Abiogenesis is evolution

[Guy Threepwood]

I assume a natural explanation for anything that is not clearly produced by intelligence because logic, reason and science and evidence has a vastly superior power of explanation than "some god did it."

Yet you just chose creative intelligence over a natural explanation, through logic, reason and science-
because although it is possible for waves to place rocks to spell help, there is a better explanation, unless we can utterly rule out the existence of creative intelligence on the beach right?

Can you be this sure you can rule out God?

consider that the word 'help' is selling the universe a little short, the complete works of Shakespeare washing up randomly would also.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Evolution or biological evolution? You still don't seem to distinguish between them.

It is understood in the context that is biological evolution and within the context of such debate it is also understood. And again you touch on an issue without I think even fully realizing the importance of that issue. Evolution as a generalized process and biological evolution which is a specific form of "evolution" and its classification of the change from organic materials into functional organisms as what type of evolution. At what point does it change from chemistry to biochemistry? And my opinion on the matter and the opinion that seems to prevail somewhat with scientist that specifically study and research into abiogensis, is that you must classify the biological evolution and biochemistry as organic material based chemistry for it to make sense. It is in many ways the exact same process but on a far more simple level. Of course there is also an understood and unspoken assumption that we are not including the god hypothesis.

 

[ArtieE]

because although it is possible for waves to place rocks to spell help, there is a better explanation, unless we can utterly rule out the existence of creative intelligence on the beach right?

Can you be this sure you can rule out God?

Why should I rule in any god if there is a possibility that there's a natural explanation?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Why should I rule in any god if there is a possibility that there's a natural explanation?

You shouldn't, I don't think there is any 'default' explanation, we have no frame of reference for how universes are 'usually' created do we?

just as in the beach scenario, we only permit the slightest chance that creative intelligence could have been involved.
would it be fair to rule God out entirely?

I don't rule out chance

I think it's possible that the entire universe is the result of a naturalistic, non-purposeful event. But I think there are less improbable explanations if we do not rule out God entirely. The analogy is why, it's about power of explanation

 

[ArtieE]

Evolution as a generalized process and biological evolution which is a specific form of "evolution" and its classification of the change from organic materials into functional organisms as what type of evolution.

Biological evolution happens to already living organisms. It's not the evolution from non-living to living.

At what point does it change from chemistry to biochemistry?

When the chemistry produces organisms that fulfill the criteria scientists require to call them "alive".

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Biological evolution happens to already living organisms. It's not the evolution from non-living to living.

But we don't have a line from living to non-living. And if the process of creating life isn't classified in your mind as biological evolution then I am misunderstanding what you think abiogensis is.

When the chemistry produces organisms that fulfill the criteria scientists require to call them "alive".

And this isn't a useful way to research abiogensis. We can call it whatever you like but it doesn't make it meaningful. The same process that is happening to you and me and every other organism that has ever lived is the exact same process that happened with abiogensis. It is in no way a functionally different process except in terms of complexity.

 

[jonathan180iq]

that's where assumptions get subjective

if you see the word HELP written in rocks, on a deserted island beach with no evidence of people around, do you assume the random action of the waves did it?

It's not subjective at all. The only time an issue of subjectivity comes up would be in the form of attributing natural phenomena to the creative hand of an invisible intelligent being.

If you see the word "HELP" written in rocks on, then you can very easily and accurately deduce, based on those observations alone, that someone put those rocks there. But you wouldn't stop there and claim it to be the ultimate truth. You would support that original deduction by finding further evidence for such intelligent interaction with the rocks either in footsteps on the beach which might not have washed away, or by finding evidence of those rocks being removed from a rock face prior to their placement on the beach. You could scan the rocks for skin cells which may have been removed from the hand of their scribe. You could then support that deduction by chemically and physically matching the rocks on the rock face in question, or by doing an indepth analysis on the cells which you might have found on the rocks. You could analyze the symbols used to write the word "HELP" with other similar human symbols and search for patterns in order to discover which kind of people, and which language the word was written in. You can do these and numerous other experiments to scientifically conclude that the word "HELP", written on the beach, was not done randomly.

Or you could just guess and have some emotional connection to it...

There's a huge difference between scientific explanations and the fanciful musings of faithful religious people. And there is nothing inherently wrong with those faithful musings - but you can't pass them off as a verifiable depiction of historical events, because you have nothing to go on but subjectivity.

 

[ArtieE]

just as in the beach scenario, we only permit the slightest chance that creative intelligence could have been involved.
would it be fair to rule God out entirely

It would be unfair to rule in any gods as long as there's a possibility of any natural explanation.

I don't rule out chance

I think it's possible that the entire universe is the result of a naturalistic, non-purposeful event. But I think there are less improbable explanations if we do not rule out God entirely. The analogy is why, it's about power of explanation

"agoddidit" doesn't have any power of explanation. On the contrary, you would just have to come up with a zillion other explanations for how and why and where this god or these gods exist in the first place etc and all you end up with is a planet full of contradictory religions and belief systems where people kill each other for believing in the wrong god.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It's not subjective at all. The only time an issue of subjectivity comes up would be in the form of attributing natural phenomena to the creative hand of an invisible intelligent being.

or vice versa

If you see the word "HELP" written in rocks on, then you can very easily and accurately deduce, based on observation alone that someone put those rocks there.

so even when granted a random generator perfectly capable of producing the result (something we have no evidence for re the universe)
and even when there is no direct evidence of creative intelligence- it is only merely permitted as a slight possibility

you chose creative intelligence over natural event. Because of the unique power of explanation of creative intelligence.


Alter the analogy any way you wish- how heavily guarded would the beach need to be, how sure would you have to be that no creative intelligence could possibly be involved, before you put it down to chance?

can you be this sure God cannot possibly be involved?

There's a huge difference between scientific explanations and the fanciful musings of faithful religious people. .

one acknowledges faith, blind faith does not acknowledge itself

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It would be unfair to rule in any gods as long as there's a possibility of any natural explanation."agoddidit" doesn't have any power of explanation. On the contrary, you would just have to come up with a zillion other explanations for how and why and where this god or these gods exist in the first place etc and all you end up with is a planet full of contradictory religions and belief systems where people kill each other for believing in the wrong god.

we agree, we should not rule God or chance in or out, consider both on their own merits.

'aflukedunnit' asks the same questions, that's a wash

what's not even is the capacity for chance versus creative intelligence, be it on the beach or the universe, to produce the observed result.

Stalin, Mao, Il Sung killed more than every religious conflict combined in a very short time, but drifting off topic here!

the original point being, whether or not we live in an accidental or purposeful world relates to whether abiogenesis and evolution are accidental or guided.

 

[ArtieE]

But we don't have a line from living to non-living. And if the process of creating life isn't classified in your mind as biological evolution then I am misunderstanding what you think abiogensis is

Abiogenesis is the process of creating life. "the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances." Google. Biological evolution is how it evolves after it's created.

And this isn't a useful way to research abiogensis. We can call it whatever you like but it doesn't make it meaningful. The same process that is happening to you and me and every other organism that has ever lived is the exact same process that happened with abiogensis.

Of course not. We start off as two cells. We don't go through abiogenesis.

 

[rusra02]

I think evolutionists avoid discussing life's beginnings because the only answer that makes sense and accords with known science ( not pseudoscience) is life comes from life. I agree with this quote:
"To be sure, the appeal to luck as the first cause does smack of myth. Imagine this: An archaeologist sees a rough stone that is more or less square. He may attribute that shape to chance, which would be reasonable. But later he finds a stone that is perfectly formed in the shape of a human bust, down to the finest details. Does he attribute this item to chance? No. His logical mind says, ‘Someone made this.’ Using similar reasoning, the Bible states: “Every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God.” (Hebrews 3:4) Do you agree with that statement?
“The more we get to know about our universe,” writes Lennox,[ John Lennox, Oxford University mathematician] “the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator God, who designed the universe for a purpose, gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.” (g11/10)

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Abiogenesis is the process of creating life. "the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances." Google. Biological evolution is how it evolves after it's created

The process of creating organic material from inorganic material is not abiogenisis but the creation of replicating proteins out of that would be.

Of course not. We start off as two cells. We don't go through abiogenesis.

The earliest part of abiogenisis would be the replication of proteins. That is all that cell division is. The chemical processes are the same.

 

[ArtieE]

can you be this sure God cannot possibly be involved?

Here's a list of gods. Can you be sure none of the gods on the list on the right are involved? Gods We Don’t Believe In

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I think evolutionists avoid discussing life's beginnings because the only answer that makes sense and accords with known science ( not pseudoscience) is life comes from life. I agree with this quote:
"To be sure, the appeal to luck as the first cause does smack of myth. Imagine this: An archaeologist sees a rough stone that is more or less square. He may attribute that shape to chance, which would be reasonable. But later he finds a stone that is perfectly formed in the shape of a human bust, down to the finest details. Does he attribute this item to chance? No. His logical mind says, ‘Someone made this.’ Using similar reasoning, the Bible states: “Every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God.” (Hebrews 3:4) Do you agree with that statement?
“The more we get to know about our universe,” writes Lennox,[ John Lennox, Oxford University mathematician] “the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator God, who designed the universe for a purpose, gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.” (g11/10)

Probability is a funny thing with atheists. The simplest mathematical sequence drifting across interstellar airwaves would be proof positive of alien intelligence, demonstrating humanity to be insignificant.

While the long list of excruciatingly finely tuned mathematical constants and algorithms necessary for physics, chemistry, biology to be functional, may be safely assumed to have accidentally blundered into existence for no particular reason.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Here's a list of gods. Can you be sure none of the gods on the list on the right are involved? Gods We Don’t Believe In

Pretty big drop off after first place

 

[ArtieE]

we agree, we should not rule God or chance in or out, consider both on their own merits.

'aflukedunnit' asks the same questions, that's a wash

You mean "naturedunnit"

the original point being, whether or not we live in an accidental or purposeful world relates to whether abiogenesis and evolution are accidental or guided.

Why can't an "accidental" world be purposeful? I know I'm just here by chance The chances of you existing but so what? Might as well make the best of it as long as I'm here.

 

[jonathan180iq]

or vice versa

Technically, it is entirely possible, at least slightly more than a 0% chance, that those letter were not put there by a person but washed up randomly. However, we could very easily conclude that they were put their by design, given the experimental examples that I used above. And the blatant probability that outliers are not the status quo

Now, the flip side of that is not what you think, however. It doesn't suddenly work in the reverse as a trap (meaning that what you're hoping to catch me saying or insinuating is that design is the more obvious precursor to study of the natural world)

If you are to assume that the existence of the cosmos, which has only every shown itself to be random via millions and billions of examples, is somehow different from being random, how would you support it?

Essentially, you're trying to make the argument that looking at the properly formed symbols, which spell out the word HELP, are obvious for design, thus the entirety of the world is evidence of design, you're just begging the question. This is no different than what Ray Comfort did in his epic fail of a debate on national television and what countless others have done before and after. (I just pick on Ray because he's easy. There are heavier hitters that have continually made the same mistake, and you yourself have admitted that you can't support design with evidence.)

This:

Based on the conclusions garnered from hundreds, possibly, thousands of other examples like it, can be quickly filed away as having been designed. The probability that the stone face was produced randomly would be irrational unless you have literally hundreds or thousands of contradictory examples to the former, showing how this could possibly be a random formation.

This:

However, has literally millions upon millions of examples supporting the deduction that it is a random occurrence. (Or would you look at this photo and point to the obvious design and fingerprint of an omniscient deity?) There are so many examples of these random formations, for example, that we even understand the variables and processes that shape them. We know, to a larger extent, what their formation entailed, based on scientific principles that were discovered before these things were even known to exist. Those very same scientific principles are used for predicting and studying other phenomena as well, all over the solar system, which match what we would expect to happen in a universe created by random processes.

If you're to argue, for example, that "sunsets are pretty therefore there must be a god" - then you have to likewise admit that there are far more numerous examples of that same designer being a complete dunce when it comes to all of the useless, random, crap that is just flying around in the darkness for no reason whatsoever...

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You mean "naturedunnit"Why can't an "accidental" world be purposeful? I know I'm just here by chance The chances of you existing but so what? Might as well make the best of it as long as I'm here.

'Nature is the executor of God's laws' Galileo

I don't know you can be sure you're an accident- but will agree on the outlook! must run..

 

[dust1n]

if you see the word HELP written in rocks, on a deserted island beach with no evidence of people around, do you assume the random action of the waves did it?

No.

If you see a random rock with nothing written on it, on a deserted island beach with no evidence of people around, do you assume an omniscient being who loves humanity did it?