Total Posts:83|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Abiogenesis must have happened

chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 10:08:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
(Apologies to those who find this topic tedious)

I believe the following statements are true:-

1 At some time in the past the earth did not exist.

2 The earth exists now

3 There was no life before earth existed

4 There is now life on earth

Therefore I believe I can conclude that:-

Abiogenesis must have happened

For clarity I have tried to reduce my argument for abiogenesis done to the bare minimum.

I make no claims about how abiogenesis happened, just that it did. In other words I am using the existence of life to be proof of abiogenesis.

My argument is aimed mainly at those that insist that life only comes from life. It would seem obvious to me that at least once and possibly only once in the past life came from non-life.

I can see only one counter argument and that is the possibility that the earth and life on it are eternal ie statement 1 and 3 are false. But where is the evidence for that?
Fly
Posts: 2,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 2:02:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 10:08:26 AM, chui wrote:
(Apologies to those who find this topic tedious)

I believe the following statements are true:-

1 At some time in the past the earth did not exist.

2 The earth exists now

3 There was no life before earth existed

4 There is now life on earth

Therefore I believe I can conclude that:-

Abiogenesis must have happened

For clarity I have tried to reduce my argument for abiogenesis done to the bare minimum.

I make no claims about how abiogenesis happened, just that it did. In other words I am using the existence of life to be proof of abiogenesis.

My argument is aimed mainly at those that insist that life only comes from life. It would seem obvious to me that at least once and possibly only once in the past life came from non-life.

I can see only one counter argument and that is the possibility that the earth and life on it are eternal ie statement 1 and 3 are false. But where is the evidence for that?

Yes, my mind defaults to these points whenever an ID proponent declares, "There is absolutely NO evidence for abiogenesis."

Well, there used to be no life on earth, and now there is. That is at least some evidence. If aliens, then life had to arise elsewhere somehow... if a spirit force, then that means the IDer is proposing magic as a scientific answer. For whatever reason, IDers hate it when their proposal is reduced to magic. It makes me wonder if they even know the definition of the word...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
dee-em
Posts: 6,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 10:21:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 10:08:26 AM, chui wrote:
(Apologies to those who find this topic tedious)

My argument is aimed mainly at those that insist that life only comes from life. It would seem obvious to me that at least once and possibly only once in the past life came from non-life.

Actually, abiogenesis could be a continual process but we might never know. Any very primitive self-replicators which arose after the first had evolved past that stage would quickly be overpwered by the more sophisticated life which had taken hold. Abiogenesis could be happening right now all over the Earth. However, that chemistry would be lost amongst the 'noise' of existing life.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 11:00:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 10:21:37 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/9/2015 10:08:26 AM, chui wrote:
(Apologies to those who find this topic tedious)

My argument is aimed mainly at those that insist that life only comes from life. It would seem obvious to me that at least once and possibly only once in the past life came from non-life.

Actually, abiogenesis could be a continual process but we might never know. Any very primitive self-replicators which arose after the first had evolved past that stage would quickly be overpwered by the more sophisticated life which had taken hold. Abiogenesis could be happening right now all over the Earth. However, that chemistry would be lost amongst the 'noise' of existing life.

Very true.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 3:47:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 11:01:42 AM, chui wrote:
Any counter argument from the intelligent design people?

You don't have to be pro ID to rebute.
You seem to be assuming non-life has existed eternally. Yes or no?
Why not life eternally?
Seems just as easy to me.
Fly
Posts: 2,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 10:18:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 3:47:12 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 6/11/2015 11:01:42 AM, chui wrote:
Any counter argument from the intelligent design people?

You don't have to be pro ID to rebute.
You seem to be assuming non-life has existed eternally. Yes or no?
Why not life eternally?
Seems just as easy to me.

If you can reconcile that with the physics of the Big Bang, then have at it. The problem with that is that you cannot...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 3:15:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 3:47:12 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 6/11/2015 11:01:42 AM, chui wrote:
Any counter argument from the intelligent design people?

You don't have to be pro ID to rebute.
You seem to be assuming non-life has existed eternally. Yes or no?
Why not life eternally?
Seems just as easy to me.

I make no such assumption. My argument, I believe, stands whether the universe is eternal or has a beginning.

I accept that eternal life would be a valid counter argument. Against that argument I would put evidence that our universe had a hot beginning and many billions of years later so did the earth. So the eternal life you posit would need to be able to survive these events. Such life is not seen on this planet. Even if it is how does that type of life give 'birth' to the type of life that we do see. It would seem that we arrive at an intelligent design argument after all.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 3:24:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 10:08:26 AM, chui wrote:
(Apologies to those who find this topic tedious)

I believe the following statements are true:-

1 At some time in the past the earth did not exist.

2 The earth exists now

Going for the easy ones aren't you?

3 There was no life before earth existed

There could have been life on other planets b4 earth.

4 There is now life on earth

Therefore I believe I can conclude that:-

Abiogenesis must have happened

Your premises do not follow the conclusion.

For clarity I have tried to reduce my argument for abiogenesis done to the bare minimum.

I make no claims about how abiogenesis happened, just that it did. In other words I am using the existence of life to be proof of abiogenesis.

Fail. Anyone can make a claim like this. A theist could easily say "I make no claims about how [God did it], just that [He] did. In other words I am using the existence of life to be proof of [God/ID]"

My argument is aimed mainly at those that insist that life only comes from life. It would seem obvious to me that at least once and possibly only once in the past life came from non-life.

I can see only one counter argument and that is the possibility that the earth and life on it are eternal ie statement 1 and 3 are false. But where is the evidence for that?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 3:29:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 10:08:26 AM, chui wrote:
(Apologies to those who find this topic tedious)

I believe the following statements are true:-

1 At some time in the past the earth did not exist.

2 The earth exists now

3 There was no life before earth existed

4 There is now life on earth

Therefore I believe I can conclude that:-

Abiogenesis must have happened

For clarity I have tried to reduce my argument for abiogenesis done to the bare minimum.

I make no claims about how abiogenesis happened, just that it did. In other words I am using the existence of life to be proof of abiogenesis.

My argument is aimed mainly at those that insist that life only comes from life. It would seem obvious to me that at least once and possibly only once in the past life came from non-life.

I can see only one counter argument and that is the possibility that the earth and life on it are eternal i.e. statement 1 and 3 are false. But where is the evidence for that?

Panspermia is a hypothesis that exists. And it solves lot of issues in RNA World hypothesis for example that are major hurdles as they currently stand (e.g. availability of reactive phosphate).
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 4:14:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 10:08:26 AM, chui wrote:
(Apologies to those who find this topic tedious)

I believe the following statements are true:-

1 At some time in the past the earth did not exist.

2 The earth exists now

3 There was no life before earth existed

4 There is now life on earth

Therefore I believe I can conclude that:-

Abiogenesis must have happened

For clarity I have tried to reduce my argument for abiogenesis done to the bare minimum.

I make no claims about how abiogenesis happened, just that it did. In other words I am using the existence of life to be proof of abiogenesis.

My argument is aimed mainly at those that insist that life only comes from life. It would seem obvious to me that at least once and possibly only once in the past life came from non-life.

I can see only one counter argument and that is the possibility that the earth and life on it are eternal ie statement 1 and 3 are false. But where is the evidence for that?

I believe the following statements are true.

1 At some time in the past the earth did not exist.

2 The earth exists now

3 There was no life before earth existed

4 There is now life on earth

Therefore I believe I can conclude that:-

Life was created.

I aim my argument at those who believe that life created itself. Life comes only from life. This is a truism. It is what we observe in nature. No one has ever seen lifeless chemicals become a living thing. The evidence supports my claim. There is no evidence for abiogenesis, so we must follow the evidence. The evidence shows that life comes only from life.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 6:22:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 10:18:47 PM, Fly wrote:
At 6/11/2015 3:47:12 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 6/11/2015 11:01:42 AM, chui wrote:
Any counter argument from the intelligent design people?

You don't have to be pro ID to rebute.
You seem to be assuming non-life has existed eternally. Yes or no?
Why not life eternally?
Seems just as easy to me.

If you can reconcile that with the physics of the Big Bang, then have at it. The problem with that is that you cannot...

Reconcile what?
What does the OP assume?
All came from nothing, or All always has been.
Are there other choices?

Reconcile for me all came from nothing, and your problem of life being there at the same time should be easy.
I have never seen the scientific evidence for All came from nothing, please share with me.
Alternately, I have not seen the scientific evidence for what was there before the big bang. Please share with me.

You make conjectures, that assume some things may be true, and based on these alone, say other things could not be true.
So I will make counter conjectures, and say based on these things, your beliefs could not be true.
For myself, I have little evidence to support my beliefs, but if you will share yours, I will muster up what I can, and we will have two piles of conjectures, supported by 'what ifs' and 'maybes'.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 6:24:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 3:15:23 AM, chui wrote:
At 6/11/2015 3:47:12 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 6/11/2015 11:01:42 AM, chui wrote:
Any counter argument from the intelligent design people?

You don't have to be pro ID to rebute.
You seem to be assuming non-life has existed eternally. Yes or no?
Why not life eternally?
Seems just as easy to me.

I make no such assumption. My argument, I believe, stands whether the universe is eternal or has a beginning.

Well, one has to assume something, in order to make a conclusion.
How can it be otherwise?
If you do not assume one or the other, you assume either one as possible.
So, I assume eternal existence, problem solved.

Now you assume, Ah, what if not eternal, what if there were a beginning.
Well, what kind of beginning?

I accept that eternal life would be a valid counter argument. Against that argument I would put evidence that our universe had a hot beginning and many billions of years later so did the earth. So the eternal life you posit would need to be able to survive these events. Such life is not seen on this planet. Even if it is how does that type of life give 'birth' to the type of life that we do see. It would seem that we arrive at an intelligent design argument after all.

Now, you assume this hot beginning did not have life, and your evidence for this is.....what?
You assume hot beginning, from what? From nothing?
Big problem, that. Bigger problem that how did life come about.
For myself, I will say not from nothing.
Well then, from what.
Here is a thought, from something that contained life. Problem solved.

This idea of yours that we are familiar will all life forms in the cosmos, seems, foolish.
This idea of yours that life forms are not able to adapt to habitat is counter to current scientific beliefs and experiences.
Life on earth has been found where just a few decades ago it was believed no life could exist.
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov...

This idea of your that Science has reached the pinnacle of understanding life in the cosmos has been held before, and before that, and before that, and before that.
Each time it was shown to be a false belief
Do you see it otherwise?
This is not a rhetorical question.
Why is it that you believe when that this belief of yours that has been show to be false so many times in the past, is now a true belief?
Fly
Posts: 2,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 12:23:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 6:22:57 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 6/11/2015 10:18:47 PM, Fly wrote:
At 6/11/2015 3:47:12 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 6/11/2015 11:01:42 AM, chui wrote:
Any counter argument from the intelligent design people?

You don't have to be pro ID to rebute.
You seem to be assuming non-life has existed eternally. Yes or no?
Why not life eternally?
Seems just as easy to me.

If you can reconcile that with the physics of the Big Bang, then have at it. The problem with that is that you cannot...

Reconcile what?
What does the OP assume?
All came from nothing, or All always has been.
Are there other choices?

Reconcile for me all came from nothing, and your problem of life being there at the same time should be easy.
I have never seen the scientific evidence for All came from nothing, please share with me.
Alternately, I have not seen the scientific evidence for what was there before the big bang. Please share with me.

You make conjectures, that assume some things may be true, and based on these alone, say other things could not be true.
So I will make counter conjectures, and say based on these things, your beliefs could not be true.
For myself, I have little evidence to support my beliefs, but if you will share yours, I will muster up what I can, and we will have two piles of conjectures, supported by 'what ifs' and 'maybes'.

So, as I said, you are unable to reconcile your proposition with the physics of the Big Bang. You fail to even mention the Big Bang in your response.

I should note here that actually, I do take issue with one of the OP's assumptions that there was no life before the earth existed. We cannot assume that. In my defense, I actually did leave open the possibility of life originating extraterrestrially in my initial response to the OP.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 1:40:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 12:23:26 PM, Fly wrote:
At 6/12/2015 6:22:57 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 6/11/2015 10:18:47 PM, Fly wrote:
At 6/11/2015 3:47:12 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 6/11/2015 11:01:42 AM, chui wrote:
Any counter argument from the intelligent design people?

You don't have to be pro ID to rebute.
You seem to be assuming non-life has existed eternally. Yes or no?
Why not life eternally?
Seems just as easy to me.

If you can reconcile that with the physics of the Big Bang, then have at it. The problem with that is that you cannot...

Reconcile what?
What does the OP assume?
All came from nothing, or All always has been.
Are there other choices?

Reconcile for me all came from nothing, and your problem of life being there at the same time should be easy.
I have never seen the scientific evidence for All came from nothing, please share with me.
Alternately, I have not seen the scientific evidence for what was there before the big bang. Please share with me.

You make conjectures, that assume some things may be true, and based on these alone, say other things could not be true.
So I will make counter conjectures, and say based on these things, your beliefs could not be true.
For myself, I have little evidence to support my beliefs, but if you will share yours, I will muster up what I can, and we will have two piles of conjectures, supported by 'what ifs' and 'maybes'.

So, as I said, you are unable to reconcile your proposition with the physics of the Big Bang. You fail to even mention the Big Bang in your response.

I should note here that actually, I do take issue with one of the OP's assumptions that there was no life before the earth existed. We cannot assume that. In my defense, I actually did leave open the possibility of life originating extraterrestrially in my initial response to the OP.

The "physics of the big bang" is incomplete, at best.
It is a favored theory among several.
We can be relatively certain of certain aspects, which does not include what happened just prior.
Now if you will tell me what preceded the big bang for a minute or so, we may have some answers. What does your physics tell you, with scientific certainty?

So my proposition fits in with the big bang just fine. I see nothing to reconcile.
The unknowns are big enough to allow many things.
You certainly haven't posted anything that puts doubt on that.
Offer specifics, maybe I have overlooked something.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 8:47:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 4:14:39 AM, B0HICA wrote:
I aim my argument at those who believe that life created itself.

Fortunately; I don't think anyone believes that life created itself.

It helps if you honestly portray the opposing argument. In this case, the opposing claim to "divine creation", is that life is the result of selective pressure operating over potentially hundreds of millions of years from a first chemical replicator, simple enough in nature to have come about from chemical processes. When it is stated for what it is, it sounds far more reasonable than you present.

Life comes only from life. This is a truism. It is what we observe in nature. No one has ever seen lifeless chemicals become a living thing.

And no one has ever seen anything being divinely created. Making the claim that what we observe today is the only thing we will ever observe, or can ever have observed no matter how far back in time we go MUST be supported by evidence.

Unfortunately, given the nature of the evidence in support of evolution at the starting point, the fundamental truism, is that life changes, and over the history of the earth, life can only be described as a general progression from the simple to the complex via naturalistic processes operating over geological time scales. The only conclusion you can draw from this, is that your claim is a very superficial "truism" that cannot be applied to life as a whole.

The evidence supports my claim.

Actually, what you are describing is not evidence, it is a lack of evidence to the contrary. Unforuntately, as stated, there is much reason to beleive yo uare wrong.

There is no evidence for abiogenesis, so we must follow the evidence. The evidence shows that life comes only from life.

With what knowledge do you make this claim? Because to be brutually honest, there is A LOT of evidence for abiogenesis, in specifically three respects:

1.) That natural, unguided chemical processes can acheive quite much of the characteristics we use to describe life.

2.) The the complex chemical machinery we see in life today, can operate effectively, with much, much simpler and more basic variants.

3.) There is much concerning the specific chemical processes going on in life today that hint to a much simpler past.

The first is important, with this, science has shown that in the right conditions, all the basic chemical building blocks of life can occur naturally. Lipid cell-like structures and nucleotides chains can be formed, with the cell allowing single nuclear bases in, but not let out nucleotide strands out, with the nature of their interaction providing selective pressure for replication. With different types of nucleic acids, it can be shown that chain replication can occur faster than chain degredation. It can also be shown that Ribozymes, a particular organisation of RNA (something that can spontaneously self assemble in the right chemical conditions), can catalyse it's own replication.

The second is also critically important, as it shows many required steps in the path to life as we know it have intermediate steps that are workable. This is required because the complex chemistry of life is so complex, it is very difficult to expect it to have come about as is, instead, where there is more complexity, it is expected that such complexity can be broken down into simpler, more intermediate steps. This is exactly what we see with the RNA world instead of DNA; much simpler membranes, much simpler protein creation and folding mechanisms, and much simpler amino acid sorting and catalysation.

The third, is almost the smoking Gun. The chemistry of life is highly imperfect, and has a lot of processes that do not need to be the way they are. Many are very closely related to simpler chemistry rather than the complex ones they are now; DNA is made from the simpler RNA pre-cursor when manufactured in the cell, Ribozymes in the natural world are almost exclusively RNA, rather than complex proteins, and many important chemicals required in the most basic functionality of life, have the same ribose based chemistry.

In summary of these three, there is no evidence of divine creation in life; and I could give you many examples of evidence there could have been that would be pretty obvious.

What we're left with, is a system of chemistry in which the origin of life as we know it more and more possible to describe as a series of unguided chemical processes with each passing year of experimentation.

The important thing for you to resolve for yourself, is not one of these aspects has any reason to be true if life was Divinely Created; God has no limits, and him deciding to create life in a way that appears evolved, and possible to derive from non-divine mechanisms must have a reason.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 9:04:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 10:08:26 AM, chui wrote:
(Apologies to those who find this topic tedious)

I believe the following statements are true:-

1 At some time in the past the earth did not exist.

2 The earth exists now

3 There was no life before earth existed

I don't know if this is true. How can we definitively prove that there was no life before earth existed? There must have existed an unimaginable number of other planets before this time, and thus life could have existed on these planets.

Of course, this same line of logic would then apply to those planets and so on until we find where the first life originated. I don't disagree with abiogenesis and it seems very likely, I just don't know if it happened here on earth or not. It is probable that abiogenesis has lead to the formation of the first life on earth, but what do you think on this particular matter? Was it instead brought from other planets?
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 9:53:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 8:47:35 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/12/2015 4:14:39 AM, B0HICA wrote:
I aim my argument at those who believe that life created itself.

Fortunately; I don't think anyone believes that life created itself.

It helps if you honestly portray the opposing argument. In this case, the opposing claim to "divine creation", is that life is the result of selective pressure operating over potentially hundreds of millions of years from a first chemical replicator, simple enough in nature to have come about from chemical processes. When it is stated for what it is, it sounds far more reasonable than you present.

Life comes only from life. This is a truism. It is what we observe in nature. No one has ever seen lifeless chemicals become a living thing.

And no one has ever seen anything being divinely created. Making the claim that what we observe today is the only thing we will ever observe, or can ever have observed no matter how far back in time we go MUST be supported by evidence.

Unfortunately, given the nature of the evidence in support of evolution at the starting point, the fundamental truism, is that life changes, and over the history of the earth, life can only be described as a general progression from the simple to the complex via naturalistic processes operating over geological time scales. The only conclusion you can draw from this, is that your claim is a very superficial "truism" that cannot be applied to life as a whole.

The evidence supports my claim.

Actually, what you are describing is not evidence, it is a lack of evidence to the contrary. Unforuntately, as stated, there is much reason to beleive yo uare wrong.

There is no evidence for abiogenesis, so we must follow the evidence. The evidence shows that life comes only from life.

With what knowledge do you make this claim? Because to be brutually honest, there is A LOT of evidence for abiogenesis, in specifically three respects:

1.) That natural, unguided chemical processes can acheive quite much of the characteristics we use to describe life.

2.) The the complex chemical machinery we see in life today, can operate effectively, with much, much simpler and more basic variants.

3.) There is much concerning the specific chemical processes going on in life today that hint to a much simpler past.

The first is important, with this, science has shown that in the right conditions, all the basic chemical building blocks of life can occur naturally. Lipid cell-like structures and nucleotides chains can be formed, with the cell allowing single nuclear bases in, but not let out nucleotide strands out, with the nature of their interaction providing selective pressure for replication. With different types of nucleic acids, it can be shown that chain replication can occur faster than chain degredation. It can also be shown that Ribozymes, a particular organisation of RNA (something that can spontaneously self assemble in the right chemical conditions), can catalyse it's own replication.

The second is also critically important, as it shows many required steps in the path to life as we know it have intermediate steps that are workable. This is required because the complex chemistry of life is so complex, it is very difficult to expect it to have come about as is, instead, where there is more complexity, it is expected that such complexity can be broken down into simpler, more intermediate steps. This is exactly what we see with the RNA world instead of DNA; much simpler membranes, much simpler protein creation and folding mechanisms, and much simpler amino acid sorting and catalysation.

The third, is almost the smoking Gun. The chemistry of life is highly imperfect, and has a lot of processes that do not need to be the way they are. Many are very closely related to simpler chemistry rather than the complex ones they are now; DNA is made from the simpler RNA pre-cursor when manufactured in the cell, Ribozymes in the natural world are almost exclusively RNA, rather than complex proteins, and many important chemicals required in the most basic functionality of life, have the same ribose based chemistry.


In summary of these three, there is no evidence of divine creation in life; and I could give you many examples of evidence there could have been that would be pretty obvious.

What we're left with, is a system of chemistry in which the origin of life as we know it more and more possible to describe as a series of unguided chemical processes with each passing year of experimentation.

The important thing for you to resolve for yourself, is not one of these aspects has any reason to be true if life was Divinely Created; God has no limits, and him deciding to create life in a way that appears evolved, and possible to derive from non-divine mechanisms must have a reason.

If that's what you believe, then I really feel sorry for you. You're in for a very unpleasant afterlife. I know you don't believe in God, but if you're wrong, it won't save you from eternity in Hell. It would be equivalent to not believing in gravity and stepping off a cliff. The results would be the same. Someone once stated that it would be easier to brainwash someone than it would be to convince them that they've been brainwashed. You've been brainwashed. Have you ever heard of a guy named Josh McDowell? He was a hardcore atheist. He thought Christians were idiots. One day, a Christian challenged him to prove that God didn't exist. So he tried. And he became a Christian as a result. He said that the evidence was overwhelming. I challenge you to do the same.If you make the effort to look at the evidence, and ignore the propaganda, there is only one conclusion you can reach. But you have to set aside your pride and make an honest effort to seek the truth.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 10:03:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 9:53:06 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/12/2015 8:47:35 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/12/2015 4:14:39 AM, B0HICA wrote:
I aim my argument at those who believe that life created itself.

Fortunately; I don't think anyone believes that life created itself.

It helps if you honestly portray the opposing argument. In this case, the opposing claim to "divine creation", is that life is the result of selective pressure operating over potentially hundreds of millions of years from a first chemical replicator, simple enough in nature to have come about from chemical processes. When it is stated for what it is, it sounds far more reasonable than you present.

Life comes only from life. This is a truism. It is what we observe in nature. No one has ever seen lifeless chemicals become a living thing.

And no one has ever seen anything being divinely created. Making the claim that what we observe today is the only thing we will ever observe, or can ever have observed no matter how far back in time we go MUST be supported by evidence.

Unfortunately, given the nature of the evidence in support of evolution at the starting point, the fundamental truism, is that life changes, and over the history of the earth, life can only be described as a general progression from the simple to the complex via naturalistic processes operating over geological time scales. The only conclusion you can draw from this, is that your claim is a very superficial "truism" that cannot be applied to life as a whole.

The evidence supports my claim.

Actually, what you are describing is not evidence, it is a lack of evidence to the contrary. Unforuntately, as stated, there is much reason to beleive yo uare wrong.

There is no evidence for abiogenesis, so we must follow the evidence. The evidence shows that life comes only from life.

With what knowledge do you make this claim? Because to be brutually honest, there is A LOT of evidence for abiogenesis, in specifically three respects:

1.) That natural, unguided chemical processes can acheive quite much of the characteristics we use to describe life.

2.) The the complex chemical machinery we see in life today, can operate effectively, with much, much simpler and more basic variants.

3.) There is much concerning the specific chemical processes going on in life today that hint to a much simpler past.

The first is important, with this, science has shown that in the right conditions, all the basic chemical building blocks of life can occur naturally. Lipid cell-like structures and nucleotides chains can be formed, with the cell allowing single nuclear bases in, but not let out nucleotide strands out, with the nature of their interaction providing selective pressure for replication. With different types of nucleic acids, it can be shown that chain replication can occur faster than chain degredation. It can also be shown that Ribozymes, a particular organisation of RNA (something that can spontaneously self assemble in the right chemical conditions), can catalyse it's own replication.

The second is also critically important, as it shows many required steps in the path to life as we know it have intermediate steps that are workable. This is required because the complex chemistry of life is so complex, it is very difficult to expect it to have come about as is, instead, where there is more complexity, it is expected that such complexity can be broken down into simpler, more intermediate steps. This is exactly what we see with the RNA world instead of DNA; much simpler membranes, much simpler protein creation and folding mechanisms, and much simpler amino acid sorting and catalysation.

The third, is almost the smoking Gun. The chemistry of life is highly imperfect, and has a lot of processes that do not need to be the way they are. Many are very closely related to simpler chemistry rather than the complex ones they are now; DNA is made from the simpler RNA pre-cursor when manufactured in the cell, Ribozymes in the natural world are almost exclusively RNA, rather than complex proteins, and many important chemicals required in the most basic functionality of life, have the same ribose based chemistry.


In summary of these three, there is no evidence of divine creation in life; and I could give you many examples of evidence there could have been that would be pretty obvious.

What we're left with, is a system of chemistry in which the origin of life as we know it more and more possible to describe as a series of unguided chemical processes with each passing year of experimentation.

The important thing for you to resolve for yourself, is not one of these aspects has any reason to be true if life was Divinely Created; God has no limits, and him deciding to create life in a way that appears evolved, and possible to derive from non-divine mechanisms must have a reason.

If that's what you believe, then I really feel sorry for you. You're in for a very unpleasant afterlife. I know you don't believe in God, but if you're wrong, it won't save you from eternity in Hell. It would be equivalent to not believing in gravity and stepping off a cliff. The results would be the same. Someone once stated that it would be easier to brainwash someone than it would be to convince them that they've been brainwashed. You've been brainwashed. Have you ever heard of a guy named Josh McDowell? He was a hardcore atheist. He thought Christians were idiots. One day, a Christian challenged him to prove that God didn't exist. So he tried. And he became a Christian as a result. He said that the evidence was overwhelming. I challenge you to do the same.If you make the effort to look at the evidence, and ignore the propaganda, there is only one conclusion you can reach. But you have to set aside your pride and make an honest effort to seek the truth.

How about you meet this challenge: Prove that God exists.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 10:14:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 9:53:06 PM, B0HICA wrote:
If that's what you believe, then I really feel sorry for you. You're in for a very unpleasant afterlife. I know you don't believe in God, but if you're wrong, it won't save you from eternity in Hell. It would be equivalent to not believing in gravity and stepping off a cliff. The results would be the same. Someone once stated that it would be easier to brainwash someone than it would be to convince them that they've been brainwashed. You've been brainwashed. Have you ever heard of a guy named Josh McDowell? He was a hardcore atheist. He thought Christians were idiots. One day, a Christian challenged him to prove that God didn't exist. So he tried. And he became a Christian as a result. He said that the evidence was overwhelming. I challenge you to do the same.If you make the effort to look at the evidence, and ignore the propaganda, there is only one conclusion you can reach. But you have to set aside your pride and make an honest effort to seek the truth.

It's not what I "Beleive", it's what I can show. And the fact that instead of actually acknowledging any of the argument I put to you seems to demonstrate that you are unable to show what you say you can.

Humans have demonstrated an innate capacity to beleive all manner of ridiculous idiocy throughout the ages; and the only thing that seems to actually allow us to determine the difference between what is real and what is not; is the evidence.

I have often asked myself how can I tell whether I am one of those people who "believes", or someone who actually is legitimately interpreting the world, and the answer is pretty simple:

I know I'm wrong to some degree, and I know what I think is true, is only our best approximation of what we think is true; and could all turn out to be wrong when we have more information, a better argument, or a better explanation.

I can tell you exactly what it would take to change my mind; and if you put a good enough argument, and presented legitimate, demonstrable evidence, I would change my mind.

There is no evidence, no matter how strong, compelling or incontravertable that I could ever show you that would ever convince you that you were wrong.

If that doesn't speak volumes about which one of us is brainwashed into believing something that is not true, then I don't know what is.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2015 5:45:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 8:47:35 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/12/2015 4:14:39 AM, B0HICA wrote:
I aim my argument at those who believe that life created itself.

Fortunately; I don't think anyone believes that life created itself.

It helps if you honestly portray the opposing argument. In this case, the opposing claim to "divine creation", is that life is the result of selective pressure operating over potentially hundreds of millions of years from a first chemical replicator, simple enough in nature to have come about from chemical processes. When it is stated for what it is, it sounds far more reasonable than you present.

Life comes only from life. This is a truism. It is what we observe in nature. No one has ever seen lifeless chemicals become a living thing.

And no one has ever seen anything being divinely created. Making the claim that what we observe today is the only thing we will ever observe, or can ever have observed no matter how far back in time we go MUST be supported by evidence.

Unfortunately, given the nature of the evidence in support of evolution at the starting point, the fundamental truism, is that life changes, and over the history of the earth, life can only be described as a general progression from the simple to the complex via naturalistic processes operating over geological time scales. The only conclusion you can draw from this, is that your claim is a very superficial "truism" that cannot be applied to life as a whole.

The evidence supports my claim.

Actually, what you are describing is not evidence, it is a lack of evidence to the contrary. Unforuntately, as stated, there is much reason to beleive yo uare wrong.

There is no evidence for abiogenesis, so we must follow the evidence. The evidence shows that life comes only from life.

With what knowledge do you make this claim? Because to be brutually honest, there is A LOT of evidence for abiogenesis, in specifically three respects:

1.) That natural, unguided chemical processes can acheive quite much of the characteristics we use to describe life.

2.) The the complex chemical machinery we see in life today, can operate effectively, with much, much simpler and more basic variants.

3.) There is much concerning the specific chemical processes going on in life today that hint to a much simpler past.

The first is important, with this, science has shown that in the right conditions, all the basic chemical building blocks of life can occur naturally. Lipid cell-like structures and nucleotides chains can be formed, with the cell allowing single nuclear bases in, but not let out nucleotide strands out, with the nature of their interaction providing selective pressure for replication. With different types of nucleic acids, it can be shown that chain replication can occur faster than chain degredation. It can also be shown that Ribozymes, a particular organisation of RNA (something that can spontaneously self assemble in the right chemical conditions), can catalyse it's own replication.

The second is also critically important, as it shows many required steps in the path to life as we know it have intermediate steps that are workable. This is required because the complex chemistry of life is so complex, it is very difficult to expect it to have come about as is, instead, where there is more complexity, it is expected that such complexity can be broken down into simpler, more intermediate steps. This is exactly what we see with the RNA world instead of DNA; much simpler membranes, much simpler protein creation and folding mechanisms, and much simpler amino acid sorting and catalysation.

The third, is almost the smoking Gun. The chemistry of life is highly imperfect, and has a lot of processes that do not need to be the way they are. Many are very closely related to simpler chemistry rather than the complex ones they are now; DNA is made from the simpler RNA pre-cursor when manufactured in the cell, Ribozymes in the natural world are almost exclusively RNA, rather than complex proteins, and many important chemicals required in the most basic functionality of life, have the same ribose based chemistry.


In summary of these three, there is no evidence of divine creation in life; and I could give you many examples of evidence there could have been that would be pretty obvious.

What we're left with, is a system of chemistry in which the origin of life as we know it more and more possible to describe as a series of unguided chemical processes with each passing year of experimentation.

The important thing for you to resolve for yourself, is not one of these aspects has any reason to be true if life was Divinely Created; God has no limits, and him deciding to create life in a way that appears evolved, and possible to derive from non-divine mechanisms must have a reason.

Tell me, what is your evidence against eternal existence?
Tell me, what is the evidence you have that shows eternal life is not as possible as your suggestions?
Actually what you are showing is not evidence, but a lack of evidence.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2015 6:17:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 10:14:29 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/12/2015 9:53:06 PM, B0HICA wrote:
If that's what you believe, then I really feel sorry for you. You're in for a very unpleasant afterlife. I know you don't believe in God, but if you're wrong, it won't save you from eternity in Hell. It would be equivalent to not believing in gravity and stepping off a cliff. The results would be the same. Someone once stated that it would be easier to brainwash someone than it would be to convince them that they've been brainwashed. You've been brainwashed. Have you ever heard of a guy named Josh McDowell? He was a hardcore atheist. He thought Christians were idiots. One day, a Christian challenged him to prove that God didn't exist. So he tried. And he became a Christian as a result. He said that the evidence was overwhelming. I challenge you to do the same.If you make the effort to look at the evidence, and ignore the propaganda, there is only one conclusion you can reach. But you have to set aside your pride and make an honest effort to seek the truth.

It's not what I "Beleive", it's what I can show. And the fact that instead of actually acknowledging any of the argument I put to you seems to demonstrate that you are unable to show what you say you can.

Humans have demonstrated an innate capacity to beleive all manner of ridiculous idiocy throughout the ages; and the only thing that seems to actually allow us to determine the difference between what is real and what is not; is the evidence.

I have often asked myself how can I tell whether I am one of those people who "believes", or someone who actually is legitimately interpreting the world, and the answer is pretty simple:

I know I'm wrong to some degree, and I know what I think is true, is only our best approximation of what we think is true; and could all turn out to be wrong when we have more information, a better argument, or a better explanation.

But you are simply begging the question.
"Our best approximation of what we think is true"

Big problem there.
History has demonstrated that 'our best approximation' is invariably false, on the really big, really important things.
Time and time again.
Each paradigm shift in knowledge makes the claim 'it appears we finally have it correct', and then the problems start to accumulate. Little things that are left for later to explain become a stone wall that must be scaled for any progress.
And so it is scaled, and on the other side, a new reality. A new physics.

What is this dark matter?
Why did we not know about it sooner?
How does it affect our measurements?
What is it's nature?

You speak as though all knowledge is truthful, and only lacking. We only need more of the same for 'complete' understanding.
The truth is, history shows that we quite probably have some very fundamental beliefs completely wrong. We do not need more of the same. We need to replace what we have.
This will happen, if past performance is any indication of future events.
On this generally issue, 'our bet approximation' is, that is what will happen.

I can tell you exactly what it would take to change my mind; and if you put a good enough argument, and presented legitimate, demonstrable evidence, I would change my mind.

There is no evidence, no matter how strong, compelling or incontravertable that I could ever show you that would ever convince you that you were wrong.

If that doesn't speak volumes about which one of us is brainwashed into believing something that is not true, then I don't know what is.

The brainwashing is I believing we have arrived at final knowledge, not about every thing, but about any thing.
The brain washing is believing that our lack of knowledge shows evidence that things we do not know are not congruent with reality.
The brainwashing is believing an 'open mind' is defined by a closed system of beliefs.
The brainwashing is believing that having false beliefs, as provided by Science, does not interfere with a view consistent with reality.

'We will fix it sooner or later', is a truism that is ignored, as if it has no importance, when it is a bedrock of this closed system of beliefs.

If you want to clear your mind of this brainwashing, remind yourself each day:
"Some of the ideas Science presents as truth are false, and we have no idea which ideas they might be."
The lesson of Science is clear.
The only certain thing is uncertainty.

I do not ask you to become a religionist.
I ask you to stop accepting Science as a religion.
dee-em
Posts: 6,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2015 9:14:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 4:14:39 AM, B0HICA wrote:

I aim my argument at those who believe that life created itself. Life comes only from life. This is a truism. It is what we observe in nature. No one has ever seen lifeless chemicals become a living thing.

Who would be there to observe the first life coming into existence? By definition, abiogenesis on Earth cannot have been observed.

As I said in an earlier post, abiogenesis could be a continuous process and it would be practically impossible to detect in the 'noise' of pre-existing life.

The evidence supports my claim. There is no evidence for abiogenesis, so we must follow the evidence.

Sure, there is evidence. The fact that life has a clear evolution from very simple to more complex is evidence for abiogenesis. The fact that all life is related by DNA is clear evidence of a common origin, pointing to abiogenesis. What other evidence would you expect to find after billions of years?

The evidence shows that life comes only from life.

No, that is an observation which life (us) makes when life has already begun and evolution has come into play. Evolutionary theory tells us that this is exactly what we would expect to see after the fact.

Your argument is like saying flu only comes from flu. That is what we observe. One person passes on flu to another by coughing and sneezing. If we looked no further, we would have to conclude that flu just cycles endlessly. However, by scientific analysis, we now know that different strains of flu virus arise every year and there is a vecor which includes transmission by birds, pigs and so on. Flu doesn't just come from flu. It has an origin, as you would expect.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2015 10:04:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/13/2015 9:14:07 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/12/2015 4:14:39 AM, B0HICA wrote:

I aim my argument at those who believe that life created itself. Life comes only from life. This is a truism. It is what we observe in nature. No one has ever seen lifeless chemicals become a living thing.

Who would be there to observe the first life coming into existence? By definition, abiogenesis on Earth cannot have been observed.

As I said in an earlier post, abiogenesis could be a continuous process and it would be practically impossible to detect in the 'noise' of pre-existing life.

The evidence supports my claim. There is no evidence for abiogenesis, so we must follow the evidence.

Sure, there is evidence. The fact that life has a clear evolution from very simple to more complex is evidence for abiogenesis. The fact that all life is related by DNA is clear evidence of a common origin, pointing to abiogenesis. What other evidence would you expect to find after billions of years?

You define "all life", by what has been observed on earth.
Big problem there.
Life on earth, as we know it, has a common beginning.
That is the evidence you have presented, not a bit more.
And that is qualified - has a high probability of truth, may or may not be convincing.
Whether it started here, or came here, who is to say? I see nothing in your post that is evidence either way.

The evidence shows that life comes only from life.

No, that is an observation which life (us) makes when life has already begun and evolution has come into play. Evolutionary theory tells us that this is exactly what we would expect to see after the fact.

Evolutionary theory says nothing about abiogenesis.
It leaves us free to believe if we chose, or deny if we chose. That is what evolutionary theory provides.

Your argument is like saying flu only comes from flu. That is what we observe. One person passes on flu to another by coughing and sneezing. If we looked no further, we would have to conclude that flu just cycles endlessly. However, by scientific analysis, we now know that different strains of flu virus arise every year and there is a vecor which includes transmission by birds, pigs and so on. Flu doesn't just come from flu. It has an origin, as you would expect.

Well, what is that origin?
If you know it has another origin, exactly what virus did it come from?
Saying 'influenza virus comes in several forms and changes year to year' says nothing about where it came from, before it was an influenza virus.
What is the virus, that was not an influenza virus, that became the influenza virus?

Here is what I believe.
I believe there are some good guesses.
Some indicators that it could possibly be........
Molecular evolution seems to be a good explanation of how it could have happened.
http://www.synapses.co.uk...

A good explanation of how it could have happened is hardly evidence of how it happened.
Good explanations are often wrong, even in Science.
We can say there is a high probability molecular evolution could show how the flu virus came about, from a non flu virus.
Traditionally Scientists are content with high probability, as that is all they have.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2015 10:56:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/13/2015 5:45:02 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 6/12/2015 8:47:35 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/12/2015 4:14:39 AM, B0HICA wrote:
I aim my argument at those who believe that life created itself.

Fortunately; I don't think anyone believes that life created itself.

It helps if you honestly portray the opposing argument. In this case, the opposing claim to "divine creation", is that life is the result of selective pressure operating over potentially hundreds of millions of years from a first chemical replicator, simple enough in nature to have come about from chemical processes. When it is stated for what it is, it sounds far more reasonable than you present.

Life comes only from life. This is a truism. It is what we observe in nature. No one has ever seen lifeless chemicals become a living thing.

And no one has ever seen anything being divinely created. Making the claim that what we observe today is the only thing we will ever observe, or can ever have observed no matter how far back in time we go MUST be supported by evidence.

Unfortunately, given the nature of the evidence in support of evolution at the starting point, the fundamental truism, is that life changes, and over the history of the earth, life can only be described as a general progression from the simple to the complex via naturalistic processes operating over geological time scales. The only conclusion you can draw from this, is that your claim is a very superficial "truism" that cannot be applied to life as a whole.

The evidence supports my claim.

Actually, what you are describing is not evidence, it is a lack of evidence to the contrary. Unforuntately, as stated, there is much reason to beleive yo uare wrong.

There is no evidence for abiogenesis, so we must follow the evidence. The evidence shows that life comes only from life.

With what knowledge do you make this claim? Because to be brutually honest, there is A LOT of evidence for abiogenesis, in specifically three respects:

1.) That natural, unguided chemical processes can acheive quite much of the characteristics we use to describe life.

2.) The the complex chemical machinery we see in life today, can operate effectively, with much, much simpler and more basic variants.

3.) There is much concerning the specific chemical processes going on in life today that hint to a much simpler past.

The first is important, with this, science has shown that in the right conditions, all the basic chemical building blocks of life can occur naturally. Lipid cell-like structures and nucleotides chains can be formed, with the cell allowing single nuclear bases in, but not let out nucleotide strands out, with the nature of their interaction providing selective pressure for replication. With different types of nucleic acids, it can be shown that chain replication can occur faster than chain degredation. It can also be shown that Ribozymes, a particular organisation of RNA (something that can spontaneously self assemble in the right chemical conditions), can catalyse it's own replication.

The second is also critically important, as it shows many required steps in the path to life as we know it have intermediate steps that are workable. This is required because the complex chemistry of life is so complex, it is very difficult to expect it to have come about as is, instead, where there is more complexity, it is expected that such complexity can be broken down into simpler, more intermediate steps. This is exactly what we see with the RNA world instead of DNA; much simpler membranes, much simpler protein creation and folding mechanisms, and much simpler amino acid sorting and catalysation.

The third, is almost the smoking Gun. The chemistry of life is highly imperfect, and has a lot of processes that do not need to be the way they are. Many are very closely related to simpler chemistry rather than the complex ones they are now; DNA is made from the simpler RNA pre-cursor when manufactured in the cell, Ribozymes in the natural world are almost exclusively RNA, rather than complex proteins, and many important chemicals required in the most basic functionality of life, have the same ribose based chemistry.


In summary of these three, there is no evidence of divine creation in life; and I could give you many examples of evidence there could have been that would be pretty obvious.

What we're left with, is a system of chemistry in which the origin of life as we know it more and more possible to describe as a series of unguided chemical processes with each passing year of experimentation.

The important thing for you to resolve for yourself, is not one of these aspects has any reason to be true if life was Divinely Created; God has no limits, and him deciding to create life in a way that appears evolved, and possible to derive from non-divine mechanisms must have a reason.

Tell me, what is your evidence against eternal existence?
Tell me, what is the evidence you have that shows eternal life is not as possible as your suggestions?
Actually what you are showing is not evidence, but a lack of evidence.

Okay, given this is a science forum where I am discussing science, and specifically evolution, and have made no argument for, or against or even mentioned any of the things you just said, this barely even needs acknowledging. Seriously, this is one of the most irrelevant non sequiturs I have seen here.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2015 11:13:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/13/2015 6:17:32 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 6/12/2015 10:14:29 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/12/2015 9:53:06 PM, B0HICA wrote:
If that's what you believe, then I really feel sorry for you. You're in for a very unpleasant afterlife. I know you don't believe in God, but if you're wrong, it won't save you from eternity in Hell. It would be equivalent to not believing in gravity and stepping off a cliff. The results would be the same. Someone once stated that it would be easier to brainwash someone than it would be to convince them that they've been brainwashed. You've been brainwashed. Have you ever heard of a guy named Josh McDowell? He was a hardcore atheist. He thought Christians were idiots. One day, a Christian challenged him to prove that God didn't exist. So he tried. And he became a Christian as a result. He said that the evidence was overwhelming. I challenge you to do the same.If you make the effort to look at the evidence, and ignore the propaganda, there is only one conclusion you can reach. But you have to set aside your pride and make an honest effort to seek the truth.

It's not what I "Beleive", it's what I can show. And the fact that instead of actually acknowledging any of the argument I put to you seems to demonstrate that you are unable to show what you say you can.

Humans have demonstrated an innate capacity to beleive all manner of ridiculous idiocy throughout the ages; and the only thing that seems to actually allow us to determine the difference between what is real and what is not; is the evidence.

I have often asked myself how can I tell whether I am one of those people who "believes", or someone who actually is legitimately interpreting the world, and the answer is pretty simple:

I know I'm wrong to some degree, and I know what I think is true, is only our best approximation of what we think is true; and could all turn out to be wrong when we have more information, a better argument, or a better explanation.

But you are simply begging the question.
"Our best approximation of what we think is true"

Begging the question is a form of assumed conclusion. I am not assuming my conclusion here, so this is simply plucked out of your rear end.

Big problem there.
History has demonstrated that 'our best approximation' is invariably false, on the really big, really important things.
Time and time again.

Actually no. We know what we know now is not 100% accurate, and I have stated this honestly even though you give the impression that I am saying no such thing. Not 100% accurate is not the same as 100% wrong.

Each paradigm shift in knowledge makes the claim 'it appears we finally have it correct', and then the problems start to accumulate. Little things that are left for later to explain become a stone wall that must be scaled for any progress.
And so it is scaled, and on the other side, a new reality. A new physics.

What is this dark matter?
Why did we not know about it sooner?
How does it affect our measurements?
What is it's nature?

You speak as though all knowledge is truthful, and only lacking. We only need more of the same for 'complete' understanding.
The truth is, history shows that we quite probably have some very fundamental beliefs completely wrong. We do not need more of the same. We need to replace what we have.
This will happen, if past performance is any indication of future events.
On this generally issue, 'our bet approximation' is, that is what will happen.



I can tell you exactly what it would take to change my mind; and if you put a good enough argument, and presented legitimate, demonstrable evidence, I would change my mind.

There is no evidence, no matter how strong, compelling or incontravertable that I could ever show you that would ever convince you that you were wrong.

If that doesn't speak volumes about which one of us is brainwashed into believing something that is not true, then I don't know what is.

The brainwashing is I believing we have arrived at final knowledge, not about every thing, but about any thing.

And I don't. I made this clear. You're argument in this respect is irrelevant.

The brain washing is believing that our lack of knowledge shows evidence that things we do not know are not congruent with reality.

Brainwashing is being convinced via a scheme of teaching based not of knowledge but if repetition, regurgitation and other mechanisms that effectively bypass rational thought: of something that is not true.

The brainwashing is believing an 'open mind' is defined by a closed system of beliefs.

The brainwashing is believing that having false beliefs, as provided by Science, does not interfere with a view consistent with reality.

This makes no sense. You appear rabid.

'We will fix it sooner or later', is a truism that is ignored, as if it has no importance, when it is a bedrock of this closed system of beliefs.

If you want to clear your mind of this brainwashing, remind yourself each day:
"Some of the ideas Science presents as truth are false, and we have no idea which ideas they might be."

Again, not 100% true is not 100% false.

The lesson of Science is clear.
The only certain thing is uncertainty.

I do not ask you to become a religionist.
I ask you to stop accepting Science as a religion.

This is retarded. How do I know this, because I know that nuclear power stations won't explode, traits and genetics of organisms won't change, computers won't magically stop working and satellites won't fall out of the sky no matter what changes in science.

The modern world, and almost every aspect of your life is built of scientific understand of reality, and it works despite knowing every theory we have is not the full story.

Your contention that science could be wrong is true, in fact we know that we don't have the full story. Saying it could be completely wrong, however is flat out, indisputably and undoubtedly wrong to the highest degree
dee-em
Posts: 6,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2015 6:43:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/13/2015 10:04:04 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 6/13/2015 9:14:07 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/12/2015 4:14:39 AM, B0HICA wrote:

I aim my argument at those who believe that life created itself. Life comes only from life. This is a truism. It is what we observe in nature. No one has ever seen lifeless chemicals become a living thing.

Who would be there to observe the first life coming into existence? By definition, abiogenesis on Earth cannot have been observed.

As I said in an earlier post, abiogenesis could be a continuous process and it would be practically impossible to detect in the 'noise' of pre-existing life.

The evidence supports my claim. There is no evidence for abiogenesis, so we must follow the evidence.

Sure, there is evidence. The fact that life has a clear evolution from very simple to more complex is evidence for abiogenesis. The fact that all life is related by DNA is clear evidence of a common origin, pointing to abiogenesis. What other evidence would you expect to find after billions of years?

You define "all life", by what has been observed on earth.
Big problem there.

I fail to see any problem. If you know of other life, by all means, please present your evidence.

Life on earth, as we know it, has a common beginning.
That is the evidence you have presented, not a bit more.
And that is qualified - has a high probability of truth, may or may not be convincing.
Whether it started here, or came here, who is to say? I see nothing in your post that is evidence either way.

Occam's Razor. It wouldn't bother me if abiogenesis occurred elsewhere and the Earth was 'seeded' by the first simple, primitive life in an amazing coincidence only a few hundred million years after the crust had cooled sufficiently. However, that seems a bit far-fetched to me when there is a simpler explanation. After all, what does it really matter to push the problem back up the line one step?

The evidence shows that life comes only from life.

No, that is an observation which life (us) makes when life has already begun and evolution has come into play. Evolutionary theory tells us that this is exactly what we would expect to see after the fact.

Evolutionary theory says nothing about abiogenesis.
It leaves us free to believe if we chose, or deny if we chose. That is what evolutionary theory provides.

I prefer to talk about where the evidence points rather than what we choose to believe. However, this does not relate to the point I was making so I'll take is a comment.

Your argument is like saying flu only comes from flu. That is what we observe. One person passes on flu to another by coughing and sneezing. If we looked no further, we would have to conclude that flu just cycles endlessly. However, by scientific analysis, we now know that different strains of flu virus arise every year and there is a vecor which includes transmission by birds, pigs and so on. Flu doesn't just come from flu. It has an origin, as you would expect.

Well, what is that origin?
If you know it has another origin, exactly what virus did it come from?
Saying 'influenza virus comes in several forms and changes year to year' says nothing about where it came from, before it was an influenza virus.
What is the virus, that was not an influenza virus, that became the influenza virus?

I think you have missed the point of the analogy. Since, in effect, the flu virus is a parasite and requires a host in which it can replicate and then spread, do you think the human version of the flu virus existed before humans? What about the version found in mammals, does it predate mammals? I can't point to its exact origin, of course. You are asking for the impossible since that origin would be long before homo sapiens arose.

Here is what I believe.
I believe there are some good guesses.
Some indicators that it could possibly be........
Molecular evolution seems to be a good explanation of how it could have happened.
http://www.synapses.co.uk...

A good explanation of how it could have happened is hardly evidence of how it happened.
Good explanations are often wrong, even in Science.
We can say there is a high probability molecular evolution could show how the flu virus came about, from a non flu virus.
Traditionally Scientists are content with high probability, as that is all they have.

That is all that it is possible to have. If you have some access to absolute truth, then please share it. You seem to be complaining about a process which has had phenomenal success in explaining the natural world. What is your point, that nothing is absolutely certain in science? Any competent scientist knows that already. It's the nature of the beast that, unless we invent time travel, the study of life in the past is always going to be a detective game with its inherent uncertainty and margin for error.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2015 7:39:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/13/2015 10:56:25 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/13/2015 5:45:02 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 6/12/2015 8:47:35 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/12/2015 4:14:39 AM, B0HICA wrote:
I aim my argument at those who believe that life created itself.

Fortunately; I don't think anyone believes that life created itself.

It helps if you honestly portray the opposing argument. In this case, the opposing claim to "divine creation", is that life is the result of selective pressure operating over potentially hundreds of millions of years from a first chemical replicator, simple enough in nature to have come about from chemical processes. When it is stated for what it is, it sounds far more reasonable than you present.

Life comes only from life. This is a truism. It is what we observe in nature. No one has ever seen lifeless chemicals become a living thing.

And no one has ever seen anything being divinely created. Making the claim that what we observe today is the only thing we will ever observe, or can ever have observed no matter how far back in time we go MUST be supported by evidence.

Unfortunately, given the nature of the evidence in support of evolution at the starting point, the fundamental truism, is that life changes, and over the history of the earth, life can only be described as a general progression from the simple to the complex via naturalistic processes operating over geological time scales. The only conclusion you can draw from this, is that your claim is a very superficial "truism" that cannot be applied to life as a whole.

The evidence supports my claim.

Actually, what you are describing is not evidence, it is a lack of evidence to the contrary. Unforuntately, as stated, there is much reason to beleive yo uare wrong.

There is no evidence for abiogenesis, so we must follow the evidence. The evidence shows that life comes only from life.

With what knowledge do you make this claim? Because to be brutually honest, there is A LOT of evidence for abiogenesis, in specifically three respects:

1.) That natural, unguided chemical processes can acheive quite much of the characteristics we use to describe life.

2.) The the complex chemical machinery we see in life today, can operate effectively, with much, much simpler and more basic variants.

3.) There is much concerning the specific chemical processes going on in life today that hint to a much simpler past.

The first is important, with this, science has shown that in the right conditions, all the basic chemical building blocks of life can occur naturally. Lipid cell-like structures and nucleotides chains can be formed, with the cell allowing single nuclear bases in, but not let out nucleotide strands out, with the nature of their interaction providing selective pressure for replication. With different types of nucleic acids, it can be shown that chain replication can occur faster than chain degredation. It can also be shown that Ribozymes, a particular organisation of RNA (something that can spontaneously self assemble in the right chemical conditions), can catalyse it's own replication.

The second is also critically important, as it shows many required steps in the path to life as we know it have intermediate steps that are workable. This is required because the complex chemistry of life is so complex, it is very difficult to expect it to have come about as is, instead, where there is more complexity, it is expected that such complexity can be broken down into simpler, more intermediate steps. This is exactly what we see with the RNA world instead of DNA; much simpler membranes, much simpler protein creation and folding mechanisms, and much simpler amino acid sorting and catalysation.

The third, is almost the smoking Gun. The chemistry of life is highly imperfect, and has a lot of processes that do not need to be the way they are. Many are very closely related to simpler chemistry rather than the complex ones they are now; DNA is made from the simpler RNA pre-cursor when manufactured in the cell, Ribozymes in the natural world are almost exclusively RNA, rather than complex proteins, and many important chemicals required in the most basic functionality of life, have the same ribose based chemistry.


In summary of these three, there is no evidence of divine creation in life; and I could give you many examples of evidence there could have been that would be pretty obvious.

What we're left with, is a system of chemistry in which the origin of life as we know it more and more possible to describe as a series of unguided chemical processes with each passing year of experimentation.

The important thing for you to resolve for yourself, is not one of these aspects has any reason to be true if life was Divinely Created; God has no limits, and him deciding to create life in a way that appears evolved, and possible to derive from non-divine mechanisms must have a reason.

Tell me, what is your evidence against eternal existence?
Tell me, what is the evidence you have that shows eternal life is not as possible as your suggestions?
Actually what you are showing is not evidence, but a lack of evidence.

Okay, given this is a science forum where I am discussing science, and specifically evolution, and have made no argument for, or against or even mentioned any of the things you just said, this barely even needs acknowledging. Seriously, this is one of the most irrelevant non sequiturs I have seen here.

Are you, or are you not arguing that abiogenesis has occurred on earth?
If you are not, my apologies.
It sure seems to me you are.
If you agree that abiogenesis is a guess, lacking any significant evidence, we are I agreement.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2015 7:40:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/13/2015 11:13:15 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/13/2015 6:17:32 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 6/12/2015 10:14:29 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/12/2015 9:53:06 PM, B0HICA wrote:

Humans have demonstrated an innate capacity to beleive all manner of ridiculous idiocy throughout the ages; and the only thing that seems to actually allow us to determine the difference between what is real and what is not; is the evidence.

I have often asked myself how can I tell whether I am one of those people who "believes", or someone who actually is legitimately interpreting the world, and the answer is pretty simple:

I know I'm wrong to some degree, and I know what I think is true, is only our best approximation of what we think is true; and could all turn out to be wrong when we have more information, a better argument, or a better explanation.

But you are simply begging the question.
"Our best approximation of what we think is true"

Begging the question is a form of assumed conclusion. I am not assuming my conclusion here, so this is simply plucked out of your rear end.

You assume what you consider to be the best approximation (others disagree) is true.
Clearly this is a divided issue.
Others disagree.

Big problem there.
History has demonstrated that 'our best approximation' is invariably false, on the really big, really important things.
Time and time again.

Actually no. We know what we know now is not 100% accurate, and I have stated this honestly even though you give the impression that I am saying no such thing. Not 100% accurate is not the same as 100% wrong.

Science has been 100% wrong on the bits and pieces.
If you deny this you deny that Science has changed its stand on some really important things, such as the center of the universe. Astronomy has made some very significant changes in the last few centuries.

There is this:
Paradigm shifts tend to be most dramatic in sciences that appear to be stable and mature, as in physics at the end of the 19th century. At that time, physics seemed to be a discipline filling in the last few details of a largely worked-out system. In 1900, Lord Kelvin famously told an assemblage of physicists at the British Association for the Advancement of Science, "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement." Five years later, Albert Einstein published his paper on special relativity, which challenged the very simple set of rules laid down by Newtonian mechanics, which had been used to describe force and motion for over two hundred years.."
https://en.wikipedia.org...

I refer to this as 'a new reality'.
If you favor Popper over Kuhn, we may disagree.

Each paradigm shift in knowledge makes the claim 'it appears we finally have it correct', and then the problems start to accumulate. Little things that are left for later to explain become a stone wall that must be scaled for any progress.
And so it is scaled, and on the other side, a new reality. A new physics.

What is this dark matter?
Why did we not know about it sooner?
How does it affect our measurements?
What is it's nature?

You speak as though all knowledge is truthful, and only lacking. We only need more of the same for 'complete' understanding.
The truth is, history shows that we quite probably have some very fundamental beliefs completely wrong. We do not need more of the same. We need to replace what we have.
This will happen, if past performance is any indication of future events.
On this generally issue, 'our bet approximation' is, that is what will happen.



I can tell you exactly what it would take to change my mind; and if you put a good enough argument, and presented legitimate, demonstrable evidence, I would change my mind.

There is no evidence, no matter how strong, compelling or incontravertable that I could ever show you that would ever convince you that you were wrong.

If that doesn't speak volumes about which one of us is brainwashed into believing something that is not true, then I don't know what is.

The brainwashing is I believing we have arrived at final knowledge, not about every thing, but about any thing.

And I don't. I made this clear. You're argument in this respect is irrelevant.

Well your open mindedness eluded me.
My apologies.
Abiogenesis is a clever idea, that may or may not be true.
We agree, apparently.

The brain washing is believing that our lack of knowledge shows evidence that things we do not know are not congruent with reality.

Brainwashing is being convinced via a scheme of teaching based not of knowledge but if repetition, regurgitation and other mechanisms that effectively bypass rational thought: of something that is not true.


The brainwashing is believing an 'open mind' is defined by a closed system of beliefs.

The brainwashing is believing that having false beliefs, as provided by Science, does not interfere with a view consistent with reality.

This makes no sense. You appear rabid.

'We will fix it sooner or later', is a truism that is ignored, as if it has no importance, when it is a bedrock of this closed system of beliefs.

If you want to clear your mind of this brainwashing, remind yourself each day:
"Some of the ideas Science presents as truth are false, and we have no idea which ideas they might be."

Again, not 100% true is not 100% false.

The lesson of Science is clear.
The only certain thing is uncertainty.

I do not ask you to become a religionist.
I ask you to stop accepting Science as a religion.

This is retarded. How do I know this, because I know that nuclear power stations won't explode, traits and genetics of organisms won't change, computers won't magically stop working and satellites won't fall out of the sky no matter what changes in science.

"Retarded"?
You are not aware that many people, intelligent people, are claiming that Science hs many shared characteristics with religion?

As a Biologist with a PhD in Neurosciences, I"m well aware that this is a controversial subject for both scientists and religious people alike. Scientists consider it ridiculous even to entertain the notion that science, a human achievement built on logic and reason, could possibly have anything in common with religious myths. The faithful, on the other hand, are reluctant to warm up to the idea that Science, a human creation, could be compared to divine religion.

But let"s compare: try to keep an open mind, and an objective " but not necessarily scientific -perspective, and we"ll see whether the two are so different after all.

http://listverse.com...

As National Geographic stated, people love their tribes. Those who have circled their wagons around "science" as their chosen dogma, are no different than the religious they believe themselves to be superior to. They have not truly and objectively looked into any of the issues they blindly support " and as National Geographic did, simply claim "it"s science!" or that "experts said!"
http://www.globalresearch.ca...


The modern world, and almost every aspect of your life is built of scientific understand of reality, and it works despite knowing every theory we have is not the full story.

Your contention that science could be wrong is true, in fact we know that we don't have the full story. Saying it could be completely wrong, however is flat out, indisputably and undoubtedly wrong to the highest degree

see next
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2015 7:40:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/13/2015 11:13:15 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/13/2015 6:17:32 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 6/12/2015 10:14:29 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/12/2015 9:53:06 PM, B0HICA wrote:

There is no evidence, no matter how strong, compelling or incontravertable that I could ever show you that would ever convince you that you were wrong.

If that doesn't speak volumes about which one of us is brainwashed into believing something that is not true, then I don't know what is.

The brainwashing is I believing we have arrived at final knowledge, not about every thing, but about any thing.

And I don't. I made this clear. You're argument in this respect is irrelevant.

The brain washing is believing that our lack of knowledge shows evidence that things we do not know are not congruent with reality.

Brainwashing is being convinced via a scheme of teaching based not of knowledge but if repetition, regurgitation and other mechanisms that effectively bypass rational thought: of something that is not true.


The brainwashing is believing an 'open mind' is defined by a closed system of beliefs.

The brainwashing is believing that having false beliefs, as provided by Science, does not interfere with a view consistent with reality.

This makes no sense. You appear rabid.

'We will fix it sooner or later', is a truism that is ignored, as if it has no importance, when it is a bedrock of this closed system of beliefs.

If you want to clear your mind of this brainwashing, remind yourself each day:
"Some of the ideas Science presents as truth are false, and we have no idea which ideas they might be."

Again, not 100% true is not 100% false.

The lesson of Science is clear.
The only certain thing is uncertainty.

I do not ask you to become a religionist.
I ask you to stop accepting Science as a religion.

This is retarded. How do I know this, because I know that nuclear power stations won't explode, traits and genetics of organisms won't change, computers won't magically stop working and satellites won't fall out of the sky no matter what changes in science.

The modern world, and almost every aspect of your life is built of scientific understand of reality, and it works despite knowing every theory we have is not the full story.

Your contention that science could be wrong is true, in fact we know that we don't have the full story. Saying it could be completely wrong, however is flat out, indisputably and undoubtedly wrong to the highest degree

Not completely wrong as in we need a new world view.
I never said or implied that. The non sequitur is yours this time.

They get the bits and pieces wrong, big time.
Bits and pieces wrong by a country mile and we do not know today in what area these are.