Difference between a fact ,theory and a guess

[DogmaHunter]

I am aware you would never admit it

I bet that you'll never admit that you secretly believe in Thor either.

 

[Mountainmike]

I bet that you'll never admit that you secretly believe in Thor either.

Which could be that I dont!

But lots of atheists push abiogenesis here, and they dont have an evidential basis or a process for it.
So at least I have a basis for claiming they believe it to varying degrees. And they also believe in it as the origin of life here.

"ie have confidence without complete evidence"
So why do you think I believe in Thor?
(considering a "thors" hammer handle was just found in ireland last week... should I revise that)

 

[DogmaHunter]

On that basis from all your posts, you clearly" believe "in abiogenesis having happened as random chance biochemistry (I shall avoid using the word accident) -
that is you have confidence in it, not necessarily unshakeable,
and in that case you have no evidence it happened , or is happening, or a method for it.

The bolded part is just not true.
There is much evidence to suggest natural origins for life.
There's no conclusive evidence of any specific mechanism, but there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the answer needs to be looked for in a natural process.

To deny is, is either due to ignorance or plain lying.
I'll give the benefit of the doubt and blame it on ignorance. Eventhough I need to bend over backwards for that, since I actually personally have given you a couple of laymen examples in this very thread as to what kind of evidence that is.

You clearly think biochemistry is a strong enough weapon to solve the problem of how.

Consider that life literally, at its foundation, consists of bio-chemistry, yes, i'ld say that looking at chemical processes involving bio molecules is a good place to start research to answer the question of how life came to be, or can come to be.

So it is clearly fair to say, "you have confidence without complete (or this case much ) demonstration.

The only thing I'm confident about, is that if we ever get the question answered properly, the answer will be provided by science, not religion.

That the answer will involve some type of chemistry, is something I consider quite likely, considering the evidence at our disposal.

That the answer will involve some superbeing, let alone deity, create first life is something I consider extremely unlikely, considering the the total lack of evidence for that at our disposal.

So why are all atheists at pains to say they dont believe in anything!
When that shows you believe in abiogenesis.

Furthermore, you consistently continue to pretend that abiogenesis is some kind of "atheist" science. This is yet another lie / misrepresentation / point of ignorance on your part, off course. Plenty of theists, have no problems at all with the natural sciences.

It is a fair question. Do I get a fair answer?

As you hopefully see by now, it is not a fair question at all.
It is a loaded question, rooted in either dishonesty or ignorance.

 

[tas8831]

You have no evidence whatsoever that abiogenesis did take place, is still taking place, it has never been reproduced, and you have no conjectured end to end mechanism for it.

Has creation been reproduced? Do you also believe that in science, 'events' are what must be reproducible?
What is the conjectured end-to-end mechanism for creation?

On evidence and rationality wars I win.

Evidence? Ok.

2017
Moore EK, Hao J, Sverjensky DA, Jelen BI, Meyer M, Hazen RM and Falkowski PG Geological and chemical factors that impacted the biological utilization of cobalt in the Archean Eon. (in review)
Hao J, Sverjensky DA and Hazen RM Limits on the partial pressure of H2 in the Archean atmosphere during weathering of basaltic minerals. Geochemica et Cosmochimica Acta (in review)
Estrada C, Sverjensky DA and Hazen RM Selective adsorption of calcium-aspartate ligands onto [Mg(OH)2]-brucite: Implications for calcium in prebiotic chemistry. Astrobiology (in review)
Estrada C, Sverjensky DA and Hazen RM Enhanced and inhibited adsorption of D-ribose with Ca2+ and Mg2+ onto brucite [Mg(OH)2]. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta (in review)
Hazen RM Chance, necessity, and the origins of life. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A (in review)
54. Estrada CE, Mamajanov I, Hao J, Sverjensky DA, Cody GD and Hazen RM (2017) Aspartate transformation at 200 °C with brucite [Mg(OH)2], NH3, and H2: Implications for prebiotic molecules in hydrothermal systems. Chemical Geology 457:162-172
53. Gherase D, Hazen RM, Krishnamurthy R and Blackmond DG (2017) Mineral-Induced Enantioenrichment of Tartaric Acid. Synlett 28(1):89-92
Wenge J, Pacella MS, Athanasiadou D, Nelea V, Vali H, Hazen RM, Gray JJ, McKee MD (2017) Chiral acidic amino acids induce chiral hierarchical structure in calcium carbonate. Nature Communications 8:15066

2016
Ertem G, Ertem MC, McKay CP and Hazen RM (2016) Shielding biomolecules from effects of radiation by Mars analogue minerals and soils. Astrobiology 6(3):280-285
Grew ES, Krivovichev SV, Hazen RM and Hystad G (2016) Evolution of structural complexity in boron minerals. Canadian Mineralogist 54(1):125-143

2015
Liu X-M, Kah LC, Knoll AH, Cui H, Kaufman AJ, Shahar A and Hazen RM (2015) Tracing Earth’s O2 evolution using Zn/Fe ratios in marine carbonates. Geochemical Perspective Letters 2(1):24-34
Estrada C, Sverjensky DA, Pelletier M, Razafitianamharavo A, Hazen RM (2015) Interaction between L-aspartate and the brucite [Mg(OH)2]-water interface. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 155:172-186 [pdf]
Grosch EG, Hazen RM (2015) Microbes, mineral evolution, and the rise of micro-continents: Origin and co-evolution of life with early Earth. Astrobiology 15(10):922-939
Nance JR, Armstrong JT, Cody GD, Fogel ML, Hazen RM (2015) Preserved shell-binding protein and associated pigment in the Middle Miocene (8 to 18 Ma) gastropod Ecphora. Geochemical Perspectives Letters 1:1-8
Grew ES, Dymek RF, De Hoog JCM, Harley SL, Boak JM, Hazen RM and Yates MG (2015) Boron isotopes in tourmaline from the ca. 3.7–3.8 Ga Isua supracrustal belt, Greenland: Sources for boron in Eoarchean continental crust and seawater. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 163:156-177

2014
Hazen RM (2014) Enantioselective adsorption on rock-forming minerals: A thought experiment. Surface Science 629:11-14
Lee N, Foustoukos DI, Sverjensky DA, Cody GD, Hazen RM (2014) The effects of temperature, ph and redox state on the stability of glutamic acid in hydrothermal fluids. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 135:66-86
Lee N, Sverjensky DA, Hazen RM (2014) Cooperative and competitive adsorption of amino acids with Ca2+ on rutile (α-TiO2). Environmental Science and Technology 48:9358-9365
Lee N, Foustoukos DI, Sverjensky DA, Cody GD, Hazen RM (2014) Hydrogen enhances the stability of amino acids in hydrothermal environments. Chemical Geology 386:184-189

2013
Livi KJT, Schaffer B, Azzolini D, Seabourne CR, Hardcastle TP, Scott AJ, Hazen RM, Erlebacher JD, Brydson R, Sverjensky DA (2013) Atomic scale roughness of rutile and implications for molecular surface adsorption. Langmuir 29:6876-6883
Noffke N, Christian D, Wacey D, Hazen RM (2013) Microbially induced sedimentary structures recording an ancient ecosystem in the ca. 3.48 billion-year-old Dresser Formation, Pilbara, Western Australia. Astrobiology Journal 13(12):1103-1124
Hazen RM (2013) Paleomineralogy of the Hadean Eon: A preliminary species list. American Journal of Science 313(9):807-843

2012
Hazen RM (2012) Geochemical origins of life. Fundamentals of Geobiology, eds Knoll AH, Canfield DE, Konhauser KO (Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford) pp 315-332
Hazen RM (2012) An accident waiting to happen (That’s Life). Eureka, The Times 33:14-19
Cleaves II HJ, Scott AM, Hill FC, Leszczynski J, Sahai N, Hazen RM (2012) Mineral-organic interfacial processes: potential roles in the origins of life. Chemical Society Reviews 41:5502-5525
Lee N, Hummer DR, Sverjensky DS, Rajh T, Hazen RM, Steele A, Cody GD (2012) Speciation of L-DOPA on nanorutile as a function of pH and surface coverage using surface-enhance Raman spectroscopy (SERS). Langmuir 28:17322-17330 [pdf]

2011
Bahri S, Jonsson CM, Jonsson CL, Azzolini D, Sverjensky DA, Hazen RM (2011) Adsorption and surface complexation study of L-DOPA on rutile (TiO2) in NaCl solutions. Environmental Science and Technology 45:3959-3966
Grew ES, Bada JL, Hazen RM (2011) Borate minerals and the origin of the RNA world. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 41:307-316
Parikh SJ, Kubicki JD, Jonsson CM, Jonsson CL, Hazen RM, Sverjensky DA, Sparks DL (2011) Evaluating glutamate and aspartate binding mechanisms to rutile (a-TiO2) via ATR-FTIR spectroscopy and quantum chemical calculations. Langmuir 27:1778-1787 [pdf]
Cleaves II HJ, Crapster-Pregont E, Jonsson CM, Jonsson CL, Sverjensky DA, Hazen RM (2011) The adsorption of short single-stranded DNA oligomers to mineral surfaces. Chemosphere 8:1560–1567 [pdf]
Livi KJT, Schaffer B, Azzolini D, Seabourne CR, Sader K, Shannon M, Sverjensky D, Hazen RM, Brydson R (2011) Imaging the surface of Rutile by STEM and its implication for organic molecule bonding. Proceedings of the Microscopy Conference 2011 (MC2011), August 28-September 02, Kiel/Germany, p M6_P621

2010
Cleaves II HJ, Jonsson CM, Jonsson CL, Sverjensky DA, Hazen RM (2010) Adsorption of nucleic acid components on rutile (TiO2) surfaces. Astrobiology 10:311-323 [pdf]
Hazen RM, Sverjensky DA (2010) Mineral Surfaces, Geochemical Complexities and the Origins of Life. Origins of Cellular Life, eds Deamer DW, Szostak JW, Cold Springs Harbor Perspectives in Biology [pdf]
Jonsson CM, Jonsson CL, Sverjensky DA, Cleaves II HJ, Hazen RM (2010) Adsorption of L-asparate to rutile (a-TiO2): Experimental and theoretical surface complexation studies. Geochemica et Cosmochemica Acta 74:2356–2367 [pdf]
Hazen RM (2010) How old is the Earth, and how do we know? Evolution: Education and Outreach 3:198-205 [pdf]
Marshall-Bowman K, Ohara S, Sverjensky DA, Hazen RM and Cleaves HJ (2010) Catalytic peptide hydrolysis by mineral surface: Implications for prebiotic chemistry Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 74:20:5852-5861

2009
Hazen RM (2009) The emergence of patterning in life’s origin and evolution. International Journal of Developmental Biology 53:683-692 [pdf]
Hazen RM (2009) Emergence and the experimental pursuit of the origin of life. AAAS volume, ed Bertka C (Cambridge University Press, New York) pp 21-46
Hazen RM (2009) The chemical evolution of life: An Introduction. Chemical Evolution II: From Origins of Life to Modern Society, eds Zaikowski L, Friedrich JM. American Chemical Society Symposium Series 1025:3-13 [pdf]
Jonsson CM, Jonsson CL, Sverjensky DA, Cleaves HJ, Hazen RM (2009) Attachment of L-Glutamate to Rutile (a-TiO2): A potentiometric, adsorption, and surface complexation study. Langmuir 25:12127-12135 [pdf]

2008
Ertem G, Snellinger-O'Brien AM, Ertem MC, Rogoff DA, Dworkin JP, Johnston MV, Hazen RM (2008) Abiotic formation of RNA-like oligomers by montmorillonite catalysis: part II. International Journal of Astrobiology 7(1):1-7 [pdf]
Castro-Puyana M, Salgado A, Hazen RM, Crego AL, Marina ML (2008) Investiation of the enantioselective adsorption of 3-carboxy adipic acid on minerals by capillary electrophoresis. Electrophoresis 29:1548-1555 [pdf]
Brandes JA, Hazen RM, Yoder Jr HS (2008) Inorganic nitrogen reduction and stability under simulated hydrothermal conditions. Astrobiology 8:1113-1126 [pdf]
Sverjensky DA, Jonsson CM, Jonsson CL, Cleaves HJ, Hazen RM (2008) Glutamate surface speciation on amorphous titanium dioxide and hydrous ferric oxide. Environmental Science & Technology 40:6034-6039
Noffke N, Beukes N, Bower D, Hazen RM, Swift DJP (2008) An actualistic perspective into Archean worlds - (cyano-)bacterially induced sedimentary structures in the siliciclastic Nhlazatse Section, 2.9 Ga Pongola Supergroup, South Africa. Geobiology 6:5-20 [pdf]
Hazen RM, Papineau D, Bleeker W, Downs RT, Ferry J, McCoy T, Sverjensky D, Yang H (2008) Mineral evolution. American Mineralogist 93:1693-1720 [pdf]

2007
Hazen RM, Griffin PL, Carothers JM, Szostak JW (2007) Functional information and the emergence of biocomplexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104:8574-8581 [pdf]
Hazen RM (2007) The emergence of chemical complexity: An Introduction. Chemical Evolution I: Chemical Change across Space and Time, eds Zaikowski L, Friedrich JM. American Chemical Society Symposium pp 2-14 [pdf]
Ertem G, Hazen RM, Dworkin JP (2007) Sequence analysis of trimer isomers formed by montmorillonite catalysis in the reaction of binary monomer mixtures. Astrobiology 7(5):715-724 [pdf]
Bada J, Fegley Jr B, Miller SL, Lazcano A, Cleaves HJ, Hazen RM, Chalmers J, Wachtershauser G, Huber C (2007) Debating evidence for the origin of life on Earth. Science 315(5814):937-938 [pdf]
Hazen RM (2007) Emergence and the origin of life: Presentation, questions and responses. Workshop Report: Philosophical, Ethical, and Theological Implications of Astrobiology, eds Bertka C, Roth N, Shindell M (American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington) pp 30-40
Hazen RM, Deamer D (2007) Hydrothermal reactions of pyruvic acid: synthesis, selection, and self-assembly of amphiphilic molecules. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 37:143-152 [pdf]
Boyce CK, Hotton CL, Fogel ML, Cody GD, Hazen RM, Knoll AH (2007) Devonian landscape heterogeneity recorded by a giant fungus. Geology 35:399-402 [pdf]

2006
Hazen RM (2006) Mineral surfaces and the prebiotic selection and organization of biomolecules (Presidential Address to the Mineralogical Society of America). American Mineralogist 91:1715-1729 [pdf]
Noffke N, Eriksson KA, Hazen RM, Simpson EL (2006) A new window into Early Archean life: Microbial mats in Earth's oldest siliciclastic tidal deposits (3.2 Ga Moodies Group, South Africa). Geology 34:253-256 [pdf]
Noffke N, Beukes N, Hazen RM, Gutzmer J (2006) Spatial and temporal distribution of microbially induced sedimentary structures: A case study from siliciclastic storm deposits of the 2.9 Ga Witwatersrand Supergroup, South Africa. Precambrian Research 146:35-44 [pdf]
Hazen RM, Steele A, Maule J, Martin R, Vicenzi E (2006) Applications of microarray technology to the study of mineral-molecule interactions. Astrobiology 6(1):223
Hazen RM, Snellinger AM, Dworkin JP, Scott JH, Cody GD, Fogel ML, Johnston MV, Ertem G (2006) MALDI-MS analysis of hetero-trimer fractions formed by montmorillonite catalysis in the reaction of binary monomer mixtures. Astrobiology 6(1):250-251
Asthagiri A, Hazen RM (2006) An ab initio study of adsorption of alanine on the chiral calcite (2131) surface. Molecular Simulation 33:343-351 [pdf]
Hazen RM, Deamer D (2006) Hydrothermal reactions of pyruvic acid: synthesis, selection, and self-assembly of amphiphilic molecules. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 37:143-152 [pdf]

2005
Hazen RM (2005) Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life's Origin. (Joseph Henry Press, Washington) 339 p
Hazen RM (2005) Genesis: Rocks, minerals and the geochemical origin of life. Elements 1(3):135-137 [pdf]

2004
Hazen RM (2004) Chiral crystal faces of common rock-forming minerals. Progress in Biological Chirality, eds Palyi G, Zucchi C, Cagglioti L (Elsevier, New York) pp 137-151 [pdf]
Churchill H, Teng H, Hazen RM (2004) Correlation of pH-dependent surface interaction forces to amino acid adsorption: Implications for the origin of life. American Mineralogist 89:1048-1055 [pdf]
Cody GD, Boctor NZ, Brandes JA, Filley TR, Hazen RM, Yoder Jr HS (2004) Assaying the catalytic potential of transition metal sulfides for prebiotic carbon fixation. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 68:2185-2196 [pdf]
Downs RT, Hazen RM (2004) Chiral indices of crystalline surfaces as a measure of enantioselective potential. Journal of Molecular Catalysis 216:273-285 [pdf]

2003
Noffke N, Nhleko N, Hazen RM (2003) Earth's earliest microbial mats in a siliciclastic marine environment (2.9 Ga Mozaan Group, South Africa). Geology 31:673-677 [pdf]
Hazen RM (2003) Factors that influence the emergence of complexity in prebiotic geochemical systems. Astrobiology 2(4):599
Hazen RM, Sholl DS (2003) Origins of biomolecular homochirality: selective molecular adsorption on crystalline surfaces. Astrobiology 2(4):598-599
Hazen RM, Steele A, Cody GD, Fogel ML, Huntress Jr WT (2003) Biosignatures and abiosignatures. Astrobiology 2(4):512-513
Boyce CK, Knoll AH, Cody GD, Fogel ML, Hazen RM (2003) Chemical evidence for cell wall lignification and the evolution of tracheids in Early Devonian plants. International Journal of Plant Science 164:691-702 [pdf]
Hazen RM, Sholl DS (2003) Chiral selection on inorganic crystalline surfaces. Nature Materials 2:367-374 [pdf]

2002
Sharma A, Scott JH, Cody GD, Fogel ML, Hazen RM, Hemley RJ and Huntress WT (2002) Microbial activity at gigapascal pressures. Science 295:1514-1516 [pdf]
Hazen RM, Boctor N, Brandes JA, Cody GD, Hemley RJ, Sharma A and Yoder Jr HS(2002) High pressure and the origin of life. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 14:1-6 [pdf]
Hazen RM (2002) Emergence and the origin of life. Fundamentals of life, eds Palyi G, Zucchi C, Caglioti L (Elsevier, New York) pp 41-50

2001
Cody GD, Hazen RM, Brandes JA, Morowitz HJ, Yoder Jr HS (2001) Geochemical roots of autotrophic carbon fixation: Hydrothermal experiments in the system citric acid, H2O-(±FeS)-(±NiS). Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 65:3557-3576 [pdf]
Hazen RM (2001) Life's rocky start. Scientific American 284(4):76-85 [pdf]
Hazen RM, Filley TR, Goodfriend GA (2001) Selective adsorption of L- and D-amino acids on calcite: implications for biochemical homochirality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98:5487-5490
Boyce CK, Hazen RM, Knoll AH (2001) Nondestructive, in situ, cellular-scale mapping of elemental abundances including organic carbon in permineralized fossils. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98:5970-5974 [pdf]
Hazen RM, Roedder E (2001) How old are bacteria from the Permian age? Nature 411(6834):155 [pdf]

2000
Cody GD, Boctor NZ, Filley TR, Hazen RM, Scott JH, Yoder Jr HS (2000) Primordial carbonylated iron-sulfur compounds and the synthesis of pyruvate. Science 289:1337-1340 [pdf]
Brandes JA, Hazen RM, Yoder Jr HS, Cody GD (2000) Early pre- and post-biotic synthesis of alanine: an alternative to the Strecker synthesis. Perspectives in Amino Acid and Protein Geochemistry, eds Goodfriend GA, Collins MJ, Fogel ML, Macko SA, Wehmiller JF (Oxford University Press, New York) pp 41-59 [pdf]

1999
Hazen RM (1999) A new perspective on the origin of life. The NOVA Reader: Science at the Turn of the Millennium, ed Hackman S (TV Books, New York) pp 48-54
Hazen RM (1999) Book review of "Cradle of Life: The Discovery of Earth's Earliest Fossils" by Schopf JW. Physics Today 52(10):75-76

1998
Brandes JA, Boctor NZ, Cody GD, Cooper BA, Hazen RM, Yoder Jr HS (1998) Abiotic nitrogen reduction on the early Earth. Nature 395:365-367 [pdf] Also, Chris Chyba's commentary on this article: [pdf]


And that is just one guy and his collaborators.

Now, that is just research on how biologically-important organic molecules can arise via abiotic means, as well as things like chirality and all that.
But at least there is research.

What do the 'creation scientists' and 'intelligent design theorists' have to show for their decades of bombast? Where is your evidence for the transmutation of silicates into bio-organic molecules via spoken magic?
Anything?

 

[Mountainmike]

The bolded part is just not true.
There is much evidence to suggest natural origins for life.
There's no conclusive evidence of any specific mechanism, but there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the answer needs to be looked for in a natural process.

And thats the problem: atheists pride themselves as critical thinkers, pretend to weild science in defence.

Yet there absolutely no critical thinking. I can only repeat.
Lets use the definition abiogenesis as the first DNA replicating cell arising from inorganic chemicals as a result of random chance chemistry.

1/ There is no evidence it happened. No confirmed intermediates on record. Nothing.
2/ There is no evidence it continues to happen. No intermediates being produced. Nothing.
3/ Theres no end to end conjectured process for it. No intermediates with any proposal for how they got to that state, or how they progressed to the first cell. Nothing.
4/ It has never been reproduced in vitro.

One of those 1/ to 4/ needs to be true to even have a valid hypothesis.
ie A lot of science resources being consumed chasing BIG FAT NOTHING.

So no hypothesis, for it, since there is no experiment can be done. There can be no theory without a hypothesis. That is the true view of science. All The rest is wishful thinking.

For sure it isvalid conjecture.
It is a valid BELIEF if you have confidence it happened.
I dont question the validity of the belief. Its the only philosophy of life I have seen consistent with atheism, even though by itself it does not prove it.

It might even be so. But if you believe it at all - you believeit in absence of science not because of it.

The rest as you say is ignorance. On the part of those who promote it.

Sure they have staunch leaders in such as Dawkins, and with "informational conformance" - people with inadequate knowledge tend to side with those they perceive in authority. But he has no more evidence than you, and deep in his book where he hopes noone will see it , he even admits it!

I on the other hand at least have some forensic evidence for life and phenonmena of theistic interpretation! On the evidence battle you lose.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And thats the problem: atheists pride themselves as critical thinkers, pretend to weild science in defence.

And again you dishonestly pretend as if this is some kind of exclusively atheist position.
It is not. It has nothing to do with atheism. It has to do with science and the evidence at our disposal - which incidently is why many theists share my position on this. Several of them even post on this very forum.

I really don't see why you feel the need to keep on ignoring/denying this and lying about it.

I'm no longer giving you the benefit of the doubt now. You are not just ignorant on this. I informed you no less then twice now, and here you still are... repeating the same falsehoods.

I can only conclude that you do it knowingly and on purpose.
I feel like I would be insulting your intelligence to think otherwise.

Lets use the definition abiogenesis as the first DNA replicating cell arising from inorganic chemicals as a result of random chance chemistry.

Let's not, because that's not at all what I am talking about, nore is it what abiogenesis is actually about.

I am JUST talking about the likelyhood of natural origins of life, which is likely some chemical process. That's it. I'm not making any kind of claims concerning which specific process, nore am I making any kind of claims about what first life even looked like or how it functioned or how its molecular make-up was like.

That's all you, arguing strawmen again.

A lot of science resources being consumed chasing BIG FAT NOTHING.

And statements like that, make it extra clear that you really have no clue about abiogenesis research either.

Sure they have staunch leaders in such as Dawkins

...and Francis Collins, Ken Miller, and many other theist biologists.

But don't let that prevent you from arguing strawmen and plain lying about the facts...

, and with "informational conformance" - people with inadequate knowledge tend to side with those they perceive in authority

Ow my, the irony.... A creationists talking about siding with the "perceived authority". That's delicious.


Also, maybe you should read my posts again. You'll note that at no point did I name drop a single scientist. You'll note that I didn't mention a single scientist.
All I mentioned, was the evidence by which I support the idea that life most likely has natural chemical origins. I never said something analogous to "the bible says it, that settles it". Or "dawkins said it, that settles it". Not at all.

That's your imagination again.

But he has no more evidence than you, and deep in his book where he hopes noone will see it , he even admits it!

Dawkins admits that he doesn't know how life came about? The nerve! How dare he be intellectually honest!

I on the other hand at least have some forensic evidence for life and phenonmena of theistic interpretation! On the evidence battle you lose.

Your bible isn't evidence.

 

[Mountainmike]

Sorry

I must have missed it in that list.
Where is
1/ Any evidence it happened - eg evidence of intermediates existing.
2/ Any evidence it is ongoing - eg intermediates occuring.
3/ Any end to end model for how it ocurred - ie one or more stages of intermediate less than a DNA replicating cell with a means for how they got from one to another.
4/ Any reproduction of a cell created in vitro from inorganics?

I can only put to you what I said to subjunction...
The fact I can get closer to the moon by walking up a mountain is no evidence that I can walk to the moon, or even that a journey to the moon can start by walking up a mountain. So one or more substages are not evidence that either a journey took place or it took place that way.

Your list is lots of fascinating chemistry that may or may not have happened.
It doesnt answer the list above.
.
I can only repeat what I said.
Without one of 1/ to 4/ You do not have a valid hypothesis.
So if you are confident it occurred it is by definition a BELIEF, no more and no less.
Its a valid belief. I might even support it.
Its a valid research topic, although considering how much money has been poured into big fat nothing of evbidence, its not a productive one.
But thats all it is.

All I am saying to you is unguided abiogenesis is just as much a belief as theistic origin.

Has creation been reproduced? Do you also believe that in science, 'events' are what must be reproducible?
What is the conjectured end-to-end mechanism for creation?

Evidence? Ok.

< I had to delete your list.....it made the post over 18000 characters>

 

[Mountainmike]

And at the end of all that rant.
You still have no shred of evidence
1/ That it actually happened - eg record of intermediates found
2/ That it continues to happen - eg record of intermediates present.
3/ End to end model for it. eg succession of intermediates with path between them.
4/ Any reproduction in vitro.

So in scientific terms you have no hypothesis just a belief.
It may be right. I may even agree. It is just belief.

Nor can you claim the possibility of it occuring as a chemical process without specific process -other than as a belief.

The fact that celebrity scientist atheists agree with it, does nothing for the evidential position, only for informational conformance of their believers.

Spare me the insults please.
What I said was a totally factual honest assessment.

And again you dishonestly pretend as if this is some kind of exclusively atheist position.
It is not. It has nothing to do with atheism. It has to do with science and the evidence at our disposal - which incidently is why many theists share my position on this. Several of them even post on this very forum.

I really don't see why you feel the need to keep on ignoring/denying this and lying about it.

I'm no longer giving you the benefit of the doubt now. You are not just ignorant on this. I informed you no less then twice now, and here you still are... repeating the same falsehoods.

I can only conclude that you do it knowingly and on purpose.
I feel like I would be insulting your intelligence to think otherwise.



Let's not, because that's not at all what I am talking about, nore is it what abiogenesis is actually about.

I am JUST talking about the likelyhood of natural origins of life, which is likely some chemical process. That's it. I'm not making any kind of claims concerning which specific process, nore am I making any kind of claims about what first life even looked like or how it functioned or how its molecular make-up was like.

That's all you, arguing strawmen again.


And statements like that, make it extra clear that you really have no clue about abiogenesis research either.



...and Francis Collins, Ken Miller, and many other theist biologists.

But don't let that prevent you from arguing strawmen and plain lying about the facts...



Ow my, the irony.... A creationists talking about siding with the "perceived authority". That's delicious.


Also, maybe you should read my posts again. You'll note that at no point did I name drop a single scientist. You'll note that I didn't mention a single scientist.
All I mentioned, was the evidence by which I support the idea that life most likely has natural chemical origins. I never said something analogous to "the bible says it, that settles it". Or "dawkins said it, that settles it". Not at all.

That's your imagination again.




Dawkins admits that he doesn't know how life came about? The nerve! How dare he be intellectually honest!



Your bible isn't evidence.

 

[tas8831]

Sorry

I must have missed it in that list.

Apparently, you also missed what came before it:


Has creation been reproduced? Do you also believe that in science, 'events' are what must be reproducible?
What is the conjectured end-to-end mechanism for creation?

Where is
1/ Any evidence it happened - eg evidence of intermediates existing.

Not going to bother - you didn't read what I wrote at the end of the list, either:


And that is just one guy and his collaborators.

Now, that is just research on how biologically-important organic molecules can arise via abiotic means, as well as things like chirality and all that.
But at least there is research.

What do the 'creation scientists' and 'intelligent design theorists' have to show for their decades of bombast? Where is your evidence for the transmutation of silicates into bio-organic molecules via spoken magic?
Anything?

 

[tas8831]

And at the end of all that rant.
You still have no shred of evidence

What is the conjectured end-to-end mechanism for creation?

 

[essentialsaltes]

And at the end of all that rant.
You still have no shred of evidence
1/ That it actually happened.

There are living things. And once there weren't.

 

[tas8831]

I can only repeat what I said.

Clearly.

No longer interested.

 

[USincognito]

I agree with most of your post.

Well then as I find semantic arguments tediously boring I'll just back away from this particular tête-à-tête .

 

[Subduction Zone]

Two pieces of critical thinking for you.

1/ Evidence of a process for part of a journey is not evidence of process for the whole journey.
I can walk up a mountain to get closer to the moon. That is not evidence I can walk to the moon, or that walking towards it, is even the start of a journey to it.
So tinkering with part processes is not evidence the process took place, or even a part process was part of the process if it did.

You have no evidence whatsoever that abiogenesis did take place, is still taking place, it has never been reproduced, and you have no conjectured end to end mechanism for it.

So it is not the "rational" solution. Since it is not founded on evidence or conjectured process.

ANY confidence you have that it took place is pure belief. Nothing wrong with that, so long as you acknowledge that belief did not come from critical thinking,.


2/ You claim that others who say "abiogenesis is random chance" do not understand science.
I have to say the boot is on the other foot. All biochemistry is a sequence of events in quantum chemistry. Science has stated for over a century since Bohr, that quantum events are pure random chance, not the illusion of it. Ergo even if you are right about abiogenesis being a consequence of unaided biochemistry, it was clearly random chance. It seems from that you dont understand science. What I hate about these forums is the name calling and belittling. You should not have claimed "do not understand"

3/ I am still waiting...
You claimed as A possibility "abiogenesis as a result of random biochemistry progression from inorganics" (or whatever form of words you choose).

For you to claim it is only A possibiilty you must be aware of more.
Name them. is my challenge ( other than creation or intelligent guided , you dislike of course...)Saying it came from outerspace, shifts the problem it does not solve it.

I contend (from critical thinking ) abiogenesis the product of unguided biochemistry is the ONLY possibility compatible with atheism. And the fact it is pushed so hard by atheists, in spite of lack of evidence is born of the absence of alternatives. Nothing wrong with that belief. So long as it is acknowledged as a belief - and none try to claim a rational high ground for it.

Since I do have forensic evidence of life occurring other than evolution of theistic overtones. On evidence and rationality wars I win. But that needs another thread.

I am sorry but you only confirmed a lack of understanding of what is and what is not evidence. In The sciences they had trouble with deniers of evidence in the past, and sometimes in the present. Read my sig. It explains what is scientific evidence. What you have was an excuse and not an argument. To have evidence in the sciences one must first have a testable hypothesis. Something that creationists never seem to be able to come up with. Next we make an observation. Does that observation agree with the hypothesis? Then it is evidence for it. Does it disagree with the hypothesis? Then it is evidence against it. Observing no life in the fossil record and then later observing life agrees with the hypothesis, it is evidence for it.

 

[Mountainmike]

Nothing you have said altered what I said.
You have no hypothesis for abiogenesis, because you have evidence it occurred, is occurring, a process for it, or an ability to reproduce it, one of which you must have to have a hypothesis on it!

I used scientific precision, your signature is certainly not.

And my analogy is spot on: Little bits of possibly useful chemistry do not constitute evidence of a progression, just as the existence of clay or even a brick is not evidence of self building houses.

You believe that abiogenesis is the origin of life.
It's a valid belief. I might even share it, with a couple of caveats.
But that's all you have : belief. So stop pretending science supports it. Critical thinking certainly doesn't.

At least we own up to beliefs. And it is important as a scientist to know which is which.

And there's plenty of evidence out there that Supports theistic involvement in the world, but it probably doesn't belong on this thread,

I am sorry but you only confirmed a lack of understanding of what is and what is not evidence. In The sciences they had trouble with deniers of evidence in the past, and sometimes in the present. Read my sig. It explains what is scientific evidence. What you have was an excuse and not an argument. To have evidence in the sciences one must first have a testable hypothesis. Something that creationists never seem to be able to come up with. Next we make an observation. Does that observation agree with the hypothesis? Then it is evidence for it. Does it disagree with the hypothesis? Then it is evidence against it. Observing no life in the fossil record and then later observing life agrees with the hypothesis, it is evidence for it.

 

[Mountainmike]

There are living things. And once there weren't.

Now that is a straw man in this context!

When we are discussing how , not whether , living things came to exist: the mere fact of existence is evidence of noones hypothesis on how it happened, it only shows that both of us ask a real question, needing an answer!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nothing you have said altered what I said.
You have no hypothesis for abiogenesis, because you have evidence it occurred, is occurring, a process for it, or an ability to reproduce it, one of which you must have to have a hypothesis on it!

I used scientific precision, your signature is certainly not.

And my analogy is spot on: Little bits of possibly useful chemistry do not constitute evidence of a progression, just as the existence of clay or even a brick is not evidence of self building houses.

You believe that abiogenesis is the origin of life.
It's a valid belief. I might even share it, with a couple of caveats.
But that's all you have : belief. So stop pretending science supports it. Critical thinking certainly doesn't.

At least we own up to beliefs. And it is important as a scientist to know which is which.

And there's plenty of evidence out there that Supports theistic involvement in the world, but it probably doesn't belong on this thread,

If you ignore even the simplest of corrections you will never learn. And no, you did not use "scientific precision". You merely waved your hands. My sig is how evidence is defined. If you deny all evidence of course you can say what is what is not evidence.

Tell me what is wrong with the definition in my sig? Be specific. If you do not like a definition that is not good enough. I did not make it up and can support it with multiple sources.

You only appear to have beliefs. I have evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now that is a straw man!

When we are discussing how not whether living things came to exist, the fact of existence is evidence of noones hypothesis on how it happened, it only shows that both of us ask a valid question!

How is that a strawman? You need to be specific. And once again you only demonstrate that you do not understand the concept of evidence when you deny it.

@essentialsaltes does work in the sciences and understands the concept of evidence.

 

[Mountainmike]

How is that a strawman? You need to be specific. And once again you only demonstrate that you do not understand the concept of evidence when you deny it.

@essentialsaltes does work in the sciences and understands the concept of evidence.

You really do need to study critical thinking.
The existence of X supports nobodies conjecture on how X came to exist, only the fact that it did. So it is not evidence in the context of how. Basic #fail

You will be glad to know I am going out now.
So silence at last.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You really do need to study critical thinking.
The existence of X supports nobodies conjecture on how X came to exist, only the fact that it did. So it is not evidence in the context of how. Basic #fail

You will be glad to know I am going out now.
So silence at last.

Please, don't make false claims. Let's go over what is and what is not evidence. Since there are countless deniers of evidence even in the sciences a simple functioning definition of what is evidence was made. Every scientist knows it (hopefully).

An unsupported denial is worthless. It can be refuted with a simple Wiki link:

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia