Abiogenesis

[liamconnor]

Again, I rarely wander over to the sciences and more rarely set up an argument. Not my forte.

But I recall reading that a famous atheist became a theist (not a Christian) because of the problem of abiogenesis.

Now, as I understand the term, it refers to the theory that life can come from non-life.

In simplistic terms, a rock can, over time, produce (on its own, nothing added to it; the development happens "within") cells.


Question:

Do I understand the term "abiogenesis"?


Based on my (or your corrected version's) definition, has it been reproduced by scientists?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Tiresome.
A worm becomes a butteryfly.
Evolution?
Religion says: "Yes, it is obvious that the worm is undergoing evolution."
Science: "No, that is not evolution, just a normal life cycle."
Religion: "Thanks Science, you just saved me my beliefs."

If that was truly "macro" evolution when the caterpillar becomes a butterfly and it mates with another butterfly, their offspring is suppose to become a butterfly, and not a caterpillar, right?

Hmm, must not be macro evolution, then.

Science: "What? You think that a process you desire to BE evolution is evolution, but when it is not, it justifies religion?"
Religion: "Yup, thanks."

?

Science: "So, when we observe evolution in a prescribed, predictable way, that results in grubs becoming beetles, and so on, but not grubs evolving INTO beetles - that ISN'T good enough proof?!"
Religion: "Of course not, that's stupid. I want to see an man become an ape in front of my eyes."

A grub/beetle are both insects, right?

Science (under his breath): "You should become 'Science,' I watch it all the time."
Religion: What?
Science: "No, nothing."

?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 181 by For_The_Kingdom]

I remember the false "macro" verses "micro" evolution propaganda, man that BS was such a long time ago, I am surprised anyone even remembers those lies.

There is only one evolution. That silliness is just a desperate attempt by religion to hang on to the tenuous belief that it is wrong.

As demonstrated by yet another defender of the faith - missing the point completely.

But, like to mentioned to 'theStudent,' if you saw it any other way, you'd have to concede evolution, and then you would be on par with the Greek philosophers of 2500 years ago.

From then on, who knows? The Renaissance, you might start believing in doctors! Maybe, even that the Earth goes round the Sun.

Who knows where it would stop!!!!
Cancer cures, agriculture, all with just a little step.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 180 by Willum]

Point completely missed.
But I suppose if you saw it any other way, you'd simply have to agree.

What was your point then, if mine does not address it?

It's a good idea you know.
Evolution was an accepted fact before Jesus.

I know it's an idea - evolution, that is.
Why accept ideas over truth and facts?

Jesus brought us the Dark Ages, which got rid of evolution and an understanding of abiogenisis' schema.

Is that another idea?
It's not the truth, nor the facts.
Do you have that in writing... from a credible source?

Why embrace obsolete ignorance in the face of ancient truth?
That doesn't make any sense, does it?

Me neither... But you wrote it.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I remember the false "macro" verses "micro" evolution propaganda, man that BS was such a long time ago, I am surprised anyone even remembers those lies.

Sure, and saying that the whale was once a land dwelling animal is the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

There is only one evolution.

There is only one Savior, Jesus Christ.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 184 by For_The_Kingdom]

Whales were land dwelling animals.
They found continuum of skeletons in a single bay that documented the evolution.
There is a continuum of skeletons of man from ape.

You can deny it - but you still avoid my point like a land-mine.
You want proof of one animal evolving in front of your eyes.
You see it when a caterpillar becomes a butterfly, and only SCIENCE tells you it is not evolution.

[Bust Nak]

I remember the false "macro" verses "micro" evolution propaganda, man that BS was such a long time ago, I am surprised anyone even remembers those lies.

Moderator Warning

"BS" is not acceptable language here, even when abbreviated.

Please review our Rules.
______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Willum]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

This requires an apology. I used the term without remembering what the acronym stood for.

[Bust Nak]

Is that right?

Yes that is right. You say you don't have a problem accepting the scientific interpretation of the evidence as scientific, yet you do not accept reptile-bird evolution, a scientific interpretation of the evidence, as scientific. Consistent is not the word I would use here.

LOL.

Yet again with the "LOL." And you wanted me to believe you were serious in wanting to debate.

The reptile-bird stuff...that is what I don't observe and can't experiment and/or predict.

Well that's on you. Scientists have been observing and experimenting and making prediction on the "reptile-bird stuff." What's more, you've went as far as to affirm that it is indeed the scientific consensus in a previous post, even though you don't believe it was the truth.

Ok, and I will point out that you don't know what you are talking about...by saying; bruh, you don't know what you are taking about.

Well that's no good, it's a mere assertion with nothing to back it up with. Contrast that with the support I have offered in my posts, you don't even need to look beyond the few points above in this very post.

What it should tell you is that macroevolution is an unobservable, speculative theory...while microevolution is a proven scientific fact.

Sorry, it doesn't tell me that either. But you still have not answered my question, what is a "macro change" in the context of computer programs? Your continue failure to answer me, is giving me the impression that you didn't know what you were talking about when you threw out the remark that evolutionary algorithms aren't macro.

We observed a reptile-bird transformation?

Not directly, but indirectly. We have also directly observed other examples of macroevolution both in the lab and in the wild.

When?

In the 10860's.

I thought it takes millions of years to occur?

Which is why it makes no sense to expect a direct observation of "reptile-bird transformation."

And neither can exist without intelligent design.

Well no, again I point out evolutionary algorithms and circuit boards.

And computer hardware and the molecules in it were designed, right?

No, not always. As I keep pointing out the existence of evolutionary hardware and software.

What does evolutionary algorithms have to do with intelligent human beings creating computers?

It points out that intelligent human beings aren't always required for creating computers.

So Microsoft Word is not independent of the CPU?

Microsoft Word is not independent of the hardware, it could be sitting on a disc, but sure, a running Microsoft Word is absolutely dependent of the CPU.

Because, again, where would you get the consciousness from?

The brain.

Just give me the scientific answer for the manifestation of a single thought inside of the newly shaped/molded brain that you just created.

No can do - don't have one yet.

No, it sunk my ANALOGY...the argument still stands, because to even talk about computer hardware/software is to presuppose intelligent design, which is what I am advocating for.

That's sunk too, given the intelligent is not required for computer hardware/software.

Face it, you don't have a clue as to how consicousness/thoughts (images of independent objects) originated from mere matter..and if you THINK you have a clue, then simply go in the lab and demonstrate it.

We have done that - as I pointed out before, we can see which area of your brain lights up when you visualised objects - that's why we know the mind and brain is tied together. Not to mention that even before advances in technology in brain scanning, we can still observe that every instances of consciousness is associated with a brain, and correspondingly changes in the brain affect consciousness.

You are making empty claims, and you know it. What would be the SCIENTIFIC explanation of the emergence of thoughts inside of the brain?

The interaction of molecules that I kept referring to, obviously. I can't give you anything more explicit because we've only started exploring the brain.

If you want the brain to think of an apple, how would you get the IMAGE of an apple inside of the brain?

By copying exactly molecules by molecules, a human brain that is thinking of an apple. I told you that already.

Nonsense.

Again with the handwaving. Look up evolvable hardware if you want to find out more.

The point is simple, a computer would never get to the point where Microsoft Word evovled into it...

What made you think that? How on Earth can you maintain such a claim in the face of evolutionary algorithms?

See, now you are red herring it, trying to attack my knowledge of the term to take away the fact that you are stuck between a rock and an absurd place.

If you knew what emergent property mean, then why would you ask where consciousness comes from?

My contention was that if you were able to shape/mold a human brain back together, you won't get consciousness...and you are asking why not? Ok, well, lets do it this way, I will make it even easier for you..

Go to the morgue, and give those dead brains consciousness. Since you make it seem as if getting consciousness is as easy as 1-2-3 in a scenario where you are shaping/molding a brain from scratch...well, at the morgue, there are plenty of brains that are there which are already assembled, they are just missing the consciousness. So, you are already 50% there LOL.

Well I need a 100% brain, and we don't have the technology of turning a 50% brain from a morgue into a 100% one.

So, where would you get the consciousness and how would you input it into the brain?

It comes with the brain, you don't need to get it from anything because it would already be there. That's what emergent property means.

Now, I don't know how absurd of a task you think that is, but it isn't any more absurd than YOU contending that a mindless/blind process was able to create human brains and consciousness.

Just a matter of technology.

And I would think that you will have an advantage over Mother Nature..because after all, you can see what you are doing, and you will "know" what you are doing...yet, you can't do it, but mother nature can?

She had a head start of a few billion years, but sure, we should be able to do it much quicker than mother nature.

Ok, so even if you had all of the molecules and you made them interact or whatever, where would the thoughts come from? You have to make those molecules "interact" a certain way that will allow the mere image of an apple to manifest itself inside of the brain so the brain can think of the apple.

They would already be there, again emergent property.

But then again, who is the person that is thinking of the apple? With the the thought comes personhood, individuality, feelings, emotions, etc.

It's the mind within said brain.

That is also like contending that there was a time where the universe consisted of dead matter randomly floating into space and now we have all of this organization and structure of this material. ...and some of this "material" even came to life and began to talk.

No, it's not like that, because you are forgetting that it's not all random.

It does, because you (personally) can't bridge the gap between inanimate matter and living matter...nor can you bridge the gap between unconsciousness and consciousness.

Not yet I can't. But you were making a far stronger claim. You were saying there can never be a bridge between inanimate matter and living matter, never be a bridge between unconsciousness and consciousness, even in principle. Pointing out that we don't have a bridge yet doesn't help your case one bit.

Even if you were able to create a 3D simulation of what you THINK happened, you will still fall short of bridging the gap...there is no natural mechanism that will get you that stuff.

Again, a matter of technology. When we can build a brain we would have automatically also build a consciousness.

Do you have any reasons to think that it isn't?

Of course, I've already pointed out what those reasons are: not least the one to one correspondence between consciousness and brains.

I gave you my reasons why it is beyond the scope of naturalism as far as principal, practibility, and simply LOGIC.

Well, you tried. Again, pointing out that we have no natural explanation yet, does not support your claim that we will never have an natural explanation.

Nonsense, you said that the interactions of the molecules causes the image of an apple to manifest inside the brain...and you gave no explanation, neither logical nor scientific, why this is the case. It was/is just an empty statement that you keep making with no justification whatsoever.

Incorrect. I've already pointed out brain scans.

The philosophical question is simple; how can the "molecules" in my brain interact in a way that will be about something totally independent from it.

The answer is simple, when "molecules" in your brain interact in such a way that will be generate an image that is totally dependent on the brain.

To give a good analogy to the situation..that would be similar to a circumstance of every time I crack two eggs inside of a bowl and add a cup of pepper..and the eggs and pepper inside of the bowl somehow/someway forms the undoubted image of the the Batman logo.

And notice I said undoubted image...that IS the logo inside of the bowl. And also notice that I said EVERY TIME. Every time I do it, it happens.

How can these two pieces of matter (eggs/pepper) be about something that is completely independent from it? It can't happen.

Right, but that's moot since the Batman logo is entirely depend on eggs/pepper.

LOL. You are drowning, kid.

So says the guy who is appealing to circular reasoning.

So, basically "I can't give you an actual scientific explanation how consciousness originated because there isn't one yet, but I can sure speculate".

Cool.

Well I thought it was cool.

Ok, so tell me straight up; what does the molecules inside my brain have to do with the image that I am thinking of?

The molecules inside my brain is the direct source of the image that I am thinking, that's what. I mean the molecules can hardly have anything less to do with the image you are thinking of.

No problems there.

So why the hell did you say it was a problem?!

But the molecules aren't thinking, are they?

Individually they aren't, together, in the configuration of a working brain, they absolutely are thinking.

You who? When you are sad, the molecules isn't sad, neither is the brain. Who is sad??? Who!!!!!!!!!!

What made you think the collection of molecules that makes up my brain isn't sad?

So the brain and the molecules, as individuals, have feelings and emotions?

No, not individually. Collectively they make up the entity that is me, and I have feelings and emotion.

Because if that were the case, then your molecules would be sentient, wouldn't they?

Together they absolutely are sentient. I am made up of those molecules.

Who are you? When you are sad, is your molecules sad? Is your brain sad?

A collection of molecules. Together they make up me, Bust Nak.

Looks like you are going through an identity crisis.

Only because you cannot seem to be able process the fact that a thinking person is made up of molecules. Here is another analogy, individual molecules does not have a color, but a collection of molecules does have a color. Is that really so hard to understand?

"I will continue to attack positions that you don't hold".

Incorrect, I will continue to defend the position that I do hold. Namely the position that software/hardware is no different in principle to mind/brain.

Abiogenesis problem.

Which is what exactly? You just told me that not having a working explanation is "not a problem."

The "extra" is the intelligent designer that created and programed the computer.

But an intelligent designer is not required. An artificial brain that is created in lad by copying an existent brain would be the work of an intelligent designer sure, and that's analogous to a computer that is created and programmed by a person.

You may as well leave the computer stuff alone, because you are presupposing intelligent design...

Incorrect. I am explicitly ruling out intelligent design because one is not required.

How is that any different than you saying "In due time, science will figure it out". That is an appeal to science to fill a gap of knowledge, right?

One is an fallacy where as what I said isn't. Was that not obvious? Tell me you see the difference between: "Science cannot explain the brain yet therefore God did it" and "in due time, science will figure it out;" tell me you see the difference between: "in due time, science will figure it out" and "God cannot explain the brain therefore mother nature did it."

[McCulloch]

Which you don't do, because you've left the realm of science, of examinable evidence.

If science is not capable of answering my questions, then I am well within my right to go elswhere. And that is the fact of the matter; science is unable to answer questions such as origins (absolute origins)..therefore, I appeal to what IS able to answer such questions (supernaturalism).

This is where you and rational people differ. Rational people accept that there are things we do not know. Yes, science may not be able to answer the question of the ultimate origin of everything. But know these two things.

1. Whatever answers you find should be consistent with what the evidence tells us (science).
2. If it is not based on evidence, that is not science, then we must regard its conclusions to be speculative.

This is why the fields of study based on science and based on supernaturalism are so different. Science is by its very nature convergent. In science, when an idea or field is new, there may be a variety of incompatable directions. As evidence accumulates, most of those direction turn out to be dead ends and are abandoned. Supernaturalism has no such winnowing process. Religions and theologies multiply. They are divergent simply because there is no rational process to separate true from false.
Supernaturalism does not provide an answer. It provides several answers with very little in the way of distinguishing true answers from false.
It is far better to honestly admit ignorance that to confidently adopt an answer that we have no suitable reason to accept.

[help3434]

Evolution was an accepted fact before Jesus.
Jesus brought us the Dark Ages, which got rid of evolution and an understanding of abiogenisis' schema.
Why embrace obsolete ignorance in the face of ancient truth?
That doesn't make any sense, does it?

What are you on about? Understanding of Evolution before Jesus? Jesus brought Dark Ages? Where do you get this nonsense?