(January 4, 2018 at 8:40 am)alpha male Wrote:

(January 4, 2018 at 1:36 am)Astreja Wrote: Ah!  Found a good starting point.

Miller, S.L.  A Production of Amino Acids under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions.  Science, 117(3046), 528-529.

There are dozens of starting points. None of them are particularly good until they lead to an ending point. We don't have any ending points.

---

(January 3, 2018 at 9:38 pm)Whateverist Wrote: For me it isn't about the strength of peer reviewed research regarding abiogenesis.

That's good, because the strength is lacking. Yet, many atheists think it's all but proven, because they get their info from youtube and only pay lip service to perr reviewed science.

It doesn't matter to me if the abiogenesis question is answered definitively in my lifetime or not, it'd be great if it was, but I don't need it or expect it to be, as with many other areas of science. I know you don't like the idea, but science does indeed take time, building incrementally in little steps on what came before. And since this is trying to reverse engineer life from the bottom up... based on first principles and hypotheses of the early conditions of the earth... of course it's going to take time and of course there are going to be a lot of misses... because it's hypothetical... but failures can be just as informative as successes so hit or miss, the body of knowledge will gradually grow on the subject, even if it's only a protein or amino acid at a time.

If I was ever to become a Christian again, it could never be as a creationist... the ship has already sailed on that... I'd have to go the 'allegorical' route, because as I see it, creationists have much bigger fish to fry than ignoring the scientific process and the nature and complexity of the task regarding Abiogenesis research; like trying to fit dinosaurs into the ark, both physically and in terms of the narrative. I can just imagine Noah trying to lure a T-Rex onto the ark, but that's all I can do, imagine it... there's no way I could ever believe it.

(January 4, 2018 at 12:04 pm)emjay Wrote: If I was ever to become a Christian again, it could never be as a creationist... the ship has already sailed on that... I'd have to go the 'allegorical' route, because as I see it, creationists have much bigger fish to fry than ignoring the scientific process and the nature and complexity of the task regarding Abiogenesis research; like trying to fit dinosaurs into the ark, both physically and in terms of the narrative. I can just imagine Noah trying to lure a T-Rex onto the ark, but that's all I can do, imagine it... there's no way I could ever believe it.

Ironically, that would be a more authentic form of christianity than anything you're likely to have had contact with as a modern christian.  It started out as an allegory for a divine event.  As above, so below.

(January 4, 2018 at 10:30 am)alpha male Wrote:

(January 4, 2018 at 9:58 am)Astreja Wrote: That's an utterly pathetic attitude towards science.  Thank you, however, for letting me know that it's a waste of time sourcing documents for you.

Yes, pulling up a 50-year-old doc when this began with your comment on the "current state of abiogenesis research" certainly was a waste of time.

If you can't accept beginnings, it stands to reason that you won't accept anything that was based on those beginnings either.

I have come to the conclusion that no matter what we show you, you will reject it because it contradicts your mythology-suffused worldview.

(January 4, 2018 at 12:25 pm)Astreja Wrote: If you can't accept beginnings, it stands to reason that you won't accept anything that was based on those beginnings either.

I have come to the conclusion that no matter what we show you, you will reject it because it contradicts your mythology-suffused worldview.

I haven't rejected Urey-Miller. Yes, I accept that scientists can take certain chemicals and turn them into other chemicals in a lab. So what? I've got plenty of amino acids in my house. They don't turn into life.

(January 4, 2018 at 12:15 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(January 4, 2018 at 12:04 pm)emjay Wrote: If I was ever to become a Christian again, it could never be as a creationist... the ship has already sailed on that... I'd have to go the 'allegorical' route, because as I see it, creationists have much bigger fish to fry than ignoring the scientific process and the nature and complexity of the task regarding Abiogenesis research; like trying to fit dinosaurs into the ark, both physically and in terms of the narrative. I can just imagine Noah trying to lure a T-Rex onto the ark, but that's all I can do, imagine it... there's no way I could ever believe it.

Ironically, that would be a more authentic form of christianity than anything you're likely to have had contact with as a modern christian.  It started out as an allegory for a divine event.  As above, so below.

The problem with allegory is it's not a very good basis for belief, especially if it's status as allegory or not changes or can change with the wind. I'd never even heard the word allegory until I came on here... I grew up as a creationist/literalist... it seems to be a Catholic invention

(January 4, 2018 at 12:36 pm)emjay Wrote:

(January 4, 2018 at 12:15 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Ironically, that would be a more authentic form of christianity than anything you're likely to have had contact with as a modern christian.  It started out as an allegory for a divine event.  As above, so below.

The problem with allegory is it's not a very good basis for belief, especially if it's status as allegory or not changes or can change with the wind. I'd never even heard the word allegory until I came on here... I grew up as a creationist/literalist... it seems to be a Catholic invention

No, no, they tried as hard as they could to eradicate that heresy.  It was highly damaging to their authority and, thus....their bottom line. Catholicism is a simple but effective variation of a highly syncretic temple taxation scheme. They needed a real peter, they needed a flesh and blood christ. It's wholly through their insistence (and enforcement) that the story was in some sense literal that you would have come to believe it as whatever form of protestantism you suffered under.

The catholic faith, by the by, is dogmatically bound to literal creationism where it matters - in case you were taught otherwise by "catholics", lol.

(January 4, 2018 at 12:29 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(January 4, 2018 at 12:25 pm)Astreja Wrote: If you can't accept beginnings, it stands to reason that you won't accept anything that was based on those beginnings either.

I have come to the conclusion that no matter what we show you, you will reject it because it contradicts your mythology-suffused worldview.

I haven't rejected Urey-Miller. Yes, I accept that scientists can take certain chemicals and turn them into other chemicals in a lab. So what? I've got plenty of amino acids in my house. They don't turn into life.

Yeah apparently conditions have changed since the period when life would have emerged on earth.  Also, once life which exist in very rudimentary forms here already -like prions and viruses and germs- there really isn't anyplace where an emerging life form would have a chance, including your closet.

One wonders, though, how closely the amino acids in all of our closets are being monitored. 

(January 4, 2018 at 8:40 am)alpha male Wrote:

(January 3, 2018 at 9:38 pm)Whateverist Wrote: For me it isn't about the strength of peer reviewed research regarding abiogenesis.

That's good, because the strength is lacking. Yet, many atheists think it's all but proven, because they get their info from youtube and only pay lip service to perr reviewed science.

Not sure if your reading comprehension is poor today or if you're being deliberately obtuse. There is a reason I don't care about the status of efforts to break the inorganic/organic threshold in the laboratory. Not one instance of supernatural causation or creation has ever been demonstrated while we are swimming in such instances of natural causation all around us. You really should try to find somewhere else to plant your flag.

(January 4, 2018 at 12:38 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(January 4, 2018 at 12:36 pm)emjay Wrote: The problem with allegory is it's not a very good basis for belief, especially if it's status as allegory or not changes or can change with the wind. I'd never even heard the word allegory until I came on here... I grew up as a creationist/literalist... it seems to be a Catholic invention

No, no, they tried as hard as they could to eradicate that heresy.  It was highly damaging to their authority and, thus....their bottom line.  Catholicism is a simple but effective variation of a highly syncretic temple taxation scheme.  They needed a real peter, they needed a flesh and blood christ.  It's wholly through their insistence (and enforcement) that the story was in some sense literal that you would have come to believe it as whatever form of protestantism you suffered under.

The catholic faith, by the by, is dogmatically bound to literal creationism where it matters - in case you were taught otherwise by "catholics", lol.

That's surprising... to hear it told, it's as if the whole of that pesky OT was made allegory