Probability of Origin of Life by Chance just went way UP.

[SkyWriting]

The laws of the universe suffice... which perhaps we have not yet all discovered.

But would that make sense?
Being on the one planet thriving with life in every nook and cranny
there should be some smidgen or at minimum weak natural law
that would suggest that life should form from non-living material.

A thermal law
a chemical law
a density law
an attraction law
a mass law

.....something.

 

[SkyWriting]

And? Your point being what, precisely?

Universities aren't limited to one field, or a few fields. There are many researchers - from undergraduates all the way through to post-doctoral scholars - engaged in many different fields of study.

Those institutions I listed, all employed individuals who had published a paper on or directly related to abiogenesis, since about March this year.

That I don't believe your list.

 

[SkyWriting]

Leaping to a God conclusion explains nothing. Maybe God did it or maybe there are any number of other causes. The need for certainty should not cause one to leap to conclusions.

I'm not leaping....I asking you to support your case.
What natural law hints that life should form?

 

[Gene2memE]

Verify it for yourself then.

It's simple process:
1. Go to Google Scholar
2. Enter the search term "abiogenesis" and then limit the results to 2015
3. Look at the papers and the authors listed on each
4. Look up where each of the authors is working at, usually listed in the author information attached to each abstract and paper

Here, I'll get you started, click on me to complete steps 1. & 2.

 

[SkyWriting]

A habitable planet has been discovered a mere 1400 light years away. Considering our tiny galaxy spans a 100,000 light years but still has a hundred billion stars this indicates a dramatic increase in the likely number of habitable planets. Our galaxy may be full of them. If life originates by chance, the more habitable planets the greater the odds that life will originate. You guys believing in a 6 day creation event better start rethinking your positions.

Back to my point. If you know statistics, then you know
the odds have not changed based on 1 new data point.
That's just a fact of statistics.

Let me illustrate with a coin toss of a quarter.
You toss it and it lands heads 7 times in a row.
What are the odds for the next toss?
Still 50/50.
This is why people loose money gambling.
They think they are on a roll. But the odds
have not changed.

 

[The Cadet]

'Scientific' research hasn't produced the source of HOW all life was created, based on the scientific method.

I'll do you one better. Scientific research has not yet produced a viable model for all of physics. We have two different models that model different things at different levels, but which don't work together. Relativity falls apart at the very small, and quantum mechanics falls apart everywhere else, but they don't work together. We don't have a coherent unified field theory yet.

Does that mean that we should look elsewhere? Does that mean that science will never come up with the answers? No, and no, respectively. We have no other viable mechanism, and we don't know whether we'll ever find a viable scientific model. But we shouldn't stop trying.

Evolution needs gradulism, catastrophism is creationism.

Wait, what? Catastrophes are a well-established factor in many fields of science. Punctuated equilibrium (and basic genealogy) basically ensure that when a population is reduced to a small grouping, evolutionary change will be more rapid, whereas among larger, non-isolated groups, it will take much longer. The world is full of incredibly impactful events, from volcanoes to floods to, well, impacts like the meteor that killed off most of the dinosaurs.

However, none of that specifically supports anything in creationism. Catastrophism is essentially universally accepted among earth scientists, because gradualism is wrong. However, evolution does not need gradualism any more than catastrophism proves supernatural creation.

And, You don't tell a university that you have found archeological evidence that puts the TOE to serious question....

You will be out of work, out of money and no diploma or recognition for your work and finds.

You mean like Eugene Koonin, who has been clamoring for significant revisions to the theory of evolution for quite some time, and is widely respected as a biologist on the cutting edge of research?

 

[Loudmouth]

Or your own, it seems. You want to be spoon-fed, yet you spit out what you're given.

You are the one making the claim. It is up to you to supply the evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

The reason that it is important to know who is putting up the money for research is..... If you find information and discoveries that discount or contradict the beliefs of the ones with the $$$ the $$$$ stops flowing.......

You don't tell the inventor of the 18 wheeler that trains are better......If the trucker is paying you to increase efficiency in transport.
You don't tell a pig farmer that chickens would be more efficient..... If the pig farmer is looking for higher return.


And, You don't tell a university that you have found archeological evidence that puts the TOE to serious question....

You will be out of work, out of money and no diploma or recognition for your work and finds.

So why aren't there any Christian organizations doing research into the origin of life?

 

[justlookinla]

So why aren't there any Christian organizations doing research into the origin of life?

Why does it matter?

 

[justlookinla]

Papers on abiogenesis and related fields (such as features of very early life or protein origins in astrobiology) published this year include authors working for/at:

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center;
NASA Johnson Space Center;
Massachusetts Institute of Technology;
Florida State University;
University of Kansas;
Konrad Lorenz Institute;
California Institute of Technology;
Cornell University;
Aix-Marseille Université, Marseille;
Stockholm University;
Università di Firenze;
University of Sussex;
University of Sheffield;
Eötvös Loránd University Budapest;
University of Southern California;
Brazilian Center of Physics Research;
Sorbonne Université;
CRNM France;
Aachen University;
University of Belgrade;
The University of Tokyo;
RIKEN Biofunctional Catalyst Research Team;
Weston Observatory of Boston College;
Charles University in Prague;
Technische Universität München;
Universidade de Lisboa;
University of Brussels (Belgium);
American Museum of Natural History.


And probably several dozen others universities and institutions that I don't have the time to find on Google Scholar

That's a list of folks with a lot of guesses.

 

[JacksBratt]

So why aren't there any Christian organizations doing research into the origin of life?

Really?

Why would we waste the time and money? We know what the origin of ALL life is. It was created, by God, in SIX days. All life since then has been passed on from one "kind" to another of the same "kind".

We have no questions. We have a starting point we can stand on and move forward from there.

Unlike the followers of the TOE who have a floating origin and make assumptions and speculation as to what happened after this illusive "beginning". Whatever it was.

 

[JacksBratt]

I'll do you one better. Scientific research has not yet produced a viable model for all of physics. We have two different models that model different things at different levels, but which don't work together. Relativity falls apart at the very small, and quantum mechanics falls apart everywhere else, but they don't work together. We don't have a coherent unified field theory yet.

Does that mean that we should look elsewhere? Does that mean that science will never come up with the answers? No, and no, respectively. We have no other viable mechanism, and we don't know whether we'll ever find a viable scientific model. But we shouldn't stop trying.

Have you ever been in a building, in the dark, trying to find your way around. Or even a maze type place. Then, someone turns on the lights and it all makes sense?

That is what it will be like when God finally shows man or allows mankind to see the reality that we are so diligently perusing. Some time, at some point either when you die or if God allows before the end of this age, the light will come on and there will be a unified "ahhhhh, now we see" when the great minds are allowed to see through their mistakes, incorrect assumptions and speculation that were " the laws of Science".

God is truth, the Bible is truth and man is a mere seeker of truth. God allows man to see what God wants him to see in due time. Science has given enough information for many to believe the ways of Christ. Some it will take infinitely more to convince. Some will stubbornly never admit to the truth even if it kills them.

Steven Hawking was trying to find a theory or a formula for everything. Yet, to God, this human mastermind is like a coo cooing baby staring at a mobile above his crib.

You mean like Eugene Koonin, who has been clamoring for significant revisions to the theory of evolution for quite some time, and is widely respected as a biologist on the cutting edge of research?

Yep, If he found something earth shattering, or should I say TOE shattering, and began proving the Biblical account,... the support would dry up, they would hand him the proverbial tinfoil hat and laugh him out of his office.

 

[SkyWriting]

So why aren't there any Christian organizations doing research into the origin of life?

Maybe because of problems.
This is from the link four posts back.(Here, I'll get you started, click on me to complete steps 1. & 2.)

Challenges to the Theory of Evolution: Abiogenesis and Radiometric Dating

 

[Gene2memE]

Maybe because of problems.
This is from the link four posts back.(Here, I'll get you started, click on me to complete steps 1. & 2.)

Challenges to the Theory of Evolution: Abiogenesis and Radiometric Dating

Essh, what a mess that it. It's been 10+ years since I worked as an advisor on undergrad papers, but that one wouldn't have passed muster as a first draft, let alone gotten a green light for submission to a professor. I'm surprised that this Professor Richard Rosen, who has quite a distinguished legal career from what I can see, didn't take the author to town on the quality of the work.

Whoever wrote that paper clearly doesn't understand the scientific definition of theory and the popular use of the word (just look at the conclusion for instance), or between the terms 'claim', 'hypothesis' and 'theory', or the notion that science deals with the available evidence and does not supply "absolute truth" (see the abstract for examples).

It also doesn't draw any distinction between evolution and abiogenesis and makes factually incorrect statements such as nobody knows "how old the Earth is" (capitalisation in the original), or that the techniques used in radiometric dating are based on "unprovable assumptions"

He or she (not sure if 'Carder' is masculine or feminine) is also very fond of unsupported 'if' statements that are really just JAQing to problems that have already been resolved.

This is most in evidence in the radiometric dating section, and completely ignoring a lot of very easily available evidence. For instance, there's a concordance between radiometric dating methods and between the same methods from wildly different geographic areas dating the same event (like dating the age of a multi-object impact event) and between differing methods used in differing geographic areas. This appears nowhere in the discussion of radiometric dating in the paper.

Its also clear in the abiogenesis section. Research has moved on from Miller-Urey, and he/she appears mostly unaware of it.

Reall, its another creationism/ID 'teach the controversy' paper (in drag). Its not a science paper - HAL is 'Bachelor of Arts in Honors Arts and Letters' - its a liberal arts paper, probably in teaching disciplines. Any real scientist with education should be able to dissect this like a frog on a board.

The conclusion is ridiculous. It states that the scientific merits of other "theories" of the origins of life should be considered to "allowing for teachers and students to consider possibilities outside the confines of evolutionary theory". Science class is for science. Not for non-science. Which is what the paper proposes introducing into the curriculum.

 

[SkyWriting]

draw any distinction between evolution and abiogenesis

I agree with your conclusion on the conclusion.
As far as chemistry and physics go, how would you separate the two?
Most authors do not.

 

[Loudmouth]

Really?

Why would we waste the time and money? We know what the origin of ALL life is.

Then it shouldn't be hard to fund the research to produce the evidence to back that belief. Why don't we see that research?

We have no questions. We have a starting point we can stand on and move forward from there.

So it's nothing but dogma?

 

[Loudmouth]

Maybe because of problems.

What problems are there for research into the origin of life for creationists?

This is from the link four posts back.(Here, I'll get you started, click on me to complete steps 1. & 2.)

Challenges to the Theory of Evolution: Abiogenesis and Radiometric Dating

Where is the creationist research?

 

[Loudmouth]

Have you ever been in a building, in the dark, trying to find your way around. Or even a maze type place. Then, someone turns on the lights and it all makes sense?

That is what it will be like when God finally shows man or allows mankind to see the reality that we are so diligently perusing.

So all you have are made up stories?

Steven Hawking was trying to find a theory or a formula for everything. Yet, to God, this human mastermind is like a coo cooing baby staring at a mobile above his crib.

And more stuff that you have made up.

 

[SkyWriting]

Where is the creationist research?

Creationists follow the idea that God creates things, not using natural methods.
The Scientific Method requires that observations are able to be observed by investigators
and that data is able to be reproduced by "hostile" researchers.

Neither of those procedures can be done
1. on past events
2. on supernatural events.

 

[Loudmouth]

Creationists follow the idea that God creates things, not using natural methods.
The Scientific Method requires that observations are able to be observed by investigators
and that data is able to be reproduced by "hostile" researchers.

I don't see how one prevents the other. Why can't non-natural methods be observed?

Neither of those procedures can be done
1. on past events
2. on supernatural events.

Why not?