Misinformation on Origin Of Life by materialists

Tiburon said:
Discovery Institute propoganda.
Click to expand...
You mean you don't notice this stuff when your hear and see it. I'm appalled. I have been arguing the Urey-Miller experiment for years. It's like producing amino acids is on the same level as producing functional DNA nucleotides or even a gene. And arguments that an RNA-World break through is just around the corner. Now that's propaganda. But I realize now that's it's based on a concept of atheism. If there is no Creator then we must be here by natural causes. Therefore evolutionists keep patching a failed theory of materialistic assembly of dead matter and ignoring contrary evidence with the simple, 'there must be a natural explanation that will explain it some time in the future." And then piling it on the unexplained heap.
 
Last edited:
Cisco Qid said:
You mean you don't notice this stuff when your hear and see it. I'm appalled. I have been arguing the Urey-Miller experiment for years. It's like producing amino acids is on the same level as producing functional DNA nucleotides or even a gene. And arguments that an RNA-World break through is just around the corner. Now that's propaganda. But I realize now that's it's based on a concept of atheism. If there is no Creator then we must be here by natural causes. Therefore evolutionists keep patching a failed theory of materialistic assembly of dead matter and ignoring contrary evidence with the simple, 'there must be a natural explanation that will explain it some time in the future." And then piling it on the unexplained heap.
Click to expand...
I am not atheist. A creator can only explain the origin of life if that creator is not itself already alive. If the creator is itself alive, then the origin of life predates (or is simultaneous with) the creator, obviously.

Intelligent Design has a similar problem in that its Intelligent Designer has to be non-living in order to explain the origin of life.

You are also ignoring the Theistic Evolution idea: God designed the universe and its laws in such a way that life would self assemble in the pre-planned way over time. An omnipotent and omniscient God could certainly do things that way.
 
Cisco Qid said:
This is a short youtube video on how materialists represent the facts on the Origin of LIfe.

Origin of Life youtube.
Click to expand...
Are you able to put their arguments in your own words?

Cisco Qid said:
You mean you don't notice this stuff when your hear and see it. I'm appalled. I have been arguing the Urey-Miller experiment for years. It's like producing amino acids is on the same level as producing functional DNA nucleotides or even a gene. And arguments that an RNA-World break through is just around the corner. Now that's propaganda. But I realize now that's it's based on a concept of atheism. If there is no Creator then we must be here by natural causes.
Click to expand...
Right. So what is your point?

You want to claim there is a creator, you go right ahead and show the evidence.

So far that has not happened, so we stick with the no-creator hypothesis, and that leads us to think there were natural causes. And real scientists are doing real science to investigate that.

Cisco Qid said:
Therefore evolutionists keep patching a failed theory of materialistic assembly of dead matter and ignoring contrary evidence with the simple, 'there must be a natural explanation that will explain it some time in the future." And then piling it on the unexplained heap.
Click to expand...
Meanwhile creationist scientists are doing what exactly?

Right now, the materialist explanation is winning because despite that pile of unexplained, evolution has overwhelming evidence and the pile of things it does explain is far, far bigger.

What does creationism explain? All it has as an explanation is "God did it", and a theory that can as readily "explain" mermaids and centaurs as it "explains" snakes and sheep is utterly worthless.
 
The Pixie said:
Are you able to put their arguments in your own words?


Right. So what is your point?

You want to claim there is a creator, you go right ahead and show the evidence.

So far that has not happened, so we stick with the no-creator hypothesis, and that leads us to think there were natural causes. And real scientists are doing real science to investigate that.


Meanwhile creationist scientists are doing what exactly?

Right now, the materialist explanation is winning because despite that pile of unexplained, evolution has overwhelming evidence and the pile of things it does explain is far, far bigger.

What does creationism explain? All it has as an explanation is "God did it", and a theory that can as readily "explain" mermaids and centaurs as it "explains" snakes and sheep is utterly worthless.
Click to expand...
Science: it must have ....
 
The Pixie said:
Are you able to put their arguments in your own words?


Right. So what is your point?

You want to claim there is a creator, you go right ahead and show the evidence.

So far that has not happened, so we stick with the no-creator hypothesis, and that leads us to think there were natural causes. And real scientists are doing real science to investigate that.
Click to expand...
Evidence has been provided to you which you choose to ignore. The evidence is the information in DNA as outline by the principles of CSI and also Irreducible Complexity which has altered the face to Evolutionary theory forever. This is better explained by the following link: Not By Chance.

The modern theory of intelligent design was not developed in response to a legal setback for creationists in 1987. Instead, it was first formulated in the late 1970s and early 1980s by a group of scientists-Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, Roger Olson, and Dean Kenyon-who were trying to account for an enduring mystery of modern biology: the origin of the digital information encoded along the spine of the DNA molecule.

In the book The Mystery of Life’s Origin, Thaxton and his colleagues first developed the idea that the information-bearing properties of DNA provided strong evidence of a prior but unspecified designing intelligence. Mystery was published in 1984 by a prestigious New York publisher-three years before the Edwards v. Aguillard decision.

Even as early the 1960s and 70s, physicists had begun to reconsider the design hypothesis. Many were impressed by the discovery that the laws and constants of physics are improbably “finely-tuned” to make life possible. As British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle put it, the fine-tuning of numerous physical parameters in the universe suggested that “a superintellect had monkeyed with physics” for our benefit.
Click to expand...
Evidence for ID is base on the following from the same link:

Over the last 25 years, scientists have discovered an exquisite world of nanotechnology within living cells. Inside these tiny labyrinthine enclosures, scientists have found functioning turbines, miniature pumps, sliding clamps, complex circuits, rotary engines, and machines for copying, reading and editing digital information-hardly the simple “globules of plasm” envisioned by Darwin’s contemporaries.

Moreover, most of these circuits and machines depend on the coordinated function of many separate parts. For example, scientists have discovered that bacterial cells are propelled by miniature rotary engines called flagellar motors that rotate at speeds up to 100,000 rpm. These engines look for all-the world as if they were designed by the Mazda corporation, with many distinct mechanical parts (made of proteins) including rotors, stators, O-rings, bushings, U-joints, and drive shafts.

Is this appearance of design merely illusory? Could natural selection have produced this appearance in a neo-Darwinian fashion one tiny incremental mutation at a time? Biochemist Michael Behe argues ‘no.’ He points out that the flagellar motor depends upon the coordinated function of 30 protein parts. Yet the absence of any one of these parts results in the complete loss of motor function. Remove one of the necessary proteins (as scientists can do experimentally) and the rotary motor simply doesn’t work. The motor is, in Behe’s terminology, “irreducibly complex.”

This creates a problem for the Darwinian mechanism. Natural selection preserves or “selects” functional advantages. If a random mutation helps an organism survive, it can be preserved and passed on to the next generation. Yet, the flagellar motor has no function until after all of its 30 parts have been assembled. The 29 and 28-part versions of this motor do not work. Thus, natural selection can “select” or preserve the motor once it has arisen as a functioning whole, but it can do nothing to help build the motor in the first place.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Cisco Qid said:
Evidence has been provided to you which you choose to ignore. The evidence is the information in DNA as outline by the principles of CSI and also Irreducible Complexity which has altered the face to Evolutionary theory forever. This is better explained by the following link: Not By Chance.


Evidence for ID is base on the following from the same link:
Click to expand...
You can pretend the evidence isn't there but in this case, the emperor really does have no clothes.
 
Cisco Qid said:
Evidence has been provided to you which you choose to ignore.
Click to expand...
Claims have been made. Some are incorrect, while others have insufficient supporting evidence.

Cisco Qid said:
The evidence is the information in DNA ...
Click to expand...
Everyone agrees that DNA contains information. By itself that shows nothing. The question is the origin of that information.

Cisco Qid said:
as outline by the principles of CSI ...
Click to expand...
Dembski's CSI rests on a faulty argument. It only allows three options: chance, necessity or design. It claims that by eliminating the first two, design is proved. That is incorrect. In science there is always another option: "we don't know". Dembski failed to eliminate "we don't know", so that always remains as a possibility. Design cannot be assumed.

CSI also depends on Dembski's claimed conservation of information, which has never been properly tested, and so cannot be relied on.

Cisco Qid said:
and also Irreducible Complexity which has altered the face to Evolutionary theory forever.
Click to expand...
Irreducible Complexity is irrelevant because IC is not a barrier to evolution, though it does slow down the rate of evolution. IC systems cannot evolve by the direct route, but they can evolve by indirect routes. Professor Behe himself has shown this in his 2004 paper: Behe and Snoke (2004).

ID has at best a hypothesis. There is a great deal of work still to do to elevate that hypothesis to a theory.
 
Cisco Qid said:
Evidence has been provided to you which you choose to ignore.
Click to expand...
So why can you not put the argument in your own words?

Cisco Qid said:
The evidence is the information in DNA as outline by the principles of CSI and also Irreducible Complexity which has altered the face to Evolutionary theory forever. This is better explained by the following link: Not By Chance.
Click to expand...
How are you defining CSI?

How are you defining Irreducible Complexity?

Oh, right, you are just linking to a YouTube video where these things can be discussed without being properly defined, allowing the youtuber to flip-flop between definitions as and when convenient.

Get back to me when you are willing to present the arguments yourself, because right now I think your failure to do so because you know as well as I do that they are flawed.

Cisco Qid said:
You can pretend the evidence isn't there but in this case, the emperor really does have no clothes.
Click to expand...
If so, then you would be able to present the argument yourself!

The fact is that evolutionists on this site can and do present various arguments for evolution. All the creationists can do is link to fancy videos. Is that because they cannot think for themselves? Do not understand it? Or know on some level that actually it makes no sense?

Seems to me the emperor without clothing is ID.
 
The Pixie said:
So why can you not put the argument in your own words?


How are you defining CSI?

How are you defining Irreducible Complexity?

Oh, right, you are just linking to a YouTube video where these things can be discussed without being properly defined, allowing the youtuber to flip-flop between definitions as and when convenient.

Get back to me when you are willing to present the arguments yourself, because right now I think your failure to do so because you know as well as I do that they are flawed.


If so, then you would be able to present the argument yourself!

The fact is that evolutionists on this site can and do present various arguments for evolution. All the creationists can do is link to fancy videos. Is that because they cannot think for themselves? Do not understand it? Or know on some level that actually it makes no sense?

Seems to me the emperor without clothing is ID.
Click to expand...
ID is no emperor. It's a beggar with no clothes, an object of pity rather than derision. Even a naked emperor has power. ID has nothing.
 
Cisco Qid said:
This is a short youtube video on how materialists represent the facts on the Origin of LIfe.

Origin of Life youtube.
Click to expand...
Why not, if you are really interested in abiotic synthesis of nucleotides and nucleosides, just link to and discuss any of the myriad modern resources on the subject? The Urey-Miller experiment is older than most people currently alive, and science DOES move on.

I mean (and this took me all of 12 seconds to find) go here:

There are all KINDS of gaps and inadequacies in the research, acknowledged by the very people doing the research. Nobody is hiding anything. just....wow.....
 
Cisco Qid said:
You mean you don't notice this stuff when your hear and see it. I'm appalled. I have been arguing the Urey-Miller experiment for years. It's like producing amino acids is on the same level as producing functional DNA nucleotides or even a gene. And arguments that an RNA-World break through is just around the corner. Now that's propaganda. But I realize now that's it's based on a concept of atheism. If there is no Creator then we must be here by natural causes. Therefore evolutionists keep patching a failed theory of materialistic assembly of dead matter and ignoring contrary evidence with the simple, 'there must be a natural explanation that will explain it some time in the future." And then piling it on the unexplained heap.
Click to expand...
What contrary evidence?
Claiming "God did it" is on a par with the unexplained heap. At least the unexplained heap continues to be investigated. Claiming "God did it" is a dead end.
 
Algor said:
Why not, if you are really interested in abiotic synthesis of nucleotides and nucleosides, just link to and discuss any of the myriad modern resources on the subject? The Urey-Miller experiment is older than most people currently alive, and science DOES move on.

I mean (and this took me all of 12 seconds to find) go here:

There are all KINDS of gaps and inadequacies in the research, acknowledged by the very people doing the research. Nobody is hiding anything. just....wow.....
Click to expand...
Although this article that you linked to seems to indicate that there has been headway made in deciphering preabiotic life forms, but to all but the causal reader it is an illusion. There currently exists no theory for the origin of life on our planet nor any way to synthesis de novo any the connical nucleobases of RNA and DNA. Much less an explanation for the information contained on the DNA spine which is a total mystery. According to your link:

"While, in an origins of life context, this could be viewed as a discontinuous pathway and raise objections when favoring the “parsimony argument” using life as guide, (296) it needs to be kept in mind that biology (still) does not synthesize de novo any of the canonical nucleobases of RNA and DNA."

Also:

"So far, all attempts to recapitulate the biological pathways for nucleotide synthesis (or other chemistries) have at best produced dubious results with no significant follow ups. Therefore, the argument to use “life as a guide for prebiotic chemistry” is a double-edged sword."


This is further discussed in the conclusion"

"While there is intrinsic merit in holding every experiment to the prebiotically plausible test, it is also prudent to accept the practical limitations of such a strict adherence–to date there has been no single prebiotically plausible experiment that has moved beyond the generation of a mixture of chemical products, infamously called “the prebiotic clutter”. (309) And this is particularly evident in the “three pillars” (60,310,311) of prebiotic chemistry, the Butlerow’s formose reaction, the Miller–Urey spark discharge experiment, and the Oro’s HCN polymerization reaction–even though all of them have been (and are being) studied intensively. Many of the metabolism inspired chemistries taking clues from extant biology also fall in this category—creating prebiotic clutter and nothing further. None of the above have led to any remotely possible self-sustainable chemistries and pathways that are capable of chemical evolution."

The conclusion in your link pretty much follows what is discussed in the youtube video about concentrations:

" On the other hand, while many of the chemistries of abiotic nucleotide synthesis are successful in producing high amounts of the products, the experimental set up is not widely accepted as prebiotically realistic in terms of its concentrations, spatial-sequence separation and the availability of pure starting materials."

The link asks the question concerning concentrations:

"“is there a habitable zone equivalent in prebiotic chemistry?”, where there is no run-away prebiotic clutter and messy chemistry that stalls further progress toward chemical evolution, but at the same time there is also no need to invoke the clean starting materials and controlled lab environments that call the relevance of the results of the chemistries of abiotic synthesis into question."

The possibility of developing life on the planet without an already existing life base from sheer lifeless matter is beyond the probabilistic resources of the universe and is why Intelligent Design is the better alternative.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top