abiogenesis could not have happened.

[Doug1029]

12 hours ago, danielost said:

so your proof that life stated all by itself, is some scientist was ale to give fake life to a fake cell.  by putting all the parts together inside a cell.

Actually, the newly-created cell had all the characteristics of a living thing.  That means it wasn't "fake."  It was the real living thing.

Even if Venter or someone else assembles a living cell from non-living parts, that won't prove anything.  Natural science is pretty much incapable of proof.  What it demonstrates is that life can come from non-living materials - that abiogenesis is possible.  Did it actually happen that way in the dim past?  If, at one time, there was no living thing in the universe, then that is a logical conclusion.  But if life is immortal, then that might not be what happened.  But if life is immortal, then god didn't create it.  So you're in a Catch-22 situation.

Doug

[aquatus1]

The main failure of the complexity argument is that if someone were to put a bunch of computer parts in a mixer and tumble them around for a few hours, and a fully formed and functional computer did actually pop out...it would immediately be bandied about by the Cre crowd as an example of intelligent design, because there is no way it could have happened naturally.

Honestly, these people really do not have any concept of how the arguments they use would actually play out.

[XenoFish]

We we're created when an alien sneezed on our planet all those years ago.

[DingoLingo]

when trying to explain science to Daniel.. this is the effect you have

 

 

[XenoFish]

Life is like an apple pie, first you need all the ingredients and then let them bake for a few billion years.

[Podo]

Daniel still hasn't answered the question that annihilates his entire argument yet, though: who created his god, if spontaneous generation isn't possible? He hasn't answered it because he can't answer it, because nobody can answer it, because the answer will directly contradict the absurd claim that is being made.

[Professor Buzzkill]

34 minutes ago, Podo said:

Daniel still hasn't answered the question that annihilates his entire argument yet, though: who created his god, if spontaneous generation isn't possible? He hasn't answered it because he can't answer it, because nobody can answer it, because the answer will directly contradict the absurd claim that is being made.

It's the same with the universe. Who created the universe? if it spontaneously generated or has been here all along, then the universe has God like attributes. Either you believe in a god or you ascribe god like attributes to the universe

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, Professor Buzzkill said:

It's the same with the universe. Who created the universe? if it spontaneously generated or has been here all along, then the universe has God like attributes. Either you believe in a god or you ascribe god like attributes to the universe

Or you don't really care and just try to enjoy the finite amount of time you have on this mudball.

[Podo]

3 minutes ago, Professor Buzzkill said:

It's the same with the universe. Who created the universe? if it spontaneously generated or has been here all along, then the universe has God like attributes. Either you believe in a god or you ascribe god like attributes to the universe

Not even remotely. We don't know how the universe exists. There may have been something before, or it could have always existed. Or, some other theory that we lack the knowledge to understand at he moment. The important distinction is that scientists and scientifically-minded individuals are comfortable saying "I don't know," wherein religious types are always clamouring to yell "SEE? YOU DON'T KNOW THEREFORE OUR GOD DID IT."

[Professor Buzzkill]

Why ask where god came from then if "I don't know" is an acceptable answer?

 

[Podo]

1 minute ago, Professor Buzzkill said:

Why ask where god came from then if "I don't know" is an acceptable answer?

 

Because it assumes that the deity exists, which there is absolutely no logical reason to do. Furthermore, asking where a deity came from is only something done when a religious person starts vomiting BS about how creation is the only viable option, because if "the universe could not have created itself" then neither could a deity. It's internally inconsistent, and asking the question exposes the tired rhetorical device for the load of verbal diarrhea that it is. We know the universe is real, but we don't know where it came from, so "I don't know" is absolutely a legitimate answer, since it's the truth. We're searching for the answers, though, so "I don't know" is a temporary state, at best. Religious folks, especially Abrahamics, do not tend to search for new information, instead relying on their old myth cycles.

[XenoFish]

3 minutes ago, Professor Buzzkill said:

Why ask where god came from then if "I don't know" is an acceptable answer?

 

Because nobody know how it all started. So we make assumptions or we try to figure it out. But to assume that 'god' did it, is shutting all that down. Turning off the brain. Personally I don't care how life started, I just know that I exist (I think). But the subject fascinates me enough to have a passive interest.

This is turning into the attack of the Ricks. 

[Podo]

4 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Because nobody know how it all started. So we make assumptions or we try to figure it out. But to assume that 'god' did it, is shutting all that down. Turning off the brain. Personally I don't care how life started, I just know that I exist (I think). But the subject fascinates me enough to have a passive interest.

This is turning into the attack of the Ricks. 

Get schwifty with it.

[back to earth]

2 hours ago, Podo said:

Daniel still hasn't answered the question that annihilates his entire argument yet, though: who created his god, if spontaneous generation isn't possible? He hasn't answered it because he can't answer it, because nobody can answer it, because the answer will directly contradict the absurd claim that is being made.

he never answers questions that expose his unthoughtout ideas .. . . best to just ignore them and pretend  they never happened 

 

[Professor Buzzkill]

20 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Because nobody know how it all started. So we make assumptions or we try to figure it out. But to assume that 'god' did it, is shutting all that down. Turning off the brain. Personally I don't care how life started, I just know that I exist (I think). But the subject fascinates me enough to have a passive interest.

This is turning into the attack of the Ricks. 

I don't think you can label all theists as people who "turned off their brains". To wonder how life evolved to a self programmed, self healing and self replicating cells or organisms which are much more complicated then anything we have created today, from non living material often leads you down a rabbit hole of statistics that point to a god. 

[XenoFish]

Just now, Professor Buzzkill said:

I don't think you can label all theists as people who "turned off their brains". To wonder how life evolved to a self programmed, self healing and self replicating cells or organisms which are much more complicated then anything we have created today, from non living material often leads you down a rabbit hole of statistics that point to a god. 

All I see is a stick pointing to a black hole of ignorance. For all we know, god is just an alien microbe that came from a planet that met it's fate similar to how ours will. Think about all that organic material floating around space after earth bites the dust. Hell think about all the future failed missions to other planets with rotting human corpses, some of which could have fallen into a planets ocean. Which could lead to a species like our own that questions where they came from. Maybe earth is just patient zero or maybe not.

Space Jesus gave his life for you.

[psyche101]

13 hours ago, danielost said:

a pile of computer parts.

And how do they "spontaneously" exist then? You are saying they cannot be put together, and avoid how they come to be - yet we have shown how it happens!! If that can happen, then would you not say that the fact that the "parts" manage to form all by themselves is even more amazing than them sticking together? Remember they are specific parts, what happens when you put two magnets together? They interact and either attract or repel. Are you saying that such specific interactions cannot possibly happen with assembly of the parts that already assembled themselves in the same fashion? 

And to be fair, we are speaking as if the assembly is magic, it is not, it natural forces. 

[+DieChecker]

I think the answer to Daniel's statement must be if life could have started without any outside help. If so, then what steps would have been necessary and if each of those steps has been scientifically demonstrated.

The Miller-Urey experiments showed lightning could create complex organic molecules. That is one step. If all the steps can be shown similarly then Daniel's statement can be ruled to be False.

What all those steps (Dozens? Hundreds?) might be between pure carbon and hydrogen and a functional single cell organism, I'm not sure of myself. Maybe somewhere on the internet there is a list?

[+DieChecker]

22 hours ago, psyche101 said:

The point I believe is that it opens up the definitions for life - that is what "designed" life looks like. It is a defining moment in biology. He is literally "playing God". 

And so he should. 

So, that sounds like an admission that life definitely can be "Designed". Now we just need a clear layout of how life was Spontaneous.

[psyche101]

2 hours ago, Professor Buzzkill said:

It's the same with the universe. Who created the universe?

The most likely model offers a difference of potential. It is not a "who" that is the wrong question here "how" is what is relevant. 

2 hours ago, Professor Buzzkill said:

if it spontaneously generated or has been here all along, then the universe has God like attributes.

That is not the case at all, how do you come to that conclusion with the available evidence and data? There is plenty of evidence supporting natural models that well explain how the Universe came to exist without a creator, God is simply redundant in this picture nowadays. 

2 hours ago, Professor Buzzkill said:

Either you believe in a god or you ascribe god like attributes to the universe

Not at all, the models we have now offer natural prediction that not only play out, but allow us to do things like gravity slingshots. We no longer make up stuff like angels pushing planets. 

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Professor Buzzkill said:

Why ask where god came from then if "I don't know" is an acceptable answer?

Why posit a God at all? That only pushes the question further back when we consider who created the creator? If things have to be caused into existence, then logically so does the creator. Sure we are not sure if our models hold "The" answer, but they do offer predictions that illustrate that we are indeed on the right path here. Once upon a time, a creator was the best answer we could come up with - it was considered a viable philosophy, but has failed and fallen to modern discovery, mainly starting with biology and Charles Darwin. We have created over a thousand God's in written history, why would this one be the right guess? 

[psyche101]

35 minutes ago, Professor Buzzkill said:

I don't think you can label all theists as people who "turned off their brains".

Perhaps not, some theists are indeed very smart people. One can however wonder how they reconcile two answers. In some cases at least, scientists consider religion more a moral compass, which is perhaps even more scary. If one thinks they need to have God for morals, then one does not think. 

What you will not see is a lecture, or a paper regarding the origins of life or the Universe that posits God as even a possible. If God was indeed viable at all, then this would not be the case. 

35 minutes ago, Professor Buzzkill said:

To wonder how life evolved to a self programmed, self healing and self replicating cells or organisms which are much more complicated then anything we have created today, from non living material often leads you down a rabbit hole of statistics that point to a god. 

To wonder perhaps, to seek out the latest understandings and discoveries removes the wonder and replaces it with knowledge. We are not wired to consider things vastly different from our level of existence things like GR (explanation of the very big) and QM (explanation of the very small)  are not things we had to deal with during our development, we had to climb a tree to escape a predator, not hide in a QM dimension. To be able to understand the very small and the very large, even to the levels we have is an incredible accomplishment. Eschewing discovery for faith because that is the limits of our perceptions just makes no sense. One is best of not weighing in is one does not consider current knowledge. 

[psyche101]

25 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

So, that sounds like an admission that life definitely can be "Designed". Now we just need a clear layout of how life was Spontaneous.

Of course it "can be designed" just like we can control evolution. It does not mean it was, it means we are now capable of playing God, and like I say, so we should. No reason man cannot replicate what we observe in nature, heck we split the atom!

Urey Miller got the ball rolling, the Higgs was not found overnight either, but their experiment was even more successful than they realised. Observation of Chemical Evolution is the last brick in that wall. It is coming, good people are working on it.

Hopefully it will get me that hoverboard. 

 

Edited August 17, 2016 by psyche101

[+DieChecker]

6 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Of course it "can be designed" just like we can control evolution. It does not mean it was, it means we are now capable of playing God, and like I say, so we should. No reason man cannot replicate what we observe in nature, heck we split the atom!

Urey Miller got the ball rolling, the Higgs was not found overnight either, but their experiment was even more successful than they realised. Observation of Chemical Evolution is the last brick in that wall. It is coming, good people are working on it.

But has the entire wall been built yet? Is abiogenesis a fact, or still theory?

[psyche101]

30 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I think the answer to Daniel's statement must be if life could have started without any outside help. If so, then what steps would have been necessary and if each of those steps has been scientifically demonstrated.

The Miller-Urey experiments showed lightning could create complex organic molecules. That is one step. If all the steps can be shown similarly then Daniel's statement can be ruled to be False.

What all those steps (Dozens? Hundreds?) might be between pure carbon and hydrogen and a functional single cell organism, I'm not sure of myself. Maybe somewhere on the internet there is a list?

Something like this?

 

Scientists usually propose a four-stage process of formation for the first life:
1A. formation of small organic molecules (amino acids, nucleic acid bases,…),
1B. and these combine to make larger biomolecules (proteins, RNA, lipids,…),
2A. which self-organized, by a variety of interactions, into a semi-alive system
2B. that gradually transformed into a more sophisticated form, a living organism.

 

LINK