Abiogenesis: Is the RNA hypothesis dead?

[writer]

39

39

there is evidence that life comes from nonlife. What evidence? It's been done.

What a joke.
In your sciencefiction, or Dr Frankenstein, movies?

Chemistry creates life.

You mean the field of study of Chemistry?
You mean chemicals can be "living" when they compose life?

If you are Christian, then you believe that chemistry is the mechanism God used to create life.

God arranged chemicals and made 'em alive.
If that's what u mean.
God formed man of the dust of the ground
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life
and man became a living soul

 

[lucaspa]

To the contrary:
spontaneous generation doesn't work

You are confusing spontaneous generation with abiogenesis. Spontaneous generation was a very specific theory that complex lifeforms, such as flies, arose from non-living matter or dead flesh. Abiogenesis is the idea that chemical reactions among non-living chemicals will result in a living organism. There are several theories within abiogensis.

Yes, spontaneous generation doesn't work. Abiogenesis does.

 

[bob b]

You are confusing spontaneous generation with abiogenesis. Spontaneous generation was a very specific theory that complex lifeforms, such as flies, arose from non-living matter or dead flesh. Abiogenesis is the idea that chemical reactions among non-living chemicals will result in a living organism. There are several theories within abiogensis.

Yes, spontaneous generation doesn't work. Abiogenesis does.

I'm familiar with your postings on another forum.

Will you continue here with your practice of postings links to articles whose title implies something that the full article actually does not support, and that people here do not have access to the full article to be able to detect the fraud?

 

[lucaspa]

What a joke.
In your sciencefiction, or Dr Frankenstein, movies?

Ad hominem or ridicule is no substitute for real discussion. And simple denial does not work.

Did you go to the webpage? It will work in your kitchen. It has worked in several labs and for science fair projects.

You mean the field of study of Chemistry?
You mean chemicals can be "living" when they compose life?

No, I mean the class of reactions between molecules that is known as "chemistry".

No, I mean that life is the result of chemical reactions. Life itself is a set of chemical reactions. Stop the reactions and life stops.

When you heat amino acids they link together to form proteins. Proteins themselves are not alive. However, under certain common conditions, the proteins will spontaneously form cells. One way to do this is by dry heating the amino acids -- such as an evaporating tidal pool in the tropics. The dry heating causes the amino acids to react with each other to form proteins. When water is added (the tide comes back) the proteins form cells.

Now, the amino acids do not randomly make proteins. Instead, the proteins have internal ordering. And different proteins have different chemical activities. Some help break down sugar for energy. Some catalyze oxidative-reduction reactions. Some catalyze making new proteins from new amino acids. These are all chemical reactions that take place in your cells or in bacteria.

The result of the chemical reactions in the cells made from proteins made from heating amino acids is that the cells 1) metabolize (both break down chemicals for energy and make new components of the cell), 2) grow, 3) respond to stimuli (they actually depolarize exactly like nerve cells), and 4) reproduce.

Doing all 4 of those things is what makes an entity alive. It is what makes bacteria, plankton, and you, alive. These cells do all 4.

God arranged chemicals and made 'em alive.
If that's what u mean.
God formed man of the dust of the ground
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life
and man became a living soul

That's only in Genesis 2. In Genesis 1 God speaks men and women (both plural so that there are several of them) into existence all at once. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are stories to tell us theological truths; they are not actually how God created. God actually created life by chemistry. How do we know? From the evidence God has left us in His other book: His Creation.

 

[lucaspa]

Will you continue here with your practice of postings links to articles whose title implies something that the full article actually does not support, and that people here do not have access to the full article to be able to detect the fraud?

Well, I see you started right off with ad hominem. And you did not address the point that spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are different things.

As to posting citations where the full article doesn't provide the data, I don't do that. Since you can check the articles yourself (and I encourage you to do so), there would be no point in doing that. Where do you think I have done that?

 

[bob b]

Well, I see you started right off with ad hominem. And you did not address the point that spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are different things.

As to posting citations where the full article doesn't provide the data, I don't do that. Since you can check the articles yourself (and I encourage you to do so), there would be no point in doing that. Where do you think I have done that?

We can only check the articles if we have access to the articles, which most people don't unless they have access through a university.

So please do not post any articles unless you have checked to see if they are readily available on the internet, which in that case post the link.

It would also be helpful if you would include quotations from the article which support your contentions.

Most of us have been to forums at talk.origins and other atheist websites and are familiar with the usual games people play there to try to intimidate Christians and wear them down.

 

[lucaspa]

We can only check the articles if we have access to the articles, which most people don't unless they have access through a university.

So please do not post any articles unless you have checked to see if they are readily available on the internet, which in that case post the link.

Wait! Where are the specific instances where the article does not back what I say it does?

Now you are changing your claim. Now you are only saying that you can't check the article.

I do my best to have articles from Science, Nature, Scientific American, or other journals that your local public library would have. That is not always possible. So yes, you may have to get up from your computer and go to a library. Shockers! You may even have to go to a university library! I do.

Now, notice that I did post a link to an article on abiogenesis. Apparently neither Writer nor you bothered to go there.

It would also be helpful if you would include quotations from the article which support your contentions.

OK.

Most of us have been to forums at talk.origins and other atheist websites and are familiar with the usual games people play there to try to intimidate Christians and wear them down.

Talk.origins is NOT an "atheist website". Talk.origins is agnostic, just like science. In fact, most of the articles there go out of their way to say they are NOT attacking Christianity.

I'm not attacking Christianity or Christians. I don't think there is anything in evolution or science to disprove Christianity. I hold to what Rev. McCosh said back in 1890: "Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.

Bob, you will find that I will be "attacking" Fundamentalism here. One major reason I do so is because Fundamentalism is NOT Christian. In fact, creationism and Fundamentalism are grave dangers to Christianity. Both deny God and end up worshipping a false idol.

 

[bob b]

Wait! Where are the specific instances where the article does not back what I say it does?

How do I know?

Now you are changing your claim. Now you are only saying that you can't check the article.

I couldn't even if I wanted to, which I don't.

I do my best to have articles from Science, Nature, Scientific American, or other journals that your local public library would have. That is not always possible. So yes, you may have to get up from your computer and go to a library. Shockers! You may even have to go to a university library! I do.

What I have found after bitter experience at talk'origins forums is that the articles never really back what the person was saying, so it was ust a wild goose chase. I have no reason to believe that this would be any different. Prove me wrong.

Now, notice that I did post a link to an article on abiogenesis. Apparently neither Writer nor you bothered to go there.

Give us a clue. Quote something the author said that supports your position, other than his opinion. Just the facts, maam.

Talk.origins is NOT an "atheist website". Talk.origins is agnostic, just like science.

Both talk.origins and evolutionary science are by their very nature atheistic, because they assume "naturalism", even for ultimate origins.

In fact, most of the articles there go out of their way to say they are NOT attacking Christianity.

Saying that does not make it so. They can't help it.

I'm not attacking Christianity or Christians. I don't think there is anything in evolution or science to disprove Christianity. I hold to what Rev. McCosh said back in 1890: "Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.

That's not Christianity, that's theism.

If the Bible is not correct, then Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead, because scientists know that dead men do not rise after 3 days in the grave.

Bob, you will find that I will be "attacking" Fundamentalism here. One major reason I do so is because Fundamentalism is NOT Christian. In fact, creationism and Fundamentalism are grave dangers to Christianity. Both deny God and end up worshipping a false idol.

Bible believing Christians would say that you are the one who worships a false idol, Darwinism. Did you have a great time at your Darwin Day celebration?

 

[writer]

42, 44 start

42, 44 start

42 You are confusing spontaneous generation with abiogenesis.

No confusion.
Except mebbe on the part of whoever believe one o' the "two"

Spontaneous generation was a very specific theory that complex lifeforms, such as flies, arose from non-living matter or dead flesh. Abiogenesis is the idea that chemical reactions among non-living chemicals will result in a living organism.

Nonliving "will result in" living
=
spontaneous-,
of some other sort of unnatural-,
generation

spontaneous generation doesn't work. Abiogenesis does.

To the contrary:
Abiogenesis not only doesn't work.
It duzn't exist

44 Ad hominem

To the contrary:
i never spoke against your person.
I referred to science-fiction and Frankenstein movies,
as comparable to your theory.
I dint call u Frankenstein or his doctor.
Thanx

 

[lucaspa]

How do I know?

If you don't know, then you can't make the claim.

I couldn't even if I wanted to, which I don't.

So you are saying you don't care to have correct information. Now you have made it clear that you won't even look at the information, much less change your mind.
OK. I'm postingfor others here. They may not be as brain-dead as you.

What I have found after bitter experience at talk'origins forums is that the articles never really back what the person was saying,

Please provide some of that "bitter experience". Tell me one article that didn't back what the person was saying. Oh wait! You have already said you have no interest in reading the articles. So how do we know you read ANY article?

Give us a clue. Quote something the author said that supports your position, other than his opinion. Just the facts, maam.

"Figure 1. Cells from thermal protein. These figures are seen in a 1975 book on Genetics by Winchester, fifth edition, 1000X. Laboratory protocells on left. Staphylococcus aureus on right. " You will have to look at the figure. It is "fact".

"Figure 5. Growth of laboratory protocells from warm solution of 1% sodium chloride at 60 Celius. Growth of cells can be followed at 1000X to numerous units of size programmed by the individual polymer. Entire sequence requires 90 seconds." Look at the pictures. They are "fact"

"Figure 6 is from Lehninger's 1975 textbook of Biochemistry. One sees one of four known modes of REPRODUCTION of the protocell, that of budding as in yeast."

Figure 7. X1000 upper right hand. Proteinoid microspheres from which the interior has been leached. Duble layers left behind are durable. Lower left, beginning of diffusion. Upper left, sliced Bacillus cereus. "

More pictures that document facts.

"Table 1. Salient Properties of Proteinoid Microspheres
Protobiochemical

Esterolytic
Phosphatatic
Decarboxylatic
Peroxidatic
Synthetic, with P-O-P or ATP
For peptides
For polynucleotides
Photodecarboxylatic

Protophysiological

Electrotactic
Protometabolic (Catalytic)
Aggregative
Protomobile
Osmotic
Permselective
Fissive
Protoreproductive
Conjugative
Protocommunicative
Excitable "

Summary of facts.

"Figure 8 compares an action potential of the crayfish receptor neuron to an action potention in one of our microspheres." Look for yourself; they are identical.

So, Figure 1 documents cellularity.

Both talk.origins and evolutionary science are by their very nature atheistic, because they assume "naturalism", even for ultimate origins. Figure 5 is growth. Figure 6 is reproduction. Table 1 is metabolism. Figure 8 documents response to stimuli.

From Merriam-Webster: "1 a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings c : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction"

So, the Figures and Table are documentation of the 4 characteristics that define "life".

Saying that does not make it so. They can't help it.

Please quote an article from talk.origins that attacks Christianity. Christianity, not Biblical literalism. Those are 2 different things.

That's not Christianity, that's theism.

If the Bible is not correct,

1. Accepting evolution removes a person from Christianity?
2. Define "correct". You do realize that there are different types of truth, don't you?

then Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead, because scientists know that dead men do not rise after 3 days in the grave.

Sorry, but that is not science and it is not what "scientists know". You are using theory to decide what data is. That is not science. Misrepresenting science and then saying "scientists know" is not truth; it's false witness.

Bible believing Christians

I don't worship Darwinism. I worship God. However, you gave your own game away when you said "Bible believing". Not "God believing". Thanks for pointing out that what you worship is your interpretation of the Bible.

There was a Darwin Day celebration?

 

[lucaspa]

Lucaspa "Spontaneous generation was a very specific theory that complex lifeforms, such as flies, arose from non-living matter or dead flesh. Abiogenesis is the idea that chemical reactions among non-living chemicals will result in a living organism. "

Nonliving "will result in" living = spontaneous-,
of some other sort of unnatural-, generation

Sorry, but that doesn't address the point I made. You are simply trying to play semantics. You aren't dealing with what Spontaneous Generation really was in the history of science.
" spontaneous generation, held that complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances, e.g. that mice spontaneously appear in stored grain or maggots spontaneously appear in meat." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

That is different from abiogenesis. Even you can see that abiogenesis is not trying to generate mice from stored grain or maggots in decaying meat.

To the contrary: Abiogenesis not only doesn't work. It duzn't exist

Simple denial like this doesn't work. You must deal with the data. And you haven't. You haven't addressed any of the data here: http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

I even posted some of the relevant quotes in the post to Bob.

To the contrary: i never spoke against your person. I referred to science-fiction and Frankenstein movies, as comparable to your theory. I dint call u Frankenstein or his doctor.

That's still ad hominem to abiogenesis, isn't it? You didn't use argument or reason, but the ad hominem attack of comparing abiogenesis to science-fiction or Frankenstein movies. Ad hominem doesn't only apply to people, but ideas as well.

 

[lucaspa]

Both talk.origins and evolutionary science are by their very nature atheistic, because they assume "naturalism", even for ultimate origins.

talk.origins is very careful about not advocating atheism. Now, by atheism I mean denial of God. The real God. talk.origins does deny your god -- a literal and inerrant Bible. That can't be helped; Jesus denied it.

There are 2 forms of "naturalism": methodological and philosophical.
Eugenie C. Scott in review of Johnsons's book. On the WWW at http://natcenscied.org/aladont.htm

"Science as practiced today is methodologically naturalistic: it explains the natural world using only natural causes. Science cannot explain (or test explanations about) the supernatural. There is also an independent sort of naturalism, philosophical naturalism, a belief (not science, but belief) that the universe consists only of matter and energy and that there are no supernatural beings, forces, or causes."

Yes, science is methodologically naturalistic; it must be. BUT. That does not mean philosophical naturalism.

" Now we get down to the nitty-gritty of science and religion, and why I lobbied to take the words "impersonal" and "unsupervised" out of the NABT statement. Consider: If to test something scientifically requires the ability to hold constant certain effects, this means that omnipotent powers cannot be used as part of scientific explanations. Logically, if there are omnipotent powers in the universe, it is impossible to hold their effects constant, to "control" them in the scientific sense. An omnipotent power could interfere, or not interfere, or interfere but make it look like it's not interfering--that's omnipotence for you!
So science must be limited to using just natural forces in its explanations.This is sometimes referred to as the principle of methodological materialism in science: we explain the natural world using only matter; energy, and their interactions (materialism). ...
if science is limited by methodological materialism because of our inability to control an omnipotent power's interference in nature, both "God did it" and "God didn't do it" fail as scientific statements.
Properly understood, the principle of methodological materialism requires neutrality towards God; we cannot say, wearing our scientist hats, whether God does or does not act. I could say, speaking from the perspective of my personal philosophy, that matter and energy and their interactions (materialism) are not only sufficient to understand the natural world (methodological materialism) but in fact, I believe there is nothing beyond matter and energy. This is the philosophy of materialism, which I, and probably most humanists, hold to. I intentionally added "I believe" when I spoke of my personal philosophy, which is entirely proper. "I believe," however; is not a phrase that belongs in science.
We philosophical materialists may all be methodological materialists, but the converse isn't true. Gregor Mendel was a methodological materialist who didn't accept the philosophy of materialism. I think we make a grave error when we confuse philosophical views derived from science--even those we sup port--with science itself."
Science and Religion, Methodology, and Humanism, Eugenie C Scott, NCSE Executive Director; Reports of the National Center for Science Education 18: 15-17, Mar/Apr. 1998. (you can find it online at www.ncseweb.org)

The reason, Bob, that you think talk.origins is "atheistic" is because you are atheistic. You share with atheists the belief that "natural" = without God. So when talk.origins talks about "natural" causes, you leave God out.

That is simply unChristian and unBiblical.

 

[bob b]

talk.origins is very careful about not advocating atheism. Now, by atheism I mean denial of God. The real God. talk.origins does deny your god -- a literal and inerrant Bible. That can't be helped; Jesus denied it.

There are 2 forms of "naturalism": methodological and philosophical.
Eugenie C. Scott in review of Johnsons's book. On the WWW at http://natcenscied.org/aladont.htm

"Science as practiced today is methodologically naturalistic: it explains the natural world using only natural causes. Science cannot explain (or test explanations about) the supernatural. There is also an independent sort of naturalism, philosophical naturalism, a belief (not science, but belief) that the universe consists only of matter and energy and that there are no supernatural beings, forces, or causes."

Yes, science is methodologically naturalistic; it must be. BUT. That does not mean philosophical naturalism.

" Now we get down to the nitty-gritty of science and religion, and why I lobbied to take the words "impersonal" and "unsupervised" out of the NABT statement. Consider: If to test something scientifically requires the ability to hold constant certain effects, this means that omnipotent powers cannot be used as part of scientific explanations. Logically, if there are omnipotent powers in the universe, it is impossible to hold their effects constant, to "control" them in the scientific sense. An omnipotent power could interfere, or not interfere, or interfere but make it look like it's not interfering--that's omnipotence for you!
So science must be limited to using just natural forces in its explanations.This is sometimes referred to as the principle of methodological materialism in science: we explain the natural world using only matter; energy, and their interactions (materialism). ...
if science is limited by methodological materialism because of our inability to control an omnipotent power's interference in nature, both "God did it" and "God didn't do it" fail as scientific statements.
Properly understood, the principle of methodological materialism requires neutrality towards God; we cannot say, wearing our scientist hats, whether God does or does not act. I could say, speaking from the perspective of my personal philosophy, that matter and energy and their interactions (materialism) are not only sufficient to understand the natural world (methodological materialism) but in fact, I believe there is nothing beyond matter and energy. This is the philosophy of materialism, which I, and probably most humanists, hold to. I intentionally added "I believe" when I spoke of my personal philosophy, which is entirely proper. "I believe," however; is not a phrase that belongs in science.
We philosophical materialists may all be methodological materialists, but the converse isn't true. Gregor Mendel was a methodological materialist who didn't accept the philosophy of materialism. I think we make a grave error when we confuse philosophical views derived from science--even those we sup port--with science itself."
Science and Religion, Methodology, and Humanism, Eugenie C Scott, NCSE Executive Director; Reports of the National Center for Science Education 18: 15-17, Mar/Apr. 1998. (you can find it online at www.ncseweb.org)

The reason, Bob, that you think talk.origins is "atheistic" is because you are atheistic. You share with atheists the belief that "natural" = without God. So when talk.origins talks about "natural" causes, you leave God out.

That is simply unChristian and unBiblical.

Why do you keep quoting Eugenie Scott, the atheist?

And a pretty dumb one at that.

Bob E. demolished her in their debate a number of years ago.

 

[writer]

51, 44 rest

51, 44 rest

51 Sorry, but that doesn't address the point I made.

Yes does

You are simply trying to play semantics.

'S not a game. Lower-case "s" "spontaneous" means, in this context,
happening w/o apparent cause. Or on its own.
Lower-case "g" generation means production. In this case life produced.
Using language (semantics) isn't necessarily "playing" w/ it.
"Spontaneous" and "generation" have, and have had, their meaning long before, during, and after meat and maggots

You aren't dealing with what Spontaneous Generation really was in the history of science.

Yes i am. As in post 17 where i mentioned Louis Pasteur.
Like u, i'll try to use upper-case "S" 'n "G" when referring to it re: meat and maggots

spontaneous generation, held that complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances, e.g. that mice spontaneously appear in stored grain or maggots spontaneously appear in meat.

U c there i'd write: "Spontaneous Generation." Like u did right before it.
Saying that nonlife or death produces life, whether that life's simple or not, is as counter-natural, and moronic, as Abiogenesis and abiogenesis r

That is different from abiogenesis. Even you can see that abiogenesis is not trying to generate mice from stored grain or maggots in decaying meat.

Like i mention 1st para above, "spontaneous" and "generation" retain their common meanings despite being used together to also refer to a specific idea about mice, grain, maggots, and meat. Which theory, Spontaneous Generation, illustrates the broader theory of unlife, unnaturally, happening into life.
Eg: abiogenesis (nonlife-genesis)

That is different from abiogenesis.

"spontaneous" and "generation" are not. Indeed, Abiogenesis and Evolution say that, just throw in alot o' time, and the simple life that jus happened (or was wind-generated, or chemical-generated, or electricity-generated, or sulfur vent-generated) eventually
transformed into all these 4 things: mice, grain (plants, animals), cow, and maggots

Simple denial like this doesn't work.

Abiogenesis, whether simple or complex, doesn't exist becuz it duzn't work.
Abiogenesis duzn't work becuz it duzn't exist

I even posted some of the relevant quotes in the post to Bob.

Then i may try to look at your writing to him.
I addressed one of 'em from your post 38 in my post 40

That's still ad hominem to abiogenesis, isn't it?
Ad hominem doesn't only apply to people, but ideas as well.

No.
"Ad hominem" means: against the opposer's character, or person. "Against the man." Directly.
Abiogenesis isn't a person. Isn't a man, isn't a hominem

You didn't use argument or reason,

To the contrary: pointing out that abiogenesis is fiction like Frankenstein is,
is an argument. A reasonable one. And also reason.
It's not an appeal to prejudice. Unless you're anti-Frankenstein or anti-science fiction.
In both cases, nonlife, or unlife, generates into life.
And both have appealed to electricity-generation. Frankenstein with those little metal knobbies in his neck. Abiogenesis guessing that mebbe the same thing--electricity bolts--generated some bubbles or other chemicals INTO LIFE. Wake-up chemicals

...but the ad hominem attack of comparing abiogenesis to science-fiction or Frankenstein movies.

By definition, that's not an ad hominem attack. Just like unlife couldn't turn into life without Life (God), Ad Hominem can't attack ideas (directly) cuz ideas're neither alive nor people.
Neither's Frankenstein

44 It will work in your kitchen. It has worked in several labs and for science fair projects.

Creating life?
Did it win the blue ribbon?

the class of reactions between molecules that is known as "chemistry".

Nonliving chemicals don't create living arrangements of chemicals.
Nonliving chemicals exist, but they don't create.
They're not Creators.
Whereas life, living arrangements of chemicals, create, reproduce, procreate
all the time

heat amino acids they link together to form proteins. Proteins themselves are not alive. However, under certain common conditions, the proteins will spontaneously form cells...the cells 1) metabolize (both break down chemicals for energy and make new components of the cell), 2) grow, 3) respond to stimuli (they actually depolarize exactly like nerve cells), and 4) reproduce. Doing all 4 of those things is what makes an entity alive.

There u have it. And this is not an attack. It's a compliment. U, like God, or Dr Frankenstein, have created life. Altho not as complex as theirs

In Genesis 1 God speaks men and women (both plural so that there are several of them) into existence all at once.

To the contrary: Gen 1-2 r the same account. One more general. One more detailed

Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are stories to tell us theological truths; they are not actually how God created.

To the contrary: God tells truth with, 'n thru, what He actually does.
Just like actually, creatively, feeding 5,000 illustrates
that He Himself wants to be our satisfaction.
'N jus like His creation declares God's glory

God actually created life by chemistry. How do we know? From the evidence God has left us in His other book: His Creation.

Life, physically, IZ chemistry, the "dust of the ground."
God made Adam alive by breathin into Adam's nostrils God's spirit (breath) of life.
And man became living. A living soul.
In contrast (respectfully) to your "heating amino acids turn into living cells" fantasy.
Take care

 

[Skeptic]

Why do u say that's hallucination?

For the same reason I would say that someone who claimed to have met and talked with leprechauns had hallucinated.

To the contrary: "Skeptic"'s a good reason

:kookoo:

Then we're "even."
Since nonlife producin life's unnatural.

I never claimed that life from nonlife is unnatural. ... It might not be what's happening under today's circumstances, but there is no rational reason whatsoever to claim that life could never come from nonlife.

Life coming from nonlife via natural processes would be very natural.

Supernatural creation---supernatural anything---however would be natural to you if you made nature--if you r God.

But I am not God. Neither are you. And there is no evidence that there is or ever was a God. There is no evidence whatsoever that supernatural creation, or supernatural anything, ever happened.

God made us to receive Him. That's the purpose of your human life, Skeptic

:yawn:

 

[bob b]

I never claimed that life from nonlife is unnatural. ... It might not be what's happening under today's circumstances, but there is no rational reason whatsoever to claim that life could never come from nonlife.

This might have been true 50 years ago, but everything about life that has been learned since then has only pointed toward abiogenesis being a pipedream.

Life coming from nonlife via natural processes would be very natural.

Since life never came from nonlife naturally, your statement is irrational.

But I am not God. Neither are you. And there is no evidence that there is or ever was a God.

The evidence is overwhelming. Life itself is the evidence, but you do not want to believe in God, so you cling to your impossible dream that life arose from nonlife.

Science is against both abiogenesis and evolution.

 

[Johnny]

This might have been true 50 years ago, but everything about life that has been learned since then has only pointed toward abiogenesis being a pipedream.

Be specific.

 

[writer]

55

55

55 For the same reason I would say that someone who claimed to have met and talked with leprechauns had hallucinated.

cuz to u God's a leprechaun?

I never claimed that life from nonlife is unnatural.

Do u claim anyone ever claimed u did?

It might not be what's happening under today's circumstances...

So then unlife may be producing life today?
Where?
In Luscapa's science-fair projects?

...but there is no rational reason whatsoever to claim that life could never come from nonlife.

Yeah there is:
the fact that life never comes from unlife now.
Also the fact that life duzn't spontaneously-generate.
Also the fact that electricity or heat don't turn unlife into life.
Also the fact that God's living and purposeful
(- He created Skeptic to contain God)

Life coming from nonlife via natural processes would be very natural.

To the contrary: electricity doesn't create life; heat doesn't; erosion doesn't; wind doesn't; science-fair projects don't; volcanoes don't; storms don't; bubbles don't; noise doesn't; winter doesn't; spring doesn't; rain doesn't; Mars and Mercury don't; solar flares don't; comets don't; meteorites don't; nuclear reactions don't; fire doesn't; Skeptic's imagination can't.
For life to be created by any natural process other than life itself, as its own natural process: is neither nature nor natural

But I am not God. Neither are you.

That's why scientists, or nonscientists (as in your case), both don't, 'n can't, create life either. Except by procreation.
Naturally

And there is no evidence that there is or ever was a God.

To the contrary: Everything's evidence that there's God.
Because the other options are that everything spontaneously generated;
or that everything's eternal

There is no evidence whatsoever that supernatural creation, or supernatural anything, ever happened.

To the contrary: Accident didn't "create" everything.
Nor did everything create itself.
Nor's everything eternal.
For instance: Skeptic didn't create himself.
His existence's proof his parents exist, or existed

 

[Skeptic]

... because they assume "naturalism"

Bob, why is science methodologically naturalistic?

If you think science is not methodologically naturalistic, why isn't it?

 

[Skeptic]

This might have been true 50 years ago, but everything about life that has been learned since then has only pointed toward abiogenesis being a pipedream.

Please cite at least one study that has conclusively falsified the abiogenesis hypothesis.

Any such study would have to provide very strong evidence that life could NEVER have evolved from nonlife. ... Remember, the argument from incredulity is not sufficient.

Since life never came from nonlife naturally, your statement is irrational.

If you cannot provide strong empirical evidence that life could never come naturally from nonlife, your statement is irrational.

The evidence is overwhelming. Life itself is the evidence,

What about life conclusively demonstrates that the first life forms were created by God, and could never have come from nonlife? ... Remember, the argument from incredulity simply won't do.

but you do not want to believe in God,

It's not that I don't want to believe in God, but reason compels me to withhold my belief until further empirical notice.

so you cling to your impossible dream that life arose from nonlife.

Please cite at least one study that has conclusively demonstrated the impossibility that life arose from nonlife.

Science is against both abiogenesis and evolution.

You are the one who is dreaming. ... :yawn: