Producing life from non living matter

[FearGod]

Presumably. They're all we have. How else could we expect to understand what happened?
Understanding these laws got us to the moon, gave us smart phones and wiped out smallpox.

Because we have amazing brains, very sophisticated.

There are no known alternative research approaches. You can say goddidit, but that's not an explanation, just an assignation of agency.

Or the inanimate nature did it without any plan, just happened to be.

 

[osgart]

consciousness must be fundamental to existence. intelligence is no fluke, that's where I stack my cards.

there must be an intelligent cause to evolution . and maybe evolution isn't the way to go. life is the great experiment, and reality is hostile to it. consciousness competing with the laws of physics.

living bodies have logic to their arrangement, fruits and veggies are purposed for food, and not mindlessly made. There is art form amidst chaos, each creature is suited to their environment. it's a severely flawed intelligent design and a very desperate creative attempt.

I would say two separate realities clash with each other. life vs. physics. we are more spawned intelligently by an intelligent force. There is the sea of life vs. The cosmic sea both intersecting at a crossroads

 

[leibowde84]

First you don't how hard I have looked. Second, what has you looking shown you so far? It certainly has shown that it can be done.

It shows that there is definite progress being made. Science is getting closer and closer to figuring it out.

They are not. IMO most scientists have admitted it is impossible for life to have originated from lifeless element and have given up the search. What advances has science in this area in the past decade?

Below are several examples of how science is progressing in creating life from inorganic matter (non-life). And, you are dead wrong. Scientists have in no way accepted it is impossible. Quite the contrary, they are working vigorously to figure it out.

Scientists make first step towards bringing life to inorganic matter
How can life emerge from nonliving matter? UNC scientists find new evidence.
Scientists take first step towards creating 'inorganic life'
Scientists Discover Missing Link Between Organic and Inorganic Life

It is more ludicrous to keep beating a drum with a big hole in its cover.

No hole. They are making progress every day. Since they are getting closer and closer, it seems reasonable to assume that one day they will get there.

It is more ludicrous to say it can be done, until they have done it. To say life can originate from lifeless elements not only illogical, it goes against real science---death can't be the origin of life.

Death is not the same as non-life or non-living matter. The whole point is that inorganic material is not and never was living. So, it is merely life from non-life.

 

[Valjean]

Brahman is not "a" God. Brahman is God, period.

A God without qualities? Without personality? Without....anything?

Because we have amazing brains, very sophisticated.

Don't our brains need data and analytic skills to draw conclusions about reality?

Or the inanimate nature did it without any plan, just happened to be.

Yes, animate Nature did it without any plan. No plan was needed.

consciousness must be fundamental to existence. intelligence is no fluke, that's where I stack my cards.

Why do you say that?

there must be an intelligent cause to evolution . and maybe evolution isn't the way to go. life is the great experiment, and reality is hostile to it. consciousness competing with the laws of physics.

Why must there be an intelligent cause? What's your reasoning here?

living bodies have logic to their arrangement, fruits and veggies are purposed for food, and not mindlessly made. There is art form amidst chaos, each creature is suited to their environment. it's a severely flawed intelligent design and a very desperate creative attempt.

Logic?
Bodies are orderly, yes, but, if designed, the designer might consider some remedial engineering courses. Our bodies are more jerry-rigged from available parts than meticulously designed.

 

[Kirran]

A God without qualities? Without personality? Without....anything?

You seem to have ignored what i just said, which is a little rude - Brahman is not "a" god. And aside from two people on these forums, everybody I've ever talked to and every teacher I've ever read uses God to refer to Brahman, and asserts God's universality.

 

[omega2xx]

Is this to say that The ToE should start with abiogenesis?
Well, whether it should or not, it doesn't, as you know. Moreover, this would be like saying the study of metallurgy must start with the physics of supernovae, whence the metal originates.

But not many "evolutionists" accept evolution by faith alone. The evidence supporting it is overwhelming and multidisciplinary. No faith needed.

I'm not sure where you're going with the natural selection and mutations, and I could probably rattle off twenty or thirty living animals, in various stages of land-to-water transition, just off the top of my head.

Across cultures He's always anthropomorphized; always thought of as a he or she. We never talk about God as an 'it'. (no objections from Hindus, please. Brahman is not a "God.")
A very scientific attitude, dismissing a supernatural explanation even if a natural explanation isn't immediately apparent. It makes me wonder why you still cling to this supernatural God concept

And which message would this be: The Rig Veda? I-Ching sticks? A shaman's revelation under the influence of ayahuasca? The Guru Granth Sahib? Cracks in a shoulder blade? The entrails of a goat? The Quran? '' -- all are media of revelation. How should we assess them?
Again, which message?

If everything must have a cause, who/what caused God?

In case you missed it, I have quit discussing this subject until you provide some scientific evidence for what you say.

 

[osgart]

A God without qualities? Without personality? Without....anything?

Don't our brains need data and analytic skills to draw conclusions about reality?
Yes, animate Nature did it without any plan. No plan was needed.
Why do you say that?
Why must there be an intelligent cause? What's your reasoning here?
Logic?
Bodies are orderly, yes, but, if designed, the designer might consider some remedial engineering courses. Our bodies are more jerry-rigged from available parts than meticulously designed.

it's intelligent Jerry rigging. we have fly by night creators. I didn't say that we are wonderfully made, we are somewhat intelligently made. you might have done better.

 

[RESOLUTION]

They have not 'proved' that germs cause disease or that the Earth circles the Sun, either --
but they have a whole lot of supporting evidence.

You believe what you just wrote? There is no argument here that you can use regarding Abiogenesis.

It appears nothing of the sort. We know that Earth was once barren and now has life, so it happened somehow.
You propose it occurred by magic, by an invisible personage we have no evidence for.
Science proposes it occurred by ordinary, observable, testable, natural mechanisms, and have amassed a lot of evidence for this.
Which seems more reasonable?

You are trying to tell me we have evolution a man coming from nothing? An animal coming from nothing?
You use the "we know" but the truth is that you believe this by faith you have nothing concrete.
The fact still remains life begats life and no other way has been found.

Yet scientists have been finding the mechanisms behind the impossible for centuries.

Mechanism... as a trigger? You see Mechanism like your replies are theories not answers and certainly
not proof.

Why should abiogenesis be any different? Why do you insist the mechanism cannot be discovered?
Why do you consider magic a reasonable "mechanism?"

Magic is manmade but Power is a force as is God. Not the same thing because Magic can be explained but
the power and creation is the God who made it, a power and a force man cannot explain.
A man at some point has to surrender to God is he truly wishes to understand the created as opposed to
the created.

The theories of non-scientific people aren't really theories, are they? They're folklore and conjecture.
They have no empirical support. They're false dilemmas.

Theories do not change nor do they become any more viable be it made by a scientist or non-scientific person.
When using a theory to explain something, it is valid in that the person knows what they are talking about.
In fact and truth, when it comes to life neither scientific or non-scientific person has that answer.
A persons credentials does not give weight to theories. If fact was established then theory would not be
necessary.

When, exactly, was the beginning?

For Life or the World?

You ask a question when in the face of reality you don't have the answer?

How old was the first man and woman on the day life came into existence?

You really think that was such a clever question? Or did you think I did not know what I was talking about?

We don't have all the things that existed.

Such as... name them all.

Aren't 99% of all species that ever existed now extinct?

ARE THEY? So only 1% of everything that has ever existed is existing now?
Whatever happened to the other 99%? By that way of thinking we are literally walking on the dead remains of
everything that ever existed. Yet we have no answers?
Nothing to do with the producing life from non-living matter. Otherwise we would be unindated with life from
nothing still... wouldn't we?

Scientist very good with inventing ideas...their theories... but no practicality when it comes to showing
they can actually work.

What evidence do you have for this God?

More than you have from your science. God being the creator and men everywhere believing in a god, no matter
where in the world is more evidence than theories.
You see God with man when he created him. The tower of babel the scattering of different races and tongues
all answers well before science came into being.

Science is the study of what is and what can be done with it. It is not the answer to why anything exists
in the first place. Manmade is that which is created from the things already in existence.

What does "curse the soil" mean, and what evidence do you have that He did this?

Has man formed a man from the soil yet?
Can he create anything from nothing? Even by your own admittance you don't know how or why life exists.
It does not matter what God gives us, you cannot find out the reason for it to exist.

We don't see that God "breathed life" into anything. We don't even see evidence that this God exists.

Refusing to see, is not the same as not seeing. As for evidence we exist, you exist, but you cannot tell
us why. Gods version is more realistic and more acceptable given they they explained years ago the things
men still look for an answer to, today.

Resolution, you're just preaching. Anyone can preach. What we look for in this forum is evidence for the
opinions expressed.
Try to make an actual case for your views, SVP.

God does not require preaching. He has been around since the year dot. The evidence around us show why
an intelligent and powerful person had to be at the centre of the whole thing.
I don't need to make a case, and you can't hence you believe attack is better than defence.
But you don't have a defence and you don't have answers just theories other men have made up.
Logically, in the absence of the things you believe but cannot prove, then only one answer makes sense.
Someone created the earth. They created the life forces and the patterns shows they established it so
life would carry on.

It is a living planet not a dead desolate place. A thinking, powerful and logical being had to have created
this world. Hence man will never have the answers because man does not look in the right places.

Preaching again. They said man would never fly, either.
Are you aware of the research in abiogenesis?

WHO IS THEY? Was it one person? Was it scientist? Who exactly is they? How many and when?
Daniel 12:4King James Version (KJV)

4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end:
many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Even Daniel told travel would increase and knowledge and hasn't that happened?
Angels have been flying throughout the bible so why would anyone disbelieve man would one day
find a way to fly?
ACTS 8:39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip,
that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

Philip didn't hide away he was taken by the Spirit. If a believer can see and understand the truth in the
bible what would be so difficult about believing man would be able to fly one day?


Lot's of questions but absolutely NOTHING to do with Abiogenesis.
Why? Because you cannot give an explanation how that might work.

 

[RESOLUTION]

"... and admit that you can make humans out of a pile of dirt, which is somehow far more likely in my mind."

Good, you believe God forming man out of the earth is more likely????

What was the mechanism God used to make dirt? If it's just "let things rot until it becomes dirt", hell, we can do that!

God created the dirt, it didn't create itself. More importantly he breathed life into the man he created.
The same power that causes that soil to produce living things today like plants.... I suppose your unable to process factual evidence that we are alive today because the soil produces the food and feeds us all including the animals.
Go figure, you mock the reality of God forming a man out the dirt but you have no problem with the fact you are only alive
today because the dirt exists?

If God did something to the natural universe, we can reverse engineer it given enough time and smarts and resources.

RIGHT, so you want to reverse what God did to the soil? What happens, if in reversing it, you reverse it's ability to produce crops etc? It is laughable that you mock the truth then say you can reverse it.. Since God created the earth, the only thing man has become good at, is destroying the natural goodness of it. Would be that be after you have undone the damage to the earth which
man has caused and removed the chemicals it has added...

 

[Valjean]

You believe what you just wrote? There is no argument here that you can use regarding Abiogenesis.

It addresses the question of scientific proof, not abiogensis.

You are trying to tell me we have evolution a man coming from nothing? An animal coming from nothing?
You use the "we know" but the truth is that you believe this by faith you have nothing concrete.
The fact still remains life begats life and no other way has been found.

No, man came from an earlier primate, evolution has nothing to do with cosmology.
No, I do not believe by faith. I believe the weight of evidence. Science is not a priori.
Clearly life began from non-life at some point. The only question is how.
Religion proposes no mechanism. Biology has a great deal of evidence of mechanism. Religion proposes magic. Biology demonstrates actual, observable steps, using ordinary chemical laws we're all familiar with.

Mechanism... as a trigger? You see Mechanism like your replies are theories not answers and certainly
not proof.

As I said before, there is no proof in science, just accumulated evidence. In science the highest degree of certainty is the theory.

Magic is manmade but Power is a force as is God. Not the same thing because Magic can be explained but
the power and creation is the God who made it, a power and a force man cannot explain.

Then it's magic. If it can be explained it's not magic, but science.

Theories do not change nor do they become any more viable be it made by a scientist or non-scientific person.
When using a theory to explain something, it is valid in that the person knows what they are talking about.
In fact and truth, when it comes to life neither scientific or non-scientific person has that answer.
A persons credentials does not give weight to theories. If fact was established then theory would not be
necessary.

What are you talking about? Theories change constantly, they're testable and falsifiable. Science invites challenges and new data. Science is eager to modify theories as new data comes in.
It's religion that resists change. It's not based on evidence. It isn't testable or falsifiable. It's threatened by change.
A theory does not become a theory if it isn't based on evidence and hasn't been tested. A scientist's credentials have little to do with a theory's acceptance, and, by the way, theories usually are facts.

ARE THEY? So only 1% of everything that has ever existed is existing now?
Whatever happened to the other 99%? By that way of thinking we are literally walking on the dead remains of
everything that ever existed. Yet we have no answers?
Nothing to do with the producing life from non-living matter. Otherwise we would be unindated with life from
nothing still... wouldn't we?

OK, I should have been more precise. The percentage of extinct species is estimated to be more like 99.9%. Organisms become extinct all the time, and why do you think we "have no answers?"
No, evolution is not about life from non-life. It's about changes in existing populations -- and no life form is "intended."

Scientist very good with inventing ideas...their theories... but no practicality when it comes to showing
they can actually work.

So was it religion that created the computer in front of you?
If scientific theories didn't work they wouldn't last long as theories, or even become theories. Nothing in human history has such a remarkable explanatory record as science.
Religion's had thousands of years, but never managed even to figure out that the earth circled the Sun, or what a star was. It's only when science came along with it's testing and falsifying that human progress really took off.

More than you have from your science. God being the creator and men everywhere believing in a god, no matter
where in the world is more evidence than theories.

First, theism isn't universal, second, belief, no matter how widespread, isn't evidence of anything. People have believed in all sorts of things in the past that turned out to be wrong.
So again, what actual, tangible evidence do you have for a God?

You see God with man when he created him. The tower of babel the scattering of different races and tongues
all answers well before science came into being.

I see nothing of the sort. This is folklore; stories, and it didn't answer anything. The ancients had all sorts of beliefs that were clearly absurd.

Science is the study of what is and what can be done with it. It is not the answer to why anything exists
in the first place. Manmade is that which is created from the things already in existence.

Science seeks to understand how the world works. It answers real questions. Why the universe exists is an active field of study.
Religion 'answers' questions with speculation and folklore. It doesn't test its 'explanations', and they aren't even based on evidence. There is no reason to believe religious doctrines.

Has man formed a man from the soil yet?
Can he create anything from nothing? Even by your own admittance you don't know how or why life exists.
It does not matter what God gives us, you cannot find out the reason for it to exist.

Most of the stuff you use everyday would have been thought impossible fantasies a century ago.
People create new things all the time, and the mechanisms by which we evolved are pretty well established and well evidenced. It's you who have no evidence of mechanism or agency.

Refusing to see, is not the same as not seeing. As for evidence we exist, you exist, but you cannot tell
us why. Gods version is more realistic and more acceptable given they they explained years ago the things
men still look for an answer to, today.

But it's you who either have not seen the evidence, don't understand it, of refuse to consider it, and yes, science can tell us why. It's religion that has neither an explanation of mechanism nor an answer why. "Goddidit" isn't an explanation of anything.
Please name something religion "explains."

God does not require preaching. He has been around since the year dot. The evidence around us show why
an intelligent and powerful person had to be at the centre of the whole thing.

What is this evidence around us? Religious doctrine isn't based on evidence, and there is certainly no reason to believe a powerful, invisible, magical person is behind anything.

I don't need to make a case, and you can't hence you believe attack is better than defence.
But you don't have a defence and you don't have answers just theories other men have made up.

Project much?
It's creationists that promote their case by trying to poke holes in science. Science basically ignores religion unless it's directly challenged.
Theories are answers, and, by definition, they're anything but made up. You really don't have a clue

Logically, in the absence of the things you believe but cannot prove, then only one answer makes sense.
Someone created the earth. They created the life forces and the patterns shows they established it so life would carry on.

You're completely ignorant of logic. You can't explain X, therefore, God? That makes no sense at all.
There is no logical reason to state "someone created the Earth."

It is a living planet not a dead desolate place. A thinking, powerful and logical being had to have created
this world.

This makes no logical sense. Explain your reasoning.

WHO IS THEY? Was it one person? Was it scientist? Who exactly is they? How many and when?

"They" is Joe Sixpack. Much of what we take for granted today was unimaginable a century ago. Few would have thought your smart phone possible.

Angels have been flying throughout the bible so why would anyone disbelieve man would one day find a way to fly?

I doubt many would have turned to the bible as a predictor of human technology. If they were looking for examples wouldn't they have thought of birds first?
"If man was meant to fly, God would have given us wings."

If a believer can see and understand the truth in the bible what would be so difficult about believing man would be able to fly one day?

People's interpretations of the bible are all over the board, but there's nothing that I know of predicting flight.

Lot's of questions but absolutely NOTHING to do with Abiogenesis.
Why? Because you cannot give an explanation how that might work.

The ToE isn't about abiogenesis, and I'd suggest you do some reading about current research on the subject before you declare it doesn't exist.

 

[Valjean]

Good, you believe God forming man out of the earth is more likely????


God created the dirt, it didn't create itself. More importantly he breathed life into the man he created.
The same power that causes that soil to produce living things today like plants.... I suppose your unable to process factual evidence that we are alive today because the soil produces the food and feeds us all including the animals.
Go figure, you mock the reality of God forming a man out the dirt but you have no problem with the fact you are only alive
today because the dirt exists?




RIGHT, so you want to reverse what God did to the soil? What happens, if in reversing it, you reverse it's ability to produce crops etc? It is laughable that you mock the truth then say you can reverse it.. Since God created the earth, the only thing man has become good at, is destroying the natural goodness of it. Would be that be after you have undone the damage to the earth which
man has caused and removed the chemicals it has added...

There is no reason to believe soil was created by magic. It was created by ordinary, natural processes.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

We can’t produce thunder and lightning either. Does that prove Thor exists?

Yes. Duuuuh!