• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Water as a Problem for Abiogenesis

JudgeRightly

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
One of the developers of Minecraft (a video game) recently asked a question on Twitter regarding water being key for the creation of life.

Here is the resulting thread (yes, I am @TheJudgeRightly on Twitter) (warning, vulgar language is used by the person who responded to me, see https://kgov.com/filthy):

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1349781154929516544

This will be the discussion thread for that tweet and its responses.

Here is my first response:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1349943447801761794
 
Last edited:
JudgeRightly

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Aaaand he muted me.

What a shame. And here I was hoping to invite him to the discussion here on TOL.
 
C

chair

Well-known member
Please explain why the fact that the "chemical building blocks of life" dissolve in water is a problem.
 
C

chair

Well-known member
Right Divider said:
That's also very typical of the "debate" that "true believers" use. They cannot actually address the facts, therefore they must ridicule and/or run and hide.
Click to expand...
What really happens is that they get tired and worn out from the endless nonsense half- arguments that are thrown at them. We've all got better things to do with our time.
 
C

chair

Well-known member
And one last word: The theory of Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life. The study of abiogenesis is interesting, but highly speculative- unlike evolution, which is supported by a lot of data.
 
JudgeRightly

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
chair said:
And one last word: The theory of Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life.
Click to expand...

Of course it doesn't, because it cannot.

No theory that departs from God's word can.

The study of abiogenesis is interesting, but highly speculative-
Click to expand...

What is there to speculate about?

Life does not come from non-life.

unlike evolution, which is supported by a lot of data.
Click to expand...

Supported, as in, propped up by ad hoc rescue devices.

Without them, it would fall apart.


A Main Problem / A Constant Missed Opportunity: For the main reason life cannot arise naturally, the inability of the physical laws to produce a code, see our Dawkins 3-to-1 Challenge, below. And even if an RNA World, which is the materialist's hope for life's natural origin, were fully functional, so what? That merely backs atheists further into a corner because there is no bridge from the RNA World even to the simplistic DNA makes RNA makes protein basis for biological life. (Click on the 3-to-1 link just above for a graphic presenting one of their simplest, yet insurmountable, challenges. And at the "no bridge" link hear RSR interview Ph.D. in organic chemistry Dan Reynolds about the dead end of a proposal called RNA World.) And as for needing just the right chemicals for life to arise, materialists have that in quintillions of dead organisms that litter the globe in every possible state of decomposition. Yet biogenesis. Life only comes from life.


NASA Admits Water is a Problem for the Origin of Life | KGOV.com

kgov.com kgov.com
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
chair said:
And one last word: The theory of Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life.
Click to expand...
Indeed, that is what we call a cop-out or a dodge. The primary proponents of the ToE are atheists and their theory of origins requires... the origin of life (among other things).
chair said:
The study of abiogenesis is interesting, but highly speculative- unlike evolution, which is supported by a lot of data.
Click to expand...
That might be your dumbest post yet.

FYI, creationists have NO problem with "evolution" if that term is limited to what is SCIENCIFICALLY supported. God created the original kinds, which do change somewhat. But they do not have limitless change and they did not all "evolve" from a single common ancestor. That idea is not science, it's religion.
 
Last edited:
C

chair

Well-known member
Right Divider said:
Indeed, that is what we call a cop-out or a dodge. The primary proponents of the ToE are atheists and their theory of origins requires... the origin of life (among other things).

That might be your dumbest post yet.

FYI, creationists have NO problem with "evolution" if that term is limited to what is SCIENCIFICALLY supported. God created the original kinds, which do change somewhat. But they do not have limitless change and they did not all "evolve" from a single common ancestor. That idea is not science, it's religion.
Click to expand...

Does 'SCIENCIFICALLY supported' only include things that fit the Bible?
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
chair said:
Does 'SCIENCIFICALLY supported' only include things that fit the Bible?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Science shows intricate and highly complex design in life on earth. Intricate and complex in a way that there is no chance whatsoever that it was "built up by small changes". That is what science shows.
 
Yorzhik

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
chair said:
And one last word: The theory of Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life. The study of abiogenesis is interesting, but highly speculative-
Click to expand...
That's rather unscientific, isn't it? You saying that life coming from non-life is highly speculative. Are you sure about that? And once we can establish that simple truth, perhaps there are other fairly sure things we know about OOL.

chair said:
unlike evolution, which is supported by a lot of data.
Click to expand...
Evolution is so vague as a term that it is silly to say it is supported by "a lot of data". You probably meant to say common descent. But common descent is only supported by radiometric dating and homology. That's it. Everything else is objectively hypothesis. So that's not "a lot of data". Which is funny, because it means I know a lot more about the science of common descent than you do and yet you parade around like an proud emperor in the finest cloths. Truth be told it's very unbecoming of you and no one wants to see you parade around like that.
 
Yorzhik

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Right Divider said:
Common descent from a SINGLE common ancestor is supported by neither of those.
Click to expand...
Common descent in this context is always from a single common ancestor. Of course one needs to pay attention if they need to be more specific.

It is true that many living things have similar structures, and it is true that we can measure the half life of unstable molecules. That is the common ground I can use to get a discussion. So what I get a common descentist to do is realize that all their arguments eventually rest on these two points - similarity of how cherry-picked things look and radiometric dating. Then I can show them the weakness of both of those two points and they start to question all of common descent since the foundation of common descent is a mirage. It's just a tactic but it's worked before so I'll try it again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top