Summations Only

Hi Swensenpower, This is typical from creationists or those who havent' studied the underlying science. You end up not understanding why we know the info we know and then querying it.Oxygen is highly reactive and in the absence of a mechanism to generate oxygen (that only happens on Earth via plants producing oxygen via the process of photosynthesis) then any oxygen rapidly depletes and disappears. It is safe to say that if photosynthesis stopped today, then Earth would have a reducing atmosphere (oxygen free) in a very short space of time.This is why we know the early Earth was a highly reducing atmosphere free from oxygen. The chemistry at that time would have been reducing chemistry (rather than our familiar oxidising chemistry) and abiogenesis would have come about in this environment.We have reducing organic chemistry still today. Yeasts cut off from oxygen are forced to use different biochemical pathways (giving us the delightful by-product of alcohol) and deep sea vents are very oxygen deplete and the organisms that abound there live in a highly reducing sulpurous environment.Please review your elementary chemistry and biology before posting your opinions - you may find that once you have done the proper study, your doubts will evapourate.Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.

Thanks Chuck. It's nice to be here.

Hi swensenpower and welcome to the fray. Except that scientists are investigating abiogenesis based on the knowledge we have, knowledge we have gained by doing science on early rock formations and bits of atmosphere trapped in rocks, by looking at the chemical compounds in rocks from those ages compared to those we see today.Scientists are also investigating the hypothesis of natural formation of life.See Panspermic Pre-Biotic Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part I)
and Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II).The number of scientists doing science on the beginning of life on earth is several orders of magnitude greater than the number of scientists doing science on ID. To make it into a science classroom you need to have scientific evidence and tested hypothesis that gave us new information through predictions of evidence that was then found. No, but belief is not a substitute for knowledge, especially knowledge based on evidence. Better tell the abiogenecists ... those who are doing experiments on determining what the conditions were like (the ones increasing our knowledge of what the early earth was like rather than just throwing up there hands and saying "we don't know") and those doing experiments on the feasible means for life to occur in those environmentss.Enough for now, as you are getting information from a lot of people that you need to assimilate.Enjoy.

This silly question comes up quite frequently. It has likely been refuted a thousand times making it a PRATT.I think you are confused about what the 19th century experiments on biogenesis actually demonstrated. They showed that microbes and maggots do not form spontaneously in flasks of chicken broth as was believed at the time. That's certainly not enough of an experiment to disprove abiogenesis as is postulated in text books.ID simply is not science at all. It really is that simple.

There is no obligation to respond to posts. But a mere 12 posts is not much of a pile.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

More just plain nonsense, sloppy thinking and willful ignorance.Some basic facts.We know life exists and so whatever the atmosphere was when life first started it was conducive to life starting.The only model of how different elements can combine to form molecules which combine to form compounds is through normal chemical reactions.If you wish to contest those facts then you must present the body of evidence that supports the model you propose.It really is that simple.

I am a Christian and almost all major Christian sects support abiogenesis and Evolution and oppose ID and Creationism.Science is not about belief, it is about evidence.

We can know by looking at the minerals that are in rocks more than 2.4 billion years old. There are multiple chemical species that show that oxygen was absent in the atmosphere back then - like iron sulfides where you would have iron oxides now, uranium minerals in river-laid sands that would oxidize to different minerals if free oxygen had been around, molybdenum minerals that would never have fallen out of seawater solution if it were oxygenated like today.Plenty of evidence. Wikipedia can lead you to some of the high points:
Great Oxidation Event - Wikipedia

Please don't say that. You "weren't there" before 1900 yourself, I'm quite sure, and saying that reminds one of Kent Hovind.Oh, and a big HOWDY, and excuse my bad manners in not saying that first. I'm only to my third cup of coffee.Edited by Coragyps, : No reason given.

Take your time. Respond to as many or as few messages as you feel comfortable with responding to.I would caution you against the idea that the people who disagree with you are all atheists. But, it is the case that most of the Creationists here are absolutely no help in a science based discussion.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

As I have told you Chuck, if you don't know what your talking about you shouldn't post on the topic. This is a science forum, he is posting a lot of things just are not factual. Of course people are going to point out where he is wrong. If you are supportive of him why don't you do what he asked and post things in support of him instead of chastising people for showing his errors.God did it is not an argument, it is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

Another option for you if you are feeling a bit flustered by so many responses is to hang around for awhile, pick someone you like to talk to and see if they would like to do a Great Debate with you in a 1 on 1 scenario.Unfortunatly for new people there is a bit of that difficulty curve inherant to stirring up the hornets nest. Good luck and welcome.

Looks like there is one more spot left on the dog pile . . . The difference here is that there is something to teach with respect to abiogenesis. For example, the oft cited Miller-Urey experiment where they demonstrated that complex molecules can arise from simple molecules in abiotic environments similar to those of the early Earth. A text book could also cite experiments done on randomly constructed RNA molecules that actually have the ability to carry out enzymatic reactions. There are tons of different experiments and interesting scientific studies that one can talk about with respect to abiogenesis. There is science there.But what about ID? Who is doing experiments to test ID hypotheses as it relates to the origin of life? Who is doing ID science? Anyone? From my experience, there is no ID science to discuss. ID is a religious belief, not a scientific field of study. Even worse, ID is an attempt to fight against scientific findings.If students are going to go on and have a scientific career that investigates the origin of life, what kind of education do they need? Certainly not an education in ID since that is not science. What they will need to understand is the work done by previous scientists in the field, and where the field stands. This is precisely what is precisely taught in science class, albeit briefly.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Hi NoNukes Yep

quote:

---

The Law of Biogenesis:

​

Claim CB000: Pasteur and other scientists disproved the concept of spontaneous generation and established the "law of biogenesis" -- that life comes only from previous life.

​

Source: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 38.

​

Response: The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.

---

One of the more simplistic PRATTs.Creationists and IDologists would be well served to study the PRATT list by Talk Origins
An Index to Creationist ClaimsAIG also maintains a PRATT list ... thought they call it "a list of arguments creationists should avoid" ... (unsaid: because you will get your head handed to you) at
Arguments to Avoid Topic | Answers in Genesis Enjoy.

if by believer you mean Christian, no you are not alone, we are here.if by believer you mean "thinks ID is legit", you may be alone.