there is no direct evidence for any particular idea for abiogenesis.
So what's some roundabout evidence?
Simple answer, please! Scientifically explain the origin of life coming from nothing!
by Silent_Scream 170 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
kepler
Is abiogenesis the same as spontaneous generation?
I had been listening to some contemporary lectures on Origins of Life, but that is not necessarily a full explanation. The lecturer Dr. Robert Hazen, a geophysicist or geologist simply gives a run down of what we know, historical developments and controversies. If the chemical process of life's origin is a multi-step process, then at least some easy and hard steps have been identified. Component chemicals for RNA and DNA can be synthesized under a number of conditions, etc. But obviously that's not all there is to it. Still, we've come a ways since Mary Shelley sat down to write "Frankenstein" nearly 200 years ago.
While I notice in the study guidebook a number of other contributors to the subject, I could not find the name of Italian Francesco Redi. According to the Wikipedia account he lived in the 17th century and did experiments to refute spontaneous generation. Until then it was assumed that rats, mice, flies and other pests spontaeously generated out of garbage. So until Darwin and his heirs came along, it would appear that life coming from inanimate matter wasn't causing that much of a stir. I guess everyone examined their assumptions after that.
Hazen had written an article several years ago in Scientific American remarking on the mineral contribution that life has given to the earth. That is previous forms of life had reworked the planet aeons ago into thousands of different minerals. With a body like the Moon or elsewhere in the Solar System where there is no evidence of life, you could count the number of minerals on the fingers of two hands. Other bodies like Mars, you get intermediate answers, which might mean there are more clues to what has to go on.
But you wanted an explanation of life coming from nothing...
Sorry.
-
Silent_Scream
I simply want proof. Everyone needs evidence on what they believe. Atheists and theists alike.
Anything else is based on faith/assumption.
-
still thinking
Science as far as I can see is not claiming to KNOW how life began, but suggests possible ways and is honest that these are conjecture....so why should it provide evidence for something it already says it does not know.
Beleivers however, claim they KNOW their god is real and created man and life....
Who needs to provide evidence? The one who is still trying to figure it out and makes no solid claim? Or the one who claims to know?
-
bohm
SS: I gave you some indirect evidence on the past page, if you are interested you can read more on wikipedias page on abiogenesis.
But again, what is the point of this thread aside stating the obvious?
Do we have any direct evidence of what goes on inside a black hole? not at all! so what?
-
Silent_Scream
Many believe there is a God. They will state why the believe it. Atheists attack because there is no scientific evidence for it. Like I said, fair enough.
So now, atheists, the stage is yours. Where's the evidence in this critical part of your beliefs?
-
Silent_Scream
I'm not debating a christian god, buddhist god, muslim god, etc.
I'm asking for scientific evidence that you demand from all others. Let's be fair.
-
bohm
Silent_Scream: So should we or should we not reject ideas which has no supportive evidence?
Why do you keep asking a question which has allready been answered? where do you go from here?
-
Silent_Scream
If your asking as a legitimate question, the answer is we should reject it.
If it's a question to lure me into a battle of semantics, then the answer depends.
-
Silent_Scream
I cannot prove the sun is 93,000,000 miles away.
No human can absolutely prove it in a sense because no human ever took a tape measure and measured it. Either, no human has ever been to the sun.
A lot went into figuring out the distance (time/temperature/etc formulas), but I do have faith their calculations are correct.
The answer is based on current accesible data and conclusions. So there is a fair amount of evidence to make the conclusion.