It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Anyways, [naturalistic] abiogenesis in itself seems to be a direct conflict of the law of biogenesis. Essentially, life can only come from life.
This is the opposite of what was believed in antiquity and even semi-modern history, spontaneous generation.
I was trying to point out the seemingly contradiction of theories relating to abiogenesis compared to the law of biogenesis.
Law of Biogenesis
Redi's and Pasteur's findings that life comes from life is sometimes called the law of biogenesis and asserts that modern organisms (there is the out) do not spontaneously arise in nature from non-life.
Orthogenesis
A second meaning of biogenesis was given by the French Jesuit priest, scientist and philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin to mean the origin of life itself due to an inherent drive of matter towards higher consciousness, an extension of the orthogenesis hypothesis.
Originally posted by B.A.C.
Evolution is a fact, I agree, but it is an adaptation.
Without answers for Abiogenesis the whole Theory of Evolution falls apart.
Can anyone offer proof for Abiogenesis Scientifically? Without guessing, or placing faith that it "just happened"?
No.
Originally posted by Welfhard
And as my understanding goes, life exists. Therefore the chances of abiogenesis occurring is 1.
Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by B.A.C.
Except that mines a naturalistic explanation whereby the mechanisms can be understood, that's why it's a theory rather than a hypothesis. That's why it's a theory rather than a faith.
Also science doesn't deal in 'proof', it deals in evidence. In science the closest thing to 'proof' you'll get, the highest level of reality you get is "Theory". Only maths can deal in proof.
[edit on 10-3-2009 by Welfhard]
Originally posted by B.A.C.
The mechanisms of Abiogenesis can be understood?
Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by B.A.C.
"Lots of neat experiments in controlled environments"
Yes, controlled environments replicating primordial conditions. Ways in which it could happen are known- as mentioned in the vids -given the time, resource, space and conditions, it only had to happen once. Theory.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by B.A.C.
BAC, if you actually watched the videos, then you didn't quite get it yet.
Give me a 'controlled environment', to approximate theearly Earth's oceans, the proper chemicals and minerals, etc, and oh, say....a few million years....then come on back and we'll view the results.
It ain't gonna happen in a laboratory, in the course of a Human's lifetime, to satisfy you. (Unless you can dig up Dr. Frankenstein)
Serious question for you, BAC. Say that microbial life, or even early primitive plant forms, such as algae and the like are verified to exist on Mars? Do you think you would pause to consider that a serious flaw in the strict 'creation' theory?
Another (probably not in my lifetime) potential place to discover ET life is on some of the icy moons of the gas giants in our Solar System. Europa comes to mind.....theorized (that pesky word again....maybe, hypothesized...) that under the ice, liquid water, because of thermal activity deeper down. Could....."could", I say...be very similar to already observed deep-sea extremophile lifeforms in our own oceans. Too deep for sunlight....the heat from the vents provide the energy. The FACT that organisms such as these exist on the Earth is very compelling to form the 'hypothesis' that it could occure elsewhere.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
This is another thread, following evolutionary-themed threads that I am.....ermmm....following.
I'm not the clever 'Ape' that can do linkys....I can only bring a sense of rationality into a discussion/debate.
I've seen many, many pages that attempt to bring in this, or that....sometimes a really 'bollocks' argument, sometimes quite good....from BOTH sides.....
WE are using a form of communication UNIMAGINABLE to people just 20 years ago....well, not 'unimaginable'.....but if we 're-set' to 30 years, that statement becomes correct.....except.....'unimaginable' covers a lot of ground.....let's change it to 'UNATAINABLE'
20, 30.....heck, even 10 years ago, would you believe the technololgy
we currently have?
(all that) didn't arrive through 'prayer' (sorry)....but because of science.
'faith'....don't lose it, if it comforts you.
I suppose, in a way, I am 'proselytizing', a bit....but, with a HUGE difference.Reason....and rationality, versus....blind obedience to unverifiable.....'beliefs'.
Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by B.A.C.
You aught to look at this.
www.exploringorigins.org...