Ownership to the hilt

Originally posted by @karoly-aczel
Yes , well it's clear that you and I have differing views here, however lets at least take in the triumph of cordiality in this thread ...

I accidently ventured into 'clans' the other day. Wow does it fly around there.


Enjoyed this thread thnx

😉

Originally posted by @karoly-aczel

Yes, I've thought long and hard about the "Fall of Man" and can only conclude that whatever exactly happened in the past , however god-eclipsing it was, not much is said about the "Rise of Man".

Sure there is everything in the Bible about the salvation of man. And not just as individuals but as a corporate entity.

Originally posted by @sonship

Yes, I've thought long and hard about the "Fall of Man" and can only conclude that whatever exactly happened in the past , however god-eclipsing it was, not much is said about the "Rise of Man".

Sure there is everything in the Bible about the salvation of man. And not just as individuals but as a corporate entity.

That's not what I meant.

The corporation is just another step towards global domination. 😀

Originally posted by @black-beetle
What do you mean “stories”? Everything is a story, even you and I. We are narrators of our own stories and we are fully responsible for their context. We write them down, they are not written through us by means of supernatural forces.

If the Miller-Urey and the rest experiments, along with the theory of abiogenesis, are to you non-tenable, kindly p ...[text shortened]... iffer personal, moral and social implications.
However I see no “purpose” as you pose it.

😵

I can go to the store and buy all of the necessary items required to make a cake. I can set them all on the table and no matter how much time passes a cake will never happen just getting all the ingredients in one spot.

If I mix them without following the instructions, like adding 10x milk and 0.009 amounts of cake mix, what the end result will be will not be a cake. If I mix it all properly and never put it in an oven I will not end up with a cake.

Even putting it in an oven but not setting the temperature correctly or leaving it in to long we don't end up with our desired result.

So suggesting materials could be here is only a tiny piece of what is required it, it doesn't really get us near where it would matter. The moment everything could come together could be ruined by any additional item that could also get mixed in changing the outcome.

To suggest that this was bound to occur is not looking at the evidence with a critical eye, instead one that only wants to believe.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
I can go to the store and buy all of the necessary items required to make a cake. I can set them all on the table and no matter how much time passes a cake will never happen just getting all the ingredients in one spot.

If I mix them without following the instructions, like adding 10x milk and 0.009 amounts of cake mix, what the end result will be will ...[text shortened]... ccur is not looking at the evidence with a critical eye, instead one that only wants to believe.

This hypothesis of yours has nothing to do with the Miller-Urey experiment and the theory of abiogenesis. In your paradigm, the proper analogy would be to come up with the idea to make the first cake ever (abiogenesis theory), to try to compose the recipe of the cake and use properly its ingredients (the main set-up and the elements of the Miller-Urey experiment), to come up with a cake (the result of the experiment proved that the theory of abiogenesis is tenable), and to be able to make the cake again and again repeatedly ending up with a product with the same distinctive characteristics (the Miller-Urey experiment proved as repeatable as it gets).

Therefore: If the Miller-Urey and the rest experiments, along with the theory of abiogenesis, are to you non-tenable, kindly please explain why the experiments are repeatable and let me know the exact reasons why you reject the theory.
😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
This hypothesis of yours has nothing to do with the Miller-Urey experiment and the theory of abiogenesis. In your paradigm, the proper analogy would be to come up with the idea to make the first cake ever (abiogenesis theory), to try to compose the recipe of the cake and use properly its ingredients (the main set-up and the elements of the Miller-Urey ...[text shortened]... the experiments are repeatable and let me know the exact reasons why you reject the theory.
😵

You saw how he set up the experiment correct? The design was going to give the results desired, screw around with it, it won't.

My cake example goes directly to abiogenesis. You disagree with needing all the required material, putting them together correctly, under the necessary conditions? Was I wrong about that?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
You saw how he set up the experiment correct? The design was going to give the results desired, screw around with it, it won't.

My cake example goes directly to abiogenesis. You disagree with needing all the required material, putting them together correctly, under the necessary conditions? Was I wrong about that?

Edit: You saw how he set up the experiment correct? The design was going to give the results desired, screw around with it, it won't.

What design? There is no design in the context of the experiment. There was simulation of the conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth according to the theory of abiogenesis; the experiment is a product of the idea of abiogenesis, not vice-versa.
The experiment took place in order to conduct a test about the chemical origin of life under those circumstances.
😵

Originally posted by @kellyjay
You saw how he set up the experiment correct? The design was going to give the results desired, screw around with it, it won't.

My cake example goes directly to abiogenesis. You disagree with needing all the required material, putting them together correctly, under the necessary conditions? Was I wrong about that?

Edit: My cake example… …conditions? Was I wrong about that?

Yes, you are wrong. The experiment suggests that organic molecules could have spontaneously formed on primitive Earth, giving way to the first living things. Now:

Is there solid evidence and hard facts proving that organic molecules can reach our planet?
Yes.

Is there solid evidence and hard facts that under specific circumstances organic molecules could have spontaneously formed on primitive Earth, giving way to the first living things?
Yes, the experiment proves it.

Is the set up per se of the first experiment necessary for the successful repetitions of the final product?
No, because later on took place differ experiments with altered atmospheres, and showed similar results of the spontaneous generation of amino acids, lipids and nucleotides.

Is a supernatural intervention necessary?
No.

😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
Edit: You saw how he set up the experiment correct? The design was going to give the results desired, screw around with it, it won't.

What design? There is no design in the context of the experiment. There was simulation of the conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth according to the theory of abiogenesis; the experiment is ...[text shortened]... lace in order to conduct a test about the chemical origin of life under those circumstances.
😵

You saw how it was divided up, a simulation of conditions...really?
So when it "went through the process" did it all stay mixed together, or was it segregated?

I think if a baker runs his material through the process he gets a cake, as long as he
can keep the processed mix away from the raw material as needed.

Live wasn't created there either, and if I'm not mistaken what was produced there wasn't
something required for life either. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Originally posted by @black-beetle
Edit: My cake example… …conditions? Was I wrong about that?

Yes, you are wrong. The experiment suggests that organic molecules could have spontaneously formed on primitive Earth, giving way to the first living things. Now:

Is there solid evidence and hard facts proving that organic molecules can reach our planet?
Yes.

Is there solid evidence ...[text shortened]... of amino acids, lipids and nucleotides.

Is a supernatural intervention necessary?
No.

😵

Solid evidence that millions of years ago 'organic molecules"...okay sure.
And under specific circumstances which no one knows...what they were ...okay sure.
Pipe dream on what that experiment proved.

You have no clue, but believe...none the less...you didn't even talk to my points.
What would have had to happen, I lined up a few things against that, and you didn't even
bother entertaining them, you just repeated your belief. The whole universe has to be
knit together to produce life, not just running some material through a test tube heating
and cooling what was needed when, and not allowing the processed with the unprocessed
to remain together throughout.

In the beginning nothing, and yet everything is here...no supernatural required?...nothing
produces nothing.

Originally posted by @black-beetle
This hypothesis of yours has nothing to do with the Miller-Urey experiment and the theory of abiogenesis. In your paradigm, the proper analogy would be to come up with the idea to make the first cake ever (abiogenesis theory), to try to compose the recipe of the cake and use properly its ingredients (the main set-up and the elements of the Miller-Urey ...[text shortened]... the experiments are repeatable and let me know the exact reasons why you reject the theory.
😵

"This hypothesis of yours has nothing to do with the Miller-Urey experiment and the theory of abiogenesis."

It was a hypothesis, I didn't know I was not allowed to speak to anything, but Miller-Urey,
sorry my bad! (Come on) conversations take on topics new and old all the time.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
You saw how it was divided up, a simulation of conditions...really?
So when it "went through the process" did it all stay mixed together, or was it segregated?

I think if a baker runs his material through the process he gets a cake, as long as he
can keep the processed mix away from the raw material as needed.

Live wasn't created there either, and ...[text shortened]... t was produced there wasn't
something required for life either. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Edit: You saw... ...or was it segregated?

The set up of the experiment is known, and the final product of the reaction was condensed water that trickled at the lowest part of the circuit. Nothing supernatural. Kindly please cite the scientific literature concerning your opinion that the set up per se is questionable.


Edit: I think... ...as needed.

There is no designer in the context of the experiment. And the “cake”, to use your analogy, in the context of the experiment is just any result that could allow life to begin.


Edit: Live... ...Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The experiment took place solely in order to test what kind of environment would be needed to allow life to begin. And it proved that this is possible without supernatural forces.
😵

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Solid evidence that millions of years ago 'organic molecules"...okay sure.
And under specific circumstances which no one knows...what they were ...okay sure.
Pipe dream on what that experiment proved.

You have no clue, but believe...none the less...you didn't even talk to my points.
What would have had to happen, I lined up a few things against that, ...[text shortened]... ing nothing, and yet everything is here...no supernatural required?...nothing
produces nothing.

I hold no beliefs. The sole thing I have is my mind. I use it in order to evaluate, not in order to follow written in stone beliefs and absolute truths. So I question everything. And I reject all the religious theories of reality because they all lack of facts and evidence. It's OK. You have a different view, which is OK too. It just happens that your view is not scientifically accepted herenow.

Next:
So in your opinion I have no clue when I insist that there solid evidence and hard facts proving that organic molecules can reach our planet. You are wrong. You can search on your own the hard facts as regards out-of-solar bodies, comets etc. conserning this matter.

And you say I have no clue when I claim there is solid evidence and hard facts which prove that under specific circumstances organic molecules could have spontaneously formed on primitive Earth, giving way to the first living things. You are wrong. The experiment and its variations that took place prove just this alright, but you refuse to see it. So be it.

And you insist that a supernatural intervention necessary. I do not see it. So be it.
😵

Originally posted by @kellyjay
"This hypothesis of yours has nothing to do with the Miller-Urey experiment and the theory of abiogenesis."

It was a hypothesis, I didn't know I was not allowed to speak to anything, but Miller-Urey,
sorry my bad! (Come on) conversations take on topics new and old all the time.

Yes, a conversation like the one triggered by the OP of this thread can take many turns, it's normal. But I replied you the way I did at that post of mine simply because we had a dialogue and I had to answer you in the context of your just developed string of thoughts. Kindly please track our dialogue down again and tell me what exactly I misunderstood and refused to answer. Perhaps I missed something, but I cannot see what could it be.
😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
Edit: You saw... ...or was it segregated?

The set up of the experiment is known, and the final product of the reaction was condensed water that trickled at the lowest part of the circuit. Nothing supernatural. Kindly please cite the scientific literature concerning your opinion that the set up per se is questionable.


Edit: I think... ...as nee ...[text shortened]... ded to allow life to begin. And it proved that this is possible without supernatural forces.
😵

The setup is known true, exactly how many locations on the planet mimic the inside of test tubes? Where not only what we want can be contained inside the tubing, but what we don't want can be excluded? A circuit is an interesting term used to describe something that is to show how that could happen in real life without the inclusion and exclusion of material and the stress of heat and cooling.

Any result that would allow life to begin, exactly how many are you very familiar with? I am pointing out requirements that not just this planet needs, but the whole universe from the most macro to the smallest micro. The list of requirements is on the vastly larger side of the number scale.

You have raised running material through a test tube and telling me we know about molecules that were possibly here millions of years ago.

You have anything more substantial? Is this faith for you?