Total Posts:132|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Falsify Abiogenesis

joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 2:19:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
As far as I am aware, all origin of life research and experimentation is an attempt to establish abiogenesis. This research continues today at a furious pace. This being the case, it follows logically that while OOL research seeks to establish abiogenesis, such efforts have not born fruit. Indeed, inasmuch as repeated efforts have failed, such experimentation can be seen on one hand as a series of failed attempts to falsify design theory. Indeed, Pasteur's observation that life always comes from life has never been falsified.

So in the spirit of scientific rigor and given the reality that abiogenesis has not been established and given that intelligent design has not been falsified, I ask you: what would be a reasonable definitive falsification of abiogenesis?

This is one of four related forums I have created with the unified purpose of exposing the unreasonable nature of the proposition that ID theory is without merit
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 5:05:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 2:19:51 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
As far as I am aware, all origin of life research and experimentation is an attempt to establish abiogenesis. This research continues today at a furious pace. This being the case, it follows logically that while OOL research seeks to establish abiogenesis, such efforts have not born fruit. Indeed, inasmuch as repeated efforts have failed, such experimentation can be seen on one hand as a series of failed attempts to falsify design theory. Indeed, Pasteur's observation that life always comes from life has never been falsified.

So in the spirit of scientific rigor and given the reality that abiogenesis has not been established and given that intelligent design has not been falsified, I ask you: what would be a reasonable definitive falsification of abiogenesis?

This is one of four related forums I have created with the unified purpose of exposing the unreasonable nature of the proposition that ID theory is without merit

I don't think you understand what abiogenesis means. Which hypothesis of abiogenesis would you like to provide? You see, abiogenesis is neither a hypothesis nor a theory. It is a word that refers to any process by which life originates from non-life. Under some models, ID is also an abiogenesis 'hypothesis' (I use quotes because the term hypothesis doesn't usually apply in the scientific sense here).
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 8:36:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 5:05:49 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:19:51 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
As far as I am aware, all origin of life research and experimentation is an attempt to establish abiogenesis. This research continues today at a furious pace. This being the case, it follows logically that while OOL research seeks to establish abiogenesis, such efforts have not born fruit. Indeed, inasmuch as repeated efforts have failed, such experimentation can be seen on one hand as a series of failed attempts to falsify design theory. Indeed, Pasteur's observation that life always comes from life has never been falsified.

So in the spirit of scientific rigor and given the reality that abiogenesis has not been established and given that intelligent design has not been falsified, I ask you: what would be a reasonable definitive falsification of abiogenesis?

This is one of four related forums I have created with the unified purpose of exposing the unreasonable nature of the proposition that ID theory is without merit

I don't think you understand what abiogenesis means. Which hypothesis of abiogenesis would you like to provide? You see, abiogenesis is neither a hypothesis nor a theory. It is a word that refers to any process by which life originates from non-life. Under some models, ID is also an abiogenesis 'hypothesis' (I use quotes because the term hypothesis doesn't usually apply in the scientific sense here).

I think I do. But just to be sure I looked it up. Sure enough, here is how merriam-webster online defines abiogenesis:

the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter, called also spontaneous generation; compare biogenesis.

I like that last idea: compare biogenesis. Let's do that:

the development of life from pre existing life.

So there you have it! I guess it helps to have the contrast with biogenesis, huh? So then, can we call the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter an hypothesis?...or a theory? If we can, then there should be a falsification against which, we can test the strength of the hypothesis or theory. In a forum closely related to this one (Falsify ID), I have provided a straightforward, logical falsification of ID theory, and have invited that falsification. It seems that the opposite claim - that life has arisen through purely natural processes - should have a falsification criteria. I am wondering what that might be.

By the way, when you say: Under some models, ID is also an abiogenesis 'hypothesis', I have to wonder whether you truly understand what ID theory really is. ID theory offers a causally adequate explanation for the origin of life that is mutually exclusive of abiogenesis. Any ID model that can also be called an abiogenesis model, is not an ID model; it is an abiogenesis model. It is impossible that it could be both.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 8:40:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 8:36:15 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/18/2015 5:05:49 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:19:51 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
As far as I am aware, all origin of life research and experimentation is an attempt to establish abiogenesis. This research continues today at a furious pace. This being the case, it follows logically that while OOL research seeks to establish abiogenesis, such efforts have not born fruit. Indeed, inasmuch as repeated efforts have failed, such experimentation can be seen on one hand as a series of failed attempts to falsify design theory. Indeed, Pasteur's observation that life always comes from life has never been falsified.

So in the spirit of scientific rigor and given the reality that abiogenesis has not been established and given that intelligent design has not been falsified, I ask you: what would be a reasonable definitive falsification of abiogenesis?

This is one of four related forums I have created with the unified purpose of exposing the unreasonable nature of the proposition that ID theory is without merit

I don't think you understand what abiogenesis means. Which hypothesis of abiogenesis would you like to provide? You see, abiogenesis is neither a hypothesis nor a theory. It is a word that refers to any process by which life originates from non-life. Under some models, ID is also an abiogenesis 'hypothesis' (I use quotes because the term hypothesis doesn't usually apply in the scientific sense here).

I think I do. But just to be sure I looked it up. Sure enough, here is how merriam-webster online defines abiogenesis:

the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter, called also spontaneous generation; compare biogenesis.

I like that last idea: compare biogenesis. Let's do that:

the development of life from pre existing life.

So there you have it! I guess it helps to have the contrast with biogenesis, huh? So then, can we call the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter an hypothesis?...or a theory? If we can, then there should be a falsification against which, we can test the strength of the hypothesis or theory. In a forum closely related to this one (Falsify ID), I have provided a straightforward, logical falsification of ID theory, and have invited that falsification. It seems that the opposite claim - that life has arisen through purely natural processes - should have a falsification criteria. I am wondering what that might be.

By the way, when you say: Under some models, ID is also an abiogenesis 'hypothesis', I have to wonder whether you truly understand what ID theory really is. ID theory offers a causally adequate explanation for the origin of life that is mutually exclusive of abiogenesis. Any ID model that can also be called an abiogenesis model, is not an ID model; it is an abiogenesis model. It is impossible that it could be both.

I didn't clearly express my point. Abiogenesis refers to any hypothesis concerning the origin of life from non-life. It is not itself a hypothesis or a theory. If you want to 'falsify abiogenesis', you must first choose which hypothesis under abiogenesis you would like to address.

The reason some ID models can be classified under abiogenesis is because the definition for the intelligent designer in those models do not conform to a definition of 'life' that is currently in use.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 3:03:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 2:19:51 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
As far as I am aware, all origin of life research and experimentation is an attempt to establish abiogenesis.

Or say rather, that many hypotheses are being investigated, including a range of abiogenetic and seed theories.

it follows logically that while OOL research seeks to establish abiogenesis, such efforts have not born fruit.

Untrue.

Abiogenesis is now more of a natural engineering exercise than an hypothesis. It's not true that scientists are trying to 'prove' abiogenesis and failing; rather it's that they're chipping away at a series of related problems, solving the bits that are immediately solvable and learning from that. This is the way science ordinarily proceeds on complex problems.

If all research were stalled; if all promising avenues had been explored and the only avenues remaining were immensely unlikely, then that would be a different proposition. But advances are being reported every year. For instance, New Scientist last year reported that metabolic processes can occur outside cells, driven by metal ions instead of enzymes.

Advances are happening so rapidly on so many fronts it seems likely that scientists will find ways that life can occur spontaneously. This will debunk any religious belief about the need for 'spirit' (if that belief isn't already debunked by cloning etc...) but that is still not proof that terrestrial life did occur spontaneously. That proof will follow further tests to show how likely these processes are, and integration with what is known about geology, planetology and ancient conditions.

It's important to understand that the biggest drive for rigour here is not the religious with their tales of divine intervention, but science itself: scientists are passionate about getting the science robust and sound, because in science, robustness is the only authority.

It's the religious who fabricate, exaggerate, gloss details and revise stories in order to seem impressive.

I hope that may help.
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 9:09:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 3:03:50 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:19:51 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
As far as I am aware, all origin of life research and experimentation is an attempt to establish abiogenesis.

Or say rather, that many hypotheses are being investigated, including a range of abiogenetic and seed theories.

it follows logically that while OOL research seeks to establish abiogenesis, such efforts have not born fruit.

Untrue.

Abiogenesis is now more of a natural engineering exercise than an hypothesis. It's not true that scientists are trying to 'prove' abiogenesis and failing; rather it's that they're chipping away at a series of related problems, solving the bits that are immediately solvable and learning from that. This is the way science ordinarily proceeds on complex problems.

If all research were stalled; if all promising avenues had been explored and the only avenues remaining were immensely unlikely, then that would be a different proposition. But advances are being reported every year. For instance, New Scientist last year reported that metabolic processes can occur outside cells, driven by metal ions instead of enzymes.

Advances are happening so rapidly on so many fronts it seems likely that scientists will find ways that life can occur spontaneously. This will debunk any religious belief about the need for 'spirit' (if that belief isn't already debunked by cloning etc...) but that is still not proof that terrestrial life did occur spontaneously. That proof will follow further tests to show how likely these processes are, and integration with what is known about geology, planetology and ancient conditions.

It's important to understand that the biggest drive for rigour here is not the religious with their tales of divine intervention, but science itself: scientists are passionate about getting the science robust and sound, because in science, robustness is the only authority.

It's the religious who fabricate, exaggerate, gloss details and revise stories in order to seem impressive.

I hope that may help.

Ruv: it remains as true today as it ever has that there is absolutely no empirical support for a purely naturalistic OOL. Meanwhile, every new discovery confirms the fundamental reality that all living systems are cybernetically programmed, and the more we learn, the deeper and more advanced this cybernetic programming extends. As I said, OOL research efforts - all that I am aware of without a single exception - are focused on finding a purely natural pathway from the inorganic to the organic. Richard Dawkins has confessed that no one knows how life got started on earth, then confidently adds that we know what sort of event it must have been.

Now the way I see it Ruv, to believe something is true without a shred of evidence to support it seems to be the very essence of a blind faith metaphysical belief. In other words, it is those who believe that abiogenesis is a truth awaiting verification who are manifesting a religious belief!

At any rate, this forum does not ask for people to produce new ways to speculate how abiogenesis could have happened. As long as there is faith and imagination there will be no end to the speculation. This forum asks for a reasonable way to falsify abiogenesis. Can you provide that falsification?
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 9:13:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 8:40:34 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 8:36:15 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/18/2015 5:05:49 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:19:51 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
As far as I am aware, all origin of life research and experimentation is an attempt to establish abiogenesis. This research continues today at a furious pace. This being the case, it follows logically that while OOL research seeks to establish abiogenesis, such efforts have not born fruit. Indeed, inasmuch as repeated efforts have failed, such experimentation can be seen on one hand as a series of failed attempts to falsify design theory. Indeed, Pasteur's observation that life always comes from life has never been falsified.

So in the spirit of scientific rigor and given the reality that abiogenesis has not been established and given that intelligent design has not been falsified, I ask you: what would be a reasonable definitive falsification of abiogenesis?

This is one of four related forums I have created with the unified purpose of exposing the unreasonable nature of the proposition that ID theory is without merit

I don't think you understand what abiogenesis means. Which hypothesis of abiogenesis would you like to provide? You see, abiogenesis is neither a hypothesis nor a theory. It is a word that refers to any process by which life originates from non-life. Under some models, ID is also an abiogenesis 'hypothesis' (I use quotes because the term hypothesis doesn't usually apply in the scientific sense here).

I think I do. But just to be sure I looked it up. Sure enough, here is how merriam-webster online defines abiogenesis:

the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter, called also spontaneous generation; compare biogenesis.

I like that last idea: compare biogenesis. Let's do that:

the development of life from pre existing life.

So there you have it! I guess it helps to have the contrast with biogenesis, huh? So then, can we call the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter an hypothesis?...or a theory? If we can, then there should be a falsification against which, we can test the strength of the hypothesis or theory. In a forum closely related to this one (Falsify ID), I have provided a straightforward, logical falsification of ID theory, and have invited that falsification. It seems that the opposite claim - that life has arisen through purely natural processes - should have a falsification criteria. I am wondering what that might be.

By the way, when you say: Under some models, ID is also an abiogenesis 'hypothesis', I have to wonder whether you truly understand what ID theory really is. ID theory offers a causally adequate explanation for the origin of life that is mutually exclusive of abiogenesis. Any ID model that can also be called an abiogenesis model, is not an ID model; it is an abiogenesis model. It is impossible that it could be both.

I didn't clearly express my point. Abiogenesis refers to any hypothesis concerning the origin of life from non-life. It is not itself a hypothesis or a theory. If you want to 'falsify abiogenesis', you must first choose which hypothesis under abiogenesis you would like to address.

The reason some ID models can be classified under abiogenesis is because the definition for the intelligent designer in those models do not conform to a definition of 'life' that is currently in use.

The question of the identity of the designer is an entirely separate question from the question of whether life is intelligently designed.

Hopefully you will find this wording to be more clear: Is the proposition that life arose from purely natural processes a proposition that can be falsified? If so, how?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 9:58:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 9:13:39 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/18/2015 8:40:34 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 8:36:15 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/18/2015 5:05:49 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:19:51 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
As far as I am aware, all origin of life research and experimentation is an attempt to establish abiogenesis. This research continues today at a furious pace. This being the case, it follows logically that while OOL research seeks to establish abiogenesis, such efforts have not born fruit. Indeed, inasmuch as repeated efforts have failed, such experimentation can be seen on one hand as a series of failed attempts to falsify design theory. Indeed, Pasteur's observation that life always comes from life has never been falsified.

So in the spirit of scientific rigor and given the reality that abiogenesis has not been established and given that intelligent design has not been falsified, I ask you: what would be a reasonable definitive falsification of abiogenesis?

This is one of four related forums I have created with the unified purpose of exposing the unreasonable nature of the proposition that ID theory is without merit

I don't think you understand what abiogenesis means. Which hypothesis of abiogenesis would you like to provide? You see, abiogenesis is neither a hypothesis nor a theory. It is a word that refers to any process by which life originates from non-life. Under some models, ID is also an abiogenesis 'hypothesis' (I use quotes because the term hypothesis doesn't usually apply in the scientific sense here).

I think I do. But just to be sure I looked it up. Sure enough, here is how merriam-webster online defines abiogenesis:

the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter, called also spontaneous generation; compare biogenesis.

I like that last idea: compare biogenesis. Let's do that:

the development of life from pre existing life.

So there you have it! I guess it helps to have the contrast with biogenesis, huh? So then, can we call the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter an hypothesis?...or a theory? If we can, then there should be a falsification against which, we can test the strength of the hypothesis or theory. In a forum closely related to this one (Falsify ID), I have provided a straightforward, logical falsification of ID theory, and have invited that falsification. It seems that the opposite claim - that life has arisen through purely natural processes - should have a falsification criteria. I am wondering what that might be.

By the way, when you say: Under some models, ID is also an abiogenesis 'hypothesis', I have to wonder whether you truly understand what ID theory really is. ID theory offers a causally adequate explanation for the origin of life that is mutually exclusive of abiogenesis. Any ID model that can also be called an abiogenesis model, is not an ID model; it is an abiogenesis model. It is impossible that it could be both.

I didn't clearly express my point. Abiogenesis refers to any hypothesis concerning the origin of life from non-life. It is not itself a hypothesis or a theory. If you want to 'falsify abiogenesis', you must first choose which hypothesis under abiogenesis you would like to address.

The reason some ID models can be classified under abiogenesis is because the definition for the intelligent designer in those models do not conform to a definition of 'life' that is currently in use.

The question of the identity of the designer is an entirely separate question from the question of whether life is intelligently designed.

Hopefully you will find this wording to be more clear: Is the proposition that life arose from purely natural processes a proposition that can be falsified? If so, how?

you mean can you prove another universal negative that atheist want to believe?

Nope.

Given a modest 300 chain of RNA to form even a simple replication machine simpler than a virus, would use elements present in an environment. The chances of these elements arranging themselves in a useful structure that achieves self replication is astronomical.

But hey hey there is a chance. That is the atheist mantra.

Cell Biology International; Volume 28, Issue 11
Chance and Necessity Do Not Explain the Origin of Life
J.T. Trevors and D.L. Abel

And another article from Life
http://www.google.com...

The question is like how do you falsify that a tornado passing through a airplane junkyard can't produce a Boeing 757? All that can be done is show how impractical, implausible, the chance is. Or to show that the end result is not possible at all from the initial conditions.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 2:36:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago

Given a modest 300 chain of RNA to form even a simple replication machine simpler than a virus, would use elements present in an environment. The chances of these elements arranging themselves in a useful structure that achieves self replication is astronomical.

But hey hey there is a chance. That is the atheist mantra.

Cell Biology International; Volume 28, Issue 11
Chance and Necessity Do Not Explain the Origin of Life
J.T. Trevors and D.L. Abel

And another article from Life
http://www.google.com...

The question is like how do you falsify that a tornado passing through a airplane junkyard can't produce a Boeing 757? All that can be done is show how impractical, implausible, the chance is. Or to show that the end result is not possible at all from the initial conditions.

I think you have the analogy to complex. It doesn't have to make a 757. It just needs to break up some trees and toss in some other materials that might give some body of mass lift for a time, and it has hundreds of millions of years and a virtually endless junkyard in which to accomplish the goal.

A room full of monkeys typing into infinity will eventually by random chance give you War and Peace, who is to say that such a rare statistical event happens early, late, or on time?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 11:38:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 2:36:50 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Given a modest 300 chain of RNA to form even a simple replication machine simpler than a virus, would use elements present in an environment. The chances of these elements arranging themselves in a useful structure that achieves self replication is astronomical.

But hey hey there is a chance. That is the atheist mantra.

Cell Biology International; Volume 28, Issue 11
Chance and Necessity Do Not Explain the Origin of Life
J.T. Trevors and D.L. Abel

And another article from Life
http://www.google.com...

The question is like how do you falsify that a tornado passing through a airplane junkyard can't produce a Boeing 757? All that can be done is show how impractical, implausible, the chance is. Or to show that the end result is not possible at all from the initial conditions.

I think you have the analogy to complex. It doesn't have to make a 757. It just needs to break up some trees and toss in some other materials that might give some body of mass lift for a time, and it has hundreds of millions of years and a virtually endless junkyard in which to accomplish the goal.

A room full of monkeys typing into infinity will eventually by random chance give you War and Peace, who is to say that such a rare statistical event happens early, late, or on time?

the universe has not been around for infinity.

The Cambrian Explosion came around 543 million years ago. Shortly after the conditions for life were present. So we don't have a long time for this chance to occur, the emergence of life happened sequentially from the conditions.

Also the Cambrian explosion has a wide variety of body plans and phyla. Setting the stage for all of the life we see today. Evolution in the 500 million years since have not produced any new body plans.

The event, the emergence of life, was punctual and extensive. This is in direct opposition to chance producing a simple cell.

And a Boeing 757 is actually at the level of complexity needed to create any biological like entity that could then have evolution take over.

Are salts suspended in water an entity that evolution affects? by evolution I mean affected by natural selection? No

For something to be the purview of evolution to even move to more complicated structures IT must already be more complex than wood flying in a tornado.

Second this idea that simple life to complex life I challenge. These terms seem applied subjectively to me. So I ask what are the attributes for "simple life" and the attributes to distinguish for "complex life".

The very machinery making life work, the very code of the dna, the very things ID is using as evidence of design ARE present in all life whether you deem it complex or simple. And these things like RNA transcription haven't changed in 500 million years to anything "more complex".

Again we have won the lottery because thank God.. I mean thank "Chance" it got it right the first time.

What is seen is that life usually dies out. There was an explosion of all kinds of life and since then most have died and only a few evolve.

Lets get back to falsifying abiogenesis. It is implausible. The chance for the simplest arrangement of molecules to result in anything that could evolve is on an order so slim that in EVERY OTHER case atheist say it is impossible. As a reference the chance of a virgin birth is more likely than life emerging from abiogenesis.
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 8:58:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 2:36:50 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Given a modest 300 chain of RNA to form even a simple replication machine simpler than a virus, would use elements present in an environment. The chances of these elements arranging themselves in a useful structure that achieves self replication is astronomical.

But hey hey there is a chance. That is the atheist mantra.

Cell Biology International; Volume 28, Issue 11
Chance and Necessity Do Not Explain the Origin of Life
J.T. Trevors and D.L. Abel

And another article from Life
http://www.google.com...

The question is like how do you falsify that a tornado passing through a airplane junkyard can't produce a Boeing 757? All that can be done is show how impractical, implausible, the chance is. Or to show that the end result is not possible at all from the initial conditions.

I think you have the analogy to complex. It doesn't have to make a 757. It just needs to break up some trees and toss in some other materials that might give some body of mass lift for a time, and it has hundreds of millions of years and a virtually endless junkyard in which to accomplish the goal.

A room full of monkeys typing into infinity will eventually by random chance give you War and Peace, who is to say that such a rare statistical event happens early, late, or on time?

Well I hate to break it to you, but you unbelievers don't have "infinity" to work with here. You've got about 3.5 BY. So with reality in mind, let's do a little bit of real world math:

I'm going to be generous and give you a 15 BY universe to work with as opposed to the mere 3.5 BY of life on earth. I'm also going to give you just the Shakespeare sonnet, "Shall I compare Thee to a Summer Day." War and peace is way too long. This simple sonnet is a mere 488 characters.

Now then, as I have bent over backward to indulge your analogy, let's see what results given a 30 character typewriter...

It turns out you would need 10^690 trials to get this one small sonnet.
To put this in perspective, the number of particles in the universe is estimated to be 10^80.
Recall that we are dealing in exponentials here.
Now, if we could somehow turn every one of those estimated particles into microcomputers so that the entire universe were nothing but microcomputers, and we allowed them to perform 488 trials a million times/ second for the entire 15 BY life of the universe, the chances of getting this sonnet once would be 1 in 10^90.

It's really ironic that over and over again, no matter what the subject may be, we find that it is the atheist who lives by pure blind metaphysical faith and the theist who is grounded firmly in the real world!
400spartans
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 9:16:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 8:58:56 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/28/2015 2:36:50 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Given a modest 300 chain of RNA to form even a simple replication machine simpler than a virus, would use elements present in an environment. The chances of these elements arranging themselves in a useful structure that achieves self replication is astronomical.

But hey hey there is a chance. That is the atheist mantra.

Cell Biology International; Volume 28, Issue 11
Chance and Necessity Do Not Explain the Origin of Life
J.T. Trevors and D.L. Abel

And another article from Life
http://www.google.com...

The question is like how do you falsify that a tornado passing through a airplane junkyard can't produce a Boeing 757? All that can be done is show how impractical, implausible, the chance is. Or to show that the end result is not possible at all from the initial conditions.

I think you have the analogy to complex. It doesn't have to make a 757. It just needs to break up some trees and toss in some other materials that might give some body of mass lift for a time, and it has hundreds of millions of years and a virtually endless junkyard in which to accomplish the goal.

A room full of monkeys typing into infinity will eventually by random chance give you War and Peace, who is to say that such a rare statistical event happens early, late, or on time?

Well I hate to break it to you, but you unbelievers don't have "infinity" to work with here. You've got about 3.5 BY. So with reality in mind, let's do a little bit of real world math:

I'm going to be generous and give you a 15 BY universe to work with as opposed to the mere 3.5 BY of life on earth. I'm also going to give you just the Shakespeare sonnet, "Shall I compare Thee to a Summer Day." War and peace is way too long. This simple sonnet is a mere 488 characters.

Now then, as I have bent over backward to indulge your analogy, let's see what results given a 30 character typewriter...

It turns out you would need 10^690 trials to get this one small sonnet.
To put this in perspective, the number of particles in the universe is estimated to be 10^80.
Recall that we are dealing in exponentials here.
Now, if we could somehow turn every one of those estimated particles into microcomputers so that the entire universe were nothing but microcomputers, and we allowed them to perform 488 trials a million times/ second for the entire 15 BY life of the universe, the chances of getting this sonnet once would be 1 in 10^90.

It's really ironic that over and over again, no matter what the subject may be, we find that it is the atheist who lives by pure blind metaphysical faith and the theist who is grounded firmly in the real world!

May I say something?

*facepalm*

Why? Well, this is because you didn't represent evolution correctly.

Here's what evolution really is like. We have your example, but after we type each try, each character that was correct stays, while the rest go away. This is repeated with the correct ones all staying while the random character pile slowly decreasing.

With a thirty character typewriter, it would be expected, if you did one try per hour, to take only 203 hours, or about 8.5 days, to get the expected number of characters left to 0.5 characters! " la recherche du temps perdu, the longest novel with 9,609,000 characters would take only 495 hours, or about 20.5 days, to get the expected number of characters left to 0.5 characters!

Do you still think evolution would take too long?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 9:20:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 8:58:56 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/28/2015 2:36:50 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Given a modest 300 chain of RNA to form even a simple replication machine simpler than a virus, would use elements present in an environment. The chances of these elements arranging themselves in a useful structure that achieves self replication is astronomical.

But hey hey there is a chance. That is the atheist mantra.

Cell Biology International; Volume 28, Issue 11
Chance and Necessity Do Not Explain the Origin of Life
J.T. Trevors and D.L. Abel

And another article from Life
http://www.google.com...

The question is like how do you falsify that a tornado passing through a airplane junkyard can't produce a Boeing 757? All that can be done is show how impractical, implausible, the chance is. Or to show that the end result is not possible at all from the initial conditions.

I think you have the analogy to complex. It doesn't have to make a 757. It just needs to break up some trees and toss in some other materials that might give some body of mass lift for a time, and it has hundreds of millions of years and a virtually endless junkyard in which to accomplish the goal.

A room full of monkeys typing into infinity will eventually by random chance give you War and Peace, who is to say that such a rare statistical event happens early, late, or on time?

Well I hate to break it to you, but you unbelievers don't have "infinity" to work with here. You've got about 3.5 BY. So with reality in mind, let's do a little bit of real world math:

I'm going to be generous and give you a 15 BY universe to work with as opposed to the mere 3.5 BY of life on earth. I'm also going to give you just the Shakespeare sonnet, "Shall I compare Thee to a Summer Day." War and peace is way too long. This simple sonnet is a mere 488 characters.

Now then, as I have bent over backward to indulge your analogy, let's see what results given a 30 character typewriter...

It turns out you would need 10^690 trials to get this one small sonnet.
To put this in perspective, the number of particles in the universe is estimated to be 10^80.
Recall that we are dealing in exponentials here.
Now, if we could somehow turn every one of those estimated particles into microcomputers so that the entire universe were nothing but microcomputers, and we allowed them to perform 488 trials a million times/ second for the entire 15 BY life of the universe, the chances of getting this sonnet once would be 1 in 10^90.

It's really ironic that over and over again, no matter what the subject may be, we find that it is the atheist who lives by pure blind metaphysical faith and the theist who is grounded firmly in the real world!

And how frequently do you think those attempts are happening? Do you think its once 'chance' per year? Week? Minute? Second? May times per second? At only one location on the earth? Two locations? Ten locations? I am taking you at your word with no citation what so ever that your numbers are correct, so on the topic of 'indulgence' lets give it a rest. In permutating how unlikely it is based on -1- in xyz, why not entertain the notion that statistically how how many places, times, and frequency such an even might have occurred. That never seems to be the odds that get manufactured, its always 1 in (against favor) when it very well might not be "1" at all. It to might be very well be an exponential number, too.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 9:46:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 9:16:14 PM, 400spartans wrote:
At 3/3/2015 8:58:56 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/28/2015 2:36:50 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Given a modest 300 chain of RNA to form even a simple replication machine simpler than a virus, would use elements present in an environment. The chances of these elements arranging themselves in a useful structure that achieves self replication is astronomical.

But hey hey there is a chance. That is the atheist mantra.

Cell Biology International; Volume 28, Issue 11
Chance and Necessity Do Not Explain the Origin of Life
J.T. Trevors and D.L. Abel

And another article from Life
http://www.google.com...

The question is like how do you falsify that a tornado passing through a airplane junkyard can't produce a Boeing 757? All that can be done is show how impractical, implausible, the chance is. Or to show that the end result is not possible at all from the initial conditions.

I think you have the analogy to complex. It doesn't have to make a 757. It just needs to break up some trees and toss in some other materials that might give some body of mass lift for a time, and it has hundreds of millions of years and a virtually endless junkyard in which to accomplish the goal.

A room full of monkeys typing into infinity will eventually by random chance give you War and Peace, who is to say that such a rare statistical event happens early, late, or on time?

Well I hate to break it to you, but you unbelievers don't have "infinity" to work with here. You've got about 3.5 BY. So with reality in mind, let's do a little bit of real world math:

I'm going to be generous and give you a 15 BY universe to work with as opposed to the mere 3.5 BY of life on earth. I'm also going to give you just the Shakespeare sonnet, "Shall I compare Thee to a Summer Day." War and peace is way too long. This simple sonnet is a mere 488 characters.

Now then, as I have bent over backward to indulge your analogy, let's see what results given a 30 character typewriter...

It turns out you would need 10^690 trials to get this one small sonnet.
To put this in perspective, the number of particles in the universe is estimated to be 10^80.
Recall that we are dealing in exponentials here.
Now, if we could somehow turn every one of those estimated particles into microcomputers so that the entire universe were nothing but microcomputers, and we allowed them to perform 488 trials a million times/ second for the entire 15 BY life of the universe, the chances of getting this sonnet once would be 1 in 10^90.

It's really ironic that over and over again, no matter what the subject may be, we find that it is the atheist who lives by pure blind metaphysical faith and the theist who is grounded firmly in the real world!

May I say something?

*facepalm*

Why? Well, this is because you didn't represent evolution correctly.

Here's what evolution really is like. We have your example, but after we type each try, each character that was correct stays, while the rest go away. This is repeated with the correct ones all staying while the random character pile slowly decreasing.

With a thirty character typewriter, it would be expected, if you did one try per hour, to take only 203 hours, or about 8.5 days, to get the expected number of characters left to 0.5 characters! " la recherche du temps perdu, the longest novel with 9,609,000 characters would take only 495 hours, or about 20.5 days, to get the expected number of characters left to 0.5 characters!

Do you still think evolution would take too long?

let's examine the realities that must be in place for your example to be realized:
1. The process would need to be "aware" of the final product from the beginning
2. The process then, would be the means to achieve the distant goal of the final product.
3. Every single modification from beginning to end must be functional.

In short, your example makes wildly generous assumptions; assumptions based on processes simply not available to unguided processes.

Worse, your example assumes a living organism that can be modified. Before any organism can be alive, it must be successfully programmed. The programming of even the simplest known life is extensive. Consider that the simplest know living organism contains several hundred proteins. Consider also that the chance formation of single protein is a mere 1 in 10^77.

Now recall that this forum asks for a way to falsify abiogenesis ( to this point, no way to falsify abiogenesis has been proposed, by the way ). Natural Selection can only operate on already living organisms. It can only "select" the fittest already living organisms. Genetic selection occurs at the decision node level - at each individual nucleotide. Programming must be formally solved before being implemented.

So my answer is, not only is there enough time for purely natural processes to produce life, it is an ontological impossibility. Programming absolutely requires an intelligent agent acting with intent. It never arises naturally by accident. If you don't believe me, ask any programmer.
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 9:54:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 9:20:31 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 3/3/2015 8:58:56 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/28/2015 2:36:50 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Given a modest 300 chain of RNA to form even a simple replication machine simpler than a virus, would use elements present in an environment. The chances of these elements arranging themselves in a useful structure that achieves self replication is astronomical.

But hey hey there is a chance. That is the atheist mantra.

Cell Biology International; Volume 28, Issue 11
Chance and Necessity Do Not Explain the Origin of Life
J.T. Trevors and D.L. Abel

And another article from Life
http://www.google.com...

The question is like how do you falsify that a tornado passing through a airplane junkyard can't produce a Boeing 757? All that can be done is show how impractical, implausible, the chance is. Or to show that the end result is not possible at all from the initial conditions.

I think you have the analogy to complex. It doesn't have to make a 757. It just needs to break up some trees and toss in some other materials that might give some body of mass lift for a time, and it has hundreds of millions of years and a virtually endless junkyard in which to accomplish the goal.

A room full of monkeys typing into infinity will eventually by random chance give you War and Peace, who is to say that such a rare statistical event happens early, late, or on time?

Well I hate to break it to you, but you unbelievers don't have "infinity" to work with here. You've got about 3.5 BY. So with reality in mind, let's do a little bit of real world math:

I'm going to be generous and give you a 15 BY universe to work with as opposed to the mere 3.5 BY of life on earth. I'm also going to give you just the Shakespeare sonnet, "Shall I compare Thee to a Summer Day." War and peace is way too long. This simple sonnet is a mere 488 characters.

Now then, as I have bent over backward to indulge your analogy, let's see what results given a 30 character typewriter...

It turns out you would need 10^690 trials to get this one small sonnet.
To put this in perspective, the number of particles in the universe is estimated to be 10^80.
Recall that we are dealing in exponentials here.
Now, if we could somehow turn every one of those estimated particles into microcomputers so that the entire universe were nothing but microcomputers, and we allowed them to perform 488 trials a million times/ second for the entire 15 BY life of the universe, the chances of getting this sonnet once would be 1 in 10^90.

It's really ironic that over and over again, no matter what the subject may be, we find that it is the atheist who lives by pure blind metaphysical faith and the theist who is grounded firmly in the real world!

And how frequently do you think those attempts are happening? Do you think its once 'chance' per year? Week? Minute? Second? May times per second? At only one location on the earth? Two locations? Ten locations? I am taking you at your word with no citation what so ever that your numbers are correct, so on the topic of 'indulgence' lets give it a rest. In permutating how unlikely it is based on -1- in xyz, why not entertain the notion that statistically how how many places, times, and frequency such an even might have occurred. That never seems to be the odds that get manufactured, its always 1 in (against favor) when it very well might not be "1" at all. It to might be very well be an exponential number, too.

According to Borel's theorem, there have been about 1 in 10^50 total events since the beginning of the universe. If you re-read my example (not mine, actually. I must give credit to physics Ph'd, Gerald Schroeder as quoted by former atheist, the late Anthony Flew), 10^80 microcomputers were granted 488 trials a million times/second for 15 BY. Even so, the odds of producing the sonnet are decreased to a "mere" 1 in 10^90; still some 40 orders of magnitude beyond Borel's theorem.

I am curious at this point to know what sort of hopeless scenario you are trying to rescue against these impossible odds? I think this is more than fair to ask at this point
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 1:16:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 8:58:56 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/28/2015 2:36:50 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Given a modest 300 chain of RNA to form even a simple replication machine simpler than a virus, would use elements present in an environment. The chances of these elements arranging themselves in a useful structure that achieves self replication is astronomical.

But hey hey there is a chance. That is the atheist mantra.

Cell Biology International; Volume 28, Issue 11
Chance and Necessity Do Not Explain the Origin of Life
J.T. Trevors and D.L. Abel

And another article from Life
http://www.google.com...

The question is like how do you falsify that a tornado passing through a airplane junkyard can't produce a Boeing 757? All that can be done is show how impractical, implausible, the chance is. Or to show that the end result is not possible at all from the initial conditions.

I think you have the analogy to complex. It doesn't have to make a 757. It just needs to break up some trees and toss in some other materials that might give some body of mass lift for a time, and it has hundreds of millions of years and a virtually endless junkyard in which to accomplish the goal.

A room full of monkeys typing into infinity will eventually by random chance give you War and Peace, who is to say that such a rare statistical event happens early, late, or on time?

Well I hate to break it to you, but you unbelievers don't have "infinity" to work with here. You've got about 3.5 BY. So with reality in mind, let's do a little bit of real world math:

I'm going to be generous and give you a 15 BY universe to work with as opposed to the mere 3.5 BY of life on earth. I'm also going to give you just the Shakespeare sonnet, "Shall I compare Thee to a Summer Day." War and peace is way too long. This simple sonnet is a mere 488 characters.

Now then, as I have bent over backward to indulge your analogy, let's see what results given a 30 character typewriter...

It turns out you would need 10^690 trials to get this one small sonnet.
To put this in perspective, the number of particles in the universe is estimated to be 10^80.
Recall that we are dealing in exponentials here.
Now, if we could somehow turn every one of those estimated particles into microcomputers so that the entire universe were nothing but microcomputers, and we allowed them to perform 488 trials a million times/ second for the entire 15 BY life of the universe, the chances of getting this sonnet once would be 1 in 10^90.

It's really ironic that over and over again, no matter what the subject may be, we find that it is the atheist who lives by pure blind metaphysical faith and the theist who is grounded firmly in the real world!

I'd like to see how you got those probabilities, because you've left out a few key assumption that you had to make: the probability distribution over the keys, and the memory of the system (in the sense of conditional probabilities in sequences), for example.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 6:43:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 9:54:38 AM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 3/3/2015 9:20:31 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 3/3/2015 8:58:56 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/28/2015 2:36:50 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Given a modest 300 chain of RNA to form even a simple replication machine simpler than a virus, would use elements present in an environment. The chances of these elements arranging themselves in a useful structure that achieves self replication is astronomical.

But hey hey there is a chance. That is the atheist mantra.

Cell Biology International; Volume 28, Issue 11
Chance and Necessity Do Not Explain the Origin of Life
J.T. Trevors and D.L. Abel

And another article from Life
http://www.google.com...

The question is like how do you falsify that a tornado passing through a airplane junkyard can't produce a Boeing 757? All that can be done is show how impractical, implausible, the chance is. Or to show that the end result is not possible at all from the initial conditions.

I think you have the analogy to complex. It doesn't have to make a 757. It just needs to break up some trees and toss in some other materials that might give some body of mass lift for a time, and it has hundreds of millions of years and a virtually endless junkyard in which to accomplish the goal.

A room full of monkeys typing into infinity will eventually by random chance give you War and Peace, who is to say that such a rare statistical event happens early, late, or on time?

Well I hate to break it to you, but you unbelievers don't have "infinity" to work with here. You've got about 3.5 BY. So with reality in mind, let's do a little bit of real world math:

I'm going to be generous and give you a 15 BY universe to work with as opposed to the mere 3.5 BY of life on earth. I'm also going to give you just the Shakespeare sonnet, "Shall I compare Thee to a Summer Day." War and peace is way too long. This simple sonnet is a mere 488 characters.

Now then, as I have bent over backward to indulge your analogy, let's see what results given a 30 character typewriter...

It turns out you would need 10^690 trials to get this one small sonnet.
To put this in perspective, the number of particles in the universe is estimated to be 10^80.
Recall that we are dealing in exponentials here.
Now, if we could somehow turn every one of those estimated particles into microcomputers so that the entire universe were nothing but microcomputers, and we allowed them to perform 488 trials a million times/ second for the entire 15 BY life of the universe, the chances of getting this sonnet once would be 1 in 10^90.

It's really ironic that over and over again, no matter what the subject may be, we find that it is the atheist who lives by pure blind metaphysical faith and the theist who is grounded firmly in the real world!

And how frequently do you think those attempts are happening? Do you think its once 'chance' per year? Week? Minute? Second? May times per second? At only one location on the earth? Two locations? Ten locations? I am taking you at your word with no citation what so ever that your numbers are correct, so on the topic of 'indulgence' lets give it a rest. In permutating how unlikely it is based on -1- in xyz, why not entertain the notion that statistically how how many places, times, and frequency such an even might have occurred. That never seems to be the odds that get manufactured, its always 1 in (against favor) when it very well might not be "1" at all. It to might be very well be an exponential number, too.

According to Borel's theorem, there have been about 1 in 10^50 total events since the beginning of the universe. If you re-read my example (not mine, actually. I must give credit to physics Ph'd, Gerald Schroeder as quoted by former atheist, the late Anthony Flew), 10^80 microcomputers were granted 488 trials a million times/second for 15 BY. Even so, the odds of producing the sonnet are decreased to a "mere" 1 in 10^90; still some 40 orders of magnitude beyond Borel's theorem.

I am curious at this point to know what sort of hopeless scenario you are trying to rescue against these impossible odds? I think this is more than fair to ask at this point

Impossible, yet here we are.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2015 3:29:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 9:13:39 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
Hopefully you will find this wording to be more clear: Is the proposition that life arose from purely natural processes a proposition that can be falsified? If so, how?

You're misunderstanding the fundamentals here; science cannot research magic. Therefore, ALL theories and hypotheses need to be grounded in the natural world. "God did it" is not, never has been and never will be a hypothesis or theory in this way.

So abiogenesis is the field of study of hypotheses regarding how life began. Each of them is falsifiable itself. What you are asking is akin to "is the scientific method falsifiable?". How would you go about that? Does the fact it isn't mean that it doesn't work?

At the end of the day, you can ask as many questions about science as you want, but the answer will never, ever be "magic". No matter how much you want it to be.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2015 8:59:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/5/2015 3:29:31 AM, Graincruncher wrote:

You're misunderstanding the fundamentals here; science cannot research magic. Therefore, ALL theories and hypotheses need to be grounded in the natural world. "God did it" is not, never has been and never will be a hypothesis or theory in this way.

What part of origins research shows you that our origins have to be explained by, what you would call, "natural processes"?? Who sets this requirement, that the only answer you will accept, must fit into this definition and category of what is considered "scientific"?? Answer: YOU, as an individual, decide what kind of answer you will accept, and how you will define science. There are many scientists who disagree with you, but you will only accept the opinions of those who agree with you, as being credible, and "scientific".

Sure, you can argue that Goddidit is not an acceptable answer, but I can argue that Itdiditself is not an acceptable answer, as well. What natural processes that govern life, existed prior to the existence of life?? All that could have existed was chemical reactions. We know from observable science that chemical reactions alone are not sufficient to produce life, from non-living materials. At what point will you allow logic to take over, and decide that absence of evidence, for spontaneous generation, may very well be evidence of absence??

No one is going to argue against working scientists trying to determine how life may have originated, but "it must have happened THIS way because we're here", is not a sufficient answer, on which to base an ideological worldview...unless you have faith.

So abiogenesis is the field of study of hypotheses regarding how life began. Each of them is falsifiable itself. What you are asking is akin to "is the scientific method falsifiable?". How would you go about that? Does the fact it isn't mean that it doesn't work?

No one says that science doesn't work, for anything, but if your view of science rules out a possible explanation, that it is powerless to disprove, then perhaps your view of science is not capable of answering ALL questions. Just because observable, experimental "science" can produce technology etc., does not mean that it is capable of answering questions about our origins. Even if it does give you an answer, it is not one that is observable, repeatable, testable, or in many cases, even falsifiable. So is it really "scientific"??

At the end of the day, you can ask as many questions about science as you want, but the answer will never, ever be "magic". No matter how much you want it to be.

You believe that God employed "magic", in creating the universe and life, yet don't see the spontaneous generation of non-living materials into living beings, as magical or miraculous, even though we don't see those things happening according to natural laws and processes in existence today??
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2015 10:49:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/5/2015 8:59:39 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 3/5/2015 3:29:31 AM, Graincruncher wrote:

You're misunderstanding the fundamentals here; science cannot research magic. Therefore, ALL theories and hypotheses need to be grounded in the natural world. "God did it" is not, never has been and never will be a hypothesis or theory in this way.

What part of origins research shows you that our origins have to be explained by, what you would call, "natural processes"??

The parts which are science. Because "supernatural" isn"t falsifiable and therefore the research cannot seek anything other than a natural explanation.

Who sets this requirement, that the only answer you will accept, must fit into this definition and category of what is considered "scientific"?? Answer: YOU, as an individual, decide what kind of answer you will accept, and how you will define science.

No, I simply go by the necessary parameters of the scientific method as something that can be useful in building more accurate models of the world. I don"t get to pick and choose what these things are; they either are or they aren"t.

There are many scientists who disagree with you, but you will only accept the opinions of those who agree with you, as being credible, and "scientific".

No, there aren"t. There"s a tiny fraction of religious propagandists who disagree with me. The fact that they seem like a more significant amount than that to you is entirely down to your own biases.

Sure, you can argue that Goddidit is not an acceptable answer, but I can argue that Itdiditself is not an acceptable answer, as well.

No-one is claiming anything "did itself", but you"re welcome to waste your time arguing against a position no-one holds if you"d like.

What natural processes that govern life, existed prior to the existence of life??

" Is that a joke or are you actually unaware of the laws of physics?

All that could have existed was chemical reactions.

And that"s all life is; chemical reactions.

We know from observable science that chemical reactions alone are not sufficient to produce life, from non-living materials.

Living and non-living are human-made distinctions to describe different kinds of chemical reactions. So we know " by definition and without any doubt at all " that chemical reactions don"t "produce life", but that life is just chemical reactions.

At what point will you allow logic to take over, and decide that absence of evidence, for spontaneous generation, may very well be evidence of absence??

Right after you do the same for the existence of god. At which point you"ll see why I"m not looking at an absence of evidence at all.

No one is going to argue against working scientists trying to determine how life may have originated, but "it must have happened THIS way because we're here", is not a sufficient answer, on which to base an ideological worldview...unless you have faith.

That is not the argument. The claim is that it must have happened in a way that is understandable by science, as otherwise there would be no purpose in using science to investigate the matter. Since science can"t investigate non-natural causes (aka magic), what exactly do you expect the areas of investigation to be?

No one says that science doesn't work, for anything, but if your view of science rules out a possible explanation, that it is powerless to disprove, then perhaps your view of science is not capable of answering ALL questions.

An explanation that is neither provable nor disprovable is not an explanation at all. It"s highly likely " in fact, I suspect certain " that any view of science is incapable of answering all questions. But since I never claimed that it did, this is yet another irrelevant strawman on your part. The question isn"t whether science can answer "all" questions, but whether it can answer the question of the origin of life. Since there is nothing in principle preventing it from doing so, it seems worthwhile looking into the ways it could have happened. It does not " to me, at least " seem worthwhile looking into the ways that we know we can"t look into from a scientific perspective.

Just because observable, experimental "science" can produce technology etc., does not mean that it is capable of answering questions about our origins.

Ergo magic, yes? Science is capable of investigating natural explanations and nothing else. Unless you have evidence that it is in principle impossible that life was created via natural causes, it seems a worthwhile pursuit to continue the investigation.

Even if it does give you an answer, it is not one that is observable, repeatable, testable, or in many cases, even falsifiable. So is it really "scientific"??

Could you please give me an example of a scientific result that isn"t observable, repeatable, testable or falsifiable? Because what you"ve just described is "god did it".

You believe that God employed "magic", in creating the universe and life, yet don't see the spontaneous generation of non-living materials into living beings, as magical or miraculous, even though we don't see those things happening according to natural laws and processes in existence today??

I consider supernatural claims to be magical claims. I consider natural claims to be non-magical claims. It isn"t a complicated definitional taxonomy.
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2015 4:09:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 2:19:51 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
As far as I am aware, all origin of life research and experimentation is an attempt to establish abiogenesis. This research continues today at a furious pace. This being the case, it follows logically that while OOL research seeks to establish abiogenesis, such efforts have not born fruit. Indeed, inasmuch as repeated efforts have failed, such experimentation can be seen on one hand as a series of failed attempts to falsify design theory. Indeed, Pasteur's observation that life always comes from life has never been falsified.

If life only comes from life, then intelligent design is false, and evolution is true. Just saying.

So in the spirit of scientific rigor and given the reality that abiogenesis has not been established and given that intelligent design has not been falsified, I ask you: what would be a reasonable definitive falsification of abiogenesis?

The fossil record. If we find ie a human fossil 4000 million years ago, and then a bacteria, meaning that humans appeared before bacterias, then it is impossible that abiogenesis is true, as the process is absolutely incapable of producing a human from inert matter.

This is one of four related forums I have created with the unified purpose of exposing the unreasonable nature of the proposition that ID theory is without merit.

Religion-related theories are never taken into account when scientific theories are already proven, they only receive mention when we talk about a phenomenon for which a naturalistic process has not yet been demonstrated. So ID theory is simply part of The God of the Gaps theory.
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 9:28:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 6:43:43 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 3/4/2015 9:54:38 AM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 3/3/2015 9:20:31 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 3/3/2015 8:58:56 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/28/2015 2:36:50 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Given a modest 300 chain of RNA to form even a simple replication machine simpler than a virus, would use elements present in an environment. The chances of these elements arranging themselves in a useful structure that achieves self replication is astronomical.

But hey hey there is a chance. That is the atheist mantra.

Cell Biology International; Volume 28, Issue 11
Chance and Necessity Do Not Explain the Origin of Life
J.T. Trevors and D.L. Abel

And another article from Life
http://www.google.com...

The question is like how do you falsify that a tornado passing through a airplane junkyard can't produce a Boeing 757? All that can be done is show how impractical, implausible, the chance is. Or to show that the end result is not possible at all from the initial conditions.

I think you have the analogy to complex. It doesn't have to make a 757. It just needs to break up some trees and toss in some other materials that might give some body of mass lift for a time, and it has hundreds of millions of years and a virtually endless junkyard in which to accomplish the goal.

A room full of monkeys typing into infinity will eventually by random chance give you War and Peace, who is to say that such a rare statistical event happens early, late, or on time?

Well I hate to break it to you, but you unbelievers don't have "infinity" to work with here. You've got about 3.5 BY. So with reality in mind, let's do a little bit of real world math:

I'm going to be generous and give you a 15 BY universe to work with as opposed to the mere 3.5 BY of life on earth. I'm also going to give you just the Shakespeare sonnet, "Shall I compare Thee to a Summer Day." War and peace is way too long. This simple sonnet is a mere 488 characters.

Now then, as I have bent over backward to indulge your analogy, let's see what results given a 30 character typewriter...

It turns out you would need 10^690 trials to get this one small sonnet.
To put this in perspective, the number of particles in the universe is estimated to be 10^80.
Recall that we are dealing in exponentials here.
Now, if we could somehow turn every one of those estimated particles into microcomputers so that the entire universe were nothing but microcomputers, and we allowed them to perform 488 trials a million times/ second for the entire 15 BY life of the universe, the chances of getting this sonnet once would be 1 in 10^90.

It's really ironic that over and over again, no matter what the subject may be, we find that it is the atheist who lives by pure blind metaphysical faith and the theist who is grounded firmly in the real world!

And how frequently do you think those attempts are happening? Do you think its once 'chance' per year? Week? Minute? Second? May times per second? At only one location on the earth? Two locations? Ten locations? I am taking you at your word with no citation what so ever that your numbers are correct, so on the topic of 'indulgence' lets give it a rest. In permutating how unlikely it is based on -1- in xyz, why not entertain the notion that statistically how how many places, times, and frequency such an even might have occurred. That never seems to be the odds that get manufactured, its always 1 in (against favor) when it very well might not be "1" at all. It to might be very well be an exponential number, too.

According to Borel's theorem, there have been about 1 in 10^50 total events since the beginning of the universe. If you re-read my example (not mine, actually. I must give credit to physics Ph'd, Gerald Schroeder as quoted by former atheist, the late Anthony Flew), 10^80 microcomputers were granted 488 trials a million times/second for 15 BY. Even so, the odds of producing the sonnet are decreased to a "mere" 1 in 10^90; still some 40 orders of magnitude beyond Borel's theorem.

I am curious at this point to know what sort of hopeless scenario you are trying to rescue against these impossible odds? I think this is more than fair to ask at this point


Impossible, yet here we are.

Indeed! The question is, how did we get here
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 9:30:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 1:16:14 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/3/2015 8:58:56 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/28/2015 2:36:50 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Given a modest 300 chain of RNA to form even a simple replication machine simpler than a virus, would use elements present in an environment. The chances of these elements arranging themselves in a useful structure that achieves self replication is astronomical.

But hey hey there is a chance. That is the atheist mantra.

Cell Biology International; Volume 28, Issue 11
Chance and Necessity Do Not Explain the Origin of Life
J.T. Trevors and D.L. Abel

And another article from Life
http://www.google.com...

The question is like how do you falsify that a tornado passing through a airplane junkyard can't produce a Boeing 757? All that can be done is show how impractical, implausible, the chance is. Or to show that the end result is not possible at all from the initial conditions.

I think you have the analogy to complex. It doesn't have to make a 757. It just needs to break up some trees and toss in some other materials that might give some body of mass lift for a time, and it has hundreds of millions of years and a virtually endless junkyard in which to accomplish the goal.

A room full of monkeys typing into infinity will eventually by random chance give you War and Peace, who is to say that such a rare statistical event happens early, late, or on time?

Well I hate to break it to you, but you unbelievers don't have "infinity" to work with here. You've got about 3.5 BY. So with reality in mind, let's do a little bit of real world math:

I'm going to be generous and give you a 15 BY universe to work with as opposed to the mere 3.5 BY of life on earth. I'm also going to give you just the Shakespeare sonnet, "Shall I compare Thee to a Summer Day." War and peace is way too long. This simple sonnet is a mere 488 characters.

Now then, as I have bent over backward to indulge your analogy, let's see what results given a 30 character typewriter...

It turns out you would need 10^690 trials to get this one small sonnet.
To put this in perspective, the number of particles in the universe is estimated to be 10^80.
Recall that we are dealing in exponentials here.
Now, if we could somehow turn every one of those estimated particles into microcomputers so that the entire universe were nothing but microcomputers, and we allowed them to perform 488 trials a million times/ second for the entire 15 BY life of the universe, the chances of getting this sonnet once would be 1 in 10^90.

It's really ironic that over and over again, no matter what the subject may be, we find that it is the atheist who lives by pure blind metaphysical faith and the theist who is grounded firmly in the real world!

I'd like to see how you got those probabilities, because you've left out a few key assumption that you had to make: the probability distribution over the keys, and the memory of the system (in the sense of conditional probabilities in sequences), for example.

you will find my source in post #15
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 9:32:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 9:30:20 AM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 3/4/2015 1:16:14 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/3/2015 8:58:56 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/28/2015 2:36:50 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Given a modest 300 chain of RNA to form even a simple replication machine simpler than a virus, would use elements present in an environment. The chances of these elements arranging themselves in a useful structure that achieves self replication is astronomical.

But hey hey there is a chance. That is the atheist mantra.

Cell Biology International; Volume 28, Issue 11
Chance and Necessity Do Not Explain the Origin of Life
J.T. Trevors and D.L. Abel

And another article from Life
http://www.google.com...

The question is like how do you falsify that a tornado passing through a airplane junkyard can't produce a Boeing 757? All that can be done is show how impractical, implausible, the chance is. Or to show that the end result is not possible at all from the initial conditions.

I think you have the analogy to complex. It doesn't have to make a 757. It just needs to break up some trees and toss in some other materials that might give some body of mass lift for a time, and it has hundreds of millions of years and a virtually endless junkyard in which to accomplish the goal.

A room full of monkeys typing into infinity will eventually by random chance give you War and Peace, who is to say that such a rare statistical event happens early, late, or on time?

Well I hate to break it to you, but you unbelievers don't have "infinity" to work with here. You've got about 3.5 BY. So with reality in mind, let's do a little bit of real world math:

I'm going to be generous and give you a 15 BY universe to work with as opposed to the mere 3.5 BY of life on earth. I'm also going to give you just the Shakespeare sonnet, "Shall I compare Thee to a Summer Day." War and peace is way too long. This simple sonnet is a mere 488 characters.

Now then, as I have bent over backward to indulge your analogy, let's see what results given a 30 character typewriter...

It turns out you would need 10^690 trials to get this one small sonnet.
To put this in perspective, the number of particles in the universe is estimated to be 10^80.
Recall that we are dealing in exponentials here.
Now, if we could somehow turn every one of those estimated particles into microcomputers so that the entire universe were nothing but microcomputers, and we allowed them to perform 488 trials a million times/ second for the entire 15 BY life of the universe, the chances of getting this sonnet once would be 1 in 10^90.

It's really ironic that over and over again, no matter what the subject may be, we find that it is the atheist who lives by pure blind metaphysical faith and the theist who is grounded firmly in the real world!

I'd like to see how you got those probabilities, because you've left out a few key assumption that you had to make: the probability distribution over the keys, and the memory of the system (in the sense of conditional probabilities in sequences), for example.

you will find my source in post #15

Your source doesn't seem to mention it.
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 9:56:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/5/2015 3:29:31 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 2/27/2015 9:13:39 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
Hopefully you will find this wording to be more clear: Is the proposition that life arose from purely natural processes a proposition that can be falsified? If so, how?

You're misunderstanding the fundamentals here; science cannot research magic. Therefore, ALL theories and hypotheses need to be grounded in the natural world. "God did it" is not, never has been and never will be a hypothesis or theory in this way.

So abiogenesis is the field of study of hypotheses regarding how life began. Each of them is falsifiable itself. What you are asking is akin to "is the scientific method falsifiable?". How would you go about that? Does the fact it isn't mean that it doesn't work?

At the end of the day, you can ask as many questions about science as you want, but the answer will never, ever be "magic". No matter how much you want it to be.

There are so very many problems with your post here. Most fundamentally, the only person talking about "magic" here is you. The alternative to a purely naturalistic OOL is and always has been Intelligent agency, not "magic." Which proposition - purely natural processes or intelligent agency - does the evidence support? The OOL is an event confined to the distant past. Therefore, the cause of the OOL can emerge through investigations governed by the protocols of historical science. Some examples of other historical sciences include archaeology and forensic science. The very first question an historical science seeks to answer is this: was the effect in question deliberately (i.e., intentionally) or accidentally (i.e., the result of purely natural processes) caused? Thus, not only is the question legitimate in the light of historical science, it is paramount!

It is fascinating and not at all indicative of any commitment to scientific rigor that you wish to eliminate a live causal possibility based not on the evidence, but on a meataphysical belief that you simply assume but cannot prove.

Meanwhile, your post #20 reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of all known living systems. When you make statements such as:

And that"s all life is; chemical reactions.

and:

Living and non-living are human-made distinctions to describe different kinds of chemical reactions. So we know " by definition and without any doubt at all " that chemical reactions don"t "produce life", but that life is just chemical reactions.


you betray an industrial age view which has been shattered for well over half a century now. From Crick's "Sequence Hypothesis" forward it has been common knowledge that all life is undergirded by immaterial information. Therefore to claim that life is nothing more than chemical reactions is akin to claiming that your smart phone, which like all living systems must obey the laws of nature, can be explained purely in terms of physical interactions. The physical explanations only go so far. They do not explain origins.

Living and non-living are human-made distinctions to describe different kinds of chemical reactions? That's just embarrassing. There is no wider ontological chasm than the difference between life and the inanimate world. It is a difference that demands explanation, not assumption.
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 10:08:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/5/2015 4:09:25 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:19:51 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
As far as I am aware, all origin of life research and experimentation is an attempt to establish abiogenesis. This research continues today at a furious pace. This being the case, it follows logically that while OOL research seeks to establish abiogenesis, such efforts have not born fruit. Indeed, inasmuch as repeated efforts have failed, such experimentation can be seen on one hand as a series of failed attempts to falsify design theory. Indeed, Pasteur's observation that life always comes from life has never been falsified.

If life only comes from life, then intelligent design is false, and evolution is true. Just saying.

So in the spirit of scientific rigor and given the reality that abiogenesis has not been established and given that intelligent design has not been falsified, I ask you: what would be a reasonable definitive falsification of abiogenesis?

The fossil record. If we find ie a human fossil 4000 million years ago, and then a bacteria, meaning that humans appeared before bacterias, then it is impossible that abiogenesis is true, as the process is absolutely incapable of producing a human from inert matter.

This is one of four related forums I have created with the unified purpose of exposing the unreasonable nature of the proposition that ID theory is without merit.

Religion-related theories are never taken into account when scientific theories are already proven, they only receive mention when we talk about a phenomenon for which a naturalistic process has not yet been demonstrated. So ID theory is simply part of The God of the Gaps theory.

Otokage, I sincerely wish to thank you for providing a basic falsification critereon! I am hoping you won't mind further clarifying here. I appreciate your example of humans appearing in the fossil record before bacteria as a clear falsification of abiogenesis. But in that same spirit, it would then seem to me that, for example, a trilobite in the lower cambrian strata would serve just as well.

In the meantime, I would like to put the following notion to rest:

Religion-related theories are never taken into account when scientific theories are already proven

The origin of life is uniquely tied to every worldview; there is no separating them. Many - not all, but many - atheists believe in a purely naturalistic OOL not because the evidence points in that direction, but simply because it is the only OOL scenario that is compatible with their worldview. If that is not religion, I don't know what is.

Therefore, to separate metaphysical commitment from the OOL, we must allow the evidence to govern the investigation as opposed to allowing the metaphysic to do so. This forum testifies to the guilt of the atheist here.

Beyond that, I would love to know (though I suspect I already do know) which "already proven" scientific theory you have in mind here?
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 10:32:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 10:08:57 AM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 3/5/2015 4:09:25 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 2:19:51 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
As far as I am aware, all origin of life research and experimentation is an attempt to establish abiogenesis. This research continues today at a furious pace. This being the case, it follows logically that while OOL research seeks to establish abiogenesis, such efforts have not born fruit. Indeed, inasmuch as repeated efforts have failed, such experimentation can be seen on one hand as a series of failed attempts to falsify design theory. Indeed, Pasteur's observation that life always comes from life has never been falsified.

If life only comes from life, then intelligent design is false, and evolution is true. Just saying.

So in the spirit of scientific rigor and given the reality that abiogenesis has not been established and given that intelligent design has not been falsified, I ask you: what would be a reasonable definitive falsification of abiogenesis?

The fossil record. If we find ie a human fossil 4000 million years ago, and then a bacteria, meaning that humans appeared before bacterias, then it is impossible that abiogenesis is true, as the process is absolutely incapable of producing a human from inert matter.

This is one of four related forums I have created with the unified purpose of exposing the unreasonable nature of the proposition that ID theory is without merit.

Religion-related theories are never taken into account when scientific theories are already proven, they only receive mention when we talk about a phenomenon for which a naturalistic process has not yet been demonstrated. So ID theory is simply part of The God of the Gaps theory.

Otokage, I sincerely wish to thank you for providing a basic falsification critereon! I am hoping you won't mind further clarifying here. I appreciate your example of humans appearing in the fossil record before bacteria as a clear falsification of abiogenesis. But in that same spirit, it would then seem to me that, for example, a trilobite in the lower cambrian strata would serve just as well.

Not really, I mean, trilobites are found all over the paleozoic, including the cambrian. Moreover, you would still be finding a trilobite after a bacteria, and thus I don't feel you would be disproving abiogenesis here. The point is, to find an organism too complex to be made out of inner matter. I said a human to make that clear, but a trilobite or a fly that are found before the first bacteria, would certainly disprove abiogenesis as "a process that gave rise to life on earth for the first time". It should be noted that abiogenesis would still be not disproved in this premise "a process by which inanimate matter can be organized by natural processes to form a living being". This second premise is more difficult to disprove, because it is pretty sound in the sense that there's no process that comes to mind that could prevent biomolecules from binding to each other to make a primitive RNA strand or a protocel.

In the meantime, I would like to put the following notion to rest:

Religion-related theories are never taken into account when scientific theories are already proven

The origin of life is uniquely tied to every worldview; there is no separating them. Many - not all, but many - atheists believe in a purely naturalistic OOL not because the evidence points in that direction, but simply because it is the only OOL scenario that is compatible with their worldview. If that is not religion, I don't know what is.

Therefore, to separate metaphysical commitment from the OOL, we must allow the evidence to govern the investigation as opposed to allowing the metaphysic to do so. This forum testifies to the guilt of the atheist here.

Beyond that, I would love to know (though I suspect I already do know) which "already proven" scientific theory you have in mind here?

My point is that during history, humanity has resorted to religion and mythology in order to explain natural phenomena. If you think about it, you see how myth-related explanations are slowly and quietly replaced by naturalistic explanations throughout history, and only those phenomena that do not yet have sufficiently demonstrated naturalistic explanations, are still being discussed. That's why it is called "God of the Gaps" theory, because it explains "gaps" that science is still unable to explain beyond any doubt. I feel this is the case with abiogenesis: because abiogenesis is still not demonstrated through experiments, religious explanations are still given some credit.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2015 8:27:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 2:36:50 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:


A room full of monkeys typing into infinity will eventually by random chance give you War and Peace, who is to say that such a rare statistical event happens early, late, or on time?

A perfect example of the silliness of evolutionists.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2015 9:18:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/7/2015 8:27:38 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/28/2015 2:36:50 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:


A room full of monkeys typing into infinity will eventually by random chance give you War and Peace, who is to say that such a rare statistical event happens early, late, or on time?

A perfect example of the silliness of evolutionists.

This is just a funny example made by statisticians to illustrate the concept of almost sure convergence. That is, any outcome who's probability remains strictly greater than zero occurs almost surely given infinite opportunity.

It's silly on purpose, because mathematicians have a sense of humour too, but there is a simple mathematical proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 1:19:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/7/2015 8:27:38 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/28/2015 2:36:50 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:


A room full of monkeys typing into infinity will eventually by random chance give you War and Peace, who is to say that such a rare statistical event happens early, late, or on time?

A perfect example of the silliness of evolutionists.

That amazingly fits, given the situation. You have to recall, at the time, its not one chance in a million, a thousand, or one hundred. The odds of a replicating molecule occurring are not infinitesimal, but we don't know how frequently such a di roll is cast. The "chance" of evolution pre replicator sequence very well was akin to waiting for a small straight in Yahtzee on a handful of di, a few million times given the chance.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...