Is Abiogenesis a fact?

"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.

Nosyned ignores the point of behavioural limitations. That's the logic and reasoning behind my conclusion. You need to do much more than just simply assert I am wrong, typically, by substantiating your point. Read my responses, the laws of physics pose a problem for abiogenesis, this doesn’t render the transformation impossible. Do you understand? .

Of course the laws of physics pose a "problem" for abiogenesis. That is why it takes research to figure out how, within those laws, abiogenesis could take place. Is that all you're saying?Now what the heck are "behavioral limitations"? There hasn't been any "logic and reasoning" that I see: just a statement that physics is a "problem".Lex, life as we see it is just complex chemistry. We are digging deeper and deeper into how it all works and it is chemisty, chemistry and more chemistry. That it arose from less complex chemistry is the hypothosis.There is NOTHING in the laws of physics (as you say "this doesn’t render the transformation impossible") that stops the chemistry from crossing whatever non-life to life boundry we define but you are totally correct that we do NOT understand how this occured. Not right now anyway.

1- I think I have answered this? Yes.2- Yes. Precambrian era suggests that life did not exist during the early years of Earth.3- I think the answer is somewhat linked to question 2. Our current understanding suggests that no-life existed on Earth during the earlier years.

Sorry Nosy, what are behavioural limits? Have you read anything I have posted? The universal constants of the universe impose behavioural limits to mass and this is why inanimate matter bouncing off inanimate matter results in inanimate matter. Try it with chemistry too. Chemical reactions result in inanimate matter and not life.I can’t explain it any further. If you do not understand the ramification of physical limits [chemical law is dependent on this too] then I am not sure what to say. You do know that chemical properties are dependant on the universal electromagnetic constant right?Now you might see life as complex chemistry but scientists delve deeper only to find themselves closer to the physics of the problem. You right, chemical reactions are an integral aspect of life but that doesn’t mean that life is the result of chemical reactions.

quote:

---

There is NOTHING in the laws of physics (as you say "this doesn’t render the transformation impossible") that stops the chemistry from crossing whatever non-life to life boundry we define but you are totally correct that we do NOT understand how this occured. Not right now anyway.

---

Yes there is, the relationship between mass an energy that is subservient to the laws of physics [and chemistry for that matter]. I wait for the checmical/physical reaction that renders life.Edited by Lex_Luthor, : No reason given.

Abiogenesis must have occurred at some point in time? Of course it did! There is no denying the process. However, the question is whether this process is a natural process, or a supernatural process.

You can keep making empty statements till the cows come home. If you want anyone to take you seriously you are going to have to make a proper argument rather than just making some vague reference to physics presenting a problem for abiogenesis. Except you don't, nor do you make a coherent argument as to why there may be a problem. You simply want us to take your word for it that there is some sort of fundamental problem. Could you perhaps provide a detailed reference to the relevant scientifc theories and explain why these pose a barrier to abiogenesis ocurring naturally.TTFN,WK

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

Okay, you have answered yes to the first two but: has nothing to do with the question I asked.The third question asked so far was"3. Does the evidence show that non-living matter existed on earth before life on earth existed?"Still need your answer to that one.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Doesn't anyone understand the ramifications of explicit ratios and relationships, in that, univseral constants render limitations on the behaviour of matter? If not, then it's not a case of understanding physics, chemistry, or biology. It's a case of understanding simple mathematics. Constants = limits.And yes, I'll wait for the chemical reactions, but I doubt we'll ever observe a naturalistic transformation form start to finish, not unless nature breaks the mechanics of the universe - that is.Edited by Lex_Luthor, : No reason given.

Not enough evidence to draw a conclusion from.

Apparently you believe that the statement above is in itself enough to convince anybody. It isn`t. As it is, it`s just an unsubstantiated statement. we are asking you to substantiate it. So that`s all that you`ve got? How boring

jar asked if non-living matter existed before there was living matter on the earth to which Lex replied: Is there evidence that hydrogen and oxygen and carbon and even more complex things like rock existed before there was life on earth?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

But nothing you have said has given any reason to assume that those limits lie where you claim they do. Certainly the fundamental principles of the universe impose limits on what matter can do. In the absence of a coherent argument, an attempt to present anything resembling supporting material or even a vague direction where to look for some however there is no reason to assume that one of those limits involves not being able to give rise to living things.TTFN,WK

I was expecting fallacycop to respond after all his responses thus far emanate typical hand waving. I tell you what; why not state your facts fallacycop and then we'll talk? Not one of you whom disagree with me has put forward any scientific material to suggest otherwise and I doubt you can since the implications would mean falsifying a mathematical relationship.Where are the facts you mentioned some time ago? Stop waving your flag present some substance.