My Epiphany

[Shemjaza]

So in your words,you believe if I took a rock of stone,dropped it in a vat of bleach,then took it and covered it in lye,then left it to dry then took it and put it in a vacuum chamber and left it for millennia,after removing it would it have a small fraction of life?

The answer is no,it doesn’t matter if there is chemical processes.A big bang doesn’t take gravity and energy and create matter that then can become living matter.

Like I said before,you believe your greatest ancestor is a rock?

Specifically? Probably not. Life, as we know it, requires specific chemical and circumstances to exist... but those circumstances definitely do exist,

The point is that unliving organic chemical are common in the universe, and we know that polymerisation is completely possible without intelligent intervention.

The point is not that abiogenesis is common or likely in any given scenario, it's that it's possible and the scale of the Earth in particular and the Universe in general turns any "possible" to a "near certainty".

 

[Ophiolite]

Well my dear friend,I beg to differ ,it doesn’t take a genius like Newton or Einstein to realize if that abiogenesis is theoritcally and scientifically impossible,IOW,it CAN NOT And DID NOT happen, you cannot have life come from inorganic, abiotic matter.Carbon is not living, it is a non-living rock.

Obviously, if your premise is that "abiogenesis is theoretically and scientifically impossible" then it must follow that "you cannot have life come from inorganic, abiotic matter."
Unfortunately for your argument abiogenesis is not only scientifically and theoretically possible, but we are moving from identifying plausible pathways by which it might occur, to delineating specific reactions within those pathways. By all means go ahead and demonstrate why any of those plausible pathways is impossible, or the specific reactions irrelevant. I will consider your attempt at debunking with an open mind.

If the universe hypothetically-cataclysmically exploded trillions of years ago, Gravity and energy cannot create matter, and if it did it most certainly cannot create living matter.

No scientist I am aware of proposes that the universe exploded, that it did so cataclysmically, or that this happened trillions of years ago. If you are going to attack scientific theories it would be a good idea to know something about those theories, else you are likely to appear rather foolish.
Matter and energy are interchangeable. Energy does not create matter, but it can transform into matter.
Life can arise through the interaction of matter and energy. No creation is involved.

If you believe in evolution and Abiogenesis, do you firmly believe your greatest ancestors are rocks? Or maybe perhaps empty energy particles?

An ancestor is a once living organism that I am descended from. Rocks are not living, consequently I cannot have a rock as an ancestor.

If I search google scholar for "energy particle" I get over 89,000 hits. If I search it for "empty energy particle" I get zero hits. If you wish to discuss science you need to make some effort to use an appropriate vocabulary.

Overall, I fear a D- would be generous.

 

[Blaise N]

Obviously, if your premise is that "abiogenesis is theoretically and scientifically impossible" then it must follow that "you cannot have life come from inorganic, abiotic matter."
Unfortunately for your argument abiogenesis is not only scientifically and theoretically possible, but we are moving from identifying plausible pathways by which it might occur, to delineating specific reactions within those pathways. By all means go ahead and demonstrate why any of those plausible pathways is impossible, or the specific reactions irrelevant. I will consider your attempt at debunking with an open mind.

No scientist I am aware of proposes that the universe exploded, that it did so cataclysmically, or that this happened trillions of years ago. If you are going to attack scientific theories it would be a good idea to know something about those theories, else you are likely to appear rather foolish.
Matter and energy are interchangeable. Energy does not create matter, but it can transform into matter.
Life can arise through the interaction of matter and energy. No creation is involved.

An ancestor is a once living organism that I am descended from. Rocks are not living, consequently I cannot have a rock as an ancestor.

If I search google scholar for "energy particle" I get over 89,000 hits. If I search it for "empty energy particle" I get zero hits. If you wish to discuss science you need to make some effort to use an appropriate vocabulary.

Overall, I fear a D- would be generous.

Obviously, if your premise is that "abiogenesis is theoretically and scientifically impossible" then it must follow that "you cannot have life come from inorganic, abiotic matter."
Unfortunately for your argument abiogenesis is not only scientifically and theoretically possible, but we are moving from identifying plausible pathways by which it might occur, to delineating specific reactions within those pathways. By all means go ahead and demonstrate why any of those plausible pathways is impossible, or the specific reactions irrelevant. I will consider your attempt at debunking with an open mind.

No scientist I am aware of proposes that the universe exploded, that it did so cataclysmically, or that this happened trillions of years ago. If you are going to attack scientific theories it would be a good idea to know something about those theories, else you are likely to appear rather foolish.
Matter and energy are interchangeable. Energy does not create matter, but it can transform into matter.
Life can arise through the interaction of matter and energy. No creation is involved.

An ancestor is a once living organism that I am descended from. Rocks are not living, consequently I cannot have a rock as an ancestor.

If I search google scholar for "energy particle" I get over 89,000 hits. If I search it for "empty energy particle" I get zero hits. If you wish to discuss science you need to make some effort to use an appropriate vocabulary.

Overall, I fear a D- would be generous.

If you honestly believe life can come from non-living matter then I’m afraid I’m not the “delusional person”, like I said before, it doesn’t take a genius to understand what is living and non-living matter.

Basic biology concludes life only occurs from life, not chemical processes or chemical reactions, the idea of doing such is a meager, desperate attempt to exclude God from the creation of the Universe.

I tell every unbeliever the same thing, these scientific studies are futile, desperate attempts to find ways to, once again, exclude God from existence.

 

[Ophiolite]

If you honestly believe life can come from non-living matter then I’m afraid I’m not the “delusional person”, like I said before, it doesn’t take a genius to understand what is living and non-living matter.

Basic biology concludes life only occurs from life, not chemical processes or chemical reactions, the idea of doing such is a meager, desperate attempt to exclude God from the creation of the Universe.

I tell every unbeliever the same thing, these scientific studies are futile, desperate attempts to find ways to, once again, exclude God from existence.

I have no problem with your faith. I imagine it is a great blessing to you. I respect it.

I have a monumental problem with your trite abuse of the scientific method and its findings when you make a statement such a "Basic biology concludes . . . . . " , What astounding arrogance to assume you have a better grasp of biology than the tens of thousands of researchers in the field, many of them practicing Christians, who have concluded that life can come from non-life. (And that ignores the fact that primary producers, such as plants, are converting non-life to life every nano-second in almost every corner of the planet.)

For an atheist scientist it would be pointless to make "futile, desperate attempts to find ways to, once again, exclude God from existence." I expend zero effort on making my home secure against attacks by transmorgophyms of Venus, because I do not think they exist. The scientific world does not revolve around trying to reject your God, because they generally have more important things to do. (For one subset of the community that is about how God performed his creation with tools such as abiogenesis.)

 

[Shemjaza]

If you honestly believe life can come from non-living matter then I’m afraid I’m not the “delusional person”, like I said before, it doesn’t take a genius to understand what is living and non-living matter.

Then what's the difference?

Basic biology concludes life only occurs from life, not chemical processes or chemical reactions, the idea of doing such is a meager, desperate attempt to exclude God from the creation of the Universe.

Then perhaps you can explain the difference?

Organic chemicals like amino acids exist without life... carbon polymer chains exist without life... complicated chemicals like prions and viruses blur the edges of life and non life...

I tell every unbeliever the same thing, these scientific studies are futile, desperate attempts to find ways to, once again, exclude God from existence.

You say that, but it isn't true.

It's attempts to explain the evidence we can see and detect.

"Stop asking questions and just accept that it was a non specific miracle." isn't a satisfactory explanation for anything... you could use that to ignore the facts of lightening and earth quakes, but we didn't and we know more.

I don't think we can ever disprove God, but that's irrelevant to the ongoing attempts to understand the world around us.

 

[Astrid]

If you honestly believe life can come from non-living matter then I’m afraid I’m not the “delusional person”, like I said before, it doesn’t take a genius to understand what is living and non-living matter.

Basic biology concludes life only occurs from life, not chemical processes or chemical reactions, the idea of doing such is a meager, desperate attempt to exclude God from the creation of the Universe.

I tell every unbeliever the same thing, these scientific studies are futile, desperate attempts to find ways to, once again, exclude God from existence.

" Basic biology concludes life only comes from
life"
Interesting how you try to use the presumably
inviolate Truth of one scientific law to disprove
another.

The so- called "law" of biogenesis is simply
that there are no known examples of abiogenesis.
It in no way implies such cannot happen, stoll less
does it propose a theoretical reason why it cannot
happen.

So, no, that is not basic biology.

It's a basic misunderstanding and misapplication of
basic concepts in science.

 

[Astrophile]

If you believe in evolution and Abiogenesis, do you firmly believe your greatest ancestors are rocks?

Certainly not the common rocks that are made of silicate minerals (e.g. sandstone, shale, basalt, granite, gneiss) and probably not even carbonaceous rocks. Life is more likely to have originated in a liquid, perhaps in some sort of organic solution, than in the solid state.

 

[Astrid]

Well my dear friend,I beg to differ ,it doesn’t take a genius like Newton or Einstein to realize if that abiogenesis is theoritcally and scientifically impossible,IOW,it CAN NOT And DID NOT happen, you cannot have life come from inorganic, abiotic matter.Carbon is not living, it is a non-living rock.

If the universe hypothetically-cataclysmically exploded trillions of years ago, Gravity and energy cannot create matter, and if it did it most certainly cannot create living matter.

The question I beg to ask is this.

If you believe in evolution and Abiogenesis, do you firmly believe your greatest ancestors are rocks? Or maybe perhaps empty energy particles?

Abiotic/non-living matter+energy≠life/biotic matter

Wasn't your ancestor supposed to be
a ball of mud?

 

[AV1611VET]

Wasn't your ancestor supposed to be a ball of mud?

As the saying goes:

From goo, through the zoo, to you.

 

[dlamberth]

If you believe in evolution and Abiogenesis, do you firmly believe your greatest ancestors are rocks?

I do.
After the Big-Bang, rocky planets (at least this one) were the bed that life evolved on.

 

[Blaise N]

Wasn't your ancestor supposed to be
a ball of mud?

Clay,miss estrid,

 

[Ophiolite]

Clay,miss estrid,

Muds are composed of clay sized particles, many of which (sometimes almost all) are clay minerals.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wasn't your ancestor supposed to be a ball of mud?

Clay, miss estrid.

Muds are composed of clay sized particles, many of which (sometimes almost all) are clay minerals.

The Bible compares us to clay on a potter's wheel.

Methinks a couple of you need a course in Ceramics 101.

 

[Ophiolite]

The Bible compares us to clay on a potter's wheel.

Methinks a couple of you need a course in Ceramics 101.

I can see absolutely nothing in the comments of @Estrid , @Blaise N , or myself that would lead you to such a conclusion. If it is meant to be some kind of metaphor it is so obscure that its value is reduced to zero. In terms of the mineralogy, geochemistry, formation, and diagenesis of clays, their roles in petroleum genesis and migration, generation of overpressures, sedimentary tectonics and the like I think I am at least as well versed as just about every forum member, though I agree I've never really got fired up about ceramics.

 

[AV1611VET]

I can see absolutely nothing in the comments of @Estrid , @Blaise N , or myself that would lead you to such a conclusion.

My apologies.

I made an appeal to academia, thinking it would give you enough dignity for mankind that, faced with referring to us as mud or clay, you would change your focus and see us as God sees us and choose the latter.

But I should have known better.

Go ahead and continue thinking we are "balls of mud," rather than "clay," and the Muses will be proud of you.

 

[Astrid]

Clay,miss estrid,

Clay is product of feldspar ( a rock type) disintegrating
in air and water.
Clay n water is mud.
Mudstones are hardened clay. Rock dust plus water equals mud
Your attempt to correct me is meaningless.

"Ancestor was a rock" is a crock whether presented
as religion or trying to mock science.

 

[BCP1928]

I tell every unbeliever the same thing, these scientific studies are futile, desperate attempts to find ways to, once again, exclude God from existence.

What do you tell believers who know that science does not, and cannot, exclude God from existence and does not attempt to. Or are you just trying to deny their faith?

 

[AV1611VET]

Clay is product of feldspar ( a rock type) disintegrating in air and water. Clay n water is mud. Mudstones are hardened clay. Rock dust plus water equals mud.

Why not just say we're stardust and be done with it?

Your attempt to correct me is meaningless.

There's One who will correct you, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.

I pray you'll be on His side when that time comes.

 

[AV1611VET]

What do you tell believers who know that science does not, and cannot, exclude God from existence and does not attempt to.

"Right on!"

 

[Blaise N]

Clay is product of feldspar ( a rock type) disintegrating
in air and water.
Clay n water is mud.
Mudstones are hardened clay. Rock dust plus water equals mud
Your attempt to correct me is meaningless.

"Ancestor was a rock" is a crock whether presented
as religion or trying to mock science.

Quite frankly miss estrid,there’s a difference.Im speaking directly of non-living matter somehow, spontaneously becoming animate and living,and eventually becoming living, single-celled organisms to multi-celled organisms, then eventually becoming larger-multi-celled organisms,then becoming amphibious,etc.

The story of Adam in Genesis is inanimate matter becoming living through divine power.Not becoming animate by itself.

Once again, respectfully and politely, inanimate matter has not, CANNOT, and will not become animate via-energy or gravity.
Take this for example.

Let’s say I take an average rock, soak it in bleach and leave it to dry in a sterile environment,then ensure that I remove or kill all microorganisms on its surface; then place it into a airtight, vacuum chamber and leave it sit for 1000 years.If that airtight, vacuum chamber is opened,and examined microscopically, there will still be no life.Same scenario in space.

In the hypothetical “atheist” universe-creation scenario, the Big Bang occurs and matter is spontaneously created, now we have elements and matter,BUT that matter is NOT living,it’s just energetically fueled and controlled, there is no life nor biotic matter. Ice and water can form because they are a combination of hydrogen and oxygen,but they cannot produce nor sustain life.

Energy itself is not living or biotic.