Abiogenesis is impossible

[Esquilax]

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) will only interpret data to advance a naturalism explanation. They state: “Science is a process of seeking natural explanations for natural phenomena“. So it’s not a conspiracy, but a policy. That’s all good and well but one should know that going in.
http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolution...doc_id=443

And the moment a supposedly supernatural phenomena can be demonstrated to exist and interact with the physical world the functions of those interactions become, by definition, natural, in that they're working upon nature. An expanding definition eliminates any claim to exclusion you might be sporting, here.

[Alex K]

@snowtracks

Nothing of substance can be learned from the supernatural "explanations" you would like scientists to entertain. They have no consequences for further research.

Your wish, and all that could follow from it, would be entirely taken care of if all scientists kept working exactly as they do now, and added to every paper and article the token disclaimer "or it could be magic".

Just pretend that it's there.

[pocaracas]

Have you looked into the cause that science is proposing for abiogenesis?

---

Indeed... conservation of energy and matter plays a role in this, of course.

Now, why is it that water molecules bind together?
Why is it that carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms bind together to form hydrocarbons?
Why is it that hydrocarbons bind together to form amino-acids?
Why is it that amino-acids bind together to form proteins?

How does a fluorescent lamp work?

Why is it that nuclear fusion is the major power source available to us (sun)?

Have you looked into these things?
Or are you just ignorantly spewing the equally ignorant remarks uttered by others?

---

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) will only interpret data to advance a naturalism explanation. They state: “Science is a process of seeking natural explanations for natural phenomena“. So it’s not a conspiracy, but a policy. That’s all good and well but one should know that going in.
http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolution...doc_id=443

If a god exists and is responsible for creating the whole Universe, or whatever, then that god is a part of Nature and should be available to scrutiny.
In other words, if the Universe is indeed intelligently created, then the creator is itself part of Nature and, unless it placed some blocks to our potential ability to research Nature beyond what was created, we should be able to reliably come to some natural information about that creator.

Furthermore, if that creator is also intent on having us humans acknowledge its existence, then such blocks that it may place would counter this intent. So it's not reasonable to assume that such blocks would be in place for the abrahamic god(s).

As such, and given that none of the current scientific discoveries about the Universe show nor hint at the presence of such a creative force, we have no reason to accept humanity's wishful thinking as minimally accurate.

One, or more, of those wishes may be correct, in the end... but we have no way of knowing it. Until then, let's use what we do know as the firm base where to stand.
Wishful thinking is no base to work upon... unless you wish to work upon preying on the gullible who wish a lot.

[snowtracks]

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) will only interpret data to advance a naturalism explanation. They state: “Science is a process of seeking natural explanations for natural phenomena“. So it’s not a conspiracy, but a policy. That’s all good and well but one should know that going in.
http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolution...doc_id=443

If a god exists and is responsible for creating the whole Universe, or whatever, then that god is a part of Nature and should be available to scrutiny.
In other words, if the Universe is indeed intelligently created, then the creator is itself part of Nature and, unless it placed some blocks to our potential ability to research Nature beyond what was created, we should be able to reliably come to some natural information about that creator.

Furthermore, if that creator is also intent on having us humans acknowledge its existence, then such blocks that it may place would counter this intent. So it's not reasonable to assume that such blocks would be in place for the abrahamic god(s).

As such, and given that none of the current scientific discoveries about the Universe show nor hint at the presence of such a creative force, we have no reason to accept humanity's wishful thinking as minimally accurate.

One, or more, of those wishes may be correct, in the end... but we have no way of knowing it. Until then, let's use what we do know as the firm base where to stand.
Wishful thinking is no base to work upon... unless you wish to work upon preying on the gullible who wish a lot.

The naturalistic model forecast a slow arrival of life’s origin. Carl Sagan in his book ’intelligent life in the universe’ stated billions of years would be required for complex modules to arise from a primitive environment which is in agreement with modern day constructs. However the record shows that is not the case. the earliest fossils are dated to 3.5bya and geochemical dating of isotope ratios for carbon establishes that life was abundant on earth at least 3.8 bya. The earth’s age is 4.5 and until 3.9, the sun’s solar ionizing radiation was 50 times higher than present which would make life impossible. Life commence suddenly within 100 million years, plus there were additional environmental problem within that period that was hostile to any life arising from a naturalistic origin. Naturalism explanation for the life’s origin is hardly a ‘firm base’; more like shakier than jello.

[Minimalist]

Naturalism explanation for the life’s origin is hardly a ‘firm base’; more like shakier than jello.

It's rock solid in comparison to your god delusions.

[Chas]

The naturalistic model forecast a slow arrival of life’s origin. Carl Sagan in his book ’intelligent life in the universe’

There is no such book.

stated billions of years would be required for complex modules to arise from a primitive environment which is in agreement with modern day constructs.

And he never said that.

However the record shows that is not the case. the earliest fossils are dated to 3.5bya and geochemical dating of isotope ratios for carbon establishes that life was abundant on earth at least 3.8 bya.

Wrong again, Snowflake, both on the times and on the means. You need to read a science book.

The earth’s age is 4.5 and until 3.9, the sun’s solar ionizing radiation was 50 times higher than present which would make life impossible. Life commence suddenly within 100 million years, plus there were additional environmental problem within that period that was hostile to any life arising from a naturalistic origin. Naturalism explanation for the life’s origin is hardly a ‘firm base’; more like shakier than jello.

You not only lack knowledge, what knowledge you think you have is demonstrably wrong. Read a science book.

[Cato]

The naturalistic model forecast a slow arrival of life’s origin. Carl Sagan in his book ’intelligent life in the universe’

There is no such book.

I haven't read it, but it does exist:
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/27556...e_Universe

[Chas]

There is no such book.

I haven't read it, but it does exist:
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/27556...e_Universe

I stand corrected, thank you.

I hadn't heard of it, and it didn't come up in a book search.

[Esquilax]

The naturalistic model forecast a slow arrival of life’s origin. Carl Sagan in his book ’intelligent life in the universe’ stated billions of years would be required for complex modules to arise from a primitive environment which is in agreement with modern day constructs. However the record shows that is not the case. the earliest fossils are dated to 3.5bya and geochemical dating of isotope ratios for carbon establishes that life was abundant on earth at least 3.8 bya. The earth’s age is 4.5 and until 3.9, the sun’s solar ionizing radiation was 50 times higher than present which would make life impossible. Life commence suddenly within 100 million years, plus there were additional environmental problem within that period that was hostile to any life arising from a naturalistic origin. Naturalism explanation for the life’s origin is hardly a ‘firm base’; more like shakier than jello.

Snowy, you do realize that if we threw out every claim the moment one proponent of it was wrong about a single, individual element of it, the bible and christianity would have to be all but obliterated, right?

It's awfully suspicious that you won't hold your religion to the same scrutiny you want to hold everything else to. Almost like you have some kind of agenda...

[pocaracas]

If a god exists and is responsible for creating the whole Universe, or whatever, then that god is a part of Nature and should be available to scrutiny.
In other words, if the Universe is indeed intelligently created, then the creator is itself part of Nature and, unless it placed some blocks to our potential ability to research Nature beyond what was created, we should be able to reliably come to some natural information about that creator.

Furthermore, if that creator is also intent on having us humans acknowledge its existence, then such blocks that it may place would counter this intent. So it's not reasonable to assume that such blocks would be in place for the abrahamic god(s).

As such, and given that none of the current scientific discoveries about the Universe show nor hint at the presence of such a creative force, we have no reason to accept humanity's wishful thinking as minimally accurate.

One, or more, of those wishes may be correct, in the end... but we have no way of knowing it. Until then, let's use what we do know as the firm base where to stand.
Wishful thinking is no base to work upon... unless you wish to work upon preying on the gullible who wish a lot.

The naturalistic model forecast a slow arrival of life’s origin. Carl Sagan in his book ’intelligent life in the universe’ stated billions of years would be required for complex modules to arise from a primitive environment which is in agreement with modern day constructs. However the record shows that is not the case. the earliest fossils are dated to 3.5bya and geochemical dating of isotope ratios for carbon establishes that life was abundant on earth at least 3.8 bya. The earth’s age is 4.5 and until 3.9, the sun’s solar ionizing radiation was 50 times higher than present which would make life impossible. Life commence suddenly within 100 million years, plus there were additional environmental problem within that period that was hostile to any life arising from a naturalistic origin. Naturalism explanation for the life’s origin is hardly a ‘firm base’; more like shakier than jello.

So.. you didn't read the book, I see...

I didn't either, but I can guess at the context that's eluding you.
Billions of years... until the Earth itself could come into existence... until telluric planets could come into being.
After that, it didn't take long for life to spring up on this particular planet.

So my question to you, again, is why do you misrepresent what respected scientists say?
It's like you have some agenda... or you've been sold that agenda and are now trying your best to sell it to others... like some ponzi or pyramid scheme... There's a reason why those are illegal!