Life origins: Metabolism before life began:

Originally posted by sonhouse
Maybe you can find it on google.

No, I can't find anything. Well there is this:

http://mideasti.blogspot.se/2012/05/you-were-expecting-maybe-camel-kangaroo.html?m=1

But that's a real live one.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Science provides refs in abundance to back C Hess up.
Creationism has no scientific refs whatsoever.

Why?

Because creationism is not science. It's religion.

Go and discuss creationism where it belongs - at Spiritual Forum

Where are these refs?

I did not start this thread. So where is the proof that life orgins is Science?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Where are these refs?

I did not start this thread. So where is the proof that life orgins is Science?

OP?

Originally posted by C Hess
OP?

OP = Original Post ( of the current thread )

It is quite hypocritical of him criticizing us for changing the subject of the thread when he does so all the time by bringing god into it!

Originally posted by sonhouse
You are confirming the bone density in your head. I said and you know full well, life origin is a totally separate scientific discipline, completely different subject than evolution. Especially this piece which talks about chemistry before life even began.

So you are saying that evolution does not explain our origins?

Seems to me that you are playing word games and are unwilling to acknowledge your faith that man will eventually fill in those gaps of knowledge.

Originally posted by Eladar
So you are saying that evolution does not explain our origins?

Would you say that the theory of gravity explains light, or that the theory of
germ disease explains weight? Of course not. Here's a hint. After "the theory
of" is the name of what it's a theory of. It's not that hard really.

Originally posted by Eladar
So you are saying that evolution does not explain our origins?

Seems to me that you are playing word games and are unwilling to acknowledge your faith that man will eventually fill in those gaps of knowledge.

So you are saying that evolution does not explain our origins?

You are here deliberately trying to confuse the origins of modern life with the origins of the very first life -it is clearly YOU who is playing word games here. Evolution by natural selection of living things logically is not a theory of the origins of the very first life but, putting it a bit simplistically, it is a theory of the origins of modern life (but, much more accurately, the origins of new species from older species ) coming from that first life -got that now? -or are you going to pretend to be still confused about that simple fact?

Any abiogenesis theory is, by definition of the word, only a theory of how the first life came to exist and thus is not a theory of any subsequent speciation.

Evolution, by definition of the word in this context, is a theory only of that subsequent speciation that came after abiogenesis and thus is not a theory of how the first life came to exist.

Therefore, evolution is not abiogenesis and abiogenesis is not evolution because they are theories of two different non-overlapping things.

Which of the three above statements do you not understand and exactly why not?

Originally posted by humy

So you are saying that evolution does not explain our origins?

You are here deliberately trying to confuse the origins of modern life with the origins of the very first life -it is clearly YOU who is playing word games here. Evolution by natural selection of living things logically is not a theory of the origins of the very first life but ...[text shortened]... apping things.

Which of the three above statements do you not understand and exactly why not?

I will repeat for your benefit what I told googlefudge:

Creation and evolution are the two main points of view that have been presented in science for the origins and varieties in species. Evolutionists have actually given up on the origins portion because science has already proven that part of their theory as incorrect and impossible.

There are still many problems with their branching tree of life idea that I am helping solve in the Science Forum. Just because my view is a minority view does not mean I should be censored, because in the past the minority view has proven by science to be the more correct view.

Just because some, like you, in the Science Forum BELIEVE they know what is science and what is not science does not make them correct. Anyway, the Science Forum is a better place to discuss and debate science related matters than the Spirituality Forum.

Originally posted by humy

So you are saying that evolution does not explain our origins?

You are here deliberately trying to confuse the origins of modern life with the origins of the very first life -it is clearly YOU who is playing word games here. Evolution by natural selection of living things logically is not a theory of the origins of the very first life but ...[text shortened]... apping things.

Which of the three above statements do you not understand and exactly why not?

Obviously evolution explains how species change over time to produce different species. The origin of life is not a change from one species to another. The process by which inanimate materials are transformed to become living matter is not a process of evolution.

Is there a further layer of complication to this issue? There is a big difference between demonstrating a historical event (the origin of life) and demonstrating a historical process (evolution).

Abiogenesis can investigate the possible mechanisms by which life originates. What abiogenesis cannot do is demonstrate a specific historical event and say of it that this was the original moment and event by which life was first sparked into being. The evidence apparently demonstrates that there was such an event and only one original living form from which all further life evolved, but it is not possible to show that event and there is no good reason why it should be possible. For example, there is no reason why the very first living creature would have left a fossil trace or why that trace should have survived until today or, even if it had, why that fossil should ever be found. The original environment was utterly different to any currently existing one. Just consider the process of forming continents and their transformations over time as well as the process of forming and transforming the atmosphere. It is just ludicrous to hope to pin down precisely the events and the specific mechanism in the original formation of a living creature - though this does not prevent scientists devising meaningful theories.

By contrast, evolution is a process and can be demonstrated as such without requiring that any specific, tangible historical event has to be demonstrated. We can demonstrate - for example with genetic evidence - how two species share a common ancestor without having to pin down a moment of separation, not least because in evolution there are no such moments. If any creature produced a child that was clearly of a different species, then that child would (by definition) be unable to reproduce. Species become differentiated over time and not in one event.

So there is a big difference between demonstrating a historical event and demonstrating a historical process.

Originally posted by finnegan
Obviously evolution explains how species change over time to produce different species. The origin of life is not a change from one species to another. The process by which inanimate materials are transformed to become living matter is not a process of evolution.

Is there a further layer of complication to this issue? There is a big difference between ...[text shortened]... big difference between demonstrating a historical event and demonstrating a historical process.

excellent points -and I concur. Pity there are a few people here in this forum that will never understand nor accept even this level of subtlety -they choose to be confused.

Originally posted by finnegan
Obviously evolution explains how species change over time to produce different species. The origin of life is not a change from one species to another. The process by which inanimate materials are transformed to become living matter is not a process of evolution.

Is there a further layer of complication to this issue? There is a big difference between ...[text shortened]... big difference between demonstrating a historical event and demonstrating a historical process.

Evolution and abiogenesis can not do anything. They are only fairy tale ideas.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Evolution and abiogenesis can not do anything.

You're right about that much. They're attempts at explaining observed evidence.
Explanations don't tend to do much at all, those lazy buggers.

Originally posted by C Hess
You're right about that much. They're attempts at explaining observed evidence.
Explanations don't tend to do much at all, those lazy buggers.

Explanations that can't be reproduced, if they are to believed, must be believed by faith.

Originally posted by Eladar
Explanations that can't be reproduced, if they are to believed, must be believed by faith.

Explanations that can't be reproduced,

What is that supposed to mean? What barrier is there to explaining something yet again? We have been doing this often to you. Whether what you mean by 'reproducing' an explanation is independently working it out from scratch or saying it yet again, it is a trivial observation that an explanation can be 'reproduced'.

if they are to believed, must be believed by faith.

Unless you are talking about irrational explanations such as religious ones, obviously false. If an explanation is based purely on evidence and/or flawless logic then it is not faith by any reasonable definition of the word faith. In the case of evolution and abiogenesis theories, we don't believe them because we want them to be true but rather we believe them because of a combination of evidence and logic. Very hypothetically, if I suddenly came to know good evidence against evolution along with a better theory than evolution that opposes evolution theory and that fully explains all the previous vast mountain of data that appeared to previously confirm evolution but explains how it was all misinterpreted, I would instantly, without the slightest hesitation, believe that new theory to be the most probable theory and thus reject evolution theory as being much less probable if not definitely false -that is just how good science works. Obviously, this is in stark contrast with typical religious belief which is faith-based and thus generally doesn't adapt well at all to new evidence and/or logic.

Originally posted by Eladar
Explanations that can't be reproduced, if they are to believed, must be believed by faith.

That's right. Biogenesis can be reproduced and scientifically proven by observation. That is why it is called the Law of Biogenesis.

Abiogenesis can NOT be reproduced and proven by observation. Therefore, abiogenesis must be believed by blind faith. That is why it is called an hypothesis or a religion.

Animals reproducing after their own kind, according to the Genesis account of creation, can and has been reproduced and proven by observation. Therefore, that part of creation is scientifically proven and is science Not religion.

However, the evolution of all the different kinds from a common ancestor can NOT be reproduced and proven by observation. Therefore, that part of evolution must be believed by blind faith. That is why it is not science and is no different from any other religious belief.