"Life comes from Life"!

[shmogie]

Then pointing out the obvious for human discoveries has no further meaning. You may want to inform the other creationists. They have pinned their hopes to that little gap.

Irrelevant.

The process of abiogenesis is unknown. Fact

 

[shmogie]

Since everything else we can demonstrate has a factual, physical basis, how do you know that the origin of life will not?

You get very emotional about this. It is difficult to believe you do not have an emotional stake in an alternative claim.

Emotional?, you are kidding, right?

You, you, again.

I don't know if abiogenesis will be proven, I believe it won't.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I can respond to a post, which began this days ago, which I did.

Your explanations are fine, but not unknown to me.

However, they are irrelevant to the factual statement.

How aspirin works is not understood. There is no complete understanding of gravity. I guess you would not take an aspirin when you fall on your head.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Irrelevant.

The process of abiogenesis is unknown. Fact

So you know enough to be absolutely certain that scientists are not even on the right track in searching for an answer. That is amazing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Emotional?, you are kidding, right?

You, you, again.

I don't know if abiogenesis will be proven, I believe it won't.

It is you that is posting and with emotion. Should I just direct my responses to the empty air? I am known to do that, but it usually means I no longer see a poster as worth engaging.

Surely you are familiar with how our emotional state can lead us down the wrong path, so must ever be a consideration in question. It isn't as if humans never succumbed to their emotions and did something wrong as a result.

 

[Audie]

How aspirin works is not understood. There is no complete understanding of gravity. I guess you would not take an aspirin when you fall on your head.

As (I think it was Dr Richard Feynman) pointed out, if you
knew all there is to know about a drop of water, you'd know
most of what there is to know about the universe.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As (I think it was Dr Richard Feynman) pointed out, if you
knew all there is to know about a drop of water, you'd know
most of what there is to know about the universe.

There is also something about horses and water that seems appropriate accompaniment to this as well.

I wonder why those that know everything about water have so much difficulty explaining water to the rest of us.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Emotional?, you are kidding, right?

You, you, again.

I don't know if abiogenesis will be proven, I believe it won't.

So you don't see any scientific reasons not to explore the issue. Your opinion on the subject is based on your belief. I appreciate your candor.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

A century of research by perhaps tens of thousands of the most well educated in various scientific fields, using sophisticated equipment, and the most refined materials as opposed to chance environments, chance mixing of naturally raw materials, ought to be considered intelligent design, no?

The chemistry is not designed. The experiments are. Nobody can fuse the ingredients of an amino acid together. They can only be placed in proximity under the proper circumstances, and you not only don't need them to be forced together, you can't stop them from reacting to form amino acids. Man could not create life in a laboratory if it could not form itself under similar circumstances naturally. None of the chemistry was invented, just discovered.

As was already explained to you (and evaded, of course), experiments don't create nature or natural processes. They explore them. The Myth Busters and Forensic Files experiments I told you about revealed truths about the same processes occurring naturally, just as the Miller-Urey experiments recreated processes that occurred in nebulae and meteorites. That's why experiments are done - to discover what happens outside the lab naturally.

The process of abiogenesis is unknown.

We know it in the main. A series of chemical reactions occurred converting simple reactants into monomers into polymers into a living cell. The thermodynamics of spontaneous chemical reactions is already known. It's only the precise pathway that needs to be elucidated, not the process, which is chemistry, or chemical evolution.

This is similar to biological evolution. We know the processes involved - genetic variation and natural selection - but not the specific pathway that nature took.

It's bizarre that you use this as an argument against the possibility of spontaneous abiogenesis. It's not. What you seem to be saying is that if abiogenesis isn't a solved problem yet, it can't be solved or that it can't happen, which is obviously wrong. What you are actually saying is that your best argument is so weak that the only response you get to it is "So what?"

 

[gnostic]

Emotional?, you are kidding, right?

You, you, again.

I don't know if abiogenesis will be proven, I believe it won't.

So you know enough to be absolutely certain that scientists are not even on the right track in searching for an answer. That is amazing.

The ignorant can only create ignorance for himself.

Abiogenesis have made some progresses, but shmogie blindly refused to see them...

And no matter how many times you can explain the available evidence that back Abiogenesis, he will continue to refuse learn from his mistakes, which mean he will continue to make false claims about Abiogenesis.

 

[shmogie]

The chemistry is not designed. The experiments are. Nobody can fuse the ingredients of an amino acid together. They can only be placed in proximity under the proper circumstances, and you not only don't need them to be forced together, you can't stop them from reacting to form amino acids. Man could not create life in a laboratory if it could not form itself under similar circumstances naturally. None of the chemistry was invented, just discovered.

As was already explained to you (and evaded, of course), experiments don't create nature or natural processes. They explore them. The Myth Busters and Forensic Files experiments I told you about revealed truths about the same processes occurring naturally, just as the Miller-Urey experiments recreated processes that occurred in nebulae and meteorites. That's why experiments are done - to discover what happens outside the lab naturally.



We know it in the main. A series of chemical reactions occurred converting simple reactants into monomers into polymers into a living cell. The thermodynamics of spontaneous chemical reactions is already known. It's only the precise pathway that needs to be elucidated, not the process, which is chemistry, or chemical evolution.

This is similar to biological evolution. We know the processes involved - genetic variation and natural selection - but not the specific pathway that nature took.

It's bizarre that you use this as an argument against the possibility of spontaneous abiogenesis. It's not. What you seem to be saying is that if abiogenesis isn't a solved problem yet, it can't be solved or that it can't happen, which is obviously wrong. What you are actually saying is that your best argument is so weak that the only response you get to it is "So what?"

I made no argument,

The statement was in response to someone who said the problem had been solved.

From there, the peanut gallery chimed in with all of these esoteric wonders of research, and of course, the "you" statements because I said the process of abiogenesis is unknown.

I have stayed with the original statement because it is a fact, and watched various persons trying their best to argue with it, or me, because I said it.

The original protagonist, after some name calling, has left the field.

Some diehards, for reasons totally inexplicable to me, keep arguing with the statement, and projecting motives and purposes and arguments to me. It is fun to watch. It is almost as if they are bolstering their own belief, like Don Quixote and his windmill.

Their problem, your problem, not mine. It may be solved one day, which I doubt.

Till then, the process of non living matter becoming a living organism is unknown.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, that is a point. A century of research by perhaps tens of thousands of the most well educated in various scientific fields, using sophisticated equipment, and the most refined materials as opposed to chance environments, chance mixing of naturally raw materials, ought to be considered intelligent design, no?

No.

For the same reason that humans figuring out to build a freezer, is not evidence that the ice at the north pole, or the north pole itself, required a designer.

It's called "controlled conditions".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am not making an argument, what I believe of the Bible is irrelevant.

Clearly, your dogmatic biblical beliefs are NOT irrelevant to your overall position concerning the science of life's origins, universe origins, evolution,...

I state the simple fact that the process of abiogenesis is unknown. A simple factual statement.

Which nobody denies.

As long as abiogenesis remains unknown, which could be for eternity, no one can, in factual reality, claim it did occur, Except by faith, which is extremely threatening.

I already explained to you multiple times that there is a difference between knowing that the event itself has taken place on the one hand, and understanding HOW that event happened on the other.

If your god creates life from non-life, then that is an abiogenesis event!!!!

So no, abiogenesis definatly occured.
Life didn't always exist. It originated at some point. That origination, however it occured, was an abiogenesis event. Life came into existance by other means then already existing life producing it - which would be biogenesis.

Being reminded of this demands a response, and killing the messenger if required. You, you, you, because the statement cannot be refuted.

The statement that the process is still unknown, or at least partly unknown, is not being argued against by anyone.


The real problem here, is that at some point you'll use this "unknown" and pretend it is evidence of your religious beliefs. We all know it. Why else would you insist so much on repeating, and having it repeated, that science is largely still ignorant on how life can form? A statement which, again, is not in dispute by anyone.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Irrelevant.

The process of abiogenesis is unknown. Fact

Therefor..... ?

 

[tas8831]

If you are not making an argument, what are you doing? Is it some sort of passive aggressive denial.

Trolling.

All his ilk are capable of.

 

[shmogie]

Therefor..... ?

Therefore, the process of abiogenisis is unknown

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Therefore, the process of abiogenisis is unknown

So, back to stating the obvious then?

 

[shmogie]

Clearly, your dogmatic biblical beliefs are NOT irrelevant to your overall position concerning the science of life's origins, universe origins, evolution,...



Which nobody denies.



I already explained to you multiple times that there is a difference between knowing that the event itself has taken place on the one hand, and understanding HOW that event happened on the other.

If your god creates life from non-life, then that is an abiogenesis event!!!!

So no, abiogenesis definatly occured.
Life didn't always exist. It originated at some point. That origination, however it occured, was an abiogenesis event. Life came into existance by other means then already existing life producing it - which would be biogenesis.



The statement that the process is still unknown, or at least partly unknown, is not being argued against by anyone.


The real problem here, is that at some point you'll use this "unknown" and pretend it is evidence of your religious beliefs. We all know it. Why else would you insist so much on repeating, and having it repeated, that science is largely still ignorant on how life can form? A statement which, again, is not in dispute by anyone.

LOL You just keep chasing the shiny object. I have said nothing about religion. Blah, blah, blah.

 

[Audie]

Trolling.

All his ilk are capable of.

It is a problem for the creationists that
the bottom line is, they cannot come up
with a single fact that is contrary to ToE.

The ONLY objections come from those with
religious agendas, and their only contrary
"facts" come from their religious dogma.

Nobody has ever found anything. For some
reason this failure is glossed over, while.
the failure to find a mechanism for abio
is made king of the hill.*

Nor with a fact that would indicate, still less
prove, that abio is impossible.

Lacking any facts, all that is left to them is to froth
and foam.

* if ToE ;were false, of course, it would have to
be massively false, top to bottom all of it.
All the dating is wrong- a great crater would
be blown in atomic physics, in astronomy,
geology, biology would be in chaos.

The great discovery that would disprove it all
could come in any field of science.

Study related to abio is a very very narrow field,
pursued by very few. ( though we see it presented
as if its the holy grail of science, the focus of
everything for scores of years.)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

LOL You just keep chasing the shiny object. I have said nothing about religion. Blah, blah, blah.

So, how do you think life originated?