"Nothing made a spider out of a rock" - The abiogenesis thread (translation, faith)

[justme58]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

You apparently believe you can read my mind and know my thoughts.

Yes the delusional wine is the same.

My point is that if you apply the same logic to abiogenesis as you do to God it falls apart.

Wrong.

I think abiogesis is a fiction of your imagination. Now what?

Read on..

I don't know what your experience was in church, and don't pretend to. But it sounds like it was a bit "out there".

Reformed, Charismatic, Evangelical, Pentecostal. Thankfully not Baptist.

Drank all the flavors of KoolAid, all sing off the same song sheet just in different keys.

[RobinD69]

Originally Posted by justme58

Yes the delusional wine is the same.
Wrong.
Read on..
Reformed, Charismatic, Evangelical, Pentecostal. Thankfully not Baptist.

Drank all the flavors of KoolAid, all sing off the same song sheet just in different keys.

Then you did not taste of all the flavors of Christianity.

[Shibumi]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

Just because you haven't seen good enough proof for God's existence doesn't mean He doesn't exist....right?

Just apply the same logic. Abiogenesis flies in the face of accepted science....but people are willing to give it a pass because they'd rather believe in it than a creator.

From what I've seen on these posts, and from the stuff its prompted me to look into on the internet, I've found a lot of intriguing sites that show exactly how simple precursors have been shown to act as we can now predict, with each other and with their external environment.

If a low probability but nonetheless possible situation occurred and a simple system developed that tended to react to opportunities by building on its existing structure and producing slightly more complex one, eventually you have a system that can be defined as living.

A living system would be one that can reproduce another identical structure. It needs to acquire energy from somewhere, but initially that came from the heat or sunlight radiation or volcanic or chemicals in the surrounding waters. It didn't have to go searching.

Eventually though, the system's increasing complexity provided simple means for energy accumulation, motility and defense. The expedient of bisexuality provided for genetic intermixing and therefore diversity in which there is safety and species security.

It's highly unlikely that I'll ever win the Big Win Lottery. That doesn't mean it's therefore impossible, right?

According to the scientists and statisticians on the sites I looked at, the numbers of chemical experiments going on in a primordial broth full of precursors was astronomically huge, almost incalculable. Add to that the billions of years available and what do we get? This is not to be compared with what can be simulated in a small test tube in the science lab.

You cannot discount the efforts of researchers just because they can't simulate the south Pacific Ocean.

Impossible that life started like this? More like it's impossible that it didn't happen.

[RobinD69]

Originally Posted by Shibumi

From what I've seen on these posts, and from the stuff its prompted me to look into on the internet, I've found a lot of intriguing sites that show exactly how simple precursors have been shown to act as we can now predict, with each other and with their external environment.

If a low probability but nonetheless possible situation occurred and a simple system developed that tended to react to opportunities by building on its existing structure and producing slightly more complex one, eventually you have a system that can be defined as living.

A living system would be one that can reproduce another identical structure. It needs to acquire energy from somewhere, but initially that came from the heat or sunlight radiation or volcanic or chemicals in the surrounding waters. It didn't have to go searching.

Eventually though, the system's increasing complexity provided simple means for energy accumulation, motility and defense. The expedient of bisexuality provided for genetic intermixing and therefore diversity in which there is safety and species security.

It's highly unlikely that I'll ever win the Big Win Lottery. That doesn't mean it's therefore impossible, right?

According to the scientists and statisticians on the sites I looked at, the numbers of chemical experiments going on in a primordial broth full of precursors was astronomically huge, almost incalculable. Add to that the billions of years available and what do we get? This is not to be compared with what can be simulated in a small test tube in the science lab.

You cannot discount the efforts of researchers just because they can't simulate the south Pacific Ocean.

Impossible that life started like this? More like it's impossible that it didn't happen.

On tis same note, people have experienced miracles over and over again and just because one cannot be reproduced at someones beck and call does not discount the fact they have happened therefore ample proof of devine origin based on eyewitness accounts of miracles.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by RobinD69

On this same note, people have experienced miracles over and over again and just because one cannot be reproduced at someones beck and call does not discount the fact they have happened therefore ample proof of devine origin based on eyewitness accounts of miracles.

This one would be harder to prove in the same way that I can prove that a fossil is, in fact, 21 million years old.

What people want to think was a divine miracle is often later explained by rational reasoning. You'll note that it's rarely IF EVER witnessed or thoroughly documented by an objective, educated person. Rather it's by a village woman who swears she saw Jesus saving her drowning daughter from the sharks. When it was, in fact, Fido who swam out with his tail in the air above water.

...or someone sees Christ's tears coming out of the village fountain (Fred the handiman was just checking the water fountain jet system, it turned out...).

Miracles have to be incontrovertible, which strictly means they cannot have been possible by any other means. Someone who survives inoperable pancreatic cancer (it's happened!) and who prayed regularly, can't claim it as a miracle. Unless they want to.

But what of the child who gets the same disease, the entire massive congregation of, say SaddleBack Community Church in Orange County, SoCal, simultaneously prays for her, and yet, she expires, reliably and as medical science predicted? What happened? Where are the miracles when you need them? Sadly, they never happen, any more often than what pure chance predicts.

You believe in such unmeasurable events, and yet you then also discount and dismiss the measured and critically reviewed and well-documented proofs that science regularly brings to the table? You insist, for example, that artifacts proven to be 1.5M years old are somehow specious or a hoax. Yet the wailings of someone who saw The Virgin Mary talking to a dying auntie, who then revived for another 10 days, to be "proof" of a miracle?

Hmmmm... if so, that's an interesting double standard....

[justme58]

Originally Posted by RobinD69

Then you did not taste of all the flavors of Christianity.

So thus you admit there are flavors of KoolAid but KoolAid nonetheless.

Thankfully the logic never left me and in my quest for truth, the church, nor the bible could provide it. After researching (in detail) the early church history (not really taught in churches) placed the nail in the coffin of the fairy tale myth(s) of the "faith"

[kdbrich]

Originally Posted by Shibumi

From what I've seen on these posts, and from the stuff its prompted me to look into on the internet, I've found a lot of intriguing sites that show exactly how simple precursors have been shown to act as we can now predict, with each other and with their external environment.

If a low probability but nonetheless possible situation occurred and a simple system developed that tended to react to opportunities by building on its existing structure and producing slightly more complex one, eventually you have a system that can be defined as living.

A living system would be one that can reproduce another identical structure. It needs to acquire energy from somewhere, but initially that came from the heat or sunlight radiation or volcanic or chemicals in the surrounding waters. It didn't have to go searching.

Eventually though, the system's increasing complexity provided simple means for energy accumulation, motility and defense. The expedient of bisexuality provided for genetic intermixing and therefore diversity in which there is safety and species security.

It's highly unlikely that I'll ever win the Big Win Lottery. That doesn't mean it's therefore impossible, right?

According to the scientists and statisticians on the sites I looked at, the numbers of chemical experiments going on in a primordial broth full of precursors was astronomically huge, almost incalculable. Add to that the billions of years available and what do we get? This is not to be compared with what can be simulated in a small test tube in the science lab.

You cannot discount the efforts of researchers just because they can't simulate the south Pacific Ocean.

Impossible that life started like this? More like it's impossible that it didn't happen.

So you'd rather cling to what you call a "small probability" (what science calls "impossibility") rather than the logical conclusion that there was a creator. I get it.

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

So you'd rather cling to what you call a "small probability" (what science calls "impossibility") rather than the logical conclusion that there was a creator. I get it.

Creator, logical? You really call that logical thinking do you?....I'll take abiogenesis rather than God "breathed" everything in existence. By the way what does God breathe anyway and why would he have to?

[kdbrich]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

Creator, logical? You really call that logical thinking do you?....I'll take abiogenesis rather than God "breathed" everything in existence. By the way what does God breathe anyway and why would he have to?

So what you're saying is that you'd rather believe in magic than simple cause/effect?

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

So what you're saying is that you'd rather believe in magic than simple cause/effect?

You call it cause and effect when the cause is God's breath and the effect is the instant creation of everything?....He must have had a terrible case of halitosis.......Have you lost track of the fact that it is you who are attempting to defend majik?