Abiogenisis

[We Never Know]

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.

You lose again. That's five tonight.

 

[We Never Know]

Oh my! Another fail.

Ok six. My mistake

 

[We Never Know]

@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.

If it isnt proven/shown.. Its accepted on belief and faith. Imagine that lol

 

[Subduction Zone]

You lose again. That's five tonight.

Ok six. My mistake

No, you are just counting your fails. Be polite. Ask proper questions. You have been told by several what is wrong with your questions.

You can rant and rave as much as you want to here tonight. Of you could apologize and say that you would really like to try to learn and people, not just me, will gladly help you.


But right now there is no point in talking with you since you get even your questions wrong.

 

[sun rise]

"Therefore, at some point, abiogenesis happened."

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

False dichotomy. Creation happened through the mechanism of abiogenesis.

 

[Valjean]

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

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

Who made that claim? Where did you hear that?

 

[We Never Know]

No, you are just counting your fails. Be polite. Ask proper questions. You have been told by several what is wrong with your questions.

You can rant and rave as much as you want to here tonight. Of you could apologize and say that you would really like to try to learn and people, not just me, will gladly help you.


But right now there is no point in talking with you since you get even your questions wrong.

Proper question from the OP. Im guessing you will dodge and run again.

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!

 

[JDMS]

If it isnt proven/shown.. Its accepted on belief and faith. Imagine that lol

You're right. I'm putting my faith in the evidence that I thought was the best. Just as a man puts faith in their judgment of a criminal based on the evidence they have, I am putting faith in the evidence I have. Could I be wrong? Of course. But I do not think I am, because the evidence is good.

Do you really think I'd, say, risk an eternity in Hell if I thought the evidence for my beliefs was poor?

 

[We Never Know]

False dichotomy. Creation happened through the mechanism of abiogenesis.

Some believers will disagree with that.
And say....
Abiogenesis happened through the mechanism of creation.

 

[We Never Know]

You're right. I'm putting my faith in the evidence that I thought was the best. Just as a man puts faith in their judgment of a criminal based on the evidence they have, I am putting faith in the evidence I have. Could I be wrong? Of course. But I do not think I am, because the evidence is good.

Do you really think I'd, say, risk an eternity in Hell if I thought the evidence for my beliefs was poor?

Hell doesn't exist IMO. Thats all fairy tale

 

[JDMS]

If it isnt proven/shown.. Its accepted on belief and faith. Imagine that lol

On another note, I find it mildly amusing that you thought this was a "gotcha!" moment.

 

[We Never Know]

On another note, I find it mildly amusing that you thought this was a "gotcha!" moment.

Who gets got.
The believers in god with no evidence
Or
Abiogenisis that hasn't yet produced life

 

[Debater Slayer]

Ok six. My mistake

No, you are just counting your fails. Be polite. Ask proper questions. You have been told by several what is wrong with your questions.

You can rant and rave as much as you want to here tonight. Of you could apologize and say that you would really like to try to learn and people, not just me, will gladly help you.


But right now there is no point in talking with you since you get even your questions wrong.

I enjoy reading posts from both of you, so I was following this thread to read each of your perspectives. I see no winners or losers here; we all just exchange our ideas.

 

[Valjean]

How life became life has never been shown to me.
Be it abiogenisis or creation, neither have been shown to be correct to me. I'm good with that, that being we don't know.

So you acknowledge that no-life did become life. Do you acknowledge that there was some mmechanism involved, or are you opting for magic?

Frankly, I don't believe you're familiar with the mechanisms described by science, yet you reject them, sight unseen.

I suggest you tell me whether we know how life became life.
I've read books on gods and superman, neither convinved me they are true

It wasn't that long ago we didn't know exactly how tides, earthquakes, disease or seasons were generated, but we weren't skeptical of they're existence.

 

[danieldemol]

You lose again. That's five tonight.

Are you trying to win something, or simply find what the most probable answer is?
For showing that God is the creator of life you have to show that God exists which hasn't been done.
For showing that nature is the creator of life you have to show that nature exists which is more than evident.
Hence I believe it is more likely that nature did it than God according to that available evidence alone.

In my opinion

 

[Subduction Zone]

I enjoy reading posts from both of you, so I was following this thread to read each of your perspectives. I see no winners or losers here; we all just exchange our ideas.

If you have questions I will gladly answer them. If I answer his questions he only gets more and more mad. I will talk to him tomorrow.

 

[Debater Slayer]

If you have questions I will gladly answer them.

I've read a fair bit about abiogenesis, so I have no questions for now. I was more interested in reading the discussion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you trying to win something, or simply find what the most probable answer is?
For showing that God is the creator of life you have to show that God exists which hasn't been done.
For showing that nature is the creator of life you have to show that nature exists which is more than evident.
Hence I believe it is more likely that nature did it than God according to that available evidence alone.

In my opinion

The odd thing is that let's say that it was proved rock solid that life began through abiogenesis. It turns out Elon Musk bought a time machine and an 8 mm home movie camera (it had to be Elon Musk because only he could afford the developing fees). He came back with footage of the first life forming. That still does not disprove God. So many religion people see this as an open attack on their God (well it might be, Flat Earthers seem to have a different God than anyone else). But even if abiogenesis is an irrefutable fact that face does not refute God. it may be just what God was thinking about at the time of the Big Bang.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've read a fair bit about abiogenesis, so I have no questions for now. I was more interested in reading the discussion.

If it goes on the moderators will get involved and I do not want that. He might be calmer tomorrow and more willing to have a polite conversation.

I know, it can be fun. But I have gotten into trouble far too many times to want to continue.

You could take my place. Just mimic an anger level of a bout a tenth of his and you could keep it going all night long.

 

[Valjean]

I have already stated there are maybe's could be's and what ifs.

And that's how human knowledge advances. We test the various maybe's and could be's and see what happens. In doing so, more and more details and mechanisms discovered for further testing. That's what science does.
Evidence supporting a particular hypothesis accumulates to the point that it becomes clear that it is the correct one, and the hypothesis graduates to theory.

Your RNA and DNA are coded with intructions. Its how you became you.

Can nucleic acids arise through ordinary chemistry, from existing components? Are nucleic acids even necessary for life?
Yes, and not necessarily. Much depends on how you define life. Life's not an either-or. It's a progression; a spectrum. Molecules form more and more lifelike structures. The point where you declare a structure "alive" is arbitrary.

We already have self-assembling structures resembling living things. We have structures that grow and reproduce -- some with nucleic acid codes, some without.
It's these researches you should be looking at, not the Miller-Urey experiment.