"Where Did Life Come From?" A 13 Minute Primer For Creationists

[Skwim]

Goodness...its "Where's Wally" impersonating a scientist.....!

What was that? Science for 7 year olds? It might convince a 7 year old....but adults might notice a repeat of some words in this video that kids probably wouldn't....its what turns science fact into science fiction. There is a great dependency on the words "could have" and "might have" all the way through this bit of nonsense.

God "might have" or "could have" created life too......there is just as much real evidence.

Nice try....

Indeed there is because unlike religion, which contends that everything it says is an absolute fact/truth, science recognizes that it doesn't know everything and always works under the possibility of correction. Something ALL scientists and educated lay people understand. To not understand this simple principle is fifth grade ignorance.

.​

 

[Deeje]

Indeed there is because unlike religion, which contends that everything it says is an absolute fact/truth, science recognizes that it doesn't know everything and always works under the possibility of correction. Something ALL scientists and educated lay people understand. To not understand this simple principle is fifth grade ignorance..

Just to be clear....I do not subscribe to the YEC contention. I believe that creation was not the work of a magician in 7 literal days. The Bible allows for a very ancient planet and lifeforms that existed long before humans. It does not cover microscopic organisms, only the sentient creatures that the early humans could see. Creation was explained in its simplest terms for an scientifically uneducated people. It was enough for the times, but now science wants to expose the ridiculous suggestion the creation is only 6,000 years old.....and rightly so....BUT....just because YEC is wrong, doesn't mean that there is no Creator. It just means that an adjustment in the timing is needed and the creation account in Genesis does not argue with that.

To present educated guesswork as science, is dishonest.
Who said science must promote its guesses as fact? The mere suggestion of an Intelligent Designer is scoffed at, yet creation itself is proof enough that life is no accident.
What "soup" have you ever had that required no set ingredients in measured quantity, no recipe, and no cook?

To suggest that something "might have"....."could have"....or even "must have" happened because science thinks it has to be so to fit in with their theory, when they have no solid evidence to back it up, it very misleading. Even educated lay people can smell a snow job when they hear it. The uneducated may hang on every dishonest word. It's up to us to evaluate the real evidence.

If people want to eliminate the Creator from his own creation, then that is up to them....but at least have something other than assumption, assertion and suggestion to back up what they assume. Without that, all they have is wishful thinking. That is not science.

 

[Skwim]

To present educated guesswork as science, is dishonest.

Then you don't understand science. Simple as that.

Who said science must promote its guesses as fact?

Nobody, which is why it doesn't.

The mere suggestion of an Intelligent Designer is scoffed at,

More likely simply dismissed as irrelevant.

To suggest that something "might have"....."could have"....or even "must have" happened because science thinks it has to be so to fit in with their theory, when they have no solid evidence to back it up, it very misleading.

Which is why it isn't.

If people want to eliminate the Creator from his own creation, then that is up to them....but at least have something other than assumption, assertion and suggestion to back up what they assume. Without that, all they have is wishful thinking. That is not science.

Then you REALLY don't understand science. Simple as that.

.

 

[Deeje]

Then you don't understand science. Simple as that.


Nobody, which is why it doesn't.


More likely simply dismissed as irrelevant.


Which is why it isn't.


Then you REALLY don't understand science. Simple as that.
.

This is a very typical response from someone who has swallowed the evolutionary "Kool-Ade".....scientists are so busy looking at the "Kool-Ade" that they think we have swallowed, that they can't see the gallons being poured down their own throats.

I understand science and have no problem with what is true and provable scientific fact....but theoretical science is not backed up by facts, it is founded on "evidence".....but this is where most people are misled. The "evidence" they have requires "interpretation" just like the Bible does. Something that is badly interpreted can lead people to very distorted conclusions, based on inferences, rather than on true facts. YEC's have fallen into the same trap. Misinterpreting the Bible is as bad as misinterpreting evidence for evolution. Both are in error.

There is middle ground however. Give the Creator the time he needs for a slow and deliberate creation over millions of years, and there is truth in the Bible. No magic 'poofing' required....and an ancient planet that was beautifully and carefully prepared to host the teeming variety of life that was put here.

If you cannot separate real science from the sort that has no clear proof, then you are open to their assertions, and will accept them as facts. If there is no proof....you have no facts. Scientists cannot prove that evolution, on the scale that they suggest, is even possible.

Adaptation is provable science.....but it is never observed outside of a single taxonomic family. That means that every species that was generated in their lab experiments, never crossed a genetic line to become some other kind of organism or creature. So if all life began in the "primordial soup" and just accidentally found a way to transform itself into all the lifeforms that exist (or have ever existed) then science has some explaining to do.....with facts, not with imaginative educated guesswork.

Oh, and there's that problem of the missing links....millions of them.

That is what I understand.

 

[sojourner]

There is no pleasing the terminally wrong.

Yeah, I’ve tried that recently with a poster-here-who-shall-not-be-named. If you said that the sky was blue, they’d argue that it’s not really blue, it just appears to be blue because that’s we call that color.

 

[sojourner]

If you want to box in the boxing tournament you don't bring track shoes to the contest

Some do. Then they argue that the boxing match is really supposed to be a track meet, and that the schedulers, officials, promoters, athletes and spectators are all “wrong.” That’s the standard M.O.

 

[Skwim]

That is what I understand.

And my condolences for your "understanding."

Have a good day.

.

 

[sojourner]

The mere suggestion of an Intelligent Designer is scoffed at, yet creation itself is proof enough that life is no accident

No it’s not. In fact, there are theologians who contend that, regardless of the creation myths in the Bible, accidental life is a valid theological possibility.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is a very typical response from someone who has swallowed the evolutionary "Kool-Ade".....scientists are so busy looking at the "Kool-Ade" that they think we have swallowed, that they can't see the gallons being poured down their own throats.

I understand science and have no problem with what is true and provable scientific fact....but theoretical science is not backed up by facts, it is founded on "evidence".....but this is where most people are misled. The "evidence" they have requires "interpretation" just like the Bible does. Something that is badly interpreted can lead people to very distorted conclusions, based on inferences, rather than on true facts. YEC's have fallen into the same trap. Misinterpreting the Bible is as bad as misinterpreting evidence for evolution. Both are in error.

There is middle ground however. Give the Creator the time he needs for a slow and deliberate creation over millions of years, and there is truth in the Bible. No magic 'poofing' required....and an ancient planet that was beautifully and carefully prepared to host the teeming variety of life that was put here.

If you cannot separate real science from the sort that has no clear proof, then you are open to their assertions, and will accept them as facts. If there is no proof....you have no facts. Scientists cannot prove that evolution, on the scale that they suggest, is even possible.

Adaptation is provable science.....but it is never observed outside of a single taxonomic family. That means that every species that was generated in their lab experiments, never crossed a genetic line to become some other kind of organism or creature. So if all life began in the "primordial soup" and just accidentally found a way to transform itself into all the lifeforms that exist (or have ever existed) then science has some explaining to do.....with facts, not with imaginative educated guesswork.

Oh, and there's that problem of the missing links....millions of them.

That is what I understand.

Such amazing projection. When someone refuses to learn even the basics of science they are in no position to lecture about Kool-Aid.

 

[Deeje]

No it’s not. In fact, there are theologians who contend that, regardless of the creation myths in the Bible, accidental life is a valid theological possibility.

And this is from an ordained "Christian" Clergyman?......
What is a "valid theological possibility" in your estimations?

Where will I find Jesus saying that creation is a myth? That life is accidental? Are you serious? Is this how Christendom maintains friendship with the world by adopting their beliefs and ignoring Christ's teachings when it suits them? (James 4:4)

Matthew 19:4-5....Jesus said.....
“Did you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said: ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’?"

Revelation 4:11, given by God to Jesus....the heavenly kings praise God and give him glory with these words.....
"You are worthy, Jehovah our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they came into existence and were created.”

And you wonder why Jesus is going to say "I never knew you" to those who claim him as their Lord, and yet deny the creation of which he is "firstborn"? (Colossians 1:15-17)

It appears that the clergy of Christendom are trained to know their theology, but not their Bible. Is faith in God and his word unfashionable among some of the clergy these days when it's "cool" to have one foot in godless science and the other in a doubting religion.....?

I am glad you said "some theologians" because that sets them apart from true Christians IMO.

 

[sojourner]

Where will I find Jesus saying that creation is a myth? That life is accidental? Are you serious? Is this how Christendom maintains friendship with the world by adopting their beliefs and ignoring Christ's teachings when it suits them

Typical drivel from one of the sola scriptura crowd.

 

[sojourner]

IMO

Operative term in your post. Your opinion carries no street cred in orthodox Christianity, and means little. You “know” your bible passages, but your misuse of context and laughable interpretations indicate that you don’t really know what they mean. You’re out of your league.

 

[Deeje]

Typical drivel from one of the sola scriptura crowd.

OK so Jesus’ words are drivel. Why am I not surprised?

Operative term in your post. Your opinion carries no street cred in orthodox Christianity, and means little. You “know” your bible passages, but your misuse of context and laughable interpretations indicate that you don’t really know what they mean. You’re out of your league.

No mate....I am out of your league. Thankfully.

You know that teachers are doubly accountable?.....and Jesus was a sola scriptura fan as well.....anyone can see whose interpretation is laughable....we will all see soon enough I guess.

 

[sojourner]

OK so Jesus’ words are drivel. Why am I not surprised?

You’re great at twisting words. You, O Best Beloved, are not Jesus.

and Jesus was a sola scriptura fan as well

Uh huh. I suppose that’s why he said on several occasions, “It’s written ....., but I tell you ...... .”
sola scriptura was not extant until the Reformation. Jesus died circa 33 C.E. You do the math.

anyone can see whose interpretation is laughable

See above for the answer to that. You’re in over your head, my Paduan Learner.

 

[Deeje]

You’re in over your head, my Paduan Learner.

Oh, you mean a padawan apprentice Jedi? LOL
In over my head?.....no but perhaps over yours. We will see soon enough.

I am happy to let Jesus be the judge of people’s hearts. In the meantime, we have to be the judge of religious beliefs. I don’t agree with yours....you don’t agree with mine. Decisions are made. Case closed. Job done.

All the best.....

 

[atanu]

.

Not that I expect any to watch it all the way through, but if they do they might better understand the scientific underpinnings of pre-evolution origins . A subject they're fond of bringing up in discussions and debates.

.​

I saw the full video. I have a couple of observations. First, the title of the thread gives an impression that the final knowledge about origin of life is at hand. Second. The hypothesis of abiogenesis and RNA world, IMO, cannot/shouldn’t be clubbed with TOE, which is an empirically established theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I saw the full video. I have a couple of observations. First, the title of the thread gives an impression that the final knowledge about origin of life is at hand. Second. The hypothesis of abiogenesis and RNA world, IMO, cannot/shouldn’t be clubbed with TOE, which is an empirically established theory.

I do agree that abiogenesis is not quite the done deal that evolution is, but they are far further along than that deniers of abiogenesis will admit to.

 

[blü 2]

adults might notice a repeat of some words in this video [,,,] There is a great dependency on the words "could have" and "might have" all the way through this bit of nonsense.

You've correctly pointed out that the video used a lot of 'looks like' and 'quite possibly' and so on. That's not least because abiogenesis, the path from chemistry to biochemistry to self-reproducing cells is a work in progress, not an answer and a complete description.

However, it's come a lot further than that video indicates, and what's been found that's potentially useful ( 'potentially' is another of those hopeful words you refer to) is a lot more complex than will go in an introductory videoi.

So I'd say the important things are these:

A,

The hypothesis that abiogenesis happened by natural processes is the subject of systematic rational enquiry conducted according to scientific method, which involves arguing honestly and transparently from examinable evidence, the formation and testing of hypotheses, the use of repeatable experiments, systems maximizing objectivity, peer review and publication ie opening ideas to expert criticism ─ and so on.

This approach is not only most likely to answer the questions about abiogenesis, but it has no serious rival.

B

The answer that God created life has a number of major problems:

There's no definition of a real God, only imaginary gods; so to speak of a real god is not to know what you're talking about.

Gods do a lot of what they do by magic ─ that is, they alter reality independently of the rules of reality, often just by wishing.

There is no testable hypothesis ─ no realistic hypothesis at all that I'm aware of ─ as to how magic might work; believers in Gods do not pursue real explanations for their own ideas. Considering that the power to work miracles would be a seriously major discovery for humankind, this neglect of enquiry is one of the great riddles of religion ─ or else it's a tacit acknowledgement that believers themselves know that gods exist in stories, not in reality. The same reason would account for why military budgets don't sponsor such enquiries or prepare to defend their citizens against supernatural attack.

So as it stands, the statement God created life fails to say who or what exactly created life, and fails to state how that who or what went about bringing life into being.

In other words, it's meaningless as a statement about reality,

And since the religious side of the argument is not self-enquiring, hence is not even asking these questions, let alone setting out to answer them, the idea not only explains nothing but is not even vaguely credible as a potential source of explanations.

C

So for want of alternatives ─ at this level it really is a one-horse race ─ my money's on science to answer the question of abiogenesis.

 

[Deeje]

You've correctly pointed out that the video used a lot of 'looks like' and 'quite possibly' and so on. That's not least because abiogenesis, the path from chemistry to biochemistry to self-reproducing cells is a work in progress, not an answer and a complete description.

Those interesting phrases are dotted throughout every article on evolution that I have ever read. If you have to say..."I think it happened like this, therefore it must have"....then you have a "belief", not scientific facts.
These words are commonly overlooked.

However, it's come a lot further than that video indicates, and what's been found that's potentially useful ( 'potentially' is another of those hopeful words you refer to) is a lot more complex than will go in an introductory videoi.

Has it come a lot further? Really? "I think....therefore it must have" still hangs heavily in the air.
The truth is, science does not know how life "happened" and it never will......because, as science already knows, "all life springs from pre-existing life"......a fact that is completely ignored and why abiogenesis will remain unsolved by those who cannot (or will not) acknowledge the possibility of God's existence.

I understand completely why there is such staunch opposition however. The YEC's have made a complete mockery of the Genesis creation account by suggesting that the big magician in the sky, "poofed" everything into existence in just 7 literal days, about 6,000 years ago. In its simplest presentation, the Bible might say that at a cursory reading to unscientifically trained minds.....but a deeper study of original language words reveals a completely different conclusion.

For those who are fooled by the either/or scenarios presented by both camps, there is war!....and one is a clear winner when you examine the facts scientifically at a cursory level. Some theologians have even jumped ship to save face.....trying to suggest that God created the first life and then designed evolution to take over. Both arguments are flawed IMO. There is another scenario that supports both true science and the Bible. There is no war there....you don't have to decide on one or the other because God created science. They have to mesh.

So I'd say the important things are these:

A,

The hypothesis that abiogenesis happened by natural processes is the subject of systematic rational enquiry conducted according to scientific method, which involves arguing honestly and transparently from examinable evidence, the formation and testing of hypotheses, the use of repeatable experiments, systems maximizing objectivity, peer review and publication ie opening ideas to expert criticism ─ and so on.

This approach is not only most likely to answer the questions about abiogenesis, but it has no serious rival.

OK, so what "evidence" are we talking about here? What "repeatable experiments" do we really have? Can we rely on "peer review" to arrive at the truth of any matter? Do people really listen to any "expert" who is in opposition to science's pet theory? Be truthful.....

B

The answer that God created life has a number of major problems:

There's no definition of a real God, only imaginary gods; so to speak of a real god is not to know what you're talking about.

There is a definition, but not one that is acceptable to materialists.
The Creator is not a material being, but he has the capacity to create matter because he is the source of all energy, according to scripture. He did not leave us without communication and instructions. We can choose to follow them...or not. It's all leading somewhere.

Gods do a lot of what they do by magic ─ that is, they alter reality independently of the rules of reality, often just by wishing.

Again we have to thank the "Bible believers" who step outside of what it teaches, to create such a reality. "Wishing" and "magic" have no place in the life of a Christian.....in scripture, we have a reason for our being, a reason for humanity's inhumanity over millenniums of our existence, and we have a scenario all mapped out to ensure that it will all be resolved, and everything will return to the way it was meant to be in the beginning.....this present life is taking us somewhere.
Like science, it is a complicated story, but unlike science it has a definite beginning, a meaningful middle and a foretold conclusion. Believe it, or not.

There is no testable hypothesis ─ no realistic hypothesis at all that I'm aware of ─ as to how magic might work; believers in Gods do not pursue real explanations for their own ideas. Considering that the power to work miracles would be a seriously major discovery for humankind, this neglect of enquiry is one of the great riddles of religion ─ or else it's a tacit acknowledgement that believers themselves know that gods exist in stories, not in reality. The same reason would account for why military budgets don't sponsor such enquiries or prepare to defend their citizens against supernatural attack.

For materialists who believe in only what they can see, measure and quantify, the Creator certainly does not fit in with their requirements for existence....but is that alone a reason to doubt him? Have you not noticed that humans place themselves into categories...? There are spiritual people and there are non- spiritual people. Each of these are also broken up into categories in which some people can take extreme views. Humanity, regardless of their nature, or belief system, want to know how we got here. They will cling to what satisfies them for their own reasons. It reveals something about them.

So as it stands, the statement God created life fails to say who or what exactly created life, and fails to state how that who or what went about bringing life into being.

In other words, it's meaningless as a statement about reality,

And since the religious side of the argument is not self-enquiring, hence is not even asking these questions, let alone setting out to answer them, the idea not only explains nothing but is not even vaguely credible as a potential source of explanations.

Simply put, the Creator created everything......he prepared habitats long before he created living things to inhabit them. Food sources were there already, water and the right mixture of gases in the air to sustain their lives. He also gave his last creation free will so that we could be appropriate caretakers of this planet as the Creator's representatives here, made in his image and likeness......that means that we can choose whatever is in our hearts to pursue. But, if we are not spiritually minded, we will find substitutes for our inbuilt need to worship....be that science, or even sports, humans will gather in their "temples" and give glory to their "idols". They won't see that as worship, but it fits the definition. It satisfies their need.

The Creator allows us to be who we are without any prompting from him, except for what is in creation, which to the spiritually minded is proof enough. Science will never "explain away" the Creator to one who has a real connection to him.

C

So for want of alternatives ─ at this level it really is a one-horse race ─ my money's on science to answer the question of abiogenesis.

Good luck with that.....because that seems to be what you are relying on.

I find science's pathetic explanations for macro-evolution to be most unsatisfying because I am not a materialist. There are so many "could have's", "might have's" and "must have's" for it to be believable...unless you really just want to swap one belief system for another......there are so many things in life that support our existence that we cannot see. Science has learned to identify them by means of their own inventions. No one has invented a "God detector" because there is no way for humans to do so. He exists on a level, and in a realm that science has yet to discover (and would they even have the ability in their limited understanding to comprehend what he is anyway?) so unless people can personally interact with God, they will find reasons to dismiss him and God does not reveal himself to those who have no spirituality.
Most people are happy to find ways to dump him because it frees them to do things that they would not ordinarily do if they knew that they were accountable to a higher power.

It's a rather big gamble though don't you think? You don't just lose your money.....

 

[Salvador]

.

Not that I expect any to watch it all the way through, but if they do they might better understand the scientific underpinnings of pre-evolution origins . A subject they're fond of bringing up in discussions and debates.

.​

Scientists have observed mathematical and symmetrical patterns in our genetic code indicative of an intelligent designer of life. (1) Scientists have identified the number 37 reoccurring frequently in our genetic code. (2)

For example, the mass of the molecular core shared by all 20 amino acids is 74, which is doubled the amount of 37.

Furthermore, Soviet mathematician Uri Rumer noted the genetic code of life can be divided nicely in half, according to "whole family" codons and "split codons". The "whole family" codons have all 4 codons with the same 2 initial letters coded for the same amino acid. For example, the AC family, is considered "whole", because codons starting with AC code for threonine. "Split family" codons lack this attribute. Yuri Rumer pointed out there is no good reason why exactly half of all codons are "whole family" codons." Rumer found that by applying a simple rule-swapping T for G, and A for C- transforms one half of the code into the other. "Rumer's transformation" is one of several examples for patterns and symmetries in our genetic code.
Unlike genomic DNA, which mutates, the genetic code remains stable for all generations, and would be the ideal place for an intelligent designer to have signed its mark.

(1) The "Wow! signal" of the terrestrial genetic code. Vladimir l. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov. Redirecting https://www.scribd.com/document/35302916...netic-Code

(2) Is the answer to life, the universe and everything 37? Christopher Kemp. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2...ything-37/

This intelligent signature embedded in genetic coding could have been delivered through space and time "Consequently, genetic coding might have been invented outside our solar system already several billion years ago.”

There isn't any natural coincidence that the prime number of 37 is half the amount of nucleons found in the peptide chain components of each canonical amino acid, because an artificially imposed transfer of a hydrogen atom from Proline's side chain to its peptide chain component results in the prime number of 37 as becoming a common factor for the atomic mass of all the canonical amino acid peptide chain components. Proline's side chain to peptide chain bond is artificially placed as an activation key for decoding the prime number of 37 as a common factor for the atomic masses of peptide chain components of canonical amino acids.

Referencing the WOW signal of the terrestrial genetic code detected by Vladimir l. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov whose scientific research findings were published in the prestigious peer-reviewed journal Icarus on February 17th, 2013:

“There is no plausible chemical logic to couple directly the triplets and the amino acids. In other words, the principles of chemistry where not the sought essence of the genetic code”

“The zero is the supreme abstraction of arithmetic. Its use by any alphabet, including the genetic code, can be an indicator of artificiality.”

Two nucleobases transcribe genetic coding for the 74 nucleons of a canonical amino acid's peptide chain components. This nucleon/nucleobase ratio of 37 fabricates the arithmetical and decimalization properties for genetic coding as shown here:

"The place-value decimal system represented through digital symmetry of the numbers divisible by prime number (PN 037). This arithmetical syntactic feature is an innate attribute of the genetic code. The PN 037 notation with a leading zero emphasizes zero's equal participation in the digital symmetry. Numbers written by identical digits are devised by PN 037*3=111 and 1+1+1=3 and appear regularly [from the figure: 037*6 =222 and 2+2+2=6, 037*9=333 and 3+3+3 =9, 037*4=444 and 4+4+4=12, 037*15=555 and 5+5+5=15, 037*18=666 and 6+6+6=18, 037*21=777 and 7+7+7 =21. 037*24 =888 and 8+8+8=24, 037*27=999 and 9+9+9=27.]"

"There is a complete set of information symbols utilizing the decimal syntax 111, 222, 333, 444, 555, 666, 777, 888, 999 in the genetic code. Each of these symbols consists uniformly of a carrier (balanced nucleons) and a meaning (the decimal syntax)."

This informational and artificial characteristic of the WOW signal of the terrestrial genetic code demonstrates intelligent design.

https://www.scribd.com/document/14435896...-A-Makukov

In genetic coding, the frequency of the number 37 involves the "numerous arithmetical regularities of nucleon numbers of canonical amino acids for quite different systematizations of the genetic code, which are dominantly based on decimal number 037, (and) indicate the hidden existence of a more universal ordering principle. Mathematical analysis of number 037 reveals that it is a unique decimal number from which an infinite set of self-similar numbers can be derived with the nested numerical, geometrical, and arithmetical properties, thus enabling the nested coding and computing in the (bio)systems by geometry and resonance. The omnipresent fractal structural and dynamical organization, as well as the intertwining of quantum and classical realm in the physical and biological systems could be just the consequence of such coding and computing. "

Nested Numeric/Geometric/Arithmetic Properties of shCherbak's.... Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication...gComputing


NeuroQuantology | December 2011 | Vol 9 | Issue 4 | Page 702-715
Mišić NŽ. Nested Properties of shCherbak’s PQ 037 and (Biological) Coding/Computing

Nested Numeric/Geometric/Arithmetic Properties
of shCherbak’s Prime Quantum 037
as a Base of (Biological) Coding/Computing

https://www.neuroquantology.com/index.ph...489/453Dec