Life origins: Metabolism before life began:

Originally posted by humy
wrong! Only a moron would believe that it is [b]credible, NOT merely possible, for life to have always existed if one believes in a natural explanation. This is because the evidence extremely strongly points to there being a beginning of life and it would be EXTREMELY improbable that all that evidence is flawed BUT mathematically there must be a none-zero p ...[text shortened]... But, because of Occam's razor, that is not credible thus I still believe there was a yesterday.[/b]

No, you are wrong. Only a moron who wants to play word games would come up with such an explanation.

Originally posted by Eladar
No, you are wrong. Only a moron who wants to play word games would come up with such an explanation.

So is my explanation correct?
If yes, then I am not a moron for giving it.
If no, explain exactly how it is false....

Originally posted by Eladar
2. Possibly?

You are saying that it is possible that there has always been life? This is what you believe?

Item two, if you read it, asks the question if the first life came from non-life. To answer
"possibly" in no way implies that this first life could have existed forever. For my answer to
imply what you assumed, the question would have to be: could this first life have existed
forever, to which my answer would be: "unlikely".

Originally posted by humy
"possibly" is logically consistent with "extremely unlikely". Believing something is possible doesn't equate with believing it is creatable.
It must be logically possible that I could play the lottery and win a jackpot 100 times in a row -but I don't believe I ever will because that is extremely unlikely i.e. just not credible.

pos·si·bly

adverb: possibly

1. perhaps (used to indicate doubt or hesitancy).

"he found himself alone, possibly the only surviving officer"

synonyms:

perhaps, maybe, it is possible, for all one knows, very likely;

"possibly he took the boy with him"


used in polite requests.

"could you possibly pour me another cup of coffee?"

synonyms:

please, kindly, be so good as to

"could you possibly help me?"


2. in accordance with what is likely or achievable, in particular.

Synonyms: conceivably, maybe, mayhap, perchance, perhaps

Related Words: likely, probably; certainly, doubtless, sure, surely, undoubtedly; assumably, presumably, presumedly, supposably, supposedly

Originally posted by C Hess
Item two, if you read it, asks the question if the first life came from non-life. To answer
"possibly" in no way implies that this first life could have existed forever. For my answer to
imply what you assumed, the question would have to be: could this first life have existed
forever, to which my answer would be: "unlikely".

Rather odd point of view you have. On the one hand you say that you believe in what is natural and can be experienced. On the other hand you say you believe it is possible that something you have neither seen nor experienced could have happened.

Funny how you mock those that believe in God on the one hand and give credibility to something just as different on the other.

Originally posted by Eladar
Rather odd point of view you have. On the one hand you say that you believe in what is natural and can be experienced. On the other hand you say you believe it is possible that something you have neither seen nor experienced could have happened.

Funny how you mock those that believe in God on the one hand and give credibility to something just as different on the other.

The problem with the "Goddidit" bunch is scientific evidence piles up year by year making religious folks have to go further and further out on the limb of incredulity to rationalized their fantasies.

Like RJ Hinds believing the Earth to be a few thousand years old in spite of hundreds of years of solid science to the contrary.

So in order for him to rationalize all that El Toro Poo Poo is to try to destroy all the sciences built up in the last 300 years or so like nuclear rock dating and C14 dating and to try to instill doubt in young impressionable minds which is not science at all but politics using pseudoscience as a weapon.

There is ZERO probability the Earth is 6000 years old or 10,000 years old or 100,000 years old but Hinds and his ilk keep pecking at the sciences involved in the hopes of bending susceptible minds in their political quest for domination of creationism in science classrooms.

This is politics pure and simple, not even CLOSE to science.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The problem with the "Goddidit" bunch is scientific evidence piles up year by year making religious folks have to go further and further out on the limb of incredulity to rationalized their fantasies.

Like RJ Hinds believing the Earth to be a few thousand years old in spite of hundreds of years of solid science to the contrary.

So in order for him to ...[text shortened]... ationism in science classrooms.

This is politics pure and simple, not even CLOSE to science.

If you could prove the earth was over 100,000 years old, then I would have to change my belief. However, scientists have been unable to prove that. There is no law of science that says the earth must be over 100,000 years old.

Originally posted by RJHinds
If you could prove the earth was over 100,000 years old, then I would have to change my belief. However, scientists have been unable to prove that. There is no law of science that says the earth must be over 100,000 years old.

That is too infantile a response to bother with.

Originally posted by sonhouse
That is too infantile a response to bother with.

That is because you have no proof.

Originally posted by RJHinds
pos·si·bly

adverb: possibly

1. perhaps (used to indicate doubt or hesitancy).

"he found himself alone, possibly the only surviving officer"

synonyms:

perhaps, maybe, it is possible, for all one knows, [b]very likely;

"possibly he took the boy with him"


used in polite requests.

"could you possibly pour me another cup of coffee? ...[text shortened]... doubtless, sure, surely, undoubtedly; assumably, presumably, presumedly, supposably, supposedly[/b]

Since you like giving definitions I'll remind you that you still haven't said what you mean by life. The standard biological definitions involve matter which has several properties such as a cell membrane, the usual conception of a creator has some form of perfect intelligence which doesn't require matter, so God is not biological life. This means the Garden of Eden story essentially describes Abiogenesis.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Since you like giving definitions I'll remind you that you still haven't said [b]what you mean by life. The standard biological definitions involve matter which has several properties such as a cell membrane, the usual conception of a creator has some form of perfect intelligence which doesn't require matter, so God is not biological life. This means the Garden of Eden story essentially describes Abiogenesis.[/b]

Abiogenesis does not include a Life Giver.

Originally posted by Eladar
Rather odd point of view you have. On the one hand you say that you believe in what is natural and can be experienced. On the other hand you say you believe it is possible that something you have neither seen nor experienced could have happened.

You don't get it. It's possible you're reading this on a smartphone, but I don't know if you do,
I could be wrong. However, more and more people are using smartphones, I'm using a
smartphone myself, so I know it works with this site. It's not a belief on my part, it's merely
a recognition that it's possible. It's also possible, to a much lesser degree, that you are
using some awesome biotechnology where you can roam the Internet from within the
comforts of your own mind. I don't know that, but I would have to say that it's unlikely,
since I've never seen or experienced such technology, and I will have to pressume that
we're both living in the same day and age.

It's the same with origin of life. It's possible both that life is uncreated (as in always
existing) or that it started at some point through natural chemical processes. I don't know
which. However, I have witnessed how chemistry works, so I know that different
substances when added together can spontaneously form new substances. I also know a
lot about evolution and it points to a single (or possibly a few) very simple, single-celled
organisms when we move far enough back in time. It seems logical to conclude that
whatever came before the first life should be something even simpler than that. However, I
have never even once witnessed or experienced any uncreated phenomena,
let alone uncreated intelligence, so I'd say the latter is possible, but to a much lesser
degree.

Originally posted by RJHinds
If you could prove the earth was over 100,000 years old...

Since you are the one trying to assert an age of the earth that contradicts the evidence
collected so far (by several different scientific disciplines), you are the one that needs
to supply evidence for your point of view. There's ample support for the old earth
theory, and none for your young earth. We're still waiting for a creationist scientist to do
some real science on the question, rather than using rethoric and logical fallacies to try
and discredit the science already done in the field.

We both know that since creationism really isn't a valid scientific hypothesis, it can't be
tested, so stop trying to pass it off as science, I beg of you.

Originally posted by C Hess
You don't get it. It's possible you're reading this on a smartphone, but I don't know if you do,
I could be wrong. However, more and more people are using smartphones, I'm using a
smartphone myself, so I know it works with this site. It's not a belief on my part, it's merely
a recognition that it's possible. It's also possible, to a much lesser degree, ...[text shortened]... alone uncreated intelligence, so I'd say the latter is possible, but to a much lesser
degree.

As long as evolution is taught as could be wrong when it comes to origins, that is great. The problem is that it is not. It is taught as truth. Anyone who would believe that our origins is of a super natural source is mocked.

If you deny this, then you are either blind, a liar or a hypocrite.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Abiogenesis does not include a Life Giver.

If the life-giver is non-living then the creation of life counts as abiogenesis. If you want to extend your definition of life to include immaterial things then that is fine; but I think we are entitled to know what you mean by life.