Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

[ding]

I didn’t say by. I said from.

And I wasn’t changing the subject. I was correcting you.

You said BreezeWood believes in an eternal universe. I think you lied about that. Moreover, you didn't answer my question of creation ex nihilo or universe ex nihilo? I'll assume you don't know. Even your Pope Francis knows.

I didn’t lie about anything.

He believes in a cyclical universe which had no beginning or end. That’s eternal.

I did answer it. You didn’t understand my answer.

 

[ding]

So science, which operates in a deterministic universe that follows laws, tells us that abiogenesis is a fact.

Just as star formation is a fact.

Who seem to be the only people who have a problem with this rather mundane, obvious fact?

Religious people. It's all right here in the thread, in black and white.

I consider myself religious and I have forgotten more science than you ever knew.

 

[Third Party]

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. .

I am still processing how the church said the world is flat-believe or die.

 

[Hollie]

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. .

I am still processing how the church said the world is flat-believe or die.

The church, especially in Medieval Europe, was an entity with sweeping powers. The clergy was ruthless in suppressing science and discovery. They labeled mathematicians, astronomers, writers, etc., as heretics and subjected them to the most gruesome forms of torture and slow death. The church literally held back civilization for 800 years.

 

[james bond]

Actually, the CMB affirmed the Big Bang scenario implied by Friedmann-Lemaître's solution to Einstein's field equations.

The CMB, discovered in 1965, originally caused problems for the big bang theory at the time because the radiation fit the steady state theory. The Friedmann-Lemaitre was a precursor to today's big bang, but it wasn't widely accepted until Hubble's finding of an expanding universe. Even Einstein rejected Friedmann-Lemaitre originally and thought eternal universe.

"Success was achieved in a classic paper published in 1957, where they showed how the elements could be produced by a combination of fusion in the cores of massive stars (for the lighter ones), capture of free neutrons also in stellar cores, and reaction chains that proceed rapidly in supernova explosions, basically the modern theory that we have already discussed. In the meantime, it was realized that fusion in the Big Bang would not have extended above helium and lithium, so that this event could not have been responsible for the creation of the elements. The Steady State advocates' alternative of formation in stars and supernovae was the correct explanation."

Steady State vs. Big Bang

Interesting that Penzias-Wilson got the Nobel Prize for their discovery while Gamow got zilch.

The CMB showed there was a beginning and ended up backing the big bang theory through Hubble's discovery.

 

[james bond]

Your usual tactic. When your attempts at argument fail because your sources are hack creation ministries, you declare victory and scurry away.

Such childish games are an embarrassment.

I am going to change my creation arguments to use Judaism to you. Their Torah discusses Genesis and they argue the same things we are arguing. It would eliminate the hate and prejudice you have for Christians.

I sorta see you as Hilary whenever you post your screed.

 

[Hollie]

Your usual tactic. When your attempts at argument fail because your sources are hack creation ministries, you declare victory and scurry away.

Such childish games are an embarrassment.

I am going to change my creation arguments to use Judaism. Their Torah discusses Genesis and they argue the same things we are arguing. It would eliminate the hate and prejudice you have for Christians.

View attachment 278455

I sorta see you as Hilary whenever you post your screed.

Christianity co-opted much of Hebrew theism and literally stole portions of Judaism.

Do you know where the OT came from?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No it's not. Life may very well have originated elsewhere and been brought here via meteorites and other space debris...

Which would still requure abiogenesism, but at a different location.

So yes, it remains a fact.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That was a profoundly intuitive guess.

Not really. They had to dream up a myth using the tools and materials they knew about. So, create space, then light, then the planet, then the things on it. There is nothing really intuitive about that. And, of course, no mention of any knowledge they did not have available at the time.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

No it's not. Life may very well have originated elsewhere and been brought here via meteorites and other space debris...

Which would still requure abiogenesism, but at a different location.

So yes, it remains a fact.

...Or that life has existed since the beginning of time which would put in dispute abiogenesis and instead that life is a natural function of the universe..... In which case have you come up with any further explanation for the creation of the universe than that it magically appeared in a big bang approximately fifteen billion years ago? After all your version sounds a lot like the opening lines of the biblical Genesis.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Or that life has existed since the beginning of time which would put in dispute abiogenesis and instead that life is a natural function of the universe..

Interesting. By what magic, though? We already know the matter in our universe has only been around for a finite amount of time. That would include life.

 

[Ringtone]

Actually, the CMB affirmed the Big Bang scenario implied by Friedmann-Lemaître's solution to Einstein's field equations.

The CMB, discovered in 1965, originally caused problems for the big bang theory at the time because the radiation fit the steady state theory. The Friedmann-Lemaitre was a precursor to today's big bang, but it wasn't widely accepted until Hubble's finding of an expanding universe. Even Einstein rejected Friedmann-Lemaitre originally and thought eternal universe.

"Success was achieved in a classic paper published in 1957, where they showed how the elements could be produced by a combination of fusion in the cores of massive stars (for the lighter ones), capture of free neutrons also in stellar cores, and reaction chains that proceed rapidly in supernova explosions, basically the modern theory that we have already discussed. In the meantime, it was realized that fusion in the Big Bang would not have extended above helium and lithium, so that this event could not have been responsible for the creation of the elements. The Steady State advocates' alternative of formation in stars and supernovae was the correct explanation."

Steady State vs. Big Bang

Interesting that Penzias-Wilson got the Nobel Prize for their discovery while Gamow got zilch.

The CMB showed there was a beginning and ended up backing the big bang theory through Hubble's discovery.

Sigh

You're conflating important distinctions, and as a result your understanding of things is wrong.

First things first. For some reason I referred to ding as dblack. Brainfart.

The discovery of the CMB was essentially the death knell for the Steady State theory. The Friedmann-Lemaitre solution is not a precursor to the Big Bang as such at all. The solution actually supported both the Big Bang and Steady State theories. The solution gives a homogeneous, isotropic and expanding universe. The Friedmann-Lemaitre solution in and of itself does not give a cosmological beginning. That's why I used the term implied. It implies a beginning only in terms of expansion. A beginning does not necessarily follow from the solution alone.

Lemaitre was the first to assert an expanding universe as predicated on his independently derived solution and affirmed by his calculi relative to the astronomical observations made by Vesto Slipher, not Hubble! Lemaitre was the first to posit "Hubble's" Law as well. Lemaitre published his discovery in 1927, Hubble, in 1929. Lemaitre was initially overlooked because his proof was first published in an obscure journal before being translated and republished in English in a journal with a wider audience. Once again:

However, like Friedmann's paper, Lemaître's "A homogeneous Universe of constant mass and growing radius accounting for the radial velocity of extragalactic nebulae" of 1927 was published in an obscure journal. It was translated into English in 1931 and republished by the Royal Astronomical Society, but in 1929 Edwin Hubble published his paper on the velocity-distance relation with a more precise constant for the rate of expansion: "A Relation between Distance and Radial Velocity among Extra-Galactic Nebulae". Notwithstanding, Hubble used virtually the same input data as that previously used by Lemaître, and, once again, Lemaître was the first to unequivocally attribute the pertinent astronomical observations to the expanding universe described by the field equations of general relativity!

Lemaître got his due in 1931 for connecting galactic recession directly to his astronomical calculations and the pertinent calculi of general relativity, and the velocity-distance relation is sometimes more properly referred to as Hubble-Lemaître's law in the literature. (Lemaître struck his estimation of the expansion rate from his translated paper in deference to Hubble's more accurate calculations.) The myth that Hubble was the first to discover that the universe is expanding persists because Hubble's 1929 calculi for the rate of expansion were more accurate and because his and Milton Humason's follow-up paper "The Velocity-Distance Relation among Extra-Galactic Nebulae" (1931) provided an even more decisively comprehensive observational foundation for an expanding universe, which put the matter beyond all reasonable doubt. What Einstein's relativity theories were to physics, Lemaître and Hubble's discovery was to cosmology—a seismic event. Finally, in this wise, physicists Howard Robertson and Arthur Walker working together but independently of Friedmann and Lemaître, derived a variant of Friedmann's solution in 1934. Hence, the classic solution of the Einstein field equations giving a dynamically homogeneous and isotropic universe is referred to as the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) space-time metric (or the standard model of modern cosmology). In the face of the findings of Hubble-Humason of 1931, Einstein finally accepted that the universe was expanding, of course, but rejected Lemaître's apparent beginning.​

Also see:
Who really discovered Hubble’s Law?
Who Really Discovered The Expanding Universe?
Move over, Hubble: Discovery of expanding cosmos assigned to little-known Belgian astronomer-priest | Science | AAAS
Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia

Lemaitre went one step further and posited a beginning for the universe. As I wrote in the above, he posited what became known as the Big Bang theory, what he called "the hypothesis of the primæval atom", which he elaborated on in 1931: https://www.nature.com/articles/127706b0. Friedmann-Lemaitre's solution giving an expanding universe was never rejected as such; it was merely not affirmed until Lemaitre and Hubble's astronomical observations and the calculi thereof! You're conflating the solution, which gives an expanding universe, with Lemaitre's theoretical extrapolation, which gives a cosmological beginning. They are not necessarily the same thing. With the falsification of the Steady State, we have the calculi of general relativity yielding a beginning to our spacetime at the very least. Hence, Friedmann-Lemaitre, insofar as it pertains to an expanding universe, was established no latter than 1931. It was Hubble-Humason more extensive proof of 1931 that finally convinced Einstein that the Friedmann-Lemaitre solution was correct and caused him to remark that his cosmological constant was the greatest blunder of his career. It was Lemaitre's theoretical extrapolation—Lemaitre's cosmogony of a beginning via the primæval atom!—that Einstein rejected, not the Friedmann-Lemaitre solution of an expanding universe. Yes. Einstein held to an eternal universe believing that this would eventually be shown quantum mechanically. Einstein rejected both the Big Bang and the Steady State theories. He was averse to a beginning on one hand, and regarded the calculi of a steady state to be contrived.

The CMB did not undermine the Big Bang scenario in any way, shape or form "because the radiation fit the steady state theory" as you claim! You're conflating things again. On the contrary, the CMB affirmed the final state of the Big Bang epoch of cosmological development (approximately 380.000 years after the exponential expansion epoch). Indeed, the Big Bang theory predicted the discovery of the CMB; the Steady State theory did not! Here you're conflating the proof worked out by steady state theorists regarding the stellar nucleosynthesis of heavy elements with the CMB itself. All this proof did was improve our understanding of the Big Bang scenario. It was soon shown that it supported the Big Bang, not a steady state. All the proof actually showed was that Gamow-Alpher's notion that the heavy elements were synthesized at the beginning of the Big Bang epoch was wrong. This could not occur until after the end of the Big Bang epoch, not until after the universe had cooled enough for the mostly plasma state of matter to clump and form stars. Gamow-Alpher correctly predicted the discovery of the CMB, but they were wrong about the order of things. As it turns out their error did not impinge on the veracity of the Big Bang scenario at all. Moreover, most scientists had already come to have grave doubts about the Steady State model once it was shown that bright radio quasars and galaxies were found only at large distances. This means they existed only in the distant past. This is precisely what the Big Bang predicted. The Steady State predicted they would be found everywhere, distributed throughout the universe. These astronomical observations were made before the discovery of the CMB. Hence, the support for the Steady State theory had already seriously eroded in the light of the mounting evidence before the CMB was discovered. The CMB precisely reflects what the final state of the Big Bang epoch would look like.

You read things out of my post that refute your account and read things into your source that aren't there because of the conflations in you head. Look, the history of the development of the Big Band theory is complex, and that's not the end of the tale.

 

[ding]

That the universe had a beginning cannot be refuted. The data is overwhelming.

So the question is how can energy be created from nothing and not violate the first law of thermodynamics?

And the answer is the net energy of the universe is zero.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Or that life has existed since the beginning of time which would put in dispute abiogenesis and instead that life is a natural function of the universe..

Interesting. By what magic, though? We already know the matter in our universe has only been around for a finite amount of time. That would include life.

So where did all matter come from??? Are you saying the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe out of nothing? Sure sounds like it to me and if it created all that matter why not life also...

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So where did all matter come from???

It started as a plasma of particles (not atoms). Prior to that, it was a state of energy that we cannot describe.

Did you not know this? I thought you were a science buff.

No atoms = no life.

Why would i posit a creator of any kind? I'm not a child.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

So where did all matter come from???

It started as a plasma of particles (not atoms). Prior to that, it was a state of energy that we cannot describe.

So this plasma just decided magically that it was a good time to be set in motion one day approximately fifteen billion years ago?

Did you not know this? I thought you were a science buff.

I know more than you about it.

*****CHUCKLE*****

No atoms = no life.

So you know definitively and beyond doubt what constitutes life?

Why would i posit a creator of any kind? I'm not a child.

That's debatable. You kneel at the alter of science and talk as though it is absolute fact. When in reality much of what you consider "proven" science is actually just hypotheses and theories about the way the universe works. In turn you point and say there is scientific consensus from the ministers of your faith. But the truth is most of those theories and hypotheses will probably be proven just as wrong as some of the religious dogma that others believe. However I see how having this gives you comfort and how you feel you need to fight the infidels of your just cause all for your high god of scientific consensus.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[MoonPie]

That was a profoundly intuitive guess.

Not really. They had to dream up a myth using the tools and materials they knew about. So, create space, then light, then the planet, then the things on it. There is nothing really intuitive about that. And, of course, no mention of any knowledge they did not have available at the time.

All from nothing

 

[DOTR]

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.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So this plasma just decided magically that it was a good time to be set in motion one day approximately fifteen billion years ago?

No, magic is for religious peole like you. You are the one proposing magic. Not me.

I know more than you about it.

Apparently not...

So you know definitively and beyond doubt what constitutes life?

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.

You kneel at the alter of science and talk as though it is absolute fact.

False. I say things like, "it is likely that", and, "it is correct and safe to assume as 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.

 

[james bond]

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.