Abiogenesis or the Lord?

[Jimmy]

The Omniverse developed conditions for this Universe to exist and allowing abiogenesis and evolution to occur. The Omniverse has done this so we could ultimately create our own synverses, our own created places. As a pan-en-en-en-en-en-deist I subscribe to the notion that ultimate nature ultimately passively created these conditions so that we could create our own conditions. Simple as that.

Say what

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The demonstration will never come.

Without fossil records of the first life, it very well may be impossible to deduce the precise path chemical evolution traveled or exactly what the anatomy, physiology, genetics, and biochemistry of the original replicators then subject to biological evolution were, just as it may be impossible to do that for man.

I just know. Life will never be made in a lab

You're probably wrong about that. We just won't necessarily say that it is the same organism that nature generated unaided.

Care to present the evidence?

That abiogenesis is a plausible explanation that is founded on facts, data, and a hypothesis that can work? The evidence is that life is here, and the alternative to abiogenesis as the explanation for the first life on earth - an intelligent designer that created the universe and the life in it - cannot be called more plausible than a possibility that requires no intelligent designer, so abiogenesis is a plausible solution to the problem.

Moreover, we see in every living thing every day how nonliving matter can be arranged into living cells without intelligent oversight. The laws of physics and chemistry are enough. All that's necessary is for the right ingredients to come into proximity, align themselves according to mass and charge distribution, and react. It's automatic.

 

[Jimmy]

Without fossil records of the first life, it very well may be impossible to deduce the precise path chemical evolution traveled or exactly what the anatomy, physiology, genetics, and biochemistry of the original replicators then subject to biological evolution were, just as it may be impossible to do that for man.

You're probably wrong about that. We just won't necessarily say that it is the same organism that nature generated unaided.

That abiogenesis is a plausible explanation that is founded on facts, data, and a hypothesis that can work? The evidence is that life is here, and the alternative to abiogenesis as the explanation for the first life on earth - an intelligent designer that created the universe and the life in it - cannot be called more plausible than a possibility that requires no intelligent designer, so abiogenesis is a plausible solution to the problem.

Moreover, we see in every living thing every day how nonliving matter can be arranged into living cells without intelligent oversight. The laws of physics and chemistry are enough. All that's necessary is for the right ingredients to come into proximity, align themselves according to mass and charge distribution, and react. It's automatic.

Huh?

 

[ChristineM]

Life was never created from non living components in a lab

Really?

 

[Jainarayan]

I guess we’ll never know.

Does it really matter? The fact is we're here. I knew an Eastern Orthodox priest who used to say that. The Big Bang, abiogenesis, evolution, could be the mechanisms God, whatever God or Gods one believes in, used to create. The only conflict is for those who take religious scriptures literally. Keeping an open mind eliminates that. There is a Hindu story that when Lord Vishnu woke up from a nap, a lotus sprouted from his navel, giving birth to Lord Brahma the creator god. Yeah I know, pretty far-fetched. But it's sometimes interpreted as the expansion of Lord Vishnu's navel being the Big Bang form which all of creation comes. But whether it's true or not doesn't matter, because we're here. Personally I think the idea of something, even a pretty lotus, growing out of someone's navel a bit off-putting. But, Hindu stories are nothing if not colorful.

 

[Father Heathen]

I just know.

A worthless sentence in debates.

 

[SalixIncendium]

That abiogenesis is a plausible explanation that is founded on facts, data, and a hypothesis that can work? The evidence is that life is here, and the alternative to abiogenesis as the explanation for the first life on earth - an intelligent designer that created the universe and the life in it - cannot be called more plausible than a possibility that requires no intelligent designer, so abiogenesis is a plausible solution to the problem.

Moreover, we see in every living thing every day how nonliving matter can be arranged into living cells without intelligent oversight. The laws of physics and chemistry are enough. All that's necessary is for the right ingredients to come into proximity, align themselves according to mass and charge distribution, and react. It's automatic.

Why does a Lord or God necessitate an intelligent designer? Why are we assigning a human quality to it?

How can we negate the plausibility of a Lord or God when we don't even have a clue of the method of that being? Maybe it used abiogenesis.

My point to @F1fan was that the two options don't have to be mutually exclusive. Also, that there is conclusive evidence if neither.

 

[Jimmy]

Really?

Oui

 

[Windwalker]

Yep

Huh? How does abiogenesis rule out God?

 

[Jimmy]

Does it really matter? The fact is we're here. I knew an Eastern Orthodox priest who used to say that. The Big Bang, abiogenesis, evolution, could be the mechanisms God, whatever God or Gods one believes in, used to create. The only conflict is for those who take religious scriptures literally. Keeping an open mind eliminates that. There is a Hindu story that when Lord Vishnu woke up from a nap, a lotus sprouted from his navel, giving birth to Lord Brahma the creator god. Yeah I know, pretty far-fetched. But it's sometimes interpreted as the expansion of Lord Vishnu's navel being the Big Bang form which all of creation comes. But whether it's true or not doesn't matter, because we're here. Personally I think the idea of something, even a pretty lotus, growing out of someone's navel a bit off-putting. But, Hindu stories are nothing if not colorful.

Eh

 

[SalixIncendium]

Of Abiogenesis? It's widely available for anyone to study up on. The Urey-Miller experiment was the first successful test of this phenomenon.

I asked for definitive evidence, not who can study up on it.

Anyway, see my previous post (#27).

 

[Father Heathen]

Oui

Did you actually read the link?

 

[ChristineM]

Oui

le "vraiment" est un lien.

 

[Father Heathen]

le "vraiment" est un lien.

The new forum setup makes them hard to see I suppose.

 

[Jimmy]

Did you actually read the link?

Don’t need to

 

[Jimmy]

Did you actually read the link?

Life has never been created from nonliving components in a lab. how many times do I have to say it?

 

[ChristineM]

Don’t need to

Ignorance is bliss is it not?

 

[vulcanlogician]

AFAIK, abiogenesis hasn't been done in a lab and is still a great mystery to biologists.

Of course, god-of-gaps people are gonna do what they do best. Their case is (as usual) pretty weak.

But that doesn't mean we have abiogenesis figured out or anything. Like, we have some vague hypotheses and that's it.

 

[ChristineM]

Life has never been created from nonliving components in a lab. how many times do I have to say it?

I suppose thats what you've been told and you are sticking to it?

 

[Jimmy]

Ignorance is bliss is it not?

The truth is nirvana