Abiogenesis

Author: Goldtop

Posts

Total: 334
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
1
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
1
2
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's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Goldtop
??

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


Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
It is possible that abiogenesis is true (I don't know).

It doesn't look like science to me.
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@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's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
1
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
1
2
-->
@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's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
1
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
1
2
-->
@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's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Goldtop
I don't see a scientific method being followed.

ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@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's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@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's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@ethang5
The alternative to abiogenisis is to say that life always existed, forever. Even creation ex nihilo is a form of abiogenisis.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@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's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
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's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,211
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
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's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 123
0
1
5
ravensjt's avatar
ravensjt
0
1
5
-->
@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's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
1
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
1
2
-->
@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's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
1
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
1
2
-->
@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's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
1
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
1
2
-->
@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's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
1
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
1
2
-->
@IlDiavolo
I think this hypothesis comes along with the evolution theory, mere spectulations.

No, they are both facts that science has uncovered.
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
1
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
1
2
-->
@ethang5
We don't pick and choose science.
Yet, that's exactly what you and your other Creationist buddies are doing.

ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@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's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
1
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
1
2
-->
@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's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@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's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@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's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@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's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@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.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Goldtop
No one asked you to post your ignorance of science here,....
Someone obviously asked you.

You should have declined.



Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
1
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
1
2
-->
@ethang5
And both of us agree faith is normal, it just should not be presented as science.

You should tell that to the army of scientists working on the research. They'll all just laugh in your face, of course.
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
1
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
1
2
-->
@ethang5
Someone obviously asked you.

You should have declined.

I'm talking science, no one knows why you're here denying science. It's baffling why someone would go to the trouble of doing so only to make themselves look the fool.
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
1
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
1
2
-->
@ethang5
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.
Lying about it only makes your position of ignorance much worse.

Of course, this science will continue long after we're both gone. Your children's children will accept it as fact as the details roll out. They'll look back and laugh at you.

ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@drafterman
There is no scientific theory that suggests that life has always exists. We're talking about science, right?
You are now trying to ooze to "life always existing". Defend your claim. Abiogenesis has no scientific evidence at all. None. Theories do not mean the idea is true.

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.
This is not evidence. It's inductive logic. And it is poor thinking. Namely your, "Ergo life had to arise from non-life:" it does not necessarily follow from the premise. Worse, there is no scientific evidence to support it. None.

I mentioned that creation Ex Nihilo is a form of abiogenesis. You said you didn't see how.
That is a lie. You said, "Science leads to abiogenesis" I said science does not lead to abiogenesis. Dishonesty will not help your position.

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.
So you then assume it HAS happened? Since you likewise can't disprove God, do you believe He exists? No? Hypocrite much?

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

Yep. And?
The Gentle Readers who have not had their thinking crippled by anti-theism will know.

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.
Why? You have not established it can happen. Or has ever happened. You are looking for what isn't science. Fantasy. Since there is no evidence for it whatsoever, why are you looking? Especially when science has given you a consistent answer for the last 6,000 years?

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.
Illogical. We are talking about both. At least we do know fusion can occur. You have no such proof for abiogenesis. What is it that makes you think it can happen? It must be faith, because there is no scientific reason at all. None.