Abiogenesis is impossible

[Whateverist]

Nice way to answer this thread's OP.

http://youtu.be/U6QYDdgP9eg

[Zen Badger]

Nice way to answer this thread's OP.

http://youtu.be/U6QYDdgP9eg

You do realise that they won't understand any of it.

I can hear the objections and straw men now.

[Whateverist]

No doubt. Frankly I don't understand most of it well enough to make it mine. I wonder if anyone here is up on chemistry enough to vouchsafe what it says. What I can follow makes sense to me.

[Huggy Bear]

Nice way to answer this thread's OP.

---

http://youtu.be/U6QYDdgP9eg

---

Just one observation.

Quoted from the video...

Modern cells separate themselves from the environment with a lipid bi-layer. The problem with modern phospholipids is they are too good at what they do. They form a nearly impenetrable barrier. modern cells must use proteins to move molecules across their surface, But life didn't have to start with modern chemicals!

Translation: "the way cells work do not support my theory, so i'll just speculate on what may have happened."

[Whateverist]

It is all speculation but nothing more so than creationism. To point to something no one can see or touch or measure or know and say "this mystery is the source of all we see and can know" is entirely unhelpful as a theory. It is untestable and grounds one mystery in still another.

Not already knowing everything is not a weakness or imperfection. Postulating perfection in the being of God , something you yourself know nothing about, hamstrings your ability to actually consider any theory. It is an alternative to thinking at all.

[Alex K]

Nice way to answer this thread's OP.

---

http://youtu.be/U6QYDdgP9eg

---

Just one observation.

Quoted from the video...

Modern cells separate themselves from the environment with a lipid bi-layer. The problem with modern phospholipids is they are too good at what they do. They form a nearly impenetrable barrier. modern cells must use proteins to move molecules across their surface, But life didn't have to start with modern chemicals!

Translation: "the way cells work do not support my theory, so i'll just speculate on what may have happened."

It is reasonable to assume that he first cells did not work exactly the same way as modern cells. It is unreasonable to assume that they did. Inconsistent wih observations even.

[Esquilax]

Translation: "the way cells work do not support my theory, so i'll just speculate on what may have happened."

No no, you're right: millions of years went by, and nothing changed between then and now.

[snowtracks]

dna looks to have both digital and analog information. wasn't too long ago, this board was telling that the cell didn't have an any information component, it was all chemistry.
"Compelling evidence suggests that the DNA, in addition to the digital information of the linear genetic code (the semantics), encodes equally important continuous, or analog, information that specifies the structural dynamics and configuration (the syntax) of the polymer."
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007...013-1394-1
starting to look like atheism is fast becoming a philosophical relic.

[Crossless2.0]

dna looks to have both digital and analog information. wasn't too long ago, this board was telling that the cell didn't have an any information component, it was all chemistry.
"Compelling evidence suggests that the DNA, in addition to the digital information of the linear genetic code (the semantics), encodes equally important continuous, or analog, information that specifies the structural dynamics and configuration (the syntax) of the polymer."
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007...013-1394-1
starting to look like atheism is fast becoming a philosophical relic.

Ok, I read the paragraph-long abstract you linked. Please explain how anything in that paragraph presents a problem for an atheist. Better yet, please explain how we get from there to your divine collector of foreskins.

[Esquilax]

dna looks to have both digital and analog information. wasn't too long ago, this board was telling that the cell didn't have an any information component, it was all chemistry.

Holy fucking shit, you really don't understand a single thing you ever talk about, do you?

Okay, pay attention, for the last time: "information" is not some extant thing that exists independent of minds, it is a conceptual label that we place upon things we can reliably predict and "read" after the fact.

That's a really important thing to keep in mind. You theists, you have a habit of taking complex concepts like information, morality and so on, and mistaking them for discrete entities unto themselves, when the truth is that they exist as products of human understanding. I know what you're trying to do, you're trying to say that since "information" ostensibly exists in DNA, then that information must have been created by someone, but that just demonstrates your fundamental misunderstanding of what information is and its relationship to thinking minds: information is read into a thing after the fact based upon its reliable attributes, it isn't something that needs to be instilled into a thing externally before it can be deciphered.

Fucking sand has information, in terms of composition, spatial position, and so on. Everything does. But there's no need for some magic being to wave a wand at it all for that information to exist, just for a mind to be able to observe it. The way you're looking at this is so completely misguided, you're basically saying that when I write a sentence here, the words start out completely meaningless until some external being performs some "information magic" on the words and makes them mean things.

Sounds ridiculous, right? Your first response is that the meaning of words, the information they possess, is bound up inextricably in your mind's ability to understand what they represent based upon what we've agreed that they mean, isn't it?

So why is it suddenly different when we're talking about DNA, beyond the fact that you're desperate to cram your god in everywhere you can?

starting to look like atheism is fast becoming a philosophical relic.

Wow, look at this, guys: a theist misunderstands a scientific report, and confidently asserts that atheism is doomed. Never seen that before.

Most importantly of all, let's assume you did actually know what you're talking about, Snowy: what on earth makes you think that one paper would cancel out the rest of scientific understanding?