Truth: either God exists or He don't.

[Subduction Zone]

Well you did ask, did the animals eat the apple, which doesn’t say it was an apple, also doesn’t say the animals would’ve eaten of the forbidden fruit. Mankind sinned and brought a curse on the earth.

Oh come on! You have to be kidding me The "apple" is just a colloquialism. Surely you did not take that literally?

But you dodged my question that showed you to be wrong. Other animals have a sense of right and wrong too. How did they get that? In the myth that ability was missing from Adam and Eve.

 

[Polymath257]

Explain the test you performed on the origin of life,
A brief description of the experiment or however you believe it happened and who was involved

Like I have said before, we do not know particulars on the origin of life: that is still very much a research project, being investigated right now.

But, what we *do* know:

1. Life is a chemical process. This is supported by everything we know about biology.

2. Most of the chemicals of life are polymers (multiple units joined together) with the monomers either amino acids lipids, or nucleic acids together with some other simple compounds.

3. Those monomers can be formed from chemicals known to be on the early Earth using basic chemistry.

4. Those monomers, once formed, will polymerize in situations of repeated wetting and drying.

5. Lipids naturally and spontaneously form spherical containers trapping those polymers.

6. Those polymers can catalyze the basic reactions of life.

NONE of this is speculation. And it is clearly relevant to how life originally formed.

I could go on, but there are many experts that can do the job better.

As to 'who was there', there is no reason to think *anyone* was there: there is no evidence of life preceding this.

 

[ElishaElijah]

There has not been one test. There have been countless tests of different parts of the origin of life. Quite a few of them have been successful. You surely know of the first one. The Miller-Urey experiment is almost universally known:

Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia

There cannot be one single test for such a complex event. Abiogenesis has been broken down into separate problems. Some of them have been solved, some have not been. That is why it is still in the hypothetical stage and not a theory as of yet.

So without the scientist who are the creators of this experiment nothing would have or could have happened. That’s the point, it’s impossible, even if the materials are present for them to randomly collide and produce the ordered creation that we live in. Impossible, and that is what you have to admit but won’t.

 

[Polymath257]

So without the scientist who are the creators of this experiment nothing would have or could have happened. That’s the point, it’s impossible, even if the materials are present for them to randomly collide and produce the ordered creation that we live in. Impossible, and that is what you have to admit but won’t.

Setting up conditions like what we know existed and standing back and watching is NOT evidence of an intelligent design.

'Random' is a catch word in this. Chemicals randomly collide, producing predictable results. if you put baking soda and vinegar together, the molecules collide 'randomly', but I can assure you the result is not random.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So without the scientist who are the creators of this experiment nothing would have or could have happened. That’s the point, it’s impossible, even if the materials are present for them to randomly collide and produce the ordered creation that we live in. Impossible, and that is what you have to admit but won’t.

Laughably wrong.

You can't be serious. I would ask you what part you did not understand, but it is clear that would be all of it. The experiment mimicked events found in nature. Those events occur whether scientists are doing them or not.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Setting up conditions like what we know existed and standing back and watching is NOT evidence of an intelligent design.

You don’t know any of those conditions existed, it’s a speculation and theory. We all know that.

Laughably wrong.

You can't be serious. I would ask you what part you did not understand, but it is clear that would be all of it. The experiment mimicked events found in nature. Those events occur whether scientists are doing them or not.

That’s a good try on that but you’re saying things randomly

Setting up conditions like what we know existed and standing back and watching is NOT evidence of an intelligent design.

'Random' is a catch word in this. Chemicals randomly collide, producing predictable results. if you put baking soda and vinegar together, the molecules collide 'randomly', but I can assure you the result is not random.

You still have to create the scenario and the experiment using material that cannot just appear from nowhere.

 

[paarsurrey]

I don’t understand what you’re trying to say in your previous post.

Please click the reply button on that post and see what comes out. No contents is seen.

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don’t know any of those conditions existed, it’s a speculation and theory. We all know that.

That’s a good try on that but you’re saying things randomly

You still have to create the scenario and the experiment using material that cannot just appear from nowhere.

No, you don't know. Don't assume that others do not know. This was already explained to you. You should be asking how they know. By the way, as a Christian aren't you supposed to obey the Ninth Commandment?

In fact you broke that Commandment again in your response to me. If you do not understand something ask questions. Do not make false accusations of others. As a Christian that is the last thing that you should do.

 

[ElishaElijah]

No, you don't know. Don't assume that others do not know. This was already explained to you. You should be asking how they know. By the way, as a Christian aren't you supposed to obey the Ninth Commandment?

In fact you broke that Commandment again in your response to me. If you do not understand something ask questions. Do not make false accusations of others. As a Christian that is the last thing that you should do.

Oh man I’m sorry for that, so explain how we know for sure what was happening billions of years ago and who was there to testify of this fact?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh man I’m sorry for that, so explain how we know for sure what was happening billions of years ago and who was there to testify of this fact?

If you want a serious answer then ask a serious question.

Try again. And you probably do not realize how you broke the Ninth Commandment. Which is a shame. A Christian should understand his own Bible.

 

[ElishaElijah]

If you want a serious answer then ask a serious question.

Try again. And you probably do not realize how you broke the Ninth Commandment. Which is a shame. A Christian should understand his own Bible.

How did I ? If I did you should tell me, so I can clear it up, it is a serious question

 

[Polymath257]

You don’t know any of those conditions existed, it’s a speculation and theory. We all know that.

Actually, we do. We can tell that from the chemical properties of the rocks from that era. Plus, we know the basic chemicals are very common in the universe (and even in our own solar system).

You still have to create the scenario and the experiment using material that cannot just appear from nowhere.

Where the basic materials come from is a different question than the origin of life. We know methane, ammonia, water, carbon monoxide (and dioxide), and other simple chemicals are common. And, from a variety of evidence, we know they were on the early Earth. that is where the issue of the origin of life starts: given those chemicals, how do we get to life?

If you want to know where the materials that formed our solar system came from, it is a different question. An interesting one, and one we *do* have the answers to. But it is not the question of the origin of life.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How did I ? If I did you should tell me, so I can clear it up, it is a serious question

You made false claims about scientists in general and about me. The Commandment is not one that "bans lying". It bans bearing false witness. Or in other words making claims about someone that are not true. Whether a person believes what he said or does not believe it does not enter into it. It keeps people from making claims about others lightly. Please note it does not ban saying "The sky is purple" when it is not because that is not bearing false witness against your neighbor. One would only be bearing false witness against an object and that is not banned.

In other words one needs to take extra care when making claims about other people. If you cannot verify your claims, if they are only statements that you believe and cannot support, it is best not to make those claims.

 

[Polymath257]

Oh man I’m sorry for that, so explain how we know for sure what was happening billions of years ago and who was there to testify of this fact?

We don't need a 'who' for the testimony. We have rocks from that time period and they provide information about how things were then. the process isn't so different than how we know other things about the past when nobody was there; actual, physical evidence can tell a lot.

Usually, physical evidence is far more reliable than even eye-witness testimony. People are easily fooled. Rocks, not so much.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, we do. We can tell that from the chemical properties of the rocks from that era. Plus, we know the basic chemicals are very common in the universe (and even in our own solar system).



Where the basic materials come from is a different question than the origin of life. We know methane, ammonia, water, carbon monoxide (and dioxide), and other simple chemicals are common. And, from a variety of evidence, we know they were on the early Earth. that is where the issue of the origin of life starts: given those chemicals, how do we get to life?

If you want to know where the materials that formed our solar system came from, it is a different question. An interesting one, and one we *do* have the answers to. But it is not the question of the origin of life.

And not only that, the Miller-Urey experiment has been repeated with varying possible early atmospheres, since the early Earth's atmosphere did change over time. They kept producing amino acids with various different atmospheres.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Actually, we do. We can tell that from the chemical properties of the rocks from that era. Plus, we know the basic chemicals are very common in the universe (and even in our own solar system).
Common in the universe doesn’t explain how they got there in the first place and then there is the question how did these organize to get life that what we have now?



Where the basic materials come from is a different question than the origin of life. We know methane, ammonia, water, carbon monoxide (and dioxide), and other simple chemicals are common. And, from a variety of evidence, we know they were on the early Earth. that is where the issue of the origin of life starts: given those chemicals, how do we get to life?

If you want to know where the materials that formed our solar system came from, it is a different question. An interesting one, and one we *do* have the answers to. But it is not the question of the origin of life.

 

[ElishaElijah]

We don't need a 'who' for the testimony. We have rocks from that time period and they provide information about how things were then. the process isn't so different than how we know other things about the past when nobody was there; actual, physical evidence can tell a lot.

You do need who because otherwise no observation and guessing.

 

[Polymath257]

And not only that, the Miller-Urey experiment has been repeated with varying possible early atmospheres, since the early Earth's atmosphere did change over time. They kept producing amino acids with various different atmospheres.

Agreed, even if we don't know the specific composition of the early atmosphere, we *do* know what happens for a range of possible atmospheres close to it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We don't need a 'who' for the testimony. We have rocks from that time period and they provide information about how things were then. the process isn't so different than how we know other things about the past when nobody was there; actual, physical evidence can tell a lot.

Usually, physical evidence is far more reliable than even eye-witness testimony. People are easily fooled. Rocks, not so much.

That reminds me. I need to finish reading this book, though I probably understand most of the arguments used:

https://www.amazon.com/Rocks-Were-There-Creationist-Questions/dp/B0858TGBQX#ace-g9766277718

It is a good book for creationists to read.

 

[Polymath257]

You do need who because otherwise no observation and guessing.

Wrong. We can observe and test the rocks *now*. Those rocks were formed in the past and still carry information about that past.