Discussion:
no evidence for abiogenesis?
(too old to reply)
Dale
2016-04-29 21:12:07 UTC
Permalink
correct me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing I
have heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not even
non-sentient one celled organisms

also, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves the
biogenesis of the scientist

another point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,
could have come from biogeneis and an assumption of abiogenesis is
made in current experiments

such an assumption would involve the need for statistics and
probabilities

life coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidence

you can't remove the living scientist from the experimental equation,
even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away and
come back, the scientist still made the observer
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Dale
2016-04-29 21:55:42 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 14:44:36 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
"If life arose relatively quickly on Earth … then it could be common in the universe."[38]
didn't add, life could have always existed, no biogenesis or no
abiogenesis
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Malcolm McMahon
2016-05-02 16:24:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 14:44:36 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
"If life arose relatively quickly on Earth … then it could be common in the
universe."[38]
didn't add, life could have always existed, no biogenesis or no
abiogenesis
Not easy for life to have existed when the whole planet was a bubbling molten
blob.
Apollo
2016-05-02 18:07:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Dale
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 14:44:36 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
"If life arose relatively quickly on Earth … then it could be common in the
universe."[38]
didn't add, life could have always existed, no biogenesis or no
abiogenesis
Not easy for life to have existed when the whole planet was a bubbling molten
blob.
Not easy for life to have existed when the whole universe was a bubbling
molten blob immediately after the big bang itself, and no molecules
could yet have formed!
Wm. Esque
2016-05-03 02:56:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Dale
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 14:44:36 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
"If life arose relatively quickly on Earth … then it could be common in the
universe."[38]
didn't add, life could have always existed, no biogenesis or no
abiogenesis
Not easy for life to have existed when the whole planet was a bubbling molten
blob.
True, there must have been a period when life did not exist on this
planet. OTOH, ours is a second or third generation star and solar
system. The universe is 13.7 billion years old.

The earth and solar system is known to be 4.5 billion years old.
So the universe existed some 9.2 billion years before the earth
coalesced from dead stars matter. Life appear on the earth about 3.8
billion years ago, some 1.5 - 2 billion years after it's formation, then
it's not unreasonable to suggest that could life might have appeared
during the 9.2 billion years prior to our solar system formation. After
arising in a previous generation of stars and solar systems, this life
could have migrated to the newly formed earth. This is not scientific
because it's not testable. Nevertheless, why could it not be a real
possibility? There are an number of hypothesis suggesting
that life came from space.
Jeanne Douglas
2016-05-03 10:01:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Dale
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 14:44:36 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
"If life arose relatively quickly on Earth Š then it could be common in
the
universe."[38]
didn't add, life could have always existed, no biogenesis or no
abiogenesis
Not easy for life to have existed when the whole planet was a bubbling molten
blob.
True, there must have been a period when life did not exist on this
planet. OTOH, ours is a second or third generation star and solar
system. The universe is 13.7 billion years old.
The earth and solar system is known to be 4.5 billion years old.
So the universe existed some 9.2 billion years before the earth
coalesced from dead stars matter. Life appear on the earth about 3.8
billion years ago, some 1.5 - 2 billion years after it's formation, then
it's not unreasonable to suggest that could life might have appeared
during the 9.2 billion years prior to our solar system formation. After
arising in a previous generation of stars and solar systems, this life
could have migrated to the newly formed earth. This is not scientific
because it's not testable. Nevertheless, why could it not be a real
possibility? There are an number of hypothesis suggesting
that life came from space.
It makes a whole lot more sense than "goddidit".
--
JD

Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream
up a God superior to themselves. Most
Gods have the manners and morals of a
spoiled child.
e***@hotmail.com
2016-05-03 13:36:57 UTC
Permalink
Oh, I fully believe "goddidit," I just don't believe he did it in seven days and had everything in place, exactly at the stage it is today.
Wm. Esque
2016-05-03 20:15:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Dale
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 14:44:36 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
"If life arose relatively quickly on Earth Š then it could be common in
the
universe."[38]
didn't add, life could have always existed, no biogenesis or no
abiogenesis
Not easy for life to have existed when the whole planet was a bubbling molten
blob.
True, there must have been a period when life did not exist on this
planet. OTOH, ours is a second or third generation star and solar
system. The universe is 13.7 billion years old.
The earth and solar system is known to be 4.5 billion years old.
So the universe existed some 9.2 billion years before the earth
coalesced from dead stars matter. Life appear on the earth about 3.8
billion years ago, some 1.5 - 2 billion years after it's formation, then
it's not unreasonable to suggest that could life might have appeared
during the 9.2 billion years prior to our solar system formation. After
arising in a previous generation of stars and solar systems, this life
could have migrated to the newly formed earth. This is not scientific
because it's not testable. Nevertheless, why could it not be a real
possibility? There are an number of hypothesis suggesting
that life came from space.
It makes a whole lot more sense than "goddidit".
There had to be two types of stars whose explosion created the
debris from which the earth and solar system coalesced, a
supernova which created heavy matter (above fe.) and a star
lower in the main sequence where iron is the final element
created within the star explodes. There should be remnants of
these stars nearby so where are they? There is a point in space
where every 26 million years average there is a extinction period;
sometimes massive extinctions. Ie Ordovician-Silurian, Permian
thisaaic - Jurassic. This is the nemesis (death star) hypothesis.
Is it possible this "star" (if it exist) is a remnant of the star
explosion which gave up our solar system?
Wm. Esque
2016-05-03 20:26:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Dale
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 14:44:36 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
"If life arose relatively quickly on Earth Š then it could be common in
the
universe."[38]
didn't add, life could have always existed, no biogenesis or no
abiogenesis
Not easy for life to have existed when the whole planet was a bubbling molten
blob.
True, there must have been a period when life did not exist on this
planet. OTOH, ours is a second or third generation star and solar
system. The universe is 13.7 billion years old.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Dale
The earth and solar system is known to be 4.5 billion years old.
So the universe existed some 9.2 billion years before the earth
coalesced from dead stars matter. Life appear on the earth about 3.8
billion years ago, some 1.5 - 2 billion years after it's formation, then>>> it's not unreasonable to suggest that could life might have appeared
during the 9.2 billion years prior to our solar system formation. Afte
arising in a previous generation of stars and solar systems, this life>>> could have migrated to the newly formed earth. This is not scientific
because it's not testable. Nevertheless, why could it not be a real
possibility? There are an number of hypothesis suggesting
that life came from space.
It makes a whole lot more sense than "goddidit".
here had to be two types of stars whose explosion created the
debris from which the earth and solar system coalesced: a
supernova which created heavy matter (above fe.) and a star
lower in the main sequence, where iron is the final element
created within the star which explodes. There should be remnants of
these stars, ie a brown star or a neutron star, nearby so,
where are they? There is a point in space where every 26 million
years, average there is a extinction period;
sometimes massive extinctions. Ie Ordovician-Silurian, Permian
thisaaic-Jurassic. This is the nemesis (death star) hypothesis.
Is it possible this "star" (if it exist) is a remnant of the star
explosion which gave up our solar system?
Dale
2016-04-29 23:10:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
you can't remove the living scientist from the experimental equation,
even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away and
come back, the scientist still made the observer
this fits with the Copenhagen Interpretation, no observation can be
made without an observer

--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Dale
2016-04-30 00:05:11 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 16:15:51 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last
.> >you can't remove the living scientist from the experimental equation,
.> >even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away and
.> >come back, the scientist still made the observer
.> this fits with the Copenhagen Interpretation, no observation can be
.> made without an observer
Hence my comment: .".I really don't think that collapse of the wave function .has much relevance here."
anywhere?
Setj
Post by Dale
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Dale
2016-04-29 23:18:09 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 15:17:06 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last
.> correct me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing I
.> have heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not even
.> non-sentient one celled organisms
OK, I'll correct you; that's wrong: amino acids and DNA
are two entirely different classes of chemicals. There are
no amino acids in DNA; there is no DNA in amino acids.
I didn't specify path
Post by Dale
also, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves the
biogenesis of the scientist
.> another point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,
.> could have come from biogeneis
Beg pardon? Life does not create the chemical elements.
Those existed before life, and a number of them were necessary
for life to exist.
repeatable? what if life always existed and there was no genesis?
Post by Dale
and an assumption of abiogenesis is
made in current experiments
such an assumption would involve the need for statistics and
probabilities
.> life coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidence
True...but if you want to generalize that to something like
"Life always and only comes from life", then you're saying the
universe is eternal. Among other things.
if I had to make a guess ...
.> you can't remove the living scientist from the experimental equation,
.> even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away and
.> come back, the scientist still made the observer
I really don't think that collapse of the wave function has
much relevance here.
there is no other explanation, Many Worlds and Transactional fail
statistics
Seth
Post by Dale
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Dale
2016-04-30 00:03:52 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 16:23:36 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last
Post by Dale
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 15:17:06 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last
.> >.> correct me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing I
.> >.> have heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not even
.> >.> non-sentient one celled organisms
.> >OK, I'll correct you; that's wrong: amino acids and DNA
.> >are two entirely different classes of chemicals. There are
Post by Dale
no amino acids in DNA; there is no DNA in amino acids.
.> I didn't specify path
There is no path -- they're two separate categories
of chemicals. Neither is a part of the other.
I heard amino acid sequences can make up proteins, proteins can makeup
RNA/DNA?
Seth
Post by Dale
Post by Dale
also, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves the
biogenesis of the scientist
.> another point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,
.> could have come from biogeneis
Beg pardon? Life does not create the chemical elements.
Those existed before life, and a number of them were necessary
for life to exist.
repeatable? what if life always existed and there was no genesis?
Post by Dale
and an assumption of abiogenesis is
made in current experiments
such an assumption would involve the need for statistics and
probabilities
.> life coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidence
True...but if you want to generalize that to something like
"Life always and only comes from life", then you're saying the
universe is eternal. Among other things.
if I had to make a guess ...
.> you can't remove the living scientist from the experimental equation,
.> even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away and
.> come back, the scientist still made the observer
I really don't think that collapse of the wave function has
much relevance here.
there is no other explanation, Many Worlds and Transactional fail
statistics
Seth
Post by Dale
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
b***@m.nu
2016-04-30 01:21:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 16:23:36 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last
Post by Dale
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 15:17:06 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last
.> >.> correct me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing I
.> >.> have heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not even
.> >.> non-sentient one celled organisms
.> >OK, I'll correct you; that's wrong: amino acids and DNA
.> >are two entirely different classes of chemicals. There are
Post by Dale
no amino acids in DNA; there is no DNA in amino acids.
.> I didn't specify path
There is no path -- they're two separate categories
of chemicals. Neither is a part of the other.
I heard amino acid sequences can make up proteins, proteins can makeup
RNA/DNA?
DNA makes RNA and RNA strands are translated to specify the sequence
of amino acids within proteins
Wisely Non-Theist
2016-04-30 05:27:25 UTC
Permalink
There is at least as much physical evidence for abiogenesis as there is
for any gods.
Jeanne Douglas
2016-04-30 08:07:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
There is at least as much physical evidence for abiogenesis as there is
for any gods.
Even if goddidit, it was still abiogenesis.
--
JD

Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream
up a God superior to themselves. Most
Gods have the manners and morals of a
spoiled child.
b***@m.nu
2016-04-30 01:11:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 15:17:06 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last
.> correct me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing I
.> have heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not even
.> non-sentient one celled organisms
OK, I'll correct you; that's wrong: amino acids and DNA
are two entirely different classes of chemicals. There are
no amino acids in DNA; there is no DNA in amino acids.
I didn't specify path
Post by Dale
also, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves the
biogenesis of the scientist
.> another point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,
.> could have come from biogeneis
Beg pardon? Life does not create the chemical elements.
Those existed before life, and a number of them were necessary
for life to exist.
repeatable? what if life always existed and there was no genesis?
so you are asking if life existed before there was hydrogen?
Post by Dale
Post by Dale
and an assumption of abiogenesis is
made in current experiments
such an assumption would involve the need for statistics and
probabilities
.> life coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidence
True...but if you want to generalize that to something like
"Life always and only comes from life", then you're saying the
universe is eternal. Among other things.
if I had to make a guess ...
.> you can't remove the living scientist from the experimental equation,
.> even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away and
.> come back, the scientist still made the observer
I really don't think that collapse of the wave function has
much relevance here.
there is no other explanation, Many Worlds and Transactional fail
statistics
are you just finding random words in a thesaurus and putting then
together
Post by Dale
Seth
Post by Dale
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
b***@m.nu
2016-04-30 01:07:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
correct me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing I
have heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not even
non-sentient one celled organisms
also, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves the
biogenesis of the scientist
another point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,
could have come from biogeneis and an assumption of abiogenesis is
made in current experiments
biogenesis and abiogenesis have to do with the creation of liife and
none of the elements are life so no the elements did not come from
biogenesis, actuallly that word does not even go with that statement.
If you were not sure all elements except hydrogen are created either
in the life of a star or heavier elements are created in the death of
a star.
Post by Dale
such an assumption would involve the need for statistics and
probabilities
That just really doesnt make any sense
Post by Dale
life coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidence
are you saying that a life created the life on this planet?
what are you saying exactly
Post by Dale
you can't remove the living scientist from the experimental equation,
even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away and
come back, the scientist still made the observer
huh?
TruthSlave
2016-04-30 12:52:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
correct me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing I
have heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not even
non-sentient one celled organisms
also, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves the
biogenesis of the scientist
another point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,
could have come from biogeneis and an assumption of abiogenesis is
made in current experiments
such an assumption would involve the need for statistics and
probabilities
life coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidence
you can't remove the living scientist from the experimental equation,
even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away and
come back, the scientist still made the observer
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Abiogenesis (Brit.: /ˌeɪˌbaɪoʊˈdʒɛnᵻsᵻs, -ˌbaɪə-, -ˌbiːoʊ-,
-ˌbiːə-/ay-by-oh-jen-ə-siss or ay-bee-oh-jen-ə-siss) or biopoiesis
or OoL (Origins of Life) is the natural process of life arising from
non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. It is thought
to have occurred on Earth between 3.8 and 4.1[11] billion years ago,
and is studied through a combination of laboratory experiments and
extrapolation from the genetic information of modern organisms in
order to make reasonable conjectures about what pre-life chemical
reactions may have given rise to a living system.

The study of abiogenesis involves three main types of considerations:
the geophysical, the chemical, and the biological, with more recent
approaches attempting a synthesis of all three. Many approaches
investigate how self-replicating molecules, or their components, came
into existence. It is generally accepted that current life on Earth
descended from an RNA world, although RNA-based life may not have
been the first life to have existed. The Miller–Urey experiment and
similar experiments demonstrated that most amino acids, basic
chemicals of life, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds in
conditions intended to be similar to early Earth. Several mechanisms
of organic molecule synthesis have been investigated, including
lightning and radiation. Other approaches ("metabolism first"
hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems
on the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules
necessary for self-replication. Complex organic molecules have been
found in the Solar System and in interstellar space, and these
molecules may have provided starting material for the development
of life on Earth.

The panspermia hypothesis suggests that microscopic life was
distributed by meteoroids, asteroids and other small Solar System bodies
and that life may exist throughout the Universe. It is
speculated that the biochemistry of life may have begun shortly
after the Big Bang, 13.8 billion years ago, during a habitable
epoch when the age of the universe was only 10–17 million years.
The panspermia hypothesis answers the question of whence, not how
life came to be; it only postulates the origin of life to a locale
outside the Earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---
Andrew
2016-04-30 16:02:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
correct me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing I
have heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not even
non-sentient one celled organisms
also, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves the
biogenesis of the scientist
another point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,
could have come from biogeneis and an assumption of abiogenesis is
made in current experiments
such an assumption would involve the need for statistics and
probabilities
life coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidence
you can't remove the living scientist from the experimental equation,
even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away and
come back, the scientist still made the observer
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Abiogenesis (Brit.: /?e??ba?o?'d??n?s?s, -?ba??-, -?bi?o?-,
-?bi??-/ay-by-oh-jen-?-siss or ay-bee-oh-jen-?-siss) or biopoiesis
or OoL (Origins of Life) is the natural process of life arising from
non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.
Life comes _only_ from preexisting life, and that of its own kind.

Anyone who tries to tell you differently is telling you fantasy, not
truth.
It is thought [fantacized] to have occurred on Earth between 3.8
and 4.1[11] billion years ago, [pure fantasy] and is studied
through a combination of laboratory experiments
All lab experiments have pointed to the impossibility of abiogenesis.
and extrapolation from the genetic information
"Information" as in the genetic code, always comes from a source
that has intelligence.
of modern organisms in order to make reasonable conjectures
To conjecture fantasy contrary to known truth is not 'reasonable'.
about what pre-life chemical reactions may have given rise to a
living system.
No way possible apart from fiat creation.
Bob Officer
2016-04-30 17:25:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Dale
correct me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing I
have heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not even
non-sentient one celled organisms
also, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves the
biogenesis of the scientist
another point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,
could have come from biogeneis and an assumption of abiogenesis is
made in current experiments
such an assumption would involve the need for statistics and
probabilities
life coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidence
you can't remove the living scientist from the experimental equation,
even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away and
come back, the scientist still made the observer
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Abiogenesis (Brit.: /?e??ba?o?'d??n?s?s, -?ba??-, -?bi?o?-,
-?bi??-/ay-by-oh-jen-?-siss or ay-bee-oh-jen-?-siss) or biopoiesis
or OoL (Origins of Life) is the natural process of life arising from
non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.
Life comes _only_ from preexisting life, and that of its own kind.
Anyone who tries to tell you differently is telling you fantasy, not
truth.
It is thought [fantacized] to have occurred on Earth between 3.8
and 4.1[11] billion years ago, [pure fantasy] and is studied
through a combination of laboratory experiments
All lab experiments have pointed to the impossibility of abiogenesis.
and extrapolation from the genetic information
"Information" as in the genetic code, always comes from a source
that has intelligence.
of modern organisms in order to make reasonable conjectures
To conjecture fantasy contrary to known truth is not 'reasonable'.
about what pre-life chemical reactions may have given rise to a
living system.
No way possible apart from fiat creation.
Then where did your God come from?
--
If life comes from life, and a god created life, where did this creator
come from, nothing?
Abiogenesis, life from nothing?
Andrew
2016-04-30 19:56:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Dale
correct me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing I
have heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not even
non-sentient one celled organisms
also, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves the
biogenesis of the scientist
another point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,
could have come from biogeneis and an assumption of abiogenesis is
made in current experiments
such an assumption would involve the need for statistics and
probabilities
life coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidence
you can't remove the living scientist from the experimental equation,
even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away and
come back, the scientist still made the observer
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Abiogenesis (Brit.: /?e??ba?o?'d??n?s?s, -?ba??-, -?bi?o?-,
-?bi??-/ay-by-oh-jen-?-siss or ay-bee-oh-jen-?-siss) or biopoiesis
or OoL (Origins of Life) is the natural process of life arising from
non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.
Life comes _only_ from preexisting life, and that of its own kind. <--- note!
Anyone who tries to tell you differently is telling you fantasy, not <--- note!
truth.
It is thought [fantacized] to have occurred on Earth between 3.8
and 4.1[11] billion years ago, [pure fantasy] and is studied
through a combination of laboratory experiments
All lab experiments have pointed to the impossibility of abiogenesis.
and extrapolation from the genetic information
"Information" as in the genetic code, always comes from a source
that has intelligence.
of modern organisms in order to make reasonable conjectures
To conjecture fantasy contrary to known truth is not 'reasonable'.
about what pre-life chemical reactions may have given rise to a
living system.
No way possible apart from fiat creation.
Then where did your God come from?
He is. He was. He is to come. Our awesome Creator.
Bob Officer
2016-04-30 20:53:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Dale
correct me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing I
have heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not even
non-sentient one celled organisms
also, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves the
biogenesis of the scientist
another point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,
could have come from biogeneis and an assumption of abiogenesis is
made in current experiments
such an assumption would involve the need for statistics and
probabilities
life coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidence
you can't remove the living scientist from the experimental equation,
even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away and
come back, the scientist still made the observer
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Abiogenesis (Brit.: /?e??ba?o?'d??n?s?s, -?ba??-, -?bi?o?-,
-?bi??-/ay-by-oh-jen-?-siss or ay-bee-oh-jen-?-siss) or biopoiesis
or OoL (Origins of Life) is the natural process of life arising from
non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.
Life comes _only_ from preexisting life, and that of its own kind. <--- note!
Anyone who tries to tell you differently is telling you fantasy, not <--- note!
truth.
It is thought [fantacized] to have occurred on Earth between 3.8
and 4.1[11] billion years ago, [pure fantasy] and is studied
through a combination of laboratory experiments
All lab experiments have pointed to the impossibility of abiogenesis.
and extrapolation from the genetic information
"Information" as in the genetic code, always comes from a source
that has intelligence.
of modern organisms in order to make reasonable conjectures
To conjecture fantasy contrary to known truth is not 'reasonable'.
about what pre-life chemical reactions may have given rise to a
living system.
No way possible apart from fiat creation.
Then where did your God come from?
He is. He was. He is to come. Our awesome Creator.
Is see,my lunate an idiot, too.
--
God is just abiogenesis in action...
Wisely Non-Theist
2016-04-30 21:29:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Dale
correct me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing I
have heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not even
non-sentient one celled organisms
also, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves the
biogenesis of the scientist
another point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,
could have come from biogeneis and an assumption of abiogenesis is
made in current experiments
such an assumption would involve the need for statistics and
probabilities
life coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidence
you can't remove the living scientist from the experimental equation,
even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away and
come back, the scientist still made the observer
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Abiogenesis (Brit.: /?e??ba?o?'d??n?s?s, -?ba??-, -?bi?o?-,
-?bi??-/ay-by-oh-jen-?-siss or ay-bee-oh-jen-?-siss) or biopoiesis
or OoL (Origins of Life) is the natural process of life arising from
non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.
Life comes _only_ from preexisting life, and that of its own kind. <--- note!
Anyone who tries to tell you differently is telling you fantasy, not <--- note!
truth.
It is thought [fantacized] to have occurred on Earth between 3.8
and 4.1[11] billion years ago, [pure fantasy] and is studied
through a combination of laboratory experiments
All lab experiments have pointed to the impossibility of abiogenesis.
and extrapolation from the genetic information
"Information" as in the genetic code, always comes from a source
that has intelligence.
of modern organisms in order to make reasonable conjectures
To conjecture fantasy contrary to known truth is not 'reasonable'.
about what pre-life chemical reactions may have given rise to a
living system.
No way possible apart from fiat creation.
Then where did your God come from?
He is. He was. He is to come. Our awesome Creator.
The issue here is who created whom!
Andrew
2016-05-01 00:19:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
Post by Andrew
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Dale
correct me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing I
have heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not even
non-sentient one celled organisms
also, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves the
biogenesis of the scientist
another point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,
could have come from biogeneis and an assumption of abiogenesis is
made in current experiments
such an assumption would involve the need for statistics and
probabilities
life coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidence
you can't remove the living scientist from the experimental equation,
even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away and
come back, the scientist still made the observer
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Abiogenesis (Brit.: /?e??ba?o?'d??n?s?s, -?ba??-, -?bi?o?-,
-?bi??-/ay-by-oh-jen-?-siss or ay-bee-oh-jen-?-siss) or biopoiesis
or OoL (Origins of Life) is the natural process of life arising from
non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.
Life comes _only_ from preexisting life, and that of its own kind. <---note!
Anyone who tries to tell you differently is telling you fantasy, not <---note!
truth.
It is thought [fantacized] to have occurred on Earth between 3.8
and 4.1[11] billion years ago, [pure fantasy] and is studied
through a combination of laboratory experiments
All lab experiments have pointed to the impossibility of abiogenesis.
and extrapolation from the genetic information
"Information" as in the genetic code, always comes from a source
that has intelligence.
of modern organisms in order to make reasonable conjectures
To conjecture fantasy contrary to known truth is not 'reasonable'.
about what pre-life chemical reactions may have given rise to a
living system.
No way possible apart from fiat creation.
Then where did your God come from?
He is. He was. He is to come. Our awesome Creator.
The issue here is who created whom!
Our awesome Creator created the
creation, which includes mankind.

"And God said, "Let Us make man in
Our image, after Our likeness; and let
them have dominion over the fish of
the sea, and over the fowl of the air,
and over the cattle, and over all the
earth and over every creeping thing
that creepeth upon the earth. So God
created man in His own image, in the
image of God created He him; male
and female created He them."
~ Genesis 1:26,27

Here again, there is no male and
female evolution since they both
had to functionally exist together
at the same time. Thus evolution
could not have been their origins.
e***@hotmail.com
2016-05-01 00:47:31 UTC
Permalink
But, there is nothing to indicate that all life on Earth appeared all at once, in the form it has now. The further back you go, the simplistic the life forms in the record appear.
Virgil
2016-05-01 03:37:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
Post by Andrew
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Dale
correct me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing I
have heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not even
non-sentient one celled organisms
also, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves the
biogenesis of the scientist
another point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,
could have come from biogeneis and an assumption of abiogenesis is
made in current experiments
such an assumption would involve the need for statistics and
probabilities
life coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidence
you can't remove the living scientist from the experimental equation,
even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away and
come back, the scientist still made the observer
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Abiogenesis (Brit.: /?e??ba?o?'d??n?s?s, -?ba??-, -?bi?o?-,
-?bi??-/ay-by-oh-jen-?-siss or ay-bee-oh-jen-?-siss) or biopoiesis
or OoL (Origins of Life) is the natural process of life arising from
non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.
Life comes _only_ from preexisting life, and that of its own kind. <---note!
Anyone who tries to tell you differently is telling you fantasy, not <---note!
truth.
It is thought [fantacized] to have occurred on Earth between 3.8
and 4.1[11] billion years ago, [pure fantasy] and is studied
through a combination of laboratory experiments
All lab experiments have pointed to the impossibility of abiogenesis.
and extrapolation from the genetic information
"Information" as in the genetic code, always comes from a source
that has intelligence.
of modern organisms in order to make reasonable conjectures
To conjecture fantasy contrary to known truth is not 'reasonable'.
about what pre-life chemical reactions may have given rise to a
living system.
No way possible apart from fiat creation.
Then where did your God come from?
He is. He was. He is to come. Our awesome Creator.
The issue here is who created whom!
Our awesome Creator created the
creation, which includes mankind.
"And God said, "Let Us make man in
Our image, after Our likeness; and let
them have dominion over the fish of
the sea, and over the fowl of the air,
and over the cattle, and over all the
earth and over every creeping thing
that creepeth upon the earth. So God
created man in His own image, in the
image of God created He him; male
and female created He them."
~ Genesis 1:26,27
There is no valid evidence than anything ever written in any document
was ever written by anything other than just a mere human being.

So we have nothing but your say so, no physical evidence, to support
your claims.
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
Andrew
2016-05-01 14:04:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Virgil
Post by Andrew
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
Post by Andrew
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Dale
correct me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing I
have heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not even
non-sentient one celled organisms
also, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves the
biogenesis of the scientist
another point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,
could have come from biogeneis and an assumption of abiogenesis is
made in current experiments
such an assumption would involve the need for statistics and
probabilities
life coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidence
you can't remove the living scientist from the experimental equation,
even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away and
come back, the scientist still made the observer
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Abiogenesis (Brit.: /?e??ba?o?'d??n?s?s, -?ba??-, -?bi?o?-,
-?bi??-/ay-by-oh-jen-?-siss or ay-bee-oh-jen-?-siss) or biopoiesis
or OoL (Origins of Life) is the natural process of life arising from
non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.
Life comes _only_ from preexisting life, and that of its own kind. <---note!
Anyone who tries to tell you differently is telling you fantasy, not
<---note!
truth.
It is thought [fantacized] to have occurred on Earth between 3.8
and 4.1[11] billion years ago, [pure fantasy] and is studied
through a combination of laboratory experiments
All lab experiments have pointed to the impossibility of abiogenesis.
and extrapolation from the genetic information
"Information" as in the genetic code, always comes from a source
that has intelligence.
of modern organisms in order to make reasonable conjectures
To conjecture fantasy contrary to known truth is not 'reasonable'.
about what pre-life chemical reactions may have given rise to a
living system.
No way possible apart from fiat creation.
Then where did your God come from?
He is. He was. He is to come. Our awesome Creator.
The issue here is who created whom!
Our awesome Creator created the
creation, which includes mankind.
"And God said, "Let Us make man in
Our image, after Our likeness; and let
them have dominion over the fish of
the sea, and over the fowl of the air,
and over the cattle, and over all the
earth and over every creeping thing
that creepeth upon the earth. So God
created man in His own image, in the
image of God created He him; male
and female created He them."
~ Genesis 1:26,27
There is no valid evidence than anything ever written in
any document was ever written by anything other than
just a mere human being.
"You must understand this at the outset, that no prophecy
of scripture arose from an individual's interpretation of
the truth. No prophecy came because a man wanted it to:
Men of God spoke because they were inspired by the
Holy Spirit." 2 Peter 1:20-21
Post by Virgil
So we have nothing but your say so, no physical
evidence, to support your claims.
The fact we are male and female is itself solid
evidence, because there is no male and female
evolution. Since they both had to functionally
exist together at the exact _same_ time. Thus
evolution could not possibly have been their
origins. They were created by our awesome
Creator......
GOD
b***@m.nu
2016-05-01 14:33:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Virgil
Post by Andrew
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
Post by Andrew
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Andrew
Post by Dale
correct me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing I
have heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not even
non-sentient one celled organisms
also, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves the
biogenesis of the scientist
another point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,
could have come from biogeneis and an assumption of abiogenesis is
made in current experiments
such an assumption would involve the need for statistics and
probabilities
life coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidence
you can't remove the living scientist from the experimental equation,
even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away and
come back, the scientist still made the observer
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Abiogenesis (Brit.: /?e??ba?o?'d??n?s?s, -?ba??-, -?bi?o?-,
-?bi??-/ay-by-oh-jen-?-siss or ay-bee-oh-jen-?-siss) or biopoiesis
or OoL (Origins of Life) is the natural process of life arising from
non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.
Life comes _only_ from preexisting life, and that of its own kind.
<---note!
Anyone who tries to tell you differently is telling you fantasy, not
<---note!
truth.
It is thought [fantacized] to have occurred on Earth between 3.8
and 4.1[11] billion years ago, [pure fantasy] and is studied
through a combination of laboratory experiments
All lab experiments have pointed to the impossibility of abiogenesis.
and extrapolation from the genetic information
"Information" as in the genetic code, always comes from a source
that has intelligence.
of modern organisms in order to make reasonable conjectures
To conjecture fantasy contrary to known truth is not 'reasonable'.
about what pre-life chemical reactions may have given rise to a
living system.
No way possible apart from fiat creation.
Then where did your God come from?
He is. He was. He is to come. Our awesome Creator.
The issue here is who created whom!
Our awesome Creator created the
creation, which includes mankind.
"And God said, "Let Us make man in
Our image, after Our likeness; and let
them have dominion over the fish of
the sea, and over the fowl of the air,
and over the cattle, and over all the
earth and over every creeping thing
that creepeth upon the earth. So God
created man in His own image, in the
image of God created He him; male
and female created He them."
~ Genesis 1:26,27
There is no valid evidence than anything ever written in
any document was ever written by anything other than
just a mere human being.
"You must understand this at the outset, that no prophecy
of scripture arose from an individual's interpretation of
Men of God spoke because they were inspired by the
Holy Spirit." 2 Peter 1:20-21
what all this jibber jabber?
Fat albert
Post by Andrew
Post by Virgil
So we have nothing but your say so, no physical
evidence, to support your claims.
The fact we are male and female is itself solid
evidence, because there is no male and female
evolution. Since they both had to functionally
exist together at the exact _same_ time. Thus
evolution could not possibly have been their
origins. They were created by our awesome
Creator......
GOD
Ruff Ruff...
God

I am a murderer and rapist
God
Andrew
2016-05-02 17:54:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Andrew
Post by Virgil
Post by Andrew
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
Post by Andrew
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Dale
correct me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing I
have heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not even
non-sentient one celled organisms
also, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves the
biogenesis of the scientist
another point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,
could have come from biogeneis and an assumption of abiogenesis is
made in current experiments
such an assumption would involve the need for statistics and probabilities
life coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidence
you can't remove the living scientist from the experimental equation,
even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away and
come back, the scientist still made the observer
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Abiogenesis (Brit.: /?e??ba?o?'d??n?s?s, -?ba??-, -?bi?o?-,
-?bi??-/ay-by-oh-jen-?-siss or ay-bee-oh-jen-?-siss) or biopoiesis
or OoL (Origins of Life) is the natural process of life arising from
non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.
Life comes _only_ from preexisting life, and that of its own kind.<---note!
Anyone who tries to tell you differently is telling you fantasy, not truth.<---note!
It is thought [fantacized] to have occurred on Earth between 3.8
and 4.1[11] billion years ago, [pure fantasy] and is studied
through a combination of laboratory experiments
All lab experiments have pointed to the impossibility of abiogenesis.
and extrapolation from the genetic information
"Information" as in the genetic code, always comes from a source
that has intelligence.
of modern organisms in order to make reasonable conjectures
To conjecture fantasy contrary to known truth is not 'reasonable'.
about what pre-life chemical reactions may have given rise to a
living system.
No way possible apart from fiat creation.
Then where did your God come from?
He is. He was. He is to come. Our awesome Creator.
The issue here is who created whom!
Our awesome Creator created the
creation, which includes mankind.
"And God said, "Let Us make man in
Our image, after Our likeness; and let
them have dominion over the fish of
the sea, and over the fowl of the air,
and over the cattle, and over all the
earth and over every creeping thing
that creepeth upon the earth. So God
created man in His own image, in the
image of God created He him; male
and female created He them."
~ Genesis 1:26,27
There is no valid evidence than anything ever written in
any document was ever written by anything other than
just a mere human being.
"You must understand this at the outset, that no prophecy
of scripture arose from an individual's interpretation of
Men of God spoke because they were inspired by the
Holy Spirit." 2 Peter 1:20-21
what all this jibber jabber?
"None of the wicked shall understand;
but the wise shall understand."
~ Daniel 12:10
b***@m.nu
2016-05-02 18:12:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Andrew
Post by Virgil
Post by Andrew
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
Post by Andrew
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Dale
correct me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing I
have heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not even
non-sentient one celled organisms
also, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves the
biogenesis of the scientist
another point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,
could have come from biogeneis and an assumption of abiogenesis is
made in current experiments
such an assumption would involve the need for statistics and probabilities
life coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidence
you can't remove the living scientist from the experimental equation,
even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away and
come back, the scientist still made the observer
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Abiogenesis (Brit.: /?e??ba?o?'d??n?s?s, -?ba??-, -?bi?o?-,
-?bi??-/ay-by-oh-jen-?-siss or ay-bee-oh-jen-?-siss) or biopoiesis
or OoL (Origins of Life) is the natural process of life arising from
non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.
Life comes _only_ from preexisting life, and that of its own kind.<---note!
Anyone who tries to tell you differently is telling you fantasy, not truth.<---note!
It is thought [fantacized] to have occurred on Earth between 3.8
and 4.1[11] billion years ago, [pure fantasy] and is studied
through a combination of laboratory experiments
All lab experiments have pointed to the impossibility of abiogenesis.
and extrapolation from the genetic information
"Information" as in the genetic code, always comes from a source
that has intelligence.
of modern organisms in order to make reasonable conjectures
To conjecture fantasy contrary to known truth is not 'reasonable'.
about what pre-life chemical reactions may have given rise to a
living system.
No way possible apart from fiat creation.
Then where did your God come from?
He is. He was. He is to come. Our awesome Creator.
The issue here is who created whom!
Our awesome Creator created the
creation, which includes mankind.
"And God said, "Let Us make man in
Our image, after Our likeness; and let
them have dominion over the fish of
the sea, and over the fowl of the air,
and over the cattle, and over all the
earth and over every creeping thing
that creepeth upon the earth. So God
created man in His own image, in the
image of God created He him; male
and female created He them."
~ Genesis 1:26,27
There is no valid evidence than anything ever written in
any document was ever written by anything other than
just a mere human being.
"You must understand this at the outset, that no prophecy
of scripture arose from an individual's interpretation of
Men of God spoke because they were inspired by the
Holy Spirit." 2 Peter 1:20-21
what all this jibber jabber?
"None of the wicked shall understand;
but the wise shall understand."
~ Daniel 12:10
"only idiots quote story books for wisdom"
~somebody
Wisely Non-Theist
2016-05-02 18:16:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Andrew
Post by Virgil
Post by Andrew
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
Post by Andrew
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Andrew
Post by Dale
correct me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only
thing I
have heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not even
non-sentient one celled organisms
also, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves the
biogenesis of the scientist
another point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,
could have come from biogeneis and an assumption of abiogenesis
is
made in current experiments
such an assumption would involve the need for statistics and
probabilities
life coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidence
you can't remove the living scientist from the experimental
equation,
even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away
and
come back, the scientist still made the observer
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Abiogenesis (Brit.: /?e??ba?o?'d??n?s?s, -?ba??-, -?bi?o?-,
-?bi??-/ay-by-oh-jen-?-siss or ay-bee-oh-jen-?-siss) or biopoiesis
or OoL (Origins of Life) is the natural process of life arising
from
non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.
Life comes _only_ from preexisting life, and that of its own
kind.<---note!
Anyone who tries to tell you differently is telling you fantasy,
not truth.<---note!
It is thought [fantacized] to have occurred on Earth between 3.8
and 4.1[11] billion years ago, [pure fantasy] and is studied
through a combination of laboratory experiments
All lab experiments have pointed to the impossibility of abiogenesis.
and extrapolation from the genetic information
"Information" as in the genetic code, always comes from a source
that has intelligence.
of modern organisms in order to make reasonable conjectures
To conjecture fantasy contrary to known truth is not 'reasonable'.
about what pre-life chemical reactions may have given rise to a
living system.
No way possible apart from fiat creation.
Then where did your God come from?
He is. He was. He is to come. Our awesome Creator.
The issue here is who created whom!
Our awesome Creator created the
creation, which includes mankind.
"And God said, "Let Us make man in
Our image, after Our likeness; and let
them have dominion over the fish of
the sea, and over the fowl of the air,
and over the cattle, and over all the
earth and over every creeping thing
that creepeth upon the earth. So God
created man in His own image, in the
image of God created He him; male
and female created He them."
~ Genesis 1:26,27
There is no valid evidence than anything ever written in
any document was ever written by anything other than
just a mere human being.
"You must understand this at the outset, that no prophecy
of scripture arose from an individual's interpretation of
Men of God spoke because they were inspired by the
Holy Spirit." 2 Peter 1:20-21
what all this jibber jabber?
"None of the wicked shall understand;
but the wise shall understand."
~ Daniel 12:10
Not bloody likely! No two people in history have understood "the bible"
to mean the same thing to both of them!
Virgil
2016-05-01 17:44:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
The fact we are male and female is itself solid
evidence, because there is no male and female
evolution. Since they both had to functionally
exist together at the exact _same_ time. Thus
evolution could not possibly have been their
origins. They were created by our awesome
Creator......
Actually there are lots of evidences of sex having evolved.

The biological advantages of sexual reproduction are considerable, but a
a god would have no use for sexuality itself.

There are species with only one "sex".
There are species in which sexual reproduction is apparently optional.
There are species with more than two "sexes".
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
Andrew
2016-05-02 17:54:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Virgil
Post by Andrew
The fact we are male and female is itself solid
evidence, because there is no male and female
evolution. Since they both had to functionally
exist together at the exact _same_ time. Thus
evolution could not possibly have been their
origins. They were created by our awesome
Creator......
Actually there are lots of evidences of sex having evolved.
No, both genders must exist together from the first.
Post by Virgil
The biological advantages of sexual reproduction are considerable,
Exactly.
Post by Virgil
but a a god would have no use for sexuality itself.
There is no 'god'. There is only God.
Post by Virgil
There are species with only one "sex".
Doesn't change the fact that those that have two
must have both genders functioning in existent
together at the exact same time. Thus evolution
could *not* possibly have been their origins.

Simply more positive evidence for Creation.

Which means we have an awesome Creator..

..GOD

Prepare now to meet Him in peace.


Andrew
Virgil
2016-05-02 18:34:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Virgil
Post by Andrew
The fact we are male and female is itself solid
evidence, because there is no male and female
evolution. Since they both had to functionally
exist together at the exact _same_ time. Thus
evolution could not possibly have been their
origins. They were created by our awesome
Creator......
Actually there are lots of evidences of sex having evolved.
No, both genders must exist together from the first.
WRONG!

The more primitive one-celled life forms have no sexual differentations,
nor do any subcellular life forms like viruses.

And there are some quite complex multicellular species which quite
successfully reproduce asexually!
Post by Andrew
Post by Virgil
The biological advantages of sexual reproduction are considerable,
Exactly.
Post by Virgil
but a god would have no use for sexuality itself.
There is no 'god'.
Exactly so !
Post by Andrew
Post by Virgil
There are species with only one "sex".
Doesn't change the fact that those that have two
must have both genders functioning in existent
together at the exact same time. Thus evolution
could *not* possibly have been their origins.
That you do not know how evolution produced sexuality does not prove it
did not happen. Sexualitiy's evolutionary benefits are well know to
science, so if it could have evolved, it should have evolved, and it
did!
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
e***@hotmail.com
2016-05-02 01:54:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Virgil
Post by Andrew
Post by Wisely Non-Theist
Post by Andrew
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Andrew
Post by Dale
correct me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing
I
have heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not even
non-sentient one celled organisms
also, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves the
biogenesis of the scientist
another point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,
could have come from biogeneis and an assumption of abiogenesis is
made in current experiments
such an assumption would involve the need for statistics and
probabilities
life coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidence
you can't remove the living scientist from the experimental equation,
even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away and
come back, the scientist still made the observer
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Abiogenesis (Brit.: /?e??ba?o?'d??n?s?s, -?ba??-, -?bi?o?-,
-?bi??-/ay-by-oh-jen-?-siss or ay-bee-oh-jen-?-siss) or biopoiesis
or OoL (Origins of Life) is the natural process of life arising from
non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.
Life comes _only_ from preexisting life, and that of its own kind.
<---note!
Anyone who tries to tell you differently is telling you fantasy, not
<---note!
truth.
It is thought [fantacized] to have occurred on Earth between 3.8
and 4.1[11] billion years ago, [pure fantasy] and is studied
through a combination of laboratory experiments
All lab experiments have pointed to the impossibility of abiogenesis.
and extrapolation from the genetic information
"Information" as in the genetic code, always comes from a source
that has intelligence.
of modern organisms in order to make reasonable conjectures
To conjecture fantasy contrary to known truth is not 'reasonable'.
about what pre-life chemical reactions may have given rise to a
living system.
No way possible apart from fiat creation.
Then where did your God come from?
He is. He was. He is to come. Our awesome Creator.
The issue here is who created whom!
Our awesome Creator created the
creation, which includes mankind.
"And God said, "Let Us make man in
Our image, after Our likeness; and let
them have dominion over the fish of
the sea, and over the fowl of the air,
and over the cattle, and over all the
earth and over every creeping thing
that creepeth upon the earth. So God
created man in His own image, in the
image of God created He him; male
and female created He them."
~ Genesis 1:26,27
There is no valid evidence than anything ever written in
any document was ever written by anything other than
just a mere human being.
"You must understand this at the outset, that no prophecy
of scripture arose from an individual's interpretation of
Men of God spoke because they were inspired by the
Holy Spirit." 2 Peter 1:20-21
Post by Virgil
So we have nothing but your say so, no physical
evidence, to support your claims.
The fact we are male and female is itself solid
evidence, because there is no male and female
evolution. Since they both had to functionally
exist together at the exact _same_ time. Thus
evolution could not possibly have been their
origins. They were created by our awesome
Creator......
GOD
Since single cell organisms multiply by dividing (don't think about it too hard) then as multi-cell organisms evolved and the sexes formed, they certainly were part of the evolution pattern.

Again, there is no evidence that life appeared on this planet whole and exactly as it appears today. The physical evidence found so far indicates the life continued to become simplier and simplier the further back we go.
Mitchell Holman
2016-04-30 18:04:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Life comes _only_ from preexisting life, and that of its own kind.
So god is life, all life comes comes from
pre-existing life, so your god came from.....?
Dale
2016-04-30 19:34:45 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 13:04:40 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
god came from.....?
always existed?
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Christopher A. Lee
2016-04-30 19:44:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 13:04:40 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
god came from.....?
always existed?
Idiot.
Bob Officer
2016-04-30 20:53:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Dale
On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 13:04:40 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
god came from.....?
always existed?
Idiot.
My conclusion, too!
--
He must have come from somewhere, or he is the product of abiogenesis!
m***@.
2016-05-13 00:20:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Dale
On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 13:04:40 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
god came from.....?
always existed?
Idiot.
My conclusion, too!
--
He must have come from somewhere, or he is the product of abiogenesis!
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have originated
from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.

Sylvia Else
2016-05-03 01:23:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
correct me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing I
have heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not even
non-sentient one celled organisms
DNA is not made of amino acids.
Post by Dale
also, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves the
biogenesis of the scientist
The experiments are an attempt to show that life could arise
spontaneously in the conditions present on early Earth.

We are never going to see life arise on Earth in such conditions without
some kind of human intervention because those conditions no longer exist
on Earth.

In any case, we're never going to see life arise on Earth when it did,
because that was a long time ago. If you're looking for cast iron proof
that it actually arose spontaneously, rather than evidence that it could
have, you're never going to get it. That does not prevent it from being
a plausible theory.
Post by Dale
another point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,
could have come from biogeneis and an assumption of abiogenesis is
made in current experiments
such an assumption would involve the need for statistics and
probabilities
life coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidence
Hardly, given that so far attempts to create life have not been successful.

Sylvia.
m***@.
2016-05-13 00:20:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Dale
correct me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing I
have heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not even
non-sentient one celled organisms
DNA is not made of amino acids.
Post by Dale
also, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves the
biogenesis of the scientist
The experiments are an attempt to show that life could arise
spontaneously in the conditions present on early Earth.
We are never going to see life arise on Earth in such conditions without
some kind of human intervention because those conditions no longer exist
on Earth.
In any case, we're never going to see life arise on Earth when it did,
because that was a long time ago. If you're looking for cast iron proof
that it actually arose spontaneously, rather than evidence that it could
have, you're never going to get it.
Have you noticed the fact that you atheists are most likely in the same
position regarding the proof of God's existence you keep begging for, even as
you deny you're doing what you're doing when you do it? That does not prevent it
from being a plausible theory.
Post by Sylvia Else
That does not prevent it from being
a plausible theory.
Post by Dale
another point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,
could have come from biogeneis and an assumption of abiogenesis is
made in current experiments
such an assumption would involve the need for statistics and
probabilities
life coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidence
Hardly, given that so far attempts to create life have not been successful.
Sylvia.
m***@.
2016-05-13 00:20:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
correct me if I am wrong, but as far as evidence goes the only thing I
have heard is that amino acids can be made into DNA, not even
non-sentient one celled organisms
also, this is not actually abiogenesis because it involves the
biogenesis of the scientist
Good point. There is no evidence of abiogenesis associated with this planet,
and there never could be.
Post by Dale
another point, is that all ingredients, the periodic table, etc.,
could have come from biogeneis and an assumption of abiogenesis is
made in current experiments
such an assumption would involve the need for statistics and
probabilities
life coming from life, biogenesis, has some much more evidence
you can't remove the living scientist from the experimental equation,
even if the scientist makes an automatic observer and goes away and
come back, the scientist still made the observer
Another basic starting line atheists can't get as "far" as.
Loading...