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?

[Talishi]

Whence comes energy?

Not many atheists care. We aren't asking that question, because we don't have the data and we don't generally have OCD (Origin Compulsion Disorder). When the data comes in, if it does, then we'll look at it.

[SailingCyclops]

Is that a scientific guess, that since life did not exist before, but now it does then it must have come out of nowhere, or on its own?

Not a guess, and not from "nowhere". That would be magic, sorcery, or witchcraft which I don't think either of us believe.

Everything there is came from the expanding universe, from the ongoing big bang. All the stars, the planets, the rocks, the gas the dust, the chemistry, the physics, even time and space itself. Everything came about from the interactions of the laws of physics over vast periods of time.

It is not a guess that every atom in your body, every atom composing everything we see, feel, touch, smell, every component of life, were all created by nuclear fusion in the crucible of collapsing stars. This is not a guess, there is no scientific debate about this, it's a fact. If you do not believe this, I suggest you pick up a high school science book and start reading.

If you are going to separate life out from everything else that exists, claiming life alone requires some special powers, or special physical laws, or magic even. Then it is incumbent on you to define it clearly, state your hypothesis, and of course, PROVE it by supplying evidence. Not conjecture, not incredulity, not mythology, but empirical evidence.

What is it about life which you believe requires something special, something magical, something not part of the universe, for it to exist?

[H.sapiens]

BTW: Welcome back to the quote mine, Einstein did not believe in God, at least not in the sense that theStudent uses the term.

Einstein used many labels to describe his religious views, including "agnostic", "religious nonbeliever" and a "pantheistic" believer in "Spinoza's God".

[SailingCyclops]

Currently the only difference I can see, where faith is concerned, is that a Christian's faith, is based on evidence that leads him to believe.

Well then, if this is the case, please provide this "EVIDENCE". To date you have been unwilling or unable to do so. I challenge you to support your statement by supplying the evidence you refer to.

[H.sapiens]

Currently the only difference I can see, where faith is concerned, is that a Christian's faith, is based on evidence that leads him to believe. A scientist's faith is based on his speculative assumptions.
I'm not blaming him for that, because he can't know. How could he?
But calling it fact, that's quite misleading. Call it a fact when you have solid evidence it is a fact, not when you are guessing.
You are misleading a lot of sincere people who are looking to you for answers. (thr "you" in this sentence is/are the scientists)

If you have evidence, let's see it. If you don't ... please let it rest and stop embarrassing yourself.

As a scientist I rarely (if ever) use the word "fact." Rather I speak of something being "likely" or "probable." That's our normal lingo.

[SailingCyclops]

There is no living being that can prove, or has proven that that scientific fact (life comes from life) is wrong.

Please provide the evidence supporting what you falsly claim is a "scientific fact" (that life comes from life). If this is a scientific fact, then provide a link to the peer-reviewed scientific paper proposing it along with the evidence supporting it. Otherwise, this "fact" of yours is nothing more than a figment of your imagination.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 46 by SailingCyclops]

Biogenesis

Biogenesis is the production of new living organisms or organelles. The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the conclusion that complex living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, modern life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation. This is summarized in the phrase Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for "all life [is] from life." A related statement is Omnis cellula e cellula, "all cells [are] from cells;" this conclusion is one of the central statements of cell theory.

Spontaneous generation and its disproof
The Ancient Greeks believed that living things could spontaneously come into being from nonliving matter, and that the goddess Gaia could make life arise spontaneously from stones " a process known as Generatio spontanea. Aristotle disagreed, but he still believed that creatures could arise from dissimilar organisms or from soil. Variations of this concept of spontaneous generation still existed as late as the 17th century, but towards the end of the 17th century, a series of observations and arguments began that eventually discredited such ideas. This advance in scientific understanding was met with much opposition, with personal beliefs and individual prejudices often obscuring the facts.

In 1864, Louis Pasteur finally announced the results of his scientific experiments. In a series of experiments similar to those performed earlier by Needham and Spallanzani, Pasteur demonstrated that life does not arise in areas that have not been contaminated by existing life. Pasteur's empirical results were summarized in the phrase Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for "all life [is] from life".

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 41 by Talishi]

Not many atheists care. We aren't asking that question, because we don't have the data and we don't generally have OCD (Origin Compulsion Disorder). When the data comes in, if it does, then we'll look at it.

Thank you.
So in other words, can I take it that your answer is, "We don't know"?

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 44 by SailingCyclops]

Well then, if this is the case, please provide this "EVIDENCE". To date you have been unwilling or unable to do so. I challenge you to support your statement by supplying the evidence you refer to.

You were here from 2010. I was here from 2016. And you are saying you haven't seen me provide any evidence?
What exactly are you looking for?

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 42 by SailingCyclops]

Everything there is came from the expanding universe, from the ongoing big bang. All the stars, the planets, the rocks, the gas the dust, the chemistry, the physics, even time and space itself. Everything came about from the interactions of the laws of physics over vast periods of time.

It is not a guess that every atom in your body, every atom composing everything we see, feel, touch, smell, every component of life, were all created by nuclear fusion in the crucible of collapsing stars. This is not a guess, there is no scientific debate about this, it's a fact. If you do not believe this, I suggest you pick up a high school science book and start reading.

You are the second person to tell me I need to pick up a science text book.
Isn't it available online, for all to see? Isn't technology moving away from paper, so that it has even become common to providing students with free tablets and computers?
Can't you provide a link, to the source of this information on the internet?
If it's not online, surely it can't be that important.