• 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!

"Life comes from Life"!

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Nope.

It may not be science now, but it is a working FALSIFIABLE hypothesis, with a lot better insight and more evidence to the early Earth than that provided by Genesis creation and the pseudoscience Intelligent Design.
So?
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I made no argument

Sure you did. You made two, one explicit in syllogistic form with an unproven premise, and one implicit, where you coyly deny that your purpose for repeatedly stating that abiogenesis isn't completely understood isn't part of an implied argument from ignorance, in explicit form looking more like if you can't prove it, it didn't happen, therefore God.

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.

Most of us have asked you, "So what?" repeatedly, a question you evade for obvious reasons. You're not free to openly proselytize here, so you do it like the ID people, who when told that they weren't allowed to inject their religious beliefs into public school science curricula, just as insincerely asked, "What God? We never mentioned God." And not surprisingly, they got caught lying ("cdesign proponentsists") and had their lie exposed in court.

I have said nothing about religion

You don't need to. Your agenda is apparent. You're here to promote your religious beliefs, -you know, the religion depicted in your avatar. But you have to do it stealthily because of forum rules.

So, the fact that that the process of abiogenesis is unknown, is actually a religious treatise

It's the first part of one of the commonest arguments from creationists.

Your need to comment on me, as opposed to what I wrote, time after time, makes my point

Isn't this you commenting on others here? And you've commented on yourself plenty.

There's nothing else to comment on here but your poorly-hidden agenda. Your arguments were given early on and refuted. All that's left to discuss are your agenda and methods.

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.

He already is. His purpose here is clear.
 

Yazata

Active Member
I doubt that we will ever know for sure how life first appeared. Unless time-travel allows us to visit the very early Earth, we won't ever be able to observe the first steps in the origin of life.

Are you a prophet? :)

Unless we somehow develop time travel, we will never be able to directly observe the origin of life. So all that we will seemingly ever be able to do is form hypotheses about how it might have happened.

"Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood."
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

Something being uncontroversial among scientists doesn't mean that it is actually known. In this case, it's a widely held assumption.

I share it myself, based in part on the argument in my last post. If conditions in the (hypothetical) Big Bang weren't consistent with the possibility of biological life, then we can seemingly assume that there was a time in the past when the universe contained no life. (That's still just an assumption, even if it's implied by the premises of the argument.) We know from our own experience (and our own existence) that life exists now. So we seem justified in concluding that life appeared from non-life, somewhere and somehow.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that we don't really know when, where or how it happened. Nor do we know how many other times it's happened.

Science has been able to solve many mysteries. It will solve this too. It is only a question of time.

Conceivable, I guess. But unless we gain the ability to actually go back and observe, it's always going to be hypothetical, the result of a perhaps shaky chain of inferences based on fragmentary evidence mixed with speculation.

gGBb
 
Last edited:

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
magic.jpg
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Yazata, you will see it happening in the laboratories.
It would not be uncontroversial in science, if the scientists were not sure about it.
"I share it myself ..": I appreciate that.
We know it happned soon after formation of Earth.

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia
"The earliest life on Earth existed more than 3.5 billion years ago, during the Eoarchean Era when sufficient crust had solidified following the molten Hadean Eon. The earliest physical evidence so far found consists of microfossils in the Nuvvuagittuq Greenstone Belt of Northern Quebec, in "banded iron formation" rocks at least 3.77 billion and possibly 4.28 billion years old. This finding suggested life developed very soon after oceans formed. The structure of the microbes was noted to be similar to bacteria found near hydrothermal vents in the modern era, and provided support for the hypothesis that abiogenesis began near hydrothermal vents."

You missed my post # 560.
List of interstellar and circumstellar molecules - Wikipedia
Organic molecules with potential of being seeds to life are not uncommon in space. Some might act as catalysts.
Contents: 1 Detection 1.1 History 2 Theoretical models 3 Molecules 3.1 Diatomic (43) 3.2 Triatomic (44) 3.3 Four atoms (28) 3.4 Five atoms (20) 3.5 Six atoms (16) 3.6 Seven atoms (12) 3.7 Eight atoms (11) 3.8 Nine atoms (10) 3.9 Ten or more atoms (17) 4 Deuterated molecules (20) 5. Unconfirmed (12) 6 See also 7 References 8 External links
 
Last edited:

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Sure you did. You made two, one explicit in syllogistic form with an unproven premise, and one implicit, where you coyly deny that your purpose for repeatedly stating that abiogenesis isn't completely understood isn't part of an implied argument from ignorance, in explicit form looking more like if you can't prove it, it didn't happen, therefore God.



Most of us have asked you, "So what?" repeatedly, a question you evade for obvious reasons. You're not free to openly proselytize here, so you do it like the ID people, who when told that they weren't allowed to inject their religious beliefs into public school science curricula, just as insincerely asked, "What God? We never mentioned God." And not surprisingly, they got caught lying ("cdesign proponentsists") and had their lie exposed in court.



You don't need to. Your agenda is apparent. You're here to promote your religious beliefs, -you know, the religion depicted in your avatar. But you have to do it stealthily because of forum rules.



It's the first part of one of the commonest arguments from creationists.



Isn't this you commenting on others here? And you've commented on yourself plenty.

There's nothing else to comment on here but your poorly-hidden agenda. Your arguments were given early on and refuted. All that's left to discuss are your agenda and methods.



He already is. His purpose here is clear.
LOL!!! In the 60's there was a song by a group called Buffalo Springfield. The partial lyrics of one of their songs was"paranoia runs deep, into their minds it will creep".


A perfect description of this blather.

You, of course, failed to mention the other syllogism I listed, showing the logical premise for no God. I addressed the possibility of a

Further, you have taken a discussion about logic, and have tried to turn it into a grand argument for God, which you apparently fear, and see around every corner.

Since I have no agenda, but to make sure everyone knows that abiogenesis is an unknown process.
Sure you did. You made two, one explicit in syllogistic form with an unproven premise, and one implicit, where you coyly deny that your purpose for repeatedly stating that abiogenesis isn't completely understood isn't part of an implied argument from ignorance, in explicit form looking more like if you can't prove it, it didn't happen, therefore God.



Most of us have asked you, "So what?" repeatedly, a question you evade for obvious reasons. You're not free to openly proselytize here, so you do it like the ID people, who when told that they weren't allowed to inject their religious beliefs into public school science curricula, just as insincerely asked, "What God? We never mentioned God." And not surprisingly, they got caught lying ("cdesign proponentsists") and had their lie exposed in court.



You don't need to. Your agenda is apparent. You're here to promote your religious beliefs, -you know, the religion depicted in your avatar. But you have to do it stealthily because of forum rules.



It's the first part of one of the commonest arguments from creationists.



Isn't this you commenting on others here? And you've commented on yourself plenty.

There's nothing else to comment on here but your poorly-hidden agenda. Your arguments were given early on and refuted. All that's left to discuss are your agenda and methods.



He already is. His purpose here is clear.
LOL !!! In the 60's there was a group called Buffalo Springfield, who had a song with the partial lyrics " paranoia runs deep, into their minds it will creep,"

This appears to apply to you, with all of your blather and subterfuge here.

You reference a discussion of logic, and two syllogisms I used, as some kind of argument for the existence of God, yet leave out the one that used logically asserted there was no need of God.

If you have had any exposure to the logical method, you know that a syllogism is not about finding truth, but is about proving the reasoning sound within the logical parameters, syllogisms are a tool that have logical parameters.

A syllogism cannot be proof of a God, or no God, and one would have to be ignorant of the discipline of logic to to think they were, I have a formal basic understanding of logic, I am surprised that that you could take a couple of syllogisms, and state they were a nefarious argument for God.

I need no syllogism to prove that the process of abiogenesis is unknown, it is a cold hard fact that you seem to resent.

So, you talk about an agenda attributed to me for stating the fact.

Do you really think that your fellow atheists are so simple minded as to convert to creationists because I stated the fact? But more importantly, do I think they are that simple minded?

Ah, no.

The agenda is to reaffirm lest they get carried away on the matter, that the process of abiogenesis is unknown, and I will go further, it has never been observed. and until it is understood and observed, it is speculation in the factual realm to state it occurred.

If the questions about it are resolved, I will have to seriously re evaluate my beliefs, but they have not.

In the mean time, I find the research very interesting.

Now, to your problem of seeing an evangelical Christian around every corner, that has the sole agenda of making you believe what you do not want to believe, by using facts, that is neurotic.

Could it be that your simmering rage has created in your mind a vast conspiracy to disabuse you of your beliefs?

I assure you, I have no such agenda. There was not a subliminal message in my posting the fact, no anagrams or other cyphers. Nothing o make you or anyone else to succumb to your imaginary agenda of mine.

Since you know what I believe, you ad hoc interpret my beliefs as the basis for anything I post related to abiogenesis.

Because I believe it didn't occur, that does not preclude me from stating facts about it, why should it, unless you want to argue against fact. Do you?

What you are really object to are my beliefs, and my temerity to hold them. Too bad, it is still a semi free country, I assume your new country allows people the freedom of though as well.

The process of abiogenesis is unknown. If you still see an agenda or other nefarious purpose in the statement, then so be it, but you are being duped by yourself.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
What I believe is irrelevant to the statement.
Myeah,... I'm not buying it.

There must be a reason for you to keep repeating and repeating and repeating the obvious that how life originates is a puzzle that hasn't been solved by science (yet).

We all know the reason, to be frank with you. The real question is when are you going to flat out admit it?

I'll rephrase my question, if that makes it easier:

Everybody here acknowledges that scientists have not (yet) solved the puzzle of abiogenesis. Nobody disputes that at present, the full mechanism / process that can generate life from non-life, is currently unknown.

So the question is: why have you just spend post after post for several pages, basically simply repeating that fact? Do you have a point, or is your only goal stating the obvious? Because if the latter, then you are just wasting time, energy and webspace.

You do have a goal though. You do have a reason for repeating this fact ad nauseum. Please tell us all what your actual point is. Just state where you are going with this and be done with it.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Myeah,... I'm not buying it.

There must be a reason for you to keep repeating and repeating and repeating the obvious that how life originates is a puzzle that hasn't been solved by science (yet).

We all know the reason, to be frank with you. The real question is when are you going to flat out admit it?

I'll rephrase my question, if that makes it easier:

Everybody here acknowledges that scientists have not (yet) solved the puzzle of abiogenesis. Nobody disputes that at present, the full mechanism / process that can generate life from non-life, is currently unknown.

So the question is: why have you just spend post after post for several pages, basically simply repeating that fact? Do you have a point, or is your only goal stating the obvious? Because if the latter, then you are just wasting time, energy and webspace.

You do have a goal though. You do have a reason for repeating this fact ad nauseum. Please tell us all what your actual point is. Just state where you are going with this and be done with it.

Part of the point may be the weird claim that "evos" will
not "admit" that it is unknown.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Myeah,... I'm not buying it.

There must be a reason for you to keep repeating and repeating and repeating the obvious that how life originates is a puzzle that hasn't been solved by science (yet).

We all know the reason, to be frank with you. The real question is when are you going to flat out admit it?

I'll rephrase my question, if that makes it easier:

Everybody here acknowledges that scientists have not (yet) solved the puzzle of abiogenesis. Nobody disputes that at present, the full mechanism / process that can generate life from non-life, is currently unknown.

So the question is: why have you just spend post after post for several pages, basically simply repeating that fact? Do you have a point, or is your only goal stating the obvious? Because if the latter, then you are just wasting time, energy and webspace.

You do have a goal though. You do have a reason for repeating this fact ad nauseum. Please tell us all what your actual point is. Just state where you are going with this and be done with it.
I have repeated the fact in response to folk like you, who want to argue with me about it.

As far as I am concerned, I should have posted it once, an obvious fact, which should have agreed o by everyone..

However, folk cojldn't let it stand, they had to keep coming back, and I kept repeating what I wrote. Showing time after time, those trying to crack it, to argue, no other reason.

So, when they, and you stop, I will.

You have a goal for coming back to it, what is it?
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I have repeated the fact in response to folk like you, who want to argue with me about it.

Who are you talking about?
Can you point me to a single post concerning of someone involved in this discussion who is claiming that abiogenesis HAS been solved?

I say you can't, because nobody here is saying that - not that I've seen anyway.
So the question remains: why insist on repeating the obvious?

As far as I am concerned, I should have posted it once, an obvious fact, which should have agreed o by everyone..

Who didn't agree with it? Please quote that person's claim, or at least link to the post number.

However, folk cojldn't let it stand, they had to keep coming back, and I kept repeating what I wrote. Showing time after time, those trying to crack it, to argue, no other reason.


Again, who are you talking about? Be specific here... Name them and link to those post in which these people, or this person, are explicitly denying that the origins of ife are currently unknown and / or who claim that the puzzle of abiogenesis has been solved already?

Who? Which post?

So, when they, and you stop, I will.

I have been repeating this point for several posts already. Consistently informing you about this, but it seems to fall on deaf ears. You just continue to repeat the obvious.

You have a goal for coming back to it, what is it?

I already told you: I'm looking to find out why restating the obvious so many times is so important to you. I'm thinking you have an additional point to make about it, which you aren't being up front about.

You say, and have said, that you are repeating the obvious because people are apparantly denying it and arguing against it. But frankly, i'm not seeing that happening at all, hence my request for you to linke me to specific posts by these people where this is supposedly happening.


I'm willing to bet a fair amount of money that no such links will be forthcoming. Either that, or you'll link me to a post that doesn't at all say what you claim it says.


So, here's your chance to put your money where your mouth is. Link me to a post in this discussion where someone is arguing the point that abiogenesis is an unsolved puzzle. In fact, if you actually succeed in doing that, I'll actually join you in making it clear to that person that abiogenesis hasn't been solved yet and that it is a work in progress.

But again, I'm quite positive that you'll come up empty handed.


Just as a FYI, to end with, after you fail to produce such links, I will once again ask you why you insist on repeating the obvious. Because failing to produce the links to the post you claim exists, means that that isn't actually the reason why you insist on repeating the obvious..... :)
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Who are you talking about?
Can you point me to a single post concerning of someone involved in this discussion who is claiming that abiogenesis HAS been solved?

I say you can't, because nobody here is saying that - not that I've seen anyway.
So the question remains: why insist on repeating the obvious?



Who didn't agree with it? Please quote that person's claim, or at least link to the post number.




Again, who are you talking about? Be specific here... Name them and link to those post in which these people, or this person, are explicitly denying that the origins of ife are currently unknown and / or who claim that the puzzle of abiogenesis has been solved already?

Who? Which post?



I have been repeating this point for several posts already. Consistently informing you about this, but it seems to fall on deaf ears. You just continue to repeat the obvious.



I already told you: I'm looking to find out why restating the obvious so many times is so important to you. I'm thinking you have an additional point to make about it, which you aren't being up front about.

You say, and have said, that you are repeating the obvious because people are apparantly denying it and arguing against it. But frankly, i'm not seeing that happening at all, hence my request for you to linke me to specific posts by these people where this is supposedly happening.


I'm willing to bet a fair amount of money that no such links will be forthcoming. Either that, or you'll link me to a post that doesn't at all say what you claim it says.


So, here's your chance to put your money where your mouth is. Link me to a post in this discussion where someone is arguing the point that abiogenesis is an unsolved puzzle. In fact, if you actually succeed in doing that, I'll actually join you in making it clear to that person that abiogenesis hasn't been solved yet and that it is a work in progress.

But again, I'm quite positive that you'll come up empty handed.


Just as a FYI, to end with, after you fail to produce such links, I will once again ask you why you insist on repeating the obvious. Because failing to produce the links to the post you claim exists, means that that isn't actually the reason why you insist on repeating the obvious..... :)

Because failing to produce the links to the post you claim exists, means that that isn't actually the reason why you insist on repeating the obvious.

Obvious it is that by just saying the same
thing over and over a sort of stalemate is achieved.

Any attempt to go forward, as in tying but failing to
meet the request would lead in a cascade of catastrophe
to the destruction of all that is precious in life.

You know how fundys are, no error can ever ever ever
be admitted to. Its like allowing one little hole in a light
bulb, in its inevitable consequences.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Who are you talking about?
Can you point me to a single post concerning of someone involved in this discussion who is claiming that abiogenesis HAS been solved?

I say you can't, because nobody here is saying that - not that I've seen anyway.
So the question remains: why insist on repeating the obvious?



Who didn't agree with it? Please quote that person's claim, or at least link to the post number.




Again, who are you talking about? Be specific here... Name them and link to those post in which these people, or this person, are explicitly denying that the origins of ife are currently unknown and / or who claim that the puzzle of abiogenesis has been solved already?

Who? Which post?



I have been repeating this point for several posts already. Consistently informing you about this, but it seems to fall on deaf ears. You just continue to repeat the obvious.



I already told you: I'm looking to find out why restating the obvious so many times is so important to you. I'm thinking you have an additional point to make about it, which you aren't being up front about.

You say, and have said, that you are repeating the obvious because people are apparantly denying it and arguing against it. But frankly, i'm not seeing that happening at all, hence my request for you to linke me to specific posts by these people where this is supposedly happening.


I'm willing to bet a fair amount of money that no such links will be forthcoming. Either that, or you'll link me to a post that doesn't at all say what you claim it says.


So, here's your chance to put your money where your mouth is. Link me to a post in this discussion where someone is arguing the point that abiogenesis is an unsolved puzzle. In fact, if you actually succeed in doing that, I'll actually join you in making it clear to that person that abiogenesis hasn't been solved yet and that it is a work in progress.

But again, I'm quite positive that you'll come up empty handed.


Just as a FYI, to end with, after you fail to produce such links, I will once again ask you why you insist on repeating the obvious. Because failing to produce the links to the post you claim exists, means that that isn't actually the reason why you insist on repeating the obvious..... :)
Once again, you make my point.You just want to argue.

I never said any of my correspondents believed abiogenisis had been solved, I said they wanted to use their response to the fact, in some fashion, to draw me into an argument.

How many posts have you made, because I stated the fact. Many. Follow the thread, all of the posts and counter posts are there.

You just keep coming back, four or five posts in the same day, getting the same response, the process of abiogenesis is unknown, over and over again.

You end this one with a ploy right out of the playground. " if you don't give me your apple, that means you aren't part of our club". Pitiful.

Have you learned your lesson, or are you coming back?
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Once again, you make my point.You just want to argue.

I never said any of my correspondents believed abiogenisis had been solved, I said they wanted to use their response to the fact, in some fashion, to draw me into an argument.

How many posts have you made, because I stated the fact. Many. Follow the thread, all of the posts and counter posts are there.

You just keep coming back, four or five posts in the same day, getting the same response, the process of abiogenesis is unknown, over and over again.

You end this one with a ploy right out of the playground. " if you don't give me your apple, that means you aren't part of our club". Pitiful.

Have you learned your lesson, or are you coming back?

You said that people "argue about it", where "it" is the statement that abiogenesis hasn't been solved yet.

So, yes, it is EXACTLY what you said. Why would you keep repeating this point, if you are of the opinion that people were agreeing with it? No, you said they ARGUE ABOUT IT. Which would mean that they are NOT AGREEING with it.


And just like predicted, no links, no names, no post numbers.

Just arguing for the sake of arguing.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
As far as I am concerned, I should have posted it once, an obvious fact, which should have agreed o by everyone..

Except that your first statement was not that the way in which abiogenesis happened in unknown, it was that it was "absolutely false":-

The first life arose from non life? Absolutely false. You BELIEVE it did, you have FAITH that it did, but the evidence that it did does not exist.

The evidence that it did does exist, just not (yet) a tested theory of how it happened.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Once again, you make my point.You just want to argue.

I never said any of my correspondents believed abiogenisis had been solved, I said they wanted to use their response to the fact, in some fashion, to draw me into an argument.

How many posts have you made, because I stated the fact. Many. Follow the thread, all of the posts and counter posts are there.

You just keep coming back, four or five posts in the same day, getting the same response, the process of abiogenesis is unknown, over and over again.

You end this one with a ploy right out of the playground. " if you don't give me your apple, that means you aren't part of our club". Pitiful.

Have you learned your lesson, or are you coming back?

You are avoiding to answer the questions, shmogie.

You are dancing around, being dishonestly evasive.

Why cannot simply answer the questions?

Why are you repeating the same strawman, over and over again?
 
Top