Disproving atheists in 82 seconds

[jem]

That is funny you like it, because it confirms what I have been telling you and tools like stu for years. You just quoted a passage which shows no one knows how or if life evolved from non life here on earth. They are still just guessing about part of the process.

Quote from futurecurrents:

This is the part that I find most interesting about the explanations of abiogenesis .......


Waves breaking on the shore create a delicate foam composed of bubbles. Winds sweeping across the ocean have a tendency to drive things to shore, much like driftwood collecting on the beach. It is possible that organic molecules were concentrated on the shorelines in much the same way. Shallow coastal waters also tend to be warmer, further concentrating the molecules through evaporation. While bubbles composed mostly of water burst quickly, water containing amphiphiles forms much more stable bubbles, lending more time to the particular bubble to perform these crucial reactions.
Amphiphiles are oily compounds containing a hydrophilic head on one or both ends of a hydrophobic molecule. Some amphiphiles have the tendency to spontaneously form membranes in water. A spherically closed membrane contains water and is a hypothetical precursor to the modern cell membrane. If a protein would increase the integrity of its parent bubble, that bubble had an advantage, and was placed at the top of the natural selection waiting list. Primitive reproduction can be envisioned when the bubbles burst, releasing the results of the 'experiment' into the surrounding medium. Once enough of the 'right stuff' was released into the medium, the development of the first prokaryotes, eukaryotes, and multicellular organisms could be achieved.[103]



But I wonder what a real unbiased source like Conservapedia says

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
I lied about being an atheist? are you sedated?

You are very slow. Try it again. If you still can't work it out, I'll elaborate one step at a time.

Quote from jem:
more straw man bullshit.
no one is arguing it is not feasible we are just saying there is no proof it happened by random chance. And in fact its looking more and more like it was directed.

Pinch me someone. Did Jem really state "we" say life from inorganic matter is feasible! omg.

'Life from non-life' as you concede, feasible it is then , though not through those natural processes as they are observed of course, and still that random chance red-herring remains. Can't expect everything at once.

But the magic director of it, for which there is no corresponding fact whatsoever despite what you say, is nevertheless pushed back once again into that tiny and ever diminishing gap.

 

[rew]

Quote from futurecurrents:

This is the part that I find most interesting about the explanations of abiogenesis .......


Waves breaking on the shore create a delicate foam composed of bubbles. Winds sweeping across the ocean have a tendency to drive things to shore, much like driftwood collecting on the beach. It is possible that organic molecules were concentrated on the shorelines in much the same way. Shallow coastal waters also tend to be warmer, further concentrating the molecules through evaporation. While bubbles composed mostly of water burst quickly, water containing amphiphiles forms much more stable bubbles, lending more time to the particular bubble to perform these crucial reactions.
Amphiphiles are oily compounds containing a hydrophilic head on one or both ends of a hydrophobic molecule. Some amphiphiles have the tendency to spontaneously form membranes in water. A spherically closed membrane contains water and is a hypothetical precursor to the modern cell membrane. If a protein would increase the integrity of its parent bubble, that bubble had an advantage, and was placed at the top of the natural selection waiting list. Primitive reproduction can be envisioned when the bubbles burst, releasing the results of the 'experiment' into the surrounding medium. Once enough of the 'right stuff' was released into the medium, the development of the first prokaryotes, eukaryotes, and multicellular organisms could be achieved.[103]



But I wonder what a real unbiased source like Conservapedia says

This is all very well as arm chair speculation goes. There may be some truth to it. But I find it odd that the same people who will shoot down any evidence for a spiritual existence will accept a flimsy hand waving argument like this as "proof" that we've cracked the problem of life's origin. Waves *might* concentrate organic molecules. If so, most of those molecules will consist of tars (random hydrocarbons), not a particularly promising promising start for life. (Nobody has formed life from tar even in a laboratory.) Proteins might give more stability to lipid bubbles. But where do the proteins come from? The Urey Miller experiment produced small amounts of simple amino acids (and lots of tars) but no way to hook them up into proteins. That's done today in the ribosome, a structure not likely to be found on your pre-prokaryotic beach.

In short, we're still waiting for that laboratory creation of life, using only processes likely to take place naturally on an early earth. Current theories still have huge gaps, with some hand waving that says, "Miracle happens here!". That's not a vast improvement on the God-snapped-his-fingers crowd.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

in the realm of science, I would say who or what is fine with me.

Then you are not in the realm of science.

 

[stu]

Quote from rew:

This is all very well as arm chair speculation goes. There may be some truth to it. But I find it odd that the same people who will shoot down any evidence for a spiritual existence will accept a flimsy hand waving argument like this as "proof" that we've cracked the problem of life's origin. Waves *might* concentrate organic molecules. If so, most of those molecules will consist of tars (random hydrocarbons), not a particularly promising promising start for life. (Nobody has formed life from tar even in a laboratory.) Proteins might give more stability to lipid bubbles. But where do the proteins come from? The Urey Miller experiment produced small amounts of simple amino acids (and lots of tars) but no way to hook them up into proteins. That's done today in the ribosome, a structure not likely to be found on your pre-prokaryotic beach.

In short, we're still waiting for that laboratory creation of life, using only processes likely to take place naturally on an early earth. Current theories still have huge gaps, with some hand waving that says, "Miracle happens here!". That's not a vast improvement on the God-snapped-his-fingers crowd.

That's may seem correct only if you entirely ignore all the proven science associated with the question, and then consider magic more likely than natural processes.

 

[rew]

Quote from stu:

That's may seem correct only if you entirely ignore all the proven science associated with the question, and then consider magic more likely than natural processes.

Except that those theories require a lot of magic. Magically, proteins form. By chance, some lipid bubbles last longer because they got more of the good, stabilizing proteins. But having good, stabilizing proteins doesn't mean that as the lipid bubble gets bigger it is any more likely than any other bubble to absorb *more* of the good proteins. So when it splits the good proteins get divided among two bubbles, which will then just accumulate average, not so good proteins as they grow. So rather than the inheritance of superior traits we get instant regression to the mean. Since there is no actual copying of information there is no evolution. I guess more magic is needed here.

Really, when you look into the details of these theories you see miracle after miracle.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from rew:

Except that those theories require a lot of magic. Magically, proteins form. By chance, some lipid bubbles last longer because they got more of the good, stabilizing proteins. But having good, stabilizing proteins doesn't mean that as the lipid bubble gets bigger it is any more likely than any other bubble to absorb *more* of the good proteins. So when it splits the good proteins get divided among two bubbles, which will then just accumulate average, not so good proteins as they grow. So rather than the inheritance of superior traits we get instant regression to the mean. Since there is no actual copying of information there is no evolution. I guess more magic is needed here.

Really, when you look into the details of these theories you see miracle after miracle.

It is always amusing to hear theists proclaim that they dont believe in a natural process because it sounds too complicated yet they will readily believe that some grey haired old deity in the sky just spoke and everything we see today popped up from nothing.
--Freethinker

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from Free Thinker:

It is always amusing to hear theists proclaim that they dont believe in a natural process because it sounds too complicated yet they will readily believe that some grey haired old deity in the sky just spoke and everything we see today popped up from nothing.
--Freethinker

The other amusing thing is how the scope of what God is responsible for doing has steadily retracted back to the one area we can't see well, but still the theists hold on this small sliver of potential God-work with dogged desperation.

Used to be that they thought it really was six days and Eve really was made from the rib of Adam. But THIS time they have it right. No really!

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

You are very slow. Try it again. If you still can't work it out, I'll elaborate one step at a time.

Pinch me someone. Did Jem really state "we" say life from inorganic matter is feasible! omg.

'Life from non-life' as you concede, feasible it is then , though not through those natural processes as they are observed of course, and still that random chance red-herring remains. Can't expect everything at once.

But the magic director of it, for which there is no corresponding fact whatsoever despite what you say, is nevertheless pushed back once again into that tiny and ever diminishing gap.

you are a troll. I have been presenting science this whole time. I rarely interject my own beliefs. Of course it is possible. I lean towards the idea that directed evolution is probably correct.
The point I have been making this entire time is that there is no proof that we evolved from non life by random chance.

Note.. the rest of what you wrote is pure bullshit. What does this mean?

"though not through those natural processes as they are observed of course"

as if someone has observed natural process in which life evolved from non life. --- you are a troll.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

Then you are not in the realm of science.

as if you are with your half a decade of lies about proof of life from non life.

Noble prize winners suggest directed evolution. Of course I am in the realm of science.