Abiogenesis

Welcome jj.The phony issue of Chirality comes up pretty regularly because innocent folk such as yourself read about it on one of the Biblical Creationist sites like whichever one you copied your message from. Unfortunately, Biblical Creationists that produce such sites, simply lie. There is just no other way to put it. They lie to you, and to tens of thousands of other innocent folk just like yourself.Chirality is not a problem.I repeat, Chirality is not a problem.One of the last times this old Point Refuted a Thousand Times (commonly referred to as PRATTs) came up was in the thread Message 1. In Message 5 of that thread I posted links to not one, not two, not three, not four, not five but six different studies on ways that Chirality might have been selected for.The point is, when the issue is examined it appears that there are a whole host of different models that explain what is seen in real life.The folk that originally posted the material you copied (the actual site you copied it from may well have simply copied it from Yet Another Biblical Creationist Site (commonly referred to as YABCS) because Biblical Creationist Sites are well known for never checking the truth or accuracy of what they post), knew full well that Chirality is simply not a big issue. But they also knew that Biblical Creationists are gullible and will believe most anything told them by their authority, so they went ahead and tossed it in front of the Biblical Creationists knowing they would buy it no matter how false it was.AbE:Please go on to read the whole thread I linked to above, because the other members here went on to provide links to a whole bunch of additional studies beyond the six I provided.The evidence is in and it is overwhelming. Whoever told you Chirality was an issue simply lied.Edited by jar, : add more

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes, of course they can. Like all of Kenyon's arguments, it is simply incredulity. Nonsense Rob. Of course there is evidence for abiogenesis. There was a time when there were no living things on earth. There are now living things on earth. Therefore abiogenesis happened.And the rest of your post is just more of the argument from incredulity.If and when you have something more than "I don't believe it" why don't you post it here.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

to which Rob replied:

quote:

---

Are you implying very cleverly that it would be incredulous to think otherwise?

---

No, I am saying it would be false and a sign of ignorance and dishonesty to say otherwise.The fact is that the evidence shows there was a time when there was no living things on earth. We can see that there are living things on earth now. Therefore, abiogenesis happened. Like Evolution, Abiogenesis is a Fact. We are still working to develop a Theory of Abiogenesis that explains how it happened as well as the Theory of Evolution explains the life we see about us, but that Abiogenesis happened is not an issue. No, I am saying that Kenyon made a classic error of logic, that the book you site is NOT a text book, but simply his opinion. I am saying that it was written based on very old data relative to what is known now, that the sites that use it as a source know that, and they include it in the stuff they market simply because they know that their audience has been conditioned not to question or reason.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No, we do not know where Abiogenesis first happened. Irrelevant and immaterial.We are here. Life is here. This is the easiest place to search. That does not preclude also looking in other places but we do have the lab here called Earth.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yet more total irrelevancies and inanity.We know that at one time life did not exist on Earth. We know that life now exists on Earth.The rest of your post is simply incredulity and misdirection.We know that the conditions on Earth today are far different than they were when life first appeared on Earth.We know that every environmental niche we have looked in so far here on Earth already contains life. It is highly likely that any new critter that did come into existence, assuming conditions today are such that abiogenesis might be possible, would most likely simply become food for whatever happened to be occupying the niche currently.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No. Not correct.The fact that we exist proves that Abiogenesis happened. It says nothing about the process.We are still working on the theory of Abiogenesis, the model that explains the evidence we see. Not at all. Again, simply a false analogy. There is no question that the Biblical Creation stories are not literally true. But beyond that, Science simply doesn't address those things which simply can not be tested or known.Personally I believe that GOD created the Universe and all that is, seen and unseen.That is not an explanation though of HOW Abiogenesis happened.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

But that is a nonsense statement. Abiogenesis simply is asking HOW non-living things became living.It is always a possibility that it was some act of creation, but that still tells us nothing. The question would remain, "How did God do it?"That is what Science studies.As I said, I happen to believe that GOD created all that is seen and unseen. But that says nothing about "how God did it." The model or theory of Abiogenesis that will finally be developed will help answer that question, just as the Theory of Evolution explains how God created all the living things we see around us and in the records.The fact that Abiogenesis happened, or that one day we will have a Theory of Abiogenesis is no more a threat to the idea that God created all that is, seen and unseen, than is the Theory of Evolution.It is only those who worship a small and picayune God that worries about the issue of Abiogenesis. The rest of us understand that all we will learn from the study of Abiogenesis is "How GOD did it!"Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Tell you why it is nonsense. If there was a supernatural incident then by definition, it is not something we can study using Science. However, since supernatural events are NOT subject to scientific study, even discussing them in relation to the study of Abiogenesis or developing a Theory of Abiogenesis is a waste of time and nonsense.When the 'goddunit' solution gets tossed on the table, all thinking, all search for knowledge stops.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

There is no indication of any intelligent guidance. In fact, the evidence shows just the opposite, that the critters we see are not designed but rather just barely good enough to squeak by. No. It is a personal belief and has NOTHING to do with the issue of a Theory of Abiogenesis or of the fact that Abiogenesis happened. No, simply not true. So far all of the evidence is that only natural methods will be involved.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sorry Rob but Message 73 you post just jabberwocky.Science deals with natural forces. That is all that science can deal with. Asserting that Goddidit tells us nothing. It is irrelevant and immaterial to this topic.Personal beliefs are also irrelevant and immaterial.The facts are that at one time there was no life on Earth.We now observe life.Abiogenesis happened.That is a given.Science can only study natural forces.To create a Theory of Abiogenesis the only tool we have available is Science.While I might believe that GOD did it, that is not something that can be tested, confirmed or refuted.Therefore it is immaterial and irrelevant to the search for a Model of Abiogenesis.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Linear because you read in a sequential order from the beginning to a stop, then on to the next segment, in one direction (for each strand).

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Panspermia is another one of those copout answers that sounds profound but really has no meaning or value. It's an easy escape into the world of fantasy where magic buttons grow.The fact is that there is life. That is a given.There are lots and lots of possible origins. We may well find that life is a pretty normal chemical reaction and that what type of life results is simply a result of the initial environment, starting material and available catalysts.But the folk that trot out the magic button of panspermia are not much different than those who trot out the magic button of Goddidit.Right now we have one sample, so the best course is to study that one sample. If someday we have two samples, then we can study both. In the mean time, trotting out any magic button is pointless and a waste of time.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Until we can fill in some of the hows involved, it is no different.We do need to keep looking at the universe we live in, but looking at all of it. I imagine that there are still quite a few "That's weird?" moments left in science. What I object to are folk pointing to Panspermia as an answer. It's not. In fact, it is simply a bigger pile of questions than anything we currently have.If I were a betting man, and way to many loses have convinced me that usually that's not a good idea but this one seems sure enough to hazard a wager, I would bet that eventually we will find out that the transition from non-life to life is a pretty common chemical occurrence and we will have to revise our whole definition of "Living Thing".But that is just a WAG.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Why should it be simple to explain?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yet another of your content free posts designed to avoid addressing questions.So once again I ask:Why should abiogenesis be simple?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion