Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yet, I think that's still their main starting point and argument for amino acids on primordial Earth.

Well, You're wrong. You are referring to a hypothesis. That experiment was one devised way of testing the hypothesis.

Do you guys understand that we have done many, many other experiments since then?

 

[Hollie]

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.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

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.

What makes me religious in your mind? Additionally I'm not the one proposing that you can get something from nothing like you are.

I know more than you about it.

Apparently not...

*****ROFLMAO*****

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.

What makes the question I posed as magical? Are you a carbon/oxygen chauvinist? Sounds like it to me.

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".

Sure you do.

You keep confusing yourself, crybaby.

No confusion... Do you need a tissue?

Of the two of us, only one of us makes claims with certainty...

I'm glad you admit that you're making such claims.

...That would be you , armed eith your iron aged myths you insist , without a shred of evidence, are true.

Which iron aged myths would those be???

Why are you attempting to assert some sort of claim with absolute certainty about me.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[james bond]

Do you guys understand that we have done many, many other experiments since then?

Still, not much results. Try reading some Dr. Duane Gish instead of your circular thinking types and their assumptions.

Abiogenesis is still a theory, so no life yet.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What makes me religious in your mind?

Your prior postings... Am i mistaken? Nope.

The rest of your post was irrelevant whining. As usual.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

What makes me religious in your mind?

Your prior postings... Am i mistaken? Nope.

Do I detect more certainty here? Do please point out my religiousness with your Witches Hammer Of Scientific Consensus.

*****CHUCKLE*****

The rest of your post was irrelevant whining. As usual.

It's spelled winning.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[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.

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.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Do I detect more certainty here

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!

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.

 

[Hollie]

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, 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.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Do I detect more certainty here

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!

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.

Really??? What religious teachings and doctrines have you seen me toting out to use on you?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[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.

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.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

Which is the smart thing to do. Which is why brilliant scientists do it, and why you don't get it.

We don't have the means to do a comprehensive survey, and life under these conditions is the only life we know anything about.

So, it makes sense. Trust me, they have no need of your assistance or moral support.

 

[james bond]

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.

One person was lying and leading people on as if abiogenesis was fact. What I showed was there was no successful experiment even one that created amino acids. The other person, you, kept arguing against God and ID instead of understanding what was being presented as evidence. First, you claimed both creationism and ID were the same.

One can lead a horse to water, but cannot make them think. 1) Dr. Louis Pasteur showed that spontaneous generation does not happen with heat sterilization and without oxygen, O2. 2) Oxygen, O2, is not wanted in Miller-Urey experiement or else it causes the hydrogen to explode. 3) Miller-Urey assumed incorrectly the type of gases in the early, primordial atmosphere. 4) With the volcanic gases of the primordial atmosphere used, the amino acids do not form. 5) There are more criticisms of Miller-Urey, other abiogenesis experiments, and the basis of the abiogenesis process, but the opposition does not have to go further because amino acids do not happen through abiogenesis. 6) Amino acids form in an air-water mixture is claimed. 7) Amino acids dissolve in water. Experimental fact. 8) Life only forms in unsterilized environments, such as dirty air or water, but it was there to begin with. 9) Life only begats more life. 10) Proteins cannot be created outside the single cell. Experimental evidence. 11) There is more, but I already showed enough in the first paragraph that both you and the other person were wrong.

 

[james bond]

It just hit me that abiogenesis isn't real science because one cannot falsify it. Abiogenesis claims life happened through natural processes. To falsify it, one has to assume life happened through a not natural process or a supernatural process. Abiogenesis debunked through the philosophy of science.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It just hit me that abiogenesis isn't real science because one cannot falsify it.

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.

"Abiogensis" is just the name given to formation of life. By your same error, one might say "star formation is not falsifiable", which, obviously, is an error and belies confusion of what science is.

Hope that helps.