I need conclusive proof of Abiogenesis

body fluids tend to decompose to a less offensive state over a few months.

I guess however for one who is prepared to entertain life and its fluids as non-different you have something in your wallet more memorable to honour your loved one's by than a mere photograph ...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's asserting an 'appeal to ignorance' in which a false dichotomy is integral.

http://www.appealtoauthority.info/other-appeals#TOC-Appeal-to-Ignorance
/selfplug

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2816403&postcount=15

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, it wasn't any kind of science at all. It was essentially a rant about how small-mindedness and/or a failure to devote enough mental energy to trying to comprehend the reality of the vastness of time and space is a stumbling block to gaining an appreciation of how rare events are not just possible, but likely.

 

This is what your argument looks like.

point 1 - Life must come from matter because life must come from matter.

point 2 - The reason we can't show how life comes from matter is because we haven't worked it out yet.

point 3 - if you doubt life comes from matter, see point 1.


Yep you're right - it certainly isn't any type of science (aside from the bad variety of course)
:shrug:

 

That's something of a strawman LG, and you must know that on some level. You seem to consistently fail to recognize that many people who embrace science also have enough integrity to stop short of declaring absolute certainty about anything. This is evidenced here by the fact that you have reformulated my position by removing all traces of the (admittedly small amount of) uncertainty that I left room for.

Meanwhile, it is obvious to everyone (or at least most) that your real objection to the idea of abiogenesis (and indeed evolutionary theory itself) is that it's in conflict with the religious teachings that you've based your entire world-view on.

So, this is what your argument looks like actually is:

point 1 - Life must have been created by God because scripture tells us that it was created by God.

And, well, there really isn't a need for a point 2 and 3. That's pretty much it.

 

Life is the chemistry within it. There's no getting around that. DNA is chemistry, metabolism is chemistry, thinking is chemistry, we are literally chemicals.

 

what's the source for this statement?

do you really believe a chemical process can give a subjective opinion?

 

Why not?

An electrical process can.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2010-04-08-mind-reading_N.htm

 

i'm not sure this applies.
although computers can appear to be intelligent they are actually no more than a hammer or some other tool. completely useless without their programming.
their programs are written by people, they are not self programming.
so, where does the "subjectiveness" of a computer come from?

 

If you switch your lens of perception to view the body as one big chemical process, then it follows that a chemical process can give a subjective opinion. I don't see anything wrong with this assertion, what do you see wrong with it?

 

it's an assumption.

where have you seen the demonstration that chemicals can "think"?
in my opinion the assertion is ridiculous.

 

Can atoms think? Same argument. If a body is atoms, and a body can think, then can atoms think? No, you're right that sounds ridiculous.

By reducing a body to chemicals we are losing information, especially when we then try to link it with high-order processes like thinking. But anyway I believe you know what I'm talking about (and what he means). We will never fully understand thinking without fully understanding the chemical foundations.

In this way the chemicals don't think. But without the chemicals there is no thinking. That's probably what he means when he says 'chemicals think.' It's an easy way to say chemicals are the building blocks of thought.

 

Some are now, or shortly will be.

 

Evidently. You are doing it now. The chemistry of the brain is highly complex, having to do with it's structure, which was also made chemically.

 

Not at all. I am trying to demonstrate that abiogenesis is possible - that there are no "impossible" steps. That is not the same as proving that abiogenesis occurred.

For a long time, many creationists claimed "it's impossible! you can't get organic compounds without life, so something must have created those compounds!" We now know that to be false.

 

Doctor: I have some good news! Your husband is right in there. All chemical activity in his body has stopped, but his body is right there, looks just like it did ten minutes ago, all the same elements and whatnot.

Do _you_ feel warm and fuzzy?

 

Sure. So can an electrical process, or a physical process. Life is supported by a substrate - chemical for us, electrical for computer based life (which we are close to having but do not have yet.)