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?

[H.sapiens]

Speculation: the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.
"there has been widespread speculation that he plans to quit"

Inference: a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.
"his emphasis on order and health, and by inference cleanliness"

Now do you infer the difference, or do you prefer to continue to speculate?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Speculation: the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.
"there has been widespread speculation that he plans to quit"

Inference: a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.
"his emphasis on order and health, and by inference cleanliness"

Now do you infer the difference, or do you prefer to continue to speculate?

The question is whether the presented evidence is sufficient or not...because obviously, I disagree that the belief in evolution is based upon evidence and reasoning.

The TOE is unproven and also unscientific.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I'm getting pretty tired of you making a hypocritical statement like this within the span of a single line. You're even more speculative than he is

So, you admit that he is speculative.

, given that you reject the notion that mental states are produced by the brain as a whole.

All I am asking is for scientific evidence for naturalistic claims...and the statement "mental states are produced by the brain as a whole" has not been backed up by science...and if you continue to believe despite lack of evidence, you are speculating.

Don't act like you have some defensible ground to stand on

I do. The argument from consciousness. That is the defensible ground I am standing on.

when you accuse him of something, and then commit possibly an even more absolutist mistake immediately after.

Not at all. I am not the one implying that science can explain everything. I recognize the limitations of science, so when it gets to the point where science is incapable of explaining a phenomena, I appeal to whatever explanation that has the explanatory power to explain the phenomena, which just so happens to be supernaturalism.

And if you disagree to this kind of appeal, then simply use whatever methodology you need to use to explain it...and if you can't, then don't get mad at me for going where the evidence takes me.

[H.sapiens]

Speculation: the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.
"there has been widespread speculation that he plans to quit"

Inference: a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.
"his emphasis on order and health, and by inference cleanliness"

Now do you infer the difference, or do you prefer to continue to speculate?

The question is whether the presented evidence is sufficient or not...because obviously, I disagree that the belief in evolution is based upon evidence and reasoning.

The TOE is unproven and also unscientific.

The vast majority of those whose profession it is to adjudicate such sufficiencies disagree with you and disagree with your styling an acceptance of the sufficiency of evolutionary proofs as "beliefs." What do you bring the discussion, besides archaic and bankrupt belief systems that would not cause a thinking person to pay any heed to your bronze age beliefs in lieu of proper modern science?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Again you try to downplay the science involved. Sure there is speculation but it is based on what we observed, based on what we can measure.

Science: things change over time.


Speculation: "There is so much change over time, that a reptile can/will eventually evolve wings and begin to fly".

Once you begin to speculate, you leave science, despite linking your speculation in with the science.

Kind of like hot dogs...hot dogs are sold at baseball games, right? But hot dogs have absolutely nothing to do with the actual game being played on the field, do they? Hot dogs don't become athletic with association, do they? No, they don't.

They are linked (no pun intended) to the game, besides having nothing to do with the game itself.

Your speculation has absolutely nothing to do with observation, or experiment. You are linking your speculation to the science, when the science has nothing to do with what you are claiming (as far as I can tell), and the claim has nothing to do with the science (observation and experiment).

And as I said, you can speculate all you want...there isn't nothing inherently wrong about it...believers speculate, too. As a believer, I speculate on lots of things that I believe in the Bible...and I base that speculation upon what I feel to be good circumstantial evidence.

However, since it is speculation, I cannot pass it off as a complete 100% brute fact. Speculation should not make Biblical doctrine.

My problem is when you (evolutionists) pass evolution off as a 100% brute fact. That is a problem, in my opinion.

There is nothing with/within the brain that will produce mental states...you've got nothing, only speculation.

Now you are speculating.

Ok, so how would the Microsoft software get onto your hard drive without an intelligent designer implementing it?

Even if you were to imagine a computer self-assembling itself, where would you get the software from?? Huh?

No you didn't, you asked for an example of complex organic structure without a smart mother nature, and I gave you an example of complex organic structure without a smart mother nature (pregnancy).

Ultimately, it comes right back to life from life. The process itself is still ultimately life from life. The fact that pregnancy can even come to pass is to assume reproduction, which is to assume DNA, which is to assume chemical fine-tuning.

The question is, if you go back far enough in time, you will get to a point where there was no chemicals, DNA, life...how do you get from lack of, to lots of?

If it happens naturally, then I'd like the naturalists to scientifically confirm/explain it...again, that is what science is supposed to be all about.

Correct.

Then you've left science and appealed to voodoo.

And that's why you are a creationist and I am an evolutionist. I can make sense of science.

Sure, but can you conduct an experiment that will get you the results in question? Nope.

No, scientific theories is the holy grail of science.

Theories backed up by evidence, or speculation?

[H.sapiens]

Again you try to downplay the science involved. Sure there is speculation but it is based on what we observed, based on what we can measure.

Science: things change over time.


Speculation: "There is so much change over time, that a reptile can/will eventually evolve wings and begin to fly".

Once you begin to speculate, you leave science, despite linking your speculation in with the science.

If it were but a matter of "There is so much change over time, that a reptile can/will eventually evolve wings and begin to fly" then I'd agree with you. However, that is not the case. There are many multiple lines of clear, distinct and unequivocal evidence, from osteology to genomics that detail the evolutionary relationships from reptiles through their descendants the birds. The key is the overwhelming evidence of the relationships, not simply the speculation that you cite.

[For_The_Kingdom]

If it were but a matter of "There is so much change over time, that a reptile can/will eventually evolve wings and begin to fly" then I'd agree with you. However, that is not the case. There are many multiple lines of clear, distinct and unequivocal evidence, from osteology to genomics that detail the evolutionary relationships from reptiles through their descendants the birds. The key is the overwhelming evidence of the relationships, not simply the speculation that you cite.

Ok, so let me ask you this...could not all of the evidence that YOU claim point to evolution actually be evidence of common designer?

[H.sapiens]

If it were but a matter of "There is so much change over time, that a reptile can/will eventually evolve wings and begin to fly" then I'd agree with you. However, that is not the case. There are many multiple lines of clear, distinct and unequivocal evidence, from osteology to genomics that detail the evolutionary relationships from reptiles through their descendants the birds. The key is the overwhelming evidence of the relationships, not simply the speculation that you cite.

Ok, so let me ask you this...could not all of the evidence that YOU claim point to evolution actually be evidence of common designer?

Only if you want to grant that the designer was incompetent, incapable of blank paper design, and decided to saddle itself with starting criteria that was contrary to the final desired outcome. If that's a description of your god ... good luck to you, you're going to need it.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Only if you want to grant that the designer was incompetent, incapable of blank paper design, and decided to saddle itself with starting criteria that was contrary to the final desired outcome. If that's a description of your god ... good luck to you, you're going to need it.

What if the designer made the design according to what he desired it to be? And isn't how good/bad a design is...isn't that kind of thing subjective? And not only that, but a bad design is still a design, isn't it?

[Divine Insight]

Only if you want to grant that the designer was incompetent, incapable of blank paper design, and decided to saddle itself with starting criteria that was contrary to the final desired outcome. If that's a description of your god ... good luck to you, you're going to need it.

What if the designer made the design according to what he desired it to be? And isn't how good/bad a design is...isn't that kind of thing subjective? And not only that, but a bad design is still a design, isn't it?

If the Biblical God designed humans so that nary a single one of them could resist the temptations of sin and this God wanted humans to resist sin, then clearly he would be a very lousy designer.

And unfortunately for Christianity the religion demands that the above situation be true. So it's s self-contradictory religion. By its own decree the God of Christianity is necessarily an extremely failed designer.