Abiogenesis

[Speedwell]

Science will eventually catch up to theology, maybe, but why is the supernatural so hard to imagine? We humans seem to be fascinated by the supernatural, it reigns on the movie screen and most everyone believes in God or a god. How does that idea even percolate in our imaginations if there isn't some basis in truth?

I couldn't answer that as I am a theist myself, but it has nothing to do with the question at hand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

An intelligent designer seems like the most sane explanation there is. Besides, even if life could form spontaneously, that doesn't explain how everything comes from nothing.

What is "sane" about that? There is no evidence for an intelligent designer.

And your statement "from nothing" is a strawman, unless you are arguing against the Biblical creation story.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes,,there's a whole lot we don't know.
That's pretty much what the big bang is, everything from nothing...or more specifically from an infinite speck of energy that nobody seems to know the source of.

Which is not the same thing as asserting that "everything came from nothing." Science tells us that the universe was once in a very hot, dense state. No one knows what happened before that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes,,there's a whole lot we don't know.
That's pretty much what the big bang is, everything from nothing...or more specifically from an infinite speck of energy that nobody seems to know the source of.

No, not really. But you should be happy to know that a universe from no space and no mass and no energy does not violate the laws of physics.

 

[renniks]

Of course. There was no molecular oxygen in the early atmosphere.

And even pure amino acids (made by intelligent organic chemists) will not form proteins under natural conditions...the reverse happens—proteins break down into amino acids.

I think that's all old news anyway:
Scientists have not been able to cause amino acids dissolved in water to join together to form proteins. The energy-requiring chemical reactions that join amino acids are freely reversible and do not occur spontaneously in water. However, most scientists no longer argue that the first proteins assembled spontaneously. Instead, they now propose that the initial macromolecules were composed of RNA, and that RNA later catalyzed the formation of proteins.’6

But that doesn't really work either, because
RNA, like DNA, will not form outside of already living cells...

 

[Subduction Zone]

And even pure amino acids (made by intelligent organic chemists) will not form proteins under natural conditions...the reverse happens—proteins break down into amino acids.

I think that's all old news anyway:
Scientists have not been able to cause amino acids dissolved in water to join together to form proteins. The energy-requiring chemical reactions that join amino acids are freely reversible and do not occur spontaneously in water. However, most scientists no longer argue that the first proteins assembled spontaneously. Instead, they now propose that the initial macromolecules were composed of RNA, and that RNA later catalyzed the formation of proteins.’6

But that doesn't really work either, because
RNA, like DNA, will not form outside of already living cells...

Not necessarily so. Meotorites are billions of years old and they still have amino acids in them.

Why do you think that they would break down? If they break down due to reacting with oxygen there was no free oxygen at that time.

And do you have a paper to support that claim about proteins? From a reliable source please.

Creation.com is not a reliable source for scientific debates. To even work there one must swear not to follow the scientific method. That removes them from all scientific arguments.

 

[renniks]

Which is not the same thing as asserting that "everything came from nothing." Science tells us that the universe was once in a very hot, dense state. No one knows what happened before that.

When one speculates about infinite energy, they've already left science behind, and entered into the realm of religion in my opinion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When one speculates about infinite energy, they've already left science behind, and entered into the realm of religion in my opinion.

No one is speculating about infinite energy. What led you to that statement?

 

[Strathos]

Science can only discover what God already knows. Some people just seem to take exception to some of it not being the exact same way they thought it would be.

 

[Larniavc]

Where did matter come from?

When the early Universe cooled enough baryonic matter condensed out of the protons and elections. Before that you have the Planck epoch where our current knowledge (or at least mine) of how physics work break down,

That's as far back I can go.

 

[Larniavc]

Design happened, by the Designer of life.

But you have no evidence that design happened. What you seem to have is an argument from incredulity.

 

[Larniavc]

If it's relatively straightforward, they should be able to replicate it, no problem. But DNA is anything but simple.

I meant the articles are relatively straight forward (so you would not be put off reading them.

You have read them?

 

[HitchSlap]

An intelligent designer seems like the most sane explanation there is. Besides, even if life could form spontaneously, that doesn't explain how everything comes from nothing.

So, Thor.

Got it.

 

[renniks]

No one is speculating about infinite energy. What led you to that statement?

Atheist and agnostics saying that before the bang, there was only a speck of infinite energy.

 

[renniks]

But you have no evidence that design happened. What you seem to have is an argument from incredulity.

Evidence for design is everywhere. Anyone that can look at the universe and the human body and not see the design is simply being dishonest. When you start to understand how complex one single strand of DNA is, to say it developed without a creator is about a billion times more absurd than saying the computer you are typing on made itself from nothing.

 

[renniks]

What is "sane" about that? There is no evidence for an intelligent designer.

And your statement "from nothing" is a strawman, unless you are arguing against the Biblical creation story.

No one has yet explained how it's a strawman.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Atheist and agnostics saying that before the bang, there was only a speck of infinite energy.

Really? Quote and link a scientist that says that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No one has yet explained how it's a strawman.

Because no scientist makes that claim. You may have misunderstood them.

 

[renniks]

So, Thor.

Got it.

Thor is just a mythical god, little g. Don't think anyone ever proposed that he was the creator of all.

 

[renniks]

Because no scientist makes that claim. You may have misunderstood them.

It doesn't matter if they make the claim or not, it's the logical conclusion of their claims.