Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Well, You're wrong. You are referring to a hypothesis. That experiment was one devised way of testing the hypothesis.Yet, I think that's still their main starting point and argument for amino acids on primordial Earth.
The origin of life includes more possibilities than the “primordial soup”.
Primordial soup is anything with amino acids. What else do you have?
OK. I didn realize the definition was that broad. But the thing is..the earth is lousy with amino acids right now. Magnitudes more concentrated. And we never see new life forming. It cant be a game of odds because it happened in a geological eyblink after the earth cooled. Almost as if it were inevitable. But never again despite an Earth becoming increasingly sodden with amino acids?
There is something interesting in that alone.
That's a good point you bring up about the magnitudes of amino acids. I never thought of the times they were plentiful and times that weren't. Trying to discuss things with atheists, we never get that far in our discussion before ad hominems.
I suppose the abiogenesis argument is that they're here, so why couldn't they have formed in primordial Earth? I don't think many scientists believe the prebiotic gases used in Miller-Urey experiment were correct anymore. Yet, I think that's still their main starting point and argument for amino acids on primordial Earth. IOW, there hasn't been a newer experiment with different gases.
No, magic is for religious peole like you. You are the one proposing magic. Not me.So this plasma just decided magically that it was a good time to be set in motion one day approximately fifteen billion years ago?
Apparently not...I know more than you about it.
No, but now you are being magical again. Do you introduce such whimsical ideas into star formation? No, and you are only doing so because your mind is addled by magical faith.So you know definitively and beyond doubt what constitutes life?
False. I say things like, "it is likely that", and, "it is correct and safe to assume as fact".You kneel at the alter of science and talk as though it is absolute fact.
You keep confusing yourself, crybaby.
Of the two of us, only one of us makes claims with certainty...
...That would be you , armed eith your iron aged myths you insist , without a shred of evidence, are true.
Do you guys understand that we have done many, many other experiments since then?
Your prior postings... Am i mistaken? Nope.What makes me religious in your mind?
Your prior postings... Am i mistaken? Nope.What makes me religious in your mind?
The rest of your post was irrelevant whining. As usual.
The origin of life includes more possibilities than the “primordial soup”.
Primordial soup is anything with amino acids. What else do you have?
OK. I didn realize the definition was that broad. But the thing is..the earth is lousy with amino acids right now. Magnitudes more concentrated. And we never see new life forming. It cant be a game of odds because it happened in a geological eyblink after the earth cooled. Almost as if it were inevitable. But never again despite an Earth becoming increasingly sodden with amino acids?
There is something interesting in that alone.
That's a good point you bring up about the magnitudes of amino acids. I never thought of the times they were plentiful and times that weren't. Trying to discuss things with atheists, we never get that far in our discussion before ad hominems
I suppose the abiogenesis argument is that they're here, so why couldn't they have formed in primordial Earth? I don't think many scientists believe the prebiotic gases used in Miller-Urey experiment were correct anymore. Yet, I think that's still their main starting point and argument for amino acids on primordial Earth. IOW, there hasn't been a newer experiment with different gases.
The abiogenesis argument is not an argument at all. We know with absolute certainty that biological life from basic building blocks of chemical compounds took place. Either it was naturally occurring or it happened by super-magical means. We have no evidence for Amun-Ra magically starting life and we have no evidence that gods with talking pet snakes created all of existence 6,000 years ago. That tends to narrow the field to the most likely, most studied scenario where life developed due to interactions of chemical compounds.Primitive protobacteria of simple molecules slowly evolved into more cooperative self-replicating systems, then finally into simple organisms.
For all the appeals to magic and supernaturalism, it is scientists in the relevant fields of chemistry, biology, paleontology, etc., who are doing the research. The charlatans at creation ministries are doing nothing but making every attempt to discredit researchers because the religious extremists have their scared cows to protect.
Yes, quite a bit. Are you saying you are not religious? Because youve gotten pretty religious on me before.But if not... I was mistaken, but good for you!Do I detect more certainty here
The origin of life includes more possibilities than the “primordial soup”.
Primordial soup is anything with amino acids. What else do you have?
OK. I didn realize the definition was that broad. But the thing is..the earth is lousy with amino acids right now. Magnitudes more concentrated. And we never see new life forming. It cant be a game of odds because it happened in a geological eyblink after the earth cooled. Almost as if it were inevitable. But never again despite an Earth becoming increasingly sodden with amino acids?
There is something interesting in that alone.
That's a good point you bring up about the magnitudes of amino acids. I never thought of the times they were plentiful and times that weren't. Trying to discuss things with atheists, we never get that far in our discussion before ad hominems
I suppose the abiogenesis argument is that they're here, so why couldn't they have formed in primordial Earth? I don't think many scientists believe the prebiotic gases used in Miller-Urey experiment were correct anymore. Yet, I think that's still their main starting point and argument for amino acids on primordial Earth. IOW, there hasn't been a newer experiment with different gases.
The abiogenesis argument is not an argument at all. We know with absolute certainty that biological life from basic building blocks of chemical compounds took place. Either it was naturally occurring or it happened by super-magical means. We have no evidence for Amun-Ra magically starting life and we have no evidence that gods with talking pet snakes created all of existence 6,000 years ago. That tends to narrow the field to the most likely, most studied scenario where life developed due to interactions of chemical compounds.Primitive protobacteria of simple molecules slowly evolved into more cooperative self-replicating systems, then finally into simple organisms.
For all the appeals to magic and supernaturalism, it is scientists in the relevant fields of chemistry, biology, paleontology, etc., who are doing the research. The charlatans at creation ministries are doing nothing but making every attempt to discredit researchers because the religious extremists have their scared cows to protect.
Nah, I read what the Jews say, too. Abiogenesis is just a theory. When life happens or the building blocks of protein are formed, then someone will post an breaking news article on it. Whoever discovers how to make proteins outside the cell will become a billionaire.
Yes, quite a bit. Are you saying you are not religious? Because youve gotten pretty religious on me before.But if not... I was mistaken, but good for you!Do I detect more certainty here
What have you won? You did nothing but try to wedge magical mystery ideas into the gaps of our knowledge. A child can do that.
Again...as usual.
The origin of life includes more possibilities than the “primordial soup”.
Primordial soup is anything with amino acids. What else do you have?
OK. I didn realize the definition was that broad. But the thing is..the earth is lousy with amino acids right now. Magnitudes more concentrated. And we never see new life forming. It cant be a game of odds because it happened in a geological eyblink after the earth cooled. Almost as if it were inevitable. But never again despite an Earth becoming increasingly sodden with amino acids?
There is something interesting in that alone.
That's a good point you bring up about the magnitudes of amino acids. I never thought of the times they were plentiful and times that weren't. Trying to discuss things with atheists, we never get that far in our discussion before ad hominems
I suppose the abiogenesis argument is that they're here, so why couldn't they have formed in primordial Earth? I don't think many scientists believe the prebiotic gases used in Miller-Urey experiment were correct anymore. Yet, I think that's still their main starting point and argument for amino acids on primordial Earth. IOW, there hasn't been a newer experiment with different gases.
Which is the smart thing to do. Which is why brilliant scientists do it, and why you don't get it.The origin of life includes more possibilities than the “primordial soup”.
Primordial soup is anything with amino acids. What else do you have?
OK. I didn realize the definition was that broad. But the thing is..the earth is lousy with amino acids right now. Magnitudes more concentrated. And we never see new life forming. It cant be a game of odds because it happened in a geological eyblink after the earth cooled. Almost as if it were inevitable. But never again despite an Earth becoming increasingly sodden with amino acids?
There is something interesting in that alone.
That's a good point you bring up about the magnitudes of amino acids. I never thought of the times they were plentiful and times that weren't. Trying to discuss things with atheists, we never get that far in our discussion before ad hominems
I suppose the abiogenesis argument is that they're here, so why couldn't they have formed in primordial Earth? I don't think many scientists believe the prebiotic gases used in Miller-Urey experiment were correct anymore. Yet, I think that's still their main starting point and argument for amino acids on primordial Earth. IOW, there hasn't been a newer experiment with different gases.
These Puritan atheists spend their days searching for “earth like “ planets in hopes of life...from the most earth line of planets where life only happened once.
Increadible.
Yes, abiogenesis is a theory. I should note that your science vocabulary is very limited so your “just a theory” comment carries with it a great deal of ignorance from your creation ministries.
Theories can be tested. How we test for one or more of your gods? iD’iot creationists know with certainty they cannot test for their polytheistic gods. They are uninterested in testing any ideas about how their gods used magical means to create existence 6,000 years ago. Scientists working in abiogenesis develop and test models without the need for supernatural intervention.
You are confused and off-base. The testable hypotheses of how abiogensis occured (which comprise the scientific theory of abiogensis) are falsifiable. This is science.It just hit me that abiogenesis isn't real science because one cannot falsify it.
