Doubting Didymus

CND's article is very interesting. It is describing how molecular precursors were able to generate biological-like 'microspheres'.

Note that this is not really the 'first' living thing, as there would have to be organised replicating amino acids beforehand. 'abiogenesis' seeks to discover what kind of replicator might have been simple enough to occur randomly. We are looking at something REALLY primitive, such as the replicating clay crystal, or a small enzyme.

What this article DOES demonstrate is that biological, cell like things that closely resemble the first fossils can come from mere, dead molecules, which no - one could really call 'alive' in the sense that we know. Thus, life can come from non-life.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

VZ--

You have two options here:

A) God is "something".
B) God is NOT "something".

Option B pretty much destroys the God concept in itself. A, on the other hand leaves two other options (since something cannot come from nothing).

A1) God always was.
A2) God wasn't always.

A2 begs the question "How did he come about?". A1 is a concession that something can simply always exist. If something can exist, then there is no need for God to exist.

Ex nihilo my ass.

Doubting Didymus

Meanwhile, Vander is adressing perhiperal issues. This thread is about abiogenesis. If you would like to discuss these other issues further, start a new thread, or reply to an old one.

Do you have anything to say about abiogenesis?

lpetrich

WHICH "scripture", O Vanderzyden? I know of lots of scriptures.

And as to intelligent design, the Earth could have been seeded by extraterrestrial visitors -- who could have gone backwards in time to do the seeding.

One can ask endless variants of "how does X come from non-X?"

Such as,

How do crystalline objects come from non-crystalline (amorphous) objects?
How do solid objects come from non-solid (fluid) objects?
How do condensed objects come from non-condensed (gaseous) objects?

Does Vanderzyden seriously believe that the Biblical God carefully places each individual molecule in position to make possible these changes? In particular, molecules in crystals are precisely arranged in a lattice pattern; does that imply that crystals are designed? And does that also imply that the designer was the Biblical God, who carefully places each individual molecule into position in the crystal lattice? (somewhat more difficult than tallying the fall of every sparrow, it must be said)

And there is good reason to believe that life from nonlife and mind from nonmind are similar to these transitions, if more complicated.

And what, precisely, is meant by "something coming from nothing"?

(lots of touching-up done)

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

HRG

These "accounts" fall definitely into the life-from-non-life category, since the god of Christian Scripture is not alive. He neither reproduces nor metabolizes. We are talking about biological life, not about some metaphorical meaning of "alive"
Such question are as meaningful and deep as:

How does color come from non-color ?

(when colorless gold atoms condense to form a colorful gold crystal) or:

How does acidity come from non-acidity ?

(when non-acid H, O and S combine to form acid H2SO4).

IOW, life is a property of some configurations matter, not a substance. Why should some configurations which don't have that property combine to form others which have it ?

HRG.

Camaban

I thought I'd made myself clear here (for once) but obviously not.

I was referring to the creationist argument that for life to appear on its own, without any theistic assistance is so unlikely as to be impossible

And then asking how, if we don't actually know how it was/could have been done, it was possible to make those calculations.

Daggah

Ladies and gentlemen, the above is an excellent example of the argument from ignorance.

Also,

Bullshit. The creationist is the one positing the existence of a supernatural being capable of creating universes. The creationist is the one making the extraordinary claim. The burden of proof is on him.

Daggah

P.S. If the non-creationist has the burden of proof, then the non-Hindu has the burden of proof in showing that the Hindu version of events is incorrect as well.

So, Vanderzyden, should we expect a rebuttal of the Hindu creation story in the Non-Abrahamic Religion forum? How soon should we expect it?

Jack the Bodiless

"Scripture" as in the Bible, right?

The Earth and the Universe are billions of years old, and the fossil record shows the gradual emergence of species over millions of years in a sequence which completely disproves Genesis.

Done.

Vanderzyden, you keep missing the point that we already know that the creation accounts in "scripture" are baloney. So why mention them in this thread?

If there IS a supernatural agency involved, it is NOT the one described in "scripture"!

pz

Could everyone please focus, and return to the interesting topic of probabilities of abiogenesis, and avoid responding to vacuous metaphysical noodling for a while?

Thank you.