EVIDENCE FOR ABIOGENESIS - WHAT IS IT ? Please supply it.

[shmogie]

Abiogenesis, essentially the spontaneous generation of life is critical to the theory of evolution. Darwin wrote of it as part of his theory, and every atheist evolutionist must believe it it. Some say they are an agnostic regarding the proposal, it it has nothing to do with evolution. That is disingenuous and begging the question, could evolution take place without a precursor organism to begin it ? Absolutely not.

I am told of great evidences for it, and in one case, I was told there were only a few problems in proving it.

OK, lets see the evidence. I am familiar with the idea';s of it taking place in a primordial soup, beneath ice, by electricity, panspermia, simple metabolism, clay breeding ground, beneath the earth, at submarine thermal vents, or a much newer one, simple inevitability.

The evidence I have seen ? lacking.

I say the idea is complete, provable, nonsense.

Please, using evidence, prove me wrong.

 

[shunyadragon]

I will respond more later, because I am a geologist with a strong biochemistry background, but your opening post is an aggressive rant based on a religious agenda, and not a good way to start a dialogue.

Your accusation of 'atheist evolutionist,' and other derogaory remarks as telling of your aggressive negative bias based on a religious bias. I am a theist and a scientist that understands evolution and abiogenesis in detail.

What is the level of your academic background that makes you competent to carry on this dialogue in an unbiased scientific basis without a religious agenda?

I smell 'arguing from ignorance' and possibly other fallacies coming down the road in this dialogue.

 

[columbus]

Abiogenesis, essentially the spontaneous generation of life is critical to the theory of evolution.

No, it isn't.
So get over it.
Tom

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I dont know if anyone would talk to you about it. You start off in a defensive post, I dont think you want to learn anything new especially ones you disagree with.

Abiogenesis, essentially the spontaneous generation of life is critical to the theory of evolution. Darwin wrote of it as part of his theory, and every atheist evolutionist must believe it it. Some say they are an agnostic regarding the proposal, it it has nothing to do with evolution. That is disingenuous and begging the question, could evolution take place without a precursor organism to begin it ? Absolutely not.

Not all atheists do.

Another thing is abiogenesis is one of many theories of the origin of life.

Here are some downfalls to the theory that outweigh the pros (not all people fully support abiogensis)

The problems with abiogensis

Read about it first. Its quite interesting. The first time I heard of it when you started fussing over it in the other thread

This is interesting

I am told of great evidences for it, and in one case, I was told there were only a few problems in proving it.

Who told you that?

Its a theory.

I am told of great evidences for it, and in one case, I was told there were only a few problems in p

Yes. Because its a theory. Problems are in the link above.

OK, lets see the evidence. I am familiar with the idea';s of it taking place in a primordial soup, beneath ice, by electricity, panspermia, simple metabolism, clay breeding ground, beneath the earth, a

The evidence I have seen ? lacking.

I say the idea is complete, provable, nonsense.

Not lacking. Theres ton of info on the theory in regular books too.

My question is can you proof the creation story from the natural process of the laws of nature. Where does god play in creation of the universe.

Without the bible

 

[Subduction Zone]

As others have pointed out, it is not wise to start a thread based upon a strawman. Only the most ignorant would claim that abiogenesis is spontaneous generation.

Perhaps you could apologize and start again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Also in the OP there is the claim it is "provable nonsense" . Ironically the next phrase is "Prove me wrong." . The OP put the burden of proof upon himself with that claim.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Abiogenesis, essentially the spontaneous generation of life is critical to the theory of evolution. Darwin wrote of it as part of his theory, and every atheist evolutionist must believe it it. Some say they are an agnostic regarding the proposal, it it has nothing to do with evolution. That is disingenuous and begging the question, could evolution take place without a precursor organism to begin it ? Absolutely not.

I am told of great evidences for it, and in one case, I was told there were only a few problems in proving it.

OK, lets see the evidence. I am familiar with the idea';s of it taking place in a primordial soup, beneath ice, by electricity, panspermia, simple metabolism, clay breeding ground, beneath the earth, at submarine thermal vents, or a much newer one, simple inevitability.

The evidence I have seen ? lacking.

I say the idea is complete, provable, nonsense.

Please, using evidence, prove me wrong.

You would need to define life first. It's no mystery when conditions and circumstances are right, life will eventually erupt.

One could ask the same question for ourselves. How did we one day spontaneously generate in our mother's womb from a couple of cells and DNA?

 

[columbus]

One could ask the same question for ourselves. How did we one day spontaneously generate in our mother's womb with a couple of cells and DNA?

That didn't happen.
Get over it.
Tom

 

[Subduction Zone]

That didn't happen.
Get over it.
Tom

So you are an advocate of the "stork hypothesis" ?

 

[Skwim]

Abiogenesis, essentially the spontaneous generation of life is critical to the theory of evolution. Darwin wrote of it as part of his theory, and every atheist evolutionist must believe it it.

Assuming the "theory" you're referring to was that enunciated in his The Origin of Species, this is either a lie or a grave misunderstanding.

From
Charles Darwin and the Origin of Life
by Juli Peretó, Jeffrey L. Bada, and Antonio Lazcano

"When Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species 150 years ago he consciously avoided discussing the origin of life."
source​

Some say they are an agnostic regarding the proposal, it it has nothing to do with evolution. That is disingenuous and begging the question, could evolution take place without a precursor organism to begin it ? Absolutely not.

Your ignorance is showing big time here. No matter how much you'd dearly love to believe it, theories of evolution DO NOT address the origin of life. PERIOD! Life could have started through abiogenesis, panspermia, or through the mating of the gods Kali and Jehovah. It simply doesn't matter. "Evolutionists" don't care, and evolution doesn't depend on it. And no matter how many times you say it's so will never make it true.

I am told of great evidences for it, and in one case, I was told there were only a few problems in proving it.

OK, lets see the evidence. I am familiar with the idea';s of it taking place in a primordial soup, beneath ice, by electricity, panspermia, simple metabolism, clay breeding ground, beneath the earth, at submarine thermal vents, or a much newer one, simple inevitability.
I get it, you're to lazy to look into it yourself.

The evidence I have seen ? lacking.

I say the idea is complete, provable, nonsense.

Then it shouldn't be at all difficult to show your evidence. Whatcha got? We await all this convincing evidence and proof you have at hand.

Please, using evidence, prove me wrong.

Certainly: although it's kind of default situation; You've asserted that abiogenesis is "complete, provable, nonsense" and failing to do just that you will have proved yourself wrong. Our evidence will be your failure.

.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I will respond more later, because I am a geologist with a strong biochemistry background, but your opening post is an aggressive rant based on a religious agenda, and not a good way to start a dialogue.

Your accusation of 'atheist evolutionist,' and other derogaory remarks as telling of your aggressive negative bias based on a religious bias. I am a theist and a scientist that understands evolution and abiogenesis in detail.

What is the level of your academic background that makes you competent to carry on this dialogue in an unbiased scientific basis without a religious agenda?

I smell 'arguing from ignorance' and possibly other fallacies coming down the road in this dialogue.

I'm surprised you got sucked into this.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

As others have pointed out, it is not wise to start a thread based upon a strawman. Only the most ignorant would claim that abiogenesis is spontaneous generation.

Perhaps you could apologize and start again.

Dream on.

 

[Skwim]

I dont know if anyone would talk to you about it. You start off in a defensive post, I dont think you want to learn anything new especially ones you disagree with.


Not all atheists do.

Another thing is abiogenesis is one of many theories of the origin of life.

Here are some downfalls to the theory that outweigh the pros (not all people fully support abiogensis)

The problems with abiogensis

Err, your link here is hardly an unbiased source, being constructed by AllAboutGOD.com, a service of All About GOD Ministries, Inc., a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation located in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That the theory of evolution does not deal with abiogenesis is hardly begging the question either. The theory does not assume abiogenesis, so there is no need to deal with it. The theory works fine regardless of the original source of life. It would even work just as well if the first cell was created by God.

One can compare this to nuclear fission and fusion. We have known how to uncontrollably split heavy nuclei since 1938. The first atomic pile was just a few years later. A few years after that the first atomic bomb was dropped. Fusion was proposed and discovered even earlier with 1929 given as the date of discovery since that was when the math was correctly worked out. The thermonuclear bomb was developed in the 1950's, but we still can't make a fusion generator.

Does that mean there is no fusion in the Sun?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Err, your link here is hardly an unbiased source, being constructed by AllAboutGOD.com, a service of All About GOD Ministries, Inc., a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation located in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

.

I never gave and said it was a statistic unbiased source. It just seemed Shmogie didnt know what the term meant in general. I dont think she is going to talk about statistics and facts unless she surprises me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dream on.

This sounds like you are accusing shmogie of not being able to be honest.

 

[shmogie]

Assuming the "theory" you're referring to was that enunciated in his The Origin of Species, this is either a lie or a grave misunderstanding.

From
Charles Darwin and the Origin of Life
by Juli Peretó, Jeffrey L. Bada, and Antonio Lazcano

"When Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species 150 years ago he consciously avoided discussing the origin of life."
source​

Your ignorance is showing big time here. No matter how much you'd dearly love to believe it, theories of evolution DO NOT address the origin of life. PERIOD! Life could have started through abiogenesis, panspermia, or through the matting of the gods Kali and Jehovah. It simply doesn't matter. "Evolutionists" don't care, and evolution doesn't depend on it. And no matter how many times you say it's so, will never make it true.


Then it shouldn't be at all difficult to show your evidence. Whatcha got? We await all this convincing evidence and proof you have at hand.


Certainly: although it's kind of default situation; You've asserted that abiogenesis is "complete, provable, nonsense" and failing to do just that you will have proved yourself wrong. Our evidence will be your failure.

.

Darwin speculated about in other writings as being necessary for evolution to have occurred.. YOUR ignorance is showing. He he even said the precursor organism, are you ready for this, you might want to stop here, may have been created by God, since he could come up with anything else.

LOL, turn it back on me, try a little rope a dope huh ? I'm waiting

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never gave and said it was a statistic unbiased source. It just seemed Shmogie didnt know what the term meant in general. I dont think is going to talk about statistics and facts unless she surprises me.

It is not only biased, it is wrong. They falsely accused Miller-Urey of being dishonest and mistakenly claim there was oxygen in the Early Earth atmosphere. That was not the case. At the very best they conflated elemental oxygen, which was present as part of CO2 but for all practical purposes there was no O2.

 

[shmogie]

That the theory of evolution does not deal with abiogenesis is hardly begging the question either. The theory does not assume abiogenesis, so there is no need to deal with it. The theory works fine regardless of the original source of life. It would even work just as well if the first cell was created by God.

One can compare this to nuclear fission and fusion. We have known how to uncontrollably split heavy nuclei since 1938. The first atomic pile was just a few years later. A few years after that the first atomic bomb was dropped. Fusion was proposed and discovered even earlier with 1929 given as the date of discovery since that was when the math was correctly worked out. The thermonuclear bomb was developed in the 1950's, but we still can't make a fusion generator.

Does that mean there is no fusion in the Sun?

Here it s, again. The evolutionist two step.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Darwin speculated about in other writings as being necessary for evolution to have occurred.. YOUR ignorance is showing. He he even said the precursor organism, are you ready for this, you might want to stop here, may have been created by God, since he could come up with anything else.

LOL, turn it back on me, try a little rope a dope huh ? I'm waiting

Thats not an sound argument nor debate, Shmogie just bait for you to attack. Got to come up with something better.