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?

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 143 by H.sapiens]

I'm not talking about aberrant defects, I'm talking about bad design (e.g., reversed retina, inefficiently routed nerves due to the fish gill bar layout of even the mammalian body plan.

Help me.
Can you give a specific example we can work with, and explain why it's bad? Otherwise, I don't know what you are referring to.

There's quite a few. The ones I was most immediately aware of before googling were our inability to synthesize vitamins, and the fact that our sinuses drain from the top, which causes congestion and infections.


But here's a link with several more: http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-most-unfortu ... 1518242787

My...
So I take it you are no longer interested in scientific peer reviewed data, so anything goes including ridiculous arguements.

Although there is a lot of scientific data to verify how (NOTE - how) important it is that we have two eyes, ears, and nostrils, as opposed to one, and how (NOTE - how) convenient that they are situated on our head in an organied way - I mean, our lips are not vertical for an obvious reason right; I'm not even going to waste many words on this.
Have you noticed that you can put on bathing wear, and cover your genitals and buttocks all at once?
Do you notice you can squat, and use both not at the same time, but simultaneously?

Perhaps our eyes should be down there instead, and our genitals where our nose is.
Why is there a Central Nervous System that connects everything?
Why do our ears have connectors there, rather than to our anus?

As regards the placement and functions of the organs, why not ask an expert? Dr Carson can help with this one.
[youtube][/youtube]

Yes Ben - Wonderfully made.
And how do you get to answer a question in an audience? Let Ben inform you -

You guys are carrying a bucket full of holes - enormous holes.
That bucket holds no water period.

What's wrong with the spine again?
Right. It's wonderful made.
[youtube][/youtube]

Why don't you also explain how evolution accounts for this magnificent pump.
[youtube][/youtube]
Or perhaps we don't need it.
We can all live without it right?

So we don't need hair around our genitalia right? LOL.
Explain why, and while you are at it, explain why the hair only wants to be in that area, the head, and normally in men, the chest. Why is it sparse if found on other areas of the body, like the legs and arms?

I guess the Blastocyst having 200 to 300 cells was a mistake since we don't really need all the parts they form, and apparently since our brains don't end up in our backside, nor do our eyes end up at the bottom of our feet. There was apparently a huge mistake there as well.
Of course, that's what I would expect chanced processes to produce - huge senseless results.

Intelligent design, on the other hand has produced awesome results.
Why Your Body Is AMAZING!
Amazing Proof That God Exists

Consider THIS POST to see how empty your argument is.

[Bust Nak]

Right, but I am NOT conceding that the interpretation of the observation is the correct one. It could be false.

Again not my problem, the scientific interpretation of the observation is by definition, the scientific one.

Theology is the end result after all naturalistic options have been exhausted.

That's not every scientific.

Tentatively = a lot of room for speculation.

Speculate away, just make sure to stay within science, in the context of this debate.

So, what would be the ratio? 80pos/20neg?

70/30?

60/40?

Lets go with 99/1.

Any abiogenesis algorithms? Nope.

I have no idea what you mean by abiogenesis algorithms.

And besides, the change involved in evolutionary algorithms ain't exactly the macro kind of changes that you believed occured hundreds of billions of years ago.

What distinction is there for "macro" or "micro" in terms of program?

Um, we are not talking about relationships and correlation here, sparky. We are talking about the hardware and software, each as individual ENTITIES, first....BEFORE they are joined together to make a "computer with Microsoft hardware installed".

Incorrect, we are talking about hardware and software, as connected ENTITIES, software cannot exist outside of hardware. There is no "before they are joined together" and that's the point, they go hand in hand together, just like a human brain goes hand in with human consciousness.

Which would be parallel to you saying "you can shape and mold a human brain with human consciousness already installed".

That's the point, if we can do it with computers, then there is no reason to think the same cannot be done with brains. Since we CAN do it with computers, we can conclude that the same applies to brains.

Sure, you can obviously build the software into the computer and relative to the person that is purchasing it at the store, to the person, the software came with the computer by "default".

But the software isn't an emergent property of the computer, is it? No, it isn't.

Actually, it would be if the computer is self-assembling. And that's what you've granted me when you asked me to imagine a computer self-assembling itself.

So how does the interaction of molecules form an independent image of a physical object...an object that is completely separate and independent from the molecules?

What made you think the image of a physical object is completely separate and independent from the molecules?

We understand and can scientifically explain how mirrors work with light and reflection and all of that...but if you were to stand in front of a wall with no mirror reflection...yet you are seeing a reflection of yourself...how is it that the reflection on the wall represents an independent physical object (yourself).

No idea what you are talking about here. How are you seeing a reflection when there is no mirror?

The same situation with consciousness....how can the mental object of an apple (thought) be inside my brain...there is nothing about the molecules that says "apple", yet, the mental picture of this independent object is in my brain.

When the molecules interact in such a way that says apple, obviously. The same way when molecules interact in a certain way can says Microsoft Word.

Not only that, but who is thinking of the apple? Me? Me who? My brain? My brain is thinking of the object, but the object isn't "me". Yet, "I" am thinking.

"I" is the software, the brain is the hardware. It's pretty simple.

It can't be "just as" programs/hard disks, when programs/hard disks can be scientifically explained and mind/body dualism cannot be.

Maybe so, but all of your objections against equating mind/body with software/hardware, are the result of misconception of the software/hardware relationship. You are saying that since there is more to computer software/hardware therefore there has to be more to mind/body. By accepting that programs/hard disks can be scientifically explained you've invalidated your own arguments.

It is a problem...if something cannot be scientifically explained then it is time to look beyond science.

That's the kind of thinking that lead to people believing thunder and lightning, earth quakes are gods being angry. It's the classic God of the gap fallacy.

What would be the criteria to judge whether something is "useful" to explain a phenomena?

By how we can make use of it with technology.

Can you scientifically prove that life can come from inanimate matter? No, you can't. So apparently, there is nothing natural about it, either.

Again, God of the gap. It cannot be explained yet, that's quite a different proposition to "it can never be explained."

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 152 by Bust Nak]

Quote:
Can you scientifically prove that life can come from inanimate matter? No, you can't. So apparently, there is nothing natural about it, either.

Again, God of the gap. It cannot be explained yet, that's quite a different proposition to "it can never be explained."

Agreed. Imagine if For_The_Kingdom were to ask this question five hundred years ago about thunder and lightning.
"Can you scientifically explain thunder and lightning? No, you can't. So apparently there is nothing natural about it either".
His lack of knowledge about what causes thunder and lightning does not mean there is no naturalistic explanation for said phenomena. It does not mean that just because he does not know at the time a scientific explanation that therefore, there is no such explanation and never will be, and he should move beyond science to approach what I describe as make-it-up-and-never-verify.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Again not my problem, the scientific interpretation of the observation is by definition, the scientific one.

Not my problem either.

That's not every scientific.

The concept of life originating from nonliving material and a reptile evolving into a bird...that stuff aint scientific, either.

Speculate away, just make sure to stay within science, in the context of this debate.

I am being told to "stay within science" from someone who believes that inanimate matter came to life and began to talk. LOL.

Lets go with 99/1.

SMH.

I have no idea what you mean by abiogenesis algorithms.

If I told you, you will probably give me one of those "nope, but we are working on it" answers...which is always refreshing to see.

What distinction is there for "macro" or "micro" in terms of program?

The distinction is that we observe one, and not the other.

Incorrect, we are talking about hardware and software, as connected ENTITIES, software cannot exist outside of hardware.

Irrelevant to my point that both the hardware/software are distinct entities.

There is no "before they are joined together"

That is false, considering the fact that computers had existed long before Microsoft (software) came into play. You claim "there is no "before they are joined together", yet, one existed BEFORE the other.

So in other words, one didn't need the other in order to exist.

and that's the point, they go hand in hand together

That is correlation, when the beef is with origins.

just like a human brain goes hand in with human consciousness.

That is correlation, when the beef is with origins. And besides, you still have the chicken & egg problem that you seem to be unable to rectify.

That's the point, if we can do it with computers, then there is no reason to think the same cannot be done with brains. Since we CAN do it with computers, we can conclude that the same applies to brains.

We can do what with computers? I am talking about the origin of consciousness...so if you are claiming that we can make computers sentient, then I'd like some scientific verification for it.

Actually, it would be if the computer is self-assembling. And that's what you've granted me when you asked me to imagine a computer self-assembling itself.

That was a bad analogy on my part. So I go back to my original question of where, if you were able to shape/mold brain matter and create the perfect human brain....where would you get the consciousness from?

There is just no answer to this question on naturalism.

What made you think the image of a physical object is completely separate and independent from the molecules?

Because when you look inside my brain and see molecules, you are not seeing the image that I am thinking of...yet, I see it.

No idea what you are talking about here. How are you seeing a reflection when there is no mirror?

Which would be the same thing as asking "how can you see an image of an apple in your brain when there is no apple in your brain".

When the molecules interact in such a way that says apple, obviously.

But you are not explaining the manifestation of the mere image of the apple. What is it about the molecules that that will allow the image of a distinct, independent image of a physical object that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the molecules?

The same way when molecules interact in a certain way can says Microsoft Word.

And Microsoft Word requires intelligent design, doesn't it? Hmmm.

"I" is the software, the brain is the hardware. It's pretty simple.

Nonsense. When you say "my brain is thinking"...who is the "my"? Who does this ownership belong to?

It is almost as if there is an unaccounted-for immaterial "self" that is inside you, expressing ownership of a physical object of a brain.

Hmm.

Maybe so, but all of your objections against equating mind/body with software/hardware, are the result of misconception of the software/hardware relationship.

No, you are the one with the misconception. You treat consciousness as if it is some emergent property of the brain, when it clearly isn't. My point is simple; it doesn't matter how much you the two correlate, they are both distinct, independent entities...and the existence of one does not necessary entail the existence of the other.

You are saying that since there is more to computer software/hardware therefore there has to be more to mind/body.

Umm, I don't really saying anything like that.

By accepting that programs/hard disks can be scientifically explained you've invalidated your own arguments.

So how is accepting that programs/hard disks can be scientifically explained, invalidates my own argument that mind/body dualism CAN'T be explained scientifically.

Tell me how that works.

That's the kind of thinking that lead to people believing thunder and lightning, earth quakes are gods being angry. It's the classic God of the gap fallacy.

God of the gap fallacy is a very old and played out quip by atheists and it doesn't even reflect what is going on half the time.

No one is claiming "I can't explain it, therefore, Goddidit". Rather, the claim is "it is impossible for Mother Nature to have done it, therefore, the God hypothesis is the only game in town".

You do see the difference, don't you?

By how we can make use of it with technology.

So much subjectivity in so little of a sentence.

Again, God of the gap. It cannot be explained yet, that's quite a different proposition to "it can never be explained."

Then you are using "nature of the Gaps", right? Oh, that kind of thing only applies to believers as it relates to God, not anything else, huh?

[benchwarmer]

That's not every scientific.

The concept of life originating from nonliving material and a reptile evolving into a bird...that stuff aint scientific, either.

Except by definition these things are scientific. You can disagree/ignore/disbelieve/etc, but that doesn't change the facts. What you are proposing is like saying Christianity isn't religious.

We get it, you don't buy in. However, misrepresentation is another matter. Scientists have proposed hypotheses and theories as well as published research on these topics which makes it scientific. Your job if you so choose, is to propose a better hypothesis or theory that covers the data and is verifiable through the scientific method. Do that and you are being scientific as well. Wave your hands and point at the Bible and you are not being scientific.

Speculate away, just make sure to stay within science, in the context of this debate.

I am being told to "stay within science" from someone who believes that inanimate matter came to life and began to talk. LOL.

Well it seems you believe life poofed into existence from nothing based on the words of an invisible creature who is somehow not required to have been poofed into existence itself. Double LOL.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 152 by Bust Nak]

Quote:
Can you scientifically prove that life can come from inanimate matter? No, you can't. So apparently, there is nothing natural about it, either.

Again, God of the gap. It cannot be explained yet, that's quite a different proposition to "it can never be explained."

Agreed. Imagine if For_The_Kingdom were to ask this question five hundred years ago about thunder and lightning.
"Can you scientifically explain thunder and lightning? No, you can't. So apparently there is nothing natural about it either".
His lack of knowledge about what causes thunder and lightning does not mean there is no naturalistic explanation for said phenomena. It does not mean that just because he does not know at the time a scientific explanation that therefore, there is no such explanation and never will be, and he should move beyond science to approach what I describe as make-it-up-and-never-verify.

Using that example, if it took me say, 50 years to find out something, it would not take me another 50 years to find out more about that same thing, because I am building on previous knowledge. If after more than 2 lifetimes, I have been studying something, and have not figured it out, I may still keep trying, but if someone said I will never know unless... I have no basis for arguing that I will.
For example how long have they been searching for ET?
Isn't the brain - incuding consciousness still a mystery?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Except by definition these things are scientific.

No, by definition those things are theories...speculative theories. If you can't use science to explain it, then it isn't scientific.

You can disagree/ignore/disbelieve/etc, but that doesn't change the facts.

What facts?

What you are proposing is like saying Christianity isn't religious.

Not at all.

We get it, you don't buy in. However, misrepresentation is another matter. Scientists have proposed hypotheses and theories as well as published research on these topics which makes it scientific.

No, published research on these topics makes it erroneously ASSOCIATED with science...it isn't science unless you conduct an experiment to produce the desired result...and there is no experiment that you can conduct which would give you life from nonlife, or have a "reptile" evolve wings.

Your job if you so choose, is to propose a better hypothesis or theory that covers the data and is verifiable through the scientific method.

The scientific method is useless when it comes to questions of origins...considering the fact that nature itself began to exist...so to use a naturalistic method as a tool to answer a question regarding naturalistic origins is to be going in a circle, which is irrational.

Do that and you are being scientific as well. Wave your hands and point at the Bible and you are not being scientific.

I go where the evidence takes me...regardless of whether it comes from the Bible or a Biology text book...I go where the evidence takes me...and the evidence takes me to the Bible.

Well it seems you believe life poofed into existence from nothing based on the words of an invisible creature who is somehow not required to have been poofed into existence itself. Double LOL.

I have actual verifiable evidence supporting my belief system. Can you say the same thing about yours? Nope. Well yeah, you can say it, but can you prove it? Nope.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 157 by For_The_Kingdom]

The scientific method is useless when it comes to questions of origins...considering the fact that nature itself began to exist...so to use a naturalistic method as a tool to answer a question regarding naturalistic origins is to be going in a circle, which is irrational.

versus

I go where the evidence takes me...regardless of whether it comes from the Bible or a Biology text book...I go where the evidence takes me...and the evidence takes me to the Bible.

How is one able to follow evidence without using the natural/scientific method?

[benchwarmer]

Except by definition these things are scientific.

No, by definition those things are theories...speculative theories. If you can't use science to explain it, then it isn't scientific.

Scientific theories aren't scientific. News at 11.

You can disagree/ignore/disbelieve/etc, but that doesn't change the facts.

What facts?

That fact that scientists have peer reviewed research that supports the theories which you claim aren't scientific.

What you are proposing is like saying Christianity isn't religious.

Not at all.

So 'science isn't science' is cool, but 'Christianity isn't religious' isn't cool. Got it.

We get it, you don't buy in. However, misrepresentation is another matter. Scientists have proposed hypotheses and theories as well as published research on these topics which makes it scientific.

No, published research on these topics makes it erroneously ASSOCIATED with science...it isn't science unless you conduct an experiment to produce the desired result...and there is no experiment that you can conduct which would give you life from nonlife, or have a "reptile" evolve wings.

Nice strawmen. There are experiments that support evolution. Your failure to acknowledge them says everything. That fact that you don't know why we can't do an experiment that takes a reptile without wings and have it evolve in front of us to have wings means you must have skipped a lot of biology classes. We can't display things for you to watch that take billions of years to happen. I would have thought that was obvious, I guess not.

Your job if you so choose, is to propose a better hypothesis or theory that covers the data and is verifiable through the scientific method.

The scientific method is useless when it comes to questions of origins...considering the fact that nature itself began to exist...so to use a naturalistic method as a tool to answer a question regarding naturalistic origins is to be going in a circle, which is irrational.

How so? There have been experiments that tried to recreate the chemistry believed to have been happening when life may have started. They've shown that basic building blocks (organic molecules) can be produced. Just because they haven't figured everything out yet you would like everyone to stop and go read the Bible? Sure, we'll get right on that.

I love this attitude of 'science can't show me right now everything' somehow equates to science is wrong, the Bible is right. Let's stop doing science and pray instead.

Do that and you are being scientific as well. Wave your hands and point at the Bible and you are not being scientific.

I go where the evidence takes me...regardless of whether it comes from the Bible or a Biology text book...I go where the evidence takes me...and the evidence takes me to the Bible.

Well there's your problem. Evidence doesn't come from books. Biology or Bible. You have to actually do some science and observe things to see evidence. Once you understand the scientific method, you can start to put trust in peer reviewed research, but you are always free to prove any research is false yourself. You would be a real hoot on a peer review committee pointing to your Bible and telling all the scientists their data is wrong.

I have actual verifiable evidence supporting my belief system. Can you say the same thing about yours? Nope. Well yeah, you can say it, but can you prove it? Nope.

That's a lot of 'Nope' and assumption there. Given I have actually provided real scientific research to back my claims and you've given nothing, we'll let readers decide who has verifiable evidence on their side.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 157 by For_The_Kingdom]

The scientific method is useless when it comes to questions of origins...considering the fact that nature itself began to exist...so to use a naturalistic method as a tool to answer a question regarding naturalistic origins is to be going in a circle, which is irrational.

versus

I go where the evidence takes me...regardless of whether it comes from the Bible or a Biology text book...I go where the evidence takes me...and the evidence takes me to the Bible.

How is one able to follow evidence without using the natural/scientific method?

See, that is part of the problem...in that one question that you asked above, you are assuming that the scientific method is the only tool of knowledge...the only methodology that can be used to obtain evidence.

Science has limitations, sir...and it cannot be used to explain the origins of its own domain.