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 59 by Talishi]

The Bible says stars were created on the fourth day.

It doesn't to me.
It does to someone who doesn't understand it, and who may want to put it in theirr library of secular literature.

The Bible is no science text book.
It does not detail information for scientific minds.
It was written with spiritual minded individuals in consideration.

If a physical man, that is a person only thinking fleshly, trys to explain it, they fail miserably.
In fact, that's why instead they view it with a closed, critical mind.

[Talishi]

[Replying to post 59 by Talishi]

The Bible says stars were created on the fourth day.

It doesn't to me.

Genesis 1:

[16] And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
[17] And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
[18] And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
[19] And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 62 by Talishi]

Apparently you didn't read the information in the link I provided.
The reply is found there.
If you are afraid to read anything on the Jehovah's Witnesses website, for one reason or another, I've extracted some information that can be found HERE.

[For_The_Kingdom]

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?

You understand it correctly. Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that life (and more explicitly, sentient life) naturally arose from nonliving matter. And when you take away all of the fluff, feathers, and bio-babble that will normally accompany such a conversation...it is simple..

The idea that sentient life arose from nonliving material would be similar to you leaving your house and once you leave, all of the furniture in your house begin to come to life, and not only come to life, but all of the furniture begins to talk, think, laugh, play, have sex, etc.

Oh, and this is where the naturalists say "It doesn't work like that, stuff like that takes time"...well, I fail to see how adding millions of years to the scenario makes the concept any less absurd.

There is really no difference between that, and abiogenesis. Again, this is after you take away the fluff, feathers, and technical babble that the naturalists would like to dazzle you with.

They will add alot of technical babble and big words to the scenario to make the theory seem more credible and likely to have happened...but when you strip away all of the bio-babble, the concept is simple...that inanimate matter suddenly/gradually came to life and began to talk, think, laugh, have sex, etc.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 64 by For_The_Kingdom]

Imagine that, when you take away the technical jargon and all the language associated with the concept, you end up with a concept that sounds ridiculous. Here, let me try.

"So a man goes around telling people to believe in him in order to go to Happyland after they die, and then the town puts him on a stick and he dies."

Do you understand how intellectually dishonest it is to misrepresent the other side's argument?

The "bio-babble" is something you can't bear to hear, and I understand that, but the "babble" consists of data involving self-assembling organic chemicals, proto-cells, and the likes of which demonstrate that you haven't read a single post on this thread, otherwise you'd understand more than the flimsy strawman you've created. Disgusting.

You are willfully trying to poison the well of academia by saying that it's actually simple, when that is a bald-faced lie. It is not simple. You know what else isn't simple? Gravitational mechanics around a black hole, imaginary voltage in an electrical circuit, the electromagnetic spectrum and how it disrupts cellular biology.

But you want us to take out the "bio-babble" specifically for the ideas that you don't like. It just shows how you have so little interest in actual science that you'd remove everything scientific about a hypothesis. You want it to be treated like a clown's idea, but that's never what it was. You are manipulating language to make your side seem intellectually superior, but you have not, in any way, shape, or form, done anything remotely close to discrediting the theory.

[Talishi]

Apparently you didn't read the information in the link I provided.
The reply is found there.

I will never hit a link provided in this forum unless I'm checking a post that earned tokens. Not because it might open malware, since I'm a Linux Jedi, but because I consider it a lazy way to debate. Second laziest is hitting ctrl-V and dumping your clipboard into a post. But if you can state what a link says in your own words, then I'll be all over it.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Imagine that, when you take away the technical jargon and all the language associated with the concept, you end up with a concept that sounds ridiculous.

It sounds ridiculous either way.

"So a man goes around telling people to believe in him in order to go to Happyland after they die, and then the town puts him on a stick and he dies."

Pretty much.

Do you understand how intellectually dishonest it is to misrepresent the other side's argument?

Um, no I don't, because that is not what I did.

The "bio-babble" is something you can't bear to hear, and I understand that, but the "babble" consists of data involving self-assembling organic chemicals, proto-cells, and the likes of which demonstrate that you haven't read a single post on this thread, otherwise you'd understand more than the flimsy strawman you've created. Disgusting.

I clearly stated that abiogenesis is the hypothesis that life originated from nonliving material. Isn't that what I said? That is the straight-forward, free of fluff definition of the term.

All of the "self-assembling organic chemicals, proto-cells" stuff is the making of a fancy, smarty pants definition of the term which would make it sounds you (in general) knows what you are talking about, but when it comes down to it, you (in general) don't know anything...otherwise you'd be in a lab making it happen.

You are willfully trying to poison the well of academia by saying that it's actually simple, when that is a bald-faced lie. It is not simple. You know what else isn't simple? Gravitational mechanics around a black hole, imaginary voltage in an electrical circuit, the electromagnetic spectrum and how it disrupts cellular biology.

I know, to answer the question of "where did all of that fancy stuff come from in the first place" isn't simple, is it?

But you want us to take out the "bio-babble" specifically for the ideas that you don't like. It just shows how you have so little interest in actual science that you'd remove everything scientific about a hypothesis. You want it to be treated like a clown's idea, but that's never what it was. You are manipulating language to make your side seem intellectually superior, but you have not, in any way, shape, or form, done anything remotely close to discrediting the theory.

I wasn't aware of any manipulating of any language, sir. Take all of that built up energy that you have to make posts like this, and go in a lab, and create sentient life out of nonliving material.

Until you can do that, no need to conversate.

[Neatras]

The "bio-babble" is something you can't bear to hear, and I understand that, but the "babble" consists of data involving self-assembling organic chemicals, proto-cells, and the likes of which demonstrate that you haven't read a single post on this thread, otherwise you'd understand more than the flimsy strawman you've created. Disgusting.

I clearly stated that abiogenesis is the hypothesis that life originated from nonliving material. Isn't that what I said? That is the straight-forward, free of fluff definition of the term.

All of the "self-assembling organic chemicals, proto-cells" stuff is the making of a fancy, smarty pants definition of the term which would make it sounds you (in general) knows what you are talking about, but when it comes down to it, you (in general) don't know anything...otherwise you'd be in a lab making it happen.

See, what's weird about this is that the evidence is already available. Self-assembling organic chemicals have been demonstrated. Proto-cells have been the subject of experimentation.

I get what you're trying to do, attempting to discredit my entire argument because I'm not a molecular biologist, but you can do better than that. When I can supplant my arguments with evidence and you find fault with that, that's no reason to dismiss my argument based on my profession. If you were a molecular biologist, I might have reason to listen to you drivel on about how sentient life can or cannot form, but you can understand what an ingrate I would be to require you to get a medical license before coming onto this forum. This forum supports all kinds of people, and at this point, the matter of providing evidence is as easy as googling.

Um, no I don't, because that is not what I did.

That's exactly what you did.

The idea that sentient life arose from nonliving material would be similar to you leaving your house and once you leave, all of the furniture in your house begin to come to life, and not only come to life, but all of the furniture begins to talk, think, laugh, play, have sex, etc.

That is a misrepresentation of the concepts and theories behind the origin of life. You are being intellectually dishonest, and anyone can see that.

You may hate how we supplant our ideas with technical-sounding words, but just because we sound like smarty pants doesn't give you the right to act so smug. Telling me I (even if in general) don't know anything is quite inflammatory.

But please, tell me what other hoops I need to jump through to "conversate" with you.

[For_The_Kingdom]

See, what's weird about this is that the evidence is already available. Self-assembling organic chemicals have been demonstrated. Proto-cells have been the subject of experimentation.

Bro, I am talking about SENTIENT LIFE...do you know what that mean? And to even mention anything about chemicals or cells, you have to PRESUPPOSE fine tuning, which is absolutely required at the molecular level if you are going to have any sentient life.

I get what you're trying to do, attempting to discredit my entire argument because I'm not a molecular biologist, but you can do better than that. When I can supplant my arguments with evidence and you find fault with that, that's no reason to dismiss my argument based on my profession. If you were a molecular biologist, I might have reason to listen to you drivel on about how sentient life can or cannot form, but you can understand what an ingrate I would be to require you to get a medical license before coming onto this forum. This forum supports all kinds of people, and at this point, the matter of providing evidence is as easy as googling.

Not even a molecular biologist can help you here. You are providing evidence for what happens after stuff got here..I am talking about the origins of life, PERIOD.

You are explaining the plot of a movie, when my question is regarding development of the movie, the creative process, the behind the scenes stuff...not the plot.

That is a misrepresentation of the concepts and theories behind the origin of life.

Ok, so since I am misrepresenting the concepts and theories behind the origin of life...how about you take the actual concepts and theories of the origin of life, go to a lab, and apply those concepts and theories to the chemical/test tubes...and when you get sentient life, holla at me.

Until then, don't talk to me about how much I am misrepresenting the theory, when you can't use the actual concepts and theories and get sentient life.

You may hate how we supplant our ideas with technical-sounding words, but just because we sound like smarty pants doesn't give you the right to act so smug. Telling me I (even if in general) don't know anything is quite inflammatory.

I don't recall saying you don't know anything. But what I do recall saying is that some people use big words to describe this and that, but what it really comes down to is a big fat I DON'T KNOW.

But please, tell me what other hoops I need to jump through to "conversate" with you.

Tell you what, get me life from nonlife, and I will give you a crucified Messiah.

Deal?

[Neatras]

For_The_Kingdom has a very narrow definition of life, as we can plainly see. What's more, he requires that we produce sentient life, as opposed to what abiogenesis actually states arise from inorganic matter: Replicating molecules capable of experiencing selective pressures.

I think we can all plainly see that what For_The_Kingdom is trying to do is put forward a red herring. "If we cannot demonstrate sentient life coming from inorganic matter, abiogenesis is therefore bunk." Too bad that's not what the theory states.

Proto-cells and self-assembling organic molecules are what is predicted by abiogenesis, and is well-supported. The RNA World Hypothesis attempts to explain the method by which this occurs.

For_The_Kingdom, I don't care if you're talking about sentient life, viruses, or dead matter for that matter, what is up for discussion is abiogenesis, which has adequately demonstrated that organic molecules can and do arise from natural conditions.

Telling me I have to 'presuppose' fine-tuning is a fallacy. If something can happen under natural conditions with no intelligent input, that nullifies any claim of fine-tuning.

But please, do go on about how scientists have to turn chairs into sentient creatures to convince you... even if that's an impossible strawman designed to make your opposition look weaker, despite your opposition never having made that asinine claim in the first place. I see so much hatred for anything academic coming from you. You can't actually represent your opponent's side with any kind of intellectual honesty, so this is what you're reduced to doing.

Have you looked up what kind of etiquette goes into debate, per chance?