Building bocks, Chemicals and Life

[Subduction Zone]

We have been through the DNA one and I know that it is a subjective view for people who accept evidence other than what science can use. If you accept only science and evidence that science can use then you reject theological evidence probably. (Not that theology rejects true scientific evidence).

I don't have to prove the presumption of no creator. That is part of the philosophy of science, no injecting God unless the evidence tells us otherwise. God is not needed if the evidence does not show a God is involved. ( not that science knows what to look for in relation to this evidence for God)
So atheists often want to say that science has eliminated God because science knows scientific mechanisms. All it eliminated was the idea that God was there doing things supernaturally, it did not eliminate God or the need for God.
This of course could mean that God brought life about naturally, chemically and through natural processes, however at this stage it is nothing but wishful thinking and false science to say that science has shown that life came about through natural processes only.

Right away you admitted to not having scientific evidence.

The nice thing about scientific evidence is that it follows clear rules. It is objective and not subjective.

And please, drop your strawman arguments about what atheists believe.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You are making the hypothesis of abiogenesis into a proven fact even before it has been proven.

I don't think I did. What I said was, "If abiogenesis can occur, like every other chemical process, it will occur whenever the conditions are right for it, like ice melting," and, "Life is synthesized from chemicals every day, and it occurs in living cells without intelligent oversight. It is obviously just a matter of arranging the right ingredients in the right milieu. They bind together of their own accord." What didn't you like about either of those comments?

So all you need to show is that [abiogenesis] happened once.

I think the best that can be hoped for is to show that abiogenesis is consistent with the known laws of chemistry, and that it could have happened.

I was refuting the claim that because it exists on earth that means it does exist elsewhere. That is a claim that life did begin without a life giver.

I don't recall seeing that claim. Virtually everybody claims that we don't know of any life existing anywhere but Earth. And why argue that point anyway? Refute the best arguments if you can. The presence of life on earth is good evidence that life might be found elsewhere however life arises.

The argument that all life comes from previous life has already been rebutted. I believe I rebutted it for you recently. You believe that there is life that didn't come from other life. Is your dod alive? If your answer is yes, then your god is life that didn't come from other life. Do you consider disembodied mind not living? Then the life it created is life from nonlife.

you end up denying the evidence for God by saying it cannot be studied by science.

All evidence can be subject to critical analysis. If something cannot be studied empirically, claims about it are not falsifiable, and it can be treated as nonexistent. Evidence previously offered as supporting a god belief has been rejected as sufficient to support belief according to the rules of inference (reason). This includes scripture and other testimony, nature itself including living cells, and assorted arguments from the Middle Ages.

science works with the presumption of no supernatural intervention.

I've studied a lot of science. No professor, textbook, or other source for science knowledge made that claim. The word supernatural doesn't appear in the sciences to my knowledge. God don't appear in scientific theories not because they are excluded, but because they add nothing to the explanatory and predictive power of any scientific theory.

Furthermore, as with many other religious concepts such as design, macroevolution, the kinds, and gods themselves, supernatural has no clear, distinct meaning.

But you seem to like the idea that lack of evidence for God in the sciences shows that God does not exist and that life must have come from chemistry and physical processes only. Science does not claim that life comes only from natural processes. That hubris comes from atheists who misuse science to try to show that science is on their side.

I think that "hubris" comes more from apologists transforming the arguments they see into the ones they prefer to rebut. You keep listing things that most of us neither claim nor believe. I do not claim that gods don't exist, and neither does anybody else who calls himself an agnostic atheist. I have never claimed that abiogenesis has been shown to be correct, and I don't recall reading that from anybody else, although it wouldn't matter if I had, just as it doesn't matter that some atheists deny that gods can or do exist. Lack of sufficient evidence to believe in gods is reason for the critical thinker to not agree with those who choose to believe in them.

 

[Brian2]

Correct, I was speaking of rational thought in general.

If you do not want to reason rationally no one can force you to. No one will even try to make you reason rationality. The most we can do is help.

And no, there is no need of such a presumption. Why do you think that there is?

Thanks but I am reasoning rationally and finding that others are not reasoning rationally and seem to intentionally miss the points I am making.
I know you think you are helping and want others and even me to think that I am somehow on the insane side, but that is nowhere near the truth................. imo.
And in science in most things there is no need to bother about the naturalistic methodology, it does not affect theology at all, but in areas where science is wanting to show things that directly contradict theologies (and of course I am thinking of the Biblical theology) then the naturalistic methodology should be considered more deeply by scientists in things they might want to claim, so that they are not just making the presumption of no supernatural input in order to justify what is claimed.

 

[Brian2]

Right away you admitted to not having scientific evidence.

The nice thing about scientific evidence is that it follows clear rules. It is objective and not subjective.

And please, drop your strawman arguments about what atheists believe.

I don't need scientific evidence, that is your thing, wanting people to prove God scientifically.
My belief in God is subjective and I have my subjective evidence. If you want science to prove God then you are asking of science what science cannot do and what you should know that science cannot do. It is hiding from God in science,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, which is so orderly and with clear objective rules.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't need scientific evidence, that is your thing, wanting people to prove God scientifically.
My belief in God is subjective and I have my subjective evidence. If you want science to prove God then you are asking of science what science cannot do and what you should know that science cannot do. It is hiding from God in science,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, which is so orderly and with clear objective rules.

If you want to claim to be reasoning rationally you do.. If you want to claim to have valid evidence you do. Subjective evidence is not reliable. It is not even "evidence" by any proper definition of the term.

You can have all of the irrational beliefs that you want. But that means you should not be offended when corrected.

 

[Left Coast]

I don't know if God created live elsewhere in the universe.
However as I said, we cannot tell if life is elsewhere just because there is life on earth. To say we can tell, is to say either that we know all things God has done or that we know that life comes from chemicals only and so the law of probability tells us that life started elsewhere also.
So I am not arguing either way about if there is life or not elsewhere. All I am doing is saying that we do not know and to say we do know is a statement of faith.

So far I haven't encountered many people who say they know. There are those who say they've been abducted of course, but those folks are pretty rare. Most others wouldn't say they know.

 

[Heyo]

Chemicals combine, yes.
We don't have evidence of magical intervention into that process, true.
So are you saying that life therefore had to have happened naturally and chemically?
There seems to be a big leap in logic there.
It is interesting that we would not know how that intervention would occur but you are willing to say that somehow unknown, inanimate chemicals did manage to become animate and conscious naturally.

If they did, we can show how using scientific methods. If it was magic, we wouldn't even know where to start.

Do you think that science can ignore that bit, the how it happened, and leave it as a possibly temporary unknown, but still claim that it happened naturally because science can only study chemicals and natural processes and must not allow the supernatural to enter into it if unneeded?

Yes, that is what science does. It always operates under the assumption of naturalism.

Has it been shown that the supernatural is unneeded for life to happen just because science cannot find evidence of God intervention?

It has been shown that the supernatural wasn't needed for anything else to happen. With a track record of exactly zero percent, why should we still contemplate the supernatural?

 

[wellwisher]

It is a claim that results from a basic axiom of science. Scientists believe in an orderly universe. I.e. that the laws of nature are the same, independent of space or time. Deviations and exception must have reasons and must be evidenced.
Magical thinking allows for exceptions without reason or evidence.

I can accept how science assumes the laws of physics are the same throughout the universe. I can also accept the observation that the raw materials needed for life can be found all over the universe. However, nobody has any hard evidence of life on any other planet beside earth. The assumption of life on other planets is based on faith, and not hard science proof. This is a type of faith religion with lab coats.

Faith in life on other planets appears to come from a lottery logic mentality stemming from casino science. If we had life lotteries in every country of the world, we would expect lottery winners in all countries over time.

It would not be inconsistent with the science casino odd makers to find only one winner in one place, ever. That inconvenient proof might disprove all of lottery science, so it needs to be avoided. Something else may be at work or else science has a big problem with faith in the wrong math.

An alternative way to explain the only hard data, is the odds of winning the life lottery; forming evolving life, could be so high, that life lottery winners would not occur very often. This would be consistent with the observed data which then says a life lottery winner only occurs once every 15 billion years and will only occur in one place; first. The rest is based on faith in the long odds, which is not very scientific. This assumption keeps the science casino open for business but hurts feelings.

Amino acids, which form protein, are common in the universe. Polymerization into protein is less common because this polymerization is endothermic, especially in water. It gives off water and if it occurred in water, the release of water will become inhibited and/or reversible.

One work around is to polymerize protein in light weight organic emulsions. We can use surface tension for some extra energy while partially avoiding only the water. But this would require that organic oils had to appear before the protein.

This was shown to be the case in the 1950's, where complex carbon materials formed within life starting experiment using electric sparks to simulate lightning. This assumption comes in conflict with the meme of fossil fuel. It would suggest oil and pseudo-coal type products are much older than life, and that life may have infiltrated these pools later to create a false positive that would became a political tool.

From Wikipedia; Miller experiments.

An article in The New York Times (March 8, 1953:E9), titled "Looking Back Two Billion Years" describes the work of Wollman (William) M. MacNevin at Ohio State University, before the Miller Science paper was published in May 1953. MacNevin was passing 100,000 volt sparks through methane and water vapor and produced "resinous solids" that were "too complex for analysis."

These complex organic surfaces in water may have been energetically favorable.

 

[Heyo]

I can accept how science assumes the laws of physics are the same throughout the universe. I can also accept the observation that the raw materials needed for life can be found all over the universe. However, nobody has any hard evidence of life on any other planet beside earth. The assumption of life on other planets is based on faith, and not hard science proof. This is a type of faith religion with lab coats.

Faith in life on other planets appears to come from a lottery logic mentality stemming from casino science. If we had life lotteries in every country of the world, we would expect lottery winners in all countries over time.

It would not be inconsistent with the science casino odd makers to find only one winner in one place, ever. That inconvenient proof might disprove all of lottery science, so it needs to be avoided. Something else may be at work or else science has a big problem with faith in the wrong math.

My stance on life outside Earth is here. I see no reason why life shouldn't have emerged elsewhere but without the slightest hint I also don't see that it had to.

An alternative way to explain the only hard data, is the odds of winning the life lottery; forming evolving life, could be so high, that life lottery winners would not occur very often. This would be consistent with the observed data which then says a life lottery winner only occurs once every 15 billion years and will only occur in one place; first. The rest is based on faith in the long odds, which is not very scientific. This assumption keeps the science casino open for business but hurts feelings.

Amino acids, which form protein, are common in the universe. Polymerization into protein is less common because this polymerization is endothermic, especially in water. It gives off water and if it occurred in water, the release of water will become inhibited and/or reversible.

One work around is to polymerize protein in light weight organic emulsions. We can use surface tension for some extra energy while partially avoiding only the water. But this would require that organic oils had to appear before the protein.

This was shown to be the case in the 1950's, where complex carbon materials formed within life starting experiment using electric sparks to simulate lightning. This assumption comes in conflict with the meme of fossil fuel. It would suggest oil and pseudo-coal type products are much older than life, and that life may have infiltrated these pools later to create a false positive that would became a political tool.

From Wikipedia; Miller experiments.

An article in The New York Times (March 8, 1953:E9), titled "Looking Back Two Billion Years" describes the work of Wollman (William) M. MacNevin at Ohio State University, before the Miller Science paper was published in May 1953. MacNevin was passing 100,000 volt sparks through methane and water vapor and produced "resinous solids" that were "too complex for analysis."

These complex organic surfaces in water may have been energetically favorable.

One of the current hypothesis is montmorillonite. It may not be the last word but it is more probable than the "pond and lightning" hypothesis.
But at least scientists have hypothesis they can test. Creationists have only have "its magic".

 

[Brian2]

If you want to claim to be reasoning rationally you do.. If you want to claim to have valid evidence you do. Subjective evidence is not reliable. It is not even "evidence" by any proper definition of the term.

You can have all of the irrational beliefs that you want. But that means you should not be offended when corrected.

Surely I can be offended whenever and if ever I am offended.

 

[Brian2]

So far I haven't encountered many people who say they know. There are those who say they've been abducted of course, but those folks are pretty rare. Most others wouldn't say they know.

Now abduction is evidence of life elsewhere in the universe if ever there was, and all those UFO sightings.
Well it is at least evidence that there is life here on earth.
Most people would not use know but many do say that the probability is great. This is a statement of faith in their materialist view of the universe and of what life is.
Even to say there is some chance of life elsewhere shows a materialist mentality about what life is imo

 

[Brian2]

If they did, we can show how using scientific methods. If it was magic, we wouldn't even know where to start.

If it was supernatural intervention then I would begin with "who did it" and not "how was it done". The "how" question would be less relevant.
But imo it is magic for inanimate chemicals to become conscious, living chemicals, but science seems to have found a way to deal with it. Define life and even consciousness is physical terms. So life and consciousness are emergent properties of matter. This almost takes the magic out of it because it is science which is doing this and we can trust science, right. If the only thing they can find to study when it comes to life is chemistry then that must mean that there is no spirit and no life giver. That is a reasonable conclusion from the science but it is not science that goes that far, it is atheists who use science to justify their atheism and take science that further step.

It has been shown that the supernatural wasn't needed for anything else to happen. With a track record of exactly zero percent, why should we still contemplate the supernatural?

But does finding natural mechanisms for what we observe show that God was not needed? I don't think so.
It shows that chemistry and physics work well but does not show that there is no creator or designer or life giver.
Interestingly it is the beginnings, what God in the Bible tells us that He actually did, that is the sticking point for science.
Thanking God for all He has given us is probably more rational that saying "No I want more evidence or I'll just believe that science will one day find out, or not, but it is belief in humanity's ability and science for me and not belief in a creator, life giver."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Surely I can be offended whenever and if ever I am offended.

My point was that when one makes foolish or ignorant claims that one shouldn't be offended when corrected.

 

[Left Coast]

Now abduction is evidence of life elsewhere in the universe if ever there was, and all those UFO sightings.
Well it is at least evidence that there is life here on earth.
Most people would not use know but many do say that the probability is great. This is a statement of faith in their materialist view of the universe and of what life is.
Even to say there is some chance of life elsewhere shows a materialist mentality about what life is imo

It isn't a "statement of faith," it's an assessment of probability. Statistics aren't "faith," by any reasonable definition.

Secondly, your last statement made no sense given what you've already conceded. You have no idea whether there is life on other planets. Which means...there might be, right? Admitting that isn't a "materialist" statement. You as a non-materialist have already admitted your deity may have magically created life on other planets. So what's the big deal here? We're all in agreement that... there may be life elsewhere. We don't know.

 

[Brian2]

My point was that when one makes foolish or ignorant claims that one shouldn't be offended when corrected.

A wise person learns from being corrected.

 

[Brian2]

It isn't a "statement of faith," it's an assessment of probability. Statistics aren't "faith," by any reasonable definition.

Secondly, your last statement made no sense given what you've already conceded. You have no idea whether there is life on other planets. Which means...there might be, right? Admitting that isn't a "materialist" statement. You as a non-materialist have already admitted your deity may have magically created life on other planets. So what's the big deal here? We're all in agreement that... there may be life elsewhere. We don't know.

Saying there is a chance of life elsewhere in the universe usually shows a belief/faith that life is chemical based. That is what gives life a chance of being elsewhere in the universe.
If God has to animate inanimate chemicals then it is not a matter of probability, it's a matter of whether God put life elsewhere or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A wise person learns from being corrected.

We shall see then.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Saying there is a chance of life elsewhere in the universe usually shows a belief/faith that life is chemical based. That is what gives life a chance of being elsewhere in the universe.
If God has to animate inanimate chemicals then it is not a matter of probability, it's a matter of whether God put life elsewhere or not.

No, it is not faith. The evidence tells us that life is likely to occur throughout the universe. Faith is a belief without evidence. Now if someone claimed to "know" that there was life elsewhere in the universe you might have a legitimate claim. But no one has done that here.

 

[Left Coast]

Saying there is a chance of life elsewhere in the universe usually shows a belief/faith that life is chemical based. That is what gives life a chance of being elsewhere in the universe.
If God has to animate inanimate chemicals then it is not a matter of probability, it's a matter of whether God put life elsewhere or not.

I understand that. Point is, you both end in the same place - you both acknowledge that other life might be out there, and neither of you know for sure.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand that. Point is, you both end in the same place - you both acknowledge that other life might be out there, and neither of you know for sure.

I do not deny the faith of honest theists, but it seems many of them want to accuse others have having faith when they don't. It seems as if they see faiths shortcomings and a Tu Quoque fallacy is the only way that they can feel better about their own beliefs.