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'm personally okay with this. I have no problem believing that my ancestors were single celled organisms (and their precursors).

Of course not. Because after you negate an intelligent designer, what else do you have? Second, still, you don't have any scientific evidence supporting your theory. None.

It'd be great if my every single one of my human ancestors was a renowned king or hero, but if the evidence indicates otherwise...why should I let my hopes and desires cloud my judgement?

?

FtK...when you debate evolution, is it your thought that those of us who are of the evolution camp are saying, implying or thinking that we WANT to be descendants of simpler life-forms? That this is what we hope is true?

Yup, and the thing about it is; you don't have a choice. If you take away God, Mother Nature is the only game in town. There is nothing else there to pull the stunt off besides nature. But if that is the case, there should be evidence for it...but there isn't.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I submit that it must take the quality of 'being lazy' in order to maintain such beliefs. Oh the work us non-believers must do on behalf of the believer (not all of course).
How can life emerge from nonliving matter? UNC scientists find new evidence.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2015/0 ... w-evidence

"Where does life come from? Despite years of research, scientists still rack their brains over this most existential question."

Umm..yeah.

You seem so self assured, but when I examine your claims, they are just falsehoods. Any idea why?
ORDER FROM CHAOS: "Imagine you have twenty-six small pieces of paper with one letter from the English alphabet on each side of each piece. Now throw these imaginary pieces into the air and wait for them to land. See how many English words you can find in the jumble. If you find none, gather them up and throw them again. Eventually you will find a word and if this process is repeated enough times you will find, inevitably, every word in the English language."

The problem with that is; yeah, sure.. "if you make enough attempts and have enough time, you will eventually find every word in the English language".

Newsflash: There was only ONE big bang with our universe, and everything would have had to been in order from the moment of the event. There wasn't this "infinite attempts/infinite times" game of chance thing that you are indicating.

If we are going to give an ACCURATE depiction of the event, it would be like gathering all of these pieces of paper (with one letter from the English alphabet), and throwing them into the air, and for each piece to fall on the ground in alphabetical word sequence to create a perfect English sentence.

Do you think that is gonna happen with on just one try? Nope.

I'm not sure what work you want me to do for you here. Can you be more specific, or better yet, do the work on your own? Nevermind, it's easier to just claim a god did it.

Saying that god did it isn't any more easier than you claiming that "Mother nature" did it.

Straw man. Who argues language came from muteness?
Even bacteria communicate so I'm at a loss as to what empty claim you are now making.

Is Mother nature mute? Can she talk?

If energy cannot be created nor destroyed, why do you claim that the universe came from nothing.

The first law of thermodynamics only comes into play after the universe began to exist. Because if it didn't, then you will run into a logical problem of if energy/matter has always existed (from past infinity), then how could our universe just began to exist only an finite time ago? Makes no sense.

And a great example of pride coming before the fall.
When you believe the gods did it all, like yourself, your work is done. Knowing this, it is hard to blame you for not being more educated on these matters. Why would you after all?

Actually, no, that is not the case. The work is not done. First of all, I marvel at things like the Great Egyptian pyramids, at how those folks built the damn thing without any modern-day fork lifts, cranes, trucks, etc. I marvel at this DESPITE knowing that the pyramids were a result of intelligent designers/builders.

So it isn't "Well, intelligent builders built them, the work is done; everyone have a safe trip home". I am still fascinated by it and marvel at it.

And despite my belief that Goddidit, I still marvel at the configuration and functionality of the human body. I still want to know how things work in nature, despite my theistic beliefs.

So basically, you are wrong in your assessment.

Done above (and there is more, but I warn you, it will require effort on your part). Will you now provide evidence for your genocidal god?

Been there, done that. You simply reject the evidence.

I don't think this statement is true. For example, if you were raised to believe in a god that provided you with eternal bliss after you die that used evolution to get to man. I don't see what problem you would have with it.

He could have, I just don't see any evidence that he did it that way.

Notice the dodge readers? Rather than acknowledge the logical argument being made, he would prefer to divert attention.

I used the same logic that you used against me, and applied it elsewhere on something that we all can relate to...so if my logic seems silly, then so should yours.

Pretty much what he has been doing all post so far. His failure is that he would argue that the gods are false, except for his, while no one we know of argues that all women are their mothers.

No one argues that all women are their mothers, and no one argues that all "gods" are their gods. Same thing.

Then you probably don't understand atheism or naturalism. Either way, please read just above to see what I actually asked you.

I did.

Why all the ducking and diving? Why can't your arguments stand on their own?
Also, do "I" know what a rhetorical question is?

Who is ducking and diving? Defend your worldview.

You would seriously not see anything wrong if for example some dictator decided to kill off all Eskimos?

No, not on atheism/naturalism.

Not the question I asked you. More evidence that your arguments cannot stand on their own I would suggest.

I answered the question. I am saying that on atheist, since there is no objective moral value, I don't see anything objectively wrong with some dictator deciding to kill off all Eskimos. But since I believe in objective moral values on the basis of theism, I believe it is something objectively wrong with killing off all Eskimos (by evil means).

So, your question was answered, sir.

Um.... I know this will go against what your holy book says, but animals actually cannot talk. Sorry.

Neither can a mute person. So I guess moral values/duties don't apply to them either, huh.

But yes, if I created a planet, I would consider leaving out the need to eat others animal or the needless killing you mention. But I'm not an all powerful god, so how could I possibly understand the need for such needless killing?

I don't know.

What about them? No I'm not a vegetarian.

So the killing of animals is cool as long as it is for the purpose of filling your belly. Gotcha.

I care about all life. Human life has more 'value' than a parasite that swims up your urinary tract though IMO. Don't you agree?

Sure I agree but on naturalism, this "value" is subjective. Because Mother Nature could care less about human life or any other life. When a tornado sweeps through a vicinity, is it picking and choosing where to create havoc? Which houses to destroy? Which people to spare? No.

When I argue such things, feel free to let me have it. Currently though, your are still on a dodge attempt from having to discuss your genocidal god concept.

And I am saying that a genocidal god is equivalent to pest control. Second, you are assuming that God doesn't have a morally sufficient reason to commit genocide. You are in no position to make such judgements.

You're getting way off topic here? Would you prefer to talk about naturalism instead of your genocidal god?

I've already addressed this.

Once you can show that you speak the truth, I'll be out there on the roof tops with you. Until then, shouldn't we do our due diligence and find out if the claims are even true or not?

Again, you reject the evidence...which you have every right to do..just like I have every right to accept.

You wished to make the point that I don't know how many flies I have killed in all my years on this earth? Odd point don't you think? Nothing you want to expound on with this great point of yours?

It isn't about the quantity...because any arbitrary number, as long as it is on the positive side, is enough for the point to be made.

More arguing with the English language than actual points I see.

LOL.

Humans are animals.

I couldn't disagree more.

"Modern humans (Homo sapiens, primarily ssp. Homo sapiens sapiens) are the only extant members of Hominina tribe (or human tribe), a branch of the tribe Hominini belonging to the family of great apes."

I couldn't disagree more.

The only reason to not accept this that I know of is because a human animal is using the reasoning of a human animals from thousands of years ago over the knowledge human animals now have.

Really? Like what?

Correct, but that is only because you cannot reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place. I debate to sharpen my own thinking and I trust readers learn here as well. Forthekingdom, unless or until your beliefs directly harm those around me, I don't debate for your benefit.

Cool.

Now we have a believer down playing such evil as genocide by comparing it to eating a hamburger. Forthekingdom, you make what I do here far to easy.

It is you that is downplaying the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of animals that wind up on your dinner plate.

Do you have something on your chest? Do you need to start a topic on eating the meat of other animals? I recognize that this is how the world works and that if I were an all powerful god, I would not have created it in such a way. The irony is strong with this one.

All I ask is that we (everyone, including myself) be consistent in our thinking...and in our critique.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Is Kingdom talking about the same objective god creature that used to say slavery was a go, but now it's all about the Golden Rule? Sounds like that god's moral compass is discretionary if you ask me...

Nowhere in the Bible is forced slavery permitted, outside of maybe prisoners of war.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 409 by For_The_Kingdom]

Of course not. Because after you negate an intelligent designer, what else do you have? Second, still, you don't have any scientific evidence supporting your theory. None.

Yup, and the thing about it is; you don't have a choice. If you take away God, Mother Nature is the only game in town. There is nothing else there to pull the stunt off besides nature. But if that is the case, there should be evidence for it...but there isn't.

That's two more instances of you claiming that there isn't any evidence ("none") for single-celled organisms evolving into humans. This is simply dead wrong. Evolution is not an unproven hypothesis anymore. The evidence for it is so overwhelming it has earned the right to be called a theory which, in the scientific method, is as close to scientific "fact" as it gets. You can't legitimately discard all of the hard evidence (fossil and genetics) for evolution and pretend it doesn't exist.

Abiogenesis is another matter altogether since a definitive process has not been identified or demonstrated. But abiogenesis and evolution have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Evolution requires life to exist as a prerequisite ... it doesn't concern itself with how life originated, only that it did at some point. Do your "no evidence" comments apply to abiogenesis only, or do you apply that same statement to evolution itself? Abiogenesis is a hypothesis, yet to be proven or disproven so is still "on the table." Evolution has been confirmed via extensive observations and measurements, and has yet to be falsified, so it is now a valid theory.

So are you claiming that there is no evidence for humans evolving from simpler life forms because you don't believe there is any evidence for evolution (or you just don't believe the evidence for some reason)? Or are you claiming that because abiogenesis has yet to be demonstrated that this invalidates evolution somehow (even though the two have nothing to do with each other)?

Just trying to find out exactly what it is you are claiming there is no evidence for (abiogenesis or evolution, or both), and if the answer is abiogenesis, how does that in any way suggest that evolution (single-celled organisms to humans) did not happen?

[rikuoamero]

Is Kingdom talking about the same objective god creature that used to say slavery was a go, but now it's all about the Golden Rule? Sounds like that god's moral compass is discretionary if you ask me...

Nowhere in the Bible is forced slavery permitted, outside of maybe prisoners of war.

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. "

It is non-negotiable as to whether or not slavery is sanctioned at one point or another in the Bible.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Can you give me a definition please, instead of just an example? I really would like to know just what you consider non-life to be, and why. Why do you consider your couch to be non-life? I don't know what your couch is made of. It could be leather, meaning it was alive at one point, but is no longer.

Can my couch think, talk, hear, listen, or feel? No. Therefore, my couch is not sentient.

Not all that is alive, is conscious, or sentient. Think of it like a Venn diagram.

What?

Which is the only standard we all have.

By who set the standard and how do we know this standard is the correct one?

For your information, I don't eat burgers or fried chicken.

Well, steak or baked chicken.

Also, this is a non-sequitur. It is possible for humanity to do something on a large scale, and have it still be wrong. The Nazis during World War II committed murder on a very large scale.

Yeah, but the Nazi's thought that what they did was right. You can give a thousand reasons why what they did was wrong, and they can give a thousand reasons why what they did was right. So in the end, who prevails?

Not all the time, but generally speaking, yes. The carnivores kill other animals because that is how they survive. They literally have no other options, assuming they don't want to starve to death.

Lions kill members from other prides...similar to gangs killing members of other gangs.

Incorrect. On atheism, we don't believe there is a god. There is a belief held by other people, such as yourself, that there is a god.

Then stop pointing out what you (atheists) believe to be savage acts of the "God" of the Bible.

Besides, are you really trying to argue that it's okay for God to do something because humans do it too?

No, I am saying on atheism, what is the difference?

Not all humans are meat-eaters.

Then what I said doesn't apply to them, does it?

I know of some vegan atheists on Youtube who put out content on a regular basis. What does the meat-eating practices of the majority of humanity have to do with them?

What does the illegality of marijuana have to do with people who doesn't smoke weed?

Neither can yourself, good sir, in your theism. In your theism, God selected the Hebrews as his favoured, special race, above other races of humans and above other animals.

But that value is only limited to how/what God needs for his will to be accomplished. If I am racing cars and I want to actually win the race, it may be wise to value the services of a corvette than the services of a station wagon.

But if I am going on a road trip with lots of luggage, I may value the services of a station wagon than a corvette. It is all circumstantial.

]
Which is why the Old Testament describes the Hebrews as waging war at God's command against other tribes...

So, are you implying that there are no morally sufficient reasons to wage war?

Which is where you fall down. You apparently need to have it as a law before you'll consider it as being 'wrong' in some sense. Do you need a line from Jesus saying "Thou shalt not have two brides" or something like that, or are you able to reason it out for yourself that maybe, just maybe, someone having two wives is not a good idea?

LOL. The Mormons and some Muslims think that having multiples wives isn't necessarily "bad", right? The point is, if it is bad, then why? If it is good, then why? What is the objective standard?

Take a look at myself. I do not steal, I do not murder and yet...I'm not a Christian or Jew. I don't follow the Ten Commandments.

Neither do I...and I am, and I do.

You appear to not know what the word 'objective' means. Please look it up in a dictionary.

LOL. So because I said "life would be objectively meaningless", it follows that I don't what the word "objective" means. And you base that on what? Improper use of the term? What?

Smh.

[For_The_Kingdom]

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. "

It is non-negotiable as to whether or not slavery is sanctioned at one point or another in the Bible.

But if the slave plainly says, I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man, 6then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently."

So apparently, there were some slaves that even volunteered to REMAIN slaves even after it was time for them to be free.

Second, you left out the part where it states..

If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed."

The way out: be "displeasing to your master".

[For_The_Kingdom]

Here's the thing.
1) This immediately shows you don't know what the word 'objective' means

Nonsense. It is obvious that it is YOU who don't know what the word means. The word and/or concept of objectivity, in the context of morality is well defined and established in philosophical circles.

So why you have to nerve to sit there and accuse me of being ignorant of the word when I am using it the SAME exact context that it is commonly used in...is disingenuous.

So please, stop with the nonsense.

2) How do you know that the entity you are arguing for (God in this case) IS that objective standard?

Its not that I necessarily "know". My point is, if there ARE objective moral values and duties, these values and duties can only come from someone whose moral compass isn't dependent upon any precedent conditions.

If they do exist, then they could have only come from God.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 414 by For_The_Kingdom]

Can my couch think, talk, hear, listen, or feel? No. Therefore, my couch is not sentient.

It finally dawns on me here.
You honestly have not got a clue as to what it is you are talking about here.

I ask for a definition for non life, and for some reason, you're talking about sentience.
I talk about non-life and how we are made up of non-living particles, and each and every time I bring them up...you literally ignore it. You have no response to my constant mentioning of carbon, hydrogen etc.

I would ask you the follow up question of, does a thing have to have one of the above senses, be able to think and feel in order to be in the category "alive"...but I won't. Bacteria clearly do not think, talk, hear, listen or feel, and yet they are life-forms.

What?

I take it you never studied Venn Diagrams in maths class?

By who set the standard and how do we know this standard is the correct one?

How do we know that the standard you and so many other people label as 'God' actually IS the correct one?

Well, steak or baked chicken.

Clearly, my point flew right over your head. It was to point out that your assumptions about your opponents are baseless.

Yeah, but the Nazi's thought that what they did was right. You can give a thousand reasons why what they did was wrong, and they can give a thousand reasons why what they did was right. So in the end, who prevails?

Replace the word Nazis there with the word Hebrews or Crusaders, and what does that do?

Lions kill members from other prides...similar to gangs killing members of other gangs.

I take it you don't know why. I know. Let's see if you do.

Then stop pointing out what you (atheists) believe to be savage acts of the "God" of the Bible.

No. I will not stop pointing out that the many acts that are attributed to "God" found in the Bible disqualify that entity (should he actually exist) from deserving any measure of worship or loyalty.
Why should I obey an entity who, according to the Bible, flooded the entire planet and reduced my species down to only eight members?

No, I am saying on atheism, what is the difference?

If you successfully knock down atheism, does your belief win by default?

What does the illegality of marijuana have to do with people who doesn't smoke weed?

That people who don't smoke weed shouldn't be punished because other people smoke it.
Simple concepts that apparently your God (and by extension yourself) fail to understand.

But that value is only limited to how/what God needs for his will to be accomplished. If I am racing cars and I want to actually win the race, it may be wise to value the services of a corvette than the services of a station wagon.

So, it's not boundless love and compassion, then? He has a purpose and he's just using us to accomplish that purpose, and he can and will discard us once that purpose is accomplished. After all, he has the right to do so, correct?

But if I am going on a road trip with lots of luggage, I may value the services of a station wagon than a corvette. It is all circumstantial.

So it's not objective morality. Why in the comment prior to this one you tried to pretend that slavery isn't sanctioned AT ALL within the Bible is beyond me. This line from you would EXCUSE the sanctioning of slavery.

So, are you implying that there are no morally sufficient reasons to wage war?

Wrong. I am saying that for an all powerful entity, there are none. What does God need with a [strike]starship[/strike], I mean, war?

The point is, if it is bad, then why? If it is good, then why? What is the objective standard?

If there is an objective standard, it sure as heck not to be found with the god you espouse.

Neither do I...and I am, and I do.

So which one of us needs to be explicitly told by what they think is an all powerful being before they won't do certain actions?
What does that tell us about that person's moral compass?

So because I said "life would be objectively meaningless", it follows that I don't what the word "objective" means. And you base that on what? Improper use of the term? What?

No, it's because you trumpet your god as somehow being the source of an objective morality, yet at the same time tell us that what your god trumpets as moral changes from time to time, situation to situation.
In other words, subjective morality is what you're describing.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 415 by For_The_Kingdom]

But if the slave plainly says, I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man, 6then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently."

So apparently, there were some slaves that even volunteered to REMAIN slaves even after it was time for them to be free.

Were the slave's wife and children free to go?
Nope, they weren't. This was a case of hostage taking, a way to have Hebrew men slaves remain as slaves beyond the seven year jubilee (besides, I thought earlier you said slavery wasn't sanctioned, except for prisoners of war. Changed your tune, have you?). If the man slave wants to stay with his wife and children, he has to profess his love to his master and family, and then the master gets to keep him forever.

If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed."

The way out: be "displeasing to your master".

Doesn't change the fact that the father is the one selling his daughter as a piece of property.
Again...I thought earlier you said the only slavery sanctioned was prisoners of war. Women back then generally were not soldiers.
Also, what the heck kind of standard is 'displeasing to your master' anyway? The buyer could keep her as a slave and if she's pretty and desirable, he could rape her all he wanted. The passage from Exodus, (which I am WELL familiar with), says the only way out is for her to displease him (with the judgement on that left up to the slave owner) or if she marries the master or his son.
As long as the master is happy with her as a slave, and as long as she doesn't marry him or his son...slavery for the girl!