Abiogenesis discredited

Durro · **#581** by **Durro** » Apr 19, 2012 2:04 am

asyncritus wrote:Who's the moron now, I wonder.

asyncritus wrote:Hi Hallucination

!

GENERAL MODNOTE
asyncritus, please be aware that there is a difference between labelling an argument moronic and calling another member a moron. The former is generally acceptable but the latter isn't. Neither is modifying another member's username, unless there's a history of an amiable relationship between the members.

This note serves as a caution only, given that you are a new member and may not be familiar with our forum rules, but please be advised that further instances of personal attack/insult will be viewed dimly.

Also, I note that you have posted creationist material in some of the science fora. The science fora are for serious scientific discussion and there is a dedicated forum for creationist points of view and hypotheses, so please use the correct forum for each of your posts. I have already removed some off topic posts of yours from the science forum and will continue to do so if there is a repeat.

If you wish to discuss our forum rules further, please contact myself or another Mod via PM or take your issue to Feedback, but I ask that you not derail this thread with discussion/debate about moderation.

Thanks,

Durro

rEvolutionist · **#582** by **rEvolutionist** » Apr 19, 2012 3:53 am

rainbow wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
rainbow wrote:...and you say life can arise from these carbon hydrogen bonds?
How?

Actually, it's C-C bonds as well as C-H, but the main point is the sheer number of different compounds that can be synthesised in organic chemistry. This gives rise to molecules that have complex shapes and can interact witgh each other in a huge variety of ways, based on a combination of shape, charge distribution and points of chemical reactivity.

Fair enough. Organic chemistry may well be a necessary condition for life.
It is not however sufficient. We can have organic molecules, but they do not in our experience transform into living organisms.

You should see inside my fridge... You'll change your mind quicksmart! :shifty:

rainbow · **#583** by **rainbow** » Apr 19, 2012 6:43 am

Just A Theory wrote:
rainbow wrote:I made no assertion of the sort. The fact that all life forms known to us share the coding of RNA/DNA indicates strongly that there was a single event origin of life. We wouldn't know if there were other events, because there is simply no evidence for them.

Wow, I'll admit I was wrong. I privately thought that rainbow was incapable of learning but it seems he has proven me incorrect.

Given, by your words above, that you understand that possible multiple origin of life events are shrouded in mystery (and you've even been introduced to the reason why this is so), can you perhaps maybe accept that even a single origin of life event is shrouded in mystery for precisely the same reasons?

Of course I can accept this.
Very often Mythology is shrouded in mystery.

rainbow · **#584** by **rainbow** » Apr 19, 2012 6:47 am

DavidMcC wrote:The web page, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/spontaneous lists 9 shades of meaning for "spontaneous":

1. Self generated; happening without any apparent external cause.
He made a spontaneous offer of help.
2. Done by one's own free choice, or without planning.
3. proceeding from natural feeling or native tendency without external constraint
4. arising from a momentary impulse
5. controlled and directed internally : self-active : spontaneous movement characteristic of living things
6. produced without being planted or without human labor : indigenous
7. not apparently contrived or manipulated : natural
8. Random.
9. Sudden, without warning.

Obviously, most of these are completely inappropriate for abiogenesis, but I like #7. #9 is probably the cause of the argument above, though.

I think that #1 probably covers what we're talking about here.

rainbow · **#585** by **rainbow** » Apr 19, 2012 6:50 am

DavidMcC wrote:Rainbow, wouldn't you agree that the Earth formed "spontaneously", by gravitational aggregation of rock particles in orbit round the sun?

Sure.

It doesn't mean it happened suddenly, "one sunny day, at about 3 pm", or whatever.

I never said it did.

rainbow · **#586** by **rainbow** » Apr 19, 2012 6:54 am

hackenslash wrote:
rainbow wrote:Drivel.
Show me any example of life having been observed forming spontaneously from non-living organic molecules.
If you can point me to any peer-reviewed scientific papers showing that this has been done, then I'll happily admit that I'm wrong.

If you can't, then we'll simply take that as an admission that you are in error.

Who said anything about spontaneity? We are composed of fucking organic molecules, thus our experience is that of organic molecules having been transformed into living organisms.

OK, if it wasn't spontaneous, what external agency was involved?

Onyx8 · **#587** by **Onyx8** » Apr 19, 2012 7:00 am

Rumraket · **#588** by **Rumraket** » Apr 19, 2012 7:11 am

rainbow wrote:
hackenslash wrote:
rainbow wrote:Drivel.
Show me any example of life having been observed forming spontaneously from non-living organic molecules.
If you can point me to any peer-reviewed scientific papers showing that this has been done, then I'll happily admit that I'm wrong.

If you can't, then we'll simply take that as an admission that you are in error.

Who said anything about spontaneity? We are composed of fucking organic molecules, thus our experience is that of organic molecules having been transformed into living organisms.

OK, if it wasn't spontaneous, what external agency was involved?

It's a bit sad to read a chemist asking that question.

hackenslash · **#589** by **hackenslash** » Apr 19, 2012 8:45 am

rainbow wrote:
hackenslash wrote:
rainbow wrote:Drivel.
Show me any example of life having been observed forming spontaneously from non-living organic molecules.
If you can point me to any peer-reviewed scientific papers showing that this has been done, then I'll happily admit that I'm wrong.

If you can't, then we'll simply take that as an admission that you are in error.

Who said anything about spontaneity? We are composed of fucking organic molecules, thus our experience is that of organic molecules having been transformed into living organisms.

OK, if it wasn't spontaneous, what external agency was involved?

Again, who said anything about spontaneity? Are you still struggling with how this works?

rEvolutionist · **#590** by **rEvolutionist** » Apr 19, 2012 8:52 am

It's a shame Rainbow couldn't just spontaneously get what we're talking about here, as I don't know how much more of this I can take...

rainbow · **#591** by **rainbow** » Apr 19, 2012 8:56 am

hackenslash wrote:
rainbow wrote:
hackenslash wrote:
rainbow wrote:Drivel.
Show me any example of life having been observed forming spontaneously from non-living organic molecules.
If you can point me to any peer-reviewed scientific papers showing that this has been done, then I'll happily admit that I'm wrong.

If you can't, then we'll simply take that as an admission that you are in error.

Who said anything about spontaneity? We are composed of fucking organic molecules, thus our experience is that of organic molecules having been transformed into living organisms.

OK, if it wasn't spontaneous, what external agency was involved?

Again, who said anything about spontaneity?

I did.

Are you still struggling with how this works?

No.

Please answer the question.

rainbow · **#592** by **rainbow** » Apr 19, 2012 8:58 am

rEvolutionist wrote:It's a shame Rainbow couldn't just spontaneously get what we're talking about here, as I don't know how much more of this I can take...

It's a shame that this discussion has become personalised.

rainbow · **#593** by **rainbow** » Apr 19, 2012 9:00 am

Rumraket wrote:It's a bit sad to read a chemist asking that question.

It's even sadder to see all this ducking and diving over a rather simple question.

Please answer, or admit that you cannot.

Fallible · **#594** by **Fallible** » Apr 19, 2012 9:01 am

Oh for fuck's sake. Again with this?

Rumraket · **#595** by **Rumraket** » Apr 19, 2012 9:29 am

rainbow wrote:
Rumraket wrote:It's a bit sad to read a chemist asking that question.

It's even sadder to see all this ducking and diving over a rather simple question.

Please answer, or admit that you cannot.

Brilliant retort, you really showed me there. It's especially hilarious coming from the guy known for not answering questions, only posting inane ones of his own.

Hey, didn't they ever teach you about things like... pressure and temperature when you got that chemistry degree? About electromagnetic attractions? Those would be the main "external agents". Going much deeper than that would require actually knowing the specific conditions that lead to life, which we've already agreed, YEARS AGO, that we don't. That means you're asking already answered questions, just rephrased, which means you're playing dumb on purpose, which means you're wasting everyone's time, including your own.

rainbow · **#596** by **rainbow** » Apr 19, 2012 9:46 am

Rumraket wrote:
rainbow wrote:
Rumraket wrote:It's a bit sad to read a chemist asking that question.

It's even sadder to see all this ducking and diving over a rather simple question.

Please answer, or admit that you cannot.

Brilliant retort, you really showed me there. It's especially hilarious coming from the guy known for not answering questions, only posting inane ones of his own.

Hey, didn't they ever teach you about things like... pressure and temperature when you got that chemistry degree? About electromagnetic attractions? Those would be the main "external agents".

Double Drivel.
Where do chemists ever refer to things like pressure and temperature as "external agents"?
They are referred to as reaction conditions. Electromagnetic attractions are part of the reaction mechanism.

Unless these are altered and controlled by an external entity, then the reaction is spontaneous.
Now please explain what external entity is involved that makes these reactions not spontaneous?

hackenslash · **#597** by **hackenslash** » Apr 19, 2012 9:48 am

rainbow wrote:
Again, who said anything about spontaneity?

I did.

And it's irrelevant to the point being made.

Are you still struggling with how this works?

No.

You clearly are, because you think you have a gotcha up your sleeve, based on an irrelevant question.

Please answer the question.

Why/ What bearing do you think it has on the point raised? That you think it has any tells us all we need to know here.

rainbow · **#598** by **rainbow** » Apr 19, 2012 9:52 am

hackenslash wrote:
rainbow wrote:
Again, who said anything about spontaneity?

I did.

And it's irrelevant to the point being made.

Are you still struggling with how this works?

No.

You clearly are, because you think you have a gotcha up your sleeve, based on an irrelevant question.

Please answer the question.

Why/ What bearing do you think it has on the point raised?

Don't then.
I thought you might want to present a coherent argument.
You are under no compulsion to do so.

Rumraket · **#599** by **Rumraket** » Apr 19, 2012 10:02 am

rainbow wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
rainbow wrote:
Rumraket wrote:It's a bit sad to read a chemist asking that question.

It's even sadder to see all this ducking and diving over a rather simple question.

Please answer, or admit that you cannot.

Brilliant retort, you really showed me there. It's especially hilarious coming from the guy known for not answering questions, only posting inane ones of his own.

Hey, didn't they ever teach you about things like... pressure and temperature when you got that chemistry degree? About electromagnetic attractions? Those would be the main "external agents".

Double Drivel.
Where do chemists ever refer to things like pressure and temperature as "external agents"?

You're the one asking for external agents, noone but you has used that term. Given your supposed chemistry qualifications, I wonder why you'd ask the question when you subsequently imply they aren't referred to by chemists. What other factors could possibly influence a physical and chemical process, but pressure, temperature and electromagnetic interactions? Gravity and weak/strong interactions? Well, they probably also had some obscure role too... as they do with everything else. Should we now go through the four fundamental forces and list their various emergent manifestations in chemical systems and then see which ones we might want to define as "external agents" ?

You're also the one using the word spontaneous all the time, as if to construct some idiotic false dichotomy where if it isn't entirely self-generatingly unbelievable magic, then it's mysterious "external agents". How about none of the above? How about just physics and chemistry? You know, pressure, temperature and electromagnetic interactions, and a little bit of the other stuff.

Once again, with you, a discussion has become a game of words with no substance. It seems this can only progress in the directon of trying to define at what point a physical or chemical influence on the "reaction conditions" constitutes an "external agent". How many Ångström away from the reacting atoms does something qualify for "externality" ?

Just A Theory · **#600** by **Just A Theory** » Apr 19, 2012 10:12 am

rainbow wrote:
Don't then.
I thought you might want to present a coherent argument.
You are under no compulsion to do so.

The evidence so far is that arguments, whether coherent or not, have no effect upon your own posts, arguments or position.

Abiogenesis discredited

Re: Abiogenesis discredited

Re: Abiogenesis discredited

Re: Abiogenesis discredited

Re: Abiogenesis discredited

Re: Abiogenesis discredited

Re: Abiogenesis discredited

Re: Abiogenesis discredited

Re: Abiogenesis discredited

Re: Abiogenesis discredited

Re: Abiogenesis discredited

Re: Abiogenesis discredited

Re: Abiogenesis discredited

Re: Abiogenesis discredited

Re: Abiogenesis discredited

Re: Abiogenesis discredited

Re: Abiogenesis discredited

Re: Abiogenesis discredited

Re: Abiogenesis discredited

Re: Abiogenesis discredited

Re: Abiogenesis discredited

Who is online