Ownership to the hilt

Originally posted by @kellyjay
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 materi ...[text shortened]... ssibly here millions of years ago.

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

Edit: The setup is known true... ...heat and cooling.

The set up simulated hypothetical conditions present on the early Earth in order to test what kind of environment would be needed to allow life to begin, according to the Oparin-Haldane model. The suggestion was that under the reducing conditions supposedly present in the atmosphere of Earth between 4 and 3.5 billion years ago, inorganic molecules would spontaneously form simple organic molecules, like sugars and amino acids.
When the experiment took place and the gas mixture based on those predictions was heated and given an electrical charge, organic compounds were indeed formed.

This outcome does not prove that this is what actually happened back then. It simply demonstrates how some simple biological molecules could have arisen abiotically, through non-biological processes and under conditions thought to be similar to those of Earth. This is a fact.
What is not a fact at all, is the strict necessity of a supernatural force whose intervention is required in order to have simple biological molecules arisen.
😵

Originally posted by @kellyjay
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 materi ...[text shortened]... ssibly here millions of years ago.

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

Edit: 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.

Simple forms of life exist on almost every other icy out-of-solar-body that falls on Earth.
As regards the estimated number of forms of life here on Earth, I answered you earlier about this matter. Perhaps you could manage to have a look at the paper I linked earlier for your convenience.
😵

Originally posted by @kellyjay
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 materi ...[text shortened]... ssibly here millions of years ago.

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

Edit: 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?

I informed you that abiogenesis is quite possible under specific circumstances. This is a fact.
I also informed you that the meteorite that fell near Murchison, Victoria, Australia on 9/28, 1969, contained more than 90 different amino acids, 19 of which are found also in Earth life. This is a fact.
Therefore, abiogenesis has nothing to do with faith. It is a quite viable theory of reality grounded on scientifically provided, investigated and accepted hard facts.
😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
Edit: The setup is known true... ...heat and cooling.

The set up simulated hypothetical conditions present on the early Earth in order to test what kind of environment would be needed to allow life to begin, according to the Oparin-Haldane model. The suggestion was that under the reducing conditions supposedly present in the atmosphere of Earth betw ...[text shortened]... al force whose intervention is required in order to have simple biological molecules arisen.
😵

You don't know that it doesn't require God is a fact no matter how many times you proclaim it to be true. Simply suggesting it over as an operational assumption prohibits you from even entertaining the necessity of something that maybe required, your prejudice is showing.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
You don't know that it doesn't require God is a fact no matter how many times you proclaim it to be true. Simply suggesting it over as an operational assumption prohibits you from even entertaining the necessity of something that maybe required, your prejudice is showing.

Did you really read and comprehend the post of mine to which you replied? If you did, what exactly of what I said made you think that the outcome of the experiment requires supernatural intervention? It does not.

I told you that the outcome of the experiment proves simply that the theory of abiogenesis is a viable theory of reality. You appear to believe this is not the case; Very well, then kindly please cite the scientific literature that supports your view.

"My prejudice is showing" -what prejudice? We talk about an easy experiment demonstrating that simple biological molecules can well arise abiotically! OK, just cite the scientific literature that supports your view as regards this matter too.
😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
Did you really read and comprehend the post of mine to which you replied? If you did, what exactly of what I said made you think that the outcome of the experiment requires supernatural intervention? It does not.

I told you that the outcome of the experiment proves simply that the theory of abiogenesis is a viable theory of reality. You appear to be ...[text shortened]... OK, just cite the scientific literature that supports your view as regards this matter too.
😵

Your experiments can give you exactly what you want to see. You can also take readings do perfect math, neither of those mean the real world works the way you think. They mean when you run materials through a test tube you have what you put in and do not what you exclude, thus acquiring your results.

As I have been pointing out to you the whole universe has to be knit together to support life, all the ingredients have to be present in the proper form, and on and on.

That said even with the millions of requirements needed, it may still require God the natural world on its own might not ever be up to the task, test tubes and what you think the conditions were millions of years ago not with standing.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Your experiments can give you exactly what you want to see. You can also take readings do perfect math, neither of those mean the real world works the way you think. They mean when you run materials through a test tube you have what you put in and do not what you exclude, thus acquiring your results.

As I have been pointing out to you the whole universe ...[text shortened]... task, test tubes and what you think the conditions were millions of years ago not with standing.

Edit: Your experiments can give you exactly what you want to see. You can also take readings do perfect math, neither of those mean the real world works the way you think. They mean when you run materials through a test tube you have what you put in and do not what you exclude, thus acquiring your results.

Not only this is inaccurate, but is a deflection too. Evidence, please. The issue we are talking is a usual scientific procedure based on a specific hypothesis and specific conditions. The result was unknown before the actual experiment. Nobody could ever know for sure the results, which are legitimate. You do not tolerate to accept the consequences of the outcome because they contradict the Scripture. If you doubt the result, you can well cite scientific literature that supports your view.
😵

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Your experiments can give you exactly what you want to see. You can also take readings do perfect math, neither of those mean the real world works the way you think. They mean when you run materials through a test tube you have what you put in and do not what you exclude, thus acquiring your results.

As I have been pointing out to you the whole universe ...[text shortened]... task, test tubes and what you think the conditions were millions of years ago not with standing.

Edit: As I have been pointing out to you the whole universe has to be knit together to support life, all the ingredients have to be present in the proper form, and on and on.

It well supports life on Earth, and abiogenesis proved to be a viable theory of reality; the religious dogmas, all of them, are still not. Nobody knows for sure what happened. Everything is open. But this does not mean that should postulate that a supernatural intervention did it, as you insist. I admit don't know. Why do you insist that you know? How and by what means did you come to know?

When I will see hard facts and evidence as regards the necessity of any variation of the Inteligent Design dogma, I will reconsider the then given data; but for the time being, there is none. So to me, Intelligent Design is a theory of reality that fails big time.
😵

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Your experiments can give you exactly what you want to see. You can also take readings do perfect math, neither of those mean the real world works the way you think. They mean when you run materials through a test tube you have what you put in and do not what you exclude, thus acquiring your results.

As I have been pointing out to you the whole universe ...[text shortened]... task, test tubes and what you think the conditions were millions of years ago not with standing.

Edit: That said even with the millions of requirements needed, it may still require God the natural world on its own might not ever be up to the task, test tubes and what you think the conditions were millions of years ago not with standing.

Yes, this view is a variation of the standard Catholic thesis as regards the theory of evolution. And again, this is as strong as to claim that for the whole process we are talking about is required the existence of the entity the human beings name Siva. This claim makes me remember our good ole Dasa...
😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
Edit: That said even with the millions of requirements needed, it may still require God the natural world on its own might not ever be up to the task, test tubes and what you think the conditions were millions of years ago not with standing.

Yes, this view is a variation of the standard Catholic thesis as regards the theory of evolution. And again, ...[text shortened]... of the entity the human beings name Siva. This claim makes me remember our good ole Dasa...
😵

Your claims are stronger? Experiments in test tubes, claims about knowledge of molecules millions of years ago suggesting maybe all the required material was present so it might have connected in just the right way to form life, and then trive while surviving in a previously lifeless planet, never running out of food, or life ending events.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Your claims are stronger? Experiments in test tubes, claims about knowledge of molecules millions of years ago suggesting maybe all the required material was present so it might have connected in just the right way to form life, and then trive while surviving in a previously lifeless planet, never running out of food, or life ending events.

My claims are simply a product of my evaluation regarding scientific facts and evidents and scientific theories of reality that are considered viable herenow. They are not dogmas; I can switch from them to new claims on the spot in case they will be dismissed by the scientific community as inaccurate, in the light of new scientificcaly accepted data and discoveries. So my claims are neither religious, nor "objectively true" or brought on by some supernatural force that acts through me by means of some supernatural interaction. And I hold myself, and solely myself, fully responsible for them.

To me, religious dogmas are a weapon of mass IQ and EQ distruction😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
My claims are simply a product of my evaluation regarding scientific facts and evidents and scientific theories of reality that are considered viable herenow. They are not dogmas; I can switch from them to new claims on the spot in case they will be dismissed by the scientific community as inaccurate, in the light of new scientificcaly accepted data an ...[text shortened]... ly responsible for them.

To me, religious dogmas are a weapon of mass IQ and EQ distruction😵

Very true, and like all claims that doesn't mean they are correct. You are assuming you
have evidence about what might have, could have, happen millions/billions of
years ago, so that it might be possible something else might have, could have, and so
on occurred millions/billions of years ago, and this one of the things you base your beliefs
surrounding God isn't required.

Viable here and now in some small ways, but they are dogma. Little chance they will be
dismissed, they are foundational views for people who reject their creator, denying the
One who made them. Besides, how can you prove something wrong that supposedly
happen billions/millions of years ago, you can sit safely in your chair knowing that isn't
going to occur, that is until your soul is required for an account.

Your views about people of faith noted, shame you don't realize the faith you are walking
in.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Very true, and like all claims that doesn't mean they are correct. You are assuming you
have evidence about what [b] might have, could have, happen millions/billions of
years ago, so that it might be possible something else might have, could have, and so
on occurred millions/billions of years ago, and this one of the things you base your bel ...[text shortened]...
Your views about people of faith noted, shame you don't realize the faith you are walking
in.[/b]

Edit: Very true..., and like all claims that doesn't mean they are correct. You are assuming you
have evidence about what might have, could have, happen millions/billions of years ago, so that it might be possible something else might have, could have, and so on occurred millions/billions of years ago, and this one of the things you base your beliefs
surrounding God isn't required.

I do not live this way. I know what exactly is known and what is unknown. I do neither confuse concrete scientific knowledge with concrete scientific hypotheses, nor these two with the religious beliefs and the products of superstitions. And when I really don't know, I do never suppose that G-d did it. I admit I don't know and keep on investigating and, as long as there is no evidence for the supposed supernatural intervention, I discard the religious beliefs alright instead of replacing my ignorance with blind beliefs that have to be accepted because the scribes of a holy book say so.
😵

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Very true, and like all claims that doesn't mean they are correct. You are assuming you
have evidence about what [b] might have, could have, happen millions/billions of
years ago, so that it might be possible something else might have, could have, and so
on occurred millions/billions of years ago, and this one of the things you base your bel ...[text shortened]...
Your views about people of faith noted, shame you don't realize the faith you are walking
in.[/b]

Edit: Viable here... and now in some small ways, but they are dogma. Little chance they will be
dismissed, they are foundational views for people who reject their creator, denying the
One who made them. Besides, how can you prove something wrong that supposedly
happen billions/millions of years ago, you can sit safely in your chair knowing that isn't
going to occur, that is until your soul is required for an account.


I disagree. This is not the way we scientifically advance. Science is provisional, Kellyjay. Scientists are ever ready to switch on new acceptances. Just see what exactly goes on right now in molecular physics, biochemistry, kosmology etc.
😵

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Very true, and like all claims that doesn't mean they are correct. You are assuming you
have evidence about what [b] might have, could have, happen millions/billions of
years ago, so that it might be possible something else might have, could have, and so
on occurred millions/billions of years ago, and this one of the things you base your bel ...[text shortened]...
Your views about people of faith noted, shame you don't realize the faith you are walking
in.[/b]

Edit: Your views about people of faith noted, shame you don't realize the faith you are walking in.


I respect all people regardless of their religious beliefs and I accept that to them their beliefs are sacred. I do not accept your supposition that the religious beliefs are equal to the scientic facts and evidence.
Faith, I have not.
Hatred for the people of faith, regardless their religion, I cultivate not. I cultivate the evaluation of the mind, and then I discard my mind too.
😵