Naturalism and Abiogenesis

Actually quite the contrary I have done my homework and I know that there is no scientific experiment for materialistic abiogenesis. I’m just asking questions from the ones that know more than me to ascertain why a naturalist or atheist or materialist can believe in something that cannot be empirically verified tested or repeated using the scientific method? yet that is their biggest complaint against theists? that they themselves believe in something that is not empirically verified or testable through the scientific method? How are they not being hypocritical then?

Punctuation would be welcome too.

3 Likes

Well, OK, but are you reading the answers that several people have posted? For instance, the simple point that there is no theory of abiogenesis. You don’t appear to have taken that on board.

1 Like

Well, people do homework and still flunk. You are factually wrong.

Searching NIH database on “RNA world” yields over 1000 papers, just for one avenue of investigation.

As @Mercer posted above, @Rumraket initiated a recent thread in this forum on a fascinating result for the prebiotic basis for ATP. Regardless of what you may think about the conclusions, that is definitely a scientific experiment with implications for the investigation of materialist abiogenesis.

The classic 1952 Miller experiment qualified. And these examples are only the tip of the iceberg.

At one time, vitalism was the prevailing idea, that organic compounds could only be derived from life. Do you believe Wöhler have just accepted that vitalism was a law and no scientific experiment for non living synthesis of organic compounds was possible? He did not, and went on the synthesize urea. How many millions of organic compounds have been synthesize since? Clearly, abiogenic origin of organic compounds is experimentally validated. Vitalism never was soundly based on fundamental principles, it just that only living organisms had been observed to produce organic compounds before Wöhler’s breakthroughs. Likewise, while abiogenesis is far from being fully demonstrated, there is no basic principle of science which precludes the gap between non-life and life being breached. If you think it was reasonable for Wöhler to pursue his work, why would you not extend the same to origin of life research?

6 Likes

A lot of vitalists claimed that DNA synthesis required vitalism, but Kornberg proved them wrong by synthesizing DNA in vitro with purified enzymes and chemicals.

5 Likes

A hypothesis is an educated scientific guess theory is a group of hypotheses thought to be true

Talkorigins has several well-written articles on abiogenesis. It would serve your personal education well to read them up.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

1 Like

Half right.

A theory used to be a hypothesis, but it has survived multiple rigorous attempts to falsify it. Theory is much more rarely used in the collective sense you described here, but in that case, it is not a group of hypotheses, but of theories.

2 Likes

Abiogenesis, the theory that life evolved from nonliving chemical systems , replaced spontaneous generation as the leading theory for the origin of life. … Experiments by Miller and Urey showed that likely conditions on early Earth could create the needed organic molecules for life to appear.

I’m sorry but everything that I’m finding about abiogenesis States that it’s a theory a scientific theory

So please correct me if I’m wrong in this following exerpt from the links you sent the author is simply saying that the mathematical probability is a little lower than the astronomical figure that most creationists have come up with however the number that he comes up with is still exceedingly large and not that likely from a statistical mathematical viewpoint

“The probability of generating this in successive random trials is (1/20)32 or 1 chance in 4.29 x 1040. This is much, much more probable than the 1 in 2.04 x 10390 of the standard creationist “generating carboxypeptidase by chance” scenario, but still seems absurdly low.”

So by the same rationale any number that would be even a couple of digits less than “(1/20)32 or 1 chance in 4.29 x 1040.” that number which still satisfy the requirements even though there would be astronomically improbable from a statistical point of view

That life emerged from nonliving matter is not a theory. It is a fact.

In addition, spontaneous generation and abiogenesis (at present) are two different ideas and the latter did not replace the former. I suspect you are getting these misconceptions from some creationist website.

It is not a theory, but there are models on how it could have happened.

1 Like

How did you miss the concession by the author in the excerpt you posted?

"This is much, much more probable than the 1 in 2.04 x 10390 of the standard creationist “generating carboxypeptidase by chance” scenario, but still seems absurdly low.

Everything is reputable academic and scientific websites and not creationist websites. They are all saying that it’s a scientific theory. Can you please give me some links where it says scientific fact? thank you

In the actual terminology employed by these academic papers the authors use terms like, " if, could, and possibly" none of those sound like facts

What does the author conceding that point have anything to do with my assertion my assertion is true there’s just a little bit less probability than what the creationists assert

It’s hard to know what “scientific experiment for materialistic abiogenesis” means, but if you mean to say merely that scientists haven’t yet demonstrated the generation of life from non-life, then so what?

How do you know it can’t be tested or repeated using the scientific method? I’m pretty sure scientists are working on testing it right now as we speak.

Untestability is certainly one complaint among many that “atheistic materialist naturalist scientist darwinist elitist pessimists” advance against proponents of the power of magical wishing.

They’re not being hypocritical when, in fact, they are testing the theory as we speak. When in fact there is evidence for it, and when, contrary to the theory of a natural origin of life, the power of magically wishing life into existence by an invisible incorporeal agent with libertarian free will really is completely untestable.

Scientists are working on that as we speak.

How do you know it’s not happening right now somewhere? What measurements did you perform, where, and when and for how long?

1 Like

Citation please.

2 Likes

OK so I was right the author’s main point in that part of the article is that the probability is just less than what the creationists assert yet it’s still astronomically high and very statistically mathematically improbable thank you for that confirmation

So you agree that it’s more logical to believe that life comes from life than life comes from non life even abiogenesis itself defeats itself because after abiogenesis life only comes from life and can only come from life but in the far distant past it came from non life that inanimate became animate it sounds like more of a fairy tale than any religious story I’ve ever heard! wouldn’t you agree?

From what did you extract that conclusion?

Please take a moment to consider more thoroughly each statement I have made, and then formulate a response if you wish, rather than just ignoring what I write and then assigning beliefs and statements to me which I haven’t made.

That doesn’t make logical sense. Something can begin by a process that is different from how it then goes on to persist and sustain itself, and this does not entail that it “defeats itself”. You’re just not making any sense.

No.

3 Likes

Like? More importantly, cite from the primary literature.

Citations?

I don’t need to give you anything because its too obvious. There was a time when life did not exist, and there was a time when it did. Thus, it is a fact that life arose at some point in time in our natural history. Living organisms today are composed of several elements, all of which are found in the environment and subject to the same laws of physics and chemistry. This tells you that when the earliest life-like systems emerged, they did so from the chemical components of the natural environment. The carbon atoms that make up your cells are the same found in stardust. The hydrogen atoms that make up every single molecule of water in your body are the same as the hydrogen atoms found in the sun. That the first life-like systems emerged from inanimate matter is obvious even to the blind.

That’s when they are talking about the how of abiogenesis. Please cite these papers too.

I hope you know the author isn’t saying that carboxypeptidase was formed via random assembly of amino acids?

A simple Google search will reveal that every single provided link says that abiogenesis is a theory not a fact.