[Subduction Zone]

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

That is not true. What if we are both wrong and the real "God" hates Christians more than he hates those that accept the sciences? There are thousands of versions of God, many of those hate those that believe in other versions of him than he hates nonbelievers. You could be putting yourself in risk of a worse "hell" than we are.

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.

Personal testimony is the weakest sort of evidence out there. There is personal testimony for all religions. It solves nothing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Remember this statement of fact Audie?

Evolution is a fact because it has been directly observed. Because it has mountains of evidence for it and there is no reliable evidence to the contrary. Just like gravity evolution is both a fact and a theory.

 

[Rapture Era]

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and Other Sulfur-Containing Organic Compounds on the Primitive Earth: A Contemporary Reassessment Based on an Unpublished 1958 Stanley Miller Experiment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.

Actually they don't, you better study your own material before you post it.

 

[Audie]

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.

Worse than merely sloppy. Plain wrong,
almost as badly wrong as saying it has
been, ah, "admitted" by the honest scientists
to be impossible.

I dont think you got it right with your revised statement.
Nobody knows what the "steps" are.

Evidence that it is impossible, of course not, but,
there is no evidence that Batboy does not have
a secret lab on the moon.

So this point is only worth mentioning as a counter
to the creoclaim that it has been proved to be impossible.

 

[Audie]

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 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.

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?

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?

Never mind.

Just this..."you just admitted there is no basis for abiogenesis. "
is enough for me to see no sensible discussion is going to
take place, not with you.

I will leave it to you to decide why you made that up.
Or use the word "admit" (reluctantly confess) for
something I didnt do.

ETA I missed this..

Fact is a word used by anesthetists all the time when it refers to evolution.

 

[Rapture Era]

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.

Well, why dont you just post the proof for your probabilities instead of this embarrassing backpedaling.

And meanwhile you need to either provide evidence that abiogenesis is impossible or admit that you do not have any.

Ahhh, lets avoid the question and reverse it on the other guy

If you can't admit that you have nothing the Miller/Urey experiment alone refutes your claims.

This statement is proof positive you have no idea what you are talking about! explain in your own words how the Miller/Urey experiment refutes my claims?

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.

Of course they can! I'm holding your feet to the fire to produce something, anything that validates statements like this! "Evolution is a fact because it has been directly observed. Because it has mountains of evidence for it and there is no reliable evidence to the contrary. Just like gravity evolution is both a fact and a theory." But you keep running away! Stop running away!

 

[Audie]

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.

I will readily accept correction, I would like to be wrong,
and find that it has been shown that abio is possible.

Could you show us where to find that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Worse than merely sloppy. Plain wrong,
almost as badly wrong as saying it has
been, ah, "admitted" by the honest scientists
to be impossible.

I dont think you got it right with your revised statement.
Nobody knows what the "steps" are.

Evidence that it is impossible, of course not, but,
there is no evidence that Batboy does not have
a secret lab on the moon.

So this point is only worth mentioning as a counter
to the creoclaim that it has been proved to be impossible.

Moving the goalposts is a tactic that creationists use when they realize that they lost the evolution argument. By moving it to abiogenesis they hope to defeat evolution with a strawman version of evolution. When one points out those facts to them and if they persist they have as much as admitted that life is the product of evolution and their only hope is that "God did it" is a reasonable claim for first life.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, why dont you just post the proof for your probabilities instead of this embarrassing backpedaling.

I did not backpedal. Watch the false accusations. And the "probability" of every experiment that I post is 1. You have not understood how your claims have been refuted.

Ahhh, lets avoid the question and reverse it on the other guy

No, you made the claim that abiogenesis was impossible a long time ago and people asked for evidence for that claim. You never could support it. You are guilty of what you accuse others of, once again you have it backwards.

This statement is proof positive you have no idea what you are talking about! explain in your own words how the Miller/Urey experiment refutes my claims?

Amazing. Try again, be polite and I will explain your errors to you.

Of course they can! I'm holding your feet to the fire to produce something, anything that validates statements like this! "Evolution is a fact because it has been directly observed. Because it has mountains of evidence for it and there is no reliable evidence to the contrary. Just like gravity evolution is both a fact and a theory." But you keep running away! Stop running away!

Sorry, but a person has to support their own claims to do so. You have been shown to have nothing repeatedly.

I tell you what, start from the beginning and we will go over one point at a time where you are demonstrably wrong. Remember, be polite.

 

[He has Risen!]

Once again, that is a claim. But the actual evidence doesn't show this claim. In fact, while we hear of Christians from the Roman historians, we only see claims of witnesses in the Christian witings that were written well after the supposed facts on the ground. The authors of the Gospels are *traditionally* thought to be among the Disciples, but that isn't born out upon investigation. In other words, your claim that the author of John was an eyewitness of the events is far from being proven. the claims of massive numbers of people being fed are also suspect.

What I would suggest is that you take exactly the same amount of skepticism that you would give to, say, the Iliad and its stories about the Greek gods and apply that level of doubt to your Bible. I think you would find your Bible wanting, to say the least.

What amount of historical evidence would it take to convince you? Jesus is a historical person and is best known by those who lived in His time and associated with Him on a daily basis. I do not recall any of the greek gods being born into real history as Jesus was 2019 years ago. You keep dissing the bible but I doubt you have ever read it through or even desire to. Your claims are not based in truth. Christianity and the bible are open to investigation...so please look into the history yourself instead of regurgitating or mimicking what others have said.

once more...
From F.F. Bruce,
The earliest propagators of Christianity welcomed the fullest examination of the credentials of their message. The events which they proclaimed were, as Paul said to King Agrippa, not done in a corner, and were well able to bear all the light that could be thrown on them. The spirit of these early Christians ought to animate their modern descendants. For by an acquaintance with the relevant evidence they will not only be able to give to everyone who asks them a reason for the hope that is in them, but they themselves, like Theophilus, will thus know more accurately how secure is the basis of the faith which they have been taught.

 

[Audie]

Moving the goalposts is a tactic that creationists use when they realize that they lost the evolution argument. By moving it to abiogenesis they hope to defeat evolution with a strawman version of evolution. When one points out those facts to them and if they persist they have as much as admitted that life is the product of evolution and their only hope is that "God did it" is a reasonable claim for first life.

Abio? HA.
He has went off into preachin' now.

 

[He has Risen!]

Really? Prove such a being exists. How does God manage to 'arrive' here through infinite time? I seem to recall you having an issue with the universe doing so. Why not for God?


OK, so you think that it is possible for something to be 'self-existing'? Why do you think that is possible? And, if it is possible, why isn't it possible that that self-existing thing is actually the universe?



I see. So you are giving up the claim that everything has a cause, right? So now the universe doens't need a cause? maybe it is the nature of the universe that it doesn't have a cause either.

And as for eternal, why is it OK for God to be eternal, but you have issues with the universe being so? What's the difference? At least we know the universe actually exists. But I have yet to see an argument that any deities do.

You do understand that the universe is dying of a natural death known as heat loss. If that is true then it must be finite, because it still has heat but will eventually in finite time lose all of it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Actually they don't, you better study your own material before you post it.

Several scientists have demonstrated that abiogenesis is at least a possibility, given that they were able to demonstrate that some of the key molecules of life (e.g. amino acids) could have been synthesized on earth under certain sets of conditions.

You say that rather confidently. Do tell, which of them did you read?

 

[Polymath257]

What amount of historical evidence would it take to convince you? Jesus is a historical person and is best known by those who lived in His time and associated with Him on a daily basis. I do not recall any of the greek gods being born into real history as Jesus was 2019 years ago. You keep dissing the bible but I doubt you have ever read it through or even desire to. Your claims are not based in truth. Christianity and the bible are open to investigation...so please look into the history yourself instead of regurgitating or mimicking what others have said.

Actually, I have read it. That is one of the reasons I reject it. I have also read quite a bit of the history of the Levant, Egypt, and the Roman Empire. That adds to my conclusion that the Bible is unreliable.

I might suggest the book "Zealot" by Reza Aslan. It does an interesting analysis of Jesus in historical context. That gives a much different perspective one the Biblical writings than is common.

You forget that the Greeks believed that the Gods intervened in history and, in particular, were directly involved in the battle for Troy. It was said that the Roman god Pan directed Julius Ceasar across the Rubicon.

Those that lived in the time of Jesus didn't write about him. For example, Paul never actually knew the living Jesus. He only attributed his 'revelation' of a Christ to the Jesus story much later. And the rest of the Gospels are even less reliable as sources.

Maybe if you looked with a bit more skeptical of an eye on the the way the Bible was brought together and the politics of that event, you might realize just how much it was a matter of power and not of truth that we have the book we have today.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Remember this statement of fact Audie?

Yep. Evolution is a fact of life. There is a demonstrable change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

 

[Rapture Era]

Never mind.

Just this..."you just admitted there is no basis for abiogenesis. "
is enough for me to see no sensible discussion is going to
take place, not with you.

I will leave it to you to decide why you made that up.
Or use the word "admit" (reluctantly confess) for
something I didnt do.

ETA I missed this..

Fact is a word used by anesthetists all the time when it refers to evolution.

Correction, anti-theists.
How would you counter this statement taken from an evolutionary web site that was provided to me by one on your side here recently. I can provide the entire thing if you like so I'm not charged with taking anything out of context.
"But whereas for biological evolution the historic record is to a degree accessible through palaeobiologic and phylogenetic studies, for the process of abiogenesis those methodologies have proved uninformative; there is no known geological record pertaining to prebiotic systems, and phylogenetic studies become less informative the further back one goes in attempting to trace out ancestral lineages."
Oh what the heck, here ya go.
3. Is the origin of life problem soluble in principle?

In addressing the OOL question, it first needs to be emphasized that the question has two distinct facets—historic and ahistoric, and the ability to uncover each of these two facets is quite different. Uncovering the historic facet is the more problematic one. Uncovering that facet would require specifying the original chemical system from which the process of abiogenesis began, together with the chemical pathway from that initiating system right through the extensive array of intermediate structures leading to simplest life. Regretfully, however, much of that historic information will probably never be known. Evolutionary processes are contingent, suggesting that any number of feasible pathways could have led from inanimate matter to earliest life, provided, of course, that those pathways were consistent with the underlying laws of physics and chemistry. The difficulty arises because historic events, once they have taken place, can only be revealed if their occurrence was recorded in some manner. Indeed, it is this historic facet of abiogenesis that makes the OOL problem so much more intractable than the parallel question of biological evolution. Biological evolution also has its historic and ahistoric facets. But whereas for biological evolution the historic record is to a degree accessible through palaeobiologic and phylogenetic studies, for the process of abiogenesis those methodologies have proved uninformative; there is no known geological record pertaining to prebiotic systems, and phylogenetic studies become less informative the further back one goes in attempting to trace out ancestral lineages. Phylogenetic studies presume the existence of organismal individuality and the genealogical (vertical) transfer of genetic information. However, the possibility that earliest life may have been communal [14] and dominated by horizontal gene transfer [15–17] suggests that information regarding the evolutionary stages that preceded the last universal common ancestor [18] would have to be considered highly speculative. Accordingly, the significance of such studies to the characterization of early life, let alone prebiotic systems, becomes highly uncertain.


The conclusion seems clear: speculation regarding the precise historic path from animate to inanimate—the identity of specific materials that were available at particular physical locations on the prebiotic Earth, together with the chemical structures of possible intermediate stages along the long road to life—may lead to propositions that are, though thought-provoking and of undeniable interest, effectively unfalsifiable, and therefore of limited scientific value.
Now what part of this does your "probability" factor in as positive for your case?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What amount of historical evidence would it take to convince you? Jesus is a historical person and is best known by those who lived in His time and associated with Him on a daily basis. I do not recall any of the greek gods being born into real history as Jesus was 2019 years ago. You keep dissing the bible but I doubt you have ever read it through or even desire to. Your claims are not based in truth. Christianity and the bible are open to investigation...so please look into the history yourself instead of regurgitating or mimicking what others have said.

once more...
From F.F. Bruce,
The earliest propagators of Christianity welcomed the fullest examination of the credentials of their message. The events which they proclaimed were, as Paul said to King Agrippa, not done in a corner, and were well able to bear all the light that could be thrown on them. The spirit of these early Christians ought to animate their modern descendants. For by an acquaintance with the relevant evidence they will not only be able to give to everyone who asks them a reason for the hope that is in them, but they themselves, like Theophilus, will thus know more accurately how secure is the basis of the faith which they have been taught.

The "history" of Jesus is rather weak. Yes, there probably was a historical Jesus, but one must keep him separated from mythical Jesus.

Once again you should be trying to learn how we know that parts of the Bible, such as the nativity in Luke, are mythical.

 

[Polymath257]

You do understand that the universe is dying of a natural death known as heat loss. If that is true then it must be finite, because it still has heat but will eventually in finite time lose all of it.

Well, entropy has been increasing since the early stages of the Big Bang, that is true. But why do you think it cannot be always increasing (and going to zero as we go into the past)?

/E: By the way, have you actually investigated the proposed thermodynamics of a pre-Big Bang multiverse?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Correction, anti-theists.
How would you counter this statement taken from an evolutionary web site that was provided to me by one on your side here recently. I can provide the entire thing if you like so I'm not charged with taking anything out of context.
"But whereas for biological evolution the historic record is to a degree accessible through palaeobiologic and phylogenetic studies, for the process of abiogenesis those methodologies have proved uninformative; there is no known geological record pertaining to prebiotic systems, and phylogenetic studies become less informative the further back one goes in attempting to trace out ancestral lineages."
Oh what the heck, here ya go.
3. Is the origin of life problem soluble in principle?

In addressing the OOL question, it first needs to be emphasized that the question has two distinct facets—historic and ahistoric, and the ability to uncover each of these two facets is quite different. Uncovering the historic facet is the more problematic one. Uncovering that facet would require specifying the original chemical system from which the process of abiogenesis began, together with the chemical pathway from that initiating system right through the extensive array of intermediate structures leading to simplest life. Regretfully, however, much of that historic information will probably never be known. Evolutionary processes are contingent, suggesting that any number of feasible pathways could have led from inanimate matter to earliest life, provided, of course, that those pathways were consistent with the underlying laws of physics and chemistry. The difficulty arises because historic events, once they have taken place, can only be revealed if their occurrence was recorded in some manner. Indeed, it is this historic facet of abiogenesis that makes the OOL problem so much more intractable than the parallel question of biological evolution. Biological evolution also has its historic and ahistoric facets. But whereas for biological evolution the historic record is to a degree accessible through palaeobiologic and phylogenetic studies, for the process of abiogenesis those methodologies have proved uninformative; there is no known geological record pertaining to prebiotic systems, and phylogenetic studies become less informative the further back one goes in attempting to trace out ancestral lineages. Phylogenetic studies presume the existence of organismal individuality and the genealogical (vertical) transfer of genetic information. However, the possibility that earliest life may have been communal [14] and dominated by horizontal gene transfer [15–17] suggests that information regarding the evolutionary stages that preceded the last universal common ancestor [18] would have to be considered highly speculative. Accordingly, the significance of such studies to the characterization of early life, let alone prebiotic systems, becomes highly uncertain.


The conclusion seems clear: speculation regarding the precise historic path from animate to inanimate—the identity of specific materials that were available at particular physical locations on the prebiotic Earth, together with the chemical structures of possible intermediate stages along the long road to life—may lead to propositions that are, though thought-provoking and of undeniable interest, effectively unfalsifiable, and therefore of limited scientific value.
Now what part of this does your "probability" factor in as positive for your case?

Why do you quote sources that you do not understand and pretend that you have proven something by doing so?

And as a creationist you should not make claims that you cannot support. When you claim "speculation" you put the burden of proof upon yourself. Since you do not understand the science there is no way that you can know whether their findings are speculation or not.

 

[Audie]

What amount of historical evidence would it take to convince you? Jesus is a historical person and is best known by those who lived in His time and associated with Him on a daily basis. I do not recall any of the greek gods being born into real history as Jesus was 2019 years ago. You keep dissing the bible but I doubt you have ever read it through or even desire to. Your claims are not based in truth. Christianity and the bible are open to investigation...so please look into the history yourself instead of regurgitating or mimicking what others have said.

once more...
From F.F. Bruce,
The earliest propagators of Christianity welcomed the fullest examination of the credentials of their message. The events which they proclaimed were, as Paul said to King Agrippa, not done in a corner, and were well able to bear all the light that could be thrown on them. The spirit of these early Christians ought to animate their modern descendants. For by an acquaintance with the relevant evidence they will not only be able to give to everyone who asks them a reason for the hope that is in them, but they themselves, like Theophilus, will thus know more accurately how secure is the basis of the faith which they have been taught.

Likewise, what would it take to convince you that the Prophet
Mohammed (peace be upon him) was a real historical person?

And Joseph Smith, for goodness sake!!

Nobody serious questions whether there was some
individual who is now credited with remarkable things.

You keep dissing the bible but I doubt you have ever read it through or even desire to.

This is not addressed to me,but its been said to me often
enough.

I have read the bible through, more than once-dont forget
Ol' Nick knows scripture!

I sure know it a lot better than full many a christian.

I do not "diss" the bible. I would say that I have more
honest respect for it than Christians do.


What I do not respect is magical thinking, intellectual
dishonesty, gullibility, etc.

Much of what is described in the bible is either
metaphor that nobody can honestly say they
understand, or, its just false. The "flood" is
a good example. There was no flood.

It is very disrespectful to the bible, and to such
god as there may possibly be, to claim it is a true.
story.