It is plainly irrational and superstitious - and therefore unscientific - for anyone to claim that a living, reproducing organism can arise naturally from inanimate matter.
What does this have to do with the futility of abiogenesis research?
Hilarious - youâve been reading too many science-fiction comic books.
âŚand yet, the same adjectives apply to it arising supernaturally
Looks like weâre on the horns of a dilemmaâŚ
What does this have to do with the futility of abiogenesis research?
The end goals of OoL and protein folding research are quite different, but both fields are having a hard time figuring out answers to many questions. These questions are difficult to solve, but they drive scientific enquiry.
Hilarious - youâve been reading too many science-fiction comic books.
Says someone who believes the fairy tales of a 2,000 years old book. Vitalism adherents said the same thing (in effect) to chemists who were trying to make organic molecules. Opponents to the germ theory also said similar things until overwhelming evidence established its place in modern biology.
Always entertaining irony to hear accusations of irrationality and superstition coming from people who think a mind that can exist in the absence of a physical brain can simply wish things into existence by speaking words to dirt.
1 Like
So the bricks of the building make things inside stop obeying the laws of physics? Standing next to a glass flask makes things happen inside it that wouldnât happen otherwise? If I put salt into some water while standing inside a laboratory, I can not conclude anything about whether salt will dissolve in water in nature? I have to be surrounding by trees and open sky⌠or ?
2 Likes
No. Thatâs the point. If youâre building something, youâve proven that it was built by a mind. If you stand next to it, and arenât building, then that proves it will build itself.
Okay, so if I put the salt and water into some glass beaker while inside a laboratory, am I making it dissolve? Or can that really also happen in nature?
1 Like
Youâre seeking to understand if salt water is salt dissolved in water. Thatâs different than trying to show that salt and water combined themselves.
I think you and your science are invoking the wrong kind of processes. Computers apparently will get you nowhere. According to the below passage from the Bible, it seems like the ancient world was way ahead of you guys. Why not take a cue from the ancient Egyptians and try and dig up the exact incantations and spells their magicians used to get their rods to turn into snakes.
Exodus 7
10 So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the Lord commanded. Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a snake. 11 Pharaoh then summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by their secret arts: 12 Each one threw down his staff and it became a snake. But Aaronâs staff swallowed up their staffs.
Can you clarify something for me here? Iâd like to know if you actually believe ancient Egyptians were able to talk to pieces of wood so it turned them into snakes?
I think you and your science are invoking the wrong kind of processes
Be specific. Mention a process being invoked and explain why it is wrong.
Computers apparently will get you nowhere.
Computers only help us run complex calculations and/or simulations. We do all the thinking essentially. I wonder why you brought this up.
According to the below passage from the Bible, it seems like the ancient world was way ahead of you guys.
Do you live in the 21st century?
Nothing else seemed to be working for you. Just thought I might try to help.
Iâll take that as a yes.
So, sorry: Because there is a story about people turning pieces of wood into snakes, but this story isnât true, this demonstrates that people in the past had knowledge and intelligence beyond us?
You are not making sense.
To be clear, the ancient Egyptians were occultists, they had to appeal to that which is beyond the natural for their staffs to turn into snakes. My point is, you are dealing with something beyond the natural here when trying to bring life from non-life. If you do not appeal to the occultic realm, you wonât get it to happen.
Am I suggesting you do that? God forbid, NO. I am a Christian and when I appeal to the supernatural, I make my appeal to God. I would never counsel someone to appeal to the occult.
Simply put, you will not gain success in your endeavor until you too make a supernatural (in this case, occultic) appeal.
Please do not pretend to âunderstandâ where YECs or Christians are coming from if you are a sworn unbeliever. Looking in from your worldview, which does not include the supernatural, you will almost always be guaranteed to miss something you do not understand. And that something usually turns out to be the most important part of the equation.
Wohler-shattered-vitalism is a myth because Dalton and Berzelius had long before established that the same laws of chemistry applied to both organic and inorganic reactions.
I disagree here. The in vitro synthesis of urea refuted the central claim of vitalism. Berzelius accepted vitalism (maybe not as strongly as other vitalist scientists) and I guess Wohlerâs urea synthesis gave him the much needed evidence to drop that silly claim. I do not believe Wohler intentionally set out to disprove vitalism (thatâs the myth, I think), but he did it anyway.
Back in the 1960âs and 1970âs we were certainly taught that Wohlerâs synthesis of urea had a significant impact on the intellectual divide between regard for living things versus non-living things.
It definitely had an impact, I donât know what it was back then, but now I know the implication of Wohlerâs urea synthesis is that the same chemical forces that drive inorganic processes also drive biological processes.
1 Like
Do you think God would still be relevant if abiogenesis were true?
2 Likes