Thought I'd add this pre-print to the conversation: A Natural Origin-of-Life: Every Hypothetical Step Appears Thwarted by Abiogenetic Randomization (https://www.doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/p5nw3). (If that link isn't working right, try this one: https://osf.io/p5nw3/ ). Dr. George Matzko has a Ph.D. in chemistry, was chairman of the chemistry department at Bob Jones University for 20 years and then chairman of the science department for another 20 years. It makes the case that every proposed step in abiogenesis, the supposedly scientific study of the origin of life, fails due to a common root cause. The argument is straightforward. A pre-life chemical process leading to life has three main variables: naturally appearing starting chemicals, naturally appearing energy sources, and a naturally appearing environment. The basic assumption of origin-of-life studies is that some combination of these variable first produced amino acids and/or nucleotides, the building block chemicals of life. These, then, were the starting chemicals for the next step: stringing the building blocks together to form proteins and/or nucleic acids. Eventually, some combination of building blocks appeared which was able to copy itself. Eventually, the self-copying molecules turned into living cells. There is a very big problem with this scenario. Every proposed step fails when tested experimentally. Furthermore—and this is the main issue which is the basis of the title—every one fails for the same reason: Millions of possible unique combinations of carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen are possible and have been catalogued with certain physical characteristics observed and reported. Naturally appearing energy sources modify existing chemicals into a random output of chemicals near its structure. The initial starting chemicals became more and more randomized over time. This has been observed experimentally. Life requires the initial chemicals to form reasonably pure sequences of specific amino acids or nucleotides so they can start stringing together. There has never been an observed case of starting chemicals doing this. At whatever stage one does an experiment, the same pattern appears. The output chemicals as a whole are further away from life at the end of the experiment than before it started. Science gives clear evidence that natural processes work against a natural origin of life. Abiogenesis is fake science. Results in this field are repeatable—but the repeats all confirm its impossibility. This is an easy argument to understand. Anyone with even a slight knowledge of chemistry can follow it. Thousands of experiments have taken place since the Miller-Urey spark experiment in 1953, almost 70 years ago. Tens of thousands of articles have been written in the journals about this issue. I would encourage you and anyone else reading this thread to try to find a single article which reports of an experiment in abiogenesis which 1) starts with a given set of chemicals suitable for any hypothetical step of abiogenesis, 2) works on them with a reasonably plausible energy source suitable for a pre-life environment, 3) has no kind of interference or intervention by an intelligent being (tinkering by scientists not allowed), 4) produces new chemicals useful towards life, and 5) produces them in a form which can be used in the following step directly as produced . The article claims that naturally appearing principles prevent this from happening. A successful spontaneous appearance of life would require the entire path to be traveled smoothly from one step into its successor and without a single impassable roadblock. Yet, there appears to be a common root cause which prevents any step from successfully advancing to the next.
You are tearing your hair out on all of this, expending a ton of mental energy, while forgetting the basic fact... You have no pre-life memory. Ergo, you will no post-life memory. You will become non-existent when you die, just as you were non-existent before you were born. So who gives a shit? Go have a milkshake and enjoy the present moment, because the only life that exists is NOW.
Well then we have something to look forward to if you are correct. We have nothing to look forward to if I am correct. So it is a true negation of ideas.
Except that one of the two afterlife options isn't anything to look forward to. So, why not investigate the validity of Bible? If you don't search it out, isn't that a little bit like an ostrich burying it's head in the sand at the site of danger?
First of all, ostriches do no bury their heads in the sand. If they did, they would suffocate to death. Secondly, I HAVE investigated the validity of the "Bible". Both testaments. It's all BS. Jehova was vengeful and angry, but then when he gave his only begotton son to the world by having him manifest as a human, he then became a loving God? Sound like a bi-polar author to me. It's FALSE!
Ostriches don't bury their heads in the sand—they wouldn't be able to breathe! But they do dig holes in the dirt to use as nests for their eggs. Several times a day, a bird puts her head in the hole and turns the eggs. So it really does look like the birds are burying their heads in the sand! https://kids.nationalgeographic.com/nature/article/animal-myths-busted The observation is that ostriches put their heads into the ground. An erroneous interpretation is that they don't want to face danger. The correct interpretation is that they are digging a hole or turning the eggs they placed in that hold. That's just like the "evidence" that we have concerning the Bible or evolution. We all have the same evidence to form our beliefs from. But there can only be one right way to interpret the evidence. What evidence did you find that brought you to the conclusion that both the Old Testament and the New Testament are false? The evidence you found against the Old Testament is most important to me to learn because the New Testament is founded on the Old Testament....without the Old Testament being valid, there cannot be a New Testament. Is your argument primarily that God shows wrath?
I think the use of "your" clearly referred to your submission. No one would confuse it to mean that you authored the submission. But you knew that. Just another example of your trolling and deception. That said, another response to your proffer. More: www.medium.com/@michaelcheng_17676/15-answers-to-15-bad-answers-to-creationist-nonsense-41ae3d72d61c Any response(s) before we move on the Problem #2?
It was a very simple question. "Why didn't you look around any further, why didn't you say... For a creator to exist, it too needs a creator." Simples. You "found" the universe would need a creator, so why wouldn't a creator need to be created? Your "I did" response means you "found" an infinite regress of gods, unless you don't understand how your "I did" respnse is in the affirmative. Instead of creating pages of lame excuses and ad hominem, why don't you inform my curiosity on exactly how that question is not a simple question, deserving more than a question begging "I did". Indeed I am curious, or more intrigued really, as to how some people like you, who otherwise seem rational on other topics, are so willing to sacrifice all their human reasoning to believe in what is and has only ever been, a profoundly improbable and entirely imaginary concept. Taking me off ignore to read my posts, to make vaccuous replies, to avoid a simple question and then put me back on ignore, makes you troll of trolls. Already attempted that as you well know. Upshot from you was, 'bible's true 'cause bible says so'. Numerous times I posed reasonable and legitimate questions to your often irrelevant bible bashing responses. Obviously it'd be pretty easy for writers of allegory, tales and stories that would eventually become the New Testament, to make "prohecies" by conveniently curve fitting their bible to much older hebrew divinations in order to claim them as fulfilled. Seriously, unless you're 'really wanting honest discussion' just leave me on ignore dude and don't bother throwing more pages of unconnected biblical text in more confused attempts to plug another gaping flaw in your religious claims. You've already said Jesus uses hyperbole so what's to stop a few so called prophets doing the same. Why not settle for that? Funny though how you, also in ultimate troll mode, have me on ignore but respond to my posts. Apart from the condescending self righteous sanctimony in most every post you two make, ya'll might eventually consider how the fragility of those respective religious beliefs is manifested in your weak and often groundless arguments and vacillating use of the ignore button. May I respectfully suggest if you two hypocritical trolls for god are going to carry on the way you are, a motel room may be more appropriate for you than a chat room.