ARGOSY Posted February 23, 2016 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,695 Content Per Day: 0.45 Reputation: 583 Days Won: 2 Joined: 01/03/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/11/1968 Share Posted February 23, 2016 On 2/18/2016 at 5:59 PM, siegi91 said: Not really. The one is impossible, the other is unlikely (but still possible). They still have not imagined a scenario that would have worked. Have you any scenario that would work to generate abiogenesis? There are numerous problems with the concept of abiogenesis, the 02 rich or carbon dioxide rich atmosphere at the time abiogenesis supposedly occurred would not have been conducive to the process. DNA requires amino acids and proteins, and conditions that suit the genesis of one, do not suit the genesis of the other. Plus multiple more problems with your weak hypothesis of abiogenesis. http://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis To believe abiogenesis is possible without even a clear hypothesis is just playing with your imagination. It's like the question of the origin of matter. Do we discard the first law of thermodynamics with a view that "I'm sure someday it will be disproven" and then assume there was no creator of matter? Umm actually atheists tend to do just that with the first law of thermodynamics, so why not apply these principles of fantasy science to abiogenesis too? Its all a fantasy to deny God. That is why the concepts of the spontaneous creation of matter, and then the spontaneous creation of life are so popular; yet without any evidence except flimsy hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siegi91 Posted February 24, 2016 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 12 Topic Count: 35 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,802 Content Per Day: 1.19 Reputation: 249 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/04/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted February 24, 2016 On 2/18/2016 at 7:35 PM, Gargamel Bojangles said: since you are a non believer, we have nothing further to discuss. I shall take my leave of you. On 2/23/2016 at 8:57 PM, ARGOSY said: They still have not imagined a scenario that would have worked. Have you any scenario that would work to generate abiogenesis? There are numerous problems with the concept of abiogenesis, the 02 rich or carbon dioxide rich atmosphere at the time abiogenesis supposedly occurred would not have been conducive to the process. DNA requires amino acids and proteins, and conditions that suit the genesis of one, do not suit the genesis of the other. Plus multiple more problems with your weak hypothesis of abiogenesis. http://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis To believe abiogenesis is possible without even a clear hypothesis is just playing with your imagination. It's like the question of the origin of matter. Do we discard the first law of thermodynamics with a view that "I'm sure someday it will be disproven" and then assume there was no creator of matter? Umm actually atheists tend to do just that with the first law of thermodynamics, so why not apply these principles of fantasy science to abiogenesis too? Its all a fantasy to deny God. That is why the concepts of the spontaneous creation of matter, and then the spontaneous creation of life are so popular; yet without any evidence except flimsy hope. The first law of thermodynamics state that energy is conserved. The energy of the Universe totals to zero, according to latest measurement. That is what my avatar also says, in quantum mechanical form. Since matter is equal to energy, and energy equals to zero, I am not sure what creation of matter you are addressing. You seem to indicate that "creation" entails a miraculous violation of the first principle. It does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARGOSY Posted February 25, 2016 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,695 Content Per Day: 0.45 Reputation: 583 Days Won: 2 Joined: 01/03/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/11/1968 Share Posted February 25, 2016 7 hours ago, siegi91 said: The first law of thermodynamics state that energy is conserved. The energy of the Universe totals to zero, according to latest measurement. That is what my avatar also says, in quantum mechanical form. Since matter is equal to energy, and energy equals to zero, I am not sure what creation of matter you are addressing. You seem to indicate that "creation" entails a miraculous violation of the first principle. It does not. I see that you have missed the main point, if this continues this could make discussion difficult or even pointless. My main point was about abiogenesis, the point about thermodynamics was merely a comparison. Have you any vaguely believable hypothesis which would enable abiogenesis? I haven't read any good ones yet. eg some say deep hydrothermal vents would be a good environment for abiogenesis because at the surface the 20 amino acids needed would not naturally be found together. However although these deep vents could cause the amino acids to stay closer they would then cling to each other in various places rather than restricting the contact to the required peptide bonds. Not only that, the peptide bonds themselves break down under hydrothermal conditions. So unless you suggest a workable hypothesis for abiogenesis your belief in such is outside the bounds of science. Have you any workable hypothesis regarding abiogenesis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siegi91 Posted February 25, 2016 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 12 Topic Count: 35 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,802 Content Per Day: 1.19 Reputation: 249 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/04/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted February 25, 2016 10 hours ago, ARGOSY said: I see that you have missed the main point, if this continues this could make discussion difficult or even pointless. My main point was about abiogenesis, the point about thermodynamics was merely a comparison. Have you any vaguely believable hypothesis which would enable abiogenesis? I haven't read any good ones yet. eg some say deep hydrothermal vents would be a good environment for abiogenesis because at the surface the 20 amino acids needed would not naturally be found together. However although these deep vents could cause the amino acids to stay closer they would then cling to each other in various places rather than restricting the contact to the required peptide bonds. Not only that, the peptide bonds themselves break down under hydrothermal conditions. So unless you suggest a workable hypothesis for abiogenesis your belief in such is outside the bounds of science. Have you any workable hypothesis regarding abiogenesis? I am afraid not. No one knows, well almost no one :), how life started on earth. But you are changing the goal post. Evolution is about bio diversity, not about how bio started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARGOSY Posted February 26, 2016 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,695 Content Per Day: 0.45 Reputation: 583 Days Won: 2 Joined: 01/03/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/11/1968 Share Posted February 26, 2016 15 hours ago, siegi91 said: I am afraid not. No one knows, well almost no one :), how life started on earth. But you are changing the goal post. Evolution is about bio diversity, not about how bio started. Thanks for your straight answer, I'm dealing with evolution in the other thread. I just noticed your comment about abiogenesis being possible. I find that comment illogical in light of the fact no one has yet dreamed up a scenario where it would work. Until someone brings forward a viable hypothesis, it really is impossible for 20 different extreme and unique environments to exist at the same place at the same time. And that is required over and above your focus on the statistical unlikelihood of 4 million base pairs just by co-incidence aligning themselves in perfect order. My reason for focusing on this is to make you realise that your atheistic views are based on faith and not evidence. Which is what is required with Christianity, its a deep knowing the truth that is stronger than the evidence presented. It's fundamentally a faith decision that you have made to be an atheist, no scientific facts favour the atheistic position. Hopefully you will think about this for a while and be open to the other view as God draws you closer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoob57 Posted February 26, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,189 Content Per Day: 7.98 Reputation: 21,469 Days Won: 76 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted February 26, 2016 On 2/25/2016 at 11:21 AM, siegi91 said: I am afraid not. No one knows, well almost no one :), how life started on earth. But you are changing the goal post. Evolution is about bio diversity, not about how bio started. Evolution is about origin of life and what you claim above as goal post are of your own making... and when they get back to the abiogenesis they as all (evolutionist) refuse to see they have built their belief upon faith! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FresnoJoe Posted March 4, 2016 Group: Graduated to Heaven Followers: 207 Topic Count: 60 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 8,651 Content Per Day: 1.17 Reputation: 5,761 Days Won: 4 Joined: 01/31/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/04/1943 Share Posted March 4, 2016 On 2/18/2016 at 9:41 AM, siegi91 said: Astronomically unlikely is a weaker condition than mathematically impossible. siegi Even With All The Chemicals In Place And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: Hebrews 9:27 The Newly Dead Body Will Not Self Resurrect For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. John 5:26-29 ~ For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonky Posted April 8, 2016 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 6 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 738 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 346 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/28/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted April 8, 2016 Life may have been put here so to speak. But even if we knew that for sure, it's a COMPLETELY different thing to assert you know exactly who did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted April 8, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.11 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted April 8, 2016 Sorry, Bonky, but it's only nonbelievers who 'don't know who did it'. To believers it has been proved already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigger398 Posted April 8, 2016 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 562 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 2,074 Content Per Day: 0.31 Reputation: 648 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/01/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/31/1966 Share Posted April 8, 2016 One time I took a photo of a rainbow which God not only made, but it is in the bible of why we have it. I agree with Rick no such thing as a former Christian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts