Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Theories and evidence for Abiogenesis are a threat to certain religious people because it not only deletes a necessity for a god, but it also disproves the creation myths, thus removing any obligation or need for certain religious practices. And to those whose wallets are stuffed by the religious business, this is a very real threat to their livelihood.
What we must remember is that while we see myths, like the ones found in the book of Genesis as simply myths, folktales by an ancient tribe by which the origins of the universe can be explained, certain few religious people still exist in the 21st century who see these myths as facts, as actual account of cosmic origin.
While we use science, which is demonstrable, and provable, and we base our theories on logic and reason, many of the religious community is not only unfamiliar with them, but they would not have the insight to understand them even if they were presented. Most do not want to give up the security of a " sky daddy", or of a long dead "Messiah" who is going to return any minute now and rebuild the world.
And some do not want to give up the paycheck and power that a belief in a "skydaddy" provides.
There are some religious people who say "Look at the world, it cannot happen without a god"
Well, yes it can. And we are starting to see how it can.
Of course, some religious people cannot look at the world past their own narrow limits of their mind, but for those of us who have gazed at the stars, had telescopes as Christmas presents when we were kids, spent time in libraries, museums, planetariums, and read the works of any 20th or 21st century astrophysicist, we all know one thing: that the Universe is pretty Dang huge. And pretty awesome too.
So one might talk about how rare it might be for the conditions on earth to have formed that first organic compound, which is not really that rare, given the time and conditions, but multiply that by the billions and billions (as Carl Sagan would say) STARS and the fact taht we are discovering, as I had theorized as a junior astronomer at age 12, that there are planets around almost every star. So take that number, and the odds of an organic molecule forming go up. AND since the universe is in constant motion, constant explosions, collisions, death and rebirth, it is easy for a molecule to latch onto a piece of rock and end up in another solar system some 500,000,000 million years later. Which really sets us to wondering about life elsewhere, as it may be more abundant in the universe than our technology allows us to discover at this time.
And that connects back to the religion. Some religious types are not going to understand what it would take to get to and explore a nearby planet, like the one around P Centauri, but maybe they do not want to. Because in the end, it might diminish the need for a god, and point to the fact that one never existed perhaps in the first place ! (Thanks again Carl Sagan)
For some, it is far easier to live in a fictional world of gods and demons because it seems so much simpler, black and white and requires no effort, after all why bother when The Prophet will be back any moment now?
But for the rest of the world, for those of us who believe that mankind's problems will be solved only by man, this knowledge and research opens many many doors and paths to just that solution.
It is interesting to read that phosphorus, which was previously assumed to be required to have replicate RNA, that other processes may have worked.
"So Segrè and his team applied computational systems biology – a theoretical approach that uses mathematical models to explore diverse branching pathways of biochemical reactions – to identify a set of eight phosphate-free compounds that would have been abundant in our ancient oceans.
They then applied an algorithm to simulate primitive metabolism based on these chemicals, which included iron-sulphides and sulphur-containing compounds called thioesters, allowing them to evaluate how a bunch of different reactions might have occurred.
The researchers found that a core network of 315 reactions involving 260 metabolites could support the production of a vast range of complex organic compounds necessary for life, including amino acids and carboxylic acids.
Since early biochemistry failed to leave much evidence in the way of fossils, we're left to put together what pieces we can with mathematical models such as these.
While this isn't proof-positive of a phosphate-free kick-off to life, it does add evidence to the possibility that life emerged from chemistry most organisms no longer rely on."
Interesting though quantum physics usually confuses me. I just read The Grand Design by Stephen Hawkings and Leonard Mlodinow and it explains things in simpler terms and allowed me to see more of what scientists think is happening. It's still a bit weird to think of quantum interference, but the illustrations in the book do help some.
It is interesting to read that phosphorus, which was previously assumed to be required to have replicate RNA, that other processes may have worked.
"So Segrè and his team applied computational systems biology – a theoretical approach that uses mathematical models to explore diverse branching pathways of biochemical reactions – to identify a set of eight phosphate-free compounds that would have been abundant in our ancient oceans.
They then applied an algorithm to simulate primitive metabolism based on these chemicals, which included iron-sulphides and sulphur-containing compounds called thioesters, allowing them to evaluate how a bunch of different reactions might have occurred.
The researchers found that a core network of 315 reactions involving 260 metabolites could support the production of a vast range of complex organic compounds necessary for life, including amino acids and carboxylic acids.
Since early biochemistry failed to leave much evidence in the way of fossils, we're left to put together what pieces we can with mathematical models such as these.
While this isn't proof-positive of a phosphate-free kick-off to life, it does add evidence to the possibility that life emerged from chemistry most organisms no longer rely on."
But that's not evidence.
It's just another hypotheses. Not even a theory!
Just another guess.
Truth is, science has not a clue how Abiogenesis occurred, of if it even did. They also think panspermia might have been the origin of life here! Which, btw, really poses more questions than it answers.
Hello, science has gleaned very little since Miller Urey, which was over fifty years ago and was pretty much a failure.
The failure of science to come close to explaining let alone proving Abiogenesis is actually one of the better arguments that the creationists have!
Interesting article of a fish that is evolving now, as we speak, to become land dwellers. Of course, there are numerous fish that can exist some time out of water, and who knows which method, or perhaps multiple methods, that caused evolution to land dwellers.
Truth is, science has not a clue how Abiogenesis occurred, of if it even did. They also think panspermia might have been the origin of life here! Which, btw, really poses more questions than it answers.
Hello, science has gleaned very little since Miller Urey, which was over fifty years ago and was pretty much a failure.
The failure of science to come close to explaining let alone proving Abiogenesis is actually one of the better arguments that the creationists have!
Ignorance is not an argument - it is a fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam - more commonly known as God of the gaps for the creationists. If that is one of the better arguments for creationism then creationism has it feet firmly planted in mid air. Maybe creationist would like to EXPLAIN how god created life from non-life and not just assert a sky magician. Oh wait they don't have any explanation all they have are fallacious assertions. They love hiding in the gaps of our collective ignorance claiming YHWH or Allah or The Grand Pink Bunny created all things.
03-21-2017, 09:51 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by dillionmt
Interesting article of a fish that is evolving now, as we speak, to become land dwellers. Of course, there are numerous fish that can exist some time out of water, and who knows which method, or perhaps multiple methods, that caused evolution to land dwellers.
I will admit to a bit of amazement that explaining HOW something came about (by the Nature God) could in any way refute the existence of God. If it exists, it had to have a way of coming into existence so explaining HOW that happened tells us nothing about the existence of the Nature God making it possible.
I will admit to a bit of amazement that explaining HOW something came about (by the Nature God) could in any way refute the existence of God. If it exists, it had to have a way of coming into existence so explaining HOW that happened tells us nothing about the existence of the Nature God making it possible.
You needn't be amazed. In fact I am rather amazed that you haven't yet learned that explaining how something could have come about - or even producing convincing evidence that it did so - is never claimed by atheism to refute the existence of a god (1). It merely means that the Gap for god -argument/"you -have-no-other -explanation-so-Godmusthadunnit" put forward as evidence that a god must exist (which it isn't evidence for at all) is no longer even a poor argument for the existence of God.
id. est no good reason to believe a god exists. Which is all the rationale atheism needs. I remain amazed that this simple concept seems so hard for the theists to get their heads around.
I suspect that arguing from an a priori God -belief and arguing that this belief needs to be disproved (burden of proof falls on atheism) is the problem here.
No good reason to believe in a god is the rationale, not hard and convincing evidence that there isn't one, though negative evidence (despite those who - with an agenda - try to wave "argument from silence" away) can be very compelling. Foe example, as Shiloh hinted above, the existence of critters that look demonstrably as though they evolved, over a long progression of time and not always very perfectly, rather pushes a designer into the untenable claims area where the gap for a god becomes smaller.
Abiogenesis was (Is) a remaining gap, But any plausible explanation, while not ..what did LAXstar say...? " science has not a clue how Abiogenesis occurred, " Well, more than that. We have some plausible mechanisms and scenarios, and maybe that's how it was, maybe not. Panspermia is an alternative possibility, but (just like the god -theory) no plausible evidence for it has stood up to scrutiny.
And...while Mensa appears to have goaded us into putting up a decent defence of the thread as I was saying in a DM today, if we don't discuss the peripheral subjects that provide an alternative rationale and evidence base to 'Goddunnit' - and evolution was perhaps the biggest, marking the replacement of deism with Atheism because there was now another explanation - if we can't discuss, social, legal, logical and cosmic -origin matters, if we can't discuss Middle eastern antiquity, Bibletext criticism or the application of deduction to anecdotal claims, and are confined to agnosticism or atheism per se and exclusively, then we have nothing to talk about and are effectively silenced.
Which some there are would love to see.
(1) one, that is, which is in any way different from the unthinking processes of nature - and you can call it "God" if you want to. I choose not to
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-21-2017 at 12:47 PM..
Reason: delete an "h" here..add a foopnote there...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Abiogenesis: More evidence
as I was saying in a DM today, if we don't discuss the peripheral subjects that provide an alternative rationale and evidence base to 'Goddunnit' - and evolution was perhaps the biggest, marking the replacement of deism with Atheism because there was now another explanation - if we can't discuss, social, legal, logical and cosmic -origin matters, if we can't discuss Middle eastern antiquity, Bibletext criticism or the application of deduction to anecdotal claims, and are confined to agnosticism or atheism per se and exclusively, then we have nothing to talk about and are effectively silenced.