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.
If you want to claim that abiogenesis cannot be explained by science, i.e. is inexplicable, you're welcome to do so - but you'll need to provide a well-reasoned argument, or some strong evidence to be taken seriously, and I don't think you have either.
It can, and usually does, mean it is 'consistent with natural, i.e. physical, laws'.
Equivocation. There's a difference between 'cannot yet' and 'cannot in principle', as above.
Christianity itself has no framework to understand transubstantiation, or even agree that it's more than symbolic - even more than ⅔ of US Catholics think it's symbolic, i.e. the bread & wine are symbols of the body & blood of Christ, but don't actually become the body & blood of Christ.
I said the scientific model has problems with explanation of it.
All the above underlined claims are simply incorrect ..
Repeatability:
Observed Results:
Hydrothermal vent sub-surface habitat origins:
Then there's Western Australia's stromatolite evidence:
Not really - the scientists are testing their hypotheses - if you like, they're fulfilling their burden of proof. You've claimed that what they're attempting cannot be done, without either argument or evidence. Life is fundamentally complex organic chemistry mainly using commonly occurring compounds - there's no indication of any insurmountable problems in replicating it, so you need to justify your claim for it to be taken seriously. But you can't. From the evidence of your post, you simply don't know enough about the subject to make an informed comment.
There are many things that we accept without quibble which fit those criteria, not least the origin of the Earth itself. We can deduce and infer what happened by the evidence left by those events and related events.
There is a variety of suggestions for early cells - growing, self-replicating cells have already been produced. Don't confuse your lack of knowledge of the work being done for lack of work being done.
It's been repeatedly explained in these forums that modern cells are the result of 3½ billion years of competitive and cooperative evolution; of course they became complex. There is a variety of explanations for how the first cells came to exist, and a variety of potential protocells have been demonstrated. Your argument from incredulity is vacuous, as is the suggestion that not yet having an explanation for something makes it supernatural
You've clearly not been listening - firstly, the modern environment of Earth is very different from that 3½ billion years ago; for example, there was little or no free oxygen. Oxygen was toxic to the earliest forms of life (anaerobes). Secondly, the earliest replicators would have been extremely inefficient. Extremely efficient contemporary life forms would easily out-compete and consume any proto-life before it could get started, assuming they left enough resources around for chemical evolution to get that far. Thirdly, many of the type of environments considered potential origin sites, such as deep-sea hydrothermal vents, are very difficult to study (and already teeming with life) - it's possible (though unlikely) that abiogenesis still occurs deep in such sites, but any products are subject to the previous point.
An explanation is a description of something that allows it to be understood, whether in terms of construction, function, origin, or some other aspect. All useful explanations are in terms of existing models, i.e. what is already understood. Models are more than just collections of observations, they describe observations in terms of their behaviour and relationships.
Who said there was?
Not really - the scientists are testing their hypotheses - if you like, they're fulfilling their burden of proof. You've claimed that what they're attempting cannot be done, without either argument or evidence. Life is fundamentally complex organic chemistry mainly using commonly occurring compounds - there's no indication of any insurmountable problems in replicating it, so you need to justify your claim for it to be taken seriously. But you can't. From the evidence of your post, you simply don't know enough about the subject to make an informed comment.
There are many things that we accept without quibble which fit those criteria, not least the origin of the Earth itself. We can deduce and infer what happened by the evidence left by those events and related events.
But there are many events that have not been observed, and we don't know whether they repeat, or whether they can be repeated by us - but we don't know of any reason why we should not be able to repeat them. The origin of life is one of those things.
There is a variety of suggestions for early cells - growing, self-replicating cells have already been produced. Don't confuse your lack of knowledge of the work being done for lack of work being done.
It's been repeatedly explained in these forums that modern cells are the result of 3½ billion years of competitive and cooperative evolution; of course they became complex. There is a variety of explanations for how the first cells came to exist, and a variety of potential protocells have been demonstrated. Your argument from incredulity is vacuous, as is the suggestion that not yet having an explanation for something makes it supernatural
You've clearly not been listening - firstly, the modern environment of Earth is very different from that 3½ billion years ago; for example, there was little or no free oxygen. Oxygen was toxic to the earliest forms of life (anaerobes). Secondly, the earliest replicators would have been extremely inefficient. Extremely efficient contemporary life forms would easily out-compete and consume any proto-life before it could get started, assuming they left enough resources around for chemical evolution to get that far. Thirdly, many of the type of environments considered potential origin sites, such as deep-sea hydrothermal vents, are very difficult to study (and already teeming with life) - it's possible (though unlikely) that abiogenesis still occurs deep in such sites, but any products are subject to the previous point.
An explanation is a description of something that allows it to be understood, whether in terms of construction, function, origin, or some other aspect. All useful explanations are in terms of existing models, i.e. what is already understood. Models are more than just collections of observations, they describe observations in terms of their behaviour and relationships.
Who said there was?
