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.
So some scientist creates this in a lab: " Synthetic production of model protocells can demonstrate the potential processes by which living cells first arose".
Hardly demonstrates abiogenesis. Creation, yes.
Come back with a story of a scientist creating matter/energy out of nothing and I will listen.
So some scientist creates this in a lab: " Synthetic production of model protocells can demonstrate the potential processes by which living cells first arose".
Hardly demonstrates abiogenesis. Creation, yes.
Come back with a story of a scientist creating matter/energy out of nothing and I will listen.
I'd love an explanation for any of what you said, particularly how this demonstrates creation. And by an explanation, I do mean a scientifically literate one.
By the way, creating matter or energy from nothing is not possible. Which is what God did. And what you think the big bang is. Which lowers my confidence that I'll get a scientifically literate response to any of this.
So some scientist creates this in a lab: " Synthetic production of model protocells can demonstrate the potential processes by which living cells first arose".
Hardly demonstrates abiogenesis. Creation, yes.
Come back with a story of a scientist creating matter/energy out of nothing and I will listen.
A story of a scientist, OR ANYONE, creating matter/energy out of nothing would be just that; a story and nothing more. Because such a claim would violate one of the primary laws of physics, the law of conservation of energy. All experimentation and observation indicates that energy cannot BE created, only changed into various other forms (one of which is US), but nothing is ever lost or gained in the process. So the story of anyone or anything creating matter/energy from nothing is just that... A STORY. Something derived from the imagination which has no basis in fact.
Discovering that RNA can be spontaneously synthesized in the conditions found in space is a huge advancement in our understanding of the natural evolution of life. Because RNA is the key component to reproduction, and reproduction is the key to evolutionary change. None of these facts are altered one way or the other simply because you do not understand them.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,928,903 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr5150
So some scientist creates this in a lab: " Synthetic production of model protocells can demonstrate the potential processes by which living cells first arose".
Hardly demonstrates abiogenesis. Creation, yes.
Come back with a story of a scientist creating matter/energy out of nothing and I will listen.
Did you even read the study?
Of course a scientist will not create matter or energy out of nothing, but then, the earth, nor the solar system is a closed system, and the ingredients, whether they existed here on earth, or were introduced from interplanetary or interstellar material, have been here since the beginning of this universe. Energy? Probably came from lightning or volcanic origins.
After all, there is some strange life that exists right now on black smokers. Look it up if you don't know what I'm talking about.
. And what you think the big bang is. Which lowers my confidence that I'll get a scientifically literate response to any of this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
. None of these facts are altered one way or the other simply because you do not understand them.
Sorry to disappoint, but the college grad DOES have an understanding of the Big Bang (it is probably the way our universe began) and many things scientific.
I am of the opinion that chance does not produce the laws of nature and mathematics. I am also of the opinion that 1000 monkeys pounding on 1000 word processors for a 1000 years would produce a novel.
Abiogenesis is simply how the atheist believes life came to be. Believes being the operative word and a matter of faith since there is no real evidence it is true-only speculation based on lab experiments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
Did you even read the study?
.
Unlike 90% of the posters here, I do read the linked articles.
I'd love an explanation for any of what you said, particularly how this demonstrates creation. And by an explanation, I do mean a scientifically literate one.
By the way, creating matter or energy from nothing is not possible. Which is what God did. And what you think the big bang is. Which lowers my confidence that I'll get a scientifically literate response to any of this.
I dropped Christianity like a hot potato once I learned how corrupt it is and went to deism. But there's one reason alone why I can't move from deism to atheism and that is:
I dropped Christianity like a hot potato once I learned how corrupt it is and went to deism. But there's one reason alone why I can't move from deism to atheism and that is:
How did we get from this:
(assembly of atoms in correct order alone is against all odds)
I don't know what "this" is, but it is not against the odds.
How many generations in 1 Billion years for an organism that reproduces every 60 seconds?
I don't think you're aware of the over-all scale of the event(s).
Can life start in a volume of space that itself is not alive? Can a blood cell form in you without you? From the cell near it the process looks random. Crank it up a few orders of ten and we think the same thing.
Can life start in a volume of space that itself is not alive? Can a blood cell form in you without you? From the cell near it the process looks random. Crank it up a few orders of ten and we think the same thing.
Any living cell is a very complex thing. What exactly is life, and when can a thing be considered living? No one really supposes that anything as complex as a living cell simply popped into existence. True life must itself be the result of something even more basic. A stage of proto-life would have been required; something that shares certain aspects of life, but not all. Something which blurs the distinction between what is truly living, and what is not. If such a "missing link" between true life and proto-life could be identified, would you then accept the concept of evolution as potentially valid? Or are your conclusions inevitably and unrelentingly based or your religious assertions, and the facts be damned?
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.
