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

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 
Once upon a time the inanimate became animate.

It's a heck of a concept to grasp and yet there's no other way it could be. Same goes for the 'Big Bang' Theory, it could be wrong in the details and yet is basically a case of something from nothing.

If you choose to add a layer of complexity and attribute it all to God that's fair enough. The unavoidable thing about that is your logic should take you to a point in space and time when even this deity didn't exist. That puts us straight back to...

Once upon a time the inanimate became animate.





posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 07:04 AM
link   
I always find this silly. "He always" existed, he or she or whatever else was always there!"

So wait a minute...this "God" can create himself out of nothing or always be there, yet we cannot? So the idea of life accidently popping into existence and evolving into what we are now is wrong but God can do it? please...



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by David291
I always find this silly. "He always" existed, he or she or whatever else was always there!"

So wait a minute...this "God" can create himself out of nothing or always be there, yet we cannot? So the idea of life accidently popping into existence and evolving into what we are now is wrong but God can do it? please...


I agree.

It's always funny seeing the whole "humans and life are TOO complex to not have been designed. But, God, our creator, who is mountains more complex, has always just been."

To me, it's like saying 'Of course humans make bricks, but bricks lay themselves into building all the time, they don't need a bricklayer'
edit on 2-6-2012 by Daemonicon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

L I F E comes only from pre-existing L I F E

I just have to say this is one of the silliest threads I've ever read.

And I only have one question: where did the original life (God) come from?


Well it's something we have to figure out, Age of Enlightenment when our science proves an external creator eh? We'd understand that there's no need to dwell on these silly wars and money and we could be looking to meeting lifes creators and thanking them to hell because lets be honest there is nothing better than the fact that life created on this Earth.




It's always funny seeing the whole "humans and life are TOO complex to not have been designed. But, God, our creator, who is mountains more complex, has always just been."


Well lets just say the answer to how a "god" or "gods" are created is something we don't know yet. We know in science of how precious it is for a planet to be suitable for any sort of life, how do we know something didn't want to look after a planet that could?

How can you leave it to 'chance' for life to develop this far on our planet? Imagine long in the future, our planet or suns natural life is ending, out there a brand new system had formed with a planet with brand new life. We could ingest some of the remaining 'spark' of life from our planet to its atmosphere and lay ourselves to it so life in the universe could go on. If the universe cant recognize itself...
edit on 2/6/12 by Swamper because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
On the origin of the Big Bang, I watched a conversation with Lawrence Krauss I believe. In it, they found that, in the vacuum of space, there could theoretically be a system that allows energy to be 'borrowed' from nothing. It is given the initial spark, and if it could replace what it took, and had enough to survive, it survived. Once enough of these survived, they could begin the natural process.

I'm sure I have some of the terms wrong in my description above, as the subject is a bit over my head. I'll see if I can find it right quick.

Edit: Here is the video, I believe, the subject was discussed. I'm sorry if I'm wrong, but I'm near certain it was Lawrence Krauss who stated this idea. Not sure if it is his originally or not.

edit on 2-6-2012 by Daemonicon because: Added video
edit on 2-6-2012 by Daemonicon because: Fixed a sentence.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Here's how an "always existing" creator is possible. I'll explain the quotes at the end.

Life in the universe continues to evolve and eventually some of it becomes extremely advanced. I'm talking billions of years as an advanced intelligent species. Their science is incredible and they understand virtually everything about the universe, but the universe is dying. They eventually transcend space & time. They are outside of what we understand as "time". They put all of their energy together and create a "big bang". THE big bang. You see it turns out we all created ourselves. We exist only because we can exist. We are the universe. Of course the term "always" explicitly refers to our dimension and our understanding of time. From big bang until... big bang. The cycle never ends.

Interesting eh? But that's not Jehova.
edit on 2-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Shark_Feeder
 


No there is no growing weakness because I never said God doesn't defy logic. If you follow exactly what my arguement is ? God is equally absurd from the neutral position. It boils dowm to simple choice. In the way you make sense of your uni-verse. I never said anything about what is more logical. It is completely obvious God would defy logic. I just don't speak from the neutral.

What is illogical in my view ? Is to claim full knowledge of the universe by saying God does not exist. You can't even stop there if you say that. It sets off a chain reaction of illiminations . Soon the paranormal doesn't exist. Then things like love, Jesus Christ, other dimensions the soul and spirituality of man and with those things right there ? Soon the whole uni-verse doesn't exist. This I have seen coming from your side of this arguement.
edit on 2-6-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   
of course god can make himself from nothing, hes god , he can do whatever he wants..... in the same way santa can deliver all his gifts in just one night, derr he's santa... and the same way that unicorns can do whatever it is that unicorns can do, just coz theyr unicorns.........

so listen up you silly people who listen to logic and reason and beleive in science..... your all just silly, silly, silly....
now lets all talk about god and jebus becoz thats what my parents beat into me as a child



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by DaveNorris
 




so listen up you silly people who listen to logic and reason and beleive in science..... your all just silly, silly, silly....



Why is rederick like this off topic crap even allowed ? Contribute something meaningful or please just read.
edit on 2-6-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
It's a hypothesis, which means it hasn't been proven yet and not fully backed up by objective evidence. There's still much that hasn't been explained yet...which is why it isn't a theory like evolution.

There's some evidence suggesting abiogenesis could be a possibility...but not enough to call it "proven".

Fact is, we don't know (yet) how life first started on earth. Claiming otherwise is silly. That's why scientists call abiogenesis a "hypothesis". And that's also why claiming a creator did it is beyond silly if you claim it's proven or "the truth".



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
So the whole point of this thread, summed up in a nutshell is:
Because we haven't figured out all the details yet, It must be the invisible man in the sky?

And for Randyvs:

Originally posted by randyvs
Anyways no and I don't think I want to if I'm going to end up believing something can come from nothing. And all that hocus pocus. Sorry I'm content with reality.


That was just epic, using "Hocus Pocus" as an argument against science. The irony caused me physical pain.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
God... this whole thread just fails at logic so hard, it makes my teeth hurt.

Ok, to all sides of this debate, so that I'm not being discriminate against the Creationists, or the Scientists.

1. Abiogeneisis is the study of the chemistry behind how simple chemicals in the right proportions and right initial conditions may combine to form simple amino acids.

From this initial formation of amino acids, they may combine to form more complex amino acid chains, including simple Ribonucleic Acid structures that are surrounded by lipids that self organize due to the electrostatic principles of the valance shell electrons.

From this protected position within the lipid shell, the RNA molecules may begin replicating and coding proteins.... some that function for a purpose, some that do not.

Abiogenesis is the study of how life COULD arise through natural chemical processes.


2. Life from non life.

The original argument was that Straw created field mice, and rotten meat created maggots.... so try not to confuse the spontaneous formation of a multicellular organism, with the combination of a few atoms to form amino acids... the two are wholly dissimilar, and comparing them makes you look foolish.


3. Being logical, and Scientific does NOT disprove the existence of GOD.

Any scientist worth his salt will freely admit that one of the basic principles of logic, that one cannot disprove a negative, also applies to god.

In simpler terms, Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.

Frankly, for a thread that claims to be in any fashion scientific, you all have completely disregarded logical rigour, and scientific rational.

This thread is merely a theological bickering session.... and I'm ashamed of it.


And, finally, as an answer to OP's question.

Abiogenesis is not a silly Idea... It is a study of the possibilities of chemistry.

Whether or not Abiogenesis is responsible for creating life on the planet earth is not the purpose of the study.

Whether Life can arise from complex chemical reactions, and energetic conditions *IS* the purpose of the study.


And, finally... I am sick and tired of the word "Supernatural"


Nothing is supernatural, there is no such thing as supernatural.


Even if Ghosts, Spirits, Spectres, Angels, and even GOD *DO* exist.... they would all, BY NECESSITY, be *NATURAL*



And last, but not least... to the creationists who state "God Created All life on the planet earth!"


Aren't you in the slightest bit curious as to HOW he did it?

And if you aren't, We Are.... and by GOD, we are going to study this reality until we have gleaned every last secret from it, because it's INTERESTING.

"God Did IT" does not satisfy our curiosity, it just gets in the way of our progress.

Imagine if the Wright brothers looked at the bird, flying in the sky, and said "God makes them fly", and then went to church, instead of kittyhawk....



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Shark_Feeder
 


No there is no growing weakness because I never said God doesn't defy logic.


You do claim, however that scientific theories backed by solid evidence defy logic.


God is equally absurd from the neutral position. It boils dowm to simple choice. In the way you make sense of your uni-verse. It is completely obvious God would defy logic. I just don't speak from the neutral.


A neutral unbiased position is the only way to percieve the truth...When holding a coin you can focus on one side of the coin, or the "opposing" side. However the truth is revealed when you step back to the neutral position of an outsider, and view both sides...In truth you are holding a complete coin.


What is illogical in my view ? Is to claim full knowledge of the universe by saying God does not exist. You can't even stop there if you say that. It sets off a chain reaction of illiminations . Soon the paranormal doesn't exist. Then things like love, Jesus Christ, other dimensions the soul and spirituality of man and with those things right there ? Soon the whole uni-verse doesn't exist. This I have seen coming from your side of this arguement.
edit on 2-6-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


Two points I have to make about the rest of your post.

#1: At no point did I claim to have complete knowledge of the universe...where did you read such ego? I didn't even claim knowledge of a creator.
I was simply pointing out the lack of evidence for the existence of an all powerful all loving creator. Doesn't mean that can't ever change...but I am looking for real observable evidence.

#2: May I ask you why things like the paranormal, love, other dimensions, the soul, and spirituality of man apparently depend on the existence of an all powerful creator? Also, how do you make jumps like "soon the whole uni-verse doesn't exist"?



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Shark_Feeder
 





#1: At no point did I claim to have complete knowledge of the universe...where did you read such ego? I didn't even claim knowledge of a creator. I was simply pointing out the lack of evidence for the existence of an all powerful all loving creator. Doesn't mean that can't ever change...but I am looking for real observable evidence.


I only said that if you say God does not exist ? You are claiming complete knowledge of the uni-verse

Look for evidence of your own soul. You'll never find that either. Do you have one. Yes or no only please.




#2: May I ask you why things like the paranormal, love, other dimensions, the soul, and spirituality of man apparently depend on the existence of an all powerful creator? Also, how do you make jumps like "soon the whole uni-verse doesn't exist"?


Why? Certainly all things would. What kind of a quetion is that ?

edit on 2-6-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 





God... this whole thread just fails at logic so hard, it makes my teeth hurt.


Please go see a dentist instead of whinning.

Watch



That was just epic, using "Hocus Pocus" as an argument against science. The irony caused me physical pain.


Glad to be of service ?
IDK
edit on 2-6-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread846772/pg3#pid14249482]post by Shark_Feeder[/url
I only said that if you say God does not exist ? You are claiming complete knowledge of the uni-verse


Agreed you need complete knowledge of all things....because it is impossible to prove a negative in anyway. That is why in our world the burden of proof lies with those making the claim. I could claim gravity as we know it is inherently linked to the quality of Wisconsin Cheddar...it could be true, but it would be up to be me(the one making the claim) to provide evidence of my ideas.

It works the same here...you are a proponent of the idea an all powerful creator is responsible for existence. Now comes the time where you provide evidence to back up your claims. See how this works?



Look for evidence of your own soul. You'll never find that either.

On the contrary. If indeed we, as a species are driven by an energy based consiousness, that is not tied to our organic life...we will eventually find evidence.


Do you have one. Yes or no only please.


In response to binary, or hegelian questions...I will repeat the following.

When holding a coin you can focus on one side of the coin, or the "opposing" side. However the truth is revealed when you step back to the neutral position of an outsider, and view both sides...In truth you are holding a complete coin.


Why? Certainly all things would. What kind of a quetion is that ?


What kind of stance is this? It's completely absurd...We know the earth, sun, and moon are out there....we know about our own world. So these things are proven to exist...we are here. Yet no god.

It is entirely possible that our universe came to be without the intervention of creator.

In fact I can easily envision a multiverse filled to the brim with alternate dimensions, the paranormal, love, spirituality, souls, and the afterlife...all without the aid of an absent father figure.

All completely free from any idea of "God". Why are the ideas inseperable to you?



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
It's a hypothesis, which means it hasn't been proven yet and not fully backed up by objective evidence. There's still much that hasn't been explained yet...which is why it isn't a theory like evolution.

There's some evidence suggesting abiogenesis could be a possibility...but not enough to call it "proven".

Fact is, we don't know (yet) how life first started on earth. Claiming otherwise is silly. That's why scientists call abiogenesis a "hypothesis".


Which leads to this conundrum facing every proponents of evolution theory:

How do you build a structure, a house, a building, a system, a theory with a very shaky or even a missing foundation?

Furthermore, how would such structure, system, theory (if there's even one) be able to stand with a foundation that is so weak?

I guess one has to close ones mind to the truth and just pretend. Accept that which is impossible just because (like I said in the OP) "we're here".

And that's exactly what believers of evolution had done.

Notice:

Nobel-Prize-winning biologist Dr. George Wald stated:


“One only has to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result I believe, of spontaneous generation.”


So on his own admission, he believes in the impossible.

edit:

I guess he has no choice but to do so because the alternative is unpalatable - special creation!!

Exactly what most if not all evolutionists will do.

Biologist, D. H. Watson, in talking about evolution at one time said that it is:



“universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.”


A very dumb thing to say I might add.

But if evolution is based on abiogenesis then why is it a theory if its foundation is still a unproven hypothesis?

know what I mean?

edit on 3-6-2012 by edmc^2 because: edit:



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





How do you build a structure, a house, a building, a system, a theory with a very shaky or even a missing foundation?


That's a complete nonsense argument.


The theory of evolution makes no statement regarding how life started, so it doesn't matter how it did. If it was the mighty spaghetti monster, evolution would still be how biodiversity came to be. Same goes for abiogenesis, or "insert random god(s) you like".

We can also examine your grand grand grandfathers remains and accurately determine if he's related to you or not...and no, we don't need to know how life first started for that either. We have to understand how gravity works to build plains...yet we don't know how gravity came to be in the first place.

Do you see where I'm going with this and why the "house on shaky foundations" argument is silly?



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by edmc^2
 
Once upon a time the inanimate became animate.

It's a heck of a concept to grasp and yet there's no other way it could be. Same goes for the 'Big Bang' Theory, it could be wrong in the details and yet is basically a case of something from nothing.

If you choose to add a layer of complexity and attribute it all to God that's fair enough. The unavoidable thing about that is your logic should take you to a point in space and time when even this deity didn't exist. That puts us straight back to...

Once upon a time the inanimate became animate.




I've posted this question already maybe you know the answer.

It's a known fact that Energy can be transformed into Matter and Matter into Energy.

Now which one existed first, matter or energy?



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





How do you build a structure, a house, a building, a system, a theory with a very shaky or even a missing foundation?


Do you realize that according to this logic, all of science is meaningless because we do not yet have the underlying theory of everything. But that is absurd. It is not the correct analogy to compare science to a building.

If first cells were created by God, biological evolution would still not be any less true.





new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join