The origins of abiotic species

[6days]

You believe in a God who knows it all, thus cannot learn.

Yes, I believe in the God of the Bible.... not a god with limited knowlege.j
Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit” (Psalm 147:5).

 

[Hedshaker]

Actually, it was the only sensible answer to your question.

When is X an explanation? When X is the reason.

Perfectly logical. :up:

Close, but what you really mean is: When X is assumed to be the reason.

Evidence by cherished belief is not actually evidence outside the minds of "true believers".

 

[Stripe]

Close, but what you really mean is: When X is assumed to be the reason.

Nope.

It has to actually be the reason, otherwise the statement is not true.

Watch:

When is gravity an explanation? When gravity is the reason.

I cannot mean when gravity is assumed to be the reason, because that might not be true.

Evidence by cherished belief is not actually evidence outside the minds of "true believers".

I think you're just having a tantrum. Nobody is claiming anything of significance. You're just desperate to keep arguing.

 

[iouae]

I posted another article after that also. I plan to cover the evidence (all of it) thoroughly. Excuse if this sounds rude, but I'm not in the least bit concerned about what does not or what does impress you.

The original item on replicator molecules which you equate to "abiotic species" is little more than an enzyme producing multiple copies of a molecule or another process similar to polymerisation, which can produce different "species" depending on its environment.

It is utterly unimpressive. You have found a fancy chemical reaction, of which there are infinite, and you are implying that this is how life may evolve.

This is how your article ended "'We're not the only ones to be really excited about these experiments - the evolutionary biologist I've consulted is too.'" The excitement level of one evolutionary biologist is not the gold standard for deciding what is Nobel Prize worthy.

Or it is possible I totally misunderstand this thread, in which case I apologise.

But I am looking forward to you covering all the evidence thoroughly.

 

[noguru]

The original item on replicator molecules which you equate to "abiotic species" is little more than an enzyme producing multiple copies of a molecule or another process similar to polymerisation, which can produce different "species" depending on its environment.

It is utterly unimpressive. You have found a fancy chemical reaction, of which there are infinite, and you are implying that this is how life may evolve.

This is how your article ended "'We're not the only ones to be really excited about these experiments - the evolutionary biologist I've consulted is too.'" The excitement level of one evolutionary biologist is not the gold standard for deciding what is Nobel Prize worthy.

Or it is possible I totally misunderstand this thread, in which case I apologise.

But I am looking forward to you covering all the evidence thoroughly.

Start with the other article I posted. I'll get back to answering the rest of this when I get home from work.

 

[noguru]

The original item on replicator molecules which you equate to "abiotic species" is little more than an enzyme producing multiple copies of a molecule or another process similar to polymerisation, which can produce different "species" depending on its environment.

Ok, and I think understanding this stepping stone is relevant. Science is a building process in regard to compiled evidence. This is one small discovery that seems to have relevance because these enzymes appear to be the precursor to a "complete living" organism. What were your expectations.

It is utterly unimpressive.

Again, I apologize if you feel let down by this. But I assure you that impressing you was not a goal I had when posting this article.

You have found a fancy chemical reaction, of which there are infinite, and you are implying that this is how life may evolve.

:shocked:

Wow, that is impressive. Thanks for the news flash.

This is how your article ended "'We're not the only ones to be really excited about these experiments - the evolutionary biologist I've consulted is too.'" The excitement level of one evolutionary biologist is not the gold standard for deciding what is Nobel Prize worthy.

I agree. And the opinion of one (or even several) people on this site is not the gold standard either. What's your point?

 

[Hedshaker]

Nope.

It has to actually be the reason, otherwise the statement is not true.

Watch:

When is gravity an explanation? When gravity is the reason.

I cannot mean when gravity is assumed to be the reason, because that might not be true.

The difference is that: "In physics, theories of gravitation postulate mechanisms of interaction governing the movements of bodies with mass." Source

Gravity is a robust scientific theory with evidence, where as "Goddidit" is a religious belief that explains precisely nothing. You could say Harry Potter did it, or Peter Pan, Superman, the Invisible Pink Unicorn done it... alternatively, you could jump from a sky scraper and test it for yourself. How exactly would you go about testing "Goddidit"? :Idunno: Maybe your peer Michael Cadry could help you out with that...... :rapture:

think you're just having a tantrum. Nobody is claiming anything of significance. You're just desperate to keep arguing.

No tantrum, just putting you right

 

[Stripe]

The difference is that: "In physics, theories of gravitation postulate mechanisms of interaction governing the movements of bodies with mass."URL="https: //en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Hi story_of_gra vitatio nal_theory"]So urce[/URL] Gravity is a robust scientific theory with evidence, where as "Goddidit" is a religious belief that explains precisely nothing. You could say Harry Potter did it, or Peter Pan, Superman, the Invisible Pink Unicorn done it... alternatively, you could jump from a sky scraper and test it for yourself. How exactly would you go about testing "Goddidit"? :Idunno: Maybe your peer Michael Cadry could help you out with that...... :raptu re:

Which all has nothing to do with the validity of my answer.

As we say, you're just having a tantrum.

 

[Jonahdog]

Yes, I believe in the God of the Bible.... not a god with limited knowlege.j
Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit” (Psalm 147:5).

Your god's knowledge would appear to be limited. He created his perfect universe yet did not know that Adam and Eve would disobey. Nor that later he would need to kill most of the living creatures on the earth. Lack of knowledge of the future would seem to put a limit on your deity.

 

[Stripe]

Your god's knowledge would appear to be limited. He created his perfect universe yet did not know that Adam and Eve would disobey. Nor that later he would need to kill most of the living creatures on the earth. Lack of knowledge of the future would seem to put a limit on your deity.

Therefore, something.

That's the problem with evolutionists, they cannot engage rationally.

 

[iouae]

I agree. And the opinion of one (or even several) people on this site is not the gold standard either. What's your point?

My point is that trying to find Bigfoot (evolution of real life) by trying to find Littlefoot (evolution of chemicals) first, will get one nowhere.

But off the subject, in one of your posts you mentioned human and animal behaviour in your past work. I may be wrong about this. If you would care to elaborate, I would like to know more. Or just ignore this if you feel I am being nosey.

 

[Jonahdog]

Therefore, something.

That's the problem with evolutionists, they cannot engage rationally.

Ah Stripe-O, I was responding to 6 day's comment about the all-knowing Biblical god. The evidence put forth by 6 clearly shows your god to have limited knowledge of the future therefore not quite all knowing.

I recognize you do not wish to deal with that possibility, frightening, huh?

 

[noguru]

Ah Stripe-O, I was responding to 6 day's comment about the all-knowing Biblical god. The evidence put forth by 6 clearly shows your god to have limited knowledge of the future therefore not quite all knowing.

I recognize you do not wish to deal with that possibility, frightening, huh?

Creationist want to bring God as a variable into the scientific classroom, but when the light of critical analysis is placed on their ideas of a God, they love to complain. They want their cake and they want to eat it too.

But instead of replaying this same old sequence of argument regarding god/no god, I would really love to discuss science. Rather than pander to the likes of Stripe and his other twisted cohorts. Thanks.

 

[noguru]

My point is that trying to find Bigfoot (evolution of real life) by trying to find Littlefoot (evolution of chemicals) first, will get one nowhere.

Your point is either inaccurate or poorly stated.

But off the subject, in one of your posts you mentioned human and animal behaviour in your past work. I may be wrong about this. If you would care to elaborate, I would like to know more. Or just ignore this if you feel I am being nosey.

What exactly would you like to know? I would not have characterized you as "nosey" (perhaps that is just another poor choice of words on your part), but I am curious as to why you find this relevant here? You can call it "nosey", but it is just my curiosity regarding animal/human behavior that gets the best of me.

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

Your god's knowledge would appear to be limited. He created his perfect universe yet did not know that Adam and Eve would disobey. Nor that later he would need to kill most of the living creatures on the earth. Lack of knowledge of the future would seem to put a limit on your deity.

I wonder why you were not chastised for mentioning God? God knew revealing His love through Christ would be necessary to create the love between us He desires.

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

Ah Stripe-O, I was responding to 6 day's comment about the all-knowing Biblical god. The evidence put forth by 6 clearly shows your god to have limited knowledge of the future therefore not quite all knowing.

I recognize you do not wish to deal with that possibility, frightening, huh?

If God is all knowing and freewill is genuine which I believe is the truth. There is nothing that would inhibit God from seeing every possible path of the future all at once and working to brink about good through it all.

 

[noguru]

I wonder why you were not chastised for mentioning God? God knew revealing His love through Christ would be necessary to create the love between us He desires.

I'll point this out to you one more time. I started this thread for the evidence compiled for the origin of life, it is not a place I want to see you broadcast your specific theological beliefs, OK?

I swear, this behavior is habitual for you folks. You just can't seem to stop. It seems there is some sort of psychological/emotional issue with people like you. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.

 

[Stripe]

If God is all knowing and freewill is genuine which I believe is the truth. There is nothing that would inhibit God from seeing every possible path of the future all at once and working to brink about good through it all.

This thread was about the origins of abiotic species. :idunno:

The evolutionists are doing anything to avoid the challenges brought against OP.

 

[noguru]

This thread was about the origins of abiotic species. :idunno:

The evolutionists are doing anything to avoid the challenges brought against OP.

Of which specific "challenges" do you speak?

As far as I know, comprehensive coverage includes any remaining challenges of the research. So far you folks have offered only your standard fare "We don't really know, therefore God did it." That is not an answer, nor a suggestion of how those challenges can be met. It is just a bunch of brain dead theists trying to use science as a platform to broadcast their religion.

I'll give you this, your behavior is right in line with the reason Nineveh combined the science forum with the religion forum a few years back. At least you folks have the integrity to be consistent in your error.

 

[iouae]

The thing that confuses me most about this thread is why noguru has "Christian" as her religion, when you say things like "It is just a bunch of brain dead theists trying to use science as a platform to broadcast their religion".