Thread: So, I think Christians are stupid.

Originally Posted by Mario92

This post is comprised of a whopping sea of assertions.

That post is not intended for you, leave it alone please.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Actually if you had read the intro to my post attacking the use of your sources, you would have seen that I didn't reply to your post because I would have to end up repeating myself yet again. This is because you seem to have this tendency of pushing aside the reading comprehension skills you learned in elementary school and focusing on what you want to read in my posts instead of what is actually there. Case in point: your constant use of the phrase (or something similar to it) "WHY DO YOU BELIEVE IN THIS WITHOUT EVIDENCE," when of course myself and others have reiterated our position countless times regarding our thoughts on the subject at hand.

Ah yea that right. I remember how that one played out. Remember this?

• You- Give it time we'll figure it out.
• Me- How are you so sure what are you basing this confidence on?
• You- Scientist track records and previous scientific discoveries we've made.
• Me- Abiogenesis isn't science. It's not testable, repeatable, nor has it ever been observed. So what are you basing this on?
• You- Give it time we'll figure it out.
• Me- :p
• You- why do I have to keep repeating myself?

Yea what's the point because it's apparent we are not going to get as far as this anyway. You'll just keep going around in circles as you've been doing whenever I ask you this question.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

Let's not try to shift the conversation. This is about the use of your sources, not mine (or lack of). Anyway, yes, source(s) as plural. I stated source(s) as plural since you used multiple sources, which is necessary when speaking English.

You seriously are cracking me up. Do you even read the stuff you type here? You didn't state just source(s) you stated "Anti-abiogenesis source(s). Stop trying to cover up your wrong doings. You claim I used anti-abiogenesis source(s). Which mean you are laying the claim that more than (ONE) of my sources were anti-abiogenesis. Stop trying to clean that one up, because the more you do the larger that hole you're digging for yourself becomes.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

And again, if you had read the intro to my original post, you would see what I meant when I said "anti-abiogenesis sources." Looks like I'll have to repeat myself.

Of course, they aren't really anti-abiogenesis sources at all (except for one).

So to answer your question, you cited only one real anti-abiogenesis source, namely the anti-evolution one by Mastropaolo who used Yockey as a reference.

I don't get your logic here. Why would you say I was using anti-abiogenesis sources and then take it back and say. "Oh no it was only one that was anti-abiogenesis the rest were ok". What point does it make to try and confuse readers like that?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

What puzzles me is your use of the other two sources, namely the ones by Crick and Orgel, as they aren't anti-abiogenesis sources whatsoever.

Ok so let me get this straight. So now you have problem and are obviously confused about me using Scientific sources by credited Scientist? So are you saying I should cite Anti-abiogenesis sources instead of Scientific soucres? Because when I cite Scientific sources you become puzzled....LMAO! too funny.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

The link you provided above doesn't match the one Mastropaolo used in his article. You gave me Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, whereas Mastropaolo used Information Theory and Molecular Biology. Obviously I looked at the References area since I know which source he used, wheres you don't.

My apologies I uploaded the wrong book. I'll get his other book uploaded later for you to download.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

And I'm being neither petty nor evasive. You gave us every reason to be skeptical of the information within the Mastropaolo article, and that was my point in the description I gave.

You are being petty and evasive again. I've posted 6 links., one of which was biased as geared toward creation. You need to sniff the bile you're spitting out yourself because based off your sources below you've cited TalkOrigins and you cannot get any more atheist/anti creationist than that piece of misleading propaganda.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

While I appreciate your generosity (which hasn't been wasted, as I've downloaded the book), the book you provided is not the same as the one used in the Mastropaolo article. You've done this twice now, meaning you've given me Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life instead of Information Theory and Molecular Biology.

I did link the wrong wrong book. My apologies, I'll get Information Theory and Molecular Biology uploaded so you can download that one. Nevertheless Origin of Life is a great read and Yockey is not a creationist if that makes it easier for you to hold on to it and read some of it.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

I think you mean the former. And its not my job to go digging for your sources when you fail to provide them. The fact remains that I can't find it (even searching a second time).

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I meant the latter and the source is right in your face. Now if you want to cross reference the quoted materials then perhaps you should visit your local bookstore check out the book and see what it says. They made it extremely easy for you. Right down to the page number.

I would also like to point out that the original source you used for Crick (here) is not Crick's book Life Itself.

Well Crick's book is not found [email protected] but it's ok for them to source it there? But no one else can source the book? Give me a break dude. This is what I mean by petty.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

Due to an incomplete source citation on Page 14 (post here, source here), I had to dig a little to find the actual source (here) of the quote you used by Dr. Stanley Miller.

Let me correct you. You mean post here source here. Also, it's page 15 not 14.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

So as we all know, the reason you say there is no geological evidence for a primordial Earth is due to a quote by Dr. Stanley Miller.

Yea, and the fact that Geologist has never found any evidence for a primordial Earth before. Unless you want to present something from a respected geologist that says otherwise.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

On page 14, you said:

For one, we have absolutely no geological evidence for a primordial soup.

And you used the following (if incorrectly cited) as support:

There is no geological evidence for the physical setting of the origin of life because there are no unmetamorphosed rocks from that period. - Dr. Stanley Miller

The source is from a paper by Dr. Miller titled The Origin of Life - Did it Occur at High Temperatures? from 1995. Here is what the abstract says, with the relevant quote in bold.

A high-temperature origin of life has been proposed, largely for the reason that the hyperthermophiles are claimed to be the last common ancestor of modern organisms. Even if they are the oldest extant organisms, which is in dispute, their existence can say nothing about the temperatures of the origin of life, the RNA world, and organisms preceding the hyperthermophiles. There is no geological evidence for the physical setting of the origin of life because there are no unmetamorphosed rocks from that period. Prebiotic chemistry points to a low-temperature origin because most biochemicals decompose rather rapidly at temperatures of 100°C (e.g., half-lives are 73 rain for ribose, 21 days for cytosine, and 204 days for adenine). Hyperthermophiles may appear at the base of some phylogenetic trees because they outcompeted the mesophiles when they adapted to lower temperatures, possibly due to enhanced production of heat-shock proteins.

Judging by the title, abstract, and entirety of the paper, it appears Miller is talking about the possibility of life occurring at high temperatures. This leaves one wondering why you would use it as a source showing a lack of evidence for a primordial Earth. Even if we take the quote on its own, Miller is not saying there is no evidence for a primordial Earth. What is he saying, however, is that "there is no geological evidence for the physical setting of the origin of life because there are no unmetamorphosed rocks from that period," and he's using it in the context of a high-temperature origin of life, NOT in the context of a primordial Earth.

Do we have evidence for a primordial Earth?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

And if you try to use Miller's section on the physical setting of the origin of life in the paper, don't bother. Miller says:[INDENT]Many strong statements have been made about the primitive Earth, but there is no direct geological evidence for any of these hypotheses, since there are no rocks older than 3.8 x 10 9 years. Calculations of atmospheric and planetary formation models, however meritorious, do not constitute evidence.

I don't get you. Why are you jumping through so many hoops to try to explain away something I've stated from Stanely Miller's quote only to state the exact same thing later? The part in bold up there is what I've focused on and all you did here was just reiterate it. So once again, do we have geological evidence for a primordial Earth?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

What? This is a totally incoherent reply. Did you understand what I said in my original post? I was not merely asserting my opinion, I was telling you exactly what Orgel was doing in his paper in an attempt to show you how incorrectly you were using him as an anti-abiogenesis source.

I wasn't using Orgel as an anti-abiogenesis source. I believe Orgel was being honest and sincere in his work and he expressed what he felt. Now if what he has expressed strikes a nerve and makes you feel uneasy then, oh well, get over it. He made the statement it's in black and white, live with it.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

Again, this is what he stated he would do in the abstract of the paper:

I examine the plausibility of theories that postulate the development of complex chemical organization without requiring the replication of genetic polymers such as RNA.

And this is what he says in relation to postulating a suite of "fortuitously catalyzed reactions":

One possible saving hypothesis is that the molecules that are the carriers of the cycle are also catalysts for the difficult reactions of the cycle. Unfortunately, catalytic reactions of the required kind in aqueous solution are virtually unknown; there is no reason to believe, for example, that any intermediate of the citric acid cycle would specifically catalyze any reaction of the citric acid cycle. The explanation of this is simple: noncovalent interactions between small molecules in aqueous solution are generally too weak to permit large and regiospecific catalytic accelerations. To postulate one fortuitously catalyzed reaction, perhaps catalyzed by a metal ion, might be reasonable, but to postulate a suite of them is to appeal to magic.

Suite of catalyzed reactions = appeal to magic does not equal abiogenesis = appeal to magic.

Is this not Origin of life Research that Orgel was conducting at the time? I know he wasn't just in the lab lollygagging around. He was conducting this research for a reason. Even if the reason is not entirely (OOLR) related, I'm more than sure it weights heavy on (OOLR) seeing as Orgel was a prominent senior fellow of the (OOLR) This was his work.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

I see one creationist source at the bottom. You said you weren't citing Mastropaolo, but rather Yockey. My issue is the following:

His case would've been stronger had he linked us to Yockey's book and not an anti-evolution article by a creationist.

This issue, however, will be rectified once you link us to Yockey's book Information Theory and Molecular Biology.

And you just linked talkorigins. Tit for tat.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

My sources, which, as you rightly said, haven't been cited. However, I have referred to the following throughout this thread:

- Anticipating an RNA world. Some past speculations on the origin of life: where are they today?
- The Origin of Life
- Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations
- YouTube - The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis by cdk007
- YouTube - 3 - The Origin of Life Made Easy
- YouTube - Abiogenesis: The Origin Of Life
- YouTube - How Abiogenesis Works
- Letter from Darwin to Hooker
- Abiogenesis
- Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Miller

The rest are fine but I have a problem with this one.
TalkOrigins.org

I think I'm going to pitch a hissy fit about you using this as a source because it's atheist propaganda and highly misleading...lol Nah I really don't care about you using talkorigins. I'm not as petty as you. :p

Also, this:

Originally Posted by MindGames

I don't see how 200,000 year old human remains fit into a 60,000 year time frame.

Oldest Human Remains Found | News | English

Nor do 400,000 year old human remains.

World’s Oldest Human Remains Found in Israel - TIME NewsFeed

That post is not intended for you, leave it alone please.

No. Reply to my post. It's really quite brief and shouldn't pose much of a challenge at all for someone so sure of themselves as yourself.

Originally Posted by Mario92

No. Reply to my post. It's really quite brief and shouldn't pose much of a challenge at all for someone so sure of themselves as yourself.

Don't worry, I'll get to your post once we're done.

In the mean time for your patience, here's a complimentary internet *fist-bump*



and to you, a great day fine sir.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Ah yea that right. I remember how that one played out. Remember this?

• You- Give it time we'll figure it out.
• Me- How are you so sure what are you basing this confidence on?
• You- Scientist track records and previous scientific discoveries we've made.
• Me- Abiogenesis isn't science. It's not testable, repeatable, nor has it ever been observed. So what are you basing this on?
• You- Give it time we'll figure it out.
• Me- :p
• You- why do I have to keep repeating myself?

Yea what's the point because it's apparent we are not going to get as far as this anyway. You'll just keep going around in circles as you've been doing whenever I ask you this question.

Going around in circles repeating what I've already said in the past due to your willful ignorance of what I've said in the past, yes. But sure, let's drop it as its going nowhere.

You seriously are cracking me up. Do you even read the stuff you type here? You didn't state just source(s) you stated "Anti-abiogenesis source(s). Stop trying to cover up your wrong doings. You claim I used anti-abiogenesis source(s). Which mean you are laying the claim that more than (ONE) of my sources were anti-abiogenesis. Stop trying to clean that one up, because the more you do the larger that hole you're digging for yourself becomes.

I'm going to say this clearly so you understand exactly where I'm coming from. You had used various sources and made the claim that they proved scientists and mathematicians alike deem abiogenesis impossible. When I wrote my original critique of your use of them as sources, I had stated you used anti-abiogenesis sources. What I meant by this, and I thought this was clear, was that you were using sources that at first glance looked as though scientists and mathematicians deemed abiogenesis impossible. So in essence, they were anti-abiogenesis sources considering how you used them. I then stated that they were not actually anti-abiogenesis sources, with the exception of one. I then went on to show how they were not anti-abiogenesis sources because they did not help your case. I hope that's clear now. I'm not trying to sugarcoat anything, or cover anything up, or deliberately confuse people, etc.

I don't get your logic here. Why would you say I was using anti-abiogenesis sources and then take it back and say. "Oh no it was only one that was anti-abiogenesis the rest were ok". What point does it make to try and confuse readers like that?

See above.

Ok so let me get this straight. So now you have problem and are obviously confused about me using Scientific sources by credited Scientist? So are you saying I should cite Anti-abiogenesis sources instead of Scientific soucres? Because when I cite Scientific sources you become puzzled....LMAO! too funny.

See above.

My apologies I uploaded the wrong book. I'll get his other book uploaded later for you to download.

Thanks.

You are being petty and evasive again. I've posted 6 links., one of which was biased as geared toward creation. You need to sniff the bile you're spitting out yourself because based off your sources below you've cited TalkOrigins and you cannot get any more atheist/anti creationist than that piece of misleading propaganda.

Now this statement is rather confusing from my point of view. As you know, I cited two articles from TalkOrigins, one regarding the mathematical improbability of abiogenesis, and one regarding abiogenesis as a whole. Both articles are fairly scientific, especially the one regarding abiogenesis as a whole. I'm just skimming over both articles now and I don't really see how either of them could be considered atheist or misleading propaganda. The article by Albrecht Moritz concerning abiogenesis as a whole has the following statement which might look offensive simply because of the way its worded:

Based on research in the field it is proposed here how, once a self-replicating genetic molecule existed, life might have started and gradual evolution of complexity was made possible – in contrast to the sudden appearance of complexity that creationists claim to have been necessary at the beginning of life.

I suppose at first glance, one may deem that offensive. But it really isn't, at least from my point of view. I don't particularly see anything in it that screams "ATHEIST PROPAGANDA." It seems to merely be a summary of what some creationists claim about the origins of life. And just glancing at the article concerning the mathematical probability of abiogenesis doesn't really show anything screaming "ATHEIST PROPAGANDA" either. Sure, the title (Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations) may seem strongly-worded, but again, I see nothing in it that even remotely compares to the article by Mastropaolo you cited. The entire mantra of the site is "Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy." Judging by the two articles I've cited (and even the FAQ they have about Kent Hovind!), the discussion of topics seems to be rather even-handed.

I did link the wrong wrong book. My apologies, I'll get Information Theory and Molecular Biology uploaded so you can download that one. Nevertheless Origin of Life is a great read and Yockey is not a creationist if that makes it easier for you to hold on to it and read some of it.

Thanks.

I meant the latter and the source is right in your face. Now if you want to cross reference the quoted materials then perhaps you should visit your local bookstore check out the book and see what it says. They made it extremely easy for you. Right down to the page number.

You meant the former. I originally said:

So either I suck at finding it, or it isn't in the source.

The latter would be "it isn't in the source." The former would be "I suck at finding it." Anyway, the fact remains that the quote (which I did indeed search for in the scientific journal you cited) isn't in the journal, but rather the book. I suppose that now this issue is settled, we may drop it.

Well Crick's book is not found [email protected] but it's ok for them to source it there? But no one else can source the book? Give me a break dude. This is what I mean by petty.

Actually TalkOrigins did quote and cite Crick's book, right after the quote you used in this thread previously: (Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88). I didn't say no one else could source the book. I was pointing out that you gave me an article that only mentions Crick from a science journal. It didn't contain the quote you used, which is actually from Crick's book.

Also, I'm glad you pointed out that Quote Mining page, as it discredits your use of Crick as a source for abiogenesis being impossible:

Crick: "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle."

TalkOrigins: Again there is an unmarked deletion, this time at the end, following right after "miracle,":

Crick: ". . . so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."

TalkOrigins: Crick's book is about his proposition that life on Earth may have been the result of "directed panspermia." It should be noted that, in the book, he assumes that the aliens who he posits might be "seeding" the universe are, themselves, the product of evolution. In this quote, Crick is simply pointing out how, in the absence of evidence, the appearance of life on Earth might seem like a miracle. But he specifically admits that abiogenesis may have occurred on Earth as a result of ordinary chemical processes that require no resort to outside intelligence. Leaving out that part of it, by cutting off what immediately follows, is deeply dishonest.

Let me correct you. You mean post here source here. Also, it's page 15 not 14.

You originally used Miller's quote on Page 14, and again on Page 15. And I linked to the full text of Miller's paper instead of the abstract, which is what you linked to.

Yea, and the fact that Geologist has never found any evidence for a primordial Earth before. Unless you want to present something from a respected geologist that says otherwise.

Do we have evidence for a primordial Earth?

I don't know why you're asking this question as I've not stated anything about the primordial soup hypothesis other than what Darwin proposed in 1871, and how Yockey was a critic of the concept.

I don't get you. Why are you jumping through so many hoops to try to explain away something I've stated from Stanely Miller's quote only to state the exact same thing later? The part in bold up there is what I've focused on and all you did here was just reiterate it. So once again, do we have geological evidence for a primordial Earth?

I'm showing you that you're using your sources incorrectly.

I wasn't using Orgel as an anti-abiogenesis source. I believe Orgel was being honest and sincere in his work and he expressed what he felt. Now if what he has expressed strikes a nerve and makes you feel uneasy then, oh well, get over it. He made the statement it's in black and white, live with it.

You cited him in your reply to Mario where you said mathematicians and scientists think abiogenesis is impossible. And you're right, he did make a statement, it is in black and white, and it's clear he was speaking of something quite different than what you thought he was.

Is this not Origin of life Research that Orgel was conducting at the time? I know he wasn't just in the lab lollygagging around. He was conducting this research for a reason. Even if the reason is not entirely (OOLR) related, I'm more than sure it weights heavy on (OOLR) seeing as Orgel was a prominent senior fellow of the (OOLR) This was his work.

I'm not understanding the point.

And you just linked talkorigins. Tit for tat.

Explained previously.

The rest are fine but I have a problem with this one.
TalkOrigins.org

I think I'm going to pitch a hissy fit about you using this as a source because it's atheist propaganda and highly misleading...lol Nah I really don't care about you using talkorigins. I'm not as petty as you. :p

Also explained previously.

You are arguing like the truth or falsity of abiogenesis has any relevent bearing on the existence or non-existence of god or the truth or falsity of christianity. It is nearly completely irrelevant one way or the other.

Except that the conversation in the last several pages has been about abiogenesis.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

You are arguing like the truth or falsity of abiogenesis has any relevent bearing on the existence or non-existence of god or the truth or falsity of christianity. It is nearly completely irrelevant one way or the other.

Thankfully, science can still be used to irrefutably discredit some variants of that religion. Ne-yo's is apparently one of them.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Thank you for proving my point. 1 out of 6 sources was creation biased. However, look again, I didn't quote the article as a whole. I quoted a reference by Hubert Yockey that was in turn cited, as a reference in that particular article.

Then cite the source directly instead of linking to a biased creationist article that has engaged in some staggering quote mining. You're missing the whole point of citations if you're only referring to a source of a source.

It's rather revealing that you appear to be frequenting such sites for ammunition though, I have to say.

I have no idea what you are talking about, Hubert Yockey is a Physicist with a highly accredited scientific record. Get your facts straight.

See above.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

It's rather revealing that you appear to be frequenting such sites for ammunition though, I have to say.

No more frequent than you atheist running to talkorigins all the time to fill up on more of your misleading and creation/Christianity hatred propaganda.

Also, this:

Originally Posted by MindGames

I don't see how 200,000 year old human remains fit into a 60,000 year time frame.

Oldest Human Remains Found | News | English

Nor do 400,000 year old human remains.

World’s Oldest Human Remains Found in Israel - TIME NewsFeed

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

The first man Adam was created on Earth some 13.75 Billion years after the Universe was brought into existence.

And how long ago exactly was that from today?

I don't have an approximate time because one is not given in the Scriptures but I believe it's somewhere between 10,000 and 60,000 years ago give or take some thousands.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

No more frequent than you atheist running to talkorigins all the time to fill up on more of your misleading and creation/Christianity hatred propaganda.

Accusing an entire group and a respected website of using "hatred propaganda" without backing that up is rather libelous of you. So, back that statement up or retract it.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

No more frequent than you atheist running to talkorigins all the time to fill up on more of your misleading and creation/Christianity hatred propaganda.

Can't say I've ever heard of this site.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Can't say I've ever heard of this site.

:p

Btw. Did you ever bump it?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Going around in circles repeating what I've already said in the past due to your willful ignorance of what I've said in the past, yes. But sure, let's drop it as its going nowhere.

Ahhh, so now you say let's drop it. Now that's a blatant dodge attempt. The entire foundation of our debate is based on that question that you now want to drop. You haven not stated one logical reason why you believe in abiogenesis. You say, "I don't believe in it". Then why are you arguing against me regarding it's validity if you have no belief in it. If you have no belief nor if you support the hypothesis of such a concept then why even waste your time? You can't drop this. Two questions in this paragraph requires an answer.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

I'm going to say this clearly so you understand exactly where I'm coming from. You had used various sources and made the claim that they proved scientists and mathematicians alike deem abiogenesis impossible. When I wrote my original critique of your use of them as sources, I had stated you used anti-abiogenesis sources. What I meant by this, and I thought this was clear, was that you were using sources that at first glance looked as though scientists and mathematicians deemed abiogenesis impossible. So in essence, they were anti-abiogenesis sources considering how you used them.

What you do not understand is essentially this. Just because I produced mathematicians that gives mathematical uncertainties regarding events that could transpire doesn't make it automatically anti-abiogenesis. Abiogenesis just so happens to fall under that category deemed as impossible events when compared Borel's law of probability. It does not in anyway make it anti-abiogenesis.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

I then stated that they were not actually anti-abiogenesis sources, with the exception of one. I then went on to show how they were not anti-abiogenesis sources because they did not help your case. I hope that's clear now. I'm not trying to sugarcoat anything, or cover anything up, or deliberately confuse people, etc.

It obviously doesn't support your case. Come to think of it, what is your case exactly? For a person who doesn't believe in abiogenesis you sure put a lot of effort into defending it with your wall to wall text. So what you're stating is, that after you showed how my sources did not so-call help my case then at that very moment you confirmed that they were not anti-abiogenesis sources?..lol Dude whatever you're smoking it must be good and I want some of that. Here's a wake up call my friend. They were not anti-abiogenesis sources to start with.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

See above.

Yup, agreed this falls into the above paragraphs.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

What puzzles me is your use of the other two sources, namely the ones by Crick and Orgel, as they aren't anti-abiogenesis sources whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Ok so let me get this straight. So now you have problem and are obviously confused about me using Scientific sources by credited Scientist? So are you saying I should cite Anti-abiogenesis sources instead of Scientific soucres? Because when I cite Scientific sources you become puzzled....LMAO! too funny.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

See above.

However this one does not. It also contradicts what you've stated previously here.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

but shouldn't we be looking for sources by biologists who actually work in the field(s) concerning the origins of life?

This looks like you're saying, We should utilize sources from biologist who works in the field doing Origin of Life research. Only to then in-turn say, I'm puzzle as to why you are using biologist as sources who works in the field doing Origin of Life research. You see how contradictory you look here?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

Thanks.

no problem

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

Now this statement is rather confusing from my point of view. As you know, I cited two articles from TalkOrigins, one regarding the mathematical improbability of abiogenesis, and one regarding abiogenesis as a whole. Both articles are fairly scientific, especially the one regarding abiogenesis as a whole. I'm just skimming over both articles now and I don't really see how either of them could be considered atheist or misleading propaganda. The article by Albrecht Moritz concerning abiogenesis as a whole has the following statement which might look offensive simply because of the way its worded:

The reference material that's cited within talkorigins is probably not atheist biased in the same way that Hubert Yockey's reference from that one article I cited is not creation biased. However, TalkOrigins has a whole, is definitely an Atheist go to source for ammunition. You and I both know this.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

Based on research in the field it is proposed here how, once a self-replicating genetic molecule existed, life might have started and gradual evolution of complexity was made possible – in contrast to the sudden appearance of complexity that creationists claim to have been necessary at the beginning of life.

But if you think about it, doesn't it seem like a sudden appearance of complexity to you? See that's one of my main points as well. Evolution apparently starts extremely fast and then appears to slow down for whatever reason. What we see is a great deal of complexity very Early in Earth's history. It appears to me that complexity was already established here on Earth extremely early in (her) history. If a warm Earth somehow gave chemical reactions that extra boost then we have billions of years of elapsed time that becomes a major implication with regards to the first organisms arrival on the scene. That's a significantly large period of time that needs to be accounted for to explain the diverse and complex life thats here on Earth today.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

Actually TalkOrigins did quote and cite Crick's book, right after the quote you used in this thread previously: (Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88). I didn't say no one else could source the book. I was pointing out that you gave me an article that only mentions Crick from a science journal. It didn't contain the quote you used, which is actually from Crick's book.

Nevertheless we agree it's Crick's quote.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

Also, I'm glad you pointed out that Quote Mining page, as it discredits your use of Crick as a source for abiogenesis being impossible:

But what's it to you anyway if it states the impossibility of abiogenesis on any given level? Do you believe that life is a product of non-living matter and chance? With no evidence to support this belief then what are you essentially basing it on? You also say that because the other options #1 being Panspermia and #2 being Intelligent Creator, does not seem feasible.

• #1 Panspermia - Just pushes the question out toward space and doesn't answer anything.
• #2 Intelligent creation - There is no evidence.
• #3 Abiogenesis - There is no evidence.

This is as far as we've gotten with this. So once again, No evidence for #2 or #3. Why is #3 more feasible to you?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

Crick: "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle."

TalkOrigins: Again there is an unmarked deletion, this time at the end, following right after "miracle,":

Crick: ". . . so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."

TalkOrigins: Crick's book is about his proposition that life on Earth may have been the result of "directed panspermia." It should be noted that, in the book, he assumes that the aliens who he posits might be "seeding" the universe are, themselves, the product of evolution. In this quote, Crick is simply pointing out how, in the absence of evidence, the appearance of life on Earth might seem like a miracle. But he specifically admits that abiogenesis may have occurred on Earth as a result of ordinary chemical processes that require no resort to outside intelligence. Leaving out that part of it, by cutting off what immediately follows, is deeply dishonest.

Ok, I got this. So in Crick's book he believes that Life is the product of Panspermia(which is not feasible to you) by way of Aliens "seeding" the Earth with raw building materials. These Aliens are themselves a product of evolution. However, Crick also states that given the evidence we have today. Life's origin is the equivalent to that of miracle chances. Which means that Life as a possible result of abiogenesis appears at the moment to be a miracle. I don't see the problem with this. Does it help abiogenesis? No. perhaps that's your gripe.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

I don't know why you're asking this question as I've not stated anything about the primordial soup hypothesis other than what Darwin proposed in 1871, and how Yockey was a critic of the concept.

You're an atheist right? Do you think a premordial Earth existed before? Its a simple yes or no question, stop being so dodgy.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

You cited him in your reply to Mario where you said mathematicians and scientists think abiogenesis is impossible. And you're right, he did make a statement, it is in black and white, and it's clear he was speaking of something quite different than what you thought he was.

You're making it seem as if Crick was talking about Mickey Mouse or Bugs Bunny. Crick was talking about the Origin of Life. This is nothing different, it's the exact same topic. Crick says given the evidence we have to determine the origin of life is so extremely elusive, it makes life at the moment appear as miracle chances. Same topic, nothing is different here.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

I'm not understanding the point.

No problem.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

Suite of catalyzed reactions = appeal to magic does not equal abiogenesis = appeal to magic.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Is this not Origin of life Research that Orgel was conducting at the time? I know he wasn't just in the lab lollygagging around. He was conducting this research for a reason. Even if the reason is not entirely (OOLR) related, I'm more than sure it weights heavy on (OOLR) seeing as Orgel was a prominent senior fellow of the (OOLR) This was his work.

I'll put it this way. To postulate a suite of catalyzed reaction = Abiogenesis which he state appeals to magic.

Originally Posted by Mario92

1. What makes you so sure there's a god that transcends space/time?
2. Why does it have to be a god? Or even any sort of conscious entity? If you absolutely insist on some sort of transcendent...thing, then I propose that the universe is naturally driven to give birth to life wherever and whenever it can. Call it a hidden law, a transcendent essence of life, whatever. It is exactly as possible as your god. Oh yeah, and it isn't intelligent. And it isn't conscious nor sentient. And it is an inherent part of this universe.
3. Now honestly ask yourself...is this ANY less likely than your god? It would certainly explain away all your arguments for a creator of some sort, and take care of the origin issue.

Now note I don't believe this. I'm just tossing it out.

Here ya go.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Here ya go.

Dude, we've already answered these questions. What gives?

What do you think of the human remains and artifacts that have been found that are over 60,000 years old.

so easy to be an Atheist, lol. All you have to do is criticse everything and ask questions you yourself don't know :3
Yaaaaaaay.

Do you have a point or are you just trying to stir the pot?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

You haven not stated one logical reason why you believe in abiogenesis. You say, "I don't believe in it".

Uh, exactly. Why ask the question if you know what the answer is?

Then why are you arguing against me regarding it's validity if you have no belief in it. If you have no belief nor if you support the hypothesis of such a concept then why even waste your time? You can't drop this. Two questions in this paragraph requires an answer.

Actually I'm arguing with you regarding its developments and place in science.

What you do not understand is essentially this. Just because I produced mathematicians that gives mathematical uncertainties regarding events that could transpire doesn't make it automatically anti-abiogenesis. Abiogenesis just so happens to fall under that category deemed as impossible events when compared Borel's law of probability. It does not in anyway make it anti-abiogenesis.

As I said previously:

So in essence, they were anti-abiogenesis sources considering how you used them.

Your purpose was to use them in support of your claim that abiogenesis is impossible. Thus, in practice, they were anti-abiogenesis sources, but in reality, and I showed this rather extensively, they weren't.

I really don't understand what's so hard to understand about this. It's mere semantics. You don't like the way I phrased my post. Big deal. Get over it.

In relation to Borel's Law, I gave you some reading material about that.

It obviously doesn't support your case. Come to think of it, what is your case exactly? For a person who doesn't believe in abiogenesis you sure put a lot of effort into defending it with your wall to wall text. So what you're stating is, that after you showed how my sources did not so-call help my case then at that very moment you confirmed that they were not anti-abiogenesis sources?..lol Dude whatever you're smoking it must be good and I want some of that. Here's a wake up call my friend. They were not anti-abiogenesis sources to start with.

See above.

However this one does not. It also contradicts what you've stated previously here.

This looks like you're saying, We should utilize sources from biologist who works in the field doing Origin of Life research. Only to then in-turn say, I'm puzzle as to why you are using biologist as sources who works in the field doing Origin of Life research. You see how contradictory you look here?

Actually there's no contradiction. When I said we should be looking at sources by biologists who have worked in the abiogenesis field, it was in response to your use of Yockey (a physicist) as a source. I criticized you for using Crick and Orgel as sources to back up your claim since they don't help your case. Keep fishing.

The reference material that's cited within talkorigins is probably not atheist biased in the same way that Hubert Yockey's reference from that one article I cited is not creation biased. However, TalkOrigins has a whole, is definitely an Atheist go to source for ammunition. You and I both know this.

Not valid criticism. The types of people who visit a certain website for information does not necessarily make that website an [insert group here] source of ammunition. If a large amount of Buddhists visited TalkOrigins, it would not change from a science-based website to a Buddhist website. It caters to science, and science is all-encompassing.

But if you think about it, doesn't it seem like a sudden appearance of complexity to you? See that's one of my main points as well. Evolution apparently starts extremely fast and then appears to slow down for whatever reason. What we see is a great deal of complexity very Early in Earth's history. It appears to me that complexity was already established here on Earth extremely early in (her) history. If a warm Earth somehow gave chemical reactions that extra boost then we have billions of years of elapsed time that becomes a major implication with regards to the first organisms arrival on the scene. That's a significantly large period of time that needs to be accounted for to explain the diverse and complex life thats here on Earth today.

Early life on Earth would have been very simple. Modern cells use proteins to move molecules across their cells, whereas primitive cells probably did not. If the modern level of cell complexity had already existed, you would have to explain where they came from. Either you go from the spontaneous generation route, which was disproved, or you go for the ID route, which is an argument from ignorance. Or you could read one of the sources you gave which claims abiogenesis is mathematically impossible, then read the sources I gave regarding the claim, and figure out that all the mathematics show is that early life could not have been as complex as modern life. Given what we know from research done in abiogenesis, cells probably evolved from chemicals in various stages instead of jumping from chemicals to bacteria. The video by DonExodus2 I posted goes into this process further.

But what's it to you anyway if it states the impossibility of abiogenesis on any given level? Do you believe that life is a product of non-living matter and chance? With no evidence to support this belief then what are you essentially basing it on? You also say that because the other options #1 being Panspermia and #2 being Intelligent Creator, does not seem feasible.

• #1 Panspermia - Just pushes the question out toward space and doesn't answer anything.
• #2 Intelligent creation - There is no evidence.
• #3 Abiogenesis - There is no evidence.

This is as far as we've gotten with this. So once again, No evidence for #2 or #3. Why is #3 more feasible to you?

Not only is this irrelevant, but you do realize I answered these questions back on Pages 14-16, right?

Ok, I got this. So in Crick's book he believes that Life is the product of Panspermia(which is not feasible to you) by way of Aliens "seeding" the Earth with raw building materials. These Aliens are themselves a product of evolution. However, Crick also states that given the evidence we have today. Life's origin is the equivalent to that of miracle chances. Which means that Life as a possible result of abiogenesis appears at the moment to be a miracle. I don't see the problem with this. Does it help abiogenesis? No. perhaps that's your gripe.

I think you missed this part:

But he specifically admits that abiogenesis may have occurred on Earth as a result of ordinary chemical processes that require no resort to outside intelligence. Leaving out that part of it, by cutting off what immediately follows, is deeply dishonest.

In addition, the book was from 1982. I'm willing to bet a lot of developments have come about in 29 years.

You're an atheist right? Do you think a premordial Earth existed before? Its a simple yes or no question, stop being so dodgy.

This is not relevant to the current conversation.

You're making it seem as if Crick was talking about Mickey Mouse or Bugs Bunny. Crick was talking about the Origin of Life. This is nothing different, it's the exact same topic. Crick says given the evidence we have to determine the origin of life is so extremely elusive, it makes life at the moment appear as miracle chances. Same topic, nothing is different here.

What relevance is this to Orgel?

No problem.

I'll put it this way. To postulate a suite of catalyzed reaction = Abiogenesis which he state appeals to magic.

You can spin it any way you want, the fact remains that he was talking about "the development of complex chemical organization without requiring the replication of genetic polymers such as RNA" and not life from inorganic matter. In fact, look what I found in the paper you cited by Orgel!

Clearly, some complex chemistry must have “self-organized” on the primitive earth (or wherever else terrestrial life originated, if the panspermia hypothesis is correct) and facilitated the appearance of the RNA world.

Ain't that some shit.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Dude, we've already answered these questions. What gives?

I haven't seen them. Then again, I haven't had the time to comb through yours and Blueline's massive walls of text. So perhaps you could kindly just state them in a condensed format? kthxbai

Goddammitsmallpox.

Originally Posted by Mario92

I haven't seen them. Then again, I haven't had the time to comb through yours and Blueline's massive walls of text. So perhaps you could kindly just state them in a condensed format? kthxbai

Oh don't act like you don't want to see Ne-yo get caught not reading his sources.