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.
It means I understand the definitions of:
Abiogenesis.
Hypothesis.
Conjecture.
And again: you have shown nothing to say that abiogenesis is conjecture when I see more evidence to show that it is a hypothesis, along with giving nothing to show that creationism is anything but conjecture, not even scientific.
You have shown me nothing to show that I should accept anything you say on anything.
Re read what I wrote,
Abiogenesis is by definition the critical step no life to life.
The step from a precursor that is not living to living ( most definitions use self evolving, self replicating) . That is a mix I used cell. That is the step that is abiogenesis.
In the case of creation there is no need for conjecture.
Unlike abiogenesis it has happened in our time. Electron micro graphs of host and heart tissue. But that is the last I will say, because the three is about bias.
Eg the common atheist bias that promotes conjecture to hypothesis in respect of abiogenesis. I am simply using the definitions of words in their proper context. Miller Urey is not evidence of abiogenesis ,period.
Again, all you are doing is making a claim, and providing not a single shred of evidence to back it up! Do you understand what this means? If you want me to accept your claims, SHOW ME EVIDENCE.
The Miller Urey experiment did exactly what you said: it showed that through the conditions of early earth, basic amino acids could be brought forth. That is abiogenesis: living cells from non-living environments. That is evidence that abiogenesis is more than conjecture, it is a workable hypothesis.
Wake up call.
By nobodies definition are amino acids “ living”
So Miller Urey was not abiogenesis.
Study some biochemistry.
anyways, about to catch a plane , so that’s me over and out.
Abiogenesis has been demonstrated? I’m not at all up to speed on current science, last I heard it was still an unknown, they can now demonstrate the creation of life from inorganic materials?Why do keep repeating that abiogenesis is just conjecture? How are you going to prove that when you do not understand the science. It has been demonstrated not to be conjecture many times and yet you continue to repeat this falsehood.
Repeatability alone, as the sole basis underlying a scientific method into largely unexplored fields of research, has the inherent flaw of taking on the status of confirmed truths, where the repeatability itself, actually reflects failings in study design, methods, or analytical tools. You argue against confirmation bias, yet this is exactly what has been demonstrated to emerge when the approach only seeks repeatability... But it cannot be repeated, it does not repeat, there is nothing like a complete mechanism for it, no place or time conjectured where it actually did happen. No proof it actualy did happen or how it happened if it did.
...
It does not have to have been demonstrated to understand that it is the most likely source of life on the planet. Quite a few of the problems of abiogenesis have been solved. There are still some unsolved ones. But since parts of it are testable and confirmable there is scientific evidence for it. I am unaware of any scientific evidence for any beliefs of creationists. So what would you go by? One concept is well, but not fully, supported by evidence. The other concept does not appear to have any reliable evidence at all.Abiogenesis has been demonstrated? I’m not at all up to speed on current science, last I heard it was still an unknown, they can now demonstrate the creation of life from inorganic materials?
This is why you lose the argument. If I tried to argue against Christianity by taking verses out of context and calling it a cannibalism cult would that refute Christianity? If I insisted on using my out of context analysis could we even have a conversation? Probably not.Wake up call.
By nobodies definition are amino acids “ living”
So Miller Urey was not abiogenesis.
Study some biochemistry.
anyways, about to catch a plane , so that’s me over and out.
So what? Dictionaries are descriptive not proscriptive. They only help you to understand a term. Here is where you screwed up:I can only remind you of the dictionary definition of conjecture.
"an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of INCOMPLETE information"
The thread related scientific bias based on belief. It exists, as here.
Actually right now abiogenesis is a series of hypotheses. It is a very difficult problem to tackle all at once so scientists have broken it up into different sections. The Miller Urey experiment shows that amino acids form naturally. A very important part of abiogenesis. At one point it was thought that life was needed to form amino acids and that little bit of circularity would have refuted abiogenesis. They have hypotheses on how cell walls formed. They have hypotheses on how those molecules went under racemization (became all left handed for amino acids and right handed for sugars). They have hypotheses on how RNA formed which led to DNA and others. Some of them the racemization of chemicals, has more than one possible solution. As a result we may never know the exact path to life from non-life since it appears that there are multiple possible successful pathways.I see a claim from you with zero evidence to support it, and having argued with you before, I know that I will not receive any evidence for it because you feel that, for some reason, you shouldn't given evidence for your claims. So your claims are worthless.
Meanwhile, the Millery-Urey experiment shows that the fundamental building blocks of live can form, which support my claim that abiogenesis is a scientifically valid hypothesis.
Oh I’m pretty ignorant to it all frankly. I don’t understand how abiogenesis problems have been solved, yet abiogenesis can not be demonstrated. I’m basically not trying to argue anything (since I’m incompetent to argue about it) but was wondering how exactly abiogenesis problems have been solved if we still can’t replicate the process.It does not have to have been demonstrated to understand that it is the most likely source of life on the planet. Quite a few of the problems of abiogenesis have been solved.
I simply must plead ignorance. I don’t understand what “Parts of abiogenesis have been solved” means. I was just hoping for an explanation of what that means, I wasn’t trying to argue.But since parts of it are testable and confirmable there is scientific evidence for it. .
Oh I’m pretty ignorant to it all frankly. I don’t understand how abiogenesis problems have been solved, yet abiogenesis can not be demonstrated. I’m basically not trying to argue anything (since I’m incompetent to argue about it) but was wondering how exactly abiogenesis problems have been solved if we still can’t replicate the process.
I simply must plead ignorance. I don’t understand what “Parts of abiogenesis have been solved” means. I was just hoping for an explanation of what that means, I wasn’t trying to argue.
But the reality is the protections don’t always work.
Warnings are not always heeded.
Scientists are people.
People are flawed and biased.
Disciplines can be systemically biased.
Groupthink happens in science.
Your post sounded like further breakthroughs since Miller-Urey, that’s the part I was wondering about…that maybe I had been asleep to something significant in recent experiments. I did hear an interesting explanation from Robert Hazen about how we made a big mistake for so many years by simply talking about minerals without referencing the history of minerals alongside the history of biology. Basically the entire universe has been plastered with stardust in an almost homogenous degree, so it wouldn’t shock me to find the conditions for abiogenesis in many many different places in the universe (which is the explanation that Hazen was driving at). So I’m not demanding a non-naturalistic explanation, you just had me curious that I may have been asleep at the wheel for a naturalistic explanation that came along recently. I always find it interesting that we have fossilized evidence of life going all the way back to pretty much the exact time that fossilized life on Earth was even possible (when the Earth cooled enough to supply fossilized records).Let's say that you are working on a huge project. You are building a kit car. Though some of the parts are very very hard to get. It would not be wise to try to build the whole thing at once. It would be better to break the build up into those that one can do right now. If you can't get all of the parts you might figure out a work around. But if you wait for all of the parts to arrive the project might not ever be done.
At the time off Miller-Urey it was thought by many that amino acids could not form naturally. And without amino acids life could not even begin to form. It was a relatively simple experiment to set up and show that they do form on their own. For our car build analogy the first parts just came in.
The problem is that you may be thinking of "absolute proof". Nothing is proven in the sciences. Gravity is not proven. It would be foolish to deny it, but the concept is not proven yet and never will be. Science builds models and tests them. Even if we do not get the right answer they keep bringing us closer and closer to the right answer.
There have been countless breakthroughs since then. I could provide you with a link or two if you like. If all we had was the Miller Urey experiment you would be well within reason to doubt abiogenesis. In fact deniers of science try to pretend that nothing has been added since then. They could not be more wrong.Your post sounded like further breakthroughs since Miller-Urey, that’s the part I was wondering about…that maybe I had been asleep to something significant in recent experiments. I did hear an interesting explanation from Robert Hazen about how we made a big mistake for so many years by simply talking about minerals without referencing the history of minerals alongside the history of biology. Basically the entire universe has been plastered with stardust in an almost homogenous degree, so it wouldn’t shock me to find the conditions for abiogenesis in many many different places in the universe (which is the explanation that Hazen was driving at). So I’m not demanding a non-naturalistic explanation, you just had me curious that I may have been asleep at the wheel for a naturalistic explanation that came along recently. I always find it interesting that we have fossilized evidence of life going all the way back to pretty much the exact time that fossilized life on Earth was even possible (when the Earth cooled enough to supply fossilized records).
Ok sure thanks.There have been countless breakthroughs since then. I could provide you with a link or two if you like.
So that experiment gave us amino acids from inorganic materials (combined with controlled conditions). But what does it mean to doubt abiogenesis? Isn’t abiogenesis just a scientific term that says that life on a planet is always preceded by a lifeless sea of inorganic materials on that planet…and “Abiogenesis” is simply the scientific explanation of how exactly that happens?If all we had was the Miller Urey experiment you would be well within reason to doubt abiogenesis.
Yes, the scientific method is universally repeatable and verifiable! Which is why tricksters have been exposed as frauds in the history of science (because other scientists couldn’t recreate, or verify their claims).True, but science does have systems in place to protect against these things. I'm not aware of any other worldview which does.
Try the opening post and link in this thread here. The wording is carefully chosen in order to make clear what the hypothesis is and limits claims about its purpose... Isn’t abiogenesis just a scientific term that says that life on a planet is always preceded by a lifeless sea of inorganic materials on that planet…and “Abiogenesis” is simply the scientific explanation of how exactly that happens?
Sure.Yes, the scientific method is universally repeatable and verifiable! Which is why tricksters have been exposed as frauds in the history of science (because other scientists couldn’t recreate, or verify their claims).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?