Abiogenesis is impossible

[Mister Agenda]

So you're just gonna skip over your drastic, crippling misunderstanding of science and the scientific process?

Science is the product of mind/consciousness.
How about you start with simple single cell abiogenesis FIRST.
Then you can have a crack at explaining how consciousness arose.

Pointing out that your opponent can't explain something doesn't make your own hypothesis a whit more credible. Don't any of you guys balk at making arguments from ignorance?

---

How does the group that says...we don't know,
serve us better than the group which says...we think we DO know.

The group that says we don't know is much more likely to find out what actually happened...because we don't think the question is already sufficiently answered by the guesses of the other groups.

---

Hi Lion

1) A singularity isn't 'something out of nothing'. Get a textbook.

2) The whole purpose of having a null hypothesis is so that candidate explanations can be properly tested against a defined standard. It's serves to make the whole process robust. Again - kindly go and learn about proper scientific methods if you can't see how that's preferable to just saying "I know how it all came about Goddiddit phew now I feel better". Stop being silly.

I mean, by all means propose the god idea as a H1 hypothesis, and provide evidence to support it. Why are the theists in this thread so reluctant to do that? Surely, if it's true beyond doubt as you seem to think it is, then you'll have no difficulty providing evidence that a daft atheist on the internet such as me will be unable to evade?

Or is the problem that you have no evidence?

What gets me, is if they didn't try to make it out to be more than belief and faith, they could stop there and not have to prove anything. We could just say 'you're entitled to your opinion' and move on. They act like we're forcing them to shoulder the burden of proof while ducking it ourselves when it is only their pretensions to certainty that place them in that position.

---

Its not a 'nothing post' just because you don't understand the science

I understand it better than you to know that that is not abiogenesis.

He did not say it was abiogenesis. He said it was proof of abiogenesis. Which may be optimistic, but the finding is still highly significant. I'm not a biochemist, but it looks to me like it's at least proof of concept: we've identified natural environments in which pyramidines and purines can form naturally. That knocks off about half the steps from merely organic to living matter, of which you claimed each one was so unlikely that it may as well be impossible, and definitely impossible in combination. I think the odds that you're just as wrong about the steps between these organic molecules and living cells are pretty high.

---

Simple knowledge for simpletons.

Go to New York City, walk around, tell everyone you can that it is all from random chance and no intelligence.

Collect a record of comments and report back.

Can you make ONE argument that doesn't rely on a fallacy? What is true is determined by evidence, not popularity. The list of things that most people used to believe that they don't any more because it turned out they were wrong is very, very long.

In addition, you're putting up a straw man. Natural selection is the concept that makes biological evoluton work, and it's the opposite of random chance. It's what fits organisms to their environments. Even you guys have had to acknowledge 'microevolution'. And all 'macroevolution' is, is microevolution over a longer period of time. If there's a mechanism that stops microevolution from becoming macroevolution, there's a Nobel Prize for the person who discovers it.

Evolution would be SO easy to disprove, if it weren't true. At every turn when we've discovered something new and impactful in biology, there was a chance it would disprove evolution. When DNA was figured out, it could have been incompatible with evolution. We could have discovered rabbits where dinosaurs are supposed to be in the fossil record. We could have discovered that species diversity on islands that were once connected has nothing to do with how far apart they are or how long they've been separated. We could have a dog giving birth to a cat.

But none of the stuff that could have proven evolution false has, instead, every time, new discoveries have dovetailed right into the prediction of biological evolution. And all evolution deniers are left with are fallacies.