What's the deal with Abiogenesis?

Question

This is a test that I am going to use as means of comparison against my hypothesized percentages. Read the following statement from a previous post:
"Abiogenesis - You can't link amino acids together to form proteins without enzymes and ATP, but yet you need proteins to make both ATP and enzymes. Next!"
Statistics:
50% - No clue what I am talking about. Will resort to such overused ad-hominims and silly statements, such as: "You don't know anything about science!" "Take a science class!" "Did green goblins make the earth?!?", and the classic response of profanity.

20% - Vague idea of what I am talking about, but resort to the tired "we don't know everything about science, so who knows?"

30% - Creationists that agree with me.

Of those who elect to not respond, there might be a couple of Chemists or Biologists who realize the full gravity of what I am saying, and will realize that they have no grounds for argument. Any takers for this study?

nondescript:
Reeeeaaaalllyyyy... Do tell, since I have never heard anyone even hint at that prospect before. Bear in mind, these are covalent bonds we are talking about here, not simple Hydrogen bonds! Please provide a link to this idea.

Gino:
Actually, I think I just delivered an insurmountable blow to evolutionary theory. Now, Unless you count the Bible's fulfilled prophecy as evidence that it is testimony from God, or the fact that it is the most well-preserved and disseminated ancient historical text in the world, or that it gives the most compelling explanation of the human condition, or that its science, history and archeology have never been refuted... I'm afraid you are on your own! Feel free to email me on this issue.

Gino:
This is a pretty awkward way to carry on an argument. Feel free to email me or post what you feel to be a good argument as a question.

Answer 1

OK, I think I get it. You are trying to prove creationism by atempting to disprove/discredit evoultion, right?
OK, you've sold me!

There are so many creationist versions to choose from and I'm having a real hard time picking one. Alf, I need your help. I think I have it narrowed down to the list below but I've run into a BIG problem. I can't find any evidence that proves which one of their gods is responsible for creation. Strangly enough, I can't find any evidence that disproves any of them either.
Please Help!

your friend,

gino

My list of Creationists:
1. Christianity
2. Islam
3. Hindu
4. Buhhda
5. Navaho Indian spiritual advisory (The Great EAGLE spirt)
6. Ralien cult
7. Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (I get the feeling, that this one may be some kind of scam, must investigate more)
8. Followers of RAH (the sun god)

btw, If it wouldn't be too much trouble could you provide me with the empircal data that proves which one is responsible for creation?

Alf: Yes please provide me with your examples of fulfilled prophecy. I'm actually quite familiar with the bible (I was raised as a christian), but I must have missed the fulfilled prophecy. I only remember vague generalizations that have been twisted by many different people with different interpretations.

I will now offer my mystic prophecy:
1. The sun will rise on the morning of September 21st, 2006.
2. One day, in the near future a great war will ravage the lands. There will be wars and rumors of war (as there have been since the beginning of human history.)
3. A man of small means will rise up soon and buy a lottery ticket. This ticket will contain the winning numbers and he will become a man of great fortune. I will be even MORE SPECIFIC!
...He will be caucasion...He will be over 4ft 6in tall....He will purchase a home and automobile with his new found wealth....He will pee standing up.

It's just a matter of time before ALL of my prophecies come true and mine are more specific than anything in your bible.

("Most Well preserved ancient historical text" argument)
How about Rah, the sun god? Hyroglyphs on the pyramids are very well preserved and predate your gospels by thousands of years. Also, the hyroglyphs weren't EDITED. Books were not REMOVED like your bible. Also, they were written in real time, not 50-90 years after christ died as is the case in your bible. If being "well preserved" is your argument, then you have given almost every religion the same credibility as yours.

("Most compelling explanation of the human condition" argument)
Sorry Alf, you and I both know this is OPINION. Millions of Muslims, hindus, buhhdists have the same OPINION about their religion.

("Science, history and archeology have never been refuted")
Your joking about this one, right?
Let's start with the very begining of your biblical history:
An old man in the sky created the first man from dust, the first woman from a rib-bone, a talking snake, and a tree that produces "magic" apples.
-You are right, I can't prove that didn't happen. Can you prove that an advanced civilization of space aliens didn't genetically engineer everything?

Answer 2

Ok, I'll bite.

With evolution, one only requires an algorithmic interaction with the environment, and if you take the time of each cycle as a continous random variable, thus making the entire thing continous rather than discrete (almost), but more to the point, the algorithm is the only requirement for evolution; in other words our current proteins don't have to have the same form or even interact in any way like the ones we have now.

So I guess you can call this an in-between, it isn't just a who-knows as I present reasonable grounds for there bieng some pathway, however the exact nature of the chemical eludes me.

Meh.

Answer 3

A fourth category- non-scientists, non-creationists, who realize there is a serious issue here. The origin of life is an unresolved question for science, and it has been since the dis-proof of spontaneous generation. But lack of evidence is evidence of nothing.

Answer 4

That is pretty interesting. I admit I do not know very much about Abiogenesis. I am not sure if you have any motive other than furthering science but that will be the end result regardless if you are successful or not. Good luck.

Answer 5

You can't? Please show evidence that you can't. You are assuming that proteins, themselves, haven't evolved over the years.

Sorry, but amino acids can form simple proteins under certain conditions.

Answer 6

into what percentage will you decide to put my answer, which is get over yourself.