Author Topic: Abiogenesis is impossible  (Read 3504 times)

Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
« Reply #30 on: January 04, 2017, 12:35:42 PM »
Mozartlink, is that you?


 i am new here. no sock puppet.

Offline PickelledEggs

Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
« Reply #31 on: January 04, 2017, 12:38:42 PM »

 i am new here. no sock puppet.
Oh. I figured that since you jumped right in to an essay without introducing yourself, you must have figured that you already did introduce yourself with another account.

Do yourself a favor and make an intro thread, telling us about yourself. Thank 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 #32 on: January 04, 2017, 01:55:33 PM »
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.
Is that why ID effectively died in the Kitzmiller decision and hasn't really been heard from (aside from the occasional internet cdesign proponentionist) since?

Offline Hakurei Reimu

Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
« Reply #33 on: January 04, 2017, 02:10:02 PM »
Sure. Chance does not produce Jumbos. Nor books.
Nobody has proposed this. Nobody.

Nor living cells that are more complex and contain more information than the hadron collider.
Living cells have more information than the hadron collider? Do you know how much data the LHC actually handles per second, or are you just posting hyperbole? Wait. Of course that's hyperbole. The most complex cell has less information than a DVD-ROM. And the first life was not even as complex as modern cells.

Intelligence imho can produce all of this......
Said despite the fact that no intelligence has demonstrated this, ever.

Edit: Well, not the life anyway.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2017, 02:23:31 PM by Hakurei Reimu »
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
« Reply #34 on: January 04, 2017, 02:30:15 PM »
It looks like he is pharaphrasing various comments and reactions from different boards. The anologies he used are usually found scattered around. (For the Hadron Collider remark.)
« Last Edit: January 04, 2017, 02:36:59 PM by drunkenshoe »

Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
« Reply #35 on: January 04, 2017, 02:35:09 PM »
Nobody has proposed this. Nobody.

Come on, Hakurei. You've got plenty of time to knock over a tired and worn out old straw man.



Don't you?
Save a life. Adopt a Greyhound.


Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
« Reply #36 on: January 04, 2017, 02:52:40 PM »
Nobody has proposed this. Nobody.

If that were true, nobody would grasp that unguided, random , lucky events are the only alternative to design.


Neither Evolution nor physical necessity are a driving force prior dna replication :

Without code there can be no self-replication. Without self-replication you can’t have reproduction. Without reproduction you can’t have evolution or natural selection.

Heredity is guaranteed by faithful DNA replication whereas evolution depends upon errors accompanying DNA replication.  ( Furusawa, 1998 ) We hypothesize that the origin of life, that is, the origin of the first cell, cannot be explained by natural selection among self-replicating molecules, as is done by the RNA-world hypothesis. ( Vaneechoutte M )
The origin of the first cell, cannot be explained by natural selection (Ann N Y Acad, 2000) DNA replication had therefore to be previously, before life began, fully setup , working, and fully operating, in order for evolution to act upon the resulting mutations. That means, evolution was not a driving force and acting for the emergence and origin of the first living organisms. The only remaining possible mechanisms are chemical reactions acting upon unregulated, aleatorial events ( luck,chance), or

physical necessity.  ( where chemical reactions are  forced into taking a certain course of action. )  Spontaneous self-assembly occurs when certain compounds associate through noncovalent hydrogen bonds, electrostatic forces, and nonpolar interactions that stabilize orderly arrangements of small and large molecules. ( Protocells Bridging Nonliving and Living Matter, page 43 ) The argument that chemical reactions in a primordial soup would not act upon pure chance, and that  chemistry is not a matter of "random chance and coincidence , finds its refutation by the fact that the information stored in DNA is not constrained by chemistry. Yockey shows that the rules of any communication system are not derivable from the laws of physics.  He continues : “there is nothing in the physicochemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences.” In other words, nothing in nonliving physics or chemistry obeys symbolic instructions.
 
DNA contains a true code. Being a true code means that the code is free and unconstrained; any of the four bases can be placed in any of the positions in the sequence of bases. Their sequence is not determined by the chemical bonding. There are hydrogen bonds between the base pairs and each base is bonded to the sugar phosphate backbone, but there are no bonds along the longitudional axis of DNA. The bases occur in the complementary base pairs A-T and G-C, but along the sequence on one side the bases can occur in any order, like the letters of a language used to compose words and sentences. Since nucleotides can be arranged freely into any informational sequence, physical necessity could not be a driving mechanism.

 If design, or physical necessity is discarded, the only remaining possible mechanism for the origin of life is chance/luck.


Quote
And the first life was not even as complex as modern cells.

then my sources must probably lie ?

before you eventually argue , that luca was not the first progenote, be aware that nobody actually knows how that progenote actually would look like.

LUCA—The Last Universal Common Ancestor 1

The last universal common ancestor represents the primordial cellular organism from which diversified life was derived.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2176-lucathe-last-universal-common-ancestor#3995

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2478661/
LUCA does not appear to have been a simple, primitive, hyperthermophilic prokaryote but rather a complex community of protoeukaryotes with a RNA genome, adapted to a broad range of moderate temperatures, genetically redundant, morphologically and metabolically diverse.

Life was born complex and the LUCA displayed that heritage.

 Recent comparative genomic studies support the latter model and propose that the urancestor was similar to modern organisms in terms of gene content.

http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic635406.files/Becerra%20et%20al%202007.pdf
Theoretical estimates of the gene content of the Last Common Ansestor’s genome suggest that it was not a progenote or a protocell, but an entity similar to extant prokaryotes.

http://news.illinois.edu/news/11/1005LUCA_ManfredoSeufferheld_JamesWhitfield_Caetano_Anolles.html
New evidence suggests that LUCA was a sophisticated organism after all, with a complex structure recognizable as a cell, researchers report. Their study appears in the journal Biology Direct. The study lends support to a hypothesis that LUCA may have been more complex even than the simplest organisms alive today, said James Whitfield, a professor of entomology at Illinois and a co-author on the study.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16431085
the estimate of LUCA's gene content appears to be substantially higher than that proposed previously, with a typical number of over 1000 gene families, of which more than 90% are also functionally characterized.a fairly complex genome similar to those of free-living prokaryotes, with a variety of functional capabilities including metabolic transformation, information processing, membrane/transport proteins and complex regulation, shared between the three domains of life, emerges as the most likely progenitor of life on Earth


Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
« Reply #37 on: January 04, 2017, 03:36:35 PM »
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......
That is all you have--your humble opinion (and don't forget belief, which is another word for willful ignorance).  Of course chance does not produce books.  So what?  Chance, however, is involved in the creation of living cells.  Our universe is so full of all that is needed that any chance at all will produce cells.  And chance will then produce life.  And chance will produce  species.  It is called evolution. 
No, the actual way it happens is not known--yet.  I am not afraid to say 'I don't know.'  And I don't have to ascribe a reason or cause or process to a fiction called god.  You remind me of christian of old.  If one was able to transport a christian from, say the year 600, show them a jumbo jet (since you seem to love them so...) and then tell him it will fly, he/she would call you a liar and tell you it would be impossible.  And when he/she saw it fly, the jet would be called 'of the devil!'.  Your ignorance knows no bounds.  Belief/faith will keep you ignorant your entire life.  I do pity you.
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 #38 on: January 04, 2017, 03:58:30 PM »
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......


If your God was necessary to create all this complexity that is life, then who created the complexity that is your God? If that complexity that is your God needed no creation, then neither did the complexity that is life need your God to create it.
God Not Found
"FRAUD. The life of commerce, the soul of religion, the bait of courtship, and the basis of political power."
Ambrose Bierce

Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
« Reply #39 on: January 04, 2017, 04:10:28 PM »
That is all you have--your humble opinion (and don't forget belief, which is another word for willful ignorance).  Of course chance does not produce books.  So what?  Chance, however, is involved in the creation of living cells.  Our universe is so full of all that is needed that any chance at all will produce cells.  And chance will then produce life.  And chance will produce  species.  It is called evolution. 
No, the actual way it happens is not known--yet.  I am not afraid to say 'I don't know.'  And I don't have to ascribe a reason or cause or process to a fiction called god.  You remind me of christian of old.  If one was able to transport a christian from, say the year 600, show them a jumbo jet (since you seem to love them so...) and then tell him it will fly, he/she would call you a liar and tell you it would be impossible.  And when he/she saw it fly, the jet would be called 'of the devil!'.  Your ignorance knows no bounds.  Belief/faith will keep you ignorant your entire life.  I do pity you.

what amazing faith in chance you have.....

Paul Davies, the fifth miracle, page 54:
Chance and the origin of life
Ask the simple question: Given the conditions that prevailed on the Earth four billion years ago, how likely was it that life arose?
The following answer won’t do: “Life was inevitable, because we are here.” Obviously life did originate—our existence proves that much. But did it have to originate? In other words, was the emergence of life from a chemical broth or whatever inevitable, given millions of years? Nobody knows the answer to this question. The origin of life may have been a sheer fluke, a chemical accident of stupendous improbability, an event so unlikely that it would never happen twice in the entire universe. Or it may have been as unremarkable and predetermined as the formation of salt crystals. How can we know which explanation is the right one? Let’s take a look at the chemical-fluke theory. Terrestrial life is based on some very complicated molecules with carefully crafted structures. Even in simple organisms, DNA contains millions of atoms. The precise sequence of atoms is crucial. You can’t have an arbitrary sequence, because DNA is an instruction manual for making the organism.

Change a few atoms and you threaten the structure of the organism. Change too many and you won’t have an organism at all. The situation may be compared to the word sequence of a novel. Change a few words here and there at random, and the text will probably be marred. Scramble all the words and there is a very high probability that it won’t be a novel any more. There will be other novels with similar words in different combinations, but the set of word sequences that make up novels is an infinitesimal fraction of all possible word sequences. The odds are fantastic  against shuffling amino acids at random into the right sequence to form a protein molecule by accident. That was a single protein. Life as we know it requires hundreds of thousands of specialist proteins, not to mention the nucleic acids. The odds against producing just the proteins by pure chance are something like 1^40.000 to 1. This is one followed by forty thousand zeros, which would take up an entire chapter of this book if I wanted to write it out in full. Dealing a perfect suit at cards a thousand times in a row is easy by comparison. In 40000 a famous remark, the British astronomer Fred Hoyle likened the odds against the spontaneous assembly of life to those for a whirlwind sweeping through a junkyard and producing a fully functioning Boeing 747.

With such a extraordinary elucidation, it would/should be a easy leap of faith to infer =====>>>> DESIGN !! Why Davies does not do it, but keeps a agnostic standpoint, is a mistery to me.

Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
« Reply #40 on: January 04, 2017, 04:11:18 PM »

If your God was necessary to create all this complexity that is life, then who created the complexity that is your God? If that complexity that is your God needed no creation, then neither did the complexity that is life need your God to create it.

Who or what created God ?

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t77-who-created-god#1348

The creator is a self existing power. That's unfathomable to the finite mind. Nonetheless, there are wonders of a caliber the time and coincidence argument is hard pressed to attempt to contain. Some may ask, "But who created God?"  The answer is that by definition He is not created; He is eternal.  Definition of eternal: permanent, unending. Eternal, endless, everlasting, perpetual imply lasting or going on without ceasing. That which is eternal is, by its nature, without beginning or end. He is the One who brought time, space, and matter into existence.  Since the concept of causality deals with space, time, and matter, and since God is the one who brought space, time, and matter into existence, the concept of causality does not apply to God since it is something related to the reality of space, time, and matter.  Since God is beyond space, time, and matter, the issue of causality does not apply to Him.The cause of the universe must have been non-material because if the cause was material / natural, it would be subject to the same laws of decay as the universe. That means it would have to have had a beginning itself and you have the same problem as cycles of births and deaths of universes. So the cause of the universe’s beginning must have been super-natural, i.e. non-material or spirit—a cause outside of space-matter-time. Such a cause would not be subject to the law of decay and so would not have a beginning. That is, the cause had to be eternal spirit.

5 Easy Steps to refute naturalism
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1877-easy-steps-to-refute-naturalism

God is not complex
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1332-god-is-not-complex
God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/richard-dawkins-argument-for-atheism-in-the-god-delusion

God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity
http://www.gavinjensen.com/blog/rebutting-an-atheist-argument-against-theism

  Suppose we land on an alien planet orbiting a distant star and discover some machine-like objects that look and work just like a 1941 Allis Chalmers tractor; our leader says “there must be intelligent beings on this planet—look at those tractors.” A sophomore philosophy student on the expedition objects: “Hey, hold on a minute! You have explained nothing at all! Any intelligent life that designed those tractors would have to be at least as complex as they are!” No doubt we’d tell him a little learning is a dangerous thing and advise him to take the next rocket ship home and enroll in another philosophy course or two.

The point is that the leader was not trying to give an ultimate explanation of organized complexity. He was only trying to explain one particular manifestation of it—the tractors. In this context it is perfectly reasonable to explain one manifestation of organized complexity with another. Similarly theists are not trying to give an ultimate explanation for all organized complexity (including God) when they invoke God as an explanation for organized complexity.

Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
« Reply #41 on: January 04, 2017, 04:31:33 PM »
The answer is that by definition He is not created; He is eternal.



How convenient for you to be able simply to define your eternal, uncreated God into existence...
God Not Found
"FRAUD. The life of commerce, the soul of religion, the bait of courtship, and the basis of political power."
Ambrose Bierce

Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
« Reply #42 on: January 04, 2017, 04:48:49 PM »







God Not Found
"FRAUD. The life of commerce, the soul of religion, the bait of courtship, and the basis of political power."
Ambrose Bierce

Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
« Reply #43 on: January 04, 2017, 04:49:49 PM »
what amazing faith in chance you have.....

Paul Davies, the fifth miracle, page 54:
Chance and the origin of life
Ask the simple question: Given the conditions that prevailed on the Earth four billion years ago, how likely was it that life arose?
The following answer won’t do: “Life was inevitable, because we are here.” Obviously life did originate—our existence proves that much. But did it have to originate? In other words, was the emergence of life from a chemical broth or whatever inevitable, given millions of years? Nobody knows the answer to this question. The origin of life may have been a sheer fluke, a chemical accident of stupendous improbability, an event so unlikely that it would never happen twice in the entire universe. Or it may have been as unremarkable and predetermined as the formation of salt crystals. How can we know which explanation is the right one? Let’s take a look at the chemical-fluke theory. Terrestrial life is based on some very complicated molecules with carefully crafted structures. Even in simple organisms, DNA contains millions of atoms. The precise sequence of atoms is crucial. You can’t have an arbitrary sequence, because DNA is an instruction manual for making the organism.

Change a few atoms and you threaten the structure of the organism. Change too many and you won’t have an organism at all. The situation may be compared to the word sequence of a novel. Change a few words here and there at random, and the text will probably be marred. Scramble all the words and there is a very high probability that it won’t be a novel any more. There will be other novels with similar words in different combinations, but the set of word sequences that make up novels is an infinitesimal fraction of all possible word sequences. The odds are fantastic  against shuffling amino acids at random into the right sequence to form a protein molecule by accident. That was a single protein. Life as we know it requires hundreds of thousands of specialist proteins, not to mention the nucleic acids. The odds against producing just the proteins by pure chance are something like 1^40.000 to 1. This is one followed by forty thousand zeros, which would take up an entire chapter of this book if I wanted to write it out in full. Dealing a perfect suit at cards a thousand times in a row is easy by comparison. In 40000 a famous remark, the British astronomer Fred Hoyle likened the odds against the spontaneous assembly of life to those for a whirlwind sweeping through a junkyard and producing a fully functioning Boeing 747.

With such a extraordinary elucidation, it would/should be a easy leap of faith to infer =====>>>> DESIGN !! Why Davies does not do it, but keeps a agnostic standpoint, is a mistery to me.
Look, keep your cut and paste to yourself--I'm not reading it.  If you can't think well enough to use your own words.............what am I thinking.  You are a christian--you hate critical thinking and facts.  You dwell only in the world of belief and faith.  So far you have offered nothing of yourself.  I can go online and look up the same pitiful sites you do, but I've done that already.  You can find this same discussion you want to have recorded here already--many times actually.  Look it up--if you can an index.  And so far you have not produced one shred of evidence for the existence of your god.  We both know why that is, don't we?  There isn't any.  Sort of like brains in your head.
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 #44 on: January 04, 2017, 05:59:39 PM »
And so far you have not produced one shred of evidence for the existence of your god.  We both know why that is, don't we?  There isn't any.  Sort of like brains in your head.

" There is no evidence for God " Really ??!!

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1440-there-is-no-evidence-for-god



In our search for God, where we start will often determine where we end. If you search for God only to show yourself that He is not there, then you will not find Him. But if you seek him like a starving man seeks for bread or a thirsting man seeks for water, then the Bible is filled to the brim with promises that you will find Him. Or more correctly, that He will find you.

   "For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened." - Luke 11:10

Why does the universe exhibit the ‘appearance’ of ‘fine tuning’? How did life originate? Why does biology exhibit the ‘appearance’ of ‘design’? How did human consciousness come into being? Where does ‘free will’ come from? Why are humans so contradictory in nature? Why do transcendent moral truths exist? Why do we believe human life to be precious? Why do pain, evil and injustice exist in our world?these questions ARE in my view best explained through creations, and ARE therefore evidence for for creationism , and intelligent design. There are just personal preferences of explanations and world views for all that exists.  So rather than say, there is no evidence for God, you should say : Intelligent design and creationism and theism are not my peferred explanations, for whatever reasons.

The right philosophical question is : what is the best explanation for our existence.

There are not proofs, wheter God exists, or not. To proof , God does not exist, you would btw. need to be all knowing. You are not, therefore, you cannot proof either Gods inexistence.


We could ask the question "Is there evidence that God exists?" and we could mean "Is it reasonable to think that God exists?" 2In other words, are there pieces of evidence from which I could reasonably conclude that God exists even if the evidence is not completely conclusive and utterly compelling?

You're not actually talking about evidence, you're talking about an interpretation of the evidence. As in, there is no evolutionary interpretation of the evidence which supports creation . This equivocation is used to deny any interpretation of the evidence which does not support evolution, which is exactly what a creation interpretation of the evidence does.

So, to remove the interpretation, let's look at the first claim in the Bible: that God created the earth and the universe. Surely you would agree the earth and the universe exist. Therefore there certainly is evidence outside of the Bible. Of course your response will be that it's only a claim in the Bible that God did it. That's fine, but it's beside the point. The point is that the existence of the earth is the actual evidence. How the earth came to be, whether through special creation or through stellar evolution, is a matter of interpretation of the evidence.

There is no evidence for God’s existence. 3 There is at least one major problem with this line as it is typically presented.

One often hears, “there is no evidence for God, therefore Christians believe in fairytales,” (or something to that effect) when what is actually meant is more like, “there is no physical proof of God’s being in the physical world, therefore Christians believe in fairytales (since all ‘real’ things are physical).”

The fact that Christians have never claimed to believe in a physical God – as merely one more physical being among all other physical beings in the universe – does not stop these sorts of atheists from thinking they have laid waste to 40 centuries of religious thought, experience, and refinement with the mere mention of this evidentiary boogieman. It rarely occurs to them that such physical proof would actually run 100% counter to Judeo-Christian theistic claims. Their argument against a physical God is actually applauded and defended by Christians.

This fact is not, of course, proof that the Christian claim is true, but merely proof that with such attacks the atheist has not even begun to swing in the direction of Christianity.

However, if what they mean is something more like, “There is no logical evidence of God’s existence…” then the straw man suddenly becomes a brick wall. The logical arguments for God are vast and time tested against some of the greatest minds of all time working tirelessly against them. They are well-known arguments and can be easily found online or in print, but let me give one quick example. I recently read someone who claimed that I conceded the atheist’s argument that God is not real since the faith teaches He is not physical. Let me help those who might struggle with this idea using a quote from David Bentley Hart: “Why can’t there be a physical explanation of existence? Because anything physical is, by definition, something that exists. So there cannot be a physical cause of existence.” The faith claims this non-physical, yet real, entity is God. His absolute “existence” is more real than physical existence by order of priority.

But besides logical arguments an additional reason why atheists often fail with this approach is because they run up against Christians with living experiences with God. There is no amount of speculative babbling from the uninitiated that can oppose the one whose faith is built on a living subjectivity to the presence of God. On these matters Kierkegaard had it right – in objectivity there is no truth for the single individual; the truth is subjectivity.




1. http://www.shenvi.org/Essays/RightQuestions.htm
2. http://www.shenvi.org/Essays/RightQuestions.htm
3. https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/top-10-most-common-atheist-arguments-and-why-they-fail/