On The Impossibility Of Abiogenesis.

The article presumes that no combination of atoms + energy + time could possibly create an organized self-replicating string of molecules. The main focus of his argument appears to be that multiple complex molecules would be needed at the same time to provide the mechanism that we currently see in operation today (he likens it to the Turing Machine with an enzyme acting as the read/write head along a strand of DNA instead of the traditional tape). It suggests that the "code" represented by a strand of DNA can only be explained by a creator (claiming it is too complex to form based on available chemicals).

Why do we assume the first instance of self-replicating DNA looks like the single-celled organism we see today? If the environment was significantly different when the earth was formed, primitive DNA structures might not have been capable of replication until some other elements were formed. The first structure capable of reproduction might have looked nothing like the single-celled organisms we see today.

If you think about it, simple chemicals can do some interesting things without any specific "coding" other than their very nature (i.e. the number of protons, neutrons, electrons, and whatever other interesting particles the physicists have discovered lately). Try heating water (H2O) and mixing some salt (NaCl) into solution with the hot water. Drop a thread into the water and wait for it to cool. The salt will form pretty crystals on the thread. Nobody had to program the salt to do that. It is dictated by the "shape" of the NaCl molecule and the effect of the water cooling. The "shape" of the NaCl molecule is dictated by the number of protons, neutrons, and electrons.

The more general premise of the article is that everything must have a cause. I do not have an objection to that. Science involves looking at what happens and figuring out the cause. To suggest that abiogenesis is not possible because we cannot explain why it happened, is no different from suggesting that God is not possible because we cannot explain where God came from.

For the record, I believe God exists and set the universe in motion but I do not claim to understand how He did it. Maybe He spoke the Big Bang into existence. I do not believe in a God who would plant false evidence in the universe, so if the evidence points to an ancient earth with a very different environment than what we have today, I believe that was part of God's process. I do not see abiogenesis conflicting with a Creator unless you insist that the story in Genesis must be taken literally.

 

Understand that a VIRUS is not a living thing.

A Virus has DNA like we do but is NOT ALIVE.

This shows us just how close the Animate is to the Inanimate.

AA

 

So you DO believe in spontaneous generation, only at a longer process. Btw what type of molecules turned into organic compounds?

The same way that if you can't explain how Lamborghinis are made that doesn't presuppose a car maker?

 

Wait, there is the third choice that God used evolution to create everything.

- - - Updated - - -

It's spontaneous generation in slow motion.

 

Why would a God create an imperfect being and then condemn him for his imperfections?

 

Yes, but only with respect to the first life form. Life generated spontaneously the same way snowflake generate spontaneously when the conditions allow it.

Generally, anything that contains one or more C-H bonds, such as lipids, proteins, carbohydrates, and nucleic acids.

Since cars have never been observed to self-assemble or reproduce, presupposing a car maker is logical. Life is a little different, wouldn't you agree?

 

Yes, that is a possibility and not dismissed. However, if it is accurate would you not feel the need to understand Gods work rather than ignore it and dismiss it?

 

much more likely a car would pop into existence then a God would pop into existence and create a car

all one has to do is look around, life exists, so the science behind life is obviously real

.

 

He didnt, God create a perfect world and man ruined it. That's like me looking at a wrecked corvette and asking Chevy why did they built it that way.

 

Doesn't that violates what Luois Pasture said about life coming from life?

And what type of molecules the C-H bonds came from?

We never seen life coming from non-life so its logical to presuppose that life (a creator) created life.

- - - Updated - - -

I only dismiss it if its hasn't been proven to be true or proven to be false.

 

But he knew it was wrecked before he built it and he knew some would be condemned before they were created.

 

Should you not then dismiss your entire Bible(s)?

 

I really don't see why some people do not understand that whether something is alive or not alive it is comprised upon it's smallest level of the exact same thing.

Quantum Particle/Wave Forms of Energy.

This allows us to understand that the ONLY difference between a Living and Non-Living Matter is it's COMPLEXITY.

Matter get's to a certain point via Quantum Evolution where it has arranged itself to such a high state of complexity that it becomes alive.

AA

 

No. Pasture was dealing with complex organisms like fleas and maggots, not simple organisms which the first life would have been.

Well, the 'C' stands for carbon and the 'H' stands for hydrogen. Are you now going to ask where these came from? If you do, I'm stepping off the merry-go-round.

We have never seen God create life either, but since we have seen natural processes produce complexity where there was only chaos, what is illogical about life arising through natural processes.

 

Life wouldn't have been "randomly" generated. There exists a specific method and set of conditions or perhaps even multiple ways to create the spark of life, we just don't know what it is. We do know it had to have happened or we wouldn't be here to have this conversation. Expecting that because life exists that we should also find naturally created cars and plastic is kind of nonsensical, and even if it wasn't, you lack the data to even make the statement. You have a sample size of, what, four terrestrial planets(Mercury, Earth, Mars, Pluto. Five if you count Venus but we haven't actually seen much of Venus past the clouds beyond the tiny amount of footage the Soviet probes returned), and a group of mostly small rocky moons with only two of them even having an atmosphere. We have found more whole solar systems around other stars than the number of worlds we have explored in our own.

The way of science, of examining the world for evidence and then using that evidence to draw and test conclusions about the physical world we live in has a proven track record of explaining things and allowing predictions of future things to be made. It's true that neither religion or science has the answers, but there is only one of those that we can have faith will make a hell of an effort to find those answers, whatever they may be. It's possible of course to be religious and scientific, but eventually that may not be the case if science figures out that God was completely unnecessary instead of just mostly unnecessary.

I can see looking to the bible for moral guidance but not for answers about the physical world. But I suppose if you take away the origins part of religion, the rest just seems like it could have been said by any new-age patchouli-soaked hippy you passed on the street.

 

No he knew it was going to be wrecked. And the reason it was wrecked was because of man's free will. God doesn't want a bunch of robots worshipping him he wants freely given worship. Would you appreciate it if I gave you $100 dollars with a scowl?

- - - Updated - - -

No because nobody has proven it to be false. Many an athiest converted to Christianity when set out to prove it wrong.

 

There is no simple life form. Even if there is then were are the two-celled and three-celled creatures?

Well you said that atoms came before carbon, but what came between? What type of fusion made carbon?

Where did we see complexity come from chaos?

 

I wish to remind you of what you said.

Please not the first part and try again.

 

Many aspects in the Bible especially Genesis have been absolutely proven to be false.

Example....2 people do not have the genetic diversity to populate a planet.

AA

 

Has anyone been watching the latest astronomy videos on YouTube? Modern technology is making advance in this sector. The odds are literally, astronomical, in favor of life, eventually, somewhere.

 

NASA has known for many decades that Humanity is NOT the only space faring race in the Universe.

AA

 

If our choices can be known before we make them then we don't have free will.

And even more theists have converted to atheism when they actually thought about their religious tomes.

You mean like diplococcus? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplococcus

Carbon is an atom, formed through the triple-alpha process within stars.

We see it every day. Take a container filled with fluids of varying densities, agitate it until everything is thoroughly mixed, then let it sit in a gravity field and the fluids will sort themselves into layers by density. There's a whole field that studies this called Chaos Theory. You should check it out.

 

Carbon was made in the hearts of giant stars who spread it across their neighborhoods after they exploded. The fact that we find a diverse spattering of different elements on the Earth means that earlier generations of stars had to have existed and exploded before our solar system could have even formed. Otherwise there would not have even been the material present in the gas and dust cloud that our sun and the planets formed from to make rocky planets. Assuming that here is a solid rocky core at the heart of the gas giants, those planets would likely not have existed either, and if they did they would be more akin to small brown dwarf stars that did not have enough mass to initiate fusion. It's much more likely however that the early sun would have simply blown that material out of the solar system instead of it clumping around a solid core and forming a planet.

This is why Genesis is wrong in one(among many) respects in that it has the sun being created at the beginning of the universe, and the Earth and the plants on it being formed before the sun which is 100% impossible. The sun itself couldn't have formed as a first generation star, and there would absolutely be no planets to speak of without the sun.

Religious texts are suitable for use as moral guides, but not as a science book. Religions should take note of this and adjust their texts accordingly because it's costing them more and more believers.

 

Most of the very first stars that were formed after the Big Bang were SUPER MASSIVE BLUE STARS.....and they had a VERY short life.

As well because in the early years of the Universe most of the H2 was in a relatively small and close together area of Space-Time and this also caused Super Massive Stars to be in such close proximity to one another a larger star in a binary system had such enormous gravitational effect it would cause the other smaller star in the binary system to lose mass to the larger star.

When this happens the result is almost ALWAYS a SUPERNOVA.

These very early Supernova's were responsible for the generation of all heavier elements above Iron.

Thus way before our own star even formed all elements on the table existed.

AA

 

The first part of what, the second quote or the first? And if you can't prove something wrong then logically it means its right or at least leaning toward it.