Johnny: what is a 'spiritual being' ?

[Johnny]

14 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

No, that was added to the science that shows life arising from non-life is not science. You want to believe in something we know much about by observation, repeatable, and falsifiable means. You're just showing how desperate you to ignore that. Despite the science we've done on life and what was shown, it will NOT effect you. You want your fairytale regardless. 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I'm sorry, but you're wrong about that, Johnny.

Did you think the evidence would appeal to you on how it was very-well proven life only comes from life? Do you think there are not others who despite the evidence they see that life can't come about on its own, they still elected to believe it did? 'Too bad you can't even learn by cartoons that illustrate your unwillingness to be honest.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3u3xH12GxU&t=3s

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FLhC4OiOTU&t=2s

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_M23OoqFSg&t=4s

14 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

For your creationist friends to make their probability-based arguments in the first place they had to select a sample space within which to determine the probability or improbability of an event.

Actually, many of them are not creationists. Many are evolutionists.  I'll just give a just a bit, and show the great "science" of those that like to still believe it came about on its own because they....just said it did. Don't forget, you can use the typical come back that it's just "quote mining" that so many use. 

 

Lawrence Krauss, "The universe is huge and old and rare things happen all the time, including life."

 

Dawkins, "It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that, if Darwinism were really a theory of chance, it couldn't work. You don't need to be a mathematician or physicist to calculate that an eye or a haemoglobin molecule would take from here to infinity to self-assemble by sheer higgledy-piggledy luck. Far from being a difficulty peculiar to Darwinism, the astronomic improbability of eyes and knees, enzymes and elbow joints and all the other living wonders is precisely the problem that any theory of life must solve, and that Darwinism uniquely does solve. It solves it by breaking the improbability up into small, manageable parts, smearing out the luck needed, going round the back of Mount Improbable and crawling up the gentle slopes, inch by million-year inch. Only God would essay the mad task of leaping up the precipice in a single bound.”

 

“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.

 

“The life we have on Earth must have spontaneously generated itself. It must therefore be possible for life to exist spontaneously elsewhere in the universe.” - Stephen Hawking

 

As Isaac Asimov once said: “After all, from the mere fact that we are here we are forced to assume that once upon a time at least one case of spontaneous generation took place (assuming, further, that one eliminates supernatural creation from consideration)” (1972, p. 1191, emp. added, parenthetical comment in orig.).

 

George Wald of Harvard confirmed this when he wrote: - - "The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third alternative. For this reason, many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a philosophical necessity" (1954, pp. 45-53, emp. added).

 

Dr. Wald : “The only alternative to some form of spontaneous is a belief in supernatural creation...” (1958, p. 100). 

 

Charles Dawin, "Though no evidence worth anything has as yet, in my opinion, been advanced in favour of a living thing being developed from inorganic matter, yet I cannot avoid believing the possibility of this will be proved some day in accordance with the law of continuity "(see Francis Darwin, 1903, 2:171).

 

Harold Blum remarked: “That life was ‘spontaneously generated’ from non-living matter at some time in the very remote past, and that this process has not been repeated for a long time are two basic tenets accepted by the great majority of biologists” (1957, p. 251).

 

At the 1959 Darwin Centennial Convocation at the University of Chicago, participant Hans Gaffron said: “It is the general climate of thought which has created an unshakable belief among biochemists that evolution of life from inanimate matter is a matter of course” (1960, 1:46). Harlow Shapley commented: “The assumption that life originated from non-living matter must be made by the modern scientist if he believes that the question ‘What is life?’ belongs in the natural sciences at all” (1960, 3:75, emp. added).

 

Dr. Pasteur, in his victory speech to the French Academy of Sciences, stated, in part: “The theory of spontaneous generation will never recover from the mortal blow dealt to it by this simple experiment.” 

 

Evolutionists Green and Goldberger put it this way: There is one step [in evolution—BT] that far outweighs the others in enormity: the step from macromolecules to cells. All the other steps can be accounted for on theoretical grounds—if not correctly, at least elegantly. However, the macromolecule to cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area, all is conjecture. The available facts do not provide a basis for postulation that cells arose on this planet. This is not to say that some paraphysical forces were not at work. We simply wish to point out that there is no scientific evidence (1967, pp. 406-407, emp. added).

 

 Gaffron admitted: "A natural scientist who wants to study this evolutionary process has no choice but to start and to proceed from the assumption that the living came from the non-living. This, in spite of the fact that what stares him in the eye—all life about him—is so fantastically complex that it is hard for him to believe it truly happened" (1960, p. 46, emp. added). 

 

George Wald: "Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing... To make an organism demands the right substances in the right proportions and in the right arrangement. We do not think that anything more is needed—but that is problem enough. One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation" (1954, pp. 45-53, emp. added).

 

"The general answer is that the conditions no longer exist which once made the spontaneous generation of life possible... Admittedly, (it is not likely that) the precise chain of molecular reactions from which life first arose will ever (again) be established. In the nature of things, “proof ” will be impossible forever" (Blum, 1957, p. 251). 

 

Sir Fred Hoyle, Britain’s eminent astronomer, addressed this matter when he stated: "The question of the origin of life from inanimate matter was taken up again by physicists, chemists and biologists in the first few decades of the present century. The need for an empirical approach within the scope of modern science is well recognized, though a large part of the myth and mystery which pervaded religious and philosophical attitudes of earlier epochs is present even in the contemporary scientific answers which have been proposed.... “Mystical” spontaneous generation has been implicitly conceded for the initial formation of a biological system from inorganic matter.... It is doubtful that anything like the conditions which were simulated in the laboratory existed at all on a primitive Earth, or occurred for long enough times and over sufficiently extended regions of the Earth’s surface to produce large enough local concentrations of the biochemicals required for the start of life. In accepting the “primeval soup theory” of the origin of life scientists have replaced religious mysteries which shrouded this question with equally mysterious scientific dogmas. The implied scientific dogmas are just as inaccessible to the empirical approach" (1978, pp. 24,26, emp. added). 

 

Evolutionary anthropologist Loren Eiseley summed up the matter in his classic text, "The Immense Journey, when he wrote: With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today, had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past" (1957, pp. 201-202,). 

 

Fuller and Tippo remarked: “The evidence of those who would explain life’s origin on the basis of the accidental combination of suitable chemical elements is no more tangible than that of those people who place their faith in Divine Creation as the explanation of the development of life. Obviously the latter have just as much justification for their belief as do the former” (1961, p. 25,). 

 

Eiseley recognized that the evolutionists’ belief in spontaneous generation is not based on scientific evidence. "One does occasionally observe, however, a tendency for the beginning zoological textbook to take the unwary reader by a hop, skip, and jump from the little steaming pond or the beneficent chemical crucible of the sea, into the lower world of life with such sureness and rapidity that it is easy to assume that there is no mystery about this matter at all, or, if there is, that it is a very little one. This attitude has indeed been criticized by the distinguished British biologist Woodger, who remarked some years ago: “Unstable organic compounds and chlorophyll corpuscles do not persist or come into existence in nature on their own account at the present day, and consequently it is necessary to postulate that conditions were once such that this did happen although and in spite of the fact that our knowledge of nature does not give us any warrant for making such a supposition… It is simply dogmatism—asserting that what you want to believe did in fact happen” (1957, pp. 199,200,). 

 

Sandra Hall observed: "Evolutionary scientists are willing to bend natural laws, manufacture abstruse and impossible theories, go to any length to deny God and to see that everybody else does, so we can have an absurd world where they can function because they are absurd people. They say spontaneous generation had to happen. It doesn’t. It hasn’t. It won’t. It can’t. But it did. They say" (1974, p. 21, emp. in orig.). 

-------Then, almost as an afterthought, the Halls added: “It is not easy to overthrow a belief, however absurd and harmful it may be, which your civilization has promulgated as the scientific truth for the better part of a century” (1974, p. 74).

 

Harry Rimmer called our attention to this fact as long ago as 1935. "There is no life without vital antecedents. This is perhaps a waste of your time, so well is the law established, but it brings us face to face with the enigma of vital origins: for if life only comes from life, from whence did the first life come? We certainly know nothing of its nature and origin that has been or can be established by what we may call true scientific demonstration" (1935, pp. 72-73). 

 

Professor L. Victor Cleveland agreed wholeheartedly with Rimmer when he wrote: “So far as all the scientists on the earth can prove, there is no such thing as spontaneous generation, or abiogenesis—life must come from antecedent life. Life produces life of the same kind, whether you look at protozoa or elephants” (as quoted in Meldau, 1959, p. 94,).

 

In the book, 100 Great Scientists, the following statement can be found: “To today’s biologist, with his extended knowledge of the intricate physiochemical complexity of the living cell, the sudden, spontaneous appearance of even a simple living organism, is inconceivable...” (see Greene, 1964, p. 126, emp. added).

 

R.E. Dickerson, writing in Scientific American, expressed the evolutionists’ views best in regard to the relationship between science and spontaneous generation when he noted: “The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models; hence one can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts” (1978, 239[3]:85,) 

 

 

 

"Given so much time,
the "impossible" becomes possible,
The possible probable,
And the probable virtually certain,
One only has to wait:
Time itself performs the miracles."
(Wald, G., Scientific American, 1954)

 

"...we have now what we believe is strong evidence for life on Earth 3,800 thousand million years [ago]. This brings the theory for the Origin of Life on Earth down to a very narrow range ... we are now thinking, in geochemical terms, of instant life..."
(Ponnamperuma, C. from "Evolution from Space," 1981)

“[W]e are left with very little time between the development of suitable conditions for life on the earth’s surface and the origin of life. Life is not a complex accident that required immense time to convert the vastly improbable into the nearly certain. Instead, life, for all its intricacy, probably arose rapidly about as soon as it could."
(Gould, S. J., "An Early Start,” Natural History, February, 1978)

 

Robert Jastrow, founding director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said, “either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving matter lying on the surface of the planet” (1977, pp. 62-63, emp. in orig.).

 

Martin Moe, admitted: “A century of sensational discoveries in the biological sciences has taught us that life arises only from life” (1981, p. 36,)

 

Evolutionist George G. Simpson, perhaps the most influential paleontologist of the 20th century, stated, “[T]here is no serious doubt that biogenesis is the rule, that life comes only from other life, that a cell, the unit of life, is always and exclusively the product or offspring of another cell” (Simpson and Beck, 1965, p. 144,)

 

In their textbook, Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity, Moore and Slusher wrote: “Historically the point of view that life comes only from life has been so well established through the facts revealed by experiment that it is called the Law of Biogenesis” (1974, p. 74)

 

Evolutionist John Horgan conceded that if he was a creationist, he would focus on the origin of life to prove his position, because it: "is by far the weakest strut of the chassis of modern biology. The origin of life is a science writer’s dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion" (1996, p. 138).

Hosts of high school, evolution-based biology textbooks commonly make comments concerning Pasteur’s experiments like, “the hypothesis of spontaneous generation was finally disproved” (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 341)

Evolutionist and Nobel Laureate, George Wald, of Harvard University wrote: “As for spontaneous generation, it continued to find acceptance until finally disposed of by the work of Louis Pasteur” (1962, p. 187, emp. added). He further stated: “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are, as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation” (1954, p. 47)

Hoyle and Wickramasinghe discussed the origin of life, saying: 'Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends, are in every respect deliberate…. It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect in a valid way the higher intelligences…even to the extreme idealized limit of God" (1981, pp. 141,144)

Evolutionist J.D. Bernal, one of the leading scientists among x-ray crystallographers and the man who coined the term, “biopoesis” (Bernal, 1951), stated: “It is possible to demonstrate effectively…how life could not have arisen; the improbabilities are too great, the chances of the emergence of life too small. Regrettably from this point of view, life is here on earth…and the arguments have to be bent around to support its existence” (Bernal, 1967, p. 120)

John Keosian, biology professor at Rutgers University, said, “Even conceptually, it is difficult to see how a system satisfying the minimum criteria for a living thing can arise by chance and,simultaneously, include a mechanism containing the suitable information for its own replication” (Keosian, 1964, pp. 69-70)

Writing in New Scientist, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe lamented concerning the “prebiotic” soup allegedly necessary before abiogenesis could occur: "Precious little in the way of biochemical evolution could have happened on the Earth. It is easy to show that the two thousand or so enzymes that span the whole of life could not have evolved on Earth. If one counts the number of trial assemblies of amino acids that are needed to give rise to the enzymes, the probability of their discovery by random shufflings turns out to be less than 1 in 1040,000 (1991, 91:415)

John Horgan wrote in Scientific American: "DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins. But as researchers continue to examine the RNA-world concept closely, more problems emerge. How did RNA arise initially? RNA and its components are difficult to synthesize in a laboratory under the best of conditions, much less under plausible prebiotic ones" (1991, 264:119)

John Horgan was still at a loss concerning the origin of DNA, RNA, and enzymes. Again writing for Scientific American,he wrote, “DNA can make neither proteins nor copies of itself without the help of catalytic proteins called enzymes. This fact turned the origin of life into a classic chicken-or-egg puzzle: Which came first, proteins or DNA?” (2011)

John Horgan pressed the fact that the RNA-world hypothesis is not the answer. “The RNA world is so dissatisfying that some frustrated scientists are resorting to much more far out—literally—speculation” (2011)

John Horgan “Creationists are no doubt thrilled that origin-of-life research has reached such an impasse…” (2011).

Evolutionists themselves realize that abiogenesis is impossible. The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms defines “abiogenesis” as, “the obsolete concept that plant and animal life arise from nonliving organic matter,” (2003, p. 3.)

J.W.N. Sullivan admitted what remains true to this day: "The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of “spontaneous generation”…. But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine that life never arises except from life. So far as the actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion" (1933, p. 94)

Chemists D.E. Green and R.F. Goldberger asked: "How, then did the precursor cell arise? The only unequivocal rejoinder to this question is that we do not know….  There is one step [in evolution—JM] that far outweighs the others in enormity: the step from macromolecules to cells. All the other steps can be accounted for on theoretical grounds—if not correctly, at least elegantly. The macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture. The available facts do not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose on this planet. This is not to say that some para-physical forces were not at work. We simply wish to point out that there is no scientific evidence" (1967, p. 403, 406-407)

Jastrow said, regarding the evolution of life: "According to this story, every tree, every blade of grass, and every creature in the sea and on the land evolved out of one parent strand of molecular matter drifting lazily in a warm pool. What concrete evidence supports that remarkable theory of the origin of life? There is none…. At present, science has no satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of life on the earth (1977, p. 60, 62-63,)

Evolutionist Douglas Hofstadter said, “There are various theories on the origin of life. They all run aground on this most central of all central questions: ‘How did the Genetic Code, along with the mechanisms for its translation (ribosomes and RNA molecules) originate?’ For the moment, we will have to content ourselves with a sense of wonder and awe rather than with an answer” (1980, p. 548,)

Evolutionist Andrew Scott, writing in New Scientist, observed: "Take some matter, heat while stirring, and wait. That is the modern version of Genesis. The “fundamental” forces of gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces are presumed to have done the rest…. But how much of this neat tale is firmly established, and how much remains hopeful speculation? In truth, the mechanism of almost every major step, from chemical precursors up to the first recognizable cells, is the subject of either controversy or complete bewilderment. ----We are grappling with a classic “chicken and egg” dilemma. Nucleic acids are required to make proteins, whereas proteins are needed to make nucleic acids and also to allow them to direct the process of protein manufacture itself.---The emergence of the gene-protein link, an absolutely vital stage on the way up from lifeless atoms to ourselves, is still shrouded in almost complete mystery…. We still know very little about how our genesis came about, and to provide a more satisfactory account than we have at present remains one of science’s great challenges" (1985, 106:30-33,)

Klaus Dose pointed out: "More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance" (1988, 13[4]:348,

 

 

 

[alreadyGone]

@Johnny

Does the question I asked you at inception of this thread frighten you?

Is it frightening to you to discover that your faith has no discoverable basis at it's core?

 

Is that why you cower from my posts?

[walterpthefirst]

Johnny, this claim is false.

 

Did you think the evidence would appeal to you on how it was very-well proven life only comes from life?

 

The empirical sciences don't use proofs.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/?sh=4ad339672fb1

https://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/sciencecommunication/2014/09/16/science-doesnt-prove-a-thing/

https://theconversation.com/forget-what-youve-read-science-cant-prove-a-thing-578

https://blog.drwile.com/science-cant-prove-anything/

https://anabolicminds.com/community/threads/does-science-prove-things-–-the-null-hypothesis.262453/

 

But let's apply your definition of science to your assertion that life only comes from life.

 

For you, true science must be observable, reproducible and falsifiable.

 

Can you show that the first life on Earth came from other life by observing, reproducing and falsifying this evidence?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

40 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Thank you Prof, I must have missed that.

 

 

But now there's a problem. (Two actually)

 

 "If the Big Bang occurred, and all matter and energy in the Universe—everything that exists—was initially in that little imaginary sphere the size of the period at the end of this sentence (or much smaller, depending on which “expert” cosmologist you ask), by implication, the evolutionist admits that the Universe is of a finite size. That is a fact. A finite Universe is an isolated system. Since the Universe as a whole is the only true isolated system, the laws of thermodynamics apply perfectly. That is why some reputable scientists examine the evidence, draw reasonable conclusions, and articulate statements in reputable textbooks like the following:

 

Johnny has been most insistent that true science must be observable, reproducible and falsifiable.  Which means that I must ask him another question.

 

 

Johnny, can little imaginary spheres be observed, reproduced and falsified?

 

 

 

Please answer.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

Bumped for Johnny's attention.

 

Can little imaginary spheres be observed, reproduced and falsified?

 

Please answer.

[midniterider]

1 hour ago, Johnny said:

Did you think the evidence would appeal to you on how it was very-well proven life only comes from life? Do you think there are not others who despite the evidence they see that life can't come about on its own, they still elected to believe it did? 'Too bad you can't even learn by cartoons that illustrate your unwillingness to be honest.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3u3xH12GxU&t=3s

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FLhC4OiOTU&t=2s

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_M23OoqFSg&t=4s

Actually, many of them are not creationists. Many are evolutionists.  I'll just give a just a bit, and show the great "science" of those that like to still believe it came about on its own because they....just said it did. Don't forget, you can use the typical come back that it's just "quote mining" that so many use. 

 

Lawrence Krauss, "The universe is huge and old and rare things happen all the time, including life."

 

Dawkins, "It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that, if Darwinism were really a theory of chance, it couldn't work. You don't need to be a mathematician or physicist to calculate that an eye or a haemoglobin molecule would take from here to infinity to self-assemble by sheer higgledy-piggledy luck. Far from being a difficulty peculiar to Darwinism, the astronomic improbability of eyes and knees, enzymes and elbow joints and all the other living wonders is precisely the problem that any theory of life must solve, and that Darwinism uniquely does solve. It solves it by breaking the improbability up into small, manageable parts, smearing out the luck needed, going round the back of Mount Improbable and crawling up the gentle slopes, inch by million-year inch. Only God would essay the mad task of leaping up the precipice in a single bound.”

 

“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.

 

“The life we have on Earth must have spontaneously generated itself. It must therefore be possible for life to exist spontaneously elsewhere in the universe.” - Stephen Hawking

 

As Isaac Asimov once said: “After all, from the mere fact that we are here we are forced to assume that once upon a time at least one case of spontaneous generation took place (assuming, further, that one eliminates supernatural creation from consideration)” (1972, p. 1191, emp. added, parenthetical comment in orig.).

 

George Wald of Harvard confirmed this when he wrote: - - "The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third alternative. For this reason, many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a philosophical necessity" (1954, pp. 45-53, emp. added).

 

Dr. Wald : “The only alternative to some form of spontaneous is a belief in supernatural creation...” (1958, p. 100). 

 

Charles Dawin, "Though no evidence worth anything has as yet, in my opinion, been advanced in favour of a living thing being developed from inorganic matter, yet I cannot avoid believing the possibility of this will be proved some day in accordance with the law of continuity "(see Francis Darwin, 1903, 2:171).

 

Harold Blum remarked: “That life was ‘spontaneously generated’ from non-living matter at some time in the very remote past, and that this process has not been repeated for a long time are two basic tenets accepted by the great majority of biologists” (1957, p. 251).

 

At the 1959 Darwin Centennial Convocation at the University of Chicago, participant Hans Gaffron said: “It is the general climate of thought which has created an unshakable belief among biochemists that evolution of life from inanimate matter is a matter of course” (1960, 1:46). Harlow Shapley commented: “The assumption that life originated from non-living matter must be made by the modern scientist if he believes that the question ‘What is life?’ belongs in the natural sciences at all” (1960, 3:75, emp. added).

 

Dr. Pasteur, in his victory speech to the French Academy of Sciences, stated, in part: “The theory of spontaneous generation will never recover from the mortal blow dealt to it by this simple experiment.” 

 

Evolutionists Green and Goldberger put it this way: There is one step [in evolution—BT] that far outweighs the others in enormity: the step from macromolecules to cells. All the other steps can be accounted for on theoretical grounds—if not correctly, at least elegantly. However, the macromolecule to cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area, all is conjecture. The available facts do not provide a basis for postulation that cells arose on this planet. This is not to say that some paraphysical forces were not at work. We simply wish to point out that there is no scientific evidence (1967, pp. 406-407, emp. added).

 

 Gaffron admitted: "A natural scientist who wants to study this evolutionary process has no choice but to start and to proceed from the assumption that the living came from the non-living. This, in spite of the fact that what stares him in the eye—all life about him—is so fantastically complex that it is hard for him to believe it truly happened" (1960, p. 46, emp. added). 

 

George Wald: "Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing... To make an organism demands the right substances in the right proportions and in the right arrangement. We do not think that anything more is needed—but that is problem enough. One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation" (1954, pp. 45-53, emp. added).

 

"The general answer is that the conditions no longer exist which once made the spontaneous generation of life possible... Admittedly, (it is not likely that) the precise chain of molecular reactions from which life first arose will ever (again) be established. In the nature of things, “proof ” will be impossible forever" (Blum, 1957, p. 251). 

 

Sir Fred Hoyle, Britain’s eminent astronomer, addressed this matter when he stated: "The question of the origin of life from inanimate matter was taken up again by physicists, chemists and biologists in the first few decades of the present century. The need for an empirical approach within the scope of modern science is well recognized, though a large part of the myth and mystery which pervaded religious and philosophical attitudes of earlier epochs is present even in the contemporary scientific answers which have been proposed.... “Mystical” spontaneous generation has been implicitly conceded for the initial formation of a biological system from inorganic matter.... It is doubtful that anything like the conditions which were simulated in the laboratory existed at all on a primitive Earth, or occurred for long enough times and over sufficiently extended regions of the Earth’s surface to produce large enough local concentrations of the biochemicals required for the start of life. In accepting the “primeval soup theory” of the origin of life scientists have replaced religious mysteries which shrouded this question with equally mysterious scientific dogmas. The implied scientific dogmas are just as inaccessible to the empirical approach" (1978, pp. 24,26, emp. added). 

 

Evolutionary anthropologist Loren Eiseley summed up the matter in his classic text, "The Immense Journey, when he wrote: With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today, had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past" (1957, pp. 201-202,). 

 

Fuller and Tippo remarked: “The evidence of those who would explain life’s origin on the basis of the accidental combination of suitable chemical elements is no more tangible than that of those people who place their faith in Divine Creation as the explanation of the development of life. Obviously the latter have just as much justification for their belief as do the former” (1961, p. 25,). 

 

Eiseley recognized that the evolutionists’ belief in spontaneous generation is not based on scientific evidence. "One does occasionally observe, however, a tendency for the beginning zoological textbook to take the unwary reader by a hop, skip, and jump from the little steaming pond or the beneficent chemical crucible of the sea, into the lower world of life with such sureness and rapidity that it is easy to assume that there is no mystery about this matter at all, or, if there is, that it is a very little one. This attitude has indeed been criticized by the distinguished British biologist Woodger, who remarked some years ago: “Unstable organic compounds and chlorophyll corpuscles do not persist or come into existence in nature on their own account at the present day, and consequently it is necessary to postulate that conditions were once such that this did happen although and in spite of the fact that our knowledge of nature does not give us any warrant for making such a supposition… It is simply dogmatism—asserting that what you want to believe did in fact happen” (1957, pp. 199,200,). 

 

Sandra Hall observed: "Evolutionary scientists are willing to bend natural laws, manufacture abstruse and impossible theories, go to any length to deny God and to see that everybody else does, so we can have an absurd world where they can function because they are absurd people. They say spontaneous generation had to happen. It doesn’t. It hasn’t. It won’t. It can’t. But it did. They say" (1974, p. 21, emp. in orig.). 

-------Then, almost as an afterthought, the Halls added: “It is not easy to overthrow a belief, however absurd and harmful it may be, which your civilization has promulgated as the scientific truth for the better part of a century” (1974, p. 74).

 

Harry Rimmer called our attention to this fact as long ago as 1935. "There is no life without vital antecedents. This is perhaps a waste of your time, so well is the law established, but it brings us face to face with the enigma of vital origins: for if life only comes from life, from whence did the first life come? We certainly know nothing of its nature and origin that has been or can be established by what we may call true scientific demonstration" (1935, pp. 72-73). 

 

Professor L. Victor Cleveland agreed wholeheartedly with Rimmer when he wrote: “So far as all the scientists on the earth can prove, there is no such thing as spontaneous generation, or abiogenesis—life must come from antecedent life. Life produces life of the same kind, whether you look at protozoa or elephants” (as quoted in Meldau, 1959, p. 94,).

 

In the book, 100 Great Scientists, the following statement can be found: “To today’s biologist, with his extended knowledge of the intricate physiochemical complexity of the living cell, the sudden, spontaneous appearance of even a simple living organism, is inconceivable...” (see Greene, 1964, p. 126, emp. added).

 

R.E. Dickerson, writing in Scientific American, expressed the evolutionists’ views best in regard to the relationship between science and spontaneous generation when he noted: “The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models; hence one can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts” (1978, 239[3]:85,) 

 

 

 

"Given so much time,
the "impossible" becomes possible,
The possible probable,
And the probable virtually certain,
One only has to wait:
Time itself performs the miracles."
(Wald, G., Scientific American, 1954)

 

"...we have now what we believe is strong evidence for life on Earth 3,800 thousand million years [ago]. This brings the theory for the Origin of Life on Earth down to a very narrow range ... we are now thinking, in geochemical terms, of instant life..."
(Ponnamperuma, C. from "Evolution from Space," 1981)

“[W]e are left with very little time between the development of suitable conditions for life on the earth’s surface and the origin of life. Life is not a complex accident that required immense time to convert the vastly improbable into the nearly certain. Instead, life, for all its intricacy, probably arose rapidly about as soon as it could."
(Gould, S. J., "An Early Start,” Natural History, February, 1978)

 

Robert Jastrow, founding director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said, “either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving matter lying on the surface of the planet” (1977, pp. 62-63, emp. in orig.).

 

Martin Moe, admitted: “A century of sensational discoveries in the biological sciences has taught us that life arises only from life” (1981, p. 36,)

 

Evolutionist George G. Simpson, perhaps the most influential paleontologist of the 20th century, stated, “[T]here is no serious doubt that biogenesis is the rule, that life comes only from other life, that a cell, the unit of life, is always and exclusively the product or offspring of another cell” (Simpson and Beck, 1965, p. 144,)

 

In their textbook, Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity, Moore and Slusher wrote: “Historically the point of view that life comes only from life has been so well established through the facts revealed by experiment that it is called the Law of Biogenesis” (1974, p. 74)

 

Evolutionist John Horgan conceded that if he was a creationist, he would focus on the origin of life to prove his position, because it: "is by far the weakest strut of the chassis of modern biology. The origin of life is a science writer’s dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion" (1996, p. 138).

Hosts of high school, evolution-based biology textbooks commonly make comments concerning Pasteur’s experiments like, “the hypothesis of spontaneous generation was finally disproved” (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 341)

Evolutionist and Nobel Laureate, George Wald, of Harvard University wrote: “As for spontaneous generation, it continued to find acceptance until finally disposed of by the work of Louis Pasteur” (1962, p. 187, emp. added). He further stated: “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are, as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation” (1954, p. 47)

Hoyle and Wickramasinghe discussed the origin of life, saying: 'Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends, are in every respect deliberate…. It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect in a valid way the higher intelligences…even to the extreme idealized limit of God" (1981, pp. 141,144)

Evolutionist J.D. Bernal, one of the leading scientists among x-ray crystallographers and the man who coined the term, “biopoesis” (Bernal, 1951), stated: “It is possible to demonstrate effectively…how life could not have arisen; the improbabilities are too great, the chances of the emergence of life too small. Regrettably from this point of view, life is here on earth…and the arguments have to be bent around to support its existence” (Bernal, 1967, p. 120)

John Keosian, biology professor at Rutgers University, said, “Even conceptually, it is difficult to see how a system satisfying the minimum criteria for a living thing can arise by chance and,simultaneously, include a mechanism containing the suitable information for its own replication” (Keosian, 1964, pp. 69-70)

Writing in New Scientist, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe lamented concerning the “prebiotic” soup allegedly necessary before abiogenesis could occur: "Precious little in the way of biochemical evolution could have happened on the Earth. It is easy to show that the two thousand or so enzymes that span the whole of life could not have evolved on Earth. If one counts the number of trial assemblies of amino acids that are needed to give rise to the enzymes, the probability of their discovery by random shufflings turns out to be less than 1 in 1040,000 (1991, 91:415)

John Horgan wrote in Scientific American: "DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins. But as researchers continue to examine the RNA-world concept closely, more problems emerge. How did RNA arise initially? RNA and its components are difficult to synthesize in a laboratory under the best of conditions, much less under plausible prebiotic ones" (1991, 264:119)

John Horgan was still at a loss concerning the origin of DNA, RNA, and enzymes. Again writing for Scientific American,he wrote, “DNA can make neither proteins nor copies of itself without the help of catalytic proteins called enzymes. This fact turned the origin of life into a classic chicken-or-egg puzzle: Which came first, proteins or DNA?” (2011)

John Horgan pressed the fact that the RNA-world hypothesis is not the answer. “The RNA world is so dissatisfying that some frustrated scientists are resorting to much more far out—literally—speculation” (2011)

John Horgan “Creationists are no doubt thrilled that origin-of-life research has reached such an impasse…” (2011).

Evolutionists themselves realize that abiogenesis is impossible. The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms defines “abiogenesis” as, “the obsolete concept that plant and animal life arise from nonliving organic matter,” (2003, p. 3.)

J.W.N. Sullivan admitted what remains true to this day: "The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of “spontaneous generation”…. But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine that life never arises except from life. So far as the actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion" (1933, p. 94)

Chemists D.E. Green and R.F. Goldberger asked: "How, then did the precursor cell arise? The only unequivocal rejoinder to this question is that we do not know….  There is one step [in evolution—JM] that far outweighs the others in enormity: the step from macromolecules to cells. All the other steps can be accounted for on theoretical grounds—if not correctly, at least elegantly. The macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture. The available facts do not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose on this planet. This is not to say that some para-physical forces were not at work. We simply wish to point out that there is no scientific evidence" (1967, p. 403, 406-407)

Jastrow said, regarding the evolution of life: "According to this story, every tree, every blade of grass, and every creature in the sea and on the land evolved out of one parent strand of molecular matter drifting lazily in a warm pool. What concrete evidence supports that remarkable theory of the origin of life? There is none…. At present, science has no satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of life on the earth (1977, p. 60, 62-63,)

Evolutionist Douglas Hofstadter said, “There are various theories on the origin of life. They all run aground on this most central of all central questions: ‘How did the Genetic Code, along with the mechanisms for its translation (ribosomes and RNA molecules) originate?’ For the moment, we will have to content ourselves with a sense of wonder and awe rather than with an answer” (1980, p. 548,)

Evolutionist Andrew Scott, writing in New Scientist, observed: "Take some matter, heat while stirring, and wait. That is the modern version of Genesis. The “fundamental” forces of gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces are presumed to have done the rest…. But how much of this neat tale is firmly established, and how much remains hopeful speculation? In truth, the mechanism of almost every major step, from chemical precursors up to the first recognizable cells, is the subject of either controversy or complete bewilderment. ----We are grappling with a classic “chicken and egg” dilemma. Nucleic acids are required to make proteins, whereas proteins are needed to make nucleic acids and also to allow them to direct the process of protein manufacture itself.---The emergence of the gene-protein link, an absolutely vital stage on the way up from lifeless atoms to ourselves, is still shrouded in almost complete mystery…. We still know very little about how our genesis came about, and to provide a more satisfactory account than we have at present remains one of science’s great challenges" (1985, 106:30-33,)

Klaus Dose pointed out: "More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance" (1988, 13[4]:348,

 

 

 

 

Nice wall-o-text, bro.

 

[Johnny]

17 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Nothing has been added to this piece of trickery by non-creationists.

Hey, did you ever apologize to that other member about the trickery you used on them?

 

Remember?....

---I'd like to draw your attention to the example of a scientist who re-interprets scientific evidence as he sees fit, so that it only supports what he feels it must.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe#Dover_testimony

 

Michael Behe is a biochemist and was called to the stand in the 2005 case of Dover versus Kitzmiller.

 

He is an advocate of Intelligent Design theory.

 

 

"In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough."

 

 

You are well aware of the evidence supporting the LCDM model, but I submit that like Behe, you do not find it "good enough" to persuade you from your long-held beliefs.

 

Therefore, I must ask you another question, Pantheory.

 

Will any amount of evidence for the LCDM model ever be "good enough" for you?

 

(Please note that this question carries no implication or inference of my support for the LCDM model.  I have no axe to grind here.  I neither support it nor reject it.)

 

Please answer the question succinctly and directly.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.---

 

You never gave the whole story...

https://evolutionnews.org/2009/07/ken_millers_only_a_theory_atta_1/

 

Not to mention, no matter how much is shown that life can't happen on its own....you still go with it thinking it did, but.....you just lack the evidence. Amazing how you accuse others of what you do yourself. 

[Johnny]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Did you think the evidence would appeal to you on how it was very-well proven life only comes from life?

 

The empirical sciences don't use proofs.

Well, do you expect me to apologize for what the evidence proves? Wow, so the evidence done by experimentation that followed repeatability,  falsification, and observation, was not proof life only comes from life. It was CLEAR, but somehow I'm not supposed to say it proved anything. The laughs I get in this forum are so nice. 

 

Hey, something else about "prove," I proved you never gave the whole story and used deception. All your silly sites don't show that is gone.

 

You, proved not telling the whole story...

 

----I'd like to draw your attention to the example of a scientist who re-interprets scientific evidence as he sees fit, so that it only supports what he feels it must.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe#Dover_testimony

 

Michael Behe is a biochemist and was called to the stand in the 2005 case of Dover versus Kitzmiller.

 

He is an advocate of Intelligent Design theory.

 

 

"In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough."

 

 

You are well aware of the evidence supporting the LCDM model, but I submit that like Behe, you do not find it "good enough" to persuade you from your long-held beliefs.

 

Therefore, I must ask you another question, Pantheory.

 

Will any amount of evidence for the LCDM model ever be "good enough" for you?

 

(Please note that this question carries no implication or inference of my support for the LCDM model.  I have no axe to grind here.  I neither support it nor reject it.)

 

Please answer the question succinctly and directly.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

The real story.....

https://evolutionnews.org/2009/07/ken_millers_only_a_theory_atta_1/

[Johnny]

5 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Twelve hours later and no reply from Johnny.

I didn't know you were that important that I have to time limit to to answer My Highness Redneck. Oh, High and Mighty, Redneck, and you ever forgive me? 

 

5 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Johnny, what kind of thermodynamic system is the universe; isolated, open or closed?

I already stated somewhere to someone, the universe is an isolated system. Is that ok, Your Highness?

 

5 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

And please tell me how you know what type it is.

Well, Your Highness, you people sure need a lot of repeating. No wonder I don't meet my 'time limits.'

 

If the universe was anything but isolated, I see it rather hard that the 1st and 2nd laws would even be laws. You're a big banger, even though it's a myth, so everything was there then by some natural miracle, did things not natural and inflated. Did another universe do the same and mix in with our to not make an isolated system. 

 

5 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Just pointing out that he did give an answer in a rather manic response to Astreja.  Not a direct answer to you, so you might have missed it.  Hope this helps.

WTF does that mean? 

 

What did you or anybody else give to show evidence the universe is anything but an isolated system? Did you not get all the things you copied what I gave? You just give that silly comeback. Somehow you have some protective thing about Astreja who I showed had a reading comprehension problem and then lied about how I then glossed over their reply. This makes for some great comedy. 

[Johnny]

2 hours ago, midniterider said:

Nice wall-o-text, bro.

Well, thank you. It could have been an ocean of how people see the absurdity of life coming from non-life and at least they admit it even though they still believe it. Funny too how the ones that say it just happened, just say it but can't give evidence for it. 

[Joshpantera]

45 minutes ago, Johnny said:

Well, thank you. It could have been an ocean of how people see the absurdity of life coming from non-life and at least they admit it even though they still believe it. Funny too how the ones that say it just happened, just say it but can't give evidence for it. 

 

'He said my name's Johnny, and it might be a sin, but he'll take that bet and we'll all regret, he's the best apologist there's ever been!!!! Johnny sharpen up that mind, and play that jesus card, the devil's come down to ex-C and you'll brawl in his backyard. If you win the lord will coat your brain with solid gold, but if you lose ex-C will get your soul!'

 

 

[Astreja]

Mods, do you still have that, um, special avatar around?  I think Johnny needs an upgrade. 

[Joshpantera]

1 hour ago, Johnny said:

Well, thank you. It could have been an ocean of how people see the absurdity of life coming from non-life and at least they admit it even though they still believe it. Funny too how the ones that say it just happened, just say it but can't give evidence for it. 

 

This amounts to all of jack squat in the context of where you're trying to take it. And you seem to have little awareness of where it does lead, this rabbit hole inquiry. 

 

The hard problem of Consciousness suggests that awareness didn't just pop into existence ex nihilo. That it has to instead be a fundamental aspect of reality. Physicalist's are pushing for a creation ex nihilo for Consciousness. But the tide is turning on that assumption. The same issue can be posed at life. Did it just pop into existence ex nihilo? If Consciousness couldn't have, how could life? How could anything? 

 

Where these questions ultimately lead are to conclusions that involve deep pantheism, and mystical panentheism, not monotheism, not literalistic interpretation of the bible, and not to a situation where god is separate or distinct from anything else. 

 

And that's where your arguments fail on every level, and become the arguments of your perceived opponent. We, the pantheistic philosophers of the world, usurp YOUR arguments as our own, in other words.

 

You want to toss out "ex nihilo" claims, let's do it! Toss them all!

 

Mind ex nihilo, life ex nihilo, "creation ex nihilo," the whole lot. Gone, out the window. 

 

Where does that lead Johnny boy????

 

Let's go there. It ain't going to lead us down to Texas!!!

 

It's going to take us on the straight and narrow path to "NON-DUALITY." The Indus River Valley, not the Jordon, and not the Rio Grande!!!

 

@midniterider

 

We'll get down to what a spiritual Being is with the scheme of omni-present, all pervasive, Consciousness and the essence of life. 

 

But you're not going to like it when you get there Johnny Boy!!! Get that mirror ready!!!!

 

 

[midniterider]

2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

'He said my name's Johnny, and it might be a sin, but he'll take that bet and we'll all regret, he's the best apologist there's ever been!!!! Johnny sharpen up that mind, and play that jesus card, the devil's come down to ex-C and you'll brawl in his backyard. If you win the lord will coat your brain with solid gold, but if you lose ex-C will get your soul!'

 

 

 

Christian in a science book, cherry-pickin out laws....

[midniterider]

2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

This amounts to all of jack squat in the context of where you're trying to take it. And you seem to have little awareness of where it does lead, this rabbit hole inquiry. 

 

The hard problem of Consciousness suggests that awareness didn't just pop into existence ex nihilo. That it has to instead be a fundamental aspect of reality. Physicalist's are pushing for a creation ex nihilo for Consciousness. But the tide is turning on that assumption. The same issue can be posed at life. Did it just pop into existence ex nihilo? If Consciousness couldn't have, how could life? How could anything? 

 

Where these questions ultimately lead are to conclusions that involve deep pantheism, and mystical panentheism, not monotheism, not literalistic interpretation of the bible, and not to a situation where god is separate or distinct from anything else. 

 

And that's where your arguments fail on every level, and become the arguments of your perceived opponent. We, the pantheistic philosophers of the world, usurp YOUR arguments as our own, in other words.

 

You want to toss out "ex nihilo" claims, let's do it! Toss them all!

 

Mind ex nihilo, life ex nihilo, "creation ex nihilo," the whole lot. Gone, out the window. 

 

Where does that lead Johnny boy????

 

Let's go there. It ain't going to lead us down to Texas!!!

 

It's going to take us on the straight and narrow path to "NON-DUALITY." The Indus River Valley, not the Jordon, and not the Rio Grande!!!

 

@midniterider

 

We'll get down to what a spiritual Being is with the scheme of omni-present, all pervasive, Consciousness and the essence of life. 

 

But you're not going to like it when you get there Johnny Boy!!! Get that mirror ready!!!!

 

 

Exodus: I am that I am ... 

Luke 17:21: The Kingdom of God is within you...

John 14:11: I am in the father and the father is in me...

John 10:34: I have said you are gods.

Psalm 82:6: You are gods. You are sons of the most high. 

 

Amritabindu Upanishad

22. In Whom reside all beings, and Who resides in all beings by virtue of His being the giver of grace to all – I am that Soul of the Universe, the Supreme Being, I am that Soul of the Universe, the Supreme Being.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

6 hours ago, Johnny said:

Well, do you expect me to apologize for what the evidence proves? Wow, so the evidence done by experimentation that followed repeatability,  falsification, and observation, was not proof life only comes from life. It was CLEAR, but somehow I'm not supposed to say it proved anything. The laughs I get in this forum are so nice. 

 

 

 

Johnny,

 

I've demonstrated that science does not prove things. 

 

Proofs are only used in logic and in mathematics, because math is abstract and deals in absolutes.

 

But if scientific theories and hypotheses are proven, how is it possible that they can be overturned by new evidence?

 

A proof is absolute and final and cannot be overturned by new evidence.

 

If the Steady State theory of the universe were proven by evidence then it could not have been overturned by the new evidence of the Big Bang.

 

But it was.

 

Case closed.  Science does not prove anything as these links demonstrate.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/?sh=4ad339672fb1

https://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/sciencecommunication/2014/09/16/science-doesnt-prove-a-thing/

https://theconversation.com/forget-what-youve-read-science-cant-prove-a-thing-578

https://blog.drwile.com/science-cant-prove-anything/

https://anabolicminds.com/community/threads/does-science-prove-things-–-the-null-hypothesis.262453/

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

9 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Bumped for Johnny's attention.

 

Can little imaginary spheres be observed, reproduced and falsified?

 

Please answer.

 

Re-bumped for Johnny's attention.

 

Can little imaginary spheres be observed, reproduced and falsified?

 

Please answer.

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Posted 5 hours ago

  11 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Twelve hours later and no reply from Johnny.

I didn't know you were that important that I have to time limit to to answer My Highness Redneck. Oh, High and Mighty, Redneck, and you ever forgive me? 

 

  11 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Johnny, what kind of thermodynamic system is the universe; isolated, open or closed?

I already stated somewhere to someone, the universe is an isolated system. Is that ok, Your Highness?

 

  11 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

And please tell me how you know what type it is.

Well, Your Highness, you people sure need a lot of repeating. No wonder I don't meet my 'time limits.'

 

If the universe was anything but isolated, I see it rather hard that the 1st and 2nd laws would even be laws. You're a big banger, even though it's a myth, so everything was there then by some natural miracle, did things not natural and inflated. Did another universe do the same and mix in with our to not make an isolated system. 

 

  11 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Just pointing out that he did give an answer in a rather manic response to Astreja.  Not a direct answer to you, so you might have missed it.  Hope this helps.

WTF does that mean? 

 

What did you or anybody else give to show evidence the universe is anything but an isolated system? Did you not get all the things you copied what I gave? You just give that silly comeback. Somehow you have some protective thing about Astreja who I showed had a reading comprehension problem and then lied about how I then glossed over their reply. This makes for some great comedy. 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------

 

Sloppy work, Johnny.

 

Three of the quotes you've attributed to the Redneck Professor are from me.

 

But never mind that.

 

How about you tell me about that imaginary sphere that's smaller than the period at the end of this sentence.

 

How can something imaginary be observed, reproduced and falsified?

 

Please answer.

[alreadyGone]

@Johnny

 

The Bible states that God does not give to you a spirit of fear.

(2nd Timothy, v 17)

 

Why are you afraid to face the simple question I've asked of you repeatedly?

 

Is there in fact a true and honest basis for your Christian belief?

 

Or does your belief and faith rest only on an emotionally-derived opinion which you then dishonestly present as fact?

 

Are you a liar Johnny?

Or is there some objective factual basis to your Christian belief?

 

[walterpthefirst]

Johnny wrote...

 

"If the Big Bang occurred, and all matter and energy in the Universe—everything that exists—was initially in that little imaginary sphere the size of the period at the end of this sentence (or much smaller, depending on which “expert” cosmologist you ask), by implication, the evolutionist admits that the Universe is of a finite size. That is a fact. A finite Universe is an isolated system. Since the Universe as a whole is the only true isolated system, the laws of thermodynamics apply perfectly. That is why some reputable scientists examine the evidence, draw reasonable conclusions, and articulate statements in reputable textbooks like the following:

 

So his basis for claiming that the universe is an isolated thermodynamic system is what evolutionists admit about the universe being a finite size.  And the example he uses for this a little imaginary sphere which the Big Bang came from.

 

 

But Johnny also wrote...

I vowed to myself roughly 50 years ago, I will only accept things that made sense because I have sufficient evidence to back it up.

 

But how can this imaginary sphere be sufficient evidence for Johnny to accept it and use it to argue that the universe is an isolated system... when Johnny wrote that it's imaginary?

 

 

 

And Johnny also wrote...

Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know, not with things we can't prove.

 

But how can Johnny prove this that this imaginary sphere existed... when it's imaginary?

 

 

 

He also wrote...

Natural laws apply to nature. Natural laws show certain events could not have happened naturally. Those natural laws are repeatable, observable, and falsifiable.

 

But how can anyone have observed this imaginary sphere... when it's imaginary?

 

 

 

Johnny's not answering my questions to him about this and he says he's taking a break, so I thought I'd throw this open to everyone else.

 

Do you know how Johnny can use something that's imaginary to argue that the universe is an isolated system?

Do you know how Johnny can prove the existence of something that's imaginary?

Do you know how anyone can make scientific observations of something that's imaginary?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[alreadyGone]

5 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

...

Do you know how Johnny can prove the existence of something that's imaginary?

Do you know how anyone can make scientific observations of something that's imaginary?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

By lying to himself, that most human of failings.

We have all done the same.

 

As an intelligent mature adult though, there should come a time when you're willing to put aside ego, just enough to admit that some of your closely-held beliefs are merely that...  ego.

 

At some point in an adult life you should be willing to admit that truth matters more than how you feel about it.

 

Else, you're merely a liar.

 

 

[Johnny]

On 7/5/2022 at 9:39 PM, Joshpantera said:

Another "Dunning-Kruegger Effect" apologist...

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a hypothetical cognitive bias stating that people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability.

 

So tell me with what I wrote I overestimated my ability. Tell me how the law of biogenesis along with the evidence I supplied was overestimated and were somehow not correct. Tell me how the conclusions are not correct. You conveniently and purposely left those parts out because you don't like to reason. YOU overestimated YOUR ability. 

 

You're free to copy and paste any reply that defeated the law of bigenesis. You're free to give ANY site that you see is reasonable to show that life did come about on its own all by natural means. It's rather laughable (like so many replies) that you toss all the evidence away with your hilarious...."Another "Dunning-Kruegger Effect" apologist..."

[Johnny]

On 7/6/2022 at 11:58 AM, midniterider said:

Waits for Johnny to provide evidence of the God of the Bible ... because arguing thermodynamics ain't it. 

Do copy and paste what I gave on thermodynamics "ain't it."

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Johnny, it looks like stalemate to me.  Why do you drive people farther away by calling them names?   Why do you stay around beating your head against the wall.  What keeps you from doing as the bible says and shake the dust off your feet as you leave?  

[walterpthefirst]

I see that Johnny has visited this thread less than 40 minutes ago, so I'll try again.

 

Johnny wrote...

 

"If the Big Bang occurred, and all matter and energy in the Universe—everything that exists—was initially in that little imaginary sphere the size of the period at the end of this sentence (or much smaller, depending on which “expert” cosmologist you ask), by implication, the evolutionist admits that the Universe is of a finite size. That is a fact. A finite Universe is an isolated system. Since the Universe as a whole is the only true isolated system, the laws of thermodynamics apply perfectly. That is why some reputable scientists examine the evidence, draw reasonable conclusions, and articulate statements in reputable textbooks like the following:

 

How can something imaginary be observed, reproduced and falsified?

 

Please answer, Johnny.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[midniterider]

1 hour ago, Johnny said:

Do copy and paste what I gave on thermodynamics "ain't it."

You took my message out of context. (haha) That's not the whole of what I said. 

 

Copy and paste has gotten out of hand on this thread, so no. No cut and paste.

 

I need either a personal visitation by God or forget it.  Religious belief is a fraud. 

[Edgarcito]

Don't let them beat on you John....let's get together for a potluck and talk strategy....