On The Impossibility Of Abiogenesis.

Exactly. If this was a crime scene where an explosion happened if some piece of evidence doesn't go well with the established theory then they would reevaluate the theory instead of trying to hold on to it. As for multiple universes we don't have any evidence so its not up for discussion. Provide the evidence and then we should look at it.

Ok.

Wait a minute, if I'm religious then I'm equal to having a low education? Many smart people (including Einstein) believed in some sort of creator or at least considered it a possibility.

Now you are getting political. Even though its a political board it's not the topic at hand. But exactly what religion advocated smoking?

I'm not against science. I'm against evolution. Exactly what would we not have if origins wasn't taught?

- - - Updated - - -

 

Yes. That's what makes science strong. Religion does NOT do this. Their strength comes in increasing intransigence of belief - that is, work on strengthening faith

No, I'm referring to the fact that we have religion attacking our education system. You don't have to be part of that if you don't want to be.

Yes, there are lots of Christians in science. But, let's get one thing perfectly clear about that: The did NOT let their religion screw with their science. Newton didn't. Darwin didn't. Copernicus didn't. Einstein didn't. Watson and Cricks didn't. Etc., etc.

On this thread, we're seeing CONSTANT screwing with science based on religion. And, yes, that is a very serious problem.

The problem is that science was denied. The same is going on today with climate change, evolution, etc. The assault on science IS connected to the religious movement in the US. THEY are the ones who are purposefully misrepresenting science, promoting disrespect for universities, etc. They are the ones in the House committee on science, propagating anti science.

Evolution is a foundation of ALL MODERN BIOLOGY!! This is a fundamental.

PLEASE, stop saying you are not against science only to follow that with a sweeping attack on science. You can not tolerate science.

OWN IT!

Yes. Not all answers are going to be found in this thread.

You want to use Boyle's law in an argument, but you don't want to learn about Boyle's law, for example.

Blaming ME for that makes no sense. If you want to know, then do the work. If not, then at least recognize that your creationist position has been recognized as being false physics.

 

You're talking about a cell in a complex organism like humans. The simplest cells capable of sustaining life only need around 350 genes. I suspect that a space shuttle contains far more than 350 parts and it still isn't capable of reproducing itself.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/12/991213052506.htm

 

What part of this paper do you think is a problem with abiogenesis and why?

I think you need to read Boyle's law again. It says that pressure is inversely proportional to volume if the temperature and amount of gas remain unchanged. Since the temperature of hydrogen condensing to form a star is definitely not constant, your argument is invalid.

You're free to suggest one if you can. Your link certainly doesn't. Keep in mind though, your alternate theory must explain more than current theories of stellar evolution do.

- - - Updated - - -

You do realize that stars are even bigger than Earth, don't you? If Earth's gravity can overcome Boyle's law, don't you think a star could?

 

Everything in the universe has gravity, even the hydrogen that formed the original stars.

 

Douglas Adams had the best response to these fine tuning arguments.

 

Then we should not include evolution because its a religion.

What religion is attacking education? Are you talking about evolution?

The belief of a creator actually enhance scientific study. If someone created the universe then I want to know what he created and how to use it to man's benifit.

For example?

Oh come on! First place climate change being caused by man is the issue not so much if it exists. Second evolution is not apart of science. As I will show you later in this post origins doesn't really have an affect on scientific advancment.

Really? You mean I wouldn't know all the bones, tendons, ligaments, and muscles in my arm if I didnt learned about macro evolution first? You mean a doctor can't operate without knowing the evolutionary process? You mean that a biologist can't go out and discover new species if he doesn't know that man came from ape like creatures? You are really blowing this out of proportion.

I do tolerate science, its evolution I don't tolerate. Do you tolerate science?

What?

I do know about it.

You haven't show'd me that it is.

 

But each of those genes are far more complex than the wiring in the space shuttle. Can the shuttle repoduce?

 

As the link states in the first page one of the two chemicals would react with each more than the other chemical.

And the more it condense, the more pressure this the more heat and the more it starts to expand again.

A simple explanation is the dust is clearing and the star was already there or a nova is happening.

- - - Updated - - -

So you need a star to create a star? An I'm the only one seeing the problem here? Why not we do an experiment? Lets let off a little hydrogen and see if it condense.

- - - Updated - - -

Then lets let some out from a hydrogen tank and watch it condense.

 

So in other words we only fill the space that just so happens to fit are needs?

 

No, evolution absolutely is science. There is NO question about that. In fact, the theory of evolution is one of the elite theories of all of science.

Religion ends science in that religion has a pat answer to all hard questions: "God did it". The flood? "God did it". Humans? "God did it". The early universe? "God did it".

YOU want the study of evolution stopped, because YOUR answer is "god did it". You do NOT get curious about HOW god did it. In other words, YOU are part of the proof that religion attempts to stop science.


Religion looks into the Bible - the ONE reference Christianity gives credit for knowledge. The Bible is ancient and NEVER will contain ANYTHING new and it contains what TOTALLY satisfies. It is ancient and totally sufficient to religion.

Look at your religious sites that you keep posting. Each of them claims to know science, but then breaks the rules of science in its desperate attempt to suggest that science is FALSE. More proof that religion stops (or at least tries to stop) science.

Look at the Texas text books. There we have a clear example of religion attempting to remove science from education.

 

I don't think you know enough about those genes to make such a claim.

No, which is exactly why your analogy fails.

 

Wrong. Our needs are what they are because of the environment in which they formed. If the environment had been different, then our needs would have been different too.

 

Did he....

Really???

WOW!!

The Space Shuttle! LOL!!!

AA

 

Interesting article.. i find it a bit too technical & verbose. The basic evidence for abiogenesis is pretty slim.. none, in fact. So 'impossible' remains unrebutted. Those who claim it can happen have the burden of proof. For thousands of years of human history, we have nothing to suggest that life can spontaneously erupt from non life. That is a belief.. a religious belief, with no scientific basis.

 

Yes, he did. I guess the 747 analogy was getting too blasé.

 

We know that when the Earth first formed, there was no life on it, but now there is, so life must have come from non-life somehow. The only question is whether it was a natural process or whether it involved divine intervention. Since there is even less evidence for the divine, natural processes are still the best explanation.

 

Wow! It must've happen because we are hear. How about maybe some creator with life created life?

- - - Updated - - -

No that's where it strengthens. Do you know how complex reproduction is? Man has yet to replicate it.

 

Really? Like what?

The flood can be explained by scientific evidence.

Why is science even getting into origins anyway? Science is what we observe, test, and demonstrate and you can't do any of those when discussing how did we get here.

That's only one religion.

Show me an example.

Like? Oh, you're talking about evolution, never mind.

 

There is no credible scientific evidence of a “global” flood.

 

Then what created that creator? If life as we know it is too complex to have come about naturally, then anything complex enough to have created it would face the same dilemma. However, we have lots of evidence of complex systems forming through seemingly random natural forces.

That doesn't make it impossible. Man has only been trying for about a century. Nature has a 4 billion year head start.

 

I made a thread about that.

 

The question assumes that God is stuck in time like we are. God is outside of time and space otherwise he wouldn't be God. It's like the guy who made the computer is not inside the computer. Besides even if God was stuck in time and was created by another god that doesn't negate the fact that life only comes from life.

Assuming that its that old, but for argument's sake lets say that it is. You'll have to admit that life came from rocks.

 

We'll leave that discussion for the other thread. My point is there are only two options for how life got started, either God did it or it started on its own. If you have third option, feel free to share it.

No, I don't, because rocks are made of minerals locked in a crystalline structure. Life comes from free molecules that are able to form stable covalent bonds with each other because of their Carbon backbones with attached hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen atoms.

http://faculty.fmcc.suny.edu/mcdarby/Molecules&CellsBook/05-Organic-Molecules.htm