Abiogenesis - The Impossible Theoretical Miracle

a reply to: 5StarOracle

You are eternal if you believe or not...

The atoms of my body are. For the most part.

If they happen to be sucked into a black hole, all bets are off.

a reply to: Phage

When all bets are off
You will know God
You will not fail to fall to your knees
For every atom of your body will rejoice at the quickening as you are elevated
Then you will become the real you once more
Forever

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Phage

When all bets are off
You will know God
You will not fail to fall to your knees
For every atom of your body will rejoice at the quickening as you are elevated
Then you will become the real you once more
Forever

And then you wake up.

a reply to: cooperton

The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics is the first main clue. The observer or measurement is the cause of wave functions substantializing or "collapsing" into matter.

i like the disclaimer portion of that wikipedia page...

There have been many objections to the Copenhagen interpretation over the years. These include: discontinuous jumps when there is an observation, the probabilistic element introduced upon observation, the subjectiveness of requiring an observer, the difficulty of defining a measuring device, and the necessity of invoking classical physics to describe the "laboratory" in which the results are measured.

i am going to do more in depth study of the materials relevant to that article. in the meantime, maybe you can do us the kindness of posting the rest of the clues you possess and hopefully draw a map connecting all the pieces together in a coherent unified theory of intelligent design. enough of the drip feeding, thanks.

For anybody still claiming abiogenesis is "impossible" or a miracle, please watch this 12 minute video. It's very detailed when explaining the experiments and gives a good background on it in the beginning. It's way more understood than the average creationist would lead you to believe.



Skip to about 5 minutes in if you want to get straight to the experiments.

And still no "grand unified theory of intelligent design" what a surprise

originally posted by: TzarChasm
And still no "grand unified theory of intelligent design" what a surprise

We cannot create a life form, or begin to know how it could have been created, in millions of different forms, which reproduce those same millions of life forms...

Gee, let's say life was created from a slimy chemical stew, and that first form of life, which popped out of the slime pit, eventually 'split off' into all the millions of other life forms, okay??

No intelligence needed, it just 'happens' that way, once in awhile, by pure random luck!!

That's so much better than not knowing what happened, and how gobs of # create life, instead of an intelligence beyond ours!!

a reply to: turbonium1

You're obviously not up to date on the science of synthetic biology.

U.S. scientists take step toward creating artificial life

www.reuters.com...

CHICAGO (Reuters) - In a major step toward creating artificial life, U.S. researchers have developed a living organism that incorporates both natural and artificial DNA and is capable of creating entirely new, synthetic proteins.

Craig Venter

Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome

Daniel G. Gibson1, John I. Glass1, Carole Lartigue1, Vladimir N. Noskov1, Ray-Yuan Chuang1, Mikkel A. Algire1, Gwynedd A. Benders2, Michael G. Montague1, Li Ma1, Monzia M. Moodie1, Chuck Merryman1, Sanjay Vashee1, Radha Krishnakumar1, Nacyra Assad-Garcia1, Cynthia Andrews-Pfannkoch1, Evgeniya A. Denisova1, Lei Young1, Zhi-Qing Qi1, Thomas H. Segall-Shapiro1, Christopher H. Calvey1, Prashanth P. Parmar1, Clyde A. Hutchison III2, Hamilton O. Smith2 and J. Craig Venter1,2,*

science.sciencemag.org...

a reply to: turbonium1

This post by Barcs is excellent. Why are you such a blockhead?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Phantom423

The hypothesis is that life can happen without intelligent interference given enough time with the right chemical stew and environmental conditions. But this idea has not been fully explored yet, still working on the technology.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I understand. But repeating an experiment for something that might have taken millions of years is somewhat impractical. That's why the lab experiments, which are certainly not proof positive of anything yet, are so important. Each lab experiment, every discovery adds to the mountain of knowledge we already have. Eventually time and technology will solve the riddle of how life began on this planet - I firmly believe that.

My objection to the attitude of Coop and Turbonium is that, if it were up to them, no objective research would ever be done. All problems solved and relegated to file 13 because a god did it - end of story.

Fortunately, main stream science ignores that type of ignorance.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: turbonium1

This post by Barcs is excellent. Why are you such a blockhead?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yep, and I guarantee that not a single person from the peanut gallery even begins to address the information contained in that video. That pretty much never happens. We all know they get their arguments directly from the mouths of prominent online creationists rather than any type of research, so they are never able to actually address any of the facts, they just know what they have been programmed to believe.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: turbonium1

This post by Barcs is excellent. Why are you such a blockhead?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

People want to see rocks and water magically turning into monkeys and trees, dontcha know...

originally posted by: Barcs

Yep, and I guarantee that not a single person from the peanut gallery even begins to address the information contained in that video. That pretty much never happens.

The guy in the video was showing experiments that demonstrated that monomers of nucleic acids, amino acids, etc, can form naturally - that wasn't even the dilemma presented in the OP. My OP assumed that these were present and instead addressed the dilemma of these monomers organizing into long coherent sequence and being replicable. Even if against all odds a 5000 nucleic acid sequence that coded for ATP synthase was formed, you would still need many, many other proteins to even do anything with it, along with an abundance of necessary metabolic enzymes.



^This complex machinery does not assemble by random chance. Your faith that it did so is astounding.

a reply to: cooperton

This complex machinery does not assemble by random chance.

Within the context of this topic, you cant put two nonsensical words together and have it make sense.

No scientist in this field has ever used the words 'random' and 'chance' when discussing this topic.

Because 1, its not random; and 2, its not chance.

Coomba98

originally posted by: coomba98

No scientist in this field has ever used the words 'random' and 'chance' when discussing this topic.
Because 1, its not random; and 2, its not chance.

So are you admitting an abiogenesis event would require purposeful design?

Evolution has been claimed to be non-random due to selective pressures of the environment, etc, etc... but an abiogenesis event according to the secular worldview would be working solely off the blind reactions of matter.

a reply to: cooperton

Lightning and thunder is neither 'random' or 'chance'.

The topics concluding with god, are getting smaller and smaller.

God as a reason is weak, hell when I was a Christian I saw science as an explanation of how god works within his creation.

I saw the how as the interesting part, not the who!

Coomba98

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: cooperton

Lightning and thunder is neither 'random' or 'chance'.

So you think Zeus chooses where the thunder goes or what? Certainly the capacitor between the atmosphere and surface of the earth where lightning discharges when the charge differential becomes drastic enough is the work of a designed system. Like you, I do not believe these systems came to be by randomness or chance, but design.

The topics concluding with god, are getting smaller and smaller.

God as a reason is weak, hell when I was a Christian I saw science as an explanation of how god works within his creation.

I saw the how as the interesting part, not the who!

The 'how' is very interesting, but the 'who' is what gives it meaning. When the 'how' often escape our human intellect, it is safe to say there was a greater intellect that designed the 'how'.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: cooperton

Lightning and thunder is neither 'random' or 'chance'.

So you think Zeus chooses where the thunder goes or what? Certainly the capacitor between the atmosphere and surface of the earth where lightning discharges when the charge differential becomes drastic enough is the work of a designed system. Like you, I do not believe these systems came to be by randomness or chance, but design.

The topics concluding with god, are getting smaller and smaller.

God as a reason is weak, hell when I was a Christian I saw science as an explanation of how god works within his creation.

I saw the how as the interesting part, not the who!

The 'how' is very interesting, but the 'who' is what gives it meaning. When the 'how' often escape our human intellect, it is safe to say there was a greater intellect that designed the 'how'.

Pointing at gaps in scientific understanding and saying that's where god is basically sums up the nature of intelligent design. Appeal to ignorance fallacy much?

Who doesn't matter because in all likelihood, the "who" is probably a space dictator of some kind that thinks we're just dumb animals, property to be used and discarded.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Pointing at gaps in scientific understanding and saying that's where god is basically sums up the nature of intelligent design. Appeal to ignorance fallacy much?

Pointing at gaps in scientific understanding and assuming evolution did it basically sums up the nature of the belief system of evolutionary theory. Appeal to ignorance fallacy much?