Abiogenesis and Information? (issue)

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

Logic is a non-emotional process of the mind involving proofs. At least that's how I'd define it. Belief may or may not be true--but it's based on what a person perceives.

Since you didn't address the second part of my post, but based on the response to the first, can I safely assume that not logic but belief treads the myth/fairy tales line?

[NightBazaar]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

I believe that God formed Adam from dust and breathed life into him. That's a far cry from chemicals combining in a pool of soup.

You're to believe whatever you want. The point was that I gave you an example of life from non-life from an account you said you believe to be reasonably accurate which refutes your claim that life can only comes from life. As a comparison, it's not as far a cry as you seem to think though. How would you know if it is or isn't? My point wasn't about first cause. If you want to argue first cause of either, then you'd need to take things back, step by step, to the beginning of the universe or before it began.

It appears that you want all events to be instant for your own self-gratification, that nothing can happen gradually. You leap out about chemicals combining in a pool of soup, as though people are saying it all instantaneously appeared and happened - just like that. You're sounding more and more like a troll.

Even if you consider the Genesis account to be how it happened, it still involves a process in that dust had to be shaped and formed, and breath had to be applied before it became a living person. Why bother physically laboring to create life like that when all that would've been necessary is to say the word for life to come into existence? Isn't that what the Genesis account describes about the beginning of light, by just saying, "...Let there be..."?

Not only do you fail to understand what science is about, but you also fail to understand the very reference you believe to be accurate. Further, you frequently fail to provide any explanation to support your opinion other than that you believe it to be true. That's fine. If you believe your view is accurate and true, please explain WHY you believe it to be accurate and true and WHY other views are not accurate and true? All you've done is say you believe it, but have given no reliable examples or references to support your views. Examples please!

[NightBazaar]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

or how life got on that asteroid.

It is possible some form of life (bacterial) may have been present on meteorites, but no one can say that's true. There has been no indication of anything living on those meteorites. However, what can be said is that the building blocks for life have been found to be present in some of those meteorites. There's no mystery that organic compounds exist in space.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

Since you didn't address the second part of my post, but based on the response to the first, can I safely assume that not logic but belief treads the myth/fairy tales line?

I think the lack of logic leads to something like abiogenesis....as well as sun and moon gods, yes.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by NightBazaar

You're to believe whatever you want. The point was that I gave you an example of life from non-life from an account you said you believe to be reasonably accurate which refutes your claim that life can only comes from life. As a comparison, it's not as far a cry as you seem to think though. How would you know if it is or isn't? My point wasn't about first cause. If you want to argue first cause of either, then you'd need to take things back, step by step, to the beginning of the universe or before it began.

I think God forming us intentionally and breathing life into us is much different than chemicals floating together in a pool.

It appears that you want all events to be instant for your own self-gratification, that nothing can happen gradually. You leap out about chemicals combining in a pool of soup, as though people are saying it all instantaneously appeared and happened - just like that. You're sounding more and more like a troll.

Pardon me for questioning if your accepted version of science is right or not.

Even if you consider the Genesis account to be how it happened, it still involves a process in that dust had to be shaped and formed, and breath had to be applied before it became a living person. Why bother physically laboring to create life like that when all that would've been necessary is to say the word for life to come into existence? Isn't that what the Genesis account describes about the beginning of light, by just saying, "...Let there be..."?

I honestly don't know why God chose to do it the way he did it.

Not only do you fail to understand what science is about, but you also fail to understand the very reference you believe to be accurate.

pot...kettle

Further, you frequently fail to provide any explanation to support your opinion other than that you believe it to be true. That's fine. If you believe your view is accurate and true, please explain WHY you believe it to be accurate and true and WHY other views are not accurate and true? All you've done is say you believe it, but have given no reliable examples or references to support your views. Examples please!

I believe it because it is true. It certainly answers a lot more questions than your little pool of primordial soup.

Originally Posted by NightBazaar

It is possible some form of life (bacterial) may have been present on meteorites, but no one can say that's true. There has been no indication of anything living on those meteorites. However, what can be said is that the building blocks for life have been found to be present in some of those meteorites. There's no mystery that organic compounds exist in space.

But how did either the bacteria or the chemicals get there?

Why haven't scientists been able to duplicate it? If it's just a few chemicals....ok, let's see someone recreate it.

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

I think the lack of logic leads to something like abiogenesis....as well as sun and moon gods, yes.

But not the God you believe in? How did you arrive at that "logic"?

[NightBazaar]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

I think God forming us intentionally and breathing life into us is much different than chemicals floating together in a pool.

Again, you're missing the point. The point is that either one involves a process.

Pardon me for questioning if your accepted version of science is right or not.

It's okay. The problem is with your frequent declaring that abiogenesis is impossible. If you're going to make such sweeping statements, you need some support to be able back it up. Neither I, nor anyone else here, have made any statements declaring abiogenesis as an uncontestable fact. Speaking for myself, I've said numerous times that it is a hypothesis. Even though it's based on known science, it leaves room that it might be wrong.

I honestly don't know why God chose to do it the way he did it.

Again, you're missing the point. It wasn't about WHY. It was pointing out HOW, that it involved a step by step process. I appreciate your honesty in saying you don't know.

pot...kettle

Now you're just trying side-step to dodge the issue to cover your own mistake. It was YOU who overlooked the content of Genesis which I pointed out to you. If you're so confident in your knowlege of science, then let's see it. You haven't provided anything to show it. I'm open to anything that's reliable that support your position. The only thing you've shown was a link to a religious web page, which frankly, was a shoddy effort that said absolutely nothing relative to science. How about posting some real scientific studies or references?

I believe it because it is true. It certainly answers a lot more questions than your little pool of primordial soup.

As I have pointed out, it's okay to believe what you want, but don't go trying to pass it off as the only possible explanation. If you think it only involved "a little pool of primordial soup", better think again. Try considering billions or trillions of interactions at the molecular level. Not sure I'd consider an entire ocean a little pool.

But how did either the bacteria or the chemicals get there?

Leave the bacteria out of it. While it might be a possibility, it isn't something that's known. Molecules form because of atoms that bond together. One thing about all life forms on the planet is that it is organic based on carbon. Life also includes many other elements. We know that organic compounds are not only present here on Earth, but is rather abundant outside of the Earth as well. There are numerous kinds of organic compounds. Organic compounds are not alive. I'm not going to get into a big explanation about molecular bonding and so forth, which is beyond the scope of a forum. If someone else wants to tackle it, that's fine. I would suggest that if you want to know, do a little research.

Why haven't scientists been able to duplicate it? If it's just a few chemicals....ok, let's see someone recreate it.

That's like asking since we've sent people to the Moon, why haven't we sent anyone to Mars. It's not a simple matter of just mixing a few chemicals together. It's a lot more complex and can involve temperatures, different mixtures of gasses, electricity (such as lightning), sloshing water (hint: oceanic), etc. That said, the "soup" of organic compounds have been replicated in labs. Nothing alive, but rather to simulate conditions in which a primordial soup can form. Guess what? The experiments resulted in producing organic amino acids. Is it conclusive? No. But it's a lot closer than anything you've shown, which so far has been virtually nothing.
The Miller/Urey Experiment

Miller

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Calvinist

Have you ever witnessed abiogenesis?

See, this is the stupidity of your understanding and why you constantly misrepresent the issues.

You actually think, based on other statements as well, that abiogenesis is a one step deal that can be observed within a short time frame - utter foolishiness - which is why the peanut butter analogy is even more stupid.

Here let me lay out a brief summarry of the issues that revolve around the chemical change from geochemistry to biochemistry:

1) It is along Process that included many steps. It is therefore wise to study it on a couple of different broad levels. These are:

A) The Origin of Biological Monomers - Already a Done Deal on many different levels and Environments.

B) The Origin of Biological Polymers - Some Preliminary Progress has been made.

C) The Chemical Evolution from Biomolocules to either a non-genetic reproductive cycle (Metobolic Pathway first theories) or to genetic based repoductive cycles (which can include pre-cellular reproduction like RNA or pre-RNA molecules). This would constitute life. Some Preliminary Progress has been made on this with some great theories that still need to be tested.

Furthermore, at each stage Four steps need to be implemented:

1) Isolation, 2) Selection, 3) Concentration, and 4) Organization

Each one has been shown for the above 3 levels. It can happen by physical and chemical process pretty easily in global Earth environment with all the environmental cycles that take place every second - UNLIKE A PEANUT BUTTER JAR.

Do you have any logical reason to believe it exists or is possible?

Yeah it is called inference based upon the above scientific results, which is more than you have been able to muster.

I would also like to say, as other have, that I do not believe that abiogenesis is a FACT of Science -- yet. That is not what this thread was about but you came in here making broad absolute claims that it is impossible while offering nothing other than your beliefs as an alternative. So stop the misrepresentations and accusations.

I am very open to the possibility of some form of intelligent universe theory but to suggest that the specifics of the Biblical God must be the solution to your ignorance (that is - the gaps in the scientific knowledge at this point) is what is wishful thinking and a fairy tale.

Did you see mold spores in your peanut butter and think that's it?

Now I think you can see, probably not, why a statement like - 'If abiogenesis were true all you would have to do is open a jar of peanut butter and see if life arose spontaneously' - How stupid.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

See, this is the stupidity of your understanding and why you constantly misrepresent the issues.

You actually think, based on other statements as well, that abiogenesis is a one step deal that can be observed within a short time frame - utter foolishiness - which is why the peanut butter analogy is even more stupid.

Here let me lay out a brief summarry of the issues that revolve around the chemical change from geochemistry to biochemistry:

1) It is along Process that included many steps. It is therefore wise to study it on a couple of different broad levels. These are:

A) The Origin of Biological Monomers - Already a Done Deal on many different levels and Environments.

B) The Origin of Biological Polymers - Some Preliminary Progress has been made.

C) The Chemical Evolution from Biomolocules to either a non-genetic reproductive cycle (Metobolic Pathway first theories) or to genetic based repoductive cycles (which can include pre-cellular reproduction like RNA or pre-RNA molecules). This would constitute life. Some Preliminary Progress has been made on this with some great theories that still need to be tested.

Furthermore, at each stage Four steps need to be implemented:

1) Isolation, 2) Selection, 3) Concentration, and 4) Organization

Each one has been shown for the above 3 levels. It can happen by physical and chemical process pretty easily in global Earth environment with all the environmental cycles that take place every second - UNLIKE A PEANUT BUTTER JAR.



Yeah it is called inference based upon the above scientific results, which is more than you have been able to muster.

I would also like to say, as other have, that I do not believe that abiogenesis is a FACT of Science -- yet. That is not what this thread was about but you came in here making broad absolute claims that it is impossible while offering nothing other than your beliefs as an alternative. So stop the misrepresentations and accusations.

I am very open to the possibility of some form of intelligent universe theory but to suggest that the specifics of the Biblical God must be the solution to your ignorance (that is - the gaps in the scientific knowledge at this point) is what is wishful thinking and a fairy tale.



Now I think you can see, probably not, why a statement like - 'If abiogenesis were true all you would have to do is open a jar of peanut butter and see if life arose spontaneously' - How stupid.

So what it comes down to is that you believe it's ok to look at a set of evidence and suggest that some impossible cause happened to explain it.

OK..I get it.

I just don't have that much faith.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

But not the God you believe in? How did you arrive at that "logic"?

worshiping the sun or moon is about as logical as worshiping my big toe. It's all created matter--and doesn't explain how everything got here to start with.