Abiogenesis

Originally posted by scottishinnz
available evidence Kelly, available evidence.

We know the cellular constituents in all cells contain salts - the same salts in the sea, at (normally) roughly the same proportions and concentrations as found in the sea. We know life had to form underwater - the lack of oxygen in the atmosphere means no ozone, hence, even though solar output was 25% l cycling in PCR.

As I say Kelly, this is the most likely scenario for an abiogenic event.

You forgot the, "It took millions and millions of years", part. That means sceintist will never be forced to duplicate the scenerio themselves that they claim to understand. Proof, who needs proof? IT COULD WORK!!!!!!!!!

By the way, I like your new Lenin look. I feel I must tell you, however, that the revelution is over. Atheism lost.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
available evidence Kelly, available evidence.

We know the cellular constituents in all cells contain salts - the same salts in the sea, at (normally) roughly the same proportions and concentrations as found in the sea. We know life had to form underwater - the lack of oxygen in the atmosphere means no ozone, hence, even though solar output was 25% l ...[text shortened]... cycling in PCR.

As I say Kelly, this is the most likely scenario for an abiogenic event.

Most likely, only if it occurred the way you believe it did.
Bottom line you don't know, but you believe you have gotten
it right if your interpretations of the data are correct, which is
again another assumption.
Kelly

Originally posted by whodey
You forgot the, "It took millions and millions of years", part. That means sceintist will never be forced to duplicate the scenerio themselves that they claim to understand. Proof, who needs proof? IT COULD WORK!!!!!!!!!

By the way, I like your new Lenin look. I feel I must tell you, however, that the revelution is over. Atheism lost.

That is the out for the believers in evolution, 'It took millions and
millions of years." They scream at people who believe in God,
because we cannot produce God on command, but they think this
is some how different.
Kelly

Originally posted by whodey
You forgot the, "It took millions and millions of years", part. That means sceintist will never be forced to duplicate the scenerio themselves that they claim to understand. Proof, who needs proof? IT COULD WORK!!!!!!!!!

By the way, I like your new Lenin look. I feel I must tell you, however, that the revelution is over. Atheism lost.

Actually, best guess is that it took somewhere in the region of around 50,000 years, based on the chemical evidence.

I'll repeat; EVOLUTION - theory - explanation of the evidence based upon simple, falsifiable, principles.


Oh, and Whodey. Atheism lost? Not in Kansas!

Originally posted by whodey
You forgot the, "It took millions and millions of years", part. That means sceintist will never be forced to duplicate the scenerio themselves that they claim to understand. Proof, who needs proof? IT COULD WORK!!!!!!!!!

By the way, I like your new Lenin look. I feel I must tell you, however, that the revelution is over. Atheism lost.

Does this mean you feel any investigation of past events is unscientific?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Does this mean you feel any investigation of past events is unscientific?

I feel that to defend unscientific notions such as production of life from nonlife and acquiring something from nothing as the origins of the Big Bang are not worthy of science. These theories exist for one reason. It is because there is nothing else to explain them unless one admitt that there is a God.

Originally posted by whodey
I feel that to defend unscientific notions such as production of life from nonlife and acquiring something from nothing as the origins of the Big Bang are not worthy of science. These theories exist for one reason. It is because there is nothing else to explain them unless one admitt that there is a God.

Theory exists as a means to explain a phenomenon using a process of observation, testing, and through which reasonable predictions concerning that phenomenon can be made.

Ironically, the claim of "God" as a cause is in itself a theory. Unfortunately it is one which cannot be observed or tested and as such it is not a scientifically-based supposition - thus not worthy of science.

-JC

Originally posted by Churlant
Theory exists as a means to explain a phenomenon using a process of observation, testing, and through which reasonable predictions concerning that phenomenon can be made.

Ironically, the claim of "God" as a cause is in itself a theory. Unfortunately it is one which cannot be observed or tested and as such it is not a scientifically-based supposition - thus not worthy of science.

-JC

In truth neither can be tested and therefore you have belief to fill the vacume.

Originally posted by whodey
In truth neither can be tested and therefore you have belief to fill the vacume.

Incorrect. One can be tested, one cannot. This is why one is proper science while the other is proper faith.

-JC

Originally posted by whodey
I feel that to defend unscientific notions such as production of life from nonlife and acquiring something from nothing as the origins of the Big Bang are not worthy of science. These theories exist for one reason. It is because there is nothing else to explain them unless one admitt that there is a God.

As far as I know, 'acquiring something from nothing', is not part of the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang Theory makes predictions which can be tested. The hypothesis that God exists may also be tested if you first define God sufficiently to make some predictions which can be tested. However I am not aware of anyone successfully making and confirming (and defending) any such predictions so it remains a hypothesis.
The only reason why anyone would consider Abiogenesis to be impossible is if you first assume the existence of God and further believe (based on faith in God and possibly statements from the Bible) that creation of life from non-life is not possible except via miracles from God. From a scientific point of view there is absolutely no reason to doubt that life could come about from non-life.

Originally posted by twhitehead
As far as I know, 'acquiring something from nothing', is not part of the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang Theory makes predictions which can be tested. The hypothesis that God exists may also be tested if you first define God sufficiently to make some predictions which can be tested. However I am not aware of anyone successfully making and confirming (and de ...[text shortened]... point of view there is absolutely no reason to doubt that life could come about from non-life.

From a scientific point of view there is absolutely no reason to doubt that life could come about from non-life.
Aack. You might as well be saying there is not reason to doubt anything until it is proven impossible.

Here's more tripe from talkorigins.org:
"Each step is associated with a small increase in organisation and complexity, and the chemicals slowly climb towards organism-hood, rather than making one big leap." (emphasis added)
Amazing, isn't it, the agent-like properties of non-living things? That's science?!? Nah, that's faith!

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Actually, best guess is that it took somewhere in the region of around 50,000 years, based on the chemical evidence.

I'll repeat; EVOLUTION - theory - explanation of the evidence based upon simple, falsifiable, principles.


Oh, and Whodey. Atheism lost? Not in Kansas!

Look, saying it takes millions, billions, or even 50K is still outside
of what we can see isn't it? I'm not disputing the small changes
I'm telling you prove they add up so we get something that is
quite unique and new to the universe, and that is not, and I'll say
it again, not falsifiable! You can say you see the small changes
in DNA and this is something we all agree is there, what that
means is another thing altogether. Are those changes taking life
in a new direction, or are they simply little self correcting mutations?
All you know is that there are small changes, and that within our
life time we do see dogs having dogs for offspring, we don't see
them changing into anything else.
Kelly

Originally posted by Churlant
Incorrect. One can be tested, one cannot. This is why one is proper science while the other is proper faith.

-JC

You can test for an event that took place supposedly several
billions of years ago, where everything came from nothing?
I'd like to see the science behind that test!
Kelly

God is the ultimate non-explanation for how the universe came to be.

Where did he come from?
How did he get the power to 'think' matter into existence?
How exactly does a being 'exist outside time'? Does this mean God lives in a parallel dimension? If so, what makes you think that you, a person who exists in three dimensional space and linear time, can know about a being who exists outside the dimensions that you can perceive?

Believing in God is like an admission that you cannot really understand how the universe came to be; you don't know, and can't know, the methods that God used to create the universe; in fact, curiously, to the christian, the method seems largely unimportant. Why are you lot even interested in this type of discussion? Your "goddunnit" stance is flexible enough to include evolution and a 4-billion year old earth. Couldn't God, being allegedly all-powerful, have used any number of methods to create all this stuff?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You can test for an event that took place supposedly several
billions of years ago, where everything came from nothing?
I'd like to see the science behind that test!
Kelly

I'm unfamiliar with the "everything came from nothing" theory you are speaking of. If you are referring to the Big Bang, I suggest you do some research. We are capable of viewing the Universe as it was shortly after the Big Bang occurred. Current models make predictions about the movement and composition of matter from this period and these models are tested against the data obtained from actual observations, as well as the continuing evolution of the cosmos.

"Everything from nothing" is a Creationism theory, not science.

-JC