Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Creation/Evolution
 Abiogenesis
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 8

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 07/05/2007 :  07:29:44  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Well, I guess somebody's gotta do it and it might as well be me.

Jerome, you have a really irritating habit of drifting away from topics and dragging the rest along with you. Therefore, as you seem to be interested in abiogenesis, this thread's for you.

So... kick it off, why don't you, and let's see where it goes.




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 07/05/2007 :  09:33:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I am pretty sure that all science has shown to this point that non living matter can not become living matter.

Is there any peer reviewed science that shows life coming from non life?

My only point is this is in dispute. As such both arguments can be made, therefore one who believes in God is no less sane or intelligent than one who believes life came from non life.


What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 07/05/2007 :  09:40:54   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

I am pretty sure that all science has shown to this point that non living matter can not become living matter.

Is there any peer reviewed science that shows life coming from non life?

My only point is this is in dispute. As such both arguments can be made, therefore one who believes in God is no less sane or intelligent than one who believes life came from non life.


No, that's not entirely accurate. Not being able to make "non-living matter" turn into "living matter" isn't the same thing as saying that "non-living matter" cannot become "living matter."

Simply stating that the (storm?) god Yahweh did it isn't very satisfying, and if everyone reduced difficult questions to that answer, we'd still be bloodletting with leeches.
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 07/05/2007 :  09:49:12   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Cune, are you stating that you believe non living matter can become living matter?

Is so, what brought you to this conclusion?


What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 07/05/2007 :  10:00:10   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Cune, are you stating that you believe non living matter can become living matter?

Is so, what brought you to this conclusion?
I'm saying its entirely likely. Otherwise, I'd be left speculating that it happened through magical means, and since I'm utterly convinced that there is no such thing as magic, I'm left to conclude that by some natural process, life emerged on earth from matter that was otherwise not organic.
Go to Top of Page

dv82matt
SFN Regular

760 Posts

Posted - 07/05/2007 :  10:07:43   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send dv82matt a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
My only point is this is in dispute. As such both arguments can be made, therefore one who believes in God is no less sane or intelligent than one who believes life came from non life.
The difference is that one argument is within science and the other is not. It is not true that life being created by god is on an equal footing with abiogenesis. Science is naturalistic.

God is excluded from science for the same reason that the tooth fairy is excluded from science. It lacks evidence.

Particular theories of abiogenesis are certainly quite speculative at the moment but however it happened life did arise on earth. Abiogenesis is the scientific study of how that occurred or could have occurred.
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 07/05/2007 :  10:45:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Jerome, I find the weird juxtaposition of your irrational statement, over the wise comments of Bertrand Russell, to be oddly both hilarious and at the same time highly offensive:
I am pretty sure that all science has shown to this point that non living matter can not become living matter.

Is there any peer reviewed science that shows life coming from non life?

My only point is this is in dispute. As such both arguments can be made, therefore one who believes in God is no less sane or intelligent than one who believes life came from non life.


What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Russell's quote demolishes the nonsense you posted above it. It utterly contradicts it.

In fact, I now am convinced that you quote Lord Russell in your sig merely for protective coloration in this skeptics' forum. Everything you say reeks of and echoes of woo-woo and Christian fundamentalist talking points, yet you continually deny this. I believe you feel that skeptics are a Satanic breed, and so you feel justified in your pious fraud.

I am convinced you are a willfully ignorant, lying troll, and are flying false colors.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Edited by - HalfMooner on 07/05/2007 15:30:36
Go to Top of Page

BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard

3192 Posts

Posted - 07/05/2007 :  11:17:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send BigPapaSmurf a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Studies have shown that large new protein chains can be created not only by the "primordial soup" but by the high temperature and pressures of a meteorite impact, which were oh so common back in the first billion years of the planet. I dont find it a strecth of the imagination that a self-replicating protein could be created in this manner, considering the outragous alternative.

"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History

"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26009 Posts

Posted - 07/05/2007 :  11:20:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

My only point is this is in dispute. As such both arguments can be made, therefore one who believes in God is no less sane or intelligent than one who believes life came from non life.
Provide evidence that God exists.

After all, you (and everyone else) can obviously provide evidence that both living and non-living things exist. The only thing missing is the mechanism(s) of abiogenesis. There are active research programs in place and working on the subject.

With Genesis, on the other hand, we've got the living things, but we don't have any evidence for God or for the magical "poof." There are no active research programs examining this question.

Of course, a belief that God poofed life into existence doesn't make one insane or stupid (nice strawman of yours, Jerome). It just makes one gullible or non-skeptical. Just as a belief regarding abiogenesis would.

Nobody here actually believes in any particular abiogenesis scenario, because none of them has been completely tested. Hell, few of the hypotheses currently in play even reach the level of "plausible." But that certainly doesn't make "Goddidit" a viable alternative.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 07/05/2007 :  13:20:43   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
The Miller-Urey experiment was not the be-all/end-all of abiogenesis research, but it did demonstrate how some part of the process could have happened.
The Miller-Urey experiment (or Urey-Miller experiment) was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions present on the early Earth and tested for the occurrence of chemical evolution. Specifically, the experiment tested Oparin and Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. The experiment is considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life. It was conducted in 1953 by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey at the University of Chicago [1] [2] [3].
I myself think that, given the right conditions, life will arise and some magic elf or other will have nothing to do with it. I think that, probably beyond my lifetime, this will be proven both by observation of other planets and in the laboratory.




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

Hawks
SFN Regular

Canada
1383 Posts

Posted - 07/05/2007 :  15:04:13   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Hawks's Homepage Send Hawks a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I personally think that hydrothermal vents will be the most fruitful avenue of research into abiogenesis. H2 seeping up from the seafloor supply reduction potential. A core metabolic pathway found in acetogens can emerge at fairly high conentrations. The vents also form an abundant supply of microscopic compartments that certainly alleviate the "concentration problem".

METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden!
Go to Top of Page

Ricky
SFN Die Hard

USA
4907 Posts

Posted - 07/05/2007 :  18:55:55   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Ricky an AOL message Send Ricky a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I personally think that hydrothermal vents will be the most fruitful avenue of research into abiogenesis. H2 seeping up from the seafloor supply reduction potential. A core metabolic pathway found in acetogens can emerge at fairly high conentrations. The vents also form an abundant supply of microscopic compartments that certainly alleviate the "concentration problem".


If I remember properly, most scientists were leaning away from this and towards life being first created in a "little warm pond". I believe the main reason was the the environment was too small and harsh. As soon as you get even a small distance away from the vents, the environment becomes so harsh so rapidly it is hard to imagine anything primitive (back when life was young) being able to survive the change.

Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov
Edited by - Ricky on 07/05/2007 18:56:17
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 07/05/2007 :  19:02:31   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Ricky

I personally think that hydrothermal vents will be the most fruitful avenue of research into abiogenesis. H2 seeping up from the seafloor supply reduction potential. A core metabolic pathway found in acetogens can emerge at fairly high conentrations. The vents also form an abundant supply of microscopic compartments that certainly alleviate the "concentration problem".


If I remember properly, most scientists were leaning away from this and towards life being first created in a "little warm pond". I believe the main reason was the the environment was too small and harsh. As soon as you get even a small distance away from the vents, the environment becomes so harsh so rapidly it is hard to imagine anything primitive (back when life was young) being able to survive the change.


Agreed, in this circumstance life would have to be able to survive two vastly different environments in close proximity.



What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 07/05/2007 :  19:07:31   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Cuneiformist

Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Cune, are you stating that you believe non living matter can become living matter?

Is so, what brought you to this conclusion?
I'm saying its entirely likely. Otherwise, I'd be left speculating that it happened through magical means, and since I'm utterly convinced that there is no such thing as magic, I'm left to conclude that by some natural process, life emerged on earth from matter that was otherwise not organic.



You have chosen to believe one hypothesis over another. There is nothing wrong in that. The problem is when you believe that those that disagree are either insane or stupid.




What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 07/05/2007 :  19:10:51   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
You have chosen to believe one hypothesis over another. There is nothing wrong in that. The problem is when you believe that those that disagree are either insane or stupid.
How does "goddidit" constitute a hypothesis?


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 07/05/2007 :  19:11:53   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by dv82matt

Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
My only point is this is in dispute. As such both arguments can be made, therefore one who believes in God is no less sane or intelligent than one who believes life came from non life.
The difference is that one argument is within science and the other is not. It is not true that life being created by god is on an equal footing with abiogenesis. Science is naturalistic.

God is excluded from science for the same reason that the tooth fairy is excluded from science. It lacks evidence.

Particular theories of abiogenesis are certainly quite speculative at the moment but however it happened life did arise on earth. Abiogenesis is the scientific study of how that occurred or could have occurred.



If science concludes that life can not form outside of life than some other life must be considered.

Abiogenesis is not a theory it is a hypothesis.

What is the evidence of abiogenesis? It seems little more than life is here and it must have come from somewhere.



What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 8 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.27 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000