Regarding abiogenesis: We have some pretty advanced technology. We are able to 'lay the foundation' & 'create building blocks' of life. But as far as 'achieving the central goal: The creation of new life forms & functions', we are not there, yet. There are 2 rational possibilities for these conditions: The mechanism for abiogenesis is not fully understood, or there is a missing piece of the puzzle. In time, we will get it. Life is too mysterious, & relies on a Higher Power, or some kind of Supernatural or Alien intelligence to create. I can think of no other reason for the inability of man to create life. It should be relatively easy, under the naturalistic model. If random, primordial conditions were able to do it, why has man, with all his technology, not been able to do it? What are we missing? Both of the above points are speculative.. matters of opinion or belief. Regarding probability: In order to calculate a probability, there have to be parameters or statistics for the event. You cannot make valid probability calculations on unknown, speculated events. For example. To calculate the probability of life in the universe, you would have to have data on how many planets support life. You could then calculate that with the number of planets and/or solar systems, & come up with a rational number.. based on hard data. BUT, if you merely speculate that, 'there is likely life in .1% of all solar systems', your numbers are conjecture. You don't know that there is a .1% chance of life, you have merely pulled a number out of the air.. guessed. This might be your opinion, but it has no mathematical or scientific basis. The fact remains: Earth is the ONLY planet, known to man, that has life. All of our distant viewing & exploring has not produced any evidence of life on other planets. This does not mean that life on other planets is impossible, it just means we do not know if there is, & since we have no data on other life, we cannot make statistical calculations. It is merely a guess or conjecture. There is no evidence. Since this is a scientific thread, in a science subforum, i have requested REASON & SCIENCE to back up any claims. Assertions can be dismissed, without evidence. I have not even gotten to ID as a 'theory' of origins, nor the ToE. We have been dealing with life's origins, & addressing the evidence for it, which is admittedly very limited. But i note that the lack of evidence has not deterred people from stating their beliefs, sometimes very strongly, for their opinions. But a scientific minded skeptic does not factor in the sincerety, passion, or zeal of the Believers of Opinion. You have to produce facts, sound reasoning, & empirical evidence, for a claim to have scientific validity. That is all i ask, here. Regarding the ad hominem: 'I' am not the issue. My education, intelligence, or communication skills are not the topic, but the scientific evidence for origins. Continued needling & innuendo has no bearing on the topic, & reveals a distinct lack of understanding about debate & the scientific method. If anything, 'I' constantly model calm, scientific rationality, & display intelligence, education, & communication skills. But, that is not the topic here. My 'motivations' are irrelevant. This is an open forum, with a science subforum for discussing matters like these, which have been discussed for years, just on this forum. If you don't like the topic, don't participate in the thread. It is quite bigoted to belittle a thread starter because you don't like the topic. People start threads that have been beaten to death. I have not seen a comparative thread on origins, nor have i started one. This one is an attempt to use science & rationality to compare the 2 major models of origins. You can petition the mods, if you think this thread is out of place, or violates the forum rules. But i would think you would need evidence for this opinion, not just hysterical accusations. A pathetic debating 'tactic' is to berate the opposition & bait them into returning fire. I have fallen for that ruse before. But it is my intention here, to keep it scientific. I may expose the ad hominem, but i have no interest in an internet flame war. I understand that this is the only goal of many posters, & they will not stop unless there is hysterical, hostile mud slinging throughout the thread. If there are no other points about abiogenesis, or no evidence for it, we should move on to other issues, like the origin of species. Anyone want to take a shot & present a premise for that?
The two models: Supernatural, intelligent design. This would include a God, or gods, or Alien intervention. ..any kind of 'intelligence' that was needed to spark or create life, matter, & the universe. Random Naturalism. This model excludes the possibility of intelligent intervention, & insists on ONLY a naturalistic explanation for life, matter, & the universe. Some prominent scientists, notably Richard Dawkins, believe in a form of intelligent design.. that of Alien seeding of life. The issue is not a simple, 'Religious people thumping the bible, vs smart scientists!' This 'debate' continues, even among the scientific community, & is hardly a settled issue, with any kind of consensus. And, even if there was a consensus, scientific truth is not a democratic process.. it is a scientific one, based on reason, evidence, & observable, repeatable tests. ..AKA, 'the scientific method'. I present these 2 models as a topic for discussion, debate, & scientific analysis. I request that the posters address the topic, & not deflect with ad hominem or baseless assertions about their own religious beliefs. Thank you.
You have been given evidence, and offered nothing but a "nuh uh" as rebuttal. You have provided no peer reviewed scientific papers to,refute those that were given to you. Hand waiving away evidence, and saying "nuh uh" isn't an argument.
Ok, so there is some kind of significance to the threads i start? I'll give a partial list, AND i will point out that this is only a deflection, to avoid this thread topic. Why would anyone do that? http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/fallacies-of-evolution.490664/ closed due to over 100 page length, over 2000 replies, 34,000 views. Obviously has some interest. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-central-flaw-of-evolution.442211/ closed for length, over 1000 replies, almost 17,000 views. I only remember these as being in the 'science' forum. Most of the others are more philosophical in nature. And, i can easily move between a lab coat, & a philosopher's cap. Pick your topic, & i'll enjoy debating it. And, of course, if these topics are boring or stupid for you, then why bother even looking? This thread is a celebration of science. I am requesting that SCIENCE be presented, not beliefs, opinions, and assertions. So if anyone is 'denying!' science, it would be those who have no science in their arguments, & seem unable to deal with real science when they see it. More deflections. More ad hominem. Don't you guys get tired of the constant heckling? Wouldn't you like to participate in a rational discussion over origins?
I've listed those already. I used them as an example of what you were going to be doing in this thread. Which is to hand waive away evidence and just say "nuh uh" which is exactly what you've done in this thread. You aren't getting ad hominem, and frankly you have no idea what that even means. You are getting peer reviewed scientific papers, and evidence. You are not presenting anything to rebut that evidence other than stating "nuh uh"
Where? We have only touched upon abiogenesis, & the only replies have been some speculative, hopeful studies that say we might be close, but still no cigar. I am not disputing the studies. I point out exactly what they say. They are not claiming that man has created life, so my points stand, unrefuted. Your repetition of this meme might entertain you, but it is pretty pathetic. Is that your only goal in the forums? To follow me around, heckling, repeating the same things, over & over? Why not try some thoughtful debate? Why not present an opinion, or an argument, or some evidence? I'm sure i waste my time replying like this, & it only seems to fuel the hysteria. So if this is all people have, don't expect a reply from me. Sorry, but i have to find a way to keep the discussion topical, & cut down on the chaos & drama.
To be sure. The question is whether, in the present context, they can be used for anything but propaganda purposes. Then his thinking is clearly erroneous, as that probability is exactly 0. Seems you've somehow forgotten you were talking about "the non-intelligent origin of life", which means how it started matters a great deal. If you refer to the proposition that living things are created by a benevolent God, at the very least it relieves us of the burden of cogitating over the possibility of subjective morality. Sure, if we can dumb the Creator down to a force like magnetism; but of course we can't do that intelligently.
You are the issue when you either write unclearly or refuse to read or address the material being presented to you. When you "refute" evidence, your writing needs to be clear and precise. For example, you said you cannot calculate the probability of abiogenesis because of the possibility of it happening. That is an unclear sentence. Your responsibility is the clarity and precision of your writing. These are two key components to writing about science. You lack both. Thus, when you say that you have refuted some evidence, no one else sees it. The second important aspect is that saying you must have evidence to posit somethimg is just false. I discussed this in my previous post post about abductive reasoning, but you did not address it. You can posit abiogenesis as an extension of natural occurences that have been observed. You can even calculate the probabilities of this occurring. This is done in science for generations. For example, the Higgs boson was posited, but not found until recently. This was based upon the understanding of mass and particle physics that this should be found and it was. As I addressed before, these types of extrapolations have more credibility because they are grounded in other work. The intelligent design claims have no grounding. We have never obsevered God nor aliens that created life. The latter explanation is a quite useless one because it just kicks the can down the road. Thus, your whooe thread is flawed from the start. Is there concrete evidence of abiogenesis? No, but the evidence is much stronger due to extrapolations on existing evidence. Intelligence design in any for has 0 evidence to extrapolate from; thus, it is just pure speculation. From a scientific standpoint, a theory with some evidence is better than theories with none. Thus, abiogenesis wins. One last question, in your opinion, was intelligent design a good alternative for the Higgs boson? Why or why not?
This is hand waiving and saying "nuh uh". You have presented no scientific evidence, or a single link to rebut what you have been given.
No I was talking about probabilities. I try not to comment on the origin of life since there is no data to prove or disprove either hypothesis. I even stated there are possibilities for both hypotheses to be true.
That is a high probability he seeks to espouse his agenda but if one has an open mind then all possibilities can be defended albeit with differing degrees of probability. God created the universe and allowed it to unfold by natural law which gave rise (in this universe) to abiogenesis and hominids pondering the possibility of a godhead. God created the universe and used ID. God created the universe and used ID and natural law. There is no God and life did arise by some means.
Well, other than speculating about my motives, which are irrelevant to this 'debate', your possibilities are exactly what this thread is about.. origins.. the evidence for ANY explanation for origins. Either life, matter, species, intelligence, complexity, or anything relating to the universe. You present these 'possibilities' (your exact words): God created the universe and allowed it to unfold by natural law which gave rise (in this universe) to abiogenesis and hominids pondering the possibility of a godhead. God created the universe and used ID. God created the universe and used ID and natural law. There is no God and life did arise by some means. Now, all i have done is combine the first 3 in your list, & label them as a 'supernatural' explanation of origins, while #4 is the 'naturalistic' one. I still can see only these 2 possibilities. And, regarding aliens, i lump them in with the 'supernatural' explanation, since they are also related to intelligent design. For what is 'alien seeding' but an attempt to explain the universe by some unknown, superior intelligent force? It has the same 'look & feel' of a deity to us, and are functionally the same. They are just different labels for the same unknown, undefined, higher power in the universe. Mathematically, i still see no way to assign a statistical number on the probability of any of these options. The only thing we 'know', is that we are here, & some argue that even that is an illusion. But i do accept that there is a 'chance' that life & the universe arose by natural means, & there is a 'chance' that it arose by supernatural means. Nobody can conclusively eliminate either of those as a 'possibility', therefore, there is a chance that either, neither, or a combination of both MIGHT be possible. But without data to calculate a statistic, there is no way to put a number on it, or to project to other galaxies.. whether they have that same 'chance' or probability of conditions. That is an unknown, & unless & until we actually discover other planets that are habitable for life, or discover more information about the nature of the universe & our own origins, it remains speculation. How is this 'espousing an agenda?' This is just a rational, scientific examination of the possibilities of origins. I am open to any or all possibilities, & am intrigued by the theories & evidence for any of them. I submit that it is the True Believers, here, who are unable to examine their beliefs critically, rationally, & scientifically, but demand unquestioning loyalty to their sacred opinions. Show me the Science.. give me reason, sound arguments, & evidence. I'll be glad to debate & discuss on those terms. But ad hominem, insults, deflections, & thread saboteurs will only be ignored. Science is about questioning our assumptions, not blindly believing what we are told. That is for indoctrinees.
I don't see your logical progression.. is this what you are saying?: There are (or have been) superstitious explanations for natural phenomena. Some of these natural phenomena have a natural explanation, by scientific methodology, that do not seem to need supernatural intervention. Therefore ALL mysteries of the universe have a naturalistic explanation, & supernatural intervention is disproved. I see this as flawed reasoning. It is a 'some, therefore all' fallacy. Just because SOME things have natural explanations does not mean that ALL things do. We would have to have all things conclusively explained, naturalistically, to eliminate the possibility of SOME supernatural explanations. Correlating the understanding about lightening, plagues, etc with the unknowns relating to origins is a false equivalence. We do 'know' many things, but we also do not know many things. Some things cannot be explained by natural processes, so we only have opinion or belief, for an answer. And since there is no empirical evidence that conclusively proves these opinions, they remain matters of belief. That said, it is a rational 'extrapolation' to predict a natural explanation for everything, & to project past discoveries onto present & future mysteries. But until many of these mysteries have a valid scientific explanation, any 'theory' is fair game, & open to critique, examination, & skepticism. You still cannot be dogmatic, when the answer is unknown. It is hard enough to be dogmatic, when the answer is known.
I have a question about the 'models' for either a naturalistic or supernaturalistic view of origins. What kinds of predictions would/could you make, regarding either model. If you assume one model is the 'right' one, what would you predict about the conditions for the unfolding of the model, & how does the physical evidence fit, in either model? This is not really 'hard evidence', but it is evidence of a sort.. a circumstantial evidence, that infers the machinations of a particular model. And with events such as the origin of life, which is more of an historical event, hard evidence is tough to find, so inferred & 'soft' evidence is all we have.
If you are going to keep an "open mind" then your probabilities need to factor in the thousands of religions and thousands of deities that have occupied the fevered imaginations of billions of people over the centuries. Was it only one deity or was it several working together? Did some do landscapes while others focused on debilitating diseases? The probability of it only being a single deity is on an order of magnitude so small that it is effectively zero. The problem with applying the rationality and logic of math to superstitions like deities gives them a legitimacy they don't warrant. Scientific data is derived via the scientific method. We have that method applied to Abiogenesis and we have determined that the building blocks most definitely formed by natural means. That is an amazing feat given how little time and energy has been devoted to this quest compared to the billions of years that nature had to conduct these experiments all day and every day all over the planet in every conceivable environmental variation available at the time. If scientists were given the same resources that nature had the odds are the answer would have been found by now. The OP disingenuously dismisses the scientific data acquired to date because the end result has not yet been achieved. That is nothing more than theist bias on the part of the OP because if Abiogenesis were proven tomorrow the OP would still deny that it happened. Yes, we have actual evidence that the OP will do that in his threads that deny the scientific evidence of evolution. He uses the exact same fallacious dissembling in those threads that he is using in this one. Theists like the OP have no interest whatsoever in the actual science or the probabilities. They are just pushing a theist agenda to attempt to "legitimize" their beliefs by corrupting science. That should not be allowed to happen. Theists like the OP have a right to their beliefs but not their own disingenuous factoids.
It appears you have your own agenda in denying the possibility of any involvement of God. I'm merely wrapping up the idea of gods/God into one idea of a higher power with god like powers be it one or many into a force which somehow influenced/caused the creation of life in this universe. What I may or may not believe is irrelevant. I listed four ways for life to arise in the universe. Perhaps there are others I haven't thought of. I have no emotional investment into which one actually is the answer. I couldn't prove or disprove any of them so there is no need to become attached to any of them. As a scientist I 'feel' more comfortable not involving supernatural forces to rely on explaining the mechanics of life. But if I'm going to be a good scientist then I acknowledge all possibilities. What may appear God like powers to us is likely to be technology on a level we can't imagine.
As many have pointed out there is no evidence or likely to be in any future we are involved in to prove or disprove any origins. And you know that but continue to bring this topic up over and over. That's your agenda. You seen as uninterested in including an origin of life that does not involve a God/gods as another does in excluding the possibility. But he's not bringing the topic up again and again. You have a theist agenda that is clear. You should discuss this in a forum that includes religion IMO. But I don't care that much. I'll just not respond to your next thread as it will merely be a rehash without further input. If you're seeking answers you won't find them here. The answer is as the Chinese say, "bu zhi dao" or I don't know.
To those who worshipped Zeus we now have godlike powers. We can spy on people on the other side of the planet and send a bolt of lightning out to the sky to strike them dead. Yes, it is quite likely that there could be aliens on other planets with the godlike powers to change the orbit of a planet or even to use a planet as a spaceship to travel across interstellar space. That does not make them deities any more than our own godlike powers in comparison those who worshipped Zeus make us deities. A good scientist knows that they are studying the what and how of the universe. The why belongs to the theists, poets and philosophers. In the OP there is a fallacious attempt to raise the superstitions of theism to the same level as science. Any good scientist would immediately look at the asinine claims of creationism and ID and see that they violate the scientific method. No valid hypothesis begins with a conclusion and then tries to find factoids to support it. Creationism and ID begin with the conclusion that "goddidit". Anyone with even a modicum of scientific education would dismiss those as being BAD science. Here is an example of an alternative origin of the universe theory done by actual good scientists. http://www.express.co.uk/news/scien...verse-scientists-discover-what-existed-before
Yeah, you were talking about the probability of "the non-intelligent origin of life", and evidently don't see how you've contradicted yourself.
Still a theory(s). We don't know remains the answer. This is a perfectly good legal and scientific answer.
Read the entire post and all my posts here my argumentative friend. I've talked about abiogenesis and ID and haven't taken sides but that reply was mostly about probabilities in response to another. Latch onto something and someone else to troll. My last retort to you.
I did, and you contradicted yourself. Sure, as if that will somehow negate the contradiction in the post I quoted. You presume way too much. Hey, if you're sanguine about posting nonsense, I sure as hell won't be missing anything.
Why do you insist on ad hominem? My motives. my agenda.. I have NOT 'brought this topic up, over & over.. this is the only comparative origins thread i have started.. and even if it wasn't.. so what? That is irrelevant to the current topic. Of course there could very likely be 'evidence' for origins, as many have brought up. 'We are close', has been the claim of many. If we were able to synthesize life, would that not corroborate the naturalist claim? If there were a 'revelation' from a higher power.. alien, deity.. take you pick, would that not be 'evidence' for the claim?\ We can examine the evidence, speculate on what would be valid evidence for each model, and construct hypotheses for them. That is what you do, with the scientific method, & it is open to all, not just a few privileged elite. This is a forum. We discuss. We debate. We argue. THAT is what we do, here. I am not 'seeking answers', from members here, though a tidbit of enlightenment does drop in every now & then. But the MOTIVE for posting here is discussion.. conversation with others over topics we find interesting. Although, i admit that some post to heckle, disrupt, & spew out streams of hostility & hatred, but i can do nothing about that. I EXACTLY include ANY origins, in this discussion. I listed what i see as the 2 diametrically opposed possibilities at the very beginning. I have only asked for reason, evidence, & civility. What is so outrageous about that?
