• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Abiogenisis

We Never Know

No Slack
Ok @Subduction Zone. I bowed out of that other thread. Lets take it up here.

Show me evidence abiogenisis actually happened(not a few things might be possible or maybe's). or admit defeat. Your choice.

Did the Miller Urey experiment produce life?
Yes or no!
 
Last edited:

We Never Know

No Slack
Nope, You forgot how you disqualified yourself from the converstion.

I asked you a reasonable question on the other thread. Why did you dodge it?

One more time......

Ok @Subduction Zone. I bowed out of that other thread. Lets take it up here.

Show me evidence abiogenisis actually happened(not a few things might be possible or maybe's). or admit defeat. Your choice.

Did the Miller Urey experiment produce life?
Yes or no!
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
One more time......

Ok @Subduction Zone. I bowed out of that other thread. Lets take it up here.

Show me evidence abiogenisis actually happened(not a few things might be possible or maybe's). or admit defeat. Your choice.

Did the Miller Urey experiment produce life?
Yes or no!
You keep disqualifying yourself. Do we need to kill an innocent person to convict someone else of a miurder?


You do not understand the concept of evidence. That is how we judge ideas.

So is the Miller Urey experiment evidence for abiogenesis? Why or why not?
 

We Never Know

No Slack
You keep disqualifying yourself. Do we need to kill an innocent person to convict someone else of a miurder?


You do not understand the concept of evidence. That is how we judge ideas.

So is the Miller Urey experiment evidence for abiogenesis? Why or why not?

Ok. You failed. Good bye now.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
You keep disqualifying yourself. Do we need to kill an innocent person to convict someone else of a miurder?


You do not understand the concept of evidence. That is how we judge ideas.

So is the Miller Urey experiment evidence for abiogenesis? Why or why not?

Per your rules... You do not deserve answers for dodging questions. You lose. Move on or answer the OP.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Abiogenesis.

If it can be proven with evidence, show it..

Or admit it isn't proven

Its that simple! Maybe's, could be's, etc need to step on.

This was already addressed before the thread even started/ It is why you lost the debate and disqualified you from judging anything. One more time:

Science does not "prove" anything. It provides evidence. Do you need a link? I can supply one. Science can disprove ideas, but it cannot prove them. All there is in the sciences is evidence.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
This was already addressed before the thread even started/ It is why you lost the debate and disqualified you from judging anything. One more time:

Science does not "prove" anything. It provides evidence. Do you need a link? I can supply one. Science can disprove ideas, but it cannot prove them. All there is in the sciences is evidence.


One more time from the OP... "Show me evidence abiogenisis actually happened or admit defeat. Your choice.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Ok @Subduction Zone. I bowed out of that other thread. Lets take it up here.

Show me evidence abiogenisis actually happened(not a few things might be possible or maybe's). or admit defeat. Your choice.
Our planet was once a fireball devoid of life.
Now there is life.
Therefore, at some point, abiogenesis happened. QED.
Did the Miller Urey experiment produce life?
Yes or no!
No -- nor was it expected to. It did demonstrate that the abiogenic formation of organic molecules was possible, though.

Question: Why do you bring up that old experiment? It's like citing the flight experiments at Kitty Hawk in a discussion on modern rocket science.
We've had 70 years of research since then. You might want to look into that, rather than citing Miller-Urey.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Our planet was once a fireball devoid of life.
Now there is life.
Therefore, at some point, abiogenesis happened. QED.
No -- nor was it expected to. It did demonstrate that the abiogenic formation of organic molecules was possible, though.

Question: Why do you bring up that old experiment? It's like citing the flight experiments at Kitty Hawk in a discussion on modern rocket science.
We've had 70 years of research since then. You might want to look into that, rather than citing Miller-Urey.
"Therefore, at some point, abiogenesis happened."

Or creation did. Without knowing and neither shown...... What's next?
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Our planet was once a fireball devoid of life.
Now there is life.
Therefore, at some point, abiogenesis happened. QED.
No -- nor was it expected to. It did demonstrate that the abiogenic formation of organic molecules was possible, though.

Question: Why do you bring up that old experiment? It's like citing the flight experiments at Kitty Hawk in a discussion on modern rocket science.
We've had 70 years of research since then. You might want to look into that, rather than citing Miller-Urey.

Oh and I didnt bring up an old experiment. Someone else did one another thread. @Subduction Zone who was it that did that?
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Well educated people understand this wasn't the aim of the experiment.

It was to show that organic chemicals could be transformed naturally from inorganic chemicals. And it worked.

I agree with that. But it isnt evidence that "life" came about the same way.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Abiogenesis.
If it can be proven with evidence, show it..

Or admit it isn't proven
Of course it can't be proven, in the scientific sense. Neither can the germ theory or heliocentrism, but the evidence for all three is overwhelming.

So.... Is there an alternative "theory," with stronger, more voluminous, or more consilient evidence, that you support?

If not abiogenesis, how?

Biological Abiogenesis is a theory of mechanism; of how.
Goddidit abiogenesis is a theory of agency; of who.

Q: By what mechanism did life come about on Earth?
Q: What step in 'chemical evolution' do you find hard to swallow?
 
Last edited:

We Never Know

No Slack
If this is the way you think, then you really don't care about the scientific process it seems. We have to reevaluate our understandings of things constantly in light of better evidence - even things we think we understand quite well, like gravity

I love science. Its how we move forward. But claiming an experiment that didn't create life shows how life formed is not science.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Of course it can't be proven, in the scientific sense. Neither can the germ theory of heliocentrism, but the evidence for all three is overwhelming.

So.... Is there an alternative "theory," with stronger, more voluminous, or more consilient evidence, that you support?

If not abiogenesis, how?

Claiming an experiment that didn't create life shows how life formed is not science.
 
Top