Abiogenesis - The Impossible Theoretical Miracle

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: cooperton

Any way you look at it, chemistry is how life functions. Do you agree?

Some see consciousness as an incident of chemistry, but quantum experiment demonstrates that chemistry is subservient to consciousness. The field of epigenetics is demonstrating the vast variability of our biochemistry as it relates to our state of being. Psychoneuroendocrinology is an exhausting word that essentially means the effect of your psychology on the release of hormones.

I see these properties as being a means by which mind manifests. I see the primordial Mind as God, and we are the children that inherit this conscious awareness. the word 'matter' comes from the Latin 'mater', meaning "mother" which was the conception of the Father Mind.

In light of what we see in quantum physics, this is a perfect match. The classical physical laws must be replaced, or at least submit to, the developments in quantum physics. With this comes a removal of all matter-based origin theories. If you can let go of such a material anchor, your worldview opens up to an endless realm of possibility. We don't have to keep taking the blue pill

a reply to: cooperton

Yes meaning humans are even more complex than cars because of their ability to reproduce. Imagine a car self-assembling, and then also having the ability to reproduce - that is the assertion of evolutionary theory.

You're hopeless. Would you please post a credible link where any scientist has ever published an example of self-assembly using a car.

a reply to: cooperton

In light of what we see in quantum physics, this is a perfect match. The classical physical laws must be replaced, or at least submit to, the developments in quantum physics. With this comes a removal of all matter-based origin theories. If you can let go of such a material anchor, your worldview opens up to an endless realm of possibility. We don't have to keep taking the blue pill

Really? How about a few examples of how that works. Please post a citation where any physicist has ever said that matter-based origin theories must be removed. I can't wait for that one....................

In the meantime, I'll seek comfort in my inhaler.

originally posted by: Phantom423

You're hopeless. Would you please post a credible link where any scientist has ever published an example of self-assembly using a car.

Ouch, how's that supposed to make me feel?

The point you are unwilling to accept is that it takes intelligent humans to create machines, and the human body, being an organic machine capable of reproduction, far surpasses anything that an intelligent human could create. Therefore, if we momentarily take our heads out of the sand, we can safely assume that the creation of the human being required far more intelligence than human beings currently possess. Sure, you can believe otherwise, but know that it is extremely improbable, and in my mind totally impossible, for the ordered systems we see around us (humans, solar equilibrium, physical laws, etc) to have been created without an intelligent force.

originally posted by: Phantom423
Please post a citation where any physicist has ever said that matter-based origin theories must be removed. I can't wait for that one....................

In the meantime, I'll seek comfort in my inhaler.

Yikes, aren't you sassy today. Here's Max Planck, founding father of quantum physics, summarizing its implications:

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: cooperton

Any way you look at it, chemistry is how life functions. Do you agree?

Some see consciousness as an incident of chemistry, but quantum experiment demonstrates that chemistry is subservient to consciousness. The field of epigenetics is demonstrating the vast variability of our biochemistry as it relates to our state of being. Psychoneuroendocrinology is an exhausting word that essentially means the effect of your psychology on the release of hormones.

I see these properties as being a means by which mind manifests. I see the primordial Mind as God, and we are the children that inherit this conscious awareness. the word 'matter' comes from the Latin 'mater', meaning "mother" which was the conception of the Father Mind.

In light of what we see in quantum physics, this is a perfect match. The classical physical laws must be replaced, or at least submit to, the developments in quantum physics. With this comes a removal of all matter-based origin theories. If you can let go of such a material anchor, your worldview opens up to an endless realm of possibility. We don't have to keep taking the blue pill

You have been reading something outside of the purview of science. You have gone straight into new age science fiction.

I’m guessing you don’t have any degree in quantum physics. Did you go to college?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

You're hopeless. Would you please post a credible link where any scientist has ever published an example of self-assembly using a car.

Ouch, how's that supposed to make me feel?

The point you are unwilling to accept is that it takes intelligent humans to create machines, and the human body, being an organic machine capable of reproduction, far surpasses anything that an intelligent human could create. Therefore, if we momentarily take our heads out of the sand, we can safely assume that the creation of the human being required far more intelligence than human beings currently possess. Sure, you can believe otherwise, but know that it is extremely improbable, and in my mind totally impossible, for the ordered systems we see around us (humans, solar equilibrium, physical laws, etc) to have been created without an intelligent force.

originally posted by: Phantom423
Please post a citation where any physicist has ever said that matter-based origin theories must be removed. I can't wait for that one....................

In the meantime, I'll seek comfort in my inhaler.

Yikes, aren't you sassy today. Here's Max Planck, founding father of quantum physics, summarizing its implications:

If Max Planck thinks we have to Assume anything. He is wrong. Science assumes nothing.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

You're hopeless. Would you please post a credible link where any scientist has ever published an example of self-assembly using a car.

Ouch, how's that supposed to make me feel?

The point you are unwilling to accept is that it takes intelligent humans to create machines, and the human body, being an organic machine capable of reproduction, far surpasses anything that an intelligent human could create. Therefore, if we momentarily take our heads out of the sand, we can safely assume that the creation of the human being required far more intelligence than human beings currently possess. Sure, you can believe otherwise, but know that it is extremely improbable, and in my mind totally impossible, for the ordered systems we see around us (humans, solar equilibrium, physical laws, etc) to have been created without an intelligent force.

originally posted by: Phantom423
Please post a citation where any physicist has ever said that matter-based origin theories must be removed. I can't wait for that one....................

In the meantime, I'll seek comfort in my inhaler.

Yikes, aren't you sassy today. Here's Max Planck, founding father of quantum physics, summarizing its implications:

Your entire post right here is the definition of hubris, talking about humans as though we are the pinnacle of evolution and the only being greater than ourselves is angels or gods. Then taking it a step further and making it sound like being molded in the the image of this cosmic ovelord because it will make us better slaves to the crown is perfectly acceptable. You subscribe to the belief that this is the same person who genocided the planet because his ant farm got a bit messy but you still think our destiny is at his feet?

As for that max Planck quote, we dont have to assume anything. Show me his diagram of where we can find this mind, who it belongs to, how it emerged and how it's mechanics operate, what species or element is it and how do we know it's good or bad or even awake? How do we test and measure it? Max Planck didnt really tell us much of anything, now did he? Go ahead, show me the mind of the atom so we can study it and learn exactly what kind of wizard is behind the curtain.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

You have been reading something outside of the purview of science. You have gone straight into new age science fiction.

The first paragraph involving epigenetics and neuroendocrinology are big interests of mine in terms of side studies because they demonstrate the cause and effect game that the mind plays on the body. Nothing new agey about it. The second paragraph is my summary of Judeo-Christian philosophy, but those themes are also very prevalent in Hermetic, Greek, and Egyptian philosophy. My third paragraph summarized a marriage of philosophy and biology - mind and body.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Your entire post right here is the definition of hubris, talking about humans as though we are the pinnacle of evolution and the only being greater than ourselves is angels or gods.

No you have to understand that your nihilistic viewpoint is the type of pessimism that is preventing self-realization in so many these days. It is that type of false humility that renders the seeker idle thinking they have no self-worth. You need to stop spreading such toxic ideology.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Woodcarver

You have been reading something outside of the purview of science. You have gone straight into new age science fiction.

The first paragraph involving epigenetics and neuroendocrinology are big interests of mine in terms of side studies because they demonstrate the cause and effect game that the mind plays on the body. Nothing new agey about it. The second paragraph is my summary of Judeo-Christian philosophy, but those themes are also very prevalent in Hermetic, Greek, and Egyptian philosophy. My third paragraph summarized a marriage of philosophy and biology - mind and body.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Your entire post right here is the definition of hubris, talking about humans as though we are the pinnacle of evolution and the only being greater than ourselves is angels or gods.

No you have to understand that your nihilistic viewpoint is the type of pessimism that is preventing self-realization in so many these days. It is that type of false humility that renders the seeker idle thinking they have no self-worth. You need to stop spreading such toxic ideology.

what does Self realization mean to you?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Woodcarver

You have been reading something outside of the purview of science. You have gone straight into new age science fiction.

The first paragraph involving epigenetics and neuroendocrinology are big interests of mine in terms of side studies because they demonstrate the cause and effect game that the mind plays on the body. Nothing new agey about it. The second paragraph is my summary of Judeo-Christian philosophy, but those themes are also very prevalent in Hermetic, Greek, and Egyptian philosophy. My third paragraph summarized a marriage of philosophy and biology - mind and body.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Your entire post right here is the definition of hubris, talking about humans as though we are the pinnacle of evolution and the only being greater than ourselves is angels or gods.

No you have to understand that your nihilistic viewpoint is the type of pessimism that is preventing self-realization in so many these days. It is that type of false humility that renders the seeker idle thinking they have no self-worth. You need to stop spreading such toxic ideology.

interest of yours? Do you study in an academic environment? Or do you read stuff like rupert sheldrake and say you study science. I really want to know your level of commitment that you put into studying science of any sort?

a reply to: cooperton

I apologize. I didn't mean to be insulting - just joking. But truthfully, people have to start posting credible citations. We seem to go around and around in circles without the benefit of published research.

It would make everyone's life a lot easier if we had specific research papers to discuss - or some evidence from which we can extract information.

You're a scientist. You know that.

The reality is evolution is misunderstood at best...
it’s well evidenced by the need to be constantly rewriting the theory each time the theory falls apart as real understanding is gained...
Furthermore evolution in whatever actuality can only be possible first and foremost because something anything everything that it needed to begin was needed first...
In other words the ability for it to transpire required the ability to ever happen or foresight in other words real intelligence was required a predisposed possibility...
While Evolution and Creation are indeed two entirely different concepts they none the less go hand in hand and Creation will always be the enabling factor for any and all evolution...
Evolution will never account for origins for it is nothing more than the ability of that which is already in existence to alter itself in a manner in which it already has the potential to do so...
You see evolution is really given far too much credit for being its own thing, it’s not it’s just an ability that which is created has...
While you think on that take it a step further and you will realize how limited it really is the boundaries which it can’t ever overcome, and you will know the lie you have been fed about what evolution has done is just too much to swallow...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Evolution doesn't mean better, just different. Majority of the time it really doesn't make much difference at all. Just look at a list of species who are now extinct. It grows every day because there's no guarantee that evolving will aid survival. If intelligent design invented evolution then that is proof of unintelligent design.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Your entire post right here is the definition of hubris, talking about humans as though we are the pinnacle of evolution and the only being greater than ourselves is angels or gods.

No you have to understand that your nihilistic viewpoint is the type of pessimism that is preventing self-realization in so many these days. It is that type of false humility that renders the seeker idle thinking they have no self-worth. You need to stop spreading such toxic ideology.

Please explain to me how I have a toxic ideology. And then explain to me how your ideology is not toxic, considering how you completely ignored most of my post addressing specific points in your philosophy. Feel free to go back and answer it line for line.

a reply to: TzarChasm

If that was your well thought out response to what I said then your opinion is proof of your lack of intelligence...
Also most things species that go extinct do so because of circumstances that neither creation or evolution can keep up with...
Evolution isn’t what you think or what you have been told it is...
Have to admit though with your reasoning as an example can’t help but wonder about intelligent design, but then I guess we can hope your offspring evolve to greater heights even if that does take a long long time and a multitude of generations...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

The reality is evolution is misunderstood at best... it’s well evidenced by the need to be constantly rewriting the theory each time the theory falls apart as real understanding is gained...

Ok. So what research have you done? Can you cite any research papers that supports your position?
If the theory falls apart, where is that evidence?

It doesn't matter whether you're pro or con. It's the evidence that counts.

So where is yours???

a reply to: Phantom423

Everything I said was common sense I don’t need a paper to back me up that’s the way it is...
Go find a paper that can refute anything I said...
It does not matter if you are pro or con what I said is truth... And it’s absolute undeniable irrefutable...

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: 5StarOracle

The reality is evolution is misunderstood at best... it’s well evidenced by the need to be constantly rewriting the theory each time the theory falls apart as real understanding is gained...

Ok. So what research have you done? Can you cite any research papers that supports your position?
If the theory falls apart, where is that evidence?

It doesn't matter whether you're pro or con. It's the evidence that counts.

That's what I keep on telling people. It is the evidence that counts.


However, some people refuse to consider all of the evidence, or simply ignore the evidence. Nobody else knows if anything should be considered evidence, or is not evidence.....except for them!!


A quadrillion examples showing millions of species, over recorded history, being the same species....

It is not only evidence against the evolution claim, it is overwhelming proof that evolution is pure nonsense.


Evolution supporters simply ignore all of the actual, indisputable evidence, as if it didn't even exist. If they choose to deny all the evidence, or make excuses for not being evidence, at all..then sadly, these people cannot accept the truth. For whatever reasons.

a reply to: turbonium1

A quadrillion examples showing millions of species, over recorded history, being the same species.... It is not only evidence against the evolution claim, it is overwhelming proof that evolution is pure nonsense. Evolution supporters simply ignore all of the actual, indisputable evidence, as if it didn't even exist. If they choose to deny all the evidence, or make excuses for not being evidence, at all..then sadly, these people cannot accept the truth. For whatever reasons.

Ok fine. I accept that you believe that statement. However, I and others have posted many papers that refute that statement. No one in the scientific community has ever said that a quadrillion examples of species are all the same species.

In your own words, why don't you define "species" and how you arrived at that conclusion. I'm not being facetious (like I usually am) - I'm serious. I don't understand how you draw your conclusion. I'm not an anthropologist. Peter Vlar is an anthropologist who has posted many interesting and detailed research papers as to how scientists draw their conclusions from the evidence they've accumulated. Scientists follow the scientific method. It's a logical sequence of steps that helps scientists as well as laymen draw a conclusion (BTW, the word "conclusion" does not mean the door is closed to new evidence). I sincerely would like to know how you come to your conclusion that evolution is a bogus science based on nothing.

Once again there are hundreds of journals with thousands of papers on various topics in evolutionary theory. If you're right, then they're all wrong. What's the probability of that being true? Very small I would think. However, as a scientist, I have an open mind to anyone's opinion as long as they can back it up with something, even if it's just their own logic.

So much scientism in this thread...

Evidence should indeed be considered. But don't forget. There IS such a thing as logical evidence. To confine yourself to only empirical evidence is a religious dedication to so-called science, i.e. scientism. Not to mention that constantly requiring research papers is an evasion of the issue. If there are no papers, it doesn't necessarily mean a position is false. Is there a paper out there that proves that I'm writing this post? No. That doesn't mean it didn't happen nor does it mean that it isn't true. People need to learn to think rather than being echo-chambers of politically driven 'scientific' views.

And people also forget that anything empirical has to start from a non-empirical assumption. That's why many theories require one initial miracle so that the rest can be explained, like evolution, like the big bang theory.

If someone can't accept this, there is no use at all in arguing/debating with them.