Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

How did life begin

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 9:20:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 12:29:57 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
Did it begin by abiogenesis, a designer, or is the evidence not conclusive yet?

Well we know abiogenesis happened for a fact, even if we don't know how. This could be analogous to a broken vase on a ground, you know it was smashed, but the exact method is unknown. We know that at one point in the development of the universe there was no biological life, now there is, thus, abiogenesis happened 100%.

The question is, did God make life come from non-life or did it happen naturally? Well, if we appeal to parsimony, then the most rational answer seems apparent, it happened naturally (just like evolution happens naturally due to natural selection). Someone would only object to this due to an emotional attachment to the God hypothesis.

In reality, there is no good reason to posit God as the culprit for the existence of biological life in the universe.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 9:24:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Theists should stick to the mystery behind our universe's existence when arguing for God. When it comes to issues of the afterlife, how life arose, and how life evolved, neuroscience and biology already have compelling answers for these questions.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 9:27:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
There have been many new developments in the area of Abiogenesis as well. This is where I would posit the argument from science against God's existence. If God existed and interacted with the world then we would have to account for supernatural causation when dealing with explaining our reality through methods like science. However, everything science has accomplished has been done by strictly only appealing to naturalistic causation. Thus, God most likely does not exist.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 9:50:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I find it difficult to take people that deny evolution seriously....I mean, microevolution is right in front of their faces.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 9:53:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 9:50:41 AM, 000ike wrote:
I find it difficult to take people that deny evolution seriously....I mean, microevolution is right in front of their faces.

Very few Creationists deny evolution in itself.

I just deny the time people say it takes for it to happen.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 10:14:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 9:50:41 AM, 000ike wrote:
I find it difficult to take people that deny evolution seriously....I mean, microevolution is right in front of their faces.

abiogenesis=/=evolution, but I kind of agree. I mean, evolution is almost inevitable given a large time frame. You can only really deny evolution by denying the amount of time life has existed.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 10:16:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 9:20:58 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/7/2012 12:29:57 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
Did it begin by abiogenesis, a designer, or is the evidence not conclusive yet?

Well we know abiogenesis happened for a fact, even if we don't know how. This could be analogous to a broken vase on a ground, you know it was smashed, but the exact method is unknown. We know that at one point in the development of the universe there was no biological life, now there is, thus, abiogenesis happened 100%.

The question is, did God make life come from non-life or did it happen naturally? Well, if we appeal to parsimony, then the most rational answer seems apparent, it happened naturally (just like evolution happens naturally due to natural selection). Someone would only object to this due to an emotional attachment to the God hypothesis.

In reality, there is no good reason to posit God as the culprit for the existence of biological life in the universe.

That makes sense. You can say it is more likely that abiogenesis happened. However since you don't have any physical evidence, these probabilities are weak.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 10:18:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Everyone, this is not a debate about evolution. This is a debate about abiogenesis. So far no one has been able to present convincing strong evidence for abiogenesis.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 10:56:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 10:18:50 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
Everyone, this is not a debate about evolution. This is a debate about abiogenesis. So far no one has been able to present convincing strong evidence for abiogenesis.

I think the point I was making eludes you. I'm saying that it is a fact that at some point in during the development of the Universe as we know it, non-life became life. Since naturalistic explanations sufficiently describe workings within the universe with amazing accuracy, while only having the need invoke natural causation, then supernatural explanations can be methodically eliminated using the law of parsimony until evidence of a need for supernatural causation arises.

My argument is that some form of natural Abiogenesis is the default position scientifically and even philosophically, while any supernatural theories carry much more of a heavy burden.

I'm arguing for natural Abiogenisis from parsimony and the past success of science that works while neglecting any hypothetical supernatural causation.
The evidence for Abiogenesis being possible is available though (Miller-Urey experiment ect.), and I invite you to take a look into it if you have not done so already. However, the physical evidence is not the basis of my argument here.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 11:09:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 10:18:50 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
Everyone, this is not a debate about evolution. This is a debate about abiogenesis. So far no one has been able to present convincing strong evidence for abiogenesis.

Well....I think how people come to that conclusion is that is sorta a "Well.....how else could it have happened?"

People used to say we were created by God/gods, but then people decided they didn't want that......so they decided that essentially nothing, created something.

Basically, how life in general came to be in a question I doubt anyone with a secular worldview will ever be able to truly answer.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 11:25:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 11:09:11 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 7/7/2012 10:18:50 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
Everyone, this is not a debate about evolution. This is a debate about abiogenesis. So far no one has been able to present convincing strong evidence for abiogenesis.

Well....I think how people come to that conclusion is that is sorta a "Well.....how else could it have happened?"

People used to say we were created by God/gods, but then people decided they didn't want that......so they decided that essentially nothing, created something.

This is a straw man fallacy. What do you mean by "nothing, created something"? Natural processes which take place within the universe certainly is not "nothing". Where are you getting this absurdity from? Also, your use of the term created is very anthropomorphic, and shows a bias in your reasoning from the start.


Basically, how life in general came to be in a question I doubt anyone with a secular worldview will ever be able to truly answer.

It's easy, Abiogenesis. Natural processes produce a lot of things around us, that like look at how gravity shapes Galaxies. Why would this not apply to life as well?

Just because we cannot explain it 100% now, doesn't mean God is most likely responsible. This is a God of the Gaps fallacy. Based on how well science can explain things naturally while excluding supernatural causation, and based on how the supernatural violates parsimony, one can reasonably conclude that naturalism provides a stronger basis for how life arose than supernaturalism, regardless if we don't know 100% how.

If I lost my keys, and someone says a ghost took it and I say I do not know exactly how this happened, this doesn't mean that the one who said the ghost took it is most likely right because I can't explain exactly why I can't find my keys. The supernatural explanations actually get ruled out in situations like these, because they are not required. Thus, they violate parsimony and are useless in explanatory power.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 11:28:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 9:53:14 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 7/7/2012 9:50:41 AM, 000ike wrote:
I find it difficult to take people that deny evolution seriously....I mean, microevolution is right in front of their faces.

Very few Creationists deny evolution in itself.

I just deny the time people say it takes for it to happen.

I'd say many creationists deny evolution because very large, specific types of evolution cannot supposedly take place. That's just my experience, though: they seem to say that evolution on a small scale isn't evolution. And yes, I've heard the phrase "evolution on a small scale isn't real evolution" before, said with sincerity.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 3:44:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
How in the hell is abiogenesis 100% certain?

how is 1% certain!?

Please do not refer to that bogus miller-urey experiment.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 4:02:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 3:44:24 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
How in the hell is abiogenesis 100% certain?

how is 1% certain!?

Please do not refer to that bogus miller-urey experiment.

According to the Bible, Adam came from the dust. How is that not abiogenesis?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 4:10:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 9:50:41 AM, 000ike wrote:
I find it difficult to take people that deny evolution seriously....I mean, microevolution is right in front of their faces.

Almost no one denies microevolution. It's macroevolution that is rife with problems (and no, I don't accept macroevolution).
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 4:18:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 4:10:06 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/7/2012 9:50:41 AM, 000ike wrote:
I find it difficult to take people that deny evolution seriously....I mean, microevolution is right in front of their faces.

Almost no one denies microevolution. It's macroevolution that is rife with problems (and no, I don't accept macroevolution).

Macroevolution is pretty much accepted by all biologists, and there is no debate in the scientific community regarding its truth. The only reason I see for someone rejecting it, is the fact that it contradicts Genesis. Maybe, you just don't like the fact that we share a common ancestor with the great ape family, however it doesn't matter what you like. Macroevolution is true.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 4:21:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 3:44:24 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
How in the hell is abiogenesis 100% certain?

how is 1% certain!?

Please do not refer to that bogus miller-urey experiment.

At one point there was no biological life in the universe, now there is. Thus, Abiogenenesis must have happened 100%. It's pretty simple..
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 4:28:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 4:10:06 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/7/2012 9:50:41 AM, 000ike wrote:
I find it difficult to take people that deny evolution seriously....I mean, microevolution is right in front of their faces.

Almost no one denies microevolution. It's macroevolution that is rife with problems (and no, I don't accept macroevolution).

pardon my rudeness, but this is such blatant denial..like a kid covering his ears and humming so he doesn't have to hear the truth.

You cannot...I repeat, cannot accept microevolution but deny macroevolution. Microorganisms have similar cellular constituents as larger creatures. They use DNA as a system for coding genes...when the nucleotides are coded in an improper order, it is described as a mutation. That mutation is then encrypted and replicated in offspring.

Microevolution is not some different form of evolution that occurs in a relevantly different fashion. You can't accept it and deny the macro form,.....that be completely nonsensical..
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 4:30:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 4:10:06 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/7/2012 9:50:41 AM, 000ike wrote:
I find it difficult to take people that deny evolution seriously....I mean, microevolution is right in front of their faces.

Almost no one denies microevolution. It's macroevolution that is rife with problems (and no, I don't accept macroevolution).

Strange how all these biologists who devote their entire lives to studying evolution haven't realised this yet.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 4:31:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 12:29:57 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
Did it begin by abiogenesis, a designer, or is the evidence not conclusive yet?

Lol, what? Abiogenesis.

The evidence is quite compelling.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 4:32:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 4:30:28 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 7/7/2012 4:10:06 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/7/2012 9:50:41 AM, 000ike wrote:
I find it difficult to take people that deny evolution seriously....I mean, microevolution is right in front of their faces.

Almost no one denies microevolution. It's macroevolution that is rife with problems (and no, I don't accept macroevolution).

Strange how all these biologists who devote their entire lives to studying evolution haven't realised this yet.

It is strange indeed. Maybe we should call all the biologists and tell them KetarHero from debate.org has the keys to the negation of macroevolution. I'm sure the scientific community would love to hear it..
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 4:34:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 9:53:14 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 7/7/2012 9:50:41 AM, 000ike wrote:
I find it difficult to take people that deny evolution seriously....I mean, microevolution is right in front of their faces.

Very few Creationists deny evolution in itself.

I just deny the time people say it takes for it to happen.

Could you explain what you mean by that? I mean, the manner in which evolution occurs is a proven fact, so why is the amount of time that it takes so important?
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 4:38:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
KeytarHero, if you do accept the concept of microevolution, why is that you disagree with macroevolution, especially considering the fact that one can be viewed as an extension or downgrading of the other depending on the scale over which the process occur?

And in particular, you seem to be treating the two as two different processes...
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 4:40:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 4:38:12 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
KeytarHero, if you do accept the concept of microevolution, why is that you disagree with macroevolution, especially considering the fact that one can be viewed as an extension or downgrading of the other depending on the scale over which the process occur?

And in particular, you seem to be treating the two as two different processes...

It's just due to his misunderstanding of biology. Macroevolution is an inevitable consequence of microevolution.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 4:44:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 3:44:24 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
How in the hell is abiogenesis 100% certain?

how is 1% certain!?

Please do not refer to that bogus miller-urey experiment.

Well, if you're asking for evidence, that is a very fair request.

It's like this.

The surface of the earth was covered with several base elements and compounds (including water), making a sort of ooze or sludge or mud or whatever. We know that, because all of that stuff is still here, and much of it occurs on other planets, as well. However, here, it just so happens to be in proportions advantageous for a sort of compound we know as "life." In this sludge, there were certain base elements that came together as several types of compounds, some of which began to move about and interact, and become larger compounds, until they became so complex, they're as we know it today -- "

So, of course, you can ask: "then, why can't we make chemicals come to life in a pitri dish?"

We can.

Blow your mind: http://www.ted.com... ; http://www.ted.com...

Trust me -- if you're truly interested in the subject, you want to watch both.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 4:45:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 4:40:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/7/2012 4:38:12 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
KeytarHero, if you do accept the concept of microevolution, why is that you disagree with macroevolution, especially considering the fact that one can be viewed as an extension or downgrading of the other depending on the scale over which the process occur?

And in particular, you seem to be treating the two as two different processes...

It's just due to his misunderstanding of biology. Macroevolution is an inevitable consequence of microevolution.

And confirmed by evidence.:)
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 4:46:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 4:45:43 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 7/7/2012 4:40:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/7/2012 4:38:12 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
KeytarHero, if you do accept the concept of microevolution, why is that you disagree with macroevolution, especially considering the fact that one can be viewed as an extension or downgrading of the other depending on the scale over which the process occur?

And in particular, you seem to be treating the two as two different processes...

It's just due to his misunderstanding of biology. Macroevolution is an inevitable consequence of microevolution.

And confirmed by evidence.:)

Or rather made plausible by virtue of the common grounds held in empiricism. ;)
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau