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

reply to post by MrXYZ



Now we're getting somewhere

We all NOW agree that Nature operate using the rules / laws of nature - that these laws are fine tuned and predictable.

Same question to you.

Where did the Laws of Nature came from?

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Douglas Adams said it best imo...

Actually the Scripture said it Best!

Rom 1:18 NKJV - "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,"

Rom 1:19 NKJV - "because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown [it] to them."

Rom 1:20 NKJV - "For since the creation of the world His invisible [attributes] are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,"

Rom 1:21 NKJV - "because, although they knew God, they did not glorify [Him] as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened."

Rom 1:22 NKJV - "Professing to be wise, they became fools,"

Rom 1:23 NKJV - "and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things."

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Now we're getting somewhere

We all NOW agree that Nature operate using the rules / laws of nature - that these laws are fine tuned and predictable.

Same question to you.

Where did the Laws of Nature came from?

We don't know...and that's a FACT.

Also, Douglas Adams was doing a thought experiment to show how thinking in unproven absoutes is SILLY. Your scripture on the other hand is pure preaching and actually a great example of "puddle thinking" as described by Adams.

reply to post by Barcs

Changes like a type of fish, going amphibian would take millions and millions of years.

based on assumption - correct?

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Now we're getting somewhere

We all NOW agree that Nature operate using the rules / laws of nature - that these laws are fine tuned and predictable.

Same question to you.

Where did the Laws of Nature came from?

We don't know...and that's a FACT.

Also, Douglas Adams was doing a thought experiment to show how thinking in unproven absoutes is SILLY. Your scripture on the other hand is pure preaching and actually a great example of "puddle thinking" as described by Adams.

edit on 27-8-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

We don't know...and that's a FACT.

Of course - you don't know.

F=ma, E = mc2 - ye don't know where the forces and laws came from.

Right.

reply to post by edmc^2


Correct...we don't know. Glad to see you agree.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Correct...we don't know. Glad to see you agree.

Of course I do know and you don't - that's the difference.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste you know.


BTW - just to be sure.

You do agree that Nature is NOT Blind but operates and abides by the Laws and Rules present in nature. Correct?

And that your thinking ability ends at - where the the Laws of Nature came from.

You simply are ignorant and dumb about it, in other words you don't know where they came from, correct?

Alrighty then - do you want to know where the laws of nature came from?

Add vid for reference later:

Here is a very relevant animation concerning abiogenesis (right click, save as, file is ca. 111 MB). If the link doesn't work, visit molevol.de

Originally posted by rhinoceros
Here is a very relevant animation concerning abiogenesis (right click, save as, file is ca. 111 MB). If the link doesn't work, visit molevol.de

Simple Q before I watch it.

Is this anime based on pure speculation and pure assumption or based on facts?

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by rhinoceros
Here is a very relevant animation concerning abiogenesis (right click, save as, file is ca. 111 MB). If the link doesn't work, visit molevol.de

Simple Q before I watch it.

Is this anime based on pure speculation and pure assumption or based on facts?

I'd say that it's based on facts, logical reasoning, and also assumptions to a degree. Just watch it, it's only a few minutes long.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by rhinoceros
Here is a very relevant animation concerning abiogenesis (right click, save as, file is ca. 111 MB). If the link doesn't work, visit molevol.de

Simple Q before I watch it.

Is this anime based on pure speculation and pure assumption or based on facts?

I'd say that it's based on facts, logical reasoning, and also assumptions to a degree. Just watch it, it's only a few minutes long.

Just did - I don't know why but it reminds me of the fantastic world of Spongebob Squarepants - who lives in a pineapple tree underneath the sea.

BTW - in the anime - it mentioned for a split second the DNA Code.

It said "you need a genetic code...".

So where in this fantastic world of yours did the dna code came from? Where did it get the information and how did it formulate/self organized the code?

reply to post by edmc^2

Question that you need to answer is:

Where did the Laws of Nature came from?

Did they just came to be - i.e. spontaneously appeared or someone with a MIND put them together?

Let's take the four forces of nature - according to findings these forces complement each other in order for the Universe - Nature to function properly.

Did these forces / laws created themselves?

We don't know where the laws of nature came from - at least I don't. I'm also pretty sure you don't even if you pretend to. Being convinced of something is of course not the same as knowing it for a fact.

Victor Stenger wrote a book called "The Comprehensible Universe" where he argues that physical constants like particle masses and the strength of various forces follow from an accidental process called "spontaneous symmetry breaking". I'm not going to pretend I understand it but apparently Stenger's conclusion is that the physicalities of the universe have a similar origin as biology in that both random chance and natural selection plays a part. Sounds like a book I should read.

The fact that the universe seems to have some sort of order is obviously not evidence that this order was created by a mind. Still, if your claim is that God created the forces of nature and the central point of the abiogenesis hypothesis is that life came about as a result of these forces, what's really your problem with abiogenesis?

reply to post by edmc^2


You confuse "belief" with "knowledge"

You can't even present objective evidence to prove your claims...

Originally posted by edmc^2

BTW - in the anime - it mentioned for a split second the DNA Code.

It said "you need a genetic code...".

So where in this fantastic world of yours did the dna code came from? Where did it get the information and how did it formulate/self organized the code?

Genetic code, not DNA code. There is no such thing as the DNA code. For the origin of the genetic code, there is still no definite answer. However, you can check my related thread which gives details about its early evolution. In that thread, I spell out multiple points that indicate that the genetic code evolved over time, and that it had no designer.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2

BTW - in the anime - it mentioned for a split second the DNA Code.

It said "you need a genetic code...".

So where in this fantastic world of yours did the dna code came from? Where did it get the information and how did it formulate/self organized the code?

Genetic code, not DNA code. There is no such thing as the DNA code. For the origin of the genetic code, there is still no definite answer. However, you can check my related thread which gives details about its early evolution. In that thread, I spell out multiple points that indicate that the genetic code evolved over time, and that it had no designer.

Interesting concept - genetic code evolving.

It evolve itself. Must be an all knowing cell - first it needs to create a code in order to exist, but it must exist first so that it can create the code. Hmmm....

So explain in brief how it evolved without the need of instruction / intelligence - i.e. no designer?

Which came first - the material or the code?

reply to post by radix

what's really your problem with abiogenesis?

Says it in the thread title and OP.

Not only that abiogenesis hypothesis is silly idea but an idea based on ancient philosophy. An idea NOT based on sound science and sound logic - but based on assumption and speculation. And idea devoid of common sense and practical knowledge of science. A philosophical idea pretending to be scientific - spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter by unguided process.


An idea which in contradiction with reality - i.e. an accidental unguided process of spontaneous generation of life from inanimate things vs. an Intelligent Creation of life by guided process - an Intelligent Design of Life.

That is the problem.

Also since you've admitted yourself that "nature doesn't operate on blind chance."

What then is the alternate of blind chance - if "nature doesn't operate on blind chance."?

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2

 

You confuse "belief" with "knowledge"

You can't even present objective evidence to prove your claims...

You mean atheism/evolution is not based on "belief"?

Oh my...

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2

 

You confuse "belief" with "knowledge"

You can't even present objective evidence to prove your claims...

You mean atheism/evolution is not based on "belief"?

Oh my...

First of all, atheism isn't the same as evolution.

Evolution is based on objective evidence and the fact that we are actively applying the theory while nothing "debunks" it.

Atheism is the absence of a believe in deities. So if you wanna call it a "belief", you should also call "off" a TV channel

Your creationism on the other hand isn't based on objective evidence. Nothing you posted so far could in any shape or form be considered that. "Science can't explain that, ergo god did it" isn't objective evidence, it's an ARGUMENTATIVE FALLACY.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2

 

You confuse "belief" with "knowledge"

You can't even present objective evidence to prove your claims...

You mean atheism/evolution is not based on "belief"?

Oh my...

First of all, atheism isn't the same as evolution.

Evolution is based on objective evidence and the fact that we are actively applying the theory while nothing "debunks" it.

Atheism is the absence of a believe in deities. So if you wanna call it a "belief", you should also call "off" a TV channel

Your creationism on the other hand isn't based on objective evidence. Nothing you posted so far could in any shape or form be considered that. "Science can't explain that, ergo god did it" isn't objective evidence, it's an ARGUMENTATIVE FALLACY.

hehehehe...admit man, it's a belief system.

You believe that there's no God and you believe that we evolved. What's so difficult about that and why the fear of admitting it?

I on the other hand BELIEVED THAT THERE'S A CREATOR who has a Name!!

And the facts support it - no need to bend it or mold it. It's simple as Intelligence begets Intelligence. Life begets life.

An Intelligent Design requires an Intelligent Designer.

A Fine Tuned System requires a Fine Tuner.

Simple and very basic that even a child can understand it.

No need to come up with wild speculations, stories and philosophies such as a non-living matter spontaneously generating itself without any intelligent guidance into a Conscious Intelligent Life form.

Of course if you "believe" that to be the case then good luck.

reply to post by edmc^2

Not only that abiogenesis hypothesis is silly idea but an idea based on ancient philosophy. An idea NOT based on sound science and sound logic - but based on assumption and speculation. And idea devoid of common sense and practical knowledge of science. A philosophical idea pretending to be scientific - spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter by unguided process.

Drivel. The "based on ancient philosophy" nonsense has been debunked so many times you're only embarrassing yourself by regurgitating it. The claim that abiogenesis is not based on sound science is simply ridiculous - it's an active field of research which is producing a steady stream of peer-reviewed papers. Peer review is the accepted system for maintaining scientific standards and has been for centuries. The fact that you haven't been able to present any evidence that abiogenesis is unscientific in 61 pages speaks volumes.

An idea which in contradiction with reality - i.e. an accidental unguided process of spontaneous generation of life from inanimate things vs. an Intelligent Creation of life by guided process - an Intelligent Design of Life.

That is the problem.

More drivel. Do try to separate between spontaneous generation and abiogenesis - equating them only betrays your complete ignorance on the subject. Hint: one is superstition, the other is organic chemistry. The fact that you would find a natural explanation in contradiction with reality but not a supernatural one makes me wonder what kind of reality you're living in.

Also since you've admitted yourself that "nature doesn't operate on blind chance."

What then is the alternate of blind chance - if "nature doesn't operate on blind chance."?

I haven't "admitted it", I've educated you to this fact as you seemed ignorant of it - why else would you keep bleeting on about "blind chance event"? Your question, as is so often the case, is nonsensical. If nature is not blind chance, then what's the alternative to blind chance? Oooh, I don't know - nature?