"Life comes from Life"!

[shmogie]

Everybody on this side of the table has no problems acknowledging that the puzzle of abiogenesis hasn't fully been solved.

The real question is: why do you feel it is so important to keep repeating the obvious?

Well, because many on your side cannot admit it. You, early on, tried every means possible to try and avoid admitting it.
Those to whom I respond, engage me, yet refuse to agree to the simple fact.

The alleged puzzle of abigenesis has not been solved. You cannot say it has not been fully solved till you know the solution, so you can say aha ! that was an important step.

What you consider a partial solution may have no part in the solution, if it is ever found.

For years biochemistry was considered the way to a solution, now many are looking elsewhere with other ideas, the situation remains fluid.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, because many on your side cannot admit it.

Who? Who here is claiming that abiogenesis is solved?

You, early on, tried every means possible to try and avoid admitting it.

This is a lie. Quote me a single time where I said that abiogenesis is solved.
Either that, or retract this lie.

Those to whom I respond, engage me, yet refuse to agree to the simple fact.

Again: quote a single person here who is saying that abiogenesis is solved.

The alleged puzzle of abigenesis has not been solved

Indeed it has not, as everybody here will afffirm.
What's the problem?

You cannot say it has not been fully solved till you know the solution, so you can say aha ! that was an important step.

What are you talking about?

It's a pretty binary issue... either it is solved or it isn't. And it isn't.
Again, what's the problem? What's your point?

What you consider a partial solution may have no part in the solution, if it is ever found.

Are you talking about for example the discoveries concernig the various ways that amino acids can form through natural processes?

Considering how amino acids are building blocks of life, it seems quite relevant to abiogenesis research to find out that they CAN and DO form naturally? You don't agree with that?

You don't think that finding out that the building blocks of life can be produced by nature and how, is a relevant step forward in the quest to finding out how life can come about?

How could the processes that produce the very building blocks of life, not be relevant to a study of how life can form?




I note also that you didn't actually answer my question....
Why is it so important for you to put this much emphasis on stating the obvious, that we haven't figured out fully how life can form from abiotic conditions?

Let's not play this silly game. Just come out and make your argument from ignorance already.
We all know where you are ultimately going with this...

 

[gnostic]

God would know His chemistry

This is pure speculation, on your part...

...and false one at that.

It is clear that the Bible have no knowledge of chemistry, just as it show no knowledge of physics, no knowledge of biology, no knowledge of meteorology, of mountain forming, of soil erosion, of astronomy, and so on.

 

[Thief]

I didn't say the bible is a text book of chemistry

God would know His chemistry

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, because many on your side cannot admit it. You, early on, tried every means possible to try and avoid admitting it.
Those to whom I respond, engage me, yet refuse to agree to the simple fact.

The alleged puzzle of abigenesis has not been solved. You cannot say it has not been fully solved till you know the solution, so you can say aha ! that was an important step.

What you consider a partial solution may have no part in the solution, if it is ever found.

For years biochemistry was considered the way to a solution, now many are looking elsewhere with other ideas, the situation remains fluid.

Interesting. As a practicing biologist with a long history of involvement in discussions about abiogenesis, I have not observed scientists or anyone arguing the science claim that abiogenesis was solved.

I would point out that everything that we have discovered using science was once unsolved. That does not mean that all things will be solved by science, but it does not mean that current mysteries are insoluble either.

 

[tas8831]

Interesting. As a practicing biologist with a long history of involvement in discussions about abiogenesis, I have not observed scientists or anyone arguing the science claim that abiogenesis was solved.

I would point out that everything that we have discovered using science was once unsolved. That does not mean that all things will be solved by science, but it does not mean that current mysteries are insoluble either.

Expect no more from that one. He once claimed that a dead Stanley Miller had given an interview in which he had 'admitted' that his experiments had been failures. I asked him more than 15 times to provide a source, and then, at most, sort of said it was a quote he heard from a friend, or some such pathetic dishonesty - all for the glory of his deity!

 

[shmogie]

Interesting. As a practicing biologist with a long history of involvement in discussions about abiogenesis, I have not observed scientists or anyone arguing the science claim that abiogenesis was solved.

I would point out that everything that we have discovered using science was once unsolved. That does not mean that all things will be solved by science, but it does not mean that current mysteries are insoluble either.

I agree. The issue has become those who are loath to agree with the simple truth.

It all began when I made that simple statement, and as usual it became controversial with some. And, as usual, I was attacked personally for making the statement, to the point that it was alleged I had no right to say that the process of abiogenesis was not known, because I lacked knowledge of the science. ( which is untrue).

Another said that because I had not posted peer reviewed scientific articles showing that the process of abiogenesis was not known, the statement could not be made.

Then there were those who said I had no right to make the statement because I had religious bias. Even though I had not made any references to anything that could remotely be considered related to religion.

This is just an illustrative and amusing example of the rancor that some can generate within themselves when they perceive their particular sacred cow is threatened, by an Evangelical Christian no less. Since Evangelical Christians are so abhorrent and stupid, they should never comment on the true god, science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I agree. The issue has become those who are loath to agree with the simple truth.

It all began when I made that simple statement, and as usual it became controversial with some. And, as usual, I was attacked personally for making the statement, to the point that it was alleged I had no right to say that the process of abiogenesis was not known, because I lacked knowledge of the science. ( which is untrue).

Another said that because I had not posted peer reviewed scientific articles showing that the process of abiogenesis was not known, the statement could not be made.

Then there were those who said I had no right to make the statement because I had religious bias. Even though I had not made any references to anything that could remotely be considered related to religion.

This is just an illustrative and amusing example of the rancor that some can generate within themselves when they perceive their particular sacred cow is threatened, by an Evangelical Christian no less. Since Evangelical Christians are so abhorrent and stupid, they should never comment on the true god, science.

Like I said, I have not seen people claiming that abiogenesis was solved.

So you accept abiogenesis as a set of valid scientific hypotheses and consider that it is the only means offering the potential for testing and everything else is unverified belief? You accept that science has been used to accumulate a growing body of knowledge that lends credence to the concept of abiogenesis while still at a level where it cannot be tested?

 

[shmogie]

Like I said, I have not seen people claiming that abiogenesis was solved.

So you accept abiogenesis as a set of valid scientific hypotheses and consider that it is the only means offering the potential for testing and everything else is unverified belief? You accept that science has been used to accumulate a growing body of knowledge that lends credence to the concept of abiogenesis while still at a level where it cannot be tested?

Because science is bound to only a natural explanation for anything, within the parameters of that restraint, the hypotheses re abiogenesis are valid. That does not make them true, but only possible within rules of the game.

I accept that science has accumulated a body of knowledge that SEEMS to lend credence to the concept of abiogenesis. When abiogenesis is demonstrated (I don't think it ever will be), then what evidence led to the actual solution, and that determined not to have contributed, can be identified.

 

[gnostic]

Because science is bound to only a natural explanation for anything, within the parameters of that restraint, the hypotheses re abiogenesis are valid. That does not make them true, but only possible within rules of the game.

Well, the same thing could be said about your belief in the Bible, shmogie.

The gospels, revelation, and prophecies are written by Iron Age people, who very little understanding about nature, but the Golden Rule to the so-called knowledge is the faith in god, faith in Jesus and faith in books written by men.

It doesn’t make god “true” or the Bible “true”, which is only made possible within the rule game - blind faith in a supposed divine manuscript called the Bible.

You don’t need evidence to accept what Bible say about the creation, especially the creation of life in Genesis 1 & 2.; all you need is blind faith.

If I have to choose accept something that require evidence or something that require faith, I will always choose the former over the later.

Faith in god or faith in the Bible, is like an unsubstantiated personal opinion, highly subjective, and therefore highly unreliable.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

LOL, you are kidding, right? The same lame and erroneous attack "YOU have no knowledge, YOU have an agenda".
First, I have not mentioned religion one time. You apparently have an agenda in dragging religion into the discussion.

Second, if the process of abiogenesis was known, the world would know.

I would appreciate your advice as to which scientific journals I should search to find a peer reviewed article that explains that no one knows how abiogenesis occurs.

The fact of the matter is that you hate the message, cannot refute it, so you attack the messenger.

Others who believe in abiogenesis have acknowledged this, because they know it is a fact, because they are reasonable people who have no problem with seeing reality.

I suggest that you dump your personal prejudices, and emulate them. Right now your faux role of an objective prophet of the scientific method is pretty well shredded.

Are you saying that you do not have a religious stake in maintaining a dogmatic view of Genesis?

We do not know what occurred naturally at this point, but we are not clueless. We have the result to work with. We know a lot about chemistry, physics, biology and evolution that can help to establish parameters.

You do not seem to have been arguing a position near to the one that you took in answering my previous questions. I noticed that you refer to hypotheses as beliefs in some posts. This is not true. They are not beliefs.

You are using a gap argument. As long as we do not have a definitive answer or even able to demonstrate that abiogenesis can happen, your literal interpretation of the Bible can remain intact. We may not have the final answer, but we have a sound basis for further exploration, which is hardly knowing nothing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Because science is bound to only a natural explanation for anything, within the parameters of that restraint, the hypotheses re abiogenesis are valid. That does not make them true, but only possible within rules of the game.

I accept that science has accumulated a body of knowledge that SEEMS to lend credence to the concept of abiogenesis. When abiogenesis is demonstrated (I don't think it ever will be), then what evidence led to the actual solution, and that determined not to have contributed, can be identified.

Even if it is demonstrated, what is demonstration is not necessarily going to be the one that occurred to start life off, though it could be. We do not know how many paths could lead to the origin of life. Perhaps there is only one. Perhaps there are more than one that varies with conditions. But scientists are aware of these possibilities as well.

You can always rush to the fallback position when it is demonstrated and claim that it was an intelligent designer that demonstrated it.

 

[shmogie]

Even if it is demonstrated, what is demonstration is not necessarily going to be the one that occurred to start life off, though it could be. We do not know how many paths could lead to the origin of life. Perhaps there is only one. Perhaps there are more than one that varies with conditions. But scientists are aware of these possibilities as well.

You can always rush to the fallback position when it is demonstrated and claim that it was an intelligent designer that demonstrated it.

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?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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?

Human intelligence that is not evidence for any other intelligence.

 

[shmogie]

Are you saying that you do not have a religious stake in maintaining a dogmatic view of Genesis?

We do not know what occurred naturally at this point, but we are not clueless. We have the result to work with. We know a lot about chemistry, physics, biology and evolution that can help to establish parameters.

You do not seem to have been arguing a position near to the one that you took in answering my previous questions. I noticed that you refer to hypotheses as beliefs in some posts. This is not true. They are not beliefs.

You are using a gap argument. As long as we do not have a definitive answer or even able to demonstrate that abiogenesis can happen, your literal interpretation of the Bible can remain intact. We may not have the final answer, but we have a sound basis for further exploration, which is hardly knowing nothing.

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

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

Then the "you" statements come out, once again demonstrated here.

What I say is indisputable, Speculation of why I say it, though also irrelevant, becomes an issue. The fact is unassailable, so I am treated to a variety of comments, some certainly derogatory, because what is thought I believe offends.

Tough.

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.

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

 

[shmogie]

I

Human intelligence that is not evidence for any other intelligence.

didn't say it was.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

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

Then the "you" statements come out, once again demonstrated here.

What I say is indisputable, Speculation of why I say it, though also irrelevant, becomes an issue. The fact is unassailable, so I am treated to a variety of comments, some certainly derogatory, because what is thought I believe offends.

Tough.

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.

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

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.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I

didn't say it was.

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.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

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

Then the "you" statements come out, once again demonstrated here.

What I say is indisputable, Speculation of why I say it, though also irrelevant, becomes an issue. The fact is unassailable, so I am treated to a variety of comments, some certainly derogatory, because what is thought I believe offends.

Tough.

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.

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

If you are not making an argument, what are you doing? Is it some sort of passive aggressive denial. Science doesn't have a full theory, so it never will, but you can't say that because science has a good track record. Evidenced by two guys that have never met, but technology let's us communicate over hundreds of miles in practically real time or near enough. Hearts can be relocated to New apartments. Things to small to see in biblical times turn out to be the cause of disease and not curses.

 

[shmogie]

If you are not making an argument, what are you doing? Is it some sort of passive aggressive denial. Science doesn't have a full theory, so it never will, but you can't say that because science has a good track record. Evidenced by two guys that have never met, but technology let's us communicate over hundreds of miles in practically real time or near enough. Hearts can be relocated to New apartments. Things to small to see in biblical times turn out to be the cause of disease and not curses.

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.