Spontaneous Life Generation in Lab is Impossible

[Michael]

But no one else finds you convincing.

In terms of pure physics, that's actually untrue. I've been involved in published papers related to astronomy and solar physics, including some that were published in the Journal of Fusion Energy.

In terms of "religion", Christ is the single individual that most human beings on planet Earth find convincing, not little ol me.

I don't really expect atheists to be convinced of God based on anything I personally have to say. IMO the only way to find God is from internal experiences of God's presence within us all. Even Hellen Keller found that connection within herself. She may have been physically blind, deaf, and had no concept of language or the term "concept", but apparently she was not spiritually blind.

In terms of pure physics, the "fear" of electric universe/plasma cosmology theory was already *well* entrenched into mainstream dogma. In fact I sort of ignorantly stepped right into the middle of all that flack the moment I started promoting an "electric sun" theory based on 15 years of solar satellite image analysis. I don't expect to overcome all that bigotry and ignorance overnight either. EU/PC theory however is growing in numbers year by year.

Look - it's a mermaid on Mars! Or Bigfoot. Or a cheerleader.

How typical. Ya know...... Pattern recognition is a key component of all areas of physics and science in general. That process can lead to "false" results of course, but it also works both ways and leads to *knowledge* of reality as it truly exists.

The ironic part of course is that Lambda-CDM claims they found *four* supernatural beings in that image. They found a 'space expansion" bigfoot, an "inflation" Yeti, a "dark energy" Nessie *and* to top it all off, they even found a "dark matter" leprechaun hiding under yet *another rock* in your very same image. Irony overload. You've got a virtual managerie of supernatural constructs you apparently *don't* see in images of the sky.

I said, what do you mean yes and no? If you did not think the universe was 'aware', why would you drag around this EU-PC-static-universe-is-true-and-the-bb-theory-is-doo-doo line into virtually every thread on in this forum?

Well, for starters because I'm typically talking to "evangelical atheists" on this particular forum, most of whom don't know squat about physics. They typically *assume* that "science" requires demonstrated "cause/effect" relationships in controlled experimentation on Earth. Lambda-CDM happens to include four claims that do not enjoy such empirical cause/effect justification. It's handy to point that out to atheists sometimes. I sometimes use string theory, or graviton theory, but they are less effective examples because they are "minority" viewpoints in their field. Lambda-CDM, or one of it's supernatural components is therefore a "better" example.

Secondly, I think that particular theory gives "science" a bad name. It's based on *four* supernatural constructs, including space expansion, Guth's magical inflation deity, the ever pervasive yet every shy dark energy deity, and that most famous supernatural falsified entity of all, the mythical "dark matter' WIMP of a sky god. Even a *basic* EU/PC theory, even one *with* theistic "predictions" blows the empirical *doors* of that supernatural dud of a theory.

Your experiences are universal. People have a natural inclination to believe in souls, spirits, ghosts, gods, demons, angels, aliens, intelligent designers, and government conspiracies.

They also believe in cars, boats, TV's, cell phones, computers, biology, arts, literature, music, light, gravity, etc. So what? You don't think that casper the friendly CDM ghost isn't just as goofy after 4 straight lab failures in four unique "predictions" it made?

The people that form that "consensus" that do not think I know my stuff about gods. Why can they not demonstrate where I am wrong (if I am actually wrong)?

That is because you have two different standards, one for anything related to the topic of God, and another that relates to astronomy, and physics in general.

So how many gods do you have?

I live in a single universe, and I serve a single God. You can call him Allah, Yahweh, Jehovah, Brahman or just God. There is but one God. Can't you actually distinguish between the term "God", singular since monotheism became the "consensus" of planet Earth, and "religions" that are in fact a dime a dozen?

I think there are several threads that you have not derailed with your obsession with this topic. You said that your god and the Christian God are one and the same, and that your god is "100 percent empirical, 100 percent 'visible'". Back it up or retract.

I have. I provided you with a completely *physical* definition of the term "God". I provided you with evidence that it is electrical in nature, from areas of solar physics, to galaxy formation theories, to whole *universe* theories that accurately predict the behaviors and movements of stars *without* supernatural constructs of any sort. I've shown that nature is capable of allowing "awareness" to express itself through a wide variety of forms, both large and small, right here on Earth. I've shown you mathematical models of "soul" that enjoy more empirical support in the lab than CDM. I've shown you mathematical models of "Boltzmann brains" that apparently would pop up everywhere in spacetime eventually were it not for your mythical magical supernatural inflation deity. I've shown you structures in spacetime that have both functional and mass layout similarities to biological structures that give rise to microscopic awareness on Earth. I've provided you with both mathematical models, and physical verification of *everything* I've proposed, and everything I've proposed shows up here on Earth, including awareness in a myriad of various forms.

What *empirical* laboratory evidence have you given me to support the 'scientific' cause/effect claims about the cosmos?

If there are gods of any significance, feel free to define them.

I spent three full threads doing just that. If you didn't read them it's not my fault.

Sure. Define "soul" for me right now. Something testable, demonstrable.

I (actually Penrose) already did that for you in the appropriate thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7584137-74/#post64919132

Apparently you didn't read it, or read their mathematical model called Orch-OR theory?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Cells are not a simple "self-replicating molecule".(even viruses are more complex)They are more like a city of nano-machines.
Frankencell is just as believable as Frankenstein as long as you don't look at the details.

I have JUST explained to you, in the very post you are replying to, why abiogenesis is not (repeat: not... NOT... NOT ... NOT) looking for how a modern cell can form from non-living material.

Instead, abiogenesis research focusses on finding how non-living material can combine into a simple self-replicating molecule that is subject to darwinian mechanisms and processes, which could then evolve into RNA and eventually DNA based life in the form of cells. CELLS EVOLVED

Why do you pretend that I didn't explain this?

For future reference: from here on, every time you repeat this dishonest nonsense, you will be branded a liar. It HAS BEEN explained to you that modern cells is not what abiogenesis is looking for.

Please stop misrepresenting this scientific field on purpose.
Your argument is completely void. You are not arguing against abiogenesis. You are arguing against something that nobody claims, believes, hypothesises, etc. You are using a strawman.


Get it now?
Or must it be repeated again?

 

[mzungu]

Hi Everyone, I'm Paul from Australia, my first post here

Back to the original post, yes the holy grail of naturalists is to somehow prove abiogenesis (inorganic matter producing organic matter) so that it in their view it will clearly prove that God did not create life on earth but that it came from purely natural processes.

As the post pointed out, once humans become involved the random process is removed. Naturalists will reject this by claiming that scientists are simply combining elements to reproduce what they believe to be those of the early atmosphere of the earth.

But did the atmosphere of the early earth have a science lab, phd level scientists from various fields, electricity, microscopes and loads of other complex scientific equipment to help it combine all the elements and produce life? Obviously not. The human and technology factors must also be included in the total experiment, not isolated from it.

Naturalists who believe that scientists creating life in the lab automatically disproved creation, must also address a major issue of faulty logic. Clearly, if scientists created life in the lab then that would prove intelligent design, not disprove it. Unless of course you think the scientists to be a pack of unintelligent fools . What are they doing, they are creating and they are intelligent designers. However, it will never happen because only God is the author of life!

Show me one atom, one chemical, one element that comprises your body that is alive. I wonder how all those end up making living cells in your body.

This in no way is an argument for abiogenesis but to make you think outside your box. The previous poster has explained very well the goals of abiogenesis, so stop pretending you don't know.

 

[lifetips]

Show me one atom, one chemical, one element that comprises your body that is alive. I wonder how all those end up making living cells in your body.

This in no way is an argument for abiogenesis but to make you think outside your box. The previous poster has explained very well the goals of abiogenesis, so stop pretending you don't know.

God is a genius. That's how all the cells make us into life! Hey, I'm not pretending, in fact I have no idea what you are talking about. How can abiogenesis have "goals"? It DEAD. Will you have goals when you are dead? It's one thing to state the supposed "goals" of abiogenesis, whatever that is, but another thing to prove abiogenesis. If you believe abiogenesis when there is absolutely NO evidence for it then you are a person of great faith. In fact you have much more faith than any creationist that I know! Like most naturalists, you have a faith based belief system.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Clearly, if scientists created life in the lab then that would prove intelligent design, not disprove it.

Does creating ice in your freezer also prove "intelligent freezing"?

Unless of course you think the scientists to be a pack of unintelligent fools .

No. Out here in scientifically literate land, we just understand what so-called "controlled conditions" are. The cold environment in your freezer is an example such "controlled conditions". Scientists developed ways on how heat can be extracted. Engineers then used that knowledge to build something like a freezer. Inside the freezer, the environment is controlled by the technology in the freezer.

If you then place a cup of water inside the freezer, it turns into ice.
Just like it does in the uncontrolled environment called 'nature' whenever the conditions in that place are the same as in the controlled environment called "freezer".

NO, it does not prove that "intelligent beings" are required to turn water into ice.

In fact, it proves that if conditions allow for it, water will turn into ice on its own.

An experiment that makes life form in controlled conditions would be the exact sameI it would not prove that "intelligent beings" are required to turn non-living matter into living matter. Instead, it would prove that if conditions allow for it, such non-living matter will turn into living matter on its own.

What are they doing, they are creating and they are intelligent designers

Are you an "intelligent designer" when water freezes in your freezer?

However, it will never happen because only God is the author of life!

Wonna bet?

 

[DogmaHunter]

God is a genius. That's how all the cells make us into life! It's one thing to state the supposed "goals" of abiogenesis, whatever that is, but another thing to prove abiogenesis. If you believe abiogenesis when there is absolutely NO evidence for it then you are a person of great faith. In fact you have much more faith than any creationist that I know!

1. no rational person dogmatically believes the hypothesis of abiogenesis

2. abiogenesis did happen by definition in some form. The word means literally "life from non-life". There WAS a period in the universe that there was no life. And then there was life. This life somehow came into being. This event TOOK PLACE one way or the other. The question is not "if?" it is "when and how?"

3. there is plenty of evidence in support of abiogenesis hypothesis. we can already account for all important building blocks of life. BY THE WAY, plenty of these building blocks were once branded to be "intelligently designed" or "irreducibly complex". Yet, today we understand how they can form quite happily in nature. We're even finding them in space rocks for crying out loud!

To state that there is no evidence to support the hypothesis of abiogenesis is very ignorant.

 

[lifetips]

The main point in your post is this:

"An experiment that makes life form in controlled conditions would be the exact sameI it would not prove that "intelligent beings" are required to turn non-living matter into living matter. Instead, it would prove that if conditions allow for it, such non-living matter will turn into living matter on its own."

There is one problem in this whole argument in case you are unaware. It hasn't happened!!! It's a pipe dream, the holy grail. Scientists can even create a basic life form in the favorable conditions that we have on earth today, let alone in conditions that are supposedly the same as those of early earth. Yet I presume you believe abiogenesis as fact. How will you now defend your faith based belief system when there is no evidence to support it?

 

[lifetips]

1. no rational person dogmatically believes the hypothesis of abiogenesis

2. abiogenesis did happen by definition in some form. The word means literally "life from non-life". There WAS a period in the universe that there was no life. And then there was life. This life somehow came into being. This event TOOK PLACE one way or the other. The question is not "if?" it is "when and how?"

Wow, this is incredible. You say that no-one dogmatically believes abiogenesis, but in the next breath you say it DID happen in some form. What can be more dogmatic than that? You say there was non-life then there was life. Us creationists say the same thing but we attribute it to God not magic like abiogenesis.

3. there is plenty of evidence in support of abiogenesis hypothesis. we can already account for all important building blocks of life. BY THE WAY, plenty of these building blocks were once branded to be "intelligently designed" or "irreducibly complex". Yet, today we understand how they can form quite happily in nature. We're even finding them in space rocks for crying out loud!

To state that there is no evidence to support the hypothesis of abiogenesis is very ignorant.

Okay, to claim that there IS evidence to support abiogenesis is very ignorant, so show me one piece of evidence that supports abiogenesis? Not a few amino acids or other things, but show me where with evidence how non-life has created life –real life! If you can produce it then you will be the only person on the planet who has done so thus far. For crying out loud show me the space rocks where there is life produced by abiogenesis.

 

[lifetips]

... we can already account for all important building blocks of life...

Of course we can because they are in us! But please, show me the evidence for abiogenesis. Until you can do that you clearly have a faith based belief system.

 

[DogmaHunter]

There is one problem in this whole argument in case you are unaware. It hasn't happened!!!

And you know this, how exactly?
Answer: you don't. It's just what you believe. Which is irrelevant to what is true.

Also, you fail to understand the point being made.
I was purely speaking about a hypothetical successfull experiment. Since you were claiming that if such a successfull experiment exists, it would prove "intelligent design". That is what I was objecting to.

If such a successfull experiment exists, then this experiment proves the opposite: given the right conditions, it will happen on its own, just like water freezing into ice.

It's a pipe dream, the holy grail. Scientists can even create a basic life form in the favorable conditions that we have on earth today

Who says the conditions on earth today or favorable for life to form?? Again: nobody. It's just what you believe, which is irrelevant.

If you're interested (which I sincerely doubt), abiogenesis researchers generally are of the opinion that no, earth today is NOT a favorable environment for life to form.

, let alone in conditions that are supposedly the same as those of early earth

Abiogenesis researchers don't even assume this event happened on earth. It could just as well have happened elsewhere in the solar system, after wich it was seeded on earth through space rocks.

Yet I presume you believe abiogenesis as fact

You presume wrong.

How will you now defend your faith based belief system when there is no evidence to support it?

I don't have a faith based belief system. That would be you.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Wow, this is incredible. You say that no-one dogmatically believes abiogenesis, but in the next breath you say it DID happen in some form.

Emphasis on some form. Extra-dimensional aliens or gods creating life includes some form. Abiogenesis, as a word, literally means "life from non-life".

If at one point there is no life and the next moment there is life, then somehow, life came from non-life by some process. Are you really going to deny this?

What can be more dogmatic than that?

The meaning of words is not something that can be branded as "dogmatic". It's just what words mean.

You say there was non-life then there was life. Us creationists say the same thing but we attribute it to God not magic

Gods performing miracles is indistinguishable from magic. By any and all accounts, the stuff your deity of choice does IS magic.

like abiogenesis.

Natural processes are never magical.

Okay, to claim that there IS evidence to support abiogenesis is very ignorant, so show me one piece of evidence that supports abiogenesis? Not a few amino acids or other things

Asking me to give you evidence and in the next breath demanding to exclude that evidence is dishonest.

, but show me where with evidence how non-life has created life –real life!

There's more to the process of abiogenesis then just that.
The process of abiogenesis includes and starts with the formation of the building blocks of life - like amino acids. Before we discovered how these things CAN form naturally, folks like you were waving their bible and claim that it was impossible because they were "too complex" and "intelligently designed" and "irreducibly complex" and what not.

Abiogenesis hypothesis REQUIRED these building blocks to be able to form in nature. The sciences involved discovered that yes, these things CAN form in nature and DO form in nature. So, these discoveries SUPPORT the hypothesis. Research is ongoing concerning the rest of the hypothesis.

Your ignorance on this scientific field is not an argument against it.

For crying out loud show me the space rocks where there is life produced by abiogenesis.

Strawmanning what I said is also not an argument against it.
I didn't say that life forms in space rocks. I said we are finding building blocks of life in space rocks. Which is not the same.

 

[RealityCheck]

God is a genius. That's how all the cells make us into life! Hey, I'm not pretending, in fact I have no idea what you are talking about. How can abiogenesis have "goals"? It DEAD. Will you have goals when you are dead? It's one thing to state the supposed "goals" of abiogenesis, whatever that is, but another thing to prove abiogenesis. If you believe abiogenesis when there is absolutely NO evidence for it then you are a person of great faith. In fact you have much more faith than any creationist that I know! Like most naturalists, you have a faith based belief system.

Actually, lifetips, experiments have already been conducted demonstrating that life from non-life can happen and there are natural mechanisms by which it can happen.

We're still far from demonstrating how it actually did happen, because the experiments only demonstrate one possible means. But it is demonstrated.

Also, if you have no idea what someone is talking about in a science forum, the better bet is to listen and learn instead of proudly declaring your lack of knowledge.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Of course we can because they are in us!

No. Because we know how these molecules can form in nature without any intervention from anyone. Just simple natural processes at work.

 

[RealityCheck]

Yet I presume you believe abiogenesis as fact.

The moment you state that you presume to know what someone else believes, you lose. You're not proving yourself worth engaging.

How will you now defend your faith based belief system when there is no evidence to support it?

I've got an idea, lifetips. Since you presumed someone else's beliefs falsely, how about you answer this question yourself. How do you defend your faith based belief system when there is no evidence to support it?

 

[RealityCheck]

No. Because we know how these molecules can form in nature without any intervention from anyone. Just simple natural processes at work.

Organic Chem 101 for the win.

 

[Heissonear]

Actually, lifetips, experiments have already been conducted demonstrating that life from non-life can happen and there are natural mechanisms by which it can happen.

We're still far from demonstrating how it actually did happen, because the experiments only demonstrate one possible means. But it is demonstrated.

Also, if you have no idea what someone is talking about in a science forum, the better bet is to listen and learn instead of proudly declaring your lack of knowledge.

.

Please show your reference for life from non-life "has" been demonstrated already.

You put the little word "can" in your proof sentence.

.

 

[Heissonear]

Organic Chem 101 for the win.

Simpleton? Natural process believer? Postulated?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Of course there are many atheists (probably most) and many evolutionists who believe in abiogenesis. Do you believe that abiogenesis happened?

I do.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Of course there are many atheists (probably most) and many evolutionists who believe in abiogenesis. Do you believe that abiogenesis happened?

I consider it "highly likely" that it happened through a natural proces.

That it happened in some form is, in fact, a certainty.

Again, the question is not "did it happen?". Rather, the question is "how did it happen?".

Gods creating life is not even an option imo. For the simple reason that before one can propose that as an option, one would have to demonstrate that such gods exist first.

And before you come back with an anticipated and rather ignorant comment, consider this:
- nature exist
- Chemistry exists
- organic Chemistry exists
- important parts of the hypothesis of natural abiogenesis have already been demonstrated (= natural formation of building blocks of life)

Natural abiogenesis is on the table as an option.
Gods are not.

 

[[serious]]

This is like saying just because man went to the moon we can now go to the next galaxy.
Self-replicating machines has to be able to find it's own energy source and convert that energy into work, find it own materials, build it's own parts, assemble those parts, pass on this knowledge to the copy. That is a serious engineering feat.

Actually, it would be like saying we can demonstrate that man can reach the moon, given time and resources we know of no reason man could not eventually get to another galaxy.

Since this thread is about abiogenesis, demonstrating a possible natural route for self replication overcomes the only really difficult part of the process. Those lipid bubbles would be porous to short chain or monomers while holding in longer chains. The inclusion of trapped chains, independent of sequence, would allow them to pick up lipids faster (also demostrable in the lab). Some types of nucleotides can self catalyze allowing the increased entrapment of bases inside the lipid bubbles (lab tested, mother approved). Thus the replication of sequences has a mechanism to select for sequence specific benefits. Each step so far is testable in the lab. We now have a replicating structure with a genetic code that can carry sequence specific benefit. Sure, it's still proto life, but we can get there. All the really challenging parts have been addressed. For example, the energy thing. We see robust evolution in other non living things that don't obtain energy (virii), so we can use evolution to cross that bridge.

A quick hypothetical off the top of my head. Some sequence alters the shape of the bubble in response to water temperature allowing it to more efficiently remain in the convection cycle.

Want more? Ok. as raw materials become scarcer, a sequence that can catalyze the breakdown of some other sequence becomes beneficial.

More? once system of polymers catalyses the formation of another system giving rise to system like proteins and RNA/DNA.

I could keep going as long as you like. Once a system to select for advantages is there, it's pretty easy to walk through the rest. Abiogenesis really only needs to get to a place that evolution can take over. Once you've got that, you've got a versatile tool to get all manner of places.