Abiogenesis is the Scientific God

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. VitalOne Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,716
    Really? Tell me what is this evidence? And please don't give me simple spurious theories about how it could've happened...the only actual evidence is Miller's experiment done in 1953 that shows that amino acids can naturally form....this is ofcourse not evidence for anything...its like someone saying the material Stonehenge is made of arises naturally, therefore Stonehenge is a naturalistic formation...

    The notion isn't "we don't know" the notion is that "we've been trying for 50 years and can't find any naturalistic cause" which is why a lot of biologists are favoring panspermia instead now....it solves this great problem....no one is invoking God only a rational, logical conclusion....if there is no undirected naturalistic cause for something with innumerable design features then there must have been some intelligent cause...

    I'm still waiting for this great evidence you have...
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,054
    When you are claiming something is impossible, a theory about how it could have happened - a theory, mind you, something that fits the facts - is a direct contradiction of your claim.

    Meanwhile, until we have found that that there is no such explanation, no such conclusion follows or is indicated.

    The more ignorant your are, the bigger your God. If you didn't know about Miller's trials, or if they hadn't been done, you would have even better evidence for your god, right?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. VitalOne Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,716
    Fits what facts? What evidence supports it? NOTHING supports it...its all just speculative theories about how it could've possibly happened...

    This doesn't make any sense....so you're telling me if we NEVER find an undirected naturalistic cause all it means is that naturalistic cause is unknown, right?

    AHAHAHAHAHA

    No, the more knowledge, the bigger God or some intelligent cause becomes...the evidence will eventually become staggering outweighing everything....
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    Ah yes, another topic in the long line of topics not understood by Christians to bleat, "God did it."

    IAC - is there anything your god didn't do?
     
  8. Liege-Killer Not as violent as it sounds Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    130

    Nice work on the willful misreading of my post. No, I clearly told you that there is some evidence. There are bits and pieces that are understood. We don't have the whole thing yet, and no one claims that we do. And I, for one, don't claim abiogenesis to be a fact. But I do see it has a lot going for it, much more so than any other hypothesis.


    You know, getting an in-depth understanding of a scientific issue actually takes some work. I said there are bits and pieces of the puzzle that have been solved, but you actually have to read the work of scientists, read their books, read their papers, take some science classes. There is an immense amount of information available just on the internet alone. How much time have you spent taking advantage of it? Seeing as how you make comments like "DNA just happened to form" I can tell the answer -- not much. And so why should anyone take your arguments seriously?

    You and Ice also should understand that this was a historical process, and we may never know the precise form it took. The best we may be able to do is develop a highly plausible explanation that we take to be sufficiently similar to what actually happened. By way of analogy, we may never know the precise pathway the Native Americans took to get to the Americas (I mean precisely, such as the exact latitude and longitude at every step of their trip, or every site they stopped at to camp or spend the winter). But we know from other evidence that they, in fact, did travel from Asia to America. We can make very educated guesses about their route, but will never know the precise details. It is similar with abiogenesis and other theories that try to reconstruct ancient events. That means such theories will never be perfect; but show me a better alternative.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2007
  9. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    First of all: Who are these "Darwinists"?

    It's not a religion

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Many scientifically minded Christians accept Darwin's explanation for biological diversity.

    Again, this is science, not religion. A concept some theists seem to have confused.

    Evolution does not explain how life came from non-life. That is a different scientific theory. Evolution is an explanation of how life, that was already here, changes over time.


    Michael
     
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,353
    Read On the origin of species by, you guessed it, Darwin. He explicitly explains that he is not speculating on the origin of life.

    So, for once, you are technically correct, even if you unknowingly blundered onto this particular truth. Darwinism, defined as the work of Darwin, does not include the origin of life. Few things are easier to verify.

    The Chinese have no record of the Christian God from 4000 years ago.

    Correct. Every life form is a transitional form.

    Do you know what the word "abiogenesis" means? It seems you do not. Look it up.

    There is no evidence that naturalistic causes are insufficient. Where did you get that idea from? Since the remainder of your argument follows from this incorrect assumption, you're wasting your time.

    Another error. Start with Claude Shannon's definition of "information". Look it up. You will find that information is by no means always associated with intelligence. Next, research the physical concept of entropy and how it relates to information.

    You make yourself look silly when you display this basic lack of knowledge and yet feel free to draw wide-ranging conclusions.
     
  11. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    No one can tell by science how life came to be, so we should treat as science what we do know, and so leave the origin of life open to possibilities other than abiogenesis, unless of course, we want to be intellectually dishonest, right James R?
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,054
    Not your god, as presented by you: it depends completely on you not knowing stuff. In this case, you don't know about the facts that a theory of abiogenesis would have to fit, or the kinds of theories available, and so you maintain a large place for your god to be and to act. The more you learn about these matters, the less room there will be for a god - a smaller god, then.

    Yep. And in fact there is currently little hope of establishing for certain the exact sequence of events that led to living beings on Earth. We can learn more, and refine the theories, and discard the impossible, but among the rest we may never be able to choose.

    When you're done laughing, pick up a logic text and review your arguments in its light. You are making an impossibility claim. You need more, not less, evidence and greater, not lesser, rigor in your arguments. You need at least some argument.
     
  13. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    The fact remains that science cannot honestly claim to know how life came to be, right?
     
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,054
    Right.
     
  15. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,725
    There are other theories than abiogenesis. None of them take the intellectual shortcut of God(an infinite thing which we don't understand) did(through unknown mechanisms) it. I have no idea why abigenesis couldn't be the mechanism.
     
  16. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    But you have no idea how it would work, so you have no point.
     
  17. Liege-Killer Not as violent as it sounds Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    130

    It IS open to other possibilities. Do you have any other scientific possibilities to discuss? Invisible supernatural beings are not scientific.


    True in a way. But science does not know anything with 100% certainty. Name any sceintific theory you like, and tommorrow someone could discover evidence that it is flawed in some way and there is a better theory. Furthermore, no theory can honestly claim to explain what it attempts to explain until it is complete and has been developed! You want the answer all at once. Once again, science doesn't work that way. You want revelation, and that is more the area of religion.
     
  18. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    So we are expected to buy abiogenesis dogma, though purely theoretical, until it will supposedly get fleshed out? Why should we follow like lemmings those who want any reality for origins other than a Creator?
     
  19. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,725
    It's not only theoretical, and scientists do have some idea of how it can work.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiegelman_Monster

    Sol Spiegelman set a form of evolution in motion using no cells at all, only the simple building blocks of RNA and an enzyme together in a test tube. The result is a self-replicating chain of RNA that can adapt to adverse environments. It's called Spiegelman's Monster. It's not a virus or an organism of any kind, just free-floating molecules.
     
  20. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    "SOME idea of how it CAN work?"

    Spiegelman's Spaghetti Monster?
     
  21. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,725
    Read it and weep.
     
  22. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Right.

    Which is why science is so much fun

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    To try and figure out the how.

    To say, well well well I know... three lesbian Goddesses did it! Doesn't offer much scientifically or rationally and probably doesn't correspond to reality. Could be true that a few super hot Goddesses created life and perhaps it makes people feel better to think that such is the answer, but I seriously doubt that was the case.

    Scientists will unlock this mystery one day as well.

    So there will little place left for the Goddesses.
    Poor girls.

    Michael
     
  23. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    It's good that you admit that a Creator could have done it, well done.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page