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 hypothesis: scientific or just a silly idea? What say you?

page: 14
14
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by edmc^2
This is the most - sorry to say this Barcs - ignorant reply I've ever read.

I 5th no a 3nd grader knows that life can only come from pre-existing life.

Sorry, that can not be proven. We've seen life come from life, but that doesn't mean it ONLY comes from life. Once again, you are taking what science does not know and filling god in the gaps. If you want to promote god or religion that's fine, but stop attacking science.



And experiment upon experiment and majority of scientist knows that Life cannot be created or produce from non-living things yet you say it's NOT "scientifically sound or logically correct"?

Prove it, then. If science has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that life can ONLY come from life, then you must have the evidence to prove this. Please show us exactly why life coming from non life is impossible as you claim. You call me ignorant, but then show you don't even know what logic means.


The reality is you can't accept the fact that noone can produce life form non-life - which makes abioGenesis a silly idea then when it was made up and NOW and still is a silly idea well into the future.
So because humans can't yet do it, it's impossible? Where do you get logic like this? I'm interesting in what exactly makes you think it's alright to assume things. 100 years ago cell phones weren't a reality, but now we can't live without them. By your logic, cell phones were impossible, simply because they hadn't been developed yet. Poor poor logic.
edit on 16-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


Still don't get it? It's already been proven!

No matter what science does / do - they will ALWAYS produce life from pre-existing life.

The opposite is true - you can not produce life from inanimate things.

Which only leaves us with one fundamental - ultimate question:

Where did the very first life came from? That is who created the Creator.

There are two answer and only one true.

Either:

1) Someone created the Creator

or

2) The Creator, the First Cause - always existed.

If we say 1) Someone created the Creator - then who created the creator of the Creator, which creates another question - who created the 2nd creator, the third, the fourth, ad infinitum. An unending question of who created the creator.


If we say 2) The Creator, the First Cause - always existed. This stops the unending question.

But now the question is - is this even possible or even scientific?

Answer is yes if we use logic and common sense.

It's possible and scientific because our minds is not bound by Space and Time. We we're endowed with an unfathomable thinking ability.

How else could Albert Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, Kepler and the many giants of science come up with such amazing facts if the human mind is not capable of going beyond space and time?

We have given this ability to untangle the mysteries of the universe, yet when it comes to an Always Exiting Being - the minds of some start to crumble.

Why?

I say it's not science that preventing them to go beyond space and time but their own pride and prejudiced.

The inability to admit the obvious - that Life was the result of Creation.

But you ask:




So because humans can't yet do it, it's impossible?


Yes, although we are able to think and invent amazing stuffs now and for sure in the near future - we have limitations.

Creating life from non-life is one.

No amount of money, talent, time and experimentation will allow us to unlock that which we are not capable of.

Heck the scriptures even say that we're not even capable of successfully "guiding our footsteps" without ever stumbling. We make so many mistakes day in day out and yet man is so arrogant of claiming that he is able to create life from non-life.

Now that is ignorance to the max.

Tell me this Barcs if you're so confident that "humans can do it" - create life from non-life (abiogenesis), as a token, can humans eradicate old-age, sickness and death?

Can humans prevent the death of a new-born baby?




posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Either:

1) Someone created the Creator

or

2) The Creator, the First Cause - always existed.


Seeing as you refuse to entertain the notion that life can arise from non-life, let's go with 3) Life has always existed, no need for a creator. Although almost certainly nonsense, it does remove the extra, unneeded and unnecessarily complicated variable of a creator from the equation.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Since highly complex organisims evolved from simple molecules, the theory has some validity. We must further define "non-living", as some people would consider a virus to be non living.
edit on 16-6-2012 by Oannes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Oannes
 


Plus people have the awful tenancy to think in black and white terms of "life" and "non-life". Life is almost certainly a gradient where the ending of non-life and the beginning of life are ambiguous.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Can you "prove" that life hasn't always existed, ergo no creator is necessary? Neither scenario is plausible but at least we have evidence for life existing whereas we don't have any evidence for god or gods existing.


edit:
--



Seeing as you refuse to entertain the notion that life can arise from non-life, let's go with 3) Life has always existed, no need for a creator. Although almost certainly nonsense, it does remove the extra, unneeded and unnecessarily complicated variable of a creator from the equation.


--

So what was there before the "Big Bang", the Singularity?

I'm sure you will answer - We Don't Know.

OK - you don't know, so how did the "Big Bang" - the Beginning happened then?

If you also don't know, then here's a clue from a scientific point of view: The expanding and fine tuned Universe

Astronomers discovered long time ago a remarkable fact:

That is - when galactic light was passed through a prism, the light waves were seen to be stretched.

This indicated motion - away from us at great speed. The more distant a galaxy, the faster it appeared to be receding. That points to an expanding universe!

If there's a beginning then something must have started the process. Correct?

If so then there must be a force powerful enough to overcome the immense gravity of the entire universe. Correct?

Question then is :

What could be the source of such dynamic energy?

Was it nothing or something or Someone?

The fact that the universe is Finely Tuned - indicates that SOMEONE was there at the Beginning.

It must be SOMEONE because we know for a fact that chance events, chaos let alone nothing are NOT capable of producing such a Fine Tuned Universe.

And our universe is such that it is governed by precise universal laws - and these laws can't be created by mere chance events.

Thus the only logical answer is - there must be an Intelligent Creator who brought forth life and the universe itself.

Otherwise your alternative is to accept either "we don't know or nothing was the source of life".

Both answers are illogical and unsatisfactory in the face of known scientific facts.


“If at some point in the past, the Universe was once close to a singular state of infinitely small size and infinite density, we have to ask what was there before and what was outside the Universe. . . . We have to face the problem of a Beginning.”
..

“If the Universe had expanded one million millionth part faster,” “then all the material in the Universe would have dispersed by now. . . . And if it had been a million millionth part slower, then gravitational forces would have caused the Universe to collapse within the first thousand million years or so of its existence. Again, there would have been no long-lived stars and no life.”

—Sir Bernard Lovell.



“Few astronomers could have anticipated that this event—the sudden birth of the Universe—would become a proven scientific fact, but observations of the heavens through telescopes have forced them to that conclusion.” - Robert Jastrow, Professor of Astronomy and Geology at Columbia University,




edit on 16-6-2012 by edmc^2 because: edit -- --



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by Oannes
 


Plus people have the awful tenancy to think in black and white terms of "life" and "non-life". Life is almost certainly a gradient where the ending of non-life and the beginning of life are ambiguous.


So where do you think this "gradient" lies?



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Life always existing has just as much evidence as god always existing (i.e. none) but with the former there is no need to invoke unnecessary complexity of god or gods.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Life always existing has just as much evidence as god always existing (i.e. none) but with the former there is no need to invoke unnecessary complexity of god or gods.





but with the former there is no need to invoke unnecessary complexity of god or gods.


That to me is credulity - a readiness to believe without a valid basis or reason.

“Anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word, but the shrewd one considers his steps.” (Proverbs 14:15)

Like the "faith" or the belief that "life can arise from non-living things". Like the abioGenesis or Spontaneous Generation" hypothesis.

Without supporting evidence such hypothesis is not only silly but credulity.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Theres evidence that backs up the theory of abiogenisis..... THERE IS NO EVIDENCE for your magical sky daddy.

I know you will not accept that your GOD is DEAD... i know many religious people would rather die, and they will.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Theres evidence that backs up the theory of abiogenisis..... THERE IS NO EVIDENCE for your magical sky daddy.

I know you will not accept that your GOD is DEAD... i know many religious people would rather die, and they will.





Theres evidence that backs up the theory of abiogenisis


n where's this evidence of yours? ...put up or...


As for the colorful description of yours:



THERE IS NO EVIDENCE for your magical sky daddy.


What was there before the "Big Bang - the Singularity - the Beginning"?

Who Fine Tuned the Universe?

As for:




I know you will not accept that your GOD is DEAD....


“God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16)

Fact that Jesus Christ the son of the Living God was here on earth proves the fact that MY God - Jehovah God - is not only the LIVING God - but that he's fully aware of what's going on in the entire Universe.




... i know many religious people would rather die, and they will


“This is my commandment, that YOU love one another just as I have loved YOU. 13 No one has love greater than this, that someone should surrender his soul in behalf of his friends.” (John 15:12, 13)


edit on 16-6-2012 by edmc^2 because: n



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 




We have experiments that show spontaneous polymerization. We have information about the conditions of a prebiotic earth and what it COULD have taken to produce life.

en.wikipedia.org...
These experiments and their findings are way more than ANY creationists could produce on the subject...
edit on 16-6-2012 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Life always existing has just as much evidence as god always existing (i.e. none) but with the former there is no need to invoke unnecessary complexity of god or gods.





but with the former there is no need to invoke unnecessary complexity of god or gods.


That to me is credulity - a readiness to believe without a valid basis or reason.

I'm sorry, am I hearing you correctly? You're saying that life always existing is "credulity - a readiness to believe without a valid basis or reason", yet believing in a god or gods always existing is not? You are a walking contradiction.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Life always existing has just as much evidence as god always existing (i.e. none) but with the former there is no need to invoke unnecessary complexity of god or gods.





but with the former there is no need to invoke unnecessary complexity of god or gods.


That to me is credulity - a readiness to believe without a valid basis or reason.

I'm sorry, am I hearing you correctly? You're saying that life always existing is "credulity - a readiness to believe without a valid basis or reason", yet believing in a god or gods always existing is not? You are a walking contradiction.


Nope - saying that if one believes in the existence of God just because - without any evidence is credulity.

Isn't that what you're implying? If not then I must have misunderstood what you we're trying to say. Unless of course you're saying that we don't need evidence of God's existence.

To me, of course I completely believe that God exist and that he always existed based on evidence.

Based on:

1) Scriptures.


2) Book of Nature

Both books strongly support the existence of the Living God.

So do you believe that God exist?

Based on what?



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by edmc^2
 




We have experiments that show spontaneous polymerization. We have information about the conditions of a prebiotic earth and what it COULD have taken to produce life.

en.wikipedia.org...
These experiments and their findings are way more than ANY creationists could produce on the subject...
edit on 16-6-2012 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)


Wait...wait.. are you implying that "spontaneous polymerization" is the same as "spontaneous generation" of life from non-living materials?

If so how and why?

As for your video - I have a hunch you did not read the OP - because if you did you've probably would not post it.

But if you did and believe the things in the vid then answer please the following simple questions as they related to it.

1) Is the environment and circumstances depicted in the labs the same as the Earth's atmosphere during abioGenesis? Is that the earth's primitive atmosphere like or just an assumption? Deadly to complex life forms?



2) Was there a guiding causal power / force behind the emergence of the elemental materials during the spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter?



3) Why only left-handed molecules for life are used?



4) How did the correct mixture and correct sequence happened under such extreme circumstances?




5) How did the cell membrane developed in such deadly environment?




What say you?



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
Wait...wait.. are you implying that "spontaneous polymerization" is the same as "spontaneous generation" of life from non-living materials?

If so how and why?


The model depicted in the video shows how natural processes could produce (common definition) life forms.

By self-reproducing, growing, using energy, etc., the depicted cells would be considered life.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by PieKeeper

Originally posted by edmc^2
Wait...wait.. are you implying that "spontaneous polymerization" is the same as "spontaneous generation" of life from non-living materials?

If so how and why?


The model depicted in the video shows how natural processes could produce (common definition) life forms.

By self-reproducing, growing, using energy, etc., the depicted cells would be considered life.


Sure once life got its start self-replication will follow. That's how things are in nature, in the natural world - there's no question about it. But what we're talking about is "SPONTANEOUS GENERATION OF LIFE FROM NON-LIVING MATERIALS".

Which is totally different from what is presented in the video for it claims that (creation's):


ARGUMENT 1:

Spontaneous generation of complex organisms is impossible.


See the difference?

"SPONTANEOUS GENERATION OF LIFE FROM NON-LIVING MATERIALS" vs. Spontaneous generation of complex organisms is impossible.

and abiogenesis is - SPONTANEOUS GENERATION OF LIFE FROM NON-LIVING MATERIALS.

What was mostly described in the video is how life developed and self-replicated but not how LIFE SPONTANEOUSLY GENERATED FROM NON-LIVING MATERIALS.

But if you're convinced that it explains abiogenesis - then answer the questions that I've been asking.

Here's two:

4) How did the correct mixture and correct sequence happened under such extreme circumstances?




5) How did the cell membrane developed in such deadly environment?




what say you?



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Ultimately you have zero evidence of preexisting life.
You have:

1. Life exists
2. Living organisms reproduce
3. Faith there is a creator (zero tangible evidence)
3. The creator is living (still no tangible evidence)
4. Since organisms are alive and reproduce and you have faith there is a creator (oops! where is that pesky evidence)
5. Therefore the creator did it because "Only that which I see before my eyes and faith can possibly be true."

Countering

1. Life exists.
2. How?
3. Don't know exactly.
4. "The creator did it!"
5. "Maybe, sounds kind of thin though......let's investigate!"

Basically this:



(And yes I use this picture whenever I can.)



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   
It seems once again, that instead of providing any sort of proof of god him/her/itself (not just processes assumed to come from such) the method is simply a negative one. Or...I disagree with scientific understanding, therefore god must exist...No argument against science proves god. Show us where him/her/it is so that we might also believe.

This subject appears one of the last bastions for those afflicted/indoctrinated by the literal interpretation of popular religions, for the moment at least.



edit on 16-6-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Noncompatible
 


There fixed it for you.



So still believe that life can spontaneously generate from inanimate stuff?



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Hilarious.

You "fixed" it and yet it confers the same message.

Comedy gold.

Do you walk into a lot of walls? Because your faith appears to blind you to the magnificence all around you.

You I and every other one of "gods children" could vanish tomorrow and the universe would continue to be awe inspiring. No creator required.

Incidentally, and this is a genuine question, why are you so scared of scientific progress ?


edit on 16-6-2012 by Noncompatible because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join