TLK Valentine
I've already read the books you want burned.
- Apr 15, 2012
- 64,493
- 30,322
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Abiogenesis = a_biogenesis = not_from life.
Abiogenesis is a descriptive term that says that life did not arise from life ... nothing more, nothing less.
Even Hawking was willing to bet $100 that the Higgs bosom particle hypothesis was a dud.
It demands generation of life without any outside agency: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
If that's your conception of the antithesis of abiogenesis, then it's no wonder abiogenesis flourishes.
That was a joke!Like the famous Miller–Urey stride?
Like the famous Miller–Urey stride?
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: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.
Like the famous Miller–Urey stride?
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.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.
Thanks for the lesson in Intelligent Design, but the M-U experiment had to use a trap.
Thanks for the lesson in Intelligent Design, but the M-U experiment had to use a trap.
Mother Nature has no such trap.
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
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.
‘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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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, 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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?