It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Abiogenesis - The Impossible Theoretical Miracle

page: 24
30
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: EasternShadow

We can't tell how complex the original life is based on the fossils. That only gives an idea of the basic structure, there is no way to analyze it internally or compare it to Coop's diagram of a modern flagellum. We can't get DNA or genetic info from stuff that old.



We do know what make the bulk of living matter.

These are carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur—the elemental macronutrients for all organisms— or CHNOPS. Together these make up nucleic acids, proteins and lipids.

Abiogenesis has to explain evolution mechanism for all this components in accordance to Earth short time frame - which is impossible.




posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: EasternShadow

If you can't explain how the magic works, then we are back to abiogenesis.

Magic already explain in religious scripture. I'm sure you are not interested.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: EasternShadow
The age of Earth doesnt give enough time frame for primordial soup to gradually evolve into primitive single cell life. We have data about the age of Earth versus the age of the oldest known micro-fossil.


And how exactly do you know how much time is enough time for that?





Because science don't believe in magic, then there is another hypothesis.

It is called Panspermia.
Source en.wikipedia.org...

Technically Panspermia relies on alien microscopic life based origin - distributed by space dust. But hey, it's science hypothesis too. And it doesnt conflict with the Bible genesis.


Panspermia is just one hypothesis among many, but even if life formed in space and came to earth via asteroid or comet, it still has to form for the first time regardless, so it's not an alternative to abiogenesis, it's one part of it that may or may not contribute.


One question for evolution. Do you evolutionist actually believe a primitive single cell micro-organism is capable to evolve into a 10 feet 60 kg Nyasasaurus parringtoni ( oldest known dinosaur circa 250 million years ago )? I'm Just curios.


Evolutionist? Sorry but evolutionism died in the early 1900s. Faith is not needed in evolution. Plus that's a bit of a straw man, nobody says a single celled organism suddenly turned into a dinosaur. There are tons of intermediary steps, including the formation of the first multi-celled life which in turn led to the emergence of the various phyla and kingdoms, which caused the Cambrian explosion 500mya. Prior to that single celled organisms had 2 billion years to evolve.


Abiogenesis has to explain evolution mechanism for all this components in accordance to Earth short time frame - which is impossible.


What? Why would abiogenesis explain evolution mechanisms? They are completely different processes.


Magic already explain in religious scripture. I'm sure you are not interested.


CLAIMED, not explained.


edit on 12 13 18 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 03:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
And how exactly do you know how much time is enough time for that?

Exactly I dont. But I know abiogenisis reliance on evolution slow gradual changes is way too slow for nucleic acids, proteins and lipids to form into most basic primitive microbial - If it is even possible. So far there is no experiments successfully chain amino acids into protein alone BY CHANCE. Not to mention Abiogenises ASSUME early Earth is rich with primordial soup

- But soup has no capacity for producing the energy vital for life.
Source: www.wiley.com...


originally posted by: Barcs
Panspermia is just one hypothesis among many, but even if life formed in space and came to earth via asteroid or comet, it still has to form for the first time regardless, so it's not an alternative to abiogenesis, it's one part of it that may or may not contribute.

It doesnt claim life form from prebiotic soup.


originally posted by: Barcs
Evolutionist? Sorry but evolutionism died in the early 1900s. Faith is not needed in evolution. Plus that's a bit of a straw man, nobody says a single celled organism suddenly turned into a dinosaur. There are tons of intermediary steps, including the formation of the first multi-celled life which in turn led to the emergence of the various phyla and kingdoms, which caused the Cambrian explosion 500mya. Prior to that single celled organisms had 2 billion years to evolve.

So you are saying a single cell organism is capable to evolve into a dinosaur over a period of 2 billion years?



No offence. I'm just asking.



originally posted by: Barcs
What? Why would abiogenesis explain evolution mechanisms? They are completely different processes.

Sure they are completely different process. One claim life originated from soup which changes over. The other only limited to changes over pre-existing life.

Still, Soup has to change into single cell micro organism, right? The question is how?


originally posted by: Barcs
CLAIMED, not explained.

You dont need testable verified and repeatable observable evidence to explain something.



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 07:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
Faith is not needed in evolution.


Evolutionists require faith that genetic mutation could have created the duality of the sexes, create novel organs, create novel genes with new functions without ruining the old function of the gene, organize and make improvements to morphology, make 100s of thousands of mutations without disrupting the organism while an inert gene gets added to (see titin protein), etc, etc, etc, all are mechanisms that we have no discovered and therefore have to take on faith regarding how it happened.

You believe evolution did it, I believe there was a necessary intelligent agent that designed it. Faith is required for both, but the intelligent properties of the creation lead me to believe intelligence was required, and the insurmountable leaps of complexity lead me to believe there could not have been a mutative piece-by-piece addition to function that could have managed such a meticulous interdependent physiology exhibited in organisms.



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: EasternShadow

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: EasternShadow

If you can't explain how the magic works, then we are back to abiogenesis.

Magic already explain in religious scripture. I'm sure you are not interested.


No its not. "This happened because god". No explanation or diagrams or recipe. Not a single example of thoroughly analyzed and measured divine meddling that displays explicit record of intelligent supernatural activity.



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton




You believe evolution did it, I believe there was a necessary intelligent agent that designed it. Faith is required for both, but the intelligent properties of the creation lead me to believe intelligence was required, and the insurmountable leaps of complexity lead me to believe there could not have been a mutative piece-by-piece addition to function that could have managed such a meticulous interdependent physiology exhibited in organisms.


It doesn't bother me that you believe in a creator, it bothers me that you couldn't find a better god to put your faith in. There are literally hundreds in human history and you picked the Hitler of theology to love and admire.



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: EasternShadow
Exactly I dont. But I know abiogenisis reliance on evolution slow gradual changes is way too slow for nucleic acids, proteins and lipids to form into most basic primitive microbial - If it is even possible. So far there is no experiments successfully chain amino acids into protein alone BY CHANCE. Not to mention Abiogenises ASSUME early Earth is rich with primordial soup


Abiogenesis does not rely on evolution. Evolution cannot happen until life is already there. And you are wrong there are multiple experiments, and I already posted a great video on this a few pages back that lists specific experiments that show amino acids and similar molecules increasing their complexity over time. Chemical reactions is not CHANCE.



- But soup has no capacity for producing the energy vital for life.
Source: www.wiley.com...


Again, primordial soup is one hypothesis among many. Where is the research paper that this website is referring to?


It doesnt claim life form from prebiotic soup.


Wrong. It could have. Impact events on other planets can send debris into space. If it formed in some kind of "soup" on another planet, which had an impact and sent that into space and landed on earth, both could be true.


So you are saying a single cell organism is capable to evolve into a dinosaur over a period of 2 billion years?


Yes. Do you think it is not capable? If so, can you demonstrate that?


Sure they are completely different process. One claim life originated from soup which changes over. The other only limited to changes over pre-existing life. Still, Soup has to change into single cell micro organism, right? The question is how?


Go watch the video I posted. Hypotheses are not CLAIMS, they are works in progress. Evolution is genetic mutation and natural selection. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with that.



You dont need testable verified and repeatable observable evidence to explain something.


A claim without evidence is just a claim. That's like saying I have an explanation for the big bang, that the universe rides on the back of a turtle. Literally nothing is explained by that, it's a guess.


edit on 12 14 18 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
Evolutionists require faith that genetic mutation could have created the duality of the sexes, create novel organs, create novel genes with new functions without ruining the old function of the gene, organize and make improvements to morphology, make 100s of thousands of mutations without disrupting the organism while an inert gene gets added to (see titin protein), etc, etc, etc, all are mechanisms that we have no discovered and therefore have to take on faith regarding how it happened.


Complete nonsense, as usual. Evolution is testable and has been for a while. No faith needed, sorry.


You believe evolution did it, I believe there was a necessary intelligent agent that designed it.


Wrong, I don't place BELIEF in evolution. I accept that the science is valid, because it's been rigorously tested and confirmed. Your gripe about not knowing everything about it isn't valid, sorry.


the intelligent properties of the creation lead me to believe intelligence was required, and the insurmountable leaps of complexity lead me to believe there could not have been a mutative piece-by-piece addition to function that could have managed such a meticulous interdependent physiology exhibited in organisms.


What intelligent properties of creation? That's a complete guess, there aren't any properties that can be measured.

Piece by piece is wrong, I already explained it. You really don't grasp how long 4 billion years is.



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
There are literally hundreds in human history and you picked the Hitler of theology to love and admire.


Jesus was all about altruism, selflessness, love, honesty, mercy, humility, etc. Seems about the opposite of Hitler.


originally posted by: Barcs
You really don't grasp how long 4 billion years is.


And you think you can grasp the timespan of 4 billion years?? Evolution relies on an unimaginable timeframe to work its magic and instill its faith. 'with enough time, anything could have happened'. It's an absurd faith. It is also totally illogical to think that ordered systems like the human being and solar systems could arise at random. It is much, much, much more likely to have been organized by an intelligent force. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but yours is a long shot.



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: turbonium1

I've asked you this before but you never answered: What exactly is your definition of "species"? What factors differentiate a human from other primates and all living things on this planet? If nothing has changed, why does all life look "different"?

I just don't understand what your definitions are. Please take the time to respond. Thanks.



Any one specific life form, that reproduces the same life form, and future generations of that same life form.....would be defined as a 'species'.... to me...

You ask why all of the species 'look different', if 'nothing has changed'?

Nothing would ever need to 'change', because every species was created as that same species, at the very start, and has forever after been the very same species...unless any species becomes extinct, of course.



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: turbonium1
None of the species have changed into another, different species.What is "different from the originals" supposed to mean? That all species are still the same species, but "different from the originals" of the species, is still the same species. Any of the changes in species are only normal adaptation.


You are wrong. They all changed. Go ahead and give me an example of an organism that is the same exact species as it was hundreds of millions of years ago. Good luck with that one. The crocodile today was similar to the crocodile from the past, but it wasn't exactly the same and it wasn't the same species. Look it up.



You've based that on all of your faulty assumptions, which are not valid, in the least.

Any of those extinct species have nothing to do with 'evolving' into any other, living species.

It's easy to point out any similarities in ALL species, which live today, or any species which are now extinct...


You assume if a species is extinct, it changed into another species, over time, somehow, because it shared some DNA, with another species, living today!!

The problem you ignore is the fact that ALL living species share DNA!!

But you insist it is proof, no matter what the facts are.


The fact every species on Earth has been the same species, first day on Earth, and forever after, whether it is living today, or is no longer living on Earth.


Like all tricks, it's based on twisting our perceptions, holding up false assumptions.



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
No its not. "This happened because god". No explanation or diagrams or recipe. Not a single example of thoroughly analyzed and measured divine meddling that displays explicit record of intelligent supernatural activity.

You are asking for Explicit Records, yet you also mentioned divine?

How is it possible?

I would if we have technology to escape death, still conscious enough without mortal brain to thoroughly analyzed and measured explicit records of divine activity. Until then, all i can say that it is not possible.


Because life is energy and it recycles. You will never find the answer to the origin of life unless you are outside the loop. But let assume you are reincarnate of first human, still you will not be able to answer where God come from. Because God is eternity. He always exist. He is the First and the Last. Alpha and Omega. God is neither created nor begotten nor formed by any natural phenomenon . He is the source of everything. The origin of everything.

Energy conservation laws dictate that, Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. This is science language. What more to prove?



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: turbonium1
None of the species have changed into another, different species.What is "different from the originals" supposed to mean? That all species are still the same species, but "different from the originals" of the species, is still the same species. Any of the changes in species are only normal adaptation.


You are wrong. They all changed. Go ahead and give me an example of an organism that is the same exact species as it was hundreds of millions of years ago. Good luck with that one. The crocodile today was similar to the crocodile from the past, but it wasn't exactly the same and it wasn't the same species. Look it up.



You've based that on all of your faulty assumptions, which are not valid, in the least.


So you can support this assertion of faulty assumption with something beyond your own hyperbole laden conjecture and incredulousness then right?



Any of those extinct species have nothing to do with 'evolving' into any other, living species.


Some species simply go extinct. Nobody is claiming that every extinct species has evolved into something else. Yet another straw man argument from the fables of nothing.


It's easy to point out any similarities in ALL species, which live today, or any species which are now extinct...


It is? Please, elucidate us with your vast expertise in all biological organisms. I love learning so enlighten me with
Your vast knowledge.



You assume if a species is extinct, it changed into another species, over time, somehow, because it shared some DNA, with another species, living today!!


No, you are imparting this straw man onto otters because you don’t actually have the ability
To falsify the science so instead you resort to fantastical Gish Galloping. Sometimes a species, genus etc... simply
Goes extinct. It doesn’t mean it has evolved into an entirely new organism just
Because it disappears from the fossil record. That’s a ludicrous statement to make.



The problem you ignore is the fact that ALL living species share DNA!!

But you insist it is proof, no matter what the facts are.


The only ones ignoring facts are those disputing science but not actually being able
To falsify it. It’s quite amusing. Multiple examples have been given. Once again, I’ll bring up Sima de los Huesos near Atapuerca. It’s a deep pit containing some amazingly complete fossilized archaic hominid remains. These remains are distinctly transitional between H. Heidelbergensis and Denisovans. They have for more modern morphological charactristics than they do morphological features consistent with earlier Heidelbergensis remains. Genetically, they’re far more closely related to Denisovans than Neanderthal. How do you account for there being nothing in the fossil or genetic record for a hominid like this at a geologically earlier time frame and nothing like this transitional form later in the geological/ fossil record and only Neanderthal and Denisovan yet no more Heidelbergensis? I’m sure you’ve got an amazing explanation for this with proper citations. Right?’


The fact every species on Earth has been the same species, first day on Earth, and forever after, whether it is living today, or is no longer living on Earth.


That’s not a fact. That’s your personal Belief. Not even remotely the same thing. Please feel free to support your belief with actual facts though.



Like all tricks, it's based on twisting our perceptions, holding up false assumptions.


Sorry but that sounds much more like a strict Abrahamic theological interpretation of things than anything to do with science. Are you sure you’re railing against the correct folks?



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Can't help but wonder if they had two chihuahua on the Ark...


edit on 14-12-2018 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

A++. I just choked on my cigarette laughing at the thought. You’d think they would’ve fed them to some
Pythons or other constrictors. Seriously... what do literalists thinkmtge carnivores ate On the Ark?



posted on Dec, 15 2018 @ 01:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: turbonium1
None of the species have changed into another, different species.What is "different from the originals" supposed to mean? That all species are still the same species, but "different from the originals" of the species, is still the same species. Any of the changes in species are only normal adaptation.


You are wrong. They all changed. Go ahead and give me an example of an organism that is the same exact species as it was hundreds of millions of years ago. Good luck with that one. The crocodile today was similar to the crocodile from the past, but it wasn't exactly the same and it wasn't the same species. Look it up.



You've based that on all of your faulty assumptions, which are not valid, in the least.


So you can support this assertion of faulty assumption with something beyond your own hyperbole laden conjecture and incredulousness then right?



Any of those extinct species have nothing to do with 'evolving' into any other, living species.


Some species simply go extinct. Nobody is claiming that every extinct species has evolved into something else. Yet another straw man argument from the fables of nothing.


It's easy to point out any similarities in ALL species, which live today, or any species which are now extinct...


It is? Please, elucidate us with your vast expertise in all biological organisms. I love learning so enlighten me with
Your vast knowledge.



You assume if a species is extinct, it changed into another species, over time, somehow, because it shared some DNA, with another species, living today!!


No, you are imparting this straw man onto otters because you don’t actually have the ability
To falsify the science so instead you resort to fantastical Gish Galloping. Sometimes a species, genus etc... simply
Goes extinct. It doesn’t mean it has evolved into an entirely new organism just
Because it disappears from the fossil record. That’s a ludicrous statement to make.



The problem you ignore is the fact that ALL living species share DNA!!

But you insist it is proof, no matter what the facts are.


The only ones ignoring facts are those disputing science but not actually being able
To falsify it. It’s quite amusing. Multiple examples have been given. Once again, I’ll bring up Sima de los Huesos near Atapuerca. It’s a deep pit containing some amazingly complete fossilized archaic hominid remains. These remains are distinctly transitional between H. Heidelbergensis and Denisovans. They have for more modern morphological charactristics than they do morphological features consistent with earlier Heidelbergensis remains. Genetically, they’re far more closely related to Denisovans than Neanderthal. How do you account for there being nothing in the fossil or genetic record for a hominid like this at a geologically earlier time frame and nothing like this transitional form later in the geological/ fossil record and only Neanderthal and Denisovan yet no more Heidelbergensis? I’m sure you’ve got an amazing explanation for this with proper citations. Right?’


The fact every species on Earth has been the same species, first day on Earth, and forever after, whether it is living today, or is no longer living on Earth.


That’s not a fact. That’s your personal Belief. Not even remotely the same thing. Please feel free to support your belief with actual facts though.



Like all tricks, it's based on twisting our perceptions, holding up false assumptions.


Sorry but that sounds much more like a strict Abrahamic theological interpretation of things than anything to do with science. Are you sure you’re railing against the correct folks?


Your whole argument is based on feeble interpretations, obviously.

What do you consider to be valid evidence, now?

The millions of species on Earth today, which reproduce this same species, even as we speak, thousands of times over and over again.... what does it mean, according to you?

It's evidence.


You wish it was not evidence, you might claim it is not evidence, or - as always - you simply try to ignore this evidence, as if it didn't exist.


You choose to interpret extinct species as 'evolving' into another, entirely new, different species, all based on what you interpret as 'evidence', which is pure nonsense, which you insist on spewing over and over, no matter it's all crap.



posted on Dec, 15 2018 @ 02:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Akragon

A++. I just choked on my cigarette laughing at the thought. You’d think they would’ve fed them to some
Pythons or other constrictors. Seriously... what do literalists thinkmtge carnivores ate On the Ark?



according to "Ken Ham" they were vegetarians




posted on Dec, 15 2018 @ 02:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
Abiogenesis does not rely on evolution. Evolution cannot happen until life is already there.

If it doesnt rely on evolution, then what? Are you proposing Life instantly exist?


originally posted by: Barcs
And you are wrong there are multiple experiments, and I already posted a great video on this a few pages back that lists specific experiments that show amino acids and similar molecules increasing their complexity over time. Chemical reactions is not CHANCE.

So where are the protein? Amino acids do not linked themselves by their own chemical reaction alone.



originally posted by: Barcs
Again, primordial soup is one hypothesis among many. Where is the research paper that this website is referring to?

It's at the other tabs of the same page. But it is now currently down for maintenance. I'll get to it when it is back online. In mean time, here is another paper by Dr. Nick Lane;
www.researchgate.net...



originally posted by: Barcs
Wrong. It could have. Impact events on other planets can send debris into space. If it formed in some kind of "soup" on another planet, which had an impact and sent that into space and landed on earth, both could be true.

Now you are suggesting another planet similar to Early Earth environment rich with primordial soup.


originally posted by: Barcs
Yes. Do you think it is not capable? If so, can you demonstrate that?

Thank you for your answer. That's fine with me.



originally posted by: Barcs
A claim without evidence is just a claim. That's like saying I have an explanation for the big bang, that the universe rides on the back of a turtle. Literally nothing is explained by that, it's a guess.


You said it yourself, "Hypotheses are not CLAIMS, they are works in progress."
"The back of a turtle" is religious poetry language incompatible with science language. There is no "big bang" in religious language. You would have to use better term.



posted on Dec, 15 2018 @ 02:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: watchitburn
TLDR;

You're scared of things you don't understand and need some kind of validation and final pay-off for your life to have meaning.


You want to talk about meaning?

The educational brainwashing that crams evolution into kids at a young age totally strips them from having any meaning in their life. Seriously, if you think you are the meaningless ancestor of mutants, I don't see how you can extract any meaning from life besides concluding that you are an erroneous blip that eventually fades away forever. If that's the case, nothing you do matters, ever. Boy do I remember when I believed that, hook-line-and-sinker during my 8th grade summer. I thought I knew evolution was true, so I therefore contemplated the perpetual nothingness that awaited me. Such is the logical dead end of evolution.

Evolution, therefore, is an extremely dangerous philosophy to have... especially since it didn't actually happen that way. You may think this is a joke, but origins of humanity is a very important issue


That was a lot of assumptions wow

Do you have a jump to assumptions mat?

That we were not created by some guy with a rob and sandals doesn't mean we don't have a purpose
There are a few other things beyond what some guy thought about thousands of years ago and even if the guy was smart he was only able to come up with that explanation with the knowledge he had at the time

Now we can think of a few more:
- Other universes, and some of them so more advanced they actually were able to create life on our own
- The Matrix stuff, we all live on a simulation
- This life is just a small intro for the real thing, we don't have a clue, we evolve to another dimension or some thing like that once we died here, no god required, it just happens because way way above the universe is just a cell on something way bigger which doesn't even know we exist
- We are not even real, just god thinking about how things could be, if he ever decides to go for the real thing
- We are already all dead and all we do is just repeat our lives over and over in a memory stored somewhere, so other scientists can review and see what the hell happened with us, and they are reading this too, hello guys!
- Whatever other people will probably think about, which can probably be a zillion of other possibilities

But you jump to the only one that confirms your entire purpose in life

I would say the opposite of you

If you have only that one purpose on life, to let yourself be guided and not have a clue and expect that everything is chosen for you and that you are ignorant and will never be in control. Then you are the losing one in the entire game of life.

How you can't see this?

Contradictions are not the way of God, or are they?

Please notice: If you going to spit on me please do it on the left eye, the right one can't handle any more vision issues at this time..




top topics



 
30
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join