Abiogenesis - evidence and debate

[Jeffwhosoever]

First on education:

I don't know about the rest of you, but I found public high school education in science to be pathetic, mostly because coaches tought the classes. I had a decent math instruction, which is what got me into Engineering school. However, the science I had at a "highly competitive" university was top notch, albiet I've forgotten a lot in 23 years since graduation. I could not agree more that public elementary and secondary education needs real science teachers, but with the pay we give science teachers, few choose this as an occupation. I personally send my child to private school for this reason, though I pay a fortune in taxes at the same time.

Let's start this debate with the topic of the origin of life, then proceed to speciation, then to evolution. I understand they are discrete topics, but they are unified in a sense. I think the big bang and creation of matter and energy deserve a totally different thread.

Do we want to then use this thread to discuss abiogenesis, or should we open a brand new one?

 

[BananaSlug]

I wouldn't mind discussing abiogenesis. It is an interesting topic. The first question to answer would be can organic compounds form naturally, without "help" from another organism/being?

 

[ArnautDaniel]

I wouldn't mind discussing abiogenesis. It is an interesting topic. The first question to answer would be can organic compounds form naturally, without "help" from another organism/being?

Strictly speaking, that is an easy one, and the answer is yes.

But I'm supposing you might mean very complicated organic compounds rather than say carbon monoxide.

 

[keith99]

First on education:

I don't know about the rest of you, but I found public high school education in science to be pathetic, mostly because coaches tought the classes. I had a decent math instruction, which is what got me into Engineering school. However, the science I had at a "highly competitive" university was top notch, albiet I've forgotten a lot in 23 years since graduation. I could not agree more that public elementary and secondary education needs real science teachers, but with the pay we give science teachers, few choose this as an occupation. I personally send my child to private school for this reason, though I pay a fortune in taxes at the same time.

Let's start this debate with the topic of the origin of life, then proceed to speciation, then to evolution. I understand they are discrete topics, but they are unified in a sense. I think the big bang and creation of matter and energy deserve a totally different thread.

Do we want to then use this thread to discuss abiogenesis, or should we open a brand new one?

I would not group all science into one basket. In my High School experience Biology was lacking, Chemistry and Physics were actually pretty good. Physics was good enough that based on the regular High School class I was able to score high enough to get college credit at a fairly elite college. I honestly do not recall my High School math classes, except for calculus. That put my high school math teachers well above the ones from public school up until grade 5. At least the High School teachers were not a barrier to learning. (6th -9th grade were private school for me. There I had a pretty good math teacher most of the time, problem was she knew me far to well. Mothers usually do).

 

[sfs]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I found public high school education in science to be pathetic, mostly because coaches tought the classes. I had a decent math instruction, which is what got me into Engineering school. However, the science I had at a "highly competitive" university was top notch, albiet I've forgotten a lot in 23 years since graduation. I could not agree more that public elementary and secondary education needs real science teachers, but with the pay we give science teachers, few choose this as an occupation. I personally send my child to private school for this reason, though I pay a fortune in taxes at the same time.

I had a pretty good science education in high school, especially in physics. My physics teacher had a PhD in physics from MIT, so he knew his subject. (He had some quirks, but ignorance was not one of them.)

My son's high school is even better in science and math than mine was; he's in our town's public school, but our town is pretty ferociously devoted to good public education. He's taking AP Bio as a sophomore; the normal sequence for ambitious kids is then AP Chemistry in junior year and AP Physics as a senior. Plus, of course, AP Calculus and AP Computer Science.

Let's start this debate with the topic of the origin of life, then proceed to speciation, then to evolution. I understand they are discrete topics, but they are unified in a sense. I think the big bang and creation of matter and energy deserve a totally different thread.

Do we want to then use this thread to discuss abiogenesis, or should we open a brand new one?

This thread is fine, but I'm not quite sure what's being debated here. There are lots of interesting ideas about abiogenesis, and a number of intriguing facts, both of which are worth discussing, but exactly what claim is being debated?

There currently is no scientific theory of abiogenesis. Scientists are exploring many promising avenues of research, and they assume that some natural process was responsible (because that's what scientists do), but they cannot say exactly what that process was, nor can they demonstrate that such a process actually exists. Creationist opponents sometimes try to argue that the natural process is not merely unknown but impossible, but their arguments seem to me to be quite hand-waving -- not surprising, since I don't think we know remotely enough about chemistry to draw that conclusion yet.

So are you interested in detailed discussions about what's known and unknown about abiogenesis (not that there are many experts here on the subject), or are you interested in a more categorical debate?

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Let's do both - as long as we stick to abiogenesis. I'll try changing the name of this thread to match the topic we decided, since I'm the original poster.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

MOD HAT ON

Thread title changed per OP's request.

Carry on, carry on.

MOD HAT OFF
​

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no such thing as abiogenesis.

Which came first in the universe, life or the earth?

 

[ArnautDaniel]

There is no such thing as abiogenesis.

Which came first in the universe, life or the earth?

Uh, I think even creationists would say "earth"...

...unless you have some weird image of living things floating around in space.

 

[AV1611VET]

Uh, I think even creationists would say "earth"...

...unless you have some weird image of living things floating around in space.

Angels --- they were present when the earth was created:

6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Angels --- they were present when the earth was created:

I know what it is for say a cat to be alive.

But as angles presumably aren't made of matter like a cat, I'm not sure what it means for an angel to be "alive".

 

[AV1611VET]

I know what it is for say a cat to be alive.

But as angles presumably aren't made of matter like a cat, I'm not sure what it means for an angel to be "alive".

Believe it or not, an angel is actually considered a "person" --- since he has his own personality.

Even God is considered a "Person."

We speak of the "First, Second, and Third Persons of the Godhead."

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Believe it or not, an angel is actually considered a "person" --- since he has his own personality.

Well, my grandmother died, and we ceased to consider her "alive".

So it appears people can be in a state in which they are not "alive".

Even God is considered a "Person."

We speak of the "First, Second, and Third Persons of the Godhead."

So you believe in three gods.

Because when I talk about three people I don't consider them one thing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, my grandmother died, and we ceased to consider her "alive".

In God's eyes, your grandmother is alive, if she has accepted Jesus Christ as her Saviour.

And when he was come in, he saith unto them, Why make ye this ado, and weep? the damsel is not dead, but sleepeth.

But from our perspective, yes, she is dead.

So it appears people can be in a state in which they are not "alive".

Yes and no.

The body is dead, but the spirit is still alive.

In the future, God is going to reunite both body and spirit.

So you believe in three gods.

Not exactly.

We are monotheists, but with a twist --- we believe in three Gods in One.

Paul referred to this as the "Godhead".

Because when I talk about three people I don't consider them one thing.

Correct --- that's because God is not limited to what we call the "Law of Non-contradiction."

God can indeed be in more than one place at the same time (what we call 'omnipresent'), or the Godhead can all be in the same place at the same time.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

In God's eyes, your grandmother is alive, if she has accepted Jesus Christ as her Saviour.But from our perspective, yes, she is dead.Yes and no.

The body is dead, but the spirit is still alive.

Well as everything I know about that is alive will eventually be dead, I can't supply any rational meaning to the notion of angels being "alive".

In the future, God is going to reunite both body and spirit.Not exactly.

We are monotheists, but with a twist --- we believe in three Gods in One.

Well, as all the people I now are not one entity, I don't see how applying the word "person" to god, can possibly have any meaning whatsoever in common with applying the word to actual humans.

You are just playing with language.

Paul referred to this as the "Godhead".Correct --- that's because God is not limited to what we call the "Law of Non-contradiction."

So you've just made up a new word "person" that has nothing to do with the conventional word. You may as well have said "god is three flibberflabbers in one" for all the good using "person" does.

God can indeed be in more than one place at the same time (what we call 'omnipresent'), or the Godhead can all be in the same place at the same time.

You are just making up meanings to existing words and pretending they have something to do with the existing words.

You may as well say "god is rotted bread but by 'rotted bread' I mean something entirely different and metaphysical having nothing to do with actual bread that has gone rotten".

 

[caustic]

Correct --- that's because God is not limited to what we call the "Law of Non-contradiction."

Convenient.

 

[caustic]

Angels --- they were present when the earth was created:

I believe this thread is about abiogenesis. Not angels.

 

[USincognito]

Guys, please don't follow AV down the off-topic rabbit hole and let him ruin yet another thread. The topic currently is abiogenesis - not angels, not the Trinity, not the nature of God.

Let's start this debate with the topic of the origin of life, then proceed to speciation, then to evolution. I understand they are discrete topics, but they are unified in a sense.

They're not unifed so much as connected. It really doesn't matter how life came to exist, evolution is what happens after it does. Abiogenesis, fiat creation, panspermia, hyperdimensional highschool project - any of those will result in life that will then evolve. An analogy is geology and astrophysics. Astrophysics is one explanation of how the Earth came to be. The Earth could also have been instantaneously created or built by the Magratheans. None of these different beginnings would effect the fact that geology is what happens internally and on the surface of the Earth from then on.

As far as abiogenesis goes, others have pointed out that there isn't a working theory and there are many hypotheses. We do know, however, that one of the objections to abiogenesis, how did it keep going once the initial reactions started is explained by autocatylitic reactions. As long as there is a source of new materials and energy there's no reason the simplist of pre-biotic "forms" couldn't have continued to reproduce and possibly develop.

 

[AV1611VET]

I believe this thread is about abiogenesis. Not angels.

Angels show that abiogenesis has nothing to do with the start of life in the universe --- hence there is no such a thing as abiogenesis.

If you want to apply abiogenesis to life on earth, then again, we have [the] Life creating life.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

I started this thread to discuss the evidence of abiogenesis. Can we get back on topic? Sorry - I've been elsewhere tonight.

Thanks!
Jeff