-
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
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, I have never asked anyone to prove their god. I always ask for evidence.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Yet. And it is questionable if or when we will ever know. Even when we find a possible path how life arose on earth, we won't know it did.
The process of abiogenesis has many steps, some of them we do know (e.g. from Miller-Urey). Biochemists are working on others, lipid bilayers, RNA, proteins.
Creationists are slackers. They don't work. Their hypothesis is "goddidit" and that's it.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Men live in a water mass bio microbial oxygenated living conditions before experiments. Microbial life are all around you and on you.
Life is in the air already and it's in the water already.
How is it inorganic chemicals when you're just human. You see look by word mind a human only used ..
saying inorganic chemicals is one a chemical two described as inorganic and it's exact.
It isn't living says your mind. Conscious asserted.
Exact science is natural first. Then natural is observed second.
Your want unnatural first. Is what a greedy human egotist by behaviour a choice ignores. As behaviour is involved in humans science.
So teachers try to say consciousness ours is involved in science choices. It's important to review self expressions.
You however then take that advice and made a new theory about consciousness.
Destroyer men tal ity.
Already a microbe and already alive becomes reacted destroyed by man of science being your actual intent.
Ignored. As you believe in removal only. Not natural.
Nimos
Well-Known Member
There is no requirement for that.
If someone claims that the big bang is true and someone doesn't believe that, this person is not required to provide an alternative to make a valid critique of that idea.
Simply saying that one doesn't know is perfectly fine.
Just saying
We Never Know
No Slack
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
@We Never Know if you could calm down a bit and think and ask questions politely people would be a lot more willing to help you. You are angry in this thread. You made irrational demands and irrational statements.
And you need to be willing to answer as many questions as you ask.
And you need to be willing to answer as many questions as you ask.
We Never Know
No Slack
There is no requirement for that.
If someone claims that the big bang is true and someone doesn't believe that, this person is not required to provide an alternative to make a valid critique of that idea.
Simply saying that one doesn't know is perfectly fine.
Just saying
"Simply saying that one doesn't know is perfectly fine"
Sure it is. When none of us know, its the best answer.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
All of the available evidence says yes. There is no evidence for anything else.
We Never Know
No Slack
Oh here you got again... "ask questions politely" Lmao
This question is polite and to the point...
Did abiogenisis create life. Yes or no?
What is "creation," if not a claim of abiogenesis?
First there was no life, then there was. "Bio" was "generated" without -- "a" -- preëxisting life.
Creationism is a claim that life was generated from nothing, by some unmentioned mechanism.
Abiogenesis is the claim that life was generated from existing chemicals, by known, observable mechanisms.
The difference? One says life poofed into being from nothing, by magic. The other says life emerged from something, by familiar mechanisms.
One has no empirical supporting evidence, the other: whole libraries full.
So, WNK, what point are you trying to make?
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
But since we have a very good idea supported by evidence that is a poor answer. You are not on the same level with your beliefs that a scientist is with his.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Sciences owned man's proof.
Twice on earth I knowingly changed inorganic compounds and destroyed the pre living types bio of waters genesis.
Removed compound revealed life existed before it. Ignored.
I proved by abiogenisis I did it as I changed earths chemical face also.
JDMS
Academic Workhorse
@We Never Know I also want to point out that, even if we saw abiogenesis was possible by observing it in the wild, that still doesn't prove life on Earth originally started from abiogenesis. It would be quite the bit of evidence, because we'd now know for certain that abiogenesis is possible, but it would not prove anything. It would not prove that God or gods do not exist, it wouldn't prove all the theories of evolution, it wouldn't creationists are wrong.
That's how evidence works. That's what you do not seem to understand. It is not an either-or, it is not cut and dried, and that is the nature of science and evidence.
And that understanding is why so many of these people in the thread are comfortable with the evidence we have so far, enough to believe it over the other options. We've weighed evidence and made a decision based on it.
That's how evidence works. That's what you do not seem to understand. It is not an either-or, it is not cut and dried, and that is the nature of science and evidence.
And that understanding is why so many of these people in the thread are comfortable with the evidence we have so far, enough to believe it over the other options. We've weighed evidence and made a decision based on it.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, it was very poorly asked and quite rudely too. Let me illustrate, the following question is for educational purposes only:
Have you quite beating your wife yet? Yes or no?
By the way, even when you objected to your rudeness being pointed out you could not help but to be rude.
We Never Know
No Slack
Yes its your claim. Now show it with scientific evidence. Meaning show life arose through abiogenisis.
We Never Know
No Slack
Good grief man. Take your "poorly asked" excuses and go to bed. They only make you look incompetent.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You have to be able to understand the evidence to make such a demand. And you were given a chance to demonstrate that you could understand it. You are in no position to make demands.
You are in a position to ask politely and everyone who has been responding to you would more than likely gladly help. Being rude only causes others to at best answer your questions literally when possible.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Oh my! Another fail.