Organic Materials Essential for Life on Earth are Found for the First time on the Surface of an Asteroid

[Hollie]

Precisely! There's nothing particularly earth-shattering about this. We have known for almost 40 years via the examination of meteorites that astroids convey organic material, including certain amines and amino acids. Certain organic materials are ubiquitous. These abiotic chemical precursors are light-years from life.

Abiogenesis is a pipedream.

Abiogenesis is a pipedream?

We know with absolute certainty it occurred so, no, not a pipedream.

You fell down and bumped your head again, right?

 

[Ringtone]

Abiogenesis is a pipedream?

We know with absolute certainty it occurred so, no, not a pipedream.

You fell down and bumped your head again, right?

Abiogenesis is the notion that life chemically evolved from nonliving material via strictly natural processes.

Only fools believe that.

Life comes from life. Life was directly engineered by God from the organic compounds of the Universe.

Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism​

By Michael Rawlings, a.k.a., Ringtone

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

None of us know when life got going.

But the evidence shows us it likely formed right here on earth, about 4 billion years ago. We can constrain it to a window of a few hundred million years. And there is a complete lack of reason or evidence to think anything else but this happened.

You are free to look for and to produce evidence otherwise. Since there isn't any. You are free to try to invent a valid argument to the contrary. But none exists so far, and I doubt you will succeed where people far superior to you intellectually have failed.

Until then... what use are ya? Just some uneducated slob naysayer, saying dumb things that educated people have to correct.

 

[BackAgain]

But the evidence shows us it likely formed right here on earth, about 4 billion years ago. We can constrain it to a window of a few hundred million years. And there is a complete lack of reason or evidence to think anything else but this happened.

You are free to look for and to produce evidence otherwise. Since there isn't any. You are free to try to invent a valid argument to the contrary. But none exists so far, and I doubt you will succeed where people far superior to you intellectually have failed.

Until then... what use are ya? Just some uneducated slob naysayer, saying dumb things that educated people have to correct.

Your incoherence is worse than usual. And, boy, that’s saying something.

Scientists have estimated that life began at around the 3.6 billion year mark after Earth got formed. Some have speculated that it could have been maybe even earlier. And they make these estimates based on evidence, you complete shithead.

But you keep losing the focus (probably because you’re so stupid). I’m here to help ya. The focus is EVIDENCE of abiogenesis. Seeing a fossil really ain’t the same thing, you idiot, because a fossil is evidence of something that was already alive.

Evidence for how something went from matter that wasn’t alive to something that was “life” is difficult to contemplate. You may continue to blather your bullshit to the contrary, but the question you asked is still absolutely stupid.

 

[Ringtone]

Your incoherence is worse than usual. And, boy, that’s saying something.

Scientists have estimated that life began at around the 3.6 billion year mark after Earth got formed. Some have speculated that it could have been maybe even earlier. And they make these estimates based on evidence, you complete shithead.

But you keep losing the focus (probably because you’re so stupid). I’m here to help ya. The focus is EVIDENCE of abiogenesis. Seeing a fossil really ain’t the same thing, you idiot, because a fossil is evidence of something that was already alive.

Evidence for how something went from matter that wasn’t alive to something that was “life” is difficult to contemplate. You may continue to blather your bullshit to the contrary, but the question you asked is still absolutely stupid.

Actually, your numbers are off. It is thought that the Earth formed approximately 4.6 billion years ago and that the first forms of life appeared about 1 billion years after that! Hence, life began about 3.6 billion years ago. Look it up.

 

[BackAgain]

Actually, your numbers are off. It is thought that the Earth formed approximately 4.6 billion years ago and that the first forms of life appeared about 1 billion years after that! Hence, life began about 3.6 billion years ago. Look it up.

Yep. My bad

I was recalling the numbers. Incorrectly. I agree with your numbers as being a valid correction.

It wasn’t 3.6 billion years after the Earth formed. It was 3.6 billion years ago. Life may have come into being even before that ~ 1 billion year mark from what I recall (according to estimates by some scientists).

Back to the point though. I still don’t know how we would recognize evidence of abiogenesis. We (meaning scientists, not me) may be able to infer a likely set of necessary conditions. But what the actual evidence of abiogenesis would “look” like? Who knows?

 

[Ringtone]

Yep. My bad

I was recalling the numbers. Incorrectly. I agree with your numbers as being a valid correction.

It wasn’t 3.6 billion years after the Earth formed. It was 3.6 billion years ago. Life may have come into being even before that ~ 1 billion year mark from what I recall (according to estimates by some scientists).

Back to the point though. I still don’t know how we would recognize evidence of abiogenesis. We (meaning scientists, not me) may be able to infer a likely set of necessary conditions. But what the actual evidence of abiogenesis would “look” like? Who knows?

As to that point, you're absolutely correct. Fort Fun Indiana doesn't grasp the realities of the matter. The only thing that may be roughly determined is when life fisrt appeared. From that we roughly infer when conditions became viable. As for evidence of an actual instance of abiogenesis, baby talk. Such a thing could never be observed or verified--not now, not ever.

 

[Hollie]

Abiogenesis is the notion that life chemically evolved from nonliving material via strictly natural processes.

Only fools believe that.

Life comes from life. Life was directly engineered by God from the organic compounds of the Universe.

Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism​

By Michael Rawlings, a.k.a., Ringtone

Well, yes. Organic life would arise from strictly natural processes. What can you tell us about life arising from unnatural and / or supernatural processes?

Why is it foolish to conclude your versions of gods, which you can’t demonstrate or provide evidence for, are just different pleadings for fear and superstition? Your gods are distillations of the gods who were invented before the invention of your gods.

“Life comes from life…. because I say so”

Not an argument for those of us at the grown up table.

“Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism”​

Yes. I recall that grinding, ruthless plagiarizing of William Lane Craig you dumped into threads on this forum. It was just awful and you did a world class skedaddle when I shredded it so thoroughly it left you stuttering and mumbling.

 

[Ringtone]

Well, yes. Organic life would arise from strictly natural processes. What can you tell us about life arising from unnatural and / or supernatural processes?

Why is it foolish to conclude your versions of gods, which you can’t demonstrate or provide evidence for, are just different pleadings for fear and superstition? Your gods are distillations of the gods who were invented before the invention of your gods.

“Life comes from life…. because I say so”

Not an argument for those of us at the grown up table.

“Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism”​

Yes. I recall that grinding, ruthless plagiarizing of William Lane Craig you dumped into threads on this forum. It was just awful and you did a world class skedaddle when I shredded it so thoroughly it left you stuttering and mumbling.

God directly created/formed life from the available, nonliving organic material on Earth. Life did not evolve from nonliving material. Life cannot evolve from nonliving material. Abiogenesis--the notion that nature, the processes of mere chemistry, produced life--is a myth, the stuff of magic, superstition, fairytales . . . your grandmother's soiled bloomers.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Scientists have estimated that life began at around the 3.6 billion year mark after Earth got formed.

Yep. And that's just one constraint. As in, they know life had formed by then.

And they make these estimates based on evidence,

Right, exactly as I said. You are literally repeating my point back to me. So once again, you have spent so much of your life trolling, that you don't even recognize when someone says something with which you agree. Snap out of it, grow up manbaby.

So, once the tears have cleared... do you have any good reasonor evidence not to think life formed here by abiogensis?

No?

Oops, looks like you agree with me again. This is what it looks like when someone is more educated than you are on a topic and is two steps ahead of you at all times.

 

[Ringtone]

Yep. My bad

I was recalling the numbers. Incorrectly. I agree with your numbers as being a valid correction.

It wasn’t 3.6 billion years after the Earth formed. It was 3.6 billion years ago. Life may have come into being even before that ~ 1 billion year mark from what I recall (according to estimates by some scientists).

Back to the point though. I still don’t know how we would recognize evidence of abiogenesis. We (meaning scientists, not me) may be able to infer a likely set of necessary conditions. But what the actual evidence of abiogenesis would “look” like? Who knows?

By the way, Backagain, the reason that an instance of abiogenesis could never be observed is readily self-evident. Abiogenesis is not biochemical engineering. An instance of abiogenesis would be a spontaneous microsopic event. To obserse such a thing would require the means of observation looking at the precise place of occurance before it occured!

 

[Hollie]

God directly created/formed life from the available, nonliving organic material on Earth. Life did not evolve from nonliving material. Life cannot evolve from nonliving material. Abiogenesis--the notion that nature, the processes of mere chemistry, produced life--is a myth, the stuff of magic, superstition, fairytales . . . your grandmother's soiled bloomers.

You make claims about your gods which you know are unsupportable. Claims that your gods created anything presumes unsubstantiated opinion. That you are unable to present any reasoned argument in support of your gods and that you cannot connect any supernatural acts performed by your designer gods to any naturally occurring event is not without implications, implications which naturally lead to your claims about your gods being mere opinion by one religious zealot and one version of supernatural gods.

 

[BackAgain]

Yep. And that's just one constraint. As in, they know life had formed by then.



Right, exactly as I said. You are literally repeating my point back to me. So once again, you have spent so much of your life trolling, that you don't even recognize when someone says something with which you agree. Snap out of it, grow up manbaby.

So, once the tears have cleared... do you have any good reasonor evidence not to think life formed here by abiogensis?

No?

Oops, looks like you agree with me again. This is what it looks like when someone is more educated than you are on a topic and is two steps ahead of you at all times.

nope. The record of our conversation stands; not your historical revisionism and bullshit spin.

You are the imbecile who wanted me to tell you the answer to your incredibly stupid question. And if I didn’t provide you with an “answer” to your incredibly stupid faux question (which I promptly identified as being stupid and faux), your contention was that I was a ‘fraud.’ You valueless hack troll

You are a perpetual liar. You’re still obvious about it however. And you are, naturally, always unpersuasive. That latter fact has a lot to do with your obvious retardation.

I am pleased to have at least, finally, gotten you to see that “evidence” of abiogenesis wouldn’t be something we can necessarily ever identify. Maybe you now, at long last, can admit that your question was indeed a faux question and massively stupid. Like you.

 

[Hollie]

By the way, Backagain, the reason that an instance of abiogenesis could never be observed is readily self-evident. Abiogenesis is not biochemical engineering. An instance of abiogenesis would be a spontaneous microsopic event. To obserse such a thing would require the means of observation looking at the precise place of occurance before it occured!

Yet, life on this planet is unmistakably an observed instance of abiogenesis. Life is either the result of abiogenesis or supernatural intervention by any number of gods, your gods being the least likely.

We know with confidence that the planet is not a mere 6,000 years old. We know with certainty that biological evolution is a fact.

We have nothing to indicate that your gods, among all of the gods, had anything to do with life on the planet.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You are the imbecile who wanted me to tell you the answer to your incredibly stupid question

Only a fraud retreating at a full sprint would think asking "what would the evidence look like?" is a stupid question. It's literally the question at the heart of all science.

And it exposes frauds like you immediately.

And it just did. So we get a 10 page tantrum from you.

Please, keep making my point, for all to see.

 

[BackAgain]

By the way, Backagain, the reason that an instance of abiogenesis could never be observed is readily self-evident. Abiogenesis is not biochemical engineering. An instance of abiogenesis would be a spontaneous microsopic event. To obserse such a thing would require the means of observation looking at the precise place of occurance before it occured!

It is also highly unlikely that we could stumble upon a “fossil” of a single celled organism or that we would be able to recognize it as such even if we did come upon it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It is also highly unlikely that we could stumble upon a “fossil” of a single celled organism or that we would be able to recognize it as such even if we did come upon it.

It's so unlikely, that we have already done it more than once.

 

[Ringtone]

It is also highly unlikely that we could stumble upon a “fossil” of a single celled organism or that we would be able to recognize it as such even if we did come upon it.

Not so.

Single-celled life (fossil stromatolites), Fossils, Kentucky Geological Survey, University of Kentucky.

I think what you mean to say is that finding the fossil of the very first single-celled organism to have ever existed would be impossible.

 

[BackAgain]

Only a fraud retreating at a full sprint would think asking "what would the evidence look like?" is a stupid question. It's literally the question at the heart of all science.

And it exposes frauds like you immediately.

And it just did. So we get a 10 page tantrum from you.

Please, keep making my point, for all to see.

Your magnifenctly stupid question is not at the heart of all science. It’s not even at the heart of life science. It’s not even a coherent thought. Assuming (as most of us do) that there ever was an original non living piece of matter that got infused with the quality of “life,” it is unlikely that the first life left any trace of itself behind.

You reveal the depths of your ignorance ever more fully with each of your posts. So, I urge you to keep posting. That you are the fraud is now conclusively established. But piling on additional proof is entertaining. So, please continue.

 

[BackAgain]

It's so unlikely, that we have already done it more than once.

Nonsense. Your ignorant dishonesty continues unabated.

Please provide a link to any evidence for any ancient one-celled fossil.