Terrible news for the Creation Science museum (and Republicans)

[Cypress]

You have fossilized cells?

Can we see them?

Yes, there is a record of ancient single celled archaeon, cyanobacteria, and prokaryotes in Earth's fossil record. This is corroborated in some cases by isotopic data

It is shocking that anyone who wants to be taken seriously in a discussion of life's origins would be oblivious to that scientific fact.

[PostmodernProphet]

No. But for once in your life on this forum--cite something.

Big Bang?.....do you need more info?..

[BidenPresident]

Big Bang?.....do you need more info?..

you're dumb and a waste of time

[BartenderElite]

How can I have a faith in it? That doesn't even make any sense. I don't know how it happened. But I DO know it had origin(s) on Earth. An origin could be from aliens seeding Earth. That as a valid theory as others.

He's just trying - in a really forced kind of way - to make it sound like as much of a religion as actual religion.

People don't worship or have "faith" in anything related to abiogenesis. It's just a fact that life arose at some point. And probably many points. It isn't that mystical - the ability to replicate is all that's required.

[Cypress]

You have fossilized cells?

Can we see them?

Yes, there is a record of ancient single celled archaeon, cyanobacteria, and prokaryotes in Earth's fossil record. This is corroborated in some cases by isotopic data

It is shocking that anyone who wants to be taken seriously in a discussion of life's origins would be oblivious to that scientific fact.

"one particular group of bacteria, the cyanobacteria or "blue-green algae," have left a fossil record that extends far back into the Precambrian - the oldest cyanobacteria-like fossils known are nearly 3.5 billion years old, among the oldest fossils currently known."
https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/b...rently%20known.

.

[Darth Omar]

Yes, there is a record of ancient single celled archaeon, cyanobacteria, and prokaryotes in Earth's fossil record. This is corroborated in some cases by isotopic data

It is shocking that anyone who wants to be taken seriously in a discussion of life's origins would be oblivious to that scientific fact.

So, it’s a ‘fact’ that these organisms self organized from organic compounds?

[Cypress]

Irrelevant. Age does not affect a philosophical argument.

Falsification is an element of scientific practice, but your worship of Karl Popper's criteria of demarcation does not reflect the reality of how professional science is practiced.

Popper had a misplaced impression of a triumphant progression of science based on the relentless falsification of bogus theories to shrink the scope of our ignorance.

That is not the way it works.

Scientific progress would be at a virtual standstill if we took Karl Popper literally at his word.

We did not throw out Newton's theories of gravitation because the phenomena of dark energy seemed to contradict Newtonian mechanics.

We are not going to discard the theory of general relativity because we discovered it does not work at quantum scales.

Science is going to progress by inference to the best explanation as much as it does by Popper's philosophy of science.

[Cypress]

So, it’s a ‘fact’ that these organisms self organized from organic compounds?

I see how you shifted the goal posts rather than admit you were unaware of that an ancient fossil record of bacteria exist in the geologic record.

[Darth Omar]

I see how you shifted the goal posts rather than admit you were unaware of that an ancient fossil record of bacteria exist in the geologic record.

Granted.

As you have yet to prove that abiogenesis is a ‘fact’. I’ve literally never heard of such a claim.

[Nordberg]

So, it’s a ‘fact’ that these organisms self organized from organic compounds?

Poor wording. Organized implies thinking or planning. Evolution is random. The changes that are beneficial stay. The ones that are harmful perish.

[Cypress]

Granted.

As you have yet to prove that abiogenesis is a ‘fact’. I’ve literally never heard of such a claim.

I believe I either said, or directly implied, it is a scientific fact.

Science cannot accept supernatural explanations.

It cannot be proven that abiogenesis was a providential miracle. Maybe it was.

But that is the realm of theology.

The fact that all cells, all DNA molecules, all genes, all proteins, all amino acids are all constructed from a few basic elements found widely in the environment - carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus -- indicates scientifically that life arose from a pre-biotic soup of inert chemicals.

That is abiogenesis. There is no other way scientifically to read those facts.

Even the cop out of saying life was seeded from another planet cannot escape the conclusion that life emerged from the complex organization of very basic and common chemicals. At the elemental and atomic level, there is nothing exotic about life. Atomically, it is made up of the same stuff the universe is.

The question is, we do not know what the chemical or physical mechanism is that kick started biological emergence.

[Darth Omar]

Poor wording. Organized implies thinking or planning. Evolution is random. The changes that are beneficial stay. The ones that are harmful perish.

So they say.

[AProudLefty]

Natural selection is not random. Life is "organized" through natural selection.

[BartenderElite]

So they say.

Well, it's also observable & logical.

So, there's that.

[Darth Omar]

I believe I either said, or directly implied, it is a scientific fact.

Science cannot accept supernatural explanations.

It cannot be proven that abiogenesis was a providential miracle. Maybe it was.

But that is the realm of theology.

The fact that all cells, all DNA molecules, all genes, all proteins, all amino acids are all constructed from a few basic elements found widely in the environment - carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus -- indicates scientifically that life arose from a pre-biotic soup of inert chemicals.

That is abiogenesis. There is no other way scientifically to read those facts.

Even the cop out of saying life was seeded from another planet cannot escape the conclusion that life emerged from the complex organization of very basic and common chemicals. At the elemental and atomic level, there is nothing exotic about life. Atomically, it is made up of the same stuff the universe is.

The question is, we do not know what the chemical or physical mechanism is that kick started biological emergence.

Well, at least you backed off the ‘fact’ bit.

Right: science operates in such a way as it *excludes* certain influences at the outset. Which is all well and good as far as it goes and I’m not arguing to change it.

But, it also means science can be ‘blinded’ by it own commitment to philosophical naturalism. And in the instance of abiogenesis it could keep is from discovering the truth.

Regarding the notion that there is ‘nothing exotic about life on the atomic level’: you keep making the same mistake. Life is absolutely ‘exotic’ in the sense that it ALWAYS operates according to an informational code in either DNA or RNA.

Furthermore, the existence of this code *cannot* be explained as a mere consequence of matter and natural laws. Or natural selection.