(April 30, 2010 at 11:43 am)AngelThMan Wrote: Abiogenesis discredited. 500 years of experiments have failed to produce life out of inanimate matter. Scientists make excuse that the earth would have to be in the same condition as it was billions of years ago for life to be produced. And that’s just what it is. An excuse after so many experiments failed. So where does life comes from if there is no God? Evolution explains the development of life, or how it evolved from point A to point B. It doesn’t explain the origin. How life itself started. Scientists' many attempts recently to synthesize ribonucleotides have failed...To demonstrate how illogical your position is, all we need to do is simply change the time period. We are in the 16th century. For thousands of years, people have pondered and experimented to try and find an answer to why and how things seem to fall to the ground. Thousands of years of experiments have failed to produce an answer, and so we are left with the guess of Aristotle. There is no possible other answer, since we have been experimenting for so long, and nobody has come up with anything yet.
The lack of evidence for abiogenesis is my evidence. And for those of you who start dismissing this as non-evidence, then you need to remember that what I’m presenting is a result of centuries of experiments by scientists. Therefore, it is evidence.
The lack of evidence for gravity is my evidence. And for those of you who start dismissing this as non-evidence, then you need to remember that what I'm presenting is a result of thousands of years of experiments by scientists. Therefore, it is evidence.
Of course, we don't use this argument anymore. Why? Because several years later, Galileo Galilei solved the problem, and set the stage for Issac Newton, and then for Einstein.
All science starts out as ideas; as mere ideas in someone's head. The more you test those ideas, the more you understand about their veracity. You may test an idea for centuries with no results, but that doesn't mean the idea is wrong; perhaps your method is. Perhaps the idea needs a small refinement to make it work. If everyone took your attitude, we wouldn't have half the things around us that we do today.
Failing to achieve X via method A does not necessarily mean that X is impossible. In the abiogenesis example, lots of amino acids have been formed in the experiments, just not enough to form a living organism. The experiments get better as they are tweaked and refined, but at no point do the scientists throw up their arms and say "well, evidently nothing we do is ever going to work, let's give up". Science learns from mistakes, from bad results, and it improves.
