Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by Ringtone, Sep 3, 2019.

  1. Ringtone
    Offline

    Ringtone Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    947
    Thanks Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    45
    Ratings:
    +1,067
    The following article reviews the most relevant findings in abiogenetic research to date and touches on the potential metaphysical presuppositions for science in the light of those findings. Where do we go when the findings seem to show that a natural mechanism of sheer chemistry for the origin of life is implausible, cannot be given and/or is indemonstrable? In light of the findings, I propose a return to the open-ended, methodological naturalism of tradition, that which was applied to the scientific enterprise before Darwin. The assumption of the Darwinian paradigm obviously begs the question and arbitrarily precludes the potential necessity of intelligent design. I say there's no way the rudimentary, self-ording properties of mere chemistry could have possibly produced the sequestered materials and information of life.

    Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

    By Michael Rawlings
    February 4, 2009



    While the historical presupposition for science is not a methodological naturalism wherein philosophical naturalism serves minimally as a regulative principle, most of today’s practicing scientists insist that origins must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of an intelligent agent of causation and design. The range of scientific inquiry is inordinately curtailed accordingly. Though any rational evaluation of the empirical data might recommend them, potentialities outside the boundaries of this range of inquiry are flatly dismissed. Hence, should one reject the guesswork of an arbitrarily imposed apriority that conflates agency and process, one is said to reject science itself, as if the fanatics of scientism owned the means of science. . . .

    What was actually produced in the published Miller-Urey experiment of 1953 were 5 amino acids (3 of the 20 fundamentals of life) and the molecular constituents of others. The dominant material produced in the experiment was an insoluble carcinogenic mixture of tar—large compounds of toxic mellanoids, a common end product in organic reactions. However, it was recently discovered that the published experiment actually entailed the production of 14 amino acids (6 of the 20 fundamentals of life) and 5 amines in various concentrations. In 1952, the technology needed to detect the other trace amounts of organic material was not available. But the unpublished Miller-Urey experiments conducted over the next several years show that a modified version of Miller’s original apparatus featuring a volcanic spark discharge system, which increased air flow with a tapering glass aspirator, produced 22 amino acids (9 of the fundamentals of life) and the same 5 amines. .
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 5, 2019
  2. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    53,996
    Thanks Received:
    9,418
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +34,474
    Thread re-opened with corrections from the OP.....
     
  3. Hollie
    Offline

    Hollie Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    33,057
    Thanks Received:
    2,889
    Trophy Points:
    1,115
    Ratings:
    +10,984
    The OP appeals to every ID’iot creationist shibboleth and cliche in a desperate attempt to press his religious extremist agenda. What Miller-Urey established was that the building blocks of organic life (complex organics from simple compounds), form quite readily.

    Religious extremists have a need to discredit science discovery because knowledge and learning tend to supplant fear and superstition.




    Abiogenesis FAQs: The Origins of Life

    Abiogenesis is the field of science dedicated to studying how life might have arisen for the first time on the primordial young Earth. Despite the enormous progress that has been made since the Miller-Urey experiment, abiogenesis is under constant attack from creationists, who continually claim that the origin of life by natural processes is so unlikely as to be, for all practical purposes, impossible. Following are some articles that challenge this claim and demonstrate the fundamental misconception at the core of the creationists' arguments.

    Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations
    How likely is it that even a single bacterium could form by chance in the primordial sea? Not very likely, that's for sure, and creationists have been only too happy to provide ludicrously huge numbers purporting to be the odds against such a thing. However, even if these calculations are correct, they are irrelevant, as modern theories of abiogenesis require nothing of the kind to happen. This article briefly illustrates what abiogenesis really is and shows why the creationists' probability calculations do not matter.

    Borel's Law and the Origin of Many Creationist Probability Assertions
    Creationists have asserted that a statistical principle called "Borel's Law" mathematically demonstrates that abiogenesis is impossible. This article explains what Borel's Law is and shows that Borel himself clearly understood that his law was not relevant to the probability of the origin of life.

    Spontaneous Generation and the Origin of Life
    Creationists often claim that Louis Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation and hence any naturalistic origin of life. This article shows what Pasteur really demonstrated and gives a history of the subject from early ideas of spontaneous generation to modern ideas about the origin of life.

    The Origin of Life
    A discussion of the main models on the spontaneous origin of life that aims to show how cellular complexity could have gradually emerged from simple systems - in contrast to the sudden appearance of complexity that creationists claim to have been necessary at the beginning of life. Central issues like the composition of the early atmosphere of the Earth and the origin of the homochirality of amino acids and sugars are reviewed as well.

    Review of the Miller-Urey experiment chapter of Icons of Evolution
    Jonathan Wells of the Discovery Institute has made false claims about abiogenesis research in his book Icons of Evolution.

    An Index to Creationist Claims: Abiogenesis
    Brief replies to various origin-of-life claims by antievolutionists.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 4
    • Informative Informative x 1
  4. Fort Fun Indiana
    Offline

    Fort Fun Indiana Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2017
    Messages:
    32,178
    Thanks Received:
    2,033
    Trophy Points:
    1,155
    Ratings:
    +14,546
    What a stupid oped, devoid of any actual, empirical arguments. Also, while abiogenesis may contradict the silly, childish, abrahamic creation myth, it does not necessarily contradict other, theistic religious paradigms. So, what we have here is a christian nutball so steeped in his own, magical horseshit that he cant see past the end of his own nose.

    So,a guy who is absolutely certain, without a shred of evidence, that his magical horseshit is absolutely true is criticizing scientists for not yet having enough evidence to be absolutely true of something, even though they are not claiming to be so anyway.

    Of course.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2019
  5. Fort Fun Indiana
    Offline

    Fort Fun Indiana Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2017
    Messages:
    32,178
    Thanks Received:
    2,033
    Trophy Points:
    1,155
    Ratings:
    +14,546
    And, worth noting:

    Abiogensis is a foregone conclusion. While we may not know how it happened, we can safely assume it is a fact and did, indeed, happen.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
  6. fncceo
    Offline

    fncceo Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2016
    Messages:
    19,437
    Thanks Received:
    2,830
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +26,608
    It actually doesn't.

    Life formed from inorganic substances and imbued with animus is a poetic description of what we suspect is the actual process.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. Fort Fun Indiana
    Offline

    Fort Fun Indiana Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2017
    Messages:
    32,178
    Thanks Received:
    2,033
    Trophy Points:
    1,155
    Ratings:
    +14,546
    Says you. And, trust me, i like the way you think. But not everyone is so willing to cast aside the wording of the myth as allegory, or poetry.

    "God created man"...via the processes of abiogenesis and evolution. That doesn't seem so hard to accept, if one is already willing to accept the first premise.
     
  8. Fort Fun Indiana
    Offline

    Fort Fun Indiana Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2017
    Messages:
    32,178
    Thanks Received:
    2,033
    Trophy Points:
    1,155
    Ratings:
    +14,546
    As for coincidences in holy books:

    What would we expect? When tasked with imagining how "there is no life" became "there is life", what would we expect people thousands of years ago to dream up? That it came from kryptonite, or that it arose from the merging of two black hole?

    They were utterly ignorant of the universe. So, they had dirt. And air. And water. And fire. Which of these is substantial, like animals' bodies? Dirt. And voila, humans came from dirt. Oh, and magic.Of course.

    Is this coincidence really supposed to impress anyone?

    And is it coincidence, anyway? Not really...life formed from what he have here (not actually from dirt, but hey, we will just chalk that one up to "poetry"). The myth was imagined here, using what we have here. We dont gasp in awe when two kids on other sides of the planet make similar towers out of wooden blocks. The both had the same medium to work with.
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2019
  9. Ringtone
    Offline

    Ringtone Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    947
    Thanks Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    45
    Ratings:
    +1,067
    Since you apparently did not read my article and are not addressing it's pertinent observations regarding the objectively presented findings of abiogenetic research, your post is dismissed. To be sure, I do evaluate what the findings tell us, but in the light of the voluminously cited, peer-reviewed research. I have no interest in the he-said-she-said baby talk of atheist know-nothings. This article was not written for the gullible acolytes of scientism. Nor will I discuss the matter with such outside the content of this article.

    Off topic.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  10. MisterBeale
    Offline

    MisterBeale Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    21,180
    Thanks Received:
    4,129
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +17,964
    I did read it, and it only addressed very specific hypothetical conditions of one experiment, reproducing the hypothetical conditions of one place and one point in time in Earth's ancient history.

    The planet is huge, the solar system even larger. The possible conditions and precise time window of abiogenesis even larger. So this article really, only refutes one localized area and time condition. It doesn't disprove every possible scenario.

    For instance, no where in there did it seek to disprove that meteorites of tholins, could have crashed into the right temperature pools of water, at just the right time, and got the ball rolling. :dunno:
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1

Share This Page