Spontaneous Life Generation in Lab is Impossible

[Smidlee]

Very simple structures can replicate themselves.

Which isn't really self-replicating since it's done in an artificial environment. It's nothing but simple molecules which naturally join together when the scientist gives in just right materials. ( it had a helping hand thus not totally "self"-replicating)
This is far from anything close to a self-replicating cell which find it's own energy source , converts it into work, gather it materials and build it's part and assembles those parts and pass on that knowledge to next generation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which isn't really self-replicating since it's done in an artificial environment. It's nothing but simple molecules which naturally join together when the scientist gives in just right materials. ( it had a helping hand thus not totally "self"-replicating)
This is far from anything close to a self-replicating cell which find it's own energy source , converts it into work, gather it materials and build it's part and assembles those parts and pass on that knowledge to next generation.

Wrong, these very simple protocells that have been made are made from what would appear naturally in nature. In other words they would form themselves. What you keep forgetting is that abiogenesis could not happen in today's environment since existing life would consume the material that would be used for protocells etc. to form before they can do so. That is why abiogenesis is thought to be a one time event. To replicate the original Earth's environment it must be created artificially in the lab today. You do not have a valid complaint.

 

[Smidlee]

Wrong, these very simple protocells that have been made are made from what would appear naturally in nature. In other words they would form themselves. What you keep forgetting is that abiogenesis could not happen in today's environment since existing life would consume the material that would be used for protocells etc. to form before they can do so. That is why abiogenesis is thought to be a one time event. To replicate the original Earth's environment it must be created artificially in the lab today. You do not have a valid complaint.

Again it's not an environment problem but an engineering one. Again modern cells find it's own energy source , converts it into work, find it's own materials , builds it's own parts , assemble those parts and passes on that knowledge to the next cell.
Now there is a claim of a 3d printer that self-replicates but it only replicates some of it parts but that's it. Not even close to a truly self-replicating cell.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Hi Sarah,

It's intriguing that you and Loudmouth are comparing the creation of life to flying machines and computers. Do you realize the size of mount improbable that you are trying to climb? Obviously not. Even the simplest cell is millions of times more complex than any computer of flying machine. Flying machines and computers were created by intelligent beings. Yes they designed it and they were intelligent, but dare we call them "intelligent designers" and risk offending your fragile naturalist ideology? Actually, I don't mind at all

With abiogenesis, even before intelligent designers try and create it in a lab, you have absolutely no life, nothing but dead matter. Yet you have a faith based belief system that says nothing can create something millions of times more complex that a computer or flying machine. Yes Sarah and Loudmouth, you have an amazing level of faith that I will never be able to comprehend.

But, unlike most naturalists, are you prepared to admit that your belief in abiogenesis is faith based and not based on fact? Probably not, because if naturalists admit they have a faith based belief system then what will they be able to say to the millions of creationists they ridicule for having faith in God's creation? NOTHING, or they will be exposed as hypocrites. So it's easier for the naturalist to shut their mouth and stay deluded. However, they are only deluding themselves! Will you join them?

Um, actually, I was just sharing my favorite "completely incorrect prediction quote". But thanks for calling me delusional on that basis -_-

 

[PsychoSarah]

Which isn't really self-replicating since it's done in an artificial environment. It's nothing but simple molecules which naturally join together when the scientist gives in just right materials. ( it had a helping hand thus not totally "self"-replicating)
This is far from anything close to a self-replicating cell which find it's own energy source , converts it into work, gather it materials and build it's part and assembles those parts and pass on that knowledge to next generation.

When did I say it happened in a lab?

 

[Smidlee]

When did I say it happened in a lab?

Here is one of the best examples of man's so called "self-replicating" molecules ... self-replicating as in 48%? As in the "self-replicating" printer it's can only build some of it's parts.
Short Sharp Science: Biologists create self-replicating RNA molecule
RNA world itself involves in overcoming four paradoxes.
I amazed on how evolutionist believe if somehow they can create a true self-replicating molecule then magically natural selection could create all life known today.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Here is one of the best examples of the so called "self-replicating" molecules ... self-replicating as in 48%?
Short Sharp Science: Biologists create self-replicating RNA molecule

I haven't even given the example, don't put words in my mouth. I was thinking of prions.

 

[lifetips]

Um, actually, I was just sharing my favorite "completely incorrect prediction quote". But thanks for calling me delusional on that basis -_-

Okay, no problem, correction accepted. But lets get to the point here. Do you believe in abiogenesis? If you do, but admit you can't provide evidence then that is fine with me. But if you believe in abiogenesis and cannot provide evidence for it, but then deny that you have faith, then that is a position of great delusion. So which side of the fence are you on?

 

[Smidlee]

I haven't even given the example, don't put words in my mouth. I was thinking of prions.

The point is even with man's best examples it doesn't come close to a self-replicating cell.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The point is even with man's best examples it doesn't come close to a self-replicating cell.

Nope, but why would the first replicating organism have to be like a modern cell?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Okay, no problem, correction accepted. But lets get to the point here. Do you believe in abiogenesis? If you do, but admit you can't provide evidence then that is fine with me. But if you believe in abiogenesis and cannot provide evidence for it, but then deny that you have faith, then that is a position of great delusion. So which side of the fence are you on?

I feel that abiogenesis is correct, based on the evidence we do have for it. however, my position on it, while in its favor, isn't particularly strong, even though the impression given might seem that way.

 

[lifetips]

I feel that abiogenesis is correct, based on the evidence we do have for it. however, my position on it, while in its favor, isn't particularly strong, even though the impression given might seem that way.

I appreciate your honesty. The only problem is that there is no evidence for abiogenesis. Even Richard Dawkins the most anti-Theist of all has admitted this in very clear terminology. He has no other choice really, because he knows there is absolutely no evidence for it. The trouble with Dawkins is that he ridicules creations for having faith while practicing his own faith in abiogenesis. He believes it, but freely admits he can't prove it. What can be greater faith than that?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I appreciate your honesty. The only problem is that there is no evidence for abiogenesis. Even Richard Dawkins the most anti-Theist of all has admitted this in very clear terminology. He has no other choice really, because he knows there is absolutely no evidence for it. The trouble with Dawkins is that he ridicules creations for having faith while practicing his own faith in abiogenesis. He believes it, but freely admits he can't prove it. What can be greater faith than that?

Like I care what Dawkins thinks? I must emulate him in every way?

 

[lifetips]

Like I care what Dawkins thinks? I must emulate him in every way?

Dawkins is the last person you should emulate.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Dawkins is the last person you should emulate.

I respect Dawkins, but I actually wasn't aware of most atheist figures like him until I joined this site. They had nothing to do with my being atheist.

 

[lifetips]

I respect Dawkins, but I actually wasn't aware of most atheist figures like him until I joined this site. They had nothing to do with my being atheist.

So what made you decide to become an atheist or have you always been one?

 

[stevevw]

Any life in a lab is under controlled environments. Even when miller done his famous experiments he chose certain conditions that he thought might be what the early environment on earth was like. But funny enough some of those conditions were what was needed to have have a chance of succeeding.
"No geological or geochemical evidence collected in the last 30 years favors a strongly reducing atmosphere....Only the success of the laboratory experiments recommends it.
A Critique of Miller-Urey and it's applications | The Rational Response Squad

On the point that Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Well it is a form of evolution in chemical evolution. It also is related to naturalism which is also a basic for evolution. So really no Abiogenesis no evolution.

 

[PsychoSarah]

So what made you decide to become an atheist or have you always been one?

Pretty much always, though it wasn't as though I didn't try to find faith.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Any life in a lab is under controlled environments. Even when miller done his famous experiments he chose certain conditions that he thought might be what the early environment on earth was like. But funny enough some of those conditions were what was needed to have have a chance of succeeding.
"No geological or geochemical evidence collected in the last 30 years favors a strongly reducing atmosphere....Only the success of the laboratory experiments recommends it.
A Critique of Miller-Urey and it's applications | The Rational Response Squad

On the point that Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Well it is a form of evolution in chemical evolution. It also is related to naturalism which is also a basic for evolution. So really no Abiogenesis no evolution.

I actually wasn't referring to that experiment at all.

 

[lifetips]

Pretty much always, though it wasn't as though I didn't try to find faith.

That's interesting. Most atheists don't try to find faith, they try to avoid it. You probably have a very interesting life story about atheism and faith.