Abiogenisis

[We Never Know]

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!

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Nope, You forgot how you disqualified yourself from the converstion.

I asked you a reasonable question on the other thread. Why did you dodge it?

 

[We Never Know]

Nope, You forgot how you disqualified yourself from the converstion.

I asked you a reasonable question on the other thread. Why did you dodge it?

One more time......

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!

 

[Subduction Zone]

One more time......

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!

You keep disqualifying yourself. Do we need to kill an innocent person to convict someone else of a miurder?


You do not understand the concept of evidence. That is how we judge ideas.

So is the Miller Urey experiment evidence for abiogenesis? Why or why not?

 

[We Never Know]

You keep disqualifying yourself. Do we need to kill an innocent person to convict someone else of a miurder?


You do not understand the concept of evidence. That is how we judge ideas.

So is the Miller Urey experiment evidence for abiogenesis? Why or why not?

Ok. You failed. Good bye now.

 

[We Never Know]

You keep disqualifying yourself. Do we need to kill an innocent person to convict someone else of a miurder?


You do not understand the concept of evidence. That is how we judge ideas.

So is the Miller Urey experiment evidence for abiogenesis? Why or why not?

Per your rules... You do not deserve answers for dodging questions. You lose. Move on or answer the OP.

 

[Soandso]

Is this thread about abiogenesis or about your beef with @Subduction Zone? You can send private messages I believe if you wanted to talk to him directly

 

[We Never Know]

Is this thread about abiogenesis or about your beef with @Subduction Zone? You can send private messages I believe if you wanted to talk to him directly

Abiogenesis.

If it can be proven with evidence, show it..

Or admit it isn't proven

Its that simple! Maybe's, could be's, etc need to step on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Abiogenesis.

If it can be proven with evidence, show it..

Or admit it isn't proven

Its that simple! Maybe's, could be's, etc need to step on.

This was already addressed before the thread even started/ It is why you lost the debate and disqualified you from judging anything. One more time:

Science does not "prove" anything. It provides evidence. Do you need a link? I can supply one. Science can disprove ideas, but it cannot prove them. All there is in the sciences is evidence.

 

[We Never Know]

This was already addressed before the thread even started/ It is why you lost the debate and disqualified you from judging anything. One more time:

Science does not "prove" anything. It provides evidence. Do you need a link? I can supply one. Science can disprove ideas, but it cannot prove them. All there is in the sciences is evidence.

One more time from the OP... "Show me evidence abiogenisis actually happened or admit defeat. Your choice.

 

[Valjean]

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.

Our planet was once a fireball devoid of life.
Now there is life.
Therefore, at some point, abiogenesis happened. QED.

Did the Miller Urey experiment produce life?
Yes or no!

No -- nor was it expected to. It did demonstrate that the abiogenic formation of organic molecules was possible, though.

Question: Why do you bring up that old experiment? It's like citing the flight experiments at Kitty Hawk in a discussion on modern rocket science.
We've had 70 years of research since then. You might want to look into that, rather than citing Miller-Urey.

 

[We Never Know]

Our planet was once a fireball devoid of life.
Now there is life.
Therefore, at some point, abiogenesis happened. QED.
No -- nor was it expected to. It did demonstrate that the abiogenic formation of organic molecules was possible, though.

Question: Why do you bring up that old experiment? It's like citing the flight experiments at Kitty Hawk in a discussion on modern rocket science.
We've had 70 years of research since then. You might want to look into that, rather than citing Miller-Urey.

"Therefore, at some point, abiogenesis happened."

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

 

[F1fan]

Did the Miller Urey experiment produce life?
Yes or no!

Well educated people understand this wasn't the aim of the experiment.

It was to show that organic chemicals could be transformed naturally from inorganic chemicals. And it worked.

 

[We Never Know]

Our planet was once a fireball devoid of life.
Now there is life.
Therefore, at some point, abiogenesis happened. QED.
No -- nor was it expected to. It did demonstrate that the abiogenic formation of organic molecules was possible, though.

Question: Why do you bring up that old experiment? It's like citing the flight experiments at Kitty Hawk in a discussion on modern rocket science.
We've had 70 years of research since then. You might want to look into that, rather than citing Miller-Urey.

Oh and I didnt bring up an old experiment. Someone else did one another thread. @Subduction Zone who was it that did that?

 

[We Never Know]

Well educated people understand this wasn't the aim of the experiment.

It was to show that organic chemicals could be transformed naturally from inorganic chemicals. And it worked.

I agree with that. But it isnt evidence that "life" came about the same way.

 

[Soandso]

Its that simple! Maybe's, could be's, etc need to step on.

If this is the way you think, then you really don't care about the scientific process it seems. We have to reevaluate our understandings of things constantly in light of better evidence - even things we think we understand quite well, like gravity

 

[Valjean]

Abiogenesis.
If it can be proven with evidence, show it..

Or admit it isn't proven

Of course it can't be proven, in the scientific sense. Neither can the germ theory or heliocentrism, but the evidence for all three is overwhelming.

So.... Is there an alternative "theory," with stronger, more voluminous, or more consilient evidence, that you support?

If not abiogenesis, how?

Biological Abiogenesis is a theory of mechanism; of how.
Goddidit abiogenesis is a theory of agency; of who.

Q: By what mechanism did life come about on Earth?
Q: What step in 'chemical evolution' do you find hard to swallow?

 

[We Never Know]

If this is the way you think, then you really don't care about the scientific process it seems. We have to reevaluate our understandings of things constantly in light of better evidence - even things we think we understand quite well, like gravity

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

 

[F1fan]

I agree with that. But it isnt evidence that "life" came about the same way.

Yet it is the only viable explantion for the rise of life. There is no other option in the evidence.

 

[We Never Know]

Of course it can't be proven, in the scientific sense. Neither can the germ theory of heliocentrism, but the evidence for all three is overwhelming.

So.... Is there an alternative "theory," with stronger, more voluminous, or more consilient evidence, that you support?

If not abiogenesis, how?

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