Abiogenesis is a Lie

[TLK Valentine]

Abiogenesis = a_biogenesis = not_from life.

Abiogenesis is a descriptive term that says that life did not arise from life ... nothing more, nothing less.

Ah, necroing one of your more halfhearted deceptions, AV?

 

[Kylie]

Even Hawking was willing to bet $100 that the Higgs bosom particle hypothesis was a dud.

I remember a bet he made with Kip Thorn, I think, where he bet that a particular object was not a black hole. He had worked tom prove that it was, but bet against it so that even if it turned out it wasn't, he would have had the consolation of winning the bet.

 

[Radrook]

Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Sounds like abiogenesis to me.

/thread

It demands generation of life without any outside agency:
abiogenesis

 

[Ana the Ist]

If that's your conception of the antithesis of abiogenesis, then it's no wonder abiogenesis flourishes.

I wouldn't say flourishes...but it has made some pretty impressive strides in current times.

 

[Radrook]

I wouldn't say flourishes...but it has made some pretty impressive strides in current times.

Like the famous Miller–Urey stride?

 

[AV1611VET]

Like the famous Miller–Urey stride?

That was a joke!

 

[Ana the Ist]

Like the famous Miller–Urey stride?

Never heard of that one...care to explain?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Never heard of that one...care to explain?

Creationists are stuck in the past. The Miller Urey experiment was perhaps the first experiment in abiogenesis and it was very successful. It was done in 1952, over 60 years ago. At that time creationists claimed that it was impossible for the building blocks of life to form on their own. The Miller Urey experiment showed that to be wrong:

Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia

Years later it was thought that the primitive atmosphere used in the experiment may not have been correct. So it was reran, several times. That it was possible to make the building blocks of life was shown to be still possible. Since the creationists were shown to be wrong they did what they usually do. They acted irrationally and dishonestly. They claimed that it did not make life, so if failed. But that was never the purpose of the experiment. Like it or not it was a success.

And this is a four year old zombie thread that AV brought back to life. He has a strange habit of doing this. For some reason he seems to think that he will not fail utterly ... again.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Creationists are stuck in the past. The Miller Urey experiment was perhaps the first experiment in abiogenesis and it was very successful. It was done in 1952, over 60 years ago. At that time creationists claimed that it was impossible for the building blocks of life to form on their own. The Miller Urey experiment showed that to be wrong:

Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia

Years later it was thought that the primitive atmosphere used in the experiment may not have been correct. So it was reran, several times. That it was possible to make the building blocks of life was shown to be still possible. Since the creationists were shown to be wrong they did what they usually do. They acted irrationally and dishonestly. They claimed that it did not make life, so if failed. But that was never the purpose of the experiment. Like it or not it was a success.

And this is a four year old zombie thread that AV brought back to life. He has a strange habit of doing this. For some reason he seems to think that he will not fail utterly ... again.

So, in spite of the reply I got from Radrook, it's obviously not the "current strides" I was referring to.

If anyone's google search is broken and they're genuinely interested in what I was referring to, I can link you to some articles on abiogenesis research which has lead to some very interesting results.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Like the famous Miller–Urey stride?

Hey Rad...

I don't know why I associate your name with a blog that I read on here some time ago...but are you the poster who believes that he can, or has at some point, manipulated the weather through prayer?

I don't remember if it was you or someone else, and I don't want to keep thinking it was you if it's someone else. Thanks.

 

[Speedwell]

Never heard of that one...care to explain?

It was an experiment designed by. Stanley Miller and Harold Urey in 1950 to see if organic chemicals would form spontaneously under conditions which were then thought to represent the early Earth. Creationists like to misrepresent it as an attempt to create life which failed. That's why Radrook sees it as a joke.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It was an experiment designed by. Stanley Miller and Harold Urey in 1950 to see if organic chemicals would form spontaneously under conditions which were then thought to represent the early Earth. Creationists like to misrepresent it as an attempt to create life which failed. That's why Radrook sees it as a joke.

Thanks Speed! Subduction Zone beat you to the punch...something he tends to be very good at when it comes to science.

 

[AV1611VET]

Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia

Thanks for the lesson in Intelligent Design, but the M-U experiment had to use a trap.

Mother Nature has no such trap.

 

[Kylie]

Thanks for the lesson in Intelligent Design, but the M-U experiment had to use a trap.

Mother Nature has no such trap.

Yeah, you'll never find a place where water naturally settles and remains still in nature...

 

[Radrook]

If it doesn’t work the first time all you have to do is come up with another idea and voila! The chemical reaction you were looking for materializes. It all depends on the assumptions about Earth’s original environment you are making or the assumptions that you are willing to come up with and abiogenesis enthusiasts are willing to make all kinds of assumptions in order to prove their point. It’s called moving the goal post or fitting the patient to the bed. A very common strategy used in fallacious reasoning as the example below illustrates in reference to the MU.

Bada discovered that the reactions were producing chemicals called nitrites, which destroy amino acids as quickly as they form. They were also turning the water acidic—which prevents amino acids from forming. Yet primitive Earth would have contained iron and carbonate minerals that neutralized nitrites and acids. So Bada added chemicals to the experiment to duplicate these functions. When he reran it, he still got the same watery liquid as Miller did in 1983, but this time it was chock-full of amino acids. Bada presented his results this week at the American Chemical Society annual meeting in Chicago.
Primordial Soup's On: Scientists Repeat Evolution's Most Famous Experiment

So he simply assumed another scenario, added based on that conjecture and BINGO!
But the doubts haven't been removed and continue to plague this line of inquiry contrary to the impression atheists strive to convey as illustrated by the following comment concerning the experiment in question which had supposedly solved the problems encountered previously via imagining a different scenario.

But James Ferris, a prebiotic chemist at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y., doubts that atmospheric electricity could have been the only source of organic molecules. "You get a fair amount of amino acids," he says. "What you don't get are things like building blocks of nucleic acids." Meteors, comets or primordial ponds of hydrogen cyanide would still need to provide those molecules.

In other words, change the scenario again so that you can make it work or imagine that it worked ultimately in some nebulous way even if you have to bring in comets and meteors. It must be assumed that it happened because the alternative-ID is too hard to stomach and not because it is the less likely alternative.

Honest scientists among them admit that there isn’t the certainty which some atheists seem to exude and that instead of unanimity of opinion their controversy is the main characteristic of this field.

‘Indeed, during the long history of the search into the origin of life, controversy is probably the most characteristic attribute of this interdisciplinary field. There is hardly a model or scenario or fashion in this discipline that is not controversial.’41

Lahav, ref. 21, p. 50.

The Miller–Urey experiment is now an icon of evolution, presented in most all biology, zoology and evolution textbooks as clear evidence of abiogenesis, when it actually illustrates the many difficulties of chemical evolution.22
Wells, J., Icons of Evolution, Regnery, Washington, 2000.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If it doesn’t work the first time all you have to do is come up with another idea and voila! The chemical reaction you were looking for materializes. It all depends on the assumptions about Earth’s original environment you are making or the assumptions that you are willing to come up with and abiogenesis enthusiasts are willing to make all kinds of assumptions in order to prove their point. It’s called moving the goal post or fitting the patient to the bed. A very common strategy used in fallacious reasoning as the example below illustrates in reference to the MU.

Did you not read the replies you received?

The MU experiment was about having the building blocks of life (not life itself), form naturally. And it was succesfull. It showed that not only CAN these building blocks form naturally, it also showed that they will given the right environment.

FYI: are you aware that we are also finding these molecules in space rocks?

So he simply assumed another scenario, added based on that conjecture and BINGO!
But the doubts haven't been removed and continue to plague this line of inquiry contrary to the impression atheists strive to convey as illustrated by the following comment concerning the experiment in question which had supposedly solved the problems encountered previously via imagining a different scenario.

You really hate progress, don't you?

In other words, change the scenario again so that you can make it work or imagine that it worked ultimately in some nebulous way even if you have to bring in comets and meteors.

What is the problem with bringing in comets and meteors?
Last I checked, comets and meteors demonstrably exist.

It must be assumed that it happened because the alternative-ID is too hard to stomach and not because it is the less likely alternative.

ID isn't an "alternative" any more then magic or undetectable pixies are.

The fact of the matter is that it has been shown / demonstrated that these molecules CAN and WILL form on their own, given the right environment in natural ways.

And remember that these are molecules that were once branded as being "too complex" to form naturally, by creationists. Does that ring a bell?

Honest scientists among them admit that there isn’t the certainty which some atheists seem to exude and that instead of unanimity of opinion their controversy is the main characteristic of this field.

No scientists denies that these experiments showed that those molecules can form happily in natural ways, given the right circumstances.

And before you get hung up on the part of "right circumstances" - that is true for EVERY CHEMICAL REACTION.

2 H atoms and an O atom, will only bond together to form H2O given the right circumstances.

 

[Speedwell]

Honest scientists among them admit that there isn’t the certainty which some atheists seem to exude and that instead of unanimity of opinion their controversy is the main characteristic of this field.

Yes, the authors of public school science books and other ignorant laymen do tend to become over enthusiastic about our relatively sketchy knowledge of abiogenesis. But there is nonetheless more certainty about it than the shallow and theologically inadequate interpretation of Genesis offered by the YECs.

 

[Chriliman]

Yes, life from non life is what Genesis 2 states.

Is the dirt responsible for human life or is God?

If the dirt then you're right, but if God then you're wrong, God is alive.

 

[Kylie]

Is the dirt responsible for human life or is God?

If the dirt then you're right, but if God then you're wrong, God is alive.

According to the Bible, God used the dirt. The life came from the dirt, even though it was God doing it.

It's like how a painter uses paint to create a painting. The painting comes from the paint, but it is created by something alive. But we don't claim it is alive just because it was created by something alive.

 

[Chriliman]

According to the Bible, God used the dirt. The life came from the dirt, even though it was God doing it.

It's like how a painter uses paint to create a painting. The painting comes from the paint, but it is created by something alive. But we don't claim it is alive just because it was created by something alive.

Right, because a painting is not a human being, unless your arguing that human beings are not alive even though they were created by God who is alive?