Origin of Life

[We are Borg]

What i never will understand is the way believers act to science, why do you want to merge science and religion. Why just why cant you or others like you accept that we come from a common ancestor. If God made everything universe and everything in it whit his power he would know what would happen when he started. God is omnipresent, omniscience, omnipotent etc etc so so you not accepting science that God layed out is to question God itself. Its like you need an enemy to feel good about yourself or to believe.

 

[Av8torbob]

What i never will understand is the way believers act to science, why do you want to merge science and religion. Why just why cant you or others like you accept that we come from a common ancestor.

Fair question.

Actually, there are some theists who do accept universal common descent. But that’s not the question being discussed here. We can disagree about whether or not Evolution explains the diversity of life. But that’s a completely different issue from the origin of life.

What I’m saying is that naturalism/materialism has shown absolutely no power to explain that. It tells a story. But none of the “evidence” cited above has proven the story to be true. Worse, every step of the story only works with intelligent intervention — which is the point I’m trying to make.

Maybe some super-intelligent alien planted life here. But then you’d be left to explain the origin of that super-intelligent life.

I don’t have any desire to “merge science and religion.” But I can turn the question back on you. Why can’t you or people like you accept the evidence that is right in front of your face — that there are all the signs of intelligent agency in the origin of the DNA-based information that drives life?

You dismiss it — not based on evidence — but based on a presupposition that no intelligence could have been involved. Rejecting possible causes before you analyze the data isn’t doing “science.” It’s imposing your philosophy on the data by preemptively eliminating possible causes simply because you don’t like them.

 

[We are Borg]

Fair question.

Actually, there are some theists who do accept universal common descent. But that’s not the question being discussed here. We can disagree about whether or not Evolution explains the diversity of life. But that’s a completely different issue from the origin of life.

What I’m saying is that naturalism/materialism has shown absolutely no power to explain that. It tells a story. But none of the “evidence” cited above has proven the story to be true. Worse, every step of the story only works with intelligent intervention — which is the point I’m trying to make.

Maybe some super-intelligent alien planted life here. But then you’d be left to explain the origin of that super-intelligent life.

I don’t have any desire to “merge science and religion.” But I can turn the question back on you. Why can’t you or people like you accept the evidence that is right in front of your face — that there are all the signs of intelligent agency in the origin of the DNA-based information that drives life?

You dismiss it — not based on evidence — but based on a presupposition that no intelligence could have been involved. Rejecting possible causes before you analyze the data isn’t doing “science.” It’s imposing your philosophy on the data by preemptively eliminating possible causes simply because you don’t like them.

Well you really cant disagree whether or not Evolution explains the diversity of live. There between 7000 to 8000 peer reviewed studies about evolution non of those studies where never proven wrong but you have the audacity to say there all wrong. Like i said in my first post i made the moment someone can disprove evolution in a scientific way (you only need one example) you will become more famous then Darwin and you will become a multi millionaire in a year if you write books and do tv shows etc.

An alien i really need to tell you something that might shock you. If God exist then it would be by definition be an alien life form the reason way is that it was not born on this planet. He might created the planet and so on but he was never born here. Even funnier is that he would be a migrant in the definition of that word, because he moved from where he was to this planet.

Yes you want to have it both ways, you want the Bible to be true and try to say x and y, people who try this are trying to merge science and religion.

What evidence is right in my face all i see is that we come from a common ancestor thats the evidence that i see. As for the universe itself that’s because of the Big Bang (the naming might confuse you). The DNA confirms all life on this planet is related to one and other. Why would a God with unlimited creating power use contaminated DNA meaning use the same DNA in other species and have DNA in the species that does absolutely nothing at all.

We can test everything in evolution and we can make predictions based on them time and time again. Take Covid-19 because we know how evolution worked we could make a vaccine that even works when it mutated. We can make predictions based on fossils and other information what is in front or after a species. So if we say a b c should result in x y z then evolution is correct every time.

Now for God make up predictions and test to prove he exists you cant take the Bible and say see. No you will need to make up tests and repeat them with the same result everytime and here you have a small issue. Because God is by definition super natural you cant test it you can never prove or disprove God.

Science is making predictions i see something and say if a b c is happening then results x y z should happen if not then my hypothesis is wrong and i need to start over until the result is 100% the same and it can be repeated by others.

As for God he made everything and anything we can and cant see. Here is a question we are born life your life and die, our parents and loved once. We can see them again in heaven when we die. So why do i need to wait to gain to see my loved once after dead why not be born into heaven straightaway would that not been easier and painless because you do not have to grieve the loss of some one. If God knows everything he should have known our pain if we lose someone. So instead of living my life i need to praise him etc and can only claim my price after dead and not know 100% if its true because you cant test it. The Bible is not going to be of any help because its written by man.

 

[Av8torbob]

Well you really cant disagree whether or not Evolution explains the diversity of live. There between 7000 to 8000 peer reviewed studies about evolution non of those studies where never proven wrong but you have the audacity to say there all wrong. Like i said in my first post i made the moment someone can disprove evolution in a scientific way (you only need one example) you will become more famous then Darwin and you will become a multi millionaire in a year if you write books and do tv shows etc.

An alien i really need to tell you something that might shock you. If God exist then it would be by definition be an alien life form the reason way is that it was not born on this planet. He might created the planet and so on but he was never born here. Even funnier is that he would be a migrant in the definition of that word, because he moved from where he was to this planet.

Yes you want to have it both ways, you want the Bible to be true and try to say x and y, people who try this are trying to merge science and religion.

What evidence is right in my face all i see is that we come from a common ancestor thats the evidence that i see. As for the universe itself that’s because of the Big Bang (the naming might confuse you). The DNA confirms all life on this planet is related to one and other. Why would a God with unlimited creating power use contaminated DNA meaning use the same DNA in other species and have DNA in the species that does absolutely nothing at all.

We can test everything in evolution and we can make predictions based on them time and time again. Take Covid-19 because we know how evolution worked we could make a vaccine that even works when it mutated. We can make predictions based on fossils and other information what is in front or after a species. So if we say a b c should result in x y z then evolution is correct every time.

Now for God make up predictions and test to prove he exists you cant take the Bible and say see. No you will need to make up tests and repeat them with the same result everytime and here you have a small issue. Because God is by definition super natural you cant test it you can never prove or disprove God.

Science is making predictions i see something and say if a b c is happening then results x y z should happen if not then my hypothesis is wrong and i need to start over until the result is 100% the same and it can be repeated by others.

As for God he made everything and anything we can and cant see. Here is a question we are born life your life and die, our parents and loved once. We can see them again in heaven when we die. So why do i need to wait to gain to see my loved once after dead why not be born into heaven straightaway would that not been easier and painless because you do not have to grieve the loss of some one. If God knows everything he should have known our pain if we lose someone. So instead of living my life i need to praise him etc and can only claim my price after dead and not know 100% if its true because you cant test it. The Bible is not going to be of any help because its written by man.

Not sure what you were drinking when you posted this, @We are Borg, but I'll just say this:

1. I already addressed the issue of Evolution. This thread has nothing to do with Evolution so not sure why you keep bringing it up. The issue is the origin of life. Evolution, by definition, has nothing to say about it ... so, neither do I.

2. I don't have the time nor the motivation to debate every side issue or go down every rabbit hole you've introduced here ... so, I won't.

3. You don't like the way God did things. You'd do it differently. Well, welcome to the club. But that's theology ... so, see 2.

That said, I appreciate that, unlike most of your brethren here, you and @AronRa are at least thoughtful respectful. Still devoid of any evidence for a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life without intelligent intervention though. Just crickets on that front ... especially from the highly-esteemed "Administrator."

Cheers ...

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Look at that. You are not ignoring me. That being the case, it would behoove you to address this next time you respond to me:

I saw your argument from ignorance. What of it? Did you see where I addressed your points about oxygen and RNA? Did you see where AronRa and *SD* corrected your misunderstanding about the Miller-Urey experiment? Will you admit to being wrong about the Miller-Urey experiment never being reproduced and debunked?

You realize that running for unanswered questions does not work on a written forum, right?

Only someone fully committed to his fairy tale, and devoid of any measure of intellectual honesty, could possibly claim that a scientist’s ability to design something entails that it could — and did! — have to happen naturally.

Are you saying that these experiments could not happen naturally? If that were the case, then why are they occurring at all? Do you realize that scientists are not wizards and are following what can naturally happen? Beyond that, do you recognize that isolating variables is a norm in science?

In addition, you realize that the point is showing you that there is a natural pathway for life to come from nonlife. Not that any pathway is the precisely correct one.

And I’m the “foolish” one?! LOL

Yes.

Why can’t you or people like you accept the evidence that is right in front of your face — that there are all the signs of intelligent agency in the origin of the DNA-based information that drives life?

You have not shown that to be the case, and in fact, you refused to provide evidence for your side of this discussion. Remember, an argument from ignorance is not evidence for anything.

1. I already addressed the issue of Evolution. This thread has nothing to do with Evolution so not sure why you keep bringing it up. The issue is the origin of life. Evolution, by definition, has nothing to say about it ... so, neither do I.

I must agree with you on this. We are Borg, you are barking up the wrong tree talking about evolution and universal common descent in this thread.

That said, I appreciate that, unlike most of your brethren here, you and @AronRa are at least thoughtful respectful.

The tone policing coming from you is rich when one of your first comments was to call me a name. I think you are familiar with the term hypocrite. You were throwing it out earlier.

Still devoid of any evidence for a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life without intelligent intervention though. Just crickets on that front ...

That is a lie. So far, several people have provided you with evidence of what you are looking for, and you have only responded with your ignorance. You have several times agreed with the conclusions of what AronRa has provided.

 

[Av8torbob]

Are you saying that these experiments could not happen naturally? If that were the case, then why are they occurring at all? Do you realize that scientists are not wizards and are following what can naturally happen? Beyond that, do you recognize that isolating variables is a norm in science?

No, that's not what I'm saying. It's what the sources @AronRa cited are saying. It's what the SCIENTISTS are saying. Read the freaking articles. Every step occurs because they design the initial conditions (which they admit "may" be like the actual ones), use artificially-created molecules, manipulate combinations of molecules and insert them at exactly the right time ... and then announce that this "is how it could have happened." I'm not knocking the scientists. Their work is phenomenal. But to pretend that everything they're doing with human design teams proves that it all happened all by itself naturally is patently ridiculous.

PRO TIP: The motherboard running your computer right now ... and the software that operates it ... were created by design teams. But they wouldn't appear naturally if you left all the pieces on your desk to do their own thing.

The tone policing coming from you is rich when one of your first comments was to call me a name. I think you are familiar with the term hypocrite. You were throwing it out earlier.

Show me where I "called you a name." Your link takes us to where I called you out for googling "abiogenesis" and thought that meant you had answered the question. I said that was comical ... and it still is. But that's not name-calling; it's bluff-calling.

You're a liar ... which is why I will be ignoring you going forward.

That is a lie. So far, several people have provided you with evidence of what you are looking for, and you have only responded with your ignorance. You have several times agreed with the conclusions of what AronRa has provided.

Seriously, dude. Can you comprehend English? I "agreed" with @AronRa's points for the sake of argument. Maybe it's beyond your ability to understand but it's a way of saying, "OK, let's say I grant that everything you say is true. What follows from that?" Do I need to explain how that works for you?

Ironically, what follows from every single citation he offered is a conclusion that makes my point.

Seriously, just stick to Wikipedia as your source of knowledge and stop wasting my time.

 

[We are Borg]

Not sure what you were drinking when you posted this, @We are Borg, but I'll just say this:

1. I already addressed the issue of Evolution. This thread has nothing to do with Evolution so not sure why you keep bringing it up. The issue is the origin of life. Evolution, by definition, has nothing to say about it ... so, neither do I.

2. I don't have the time nor the motivation to debate every side issue or go down every rabbit hole you've introduced here ... so, I won't.

3. You don't like the way God did things. You'd do it differently. Well, welcome to the club. But that's theology ... so, see 2.

That said, I appreciate that, unlike most of your brethren here, you and @AronRa are at least thoughtful respectful. Still devoid of any evidence for a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life without intelligent intervention though. Just crickets on that front ... especially from the highly-esteemed "Administrator."

Cheers ...

1. So you want to talk how life started there are scientists that did research on this. We know more then 25 years ago and we are still learning and you know what God is not in the equation at all. Talking or watching at creationists i always get a feeling that they think life started at one point on the planet, while this is true in a sense. But the whole planet was an incubator to create life it could be that life started at multiple places but only a few would be where it was going to proceed.

2. ….

3. Well i do not know theology (i know almost nothing only what i learned at a Christian school) like many here.

There is enough evidence how it all started but you are not interested because you are close minded. Even if we find 100% prove how it all started you only want to believe you will always default to your believe.

Lets say we can roll everything back when the universe was created science say it was an atom with high energy, you say it was God. But now answer these questions.

1. Where did the atom come from.
2. Where did God come from.
3. The atom could it be some sort of evolution it not alive but could we talk about it in this sense.
4. Does God have a family like parent(s).

Its not so easy as it seems its a loop that cant be easily solved.

Why do i trust science instead of religion, i want to live my life as i want not how its said in the Bible. I know what is right or wrong i have been thought that by my parents, family teachers etc. i do not need a book that was written by humans that did not know anything at all. Funny enough if we rewrite the Bible now with the knowledge we have in 10000 years the will say what where they thinking. If you read the Bible its insane to say the least if God did everything it says then sorry to say God is a prick to begin with, if we place God on a trail (human) he would be found guilty. For me personally a good God would be that teaches like if you do a it results in b, if i want to try x and not ready for it God would say no not yet you need to go back to k tonend up with x else its to dangerous. God is omni everything but in the Bible nothing shows for omniscience.

 

[Av8torbob]

See my previous comments about changing the subject and rabbit holes.

Well i do not know theology (i know almost nothing …

I understand. You’ve made that very clear.

i want to live my life as i want

Of course you do. We were created as free will beings. We make choices … and have to live with the consequences. Some of those consequences are eternal.

As C. S. Lewis put it: “The gates of hell are locked from the inside.”

As a fellow human being made in the image of God, I wish you well. I hope you someday get past the experiences that have led you to see the world in such a hopeless, sterile way, and that you continue to seek the Truth.

Cheers

 

[*SD*]

I understand. You’ve made that very clear.

Naww, now who's being sassy? Again.

Of course you do. We were created as free will beings.

Were we?

Some of those consequences are eternal.

Is that right, Bob? What's the evidence for these 'eternal' consequences? Oh yeah, you already said you aren't going to provide any.

As C. S. Lewis put it: “The gates of hell are locked from the inside.”

As I put it, C.S. Lewis' thoughts are of little to no interest. But aside from that, what evidence is there that 'Hell' exists? What evidence is there that it has gates? What evidence is there that those gates are locked from the inside? Oh yeah, you already said you aren't going to provide any.

As a fellow human being made in the image of God

Unless you mean that 'God' looks like a monkey, which of course isn't what you mean, what's the evidence that humans are made in the image of 'God', Bob? Oh yeah, you already said you aren't going to provide any.

and that you continue to seek the Truth.

Sure Bob, some of us are indeed interested in that pursuit. Are you? Oh yeah, it's manifestly clear you aren't. Shame, shame.

 

[Av8torbob]

Naww, now who's being sassy? Again.



Were we?



Is that right, Bob? What's the evidence for these 'eternal' consequences? Oh yeah, you already said you aren't going to provide any.



As I put it, C.S. Lewis' thoughts are of little to no interest. But aside from that, what evidence is there that 'Hell' exists? What evidence is there that it has gates? What evidence is there that those gates are locked from the inside? Oh yeah, you already said you aren't going to provide any.



Unless you mean that 'God' looks like a monkey, which of course isn't what you mean, what's the evidence that humans are made in the image of 'God', Bob? Oh yeah, you already said you aren't going to provide any.



Sure Bob, some of us are indeed interested in that pursuit. Are you? Oh yeah, it's manifestly clear you aren't. Shame, shame.

Rent free … inside your head.

 

[*SD*]

You wish, Bob, you wish.

 

[*SD*]

No answers to any of the questions? Of course you haven't. Why would you? How could you? You don't have them so I will concede it's unfair of me to request that which you don't possess.

 

[*SD*]

Bit like one of those court bailiffs you see on TV programmes isn't it? PAY UP OR ELSE! Well I ain't got it, never had it so you ain't gettin it! Nerr!

 

[We are Borg]

The problem is that like many that came before him he is not open to what others have to say and will not answer questions.

 

[Av8torbob]

The problem is that like many that came before him he is not open to what others have to say and will not answer questions.

I see your point. Everyone I’ve encountered on here has been extremely “open to what others have to say.” I’m overwhelmed by your collective “open mindedness.”

I’m also considering quitting my job so I can spend every waking minute answering any question, and descending down every rabbit hole, any of you can think up. Otherwise, I risk being accused of “not answering your questions.”

Seems reasonable

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Look at that. You are not ignoring me. That being the case, it would behoove you to address this next time you respond to me:

I saw your argument from ignorance. What of it? Did you see where I addressed your points about oxygen and RNA? Did you see where AronRa and *SD* corrected your misunderstanding about the Miller-Urey experiment? Will you admit to being wrong about the Miller-Urey experiment never being reproduced and debunked?

You realize that running for unanswered questions does not work on a written forum, right?

No, that's not what I'm saying. It's what the sources @AronRa cited are saying. It's what the SCIENTISTS are saying. Read the freaking articles.

I have read the articles, and they all say that they could happen naturally with a materialistic explanation. Remember that is what you said you were looking for.

Every step occurs because they design the initial conditions (which they admit "may" be like the actual ones), use artificially-created molecules, manipulate combinations of molecules and insert them at exactly the right time ...

Again, do you not understand that the scientists are just isolating variables? Are you unfamiliar with how science works?

and then announce that this "is how it could have happened."

Exactly. Those studies showed a naturalistic/materialistic path for it to happen. What are you not understanding about this?

I'm not knocking the scientists. Their work is phenomenal.

You can say that, but your actions show otherwise.

But to pretend that everything they're doing with human design teams proves that it all happened all by itself naturally is patently ridiculous.

So, what are they doing? Are they not showing that there is a natural/materialistic pathway for this to happen? Is that not what you asked to see? Again, do you think the scientists are wizards?

PRO TIP: The motherboard running your computer right now ... and the software that operates it ... were created by design teams. But they wouldn't appear naturally if you left all the pieces on your desk to do their own thing.

However, they are working under naturalistic/materialistic means. Is that not the point, or do you also think there is magic involved when using a computer?

Show me where I "called you a name."

Easy:

He who Googles “abiogenesis” (because he’s apparently never heard the word before) wants to lecture me about “facts and evidence.”

[Emphesis added.]

Your link takes us to where I called you out for googling "abiogenesis" and thought that meant you had answered the question. I said that was comical ... and it still is. But that's not name-calling; it's bluff-calling.

Yes, name-calling. I quoted it above and emphasized the actual insult. Now, if you just "called me out" for googling, that would be one thing, but you also when on to call me a name. But, again, I only bring this up because of your tone policing. I always find it funny how someone clutches their pearls while slinging mud at the other swine.

Beyond that, the Wikipedia page has thus far addressed every objection you have come up with. That is obvious since you have to ignore questions I keep posting at the beginning of my responses to you. Less we forget how you arrogantly and ignorantly said the Miller-Urey experiment as falsified and never recreated right before backtracking on that. The only one I see bluffing is you, and you are failing at it.

You're a liar ...

Where did I lie?

​

which is why I will be ignoring you going forward.

Seriously, dude. Can you comprehend English? I "agreed" with @AronRa's points for the sake of argument. Maybe it's beyond your ability to understand but it's a way of saying, "OK, let's say I grant that everything you say is true. What follows from that?" Do I need to explain how that works for you?

You never did that, and when I asked if this was what you were doing, you ignored it. Thus far, all you have done is admit that AronRa has been correct about what he has cited. Are you trying to backtrack again? In addition, even if this is the case, and you are granting this evidence only for the sake of argument, the conclusion would still follow that abiogenesis has a naturalistic/materialistic pathway. You have failed to show anything to counter that besides arguing from your ignorance.

Ironically, what follows from every single citation he offered is a conclusion that makes my point.

Wrong. What follows from all his citation is that there is a naturalistic/materialistic path for abiogenesis. If you accept the conclusions so far, you have to admit that.

Seriously, just stick to Wikipedia as your source of knowledge and stop wasting my time.

Since Wikipedia has already exceeded your knowledge, as you admitted, I guess this is an admission that any new information against your preconceived notions is a waste of your time. Sad.

Lets say we can roll everything back when the universe was created science say it was an atom with high energy...

Science does not say it was an atom.

 

[*SD*]

But you don't have anything to say, Bob. That's the issue. Yes, you do post words, the problem is they're devoid of content. If you have something substantive to say, we're quite happy to hear it. Aside from your OP (as if that wasn't revealing enough) your main undoing was when you stated you weren't going to defend any position of your own. You made clear you wanted to be provided with information, that information was provided free of charge. Then you decided to continue being silly and not engage with the responses.

 

[We are Borg]

I see your point. Everyone I’ve encountered on here has been extremely “open to what others have to say.” I’m overwhelmed by your collective “open mindedness.”

I’m also considering quitting my job so I can spend every waking minute answering any question, and descending down every rabbit hole, any of you can think up. Otherwise, I risk being accused of “not answering your questions.”

Seems reasonable

Yet you want to waste time of others if you can’t answer simple questions we do not know what you all ready know. People here no both sides better then you know the side you are on, like Aron says read the Bible cover to back and think critically. Will give an example

2. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

First empty but there was water so its not empty.

3. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
4. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.

Would God who is omni everything not know before he created light that it was good.

There so many thing in the Bible that let you know it was written by man without any God whispering into someone’s ear.

So if you want to learn at least answer Aron’s questions he is more busy then us, we can wait until you have more time or when you do not want to waste anyone time.

 

[Av8torbob]

Easy:

Yes, name-calling. I quoted it above and emphasized the actual insult. Now, if you just "called me out" for googling, that would be one thing, but you also when on to call me a name. But, again, I only bring this up because of your tone policing. I always find it funny how someone clutches their pearls while slinging mud at the other swine.

Beyond that, the Wikipedia page has thus far addressed every objection you have come up with. That is obvious since you have to ignore questions I keep posting at the beginning of my responses to you. Less we forget how you arrogantly and ignorantly said the Miller-Urey experiment as falsified and never recreated right before backtracking on that. The only one I see bluffing is you, and you are failing at it.

Where did I lie?

Is English your second language maybe? You lied when you said I "called you a name." And you continue to tell the same lie.

See, normally, name-calling is associated with ... well, with ... calling someone a name. Read the quote you shared. Where is the name I called you?

Here ... since Wikipedia seems to define the extent of your knowledge on things, they have a page for that too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_calling

You already used this. Do you just think it's hilarious or are you really out of material? At least you deepened your research capability from beyond Wikipedia to include GIFs. But they do have more than one, just so you know.

Science does not say it was an atom.

This wasn't me. It was your rocket scientist buddy, @We are Borg ... It's so ridiculous I just chose to ignore it. Didn't want to make him feel bad ... but I'm not going to let you attribute it to me.

 

[Av8torbob]

First empty but there was water so its not empty.


Would God who is omni everything not know before he created light that it was good.

There so many thing in the Bible that let you know it was written by man without any God whispering into someone’s ear.

Hey man, you've already acknowledged your ignorance about theology and that you "know nothing about it" (your words).

Not sure why you feel the need to continue to prove your point?

We get it. Stop embarrassing yourself.