Abiogenesis

Author: Goldtop

Posts

Total: 334
Topic's author
#61
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@ethang5
I love internet trolls.

I'm sure you studied long and hard to be one, you certainly haven't studied anything else.

Tell us all and the Gentle Readers why you are so adamant at humiliating yourself?
Topic's author
#62
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@ethang5
All that evidence you're posting for abiogenesis

It's well known when at ddo you denied every piece of evidence placed before you, doing so because you didn't have a clue what the evidence was, because you've never learned anything about science. It would be like me handing a piece of a turbo fan jet engine to you asking where it fits on the engine and it's purpose. You would simply shrug your shoulders and probably deny it was part of that engine. This is the level of comprehension you constantly exhibit. You pick and choose what is and what is not science based on your irrational religious beliefs. Sad, but hilarious, because it's you.
#63
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Goldtop
Sure Goldy.

You could post some evidence, but it would be no use. Lol.

We believe you. We won't even bring up the fact you were widely known as a troll on DDO.

I'm laughing along with those scientists.

You can't post any evidence because there is none. And with your poor background in science, you wouldn't know any if there was some.

Every bit of scientific evidence gleaned from observation or experimentation refutes abiogenesis. All you can do is pretend you have evidence as you make silly posts with lame excuses why you can't post any evidence.

I shamed you on DDO, which is why you're now here, showcasing your butthurt you nursed all this time. Join your fellow DDO trolls bully, hari, and willows, following me around, trying to sooth your emotional pain by being jerks on a whole new board.

Bitter much?
Topic's author
#64
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@ethang5
following me around

Bitter much?

Yes, you are, very bitter. That last post says it all.

It looks like you've lost something, too.

I think you're done here.
#65
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Goldtop
I'm not the one following you around Dingus.

And I'm not the one on a thread titled abiogenesis who has posted nothing on abiogenesis, but keeps talking about other people being science ignorant.

I think you're done here.
I was done with you on DDO. Little slow on the uptake there genius.
Topic's author
#66
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@ethang5
I'm not the one following you around

Yet, here you are trolling my thread with denials and ignorance

I was done with you on DDO
Yet, here you are trolling my thread with denials and ignorance.
#67
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Goldtop
Yet, here you are trolling my thread with denials and ignorance
Denials and ignorance being evidence for my position. OK.

Yet, here you are trolling my thread with denials and ignorance.
Your thread? The one titled "abiogenesis" where you've said nothing about abiogenesis? That thread?

The troll is the one who has been asked several times for evidence for his position but has posted instead some unrelated stupidity about creationism and amputees.

And true to troll form, you will do so again, because your irrational bitterness has overwhelmed your common sense. But on the bright side, you are trolling your own thread.

Tell us nothing about abiogenesis again. That's always fun.
Topic's author
#68
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@ethang5
The troll is the one

The troll is the anti-science Creationist who comes to the Science forum with denials and ignorance.

It never mattered what was brought before you on such threads, you just denied it and started name calling, like you always do.

It's why no one takes you seriously, why no one bothers to engage you in such topics, why it is a waste of time trying to teach you anything.
#69
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Goldtop
The troll is the anti-science Creationist who comes to the Science forum with denials and ignorance.
That would be you. No evidence, denying science, and being a troll. Check.

It never mattered what was brought before you on such threads, you just denied it and started name calling, like you always do.
The name calling has all been done by you. And other than insults,  you've brought nothing but lame excuses. Check.

It's why no one takes you seriously, why no one bothers to engage you in such topics, why it is a waste of time trying to teach you anything.
Lol. More people talk to me than to you. And you seem unable to teach anyone about abiogenesis. You started the thread and have said not one thing about abiogenesis. Check.

Maybe you should start a thread about the photons at the center of black holes. Isn't that your specialty?
#70
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
RNA-DNA coding may occur within and on event horizon surface of black holes.

We know that under higher pressures, molecules become more complex.

Black holes create the highest pressures in Universe and human RNA-DNA is the most complex biologics of Universe.

1 triangle  + 1 triangles = 4of same size triangles synergetically. 

4 triangles define the 3-fold tetra{4}hedron and the 60 degree orientation is same as the the 4-fold cubo{6}-octa{8}hedron { 4 bisecting planes }.
 
This link shows the intimate geometric correlation to each others http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/plates/figs/plate31.html

The 4-fold spherical cubo-octahedronsinternal, four bisecting planes area,  are equal to the outer surface area.  What is inside is equal to what is outside via square area.  This is holographic aspect of whats inside a black hole being expressed on its outer event horizon.
#71
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
Every single experiment trying to simulate early Earth conditions, or set up conditions for abiogenesis, to see if life can start spontaneously, has failed miserably. All of them

I mean, it failed to produce a living organism, but... What is the Miller-Urey experiment? Asking for a friend...
#72
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
Abiogenesis being widely accepted fmpov is basically because we take that organic compounds can be created from inorganic. Then add in what Drafter is pointing out in that at one point there was no life on Earth, then there was. Throw in some inductive reasoning, and what you get is it being the most likely hypothesis to be true. 

Panspermia is another hypothesis. But the issue you get with Panspermia is even if life started on another planet, where did that life begin? And so on(transitive series of events) until you are left with concluding either life came from non life(abiogenesis), or life always was, as Drafter astutely pointed out.

I'm pretty sure that is one of the premises of the KCM tbh 
#73
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Urey-Miller was a failure. And when the experiment was corrected for early Earth atmosphere, it was again a failure. If you read science sites accounts, you will see them mightily try to walk the fine line between leaving the reader with the impression the experiment had value, and not being accused of over selling the experiment.

Here is a good site. Not really objective, but fairly true

Here is one listing the flaws in the experiment.

Here is a technical paper written by a scientist. (BSc, MSc, PhD, CChem, FRSC)

Knowing Urey-Miller is dead...
Scientists propose new hypothesis on the origin of life

...the debate about whether life could arise from chemical reactions began to change when scientists started to question the atmospheric conditions used by Miller and Urey. 

Researchers who have repeated the Miller-Urey experiment under the new atmospheric assumptions, including Miller, have shown that this new mixture does not produce amino acids.

“After it became clear that the origin of the atmosphere was made of carbon dioxide,” says Mulkidjanian, “there was no physically or chemically plausible hypothesis of the origin of life.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, trying to cling to Urey-Miller, they downplay the goal of the experiment and say that it only proved that amino-acids could form in early Earth atmosphere. Not only is this untrue, but the original goal of Urey-Miller was to prove abiogenesis. It failed. All other similar experiments have failed.
Topic's author
#74
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2

As we can easily see, Ethan has no concept of science, his first reference is an Iowa newspaper and an article from a political science student. This is his refutation of science. His second reference is a Christian anti-science site. Nuff said there.

This is Ethans understanding of science.
Topic's author
#75
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@ethang5
Urey-Miller was a failure.

Of course, Ethans opening statement is a blatant lie. This is Ethans concept of an honest Christian.
#76
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
As we can easily see,
Unlike with you.

Ethan has no concept of science,
But he can actually post links containing science, unlike you.

his first reference is an Iowa newspaper and an article from a political science student. 
Whose content you fear to read so you attack the man. What a loser.

This is his refutation of science. 
Its a refutation of you clemmet, not science. The post lists the flaws of the experiment. You respond with the illogical, he's a political science student. What are you?

His second reference is a Christian anti-science site. Nuff said there.
Untrue. It is staffed by scientists, all of them more qualified than you. Ad Homs won't help you doofus. Address the content, not the man. 

Ethans opening statement is a blatant lie.
Ethan's opening statement is corroborated by the third link you.....ahem....forgot to mention (and snipped off) physics.org.

Na-huh is all you have. But you know science.

Lol.

#77
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
Logically, either life has always existed, or life has not always existed. If the latter case is true, then ambiogenesis occurred. 
#78
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,509
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@ethang5

Don't get me wrong, amigo. I don't think religions or God is the answer either. If we have to be unbiased in this subject we must say that evolution and abiognenesis is a good point to start off with when it comes to know our origins. Nevertheless, I cannot stand how scientists try to sell us that these stupid theories are the answer to our questions, that is a serious offense to our intelligence.

I still believe science (righteous science) is the key to know the truth.
#79
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
Urey-Miller was a failure. And when the experiment was corrected for early Earth atmosphere, it was again a failure

It was a failure in the sense that it didn't produce single-celled organisms. But both the original and follow up, again, created organic matter such as proteins, from inorganic matter. I think you have a fatal misunderstanding of the nuance of abiogenesis. It's not claiming it went from inorganic > single-celled. The claim is inorganic > organic > single-celled. 

Furthermore, your insistence and whining that it's not been conclusively proven belies you really lack an understanding of science. Very few things in science are ever conclusively proven. Most are probabilistic determinations of accuracy aka "theory". 

For example, we don't conclusively know exactly why gravity works as it does. However, I doubt you would be screaming to high heaven that the understanding we currently have is a flight of fantasy because it hasn't been conclusively proven. 

Basically, you are in an uproar over something not being scientific, when you aren't really operating scientifically yourself. Not just because of the aforementioned, but also because you are setting up a false standard of deductive reasoning being the only valid rationale in determining that probability. When inductive reasoning as abiogenesis is in part via the KCM premise of transitive series of events having either a starting point, or not having one(infinite series.), is just as acceptable as evidence to such determinations. 

#80
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
Furthermore, even in the Bible in Genesis it states God said to "Let the earth produce all kinds of animal life: domestic and wild, large and small”—and it was done.

This heavily implies either abiogenesis for life not including sea life and birds directly created by God, or evolution of various other forms of life already created by God. As God did not produce them, the Earth did.

So even from a religious standpoint, you have to either concede abiogenesis and/or macro-evolution as a consequence of that belief, or concede the biblical recounting of Genesis is false, full stop. 


#81
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Buddamoose
You make the same logical mistakes. I'll show you.

It was a failure in the sense that it didn't produce single-celled organisms.
That is what it set out to do. 

But both the original and follow up, again, created organic matter such as proteins, from inorganic matter.
So what? We knew that before Urey-Miller. No matter how you try to spin it, that is not evidence for abiogenesis.

I think you have a fatal misunderstanding of the nuance of abiogenesis.
And I think you are unable to think outside of the status-quo. You saw my link. There is currently no mechanism that can account for abiogenesis. There is no scientific reason for its suggestion.

It's not claiming it went from inorganic > single-celled. The claim is inorganic > organic > single-celled. 
Yes, and that has never been observed. Never. Nowhere. On what is the claim based? Not science.

Furthermore, your insistence and whining that it's not been conclusively proven belies you really lack an understanding of science.
Your choice of emotive words like "whining" after you ask me to explain, belies your lack of integrity. There is no science to support abiogenesis. Which is why you are currently attacking the man. None.

Very few things in science are ever conclusively proven.
6,000 years of consistent science all the time everywhere comes pretty close moose.

Most are probabilistic determinations of accuracy aka "theory".
Then in the case of abiogenesis, say so. Stop trying to sell a bankrupt theory. There is no science that backs it up. None.

For example, we don't conclusively know exactly why gravity works as it does.
But gravity has been observed. Abiogenesis has not. Ever. Not even once. Not anywhere in the universe. Why is it a theory? Or given attention? Not because of science clearly.

However, I doubt you would be screaming to high heaven that the understanding we currently have is a flight of fantasy because it hasn't been conclusively proven.
I would be if gravity had never been observed in all of human history. Trying to equate gravity to abiogenesis is dishonest moose. Gravity has evidence. Abiogenesis has none.

Basically, you are in an uproar over something not being scientific, when you aren't really operating scientifically yourself.
Because when you say words like uproar, that kills the science? I will beat you without resorting to ploys like that. Your problem is that I have only used science. You want to introduce God into the picture. And in fact you have. I will beat you without using such dishonesty.

Not just because of the aforementioned, but also because you are setting up a false standard of deductive reasoning being the only valid rationale in determining that probability.
Nonsense. When the occurrence is zero, and has been zero for all of human history. The probability is zero. You will not be allowed to sneak abiogenesis in. There is no probability for incidences of zero.

When inductive reasoning as abiogenesis is in part via the KCM premise of transitive series of events having either a starting point, or not having one(infinite series.), is just as acceptable as evidence to such determinations. 
Illogical. Abiogenesis is as reasonable a theory as world belching turtles. They both have the same quantity and quality of evidence. We are not operating in a vacuum. We know that life comes from life, because for 6,000 years, that is what science has consistently shown us.

In order to suggest abiogenesis, you must first have some scientific evidence for it. Further, you must dismiss all the perfectly good science supporting life from life. Why would you do that?

As for your religious beliefs, I fail to see how they matter. I do not need to evoke some God to dismiss abiogenesis. Pure science does that adequately.

If you wish to discuss religion, please do so on the appropriate board.
#82
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@IlDiavolo
I find your position reasonable and truthful.
Topic's author
#83
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@IlDiavolo
Nevertheless, I cannot stand how scientists try to sell us that these stupid theories are the answer to our questions, that is a serious offense to our intelligence.
There is a Nobel Prize waiting for you if you can show why those theories are stupid and why they offend our intelligence.

Topic's author
#84
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@ethang5
. What a loser.  Its a refutation of you clemmet   doofus

Your personal attacks and name calling have been reported. You will be ceasing and desisting of this behavior very soon or face the consequences.
#85
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Goldtop
Lol.

If you go around insulting people, don't get all victimy when you get slapped in return hypocrite.

Topic's author
#86
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@ethang5
You're free to report insults if you see them just like we are free to report your name calling and personal attacks. You will be dealt with soon and you will stop.
#87
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Goldtop
It will stop only when you stop Goldie.




Topic's author
#88
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@ethang5
Wrong. You will be told to change your behavior and you will or face the consequences. It's that simple.
#89
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
As I said, when you stop. Insult me now and see what happens. Or are you afraid?
Topic's author
#90
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@ethang5
Ah excellent, I see you're taking your warnings seriously and have stopped with the personal attacks.

However, baiting others is also not acceptable behavior.