Re: Abiogenesis

On May 15, 8:53 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 15 May 2007 10:52:53 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Peter Pan
<peterpan666...@xxxxxxxxx>:





On May 15, 1:32 pm, AC <mightymartia...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 12 May 2007 11:16:08 -0700,

Peter Pan <peterpan7777...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 12, 12:32 pm, SeppoP <seppo_pietikai...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Peter Pan wrote:
On May 12, 11:37 am, SeppoP <seppo_pietikai...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Peter Pan wrote:
On May 10, 5:25 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 10, 11:24 am, Peter Pan <peterpan666...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Abiogenesis - Life from non-life.
Science cannot explain how it occurred.
So I will refer to this as '*the* something that
science cannot explain.
Your wording is rather inaccurate. Abiogenesis is the sort of thing
that science can explain, and your wording is spin to make it sound as
if it isn't.
The origin of the common anscestor of life on earth may never be known
with 100% sureness, but for all you know scientists are abiogenesising
in the labs even as you read this and explaining it in long boring
papers as they go.
It is going to be figured out any minute now ...
Probably not that soon. It is quite possible that *the* mechanism of abiogenesis on earth
can *never* be ascertained with 100% probability (it has been awhile since the event, bit longer than 6000 years, you
know?). However, it is quite sufficient and even probable to be able to establish *several* different pathways from
non-life to life.

All of which have problems.

Of course. That's what science does, dimmy - it look at problems and tries to find solutions to them.

Like assembling the pieces themselves?

We observe other complex systems being assembled all by themselves in nature.
Is there some reason you want to exclude this one?

If scientists could assemble the pieces themselves,
and produce life, when science hasn't been able
to figure out how it was done without an outside
intelligent force, this is strong evidence leaning
to intelligent design.

No, it isn't. Lack of conclusive evidence supporting a
particular hypothesis (and there are several hypotheses WRT
abiogenesis, all plausible to some extent, all supported to
some extent by evidence, none exhibiting any conclusive
refuting evidence, and none requiring any external
intervention)

None of which will produce abiogenesis.

does not grant support to any competing
conjecture such as ID. When ID actually produces a testable
hypothesis, rather than arguments from incredulity and/or
ignorance, it can be tested and its validity determined.
Until then it's nothing but conjecture.

That is what has just been proposed.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Whats the Problem?
    ... Please provide evidence that any SB actually exists. ... or induced abiogenesis. ... It is true that science has shown that variation of the basic forces ... there is even less chance of the nucleotides moving ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: Honest Creationists Argument wanted
    ... We know RNA is simpler than DNA. ... Show me the evidence that RNA was, in fact, used. ... isn't science. ... Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Honest Creationists Argument wanted
    ... by reference to the evidence. ... Those people are not motivated by a desire to "improve" science, ... It is not based on any model of abiogenesis ... Let's then tell our kids in school that scientists do not know ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Honest Creationists Argument wanted
    ... by reference to the evidence. ... Those people are not motivated by a desire to "improve" science, ... It is not based on any model of abiogenesis ... Let's then tell our kids in school that scientists do not know ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Abiogenesis
    ... Science cannot explain how it occurred. ... mystery of abiogenesis, how would stating that science has solved it ... be the idea that life has originated. ... It depends on evidence and argument. ...
    (talk.origins)