[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] Tactics

[The Cadet]

What 'best evidence' is there for abiogenesis?

Fundamentally, I'd say that the fact that life exists indicates that at some point, life had to come into being. And given that there is no known non-naturalistic mechanism for doing, well, anything, it seems rather straightforward to assume that abiogenesis must have happened at some point.

 

[justlookinla]

Fundamentally, I'd say that the fact that life exists indicates that at some point, life had to come into being. And given that there is no known non-naturalistic mechanism for doing, well, anything, it seems rather straightforward to assume that abiogenesis must have happened at some point.

Actually, I should have said the CAUSE for abiogenesis.

All you have are various guesses and suppositions.

 

[paulm50]

And yet another empty claim....like your 95% claim. You're just pulling numbers out of thin air. What 'best evidence' is there for abiogenesis?

What's your theory and the best evidence you have for it?

What 'best evidence' is there for abiogenesis? Please read it all and come back and tell us why it's right or wrong.

 

[justlookinla]

What's your theory and the best evidence you have for it?

What 'best evidence' is there for abiogenesis? Please read it all and come back and tell us why it's right or wrong.

My view is that something created all of creation. My evidence is that we cannot find an example of nothing producing something from nothing.

 

[whois]

Read this and more about later scientific work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis#The_modern_synthesis This is one os the simpler forms, based on real evidence.

huh?
wikipedia?
and you say it's more recent?
out of the 100 or so references, i could only find 2 or 3 that was more recent and more relevant than my posted 2007 article.
those being:
45, only because i couldn't access the article at all.
77, shubin, 2009, the abstract seems to suggest this would be an interesting article.
93, another article i would like to read.

all the rest are earlier than my article, or supported what was stated in my article.

 

[paulm50]

huh?
wikipedia?
and you say it's more recent?
out of the 100 or so references, i could only find 2 or 3 that was more recent and more relevant than my posted 2007 article.
those being:
45, only because i couldn't access the article at all.
77, shubin, 2009, the abstract seems to suggest this would be an interesting article.
93, another article i would like to read.

all the rest are earlier than my article, or supported what was stated in my article.

https://www.google.cz/webhp?hl=en&gws_rd=cr&ei=AybfVf6aOYmQsgGb3KXYBQ#hl=en&q=modern+synthesis

 

[whois]

https://www.google.cz/webhp?hl=en&gws_rd=cr&ei=AybfVf6aOYmQsgGb3KXYBQ#hl=en&q=modern+synthesis

how do you think i found the article i posted?

 

[Skaloop]

Actually, I should have said the CAUSE for abiogenesis.

All you have are various guesses and suppositions.

Who says there has to be a cause?

 

[Skaloop]

My view is that something created all of creation. My evidence is that we cannot find an example of nothing producing something from nothing.

Except that we can.

 

[justlookinla]

Who says there has to be a cause?

Explain.

 

[justlookinla]

Except that we can.

You're probably thinking of quantum fluctuation. Or maybe not.

That's not a causeless event.

 

[paulm50]

Nope, I asked you a question. What evidence do you have that nothing produced something from nothing? Anything?

What evidence do you have that something produced something from nothing? Assuming that's your position.

 

[Skaloop]

Explain.

I'm not sure how much simpler I can make it. Why does there need to be a cause?

 

[paulm50]

how do you think i found the article i posted?

I'm no scientist, so all I can do is point you to the papers scientists have published.

Science is a work in progress, you can except we haven't discovered to fly at the speed of light, so accept we are still learning how life originally started n Earth. As I always maintain, it won't bear any resemblance to Genesis. Most of which has been disproved.

Some people's problem is accepting it's just a story to tell people to scare them into doing as they're told.

Now.

What evidence do you have that something produced something from nothing? Assuming that's your position.

 

[Skaloop]

You're probably thinking of quantum fluctuation. Or maybe not.

That's not a causeless event.

Then what's the cause?

 

[justlookinla]

What evidence do you have that something produced something from nothing? Assuming that's your position.

First, you must answer the question I originally asked you. What evidence do you have that nothing produced something from nothing.

The answer isn't hard.

 

[justlookinla]

Then what's the cause?

Quantum fluctuations only produce pretend particles (virtual particles), nothing real, so there's nothing produced that requires a cause.

 

[paulm50]

First, you must answer the question I originally asked you. What evidence do you have that nothing produced something from nothing.

The answer isn't hard.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/tactics.7903794/page-9#post-68522826

I can only tell you what we know so far. So I have no evidence how nothing produced something from nothing.

Now produce your evidence of what produced life on Earth.

 

[justlookinla]

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/tactics.7903794/page-9#post-68522826

I can only tell you what we know so far. So I have no evidence how nothing produced something from nothing.

Now produce your evidence of what produced life on Earth.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/tactics.7903794/page-9#post-68522826

I can only tell you what we know so far. So I have no evidence how nothing produced something from nothing.

Now produce your evidence of what produced life on Earth.

Right, there's absolutely no evidence that nothing produced something from nothing. As far as what produced life on earth, we can only recognize the fact that there was a first cause, a causeless cause, from which everything else proceeded.

 

[paulm50]

Right, there's absolutely no evidence that nothing produced something from nothing. As far as what produced life on earth, we can only recognize the fact that there was a first cause, a causeless cause, from which everything else proceeded.

If there's no evidence, why was there a cause?

Could of been an accidental collision of an asteroid carrying the right chemical elements.

As you say there's absolutely no evidence. Well actually there is some that may have been the start. This is why science trumps religious belief. Science isn't afraid to keep looking.

Asteroids are hitting Earth, they carry all sorts of elements, some we are just discovering. Did a god aim it at Earth, or was it an accident? We are still looking into it.