Abiogenesis

[liamconnor]

Again, I rarely wander over to the sciences and more rarely set up an argument. Not my forte.

But I recall reading that a famous atheist became a theist (not a Christian) because of the problem of abiogenesis.

Now, as I understand the term, it refers to the theory that life can come from non-life.

In simplistic terms, a rock can, over time, produce (on its own, nothing added to it; the development happens "within") cells.


Question:

Do I understand the term "abiogenesis"?


Based on my (or your corrected version's) definition, has it been reproduced by scientists?

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 15 by Tired of the Nonsense]

The question of the exact process of transitioning from non living material to something that exhibits the traits of living material is the holy grail of biology. Biologists fully believe they they will understand the exact process at some point. At which time believers will have to fold up their tents and re-position themselves atop yet another grey area. Or, as with evolution, simply deny that the answer is valid.

There you go.
You hit it right there - clear evidence that Christians have no reason to be afraid... Because, if they (scientists) come up with more speculation, as with the whole evolution script, that's right, we simply say, "No, No, No, No way, buddy. 'You can sell that manure to the farmers, but we ain't buying it'." - Invalid, all caps.
Hear Hoyle.
[youtube][/youtube]

The other two questions you posed however, why we are here and why we suffer and die are philosophical questions. There is no scientific answer for why we are here, other than to suggest that we are here because we are possible. The universe, being ambivalent to us, is under no obligation to provide any of us with some special meaning of it all. Our intelligence gives us a huge survival edge. With that intelligence came questioning sentient minds. Both a blessing and a curse.

Correct. Because to have an answer to those questions, would spell out I N T E L L I G E N C E.

It should be pointed out that life is a struggle for all living creatures. In an evolutionary sense, struggle serves to increase and strengthen the survival abilities of the entire species. Humans, having learned ways to control our environment, actually have it pretty easy compared to most creatures. Except for dogs and cats who have learned to hitch a free ride off of the humans.

A struggle to the death. So you'd better pray to your scientists, to find a cure, real quick.

The difference between believers and scientists, is that scientists attempt to find physical truths which are derived from the observation and examination of physical phenomenon. Believers derive comfort from declaring to be true those things which serve to give them emotional comfort. The practical application of this is that scientists observe and study natural phenomena such as comets. Believers commit suicide in an attempt to interface with comets.

Yes - They seek to find only physical truths. To my, that's sad. They miss out on so much.
If you think that's a broad claim, ask some of the scientists among the brotherhood of Jehovah's witnesses. Ask the former hoodlums, and crime lords among them.

But you must admit in all honesty T, that they themselves are believers, not in God, maybe, but in unknowns - like multiverses, for example.

Believers, who follow the Bible - I repeat - base their faith on solid evidence. True science and the Bible goes hand in hand.
So to say there is a contrast, doesn't seem to be accurate.

Believers in men comit suicide.
Believes in the Bible don't - It clearly says, life is a gift from God. It is sacred. The Bible also tells believers to use their power of reason, and test every expression, and do not be misled - neither become wise in your own eyes like those who say there is no God.

And don't tell me you have never heard of scientists commiting suicide.
Scientists who committed suicide - The following 75 pages are in this category, out of 75 total. This list may not reflect recent changes
Why?
Did it have anything to do with their work, and what they believed in, or didn't believe in?
Scientists and suicide
Japanese scientist at center of stem-cell scandal commits suicide
Or what they are doing that they are not supposed to be doing?
Why Do Scientists Commit Fraud? Why is There So Much Fraud in stem cell research?

Most non believers that I know did not consider 1997's attempt by the Heaven's Gate group to reach the comet Hale-Bopp by committing suicide as a tragedy so much as the recognition that the group immediately became the odds on favorites to be the 1997 recipient of the Darwin Award for removing their genes from humankind's gene pool.

No believer in, and worshipper of God, that I know of, did either.
In fact none of the over 8.5 million of Jehovah's people, think it proper to believe, in the Jim Jones, David Koresh, or the Holy Hell look-alikes.

I'm glad you don't either.

However, I think we are going, or have gone off-topic.
The topic is Abiogenesis. So let's see if we can get back there.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 20 by Divine Insight]

You can hardly blame science for the fact that humans don't implement the solutions that science offers.

Also you need to make a distinction between science and technology. Science is the discovery and understanding that allows us to create new technologies, but science had no control how we use those technologies.

Science already tells us that overpopulation leads to excess pollution. Have we done anything to curb human population growth. No we haven't.

Science tells us that we continually pollute the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. Science has even give us the knowledge of technologies to create alternative sources of energy. Have we bothered to listen to what science tells us? No.

Sounds like stubborn people.

In fact, science even tells us how to raise healthy loving children (so science has given us the answer for creating loving societies contrary to your claim that it hasn't). Yet we are acting on the knowledge that science has given us. Instead, too many people are determined to hide their heads in the proven ignorance of immoral religious dogmas.

I wasn't referring to the inconsistent, advice that is most often recommended by scientists, as I think is obvious, since I specifically mentioned what I meant.

Secularists are trying to educated people on the knowledge of science. But many of them prefer to continue to support religious superstitions instead. They often deny the truth of evolution, and sometimes even things like climate change.

Science does have the answers. Unfortunately too many people simply aren't interested in truth.

Funny. That sounds exactly like what Theists say.

If there were any truth to this why would you then claim that love seems to be elusive? There are far more religious people in the world than non-religious people.

Elusive to many who seek it.
Why does it elude them? They are looking in all the wrong places.

Sorry, but if religious people were more willing to offer help to others than non-religious people then there shouldn't be anyone left on the entire planet who still needs help. Because once again, the vast majority of people on planet Earth are religious.

Clearly your arguments here aren't well thought out.

Clearly you don't see my argument.
Notice I did not say religion. Religion is so broad, and diverse, that one could easily feel like they are in a maze with only one exit.

Which illustrates a truthful point about religion - There is really only one form of worship that allows one to find their way to God.
So I specifically said

some 8.5 million people in some 236 lands, who believe in God, and worship him, do every year non-stop, and they never retire. The only [strike]think[/strike] thing that stops them is death, or sickness.

True religion does help people around the world.
However, religion that is not true, add to creating the ills in this world.

I don't recall you asking me about love? Moreover, if you did I would need to know your definition of love before I could answer you in terms of what you think love means.

You can just go ahead and tell me about the love you are always talking about, and I'll let you know how I understand it.

I feel just the opposite. As far as I can remember love has always been a natural part of who I am. I've experienced love from my earliest possible memories. Not only experiencing it in others expressing love for me, but by my natural love for others.

In fact, I can't even imagine having to teach someone to love. That would seem to be a superficial intellectual understanding of a concept based entirely on logic.

Is that was love is to you? A logical understanding of something? And if so, then how could you possibly say that love isn't within the reach of science? If it needs to be taught as an intellectual understanding then it's well within the reach of science.

I am not suggesting that love does not exist because we don't know, or understand it.
We breathed when we were born, but does that mean we knew, or understood that we were breathing?

How could we know love, if we don't understand it?
And how could we understand it, if it is never demonstrated to us?

Are you kidding me? Christianity teaches in their Bible that their God is a jealous God who will take extreme temper tantrums if people refuse to love him. If you refuse to love the Christian God he will unleash his anger and wrath upon you and condemn you to everlasting punishment.

LOL.
That's so funny.
You just put a picture in my mind of a maniac (I can't think of any other way to describe it), beating a child, and screaming, "Love me. Love me." How sick.

I'm sorry, DI, you will have to show me that one.

I think I said this before, but I will put it in another way.

Is it wrong for a husband to want his wife to love him, and share her love expressions exclusively with him? Or should she share it with someone else? (Proverbs 5:18-20)
If after being married, the wife gives her love expressions to another man, or other men, Does the husband have a right to feel hurt, and incensed?
Before she commits any of those acts, does he have a right to be jealous for her - that is, have a strong desire for her to be faithful to him, and not lust after other men?

When someone has a strong love for another, they don't want that person to make foolish decisions that would affect them negatively, and breech that love and friendship.

In that way God is jealous toward/for his servants, that they do not act foolishly, and breach their relationship, because God would now have to act against them, in order to remove the wicked - which he has to do - ultimately.

I hope it is clear, what I am saying.

This contradicts your previous claims that we need to be taught how to love. Did someone need to teach God how to love? Be careful now. You have just claimed that we are made in the image of God.

And what's an image DI?
It's a reflection of a reality, isn't it?
You can't have an image without there being a reality.

Hence why God sent a reflection of his own being - Jesus Christ - to teach his children what the father is like - including his prime attribute, love.
I hope you understand that as well.

I've proven that Hebrew mythology is necessarily false countless times on these forums. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this doesn't make it go away.

I don't recall you proving anything of the sort.
Maybe you felt you had proved something.
Also I may not have joined the forums when you felt that way, so maybe you could show me what you presented. It can't hurt to do so, can it?
New people are joining all the time. The also may be interested in being enlightened.

So you have two things to show - that you have love, and that the Bible is myth.
However, since I don't want to throw off the topic of Abiogenesis, I think I will create a thread specifically for these - including and starting primarily with the great flood.

You can still go ahead and respond to this post though.

[SailingCyclops]

[...]
Now, as I understand the term, it refers to the theory that life can come from non-life.

Question:

Do I understand the term "abiogenesis"?

Based on my (or your corrected version's) definition, has it been reproduced by scientists?

Not reproduced yet, nor have we discovered the mechanism behind the fact that life did indeed come from non life.

At the big bang, when our universe came into existence there were no elements, no environment, no life. When early earth formed from the accretion disk, it was a molten mass, there was no life. The earth cooled, developed more complex chemistries, and at some point very early in earth's history (3.8 Billion years ago) life emerged. Life clearly came from non-life. Abiogenesis clearly happened.

So, a more accurate definition would be:
Abiogenesis: The scientific pursuit of how life emerged from chemistry I.E. non-life.

See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... ry_of_life
http://www.livescience.com/1804-greates ... earth.html
http://garvandwane.com/evolution/when.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/ ... life-earth

Abiogenesis clearly happened, the question is how did it happen.

[SailingCyclops]

There is the thought/belief/idea/speculation that abiogenesis is possible with the idea of the earth having the right conditions to allow it.

Abiogenesis is not a thought or a belief, nor is it an idea or speculation. Abiogenesis is a fact.

Life came from non-life. The universe began as a hot, hostile-to-life, radiation-filled, explosion. It was LIFELESS, devoid of even the basic elements of life. Now there is a rich and abundant tree of LIFE. (at least here on earth).

So, it is undeniable that life emerged from non-life. The only question remaining is what mechanisms were involved and how. Even if life started elsewhere, it too started from non-life, as the laws of physics are the same everywhere.

[DeMotts]

[Replying to post 22 by theStudent]

Is it wrong for a husband to want his wife to love him, and share her love expressions exclusively with him? Or should she share it with someone else? (Proverbs 5:18-20). If after being married, the wife gives her love expressions to another man, or other men, Does the husband have a right to feel hurt, and incensed?

And is it so wrong, that if she does decide she wants to be with another man, her husband locks her in the basement forever? It's for her own good! That other guy was trouble!

[Divine Insight]

Divine Insight wrote:
Secularists are trying to educated people on the knowledge of science. But many of them prefer to continue to support religious superstitions instead. They often deny the truth of evolution, and sometimes even things like climate change.

Science does have the answers. Unfortunately too many people simply aren't interested in truth.

Funny. That sounds exactly like what Theists say.

The only difference is that scientists have actually produced the evidence of their truths, whereas the theists openly confess that they merely believe in ancient fables and superstitious rumors on pure faith. Fables and rumors that can even be clearly shown to be self-contradictory and incompatible with any known reality.

So when the theists declared war against science they signed the death certificate of their own theology.

By the way, I'm not even interested in taking part in that war. Science has proven itself already in the technologies that we have come to take for granted. Theology has produced nothing but self-contradictory apologies for ancient fables and superstitious rumors. Apologies that are so unconvincing that the theists can't even convince each other of their disagreeing and contradictory apologies.

I would advise getting the theists all on the same page before declaring war on science. Unfortunately for the theists they can't even do that much. Didn't Jesus himself advise that a house divided against itself cannot stand?

[Talishi]

But I recall reading that a famous atheist became a theist (not a Christian) because of the problem of abiogenesis.

Then he exchanged one problem for another. If abiogenesis is false, then how did we get a living God?

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 25 by DeMotts]

And is it so wrong, that if she does decide she wants to be with another man, her husband locks her in the basement forever?

I agree.
He certainly isn't being loving.

It's for her own good! That other guy was trouble!

What's for her own good - being unfaithful?
That's not good for her, or her husband.
What if the man she cheating with turns out to be a psyco? Would we then say, she deserved it, she had no right cheating?

Note*
God destroys people not for the reason they don't love him, but for the acts they carry out against him, or the acts they fail to carry out, that are in line with his righteous standards. Of course, if they loved him, it would have resulted in they doing the opposite.

If you owned and managed a global organization, which had the best reputation in the world, would you fire someone who showed utter disregard for your organization's standards, and who "couldn't care less what the manager said"?

I tell you, he'd be out of his office so fast, he'd think he had a flight in an F-22.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 27 by Talishi]

Then he exchanged one problem for another. If abiogenesis is false, then how did we get a living God?

Simply by recognizing a number of scientific laws/principles.

1. life comes from life.
2. The evidence demonstrates a purpose to life. It demonstrates an intelligent designer.
3. The Bible, to those who were influenced by it, agrees with these two principles.

[Talishi]

[Replying to post 27 by Talishi]

Then he exchanged one problem for another. If abiogenesis is false, then how did we get a living God?

Simply by recognizing a number of scientific laws/principles.

1. life comes from life.
2. The evidence demonstrates a purpose to life. It demonstrates an intelligent designer.
3. The Bible, to those who were influenced by it, agrees with these two principles.

Very well. Life comes from life.

Whence comes the living God?

If the living God has a purpose, and only intelligent designers can impart purpose to life, what intelligent designer designed God and why aren't we worshiping that one?