Is Abiogenesis a fact?

The meaning of that statement is not clear. If taken to mean exactly what it says, it`s clearly a non sequitur

because the statement is not a logical consequence of the premise

Agreed.

The constantness of the forces (whatever that means) does not lead to the conclusion that abiogenesis is impossible. If you think it does, the burden is on you to show it.Edited by fallacycop, : word substitution: evolution -> abiogenesis (evolution is off topic in this thread)

As it stands, the statement above is not an expression of the current understanding based in the physical sciences (Modern physics is not deterministic). But even if your premise were to be true, your conclusion still is a non sequitur. you have not taken any steps to close that logical gap.

Or perhaps I know more about it then you can guess. Didn't think of that, did you? Well, that was the belief up to the 19th century. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then. The modern understanding of science is that physics predictions work in a probabilistic framework, as oposed to the deterministic framework. Ever heard of quantum mechanics? Besides, as nwr pointed out, even if the laws of physics were to be deterministic, that does not necessarily lead to a deterministic universe due to possible chaotic behaviour. I`m not proposing anything. You may have missed the fact that I have not made any statements about whether it's possible or not that life arised from inanimate matter. On the other hand you made some statements to the effect that this is impossible. That's why the burden is on you to show that it is so. All I did was point out a huge glaring gap in your logic. This is a strawman. Your desmantled PC analogy has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Now you`re just babling. Your statement is just an repetition of your original non sequitur, except that it has become even less coherent then before. Not enought meaning in here even for a critic.I think this argument is going too far afield. Adminnemooseus has already shown us his blade and he seems ready to use it.So, unless you can put together an statement that is both consistent and on topic, we probably will have to take this discussion elsewhere. unless you lost interest on it, of course

Except that abiogenesis is not expected to work the way you described. That makes your analogy a strawman. So, you know about the Heisenberg Principle eh? Were you then just being disingenuous when you said the laws of physics are deterministic? Not a very honest way to conduct a debate, if I may say so. Just more babling. You keep repeating the same statement over and over again without addressing the gaps in your logic. I'm starting to think you don't even realize how wide they are. I'm not impressed. I don't see that conversation going anywhere. So, unless you have something new to add to it, feel free not to respond to that post.

Quantum Mechanics is an essential part of modern physics. Quantum mechanics is not deterministic. Ergo modern physics presents a non deterministic view of the universe. It's that simple Take this post as a model for what you should be trying to do to get rid of the non sequitur ghost in your posts. We are getting dangerously off topic in this thread. I foresee a red banner in our future.

Non deterministic does not mean that nothing can be determined (That would be crazy). But it means that not everything is determinable. What I was quiblig with was your choice of words to describe the nature of physical science because, in fact, modern physics is non deterministic. If you are going to hang an argument in the nature of science, you better get your facts right, otherwise people will not give you any credit for your conclusions since your whole logic seems to start from a faulty assumption.That doesn't seem to matter to the point you are trying to make, though. So I propose that we drop the deterministic vs non-deterministic discussion which is badly off topic here and try to concentrate in the point to the topic that you were trying to make to begin with. Well, of course it is relevant. But in these fora the administration expect us to keep a close watch to the topic as described in the opening post. This is important because the thread is not here just for our own enjoyment (To tell you the truth I enjoy talking about quantum mechanics much better then abiogenesis).This threads are read by other members and visitors, and if people do not stick to the topics as stated in the opening, it gets really hard to follow lines of reasoning. How is anybody supposed to know that we are talking about Quantum Mechanics when the thread tile clearly states abiogenesis? There are other threads where discussions about Quantum Mechanics would be on topic. The non-sequitur flag is not a proof that your final conclusion is wrong. You might even be right. But you have not proven it to be so. As it stands, it's just your own opinion. You are expected to back your statements in these fora with facts and logical reasoning. That's why I'm not required to show anything that counters your position. All I'm doing here is to point out that your statement has not been properly backed up with logical reasoningAs a final point, I should say that by calling the non-determinism of modern physics a "Heisenberg principle card" you give the impression that you think that we are playing a game where whoever plays better his own cards wins at the end. Though sometimes this turns out to be the case, ideally the facts and logical reasoning should speak for themselves, independently of whoever is making the points.

Not in this thread. Read the opening post. As you can see, in this thread, "poof" is considered a valid mechanism for abiogenesis. If you really want to discuss your loopy theory, why don`t you post a new topic? If it gets promoted, I will be willing to post on it (as long as my real life constraints allow)

Who said anything about proof? Go back to my post and you will see that the word I used was "poof". You might want to read the opening post to the thread too. (Always a good idea)

If you actually read the OP you will see that the definition of abiogenesis being used in this thread includes non-materialistic/non-naturalistic possibilities. It clearly states that godidit is considered abiogenesis. If you don't like this definition for abiogenesis (I know I don't), open your own thread with your own definition. If anybody finds yor definition relevant, they might post on it.Edited by fallacycop, : fix spelling and punctuation

that's the heart of the matter, isn't it? But in this thread, we couldn't care less about the materialist limits. The OP calls non-materialistic explanation by abiogenesis.

"I propose intervention." Fine. in this thread intervention is lumped with other possibilities under the label of abiogenesis. So you propose abiogenesis as an explanation.

That`s not the question of the OP. that`s all I was saying. I thought it was reasonable to open another thread exacty for the porpose of discussing your question. I guess we will just discuss it here even if it`s slightly off topic