• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

The Origin of Life: Against Abiogenesis

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TheFightingPikachu

Smashing!
Today, some seem to take it as not simply possible, but certain that life originated from nonliving matter. Is this justified by the evidence? Let's debate that.

I'd like to begin with a brief criticism of a popular interpretation of one origin-of-life scenario. I've heard some cite the Miller-Urey experiment as evidence that life could form from nonliving matter, but this is an exaggeration. Starting with water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen, the experiment was able to produce some amino acids. I am not impressed by this because, first of all, it takes multiple amino acids to make a protein, and multiple proteins to make a cellular mechanism (which is only part of a cell).

That, of course, misses an even more fundamental problem with the experiment: the experiment was designed so the amino acids were removed from the environment in which they were formed. Just look at a diagram of the experiment. To put it mildly, this is a poor approximation of a fully natural process, especially if this process is said to have operated continually on the amino acids for millions of years in order to produce living cells.
 
M

meteor64

Show Me Ya Noobs
Today, some seem to take it as not simply possible, but certain that life originated from nonliving matter
Click to expand...
Well where do you propose life came from then? It's not going to come from living matter.
 
P

PokeJustice

☮
meteor64 said:
Well where do you propose life came from then? It's not going to come from living matter.
Click to expand...
Obvious creationist is obvious.

What we must remember in this debate is that abiogenesis is a fact--there once was no life, and now there is.
In creationistic parlance, abiogenesis is equated with the materialistic explanation of life's origin, but this is inaccurate.
 
M

meteor64

Show Me Ya Noobs
PokeJustice said:
Obvious creationist is obvious.
Click to expand...

What creationist?

I think you took what I said COMPLETELY the wrong way, I'm about as far from a creationist as possible :/

What I was implying is that life hasn't always been here, so therefore it MUST have come from the replication of inorganic matter. I'm totally for abiogenesis, and I'm going to stand against this thread and say that life MUST have spanned from abiogenesis, since we cannot think of any other logical solution to the problem.
 
P

PokeJustice

☮
meteor64 said:
What creationist?

I think you took what I said COMPLETELY the wrong way, I'm about as far from a creationist as possible :/
Click to expand...
I think you misinterpreted me. I was referring to TheFightingPikachu, who is (clearly) a creationist.

meteor64 said:
What I was implying is that life hasn't always been here, so therefore it MUST have come from the replication of inorganic matter. I'm totally for abiogenesis, and I'm going to stand against this thread and say that life MUST have spanned from abiogenesis, since we cannot think of any other logical solution to the problem.
Click to expand...
Okay. But now you have to explain how it happened.
 
M

meteor64

Show Me Ya Noobs
Well you did quote my post, I thought it was aimed at me :/ my bad.

From what I was taught at GSCE, they reckon it started with amino acids under a crust of botryoidal habit pyrite (thats ball shaped to most people) forming and coming together to form complex proteins under the protection of the pyrite "shell" and the gentle heat of the sulphurous vents nearby.

Well, what I was taught at GCSE, plus my own insights.
 
S

Sabonea_Masukippa

Well-Known Member
PokeJustice said:
Okay. But now you have to explain how it happened.
Click to expand...

And hundreds of scientists are currently working on coming up with many a testable hypothesis to do so but at the moment, the only 'real' or responsible answer is 'We don't know [yet].'
 
P

PokeJustice

☮
Sabonea_Masukippa said:
And hundreds of scientists are currently working on coming up with many a testable hypothesis to do so but at the moment, the only 'real' or responsible answer is 'We don't know [yet].'
Click to expand...
If I were seeking intellectual fulfillment, this wouldn't strike me as a selling point of materialism.
 
S

Sabonea_Masukippa

Well-Known Member
As opposed to the figurative T-bone steak of arrogance that was the post I was responding to?

lack of an answer?
Click to expand...

We. Don't. Have. An. Answer. To. This. Question. Yet.

When 'We don't know for sure yet' is the only answer that you have, it is the most honest answer.

Sorry I can't run around pretending to have answers to questions that no one has yet. I'm just not that intellectually dishonest.
 
Last edited:
S

Sabonea_Masukippa

Well-Known Member
Ok, so if 'at this moment in history we, as a species, don't have a complete answer for the abiogenisis of life on the planet earth,' isn't 'truth', what is your answer?
 
P

PokeJustice

☮
That we have no sufficient explanations for the appearance of life on earth is true. I was pointing out that this is a weakness of the naturalistic paradigm.
 
B

Byzantine

Well-Known Member
As it stands, there is no answer, there may never be. But if creationists are right life (God) still came out of nothing, so no matter what life was generated by something at some point, being unable to tell how simply shows our limits.
 
E

ebilly99

Americanreigon champ
meteor64 said:
What creationist?

I think you took what I said COMPLETELY the wrong way, I'm about as far from a creationist as possible :/

What I was implying is that life hasn't always been here, so therefore it MUST have come from the replication of inorganic matter. I'm totally for abiogenesis, and I'm going to stand against this thread and say that life MUST have spanned from abiogenesis, since we cannot think of any other logical solution to the problem.
Click to expand...

Why must life have spanned from Abiogenises (Devils advocate here) just becuase we can think of no other way? For all we know robots put us here to start life after a tornado passed throgh a lot off metal to create the robots. A falicy of logic is never acceptable.
 
P

PokeJustice

☮
A tornado assembling a robot is at least as unlikely as abiogenesis, but the idea makes sense and I hereby declare it a theory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top