I need conclusive proof of Abiogenesis

Status
Not open for further replies.
AlexG said:
Don't flush your toilet for a few months, and report back to us on the outcome.
Click to expand...
body fluids tend to decompose to a less offensive state over a few months.

I guess however for one who is prepared to entertain life and its fluids as non-different you have something in your wallet more memorable to honour your loved one's by than a mere photograph ...
:D
 
lightgigantic said:
I know .. thats why I said it was bad science
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't any kind of science at all. It was essentially a rant about how small-mindedness and/or a failure to devote enough mental energy to trying to comprehend the reality of the vastness of time and space is a stumbling block to gaining an appreciation of how rare events are not just possible, but likely.
 
Rav said:
No, it wasn't any kind of science at all. It was essentially a rant about how small-mindedness and/or a failure to devote enough mental energy to trying to comprehend the reality of the vastness of time and space is a stumbling block to gaining an appreciation of how rare events are not just possible, but likely.
Click to expand...
This is what your argument looks like.

point 1 - Life must come from matter because life must come from matter.

point 2 - The reason we can't show how life comes from matter is because we haven't worked it out yet.

point 3 - if you doubt life comes from matter, see point 1.


Yep you're right - it certainly isn't any type of science (aside from the bad variety of course)
:shrug:
 
lightgigantic said:
This is what your argument looks like.

point 1 - Life must come from matter because life must come from matter.

point 2 - The reason we can't show how life comes from matter is because we haven't worked it out yet.

point 3 - if you doubt life comes from matter, see point 1.


Yep you're right - it certainly isn't any type of science (aside from the bad variety of course)
:shrug:
Click to expand...

That's something of a strawman LG, and you must know that on some level. You seem to consistently fail to recognize that many people who embrace science also have enough integrity to stop short of declaring absolute certainty about anything. This is evidenced here by the fact that you have reformulated my position by removing all traces of the (admittedly small amount of) uncertainty that I left room for.

Meanwhile, it is obvious to everyone (or at least most) that your real objection to the idea of abiogenesis (and indeed evolutionary theory itself) is that it's in conflict with the religious teachings that you've based your entire world-view on.

So, this is what your argument looks like actually is:

point 1 - Life must have been created by God because scripture tells us that it was created by God.

And, well, there really isn't a need for a point 2 and 3. That's pretty much it.
 
lightgigantic said:
lol
no

but you did say that life and the chemicals it uses are non-different ... which is of course a totally stupid thing to say

Policeman : I have some bad news I am afraid - your husband has been hit by a truck and died instantly... on the bright side however you will be able to be reunited with him since we managed to scrape some of his intestinal fluid from the back wheels.

Anyone feeling warm and fuzzy?
Click to expand...

Life is the chemistry within it. There's no getting around that. DNA is chemistry, metabolism is chemistry, thinking is chemistry, we are literally chemicals.
 
leopold99 said:
what's the source for this statement?

do you really believe a chemical process can give a subjective opinion?
Click to expand...

If you switch your lens of perception to view the body as one big chemical process, then it follows that a chemical process can give a subjective opinion. I don't see anything wrong with this assertion, what do you see wrong with it?
 
Search & Destroy said:
If you switch your lens of perception to view the body as one big chemical process, then it follows that a chemical process can give a subjective opinion. I don't see anything wrong with this assertion, what do you see wrong with it?
Click to expand...
it's an assumption.

where have you seen the demonstration that chemicals can "think"?
in my opinion the assertion is ridiculous.
 
leopold99 said:
it's an assumption.

where have you seen the demonstration that chemicals can "think"?
in my opinion the assertion is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Can atoms think? Same argument. If a body is atoms, and a body can think, then can atoms think? No, you're right that sounds ridiculous.

By reducing a body to chemicals we are losing information, especially when we then try to link it with high-order processes like thinking. But anyway I believe you know what I'm talking about (and what he means). We will never fully understand thinking without fully understanding the chemical foundations.

In this way the chemicals don't think. But without the chemicals there is no thinking. That's probably what he means when he says 'chemicals think.' It's an easy way to say chemicals are the building blocks of thought.
 
leopold99 said:
although computers can appear to be intelligent they are actually no more than a hammer or some other tool. completely useless without their programming.
their programs are written by people, they are not self programming.
Click to expand...
Some are now, or shortly will be.
 
leopold99 said:
what's the source for this statement?

do you really believe a chemical process can give a subjective opinion?
Click to expand...

Evidently. You are doing it now. The chemistry of the brain is highly complex, having to do with it's structure, which was also made chemically.
 
lightgigantic said:
you are attempting to prove abiogeneis - not make data conform the idea of abiogenesis.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I am trying to demonstrate that abiogenesis is possible - that there are no "impossible" steps. That is not the same as proving that abiogenesis occurred.

and just like urea synthesis, it amounts to nothing in terms of establishing how life can be established from matter.
Click to expand...

For a long time, many creationists claimed "it's impossible! you can't get organic compounds without life, so something must have created those compounds!" We now know that to be false.
 
lightgigantic said:
Policeman : I have some bad news I am afraid - your husband has been hit by a truck and died instantly... on the bright side however you will be able to be reunited with him since we managed to scrape some of his intestinal fluid from the back wheels.

Anyone feeling warm and fuzzy?
Click to expand...

Doctor: I have some good news! Your husband is right in there. All chemical activity in his body has stopped, but his body is right there, looks just like it did ten minutes ago, all the same elements and whatnot.

Do _you_ feel warm and fuzzy?
 
billvon said:
Not at all. I am trying to demonstrate that abiogenesis is possible - that there are no "impossible" steps. That is not the same as proving that abiogenesis occurred.
Click to expand...
Quite, and meanwhile he (and leopold) just side step the issue that we have direct evidence of handedness arising naturally, and early.
 
leopold99 said:
what's the source for this statement?

do you really believe a chemical process can give a subjective opinion?
Click to expand...

Sure. So can an electrical process, or a physical process. Life is supported by a substrate - chemical for us, electrical for computer based life (which we are close to having but do not have yet.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top