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

Originally posted by edmc^2
The abiogenesis hypothesis is one silly idea no matter how you look at it.

Yet here we are...

Perhaps, more accurately (and ironically, re silly ideas) ..."The abiogenesis hypothesis is one silly idea for those who begin with firm belief the hypothetical and magical sky fairy did it and will never waver from this belief, no matter what."

Though it can be healthy to have and consider opposing views. It doesn't hurt science to have some "mavericks" IMO, those that think outside the box. Yet, I doubt science has much to do with your motivation. Among the seemingly genuine motivated arguments for the negative here, I have the feeling that your whole thread, underneath it all, is based on religious fundamentalism. Perhaps you could clear up this perception with some detailed description of how you feel life began? It does seem relevant, as you mention both the certainty of a particular beings existence and what you feel amounts to proof of this, also the certainty he did it. Asking for elaboration of these things and of your position would therefore not seem irrelevant.

It is becoming apparent, that even if experiment shows abiogenesis to be viable and the only likely explanation, you will still deny it. In fact the only experiment that could possibly convince, would be to find a planet with the same conditions as an earlier earth, then watch it for the required millions of years to see if life springs up. Though even then, I have the feeling you would try to fit your completely hypothetical fairy being in there somewhere.

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.

Says it all really. Your whole pov, no matter how many scientific terms are used, rests on a personal religious belief.

Perhaps if the object of your fervent belief were shown to exist other than as a concept in your thought processes, he might be in the running. Until then science will look to natural processes, as they should.

As to his correspondence to mankind, this has me wondering...Would this heavenly correspondence take in a certain books of "historical and scientific facts", including one otherwise known as the "bible"?

Things like...commanding universes into existence...talking snakes...floods that didn't happen...the ark (possibly the funniest of them all)...halting of planetary/celestial motion...surviving several days unscathed in a fishes digestive system...various accounts of resurrection...ritual occult sacrifice...inseminating other men's wives behind their back (to give birth to himself) via magic (why didn't he stone himself to death for adultery?)...walking on water...changing the molecular structure of matter on a whim...faith healing etc...

Why I ask is that it would clarify your position re science. Obviously belief in these things would seem to necessitate accepting that there are no valid principles of science beyond what supernatural whim will allow, thereby discounting it even as a genuine field of study. Which could leave people wondering about the motives and honesty behind this thread. It could also be wondered how the phrase "silly ideas" can ever be mentioned about anything, no matter how apparently ridiculous, without blushing.

Therefore it would be good if you could clarify.

There could be some sort of ultimate intelligence underlying, or perhaps woven within existence. I can see many people being open to this as a possibility (I am). No doubt when there is genuine reason to consider this, science will consider it. Who knows (apart from yourself of course)?

reply to post by edmc^2


The question was: "where is your evidence that science has conclusively eliminated abiogenesis?", not "what do you think about the Miller-Urey experiment?" What you need to demonstrate is actual, conclusive evidence that rules out abiogenesis as a viable hypothesis. So far, you've failed to do so.

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:

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!

In other words, any observations that come out of a lab will be evidence that intelligence was needed for those observed results. This is an extraordinary claim which will obviously require extraordinary evidence to back it up. Quite simply, you need to demonstrate that the scientists who performed e.g. the Miller-Urey experiment and other similar experiments managed to make chemical molecules behave in a way they could not have done naturally. How exactly did they do this? What observed chemical reactions could not have occurred without the presence of an intelligence and why?

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.

Incidentally, later in his life, Stanley Miller performed another experiment that has had a lot less press than the one in 1953. In 2000, he published this article describing the abiotic synthesis of the nucleobase adenine and amino acids in frozen conditions:

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103500963656

He basically put a mixture of ammonia and cyanide in a freezer and 25 years later opened the vial and was able to find some of the building-blocks of life. Maybe it was a really smart freezer? Miller also wrote an article in response to the claims that UV radiation would be a serious problem for pre-biotic organic chemicals:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC22584/

Turns out there was a perfectly usable, readily available UV protection in place - water.

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.

Originally posted by radix
Your only hope is to provide actual, positive evidence for the existance of a Creator.

+1.

Though good luck with that. That point seems to be like water off a (croca) duck's back.

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum


+1.

Though good luck with that. That point seems to be like water off a (croca) duck's back.

Indeed. Holding onto these myths does seem to require a thick layer of insulation against logic and reason. I have no illusions that edmc^2 will be open to any argument that challenges his beliefs, I just don't like to see this kind of nonsense stand unanswered. It's more for the benefit of any lurkers out there that are actually interested in learning more on this subject.

As Jerry DeWitt says: heal the sick, shoot the zombies.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5ZBzknmdKA

reply to post by radix

Fixed


Your links.
Link 1
Link 2

reply to post by flyingfish


Thank you kindly, sir!

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: typo

edit on 4-8-2012 by radix because: clarity

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?

Originally posted by radix
As Jerry DeWitt says: heal the sick, shoot the zombies.

It's a fascinating thing, belief. Especially IMO, when it comes to the psychology of religious cults. Which is in some ways why I take part in these threads. Christianity is no different to Scientology this way. It shouldn't pretend to be science, or think (pseudo) science legitimizes it, they are based on completely different principles. So I certainly agree with you.

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.

reply to post by totallackey

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?

Not sure I understand the question. If this is a re-iteration of your previous question about God's creation of man being an example of abiogenesis, I believe I answered that. If not, you lost me - sorry. Rephrase?

BTW, I'd still like to see your evidence that science has conclusively eliminated abiogenesis. edmc^2 tried to address it but seems to have come up short.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

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.

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.

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.

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.

reply to post by radix


I believe it is clear enough. By default, the position of creationists and abiogenesis proponents are the same, correct?

reply to post by totallackey


That life had a starting point? Sure, the evidence suggests that the universe had a starting point and it's hard to imagine life existing without a universe to exist in.

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.

I think the god based more on Spinoza and Einstein is just what you say. Another name for our understanding of the principles we find in nature, interpreted by some people as needing an intelligent designer/non existent deity to account for. The only thing that is always missing is anything of the creator him/herself. Not surprisingly...

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.

Though I'm not claiming duality as in matter/soul or anything like that. Only that I can see a possibility of consciousness already existing (at least potentially) in some fundamental way, that might be different to what we think of as mind, intellect etc. Though obviously to use via our intellect requires a highly evolved nervous system.

This is only based on certain experiences though. Difficult to explain without sounding like Deepak Chopra type pseudo science and I'm still open to the possibility of being a fluke of brain chemicals, neurons etc. Ironically another poster on this thread with similar experience is sure of creationism. 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.

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.

Yeah..."god did it" = "I don't know" IMO. Indoctrination from a young age does no one any favours.

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?

Nope, unless you are arguing that an intelligence guided the abiogenesis process. One group is trying to find the answer, the other is assuming they already know. I think we already know which is which.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

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.

Oh, definitely. If there's one thing we can be sure of it's that there will be surprises. Only a few years ago we thought the universe consisted of energy and matter and was expandning at a steady rate (or possibly slowing down). Now it turns out that the expansion is accelerating and only about 5% of the universe is matter and energy - the rest we don't have a clue about. I've always found the "fine-tuned universe" a highly suspect argument. We have no idea why these various physical constants have the values they have, we don't even know if they could in fact have any other values. Wouldn't you need to demonstrate that there's actually something to tune before you can claim that there's any fine-tuning going on?

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.

I agree. The more I read about the work being done in abiogenesis research the more clear it becomes to me that the line between a non-living "protocell" and a living cell is completely arbitrary. It's all just varying degrees of chemical complexity. Jack Szostak wrote an interesting article (actually, it was more like a short comment) where he argued that putting time and effort into defining life doesn't help us understand how life started.

Link

reply to post by radix

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.

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:

Fox's experiments
Deep sea vent hypothesis
Eigen's hypothesis
Wächtershäuser's hypothesis
Zn-World theory
Radioactive beach hypothesis
Ultraviolet and temperature-assisted replication model
Clay hypothesis
Gold's "deep-hot biosphere" model
PAH world hypothesis
etc..

en.wikipedia.org...

Is it the hope that one will stick?

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.

Like I said:

If you can't build a very sophisticated house without a blueprint, what makes you think that you can instruct a protein or an enzyme to form or do specific intelligent task without first understanding the command? It can't be done. Intelligence IS needed.

Since abiogenesis hypothesis doesn't need or even require one, the problem will remain! Until INTELLIGENCE IS included in the equation - the hypothesis will remain just that, a silly one at best.


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?

If the answer is nowhere, no and no, what is Intelligence then? A dead end for you, else the alternative is to ACCEPT that it belongs to an Entity, higher than humans.


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.

As for this statement of yours:

Turns out there was a perfectly usable, readily available UV protection in place - water.

This is old news but just to let you know...

If you think WATER was/is the solution to the UV problem then explain this:

How will you prevent the biological molecules from disassembly since..

...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

Or...

...

Or this

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).

www.organic-chemistry.org...

To quote Prof. Shapiro:

" 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

Just like what Dr. Dean H. Kenyon said a while back is true, so true today:

“fundamentally implausible that unassisted matter and energy organized themselves into living systems.” - Biochemical Predestination

Or that of Professor J. D. Bernal

“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.”

Exactly!

In order to accept the abiogenesis hypothesis as an explanation to the Origin Of Life - "the arguments have to be bent round to support its existence".

That is - 'we will ONLY accept - life arising from non-living things not by Intelligent Guidance / Design but by Blind Unguided Spontaneous Generation' of life from non-living things.

As for these:

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.

Easier said than done. Fact is, you still need guidance to get the proper combination, sequence, order to get a proper reaction. That's just the facts of life.

Like I said:

Molecules needed to put themselves together INTELLIGENTLY in such a way that ONLY LEFT HANDED (amino acids) are SELECTED. This IS a must because in nature both LEFT HANDED and RIGHT HANDED molecules in equal proportion are produced and LIVING organisms use only LEFT HANDED molecules.

Furthermore, before this very important step to happen, BLIND CHANCE - or as claimed by evolutionists - NATURE must come up with an ingenious way to program the molecules so that the CORRECT combinations / sequence and types of molecules are ONLY allowed. ANY molecule or atom that is out of place, missing, out of sequence will be disastrous - NO LIFE!

Compounding the problem in cosmic proportion IS the fact that ONLY 20 kinds of amino acids are needed to be selected by CHANCE/RANDOM. That is, 20 kinds must be SELECTED or SCOOPED out of the hundreds of kinds of molecules in the ocean of "organic soup" or in this case meteor.

Try again.


In another related news:

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...

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Yet here we are...

Sure "here we are", but that's not the real issue isn't it? It's a mute statement because the real issue is this:

How did we get here?

Is it by abiogenesis / evolution – i.e.: survival of the fittest?

Or

Creation – i.e.: arrival of the fittest?

Is it by “poof” magic as in spontaneous generation magic?

Or is it by as you put it “the hypothetical and magical sky fairy”?

Of course to me the Creator - Yahweh/Jehovah/Yehowah God IS the most REASONABLE, logical and common-sensical answer because it has SOLID FOUNDATION.

One of which:

That Life on earth can only come from pre-existing life'

or to be more precise –

Intelligent Life on earth can come only from pre-existing Intelligent Life.


In addition the existence of the Universe itself with all of its PRECISE MATHEMATICAL LAWS and constants points to INTELLIGENCE at work.

To ignore it is to be an ignorant fool.

And NO - there's NO MAGIC involve - but a FULL and COMPLETE understanding of the "molecular structure of matter”, energy and ALL COSMIC laws and Natural Forces.

Being the ONE responsible for such laws thus He has the ability and the POWER to do so as He wills.

To quote the scripture since you brought it up:

(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."

I know this might be hard for you to fathom, I understand that, but if man to a lesser degree IS capable of (to a certain degree) things that are considered an impossibility - a miracle - a hundred 100 years or even 50 years ago. Why not a Higher Being with greater intelligence than us humans? One that knows the “molecular structure of matter”!


To quote Akira Yamada, professor emeritus of Kyoto University in Japan:

“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.

Profersor Michio Kaku:

"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."

So... why would the creation of the universe..”halting of planetary/celestial motion...surviving several days unscathed in a fishes digestive system...various accounts of resurrection....walking on water...changing the molecular structure of matter on a whim...” be considered unscientific just because they can't be understood in today's technology and current understanding of physics?

or as as Prof. Kaku puts it “they are outside what is commonly called science"?

Yet with proper and full understanding of the molecular structure of matter/energy such phenomenal things might become ordinary – just like your computer.

Consider as an example:

There was a time when people (The Alchemist) were laugh at when they said they were on a quest to transform lead into gold.

Many believe that this is impossible because it violates physical laws.

But today it's no longer a laughing matter but a reality – because we now know the molecular structure of lead.

Notice:

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.

...

chemistry.about.com...

cont...

...

Another example:

Superconductivity -

Lead, which is not an ideal electrical conductor, but when immersed in liquid helium cooled to a temperature of −271° C. (−456° F.) becomes a superconductor.


Any idea why? What is like 300 years ago? A miracle, a phenomena?


But if you were aware of such knowledge would you consider them as “miracles”, a violation of known laws?

If no, how, then, can you or anyone say that God violated his own laws in performing supernatural works that seemed miraculous to men?

Does not the Creator of the physical universe who has perfect control his creation can maneuver these things within the framework of the laws he has made inherent in them?

That He can bring about the very condition necessary for WHAT HE INTENDED it to be? Thus he can speed up, slow down, modify, or neutralize actions / reactions according to the requirement.

Just like your car - in the driver seat with full knowledge of the laws of motion, locomotion, chemistry, electronics, etc - you can control the way your car behave at will according to your circumstances and needs.

Yes Indeed!


Of course we must admit - man's knowledge is limited when it comes to the Origin Of Life because that knowledge resides only in the MIND Of God.

But imagine if we were given that knowledge - can man or will man be able to use it for his own good or his detriment?

Given the history of imperfect man - the answer is obvious.

But if man is capable of such miracles - then it further confirms the fact that INTELLIGENCE is the foundation of it rather than an immaterial, nonsensical illogical UNguided Blind Chance Event of evolutionists.



///later...

reply to post by edmc^2

Since when is pointing the obvious became a negative?

Since when is pointing the flaws of a flawed hypotheses a negative?

Proving that life could not be the result of a natural, unguided process is, by definition, to prove a negative. Are you now trying to re-define the meaning of "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.

Not at all, it's a statement of fact. You're the one copping out. You're making claims that you're unable to back up with any evidence and when you're called out on this, all you have is more claims. If you assert that abiogenesis is impossible, then you need to demonstrate this so stop tap dancing and show us the evidence. If it's obvious, then you shouldn't have any problem with this.

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:

Fox's experiments
Deep sea vent hypothesis
Eigen's hypothesis
Wächtershäuser's hypothesis
Zn-World theory
Radioactive beach hypothesis
Ultraviolet and temperature-assisted replication model
Clay hypothesis
Gold's "deep-hot biosphere" model
PAH world hypothesis
etc..

Because science is open to exploring different ideas, since it's not locked into a bronze-age script but can adapt to the actual reality we're observing. This is how science works when faced with an unexplained phenomenon: you propose a hypothesis and test it against the observed evidence. If the hypothesis passes the test against reality you continue your testing - if not, you discard the hypothesis and try a new one. When your hypothesis has consistently proved to fit with the evidence and has proved to be useful in making predictions, it will eventually form the basis of a theory.

Obviously, none of the current abiogenesis hypotheses have yet reached this point and they probably won't for quite some time. Meanwhile, working on a number of hypotheses in parallell makes complete sense as an efficient approach to attacking the problem. The fact that you see it as a weakness displays a fundamental lack of understanding of the scientific method.

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?

I see you keep parroting the same, inane argument that because something hasn't happened yet, it will never happen. It's still an argument from ignorance.

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.

More unsubstantiated claims. You really do seem to have a problem understanding the difference between an assertion and evidence.

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?

Bingo! Not only does the "intelligence is needed" theory lack any supporting evidence, it also lacks any explanatory value as it simply raises a whole host of new questions. It's a scientifically useless theory.

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.

You've got that backwards. Science is tackling the problem with actual, experimental work. Creationism is sitting on the sideline, trying to poke holes in whatever natural, unguided hypotheses are suggested without showing any interest in finding any positive evidence for their own position. Why is this?

To be continued...