The Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc. The Secret $1,000,000 Prize

by Deputy Dog 72 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  hooberus

  How does the presumed unlikelihood of abiogenesis here on Earth automatically translate into a confirmation of life being directly created by the personal god of the bible? Why overlook the possibility of having the right conditions elsewhere in the universe for life to arise naturally? At least there's some tangible evidence for that option. Bacteria have been shown to survive the vacuum of space and several organic precursors utilized by life as we know it has been detected in our nearby vicinity of outer space.

  
  

  
  Midget, Many of the the problems (chemical and mathematical) still remain for abiogenesis even if the possibility of numerous other locations in the universe are taken into account. The presence of some very simple organic precursers in space helps very little, since the main problems involve other things (such as assembly, functional sequencing, etc, etc.).
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  Midget, Many of the the problems (chemical and mathematical) still remain for abiogenesis even if the possibility of numerous other locations in the universe are taken into account. The presence of some very simple organic precursers in space helps very little, since the main problems involve other things (such as assembly, functional sequencing, etc, etc.).

  Well on the one hand: the mathematical and chemical hurdles of the very first steps can be met with the right set of environmental conditions. Its plausible that other worlds may have settings that are more condusive to such early stages. Amino acids have been detected deep within meteorites for example. Assembly of protein or nucleic acid chains can be done with straightforward condensation reactions. Catalytic RNAs/ribozymes demonstrate how one molecule can act as both self replicating code and enzyme, thereby eliminating the chicken and egg dilemma of which came first the code or the enzyme that replicates it. Thats a significant start.

  On the other hand: I have to agree with you that we're still in the dark on several very crucial steps. Going from the RNA world to the DNA world means a slew of other necessary enzymes and the genetic code for them. Then there's the matter of how metabolic pathways became established (along with the archived code for it) . But we at least have some tantalizing indicators and leads that can bring us closer to some answers. The missing pieces to the puzzle may be out there. Or not. I simply think all this extra bit of information means that this is still an option worthy of consideration and so one doesn't have to automatically cry out "creator god" by default.
• 

  Abaddon

  ellder who

  Deary dreary you; asking someone to repeat a sentence that wasn't comprehensible (or a sentence) is one thing, spellchecking when the word meant is obvious (even to a Creationist) is another. And I actually made points and arguments (unlike you) none of which you've responded to in any meaningful fashion. Other people can see you've evaded responding to anything meaningful, pity you don't have the will, guts or means to get down and enagage in a discussion.

  hooberus

  Any insights on the process of abiogodesis yet? Or do you use special pleading to avoid responding to a request for your theory of how god arrose? You could always use a quote from a website that confuses people with bad science and make them think Creationism is credible, all the while running a nice profit to swell the pockets of its Executive Officers with twice the salary of a comparable charitable institution. Or make excuses why you haven't refuted falsifications of Biblical chronolgy that show the Flood or Creation could not be literal accounts. Or blame wicked godless scientists for a cover-up?

  Consider my breath baited...
• 

  Spectrum

  Abaddon,
  
  The lungfish I imaging has lungs and walks on land, why is this not the holy grail to evolutionist?
• 

  Abaddon

  Spectrum

  I take it you mean 'imagine'. You can easily find out if it has lungs and legs if you really don't know, and if you don't know anything about it I'm curious you're making run-on speculations about what Evolutionists think about it.

  I take it that you have some questions over transitionals or macro evolution. Be more clear or specific in your question and I'd be happy to answer in brief and direct you to resources. Are you asking why the Lungfish is not an evolutionary Holy Grail? Or what?
• 

  Spectrum

  " Are you asking why the Lungfish is not an evolutionary Holy Grail? "
  
  Yes.
  
  I'm really not looking for a creation/evolution showdown! Can't you understand a simple question? Just messing with you!!
• 

  ellderwho

  And I actually made points and arguments (unlike you) none of which you've responded to in any meaningful fashion.

  Once again all you've done is danced around several problems with evolution, and why you continue on like evolution is problem free, is rife with ignorance.

  I mean look at the title of the thread, this was presented by your camp.

  All the other nonsense is fluff.
• 

  Abaddon

  ellderwho

  Once again all you've done is danced around several problems with evolution, and why you continue on like evolution is problem free, is rife with ignorance.

  I responded to them; the ones you posted were all arguments from ignorance, not a decent hypothesis or theory showing problems with evolutionary theory, and Behe's claim of irreducable complexity has been proven wrong. If you're too lazy to do the research you could ask and I'd be more than happy to point you in the direction of references.

  Oh - you can look up the phrase 'argument from ignorance' if you like; another term applied to such arguments is 'argument from personal incredulity'. They're fallacious arguments, and that has nothing to do with disagreements about oral sex.

  It is you claim this argument is put forward by 'my camp'. Exactly the dishonest tactics used by ID-ers in their 'wedge' startegy. How one website can represent 'my camp', I don't know, but it's typical of the quality of your claims.

  I say I don't care who put bad arguments forward as it is the quality of the argument not the attributation that is important. Your lack of genuine interest in discussiing this topic is shown by you STILL having failed to respond to my analysis of the claims you posted, your honesty is shown by you claiming I didn't address them. If you didn't understand the responses, ask for help.

  Just 'cause a bunch of self-described Evolutionists say x and y you act like there's a problem with evolution or that the current state of abiogenesis means something.

  Don't you think it is outstanding intellectually lazy and complacent of yourself to just accept their claims at face value?

  Didn't you learn ANYTHING from getting out of a cult? Like to investigate claims people make rather than choosing the claim you like and following it blindly, without regard to whether the claim is right or not?

  Spectrum

  Serious answers to serious questions; silly answers to silly questions (although I suspect you think you're making some clever point).

  Thus in answer to your question; Ni!
• 

  Spectrum

  Abaddon,
  
  Shame, it was a serious question for a serious answer but for some reason you've misunderstood me.
• 

  Abaddon

  Spectrum

  Fair enough; I can be wrong

  Off the top of my head, because they know that modern terapods are not direct descendents of extant species of lungfish, and therefore they not a 'missing link' from fish to modern mammals? Because if they were, the species would die out as Evolutionists would hit those Creationists who still persisted in direct Creation over the head with them, and they'd still be more Creationists than lungfish?

  If that's what you're getting at I'd be happy to actually check my suppositions and give you the serious answer you deserve.