Origin of Life

[AV1611VET]

Hovind assassinated his own character by being a lying, fraudulent conman. He needs no help from me.

Again, it's all easy to find online, and the only reason you lap up anything he says is because you agree with him regardless of anyone actually telling you and showing you that what he's said is wrong, incorrect, inaccurate and untruthful.

What you're displaying against Mr Hovind is called an "ad hominem".

From the Oxford Dictionary:

An argument or reaction directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

It takes the focus off of what he's saying, and puts it on his character.

 

[BCP1928]

Which is more believable
A. Life came from non life by random chance
B. God created life

It depends on what you mean by "random chance."

I believe that life came from non-life by an orderly biochemical process which (in principle) can be characterized by science in terms of material causes. I also believe that God created life. Consequently, I reject "A" on both theological and scientific grounds.

 

[AV1611VET]

To get back on track in this thread:

Abiogenesis isn't science.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What you're displaying against Mr Hovind is called an "ad hominem".

From the Oxford Dictionary:

An argument or reaction directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

It takes the focus off of what he's saying, and puts it on his character.

And as has been shown by anyone who uses the internet and has the eyes and ears of use, they know that what Hovind says it fraudulent and outright lies.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

To get back on track in this thread:

Abiogenesis isn't science.

It's a scientific hypothesis, as in a scientific idea, which means that it is science. Just not science with massive overwhelming evidence to have it become a theory.

 

[AV1611VET]

And as has been shown by anyone who uses the internet and has the eyes and ears of use, they know that what Hovind says it fraudulent and outright lies.

Are you sure?

 

[AV1611VET]

It's a scientific hypothesis, as in a scientific idea, which means that it is science. Just not science with massive overwhelming evidence to have it become a theory.

From AI Overview:

The purpose of a hypothesis is to provide a testable, educated guess that guides a scientific study by making a specific prediction about the relationship between variables. It serves to provide a clear focus for the research, ensuring that data collection and analysis are purposeful and aligned with the study's goals. Without a hypothesis, research can be aimless, and it's difficult to draw meaningful conclusions or establish causality.

Miller-Urey tested that hypothesis and failed.

Demonstrating that abiogenesis isn't science.

I'll make a prediction:

You'll never create life in a laboratory.

Why?

It's not science.

Nature doesn't deal with trying to kick-start life ... and never did.

She has other things to concentrate on.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Are you sure?

If I was, I wouldn't say it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

From AI Overview:

The purpose of a hypothesis is to provide a testable, educated guess that guides a scientific study by making a specific prediction about the relationship between variables. It serves to provide a clear focus for the research, ensuring that data collection and analysis are purposeful and aligned with the study's goals. Without a hypothesis, research can be aimless, and it's difficult to draw meaningful conclusions or establish causality.

Miller-Urey tested that hypothesis and failed.

Demonstrating that abiogenesis isn't science.

I'll make a prediction:

You'll never create life in a laboratory.

Why?

It's not science.

Nature doesn't deal with trying to kick-start life ... and never did.

She has other things to concentrate on.

Miller-Urey's experiment did succeed though Unequivocally, it succeeded in showing that complex cells can form from singular, primitive singular cells.

And nature deals with kick-starting life all the time. That's what reproduction is.

 

[AV1611VET]

Miller-Urey's experiment did succeed though Unequivocally, it succeeded in showing that complex cells can form from singular, primitive singular cells.

And nature deals with kick-starting life all the time. That's what reproduction is.

 

[BCP1928]

From AI Overview:

The purpose of a hypothesis is to provide a testable, educated guess that guides a scientific study by making a specific prediction about the relationship between variables. It serves to provide a clear focus for the research, ensuring that data collection and analysis are purposeful and aligned with the study's goals. Without a hypothesis, research can be aimless, and it's difficult to draw meaningful conclusions or establish causality.

Miller-Urey tested that hypothesis and failed.

That's one of the big lies of Biblical creationism--that Miller and Urey were trying to create life in that flask. Have you ever read their actual paper?

Demonstrating that abiogenesis isn't science.

I'll make a prediction:

You'll never create life in a laboratory.

Why?

It's not science.

Nature doesn't deal with trying to kick-start life ... and never did.

She has other things to concentrate on.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

View attachment 373446

I have to say: it's things like this that make me think the ability of disliking posts would be a good thing for this site.

 

[BPPLEE]

It depends on what you mean by "random chance."

I believe that life came from non-life by an orderly biochemical process which (in principle) can be characterized by science in terms of material causes. I also believe that God created life. Consequently, I reject "A" on both theological and scientific grounds.

If you believe in abiogenesis did it occur on its own?

 

[Shemjaza]

If you believe in abiogenesis did it occur on its own?

I won't speak for anyone else, but "on its own" is an unclear description.

I'd say abiogenesis is a consequence of how chemistry works to to the observed behaviors of nature.

Personally I think that is just a progression of our universe with no creator... but if someone believed in a law giver for the laws of nature as most people do, the you can have both "God created life" and "chemistry created life on its own".

 

[AV1611VET]

That's one of the big lies of Biblical creationism--that Miller and Urey were trying to create life in that flask.

From AI Overview:

The purpose of the Miller-Urey experiment was to test the hypothesis that complex organic molecules, specifically amino acids, could be formed from inorganic precursors under the conditions of the early Earth. By simulating the atmosphere and oceans of the primordial Earth, the experiment showed that abiogenesis, the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, could have been the first step in the origin of life.

That's close enough, as far as I'm concerned.

Have you ever read their actual paper?

Nope.

I'm sure it's full of lies.

Miller-Urey's "primitive Earth:"

The real "primitive" Earth:

 

[AV1611VET]

I have to say: it's things like this that make me think the ability of disliking posts would be a good thing for this site.

Would you use it?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Would you use it?

It's a bit nicer than using a laugh emoji to show my dislike for a post.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's a bit nicer than using a laugh emoji to show my dislike for a post.

Your prejudice wouldn't show, either.

 

[BCP1928]

From AI Overview:

The purpose of the Miller-Urey experiment was to test the hypothesis that complex organic molecules, specifically amino acids, could be formed from inorganic precursors under the conditions of the early Earth. By simulating the atmosphere and oceans of the primordial Earth, the experiment showed that abiogenesis, the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, could have been the first step in the origin of life.

That's close enough, as far as I'm concerned.

In that case the experiment was a success, because it did produce amino acids.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Your prejudice wouldn't show, either.

The fact you call it prejudice just shows your own prejudice.

I'm bugging out now. I've said all I've to say. Kent Hovind is a conman, fraud, liar and a tax evader. A poor Christian if ever there was one, and an even worse intellectual.