Abiogenisis

[Brian2]

They have already done that to a degree. That would not "prove abiogenesis" It would only show that if life was made that a God was not necessarily needed. That is why that scientific experiments in abiogenesis do not try to force the reactions. They break the concept down into problems and see if the individual problems could have a solution.

I don't think it would show that God was not necessarily needed. As I said, the Bible does tell us that God said, "Let the earth bring forth................." but even if it did not say that, a natural mechanism does not eliminate the need for God to supply the ingredients.

 

[Valjean]

The history of God's dealings with humans as given in the Bible. (I use the Bible of course)
This contains many fulfilled prophecies but they aren't verifiable so are not valid for science to use. Nevertheless it is evidence for people of faith.

How about the unfulfilled prophecies. Are they to be swept under the rug?
How about the prophecies from non-biblical sources
So all this is better than a few people mentioning the mice as sort of a substitute god almost and not supplying anything except that.[/QUOTE]
The classic analogy to religion is the Pastafarian religion and its Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was invented from whole cloth to be essentially indistinguishable from traditional religion. It claims equal authority, and asks equal social status and legal concessions.

 

[Valjean]

We

I don't think it would show that God was not necessarily needed. As I said, the Bible does tell us that God said, "Let the earth bring forth................." but even if it did not say that, a natural mechanism does not eliminate the need for God to supply the ingredients.

Weren't the ingredients nucleosynthesized within stars, by ordinary physics?

 

[Nimos]

And that would happen when science succeeds in making artificial life.

Probably nothing at first at least, except give us an understanding of how life could arise. Down the line and far into the future, we could potentially manipulate or create simple lifeforms, many of which could help cure diseases or something. Maybe we could make some bacteria that consumed CO2 or plastic or whatever. I don't know what exactly such knowledge would result in, guess it depends how it turns out.

 

[PureX]

But in any case, saying life arrived on Earth, by hitching a ride on a comet or something, simply kicks the can down the road. One would still need to work out the chemistry of how that life itself arose, wherever it did. So the challenge would remain.

And it also opens up the possibilities by a lot. By factors that we can't even imagine. Which I suspect is why your so determined to ignore it.

 

[PureX]

Yet even given panspermia, the question of life's origins remains the same, you've just shifted the venue; "kicked the can down the road," as our chemist said.

Yes, but the further "down the road" it goes, the wider the range of possibilities, and the more obvious our ignorance becomes. Which is exactly what the 'scientism' crowd can't tolerate.

 

[exchemist]

And it also opens up the possibilities by a lot. By factors that we can't even imagine. Which I suspect is why your so determined to ignore it.

Not at all. As I say, the challenge, chemically, would remain the same. The reason I don't think it likely is that most scientists working in the field don't think it likely, so I listen to them. (As @Subduction Zone 's detective work has revealed, you most likely did misunderstand De Grasse Tyson. See post 219.)

 

[wellwisher]

If you look at life, from abiogenesis to modern times, the one variable that does not change is water. Water has been H2O, since day one. The water molecule is very stable and does not break down any further; at earth surface conditions. It is a terminal product of the hottest combustion; hydrogen and oxygen. If you burn life in oxygen we get water as a terminal product.

We do not have life on earth without water. If we dehydrate cells, life stops. If we add water back, all things become active and life reappears. Water did not change at any stage of evolution. The organics of life constantly evolve, but water stays the same. Water is the stable bookend of life; floor, while the organics are the variable bookend; moving ceiling.

Water is the foundation of life; cornerstone, onto which the organics are built. If you look at water, this simple and light molecule has a usually high melting and boiling point compare to other molecules of the same weight; NH3, CH4. Water is very stable due to hydrogen bonding. NH3 also shows hydrogen bonding, but has a much lower melting and boiling point; -33C and -77C, versus 0C and +100C for water. These high numbers for water is due to the stability via hydrogen bonding, with each water molecule able to four hydrogen bonds. This is the floor of life.

This stability of water makes the aqueous grid very stable, due to each molecule of water having up to four hydrogen bonds. This is more hydrogen bonds than we see in ammonia. It makes a big difference, since it makes water is similar to carbon, in the secondary bonding sense; four bonds. The organics dissolved in water, that defines life, are forced to conform to the strong self adhesion between the water molecules. Protein are folded to conform to the needs of the water foundation. This lowers the surface tension, so water can lower energy of its grid.

Surface tension in water does not allow the water to be optimized. Water will try to return to its lowest energy state, forcing the organics to conform. However, since there are still many organics of life, already conforming, but still immersed in water, they have a linger surface tension; aqueous potential, making them active for change. The goal of this change is to maximize the water. This is the direction of evolution, that began at abiogenesis, and is still in affect today.

The mistake science has made is to ignore the leadership role of the water floor, and assume the organics are the key, driven by the principles of dice and cards; in the air without a floor. The optimized stability of the majority component of life; water, is ignored in favor of dice.

Water cannot be reacted and changed, so it cannot conform to the organics. The organics have to conform, to coexist, with the never changing water. This is the secret to abiogenesis and evolution; one floor and one theory for all.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

To have created the building blocks of life and enables them to form into a life form, and to have provided spirit so that matter can be animated. That last one is something that science does not do away with just because it works out that the chemistry of bodies is possible to have happened naturally.

We don't need a god hypothesis to account for matter, and science doesn't have any reason to address what you are calling spirit. Nothing need be added to the material ingredients of life for them to begin the process of metabolism, which is what life is - chemistry.

There may never be in science that has a naturalistic methodology and cannot evidence God.

Science can address (empiricism) any evidence, including evidence of a god if any exists. It doesn't make sense to talk about evidence that is not evident. That's all evidence is and does - be evident.

Trans-dimensional constructor mice are self evidently nothing but the invention of humans, and humans that do not believe they exist.

You only know that because of the way they were introduced. Put them in an ancient holy book and teach children about them from childhood like they're real, and they become indistinguishable from gods.

having no verified evidence does not automatically mean that it is impossible.

That's about as close as one can come to demonstrating that something doesn't exist. It's the same test used to say that leprechauns and vampires don't exist - lack of evidence.

making up names like the flying spaghetti monster etc is no argument at all.

Having no verified evidence does not automatically mean that it is impossible. What evidence do you have that God is not flying pasta? The evidence that he is is not evident to science, but is compelling nevertheless.

there is no evidence for a God that science can use so it has to be a natural phenomenon of matter. It seems to be bringing magic into science through the back door of presumption.

So introducing a god into the mix is the cure for eliminating the magic?

It is not the sort of evidence used by science however.

There is only one kind of evidence. If it's not evident, it's not evidence. If it is, it is.

Some people turn themselves into science machines, but humans have faith, emotion and nuances that a rigid science has not.

These science machines as you call them are people who only decide what is true about the world empirically. They use their emotions for other purposes, and faith has no place in their thinking.

I can admit faith in what I believe even if atheists don't seem to be able to do that

Critical thinkers don't see that ability as an asset, but rather, something to avoid.

 

[exchemist]

If you look at life, from abiogenesis to modern times, the one variable that does not change is water. Water has been H2O, since day one. The water molecule is very stable and does not break down any further; at earth surface conditions. It is a terminal product of the hottest combustion; hydrogen and oxygen. If you burn life in oxygen we get water as a terminal product.

We do not have life on earth without water. If we dehydrate cells, life stops. If we add water back, all things become active and life reappears. Water did not change at any stage of evolution. The organics of life constantly evolve, but water stays the same. Water is the stable bookend of life; floor, while the organics are the variable bookend; moving ceiling.

Water is the foundation of life; cornerstone, onto which the organics are built. If you look at water, this simple and light molecule has a usually high melting and boiling point compare to other molecules of the same weight; NH3, CH4. Water is very stable due to hydrogen bonding. NH3 also shows hydrogen bonding, but has a much lower melting and boiling point; -33C and -77C, versus 0C and +100C for water. These high numbers for water is due to the stability via hydrogen bonding, with each water molecule able to four hydrogen bonds. This is the floor of life.

This stability of water makes the aqueous grid very stable, due to each molecule of water having up to four hydrogen bonds. This is more hydrogen bonds than we see in ammonia. It makes a big difference, since it makes water is similar to carbon, in the secondary bonding sense; four bonds. The organics dissolved in water, that defines life, are forced to conform to the strong self adhesion between the water molecules. Protein are folded to conform to the needs of the water foundation. This lowers the surface tension, so water can lower energy of its grid.

Surface tension in water does not allow the water to be optimized. Water will try to return to its lowest energy state, forcing the organics to conform. However, since there are still many organics of life, already conforming, but still immersed in water, they have a linger surface tension; aqueous potential, making them active for change. The goal of this change is to maximize the water. This is the direction of evolution, that began at abiogenesis, and is still in affect today.

The mistake science has made is to ignore the leadership role of the water floor, and assume the organics are the key, driven by the principles of dice and cards; in the air without a floor. The optimized stability of the majority component of life; water, is ignored in favor of dice.

Water cannot be reacted and changed, so it cannot conform to the organics. The organics have to conform, to coexist, with the never changing water. This is the secret to abiogenesis and evolution; one floor and one theory for all.

You've left out entropy and liberals.

 

[PureX]

Not at all. As I say, the challenge, chemically, would remain the same.

Not if some alien intelligence were involved. or some as yet unknown chemistry or conditions. Both possibilities that you are intent on ignoring even though you can't rule them out.

This is how 'scientism' poisons real science. This insistence that science already has the answers, even when it doesn't even have all the questions, yet. Why are you arguing against possibilities that you can't possibly rule out? That's not science. That's scientism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think it would show that God was not necessarily needed. As I said, the Bible does tell us that God said, "Let the earth bring forth................." but even if it did not say that, a natural mechanism does not eliminate the need for God to supply the ingredients.

That would be making life without God, so yes, it would prove that. You appear to be desperate when you make such a statement.

 

[F1fan]

That's true, but having no verified evidence does not automatically mean that it is impossible.

Without evidence and implausible is grounds to reject an idea, especially supernatural ideas. Not only is there no evdience for a suvernatural, it isn't consistent with what the evidence shows us.

Because they have faith, and of course most people probably have their personal evidence for the truth of what they believe.

Which ius why it is irrelevant in a debate. We don't care what a person tells themselves is true, we care what the evidence informs us about.

I don't think we can reject the experiments and results but the conclusions aren't necessarily true. God is a spirit imo and science cannot study spirit.

What are you talking about? Gods aren't known to exist. You might as well bring up unicorns. Are they relevant to anything? No. Stick to facts.

Science does not completely deny the possibility of God

Gods are irrelevant.

..but has the naturalistic methodology and don't bring in the hypothesis of a supernatural being unless absolutely necessary. The supernatural is presumed out of the experiments.

There is no evidence of a supernatural. Just follow evidence. And I suggest to theists that they examine their own motives. You seem hellbent on trying to find a gap to stick your God into, and get agreement from we critical thinkers. But we understand your mind tricks better than you do. You are fooled, we are not.

When it comes to abiogenesis the chemistry that is studies might one day show that the bodies of creatures could come about naturally under the right circumstances. That is presumed to mean that life could come about naturally. The same goes for consciousness, the presumption is that it is a by product of matter.

Another self-deceptive word game here. You aren't using evidence or reason, you are inventing an unlikely future event that would soothe your anxiety that natuyre caused the rise of life. This isn't an argument based in evidence, this is a desperate denial of what science has shown to be true.

I do think it would be a good idea to actually make artificial life before accepting that abiogenesis is true. Science gets to a certain point and with the presumptions thrown in it is thought that something has been shown to be true.

Another deseperate attempt to define science in a way that aims to give your religious assumvtions some hope. Why not adjust your own beliefs instead of adjusting results in science? Do you really need your illusions that badly? Are you even aware of your motives of thiuking this way?

But yes, you are right that that would not mean that the theological explanation is true.
Of course if abiogenesis was shown to be true us believers would interpret the Bible a different way so that it was OK no doubt,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and that can be done.

See, another example of having to hold onto beliefs that are not valid. Evolution is so well established in studies that it is considered a fact. Yet many of your fellow believers reject this science so they can interpret the Bible in a way that is contrary to facts and knowledge. We can't exvect believers to be rational and adjust their beliefs to what science reveals. Even you are resisting as I have pointed out. This is the toxic relationship Christianity has with many people.

I don't want to make the religious belief into a science and in fact we cannot study spirits either, so how would we do that. We have a faith and no matter what science says about life and if it is chemistry based, it is possible that they come to the wrong conclusion because they cannot study a prime ingredient, spirit, which makes matter able to be conscious of itself and etc.

Science does an excellent job of being ethical and objective. It doesn't need theists to chime in when we see theists unable to accept facts and evidence when it challenges their religious beliefs. Believers need to get their own act together, and adjust their beliefs to fit reality. There's a reason Christianity is dying among liberals and moderates, and it is all the dubious concepts they hold.

So science brings magic into science (claiming matter can become alive and conscious) and everyone agrees with the men in the white coats. (except some religious people who can see the potential for mistakes in the testing and who point it out but nobody believes them because science knows)

Here we go again with a mischaracterization of science. Why? To make science seem as if it is religious. Magic? No science claims that. You are a theist is, and doing so for self-serving reasons. This is bad faith in debate. Why don't you slow down and think through what you think and believe?

It is a faith, it is not science.

You broought it up, it's your bad faith to mischaracterize science like this.

Many atheists say they hate religious type faith and want everything to be sifted by science before they will accept it, or even consider it, so deny any evidence that the Bible does contain, such as hundreds of prophecies that have come true. But of course even these are not definite proof, it requires faith to believe then but imo it also requires faith to reject them.

Look at your own behavior in your response. Look at the bad faith, the attempts at deception, the false claims, the false assertions, etc. How can you be critical of atheists when we have to constantly correct you believers and all your unforced errors of thinking? You have the opportunity to learn and hone your reasoning skills, but you are more interested in trying to deceive, both yourselves and others. Many believers are so absorbed in their beliefs that they can't consider the possibility they are mistaken.

Yes I can admit faith in what I believe even if atheists don't seem to be able to do that in what they believe about nature.

And here you go again. You have awareness that your religious beliefs lack evidence, but you want some credibility so pretend that you and atheists are on equal footing. You elevate your position and deflate the atheist position, which is not true or honest. Your dilemma is that atheists follow evidence and use critical thinking, and theists lack evidence and rely on learned beliefs and tricky, deceptive thinking. You don't seem willing to admit that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To be fair, the only evidence that scientists see is the physical evidence.

There does not appear to be any other evidence.

 

[exchemist]

Not if some alien intelligence were involved. or some as yet unknown chemistry or conditions. Both possibilities that you are intent on ignoring even though you can't rule them out.

This is how 'scientism' poisons real science. This insistence that science already has the answers, even when it doesn't even have all the questions, yet. Why are you arguing against possibilities that you can't possibly rule out? That's not science. That's scientism.

Not at all. No one, least of all me, is claiming that science has the answers to this question. What I am claiming is that science gives us the toolkit to address it:

- We have good reason to think the laws of physics and chemistry are the same throughout our galaxy. (We can rule out life arriving from outside the galaxy on grounds of physics and distance.)

- We also have a good idea of what regimes of temperature and radiation allow the persistence of molecules and the types of astronomical body on which they can be found.

- And we have a good idea of the abundance of elements - and even compounds, where compounds can exist - on various types of astronomical body (asteroids, comets, moons of gas giants and so forth).

- And we know, from reverse engineering of terrestrial biochemistry, what sorts of precursors would be required.

So sure it would be harder, but the challenge would in essence be the same. After all, assuming life arose on the early earth, we still have to make similar deductions as to what chemical species might have been available on its surface 4 billion years ago, which is no mean feat.

I get the feeling it is you that wants, for some emotional reason, to make an unsolvable mystery out of the problem. The wish to retain mystery, instead of seeking to dispel it, is the enemy of science, of course.

 

[nPeace]

No, you said that:
"Hard to believe how one can think it requires intelligent minds to build simple things, but highly complex things require no intelligent mind."

In context with what I said previously, which is not what you said. Okay?

 

[We Never Know]

If a god created
-the universe
Which then formed
-the chemicals for life

Then said god is responsible for the creation of life, IOW life wouldn't have formed without said god first creating the universe.

 

[nPeace]

Not sure what you mean?

You said you were just guessing, so I am asking if this is a different guessing to the guessing scientists use.

A methodology applies in general, so others can see how you conducted your research and reach the conclusion you did. So there is no limitation to specific groups, if you have to do that, then I would argue that your methodology is flawed.

No problem.
I think if you are of the view that only scientist use the scientific method, and that science is the only path to truth, then your thinking is flawed.

 

[nPeace]

So what are the proposed, alternative mechanisms?

Proposed alternative mechanisms to what you believe?
Listen. I am no scientist. I do not propose hypotheses for scientist to use their methodologies to test.
Science has its "domain". It's not the only one. It also has limits.
If you want to know what else there is to consider, then I suggest you come out of your box, and take a look.
When you try to squeeze everything into your box, you make a huge mistake. One millions of scientists will tell you, is simply to wear blinders... like the race horse that is blindsided.

Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.

 

[nPeace]

Theory and hypothesis? Not in my experience. That's what lay people do, who often use the word theory to mean hypothesis or hunch. Scientifically literate people know how a theiry and hypothesis differ, and the difference is extreme.

Giant Impact Hypothesis: An evolving legacy of Apollo
You got more than 3. I'm tired already.