Abiogenisis

[Valjean]

Ag

It does not make sense either way, because merely thinking something, does not make it true.
So, even if he thinks that "only science can tell us about the world", that does not make it true.

That's an ideology, or philosophy.
Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.

Again, you've missed the point entirely.

 

[Valjean]

It would have demonstrated that "life could come into existence through natural means" yes.
It would not have demonstrated that life actually did come into existence through natural means.

So what are the proposed, alternative mechanisms?

 

[nPeace]

I had written, "How about an example of an atheist making a dogmatic claim that cannot be supported and repeating it? Do you have one, or is that how you understood what you have read?" I assume that if you had such an example, you would have produced it.

You are asking me to use RF's broken search engine, where it's virtually impossible to find what you search for, and quote someone from another thread, which is not allowed.
I'm not interested is proving what you know is true though. You seem to put all atheists in a category where they do not all fit, and speak for all of them.
Go right ahead. That's not my bother.

No, they can't, not according to the rules of inference applied to evidence. If the process is done properly, it produces sound (correct) conclusions, and these cannot be successfully rebutted (falsified). It's analogous to applying the rules of inference that are the laws for addition to addends. Do it properly, and you arrive at a correct sum every time. And if one does it incorrectly, he can be shown that assuming he is conversant in those rules. This is how it works in academic circles. This is how peer review works. This is how jury trials proceed. If a scientist or prosecutor makes an error in an argument, his claim is falsifiable, and once again, if he is trained in the ways of critical thinking, it is possible to show him that. This process is also called debate and dialectic.

You see, the thing about that is, I agree with Mr. Goldman... not because of his qualifications...
Alvin Ira Goldman (born 1938) is an American philosopher who is Emeritus Board of Governors Professor of Philosophy and Cognitive Science at Rutgers University in New Jersey and a leading figure in epistemology.
...but he makes more sense than you.

And that's the kind of thing one comes up with then he isn't tethered to evidence and allows words to have whatever meaning suits him. Faith is not hope. I only practice the latter, and evidence of realities unseen is also meaningless. It can't be called evidence if it isn't evident, that is amenable to empirical analysis.

Where did you read that faith is hope?
Somehow, I am beginning to wonder about the posters in this thread.
Is the problem the eyes, understanding, or both... or something else.

Theory and hypothesis? Not in my experience. That's what lay people do, who often use the word theory to mean hypothesis or hunch. Scientifically literate people know how a theiry and hypothesis differ, and the difference is extreme.

Stay tuned.
When I have the time, I'll gather at least 3 quotes from actual scientists, who refer to hypotheses as theories.
Just because it's you.

If this is meant as an argumentagainst abiogenesis, it isn't. It's an argument that maggots don't develop from rotting meat in a few days or mice from rags and corn.


Why do you think this is relevant? You keep repeating it. Do you consider this evidence against naturalistic abiogenesis? Is that why you keep repeating it? Do you know what an ad ignorantiam fallacy is?


"Hoyle's Fallacy, sometimes called the junkyard tornado, is a term for Fred Hoyle's flawed statistical analysis applied to evolutionary origins, in which he compares the probability of cellular life evolving to the chance of a tornado "sweeping through a junkyard" and assembling a functional aeroplane"

Also, Hoyle was an atheist. He was making an argument that the origin of life was improbable - a very lucky coincidence, not the creation of an intelligent designer. There is a school of thought that life forms whenever the ingredients for it to do so are in an environment where they have the time to arrange themselves into dissipative structures according to the known laws of thermodynamics the way water freezes whenever conditions are right for it. Neither is a lucky coincidence of parts just happening to arrange themselves accidentally.

I know who Hoyle is.
The point is, an airplane cannot be assembled by a tornado.
Far more intricate and complex systems being assembled by chance, is no less absurd.

 

[exchemist]

You are asking me to use RF's broken search engine, where it's virtually impossible to find what you search for, and quote someone from another thread, which is not allowed.
I'm not interested is proving what you know is true though. You seem to put all atheists in a category where they do not all fit, and speak for all of them.
Go right ahead. That's not my bother.


You see, the thing about that is, I agree with Mr. Goldman... not because of his qualifications...
Alvin Ira Goldman (born 1938) is an American philosopher who is Emeritus Board of Governors Professor of Philosophy and Cognitive Science at Rutgers University in New Jersey and a leading figure in epistemology.
...but he makes more sense than you.


Where did you read that faith is hope?
Somehow, I am beginning to wonder about the posters in this thread.
Is the problem the eyes, understanding, or both... or something else.


Stay tuned.
When I have the time, I'll gather at least 3 quotes from actual scientists, who refer to hypotheses as theories.
Just because it's you.


I know who Hoyle is.
The point is, an airplane cannot be assembled by a tornado.
Far more intricate and complex systems being assembled by chance, is no less absurd.

Living organisms do not evolve by "chance". As Darwin explained, all those years ago, it is by variation and natural selection, analogous to what plant and animal breeders do, but in nature.

 

[Valjean]

I wonder why.
Since there are presents under the Christmas tree, then Santa Clause automatically follows. Huh?
Doesn't follow, does it?

You're missing the reasoning here, again.

 

[Valjean]

I know who Hoyle is.
The point is, an airplane cannot be assembled by a tornado.
Far more intricate and complex systems being assembled by chance, is no less absurd.

You're comparing apples and oranges; two entirely different mechanisms. They are not comparable.
Nor does science say that complex systems were assembled by chance.
All this has been explained to you over and over, yet it seems to go right over your head, and you're back with the same arguments a few posts later.

 

[Valjean]

Spontaneous generation is a superseded scientific theory that held that living creatures could arise from nonliving matter.

A scientific theory is one that's undergone a scientific methodology. Spontaneous generation was accepted on casual observation. It wasn't tested. When it was tested it was quickly ruled out.

Spontaneous generation was taken as scientific fact for two millennia.

It was assumed as fact. There was no careful observation, hypothesis formation or testing; no repeated attempts to rule it out. There was no peer review of experiments and methodology. Indeed, there were no experiments or methodology applied to the question. There were no repeated attempts to rule it out. How then, would this be a scientific fact?

Discarded theories[edit]

Biology[edit]

• Spontaneous generation – a principle regarding the spontaneous generation of complex life from inanimate matter, which held that this process was a commonplace and everyday occurrence, as distinguished from univocal generation, or reproduction from parent(s).

There is an edit button. Click it.

Proponents of at least some aspects of spontaneous generation included well-respected philosophers and scientists such as Aristotle, Rene Descartes, William Harvey, and Isaac Newton. Spontaneous generation was a popular notion due to the fact that it seemed to be consistent with observations that a number of animal organisms would apparently arise from nonliving sources.

Fact; Theory. That's not the point. Is it.

As you said, in casual discussion, scientists canget loose with their terminology. "Seeming to be consistent with observations" is not science.

Guess those scientists were unreasonable.
That's modern day mentality, I suppose.



A scientific fact is the result of a repeatable careful observation or measurement by experimentation or other means, also called empirical evidence. These are central to building scientific theories. Various forms of observation and measurement lead to fundamental questions about the scientific method, and the scope and validity of scientific reasoning.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.

See Experimental approach.[/QUOTE]Are you arguing against yourself, here?
Nobody attempted to verify these observations. Science was not applied.

 

[Valjean]

Did you mean "blueprint"?
All blueprints are intentional, and goal oriented, ALL.

Not when you're speaking figuratively and trying to simplify something by relating it to something familiar.

Biologically active??? Oh boy Am I talking Dutch, or something? Did I say something about being "biologically active".

No, you didn't, and that's the problem.

Must the Molecules of Life Always be Left-Handed or Right-Handed?

One of the strangest aspects of life on Earth—and possibly of life elsewhere in the cosmos—is a feature that puzzles chemists, biologists and theoretical physicists alike. Each of life’s molecular building blocks (amino acids and sugars) has a twin—not an identical one, but a mirror image. Just like your right hand mirrors your left but will never fit comfortably into a left-handed glove, amino acids and sugars come in both right and left versions. This phenomenon of biological shape selection is called “chirality”—from the Greek for handedness.

On Earth, the amino acids characteristic of life are all “left-handed” in shape, and cannot be exchanged for their right-handed doppelgänger. Meanwhile, all sugars characteristic of life on Earth are “right-handed.”. The opposite hands for both amino acids and sugars exist in the universe, but they just aren’t utilized by any known biological life form. (Some bacteria can actually convert right-handed amino acids into the left-handed version, but they can’t use the right-handed ones as is.) In other words, both sugars and amino acids on Earth are homochiral: one-handed.

Pardon me? You are saying that scientists mislead us?

Yes. Here they did, or someone did.
Read Subduction Zone's link in post #213, for an interesting history of the evolution of chirality.

Oh my head. What?
Just like the blender is not biological, water is not intelligent. There.

Exactly. chemistry and physics do not require the hand of God to guide them. They act and interact automatically. They grow and evolve automatically. Complexity and function do not require an intentional intelligence.

My point exactly. Thank you.
At least it got through to someone.
Tell that to @exchemist. It's kogical nonsense. It doesn't even begin to follow.

Huh? Not following you, here.

I hope you have not been hibernating, because, in such a case, you would need to wait until your brain thaws out, and see it a few days ago, come back to you.

Again, not following.

 

[F1fan]

"Hoyle's Fallacy, sometimes called the junkyard tornado, is a term for Fred Hoyle's flawed statistical analysis applied to evolutionary origins, in which he compares the probability of cellular life evolving to the chance of a tornado "sweeping through a junkyard" and assembling a functional aeroplane"

Also, Hoyle was an atheist. He was making an argument that the origin of life was improbable - a very lucky coincidence, not the creation of an intelligent designer. There is a school of thought that life forms whenever the ingredients for it to do so are in an environment where they have the time to arrange themselves into dissipative structures according to the known laws of thermodynamics the way water freezes whenever conditions are right for it. Neither is a lucky coincidence of parts just happening to arrange themselves accidentally.

The funny thing about what creationists are fighting for does not really help their religious beliefs. All they are suggesting is that abiogenesis didn't happen, but a creator made the buiulding blocks of life. And then billions of years of evolution? Of course they have to make huge leaps from there, that humans are special, were a sepcial creation, and didn't evolve. How'd that happen? No garden story works. How does it help the Christian to only assume that a supernatural force was the cause of organic chemicals forming, and that's it?

 

[Brian2]

This is kind of irrelevant, science only works with the natural world not the supernatural. And so far no one has demonstrated that a spiritual side even exists or even defined what it is supposed to be.

What science is trying to figure out or demonstrate is how life could come into existence through natural means, nothing else.

And that would happen when science succeeds in making artificial life.

 

[Brian2]

Abiogenesis is what likely happened. It just isn't set in stone yet

That is the science answer from the evidence that science can work with.
The faith answer is different, depending who you ask.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And that would happen when science succeeds in making artificial life.

They have already done that to a degree. That would not "prove abiogenesis" It would only show that if life was made that a God was not necessarily needed. That is why that scientific experiments in abiogenesis do not try to force the reactions. They break the concept down into problems and see if the individual problems could have a solution.

 

[rational experiences]

A human poses particular questions to storytellers.

A basic question did you invent the presence of all things?

As just a human.

You'd have to think for another story to give your answer. The answer.

Studies are beliefs.

As humans did not invent the presence of anything.

It can change bodies is proven.

So humans thinking ... I say I create only by sex. As my ownership mind conscious self body type a human. One self. Identified I need two humans. Each a self.

Everything about the human not attached except as the growing baby. By reactive interactions sex do I create beyond my own being. A human as biology.

The baby.

The baby not either human life body becomes new presence.

Beyond your life into a real future a new beginning. Human.

Now that baby might be DNA deficient.

Did it go back in time?

No.

It was created changed.

Humans the creator exact story.

Storyteller when you attack change a science body by your choice... does it go back in time?

No it gets changed.

 

[rational experiences]

They have already done that to a degree. That would not "prove abiogenesis" It would only show that if life was made that a God was not necessarily needed. That is why that scientific experiments in abiogenesis do not try to force the reactions. They break the concept down into problems and see if the individual problems could have a solution.

Back in time the thesis did evolution all the highest greatest types exist?

No.

The answer.

 

[Brian2]

You use the word only as if you know of the existence of something other than physical and chemical processes.

By faith I do, but that is not science. Abiogenesis is a science thing and any conclusion is a science answer and does not negate a religion answer. Abiogenesis may even eventually help us with our understanding of the scriptures more, but that would be down the track a bit.

What else, then? Are you bringing back the life force, a formerly postulated animating principle that is necessary for matter to live?

Yes a faith answer never did away with that force, but the force was spirit which probably has no evidence that science can work with.

What need for God? What is a god needed for?

To have created the building blocks of life and enables them to form into a life form, and to have provided spirit so that matter can be animated. That last one is something that science does not do away with just because it works out that the chemistry of bodies is possible to have happened naturally.

There is no evidence that makes a god a more likely explanation for that evidence than naturalistic alternatives. You mentioned

There may never be in science that has a naturalistic methodology and cannot evidence God.

None of that makes the existence of a god more likely, which is what evidence for a god needs to do to be called that. We have naturalistic alternatives for the existence of life and the universe that are more likely correct than a god hypothesis, since they don't require the existence of a sentient creator. Also, biblical prophecy is not high enough quality to suggest a transcendent prescience was its source, and scripture is not evidence of anything other than that people wanted to write those words down. There is not one thing known to be true because it appears in scripture. There are true things there, but we know that they're true empirically, not because somebody wrote it down.

That evidence is some of the evidence that a believer might have and it is fine in that way but not for science.

I've told you that I used to be a Christian. With the wave of a hand, God disappeared for me. How is that different?

Trans-dimensional constructor mice are self evidently nothing but the invention of humans, and humans that do not believe they exist. God has more evidence and rational argument for His existence and science not being able to use that evidence does not alter that. So making up names like the flying spaghetti monster etc is no argument at all.

Life is being assembled from nothing but chemicals in every growing and dividing cell. Just present the part to one another and they organize into life without intelligent oversight.

I don't think that already living cells that are fed and grow and multiply etc shows that life is purely chemical in nature. But that is all that science can see so that is the answer for all those who reject faith in the existence of a God.

Imagine a religion that taught that cars run because of a car force from God that makes cars start and run. An unbeliever says no, all one need do is arrange the parts in the proper way and turn the key. No, the believer argues, without the car force coming from the spirit world, the car wouldn't run. What car force, one asks. Oh, well science can't study it, and nobody can prove it doesn't exist.

No, no more that I would call the car force impossible. But I can't see giving the notion any credence. It adds nothing to the understanding of how cars work, just like gods and the life force. Merely being possible because there is no way to call something impossible isn't a very good reason for belief. How many things not known to be impossible but don't exist are there for every actual one? Consider all of the possible human genomes two parents might create with their known DNA compared to actual ones their children possess.

The workings of a car are know since man invented and made a car and nothing there is beyond the range of the chemicals involved AND the ingenuity of the inventors. When it comes to robotics we get into an area where some humans will eventually say that robots are alive. This brings in the concept of consciousness and all that involves. This is beyond supplying energy to a certain mechanical invention for movement from one place to another. This should give people pause to consider matter and how it could be conscious. Conscious is not the nature of matter. To say that it is the nature of matter under certain circumstances is no doubt what science will and has done, and that is because there is no evidence for a God that science can use so it has to be a natural phenomenon of matter.
It seems to be bringing magic into science through the back door of presumption.

There is no such thing as evidence that can't be analyzed empirically. Evidence is the noun form of evident. To be evidence, something must be evident to the senses, which makes it amenable to empirical testing. The idea that one has evidence that can't be studied is self-contradictory (lacks internal coherence).

I gave and you did analyse some evidence above so that makes it evidence.
It is not the sort of evidence used by science however.
Science, with naturalistic methodology does try to analyse the Bible and ends up rejecting the supernatural elements straight away. Interesting but stupid. Nevertheless it comes out with conclusions, usually about how wrong the Bible is. So it seems the Bible can be studied by science and certainly aspects of the history can be studied.
But individual humans who have not got the naturalistic methodology as their default, can analyse the evidence Bible and other evidence for God and allow it to unite with faith and believe what it says.
Science is not something that has faith however.
Some people turn themselves into science machines, but humans have faith, emotion and nuances that a rigid science has not. Science is there to serve us and not hinder our natural humanity. We are more than a brain.

 

[Brian2]

Anyone can make up any absurd idea and assert it is possible. That doesn't mean it is likely or even plausible.

That's true, but having no verified evidence does not automatically mean that it is impossible.

These ancient ideas of gods are not consistent with what science is discovering about the universe, so as time goes on it is less likely anyone's gods exists as they imagine it. Notice belioevers can't offer any evidence for the existence of their many gods. The question becomes why believers keep believing. It's not because of evidence.

Because they have faith, and of course most people probably have their personal evidence for the truth of what they believe.

Why not? If the evidence points to chemicals being transformed in nature then why would anyone reject the evidence and results in the exveriments?

I don't think we can reject the experiments and results but the conclusions aren't necessarily true. God is a spirit imo and science cannot study spirit. Science does not completely deny the possibility of God but has the naturalistic methodology and don't bring in the hypothesis of a supernatural being unless absolutely necessary. The supernatural is presumed out of the experiments.
When it comes to abiogenesis the chemistry that is studies might one day show that the bodies of creatures could come about naturally under the right circumstances. That is presumed to mean that life could come about naturally. The same goes for consciousness, the presumption is that it is a by product of matter.

How? There is no evidence as there is with a natural explanation. We see believers keep demanding more and more evidence on top of evidence to prove natural causes, but then can't show a single bit of evidence that any magic happened as explained in stories written by ancient people.

I do think it would be a good idea to actually make artificial life before accepting that abiogenesis is true. Science gets to a certain point and with the presumptions thrown in it is thought that something has been shown to be true.
But yes, you are right that that would not mean that the theological explanation is true.
Of course if abiogenesis was shown to be true us believers would interpret the Bible a different way so that it was OK no doubt,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and that can be done.

The reason abiogenesis is the most likely explanation is because of all the knowledge we have of how chemicals work. The experiments so far show inorganic chemicals can transform into organic chemicals. These are the building blocks of life.

The reason abiogenesis is the most likely explanation is because it works with the resr of science. It is plausible. There is no alternative explanation that the facts offer us. There are theists who want their religious beliefs considered as possible, but how are they possible without evidence? There is no rational reason to assume magic when abiogenesis has a great deal of evidence for.

If theists are going to claim that creationism offers an alternative, then you had better show us the objective and factual work, not devotion to religious belief.

I don't want to make the religious belief into a science and in fact we cannot study spirits either, so how would we do that. We have a faith and no matter what science says about life and if it is chemistry based, it is possible that they come to the wrong conclusion because they cannot study a prime ingredient, spirit, which makes matter able to be conscious of itself and etc.
So science brings magic into science (claiming matter can become alive and conscious) and everyone agrees with the men in the white coats. (except some religious people who can see the potential for mistakes in the testing and who point it out but nobody believes them because science knows)

Since we are all being such sticklers about evidence, there is no evidence that a God exists and said any such thing. You are referring to ancient stories by science illiterate people, and there is no evidence in support of these ideas.

It is a faith, it is not science. Many atheists say they hate religious type faith and want everything to be sifted by science before they will accept it, or even consider it, so deny any evidence that the Bible does contain, such as hundreds of prophecies that have come true. But of course even these are not definite proof, it requires faith to believe then but imo it also requires faith to reject them.

It's more than an assumption. All the facts about nature informs us it ic plausible. Where is the evidence that your version of god exists? Can you admit you are assuming these ancient stories are correct, and assuming the interpretations you adopted are true despite a lack of evidence, and even contrary evidence?

Yes I can admit faith in what I believe even if atheists don't seem to be able to do that in what they believe about nature.

 

[Brian2]

It seems to me this thread is a lengthy exhibition of black/white, binary thinking, where abiogenesis is either "scientifically proven" or it's merely a belief taken on faith. The possibility of gray areas between those two extremes is apparently beyond the ability of some folks to grasp.

Pretty fascinating to watch, really.

What is your position?
Mine it that the evidence that science uses points to abiogenesis being true even if it is not shown to be yet.
The conclusion might be wrong if science reaches that stage because science has not been able to see or study spirit, which could be a prime ingredient for life.

 

[Brian2]

Thanks for pointing that out.
Scientists look for natural explanations.
So, is it fair to say, scientists, are not necessarily seeking to follow the evidence where it leads, but presupposing that the evidence must lead to natural explanations?

To be fair, the only evidence that scientists see is the physical evidence.

 

[Brian2]

It would have demonstrated that "life could come into existence through natural means" yes.
It would not have demonstrated that life actually did come into existence through natural means.

True it has not demonstrated that life did do that but I guess science thinks it has done that because science knows nothing of spirits or God and so the logical conclusion, probably even before beginning abiogenesis studies, would be that life did come about naturally, and the research is more a finding out how.
I don't think that not being able to solve all the abiogenesis problems would mean that the proposition of a creator would be entertained however. It seems that for science to entertain that hypothesis there has to be verifiable evidence for a God.

 

[Brian2]

What evidence do we have for God that we don't have for the mice?

The history of God's dealings with humans as given in the Bible. (I use the Bible of course)
This contains many fulfilled prophecies but they aren't verifiable so are not valid for science to use. Nevertheless it is evidence for people of faith.
So all this is better than a few people mentioning the mice as sort of a substitute god almost and not supplying anything except that.