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

life created in a lab

that must mean that these scientists are god..... because, surely only god can create life

sarcasm btw

Originally posted by edmc^2
Apparently - you're not paying attention of what I've been saying.

Anyway here's what I said to Ergo about science - I'll bold it for you OK?

I get what you're sayin' Ergo Sum - but the thing is, science in NOT being questioned here. In fact thanks to science mankind has advance so much to better his life. So - NO it's not science that's being questioned here but the use or rather the misused of it to prop a weak hypothesis that is based on ancient philosophy.

A philosophy that has nothing to do with science but more on a silly idea that equals or surpasses the flat earth belief - a spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter.

But you ARE attacking science, by falsely classifying it and making false assumptions about the fossil record and the dating of fossils. Evolution is a scientific theory backed by evidence. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis with some supporting / partial results replicating the process. Both are not complete, but all physical evidence points to evolution. Why are you claiming that abiogenesis is based on philosophy? Your entire argument is pure philosophy, not science and not based on objective reality, EVEN SLIGHTLY. Please cite me the exact part of abiogenesis hypothesis that is based on "ancient philosophy" rather than science and don't change the subject this time. Are you confusing creationism with science again? Please cite the philosophical sources it comes from, or once again, your argument is baseless and made up on the spot.

Thanks.

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by CoherentlyConfused

 

So you think

"Creationists have their answer and no further investigation is required or will ever be accepted."

Now that is a statement based on ignorance. Where did you get such an idea?

Because that's your answer (see the very end of your OP) and that's the most common (really, the only) answer I see in these debates. Science is wrong, god did it. Instead of searching for a real answer, you have yours already, even though not a shred of evidence exists for any god, except in your own mind.

Maybe I'm understanding of your idea of what god is incorrectly.. I like the theory that the universe is "alive" in away, kind of like a colony of ants. One ant can't do much but thousands of them together in a colony are like one giant living super organism. If energy has always been (can't be created or destroyed), than maybe energy itself is alive, which would fit your idea that life has always come from life. Maybe nothing special ever needed to happen for life to form. Maybe life happens everywhere, in every corner of the cosmos and there's no special process or anything that will allow it to spontaneously happen, it just does. It always has and always will because that is the nature of the universe itself. It's a thought.

But that is just my personal idea and I have no evidence to support it, and I won't ever try to and debate it as truth. I am an avid fan of science and am always on the lookout for the latest scientific discoveries, no matter what they might be. That is why you and I are different and where my statement came from. You are not on this never-ending search for answers because you already have yours. Life coming from existing life does not prove god and certainly doesn't make God a fact.

I don't believe in one single intelligent creator and I certainly don't believe in that bible cra....nonsense. But, yes, I do hold the thought that the universe is alive and we all are connected with it and part of it. If you want to call that "god," so be it. I will never ever subscribe to the ridiculous idea of a religious, biblical god as told in religious texts.

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.

“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.

Abiogenesis and spontaneous generation aren't the same thing. No one's subscribed to spontaneous generation in about 300 years.

Originally posted by edmc^2

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.

Nope, you've got that backwards. By that definition, all kinds of things could be considered life. Like crystals. Autocatalysis and spontaneous polymerization occur naturally in non-living things. RNA autocatalysis has also been proven in the lab.

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".

Wrong. Spontaneous generation isn't life from the non-living--that is abiogenesis, in which life emerged once and took different forms and diversified (through natural selection). Part B to the spontaneous generation argument is heterogenesis, in which a form of life emerges from a different form (eg, creatures came from the medium they inhabited, such as clams forming from sand). The ancient views on it were formed by their belief in the Four Elements--they believed that air was the essence that made things alive. In the late Middle Ages through the 18th century, it was the elan vital which is how we ended up with organic and inorganic chemistry (via the alchemists, by the way). It's also how we ended up with Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

No one has believed that in centuries. It fell out of favor once and for all with Pasteur.

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

 

Fair enough edmc^2. My point is that no matter how thoroughly you feel you can discredit the abiogenesis hypothesis, this won't give any more credence at all to the notion that "god did it" (though I think it will take more than Egyptians and Scarab beetles ). If it were found to be incorrect, wouldn't it simply refer back to the null hypothesis? As in, we don't know, back to the drawing board? Instead of going straight to the god that fills more gaps than a tube of spackfiller?

That's the thing about this “we don't know” answer.

When it comes to the Origin of Life it is not a logical or satisfactory answer for it leads to a circular argument. That is trying to prove something that's already proven to be incorrect.

To say "I don't know" is the ONLY logical answer. It's not a circular argument. What's circular is you posting Bible quotes and using that as "evidence", which it is not.

All evidence presented so far points to the fact that the abioGenesis hypothesis is a very flawed concept right from the get go. Yet people still try to convinced themselves that it must be the correct answer and the ONLY answer (even though “we don't know”) - because why?

The alternative is unpalatable – a Creator.

Yet evidence after evidence when studied carefully and put to rigorous test never fails and will always point to the fact that Life was the result of Special Creation.

False dichotomy and god of the gaps (appeal to ignorance). First, even if abiogensis is false (unlikely) doesn't automatically mean creationism is true. Second, just because we don't know for sure doesn't mean you can use that as evidence for the existence of God.

Just to name two.

1st:
A Fine Tuned Universe:

Intelligent men and women who studied the universe have had to face the fact that the Universe is Fine Tuned to the highest degree. They admit this, yet they can't bring themselves to accept the fact that there's ONLY ONE answer to a Fine Tuned Universe – a Supreme Being.

Nope. Just the laws of physics.

Case in point:

George Greenstein, professor of astronomy and cosmology. In his book the “The Symbiotic Universe” said the following statements:

“So many coincidences! The more I read, the more I became convinced that such ‘coincidences’ could hardly have happened by chance. But as this conviction grew, something else grew as well. Even now it is difficult to express this ‘something’ in words. It was an intense revulsion, and at times it was almost physical in nature. I would positively squirm with discomfort. . . . Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”

His answer:

“God is not an explanation.”

He was sickened and horrified by the thought that someone was responsible for it. How about you?

Nevertheless Prof. Greenstein listed some of the many physical constants for Life to exist - The Symbiotic Universe, see pages 256-7.

This is hypothetical. Even here on Earth, we're finding out that life can exist in the most appalling conditions--conditions that would kill us but that some life forms thrive in.

Wherever life can be, it is.

reply to post by edmc^2

What dating method are you going to use if you find a "fossil" next to an ancient dig? What dating method are you going to use to date the ancient artifacts? If the artifacts shows that it's about 5000 years old and the fossil reads 100 million years old - which one is correct? Both or the fossil? If the fossil is 100 million years old, how is it the artifact is only 5000 years old? See what I mean?

Since it's the sediment around the artifact or fossil that was found is what is dated and not the actual items, they would both be dated the same. Unless you're trying to say that the sediment surrounding the two items found in the same place is of different age. If that's what you're getting at, how could that happen? And if both items were found together, how could two samples of earth in the same place age so different?

How would you suggest two items of vastly different ages end up in the same section of earth? Do you have evidence this has actually happened or is this just some unfounded "what-if" scenario?

I'm not a scientist, I only follow the scientists and their discoveries. If you find their methods incorrect and you can show that 100 million year old dinosaur bones are really only 6,000 years old, please feel free.

I don't know of any alternate methods that have been used and found reliable by the scientific community. They may find a better way in the future--because that's what science does. It always looks for more and never assumes it's absolutely correct.

reply to post by edmc^2

OK let me see if my prediction is correct by your responses. If I say - a fine tuned universe proves the existence of God. You say?

I don't know.

-- Life comes only from pre-existng life. -- You say?

I don't know.

Intelligence in deign. -- You say?

I don't know.

A beginning of the Universe points to existence of God. -- You say?

I don't know.
If you think there should be a different answer, please show some kind of proof because it's the only truth until you do. Your idea that abiogenesis is wrong, therefore God is fact is like saying my car isn't blue, therefore no blue, green, white or any other color of car could ever exist and only red ones do.

reply to post by HappyBunny

To say "I don't know" is the ONLY logical answer. It's not a circular argument. "

Of course it's circular argument because it's already been proven time and time again and again experiment after experiment that you can only produce life from existing life. The opposite is also proven true that you can't produce life from inanimate things.

By saying "I don't know" is the ONLY logical answer." - is ignoring the established and well recognized scientific fact!

Even if you remove God from the equation and just stick with science - the truth remains that life will only come from life and that you can never produce life from dead - non living inanimate matter!

And logic dictates that when someone keeps doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result is NOT only STUPIDITY but INSANITY. You're spinning your wheel in circular motion in the hopes that a different answer will present itself.

So can life arise from life?

Based on scientific facts - YES.

Can life arise from non-life?

Based on scientific facts - NO.

But you say "I don't know" is the ONLY logical answer."

And the wheel goes round and round hoping a different outcome will present itself.

Still not convinced you're in a spinning wheel of circular argument?

Here's another you said:

False dichotomy and god of the gaps (appeal to ignorance). First, even if abiogensis is false (unlikely) doesn't automatically mean creationism is true. Second, just because we don't know for sure doesn't mean you can use that as evidence for the existence of God.

So you think that its "likely" abiogensis is true thus automatically making "creationism" false?

Yet you admit "You don't know if life can arise from non-life.

And at the same time admit that "you don't know if life comes only from life"

So which one is it then in your circular argument?

If abiogenesis is "UNLIKELY FALSE" - can life arise from non-life then?

What say in your circular argument?

Let me guess "IDON'TKNOW".

As for:

What's circular is you posting Bible quotes and using that as "evidence", which it is not.

How's that a circular argument when I merely stated the fact that the universe had a beginning both scientifically and scripturally?

Why, do you not also believe that the universe had a beginning or is this also another "IDON'TKNOW"?

Originally posted by CoherentlyConfused
reply to post by edmc^2

 

OK let me see if my prediction is correct by your responses. If I say - a fine tuned universe proves the existence of God. You say?

I don't know.

-- Life comes only from pre-existng life. -- You say?

I don't know.

Intelligence in deign. -- You say?

I don't know.

A beginning of the Universe points to existence of God. -- You say?

I don't know.
If you think there should be a different answer, please show some kind of proof because it's the only truth until you do. Your idea that abiogenesis is wrong, therefore God is fact is like saying my car isn't blue, therefore no blue, green, white or any other color of car could ever exist and only red ones do.

WHAT A USELESS ARGUMENT.

Originally posted by DaveNorris
life created in a lab

that must mean that these scientists are god..... because, surely only god can create life

sarcasm btw

SORRY dude but this has been discussed so many times - search for designer gene, gene splicing. Bottom line is they did not create life but modified an existing life - more like a designer gene.

Originally posted by HappyBunny

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.

“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.

Abiogenesis and spontaneous generation aren't the same thing. No one's subscribed to spontaneous generation in about 300 years.

potato - potaaatooe - same potato.

abiogenesis and spontaneous generation - has the same basic principle > life arising from inanimate materials.

Definition for abiogenesis:

Web definitions:

a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter. More info »Source - Wikipedia - Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster

www.google.com...

Abiogenesis (Science: study)

The study of how life originally arose on the planet, encompasses the ancient belief in the spontaneous generation of life from non living matter.

www.biology-online.org...

Spontaneous generation or equivocal generation is ...the origin of life from inanimate matter

en.wikipedia.org...

Spontaneous generation Definition The previously popular notion that living organisms arise or develop from nonliving matter.

www.biology-online.org...

spontaneous generation then - abiogenesis now - but same basic meaning.

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by edmc^2

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.

Nope, you've got that backwards. By that definition, all kinds of things could be considered life. Like crystals. Autocatalysis and spontaneous polymerization occur naturally in non-living things. RNA autocatalysis has also been proven in the lab.

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".

Wrong. Spontaneous generation isn't life from the non-living--that is abiogenesis, in which life emerged once and took different forms and diversified (through natural selection). Part B to the spontaneous generation argument is heterogenesis, in which a form of life emerges from a different form (eg, creatures came from the medium they inhabited, such as clams forming from sand). The ancient views on it were formed by their belief in the Four Elements--they believed that air was the essence that made things alive. In the late Middle Ages through the 18th century, it was the elan vital which is how we ended up with organic and inorganic chemistry (via the alchemists, by the way). It's also how we ended up with Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

No one has believed that in centuries. It fell out of favor once and for all with Pasteur.

like I said spontaneous generation and abiogenesis have the same basic principle - life arising from no living things.

based on ancient philosophy and bad science.

You have no idea what you are talking about. When someone says "I don't know", it is NOT an argument, it is an honest statement. You can't have a circular argument without an argument. If I don't know the answer, logically it makes sense not to make guesses about it. You keep claiming god is scientific fact, despite that it's a complete guess, and have the nerve to attack science, when you know 0 about it. You are just repeating your original points and preaching in this thread and haven't provided anything of substance. Where is your evidence?

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by edmc^2

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.

Nope, you've got that backwards. By that definition, all kinds of things could be considered life. Like crystals. Autocatalysis and spontaneous polymerization occur naturally in non-living things. RNA autocatalysis has also been proven in the lab.

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".

Wrong. Spontaneous generation isn't life from the non-living--that is abiogenesis, in which life emerged once and took different forms and diversified (through natural selection). Part B to the spontaneous generation argument is heterogenesis, in which a form of life emerges from a different form (eg, creatures came from the medium they inhabited, such as clams forming from sand). The ancient views on it were formed by their belief in the Four Elements--they believed that air was the essence that made things alive. In the late Middle Ages through the 18th century, it was the elan vital which is how we ended up with organic and inorganic chemistry (via the alchemists, by the way). It's also how we ended up with Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

No one has believed that in centuries. It fell out of favor once and for all with Pasteur.

like I said spontaneous generation and abiogenesis have the same basic principle - life arising from no living things.

based on ancient philosophy and bad science.

You still don't get it, do you?

Originally posted by Barcs
You have no idea what you are talking about. When someone says "I don't know", it is NOT an argument, it is an honest statement. You can't have a circular argument without an argument. If I don't know the answer, logically it makes sense not to make guesses about it. You keep claiming god is scientific fact, despite that it's a complete guess, and have the nerve to attack science, when you know 0 about it. You are just repeating your original points and preaching in this thread and haven't provided anything of substance. Where is your evidence?

edit on 21-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

hehehe...

OK - let's go your way and pretend there's no Creator of Life - God and all we got is science.

Scientifically speaking

Can life arise from life?

Yes or No or IDK?

Can life arise from non-living things?

Yes or No or IDK?

what say the smart one.

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by edmc^2

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.

Nope, you've got that backwards. By that definition, all kinds of things could be considered life. Like crystals. Autocatalysis and spontaneous polymerization occur naturally in non-living things. RNA autocatalysis has also been proven in the lab.

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".

Wrong. Spontaneous generation isn't life from the non-living--that is abiogenesis, in which life emerged once and took different forms and diversified (through natural selection). Part B to the spontaneous generation argument is heterogenesis, in which a form of life emerges from a different form (eg, creatures came from the medium they inhabited, such as clams forming from sand). The ancient views on it were formed by their belief in the Four Elements--they believed that air was the essence that made things alive. In the late Middle Ages through the 18th century, it was the elan vital which is how we ended up with organic and inorganic chemistry (via the alchemists, by the way). It's also how we ended up with Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

No one has believed that in centuries. It fell out of favor once and for all with Pasteur.

like I said spontaneous generation and abiogenesis have the same basic principle - life arising from no living things.

based on ancient philosophy and bad science.

You still don't get it, do you?

I got it - you don't know that there's no difference.

reply to post by edmc^2


How are you still failing to grasp this point? For 16 pages now you have parroted the same God of the Gaps fallacy. Science not knowing the answers does not magically give credence to your circular magic sky man arguments. This is not a difficult concept to understand, even a child can grasp this basic concept.

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by edmc^2

 

How are you still failing to grasp this point? For 16 pages now you have parroted the same God of the Gaps fallacy. Science not knowing the answers does not magically give credence to your circular magic sky man arguments. This is not a difficult concept to understand, even a child can grasp this basic concept.

edit on 21-6-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)

Oh I grasp it alright - you people have no answer to a very concept of life.

Tell me this john_b:

Let's pretend that there's no Creator. Same question.

Can life arise from life?

Yes / No / IDK?

Can life arise from non-living things?

Yes / No / IDK?

What's the answer - which one is supported by science?

This should be as you say a child's play.

reply to post by edmc^2


"I don't know" to both questions. Now, here's the important bit. Pay attention closely as it seems to have slipped under your radar many times in this thread already: science not knowing does not in any way lend credibility or magic in evidence for your "God of the Gaps" fallacy. Do you understand this elementary concept?