Water as a Problem for Abiogenesis

[Right Divider]

Common descent in this context is always from a single common ancestor. Of course one needs to pay attention if they need to be more specific.

What context would that be?

It is true that many living things have similar structures, and it is true that we can measure the half life of unstable molecules.

Similar structures is not, ipso facto, any indication of common descent from a single common ancestor.

Regarding radiometric dating. We can measure those half lives at the present time. That tells us nothing about what might have happened in past, nor does it tell us how they originated in the first place. Therefore, any attempt to use them to date anything is highly problematic.

That is the common ground I can use to get a discussion. So what I get a common descentist to do is realize that all their arguments eventually rest on these two points - similarity of how cherry-picked things look and radiometric dating. Then I can show them the weakness of both of those two points and they start to question all of common descent since the foundation of common descent is a mirage. It's just a tactic but it's worked before so I'll try it again.

 

[musterion]

Know why leftists love abiogenetic materialism? Because it helps them justify sticking things up each other's rectum.

Don't believe me? Read the first chapter of Romans.

 

[chair]

That's rather unscientific, isn't it? You saying that life coming from non-life is highly speculative. Are you sure about that? And once we can establish that simple truth, perhaps there are other fairly sure things we know about OOL.


Evolution is so vague as a term that it is silly to say it is supported by "a lot of data". You probably meant to say common descent. But common descent is only supported by radiometric dating and homology. That's it. Everything else is objectively hypothesis. So that's not "a lot of data". Which is funny, because it means I know a lot more about the science of common descent than you do and yet you parade around like an proud emperor in the finest cloths. Truth be told it's very unbecoming of you and no one wants to see you parade around like that.

What I am saying is that there is not much solid evidence for exactly how life started. Unlike the evidence that the forms of life changed over time. That evidence has been discussed ad nauseum on this site.

But hey- you're the modest expert, and I am parading around like a proud emperor. So feel free not to engage on this topic either.

 

[chair]

Not necessarily. Science shows intricate and highly complex design in life on earth. Intricate and complex in a way that there is no chance whatsoever that it was "built up by small changes". That is what science shows.

"Not necessarily" is a hedge betting statement.

 

[chair]

Because it attacks the various molecules involved.

So, getting back to the actual topic of this thread. "Dissolved" isn't the same as "Attack". And the NASA scientist was very careful in what she said- much more careful than the creationists here are pretending.

 

[Right Divider]

"Not necessarily" is a hedge betting statement.

No, it's not. But your response was a misdirection where you avoid the MEAT of the post.

Science shows intricate and highly complex design in life on earth. Intricate and complex in a way that there is no chance whatsoever that it was "built up by small changes". That is what science shows.

 

[Right Divider]

What I am saying is that there is not much solid evidence for exactly how life started.

Yes, when you throw out God's Word that leaves nothing but speculation about the distance past.

Unlike the evidence that the forms of life changed over time. That evidence has been discussed ad nauseum on this site.

Indeed, we have discussed this a lot and yet you are unpersuaded by the evidence that this "change" is not limitless. It has very limited scope.

 

[Yorzhik]

What I am saying is that there is not much solid evidence for exactly how life started.

We can make some solid assumptions though. First, we can assume that the first life came from non-life... unless you think as a materialist life has existed since eternity past. Let's start there, and we'll then come up with more solid assumptions we can make about OOL.

Unlike the evidence that the forms of life changed over time. That evidence has been discussed ad nauseum on this site.

But hey- you're the modest expert, and I am parading around like a proud emperor. So feel free not to engage on this topic either.

No. Both common descentists and YECs believe forms of life change over time. Can we agree that we both agree on that? Can you agree what you are claiming is that there is a lot of evidence for common descent from a single life form to all the life we have on earth today?

 

[ok doser]

... I am parading around like a proud emperor ...

Penguin?

 

[chair]

No, it's not. But your response was a misdirection where you avoid the MEAT of the post.

Science shows intricate and highly complex design in life on earth. Intricate and complex in a way that there is no chance whatsoever that it was "built up by small changes". That is what science shows.

Oddly enough, most scientists would disagree with you about "what science shows".

 

[Right Divider]

Oddly enough, most scientists would disagree with you about "what science shows".

Truth is not determined by what "most" agree with.

 

[chair]

Truth is not determined by what "most" agree with.

True.
Let me ask you this: when you say "that is what science shows"- what do you mean by the word "science"?

 

[Right Divider]

True.
Let me ask you this: when you say "that is what science shows"- what do you mean by the word "science"?

I mean actual science. Repeatable observations and not wild speculation about the distant past.

 

[chair]

I mean actual science. Repeatable observations and not wild speculation about the distant past.

so the only question is- how does one judge whether a theory is 'wild speculation' or a reasonable conclusion?

Honestly- if there was no Bible- what would you think of, say, the fossil record?

 

[Right Divider]

so the only question is- how does one judge whether a theory is 'wild speculation' or a reasonable conclusion?

Exactly. It is not by "consensus".

A reasonable conclusion requires sound reasoning, which is most obviously not used by the proponents of "evolution". (by "evolution", I'm talking about the goo to you variety and not the observable variations that we can actually see).

Honestly- if there was no Bible- what would you think of, say, the fossil record?

There you go... without the Bible there are lots of FACTS that you would not have.

The fossil record, with or without the Bible, appears to be a cataclysmic rapid burial of many, many plants and animals. Fossils are NOT the normal end for the remains of plants or animals on earth today.

 

[chair]

There you go... without the Bible there are lots of FACTS that you would not have.

When you depend on a religious text for facts- you are talking about religious belief, not science.

 

[Right Divider]

When you depend on a religious text for facts- you are talking about religious belief, not science.

You are simply confused.

Facts are facts, no matter where they come from.

 

[Yorzhik]

When you depend on a religious text for facts- you are talking about religious belief, not science.

Of the two, philosophy provides a better argument than science does in refuting the claim that common descent is true. But realizing that you are weak minded and you can't handle a stronger argument, we can confine ourselves to the weaker argument for the sake of your delicate sensibilities.

But even if we don't utilize the philosophy in contained in the bible, religious or otherwise, there are still a great many facts and witnesses that can help you understand the truth of the material world. Still, you seem resistant to even that kind of honest discussion.

So, if you are even too delicate for just the facts or witnesses in the bible sans revelation, we can still demonstrate with science outside the bible that common descent is wrong. And it's something you've encountered before, which is why you run, whine, and obfuscate instead of even discussing facts you accept.

 

[Stripe]

When you depend on a religious text for facts- you are talking about religious belief, not science.

Darwinists love it when the argument is over where an idea comes from rather than its actual merits.

 

[chair]

Of the two, philosophy provides a better argument than science does in refuting the claim that common descent is true. But realizing that you are weak minded and you can't handle a stronger argument, we can confine ourselves to the weaker argument for the sake of your delicate sensibilities.

But even if we don't utilize the philosophy in contained in the bible, religious or otherwise, there are still a great many facts and witnesses that can help you understand the truth of the material world. Still, you seem resistant to even that kind of honest discussion.

So, if you are even too delicate for just the facts or witnesses in the bible sans revelation, we can still demonstrate with science outside the bible that common descent is wrong. And it's something you've encountered before, which is why you run, whine, and obfuscate instead of even discussing facts you accept.

I've rather had it with being labelled 'weak minded' or even a 'moron' as an acceptable form of argument on this site.