frank just stop. You are misleading people,
You know nothing whatsoever about chemistry. How dare you comment on it?
You are correct, I am not a chemist. Even so, I do have a decent understanding of the evidence for abiogenesis and that the scientific concensus
There is no evidence of life arising from non living matter.
there is no structure, process or evidence of how what or where it happened. None. Zero . zilch.
There is no evidence of abiogenesis in Terms of the definition of life the researchers use.
What you have is faith not science,
The implausibility is science speaking, not appeal to ignorance.
It is understanding chemistry which you don’t.
An
appeal to ignorance is a logical fallacy in which someone argues that something must be true because we cannot prove that it is false.
In the case of abiogenesis, this would mean that someone argues that life must have been created by a supernatural being because we do not know how it could have arisen from non-living matter.
Two problems with this argument.
First, it is a fallacy. Just because we cannot prove that something is false does not mean that it must be true.
Second, there is no evidence to support the claim that life was created by a supernatural being.
The fact that we do not know how life arose does not mean that we should give up on trying to find out. There are many scientists who are working on this problem, and they have made significant progress in recent years. It is possible that we will eventually be able to explain how life arose without resorting to supernatural explanations.
In the meantime, it is important to remember that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. If someone argues that life was created by a supernatural being, they have the responsibility to provide evidence to support their claim. Until they do so, we should not accept their argument.
Let us take something very simple.
just mixing ingredients does not work.
Atmospheric nitrogen lives with atmospheric oxygen.
they do not react because ( in simple terms) the multiple high energy N bonds are hard to break. Too high energy.
I won’t explain the quantum chemistry but rest assured it makes it more complex notless,
when they do react at all at high temperature it is generally via an intermediate involving hydrogen to produce a viable energy gap.
So you can mix ingredients all day long. They do not by themselves point at a possible route or structure
every step makes it massively less likely - until and unless - you can find a viable process.
The minimum life structure is complex by definition of life , . you are relying on hundreds of reactions not one ,each one dramatically reducing likelihood, take just two - atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen don’t normally react! , yet you have no structure , so no idea of the intermediates , or building blocks that would be needed.
All you have is wish.
I understand your skepticism about the possibility of life arising from non-living matter. It is true that we do not have any definitive evidence of how or when this happened, and the process is still very much a mystery. However, there is a growing body of evidence that suggests that it is at least possible.
For example, scientists have found that many of the molecules that are essential for life, such as amino acids and nucleic acids, can be formed naturally from simple inorganic compounds. They have also found that these molecules can self-assemble into structures that have some of the basic properties of living cells.
Of course, this is just a start. There are still many unanswered questions about abiogenesis. But the fact that we are starting to find evidence that it is possible is a significant step forward.
I agree that it is important to be skeptical of any scientific theory, and that we should not accept anything on faith. However, I also believe that it is important to be open-minded and to consider all of the evidence, even if it does not fit neatly into our current understanding of the world.
I think that the possibility of abiogenesis is an exciting one, and I am hopeful that we will continue to learn more about it in the years to come.
Stop claiming the imprimateur of science, just because atheist scientists have to believe this. They are not acting as scientists when they replace science by their cult of wishful thinking
Listen to your high priest Dawkins who has no idea how life started, and he knows lot more than you. Yet even he makes frankly absurd claims on how “ mount improbable “ was climbed proving he knows nothing about optimisation science essily debunked by such as us who actually dealt with hill climbing optimisation processes.
Doesnt it bother you that there is no process or structure?
even the non living self catalysing molecules are products of intelligent design by teams of PHds who can’t keep it going!
I might Believe it if there is ever evidence, but even that does not explain consciousness
so does not explain life or how the chemical processes came to exist.
While we do not have all of the answers to the question of abiogenesis, we do have some evidence that suggests that it is possible. For example, scientists have found that many of the molecules that are essential for life, such as amino acids and nucleic acids, can be formed naturally from simple inorganic compounds. They have also found that these molecules can self-assemble into structures that have some of the basic properties of living cells.
This evidence does not prove that abiogenesis happened, but it does suggest that it is at least possible. It is obvious that scientists believe it is important to continue to investigate this question using the scientific method. By doing so, we may eventually be able to answer the question of how life started, and in doing so, we will gain a deeper understanding of the natural world.
As for consciousness, I agree that it is a difficult problem to explain. However, I do not believe that this means that we should abandon the scientific method and replace it with wishful thinking. There are many other difficult problems in science that have been solved using the scientific method, and I believe that consciousness is no different.
The best way to understand consciousness is to continue to investigate it using the scientific method. By doing so, we may eventually be able to explain how consciousness arises, and in doing so, we will gain a deeper understanding of ourselves and the universe.
I think it is important to be respectful of people's religious beliefs. However, it is also important to be clear about the difference between science and belief. Science is based on evidence and logic, while belief is based on faith. If you want to discuss science, it is important to understand the basics, even if you don't agree with them.
