My Epiphany

[Ophiolite]

Let’s say I take an average rock, soak it in bleach and leave it to dry in a sterile environment,then ensure that I remove or kill all microorganisms on its surface; then place it into a airtight, vacuum chamber and leave it sit for 1000 years.If that airtight, vacuum chamber is opened,and examined microscopically, there will still be no life.Same scenario in space.

In the hypothetical “atheist” universe-creation scenario, the Big Bang occurs and matter is spontaneously created, now we have elements and matter,BUT that matter is NOT living,it’s just energetically fueled and controlled, there is no life nor biotic matter. Ice and water can form because they are a combination of hydrogen and oxygen,but they cannot produce nor sustain life.

Energy itself is not living or biotic.

Response to your first paragraph: You have erected a strawman. No scientist would claim that life could arise in any such environment, or in such a short time frame. You are either misinformed, or deliberately misrepresenting how scientists envisage the process of abiogenesis. I have taken care of the first option, so there should be no need for you to ever re-use that strawman.

Response to your second paragraph: You have erected another strawman. (Is this your super-power? ) Matter is not spontaneously created, but transformed from energy as the universe cools.
What also form are scores of different organic molecules, under the right conditions that we can, and routinely do, duplicate in the laboratory these molecules can grow in complexity, polymerise and engage in autocatalytic reactions, all processes that can be shown as plausible first steps towards the emergence of self replicating organsims. i.e. life.
You may repeatedlydeny the truth of this, but you would be mistaken.

Response to your third paragraph: No on said is was. Another strawman?

 

[Estrid]

Quite frankly miss estrid,there’s a difference.Im speaking directly of non-living matter somehow, spontaneously becoming animate and living,and eventually becoming living, single-celled organisms to multi-celled organisms, then eventually becoming larger-multi-celled organisms,then becoming amphibious,etc.

The story of Adam in Genesis is inanimate matter becoming living through divine power.Not becoming animate by itself.

Once again, respectfully and politely, inanimate matter has not, CANNOT, and will not become animate via-energy or gravity.
Take this for example.

Let’s say I take an average rock, soak it in bleach and leave it to dry in a sterile environment,then ensure that I remove or kill all microorganisms on its surface; then place it into a airtight, vacuum chamber and leave it sit for 1000 years.If that airtight, vacuum chamber is opened,and examined microscopically, there will still be no life.Same scenario in space.

In the hypothetical “atheist” universe-creation scenario, the Big Bang occurs and matter is spontaneously created, now we have elements and matter,BUT that matter is NOT living,it’s just energetically fueled and controlled, there is no life nor biotic matter. Ice and water can form because they are a combination of hydrogen and oxygen,but they cannot produce nor sustain life.

Energy itself is not living or biotic.

You can skip the condescending "Miss Estrid"
bit. And the attempts at a basic science lecture.
which is even more condescending esp. given
your evident lack of expertise.

The topic is not BB. Or average rocks.

I addressed your chosen assertion that abio is impossible.

You just keep saying it's impossible.
You provided no theoretical or practical obstacles.
The hypothesis that it occurred is unassailable by anything resembling disproof
.
A tremendous variety of organic compounds self assembled under a very wide range of conditions.

There is no evidence of any " life force" that animates this molecule, and not that.

Self replicating molecules exist.

There is no comprehensive definition of life, no
bright line distinction between living and non living.

You certainly have strong opinions. To you, faith may be an adequate reason. But! You've no substantive physical basis for claiming " impossible". You sure can't disprove abio. Some day perhaps someone will.

It has not happened, though, and if it does, it wont be
your work.

 

[AV1611VET]

You sure can't disprove abio. Some day perhaps someone will.

It has not happened, though, and if it does, it wont be your work.

You sure hit the nail on the head here, Estrid.

I've been saying for years now that someone is coming who is not only going to prove abiogenesis, but demonstrate it so effectually that even a child will be able to understand it.

 

[SelfSim]

.. Once again, respectfully and politely, inanimate matter has not, CANNOT, and will not become animate via-energy or gravity.

The ATP molecule in living cells is split and releases energy needed by living cells . This process is extensively well documented. (See here for a simple example).
The energy from food break down is recombined with a key break-down product of ATP, (ie: ADP), which in turn, once recombined with ADP, turns it back into ATP. Therefore ATP, in effect, acts as a rechargeable battery in sustaining, (hence 'animating'), life.

The probable origins of ATP and its synthesis pathways, are also extensively well documented.

From the available objective evidence, your claim that 'inanimate matter has not, CANNOT, and will not become animate via-energy', is just dead-flat incorrect.

 

[SelfSim]

I've been saying for years now that someone is coming who is not only going to prove abiogenesis, but demonstrate it so effectually that even a child will be able to understand it.

Alongside the Anthropic Principle, your advocacy there, exhibits all the hallmarks of the Principle of Finite Imagination.

Whilst the possibility exists that the human mind just might not be able to solve the 'origins' problems we are currently facing, acquiescing to the existence of some explanation that 'even a child' might understand, represents a depressingly cynical outlook on the future .. one which the bulk of modern day, scientifically thinking humans will never, (and should never), accept.

 

[Shemjaza]

Quite frankly miss estrid,there’s a difference.Im speaking directly of non-living matter somehow, spontaneously becoming animate and living,and eventually becoming living, single-celled organisms to multi-celled organisms, then eventually becoming larger-multi-celled organisms,then becoming amphibious,etc.

The story of Adam in Genesis is inanimate matter becoming living through divine power.Not becoming animate by itself.

Once again, respectfully and politely, inanimate matter has not, CANNOT, and will not become animate via-energy or gravity.
Take this for example.

Let’s say I take an average rock, soak it in bleach and leave it to dry in a sterile environment,then ensure that I remove or kill all microorganisms on its surface; then place it into a airtight, vacuum chamber and leave it sit for 1000 years.If that airtight, vacuum chamber is opened,and examined microscopically, there will still be no life.Same scenario in space.

In the hypothetical “atheist” universe-creation scenario, the Big Bang occurs and matter is spontaneously created, now we have elements and matter,BUT that matter is NOT living,it’s just energetically fueled and controlled, there is no life nor biotic matter. Ice and water can form because they are a combination of hydrogen and oxygen,but they cannot produce nor sustain life.

Energy itself is not living or biotic.

No one I know if is proposing the path to life via bleach and rocks.

The obvious path is via naturally occurring amino acids and other carbon based structures that can poliminerise and even form self perpetuating molecules without the intervention of life.

The proposal that life could from from non living matter is not the same as the claim that life could form from any non loving matter.

 

[Estrid]

Response to your first paragraph: You have erected a strawman. No scientist would claim that life could arise in any such environment, or in such a short time frame. You are either misinformed, or deliberately misrepresenting how scientists envisage the process of abiogenesis. I have taken care of the first option, so there should be no need for you to ever re-use that strawman.

Response to your second paragraph: You have erected another strawman. (Is this your super-power? ) Matter is not spontaneously created, but transformed from energy as the universe cools.
What also form are scores of different organic molecules, under the right conditions that we can, and routinely do, duplicate in the laboratory these molecules can grow in complexity, polymerise and engage in autocatalytic reactions, all processes that can be shown as plausible first steps towards the emergence of self replicating organsims. i.e. life.
You may repeatedlydeny the truth of this, but you would be mistaken.

Response to your third paragraph: No on said is was. Another strawman?

It comes down to- " it cannot happen because
the way I choose to interpret a book about my
religion is that life ( only) came direct from a god."

Of note is that not only does the Bible nowhere
even suggests abio cannot occur, but it was a near universal belief for millenia that it is a routine occurrence!

It took, yes, science to show that horse hairs don't
become snakes nor do mmice come from old feed sacks.
Or frogs from the sky when it rains.

Nobody seemed to think any of it was a threat to
their god.

The so- emotional / irrational/ ignorant opposition
to any possibility of abio...what's behind that?

A rear guard action to try to preserve their ill-
chosen version of what their god is all about?

 

[AV1611VET]

It took, yes, science to show that horse hairs don't become snakes nor do mice come from old feed sacks.

Or frogs from the sky when it rains.

But men came from apes ... right?

Question:

Since the Bible tells us where these animals came from, then who are the ones who started teaching snakes came from horse hairs and mice came from feed sacks?

Certainly Bible-believers would have known better.

Scientists, on the other hand, wouldn't.

 

[SelfSim]

Question:

Since the Bible tells us where these animals came from, then who are the ones who started teaching snakes came from horse hairs and mice came from feed sacks?

Certainly Bible-believers would have known better.

That's where beliefs will take you.

There is no difference between those who believed 'snakes came from horse hairs and mice came from feed sacks' and 'Bible-believers' .. both have submitted to their ill-founded beliefs (and/or their superstitions).

Scientists, on the other hand, wouldn't.

Scientists can choose between being led by their beliefs, or be led by evidence and testing.
Believers have no such choice.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's where beliefs will take you.

Okay.

But who started those beliefs, and who perpetuated them?

I take it, it was something taught in science class at one time?

 

[AV1611VET]

Scientists can choose between being led by their beliefs, or be led by evidence and testing.

Which one (beliefs or evidence testing) gave the green light to the Challenger?

Certainly not testing ... right?

Else the Challenger would never have lifted off.

And remember Frances Kelsey?

She demanded more testing in the face of opposition of her peers.

And let's go back a ways:

Didn't Aristotle stunt the growth of science for two thousand years with his earth, air, fire, and water elements?

I'm sure literal Bible believers were shaking their heads at his junk science.

 

[Ophiolite]

Which one (beliefs or evidence testing) gave the green light to the Challenger?

Certainly not testing ... right?

Else the Challenger would never have lifted off.

And remember Frances Kelsey?

She demanded more testing in the face of opposition of her peers.

And let's go back a ways:

Didn't Aristotle stunt the growth of science for two thousand years with his earth, air, fire, and water elements?

I'm sure literal Bible believers were shaking their heads at his junk science.

Once again, you confuse science with engineering and with politics. The decision to launch Challenger was ultimately political.
You confuse the science of Aristotle's time with the science that has developed over two millenia or more. Science is not moribund.
Generally speaking, you are confused.

 

[AV1611VET]

Once again, you confuse science with engineering and with politics. The decision to launch Challenger was ultimately political.
You confuse the science of Aristotle's time with the science that has developed over two millenia or more. Science is not moribund.
Generally speaking, you are confused.

Then who was Allan McDonald?