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?

[For_The_Kingdom]

I would respect you more if you talk to me, instead of at me.

For_The_Kingdom has a very narrow definition of life, as we can plainly see.

No I don't. I specifically said, sentient life. How is that narrow? Nothing like a good straw man statement to transition into the main talking points, right?

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 don't care what you call it. We can never use the term abiogenesis again, and I would still be able to adequately ask "how did sentient life arise from non-living material", because that is exactly occurred (on naturalism).

So make whatever distinctions you want...it changes nothing.

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.

I could care less nor will I be bogged down to nonsense arguments about terminologies.

The fact of the matter is, it is not the term that I oppose, it is the alleged natural phenomena of sentient life from nonlife. You can use whatever term you'd like to describe it, but what you can't do is go to a lab and produce it.

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.

Still presupposing chemical fine tuning, huh?

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.

I am talking about sentient life. You don't care, so.

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.

That is a big "if". LOL.

But please, do go on about how scientists have to turn chairs into sentient creatures to convince you...

How is the belief that science can turn chairs into sentient creatures any less absurd than life suddenly/gradually arising out of nonliving material.

Billions of years ago, before life began, there was nothing but dead matter...now, here we are, 2016, this former "dead" matter is now alive...and it is talking, thinking, etc.

Yet, if a scientist turned a chair into a sentient being...that would be so unnnatural, huh? LOL.

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

Have you tried to go in a lab to create life from nonliving material? A mindless and blind process (nature) did it...so why can't intelligent human beings?

Can't get mad at a guy that is asking for scientific evidence for supposedly natural phenomena.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 66 by Talishi]

Thanks for letting me know.
I never would have guessed.

This is from an outdated publication.

*** ce chap. 3 pp. 25-37 What Does Genesis Say? ***
What Does Genesis Say?

• AS WITH other things that are misrepresented or misunderstood, the first chapter of the Bible deserves at least a fair hearing. The need is to investigate and determine whether it harmonizes with known facts, not to mold it to fit some theoretical framework. Also to be remembered, the Genesis account was not written to show the how of creation. Rather, it covers major events in a progressive way, describing what things were formed, the order in which they were formed and the time interval, or day, in which each first appeared.
• When examining the Genesis account, it is helpful to keep in mind that it approaches matters from the standpoint of people on earth. So it describes events as they would have been seen by human observers had they been present. This can be noted from its treatment of events on the fourth Genesis day. There the sun and moon are described as great luminaries in comparison to the stars. Yet many stars are far greater than our sun, and the moon is insignificant in comparison to them. But not to an earthly observer. So, as seen from the earth, the sun appears to be a greater light that rules the day and the moon a lesser light that dominates the night. " Genesis 1:14-18.
• The first part of Genesis indicates that the earth could have existed for billions of years before the first Genesis day, though it does not say for how long. However, it does describe what earths condition was just before that first day began: Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep; and Gods active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters. " Genesis 1:2.
  How Long Is a Genesis Day?
• Many consider the word day used in Genesis chapter 1 to mean 24 hours. However, in Genesis 1:5 God himself is said to divide day into a smaller period of time, calling just the light portion day. In Genesis 2:4 all the creative periods are called one day: This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day [all six creative periods] that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.
• The Hebrew word yohm, translated day, can mean different lengths of time. Among the meanings possible, William Wilsons Old Testament Word Studies includes the following: A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration . . . Day is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens. This last sentence appears to fit the creative days, for certainly they were periods when extraordinary events were described as happening. It also allows for periods much longer than 24 hours.
• Genesis chapter 1 uses the expressions evening and morning relative to the creative periods. Does this not indicate that they were 24 hours long? Not necessarily. In some places people often refer to a mans lifetime as his day. They speak of my fathers day or in Shakespeares day. They may divide up that lifetime day, saying in the morning [or dawn] of his life or in the evening [or twilight] of his life. So evening and morning in Genesis chapter 1 does not limit the meaning to a literal 24 hours.
• Day as used in the Bible can include summer and winter, the passing of seasons. (Zechariah 14:8) The day of harvest involves many days. (Compare Proverbs 25:13 and Genesis 30:14.) A thousand years are likened to a day. (Psalm 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8, 10) Judgment Day covers many years. (Matthew 10:15; 11:22-24) It would seem reasonable that the days of Genesis could likewise have embraced long periods of time"millenniums. What, then, took place during those creative eras? Is the Bibles account of them scientific? Following is a review of these days as expressed in Genesis.
  First Day
• Let light come to be. Then there came to be light. And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day. " Genesis 1:3, 5.
• Of course the sun and moon were in outer space long before this first day, but their light did not reach the surface of the earth for an earthly observer to see. Now, light evidently came to be visible on earth on this first day, and the rotating earth began to have alternating days and nights.
• Apparently, the light came in a gradual process, extending over a long period of time, not instantaneously as when you turn on an electric light bulb. The Genesis rendering by translator J. W. Watts reflects this when it says: And gradually light came into existence. (A Distinctive Translation of Genesis) This light was from the sun, but the sun itself could not be seen through the overcast. Hence, the light that reached earth was light diffused, as indicated by a comment about verse 3 in Rotherhams Emphasised Bible."See footnote b for verse 14.
  Second Day
• Let an expanse come to be in between the waters and let a dividing occur between the waters and the waters. Then God proceeded to make the expanse and to make a division between the waters that should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the expanse. And it came to be so. And God began to call the expanse Heaven. " Genesis 1:6-8.
• Some translations use the word firmament instead of expanse. From this the argument is made that the Genesis account borrowed from creation myths that represent this firmament as a metal dome. But even the King James Version Bible, which uses firmament, says in the margin, expansion. This is because the Hebrew word ra-qia, translated expanse, means to stretch out or spread out or expand.
• The Genesis account says that God did it, but it does not say how. In whatever way the described separation occurred, it would look as though the waters above had been pushed up from the earth. And birds could later be said to fly in the expanse of the heavens, as stated at Genesis 1:20.
  Third Day
• Let the waters under the heavens be brought together into one place and let the dry land appear. And it came to be so. And God began calling the dry land Earth, but the bringing together of the waters he called Seas. (Genesis 1:9, 10) As usual, the account does not describe how this was done. No doubt, tremendous earth movements would have been involved in the formation of land areas. Geologists would explain such major upheavals as catastrophism. But Genesis indicates direction and control by a Creator.
• In the Biblical account where God is described as questioning Job about his knowledge of the earth, a variety of developments concerning earths history are described: its measurements, its cloud masses, its seas and how their waves were limited by dry land"many things in general about the creation, spanning long periods of time. Among these things, comparing earth to a building, the Bible says that God asked Job: Into what have its socket pedestals been sunk down, or who laid its cornerstone? " Job 38:6.
• Interestingly, like socket pedestals, earths crust is much thicker under continents and even more so under mountain ranges, pushing deep into the underlying mantle, like tree roots into soil. The idea that mountains and continents had roots has been tested over and over again, and shown to be valid, says Putnams Geology. Oceanic crust is only about 5 miles thick, but continental roots go down about 20 miles and mountain roots penetrate about twice that far. And all earths layers press inward upon earths core from all directions, making it like a great cornerstone of support.
• Whatever means were used to accomplish the raising up of dry land, the important point is: Both the Bible and science recognize it as one of the stages in the forming of the earth.
  Land Plants on Third Day
• The Bible account adds: Let the earth cause grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed, fruit trees yielding fruit according to their kinds, the seed of which is in it, upon the earth. And it came to be so. " Genesis 1:11.
• Thus by the close of this third creative period, three broad categories of land plants had been created. The diffused light would have become quite strong by then, ample for the process of photosynthesis so vital to green plants. Incidentally, the account here does not mention every kind of plant that came on the scene. Microscopic organisms, water plants and others are not specifically named, but likely were created on this day.
  Fourth Day
• Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth. And it came to be so. And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars. " Genesis 1:14-16; Psalm 136:7-9.
• Previously, on the first day, the expression Let light come to be was used. The Hebrew word there used for light is ohr, meaning light in a general sense. But on the fourth day, the Hebrew word changes to ma-ohr, which means the source of the light. Rotherham, in a footnote on Luminaries in the Emphasised Bible, says: In ver. 3, r [ohr], light diffused. Then he goes on to show that the Hebrew word ma-ohr in verse 14 means something affording light. On the first day diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer because of the cloud layers still enveloping the earth. Now, on this fourth day, things apparently changed.
• An atmosphere initially rich in carbon dioxide may have caused an earth-wide hot climate. But the lush growth of vegetation during the third and fourth creative periods would absorb some of this heat-retaining blanket of carbon dioxide. The vegetation, in turn, would release oxygen"a requirement for animal life.
• Now, had there been an earthly observer, he would be able to discern the sun, moon and stars, which would serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. (Genesis 1:14) The moon would indicate the passing of lunar months, and the sun the passing of solar years. The seasons that now came to be on this fourth day would no doubt have been much milder than they became later on. " Genesis 1:15; 8:20-22.
  Fifth Day
• Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let flying creatures fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens. And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind. " Genesis 1:20, 21.
• It is of interest to note that the nonhuman creatures with which the waters were to swarm are called living souls. This term would also apply to the flying creatures [that] fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse. And it would also embrace the forms of sea and air life, such as the sea monsters, whose fossil remains scientists have found in recent times.
  Sixth Day
• Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind. And it came to be so. " Genesis 1:24.
• Thus on the sixth day, land animals characterized as wild and domestic appeared. But this final day was not over. One last remarkable kind was to come:
• And God went on to say: Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every moving animal that is moving upon the earth. And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in Gods image he created him; male and female he created them. " Genesis 1:26, 27.
• Chapter 2 of Genesis apparently adds some details. However, it is not, as some have concluded, another account of creation in conflict with that of chapter 1. It just takes up at a point in the third day, after dry land appeared but before land plants were created, adding details that were pertinent to the arrival of humans"Adam the living soul, his garden home, Eden, and the woman Eve, his wife. " Genesis 2:5-9, 15-18, 21, 22.
• The foregoing is presented to help us understand what Genesis says. And this quite realistic account indicates that the creative process continued throughout a period of, not just 144 hours (6 24), but over many millenniums of time.
  How Did Genesis "Know"?
• Many find it hard to accept this creation account. They contend that it is drawn from the creation myths of ancient peoples, primarily those from ancient Babylon. However, as one recent Bible dictionary noted: No myth has yet been found which explicitly refers to the creation of the universe and the myths are marked by polytheism and the struggles of deities for supremacy in marked contrast to the Heb[rew] monotheism of [Genesis] 1-2. Regarding Babylonian creation legends, the trustees of the British Museum stated: The fundamental conceptions of the Babylonian and Hebrew accounts are essentially different.
• From what we have considered, the Genesis creation account emerges as a scientifically sound document. It reveals the larger categories of plants and animals, with their many varieties, reproducing only according to their kinds. The fossil record provides confirmation of this. In fact, it indicates that each kind appeared suddenly, with no true transitional forms linking it with any previous kind, as required by the evolution theory.
• All the knowledge of the wise men of Egypt could not have furnished Moses, the writer of Genesis, any clue to the process of creation. The creation myths of ancient peoples bore no resemblance to what Moses wrote in Genesis. Where, then, did Moses learn all these things? Apparently from someone who was there.
• The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic.
• However, evolutionary theory does not allow for a Creator who was there, knew the facts and could reveal them to humans. Instead, it attributes the appearance of life on earth to the spontaneous generation of living organisms from inanimate chemicals. But could undirected chemical reactions relying on mere chance create life? Are scientists themselves convinced that this could happen?

This is from the website. (jw.org)

HOW LONG DID GOD TAKE TO CREATE THE UNIVERSE?

The Bible states that God created the heavens and the earth. This broad statement, however, makes no reference to the length of time involved in creating the universe or to the methods he used to shape it. What about the widespread creationist belief that God created the universe in six literal 24-hour days? This concept, widely rejected by scientists, is based on a gross misunderstanding of the Bible account. Consider what the Bible really says.

The Bible does not support fundamentalists and creationists who claim that the creative days were literal 24-hour days

The Bible frequently uses the term day to designate various periods of time. In some cases these periods are of an unspecified length. The account of creation found in the Bible book of Genesis is one example of this.
In the Bible account, each of the six creative days could have lasted for thousands of years.
God had already created the universe, including a lifeless planet Earth, by the time the first creative day began.
Evidently the six creative days were long periods during which Jehovah God prepared the earth for human habitation.
The Bible account of creation does not conflict with scientific conclusions about the age of the universe.

TIP:
To go to a website safely.

• DON'T left-click the link.
• Right-click the link and copy the url, then paste it in your browser's address bar.

[Talishi]

Evidently the six creative days were long periods during which Jehovah God prepared the earth for human habitation.

That's exactly why I'm on indefinite hiatus from going back to church on the First Day again. My Seventh Day of rest is a much longer period than 24 hours.

[Bust Nak]

Until [you get sentient life from non life], 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.

...

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

Do you realise what you are implying here? You are saying we ought not complain about your misrepresentation of abiogenesis because we can't get life from nonlife.

Is "until you get us a crucified Messiah, don't talk to me about how much I am misrepresenting Christianity" a good enough counter-argument against an accusation of misrepresentation of Christianity?

I know you can't show us a crucified Messiah. Sounds like it's open season to say what ever we want about what Christianity teaches.

[otseng]

It just shows how you have so little interest in actual science that you'd remove everything scientific about a hypothesis.

You are being intellectually dishonest, and anyone can see that.

Moderator Warning


Do not make any comments about another poster. Only present counter-arguments and facts without the personal attacks.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 72 by theStudent]

If you are willing to abandon the literal six-day reading of Genesis, why are you so resistant to the idea that God used evolution to create the varieties of life on Earth? Especially when you seem to be receptive of the idea that "The Genesis account says that God did it, but it does not say how," well scientists can answer that question - evolution.

[Kenisaw]

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 don't care what you call it. We can never use the term abiogenesis again, and I would still be able to adequately ask "how did sentient life arise from non-living material", because that is exactly occurred (on naturalism).

So make whatever distinctions you want...it changes nothing.

No, that is not exactly what occurred. Sentient life arose from non-sentient life. Sentients did not come directly from non-living things.

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.

I could care less nor will I be bogged down to nonsense arguments about terminologies.

If you want to discuss the topic, then you should understand the terms AS DEFINED in the theory. If you debate something using your own personal meanings for various words, then you aren't actually discussing the scientific theory...you are discussing your misunderstanding of the scientific theory...

The fact of the matter is, it is not the term that I oppose, it is the alleged natural phenomena of sentient life from nonlife. You can use whatever term you'd like to describe it, but what you can't do is go to a lab and produce it.

No, he can't. I can't either. No one has yet been able to recreate abiogenesis in a lab. The inability to do so, however, does not negate the mountain of evidence showing that life started off as very simple creatures a long time ago and changed over time into the complexity we see today. All life forms are related (genetics), and life has been around a long time (geology), and it's clear that life changed over time from these first simple creatures (paleontology, morphology, biology). These empirical evidences point towards abiogenesis. What data or evidence is there for a god creature existing, much less this creature starting the universe? Absolutely none, which is why cultists have to argue against science, because they have nothing to support an argument for their flavor of divine being...

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.

Still presupposing chemical fine tuning, huh?

No, just chemistry. There is nothing about any living thing that violates any law of chemistry, physics, etc. Nothing. Life is chemically possible. If it wasn't, it couldn't possibly exist.

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.

I am talking about sentient life. You don't care, so.

If you are talking sentient life than you are talking about abiogenesis. Well, you might be talking about magic and pretend beings, but the dearth of evidence for that nonsense makes it a pretty quick discussion. Abiogenesis has to be part of any discussion of life and the properties living things have.

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.

That is a big "if". LOL.

Not an "if" at all. Life is chemically possible. Additionally, there is no evidence for any god beings, and therefore so evidence that anything exists that can "fine-tune"...

But please, do go on about how scientists have to turn chairs into sentient creatures to convince you...

How is the belief that science can turn chairs into sentient creatures any less absurd than life suddenly/gradually arising out of nonliving material.

Billions of years ago, before life began, there was nothing but dead matter...now, here we are, 2016, this former "dead" matter is now alive...and it is talking, thinking, etc.

Yet, if a scientist turned a chair into a sentient being...that would be so unnnatural, huh? LOL.

Do me a favor Kingdom. Tell me which molecules in your body are NOT dead matter. I'd love to hear this...

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

Have you tried to go in a lab to create life from nonliving material? A mindless and blind process (nature) did it...so why can't intelligent human beings?

Can't get mad at a guy that is asking for scientific evidence for supposedly natural phenomena.

There's plenty of evidence. I can only guess that you've just not been paying attention.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Do you realise what you are implying here? You are saying we ought not complain about your misrepresentation of abiogenesis because we can't get life from nonlife.

Um, no. I am implying exactly what I said. I am asking for scientific evidence that would corroborate the alleged effect (life from nonliving material).

That is what science is supposed to be all about, confirming or falsifying natural claims, right? So that is what I am asking for...and the bottom line is, either you have it, or you don't...and you......don't.

[For_The_Kingdom]

No, that is not exactly what occurred. Sentient life arose from non-sentient life.

Ok, so according to what natural law can sentient life arise from non-sentient life? Tell me.

Or are you just talking?

Sentients did not come directly from non-living things.

Ok, prove that it came indirectly from non-living things. Right back to square one LOL.

If you want to discuss the topic, then you should understand the terms AS DEFINED in the theory. If you debate something using your own personal meanings for various words, then you aren't actually discussing the scientific theory...you are discussing your misunderstanding of the scientific theory...

Abiogenesis: the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

How in the hell am I misunderstanding the scientific theory when I've been using the term in the same context as the above definition...which states that ABIOGENESIS IS THE NATURAL PROCESS OF LIFE ARISING FROM NONLIVING MATTER.

But anywayz, terminologies aside....can scientists go in a lab and create sentient life from nonliving material? No, they can't. Can you guys do it? No, you can't.

Yet, nature was able to do it. So a process with no sight, mind, or intellect was able to do something that human beings with sight, minds, and intellect are able to do...and that is create sentient life from inanimate material.

No, he can't. I can't either. No one has yet been able to recreate abiogenesis in a lab.

But nature did it tho. Is nature smarter than human beings?

The inability to do so, however, does not negate the mountain of evidence showing that life started off as very simple creatures a long time ago and changed over time into the complexity we see today.

What evidence? What is the single, best piece of evidence for abiogenesis?

All life forms are related (genetics)

Could similar genetics mean common designer?

and life has been around a long time (geology)

How long its been here says nothing about where it came from. How long its been here only says something about.... how long its been here .

The question is, where did it come from.

and it's clear that life changed over time from these first simple creatures (paleontology, morphology, biology).

Actually, what is clear is the fact that every creature is bringing forth after their kind, just as the creation account in Genesis narrates.

Fast forward however many years afterwards, and what do we see...animals bringing forth after their kind.

That is what is clear.

These empirical evidences point towards abiogenesis.

The empirical evidence shows life to only come from life. If there is any exceptions to this, I certainly haven't seen it yet...and I am sure that you can't demonstrate it.

What data or evidence is there for a god creature existing, much less this creature starting the universe?

Physical reality began to exist at some point in the finite past....and only a non-physical entity with astronomical power and free will can bring physical reality into existence.

Absolutely none, which is why cultists have to argue against science, because they have nothing to support an argument for their flavor of divine being...

Its funny you say they have nothing to support their argument of a divine being...because if you notice, what you consider "evidence" for your theory could possibly be the same evidence for my theory.

But the "evidence" for my theory cannot possibly be the same "evidence" for your theory (abiogenesis).

No, just chemistry. There is nothing about any living thing that violates any law of chemistry, physics, etc. Nothing. Life is chemically possible. If it wasn't, it couldn't possibly exist.

But you can't have life without organic/chemical fine tuning. This is fine tuning at the molecular level, so before you even get to the point of life, you have to fine-tune those chemicals.

And before you can fine-tune those chemicals, you have to have a fine-tuned cosmos...we are talking mathematically precise fine-tuned.

And this would all have to all be done right the first time...only one roll of the dice.

If you are talking sentient life than you are talking about abiogenesis. Well, you might be talking about magic and pretend beings, but the dearth of evidence for that nonsense makes it a pretty quick discussion. Abiogenesis has to be part of any discussion of life and the properties living things have.

So basically, "I can tell you all about the abiogenesis of life, I just can't tell you where the life came from".

Not an "if" at all. Life is chemically possible.

Life from nonliving material is not possible, sir.

Additionally, there is no evidence for any god beings, and therefore so evidence that anything exists that can "fine-tune"...

Sorry you feel that way.

Do me a favor Kingdom. Tell me which molecules in your body are NOT dead matter. I'd love to hear this...

*sigh* The molecules that I am made up of is dead...yet, "I" am alive. Hmm, how does that work out?

You are taking this places it doesn't even need to go, but since you took it there, lets take it there.

There's plenty of evidence. I can only guess that you've just not been paying attention.

I can say the same thing to you about your view of my position.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 78 by For_The_Kingdom]

First it's life, then it's sentient life, then it's just "life" again. You're moving the goalposts consistently to avoid addressing my arguments, then pushing it back to somehow attempt to demonstrate that you're not deviating from what the scientific theory actually states. You can't have it both ways.

We have demonstrated that organic chemicals can accumulate naturally, and form proto-cells.

If proto-cells are in the correct prebiotic conditions (meaning there is no complex form of cellular life which you claim is needed to be presupposed), they can accumulate chemical strands and polymerize their own pseudo-enzymes. This process takes a long time. And you don't want to accept that.

But the fact is that simply telling proto-cells to work faster doesn't work. Selective forces apply in a manner of singling out the worst, while the individuals that are "good enough" remain. These forces often don't force particular changes for millennia.

Proto-cells that have had immense time frames can eventually find themselves in competition with each other: some proto-cells will have pre-RNA strands that allow them to more effectively accumulate resources and replicate.

EVERYTHING I have said above is nothing more than an application of chemistry. NONE of it works outside the bounds of physical laws.

THAT is the theory of abiogenesis. What you demand from us is a modern cell structure appearing fully formed out of nowhere. That would break physical laws. That is not what abiogenesis claims.

Proto-cells which accumulate enough material can diversify, and complex structures gradually appear. This is an emergent property of chemical processes undergoing selective forces.

The next step is linking these proto-cells to prokaryotic cells. After that, we move onto eukaryotic cells, etc.

The experiments are being conducted right now in order to form explanations and data points that allow the process to be observed.

But you are demanding the impossible, and then defending those impossible demands by saying you're being reasonable. If I gave you 10 seconds to verify that our universe is expanding, I would be giving an unreasonable demand. You must be given time to accumulate data.

If we went with what Creationists consistently demanded, we would consistently be throwing out all lines of research that disagree with their religious agenda. And that's absurd.

Do you know what's great about the theory of abiogenesis? Once the research is completed, we'll know whether or not it is possible. And we'll be stronger for having that knowledge. So quit demanding the unreasonable and let us come to the answer through the scientific method.