EvC Forum: Biogenesis

The BB is a theory based on facts. The BB is not a fact. It is not observable or repeatable. It is a theoretical model that there were no atoms. The big bang theory is not evidence or data.

Please provide a citation of scientific evidence or data that atoms didn't exist 13Bya. This is actually a consequence of the BBT, it certainly is not data.

Talk about a lame argument.

This amounts to:

quote:
Nuh-uh!

Why are you OK with ignorance in regards to your hypothesis,but you aren't OK with ignorance in other areas that may provide the answer to life. God may be one of them. An unnamed intelligent designer maybe one. A yet undiscovered vital force may be one. There potentially are many valid scientific or metaphysical explanations for the beginning of life. Just because you are ignorant of them doesn't mean the truth doesn't exist.

So for your position to be in any way valid, life has to be magical.

But you and others are redefinining "life" with the faith of abiogenesis. You are using mythological undefined terms as "primordial life", "early life", "first life". Just as soon as these terms are defined, the hypothesis is open to falsification. By leaving these terms open to interpretation, the the hypothesis is unfalsifiable.

But there isn't one big Theory of Abiogenesis. It is still in its infancy.

There are a bunch of hypothesis that are small steps in the whole picture. Each one of those is falsfiable.

Wrong again, kid.

It {current theories on abiogenesis and spotaneous generation} is exactly the same.

But they are different. How could they be the same?

Spontaneous generation was the idea that maggots came from rotting meat.

"But most currently accepted models {on abiogenesis} build in one way or another upon a number of discoveries about the origin of molecular and cellular components for life."

Certainly they are not the same.

Because it does. It says that life comes from life. All of it. Why can't you realize that it is a silly argument that the slooooow gradual emergence of life itself is not by definition a spontaneous generation event. And that has been falsified.

The abiogenesis hypotheses of today all posit the existance of cell wall like structures that eventually are able to metabolize and then reproduce and the evolve. Each step of the way is a spontaneous generation event.

Now that is equivocation.

Spontaneous generation was the idea that maggots came from rotting meat.

"But most currently accepted models {on abiogenesis} build in one way or another upon a number of discoveries about the origin of molecular and cellular components for life."

You're talking about two different things.

I don't have to discredit abiogenesis. It has no credibility except for those of that faith. Science has discredited abiogenesis.

Riiiight

All those biologist who are working on the hypotheses involved in abiogenesis don't actually exist in the science community, they are not scientists, and they have been discredited.

The spontaneous generation of the past and the "modern" spontaneous generation over the magical millions of unfalsifiable millions of years has already been discredited.

Except, it hasn't.

You just think it has been because you can't see that the LoB was talking about spontaneous generation and not the current theory on aboigenesis.

But isn't it interesting how the faithful are doing their darndest to remove LoB from all literature and educational processes. Isn't it interesting how your wiki citation inaccurately defines the LoB. Isn't it interesting that this law of nature can probably be one of the easiest science experiments to be demonstrated to students in a classroom. But it is being elliminated from discussion.

No, its not interesting.

There is no grand atheist conspiracy in science and you're crazy to believe that there is one.

This forum is a prime example of religious fervor in regards to this topic. I have nothing to fear from people like you. If my faith is wrong and you are right, then fine. I will cease to exist when I die and I will be some of those non-living chemicals. But if your faith is wrong and my faith is right, then you have some real problems ahead of you. I have nothing to loose if I am wrong. You have everything to loose if you are wrong.

And now you're gona throw Pascal's Wager out there

This is rich! Man you are stoopid.

Oh and by the way, I'm a Christian and I've already got my ticket to heaven so, once again, you are hopelessly wrong.

Well in my opinion idiots don't recognize what good science demonstrates. (LoB) Idiots use lame arguments with no evidentiary support. Idiots only rely on wiki articles without researching the citations every now and then. Idiots don't realize that every defineable step in any hypothesis of abiogenesis is spontaneously generated. Wow. That would make you, by my definition an idiot.

So, you don't even know what an idiot is

What's that like the 3 times in this thread alone that you've exposed your misunderstanding of very simple concepts?

2 online now:	DrJones*, Tanypteryx
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1