Abiogenesis - The Impossible Theoretical Miracle

a reply to: EasternShadow

I don't think you are reading Bacs or I correctly. Biological Evolution is a modern (ish) theory. I'm also going to point out that the word evolution should not be used for abiogensisis/proteogenisis as they are separate things. To conflate the two, is to fall into logical fallacy.

Lastly organic in the sense of chemicals is not what you think. Organic means it contains Hydrogen, Carbon, and phosphorous (possibly suphur). You are looking at the change from organic to biologcial. Thats another thing you will not sort out, with out a time machine

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: EasternShadow

I don't think you are reading Bacs or I correctly. Biological Evolution is a modern (ish) theory. I'm also going to point out that the word evolution should not be used for abiogensisis/proteogenisis as they are separate things. To conflate the two, is to fall into logical fallacy.

But that's the term being used by Abiogenesis to explain Chemical Evolution of Life. Chemical Molecules don't magically and instantly break and re-struct their atoms. It happens gradually as they propose. The term evolution is exactly that gradual process CHANGES OF LIFE. I already asked Barc, if it doesn't happen by gradual process, then what? He doesn't believe in magic. Therefore, it has to be gradually evolve. Just because Modern Evolution Synthesize Theory doesn't deal with origin of physical biology - which I view nothing more than organic container to life, doesn't mean Abiogenesis could escape from explaining SOUP to Life CHANGES. After all the end result is still LIFE, regardless what mechanism it takes.

originally posted by: Noinden
Lastly organic in the sense of chemicals is not what you think. Organic means it contains Hydrogen, Carbon, and phosphorous (possibly suphur). You are looking at the change from organic to biologcial. Thats another thing you will not sort out, with out a time machine

Hydrogen, Carbon and phosphorous are composition of organic matter.
But yes, I agree. Without a time machine it's not possible to find the answer to the origin of life. Actually science need more than just a time machine. They need to explore the universe of death first.

What I am trying to say, We are taking the wrong path. If we want answer to life, we need to study life itself. Not dead micro fossil of dead bacteria some billion years ago.

originally posted by: Barcs
Nice straw man though about throwing molecules together and poofing into a cell. That's totally what happened. NOT.

Yet that is exactly what your own video tells. Group of Amino Acids poofing magical amide bond to form chain of polypeptide.

originally posted by: Barcs

Jonathan Wells is a member of the Discovery Institute and a follower of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church, and a prominent advocate of intelligent design, as well as the author of Icons of Evolution and Regnery Publishing's Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design.[1]

Along with Michael Behe, he is one of the few in the movement with demonstrably legitimate credentials (he has a Ph.D. in biological science). Wells completed the Ph.D. for the sole purpose of "debunking" evolution.[2] Despite his credentials, he has been caught bull#ting or outright lying on many occasions, and his books are generally considered garbage by mainstream science. Wells has also lent his support to the cause of AIDS denialism.[3]

He also claims to expose the "lie about overwhelming amounts of evidence for evolution" rationalwiki.org...

Sorry, he's full of it. He's just another preacher masquerading as a scientist.

Your ability to attacking a person credibility is astounding. An easy way out to answer any issue at hand.
How about you answer how Abiogenesis bring life to dead cell.

originally posted by: Barcs
Instantly? What are you talking about? You aren't referencing anything in the video. Early earth did not have O2 in the air. O2 is a byproduct of photosynthesis. Yeah, those experiments are done without O2 in the air. Oceans DO contain oxygen, however, so it was definitely there.

Your video is speaking about chains of polypeptides instantly created simply by bonding groups of amino acids together. No driving force is needed. It just happen by itself.

originally posted by: Barcs
Mars used to have an electromagnetic shield and plate tectonics. No reason to think life couldn't develop at that time. I guess we'll find out eventually.

I never said Mars could not develop life. I said, Mars gravity is too weak to keep it's gases from dispersing into space.

originally posted by: EasternShadow
Yet that is exactly what your own video tells. Group of Amino Acids poofing magical amide bond to form chain of polypeptide.

And that's not what you said.

Your ability to attacking a person credibility is astounding. An easy way out to answer any issue at hand.
How about you answer how Abiogenesis bring life to dead cell.

I was just stating the facts. He has no credibility left. He got his degree strictly to claim himself an authority on something that he vehemently denies. Nobody in academia takes him seriously anymore. Pretty much everything he said in the video was blatantly wrong. I go to REAL scientists if I want to understand science, not religious shills pretending to be.

Your video is speaking about chains of polypeptides instantly created simply by bonding groups of amino acids together. No driving force is needed. It just happen by itself.

No, they weren't instant. The molecules slowly increased complexity after going through numerous cycles of day/night as well as wet then dry then wet then dry and weathering to simulate being near an active volcano.

I never said Mars could not develop life. I said, Mars gravity is too weak to keep it's gases from dispersing into space.

You are really struggling at following the conversation. You said there was no EM field, when there was in the past. The gravity is absolutely NOT too weak to hold an atmosphere, it's got one today. The problem is that the atmosphere is super thin because it has been slowly wiped away by solar wind over billions of years because the EM field weakened over time. This will all change soon when amino acids / primordial life is found on Mars in a few months, regardless, but keep the hope alive (no pun intended).

This claim of all species changing into other species, and constantly changing all the time....,


Nothing has changed, since we've existed on Earth.


Evidence cannot be ignored, as if it didn't exist. It exists, and proves evolution is nonsense.



The reality can't be dismissed.

originally posted by: turbonium1
This claim of all species changing into other species, and constantly changing all the time....,

Has been proved.

Nothing has changed, since we've existed on Earth.

All you do is repeat false claims. That's blatantly wrong and it's already been demonstrated to you.

Evidence cannot be ignored, as if it didn't exist. It exists, and proves evolution is nonsense.

Says the guy that ignored all of the evidence several times over. Apparently it CAN be ignored LOL!

Saying you have evidence is not going to make it evidence, no matter how much you say it is.


The evidence is a quadrillion species on Earth over thousands of years that are the exact same species.


I don't know why you ignore all the real proof in front of you, and it doesn't matter to me. I've got better things to do than argue with someone in sheer denial...

a reply to: turbonium1

So you literally got nothing? I was hoping you would at least make an argument but apparently all you can do is repeat the same lies that were already refuted in this thread. Why bother? What can you possible gain by making your movement look so bad?

The theoretical leap from a primordial soup to a living organism is an extremely-low-probability-event, 

If you wish to argue the above conclusion

Who needs to argue against your conclusion? You are admitting that the theoretical leap from a primordial soup to a living organism can happen, all be it at a extremely-low-probability.

Congratulations our planet won the extremely-low-probability lottery.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Saying you have evidence is not going to make it evidence, no matter how much you say it is.

You may want to consider applying this line of reasoning to your own position before continuing down this path.

The evidence is a quadrillion species on Earth over thousands of years that are the exact same species.

Per your prior statement, saying it is so doesn’t make it true. Especially when several of us have pointed out specific example and then went so far as to provide the contact information, email etc... to get information first hand from people directly involved in very specific research or dig sites. I’ve got to assume that neither you nor ole Coop have bothered to actually reach out with your queries while actually engaging in the appropriate due diligence.



[/lquote]I don't know why you ignore all the real proof in front of you, and it doesn't matter to me. I've got better things to do than argue with someone in sheer denial...



You oh sweet irony

originally posted by: peter vlar
Per your prior statement, saying it is so doesn’t make it true. Especially when several of us have pointed out specific example and then went so far as to provide the contact information, email etc... to get information first hand from people directly involved in very specific research or dig sites. I’ve got to assume that neither you nor ole Coop have bothered to actually reach out with your queries while actually engaging in the appropriate due diligence.

No species has ever 'evolved' into another species, in all human history, and no species will ever 'evolve' into another species.

The main problem - you always fail to grasp -

If scientific proof of 'evolution' really DID exist today, where these scientists proved - beyond a doubt - some species on Earth are changing into other species, as it progresses all the time, every year, every decade, every century, every millennium...for millions, and billions, of years!

When scientists once gained trust of the people, science became our savior, when sick, we were cured by them, with their miraculous medicines! Many people died from the Spanish flu, until the gods found a cure. We owe our lives to science!


Nobody had heard of the Spanish flu, for thousands of years, before then. Because the Spanish flu didn't exist for thousands of years. until then.

In fact, we'd never heard of many other diseases - like AIDS - for thousands of years.


Most of these diseases are cured, or given some help, by those who are creating the diseases in the first place. Nobody knows that, of course. Nobody would think such a thing possible, ever.

It's a fact, however.

originally posted by: cooperton
Evolutionary theory has become a religion that is intolerant of all contrary assertions.

Exactly, this is also why Jonathan Wells entitled his book "Zombie Science"...

Whats ironic is that the creation model is actually far more scientific and less religious than evolution is.

“Like a zombie that just won’t die, these bogus drawings keep coming back.” ~ Casey Luskin

The Miller-Urey Experiment was invalidated decades ago, yet it is still taught as a significant discovery, and they have the audacity to call it a 'science'.

The reality is that Darwinism is actually a tool of religious propaganda disguised as a scientific theory.

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone." ~ paleontologist T.L. Moor

...the commonly-accepted "Theory of Evolution" fails the test of being scientific. With the passing years, proponents of this failed theory are behaving more and more like religious dogmatists in their unwillingness to submit the foundations of their theory to open inquiry and discussion. Instead, they heap scorn and ridicule on their critics, insisting that anyone who has the audacity to question the truth of their sacred theory must be either stupid, insane or evil.

At the heart of the problem is the fact that Evolution, disguised as a viable scientific theory, is actually a tool of religious propaganda and cultural domination, used by those who hold to the religion of Naturalism.

When the Evolutionist says that life originated without the intervention of a supernatural Being, he is making a religious assertion, not a scientific one. The fact that he may be a scientist by profession, or that he conducts his science in light of this presuppostion does not change the fact that it is a religious claim. It is no more "scientific" than the Creationist's assertion of an intervening Creator.

members.toast.net...

“… the general scientific world has been bamboozled into believing that evolution has been proved. Nothing could be further from the truth …” ~ Dr. Samuel L. Blumenfeld

Modern media often refers to the creation/evolution debate as a conflict between “science and religion.” In fact, there is no science to support evolution. The word science refers to knowledge gained through observation. A scientist (through experimentation) observes events as they happen, and then chronicles the details of those events.

The evolutionist has faith that these things happened, but he has not seen them and neither does he have any way of proving them. Therefore, the Evolution vs. Creation debate is not a matter of science vs. religion – but rather, religion vs. religion.

DARWIN DEBUNKED

Science has so thoroughly discredited Darwinian evolution that it should be discarded. ~ Australian biologist Michael Denton

"`Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.' A tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling. ~ T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission

Evolution is positively anti-science. Science deals with things that are testable, observable, and demonstrable and evolution has none of those qualities. To call evolution "science" is to confuse fairy tales with facts. True, evolution has been mixed with science for the last thirty years, but that does not mean that it is the same as science.

Beer is often advertised during sporting events but the two subjects have no logical connection, and evolution has no more to do with science than beer has to do with sports.

Cult of Evolutionism

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.

There does not have to be any desire for final payoff in order to look at the prevailing theories and say "No, this does not make sense." You are merely demonstrating the simplicity and limitations of your own mind, as you are unable to fathom a person being unable to make sense of the prevailing theories without having some kind of greedy desire for a "payoff" coupled with a fear of the unknown. You think that way becuase that is how Your mind works. You make your decisions based on fear and greed. It's called projection, I believe... I could be wrong though.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: cooperton

You need an invisible sky daddy and the promise of an eternal soul to find any meaning in your life? I can't help but feel a little sorry for you.

So it makes sense that this happened "randomly"? And if it doesnt make sense to me, that means I "need a sky daddy"? I don't feel sorry for you, I just kind of think you're acting like an idiot.

a reply to: turbonium1

You might want to look up the meaning of "fact," buddy. You are just repeating old nonsense.

originally posted by: Murgatroid
The Miller-Urey Experiment was invalidated decades ago, yet it is still taught as a significant discovery, and they have the audacity to call it a 'science'.

The reality is that Darwinism is actually a tool of religious propaganda disguised as a scientific theory.

Now prove this claim with more than dishonest quote mines and lies. That experiment was NEVER invalidated. Show the research that proved this. Quote mines and opinions are not the equivalent of evidence, but we all know that you don't use evidence, you quote dishonest youtube videos and opinions that appeal to fear, rather than analyze the evidence.

originally posted by: Barcs
Quote mines and opinions are not the equivalent of evidence...

Evolution is believed totally by blind faith and is a complete mathematical impossibility...

And you have the audacity to ask ME for proof?

Did you also ask for proof from all your teachers who told you that the abiogenesis hypothesis is a valid theory?

I didn't think so...

Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable ~ Sir Arthur Keith

One acquaintance once told me he enjoys debunking Darwinism, when I asked him why? He answered with "the math", what he was referring to is that math with biology can't support it. One biological scientist once said the Darwin theory is so mathematically impossible it's odds of happening are like 1 out of the number that represents all the atoms in the universe. Nobody knows what that number actually is. But it's a hyperbole to make a point. Source

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: Barcs
Quote mines and opinions are not the equivalent of evidence...

Evolution is believed totally by blind faith and is a complete mathematical impossibility...

Quite the opposite actually. There is more evidence proving the validity of the MES than there is for all other scientific theories combined. 100’s Of thousands of peer reviewed papers containing independently reproducible data that has been verified by multiple parties.

And you have the audacity to ask ME for proof?

More like a fools errand than audacity. We all know you won’t provide anything resembling supporting evidence!

Did you also ask for proof from all your teachers who told you that the abiogenesis hypothesis is a valid theory?

Nobody who passed 10th grade biology would ask for that because they would know while Abiogenesis is indeed a valid hypothesis, it certainly doesn’t meet the criteria for a scientific theory and thus, isn’t referred to as the “abiogenesis theory”.

I didn't think so...

Therein lies the problem. You don’t think. You quote mine prolifically, refuse to attribute citations, add nothing to the discussion aside from the above mentioned quote mining and can’t even discuss the material in our own words.

Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable ~ Sir Arthur Keith

One acquaintance once told me he enjoys debunking Darwinism, when I asked him why? He answered with "the math", what he was referring to is that math with biology can't support it. One biological scientist once said the Darwin theory is so mathematically impossible it's odds of happening are like 1 out of the number that represents all the atoms in the universe. Nobody knows what that number actually is. But it's a hyperbole to make a point. Source

Seriously? Sir Arthur Keith? The man was a proponent of scientific racism and has been in the ground for nearly 75 years. You don’t think that any of the science has changed in the last 75 years?

How old is the second quote? “Darwin Theory” isn’t anything that exists in any branch of science related to evolutionary biology. There is no “Darwin Theory” and just Because someone claims that the Katy falsifies any aspect of the MES, doesn’t make it true unless you actually post the mathematics in question. You’re not actually going to do that are
You?

originally posted by: peter vlar

Quite the opposite actually. There is more evidence proving the validity of the MES than there is for all other scientific theories combined. 100’s Of thousands of peer reviewed papers containing independently reproducible data that has been verified by multiple parties.

The quantity of papers regarding evolution is not proof of its validity. The quality is what should be analyzed. All papers supposedly demonstrating evolution are accounts of organisms and populations adapting, which has never been shown to be able to reach beyond the boundary of the particular essence of that creature. For example, fruit flies remain fruit flies, no matter how much selective pressure they put on them. Despite the immense effort to demonstrate evolution in a lab there has not been one example of changing a creature into another type of creature. If you count all the experiments trying to evolve fruit flies, there has been millions of generations accounted for in the scientific literature, yet they always remain fruit flies. The evidence for evolution consists of nit-picking various biological phenomenon and extrapolating miniscule data into the vast assumption that all life was culminated through genetic mutation.

If anything the quantity of papers regarding evolution demonstrates the tireless efforts to try to force-feed this theory into reality. In actuality, there is no conclusive evidence that the observable phenomenon we see could culminate in random mutation generating the biological diversity we see today on the planet. The lack of conclusive evidence, despite the immense effort, is another indicator that this theory is a fairy tale.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: vasaga

Abiogenesis is a very difficult experiment to perform due to the millions and millions of years and environmental factors required to accurately recreate such an event. This would be an excellent opportunity for quantum computing to simulate a completely natural sequence of events leading to the formation of prokaryotes and eukaryotes on Earth. It would be even more interesting to see such a machine calculate the possibilities of a supreme intelligence fabricating this planet and engineering life as we know it. At least then we would have some kind of compelling evidence.

Always these kinds of replies... Tell me something. Is this reply an admittance that right now we have nothing to support abiogenesis? Because that's what it sounds like.

The difficulty of an experiment doesn't somehow validate a hypothesis or a theory. Aren't people here always the ones claiming that evidence should be the basis to believe a theory? If we are incapable of producing results right now, that means there is no support. The reason for not being able to is completely irrelevant. That we might be able to simulate something 100 years from now does not mean that the theory is currently warranted, somehow.

That's the mentality that I despise. For the things that are convenient to the mainstream narrative, a bunch of endless excuses are given, but for anything else, skepticism (even though denial is a better word) is seen as rational. It's disgusting.