Abiogenesis - The Origin Of Life Conspiracy

Science would like us to believe that they know where life came from, when in reality they have no clue.

Science also claims that this has nothing to do with evolution, even though Darwin himself wrote The Origin of the Species.

Science calls the study of the origin of life Abiogenesis. Which is the study of how life could have developed out of inanimate matter. Basically something from nothing.

This is also related to the Primordial Soup Theory or Biopoesis which claims that life evolved (even though this has nothing to do with evolution, as claimed by scientists), from non living, yet self replicating molecules.

Is it me or does NON LIVING, yet SELF REPLICATING molecules sound like science fiction? No pun intended.

Fire away!





[edit on 3-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

Viruses (virii?) are supposed to be non-living, but self replicating, no?

Anyhow, shouldn't all these threads be in the Origins & Creationism forum? Or in the Science & Technology forum?

Originally posted by babloyi
Viruses (virii?) are supposed to be non-living, but self replicating, no?

Anyhow, shouldn't all these threads be in the Origins & Creationism forum? Or in the Science & Technology forum?

Virii depend on a host cell in order to reproduce. They can't do it by themselves.


[edit on 3-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

Lol, what it used to be science fiction 100 years ago, now is a science REALITY.

However, belief systems, even though they has been around since dawn of time, never did and it never will EVOLVE into something more than they already are, belief systems

Originally posted by 5thElement
Lol, what it used to be science fiction 100 years ago, now is a science REALITY.

However, belief systems, even though they has been around since dawn of time, never did and it never will EVOLVE into something more than they already are, belief systems

The scientific method is all about predictions. Not reality.

reply to post by B.A.C.

How are scientists attempting to find solutions for the origin of life a conspiracy against religion? They may be right, they may be wrong, they say quite clearly that they don't know, so they come up with plausible explanations that could fit the result.

I've never read 'The Origin of Species'. Did Darwin talk about primordial soup? The way I've heard it, it isn't about 'evolving', but involved lightning somewhere in there. Kinda reaching, I agree, since it isn't possible to duplicate the results in a lab, but they've got to start somewhere, no?

I've got to disagree with 'scientific method is all about predictions'. That would be statistics, a branch of mathematics (which although I might have aced in college,) I intensely dislike because it is not fixed. There is no such thing as randomness, and tossing a coin two hundred times will probably not get me 100 heads. 'Predictions' is the stuff you read in magazines like "Studies show that toe wiggling can lead to arthritis in 9 out of 10 males". Scientific Method is "The sun appears in the eastern horizon everyday because the earth is spinning (as observed and proved by .....).
Science seeks a verifiable reasoning behind occurrences, thus helping us calculate when and how they will occur. Predictions just tell you what 'chance' they have of happening, without looking any deeper.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by babloyi]

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by B.A.C.

 

How are scientists attempting to find solutions for the origin of life a conspiracy against religion? They may be right, they may be wrong, they say quite clearly that they don't know, so they come up with plausible explanations that could fit the result.

I've never read 'The Origin of Species'. Did Darwin talk about primordial soup? The way I've heard it, it isn't about 'evolving', but involved lightning somewhere in there. Kinda reaching, I agree, since it isn't possible to duplicate the results in a lab, but they've got to start somewhere, no?

Yes they have to start somewhere. But they like to pretend they already have the answers.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

It's possible to theorize how life on earth began, but we will never know the absolute truth, at least, not through our current scientific and religious models. So, while it's an interesting debate, saying that it's complete fallacy is far reaching because you can't prove your faith either. So everyone loses and we probably won't see the truth in our lifetimes.

Personally, I think we're pan-dimensional, though unaware of our true nature. Can you refute that with facts? Nope.

actually it's not quite like you're making it seem OP. if you've ever taken a biology class you'll know that scientists mostly support evolution but if you ask a few questions, without being an azz, you'll see taht they don't have any delusionsabout knowing everything.

no one's forcing you to believe abiogenesis or evolution.

Originally posted by Mozzy
actually it's not quite like you're making it seem OP. if you've ever taken a biology class you'll know that scientists mostly support evolution but if you ask a few questions, without being an azz, you'll see taht they don't have any delusionsabout knowing everything.

no one's forcing you to believe abiogenesis or evolution.

Being an azz? LOL

Science presents evolution as fact, not theory. Go read up on it.

Science presents evolution as fact, not theory. Go read up on it.

Actually, it does not claim it to be fact. Why don't you go and read up on it and see clearly it's almost always referred to as 'the THEORY of Evolution'.

reply to post by B.A.C.



Carbon, considered necessary for life, is amazingly versatile.

Burning an object basically infuses it with oxygen. Oxygen and hydrogen work together regulate the pH balance of everything.

Living beings are mostly water. The difference between a puddle of slime and a living being is probably the abundance of carbohydrates, including organic matter, which use water in a variety of ways.

Minerals, like iron and magnesium, also come into play.

All of these things help conduct electrical current, which is yet another feature of living beings.

As for the original topic, the most common theory I've heard in that regard is that the "elohim" created humans using genetic engineering.

Originally posted by akabetty

Science presents evolution as fact, not theory. Go read up on it.

Actually, it does not claim it to be fact. Why don't you go and read up on it and see clearly it's almost always referred to as 'the THEORY of Evolution'.

I agree completely that it is a theory, and only a theory.


Try telling any one of these evolutionist on this thread that and see what happens.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Cheers.

reply to post by akabetty


Not quite true.
I submit the following example of evolution being referred to as fact by it's proponents:

“As to the fact of evolution there is universal assent.”—Limitations of Science, 1933.

“Evolution as a historical fact was proved beyond reasonable doubt not later than in the closing decades of the nineteenth century.”—The Biological Basis of Human Freedom, 1956.

“The evolution of life is no longer a theory. It is a fact.”—Julian Huxley, 1959.

“All reputable biologists have agreed that the evolution of life on the earth is an established fact.”—Biology for You, 1963.

“Anyone who is exposed to the evidence supporting evolution must recognize it as an historical fact.”—The New Orleans Times-Picayune, 1964.

“Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority.”—James D. Watson, 1965.

“Evolution has, by now, the status of fact.”—Science on Trial, 1983.

“What we do have is incontrovertible proof of the fact of evolution.”—Ashley Montagu, 1984.


Harvard professor Stephen Jay Gould, Discover, January 1987 issue.

In his protesting essay, Gould repeated a dozen times his assertion that evolution is a fact. A few examples:

Darwin established “the fact of evolution.”
“The fact of evolution is as well established as anything in science (as secure as the revolution of the earth around the sun).”
By the time Darwin died, “nearly all thinking people came to accept the fact of evolution.”
“Evolution is as well established as any scientific fact (I shall give the reasons in a moment).”
“The fact of evolution rests upon copious data that fall, roughly, into three great classes...

There are hundreds if not thousands of examples of scientists referring to evolution as a "FACT".

Science is all about the scientific method. Simply stated, the scientist observes things, forms a hypothesis, designs an experiment to test the hypothesis, and the results of the experiment either show that the hypothesis was a load of BS or supports it, but it does not prove it. Thus so much of science consists of theories..

The Primordial Soup Theory has been tested a number of times: scientists take some inorganic molecules and from them create organic molecules. This suggests that, yes, you can get life from lifelessness. This is not to say it proves that life developed that way, just that the results of these experiments provide scientists with valuable clues on how life MAY have developed.

The way I see it life did not come from inanimate matter. Inanimate matter came from energy, so it really is not inanimated, just dense and slow. Everything is alive, which is a neat little way to sidestep the problem. We, living things, did not come from anywhere, we were always here.

Just an opinion, but based on personal experience and quite a big bibliography of knowledge.

Just because it's branded as science does not mean it is true, science history itself shows us that and all - good - scientists would accept this statement. Just because there is data that does not validate the interpretation.

Evolution is more about the dynamics of life than it's actual origin, if you look into it deep enough.

reply to post by Sparky63


You make a very good point.

Science generally accepts a theory to be "fact" if it has been around for a long while, stood the test of time and experimentation, and is accepted by the majority of scientists. The theory of evolution has been around for 150 years, and the evidence in its support keeps piling up.

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by B.A.C.

 

...I've got to disagree with 'scientific method is all about predictions'. That would be statistics, a branch of mathematics (which although I might have aced in college,) I intensely dislike because it is not fixed.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by babloyi]

A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

A hypothesis consists either of a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal predicting a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena.

What we can do in a laboratory is demonstrate that it’s possible for the building blocks of life – amino acids to come from none living material and yes it’s a bunch of chemicals in an atmosphere. Apply electricity you get amino acids.

That doesn’t tell us exactly how life did form on earth in the past but what it does do, it tells us that life can come from none life.

IF the perfect conditions happned on just 1 planet in the infinite universe then that would spread life to all planets. As long as it is "possible" for dna to happen if everything randomly can together perfectly then that single source of life in a small fraction of time in infinity would have space travel and microwave dinners.