Abiogenesis

Author: Goldtop

Posts

Total: 334
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Goldtop
20 posts now saying nothing but assertion.

Post some of your evidence for abiogenesis Einstein. Stop telling us how "scientists" love it and post something of substance. Otherwise, your posts have become repetitive.

Evidence jethro. Not assertions.
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@ethang5
The evidence is in the fact there is life on Earth. This is a simple fact that for some reason (ignorance) you can't seem to fathom.

Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@ethang5
I said science does not lead to abiogenesis

Argument from Ignorance.
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
You are now trying to ooze to "life always existing".
I said that in my first response to you. "The alternative to abiogenesis is to say that life always existed, forever"

Defend your claim. Abiogenesis has no scientific evidence at all. None. Theories do not mean the idea is true.
Correct, but that's what science is: theories. We're talking about science, remember?

This is not evidence. It's inductive logic. And it is poor thinking.
Science incorporates a variant of inductive logic known as abductive logic.

Namely your, "Ergo life had to arise from non-life:" it does not necessarily follow from the premise.
I'm open to alternative deductions. Do you have one?

I mentioned that creation Ex Nihilo is a form of abiogenesis. You said you didn't see how.
That is a lie. You said, "Science leads to abiogenesis" I said science does not lead to abiogenesis. Dishonesty will not help your position.
I said, here: "The alternative to abiogenisis is to say that life always existed, forever. Even creation ex nihilo is a form of abiogenisis." (Emphasis mine)

To which you replied, here: "I don't see how" directly below your quotation of mine.

So you then assume it HAS happened?
In nature? Currently? No, I don't assume that. I am simply noting we lack the requisite knowledge to rule out that it has happened or is happening with the level of certainty you display.

The Gentle Readers who have not had their thinking crippled by anti-theism will know.
Yeah, but you're talking to me. So perhaps you should address your comments appropriately?

Why?
That's what's science is about, baby.

Illogical. We are talking about both.
No, for this specific statement we were talking about laboratory conditions. Either they matter or they don't. If they matter, then that certainly hurts the case for fusion, doesn't it? If it doesn't matter, why bring it up?
ravensjt
ravensjt's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 123
0
1
5
ravensjt's avatar
ravensjt
0
1
5
-->
@Goldtop
Yet, it is science with real scientists doing research. I suppose you're yet another one requiring a great deal of education on what science is. Please do educate yourself so you sound somewhat intelligent.

All your required to do is show an example of something coming from nothing.... This question has followed you to multiple websites now Bro

Ad homs are the tools of the desperate, simply provide proof
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@ravensjt
All your required to do is show an example of something coming from nothing....

Read the OP.

You're welcome.
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@drafterman
The alternative to abiogenisis is to say that life always existed, forever. Even creation ex nihilo is a form of abiogenisis.

Not so.."Life has always existed"  is the Theistic position (awareness being an eternal substance), that life came from a conscious Source not a dead, material mind-less source so no, creation never came from an ex-nihilo at all rather a conscious, intelligent Source because life is in fact conscious and aware. One theory is superior to the other in that in the Theistic arena creation comes from a conscious Source not from abiogenesis, the opposite is obviously that conscious awareness was constructed from a non-conscious source (abiogenesis), materialism. Theists collectively believe that life never comes from non-life, but that all life has originated and purposed from a conscious reality (living)...AKA God. Nothing came from the inanimate is a superior view.


drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
By "life" I mean in the physical, biological sense. Not some wishy washy disembodied consciousness sense.
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
Sorry, but consciousness is a product of a brain, it is not something that has been floating around for eternity. Many life forms don't have brains, hence they have no consciousness. Please try to understand the English language, terms and definitions.

Consciousness:

- the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.
- the awareness or perception of something by a person
- the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world.

Notice that nowhere in this definition does your personal beliefs have any credibility.

EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@drafterman
By "life" I mean in the physical, biological sense. Not some wishy washy disembodied consciousness sense.

That's the difference between materialism and Theism. It's not wishy washy and you can collaborate it with your own experience. Life is conscious, awareness and so is the first Source out of all which is living comes from. Embodiments are what they are, they do not create consciousness. 
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
That's the difference between materialism and Theism

No, it is the difference between your lack of understanding definitions of words and everyone else understanding.
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@drafterman
Let me know if you have any questions about that. It's pretty straight forward and simple. 
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
It's pretty straight forward and simply wrong.

mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@ravensjt

All your required to do is show an example of something coming from nothing....

Rjt, quite to the point and rational, logical common sense.  I have to agree with you and Ethang on this one.

1} There is not any direct evidence of biologic life being created from substances of non-biologic life, --even via lab experiements--,

2} even tho we know left-handed amino-acids exist in some celestial phenomena, as well as four main constituents of biologics,

3} no evidence of occupied space something-ness { eternally existent }  coming from non-occupied nothing-ness { eternally existent }.

We do have direct evidence ---PBS program--  of more complex molecules coming from less complex molecules via higher pressures as would be found in pressures from celestial phenomena impacting Earth.

At the most extreme and I can envision the coding for all complex human RNA-DNA being on event horizon and the extreme gravitational pressures inside black holes ergo production of the most complex coding for humans.


Brigs has been on the life is eternally existent in Universe for some years now.

I cant say biologic life cannot be created from where before there was none, only that we have no direct evidence  ---ergo no scientific basis--   and it has not been done in the lab --no scientific basis--.

From Jacob Bekenstiens black hole mathematics --late confirmed by Hawking-- that what exists inside a black hole is expressed on that black holes event horizon. Archimedes showed us that the area of the four great circular hexagons that define a spherical cubo{6}-octa{8}hedron are equal to the outer surface area of the spherical polyhedron.

We know that RNA-DNA is has three or more kinds of spiral helix patterning going on in the cell ergo a tube-like pattern.

We know that the4-fold  cubo-octahedron has a tube-like patterns via the internal triangles of the 4 hexa-gons. In higher frequency subdivisions ---primary, 2ndary, trainary etc---  of the same cubo-octahedron we can envision growing number spiraling tube-like patterns within the cubo-octahedron.

Five. overlapping and shared sets of cubo-octahedra exist with the 5-fold icosa{20}hedron  ---20 amino-acids--- via the 10 of the icosa{20}hedrons 31 primary great circles. See this link for those 10 great circle planes. http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/Lynn/LynnS54.html


I can also envision more complex RNA-DNA codings from another pathway of mixing 5-fold icosa{20}hedron with the 4-fold cubo-octahedron.

In this latter set of scenarios we can arrive at a bilateral set of icosahedra on each side of flatten --seemingly 2D--- cubo-octahedron and the one, shared triangle by all three polyhedra surfaces trianges having increasing complex --via bisection---  patterning.

In this latter scenario we have two ways of envisioning the seemingly 2D, complex bisecting of the plane;

1} via combinatorical overlapping of Euclidean { flat plane } geometry,

2}  via combinatoriacl overlapping of spherical { Riemann } geometry that would actually be 3D, pod like expression of the subdivided, 2D plane.

#2 in the latter above is harder to grasp without graphics to present.  This link to Lehmans Pandora See L1297 graphic.


gives idea of 3D Pods, but does not include the two five-fold icosahedra that is in my cosmcially bilateral 4-fold cubo-octahedron as black hole phenomena scenario and projection of 2D as 3D pods.













Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
As is often so true concerning individuals that are insecure in their own beliefs, not of what’s being talked is abstract rhetoric and mostly misunderstanding the science that is actually involved.


For those that claim it’s not science: I suspect this is more based on not understanding what the field involves and how it works, rather than any actual factual criticism. So let’s start.


Abiogenesis in a scientific tense, is an umbrella term for scientific attempts to explain how life began: it is pressured - given the evidence - that life was not magically created, but instead the initial speculative thought was that some set of conditions over some  period of time were able to generate enough reactions of the right type to generate some form of most rudimentary organism.

That is speculative - and science started breaking down the problem into individual sub problems and hurdles. The whole field revolves finding chemistry from experiment in plausible conditions that can produce more life like structures, molecules and behaviour from simpler and more basic components, as well as other interesting avenues: such as trying to reduce life to its basics, then see what happens when you remove even more. These are a combination of both bottom up and top down.

This starts out from the most basic experiments such as the Miller - Uray experiment, all the way to modern experiments in some of the low level biomechanics of life.

These are all repeatable experiments - and do not by any means postulate impossible conditions. As a result they fully match any reasonable criterial you have for what is considered “science”.  


Now, everyone working in the field of Abiogenesis research will tell you it is - and will likely always be - a hypothesis - the end goal is not to provide an explanation of how life came to be as much as coming up with a plausible and realistic pathway for that to be the reasonable conclusion.

To be frank, the research and experiments conducted that far exceed the burden of showing life plausibly comes from non organic origins whilst still falling short of a full explanation. 
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@drafterman
Defend your claim. Abiogenesis has no scientific evidence at all. None. Theories do not mean the idea is true.

Correct, but that's what science is: theories. We're talking about science, remember?
Science is more than theories. And not all theories are science. Abiogenesis is wishful fantasy, not science.

This is not evidence. It's inductive logic. And it is poor thinking.

Science incorporates a variant of inductive logic known as abductive logic.
When it becomes evidence for abiogenesis, let us know.


Namely your, "Ergo life had to arise from non-life:" it does not necessarily follow from the premise.

I'm open to alternative deductions. Do you have one?
Alternatives to illogic? Science does not settle for an illogical deduction because it has no other. Whether we have an alternative or not, nonsense remains nonsense, and does not become validated because you feel you have no "alternative".

So you then assume it HAS happened?

In nature? Currently? No, I don't assume that.

Oh yes you do. But you have no scientific reason to. On what fact of science do you base abiogenesis?

I am simply noting we lack the requisite knowledge to rule out that it has happened or is happening with the level of certainty you display.
Why? In 6,000 years of scientific observation and experimentation, we have seen that life NEVER comes spontaneously. Every bit of scientific evidence shows life comes from life. All of it. Yet you cling to a theory not only with no evidence whatsoever, but which is consistently contradicted by clear science. Why?


That's what's science is about, baby.
Not real science. Maybe that is what the no evidence fantasy you push is about, but not science.

No, for this specific statement we were talking about laboratory conditions
While you play semantics, I will keep reminding you that you have absolutely no scientific reason to think abiogenesis is valid and worth investigation. None.
ravensjt
ravensjt's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 123
0
1
5
ravensjt's avatar
ravensjt
0
1
5
-->
@Goldtop
Read the OP.

You're welcome.


This is your OP:


The earliest known life-forms on Earth are putative fossilized microorganisms, found in hydrothermal vent precipitates, that may have lived as early as 4.28 billion years ago, relatively soon after the oceans formed 4.41 billion years ago, and not long after the formation of the Earth 4.54 billion years ago.

This statement shows no proof of growth from life to non-life

Please do better in a thread that you created


ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Ramshutu
These are all repeatable experiments - and do not by any means postulate impossible conditions.
Untrue. They all postulate a condition that has never been observed  anywhere in the known universe. How do you know the conditions are possible if there has never been a single instance of them anywhere in all recorded history?

As a result they fully match any reasonable criterial you have for what is considered “science”.  
Science deals with what is possible. Life from non-life is not. It is actually science that tells us that life comes only from life.

That is why hardly anyone can name an experiment on abiogenesis performed after Urey-Miller. 
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@ravensjt
It doesn't sound like you know much about science let alone abiogenesis. You Creationists need to go educate yourselves rather than making fools of yourselves. This is the Science forum, not the Science Denial forum.

Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@ethang5
Science is more than theories. And not all theories are science. Abiogenesis is wishful fantasy, not science.


Thank you for confirming your ignorance of science, but we already knew that. As I mentioned to your Creationist buddy, this is not the Science Denial forum.
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@ethang5
That is why hardly anyone can name an experiment on abiogenesis performed after Urey-Miller. 

Yet, I just found over 4000 recent peer-reviewed papers on abiogenesis research. Try and educate yourself so you can sound somewhat intelligent, currently you're just a denier of fact.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Goldtop
Stop being stupid. All you do is go around saying this is science, and scientists will laugh at you. Post some substance please. How many times will you post the same vacuous "you don't know science" silliness.

Post some of the science you claim to know. I hope you've learned some since your DDO days where you claimed that photons existed at the core of black holes.

Post one bit of evidence for abiogenesis instead of telling us once again the empty, "you are a creationist". If you have no science, step aside and let people with sense speak. No one cares how much science you think you know.
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@ethang5
scientists will laugh at you

Yes, they are laughing at you and will continue to do so until you educate yourself on what science is and how it works, clearly you have no idea and never did. Funny, that you just remain ignorant and then post your hilarious denials here.

you claimed that photons existed at the core of black holes
Never said anything of the sort, but you said:

There are no amputees!

That was friggin hilarious and it's unlikely you'll ever live that one down, Lol.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Goldtop
Still no evidence on abiogenesis.

Never said anything of the sort
Lol. OK Einstein.

Would you be able to post some evidence if you had 8,000 peer reviewed papers? Hop to it Einstein. People are starting to wonder about your inability to post substance.

Maybe if you told it to the tree? Lol.
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@ethang5
How many times will you post the same vacuous "you don't know science" silliness.

It's the truth and the problem here, obviously. You, and all your Creationist buddies have no concept of science, which shows in spades every time you post here. It's baffling as to why Creationists wish so fervently to make utter fools of themselves. I guess they have no shame, morals or ethics.

That's what God delusions do, they kill the thinking mind, just like drugs.
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@ethang5
Maybe if you told it to the tree? Lol.

It appears your memory is shot or perhaps your getting Alzheimers. You're referring to someone else, Cletus.
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@ethang5
Still no evidence on abiogenesis.
There are no amputees!

That's the kind of evidence you understand. Lol.

ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Still no evidence on abiogenesis.

I'm satisfied it is clear who is ignorant of science.

Why in the world would you voluntarily enter a thread where your ignorance of science would stand out? Now you have to keep posting stupidity about science while painfully not posting any substance of science.

You are highlighting my point. Abiogenesis has no evidence whatsoever. You can't post any. But your ignorance keeps you posting nonsense about scientists laughing.

Well, I'm laughing too fido. And each time you publish another nothing post, I get the giggles again.
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@ethang5
Abiogenesis has no evidence whatsoever.

Massive, massive ignorance and denial. Hilarious.

Why not you start another thread and tell us all about how the Bible is a book of science and the goat herders of that time already knew what scientists are only discovering now (because God told them). That was a side splitter. I peed a little reading that one.

ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Goldtop
Massive, massive ignorance and denial. Hilarious.
Yeah. All that evidence you're posting for abiogenesis is hard to argue against. You sure do know science.

Can the class say clueless? I thought it could.

Lol. Can't post any evidence, too compulsive to stop posting. Must highlight his ignorance. I love internet trolls.