Abiogenesis

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
God is the ultimate non-explanation for how the universe came to be.

Where did he come from?
How did he get the power to 'think' matter into existence?
How exactly does a being 'exist outside time'? Does this mean God lives in a parallel dimension? If so, what makes you think that you, a person who exists in three dimensional space and linear tim ...[text shortened]... being allegedly all-powerful, have used any number of methods to create all this stuff?

Actually, evolution, with its increasing dependence upon increasingly outlandish 'solutions' is the ultimate non-explanation. The theory is as nimble as can be, first requiring soup; then soup in time; then soup in lots of time; then soup in lots and lots of time; now, soup and a meteorite.

Everytime we get to the dead end of a ridiculous rabbit trail, it is incumbent upon the evolutionist to come up with yet another 'put it out there' conjecture. More time is spent on that conjecture, it leads nowhere, here comes another idea. Cute, really.

Now with abiogenesis, part of the argument is that the statistics used to refute the (brace yourself) theory, don't consider that the conditions and factors then do not necessarily mimic the conditions and factors now. Why is this significant? Makes one wonder. If there is no relation between conditions and factors from the beginning and now, why in the hell do evolutionists even care how it all started anyway?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Actually, evolution, with its increasing dependence upon increasingly outlandish 'solutions' is the ultimate non-explanation. The theory is as nimble as can be, first requiring soup; then soup in time; then soup in lots of time; then soup in lots and lots of time; now, soup and a meteorite.

Everytime we get to the dead end of a ridiculous rabbit trai ...[text shortened]... he beginning and now, why in the hell do evolutionists even care how it all started anyway?

Actually, evolution usually refers to the theory of how life changed into its various forms, not how life itself came to exist.

Soup, time, and meteors are still a more concrete and accessible theory than the idea of God. It's ridiculous to knock abiogenesis for being 'nimble' when your alternative is a being who merely speaks a few words and causes stuff to appear by magic.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Actually, evolution usually refers to the theory of how life changed into its various forms, not how life itself came to exist.

Soup, time, and meteors are still a more concrete and accessible theory than the idea of God. It's ridiculous to knock abiogenesis for being 'nimble' when your alternative is a being who merely speaks a few words and causes stuff to appear by magic.

Besides "evolutionist," what term would you use to describe those who posit that life herein started via the miracle of soup, time and meteors? Here's a possible short list:

Abiogenesists
Souper-wow-meteorologists
Matter-is-all-ogists
Time-in-an-unending-bottle-ogists
Don't-ask-it-just-is-ogists

Try as I did, I couldn't find even one passage in the Bible which referenced magic as the instigation of stuff. Lessee: chance (actually nil, but what the heck, we'll throw it in there as though it were even possible) + soup (unknown origins, natch) + time (who started that clock?) + meteors (again, unknown origins) = life. Sure: that's a whole hell of a lot more "accessible" than an all-powerful being speaking the whole thing into existence.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Lessee: chance (actually nil, but what the heck, we'll throw it in there as though it were even possible) + soup (unknown origins, natch) + time (who started that clock?) + meteors (again, unknown origins) = life. Sure: that's a whole hell of a lot more "accessible" than an all-powerful being speaking the whole thing into existence.

Agreed.

Originally posted by whodey
I feel that to defend unscientific notions such as production of life from nonlife and acquiring something from nothing as the origins of the Big Bang are not worthy of science. These theories exist for one reason. It is because there is nothing else to explain them unless one admitt that there is a God.

Why aren't you willing to answer my question?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]From a scientific point of view there is absolutely no reason to doubt that life could come about from non-life.
Aack. You might as well be saying there is not reason to doubt anything until it is proven impossible.

Here's more tripe from talkorigins.org:
"Each step is associated with a small increase in organisation and complexi ...[text shortened]... it, the agent-like properties of non-living things? That's science?!? Nah, that's faith![/b]

Non-living things do change and participate in change. I don't know why you bolded "step" and I don't know what "steps" the authors are referring to. I can't even check because you didn't link the correct page. http://talkorigins.org/, which is where I ended up when I entered "talkorigins.org" into my address bar, does not have the word "step" on it.

That site's use of the phrase "increase in organisation and complexity" is as meaningless as when IDers use the same sort of phrase unless the site links to or describes the method they used to quantify these things. "Climbing up" and "making one big leap" is a poor description of the process which leads to confusion; it's like saying electrons "want" to be repelled by other electrons. It's an anthropomorphism which is technically not correct. It also suggests being an organism is somehow "above" not being an organism, which is not part of evolutionary theory.

So, these comments are neither science nor faith but rather poetic license on the part of the site.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Actually, evolution, with its increasing dependence upon increasingly outlandish 'solutions' is the ultimate non-explanation. The theory is as nimble as can be, first requiring soup; then soup in time; then soup in lots of time; then soup in lots and lots of time; now, soup and a meteorite.

Everytime we get to the dead end of a ridiculous rabbit trai he beginning and now, why in the hell do evolutionists even care how it all started anyway?

Evolutionary theory from Darwin on has always assumed lots and lots of time. This is nothing new. You're either lying or ignorant when you claim otherwise. It does not require meteorites either. You seem to be one of those people who will deliberately deceive by mischaracterizing an opposing idea in order to convince people of your particular ideas. Either that or you are just stupid. Please keep this in mind, people.

The idea that the world was different in the past is something geologists came up with, not biologists. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banded_iron_formation

However evolutionary biology describes a specific mechanism by which the world changed in the linked situation; the evolution of aerobic respiration. Your idea that simply because the past was different means that the past had no relation to the present is silly.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Besides "evolutionist," what term would you use to describe those who posit that life herein started via the miracle of soup, time and meteors? Here's a possible short list:

Abiogenesists
Souper-wow-meteorologists
Matter-is-all-ogists
Time-in-an-unending-bottle-ogists
Don't-ask-it-just-is-ogists

Try as I did, I couldn't find even one passage in ...[text shortened]... t more "accessible" than an all-powerful being speaking the whole thing into existence.

How about rationalists, or naturalists, or 'I'm not bloody stupid-ists' ...

Originally posted by Churlant
I'm unfamiliar with the "everything came from nothing" theory you are speaking of. If you are referring to the Big Bang, I suggest you do some research. We are capable of viewing the Universe as it was shortly after the Big Bang occurred. Current models make predictions about the movement and composition of matter from this period and these models are teste ...[text shortened]... on of the cosmos.

"Everything from nothing" is a Creationism theory, not science.

-JC

Models are cool; you put in figures you get out the results.
You happen to know what the right figures were during the big bang,
or are you just looking around picking the ones you like best?

Where and when did everything start, scientifically speaking of course?

By the way, creation isn’t a theory, it is a story, which still means it
isn't science, but a matter of faith.
Kelly

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Besides "evolutionist," what term would you use to describe those who posit that life herein started via the miracle of soup, time and meteors? Here's a possible short list:

Abiogenesists
Souper-wow-meteorologists
Matter-is-all-ogists
Time-in-an-unending-bottle-ogists

Appart from your rather weak definition, (miracle is exaclty the wrong word), a good phrase for the people you are talking about would be 'most scientists'.
And by the way the Don't-ask-it-just-is-ogists are actually the non-scientists who think the Bible must be taken word for word.

Try as I did, I couldn't find even one passage in the Bible which referenced magic as the instigation of stuff.

Genesis 1:3 then God said, Let light be! And there was light.
As this was clearly not standard physics, it could only be Magic. Maybe the translators of the Bible thought that there were some rather bad conotations in the word 'magic' but it nevertheless is what is being described.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Non-living things do change and participate in change. I don't know why you bolded "step" and I don't know what "steps" the authors are referring to. I can't even check because you didn't link the correct page. http://talkorigins.org/, which is where I ended up when I entered "talkorigins.org" into my address bar, does not have the word "step" on it. ...[text shortened]... er science nor faith but rather poetic license on the part of the site.

Non-living things do change and participate in change.
Do tell. Betcha you won't be able to provide anything significant.


I don't know why you bolded "step" and I don't know what "steps" the authors are referring to.
The emphasis was added to highlight the author's attempt to give non-agents agent-like powers.

I can't even check because you didn't link the correct page. http://talkorigins.org/, which is where I ended up when I entered "talkorigins.org" into my address bar, does not have the word "step" on it.
We're discussing abiogenesis. Start there.

"Climbing up" and "making one big leap" is a poor description of the process which leads to confusion; it's like saying electrons "want" to be repelled by other electrons. It's an anthropomorphism which is technically not correct. It also suggests being an organism is somehow "above" not being an organism, which is not part of evolutionary theory.
So now you see the problem these people have in describing a process that requires miracles every so often to keep the thing going.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Evolutionary theory from Darwin on has always assumed lots and lots of time. This is nothing new. You're either lying or ignorant when you claim otherwise. It does not require meteorites either. You seem to be one of those people who will deliberately deceive by mischaracterizing an opposing idea in order to convince people of your particular ideas. E ...[text shortened]... ply because the past was different means that the past had no relation to the present is silly.

This is nothing new.
Really? All evolutionists have, at all times, maintained the same amount of time? Hmmm.

It does not require meteorites either.
Pardon me. I thought we were discussing the varoius concoctions of evolutionary thought, including dreams of panspermia.

Your idea that simply because the past was different means that the past had no relation to the present is silly.
Really? What bearing does origin have on present day, then?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Non-living things do change and participate in change.
Do tell. Betcha you won't be able to provide anything significant.


I don't know why you bolded "step" and I don't know what "steps" the authors are referring to.
The emphasis was added to highlight the author's attempt to give non-agents agent-like powers.

I can't even check process that requires miracles every so often to keep the thing going.

Do tell. Betcha you won't be able to provide anything significant.

I don't understand. Are you asking for examples? Are you saying you don't believe this is true?

The emphasis was added to highlight the author's attempt to give non-agents agent-like powers.

I looked up the term "agent" and I believe this is what you are referring to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_%28grammar%29

I don't really understand what qualities or powers an agent has or how you are so certain that the author is attempting to give "non-agents agent-like powers." This is a term I am unfamiliar with and the Wikipedia entry is in some places unclear. For example, it says

typical qualities that a grammatical agent often has are that it has volition, is sentient or perceives, causes a change of state, or moves.

Now, I think you're trying to suggest all agents are sentient or perceive and have volition, but this would not be consistent with the above sentence, which is an "or" list and not an "and" list. Thus, if something moves, it would be an agent, as it fits one of the four characteristics in the "or" list; it wouldn't need more than one of those characteristics. Would you elaborate on this point?

So now you see the problem these people have in describing a process that requires miracles every so often to keep the thing going.

No, you have a problem with human beings poorly communicating scientific concepts due to their and/or their expected audience's feelings of self-importance.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]This is nothing new.
Really? All evolutionists have, at all times, maintained the same amount of time? Hmmm.

It does not require meteorites either.
Pardon me. I thought we were discussing the varoius concoctions of evolutionary thought, including dreams of panspermia.

Your idea that simply because the past was different means th ...[text shortened]... ation to the present is silly.
Really? What bearing does origin have on present day, then?[/b]

Really? All evolutionists have, at all times, maintained the same amount of time? Hmmm.

No, they haven't, as far as I am aware. That is irrelevant however. You said

The theory is as nimble as can be, first requiring soup; then soup in time; then soup in lots of time; then soup in lots and lots of time; now, soup and a meteorite.

You were either ignorant or lying here, since time was always part of the theory, and you claimed it was originally not. Now you're changing the subject by talking about how much time people thought was needed.

Pardon me. I thought we were discussing the varoius concoctions of evolutionary thought, including dreams of panspermia.

If we're discussing various possibilities, then no one of those possibilities - for example panspermia - is needed. It's just one of many possibilities.

Really? What bearing does origin have on present day, then?

The study of abiogenesis might lead to humans creating new life from scratch. This would be a new technology that could be useful. It's already led to deep study of many aspects of nature which would otherwise have remained unstudied i.e various dating methods, the changes that nucleic acids undergo under various circumstances, etc. It's also influencing religion and politics.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Models are cool; you put in figures you get out the results.
You happen to know what the right figures were during the big bang,
or are you just looking around picking the ones you like best?

Where and when did everything start, scientifically speaking of course?

By the way, creation isn’t a theory, it is a story, which still means it
isn't science, but a matter of faith.
Kelly

I'm beginning to wonder if you consider it my job to somehow explain astrophysics to you in such a way that it doesn't collide with your preconceived limitations. Scientists do happen to know the right "figures" based on observation of the early universe and repeated testing here at home.

Scientifically speaking, the Big Bang occurred everywhere at once approximately 13.7 billion years ago.

Creation is a theory. I know this because it fits one of the definitions of the word "theory". I agree that Creation is not science, however.

-JC