Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
beecee

Chemistry and Biology = Abiogenesis:

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I have been prompted to start this thread after a valid, logical statement I made in another thread, and which was foolishly and ignorantly I believe questioned by another member. Perhaps though I am being a touch too hard. Perhaps this is just another example of a brainwashed creationist/IDer inevitable argument and protest. Anyway to the subject of the thread......Is the claim I made thus.... "certainly we know that at one time there was no life [universally speaking] then there was" correct? 

 My contention based on mainstream science is that Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer to how life first started in the universe. It certainly to the best of our knowledge was not created from or at the BB. The BB was the evolution of space and time [as we know them] at a time of t+10-43 seconds. From there and though a process that was a result of decreasing temperatures and pressures, and expansion, our first atomic nuclei was created at around 3 minutes. 380,000 years later, temps and pressures were such that the first light elements of hydrogen and helium were constructed. Still no life!!!

From there, stars, galaxies etc started to form...time frame around 400 million years post BB...still no life. From there the story gets more familiar and far more validated with eventually the formation of life from non life....or Abiogenesis. Again there is no other scientific answer. 

While we certainly are still rather ignorant as to the exact process of Abiogenesis, we are just as certain that it is the only scientific possibility.

An interesting account at WIKI.....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

starting with....""Origin of life" redirects here. For non-scientific views on the origins of life, see Creation myth."

"Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life,[3][4][5][a] is the natural process by which lifehas arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.[6][4][7][8] While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but a gradual process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.[9][10][11] Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life, and this article presents several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred".

"Blind faith" in chemical evolution? Guess who hasn't read the scientific literature!

Here's 78 scientific papers from the abiogenesis literature, that demonstrate conclusively that "blind faith" doesn't apply. Instead, what applies is direct experimental confirmation that the postulated chemical reactions WORK, and work under the prebiotic conditions postulated to have been present on the early Earth ...
 
List of 78 papers at link......


Your canards about "information" are revealed to be canards courtesy of the fact that the research in those papers works. Now, what part of "relevant chemical reactions pertinent to abiogenesis have been demonstrated to WORK" do you not understand?
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
 
So again the question at hand is, is my claim that Abiogenesis is evident in the fact that "at one time there was no life, then there was" in error? Was it, or is it, a "bold statement"  as insinuated by another member ? Or is it a logically and scientifically correct statement? 
Is the statement correct that the usual claim by dissenters to Abiogenesis that what scientists are basing their opinions on is nothing but "blind faith"? Or are they again exhibiting an application in their own faith, despite the valid assumptions made via direct scientific experiments?  In other words, yes chemical reactions work!

 

 

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, beecee said:

I have been prompted to start this thread after a valid, logical statement I made in another thread, and which was foolishly and ignorantly I believe questioned by another member.

I think you're over-reacting a bit. First of all, this is not a great way to start a discussion unless you want it to go downhill from the very start. Secondly, the statement in question holds true in most cases, even where religion is concerned so I doubt that that other member was a creationist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, pavelcherepan said:

I think you're over-reacting a bit. First of all, this is not a great way to start a discussion unless you want it to go downhill from the very start. Secondly, the statement in question holds true in most cases, even where religion is concerned so I doubt that that other member was a creationist. 

Considering that the claim made was that my statement  "once there was no life, then there was" was inferred as a bold statement, and considering the link given was overlooked and ignored, and considering no alternative was offered, and considering that it may have been construed as "off topic" in the other thread,  I see discussing and debating the subject here as appropriate. My comment re creationists/IDers is simply what those that oppose Abiogenesis, generally  do have as extra baggage. 

Nice to see you agree though and that is what I'm after with reasons given as to why it is a valid statement and why it is the only scientific answer. I suppose that the 78 papers linked to here, confirms my statements beyond reasonable doubt, and as they were not linked to in the other thread, I will take your thoughts re this thread going downhill under consideration, and ask the mods/admins to consider closing it, if that at all eventuates, or even if they believe it may eventuate. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, beecee said:

was inferred as a bold statement,

What do you mean by that? By whom was it inferred, and from what? 

 



 

Edited by John Cuthber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

We think this could be discussed in the original thread. I am also concerned that the introductory wording could lead to more off-topic argument (see also: John's comment).

Therefore this thread is closed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.