Transition from chemistry to biology

Hi eial, welcome to EVC,

you write,

Can anyone give me any evidence that living organisms can arise from inorganic material, such as claimed in the origin of life?

That depends on how deep into that question you want to get. The example I would use to keep it simple would be that, through fossil records, we know that NO life exists 4.5 billion years ago but inorganic materials do exist. Then, 3.5 billion years ago the fossil records do show living organisms made up of those same inorganic materials that we find 4.5 billion years ago.

The problem is not that inorganic materials formed life, we know that it did, the problem is how did it occur. And that problem is currently studied in the field of Abiogenesis. A quick google search on your part should give you more specifics about abiogenesis, or just search the threads here on EVCforum.

I hope that helped.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

eial writes: This is not directed toward you, I am just simply flabbergasted and here is why.

Thats cool, but maybe you just need a better understanding of the subject.

I have done some research on the topic of abiogenesis, and it seems to me there is virtually no evidence that this is even possible.

I'll agree that it's not, or rather has not, been an established, observable fact yet, but 'not even possible'? I don't think that's a fair judgement on your part given what the alternative to a natural process of abiogenesis would be.

When you say it that way it sounds like you simply throw in some RNA, a little nitrogen, some carbon, oxygen and a few other miscellaneous chemicals and bingo, you have a replicated RNA molecule.

It would only sound that way to someone not familiar with the field of abiogenesis, and/or chemistry.

Well, this is not the case.

No scientist would ever make that the case.

I would argue that RNA is a much more complex molecule and all the evidence indicates it does not just simply form on its own-and why would it?

Why would it? Simple answer: Because it is comprised of organic chemicals that react spontaneaously with one another.

Many amino acids are much less complex than RNA and any decent chemist can make amino acids in a controlled environment.

Amino acids are less complex and as such it is thought to precede tRNA. And yes they have been created in a controlled environment.

You still need a controlled environment (such as the cytoplasm), excess amino acids that just happen to be floating around, tRNA, and a reason to replicate (such as a genetic code).

You lost me here, can you clarify your point in this statement please?

Why would we even think this could be possible?

You can't seriously be asking why we believe that organic chemicals can interact with each other to form complex structures? What other alternative to a natural chemical reaction would there be? The only possibility is that there is a natural processs and scientist continue to study the evidence, conduct experiments, and draw conclusions based off of observations. I don't see what you have issue with?

Now, I can agree with you that the area of life origin is still very early in it's studies and it's to earlier to jump the gun on claiming anything as fact yet, but that doesn't give the alternative, (Intelligent Design), any more of a possibility to being true. All the work is still ahead of Intelligent Design to prove their theory.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

eial writes: What about cell theory, not to mention the idea of abiogenesis completely contradicts the Law of biogenesis.

This is a common mistake, you see the word abiogenesis, remove the a and are left with biogenesis, there is a little problem...the 2 are not the same.

• Abiogenesis: is the study of how life on Earth emerged from inanimate organic and inorganic molecules.
  wiki link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis.

• Biogenesis: is the process of lifeforms producing other lifeforms.
  wiki link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis
  

The 2 are, again, not the same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

THE LAW OF BIOGENESIS:

quote:

---

Pasteur's (and others) empirical results were summarized in the phrase, Omne vivum ex vivo (or Omne vivum ex ovo), Latin for "all life [is] from [an] egg". This is sometimes called "law of biogenesis" and shows that modern organisms do not spontaneously arise in nature from non-life.

The law of biogenesis is not to be confused with Ernst Haeckel's Biogenetic Law.

---

However Abiogenesis does not claim that life spontaneously arises. I suggest you brush up on the literature about Abiogenesis, read all of the different hypothesis, and understand that biogenesis has nothing to do with Abiogenesis. The wiki link provided under the Abiogenesis definition should provide good reading.

My humble suggestion is to throw this law out, but funny thing, laws have bad habits of hanging around for well…forever!

The law of biogenesis still stands, and will always stand. Abiogenesis is a completely different hypothesis.

Or, just don’t talk about it, remove the law of biogenesis from our textbooks and tell anyone who brings this law up that it applies only to our earth today.

By this point your arrogance on the subjects is evident, yet you have no idea what your talking about. Biogensis is NOT Abiogenesis.

My thought is that if I can provide evidence that life can not randomly happen on its own (as in abiogenesis) than this does give validity and direct proof of intelligent design.

You see it doesn't just work that way. If life can't happen rapidly all that tells us is that life can't happen rapidly. For you to suggest an intelligent designer would then require YOU to show proof for the designer, and not just that 'life can't happen rapidly'.

If it can not happen on its own, there must have been an intelligent, driving force.

Thus we come back to the beginning of my argument. Since you have clearly misunderstood biogenesis, that is not an argument against Abiogenesis. And since you've presented no other position against Abiogenesis, you've proven nothing about any intelligence.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

AOKid writes: Every single chemical reaction and self organizational step along the long and winding millions of years origin of life road is a step that must be spontaneously generated,

Yes, each chemical reaction towards one another is spontaneous, like I asked you before on another thread, are you saying there are NO spontaneous chemical reactions?

Abiogenesis hypothesis:

• 1. Spontaneous chemical reactions.
  
• 2. Enough reactions begin to form pre-life structures.
  
• 3. Added reactions continue the process towards life.
  
• 4. Life emerges after enough chemical reactions.

This is what Abiogenesis claims. It is observed that chemicals DO spontaneously react to one another. It has been experimented for and observed to be capable of occuring under the proper conditions (you can argue that they are speculating the conditions if you like). It is NOT in any way claiming that a single reaction creates life.

What you're suggesting is:

• 1. A single chemical reacts and spontaneously forms life.
  

That my friend is what is suggested by you, and in the 'Law of Biogenesis', and it is NOT what is suggested within the hypothesis of Abiogenesis.

I gave 2 clear definitions in the post you quoted, you made no reference to them nor to what they explained about the 2 different subjects. I also provided a quote about Pastuers' results on spontaneous generation, you made no reference to those either. If you are going to reject sound evidence towards the contrary of what you claim then you are just being bullheaded and arrogant. Any further attemt to debate you will simply be a waste of time.

But fallacies are fallacies, and I would think that you would not have any toleration for fallacies in science.

Your right, I have no tolerance for fallacies in science, that is why most of what you say gets ignored.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

onifre writes: Abiogenesis hypothesis: 1. Spontaneous chemical reactions. 2. Enough reactions begin to form pre-life structures. 3. Added reactions continue the process towards life. 4. Life emerges after enough chemical reactions. This is what Abiogenesis claims. It is observed that chemicals DO spontaneously react to one another.

Aokid writes: I would say this is an excellent summary of abiogenesis.

Then we have no argument.

I assume you are talking about spontaneous chemical reactions and self organization and not abiogenesis here.

Lets see if I can say it a bit more clearly; Abiogenesis is the study of spontaneous chemical reactions and self organization. Ok?

It doesn't matter whether it is a single spontaneous chemical reaction or a thousand spontaneous chemical reations all hapenning at the same time.

But it does matter. Abiogenesis is not looking for a single reaction, it is trying to understand a long process from non-life to the emergence of life and slowly piecing each step backwards towards those nonlife chemicals.

The point is that at one moment those chemical arragements were not alive and the next moment they are alive.

A combination of various chemicals, arranged in order, can produce life, whether you want to say God had to be there to do this, or you can agree that if left alone these chemicals, given enough time and the proper conditions will do this on their own, it doesn't remove the fact that life is a combination of chemicals.

When a cell divides to create another there are "tons" of chemical reactions. When two gametes come together to create a zygote, there are "tons" of chemical reactions spontaneously occurring.

This is post-origin dude! I knew this would be a pointless debate.

Yeah, so you posted a definition of abiogenesis and biogenesis. I saw no need to argue with your definitions. They are two different words with two different meanings. So what.

So, perhaps you need to get familiar with those definitions seeing as how you keep using them in the wrong context.

Why should I need to respond about Pasteur's results? I know them better than you.

Pasteur??? Is that you posting on this thread???:rolleyes:

How the fuck do you know what I know? Don't assume anything about which of us knows best just yet...

You and others in the Biogeneis thread have argued that LoB doesn't even exist.

Thats because it does NOT apply to abiogenesis, which you agreed is:

Abiogenesis hypothesis:

• 1. Spontaneous chemical reactions.

• 2. Enough reactions begin to form pre-life structures.

• 3. Added reactions continue the process towards life.

• 4. Life emerges after enough chemical reactions.
  

But you haven't properly identified any fallacies of mine.

I believe this sentence is a fallacy. There I've identified one. ;)

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Onifre writes: Lets see if I can say it a bit more clearly; Abiogenesis is the study of spontaneous chemical reactions and self organization. Ok?

AOKid writes: Not OK! Why don't you just quote a decent source so we can all agree... wiki writes: In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth emerged from inanimate organic and inorganic molecules abiogenesis

From your wiki source,

quote:

---

The origin of the basic biomolecules, while not settled, is less controversial than the significance and order of steps 2 and 3. The basic chemicals from which life is thought to have formed are:

• Methane (CH4),
  
• Ammonia (NH3),
  
• Water (H2O),
  
• Hydrogen sulfide (H2S),
  
• Carbon dioxide (CO2) or carbon monoxide (CO), and
  
• Phosphate (PO43-).
  

---

Sure, lets agree that I was right in my first definition of Abiogenesis...

Now wasn't that simple!

Yes, it was simple the first time I wrote it too.

Onifre, this is a strawman argument. No one has said that a single reaction creates life. Infact, I showed that the evidence of life that clearly demonstrates that life is created with a mutltitude of chemical reactions all happening at the same time. I realize this is post life, but that is where all these abiogenesis studies come from.

It is not a strawman. The reactions that you are making reference to are of living organisms reproducing! This is not what is studied in the field of Abiogenesis. The chemical reactions that are spoken about in Abiogenesis are pre-life chemical reactions adding up to the first living cells.

I fully understand that all abiogesis hypotheses rely on millions of years of successive chemical reactions. That only makes it plausible to the faithful.

Fine, if you want to say it takes faith I don't give a shit, no one is seeking your approval on the issue. Just as long as you understand that it's a successive process and therefore the so called Law of Biogenesis does NOT apply because Biogenesis has nothing to do with Abiogenesis. That is all that im arguing.

Wrong again. There is no evidence that given enough time (your magic) that if left alone, any chemicals will self organize to create life.

There is plenty of evidence that makes the hypothesis plausible, you choose to reject the evidence because of your religious beliefs.

And life is not just chemicals. Chemicals are matter. They have mass and they interact with other chemicals. But life requires gravity doesn't it? And gravity is not matter. And it is "invisible." And it effects every chemical reaction and every spontaneous organization event doesn't it? Light also affects life. Almost all life, responds to light and most life requires light. And much of light is "invisible". Even many of the origin of life experiments to create chirality involve light. Yet light is non-material and non-chemical. Now I have just identified two non-material fundamental elements one of which is absolutely esential for life, and the other is probably essential for life. And both affect those chemical reactions all along the way, don't they? Now what prevents the future discovery of an invisible non-material entity other than gravity and light that is absolutely essential for life? That's not so unreasonable given the evidence is it?

I have no idea what any of that is supposed to mean, and/or how it applies to biogenesis. It is also full of erroneous assertions about the interactions of matter and gravity in respects to biological organisms, clearly you don't have much of an understanding of physics either...

Cite my words exactly and demonstrate where I have used these definitions in the wrong context.

There are no words to cite because you have not been able to present an argument defending why you feel 'the so called Law of Biogenesis' is violated in the field of Abiogenesis. You simply have a misunderstanding when it pertains to the definition of Biogenesis, and what it was supposed to be equated to. How can I cite words that you have not yet written?

You do not have enough information to declare this.

To claim what? That Biogenesis does not apply to Abiogenesis? The information is that one does not apply to the other, thats all the information that is needed.

Especially if there is indeed an invisible non-material entity that is passed from life to life, but cannot come from chemicals alone.

Now I get it you are looking for the magic juice that jumps from life to life organizing all of the chemicals like a tiny 'Bob the Builder', shit sorry for doubting you, I didn't know you had such a strong hypothesis.

And that is a reasonable scientific hypothesis,

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I'm looking forward to reading about this scientific hypothesis in 'Scientific American', when did you say the article was being printed?

Edited by onifre, : spelling, as always...

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

AOKid writes: Now I know that you don't understand what a strawman is, but it is still a strawman argument. Nobody, but you has stated this claim. You are arguing against your own words. Then you do it again after I point this out....

Ugh, really dude??? YOU claimed that abiogenesis is spontaneous generation, spontaneous generation, as in what Louis Pastuer disproved, requires a singe momentary reaction that spontaneously creates life from inorganic material!!!

That is not Abiogenesis!

Heres an actual non wiki website from a University that deals with the entire scope of spontaneous generation. Maybe you can actually read something outside of creationist websites and get an actual education on the subject.

http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio114/spontgen.htm

This is why I continue to tell you that you are completely misunderstanding what abiogenesis is and what it claims.

So what, all I am showing is that it doesn't matter whether it is one chemical reaction or zillions of chemical reactions scattererd thoughout a time period. I don't care. I have not argued that life must created by a single chemical reaction. That is your fallacy.

But you have claimed that Abiogenesis is spontaneous generation, when it is NOT. Abiogenesis requires many different chemical reations over a long period of time, spontaneous generation is not an accumulation of chemical reactions over a long period of time. This is what you continue to assert! Thus my continuos plee with you that you are wrong in your interpretation of what is defined by the hypothesis of abiogenesis.

So this is your logic? The successive process of abiogenesis nullifies the LoB?

To re-quote my original wiki quote,

quote:

---

Pasteur's (and others) empirical results were summarized in the phrase, Omne vivum ex vivo (or Omne vivum ex ovo), Latin for "all life [is] from [an] egg". This is sometimes called "law of biogenesis" and shows that modern organisms do not spontaneously arise in nature from non-life.

---

Read the bold print, life does NOT spontaneously arise. If you read the link I gave you, here it is again...

http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio114/spontgen.htm

...you will understand that what Pastuer was looking for was a single momentary reaction(of 1 or many chemicals, if you'd like to see it read that way), that spontaneously generated life...AGAIN, this is not abiogenesis. So to cliam that abiogenesis is synonomous with spontaneous generation or the so called law of biogenesis, (which are synonomous to each other), is showing pure and utter ignorance on the subject.

Then please don't just make assertions. Please provide evidence of scientists claiming that there is evidence that makes abiogenesis plausible.

Read carefully so as not to misunderstand...there is plenty of evidence that makes the hypothesis plausable. If you want the evidence then just wiki abiogenesis and read it. All the hypothesis are there...yours however, of the magic juice that flows from life to life is not there. Perhaps you can cite a paper on that one.;)

Yes assertions, please back up your assertions and show anything that I have said about matter, gravity and light that is not scientifically accurate.

Off topic, but if you would like to start a thread on this I'd love to wipe the floor with your knowledge of physics...and keep in mind im only a first year physics student so pleassseeee be gentle on me. :laugh:

I hope this is obvious to the moderators.

Don't ask them for help...you're all mine.:cool:

Spontaneous generation is synonomous with biogenesis, and neither have anything to do with abiogenesis, if you read up on this stuff I promise you it'll make sense to you.

Hypotheses are published in books and peer reviewed magazines like "Science" and "Nature". This is further evidence of your lack of knowledge in the entire field of science.

Oh wow, the first magazine that popped into my head was wrong...ok, I concede that the magazine I picked was not the best comparison...is that better my friend?

Edited by onifre, : spelling, as always...

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Just some quick replies since the entire mess of a post is filled with redundant assertions.

AOKid writes: First off what Louis Pasteur disproved doesn't "require" anything. Secondly there is no restriction that you or anyone else can legitimately show that requires "a single momentary reaction". I have shown you this multiple times now. Abiogenesis can be a single reaction in a moment, or it can be a gazillion reactions in a moment. The point is not the number of reactions, the point is that there is a distinguishable moment.

Lets do this in baby-steps.

*Abiogenesis is the study of hypothesized chemicals that, with the given amount of time and condition, organize themselves into what we call life.

*Louis Pastuers' experiment was to see if life can spontaneously generate from inorganic materials, specific materials, not just any and all materials. From his specific inorganic ingredients life did NOT spontaneously generate.

*The law of biogenesis was said to be a fact because thru Pastuers experiment life did not generate.

I will now re-quote the part of the citation you quoted that actually solidifies my argument with bold letters to emphasize my point,

my citation writes: One very important point to note here is that Pasteur did not seek to find an answer to the broad question, “Has spontaneous generation ever occurred?” Rather, as any good scientist, he limited his scope to a very narrow piece of the picture: “Is it possible for spontaneous generation to occur given the specific conditions under which Needham (and others) claims it will occur,”

*What were those specific conditions that Needham was talking about?

• 1. [Needham]showed that microorganisms flourished in various soups that had been exposed to the air.
  
• 2. He claimed that there was a “life force” present in the molecules of all inorganic matter, including air and the oxygen in it, that could cause spontaneous generation to occur.
  
• 3. He even briefly boiled some of his soup and poured it into “clean” flasks with cork lids, and microorganisms still grew there.
  

*Now comes Pastuer:

• 1. From Needham’s and Spallanzani’s experiments, it was known that soup that was exposed to the air spoiled — bacteria grew in it.
  
• 2. Question: Is there indeed a “life force” present in air (or oxygen) that can cause bacteria to develop by spontaneous generation?
  
• 3. Hypothesis: There is no such life force in air, and a container of sterilized broth will remain sterile, even if exposed to the air, as long as bacteria cannot enter the flask.
  
• 4. Prediction: If there is no life force, broth in swan-neck flasks should remain sterile, even if exposed to air, because any bacteria in the air will settle on the walls of the initial portion of the neck. Broth in flasks plugged with cotton should remain sterile because the cotton is able to filter bacteria out of the air.
  
• 5. Testing: Pasteur boiled broth in various-shaped flasks to sterilize it, then let it cool. As the broth and air in the containers cooled, fresh room air was drawn into the containers.
  
• 6. Conclusion(s): There is no such life force in air, and organisms do not arise by spontaneous generation in this manner*.
  

*Do you see what it says in that last part? The part in bold? I'll re-quote Pastuer,

quote:

---

Conclusion(s): There is no such life force in air, and organisms do not arise by spontaneous generation in this manner.

---

IN THAT MANNER.

Spontaneous generation was disproven by Pastuer with his very specific ingredients, and conditions.

Again, how does what Pastuer did, in his attempt to disprove a specific set of conditions for what was then being called spontaneous generation disprove, or even affect Abiogenesis?

Now if you would stop smoking pot

Dude insult me all you want, but leave pot out of this. You're full of crap and you know it, and because of pot I can see thru you.:cool:

Yes, that is what I claim. That's what your citation agrees with.

My citation, you silly goose*, deals with spontaneous generation, and says nothing about abiogenesis. It is only talking about Pastuers specific experiment. Spontaneous generation is only relevant for Pastuers experiment. You can't just adapt it to all other origin experiments because those experiments are dealing with a shit load of OTHER different chemicals that Pastuer didn't know about, nor applied to HIS experiment.

Yes, Pasteur proved that life does not spontaneously arise in nature from non-life.

No you silly goose*, he proved that life could not spontaneously arise from his specific inorganic components.

Life does not spontaneously generate from chemicals.

The crux of your argument. No silly goose*, Pastuer used NO chemicals therefore this statement, if you're trying to support it with Pastuers conclusion, is not applicable when discussing life origins in the field of abiogenesis.

This sentence just completely confirms your ignorance on this subject. Biogenesis is the opposite of Abiogenesis.

Yes silly goose* but in this sentence I used the term 'law of biogenesis' that was applied once Pastuers experiment failed to produce life. But again, his experiment didn't spontaneously generate life UNDER SPECIFIC CONDITIONS, not any and all conditions. Therefore the 'law o biogenesis' does NOT apply to abiogenesis since it is working with a WHOLE NEW SET OF CONDITIONS.

Now anyone can see that biogenesis and spontaneous generation are not synonyms.

I know that, but I said the 'law of biogenesis'. You know that law they applied after Pastuers experiment? Spontaneous generation is synonomous with the 'law of biogenesis' not the word biogenesis. The law is specifically for Pastuers experiment, and not for abiogenesis...silly goose*.

No there isn't any magical juice of life,

Oh there's a magic juice for life alright, hold still and I'll hit you with it.:laugh:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

*PS. 'Silly Goose' can be used as a substitute for any curse word, choose one and roll with it.;)

*PSS. Silly Goose is a registered trade mark.

Edited by onifre, : spelling, as always.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

AOKid writes: Onifre previously invoked the "silly goose*" comments. So all I did was go with his metaphor of "baby steps". I think it was quite appropriate. I

Mines was funny and creative...yours lacked a bit. But, if it helps it was not at all inappropriate...just hacky.

AOKid writes: And what does this have to do with the price of eggs in China?

Here again...very lame.:(

But I used his metaphor to destroy his argument.

The only thing you destroyed was comedic timing...:laugh:

*To moderators: Sorry for the off topipc reply. But seriously, I can't watch comedy tragically die at the hands of the wickedly lame.

Edited by onifre, : spelling

AOKid writes: So you have chosen not to try and defend your position.

No, I think those who you are currently debating are arguing in much the same fashion as I have, and expressing the same points too.

You simply have a concept about the emergence of 'life' that is very black and white. You do not debate with honor and you do not concede to move the topic further when it is warrented, you simply argue just to argue. I am not going to waste time on debates like that.

I defended my position quite well,(not being a Biology major). I presented my side of the argument and presented a citation that gave clear examples of what was considered spontaneous generation, the exact conditions that were thought to spontaneously generate life, and it showed exactly how it was disproven. You simply said "thats not true". You showed no citations about abiogenesis being SCIENTIFICALLY defined as spontaneous generation, you just keep giving us YOUR definition of abiogenesis. You are a troll that quotes creationist websites and tries to learn by arguing outside of your level of comprehension, in the meer hopes that you can eventually muster up enough of an argument to sound semi-intelligent. You do not impress anyone. And most importantly, you are not funny...I think that is the real reason I have chosen to ignore your position.:laugh:

Instead you make off topic jokes. Wise decision. You are learning

Your entire position on abiogenesis is an off topic joke.;)

Edited by onifre, : spelling

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi eial,

yet I have heard about many organizations/individuals doing research searching for evidence concerning abiogenesis.

The evidence IS life. There is a point where there is NO life, then a point where there IS life, something happened, right?

Doesn’t science work in the exact opposite? Are we not supposed to make the observations and then make conclusions.

The observation IS life. We observe life, we also observe a point were there is NO life, that area of study is called abiogenesis, wheres the problem?

Abiogenesis assumes this miraculous process happened without any intelligent intervention. Because of this, they refuse to let go of such an idea that has no evidence, nor logic to it.

Just the opposite, scientist do not assume it to be a miraculous process, that is a religious PoV, science assumes natural process which is what every phenomenon follows.

Due to the complexity of life, the fact that there is no logical explanation for life arising spontaneously from non-matter, and a multitude of other observations, I have no choice but to conclude that we were not an accident.

Lets follow your logic. Life is complex, I cannot see life arising naturally, Im satisfied believing that there is an even MORE complex being, which I cannot see, that created the complex life which I cannot believe occured naturally. Do you see the fallacy in that logic?

Your original belief is that life is too complex to arise naturally, yet you have no problem believing that an even more complex being exists, and requires no explanation for it's origin and appeared naturally, this is hypocritical don't you think?

I have heard so many times that abiogenesis and evolution are two totally different ideas. Well, this may be true by definition (the textbooks sure lump them together), but they are definitely tied together. Abiogenesis is the cornerstone of evolution. This is why scientists are so frantically trying to come up with any sort of evidence that even remotely appears to address abiogenesis. They realize evolution has no meaning or reason without an explanation as to how life originated on this planet. If there is no scientific explanation to the origin of life, then the possibility and probability of intelligent design is very prevalent. And if there is a possibility of a creator, evolution can be logically thrown out, it would no longer be needed. This is why people are so desperate to search for a way to scientifically rule out a creator. The blatant disregard for evidence and proof simply astounds me.

Do you honestly believe that every bio-evolutionary scientist in the world is conspiring to de-bunk a creator? Really? For you to be right it would require almost a joint effort from the entire scientific community to be deceptive, and claims them all to be liars. Really??? You really believe that?

Alpha and Omega kid, my hat is off to you. You are a fierce, poignant, intelligent thinker. Through your debate, you have single-handedly refuted the idea of abiogenesis.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Your right, he refuted the idea, but that does not make him right...

Life could not simply occur through random reactions (unless of course you want to argue they are not random and that there is a driving, intelligent force behind them), this goes against the evidence, the facts and logic.

I love this logic, 'Life cannot occur naturally, BUT if there existed a super-natural, invisable, intelligence that always was and always is, even though that is MUCH MORE comlex than the original problem, You're totally cool with it', WOW talk about a bias opinion. Ok, eial, we are glad you are satisfied with nonsense.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

I am certain that we are all aware that all electrical structures are composed of chemical elements that follow rules of physics that we can give a fair bit of evidence to back up.

What example of an electrical circuit can you give that has chemical elements?

Why is it not within the realm of possibilty that chemical elements in proper combinations and enviroment can give rise to computers and televisions without the need for suoernatural intervention?"

None of the components for either of those things have materials in them that reproduce, thats like say that 2 computers left alone with some Barry White music playing should be capable of making a baby computer. Your question is nonsensical, and/or I have misunderstood it and you should give a better example for what you are trying to ask.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

You are correct Iam young,but Im not young to understand.

You are not to young to understand what?

The problem with all(supporters of evolution)is that they just easily dissmissed any problems that evolutionary theory confronts,calling every people who presented that problem as,idiot,ignorance of the topic,just liked what you did.

The issue here is that people don't get to tell scientist what is right or wrong about their specific fields of expertise. Only someone in the field can give a proper conclusion of the evidence observed. These people are called scientist.

Within the scientific community there is NO issue that makes evolution a tentative theory.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

But current data today speak againts the idea of reducing atmosphere.

Traste, do you realize that you are using the same argument against the Miller/Urey experiment that every other poster is using against your assumption that Pasteur disproved abiogenesis?

Pasteur's experiment had a set of pre-conditions for life to spontaneously generate. But these pre-conditions are not accurate, therefore his experiment proved nothing about the emergence of life 4 billion years ago.

Again, this is the same argument you are using for Miller/Urey.
Don't you see that?

- Oni

I did not claimed that, my point is life has a beginning but it did not develop spontaneously.

That's an interesting way to confuse things.

* Life had a point of beginning.

* But not spontaneous.

Hmmm...sounds like abiogenesis to me.

I imagine you feel God created life at a single moment. Wouldn't that be spontaneous?

- Oni