Total Posts:407|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Origins

jewelessien
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 5:19:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Okay, so this is about two origins in particular: the origin of the universe, and the origin of life. What are your thoughts on both?

I realize that this will turn out a theist vs. atheist thing, but please, please, please remember that all opinions are welcome, including the one that the world is carried on the back of four elephants which stand on a giant turtle (if you can recognize this reference, you deserve 10 cookies :D ). By presenting them you carry the burden of proof, so please don't turn nasty if someone pokes at your argument. Please?
Everything is up for questioning. If it won't defend itself, then how do we know it can?
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 10:19:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Something can't come from nothing, and life can't come from non-life.

You can't get something without potentiality, and if potentiality exists then you're not really working with "nothing".

DNA and RNA is information, information can't evolve. You either have information or you don't. If you have it you're alive, if you don't then you're not. Information is a coded message and is irreducibly complex.
dadman
Posts: 272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 7:33:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
..... life can't come from non-life

I AGREE

over the past 50 years .. incredible discoveries have been made in the science of DNA and the coded information found therein .. this proves to me that all life (DNA) derives from an intelligent source .. (apply to whom soever one wills) .. but for someone to claim that "information" is a random mindless mixing of chemicals ....... nonsense

http://dadmansabode.com... more on this issue

..... something can't come from nothing

although I believe just as God spoke the Universe into existence .. He will also speak the Universe out of existence .. http://www.gty.org...
And he (God) gave some apostles .. and some prophets .. and some evangelists .. and some teaching pastors .. for the perfecting of the saints .. for the work of the ministry .. for the edifying of the body of Christ .. till we all come in the unity of the faith .. and of the knowledge of the Son of God .. to a perfect (complete) man .. to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ . . . . Ephesians 4:12 .. http://dadmansabode.com... .. come and learn
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 9:49:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 7:33:59 PM, dadman wrote:
..... life can't come from non-life

I AGREE

over the past 50 years .. incredible discoveries have been made in the science of DNA and the coded information found therein .. this proves to me that all life (DNA) derives from an intelligent source .. (apply to whom soever one wills) .. but for someone to claim that "information" is a random mindless mixing of chemicals ....... nonsense

http://dadmansabode.com... more on this issue

..... something can't come from nothing

although I believe just as God spoke the Universe into existence .. He will also speak the Universe out of existence .. http://www.gty.org...

Ah, a John MacArthur fan?? I like him, I've seen a number of his videos on youtube.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 10:19:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 5:19:14 AM, jewelessien wrote:
Okay, so this is about two origins in particular: the origin of the universe, and the origin of life. What are your thoughts on both?

I realize that this will turn out a theist vs. atheist thing, but please, please, please remember that all opinions are welcome, including the one that the world is carried on the back of four elephants which stand on a giant turtle (if you can recognize this reference, you deserve 10 cookies :D ). By presenting them you carry the burden of proof, so please don't turn nasty if someone pokes at your argument. Please?

What's funny is I think you're making a Discworld joke, but in reality, it's based on real primitive cosmology, and it's turtles, all the way down. http://en.wikipedia.org...

(And if I'm wrong, and you were making THAT joke, then I hereby give all my cookies back to you).
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
jewelessien
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 10:34:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 10:19:17 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/12/2013 5:19:14 AM, jewelessien wrote:
Okay, so this is about two origins in particular: the origin of the universe, and the origin of life. What are your thoughts on both?

I realize that this will turn out a theist vs. atheist thing, but please, please, please remember that all opinions are welcome, including the one that the world is carried on the back of four elephants which stand on a giant turtle (if you can recognize this reference, you deserve 10 cookies :D ). By presenting them you carry the burden of proof, so please don't turn nasty if someone pokes at your argument. Please?

What's funny is I think you're making a Discworld joke, but in reality, it's based on real primitive cosmology, and it's turtles, all the way down. http://en.wikipedia.org...

(And if I'm wrong, and you were making THAT joke, then I hereby give all my cookies back to you).

Actually it was a Discworld joke. Have a plate of giant cookies! :)
I know Pratchett was parodying the Hindu myth...but as far as I know, his is the only version with four elephants on a turtle...
Everything is up for questioning. If it won't defend itself, then how do we know it can?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 10:40:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 10:34:46 PM, jewelessien wrote:
At 11/12/2013 10:19:17 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/12/2013 5:19:14 AM, jewelessien wrote:
Okay, so this is about two origins in particular: the origin of the universe, and the origin of life. What are your thoughts on both?

I realize that this will turn out a theist vs. atheist thing, but please, please, please remember that all opinions are welcome, including the one that the world is carried on the back of four elephants which stand on a giant turtle (if you can recognize this reference, you deserve 10 cookies :D ). By presenting them you carry the burden of proof, so please don't turn nasty if someone pokes at your argument. Please?

What's funny is I think you're making a Discworld joke, but in reality, it's based on real primitive cosmology, and it's turtles, all the way down. http://en.wikipedia.org...

(And if I'm wrong, and you were making THAT joke, then I hereby give all my cookies back to you).

Actually it was a Discworld joke. Have a plate of giant cookies! :)
I know Pratchett was parodying the Hindu myth...but as far as I know, his is the only version with four elephants on a turtle...

I believe (and I may be mistaken) that Hindu myths had 1 elephant at least--and I believe that artists often rendered 4 elephants because the back of 1 elephant isn't likely to be particularly stable, and an artist rendering would see it.

Regardless: thanks for the cookies!
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 2:47:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
As a single cell organism in a previous life, I can assure everyone that I came from clay. I didn't even have a cell wall to contain my inner guts if I may use the word "guts". Then again who needs a cell wall when nestled in the warm loving arms of a clay hydrogel?

While information technically can not be destroyed, I was a collection of information from big bang. While people have a hard time believing that collection came together to form me randomly, but the easiest answer is usually the most correct.

When my original body of information was destroyed and I died my information moved around the world. Heck even bits of me were ejected into space when asteroids hit the earth at the time.

I'm too spread now to ever come back in that form again, but my bits are there just waiting to be included in some other lucky fellow who comes to being. While i never rode a turtle or elephant, I'm certain bits of me have been in a turtle shell and elephant skin.

I surely miss the good ol' single cell days. Things were much simpler then.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 3:17:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 10:19:45 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Something can't come from nothing

Correct.

and life can't come from non-life.

Based on? I'm assuming, based on the fact that you do not have a nobel prize, that you are just saying this based on nothing.

You can't get something without potentiality, and if potentiality exists then you're not really working with "nothing".

DNA and RNA is information, information can't evolve.

Based on? I'm assuming, based on the fact that you do not have a nobel prize, that you are just saying this based on nothing.

You either have information or you don't.

Information can't evolve and You either have information or you don't are logically non-sequitors. One does not follow from the other.

If you have it you're alive, if you don't then you're not. Information is a coded message and is irreducibly complex.

Based on? I'm assuming, based on the fact that you do not have a nobel prize, that you are just saying this based on nothing.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 3:25:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
To clarify, and to actually add some interesting thoughts based on logic, and reason rather than "because I say so"

Most of what we consider "Life" or "Information" (Such as complex DNA, cells, etc) is not necessarily the starting point. It is as close to impossible as to be impossible for something like a basic cell to simply appear out of nothing.

Such a distinction between life and non-life is not actually as clear cut as you may think.

Saying that, though, anything that self-replicates with errors; and those errors can have a positive or negative effect on the ability to self replicate will necessarily evolve.

An interesting talk on some very basic life pre-cursors is here:

http://on.ted.com...
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 7:21:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 3:17:49 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/12/2013 10:19:45 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Something can't come from nothing

Correct.

and life can't come from non-life.

Based on? I'm assuming, based on the fact that you do not have a nobel prize, that you are just saying this based on nothing.

Lots of rocks, lots of water, lots of puddles, lots of electricity, lots of elements, and lots of time. No primordial ooze producing life from lifeless materials.

You can't get something without potentiality, and if potentiality exists then you're not really working with "nothing".

DNA and RNA is information, information can't evolve.

Based on? I'm assuming, based on the fact that you do not have a nobel prize, that you are just saying this based on nothing.

Evolutionary change happens through genetic mutation, right. If there is no DNA then how does one organism pass its genes on to produce others?? Apparently the evolutionary mechanism needs some help with that.

You either have information or you don't.

Information can't evolve and You either have information or you don't are logically non-sequitors. One does not follow from the other.

Information is a coded message, what more do you need??

If you have it you're alive, if you don't then you're not. Information is a coded message and is irreducibly complex.

Based on? I'm assuming, based on the fact that you do not have a nobel prize, that you are just saying this based on nothing.

This is getting monotonous. If you don't have a nobel prize then you have no right to question anyone else, right?? So why are you questioning me??
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 7:44:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 7:21:40 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 11/14/2013 3:17:49 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/12/2013 10:19:45 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Something can't come from nothing

Correct.

and life can't come from non-life.

Based on? I'm assuming, based on the fact that you do not have a nobel prize, that you are just saying this based on nothing.

Lots of rocks, lots of water, lots of puddles, lots of electricity, lots of elements, and lots of time. No primordial ooze producing life from lifeless materials.

You are just repeating the same statement. Please provide the evidence, argument and logical reasonaning through which you can state that with such conclusive certainty that life cannot come from non-life.


You can't get something without potentiality, and if potentiality exists then you're not really working with "nothing".

DNA and RNA is information, information can't evolve.

Based on? I'm assuming, based on the fact that you do not have a nobel prize, that you are just saying this based on nothing.

Evolutionary change happens through genetic mutation, right. If there is no DNA then how does one organism pass its genes on to produce others?? Apparently the evolutionary mechanism needs some help with that.

This statement makes the big assumption that "DNA" is the starting point. Please provide the evidence, argument and logical reasonaning through which you can state that with such conclusive certainty that evolvable DNA cannot arise from more primitive RNA/organic chemistry.

You either have information or you don't.

Information can't evolve and You either have information or you don't are logically non-sequitors. One does not follow from the other.

Information is a coded message, what more do you need??

Again, information NOW is a coded message. Again, you are assuming that "DNA" is the starting point. I repeat: please provide the evidence, argument and logical reasonaning through which you can state that with such conclusive certainty that evolvable DNA cannot arise from more primitive RNA/organic chemistry.

If you have it you're alive, if you don't then you're not. Information is a coded message and is irreducibly complex.

Based on? I'm assuming, based on the fact that you do not have a nobel prize, that you are just saying this based on nothing.

This is getting monotonous. If you don't have a nobel prize then you have no right to question anyone else, right?? So why are you questioning me??

Yes, this is getting monotonous.

You have every right to question, to investigate and to ask about the science.

I would point out, however, that you did not ask a single "question" in your original post. You simply stated, as absolute unambigious fact, a number of things which should you actually be able to demonstrate any of them, in any way, would be such a massive leap forward in science and biology, you would win the nobel prize.

If you want to act hurt as if I am simply rejecting your argument against science out of hand, I will point out that I did no such thing: You did not make an argument, in fact I am requesting you to give me an argument.

So yes, there is a big difference between "Questioning" which you are not doing, and "Stating stuff as true that you cannot possibly back up."

If you want to do the latter, please go to the Religion forum, where you can talk about religious beleifs and opinions to your hearts content. If you want to state things as facts here, without any sort of support, logic, reason or argument; expect to be asked to back up your point with at the very least, a rational argument.
Debaterpillar
Posts: 113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 1:01:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 7:44:11 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
So yes, there is a big difference between "Questioning" which you are not doing, and "Stating stuff as true that you cannot possibly back up."

If you want to do the latter, please go to the Religion forum, where you can talk about religious beleifs and opinions to your hearts content. If you want to state things as facts here, without any sort of support, logic, reason or argument; expect to be asked to back up your point with at the very least, a rational argument.

^ This.

At 11/14/2013 7:21:40 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 11/14/2013 3:17:49 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/12/2013 10:19:45 AM, medic0506 wrote:
[...] and life can't come from non-life.

Based on? I'm assuming, based on the fact that you do not have a nobel prize, that you are just saying this based on nothing.

Lots of rocks, lots of water, lots of puddles, lots of electricity, lots of elements, and lots of time. No primordial ooze producing life from lifeless materials.

Maybe not during the thousands of years humans were present to observe change in nature, but evolutionary processes took place over billions of years (millions of times longer). Following your reasoning, it would be impossible for a human embryo to develop into a baby over nine months, as it cannot be observed to be clearly happening during 20 seconds (millions of times shorter).
"Me fail English? That's unpossible." Ralph Wiggum.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 3:27:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 7:44:11 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

Based on? I'm assuming, based on the fact that you do not have a nobel prize, that you are just saying this based on nothing.

Lots of rocks, lots of water, lots of puddles, lots of electricity, lots of elements, and lots of time. No primordial ooze producing life from lifeless materials.

You are just repeating the same statement. Please provide the evidence, argument and logical reasonaning through which you can state that with such conclusive certainty that life cannot come from non-life.

You're welcome to hold out hope as long as you like, waiting for the absurd. Let me know if anything changes.

You can't get something without potentiality, and if potentiality exists then you're not really working with "nothing".

DNA and RNA is information, information can't evolve.

Based on? I'm assuming, based on the fact that you do not have a nobel prize, that you are just saying this based on nothing.

Evolutionary change happens through genetic mutation, right. If there is no DNA then how does one organism pass its genes on to produce others?? Apparently the evolutionary mechanism needs some help with that.

This statement makes the big assumption that "DNA" is the starting point. Please provide the evidence, argument and logical reasonaning through which you can state that with such conclusive certainty that evolvable DNA cannot arise from more primitive RNA/organic chemistry.

Prove that it did and I'll recant my statement.

You either have information or you don't.

Information can't evolve and You either have information or you don't are logically non-sequitors. One does not follow from the other.

Information is a coded message, what more do you need??

Again, information NOW is a coded message. Again, you are assuming that "DNA" is the starting point. I repeat: please provide the evidence, argument and logical reasonaning through which you can state that with such conclusive certainty that evolvable DNA cannot arise from more primitive RNA/organic chemistry.

SAA

If you have it you're alive, if you don't then you're not. Information is a coded message and is irreducibly complex.

Based on? I'm assuming, based on the fact that you do not have a nobel prize, that you are just saying this based on nothing.

This is getting monotonous. If you don't have a nobel prize then you have no right to question anyone else, right?? So why are you questioning me??

Yes, this is getting monotonous.

You have every right to question, to investigate and to ask about the science.

I would point out, however, that you did not ask a single "question" in your original post. You simply stated, as absolute unambigious fact, a number of things which should you actually be able to demonstrate any of them, in any way, would be such a massive leap forward in science and biology, you would win the nobel prize.

If you want to act hurt as if I am simply rejecting your argument against science out of hand, I will point out that I did no such thing: You did not make an argument, in fact I am requesting you to give me an argument.

So yes, there is a big difference between "Questioning" which you are not doing, and "Stating stuff as true that you cannot possibly back up."

If you want to do the latter, please go to the Religion forum, where you can talk about religious beleifs and opinions to your hearts content. If you want to state things as facts here, without any sort of support, logic, reason or argument; expect to be asked to back up your point with at the very least, a rational argument.

But it's ok for you to pretend that those things CAN happen, without supporting them with evidence?? Please spare me this intellectual superiority mumbo jumbo. Your beliefs are every bit as religious as mine.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 3:52:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/15/2013 3:27:21 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 11/14/2013 7:44:11 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

Based on? I'm assuming, based on the fact that you do not have a nobel prize, that you are just saying this based on nothing.

Lots of rocks, lots of water, lots of puddles, lots of electricity, lots of elements, and lots of time. No primordial ooze producing life from lifeless materials.

You are just repeating the same statement. Please provide the evidence, argument and logical reasonaning through which you can state that with such conclusive certainty that life cannot come from non-life.

You're welcome to hold out hope as long as you like, waiting for the absurd. Let me know if anything changes.

I take that as a concession; as at no point did you actually support the statement of absolute certainty you made.

You do this a lot, state something is absolutely true; and have absolutely no argument to back up that certainty.

You can't get something without potentiality, and if potentiality exists then you're not really working with "nothing".

DNA and RNA is information, information can't evolve.

Based on? I'm assuming, based on the fact that you do not have a nobel prize, that you are just saying this based on nothing.

Evolutionary change happens through genetic mutation, right. If there is no DNA then how does one organism pass its genes on to produce others?? Apparently the evolutionary mechanism needs some help with that.

This statement makes the big assumption that "DNA" is the starting point. Please provide the evidence, argument and logical reasonaning through which you can state that with such conclusive certainty that evolvable DNA cannot arise from more primitive RNA/organic chemistry.

Prove that it did and I'll recant my statement.

You make a statement that says something is absolutely, and definitively true and you have to offer no evidence; no argument; no proof; but instead I have to proove it wrong?

I'm sorry, but no matter how easy this would make things for you; science, and the real world doesn't work like that.

If you want to claim something is true; YOU demonstrate it is true.

You either have information or you don't.

Information can't evolve and You either have information or you don't are logically non-sequitors. One does not follow from the other.

Information is a coded message, what more do you need??

Again, information NOW is a coded message. Again, you are assuming that "DNA" is the starting point. I repeat: please provide the evidence, argument and logical reasonaning through which you can state that with such conclusive certainty that evolvable DNA cannot arise from more primitive RNA/organic chemistry.

SAA

Please explain how saying SSA; which I pressume means Serum amyloid A; demonstrates with conclusive certainity that DNA cannot arise from more primitive RNA/Organic Chemistry.

If you have it you're alive, if you don't then you're not. Information is a coded message and is irreducibly complex.

Based on? I'm assuming, based on the fact that you do not have a nobel prize, that you are just saying this based on nothing.

This is getting monotonous. If you don't have a nobel prize then you have no right to question anyone else, right?? So why are you questioning me??

Yes, this is getting monotonous.

You have every right to question, to investigate and to ask about the science.

I would point out, however, that you did not ask a single "question" in your original post. You simply stated, as absolute unambigious fact, a number of things which should you actually be able to demonstrate any of them, in any way, would be such a massive leap forward in science and biology, you would win the nobel prize.

If you want to act hurt as if I am simply rejecting your argument against science out of hand, I will point out that I did no such thing: You did not make an argument, in fact I am requesting you to give me an argument.

So yes, there is a big difference between "Questioning" which you are not doing, and "Stating stuff as true that you cannot possibly back up."

If you want to do the latter, please go to the Religion forum, where you can talk about religious beleifs and opinions to your hearts content. If you want to state things as facts here, without any sort of support, logic, reason or argument; expect to be asked to back up your point with at the very least, a rational argument.

But it's ok for you to pretend that those things CAN happen, without supporting them with evidence?? Please spare me this intellectual superiority mumbo jumbo. Your beliefs are every bit as religious as mine.

Stop evading the point, please.

You have made several statements here and paraded them as if they were absolute truth and can offer no cooberating argument or proof to back up you being able to say it with this certainty. None whatsoever.

While it is nice that you seem to want to invoke the "well I know you are, but what am I" Gambit, you are still evading the point.

Lets be clear while we are on the subject, the issue you have with us is not that we present no evidence, it's that you don't accept it. While the reasons for this rejection is a whole other argument, is intellectually dishonest to suggest we supply no evidence.

This is the difference, most of what you say is simply saying that something is true and offer litterally NO evidence, no supporting argument.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 4:12:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/15/2013 1:01:23 PM, Debaterpillar wrote:
At 11/14/2013 7:44:11 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
So yes, there is a big difference between "Questioning" which you are not doing, and "Stating stuff as true that you cannot possibly back up."

If you want to do the latter, please go to the Religion forum, where you can talk about religious beleifs and opinions to your hearts content. If you want to state things as facts here, without any sort of support, logic, reason or argument; expect to be asked to back up your point with at the very least, a rational argument.

^ This.

At 11/14/2013 7:21:40 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 11/14/2013 3:17:49 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/12/2013 10:19:45 AM, medic0506 wrote:
[...] and life can't come from non-life.

Based on? I'm assuming, based on the fact that you do not have a nobel prize, that you are just saying this based on nothing.

Lots of rocks, lots of water, lots of puddles, lots of electricity, lots of elements, and lots of time. No primordial ooze producing life from lifeless materials.

Maybe not during the thousands of years humans were present to observe change in nature, but evolutionary processes took place over billions of years (millions of times longer). Following your reasoning, it would be impossible for a human embryo to develop into a baby over nine months, as it cannot be observed to be clearly happening during 20 seconds (millions of times shorter).

Difference between those two scenarios is that we can see the baby as a conclusion. For UCA, we just have to have faith. I already have a faith that fits the observable evidence, so why would I want to scuttle it and adopt one that contradicts the observable evidence??
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 4:54:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/15/2013 4:12:36 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 11/15/2013 1:01:23 PM, Debaterpillar wrote:
At 11/14/2013 7:44:11 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
So yes, there is a big difference between "Questioning" which you are not doing, and "Stating stuff as true that you cannot possibly back up."

If you want to do the latter, please go to the Religion forum, where you can talk about religious beleifs and opinions to your hearts content. If you want to state things as facts here, without any sort of support, logic, reason or argument; expect to be asked to back up your point with at the very least, a rational argument.

^ This.

At 11/14/2013 7:21:40 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 11/14/2013 3:17:49 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/12/2013 10:19:45 AM, medic0506 wrote:
[...] and life can't come from non-life.

Based on? I'm assuming, based on the fact that you do not have a nobel prize, that you are just saying this based on nothing.

Lots of rocks, lots of water, lots of puddles, lots of electricity, lots of elements, and lots of time. No primordial ooze producing life from lifeless materials.

Maybe not during the thousands of years humans were present to observe change in nature, but evolutionary processes took place over billions of years (millions of times longer). Following your reasoning, it would be impossible for a human embryo to develop into a baby over nine months, as it cannot be observed to be clearly happening during 20 seconds (millions of times shorter).

Difference between those two scenarios is that we can see the baby as a conclusion. For UCA, we just have to have faith. I already have a faith that fits the observable evidence, so why would I want to scuttle it and adopt one that contradicts the observable evidence??

*facepalm

Let me explain this to you.

Life has taken billions of years to evolve and diversify. You want to see this diversification over decades.

The OP here points out that this is exactly like looking at a fetus for a few minutes and concluding it can't turn into a baby because it doesn't change in that few minutes.

I don't know if you are doing this on purpose, or becaue you simply don't know any better but your rebuttal completely and utterly misses the point.

OF COURSE we can see the end result and see a baby; that we can see the baby is the whole point of the analogy: to show that not seeing a the result of long process in a fraction of the time it takes that process shows nothing.

We as a species live long enough to see a baby develop. We as a species CANNOT live millions and millions of years so can't see the diversification we want.

The point is our process, given the evidence, takes a long, long time; you want to see it immediately.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 10:08:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/15/2013 3:52:04 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/15/2013 3:27:21 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 11/14/2013 7:44:11 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

Based on? I'm assuming, based on the fact that you do not have a nobel prize, that you are just saying this based on nothing.

Lots of rocks, lots of water, lots of puddles, lots of electricity, lots of elements, and lots of time. No primordial ooze producing life from lifeless materials.

You are just repeating the same statement. Please provide the evidence, argument and logical reasonaning through which you can state that with such conclusive certainty that life cannot come from non-life.

You're welcome to hold out hope as long as you like, waiting for the absurd. Let me know if anything changes.

I take that as a concession; as at no point did you actually support the statement of absolute certainty you made.

You do this a lot, state something is absolutely true; and have absolutely no argument to back up that certainty.

You can't get something without potentiality, and if potentiality exists then you're not really working with "nothing".

DNA and RNA is information, information can't evolve.

Based on? I'm assuming, based on the fact that you do not have a nobel prize, that you are just saying this based on nothing.

Evolutionary change happens through genetic mutation, right. If there is no DNA then how does one organism pass its genes on to produce others?? Apparently the evolutionary mechanism needs some help with that.

This statement makes the big assumption that "DNA" is the starting point. Please provide the evidence, argument and logical reasonaning through which you can state that with such conclusive certainty that evolvable DNA cannot arise from more primitive RNA/organic chemistry.

Prove that it did and I'll recant my statement.

You make a statement that says something is absolutely, and definitively true and you have to offer no evidence; no argument; no proof; but instead I have to proove it wrong?

I'm sorry, but no matter how easy this would make things for you; science, and the real world doesn't work like that.

If you want to claim something is true; YOU demonstrate it is true.

You either have information or you don't.

Information can't evolve and You either have information or you don't are logically non-sequitors. One does not follow from the other.

Information is a coded message, what more do you need??

Again, information NOW is a coded message. Again, you are assuming that "DNA" is the starting point. I repeat: please provide the evidence, argument and logical reasonaning through which you can state that with such conclusive certainty that evolvable DNA cannot arise from more primitive RNA/organic chemistry.

SAA

Please explain how saying SSA; which I pressume means Serum amyloid A; demonstrates with conclusive certainity that DNA cannot arise from more primitive RNA/Organic Chemistry.

If you have it you're alive, if you don't then you're not. Information is a coded message and is irreducibly complex.

Based on? I'm assuming, based on the fact that you do not have a nobel prize, that you are just saying this based on nothing.

This is getting monotonous. If you don't have a nobel prize then you have no right to question anyone else, right?? So why are you questioning me??

Yes, this is getting monotonous.

You have every right to question, to investigate and to ask about the science.

I would point out, however, that you did not ask a single "question" in your original post. You simply stated, as absolute unambigious fact, a number of things which should you actually be able to demonstrate any of them, in any way, would be such a massive leap forward in science and biology, you would win the nobel prize.

If you want to act hurt as if I am simply rejecting your argument against science out of hand, I will point out that I did no such thing: You did not make an argument, in fact I am requesting you to give me an argument.

So yes, there is a big difference between "Questioning" which you are not doing, and "Stating stuff as true that you cannot possibly back up."

If you want to do the latter, please go to the Religion forum, where you can talk about religious beleifs and opinions to your hearts content. If you want to state things as facts here, without any sort of support, logic, reason or argument; expect to be asked to back up your point with at the very least, a rational argument.

But it's ok for you to pretend that those things CAN happen, without supporting them with evidence?? Please spare me this intellectual superiority mumbo jumbo. Your beliefs are every bit as religious as mine.

Stop evading the point, please.

You have made several statements here and paraded them as if they were absolute truth and can offer no cooberating argument or proof to back up you being able to say it with this certainty. None whatsoever.

While it is nice that you seem to want to invoke the "well I know you are, but what am I" Gambit, you are still evading the point.

Lets be clear while we are on the subject, the issue you have with us is not that we present no evidence, it's that you don't accept it. While the reasons for this rejection is a whole other argument, is intellectually dishonest to suggest we supply no evidence.

This is the difference, most of what you say is simply saying that something is true and offer litterally NO evidence, no supporting argument.

Oh please. Every day that we live without seeing life create itself from inanimate objects is evidence that it can't happen. Every day that the brightest minds, of the most intelligent species in the universe, try to figure out how it happened, but can't, is evidence that it can't happen, and further evidence that it doesn't happen.

And then you come at me with this, "You can't prove that it can't happen, and since I still think it CAN happen, despite all this evidence to the contrary, that makes me more intellectual than you. I'm on the side with the bright people, while you still think Goddidit".

Well, ya know what, no one has ever proven that God doesn't exist. No one has ever shown that a day has gone by without God being a part of it. That's not the case with your theories, as I stated above. You have every bit as much FAITH in your theories, as I have in God. Calling my faith religious, and yours science, and telling me that mine belongs on the religion forum because the science faith is for intellectuals, is a high and mighty attitude that I'm calling BS on.

If you're going to claim that something can happen, then show it to me, don't just tell me "You can't prove that it can't". If you can't SHOW that it can and does happen, then you are simply holding out hope and having faith that it can. That is every bit as religious as my theory.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 10:37:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/16/2013 10:08:36 AM, medic0506 wrote:

Oh please. Every day that we live without seeing life create itself from inanimate objects is evidence that it can't happen. Every day that the brightest minds, of the most intelligent species in the universe, try to figure out how it happened, but can't, is evidence that it can't happen, and further evidence that it doesn't happen.

Every day that we live without seeing life create itself from inanimate objects is evidence that it can't happen in our current conditions, over decades.

Extrapolating this to say that because we have been testing and experimenting in specific conditions for decades, and are making interesting progress in many different avenues we are pursuing: But have not yet drawn firm conclusions means that it is not possible, in any conditions that are possible in any area of the early earth over any comparible geological time that is possible; is simply not supported in reality, by logic or by science.

It is drawing a massive extrapolation based on nothing more than your emotional requirement to justify your absolute beleive that it is wrong. Making wild unscientific extrapolations in this way; and then holding them up as absolute truth demonstrates why it is so hard for people to engage in a thoughtful, and meaningful discussion with you.

For example; this argument is something people have repeatedly corrected you on about 1000 times; you never deal with such rebuttals, and mostly ignore them: yet you still repeat as if it a scientificly valid and upheld principle.

And then you come at me with this, "You can't prove that it can't happen, and since I still think it CAN happen, despite all this evidence to the contrary, that makes me more intellectual than you. I'm on the side with the bright people, while you still think Goddidit".

Well, ya know what, no one has ever proven that God doesn't exist. No one has ever shown that a day has gone by without God being a part of it. That's not the case with your theories, as I stated above. You have every bit as much FAITH in your theories, as I have in God. Calling my faith religious, and yours science, and telling me that mine belongs on the religion forum because the science faith is for intellectuals, is a high and mighty attitude that I'm calling BS on.

If you're going to claim that something can happen, then show it to me, don't just tell me "You can't prove that it can't". If you can't SHOW that it can and does happen, then you are simply holding out hope and having faith that it can. That is every bit as religious as my theory.

With regards to abiogenesis; I don't know what happened. I don't know if it can, or can't. There are lots of promising explanations, a lot interesting avenues to pursue, but we do not have an answer; either positive or negative. There are a lots of very interesting things going on; many, many, many different interesting tit bits such as the video I linked earlier.

Because we have no definitive proof; because I am not certain. I have some interesting things that could pan out, but I have nothing more than hints, compelling hypothesis and things to that are being tested and experimented with.

To bypass ALL of this; and say it just can't happen; that no possible conditions, scenario, timeline or configuration cannot be supported by your argument. It just doesn't work.

You make such definitive claims because you have "faith", as you even claim. But this is a science forum; if you are not scientifically certain you don't say that you are certain. If there is no scientific evidence to back it up, don't claim that there is.

This is your problem, you are arguing from the perspective of faith against science; hoping that your emotional justification correlates to a scientific one. That professing your faith that something is true by saying "it is true" does not equate to any form of scientific argument.

If you want to be religious; and use your religious and emotional beliefs to conclude your own certainty there is a forum for that: Do not include such unscientific, emotional and logically incongruent arguments and justifications in a scientific discussion.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2013 3:45:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/15/2013 4:54:30 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/15/2013 4:12:36 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 11/15/2013 1:01:23 PM, Debaterpillar wrote:
At 11/14/2013 7:44:11 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
So yes, there is a big difference between "Questioning" which you are not doing, and "Stating stuff as true that you cannot possibly back up."

If you want to do the latter, please go to the Religion forum, where you can talk about religious beleifs and opinions to your hearts content. If you want to state things as facts here, without any sort of support, logic, reason or argument; expect to be asked to back up your point with at the very least, a rational argument.

^ This.

At 11/14/2013 7:21:40 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 11/14/2013 3:17:49 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/12/2013 10:19:45 AM, medic0506 wrote:
[...] and life can't come from non-life.

Based on? I'm assuming, based on the fact that you do not have a nobel prize, that you are just saying this based on nothing.

Lots of rocks, lots of water, lots of puddles, lots of electricity, lots of elements, and lots of time. No primordial ooze producing life from lifeless materials.

Maybe not during the thousands of years humans were present to observe change in nature, but evolutionary processes took place over billions of years (millions of times longer). Following your reasoning, it would be impossible for a human embryo to develop into a baby over nine months, as it cannot be observed to be clearly happening during 20 seconds (millions of times shorter).

Difference between those two scenarios is that we can see the baby as a conclusion. For UCA, we just have to have faith. I already have a faith that fits the observable evidence, so why would I want to scuttle it and adopt one that contradicts the observable evidence??

*facepalm

Let me explain this to you.

Life has taken billions of years to evolve and diversify. You want to see this diversification over decades.

The OP here points out that this is exactly like looking at a fetus for a few minutes and concluding it can't turn into a baby because it doesn't change in that few minutes.

I don't know if you are doing this on purpose, or becaue you simply don't know any better but your rebuttal completely and utterly misses the point.

OF COURSE we can see the end result and see a baby; that we can see the baby is the whole point of the analogy: to show that not seeing a the result of long process in a fraction of the time it takes that process shows nothing.

We as a species live long enough to see a baby develop. We as a species CANNOT live millions and millions of years so can't see the diversification we want.

The point is our process, given the evidence, takes a long, long time; you want to see it immediately.

Then how can you be so sure that it did indeed happen?? Obviously, you can't, but it's something that you choose to believe, and you extrapolate scientific evidence to try and support something that it doesn't support.
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2013 3:58:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/17/2013 3:45:15 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 11/15/2013 4:54:30 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/15/2013 4:12:36 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 11/15/2013 1:01:23 PM, Debaterpillar wrote:
At 11/14/2013 7:44:11 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
So yes, there is a big difference between "Questioning" which you are not doing, and "Stating stuff as true that you cannot possibly back up."

If you want to do the latter, please go to the Religion forum, where you can talk about religious beleifs and opinions to your hearts content. If you want to state things as facts here, without any sort of support, logic, reason or argument; expect to be asked to back up your point with at the very least, a rational argument.

^ This.

At 11/14/2013 7:21:40 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 11/14/2013 3:17:49 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/12/2013 10:19:45 AM, medic0506 wrote:
[...] and life can't come from non-life.

Based on? I'm assuming, based on the fact that you do not have a nobel prize, that you are just saying this based on nothing.

Lots of rocks, lots of water, lots of puddles, lots of electricity, lots of elements, and lots of time. No primordial ooze producing life from lifeless materials.

Maybe not during the thousands of years humans were present to observe change in nature, but evolutionary processes took place over billions of years (millions of times longer). Following your reasoning, it would be impossible for a human embryo to develop into a baby over nine months, as it cannot be observed to be clearly happening during 20 seconds (millions of times shorter).

Difference between those two scenarios is that we can see the baby as a conclusion. For UCA, we just have to have faith. I already have a faith that fits the observable evidence, so why would I want to scuttle it and adopt one that contradicts the observable evidence??

*facepalm

Let me explain this to you.

Life has taken billions of years to evolve and diversify. You want to see this diversification over decades.

The OP here points out that this is exactly like looking at a fetus for a few minutes and concluding it can't turn into a baby because it doesn't change in that few minutes.

I don't know if you are doing this on purpose, or becaue you simply don't know any better but your rebuttal completely and utterly misses the point.

OF COURSE we can see the end result and see a baby; that we can see the baby is the whole point of the analogy: to show that not seeing a the result of long process in a fraction of the time it takes that process shows nothing.

We as a species live long enough to see a baby develop. We as a species CANNOT live millions and millions of years so can't see the diversification we want.

The point is our process, given the evidence, takes a long, long time; you want to see it immediately.

Then how can you be so sure that it did indeed happen?? Obviously, you can't, but it's something that you choose to believe, and you extrapolate scientific evidence to try and support something that it doesn't support.

Oh the gigantic irony...
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2013 4:17:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 7:21:40 PM, medic0506 wrote:
This is getting monotonous. If you don't have a nobel prize then you have no right to question anyone else, right?? So why are you questioning me??

Well I don't know what your current job pays or how satisfactory you find your relationships with other Christians to be, but if this knowledge of yours that you clearly believe is absolute and super special about creationism and evolution is really as accurate and truthful and actually following the science as you claim it does, then it's exceptionally odd that you haven't actually made the manoeuvres to capitalise on this high knowledge of yours and actually put in the work in a profession where the end result and resulting scientific discovery and awards would yield undoubtedly MORE of a financial benefit to support yourself and your family and would endear you of course to a hell of a lot of the fundie conservative Christians in the world. You'd become a living legend, and not only would you never have to work again, neither would your wife and any money you'd give to your children as a result of your amazing scientific discoveries would be massively benefit them in a time of great economic hardship where lots of people are in debt.

So why haven't you moved in this profession, if everything you claim about the strength of your stance is true? The answer is twofold: One: You'll complain yet again without evidence about some super-secret scientist conspiracy to persecute creationists and keep evolution at the top, even though I among others have debunked this many times, and Two: You realise that you have nothing and that your position is dying and becoming more and more irrelevant in both the scientific community and our daily lives.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2013 8:55:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/16/2013 10:37:55 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/16/2013 10:08:36 AM, medic0506 wrote:

Oh please. Every day that we live without seeing life create itself from inanimate objects is evidence that it can't happen. Every day that the brightest minds, of the most intelligent species in the universe, try to figure out how it happened, but can't, is evidence that it can't happen, and further evidence that it doesn't happen.

Every day that we live without seeing life create itself from inanimate objects is evidence that it can't happen in our current conditions, over decades.

What possible conditions might exist, outside a magic show, that would allow something that doesn't yet exist to create something, namely itself, prior to its existence?? That's not even a logically coherent statement, much less a plausible scientific hypothesis. You have the faith of Job, but it's a shame that you place that great faith in the wrong creator.

Extrapolating this to say that because we have been testing and experimenting in specific conditions for decades, and are making interesting progress in many different avenues we are pursuing: But have not yet drawn firm conclusions means that it is not possible, in any conditions that are possible in any area of the early earth over any comparible geological time that is possible; is simply not supported in reality, by logic or by science.

It is drawing a massive extrapolation based on nothing more than your emotional requirement to justify your absolute beleive that it is wrong. Making wild unscientific extrapolations in this way; and then holding them up as absolute truth demonstrates why it is so hard for people to engage in a thoughtful, and meaningful discussion with you.

For example; this argument is something people have repeatedly corrected you on about 1000 times; you never deal with such rebuttals, and mostly ignore them: yet you still repeat as if it a scientificly valid and upheld principle.

And then you come at me with this, "You can't prove that it can't happen, and since I still think it CAN happen, despite all this evidence to the contrary, that makes me more intellectual than you. I'm on the side with the bright people, while you still think Goddidit".

Well, ya know what, no one has ever proven that God doesn't exist. No one has ever shown that a day has gone by without God being a part of it. That's not the case with your theories, as I stated above. You have every bit as much FAITH in your theories, as I have in God. Calling my faith religious, and yours science, and telling me that mine belongs on the religion forum because the science faith is for intellectuals, is a high and mighty attitude that I'm calling BS on.

If you're going to claim that something can happen, then show it to me, don't just tell me "You can't prove that it can't". If you can't SHOW that it can and does happen, then you are simply holding out hope and having faith that it can. That is every bit as religious as my theory.

With regards to abiogenesis; I don't know what happened. I don't know if it can, or can't. There are lots of promising explanations, a lot interesting avenues to pursue, but we do not have an answer; either positive or negative. There are a lots of very interesting things going on; many, many, many different interesting tit bits such as the video I linked earlier.

Because we have no definitive proof; because I am not certain. I have some interesting things that could pan out, but I have nothing more than hints, compelling hypothesis and things to that are being tested and experimented with.

To bypass ALL of this; and say it just can't happen; that no possible conditions, scenario, timeline or configuration cannot be supported by your argument. It just doesn't work.

You make such definitive claims because you have "faith", as you even claim. But this is a science forum; if you are not scientifically certain you don't say that you are certain. If there is no scientific evidence to back it up, don't claim that there is.

This is your problem, you are arguing from the perspective of faith against science; hoping that your emotional justification correlates to a scientific one. That professing your faith that something is true by saying "it is true" does not equate to any form of scientific argument.

If you want to be religious; and use your religious and emotional beliefs to conclude your own certainty there is a forum for that: Do not include such unscientific, emotional and logically incongruent arguments and justifications in a scientific discussion.

Like I said, faith that something might happen someday that there is no evidence for now, is every bit as religious a belief as mine is. Don't tell me that I can't post my religion, my theory for our origins, in a thread about origins where your religion is allowed.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 12:48:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The universe has always existed and will always exist.

No idea how life was created.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 2:58:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/17/2013 8:55:36 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 11/16/2013 10:37:55 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/16/2013 10:08:36 AM, medic0506 wrote:

Oh please. Every day that we live without seeing life create itself from inanimate objects is evidence that it can't happen. Every day that the brightest minds, of the most intelligent species in the universe, try to figure out how it happened, but can't, is evidence that it can't happen, and further evidence that it doesn't happen.

Every day that we live without seeing life create itself from inanimate objects is evidence that it can't happen in our current conditions, over decades.

What possible conditions might exist, outside a magic show, that would allow something that doesn't yet exist to create something, namely itself, prior to its existence?? That's not even a logically coherent statement, much less a plausible scientific hypothesis. You have the faith of Job, but it's a shame that you place that great faith in the wrong creator.

Before changing the subject, it is normally good manners to actually address the point before trying to move the conversation on. While it is a nice rhetorical technique it means you don't have to deal with any critique of your own position.

I am quite happy to deal with your straw man, once you have actually responded to my argument.


Extrapolating this to say that because we have been testing and experimenting in specific conditions for decades, and are making interesting progress in many different avenues we are pursuing: But have not yet drawn firm conclusions means that it is not possible, in any conditions that are possible in any area of the early earth over any comparible geological time that is possible; is simply not supported in reality, by logic or by science.

It is drawing a massive extrapolation based on nothing more than your emotional requirement to justify your absolute beleive that it is wrong. Making wild unscientific extrapolations in this way; and then holding them up as absolute truth demonstrates why it is so hard for people to engage in a thoughtful, and meaningful discussion with you.

For example; this argument is something people have repeatedly corrected you on about 1000 times; you never deal with such rebuttals, and mostly ignore them: yet you still repeat as if it a scientificly valid and upheld principle.

And then you come at me with this, "You can't prove that it can't happen, and since I still think it CAN happen, despite all this evidence to the contrary, that makes me more intellectual than you. I'm on the side with the bright people, while you still think Goddidit".

Well, ya know what, no one has ever proven that God doesn't exist. No one has ever shown that a day has gone by without God being a part of it. That's not the case with your theories, as I stated above. You have every bit as much FAITH in your theories, as I have in God. Calling my faith religious, and yours science, and telling me that mine belongs on the religion forum because the science faith is for intellectuals, is a high and mighty attitude that I'm calling BS on.

If you're going to claim that something can happen, then show it to me, don't just tell me "You can't prove that it can't". If you can't SHOW that it can and does happen, then you are simply holding out hope and having faith that it can. That is every bit as religious as my theory.

With regards to abiogenesis; I don't know what happened. I don't know if it can, or can't. There are lots of promising explanations, a lot interesting avenues to pursue, but we do not have an answer; either positive or negative. There are a lots of very interesting things going on; many, many, many different interesting tit bits such as the video I linked earlier.

Because we have no definitive proof; because I am not certain. I have some interesting things that could pan out, but I have nothing more than hints, compelling hypothesis and things to that are being tested and experimented with.

To bypass ALL of this; and say it just can't happen; that no possible conditions, scenario, timeline or configuration cannot be supported by your argument. It just doesn't work.

You make such definitive claims because you have "faith", as you even claim. But this is a science forum; if you are not scientifically certain you don't say that you are certain. If there is no scientific evidence to back it up, don't claim that there is.

This is your problem, you are arguing from the perspective of faith against science; hoping that your emotional justification correlates to a scientific one. That professing your faith that something is true by saying "it is true" does not equate to any form of scientific argument.

If you want to be religious; and use your religious and emotional beliefs to conclude your own certainty there is a forum for that: Do not include such unscientific, emotional and logically incongruent arguments and justifications in a scientific discussion.

Like I said, faith that something might happen someday that there is no evidence for now, is every bit as religious a belief as mine is. Don't tell me that I can't post my religion, my theory for our origins, in a thread about origins where your religion is allowed.

This is the point, which you have neatly demonstrated for me.

I have pointed out the absurdity of your conclusion, and given you examples of why your assumption "that what we see now has to be all you see ever" is actually a ridiculous position.

You use this argument to reject ALL the masses of evidence for evolution, and simply do not address the evidence and arguments that say your founding assumption is actually false.

Now your saying that the reasons you beleive this assumption is down to faith. That's fine, but you're using this "faith" to reject all the evidence contrary to your faith.

Again, this is fine, but don't then imply that the use of this argument is somehow a scientific counter argument like you continue to do throughout your posts.
jewelessien
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 5:16:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Oh dear, I'd totally forgotten about this forum :(

Anyway. So...as for the universe, we know it had a beginning, which opens up a whole kettle of live, wriggling fish :/

And then there's the beginning of life. At a point there was no life. And then there was life. New kettle of fish again; bigger ones this time, the type that can turn round and eat you :( There are just too many questions to answer, and many of them spiral out of the world of science and into strange metaphysical concepts (what, exactly, is life?)

It's true that under a certain set of conditions a wide variety of organic compounds can be synthesized from inorganic matter. More questions arise: what conditions are these, then? And it really doesn't help that sometimes we discover something new about Earth's early history that turns certain precepts on their head (such as the good old reducing atmosphere), and then we have to scramble around with the chemistry once more in between finding explanations for random puzzlers (such as why amino acids in living organisms are homochiral and laevorotatory, while those synthesized in the lab form racemic mixtures).

But as if we don't have enough complications already, there's that little snag of organic not being equal to living. There's definitely a threshold between so much dead matter and a living organism, though it's proven elusive. One can, in theory, construct an entire cell out of inorganic scratch (and probably use up the national budget of several small countries in the process). But it wouldn't be alive. One can even take ready-made 'spare' parts from dead cells and package them as a complete cell, like the Frankenstein monster. But it would still be another dead cell.
So there's a theory of precursors to life. And then that sparked the whole replicator-first/metabolism-first/both-first conundrum, as well as a whole new argument on what life really is. And a philosophical argument too: if something is a precursor to life, is it itself alive? Or is there another state of being besides living/non-living? And what about those blasted viruses anyway, since they need a host organism to be alive? If precursors to life are similar to viruses, then where was the bloody host? Then there's the bit in some high school biology textbooks that advocates a Frankensteinian bolt of lightning that 'activated' dead matter, contrary to the rather logical observation that a twenty-million-volt influx of electricity is far more likely to fry any delicate organic system out of existence.

Nevertheless, the beginning of life (as a chemical event) definitely required a considerable amount of activation energy, as well being order out of chaos (hence being against entropy). The entropy barrier could be overcome if the total reaction was highly exothermic, resulting in negative Gibbs' free energy and making it a spontaneous reaction. And - of course, we should be expecting it now - more questions. What are the values for said energy/entropy changes then, so we can calculate delta-G? How are we even supposed to know?

Let's all go home, we are drunk.
Everything is up for questioning. If it won't defend itself, then how do we know it can?
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 6:43:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 2:58:23 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/17/2013 8:55:36 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 11/16/2013 10:37:55 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/16/2013 10:08:36 AM, medic0506 wrote:

Oh please. Every day that we live without seeing life create itself from inanimate objects is evidence that it can't happen. Every day that the brightest minds, of the most intelligent species in the universe, try to figure out how it happened, but can't, is evidence that it can't happen, and further evidence that it doesn't happen.

Every day that we live without seeing life create itself from inanimate objects is evidence that it can't happen in our current conditions, over decades.

What possible conditions might exist, outside a magic show, that would allow something that doesn't yet exist to create something, namely itself, prior to its existence?? That's not even a logically coherent statement, much less a plausible scientific hypothesis. You have the faith of Job, but it's a shame that you place that great faith in the wrong creator.

Before changing the subject, it is normally good manners to actually address the point before trying to move the conversation on. While it is a nice rhetorical technique it means you don't have to deal with any critique of your own position.

I am quite happy to deal with your straw man, once you have actually responded to my argument.

a) You didn't provide an argument. All you did is imply that maybe, possibly, there might be some other condition that might allow the absurd.
b) I did address the only semblance of a point that you made. Something that does not yet exist, cannot be an active participant in its own creation. IOW, life can't create itself, in any conditions. We have no reason, no evidence that tells us that it is even remotely possible. We even have some of our greatest minds trying to do it in a lab, but can't even figure it out.

You seem to have learned this new term "rhetorical device" and are trying to use it in inappropriate situations. This isn't just rhetoric, it's a scientific fact, and is simple logic and common sense. So don't say that I didn't address the point.

Extrapolating this to say that because we have been testing and experimenting in specific conditions for decades, and are making interesting progress in many different avenues we are pursuing: But have not yet drawn firm conclusions means that it is not possible, in any conditions that are possible in any area of the early earth over any comparible geological time that is possible; is simply not supported in reality, by logic or by science.

It is drawing a massive extrapolation based on nothing more than your emotional requirement to justify your absolute beleive that it is wrong. Making wild unscientific extrapolations in this way; and then holding them up as absolute truth demonstrates why it is so hard for people to engage in a thoughtful, and meaningful discussion with you.

For example; this argument is something people have repeatedly corrected you on about 1000 times; you never deal with such rebuttals, and mostly ignore them: yet you still repeat as if it a scientificly valid and upheld principle.

And then you come at me with this, "You can't prove that it can't happen, and since I still think it CAN happen, despite all this evidence to the contrary, that makes me more intellectual than you. I'm on the side with the bright people, while you still think Goddidit".

Well, ya know what, no one has ever proven that God doesn't exist. No one has ever shown that a day has gone by without God being a part of it. That's not the case with your theories, as I stated above. You have every bit as much FAITH in your theories, as I have in God. Calling my faith religious, and yours science, and telling me that mine belongs on the religion forum because the science faith is for intellectuals, is a high and mighty attitude that I'm calling BS on.

If you're going to claim that something can happen, then show it to me, don't just tell me "You can't prove that it can't". If you can't SHOW that it can and does happen, then you are simply holding out hope and having faith that it can. That is every bit as religious as my theory.

With regards to abiogenesis; I don't know what happened. I don't know if it can, or can't. There are lots of promising explanations, a lot interesting avenues to pursue, but we do not have an answer; either positive or negative. There are a lots of very interesting things going on; many, many, many different interesting tit bits such as the video I linked earlier.

Because we have no definitive proof; because I am not certain. I have some interesting things that could pan out, but I have nothing more than hints, compelling hypothesis and things to that are being tested and experimented with.

To bypass ALL of this; and say it just can't happen; that no possible conditions, scenario, timeline or configuration cannot be supported by your argument. It just doesn't work.

You make such definitive claims because you have "faith", as you even claim. But this is a science forum; if you are not scientifically certain you don't say that you are certain. If there is no scientific evidence to back it up, don't claim that there is.

This is your problem, you are arguing from the perspective of faith against science; hoping that your emotional justification correlates to a scientific one. That professing your faith that something is true by saying "it is true" does not equate to any form of scientific argument.

If you want to be religious; and use your religious and emotional beliefs to conclude your own certainty there is a forum for that: Do not include such unscientific, emotional and logically incongruent arguments and justifications in a scientific discussion.

Like I said, faith that something might happen someday that there is no evidence for now, is every bit as religious a belief as mine is. Don't tell me that I can't post my religion, my theory for our origins, in a thread about origins where your religion is allowed.

This is the point, which you have neatly demonstrated for me.

I have pointed out the absurdity of your conclusion, and given you examples of why your assumption "that what we see now has to be all you see ever" is actually a ridiculous position.

You use this argument to reject ALL the masses of evidence for evolution, and simply do not address the evidence and arguments that say your founding assumption is actually false.

Now your saying that the reasons you beleive this assumption is down to faith. That's fine, but you're using this "faith" to reject all the evidence contrary to your faith.

Again, this is fine, but don't then imply that the use of this argument is somehow a scientific counter argument like you continue to do throughout your posts.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 6:55:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 6:43:10 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 11/18/2013 2:58:23 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/17/2013 8:55:36 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 11/16/2013 10:37:55 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/16/2013 10:08:36 AM, medic0506 wrote:

Oh please. Every day that we live without seeing life create itself from inanimate objects is evidence that it can't happen. Every day that the brightest minds, of the most intelligent species in the universe, try to figure out how it happened, but can't, is evidence that it can't happen, and further evidence that it doesn't happen.

Every day that we live without seeing life create itself from inanimate objects is evidence that it can't happen in our current conditions, over decades.

What possible conditions might exist, outside a magic show, that would allow something that doesn't yet exist to create something, namely itself, prior to its existence?? That's not even a logically coherent statement, much less a plausible scientific hypothesis. You have the faith of Job, but it's a shame that you place that great faith in the wrong creator.

Before changing the subject, it is normally good manners to actually address the point before trying to move the conversation on. While it is a nice rhetorical technique it means you don't have to deal with any critique of your own position.

I am quite happy to deal with your straw man, once you have actually responded to my argument.

a) You didn't provide an argument. All you did is imply that maybe, possibly, there might be some other condition that might allow the absurd.
b) I did address the only semblance of a point that you made. Something that does not yet exist, cannot be an active participant in its own creation. IOW, life can't create itself, in any conditions. We have no reason, no evidence that tells us that it is even remotely possible. We even have some of our greatest minds trying to do it in a lab, but can't even figure it out.

You seem to have learned this new term "rhetorical device" and are trying to use it in inappropriate situations. This isn't just rhetoric, it's a scientific fact, and is simple logic and common sense. So don't say that I didn't address the point.

a.)

Ramshutu Wrote:
Every day that we live without seeing life create itself from inanimate objects is evidence that it can't happen in our current conditions, over decades.

Extrapolating this to say that because we have been testing and experimenting in specific conditions for decades, and are making interesting progress in many different avenues we are pursuing: But have not yet drawn firm conclusions means that it is not possible, in any conditions that are possible in any area of the early earth over any comparible geological time that is possible; is simply not supported in reality, by logic or by science.

b.) I'm saying that the conclusions you draw are based on a weird extrapolation you can't support; Ignoring the fact that you simply ignore all the evidence pointing to this conclusion and, and while the specifics are not known, the statement you make that there is no evidence is horribly false.

The argument here is basically thus:

You: It is impossible because even though your theory says we should see things occuring over geological timescales; what we haven't seen that change in our lifetime. All the evidence of it happening in the past can be discarded because we don't see it happening now. Even though science has come a long way in understanding how things work; this can be discarded because we don't see it happening now.

Me: Your premise is based on assuming that because we can't see geological timescale change in a small amount of time, means that given geological timescales it can never, ever, ever, ever happen ever; despite all the evidence that shows that it can. Please demonstrate the logicality of this extrapolative conclusion and support it with evidence

You: The evidence is that it is impossible because even though your theory says we should see things occuring over geological timescales; what we haven't seen that change in our lifetime.

This is simply a circular argument. And I am still awaiting your justification.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 7:04:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Oh, and I while it's nice that you ignore the key point that you have eluded to: That your justification is based on faith (where as mine is based on evidence), they are both two halves of the key point I ammaking:

That you have no scientific objection to this because:
a) Your primary objection is due to your having faith, as implied by yourself.
b) Your primary objection is based on an unsupported (and in fact contradicted) conclusion.
Xerox
Posts: 50
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 10:26:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Wha?

I thought that maybe one thread that could be construed into a Creationism Vs Evolutionism Debate wouldn't...

I guess it's too much to ask...

#QuantumEnglish.
A hydra between TheAntidoter and TheDebateKid.