On the impossibility of abiogenesis

The Ugly Truth said:
There is absolutely no scientific evidence that abiogenesis is possible. In fact, much of what we DO know indicates that it is impossible. In order for a self-replicating cell to exist, all of it's many components must evolve independently and be in place in order for life to exist. In other words, it's impossible. The obvious conclusion is that it was created that way.
Click to expand...
Well then how do you explain Keith Richards.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well then how do you explain Keith Richards.
Click to expand...

BTW, show me empirical evidence of this creator. You know? Evidence that can be tested and independently verified. That would be scientific. Now you can conclude whatever you want but that doesn’t make it Science.

Now personally I believe in a creator but that’s my personal religious belief and it would explain Keith Richards, lord knows science can’t but that’s not a scientific belief.

Also, the reason I question you understanding of science is that in science all knowledge is tentative. Nothing can be known with absolute certainty as we don’t know everything. So do draw a conclusion that anything is impossible isn’t a scientific one. Anything is possible in science. It just may or may not have a low probability of being correct.
 
I've never understood the need to argue whether evolution is possible or not. Whether it fits with a particular religious belief or not, it is the best scientific explanation we have at the moment.

But what does it really matter to your religion? Unless you are wanting to use The Bible as a history text, it seems irrelevant to me. I mean, unless you are trying for a "I'm smarter because I am a Christian" bit of nonsense.
 
I believe in God, though I don't like using that word (too many connotations at this point).

But my belief has nothing to do w/ needing something to fill in the blanks of things we just can't explain yet.
 
Kacper said:
One of the reasons computers can usually beat humans at chess is because humans see things as having to be purposeful and computers can process and execute what is rather purposeless from the human perspective. Ironic that advanced computer programming deals better with spontaneity than even its human creators who often cannot figure out why the hell the computers did what they did getting to the end they were programmed to achieve.
Click to expand...

Regardless.....any "computer" must be programed by intelligent design.....they first had to be created by a creator. What are you telling us that computers are a product of nature? :laugh:

I get the secular "deflection"....don't concentrate on the fact that life cannot be a product of random happenstance in nature, let us discuss your IDEA about what happened after life appeared. Its the evolutionists way of ignoring its major flaw of logic and reason.

Idea! In order to prove your theory about evolution the way you want to discuss it.....just get all the components of a computer in its natural state and lie them on the ground and see how long it takes nature to erect a working computer. Once nature places all the parts together in the correct manner....lets see how long it takes nature to animate it.(i.e., PROGRAM it to function as a computer should function).
 
Last edited:
Ralph said:
Regardless.....any "computer" must be programed by intelligent design.....they first had to be created by a creator. What are you telling us that computers are a product of nature? :laugh:

I get the secular "deflection"....don't concentrate on the fact that life cannot be a product of random happenstance in nature, let us discuss your IDEA about what happened after life appeared. Its the evolutionists way of ignoring its major flaw of logic and reason.

Idea! In order to prove your theory about evolution the way you want to discuss it.....just get all the components of a computer in its natural state and lie them on the ground and see how long it takes nature to erect a working computer. Once nature places all the parts together in the correct manner....lets see how long it takes nature to animate it.(i.e., PROGRAM it to function as a computer should function).
Click to expand...

You make a lot of false assumptions about me and my position and you are wrong in that computers are being designed to learn on their own.

I have not offered a theory about evolution have I?

The only reason I entered this thread is because I felt sorry for the OP and decided that one response in 5 hours would be of some comfort to their thread creation gene.

Now had you asked where I stand, the answer would have been quite concise--Don't know. Don't care. The origins of life has zero impact on my existence.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
BTW, show me empirical evidence of this creator. You know? Evidence that can be tested and independently verified. That would be scientific. Now you can conclude whatever you want but that doesn’t make it Science.

Now personally I believe in a creator but that’s my personal religious belief and it would explain Keith Richards, lord knows science can’t but that’s not a scientific belief.

Also, the reason I question you understanding of science is that in science all knowledge is tentative. Nothing can be known with absolute certainty as we don’t know everything. So do draw a conclusion that anything is impossible isn’t a scientific one. Anything is possible in science. It just may or may not have a low probability of being correct.
Click to expand...

PMP - abiogenesis is not a scientific theory
PMP - abiogenesis and intelligent design are on equal footing
PMP - abiogenesis and intelligent design are faith statements

MOTT - why do you pretend creationism is science, there is no empirical evidence.....
 
there is a room......in the center of the room was a table.......on the table was a deck of cards and one hand of poker dealt out......it is a royal straight flush.....there is also a note......on it are the words "I dealt these cards"......

the abiogeneticist walks into the room and says, the most rational explanation is that after building a room and table and inventing the rules of poker these cards dealt themselves......
 
Kacper said:
You make a lot of false assumptions about me and my position and you are wrong in that computers are being designed to learn on their own.

I have not offered a theory about evolution have I?

The only reason I entered this thread is because I felt sorry for the OP and decided that one response in 5 hours would be of some comfort to their thread creation gene.

Now had you asked where I stand, the answer would have been quite concise--Don't know. Don't care. The origins of life has zero impact on my existence.
Click to expand...

Right.....zero "impact" = a desire to retort, its not like you are suggesting that I said, you said computers can be designed to learn on their own (where you read that statement I will never know...as I suggested nothing of the sort...it must exist in your ID to begin with). What I said is you are comparing AI with evolution, suggesting that ORIGINS does not matter when in reality any structure by necessity of logic and reason requires a foundation.....

And to remove "all doubt" about my deductive conclusion.....you came right out and declared.......ORIGINS HAVE ZERO IMPACT. Funny stuff.......:clink:
 
Creationism exists as a valid and rational hypothesis in relation to "origins" as it exists as "prima facie" evidence upon which to construct faith....Christian faith is anything but "blind". Creation origins stand as evidence until such time as SCIENCE can present the objective, testable, reproducible evidences of fact that proves Creationism is an impossibility of origins. Thus far....no one on this thread has offered any evidence, prima facie or objective to make one conclude beyond the reason of any sane person to doubt that creationism has been rebuked by the scientific evidence. While on the other side of that coin......"abiogenesis" (life origins coming from non-living matter) has been debunked by the Scientific Method every time such a scientific experiment has been conducted...there has not been one successful experiment that results in an observed example of life being created by scientific or natural means from DEAD MATTER. Pasteur's experiment conducted disproving abiogenesis stands as Scientific Evidence that life can only be generated by procreation of existing biological life....each procreation existing only within its own species.

Some might not call such a scientific experiment.....a Scientific Experiment...but a rose by any other name is still a rose.

Anyone? Present the scientific experiment conducted via the Scientific Method that proves Creationism is an impossibility of physical reality.
 
Last edited:
Ralph said:
Right.....zero "impact" = a desire to retort, its not like you are suggesting that I said, you said computers can be designed to learn on their own (where you read that statement I will never know...as I suggested nothing of the sort...it must exist in your ID to begin with). What I said is you are comparing AI with evolution, suggesting that ORIGINS does not matter when in reality any structure by necessity of logic and reason requires a foundation.....

And to remove "all doubt" about my deductive conclusion.....you came right out and declared.......ORIGINS HAVE ZERO IMPACT. Funny stuff.......:clink:
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how life started. Life exists. Origins do have zero impact on my day to day life. It is what it is. And again, your made the assumption that I have a "theory about evolution " and have engaged in "secular "deflection"'. I am a Relativist. If you want to believe that the moon is made out of leftover green cheese, go for it.
 
Ralph said:
Creationism exists as a valid and rational hypothesis in relation to "origins" as it exists as "prima facie" evidence upon which to construct faith....Christian faith is anything but "blind".
Click to expand...

Christian "beliefs" about the true nature of the REALITY of existence......

...namely, that a GOD exists and the GOD "created" everything else that exists...

...IS NOTHING BUT A BLIND GUESS.



Creation origins stand as evidence until such time as SCIENCE can present the objective, testable, reproducible evidences of fact that proves Creationism is an impossibility of origins. Thus far....no one on this thread has offered any evidence, prima facie or objective to make one conclude beyond the reason of any sane person to doubt that creationism has been rebuked by the scientific evidence. While on the other side of that coin......"abiogenesis" (life origins coming from non-living matter) has been debunked by the Scientific Method every time such a scientific experiment has been conducted...there has not been one successful experiment that results in an observed example of life being created by scientific or natural means from DEAD MATTER. Pasteur's experiment conducted disproving abiogenesis stands as Scientific Evidence that life can only be generated by procreation of existing biological life....each procreation existing only within its own species.
Click to expand...

So...you assert that you can put forth a blind guess about the true nature of REALITY...and other have to prove it wrong???

The logicians term for that is: Extreme bullshit.


Some might not call such a scientific experiment.....a Scientific Experiment...but a rose by any other name is still a rose.
Click to expand...

Correct! Refer to my response immediately above.

Anyone? Present the scientific experiment conducted via the Scientific Method that proves Creationism is an impossibility of physical reality.
Click to expand...

That is not the way debate works.

If YOU are asserting a blind guess that a GOD exists...and that the GOD "created" everything else...the obligation to prove that belongs on you.

If YOU are asserting that Pasteur (or anyone else) "proves" the impossibility of abiogenesis...the obligation to prove that belongs on you. (Good luck with that!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top