Is Abiogenesis a fact?

You mean, science can disprove special creation by demonstrating an example of special creation? Sounds a bit backwards. Surely to demonstrate abiogenesis we just have to find realistic pre-earth conditions that can result in the formation of replicators with a form of heredity. The only alternative of course, is that life has always existed. If you have converted the Abrahamic God, you believe that life came from non-life (clay, for example).

Catholic Scientist wrote: Has scientists ever re-created that 'presumably very simple life form'? None that I know of. Have they even been able to create true protein out of non living thing? No. They may be able to create the building blocks--the components--of protein (amino acid, etc) but not protein itself. If all the brains of these scientist and their controlled laboratories could not build (yet)one of the more complex component of life, how is it that they presumptously presume that life come from non life?This statement is not logical: 'If the chemicals needed for the first replicators were present in the early days of the earth, why don't you think they could have formed something that could be considered life, by definition?The error in this statement lies in the confusion of what is SOME and what is ALL. Funny, but I think scientists who think that because chimps share 98% of DNA of men, men must have evolve from chimps are making fundamental errors in logic.Let me repeat this: Just because a dog share SOME of the elements of a rock ( for example:carbon, iron, etc) doesn't mean a dog comes from a rock. The logical statement is: "because carbon, and iron are found in dogs and rocks, therefore dogs and rocks share SOME common elements".

Right, exactly. "Food" is when living things turn non-living matter into living matter.It happens right in front of our eyes, and you think it's unreasonable? That doesn't make any sense to me. Why? I weighed 8 lbs when I was born. Now I weigh 140 lbs. That 132 lbs of matter had to come from somewhere, right? It came from my food, of course - I took nonliving matter and incorporated it into my body. It became living matter during that process. Or is it your contention that only 8lbs of me is alive? But part of you did come from rocks. You ingested those materials as food and incorporated them into your being. You turned nonliving matter into living matter. Why is that hard to understand? Why do you find that a confusing or debatable statement?I mean, if you contain those materials, where did they come from if not from the world around you?

How did the iron get into the dogs, then?

Crashfrog says: Yes,it is unreasonable. And, yes it should not make sense to you. Food is fuel to the body just as gas is fuel to a car. A fuel does not make a car, does it? According to my high school biology teacher, food is fuel to our cells. Our cells grow because of that fuel. We gain weight because our cells grow, not because of food per se. Sharing the same elements w/ rocks does not mean I come from rocks. I could not agree that I turned a non-living matter to a living matter. (That is a big leap of faith and a bit irrational) I would agree that my cells used those elements to fuel growth. Putting it another way my now multiplied cells consist not just its fuel but the intricate system of "inputs" + "process" = "output" (additional cells). In other words, those elements that I share w/ a rock (e.g iron) are just inputs. My cells are more than that. It has built in design to process those inputs to come up w/ additional outputs.Please do not confuse the equation--> input + process = output w/ just the inputs. It is obviously not.SimPle illustration. A car is not its fuel. A fuel is just one of those inputs needed to make the car work.Edited by pilate_judas, : for clarity.Edited by pilate_judas, : No reason given.

Only if you eat fat and sugar alone (edit: ie., you only eat carbohydrates). Most people need to eat proteins as well and drink water constantly. Guess what we are made of? Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Moduluos wrote:To prove you have a cake, you have to bake a cake. Not just say I have the ingredients of a cake and the recipe to do it. For all you know the cake could burn into a charcoal.Similarly, to prove that life comes from non life you have to make or create one. To say that you have the "ingredients" of life is not the same as saying that you can create life. (And, life is more complicated than baking a cake, isn't it?)As I have said in another post. Life is an output of this equation:
Input + process = output. Inputs is not equal to output.You also mentioned about an "Abrahamic God", the claimed author of life. He is the exception to that equation because of the rule: "for every rule there is an exception". You can not apply the 'exception rule' to any of the elements of the equation--input + process = output. Why? Because that would destroy the equation and doing so will result in Nothing. So, by deduction the exception rule would apply to the author. That is he is he did not come about because of the equation.And, if you analyze it further, this conclusion will emerge: 'There was an Ultimate Beginning of Life who had the source and sufficient know-how to begin it all'. Simply put: life began from life.

When you hear somebody saying that they have proved spontaneous generation or abiotic genesis (abe: in the sense of organic chemicals naturally coming together on earth to form the first forms of replicators/life etc)...then you can use that argument. Until such time, why bother?If I show you a cake, what do you assume happened? That the cake had always existed, or that the cake came from non-cake? I didn't talk about the origin of God, so your argument seems superfluous as well as debatable (and being debated in another thread). I merely said that in the Abrahamic story, God took non-life and made it into life. If you believe that is true then you do not agree with the title 'Life from Non-Life is Not Reasonable'. You actually believe it to be true, and thus (I assume) reasonable.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

False. To prove you have cake you can eat it. How you got it is a different matter.We have cake: there is life.The question is how the cake got here: was it baked or did it just appear or was it gifted? (re-gifted?) So? Is anyone claiming there is no input or process involved? No input of energy into chemical reactions (input + process)? You are begging the question with a rejection of possibilities.We also see pre-biotic self replicating systems. They come from pre-biotic self replicating systems.We have cup-cakes as well as cakes.Simply put, life may have come from pre-biotic self replicating systems.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : toned down in pink

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I'm sorry and I will not intrude on you good folk for long, but to think that life did not come from non-life is not just unreasonable, it is illogical.There is ample evidence that there was a time when life did not exist on earth.There is ample evidence that life now exists on earth.So, anyone who hints or suggests that life did not come from non-life has to provide the model that shows some other source for life.There was a time when there was only non-life.Later there was life and non-life.If life did not come from the non-life, just what DID it come from.As a Christian I am tired of other Christians coming here and making such stupid statements as "Life from Non-Life is Not Reasonable". All it accomplishes is to make Christians look stupid and foolish.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Modulous wrote: Ha! ha! ha! I know a good argument when I see one. You got me there. Thanks for the elaboration. I could not have done better!I said: "And, if you analyze it further, this conclusion will emerge: 'There was an Ultimate Beginning of Life who had the source and sufficient know-how to begin it all'. Simply put: life began from life"You improved it: God a the living being actually made life out of nothing. If that is what Abiogenesis mean, then I could not disagree.But, then again. If we begin w/ a living God, isn't it Biogenesis--that is Life started from a living being?Anyway, thanks. You're a genius! Edited by pilate_judas, : for clarity.

So where did this living being god come from then? What life spawned him?

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

Yes - if you look at Message 241 I said the alternative was that life has always existed. However, I'm not sure it is theologically sound to consider God as being 'biological'. I would say God is abiological.In this case it would be theogenesis (?) Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

A rude one writes: Sorry, I choose to ignore foul-mouthed ones.By the way, guys, is there an ignore button here?

C'mon, you must know better than that. Why does a balance diet include not just carbohydrates (chemical fuel), but protein and minerals?Because that's what your body uses to build itself. Look, it's a simple issue of conservation of mass. You weigh hundreds of pounds more than you did when you were born. Where did all that mass come from if not your food? Thin air? Where does the material for those cells come from? Your food, of course. That's why you need a certain set of amino acids, etc. Cars don't grow or reproduce; the analogy is false. All I'm trying to tell you is that living things take nonliving matter and use it within themselves - they turn nonlife into life.This is 5th grade biology, Pilate. Think back. You weigh so much more than you did when you were born. How is that possible, except that you've been constructing your body from the food you've been eating? Every living thing does exactly the same thing. I'm not saying that you "came from rocks", and you won't find that statement in any of my posts. But you've turned the material found in rocks into your own living body, and in doing so, done exactly what you say is impossible.