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]

I think that it would be a great idea for you to start a new topic about it.
From what I've seen, it's a pathetic failure of an argument.

Perhaps your version of it is way better.

Barring that, perhaps you would be so kind as to spell the argument out in here, since it's your major piece of "evidence".

Just because you present evidence, doesn't mean it's any good.


It's super great that you can mention the name of an argument.
We offer you the opportunity to defend it.

You make it seem as if I am just merely mentioning the "name of an argument", when during almost my entire tenure on this great forum, I've been either advocating the argument in some way, shape, or form...or I've been downright defending the argument altogether.

As far as creating a thread on the argument...good idea. I will strongly consider it.

[For_The_Kingdom]

You can't look inside a computer and see a football. Are you going start claiming we don't know how computers operate?

No, I am going to start claiming that computers are intelligently designed and any image manifestation regarding computers are a result of intelligent design. Now, unless you are going to admit that human brains are products of intelligent design, no more false equivalencies from you.

You were gone for a bit but have got zero new material since your return.

When Michael Jordan came back in 95', he offered zero "new" moves...same ole' fadeaway jump shot. Catch my drift?

Why is this problematic to you? Why can't mere chemicals, be about something that is completely independent of it?

And I will go right back to the eggs/pepper analogy I gave before. If you sprinkled pepper into a bowl of scrambled eggs (uncooked) and you saw the obvious, undeniable image of the Batman logo inside the bowl...how can the ingredients in the bowl be "about" something that is completely independent of it? Makes no sense.

Again I point you to the hardware/software paradigm.

Yeah, that. SMH.

You tried this before, it didn't work then and it won't work now. There is a huge difference between "we don't know how it happened naturally therefore God did it" and "we are trying to figure out how it happened naturally."

Nonsense. We don't believe based on what we don't know, we base what we believe on what we DO know.

You, on the other hand, are "trying to figure out how it happened naturally"....which assumes that it happened naturally.

Begging the question.

Good news, science can support the claim that sentient life rising NATURALLY from nonliving material. Now, will you keep your word?

First, show me the evidence.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to For_The_Kingdom]

Follow me; Close your eyes, and think of a football. Now, that image of the football that you "see" in your brain; who is "seeing" it?

Something inside of you can "see" the image. So who is it? It isn't your eyes, because your eyes is closed. It isn't your neurons, because your neurons can't see..in fact, it is the neurons which causes you to "see" the image. And it isn't your brain, either.

So who exactly is "seeing" the image? We've already ruled out your eyes, brain, and chemicals...yet, something inside you can still "see" the image.

It is almost as if there is an invisible "person" inside of you which the image corresponds to. This invisible person is unaccounted for on naturalism, yet, on naturalism, no one can provide an adequate answer as to who can see the image if the material parts of your brain cannot see it.

The "who" in this argument is the image-forming mechanism operating in my brain, which is only able to create the image of a football in my conscious mind because I have seen one before with my eyeballs, which resulted in the creation of a memory. When I close my eyes and think of a football, this memory is recalled and I "see" it, because my brain is able to form a mental image from this stored memory. Without a prior event of seeing a football, I would not be able to recall the image (or movie as the case may be ... I can easily imagine a football flying through the air or tumbling through the goal posts because I have seen those events as well and can recall versions of them in all kinds of forms, or form new scenarios very much as anyone does when dreaming).

Whenever I see anything with my eyes in real time (as opposed to recalling a memory to create the image), the production of an image in my brain is a similar process. Light enters through my pupil and is focused onto my retina where it activates rods and cones, and electrical signals are generated along my optic nerve. These signals enter my visual cortex which inverts the upside down image on my retina and I "see" whatever it is my eyes were looking at. This image is produced in my brain via neuronal activity, and whether it is a real time image processed through the eye > retina > optic nerve > visual cortex path, or via memory recall from prior experience, the actual perception of the image is ultimately the same ... it is a physical process by the material parts of the brain (ie. neural networks).

So the answer to "who can see the image if the material parts of your brain can't see it", is that there is no "who" or "invisible person." The material parts of the brain produce various electrical signals and chemical reactions that combine to create the perception of an image in our heads. How could it be otherwise?

[Bust Nak]

No, I am going to start claiming that computers are intelligently designed and any image manifestation regarding computers are a result of intelligent design.

Nothing wrong with this much.

Now, unless you are going to admit that human brains are products of intelligent design, no more false equivalencies from you.

We've been through this, A) the fact that one is designed, the other isn't does not make it a false equivalencies. B) there are computer programs (genetic algorithm) that are not the product of intelligent design.

When Michael Jordan came back in 95', he offered zero "new" moves...same ole' fadeaway jump shot. Catch my drift?

His original moves and same ole' fadeaway jump shot was good though, great even. Yours? Not so much.

And I will go right back to the eggs/pepper analogy I gave before...

Then the same response from before will suffice - there is nothing odd what so ever with making a batman logo out of pepper in a bowl of scramble egg. It's so bizarre why you'd ever bring that up in the first place.

Nonsense. We don't believe based on what we don't know.

Evidence shows otherwise.

You, on the other hand, are "trying to figure out how it happened naturally"....which assumes that it happened naturally.

Correct. This is called intellectual honesty, our presumptions are lay bare for examination. You might have came across that concept before?

First, show me the evidence.

Go visit your local natural history museum.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 332 by Bust Nak]

Then the same response from before will suffice - there is nothing odd what so ever with making a batman logo out of pepper in a bowl of scramble egg. It's so bizarre why you'd ever bring that up in the first place.

...I feel like I missed something amazing there. Now I'll have to hunt backwards through the thread to see what you guys are talking about!

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 330 by For_The_Kingdom]

If you sprinkled pepper into a bowl of scrambled eggs (uncooked) and you saw the obvious, undeniable image of the Batman logo inside the bowl...how can the ingredients in the bowl be "about" something that is completely independent of it? Makes no sense.

Ah now I see. So going by your logic...Jesus really does have something to do with a dog's rear end?

[Kenisaw]

The point is that the "chemicals" (molecules constructed of atoms) form more complicated structures called neurons, which in turn form more integrated and complex neural networks. These are further integrated into this structure we call a brain, and it is this brain that has the higher order functions like memory, consciousness, and the ability to form an image of a football (based on prior visual experience that stored the image in the memory structures of the brain thereby making it available for later recall).

A heart is also ultimately made from "mere chemicals", but it only works as a pump because a large number of different types of substructures (muscle, valves, etc., all made from various molecules) work together to create that function. So I'm not claiming that individual molecules are doing anything more than existing as molecules, but that they can and do combine to create complex structures that are capable of performing the functions that we see bodily organs carrying out.

That is a lot of complex structure/organization for a mindless/blind process. A mindless/blind process that couldn't see or think was able to do allll of that, yet human beings with brains and eyes can't do it.

That strikes me as utterly absurd.

Science is getting closer to this ability every year! You "see" a football if you simply think of one only because you have previously seen an actual football with your eyes. Otherwise you could not recall that image because it would never have been stored in your memory system a first time. We don't know exactly how memory works yet at the neuronal level, but a lot of progress has been made on that front in the last 20 years. If you try to picture a rumbecahedron I'll bet your brain comes up empty!

Hey Doc, I'd like you to follow me for a minute..you see, there are about three different aspects of this subject that bothers me, and that I argue against. One of them is this..

Follow me; Close your eyes, and think of a football. Now, that image of the football that you "see" in your brain; who is "seeing" it?

Something inside of you can "see" the image. So who is it? It isn't your eyes, because your eyes is closed. It isn't your neurons, because your neurons can't see..in fact, it is the neurons which causes you to "see" the image. And it isn't your brain, either.

So who exactly is "seeing" the image? We've already ruled out your eyes, brain, and chemicals...yet, something inside you can still "see" the image.

It is almost as if there is an invisible "person" inside of you which the image corresponds to. This invisible person is unaccounted for on naturalism, yet, on naturalism, no one can provide an adequate answer as to who can see the image if the material parts of your brain cannot see it.

There is just no answer for this, on naturalism. But theism, on the other hand..

Science does not agree with you. The images we see are the data stored in our memory system (the brain). Same thing for when we dream. There was even a study done that used an algorithm that predicted with 60% accuracy what people dreamed after they saw groups of images while awake via mapping of the MRI readouts from both awake and asleep portions of the study.

The brain is a data storage device that can recall information and replay it. We will point out once again that there is zero evidence for a mind that exists separate of the physical brain in a human body

[For_The_Kingdom]

The "who" in this argument is the image-forming mechanism operating in my brain

But that can't be the case. The "who" (person that can see the image), can't be the same "thing" as the "image-forming mechanism operating in your brain".

This is clearly a case of X and Y, with X being unidentified.

, which is only able to create the image of a football in my conscious mind because I have seen one before with my eyeballs, which resulted in the creation of a memory.

That is fine, but I still need you to identify who is "seeing" the image inside of your brain.

When I close my eyes and think of a football, this memory is recalled and I "see" it, because my brain is able to form a mental image from this stored memory. Without a prior event of seeing a football, I would not be able to recall the image (or movie as the case may be ... I can easily imagine a football flying through the air or tumbling through the goal posts because I have seen those events as well and can recall versions of them in all kinds of forms, or form new scenarios very much as anyone does when dreaming).

Again, that is all fine and dandy...but I still need to know who is this "I" in the scenario.

Whenever I see anything with my eyes in real time (as opposed to recalling a memory to create the image), the production of an image in my brain is a similar process. Light enters through my pupil and is focused onto my retina where it activates rods and cones, and electrical signals are generated along my optic nerve. These signals enter my visual cortex which inverts the upside down image on my retina and I "see" whatever it is my eyes were looking at. This image is produced in my brain via neuronal activity, and whether it is a real time image processed through the eye > retina > optic nerve > visual cortex path, or via memory recall from prior experience, the actual perception of the image is ultimately the same ... it is a physical process by the material parts of the brain (ie. neural networks).

So the answer to "who can see the image if the material parts of your brain can't see it", is that there is no "who" or "invisible person." The material parts of the brain produce various electrical signals and chemical reactions that combine to create the perception of an image in our heads. How could it be otherwise?

You are saying that there is no "who" or invisible person...yet you are using this "first-person" terminology of "I". The "I" IS the "who". But "who" is the "I"?

And by no means and I playing word games here. This is, what I think, a legitimate question...so legitimate in fact; the entire CASE is based upon this "identity", or lack thereof (on naturalism).

[For_The_Kingdom]

We've been through this, A) the fact that one is designed, the other isn't does not make it a false equivalencies.

Um, yes it does, brethren. It is CLEARLY a false equivalency. You are comparing image manifestation on computers to image manifestation in brains...yet one is designed, and the other one isn't (on your view).

If it was the same thing/concept, you'd be able to create a brain from scratch and make it produce mental images in the SAME way you can create a computer from scratch and make it produce images.

But you can't, can you? But then again, I don't know why you can't...because after all, Mother nature was able to do it and she wasn't even able to see or think. LOL.

B) there are computer programs (genetic algorithm) that are not the product of intelligent design.

Still gnawing away at that bone, are we? SMH.

His original moves and same ole' fadeaway jump shot was good though, great even. Yours? Not so much.

LOL.

Then the same response from before will suffice - there is nothing odd what so ever with making a batman logo out of pepper in a bowl of scramble egg. It's so bizarre why you'd ever bring that up in the first place.

Disingenuous. No one said anything about "making a batman logo out o pepper in a bowl of scrambled egg". Where did you get this "making" stuff from?

"Making" would imply intelligent design, but in the actual scenario I proposed, you added a certain amount of pepper and a certain amount of egg into a bowl and suddenly the obvious, UNDENIABLE image of the Batman logo formulated inside the bowl.

There is no way that that would EVER happen. Nature just doesn't work like that, sir. You should know that, naturalist.

Evidence shows otherwise.

Not with me.

Correct. This is called intellectual honesty, our presumptions are lay bare for examination. You might have came across that concept before?

What I've come across is your unproven implication that naturalism is the only answer, when you cannot use naturalism to prove naturalism.

That is about as clear-cut case of begging the question as one can give.

Go visit your local natural history museum.

Cool. Give me the time, date, and location of the museum that will be showcasing life from nonliving material.

I will be there if that is what is going down.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Science does not agree with you. The images we see are the data stored in our memory system (the brain). Same thing for when we dream. There was even a study done that used an algorithm that predicted with 60% accuracy what people dreamed after they saw groups of images while awake via mapping of the MRI readouts from both awake and asleep portions of the study.

All of that cool stuff happened/happens AFTER consciousness began to exist. No one can explain the origin of consciousness, can they? Nope.

Not to mention the intentional mental states of the brain, which I am bringing to Dr.NoGod's attention.

Once you people realize that science, as good of a methodology as it is, has limitations and is not the end all/ be all of knowledge, the better.

The brain is a data storage device that can recall information and replay it.

Sure, Mother Nature has built her very own VCR system in human beings...with our complex brains, we can fast forward, rewind, press play...and even STOP, if we want. Not bad for a mindless/blind process.

We will point out once again that there is zero evidence for a mind that exists separate of the physical brain in a human body

Speak for yourself. I am gladly not included in that "we". I have evidence that mental states could not ever have originated from physical states, thus, a mental state would have had to precede physical states....which happens to jive with Christianity with God being an un-embodied mind who preceded and created a physical world.

No coincidence.