Abiogenesis: Is the RNA hypothesis dead?

[writer]

60 Please cite at least one study that has conclusively falsified the abiogenesis hypothesis.

Burden's on u. Like in court or anywhere rational.
What's false needn't be falsified.
Already is

Any such study would have to provide very strong evidence that life could NEVER have evolved from nonlife.

When did it ever?

Remember, the argument from incredulity is not sufficient.

If you're a skeptic, you should be incredulous of the undemonstrable.
Would it be fair to call the gentleman "Unskeptic," in regard to his hypotheses?

If you cannot provide strong empirical evidence that life could never come naturally from nonlife, your statement is irrational.

Than that might make Bob 'n u even in that regard.
Since you've no evidence life ever came from unlife by natural or unnatural processes

You are the one who is dreaming

Bob's blessed if he aint dreamin o' Abiogenesis or Evolution

 

[Skeptic]

cuz to u God's a leprechaun?

No, because God is a mythical entity for which there is no empirical evidence.

So then unlife may be producing life today?

I have no way of knowing whether abiogenesis is happening someplace on Earth today.

Where?

How would I know? ... Can you scientifically and conclusively rule out the possibility that it is not occurring in some remote unexplored place on or within the planet?

Yeah there is:
the fact that life never comes from unlife now.

:yawn: ... Even if life does not currently come from nonlife, this would NOT be a rational reason to claim that life could never come from nonlife.

Also the fact that God's living and purposeful
(- He created Skeptic to contain God)

:yawn:

To the contrary: electricity doesn't create life; heat doesn't; erosion doesn't; wind doesn't; science-fair projects don't; volcanoes don't; storms don't; bubbles don't; noise doesn't; winter doesn't; spring doesn't; rain doesn't; Mars and Mercury don't; solar flares don't; comets don't; meteorites don't; nuclear reactions don't; fire doesn't

Do you understand that the words "doesn't / don't" and "can't" have very different meanings?

Again, even if life doesn't currently come from nonlife, this would NOT be a rational reason to claim that life can't come from nonlife.

To the contrary: Everything's evidence that there's God.

Wrong.

Because the other options are that everything spontaneously generated;

As has been pointed out before, the phrase "spontaneous generation" is not synonymous with "abiogenesis."

or that everything's eternal

But your alleged God is eternal, right? ... :chuckle:

How convenient.

To the contrary: Accident didn't "create" everything.

You have no evidence for supernatural creation.

Nor did everything create itself.

You have no evidence that everything (i.e the universe) was ever created. ... The existence of the universe is not evidence for a time when it did not exist.

Nor's everything eternal.

Except for your alleged God, right? ... :chuckle:

For instance: Skeptic didn't create himself.

What applies to things within the universe does not necessarily apply to the universe itself.

 

[writer]

62

62

62 God is a mythical entity for which there is no empirical evidence.

To the contrary: the heavens declare His glory, and the earth (and you) show His handiwork

I have no way of knowing whether abiogenesis is happening someplace on Earth today.

I do. Since it's not real, it's not happening.
In any case, thank you for your honesty and humility

How would I know?

Mebbe if u did a study, like you're always askin others for here

Can you scientifically and conclusively rule out the possibility that it is not occurring in some remote unexplored place on or within the planet?

Where?
Antarctica?
The natual cold's naturally "happenin" life?
That's as silly as saying heat "makes" life. Or electricity. Or energy. Or nonliving mass

Even if life does not currently come from nonlife, this would NOT be a rational reason to claim that life could never come from nonlife.

Sure is precedent.
In any case: Why not?
What's changed?
Time?

Do you understand that the words "doesn't / don't" and "can't" have very different meanings?

i understand that unlife can't create. Can't create life. Can't "happen" into life. Life can't spontaneously-generate. Can't electricity-generate. Doesn't electricity-generate. Didn't heat-generate. Doesn't, and can't, cold-generate.
'Cept mebbe in the remote, unexplored, places within your imagination.
No offence

Again, even if life doesn't currently come from nonlife, this would NOT be a rational reason to claim that life can't come from nonlife.

Again: that's not so.
Given that observation now is rational in relation to studying history

As has been pointed out before, the phrase "spontaneous generation" is not synonymous with "abiogenesis."

As's been pointed out before: they're equally silly.
And not too far different.
Abiogenesis myth we could say is that energy, or matter, happens life.
Spontaneous generation we can say, is that matter (which's related to energy E=Mcsquared), happens into life. Mebbe w/ no "outside" energy.
They're both equally ridiculous. As far as scientific hypotheses go

your God is eternal, right?

Amen!
He's God. He's the eternal life

You have no evidence for supernatural creation.

Creation's wonderful design is evidence.
As well as my encounter with the Creator. In my spirit

You have no evidence that everything (i.e the universe) was ever created.

My evidence's is everything. Which's alot o' evidence. It's very existence

The existence of the universe is not evidence for a time when it did not exist.

Since it didn't create itself: yes it is.
Even some physical science says that everything physical began w/ a "Big Bang"

What applies to things within the universe does not necessarily apply to the universe itself.

To the contrary: r both matter

 

[Skeptic]

Burden's on u. Like in court or anywhere rational.

You are the one making the claim that it can never happen.

The burden of proof for a claim is on the claimant!

Remember, I am not 100% certain that abiogenesis did happen! .. Don't forget, I am an agnostic.

What's false needn't be falsified.
Already is

Are there any studies that conclusively show that it is false?

When did it ever?

I'm not making a claim of certainty that it did.

You, however, are making a claim of certainty that it did not and could never.

If you're a skeptic, you should be incredulous of the undemonstrable.

I am.

I am especially incredulous of the undemonstrated claim that life could never come from nonlife.

Would it be fair to call the gentleman "Unskeptic," in regard to his hypotheses?

Again, I am not making a claim of certainty that abiogenesis did occur. ... To do so would be anti-science. I think abiogenesis probably (not certainly) occurred.

I allow for the possibility that I am wrong, ... do you?

Than that might make Bob 'n u even in that regard.
Since you've no evidence life ever came from unlife by natural or unnatural processes

Even? ... Hardly.

My claim is merely that abiogenesis is possible and probable. This claim is based on the following evidence:

• there is no evidence for supernatural processes,
• the only evidence we have for anything consists of natural processes,
• life is composed of only natural elements, like organic molecules,
• there is plenty of evidence for the natural origin of organic molecules,
• there is plenty of evidence for the natural origin of macromolecules,
• there is plenty of evidence that pre-life Earth conditions allowed for chemical processes analogous to those found in life.

My claim could be wrong! ... But, until I have some evidence to the contrary, I will believe it is not wrong.

Bob's blessed if he aint dreamin o' Abiogenesis or Evolution

:yawn:

 

[Skeptic]

To the contrary: the heavens declare His glory, and the earth (and you) show His handiwork

I do. Since it's not real, it's not happening.
In any case, thank you for your honesty and humility

Mebbe if u did a study, like you're always askin others for here

Where?
Antarctica?
The natual cold's naturally "happenin" life?
That's as silly as saying heat "makes" life. Or electricity. Or energy. Or nonliving mass

Sure is precedent.
In any case: Why not?
What's changed?
Time?

i understand that unlife can't create. Can't create life. Can't "happen" into life. Life can't spontaneously-generate. Can't electricity-generate. Doesn't electricity-generate. Didn't heat-generate. Doesn't, and can't, cold-generate.
'Cept mebbe in the remote, unexplored, places within your imagination.
No offence

Again: that's not so.
Given that observation now is rational in relation to studying history

As's been pointed out before: they're equally silly.
And not too far different.
Abiogenesis myth we could say is that energy, or matter, happens life.
Spontaneous generation we can say, is that matter (which's related to energy E=Mcsquared), happens into life. Mebbe w/ no "outside" energy.
They're both equally ridiculous. As far as scientific hypotheses go

Amen!
He's God. He's the eternal life

Creation's wonderful design is evidence.
As well as my encounter with the Creator. In my spirit

My evidence's is everything. Which's alot o' evidence. It's very existence

:yawn:

Since it didn't create itself: yes it is.

There is no evidence it was "created."

Even some physical science says that everything physical began w/ a "Big Bang"

Wrong. ... The Big Bang is merely a theory of the expansion of the universe, not its existence.

To the contrary: r both matter

Again, what applies to things within the universe does not necessarily apply to the universe itself.

The matter within the universe today, is the same matter that was within the universe at the time of the Big Bang. Within the universe, matter is reshaped by various processes. But the matter of the universe itself is neither created nor destroyed. ... Do you have evidence to the contrary?

 

[bob b]

There is no evidence it was "created."

There is no evidence it wasn't.

The matter within the universe today, is the same matter that was within the universe at the time of the Big Bang.

And you know this how?

Within the universe, matter is reshaped by various processes. But the matter of the universe itself is neither created nor destroyed. ... Do you have evidence to the contrary?

And what is your evidence?

 

[Johnny]

There is no evidence it wasn't.

Do you really think this is a good rebuttal / argument? Please answer this question.

 

[writer]

64-65

64-65

64 You are the one making the claim that it can never happen.

Praise the Lord

The burden of proof for a claim is on the claimant!

To prove a negative?
To the contrary: the affirmative claim, or hypothesis, is that nonlife happened into life

Remember, I am not 100% certain that abiogenesis did happen! .. Don't forget, I am an agnostic.

i'm 100% certain, from observation and experience, that life produces life.
And that life's different from nonlife.
In any case, if u let me ask: what r your alternative hypotheses or possibilities?
Thanks

Are there any studies that conclusively show that it is false?

My study of life (and nonlife) has never, ever, seen spontaneous generation, nonlife happening into life, or heat or electricity or inorganic chemical reaction generating nonlife into life.
What about yours?

I am especially incredulous of the undemonstrated claim that life could never come from nonlife.

r u equally incredulous that Eternal Life could have made created-life?

...anti-science. I think abiogenesis probably (not certainly) occurred.

This sounds like a repeat of your post 34.
Does possibility = probability in your mind?

I allow for the possibility that I am wrong, ... do you?

It depends on the particular item.
For instance: i can't deny my Creator or having met, and meeting, Him in spirit.
Hence i can't deny His word

Even? ... Hardly. My claim is merely that abiogenesis is possible and probable.

Even..."exactly." Given that "possible" isn't the equivalent of "probable"

there is no evidence for supernatural processes,

To the contrary: order is evidence of an Orderer.
And life is evidence of Life

the only evidence we have for anything consists of natural processes,

Nonlife happening into life isn't a natural process. It'd b an unnatural process. A counter-natural process. An anti-natural process. If, that is, it were a process at all, i.e. if it existed anywhere besides your imagination.
But then mebbe it is a natural process, since your imagination's a natural process

life is composed of only natural elements, like organic molecules,

Life differs from nonlife. Life is life. Nonlife isn't.
Life comes from life. Nonlife also comes from life, for instance in the natural process of waste materials. Life is superior to nonlife. Cuz life is living. Nonlife isn't.
There is one life that is supernatural. And that created natural elements. And created you.
His name's God. And He names Himself also in terms of life:
Father, Son, Spirit

there is plenty of evidence for the natural origin of organic molecules,

"Organic molecules" r not life. Nor is life different in matter from nonlife. God created man, for instance, out of the dust of the ground

there is plenty of evidence for the natural origin of macromolecules,

Macromolecules r not life

there is plenty of evidence that pre-life Earth conditions allowed for chemical processes analogous to those found in life.

Such as?
In any case: what chemical processes r NOT analogous to those found in life?
Life differs not from nonlife in matter, in the chemicals of matter

My claim could be wrong! ... But, until I have some evidence to the contrary, I will believe it is not wrong.

Then mebbe we could call u a believer. Rather than Skeptic.
In any case: what claim? That possibility = probability?
U need evidence to disavow that?
Try a dictionary

65 There is no evidence it was "created."

To the contrary: existence is evidence of beginning.
Kinda like your existence is evidence of your parents' procreation.
Unless u think u spontaneously-generated or electricity bore u

Wrong. ... The Big Bang is merely a theory of the expansion of the universe, not its existence.

Ok. I c what you're saying.
To me: a chair's design is evidence for a time it didn't exist.
Not evidence that it always existed.
In any case: hypothesizin that matter was squished down to "infinitely dense" or "infinitely small" sounds kinda like double-talk for nonexistence to me.
Mebbe u could help clear me up on that.
Thank you

Again, what applies to things within the universe does not necessarily apply to the universe itself.

Again, and to the contrary: both r matter

The matter within the universe today, is the same matter that was within the universe at the time of the Big Bang.

If the Big Bang existed/exists, God created the Big Bang

the matter of the universe itself is neither created nor destroyed. ... Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Calling not being as being, and giving life to the dead?
I believe there's Someone who can do that.
And my evidence is my experience, and ongoing experience, of Him.
Thanx

 

[lucaspa]

You are the one making the claim that it can never happen.

The burden of proof for a claim is on the claimant!

This is the Shifting the Burden of Proof fallacy. In a discussion, both propositions have a "burden of proof"

This is why I keep posting http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html and related data.

You, however, are making a claim of certainty that it did not and could never.

And that is a problem. Here "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" applies. Creationists sometimes try to use "probability" calculations to show impossibility. Of course, it turns out those calculations are flawed; they are GIGO.

My claim is merely that abiogenesis is possible and probable. This claim is based on the following evidence:

• there is no evidence for supernatural processes,
• the only evidence we have for anything consists of natural processes,

Uh, you do realize you are using the same argument here that you protest against, don't you? Again, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

What is more, you are also implicitly using the idea that "natural" excludes "supernatural". It doesn't.

 

[lucaspa]

Calling not being as being, and giving life to the dead?
I believe there's Someone who can do that.
And my evidence is my experience, and ongoing experience, of Him.

You've just stated the legitimate evidence for belief in God.

BUT, I would urge caution extrapolating this evidence for the existence of God to ways that you say God must have worked.

In terms of getting life, you are saying that God must have directly manufactured life from non-life. Probably you think this is by miracle.

BUT, you said:

If the Big Bang existed/exists, God created the Big Bang

You could also state this as "the Big Bang is the way God created the universe"

So, why can't you accept that chemistry is the way that God created life from non-living chemicals? Same thing.

i'm 100% certain, from observation and experience, that life produces life.

Yeah, but your experience doesn't cover everything. Once again, start here: http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

My study of life (and nonlife) has never, ever, seen spontaneous generation, nonlife happening into life, or heat or electricity or inorganic chemical reaction generating nonlife into life.
What about yours?

My experience is different. And so can yours be if you simply do the experiments for yourself.

Remember, spontaneous generation is different from abiogenesis. Spontaneous generation is getting complex organisms from decaying matter: mice from grain and maggots from decaying meat.

For instance: i can't deny my Creator or having met, and meeting, Him in spirit.
Hence i can't deny His word

But could your interpreation of "His word" be in error?

To the contrary: order is evidence of an Orderer.
And life is evidence of Life

Sorry, but this argument fails. Order is no longer evidence of an intelligent entity. There are unintelligent processes that will give order: gravity, chemistry, etc. There is also an unintelligent process -- natural selection -- that gives design.

Nonlife happening into life isn't a natural process. It'd b an unnatural process. A counter-natural process. An anti-natural process.

Why? Life is simply a set of chemical reactions. Chemical reactions are natural.

There is one life that is supernatural. And that created natural elements. And created you.

Ah, but the question is: How did God create? Did God have to directly manufacture life by putting the chemicals together, or did God create by chemistry and have chemistry put the chemicals together.

Not evidence that it always existed.
In any case: hypothesizin that matter was squished down to "infinitely dense" or "infinitely small" sounds kinda like double-talk for nonexistence to me.
Mebbe u could help clear me up on that.

First, Big Bang states that the universe BEGAN as an infinitely hot, infinitely dense volume of spacetime. Matter was not "squished". Instead, in the early universe, there was no matter, only energy. Matter and energy are 2 forms of the same thing -- E = mc^2. It was later, when the universe had expanded some and cooled, that matter "condensed out" from the energy. It is analagous to cooling a gas and having it go from gas to liquid. Like cooling steam and getting liquid water.

Second, both space and time came into existence at the Big Bang. "Before" the BB there was NO THING. No space, no time, no matter, no energy.

 

[writer]

70

70

70 BUT, I would urge caution extrapolating this evidence for the existence of God to ways that you say God must have worked.

it's not ways i say (firstly). He says so. In His Bible

In terms of getting life, you are saying that God must have directly manufactured life from non-life.

The Bible says all 3:
Out of nothing, out of nonlife, and out of life

Probably you think this is by miracle.

If u think God is a miracle

"the Big Bang is the way God created the universe"

I said IF
the Big Bang exists

So, why can't you accept that chemistry is the way that God created life from non-living chemicals?

a) God is not chemistry
b) The Bible appears to say not so (Gen 1:11; 2:7)

Yeah, but your experience doesn't cover everything.

i don't call your fantasies that u or your kitchen experiments have created life
"experience"

My experience is different. And so can yours be if you simply do the experiments for yourself.

Feel free to write out your recipe here

Remember, spontaneous generation is different from abiogenesis.

Remember, they're essentially the same

Spontaneous generation is getting complex organisms from decaying matter: mice from grain and maggots from decaying meat.

With capitals "S" and "G." Broadly: the idea that unlife spontaneously happens into life is "spontaneous generation." Whether your unlife is dead meat, dead grain, or unliving chemicals

But could your interpreation of "His word" be in error?

Not when it's straightforward reading of Genesis 1:11; 2:7.
How do you interpret them?

Order is no longer evidence of an intelligent entity.

To the contrary: order's never stopped being evidence of intelligence.
Since the Life we're talking about isn't merely Life, but is a Person

There are unintelligent processes that will give order: gravity, chemistry, etc.

I didn't say order IS intelligence

There is also an unintelligent process -- natural selection -- that gives design.

Unintelligent is right.
"Natural-selection" is itself a deceitful phrase per Evolution. Evolutionists can't help but anthropomorphize. Because deeply, inwardly, in our very constitution, God is undeniable.
Natural selection, a hypothesis to account for different kinds of life: both doesn't exist, never existed, and never can, as a reality

Why [isn't Nonlife happening into life a natural process]?

Cuz it duzn't happen in nature

Life is simply a set of chemical reactions. Chemical reactions are natural.

Life is more than chemistry.
For instance u: have a spirit and soul as well as body (1 Thes 5:23; Gen 2:7; Zech 12:1)

How did God create?

Depends on what item of creation you're speaking of.
Generally (but not always), except for us, He spoke
(Gen 1:11; Rm 4:17)

Did God have to directly manufacture life by putting the chemicals together, or did God create by chemistry and have chemistry put the chemicals together.

The former.
By speaking.
In Genesis 1:11.
By breathing in Genesis 2:7

Big Bang states that the universe BEGAN as an infinitely hot, infinitely dense volume of spacetime.

i should alter my #68 a little: "infinite" is God.
"Infinitely dense" is double-speak, or avoid-speak, or unavoidably-speak, for our Creator.
Praise His infinity!

Matter was not "squished".

To the contrary: "infinitely dense" is precisely "squished"

Matter and energy are 2 forms of the same thing -- E = mc^2.

That's why i pointed out earlier, in common w/ their equal unreality:
"abiogenesis" and "spontaneous generation" r also essentially the same thing.
Hypothetically-speaking

"Before" the BB there was NO THING. No space, no time, no matter, no energy.

B4 a BB, if a BB exists/existed, there is God

 

[bob b]

The Big Bang is nothing more than the expansion of the universe starting with a singularity (nothing).

The Bible says 8 times or so that God stretched out the heavens.

But Big Bang advocates rarely if ever give God the credit.

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

But Big Bang advocates rarely if ever give God the credit.

Because there is as much as evidence that God performed the Big Bang as there is for a couple of magical leprechauns performing the Big Bang; zero.

 

[bob b]

Because there is as much as evidence that God performed the Big Bang as there is for a couple of magical leprechauns performing the Big Bang; zero.

God said He expanded the universe a long time before scientists came to the same realization that Bible believers knew all along.

 

[Johnny]

God said He expanded the universe a long time before scientists came to the same realization that Bible believers knew all along.

Then why did it take science to come along and figure it all out? How many advocates of an inflation-style creation advocates can you name pre-big bang era (in other words, did any creationists actually claim the universe started from an expansion)?

 

[bob b]

Then why did it take science to come along and figure it all out? How many advocates of an inflation-style creation advocates can you name pre-big bang era (in other words, did any creationists actually claim the universe started from an expansion)?

The clues in scripture are not exactly all that straightforward.

This is one reason that many Jews who were experts on the scriptures did not recognize their Messiah when He came.

It is also why I don't pay much attention to those who try to predict the 2nd Coming. Only after it occurs will we say: "Oh yeah, that's what was meant."

 

[writer]

73

73

magical leprechauns...zero

JustinFoldsFive is made neither in the image of leprechauns,
nor in the image of zero

 

[noguru]

The clues in scripture are not exactly all that straightforward.

This is one reason that many Jews who were experts on the scriptures did not recognize their Messiah when He came.

It is also why I don't pay much attention to those who try to predict the 2nd Coming. Only after it occurs will we say: "Oh yeah, that's what was meant."

"Not exactly all that straightforward"? But I thought that a plain reading was all that was needed?

 

[writer]

75

75

75 Then why did it take science to come along and figure it all out?

"science" simply means "knowledge."
"Why did it take knowledge to come along and figure it all out?"
Doesn't even make sense.
Figure what?

How many advocates of an inflation-style creation can you name pre-big bang era (in other words, did any creationists actually claim the universe started from an expansion)?

Creation, by definition, is an expansion. It's a creation. It's not a "steady-state"

 

[Skeptic]

There is no evidence it wasn't.

Given that the universe exists, and there is:

1. no evidence of a time when it did not exist,
2. no evidence it was ever created,
3. no evidence it was not created,

then the only conclusion we can rationally make at this time is that the universe exists and, since we may never know whether it once did not exist, it might have always existed.

Our current observation of the fact of existence does not support the hypothesis that the universe once did not exist.

Our current observation of the fact of existence does not rule out or serve as evidence against the hypothesis of eternal existence.

Therefore, doesn't it seem reasonable to tentatively conclude that the universe has always existed?

And you know this how?

I don't know this with 100% certainty. But is not the current scientific consensus that matter/energy is neither created nor destroyed (Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy)?

And what is your evidence?

The same evidence that supports the Law of Conservation. Neither the creation of matter/energy from nothing nor the destruction of matter/energy into nothing has ever been observed.

Is there any reason to suspect that the Law of Conservation was ever violated? .... Wouldn't your creation myth be such a violation?