Abiogenesis

Now, be reasonable... You know what I meant!I totally implied that jar meant, 'We know abiogenesis happed in material terms'.

Then you agree that abiogenesis happened. Quit arguing about it.What we are looking for is the mechanism. God poofing man into existence from the dust of the earth is one hypothesis.

Asgara:Very clever...But let me ask you this: 'why?'Why are you looking for the mechanism?This is where absolute morality comes into play. Honestly, why do you want to know?I don't necessarily even need to know the answer.... What matters is that you recognize your own reasons and motivations.

morality has squat to do with this, rob. you know that.morality is off-topic.we are looking for "how". that's all that's important.if you only came into this thread to preach, get out.this thread is about the evidence for how abiogenesis happened or didn't happen. not about why we're trying to found out.try to stay on topic, or I will ask for a suspension.

Why not? You got something against increasing our knowledge of the world? It has nothing to do with the topic which is: the possible mechanisms of abiogenesis. Why ask why?

---

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

Why? Why? Because mankind has an insatiable curiosity about this world.This topic is NOT about absolute morality. It is not about my reasons and motivations. It is about abiogenesis. It is in the Science / Origins of Life forums. The OP states:

Asgara:We already know how DNA is replicated. The origin part of your equation is the problem, since the other components in the cell are needed to replicate it. DNA is useless to life unless combined with all of a cell's machinery.As jar said (at least I am using the same reasoning) we know life started whole and fully formed, we just don't know how.There is certainly no material explanation. But don't let that stop you from believing in one. As Francis Crick said, 'We must constantly keep in our minds, that these things evolved, and were not designed.'As Dr.Jones said, 'Why ask why?'Especially to Francis' unbiased and level headed advice. He is willing to entertain any cause to explain this mystery with open eyes.Not that bias has anything to do with the topic. There is nothing immoral about bias. His reasons and motivations have nothing to do with it.Everyone is honest and has the purest of intentions. I see no duplicity here...

Every sentence in your post is grammatical English. but it doesn't refer to anything. It's like Chomsky's sentence: "Invisible green ideas sleep furiously". This is grammatical, but it doesn't refer to anything and it's impossible that it could mean anything to English-speaking people.I realise now why you've started a whole thread to discuss the question of whether words mean anything.Yes, they do. When you can accept this, come back and debate us.---Jeesh, I just tried to debate with someone who thinks that the meanings of words are arbitrary. Why did I do that?No, really, why?

both statements are false.I refer you to post 4 of this thread, by MattP:
http://EvC Forum: Abiogenesis -->EvC Forum: AbiogenesisDNA does not need all of the organelles in a cell for replication. it barely needs a thing. really? Wasn't it Newton who said that specific parts of his theory on gravity would never be explained? Weren't they eventually explained in natural terms? That's a bad argument, and a bad defense. Every single gap for god has been filled in by science with few exceptions--such as just what the heck is going on at the extreme beginning of the universe. A god of the gaps is a weak god also. Is it not possible that God is just using these natural mechanisms? Or that he created them? It's a much more viable position, I think, then relegating god to that which we do not know. Because if there's one thing I've noticed (and many, many others have too), is that science keeps moving forward, keeps explaining and finding new things. Eventually, there will be no gap for your small god.And since you are claiming there is no material explanation, what does explain how abiogenesis happened, and where is your evidence that that is what happened?This is, afterall, a science thread.

---

"Have the Courage to Know!" --Immanuel Kant" One useless man is a disgrace. Two are called a law firm. Three or more are called a congress" --paraphrased, John AdamsWant to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

Like your perspective, I don't know. I don't even think it was abiogenesis per se.As jar said, I don't need evidence. I know it happended because it is here.It was God putting life into being by whatever means He does such things.

Dr A:.Was it Kant or Nietzche who said, 'Before we can get rid of God, we must get rid of Grammar'?You have me confused with someone else Dr.A. I want to start that thread to prove that words do have an ontic referent.It is you, who by deferring to convention, leave no basis for the objective meaning of words.Reality is brought to light by the words we use to describe it (Him).The reason you have a hard time, is because you presume to examine all of reality as though you are outside of it. But you are in Him. Until you know where you are in relation to Him, you will never see reality for what it is.

Kuresu:This why you need to slow down man...Your replicating something that already exists! Where did the original come from?How can you guys miss that point? It is actually very easy...You're a very sharp cookie Kuresu. You're better than this.Think!

you oughta slow down. look at what you quoted by me: that is what post 4 shows. that you barely need a thing to replicate DNA or RNA. So your statements that: and are false. I was only talking about replication in my post that you replied to also (when telling you to visit post 4, that is).as to origins, take a read through the first page of this thread (before lovefaithhope enters). There's some good info there.Now for some of your other posts: that is the evidence that abiogenesis happened. that does not explain how it happened. you still need evidence to explain how. and that's a non-answer. it is essentially, god did it. that does not tell us how he did it. {abe: it's also an empty assertion, thanks to the lack of evidence. empty assertions are also bad answers, they get you nowhere. /abe}I take it you're not interested in the how part of this question one bit, are you? If not, get out of this thread. This is for people who want to find out how this thing happens.Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

---

"Have the Courage to Know!" --Immanuel Kant" One useless man is a disgrace. Two are called a law firm. Three or more are called a congress" --paraphrased, John AdamsWant to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

Rob writes: I'm curious about what you mean by "where" and "from." Do you mean a location? Or do you mean a path from that location? Or do you actually mean a "how" instead of a "where from"?If you don't fancy any how-based mechanics in your explanation of life, then answers like this one would suffice: "Life comes from the Love of God and the boundless and immeasurable creativity in His Heart." Is that enough for you?”HM

Kuresu: Excuse me?All you need... is DNA or RNA, a lab, and an intelligent agent.That is hardly an example insubstantial materials in terms of providing anything remotely resembling an understanding of the 'how', without assuming the existence of the very thing your trying to explain.You cannot use DNA and RNA to copy from, when the very thing you are trying to reveal, is how it got here before those things were here.It is as artificial and as circular as any explanation I have yet heard.Do you see the point yet?Edited by Rob, : No reason given.