Abiogenesis, Abiogenesis "Evidence" Debunked, Abiogenesis Experiments Debunked, Abiogenesis Debunked, Abiogenesis Explained, Atheist Creation Myth Deb

[rossum]

Did any of your gods do it? Is the god of BUC one of the Buddhist gods?

The origin of life is one of the questions that the Buddha considered not useful. None of the gods did it because the gods are themselves alive and so cannot explain the origin of life. Only something non-living can explain the origin of life, alternatively life is eternal and has no origin.

Since the question does not bear on peace, happiness or the attainment of nirvana, the Buddha ignored it.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

The origin of life is one of the questions that the Buddha considered not useful. None of the gods did it because the gods are themselves alive and so cannot explain the origin of life. Only something non-living can explain the origin of life, alternatively life is eternal and has no origin.

Since the question does not bear on peace, happiness or the attainment of nirvana, the Buddha ignored it.

rossum

So why are you so invested in it? Isn’t there a top god? One who is better than the rest?

 

[Al_Moritz]

Wow, you actually think my source is that article I posted below the OP? Now you’re showing your ignorance here. My “sources” have been learned from all the article about abiogenesis. What was produced by that experiment were RNA molecules. I suggest you read up on the experiment and what happened (and what it means) before decreeing my “source” as rubbish.

chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

Second site when one Googles “Miller-Urey experiment” I don’t need to dig up some biased misinformed site to support me.

1. Your link clearly states that the experiment that produced the RNA base adenine was a different one from the Miller-Urey experiment, and it was performed in 1961, eight years later.
2. RNA bases are only part of RNA nucleotides, they are not RNA nucleotides themselves, the building blocks of RNA. Only a recent experiment from 2009 (improved upon in 2012) showed that RNA nucleotides can form spontaneously under prebiotic conditions, see my article.

It is quite clear that you have to do vastly better in order to convince us of your knowledge.

 

[buffalo]

Early Evolution of Life: Study of Ribosome Evolution Challenges ‘RNA World’ Hypothesis

…“I’m convinced that the RNA world (hypothesis) is not correct,” Caetano-Anollés said. “That world of nucleic acids could not have existed if not tethered to proteins.”

 

[Al_Moritz]

What I can gather from this is that you believe God used nature as a secondary cause to create life and that he was the “spark” behind abiogenesis.

If by “spark” you mean creating the laws of nature at the Big Bang, then ultimately, yes. But in terms of ‘direct intervention’, no.

Correct? Well as a believer, I do believe abiogenesis could be true if God initiated the process

Again, ‘initiation’ as just explained.

but everything I’ve read and all the experiments and research scientists have put into abiogenesis suggests that life cannot start by itself. This is the doctrine I’m debunking. The atheistic doctrine.

Wrong on both counts. Life could start ‘by itself’ from non-life according to the laws of nature that God created, and this is not an atheistic doctrine. This very much appears the way how things unfolded, regardless if you believe in God or not.

 

[buffalo]

If by “spark” you mean creating the laws of nature at the Big Bang, then ultimately, yes. But in terms of ‘direct intervention’, no.

Again, ‘initialtion’ as just explained.

Wrong on both counts. Life could start ‘by itself’ from non-life according to the laws of nature that God created, and this is not an atheistic doctrine. This very much appears the way how things unfolded, regardless if you believe in God or not.

Where do the assembly instructions come from?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Al

** Life could start ‘by itself’ from non-life according to the laws of nature that God created, and this is not an atheistic doctrine. This very much appears the way how things unfolded, regardless if you believe in God or not. **

Yes, but if one does not believe in God, it is quite an upward scientific battle, bordering on the absurd, to explain how the leap from inanimate to animate matter could have happened without being designed from the start to happen. To paraphrase Einstein, God does not play dice with the universe without first loading the dice.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Early Evolution of Life: Study of Ribosome Evolution Challenges ‘RNA World’ Hypothesis

…“I’m convinced that the RNA world (hypothesis) is not correct,” Caetano-Anollés said. “That world of nucleic acids could not have existed if not tethered to proteins.”

Thanks for that link, interesting. I’ll study the original article. However, to proclaim that based on this one recent study the RNA World is ‘dead’ seems a bit dramatic. Let’s see how the science plays out.

 

[buffalo]

Thanks for that link, interesting. I’ll study the original article. However, to proclaim that based on this one study the RNA World is ‘dead’ seems a bit dramatic. Let’s see how the science plays out.

This is just for starters. There are other issues. One of them is the steps needed for RNA replication. DNA unzips (into RNA), RNA needs a two step process to replicate.

Still unanswered is - where do the assembly instructions come from?

 

[Al_Moritz]

Al

** Life could start ‘by itself’ from non-life according to the laws of nature that God created, and this is not an atheistic doctrine. This very much appears the way how things unfolded, regardless if you believe in God or not. **

Yes, but if one does not believe in God, it is quite an upward scientific battle, bordering on the absurd, to explain how the leap from inanimate to animate matter could have happened without being designed from the start to happen.

Based on what we know about the laws of nature it is not absurd anymore to explain how the leap from inanimate to animate matter could have happened. However, I would agree that the assumption that the laws of nature are just a coincidence borders on the absurd – in fact, is absurd.

To paraphrase Einstein, God does not play dice with the universe without first loading the dice.

Indeed, He knew what He was doing by planning and creating the laws of nature the way they are.