Evidence for abiogenesis

[SetiAlpha6]

Moderator note: This thread was split from the following thread:

www.sciforums.com/threads/evidence-that-god-is-real.161157
-----

"Of God" is not a useful distinction. You can not have a different kind of evidence "of God" than the kind of evidence we have of gravity or of evolution.

What evidence do you have for the creation of life from non-life?

 

[sideshowbob]

What evidence do you have for the creation of life from non-life?

At one time there was only non-life. Now there is life. Ergo, life came from non-life. The only other possibility would be that life always existed.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

At one time there was only non-life. Now there is life. Ergo, life came from non-life. The only other possibility would be that life always existed.

That is not really enough for me personally.

Can you give me evidence for how life basically kind of created itself, or came about in any other way, using only the laws of physics?

 

[Musika]

At one time there was only non-life. Now there is life. Ergo, life came from non-life. The only other possibility would be that life always existed.

Ok, so you have a different kind of "evidence" than what we have for supporting gravity and evolution.
Should we call it an opinion?

 

[billvon]

Can you give me evidence for how life basically kind of created itself, or came about in any other way, using only the laws of physics?

Google Miller-Urey for some examples of complex molecules creating themselves.

 

[sideshowbob]

Can you give me evidence for how life basically kind of created itself, or came about in any other way, using only the laws of physics?

Can you give evidence that God did it?

I think you're biting off more than you can chew. We're asking for evidence that God exists here. If we can establish that He exists, then we can look into whether or not He ever created anything.

In the meantime, at least we can try to figure out how it could happen by the laws of physics. Belief in God doesn't add anything about the how.

 

[sideshowbob]

Ok, so you have a different kind of "evidence" than what we have for supporting gravity and evolution.
Should we call it an opinion?

Nope.

 

[Musika]

Nope.

Then why talk of the "other possibility"?

 

[Musika]

Google Miller-Urey for some examples of complex molecules creating themselves.

If the complex molecules are not life, what is the relevance?

 

[sideshowbob]

Then why talk of the "other possibility"?

The other possibility - that life has always existed - is contrary to the evidence.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

In the meantime, at least we can try to figure out how it could happen by the laws of physics. Belief in God doesn't add anything about the how.

So, in the meantime, apparently there is no evidence for how the laws of physics could have created life.

I agree with you!

In the meantime, until we have that evidence, I vote for the idea, that the laws of physics actually destroy life, in the same ways we observe them to do everyday all around us.

 

[Musika]

The other possibility - that life has always existed - is contrary to the evidence.

What is the evidence for that?
To avoid begging the question, we would hope it's not another opinion.

 

[sideshowbob]

So, in the meantime, apparently there is no evidence for how the laws of physics could have created life.

There is evidence. It just isn't complete yet. On the other hand, there is no evidence for the existence of God, much less than evidence that He crested anything.

In the meantime, until we have that evidence, I vote for the idea, that the laws of physics actually destroy life, in the same ways we observe them to do everyday all around us.

It isn't a vote.

 

[billvon]

If the complex molecules are not life, what is the relevance?

Because the sequence goes simple molecules -> complex molecules -> complex self replicating molecules -> life.

 

[sideshowbob]

What is the evidence for that?

The fact that the earth itself has not always existed.

 

[Musika]

Because the sequence goes simple molecules -> complex molecules -> complex self replicating molecules -> life.

If the thus created complex molecules you mentioned have never been observed to make the transition to life, why bring it to a discussion primed around the issue of (empirical) evidence?

 

[Musika]

The fact that the earth itself has mot always existed.

Are we talking about life or the planet?

 

[SetiAlpha6]

There is evidence. It just isn't complete yet. On the other hand, there is no evidence for the existence of God, much less than evidence that He crested anything.

To me there is evidence for God.

For you there is not. I get it!

And today, right now, there is no evidence that life can be created by the laws of physics or by a rock or a molecule of any kind.

And we know that the laws of physics actually prevent and even destroy life now. That is the evidence we do have.

So what evidence are you basing your life on and what are you standing on again?

 

[sideshowbob]

Are we talking about life or the planet?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

The only place we have evidence of life - so far - is on earth. Earth has not always existed, therefore life has not always existed. Therefore, according to the only evidence we have, life must have come from non-life.

 

[sideshowbob]

And today, right now, there is no evidence that life can be created by the laws of physics or by a rock or a molecule of any kind.

Sure there is. Life is made of the same chemicals as non-life. It's just a different set of reactions. We know a lot about the reactions that cause life. We just don't know the specific path from non-life to life - yet.

And we know that the laws of physics actually prevent and even destroy life now.

No. We know that the laws of nature DO NOT prevent life because life exists.