abioGenesis hypothesis: scientific or just a silly idea? What say you?

reply to post by edmc^2


Apparently you lack some logic or something....... You say its ridiculous to think that we were not created, life cannot come from nonlife, but somehow this great universal law does not apply to god..... Either it's universal, or it isn't, you can't have it both ways.

reply to post by edmc^2

Your "DUMB" analogue may be the worst analogy of all-time. Nucleotides code for 20 three-letter words (amino-an acids), with redundancy. There are 64 possible ways this can happen (4^3). There are essentially an infinite number of proteins, an infinite number of ways any given protein can be arranged. Which means there are an infinite number of unforeseen molecular interactions and an infinite number of proteins that will never be.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Apparently you lack some logic or something....... You say its ridiculous to think that we were not created, life cannot come from nonlife, but somehow this great universal law does not apply to god..... Either it's universal, or it isn't, you can't have it both ways.

Apparently your confused or something because I never said "we were not created".

Of course man is a product of creation and that's been my stand for a long time.

But what's ridiculous is the belief that life can come from nonlife - by means of blind chance or unguided process - that my friend is silly and ridiculous.

Now since you've accused me as someone who "lack some logic or something" let me please ask you a simple logical question to see who "lack some logic or something".

If man cannot create life from the elements - nonlife - am I supposed to logically think according to your logic that the elements created man?

As for the Creator - the existence of God, why is it hard for you to believe the He always existed yet believe that infinity exist?

In addition if there are phenomenons in the universe that baffles the mind - like quantum entanglement, God Particle, Higgs Field, Event horizon, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, invisible forces, n so forth, and accept them as possibilities if not realities why is it hard for you to accept that an Intelligent Entity exist?

But like I said if you don't believe or hard for you to accept the existence of a Intelligent Creator, what's your answer to my simple question:

If man cannot create life from the elements - nonlife - is it logical to believe that the elements created man?

And finally:

Can complex meaningful INFORMATION write itself - without any intelligent guidance?

What say you.

If you say YES to both are you able to prove it?

Otherwise just like your fellow atheist / evolutionist - I will also assume that you too "DON'T KNOW" the answer.

ps.
be creative and logical if you can.

you know a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Your "DUMB" analogue may be the worst analogy of all-time. Nucleotides code for 20 three-letter words (amino-an acids), with redundancy. There are 64 possible ways this can happen (4^3). There are essentially an infinite number of proteins, an infinite number of ways any given protein can be arranged. Which means there are an infinite number of unforeseen molecular interactions and an infinite number of proteins that will never be.

uva3021 I'm surprised that you didn't get the point of the simple example.

Let me help you then - the key words are MEANINGFUL INFORMATION.

In other words it doesn't really matter how many letters or syllables or syntax's the code has if they are jumbled and no meaning.

Heck you can jumble all the letters in the alphabet all you want but they don't mean a squat if the letters are not properly put together. They will not mean a thing.

So really it's NOT the "infinite number of proteins, an infinite number of ways any given protein can be arranged". It's HOW they are MEANINGFULLY SEQUENCED / ARRANGED. That what counts!!

So back to my question to you:

Can complex meaningful INFORMATION write itself - without any intelligent guidance?

and finally let me add this:


If man cannot create life from the elements - nonlife - is it logical to believe that the elements created man?

What say you?

'DON'T KNOW too?

reply to post by edmc^2


Water is 2 parts Hydrogen, one part Oxygen. Is there anything inherent in the existence of a water molecule that suggests there must be an intelligent designer? Or is it just the laws of chemistry and physics.

Originally posted by edmc^2
If man cannot create life from the elements - nonlife -

Have any evidence for this?

And so it goes, and so it goes...

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Water is 2 parts Hydrogen, one part Oxygen. Is there anything inherent in the existence of a water molecule that suggests there must be an intelligent designer? Or is it just the laws of chemistry and physics.

Yet did the "laws of chemistry and physics" created themselves -even wrote it by themselves? Or did someone created these amazing highly Intelligent Laws:

Like the four fundamental laws of Nature - did "they" wrote it themselves?

See what I mean - you can't win this argument because facts and truth are not in your side.

Originally posted by uva3021

Originally posted by edmc^2
If man cannot create life from the elements - nonlife -

Have any evidence for this?

And so it goes, and so it goes...

edit on 13-7-2012 by uva3021 because: (no reason given)

From time immemorial NO ONE have/had EVER created life from the Elements.

give it up you can't win this argument.

reply to post by edmc^2


Reading skills goes a long way.....

You say its ridiculous to think that we were not created

Meaning you think we were created, obviously.

As for the Creator - the existence of God, why is it hard for you to believe the He always existed yet believe that infinity exist?

Why is it so hard for you to believe that life always existed, and not created by some magical god that exists outside the universal laws that everything else exists under? We know for a fact life does exist elsewhere in the universe, what we don't have solid proof of yet is intelligent life such as ourselves.

Claiming that all life was intelligently designed, implies that the creator must have also been created. Without life, there is no intelligence.

reply to post by edmc^2

Who created the creator? We have no evidence of a creator, so its absolutely pointless to brush off unknowns to another unknown entity that exist outside the laws of nature, when the laws of nature are what explains unknowns.

See the problem? Ruminating on the existence of your personal idea of a creator has no basis as an explanatory mechanism.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Reading skills goes a long way.....

You say its ridiculous to think that we were not created

Meaning you think we were created, obviously.

As for the Creator - the existence of God, why is it hard for you to believe the He always existed yet believe that infinity exist?

Why is it so hard for you to believe that life always existed, and not created by some magical god that exists outside the universal laws that everything else exists under? We know for a fact life does exist elsewhere in the universe, what we don't have solid proof of yet is intelligent life such as ourselves.

Claiming that all life was intelligently designed, implies that the creator must have also been created. Without life, there is no intelligence.

So now you ask -

Why is it so hard for you to believe that life always existed

Good question.

Fact is it's NOT HARD at all to believe that life always existed - like I said - let me repeat:

HE ALWAYS EXISTED.

Since the Creator ALWAYS EXISTED - thus HE has the ability to IMPART life to his LIVING creations.

Simple as that.

Now back to my Q:

If man cannot create life from the elements - nonlife - is it logical to believe that the elements created man?

And finally:

Can complex meaningful INFORMATION write itself - without any intelligent guidance?

What say you?

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Who created the creator? We have no evidence of a creator, so its absolutely pointless to brush off unknowns to another unknown entity that exist outside the laws of nature, when the laws of nature are what explains unknowns.

See the problem? Ruminating on the existence of your personal idea of a creator has no basis as an explanatory mechanism.

The only logical answer is He ALWAYS EXISTED.

Just like the existence of INFINITY has no beginning and no end.

If it's hard for you to grasp this - then it's your problem not mine.


tata... gota go

I have a radical idea for all of you.

Try to become comfortable with saying "I don't know" to this amazing and infinitely complicated question, accept the possibility you may never know. At the same time, open your minds to the possibilities and be willing to learn the answer, whenever that answer may or may not be made available to you.

Then, do the same with religion, the size and mechanisms of our universe, and the nature of your very existence. Be willing to discuss and consider the possibilities, but do not believe in any single answer, and become comfortable in that state of non-belief.

Do not argue about it or ridicule each other while discussing our origins, or any of the topics partaining thereof, and beware those who claim to possess the knowledge of these questions.

Accept that the true answers to all of these questions are most likely far more bizarre and unexpected than anything you can believe, such as the beliefs required by religion, and become comfortable in that acceptance.

Unchain yourselves from belief.

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Who created the creator? We have no evidence of a creator, so its absolutely pointless to brush off unknowns to another unknown entity that exist outside the laws of nature, when the laws of nature are what explains unknowns.

See the problem? Ruminating on the existence of your personal idea of a creator has no basis as an explanatory mechanism.

The only logical answer is He ALWAYS EXISTED.

Just like the existence of INFINITY has no beginning and no end.

If it's hard for you to grasp this - then it's your problem not mine.


tata... gota go

edit on 13-7-2012 by edmc^2 because: need to take care of somethin - be back asap.

My creator is a fire-breathing nematode who built the universe out of legos made of frozen unicorn urine. He's always existed, but I wouldn't expect you to understand.

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Water is 2 parts Hydrogen, one part Oxygen. Is there anything inherent in the existence of a water molecule that suggests there must be an intelligent designer? Or is it just the laws of chemistry and physics.

Yet did the "laws of chemistry and physics" created themselves -even wrote it by themselves? Or did someone created these amazing highly Intelligent Laws:

Like the four fundamental laws of Nature - did "they" wrote it themselves?

See what I mean - you can't win this argument because facts and truth are not in your side.

Ladies and gentlemen, please thank edmc for providing us with yet another great argumentative fallacy: GOD OF THE GAPS

"Scientists can't explain that...ergo god did it!" is a prime example of god of the gaps

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Who created the creator? We have no evidence of a creator, so its absolutely pointless to brush off unknowns to another unknown entity that exist outside the laws of nature, when the laws of nature are what explains unknowns.

See the problem? Ruminating on the existence of your personal idea of a creator has no basis as an explanatory mechanism.

The only logical answer is He ALWAYS EXISTED.

Just like the existence of INFINITY has no beginning and no end.

If it's hard for you to grasp this - then it's your problem not mine.


tata... gota go

edit on 13-7-2012 by edmc^2 because: need to take care of somethin - be back asap.

"The universe always existed, just like the existence of infinity has no beginning and no end."

OMG, do you see what I did there? I cut out god, and it seems to work perfectly using the same "logic" you apply to things

Wow this thread is garbage...not a single good argument by the OP, just one argumentative fallacy after the other. And when you point that out, all you get is a reply containing another argumentative fallacy...like a broken tape recorder

Originally posted by edmc^2

Fact is the very definition and the origin of this hypothesis will show you exactly just that - a silly old baseless idea.

Here's one.

Definition for abiogenesis:

Web definitions:

a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter.

More info »Source - Wikipedia - Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster

www.google.com... l0&aqi=g4s1&pbx=1

So in short - Abiogenesis is a "hypothesis" based on "ancient belief in the spontaneous generation of life from non living matter" or "how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes".

It must be True - To believe otherwise would mean Life as we know it has Always existed. This means Life had to be around during and even before The Big Bang. this would mean the Life has never been created but always existed like say God. (You know God claims to be eternal without ever having a beginning and an end.) I don't think most scientists will buy that argument so logically Abiogenesis must be believed by mainstream science -

Is this the case? I don't know.. someone tell me.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Water is 2 parts Hydrogen, one part Oxygen. Is there anything inherent in the existence of a water molecule that suggests there must be an intelligent designer? Or is it just the laws of chemistry and physics.

Yet did the "laws of chemistry and physics" created themselves -even wrote it by themselves? Or did someone created these amazing highly Intelligent Laws:

Like the four fundamental laws of Nature - did "they" wrote it themselves?

See what I mean - you can't win this argument because facts and truth are not in your side.

Ladies and gentlemen, please thank edmc for providing us with yet another great argumentative fallacy: GOD OF THE GAPS

"Scientists can't explain that...ergo god did it!" is a prime example of god of the gaps

Ladies and gentlemen, please thank mr xyz for providing us with yet another great argument from ignorance - believing on WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW. Since the answer is I don't know inspite of the evidence therefore it must be true. There's no Intelligent Creator.

see not only you can play this game.

So what's it gonna be?

If man cannot create life from the elements - nonlife - is it logical to believe that the elements created man?

Opps I forgot YOU DON'T KNOW..argument from ignorance.

reply to post by edmc^2


You might wanna read the definition of "argument from ignorance" because I don't think you know what it means. Also, admitting to not knowing isn't a "belief"

Like I said, laughable arguments you make...and clearly you aren't here to discuss but merely to preach, else you wouldn't continue to repeat the same argumentative fallacies over and over again

reply to post by MrXYZ


Maybe this link will help edmc^2 understand "argument from ignorance" a little better.
Top 20 logical Fallasies

In the meantime here is a tid bit...
Ad ignorantiam

The argument from ignorance basically states that a specific belief is true because we don’t know that it isn’t true. Defenders of extrasensory perception, for example, will often overemphasize how much we do not know about the human brain. It is therefore possible, they argue, that the brain may be capable of transmitting signals at a distance. Intelligent design is almost entirely based upon this fallacy. The core argument for intelligent design is that there are biological structures that have not been fully explained by evolution, therefore a powerful intelligent designer must have created them. In order to make a positive claim, however, positive evidence for the specific claim must be presented. The absence of another explanation only means that we do not know – it doesn’t mean we get to make up a specific explanation.

Enjoying the thread guys...