• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Abiogenisis

exchemist

Veteran Member
For abiogenisis. Its the leading hypothesis for life but fact is it hasn't been seen or repeated...no life has been created in the lab by abiogenisis
As Ive pointed out already on this thread to others, recreating life in the lab is irrelevant to the issue. We have good theories of many, many phenomena that we can't recreate in the lab, from plate tectonics to astrophysics. (The Miller-Urey experiment, which you seem to have misunderstood at the start of the thread, did not try to do anything like that, nor has any lab experiment since).

We have not seen the solar system forming - and certainly not the laboratory - but we have a good theory of how it happened.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Not if it was deposited on Earth from elsewhere. Which has become an increasingly popular theory among scientists.
No I don't think it has at all. Panspermia is most definitely a minority idea. I quote Wiki: " Panspermia is a fringe theory with little support amongst mainstream scientists."

From: Panspermia - Wikipedia

There is certainly support for a quite separate idea, namely that certain organic molecules which are important building block or precursors for biochemistry, may have arrived on comets or meteorites, rather than all of them being synthesised terrestrially. Perhaps that is what you are thinking of.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
It's not a scientific possibility because there is no verified evidence, but it is a possibility.
Anyone can make up any absurd idea and assert it is possible. That doesn't mean it is likely or even plausible.

Science cannot say yay or nay to God or the existence of spirit.
These ancient ideas of gods are not consistent with what science is discovering about the universe, so as time goes on it is less likely anyone's gods exists as they imagine it. Notice belioevers can't offer any evidence for the existence of their many gods. The question becomes why believers keep believing. It's not because of evidence.

Even if science ended up saying that as far as it knows life is chemical in nature, that does not mean it is true
Why not? If the evidence points to chemicals being transformed in nature then why would anyone reject the evidence and results in the exveriments?

so the theological claim can be true
How? There is no evidence as there is with a natural explanation. We see believers keep demanding more and more evidence on top of evidence to prove natural causes, but then can't show a single bit of evidence that any magic happened as explained in stories written by ancient people.

but science does not know because it sees and analyses chemicals and physical processes only.
The reason abiogenesis is the most likely explanation is because of all the knowledge we have of how chemicals work. The experiments so far show inorganic chemicals can transform into organic chemicals. These are the building blocks of life.

The reason abiogenesis is the most likely explanation is because it works with the resr of science. It is plausible. There is no alternative explanation that the facts offer us. There are theists who want their religious beliefs considered as possible, but how are they possible without evidence? There is no rational reason to assume magic when abiogenesis has a great deal of evidence for.

If theists are going to claim that creationism offers an alternative, then you had better show us the objective and factual work, not devotion to religious belief.

I don't really want to say that chemicals cannot be mixed together and zapped and produce life, God did say "Let the earth bring forth........life" after all.
Since we are all being such sticklers about evidence, there is no evidence that a God exists and said any such thing. You are referring to ancient stories by science illiterate people, and there is no evidence in support of these ideas.

If science however has not produced life chemically and observed it and repeated it etc then it is just an assumption that life is chemicals and chemical processes.
It's more than an assumption. All the facts about nature informs us it ic plausible. Where is the evidence that your version of god exists? Can you admit you are assuming these ancient stories are correct, and assuming the interpretations you adopted are true despite a lack of evidence, and even contrary evidence?
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
"Therefore, at some point, abiogenesis happened."

Or creation did. Without knowing and neither shown...... What's next?
"Creation," as you use the word here, is just a form of abiogenesis. The process by which non-living matter ("dust" per the Bible) becomes living. But you cannot show "creation," because you cannot demonstrate a creator. You merely assume -- in the absence of any evidence at all (while chemical abiogenesis has tons) -- some "agency" that itself has no explanation. That's a much bigger fail than the abiogenesis being argued here.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
No I don't think it has at all. Panspermia is most definitely a minority idea. I quote Wiki: " Panspermia is a fringe theory with little support amongst mainstream scientists."

From: Panspermia - Wikipedia

There is certainly support for a quite separate idea, namely that certain organic molecules which are important building block or precursors for biochemistry, may have arrived on comets or meteorites, rather than all of them being synthesised terrestrially. Perhaps that is what you are thinking of.
We already know of life forms that can survive in space. We already know there are habitats on asteroids that can sustain such life. And the number of scientists that find this theory plausible is increasing. In fact, there is no reason anymore to presume that it's NOT plausible when both the vehicles and the life forms are already known to exist.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
One more time from the OP... "Show me evidence abiogenisis actually happened or admit defeat. Your choice.
It probably did happen, because it could have happened. There. There is your evidence. :D

Hey. Does that mean there is evidence the universe was created by an intelligent agent? Well, it could have, so it probably did. There. Evidence. :D

:laughing::tearsofjoy:
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
We already know of life forms that can survive in space. We already know there are habitats on asteroids that can sustain such life. And the number of scientists that find this theory plausible is increasing. In fact, there is no reason anymore to presume that it's NOT plausible when both the vehicles and the life forms are already known to exist.
Eh? Now you are talking about whether there is life on other astronomical bodies. That is an entirely different subject.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Currently, there is no hard proof of this, but they are working on it. And there is evidence or what one could call a plausible explanation of how it could occur. However we are not there yet.

The origin of life on Earth is a set of paradoxes. In order for life to have gotten started, there must have been a genetic molecule—something like DNA or RNA—capable of passing along blueprints for making proteins, the workhorse molecules of life. But modern cells can't copy DNA and RNA without the help of proteins themselves. To make matters more vexing, none of these molecules can do their jobs without fatty lipids, which provide the membranes that cells need to hold their contents inside. And in yet another chicken-and-egg complication, protein-based enzymes (encoded by genetic molecules) are needed to synthesize lipids.

Now, researchers say they may have solved these paradoxes. Chemists report today that a pair of simple compounds, which would have been abundant on early Earth, can give rise to a network of simple reactions that produce the three major classes of biomolecules—nucleic acids, amino acids, and lipids—needed for the earliest form of life to get its start. Although the new work does not prove that this is how life started, it may eventually help explain one of the deepest mysteries in modern science.

"This is a very important paper," says Jack Szostak, a molecular biologist and origin-of-life researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who was not affiliated with the current research. "It proposes for the first time a scenario by which almost all of the essential building blocks for life could be assembled in one geological setting."


The RNA World hypothesis got a big boost in 2009. Chemists led by John Sutherland at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom reported that they had discovered that relatively simple precursor compounds called acetylene and formaldehyde could undergo a sequence of reactions to produce two of RNA's four nucleotide building blocks, showing a plausible route to how RNA could have formed on its own—without the need for enzymes—in the primordial soup. Critics, though, pointed out that acetylene and formaldehyde are still somewhat complex molecules themselves. That begged the question of where they came from.

For their current study, Sutherland and his colleagues set out to work backward from those chemicals to see if they could find a route to RNA from even simpler starting materials. They succeeded. In the current issue of Nature Chemistry, Sutherland's team reports that it created nucleic acid precursors starting with just hydrogen cyanide (HCN), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and ultraviolet (UV) light. What is more, Sutherland says, the conditions that produce nucleic acid precursors also create the starting materials needed to make natural amino acids and lipids. That suggests a single set of reactions could have given rise to most of life's building blocks simultaneously.
That's why I like Nimos. She does not make dogmatic claims, which she knows cannot be supported, and then stick out to the end that it's true, like the die hard atheists.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Yes, but we haven't figured it out yet, you asked if there were any evidence for it, and there is some. But they are not conclusive yet but are suggesting that it could be plausible at least. That was what you were asking for right? Evidence?
Hmm. I wonder what Steve Myers would say to that.
There is no evidence an intelligent mind was behind creation?
Hard to figure out what the atheist on here consider evidence to be.
 
Last edited:

nPeace

Veteran Member
Yes, but RNA and DNA from a scientific point of view didn't come into existence out of the blue, they would have needed to evolve, the study tries to figure out how that could be possible and that requires certain building blocks, and they have been able to show how some of these could have been made naturally.
Why would they have needed to evolve?
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Of course, it is. Scientists are wrong about many things. Those studying dark matter and dark energy are doing science despite not being able to demonstrate it yet and might be totally wrong. The same goes with String theory.

They are not claiming to know either, they are working on it. And the first thing I wrote to you, was that there was no prove of it. But that they are trying to figure it out.
Pardon me, but did you not say, things would have had to be - "they would have needed to evolve".
So "they are working on it" and "trying to figure it out", based on what? A prior assumption?
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Yet. And it is questionable if or when we will ever know. Even when we find a possible path how life arose on earth, we won't know it did.
The process of abiogenesis has many steps, some of them we do know (e.g. from Miller-Urey). Biochemists are working on others, lipid bilayers, RNA, proteins.
Creationists are slackers. They don't work. Their hypothesis is "goddidit" and that's it.
Maybe people have not listened to the "Creationist".
I have not heard this from people like Steve Myers, James Tour, and other reputable scientists. Not at all.
They use the same reasoning, and inferences used by scientist who believe in their claims.
 
Last edited:

exchemist

Veteran Member
Pardon me, but did you not say, things would have had to be - "they would have needed to evolve".
So "they are working on it" and "trying to figure it out", based on what? A prior assumption?
Based on the evidence of the biochemistry of modern organisms and evidence about the likely chemistry kicking around on the pre-biotic earth.

The only a priori assumption is the one that is embedded in the scientific method itself, namely the principle of methodological naturalism.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
No. Creationism is accepted on faith. Scientific explanations are accepted on evidence.
...and faith is based on evidence, so it's moving from evidence to faith, which is the same thing scientist do, otherwise they would know everything, but to the contrary, they need faith in the things they propose, suppose, and build on, and toward.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
But creation is not a mechanism! It doesn't even claim to be a mechanism! It's an assertion of agency, that's all.
Again, you're comparing apples and oranges.
The basic definition of "creation" tells you what you said here is not true.

Perhaps you should listen to James Tour. His team builds nanocars, and their technology is going places in medical advancement.

Listen to Myers as well.
...and have an open mind.
 
Top