On ID vs Abiogenesis, debate part II

Answering Shermer · On ID vs Abiogenesis, debate part I · debate part II

Continuing previous.

Jesus Christ

​@Hans-Georg Lundahl " Like, phospholipids don't arise in Miller Urey conditions"

Of course they don't! Miller-Urey was about the generation of amino acids. LOL!

"Your repeating that mantra doesn't make it true."

Then link me to a test that verified ID! That's literally all you need but you keep beating around the bush and wasting time. What I said isn't a mantra, it's a FACT.

"But a rational one. On your view."

Yes, it's is logical to be skeptical about a position that has no supporting evidence.

"Burden of proof is a question for juridics, not for philosophical discussion.In courts, someone is usually presumed innocent till proven guilty. There is a burden of proof on accusation, because there is a default position. "

ARE YOU NOT PAYING ATTENTION? I am talking SCIENCE and LOGIC, this isn't a philosophical discussion. I am asking for testable evidence supporting ID and you have given absolutely ZERO thus far and danced around it every time.

Burden of proof is ALWAYS on the positive claim. Science isn't a court of law, but a similar principle applies. If a defendant is accused of a crime, they don't believe it true by default, they have to prove it because you can't hold somebody accountable for something they did not do. The default position for any claim is that it's not true (in court the claim is the defendant committed a crime. That is the proposition, not that they are innocent). You don't need to prove they didn't commit a crime, that is the negative claim. We don't prove claims false, we prove them true, especially when talking about the existence of things. It is impossible to prove something does not exist universally. That's why claims only begin to have merit after testable evidence can be demonstrated.

"You are at least making a fairly clear implicit claim it is possible and rational."

LOL! Of course it is possible. You can't prove it impossible, nobody can. The existence of god/gods is completely unknown and there is no way to test anything related to that.

"Which life and language are."

Wow, you are dense. How did you test this claim?

"None possible for creation."

According to WHAT evidence?

"Because you were giving another argument previous post which needed adressing too."

You are being dishonest now. My argument the entire time is that ID is not testable. You are the one that brought up other arguments and instead of supporting your position, tried (and failed) at attacking some abiogenesis hypotheses.

"Eliminate eternity and spontaneous emergence, you have proven was created."

Except abiogenesis hypotheses don't say spontaneous emergence. Nice straw man, though. Like I said there are MANY hypotheses of the origin of life. I've love to see you prove any of them impossible. If scientists had already done that, they would no longer be considered hypotheses.

Here are some examples:

• Iron-sulfer World
• Primordial soup
• Panspermia
• Deep Sea Vent
• Zn World
• Deep-hot biosphere
• Montmorillonite clay
• thermosynthesis
• Radioactive beach
• RNA first (world)
• Metabolism first
• Lipids first

You can prove all of those impossible along with other potentially unknown possibilities? Like I said above, I'd LOVE to see that.

"Similar for language, there is no animal or machine that has mastered human language syntax, let alone meaning."

Complete red herring.

You tried, you failed.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl LMAO. Still no testable evidence of ID, just arbitrary dishonest dismissals of every thing said. You are not honest and have no idea how logic or science works. God explains ZERO. You just want it to be true but have no evidence at all. You didn't even put thought into your posts, you blew through it all in like 5 minutes and essentially just plugged your ears and said "NU-UH" to everything. I was giving natural explanations for the ORIGIN of the universe. You didn't prove anything impossible. The explanations for the origin of life itself was in the following post. I swear honest creationists do not exist.

Stars being formed from gas clouds has been OBSERVED DIRECTLY. LMAO at your denial.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"@Jesus Christ " - replying in two pieces [not shown].

"Of course they don't! Miller-Urey was about the generation of amino acids. LOL!"

Nice to see you admit your naiveté. For one thing, phospholipids have not been observed as made abiotically outside labs. For another a cell needs a membrane as well as DNA or RNA. Now, the point is, the theory says that all earth or the relevant part was producing amino acids under Miller Urey conditions. This means, nowhere, or nowhere near the relevant part, were phospholipids formed.

Do you know what happens to amino acids if Miller Urey conditions persist and they aren't protected? They don't build up to more and more complex, they are broken down again. That's why Miller Urey is a test against your position, as long as you have no cell membranes forming.

"Then link me to a test that verified ID!"

Miller Urey + its not producing phospholipids, as I pointed out + its not producing chirality, as Sarfati pointed out, is a very good verification.

"Yes, it's is logical to be skeptical about a position that has no supporting evidence."

It is not logical to reinterpret all evidence presented for a certain position and at the same time claim to not be the least biassed against it - it's as if I pretended to have no beef against Evolutionism.

"ARE YOU NOT PAYING ATTENTION? I am talking SCIENCE and LOGIC, this isn't a philosophical discussion."

If you are talking logic, you are talking philosophy. If you don't know that, you risk bungling the philosophy, but you don't get to make it unphilosophical.

As to science, some is philosophically fairly ... "harmless" or "neutral" we are talking the fields where this is least the case.

"I am asking for testable evidence supporting ID and you have given absolutely ZERO thus far and danced around it every time."

I have stated time after time, we have the same pieces of evidence, the question is just whether it supports evolution or ID. I am not defending ID (and indeed fullblow Theism and YEC too) on very obscure issues no evolutionist has heard about, but on the ground that evolutionists have misinterpreted the philosophical or logical implications of their own evidence.

I don't have to produce a test that goes against Miller Urey, I am using exactly Miller Urey.

"Burden of proof is ALWAYS on the positive claim."

In philosophy, that would rather be, on the categoric claim, as opposed to just potential.

"Science isn't a court of law, but a similar principle applies. If a defendant is accused of a crime, they don't believe it true by default, they have to prove it because you can't hold somebody accountable for something they did not do."

Fine. That is what makes courts of law very dangerous, if a defendant has to prove every positive claim he makes, rather than accusation proving even negative claims against him.

"The default position for any claim is that it's not true (in court the claim is the defendant committed a crime. That is the proposition, not that they are innocent)."

In a court, both accuser and defendant make a proposition. Defendant actually (often via lawyer who might in some case override his personal preference, which is not always to his advantage) gets to chose a ground of defense:

• 1) did not do the act
• 2) did the act by accident
• 3) did the act intentionally in circumstances where it was justified.

This means, BOTH present a proposition, and therefore a default makes a burden of proof.

"You don't need to prove they didn't commit a crime, that is the negative claim."

It is at least preferrable. While English and US courts have the verdicts "innocent" and "guilty", Scottish courts also have or had the verdict "not proven".

"We don't prove claims false, we prove them true, especially when talking about the existence of things. It is impossible to prove something does not exist universally. That's why claims only begin to have merit after testable evidence can be demonstrated."

That being so, non-existence of X or any other categoric claim is very far from a philosophical default, and needs to be proven.

"LOL! Of course it is possible. You can't prove it impossible, nobody can. The existence of god/gods is completely unknown and there is no way to test anything related to that."

False on fact. Theism can be proven philosophically, as we are discussing here, and the existence of one particular God can be proven historically, as by Gospels.

"Wow, you are dense. How did you test this claim?"

Existence of biological life and language are the tests. Existence of an implication is not sth which requires a test, it is a matter for philosophical discussion.

"You are being dishonest now. My argument the entire time is that ID is not testable."

Hence my answering about testability in principle before answering other demand for what the tests are.

"You are the one that brought up other arguments and instead of supporting your position, tried (and failed) at attacking some abiogenesis hypotheses."

Exactly which abiogenesis hypothesis can survive the attack?

"Except abiogenesis hypotheses don't say spontaneous emergence."

Clumsy word choice, perhaps, but they do say the emergence was not contrived by any already pre-existing intelligence, right?

"Nice straw man, though."

Except it wasn't.

"Like I said there are MANY hypotheses of the origin of life."

Yes, I have seen some of the ones you list.

"I've love to see you prove any of them impossible. If scientists had already done that, they would no longer be considered hypotheses."

By those scientists, that is why those scientists are called creationists and are dismissed by other scientists.

"Here are some examples:"

Before refuting some, I'll need clarification, but I'll refute the ones I can.

• Iron-sulfer World - solves what?
  
  
• Primordial soup - a k a Miller Urey conditions, and I already refuted that on the ground that Miller Urey don't produce phospholipids, I am seeing a tentative to resolve that, though:
  
  
• Lipids first - which poses the question how lipids would form abiotically and how they would be preserved for use as cell membranes under Miller Urey conditions.
  
  
• Metabolism first - as in metabolism of amino acids before cell membranes? OK, when you have made an orchestra play Nutcracker Suite in a huge hurricane without a protecting Orchestra house, you tell me ...
  
  
• Panspermia - a k a "life came from outer space", right?
  
  
  • 1) distance problems:
    
    New blog on the kid : Is interstellar space travel possible?
    http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2019/01/is-interstellar-space-travel-possible.html
    
    
  • 2) even if life came from elsewhere, with current cosmology (this universe had a beginning and it was abiotic) this only means "abiogenesis happened elsewhere" - but presumably laws of chemistry are the same elsewhere, so Miller Urey doesn't produce phosopholipids elsewhere either, so chirality doesn't come from Miller Urey elsewhere and so on.
  
  
  
• RNA first (world) I presume RNA also needs a cell membrane, right?
  
  The tentative is of course to presume that first one had much simpler cells, with just one order of amino acids, while the now known cells (eucaryotic as well as protozoa) have both RNA and DNA interacting with each other and with proteins and also producing enzymes and lipids etc, so that the known cells are too complex to have arisen in the first results of any presumed Miller Urey proto-cell (but impossible due to lack of membranes).
  
  The problem, apart from this presuming that the even more central problem of producing amino acids with chirality and cell membranes at one go were solved, is that this would be a radical increase in ordered complexity, something never actually observed (except in conditions that are precisely designed!)
  
  
• Deep Sea Vent - along with Metabolism first, I presume? - substitute for membranes for the first part of "life's adventure"? If so, how come life got membranes and got out of deep sea vents?
  
  Wait ... I look up the phrase in CMI's material, it seems this was simply one of the hypothesised loci for Miller Urey, therefore suffers as Miller Urey does.
  
  
• Zn World - solves what.
  
  
• Deep-hot biosphere - biosphere means life is already there, and deep hot seems just another localisation of Miller Urey conditions.
  
  
• Montmorillonite clay - looked up details: "Montmorillonite is also known to cause micelles (lipid spheres) to assemble together into vesicles. These structures resemble cell membranes on many cells. It can also help nucleotides to assemble into RNA which will end up inside the vesicles. This could have generated highly complex RNA polymers that could reproduce the RNA trapped within the vesicles.[10][11] This process may have played a part in abiogenesis which led to life on Earth.[12] Minerals similar to montmorillonites have also been found on Mars.[13]"
  
  Now, do these claims stand if we check the sources, as if so, that would kind of solve part of the abiogenesis problem, membrane problem (but hardly chirality)?
  
  I actually checked CMI, aafter checking wiki's source ftnt 12 and finding Jack Szostak. Here is what the public is not being told by Philip Cohen and wikipedia citing him:
  
  “Unfortunately, biophysical characterization of the selected ATP binding proteins proved impossible due to poor solubility.”14
  “This observation led to the question of whether protein sequences isolated from unconstrained random sequence libraries could be evolved to adopt a folded state of reasonable stability or whether most such proteins might represent examples of evolutionary dead ends.”13
  
  Royal Truman's footnote 14 is 14. Chaput and Szostak, ref. 13, p. 866. and the footnote 13 is 13. Chaput, J.C. and Szostak, J.W., Evolutionary optimization of a nonbiological ATP binding protein for improved folding stability, Chemistry & Biology 11:865–874, 2004.
  
  So, the ones reporting the news have admitted that this is a dead end.
  
  
• thermosynthesis solves what?
• Radioactive beach solves what, plus radioactivity breaks down amino acids.

"You can prove all of those impossible along with other potentially unknown possibilities? Like I said above, I'd LOVE to see that."

Hope you enjoyed the show then.

"Complete red herring."

"You tried, you failed."

Would you mind giving the details of why the observation [on language] is a "red herring"?

"LMAO. Still no testable evidence of ID, just arbitrary dishonest dismissals of every thing said."

No arbitrary dismissal of any piece of evidence, but reasoned dismissal of the conclusions you draw. Learn philosophy!

"You are not honest"

Nice try.

"and have no idea how logic or science works."

Your mentioning both in one breath shows you ignorant of logic. Science is one way of applying logic, not the only one, and it has not been the same way over the centuries in which some discoveries were made.

"God explains ZERO."

Y being allwise knows how to design X, Y being all powerful has the means to apply that knowledge and design X, X has not been successfully explained by other means than Y = Y explains some.

"You just want it to be true but have no evidence at all."

A bad piece of psychoanalysis, with a bad piece of analysis of my writing so far.

"You didn't even put thought into your posts, you blew through it all in like 5 minutes"

For some items that is possible, insofar as I already knew the topics before you mentioned them.

"and essentially just plugged your ears and said "NU-UH" to everything."

Again, no. I reasoned against your conclusions.

"I was giving natural explanations for the ORIGIN of the universe. You didn't prove anything impossible."

However the universe originated, the origin must be compatible with an origin of life however that originated.

All your proposals about origin of the universe were against steady state eternal universe, which means they were against "backward eternity" of biological life too, which means all imply biological life began, which poses the alternative between a designer and the Miller Urey and (as I see now) montmorillonite clay dead ends.

"The explanations for the origin of life itself was in the following post. I swear honest creationists do not exist."

Do honest teens exist? I am not giving you fifty, which is my age. I was not concerned with proving each case for universe beginning without God impossible in itself, I was concerned with proving this does not solve the abiogenesis dead end.

"Stars being formed from gas clouds has been OBSERVED DIRECTLY. LMAO at your denial."

No, they have not. A very faint star, visible on and off, and previously not observed, has been observed within a gas cloud. However, the newness of observation may very well be due to our instruments improving or attention to that part of sky improving since relevant improvement of instruments.

PDF link to Royal Truman getting specific on montmorillonite clays:

The proportion of polypeptide chains which generate native folds—part 6: extraction from random sequences
Royal Truman, JOURNAL OF CREATION 26(1) 2012
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j26_1/j26_1_86-93.pdf

Jesus Christ

@Hans-Georg Lundahl creation.com is not a scientific source. Stop using it. will address the rest of that nonsense when I have more time but it just looks like the same BS denial, not proving ANYTHING impossible and still absolutely no testable evidence for intelligent design. This is getting comical how desperate you are to grasp at straws. I listed hypotheses and you responded to them like a child. I didn't say they were solved or proved. Learn basic reading comprehension.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"@Jesus Christ " "is not a scientific source. Stop using it."

Evolutionists are not scientific sources, stop using them ... like ...

Seriously, if they do science, they are scientific sources, and I feel free to ue both. On Neanderthal genome I am more supportive of Svante Pääbo (Evolutionist, unlike myself) than of Robert Carter (YEC like myself, professional genetics scientist like Pääbo).

Do take a very close look at my arguments.

Jesus Christ

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "Evolutionists are not scientific sources, stop using them"

Evolutionary biologists (lol @ evolutionists, evolutionism is an old social philosophy) publish their research in scientific research papers. There are hundreds of thousands of them on evolution alone. You are literally posting religious propaganda as fact. Creation.com doesn't do research, their goal is converting people.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl To answer the other non abiogenesis related claims:

"If you are talking logic, you are talking philosophy. If you don't know that, you risk bungling the philosophy, but you don't get to make it unphilosophical."

I said SCIENCE AND LOGIC, not just one or the other. I was asking for testable evidence for ID. Logic is reasoning, science is a method of testing evidence. Logic is applied to science, yes but they aren't one and the same. Philosophy can ONLY prove things, if the premise is true and the reasoning to get to the conclusion is valid. ID cannot be proved philosophically or supported scientifically.

"That is what makes courts of law very dangerous, if a defendant has to prove every positive claim he makes, rather than accusation proving even negative claims against him."

Wrong. The POSITIVE CLAIM is that the defendant committed a crime. That's not a negative claim, you are trying to equivocate the meaning of "negative" now. I didn't mean BAD by negative. LOL! I'm referring to the null hypothesis. 0 remains 0 until there is valid a reason to say 1 (existence / true conclusion). Claims are believed to be false by default until evidence can be shown (if you are following logic of course).

"While English and US courts have the verdicts "innocent" and "guilty", Scottish courts also have or had the verdict "not proven"."

Also not true. In US courts it is "guilty" or "not guilty." Big difference. Not guilty means you couldn't prove guilt, not that they have been proved innocent.

"non-existence of X or any other categoric claim is very far from a philosophical default, and needs to be proven."

I never claimed non existence of anything. I said I don't believe the positive claim that X exists, without justifiable evidence. That doesn't mean I claim the opposite. A belief position is not the same as a claim and yes lacking belief in an unverified claim IS the logical default position. You may want to look into skepticism, because that is what it is at its heart.

"Theism can be proven philosophically,"

Nope. Go ahead and drop your best logical inference that "proves" god. LOL!

" the existence of one particular God can be proven historically, as by Gospels."

Nope. That's like saying the existence of Humpty Dumpty has been proven by the stories of his fall. The gospels don't PROVE the existence of god, they prove that people wrote stories about their beliefs. The stories often make claims that cannot be verified. They aren't considered philosophical or historical proof of any god. Do you think the Quran proves Allah or that the Egyptian Book of the Dead proves Horus?

"Existence of biological life and language are the tests. "

This is extremely disingenuous. Existence of life isn't a test, it's a fact. We exist. You are claiming design, and you can't test that life is designed. You just state it arbitrarily and are are PRESUMING life is evidence of design. That's not how it works. Anybody else could say life is evidence of abiogenesis & evolution. Or that life is evidence of the great turtle that the universe rides on. Sorry, evidence needs to testable and you can't test anything related to the intelligent design of life.

"emergence was not contrived by any already pre-existing intelligence, right"

Nope. They don't state anything regarding that. They show how chemical processes can lead to complexity over time.

"By those scientists, that is why those scientists are called creationists and are dismissed by other scientists. "

What? Creationists are dismissed because they make false untestable claims. Hypotheses have to have a way to test them or they can't be hypotheses.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"@Jesus Christ " "I said SCIENCE AND LOGIC, not just one or the other."

Whenever you talk logic, if you talk logic, you talk philosophy, with or without science involved. Philosophy has a prior stake both in logic and in empiric study over modern scientific method.

"I was asking for testable evidence for ID."

Yes, and "testable" means you need to logically assess what counts as a test for what.

"Logic is reasoning, science is a method of testing evidence."

Testing can only be valid as testing, if test implications are logic.

"Logic is applied to science, yes but they aren't one and the same."

I agree.

"Philosophy can ONLY prove things, if the premise is true"

Premises. Often more than one, are true.

Which is often precisely testable for the minor premiss.

"and the reasoning to get to the conclusion is valid."

Which is the precise reason why logic is a major philosophical study, and I cared about it enough to read up on it.

"ID cannot be proved philosophically or supported scientifically."

Except it can.

"Wrong. The POSITIVE CLAIM is that the defendant committed a crime. That's not a negative claim, you are trying to equivocate the meaning of "negative" now. I didn't mean BAD by negative. LOL! I'm referring to the null hypothesis. 0 remains 0 until there is valid a reason to say 1 (existence / true conclusion)."

It so happens, when a man lands up in a court, the null hypothesis is usually already out.

Then it becomes a question of assessing most likely non-null hypothesis. For instance, someone was found with hands tied behind his back and a knife in his heart, there is no null hypothesis, a murder happened.

If there are no fingerprints on the knife, if there are no blood stains of the victim's blood type on the suspect, two claims need to be weighed "suspect hated x, but was elsewhere" (defense) against "suspect hated x, and was there" (accusation). I am taking the example that defense has made "alibi" or "elsewhere" its positive claim.

"Claims are believed to be false by default until evidence can be shown (if you are following logic of course)."

Logic and court procedure are not identic, the default position is not there bc of pure logic, but bc of a preference of letting a guilty man lose over punishing an innocent.

"Also not true. In US courts it is "guilty" or "not guilty." Big difference. Not guilty means you couldn't prove guilt, not that they have been proved innocent."

That would make US courts an intermediate between English and Scottish, OK, didn't know.

"I never claimed non existence of anything. I said I don't believe the positive claim that X exists, without justifiable evidence."

Claiming X cannot explain Y (exchanging my previous use of letters) is tantamount to claiming non-existence of X.

Since, otherwise "Y exists, X can explain it, nothing else can" = clear evidence X exists.

"That doesn't mean I claim the opposite. A belief position is not the same as a claim and yes lacking belief in an unverified claim IS the logical default position."

You go far beyond default when pressing a claim on sth being "unverifiable" after verifications on verifications are available, but I'll be back on that in the abiogenesis part, plus human language, which you seemed not to want to even discuss.

"You may want to look into skepticism, because that is what it is at its heart."

Hume, right? Like "history proves miracles never happened, therefore miracles are impossible, therefore any historic claim of miracles can be dismissed, therefore history proves miracles never happened" - full circle.

Yes, I have heard of that and am not impressed.

"Nope. Go ahead and drop your best logical inference that "proves" god. LOL!"

Take these five ways together:

• 1) whenever sth moves itself or is moved, sth is moving it (sth other than the whole of itself), but regress in movers pertaining to a present movement cannot be infinite, therefore there is an ultimate mover;
• 2) extend previous to all types of causation, including non-moving ones;
• 3) extend previous to even causation of existance, which needs to be based on a basic necessary existance (if the most basic were not necessary, it would sometimes not exist and then not be able to reconstitute itself or anything else);
• 4) gradation of values is found in what we see which needs sth which is most noble;
• 5) and order (ordered complexity) is found in the universe, needing someone able to order it. "Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer." - a k a ID.

"Nope. That's like saying the existence of Humpty Dumpty has been proven by the stories of his fall."

Would be if Gospels were fiction, they aren't.

"The gospels don't PROVE the existence of god, they prove that people wrote stories about their beliefs."

And where did their beliefs about such and such a contemporary come from? From events.

"The stories often make claims that cannot be verified."

Such as?

"They aren't considered philosophical or historical proof of any god."

Aren't considered, as considered by whom? Rewrite in active "so and so doesn't consider them philosophical or historical proof of any god" and tell me who so and so is.

"Do you think the Quran proves Allah or that the Egyptian Book of the Dead proves Horus?"

Unlike Gospels, neither is telling a story of contemporary events. They do not pretend to be history.

"This is extremely disingenuous. Existence of life isn't a test, it's a fact. We exist."

It so happens, any test is a fact. It becomes beyond a fact also a test for another fact or non-fact via a test-implication.

"You are claiming design, and you can't test that life is designed."

On the contrary, all tests usually used to prove human designers are applicable to life, except that men cannot design life.

"You just state it arbitrarily and are are PRESUMING life is evidence of design."

Would you v e r y k i n d l y start arguing about what I actually argue and stop telling me what I am doing?

"That's not how it works. Anybody else could say life is evidence of abiogenesis & evolution."

Ah, now we are talking. Yes, come up with a list of alternative explanations for life, and either could be true as long as not disproven, and either untrue as long as not the rest are disproven.

The test implication of Oparin's abiogenesis being the origin of life would be for instance that DNA is as simple as the immediate result of a Miller Urey OR that the immediate result is at least sth which Miller Urey conditions can preserve, while it takes its time to develop an orderly complexity.

"Or that life is evidence of the great turtle that the universe rides on."

Thanks for making the list exhaustive, but I think there is geographical evidence against that one, like Magellan.

"Sorry, evidence needs to testable"

You also need test implications to have a test, but once you have that, you can also make even a basic fact not just designed experiments, the test of sth.

"and you can't test anything related to the intelligent design of life."

Miller Urey was a great test. Doesn't produce phospholipids, doesn't produce chirality, doesn't produce information in the DNA. Doesn't even allow the amino acids to remain intact long enough to produce any of these, since Miller Urey conditions degrade amino acids as quickly as they produce them.

"Nope. They don't state anything regarding that. They show how chemical processes can lead to complexity over time."

Feel free to weigh these two facts together : "lead to complexity over time" and - as I stated - "Miller Urey conditions very quickly degrade the amino acids they produce".

"What? Creationists are dismissed because they make false untestable claims. Hypotheses have to have a way to test them or they can't be hypotheses."

Facts known by everyone already before any testing can be perfectly valid tests, given the right test implications, which is where logic comes in.

"@Jesus Christ " "Evolutionary biologists (lol @ evolutionists, evolutionism is an old social philosophy) publish their research in scientific research papers."

So do Creation scientists in for instance Journal of Creation.

"There are hundreds of thousands of them on evolution alone."

Mass of papers doesn't prove their quality.

"You are literally posting religious propaganda as fact."

I was quoting their quote from YOUR ultimate source (via journalist) for Mormillon clay / Mormillonite clay theory. The researcher YOU based things on wrote a fairly long article on pp. 820 somewhere in a journal, he admitted his theory was basically as such a dead end.

"Creation.com doesn't do research, their goal is converting people."

Those goals are not exclusive. And the goal of converting people is very clearly shown in your degree of bias on the other side, so, if you were honest, which you aren't, you felt no need to answer in detail (perhaps I'm unjust and answers are upcoming?), you would look into the mirror and know the goal of doing research and the goal of converting are not exclusive of each other.

Chris Goldthorpe

Then he does NOT!

[not sure what this one was about]

Jesus Christ

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Sorry I can't read all that, especially when you are being extremely pedantic in your responses and breaking things down line by line to dilute the points. I guess you just decided to ignore my request to keep it short and to the point and use numbers. So much wasted filler, it's practically unreadable.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "whenever sth moves itself"

The fuck is a sth???

"Miller Urey was a great test. Doesn't produce phospholipids, doesn't produce chirality, doesn't produce information in the DNA."

You are stupid as fuck. I went over this 3 times now and you just repeat the same horseshit again. Miller Urey was amino acids. Other parts are in other experiments, STUPID.

"Would be if Gospels were fiction, they aren't."

Obvious troll is obvious. Good bye, idiot.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

​"@Jesus Christ" It might help you some to read it in a total overview.

Assortedretorts : On ID vs Abiogenesis, debate part I
[=previous post]
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2019/02/on-id-vs-abiogenesis-debate-part-i.html

Continued to a next part.

Too bad you decided to lose attention span ...

An argument can be "ignored" by taking one premiss at a time and each time ignoring the other premiss. A very bad thing, which I did not do.

But it cannot be "diluted".

"You are stupid as fuck. I went over this 3 times now and you just repeat the same horseshit again. Miller Urey was amino acids. Other parts are in other experiments, STUPID."

The problem is, each part must exist together for life to exist. If one very remote prehistoric condition corresponds to Miller Urey conditions, it will only prodice the amino acids part, and they will NOT last or develop millions of years till some other circumstance produces lipids.

Did you get it this time, Miller Urey now, Montmorillonite clay 1 million years later, etc, solves nothing.

Sth = s (ome) th (ing) (the abbreviation is used in every foreign language dictiuonary, like sn = s (omeo) n (e)

Now, Montmorillonite before Miller Urey conditions?

"Montmorillonite can be concentrated and transformed within cave environments. The natural weathering of the cave can leave behind concentrations of aluminosilicates which were contained within the bedrock. Montmorillonite can form slowly in solutions of aluminosilicates. High HCO3 - concentrations and long periods of time can aid in its formation. Montmorillonite can then transform to palygorskite under dry conditions and to halloysite-10Å (endellite) in acidic conditions (pH 5 or lower). Halloysite-10Å can further transform into halloysite-7Å by drying."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montmorillonite

Doesn't seem likely. Plus the quote from Jack Szostak via Creation.com saying it is probably a dead end, which was not quited in Philip Cohen's article or in wikipedia.

Me : Would be if Gospels were fiction, they aren't.

You : Obvious troll is obvious. Good bye, idiot.

Me : any other takers, I was serious.

There is a difference between "fiction" and "fake". Someone claims Gospels are fake history, you try to claim who faked it. But someone claims Gospels were fiction, later misunderstood as history, you need a much vaster claim, starting with, who was ever stupid enough to take fiction as history, and who would if so have been stupid enough to agree with him.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"@Jesus Christ " I think I missed one comment of yours, unless as I seem to recall you changed it. I did not look it up in thread, but in inbox.

inserting

from inbox:

Jesus Christ

​Hans-Georg Lundahl You didn't prove a single abiogenesis hypothesis IMPOSSIBLE, you brought up mostly bullshit that shows you never did any research on any of them.

"Miller Urey conditions, and I already refuted that on the ground that Miller Urey don't produce phospholipids, I am seeing a tentative to resolve that, though:"

You didn't refute anything. Miller-Urey was about amino acids, no phospholipds. That is the first step of abiogenesis. You claimed impossible. You lied.

"which poses the question how lipids would form abiotically and how they would be preserved for use as cell membranes under Miller Urey conditions."

You can prove it impossible or not???

"Panspermia - a k a "life came from outer space", right? 1) distance problems: http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2019/01/is-interstellar-space-travel-possible.html"

Complete nonsense. Panspermia doesn't require interstellar space travel. Nice red herring. It could mean something simple like amino acids forming on Mars and being launched into space from a big impact event that results in it eventually landing on earth. Again, this is one hypothesis of many and you failed to prove it impossible.

"RNA first (world) I presume RNA also needs a cell membrane, right?"

Nope. Are you going to prove it impossible yet? Didn't think so. I'm going to stop here because you are being too dishonest and I'm not wasting any more time. You have not proved anything impossible, you just raised questions about them. Scientists have many question about them as well. I never said they were PROVED. They are still hypotheses, being actively worked on and tested. If they were shown to be impossible, they would have been rejected in science. You don't see to grasp that. You are falsely claiming that abiogenesis is impossible but aren't proving it, just denying it all with miserable excuses. As I said, ID needs to be proved on its own merit and you have completely 100% failed to evidence show a single piece of testable evidence while I cited multiple successful experiments related to the origin of life. It's far from proven, but it's more evidence than exists for ID, and that is my point. Your irrelevant nitpicking means nothing, even if they never figure out how lipids were generated. You are pretending that not knowing the whole picture proves it is not possible. That's a complete lie and you know it.

back to my response

// You didn't prove a single abiogenesis hypothesis IMPOSSIBLE, you brought up mostly bullshit that shows you never did any research on any of them. //

I think I have so far disproven all abiogenesis scenarios I know what they mean. On the idea that montmorillonite clays were there in time before Miller Urey conditions (as in Miller Urey conditions hypothesised in far past, not as "re"-produced in lab), I am not ready yet, but working on it.

So far, I came across the clay is formed in caves which suggests quite a different clima to the "early earth".

// "Miller Urey conditions, and I already refuted that on the ground that Miller Urey don't produce phospholipids, I am seeing a tentative to resolve that, though:" You didn't refute anything. Miller-Urey was about amino acids, no phospholipds. That is the first step of abiogenesis. You claimed impossible. You lied. //

So, Miller-Urey conditions produce amino acids, and one million years later, amino acids produce phospholipids and cell membranes? Precisely impossible, because precisely amino acids without cell membranes don't survive or reproduce for a million years.

// "which poses the question how lipids would form abiotically and how they would be preserved for use as cell membranes under Miller Urey conditions." You can prove it impossible or not??? //

As said, montmorillonite clays were admitted as a probable dead end even by the researcher on your side, see quote via Royal Truman on CMI.

And, even if they were a viable option, it is very improbable they could have formed in pre-biotic or hadean conditions, as uniformitarians consider them. Too hot.

// "Panspermia - a k a "life came from outer space", right? 1) distance problems: http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2019/01/is-interstellar-space-travel-possible.html" Complete nonsense. //

You don't know sufficient Greek to know what panspermia means, right? It means seeds of life everywhere, not just Mars and Earth.

// Panspermia doesn't require interstellar space travel. Nice red herring. It could mean something simple like amino acids forming on Mars //

When Mars doesn't show more likelihood than Earth of Miller Urey conditions, and where Miller Urey conditions would have exact same problem : remaining amino acids in Miller Urey conditions, unprotected by cell membranes.

// and being launched into space from a big impact event that results in it eventually landing on earth. //

The big impact would also have a chemical impact in destroying amino acids. The one perk with the theory would be, if Miller Urey conditions prevailed on Mars but not Earth, but no one has suggested (as far as I know) conditions under which montmorillonite (it's a compound, not just a clay) could compose and could form a clay in Hadean conditions.

Problems with abiotic formation of montmorillonite: ... wait, I was wrong, no carbon in it ... problems with it existing as a clay when Miller Urey conditions prevail : it would arguably harden to pottery, as would any clay, in those temperatures.

This means, if amino acids formed on Mars, if non-Miller-Urey conditions allowed montmorillonite clay on earth, there could be amino acids in vesicles on earth.

Still there would be chirality problem, problem of causing reproduction, problem of forming other information.

// Again, this is one hypothesis of many and you failed to prove it impossible. //

I think I caught up now.

// "RNA first (world) I presume RNA also needs a cell membrane, right?" Nope. //

There you are wrong.

RNA can operate outside nucleus, which has an inner membrane around it, but RNA does not operate outside cells, that do have an outer membrane around them. RNA virus protect RNA to when meeting a cell, by a proteine membrane.

Check here:

https://www.news-medical.net/life-sciences/What-is-RNA.aspx

and here:

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-DNA-stable-but-RNA-is-not

// Are you going to prove it impossible yet? Didn't think so. I'm going to stop here because you are being too dishonest and I'm not wasting any more time. //

It seems that you were too dishonest to leave this comment as it was ... or I was too negligent to detect it and therefore didn't respond to it.

// You have not proved anything impossible, you just raised questions about them. Scientists have many question about them as well. I never said they were PROVED. They are still hypotheses, being actively worked on and tested. //

What you call raise a question, in more than one case actually was proving the scenario impossible. You are at least highly sanguine about the scientists.

// If they were shown to be impossible, they would have been rejected in science. You don't see to grasp that. //

They are rejected in creation science, you don't seem to grasp that. Problem, the kind of scientists you prefer have a clear bias against ID, and need to grasp at straws.

// You are falsely claiming that abiogenesis is impossible but aren't proving it, just denying it all with miserable excuses. //

If this debate were a death match in rhetoric, with no logic or science to it, you'd win. Thank God this is not oral!

// As I said, ID needs to be proved on its own merit and you have completely 100% failed to evidence show a single piece of testable evidence while I cited multiple successful experiments related to the origin of life. //

Except, they are NOT successful, that's what I am telling you.

// It's far from proven, but it's more evidence than exists for ID, and that is my point. //

You are ultrasanguine about sth proven impossible as a viable scenario for abiogenesis being just "not proven". Each scenario which is refuted for abiogenesis narrows the possibilities down to either "biological life was always there" (literal panspermia not just abiogenesis between Mars and Earth) which is impossible on any cosmology except a steady state eternal cosmos, which you don't have, or creation, design by non-biological higher life.

// Your irrelevant nitpicking means nothing, //

Shout out your childish loyalty to atheistic scientists a bit higher, so everyone can hear you.

That comment at the very least proves that you don't have a scientific mind, just a science idolizing position, which is a very different thing.

// even if they never figure out how lipids were generated. You are pretending that not knowing the whole picture proves it is not possible. //

I am pretending knowing definite obstacles in the picture proves the picture a non-picture, at least as long as there is not even a remote suggestion how that obstacle could be overcome.

// That's a complete lie and you know it. //

Nice moralizing, nice teen tantrum passion (or tween, if you are in twenties), but definitely not a refutation.

Jesus Christ

​@Hans-Georg Lundahl "An argument can be "ignored" by taking one premiss at a time and each time ignoring the other premiss. A very bad thing, which I did not do."

When you split up a paragraph that makes a single point into separate lines one by one, it dilutes my points and takes them out of context. I don't have time for back and forth nitpicking.

"The problem is, each part must exist together for life to exist. If one very remote prehistoric condition corresponds to Miller Urey conditions, it will only prodice the amino acids part, and they will NOT last or develop millions of years till some other circumstance produces lipids."

Wrong again. You really haven't studied this outside of creationists websites and it's obvious. It's an INCREMENTAL process, not just a mix of a whole bunch of things that poof into a DNA molecule all at once. Amino acids is one step. Another step is the experiment where they took amino acids and put them in simulated volcanic conditions that drastically changed on a day by day basis and went through dry / wet periods back and forth. Guess what happened? Amino acids bonded together and formed into complex molecules that continuously increased complexity over time. Pretending like Miller - Urey is the be all end all is laughable. There are several other experiments.

And again you ignore my VERY BASIC point which was that there are some supporting experiments, while there is absolutely ZERO for ID. That's pretty much the end because you obviously are not equipped for this conversation you just want to scream that it's wrong because we can't show the entire process experimentally which is extremely dishonest because you claimed it was IMPOSSIBLE. It absolutely is not. A lot of it is unknown, NOT impossible.

"Sth = s (ome) th (ing) (the abbreviation is used in every foreign language dictiuonary, like sn = s (omeo) n (e)"

Grow up, this isn't text message talk. You are willing to post paragraphs on end with constant wasted filler and unnecessary bullshit, yet you need to abbreviate the word something with a false acronym. Jesus Christ!!! What a moron.

And again with the clay bullshit. Montmorillonite clay is ONE POSSIBLE hypothesis out of a dozen. I told you in the very beginning they could all be right or they could all be wrong, or some can be right and some wrong. You seem to think it's all or nothing, yet don't hold those same standards to ID. Where is an experiment supporting ID again? Oh wait...

"There is a difference between "fiction" and "fake". Someone claims Gospels are fake history, you try to claim who faked it. But someone claims Gospels were fiction, later misunderstood as history, you need a much vaster claim, starting with, who was ever stupid enough to take fiction as history, and who would if so have been stupid enough to agree with him."

LOL No. The gospels are not true by default. If you suggest they are, that is the positive claim and needs to be backed up. They were stories written by man, nobody can actually tell if they are true, but here's a hint. Walking on water, rising from the dead, turning water to wine... Normally when historians come upon physically impossible things in a story they determine it is fiction. Just like they know that Humpty Dumpty wasn't real and neither was Zeus.

"So, Miller-Urey conditions produce amino acids, and one million years later, amino acids produce phospholipids and cell membranes? Precisely impossible, because precisely amino acids without cell membranes don't survive or reproduce for a million years."

This proves everything I said to be true. You don't get it. Amino acids don't reproduce, they form in high energy situations via chemical reactions. They aren't alive. Yes, amino acids could exist for millions of years without lipids or cell membranes. Miller Urey proved they don't need membranes to form or exist, and the subsequent volcanic experiment showed they can bond together and increase the complexity of the molecule over time, the longer the time, the more complex it can get depending on the conditions.

"You don't know sufficient Greek to know what panspermia means, right? It means seeds of life everywhere, not just Mars and Earth."

Greek is irrelevant. This is a scientific hypothesis. You tried to refute it by talking about interstellar space travel from other stars, which is NOT a requirement.

"When Mars doesn't show more likelihood than Earth of Miller Urey conditions, and where Miller Urey conditions would have exact same problem : remaining amino acids in Miller Urey conditions, unprotected by cell membranes."

Then how do we have a rock on earth that came from mars with amino acids in it? Most scientists agree that Mars used to have an atmosphere and oceans. The conditions could very well have existed in the past. Plus you keep dishonestly bringing up cell membranes, like that is your magical trump card. Just stop. They aren't required for amino acids.

"The big impact would also have a chemical impact in destroying amino acids."

DUDE! This is directly debunked by the Martian rock I posted earlier. 100% false.

"It seems that you were too dishonest to leave this comment as it was ... or I was too negligent to detect it and therefore didn't respond to it. "

It's called proof reading. I always proof read my responses, and if I don't like the way I word something I modify it. You should read the comments on youtube, not from email. Email doesn't contain the edits. And no I don't edit anything after you respond.

"What you call raise a question, in more than one case actually was proving the scenario impossible"

This is a lie. You basically argued that we don't know how some of it can happen. This is true, but that's not the same as it being IMPOSSIBLE. How do you not grasp that???

"They are rejected in creation science, you don't seem to grasp that. Problem, the kind of scientists you prefer have a clear bias against ID, and need to grasp at straws."

Another blatant lie. There is no such thing as creation science. I asked you for a peer reviewed paper with the experiments and research on it, and you couldn't even do it, you just post propaganda links like creation.com with NO research or testable science at all, just nitpicking natural explanations instead of testing their own claims. It's beyond pathetic.

"Except, they are NOT successful, that's what I am telling you."

And you are dead wrong. Your only arguments are that Miller Urey doesn't show everything, which is laughable. Miller Urey was successful, along with the handful of other ones. You are not qualified to determine what experiments are right or wrong, you don't have the knowledge or understanding.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Jesus Christ" "When you split up a paragraph that makes a single point into separate lines one by one, it dilutes my points and takes them out of context."

I don't think so, when the "single point" actually consists of several pointS.

"I don't have time for back and forth nitpicking."

Then leave arguing to people who DO have time for nitpicking.

"Wrong again. You really haven't studied this outside of creationists websites and it's obvious. It's an INCREMENTAL process, not just a mix of a whole bunch of things that poof into a DNA molecule all at once. Amino acids is one step. Another step is the experiment where they took amino acids and put them in simulated volcanic conditions that drastically changed on a day by day basis and went through dry / wet periods back and forth. Guess what happened? Amino acids bonded together and formed into complex molecules that continuously increased complexity over time. Pretending like Miller - Urey is the be all end all is laughable. There are several other experiments."

Would you mind telling me:

• 1) do the simulated volcanic include Miller Urey conditions?
• 2) where did amino acids come from in the simulated volcanic?
• 3) or, so I can look up myself : who made that experiment, when, where can I read about it?

My basic point is, under Miller Urey conditions, amino acids break down too fast to allow any kind of incremental process to happen at all.

"And again you ignore my VERY BASIC point which was that there are some supporting experiments, while there is absolutely ZERO for ID."

Our existence is a very big one. Arranged experiments are NOT all there is to testing.

"That's pretty much the end because you obviously are not equipped for this conversation you just want to scream"

No, this is false "empathy". Whether I was right or wrong on you basically wanting to shout and making a tantrum, you are definitely wrong on my "wanting to scream".

"that it's wrong because we can't show the entire process experimentally which is extremely dishonest because you claimed it was IMPOSSIBLE."

Each experiment done so far that I know of shows it impossible.

"It absolutely is not. A lot of it is unknown, NOT impossible."

This is an estimation, when there is no known possibility, impossible is a fairly sober one. You have a bias against ID, which makes you make other estimates than the sober one.

"Grow up, this isn't text message talk."

• 1) It's not "text message" you find the abbreviation "for real" (in printed books, like dictionaries, where for instance in a Latin dictionary one Latin verb or phrase corresponds to "like sn" and another to "like sth").
• 2) C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien used these abbreviations fairly often. See their letters. They are published.
• 3) Since they are back when writing those letters grown up people, I don't see any indication for a "grow up" except you want to be disagreeable to a creationist.

"You are willing to post paragraphs on end with constant wasted filler and unnecessary bullshit,"

That you are unequipped to discuss abiogenesis doesn't make my discussion unnecessary. Perhaps some of _our_ readers are better equipped than you.

"yet you need to abbreviate the word something with a false acronym."

It's not a false acronym, it's a real abbreviation.



"Jesus Christ!!!"



Don't blaspheme. Btw, change your screen name, it is also a blasphemy.

"What a moron."

Meaning "fool", look up Matthew 5:22.

"And again with the clay bullshit. Montmorillonite clay is ONE POSSIBLE hypothesis out of a dozen."

How many of the dozen deal specifically with the problem of cell membranes? Iron sulphur world? Miller Urey? No, didn't think so. In other words, for each problem, the hypotheses are considerably fewer than a dozen. That's why binary logic can be applied.

"I told you in the very beginning they could all be right or they could all be wrong, or some can be right and some wrong."

If it can happen they are all of them right, they MUST deal with different aspects of abiogenesis, which means, for each aspect, there are lots fewer options. How many deal with cell membranes? Incremental before cell membranes is an oxymoron (meaning "sharp folly", note well, I did not call you a fool, just mentioned you were pronouncing a folly).

"You seem to think it's all or nothing, yet don't hold those same standards to ID."

I very much do. A designer who is not only all knowing but also all powerful very much CAN show ALL of it possible.

"Where is an experiment supporting ID again? Oh wait..."

Again : we are one.

"LOL No. The gospels are not true by default."

Never said they were.

I said history. Made up stories don't usually make it to be believed as history. Except the kind of "made up" that isn't fiction, but lies.

"If you suggest they are, that is the positive claim and needs to be backed up."

A story which is taken as historical is one prima facie evidence for sth being true.

"They were stories written by man, nobody can actually tell if they are true, but here's a hint."

If there is no alternative history from back then about what happened, the prima facie conclusion is, they are true.

"Walking on water, rising from the dead, turning water to wine... Normally when historians come upon physically impossible things in a story they determine it is fiction."

Sorry, but you are now not talking of "historians" you are talking of "modern historians with antimiraculous bias". That is quite a different thing.

"Just like they know that Humpty Dumpty wasn't real"

Real or not is not the point. Humpty Dumpty is real fiction, because traceable to real childrens rhyme and to real passage in a book really intended by Lewis Carroll for entertainment.

"and neither was Zeus."

In which of his capacities?

"This proves everything I said to be true. You don't get it. Amino acids don't reproduce, they form in high energy situations via chemical reactions. They aren't alive. Yes, amino acids could exist for millions of years without lipids or cell membranes."

No. Not unless "for millions of years" means again and again for very short periods adding up to millions of years.

"Miller Urey proved they don't need membranes to form or exist,"

Miller Urey also proved, under Miller Urey conditions they degrade very quickly. This is what you are missing all the time.

"and the subsequent volcanic experiment showed they can bond together and increase the complexity of the molecule over time,"

Again, are the conditions of the volcanic experiment compatible with Miller Urey conditions? Or were amino acids transferred in a lab from Miller Urey conditions to simulated volcano in a way which is inconceivable to project back in time?

"the longer the time, the more complex it can get depending on the conditions."

And how much of the complexity is ordered?

"Greek is irrelevant. This is a scientific hypothesis."

A scientist who doesn't know Greek stinks. Panspermia means, seeds (spermata) of life every- (pan) -where. What you outlined cannot qualify as panspermia, and I responded to what the word means in Greek.

"You tried to refute it by talking about interstellar space travel from other stars, which is NOT a requirement."

For panspermia properly speaking, yes.

"Then how do we have a rock on earth that came from mars with amino acids in it?"

Where so?

"Most scientists agree that Mars used to have an atmosphere and oceans. The conditions could very well have existed in the past. Plus you keep dishonestly bringing up cell membranes, like that is your magical trump card. Just stop. They aren't required for amino acids."

They are required for making amino acids last.

"DUDE! This is directly debunked by the Martian rock I posted earlier. 100% false."

Again, where so?

"It's called proof reading. I always proof read my responses, and if I don't like the way I word something I modify it. You should read the comments on youtube, not from email. Email doesn't contain the edits. And no I don't edit anything after you respond."

However, before. Taking away more than one detail.

"This is a lie. You basically argued that we don't know how some of it can happen. This is true, but that's not the same as it being IMPOSSIBLE. How do you not grasp that???"

Have you heard of the formulation "as far as we know it is impossible"? This formulation holds as long as there is no known possibility.

"Another blatant lie. There is no such thing as creation science. I asked you for a peer reviewed paper with the experiments and research on it, and you couldn't even do it, you just post propaganda links like creation.com with NO research or testable science at all, just nitpicking natural explanations instead of testing their own claims. It's beyond pathetic."

Again, I cited the guy who had done the Montmorillonite clay experiment via them. PLUS, making an experiment oneself is not required for arguing about it, there is nothing dishonest about nitpicking the test implications of someone else's experiment (as Creation Scientists love to do with Miller Urey).

"And you are dead wrong. Your only arguments are that Miller Urey doesn't show everything, which is laughable."

My argument is, Miller Urey shows, amino acids don't just form, but also break down under the kind of conditions that Miller Urey experiment simulated.

"Miller Urey was successful, along with the handful of other ones."

Yes, in showing abiogenesis impossible.

"You are not qualified to determine what experiments are right or wrong, you don't have the knowledge or understanding."

I have logic, and this trumps special knowledge, special understanding or special competence.

Jesus Christ

@Hans-Georg Lundahl You are a liar. Please stop being so goddamn dishonest. You can't even discuss the topic without tons of irrelevant lies and red herring tangents. You are wasting time and just keep repeating things I already refuted. You ignore every source i post. No evidence for ID = no evidence for ID, and by YOUR STANDARDS, that means it's impossible. I mean can you demonstrate how a creator made lipids?? Of course you can't. You are pretending that humans not knowing the whole process magically makes a designer exist. You are stupid as fuck. Everything you criticize abiogenesis for applies the same way to ID, idiot. I can't believe how retarded you are. If not knowing everything about abiogenesis is enough to say it's impossible, then ID is beyond impossible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"No evidence for ID = no evidence for ID, and by YOUR STANDARDS, that means it's impossible."

My standards were not lack of evidence, but lack of possible means.

"I mean can you demonstrate how a creator made lipids?? Of course you can't."

I can demonstrate how He could have : a) He is omniscient and knew they were needed, b) He is almighty and was able to make them.

Much better case for lipids than Miller Urey conditions.

"You are pretending that humans not knowing the whole process magically makes a designer exist."

No, I am pretending that the knowledge of one possibility (Miller Urey conditions for amino acids) is such that it is ruling out any possibility for lipids then and there. And of course, that waiting to later dooms the amino acids to destruction.

I am also pretending you ought to learn some manners:

"You are a liar. Please stop being so goddamn dishonest. You can't even discuss the topic without tons of irrelevant lies and red herring tangents. You are wasting time and just keep repeating things I already refuted. You ignore every source i post. You are stupid as fuck. ... idiot. I can't believe how retarded you are."

May I suggest C. S. Lewis? G. K. Chesterton?

Jesus Christ

@Hans-Georg Lundahl " can demonstrate how He could have : a) He is omniscient and knew they were needed, b) He is almighty and was able to make them."

Prove that it is possible for an omniscient all powerful being to just exist out of nowhere. Your gripes are stupid if this is your justification for buying into design. Anybody could just as easily say that an infinite multi-verse exists. YOU ARE MAKING ASSUMPTIONS.

Abiogenesis has much more supporting data, while the ID idea has zero. You can deny this fact until the cows come home, but you are using double standards in your logic.

"Much better case for lipids than Miller Urey conditions."

Keep repeating that straw man LOL! You can't say that magic is a more realistic explanation! LMFAO!!

"No, I am pretending that the knowledge of one possibility (Miller Urey conditions for amino acids) is such that it is ruling out any possibility for lipids then and there. And of course, that waiting to later dooms the amino acids to destruction."

Your argument is all based on lies. Miller-Urey are not the only conditions. You are extremely dishonest and cherry picking one single experiment out of several as if it is the be all end all and must explain everything or is automatically impossible. Super dishonest.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

https://phys.org/news/2019-02-nasa-life-ocean-floor.html

The evidence keeps accumulating. Can't wait to hear your invalid denial on this one. Amino acids don't require lipids. Sorry.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Prove that it is possible for an omniscient all powerful being to just exist out of nowhere."

When we prove sth can exist, we are usually considering its possible emergence or preservation in terms of more basic realities. God as per Theism is the most basic reality, and as such eternal and definitely not "out of nowhere". Thanks for showing up your anti-Theist bias and ... frankly ignorance.

"Your gripes are stupid if this is your justification for buying into design. Anybody could just as easily say that an infinite multi-verse exists."

I already said, an infinite multiverse with each universe coming in a big bang would NOT solve why there is life. Sure, suppose it were true, some infinite numbers of universes would exist, but each would be limited to matter and energy, with neither life nor consciousness.

"YOU ARE MAKING ASSUMPTIONS."

Yes, so? I am also, unlike you, reasoning about assumptions, mine and those of others.

"Abiogenesis has much more supporting data, while the ID idea has zero."

Except, all of our existence is data supporting ID. And specifically Theism. It is a question of which conclusion the data actually support, and abiogenesis has no data actually supporting it, only lots purported to do so.

"You can deny this fact until the cows come home, but you are using double standards in your logic."

Not the least. I am simply saying logic about what data actually support has more to do with conclusion than number of papers presenting data.

"Keep repeating that straw man LOL! You can't say that magic is a more realistic explanation! LMFAO!! "

Most definitely yes, and you are again showing off your anti-Theist bias.

"Your argument is all based on lies. Miller-Urey are not the only conditions."

The question is not whether other conditions are possible. The question is whether they can have existed on earth (outside labs, mind you, in large scale) along with Miller Urey in such a way that amino acids gained from Miller Urey are not simply lost again.

"You are extremely dishonest and cherry picking one single experiment out of several as if it is the be all end all and must explain everything or is automatically impossible. Super dishonest."

The question is not whether there are other experiments. The question is how the experiments, which are small scale models, can have similar conditions coexist with each other "in the wild" or in full scale. How you do an experiment on Miller Urey and on Montmorillonite clays in lab is simple. You simply make small scale conditions in different labs or different rooms of the lab, isolated from each other. The pertinent question is how Montmorillonite clays can have co-existed with full scale Miller Urey conditions. By "full scale Miller Urey conditions" or simply "Miller Urey conditions" I have not been referring to the small amount of Miller Urey conditions produced in labs by Miller and Urey. I have been referring to how these conditions are supposed to have been there, full scale, in a pre-biotic soup.

Looked at link. Whether "sea floor conditions" are "Miller Urey conditions" or somewhat dissimilar ones, they are definitely into only "amino acids" and "alpha hydroxy acids". These are not sufficient conditions for life, since life needs cell membranes, and I did not see any mention of Montmorillonite clays being available (unlikely : they form in caves) to provide even a beginning of them.

How many experiments do you need, each of which provide one and exclude another condition of life, to see life didn't start that way? Each experiment goes nowhere.