Originally posted by Cataclysm
reply to post by Barcs
People aren't claiming that abiogenesis is 100% proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.
You believe abiogenesis has been proven... what? 10%? 25%? 1%?
And, this "evidence" supporting abiogenesis of which you speak, tell us what it is... be specific.
Do you have a back-up option (just in case abiogenesis is never proven)? In other words, if science can't demonstrate that inorganic matter can produce organic matter, how did life begin? Do you have an opinion on that? Or, are you going on blind faith? Putting all your eggs in one abiogenesis basket, so to speak?
The ones I mentioned a few posts ago (especially stuff related to auto-catalytic RNA molecules).
In publications and preliminary data we have demonstrated that the Azoarcus ribozyme, 198 nucleotides in length, can be fragmented into four pieces that can spontaneously self-assemble into a covalently-contiguous molecule through recombination reactions. These assemblages can self-replicate because they can autocatalytically catalyze further self-assembly reactions. In the current proposal we will extend this methodology by exploring whether smaller and more random fragments in a pool of oligomers can accomplish the same task.
Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by Cataclysm
Also, let me remind everyone what is happening here. Some people here, after having lived on this planet in most cases probably less than two decades, argue that they have absolute knowledge that a very specific God not only created the Universe, but also influenced it later by e.g. creating man from dirt and woman from a bone.
Then there are other people who base their view of the Universe on the accumulated works of some of the most intelligent people of generations over the past centuries and decades. Very few of them claim to know what happened in the beginning. On the origins of man on the other hand, they can be almost certain, that no unnatural interference had to occur at any point of our long 3.7 biotic evolution here. The certainty is somewhat lower for the pre-biotic phase, but it's ever increasing. Right now one possibility is that our very origin is not from dirt, but from RNA molecules on the ocean floor in proximity to a hydrothermal vent.
Of course, in many cases the absolute side also claims knowledge of talking snakes, flying camels, global floods, the living dead, etc. which definitely are not results of artistic creativity because like in the Internet, everything in books is true too. They know it's true because they were told it's true. It's the book of God because it says that it's the book of God. That's totally not circular reasoning. This absolute knowledge they have, and it's not questioned. All things scientific that are on the contrary however, for those things extraordinary evidence is demanded. No double standardsedit on 3-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by Cataclysm
No offense, but you are promoting intelligent design. Don't be surprised if people say you believe in god. It's comical as the way you ignored my post about the evidence behind abiogenesis, then ask Rhino to source something, that I also posted similar evidence for. Just face it. The hard evidence is not there for ID, creation, god, whatever you wanna call it. ZERO objective evidence.
If you don't want people making assumptions about your beliefs, you should clear the air and tell us what you do believe so we know how to address your posts. At least 90% of the ID promoters in here believe in god. Are you in the alien crowd or the god crowd? There's really only 2 options if you are looking for a designer of DNA, and therefor all life on earth, unless you wanna say a race of extra dimensional beings did it. That would kind of make them gods however.edit on 4-4-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)