The Christian God Created Life On Earth

Thanks Pro.Nothing says life on earth like string theory and Fred Hoyle.Well, I'm going to have to discount string theory/multiple dimensions in order to refute that the Christian god created life on earth.I'm also going to have to discount Fred Hoyle's issues with the big bang in order to refute that the Christian god created life on earth.But first, something relevant.About this debate's resolution containing the words "god" and "created,"Pro says:"I think these are the two most important definitions to keep in mind during this debate."My response:Yeah Pro. Only focus on god, and not the particular christian god, so that your burden isn't as difficult and isn't fully met...honest and strategic!I realize that the Jewish god is the same as the Christian god, so Pro only needs to demonstrate that the old testament god created life, but it's funny that Jesus Christ hasn't been mentioned yet, right? The resolution speaks of the Christian god...oh well.So, then Pro points out:"So, we know that Genesis was never intended to be a detailed scientific handbook, describing how god created the universe."My response:Oh, ok so we agree that we shouldn't use an unscientific "handbook" (Genesis) to prove facts about detailed scientific concepts like the origin of the universe. Cool.About the universe's origins Pro then says:"That sounds a lot like Genesis 1:1 to me: 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth'."My response:Oh. Never mind...Pro, why should we consider the bible, the book of Christianity, to be authoritative or accurate on matters of life's origin?On to string theory...I quoted Kaku saying that the idea of higher dimensions has no experimental evidence; he's an honest scientist.Pro's response via a Kaku quote:"many serious physicists now believe that higher dimensions...exist...[and] also explain some of the deepest secrets of nature."My response:This is surely an argument from authority.https://en.wikipedia.org...Simply because they are serious experts doesn't mean that their claims are true. To say that higher dimensions is true simply because it's a belief held by serious physicists is an argument from authority...so arriving at the higher dimension conclusion from a logical fallacy is invalid; the reasoning is based only on the idea that some serious physicists believe it to be so. This is fallacious. We need to look at the claims themselves.You know what makes a claim true?When the claim is demonstrated, replicated, and used to make accurate predictions within the content of the demonstration and subsequent replications.Demonstrate, replicate, predict. This happens or doesn't happen irrespective of who believes it. Without experimental evidence, experienced physicists with a shared particular belief is not a demonstration of their claims. With no demonstration, there is no replication or accurate predictions made about higher dimensions. The way I've explained it to students, yeah I'm a lame high school teacher, is that they shouldn't just listen to the meteorologists; the students should check the Doppler radar themselves.Doppler radar would be the evidence needed to prove a claim of meteorology...like the claim that rain is imminent could be verified by seeing the proper cloud formation on the Doppler radar.String theory has nothing to show on the radar if you get my analogy.With experimental evidence for higher dimensions, we could "check the radar ourselves."In science when we have no experimental evidence, we accept the null hypothesis.String Theory's hypothesis is that there are higher dimensions because they solve the spatial problem for the vibrating strings which are part of the theory...great, where's the evidence?Oh there isn't any? Ok well then we reject the hypothesis and accept the null.The burden of proof for the higher dimension hypothesis has not been met, so we accept the null hypothesis, which rejects the hypothesis. I am reasonable in rejecting the higher dimension beliefs of serious physicists even if the beliefs would seem to solve a conundrum within their theory, because no higher dimensions have been demonstrated.Pro also mentions:"I presented a principle (multi-dimensions) that shows a mechanism (ie. Flatlander "theory"), which satisfies my opponent's thirst for knowledge and proof."My response:So I'll explain the mechanism of scissors.Two metal blades with plastic handles jointed at a swivel fulcrum are set up so that when you squeeze the handles, the sharp edges meet each other and cross very closely, shredding fibers that come between the sharp edges.Could Pro elaborate with a mechanistic explanation of HOW higher dimensional beings managed to create life by going through dimensions as "blobs of flesh which float above us and constantly merge and split apart?"Then if Pro wishes to get to it, could pro show how this mechanism is also used by the christian god in particular?So life...Life is metabolism and auto self replication...that's it. If there is a cell that can metabolize energy and auto (without a host cell) self replicate, it is alive; a living cell. With that in mind, let's look at Pro's claims.About abiogenesis experiments, Pro demands:"[Y]es, amino acids were produced, but what then?"My response:So, these amino acid chains fold onto each other and create biologically active material. These are referred to as foldable proteins. They, without intervention, produce genetic material used for replication.Pro asserts erroneously:"We can't bond those acids to carbon, instead, we need proteins. Who provided the first protein?"My response:I understand that not everyone has a chemistry background...So amino acids are organic compounds, which means that they already ARE, covalently, bonded to carbon. Also proteins are chains of amino acids. So the deep structure of Pro's erroneous assertion would look like:We can't bind carbon to those amino acids that already contain bounded carbon, instead, we need amino acids (proteins).Who provided the first amino acids?Well, it's not a who, but what provided the first amino acids?Inorganic compounds from earlier earth. This is a fact of abiogenesis.So Pro continues:"If [abiogenesis] happened in early Earth, why is it that the most we can make from scratch is a couple amino acids?"My response:Well 23 amino acids to be exact. I'll be honest and mention that we've narrowed the list down to about 10 of the most likely culprits of abiogenesis, but saying we've yielded "just a couple" is incorrect.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...Pro then asks:"Do you see us creating new life?"My response:Yes.Life is metabolizing energy, and auto self replicating.Amino acids can metabolize glucose into pyruvate.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...Folded amino acids create biologically active structures...RNA"One of the RNA molecules become autocatalytic by engaging in template directed self-replication from activated monomers."To translate, the RNA produced from folded amino acid chains can itself replicate the RNA. Self replication.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...So from amino acids we get metabolism and replication. There's life for ya.Also, I noticed that Pro claimed that I'm cherry picking evidence.Well, I only reference peer reviewed, highly credible, scientific experiments from the NCBI which is part of the National Library of Medicine, which is also a part of the National Institute of Health. These, unlike higher dimensions, have experimental evidence, which I invite all readers to learn about by accessing my citations.If I'm cherry picking, it's from an extremely relevant, credible, accurate, peer reviewed cherry tree. Either way, one can verify if my evidence is valid or not.Fred Hoyle doesn't believe in the big bang.So here ya go Fred Hoyle, though I know he's dead:Below is evidence of the big bang.http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov...And here is the current model: http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov...;