Abiogenisis

[Subduction Zone]

Part III of this video series was just released. I know, I skipped part II, I will put it up later today. Now shut up!! I need to get back to watching this video:

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is the science answer from the evidence that science can work with.
The faith answer is different, depending who you ask.

Why should anyone care what the "faith answer" is?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Implausible, why? People have experienced God in the past and now it is implausible that God exists. OK, that's an opinion.
Not without evidence, just without verifiable evidence. But as I said, that does not mean it is impossible. My faith tells me it not only is possible but is true.
The scientific evidence, what our physical senses tell us, is about the physical and not about the spiritual. It's a bit weird to want science to speak about the existence of the spiritual when it cannot know anything about it. Science is like a machine, no brain, no humanity, no consciousness. It comes to a problem and looks for a naturalistic answer and if it does not find one it keeps looking ad infinitum.
Humans can see beyond science and know there are other possibilities outside of the scientific sphere.



It's relevant in a debate about faith and God and science. You might want to make up your own rules and keep faith out of the debate but faith is real and evidence that inspires that faith is real.



Here you go wanting to make the rules about what can and cannot be spoken about.
God is real, a fact, in the lives of people now and in the past and faith in God is real also, and evidence for God.



Yes in science that cannot study or see or test spiritual things, Gods are irrelevant.



Yes I know it looks that way to you.



Are you saying that science has shown that life and consciousness are chemical based?
That shows self deception imo, but I guess you don't see that.



If science shows that abiogenesis is true then I can accept it as a Bible believer and it would teach me more about the Bible. So no I don't need abiogenesis to not be true. But I think I can see if it has been shown to be true or not and that I can't say much to convince someone if they think that science has already shown us that abiogenesis is true when even science tells us that it has not done this.



If the Bible can cope with abiogenesis then it can,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, what can I say. Let me know what abiogenesis is shown to be true.



Jesus pondered whether there would be faith on earth by the time He returned. He knew the deceptions that were on their way and the attacks on the truth of the Bible.



Looking at the idea of inanimate, unconscious matter becoming conscious one day sounds like magic to me. But not to you. It is only magic to you if a living, conscious creator put life and consciousness into dead matter.
God is what is magic because God is spirit and science cannot see or test spirit, so God does not exist except in our fairytale child imaginings and rocks can become conscious. (oops a mischaracterization of science)




Mistaken? Me?
It would be better if you pointed out what I am saying that you think is inaccurate and why. But you don't have to. I seldom debate in a proper debating style.



It is tricky thinking to be able to dismiss evidence for God because science cannot see or study spirits. So you say God does not exist because God has no evidence.
You have thrown away faith and trust in God because you want the wisdom the world can give and the world cannot see God.
1Cor 1:21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know Him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks search for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,…

I think the problem is that you are so deeply entrenched in your religious beliefs, that you can't understand science and its methodology, because the two are so very different.

That's how it appears to me, after going 'round and 'round with you on this stuff for a long time now.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Does that mean that you don't believe people had or have (these days) experiences with God because you can make up something in your head that you see as a more reasonable explanation than the one about having an experience with God?



Accepting only verifiable evidence leads to saying there is no God, because it seems that there is no verifiable evidence for God unless He appears to you, but even that is not verifiable for either you or anyone else even if you know what you experienced. Accepting only verifiable evidence does not mean that unverified evidence is wrong, it just means that you reject that evidence even if it is accompanied by prophecies that look like they have been fulfilled. After all you can make up in your head, a reason that these prophecies are not authentic.




Whatever "spiritual" is, it is undetectable by science. That does not mean that it does not exist, and science does not say that. It is just something that science cannot say yay or nay to.



I have opinions about why people don't believe also. So?



Critical thinkers can believe only what science tells them is valid belief. The tool to investigate the physical world (science) has become the master who imprisons people into a reality bounded by verifiable evidence even when other evidence tells us that reality goes far beyond the bounds of what is verifiable.



Verifiable evidence does not mean that the only facts are those things that have verifiable evidence.




F1fan said: 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.

So you don't want me to speak about God in a religious forum. So I replied that God is real. So now you accuse me of making up the rules. What a way to twist things around.
We are talking about different faiths here. I know you want atheism and science to be the facts which are fighting faith and ignorance, but no that is not the reality of what is going on.



I keep saying that there is evidence and atheist of a certain ilk keep saying that there is no evidence for God or the Bible God.




Science has no explanations for life. Science only has abiogenesis as the only possible explanation it can offer (because it has no verifiable evidence for spirits) and you take it as already having been shown to be true.



It is not the religious who are saying that abiogenesis has been shown to be true, when it has not been shown to be true. What's the rush, let science take it's course.




Believers only know what atheists know about the physical universe and sometimes we can tell atheist that we don't really know certain things, they are presumptions only. (Such as this idea about abiogenesis having already been shown to be true and/or showing that spirits and God is not needed for life)




Jesus is the truth, so we come to Him.



I know and you know that the evidence I have is not scientific evidence and that you want to say that it is not evidence at all. What a way to twist the facts.



Was it an accusation or just the truth?

Wait a minute, you can't even define "spiritual" or explain what it means but you're now assigning attributes to it? Good grief.

I've asked you this before and I'll have to ask you again, how are you detecting things that you admit are undetectable. Serious answer please.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't mind a leap of faith when I consider the evidence for the truth of the stories in a book to be good.
It is also a leap of faith to dismiss the stories of experiences with God.

Is it though? Did it take a leap of faith for you to reject the Quran? The Bhagavad Gita? Zeus?
Come on, man.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Part IV of IV of the latest series on James Tour:

This covers how Tour does not just deny abiogenesis and dishonestly attacks the science. It shows how he is a creationist. And when it comes to the topics of abiogenesis and evolution he has admitted that he is not a scientist.

 

[shunyadragon]

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!

Miller Urey research is more than a little oldy moldy (Pun intended), of course not, and Miller-Urey nor any legitimate scientists ever claimed he did. Miller Urey's research only demonstrated how some of the required simple organics required for abiogenesis can come from inorganic chemicals in the right environment that existed in time abiogenesis would have taken place. This phony argument concerning the misinformation concerning the Miller-Urey research is bad way to start a discussion on abiogenesis.

There is a severe problem with the demand 'Show me evidence abiogenesis actually happened,' The problem is this demand does not reflect how science works concerning 'what happened in the past. I want to review this thread before I comment more. By putting severe limits on 'what can be determined to be actually happened' in the past one may potentially exclude all our knowledge of the cause and effect events of the past determined by history and science. By the way this is a part of the argument by 'Fundy Christians' that science cannot 'prove ('yuch') evolution.

More on this problem in detail to follow.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes I have faith that God exists. You have faith that if a God exists then science would be able to detect it even if the God is spirit and cannot be detected.

No, scientists in general DO NOT propose science can detect the existence of God(s) if (?) God(s) existed. Methodological Naturalism is the foundation of science and cannot determine anything beyond the physical nature of our existence. If a scientist choose not to believe in God(s) they have to based that on subjective philosophical beliefs.

I see imagining the possibility of a God as part of rational thinking. It would be like being able to imagine the possibility of evolution as part of rational thinking about it.

Yes, the existence of God(s) can be a part of 'subjective' ratioanl thinking and justified by belief.

Your truth is that God does not exist and the Bible is not true, or you want more evidence for both. The evidence for God and the truth of the Bible is there for me to believe even if not you.

The existence nor nonexistence of God(s) cannot be objectively determined as true or false.

 

[Sandra Jayne]

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.

Not really, I'm no scientist but I believe that during the Miller Urey experiment they had assumed the Earth's atmosphere at the time was mostly methane and ammonia whereas more recently scientists now think the earth's primordial atmosphere was composed mainly of carbon dioxide and nitrogen. This atmosphere would diminish both the amount and types of amino acids that could be produced. Earth's Early Atmosphere: An Update | News | Astrobiology (nasa.gov)
Then you have the problem as to why the amino acids were all left-handed, lots of theories for many years but no definitive evidence as to how or why this is the case. I wonder how long scientists hypothesise before they realise, they might have it all wrong. Then again, I suppose if you're an atheist you are pretty much 'backed against a wall'.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not really, I'm no scientist but I believe that during the Miller Urey experiment they had assumed the Earth's atmosphere at the time was mostly methane and ammonia whereas more recently scientists now think the earth's primordial atmosphere was composed mainly of carbon dioxide and nitrogen. This atmosphere would diminish both the amount and types of amino acids that could be produced. Earth's Early Atmosphere: An Update | News | Astrobiology (nasa.gov)
Then you have the problem as to why the amino acids were all left-handed, lots of theories for many years but no definitive evidence as to how or why this is the case. I wonder how long scientists hypothesise before they realise, they might have it all wrong. Then again, I suppose if you're an atheist you are pretty much 'backed against a wall'.

There has been more than one early Earth atmosphere. And that article was about the atmosphere of the very early Earth. Abiogenesis actually occurred more on the order of five hundred million years after that. Also the atmosphere was not the only source of amino acids. Certain meteorites have amino acids in them. What the Miller Urey experiment demonstrated is that amino acids can form naturally. The natural formation of amino acids is not a problem even with the atmosphere proposed in that article. They form at a lower rate. It did not say that they do not form at all.

And there are several solutions to the chirality problem as well. Your source appears to be out of date. We may never know which one was the one, but that is no longer considered a major problem.

Quite a few of the problems of abiogenesis have been solved. There is strong evidence for abiogenesis. There does not appear to be any evidence for various God beliefs.