There is nothing that proves Abiogenesis did occur. Further, if this is so much a part of the universe, I would expect it to be occurring right now, but it does not.
Currently, this problem does not have an answer.
For the alternative theorists:
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
There is nothing that proves Abiogenesis did occur. Further, if this is so much a part of the universe, I would expect it to be occurring right now, but it does not.
Currently, this problem does not have an answer.
You are showing ignorance in the extreme.
If Abiogenesis did not occur [life from non life] what did occur?
Are you claiming your favourite almighty deity, who has existed forever grabbed a handful of dust and created Adam?
Although that indeed is life from non life, it has been shown that the deity you obviously want to invoke is nothing but a childish myth.
With your second round of nonsense, Abiogenesis as any one would know, does not happen over night.
We certainly have proof of Abiogenesis...100% proof. There was no life 13.83 billion years ago.....now there is life.
Hi chinglu.
You may want to read my post #1903 a page back. It may save a lot of wasted time for you which could be better spent in discussion elsewhere on other matter. Just thought you should be made aware of what is going to make your/others' various arguments on abiogenesis 'unknowns' moot very soon. Have to log out now. Don't know when I can find time to post again. Good luck and see/read you round. Bye for now! It does occur right now, wherever conditions permit. Do you have any reason to believe otherwise?
Therefore... what? Is there a point to that statement?
The problem does have an answer, you're just not convinced it's true. Do you have any better answer?
I agree that the situation of Abiogenesis and Evolution, from the BB to today, culminating in thinking reasoning human beings, is an awe inspiring, perhaps hard to believe scenario to contemplate.
But once again, I have yet to see a viable scientific Alternative.
Life, according to observational data is but chemistry. In reality, it appears obvious, that chemistry is responsible for the increasing layers of complexity between life and non life.
I'm not a Creationist basher by any stretch of the Imagination. I don't go to the religious forums to throw my "non necessity of God" bomb among the congregation.
None doubts that the evolution of human beings is not a classic piece of work, but nature has had 13.83 billion years to arrive at us.
I'm staggered that otherwise intelligent people here, can say that to believe that life could arise from non life is ridiculous, and yet we have literally no other scientific alternative.
How can anyone that claims "life from non life" is ridiculous, and then at the same time infer that some deity is a viable alternative?
The then obvious questions need to be asked about this omnipotent deity.
Chemistry, Abiogenesis [maybe Panspermia] ETL off the Earth, and evolution are in my humble opinion so obvious, as to be near undeniable.
ETL only has weight of numbers, extent and the stuff of life being everywhere we look, but if by chance we were it, that would indeed be a real miracle.
So much so, that I would even kiss the Pope's ring.
There are many things in the Universe that are on face value hard to believe, but after 13.83 billion years of evolution, we are making great progress.
But once again, I have yet to see a viable scientific Alternative.
Life, according to observational data is but chemistry. In reality, it appears obvious, that chemistry is responsible for the increasing layers of complexity between life and non life.
I'm not a Creationist basher by any stretch of the Imagination. I don't go to the religious forums to throw my "non necessity of God" bomb among the congregation.
None doubts that the evolution of human beings is not a classic piece of work, but nature has had 13.83 billion years to arrive at us.
I'm staggered that otherwise intelligent people here, can say that to believe that life could arise from non life is ridiculous, and yet we have literally no other scientific alternative.
How can anyone that claims "life from non life" is ridiculous, and then at the same time infer that some deity is a viable alternative?
The then obvious questions need to be asked about this omnipotent deity.
Chemistry, Abiogenesis [maybe Panspermia] ETL off the Earth, and evolution are in my humble opinion so obvious, as to be near undeniable.
ETL only has weight of numbers, extent and the stuff of life being everywhere we look, but if by chance we were it, that would indeed be a real miracle.
So much so, that I would even kiss the Pope's ring.
There are many things in the Universe that are on face value hard to believe, but after 13.83 billion years of evolution, we are making great progress.
Last edited:
The current science of the beginning of life, is based on faith in a statistical god of lottery jackpots. This god can't be admitted directly, but where does the power of chance come from in terms of a physical explanation using matter and energy? If you play the slot machine of life long enough it will pay off, therefore life should be all over the universe. I am oversimplifying this, but I don't see how faith in a god of casino math jackpots differs that much from faith in a more purposeful god other than method. In both cases, nobody can apply the method of their god in the lab, and make life from nothing, even if both groups have faith in the unseen. No jackpots have ever occurred in the lab to validate the basic premise of this god gambling whose power source we cannot explain. We don't call him a god because he is random therefore may not be a god today.
I prefer the deterministic approach of the God of the bible, because this old fashion analysis implies a more logical approach as the template. Although the process is oversimplified in the bible, the gist of the method is a logical and sequential process and not dice throwing.
Picture if the mythology of Genesis of the bible, had been written by those, from early generations, who favor what would become the god of casino math in the 20th century. Because it is 6000 years ago, and humans are just beginning to observed, record and understand nature. That means their genesis template would written before they understood how to write the math equations. They only believe in the magic of chance and lotteries.
In the beginning, god had no idea what was going to happen, so he gets out his divine dice and said let there be odds. Nothing happened for many throws, but since god lives forever, he continued to throw his dice until there was light. That was unexpected, but it has odds so it is good. Then God asks himself what shall we do next? He throws his dice again and from the matter and anti-matter he just created, we get a matter universe. This works as well as the other so it is good. Then he asks himself, what do we do now? God creates a large jar of little notes of paper, with possible steps written on each. He reaches into the bowl and pulls out life.
This extrapolated mythology does not paint a very satisfying template for the future humans, who will forever depend on an oracle of chance.
The current template of Genesis, which is also the human mind extrapolated backwards to a simpler time, is based on the template of a purposeful sequence of events, which is implies science use a logical approach to the universe and life, that does not depend on dice. Einstein dis not believe that God would choose to play dice with the universe, but rather has a plan. The term intelligent design is really about having to use the mind to infer and deduce, whereas lottery design depends on an invisible force of chance to do the work for you.
What I took from Genesis, is not so much the details, but the approach was based on a logical sequence. It does not imply the use of casino math to make it easier to ignore stuff you cannot explain. What is also prominent in the first days of creation is water. It becomes a universal tool. It turns out water is the second most abundant molecule in the universe and is a part of star formation. It is also necessary for life as we know it. Bible even shows waters separating from water in sort of a phase separation process of liquid from solid and gas from liquid, and even liquid from liquid. Eureka!
Water needed to be interfaced using biophysical chemical which is very much based on logic and not chance.
Why is this in the science section? Why is this anywhere, for that matter?
This is absolutely NO science in x-tian "science" movements or intelligent design.
the theories are being manipulated to fit the observations to the theory, which is the first step in pseudoscience.
Even the court system admits that there is NO science in the christian science movement.
This should be talked about in pseudoscience threads, not in science threads
@ origin
your reply did not show up until after I posted. apologies for the repeat. given the time that seems weird.
APologies
Last edited:
While agreeing with both, it should be noted that wellwisher, while often popping in with his philosophical nonsense, will nearly never come back to back up or support said nonsense.
To our philosophical friend wellwisher: While its true that we don't as yet know all there is to know, thats no reason for some to stick their heads in the sand and "wax lyrical" with some nonsensical philosophical take on the matter.
We still have legitimate mathematical scenarios that align with the known laws of physics, [the Universe being the ultimate free lunch is one] and of course its that unknown factor that drives science ever onward and forward. It’s also what makes the universe so magnificent and awe-inspiring.
And it reminds me of what a far more renowned philosopher once said....
Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know:
Bertrand Russell.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
…presume here you mean "ring" in the literal rather than the metaphorical sense…………..
.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Mainly agree, except that in discussions in which the nature of science itself comes up, the philosophy of science is essential to help the scientist explain the distinction between science and not-science (pseudo-science, metaphysics, religion or just plain crap). For this reason if for no other, I think scientists are well advised to master at least some basics.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
This anecdote about Archimedes is widely accepted as true. It's hardly as remarkable as it seems to us. The Greeks did not have our Christian-era taboos about nudity and sex, and "εὕρηκα!" means simply "I have found it!"
"Eureka" is California's state motto, since it achieved statehood at the time of the Gold Rush, when it was said hyperbolically that people were finding gold everywhere. It's also the name of the seat of Humboldt County, situated in the northwestern part of the state, known for its redwood forest and enduring hippie culture.
The "enduring hippie culture" is in my head and heart.
QUOTE=exchemist;3214282]…presume here you mean "ring" in the literal rather than the metaphorical sense…………...[/QUOTE]
Of course!
Philosophy has its place, but some so called would be Philosophers don't know there place...
.[/QUOTE]Of course!
Philosophy has its place, but some so called would be Philosophers don't know there place...
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
In short, if something happens (even if it seems ipossible), it MUST have been physically possible for it to happen. Can't have it both ways,
(except of course in theism, which does not account for the laws of nature and assumes "irreducible complexity" rather than "evolutionary complexity")
but that rejects and denies everything we know about the age of the universe and the constancy of natural laws, which govern everything that happens, strange as it may seem to a casual observer.