I need conclusive proof of Abiogenesis

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Jadebrain_Prime, Sep 13, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    thanks for the link.

    about RNA.
    i have read that small populations of RNA are not viable.
    shoot me for not bookmarking the page.
    i'll try to find it though.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Abiogenesis is not evolution.

    So do functional analogs of the water reducing center in PS2, and you can imagine the amount of money being thrown at that. What's you point?
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2011
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Thanks - I was going to raise this yesterday, but when I looked in the thread was locked.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2011
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    it didn't fall by verification of abiogenesis either.
    the point is science hasn't verified abiogenesis possible.
    some would say the fact we are here is verification enough, but is it?
     
  8. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    And my point is that science also hasn't verified that the synthesis of the water reducing center in PS2 is possible - by the standard you're using here, and yet clearly it must be.
     
  9. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    I'm going to reiterate here a point I made in another thread:

    Trippy 2775021/59
     
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Their argument is a logical fallacy known as a false dichotomy.

    Essentially, they say: "Either abiogenesis is true or Creationism is true".

    The problem is that by "Creationism" they mean one very specific theory - this case the Christian version of the "God did it" Creation story from the bible. But there are many other religious creation stories. So it should be more like this:

    "Either life developed from non-life by natural processes OR the biblical Creation story is true OR the Great Green Arkleseizure created life OR Allah created life OR Vishnu created life OR the Flying Spaghetti Monster created life OR advanced alien robots created life OR ..."

    So, their argument doesn't help in any way to support their Christian beliefs in the bible Creation story.
     
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    And NOTHING has verified that Creation by God is possible. For a start, God would have to be verified, and nobody has done that.
     
  12. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    you are attempting to prove abiogeneis - not make data conform the idea of abiogenesis.

    IOW its 100% begging the question on your behalf to say determining how the chemical byproducts of life can be synthesized is the path to determining how life can be synthesized ...moreso since despite all this positing it has only ever been properly established that life is seen to arise from life



    and just like urea synthesis, it amounts to nothing in terms of establishing how life can be established from matter.
    :shrug:
     
  13. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    I know .. thats why I said it was bad science
     
  14. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    so your stool, urine, sweat and mucus is life?

    How can you tell when it dies?

    How does it mature and reproduce offspring?

    :bugeye:
     
  15. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Don't flush your toilet for a few months, and report back to us on the outcome.
     
  16. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Are you saying there is part of your body that isn't chemical?
     
  17. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    I think what LG is saying is that your stool, urine, sweat and mucus is all part of god, and so should be revered as such.
     
  18. Search & Destroy Take one bite at a time Moderator

    Messages:
    1,467
    Or the answer is unknown or unknowable.
     
  19. LostInThought7 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    181
    "And NOTHING has verified that Creation by God is possible. For a start, God would have to be verified, and nobody has done that."

    One would claim that you're asserting a false dichotomy. If not taken into context, that is. You're, in a way, building up your argument towards Naturalism by saying that Creationism is flawed. Something that one could do to the claim "if life wasn't created by no creator, it must have been created by a creator", right? And maybe they are incorrect (there are theories that can be devised that exclude both of these), I've just never been fond of how quickly people want to cry "fallacy!" Especially since, if I recall, the Theist in question joined into a debate on Naturalistic belief. To debate whether or not scientific beliefs are valid, whilst believing for other reasons that they are not, does not automatically mean that they are trying to validate to the other person their own beliefs. Maybe I'm wrong, and this is blatantly a fallacy, and I need to learn more about fallacies. It just seems to me (especially coming from Naturalistic Rationalists) that the fallacy flag is thrown waaaay too much.

    To the OP: If you are claiming that there is proof of your belief without knowing it, I would think you more intellectually dishonest than most Theists I've talked to (most I've talked to claim that there are things about their beliefs that they don't know, nor claim to know). If this is the case, then honestly, the best course of action is probably to tell Theists, "I don't really know exactly the specifics of my belief, but I believe it because I've seen other people believe it so strongly, people that I'm naturally inclined to trust." ....if that statement is true, I mean. I hope I misunderstood the situation, and if I did, I'm sorry for any offense that you may have taken.
     
  20. LostInThought7 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    181
    Wait, James R, I just realized that I don't remember as much of the conversation as I did when I started typing that response hours ago (highly emotional phone called paused it). I'm exhausted, and think it's probably likely I have no idea what I'm talking about. Either way, fallacy flag is thrown a lot more than necessary in my opinion, but I don't think it best I quoted you in expressing that belief.
     
  21. LostInThought7 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    181
    "I know .. thats why I said it was bad science "

    Heh. I dunno. Maybe people have told me I'm doing bad religion.
     
  22. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    lol
    no

    but you did say that life and the chemicals it uses are non-different ... which is of course a totally stupid thing to say

    Policeman : I have some bad news I am afraid - your husband has been hit by a truck and died instantly... on the bright side however you will be able to be reunited with him since we managed to scrape some of his intestinal fluid from the back wheels.

    Anyone feeling warm and fuzzy?
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2011
  23. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    if you are ready to revere it as life you are already there

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page