Creationist have problems with evolution because evolution makes sense.

[AV1611VET]

Gravity = Gm[sub]1[/sub]m[sub]2[/sub]/r[sup]2[/sup] --- that's about all I know.

Stuff falls at 32 fps[sup]2[/sup] --- or 22 mph[sup]2[/sup] --- until it attains terminal velocity --- or something like that.

To be more accurate, "stuff" accelerates at a rate of 9.8m/s^2 when in free-fall on Earth.

And to be even more accurate, stuff accelerates at a rate of 22 mph/s[sup]2[/sup].

 

[Jester4kicks]

And to be even more accurate, stuff accelerates at a rate of 22 mph/s[sup]2[/sup].

Um.... that's LESS accurate.

9.8 m/s = 21.9219757 mph


Thanks for playing.

 

[Chalnoth]

And to be even more accurate, stuff accelerates at a rate of 22 mph/s[sup]2[/sup].

That would be either 22 mph/s, or 79,200 mi/h^2 (miles per hour squared), or 0.006 mi/s^2 (miles per second squared). The units mph/s[sup]2[/sup] are not acceleration.

 

[keith99]

That would be either 22 mph/s, or 79,200 mi/h^2 (miles per hour squared), or 0.006 mi/s^2 (miles per second squared). The units mph/s[sup]2[/sup] are not acceleration.

Ah the derivitive of acceleration. If I recall my obscure physics correctly the jerk! Quite appropriate!

 

[Chalnoth]

Ah the derivitive of acceleration. If I recall my obscure physics correctly the jerk! Quite appropriate!

Yup! Then the higher derivatives are snap, crackle, and pop. But I've never ever seen them used...

 

[thaumaturgy]

Um.... that's LESS accurate.

9.8 m/s = 21.9219757 mph

Not to be the pedantic former science teacher but...

All the talk of "mph/s[sup]2[/sup] aside, wouldn't 9.8m/s be 2 significant figures, therefore the final answer would be limited to, at most, 2 significant figures, therefore 22, right?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Yup! Then the higher derivatives are snap, crackle, and pop. But I've never ever seen them used...

I remember back in unnergrad talking to my room mate about the need for higher derivatives of position with time. I didn't realize they had names. We decided that the derivative of acceleration should be called camberation in honor of "change".

Snap, Crackle and pop? That's just sad!

 

[ranmaonehalf]

Ah finally a non Avet posts. ( i still wonder why people actually think hes not a poe.. perhaps its just the fun of playing along?)

evolution does not make sense... to believe all the variety of plants came from a single strain of algae, or all insects, reptiles, animals, and man came from a single cell creature, and yet they all show up at about the same time...

Where do you get this from? ITs clear that they did not show up at the same time.

Evolution or Creation? I have to go with God...
Thats your choice, of course why not both? Surely god is smart enough to start the process. Not to mention I dont think god would try to deceive us by making it look like life came about throught he process of evolution when he used another method.

Theory by definition (as in Darwin's Theory of evolution)
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

Ill let you figure out which one is used in science.

So a theory requires what... you to belief in something that cannot be proven... it is a guess...

Nope, not a scientific theory.

If it was fact and not theory, it would be called Darwin's Facts of Evolution.

No, its both.

There is just as much and more historical facts surrounding the documented history laid out in the Christian & Jewish bible than there is of evolution.

Actually no. Especially if you are talking about Jesus. And history and science are different matters.

The only part evolutist point to is the 6-days creation, and that is simply because we cannot rationalize it with our simple minds. So if we cannot comprehend it, it must not be capable of happening. That is because we have such a firm hand on time and space... right?

NO actually we point at it cause there is no evidence to support it and tons that contradicts a 6 day creation.


The fact is, we have not a clue as to what is and is not possible.
I disagree. We typically use the laws to figure out what is possible. We know that some laws bend or break under certain conditions but overall id say we have a good understanding of many things. We are hardly clueless.

We cannot even begin to comprehend what is all posSible. We are learning, and we are getting a little smarter every year... but how many times through out history, have we rewritten history based on new knowledge... too many times to count...
Yep, still learning and all thanks to Science.

Thanks... but I will stick with God...

Why? Are you hoping that oneday we will discover that the world is 6000 ish years old? That there is enough water on earth to cover the highest mountain? That evolution is a lie created by satan? I think your confusing what is and isnt possible.

 

[darkshadow]

Wrong. The fossil record has provided us with transitionals between:

"The remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. ...This moment, right at the start of the Earth's Cambrian Period...marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the earth's first complex creatures. ... the large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and that they were as distinct from each other as they are today...a menagerie of clam cousins, sponges, segmented worms, and other invertevrates that would seem vaguely familiar to any scuba diver." - Richard Monastersky, Earth Science Ed., Science News Discovery p. 40

"We find many of them (fossils) already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history." - Richard Dawkins, Cambridge, The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p229-230

Actually the fossil recoreds have shown the same fossils in the different stages, not to mention that there are no fossils showing a fish with legs, or a shory necked girafe.

fish and tetrapods
http://www.devoniantimes.org/index.html

A pro-evolutionary "paper" says there are transitions. Not a good source.


dinosaurs and birds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds

a scientific consensus has emerged - from the above article
Consensus -
1 a: general agreement : unanimity <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports…from the border — John Hersey> b: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>
2: group solidarity in sentiment and belief

Not a proof but a general agreement by those involved. I.e.those believing in evolution agree on the matter.


reptiles and mammals
http://genesispanthesis.tripod.com/fossils/rept_mam.html

Wow another evolutionist saying they believe in evolution. How ever could we doubt?

non-human apes and man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

The fossil evidence is insufficient to resolve this vigorous debate - From the above article in Wikipedia.

primitive whales and modern whales
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/cgi-bin/webring/list.pl?ringid=cetacea;siteid=cetacean_04
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm

primitive horses and modern horses
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] We have found and collected virtually complete skeletons of middle-to-late Eocene Basilosauridae (Dorudon and Basilosaurus), exceptionally complete skeletons of middle Eocene Protocetidae (especially Rodhocetus and Artiocetus), and a partial skull of earliest middle Eocene Pakicetidae (Pakicetus). Recovery of diagnostic ankle bones in the skeletons of primitive protocetids[/FONT] - From the above article.

In other words we find entire skeletons of whales of today, and partial and parts of others that recreated into what we believe they looked like and there for they were whales.
This sounds a lot like brontosaurus, oops we meant Apatosaurus, which ended up being one in the same.

It is not, and oh, by the way, carbon dating is not used to date fossils.

It was until it was realized that carbon dating can only be used for fossils thousands of years old and not millions. Dates for many fossils prior to the discovery of in accuracy have still been left with inaccurate dating.

The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years. - Michael Benton, Ph.D., a vertebrate paleontologist .

That is a boldfaced lie. Isn't that a sin?

Piltdown man - it was exposed in 1953 as a forgery, consisting of the lower jawbone of an orangutan combined with the skull of a fully developed, modern man. - Wikipedia
Archaeoraptor - appears to be composed of a dromaeosaur tail and a bird body.’ - National Geographic
Neanderthal Man - No longer considered to be pre-man. Neanderthal is fully human but believed to have suffered from rickets due to malnutrition.
Cro-Magnon Man - Proven to be completely human and there is clear evidence of religious practices and artistic creativity. This so-called pre-human co-existed with contemporary man.
Java Man - Proven to be a deliberate hoax and no longer accepted by evolutionary scientist, however it is still taught in many school textbooks as a missing link.
Nebraska Man - An entire skeletal structure was created from a single tooth...Additional research has proven that this tooth was actually the tooth of an extinct pig.
Lucy - Considered to be related to the arboreal ape.
Zinjanthropus - Proven to be a primitive ape and has no ties to modern man or human development.
Coelacanth - This was strongly considered by evolutionary scientist to be an index fossil linking early cretaceous which were considered to have become extinct over 80 million years ago. Recently living specimens have been found near Madagascar. - History of the Earth, Henry Morris

These are just few.

Would you like to see Lucuspa's list of Observed Speciations?

I see a lot of adaptation, but no new species. I see were scientist have made new species, although they are not really a new species but a like species, through cross pollinization, but that again is not evolution. It did not occur through "natural selection", or "mutation".

Wrong. Thermnodynamics deals with the transfer of Heat. Hense the term, "Thermo" (heat) "Dynamics" (movement). It does not deal directly with living organisms.

I was of course referring to enthropy included in the law.
2nd law of thermodynamics: Physicist Lord Kelvin stated it technically as follows: "There is no natural process the only result of which is to cool a heat reservoir and do external work." In more understandable terms, this law observes the fact that the useable energy in the universe is becoming less and less. Ultimately there would be no available energy left. Stemming from this fact we find that the most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder. All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves.
The 2nd Law says that complex ordered arrangments become simpler and more disorderly with time. Where evolution has the arrangment become even more complex, (one cell organisms becoming multi-celled).
"There is no recorded experiment in the history of science that contradicts the second law or its corollaries…" - G.N. Hatspoulous and E.P. Gyftopoulos: physicists
"It is probably no exaggeration to claim that the laws of thermodynamics represent some of the best science we have today. - Emmitt Williams, PhD
Entropy - a function of thermodynamic variables, as temperature, pressure, or composition, that is a measure of the energy that is not available for work during a thermodynamic process. A closed system evolves toward a state of maximum entropy.
Evolution is an open system and therefore would not have the energy to do as it states it does.

Evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That is all that is required. Can you prove creationism beyond a reasonable doubt?

Neither evolution not creationism have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Sorry. Creationism is not a scientific theory, it is a religious belief. No parity for you.

It is just as much a scientific theory as evolution. Both use scientific method to explain phenomenoms. The fossil records, show the same types of fossils in different sections. A universal flood would explain sea life in a dessert area. Can they be proven? No. Are they theories? Yes. Both evolution and creationism are theories on the existance of man.

How would you know there is no hard evidence? Everything you wrote in this post shows you do not have a clue as to what the evidence actually is.

Actually everything I wrote in my post is shown and cited, not by just those that believe in creationism but scientist envolved with the evolutionary theory.

 

[USincognito]

Why do Creationists think quote mining, PRATTs and poisoning the well are a goo... er.. response?

Richard Monastersky, Earth Science Ed., Science News Discovery p. 40

Nothing screams quote mine, apart from repeated elipses, louder than an incomplete citation. Page 40 is meaningless without a volumn number or publication date.

- Richard Dawkins, Cambridge, The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p229-230

Another infamous quote mine (both of these are from bible.ca) and a lot of new discoveries have been made since Dawkins wrote that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion#How_real_was_the_explosion.3F

The fossil record as Darwin knew it seemed to suggest that the major metazoan groups appeared in a few million years of the early to mid-Cambrian, and even in the 1980s this still appeared to be the case.[12][13]

However, evidence of Precambrian metazoa is gradually accumulating...

Actually the fossil recoreds have shown the same fossils in the different stages, not to mention that there are no fossils showing a fish with legs, or a shory necked girafe.

Au Contraire. We find innumerable examples including a fish with wrists and a living cousin of the giraffe that has a short neck.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giraffe#Taxonomy_and_evolution

A pro-evolutionary "paper" says there are transitions. Not a good source.

Ad hominem (or more accurately ad sourceinem ). Attack the content in the website, not the source of it.

Are you sure you don't want to go back and edit your post because you're not off to a good start.

 

[Chalnoth]

I was of course referring to enthropy included in the law.
2nd law of thermodynamics: Physicist Lord Kelvin stated it technically as follows: "There is no natural process the only result of which is to cool a heat reservoir and do external work." In more understandable terms, this law observes the fact that the useable energy in the universe is becoming less and less. Ultimately there would be no available energy left. Stemming from this fact we find that the most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder. All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves.
The 2nd Law says that complex ordered arrangments become simpler and more disorderly with time. Where evolution has the arrangment become even more complex, (one cell organisms becoming multi-celled).
"There is no recorded experiment in the history of science that contradicts the second law or its corollaries…" - G.N. Hatspoulous and E.P. Gyftopoulos: physicists
"It is probably no exaggeration to claim that the laws of thermodynamics represent some of the best science we have today. - Emmitt Williams, PhD
Entropy - a function of thermodynamic variables, as temperature, pressure, or composition, that is a measure of the energy that is not available for work during a thermodynamic process. A closed system evolves toward a state of maximum entropy.
Evolution is an open system and therefore would not have the energy to do as it states it does.

Ah, well, I figure I'll respond to just this point.

If the second law of thermodynamics worked the way you claim here, not only would evolution be impossible, but mere survival would be impossible. Heck, it would even be impossible to drive your car! Why, do you think, would scientists think a law accurate that causes most everything around us to be impossible? The answer is, they wouldn't! You're misunderstanding the law.

Here is what the second law of thermodynamics actually says, from Wikipedia:

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.

Basically it's a statement that if, for example, you shut off your fridge, its temperature will eventually approach that of the room it's in (while the room's temperature will decrease slightly). Nice, simple, easy.

But how, then, do we keep the fridge cool? How do we keep it out of equilibrium with the room? We pump in energy! This is why refrigerators take up so much power: they're continually fighting against the tendency towards equilibrium. Because of this, it is actually impossible to build a fridge that doesn't continually draw energy. And furthermore it's actually impossible to build a fridge that doesn't generate more heat than is cooled.

So, what does this mean for life? In order to maintain our complex structure, we need a continual input of energy. For animals, this means food. This is, fundamentally, why we have to eat all the time. For plants, the source of input energy is the Sun, which is giving of tons of energy to the Earth every second. Thus, for the most part, the Sun is the engine that drives life (there are a few other sources, such as volcanic vents). The Sun is able to do this because of the continual burning of nuclear fuel at its core. The more it burns, the higher the entropy of the Sun gets. As its entropy increases, it throws off lots and lots of energy as heat, which other systems can use to decrease their own entropy (by a much lesser amount). The Sun will run out of hydrogen fuel in about 5 billion years or so, at which point all life on Earth will die, if it hasn't already.

And there you have it. Why the second law of thermodynamics doesn't contradict evolution.

 

[USincognito]

So. Where were we...

It was until it was realized that carbon dating can only be used for fossils thousands of years old and not millions. Dates for many fossils prior to the discovery of in accuracy have still been left with inaccurate dating.

Not true. While the dates of the strata might have changed (and I'd want to see evidence of great changes since the first deep time advocacy in the 18th century), the starta where the fossils were found was documented and

The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years.[/B] - Michael Benton, Ph.D., a vertebrate paleontologist .

Bold mine. Do you know why that phrase is the important part in this quote?

Piltdown man - it was exposed in 1953 as a forgery, consisting of the lower jawbone of an orangutan combined with the skull of a fully developed, modern man. - Wikipedia

To this day it is unknown who perpetrated the Piltdown hoax so don't try and peg it on evolution. As far as evolution supporters advocating it, that was a product of the times. There was still debate over which came first big-brain or bipedalism and most of its supporters were English mainly because of cheauvanism.

Archaeoraptor - appears to be composed of a dromaeosaur tail and a bird body.’ - National Geographic

Correct, at least the National Geographic part. The supposed fossil was tauted by them before paleontological vetting and they wound up with egg on their face. As soon as qualified scientists got a look at it, they realized it was fraudulent. A similar situation happened with Nebraska Man.

Neanderthal Man - No longer considered to be pre-man. Neanderthal is fully human but believed to have suffered from rickets due to malnutrition.

No, no and no. Neandertals might be a cousin species or a cousin subspecies by they are not modern humans. And the rickets myth was busted a long time ago.

Cro-Magnon Man - Proven to be completely human and there is clear evidence of religious practices and artistic creativity. This so-called pre-human co-existed with contemporary man.

No one claims Cro-Magnons are anything but modern humans so saying anyone refers to them as "pre-human" is a straw man. Also, they didn't live with "contemporary" man, but were humans that were alive 50,000+ years ago.

Java Man - Proven to be a deliberate hoax and no longer accepted by evolutionary scientist, however it is still taught in many school textbooks as a missing link.

No, no and no. Java Man was a Homo erectus.

Nebraska Man - An entire skeletal structure was created from a single tooth...Additional research has proven that this tooth was actually the tooth of an extinct pig.

No and yes. No skeletal structure was "created" and not by scientists. The London Illustrated Mail ran a drawing of what it was thought to have looked like but that was a journalistic decision, not a scientific one. And peccary molars and human molars are very similar, but the confusion was cleared up after more scientists got a chance to look at it.

Lucy - Considered to be related to the arboreal ape.

Yep, the Chimpanzee, just like we are. She's actually and Australopithecus afarensis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis

Zinjanthropus - Proven to be a primitive ape and has no ties to modern man or human development.

A cousin is still a family member. And the current designation if Paranthropus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinjanthropus

Coelacanth - This was strongly considered by evolutionary scientist to be an index fossil linking early cretaceous which were considered to have become extinct over 80 million years ago. Recently living specimens have been found near Madagascar. - History of the Earth, Henry Morris

Finding a living dinosaur is much less problematic for evolution than finding a Permian rabbit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth
http://www.dinofish.com/

These are just few.

You'll need to do better since none of them are "lies" (though, ironically, some of the Creationist assertions about them are), and each of the ones that actually were hoaxes were uncovered not by Creationists, but by scientists.

 

[darkshadow]

I love it when evolutionist do the same things they claim others are doing. That being twisting meanings and ignoring anything that goes against their beliefs. I have stated I can not prove my theory, it is the evolutionist who has no hard facts, except those that they claim to be true even if disproved, that have a problem. The origin of man in either case is an unproven theory, that can not be proven using the scientific method. That is a fact, whether you believe the facts is your choice. You have your beliefs on what you believe to be true, and I have mine it really is just that simple. When you get down to it, both are believed by faith. Faith in what you believe to be true is.
The facts are facts. The fossil records do not point toward evolution, but the appearance of what we have now, minus extinctions. There are no new species walking out of the jungles, and the laws of Physics do not support the evolutionary theory. Closing your eyes and and tapping your heals together will not erase the facts.

 

[Oncedeceived]

OH! and I suppose God created man by BIOgenesys? Mud is Alive?

If you have no idea of chemistry then you cannot understand how ABIOgenesys can happen.

What do you think life is comprised of?

NONE of the Chemicals comprising life is living. Show me one living Chemical or element?

What?

Many who understand chemistry more than I do not "understand" how abiogenesis could happen. If the world's top scientists do not "undertand" how in the world do I or you have an understanding of it?

Saying that life is comprised of chemicals that are not "living" is not really a good argument, in my estimation at least, of abiogenesis since everything is made of such and some are actually living and some of course are not.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What in the world does any of this have to do with whether or not abiogenesis is taught?

Well then please by all means correct me if I am wrong that the study of origin of life has nothing to do with abiogenesis the theory and what has and is being done to supply evidence for it?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Perhaps you should, as well. Seeing as how you got this from my Alma Mater (Boston University), I'll enlighten you; BU's CGS curriculum teaches that the various work on origins of life doesn't yet amount to a true scientific theory, just as posters here have been telling you. Your cut-n-paste of their core curriculum shows nothing about the actual content of the course, which is what really matters, here...

I highlighted the part in which I am interested, please provide where in the resources provided by the University that it states this. If I am wrong about the content having no part reserved for abiogenesis then by all means please provide that as well.

ORIGNAL LINK

Thanks I already have it....oh, that was for those who didn't...thanks.

Interesting, too, that you got this from the College of General Studies, a college within BU specifically designed to bring under-performing students that show potential, but had a horrible quality of high school education, up to speed on the fundamentals they should have gotten in high school, so that they can enter a proper course of university study by their junior year. Who does that remind me of, off the top of my head? Home-schooled kids whose parents brought them to church and/or the Creationist Museum for their biology curriculum, for one.

The fact that students who have under-performed (but show Potential) but have had a horrible quality of high school education are being "brought up to speed" about the origin of life is not something that really supports your argument, now does it?

 

[Chalnoth]

Well then please by all means correct me if I am wrong that the study of origin of life has nothing to do with abiogenesis the theory and what has and is being done to supply evidence for it?

What you posted was a curriculum of a social studies department. Abiogenesis does not fall under the social sciences.

 

[Chalnoth]

The origin of man in either case is an unproven theory, that can not be proven using the scientific method.

Steadfastly claiming this again and again won't make it true. The facts that demonstrate our common ancestry with other species are myriad, but I personally think that this is a rather beautiful illustration of one tiny piece of the evidence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

Note that there is far, far more. Of particular interest is the fact that we have the same bits of broken DNA. For instance, we share with all other mammals all of the genes to make Vitamin C. The problem is, in us and all other primates, one of the many genes involved in making Vitamin C is broken: it's missing a single base pair, and so does not function. As a result, all primates have to eat Vitamin C, while other mammals can make their own. Why do we share all of the genes to make this essential vitamin, but at the same time have the exact same broken gene?

Then there's also the endogenous retroviruses. These are little bits of virus DNA that are remnants of past infections of our ancestors. Not only do we share many such viruses in the exact same locations as other animals (directly indicating that we had common ancestors: there's no other realistic way to get the same virus DNA in the same location than that they are copies of the same original infection from the same original ancestor), but the pattern of commonality is also precisely what we expect from other measures of how species are related.

Now, do you want to take that back? Or do you somehow think that you can refute the mountains of conclusive genetic evidence for common ancestry? Heck, do you even think you can refute one piece of the genetic evidence that links us to the other apes?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Well then please by all means correct me if I am wrong that the study of origin of life has nothing to do with abiogenesis the theory and what has and is being done to supply evidence for it?

Oncedecieved, there is no "THEORY" of abiogenesis, there is, as far as I can tell, only an HYPOTHESIS of abiogenesis.

It is the standard default concept that has yet to be proven to the level required for it to be a full on scientific THEORY.

Here's how the thinking goes (as I understand it):

1. Life exists
2. Life is made up of only naturally occuring chemicals
3. No single chemical in the mixture is, itself, "alive".
4. Life is an "emergent property" of non-living chemicals
5. Those elements and many of the individual chemicals that make up "life" pre-existed "life".
6. Therefore it is likely that life arose "spontaneously" as a chemical reaction suite.

At no point does life by definition necessitate "divine structure or guidance" unless such divine structure or guidance can be proven.

So the hypothesis is what one would naturally assume given the 6 points above.

Abiogenesis is still quite questioned as to mechanism, however I cannot understand what would be the alternative to an abiogenic origin.

If you wish to hypothesize "God" then you are still required to prove God's existence and then prove that God "did this".

That's what I perceive about this "debate".

(I am not a biochemist, I am a mere geochemist who has been working in the field of coatings chemistry now for a while, so perhaps one of the biologists could correct any errors in my thinking.)

 

[Jester4kicks]

What?

Many who understand chemistry more than I do not "understand" how abiogenesis could happen. If the world's top scientists do not "undertand" how in the world do I or you have an understanding of it?

Who exactly are the "world's top scientists"?
Seems like many of the people listed here have a pretty good idea of how it could have happened.

Saying that life is comprised of chemicals that are not "living" is not really a good argument, in my estimation at least, of abiogenesis since everything is made of such and some are actually living and some of course are not.

Composition of the human body:
oxygen, 65%
carbon, 18.6%
hydrogen, 9.7%
nitrogen, 3.2%
calcium, 1.8%
phosphorus, 1.0%
potassium, .4%
sodium, .2%
chlorine, .2%
magnesium, .06%
sulfur, .04%
iron, .007%
iodine, .0002%

Plus traces of the following:
fluorine, zinc, silicon, rubidium, strontium, bromine, lead, copper, aluminum, cadmium, cerium, barium, iodine, tin, titanium, boron, nickel, selenium, chromium, manganese, arsenic, lithium, cesium, mercury, germanium, molybdenum, cobalt, antimony, silver, niobium, zirconium, lanthanum, gallium, tellurium, yttrium, bismuth, thallium, indium, gold, scandium, tantalum, vanadium, thorium, uranium, samarium, beryllium, tungsten



Now then... which you like to tell me which of those elements is "living"?​