If we...

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

How life began. We have no clue.

All we know is that there is life.

This is why I don't understand why you keep saying it is a fact that life only comes from life. We have no idea what originated life on this planet. There is no evidence to suggest that it came from an alien life form or from a supernatural origin. There are no theories about that other than religious beliefs or meteor crash ideas. There are more developed but equally unsupported ideas about abiogenesis.

Hence there is no fact. There is only the statement that we don't know how life originated and that there is no supported explantion for it yet.

Like I said before.

we have only seen life come from life. That's the one fact we have. We see it over and over daily.

Yet that observation says nothing about how life on this planet originated and there is not even a speculative life that could have generated life on this planet. That is an empty observation because it says nothing about how life began on this planet. Instead, it only notes a characteristic of life - that it perpetuates itself.

The step from observation and inference to fact is a big leap. With zero observation of the life form that started life on this planet, under your theory, there is no way you should be calling it fact because it is an inference that is unsupported by any observation.

[drzachary]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

How life began. We have no clue.

All we know is that there is life.

This is why I don't understand why you keep saying it is a fact that life only comes from life. We have no idea what originated life on this planet. There is no evidence to suggest that it came from an alien life form or from a supernatural origin. There are no theories about that other than religious beliefs or meteor crash ideas. There are more developed but equally unsupported ideas about abiogenesis.

Hence there is no fact. There is only the statement that we don't know how life originated and that there is no supported explantion for it yet.

Like I said before.

we have only seen life come from life. That's the one fact we have. We see it over and over daily.

Yet that observation says nothing about how life on this planet originated and there is not even a speculative life that could have generated life on this planet. That is an empty observation because it says nothing about how life began on this planet. Instead, it only notes a characteristic of life - that it perpetuates itself.

The step from observation and inference to fact is a big leap. With zero observation of the life form that started life on this planet, under your theory, there is no way you should be calling it fact because it is an inference that is unsupported by any observation.

AHF, can you prove that life exists on Earth? (Or, for that matter, that Earth exists? Or that you exist?)

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

How life began. We have no clue.

All we know is that there is life.

This is why I don't understand why you keep saying it is a fact that life only comes from life. We have no idea what originated life on this planet. There is no evidence to suggest that it came from an alien life form or from a supernatural origin. There are no theories about that other than religious beliefs or meteor crash ideas. There are more developed but equally unsupported ideas about abiogenesis.

Hence there is no fact. There is only the statement that we don't know how life originated and that there is no supported explantion for it yet.

Like I said before.

we have only seen life come from life. That's the one fact we have. We see it over and over daily.

Yet that observation says nothing about how life on this planet originated and there is not even a speculative life that could have generated life on this planet. That is an empty observation because it says nothing about how life began on this planet. Instead, it only notes a characteristic of life - that it perpetuates itself.

The step from observation and inference to fact is a big leap. With zero observation of the life form that started life on this planet, under your theory, there is no way you should be calling it fact because it is an inference that is unsupported by any observation.

AHF, can you prove that life exists on Earth? (Or, for that matter, that Earth exists? Or that you exist?)

Without too much into the straying into non-scientific elements of the realm of philosophical speculation, yes.

Cognito ero sum.

Life, myself and Earth are all observable with my senses - including items, events, processes, etc. that come as a surprise to me (i.e., that I cannot think up myself).

I am not ruling out the biogenesis theory. There is just literally nothing supporting it as the basis for the genesis of life on this planet since we have no idea what caused the first life to spring up on this world. Hence, it should not be called fact - especially when dismissing the equally unproven abiogenesis theory for life originating on the planet.

(Notably, either theory is consistent with the existence of God.)

[TroyMcClure]

Zach is stepping into what I was getting at. The very idea of existence doesn't make sense to me. But I'm trying to enjoy the ride.

[drzachary]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

How life began. We have no clue.

All we know is that there is life.

This is why I don't understand why you keep saying it is a fact that life only comes from life. We have no idea what originated life on this planet. There is no evidence to suggest that it came from an alien life form or from a supernatural origin. There are no theories about that other than religious beliefs or meteor crash ideas. There are more developed but equally unsupported ideas about abiogenesis.

Hence there is no fact. There is only the statement that we don't know how life originated and that there is no supported explantion for it yet.

Like I said before.

we have only seen life come from life. That's the one fact we have. We see it over and over daily.

Yet that observation says nothing about how life on this planet originated and there is not even a speculative life that could have generated life on this planet. That is an empty observation because it says nothing about how life began on this planet. Instead, it only notes a characteristic of life - that it perpetuates itself.

The step from observation and inference to fact is a big leap. With zero observation of the life form that started life on this planet, under your theory, there is no way you should be calling it fact because it is an inference that is unsupported by any observation.

AHF, can you prove that life exists on Earth? (Or, for that matter, that Earth exists? Or that you exist?)

Without too much into the straying into non-scientific elements of the realm of philosophical speculation, yes.

Cognito ero sum.

Life, myself and Earth are all observable with my senses - including items, events, processes, etc. that come as a surprise to me (i.e., that I cannot think up myself).

I am not ruling out the biogenesis theory. There is just literally nothing supporting it as the basis for the genesis of life on this planet since we have no idea what caused the first life to spring up on this world. Hence, it should not be called fact - especially when dismissing the equally unproven abiogenesis theory for life originating on the planet.

(Notably, either theory is consistent with the existence of God.)

I don't think this is an issue that can ever be argued without straying into philosophy. Philosophy illuminates the limitations of science: nothing can ever truly be proven -- we are left with determining what is the most reasonable. Fact is illusory. (I agree with you that it is certainly most reasonable that I exist, and that you exist, and even that Mike Woodson exists.) At some point, we rely upon that eternal given: 'cognito ero sum' is another one of those many leaps of faith which we have decided is the most reasonable of all the alternatives we've considered.

This is where I believe faith and reason are not mutually exclusive: for many, and I would include myself in this number, believing in a realm/deity/creator beyond the observable is simply the way of looking at life that is most reasonable.

Evolution -- and another of my favorites to argue, anthropogenic climate change -- are eminently reasonable within the limitations of the scientific method. Obviously, we're at a disadvantage in that we don't have a group of control Earths and billions of years at our disposal with which to conduct experiments.

[Diesel]

In this conversation, I tried desperately to stay out of the realm of Religion/Philosophy... however, that's really all it is for some...

Let me clarify.

There is absolutely NO PROOF whatsoever of abiogenesis... Yet it's a theory that many people believe in...

SO the question that is begging to be asked is WHY?

Why is because to believe otherwise would mean that it's likely that either there is a creator... or there was alien life on this planet before.

Those two categories have their own dogs to fight with...

However, back to abiogenesis...

As I have discussed with AHF... we know that biogenesis works and biogenesis (as it pertains to the creation of life) is all that we have every seen.

However, the opposite of that is that simple chemicals, ignored set laws, came together, decided to carry information... and LIVE...

Biogenesis is a FACT... Undeniable. However, is it the beginning of creation?

It's like what came first the chick or the egg. Well, in terms of biogenesis and creation, what came first had to be life. More specifically, life that can duplicate/replicate or life that can create.

There... It's said.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

How life began. We have no clue.

All we know is that there is life.

This is why I don't understand why you keep saying it is a fact that life only comes from life. We have no idea what originated life on this planet. There is no evidence to suggest that it came from an alien life form or from a supernatural origin. There are no theories about that other than religious beliefs or meteor crash ideas. There are more developed but equally unsupported ideas about abiogenesis.

Hence there is no fact. There is only the statement that we don't know how life originated and that there is no supported explantion for it yet.

Like I said before.

we have only seen life come from life. That's the one fact we have. We see it over and over daily.

Yet that observation says nothing about how life on this planet originated and there is not even a speculative life that could have generated life on this planet. That is an empty observation because it says nothing about how life began on this planet. Instead, it only notes a characteristic of life - that it perpetuates itself.

The step from observation and inference to fact is a big leap. With zero observation of the life form that started life on this planet, under your theory, there is no way you should be calling it fact because it is an inference that is unsupported by any observation.

AHF, can you prove that life exists on Earth? (Or, for that matter, that Earth exists? Or that you exist?)

Without too much into the straying into non-scientific elements of the realm of philosophical speculation, yes.

Cognito ero sum.

Life, myself and Earth are all observable with my senses - including items, events, processes, etc. that come as a surprise to me (i.e., that I cannot think up myself).

I am not ruling out the biogenesis theory. There is just literally nothing supporting it as the basis for the genesis of life on this planet since we have no idea what caused the first life to spring up on this world. Hence, it should not be called fact - especially when dismissing the equally unproven abiogenesis theory for life originating on the planet.

(Notably, either theory is consistent with the existence of God.)

I don't think this is an issue that can ever be argued without straying into philosophy. Philosophy illuminates the limitations of science: nothing can ever truly be proven -- we are left with determining what is the most reasonable. Fact is illusory. (I agree with you that it is certainly most reasonable that I exist, and that you exist, and even that Mike Woodson exists.) At some point, we rely upon that eternal given: 'cognito ero sum' is another one of those many leaps of faith which we have decided is the most reasonable of all the alternatives we've considered.

How is cogito ero sum a leap of faith? In what conceivable way could the self be capable of thought and yet without some form of existance? Even if you concede that the self's perception of itself may not be accurate, there must be some form of existence for the self to even be capable of considering the question.

Quote:

---

This is where I believe faith and reason are not mutually exclusive: for many, and I would include myself in this number, believing in a realm/deity/creator beyond the observable is simply the way of looking at life that is most reasonable.

Evolution -- and another of my favorites to argue, anthropogenic climate change -- are eminently reasonable within the limitations of the scientific method. Obviously, we're at a disadvantage in that we don't have a group of control Earths and billions of years at our disposal with which to conduct experiments.

My personal belief is that people will look back on the fight between elements of the religious community and scientists over evolution (not talking about the origin of life on the planet here) with the same amusement that we look back on elements of the religious community that violently opposed the "heresy" of claiming the sun was not the center of the universe. There is absolutely no inconsistency between saying that God created all life, etc. and an acceptance of some form of evolution as the method used by God. The only inconsistency I can see is between those literalists who believe the Earth is only several thousand years old and therefore there has not been sufficient time for the mechanism of evolution to go forward. For those people, though, evolution is but one of many, many clashes with accepted scientific theory about the age of the Earth, life and the Universe.

On the broader issue of science and faith, I totally agree that science can never answer certain questions such as issues of value and meaning.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

However, the opposite of that is that simple chemicals, ignored set laws, came together, decided to carry information... and LIVE...

I think that substantively mistates the argument in several respects.

Quote:

---

Biogenesis is a FACT... Undeniable. However, is it the beginning of creation?

By definition biogenesis can never answer how the first life came into existence. If only life can beget life then there can never have been a time before life existed.

Quote:

---

It's like what came first the chick or the egg. Well, in terms of biogenesis and creation, what came first had to be life. More specifically, life that can duplicate/replicate or life that can create.

There... It's said.

Under a theory were only life can beget life there is no answer as to what came first. It just must have always been. There can be no time when life first came into existence.

I suspect that this conflicts with a lot of scientists who believe that the big bang theory or some equivalent is the best explanation for how the universe came to be. (I.e., when all matter and energy was compressed just prior to the big bang, there is no organic life like we have on earth.) Thus, they try to come up with mechanisms by which life as we know it could have developed on a primordial Earth.

With areas as sketchy as the origin of life on Earth, however, no scientist should be so arrogant or have so much faith in their hypothesis to claim they have the true answer or even a reasonable answer to that question at this point. Science in this kind of an infancy frequently is subject to radical changes.

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

By definition biogenesis can never answer how the first life came into existence. If only life can beget life then there can never have been a time before life existed.

There's plenty to state from this post (in due time) however, this nugget must be opposed.

The truth is that to our knowledge... LIFE has only come from life.

There begins your crossroad...

What you can't do AHF is act as if there are several sources of life known?

Nobody has found a mechanism for life other than from life.

To some that's a problem, but to me... that's a truth.

Now for the philosophers listening in... Definition of truth is this:

1. Conformity to fact or actuality.

2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.

You may think differently, but without facts... abiogenesis is just a theory and there is zero evidence for it... while biogenesis is a truth proven over an over again.

You say biogenesis can never answer how life came to be...

Well, to say that there must be an opposite way to form life and to believe in it is illogical. Especially when the evidence doesn't fit.

But.....

What Biogenesis does, is give you a working model.

Until you see life spring up from something nonliving, that theory needs to be trashed.

I feel more secure believing in alien invaders who colonized this planet and left it with no history.

or maybe

An all powerful, all wise being who intelligently created male and female.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

By definition biogenesis can never answer how the first life came into existence. If only life can beget life then there can never have been a time before life existed.

There's plenty to state from this post (in due time) however, this nugget must be opposed.

The truth is that to our knowledge... LIFE has only come from life.

There begins your crossroad...

What you can't do AHF is act as if there are several sources of life known?

Nobody has found a mechanism for life other than from life.

To some that's a problem, but to me... that's a truth.

Now for the philosophers listening in... Definition of truth is this:

1. Conformity to fact or actuality.

2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.

You may think differently, but without facts... abiogenesis is just a theory and there is zero evidence for it... while biogenesis is a truth proven over an over again.

You say biogenesis can never answer how life came to be...

Well, to say that there must be an opposite way to form life and to believe in it is illogical. Especially when the evidence doesn't fit.

But.....

What Biogenesis does, is give you a working model.

Until you see life spring up from something nonliving, that theory needs to be trashed.

I feel more secure believing in alien invaders who colonized this planet and left it with no history.

or maybe

An all powerful, all wise being who intelligently created male and female.

Nothing in your post opposes what I wrote unless you are saying that biogenesis does not posit that only life begets life.

Alien colonization is still life begeting life and only begs the question of what life created those aliens and then what life created whatever created the aliens, etc. etc. back to the point where the first life came into existence. But if only life can create life then there is no answer to what was the first life because there can never have been a first life. If you assume life only comes from life, that "law" can never answer the question of how the first life came to be because there must always be some prior form of life by definition.

[Lascar78]

Quote:

---

My personal belief is that people will look back on the fight between elements of the religious community and scientists over evolution (not talking about the origin of life on the planet here) with the same amusement that we look back on elements of the religious community that violently opposed the "heresy" of claiming the sun was not the center of the universe.

The rest of the civilized world already does. And it's far more sad than it is funny.

[frosgrim]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

By definition biogenesis can never answer how the first life came into existence. If only life can beget life then there can never have been a time before life existed.

There's plenty to state from this post (in due time) however, this nugget must be opposed.

The truth is that to our knowledge... LIFE has only come from life.

There begins your crossroad...

What you can't do AHF is act as if there are several sources of life known?

Nobody has found a mechanism for life other than from life.

To some that's a problem, but to me... that's a truth.

Now for the philosophers listening in... Definition of truth is this:

1. Conformity to fact or actuality.

2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.

You may think differently, but without facts... abiogenesis is just a theory and there is zero evidence for it... while biogenesis is a truth proven over an over again.

You say biogenesis can never answer how life came to be...

Well, to say that there must be an opposite way to form life and to believe in it is illogical. Especially when the evidence doesn't fit.

But.....

What Biogenesis does, is give you a working model.

Until you see life spring up from something nonliving, that theory needs to be trashed.

I feel more secure believing in alien invaders who colonized this planet and left it with no history.

or maybe

An all powerful, all wise being who intelligently created male and female.

ARGH, I can't take it any more.

D, you don't understand biochemestry, so please stop posting non-sensical arguments. Your assertation that life can only come from life is not the correct argument to make. The argument to make, and this is what biochemest do, is that there are a set of chemical reactions that, over time, can lead to life.

You are acting like one day there is no "life" and then next there is. That is not what biochemist and evolutionary scientist are arguing. The problem is that when articles are written for the general public, many of the intervening steps are removed.

You talk about chemical and scientific laws, yet you have no idea what they are. The reality is that there are chemical rules that allow for long polymere chains to connect in ways that very well can give rise to self-replicating molecules. The steps from self-replicating molecules to life are not fully understood, but that doesn't mean that its wrong.

Science moves forward at both a steady pace and then there are leaps. For example, until Watson and Crick worked out the structure of DNA some argued that genetic replication wasn't a possibity (this is the same sort of argument you are making by the by). Once the double-helix chain was worked out, the mechanism for genetic replication and sexual replication became possible. The details are still being worked out. The point is just because today we don't have all the mechanisms worked out, doesn't mean that the basic theory is incorrect. Until an real alternative is proposed in science, there is really nothing else to test.

The argument for aliens, flying spegehtti monsters or any other sort of drop-off hypothesis does not answer the question of beginnings. It just pushes it back another step. The reality is we don't have a good handle on the beginning of existence, but that doesn't mean we can't figure out the more simple problem of the beginning of life on Earth.

There is a whole line of current work that is reverse engineering biochemestry. The early results are very encouraging. These results STRONGLY imply that ambigenosous occurred between 4 and 3.5 BYA.

Just because one sreams that something can't be true, does not invalidate the truth.

[exodus]

about as well as he knows math. This thread reminds me of one of my favorite threads ever. I am not sure if you were reading at that time. it was classic.

Diesel Math

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

Alien colonization is still life begeting life and only begs the question of what life created those aliens and then what life created whatever created the aliens, etc. etc. back to the point where the first life came into existence. But if only life can create life then there is no answer to what was the first life because there can never have been a first life. If you assume life only comes from life, that "law" can never answer the question of how the first life came to be because there must always be some prior form of life by definition.

That's true.

However, when you say "life only comes from life" is an assumption... That part is not. There's no doubt about it... with what we know.

It's like saying that the heartbeat that you hear and feel can come from the small intestines. While that's an interesting theory... there are no facts that can prove it.

The same is true of abiogenesis.

Therefore, until some other evidence comes along.....and it may never comes... we have to go with what we know to be truth.

That truth is that right now, what we know to be true of life is that it takes life to create life. ANYTHING ELSE requires faith which cannot be measured by scientific means!

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

about as well as he knows math. This thread reminds me of one of my favorite threads ever. I am not sure if you were reading at that time. it was classic.

Diesel Math

Wow good punchline...

It's about the second time you tried to get it in...

Wonderful.

Your sofa king brilliant..

But at the same time... you're too ignorant to be in this conversation... so just excuse yourself while grown folks are talking!

[Diesel]

Fros... We get it.

Your faith is in science.

With the hopes that chemical components would just magically raise themselves up.... and magically ignore laws of chemistry and physics... and magically come together and magically decide to impossibly carry information.

Continue your belief in things that cannot happen!

I mean, if that's what makes you feel secure, I won't question it.

However, don't pass it off as fact... or proven.

In one of your theories... you said...

Quote:

---

The reality is that there are chemical rules that allow for long polymere chains to connect in ways that very well can give rise to self-replicating molecules.

So let me ask... was this long chain polymer in water??

Had to be right... I mean you used deep sea vents as your "reaction flask"...

So how does a chain grow (chemically) in a medium that it's insoluble in? At best, you get an oligomer that gets hydrolyzed down to nothing because you're talking about amino acids which are water soluble (when small) but undergo hydrolysis in water.... especially in the presence of heat. Not to mention that you're in a salt water solution... Your expected long chain polymer will be salted out as an oil. Then you have to deal with harmful UV rays... (still no Ozone layer)... Or maybe you wait til the seas dry up? However, if you haven't created algae, how do you create an ozone layer?

If your faith is in science..... I suggest that you find some way to eliminate chemistry and physics from your cannon.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

about as well as he knows math. This thread reminds me of one of my favorite threads ever. I am not sure if you were reading at that time. it was classic.

Diesel Math

Wow good punchline...

It's about the second time you tried to get it in...

Wonderful.

Your sofa king brilliant..

But at the same time... you're too ignorant to be in this conversation... so just excuse yourself while grown folks are talking!

Ignorant? If any science teacher read your posts they would either laugh or cry. AHF and Frogsrim have broken down your arguments so completely that there is nothing i can add.

Your willingness to expose your own ignorance never ceases to amaze me.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

That truth is that right now, what we know to be true of life is that it takes life to create life.

And that is where you get lost. We don't know how life started. It hasn't been proven either way how life on this planet is created. That is just a fact.

Using your logic since there is no evidence of any intelligent life other than life on Earth that means it is a truth there is no intelligent life anywhere but Earth.

The reality is that is just a weak assumption just like your "it takes life to create life" nonsense.

[Diesel]

when we're all smiles and grins in the other forum... it's fun to yank your chain abit. It humors me. However, your insecurity about your lack of real education sticks out like a sore thumb. That's why you like stats so much. It's the only tool you know. However, there are some other times when serious conversation happens... at those times, your insecurities get very difficult and truly in the way. I know from time to time I play on your insecurity by insulting your intelligence..... because to you, the only way you can validate yourself is by trying to be smart or at least aligned with what you perceived to be smart people...

However, this is not one of those times. There was no tongue in cheek when I said this is a grown up conversation. There's no need to dilute it with your sophomoric attempt at humor. Even though this is the lounge, this is a very serious conversation.. so I guess another way to say it to you ex is that play time is not here and not now. Up until you entered the conversation, this was a somewhat civil conversation. Why would you want to ruin that? Let's see.. if I had to guess it's probably because in the midst of a serious conversation, Ex. was not present... not a factor... Opps... that kind of tugs at your insecurity now doesn't it?? It's not that you were beckoned... nor were your attempts to divert the conversation and reduce it to insults (as is your custom) warranted... It's just another case of an insecure man (I hope) trying to do patch work on his broken psyche....

Here's the rub...

Do you think I or anyone cares what a "science teacher" would think?? Probably the least capable person to be in this conversation is your common "science teacher". At least Frosgrim brings in a perspective of an evolutionary biologist. Something a little more on subject.

So I tell you what ex...

You go and get your science teacher and you all can think whatever the hell you want. And while you all are at it... Why don't you and the "science teacher" quit leaving those children behind!

[exodus]

There can't possibly be a creator. Here is why.

Fact #1) We know there is life on Earth.

Fact #2) There is absolutely no evidence of life anywhere other than Earth.

Conclusion: Using these two facts, and applying Diesel Logic, there has never been life anywhere but Earth.

Since there has never been life anywhere but Earth there is no way something already living created life on Earth. Life began here.