Life From Dirt?

[LuisDantas]

I am bringing out the fascinating detail I consider in the Bible, that Pharaoh had magic-practicing priests and Moses contended with them. So when someone says God did it by "magic," actually it's magical that things (evolution) just happened to happen by of forces beyond control of a superior intelligence. So it's kind of like magic against magic.

... except for nothing being at all like that, you mean?

Honestly, you are just making things out of thin air.

 

[YoursTrue]

... except for nothing being at all like that, you mean?

Honestly, you are just making things out of thin air.

(Isn't that what evolution does, starting with abiogenesis?)

 

[YoursTrue]

@LuisDantas but now that you mention it, thin air, I never thought about it. I'll look up what's thin air. Lack of oxygen maybe?

 

[shunyadragon]

I am bringing out the fascinating detail I consider in the Bible, that Pharaoh had magic-practicing priests and Moses contended with them. So when someone says God did it by "magic," actually it's magical that things (evolution) just happened to happen by of forces beyond control of a superior intelligence. So it's kind of like magic against magic.

The magic tricks performed by the priests and Moses were not extraordinary just the run of the mill magic tricks commonly performed at the time.

 

[shunyadragon]

(Isn't that what evolution does, starting with abiogenesis?)

No just objective verifiable evidence lacking in everything you post based on 'magic.'

 

[LuisDantas]

(Isn't that what evolution does, starting with abiogenesis?)

Nope.

First, evolution isn't about abiogenesis at all. Evolution is a biological process that happens to living organisms as they reproduce across generations.

Second, your magic is really very much unlike the presumable and IMO likely eventual arisal of molecules with self-replicating properties when there is a whole world and millions of years for chaotic combinations to develop.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nope.

First, evolution isn't about abiogenesis at all. Evolution is a biological process that happens to living organisms as they reproduce across generations.

Second, your magic is really very much unlike the presumable and IMO likely eventual arisal of molecules with self-replicating properties when there is a whole world and millions of years for chaotic combinations to develop.

Correct me if I'm wrong in your eyes. Would there be evolution without abiogenesis? I say no. What do you say?

 

[LuisDantas]

Correct me if I'm wrong in your eyes. Would there be evolution without abiogenesis? I say no. What do you say?

No, not at all. Why do you think so?

Evolution is a well documented fact, that happened and keeps happening.

Abiogenesis is at this point speculative (if IMO likely) and may well remain so forever.

Evolution is really independent of the exact origin of the first living organisms; it relies on the nature of said organisms and their descendants instead.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, not at all. Why do you think so?

Evolution is a well documented fact, that happened and keeps happening.

Abiogenesis is at this point speculative (if IMO likely) and may well remain so forever.

Evolution is really independent of the exact origin of the first living organisms; it relies on the nature of said organisms and their descendants instead.

OK, let me see now if I understand your reply. I understand you believe that evolution as described by science is a fact. I won't go into that now because I want to make sure I understand your position about abiogenesis. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that abiogenesis is not connected to, or necessary for the process of evolution to have started. Is that correct? After you answer, I'd like to hear your perspective as how the first living matter started and what it was. Thank you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

(Isn't that what evolution does, starting with abiogenesis?)

No, not at all. And remember, when you make the error of shifting the goalposts inappropriately you concede the prior argument. In other words when you shift the discussion to abiogenesis you concede the fact of evolution.

Evolution does not rely on natural abiogenesis. You have been told this countless times. I can think of three different ways that life could have begun on the Earth and natural abiogenesis is only one of them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Correct me if I'm wrong in your eyes. Would there be evolution without abiogenesis? I say no. What do you say?

Do you think that the 124th time that it is explained to you that you will understand?

 

[LuisDantas]

OK, let me see now if I understand your reply. I understand you believe that evolution as described by science is a fact.

It is. We have whole industries built around it, as a matter of fact.

I won't go into that now because I want to make sure I understand your position about abiogenesis. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that abiogenesis is not connected to, or necessary for the process of evolution to have started. Is that correct?

Sure.

Evolution might perhaps not have developed in the same way, or not have become possible at all if living organisms had a significantly different nature.

But how they came to be exactly isn't really relevant for evolution.

After you answer, I'd like to hear your perspective as how the first living matter started and what it was. Thank you.

I fully expect that it happened out of random chemical reactions, much as raindrops become spherical out of spontaneous forces acting on them.

It would be remarkable indeed if self-reproducting molecules never turned up.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is. We have whole industries built around it, as a matter of fact.

Industries built around evolution? Please explain what type of industries that would be.

 

[blü 2]

It sounds magical however we want it to have begun.

We're pretty confident it began. Exactly how, that's the question.

It is magical to think that the universe came from nothing.

I'm inclined to agree, but my concept of 'nothing' is absolute ─ zero mass-energy, dimensionless, utterly without properties or characteristics or location.

Which is why it seems more likely to me that the mass-energy involved in the Big Bang pre-existed, though in a manner and location unknown.

It is magical for order to be the result of chaos.

I don't see that. For me, magic means the power to alter reality independently of the rules of reality; whereas the rules of reality are realized in reality itself. If those rules didn't make life (as we earthlings understand the term) possible, we wouldn't be here talking about it. And no one would be able to say, Lucky thing too!

It is magical for life to come from non life.

I take you're aware of the branch of scientific research that's out to explain abiogenesis? It's a work in progress, but progress is being made.

Would it alter your faith if indeed abiogenesis is demonstrated in the lab? Because I expect it's only a matter of time for that to happen.

It is magical to think that we can be at this point in time yet if there has been an infinite amount of time in the past.

We don't think there's an infinite amount of time in the past. We think that time (as we understand it) began some 14 bn years ago with the Big Bang.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is. We have whole industries built around it, as a matter of fact.



Sure.

Evolution might perhaps not have developed in the same way, or not have become possible at all if living organisms had a significantly different nature.

But how they came to be exactly isn't really relevant for evolution.



I fully expect that it happened out of random chemical reactions, much as raindrops become spherical out of spontaneous forces acting on them.

It would be remarkable indeed if self-reproducting molecules never turned up.

Just the way you express it, that these self replicating molecules turned up..no evidence of this, is there?. They turned up,? From...??? Yes, I know ,, outer space or water...or maybe volcanoes. And then what happened after they supposedly turned up. Would the transition from non life to life be considered abiogenesis? I've heard statements that maybe way out there evolution has occurred in other areas of the universe. No evidence. Just maybe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just the way you express it, that these self replicating molecules turned up..no evidence of this, is there?. They turned up,? From...??? Yes, I know ,, outer space or water...or maybe volcanoes. And then what happened after they supposedly turned up. Would the transition from non life to life be considered abiogenesis? I've heard statements that maybe way out there evolution has occurred in other areas of the universe. No evidence. Just maybe.

Please do not use strawman arguments. No one is claiming that. This is why experiments like the Urey Miller experiment were so important. That experiment showed that amino acids could form naturally. They may have had the mechanism wrong. But still there work stands because before that it was thought that they could only come from life. Since then we have observed more sources than they had. Their source was reactions in thunderstorms. Since then we found that they are in carbonaceous chondrites. The are also formed deep in the sea around black smokers even today. And those definitely existed 4 billion years ago. Black smokers have other prebiotic chemicals as well. Plus reactions with certain clays may have played a role. We have what appear to be all of the elements needed for life to start with those. That does not mean that life had to start there, but it is looking very promising.

 

[Brian2]

I believe what I believe based on reason and evidence.

Me too.

If I find that I believe something that isn't supported by the available evidence, I stop believing it.

I don't necessarily stop believing it.

So there is no way to determine which interpretation is the correct one, but you're sure you've got the correct interpretation. And if it seems wrong, then you just re-interpret it. ... ??

It is a matter of believing that God's Word is true. If one interpretation is not true, I look for another.

 

[Brian2]

It seems you already realize you've made the logical fallacy called the argument from incredulity.
And yet you posit it anyway?

Does a logical fallacy mean that the conclusion is wrong?

 

[Brian2]

This was in response to, "I have evidence for the undetectable but no evidence for the non existent. The evidence is not verifiable in any scientific way but is there nonetheless."

Evidence that is not verifiable is not evidence. It's just a claim.

You've repeatedly claimed that you have "evidence for the undetectable" but when pressed on it, you've provided zero evidence for the undetectable. Your claim itself is illogical in the first place, as you're claiming to be able to detect that which is undetectable.

I detect the undetectable God by faith that He exists and allowing Him to show Himself to me.
I have evidence for God that is evidence in my eyes even though you say you want more and better evidence.
How do you propose that evidence that God exists can be verified to be true or shown to be false?
I don't know how to do that, you don't know how to do that, science does not know how to do that.
How can anything be evidence for God if (as skeptics say to me ) I first need to show that a God exists? iow I have to give evidence for God before I can give evidence for God.

 

[Brian2]

How did you determine the purpose of why we're (supposedly) here? What is it?
And why do you feel the need to have purpose foisted upon you by some outside force?

There is no purpose for my existence or for the existence of anything without a creator, the outside force.
I determined the purpose from faith in the creator and listening to Him.
The purpose of life for us is to find the creator and to serve the creator and enjoy the creator and thank the creator.