Jesus’ resurrection.
I’m sorry Valerie but you don’t seem to understand what the word evidence really means. What I just wrote really is evidence that life arose from non-life, for the exact reasons that I stated.
1 Like
That’s completely unrelated. Also, you would need evidence of Jesus’ resurrection as well.
1 Like
Yes, but it’s not what you’re saying it is. We haven’t actually seen it happen in a lab. You’re talking about a few steps in the process as “some evidence.”
It’s related. And there’s plenty of it. You just have to be open-minded enough to look.
No it just means there are limitations to my willingness to explain stuff at length only to get vacuous one-liners that give no indication that you’ve actually understood or thought about the subject matter, back in response.
And there are no insults in that post, I correctly characterized your beliefs.
2 Likes
Has anyone ever observed a supernatural deity creating life? If this is the type of evidence you require for abiogenesis, why don’t the same rules apply to supernatural creation?
1 Like
Yes, as described in the Bible in Jesus’ miracles of resurrection and many seeing him alive after he was dead.
Yes, same rules apply.
Quit taking that out of
Context and read the actual book. Good god
Where is the evidence that this actually happened?
1 Like
Please don’t swear. I read all of the book that was available for free.
Go looking if you want to know if you’re wrong.
What? I actually linked the wrong book any way. The book I accidentally shared was reviewed by the Journal of Cosmology. Which is trash.
So yeah. Ignore everything that book says.
It was a sloppy of me to share that book my mistake. It’s another Mike Russell book I meant to share
1 Like
I did. Came up empty. I was in the church for the first 22 years of my life, and didn’t find any evidence.
What evidence were you looking for that you didn’t find?
Attention everyone: I accidentally shared the wrong book earlier. I mistakenly shared a book that was reviewed by a predatory journal with basically no review. So no one should read that book. My apologies. I will share the correct book when I locate it.
2 Likes
I appreciate you being willing to. I’m not interested in getting into the weeds of the processes - in part because I don’t have the scientific knowledge to do so. I appreciate that you see some evidence. I hope you appreciate that, for me, that “some” evidence is evidence for a pipe dream that keeps you from seeing and knowing God, which is the best thing in my life.
Evidence is evidence, no matter how much of it there is. I didn’t say we have created life in the laboratory, I said there is evidence that life ultimately arose from non-life. I explained what that evidence is. And it really is there and it really is evidence. You seem to be flailing around madly now to avoid conceding this.
Look, evidence isn’t “proof” or “demonstration”. It’s “just” evidence.
If I say there is some evidence that indicates that a little boy named Douglas went into the kitchen to steal some cake from the fridge, and I point to prints on the floor that match the size and shape of the soles of his shoes, and that there’s a dinnerplate in his room with little cake crumbs on it, and I point out he’s expressed interest in wanting more cake multiple times despite having been told no, and there really is a piece of cake missing, then I really do have evidence that he stole some cake. That seems to me to be the best and most likely explanation for these observations.
Have I actually seen Douglas go and take some cake? Have I caught him in the act, so to speak? No. But I still have evidence that he did so.
Why are these observations I listed evidence that he took some cake? Because they’d be unexpected if he did not. It would be rather unlikely for us to have this particular collection observations if he really didn’t take any cake. On the other hand, these are the kinds of observations we would generally expect if he did (carelessly) go and steal some cake.
In a similar way, the evidence I linked above really is evidence that life arose from non-life. They detail some crucial observations that would be rather unexpected if life did not arise from non-life, but are much more likely (and better explained) if it did.
3 Likes
I have no problem accepting that this is what you believe.
Then allow me to suggest the possibility that your particular view of God and scripture is what is preventing you from seeing actual evidence for the emergence of life from non-life.
1 Like
Actually, you do not have this at all. When you and your kind speak of “prebiotic” you are making a grand assumption not supported by the facts. How can you know when a collection of chemicals is prebiotic? Prebiotic assumes that something is headed towards life, and that is an assumption not warranted by the facts.
Hmm. This is good. Something is just dawning on me. There is actually no such thing as “prebiotic”. A protein is only a protein while it is organic. If it dies it is no longer a protein.
If the precise collection of protein chemicals come together they are not “prebiotic” simply because they have the physics and chemistry of proteins. Only proteins are biotic. There isn’t “pre” anything about chemicals which only look like proteins.