Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What you're insisting on is that it's impossible, but haven't given any examples as to why it's impossible. The problem is with your saying "impossible". You explain that science shows that it's impossible, and that it can't be verified. That's like putting the cart before the horse. Are we suppose to simply take your word that science has declared it's impossible? I will agree that there have been pros and cons on the subject of abiogenesis. However, currently, the pros are beginning to outweigh the cons.
My apologies...at this point we can say abiogenesis is the figment of someone's imagination. It has not been proven.
Quote:
Nothing is set in stone, and the subject will probabbly be scrutinized for a long time to come before anyone will be able to conclusively verify the overall picture. It will still require a lot more evidence, a lot more study and research. Even at that, there are no guarantees that we'll ever have an absolute answer. Even though all the pieces of the puzzle have not yet been found and linked firmly together, it's still based on known facts which point to the possibility that life may have resulted by means of abiogenesis.
It is always possible something else will be discovered that will show that it's wrong after all. But at the present time, it appears the search is heading in the right direction. If it ultimately fails, then it's back to the drawing board, perhaps to start out from scratch. But that's all a part of learning.
It's all still very much in the begnning stages of discovery. It's a little too early to expect instant gratification.
Are you willing to apply the same logic to something such as creationism?
Well, you've just rendered religious beliefs as being fairy tales. After all, you simply believe in those stories, proof not needed.
I can prove logically that the universe was created. Can you say the same for abiogenesis?
Quote:
As for Science, you need to know... it grows with information. It operates on hypothesis and theories. It tries to demonstrate what it can predict, or calculate. Not being successful doesn't make the hypothesis a fairy tale, it simply invalidates the assumption (forever, or until some point in time).
Abiogenesis is no different. It deals with an idea that life can come about from inorganic matter. This involves a lot more than mere beliefs which where fairy tales begin and end. Ever worked to solve a problem which appears complex until you arrive at the solution and then it all makes sense? Or, did you always look at solving a problem as nothing but fairy tales?
Are you willing to be as open-minded about creationism as abiogenesis? Abiogenesis seems as much a "belief system" as anything else. There is at least as much evidence to suggest a creator as there is to suggest that life started because the right chemicals fell out of the sky and came together in a soup. Nevermind the question of how those chemicals came to be.
I can prove logically that the universe was created. Can you say the same for abiogenesis?
Yes. You first.
Quote:
Are you willing to be as open-minded about creationism as abiogenesis? Abiogenesis seems as much a "belief system" as anything else. There is at least as much evidence to suggest a creator as there is to suggest that life started because the right chemicals fell out of the sky and came together in a soup. Nevermind the question of how those chemicals came to be.
How often have you tried to make an argument against abiogenesis because a replication hasn't been fully achieved in lab (yet)? Now, compare that to the number of times you've questioned existence of The Creator you believe in... which would be more?
Now I must wait for your logical proof of how the universe was created. Is math involved?
You've seen me go on about the cosmological argument. You have seen my arguments that for everything that exists there is a cause, and logically, we can deduce that since the universe exists, so does a cause/creator.
I could also prove God's existence using the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God. Simply put, you can't explain the existence of logical absolutes without a mind to conceive of them--God.
This is probably off-topic though. You want to discuss that, start a thread.
Quote:
How often have you tried to make an argument against abiogenesis because a replication hasn't been fully achieved in lab (yet)? Now, compare that to the number of times you've questioned existence of The Creator you believe in... which would be more?
Now I must wait for your logical proof of how the universe was created. Is math involved?
As for abiogenesis...science states that life comes from life. that's just a fact of science. Amazingly though, you and the others here will suspend that belief....because you realize that you have no way to explain the first living thing.
Put up or shut up please....how do you possibly explain holding to the fairy tale of abiogenesis?
08-10-2011, 04:16 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Calvin said: 'You have seen my arguments that for everything that exists there is a cause, and logically, we can deduce that since the universe exists, so does a cause/creator.'
He!He! He! - So does God the Creator have a cause?
Wait for it! Wait for it! - a more specialized argument is on its way.
I'll just move on from this mess.
Back to the OP which was really about Abiogenises and Information. Information that is derived from chemistry might be different than that used in languages. Language's meaning by the arrangement of symbols is arbirtrary and only assigned by us. Chemical Codes might be assigned meaning by their very nature, process, and structure. It is not as if the arrangement could have been something else as is the case with the English letters and their arrangment - c-a-t could as well have been something else like a rock but the chemical codes found in biological systems might be determined by their physical and chemical properties. If so the analogy to human languages is wrong.
My apologies...at this point we can say abiogenesis is the figment of someone's imagination. It has not been proven.
Pot calling the kettle black. No it hasn't been proven. It's a hypothesis. Has intelligent design been proven? It too is a hypothesis. We haven't seen a single reference or shred of evidence from you. Now what were you saying again about "put up or shut up"?
Quote:
Are you willing to apply the same logic to something such as creationism?
Wow! You really do have a hard time with reading comprehension. I've already said 2 or 3 times that an entity is a valid hypothesis that can't be absolutely ruled out. If you can't grasp that, you might want to see a physician for a medical evaluation. I'm done with repeating myself about it. Now, are you ready to answer the question about whether it's possible or not that an entity could include abiogenesis as part of the creative design? I've already asked that at least twice. Nary a peep from you. Remember, you're the one saying abiogenesis is "impossible".
Creationism? No! I can't honestly say I've ever seen anything related to creationism that pertains to the cosmos. What I've seen is focused on evolution, going so far as to claim utter nonsense (faked) as proof that dinos and humans co-existed. Their claims are riddled with so many holes that it's like someone trying to store water in a colander. I have yet to see creationism use any science.
You've seen me go on about the cosmological argument. You have seen my arguments that for everything that exists there is a cause, and logically, we can deduce that since the universe exists, so does a cause/creator.
I could also prove God's existence using the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God. Simply put, you can't explain the existence of logical absolutes without a mind to conceive of them--God.
No, you haven't and cannot logically prove the existence of God as you have imagined Him to be. If I am wrong about it, please feel free to depict the shape and form of this entity you speak of.
Quote:
This is probably off-topic though. You want to discuss that, start a thread.
But you brought it up, and now that you feel cornered, avoidance to your rescue? If you can't handle it, don't make it a part of your argument. But since you've, I fully expect you to respond to my argument above.
Quote:
As for abiogenesis...science states that life comes from life.
No it doesn't. Perhaps if you quote your source, we may be able to discuss this further?
Quote:
Put up or shut up please....how do you possibly explain holding to the fairy tale of abiogenesis?
May I then conclude that this is your idea of being "logical"? Sounds more emotional than anything else, the center piece of religion based creationism... put up or shut up.
No, you haven't and cannot logically prove the existence of God as you have imagined Him to be. If I am wrong about it, please feel free to depict the shape and form of this entity you speak of.
1. The cosmological argument. I have yet to see anyone give a decent rebuttal for it.
I even provided links to them above. I'd love to see you try to refute them.
Quote:
But you brought it up, and now that you feel cornered, avoidance to your rescue? If you can't handle it, don't make it a part of your argument. But since you've, I fully expect you to respond to my argument above.
No..I'm pretty confident I can logically prove God's existence. I know you don't like logic, and won't use it on something like this...but that's the way it is.
I question though, if this thread is the place to break off an abiogenesis discussion and discuss creationism.
Quote:
No it doesn't. Perhaps if you quote your source, we may be able to discuss this further?
Pretty much any and every textbook our kids use in school? Every nature show I've ever watched on tv (except those suggesting the fairy tale of abiogenesis)?
Quote:
May I then conclude that this is your idea of being "logical"? Sounds more emotional than anything else, the center piece of religion based creationism... put up or shut up.
No...I'm talking actual, real logic. Like the law of excluded middle, the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction. This isn't emotion, and it isn't a bias against religion as you have. This is actual logic.
Calvin said: 'You have seen my arguments that for everything that exists there is a cause, and logically, we can deduce that since the universe exists, so does a cause/creator.'
He!He! He! - So does God the Creator have a cause?
Wait for it! Wait for it! - a more specialized argument is on its way.
I'll just move on from this mess.
I've given further information on my other post this morning. If you want to be intellectually honest, see if you can refute those arguments. Otherwise, fine...we'll get back to abiogenesis.
Most of the scientific world agrees that life comes from life. But then we get the chicken/egg argument, and people are left scratching their heads when they can't figure out how a chicken got here to lay an egg....
The solution? Suspend rationality and say it just magically came from a big pond of soup!! Make it sound even better by saying that the chemicals floated down from the sky!
Rebuttals aren't always necessitated, especially when the argument has more amusement value than anything else. But since you ask...
"Because things exist, there must be something that created it" forms the premise of a circular argument, not logical at all. If you disagree, tell me what created this creator? If you're going to claim that the creator has always been there, then what is (logically) stopping you from applying the same to non-creationism in the classical sense? "Logic" is universal and devoid of emotions, no?
Quote:
I question though, if this thread is the place to break off an abiogenesis discussion and discuss creationism.
Too late. You should have questioned before you brought a religion based idea of creationism into the discussion. Now deal with it.
Quote:
Pretty much any and every textbook our kids use in school? Every nature show I've ever watched on tv (except those suggesting the fairy tale of abiogenesis)?
None of the books I can remember. None of the shows I can remember. How about you give us at least one good example since there should be plenty to support your argument that science claims life comes from life? And if you aren't in a position to provide even one of, supposedly, widely available sources, have you at least heard/read about search for alien life revolving around elements and conditions conducive to creation and sustenance of life?
Quote:
No...I'm talking actual, real logic. Like the law of excluded middle, the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction. This isn't emotion, and it isn't a bias against religion as you have. This is actual logic.
The problem is in your assumption that I'm anti-religion. That is quite an argument to make while labeling self as logical. You're drowning in emotions, and this "argument" is an outstanding example of that fact. Leave it aside and think logically... what exactly is "logic"?
Logic isn't something you can apply at whim, and try to dismiss when inconvenient. I addressed this above, in your argument that since something exists, it must have been created. Let us call it "a logic". Now, why do you think this logic wouldn't apply to the "creator" as you understand it? What would be the emotional argument, if THAT is logical?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Pot calling the kettle black. No it hasn't been proven. It's a hypothesis. Has intelligent design been proven? It too is a hypothesis. We haven't seen a single reference or shred of evidence from you. Now what were you saying again about "put up or shut up"?
