It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by edmc^2
The abiogenesis hypothesis is one silly idea no matter how you look at it.
As for my belief - the existence of the Creator of Life Jehovah God - I have no doubt about it.
Furthermore the evidence of his existence is also readily available from his letters to mankind.
The fact that it required intelligent people to do such controlled experiments is proof enough that Chance Event can't spontaneously generate the building blocks of life. In short Intelligent Guidance IS REQUIRED!
Originally posted by radix
Your only hope is to provide actual, positive evidence for the existance of a Creator.
Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
Though good luck with that. That point seems to be like water off a (croca) duck's back.
Originally posted by radix
reply to post by edmc^2
It's interesting to note that creationists are apparently preparing for the eventuality that science may actually be able to demonstrate how life could have come from non-life. Their fall-back position, as outlined in your post (I've seen the argument made by other creationists, too), seems to be this:
edit on 4-8-2012 by radix because: typoedit on 4-8-2012 by radix because: clarity
Originally posted by radix
As Jerry DeWitt says: heal the sick, shoot the zombies.
By default, the argument for creationists is life from non-life. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth. And the Earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep..." - Genesis 1:1 and 2.
So, what is the argument? According to this, there is just lifeless matter...right?
It's the shameless practice of indoctrinating and brainwashing young minds that religion has a lot to answer for. A practice that should be banned IMO, religion given no quarter or respect while they do this.
Otherwise, without the religious "know it all's", topics like this could be very interesting. I can see where some form of underlying intelligence could exist, though not a fairy being who picks and chooses more a Spinoza/Einstein type god, a possible underlying intelligence of sorts that is (within) nature itself. Obviously makes no difference to it whether a leaf falls from a tree or a whole species of humans become extinct. Unlike religion, I realize this is also complete unscientific speculation and that I don't really know.
Few points of view are as lacking in honest humility as those of religion. "I don't know" are words that are rarely uttered. In fact if you could brainwash people to replace those words with the thought stopping notion that "god did it", that would seem one of the basic principles of most religions.
Originally posted by radix
I absolutely agree, I think it's a fascinating topic which I would love to discuss with people who are actually interested in a discussion. The problem with Spinoza's God is that there's no way to distinguish Him from a non-existing god. The way I see it is, either God interacts with the physical world - in which case He is detectable by physical means - or He doesn't interact with the physical world which makes Him irrelevant to physical beings like ourselves.
This is my biggest problem with religion - "thought-stopping" is a good word for it. "God did it" is obviously a non-answer that ultimately leads to "I don't know - and I'm fine with that". Total intellectual capitulation, not something you want to pass onto the next generation.
Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by radix
I believe it is clear enough. By default, the position of creationists and abiogenesis proponents are the same, correct?
Though in a personal sense, I feel there could be a few more surprises, particularly as our understanding deepens of how matter becomes conscious, gains self awareness, becomes capable of subjective experience etc.
Yet I feel that when things like the beginning of life and consciousness (relative to evolution) are further understood, they will be natural processes. Further removing the need for creator beings/primitive deities. Though I don't really know that, I just see no reason as yet to expect otherwise.
As I've already pointed out in this thread, trying to find negative evidence against alternative explanations does nothing to validate your own claims. It puts you in the hopeless position of having to prove a negative: that there could not be a natural, unguided explanation - ever (including future hypotheses that haven't even been proposed yet). This is obviously a dead end. Your only hope is to provide actual, positive evidence for the existance of a Creator.
Turns out there was a perfectly usable, readily available UV protection in place - water.
...Water happily attacks large biological molecules. It pries nucleotides apart from each other, breaks sugar-to-phosphate bonds, and severs bases from sugars.” -- Robert Shapiro - Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide, pp. 173-4
Organic Synthesis in Water
Water plays an essential role in life processes, however its use as a solvent has been limited in organic synthesis. Despite the fact that it is the cheapest, safest and most non toxic solvent in the world, its presence is generally avoided through the dehydrative drying of substrates and solvents. The use of water as a medium for organic reactions is therefore one of the latest challenges for modern organic chemists. The present Highlight presents a brief selection of different organic reactions run in an aqueous medium from the literature of the past two years. An excellent review about stereoselective organic reactions in water have been recently published (Chem. Rev. 2002, 102, 2751. DOI: 10.1021/cr010122p).
" Unfortunately, the formation of water in an environment that is full of it is the chemical equivalent of bringing sand to the Sahara. It is unfavorable, and requires the expenditure of energy. Such processes do not readily take place on their own. In fact, the reverse reactions are the ones that occur spontaneously.-- Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide, pp. 173-4
“fundamentally implausible that unassisted matter and energy organized themselves into living systems.” - Biochemical Predestination
“By applying the strict canons of scientific method to this subject [the spontaneous generation of life], it is possible to demonstrate effectively at several places in the story, how life could not have arisen; the improbabilities are too great, the chances of the emergence of life too small.” ... “Regrettably from this point of view, life is here on Earth in all its multiplicity of forms and activities and the arguments have to be bent round to support its existence -- The Origin of Life.”
If you're going to claim that the building blocks of life could not have been present on pre-biotic Earth, you've got something of an uphill battle on your hands. Amino acids, nucleobases and fatty acids have been shown to form readily in very varying and extreme conditions. They've been found in comets, asteroids and even interstellar space. It all comes down to the unique chemical properties of carbon - give it a chance to react with any of the other abundant elements like hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen and it will. It just can't help itself.
DNA computing is a new computational paradigm
by harnessing the potential massive parallelism, high
density information of bio-molecules and low power
consumption, which brings potential challenges and
opportunities to traditional cryptography...
Yet here we are...
(Isaiah 40:26) . . .“Raise YOUR eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one [of them] is missing."
“While it is correct to say that [a miracle] cannot be understood as of now from the standpoint of the science in which one is involved (or from the status quo of science), it is wrong to conclude that it did not happen, simply on the authority of advanced modern physics or advanced modern Bibliology. Ten years from now, today’s modern science will be a science of the past. The faster science progresses the greater the possibility that scientists of today will become the target of jokes, such as ‘Scientists of ten years ago seriously believed such and such.’”—Gods in the Age of Science.
"the God of Miracles is, in some sense, beyond what we know as science. This is not to say that miracles cannot happen, only that they are outside what is commonly called science."
Before Chemistry was a science, there was Alchemy. One of the supreme quests of alchemy is to transmute lead into gold.
Lead (atomic number 82) and gold (atomic number 79) are defined as elements by the number of protons they possess. Changing the element requires changing the atomic (proton) number. The number of protons cannot be altered by any chemical means. However, physics may be used to add or remove protons and thereby change one element into another. Because lead is stable, forcing it to release three protons requires a vast input of energy, such that the cost of transmuting it greatly surpasses the value of the resulting gold.
Since when is pointing the obvious became a negative?
Since when is pointing the flaws of a flawed hypotheses a negative?
I'm merely pointing out the flaws of the hypotheses and the silliness of such hypothesis. And to say that it "does nothing to validate [my] own claims" and that I "failed to do so" is ignoring the issue, a cop-out on your part.
But if you really think that I "failed to do so" - that science hasn't eliminated the abiogenesis hypotheses then why the many hypothesis that came forth to redefine it since then? Why the (need) for new models and hypotheses' - like exogenesis if abiogenesis is a viable explanation?
Why the models such as:
Deep sea vent hypothesis
Radioactive beach hypothesis
Ultraviolet and temperature-assisted replication model
Gold's "deep-hot biosphere" model
PAH world hypothesis
But since none of these models / hypotheses has/had successfully provided a satisfactory and reasonable explanation, what convinces you that someday they (evolutionists scientist) will come up with one?
Is it FAITH, i.e. FAITH man's imperfect ability?
But do you know why it will fail? Because you can't CHANGE the FACTS!
That is, it takes INTELLIGENCE to create something that is INTELLIGENT!
An Intelligent Designer IS required for something that is Intelligently designed!
A Fine Tuned system requires a Fine Tuner.
Simple as that and no way around it.
But who amongst Atheists / Evolutionists is BRAVE enough to do that? That is, include INTELLIGENCE into the equation? NONE I supposed, for it brings more challenging questions:
Where did the Intelligence came from, did it always exist, and is it an Entity?
So if you're not that brave to tackle such fundamental questions then you'll just have to keep on kicking the can further and further - all the way to nearest or farthest stars and galaxies hoping that someday a satisfactory hypothesis will come up.
Good luck with that one.