Discussing the Origin of Life

[Thief]

Now, now --you know perfectly well that natural selection is natural.

God set the motion

into motion

the chemistry has rules
He made the rules

 

[Valjean]

flip the coin

evolution is played by God.....for His entertainment

are you clowning around?

What are you taking about? I see neither evidence nor need for an intentional manipulator. If you've got some evidence for this do let us know.

 

[Thief]

What are you taking about? I see neither evidence nor need for an intentional manipulator. If you've got some evidence for this do let us know.

you .....are the evidence

go look in the mirror

you are your own handiwork?

or maybe you are some far fetched accident?

 

[Valjean]

you .....are the evidence

go look in the mirror

you are your own handiwork?

or maybe you are some far fetched accident?

I see the product of unguided natural selection, and that I need a shave.....

 

[Thief]

I see the product of unguided natural selection, and I need shave.....

and I need a hair cut

 

[Astrophile]

you .....are the evidence

go look in the mirror

you are your own handiwork?

or maybe you are some far fetched accident?

In one sense, we are all the result of a series of far-fetched accidents. We only have to think of the probability of our parents meeting, and of each set of grandparents meeting, and so on back through time to realise that our own existence is extremely improbable. However, that improbability does not change the fact that we are here, and without the need of any supernatural intervention.

 

[exchemist]

And such experiments have been done, reproducing different possible environments, Each generated organic molecules, components of life, self generating structures, &c. The experiments support the theory.
Just because a few early experiments didn't generate complex, living, reproducing life isn't evidence the theory's wrong.
The first experiments with heavier than air flight weren't totally successful, either.
This is an unsupported assertion, and evidence militates against it. And yet no-one with relevant expertise shares this opinion.

Chemistry has no bias at all, yet it does what it does all unintended and undirected. The life permitting patterns are, themselves, self generating and self reproducing. The ones that aren't don't persist, they aren't selected for.

What alternative are you proposing: an unnecessary god, using magic, to poof life into being fully formed? And this you think is the more reasonable proposition?
I start with the testable observation that life exists where once it did not. I see two possible explanations: It occurred naturally, by ordinary forces like chemistry and physics, or it was seeded from elsewhere -- which only moves the venue.
Goddidit is not an explanation. It's an assertion of agency. The assumed "mechanism" must be magic, which has never been observed, is not possible under any theory, is unnecessary considering natural mechanisms, and is, thus, entirely unsupported.
You're asserting the latter is the more 'reasonable'.
Why? It's still an appeal to magic.
50% / 50% chance? How did you get that?
. Medical technology? Genetic technology?
No, they're examples of the correct belief that the conditions inside a can of peas is very unlikely to suddenly generate a race of pathogens evolved to infect humans.
We do not assume abiogenesis is impossible, only you and a few other religious magic-believers believe this -- and your belief is unsupported.
How does entropy prevent it? It seems unlikely, inasmuch as we can see it. Why do actual chemists and physicists, who understand entropy, not agree with you?
But natural selection does just that -- easily.
Eg: I take 1000 dice and roll them. Statistically, one in six will probably be sixes. I take these and set them aside, and roll the remaining ~834. I set the sixes aside again and repeat with ~695....
You see where this is going. It's only going to take a comparatively few generations to have all sixes.
That's why they call it natural selection.

* And equally possible that it was designed by interdimentional mice, or engineering-faeries. Why God?
* And this still doesn't explain the mechanisms involved. It posits only who, not how. So we're back to magic....
* 4.6B years ago the physics, chemistry, natural laws and constants were already in place. They didn't need the God to generate life at that point.
See above.

Very funny to see @leroy bulls****ing about statistical mechanics. He doesn't know any statistical mechanics. He's just trying to sound sciency.

This is the issue with ID. It is just creationism, repackaged in the language of science in order to impress people who don't know any.

 

[Valjean]

and I need a hair cut

I wondered why the hoodie.

 

[Thief]

without the need of any supernatural intervention.

Someone set all of this in motion

substance is not self starting

 

[Valjean]

Someone set all of this in motion

Yes, I hear what you're saying, but repeating or rewording it in multiple posts doesn't support your creationism. "Someone set all of this in motion" still doesn't follow, and you haven't made a case for it.

substance is not self starting

Now we're going back to the Big Bang. So what mechanism are you proposing to explain it?

 

[Astrophile]

Someone set all of this in motion

substance is not self starting

Perhaps so. The question is whether all of this was set in motion at the Big Bang and then it ran of its own accord, without any supernatural intervention, to the present day, or whether someone made it all in essentially its present form a few thousand years ago and keeps intervening to make it go as he or she wants it to. No doubt there are other possibilities between these two extremes.

Another question is 'who, or what, set the "someone" in motion?'.

 

[Thief]

Another question is 'who, or what, set the "someone" in motion?'.

reduce all motion to the primordial singularity

and science would have you believe....nothing moves
without something to move it

substance is not 'self' motivating

Spirit First

we get to ask Him....how He did it
when we get 'there'

btw
rotation is the proof He did it

 

[exchemist]

In one sense, we are all the result of a series of far-fetched accidents. We only have to think of the probability of our parents meeting, and of each set of grandparents meeting, and so on back through time to realise that our own existence is extremely improbable. However, that improbability does not change the fact that we are here, and without the need of any supernatural intervention.

Absolutely. There is this - sometimes wilful - misunderstanding about probability, which seems to assume that because something has a low probability, it can't have happened spontaneously. Whereas almost any individual outcome is just one of many and thus has a low probability. But that doesn't mean no outcome is likely.

 

[gnostic]

reduce all motion to the primordial singularity

and science would have you believe....nothing moves
without something to move it

substance is not 'self' motivating

Spirit First

we get to ask Him....how He did it
when we get 'there'

btw
rotation is the proof He did it

You have no idea what you are talking about, Thief.

There are no evidence to support “God did anything”, because God himself is not falsifiable.

Because to be falsifiable, you must come up with some ways to test God, through observations, eg multiple evidence (hence empirical evidence) that you can quantify or measure God...and you cannot do any of the above.

Since you have joined this RF and to this day, you still cannot grasp the basic concept of scientific evidence.

All you do is make new claims, or repeat and recycle old claims (eg “God did it”, “Spirit First”, etc), without putting forward even a single evidence to support your empty claims.

“Spirit First” is just a claim, not evidence.

You say “rotation is the proof He did it”, is merely another empty assertion, not a demonstration of “how He did it”.

Why do you continue this line of craps, if you aren’t going to support any of these claims.

These claims are nothing more than wishful superstitions.

 

[shunyadragon]

ok....so the FIRST collection of molecules to be ......alive
would be.....

WHAT?

bacteria

 

[shunyadragon]

you .....are the evidence

go look in the mirror

you are your own handiwork?

or maybe you are some far fetched accident?

None of the above. This is just random fooolishness.

 

[WalterTrull]

Do you think we need better mirrors or better glasses? Maybe both.

 

[WalterTrull]

bacteria

I think I heard them play in East Orange once.

 

[Valjean]

Didn't Archaea open for them?

 

[shunyadragon]

I think I heard them play in East Orange once.

Bacteria performance canceled due to COVID-19