Author Topic: Abiogenesis is impossible  (Read 2315 times)

Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
« Reply #15 on: January 04, 2017, 07:41:52 AM »
Challengeatheism ... I will respect you, and give you a decent response ...

I won't. Not once once in the dozens (maybe hundreds) of times some asshole has burst in here claiming abiogenesis is impossible has anyone including the OP offered up a reasonable argument in support of their position. Abiogenesis violates no laws of chemistry that would make it impossible. A few have brought thermodynamics to the table, but that line of reasoning doesn't hold water either. The OP is nothing more than a copy pasta argument from incredulity. Neither it nor the presenter deserve our respect as respect is earned not owed.
Save a life. Adopt a Greyhound.


Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
« Reply #16 on: January 04, 2017, 07:43:50 AM »
Just being yourself again?

No, I am making fun of you. 

Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
« Reply #17 on: January 04, 2017, 08:25:27 AM »
I won't. Not once once in the dozens (maybe hundreds) of times some asshole has burst in here claiming abiogenesis is impossible has anyone including the OP offered up a reasonable argument in support of their position. Abiogenesis violates no laws of chemistry that would make it impossible. A few have brought thermodynamics to the table, but that line of reasoning doesn't hold water either. The OP is nothing more than a copy pasta argument from incredulity. Neither it nor the presenter deserve our respect as respect is earned not owed.

"Incredulous" basically means "I don't believe it". Well, there's a big difference between "not believing" that an actual animal, plant, phenomenon etc. *exists*, versus believing a certain "just so" story about HOW it came to exist.That is the THING that we are incredulous about - a *certain scenario* (Neo-Darwinism and abiogenesis , and that irreducible complex  biological systems, and coded , instructed or specified complex information could emerge naturally ) that's only *imagined* about how various amazing abilities of animals and plants happened all by themselves, defying known and reasonable principles of the limited range of chance, physical necessity, mutations and  Natural Selection. The proponent of naturalism is "incredulous" that a intelligent creator/designer could exist, beyond and behind our entire space-time continuum, who is our Creator. But there is nothing ridiculous about that - especially if you can't personally examine reality to that depth - how do you know nature is all that exists ? What IS ridiculous (IMO) is trying to imagine a *naturalistic origin* of these things.  ORIGIN is not the same as OPERATION. To study how biology works today, is entirely different from giving a *plausible* account of how it came about to be in the first place.

Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
« Reply #18 on: January 04, 2017, 08:27:10 AM »
Challengeatheism ... I will respect you, and give you a decent response ...

1. Cells are like factories, amazing isn't it?

2. Biology, cellular or neural is not like computers and software.  They are analog, not digital.  Digital is more limited, like only having integers to compute with.

3. Simple organiic molecules have been created in "early earth" experiments, and are found in outer space nebulas (even amino acids).  So simple organic molecules are both generated by living and non-living processes.  This has been a crisis in biochemistry since the mid 19th century, once the first organic molecule was synthesized by industrial process, thus putting a stake in the heart of "vitalism" as far as science is concerned.

4. In so far as we can know, there is a gap in our understanding, of how you get from these simple organic molecules to simple living organisms.  This may take early planetary conditions (why no pre-life forming now? ... I suspect oxygen to be the culprit) or billions of years of simple evolution to demonstrate.  We don't have exact knowledge of early planetary conditions (there was little oxygen, life created most of that), and we can't do long term controlled experiments.  We will have to visit many planets with primitive life, to do a comparative study, if we can ever do that.

5. Reductionism as an empirical tool, has its limitations.  Dealing with living things and thinking beings is one of them.  It works really good with atoms.  But without reductionism, we can't do exact science.  So exact science will never have a handle on "life" or "consciousness" ... the things of greatest interest to religion and most human beings.

So what is your point ?

Harold Urey, a founder of origin-of-life research, describes evolution as a faith which seems to defy logic:
“All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.

― Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis
“The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.”

Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 24.

“The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)2,000 = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.”

Ibid., p. 130. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/nave-html/faithpathh/hoyle.html
Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than one part in 10^40,000 must be judged superior to random shuffling [of evolution]. The theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a probability vastly higher than one part in 10^40,000 of being the correct explanation of the many curious facts discussed in preceding chapters. Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.

Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 3.
Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is insensibly different from zero.

Why a living cell cannot arise by chance
So how can we know that it is impossible for a living cell to arise by chance? The answer lies in understanding that a single cell is vastly more complicated than anything human minds have ever engineered. Let us consider the components of a simple cell using the well-studied organism Escherichia coli, which is a single-celled organism found in the human gastrointestinal tract. In 1996 a two-volume, 2,800-page set of articles that summarized some of our knowledge of the biochemistry and biology of this organism was published. Using this data, George Javor, professor of biochemistry at Loma Linda University, calculated the following statistics:

A single living E. coli contains around 2.4 million protein molecules made up of approximately 4,000 different types of proteins. Along with these proteins the cell contains around 255,000 nucleic acid molecules made up of 660 different types of nucleic acids. Included with these nucleic acids are around 1.4 million polysaccharide (long chains of sugar type molecules) molecules made up of three different types of polysaccharides. Associated with these polysaccharides are around 22 million lipid molecules made up of 50 to 100 different types of lipids. These lipids also cooperate with many millions of metabolic intermediate molecules made up of about 800 different types of compounds that have to be at just the right concentration, otherwise the cell will die. Along with the metabolic intermediates there are many millions of mineral molecules made up of 10 to 30 different types of minerals.


We know that intelligence is able to create high-information containing codes, like books, computer codes, and complex machines and factories. We observe in the natural world organisms made by the same principles, namely codified specified information, and  irreducible and interdependent molecular machines and cell factories, while the only possible natural mechanisms, namely chance or random chemical reactions, do not have this broad range of intelligence-like capabilities. Its safe therefore to conclude, that the origin of life is best explained through a intelligent creator, and not well explained through natural mechanisms. This is not a inference based on what we do not know, commonly called " argument from ignorance", as proponents of naturalism frequently like to argue, but it is a conclusion based on what science has discovered in the last few decades about how cells work, and how they are build up. The only rational explanation for the origin of cells, and life, is creation through a intelligent designer.

According to Dembski and Borel  (Dembski, 1998, pp. 5, 62, 209, 210).
specified events of small probability do not occur. Dembski estimated 10^80 elementary particles in the universe and asked how many times per second an event could occur. He used the Planck value of 10^45. He then calculated the number of seconds from the beginning of the universe to the present and for good measure multiplied by ten million for 10^25 seconds in all. He thereby obtained 10^80 x 10^45 x 10^25 = 10^150, or more exactly 0.5 x 10^150, for his Law of Small Probability to eliminate chance

Currently, there does not seem to be a scientific criterion more generous to evolution than Dembski’s one chance in 0.5 x 10^150. Anything as rare as that probability had absolutely no possibility of happening by chance at any time by any conceivable specifying agent by any conceivable process throughout all of cosmic history. To test against that criterion, we take one chance in 2.3 x 10^75 for one protein (Yockey, 1992, pp. 255, 257) and multiply by the 60,000 proteins required for the abiogenesis of a minimal cell (Denton, 1986, p. 263; Morowitz, 1966, pp. 446-459) and obtain one chance in more than 104,478,296 (Mastropaolo, 1999, p. iii). That exceeds Dembski’s most generous criterion for impossible by more than 104,478,146. Or if 0.5 x 10^150 to 1 is the most generous probability science can provide to demarcate possibility from miracle, then with more than four million orders of magnitude to spare abiogenesis must be considered miraculous. To put abiogenesis in biology textbooks as evolutionists have done throughout the United States is to teach evolution religion as science and that violates the requirement of the U.S. Constitution prohibiting the establishment of a state religion (Constitution of the United States of America, 1787, Amendment I, see note).

Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
« Reply #19 on: January 04, 2017, 09:59:55 AM »
Well, there's a big difference between "not believing" that an actual animal, plant, phenomenon etc. *exists*, versus believing a certain "just so" story about HOW it came to exist.
A "just so story", eh?  I think you have religion confused with science.

Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
« Reply #20 on: January 04, 2017, 10:08:45 AM »
Anyone can sit there and say that X is impossible.

Just like they did with the telegraph, and electricity, and flight, and rocketry, and space travel, and the internet, and self driving cars, etc.
Don'f forget the lightening rod.  Many ministers of the time said that if god wanted you struck by lightening the you will be; the lightening rod was the work of the devil!  I would bet any and all scientific discoveries were decried as 'of the devil'. 
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
« Reply #21 on: January 04, 2017, 10:16:30 AM »
ORIGIN is not the same as OPERATION. To study how biology works today, is entirely different from giving a *plausible* account of how it came about to be in the first place.
No shit, charlie!!!  Just because we don't 'know' how life started does not automatically mean god did it.  Or that god is real.  God of the gaps has been proven wrong, time and again.  God of the gaps has not been proven right once!  Your god, nor any god, exists except in the minds of weak minded people like you.  God is a fiction; Bugs Bunny has as much proof for his existence than you god, or any god.  God does not, nor ever did, exist!  Give me one shred of evidence that what I just said is wrong!  So far, none of the weak minded, willfully ignorant, poor excuses for humanity that have come here and claimed god exists has been able to do so.  And neither will you--why not just take your drive-by stupidity and leave.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Online Mr.Obvious

Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
« Reply #22 on: January 04, 2017, 11:21:47 AM »
OP,

Please be kind enough to make an introductionary thread and show a basic commitment and interest in the rest of the forum, as you were supposed to, before making threads like these. Or kindly remove yourself from the virtual premises.
Either is fine.
E = Mc²

In the end, we are all standing in the dark,
trying to figure out why we are here.
But let us not choose one direction
without proof of where it is headed.

Check your pocket for matches
so we can observe and learn together
as fast friends and relative idiots.

Offline Hijiri Byakuren

  • ULC Minister, Honorary Doctor of Divinity
  • *
  • Posts: 4961
  • Total likes: 1622
  • That's DOCTOR Hijiri, to you!
    • Pathos
Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
« Reply #23 on: January 04, 2017, 11:52:44 AM »
Alright, I'm breaking out the copypasta again.

After some analysis comparing the various gods of mythology to omnipotent characters in fiction, you will find there are no differences between the two.

I know that gods don't exist. It's surprisingly simple to sum up: Any being claiming to fit the human concept of a god can offer no proof that cannot equally be offered by this guy:


An advanced alien, like Q here, would be able to claim it is a god,
even your god, and offer any proof you demanded of him.
You would never be able to prove that he is anything other than what he claims.

It sounds like overly simplistic logic, but this is only because the nature of mythological gods itself speaks to how simplistic human imagination tends to be. Even the broadest interpretation of a god separate from the universe, that of deism, only exists to say, "The universe exists, therefore no matter how complex it is God surely must be able to make it," which is really just expanding an already made-up term to encompass new discoveries, rather than just admit that the concept was flawed to begin with.

Then you have the pantheistic and panentheistic definitions, respectively stating that god is the universe and the universe is within god; both of which pretty much mean the same thing after any deep analysis, and both of which beg the question, "If God and the universe are indistinguishable, then why separate the terms at all?" Like deism, the answer is obvious: it's expanding an older term to fit new discoveries, rather than admitting that the concept was flawed from the get-go.

The human concept of a god gets even more ridiculous once you introduce the concept of higher dimensions. Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension, while by no means describing a currently accepted scientific theory, nevertheless illustrates just how ridiculously huge our universe is should any concept of higher dimensions prove to be accurate (especially given the size of the observable universe we are already well aware of). As the universe gets bigger and bigger, any concept of gods must expand accordingly, to ludicrous levels as this concept should demonstrate.

Even if the observable universe is all there is, if it is really designed then it seems to act like what we would expect of a simulator; and any being capable of designing it should more accurately be referred to as a programmer than a god. "Why can't we just call the programmer God?" you ask. For the same reason we wouldn't call it a leprechaun: fictional though it may be, it already exists as a concept and, for the sake of not invoking confusion and/or emotional validation for irrational beliefs, the term should not be continually expanded to include any and every version of the universe's hypothetical creator. If it is more like a programmer than a god, then that is what we should call it, and how we should regard it. Given all of this, I cannot think of any explanation abiding by Occam's Razor that would lead me to believe that a being conforming to the mythical concept of a god exists.

tl;dr version: There is no way anything we would regard as a god could ever prove that it is what it claims to a skeptical individual. Because the universe less resembles a mythical god's realm than it does a simulator, any designer we did find should be called a programmer, not a god. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that there is no god.

Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
« Reply #24 on: January 04, 2017, 12:02:51 PM »
No shit, charlie!!!  Just because we don't 'know' how life started does not automatically mean god did it.

Limited causal alternatives  do not permit to claim of " not knowing "

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1810-limited-causal-alternatives-for-origins

Its not justified to claim " we don't know ", when a limited range of alternatives and options are available. In regard of the existence of the universe, and the origin of life, there are basically two, namely :

1. A intelligent causal agent
2. Natural, blind, unguided random forces and chemical reactions

The second option can be based on physical necessity, or random unguided events ( chance, luck ). 

So we can resume the possible causes just and exactly to 3, namely:

design
random, unguided events ( luck/chance)
physical necessity.

Heredity is guaranteed by faithful DNA replication whereas evolution depends upon errors accompanying DNA replication.  ( Furusawa, 1998 ) So there was no evolution prior to DNA replication.  Then proponents of naturalism often resort to the RNA World.  In the “RNA World” hypothesis for the origin of life, RNA performed both the information storage and enzymatic functions before these roles were outsourced to DNA and proteins.  But how could RNA repair itself?  If RNA needs to be protected from damage, the protein repair system would have needed to be there from the beginning.  Proponents of natural mechanisms might surmise that different primitive RNAs worked side by side to repair each other, but that strains credibility for a hypothesis already far-fetched. The the very origin of the first organisms presents at least an appearance of a paradox because a certain minimum level of complexity is required to make self-replication possible at all; high-fidelity replication requires additional functionalities that need even more information to be encoded (Penny, 2005).

Would you say that it is plausible that a tornado over a junkyard could produce a 747 ? The counterargument is ofther that evolution is not random. True. But there was no evolution prior DNA replication was in place.
Would you say that it is plausible that mindless random chance can write a book ? Its evidently not possible.
But that equals to say, random unguided processes created a optimal genetic code, a genetic cipher, and a uncalculable amount of precise genetic instructions, and a hudge number of precisely shaped interlocked and interdependent molecular parts, that interact with each other in a precise manner to create the first living cell. 

In other words : The task compares to invent two languages, two alphabets,  a translation system, and the information content of a enciclopedia  being written in english translated  to chinese  through a extremely sophisticated computer system.

The conclusion that a intelligent designer had to setup the system follows not based on missing knowledge ( argument from ignorance ). We know that minds do invent languages, codes, translation systems, ciphers, and complex, specified information and irreducible complex systems all the time.  The genetic code, its translation system, and irreducible interdependent machinery inside cells is best explained through the action of a intelligent designer. Its not justified to claim ignorance. 

Since chance, and physical necessity won't cut the cake, the best explanation for our existence is design.

Pretend you wake up in the morning and there's a birthday cake sitting on your kitchen table, and it just happens to be your birthday. What do you think? You ask yourself, "Where did this cake come from?" There are only a couple of possibilities, theoretically. It could have just materialized out of nowhere on your kitchen table coincidentally on your birthday. It could have just "poofed" into existence. I guess that would be in the realm of theoretic possibilities. Or maybe a great, hot, wet wind blew through your neighbor's kitchen gathering up a bunch of ingredients and kind of accidentally baked a cake that landed on your table. The fact that it happened on your birthday is a coincidence. I guess that would be "possible" too. The cake could have come out of nowhere, or could have just assembled itself by chance. Or the other alternative would be that a person baked the cake for you and dropped it off in the middle of the night.

Now here's the trick. When faced with limited options you don't have the liberty not to believe something. If you reject the idea that somebody baked the cake for you, you must assert in its place that the cake either materialized out of nothing or formed itself by accident. When you reject one option you are asserting an alternate option when all the options are clear.

Do you see that? When you are faced with just a limited number of choices, if you reject one choice you've got to opt for one of those that remains. So the question is, which option makes most sense?


http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201303/201303_026_Athiests.cfm

The Christian Geneticist Francis Collins of Human Genome Project fame said he was an agnostic in college. Yet he confesses that his “I don’t know” was more an “I don’t want to know” attitude — a “willful blindness.”  This agnosticism eventually gave way to outright atheism — although Collins would later come to faith in Christ. He began reading C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity, and Collins realized his own antireligious constructs were “those of a schoolboy.”

Because the existence of God is a massively important topic, we cannot afford not to pay attention — especially in an age of so many diversions. Philosopher Tom Morris points out that sports, TV, restaurants, concerts, cars, billiards, and a thousand other activities can divert us from the ultimate issues of life. As a result, we don’t “tune into” God. And when a crisis hits (death, hospitalization, natural disaster), we are not really in the best condition to process and make accurate judgments about those deep questions.  The person who says, “I do not know if God exists,” may have chosen to live by diversions and distractions and thus to ignore God. This is not an innocent ignorance; this ignorance is the result of our neglecting our duty.

So the theist, atheist, and militant (ornery) agnostic all bear a burden of proof; the theist does not have a heavier burden since all claim to know something. Furthermore, even the alleged ordinary agnostic still is not off the hook. For one thing, one cannot remain neutral all his life; he will make commitments or hold beliefs all along the way that reflect either an atheistic or theistic worldview. He is either going to be a practical atheist or practical theist (or a mixture of the two) in some fashion throughout his life. But he can’t straddle the fence for long. Also, the ordinary agnostic may say, “I do not know,” but this often means “I do not care” — the view of an “apatheist.” Refusing to seek out whether God exists or not; refusing to humble oneself to seek whatever light about God is available; living a life of distractions rather than thoughtfully reflecting about one’s meaning, purpose, or destiny leaves one culpable in his ignorance, not innocent.

Paul Davies, the fifth miracle : At that time, the very notion that life might spring into being spontaneously from a nonliving chemical mixture was greeted with fierce criticism from theologians, and even from some scientists. The eminent British physicist Lord Kelvin dismissed the whole idea as “a very ancient speculation,” opining that “science brings a vast mass of inductive evidence against this hypothesis.” He stated unequivocally, “Dead matter cannot become living without coming under the influence of matter previously alive.” This left only two alternatives: either life has always existed or its origin was a miracle.

Quote
  Or that god is real.  God of the gaps has been proven wrong, time and again.

God of the gaps is a comfortable way to try to criticize and reject a argument and avoid  to address actually the issues raised. Oponents of ID resort to it all the time, even when a robust case is made, with clear and detailed science based observation, prediction, experiment, and and logical inference and conclusion.  The evidence for intelligent design has not been shrinking in the last two decades. It’s been growing, while the barriers to explain origins through naturalism have grown.  This is obvious in regard of all relevant issues :  the origin and fine tuning of the universe,  of life, and biodiversity.



Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
« Reply #25 on: January 04, 2017, 12:03:32 PM »
challengeatheism, if you get bored, that guy in white Hijiri posted also has good fan fiction written with him if you are into slash-bdsm. Old, old school-good ones. (Strictly 18+)

Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
« Reply #26 on: January 04, 2017, 12:06:37 PM »
Limited causal alternatives  do not permit to claim of " not knowing "

 :rotflmao:


Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
« Reply #27 on: January 04, 2017, 12:28:00 PM »
God of the gaps is a comfortable way to try to criticize and reject a argument and avoid  to address actually the issues raised.
I cannot reject an argument that has not been made.  Cut out all the copy and paste crap.  Tell me what 'you' believe (for I know you do not think)--and give me some evidence for that belief.  Can you do that?  I will not hold my breath.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Offline PickelledEggs

Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
« Reply #28 on: January 04, 2017, 12:34:14 PM »
Mozartlink, is that you?
"Tell Pilate to release the files!!!" - Bill Hicks
"I have an open mind, but not so open that my brains will fall out" -James Randi
"One who truly hates himself cannot love, he cannot place his trust in another." - NGE

Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
« Reply #29 on: January 04, 2017, 12:34:56 PM »
I cannot reject an argument that has not been made.  Cut out all the copy and paste crap.  Tell me what 'you' believe (for I know you do not think)--and give me some evidence for that belief.  Can you do that?  I will not hold my breath.

Sure. Chance does not produce Jumbos. Nor books. Nor living cells that are more complex and contain more information than the hadron collider. Intelligence imho can produce all of this......