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 39 by Talishi]

Millions of people thought the Sun went around the Earth too. The number of people who believe in something has nothing to do with its truth value.

I simply answered your question.
Should I have read more into it, in the way you are reading more into my statement?

and why aren't we worshiping that one?

I'm no mind reader Talishi.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 40 by Divine Insight]


For every cause there is an effect. The cause produces the effect.

Whereas an effect can be a cause... Every cause is not an effect.

The first cause is not an effect. It is not the result of anything.

[H.sapiens]

[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"?

Pasteur's work relates not to origin of life issues but to the instantaneous springing, fully formed, of organisms from dead matter, e.g., fly larva on rotten meat. Gradual development of self replicating chemicals from non-living compounds and eventually living cells is a completely different thing. Get out of the quote mine, it is dishonest.

[Talishi]

[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"?

Both religion and science don't know everything. At least science doesn't pretend to know.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 54 by Talishi]

If I were to take your statement as being said in all honesty, I would like to ask:

1. How do you know that religion doesn't know everything (relatively of course, but specifically related to the source of energy)?
2. Would you be willing to accept the Bible's clear simple answer - Isaiah 40:26? If no, why not?

[Talishi]

How do you know that religion doesn't know everything (relatively of course, but specifically related to the source of energy)?

Because religion has water preceding the creation of stars. Water contains oxygen. Only the elements of hydrogen, helium, lithium and beryllium preceded the creation of stars.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 56 by Talishi]

Because religion has water preceding the creation of stars. Water contains oxygen. Only the elements of hydrogen, helium, lithium and beryllium preceded the creation of stars.

That's it?
I'm sure this can't be all. That would make it extremely easy for you to accept the Bible.
Actually, religion may be confused about which came first, but the Bible gives us a logical understanding.

See here:
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1020 ... tion&p=par
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/maga ... /creation/

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 57 by theStudent]

I think it's worth pointing out that you're not going to convince anyone here with links to Watchtower of all things. People are often drawn to religion due to emotional appeals and special indoctrination programs; I'd be surprised if Talishi actually fell for a series of baseless claims by yet another website.

Remember, it may be convincing for you because you have motivation to believe it (consistency in your worldview). That can't be said for anyone else, however.

[Talishi]

[Replying to post 56 by Talishi]

Because religion has water preceding the creation of stars. Water contains oxygen. Only the elements of hydrogen, helium, lithium and beryllium preceded the creation of stars.

That's it?
I'm sure this can't be all. That would make it extremely easy for you to accept the Bible.
Actually, religion may be confused about which came first, but the Bible gives us a logical understanding.

The Bible is precisely the part of religion that is confused on this point. You can't have water until oxygen is cooked, by fusion, inside the first generation (Pop 1) stars that emerged a few tens of millions of years after the expansion of the universe began, and then scattered in supernova explosions. The Bible says stars were created on the fourth day.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 56 by Talishi]

Because religion has water preceding the creation of stars. Water contains oxygen. Only the elements of hydrogen, helium, lithium and beryllium preceded the creation of stars.

That's it?
I'm sure this can't be all. That would make it extremely easy for you to accept the Bible.
Actually, religion may be confused about which came first, but the Bible gives us a logical understanding.

The Bible is precisely the part of religion that is confused on this point. You can't have water until oxygen is cooked, by fusion, inside the first generation (Pop 1) stars that emerged a few tens of millions of years after the expansion of the universe began, and then scattered in supernova explosions. The Bible says stars were created on the fourth day.

Not to mention that the iron laden earth came before stars too, and we know that is also impossible. This has all been pointed out to Student before. But his book says pi=3. How's that for a logical understanding...