On the impossibility of abiogenesis

[PostmodernProphet]

Religion and science go together. As I’ve said before, science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind. They are interdependent and have a common goal—the search for truth. Hence it is absurd for religion to proscribe Galileo or Darwin or other scientists. And it is equally absurd when scientists say that there is no God. The real scientist has faith, which does not mean that he must subscribe to a creed.”

https://creativesystemsthinking.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/albert-einstein-gods-gift-to-the-creationists/

if BucKKKle should live a hundred years he will still never understand what it is I believe......it is beyond the capacity of his shallow mind.......

https://www.onfaith.co/onfaith/2007/04/27/einstein-and-the-mind-of-god/3763

Should Jews try to assimilate? “We Jews have been too eager to sacrifice our idiosyncrasies in order to conform.”

To what extent are you influenced by Christianity? “As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.”

You accept the historical existence of Jesus? “Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.”

Do you believe in God? “I’m not an atheist. I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.”

 

[rjhenn]

https://creativesystemsthinking.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/albert-einstein-gods-gift-to-the-creationists/

if BucKKKle should live a hundred years he will still never understand what it is I believe......it is beyond the capacity of his shallow mind.......

https://www.onfaith.co/onfaith/2007/04/27/einstein-and-the-mind-of-god/3763

Religion is always blind. That is the evil of religion. It clouds the mind and prevents learning. Religion appears to be an attempt to explain the unknown, with imaginings, not knowledge.

 

[The Ugly Truth]

Hey, look. No one has tried to refute the OP yet. I guess they just aren't intelligent enough to discuss it. Too bad.

 

[Leonthecat]

https://creativesystemsthinking.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/albert-einstein-gods-gift-to-the-creationists/

if BucKKKle should live a hundred years he will still never understand what it is I believe......it is beyond the capacity of his shallow mind.......

https://www.onfaith.co/onfaith/2007/04/27/einstein-and-the-mind-of-god/3763

You are incapable of imagining the finality of your own mortality, PMP.
Everything you "believe" stems from that one pathetic fact.

 

[Leonthecat]

It was recently revealed that, toward the end of his life, Albert Einstein wrote a letter in which he dismissed belief in God as superstitious and characterized the stories in the Bible as childish.

 

[iewitness]

Actually, we need to discuss formalism and symbolic processing. Nature cannot create a computer. It's impossible. And computers are required for life to exist.

that nasty owl bitch is crazy as hell. "Goddess". damned.

 

[Leonthecat]

On 17 July 1953 a woman who was a licensed Baptist pastor sent Einstein a letter asking if he had felt assured about attaining everlasting life with the Creator. Einstein replied, "I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it." This sentiment was also expressed in Einstein's book The World as I See It, "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.

 

[iewitness]

On 17 July 1953 a woman who was a licensed Baptist pastor sent Einstein a letter asking if he had felt assured about attaining everlasting life with the Creator. Einstein replied, "I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it." This sentiment was also expressed in Einstein's book The World as I See It, "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.

perhaps "Einstein" was as the late mr. hawkings. Einstein was mostly a theorist as is the late and indiscernable mr. hawkings. ... they both greatly have influenced "science" for a long time. many praised as gods " scientists" have their theories up for judgement. intent. motive. opportunity.

 

[domer76]

Hey, look. No one has tried to refute the OP yet. I guess they just aren't intelligent enough to discuss it. Too bad.

They have. Multiple times. You're merely too stupid to realize it.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Hey, look. No one has tried to refute the OP yet. I guess they just aren't intelligent enough to discuss it. Too bad.

Almost everyone here has. I certainly have done it.


You simply refuse to accept that they are doing it.

 

[The Ugly Truth]

Almost everyone here has. I certainly have done it.


You simply refuse to accept that they are doing it.

No one has refuted anything mentioned in the OP. Saying that something is wrong, without sayig why it's wrong is not a refutation. Try again.

 

[Ross Dolan]

No one has refuted anything mentioned in the OP. Saying that something is wrong, without sayig why it's wrong is not a refutation. Try again.

It has been refuted!

Anyway...you have not answered the question I asked twice now...which is important. (My #25)

Secondly...the most compelling argument against your thesis is a question:

Why, if it is as obvious and simple as you suggest...do people like Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Richard Feynman, Bertrand Russell...disagree with you so specifically?

If it is so obvious and simple...and a product, as you suggest, of "science"...why are so many scientists atheists and agnostics?

Are you smarter than they?

 

[The Ugly Truth]

It has been refuted!

Anyway...you have not answered the question I asked twice now...which is important. (My #25)

Secondly...the most compelling argument against your thesis is a question:

Why, if it is as obvious and simple as you suggest...do people like Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Richard Feynman, Bertrand Russell...disagree with you so specifically?

If it is so obvious and simple...and a product, as you suggest, of "science"...why are so many scientists atheists and agnostics?

Are you smarter than they?

It's not just my opinion. There are many scientists who agree with me.

 

[Ross Dolan]

It's not just my opinion. There are many scientists who agree with me.

You still haven't answered my question...now for the third time.

And you still haven't even suggested why so many scientists disagree completely with you...especially since you seem to think it is so obvious and simple...easy for anyone to see.

By the way...I've named Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Richard Feynman as scientists who disagree. Name a few who agree with you...so we can take a look at their credentials...and compare them with Einstein, Hawking, and Feynman.

 

[The Ugly Truth]

You still haven't answered my question...now for the third time.

And you still haven't even suggested why so many scientists disagree completely with you...especially since you seem to think it is so obvious and simple...easy for anyone to see.

By the way...I've named Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Richard Feynman as scientists who disagree. Name a few who agree with you...so we can take a look at their credentials...and compare them with Einstein, Hawking, and Feynman.

It doesn't take a genius to see the truth.

 

[Ross Dolan]

It doesn't take a genius to see the truth.

It takes a fool to think he sees "the truth"...when he is looking a nothing more than a blind guess.

Anyway...now you have avoided my question about "nature"...and you have avoided my request for the names of some of your "scientists."

Interesting.

 

[The Ugly Truth]

It takes a fool to think he sees "the truth"...when he is looking a nothing more than a blind guess.

Anyway...now you have avoided my question about "nature"...and you have avoided my request for the names of some of your "scientists."

Interesting.

And you have yet to refute anything I posted.

 

[Ross Dolan]

And you have yet to refute anything I posted.

I refuted the whole thing...the same way you asserted it.

Now you have ducked my question about "nature" four times...and my request for the names of scientists who support your take twice.

Not a good record, Ugly. And so easy to end. All you have to do is to answer the question (which is not that hard)...and give a few names (which also is not that hard.)

Why not do it?

 

[The Ugly Truth]

I refuted the whole thing...the same way you asserted it.

Now you have ducked my question about "nature" four times...and my request for the names of scientists who support your take twice.

Not a good record, Ugly. And so easy to end. All you have to do is to answer the question (which is not that hard)...and give a few names (which also is not that hard.)

Why not do it?

You have refuted nothing. You only think you have. For instance, you have failed to refute how formalism affects reality. You have failed to refute how nature is incapable of designing and programming a biologic computer. Sucks to be you.

 

[Ross Dolan]

You have refuted nothing.

I...and many others...have refuted EVERYTHING. Everything that has to be refuted, that is.

You only think you have.

We have...whether you can acknowledge it or not.

For instance, you have failed to refute how formalism affects reality.

If you want to talk about the REALITY...I am willing to do so.

I know as much about REALITY as you...which is to say...I DO NOT KNOW THE TRUE NATURE OF THE REALITY OF EXISTENCE...

...and neither do you. The only real difference between us on that issue is that I acknowledge that I do not know...and you do not acknowledge it.

You have failed to refute how nature is incapable of designing and programming a biologic computer.

We will talk about REALITY when you are actually ready to do so.

Sucks to be you.

I am one of the luckiest people on Earth; things always seem to break my way. It is a delight being me.

I hope things are that good with you.