Spark of life: Metabolism appears in lab without cells

[BoddhiBody]

Awwww... we're basically back to the Abiogenesis hypothesis again, huh?  The "Miller-Urey" experiments back in the '50s were touted as THE evidence to prove that life could have formed on earth rather easily of it's own accord rather than being created by an intelligent creator.  This Newscientist article is nothing more than a simple rehash of those first Abiogenesis arguments which were, quite convincingly, discredited.

They aren't a rehash of the Urey experiments. They are completely new experiments.

 

Life did arise from chemical compounds, whether you believe the bible, scientific evidence or both.

 

Science: Life arose from chemical compounds

 

Bible: And he created Adam from the Earth.

[jerryR34]

 

Awwww... we're basically back to the Abiogenesis hypothesis again, huh?  The "Miller-Urey" experiments back in the '50s were touted as THE evidence to prove that life could have formed on earth rather easily of it's own accord rather than being created by an intelligent creator.  This Newscientist article is nothing more than a simple rehash of those first Abiogenesis arguments which were, quite convincingly, discredited.

They aren't a rehash of the Urey experiments. They are completely new experiments.

 

Life did arise from chemical compounds, whether you believe the bible, scientific evidence or both.

 

Science: Life arose from chemical compounds

 

Bible: And he created Adam from the Earth.

 

Life still arises from chemical compounds...we are just a bag of chemicals...

[Schouwenaars]

I like to guess when we will have understand the DNA completly and we will create other life as we like to.

[Celticman]

 

 

Awwww... we're basically back to the Abiogenesis hypothesis again, huh?  The "Miller-Urey" experiments back in the '50s were touted as THE evidence to prove that life could have formed on earth rather easily of it's own accord rather than being created by an intelligent creator.  This Newscientist article is nothing more than a simple rehash of those first Abiogenesis arguments which were, quite convincingly, discredited.

They aren't a rehash of the Urey experiments. They are completely new experiments.

 

Life did arise from chemical compounds, whether you believe the bible, scientific evidence or both.

 

Science: Life arose from chemical compounds

 

Bible: And he created Adam from the Earth.

 

Life still arises from chemical compounds...we are just a bag of chemicals...

 

Oh, but they are a rehash of the originals.  The original Miller-Urey experiments showed some "promise" but did not display the results they were hoping for.  Mainly, the "living" sludge that was created very quickly died due to the conditions of the atmosphere.  Also, it was determined that the sludge could not have survived for more than a couple of minutes due to the extreme solar radiation the sludge would have been subjected to because of the Earths atmospheric properties.  So, the new experiments (these rehash experiments) were adjusted to compensate for what an atmosphere would need to be comprised of in order for the "living" sludge to survive.  So, again, a failed rehash of the originals.

As the experiments of Miller-Urey, Louis Pasteur and numerous others have come to prove, life could not have come about on Earth all on it's own and then have been genetically improved upon all on it's own...biogenesis and abiogenesis are not possible.

IMHO...life is here on Earth as a result of intelligent design...period!  We may be a sack of chemicals...but, we are a very well crafted blend of chemicals put together by a master chemist!

[Celticman]

 

 

Just an aside to the discussion...

I do find it remarkable that those who profess to be such believers in science are the quickest to abandon that science when the proof they find does not match their ideology.

[jerryR34]

 

 

 

Just an aside to the discussion...

I do find it remarkable that those who profess to be such believers in science are the quickest to abandon that science when the proof they find does not match their ideology.

 

Not sure why you would find it remarkable.  One does not need to believe in science as it is based on evidence, and as more evidence is discovered, theories can be changes.  Do you find that inferior to the dogma of religion where once one makes an assertion, it cannot be changed regardless of the evidence?

[OakWood]

I don't really see the point of this thread or what it is trying to claim. So what if metabolism can appear in a lab without cells? I don't find that remotely remarkable at all. Metabolism is just a chemical process.

You might as well post a thread titled "Plants can grow in water without soil" (it's called hydroponics) or a thread titled "Chickens can still run around when their heads have been chopped off".

I didn't realise that we had a science forum here on Worthy. Any science info is usually published in the News forums. What exactly has this got to do with Faith vs. Science that it gets posted here? The science bit I can understand but what has it got to do with faith?

 

If it's some lame attempt to discredit faith then it doesn't work. Next we'll be being told that the Atomic number of Scandium is 21 or that the ionic radius of a Thallium ion is similar to that of Potassium, as if we're all going to suddenly start opening our Bibles at such (non) revelations!!

[jerryR34]

II didn't realise that we had a science forum here on Worthy.

We don't .  We have a "Faith vs. Science" forum so that if one posts scientific findings, the assumption must be that they are not faithful.  Oh well, I will continue to think, and when I stand before Jesus I'm sure I'll be commended for using the brain with which I was born.

[Celticman]

 

 

 

 

Just an aside to the discussion...

I do find it remarkable that those who profess to be such believers in science are the quickest to abandon that science when the proof they find does not match their ideology.

 

Not sure why you would find it remarkable.  One does not need to believe in science as it is based on evidence, and as more evidence is discovered, theories can be changes.  Do you find that inferior to the dogma of religion where once one makes an assertion, it cannot be changed regardless of the evidence?

 

If you think about it, it takes a great deal of "faith" to believe in Neo-Darwinism as the entire hypothesis breaks down rather quickly under the slightest examination.  Granted, Darwin's "research" does not specifically state where life came from...the title of his book specifically states that he has found "The ORIGIN or Species..."  And, granted, I have not read each and every paper which purports to describe and "prove" the origin of organic life on Earth, I have read enough to know that "natural" circumstances cannot be the answer as purported by Miller-Urey.

I would invite you (and, anyone else for that matter) to read Dr. John F. Ashton's book "Evolution Impossible" for a concise rebuttal of the most fundamental contrivances of Neo-Darwinism and the misguided notion of abiogenesis.

 

If all scientists believed in the "goo to you" hypothesis as stated by abiogenesis then ALL scientists would be Atheists.  Clearly, all scientists are not Atheists.  I, quite frankly, find the dogma of science (where the origin of life is concerned) to be inferior as there has be incalculable research devoted to an hypothesis that has seen NO advancement since the inception of the idea. There have been numerous ideas postulated, numerous anecdotes put forward, but not a single shred of evidence has been found to provide the answer that Atheists are hoping for.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Celticman

[kwikphilly]

Blessings jerry,

 

if one posts scientific findings, the assumption must be that they are not faithful.  Oh well, I will continue to think, and when I stand before Jesus I'm sure I'll be commended for using the brain with which I was born.                                                                                                    posted by jerryR34

That's not fair....I don't assume that you are not faithful,jerry.......that is between you & our Lord and He knows your heart.Once upon a time my profession was all about the sciences and it only lead me to an even more solid foundation in my faith,,,,,,I questioned everything,studied,researched & found Gods Word to be irrefutable & inerrant,,,,,which I am sure God used these things to draw me unto Himself.......So,jerry,I,for one......am not here to assume anything about you .......God Bless you,keep using that brain of yours but keep your heart open for Wisdom!

                                                                                                                                                                           With love-in Christ,Kwik