Abiogenesis - The Impossible Theoretical Miracle

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Blue Shift
Without thought there is no form. I'm starting to suspect that consciousness and the Universe are inextricably linked.

The universe, like time, is personal. That's something ordinary mathematics is not good at dealing with. Mathematics is intended to be objective, which works great for figuring out the relationships between things. But it's not how we experience existence.

When I die, my little cloud within the holographic universe will collapse, and the universe will cease to exist and actually never had existed (as far as I'm concerned). Sure, while we're both alive, our universe bubbles intertwine. From your perspective, the universe will continue to exist until you die, then it will vanish into nothingness, just like mine did.

I'm not aware of any branch of mathematics that allows for the universe to both exist and not exist depending entirely on your point of view. But that seems to be how reality is built. Quantum mechanics covers some of it, but I'm not sure it translates well into the macro universe.

So why did God create us? Maybe because that particular transdimensional, omniscient, extratemporal superbeing wouldn't exist without us, either.

a reply to: Barcs

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis. It hasn't been confirmed

It amazes me that this is the consensus among those that believe in evolution.
Again it's like saying I understand how the car was made, but not the tires; where the rubber meets the road, it can't move forward as a belief system without the tires so to speak.

This is evolution without abiogenesis



It can't go anywhere, and is pretty much useless.
It's a huge gamble on philosophical science, to think that this car(ideology) is going to win you any type of race, never mind even get you to A to B.
Without getting some hypothetical/imaginary wheels on it, that may or may not be coming, I think that is called, faith.

So essentially your putting your faith in that, and I put my faith in God, it's a break even scenario.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33

It can't go anywhere, and is pretty much useless.

To extend the analogy, evolutionary theory posits that the intricate complexities of a car were created by random. Everyone knows the production of a car requires intelligent humans working in a well thought out factory.

a reply to: cooperton

Your right, it's so logical, yet so many people have disregarded the creation account to ease their conscience, it's a method of psychological protection. Most don't even know why they are doing it, or they will just vehemently deny that was never their thought process, and they are probably telling the truth.
But people thought process acts to protect themselves from negativity and guilt, to live happier lives....I can't say I blame them for that in the end.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Your right, it's so logical, yet so many people have disregarded the creation account to ease their conscience, it's a method of psychological protection.

Thing is theres no reason to even consider "the creation account" as a valid option unless you're religious... which means one has to take the writing of a 2500 year old text over modern theory

If you're not religious its completely ridiculous...

Not to mention the fact that theres many creation accounts for many religions... what makes yours more valid then any other?

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: chr0naut
This pretty much leads back to the question of which deity created it?

Really?
That's a pretty big leap.
Do you infer a deity into everything you can't understand?

Abiogenesis is a poor theory, it's equally as poor as a deity.

Why can't we just dismiss 2 poor theories and admit we aren't smart enough to get to the answer yet?

Firstly, no, I don't infer deity into everything I don't understand. There are places where it doesn't provide any predictive answers and there are better unfounded hypotheses that suit. But ultimately, as a reason for anything, one could assume that God is the answer.

While chemical abiogenesis is not a strongly evidenced theory overall, some of its component processes have been experimentally tested. The thing is, neither chemical abiogenesis or evolution actually argue against God. They have nothing to say in that regard. You can't hold them up as a disproof of God because they might still be true, but God either used them, or didn't.

You can, however, hold up the literal Genesis account of creation as probably indicative that neither chemical abiogenesis nor evolution occurred in that situation. The Genesis creation, if interpreted as a literal and technical description, was clearly a supernatural event.

Being ignorant of something, and then not being speculative at all about possibilities, is as intelligent as a rock. Speculating about what might be, is a creative and intelligent act.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Your right, it's so logical, yet so many people have disregarded the creation account to ease their conscience, it's a method of psychological protection.

Thing is theres no reason to even consider "the creation account" as a valid option unless you're religious... which means one has to take the writing of a 2500 year old text over modern theory

If you're not religious its completely ridiculous...

Not to mention the fact that theres many creation accounts for many religions... what makes yours more valid then any other?

I did a comparative religion study of 56 different creation accounts (including modern cosmologies). While many faith based creations made no sense in regard to what we know about the physical world, there is a stronger correlation between religious creation accounts than there is between them and the scientific.

Since we have little evidence for most modern 'scientific' cosmologies (and they include, at their basis, mythic and fantastic concepts such as gravitational singularities, superstrings, holographic 'quantum connectedness', the breaking of supersymmetry and superluminal expansion), aren't they just as 'faith based'?

originally posted by: chr0naut
Firstly, no, I don't infer deity into everything I don't understand. There are places where it doesn't provide any predicative answers and there are better unfounded hypotheses that suit. But ultimately, as a reason for anything, one could assume that God is the answer.

Assuming you meant predictive are there any places where a deity does provide predictive answers?

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: cooperton

Your right, it's so logical, yet so many people have disregarded the creation account to ease their conscience, it's a method of psychological protection. Most don't even know why they are doing it, or they will just vehemently deny that was never their thought process, and they are probably telling the truth.
But people thought process acts to protect themselves from negativity and guilt, to live happier lives....I can't say I blame them for that in the end.

Nobody who understands biology, chemistry, or evolution, thinks that organisms came together from random chance. The only people I ever see make that claim are people who don’t believe in evolution. Or understand chemistry and biology. For those who do understand chemistry, do you think any of those reactions are random? Or are they predictable based on our theories of chemistry?

www.rexresearch.com...
Way back in 1836 a scientist type named Andrew Crosse induced a weak electric current onto minerals in an attempt to make crystals. He was not expecting to find insect like creatures so he kept trying. Mind you, this was before Nikola Tesla was even born! How he generated the electricity is ingenious enough, but to create living creatures was significant. He brought his experiments to the London Electrical Society and they let it slip into obscurity. The reason for the cover-up was probably because Mary Shelly's Frankenstein was only 20 years fresh and the populace were to be protected from such scary stuff.
How the electro-smog/wifi/microwave/smartworld bs affects these same minerals, in our bodies, remains to be measured.
The incoming 5G ought to ramp up any illness producing effects that we may currently(pun intended) be experiencing.

a reply to: Puppylove

Did dude say anything about any specific religion?

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Puppylove

Pathetic, pathetic argument
Millions have died because some people believe humans are just animals

If we're not then what are we??

Millions die per decade because we act like precisely animals. The USA inflicts / triggers at least a million per decade because of this fact, alone, and supposedly we're the most sophisticated & magnificent of all.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: chr0naut
Firstly, no, I don't infer deity into everything I don't understand. There are places where it doesn't provide any predicative answers and there are better unfounded hypotheses that suit. But ultimately, as a reason for anything, one could assume that God is the answer.

Assuming you meant predictive are there any places where a deity does provide predictive answers?

Yes, I did mean predictive.

Definitely ethically and morally, in that there is ultimate consequence for moral/immoral choices.

Then there is the prophetic, where certain people have described events in their future. That demonstrates predictive answers drawn from a theistic worldview.

But also, cosmologically. In the absence of an ordering principal, things must therefore arise from randomness. Then we should expect the universe to be highly random to enable emergence enough to produce the universe we observe. But we observe a universe that is ordered, to the point where science is based upon the idea that effects have causes and that it isn't random. Every effect has cause, even down to the stochastic level of the quantum.

If randomness was the rule, there is no reason that an entire city, complete and with living inhabitants, could not suddenly pop into existence, or the converse true, where a city and population could just vanish. That sort of thing doesn't happen (as far as we can tell) and is rationally absurd.

Therefore every time we see an effect, and we know it has cause, we are seeing the predictive evidence of an ordering principal rather than randomness.

What this means is that there is only evidence for God. There is no evidence for an absence of a deity. To suggest that there is no evidence for God, and that the universe arose from random actions, as some do, requires incredible denial.

Of course, if someone could deny the evidence of their own existence, then I doubt that they could conceive that there are predictable outcomes as a consequence of the existence of God!

originally posted by: chr0naut
If randomness was the rule, there is no reason that an entire city, complete and with living inhabitants, could not suddenly pop into existence, or the converse true, where a city and population could just vanish. That sort of thing doesn't happen (as far as we can tell) and is rationally absurd.

Ignoring the fact that you weren't able to show a predictive answer from a deity, I do sort of agree with you here.

The idea that an entire city, complete with populations could just pop into existence is rationally absurd.
Stretching it over 6 days doesn't make it any less absurd however.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Or understand chemistry and biology.

The OP shows a pretty clear understanding, so that just voided your entire statement.

People have studied both biology and chemistry they have master degrees in them, and they still believe in creation.
So how is it you can have 2 people equally educated on these topics coming to exactly opposite conclusions.
Do they need to take an IQ test as well, what if they both had an IQ of 140 ? So equally intelligent and equally educated.

Why is there a difference of opinion ? Because professionally educated people at that level often have different opinions on subjects even within science.

a reply to: chr0naut

Since we have little evidence for most modern 'scientific' cosmologies (and they include, at their basis, mythic and fantastic concepts such as gravitational singularities, superstrings, holographic 'quantum connectedness', the breaking of supersymmetry and superluminal expansion), aren't they just as 'faith based'?

Not really... Those theories are based on complex mathematics...

Religious ideas are based on texts written by people thousands of years ago...

One is faith based with nothing to back but faith... the other is theory backed by mathematical equations

For instance genesis is based on... Nothing... it has the same factual probability as unicorns, goblins and fairies

Singularities or black holes again, have a basis in math... and we are working towards creating a microscopic one in a lab

Which is proof they exist...

Proof VS Nothing

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: chr0naut

Since we have little evidence for most modern 'scientific' cosmologies (and they include, at their basis, mythic and fantastic concepts such as gravitational singularities, superstrings, holographic 'quantum connectedness', the breaking of supersymmetry and superluminal expansion), aren't they just as 'faith based'?

Not really... Those theories are based on complex mathematics...

Religious ideas are based on texts written by people thousands of years ago...

One is faith based with nothing to back but faith... the other is theory backed by mathematical equations

For instance genesis is based on... Nothing... it has the same factual probability as unicorns, goblins and fairies

Singularities or black holes again, have a basis in math... and we are working towards creating a microscopic one in a lab

Which is proof they exist...

Proof VS Nothing

Just because we can 'symbologize' something in mathematics does not necessarily make it real nor give the concept primacy over things 'symbologized' in some other way.

Proof that a singularity can exist does not prove that a universe can fall out of one. In fact the mathematics says that it is impossible for a gravitational singularity of such incredible mass to 'go backwards'.

Genesis requires exactly the same levels of faith to believe as any alternate cosmology. We have nothing to go on except for supposition from any of them.

a reply to: chr0naut

Proof that a singularity can exist does not prove that a universe can fall out of one. In fact the mathematics says that it is impossible for a gravitational singularity of such incredible mass to 'go backwards'.

When did I say a universe can "fall out" of a singularity?

In fact no one really says that... its a theory in the works which will never be solved, and there are tons of theories on it... God may be one of them... I personally believe God is the cause... but not in the way religion thinks

And the mathematics say nothing goes backwards... there is only progression in space time... which is why in theory we can travel forward in time, but not backwards... yet?

Genesis requires exactly the same levels of faith to believe as any alternate cosmology. We have nothing to go on except for supposition from any of them.

No... Genesis says it all started with us...basically, there was God, then his minions... the earth... then us...

We know this just isn't the case... unless one reads really deep into the story, then I suppose one can include the rest of the universe... but really... not really

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Puppylove

Not everyone does need a sky daddy but
Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot figured humans were just animals and slaughtered tens of millions, men women and children
Your argument about needing a sky daddy is stupid
Especially when you personalise that statement at a person who probably isn't responsible for killing anyone

Why do you do this, why not just put a bit of thought into your reactions

normally because some people just want to mock religion, because it's the "in" thing to do - you know, individualism and all

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: chr0naut
If randomness was the rule, there is no reason that an entire city, complete and with living inhabitants, could not suddenly pop into existence, or the converse true, where a city and population could just vanish. That sort of thing doesn't happen (as far as we can tell) and is rationally absurd.

Ignoring the fact that you weren't able to show a predictive answer from a deity, I do sort of agree with you here.

A randomly generated universe can provide nothing predictive at all, means that it's opposite must be the only hope of achieving any predictive answers.

What did you expect were the predictive answers that would be the consequence of a deity? One might suggest that ultimate reward for good and punishment for evil, is predictive.

The idea that an entire city, complete with populations could just pop into existence is rationally absurd.
Stretching it over 6 days doesn't make it any less absurd however.

Except it didn't emerge out of randomness over those six days. Pointing out the absurdity of the pseudo-scientific proposition does not in any way imply absurdity of an alternate proposition.

The proposal that everything was created by a supreme and omnipotent intelligence who could traverse time at will is rationally consistent, even if we don't know the specifics of how it would be done.

Like a McGuffin plot device in popular fiction, if we assume that it is a possibility, then we can reason about the consequences of its existence.

a reply to: cooperton

it amuses me to watch cultists [ who blindly believe the absurdities of cult dogma ] - declare naturalistic explainations " impossible "