Did Abiogenesis Actually Happen?

just_sayin

I guess since we are made up of matter, it is theoretically possible that non-life made life.  But from a statistics standpoint it is very improbable.  This was the conclusion of Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA.  When looking at the complexity of even the simplest lifeform he recognized that it was highly unlikely that anything that complex could develop on earth and he suggested panspermia as an alternative.  The processes needed to create even the most basic DNA strand of 150 nucleotides that are not detrimental can not be explained by scientists who have spent their whole life trying to make it happen.  

MayCaesar

Logically, it must have happened: if there was no life in the Universe at some point and now there is, abiogenesis must have happened at least once. If the world in the past was in a different phase than at present and the demarcation between the phases is clear, then phase transition (e.g. emergence of the first living organism in the Universe) must have taken place.

It would be interesting to learn about the constraints and the statistical properties of abiogenesis. Is it something that occurs all over the place around the Universe - possible deep in our own oceans as we speak? Or is it something that takes unbelievable amounts of time and very specific conditions? Given how little is known about the process, the estimates can range from "spontaneous emergence of life is so rare, we are lucky to have even one instance in this Universe, and there are probably no other instances", to "life emerges every microsecond on every forsaken rock in the deep space". Given that many forms of life we might not even be aware of, it is possible that abiogenesis is occurring in front of our noses and we are oblivious to it.

This is further complicated by lack of clear definition of life. The best definition I have seen goes something like this: "Complex self-replicating structure". But even that is quite vague: one could, for instance, attribute rivers to it. What exactly constitutes the beginning of life? If one was to observe abiogenesis in person, would they be able to say, "1 microsecond ago there was no life here, and now there is"?

Like many questions in biology, a lot of fuzzy thinking is involved in answering this one, making the answer inherently somewhat subjective. Until someone can grow a macroscopic "clearly alive" creature in a lab using nothing but inorganic matter, abiogenesis might not be a tacklable concept.

Barnardot

@elijah44 ;Respect each other’s religious beliefs while debating. 

No because even though I tolerate religion I have totally no respect at all for a load of absolute made up crap that makes impressionable people even more deluded and believe in anti social things like hating minority groups. And religion has divided people and wrecked more families than any other institution.

So far as abogenius goes I think that if they were given more opprtunities then they would thrive and more of them would get to go to college. It is only recently that the Ossies have relaized that they have down trodden there own indigenous races and took there kids a way and slammed them in institutions so therefor there learning paths were very compromised. But never the less we get a few geniuses coming out of the mix and it is those Abos who speak out for the rest so they can grow up having better education and better living standards.

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

I guess since we are made up of matter, it is theoretically possible that non-life made life.  But from a statistics standpoint it is very improbable.  This was the conclusion of Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA.  When looking at the complexity of even the simplest lifeform he recognized that it was highly unlikely that anything that complex could develop on earth and he suggested panspermia as an alternative.  The processes needed to create even the most basic DNA strand of 150 nucleotides that are not detrimental can not be explained by scientists who have spent their whole life trying to make it happen.  

We're here, so obviously it happened, somehow. It's one thing to point to science and say 'we don't know how'. But if you're going to put up the standard god of the gaps argument, well that just shows religion doesn't know either. Complexities in the universe never give credence to your specific god of choice by some measure of default. Despite your faith. I suspect you can't explain the human gnome emergence in detail beyond 'god did it'?

Bogan

A virus is a perfect example of non life, life.    You can't kill it because technically, it is not alive.      But it can sure kill you.     It is nothing more than  a collection of molecules which, given the right conditions, will grow and reproduce.     The right conditions exist within a breathing organism.    All it has to do is to exist in nature and to get inside an organism, and that organism is in trouble.       

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

I guess since we are made up of matter, it is theoretically possible that non-life made life.  But from a statistics standpoint it is very improbable.  This was the conclusion of Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA.  When looking at the complexity of even the simplest lifeform he recognized that it was highly unlikely that anything that complex could develop on earth and he suggested panspermia as an alternative.  The processes needed to create even the most basic DNA strand of 150 nucleotides that are not detrimental can not be explained by scientists who have spent their whole life trying to make it happen.  

We're here, so obviously it happened, somehow. It's one thing to point to science and say 'we don't know how'. But if you're going to put up the standard god of the gaps argument, well that just shows religion doesn't know either. Complexities in the universe never give credence to your specific god of choice by some measure of default. Despite your faith. I suspect you can't explain the human gnome emergence in detail beyond 'god did it'?

When someone argues that 'well since we are here, life must have come from non-life" they are actually begging the question.  Is non-life the only alternative?  No.  So such a response, dismisses other alternatives out of hand, while engaging in special pleading for a view that can't be empirically proved.

Is it more likely that complexity comes from intelligence or chaos?  That's a critical question to address.  If I am walking on a beach and find a cell phone, I could say that it is theoretically possible for the wind and minerals, to over time form a functioning cell phone.  Or I could say that somebody left their phone there.  Which is more likely true?  An honest person would tell you that it is more likely that the phone is a product of an intelligence.  Life is a complex thing.  Take the last common universal ancestor (LucA) from which those who believe in evolution say is the ancestor of us all.  According to the most current science:

...a set of 355 genes likely present in the LUCA was identified. A total of 6.1 million prokaryotic genes from Bacteria and Archaea were sequenced, identifying 355 protein clusters from among 286,514 protein clusters that were probably common to the LUCA.

So the most basic common ancestor is assumed to have had at least 355 genes.  That's for something that is less complex than a bacteria.  That's incredibly complex.  When you ask the atheist how chaos created such complexity, you will often get an appeal to the science of the gaps - "even when science says it doesn't know, Trust me.  Science knows."

@Bogan, makes a useful observation - "A virus is a perfect example of non life, life."  A virus can not survive without a host and has no cells, yet can replicate itself.  Some would appeal to it as an example of LUCA.  Yet, even its structure is relatively complex and  there are no naturalistic experiments that show it came into existence by randomness and chaos. 

DNA looks like code.  Coders like @John_C_87 can confirm that even a single errant character in a line of code can cause the entire code file to not work and even possibly cause a destructive error.  DNA works the same way.  If a nucleotide and sugar form in the wrong combination, the entire strand can become useless and there are more destructive sequences than beneficial ones, and no known reason to assume that the more beneficial ones are more likely to form.  Yet, atheists want us to believe that by chaos, LUCA formed 355 gene sequences which are necessary and beneficial, while ignoring that statistically this is less likely to happen than a hurricane happening in a junk yard and forming a fully functioning 747 aircraft.  I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

When I see code - even short lines of code such as 'I love you' I think it must come from an intelligence.  If I walked into a room and saw 'I love you' written on a paper I would instinctively believe that someone wrote me a note.  Now, i admit, it is theoretically possible that a gust of wind came into the room and just happened to have the right speed and vortex movements to pick up a pen and write out 'I love you'.  But, I also have a brain and recognize that when I see complexity and code, it is much more likely to have come from some intelligence.  

Atheists would rather believe that the universe came from nothing.  That life came from non-life.  That even though no one can create life in a lab from scratch, even with billions of dollars in research and tens of thousands of intelligent minds working on the issue, that chaos created life accidently.  Without proof of concept or even a detailed explanation of how life could come from non-life, atheists dismiss the idea of intelligence and cling to a theory that hasn't been proven to even be possible, let alone likely.  That takes some incredible faith.

Bogan

@just_sayin

For all we know, just-sayin, life is common in the universe.   Planetologists opine that all you need to begin life, is water, an abundance of minerals in solution, and an energy source.     Such environments may even exist within our own solar system.      When the USA's famous Voyager deep space probes investigated Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, NASA did not even bother to program the probes to investigate the moons of these planets.   Using our earthly logic, NASA assumed that the moons of every other planet would be just like our own moon, dry and dusty wastelands.     But it was the moons of these planets which gave the scientists at NASA most of the information they craved.     It was found that two of Jupiter's moons, Ganymede and Europa were ice moons with warm oceans underneath the ice.     It was speculated that these moons may have life, but it was impossible to find out because it would mean landing a probe on one of these moons, and then drilling through miles of ice, just to get to the ocean, in order to release a probe which may find life.     That is just not feasible.     The next opportunity came when NASA;s Magellan probe discovered that Saturn's moon Enceladus was spraying water clouds into space.     NASA successfully steered Magellan through these water cloud fountains but Magellan did not have any scientific instruments to detect life.    But you can bet that the next Saturn mission will do just that.    If life is discovered in the fountain clouds of Enceladus, that is going to be as much a problem for religious people as fossils, and Origin of Species.  

just_sayin

Bogan said:

@just_sayin

For all we know, just-sayin, life is common in the universe.   Planetologists opine that all you need to begin life, is water, an abundance of minerals in solution, and an energy source.     Such environments may even exist within our own solar system.      When the USA's famous Voyager deep space probes investigated Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, NASA did not even bother to program the probes to investigate the moons of these planets.   Using our earthly logic, NASA assumed that the moons of every other planet would be just like our own moon, dry and dusty wastelands.     But it was the moons of these planets which gave the scientists at NASA most of the information they craved.     It was found that two of Jupiter's moons, Ganymede and Europa were ice moons with warm oceans underneath the ice.     It was speculated that these moons may have life, but it was impossible to find out because it would mean landing a probe on one of these moons, and then drilling through miles of ice, just to get to the ocean, in order to release a probe which may find life.     That is just not feasible.     The next opportunity came when NASA;s Magellan probe discovered that Saturn's moon Enceladus was spraying water clouds into space.     NASA successfully steered Magellan through these water cloud fountains but Magellan did not have any scientific instruments to detect life.    But you can bet that the next Saturn mission will do just that.    If life is discovered in the fountain clouds of Enceladus, that is going to be as much a problem for religious people as fossils, and Origin of Species.  

Bogie,  Your argument is a science of the gaps argument. 'Science has the answers out there somewhere - just trust us.'  Any 'planetologist' that knows anything about the chemical and biological issues of abiogenesis knows that it is more complex than just finding water and minerals and hitting it with lightning.  Panspermia has been appealed to because scientists like Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA, have realized that even the simplest one celled organism is too complex to explain by chaos on the earth forming it.  Panspermia just pushes the issue back one more level.  If you found life on another planet, you'd still have lots of questions to answer.  Like how did it happen and how statistically likely is it to happen and how did it get to earth.  Even after all that you still haven't disproved God or His role in creation.  I admire your hope in the face of detrimental scientific evidence here on earth for your theory.  But as I often say, I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

Bogan

@just_sayin ;  Bogie,  Your argument is a science of the gaps argument. 'Science has the answers out there somewhere - just trust us.'  Any 'planetologist' that knows anything about the chemical and biological issues of abiogenesis knows that it is more complex than just finding water and minerals and hitting it with lightning.  Panspermia has been appealed to because scientists like Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA, have realized that even the simplest one celled organism is too complex to explain by chaos on the earth forming it.  Panspermia just pushes the issue back one more level.  If you found life on another planet, you'd still have lots of questions to answer.  Like how did it happen and how statistically likely is it to happen and how did it get to earth.  Even after all that you still haven't disproved God or His role in creation.  I admire your hope in the face of detrimental scientific evidence here on earth for your theory.  But as I often say, I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.  

While your argument is this.   (correct me if I am wrong)        Your God was  itting somewhere out in space somewhere doing nothing, because there was nothing to do.   Saying nothing, because there was nothing to say.   And thinking nothing, because there was nothing to think about.    Then He got an ide.   "I am going to create everything!"    So he zoomed around space getting great big lumps of nothing and whacking them together to create everything?     Okay, let's look at that.   Th next time you go to the beach, pick up a handful of sand.     That equates to about 1 million sand grains.  If one of those sand grains represents earth then the handful represents our sun.      There are 200 billion stars in our Milky way galaxy.     Our galaxy is just one insignificant galaxy among hundreds of billions of galaxies.   Twice now, the Hubble Space Telescope was programmed to look at "empty" areas of space and it had it's lens open for 72 hours.     What happened was that images of unknown galaxies drifted in, photon by photon.

Now, you are proposing that your God created all of that, just for the benefit of an intelligent life form which He created on an insignificant planet, orbiting an insignificant star, within an insignificant galaxy.     And He did all of that even though for almost 200,000 years of human history, our race did not even know that the rest of the universe even existed?    Sorry, I don't buy it.  

RickeyHoltsclaw

@elijah44

just_sayin

Bogan said:

@just_sayin ;  Bogie,  Your argument is a science of the gaps argument. 'Science has the answers out there somewhere - just trust us.'  Any 'planetologist' that knows anything about the chemical and biological issues of abiogenesis knows that it is more complex than just finding water and minerals and hitting it with lightning.  Panspermia has been appealed to because scientists like Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA, have realized that even the simplest one celled organism is too complex to explain by chaos on the earth forming it.  Panspermia just pushes the issue back one more level.  If you found life on another planet, you'd still have lots of questions to answer.  Like how did it happen and how statistically likely is it to happen and how did it get to earth.  Even after all that you still haven't disproved God or His role in creation.  I admire your hope in the face of detrimental scientific evidence here on earth for your theory.  But as I often say, I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.  

While your argument is this.   (correct me if I am wrong)        Your God was  itting somewhere out in space somewhere doing nothing, because there was nothing to do.   Saying nothing, because there was nothing to say.   And thinking nothing, because there was nothing to think about.    Then He got an ide.   "I am going to create everything!"    So he zoomed around space getting great big lumps of nothing and whacking them together to create everything?     Okay, let's look at that.   Th next time you go to the beach, pick up a handful of sand.     That equates to about 1 million sand grains.  If one of those sand grains represents earth then the handful represents our sun.      There are 200 billion stars in our Milky way galaxy.     Our galaxy is just one insignificant galaxy among hundreds of billions of galaxies.   Twice now, the Hubble Space Telescope was programmed to look at "empty" areas of space and it had it's lens open for 72 hours.     What happened was that images of unknown galaxies drifted in, photon by photon.

Now, you are proposing that your God created all of that, just for the benefit of an intelligent life form which He created on an insignificant planet, orbiting an insignificant star, within an insignificant galaxy.     And He did all of that even though for almost 200,000 years of human history, our race did not even know that the rest of the universe even existed?    Sorry, I don't buy it.  

Bogie,  that was a great question!  It is a little off the topic of did God create life, and more of the philosophical question of why did God create life.  Yet, I think it is a great question.  I appreciate you thinking that I would know the mind of God.  I am flattered.  I don't pretend to claim that I do.  I will try and answer your question though with my own opinion.  If God created the universe, then he existed outside of space-time and therefore existed eternally before time, and will exist eternally after spacetime ceases to exist.  Therefore God does not need me or you for him to be complete.  He didn't set around and say 'gosh I wish I had a friend like just_sayin or Bogie' and then decided to make the universe.  I suspect that the answer is not that creating the universe, and us, benefits Him, but that it benefits us.  Each time that the issue is touched on in the Bible the response is  - we were made for His glory.  Don't misread this.  Its not alluding to his ego or self gratification.  In the purest sense for God's glory is to come to fully see and understand what God is like, to experience Him.    We don't add a thing to God, but our knowing God adds to our being.  You probably aren't going to like my answer, but that's my best guess from the Bible.  

Factfinder

@just_sayin

When someone argues that 'well since we are here, life must have come from non-life" they are actually begging the question.  Is non-life the only alternative?  No.  So such a response, dismisses other alternatives out of hand, while engaging in special pleading for a view that can't be empirically proved.

And of course this isn't the first time you've intentionally misrepresented and or misquoted someone. What I actually said was this: We're here, so obviously it happened, somehow. So much for your strawman. 

@MayCaesar has corrected you on misrepresenting what he says as well but you don't care, you repeated the same lie in your post on what he said a while back after he corrected you. Your malicious nature is exposed. You know nothing of how life and the universe originated. A 'god' for lack of a better term possibly could have had a hand in it, however unlikely due to lack of evidence. Looking at something and implying the complex nature is evidence of a god fine tunning isn't science, it's faith. Of the blind variety. You have no understanding of how science works. It seeks to falsify hypothesis, not to support a forgone conclusion like religion does. Faith in science is warranted because of known methods incorporating models of which to test theories. That's why we know no matter how 'fine tuned' a piece of toast may appear, any image we may see a likeness of jesus, is just chance, not design. "God did it" has no place in science.

In genesis the creative narrative says nothing of Penrose or astrophysics. It specifically says 'day' for the six days of creation, that's where your faith lies. It purposely is written as to imply god simply willed creation in an instant. That's why you try to appear as if you found some insightful compromise/reconciliation for the erroneous claims the biblical narrative makes but in the end lying to yourself is still deceit. 


If you truly loved your god and respected it you would heed its warnings: Proverbs 6:16-19:

There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: 17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, 18 a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, 19 a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

When someone argues that 'well since we are here, life must have come from non-life" they are actually begging the question.  Is non-life the only alternative?  No.  So such a response, dismisses other alternatives out of hand, while engaging in special pleading for a view that can't be empirically proved.

And of course this isn't the first time you've intentionally misrepresented and or misquoted someone. What I actually said was this: We're here, so obviously it happened, somehow. So much for your strawman. 

@MayCaesar has corrected you on misrepresenting what he says as well but you don't care, you repeated the same lie in your post on what he said a while back after he corrected you. Your malicious nature is exposed. You know nothing of how life and the universe originated. A 'god' for lack of a better term possibly could have had a hand in it, however unlikely due to lack of evidence. Looking at something and implying the complex nature is evidence of a god fine tunning isn't science, it's faith. Of the blind variety. You have no understanding of how science works. It seeks to falsify hypothesis, not to support a forgone conclusion like religion does. Faith in science is warranted because of known methods incorporating models of which to test theories. That's why we know no matter how 'fine tuned' a piece of toast may appear, any image we may see a likeness of jesus, is just chance, not design. "God did it" has no place in science.

In genesis the creative narrative says nothing of Penrose or astrophysics. It specifically says 'day' for the six days of creation, that's where your faith lies. It purposely is written as to imply god simply willed creation in an instant. That's why you try to appear as if you found some insightful compromise/reconciliation for the erroneous claims the biblical narrative makes but in the end lying to yourself is still deceit. 


If you truly loved your god and respected it you would heed its warnings: Proverbs 6:16-19:

There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: 17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, 18 a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, 19 a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.

@Factfinder
No one mentioned you directly.  Your quote was ambiguous and so I did not use it.  No one took your words out of context.  I avoided them altogether.

When someone makes an argument that says well just because we don't know now, doesn't mean science isn't the solution, they are indeed making a science of the gaps argument.  This happens frequently on this site.  I will provide some type of evidence - science facts, or medical journals, eye witness testimony, tv news reports, etc. and someone will respond, 'well, I don't believe it.  I'm sure science has the answer'.  That's a science of the gaps argument and it happens more frequently than the sun comes up on this site.  

I am pointing out that complexity is more probably related to an intelligence.  Logic suggests such.  So it isn't a faith argument.  A faith argument is that the universe created itself out of nothing like many atheists make.  Or that non-life created life - that's a faith argument.  

Now you have assumed things about my faith I have not argued for.  I have not argued that the universe was created in 6 days.  I have only argued that it is more likely from the evidence that the universe had a beginning from nothing/near nothing and that this is deduced from the logic of the big bang itself, that it is finely tuned, and that even simple life shows immense complexity that it is more likely an intelligence created the universe.  

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

When someone argues that 'well since we are here, life must have come from non-life" they are actually begging the question.  Is non-life the only alternative?  No.  So such a response, dismisses other alternatives out of hand, while engaging in special pleading for a view that can't be empirically proved.

And of course this isn't the first time you've intentionally misrepresented and or misquoted someone. What I actually said was this: We're here, so obviously it happened, somehow. So much for your strawman. 

@MayCaesar has corrected you on misrepresenting what he says as well but you don't care, you repeated the same lie in your post on what he said a while back after he corrected you. Your malicious nature is exposed. You know nothing of how life and the universe originated. A 'god' for lack of a better term possibly could have had a hand in it, however unlikely due to lack of evidence. Looking at something and implying the complex nature is evidence of a god fine tunning isn't science, it's faith. Of the blind variety. You have no understanding of how science works. It seeks to falsify hypothesis, not to support a forgone conclusion like religion does. Faith in science is warranted because of known methods incorporating models of which to test theories. That's why we know no matter how 'fine tuned' a piece of toast may appear, any image we may see a likeness of jesus, is just chance, not design. "God did it" has no place in science.

In genesis the creative narrative says nothing of Penrose or astrophysics. It specifically says 'day' for the six days of creation, that's where your faith lies. It purposely is written as to imply god simply willed creation in an instant. That's why you try to appear as if you found some insightful compromise/reconciliation for the erroneous claims the biblical narrative makes but in the end lying to yourself is still deceit. 


If you truly loved your god and respected it you would heed its warnings: Proverbs 6:16-19:

There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: 17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, 18 a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, 19 a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.

@Factfinder
No one mentioned you directly.  Your quote was ambitious and so I did not use it.  No one took your words out of context.  I avoided them altogether.

When someone makes an argument that says well just because we don't know now, doesn't mean science isn't the solution, is indeed making a science of the gaps argument.  This happens frequently on this site.  I will provide some type of evidence - science facts, or medical journals, eye witness testimony, tv news reports, etc. and someone will respond, 'well, I don't believe it.  I'm sure science has the answer'.  That's a science of the gaps argument and it happens more frequently than the sun comes up on this site.  

I am pointing out that complexity is more probably related to an intelligence.  Logic suggests such.  So it isn't a faith argument.  A faith argument is that the universe created itself out of nothing like many atheists make.  Or that non-life created life - that's a faith argument.  

Now you have assumed things about my faith I have not argued for.  I have not argued that the universe was created in 6 days.  I have only argued that it is more likely from the evidence that the universe had a beginning from nothing/near nothing and that this is deduced from the logic of the big bang itself, that it is finely tuned, and that even simple life shows immense complexity that it is more likely an intelligence created the universe.  

I said 'we're here so obviously it happened...' then you say  "When someone argues that 'well since we are here..." italics included. Now we're supposed to believe my complete quote was too 'ambitious'? And wasn't in your mind at all, eh? I'm not buying what you're selling.

As previously explained; expressing reasonable confidence in the scientific method doesn't equate to your blind faith god of the gaps assertions, allusions, hints or what ever method of communicating you employ to say 'god did it'.

It is a complete faith argument because you HAVE said you don't have the faith to be an atheist. So you are looking for confirmation and affirmation of religious beliefs, specifically the bible. 

Which brings back to this: You do believe in the bible, the claimed infallible word of god yes? Correct me if that is only assumption on my part right now. Yes or no, is your faith placed in the christian bible? If not, I apologize for assuming. If so, you have some explaining to do because then that is exactly what your faith calls for you to believe.

MayCaesar

I am okay with people genuinely misunderstanding my argument - and I am free to provide clarification when they get it wrong. I am not okay with someone doing it consistently, brushing away any clarifications and insisting on me holding positions that I do not hold. The latter to me suggests that the person has a closed mind that is not prone to changing regardless of any evidence presented. 

I certainly have gotten other people's arguments wrong on numerous occasions. Whenever they corrected me though, I always apologized and accepted the correction. It seems like the very minimal display of respect I can extend to someone: to make sure that I listen carefully to them and update my view of their position as new information is revealed.

But take this claim by @just_sayin: "A faith argument is that the universe created itself out of nothing like many atheists make." I literally have never met anyone, atheist or not, who would make this argument. Not a single time. I have, however, on numerous occasions heard theists use the reverse statement as a counter-argument (to the argument that no one ever makes): "Something cannot come from nothing". So they are criticizing a position that almost no one holds.

This to me shows extreme disrespect and lack of intellectual curiosity. Even when talking with the most fundamentalist theists, I want to make sure that I understand their position well before replying to their arguments. It is unfortunate that this level of respect and intellectual curiosity is not reciprocated. Those theists do not seem interested in my actual views, just in their rough slice that they can shake and twist, then attack and feel good about themselves.

It is not an intellectual engagement, but an emotional one, driven by very lowly desires and insecurities.

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

I am okay with people genuinely misunderstanding my argument - and I am free to provide clarification when they get it wrong. I am not okay with someone doing it consistently, brushing away any clarifications and insisting on me holding positions that I do not hold. The latter to me suggests that the person has a closed mind that is not prone to changing regardless of any evidence presented. 

I certainly have gotten other people's arguments wrong on numerous occasions. Whenever they corrected me though, I always apologized and accepted the correction. It seems like the very minimal display of respect I can extend to someone: to make sure that I listen carefully to them and update my view of their position as new information is revealed.

But take this claim by @just_sayin: "A faith argument is that the universe created itself out of nothing like many atheists make." I literally have never met anyone, atheist or not, who would make this argument. Not a single time. I have, however, on numerous occasions heard theists use the reverse statement as a counter-argument (to the argument that no one ever makes): "Something cannot come from nothing". So they are criticizing a position that almost no one holds.

This to me shows extreme disrespect and lack of intellectual curiosity. Even when talking with the most fundamentalist theists, I want to make sure that I understand their position well before replying to their arguments. It is unfortunate that this level of respect and intellectual curiosity is not reciprocated. Those theists do not seem interested in my actual views, just in their rough slice that they can shake and twist, then attack and feel good about themselves.

It is not an intellectual engagement, but an emotional one, driven by very lowly desires and insecurities.

How are your interviews going?  You have never heard a person of faith claim that the universe created itself out of nothing.  Things that don't exist have no properties to create anything.  You may have heard someone claim God created the universe though.  I don't know if such a claim shows incredible disrespect of a person of faith, or just a misunderstanding of their point.  

Now scientists like Hawking and Krauss often used to claim the universe came from nothing.  "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," - Stephen Hawking

The Penrose-Hawking Singularity theorem or 'shuttlecock' theory isn't technically nothing, in that you are correct.  But the language that a universe came from nothing, has been used quite often.  You seem to get mad when you think people misunderstand you, but you seem to misunderstand or make assumptions about others quite a lot.  

Now I will again observe that it is the people of faith who seem to cite scientific evidence, medical reports, historical records, eye witness testimony, tv news reports, and video evidence to argue for their beliefs in God creating the universe, creating life, Jesus rising from the dead, or miracles, while the other side seems to talk about their feelings about those issues.  just sayin

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

Pretty amazing. I must say that part of it is that my interviewers actually listen to what I say, and when they offer criticisms, those criticisms relate to the arguments I made, not to something the interviewer imagined me say. Were it not the case, I would question my decision to try to break into this industry. A major part of its appeal to me is its extremely high standards of rigor and communication: you do not listen carefully to what your colleagues say or your competitors do - you are out. My kind of environment.

I have read Hawking's work. The quoted statement begins with "Because there is a law such as gravity...", so by "nothing" he does not mean the same "nothing" as you do when you say that something cannot come out of nothing, but "nothing" as in no physical matter. Physical matter is created in vacuum out of other particles all the time, and the whole subject of particle physics can be seen as a study of transitions between different energy modes. Two electromagnetic waves can collide and create an electron-positron pair.
If your claim that "something cannot come out of nothing" applies to the "nothing" that is not really "nothing", but that is this - then it is demonstrably wrong, and that is not the kind of claim I was talking about.

I do not get mad when people misunderstand me, as I said before. I get irritated, however, when people misunderstand me and then maintain that misunderstanding despite me explaining to them that they misunderstood me. To me that shows, as I said, extreme disrespect and lack of intellectual curiosity, and I happen to really dislike those things for various reasons.

Your last sentence is just another case in point. I have not said anything about my "feelings" about these issues, and I have explained exactly why (and on multiple levels) the cited events do not constitute evidence in favor of god's existence. And what do I get in return? Just more false claims about what I said/did.

It is unfortunate that my genuine attempts to have a constructive conversation on this with you or any other religious person on this website go nowhere because they could not care less about what I say. They only care about how they can maintain their point of view despite anything that happens. Speaking of the interviews, my go-to answer to the question, "What do you dislike in people the most?", is exactly this: close-mindedness, aka taking a position and refusing to ever question it. To me that is death of intellectual inquiry and personal development, and acceptance of mediocrity. I expect more of people than that.

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

@just_sayin

Pretty amazing. I must say that part of it is that my interviewers actually listen to what I say, and when they offer criticisms, those criticisms relate to the arguments I made, not to something the interviewer imagined me say. Were it not the case, I would question my decision to try to break into this industry. A major part of its appeal to me is its extremely high standards of rigor and communication: you do not listen carefully to what your colleagues say or your competitors do - you are out. My kind of environment.

I have read Hawking's work. The quoted statement begins with "Because there is a law such as gravity...", so by "nothing" he does not mean the same "nothing" as you do when you say that something cannot come out of nothing, but "nothing" as in no physical matter. Physical matter is created in vacuum out of other particles all the time, and the whole subject of particle physics can be seen as a study of transitions between different energy modes. Two electromagnetic waves can collide and create an electron-positron pair.
If your claim that "something cannot come out of nothing" applies to the "nothing" that is not really "nothing", but that is this - then it is demonstrably wrong, and that is not the kind of claim I was talking about.

I do not get mad when people misunderstand me, as I said before. I get irritated, however, when people misunderstand me and then maintain that misunderstanding despite me explaining to them that they misunderstood me. To me that shows, as I said, extreme disrespect and lack of intellectual curiosity, and I happen to really dislike those things for various reasons.

Your last sentence is just another case in point. I have not said anything about my "feelings" about these issues, and I have explained exactly why (and on multiple levels) the cited events do not constitute evidence in favor of god's existence. And what do I get in return? Just more false claims about what I said/did.

It is unfortunate that my genuine attempts to have a constructive conversation on this with you or any other religious person on this website go nowhere because they could not care less about what I say. They only care about how they can maintain their point of view despite anything that happens. Speaking of the interviews, my go-to answer to the question, "What do you dislike in people the most?", is exactly this: close-mindedness, aka taking a position and refusing to ever question it. To me that is death of intellectual inquiry and personal development, and acceptance of mediocrity. I expect more of people than that.

Regarding Hawking's 'nothing', I thought I had made it clear that he used the term 'nothing', but did have something in mind.  I pointed out the Penrose-Hawking non-boundary or shuttlecock theory.  I thought I was being clear about that.  My apologies if it wasn't as clear as I thought.  In the same sense Lawrence Krauss' nothing is something too.  Actually, his nothing, is much closer to what you are talking about than Hawking's 'nothing', if I understand you correctly.    

You said 'Physical matter is created in vacuum out of other particles all the time", I will only mention this in passing because I don't think, its that big of a deal, but if you are talking about virtual particles, that isn't fully accurate.  More accurately, The effects of virtual particles are real, but the particles themselves are not.  Here's an article to help you understand the distinction.  I'm sure you will appreciate this correction since you value accurately stating someone's position.  Might as well state it correctly - right?

Anyway, both the Penrose-Hawking no-boundary theory and Lawrence Krauss' theory that a quantum fluctuation created a universe have terminal problems with them.  Any system where there can be fluctuations that can trigger a universe coming into being, can't be past eternal and can't be stable for eternity past.  So, in essence, the no-boundary model either can't be past eternal, or has a boundary.  

Krauss' theory fails math.  The time that a virtual particle can exist that is big enough to bring an entire universe into existence is less than the time that it would take the fundamental forces to form, which means that inflation would never have occurred and the universe would have popped in and out of existence without ever being noticed.  Other issues have been brought up by the Boltsmann brains argument, and the fact that we should be observing a much smaller universe than we currently do.  

Now that I have talked about the science of the topic, go ahead and talk about how offended you were instead of addressing the science, like normal.      I sincerely hope you get the job of dreams.  On that we can agree.

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

If this is the kind of "nothing" you claim atheists attribute the origin of the Universe to (which I personally do not, but I know that some do), then I fail to see what is faith-y about it as you originally claimed. It is just a basic observation of the phenomenon of transition of energy from one form to another, something that even Ancient Greeks had noted.

I am not talking about virtual particles. I am talking about real particles, the ones I mentioned: electrons and positrons. Electrons are present in every atom which, in turn, is one of the fundamental building blocks of all matter. Everything you see around you is a consequence of electromagnetic waves spontaneously producing particle-anti-particle pairs.

I am not sure I understand your argument past the second paragraph. What is a "virtual particle big enough to bring an entire universe into existence"?
That our understanding of the earliest stages of the Universe is very poor is an understatement. Scientists (good ones, at any rate) have no trouble acknowledging that they do not understand something. They may be tempted to hastily patch it up with some cop-out, but such cop-outs rarely become mainstream. Unless we are talking about heavily politicized fields such as climate science or sociology, "Our theories have many issues" is a fine thing to say.

elijah44

@RickeyHoltsclaw, that is your opinion so I will not argue it.

Barnardot

@elijah44 ;@RickeyHoltsclaw, that is your opinion so I will not argue it.

Isn't that what debate is all about? People have different opinions and you argue them. 

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

@just_sayin

If this is the kind of "nothing" you claim atheists attribute the origin of the Universe to (which I personally do not, but I know that some do), then I fail to see what is faith-y about it as you originally claimed. It is just a basic observation of the phenomenon of transition of energy from one form to another, something that even Ancient Greeks had noted.

I am not talking about virtual particles. I am talking about real particles, the ones I mentioned: electrons and positrons. Electrons are present in every atom which, in turn, is one of the fundamental building blocks of all matter. Everything you see around you is a consequence of electromagnetic waves spontaneously producing particle-anti-particle pairs.

I am not sure I understand your argument past the second paragraph. What is a "virtual particle big enough to bring an entire universe into existence"?
That our understanding of the earliest stages of the Universe is very poor is an understatement. Scientists (good ones, at any rate) have no trouble acknowledging that they do not understand something. They may be tempted to hastily patch it up with some cop-out, but such cop-outs rarely become mainstream. Unless we are talking about heavily politicized fields such as climate science or sociology, "Our theories have many issues" is a fine thing to say.

May, it isn't that atheists don't have theories about the origin of the universe, its just they are all debunked.  I know of at least 2 dozen and I am sure there are more.  If you want to know what the problems with a particular theory, just go read one of the guys who supports a different theory.  You believe what you believe, in spite of the science, not because of it.  Its like our miracles discussion - when all the evidence pointed to the guys leg growing back or the woman being healed of blindness, unable to walk, and her internal organs healed you denied the evidence because it conflicted with your faith.  

Let's talk the virtual particle theory, popularized by Lawrence Krauss.  I say popularized, because the vacuum fluctuation model, first postulated by Edward Tryon, had been around since 1973 and had been discarded.  For a scientific detailed explanation of why this theory was discarded in the 1980's (See J.R. Gott III, 'Creation of Open Universes from de Sitter Space," Nature 295 (1982); 304-7) due to theoretical problems with the production mechanisms of matter, and internal coherence issues see Chistopher Isham, Creation of the Universe, 385 - 387.  
 
I know you know all of this, but for the novice, I'll mention it.  Essentially the idea is that there is a vacuum state with energy, from time to time, energy would concentrate, and a virtual particle somehow generates a material universe through magic (what the faithful would call a quantum mechanical phase transition) and a mini-universe is born. 

The problems are many:
1)  The math for something becoming material and staying material doesn't work
2) The time that a virtual particle with the energy to create a universe can exist is less than the time for the fundamental forces to form that would create inflation so the universe pops in and out of existence (well technically, they NEVER pop into actual observable existence).
3) It is much more likely that we should observe lots of instances of matter just popping into existence in our own universe - yet we never have.  This is the Boltzmann brain issue.
4) We should be seeing a much smaller universe no bigger than our own universe, for smaller build ups of energy are much more likely than larger 'pockets' of energy in a vacuum.
5) Given infinite past time, universes will eventually be spawned at every point in the primordial vacuum (doesn't matter how far apart they occur), and as they expand, they will begin collide and coalesce with one another.  Thus, given infinite past time, we should by now be observing an infinitely old universe not a relatively young one.  Christopher Isham called it a 'fairly lethal" to the view and most cosmologists agreed with him and the theory fell out of favor in the 80's  - See Christopher Isham, "Quantum Cosmology and the Origin of the Universe", Cosmos and Creation, Cambridge University, July 14, 1994.  

Do you want me to debunk the Hartle-Hawking model next - that's the one where he said that because gravity exists the universe will create itself out of nothing?  Can I just quote Vilenken's famous trashing of the theory?  He said it was just 'metaphysical cosmology' (See A. Vilenken, "Birth of Inflationary Universes," Physical Review D 27 (1983) 2854).  If you want to talk about why quantum gravity models don't work, I'll try and keep up with you.  As a mathematician I'd imagine you would quickly dislike this theory since even theoretically it only works with imaginary numbers- such as multiples of the square root of -1.  But I'm happy to talk about it.

Again, my observation is that atheists are more willing to believe theories that have been debunked by science than consider that there is an intelligence behind the creation of the universe or of the creation of life.  They would rather believe life came from non-life, though they can't explain it or replicate it, rather than believe the more probable view that complexity comes from intelligence.   

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

MayCaesar said:

@just_sayin

If this is the kind of "nothing" you claim atheists attribute the origin of the Universe to (which I personally do not, but I know that some do), then I fail to see what is faith-y about it as you originally claimed. It is just a basic observation of the phenomenon of transition of energy from one form to another, something that even Ancient Greeks had noted.

I am not talking about virtual particles. I am talking about real particles, the ones I mentioned: electrons and positrons. Electrons are present in every atom which, in turn, is one of the fundamental building blocks of all matter. Everything you see around you is a consequence of electromagnetic waves spontaneously producing particle-anti-particle pairs.

I am not sure I understand your argument past the second paragraph. What is a "virtual particle big enough to bring an entire universe into existence"?
That our understanding of the earliest stages of the Universe is very poor is an understatement. Scientists (good ones, at any rate) have no trouble acknowledging that they do not understand something. They may be tempted to hastily patch it up with some cop-out, but such cop-outs rarely become mainstream. Unless we are talking about heavily politicized fields such as climate science or sociology, "Our theories have many issues" is a fine thing to say.

May, it isn't that atheists don't have theories about the origin of the universe, its just they are all debunked.  I know of at least 2 dozen and I am sure there are more.  If you want to know what the problems with a particular theory, just go read one of the guys who supports a different theory.  You believe what you believe, in spite of the science, not because of it.  Its like our miracles discussion - when all the evidence pointed to the guys leg growing back or the woman being healed of blindness, unable to walk, and her internal organs healed you denied the evidence because it conflicted with your faith.  

Let's talk the virtual particle theory, popularized by Lawrence Krauss.  I say popularized, because the vacuum fluctuation model, first postulated by Edward Tryon, had been around since 1973 and had been discarded.  For a scientific detailed explanation of why this theory was discarded in the 1980's (See J.R. Gott III, 'Creation of Open Universes from de Sitter Space," Nature 295 (1982); 304-7) due to theoretical problems with the production mechanisms of matter, and internal coherence issues see Chistopher Isham, Creation of the Universe, 385 - 387.  
 
I know you know all of this, but for the novice, I'll mention it.  Essentially the idea is that there is a vacuum state with energy, from time to time, energy would concentrate, and a virtual particle somehow generates a material universe through magic (what the faithful would call a quantum mechanical phase transition) and a mini-universe is born. 

The problems are many:
1)  The math for something becoming material and staying material doesn't work
2) The time that a virtual particle with the energy to create a universe can exist is less than the time for the fundamental forces to form that would create inflation so the universe pops in and out of existence (well technically, they NEVER pop into actual observable existence).
3) It is much more likely that we should observe lots of instances of matter just popping into existence in our own universe - yet we never have.  This is the Boltzmann brain issue.
4) We should be seeing a much smaller universe no bigger than our own universe, for smaller build ups of energy are much more likely than larger 'pockets' of energy in a vacuum.
5) Given infinite past time, universes will eventually be spawned at every point in the primordial vacuum (doesn't matter how far apart they occur), and as they expand, they will begin collide and coalesce with one another.  Thus, given infinite past time, we should by now be observing an infinitely old universe not a relatively young one.  Christopher Isham called it a 'fairly lethal" to the view and most cosmologists agreed with him and the theory fell out of favor in the 80's  - See Christopher Isham, "Quantum Cosmology and the Origin of the Universe", Cosmos and Creation, Cambridge University, July 14, 1994.  

Do you want me to debunk the Hartle-Hawking model next - that's the one where he said that because gravity exists the universe will create itself out of nothing?  Can I just quote Vilenken's famous trashing of the theory?  He said it was just 'metaphysical cosmology' (See A. Vilenken, "Birth of Inflationary Universes," Physical Review D 27 (1983) 2854).  If you want to talk about why quantum gravity models don't work, I'll try and keep up with you.  As a mathematician I'd imagine you would quickly dislike this theory since even theoretically it only works with imaginary numbers- such as multiples of the square root of -1.  But I'm happy to talk about it.

Again, my observation is that atheists are more willing to believe theories that have been debunked by science than consider that there is an intelligence behind the creation of the universe or of the creation of life.  They would rather believe life came from non-life, though they can't explain it or replicate it, rather than believe the more probable view that complexity comes from intelligence.   

God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob 'did it' has been debunked as science. Scientific theory that gets revised, adjusted, or even abandoned as newer discoveries are made is the scientific process and is gathering evidence. All ala natural to this point. 

You do believe in the bible, the claimed infallible word of god yes? Correct me if that is only assumption on my part right now. Yes or no, is your faith placed in the christian bible? If not, I apologize for assuming. If so, you have some explaining to do because then that is exactly what your faith calls for you to believe. Six 'day' creation.

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

MayCaesar said:

@just_sayin

If this is the kind of "nothing" you claim atheists attribute the origin of the Universe to (which I personally do not, but I know that some do), then I fail to see what is faith-y about it as you originally claimed. It is just a basic observation of the phenomenon of transition of energy from one form to another, something that even Ancient Greeks had noted.

I am not talking about virtual particles. I am talking about real particles, the ones I mentioned: electrons and positrons. Electrons are present in every atom which, in turn, is one of the fundamental building blocks of all matter. Everything you see around you is a consequence of electromagnetic waves spontaneously producing particle-anti-particle pairs.

I am not sure I understand your argument past the second paragraph. What is a "virtual particle big enough to bring an entire universe into existence"?
That our understanding of the earliest stages of the Universe is very poor is an understatement. Scientists (good ones, at any rate) have no trouble acknowledging that they do not understand something. They may be tempted to hastily patch it up with some cop-out, but such cop-outs rarely become mainstream. Unless we are talking about heavily politicized fields such as climate science or sociology, "Our theories have many issues" is a fine thing to say.

May, it isn't that atheists don't have theories about the origin of the universe, its just they are all debunked.  I know of at least 2 dozen and I am sure there are more.  If you want to know what the problems with a particular theory, just go read one of the guys who supports a different theory.  You believe what you believe, in spite of the science, not because of it.  Its like our miracles discussion - when all the evidence pointed to the guys leg growing back or the woman being healed of blindness, unable to walk, and her internal organs healed you denied the evidence because it conflicted with your faith.  

Let's talk the virtual particle theory, popularized by Lawrence Krauss.  I say popularized, because the vacuum fluctuation model, first postulated by Edward Tryon, had been around since 1973 and had been discarded.  For a scientific detailed explanation of why this theory was discarded in the 1980's (See J.R. Gott III, 'Creation of Open Universes from de Sitter Space," Nature 295 (1982); 304-7) due to theoretical problems with the production mechanisms of matter, and internal coherence issues see Chistopher Isham, Creation of the Universe, 385 - 387.  
 
I know you know all of this, but for the novice, I'll mention it.  Essentially the idea is that there is a vacuum state with energy, from time to time, energy would concentrate, and a virtual particle somehow generates a material universe through magic (what the faithful would call a quantum mechanical phase transition) and a mini-universe is born. 

The problems are many:
1)  The math for something becoming material and staying material doesn't work
2) The time that a virtual particle with the energy to create a universe can exist is less than the time for the fundamental forces to form that would create inflation so the universe pops in and out of existence (well technically, they NEVER pop into actual observable existence).
3) It is much more likely that we should observe lots of instances of matter just popping into existence in our own universe - yet we never have.  This is the Boltzmann brain issue.
4) We should be seeing a much smaller universe no bigger than our own universe, for smaller build ups of energy are much more likely than larger 'pockets' of energy in a vacuum.
5) Given infinite past time, universes will eventually be spawned at every point in the primordial vacuum (doesn't matter how far apart they occur), and as they expand, they will begin collide and coalesce with one another.  Thus, given infinite past time, we should by now be observing an infinitely old universe not a relatively young one.  Christopher Isham called it a 'fairly lethal" to the view and most cosmologists agreed with him and the theory fell out of favor in the 80's  - See Christopher Isham, "Quantum Cosmology and the Origin of the Universe", Cosmos and Creation, Cambridge University, July 14, 1994.  

Do you want me to debunk the Hartle-Hawking model next - that's the one where he said that because gravity exists the universe will create itself out of nothing?  Can I just quote Vilenken's famous trashing of the theory?  He said it was just 'metaphysical cosmology' (See A. Vilenken, "Birth of Inflationary Universes," Physical Review D 27 (1983) 2854).  If you want to talk about why quantum gravity models don't work, I'll try and keep up with you.  As a mathematician I'd imagine you would quickly dislike this theory since even theoretically it only works with imaginary numbers- such as multiples of the square root of -1.  But I'm happy to talk about it.

Again, my observation is that atheists are more willing to believe theories that have been debunked by science than consider that there is an intelligence behind the creation of the universe or of the creation of life.  They would rather believe life came from non-life, though they can't explain it or replicate it, rather than believe the more probable view that complexity comes from intelligence.   

God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob 'did it' has been debunked as science. Scientific theory that gets revised, adjusted, or even abandoned as newer discoveries are made is the scientific process and is gathering evidence. All ala natural to this point. 

You do believe in the bible, the claimed infallible word of god yes? Correct me if that is only assumption on my part right now. Yes or no, is your faith placed in the christian bible? If not, I apologize for assuming. If so, you have some explaining to do because then that is exactly what your faith calls for you to believe. Six 'day' creation.

I've noticed that the atheists want to talk faith rather than address the scientific problems with their faith claims.  Wonder why?  That was sarcasm - we all know the science is bad for them.

This debate is  did abiogenesis happen.  If it is more probable that an intelligence created life, then it really doesn't matter if the time frame that life was created in was 6 days or 6 trillion years.  The point would be that an intelligence with the power to create a whole universe, that is timeless, spaceless, and immaterial because they did it outside of space-time, exists and made the universe.  

I don't want the debate to be hijacked by issues that are ancillary to the discussion.  So, I'll address your charge very  briefly.  Honestly, I don't know what my view is on the biblical view of creation.  I believe in miracles, the evidence, even when denied by atheists, is overwhelming.  So God could have created the universe in 6 days and given it the appearance of great age.  Such a miracle would not be subject to science.  There are lots of other Christian views on the creation account - the gap theory - where there is a gap between genesis 1:1-2, and the rest of the narrative, the epoch theory where the 'days' of creation are not literal 24 hour days - even a strict creationist would admit that the word 'yom' in Hebrew is used at least 4-5 different ways in the first 2 chapters of Genesis alone.  It is a generic word that can mean a 24 hour day or any period of time to describe a dynasty or epoch.  There are those that believe God used natural means and evolution to create the universe and would see the first 12 chapters of Genesis as mytho-history, in that it is not meant to be a scientific explanation of creation, but intended to explain biblical principles, and would point out several elements of the story that support that view.  So, in short, I don't know.  My salvation, nor any one else's is dependent upon an interpretation of the creation story. It is based on faith in the redeeming death and resurrection of Christ. So, the charge made is baseless.

I know that atheists don't want me to keep talking about the science of abiogenesis because it isn't good for their faith view.  So I get why others have tried to change the topic.  I'm comfortable with discussing the science with whoever though.  I don't think it necessary to pick a timeframe or even pick a specific God to win this debate though.   That's not the debate topic.  It is enough to show that it is more probable that the complexity of life is the result of an intelligence than by chaos.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

This debate is  did abiogenesis happen.  If it is more probable that an intelligence created life, then it really doesn't matter if the time frame that life was created in was 6 days or 6 trillion years.  The point would be that an intelligence with the power to create a whole universe, that is timeless, spaceless, and immaterial because they did it outside of space-time, exists and made the universe.  

Talk about abiogenesis all you want. No skin off my nose. But why lie to yourself and pretend we care what you think? 

It's you who are running from this: You do believe in the bible, the claimed infallible word of god yes? Correct me if that is only assumption on my part right now. Yes or no, is your faith placed in the christian bible? If not, I apologize for assuming. If so, you have some explaining to do because then that is exactly what your faith calls for you to believe. Six 'day' creation. Your baseless fairytale faith assertion that any evidence at all points to your mythical beliefs is delusion, not debate.

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

MayCaesar said:

@just_sayin

If this is the kind of "nothing" you claim atheists attribute the origin of the Universe to (which I personally do not, but I know that some do), then I fail to see what is faith-y about it as you originally claimed. It is just a basic observation of the phenomenon of transition of energy from one form to another, something that even Ancient Greeks had noted.

I am not talking about virtual particles. I am talking about real particles, the ones I mentioned: electrons and positrons. Electrons are present in every atom which, in turn, is one of the fundamental building blocks of all matter. Everything you see around you is a consequence of electromagnetic waves spontaneously producing particle-anti-particle pairs.

I am not sure I understand your argument past the second paragraph. What is a "virtual particle big enough to bring an entire universe into existence"?
That our understanding of the earliest stages of the Universe is very poor is an understatement. Scientists (good ones, at any rate) have no trouble acknowledging that they do not understand something. They may be tempted to hastily patch it up with some cop-out, but such cop-outs rarely become mainstream. Unless we are talking about heavily politicized fields such as climate science or sociology, "Our theories have many issues" is a fine thing to say.

May, it isn't that atheists don't have theories about the origin of the universe, its just they are all debunked.  I know of at least 2 dozen and I am sure there are more.  If you want to know what the problems with a particular theory, just go read one of the guys who supports a different theory.  You believe what you believe, in spite of the science, not because of it.  Its like our miracles discussion - when all the evidence pointed to the guys leg growing back or the woman being healed of blindness, unable to walk, and her internal organs healed you denied the evidence because it conflicted with your faith.  

Let's talk the virtual particle theory, popularized by Lawrence Krauss.  I say popularized, because the vacuum fluctuation model, first postulated by Edward Tryon, had been around since 1973 and had been discarded.  For a scientific detailed explanation of why this theory was discarded in the 1980's (See J.R. Gott III, 'Creation of Open Universes from de Sitter Space," Nature 295 (1982); 304-7) due to theoretical problems with the production mechanisms of matter, and internal coherence issues see Chistopher Isham, Creation of the Universe, 385 - 387.  
 
I know you know all of this, but for the novice, I'll mention it.  Essentially the idea is that there is a vacuum state with energy, from time to time, energy would concentrate, and a virtual particle somehow generates a material universe through magic (what the faithful would call a quantum mechanical phase transition) and a mini-universe is born. 

The problems are many:
1)  The math for something becoming material and staying material doesn't work
2) The time that a virtual particle with the energy to create a universe can exist is less than the time for the fundamental forces to form that would create inflation so the universe pops in and out of existence (well technically, they NEVER pop into actual observable existence).
3) It is much more likely that we should observe lots of instances of matter just popping into existence in our own universe - yet we never have.  This is the Boltzmann brain issue.
4) We should be seeing a much smaller universe no bigger than our own universe, for smaller build ups of energy are much more likely than larger 'pockets' of energy in a vacuum.
5) Given infinite past time, universes will eventually be spawned at every point in the primordial vacuum (doesn't matter how far apart they occur), and as they expand, they will begin collide and coalesce with one another.  Thus, given infinite past time, we should by now be observing an infinitely old universe not a relatively young one.  Christopher Isham called it a 'fairly lethal" to the view and most cosmologists agreed with him and the theory fell out of favor in the 80's  - See Christopher Isham, "Quantum Cosmology and the Origin of the Universe", Cosmos and Creation, Cambridge University, July 14, 1994.  

Do you want me to debunk the Hartle-Hawking model next - that's the one where he said that because gravity exists the universe will create itself out of nothing?  Can I just quote Vilenken's famous trashing of the theory?  He said it was just 'metaphysical cosmology' (See A. Vilenken, "Birth of Inflationary Universes," Physical Review D 27 (1983) 2854).  If you want to talk about why quantum gravity models don't work, I'll try and keep up with you.  As a mathematician I'd imagine you would quickly dislike this theory since even theoretically it only works with imaginary numbers- such as multiples of the square root of -1.  But I'm happy to talk about it.

Again, my observation is that atheists are more willing to believe theories that have been debunked by science than consider that there is an intelligence behind the creation of the universe or of the creation of life.  They would rather believe life came from non-life, though they can't explain it or replicate it, rather than believe the more probable view that complexity comes from intelligence.   

1) You are confusing atheists with cosmologists. There are cosmologists who are not atheists and who nonetheless are interested in studying the fundamental structure of this Universe from the scientific perspective - and there are atheists who either have ridiculous theories about said structure, or just do not care about that structure.

2) Every scientific theory has problems; few scientific theories that have been around for a while have been "debunked". What you see as "debunked", scientists see as open/unresolved question - which any theory must have, otherwise there is nothing left to talk about.

3) What do I believe?

4) I have never denied any evidence, although I certainly have questioned certain interpretations of certain pieces of evidence.

5) Sorry, but you have no understanding of virtual particles whatsoever. It is just a consequence of interaction of the wave-particle duality with the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Virtual particles are used routinely in calculations in nuclear physics and particle physics.
Virtual particles do not suggest that random things like brains would constantly pop up all over the place. That is a fantasy that contradicts basic calculations a good undergraduate student can perform. "Boltzmann brain" is a difficult issue for a variety of reasons, but this is not one of them.

6) There are countless cosmological models proposed that have not panned out; in my view, a little too many, and I have criticized the theoretical physics community for that on numerous occasions. I fail to see what it has to do with the present conversation. There have been hundreds millions gods humanity has proposed that have been discarded eventually, and you seem to be okay with the concept of god - so why the double standards?

7) I cannot speak for "atheists", but I go where the evidence leads. In the lack of evidence either way, I reserve the judgement, but for the practical purposes adopt the simplest model I can think of. 
This seems to be something you are completely unable to comprehend: the concept of reserving the judgement. That is where all of your other mistakes come from, I think. That one can try out a physical model and see that it fails to describe something, then just move on to working on a different one, rather than immediately concluding, "Oh, all of cosmology is just rubbish - religion X out of 2389472893 religions was right!" I know that this is how religion works; science works differently, and I understand if it is so hard for you to accept.

Bogan

@just_sayin

Just-sayin quote    Bogie,  that was a great question! 

I would have appreciated a great answer. 

 

Just-sayin quote    It is a little off the topic of did God create life, and more of the philosophical question of why did God create life. 

 Not really, it is a related concept.     If you think that God created life on an significant little planet, orbiting an insignificant star, in an insignificant galaxy, then you have to wonder why he created hundreds, possibly thousands, of billions of galaxies containing thousands of billions of stars, which human beings did not even know existed until around 100 years of our 200,000 year existence?   Then you have to wonder way God only revealed himself to human beings through his supposed "son:" only 2 thousand years ago?     Why did He not reveal himself to the Neanderthals, the Denisovans, the Cro Magnons, or the Homo Erectus?

 

Just-sayin quote      Yet, I think it is a great question.  I appreciate you thinking that I would know the mind of God.  I am flattered.  I don't pretend to claim that I do. 

Yeah, I anticipated you saying something like “How can I know the mind of God?” sort of thing. 

 

Just-sayin quote   I will try and answer your question though with my own opinion.  If God created the universe, then he existed outside of space-time and therefore existed eternally before time, and will exist eternally after spacetime ceases to exist. 

So, He was sitting around in outer space somewhere, thinking nothing, because there was nothing to think about, and then one sunny day He had the idea of creating everything out of nothing?     That is illogical. 

 

Just-sayin quote   Therefore God does not need me or you for him to be complete.  He didn't set around and say 'gosh I wish I had a friend like just_sayin or Bogie' and then decided to make the universe. 

It is illogical to suppose that a somehow an all powerful, self created God, who can make matter out of nothing, is sitting around in empty space, and then He creates everything out of nothing.

 

Just-sayin quote   I suspect that the answer is not that creating the universe, and us, benefits Him, but that it benefits us.  Each time that the issue is touched on in the Bible the response is  - we were made for His glory.  Don't misread this.  Its not alluding to his ego or self gratification.  In the purest sense for God's glory is to come to fully see and understand what God is like, to experience Him.    We don't add a thing to God, but our knowing God adds to our being.  You probably aren't going to like my answer, but that's my best guess from the Bible. 

 If I have to choose between two unknowns, then the one I choose is the one which makes the most sense.       Your position is, that a self created God, who has the rather incredible power to create matter out of nothing, for some reason decided to created hundreds of billions of galaxies containing thousands of billions of stars, and all for the benefit of human beings, who only a hundred years ago were completely unaware of how immense the universe really is?    That does not makes one whit of sense to me.     However, it is logical to suppose, that If an all powerful God does not need to be created, then the universe does not need to be created.

  My position is, I do not know how the universe came into being.     But I think that it is reasonable to say that matter always existed and it always will.   Especially, since this conforms to the First Law of Physics.   “Matter can not be created or destroyed.”     What made humans unique was that we are an intelligent life form which evolved from the soup of organic materials on Earth, and for all we know, we are the only intelligent life forms anywhere in the universe who are trying to make sense of the universe.       We evolved because the Earth was fortunately within “The Goldilocks Zone” of our sun’s orbit.     We were also very fortunate, because while Earth was still a planetesimal, we got into a collision with a Mars sized planetesimal which resulted in both fusing together, and earth getting a double dose of iron for our core.    This created our magnetic protection from the solar radiation, which would have prevented any life from forming on Earth.      It also created our unique moon, which was torn from the earth’s crust from the Collison.    This stabilised our planet’s rotation roughly in sync with planetary orbits, and resulted in our regular tides, which were instrumental in creating earthly evolution.

 In the centre of the Milky Way galaxy is a 2 billion solar mass black hole.     No God created that monster.    Any God who gets anywhere within a thousand light years of it is going to get sucked into it, and He is going to be converted into elementary sub atomic particles.   

Factfinder

@Bogan

Got give credit where it's due. Solid argument.

just_sayin

Bogan said:

Bogie said:
 Not really, it is a related concept.     If you think that God created life on an significant little planet, orbiting an insignificant star, in an insignificant galaxy, then you have to wonder why he created hundreds, possibly thousands, of billions of galaxies containing thousands of billions of stars, which human beings did not even know existed until around 100 years of our 200,000 year existence?   Then you have to wonder way God only revealed himself to human beings through his supposed "son:" only 2 thousand years ago?     Why did He not reveal himself to the Neanderthals, the Denisovans, the Cro Magnons, or the Homo Erectus?

A few observations - first who said man was the only thing God created?  Maybe life is throughout the universe created by God.  We know the Bible mentions angels, cherubim, seraphim, archangels, and Ezekiel and Revelation mention 4 other creatures that are about His throne.  Now the fact that God created a much bigger universe than needed only shows that God isn't limited in his abilities.  God made it out of nothing - you only have to worry about how much God made if His ability to make universes is limited.  So that seems like a weak grasp of an argument to me. 

You mention Neanderthals - who wore clothes, rode horses, buried their dead, used tools, drew pictures and married other humans.  In fact you have Neanderthal DNA - maybe a little more than most.   You should laugh there Bogie, like my great granny says 'if you don't learn to laugh at yourself, you'll miss most of the jokes in life'. You should laugh a lot more.  

 I don't know if what they knew of God.  If they had morals or the ability to  question the world around them - the idea of God was probably part of their existence..  However, any human born at any time is not without hope of God's redemption.  God saves those who were born before Jesus resurrection as well as those who came after.   

So, He was sitting around in outer space somewhere, thinking nothing, because there was nothing to think about, and then one sunny day He had the idea of creating everything out of nothing?     That is illogical. 

Who said God did nothing?  That's your imposing your view and agenda upon God.  

My position is, I do not know how the universe came into being.     But I think that it is reasonable to say that matter always existed and it always will. 

If you believe in the Big Bang then you know the universe is expanding.  When you reverse this, we can get back to a plank length for the initial state of the universe.  Now here is the math problem for you.  How much stuff (matter) can you fit in zero space?  Yes, you can phone a friend or use a lifeline if needed.  But do answer that question.  You said that matter always existed, but what evidence do you have that contradicts the big bang?  Logically you can't fit any matter into zero space.  But atheists believe in magic.

What made humans unique was that we are an intelligent life form which evolved from the soup of organic materials on Earth

This is a faith claim of yours.  Atheists are notoriously for claiming things which they can't prove.  The most basic proteins need about 20 different amino acids strands.  Scientists have never been able to make all 20 - The famous Miller experiment made 3 of them.  Later another 3 were made, but at unusable levels - but not the needed number in fact, a little known fact about Millers experiment is that in nature none of the amino acids would have formed because the chemical reactions that create them also destroy them.  he used a trap to prevent nature from happening.  When asked to explain how this would happen in nature he could not answer.

Actually water breaks down proteins into amino acids, it would have been more detrimental to the process than helpful, but you just want to believe in magic.  Would you like to talk about all the problems of creating chemical life and the original conditions of the earth - cause it won't help your faith claim that all you need is a little bit of water, minerals and some energy. - but I'd be happy to go into more detail.  That might be a useful thing to do.  

Factfinder

@just_sayin

  Now the fact that God created a much bigger universe than needed only shows that God isn't limited in his abilities. 

Wow, and you say atheists make claims of gap doctrine,  but how arrogant to admit god is an egomaniac. aren't you afraid you'll be struck down?

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

  Now the fact that God created a much bigger universe than needed only shows that God isn't limited in his abilities. 

Wow, and you say atheists make claims of gap doctrine,  but how arrogant to admit god is an egomaniac. aren't you afraid you'll be struck down?

A common argument of atheists has been that God didn't need to make such a big universe.  The logic behind such a notion is that God has limited resources or abilities.  I addressed that misconception. 

I do think that atheists often make science of the gaps appeals, especially when they are asked to explain how the universe created itself or how non-life made life.  Quite often atheists will admit that there aren't any definitive answers for these issues now, but they appeal that there are answers and science will one day discover them.  That's more of a faith claim.  

Factfinder, I don't see you as my opposition or enemy.  I hope you don't view me that way. 

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

I do think that atheists often make science of the gaps appeals, especially when they are asked to explain how the universe created itself or how non-life made life.  Quite often atheists will admit that there aren't any definitive answers for these issues now, but they appeal that there are answers and science will one day discover them.  That's more of a faith claim.  

Oh, but, my friend, I have explained it to you many times before: this is not the argument. The argument is simply that "we do not know the details". It is not that we will necessarily know them eventually; we might not. That we will is your addition.

1) "Universe created itself" is a sentence that makes little sense to me. It is possible that some atheists say something like that, but I have never had heard that from anyone personally, and I have probably talked to hundreds of people working in cosmology. Maybe they were all secretly theists, that is why.

2) It makes sense that, since, according to the observations, there was no life on Earth 4 billion years ago and there was 2 billion years ago, then something happened in between that populated it - and since all life is fundamentally made of the same matter as everything else in the Universe, it stands to reason that the origin of it is the same as origin of all other objects: ordering of matter under the influence of physical forces. That we do not know the details of that process and cannot replicate it in the lab does not negate this natural conclusion. We have replicated the vast majority of intermediate processes, so the hypothesis is quite promising.
On the other hand, that someone interfered and manually created life is quite an extraordinary claim, for nothing else of this kind has ever been observed by humankind. When we see entire clusters of galaxies that were created spontaneously, it is silly to assume that something as relatively small as life on Earth was created by something principally different.

None of this relies on faith: just basic conjectures. When you tell me that you came to meet with me in the DC from Gaithersburg, it is natural to assume that you took the I-270 to get there. I do not know if you did, and if you show me evidence on your GPS nav that you did not, then, sure, I will accept the correction - but in the lack of any information, why would I expect you to take anything other than the most convenient, the shortest, the most popular root?

What I would not expect is the god to teleport you from Gaithersburg to the DC. That would be interesting though, far more fun than a simple drive under the sun.

just_sayin

Argument Topic: Even when science says it doesn't work, trust me, science can make it work!!! - typical atheist

Atheists believe in abiogenesis.  But is this based on the science or on their faith in science?

Has anyone ever seen life start from non-life without intelligence guiding it? 

Nope.  

Has anyone solved the problem of there being no viable mechanism to generate a primordial soup?

No.  Atheists use to claim that the reducing atmosphere of the early universe was ideal for life.  We now know that was inaccurate.  The early atmosphere was probably volcanic in origin and composition, composed largely of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than the mixture of reducing gases assumed by the Miller-Urey model. Carbon dioxide does not support the rich array of synthetic pathways leading to possible monomers.  As University College London biochemist Nick Lane stated that the primordial soup theory “doesn’t hold water” and is “past its expiration date.”

The desperate atheist sometimes appeals to panspermia to try and avoid this issue, but there is no evidence of incoming bacteria, and moon rocks are sterile.   Moon rocks should be teeming with bacteria and viruses if panspermia produced life.  The science suggests that is not the case.

Has anyone formed the 20 to 22 amino acids that comprise proteins naturally and all in the same environment as would be needed for life?

Nope.  The Miller experiment initially claimed 3 amino acids present, and a later review found traces of 3 other ones but in very low amounts.  The reason Miller found in was because he created a trap to prevent the naturalistic reactions that would have destroyed the amino acids created.  That's the catch, the same reactions that create some amino acids are just as likely to destroy them also.  So Miller created a trap to prevent nature from doing its thing.  When asked where in nature this kind of trap would exist, Miller said he had nothing.  Even granting the formation of 6 amino acids by Miller, only 10 have ever been created by naturalistic means from scratch without the use of cells.  

Since it appears forming polymers requires a dehydration synthesis, have they been created in a puddle naturally without human assistance like Darwin said they could be?

No.  The National Academy of Sciences states, “Two amino acids do not spontaneously join in water. Rather, the opposite reaction is thermodynamically favored.”  Water breaks down protein chains into amino acids, it doesn't go the opposite direction.  

Has the problem with the lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information been solved?

No.  A bacteria has about 100+ genes and is consider way to complex to be LUCA. In fact scientists claim that LUCA would have had to have about 355 genes to be the ancestor of all known life - even more complex than bacteria or viruses.  If you have code (say DNA) you need a means to translate it (say RNA).  No one has solved how these could chemically happen especially without one another.  While a virus can copy itself - it can't do it without being inside another cell.  

Does the RNA World Hypothesis have definitive evidence that it works?

No.  A serious problem is that even if you can figure out how to make proteins you need a system to self-replicate.  In fact Stanley Miller said "The first step, making the monomers, that’s easy. We understand it pretty well. But then you have to make the first self-replicating polymers. That’s very easy, he says, the sarcasm fairly dripping. Just like it’s easy to make money in the stock market — all you have to do is buy low and sell high. He laughs. Nobody knows how it’s done."

Often scientists have postulated that RNA arose first - yet there are some massive problems with this issue.  1) RNA has never assemble by itself without human guided help.  And 2) RNA has not been shown to perform all the necessary cellular functions currently that are carried out by proteins, so it is inadequate by itself to perform these functions.  

Further, to explain the ordering of nucleotides in the first self-replicating RNA molecule, materialists must rely on sheer chance. But the odds of specifying, say, 250 nucleotides in an RNA molecule by chance is about 1 in 10150 — below the “universal probability bound,” a term characterizing events whose occurrence is at least remotely possible within the history of the universe.  (See See William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge University Press, 1998).)

 Biochemists have spent decades struggling to get RNA to self-assemble or copy itself in the lab, and now concede that it needs a lot of help to do either.

As New York University chemist Robert Shapiro puts it "The sudden appearance of a large self-copying molecule such as RNA was exceedingly improbable. … [The probability] is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck."

Unless the atheist is willing to admit miracles exist, it seems their faith is in vain.

Can the origin of the genetic code be adequately explained by unguided natural processes?

Nope.  DNA provides code for how to made a structure, while the RNA reads that and creates what the code calls for.  This system cannot exist unless both the genetic information and transcription/translation machinery are present at the same time, and unless both speak the same language.  

"[T]he link between DNA and the enzyme is a highly complex one, involving RNA and an enzyme for its synthesis on a DNA template; ribosomes; enzymes to activate the amino acids; and transfer-RNA molecules. … How, in the absence of the final enzyme, could selection act upon DNA and all the mechanisms for replicating it? It’s as though everything must happen at once: the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless. There may well be ways out of this dilemma, but I don’t see them at the moment."- Frank B. Salisbury, “Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution,” 

"Life’s three core processes are intertwined. Genes carry instructions for making proteins, which means proteins only exist because of genes. But proteins are also essential for maintaining and copying genes, so genes only exist because of proteins. And proteins—made by genes—are crucial for constructing the lipids for membranes. Any hypothesis explaining life’s origin must take account of this. Yet, if we suppose that genes, metabolism and membranes were unlikely to have arisen simultaneously, that means one of them must have come first and ‘invented’ the others.” - Jeff Miller

There are dozens more issues with abiogenesis, yet to the faithful atheist 'even when science says its impossible, trust us, its possible for science."  Got to love the complete science denial and science of the gaps logic there.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

Where all your arguments fail is assuming you know 'atheists'. 

As a non believer I'm not 'desperate' over the validity or accuracy of scientific theory.  Abiogenesis is a new science and so much isn't known. I'm sure along the way theories and hypothesis will come and go. Right now the theory is some form of abiogenesis possibly accounts for life. That's it. Science will continue to research, experiment, and discover. No big deal. 

Unbelief does not equal belief no matter how many times you claim it does. There is no such thing as 'science of the gaps' or any worship of such nonsense. Over use of such phrases and assertions of 'faithful atheists' is too ridiculous to take you serious. It's all silly attempts to put religiosity on par with scientific academia. Perhaps because you are desperate for science to fail; or prove a god? 

Now you've said your faith is not affected by old earth age. Please then, elaborate:  You do believe in the bible, the claimed infallible word of god yes? Correct me if that is only assumption on my part right now. Yes or no, is your faith placed in the christian bible? If not, I apologize for assuming. If so, you have some explaining to do because then that is exactly what your faith calls for you to believe. Six 'day' creation. Your baseless faith assertion that any evidence at all points to your mythical beliefs is delusion, not debate unless you can tell me how you reconcile things you believe with the things you don't.

Bogan

@just_sayin

I won't bother to refute your above argument point by point.     Instead, I will show how illogical it is by taking the overview.     Your article claims that it is impossible for the simplest forms of life to be created by natural forces?    Okay, then how is it that you believe that a god with super scientific powers, so great that he can apparently defy the laws of physics and create matter out of nothing, self create?      I find it a lot more easier to believe that the simplest forms of life can self create from a nutrient rich source and an energy source, than to believe that a super being with immense powers can do the same thing from nothing.    Hopefully, the next mission to Saturn will have detectors on it that can examine whether Saturn's moon Enceladus has life in the water clouds it is squirting into space.   If the spacecraft proves that life can exist on another heavenly body, then science will have pushed religious superstition back again.     And the religious people will have to think up another excuse to explain away how their faith got it wrong again.  .

just_sayin

@Bogan
I won't bother to refute your above argument point by point. 

Of course you won't refute my points because that would require you to use science, and you are an atheist - that's a anti-science position.  You are as likely to reference science as O.J. Simpson is to name Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman's actual killer.  

 Okay, then how is it that you believe that a god with super scientific powers, so great that he can apparently defy the laws of physics and create matter out of nothing, self create? 

Cause he's God.  SMH LOL.  Since God would have made all of space-time, he is outside of time and eternal and if he is powerful enough to make a universe then He doesn't seem to be limited in what He makes it out of.  Now that I stopped laughing at your useful question, I'll mention a common mistake in logic that atheists make - they assume God must have a beginning.  Only created things have a beginning. In philosophy they would refer to this as the necessary being discussion.  God is not dependent upon anyone or anything for His existence.  God created space-time, so God exists outside of time - therefore He is not limited by time, but its creator.  Thanks for the laugh, Bodie.   

Tell me when you want to have a discussion about the science of abiogenesis.  It would be great if you provided scientific evidence that it works.  You bring the process, I'll bring the water, minerals and electricity for you to make it.  LOL.

Barnardot

@just_sayin @Bogan ;Cause he's God.

Well put and that puts it all in a nut shell and you really dont have to say any thing else because this is truly an epiphony moment. You see you have the upper hand when it comes to talking about God because us mear mortals living here in realty land have to rely on complicated proper and thorough research and sound reasoning and care fully considered facts to arrive at the balanced and considered conclusion that there is no such thing as God and that its all a load of made up contrived deluded heap of canine excriment. 

And all you have to do is say cause hes God without any reason at all because God is God and that explains why you dont need any explanation at all. God is God pure and simple and you win the argument hands down without even beerly moving a finger or even the letting out the smallest of farts. Jesus efing Christ you nailed that one good and proper.

just_sayin

Barnardot said:

@just_sayin @Bogan ;Cause he's God.

Well put and that puts it all in a nut shell and you really dont have to say any thing else because this is truly an epiphony moment. You see you have the upper hand when it comes to talking about God because us mear mortals living here in realty land have to rely on complicated proper and thorough research and sound reasoning and care fully considered facts to arrive at the balanced and considered conclusion that there is no such thing as God and that its all a load of made up contrived deluded heap of canine excriment. 

And all you have to do is say cause hes God without any reason at all because God is God and that explains why you dont need any explanation at all. God is God pure and simple and you win the argument hands down without even beerly moving a finger or even the letting out the smallest of farts. Jesus efing Christ you nailed that one good and proper.

It is more probable that an intelligence is responsible for something as complex as DNA code than chaos.  That's logic.  Code needs a coder to make it.  I keep giving you anti-science atheists the opportunity to show me how to make life from scratch without human assistance and I haven't seen from any of you any proof that non-life can create life.  

you nailed that one good and proper.

Why thank you.  I'm always open for you to explain the science of abiogenesis to me.  Please go ahead.  

just_sayin

I know the atheists are going to hate this, but I am going to add some more science to the discussion.

One of the simplest life forms that we know of, parasitic bacterium Mycoplasma genitalium, would have needed about 256 genes. Assuming a modest 1000 or more base pairs long (the human gene is 24K long), and there is some space in between, so 256 genes would amount to about 300,000 bases of DNA. The probability of getting one DNA gene right by random chance is about one in 10 to the 89,900 power - essentially 0.  And yet one of the simplest life forms has 256 genes.  

@Bogan, I know you brag that you are the descendant of rocks.  But even rock heads are made up of genes, and without a complex means of replicating them,, the odds are zero that you are the by product of a one night rock stand.  LOL

But the atheist will say time and nature magic did it.  

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

I know the atheists are going to hate this, but I am going to add some more science to the discussion.

One of the simplest life forms that we know of, parasitic bacterium Mycoplasma genitalium, would have needed about 256 genes. Assuming a modest 1000 or more base pairs long (the human gene is 24K long), and there is some space in between, so 256 genes would amount to about 300,000 bases of DNA. The probability of getting one DNA gene right by random chance is about one in 10 to the 89,900 power - essentially 0.  And yet one of the simplest life forms has 256 genes.  

@Bogan, I know you brag that you are the descendant of rocks.  But even rock heads are made up of genes, and without a complex means of replicating them,, the odds are zero that you are the by product of a one night rock stand.  LOL

But the atheist will say time and nature magic did it.  

You do not know atheists. But you have me convinced. "Magic" could not have done it. All hail Aphrodite!

Bogan

@just_sayin

Just-sayin quote       Of course you won't refute my points because that would require you to use science, and you are an atheist - that's a anti-science position. 

 I don’t think that even Barnadot would be silly enough to claim that religion is pro science.    My opinion is, that science and superstition are polar opposites?       Oddly enough, it was educated religious people who were very interested in fossil collecting in the1800’s, until Darwin published ‘Origin of Species”, and they suddenly realised that their passion for fossil collecting could put their income stream right out of business.

Just-sayin quote      Tell me when you want to have a discussion about the science of abiogenesis.  It would be great if you provided scientific evidence that it works.  You bring the process, I'll bring the water, minerals and electricity for you to make it.  LOL.

 How about right now?     You are saying that you have scientific proof that abiogenesis is impossible?    But you yourself are proposing an abiogenesis explanation for the existence your own God.    So, what we have are two abiogenesis explanations as to why life formed on planet earth.     Your abiogenesis model claims that a God with powers beyond science, physics, or even rationality, self created and then went about creating the entire immense universe out of nothing, within the time it took for planet earth to make six rotations of it’s orbit.     Surely you can see that such a proposal is just plain bonkers?     

My abiogenesis model is infinitely more reasonable and logical.      That life on Earth, and probably on most other planets within the habitable zones of stars, started because it is probably an inevitable process.   It begins when a mineral rich fluid like water is exposed to an energy source, and it simmers away for billions of years.      To the best of my knowledge, this is the mainstream scientific opinion, at least according to the astronomy magazines that I read.      There may be religious scientists who oppose this mainstream view, but to the best of my knowledge, most scientists reject the claim that abiogenesis is impossible.     Some have even speculated that on some planets, life could be silicone based instead of carbon based.

 

Just-sayin quote      Cause he's God.  SMH LOL.  Since God would have made all of space-time, he is outside of time and eternal and if he is powerful enough to make a universe then He doesn't seem to be limited in what He makes it out of.  Now that I stopped laughing at your useful question, I'll mention a common mistake in logic that atheists make - they assume God must have a beginning.  Only created things have a beginning. In philosophy they would refer to this as the necessary being discussion.  God is not dependent upon anyone or anything for His existence.  God created space-time, so God exists outside of time - therefore He is not limited by time, but its creator.  Thanks for the laugh, Bodie. 

 Whatever strange matter that your God is composed of, He is still a life form.       You can not claim that abiogenesis is impossible, even in a nutrient rich environment, and then claim it is possible for your God to self create out of nothing.   

just_sayin

@Bogan
 I don’t think that even Barnadot would be silly enough to claim that religion is pro science.

Now Bogie, that was mean to lump me in with Barnadot.  My observation is that the complexity of life suggests an intelligence.  I have repeatedly pointed out how attempts to explain how even the simplest of structures has failed by thousands of intelligent scientists using billions of dollars of equipment and can't make happen what they say chaos created. 

But you yourself are proposing an abiogenesis explanation for the existence your own God.    So, what we have are two abiogenesis explanations as to why life formed on planet earth.     Your abiogenesis model claims that a God with powers beyond science, physics, or even rationality, self created and then went about creating the entire immense universe out of nothing, within the time it took for planet earth to make six rotations of it’s orbit. 

I think we are working with different definitions of abiogenesis.  The Oxford dictionary definition is:

the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.

I don't think God qualifies as 'inanimate'.  God is definitely alive.  Now, God did not create himself - he is an eternal being who created space-time.  And how long it took him I have not made claim about.  To me it is sufficient for this debate to only point out that it is more probable that complexity came from intelligence than chaos.

Whatever strange matter that your God is composed of, He is still a life form.       You can not claim that abiogenesis is impossible, even in a nutrient rich environment, and then claim it is possible for your God to self create out of nothing.   

Do you not see the self-contradicting sentences you wrote?  If God is a 'life form', ie - alive, then he is not inanimate as abiogenesis claims.  Or are you forgetting that the universe itself came from nothing?  Either way, it seems like you are confused.

Since you wanted to start our scientific discussion right now, how about you share the secret of how non-life created life - and include the specific details.  Don't be like atheists who say 'all you need is time, minerals, and energy'.  That's like saying 'just wait, magic will do it'.  At the end of the day, what you really do believe is that magic turned a rock into you.  You have ignored the odds of that happening naturally which are considered zero.  Do you know how much zero is?  Its the same amount as the number of scientific explanations that have been given that can explain in specific detail how life came from non-life.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

I'm not trying to be adversarial here, honestly. But now here's the issue. You've made claims that atheists don't want you to talk science to them because they believe in 'science of the gaps' whatever that's supposed to mean. There is no other way to infer from statements like those nothing but animosity in trying to make scientific fields and religious faith as equals where legitimacy in explaining nature is concerned. They are not on equal footing. Science isn't trying to prove anything, they're trying to learn and discover things in nature about nature. Faith has one goal, to prove a specific positive where the conclusion lies beyond nature. The two are polar opposites and aren't on equal footing. They're incomputable. Religious faith and science that is.

You've also made remarks about how time doesn't effect your faith in your god because it moves outside of the boundaries of time. Well I have asked several times now and you do not answer, why would the bible purposely use 'day' increments in the creation narrative? When it talks about the millennial reign it doesn't use 'days'.  I've also asked you if the christian bible is the source of your faith? You do not answer. I would really appreciate some elaboration here. Thanks.

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

I'm not trying to be adversarial here, honestly. But now here's the issue. You've made claims that atheists don't want you to talk science to them because they believe in 'science of the gaps' whatever that's supposed to mean. There is no other way to infer from statements like those nothing but animosity in trying to make scientific fields and religious faith as equals where legitimacy in explaining nature is concerned. They are not on equal footing. Science isn't trying to prove anything, they're trying to learn and discover things in nature about nature. Faith has one goal, to prove a specific positive where the conclusion lies beyond nature. The two are polar opposites and aren't on equal footing. They're incomputable. Religious faith and science that is.

You've also made remarks about how time doesn't effect your faith in your god because it moves outside of the boundaries of time. Well I have asked several times now and you do not answer, why would the bible purposely use 'day' increments in the creation narrative? When it talks about the millennial reign it doesn't use 'days'.  I've also asked you if the christian bible is the source of your faith? You do not answer. I would really appreciate some elaboration here. Thanks.

From my perspective, people who believe complexity came from chaos, believe it because they want to, not because the science has shown it to work - but they believe what they believe in spite of what science has shown .  If it worked then there would not be an appeal to a science of the gaps.  

With the scientific evidence we have and common logic, there are no specific details on how life could spontaneously generate from non-life, but we do see examples of complexity coming from intelligence.  When you look at code you assume there is a coder.  DNA is very much a biochemical language and probability suggests that some intelligence is more likely its origin.  

Factfinder

@just_sayin

God of the gaps and a dodge. Hoped for better.

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

God of the gaps and a dodge. Hoped for better.

Actually I made a logic argument about the probability of whether complexity is more likely to come from an intelligence or from chaos.  As far as presenting a science based argument not only have I done more than all the other atheists in this discussion, Rickey did more just by posting the image of a single cell and the complexity of it.  To be honest, the argument put forward by the atheists in this debate have been mostly personal attacks or attacks on faith in general.  The atheist who has made the best effort at adding some science to the discussion has been @Bogan.  Yep, it surprised me too - he put forward the example of a virus that has fewer genes than bacteria and no RNA.  Of course it can't replicate without being in a host cell so most think it came later, and he didn't explain how polymers or proteins or genes could form, but at least he made an effort.  

I have presented what the science says about abiogenesis and laid out several significant impediments for it that science has not been able to solve how that could have happened.  It seems like if abiogenesis was how it happened, then science wouldn't have so many areas where it can't find any way of it working - and that's with intelligent scientists working for decades with billions of dollars in technology to aid them to do what some claim happened without any intelligence or technology.  

A frequent refrain is that atheists follow the science.  Well, the science says abiogenesis doesn't work.  In reality, atheists made a science of the gaps appeal, when the science says it doesn't work, atheistic faith says just trust science, it has the power.  

You have sought to attack my faith in this discussion.  I keep trying to explain to you that there are several Christian interpretations of Genesis.  Some are literal six day creation scenarios, others are ancient earth, still others are ancient earth and pro-evolution.  To me, if it was shown definitively that abiogenesis happened, it would not destroy my faith.  I would simply acknowledge that God used nature to create everything.  However, the faith of the atheist is tied to only one conclusion, and so they must deny what the science says, with a huge hope like faith that science lied to them.  In actuality, I'm willing to follow the science, and atheists aren't willing to follow the science if it doesn't lead to the destination they want. just sayin

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

God of the gaps and a dodge. Hoped for better.

Actually I made a logic argument about the probability of whether complexity is more likely to come from an intelligence or from chaos.  As far as presenting a science based argument not only have I done more than all the other atheists in this discussion, Rickey did more just by posting the image of a single cell and the complexity of it.  To be honest, the argument put forward by the atheists in this debate have been mostly personal attacks or attacks on faith in general.  The atheist who has made the best effort at adding some science to the discussion has been @Bogan.  Yep, it surprised me too - he put forward the example of a virus that has fewer genes than bacteria and no RNA.  Of course it can't replicate without being in a host cell so most think it came later, and he didn't explain how polymers or proteins or genes could form, but at least he made an effort.  

I have presented what the science says about abiogenesis and laid out several significant impediments for it that science has not been able to solve how that could have happened.  It seems like if abiogenesis was how it happened, then science wouldn't have so many areas where it can't find any way of it working - and that's with intelligent scientists working for decades with billions of dollars in technology to aid them to do what some claim happened without any intelligence or technology.  

A frequent refrain is that atheists follow the science.  Well, the science says abiogenesis doesn't work.  In reality, atheists made a science of the gaps appeal, when the science says it doesn't work, atheistic faith says just trust science, it has the power.  

You have sought to attack my faith in this discussion.  I keep trying to explain to you that there are several Christian interpretations of Genesis.  Some are literal six day creation scenarios, others are ancient earth, still others are ancient earth and pro-evolution.  To me, if it was shown definitively that abiogenesis happened, it would not destroy my faith.  I would simply acknowledge that God used nature to create everything.  However, the faith of the atheist is tied to only one conclusion, and so they must deny what the science says, with a huge hope like faith that science lied to them.  In actuality, I'm willing to follow the science, and atheists aren't willing to follow the science if it doesn't lead to the destination they want. just sayin

You've presented rather clumsily what we don't know. That's not evidence of the supernatural, specifically your god. And you know it.

I do not attack your faith. I question it. What conclusion do you imagine imagine an unbeliever of your god would want? I personally don't care. You can't fathom that for some reason. If it turns out there is a god, so what? Right now no evidence suggest there is. Your faith and conjecture give you peace of mind, but I don't need it. I just like learning about the world I live in. 

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

God of the gaps and a dodge. Hoped for better.

Actually I made a logic argument about the probability of whether complexity is more likely to come from an intelligence or from chaos.  As far as presenting a science based argument not only have I done more than all the other atheists in this discussion, Rickey did more just by posting the image of a single cell and the complexity of it.  To be honest, the argument put forward by the atheists in this debate have been mostly personal attacks or attacks on faith in general.  The atheist who has made the best effort at adding some science to the discussion has been @Bogan.  Yep, it surprised me too - he put forward the example of a virus that has fewer genes than bacteria and no RNA.  Of course it can't replicate without being in a host cell so most think it came later, and he didn't explain how polymers or proteins or genes could form, but at least he made an effort.  

I have presented what the science says about abiogenesis and laid out several significant impediments for it that science has not been able to solve how that could have happened.  It seems like if abiogenesis was how it happened, then science wouldn't have so many areas where it can't find any way of it working - and that's with intelligent scientists working for decades with billions of dollars in technology to aid them to do what some claim happened without any intelligence or technology.  

A frequent refrain is that atheists follow the science.  Well, the science says abiogenesis doesn't work.  In reality, atheists made a science of the gaps appeal, when the science says it doesn't work, atheistic faith says just trust science, it has the power.  

You have sought to attack my faith in this discussion.  I keep trying to explain to you that there are several Christian interpretations of Genesis.  Some are literal six day creation scenarios, others are ancient earth, still others are ancient earth and pro-evolution.  To me, if it was shown definitively that abiogenesis happened, it would not destroy my faith.  I would simply acknowledge that God used nature to create everything.  However, the faith of the atheist is tied to only one conclusion, and so they must deny what the science says, with a huge hope like faith that science lied to them.  In actuality, I'm willing to follow the science, and atheists aren't willing to follow the science if it doesn't lead to the destination they want. just sayin

You've presented rather clumsily what we don't know. That's not evidence of the supernatural, specifically your god. And you know it.

I do not attack your faith. I question it. What conclusion do you imagine imagine an unbeliever of your god would want? I personally don't care. You can't fathom that for some reason. If it turns out there is a god, so what? Right now no evidence suggest there is. Your faith and conjecture give you peace of mind, but I don't need it. I just like learning about the world I live in. 

The debate is did abiogenesis actually happen, not did God create the world. God's creating life might be an inference of rejecting abiogenesis, but it is not the focus of the debate.   It isn't necessary for me to prove God to you.  It is sufficient to prove that it is unlikely that complexity came from chaos.  The science suggests that it is not possible.  If you think I'm wrong then just give the specific details of how non-life creates life.  

You have demanded that I affirm that creation occurred in 6 days, but the debate isn't about how long it took, but did it occur by abiogenesis.  You have projected a lot about my faith in that regard, claiming that I wasn't a good Christian for a set of beliefs I have not affirmed or denied.

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

God of the gaps and a dodge. Hoped for better.

Actually I made a logic argument about the probability of whether complexity is more likely to come from an intelligence or from chaos.  As far as presenting a science based argument not only have I done more than all the other atheists in this discussion, Rickey did more just by posting the image of a single cell and the complexity of it.  To be honest, the argument put forward by the atheists in this debate have been mostly personal attacks or attacks on faith in general.  The atheist who has made the best effort at adding some science to the discussion has been @Bogan.  Yep, it surprised me too - he put forward the example of a virus that has fewer genes than bacteria and no RNA.  Of course it can't replicate without being in a host cell so most think it came later, and he didn't explain how polymers or proteins or genes could form, but at least he made an effort.  

I have presented what the science says about abiogenesis and laid out several significant impediments for it that science has not been able to solve how that could have happened.  It seems like if abiogenesis was how it happened, then science wouldn't have so many areas where it can't find any way of it working - and that's with intelligent scientists working for decades with billions of dollars in technology to aid them to do what some claim happened without any intelligence or technology.  

A frequent refrain is that atheists follow the science.  Well, the science says abiogenesis doesn't work.  In reality, atheists made a science of the gaps appeal, when the science says it doesn't work, atheistic faith says just trust science, it has the power.  

You have sought to attack my faith in this discussion.  I keep trying to explain to you that there are several Christian interpretations of Genesis.  Some are literal six day creation scenarios, others are ancient earth, still others are ancient earth and pro-evolution.  To me, if it was shown definitively that abiogenesis happened, it would not destroy my faith.  I would simply acknowledge that God used nature to create everything.  However, the faith of the atheist is tied to only one conclusion, and so they must deny what the science says, with a huge hope like faith that science lied to them.  In actuality, I'm willing to follow the science, and atheists aren't willing to follow the science if it doesn't lead to the destination they want. just sayin

You've presented rather clumsily what we don't know. That's not evidence of the supernatural, specifically your god. And you know it.

I do not attack your faith. I question it. What conclusion do you imagine imagine an unbeliever of your god would want? I personally don't care. You can't fathom that for some reason. If it turns out there is a god, so what? Right now no evidence suggest there is. Your faith and conjecture give you peace of mind, but I don't need it. I just like learning about the world I live in. 

The debate is did abiogenesis actually happen, not did God create the world. God's creating life might be an inference of rejecting abiogenesis, but it is not the focus of the debate.   It isn't necessary for me to prove God to you.  It is sufficient to prove that it is unlikely that complexity came from chaos.  The science suggests that it is not possible.  If you think I'm wrong then just give the specific details of how non-life creates life.  

You have demanded that I affirm that creation occurred in 6 days, but the debate isn't about how long it took, but did it occur by abiogenesis.  You have projected a lot about my faith in that regard, claiming that I wasn't a good Christian for a set of beliefs I have not affirmed or denied.

What are you talking about? I made no such claims about your faith. I've inquired an elaboration on it, duh. Your argument is based on the universe having a designer, indicating intelligence. So what specific intelligence do you have in mind? Why?

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

Have you noticed it how a particular brand of Christians constantly makes sweeping claims about atheists - and then applies them to every individual? It is very hard to make any progress in conversations with them when their expectation of what an atheist should believe overrides what the particular individual clearly says.