Abiogenesis is impossible

[snowtracks]

The naturalistic model forecast a slow arrival of life’s origin. Carl Sagan in his book ’intelligent life in the universe’ stated billions of years would be required for complex modules to arise from a primitive environment which is in agreement with modern day constructs. However the record shows that is not the case. the earliest fossils are dated to 3.5bya and geochemical dating of isotope ratios for carbon establishes that life was abundant on earth at least 3.8 bya. The earth’s age is 4.5 and until 3.9, the sun’s solar ionizing radiation was 50 times higher than present which would make life impossible. Life commence suddenly within 100 million years, plus there were additional environmental problem within that period that was hostile to any life arising from a naturalistic origin. Naturalism explanation for the life’s origin is hardly a ‘firm base’; more like shakier than jello.

So.. you didn't read the book, I see...

I didn't either, but I can guess at the context that's eluding you.
Billions of years... until the Earth itself could come into existence... until telluric planets could come into being.
After that, it didn't take long for life to spring up on this particular planet.

So my question to you, again, is why do you misrepresent what respected scientists say?
It's like you have some agenda... or you've been sold that agenda and are now trying your best to sell it to others... like some ponzi or pyramid scheme... There's a reason why those are illegal!

not trying to prove, cajole, convince, or persuade. giving the viewpoint of old earth age christian. sagan quote is library ebook downloadable, page 237 says - "The apparatus for the transcription of the genetic code must itself have evolved slowly, through billions of years of evolution."

[pocaracas]

So.. you didn't read the book, I see...

I didn't either, but I can guess at the context that's eluding you.
Billions of years... until the Earth itself could come into existence... until telluric planets could come into being.
After that, it didn't take long for life to spring up on this particular planet.

So my question to you, again, is why do you misrepresent what respected scientists say?
It's like you have some agenda... or you've been sold that agenda and are now trying your best to sell it to others... like some ponzi or pyramid scheme... There's a reason why those are illegal!

not trying to prove, cajole, convince, or persuade. giving the viewpoint of old earth age christian. sagan quote is library ebook downloadable, page 237 says - "The apparatus for the transcription of the genetic code must itself have evolved slowly, through billions of years of evolution."

The apparatus...
Does he elaborate on what this apparatus is?

[Esquilax]

not trying to prove, cajole, convince, or persuade. giving the viewpoint of old earth age christian. sagan quote is library ebook downloadable, page 237 says - "The apparatus for the transcription of the genetic code must itself have evolved slowly, through billions of years of evolution."

And if Sagan was wrong, so what? Do you really want to go down the road that claiming an entire thing is wrong because one man was wrong about it will take you down?

Because I'll tell you right now, the bible has plenty of demonstrably false things in it, so if evolution is wrong because Sagan was once, then the bible is wrong at least a hundred times over.

[Chas]

not trying to prove, cajole, convince, or persuade. giving the viewpoint of old earth age christian. sagan quote is library ebook downloadable, page 237 says - "The apparatus for the transcription of the genetic code must itself have evolved slowly, through billions of years of evolution."

What is the context? I don't interpret that the way you do.

[snowtracks]

not trying to prove, cajole, convince, or persuade. giving the viewpoint of old earth age christian. sagan quote is library ebook downloadable, page 237 says - "The apparatus for the transcription of the genetic code must itself have evolved slowly, through billions of years of evolution."

And if Sagan was wrong, so what? Do you really want to go down the road that claiming an entire thing is wrong because one man was wrong about it will take you down?

Because I'll tell you right now, the bible has plenty of demonstrably false things in it, so if evolution is wrong because Sagan was once, then the bible is wrong at least a hundred times over.

sagan is stating an evolutionary model dogma, that life evolved slowly over eons of time. the sudden appearance of life contradicts the naturalistic model. the late heavy bombardment of earth’s hadean period ended around 3.9 bya, life’s geochemical signature evidence has been dated to 3.8 bya.

[Esquilax]

sagan is stating an evolutionary model dogma, that life evolved slowly over eons of time. the sudden appearance of life contradicts the naturalistic model. the late heavy bombardment of earth’s hadean period ended around 3.9 bya, life’s geochemical signature evidence has been dated to 3.8 bya.

And where do you get "sudden" from that?

Not to mention, you just repeated your erroneous argument, instead of, you know, addressing my issues with it.

[downbeatplumb]

sagan is stating an evolutionary model dogma, that life evolved slowly over eons of time. the sudden appearance of life contradicts the naturalistic model. the late heavy bombardment of earth’s hadean period ended around 3.9 bya, life’s geochemical signature evidence has been dated to 3.8 bya.

Life HAS evolved over eons of time.

We don't know how it was started, but we have a good idea and it may well have been sudden.

Learn the difference between abiogenesis and evolution PLEASE.

[snowtracks]

sagan is stating an evolutionary model dogma, that life evolved slowly over eons of time. the sudden appearance of life contradicts the naturalistic model. the late heavy bombardment of earth’s hadean period ended around 3.9 bya, life’s geochemical signature evidence has been dated to 3.8 bya.

Life HAS evolved over eons of time.

---

We don't know how it was started, but we have a good idea and it may well have been sudden.

Learn the difference between abiogenesis and evolution PLEASE.

---

[The Grand Nudger]

atheistic naturalism has a gapping hole in logic which is that human beings have a mind that displays personhood, intentionality, emotions, etc.; but the origin of that is mindless and nonconscious. So the end product reflects back on something that can’t reflect forward.

Not sure what you mean -precisely- by that last bit. Wondering, though, why you see this as a "gaping hole in logic"? Fairly certain that this has been mentioned before, but a fertilized egg is not conscious or non conscious -and yet- at some point along the way it becomes so, it has "mind". I neither expect to find "mind" in a fertilized egg, nor am I surprised to find that later, that fertilized egg being human, that the human has "mind". I take it you would be, if you believed that this sort of thing occurred?

consciousness to consciousness, consciousness to nonconscious makes sense. nonconscious to consciousness is nonsense. about time you gave the 'mind' it's due. after all, it's order of magnitude capabilities over matter is infinity.

Infinity eh, lemme see that math...lol. In any case, I think that "mind" -whatever that is- is amazing....but I don't really see why you would call something that demonstrably happens "nonsense"? Particularly given the posting history in this thread and the level of credulity that some of the shit that's been covered requires from a proponent. That, but not this?

[Esquilax]

atheistic naturalism has a gapping hole in logic which is that human beings have a mind that displays personhood, intentionality, emotions, etc.; but the origin of that is mindless and nonconscious. So the end product reflects back on something that can’t reflect forward.

So because you don't understand how consciousness could arise from matter alone, you've decided that it can't be possible. How arrogant is that, to think that your imagination alone dictates how the world operates.

consciousness to consciousness, consciousness to nonconscious makes sense. nonconscious to consciousness is nonsense. about time you gave the 'mind' it's due. after all, it's order of magnitude capabilities over matter is infinity.

Yet another bland assertion that matter can't be more than the sum of its parts. Allow me to introduce you- yet again, because you keep ignoring these points like a fucking moron whenever I bring them up- to our friend mechanics and electrical engineering, in which the whole is definitively more than the sum of its parts. And don't think I didn't notice the argument from personal incredulity in just calling a matter-based mind "nonsense." Who the hell cares what you think is nonsense? You have no education or basis to go on, here.