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 still requires the existance of organic (Living) material in order to occur. Where did the organic chemicals come from originally? That would be the question that science cannot explain.
Look at this,(parody warning), The scientist says to God "You are irrelevant because I have created man from dirt" God says "Well that is great, show me" the scientist "Well you take some dirt..." "Hold on" says God "Get your own dirt".
Can they explain the origin of organic chemicals and inanimate objects?
Yes, but we know there was an origin of life because, well, here we are. So the evolutionist doesn't need to prove anything about the origin of life in order to discuss evolution. That's the confusion I'm trying to clear.
This is true and as pointed out in the other thread I agree that the arguement is not between evolution and creation but between creation and abiogenesis. So we are on the same page here.
I had mentioned the following article in another thread (on evolution). It's about how a chemist approaches the idea of abiogenesis, more with the assumptions of the laws of thermodynamics and how those might have dictated how certain kinds of molecules would react to a situation of nonequilibrium in energy states in their environment. His basic point is a commonplace, that a scientist would assume no difference between organic processes and nonorganic processes.
Why Life Originated (And Why it Continues)
//
“The most important idea in our study is that there is no distinction between animate and inanimate,” Arto Annila told PhysOrg.com. “Processes of life are, in their principles, no different from any other natural processes.”
In their study, which is published in the International Journal of Astrobiology, the researchers considered a primordial pool that contained some basic compounds. By reacting with one another and coupling with an external energy source such as the Sun, the compounds formed a chemical system. The compounds continually engaged in chemical reactions, thriving the most when capturing and distributing more and more of the Sun’s energy in the quest for a steady state. The evolutionary process was and still is non-deterministic, even chaotic, since the energy flows create energy differences that in turn affect the flows.
Due to random variations stemming from the chemical reactions, some novel compounds may have emerged in the primordial system. Some of these compounds (such as those involving carbon) might have been exceptionally good at creating energy flow, enabling the system to diminish energy differences very efficiently and reach a higher level of entropy. Compounds with these advantages would have gained ground during this period of primitive chemical evolution. But the scientists emphasize that identifying which exact compounds were key players during this period would be very difficult to determine.
//
I am sorry but that looks like the same thing coral does and we all know that a sponge is a bunch of single celled organisms joining in a colony and not to form and organist just like coral. This still does not explain the formation of more complex organisms. If anything is is the same as pregnancy on a slower scale. It also still does not explain where the original organic material was created.
Abiogenesis still requires the existance of organic (Living) material in order to occur. Where did the organic chemicals come from originally?
Be careful how you use the word 'organic'? If you aren't referring to actual living things, then they are just compounds, not organic compounds.
It is reasonable to believe that it's possible that the earliest living thing (can reproduce and can maintain distinct morphology versus its environment) was organized from compounds and in a manner quite different from any living thing existing today. There would not have been any DNA. A pre-DNA living thing is a difficult object to create in the lab, no doubt. Even if today's scientists do create such a thing, it is only a demonstration of priniciples and possibilities. It is likely impossible to know which molecules were the basis for all of today's living things. If scientists can create even one such precursor life form, it would serve as an example only of the principles involved, not direct ancestry.
I am sorry but that looks like the same thing coral does and we all know that a sponge is a bunch of single celled organisms joining in a colony and not to form and organist just like coral. This still does not explain the formation of more complex organisms. If anything is is the same as pregnancy on a slower scale. It also still does not explain where the original organic material was created.
But you said:
There is absolutely no evidence for single celled organisms becoming multicelled organism other than pregnancy.
Well there it is. Evidence, but I guess nothing will make you accept that it can happen.
The planet is 4.5 billion years old, this was just a thing that happened as a result of needing to survive from another single celled predator. Assuming the predator also evolved, left for 2 billion years or so, who knows what may evolve?
did anyone else notice that the peanutbutter jar's packaging was already open? lol just to make sure nothing crrrrrrawls out!
lol
but seriously....it SSSSSSSAddens me to see things like that in this day and age! and it's even more pathatic for others to buy into it!
Abiogenesis still requires the existance of organic (Living) material in order to occur. Where did the organic chemicals come from originally? That would be the question that science cannot explain.
Look at this,(parody warning), The scientist says to God "You are irrelevant because I have created man from dirt" God says "Well that is great, show me" the scientist "Well you take some dirt..." "Hold on" says God "Get your own dirt".
Can they explain the origin of organic chemicals and inanimate objects?
Be careful how you use the word 'organic'? If you aren't referring to actual living things, then they are just compounds, not organic compounds.
It is reasonable to believe that it's possible that the earliest living thing (can reproduce and can maintain distinct morphology versus its environment) was organized from compounds and in a manner quite different from any living thing existing today. There would not have been any DNA. A pre-DNA living thing is a difficult object to create in the lab, no doubt. Even if today's scientists do create such a thing, it is only a demonstration of priniciples and possibilities. It is likely impossible to know which molecules were the basis for all of today's living things. If scientists can create even one such precursor life form, it would serve as an example only of the principles involved, not direct ancestry.
Thank you and I appreciate the explination and If I am understanding correctly this has not been done as of yet and therefor is an unproven theory possibly placing abiogenesis in similar category to creation in that neither can be proven to scientific satisfaction.
Thank you again.
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.
