-->
@Goldtop
Lol. You would know.
I told you. When you stop.
Looks like you had a little come to Jesus meeting. I like the new you.
Abiogenesis
Posts
Total:
334
-->
@Goldtop
However, baiting others is also not acceptable behavior.
Lol, then that is something you and your boy will have to correct.
-->
@EtrnlVw
There are a great many things you need to correct but I know you won't.
Honesty
Integrity
Facts
Evidence
Understanding
These are characteristics and traits that severely need your attention. Please address them before posting.
You make the same logical mistakes. I'll show you.
Lol, ah yes, such a paragon of logic. Holding that the ovservation of organic compounds such as proteins being produced from inorganic compounds isn't evidence of abiogenesis.
What stellar logic do you have for us next? That a tree being made of wood is not evidence it came(even if indirectly) from fauna such as a tree?
Moving on to your continued misunderstanding of foundational concepts in science.
For example, we don't conclusively know exactly why gravity works as it does.But gravity has been observed. Abiogenesis has not. Ever. Not even once. Not anywhere in the universe. Why is it a theory? Or given attention? Not because of science clearly.
First off, gravity has not, and cannot be directly observed. We observed it's effects, not gravity itself. Let
But this is an erroneous conflation of scientific law, and scientific theory. As it appears you lack an understanding of how they are differentiated:
Laws are observances of what is. There is a law of gravity, but gravity is also a theory. Why?
Because a scientific theory is roughly an explanation of how or why something "is", that has evidence to support it beyond any other hypothesis.
A hypothesis, which is synonomous the common use of theory, is just a speculation of how or why, with little to no evidence to support.
Why is abiogenesis a theory and not a hypothesis? Because it has evidence to support it.
1) Organic compounds such as proteins can result from inorganic compounds. As organic compounds are the foundation of life present in every living organism, it only makes sense that organism resulted from organic compounds.
You are more than welcome to argue that the foundations of what something is comprised of isn't evidence of it being produced by such foundations. But as you aptly pointed out, this doesn't happen in a vacuum. And you'd be discarding that every other thing in existence is a result of what it is foundationally comprised of, even if indirectly. This is the necessary and consequential nature of transitive series.
2) A transitive series of events is either infinite, or has a beginning, full stop. It cannot be both, it cannot be neither. As it's a de facto logical paradox for something to be both infinite and finite. Given that evidence overwhelmingly supports that the universe itself has a beginning point, this consequentially means evidence supports that life itself had a beginning as well. Life> Life is a transitive series, full stop.
3) If life had a beginning, that necessarily means at one point there was not life, then at another there was. That life had to result from something, ex: ex nihil, nihilo fit. From nothing, nothing comes.
4) Given there is evidence to support beyond that at one point Earth had zero organic matter present, then there was, you are left with two likely conclusions, abiogenesis and Panspermia. However, given premise 2, Panspermia itself still requires a beginning, a point where there was no life, then there was.
I think you obviously misunderstood my religious point as being crucial to what I'm saying. It wasn't at all. As a final point
Further, you must dismiss all the perfectly good science supporting life from life. Why would you do that?
1) as opposed to dismissing all the perfectly good science that illustrates the universe is finite and has a beginning?
2) Abiogenesis does not discard that life comes from life. How TF could it when a crucial component of the transitive series argument is that life does indeed result from life. Imagine that.
It's quite humurous that you would be aware such theories and hypotheses aren't made in a vacuum, they build upon previous theories, laws, and observances. And yet discard that by arguing against Abiogenesis, you are de facto arguing for the universe being timeless and consequentially inifinite, despite the overwhelming evidence that supports a universe that is both finite and has a beginning.
Concluding, say you are following "science" all you want, it doesn't make it true. And really, the more you speak more obvious it becomes you lack understanding of even basic scientific concepts, terminology, and principles. For example, discarding inductive reasoning as illegitimate when science does not exclude inductive reasoning from conclusions made, it still very much incorporates it, particularly in the realm of the "why" and "how" aka the realm of scientific theory.
Also just to note
When the occurrence is zero, and has been zero for all of human history.
I must have missed the part where human history was all there is to history... Heard it here first folks, the 13.8 billion years proceeding human history doesn't matter. And while we're at it, the only way probable conclusions are determined is through deduction and direct observation.
Just ignore that at one point Earth was inorganic, and then magically there was organic matter, and later on, life. No, that's certainly not indirect evidence life came from inorganic matter. After all, things come from nothing alllll the time, amirite? 😂😂
-->
@ethang5
I told you. When you stop.
Nope. It has nothing to do with me and everything to do with the mods telling you to cease and desist. And you know it.
-->
@Goldtop
What ever make you happy Goldy.
But I still like the new you. Do you feel restricted?
-->
@ethang5
The mods telling you to cease and desist does make me happy. It will make everyone else happy to see your personal attacks and name calling disappear entirely. If it doesn't, you will.What ever make you happy Goldy.
-->
@IlDiavolo
Don't get me wrong, amigo. I don't think religions or God is the answer either. If we have to be unbiased in this subject we must say that evolution and abiognenesis is a good point to start off with when it comes to know our origins. Nevertheless, I cannot stand how scientists try to sell us that these stupid theories are the answer to our questions, that is a serious offense to our intelligence.I still believe science (righteous science) is the key to know the truth.
I disagree. Science is a great tool so don't get me wrong, however science is for understanding our reality. Science isn't very suited for finding answers in "other" realities, if they exist. Abiogenesis would have had to happen if there was no life, so in that it makes sense. But, we have no idea if life isn't the manifestation of an eternal life per se. We can look at all of existence being a mind... sorta a pantheistic model. Therefore, the eternal incorporeal mind manifests itself into a corporeal existence to experience. I believe this idea is just as likely as the alternative... and if we count my bias in the matter, i believe an eternal source of life is more possible than spontaneous life. But if that is true... i believe the answer can only be found through philosophy if even that... science won't be able to answer this. 1) reason being that this source wouldn't be directly observable in our reality therefore no way to measure it... and 2) this source is infinite... how can you understand something infinite as a finite being? We may never catch up to it, however, we can experience it... which would only be able to be verbalized in a philosophical manner. I think science is a poor method in finding spiritual truths. Spiritual simply being defined as something beyond our known reality / intelligence(s) beyond our reality.
-->
@Outplayz
Science isn't very suited for finding answers in "other" realities, if they exist.
Perhaps, I can help you with your confusion.
Everything in our universe is considered part of our reality, which means it's real, hence the word, "Reality"
So, no such "other realities" can possibly exist in our reality as that would simply make that reality part of our reality, hence there is only one reality and science is definitely very well suited for finding answers.
With thousands of years of theists trying to find answers through their so-called methods, they have failed miserably. For anyone who still follows such a method is merely peeing into wind and watching the urine run down their face.
-->
@Goldtop
Funny that the mods telling me to cease and desist, makes you more civil. Weird.The mods telling you to cease and desist does make me happy.
It will make everyone else happy to see your personal attacks and name calling disappear entirely.
Most people won't be happy to see your personal attacks and name calling disappear entirely. You were good entertainment.
If it doesn't, you will.
Lol. Is that why you've stopped? To "save" me? You are so sweet. But I was right. It stopped as soon as you did. Call me crazy, but I still like the new you.
-->
@ethang5
Stop derailing this thread with your ignorance and baiting and go away unless you have something intelligent to say.
-->
@Goldtop
I was just about to say the same thing to you! Then I realized, if you would heed that, I would not need to say it to you.
You sound frustrated. Are you OK? I'm sure the mods were fair with you. Don't take things too much to heart. If you observe the CoC, you will be fine.
-->
@Buddamoose
>Lol, ah yes, such a paragon of logic.
If you are posturing to call yourself smarter, I concede now. We accept you are the smarter one and I am your intellectual lesser. Is that enough for you to give the “I'm so smart” innuendo a rest?
>Holding that the ovservation of organic compounds such as proteins being produced from inorganic compounds isn't evidence of abiogenesis.
It isn't. Is the observation that logs occur in nature evidence that log cabins occur spontaneously?
>What stellar logic do you have for us next? That a tree being made of wood is not evidence it came(even if indirectly) from fauna such as a tree?
There is no objection of where they come from. The question is about where they go. For example, the natural occurrence of oil in nature is not “evidence” that cars assemble spontaneously.
>First off, gravity has not, and cannot be directly observed. We observed it's effects, not gravity itself.
We observe no “effects” of abiogenesis. It has no effects because it is nonexistent. Comparing it to gravity is an attempt to obfuscate.
>But this is an erroneous conflation of scientific law, and scientific theory. As it appears you lack an understanding of how they are differentiated:
What law? There is no law for abiogenesis. And what is differentiated? Abiogenesis doesn't exist.
>Laws are observances of what is. There is a law of gravity,…
Because we observe the effects of gravity in reality. There is evidence for it.
>…but gravity is also a theory. Why?
The theory is to explain how gravity works. There is no law or theory of abiogenesis.
>A hypothesis, which is synonomous the common use of theory, is just a speculation of how or why, with little to no evidence to support.
But the phenomena must first exist! This is why we don't have hypotheses for things like Santa Claus or Karma.
>Why is abiogenesis a theory and not a hypothesis? Because it has evidence to support it.
Not true. It has no evidence to support it. That amino acids occur in nature is not evidence that life occurs spontaneously.
>1) Organic compounds such as proteins can result from inorganic compounds. As organic compounds are the foundation of life present in every living organism, it only makes sense that organism resulted from organic compounds.
The bodies of organisms are made of organic compounds, but a body is not life. Nor is the simple existence of a compound evidence that a complex process occurs.
>You are more than welcome to argue that the foundations of what something is comprised of isn't evidence of it being produced by such foundations.
Thanks for trying to suggest an argument for me, but this isn't my argument. My argument is that the foundations of what something is comprised of isn't evidence of the process that creates it.
That is like saying ovens are evidence of cakes.
>But as you aptly pointed out, this doesn't happen in a vacuum. And you'd be discarding that every other thing in existence is a result of what it is foundationally comprised of, even if indirectly. This is the necessary and consequential nature of transitive series.
Now you are opposing the fake argument you tried to make mine. Slick move.
>2) A transitive series of events is either infinite, or has a beginning, full stop. It cannot be both, it cannot be neither. As it's a de facto logical paradox for something to be both infinite and finite. Given that evidence overwhelmingly supports that the universe itself has a beginning point, this consequentially means evidence supports that life itself had a beginning as well. Life> Life is a transitive series, full stop.
So? What about my argument does this contradict?
>Given that evidence overwhelmingly supports that the universe itself has a beginning point, this consequentially means evidence supports that life itself had a beginning as well.
This is not logical. Life may have preceded the universe. The universe might never have had a beginning - as in never not existing. Your entire argument rests on a wobbly series of “Ifs” that you unreasonably treat like facts.
>3) If life had a beginning, that necessarily means at one point there was not life, then at another there was. That life had to result from something, ex: ex nihil, nihilo fit. From nothing, nothing comes.
Yeah, IF. But science indicates otherwise.
-->
@Buddamoose
You are free to keep imagining things. I will go with the clear science instead of assumptions. Life comes from prior life. That is science. That is what the evidence indicates.
>4) Given there is evidence to support beyond that at one point Earth had zero organic matter present, then there was, you are left with two likely conclusions, abiogenesis and Panspermia.
Illogical and misleading. Having organic matter is not the standard. For years we have known that meteorites sometimes have organic matter. Don't try to dishonestly lower the bar. Organic matter is not evidence for abiogenesis.
>I think you obviously misunderstood my religious point as being crucial to what I'm saying. It wasn't at all.
Then it truly is a mystery why you mentioned it.
Further, you must dismiss all the perfectly good science supporting life from life. Why would you do that?
>1) as opposed to dismissing all the perfectly good science that illustrates the universe is finite and has a beginning?
I have not dismissed that. That is just a red herring you wish to insert. Science often initially has things that appear mutually exclusive. But we never throw out established truth for pet theories with no evidence. No one knows how, when, or even if the universe had a “beginning” or existed but simply changed states. But we do know that life comes only from life.
>2) Abiogenesis does not discard that life comes from life. How TF could it when a crucial component of the transitive series argument is that life does indeed result from life. Imagine that.
Lol. American Indians call this, arguing from both sides of your neck.
>It's quite humurous that you would be aware such theories and hypotheses aren't made in a vacuum, they build upon previous theories, laws, and observances. And yet discard that by arguing against Abiogenesis, you are de facto arguing for the universe being timeless and consequentially inifinite, despite the overwhelming evidence that supports a universe that is both finite and has a beginning.
This is why experienced debaters like me do not allow people like you to make their arguments for them. I argue against abiogenesis because science argues against it. I've said nothing about a timeless universe. The universe being finite and life coming from life may both be facts like light being propagated as a particle and a wave. They only seem to contradict to neophytes who pretend to know science.
When scientists found out that light was also propagated as a wave, they did not discard the particle theory of light, because the clear science supported it. They had to stay with the science.
>Concluding, say you are following "science" all you want, it doesn't make it true. And really, the more you speak more obvious it becomes you lack understanding of even basic scientific concepts, terminology, and principles.
Anyone can make this claim, but you have nothing. I have 6,000 years of evidence. There is no science that supports abiogenesis. There is no scientific principle for abiogenesis. So claim I lack understanding, what you lack is evidence for your claim.
>For example, discarding inductive reasoning as illegitimate when science does not exclude inductive reasoning from conclusions made, it still very much incorporates it, particularly in the realm of the "why" and "how" aka the realm of scientific theory.
I did not discard it, I am saying that is all it is. It isn't evidence. It doesn't exist in reality. It's baseless conjecture. No science supports it.
>I must have missed the part where human history was all there is to history... Heard it here first folks, the 13.8 billion years proceeding human history doesn't matter. And while we're at it, the only way probable conclusions are determined is through deduction and direct observation.
Only reliably recorded and documented history is good enough to be a basis for scientific conclusions considered factual. You certainly missed something.
>Just ignore that at one point Earth was inorganic, and then magically there was organic matter, and later on, life. No, that's certainly not indirect evidence life came from inorganic matter.
After all, things come from nothing alllll the time, amirite?
You can't fake an argument for me big guy. No one has said life does not use matter. Everything uses matter. The claim is that life does not start spontaneously. There must be prior life
Bodies without life are common. Organic matter is not life. Abiogenesis is fantasy. The universe is chock full of organic matter, yet not life. The standard is spontaneous life, not the simple presence of organic matter.
-->
@Outplayz
I disagree. Science is a great tool so don't get me wrong, however science is for understanding our reality. Science isn't very suited for finding answers in "other" realities, if they exist. Abiogenesis would have had to happen if there was no life, so in that it makes sense. But, we have no idea if life isn't the manifestation of an eternal life per se. We can look at all of existence being a mind... sorta a pantheistic model. Therefore, the eternal incorporeal mind manifests itself into a corporeal existence to experience. I believe this idea is just as likely as the alternative... and if we count my bias in the matter, i believe an eternal source of life is more possible than spontaneous life. But if that is true... i believe the answer can only be found through philosophy if even that... science won't be able to answer this. 1) reason being that this source wouldn't be directly observable in our reality therefore no way to measure it... and 2) this source is infinite... how can you understand something infinite as a finite being? We may never catch up to it, however, we can experience it... which would only be able to be verbalized in a philosophical manner. I think science is a poor method in finding spiritual truths. Spiritual simply being defined as something beyond our known reality / intelligence(s) beyond our reality.
I understand that sometimes we're mislead by our emotions and preferences, but you cannot let it happen. This is science.
I see you're religious or at least have a deistic point of view. As mathematics are abstract concepts that let us explain our world, likewise the spiritual is a concept that does the same. Our spirit is nothing more than our emotions, traits, behaviour and attitude towards life. It's not something that exists by itself, but it exists to explain our human nature. So, your approach to explain the origins of life by means of a sort of spirit is incorrect and misleading. There is no such thing, I'm afraid, and it's wrong per se. The abstract CANNOT create a material world, it just explain it.
-->
@ethang5
It isn't. Is the observation that logs occur in nature evidence that log cabins occur spontaneously
Except, you are positing "spontaneous" where it being spontaneous is not necessary to Abiogenesis.
Spontaneous- performed or occurring as a result of a sudden inner impulse or inclination and without premeditation or external stimulus
An external stimulus to go from organic matter to "life" is not antithetical to Abiogenesis. The jump could be directly or indirectly.
No, the table is not evidence it was created spontaneously. But "spontaneous creation" and "coming from" are not synonomous with one another.
There must be prior life
Then, as previously illustrated, you are arguing for an infinite transitive series which is antithetical to the overwhelming evidence that illustrates the universe is most likely finite and has a beginning. How scientific of you discarding overwhelming evidence to conclude something antithetical.
Such as discarding inductive reasoning
I did not discard it, It isn't evidence. It doesn't exist in reality. It's baseless conjecture. No science supports it.
You can keep repeating this, and it doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, its not going to make the evidence that supports abiogenesis, not evidence.
I argue against abiogenesis because science argues against it.
Except science doesn't, partly because if abiogenesis is not true, then you necessarily have to accept the universe itself is timeless and infinite because the transitive series of life is itself infinite. And inifinite and timeless things(transitive series of life) can only result from that which is infinite and timeless itself(the universe.)
I've said nothing about a timeless universe. The universe being finite and life coming from life may both bfactsts
They are both facts. Life comes from life is not the same as saying "life only comes from life". Which you are claiming by default in arguing against Abiogenesis.
Again, these theories aren't many in a vacuum. They have implications regarding other highly evidenced theories, such as the Big Bang and the universe being finite and having an age.
Again, if life only comes from life, then the transitive series of life, and by consequence the universe itself, is timeless and infinite.
like light being propagated as a particle and a wave. They only seem to contradict to neophytes who pretend to know science.
Except, light being a particle and a wave can both be true and it not be a paradox. Water is comprised of matter, water often moves in waves.
Something being both infinite and finite, IS A PARADOX though.
When scientists found out that light was also propagated as a wave, they did not discard the particle theory of light, because the clear science supported it. They had to stay with the science
They didn't discard it because it can be both a particle and a wave and that's not paradoxical in the least bit. Light is made up of particles, and acts like a wave in motion. And you want to say other people are neophytes?
Seriously, again, the inherent and intrinsic nature of transitive series is that they have to have a beginning, or be infinite. It can't be both, and it can't be neither. Something is either infinite or finite, something is either timeless, or it has an age. If life ONLY results from life, you are by consequence conceding that the universe is timeless and finite. Because only that which is timeless and finite itself(the universe) can produce(indirectly) infinite and timeless things(infinite transitive series of life.)
This is that logic you were so keen on pointing out I'm lacking. Despite it being pretty clear you lack it yourself with
I have not dismissed that. That is just a red herring you wish to insert.
You evoke logic and science, and yet are not carrying out your logic to it's fruitful conclusions and are operating exactly as if the theory of Abiogenesis is in a vacuum and it has no relevance on other theories, and other theories hold no relevance with it. When that is untrue.
Again, if you diaagree with Abiogenesis, then you are de facto disagreeing with a finite universe that is not timeless. Because that is evidence that hold crucial relevance to holding that the transitive series of life cannot be infinite and timeless, because the universe(sum tota of everything in existence) is not, and therefore that transitive series has a beginning point, aka Abiogenesis.
You are more than welcome to argue that that which is finite and has an age, can produce/contain that which is inifinite and timeless. Be more than interested to hear what sort of evidence there is that would hold that as even being remotely possible 👍.
On a final note, if you don't like these necessary consequences of what you are arguing, then try actually carrying out your logic and rationale fully. As you have been cutting it short this whole time.
Ex: "Life comes from life"
Yes, that is true, but thats not a disposition on whether or not it makes sense that life can ONLY result from life. If that is true, then either life always was, or life couldn't ever have been because at one point there was no life for life to come from. Obviously there is life now, so we are left with two possible conclusion. Either life always was, or at some point in some way life came forth from non-life.
What is the alternative explanation for the origin of life, that isn't abiogenesis?
-->
@Tejretics
Actually it is. Do you have the mechanism by which matter becomes alive?Except, you are positing "spontaneous" where it being spontaneous is not necessary to Abiogenesis.
An external stimulus to go from organic matter to "life" is not antithetical to Abiogenesis. The jump could be directly or indirectly.
Except that abiogenesis does not exist. You have no example of it. No instance of it. No evidence for it.
I did not discard it, It isn't evidence. It doesn't exist in reality. It's baseless conjecture. No science supports it.
You can keep repeating this, and it doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, its not going to make the evidence that supports abiogenesis, not evidence.
I don't say it to make the evidence not evidence, I say it because it isn't evidence. And my not saying it will not change it into evidence. Inductive speculation of a no evidence fantasy cannot be evidence.
Except science doesn't, partly because if abiogenesis is not true, then you necessarily have to accept the universe itself is timeless and infinite...
Untrue. This is just the false dichotomy you want to limit the choices to. You do not know how or if the universe had a beginning, and as you've forgotten, life preceding the beginning of the universe is also an option.
They didn't discard it because it can be both a particle and a wave and that's not paradoxical in the least bit. Light is made up of particles, and acts like a wave in motion. And you want to say other people are neophytes?
My argument has no paradox except if your false dichotomy is arbitrarily hoisted on it. And there are science neophytes, people who think net mining can substitute for an education.
Seriously, again, the inherent and intrinsic nature of transitive series is that they have to have a beginning, or be infinite. It can't be both, and it can't be neither.
I have not said it was both or neither. You have. As such, that "paradox" is yours, not mine. If science shows me that life comes only from life, then I must consider that life may be infinite. Again, in science, we do not choose conclusions. We accept what science indicates.
You are more than welcome to argue....
No thanks. I'll stick to the argument you are struggling to.
On a final note, if you don't like these necessary consequences of what you are arguing,....
They aren't necessary. You just want them to be. Illogical things can never be necessary.
...then try actually carrying out your logic and rationale fully. As you have been cutting it short this whole time.
I don't see how. My argument is fully formed.
Life comes from life"
Yes, that is true, but thats not a disposition on whether or not it makes sense that life can ONLY result from life.
That is what the science indicates. You keep your fantasy, I'll stay with the science. Do you have a single instance of life coming from non-life? Why not?
If that is true, then either life always was, or life couldn't ever have been because at one point there was no life for life to come from.
Exactly.
Obviously there is life now, so we are left with two possible conclusion.
Lol!! Actually, we are left with just one conclusion. You reason that either life always was, OR it never was, and then suddenly insert abiogenesis in the options. Very slick.
Either life always was, or at some point in some way life came forth from non-life.
Yes, and science has answered this question. Life always come from life. There is no instance of abiogenesis, and no theory explaining the mechanism.
I've said nothing about a timeless universe. The universe being finite and life coming from life may both be facts.
They are both facts.
Thank you.
-->
@ethang5
I think you incorrectly tagged me.
I posted none of what you quoted. Those quotes were all posted by Buddamoose.
-->
@Tejretics
Answer #1What is the alternative explanation for the origin of life, that isn't abiogenesis?
What we all see everyday. And have seen since time began. Life comes from life, never from non-life.
Answer #2
Abiogenesis is not a valid explanation for the origin of life, even if we do not have an alternative. No illogical theory is validated just because we cannot presently explain a phenomena.
-->
@Tejretics
Thanks for alerting me, and I apologize to you and moose.
-->
@ethang5
What do you think caused the origin of life?
-->
@Goldtop
So, no such "other realities" can possibly exist in our reality as that would simply make that reality part of our reality, hence there is only one reality and science is definitely very well suited for finding answers.
We don't know if there are any other realities. Another realty would be, even without any life, just another universe and we have most definitely the math for these speculations. We just can't test them bc science is for our reality at which point i would agree it is best suited for. We'll just have to see what kind of evidence we can find for multiple universes using science, if we find anything at all.
With thousands of years of theists trying to find answers through their so-called methods, they have failed miserably. For anyone who still follows such a method is merely peeing into wind and watching the urine run down their face.
You know i am against religion and their pursuit. If anything, i think they have a worst time than science getting to the point since they fill in any gap they can with god. They don't try and understand the implications of such a higher intelligence. With that said, at this point in human history, philosophy and thinking seem like the only things that can try and at least do the math for if a spiritual realm can exist.
-->
@IlDiavolo
I see you're religious or at least have a deistic point of view. As mathematics are abstract concepts that let us explain our world, likewise the spiritual is a concept that does the same. Our spirit is nothing more than our emotions, traits, behaviour and attitude towards life. It's not something that exists by itself, but it exists to explain our human nature. So, your approach to explain the origins of life by means of a sort of spirit is incorrect and misleading. There is no such thing, I'm afraid, and it's wrong per se. The abstract CANNOT create a material world, it just explain it.
All the best scientists were astute metaphysicians, from Aristotle to Descartes to Newton to Leibniz to Bohr to Schrodinger to Einstein to Godel. I'm talking about what they also studied. Not a religion, not even a deistic god since that would presuppose it is a "who" ... I don't think this higher conscious state is a who... i would say it is more of an "it." But to put that aside, what i am talking about is realizing if this is possible and science cannot at this point. Btw everything is our emotions and feelings. For you to say spirituality is irrational is from feelings. Where do these traits come from? How does that work? Does science have a way to test it? Maybe we can test a little for these, but can science actually test if i exist? Can science test with surety that existence is real? I don't think so.
How do you know if the abstract cannot create? If our entire existence and beyond is a part of an eternal mind, everything can be created especially to a certainty. This is bc this source would be everything... it would be an A.I. playing chess knowing every possible move, and beyond. It would be able to create any world any reality with absolute perfection. Plus, this source wouldn't necessarily be abstract. It is everything. An infinite source. Everything happening is within this source's consciousness. But i understand how you don't get it bc you have probably never experienced it. It is like if i told you sex is great. If you don't experience it you can only think of what you've seen and felt on your own, but you will never get it fully until you experience it. Even if you don't, using just some thinking could at the very least show you the possibility of such a source. My point is it is beyond what science can prove or find evidence for. Science isn't built to be able to answer these questions, just like it can't test for where or how our own consciousness works or is from. And that is something a part of this reality... that is how far behind science is on these concepts. One day i believe it will find out... however i doubt one day it will be able to test for an infinite source.
-->
@Outplayz
No infinite source exists. Why you keep stating this follows no shred of any rational, logical common sense.An infinite source.
Is reminiscent of Mopac and his repeated nonsense with no rational, logical common sense added in.
We live in an eternally existent, finite occupied space Universe. Why you would think otherwise has no shred of rational, logical common sense.
Eternally existent macro-infinite non-occupied space exists outside of our finite, occupied space Universe.
Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts exist s, complementary to our finite, occupied space and macro-infinite non-occupied space.
-->
@ethang5
Unfortunately, stating a falsehood vehemently and forcefully doesn’t make it any less false. Perhaps you try again, with more argument and less assertion.
I am not sure whether you are making these false claims from a position of ignorance, or deliberate dishonesty, but I am happy to defer to you as to which of the two you are more comfortable with being labelled.
So, let’s go over the things you’ve got wrong.
1.) You’re still arguing as if you thing Abiogenesis is a theory like Gravity or Evolution, or is treated as such by science. It isn’t.
Abiogenesis is an umbrella term for a collection of disparate Hypotheses that provide conceptual avenues for how life may have originated - none of which have been “proven”, but all of which have interesting evidence to support them. None of them are treated as proven, or much more than interesting avenues.
So this whole approach of trying to make it sound like Abiogenesis is being presented as more than it is, is false.
While I’ve seen a few ignorant pro-science individuals treat abiogenesis like this, this is mostly something that is done by people like you, and religious zealots who don’t want to accept anything scientific and also resort to misrepresentation.
Abiogenesis - that life originated from non-organic material is mostly conceptually accepted by everyone because science doesn’t normally consider magic as a viable option.
But that’s more akin to things like the multiverse - it is an opinion - one that is logically valid and scientifically consistent- but an opinion nonetheless.
So: portraying this as something that has been oversold is fundamentally misrepresenting what the science is and how it applies, and attacking the misrepresentation.
IE: - a straw man.
2.) That the experiments take place in strange and obtuse conditions that don’t appear anywhere else in the universe.
This is not true and, quite frankly, it’s not a claim you bother to support with any evidence either. Considering you could have literally posted the most common experiment that has been made - and pointed out the conditions and how impossible they were.
I suspect that you’ve just pulled this out of the air because you think it’s true, or you want it to be true: rather than it is being true.
If you look at almost every experiment, all have a source of energy (normally in the form of heat and reducible compounds - as oxygen wasn’t present in the early atmosphere), particular biological precursor that need to be made more complex, and some additional catalyst.
Some of the more famous ones focusing on hydrothermal vents and geysers - focus on the role of iron and sulphur at higher temperatures (100 degrees), and show they fixate carbon (coming from the vent), into a mass of various organic precursors.
We know that sugars and more complicated organic chemistry - including lipids and basic RNA nucleotides can form in such conditions - and know that in those same sorts of conditions montmellerite clay (fairly common on earth btw) show that these components can be converted into RNA polymers - read: genetic chains - and nucleotide lipid bilayer vesicles - read: cell membranes.
All of them focus in mostly one of two sets of conditions: hot geysers, and deep smokers. All of which literally take the conditions directly from existing conditions on the earth - but with no molecular oxygen.
An additional class of experiments attempt to show mechanisms by which increases of complexity in organic chemistry can occur. These are such experiments that discovered ribozymes, protein transcription shortcuts and other leaps that can be made: these are intended to show mechanisms by which proto life can cross major chemical hurdles - rather than being simply about the initial creation of life in the first place, and for these the conditions are mainly focused on particular organic chemistry as we know it today - rather than any absurd or obtuse conditions.
So in that regard, no: your claim that these experiments require absurd conditions is not just unsupported, it’s without merit too.
3.) name an experiment.
If you asked people, you’d be hard pressed to find a experiment that validated gravity, or relativity, or quantum theory, or cell theory, or germ theory. You could probably come up with one big one: but often no more than one.
Given that the topic isn’t taught beyond its basics - and the one experiment - in school, it’s hardly surprising that people wouldn’t be able to name more than one experiment. As they would not be able to do for most science.
So raising what experiments people know or don’t, has little to do with the science or it’s validity: and everything to do with the fact that most big discoveries are in non-sexy journals and papers, with only the occasional major discovery making headlines and getting into what people can name.
Nonetheless some of the experiments, and processes I’ve described above are some of the big ones in the field of abiogenesis: and they don’t really have names.
I am not sure whether you are making these false claims from a position of ignorance, or deliberate dishonesty, but I am happy to defer to you as to which of the two you are more comfortable with being labelled.
So, let’s go over the things you’ve got wrong.
1.) You’re still arguing as if you thing Abiogenesis is a theory like Gravity or Evolution, or is treated as such by science. It isn’t.
Abiogenesis is an umbrella term for a collection of disparate Hypotheses that provide conceptual avenues for how life may have originated - none of which have been “proven”, but all of which have interesting evidence to support them. None of them are treated as proven, or much more than interesting avenues.
So this whole approach of trying to make it sound like Abiogenesis is being presented as more than it is, is false.
While I’ve seen a few ignorant pro-science individuals treat abiogenesis like this, this is mostly something that is done by people like you, and religious zealots who don’t want to accept anything scientific and also resort to misrepresentation.
Abiogenesis - that life originated from non-organic material is mostly conceptually accepted by everyone because science doesn’t normally consider magic as a viable option.
But that’s more akin to things like the multiverse - it is an opinion - one that is logically valid and scientifically consistent- but an opinion nonetheless.
So: portraying this as something that has been oversold is fundamentally misrepresenting what the science is and how it applies, and attacking the misrepresentation.
IE: - a straw man.
2.) That the experiments take place in strange and obtuse conditions that don’t appear anywhere else in the universe.
This is not true and, quite frankly, it’s not a claim you bother to support with any evidence either. Considering you could have literally posted the most common experiment that has been made - and pointed out the conditions and how impossible they were.
I suspect that you’ve just pulled this out of the air because you think it’s true, or you want it to be true: rather than it is being true.
If you look at almost every experiment, all have a source of energy (normally in the form of heat and reducible compounds - as oxygen wasn’t present in the early atmosphere), particular biological precursor that need to be made more complex, and some additional catalyst.
Some of the more famous ones focusing on hydrothermal vents and geysers - focus on the role of iron and sulphur at higher temperatures (100 degrees), and show they fixate carbon (coming from the vent), into a mass of various organic precursors.
We know that sugars and more complicated organic chemistry - including lipids and basic RNA nucleotides can form in such conditions - and know that in those same sorts of conditions montmellerite clay (fairly common on earth btw) show that these components can be converted into RNA polymers - read: genetic chains - and nucleotide lipid bilayer vesicles - read: cell membranes.
All of them focus in mostly one of two sets of conditions: hot geysers, and deep smokers. All of which literally take the conditions directly from existing conditions on the earth - but with no molecular oxygen.
An additional class of experiments attempt to show mechanisms by which increases of complexity in organic chemistry can occur. These are such experiments that discovered ribozymes, protein transcription shortcuts and other leaps that can be made: these are intended to show mechanisms by which proto life can cross major chemical hurdles - rather than being simply about the initial creation of life in the first place, and for these the conditions are mainly focused on particular organic chemistry as we know it today - rather than any absurd or obtuse conditions.
So in that regard, no: your claim that these experiments require absurd conditions is not just unsupported, it’s without merit too.
3.) name an experiment.
If you asked people, you’d be hard pressed to find a experiment that validated gravity, or relativity, or quantum theory, or cell theory, or germ theory. You could probably come up with one big one: but often no more than one.
Given that the topic isn’t taught beyond its basics - and the one experiment - in school, it’s hardly surprising that people wouldn’t be able to name more than one experiment. As they would not be able to do for most science.
So raising what experiments people know or don’t, has little to do with the science or it’s validity: and everything to do with the fact that most big discoveries are in non-sexy journals and papers, with only the occasional major discovery making headlines and getting into what people can name.
Nonetheless some of the experiments, and processes I’ve described above are some of the big ones in the field of abiogenesis: and they don’t really have names.
-->
@mustardness
I actually can back my position up with philosophical possibilities... i never say i am right however especially since i can see more than one possibility... i just happen to advocate my favorite out of those. With that said, i don't think you can ever concede that you may be wrong... and bc of that, you will never understand my beliefs or anyone else's for that matter since you are stuck on only one possibility... So no offense... it's just a waste of time and writing for me to justify what i believe to you. Plus, it wouldn't be appropriate on this thread anyways.
-->
@Ramshutu
Yet another bloated post pretending to contradict my position.
There is no need to address your filler fluff because its purpose is to obfuscate, so just the main parts, OK?
Unfortunately, stating a falsehood vehemently and forcefully doesn’t make it any less false.
Even stating it with pseudo intellectualism doesn’t make it any less false either, just more smarmy.
You’re still arguing as if you thing Abiogenesis is a theory like Gravity or Evolution, or is treated as such by science. It isn’t.
If you could read, you would know that I just said to moose that trying to compare abiogenesis to gravity was incorrect. Dismissed.
None of them are treated as proven, or much more than interesting avenues.
It is obvious you aren't well read in science lit.
While I’ve seen a few ignorant pro-science individuals....
Lol. Not scientists? Not atheists? Just "pro-science"?
...this is mostly something that is done by people like you, and religious zealots who don’t want to accept anything scientific
So " pro-science" individuals who don’t want to accept anything scientific? Lol. Do you read what you write?
Abiogenesis - that life originated from non-organic material is mostly conceptually accepted by everyone because science doesn’t normally consider magic as a viable option.
What about accepting something because of its scientific evidence instead of because you arbitrarily call something else "magic"? This is highly illogical. First, as if it is an either or situation, it isn't. And second, calling what has been scientifically observed for all of human history is ludicrous. What exactly is "magic"? That life comes from life?
I suspect that you’ve just pulled this out of the air
Well, since it was you who said it, it had to be you who pulled it out of somewhere. I make my own arguments thank you.
Considering you could have literally posted the most common experiment that has been made
And yet you could cite no evidence or experiments either. Does that not agree with my claim that there is no evidence? After all your copious blather, you could cite no evidence. None.
...rather than being simply about the initial creation of life in the first place,
Thanks for supporting my argument. As we are talking about life starting, the formation of simple amino acids is not the point.
...your claim that these experiments require absurd conditions is not just unsupported, it’s without merit too.
It isn't my claim, its your poor reading comprehension. I did not say or imply these experiments require absurd conditions.
I am not sure whether you are making these false claims from a position of ignorance, or deliberate dishonesty, but I am pretty sure which it is. I try not to label people, so I will let you wrestle your own conscience if you have one.
Given that the topic isn’t taught beyond its basics - and the one experiment - in school, it’s hardly surprising that people wouldn’t be able to name more than one experiment.
It is surprising. Each person debating here for abiogenesis has implied that he is science literate. You included. Yet checking them, we find nothing but excused and misdirection. Boiled down to pertinent information, your post would be 2 paragraphs at most.
So raising what experiments people know or don’t, has little to do with the science or it’s validity
But it has much to do with their implication that they are well versed in science. Like you, they haughtily say I know nothing, and am ignorant or dishonest. Now you apologize for them admitting they are uninformed laymen.
Nonetheless some of the experiments, and processes I’ve described above are some of the big ones in the field of abiogenesis:
And not one of them produced any evidence for abiogenesis, or indeed any new information.
...and they don’t really have names.
You still could have cited them. You didn't. Hmmmm.
Scientists will never see any combination of biotic materials come alive. We can make replicating strings, and complex compounds, but we will never see life.
Questions:
1. If abiogenesis is true, why are there no instances of it anywhere or anytime in the known universe?
2. If abiogenesis is true, why can it not be replicated?
3. On what evidence is the idea that a group of organic material can become alive?
4. Other than the inductive conclusion from the universe having a start, what makes anyone think abiogenesis is a valid idea?
-->
@Goldtop
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.
Fail response, I'm not a Creationist.
You've been chastised alrdy over the Ad Hom attacks. They are the tools used by those who can't represent themselves with facts
As I stated, your OP shows no connection between non-life and life.