On The Impossibility Of Abiogenesis.

You know they try to use this argument both way's but they can't.

Even if they think they can.

AA

 

Do you always reply to questions with unrelated questions away from the subject of a conversation?
Common. What was something in my question?

I will do you a favor since you seems to be absolutely novice in our journey to the truth.
The answer is no. In logic there is only true or false. There is nothing in between.
If you are asked but you cannot prove something is true or false you can't use it as an argument.

So far we have established existence of Odin as true.
You tried to use a statement of the Bible as true.
I asked you to prove it is true.
You cannot use it as argument in your proof until you
prove it is true.
You have went of the road.

 

I did not go off the road, I was merely responding to this quote:

Yes, I answered a question with a question, but only to clarify your position that you believe that "You cannot use it as argument in your proof until you
prove it is true", and "If you are asked but you cannot prove something is true or false you can't use it as an argument" which is pretty much spot on the my quote of:

Which of course brings us all the way back my whole point which is that you cannot bring in God into the argument about abiogenesis since you cannot prove God's existence. The most you can say is that we don't know what started life, but you cannot say God did it until you prove God is true.

 

It would prove that when it comes to extinctions, nothing is certain.

 

And that proves what?
Extinction is not necessary for evolution

 

And even if god were proved, we still need proof of his actions. Perhaps he watched evolution as an interested bystander.

But while raising doubts about evolution may enrich scientific inquiry
in no way do such questions prove an elusive creator god,

 

So very true!

 

It is not the matter of my opinion, position or belief, it is the matter of following rules of logic.
Two travelers are crossing a field to find the truth, hidden on other side of and unknown to both travelers, should follow rules like a compass instead of wondering all around the field.
Let me rephrase the question.
Traveler 1:
- God doesn't exist because Odin does, so if you want to prove existence of your god, please prove that Odin does not.
Traveler 2:
-I accept as true that Odin exists. How does it prove that God does not exist?
Traveler 1:
- Because the Bible says there are no other gods but God.
Traveler 2:
- I do not accept this statement of the Bible as true. Prove it is true.

 

Maybe not; but it does speed up some opportunities for the species that may survive.

 

+1
This has always been my argument on this topic. Beliefs about origins are JUST THAT: Beliefs. something that fits in one model, may very well fit in another. There is no empirical proof of either position, either a natural or supernatural explanation of origins, but it is all belief & opinion.

So the other side of the equation is equally plausible. 'While raising doubts about ID may enrich scientific enquiry, that does not prove the elusive mechanism of naturalistic origins.'

You have beliefs, & they fit in your worldview. But there is a big difference between personal belief & empirical fact. Not for some, to be sure, but the difference is still there, whether people see it or not.

 

No....because what is TRUE for some people is FALSE for another.

Truth is SUBJECTIVE.

There is only FACT...which is REALITY.....and FICTION...which is not.

AA

 

Well....in reality Human's in one form or another have been around for over 5 million years.

Homo-sapiens....over 100,000 as we now know that Cromagnon was really just an early form of Homo sapien.

AA

 

I didn't say that. Although to find a living dinosaur would put a monkey wrench in the geologic collumn. You can't just assume that if you find a dinosaur fossil it automatically means its at least 65 million years old anymore.

 

Here is something from WikiPedia:

However, even five million is not very long when compared to one hundred and fifty million.

 

We have never found a Dinosaur alive but we have found a prehistoric fish with legs known as a Coelacanth which was thought to have gone extinct 66 million years ago.

Some species have evolved so perfectly such as the Coelacanth and Sharks that there is no mechanism to force evolutionary change in them.

AA

 

Well like the article say's...."HOMO SAPIENS proceeded to colonize all the continents and larger islands, arriving in Eurasia 125,000–60,000 years ago,"

There were many other forms of humanity that existed before Homo sapiens.

AA

 

You really missed the whole point of why I lead you down that particular path. I'm sorry, but the whole point of my posts were to make you admit that "You cannot use it as argument in your proof until you
prove it is true", which of course destroys your whole argument that God created the universe. Sorry about the deception, but I couldn't think of any other way to get you to realize the truth.

 

Do you have some reason to assert that scientists automatically think a fossil is 65 milliom years old?

 

SINCE YOU "understand abiogenesis," why don't YOU explain the impossibility of hemoglobin synthesis.
Human hemoglobin consists of 574 amino acids arranged in a very precise sequence, which sequence is folded in such a complex manner that humans cannot make a single hemoglobin molecule in a laboratory. There are 20 different amino acids.
So the number of possible sequences is 20 to the 574th power or 10 to the 747th power.

Explain, with your profound scientific intellect, exactly how the impossible task of assembling the one correct sequence of human hemoglobin, out of 10^747 possible others, was accomplished, KNOWING FULL WELL that every step in the assembly demands, according to your "selection" tautology, that each intermediary have a useful function which selectively preserves that step to the exclusion of most if not all others.

Your "proof," as you are always demanding of others, will require, oh, about 10 to the 700 steps, and intermediaries, and 'selection" processes.
That is just for ONE polypeptide, understand.

It's abundantly obvious you cannot ever begin to take the first step in demonstrating YOUR fatuous pretense of "understanding abiogenesis."
But try anyway, just for everyone's amusement.

 

As long as the scope of our discussion is confined to the origin of life... I agree. There are many speculations about the origin of life... And none of them has much if any evidence.

Theists propose that one of the possible origins of life is the supernatural creation theory. It is one of many speculative suggestions about the origin of life.

It is impossible to disprove the supernatural origin theory. And since the supernatural theory is faith based, it also seems that falsifiable evidence will never emerge.

Those who have no faith in the supernatural will obviously reject the sn theory of life's origin. And, as you say, that dispute is, and likely will remain a dispute between people with different beliefs.

BUT, the theory of evolution does not propose a particular origin of life.... But only a mechanism for the natural emergence of diverse forms of life from previous forms of life. And there is an incredible mass of evidence that conforms to that theory.

 

Your math is off.

20^574th is NOT 10^747th.

And these probability calculations are wrong as well.

AA

 

Given that the hemoglobin protein is one of the oldest aspects of evolution going back about 4 billion years it is hardly surprising that it has evolved into the complex molecular structure we have today.

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/1999/2/the-evolution-of-hemoglobin

Something this complex as the hemoglobin protein would be outside the comprehension of those who believe in superstitions. 4 billion years for nature to conduct experiments is so much vastly greater a timeline than the eyeblink timeframe between Meischer finding DNA in 1869 and Crick & Watson unraveling the chemical structure in 1953.

 

It's also important to note that just because we do not yet know how to do something does not automatically mean a GOD created it.

AA

 

As you obviously understand the details of the creation event and the powerful being that accomplished it, explain for us all exactly how it was accomplished please. Go into the details minute by minute that we will all understand how each day transpired. I also expect you to provide the intricacies of exactly what this entity entails and what it had for lunch on Day 8.

 

Our genus is homo.