baseless attempt to disprove Reality

[shunyadragon]

Do tell! "Science has a working hypothesis for abiogenesis."

I'm ALL ears on this one.

You are literate I will presume, but maybe I am wrong. Though you likely lack the education in the biological science to make educated judgements concerning the sciences of abiogenesis and evolution which you reject based on a religious bias, and not science.

The subject has been covered in many threads with references, but as usual you reject the science.

Do your homework, read if you are literate, and get a decent education in the sciences. and come back with a coherent argument without a religious bias.

 

[ecco]

But it is far from completion yet, and new problems do grow in exponential progression.

Yes, they do. That's what happens when you start asking questions.

One question: Is the earth Flat.
Answer: No it is round.
Leading to many more questions...
What keeps people from falling off the bottom?
Gravity.
What is gravity?
Is it really round?
No, it is spherical.
Why is it spherical instead of round.

Anyone who truly quests for truth would know, understand and appreciate this process. Obviously, your avatar name does no suit your belief system.

So, currently the Darwin's Theory without working Big Bang Theory is like the completion of the Venus statue out of marble without making the first hummer stroke.

Obviously, you flunked Analogies 101.

 

[ecco]

Let me emphasize my point: the Darwin's Origin of Species is used by wrong people to prove Atheism.

Who are the wrong people? Conversely, who are the right people who are using Darwin's Origin of Species to prove Atheism?

 

[ecco]

The fact is that abiogenesis, the spontaneous generation of life from non living matter, has never been proven,

When the Genesis stories that you believe and love were written it had never been proven...

• That the earth is a spheroid
• That the earth revolves around the sun
• That continents move
• That carriages don't need horses to pull them

What, exactly, is your point?

 

[ecco]

Darwin is disproved by its own theory as being objective since it's evolving itself. That is generally taken as proof as to it's factualness and that's false.

The concept of gravity has evolved. Is that evidence that it's false?

The concept of the nature of the universe has evolved. Is that evidence that it's false?

The concept of continents has evolved. Is that evidence that it's false?

 

[David T]

The concept of gravity has evolved. Is that evidence that it's false?

The concept of the nature of the universe has evolved. Is that evidence that it's false?

The concept of continents has evolved. Is that evidence that it's false?

thank you for making my point and not realizing it. This rapidily turns into a type of discussion about conciousness where one person is saying there is a problem with that and the other person insists they have total objective independence from the topic.

Is it possible to tell the fruit loops that's nuts? Since a dog is an evolutionist, and zero science is needed to understand life is interconnected Darwins narrative about that is a cultural issue not a reality issue. its a narrative of an extremely narrow aspect seen in an extremely narrow limited way that's all nothing more.

 

[shmogie]

When the Genesis stories that you believe and love were written it had never been proven...

• That the earth is a spheroid
• That the earth revolves around the sun
• That continents move
• That carriages don't need horses to pull them

What, exactly, is your point?

What is your point ?

You have trotted out the atheist excuse of, given time science will answer all questions. That is not a statement of fact, it is purely a faith statement.

For the natural narrative to be true, abiogenesis must be true. There is little evidence for it, it isn´t happening now, no one knows how it worked, yet this bizarre idea is the lynchpin for your world view.

So, you have your faith in science, and believe the impossible will be shown to be likely.

You have your faith, I have mine.

 

[gnostic]

Because you have chosen to wallow in willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty, you have failed spectacularly in your "quest for truth".

It is funny how people (eg questfortruth and justatruthseeker)used the word truth in their names, and yet they seemed to be ignorant and deceitful, and showed no desire to learn.

 

[gnostic]

Anyone who was a herder or farmer observed and understood breeding and the differences between natural and artificial selection.

Regarding to the breeding program, the correct term to use is “sexual selection”, not “artificial selection”.

I understood what you meant, but I just wanted to clarify a minor hiccup.

 

[gnostic]

Let me emphasize my point: the Darwin's Origin of Species is used by wrong people to prove Atheism.

Evolution has nothing to do with atheism vs theism.

Both atheism and theism are irrelevant.

And shunyadragon, who has been replying to you, is a theist, not an atheist, and he has accepted the science of evolution.

 

[gnostic]

Do tell! "Science has a working hypothesis for abiogenesis."

I'm ALL ears on this one.

Abiogenesis is a falsifiable “hypothesis”, but not a tested “scientific theory”.

Abiogenesis is still undergoing testings, so it is still a hypothesis.

There have been successful experiments and evidences discovered that inorganic matters can form into organic matters (eg amino acids and nucleic acids), but have not managed to make organic matters into living organisms.

So the abiogenesis works are incomplete.

Using inorganic matters into organic matters, is the first step. The next step would be life itself.

There is also the questions of where organic matters did originate from. Did it originate on land with ponds, or near the sea vents, or did it arrive from meteorites?

Amino acids have been found in all 3 sources, but which ones had trigger life?

Researchers are divided into these 3 possible scenarios. A 4th possible scenario, it could have derived on 2 or all 3 scenarios, in parallel to each other, but independently.

Until they complete all of these, abiogenesis is ongoing hypothesis that still need works, meaning more evidences and more data to work with.

 

[shmogie]

Abiogenesis is a falsifiable “hypothesis”, but not a tested “scientific theory”.

Abiogenesis is still undergoing testings, so it is still a hypothesis.

There have been successful experiments and evidences discovered that inorganic matters can form into organic matters (eg amino acids and nucleic acids), but have not managed to make organic matters into living organisms.

So the abiogenesis works are incomplete.

Using inorganic matters into organic matters, is the first step. The next step would be life itself.

There is also the questions of where organic matters did originate from. Did it originate on land with ponds, or near the sea vents, or did it arrive from meteorites?

Amino acids have been found in all 3 sources, but which ones had trigger life?

Researchers are divided into these 3 possible scenarios. A 4th possible scenario, it could have derived on 2 or all 3 scenarios, in parallel to each other, but independently.

Until they complete all of these, abiogenesis is ongoing hypothesis that still need works, meaning more evidences and more data to work with.

First, amino acids aren´t anywhere close to life.

There are at least seven ideas about how abiogenesis occurred. Non are falsifiable, not even close.

Way back in the 50ś Miller-Urey created simple amino acids, it is really not a big deal when compared with a living organism that requires chains of aminio acids, vast complicated chains of RNA and DNA for the proteins of a living organism to function. Further, the simplest organism requires information embedded in the DNA to keep the machinery of the organism functioning.

The myth that abiogenisis is just about understood is just that, a myth based in wishful thinking.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You are literate I will presume, but maybe I am wrong. Though you likely lack the education in the biological science to make educated judgements concerning the sciences of abiogenesis and evolution which you reject based on a religious bias, and not science.

The subject has been covered in many threads with references, but as usual you reject the science.

Do your homework, read if you are literate, and get a decent education in the sciences. and come back with a coherent argument without a religious bias.

Here's the deal--there are hypotheses as to how abiogenesis occurred, but no proof--that is--a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of what is required for the basic building blocks of life was synthesized by intelligent designers in non-random, controlled tests, not accounting for numerous issues.

And I'm unsure why you are being both uninformed and rude in your response.

 

[ecco]

thank you for making my point and not realizing it. This rapidily turns into a type of discussion about conciousness where one person is saying there is a problem with that and the other person insists they have total objective independence from the topic.

Is it possible to tell the fruit loops that's nuts? Since a dog is an evolutionist, and zero science is needed to understand life is interconnected Darwins narrative about that is a cultural issue not a reality issue. its a narrative of an extremely narrow aspect seen in an extremely narrow limited way that's all nothing more.

Thank you for posting the incoherent ramble of the day.

 

[ecco]

When the Genesis stories that you believe and love were written it had never been proven...

• That the earth is a spheroid
• That the earth revolves around the sun
• That continents move
• That carriages don't need horses to pull them

What, exactly, is your point?

What is your point ?

You have trotted out the atheist excuse of, given time science will answer all questions. That is not a statement of fact, it is purely a faith statement.

Wow?!? You don't believe ...

• That the earth is a spheroid
• That the earth revolves around the sun
• That continents move
• That carriages don't need horses to pull them

... are statements of fact? So you believe the earth is flat and stationary?

So, you have your faith in science, and believe the impossible will be shown to be likely.

Yes, shmogie (pats shmogie's head gently), you are correct, it is impossible that the world revolves around the sun. Everyone knows that. If it did we would all be swept off of it. (pats shmogie's head soothingly)

 

[ecco]

There is also the questions of where organic matters did originate from. Did it originate on land with ponds, or near the sea vents, or did it arrive from meteorites?

Amino acids have been found in all 3 sources, but which ones had trigger life?

Researchers are divided into these 3 possible scenarios. A 4th possible scenario, it could have derived on 2 or all 3 scenarios, in parallel to each other, but independently.

Millions of ponds and sea vents and tidal pools and who know where else.

 

[shmogie]

Wow?!? You don't believe ...

• That the earth is a spheroid
• That the earth revolves around the sun
• That continents move
• That carriages don't need horses to pull them

... are statements of fact? So you believe the earth is flat and stationary?





Yes, shmogie (pats shmogie's head gently), you are correct, it is impossible that the world revolves around the sun. Everyone knows that. If it did we would all be swept off of it. (pats shmogie's head soothingly)

So your logical reasoning is thus, A,B,C are true, D is speculated, therefore without evidence D is true also.

Wonderful, the result of pure intellect.

 

[gnostic]

First, amino acids aren´t anywhere close to life.

I never said they were "life".

They are one of essential compounds that makeup organic matters - proteins. Without amino acids, there is no protein.

You are confusing organic matters with life itself. They aren't, but they are important ingredient for life.

Nucleic acids, eg DNA and RNA, are organic matters or more precisely organic compounds, but they themselves are not alive.

There are 20-22 different amino acids found naturally in proteins. All of these (22) were in the Murchison Meteorite, and over hundred more types of amino acids not found in proteins. That amino acids can survive outside in space, is evidence that extraterrestrial seeds could have arrived on young Earth, make it a competing rival to amino acids being developed from sea vents or from ponds.

And oh, you really don’t understand the concept of “falsifiable hypotheses”, do you?

Abiogenesis not only predicted about life about organic matters coming from inorganic matters, the Miller-Urey experiment was successful in producing amino acid from other chemical compounds. This experiment is evidence that tested the hypothesis.

If you can perform experiments as such, then it make the hypothesis “falsifiable”, regardless if the experiment should succeed or fail. And the Miller-Urey experiment was a successful that verify one of the predictions made with the Abiogenesis hypothesis to be true.

Wow?!? You don't believe ...

• That the earth is a spheroid
• That the earth revolves around the sun
• That continents move
• That carriages don't need horses to pull them

... are statements of fact? So you believe the earth is flat and stationary?

So your logical reasoning is thus, A,B,C are true, D is speculated, therefore without evidence D is true also.

“No evidences”? “Speculated”?

You have heard of trains, haven’t you?

Trains can pull carriages without horses. Technically, motor vehicles are all self-propelled carriages, although we don’t use the word “carriage”; instead we used terms like car, van, truck, semi-trailer, etc.

Why would you think D is speculated and with no evidences?

 

[gnostic]

Sorry, shmogie. I really don’t think you understand the concept of “falsifiable”.

Falsifiable in relation to hypothesis and theory in science means that any statement and prediction that have been made, have the “potential” of being tested in some ways, like performing some experiments in the labs.

If you can perform experiments than the statement or prediction within hypothesis or theory, is falsifiable, regardless if it is successful or failure.

Falsifiability is about being able to test or to refute any hypothesis or theory.

It doesn’t have to be lab experiments; it can be found evidences found when working in the fields, like astronomers working with optical or radio telescopes. What they discovered in space might not be replicated with experiments.

You need to understand that in the lab, scientists have more control over what they might find. There are less controls when working in the fields.

Back in 1948, Gamow, Alpher and Herman predicted CMBR in regarding to the Big Bang model, theoretically. It wasn’t until 1964 that Arno and Penzias accidentally discovered CMBR with their crude radio telescope. Since then other radio telescopes have detected CMBR, including that of WMAP and Planck space telescopes.

It made the Big Bang model “falsifiable” especially in relation to their predictions of Primordial Nucleosynthesis (or Big Bang Nucleosynthesis) and Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

CMBR doesn’t verify everything about the Big Bang theory, but it is an important start. There are lot more information in BB that needs testings, more evidences and data, hence the Big Bang theory is on-going Scientific Theory.

Why do you think most observatories around the world, plus NASA and ESA (European Space Agency), have been actively seeking evidences all these years?

 

[Sapiens]

The Darwin's Biological Evolution is being used by wrong people as part in attempt to prove, that un-natural things are needless.

No. Un-natural (sic) things are nonexistent.