Why don't you accept abiogenesis and evolution?

[Troublemane]

I think in order to prove that life came from nonliving matter, it is necessary to prove that there exists some matter which is inherently nonliving.

 

[rojse]

Throughout the history of the world there have been literally billions that have declared a belief in God, even to the point of dying for that belief, were they all foolish liars? Miracles have been wrought by the servants of God and are even ongoing today, I have seen them myself.

Your exclamation of visual evidence only convinces yourself and anyone else already convinced.

Given that from every mathematical calculation and/or reasonable train of thought being stymied by it, the theory of pure evolution without the guiding hand of God is mind bogglingly foolish.

You show so much ignorance of evolution in one sentence the mind boggles.

Evolution is changes over generations. If a change does not work, then the animal dies out. If a change does work, the change is passed on to that being's children.

Why would someone choose to deny the existence of God in the first place? To what end do you buck what is so obvious and even if you don’t see it, why do you try to put down the very foundations upon which nations have prospered?

I take it you also support communism, because communist ideology has founded quite a few countries, too.

Why do you not see that putting asunder the concepts of God and ignoring His commandments has spelt the doom of many a vast civilizations, we are in line to be one of them, and your not helping?

Oh, dear.

Another way of looking at it is that not being flexible and adaptable in how you behave will spell our doom if we can not react and adapt to changing conditions, and your rigid theological beliefs might be the equivalent of Nero counting his money in the burning city.

 

[Leero Applewuss]

Complexity is a noun. Complex is the adjective

True, but it's derived from an adjective. The point is, it's a term used to explain someone's perspective. It does not exist in reality.

So it's a relative term then? In that case the universe is complex compared to a hamburger.

Isn't everything like that? Atoms aren't small, Galaxies aren't big. These are all terms we use to describe different thing when compared to either ourselves or different parts of our environment.

It's like beauty, there's no such thing. It's just a perspective, which develops differently depending how you grew up.

In other words, everything is in the mind of the beholder.

Please prove that the universe is no more than the minimum it needed to be in order to exist.

Can you explain I didn't quite get this.

 

[Leero Applewuss]

I think in order to prove that life came from nonliving matter, it is necessary to prove that there exists some matter which is inherently nonliving.

All matter is "non-living" if you want to put it that way. Again, living and non-living are both man-made terms used to explain the difference between simple molecules and more complex chemical structures.

There is not a single thing in the body of any living organism that isn't made from 'non-living' elements.

 

[Women_Of_Reason]

I'm interested in seeing why some people refuse to accept abiogenesis evolution as the explanation to how life came into being and how it got to this stage.

Try to keep it simple.

I think that it is because they despise the natural material world and would see it as demeaning to actually be the fruit of this said world, they rather be the product of something from out of this world.

Not being intentionally created by a God seem to diminish their place in the cosmos and that, their ego cannot withstand, they want to be more special than that.

I personally think that concepts like unguided evolution and abiogenesis, true or not, to be much more beautiful and poetic than our sudden, magical and premeditated creation by a God who, if it exists, still needs to be explained.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

To be honest, I dont know enough about abiogenesis. Which as a scientist is rather embarassing, but from what I have read..and going by other comments...there is no evidence to back up abiogenesis. Evolution on the other hand has plenty of examples and evidence to back up the theory.

Another thing is how people still seem to think that science and religion cannot coexist.

I found this in wiki..

In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth emerged from inanimate organic and inorganic molecules.

Well, it still doesnt explain where the molecules came from does it?

 

[Panda]

To be honest, I dont know enough about abiogenesis. Which as a scientist is rather embarassing, but from what I have read..and going by other comments...there is no evidence to back up abiogenesis. Evolution on the other hand has plenty of examples and evidence to back up the theory.

Another thing is how people still seem to think that science and religion cannot coexist.

I found this in wiki..



Well, it still doesnt explain where the molecules came from does it?

The explanation of where the universe comes from is an entirely different kettle of fish.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

The explanation of where the universe comes from is an entirely different kettle of fish.

Yes I know!

The OP seemed to be suggesting that religion and science cannot coexist. So technically abiogenesis has nothing to do with creation?

As I said, I really don't know enough about it to comment.

 

[fantome profane]

The OP seemed to be suggesting that religion and science cannot coexist.

I am completely fascinated and flabbergasted by this comment. I went back and read the OP again, studied it, read it backwards, searched it for some hidden code but I could find nothing.

I'm interested in seeing why some people refuse to accept abiogenesis evolution as the explanation to how life came into being and how it got to this stage.

Try to keep it simple.

There is no mention of religion, no mention of God, no mention of incompatibility. At least not that I can detect. Could you please explain to me were you get this from?

 

[Truth_Faith13]

I am completely fascinated and flabbergasted by this comment. I went back and read the OP again, studied it, read it backwards, searched it for some hidden code but I could find nothing.

Alright keep your hair on....

I didn't mean the first post...I meant the third post made by the OP (which by the way can also mean original poster).

 

[Women_Of_Reason]

Well, it still doesnt explain where the molecules came from does it?

Complex molecule necessary for life like amino acids have been found in deep space. They are the fruit of chemical reactions like any other molecules.

Molecules are arrangements of atoms held together by chemical bonds, there is nothing extraordinary about them, they come from all over the place... If you ask the question: Where does the atoms comes from? They are formed in the hearts of stars. It is called stellar nucleosynthesis.

 

[Leero Applewuss]

Well, it still doesnt explain where the molecules came from does it?

True it doesn't have much evidence to fully support it, there are only theories to where the organic molecules came about.

For example not long ago Astronomers found organic sugar molecules around a forming star on the less chaotic regions of the outer galaxy. They have already discovered organic molecule clouds before, not many, but still, this is the first time Glycolaldehyde was discovered 26,000 light years away, the simplest of the monosaccharide sugars, can react with the substance propenal to form ribose, a central constituent of Ribonucleic acid (RNA), thought to be the central molecule in the origin of life.

Source:
ww w.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0811/08112503

This leads to suggest that organic molecules are not all too rare in the universe and could have easily originated from the hot underwater vets after the earth formed. And they could have more easily have been introduced to earth by impacting asteroids, which where quite common in early earth.


Now as for real evidence, all I know is that the first known cells, the ones that resulted from a combination of organic molecules are called by scientists as protocells. They were only a hypothesis, until recently researchers were able to create one in the LAB using the same organic compounds taught to be present in early Earth.

These protocells are capable of copying DNA on their own and they also demonstrated how they might have taken up the nutrients that propelled their growth.

The proffessor behind this was Jack Szostak:
ww w.geneticstimes.com/research/Researchers_Build_Model_Protocell_Capable_of_Copying_DNA.asp


To conclude, there is alot of observations that suggest abiogenesis to be the most probable cause of life as we know it. Just not as much as evolution, but that never stopped research

Here's a movie I found on youtube made by a fan which explains the results received from Szostak's Lab:
ww w.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

 

[Luminous]

BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY RANDOM CHANCE +lots of time CAN CREATE LIFE.
(i think this is what some think)
YouTube - O'Reilly vs Dawkins
YouTube - Kirk Cameron gets Owned. Evolution is a myth!

 

[Luminous]

Well, it still doesnt explain where the molecules came from does it?

Some say the molecules came from the big bang.

 

[Women_Of_Reason]

Some say the molecules came from the big bang.

who says that?

 

[rocketman]

These are all terms we use to describe different thing when compared to either ourselves or different parts of our environment.

Good, despite it's many other meanings you agree it is a relative term as used by you (You were the one who introduced the term into this thread, post #19) So then, relative to whatever the bare minimum of complexity would be required to have a universe in the first place....

Can you explain I didn't quite get this.

....is the universe more complex than it needs to be?

My point being that you can neither show that it is or it isn't, so to argue either way, including your claim that the universe is not complex, is flawed.

 

[Evandr]

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with complex organisms springing out to existence, it's only responsible for creating the first protocells composed of nothing but fatty acids and sugar-based RNA molecules.

=========



Were they all foolish liars? Of course not. But they were all foolish people, dieing for a belief they had no evidence for.

I have be lectured countless times on how miracles do occur, but no one ever gave me an example of one. So, and probably in vain, I ask:
What Miracles?
and
How are you sure they are miracles?

How is evolution impossible without an all-knowing power "guiding" it? Chemicals react on there own every day, it's the same thing, basic chemistry.

How could anyone deny god? Because there is no evidence. If it were obvious, then everyone in the world would believe in almost the same way, but instead we get huge clumps of thousands of different religions all sustained almost purely through indoctrination and a deep religious foundation.

Just because you look at life's complexity, doesn't mean something 'all powerful' has created it. Complexity, like any adjective, is a man-made term.

The universe is not 'complex' at all. You're just too small to understand it.

==========


There are spaces in the link, remove them.

Oh man, I mean WOW, thousands of years, billions of people - some revered for their intelligence and understanding, It is evident that Jesus Christ was a simple precurser that pointed to YOU :bow:
Hallelujah, let us all sit at your feet and take in your wisdom seeing how you are so large as to be able to understand the universe - Let us all rejoice - nirvana is at our door! Praise MAN, whoopee, let's all get naked. (for crying out loud!)

 

[camanintx]

Oh man, I mean WOW, thousands of years, billions of people - some revered for their intelligence and understanding...

You do realize that the truth of a proposition is not measured by how many people believe it, don't you?

 

[Leero Applewuss]

....is the universe more complex than it needs to be?

My point being that you can neither show that it is or it isn't, so to argue either way, including your claim that the universe is not complex, is flawed.

Why is tonight's dinner more tasty than it needs to be?

When I said the universe "is not complex" I meant the universe is only complex through our understanding. These adjectives are only terms we use to describe our environment through our understanding, it doesn't make it universally complex.

========

Oh man, I mean WOW, thousands of years, billions of people - some revered for their intelligence and understanding, It is evident that Jesus Christ was a simple precurser that pointed to YOU
Hallelujah, let us all sit at your feet and take in your wisdom seeing how you are so large as to be able to understand the universe - Let us all rejoice - nirvana is at our door! Praise MAN, whoopee, let's all get naked. (for crying out loud!)

You do realize that the big majority of the population used to believe the earth was flat and in the center of the universe? It was even a religious belief and people died for opposing that ideology.

An idea does not gain truth as it gains followers.

Jesus did die on the cross, it's evident in the historical records even outside the bible. But there is no evidence he was anything more than a guy preaching a good message. That and there were made 'messiahs' during that time:
ht tp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3126202689810625112


For the rest of your gibberish, it just shows immaturity. I don't claim I know anything but I'm sure not going to pretend I do, like every religion.

You've still not given me any evidence of miracles or proof to why there needs to be a divine intervention in evolution.

 

[Mister Emu]

You do realize that the big majority of the population used to believe the earth was flat and in the center of the universe? It was even a religious belief and people died for opposing that ideology.

At what points in history did the majority of the population believe the earth was flat? Who died for opposing geocentrism? Thanks