There is no evidence of Abiogenesis

[Elixir]

If god is an engineer that is supposed all powerful and knowing creating reality then he,she,or it is not a very good one. Earthquakes, disease, asteroid strikes.

“No Gods were harmed in the making of this universe”

Read the damn sign Steve. They didn’t make it for our benefit, they made it for theirs!

 

[steve_bank]

Learner

Were humans and all the creatures represented by the fossil record created at the same time by god?

 

[bilby]

the hint that an intelligent-agency will be neccessary.

I set up an experiment to measure the acceleration due to gravity, in which I pushed various weights off a platform and timed their falls.

Each weight only began to fall because I pushed it; Should we then conclude that an "intelligent-agency" is necessary for gravity to work?

Perpsective: It required your mind to formulate the use of gravity. The experiment concludes that: under the same conditions for each experiment that follows, the outcome will be predictable - aptly we call these laws.

When life is produced in a lab, do you expect that the outcome of repeating the same processes in another lab will be unpredictable?

Chemistry doesn't only occur in labs. It occurs everywhere. It has been happening everywhere that there is matter, since the universe became transparent about 380,000 years after the Big Bang.

Demonstrating abiogenesis in a lab is a demonstration that abiogenesis can occur naturally, in similar conditions. Just as demonstrating gravity in a lab is a demonstration that gravity can occur naturally, in similar conditions.

 

[pood]

Intelligent design is creationism. As we state-the-obvious _ Yes of course it is! Points all around people, theists and atheists...yay.

Sure Christians use the term. It doesn't have to be according to Christianity does it, especially if people are pondering on the hypothesis of ID? Ah but then that gives license to the theists to insert their God in the mix, I get it now. Keep the Christians out of the dialogue then I say, and let the investigations for the curious minded commence (further).

Whether Christians are in the dialogue or not, there is zero evidence for intelligent design and tons of evidence for unguided evolution. You can put creationists or Jesus or whatever into the mix anytime you like, provided you bring some scientific evidence to the table.

 

[SLD]

56K views · 1.1K reactions | Science Needs These 4 Things To Create Life Prebiotically #science #abiogenesis #chemistry | Dr James Tour

Science Needs These 4 Things To Create Life Prebiotically #science #abiogenesis #chemistry.

www.facebook.com

Not sure if that link will work but I ended up getting comments directly from this guy on Facebook when I called out his bullshit about abiogenesis.

 

[pood]

56K views · 1.1K reactions | Science Needs These 4 Things To Create Life Prebiotically #science #abiogenesis #chemistry | Dr James Tour

Science Needs These 4 Things To Create Life Prebiotically #science #abiogenesis #chemistry.

www.facebook.com

Not sure if that link will work but I ended up getting comments directly from this guy on Facebook when I called out his bullshit about abiogenesis.

Can’t see it. Have to log into Facebook where I have no account and never will, just like I have never and never will join Twitter/X. I thought it useless even before Musk took over, and now it’s positively evil.

 

[EricH]

The theory of evolution will always be an explanation in which there will always be the need for it to be corrected and updated as it plods along.

Its called progress. Human curiosity drives us to better our understanding of the world, to both slake our thirst for knowledge and understanding, and to produce technological advances that better the lot of our species. You seem to be implying that a system of human inquiry that betters our understanding of the world and improves the quality of our lives is a bad thing or a negative, when the very opposite is true. Today we can cross the Atlantic in a matter of hours in an airplane instead of having to spend 8 to 10 days getting seasick, worrying about striking a iceberg and getting killed. We can launch satellites into orbit that allow us to talk to our loved ones across vast oceans, a thought that would have been inconceivable in the 19th century. Evolution, like every branch of science, is being studied, corrected and improved every day by countless people working, often cooperatively, across the globe. Today we can image and visualize the genes that cause cancer and allow its propagation being turned on and off through various therapies. And those who desperately want to cling to their religious beliefs have to denounce the very progress that makes their modern life possible. If you like the Bible so much, go live like people did 2,000 years ago when the Bible was written. Then come back and tell us if you prefer the modern world, and the many gifts science has brought us.

And, there is very little to correct about the theory of evolution that Darwin described. We have filled in holes in our understanding over the years, but the concept of the fundamental mechanism through which evolution works, imperfect replication followed by natural selection, remains largely unchanged to this day, and is not likely to fundamentally change in the future either. And when you use words like "plod along" to describe the vast bodies of knowledge we have acquired since the time of Darwin, a mere century and a half ago, as compared to the many millennia of human history prior to Darwin, the words "plod along" suggest a deep seated and fundamental misunderstanding of, or in your case, likely a deep ignorance of the facts.

Do start a thread if you want to discuss the shortfalls of our understanding of evolution and we, the forum members, can educate you.

TLDR; progress is good. And as a corollary, stagnation is bad. We can all agree on this. Why, then, are you suggesting the opposite as preferred?

 

[Elixir]

With WHAT do the "ID Propentists" propose to replace the explanatory and predictive power of ToE ?
"Goddidit" and ID lack any predictive power whatsoever, and it's explanatory power amounts to "just because".

It's downright stupid to "disagree" with evolution, since it is the best proven theory in all of science - the very science that keeps these superstitious blather factions alive.

 

[SLD]

56K views · 1.1K reactions | Science Needs These 4 Things To Create Life Prebiotically #science #abiogenesis #chemistry | Dr James Tour

Science Needs These 4 Things To Create Life Prebiotically #science #abiogenesis #chemistry.

www.facebook.com

Not sure if that link will work but I ended up getting comments directly from this guy on Facebook when I called out his bullshit about abiogenesis.

Can’t see it. Have to log into Facebook where I have no account and never will, just like I have never and never will join Twitter/X. I thought it useless even before Musk took over, and now it’s positively evil.

This may not be the same video, but it’s the same guy talking about the same thing.

 

[DBT]

Life evolves regardless of theory.

 

[Learner]

Intelligent design is creationism. As we state-the-obvious _ Yes of course it is! Points all around people, theists and atheists...yay.

Sure Christians use the term. It doesn't have to be according to Christianity does it, especially if people are pondering on the hypothesis of ID? Ah but then that gives license to the theists to insert their God in the mix, I get it now. Keep the Christians out of the dialogue then I say, and let the investigations for the curious minded commence (further).

Whether Christians are in the dialogue or not, there is zero evidence for intelligent design and tons of evidence for unguided evolution.

(Responding to posts in no particular order, cos I'm a busy man)

What type of dialogue do you mean? If its a philosophical view, or that someone has a genuine interest; pondering on a possibility hypothesis, I think some people would be put off with Christians Biblical input.

So you do think it's not possible then?

When you say there's tons of evidence for unguided evolution? What should evidence for 'guided' look like?

You know, I wouldn't be surprised, sometime there will be a clear division between the 'conventional religious belief of creation' versus a newer (off-shoot) 'Intelligent Design' concept (humans spawned from very advanced beings, sort of thing etc.) rejecting the biblical creation, and who may even be Secular.

You can put creationists or Jesus or whatever into the mix anytime you like, provided you bring some scientifi

c evidence to the table.

What's the science behind 'Alexander the Great' and 'Ghengis Khan?' What ever the "science is behind it", we believe Jesus in the same way existed too.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Intelligent design is creationism. As we state-the-obvious _ Yes of course it is! Points all around people, theists and atheists...yay.

Sure Christians use the term. It doesn't have to be according to Christianity does it, especially if people are pondering on the hypothesis of ID? Ah but then that gives license to the theists to insert their God in the mix, I get it now. Keep the Christians out of the dialogue then I say, and let the investigations for the curious minded commence (further).

Whether Christians are in the dialogue or not, there is zero evidence for intelligent design and tons of evidence for unguided evolution.

(Responding to posts in no particular order, cos I'm a busy man)

What type of dialogue do you mean? If its a philosophical view, or that someone has a genuine interest; pondering on a possibility hypothesis, I think some people would be put off with Christians Biblical input.

So you do think it's not possible then?

When you say there's tons of evidence for unguided evolution? What should evidence for 'guided' look like?

You know, I wouldn't be surprised, sometime there will be a clear division between the 'conventional religious belief of creation' versus a newer (off-shoot) 'Intelligent Design' concept (humans spawned from very advanced beings, sort of thing etc.) rejecting the biblical creation, and who may even be Secular.

You can put creationists or Jesus or whatever into the mix anytime you like, provided you bring some scientifi

c evidence to the table.

What's the science behind 'Alexander the Great' and 'Ghengis Khan?' What ever the "science is behind it", we believe Jesus in the same way existed too.

There is no such thing as guided evolution (at least in nature; humans of course engage in artificial breeding methods), so there is no evidence for it.
The science behind Genghis Khan and Alexander the great is archeology. There is also massive historical evidence for their existence and feats.

 

[steve_bank]

Intelligent design is creationism. As we state-the-obvious _ Yes of course it is! Points all around people, theists and atheists...yay.

Sure Christians use the term. It doesn't have to be according to Christianity does it, especially if people are pondering on the hypothesis of ID? Ah but then that gives license to the theists to insert their God in the mix, I get it now. Keep the Christians out of the dialogue then I say, and let the investigations for the curious minded commence (further).

Whether Christians are in the dialogue or not, there is zero evidence for intelligent design and tons of evidence for unguided evolution.

(Responding to posts in no particular order, cos I'm a busy man)

What type of dialogue do you mean? If its a philosophical view, or that someone has a genuine interest; pondering on a possibility hypothesis, I think some people would be put off with Christians Biblical input.

So you do think it's not possible then?

When you say there's tons of evidence for unguided evolution? What should evidence for 'guided' look like?

You know, I wouldn't be surprised, sometime there will be a clear division between the 'conventional religious belief of creation' versus a newer (off-shoot) 'Intelligent Design' concept (humans spawned from very advanced beings, sort of thing etc.) rejecting the biblical creation, and who may even be Secular.

You can put creationists or Jesus or whatever into the mix anytime you like, provided you bring some scientifi

c evidence to the table.

What's the science behind 'Alexander the Great' and 'Ghengis Khan?' What ever the "science is behind it", we believe Jesus in the same way existed too.

There is history,philosophy, mythology, and rligion. Then there is science.

A few kines in an ancient text written by unknown authors interpreted to mean a god created the Earth, the first two humans and all other life is mythology and religion.

The OT is a mix of or ancient Jewish history, mythology, religion, and philosophy.

Archeology and records of other civilizations show ancient Jew existed and some of other biblical history may be true. There is no evidence of recordings of Egyptian captivity as slaves and an Exodus lasting 40 years in desert.

We know Aristotle existed because he left books, was recorded by others in Greece, and was recorded in Persia as Alexander's teacher. That is what historians and archeologists do. Archeology supported by modern science like carbon dating.


Not put off by bib cal input, it is that the bible is neither validated history or science. The bible is mythology, religion, and philosophy.

There is scientific analysis of observation and experiment. Philosophical interpretation of science can be as subjective as religion.

If evolution was guided than whoever is doing the guiing is not very god at it.

Tell me, archolgocal evidence and fossils show dinosaurs did not coexist with humans.

If god creted rthe Earth in one effort why no humans with dinosaurs?

Therer are secies of plants today that did not exist at the time of the dinosaurs, how is that?

If giod sted with Adam and Eve in a blical tine scale how did all the civilaztions with getc diovesity apear in such a short time?

Give me some of that biblcal input, merng from the bible not speculation. Why dies the OT not mention dinosaurs?

 

[Learner]

the hint that an intelligent-agency will be neccessary.

I set up an experiment to measure the acceleration due to gravity, in which I pushed various weights off a platform and timed their falls.

Each weight only began to fall because I pushed it; Should we then conclude that an "intelligent-agency" is necessary for gravity to work?

Perpsective: It required your mind to formulate the use of gravity. The experiment concludes that: under the same conditions for each experiment that follows, the outcome will be predictable - aptly we call these laws.

When life is produced in a lab, do you expect that the outcome of repeating the same processes in another lab will be unpredictable?

Not sure, it depends. Are the other labs (in this world of yours) governed by the same natural laws? If so, then the aptly named (natural) laws make the experiments in other labs predictable. We have the recorded data of the initial experiment.

Chemistry doesn't only occur in labs. It occurs everywhere. It has been happening everywhere that there is matter, since the universe became transparent about 380,000 years after the Big Bang.

The focus was on Humans creating life at will or 'will nilly', if you will.

Demonstrating abiogenesis in a lab is a demonstration that abiogenesis can occur naturally, in similar conditions. Just as demonstrating gravity in a lab is a demonstration that gravity can occur naturally, in similar conditions.

Yes, we can still define the processes as being natural. In the case of the lab, assuming abiogenesis can be demonstrated, it doesn't work without the human being involved.

Having said that. You could look at it as humans (even with creative minds) as also being part of nature which then therefore makes the whole entire process natural.

 

[Learner]

Intelligent design is creationism. As we state-the-obvious _ Yes of course it is! Points all around people, theists and atheists...yay.

Sure Christians use the term. It doesn't have to be according to Christianity does it, especially if people are pondering on the hypothesis of ID? Ah but then that gives license to the theists to insert their God in the mix, I get it now. Keep the Christians out of the dialogue then I say, and let the investigations for the curious minded commence (further).

Whether Christians are in the dialogue or not, there is zero evidence for intelligent design and tons of evidence for unguided evolution.

(Responding to posts in no particular order, cos I'm a busy man)

What type of dialogue do you mean? If its a philosophical view, or that someone has a genuine interest; pondering on a possibility hypothesis, I think some people would be put off with Christians Biblical input.

So you do think it's not possible then?

When you say there's tons of evidence for unguided evolution? What should evidence for 'guided' look like?

You know, I wouldn't be surprised, sometime there will be a clear division between the 'conventional religious belief of creation' versus a newer (off-shoot) 'Intelligent Design' concept (humans spawned from very advanced beings, sort of thing etc.) rejecting the biblical creation, and who may even be Secular.

You can put creationists or Jesus or whatever into the mix anytime you like, provided you bring some scientifi

c evidence to the table.

What's the science behind 'Alexander the Great' and 'Ghengis Khan?' What ever the "science is behind it", we believe Jesus in the same way existed too.

There is no such thing as guided evolution (at least in nature; humans of course engage in artificial breeding methods), so there is no evidence for it.

I was curious to know if there would be a noticeable difference between unguided and guided. What would be the hallmarks that would separate them distinctly ? The hallmarks of the unguided we know, because 'guided' would look like....?

The science behind Genghis Khan and Alexander the great is archeology. There is also massive historical evidence for their existence and feats.

As I said, the same for Jesus. Churches already established in the 1st century. Much more written about Jesus than any other person in antiquity.

 

[steve_bank]

A lot may have been written about JC, but the source is the sparse gospels of unknown authorship with no corroboration.

A Greek or Roman writer who said he was there when Jesus walked on water.

A Roman letter to a friend saying 'Hey Tiberius you have to come and see this guy cure the sick. People are lined up around the block'.

Yet again what you have as Christian theology came out of the Council Of Nicaea as a compromise in beliefs of Christian in factional conflicts.

A lot has been written about King Arthur who turned out to be entirely fictional. A lot has been written about the Dracula character who may have been based on a real person, a brutal Vlad The Impaler who threw enemies on stakes.

The Hercules myth may have started with a real person.

As to amount written, Hinduism is the oldest tradition with a lot of writings.

There has been a lot if Buddhist writing predating Christianity through today based on Buddha whose oirgins are unknown.

Christians put on blinders and ignore all the other tings in sophistry. Christianity as a mythology with supernatural gods and demigods, aka Jesus, is not unique inn history.

I just watched a bio of the Ethiopian leader Hali Selassie. By all accounts he was a good leader modernizer Ethiopia before WWII. After he died he was elevated to mythical supernatural satus by black Africans. Today Rastafarians in rthe Carribean.

Gentiles in the Roman empire turned a Jewsh Jesus into a gentile Romanized god, Blacks in the Carrikbeanturned a Christian Selassie into a Rastafarian god.

Selassie's greatest impact may have been on the island of Jamaica. Jamaican religious leaders adopted a version of his birth name, Tafari (Ras was an official title) and Rastafarians regard Selassie as a god. (Selassie himself remained a Christian throughout his life.)Feb 6, 2024

Learner, I am in need of some biblcal input. Why are theree no dinosaurs in the bible? Or anywhere in recorded humand history.

 

[bilby]

Not sure, it depends. Are the other labs (in this world of yours) governed by the same natural laws?

I am puzzled. What do you think a "natural law" is?

Because as far as I am concerned, it is impossible to build a lab that is not governed by the same natural laws that govern the rest of the universe.

Talking to you about science is like trying to explain something to an LLM (these days often misleadingly known as Artificial Intelligence). There just is zero common ground to start talking, because you have managed (despite your ironic handle) to not even learn the most basic and simple things about science, or indeed, about reality.

But you say stuff that gives the (false) impression that you understand; When in fact, you are just stringing together words you don't know the meanings of, in ways you have presumably experienced others doing.

The result often sounds almost like reasoned debate; But then you throw in a question like the one quoted above, and make it clear that you simply do not understand anything that you (or anybody else) is saying. You don't even know what the phrases (eg "natural law") that you confidently trot out actually mean.

It is hugely frustrating. And I am strongly suspicious that you believe that your output of sciency sounding nonsense is exactly as good as the actual science with which people attempt to rebut you. Because to you, it's all vaguely intellectual sounding nonsense, and you naturally assume that it is to everyone else, too.

 

[pood]

Intelligent design is creationism. As we state-the-obvious _ Yes of course it is! Points all around people, theists and atheists...yay.

Sure Christians use the term. It doesn't have to be according to Christianity does it, especially if people are pondering on the hypothesis of ID? Ah but then that gives license to the theists to insert their God in the mix, I get it now. Keep the Christians out of the dialogue then I say, and let the investigations for the curious minded commence (further).

Whether Christians are in the dialogue or not, there is zero evidence for intelligent design and tons of evidence for unguided evolution.

(Responding to posts in no particular order, cos I'm a busy man)

What type of dialogue do you mean? If its a philosophical view, or that someone has a genuine interest; pondering on a possibility hypothesis, I think some people would be put off with Christians Biblical input.

So you do think it's not possible then?

I don’t know what you are referring to here. I’ve already explained. You can speculate all you want about Christian biblical input into science, but it means nothing unless you have evidence. There is no evidence of creationism or ID, and, anyway, as noted, the fact and theory of evolution decisively rule out the Judeo-Christian biblical account. Evolution shows there was never a Garden of Eden, never a “pre-fall” state where lions were lying down with lambs and so on. Life has always been red in tooth and claw. There was no first man and woman, no Adam and Eve. There was a first population of modern humans. Hence there was no fall, no original sin, and therefore the idea that Jesus came to earth to atone for the Edenic first sin is obviously false.

When you say there's tons of evidence for unguided evolution? What should evidence for 'guided' look like?

It would like artificial selection, like dog breeding, instead of the natural selection and genetic drift that we actually observe.

You know, I wouldn't be surprised, sometime there will be a clear division between the 'conventional religious belief of creation' versus a newer (off-shoot) 'Intelligent Design' concept (humans spawned from very advanced beings, sort of thing etc.) rejecting the biblical creation, and who may even be Secular.

The ID crowd claims they are not invoking religion, only putting out a “theory” of ID that does not necessarily involve Jesus or God. We know they have lying about this because of the Wedge document. Plus they have no “theory” of ID, no evidence at all. The best they can do is an argument from ignorance: “Evolution can’t really produce this or that, so therefore intelligent designer or God did it.” But it always turns out that evolution can do the things they say can’t be done. Anyway, if you want to posit that an intelligent designer, say aliens, are somehow behind life, go right ahead. Just don’t except scientists to entertain the notion until you produce some testable evidence and a theory,. which the ID crowd has never done and never will do.

You can put creationists or Jesus or whatever into the mix anytime you like, provided you bring some scientifi

c evidence to the table.

What's the science behind 'Alexander the Great' and 'Ghengis Khan?' What ever the "science is behind it", we believe Jesus in the same way existed too.

There is no science behind Alexander the great and Ghengis Khan. There is history and historiography. We know they existed from copious contemporaneous accounts. Actually, there is science — we have traced Ghengis Khan’s DNA to modern descendants. Nothing of the kind is true of Jesus. Everything about him was written decades after his death. There are no contemporaneous accounts of his existence, and he left no writings behind. It’s unclear if he existed at all.

 

[pood]

Much more written about Jesus than any other person in antiquity.

Wholly false.

And, as noted, they are no contemporaneous accounts of his life, which is really odd. Wouldn’t you think if he were doing all the miracles attributed to him, and he were resurrected, someone would have gone “holy shit!” and written it all down? In fact we would expect plenty of people to have done that. Instead, nada.

 

[hyzer]

56K views · 1.1K reactions | Science Needs These 4 Things To Create Life Prebiotically #science #abiogenesis #chemistry | Dr James Tour

Science Needs These 4 Things To Create Life Prebiotically #science #abiogenesis #chemistry.

www.facebook.com

Not sure if that link will work but I ended up getting comments directly from this guy on Facebook when I called out his bullshit about abiogenesis.

Can’t see it. Have to log into Facebook where I have no account and never will, just like I have never and never will join Twitter/X. I thought it useless even before Musk took over, and now it’s positively evil.

This may not be the same video, but it’s the same guy talking about the same thing.

Check out the YouTube Channel of Professor Dave Explains. Prof Dave has made it a particular mission to humiliate Tour. Very effectively too. Prof Dave also has taken down every one of the Discovery Institute's pet "scientists".