Abiogenesis

Author: Goldtop ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 334
  • Goldtop
    Goldtop avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,713
    2
    1
    2
    Goldtop avatar
    Goldtop
    The earliest known life-forms on Earth are putative fossilized microorganisms, found in hydrothermal vent precipitates, that may have lived as early as 4.28 billion years ago, relatively soon after the oceans formed 4.41 billion years ago, and not long after the formation of the Earth 4.54 billion years ago.
    Is there any question that abiogenesis isn't true?

  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 4,457
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @Goldtop
    ??

    How is this related to abiogenesis? How does it indicate abiogenesis?


  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,309
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    It is possible that abiogenesis is true (I don't know).

    It doesn't look like science to me.
  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 4,706
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @Goldtop
    Well, even theists accept abiogenesis (which simply means life from non-life); the issue is whether it happened naturally or through magic. There is no evidence that the process would require magic (and magic doesn't exist) ergo no reason to assume it.

    But, the search for the exact details continues.
  • Goldtop
    Goldtop avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,713
    2
    1
    2
    Goldtop avatar
    Goldtop
    --> @drafterman
    Exactly, the key word being "details". The process seems simple enough, oceans and heat, either from the vents on the bottom of the ocean or the sun. Most likely, life has sprung from any number of planets with similar characteristics, probably many millions of them in our galaxy alone.
  • Goldtop
    Goldtop avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,713
    2
    1
    2
    Goldtop avatar
    Goldtop
    --> @ethang5 @Mopac
    How is this related to abiogenesis? How does it indicate abiogenesis?

    It doesn't look like science to me.

    Just look at the two of you, couple of sad sacks stumbling into the Science forum illuminating it with dim bulbs.

    Maybe you can both educate yourselves on what science is so you might sound somewhat intelligent.

    I'll try and wait.
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,309
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @Goldtop
    I don't see a scientific method being followed.

  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 4,457
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @Goldtop
    We've been through this Goldy. Basically you assume abiogenesis and then call that science. If you had logical thinking and evidence, you would not need insults.

    D-man's false dichotomy of "natural or magic" is just that, a silly assumption pre-assumed to a point.

    I know what the scientific method is, and it isn't having no examples, no evidence, and assuming because "nothing else" could be possible.

    When you have one bit of scientific evidence for abiogenesis. Please present it. Hint: your OP is not evidence of anything other than your poor grasp of science. You follow the crowd but haven't a clue of what you follow.

    We will wait. Go ahead and get all the insults out of your system. That may stall the realization you have no evidence whatsoever, and make you feel emotionally like a winner.
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 4,457
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @drafterman
    Well, even theists accept abiogenesis (which simply means life from non-life);
    That is not just untrue, it is illogical. And I certainly don't accept it.

    It seems to me you should address the illogical, evident-less, gibberish you "accept" rather than speculating on what theists believe.

    Feel free to help out your friend and present any scientific evidence for abiogenesis you can find. I know from experience that he comes with only insults when asked for evidence of abiogenesis. He even dodged the simple question to his O.P.

    Sure, collude with him. We'll wait.
  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 4,706
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @ethang5
    The alternative to abiogenisis is to say that life always existed, forever. Even creation ex nihilo is a form of abiogenisis.
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 4,457
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @drafterman
    The alternative to abiogenisis is to say that life always existed, forever.
    We don't pick and choose science. Real science goes where the truth is. Believing something because you assume there is no alternative is voodoo, not science.

    If one of the alternatives to abiogenesis is to say that life always existed, forever, so what? There have been theories that stipulate the universe has always existed. We go where the science leads, we do not choose it's destination.

    Even creation ex nihilo is a form of abiogenisis.
    I don't see how. In 6,000 years of recorded human history, there has NEVER been a single instance of abiogenesis. Not a single one. NEVER. Every single time life has started, it has come from previous life.

    Every single experiment trying to simulate early Earth conditions, or set up conditions for abiogenesis, to see if life can start spontaneously, has failed miserably. All of them.

    Abiogenesis is a bankrupt idea. No science backs it up. None.
  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 4,706
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    If one of the alternatives to abiogenesis is to say that life always existed, forever, so what? There have been theories that stipulate the universe has always existed. We go where the science leads, we do not choose it's destination.
    Science leads to abiogenesis.

    I don't see how.
    Abiogenesis means "life from non-life". Creation Ex Nihilo means "creation from nothing." Nothing is non-life. Creation is life. Creation Ex Nihilo is a form of "life from non-life."

    In 6,000 years of recorded human history, there has NEVER been a single instance of abiogenesis. Not a single one. NEVER. Every single time life has started, it has come from previous life.
    Simply put, we don't know that. There certainly hasn't been a recorded instance of abiogenesis, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening. I'm not sure what relevance this has. At some point, the planet didn't have life. At another, it did. The reasonable conclusion is that life arose, somehow, from non-life. The details are still being worked out.

    Every single experiment trying to simulate early Earth conditions, or set up conditions for abiogenesis, to see if life can start spontaneously, has failed miserably. All of them.
    The same could be said for sustainable fusion. I guess fusion doesn't exist either.

  • IlDiavolo
    IlDiavolo avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 305
    1
    1
    4
    IlDiavolo avatar
    IlDiavolo
    It is not true nor false. It is just a hypothesis prone to speculation.

    I think this hypothesis comes along with the evolution theory, mere spectulations.
  • ravensjt
    ravensjt avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 123
    0
    1
    4
    ravensjt avatar
    ravensjt
    --> @ethang5
    I don't see how. In 6,000 years of recorded human history, there has NEVER been a single instance of abiogenesis. Not a single one. NEVER. Every single time life has started, it has come from previous life.

    Every single experiment trying to simulate early Earth conditions, or set up conditions for abiogenesis, to see if life can start spontaneously, has failed miserably. All of them

    This^^


    To believe in Abiogenesis and then worse yet to call it Science seems to be a claim of faith

    The exact thing that Atheists ridicule Theists over

  • Goldtop
    Goldtop avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,713
    2
    1
    2
    Goldtop avatar
    Goldtop
    --> @ethang5
    You have proven time and again you know nothing about science, go educate yourself so you might sound intelligent. This is not an insult, it is the truth.
  • Goldtop
    Goldtop avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,713
    2
    1
    2
    Goldtop avatar
    Goldtop
    --> @ethang5
    . He even dodged the simple question to his O.P.
    As usual, ethan lies. Your ignorance of science is not my problem. Educate yourself.

  • Goldtop
    Goldtop avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,713
    2
    1
    2
    Goldtop avatar
    Goldtop
    --> @ravensjt
    To believe in Abiogenesis and then worse yet to call it Science seems to be a claim of faith
    Yet, it is science with real scientists doing research. I suppose you're yet another one requiring a great deal of education on what science is. Please do educate yourself so you sound somewhat intelligent.

  • Goldtop
    Goldtop avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,713
    2
    1
    2
    Goldtop avatar
    Goldtop
    --> @IlDiavolo
    I think this hypothesis comes along with the evolution theory, mere spectulations.

    No, they are both facts that science has uncovered.
  • Goldtop
    Goldtop avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,713
    2
    1
    2
    Goldtop avatar
    Goldtop
    --> @ethang5
    We don't pick and choose science.
    Yet, that's exactly what you and your other Creationist buddies are doing.

  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 4,457
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @Goldtop
    Goldy, when you have some thing other than empty assertion and insult, post it. In the main time, let the adults talk.
  • Goldtop
    Goldtop avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,713
    2
    1
    2
    Goldtop avatar
    Goldtop
    --> @ethang5
    No one asked you to post your ignorance of science here, you did that entirely on your own. Not my problem. Go and educate yourself so you sound somewhat intelligent.
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 4,457
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @drafterman
    If one of the alternatives to abiogenesis is to say that life always existed, forever, so what? There have been theories that stipulate the universe has always existed. We go where the science leads, we do not choose it's destination.

    Science leads to abiogenesis.
    Lol. Without one scrap of evidence? When you wake up, look up real science.

    Abiogenesis means "life from non-life". Creation Ex Nihilo means "creation from nothing." Nothing is non-life. Creation is life. Creation Ex Nihilo is a form of "life from non-life."
    Then go debate the people who ascribe to creation Ex Nihilo. I have never used the term. Argue against what my argument is, not what you try to set it as.

    Every single time life has started, it has come from previous life.

    Simply put, we don't know that.
    Untrue. We do know that. You may not want to admit it, but science is not by preference.

    There certainly hasn't been a recorded instance of abiogenesis,.....
    Ever. Since records began. Anywhere. In any experiment. Any lab. Any farm. Anywhere.

    ....but that doesn't mean it isn't happening.
    Lol, OK. There is no scientific mechanism for abiogenesis. It has NEVER been known to happen. No science supports it. But that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

    Every single experiment trying to simulate early Earth conditions, or set up conditions for abiogenesis, to see if life can start spontaneously, has failed miserably. All of them.

    The same could be said for sustainable fusion. I guess fusion doesn't exist either.
    Untrue. Unlike abiogenesis, there are instances in nature of sustainable fusion. Lets not add dishonesty to our ignorance of science OK? There is no instance of abiogenesis anywhere. None.
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 4,457
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @ravensjt
    To believe in Abiogenesis and then worse yet to call it Science seems to be a claim of faith

    The exact thing that Atheists ridicule Theists over
    Thank you.

    And both of us agree faith is normal, it just should not be presented as science.


  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 4,706
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @ethang5
    If one of the alternatives to abiogenesis is to say that life always existed, forever, so what? There have been theories that stipulate the universe has always existed. We go where the science leads, we do not choose it's destination.
    There is no scientific theory that suggests that life has always exists. We're talking about science, right?

    Lol. Without one scrap of evidence? When you wake up, look up real science.
    Plenty of scraps. At some point in Earth's history there wasn't life. At some point there was. Ergo life had to arise from non-life: abiogenesis. We're just working on the details.

    Then go debate the people who ascribe to creation Ex Nihilo. I have never used the term. Argue against what my argument is, not what you try to set it as.
    I mentioned that creation Ex Nihilo is a form of abiogenesis. You said you didn't see how. I explained how. If you didn't want the explanation, why did you ask for one?

    Untrue. We do know that. You may not want to admit it, but science is not by preference.
    The only way to confirm that abiogenesis never happens in nature would be to have complete knowledge of everything going on in nature. No one has that.

    Ever. Since records began. Anywhere. In any experiment. Any lab. Any farm. Anywhere.
    Yep. And?

    Lol, OK. There is no scientific mechanism for abiogenesis. It has NEVER been known to happen. No science supports it. But that doesn't mean it isn't happening.
    You are correct in that we have not figured out the exact scientific mechanisms under which abiogenesis happened. We're still looking.

    Untrue. Unlike abiogenesis, there are instances in nature of sustainable fusion. Lets not add dishonesty to our ignorance of science OK? There is no instance of abiogenesis anywhere. None.
    We weren't talking about "instances in nature" we were talking about in experiments. No experiment has set up sustained fusion. Ergo, according to your logic, fusion is impossible.
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 4,457
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @IlDiavolo
    It is not true nor false. It is just a hypothesis prone to speculation.

    I think this hypothesis comes along with the evolution theory, mere spectulations.
    Thank you. 

    But for how long will they hold on to this groundless speculation? In 6,000 years there has been no evidence, and no instance in nature or the lab. Not one instance in recorded human history. Why?

    It's baseless speculation. It certainly isn't science.