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.
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?
The impossibility of an infinite regress of uncaused causes. That's what. No emotion...just logic. We could suggest the creator was created...but what about his creator? And the one before? And before? And before? You get the point. At some point there has to be one that was uncreated.
Quote:
Too late. You should have questioned before you brought a religion based idea of creationism into the discussion. Now deal with it.
Actually, anyone supporting abiogenesis is spouting off a faith-based argument. But I was only trying to be considerate of the OP.
Quote:
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?
Do you recall being taught about Louis Pasteur? He proved life does not spontaneously happen.
What about Stephen Hawking? His panspermia theory that life floated down from space is based on the principle that life doesn't just happen.
Quote:
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"?
I see you arguing against creationism. You seem to be embracing abiogenesis.
Quote:
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?
I think I answered it above on the infinite regression point. No emotion...just logic. Just as you accused me of judging you "anti-religion", you seem to be suggesting that I have an emotional attachment, or anti-science. That's simply not true.
Last edited by Calvinist; 08-11-2011 at 09:34 AM..
The impossibility of an infinite regress of uncaused causes. That's what. No emotion...just logic. We could suggest the creator was created...but what about his creator? And the one before? And before? And before? You get the point. At some point there has to be one that was uncreated.
Exactly. What do you think a logical argument would be?
Quote:
Actually, anyone supporting abiogenesis is spouting off a faith-based argument. But I was only trying to be considerate of the OP.
If you believe that abiogenesis is faith-based and nothing more, than why do you (at the same time) complain about arguments against faith-based ideas in this thread? Please make up your mind, or at least stop complaining about what can or cannot be discussed in this thread.
Quote:
Do you recall being taught about Louis Pasteur? He proved life does not spontaneously happen.
That sounds like an argument against creationism that you believe in, not in support of it.
From scientific point of view, however, Pasteur's opposition was to the idea that formed the basis of origin of life from decaying matter. It neither disproves abiogenesis nor does science believe that life can only come from life which is something you've been pushing for as "logic" whereas in the real world, science is trying to figure out the right combination of circumstances and compounds of inorganic matter, that has the potential to emerge as living matter.
Quote:
What about Stephen Hawking? His panspermia theory that life floated down from space is based on the principle that life doesn't just happen.
See above... and have you considered applying Hawking's take to your own belief system? After all, in your belief system, you assume a creator that takes inorganic matter and gives it life spontaneously, no? Where science differs from, fairy tales, is that it doesn't stop with an assumption (much less take it as the truth). The attempt is made to try and prove that the assumption was valid, or that it wasn't.
Clearly, science recognizes that you can't just wave a magic wand and life is "created" (although in religious and political debates on the issue of abortion, somehow that there is a spontaneous beginning to life is considered very real, no?). It would take the right combination of elements, compounds and conditions to develop something living. The challenge is to find that combination. And that, my friend, is how science works, while you "logically" see it as nothing more than lugging onto fairy tales.
Quote:
I see you arguing against creationism. You seem to be embracing abiogenesis.
I see no reason to dismiss the idea of abiogenesis. What I'm really arguing against, at this point, is your argument that science believes in life coming only from life. And to "prove" that you said science doesn't believe in spontaneous creation of life. While at the same time, your belief system demands a trust in spontaneous creation of life. Your argument that for something to exist, it must have been created, yet you won't dare apply that argument to the thing that must have created "life". In other words, I'm trying to present logical arguments to what you present as logic.
Quote:
I think I answered it above on the infinite regression point. No emotion...just logic.
So, creator was created by another creator? Or, has it existed forever? Because, if I must believe what you (and those religion based links) provide, nothing can exist or come into existence without something playing a role in it. No?
Exactly. What do you think a logical argument would be?
As I stated, the logical thing is to say that there was an ultimate, first cause that was not caused/created.
Quote:
If you believe that abiogenesis is faith-based and nothing more, than why do you (at the same time) complain about arguments against faith-based ideas in this thread? Please make up your mind, or at least stop complaining about what can or cannot be discussed in this thread.
I haven't. I think there is plenty of reason to believe in creationism--more so than abiogenesis.
Quote:
That sounds like an argument against creationism that you believe in, not in support of it.
From scientific point of view, however, Pasteur's opposition was to the idea that formed the basis of origin of life from decaying matter. It neither disproves abiogenesis nor does science believe that life can only come from life which is something you've been pushing for as "logic" whereas in the real world, science is trying to figure out the right combination of circumstances and compounds of inorganic matter, that has the potential to emerge as living matter.
True--I will concede that Pasteur really didn't speak to the question of abiogenesis as it's presented now with the primordial soup thing.
Quote:
See above... and have you considered applying Hawking's take to your own belief system? After all, in your belief system, you assume a creator that takes inorganic matter and gives it life spontaneously, no? Where science differs from, fairy tales, is that it doesn't stop with an assumption (much less take it as the truth). The attempt is made to try and prove that the assumption was valid, or that it wasn't.
Clearly, science recognizes that you can't just wave a magic wand and life is "created" (although in religious and political debates on the issue of abortion, somehow that there is a spontaneous beginning to life is considered very real, no?). It would take the right combination of elements, compounds and conditions to develop something living. The challenge is to find that combination. And that, my friend, is how science works, while you "logically" see it as nothing more than lugging onto fairy tales.
Until science can demonstrate that "right combination of elements, compounds and conditions to develop something living"....it's just a faith-based guess. I haven't seen any reason to believe that.
Quote:
I see no reason to dismiss the idea of abiogenesis. What I'm really arguing against, at this point, is your argument that science believes in life coming only from life.
Can you show me any reputable scientists that think that life does spontaneously occur?
Quote:
And to "prove" that you said science doesn't believe in spontaneous creation of life. While at the same time, your belief system demands a trust in spontaneous creation of life.
I believe that the creator that caused the universe to happen is powerful enough to form man from dust and breathe life into him. That's different.
Quote:
Your argument that for something to exist, it must have been created, yet you won't dare apply that argument to the thing that must have created "life". In other words, I'm trying to present logical arguments to what you present as logic.
So, creator was created by another creator? Or, has it existed forever? Because, if I must believe what you (and those religion based links) provide, nothing can exist or come into existence without something playing a role in it. No?
As I stated, the logical thing is to say that there was an ultimate, first cause that was not caused/created.
Why couldn't it be a second or a third cause? I'm sure your "logic" can help explain that?
Quote:
I haven't. I think there is plenty of reason to believe in creationism--more so than abiogenesis.
Why won't you believe in the Hindu version of creationism that actually involves abiogenesis of sort that you believe Science dwells in. According to Hinduism, life is eternal and recycles itself in various forms. However, living things were created using that life and a biogenesis via churning of the premordial soup that covered the earth in the beginning. It also suggests a cyclic creation and destruction of the universe every few billion years. So, why is it that you won't believe in this version but in another that simply tells you that the creator took earth (I assume more than soil?) and breathed life into it? How is THAT different from biogenesis?
Quote:
True--I will concede that Pasteur really didn't speak to the question of abiogenesis as it's presented now with the primordial soup thing.
Your fault at assuming science as static as fairy tales and mythologies, as opposed to what it really is... a learning process that doesn't shy away from being proven wrong.
Quote:
Until science can demonstrate that "right combination of elements, compounds and conditions to develop something living"....it's just a faith-based guess. I haven't seen any reason to believe that.
And I'm sure you've seen the creator to believe that certain words couldn't have come from humans "seeing things" but directly from the creator? And you don't know what "science" is about. Yes sir, it is merely an assumption and a hypothesis until science can be used to demonstrate something repeatedly, unlike fairy tales and myth that is often taken seriously by many as "facts" as they try to misrepresent science.
Quote:
Can you show me any reputable scientists that think that life does spontaneously occur?
"Thinking" in Science is about achieving something. There is no reputable scientist I'm aware of today, that can demonstrate what contributes to life. It is an ongoing search, via learning... the fundamental premise of Science.
Quote:
I believe that the creator that caused the universe to happen is powerful enough to form man from dust and breathe life into him. That's different. The creator is eternal.
I think there is plenty of reason to believe in creationism--more so than abiogenesis.
Can you show me any reputable scientists that think that life does spontaneously occur?
I believe that the creator that caused the universe to happen is powerful enough to form man from dust and breathe life into him. That's different.
That's an interesting statement. If the creator is powerful enough to cause the universe to happen, and powerful enough to form man, then don't you think it's possible the creator is able to include abiogenesis?
08-11-2011, 12:03 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
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.
Talk about being intellectually dishonest - you constantly avoid answering anything directly (like what is life to begin with), you rufuse to engage in the information provided on the subject yet ask others to so with your information, and you attribute false accusations to those who point out your fallicies. I already refuted your statement - I will repeat it again - 'that if something exist it must have a cause.'
OK! If God exists then he must have a cause according to that logic - but alas you do not believe that - do you? You made the statement not me and then you try to say that I'm intellectually dishonest in dealing with it. BOO! HOO! Deal with your mistake like a man or should I say like Jesus would want you too. Furthermore, proving that there must be a cause does not prove God, let alone the God of the Bible - I hope you figure this out soon enough. Secondly, Deductive arguments are based on assumptions, none of which you can show to be true, except by other deductive or inductive arguments, and which should be coherent (by design of course) but are not necessarily correspondent to reality.
Quote:
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....
If you would keep yourself up on the findings you would know that most of the scientific community argues over what life is. Also, the chicken and the egg argument has been eaten away at by the findings of non protein catalysts. RNA both carries info and has catalyzing properties. Alot of work still needs to be done of course - but the point is that Abiogenesis is not just a fairy tale based on wishful thinking with no evidence that points in that direction - progress in moving forward pretty fast considering the amount of research going on. On the other hand you can not say the same thing.
Quote:
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!
Now this is exactly the hypocricy and mischaracterization of what is being said and used as evidence. In fact you are the one with the magic my friend. Ironic!
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.
I am still looking into this though.
I don't think there is any question that structure of DNA is critical as well as the information that it encodes. Here are just a few examples:
-The difference between the binding energy of GC and AT base pairs mentioned earlier.
-The supercoiling of DNA and the enzymatic control of unwinding it that can be triggered by certain conditions
-Mutations and new traits. The possibility for replication errors introduces just enough mutations for species adaptation. The more dependent the species on mutations for adaptation, the lower the fidelity of duplication.
-The relationship between the nitrogen metabolism of nucleotides and proteins. The metabolic pathways associated with breaking down RNA are tied to protein metabolism as well.
-The function of introns. Even noncoding sequences of DNA are critically important.
-The genetic code itself. Degeneracies, wobble base pairs, the specific sequence of bases in start/stop codons, hairpins, etc. all point to a system where the structure of the DNA molecule has a profound influence on how, when, where, and why it's information is transcribed to RNA.
08-11-2011, 12:36 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chemistry_Guy
I don't think there is any question that structure of DNA is critical as well as the information that it encodes. Here are just a few examples:
-The difference between the binding energy of GC and AT base pairs mentioned earlier.
-The supercoiling of DNA and the enzymatic control of unwinding it that can be triggered by certain conditions
-Mutations and new traits. The possibility for replication errors introduces just enough mutations for species adaptation. The more dependent the species on mutations for adaptation, the lower the fidelity of duplication.
-The relationship between the nitrogen metabolism of nucleotides and proteins. The metabolic pathways associated with breaking down RNA are tied to protein metabolism as well.
-The function of introns. Even noncoding sequences of DNA are critically important.
-The genetic code itself. Degeneracies, wobble base pairs, the specific sequence of bases in start/stop codons, hairpins, etc. all point to a system where the structure of the DNA molecule has a profound influence on how, when, where, and why it's information is transcribed to RNA.
So then would you agree then that the meaning of the information encoded is directly related to these physical and chemical properties? It could not be otherwise under a particular set of conditions.
That's an interesting statement. If the creator is powerful enough to cause the universe to happen, and powerful enough to form man, then don't you think it's possible the creator is able to include abiogenesis?
He could, but I haven't seen any reason to believe he did.
Why couldn't it be a second or a third cause? I'm sure your "logic" can help explain that?
It could. It could be the 1 millionth cause. But it's not possible that it's an infinite regression of creators.
Quote:
Why won't you believe in the Hindu version of creationism that actually involves abiogenesis of sort that you believe Science dwells in. According to Hinduism, life is eternal and recycles itself in various forms. However, living things were created using that life and a biogenesis via churning of the premordial soup that covered the earth in the beginning. It also suggests a cyclic creation and destruction of the universe every few billion years. So, why is it that you won't believe in this version but in another that simply tells you that the creator took earth (I assume more than soil?) and breathed life into it? How is THAT different from biogenesis?
I have problems believing in a religion that teaches you can create your own gods of your choosing.
Quote:
Your fault at assuming science as static as fairy tales and mythologies, as opposed to what it really is... a learning process that doesn't shy away from being proven wrong.
Your fault is assuming that science can't possibly point to a creator.
Quote:
And I'm sure you've seen the creator to believe that certain words couldn't have come from humans "seeing things" but directly from the creator? And you don't know what "science" is about. Yes sir, it is merely an assumption and a hypothesis until science can be used to demonstrate something repeatedly, unlike fairy tales and myth that is often taken seriously by many as "facts" as they try to misrepresent science.
"Thinking" in Science is about achieving something. There is no reputable scientist I'm aware of today, that can demonstrate what contributes to life. It is an ongoing search, via learning... the fundamental premise of Science.
Honestly...you're babbling now. You're smarter than that...heck, you're the ghost of someone really smart!
Quote:
Why can't matter?
entropy. google it if you have to.
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.
