Abiogenesis is the Scientific God

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by IceAgeCivilizations, May 14, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    scientist: we believe life originated in such and such a way. it might have been like this. these chemicals could have joined like so.

    leopold99: that isn't proof that life originated naturally from the elements.

    spuriousmokey and ophiolite: due to leopolds absolute refusal to believe in what ifs and maybes we are placing him on ignore.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Sorry, I can't see anything.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    first thing you said in this thread that i believe ophiolite.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    No. It's all still invisible.

    The problem here is that Leopold requires absolute proof (which science never deals in); he places anecdotal evidence above experimental evidence; he demands a complete solution from the outset (which is not the way science works); he refuses to accomodate the possibility that natural explanations for abiogenesis might be viable; he fails to understand that science does not reject a supernatural explanation, but it is simply not within its scope to consider such explanations. Finally, he fails to understand that somethings, while they are very real, may be more difficult to see.
     
  8. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Yes, science is based on faith. - At least the faith that a material world does exist. (We really only can be certain that the thinking being/spirit of Descartes' "Codigo ergo Sum" exists.)

    The very logical Bishop Berkley went no further, made no assumptions, but all scientist do assume their sensory experiences result from interaction with an existing physical world. Once we make this “leap of faith,” believing in the physical universe, which you do also by even speaking of "life" as existing, then we try to be consistent and avoid addition leaps of faith associated with violations of the laws of the universe (the so called "miracles"). In this you differ. - You willingly assumed violations of the physical laws by postulating more. (At least that the IDer exists and that the IDer made life, presumably from non-life, in a non-scientific version of abiogenesis.*)

    Berkley's logical position is irrefutable: He (and if any others exist, they) is (are) a "spirit" in the "mind" of a greater spirit that provides all his experiences, etc. I think very clever his position on the question as to why the universe seems to be governed by physical laws: The "greater spirit" makes it seem so for two main reasons: (1) So that we would assume a physical universe exists and "behave in it." I.e. if it did not have physical laws, then we could not be responsible for our "actions” as everything would be chaos; And (2) If universe were chaos, then that "greater spirit" could not work any "miracles" as regular physical laws are required if they are to be occasionally violated.

    BTW Stanley Miller, student of Harold Urey and probably deserving most of the credit for the famous Miller-Urey (Miller’s name is first, and professors often claim credit for the work of their students, but place student's name first on the paper.) died last Sunday at Age 77. (Urey died in 1981.) They did the famous electric discharges in primitive Earth type atmospheres (during 1952 & 53) that showed many variants of those atmospheres all easily produce the amino acids and other molecules that found in cell membranes. From that molecular "Soup" it is just a matter of time, (easily estimated by probably type calculations) for random chance to assemble a “cell” that can take both energy (probably free chemical energy back when there was no free oxygen in the atmosphere) and mass (more amino acids etc from the surrounding "soup" of them) to increase in size and then be split into two by mechanical forces like waves. Eventually some evolved to be able to divide themselves as most, but not all, modern living cells do.

    Summary: Berkley's position is the most logical one. Scientists make one assumption ("leap of faith" that the law governed universe exists). You make at least two (1) Same one scientists make (universe, life etc. exist) plus (2) The IDer exists, made life (or it always existed, despite scientific fact that all planets were once red hot masses.)
    ----------------------------
    *Bible's version of abiogenesis is: Adam came from "dust" and Eve from his rib. (From "dust" you are and to "dust" yea shall return.") etc. If I were to chose a miracle version, I like the one where life comes for stones falling into the sea - seem closer to what I think actually happened. This one even includes the possibility of life on Earth being "seeded" by meteors even though it was advanced at least 2000 years before meteors were known to Exist. (Thomas Jefferson did not think they did.)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 24, 2007
  9. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    the reason i am being ignored by spuriousmonkey and ophiolite:
    The study of the naturalistic origins of life is called abiogenesis, and while scientists have not developed a clear explanation of how life might have developed from nonliving material, that has no impact on evolution. Even if life did not begin naturally but was started due to the intervention of some divine power, evolution would still stand on the evidence as our best explanation so far for how that life has developed.
    http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionabiogenesis/a/evolution.htm

    i have stated over and over and over that science has been unable to prove the claim that abiogenesis is a fact.
    i've given link after link that says science has failed to prove its case.

    and what do i get?
    put on ignore and told that i post creationist websites.
    smooth move ex-lax.
     
  10. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    As you ignore many posts, which have told how science HAS given "clear explanation of how life might have developed from nonliving material," especially post 267 and in considerably more detailed in:

    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1389294&postcount=132

    and you continue to ignorantly state:

    "over and over and over that science has been unable to prove the claim that abiogenesis is a fact"

    completely ignoring the fact that there was no life on early red hot Earth and there is now, etc.

    Welcome to my ignore list also.*

    I have only been coming here as some others have intelligent things to say and a mind that can think, which unfortunately you do not. - Worse yet, you can not learn to do so, or even admit that "science" has shown many different ways how abiogensis might have happened. I do not expect you, in your state of ignorance, to be able to comprehend the probability analysis that show essentially 100% probability that life did happen via one of these many competing paths.

    Everyone admits that the possibility of life coming from non-life (called abiogenesis) by intervention of ID./ God can not be ruled out, it is just not needed as there are many other paths, which are consistent with science, and for which the probability analysis shows essentially 100% probability that one would have occurred during the long history of the Earth, after it ceased to be "Red Hot."
    -------------------------------------
    *There is no point in reading your senseless, repetitive, drivel more, and I gave up all hope of helping your closed mind learn anything on this subject a week or two ago.
     
  11. TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,023
    Bullshit. There is no math which has ever proven that something can come from nothing. There is no rational basis for any theory which says something can randomly just appear out of thin air.

    Basically they are saying it's magic, that life pulled itself out of a hat, that the universe was once just darkness and then suddenly, "let there be light" and that meant "let there be life", and suddenly life randomly appeared just because, it just did, because shit happens.

    Sorry, but I'd sooner believe intelligent design than that bullshit.
     
  12. TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,023
    Yeah and non living material is God. Now what?
    Go worship a rock.
     
  13. TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,023

    For all we know, life may have created the elements and the universe itself. These scientists however have an obsession with the junk of the universe, the non-living material garbage.

    Sure the universe is made up of atoms, but the only way the order of the universe can make any sense is if the universe itself is alive and is ordering itself.
     
  14. D H Some other guy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,257
    He didn't vanish, he was placed on the ban list. This last week has been quite pleasant, has it not?
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,426
    So? That isn't the problem. The problem is your claim that there is no evidence of abiogenesis without supernatural intervention.

    You wanted evidence, we gave you evidence. Then you rejected evidence because it is not proof. Then you claimed there was no evidence, again.

    Then you claim lack of proof for possibility A is grounds for accepting possibility B, for which there is no evidence even.

    The entire matter of evidence and argument seems to be outside your realm of comprehension. You deal in proof, beliefs, and faith, only. You may be right to do so, but you are wrong in assuming everyone else does the same.
     
  16. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    un-fucking-believable.
    i don't know where to start.

    how many god damned times do i have to say I AM NOT INTERESTED IN EXPLANATIONS 1 1

    repeat the following untill you puke then repeat it till you pass out:
    science HAS NOT, repeat NOT, been able to create life in the labe from the elements. period.


    yeah, that's exactly what i'm saying.
    why you consider that ignorant is a mystery.
    it's a fact dude, neither you or anyone else that has posted in this thread been able prove otherwise.



    what the fuck is it with you people?
    science has not been able to create life in the labs, they have been unable to prove their explanations.
    why that bothers so much is also a mystery.

    i was going to respond to the rest of your post but the more i read it . . .
    well thanks for putting me on ignore, now i don't have to respond to your nonsense and name calling.
     
  17. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    wrong.
    i'm saying science cannot prove their claims.
     
  18. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,927
    So what? Science cannot prove why gravity happens, but that doesn't prevent one from saying with a high degree of certitude that it isn't because atoms are in love.

    That abiogenesis has not attained the status of a theory is not to say that all hypothesis are equally rational. Creationism is especially irrational.
     
  19. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    so nothing.
    i stated a fact and these fucking morons become thoroughly unglued,

    i do not consider it a big deal, i just stated an observation that i made.
     
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,426
    The problem is that you think the following comments by you are about proof:
    None of those comments have anything to do with proof, to someone who can distinguish evidence and argument and judgment from proof and faith and bellief.

    You say they are about proof. So I think you can't tell the difference.
     
  21. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    okay.
    still doesn't change the fact that science hasn't proven their explanations of abiogenesis.
     
  22. D H Some other guy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,257
    Science doesn't prove things. Proof is the realm of mathematics, not science.
     
  23. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    really?
    then why does science say we evolved? that is a statement of fact.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page