Abiogenesis Education for Evolutionists

Originally posted by RJHinds
The fact that we are here is because the Creator God made it possible.

Oh no, I've been sucked in again!

Originally posted by RJHinds - abiogenesis has not been shown to be true or even possible.
Originally posted by twhitehead - The fact that we are here shows that it is both true and possible.
Originally posted by RJHinds - The fact that we are here is because the Creator God made it possible.

Paraphrasing:
"It's not possible"
"Yes it is"
"Ok, it is, but only because GodDunIt (hallelujah!)"

So you do actually agree that it is possible. Good. We are making progress.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
Oh no, I've been sucked in again!

[b]Originally posted by RJHinds - abiogenesis has not been shown to be true or even possible.
Originally posted by twhitehead - The fact that we are here shows that it is both true and possible.
Originally posted by RJHinds - [i]The fact that we are here is because the Creator God made it ...[text shortened]... you do actually agree that it is possible. Good. We are making progress.

--- Penguin.[/b]

Abiogenesis has not been shown to be true or even possible.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Abiogenesis has not been shown to be true or even possible.

As Penguin indicated, that appears to be a bit inconsistent with your earlier statement:

The fact that we are here is because the Creator God made it POSSIBLE. (your quote, my emphasis)

exactly WHAT are you saying God made “ POSSIBLE” in the above if not abiogenesis?
As Penguin indicated, this was in response to:

Originally posted by RJHinds - abiogenesis has not been shown to be true or even possible.
Originally posted by twhitehead - The fact that we are here shows that it is both true and possible.

so you must have been referring to abiogenesis -right?
You said it ( abiogenesis ) was possible and now you say it hasn't been shown to be possible. Well, if it has not been “shown” to be possible, then how can you rationally know that God made it “POSSIBLE” as you claim?
Let me go through this with you one logical step at a time:

1, you say “God made it ( abiogenesis ) possible”.

therefore,

2, you are saying abiogenesis IS possible.

but

3 you say it ( abiogenesis ) has not been SHOWN to be possible.

So that means that:

4 you say abiogenesis IS possible but has not been SHOWN to be possible.

So how can you RATIONALLY know something is possible when it has not been SHOWN to be possible?

My best guess is that your answer will involve “God” so I will pre-empt that with the next question:

In your mind, can you RATIONALLY know something is possible because you RATIONALLY know that “God MADE it possible” while, simultaneously, RATIONALLY know that that something never has been SHOWN to be possible therefore you cannot RATIONALLY know that “God MADE it possible”?

-Can you believe two contradictory assertions are correct at the same time?

Originally posted by humy
As Penguin indicated, that appears to be a bit inconsistent with your earlier statement:

The fact that we are here is because the Creator God made it POSSIBLE. (your quote, my emphasis)

exactly WHAT are you saying God made “ POSSIBLE” in the above if not abiogenesis?
As Penguin indicated, this was in response to:

[quote] [b]Originally p ...[text shortened]... t possible”?

-Can you believe two contradictory assertions are correct at the same time?[/b]

This is an example of why you guys don't understand the Holy Bible. You refuse to see how the wording of the Holy Bible is not contradictory because you jump to conclusions without trying to see how it could be true. That is also why many people, even religious, believed the Holy Bible was stating that Jesus the Christ was crucified on Friday, instead of Wednesday.

Originally posted by twhitehead - The fact that we are here shows that it is both true and possible.

I responded - The fact that we are here is because the Creator God made it possible.

In my sentence."it" refers back to "fact". It is not logical that I was referring to "abiogenesis" because I had already said abiogenesis is not possible. I was saying the fact we are here is possible because of God.

In other words, the fact we are here is not because of abiogenesis, but it is because God made it possible by creating a fine-tune world before creating mankind.

Do you get it now?

Originally posted by RJHinds
This is an example of why you guys don't understand the Holy Bible. You refuse to see how the wording of the Holy Bible is not contradictory because you jump to conclusions without trying to see how it could be true. That is also why many people, even religious, believed the Holy Bible was stating that Jesus the Christ was crucified on Friday, instead of W possible by creating a fine-tune world before creating mankind.

Do you get it now?[/b]

In my sentence."it" refers back to "fact". It is not logical that I was referring to "abiogenesis" because I had already said abiogenesis is not possible.

-if that is true, that would mean you changed the subject for some reason for first he said:

Originally posted by twhitehead - The fact that we are here shows that IT is both true and possible. (my emphasis)

were the “IT” clearly refers to abiogenesis so he is clearly talking about the subject of abiogenesis and now you say that the “IT” in your immediate response to his above quote:

The fact that we are here is because the Creator God made IT possible. (my emphasis)

is NOT referring to abiogenesis! So you apparently claim here that you have changed the subject right in the midst of the conversation.
When we try and judge what the other person is talking about in a conversation, would you admit here that it is perfectly rational to assume they are referring to the same thing in their responses as was what was referenced in the quote they respond to?

If you did change the subject as you now apparently claim, did you do so to confuse us?

Originally posted by humy

In my sentence."it" refers back to "fact". It is not logical that I was referring to "abiogenesis" because I had already said abiogenesis is not possible.

-if that is true, that would mean you changed the subject for some reason for first he said:
[quote]
Originally posted by twhitehead - The fact that we are here shows that [b]IT ...[text shortened]...

If you did change the subject as you now apparently claim, did you do so to confuse us?[/b]

Posted by twhitehead - The fact that we are here shows that it is both true and possible.

If I remenber my English grammar correctly "fact" would be the subject in the sentence and "it" would be the object even though it refers to abiogenesis in his previous post.

My reply was referring to the subject of this new sentence, which in total is "The fact that we are here" So if anyone changed the subject it was twhitehead. We are now talking about what the fact that we are here proves. He claims it proves abiogenesis is possible. Notice how the pronoun "it" can be used in the place of any noun.

Now,
My reply post - The fact that we are here is because the Creator God made it possible.

My "it" is not restricted to refer to his "it" because we are talking about a new subject - the fact that we are here.

My sentence is saying the fact that we are here has been made possible by God. I was disagreeing with what he had said, not agreeing.

Originally posted by RJHinds
[b]Posted by twhitehead - The fact that we are here shows that it is both true and possible.

If I remenber my English grammar correctly "fact" would be the subject in the sentence and "it" would be the object even though it refers to abiogenesis in his previous post.

My reply was referring to the subject of this n ...[text shortened]... en made possible by God. I was disagreeing with what he had said, not agreeing.[/b][/b]

My apologise 🙂 -honestly didn't spot that alternative possible plausible meaning.
You have to admit though, easy mistake to make of thinking you were referring to abiogenesis when he was just referring to that! And I was not the only one to make that mistake.

Originally posted by humy
My apologise 🙂 -honestly didn't spot that alternative possible plausible meaning.
You have to admit though, easy mistake to make of thinking you were referring to abiogenesis when he was just referring to that! And I was not the only one to make that mistake.

Yes, i guess I should have been more clear; but no one is perfect, not even me. 😀

P.S. I did it again. I forgot Christ, who may be perfect now.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Let us consider very briefly what are the absolute minimum requirements for a living cell.

The complexity of the simplest known living organism is mind-boggling. You need the cell wall, the energy system, a system of self-repair, a reproduction system, and means for taking in food ( what food? All food derives ultimately from chlorophyll which has no exi ...[text shortened]... we know it would have been impossible.

http://www.questiondarwin.com/abiogenesis.html

http://athousandyoung.blogspot.com/2010/12/history-and-prehistory-of-everything.html

~4.1 billion BCE The surface of the Earth cools enough for the crust to solidify. The atmosphere and the oceans form. PAH infall, and iron sulfide synthesis along deep ocean platelet boundaries, may have led to the RNA world of competing organic compounds.

~4 billion BCE The earliest life appears, possibly derived from self-reproducing RNA molecules. The replication of these organisms requires resources like energy, space, and smaller building blocks, which soon become limited, resulting in competition, with natural selection favouring those molecules which are more efficient at replication. DNA molecules then take over as the main replicators and these archaic genomes soon develop inside enclosing membranes which provide a stable physical and chemical environment conducive to their replication: proto-cells.

~3.5 billion BCE The first prokaryotic cells evolve from proto-cells. These first organisms are chemoautotrophs: they use carbon dioxide as a carbon source and oxidize inorganic materials to extract energy. These organisms generate ATP by exploiting a proton gradient, a mechanism still used in virtually all organisms. This is the time when the Last Universal Ancestor of all life existed. Bacteria diverge from Archaea.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
http://athousandyoung.blogspot.com/2010/12/history-and-prehistory-of-everything.html

~4.1 billion BCE The surface of the Earth cools enough for the crust to solidify. The atmosphere and the oceans form. PAH infall, and iron sulfide synthesis along deep ocean platelet boundaries, may have led to the RNA world of competing organic compounds.

~4 bi ...[text shortened]... is the time when the Last Universal Ancestor of all life existed. Bacteria diverge from Archaea.

Speculation and opinion does not make for good science. Science is not a religion, like Atheism; and therefore, it requires proof.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Speculation and opinion does not make for good science. Science is not a religion, like Atheism; and therefore, it requires proof.

Since you have little in the way of science education, you are in no position to judge what is proof and what is speculation.

It is all a big blur to you one way or the other. Mental blurring does not help you with your position, it detracts from it.

Which is not to say I think you have to have a Phd in a subject to refute it but you need more mental resources than YOU possess to make such judgement.

This is in no way an attack on your intelligence, which your religion maliciously bypasses, this is your lack of interest in pursuing a subject beyond just rejection out of hand without scientific justification.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Speculation and opinion does not make for good science. Science is not a religion, like Atheism; and therefore, it requires proof.

But unless the speculation is proven to be impossible, it remains a perfectly good counter argument to a claim that 'it could only have happened this way'. If you claim that life has a certain set of minimum requirements and someone speculates that life could survive without some of those requirements then until you show his speculations to be flawed, your claim has been disproved.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Since you have little in the way of science education, you are in no position to judge what is proof and what is speculation.

It is all a big blur to you one way or the other. Mental blurring does not help you with your position, it detracts from it.

Which is not to say I think you have to have a Phd in a subject to refute it but you need more menta ...[text shortened]... terest in pursuing a subject beyond just rejection out of hand without scientific justification.

I have presented a lot of information from other sources. Some have a few inaccuracies in them that I failed to check out beforehand, but others include information from real scientist in Biology, who do not believe the theory of evolution is credible.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But unless the speculation is proven to be impossible, it remains a perfectly good counter argument to a claim that 'it could only have happened this way'. If you claim that life has a certain set of minimum requirements and someone speculates that life could survive without some of those requirements then until you show his speculations to be flawed, your claim has been disproved.

Not so. Your logic is flawed. I would never buy any of your computer programs, if I new you were the programmer, in fear they would not work right. I would not trust that this flawed logic would not spill over into your work.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have presented a lot of information from other sources. Some have a few inaccuracies in them that I failed to check out beforehand, but others include information from real scientist in Biology, who do not believe the theory of evolution is credible.

Sure, you get a creationist who started out as a real person, gets converted after college, then all his or her training goes out the window and you might as well be selling geloto's at Rita's for all the good your wonderful education gave you.