Spontaneous Life Generation in Lab is Impossible

[PsychoSarah]

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.

It's a story, to be sure. A long story.

 

[lifetips]

It's a story, to be sure. A long story.

Feel free to share it if you like!

 

[Davian]

What?!?!? You're the one that has their goalposts in overdrive. I haven't moved anything.

Then you utterly failed. I've published several scientific papers with other people that *were* convinced of my work after seeing it. So much for that claim. I thought you were talking asking me how many atheist I'd converted. (also greater than zero)

Projecting again are you?

Boloney. You're subjectively ignoring that work by Penrose and Hameroff, and subjectively dismissing *anything and everything* that you don't like with a handwave.

Yes, I did. You clearly didn't read or respond to *any* of it.

For a guy that is defending <snip>

Enough with this false dichotomy.

/derail.

 

[Michael]

Enough with this false dichotomy.

/derail.

Lovely. You're imposing *greater* requirements on God theory than a other branch of physics.

You're like a YEC taking pot shots at evolutionary theory and radiometric dating methods, while offering no logical empirical alternative. If you can somehow deny all the evidence presented, somehow in your mind you "win", and your supernatural thingamabob therefore did it.

 

[Michael]

Hi Michael,

The term "naturalist" has multiple applications and in this context a naturalist is someone who believes that the forming of the universe and the formation of life on earth all came about through natural processes with no supernatural intervention. Those who believe this are 100% atheist.

Hmmm. Technically it's not quite that simple from my vantage point. I happen to believe that God *is* the physical universe that we live in, and more than we can see from Earth. IMO God is the single most "natural" part of nature. Even if microscopic life formed "naturally" on Earth, it wouldn't rule out the possibility of an "intelligent creator". In fact, the only thing that can supposedly save us from living inside of an intelligent universe is string theory.

String theory may limit space brain threat - physics-math - 22 May 2013 - New Scientist

IMO God is "nature" and therefore abiogenesis seems likely IMO.

 

[lifetips]

Hmmm. Technically it's not quite that simple from my vantage point. I happen to believe that God *is* the physical universe that we live in, and more than we can see from Earth. IMO God is the single most "natural" part of nature. Even if microscopic life formed "naturally" on Earth, it wouldn't rule out the possibility of an "intelligent creator". In fact, the only thing that can supposedly save us from living inside of an intelligent universe is string theory.

IMO God is "nature" and therefore abiogenesis seems likely IMO.

Far out, that's a bit deep for me

 

[Michael]

Far out, that's a bit deep for me

I'm just pointing out that abiogenesis is ultimately not a threat to theism or the concept of an intelligent (natural) creator.

 

[mzungu]

I'm just pointing out that abiogenesis is ultimately not a threat to theism or the concept of an intelligent (natural) creator.

Actually what you have done is akin to adding epicycles to a Ptolemaic system in order to fit the supernatural into your model.

What is your lab evidence for your claim that God is the universe? I will accept even theoretical mathematical evidence if you lack laboratory evidence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Are you serious? Yes I will deny this completely that we came from non-life

Again... If at one point life does not exist and the next moment life does exist, then matter was somehow brought together into living systems by some process.

To deny this is .... I can't say it without being censored.

Will you deny that we came from God the creator?

I will deny that there is evidence for that assertion.
I will deny it the same way you deny that we came from the undetectable 7-headed dragon.

Silly question hey! Yes we are here aren't we? Why would I deny what is painfully obvious that we are here? The difference in our views is how we got here. I'm a creationist and you are a naturalist.

Stop calling me any kind of -ist please. I don't label myself in such horribly constraining ways. I actually have an open mind and I will accept what the evidence suggests while I will reject what the evidence does not suggest.

However, if we did come from non-life please show me the evidence.

Even if you believe that your deity of choice created life, that would still be life from non-life. The evidence is that once there was no life and then there was.

As for evidence that this was a natural process...
You have been given some of this evidence already. Also, nothing stops you from picking up a science book on the matter.

Creation by an intelligent designer is not magic, it's an intelligent being who has the ability to design, actually designing.

Supernatural = magic.

Almighty God is powerful!

And unsupported.

Abiogenesis is pure magic

Natural processes are the opposite of magic.

, because nothing somehow creates life.

Errrr.... Abiogenesis does not state that life popped up out of nothing. If you don't even know what you are arguing against, you'ld better first informing yourself.

What can be more magic than that?

The supernatural.

Okay, then show me evidence of abiogenesis. First you need to provide evidence that it happened then we can examine whether it's magic or not.

Is Chemistry magic?
That is what abiogenesis researcher are looking for: a chemical reaction that results in a self-replicating molecule.

To claim that if this would be discovered that it would qualify as "magic"... then I guess all of chemistry is "magic".

I'm a bit confused by that one. But not to worry. The bottom line is - can you give me the evidence for abiogenesis or not?

Abiogenesis is a big hypothesis with lots of hypothesized processes. Some of those processes are about getting the building blocks of life to form naturally. These blocks need to exist before they can come together in what could be called life.

The process to create these blocks have all been discovered. These discoveries support the hypothesis abiogenesis. Is it a complete solved
theory? No.... Does it have enough support to warrant more research and to assume that we are on the right track? Yes.

You are speaking like abiogenesis is a fact.

No, I'm not. In fact, I'm continously refering to it as hypothesis / theory.
The only one here speaking dogmatically and factually and from authority is YOU with your supernatural shenannigans.

Again and again and yet again, show me the evidence of your faith based belief system.

Tell me, when will you stop dishonestly misrepresenting my views on the matter?

I've explained you at least 3 times now that I don't have faith in anything. I've explained how abiogenesis is a work in progress that isn't solved yet.
I've refered to it as Hypothesis or Theory.

Yet, you continue to strawman my position consistently. One more time and I'll be forced to call you a liar, because after 4 times of mentioning it, you should know better.

Please, don't force me to call you a liar.
You can disagree with me all you want, but don't lie.

There is a whole lot more to life than some amino acids and you should be well aware of that

Did I say I wasn't aware of that?
All is said was that people like you were the ones screaming that amino acids are "too complex" to form naturally and that your deity of choice created them and that it was "impossible" for them to form naturally.

And all of you were wrong. We've come a long way since that time. Now, you folks keep moving the goalpost. Like Neil deGrasse Tyson once said so eloquently: if this is how you argue for your god, then your god is an ever-receeding pocket of scientific ignorance.

Your ignorance is claiming that abiogenesis is fact

I've explained to you the difference between the fact of abiogenesis and the hypothesis of how that process worked.

You not listening or ignoring that explanation is your problem, not mine.
Misrepresenting what I said is you being dishonest and lying.

Some building blocks may form in nature but what you need to show me now is how these building blocks all came together without any guiding hand to form life.

*I* don't need to show you anything. That's one.
Secondly, the fact that these building blocks can form naturally is remarkable (and before we knew this, people like you claimed it was "impossible", just like you are claiming now that those things coming together in a more complex organic molecule is "impossible".

Why don't YOU show some evidence for your deity of choice?
At least I happily admit that we don't know yet how it worked and that research on the matter is ongoing. The only one here talking factually and making assertions with certainty is YOU.

This is mount improbable at its greatest.

Funny. That's almost exactly what they said about amino-acids being able to form naturally.

Do you actually understand how complex even the most "simple" cell really is?

You're done.

I, along with others, have repeated COUNTLESS TIMES that abiogenesis hypothesis does not (not... NOT.... NOT) claim that it would result in a modern cell.

You are officially a liar.

Really, you're done.

If you can't be intellectually honest, then just go away.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

This is very misleading.

The word "evolution" in biological context refers to "reproduction with modification / variation followed by natural selection".

So-called "chemical evolution" has nothing to do with that.

"naturalism" is one of those -ism words people (mostly theists) like to use to put constraining labels on things to make them look close-minded or whatever. It's a stupid practice with no merrit. Science simply goes where the evidence leads. If it leads to naturalistic explanations then that is not because science wants it to be naturalistic... it just means there is no evidence for unnaturalistic explanations.

And biological evolution starts with life existing.
Once replicating things exist that are subject to changes that can be inherited, biological evolution sets in. And it doesn't matter one bit to the processes (or general theory) of evolution how that first life came to be.

The only thing that evolution theory predicts about that first life is that it was rather simple. That's it.

It doesn't predict it to be a certain process in a certain way. For all evolution theory is concerned, it might just as well have been the undetectable 7-headed dragon from a parallell universe who engineer life and then placed it on this planet. It doesn't matter.

The origins of life is not the same as the origins of species.

 

[lifetips]

Again... If at one point life does not exist and the next moment life does exist, then matter was somehow brought together into living systems by some process.

To deny this is .... I can't say it without being censored.

Absolutely, you are correct, who is denying this? Not me! God made us from the dust of the earth. One moment we didn&#8217;t exist then the next moment we did.

Stop calling me any kind of -ist please. I don't label myself in such horribly constraining ways. I actually have an open mind and I will accept what the evidence suggests while I will reject what the evidence does not suggest.

Trust me, your mind is not open and like any dogmatic ideologist it is firmly shut.

Even if you believe that your deity of choice created life, that would still be life from non-life. The evidence is that once there was no life and then there was.

As explained above but the difference is that God is intelligent and all powerful. Life created life. Not non life creating life.

As for evidence that this was a natural process...
You have been given some of this evidence already. Also, nothing stops you from picking up a science book on the matter.

Wrong again, you have delivered nothing to prove that non-life created life, not even close, simple as that. You obviously have no idea how complex even the simplest life form is otherwise you would not embarrass yourself with the bizarre claim that you have shown evidence when you have not. Dawkins is one of the most hardcore of Atheists and anti theist ideologists and even he admits there is NO evidence for abiogenesis because he has no choice.

Errrr.... Abiogenesis does not state that life popped up out of nothing. If you don't even know what you are arguing against, you'ld better first informing yourself.

Maybe it popped out of a primordial soup right? Hang on, wait a minute, maybe it popped out of Panspermia. But where did they come from? Sounds &#8220;really&#8221; convincing doesn&#8217;t it! You&#8217;ve no doubt read it but this is the type of deluded person (Dawkins) that naturalist ideologies produce:


BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

Incredibly, Dawkins is all for the possibility of an intelligent designer as long as that designer is NOT God! Go figure. And no doubt you have seen this one when Ben Stein asked Dawkins how life began on earth:


DAWKINS: Nobody knows how it got started. We know the kind of event that it must have been. We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.

BEN STEIN: And what was that?

DAWKINS: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.

BEN STEIN: Right, and how did that happen?

DAWKINS: I told you, we don't know

Is Chemistry magic?

Not according to my chemistry teacher.

That is what abiogenesis researcher are looking for: a chemical reaction that results in a self-replicating molecule. To claim that if this would be discovered that it would qualify as "magic"... then I guess all of chemistry is "magic".

I did chemistry at high school and I don&#8217;t ever remember ever performing any magic tricks. But for non life to create life, yep, that&#8217;s pure magic. Researchers can look all they want but they will never find evidence for abiogenesis.

No, I'm not. In fact, I'm continously refering to it as hypothesis / theory.

So, if you really are now saying that it&#8217;s not a fact but a hypothesis, do you believe that abiogenesis MAY possibly not have happened? After all, you say it&#8217;s not a fact so there is a possibility that it&#8217;s non-fact. Then perhaps for you it is possible that God did create life on earth, do you agree it&#8217;s possible, not fact, just possible?

Tell me, when will you stop dishonestly misrepresenting my views on the matter? I've explained you at least 3 times now that I don't have faith in anything. I've explained how abiogenesis is a work in progress that isn't solved yet.

You do have faith, you just don&#8217;t know it and I&#8217;m certainly not misrepresenting you in any way. You keep claiming that abiogenesis is not fact but a hypothesis but it&#8217;s painfully obvious that you believe it as fact otherwise you would not be so zealous in defending it. Again, could the hypothesis of abiogenesis be wrong???

I, along with others, have repeated COUNTLESS TIMES that abiogenesis hypothesis does not (not... NOT.... NOT) claim that it would result in a modern cell.

Sighhhh, no one is claiming that abiogenesis results in a modern cell. But you do claim that it results in life.

 

[mzungu]

As explained above but the difference is that God is intelligent and all powerful. Life created life. Not non life creating life.




Wrong again, you have delivered nothing to prove that non-life created life, not even close, simple as that. You obviously have no idea how complex even the simplest life form is otherwise you would not embarrass yourself with the bizarre claim that you have shown evidence when you have not. Dawkins is one of the most hardcore of Atheists and anti theist ideologists and even he admits there is NO evidence for abiogenesis because he has no choice.

You have the gall to demand evidence for abiogenesis while you fail miserably to produce any evidence of your God! Double standards much?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Feel free to share it if you like!

For another thread or a private message

 

[DogmaHunter]

Absolutely, you are correct, who is denying this?

It seemed you were. Perhaps I misunderstood.

Not me! God made us from the dust of the earth.

Evidence for this claim?

Trust me, your mind is not open and like any dogmatic ideologist it is firmly shut.

Why would I trust YOU to tell ME what *I* believe and don't believe?
Just how arrrogant are you?

I'm open to your supernatural shenannigans. All it takes to convince me is verifiable evidence. Got any?

There's only one person here with his mind dogmatically shut and that's you. I'm not the one making absolute claims like "x created us from dust" or "hypothesized process X is impossible". That's all you.

God is intelligent and all powerful

Evidence for this claim?

Wrong again, you have delivered nothing to prove that non-life created life, not even close, simple as that.

You didn't ask me that. Stop moving the goalpost. You asked me for supportive evidence of the scientific hypothesis of abiogenesis - which deals with more then just your simplistic one-liner. I provided such evidence. You just don't accept it. That's on you and your strawman, not me.

You obviously have no idea how complex even the simplest life form is

Are you again talking about the simplest life form in existence today?
Surely you're not, as we have just explained to you why that would be a misrepresentation of the sciences involved.
Also, how do you measure complexity?

It seems to me that one cannot talk about "complex life" without also having "simple life" to contrast it.

Dawkins is one of the most hardcore of Atheists and anti theist ideologists and even he admits there is NO evidence for abiogenesis because he has no choice.

It's called intellectual honesty. And he's refering to a "complete theory of abiogenesis". I have no once denied that the puzzle isn't solved yet. That's again you misrepresenting what I said.

Maybe it popped out of a primordial soup right? Hang on, wait a minute, maybe it popped out of Panspermia. But where did they come from?

The way you just used the word "panspermia" exposed your ignorance on this topic.
I'm not even gonna bother explaining your mistake. Clearly you are not interested in what I have to say anyway. Go look it up yourself instead.

BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

Incredibly, Dawkins is all for the possibility of an intelligent designer as long as that designer is NOT God! Go figure. And no doubt you have seen this one when Ben Stein asked Dawkins how life began on earth:


DAWKINS: Nobody knows how it got started. We know the kind of event that it must have been. We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.

BEN STEIN: And what was that?

DAWKINS: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.

BEN STEIN: Right, and how did that happen?

DAWKINS: I told you, we don't know

ben stein? "Expelled"? really?

Talk about exposed dishonest editing...
What's next? A Kent Hovind video?

For crying out loud....

I did chemistry at high school and I don&#8217;t ever remember ever performing any magic tricks.

Ok, so we have established that chemical reactions (which can produce more complex molecules) are not magical.

Now... if abiogenesis hypothesis is correct and if it gets solved tomorrow, then that would mean that science uncovered a chemical reaction that brings the building blocks of life together into a self-replicating molecule subject to darwinian processes and mechanism.

Please point out where the "magic" would be in such a discovery. Considering you just agreed that there's nothing magical about Chemistry.

But for non life to create life, yep, that&#8217;s pure magic.
Researchers can look all they want but they will never find evidence for abiogenesis.

Lol. You sound like the people objecting to amino acids forming in nature before it was discovered how they can form in nature.

You also sound like the people objecting to human flight before the Wright brothers did exactly that.

So, where is your evidence that this is "impossible"? How did you conclude this? Surely, you are not just asserting it without anything to back it up, right?

So, if you really are now saying that it&#8217;s not a fact but a hypothesis,

Stop lying. I never called it a fact.

do you believe that abiogenesis MAY possibly not have happened?

Sure. But I consider it very unlikely.

After all, you say it&#8217;s not a fact so there is a possibility that it&#8217;s non-fact

It seems you don't really comprehend how science works either....

Fact = an observation, a piece of data
Hypothesis = a proposed explanation for a set of data in a certain scope
Theory = a "graduated" hypothesis

Then perhaps for you it is possible that God did create life on earth, do you agree it&#8217;s possible, not fact, just possible?

Anything is possible (unless, off course, it's proven to be impossible). But not everything is plausible.
Gods creating life is just as possible and plausible as undetectable 7-headed extra-dimensional dragons creating life.

When talking about the actual event of life coming into being, gods are not a valid option. For the simple reason that gods must be shown to exist first. That which can't be shown to exist, can not be invoked to "do" things.

You do have faith, you just don&#8217;t know it

Stop with this arrogant attitude of claiming to know better then I do what I believe and don't believe.

You keep claiming that abiogenesis is not fact but a hypothesis but it&#8217;s painfully obvious that you believe it as fact otherwise you would not be so zealous in defending it

I'm not defending the hypothesis per say. I'm merely pointing out that you are being irrationally dogmatic by saying that it is "impossible" and by consistently misrepresenting it.

Having said that, abiogenesis is currently our best bet. For the sheer fact that:
1. it has supportive evidence (again: it's not just the end goal of life, it's the road leading upto it as well - and that road has lots of evidence)
2. there is currently no viable alternative

. Again, could the hypothesis of abiogenesis be wrong???

Yes. Just like any other hypothesis or theory in science.
Just for giggles, let's see if you are capable of demonstrating the same kind of intellectual honesty by answering these questions:
- could the bible be wrong?
- could abiogenesis be correct?
- could it be that a god or gods indeed created life, but that it's really the god of a religion different then the one you adhere to?

Sighhhh, no one is claiming that abiogenesis results in a modern cell.

Errrr.... you are, by saying stuff like this:

Do you actually understand how complex even the most "simple" cell really is?

If you wish to retract such statement, just do so - but don't pretend that you didn't make them.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The simplest "cells" that replicate are so simple they aren't considered alive. If the simplest "cell" being talked about is bacteria, that is an issue.

 

[lifetips]

You have the gall to demand evidence for abiogenesis while you fail miserably to produce any evidence of your God! Double standards much?

You would do best to read all the posts (a bit boring though) and you would not come to that erroneous conclusion. I freely admit that creation by God is based on faith, but I'm having lots of trouble getting naturalists to also admit that they have faith in abiogenesis when there clearly is no evidence. Of course I can't produce any evidence that is satisfying to naturalists, but the point I'm making is that they have just as much and even more faith than I do. If abiogenesis is fact and not faith then produce the evidence, simple as that, but you can't because there isn't any.

 

[lesliedellow]

It is almost a tautology to say that 4 billion years of evolution can't be reproduced in a laboratory. So what?

 

[lifetips]

Hi Dogmahunter, I'm off to bed (Late Thursday night her in OZ), and will reply tomorrow or Saturday. Cheers, Paul

 

[DogmaHunter]

but I'm having lots of trouble getting naturalists to also admit that they have faith in abiogenesis

There's no room for faith in science.
How many times must it be explained to you before it will sink in?

when there clearly is no evidence

Abiogenesis is not just about the end goal of living things, but also about the road leading up to it and that road has lots of evidence.
How many times must it be explained to you before it will sink in?

Of course I can't produce any evidence that is satisfying to naturalists, but the point I'm making is that they have just as much and even more faith than I do.

See above.
How many times must it be explained to you before it will sink in?

If abiogenesis is fact

Nobody here called abiogenesis a fact. You're being dishonest again.
How many times must it be explained to you before it will sink in?

and not faith then produce the evidence, simple as that, but you can't because there isn't any.

And the dishonesty just goes on and on and on and on and...

 

[lifetips]

For another thread or a private message

A private message is fine but whatever you wish. I'm always interested in reasons why people make choices in regards to religion, God, Atheism etc.