Life From Dirt?

[Heyo]

OK so you are giving your opinion on how common abiogenesis is. The trouble is that abiogenesis is not just the forming of one or 2 chemicals or even 100 chemicals, it is the whole process of new life forming.
We don't see that happening and from what science tells us it needs special conditions and environment. And even in the environment that science suggests it happened, it still does not happen today.
That sounds fairly uncommon to me and suggests low probability.

Yep. The problem is that we don't know exactly what conditions are necessary and when exactly they occurred.
Scientists have several hypothesis which still need to be tested. Some have been tested and it has been found that most of the components of life could have come together under multiple conditions very easily. The Miller-Urey experiments found amino acids in different atmospheres. Lipid bi-layers form spontaneously in the presence of montmorillonite.
As for the probability, it is 1. It did happen. And chemistry is a deterministic process. If the conditions are there, chemistry will happen, probability = 1.
What is probabilistic (well, at least chaotic) is how often the conditions occur. It must be relative high (once in every 100 million years or so) because life formed on Earth basically as soon as it was possible - or we got extremely lucky.

You are betting against scientists finding a mechanism for something they know happened. The odds for that aren't very high either. Most of what has been seen as divinely caused has been explained by scientists with natural causes. The gaps where you could stick an interventionist god in have only ever shrunk.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not only does it come down to the fact that we can make choices, but since there is a true God, He can reach those He wants to.

Well, I still have a different faith in a different God.

 

[Valjean]

OK so you are giving your opinion on how common abiogenesis is. The trouble is that abiogenesis is not just the forming of one or 2 chemicals or even 100 chemicals, it is the whole process of new life forming.

It's more than just chemicals. It's basic structures that form spontaneously and can be observed combining.

We don't see that happening and from what science tells us it needs special conditions and environment. And even in the environment that science suggests it happened, it still does not happen today. That sounds fairly uncommon to me and suggests low probability.

Science speculates on which environments are most likely to generate a given component, and how they assemble, but there's nothing special or extraordinary proposed.

Why do you suppose it doesn't happen today? It's not like we have microscopes planted all over the globe to look for it.

Lifelike structures, or even proto-life, would be unadapted prototypes, without the robust metabolic, reproductive, protective or competitive abilities of existing organisms. They'd never gain a foothold.
Proto-life may happen all the time. We don't have enough information to speculate at this point.

 

[Valjean]

Where do we have hose special environments today? I am unaware of anywhere on the Earth that has the needed conditions.

The needed conditions aren't known. There could be multiple conditions capable of generating proto-organisms, with varying degrees of efficiency.

 

[Brian2]

Yep. The problem is that we don't know exactly what conditions are necessary and when exactly they occurred.
Scientists have several hypothesis which still need to be tested. Some have been tested and it has been found that most of the components of life could have come together under multiple conditions very easily. The Miller-Urey experiments found amino acids in different atmospheres. Lipid bi-layers form spontaneously in the presence of montmorillonite.
As for the probability, it is 1. It did happen. And chemistry is a deterministic process. If the conditions are there, chemistry will happen, probability = 1.
What is probabilistic (well, at least chaotic) is how often the conditions occur. It must be relative high (once in every 100 million years or so) because life formed on Earth basically as soon as it was possible - or we got extremely lucky.

You are betting against scientists finding a mechanism for something they know happened. The odds for that aren't very high either. Most of what has been seen as divinely caused has been explained by scientists with natural causes. The gaps where you could stick an interventionist god in have only ever shrunk.

I wouldn't say that scientists know that abiogenesis happened, however it is the only alternative given no God however. (unless life came from elsewhere, but it would have had to have happened elsewhere).

 

[Brian2]

Where do we have hose special environments today? I am unaware of anywhere on the Earth that has the needed conditions.

I don't know what conditions are needed.

 

[Heyo]

I wouldn't say that scientists know that abiogenesis happened, however it is the only alternative given no God however. (unless life came from elsewhere, but it would have had to have happened elsewhere).

It is the only alternative to an intervening god.
An orderly cosmos is one of the axioms of science. I.e. no magic.

 

[Brian2]

The Bible has nothing to do with it. It's just a book.
God's existence is a question of evidence.

The Bible can show that the Bible God does not exist but not God in general.
The Bible, if shown to be historically accurate does not show the existence of God or the Bible God.

 

[Valjean]

I wouldn't say that scientists know that abiogenesis happened, however it is the only alternative given no God however. (unless life came from elsewhere, but it would have had to have happened elsewhere).

But the Bible claims abiogenesis, too. The only disagreement is of mechanism: chemistry vs magic.

The Bible can show that the Bible God does not exist but not God in general.
The Bible, if shown to be historically accurate does not show the existence of God or the Bible God.

The Bible makes claims, I wouldn't say it "showed" anything.
As for accuracy, only the True Believers believe in historical accuracy.

 

[Brian2]

That's true, and it's true for Apollo, Santa Clause and the FSM, as well. Do you believe in them? There is equal supporting evidence....
You don't accept everything as reality till it's disproven, you accept what objective evidence points to and defer belief in the mythological till actual evidence appears. That's Reason.

https://lucidphilosophy.com/7-argument-from-ignorance/

It might be an argument from ignorance if I was saying, "therefore God exists", but I don't say that. I am saying that despite what you and other people say, that something has to be proven before accepting it, I accept God anyway, it's called faith.

We delay belief till evidence appears. No logical conclusion is possible, either for or against. Again, see argument from ignorance, above.

It is not illogical and it is reasonable to believe in the existence of something that has not been disproven and has not been proven. People do it all the time, and probably you also, but when it comes to God it is not acceptable for you, that's your choice and I choose faith.
And as I pointed out, it has nothing to do with any argument from ignorance.

It may annoy you, but it's the only reasonable position.

You should read the discussion and not take what I said out of context.

But your evidence is not objective evidence. People of a thousand different religions have the same evidence. Kids believing in Santa Clause have equal evidence. Mere opinion, assertion or tradition is insufficient evidence.
Your "evidence" may be persuasive for you, but it's not reasonable, logically sound, or persuasive for other, reasonable persons.

Then to you I am an unreasonable person and anybody who believes in God is unreasonable.

Some do, some don't. The Book implies that creatures popped into existence fully formed, from nothing, by magic. Question this, and the whole Biblical narrative is open to question.

Even young earth creationists accept limited evolution.
The book says, Let the earth bring forth. It does not say how the earth was to bring forth. Probably fully formed dogs and cats did not pop out of the earth.
If you listen to YECs you might think that Christian evolutionists deny Genesis and the whole Bible, but it isn't true.
The interesting thing is that imo the full scientific evolution story is not proven anyway.

There are gaps in all knowledge and evidence. But the footprints of evolution form a clear trail, even if some are missing, more are found weekly.
*The mechanisms are commonsense, and easily and extensively tested.
*People have been successfully employing them for thousands of years.
*The sources of evidence are consilient. Evidence from unrelated disciplines all supports the same conclusions.
*There are no alternative explanations except a completely unevidenced appeal to magic.

People have known about breeding animals and plants for traits for a long time, true.
Science does fill gaps in the knowledge with "We will find an answer one day" however, and so the whole evolution theory is proven.

The Bible creation story doesn't deny trans-dimensional constructor mice, either. It proposes no mechanism. Action without mechanism is magic. The Biblical account is magic.

What has that to do with whether it is true or not. All that shows is that you claim not to believe in magic. But magic in this case is mechanisms which have not even been explained, and there are plenty of those in science, which for some strange reason you would say is not magic if it comes from science.

Discrediting the Aztec creation story doesn't show Quetzalcoatl doesn't exist, either.

Maybe, maybe not. I have not read the story.

"In the beginning" Is not evidence of the BB, or anything, but the common experience of beginnings. The concept of relativistic time didn't exist. The quantum concept of a beginning of time itself was inconceivable.
The genesis stories are not just 'less than 100% certain', they're pure folklore.

"In the beginning" is not evidence of the BB and I did not say it was.
"In the beginning" could be seen as something that the Bible has told us,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, something like a scientific prediction that is shown to be true.
The Bible has always said it and science has shown it to be true.

On the contrary. It's easy. It's such simple chemistry you could do it on your kitchen table. Amino acids, nucleotides, proteins, membranes, self-replication -- all easily demonstrable. No magic is required; no creator, just simple chemistry.
And evolution -- even more easily explained and demonstrated.

So easy, and that is why science has not been able to explain or do it. OK, make up another one.

 

[Audie]

OK so you are giving your opinion on how common abiogenesis is. The trouble is that abiogenesis is not just the forming of one or 2 chemicals or even 100 chemicals, it is the whole process of new life forming.
We don't see that happening and from what science tells us it needs special conditions and environment. And even in the environment that science suggests it happened, it still does not happen today.
That sounds fairly uncommon to me and suggests low probability.

No, I said it's possible.
And, nobody knows. It would be very
very difficult to find out if it happens or not.

You needn't try to instruct me on chemistry and
biology, you can tell me where is the bright line
distinction between life and non life.
Living and non living molecules.
Whether and why prions and viruses are alive.
You might supply a definition of life that has no
" buts" or exceptions.

Bonus if you could also explain whether you just made it
up that " science says" chemistry that once worked does not work today under the same conditions.

 

[Brian2]

We can say it's evidence only for you, and not evidence in any other context.

You can say that if you want but plenty of people see the same stuff I see and say "God must have done this".
But yes, I know you think theists are illogical and unreasonable.
But we aren't, we just use a different quality of humanity.

No. It's been found that precise conditions are not necessary. The components of life appear to be pretty easily formed, in a variety of conditions.
Once formed, proto-life no longer needs rely on chance. Selection obtains.

Sounds easy to form proto-life and help evolution along.

Why does it need a designer? What chemical mechanism did this designer employ? Why can't simple chemistry or physics account for life and the universe?
Your appeal to magic and a magician is unevidenced, unneeded, and unsupported. It's opinion. The BB and evolution are facts, explainable mechanically, with demonstrable mehanisms. Not opinion.

All that sounds like opinion.
Let science discover what mechanisms were employed, science is good at that. God tells us who created and who gave and gives life.
But it is all speculation and not verifiable, and it does not show that God was and is not needed and did not do it.
iows if you want to use science as evidence for no God it is not real evidence, it is made up evidence that does not prove and is not proveable.
It is subjective opinion and is opinion of atheists and skeptics and not science, which holds to the "we don't know" policy.
Oh yes, that is what you also say that you hold to.

 

[Audie]

But the Bible claims abiogenesis, too. The only disagreement is of mechanism: chemistry vs magic.

The Bible makes claims, I wouldn't say it "showed" anything.
As for accuracy, only the True Believers believe in historical accuracy.

Only the intellectualtually dishonest
or deeply ignorant.

 

[Audie]

You like that word magic, don’t you?

You like to believe in it.

 

[Audie]

It's more than just chemicals. It's basic structures that form spontaneously and can be observed combining.


Science speculates on which environments are most likely to generate a given component, and how they assemble, but there's nothing special or extraordinary proposed.

Why do you suppose it doesn't happen today? It's not like we have microscopes planted all over the globe to look for it.

Lifelike structures, or even proto-life, would be unadapted prototypes, without the robust metabolic, reproductive, protective or competitive abilities of existing organisms. They'd never gain a foothold.
Proto-life may happen all the time. We don't have enough information to speculate at this point.

We noted the "chdmicals". A tell of
unfamiliarity with the topics.

Like if i tried to broadcast a basketball
game and talked about scoring touch- downs.

 

[Brian2]

But purely as a reasoned thing is the very definition of rational.

I have evidence for my beliefs and use reason to justify them. They are rational beliefs. We (and that includes you ) get to the end of where evidence can take us and we decide whether the evidence is enough for us or not. It's called belief, or in your case, lack of belief, I hear.
So my belief in God is as reasonable or rational as your lack of belief in God,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and I would call it more rational.

No, assuming non-existence in the face of poor evidence is not a leap of faith. It's simple reason. It's the logical default.

Matter of opinion about the evidence I guess.

The chemistry falls together all the time. Amino acids and all five bases of nucleic acids have been found in meteorites, for heaven's sake. The components of life self form all the time, many even self-replicate.

Just google.

It is good that this happens, but,,,,,,,,,,,,,, so?
Sounds like subjective evidence for something.

 

[Brian2]

If you hadn't grown up with the idea of an invisible, magical, man in the clouds manipulating the whole universe and popping things into existence with just a word, you'd consider the idea laughable. It's a fantastical claim.

Well true, but people have been in that place and become theists.

You're claiming magic is more likely than known chemistry, and you wonder why we're skeptical?

Chemistry is a path that has to be taken but seems to fall short of explaining it all imo. But if chemistry is the only possibility for you then chemistry is what it has to be and science will find the way. But the actual way it seems is not important, as long as it is a possibility, that is enough to hold on to and even use in debates.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The needed conditions aren't known. There could be multiple conditions capable of generating proto-organisms, with varying degrees of efficiency.

Some of them are. But first let's see what Bryan asks.

 

[Valjean]

It might be an argument from ignorance if I was saying, "therefore God exists", but I don't say that. I am saying that despite what you and other people say, that something has to be proven before accepting it, I accept God anyway, it's called faith.

We're not asking for proof, we're just asking for a little objective evidence.

It is not illogical and it is reasonable to believe in the existence of something that has not been disproven and has not been proven. People do it all the time, and probably you also, but when it comes to God it is not acceptable for you, that's your choice and I choose faith.
And as I pointed out, it has nothing to do with any argument from ignorance.

It is unreasonable to believe in something with little or no evidence. Faith is not reasonable. If there were sufficient evidence, it would not be faith.

Then to you I am an unreasonable person and anybody who believes in God is unreasonable.

Yes. Demonstrably so.

Even young earth creationists accept limited evolution.
The book says, Let the earth bring forth. It does not say how the earth was to bring forth. Probably fully formed dogs and cats did not pop out of the earth.
If you listen to YECs you might think that Christian evolutionists deny Genesis and the whole Bible, but it isn't true.
The interesting thing is that imo the full scientific evolution story is not proven anyway.

Limited evolution? What limits it? How does evolution know to stop just at the speciation line?
The full anything stories have not been proven. Actually, science never proves anything. It just accumulates evidence.

People have known about breeding animals and plants for traits for a long time, true.
Science does fill gaps in the knowledge with "We will find an answer one day" however, and so the whole evolution theory is proven.

Nothing is proven, but much is well evidenced. There is more evidence of evolution than there is of a round Earth.
The mechanisms are known, but answers about details continue to accumulate weekly.

What has that to do with whether it is true or not. All that shows is that you claim not to believe in magic. But magic in this case is mechanisms which have not even been explained, and there are plenty of those in science, which for some strange reason you would say is not magic if it comes from science.

Magic is not mechanism. If there were a mechanism known or claimed, it would not be magic.
Magic is not unexplained mechanism, it's effect without mechanism. If there's a mechanism being explored, it's science.

Maybe, maybe not. I have not read the story.

But you get my point.

"In the beginning" is not evidence of the BB and I did not say it was.
"In the beginning" could be seen as something that the Bible has told us,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, something like a scientific prediction that is shown to be true.
The Bible has always said it and science has shown it to be true.

The Biblical authors knew nothing of physics. They knew what they saw around them and accepted the world as perceived.
Even then, they made absurd presumptions. They didn't even understand goat breeding. Gen. 3:39.
"...and science has shown it to be true:" Shown what to be true?

So easy, and that is why science has not been able to explain or do it. OK, make up another one.

But science does explain it. The full process has just not been observed, yet.

 

[Valjean]

You can say that if you want but plenty of people see the same stuff I see and say "God must have done this".

And plenty of people are simplistic, irrational and ignorant. Goddidit explains nothing. It's an excuse to dismiss the question.

But yes, I know you think theists are illogical and unreasonable.
But we aren't, we just use a different quality of humanity.

You must have some personal, alternate definition of "reasonable."
What is a "quality of humanity," and what is its epistemic validity?

Sounds easy to form proto-life and help evolution along.

Forming proto-life has little to do with evolution.That happens later.
How readily it assembles, and what conditions are optimum, is unknown, at present.

All that sounds like opinion.
Let science discover what mechanisms were employed, science is good at that. God tells us who created and who gave and gives life.

No, tradition and numerous religious texts make the Goddidit claims. They attribute agency, but explain nothing.

But it is all speculation and not verifiable, and it does not show that God was and is not needed and did not do it.

If it can be accomplished without God, God is unnecessary.
The mechanisms are verifiable, and no other mechanism has been proposed. Understood, verifiable mechanisms are more likely than magic.

iows if you want to use science as evidence for no God it is not real evidence, it is made up evidence that does not prove and is not proveable.
It is subjective opinion and is opinion of atheists and skeptics and not science, which holds to the "we don't know" policy.
Oh yes, that is what you also say that you hold to.

No evidence of no god is needed. It's assumed, since there's no objective evidence for the claim. The only burden of proof is
If it's scientific evidence it's not "made up," and if it's not testable or demonstrable, it's not even within the purview of science.
Atheism has nothing to do with science. It's derived from reason and logic, and yes, "we don't know" is all we're claiming.