Total Posts:226|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

On the impossibility of abiogenesis.

Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 9:04:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Evolutionists would like us to believe that chance and necessity are responsible for the origin of life. This article proves that such an event is not only improbable, but impossible. http://www.uncommondescent.com...
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 10:28:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
d;lfkajd adjf asd;l'3pouriuisnasd
; asdd;asjdfoetjeemsnva' s dkfjd wefpeoamsd adooem sw a'djf difisk

I was hoping i could randomly tell you off with the above randomly typed message, but didn't work.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will state this though computer analogies don't prove jack.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 11:39:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 9:04:09 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Evolutionists would like us to believe that chance and necessity are responsible for the origin of life. This article proves that such an event is not only improbable, but impossible. http://www.uncommondescent.com...

Cool. Let me know when this guy gets his Nobel Prize.
jh1234l
Posts: 580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 12:08:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 9:04:09 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Evolutionists would like us to believe that chance and necessity are responsible for the origin of life. This article proves that such an event is not only improbable, but impossible. http://www.uncommondescent.com...

http://www.debate.org...
My political compass:
Economic Left/Right: -1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82
1 square right of Nelson Mandela, 2 squares down from Francois Hollande
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 12:44:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 12:08:39 PM, jh1234l wrote:
At 9/4/2014 9:04:09 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Evolutionists would like us to believe that chance and necessity are responsible for the origin of life. This article proves that such an event is not only improbable, but impossible. http://www.uncommondescent.com...

http://www.debate.org...

Referencing a debate that someone won is not proof of anything. It simply means that one is a poor debater. Try refuting this.

Thesis 01: From a primordial soup of disorganized atoms as input a cybernetic constructor as output cannot spontaneously arise.

As said, a constructor implies a physical implementation of a computer formalism. In a naturalistic scenario, if the constructor formalism doesn"t exist already in the input, it should be generated by the C&N computer (for the principle of causality and the principle of existence of formalism, F > P). But we saw that this formalism doesn"t come from a computation. Then C&N cannot create it. That is expressed in the jargon of informatics by the GIGO principle ("Garbage In, Garbage Out").

In the naturalistic scenario we are given to understand that formalism appears spontaneously in the output of a C&N computer. The principle of causality tells us that either C&N or intelligent input must have created the formalism. Yet we have already determined that a C&N computer cannot create a computer formalism. Therefore, if such formalism is present in the output of C&N, it must necessarily have first been introduced via input into the computer. There is no other option. But in the naturalistic scenario the input is limited to disordered atoms, which have no formalism. Therefore, given that intelligent input is prohibited and C&N is incompetent, no computer formalism can arise in the output of a C&N computer. The naturalistic scenario cannot produce the wonders demanded of it.

By the way, a computer formalism contains what David Abel calls "prescriptive functional information" (PI) [2] that is of course a form of what William Dembski calls "complex specified information" [6] and justifies what Michael Polanyi said: "the information content of a biological whole exceeds that of the sum of its parts" [7]. If this formalism x doesn"t exist, the output would have an information content equal to the sum of its atoms and nobody denies that a biological system is something more than a container of disordered atoms or a tank filled with gas molecules. That "formalism precedes physicalism" is expressed by another researcher this way:

"That a semantic does exist, i.e. that the information stored in the DNA is carrier of meaning, is inferable from the fact that biological systems do work, the information is translated in a sensible manner in functioning biological processes" [8].
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 12:45:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 11:39:40 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 9/4/2014 9:04:09 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Evolutionists would like us to believe that chance and necessity are responsible for the origin of life. This article proves that such an event is not only improbable, but impossible. http://www.uncommondescent.com...

Cool. Let me know when this guy gets his Nobel Prize.

Can you refute anything he claims? I think not. That's why you resort to wisecracks instead.
jh1234l
Posts: 580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 1:20:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 12:44:08 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/4/2014 12:08:39 PM, jh1234l wrote:
At 9/4/2014 9:04:09 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Evolutionists would like us to believe that chance and necessity are responsible for the origin of life. This article proves that such an event is not only improbable, but impossible. http://www.uncommondescent.com...

http://www.debate.org...

Referencing a debate that someone won is not proof of anything. It simply means that one is a poor debater. Try refuting this.

Thesis 01: From a primordial soup of disorganized atoms as input a cybernetic constructor as output cannot spontaneously arise.

As said, a constructor implies a physical implementation of a computer formalism. In a naturalistic scenario, if the constructor formalism doesn"t exist already in the input, it should be generated by the C&N computer (for the principle of causality and the principle of existence of formalism, F > P). But we saw that this formalism doesn"t come from a computation. Then C&N cannot create it. That is expressed in the jargon of informatics by the GIGO principle ("Garbage In, Garbage Out").

In the naturalistic scenario we are given to understand that formalism appears spontaneously in the output of a C&N computer. The principle of causality tells us that either C&N or intelligent input must have created the formalism. Yet we have already determined that a C&N computer cannot create a computer formalism. Therefore, if such formalism is present in the output of C&N, it must necessarily have first been introduced via input into the computer. There is no other option. But in the naturalistic scenario the input is limited to disordered atoms, which have no formalism. Therefore, given that intelligent input is prohibited and C&N is incompetent, no computer formalism can arise in the output of a C&N computer. The naturalistic scenario cannot produce the wonders demanded of it.

By the way, a computer formalism contains what David Abel calls "prescriptive functional information" (PI) [2] that is of course a form of what William Dembski calls "complex specified information" [6] and justifies what Michael Polanyi said: "the information content of a biological whole exceeds that of the sum of its parts" [7]. If this formalism x doesn"t exist, the output would have an information content equal to the sum of its atoms and nobody denies that a biological system is something more than a container of disordered atoms or a tank filled with gas molecules. That "formalism precedes physicalism" is expressed by another researcher this way:

"That a semantic does exist, i.e. that the information stored in the DNA is carrier of meaning, is inferable from the fact that biological systems do work, the information is translated in a sensible manner in functioning biological processes" [8].

Read it.
My political compass:
Economic Left/Right: -1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82
1 square right of Nelson Mandela, 2 squares down from Francois Hollande
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 2:00:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 12:45:24 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/4/2014 11:39:40 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 9/4/2014 9:04:09 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Evolutionists would like us to believe that chance and necessity are responsible for the origin of life. This article proves that such an event is not only improbable, but impossible. http://www.uncommondescent.com...

Cool. Let me know when this guy gets his Nobel Prize.

Can you refute anything he claims? I think not. That's why you resort to wisecracks instead.

Did he win yet? This is pretty significant.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 2:27:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 2:00:39 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 9/4/2014 12:45:24 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/4/2014 11:39:40 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 9/4/2014 9:04:09 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Evolutionists would like us to believe that chance and necessity are responsible for the origin of life. This article proves that such an event is not only improbable, but impossible. http://www.uncommondescent.com...

Cool. Let me know when this guy gets his Nobel Prize.

Can you refute anything he claims? I think not. That's why you resort to wisecracks instead.

Did he win yet? This is pretty significant.

Did you try to refute what he said? I think you did not. And why would the scientific community award anyone, who disagrees with their pet theory, any awards? Science is biased. Didn't you know that?
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 2:38:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 1:20:03 PM, jh1234l wrote:
At 9/4/2014 12:44:08 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/4/2014 12:08:39 PM, jh1234l wrote:
At 9/4/2014 9:04:09 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Evolutionists would like us to believe that chance and necessity are responsible for the origin of life. This article proves that such an event is not only improbable, but impossible. http://www.uncommondescent.com...

http://www.debate.org...

Referencing a debate that someone won is not proof of anything. It simply means that one is a poor debater. Try refuting this.

Thesis 01: From a primordial soup of disorganized atoms as input a cybernetic constructor as output cannot spontaneously arise.

As said, a constructor implies a physical implementation of a computer formalism. In a naturalistic scenario, if the constructor formalism doesn"t exist already in the input, it should be generated by the C&N computer (for the principle of causality and the principle of existence of formalism, F > P). But we saw that this formalism doesn"t come from a computation. Then C&N cannot create it. That is expressed in the jargon of informatics by the GIGO principle ("Garbage In, Garbage Out").

In the naturalistic scenario we are given to understand that formalism appears spontaneously in the output of a C&N computer. The principle of causality tells us that either C&N or intelligent input must have created the formalism. Yet we have already determined that a C&N computer cannot create a computer formalism. Therefore, if such formalism is present in the output of C&N, it must necessarily have first been introduced via input into the computer. There is no other option. But in the naturalistic scenario the input is limited to disordered atoms, which have no formalism. Therefore, given that intelligent input is prohibited and C&N is incompetent, no computer formalism can arise in the output of a C&N computer. The naturalistic scenario cannot produce the wonders demanded of it.

By the way, a computer formalism contains what David Abel calls "prescriptive functional information" (PI) [2] that is of course a form of what William Dembski calls "complex specified information" [6] and justifies what Michael Polanyi said: "the information content of a biological whole exceeds that of the sum of its parts" [7]. If this formalism x doesn"t exist, the output would have an information content equal to the sum of its atoms and nobody denies that a biological system is something more than a container of disordered atoms or a tank filled with gas molecules. That "formalism precedes physicalism" is expressed by another researcher this way:

"That a semantic does exist, i.e. that the information stored in the DNA is carrier of meaning, is inferable from the fact that biological systems do work, the information is translated in a sensible manner in functioning biological processes" [8].

Read it.

I did read it. It's a bunch of BS. The first article you referenced was a lab experiment, that used conditions that were 'thought' to exist billions of years ago. It was a controlled experiment. That is not evidence that it could happen in nature. Besides, it's a long way from simple chemical chains to RNA, not to mention DNA; which is several orders of magnitude more complex. What a joke. I didn't read any more, since I felt it would be a waste of time.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 2:39:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 2:27:46 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/4/2014 2:00:39 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 9/4/2014 12:45:24 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/4/2014 11:39:40 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 9/4/2014 9:04:09 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Evolutionists would like us to believe that chance and necessity are responsible for the origin of life. This article proves that such an event is not only improbable, but impossible. http://www.uncommondescent.com...

Cool. Let me know when this guy gets his Nobel Prize.

Can you refute anything he claims? I think not. That's why you resort to wisecracks instead.

Did he win yet? This is pretty significant.

Did you try to refute what he said?

Well it's clearly true, so why would I try and refute it?

I think you did not. And why would the scientific community award anyone, who disagrees with their pet theory, any awards?

Because that's how science works. Name a famous scientist, chances are they're famous because of radically altering the status quo.

Science is biased. Didn't you know that?

Nope. Can't know something that's false, sorry.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 3:03:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 2:39:58 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 9/4/2014 2:27:46 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/4/2014 2:00:39 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 9/4/2014 12:45:24 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/4/2014 11:39:40 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 9/4/2014 9:04:09 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Evolutionists would like us to believe that chance and necessity are responsible for the origin of life. This article proves that such an event is not only improbable, but impossible. http://www.uncommondescent.com...

Cool. Let me know when this guy gets his Nobel Prize.

Can you refute anything he claims? I think not. That's why you resort to wisecracks instead.

Did he win yet? This is pretty significant.

Did you try to refute what he said?

Well it's clearly true, so why would I try and refute it?

I think you did not. And why would the scientific community award anyone, who disagrees with their pet theory, any awards?

Because that's how science works. Name a famous scientist, chances are they're famous because of radically altering the status quo.

Science is biased. Didn't you know that?

Nope. Can't know something that's false, sorry.

Here are a few quotes that prove you wrong.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

I am convinced that the battle for humankind"s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level"preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new"the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism " .

It will undoubtedly be a long, arduous, painful struggle replete with much sorrow and many tears, but humanism will emerge triumphant. It must if the family of humankind is to survive.

Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.

Not biased, huh? Clearly, you are wrong. And let's not forget all of the teachers and scientists that were fired because they disagreed with evolution. Many of them never even mentioned Creation. The mere fact that they disagreed with the majority was enough. Not biased, my A$$!
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 3:34:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 3:03:51 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/4/2014 2:39:58 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 9/4/2014 2:27:46 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/4/2014 2:00:39 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 9/4/2014 12:45:24 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/4/2014 11:39:40 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 9/4/2014 9:04:09 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Evolutionists would like us to believe that chance and necessity are responsible for the origin of life. This article proves that such an event is not only improbable, but impossible. http://www.uncommondescent.com...

Cool. Let me know when this guy gets his Nobel Prize.

Can you refute anything he claims? I think not. That's why you resort to wisecracks instead.

Did he win yet? This is pretty significant.

Did you try to refute what he said?

Well it's clearly true, so why would I try and refute it?

I think you did not. And why would the scientific community award anyone, who disagrees with their pet theory, any awards?

Because that's how science works. Name a famous scientist, chances are they're famous because of radically altering the status quo.

Science is biased. Didn't you know that?

Nope. Can't know something that's false, sorry.

Here are a few quotes that prove you wrong.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

I am convinced that the battle for humankind"s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level"preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new"the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism " .

It will undoubtedly be a long, arduous, painful struggle replete with much sorrow and many tears, but humanism will emerge triumphant. It must if the family of humankind is to survive.

Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.

Not biased, huh? Clearly, you are wrong. And let's not forget all of the teachers and scientists that were fired because they disagreed with evolution. Many of them never even mentioned Creation. The mere fact that they disagreed with the majority was enough. Not biased, my A$$!

Unsourced, uncited, out of context, bare assertions? Good enough for me! I'm convinced! Which way to Jesus?
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 4:53:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 9:04:09 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Evolutionists would like us to believe that chance and necessity are responsible for the origin of life. This article proves that such an event is not only improbable, but impossible. http://www.uncommondescent.com...

The only thing that article could ever prove, is its effectivity at cleaning asses.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 4:59:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 4:53:28 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 9:04:09 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Evolutionists would like us to believe that chance and necessity are responsible for the origin of life. This article proves that such an event is not only improbable, but impossible. http://www.uncommondescent.com...

The only thing that article could ever prove, is its effectivity at cleaning asses.

Then you should have no problem refuting any of it. Yet you result to insults, instead. Go ahead. Try to refute any of it. I dare you. Try this one.

Thesis 01: From a primordial soup of disorganized atoms as input a cybernetic constructor as output cannot spontaneously arise.

As said, a constructor implies a physical implementation of a computer formalism. In a naturalistic scenario, if the constructor formalism doesn"t exist already in the input, it should be generated by the C&N computer (for the principle of causality and the principle of existence of formalism, F > P). But we saw that this formalism doesn"t come from a computation. Then C&N cannot create it. That is expressed in the jargon of informatics by the GIGO principle ("Garbage In, Garbage Out").

In the naturalistic scenario we are given to understand that formalism appears spontaneously in the output of a C&N computer. The principle of causality tells us that either C&N or intelligent input must have created the formalism. Yet we have already determined that a C&N computer cannot create a computer formalism. Therefore, if such formalism is present in the output of C&N, it must necessarily have first been introduced via input into the computer. There is no other option. But in the naturalistic scenario the input is limited to disordered atoms, which have no formalism. Therefore, given that intelligent input is prohibited and C&N is incompetent, no computer formalism can arise in the output of a C&N computer. The naturalistic scenario cannot produce the wonders demanded of it.

By the way, a computer formalism contains what David Abel calls "prescriptive functional information" (PI) [2] that is of course a form of what William Dembski calls "complex specified information" [6] and justifies what Michael Polanyi said: "the information content of a biological whole exceeds that of the sum of its parts" [7]. If this formalism x doesn"t exist, the output would have an information content equal to the sum of its atoms and nobody denies that a biological system is something more than a container of disordered atoms or a tank filled with gas molecules. That "formalism precedes physicalism" is expressed by another researcher this way:

"That a semantic does exist, i.e. that the information stored in the DNA is carrier of meaning, is inferable from the fact that biological systems do work, the information is translated in a sensible manner in functioning biological processes" [8].
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 6:15:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 4:59:57 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/4/2014 4:53:28 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 9:04:09 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Evolutionists would like us to believe that chance and necessity are responsible for the origin of life. This article proves that such an event is not only improbable, but impossible. http://www.uncommondescent.com...

The only thing that article could ever prove, is its effectivity at cleaning asses.

Then you should have no problem refuting any of it. Yet you result to insults, instead. Go ahead. Try to refute any of it. I dare you. Try this one.

I doubt I will be able to heal 49 years of religious indoctrination. But ok, I'll try. First things first, to the article:

(1) to show that a computer cannot be generated naturalistically; (2) to show that biological systems contain computers. From #1 and #2 I will argue the impossibility of abiogenesis.

(1) is irrelevant and prima facie (2) is false, and also irrelevant.
So most likely the conclusion will be also irrelevant. But let's keep reading.

The DNA-polymerase molecular machine produces RNA from DNA (genome)
*The RNA-polymerase.

Normally this mark consists of a DNA segment called a "primer".
*Of a RNA segment called a "primer".

Seems the author is a bit confused with the replication-transcription-translation process. But nothing important. On the other hand, I sense where this is going: the author will try to convince us that the DNA polymerase or the cell itself are computers, then he will try to explain how computers can not be spontaneously created. I think if the entire argument is based on the analogy "cell-computer," the article will fail miserably to convince me of something. Maybe the author doesn't know that enzimes like DNA-polimerase are proteins, and that proteins have been observed to spontaneously generate. The same goes for RNA.

Thesis 01: From a primordial soup of disorganized atoms as input a cybernetic constructor as output cannot spontaneously arise.

As said, a constructor implies a physical implementation of a computer formalism. In a naturalistic scenario, if the constructor formalism doesn"t exist already in the input, it should be generated by the C&N computer (for the principle of causality and the principle of existence of formalism, F > P). But we saw that this formalism doesn"t come from a computation. Then C&N cannot create it. That is expressed in the jargon of informatics by the GIGO principle ("Garbage In, Garbage Out").

In the naturalistic scenario we are given to understand that formalism appears spontaneously in the output of a C&N computer. The principle of causality tells us that either C&N or intelligent input must have created the formalism. Yet we have already determined that a C&N computer cannot create a computer formalism. Therefore, if such formalism is present in the output of C&N, it must necessarily have first been introduced via input into the computer. There is no other option. But in the naturalistic scenario the input is limited to disordered atoms, which have no formalism. Therefore, given that intelligent input is prohibited and C&N is incompetent, no computer formalism can arise in the output of a C&N computer. The naturalistic scenario cannot produce the wonders demanded of it.

*Keeps reading*

Yep, more irrelevant cell-computer comparisons and lots of impossible to prove assumptions. We have to remember that the author wants to prove a computer is IMPOSSIBLE to spontaneously generate, while computers are a mere group of pieces put together, to make a puzzle that is simpler than a cell. Somehow the author assumes chance alone would never ever make a puzzle, while logic tells us that if two pieces of a puzzle can colide many times until they assemble correctly, so do three, four, ten, or one million, given the appropiate time. Unlikely? Maybe. Impossible? Hell no.

Obiection 03: "The genetic code in a GRC constructor could have arisen from a shorter alphabet, this one from a shorter one and so on, by incremental steps".

Answer 03: This process in no way could reduce the overall prescriptive information in the code. As Don Johnson says
"we have examined both the functional (especially prescriptive) information and the Shannon complexity of life, with Shannon information placing limits on information transfer, including the channel capacity limit that requires an initial alphabet of life to be at least as complex as the current DNA codon alphabet" [9].


Again, self-replicating RNA has been observed to spontaneously generate.

Corollary 01: Given that any biological cell contains GRCs, given that a GRC is a constructor, and given that a constructor doesn"t arise from a naturalistic scenario, the naturalistic origin of life is conceptually impossible. [...] If biological cells contain computers and computers cannot be created by C&N, then the origin of such biological systems is not natural and implies the intervention of that which is able to work out symbolic linguistic information processing namely, intelligence. Such transcendent intelligence, whose hardware and software designs are before our eyes, may be called the Great Designer.

"Given that we are in Wonderland, abiogenesis is impossible" would be equally ridiculous, but at least funny.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 7:33:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 6:15:57 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 4:59:57 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/4/2014 4:53:28 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 9:04:09 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Evolutionists would like us to believe that chance and necessity are responsible for the origin of life. This article proves that such an event is not only improbable, but impossible. http://www.uncommondescent.com...

The only thing that article could ever prove, is its effectivity at cleaning asses.

Then you should have no problem refuting any of it. Yet you result to insults, instead. Go ahead. Try to refute any of it. I dare you. Try this one.

I doubt I will be able to heal 49 years of religious indoctrination. But ok, I'll try. First things first, to the article:

(1) to show that a computer cannot be generated naturalistically; (2) to show that biological systems contain computers. From #1 and #2 I will argue the impossibility of abiogenesis.

(1) is irrelevant and prima facie (2) is false, and also irrelevant.
So most likely the conclusion will be also irrelevant. But let's keep reading.

The DNA-polymerase molecular machine produces RNA from DNA (genome)
*The RNA-polymerase.

Normally this mark consists of a DNA segment called a "primer".
*Of a RNA segment called a "primer".

Seems the author is a bit confused with the replication-transcription-translation process. But nothing important. On the other hand, I sense where this is going: the author will try to convince us that the DNA polymerase or the cell itself are computers, then he will try to explain how computers can not be spontaneously created. I think if the entire argument is based on the analogy "cell-computer," the article will fail miserably to convince me of something. Maybe the author doesn't know that enzimes like DNA-polimerase are proteins, and that proteins have been observed to spontaneously generate. The same goes for RNA.

Thesis 01: From a primordial soup of disorganized atoms as input a cybernetic constructor as output cannot spontaneously arise.

As said, a constructor implies a physical implementation of a computer formalism. In a naturalistic scenario, if the constructor formalism doesn"t exist already in the input, it should be generated by the C&N computer (for the principle of causality and the principle of existence of formalism, F > P). But we saw that this formalism doesn"t come from a computation. Then C&N cannot create it. That is expressed in the jargon of informatics by the GIGO principle ("Garbage In, Garbage Out").

In the naturalistic scenario we are given to understand that formalism appears spontaneously in the output of a C&N computer. The principle of causality tells us that either C&N or intelligent input must have created the formalism. Yet we have already determined that a C&N computer cannot create a computer formalism. Therefore, if such formalism is present in the output of C&N, it must necessarily have first been introduced via input into the computer. There is no other option. But in the naturalistic scenario the input is limited to disordered atoms, which have no formalism. Therefore, given that intelligent input is prohibited and C&N is incompetent, no computer formalism can arise in the output of a C&N computer. The naturalistic scenario cannot produce the wonders demanded of it.

*Keeps reading*

Yep, more irrelevant cell-computer comparisons and lots of impossible to prove assumptions. We have to remember that the author wants to prove a computer is IMPOSSIBLE to spontaneously generate, while computers are a mere group of pieces put together, to make a puzzle that is simpler than a cell. Somehow the author assumes chance alone would never ever make a puzzle, while logic tells us that if two pieces of a puzzle can colide many times until they assemble correctly, so do three, four, ten, or one million, given the appropiate time. Unlikely? Maybe. Impossible? Hell no.

Obiection 03: "The genetic code in a GRC constructor could have arisen from a shorter alphabet, this one from a shorter one and so on, by incremental steps".

Answer 03: This process in no way could reduce the overall prescriptive information in the code. As Don Johnson says
"we have examined both the functional (especially prescriptive) information and the Shannon complexity of life, with Shannon information placing limits on information transfer, including the channel capacity limit that requires an initial alphabet of life to be at least as complex as the current DNA codon alphabet" [9].


Again, self-replicating RNA has been observed to spontaneously generate.

Corollary 01: Given that any biological cell contains GRCs, given that a GRC is a constructor, and given that a constructor doesn"t arise from a naturalistic scenario, the naturalistic origin of life is conceptually impossible. [...] If biological cells contain computers and computers cannot be created by C&N, then the origin of such biological systems is not natural and implies the intervention of that which is able to work out symbolic linguistic information processing namely, intelligence. Such transcendent intelligence, whose hardware and software designs are before our eyes, may be called the Great Designer.

"Given that we are in Wonderland, abiogenesis is impossible" would be equally ridiculous, but at least funny.

Everything you've said is nothing but your opinion, until you provide evidence to back it up. You have faild to do so. Care to try again?
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 5:37:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 7:33:04 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Everything you've said is nothing but your opinion, until you provide evidence to back it up. You have faild to do so. Care to try again?

Yep. No problem.
(1) is irrelevant because cells are obviously not computers. You can make analogies between a cell and a computer, a cell and a factory, a cell and a puzzle, a cell and an ecosystem. Cells are systems that have features in common with computers, puzzles, factories, ecosystems, and more. But in the end cells are cells, not computers, and thus it is irrelevant if computers can arise spontaneously or not. I guess this is obvious and needs no further explanation. It would made more sense if the author explained that systems can not arise spontaneously, but this is impossible to prove since we have, ie ecosystems, arising spontaneously every day, ie on your own kitchen, on bread or fruit that you bought a few days ago, has been formed an ecosystem of mould type fungi, etc.

And prima facie (2) is false, and also irrelevant.
I say this because there are no computers inside cells, as you may figured out yourself. Again you can make an analogy between DNA-polymerase and a computer, or a puzzle, or pretty much any machine, but at the end of the day, DNA-Polymerase is just a protein, not a computer.

The author made a point in saying that computers can not generate spontaneously. In my opinion he failed to demonstrate it, but even if he did, the article may be of interest to engineers, but certainly not very interesting to biologists.

It"s the RNA polymerase, not the DNA-polymerase, what produces RNA from DNA: http://en.wikipedia.org...(genetics)

On the replication process, primers are made of RNA, not DNA: http://en.wikipedia.org...(molecular_biology)

Self-replicating RNA has been observed to spontaneously generate:
http://pdf.aminer.org...
http://www.dailygalaxy.com...

Now I give you a much shorter, but more useful article: http://evolutionfaq.com...

Also remember that I"m not saying abiogenesis is probable, just refuting the claim that it is impossible as the author of your article said.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 9:04:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 5:37:44 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 7:33:04 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Everything you've said is nothing but your opinion, until you provide evidence to back it up. You have faild to do so. Care to try again?

Yep. No problem.
(1) is irrelevant because cells are obviously not computers. You can make analogies between a cell and a computer, a cell and a factory, a cell and a puzzle, a cell and an ecosystem. Cells are systems that have features in common with computers, puzzles, factories, ecosystems, and more. But in the end cells are cells, not computers, and thus it is irrelevant if computers can arise spontaneously or not. I guess this is obvious and needs no further explanation. It would made more sense if the author explained that systems can not arise spontaneously, but this is impossible to prove since we have, ie ecosystems, arising spontaneously every day, ie on your own kitchen, on bread or fruit that you bought a few days ago, has been formed an ecosystem of mould type fungi, etc.

And prima facie (2) is false, and also irrelevant.
I say this because there are no computers inside cells, as you may figured out yourself. Again you can make an analogy between DNA-polymerase and a computer, or a puzzle, or pretty much any machine, but at the end of the day, DNA-Polymerase is just a protein, not a computer.

The author made a point in saying that computers can not generate spontaneously. In my opinion he failed to demonstrate it, but even if he did, the article may be of interest to engineers, but certainly not very interesting to biologists.

It"s the RNA polymerase, not the DNA-polymerase, what produces RNA from DNA: http://en.wikipedia.org...(genetics)

On the replication process, primers are made of RNA, not DNA: http://en.wikipedia.org...(molecular_biology)

Self-replicating RNA has been observed to spontaneously generate:
http://pdf.aminer.org...
http://www.dailygalaxy.com...

Seriously? The way you said it, you'd think that the RNA evolved from chemicals, all by itself. This is nothing but a controlled lab experiment, with RNA sequences designed by the research team. Yes, they 'evolved', or should I say they adapted? When scientists observe life evolving from non life, give me a call. What you've shown me here is singularly unimpressive.

Now I give you a much shorter, but more useful article: http://evolutionfaq.com...

Also remember that I"m not saying abiogenesis is probable, just refuting the claim that it is impossible as the author of your article said.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 8:30:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Otakage keeps insisting cells aren't computers.

This is false. Cells are computers because they compute. Indeed, cells are electronic devices that compute binary data, but they are much more marvelous than our man-made computers because they do so much more, and, contrary to our man-made computers, the machine code of cells can often be read backwards just as well as forwards.

Otakage's wastes most of his time attacking a strawman. The argument Dr_Obvious is advancing is not that cells are Windows or Mac computers, but biological computers.

Otakage is also failing to disguise his dishonesty (or stupidity) when he says that "maybe" abiogenesis is unlikely, implying that abiogenesis might be a common event. I'll just highlight the fact that numerous PhDs over the past 50 years have been desperately trying to produce abiogenesis, with absolutely no success.

Abiogenesis is not likely. There's no "maybe".
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Cooldudebro
Posts: 383
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 8:35:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 9:04:09 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Evolutionists would like us to believe that chance and necessity are responsible for the origin of life. This article proves that such an event is not only improbable, but impossible. http://www.uncommondescent.com...

You do know that the site you gave had incredible bias as it is from a Christian site that endorses creationism.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 4:40:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 8:35:39 PM, Cooldudebro wrote:
At 9/4/2014 9:04:09 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Evolutionists would like us to believe that chance and necessity are responsible for the origin of life. This article proves that such an event is not only improbable, but impossible. http://www.uncommondescent.com...

You do know that the site you gave had incredible bias as it is from a Christian site that endorses creationism.

You could say the opposite for links to sites discussing abiogenesis.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 10:43:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 4:40:19 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 9/5/2014 8:35:39 PM, Cooldudebro wrote:
At 9/4/2014 9:04:09 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Evolutionists would like us to believe that chance and necessity are responsible for the origin of life. This article proves that such an event is not only improbable, but impossible. http://www.uncommondescent.com...

You do know that the site you gave had incredible bias as it is from a Christian site that endorses creationism.

You could say the opposite for links to sites discussing abiogenesis.

Thanks for saving me the trouble of posting that myself. ^_^
Cooldudebro
Posts: 383
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 12:10:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 10:43:30 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/6/2014 4:40:19 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 9/5/2014 8:35:39 PM, Cooldudebro wrote:
At 9/4/2014 9:04:09 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Evolutionists would like us to believe that chance and necessity are responsible for the origin of life. This article proves that such an event is not only improbable, but impossible. http://www.uncommondescent.com...

You do know that the site you gave had incredible bias as it is from a Christian site that endorses creationism.

You could say the opposite for links to sites discussing abiogenesis.

Thanks for saving me the trouble of posting that myself. ^_^

Let's just use this as an example. Flan is your favorite food. You think it's so good, you put up a website. New evidence says that flan isn't the best food ever. So, to save your favorite food, you post a article with un-credible evidence and assumptions. It's the same with religion. Young-earth creationism is a dying breed. They put out bias info on their sites to make you believe it's credible, when it really isn't.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 12:57:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 12:10:26 PM, Cooldudebro wrote:
At 9/6/2014 10:43:30 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/6/2014 4:40:19 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 9/5/2014 8:35:39 PM, Cooldudebro wrote:
At 9/4/2014 9:04:09 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Evolutionists would like us to believe that chance and necessity are responsible for the origin of life. This article proves that such an event is not only improbable, but impossible. http://www.uncommondescent.com...

You do know that the site you gave had incredible bias as it is from a Christian site that endorses creationism.

You could say the opposite for links to sites discussing abiogenesis.

Thanks for saving me the trouble of posting that myself. ^_^

Let's just use this as an example. Flan is your favorite food. You think it's so good, you put up a website. New evidence says that flan isn't the best food ever. So, to save your favorite food, you post a article with un-credible evidence and assumptions. It's the same with religion. Young-earth creationism is a dying breed. They put out bias info on their sites to make you believe it's credible, when it really isn't.

What you just said applies equally well to evolution. Not one shred of credible evidence to support it. So where does that leave us? Faith?
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 1:08:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 9:04:26 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Seriously? The way you said it, you'd think that the RNA evolved from chemicals, all by itself. This is nothing but a controlled lab experiment, with RNA sequences designed by the research team. Yes, they 'evolved', or should I say they adapted? When scientists observe life evolving from non life, give me a call. What you've shown me here is singularly unimpressive.

"Experiment 3: Spontaneous appearance of self-replicators
For our third and final experiment we will demonstrate how the self-replicators can
arise spontaneously from a soup of atoms.We initialise a 100 " 100 world with
atoms of random type all with state 0. [...]. We introduce, however, an occasional "cosmic ray" with some low probability.The effect of a strike on an atom is to perturb its state, leaving its bonds and its type unchanged but its state as a random value.It turns out that this minimal intervention is sufficient to permit self-replicators to emerge spontaneously."


You are welcome.
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 1:14:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 8:30:12 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Otakage keeps insisting cells aren't computers.

This is false. Cells are computers because they compute. Indeed, cells are electronic devices that compute binary data, but they are much more marvelous than our man-made computers because they do so much more, and, contrary to our man-made computers, the machine code of cells can often be read backwards just as well as forwards.

Irrelevant.

Otakage's wastes most of his time attacking a strawman. The argument Dr_Obvious is advancing is not that cells are Windows or Mac computers, but biological computers.

Precisely.

Otakage is also failing to disguise his dishonesty (or stupidity) when he says that "maybe" abiogenesis is unlikely, implying that abiogenesis might be a common event. I'll just highlight the fact that numerous PhDs over the past 50 years have been desperately trying to produce abiogenesis, with absolutely no success.

So?

Abiogenesis is not likely. There's no "maybe".

And yet, it is not impossible, which was what the author wanted to demonstrate.

So next time, to avoid self-humiliating yourself, stfu and read the articles presented, I assure you that your eyes will not fall off for reading something other than the Bible for once in your life.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 1:21:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 1:08:15 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/5/2014 9:04:26 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Seriously? The way you said it, you'd think that the RNA evolved from chemicals, all by itself. This is nothing but a controlled lab experiment, with RNA sequences designed by the research team. Yes, they 'evolved', or should I say they adapted? When scientists observe life evolving from non life, give me a call. What you've shown me here is singularly unimpressive.

"Experiment 3: Spontaneous appearance of self-replicators
For our third and final experiment we will demonstrate how the self-replicators can
arise spontaneously from a soup of atoms.We initialise a 100 " 100 world with
atoms of random type all with state 0. [...]. We introduce, however, an occasional "cosmic ray" with some low probability.The effect of a strike on an atom is to perturb its state, leaving its bonds and its type unchanged but its state as a random value.It turns out that this minimal intervention is sufficient to permit self-replicators to emerge spontaneously."


You are welcome.

It's still a lab experiment, in a controlled environment. Man has intervened, so it is not a natural occurrence. If this was found to happen in nature, then I might be impressed. But it doesn't, and it never did.
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 1:29:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 1:21:38 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/6/2014 1:08:15 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/5/2014 9:04:26 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Seriously? The way you said it, you'd think that the RNA evolved from chemicals, all by itself. This is nothing but a controlled lab experiment, with RNA sequences designed by the research team. Yes, they 'evolved', or should I say they adapted? When scientists observe life evolving from non life, give me a call. What you've shown me here is singularly unimpressive.

"Experiment 3: Spontaneous appearance of self-replicators
For our third and final experiment we will demonstrate how the self-replicators can
arise spontaneously from a soup of atoms.We initialise a 100 " 100 world with
atoms of random type all with state 0. [...]. We introduce, however, an occasional "cosmic ray" with some low probability.The effect of a strike on an atom is to perturb its state, leaving its bonds and its type unchanged but its state as a random value.It turns out that this minimal intervention is sufficient to permit self-replicators to emerge spontaneously."


You are welcome.

It's still a lab experiment, in a controlled environment. Man has intervened, so it is not a natural occurrence. If this was found to happen in nature, then I might be impressed. But it doesn't, and it never did.

It still proves RNA spontaneously arising is possible if conditions similar to those created in the lab (which were, btw, trying to emulate primitive Earth conditions) are met.

The fact of you saying "it never did" shows your own bias towards the topic and your lack of interest in reaching a logical conclusion. If you don't really want to debate something, you should not waste your time and members time by posting a thread.