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


#1

Atheists would have man believe that his existence is all due to random chance and coincidence. The atheist creation myth teaches that life began in mud pools or in hot vents by the spontaneous generation of living organisms. The first cells supposedly just came to life from previously dead material. This ludicrous concept requires substantial faith to believe in due to it having no evidence, not adhering to scientific method and not being observable.

Some scientists have been able to "reproduce" what they think the conditions of Earth was back then and managed to create self-replicating RNA molecules in what is known as the Miller-Urey experiment and atheists naturally hail this as proof that their creation myth is correct. However they utterly misunderstand and misinterpret the real result that the Miller-Urey experiment showed. The experiment didn't show living things forming from dead matter (because molecules aren't alive) and therefore certainly didn't prove that life could form on its own. The whole test was a farce not to be taken seriously anyway simply due to the human-intervention involved in the test and the management of the conditions. The self-replicating RNA molecules formed because of humans in this instance administering the right chemicals and components in order. Scientists can't even be exactly sure of what the exact conditions were during this time on the ancient Earth and therefore all experiments are unreliable.

Most non-biased scientists have concluded that the origin of life remains unknowable based on current scientific knowledge and the abiogenesis hypothesis (myth) is simply based on speculation and faith.

This brings us back to Louis Pasteur debunking the previous form of abiogenesis, a concept known simply as spontaneous generation. From this came the law of biogenesis which states that "life only comes from pre-existing life" and this law is observable and logical. It is for this reason that theism remains the logical viewpoint over atheism.

If the Miller-Urey experiment proved anything, it proved that intelligent intervention is needed for even the building blocks for life to form. Then again this has been taught for years that complexity or life can only be made from intelligence further supporting the law of biogenesis.


#2

Further Reading:

science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/origin-of-life-on-earth5.htm (Criticism of Abiogenesis and Panspermia. Panspermia is often the concept that atheists invoke knowing that abiogenesis on Earth is likely impossible but panspermia simply shifts the origin elsewhere avoiding the question and arguments against the hypothesis)


#3

Your source is misinforming you. Life originated through chemistry, and chemistry is not a matter of “random chance and coincidence”. Mix together two parts of hydrogen gas, one part of oxygen gases and apply a spark. If chemistry was “random chance and coincidence” then there would be equal amounts of H[sub]1[/sub]O, H[sub]2[/sub]O, H[sub]3[/sub]O, H[sub]4[/sub]O etc. In reality, what you get is overwhelmingly H[sub]2[/sub]O. Chemistry, and hence abiogenesis, is not a random process.

The atheist creation myth teaches that life began in mud pools or in hot vents by the spontaneous generation of living organisms. The first cells supposedly just came to life from previously dead material. This ludicrous concept requires substantial faith to believe in due to it having no evidence, not adhering to scientific method and not being observable.

Again, your source is feeding you false information. We do not have “no evidence”, but we have some evidence. Not as much as we would like, but some. Did your source tell you about lipid bilayers? Did it tell you that lipid bilayers form spontaneously? Did it tell you that bacterial cell membranes are made of lipid bilayers? Did your source tell you about experiments showing the formation of purines and pyrimidines through prebiotic processes? Do you know that the bases that make up DNA and RNA are composed of two purines and two pyrimidines? Perhaps your sources are not giving you complete information.

Some scientists have been able to “reproduce” what they think the conditions of Earth was back then and managed to create self-replicating RNA molecules in what is known as the Miller-Urey experiment

Now your source is showing its complete ignorance of the relevant science. Why do you rely on such an ignorant source? Don’t you bother to check what they are telling you? The Miller-Urey experiment produced amino acids, not either DNA or RNA. Your source fails to know even the basis of the relevant science. You are being hoodwinked by a source that is telling you sciency sounding rubbish. There are separate papers on the activity of random RNA, see Elkand, Szostak, Bartel (1995) for one example.

Most non-biased scientists have concluded that the origin of life remains unknowable based on current scientific knowledge and the abiogenesis hypothesis (myth) is simply based on speculation and faith.

You are correct that abiogenesis is a hypothesis. You are incorrect that there is no support for the hypothesis. Searching on Google Scholar I find over 3,000 papers on abiogenesis, and over 37,000 papers about prebiotic conditions and chemistry. I doubt if your source has even read one of those papers.

In short, your source is providing you with false information. You would be wise to avoid using that source in future.

rossum


#4

[quote="Truth777, post:2, topic:312812"]
Further Reading:

science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/origin-of-life-on-earth5.htm (Criticism of Abiogenesis and Panspermia. Panspermia is often the concept that atheists invoke knowing that abiogenesis on Earth is likely impossible but panspermia simply shifts the origin elsewhere avoiding the question and arguments against the hypothesis)

[/quote]

And Creationists do not do exactly the same? Creationism offers no explanation at all for the origin of life. Be careful before answering, it is a trick question and the first answer you think of is wrong.

rossum


#5

[quote="Truth777, post:1, topic:312812"]
Atheists would have man believe that his existence is all due to random chance and coincidence. The atheist creation myth teaches that life began in mud pools or in hot vents by the spontaneous generation of living organisms.

[/quote]

I am not an atheist, but a practicing Roman Catholic, faithful to the teachings of the Church, and I emphatically do not believe that man's existence is all due to random chance and coincidence. Yet I do believe, following the evidence, that life arose spontaneously from non-life, given the laws of nature made by God to allow that to happen (and more generally, to allow for the universe to be what it is).

I have written an overview of the origin-of-life research for Talkorigins.org, a leading evolution website:

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

I had originally been very skeptical, but then, after systematic in-depth study of the primary scientific literature in the field (an in-depth study possible by me being a scientist in biochemistry myself), I concluded, at first rather reluctantly and only over time enthusiastically, that an origin of life by natural causes is highly probable.

The issue with natural causes is curious. Both atheists and creationists appear to have in common that they view natural causes as 'godless' causes, as being in competition with God. Nothing could be further from the truth. Natural causes are simply the secondary causes that God, as primary cause, uses to create and sustain the world. This, by the way, is mainstream Catholic teaching, fully in line with Thomistic philosophy which has had great influence on Catholic thinking.

The first cells supposedly just came to life from previously dead material. This ludicrous concept requires substantial faith to believe in due to it having no evidence, not adhering to scientific method and not being observable.

Argument from ignorance of the scientific facts, and argument from incredulity.

Some scientists have been able to "reproduce" what they think the conditions of Earth was back then and managed to create self-replicating RNA molecules in what is known as the Miller-Urey experiment

Nonsense. The Miller-Urey experiment dealt with amino acids, not with self-replicating RNA molecules, a concept not known to science at the time (1953). By the way, if you think the Miller-Urey experiment is still the Holy Grail of abiogenesis research, I have news for you: recent research of the last decade has far superseded that experiment, and only because of that recent research I have concluded that an origin of life by natural causes is highly probable. If you had asked me 10 years ago, before the groundbreaking scientific research of the last decade in abiogenesis, if an origin of life by natural causes was even remotely possible, I would have declared you crazy for even suggesting. And I would have agreed with your general viewpoint.

This brings us back to Louis Pasteur debunking the previous form of abiogenesis, a concept known simply as spontaneous generation. From this came the law of biogenesis which states that "life only comes from pre-existing life" and this law is observable and logical.

You are confusing the origin of life from non-life on the early Earth, beginning with very simple forms that gradually became more complex, with the fact that spontaneous generation of current complex life (and even the smallest bacterium is tremendously complex) is impossible. The latter is what Pasteur, rightfully, debunked.

It is for this reason that theism remains the logical viewpoint over atheism.

No it is not. There are other reasons why theism remains the logical viewpoint over atheism, but the issue of the origin of life is decisively not one of them.


#6

rossum

And Creationists do not do exactly the same? Creationism offers no explanation at all for the origin of life. Be careful before answering, it is a trick question and the first answer you think of is wrong.

I'll try to be careful

Evolution offers no explanation for the origin of life. Inanimate matter cannot be animated by evolution, since evolution assumes only the change of one living form into another. Evolution says nothing about how life leaped into existence from inanimate matter all by itself without a helping hand ... God.


#7

[quote="rossum, post:3, topic:312812"]
Your source is misinforming you. Life originated through chemistry, and chemistry is not a matter of "random chance and coincidence". Mix together two parts of hydrogen gas, one part of oxygen gases and apply a spark. If chemistry was "random chance and coincidence" then there would be equal amounts of H[sub]1[/sub]O, H[sub]2[/sub]O, H[sub]3[/sub]O, H[sub]4[/sub]O etc. In reality, what you get is overwhelmingly H[sub]2[/sub]O. Chemistry, and hence abiogenesis, is not a random process.

Again, your source is feeding you false information. We do not have "no evidence", but we have some evidence. Not as much as we would like, but some. Did your source tell you about lipid bilayers? Did it tell you that lipid bilayers form spontaneously? Did it tell you that bacterial cell membranes are made of lipid bilayers? Did your source tell you about experiments showing the formation of purines and pyrimidines through prebiotic processes? Do you know that the bases that make up DNA and RNA are composed of two purines and two pyrimidines? Perhaps your sources are not giving you complete information.

Now your source is showing its complete ignorance of the relevant science. Why do you rely on such an ignorant source? Don't you bother to check what they are telling you? The Miller-Urey experiment produced amino acids, not either DNA or RNA. Your source fails to know even the basis of the relevant science. You are being hoodwinked by a source that is telling you sciency sounding rubbish. There are separate papers on the activity of random RNA, see Elkand, Szostak, Bartel (1995) for one example.

You are correct that abiogenesis is a hypothesis. You are incorrect that there is no support for the hypothesis. Searching on Google Scholar I find over 3,000 papers on abiogenesis, and over 37,000 papers about prebiotic conditions and chemistry. I doubt if your source has even read one of those papers.

In short, your source is providing you with false information. You would be wise to avoid using that source in future.

rossum

[/quote]

Thanks, Rossum, for an excellent post. :thumbsup:

(You posted while I wrote mine, hence some duplication of your arguments in my post.)


#8

Not careful enough I’m afraid. I did warn you. Consider Psalm 42:2 “My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When shall I come and behold the face of God?” (emphasis added)

Now I ask again, what is the Creationist explanation for the origin of life?

You are correct that evolution offers no explanation for the origin of life, it only offers an explanation for the origin of species. The origin of life is abiogenesis, and is still a field of different hypotheses. There is not enough data to have knocked down all the competing hypotheses. When there is only one hypothesis left, that will become the theory of abiogenesis, but we aren’t there yet.

rossum


#9

"life only comes from pre-existing life" and this law is observable and logical

You can't observe that life *only *comes from pre-existing life. You can only observe lots of cases of life coming from life, and lots of cases of non-alive things not resulting in life.

Of course, for abiogenesis to be correct, you only need one case of life coming from non-life.To my knowledge, our Church doesn't teach that life coming from non-life is incorrect, just that life occurred out of God's loving intent. If you can prove them wrong, it may strengthen the theist case, but if they prove you wrong, I don't see that it weakens the theist case. I've basically always assumed their case, and it doesn't bother me in the least.

Personally, I see the existence of a universe that just happens to have laws that allow life to exist, and the existence of the conscious mind in a merely physical and electrical body as much bigger miracles.


#10

[quote="rossum, post:3, topic:312812"]
Your source is misinforming you. Life originated through chemistry, and chemistry is not a matter of "random chance and coincidence". Mix together two parts of hydrogen gas, one part of oxygen gases and apply a spark. If chemistry was "random chance and coincidence" then there would be equal amounts of H[sub]1[/sub]O, H[sub]2[/sub]O, H[sub]3[/sub]O, H[sub]4[/sub]O etc. In reality, what you get is overwhelmingly H[sub]2[/sub]O. Chemistry, and hence abiogenesis, is not a random process.

Again, your source is feeding you false information. We do not have "no evidence", but we have some evidence. Not as much as we would like, but some. Did your source tell you about lipid bilayers? Did it tell you that lipid bilayers form spontaneously? Did it tell you that bacterial cell membranes are made of lipid bilayers? Did your source tell you about experiments showing the formation of purines and pyrimidines through prebiotic processes? Do you know that the bases that make up DNA and RNA are composed of two purines and two pyrimidines? Perhaps your sources are not giving you complete information.

Now your source is showing its complete ignorance of the relevant science. Why do you rely on such an ignorant source? Don't you bother to check what they are telling you? The Miller-Urey experiment produced amino acids, not either DNA or RNA. Your source fails to know even the basis of the relevant science. You are being hoodwinked by a source that is telling you sciency sounding rubbish. There are separate papers on the activity of random RNA, see Elkand, Szostak, Bartel (1995) for one example.

You are correct that abiogenesis is a hypothesis. You are incorrect that there is no support for the hypothesis. Searching on Google Scholar I find over 3,000 papers on abiogenesis, and over 37,000 papers about prebiotic conditions and chemistry. I doubt if your source has even read one of those papers.

In short, your source is providing you with false information. You would be wise to avoid using that source in future.

rossum

[/quote]

rossum, this isn't even close to life. A simple protein defies the odds. Then even simple life requires more than 200.

Arguments from popularity carry no weight.


#11

[quote="TomFromMD, post:9, topic:312812"]
You can't observe that life *only *comes from pre-existing life. You can only observe lots of cases of life coming from life, and lots of cases of non-alive things not resulting in life.

Of course, for abiogenesis to be correct, you only need one case of life coming from non-life.To my knowledge, our Church doesn't teach that life coming from non-life is incorrect, just that life occurred out of God's loving intent. If you can prove them wrong, it may strengthen the theist case, but if they prove you wrong, I don't see that it weakens the theist case. I've basically always assumed their case, and it doesn't bother me in the least.

Personally, I see the existence of a universe that just happens to have laws that allow life to exist, and the existence of the conscious mind in a merely physical and electrical body as much bigger miracles.

[/quote]

How are free will and self-control possible in a merely physical and electrical body?


#12

[quote="rossum, post:8, topic:312812"]
Not careful enough I'm afraid. I did warn you. Consider Psalm 42:2 "My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When shall I come and behold the face of God?" (emphasis added)

Now I ask again, what is the Creationist explanation for the origin of life?

You are correct that evolution offers no explanation for the origin of life, it only offers an explanation for the origin of species. The origin of life is abiogenesis, and is still a field of different hypotheses. There is not enough data to have knocked down all the competing hypotheses. When there is only one hypothesis left, that will become the theory of abiogenesis, but we aren't there yet.

rossum

[/quote]

That sounds like an act of faith in the power of science to explain everything!
On what rational foundation is it supported?


#13

[quote="TomFromMD, post:9, topic:312812"]
Of course, for abiogenesis to be correct, you only need one case of life coming from non-life.To my knowledge, our Church doesn't teach that life coming from non-life is incorrect, just that life occurred out of God's loving intent. If you can prove them wrong, it may strengthen the theist case, but if they prove you wrong, I don't see that it weakens the theist case. I've basically always assumed their case, and it doesn't bother me in the least.

Personally, I see the existence of a universe that just happens to have laws that allow life to exist, and the existence of the conscious mind in a merely physical and electrical body as much bigger miracles.

[/quote]

Well said.


#14

[quote="tonyrey, post:11, topic:312812"]
How are free will and self-control possible in a merely physical and electrical body?

[/quote]

They aren't. I am afraid you are misreading Tom.


#15

[quote="tonyrey, post:12, topic:312812"]
That sounds like an act of faith in the power of science to explain everything!
On what rational foundation is it supported?

[/quote]

No, science cannot explain everything, but in this case confidence in science being able to deliver an explanation is well-founded.


#16

[quote="buffalo, post:10, topic:312812"]
rossum, this isn't even close to life. A simple protein defies the odds.

[/quote]

It doesn't under the reasonable assumption that RNA came first.

Then even simple life requires more than 200.

The current simplest life does, yes. But that is presumably not how life started.


#17

Abiogenesis, if it occurs, would only apply to the material world of insects, elephants, and weeds.

Human nature possesses a spiritual soul which does not emerge from a decomposing anatomy.


#18

[quote="Al_Moritz, post:16, topic:312812"]
It doesn't under the reasonable assumption that RNA came first.

The current simplest life does, yes. But that is presumably not how life started.

[/quote]

RNA world is pretty much dead.

But in any case, where does the assembly instruction information come from?


#19

[quote="buffalo, post:18, topic:312812"]
RNA world is pretty much dead.

[/quote]

LOL!!! :rotfl:

Where did you get that 'information' from? You certainly do not seem up to speed with current scientific thinking. But perhaps you mistake fringe for mainstream consensus.


#20

Al

*No, science cannot explain everything, but in this case confidence in science being able to deliver an explanation is well-founded. *

It is just as well founded to all Catholics that all of Creation is a miracle, and therefore everything in it is a miracle, including abiogenesis and evolution.

Any attempt to replicate the miracle if abiogenesis by natural means will fail, for the simple reason that such an attempt is intelligently designed by humans. The same goes for evolution. Without God, there is no explanation for anything.

The universe and everything in it did not just accidentally pop into existence. Anyone who says it did is not going to find a "well-founded explanation."


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.