If we...

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

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.

As I said previously...

Science cannot prove the existence of a creator.

Whatever you believe about the beginning of life starts with faith.

Either you have faith in Science (abiogenesis)

you have faith in a Creator.

You have faith in Aliens as the start of life on earth.

however, somewhere along the way, if you have a position it will be based on your faith.

And that may never be proven scientifically.

My entrance is don't speak of your theory as if it is fact... especially if it has no evidence to back it up. If it ignores the very thing that you have faith in (Science) then how can it be true? There are far too many chemical and physical reasons why abiogenesis is DOA. Why even speak about it as it is a fact??

[exodus]

Quote:

---

My entrance is don't speak of your theory as if it is fact

That is exactly what you are doing with your "only life creates life" stance. You are talking about it as if it is a fact because that is all we have observed.

By that logic i can say life has never existed anywhere but Earth.

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

My entrance is don't speak of your theory as if it is fact

That is exactly what you are doing with your "only life creates life" stance. You are talking about it as if it is a fact because that is all we have observed.

By that logic i can say life has never existed anywhere but Earth.

TO DATE...

between the choice of Life creating life or life being formed from some spontaneous, irregular, coming together of the building blocks of life... We have only seen life coming from life. TO DATE... it is the only thing that we can say without a reasonable doubt... this happens. There is no doubts about biogenesis. It is not a theory. Biogenesis happens.

Now... if you like, you can believe in something else.

You can believe in the stork bringing in babies.

You can believe in the tooth fairy.

You can believe in the new years baby.

However, TO DATE... All we have seen is biogenesis. It is a fact.

My statement is don't talk about the existence of abiogenesis as if it is a fact.

They are not on the same level.

One can be proven...easily... while there is no accepted mechanism for the other.

That's aside from creation of the first life.

When you get to the creation of the first life...

it's still a faith walk.

But the most unlikely of those walks is belief in abiogenesis.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

We have only seen life coming from life. TO DATE

TO DATE, we have seen life only on this planet. There is no evidence of life on other planets. Therefore it is a fact that life doesn't exist on any other planet using your logic.

There could be life being created right under your computer chair for all you know. The only way you would know is if you had a molecular microscope trained on the spot when it actually happened. Just because we haven't been able to observe life being created doesn't mean it isn't happening.

[frosgrim]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

My entrance is don't speak of your theory as if it is fact

That is exactly what you are doing with your "only life creates life" stance. You are talking about it as if it is a fact because that is all we have observed.

By that logic i can say life has never existed anywhere but Earth.

TO DATE...

between the choice of Life creating life or life being formed from some spontaneous, irregular, coming together of the building blocks of life... We have only seen life coming from life. TO DATE... it is the only thing that we can say without a reasonable doubt... this happens. There is no doubts about biogenesis. It is not a theory. Biogenesis happens.

Now... if you like, you can believe in something else.

You can believe in the stork bringing in babies.

You can believe in the tooth fairy.

You can believe in the new years baby.

However, TO DATE... All we have seen is biogenesis. It is a fact.

My statement is don't talk about the existence of abiogenesis as if it is a fact.

They are not on the same level.

One can be proven...easily... while there is no accepted mechanism for the other.

That's aside from creation of the first life.

When you get to the creation of the first life...

it's still a faith walk.

But the most unlikely of those walks is belief in abiogenesis.

We have repeatable experiments that clearly show that amino acids can be easily formed in solutions. These experiments have been repeated numerous times over the past 40 years. The composition of pre-biotic mixture has been changed to match what is best known about the climate 4-3.5 billion years ago.

It agreed amongst biochemest that the formation of amino acids is the first step in life. The next step is to get the chains to combine, that can be shown as well. Next steps include getting the chains to replicated and then form some sort of rudimentry RNA. That these next two steps haven't not been successfully completed no way invalidates that biochemical properties that govern amino acid chians linking up. The real question is what is the right combination and circumstances that get them to replicate. It may well be that we don't have the right mix yet, or we missed an important catalyst.

The deep sea vent theory is being looked at, the upper atmosphere theory is being looked at, the asteriod theory is being looked at, the pond theory is being looked at. What do all these have in common? They all are based on chemical properties that we know. D, likes to use the word "law", well these experiments are based on these laws. By the way these laws are also used in the creation on medicines, and other biochemical products, so we know they work.

The issue that in 40 years we haven't been able to produce a prion, viron, or something like them, is not surprising. We only discovered these proto-organisms over the last 10 years, or so. With each new discovery more of the mystry of biogensis is unraveled. As I said before science takes many small steps and every now and then there is a leap. The scientific method is not faith; its experimental. I am fine with the knowledge that what we know today, will be surplanted with what we discover tomorrow. Faith is something entirely different.

Oh, how were oceans salty before animals were around to make them salty?

[Diesel]

Bottom line.

IS there an accepted mechanism that supports abiogenesis?

All you have is a few unsupported guesses.. with no evidence to back it up. Just coincident.

You say, experiments have been done to make amino acids.

However, they have not been done to make only the L-form of Amino acids. Just like it takes life to make life. It takes chirality to make a chiral compound.

Moreover, you want to then try to intertwine self assembly with abiogenesis... My question... What's your solvent? Salt Water?

Lastly. Any attempt to create polypeptides in water (especially salt water) is futile. At most you would get an oligomer on the surface of the water. Not good.

Quote:

---

By the way these laws are also used in the creation on medicines, and other biochemical products, so we know they work.

Are you talking about using enzymes to make medicines or are you talking about using organic synthesis to make natural products. In either case, I agree.

In the case of enzymes... That's part of a living organism doing what they do.

In the case of a natural product synthesis... CHECK OUT how many steps (pots) are necessary to make a simple natural product!!! That is to say, these things do not happen spontaneously.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

As I said before science takes many small steps and every now and then there is a leap.

It was just a few years ago that some guy made the physics discovery that led to the creation of the Ipod, among other things.

I also read recently that they have been able to successfully create stem cells from adult cells.

It is pretty funny to see a guy who doesn't understand the difference between a fact and an assumption pretend that he understands chemistry.

[frosgrim]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

As I said before science takes many small steps and every now and then there is a leap.

It was just a few years ago that some guy made the physics discovery that led to the creation of the Ipod, among other things.

I also read recently that they have been able to successfully create stem cells from adult cells.

It is pretty funny to see a guy who doesn't understand the difference between a fact and an assumption pretend that he understands chemistry.

Science is amazing. Once you really get into it, and I mean, get down in the trenches and do your own experiments and/or data collection, you don't have a chance to understand what we actually know and what we still have to work on. I am still amazed at what we can't do, even though it seems like we SHOULD be able to do it. Even more amazing is discovering all the stuff we don't know. I guess this is why I am in a science field- I like the discovery process. What is also fun and discouraging is once you conduct a data collection and analysis, you discover MORE questions. Fun stuff, but not for everyone.

The iPod is a great example of a ton of stuff coming together. I haven't seen the special, but I can guess that there had to be a ton of things done before hand, to even get to the machine.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

As I said before science takes many small steps and every now and then there is a leap.

It was just a few years ago that some guy made the physics discovery that led to the creation of the Ipod, among other things.

I also read recently that they have been able to successfully create stem cells from adult cells.

It is pretty funny to see a guy who doesn't understand the difference between a fact and an assumption pretend that he understands chemistry.

Science is amazing. Once you really get into it, and I mean, get down in the trenches and do your own experiments and/or data collection, you don't have a chance to understand what we actually know and what we still have to work on. I am still amazed at what we can't do, even though it seems like we SHOULD be able to do it. Even more amazing is discovering all the stuff we don't know. I guess this is why I am in a science field- I like the discovery process. What is also fun and discouraging is once you conduct a data collection and analysis, you discover MORE questions. Fun stuff, but not for everyone.

The iPod is a great example of a ton of stuff coming together. I haven't seen the special, but I can guess that there had to be a ton of things done before hand, to even get to the machine.

I just follow things like this casually, reading stories when i notice them. To make a living at it though you have to really be bright and have a passion for it.

I believe the guy who made the physics discovery (that led to the Ipod) won the Nobel Prize. It was a long time ago that i read the article but i think it had something to do with magnetizing computer chips.

The stem cell discovery was very recent and has huge implications, assuming that the new cells can work as well as regular stem cells. Apparently a couple of teams of scientists in different countries were headed down the exact same path and it became something of a race to get to the finish line.

[DJlaysitup]

...anyway...since my original question about evolving from Chimps was answered...my other point was that "the Planet of the Apes" was a really cool movie.

Worth a look...... two

(for the life of me though...I still don't understand what use those 13-year cicadas are...they just make a mess)

[TroyMcClure]

Quote:

---

...anyway...since my original question about evolving from Chimps was answered...my other point was that "the Planet of the Apes" was a really cool movie.

Worth a look...... two

(for the life of me though...I still don't understand what use those 13-year cicadas are...they just make a mess)

Click my sig, DJ. If you've never seen The Planet of the Apes musical on the Simpsons, you're missing out.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

...anyway...since my original question about evolving from Chimps was answered...my other point was that "the Planet of the Apes" was a really cool movie.

Worth a look...... two

(for the life of me though...I still don't understand what use those 13-year cicadas are...they just make a mess)

Click my sig, DJ. If you've never seen The Planet of the Apes musical on the Simpsons, you're missing out.

I love that song!