Total Posts:67|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Abiogenesis's mistakes

gr33k_fr33k5
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2010 6:21:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
It seems to me that most theories of abiogenesis are merely speculation. . .. which themselves have evolved over time. The original belief (or theory) has been left far behind and forgotten, it is thought as foolishness. However from that belief has sprung any current "enlightened" version.

for example:
Spontaneous Gen. Believed by scientists for centuries. . . . and it is utter foolishness. It is laughably stupid . . .. and all their "empirical data" really had no backing. Had no truth at all.

So, if brilliant scientists were so foolish as to believe this theory for the origin of life, could it be that the current beliefs are merely foolish speculation? For all the data "supporting" abiogenesis it likely will be proven wrong in another couple hundred years.

So! scientific advances (in the realm of abiogenesis and evolution) are not so much based off of discovery of data, but rather making speculations after a former theory was proven wrong. . .. am I right?
I am free, free indeed!

ignorance is bliss
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2010 6:35:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Godly Gen. Believed by religionists for centuries. . . . and it is utter foolishness. It is laughably stupid . . .. and they can't even claim any "empirical, or experiential, data" in support of their position. Why would anyone even think of claiming it has any truth at all.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2010 7:53:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
1) Sources?

2) So the obvious solution is the story of Genesis? Even if you do somehow disprove evolution the immediate conclusion isn't the Bible.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2010 8:12:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/14/2010 6:21:34 AM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
So! scientific advances (in the realm of abiogenesis and evolution) are not so much based off of discovery of data, but rather making speculations after a former theory was proven wrong. . .. am I right?

Yes, well, that is what science is, greek freek. When something is proposed, it needs to be proven in order to be considered a theory. But, if a better explanation comes along that explains things even better and is backed up with even more evidence, that theory replaces the older one, because that theory is more relevant.

But, it is absolutely about the discovery of data. The only way for one theory to replace another is if there is more data which supports the new theory over the old one. It cannot replace the older theory if there is no data that supports it.

Abiogenesis is considered the best theory of why there is life on Earth that we currently have at the moment. If there comes along a theory which shows an even more probable way life came to be, then abiogenesis is superseded. However, there has yet to be a better theory. And yes, Intelligent Design is not a theory.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2010 9:12:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
It seems to me that most theories of abiogenesis are merely speculation. . ..

I would call it a hypothesis, but yes it is just speculation at this point. It has not been demonstrated possible and chances are we will never know for sure how life as we know it began.

Spontaneous Gen. Believed by scientists for centuries. . . . and it is utter foolishness

Well there is a pretty big difference between spontaneous generation and abiogenesis. Spontaneous generation was an idea about how a particular animal got there, for example when maggots appeared on something rotting that had just suddenly appeared. Abiogenesis proposes a possible beginning for the most basic possible life forms.

So, if brilliant scientists were so foolish as to believe this theory for the origin of life, could it be that the current beliefs are merely foolish speculation?

Well, I guess brilliant scientists are smart enough to make the above distinction.

For all the data "supporting" abiogenesis it likely will be proven wrong in another couple hundred years.

Well two problems here:

1.) As you have already pointed out, abiogenesis is a hypothesis... i.e. there isn't data supporting it. All we really know right now is it seems like it could be possible.

2.) If you do have data that indicates something is true, then that is what you have to go on... you can't just assume that "it likely will be proven wrong in another couple hundred of years". In the model you propose, there would be no scientific progress.

So! scientific advances (in the realm of abiogenesis and evolution) are not so much based off of discovery of data, but rather making speculations after a former theory was proven wrong. . .. am I right?

Wait a second, how do you now couple evolution with abiogenesis? They are two totally seperate ideas that have two totally different sets of data supporting them.
Nice try, but now it sounds like you are leaving the realm of honest discussion and trying to sneak an opinion based agenda in.

But, for your information ALL scientific progress is a result of making new hypothesis (speculations) after a former theory was proven wrong. That is how it works...
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2010 9:46:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
What do evolution, gravity, abiogenesis, the notion that the world is round and the big bang each have in common?

Each is a theory.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2010 11:50:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Spontaneous generation was actually based on observation, (flawed observation but there you go), it was therefore fairly scientific and empirical. It was also false, but that hardly means that the science is an inferior road to the truth than blind faith.

In any case Abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation, that is a strawman.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2010 11:55:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/14/2010 11:51:33 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
So far the Creationists are outnumbered 6:1. I like that figure.

And the few creationists we do have never bother to defend their views, it's so boring, they just troll and run.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2010 12:02:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/14/2010 7:53:44 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:

2) So the obvious solution is the story of Genesis? Even if you do somehow disprove evolution the immediate conclusion isn't the Bible.

WIN.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2010 8:01:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/14/2010 3:07:54 PM, Puck wrote:
Wish to debate abiogenesis, gr33k_fr33k5?

I don't know about a debate, but I would love to talk about it. If that is ok with you. I watched the video you posted (I'm pretty sure it was you), I think I got this from the video, please fell free to correct my if I get confused. These were the "factors" and/or the "building blocks" for Abiogenesis.

Time, Space, Complex Chemistry and Environmental Conditions

And that the pre-biotic earth was filled with organic materials.

And in space it is common to find organic materials.

Let's start with that. It was hard to write what was presented in the video because the dang title of the video popped up every time I paused it. Anyway, I think this alone is more then a mouth full. Please let me know if I'm correct from what I gathered from the video. I hope you can give me a break and help me through this thing, I barely "think" I have a good understanding of what they are saying. So please bear with me. Thanks, I don't think I will be able to talk about this much tonight, I've had a long rough day, but I would be more then happy to pick this up then.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2010 8:06:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/14/2010 11:50:01 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Spontaneous generation was actually based on observation, (flawed observation but there you go), it was therefore fairly scientific and empirical. It was also false, but that hardly means that the science is an inferior road to the truth than blind faith.

In any case Abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation, that is a strawman.

I was wondering something. Can anyone give me the names or links to some of the scientists who came up with spontaneous generation. And I thought I saw something in the "Origins of Life": Abiogenesis video that said something about "spontaneous". I will watch that part again but could anyone explain that part for me. I think it said it rather fast and gave no real explanation. Thanks.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2010 8:17:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/14/2010 8:06:18 PM, jharry wrote:

I was wondering something. Can anyone give me the names or links to some of the scientists who came up with spontaneous generation.

Abiogenesis =/= spontaneous generation. In terms of the video and that particular phrase, it's to show what abiogenesis is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 3:11:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/14/2010 6:21:34 AM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
It seems to me that most theories of abiogenesis are merely speculation. . .. which themselves have evolved over time. The original belief (or theory) has been left far behind and forgotten, it is thought as foolishness. However from that belief has sprung any current "enlightened" version.

for example:
Spontaneous Gen. Believed by scientists for centuries. . . . and it is utter foolishness. It is laughably stupid . . .. and all their "empirical data" really had no backing. Had no truth at all.


So, if brilliant scientists were so foolish as to believe this theory for the origin of life, could it be that the current beliefs are merely foolish speculation? For all the data "supporting" abiogenesis it likely will be proven wrong in another couple hundred years.

So! scientific advances (in the realm of abiogenesis and evolution) are not so much based off of discovery of data, but rather making speculations after a former theory was proven wrong. . .. am I right?

Science never claims truth but seeks it: Truth comes only by revelation; if God doesn't want us to know something then there is nothing anyone can do about it.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 3:25:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/14/2010 8:06:18 PM, jharry wrote:
At 2/14/2010 11:50:01 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Spontaneous generation was actually based on observation, (flawed observation but there you go), it was therefore fairly scientific and empirical. It was also false, but that hardly means that the science is an inferior road to the truth than blind faith.

In any case Abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation, that is a strawman.

I was wondering something. Can anyone give me the names or links to some of the scientists who came up with spontaneous generation.

I would say Aristotle, but I think it predates him.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 6:53:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
@puck

I tried the file but it said it was corrupted or something. Anyway. I'm afraid I won't be able to understand this thing in one lick. So if anyone would like to discuss this with me I have a few questions. I will throw them out there and see if anyone knows.

1. What exactly was this organic material. Dirt? Water? or something even more basic then that?

2. Where did this organic material come from? How did it come to be?

Thanks, I'm looking forward discussing this with someone.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 6:55:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I tried the file, it's not corrupted. Any corruption would be your end with the download. It will give you a slide by slide of the video (and probably most of the answers to what you intend to ask initially) so it may be worth while trying again.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 8:17:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I tried again. Same thing. It's probably something on my end as you as you said. I'm no tech master. Is is it the same video from the you tube video you linked but in a power point? Will it answer the two questions I posted? If it will is there somewhere else I can see the power point?

The video you posted just said organic material was present. It didn't say where, how or anything else, just that is was present and it was common in space. I have a hard time understanding things of this nature without a beginning, unless I can experience them for myself. Kind of like the DNA subject. Thank you so much for the help.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 8:20:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/14/2010 8:17:25 PM, Puck wrote:
At 2/14/2010 8:06:18 PM, jharry wrote:

I was wondering something. Can anyone give me the names or links to some of the scientists who came up with spontaneous generation.

Abiogenesis =/= spontaneous generation. In terms of the video and that particular phrase, it's to show what abiogenesis is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Oh yeah, thanks for the links. And yes I watched the rest of the video and it was saying it wasn't spontaneous, I was trying to write down what was coming up so I could ask questions and I just remember seeing the word spontaneous. But again, thanks for the help.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 4:00:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/15/2010 9:21:20 PM, Puck wrote:
Try:

http://www.2shared.com...?

I unzipped it in case that was the problem.

It's every frame from the video, as a slide, so should give you plenty of info.

It is every frame? If it is the same as the video it doesn't answer these two questions. Could you point towards a source that will?

1. What exactly was this organic material. Dirt? Water? or something even more basic then that?

2. Where did this organic material come from? How did it come to be?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 5:15:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 4:54:20 PM, Puck wrote:
http://exploringorigins.org...

So I guess there is no answer to my questions.

Very neat site though. I enjoyed the timeline, very well done. I read several of the pages but I still didn't find an answer. It looks like the gases and dust were the beginning, but where did they come from? Gases are made up molecules right? And the same with dust. I've seen dust from metal, dirt, vegetation even animal skin. But still there is nothing in that web site on where it all started. So I'm assuming (from lack of input) that it could be said that "In the beginning there was gas and dust" "it was left over from a sun that "died" and exploded" "That sun that died was formed from gas and dust from another sun that "died""And that sun that died was formed by gas and dust from another sun that "died"" And..............................................................................................................................................................................................

So in the end I guess it can be said that it "just was?"
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 5:18:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 5:15:23 PM, jharry wrote:
At 2/17/2010 4:54:20 PM, Puck wrote:
http://exploringorigins.org...

So I guess there is no answer to my questions.

Very neat site though. I enjoyed the timeline, very well done. I read several of the pages but I still didn't find an answer. It looks like the gases and dust were the beginning, but where did they come from? Gases are made up molecules right? And the same with dust. I've seen dust from metal, dirt, vegetation even animal skin. But still there is nothing in that web site on where it all started. So I'm assuming (from lack of input) that it could be said that "In the beginning there was gas and dust" "it was left over from a sun that "died" and exploded" "That sun that died was formed from gas and dust from another sun that "died""And that sun that died was formed by gas and dust from another sun that "died"" And..............................................................................................................................................................................................

So in the end I guess it can be said that it "just was?"

What the????
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 5:35:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Just was again huh? :P

It just was star stuff in the exact same way you right now, what you wear, what you drive, your children and extended family are all star stuff. Everything is. :)

There's a few ideas of 'where' - there is support of meteor variety, though it's role in terms of 'amount' is unknown. It's just as feasible that basic chemistry produced the required components however.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 5:41:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 5:35:40 PM, Puck wrote:
Just was again huh? :P

It just was star stuff in the exact same way you right now, what you wear, what you drive, your children and extended family are all star stuff. Everything is. :)

There's a few ideas of 'where' - there is support of meteor variety, though it's role in terms of 'amount' is unknown. It's just as feasible that basic chemistry produced the required components however.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

But that leads me to another question, where did the meteorite come from? Not just he big thing that it is, but the tiny little things that make it up. My basic question is "where did anything come from. Abiogenesis is a great hypothesis for how life started, but it does nothing to explain where the "blocks" came from. Do you know what I mean? In the end are we simply left with "In the beginning...?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 5:44:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Is this the part where we explain the Big Bang and you ask, "But where did the energy come from?"
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2010 5:46:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/17/2010 5:44:33 PM, sherlockmethod wrote:
Is this the part where we explain the Big Bang and you ask, "But where did the energy come from?"

No. Even more basic then that. Where did the "stuff" in the big bang come from? Dust gas ect.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen