Abiogenesis Fact?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
The two are quite similar. The difference is the existence of electrons doesn't make you uncomfortable, while the occurrence of abiogenesis does. The empirical evidence for both is extremely strong.

The only thing that concerns me with electrons is if the theories based on them work. If they can work and repeatedly work, then that works.

Your idea of abiogenesis doesn't work. It never has worked, therefore I do not see how you can claim that it happened.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
You keep pointing this out, which is a perfectly reasonable opinion/religion. It is not, however, a false assumption when a scientist says he doesn't believe in God. What you are saying is entirely irrelevant to the machine of science. We don't care.

It is not a false assumption to say that a scientist does not believe in God. I totally agree.

It is a false assumption to say therefore God does not exist.

As far as the machine of science goes, it only applies to what it can used to do. As I said, Science attempts to figure out how things actually work with natural laws. I see nothing wrong with saying that we can figure out a way that the universe came into being based on models and a big bang.

I have a problem with the therefore it is true. I have a problem with since it is true, we must have had abiogenesis. These are faulty assumptions. These are religious beliefs.

Originally posted by @eladar
The only thing that concerns me with electrons is if the theories based on them work. If they can work and repeatedly work, then that works.

Your idea of abiogenesis doesn't work. It never has worked, therefore I do not see how you can claim that it happened.

I'm not sure what you mean by "work," we can see strong evidence that it happened.

Originally posted by @eladar
You know this is possible because you have seen it happen?

If not, nice statement of faith.

You know that the surface of the sun is hot. How? Have you been there? No. Yet you do know this. It is not faith.

Originally posted by @moonbus
You know that the surface of the sun is hot. How? Have you been there? No. Yet you do know this. It is not faith.

We don't know that the surface of the sun is hot.
We assume that the surface of the sun is hot on at least two observable conditions.
1. We can feel (and measure) the effect of the sun's presence as well as it's absence in the form of heat.
2. We can see (and measure) what appear to be flames consistent with fire as observed here on earth emanating from the surface of the sun.

Equating an assumption from existence on the basis of one criteria, i.e., it's here, isn't it, with an assumption based on agreement with known, repeatable and verifiable experiments in reality is foolish.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
We don't [b]know that the surface of the sun is hot.
We assume that the surface of the sun is hot on at least two observable conditions.
1. We can feel (and measure) the effect of the sun's presence as well as it's absence in the form of heat.
2. We can see (and measure) what appear to be flames consistent with fire as observed here ...[text shortened]... tion based on agreement with known, repeatable and verifiable experiments in reality is foolish.[/b]

I know that you are a troll. Have I met you? No. Yet I do know this. It is not an assumption. It is not faith.

Life and not-life do not exhaust the field of states of matter. There are in-between states. To qualify as life, several criteria are generally agreed upon and include: ability to absorb energy from the environment and transform it into growth, ability to reproduce, ability to maintain an internal environment in response to external pressures (homeostasis), ability to alter itself in response to environmental changes (in other words, to adapt). In-between states of matter exhibit some but not all of these traits. For example, there are self-replicating proteins. Reproduction is present, but not the other traits which make up full-blown life (homeostasis, adaptability, etc. etc.). Viruses, for example, lack the ability to reproduce by themselves; they penetrate an organism and trick the host organism into reproducing the virus. Other in-between states are also known. It is these in-between states which make abiogenesis work. The process need not have jumped directly from not-life to life. Life can come from a gradual series of in-between steps.

For example, one of the crucial steps on the road to life is the establishment of a membrane which separates two different concentrations (or Ph-values) of a fluid. Without such a membrane, any two fluid concentrations naturally intermingle and homogeneity results. This sort of membrane is fundamental to cell structures, but is itself not yet life. Such membranes exist without being parts of organisms and constitute one of the essential building blocks of life.

Another fundamental step on the road to life from not-life is the absorption and storage of energy. Photosynthesis is well-known in plant life, but also exists as a simple chemical reaction, not as part of any organism. That, and other chemical processes, are essential not-life building blocks of life.

Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that some iterative functions which take their previous results as seeds for the next iteration produce patterns. Think of drawing a violin bow across a metal plate strewn with sand: patterns emerge; think of wind-blown sand dunes: patterns emerge. Iterative functions which produce patterns sometimes breach a threshold which constitutes a quantum leap in complexity. In short, some kinds of order are not only self-preservative but cumulative. This has been demonstrated in physical and chemical systems.

Mix enough of these single building blocks enough times, shake, repeat, add more energy, subject a pattern to cumulative iteration, and you get life from almost-but-not-quite-life from definitely-not-life by a series of completely material processes.

Moreover, life need not have started by this process only once. Life may have started several times independently. For example, at different hot geysers on the sea bed. Hot geysers provide the necessary energy in the form of heat, and the necessary 'nutrient' compounds, and the necessary mixing (stirring and shaking of the water). Multiple independent starts would account for the diversity of species we observe today, given evolution across deep time. Evidence indicates that hot geysers are teaming with life, very primitive life. The cradle of life, perhaps.

The process is explainable and plausible without divine intervention. Does this prove that divine intervention did not occur. No. But divine intervention is not required. Apply Occham's Razor.

The process is explainable and plausible without divine intervention. Does this prove that divine intervention did not occur. No. But divine intervention is not required. Apply Occham's Razor.

Truth is not based on what is required. You are not required to believe anything. Truth is not based on what anyone believes.

All that should be expected is a proper distinction between what one can directly work with and what one believes.

Originally posted by @eladar
[b]The process is explainable and plausible without divine intervention. Does this prove that divine intervention did not occur. No. But divine intervention is not required. Apply Occham's Razor.

Truth is not based on what is required. You are not required to believe anything. Truth is not based on what anyone believes.

All that should be expected is a proper distinction between what one can directly work with and what one believes.[/b]

Interesting point. Now apply it to yourself.

What you believe is not like believing in Santa Claus because there are presents under the tree, because there are no presents under the tree. What you believe is like believing in Santa Claus because you hope there will be presents under the tree.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
We don't [b]know that the surface of the sun is hot.
We assume that the surface of the sun is hot on at least two observable conditions.
1. We can feel (and measure) the effect of the sun's presence as well as it's absence in the form of heat.
2. We can see (and measure) what appear to be flames consistent with fire as observed here ...[text shortened]... tion based on agreement with known, repeatable and verifiable experiments in reality is foolish.[/b]

There are no "flames" or "fire" on the surface of the Sun.

Originally posted by @eladar
[b]The process is explainable and plausible without divine intervention. Does this prove that divine intervention did not occur. No. But divine intervention is not required. Apply Occham's Razor.

Truth is not based on what is required. You are not required to believe anything. Truth is not based on what anyone believes.

All that should be expected is a proper distinction between what one can directly work with and what one believes.[/b]

Interesting point. Now apply it to yourself.

You cannot know whether anything in the Bible is true because you weren't there when those alleged events allegedly occurred. They are buried in the past and you cannot directly know anything in the past, as you yourself have repeatedly claimed.

You cannot know whether anything in the Bible is true because you weren't there when the scrolls which made up the Bible were written. So you cannot know whether the various authors told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. You cannot know what the authors left out and what they exaggerated and what they simply made up because they didn't know either. You cannot know whether the various authors were themselves direct witnesses or were merely repeating hearsay.

You cannot know whether anything in the Bible is true because you weren't there at the Council of Nicea when the Catholic bishops decided which scrolls to canonize and which scrolls to discount.

You cannot know whether anything in the Bible is true because you weren't there when it was redacted (and it was redacted many times). So you can't know what was cut out of previous editions and what was added later and what was changed.

You cannot know whether anything in the Bible is true because you weren't there when it was translated from Aramaic or Hebrew into Greek into Latin and then into English. So you can't know whether all the words there now have their proper original meanings in the modern vocabulary.

I will give you one example: the rendering of Mary's status as a "virgin" is a mistranslation. The original Hebrew word for her status was "almah", which correctly translated meant "unmarried maiden". In Hebrew, this word meant her legal and civil status, not her physiological status, not the status of her hymen. This Hebrew word was mistranslated into Greek as "parthenos" from which we derive the modern word "parthenogenesis" or asexual reproduction. The original Hebrew text meant that Mary was not yet given in marriage, not that she had never had sex. Quite obviously she had had sex, just not with Josef. So the whole myth of Mary being a virgin is bunk. Jesus was conceived the same as everyone ever was: a human sperm fertilized Mary's ovum. 2,000 years of bunk dogma because of a single stupid mistranslation.

All of the above applies double to the Book of Genesis: no one was there when the universe was created on those first five days. No one had direct knowledge of how life began (whether by creation or by abiogenesis).

If reasoning from present effects is no basis for knowledge of the past, as you apparently believe, then you have no knowledge of how your great-grand-parents came to be. Maybe God created them by a miracle, too, eh?

What you believe about knowledge and truth and how they are attained and verified is untenable. Ludicrously untenable.

Originally posted by @moonbus
the rendering of Mary's status as a "virgin" is a mistranslation. The original Hebrew word for her status was "almah", which correctly translated meant "unmarried maiden". ...This Hebrew word was mistranslated into Greek as "parthenos" from which we derive the modern word "parthenogenesis" or asexual reproduction. The original Hebrew text meant that Mary was not yet given in marriage, not that she had never had sex.

I didn't know that.

So, to believe in the CORRECT translation of the ORIGINAL Christian religion, even if you are to take every word of it totally literally, you would NOT believe in the miracle of Mary being a virgin and yet still gave birth but rather believe, as consistent with known scientific fact, sex was first necessary before possible to give birth.
Therefore, you can argue that those Christian fundamentalists that insist that you must believe in the virgin Mary are anti-Christian for doing so.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
I'm not sure what you mean by "work," we can see strong evidence that it happened.

Worked means any experiment where we tried to recreate abiogenesis.

Every experiment failed.

We have just as much evidence for the existence of God as we do for abiogenesis.

Originally posted by @moonbus
Interesting point. Now apply it to yourself.

What you believe is not like believing in Santa Claus because there are presents under the tree, because there are no presents under the tree. What you believe is like believing in Santa Claus because you hope there will be presents under the tree.

I do apply it to myself.

Originally posted by @eladar
I do apply it to myself.

Then you are being logically incoherent.
If the same 'logic' that you try and use against our understanding of science is applied to your religious beliefs then the conclusion must be your religious beliefs are totally irrational. You cannot have it both ways.