Abiogenesis

[Meek Heir]

This is specifically a thread for abiogenesis. Not Evolution (or for that matter Creation).

In particular I want to talk about this article: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_18_164/ai_110737269

Which I read when I was going through my old Science News Magazines. Certainly something like this is very good evidence in favor of spontaneous generation of life. In one go they get the only important element, reproducible genetic code, and a protection for that code to facilitate its expansion.

Of course there is more that is needed for "life" but this simultaneously provides the most important base step and a method of maintaining progress.

[sub_zer0]

This is specifically a thread for abiogenesis. Not Evolution (or for that matter Creation).

In particular I want to talk about this article: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_18_164/ai_110737269

Which I read when I was going through my old Science News Magazines. Certainly something like this is very good evidence in favor of spontaneous generation of life. In one go they get the only important element, reproducible genetic code, and a protection for that code to facilitate its expansion.

Of course there is more that is needed for "life" but this simultaneously provides the most important base step and a method of maintaining progress.

Not about evolution or creation for that matter? Of course it is, the first line of the article says billions of years! The bias shows right off the bat, no room to think of any other way life.

Any logical person must realize that abiogenesis is deadly to belief in God; at best it pushes Him off to the beginning as a distant First Cause, uninvolved in a mechanistic universe that evolves of its own accord. Abiogenesis is highly controversial and is not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

A good article, looking at it from both angles can be found in creationists literature HERE (http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html)

[JoeR]

Any logical person must realize that abiogenesis is deadly to belief in God; at best it pushes Him off to the beginning as a distant First Cause, uninvolved in a mechanistic universe that evolves of its own accord.

Maybe so, but that has nothing to do with a scientific investigation.

[sub_zer0]

Maybe so, but that has nothing to do with a scientific investigation.

You are right, logic sure doesn't... Especially in regards to the scientific investigation into evolution.

[burntgorilla]

I read in the New Scientist a while back that a group were trying to create artificial life. I can't remember the details, but it was basically a cell (it wasn't based on carbon, though) that would divide, reproducing DNA (or its equivalent) and fed in a basic way. Does anyone know if that happened?

Any logical person must realize that abiogenesis is deadly to belief in God; at best it pushes Him off to the beginning as a distant First Cause, uninvolved in a mechanistic universe that evolves of its own accord.

I would beg to differ. God is always a distant First Cause, whether you believe in creationism or not. He is the creator, according to you, and so he must be the First Cause. By the same token, he will always be distant, since he's as far back as you can go. Personally, I think it far more likely that a God would set up some laws of the universe and let it progress according to the laws that he made. How can he possibly be uninvolved if he created it? If you don't accept creationism, then it would follow that abiogenesis is the creator of life. Whether God created abiogenesis is anyone's guess. However, since the majority of Christians don't accept creationism, then it would seem that abiogenesis isn't deadly to God; otherwise they'd stop believing.

Anyway, abiogenesis. I see it as no more controversial or unproven as creationism, or indeed evolution, if you swing that way.

[burntgorilla]

You are right, logic sure doesn't... Especially in regards to the scientific investigation into evolution.

Are you trying to tell me that logic doesn't have anything to do with scientific investigation? The way you say "especially in regards to..." implies that you think the same of the rest of scientific investigation. I honestly cannot believe you're claiming that. Your mind is warped if you think that scientific investigation is less logical than biblical science....

[JoeR]

You are right, logic sure doesn't... Especially in regards to the scientific investigation into evolution.

No, the part about it being deadly to God. So what if it pushes God back? You don't stop investigating something because it's bad for religion.

[sub_zer0]

I would beg to differ. God is always a distant First Cause, whether you believe in creationism or not. He is the creator, according to you, and so he must be the First Cause. By the same token, he will always be distant, since he's as far back as you can go. Personally, I think it far more likely that a God would set up some laws of the universe and let it progress according to the laws that he made. How can he possibly be uninvolved if he created it? If you don't accept creationism, then it would follow that abiogenesis is the creator of life. Whether God created abiogenesis is anyone's guess. However, since the majority of Christians don't accept creationism, then it would seem that abiogenesis isn't deadly to God; otherwise they'd stop believing.

First you say He will always be distant, then you say how can He possible be uninvolved if He created it! Which is it, is He involved with His creation or not?

But if you are a believer in Christ, you know God is near and has walked this earth to die for our sins. The ultimate relationship and closeness I feel to God is through that.

[burntgorilla]

First you say He will always be distant, then you say how can He possible be uninvolved if He created it! Which is it, is He involved with His creation or not?


Both.. why's that hard to understand? :confused: He created it a long time ago, and because he's created it, he's involved in it. He's distant because he created it billions of years ago. And involved because he created it. I don't see your problem there....

[sub_zer0]

Both.. why's that hard to understand? :confused: He created it a long time ago, and because he's created it, he's involved in it. He's distant because he created it billions of years ago. And involved because he created it. I don't see your problem there....

That's where you are wrong, don't base what God did on evolutionary thinking, it wasn't billions of years ago it is as clear as a day in the Bible!

Of course you don't, your bias is blinding you to what the Bible and Christ actually teaches.

[burntgorilla]

I'm not basing it on evolutionary thinking. I'm basing it on geological facts. If the Earth is only 6,000 years old, why does ice form layers that can be viewed back for far more than 6,000 years?

"Of course you don't, your bias is blinding you to what the Bible and Christ actually teaches."

Likewise, you are blinded to the chance, the irrevocable chance, that the Bible is actually wrong. So once you've admitted that, come back and play science with the big boys.

Edit: I mean, how do you know that the Bible is actually the word of God? Because it says so? Of course, what ever it says must be true? Why? Because it's the word of God. How do you know? Because it says it is. And round and round we go. Circular thinking again!

[sub_zer0]

I'm not basing it on evolutionary thinking. I'm basing it on geological facts. If the Earth is only 6,000 years old, why does ice form layers that can be viewed back for far more than 6,000 years?

What dating method is used to date these ice layers?

Likewise, you are blinded to the chance, the irrevocable chance, that the Bible is actually wrong. So once you've admitted that, come back and play science with the big boys.

Likewise you are still blinded to even thinking the Bible may be remotely true. Point proven, you are basically saying the Bible is wrong and I need to admit it.

Edit: I mean, how do you know that the Bible is actually the word of God? Because it says so? Of course, what ever it says must be true? Why? Because it's the word of God. How do you know? Because it says it is. And round and round we go. Circular thinking again!

I know, no outside sources at all, it is simply because it says it is and nothing contradicts it to the extent that would make the billions of Christians dis-believe in it.

[burntgorilla]

What dating method is used to date these ice layers?



Counting them....



Likewise you are still blinded to even thinking the Bible may be remotely true. Point proven, you are basically saying the Bible is wrong and I need to admit it.
The Bible might be true. The evidence is not in its favour, but there's still a chance. I'm not telling you that the Bible is false, I'm telling you that there is a possibility that it is false.


I know, no outside sources at all, it is simply because it says it is and nothing contradicts it to the extent that would make the billions of Christians dis-believe in it.

So, every other religious text is correct in the same way as the Bible?

[Dangerrmouse]

the billions of Christians dis-believe in it.

Would you eat rotting meat? Billions of flies do, so it must be good.

[sub_zer0]

Counting them....

Are you kidding me? You don't realize how many assumption and unprovable things neeed to be in mind to just cound layers and say they were billions of years. How scientific of them! lol.

The Bible might be true. The evidence is not in its favour, but there's still a chance. I'm not telling you that the Bible is false, I'm telling you that there is a possibility that it is false.

What evidence is not in its favor?

So, every other religious text is correct in the same way as the Bible?

If it says exactly what the Bible says, if not when compared to the Bible they are false. It is simply a presupposition I am willing to take.

Would you eat rotting meat? Billions of flies do, so it must be good.

That wasn't my point.

[JoeR]

Are you kidding me? You don't realize how many assumption and unprovable things neeed to be in mind to just cound layers and say they were billions of years. How scientific of them! lol.

You count the annual layers.

[heel31ok]

Are you trying to tell me that logic doesn't have anything to do with scientific investigation? The way you say "especially in regards to..." implies that you think the same of the rest of scientific investigation. I honestly cannot believe you're claiming that. Your mind is warped if you think that scientific investigation is less logical than biblical science....
Yeah,"I am not going to stand here and let you bad mouth the United states of America."

[Meek Heir]

How about this complete failure of a thread?

I've changed my mind, only talk about Creation and Evolution, have the same arguements you have in the other five threads. Don't talk about Abiogenesis at all.

[sub_zer0]

How about this complete failure of a thread?

I've changed my mind, only talk about Creation and Evolution, have the same arguements you have in the other five threads. Don't talk about Abiogenesis at all.

I've said my two cents. It isn't and has never been scientifically observed, no reason to look any further into it.

[steveksux]

I've said my two cents. It isn't and has never been scientifically observed, no reason to look any further into it.WAell, that's another lie. If you were into speaking the truth, you would have said "Its not in the bible, so there's no reason to scientifically look into it.

You're not interested in "Scientifically observed" as you keep ignoring all sorts of scientifically observed evidence when it contradicts your twisted interpretation of the bible.

Funny the Catholic church has no issue with evolution and they're using the same bible. :lol:

Randy

[burntgorilla]

How about this complete failure of a thread?

I've changed my mind, only talk about Creation and Evolution, have the same arguements you have in the other five threads. Don't talk about Abiogenesis at all.

Apologies for that, I'm responsible for taking it off course. I'll ignore sub's comments, since JoeR made the response I was going to anyway.

So, abiogenesis. What is there against it, really? I must admit it's not a topic I really know a lot about.

[FlyingGuineapig]

The issue w/ abiogenesis, from a scientific standpoint, is it's been tough to prove. Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey demonstrated being able to form amino-acids from purely chemical/electrical processes (i.e. going from inorganic to organic matter). I think the article initially cited talks about being able to produce RNA. Important steps, but not there yet.

Anti-abiogenesists argue (usually using a lot of incorrect math) that even with being able to produce organic matter from inorganic matter, the odds of it resulting in life are on the order of 10^24 to 10^50. But on a primordial earth, you've got the equivalent of a billion square miles of lab space with experiments running 24x7 for millions of years (which starts putting you in the 10^24 range) - you're not going to be able to reproduce that, except through computer simulation, or using another planet (which makes microbes on Mars really interesting. :) )

Computer simulation results are pretty handy, but not going to convince skeptics.

Personally, the notion of "creating life" gets a little too close to "Thou Shalt Not Play in God's Domain" (from Frankenstein, not the Bible :) ). I'm just not interested in going there, and I don't see much value there (whereas genetic engineering has a ton of value, but again, sees to be starting to venture a bit into the "Do we really know what we're doing" area.

Of course, I do kind of wonder what's going to happen (from a controversary standpoint) if the remains of microbes (or something larger) do get discovered on Mars.

[Meek Heir]

I've said my two cents. It isn't and has never been scientifically observed, no reason to look any further into it.

Actually, I'm going to say "Thank you for trying." As regards your link to the site nominally about Abiogenisis. Despite the title they never seemed to talk about it much, or even demonstrate competent knowledge of what the theory is. Mostly they just skipped straight to talking about evolution.

Now as to your point. Firstly, you can admit that the genisis of life is something that we would not be able to view. So therefore we should look for evidence of it possibly occuring and compare that with evidence for it not occuring? That is what I want to discuss. For example the formation of RNA inside a protective membrane would allow it to continue to exist while waiting for more elements to be added.