Life origins: Metabolism before life began:

Originally posted by RJHinds
That's right. Biogenesis can be reproduced and scientifically proven by observation. That is why it is called the Law of Biogenesis.

Abiogenesis can NOT be reproduced and proven by observation. Therefore, abiogenesis must be believed by blind faith. That is why it is called an hypothesis or a religion.

If you are stupid or ignorant enough, you can be led to believe that science does not require reproducible experiments. All you need is a natural explanation of how it could happen and then it is science. If we don't understand how it happens yet, it just means we will fill in our gaps of knowledge later. For now we can just trust that it is correct and believe we aren't putting faith in it because it is based on a natural explanation.

People who believe this rubbish are ignorant or morons or more likely a combination of the two.

Originally posted by Eladar
If you are stupid or ignorant enough, you can be led to believe that science does not require reproducible experiments. All you need is a natural explanation of how it could happen and then it is science. If we don't understand how it happens yet, it just means we will fill in our gaps of knowledge later. For now we can just trust that it is correct and be ...[text shortened]...
People who believe this rubbish are ignorant or morons or more likely a combination of the two.

of course this still means abiogenesis and evolution theory is science only partly because both can involve reproducible experiments.
Just one example of reproducible experiments to help give scientific clues to how abiogenesis may have happened;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

Examples of reproducible experiments to help give scientific clues to how evolution may have or is happened;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution

all these experiments are reproducible. Such experiments are required for studying abiogenesis although not evolution since evolution can be directly observed in the natural world as it happens although experiments for studying evolution do still happen to add significantly to the weight of evidence for it.

Note; contrary to what I noticed you and some others seem to repeatedly imply in a few previous posts, there being a scientific theory of a natural precess that requires reproducible experiments doesn't logically imply that those reproducible experiments must necessarily reproduce the individual events that have already occurred in that natural process nor the natural process itself -only the experiment ITSELF has to be reproducible to be "reproducible" although the experiment has also to be deigned give clues to what may being going on in the natural process else it would not be a relevant experiment to the theory.
If you deny this, explain to us how one logically follows from the other and exactly where is the contradiction of one not logically following from the other.....

Originally posted by humy
of course this still means abiogenesis and evolution theory is science only partly because both can involve reproducible experiments.
Just one example of reproducible experiments to help give scientific clues to how abiogenesis may have happened;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

Examples of reproducible experiments to help giv ...[text shortened]... other and exactly where is the contradiction of one not logically following from the other.....

Just goes to show that you are one of the people I described.

Originally posted by Eladar
All you need is a natural explanation of how it could happen...

...scientific evidence to support it, no scientific evidence to contradict it, and then it is science.

Correct.

Originally posted by Eladar
Just goes to show that you are one of the people I described.

How so? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Originally posted by humy
How so? That makes no sense whatsoever.

That's because your point of view makes you blind to the truth.

Originally posted by C Hess
...scientific evidence to support it, no scientific evidence to contradict it, and then it is science.

Correct.

Scientific evidence to support abiogenesis? I guess evidence is in the eye of the beholder.

Originally posted by Eladar
Scientific evidence to support abiogenesis? I guess evidence is in the eye of the beholder.

wrong. Evidence physically exists independently of our perceptions

Originally posted by humy
wrong. Evidence physically exists independently of our perceptions

Yes, physical evidence exists. The question is what does the evidence point towards?

If abiogenesis can't be shown to be true, then there must be some other way life came into existence.

Originally posted by Eladar
Yes, physical evidence exists. The question is what does the evidence point towards?

If abiogenesis can't be shown to be true, then there must be some other way life came into existence.

The Law of Biogenesis is the one that shows not only that life comes from life, but also implies there must be a Life Giver.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Law of Biogenesis is the one that shows not only that life comes from life, but also implies there must be a Life Giver.

Where, within science, is this Life Giver?

Remember, this is the Science Forum, not the Spiritual Forum. Meaning that you have to answer the question in a scientific way.

You criticize others to not being scientific in this forum. So I expect that you yourself will give an answer within the domain of science.

...or just accept that you are in the wrong forum and you should go back to the Spiritual Forum and discuss your spiritual matters over there.

Originally posted by Eladar
Scientific evidence to support abiogenesis? I guess evidence is in the eye of the beholder.

I was referring to evolution. Abiogenesis is an hypothesis. What makes an hypothesis
scientifically valid is the fact that no evidence yet contradict it.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Where, within science, is this Life Giver?

Remember, this is the Science Forum, not the Spiritual Forum. Meaning that you have to answer the question in a scientific way.

You criticize others to not being scientific in this forum. So I expect that you yourself will give an answer within the domain of science.

...or just accept that you are in the ...[text shortened]... rum and you should go back to the Spiritual Forum and discuss your spiritual matters over there.

Scientist have not yet discovered where this implied Life Giver is located.

Originally posted by C Hess
I was referring to evolution. Abiogenesis is an hypothesis. What makes an hypothesis
scientifically valid is the fact that no evidence yet contradict it.

I think it is hilarious that since you know that certain aspects of your belief of how life came into being are so out there that you must rationalize two linked beliefs as being separate and distinct and validate one belief with you would scorn if used to validate the belief in God.

Originally posted by C Hess
I was referring to evolution. Abiogenesis is an hypothesis. What makes an hypothesis
scientifically valid is the fact that no evidence yet contradict it.

Um. no that's not right.



A scientific hypothesis is an explanation of a phenomena or set of phenomena.
It must be consistent with all known [relevant] data.
It must make predictions that can be tested.
It must be falsifiable.
It must explain the phenomena in terms of things we already understand.
It should be as simple* as possible.

*Simple here being in the Occam's Razor sense of minimum message length when
written out in binary computer code.


Abiogenesis is simply the name for life coming from non-life. And is not a hypothesis.
There are hypothesised paths by which Abiogenesis might have occurred, and they
meet the criteria of being scientific hypothesis, but there is no one hypothesis of
Abiogenesis... Partly because we can see so many possible ways it could have happened.