Abiogenesis anyone?

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

I remember reading about some propositions regarding extra-terrestrial elements bonding with earth materials. Can't remember the source right now. Will have to see if I can find it.

Are you referring to phosphorus? Of the 5 key elements necessary for life,.. it is in the shortest supply. A recent paper proposed that the P was brought to the early Earth in meteorites. I'll try to find that article and post a link to it.

 

http://www.astrobio.net/news/article1155.html

[wisdumn]

it's simple, i researched for some information to show the improbability of abiogenesis, telemad says it isn't true, at least he rebutals with some logic whether it be factual or not. i'm trying to stick to the thread and the information i furnished is again, from borel's law, not my own pulling it out of my butt.

unc.M, again if you want to talk creation, like irish said this is not the thread, and NO! i will not in this thread try to prove the probability of creation, it is not in place here, you and FT come up with some evidence about or pertaining to abiogenesis for the thread. all you two do is ask for some evidence, when someone attempts to provide that evidence, if the evidence is not in support of what you believe then you attack that person and CLAIM that the evidence they provided is not substantial. FT you cannot decide which mathematical formulas are and are not, those are mathematical formulas proposed by real scientist, not me, try providing evidence instead of slander. and no , i don't get your little saying about the cat in the box, maybe that's some ancient analogy before my time and i will re-assert that FT and unc.M neither one really provide evidence for their claims, they just yell at everyone else for supposedly not doing it. Telemad, thank you for your insight, i will investigate it, at least you know how to talk and not attack.

[wisdumn]

hey irish, i answered one question for unc.M about the probability of creation as opposed to the probability of abiogenesis and then i promptly steered right back to abiogenesis. i believe FT and unc.M are the gentlemen trying to avoid the topic of this thread.

[wisdumn]

this is one more post before i go on vacation for a week. let's see if this makes logical sense to anyone.

ABIOGENESIS: i mean, when you use this term you're describing LIFE coming from NON-LIVING organisms

we all know that happens everyday.

have fun deducing that rationale and i'll see everyone in about a week. -wisdumn

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: wisdumn

>presently> the theory of evolution has no solid foundation. the stool has yet to be able to stand.maybe it will learn to stand on faith, and not  >science<

Do you still claim that you have not brought your creationist beliefs to this thead? "Stand on faith, not science"? What exactly are you referring to if not creation? Your posts have implied,... sometimes directly, others indirectly, that abiogenesis is less probable than creation. If that was not your intent then say so. Tell us that creation is not more probable. Otherwise provide the probability. THE NUMBERS that you creationists are so eager to spout when refuting a natural origin of life and evolution must be equally valid and available for your counter proposal.

 

PLEASE provide them.

 

Betcha can't do it!!!!

 

Yep!! I gotcha now. Best put your tail twixted your legs and get thee to bible study.

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: wisdumn

hey irish, i answered one question for unc.M about the probability of creation as opposed to the probability of abiogenesis and then i promptly steered right back to abiogenesis.

Irish will not save you here.

i believe FT and unc.M are the gentlemen trying to avoid the topic of this thread.

We have stated what we know. I clearly stated that at present what we don't know outweighs that which we do know. How can anyone expect this thread not to delve into creationism? It is the most often cited rebuttal!!! Be realistic if not intelligent. "I don't know" is an honest answer. You have yet to answer any question put to you. You "think" you have,... but in reality you have spouted nothing but gibberish.

 

Please go back and read every post,... I mean actually TRY to understand what was asked. Then answer just ONE question that has been asked of you.

 

I would truly appreciate a little effort on your part.

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

If it's ok to keep asking questions, then why is it a problem if one of those quesitons is "If life didn't come from a god, where did life come from?"

Does everyone see how loaded this question is? And I think it was totally innocent. This type of thing happens so often that few even take notice. The way to phrase the question without being leading is simply "Where did life come from?" Or " What is the origin of life?"

It almost seems like we're back to that line in the sand, where it's ok to question things, up to a certain point, but not if it brings into question any scientific theories that aren't actually fully understood yet.

I think it is good to question everything. When the question challenges science using god as an alternative ,..... be prepared for the answers you get. Science questions abiogenesis daily BECAUSE there is so much that is not understood. Perhaps this process will lead to a better understanding.

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: wisdumn

the probability is much higher for creation,.....

I guess nobody should expect wiz to back this up. The garbage is spouted so often that most have grown weary of asking for evidence. My asking for the probability is not only justified,.... his not providing it is in direct violation of the rules in the FAQ. Wiz,... provide evidence for your claim,... or admit that you can't. Otherwise I'll have little choice but to get Irish to ban you for violating the rules, re: not providing evidence to back your claims.

i would like to see how many things can be named that come from nothing.

The universe is one, if the quantum fluctuation theory is correct. Your god is another thing that would have had to come from nothing. -1 + 1 = 0, so it is equal to say that 0 = 1 + -1. To the best of my understanding, particle/anti-particle pairs are created from nothing but vacuum.

 

But once again you are avoiding the question by asking other unrelated questions. Abiogenesis deals with life arising from natural elements,... not from nothing. Please try to understand the question before responding!!

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: wisdumn

this is one more post before i go on vacation for a week.

Yeah,.... sure, just run away when things get too confusing for your limited intellect.

let's see if this makes logical sense to anyone.

No one other than you I'd say.

ABIOGENESIS: i mean, when you use this term you're describing LIFE coming from NON-LIVING organisms 

WRONG!!!. You see? Once again you don't even understand the question,... yet get confused when we try to clarify things for you. What you have just stated is bringing a dead organism back to life. Abiogenesis is the formation of a living thing, something that metabolizes and reproduces, and evolves,... from the natural combining of naturally occurring elements and or compounds.

we all know that happens everyday.

Once an organism is dead, life has never been restored. Dead is, so far, a permanent condition. So,... NO!!! This does not happen everyday! Abiogenesis only had to occur once, and not necessarily on Earth. But the fact that I am here to respond to your nonsense is proof that it has occurred.

have fun deducing that rationale and i'll see everyone in about a week. -wisdumn

Now I'M confused. WHERE IS THIS RATIONALE? I see none in any of the posts you have submitted to this thread.

[IrishEyes]

Does everyone see how loaded this question is? And I think it was totally innocent. This type of thing happens so often that few even take notice. The way to phrase the question without being leading is simply "Where did life come from?" Or " What is the origin of life?"

 

Unc, Tormod already metnioned that, but thanks so much for your response. A simple, "I don't think of the question that way" would have been fine.

 

You are correct in that it was not intentional. I was simply expressing MY question. When I question MY beliefs, as I do on a fairly regular basis, I generally start by asking myself "If there isn't a God, and most of what I believe is bull, then WHAT is the truth? How did *I* end up here?" (Understanding that the *I* does not mean I'm asking for an explanation of physical birth, but the broader question of 'how did people come into existence?')

 

Looking at it from MY perspective, the question is neither leading, nor stated incorrectly. Whether or not you can think of a better way to phrase the question for YOU was not my intent. But again, thanks for your input.

[IrishEyes]

I think it is good to question everything. When the question challenges science using god as an alternative ,..... be prepared for the answers you get. Science questions abiogenesis daily BECAUSE there is so much that is not understood. Perhaps this process will lead to a better understanding.

 

I don't think that I challenge science using God as the alternative. I think that I question God using science as the alternative. We are coming at the question from different angles, I guess. Basically, you start off at the assumption that there is no God, and that science will supply your answers, or that you can accept "I don't know" as an answer. You see no need to 'invent' an answer in the form of a God. I start off at the assumption that there is a God, but if I'm wrong, then what is the true explanation for everything in the world.

 

I really did not want to go into this arena for this particular discussion. I wanted it to be about discovering some of the differing views of abiognesis. I'm not trying to say that abiogenesis is WRONG, or that it NEVER HAPPENED. I'm not trying to come to any conclusions in this thread. I'm just asking for some opinions on the way that you feel best represents what could have happened. I didn't mean this as an alternative to "In the beginning", or to imply that you are all wrong because none of it is provable.

 

In all honesty, I wish that the daily questioning of abiogenesis WOULD lead to some more definitive answers, even if those answers supported abiogenesis and ruled out an outside agent for creation (God). At least that would put an end to some of the questions.

[IrishEyes]

"I don't know" is an honest answer.

 

I couldn't agree with you more on this point. What I fail to understand is why "I don't know" is ok for some people, but not ok for others. You have said in this thread, and in others, that you are not afraid to admit when you don't know something, I think that's a very admirable trait. So if it's ok for YOU to admit that you don't know something, but that someone else may have those answers, or that we as a race might discover the answers at some point in the future, why is it wrong if *I* admit that I don't understand everything about the nature of God? If you ask me a question, and I admit to not knowing the answer or being able to explain things in a way that you will accept as valid, is it really fair for you to then say "See, you DON"T KNOW! How can you claim to know about God when you don't even know the answer to my question" (please understand that this is not a direct or indirect quote, it is just a hypothetical.)

[Uncle Martin]

The above is a very good point that deserves a well thought out response. I must get some sleep now, but will consider this and reply when I am able. Very interesting food for thought!

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

"I don't know" is an honest answer.

 

What I fail to understand is why "I don't know" is ok for some people, but not ok for others.

 

Well I don't know. It is a very good point and I think it ties neatly in with our always ongoing discussions about proof, beliefs, and right thinking.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: wisdumn

this is one more post before i go on vacation for a week. let's see if this makes logical sense to anyone.

ABIOGENESIS: i mean, when you use this term you're describing LIFE coming from NON-LIVING organisms

we all know that happens everyday.

Your right, It happens every day. So where is the problem? YOU just proved that Abiogenesisis 100% probable and on a daily basis.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

When I question MY beliefs, as I do on a fairly regular basis, I generally start by asking myself "If there isn't a God, and most of what I believe is bull, then WHAT is the truth? How did *I* end up here?"

 

Looking at it from MY perspective, the question is neither leading, nor stated incorrectly. Whether or not you can think of a better way to phrase the question for YOU was not my intent. But again, thanks for your input.

Well Irish. perhaps if we look at it from " YOUR perspective" it would be "neither leading, nor stated incorrectly". But it IS incorrectly stated. It is just one more of the fallacies so often resorted to by Christers.

"If there isn't a God..."

Petitio principii / Begging the question

 

This fallacy occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as the conclusion reached. Typically the premises of the argument implicitly assume the result which the argument purports to prove, in a disguised form.

 

As Unc identified, it is a loaded question. You are requiring an apprioi acceptance that there IS or most like IS a god. That that is the defacto starting point only to be challenged if some OTHER stance can be determined.

 

An intellectually honest approach, one lacking a fallacy just drops such nosense until there is VALID PROOF to even assert a god in the first place. NOT as a foundation to require disproof.

 

Are you free to choose to start your thought processa with a fallacy? Sure, But don't pretend it is valid and "neither leading, nor stated incorrectly".

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

I don't think that I challenge science using God as the alternative. I think that I question God using science as the alternative. We are coming at the question from different angles, I guess. Basically, you start off at the assumption that there is no God, and that science will supply your answers,

Wrong. We start WITHOUT ANY preconceptions. If a god based proposition became apparent in and of itself, then it would be part of the evaluation process. It is NOT correct to start with the existence of a god as a preconception whether it is to include or disallow it.. It should not enter into the discussion until it would be identified by itself to be a valid supposition in the particular proposition.

 

e.g. if nature fails to explain itself, then some extra-natural explanation needs to be sought out. NOT before.

I start off at the assumption that there is a God,

And that is a major Fallacy. It will ALWAYS stop you from reasoned, logical thinking.

but if I'm wrong, then what is the true explanation for everything in the world.

It EXISTS. What other "explanation" are you looking for?

I wish that the daily questioning of abiogenesis WOULD lead to some more definitive answers, even if those answers supported abiogenesis and ruled out an outside agent for creation (God). At least that would put an end to some of the questions.

So if we can not PROVE abiogenesis in the next few days, right here in this thread, then GOD does exist?