Abiogenesis is the Scientific God

"They" don't have a laboratory that will house an experiment that will take millions of years of observation as they watch amino acids and polypeptides evolve into replicating proteins.

"Your" explanation is the 'god of the gaps' one, which argues from ignorance that, since the answer is unknown, it must be [insert favorite god(s)].

Indeed, the argument that creationists have with abiogenesis is nothing more than a straw man, since their real problem is evolution itself. Those that are deluded by religious doctrines that say life was created by [insert favorite go(s)] and not through gradual changes overtime, can't successfully argue against evolution since it is sound and valid. Therefore, they pick the unknown to attack, in this case abiogenesis, since there is not sufficient data to provide a complete naturalistic explanation.

There is, however, sufficient data to provide viable hypotheses on how abiogenesis works and how it might have worked. Which is the reason I moved the thread to the appropriate forum where there are those with expertise in the field who, should they so choose, could educate others on the subject.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I believe in evolution per se, just not your brand that goo morphed into you.

Who would wait for the results of your million year experiment and expect any affirmative results? Only an Atheistic Darwinite!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Bullshit it is. IAC has never talked science, be it biology, genetics or otherwise. Samcdkey has been doing a good job at removing IAC's creationist shit from what is supposed to be a science subforum. So why the hell are you poking your nose in here and inappropriately moving a creationist troll's thread back here?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Merely because he didn't like God in the title, what a pud.

 

I don't think discussing abiogenesis as faith is appropriate in Biology and Genetics. However, the discussion is perhaps better suited to a general science subforum. Since it is an issue in science that should not be ignored, I'm moving it to Science and Society.

Jimmy, please try and control your evangelistic and trolling urges.

 

ha ha ha ha

a little to the right

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yeh, their belief that it could be duplicated in a lab experiment lasting millions of years has absolutely nothing to do with faith, ahahaha.

 

But then there would be no posts from him.....oh I see.

 

Faith is stupidly defined in a lot of cases. In the way you're using it we could apply it to anything. We could say I have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow, because I could never know with 100% certainty that it will. Or that believing gravity will still work 5 minutes from now is an act of faith.

When you use 'faith' so liberally it loses its meaning.

 

If not faith, then what do you call it when scientists say that if they had a million years to conduct the abiogenesis experiment, they know it would be successful?

 

They actually are close to observing molecular replicators forming in conditions not unlike the early oceans.

One point is that even if scientists do observe this, it only proves the concept. We will probably never know what exactly happened, because there is more than one way it could have occurred, and the evidence is highly perishable.

 

If you don't even know one way, how can you say there could have been more than one way, how ridiculous.

 

*************
M*W: What about scientists who generate human cells in a Petri dish?

 

All I'm saying is that in all probability, there will never be proof of what actually happened, only proof of one likely course.

 

"Proof of one likely course," so how do you decide which is likely, and how do you prove something which is only "likely?"

 

I mean, a successful experiment would be proof of concept, not proof of history. This would be sufficient support of abiogenesis to make it the preferred theory of the origin of life.

 

It already is "the preferred theory," without evidence.

 

There is evidence to support it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiegelman_Monster

 

wow, 0 to 6 pages in about 24 hours!

anyway, the problem i have with all of this is why abiogenesis is not taught in our high schools.

you hear plenty about evolution but nothing about abiogenesis. why?

spidergoat,
your links say nothing about intelligent life from the elements.

 

It is taught as one of several theories.

Evolution explains how the higher life forms developed from the more primitive ones. The major thing missing is how organic chemistry formed replicators. The other thing is to explain primitive metabolisms.