Abiogenesis - The Impossible Theoretical Miracle

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: chr0naut

Proof that a singularity can exist does not prove that a universe can fall out of one. In fact the mathematics says that it is impossible for a gravitational singularity of such incredible mass to 'go backwards'.

When did I say a universe can "fall out" of a singularity?

You didn't.

I was pointing out that proving that a type of singularity exists experimentally in the lab, is a long way from proving that a universe can 'expand' from a singularity. We don't even have a hypothesis or mathematics to describe how such a thing could even be possible.

In fact no one really says that... its a theory in the works which will never be solved, and there are tons of theories on it... God may be one of them... I personally believe God is the cause... but not in the way religion thinks

And the mathematics say nothing goes backwards... there is only progression in space time... which is why in theory we can travel forward in time, but not backwards... yet?

As yet, there isn't even a definitive mathematical theory that explains the arrow of time (without recursive self referential "it does this because there is an arrow of time" nonsense).

Genesis requires exactly the same levels of faith to believe as any alternate cosmology. We have nothing to go on except for supposition from any of them.

No... Genesis says it all started with us...basically, there was God, then his minions... the earth... then us...


If it started with us, why are we also fourth along on the list?

We know this just isn't the case... unless one reads really deep into the story, then I suppose one can include the rest of the universe... but really... not really

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying in the last couple of lines of your post. Could you phrase it differently please.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: cooperton

it amuses me to watch cultists [ who blindly believe the absurdities of cult dogma ] - declare naturalistic explainations " impossible "

It cuts both ways.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: cooperton

it amuses me to watch cultists [ who blindly believe the absurdities of cult dogma ] - declare naturalistic explainations " impossible "

The whole point of the thread was to demonstrate there is no explanation in natural history that could suffice to explain the leap from non-life to life. I know you have nothing to argue, so you have to argue against what you presume my beliefs are. I take this as validation that I provided a concrete empirical account of the absurdity of a random abiogenesis event.

a reply to: cooperton

What fool would believe that shooting electricity water will build complex life from microbes in water. Controlled evolution exists and everything else is an act of God.

a reply to: AthlonSavage

Controlled evolution exists

Again we can get semantics happening within this discussion for example I would never deny the science of micro-evolution, I just prefer to call it adaptation. Who can deny this example of it.

Pesticide resistance, herbicide resistance, and antibiotic resistance are all examples of microevolution by natural selection. The enterococci bacteria, evolved a resistance to several kinds of antibiotics

Macro-Evolution on the other hand IS the theory. And it had to had to happen with both sexes in perfect parallel for all major species type. Some of which are so unique they are basically a one of, they are not like the cat, horse, and dog families.
You can't tell me a Giraffe used to be horse like animal and macro evolved longer legs and necks over 3 million years, where are the fossils to show and prove this happened ?
Ponder that question, if you have the intellectual honesty within yourself.

a reply to: chr0naut

You didn't.

I was pointing out that proving that a type of singularity exists experimentally in the lab, is a long way from proving that a universe can 'expand' from a singularity. We don't even have a hypothesis or mathematics to describe how such a thing could even be possible.

and where are the mathematics for an all powerful cosmic intelligence that can create reality literally by speaking?

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Woodcarver

Or understand chemistry and biology.

The OP shows a pretty clear understanding, so that just voided your entire statement.

People have studied both biology and chemistry they have master degrees in them, and they still believe in creation.
So how is it you can have 2 people equally educated on these topics coming to exactly opposite conclusions.
Do they need to take an IQ test as well, what if they both had an IQ of 140 ? So equally intelligent and equally educated.

Why is there a difference of opinion ? Because professionally educated people at that level often have different opinions on subjects even within science.

What you are describing here is the power and danger of groupthink. Even though the OP has copy and pasted some anatomy pictures, it is very clear that he does not really grasp what he is talking about.

a reply to: chr0naut

True a randomly generated universe doesn't have predictions.
If that was the theory then you would be correct and it would be equal to the deity hypothesis.

Just like rolling a dice doesn't produce a "random" result neither does the beginning (well point F-all of a second after the beginning at least) of the universe.

Just because we aren't able to calculate all the factors doesn't make it random. If we were able to calculate all the factors we could roll infinite snake eyes.

But I can accept your McGuffin explanation, rather than getting bogged down with boring information let's just make something up to get the plot moving . It's probably a better way to deal with life.

I really envy people's ability to do that.

Anyway, this is why I gave up on the creationist forums, there doesn't seem to be a way to get passed our cognitive dissonance and it's essentially a sports discussion. You can bring up all the stats in the world but I'm still gonna know deep down that my teams better.

a reply to: chr0naut

If it started with us, why are we also fourth along on the list?

Likely because it is a book written thousands of years ago... plenty of errors and contradictions found within

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying in the last couple of lines of your post. Could you phrase it differently please.

Sure...

In the beginning "god" created the heavens and the earth... referring to everything we can see on the planet and in the sky... but back then, or even closer to modern times we didn't know there was anything more then what we can see...

And everything we see is located within our own galaxy... but we didn't know there was other solar systems, let alone galaxies...

So god creating the heavens can be seen as creating everything... but our knowledge of "everything" is vastly greater then it was back then... We're literally a speck of dirt in the universe, and a blink in time

Said people were clueless in comparison to modern people... Theres no reason to believe what they wrote could possibly refer to what we know of things now

originally posted by: Akragon


Said people were clueless in comparison to modern people... Theres no reason to believe what they wrote could possibly refer to what we know of things now

Can you identify the north star? Do you know how to grow sufficient food for your self and your family? Can you trace your genealogy back thousands of years? Have you orally memorized codes of morality? Can you identify edible plants in the wild? Can you empathize for other cultures?

The cultural chauvinism that you are demonstrating may be the worst aspect of any culture, and is the precedence to elitism, imperialism, and genocide.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

You didn't.

I was pointing out that proving that a type of singularity exists experimentally in the lab, is a long way from proving that a universe can 'expand' from a singularity. We don't even have a hypothesis or mathematics to describe how such a thing could even be possible.

and where are the mathematics for an all powerful cosmic intelligence that can create reality literally by speaking?

That would be this.

a reply to: chr0naut

This again. Where is the rest? Why is it a singular deity not multiple or holy noodles?

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: chr0naut

True a randomly generated universe doesn't have predictions.
If that was the theory then you would be correct and it would be equal to the deity hypothesis.

If you don't actually know one way or the other, why would the 'sciency' sounding one have any more validity that the theist one? Surely if one side did have better likelihood, the argument would be won? Since it isn't, they must have equal weight from your perspective.

Just like rolling a dice doesn't produce a "random" result neither does the beginning (well point F-all of a second after the beginning at least) of the universe.

Just because we aren't able to calculate all the factors doesn't make it random. If we were able to calculate all the factors we could roll infinite snake eyes.

Your opponent would realize the game is rigged and would refuse to play.

But I can accept your McGuffin explanation, rather than getting bogged down with boring information let's just make something up to get the plot moving . It's probably a better way to deal with life.

I really envy people's ability to do that.

Anyway, this is why I gave up on the creationist forums, there doesn't seem to be a way to get passed our cognitive dissonance and it's essentially a sports discussion. You can bring up all the stats in the world but I'm still gonna know deep down that my teams better.

Yes but one argument only requires a single McGuffin.



Perhaps you only think your team is better because they are cheating and you don't realize it?

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

This again. Where is the rest? Why is it a singular deity not multiple or holy noodles?

Read the math. The proof describes the singular 'goodness' and supremacy of God as necessary requirements for ontological consistency.

If you want an ontological proof of something else, you'll have to do it yourself.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: chr0naut

If it started with us, why are we also fourth along on the list?

Likely because it is a book written thousands of years ago... plenty of errors and contradictions found within

I have not found that to be true at all and I study the Bible.

I have a copy of an old book called "An Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible" by John W Halley which may assist in resolving your issues. The book is now in the public domain and so here is a pdf of the entire work.

I would posit that the Bible, despite very few mistranslations and faulty interpretations, is super-humanly consistent and error free.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying in the last couple of lines of your post. Could you phrase it differently please.

Sure...

In the beginning "god" created the heavens and the earth... referring to everything we can see on the planet and in the sky... but back then, or even closer to modern times we didn't know there was anything more then what we can see...

And everything we see is located within our own galaxy... but we didn't know there was other solar systems, let alone galaxies...

So god creating the heavens can be seen as creating everything... but our knowledge of "everything" is vastly greater then it was back then... We're literally a speck of dirt in the universe, and a blink in time

Said people were clueless in comparison to modern people... Theres no reason to believe what they wrote could possibly refer to what we know of things now

... umm the the Bible is about the unseen things in the universe.

But, apparently, those ancient Bronze Age shepherds (4,000 years ago) seemed to have some idea of 'things unseen' discoverable by science. For instance, Job 26:7 refers to the Earth hanging in space. In fact, in Job, there is reference to the sphericallity of the Earth and to the gravitational attraction between the stars in the Pleiades and in Orion (two constellations where the stars are close enough to have significant gravitational attraction).

And apparently they also had Pi to four decimal places (because they used it in describing the relationship between the circumference to the diameter of a large water container), before the Egyptians (link).

But, of course, they were primitives and we are sooo clever now.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Even though the OP has copy and pasted some anatomy pictures, it is very clear that he does not really grasp what he is talking about.

What biology did I get wrong in my analysis on the gene-to-protein process? What did I not grasp? Suggest corrections and we will go from there, but I don't expect you to actually be able to defend the things you say.

a reply to: chr0naut

We have been through this. Mathmatics is not proof, it is and indication. In the case of black holes (as this is in the thread) there is additional testable evidence. Where is your testable evidence for your deity. I know I have the same amount for my many Gods. None. It is a mater of faith. QED. Stop pushing science into theology.

a reply to: chr0naut

I have not found that to be true at all and I study the Bible.

I have a copy of an old book called "An Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible" by John W Halley which may assist in resolving your issues. The book is now in the public domain and so here is a pdf of the entire work.

I would posit that the Bible, despite very few mistranslations and faulty interpretations, is super-humanly consistent and error free.

Yes I have been through that book actually... given to me by a minister in my old church...

IF you actually read it you may find its a mess of speculation and incorrect explanations

the book is highly flawed... considering the bible inerrant is laughable to say the least.. but this is neither the place or topic of the thread...

But, apparently, those ancient Bronze Age shepherds (4,000 years ago) seemed to have some idea of 'things unseen' discoverable by science. For instance, Job 26:7 refers to the Earth hanging in space. In fact, in Job, there is reference to the sphericallity of the Earth and to the gravitational attraction between the stars in the Pleiades and in Orion (two constellations where the stars are close enough to have significant gravitational attraction).

And apparently they also had Pi to four decimal places (because they used it in describing the relationship between the circumference to the diameter of a large water container), before the Egyptians (link).

But, of course, they were primitives and we are sooo clever now.

Sure... like i've said, IF one reads into what is actually being said you can reach for answers that arn't actually there... but hey... believe whatever makes you happy brother

SImple things like the fact that the moon doesn't give its own light actually sheds light on the question... believing you can find actual science in said book is also laughable though

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Akragon


Said people were clueless in comparison to modern people... Theres no reason to believe what they wrote could possibly refer to what we know of things now

Can you identify the north star? Do you know how to grow sufficient food for your self and your family? Can you trace your genealogy back thousands of years? Have you orally memorized codes of morality? Can you identify edible plants in the wild? Can you empathize for other cultures?

The cultural chauvinism that you are demonstrating may be the worst aspect of any culture, and is the precedence to elitism, imperialism, and genocide.

all simple things that primitive peoples could easily do... not just the people of your book...

And its not cultural chauvinism... its modern technology VS bronze age thinking

One wouldn't expect them to know of things like bacteria, or viruses obviously... They had no idea that there was other planets and galaxies out there... they knew what they saw.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: chr0naut

I have not found that to be true at all and I study the Bible.

I have a copy of an old book called "An Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible" by John W Halley which may assist in resolving your issues. The book is now in the public domain and so here is a pdf of the entire work.

I would posit that the Bible, despite very few mistranslations and faulty interpretations, is super-humanly consistent and error free.

Yes I have been through that book actually... given to me by a minister in my old church...

IF you actually read it you may find its a mess of speculation and incorrect explanations

the book is highly flawed... considering the bible inerrant is laughable to say the least.. but this is neither the place or topic of the thread...

Although I doubt that Haleys book is itself inerrant, perhaps you should provide some support for your statements. Otherwise I might suggest your statements are baseless hyperbole.

But, apparently, those ancient Bronze Age shepherds (4,000 years ago) seemed to have some idea of 'things unseen' discoverable by science. For instance, Job 26:7 refers to the Earth hanging in space. In fact, in Job, there is reference to the sphericallity of the Earth and to the gravitational attraction between the stars in the Pleiades and in Orion (two constellations where the stars are close enough to have significant gravitational attraction).

And apparently they also had Pi to four decimal places (because they used it in describing the relationship between the circumference to the diameter of a large water container), before the Egyptians (link).

But, of course, they were primitives and we are sooo clever now.

Sure... like i've said, IF one reads into what is actually being said you can reach for answers that arn't actually there... but hey... believe whatever makes you happy brother

SImple things like the fact that the moon doesn't give its own light actually sheds light on the question... believing you can find actual science in said book is also laughable though

Except that the answers are actually there and contrary to the accepted 'knowledge' we assume that they had at the time.

For instance there are several mentions of the heavens being rolled or folded up. At the time, the concept of deformable space-time was anathema, yet there it is several times in the Bible.

Please tell me where in the Bible it says specifically that the Moon generates its own light?