The Fine Tuned Universe - affirms and confirms the Creator's existence! No?

reply to post by edmc^2


Once again you completely fail. I didn't say abiogenesis was proven, or that I subscribe to the theory. I said that there is more evidence for it than for god because we have been able to reproduce a small part of the process. A SMALL PART. We have not been able to reproduce anything that has to do with god or creationism. My point stands regardless of how badly you misinterpret and quote mine the article. The experiment speaks for itself. Talk to a scientist if you want details of the experiment, but again, you won't. You'll just continue to reject any science that comes your way in favor of something that has no evidence whatsoever to support it. Good luck with that.

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Once again you completely fail. I didn't say abiogenesis was proven, or that I subscribe to the theory. I said that there is more evidence for it than for god because we have been able to reproduce a small part of the process. A SMALL PART. We have not been able to reproduce anything that has to do with god or creationism. My point stands regardless of how badly you misinterpret and quote mine the article. The experiment speaks for itself. Talk to a scientist if you want details of the experiment, but again, you won't. You'll just continue to reject any science that comes your way in favor of something that has no evidence whatsoever to support it. Good luck with that.

edit on 20-4-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

To the contrary - I did not fail to see anything about abiogenesis but stated the facts for which you've just confirmed! It's an unproven theory - full of suppositions, conjectures and guesses masquerading as science.

In fact if we use the commonly recognized scientific methodology - abiogenesis fails miserably. But since it's the only thing that will prop up an already weak and baseless theory of evolution, I guess you have no choice but hold unto it.

As for quote mining - sad to say but same o - same o tactic your employing. All I did was to summarize the link you've provided to get to the point, otherwise I can post the entire article.

I guess you have no choice but call my summarization - of your precious abiogenesis doctrine - quote mining because it revealed the lies if not the obvious mistakes done. It also revealed that truth that Life can ONLY come from pre-existing life.

And you can't accept this truth because to do so will basically destroy your precious doctrine of abiogenesis. Without abiogenesis, evolution theory will have no foundation.

As for misinterpreting what they said and did - please point it to me so that I can be corrected. But the fact is - I accurately showed what they said and what they did.

As for the experiment, it was a indeed a success in producing elements that bountifully exist in nature. No doubt about it, but their conclusion was a total failure as it was just an assumption.

They concluded that life must have come this way since they we're able to produce one of the ingredients of life.

laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating “warm little pond” hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond “evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone.”

But if you're really convinced that

these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating “warm little pond”

answer me this one simple question please -

Who THEN are the intelligent scientists "resemble" in the "life-originating “warm little pond” of yours?

tc.

Originally posted by edmc^2
In fact if we use the commonly recognized scientific methodology - abiogenesis fails miserably.

What do you mean it fails? It already happened in the laboratory! Autocatalytic RNA molecules assembled spontaneously from RNA fragments and started making copies of themselves. Thus it has been proven that life can arise spontaneously.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2
In fact if we use the commonly recognized scientific methodology - abiogenesis fails miserably.

What do you mean it fails? It already happened in the laboratory! Autocatalytic RNA molecules assembled spontaneously from RNA fragments and started making copies of themselves. Thus it has been proven that life can arise spontaneously.

Biopolymers?

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2
In fact if we use the commonly recognized scientific methodology - abiogenesis fails miserably.

What do you mean it fails? It already happened in the laboratory! Autocatalytic RNA molecules assembled spontaneously from RNA fragments and started making copies of themselves. Thus it has been proven that life can arise spontaneously.

key word is - arise spontaneously - that is, from nothing without intelligent guidance - NOT assembled spontaneously.

See the difference?

In the lab we have the INTELLIGENT scientists mixing and manipulating molecules in a CONTROLLED environment.

While in abiogeneis theory - NO intelligence or guiding force IS needed because of spontaneous generation. Something that can never be duplicated in a lab.

Thus most evolutionist will simply say - "doesn't matter because we're here".

So just to be clear that you understand this -

IS "arise spontaneously" - the same as "assembled spontaneously"?

what say you?

tc

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2
In fact if we use the commonly recognized scientific methodology - abiogenesis fails miserably.

What do you mean it fails? It already happened in the laboratory! Autocatalytic RNA molecules assembled spontaneously from RNA fragments and started making copies of themselves. Thus it has been proven that life can arise spontaneously.

key word is - arise spontaneously - that is, from nothing without intelligent guidance - NOT assembled spontaneously.

See the difference?

In the lab we have the INTELLIGENT scientists mixing and manipulating molecules in a CONTROLLED environment.

While in abiogeneis theory - NO intelligence or guiding force IS needed because of spontaneous generation. Something that can never be duplicated in a lab.

Thus most evolutionist will simply say - "doesn't matter because we're here".

So just to be clear that you understand this -

IS "arise spontaneously" - the same as "assembled spontaneously"?

what say you?

tc

Are you implying that there absolutely has to be intelligence for RNA molecules to accumulate to some spot? If yes, why? As far as I can tell, lots of stuff accumulates to places without intelligent guidance. If not, what's your point?

reply to post by edmc^2

In the lab we have the INTELLIGENT scientists mixing and manipulating molecules in a CONTROLLED environment.

...simulating conditions back then.

If you know the air composition for example, and you can simulate it. If you know sea water had a salinity of XYZ%, you can recreate that. You can even run different scenarios.

They didn't just doctor that RNA together. They added the individual parts that were available back then under conditions that simulate those back then...and it worked! While more research is needed, that finding alone is waaaaaaaaay more evidence than creationists have ever provided

reply to post by edmc^2


Your problem is that you always think in absolutes, because that's how your faith is and it drives your life. You wouldn't dare acknowledge that abiogenesis is still a work in progress and an attempt to learn how life started. In your eyes you either have to believe it 100% or reject it 100%. Every hand you play is all in or fold. SCIENCE IS NOT A BELIEF SYSTEM. It's a system of knowledge and understanding. Not everything is absolute.

Life didn't arise spontaneously. It most likely formed slowly over millions and millions of years. So far there are 2 experiments that back abiogenesis. They are small pieces, but pieces nonetheless. Obviously its not completely proven yet, but it's not just conjecture. If they discover that the entire process can happen under early earth conditions, will you still reject it or will you say god did it? See, what you fail to understand is that your beliefs are perfectly fine, even when recognizing evolution and abiogenesis for the science that they are. It seems you have more faith in a book written by dozens of different authors over thousands of years then in god himself.

Trying to win with science has led many people to the lord, and I am glad you have so much knowledge on the subject, but what else will lead them to Christ? I read these arguments on creationsm and nothing every really happens, just this and that, "proof" and "fact". You could show them EVERYTHING science has to offer to help with your point but they wont budge. They want something else, theres still doubt. So how do we show that God exists. I say show his love, and idk perform some miracles? Thats what started Christianity right? miracles? People say theres no miracles anymore, or there never were any. Like Elijah send fire down from heaven and make all the unbelievers become speechless!
I have witnessed things that would convert everyone on this entire site, but we cant go back in time and show everybody unfortunately. We as Christians need to go back to the fundamentals, too long have we been conforming to this society with religion. Jesus came to abolish religion, and perform great works in us. So lets get some believers together! (only together can we reach the world) and move some mountains! I have one question tho, do you have the faith?

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2
In fact if we use the commonly recognized scientific methodology - abiogenesis fails miserably.

What do you mean it fails? It already happened in the laboratory! Autocatalytic RNA molecules assembled spontaneously from RNA fragments and started making copies of themselves. Thus it has been proven that life can arise spontaneously. Are you implying that there absolutely has to be intelligence for RNA molecules to accumulate to some spot? If yes, why?

Like I said abiogenesis is a total failure - it failed miserably even in the most advanced labs conducted by the best minds in the world!


They FAILED to create life from NON-LIVING materials.In other words if you wanna be honest to yourself - SPONTANEOUS GENERATION is just a pipe dream, dreamed up by those who profess faith in an unproven theory of evolution.

But I must admit, that although they failed to create life - all is not lost as they were able to confirm what we've know for a long time now. That it TAKES INTELLIGENCE to create even the very basic components of life. Without these intelligent men and women - such lab experiments however sophisticated and advance the instruments and technology are - it WILL NOT function!!

Yet abiogenesis states that none of these are necessary for creating life. Obviously the people who came up with this garbage theory did not read the manual of Life.

And sadly many have been bamboozled to believe in it - sadly including you.

As for intelligence -

Yes, that's what I'm "implying", like you said "there absolutely has to be intelligence for RNA molecules to accumulate to some spot".

In other words - there absolutely has to be intelligence for LIFE to appear - a Divine Creator!

Why?

The intricacy, the simplicity, the beauty, the elegance of design as well as the complexity of design we see in creation - we call nature. They are a testimony to the abundant intelligence of its Creator.

Even scientists acknowledge this intelligence to be self evident, within and without - "the inconceivable nature of nature" as one scientist puts it, or a Carl Sagan puts it:

The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it, but the way those atoms are put together

In other words - fine tuning with great precision!! Intelligence at work.

here's a symphony for you extolling / acknowledging the overall beauty of creation we call nature brought to you by your favorite atheists / evolutionists (courtesy of EnochWasRight).



"the complexity....the inconceivable nature of nature" – is so self evident that it takes a close mind person not to see them.

Yet to you these “inconceivable” things doesn't matter much, because you've convinced yourself that life can arise spontaneously without any intelligent guidance.

As far as I can tell, lots of stuff accumulates to places without intelligent guidance. If not, what's your point?

Sure if it's an unintelligent inanimate thing, but we're talking about life here - an intelligent one at that. To say that Life can spontaneously arise from inanimate things is so incomprehensible that it take blind faith to believe in it - because facts don't support it.

But if you insist, then by all means, please show me how an RNA or a DNA can spontaneously appear from nothing OR as you say "accumulates to places without intelligent guidance ".

here's a short video of the highly organized function of the RNA:



compare with the precision tuning of the universe



As you can see - it takes fine tuning and precision timing to make things work with precise organization from the micro - to the macro - a tail tale sign of great Intelligence.

tc.

Originally posted by That1Stud
Trying to win with science has led many people to the lord, and I am glad you have so much knowledge on the subject, but what else will lead them to Christ? I read these arguments on creationsm and nothing every really happens, just this and that, "proof" and "fact". You could show them EVERYTHING science has to offer to help with your point but they wont budge. They want something else, theres still doubt. So how do we show that God exists. I say show his love, and idk perform some miracles? Thats what started Christianity right? miracles? People say theres no miracles anymore, or there never were any. Like Elijah send fire down from heaven and make all the unbelievers become speechless!
I have witnessed things that would convert everyone on this entire site, but we cant go back in time and show everybody unfortunately. We as Christians need to go back to the fundamentals, too long have we been conforming to this society with religion. Jesus came to abolish religion, and perform great works in us. So lets get some believers together! (only together can we reach the world) and move some mountains! I have one question tho, do you have the faith?

I have one question tho, do you have the faith?

Of course I do! And it's not blind faith based on credulity but based on solid evidence backed up by the "Book of Nature" and the written "Word of God"!


to quote:

Rom 1:19 ESV - For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
Rom 1:20 ESV - For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

“. . . Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.” (Hebrews 11:1)

Faith based on solid foundation!

tc

Originally posted by edmc^2
Like I said abiogenesis is a total failure - it failed miserably even in the most advanced labs conducted by the best minds in the world!

Like I said, autocatalytic RNA molecules (RNA life) have already arisen spontaneously in the lab.

Sure if it's an unintelligent inanimate thing, but we're talking about life here - an intelligent one at that. To say that Life can spontaneously arise from inanimate things is so incomprehensible that it take blind faith to believe in it - because facts don't support it.

Inanimate RNA molecules accumulate and from them autocatalytic RNA molecules (first life) arise spontaneously. All this can happen without any intelligent guidance. You lose.

reply to post by rhinoceros

Inanimate RNA molecules accumulate and from them autocatalytic RNA molecules (first life) arise spontaneously. All this can happen without any intelligent guidance. You lose.

You win alright - you win - sorry to say this - the most dumbest statement I've ever heard.

autocatalytic RNA molecules (first life) arise spontaneously

If you really believe that "autocatalytic RNA molecules" are alive - please explain how it is alive.

and oh btw - you haven't shown me yet how the RNA spontaneously came to be without intelligent guidance.

Remember this fact - you need to have proteins in order to produce RNA, but you also need RNA in order to produce a protein. In other words one can't exist without the other.

So which ONE should you create first? The PROTEIN or the RNA?

Good luck with your endeavor.


tc.

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by Rhinoceros
autocatalytic RNA molecules (first life) arise spontaneously

If you really believe that "autocatalytic RNA molecules" are alive - please explain how it is alive.

Please explain how they're not. There's no universally accepted definition of life, but here are some:

Life is self-reproduction "with an error rate below the sustainability threshold".

Life is self-reproduction "with variations."

Life is matter that can reproduce itself and evolve as survival dictates.

Life is a self-sustained chemical system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution.

Autocatalytic RNAs fit all these.

Originally posted by edmc^2
and oh btw - you haven't shown me yet how the RNA spontaneously came to be without intelligent guidance.

Obviously, I cannot go back 4 billion years and take electron microscope pictures. However, I have shown (linked) articles that show that this can happen and happens without intelligent guidance.

Originally posted by edmc^2
Remember this fact - you need to have proteins in order to produce RNA, but you also need RNA in order to produce a protein. In other words one can't exist without the other.

No you don't. Autocatalytic RNA molecules consist purely of RNA, and proteins are not involved with them in any way. You're describing current life with the 'DNA > RNA > Proteins' dogma, but that's not related to autocatalytic RNA molecules.

Do you hear that sound? It's the sound of your argument crashing down.

reply to post by rhinoceros


look - let me quote again what you said:

Inanimate RNA molecules accumulate and from them autocatalytic RNA molecules (first life) arise spontaneously. ...

The key word is INANIMATE!

Are you now saying that this word doesn't mean NON-LIVING anymore because why again?

Since when did man created life from INANIMATE- NON-LIVING THINGS or NON-LIVING MATERIALS? This is news to me.

As far as I know from 4 billion years ago to the present there's no evidence of this happening even in the most advanced labs in the world.

There is NO evidence of scientist being able to re-animate an INANIMATE- NON-LIVING THINGS or NON-LIVING MATERIALS (unless of course aided by higher intelligence).

But since you ask:

Please explain how they're not. There's no universally accepted definition of life, but here are some:

I'll use your own words again - "Inanimate RNA molecules"

INANIMATE to me simply means a NON-LIVING THING or NON-LIVING MATERIAL. It's like a piece of rotten meat - it's NOT alive even though it has the components of life. It's like a dead bug - it's no longer alive because it IS dead! IT turned into an INANIMATE- NON-LIVING THING or NON-LIVING MATERIAL.

In other words - the components that make up life can NO LONGER self-replicate to continuously support its life sustaining system.

But since you believe that:

Inanimate RNA molecules accumulate and from them autocatalytic RNA molecules (first life) arise spontaneously. ...

Is fire alive to you?

If so - does this mean it's a LIVING BREATHING THING to you? Just like "them 'inanimate' autocatalytic RNA molecules"?

Just curious how far you'll take this definition of yours.

As for:

Obviously, I cannot go back 4 billion years and take electron microscope pictures. However, I have shown (linked) articles that show that this can happen and happens without intelligent guidance.

jezzz - no one is asking you to produce a miracle and travel back in time, just show me how can this happen spontaneously without "intelligent guidance"? Please provide your link because I can't find them after scanning the entire thread.

As for

No you don't. Autocatalytic RNA molecules consist purely of RNA, and proteins are not involved with them in any way. You're describing current life with the 'DNA > RNA > Proteins' dogma, but that's not related to autocatalytic RNA molecules.

Look again at what you said:

Inanimate RNA molecules accumulate and from them autocatalytic RNA molecules (first life) arise spontaneously. ...

you admit that:

"them autocatalytic RNA molecules" - came from " Inanimate RNA molecules"

So how did them "Inanimate RNA molecules" came to be (spontaneously arise) before they became "autocatalytic RNA molecules" then? - Please don't ignore this question again because to quote you:

Do you hear that sound? It's the sound of your argument crashing down.

tc

Originally posted by edmc^2
Since when did man created life from INANIMATE- NON-LIVING THINGS or NON-LIVING MATERIALS? This is news to me.

Since 2006 or so. Get started here

Originally posted by edmc^2
INANIMATE to me simply means a NON-LIVING THING or NON-LIVING MATERIAL. It's like a piece of rotten meat - it's NOT alive even though it has the components of life. It's like a dead bug - it's no longer alive because it IS dead! IT turned into an INANIMATE- NON-LIVING THING or NON-LIVING MATERIAL.

Are you mentally challenged? I pointed out that these self-replicating molecules (RNA life) assembled spontaneously from non-living material.

Originally posted by edmc^2
Is fire alive to you?

No. Fire doesn't fit the definitions of life provided.

Originally posted by edmc^2
jezzz - no one is asking you to produce a miracle and travel back in time, just show me how can this happen spontaneously without "intelligent guidance"? Please provide your link because I can't find them after scanning the entire thread.

Get started here.

Originally posted by edmc^2
So how did them "Inanimate RNA molecules" came to be before they became "autocatalytic RNA molecules" then?

Thru natural chemical processes.

reply to post by rhinoceros


finally a link - cool.

later as I read through them...


btw:

before I forget - will these lab experiments function without intelligent guidance - that is the without the scientists? After all that's what abiogenesis is all about - no fine tuner.

tc.

Originally posted by edmc^2
before I forget - will these lab experiments function without intelligent guidance - that is the without the scientists? After all that's what abiogenesis is all about - no fine tuner.

You think chemical reactions cease happening sans observers?

reply to post by edmc^2

To the contrary - I did not fail to see anything about abiogenesis but stated the facts for which you've just confirmed! It's an unproven theory - full of suppositions, conjectures and guesses masquerading as science.

Abiogenesis is a field of study, and there's several hypotheses...not a theory like the theory of evolution. So before you criticize something, you might wanna look up the facts first

And judging from your posts you still pretend your faith is somehow based on solid facts instead of blind faith...that's kinda sad given you haven't provided a single shred of objective evidence to support your claims.

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

finally a link - cool.

later as I read through them...


btw:

before I forget - will these lab experiments function without intelligent guidance - that is the without the scientists? After all that's what abiogenesis is all about - no fine tuner.

tc.

edit on 24-4-2012 by edmc^2 because: btw:

They create the environment for the experiment based on earth back when they believe first life started...and given that we have ZERO evidence that the environment back then was influenced by some "intelligence", as long as they recreate the environment correctly...no...no fine tuner required.

So unless you can provide objective evidence that the environment back then was the result of some "intelligence", a successful experiment like that is in fact a strong indication that life can in fact arise through natural forces without any magic guidance.