Do you believe in spontaneous organic life from non living elements?

[Parsimony]

That would take a different definition of intelligence probably.

How would it be different from the normal definition?

How do two ends of a magnet know to repel each other and is that intelligence or just a law of nature and the universe?

You do realize that, just as you are proposing that an intelligent designer came about through the laws of nature, abiogenesis also posits that life came about through the laws of nature. You say that there isn't good enough evidence that such a thing can happen, yet where is your evidence that an intelligence of the kind you are positing can come about in the way that you are proposing?

Keep in mind that we are all trying to figure this out with a brain that is just in it's infancy of development.

If you had told people a hundred years ago we would be able to visit other planets, clone animals and talk through waves of energy they would have laughed at you or maybe hung you as a witch.

So I believe the reason we do not see the answer is because our human intelligence is not developed to the point where we can accept that answer yet.

If that is the case, then why should one feel so certain that there is a way that an intelligent designer can come into being without having to be designed itself and therefore resulting in infinite regression?

Even the attempt to try and replicate that requires intelligent design in a lab.

Yet any attempt to try and replicate an intelligence requires intelligent design in a lab as well.

 

[Ouroboros]

Any honest scientist will admit that spontaneous life can not happen. Even the attempt to try and replicate that requires intelligent design in a lab.

Spontaneous generation is a discarded theory. Choose your terms wisely.

Here's some reading for you to get a better picture of it: http://www.britannica.com/science/abiogenesis

 

[Dante Writer]

Why did you ask "do you believe" and continued with "believe" and then ask for evidence for the theory?

There's a huge difference in my mind between the things I believe and the things I know about theories. The theory of evolution is one thing.

There's no plain or unified theory of abiogenesis yet, so it can't be given to you.

What I believe about abiogenesis is what I believe, not the theory that's still not in place.

So again? You're asking for the evidence for the theory of abiogenesis? Is that it?

Also, spontaneous generation was a theory, and it was wrong, and it's not the same as abiogenesis. I hope you know this, right?

"Why did you ask "do you believe" and continued with "believe" and then ask for evidence for the theory?"

Because all theories start with some form of belief that something will or will not happen and is put to a test. I did not ask for a scientific theory as that limits discussion.

"There's no plain or unified theory of abiogenesis yet, so it can't be given to you."

I didn't ask for any existing theory. I asked what you believed or your theory. You can have a personal theory and there is no law against it.

 

[Sapiens]

Any honest scientist will admit that spontaneous life can not happen.

Any honest scientist will admit that spontaneous life can not we do not yet know how life happened.

Even the attempt to try and replicate that requires intelligent design in a lab.

Now that is an interesting question, it you claim it could happen in a lab, given the size of the universe and the length of time available, and what we know from the WEASEL simulation, is it not more parsimonious to cut out the Intelligent Designing middle-man?

 

[Dante Writer]

How would it be different from the normal definition?

You do realize that, just as you are proposing that an intelligent designer came about through the laws of nature, abiogenesis also posits that life came about through the laws of nature. You say that there isn't good enough evidence that such a thing can happen, yet where is your evidence that an intelligence of the kind you are positing can come about in the way that you are proposing?

If that is the case, then why should one feel so certain that there is a way that an intelligent designer can come into being without having to be designed itself and therefore resulting in infinite regression?

Yet any attempt to try and replicate an intelligence requires intelligent design in a lab as well.

"How would it be different from the normal definition?"

Because the definition of intelligence you have is based on your limited human existence and experiences.

"You do realize that, just as you are proposing that an intelligent designer came about through the laws of nature, abiogenesis also posits that life came about through the laws of nature."

I did not propose an intelligent designer came from the laws of nature. The laws of nature may be that intelligence in a form our limited intelligence can not understand yet.

"where is your evidence that an intelligence of the kind you are positing can come about in the way that you are proposing?"

All around you. Do you believe some science laws are universal and exist and why? Who or what created the science laws?

"If that is the case, then why should one feel so certain that there is a way that an intelligent designer can come into being without having to be designed itself and therefore resulting in infinite regression?"

I am pretty sure I said energy was not created or destroyed.

 

[Ouroboros]

"Why did you ask "do you believe" and continued with "believe" and then ask for evidence for the theory?"

Because all theories start with some form of belief that something will or will not happen and is put to a test. I did not ask for a scientific theory as that limits discussion.

??? So you're asking for the scientific theory that I created based on my beliefs and then show you the scientific research that has gone into my belief theories?

"There's no plain or unified theory of abiogenesis yet, so it can't be given to you."

I didn't ask for any existing theory. I asked what you believed or your theory. You can have a personal theory and there is no law against it.

When you ask, "please tell us how that happened and evidence for that theory." It's understood as a scientific question rather than personal belief. Perhaps choose your words better, like "support for your belief" rather than "evidence for that theory." You completely threw me for a loop by asking it that way. It's like asking the pastor to "quote mark for spiritual ideas of giving" and really meant him to quote the neighbor Mark who drinks a lot.

So, okay. What are my beliefs in abiogenesis? I spelled out some of it earlier.

My belief and my personal theory is that nature can produce life under the right conditions simply because that's how nature works. If we assume that the universe is fine tuned for life, then life would be a nature product of that fine tuning, regardless how it got fine tuned. If we assume that life is impossible in this universe and life is a miracle, then we have to drop the "fine tuned for life" argument immediately since it's essentially contradictory. I do believe this universe will produce life, naturally (as a pantheist, it's a given).

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Any honest scientist will admit that spontaneous life can not happen. Even the attempt to try and replicate that requires intelligent design in a lab.

It's one of those problems that has become more difficult to solve (by chance) rather than less, the more we learn.

Darwin acknowledged several flaws in the theory that were only 'potential' in his day- long before they were borne out by science, abiogenesis being one of them. And that was just from contemplating a cell through a microscope
, he could not have imagined what was within.

 

[Dante Writer]

Spontaneous generation is a discarded theory. Choose your terms wisely.

Here's some reading for you to get a better picture of it: http://www.britannica.com/science/abiogenesis

I was very clear with my term. Any theory of abiogensis requires spontaneous generation of organic life from inorganic materials.

Unless you want to change the definition of life?

Saying it happened really slowly does not change the fact that when it went from being inorganic elements to being organic life that point was spontaneous creation of life from inorganic elements.

 

[LuisDantas]

"Sure. It is actually difficult to doubt it at this point."

So it is easier to believe life came from non living elements than to believe there is some other process you have not yet conceived of because in the big scheme of things human intellect is just in it's infancy of development and not capable of understanding that process.

Yes. I see no need whatsoever for mistifications of that kind.

No. That is still abiogenesis, not evolution. That did not change from the last fifty times or so it was pointed out to you in about a half dozen different threads."

Evolution requires a living organism to work the last time I looked?

My point exactly.

"Far more likely than not, from chance association of free floating organic molecules."

So you are basing that statement on what?

Rudimentary understanding of biology, particularly DNA workings; and of statistics and big numbers.

 

[Ouroboros]

I was very clear with my term. Any theory of abiogensis requires spontaneous generation of organic life from inorganic materials.

Unless you want to change the definition of life?

Terms have meanings. And to share ideas you have to use them to the extent that they make sense to people. If you misuse them, you cause confusion.

"Although many equate abiogenesis with the archaic theory of spontaneous generation, the two ideas are quite different. According to the latter, complex life (e.g., a maggot or mouse) was thought to arise spontaneously and continually from nonliving matter. While the hypothetical process of spontaneous generation was disproved as early as the 17th century and decisively rejected in the 19th century, abiogenesis has been neither proved nor disproved." -- Encyclopedia Britannica

Saying it happened really slowly does not change the fact that when it went from being inorganic elements to being organic life that point was spontaneous creation of life from inorganic elements.

There is a difference. But since you insist there isn't, there's nothing I can do or say to convince you otherwise.

 

[Parsimony]

Because the definition of intelligence you have is based on your limited human existence and experiences.

If it is a definition that was don't even have, then how can we say that it even qualifies as intelligence?

I did not propose an intelligent designer came from the laws of nature. The laws of nature may be that intelligence in a form our limited intelligence can not understand yet.

So now you are saying that the laws of physics might be intelligent? That would require evidence in itself.

All around you. Do you believe some science laws are universal and exist and why? Who or what created the science laws?

It really sounds like you are talking about a deity here. Are you a pantheist? Also, if the laws of nature themselves are the intelligence (as you implied above), then the intelligence did not create the laws as the laws would be the intelligence itself. Unless you can somehow show that an entity can create itself. Nobody knows why the laws of science are the way they are.

I am pretty sure I said energy was not created or destroyed.

Energy and intelligence are not the same thing though.

 

[Dante Writer]

??? So you're asking for the scientific theory that I created based on my beliefs and then show you the scientific research that has gone into my belief theories?



When you ask, "please tell us how that happened and evidence for that theory." It's understood as a scientific question rather than personal belief. Perhaps choose your words better, like "support for your belief" rather than "evidence for that theory." You completely threw me for a loop by asking it that way. It's like asking the pastor to "quote mark for spiritual ideas of giving" and really meant him to quote the neighbor Mark who drinks a lot.

So, okay. What are my beliefs in abiogenesis? I spelled out some of it earlier.

My belief and my personal theory is that nature can produce life under the right conditions simply because that's how nature works. If we assume that the universe is fine tuned for life, then life would be a nature product of that fine tuning, regardless how it got fine tuned. If we assume that life is impossible in this universe and life is a miracle, then we have to drop the "fine tuned for life" argument immediately since it's essentially contradictory. I do believe this universe will produce life, naturally (as a pantheist, it's a given).

"My belief and my personal theory is that nature can produce life under the right conditions simply because that's how nature works. If we assume that the universe is fine tuned for life, then life would be a nature product of that fine tuning, regardless how it got fine tuned. If we assume that life is impossible in this universe and life is a miracle, then we have to drop the "fine tuned for life" argument immediately since it's essentially contradictory. I do believe this universe will produce life, naturally (as a pantheist, it's a given)."

What are you calling "fine tuned for life"

That would promote intelligent design.

Here is a question that might help you.

Why do we have universal science laws and not complete chaos and where did those laws come from?

 

[Dante Writer]

If it is a definition that was don't even have, then how can we say that it even qualifies as intelligence?

So now you are saying that the laws of physics might be intelligent? That would require evidence in itself.

It really sounds like you are talking about a deity here. Are you a pantheist? Also, if the laws of nature themselves are the intelligence (as you implied above), then the intelligence did not create the laws as the laws would be the intelligence itself. Unless you can somehow show that an entity can create itself. Nobody knows why the laws of science are the way they are.

Energy and intelligence are not the same thing though.

[/QUOTE]

"If it is a definition that was don't even have, then how can we say that it even qualifies as intelligence?"
"Energy and intelligence are not the same thing though."

Do you see why I can not explain it to you?

"There is no deity in anything I said unless you want to call the laws of science a God and like I said that makes no difference to me.

"Are you a pantheist?"

No but I am sure you would love to find some label to hang on me so you can justify your own beliefs.

 

[Ouroboros]

"My belief and my personal theory is that nature can produce life under the right conditions simply because that's how nature works. If we assume that the universe is fine tuned for life, then life would be a nature product of that fine tuning, regardless how it got fine tuned. If we assume that life is impossible in this universe and life is a miracle, then we have to drop the "fine tuned for life" argument immediately since it's essentially contradictory. I do believe this universe will produce life, naturally (as a pantheist, it's a given)."

What are you calling "fine tuned for life"

That would promote intelligent design.

Maybe, maybe not. It wouldn't disprove abiogenesis. Rather the opposite. If the universe was intelligently designed to produce life, then abiogenesis is naturally exactly what it should be. Nature was made to produce life. So why is it impossible if that's what God wanted?

Here is a question that might help you.

Why do we have universal science laws and not complete chaos and where did those laws come from?

What does that have to do with the possibility of abiogenesis? Are you saying that abiogenesis can't come from God? God can't create a universe that can create life? I see. And it's proved by that the laws of nature came from God, but then you dismiss laws of nature to be able to produce life according to God's will? Why? Why can't your God do this? Why can't your God be smart enough to create a universe that produces life? If you believe this universe is fine tuned for life, the abiogenesis is natural and inevitable.

You accept intelligent design, but reject a design that is seriously intelligent. Why is that?

 

[Dante Writer]

Terms have meanings. And to share ideas you have to use them to the extent that they make sense to people. If you misuse them, you cause confusion.

"Although many equate abiogenesis with the archaic theory of spontaneous generation, the two ideas are quite different. According to the latter, complex life (e.g., a maggot or mouse) was thought to arise spontaneously and continually from nonliving matter. While the hypothetical process of spontaneous generation was disproved as early as the 17th century and decisively rejected in the 19th century, abiogenesis has been neither proved nor disproved." -- Encyclopedia Britannica


There is a difference. But since you insist there isn't, there's nothing I can do or say to convince you otherwise.

"There is a difference."

In abiogenesis the only difference i they spread it out over billions of years to make it look like it was not spontaneus but the moment those inorganic elements turned into organic life was spontaneous generation of life.

So you either accept spontaneous generation of life or you don't?

 

[George-ananda]

Do you believe in spontaneous organic life from non living elements?

No I don't. I believe life was fostered by conscious non-physical intelligences and that life can not be reduced to its material parts either.

 

[McBell]

How do two ends of a magnet know to repel each other and is that intelligence or just a law of nature and the universe?

Would this not be personification?

http://www.explainthatstuff.com/magnetism.html

 

[Dante Writer]

It's one of those problems that has become more difficult to solve (by chance) rather than less, the more we learn.

Darwin acknowledged several flaws in the theory that were only 'potential' in his day- long before they were borne out by science, abiogenesis being one of them. And that was just from contemplating a cell through a microscope
, he could not have imagined what was within.

Now most evolutionists won't even try to answer the question!

 

[McBell]

Any honest scientist will admit that spontaneous life can not happen. Even the attempt to try and replicate that requires intelligent design in a lab.

Yes, spontaneous generation was a Biblical belief that has thus been all but discarded due to science.

 

[Dante Writer]

No I don't. I believe life was fostered by conscious non-physical intelligences and that life can not be reduced to its material parts either.

Interesting. So in your belief what happens to the organic elements that make up your body when you die?