Intelligent Design???

[Subduction Zone]

No, he doesn't. As I pointed out, I am only using scientists that are atheists, and have no connection with ID.

There are many very qualified scientists, including my friend, who do not meet that criteria.

You object to the word "chance", please elucidate.

From the athesit/science viewpoint, chance has been at work in the universe from the very beginning, it would seem to me.

Within Planck time of the BB matter and antimatter began cancelling one another out, there was slightly more matter, else there would be no universe. Every cosmologist I have read says this was a chance occurrence..

At best you have only quote mined The claims of scientists.

Here is a suggestion, when quoting scientists it is best to link to the original source. Quote mining is usually done as a form of lying. If one links to the original source then it is hard to have that accusation made against oneself.

And please, quote plus link to source on your cosmologists claim.

 

[exchemist]

But, of course, the ufologists say there is evidence for Alf at area 51. They have signed witness statements from folk who worked there who saw the alien.

If you look at Roswell, they have all kinds of witness testimony for little green men lying around on the ground.

Why don't you believe that evidence ?

No, actually there is very little evidence that abiogenesis happened.

This is one of the few cases where science has taken the position that something is a fact, then set out to find evidence for it, instead of the other way around.

Because life exists is not prime facie evidence that abiogenesis existed.

Scientific research should continue, absolutely.

However, scientific research is not evidence of anything but research.

Actually, "abiogenesis" simply means the appearance of life from non-life. We know that happened, because there was once no life and yet now there is.

What you are arguing against is abiogenesis without supernatural tinkering with the laws of nature.

 

[ratiocinator]

No, actually there is very little evidence that abiogenesis happened.

Life appeared on earth about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago, somehow.

This is one of the few cases where science has taken the position that something is a fact, then set out to find evidence for it, instead of the other way around.

Because life exists is not prime facie evidence that abiogenesis existed.

Yes it is. As I said, life got there somehow and we can either give up ("it's magic, innit?") or try to find out how it might have happened. This is no different from how any other gap in our knowledge has been approached scientifically.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That is over 40 years old. Do you seriously think that there has been no progress in forty years? This sort of statement takes one out of the debate. At this point there is only correction.

It only serves to address one particular hypothesis and that address based on what was known at the time. There have been other hypotheses formulated since then that this article is incapable of addressing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Life appeared on earth about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago, somehow.



Yes it is. As I said, life got there somehow and we can either give up ("it's magic, innit?") or try to find out how it might have happened. This is no different from how any other gap in our knowledge has been approached scientifically.

There is nothing unscientific about observing a phenomenon and then questioning the origin of that phenomenon. I am not sure if he does not get that or just does not want to get it, because it interferes with his belief that it all happened according to Genesis.

 

[shmogie]

Actually, "abiogenesis" simply means the appearance of life from non-life. We know that happened, because there was once no life and yet now there is.

What you are arguing against is abiogenesis without supernatural tinkering with the laws of nature.

Yes, I know what abiogenesis is.

I am simply arguing against abiogenesis, period.

Your evidence for it occurring is simply not logical. Because there is life in no way constitutes the evidence for anything but the existence of life.

There is no law of nature ever discovered that decrees that life can come from non living matter.

 

[shmogie]

Life appeared on earth about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago, somehow.



Yes it is. As I said, life got there somehow and we can either give up ("it's magic, innit?") or try to find out how it might have happened. This is no different from how any other gap in our knowledge has been approached scientifically.[/QUOTE

Extreme claims need extreme supporting evidence. It does not exist for abiogenesis.

Assumptions, and might have been´s are not evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I know what abiogenesis is.

I am simply arguing against abiogenesis, period.

Your evidence for it occurring is simply not logical. Because there is life in no way constitutes the evidence for anything but the existence of life.

There is no law of nature ever discovered that decrees that life can come from non living matter.

Simply declaring something to be illogical does not make that the case. You need to have an explanation why it is illogical. And it appears that you do not understand how or when to apply scientific laws, or even what they are for that matter.

Let's start with evidence:

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

By those clear standards there is scientific evidence for abiogenesis since there are several evidence supported hypotheses involving the topic.

 

[ratiocinator]

Your evidence for it occurring is simply not logical. Because there is life in no way constitutes the evidence for anything but the existence of life.

If it exists, it got there somehow. Either life has always existed or it started to exist by some means. We have lots of evidence that it started to exist.

Extreme claims need extreme supporting evidence. It does not exist for abiogenesis.

It's not an extreme claim at all. We have lots of evidence that life appeared on earth about 3.5 to 4 billion years ago. Either it was magicked into existence or it happened via some natural means.

There really isn't anything special about abiogenesis in this regard, it's something science doesn't yet have a tested answer to, so we go on investigating. Nobody knows how to reconcile quantum field theory with general relativity either, but we don't assume that's magic... and religious people don't try to say it is.... I wonder why...?

 

[shmogie]

If it exists, it got there somehow. Either life has always existed or it started to exist by some means. We have lots of evidence that it started to exist.



It's not an extreme claim at all. We have lots of evidence that life appeared on earth about 3.5 to 4 billion years ago. Either it was magicked into existence or it happened via some natural means.

There really isn't anything special about abiogenesis in this regard, it's something science doesn't yet have a tested answer to, so we go on investigating. Nobody knows how to reconcile quantum field theory with general relativity either, but we don't assume that's magic... and religious people don't try to say it is.... I wonder why...?

Lots of evidence, really ? I don´t think so. There are no fossil records of the precursor organism, there is no consensus as to what the prebiotic atmosphere was like, there is no scientific idea as to whether the precursor organism sprang from the alleged RNA world, or a geothermal vent in the sea, a puddle. No one has a clue as to how the alleged processes work on and on it goes.

Folk always speak of vast amounts of evidence, but when one scans the literature, one finds the evidence paltry and many statements from abiogenesis researchers saying they have advanced very little in their search. Some seemingly are speaking in despair

It is as though true believers have faith in evidence of a process that simply isn´t there.

One wonders why

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lots of evidence, really ? I don´t think so. There are no fossil records of the precursor organism, there is no consensus as to what the prebiotic atmosphere was like, there is no scientific idea as to whether the precursor organism sprang from the alleged RNA world, or a geothermal vent in the sea, a puddle. No one has a clue as to how the alleged processes work on and on it goes.

Folk always speak of vast amounts of evidence, but when one scans the literature, one finds the evidence paltry and many statements from abiogenesis researchers saying they have advanced very little in their search. Some seemingly are speaking in despair

It is as though true believers have faith in evidence of a process that simply isn´t there.

One wonders why

Can someone challenge @shmogie for a source that is not decades old on how little abiogenesis research has advanced? I would really like to see if that was the case. Please remind him that he needs to link to the source, not to a questionable site that quotes out of context.

 

[ratiocinator]

Lots of evidence, really ? I don´t think so. There are no fossil records of the precursor organism, there is no consensus as to what the prebiotic atmosphere was like, there is no scientific idea as to whether the precursor organism sprang from the alleged RNA world, or a geothermal vent in the sea, a puddle. No one has a clue as to how the alleged processes work on and on it goes.

You misunderstand. I didn't mean evidence for a particular abiogenesis hypothesis. There is lots of evidence of life that begins at around 3.5 billion years ago. It had to get there somehow.

How exactly it got there is an unknown in science - why would we treat it differently from any other unknown in science? Why do you want to think it's magic?

 

[shunyadragon]

No, he doesn't.

No he doesn't what???

As I pointed out, I am only using scientists that are atheists, and have no connection with ID.

There are many very qualified scientists, including my friend, who do not meet that criteria.

Anyone published that I can document as an atheist? I have not been able to find a reference to the religious belief of H.P. Yockey PhD, nor a complete description of his view of abiogenesis except he does not see a scientific answer resolving the hypothesis.

You object to the word "chance", please elucidate.

From the athesit/science viewpoint, chance has been at work in the universe from the very beginning, it would seem to me.

Chance is the vague observation of variation in the outcome of cause and effect outcomes, and does not cause anything. Natural Law is the cause of the outcome of cause and effect events, nor can it determine whether an event can or cannot take place. Fractals better describe the variation in the outcome of cause and effect events described as Chaos Theory.

Within Planck time of the BB matter and antimatter began cancelling one another out, there was slightly more matter, else there would be no universe. Every cosmologist I have read says this was a chance occurrence..

Please cite the cosmologists that describe this as a chance event. I believe it is best described as the Laws of NAture determined the eventual outcome of the events that lead to the Big Bang. There may be variations in the outcome, but nonetheless the Laws of Nature determine the outcome.

 

[Jose Fly]

You misunderstand. I didn't mean evidence for a particular abiogenesis hypothesis. There is lots of evidence of life that begins at around 3.5 billion years ago. It had to get there somehow.

How exactly it got there is an unknown in science - why would we treat it differently from any other unknown in science? Why do you want to think it's magic?

That's an excellent point. Even though @shmogie is apparently ignoring me in typical creationist fashion, I considered posting the following to him. I wrote it several years ago, but I think it generally still applies....

Why do I, and so many other scientists, believe life on earth first developed by natural means? Well, at the most basic level it's simply a question of extremely consistent observations. Being in the life sciences myself, I've spent the better part of my life studying life in various forms. I've seen how it replicates itself, how it adapts and evolves to changing conditions, and how it generally goes about its business. In all of these observations, there's one consistent underlying theme that never changes: It does it all by itself. IOW, everything life on earth does, it does by natural means. We can explain the most amazing processes without any need to throw our hands up in the air and say, "Huh! I think some god just did that!"

From an even broader perspective, we can look around and see other non-biological processes in chemistry, geology, climatology, cosmology, physics, etc. and all of them operate without the need for a deity to prop the whole thing up. I guess a simplistic way to put it would be: Nature works quite well all on its own. Now, perhaps there's some supernatural agent working behind the scenes in some undetectable manner, or perhaps a deity set up the rules that run the whole works and let it go from there, but there's really no way to tell.

In light of all that, I see no reason to suddenly inject a supernatural agent when considering the development of the first life on earth.

The second "big picture" line of reasoning comes from the fossil record. When we examine it as a whole, we see a clear, unmistakable progression from simple prokaryotes to life that resembles contemporary organisms. We also notice that the first two-thirds of the history of life on earth were devoted solely to cellular evolution. The fossil record of this period looks like....

Rocks dated at 4.1 billion years ago (BYA) show no evidence of life.

For the next 2 billion years, the only fossils are of prokaryotes (single celled organisms with no membranous nucleus or organelles).

At 2.1 BYA, the first eukaryotes (single celled organisms with a nucleus) appear.

At 1.1 BYA, we see the first evidence of very simple multicellular organisms.

From this we see a very clear indication that when life on earth first started, it did so as a very simple pre-prokaryote, which is precisely what we would expect if it occurred naturally. I mean, if a deity wanted to make sure we understood that he did the whole thing, it would be a very powerful message to start it all off with humans or some other less primitive organism.

 

[Jose Fly]

Saw this today and thought I'd post it here....

Membraneless protocells could provide clues to formation of early life

Membraneless assemblies of positively- and negatively-charged molecules can bring together RNA molecules in dense liquid droplets, allowing the RNAs to participate in fundamental chemical reactions. These assemblies, called "complex coacervates," also enhance the ability of some RNA molecules themselves to act as enzymes -- molecules that drive chemical reactions. They do this by concentrating the RNA enzymes, their substrates, and other molecules required for the reaction. The results of testing and observation of these coacervates provide clues to reconstructing some of the early steps required for the origin of life on Earth in what is referred to as the prebiotic "RNA world." A paper describing the research, by scientists at Penn State, appears January 30, 2019 in the journal Nature Communications.​

More at link

 

[Milton Platt]

Don't you dare try to put me in a corner. Better men than you have tried. It is my opinion and I am entitled to it, and that is all I need full stop !

You folk who believe in nothing are welcome to your views.

who beleives in nothkng?

 

[Sapiens]

Don't you dare try to put me in a corner. Better men than you have tried. It is my opinion and I am entitled to it, and that is all I need full stop !

As has been observed often and elsewhere: "You are entitled to your opinions but not to your own facts." Back into your corner please.

 

[Ellen Brown]

As has been observed often and elsewhere: "You are entitled to your opinions but not to your own facts." Back into your corner please.

What facts are you suggesting I am wrong on? Am I going to have to go back and review this entire thread to see what the issues are? I don't even remember the question, and I am busy working.

This is so tiresome. I am not a fan of Intelligent Design, I just believe that an intelligence has driven it all since the beginning. If you don't believe that then just go play with your probabilities.

 

[Sapiens]

What facts are you suggesting I am wrong on? Am I going to have to go back and review this entire thread to see what the issues are? I don't even remember the question, and I am busy working.

Then perhaps it would be best if you dropped out of the thread?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What facts are you suggesting I am wrong on? Am I going to have to go back and review this entire thread to see what the issues are? I don't even remember the question, and I am busy working.

Very early in this thread you made a claim that appeared to be very very weak. So naturally I asked you what evidence you had to support your beliefs. You then gave this strange and very defensive response:

"Don't you dare try to put me in a corner. Better men than you have tried. It is my opinion and I am entitled to it, and that is all I need full stop !

You folk who believe in nothing are welcome to your views."

It appears when someone makes such a post that they know they do not have a rational reason for their beliefs. Though you could always surprise me and support your claim. Your claim that you should have given evidence for is on the first page of this thread.