On The Impossibility Of Abiogenesis.

I found this article to be quite interesting. I could not refute his logic. The article explains how abiogenesis is impossible. Can anyone refute this?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/on-the-impossibility-of-abiogenesis/

 

Let's see here.
2000 years of looking for God or evidence it poofed us into existence...nothing yet.
A couple decades of looking for Abiogenesis data...and many hints of accuracy already found.

I say we give it bit more time for both, and find out which wins out.

 

If things were just randomly generated by the organization of atoms we would see evidence of this. There should be everything from automobiles to plastic being randomly generated but this does not happen. Science has a major problem in that they cannot prove how life began and they have no more evidence than religious people do.

 

We don't have to prove how life began, but I am glad that people are trying and coming up with more compelling explanations than "god did it." Yes, the nature of reality, how it all began, and how life appeared/evolved are still mysteries. The problem is that the religious have even LESS support for their assumptions, and I can see that the "god of the gaps" is still alive and well. How one goes from "we don't know how life or the universe began" to "there must be a god and he has provided rules and a description of reality that we must follow" makes no sense to me.

The burden of proof always rests on the people who are trying to honestly understand reality (scientists); the rest simply believe whatever makes them happy (those terrified of death).

 

This is the Nutbar's argument???

So to disprove anything within the laws of nature we must assume a man made object (the computer) is part of it. Really!!!


The Universe's largest Sun is doing a facepalm.

 

Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.

 

I always get a kick out of your avatar. BTW I agree with you.

 

In my opinion, the first replicating cell did not originate here since as soon as the planet had cooled down and chaos became minimal when the earth formed, life quickly emerged after that.

 

I noticed that none of the naysayers have tried to refute what was in the article I posted. Assuming they even read it. Would anyone care to try?

 

Neither of you understand chemical reactions, so I'd be talking over your head.

Previous studies showed how are RNA could happen spontaneously. A new study from Japan which shows how DNA replicates. Spontaneously.

A recursive vesicle-based model protocell with a primitive model cell cycle

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150929/ncomms9352/full/ncomms9352.html

 

What we have here is a lab experiment with carefully controlled conditions. In other words, it required human intervention to produce these results. Do you really think that this could happen in a natural environment? That requires more faith than it takes to believe in a Creator.

 

Science is based on an honest appraisal of evidence,faith demands we deny the evidence of our senses (or instruments).
Stick with the supernatural and junk science from creationist/intelligent design sites if that’s what you’re comfortable with and leave real science to those that understand it.

 

I'm a firm believer in science. But evolution is not science. I have faith in God because of evidence. You claim that there is no evidence, but you are mistaken. People like you claim that Christians are a bunch of superstious knuckle dragging Neanderthals, yet there are many people, who are highly intelligent and we'll educated, who believe in God.

 

can you provide us a link to this evidence?

 

There is nothing in your posts to suggest you are "highly intelligent" or "well educated"
;they do however demonstrate that you are a science illiterate.

 

That is your "opinion". I'll take it for what it's worth. That would be nothing. I will debate you on any science related topic you like. I have provided evidence for c14 in fossils. You have offered insults.

 

Start with this. http://www.godandscience.org/introduction.html

 

that's a link to a site that has about 50 other links to other sites. Pick one, quote the relevant portion and provide the direct link to the scientific evidence for your god.

 

How about you do your own research? It's not my job to educate you. Besides, you're not not really interested in what I think. Are you? You just want to argue. If I thought you were really interested, we could discuss it. But I don't think you are. Am I wrong?

 

Do you even understand the environment that existed?

I'd have to explain aqueous metals, and that would be just too much for most people to grasp.

 

Whatever floats your ark
My opinion is well supported considering;your posts offer nothing but conspiracy theories and psuedoscience.
Your reference to c14 in fossils is off topic.

 

I accept your concession.

I didn't actually expect you to provide anything, as no evidence exists for the existence of any god.

 

Once again, I get hit with the.."you're too stupid to understand" argument. How lame.

 

What concession? I merely realized that it is a waste of my valuable time to present my evidence to the likes of you. Pearls before swine. I've presented evidence over and over again, yet no one seems to take it seriously. Usually they offer nothing but insults, as you have done, or try to discredit the source. You are not interested in a honest debate. You just want to bash Christians.

 

you made an assertion, was challenged to support it, and refused. that's a concession.

you have not presented any evidence showing the existence of any god. If you were to do so, you would be the most famous person on the face of the planet, in the entire history of mankind.