Abiogenesis

Hootman:You sir, are taking this deeper than I have ever considered. I was simply implying a lack of any knowledge of such things, and I think that is telling. These other boys do not even approach such enlightening questions as to our 'actual' understanding.I think if you read my reply to Kuresu here: http://EvC Forum: Abiogenesis -->EvC Forum: Abiogenesis
You will see what I was trying to say.I was really not addressing the issues you bring up. But if you wish to, I would love to set aside this squabbling over here and stretch myself with you. I find your thinking to be quite solid in general.

Rob But that is not an explanation since the question simply shifts to what originated God.

Sidelined:Ok... Agreed!Please hear me out Sidelined...I think all of us would love to have more of an explanation on either side of this debate. But incredulity and authorityis the default, each of us ultimately leans upon.In either case we are dealing with faith. And that assertion requires further explanation so as not to offend.Consider Bertrand Russel's answer to the question, 'How do you explain the origin of the Universe?' 'It's just there!', replied Russel.I hinted at this with Ringo when I said in this post: http://EvC Forum: Perceptions of Reality -->EvC Forum: Perceptions of Reality
Rob:So eventually, this topic moves naturally into this whole question of the first cause.Do we have an eternal material universe that was and is always here, or do we have another eternal reality through whom the material was brought into being.In either case, we resort to assuming a great deal that cannot be known fully without our being God Himself.So if my position is not acceptable because of it's lack of explanatory power, then in the final analyisis, with what do you qualify your own naturalistic beliefs that is any different?

Rob It is my impression that life is a result of ,ultimately, physics of matter. However,and this is crucial, understanding is not a result of what we believe but of what we may evidence. We have over the centuries discovered what we can say about the universe based on observation and experiment, and the ultimate test has always been that our hypothesis must stand up to experiment.Abiogenesis is not a matter simply of determining the physics necessary to show the steps allowing for life {which is difficult enough} but to ,in fact, determine that there is a distinction present within life that is not a consequence of those physics.

I don't suspect this answer is going to strike some as acceptable. But it is the truth.SidelinedAnd how does the discovery of the quantum complicate these matters?I contend that we cannot understand the dimension of the physical without regard for the non-physical. And when I say 'non-physical', I am speaking of a transcendent form of the physical. Where one begins and the other ends is out of our reach. But the physical is built upon this framework.And that is why the gospel is 'Good News'. It is a most astounding claim. That in Christ, we can see these connections by way of becoming spiritually alive in Him because He came to us from His side of reality. The very spiritual reality that created the universe (Holy Spirit) is like a solution to a puzzle. I am not saying everything can be seen, but without that lens, nothing makes sense in terms of the duality btween dimensions you refer to below.Limiting the picture to purely material terms is to disconnect oneself from what turns out to be more of the necessary picture than the temporal and physical dimension.Sidelined:And Jesus offers the ability to perceive that distinction to all who will believe in Him.Is it really that hard to believe?The only thing that stopped me from trusting Him was my own ambitions. I now realize I gave up nothing.The ultimate experiment and thrill... is to admit we are sinners before Him, and take His offer of forgiveness and make our commitment to His sovereignty.God is very emperical. He believes in physical evidence. That is why He came. To Prove who He was with miracles and the ressurection from the dead.Now that's evidence!

You have cluttered up a thread with off topic comments too often.This is NOT about quantum physics. This is not about your preaching.This is about the science investigating possible abiogenetic pathways. When you have something to actual contribute or are prepared to ask a reasonable question you may post here.More of the same will result in longer suspensions.

not my fault you can't understand the experiment or the point of that post.those experiments are not to explain how abiogenesis happened. or how DNA/RNA came about. The point is to show how they can be easily replicated.And you've shifted your goalposts--before you claimed that you needed a lot (all those organelles and whatnot) to replicate DNA/RNA. Now you are claiming that those experiments don't show how abiogenesis happened (which, by the way, is the truth, but it's not a fault of the experiments, because they were not designed or carried out to tackle the picture of how).

Actually, I think it was you. And yet it is you who redefines words capriciously to suit your whims, and it is I, out in the darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth, who uses words to mean what they actually mean.

If abiogenesis was an entirely mechanical process and involved no genetic encryption processes at all, then I think scientists would have discovered all of its mysteries by now. They would be conducting table-top abiogenesis demonstrations routinely in Biology 101 labs. The biggest problem in explaining abiogenesis is accounting for how genes got into the act. There must have been an operational role for pure information when abiogenesis occurred. Was it a one-off "miracle"? Did it happen only once? One thing seems obvious: after Earth's bio-friendly vestibule became flooded with genes there was no need for nature to bother any further with abiogenesis.Unless someone discovers how gene encryption evolved from nothing we'll never solve the mystery of abiogenesis.”HM

I suppose I have to relent with respect to this thread.Your response is here:http://EvC Forum: Do word's have any meaning? -->EvC Forum: Do word's have any meaning?

Hoot Mon:I am glad someone sees the dillemma besides me.And that is what I was tryig to say to Sidelined before the evil temptation to proselytize led me into court and under the derision of the judge once again.It is a miraculous thing, the appearence of life. Almost more miraculous and incredulous to consider under the banner of materialism than that of a creation paradigm.It is easier for me to believe with less faith, that the information arose from something rather than nothing.

Wow, you have the capacity to misunderstand everything I say.You must be so proud.

Kuresu:And without organelles... ok!But what does that have to do with Abiogenesis?I am continuously being reminded that that is the topic.

what do you mean by "genetic encryption"? I can't seem to figure that part of your post out.furthermore, why? do genes really need a purpose to exist?

Dr A:Well I know what you said because words mean things.What did you mean?And I am hoping to be able to discuss it in the alternate thread. Awaiting Admin promotion.