Support NeoGAF

[Log4Girlz]

Keep the faith, bro!

Absolutely, Jesus will materialize in the lab and wave his magic wand...oh no wait what I meant to say was that science has some very solid ideas as to the origination of life and what the basic building blocks are, it is inevitable that we recreate it, whether it be 20 years from now, or 50, or 100. There is nothing barring us except time.

Or do you believe it is impossible and only god can create life?

 

[BladeoftheImmortal]

God, I love throwing quotes like this back at people.

 

[Bungalow Bob]

for all intents and purposes Jesus was a con artist
the most notorious con artist of all time

I know you're not a Christian, but just taking the Bible as fiction, how can the Jesus character be considered to be good?

 

[rdrr gnr]

God, I love throwing quotes like this back at people.

Nothing is more misconstrued, abused, and obfuscated in contemporary political discourse than the religious views of our founding fathers. It verges on the unbearable to anyone who has ever read anything ever about anything. I bet you she just saw it said 'Ben Franklin' and assumed it was positive.

 

[astroturfing]

Absolutely, Jesus will materialize in the lab and wave his magic wand...oh no wait what I meant to say was that science has some very solid ideas as to the origination of life and what the basic building blocks are, it is inevitable that we recreate it, whether it be 20 years from now, or 50, or 100. There is nothing barring us except time.

Or do you believe it is impossible and only god can create life?

i took a course in astrobiology recently and it was fascinating, certainly seemed to me that we have made a lot of progress in recent years trying to figure out how life came about. that whole RNA world thing and stuff. and how our very idea of what is life is a complicated issue. there most likely was a stage between non-life and life that wasn't quite either. that life is a spectrum, there can be things that are "kinda alive", but not quite. like viruses. and whatever viruses evolved from. in any case, carbon sure is a wonderful thing.

i wish i was an expert on this stuff, and i should've paid more attention during the lectures i tried though.

 

[Satyamdas]

Absolutely, Jesus will materialize in the lab and wave his magic wand...oh no wait what I meant to say was that science has some very solid ideas as to the origination of life and what the basic building blocks are, it is inevitable that we recreate it, whether it be 20 years from now, or 50, or 100. There is nothing barring us except time.

Or do you believe it is impossible and only god can create life?

I believe you closely resemble that which you claim to despise. My beliefs on the origin of life are irrelevant.

 

[beastmode]

am i a theist if i have very vague suspicions of the universe fitting new age/buddhist/near-death experience/astrology ideas? because i feel like if i say i'm a theist then people will assume i'm a christian who dismisses anything that doesn't fit the religious dogma, an atheist who rejects everything that isn't endorsed by richard dawkins types, or an agnostic that can't decide between the two.

 

[rdrr gnr]

am i a theist if i have very vague suspicions of the universe fitting new age/buddhist/near-death experience/astrology ideas?

Is this for the sake of argument?

 

[astroturfing]

am i a theist if i have very vague suspicions of the universe fitting new age/buddhist/near-death experience/astrology ideas? because i feel like if i say i'm a theist then people will assume i'm a christian who dismisses anything that doesn't fit the religious dogma, an atheist who rejects everything that isn't endorsed by richard dawkins types, or an agnostic that can't decide between the two.

astrology is the world's oldest religion (you can thank the Assyrians for that), so yeah.. you're a delusional religious nut j/k lol. but seriously astrology is nonsense.

also, "near-death experiences" are already proven to be just brain-induced trickery. shouldn't affect your worldview any more than optical illusions.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I believe you closely resemble that which you claim to despise. My beliefs on the origin of life are irrelevant.

Well let's see, the camp I despise bases their beliefs on a per-conceived notion, while the camp I belong to does work to progress human knowledge as a whole. And its this trust in progress, and change that makes me confident to make such a prediction. We are currently unable to create life from constituent molecules...we posit it is possible based on hard earned knowledge in various distinct fields. It was not passed down through the millennia as a cultural relic. Progress has been made and will continue to be made.

Do you doubt this? What are your feelings on the subject of science's progress towards creating life from constituent, non-living molecules?

 

[Mario]

Interesting that so many of the people who bleat on and on about believing nothing sans "empirical evidence" or that which can be "proven", are somehow very ready to accept something fantastical like abiogenesis in spite of the fact that we have never seen one instance of life arising from non-living matter. Not one.

a) abiogenesis as an overarching scientific theory has many component areas which are incomplete, and I doubt many would dispute that. It is NOT generally accepted as "proven", nor is it being pushed as such by anyone here.

b) based on what we know about abiogenesis, its occurence in nature is reliant on a mix of chemical and environmental conditions only present in an earlier stage of Earth's development. We are not living at a time where our current understanding of abiogensis allows it to occur naturally.

c) even if we were living we were living in a time where the conditions were appropriate for natural abiogenesis, it would be microscopic and detecting it (rather than creating it) would be very difficult

d) parts of the chain in moving from basic organic materials to "life" have been recreated in the lab. While an end to end recreation has not taken place, we know that certain stages along the chain are possible.

e) we are here. Life has arisen at least once. There is no there is no competing scientific hypothesis or theory which offers a plausible or superior scientific alternative to abiogenesis. At worst dismissing abiogensis completely and merely saying "we don't know" is still rationally superior to saying "God did it".


Here are two short, high level videos which can help you learn more about our current understanding of abiogenesis and will expand on my above points

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg


In summary, abiogenesis is certainly not as "fantasical" as you suggest, and is certainly less fantasical than the Christian account of Creation.

 

[Uchip]

I believe you closely resemble that which you claim to despise. My beliefs on the origin of life are irrelevant.

its not even remotely close to faith
more like an expectation
Faith requires no proof, of which we have plenty of proof that our understanding is ever expanding on the subject of microbiology

 

[jaxword]

It'd be interesting if SOPA passed and then some senator along the line realized he could get massive votes by declaring atheist talk as offensive and thus blockable.

 

[SpartanAGM]

for all intents and purposes Jesus was a con artist
the most notorious con artist of all time

You need to learn what words mean before you use them.

Con artists are self serving liars.

A. There is no eye witness testimony or historical evidence that Jesus lied about anything...in fact there are numerous accounts to the contrary.
B. Jesus' actions ultimately lead to his crucifixion. This isn't self serving behavior. No political or military power or aspirations. You don't gain anything by dying painfully as the poor son of a carpenter.

So to use the word con artists to describe Jesus is both inaccurate and hysterical. You need to use more appropriate terminology if you're going to make blanket statements in the future.

 

[Mario]

I wouldn't suggest Jesus was a con artist necessarily, but...

A. There is no eye witness testimony or historical evidence that Jesus lied about anything...in fact there are numerous accounts to the contrary.

I believe most modern scholars would suggest there are no first hand eye witness accounts of Jesus at all. At the very least, any documentations was created years or decades after the fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible

B. Jesus' actions ultimately lead to his crucifixion. This isn't self serving behavior. No political or military power or aspirations. You don't gain anything by dying painfully as the poor son of a carpenter.

The nature of his death does not necessarily speak to the character of his actions during his life. There have been many "evil" dictators who have died in cruel and inhumane ways after falling from power for example.

 

[Satyamdas]

Well let's see, the camp I despise bases their beliefs on a per-conceived notion, while the camp I belong to does work to progress human knowledge as a whole. And its this trust in progress, and change that makes me confident to make such a prediction. We are currently unable to create life from constituent molecules...we posit it is possible based on hard earned knowledge in various distinct fields. It was not passed down through the millennia as a cultural relic. Progress has been made and will continue to be made.

Do you doubt this? What are your feelings on the subject of science's progress towards creating life from constituent, non-living molecules?

1) I doubt that life will be created in a lab from inert matter. I have no reason to believe that this will be possible now or at any time in the future based on our current understandings or progress in this field.

2) My feelings are that the progress is basically nonexistent. The best we can do is to create the precursors to proteins that we know are present in life forms. This is like building a 3 foot high staircase and then claiming that we will definitely be able to build a staircase to the moon someday. The leaps you are making in claiming that it is a certainty or a foregone conclusion that life will be created in a lab (never mind your ridiculous 20 year claim) can only be said to rest on faith. There is nothing close to supporting such a claim.

a) abiogenesis as an overarching scientific theory has many component areas which are incomplete, and I doubt many would dispute that. It is NOT generally accepted as "proven", nor is it being pushed as such by anyone here.

b) based on what we know about abiogenesis, its occurence in nature is reliant on a mix of chemical and environmental conditions only present in an earlier stage of Earth's development. We are not living at a time where our current understanding of abiogensis allows it to occur naturally.

c) even if we were living we were living in a time where the conditions were appropriate for natural abiogenesis, it would be microscopic and detecting it (rather than creating it) would be very difficult

d) parts of the chain in moving from basic organic materials to "life" have been recreated in the lab. While an end to end recreation has not taken place, we know that certain stages along the chain are possible.

e) we are here. Life has arisen at least once. There is no there is no competing scientific hypothesis or theory which offers a plausible or superior scientific alternative to abiogenesis. At worst dismissing abiogensis completely and merely saying "we don't know" is still rationally superior to saying "God did it".


Here are two short, high level videos which can help you learn more about our current understanding of abiogenesis and will expand on my above points

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg


In summary, abiogenesis is certainly not as "fantasical" as you suggest, and is certainly less fantasical than the Christian account of Creation.

I know plenty about the subject, and for all your points the conclusion remains the same. We have exactly zero evidence to support the theory of abiogenesis. We have undeniable, overwhelming, 100% verifiable evidence to the contrary. That life comes from life.

I don't subscribe to the Christian account of creation, but in my estimation both scenarios (God did it vs. Nothing did it) are equally fantastical.

its not even remotely close to faith
more like an expectation
Faith requires no proof, of which we have plenty of proof that our understanding is ever expanding on the subject of microbiology

So Log's unfounded belief that life will be created within 20 years in a laboratory is somehow not an example of faith in science. It's just an expectation. Man I love irony. Sogood.gif

 

[NEOPARADIGM]

am i a theist if ...

You're a theist if you believe the term "God" refers to something real.

"Everything that we sense and perceive comes from God and nowhere else." If you think that's a true statement, you're a theist.

Etc.

i feel like if i say i'm a theist then people will assume i'm a christian

But you're not, so .... ??

 

[Uchip]

(God did it vs. Nothing did it) are equally fantastical.

what? nobody ever claimed that nothing did it
or do you have faith that it will never be discovered?

 

[astroturfing]

kinda related:

your storytelling brain.

our brains just aren't trustworthy when it comes to religious beliefs. we are wired to believe fiction.

 

[Uchip]

You need to learn what words mean before you use them.

Con artists are self serving liars.

A. There is no eye witness testimony or historical evidence that Jesus lied about anything...in fact there are numerous accounts to the contrary.
B. Jesus' actions ultimately lead to his crucifixion. This isn't self serving behavior. No political or military power or aspirations. You don't gain anything by dying painfully as the poor son of a carpenter.

So to use the word con artists to describe Jesus is both inaccurate and hysterical. You need to use more appropriate terminology if you're going to make blanket statements in the future.

way to take an obvious joke seriously
though events like turning water into wine are quite obviously falsified

 

[Satyamdas]

what? nobody ever claimed that nothing did it
or do you have faith that it will never be discovered?

So............ aliens?

 

[Mario]

I know plenty about the subject, and for all your points the conclusion remains the same. We have exactly zero evidence to support the theory of abiogenesis. We have undeniable, overwhelming, 100% verifiable evidence to the contrary. That life comes from life.

You don't know as much as you think if you are suggesting there is "zero evidence" to support abiogenesis. We know and have replicated steps in the abiogensis chain. It is incomplete. But it is not "zero".

The theory of gravity is incomplete too.

Also, observations of "life comes from life" do not undermine the statement of abiogenesis. "Life comes from life" is as useful a sentence as "everything created must have a Creator".

I don't subscribe to the Christian account of creation, but in my estimation both scenarios (God did it vs. Nothing did it) are equally fantastical.

Theories of abiogenesis do not posit that "life arose from nothing" at all.

 

[astroturfing]

I know plenty about the subject, and for all your points the conclusion remains the same. We have exactly zero evidence to support the theory of abiogenesis. We have undeniable, overwhelming, 100% verifiable evidence to the contrary. That life comes from life.

what is life? are viruses life, or just kinda life? there is no scientific consensus on what constitutes life.

 

[Uchip]

So............ aliens?

im thoroughly convinced that you are just a troll

 

[beastmode]

astrology is the world's oldest religion (you can thank the Assyrians for that), so yeah.. you're a delusional religious nut j/k lol. but seriously astrology is nonsense.

also, "near-death experiences" are already proven to be just brain-induced trickery. shouldn't affect your worldview any more than optical illusions.

popular astrology is worthless. but after taking the time to look into the more serious variety, it's impossible for me not to believe in it. all the information i've gleaned from it about myself, my relationships with other specific people has been true. as for why it doesn't work in the 1 or 2 (that's it) scientific experiments, i don't know. but that's not enough to change my own personal opinion on the matter. the popular scentific consensus on weight gain at the moment is completely wrong, and that's a subject that has had much more attention and much more evidence in favor of the the consensus being wrong than astrology.

and about near-death experiences, it seems to go agianst occam's razor to assume that hallucinations that all show similar events happening to people after death would occur during cardiac arrest when the brain is not functioning at all. the brain-induced trickery explaination is more of a way of trying to ignore evidence against the popular "no conciousness after the body dies" hypothesis than fact, as i see it anyway.

you believe i should fall into the "theist" category for believing in the above? theism and athiesm are only stances on the existence of at least one diety or not. but they've become very loaded words, much like socialism or anarchism. i think it would be very beneficial if we could find new terms, as atheists main arguements against theists are about the silly christian god and have very little to do with say, buddhism which says there is no god who creates the universe. that would appear to be very much like actual atheism but not the common use of the term, and the same with theism but reversed.

You're a theist if you believe the term "God" refers to something real.

"Everything that we sense and perceive comes from God and nowhere else." If you think that's a true statement, you're a theist.

Etc.



But you're not, so .... ??

if i'm asked if i'm an atheist or not, i have no clue how to respond. it's the same with saying i'm an anarchist, many people would assume i'm a proponent of anarchy.

 

[Freezie KO]

for all your points the conclusion remains the same.

That's what points do. They support a conclusion.

We have exactly zero evidence to support the theory of abiogenesis.

How do you look the first video, explaining how nucleotides might have formed in the early conditions of life and tested in a lab, and then proceed to say there's "zero evidence"? Or the second video about how replication can begin?

(aside from the obvious explanation that (1) that you didn't watch the videos, and (2) your understanding of chemistry comes from a book with five elements.

We have undeniable, overwhelming, 100% verifiable evidence to the contrary. That life comes from life.

We also have evidence that all this life is composed of natural materials. So why should we think that a supernatural force brought them together? It's not simple as saying "life comes from life." Replication happens. Evolution happens. We know this. We're just trying to figure out the earliest of early steps. And as has been stated, "life" versus "non-life" might be a false dichotomy anyway, as has been stated (see: viruses).

 

[Satyamdas]

You don't know as much as you think if you are suggesting there is "zero evidence" to support abiogenesis. We know and have replicated steps in the abiogensis chain. It is incomplete. But it is not "zero".

The theory of gravity is incomplete too.

Also, observations of "life comes from life" do not undermine the statement of abiogenesis. "Life comes from life" is as useful a sentence as "everything created must have a Creator".

Our ability to create amino acids is not evidence that life arises from nonliving matter. I'm sorry that you refuse to acknowledge that the theory is purely speculative, but that's not my problem.

Theories of abiogenesis do not posit that "life arose from nothing" at all.

Of course not, they posit that life arose from inorganic matter. That is obviously something. The theory is that a random collision of chemicals produced the spark of life, and that no agent or intelligence was involved. In other words, nothing caused it to happen, it just did, like, randomly.

 

[Log4Girlz]

1) I doubt that life will be created in a lab from inert matter. I have no reason to believe that this will be possible now or at any time in the future based on our current understandings or progress in this field.

2) My feelings are that the progress is basically nonexistent. The best we can do is to create the precursors to proteins that we know are present in life forms. This is like building a 3 foot high staircase and then claiming that we will definitely be able to build a staircase to the moon someday. The leaps you are making in claiming that it is a certainty or a foregone conclusion that life will be created in a lab (never mind your ridiculous 20 year claim) can only be said to rest on faith. There is nothing close to supporting such a claim.


I know plenty about the subject, and for all your points the conclusion remains the same. We have exactly zero evidence to support the theory of abiogenesis. We have undeniable, overwhelming, 100% verifiable evidence to the contrary. That life comes from life.

I don't subscribe to the Christian account of creation, but in my estimation both scenarios (God did it vs. Nothing did it) are equally fantastical.


So Log's unfounded belief that life will be created within 20 years in a laboratory is somehow not an example of faith in science. It's just an expectation. Man I love irony. Sogood.gif

It is not based on faith, but a trust in the efforts of scientists the globe over. I can be wrong, these discoveries can take longer.

If life comes from life, then how do you propose life began, does life beget life backwards into infinity? Or did it start somehow.

Is the thought that basic molecules arising to becoming life forms in early conditions on earth truly as fantastical as a being creating life from its thoughts? Do you really believe that?

 

[Mario]

Our ability to create amino acids is not evidence that life arises from nonliving matter. I'm sorry that you refuse to acknowledge that the theory is purely speculative, but that's not my problem.

I have said multiple times it is incomplete. But we have replicated aspects of the process in a real and practical way, meaning it is not purely speculative.

Of course not, they posit that life arose from inorganic matter. That is obviously something.

Wrong. Abiogenesis posits life arose from organic compounds.

Look up what organic compounds are before you respond.

The theory is that a random collision of chemicals produced the spark of life, and that no agent or intelligence was involved. In other words, nothing caused it to happen, it just did, like, randomly.

Wrong. Abiogensis posits necessary chemical reactions occured within favourable environmental conditions. The materials, the environment, and the mechanics of chemical interactions over time are not "nothing".

 

[DCKing]

Artificial Intelligence can be called synthetic life, and it can also replicate itself. This has absolutely nothing to do with being able to create life from inert matter. No progress has been made on that front since Urey-Miller in 1953, I'm sorry.

This is completely untrue. Various experiments have shown self replicating molecules, even resembling shorter versions of RNA, are generated from basic organic molecules.

Even if without any evidence, abiogenesis would still be the preferred theory because of Occam's Razor.

Please check your facts first if you want to continue your condescending tone.

 

[Uchip]

This is completely untrue. Various experiments have shown self replicating molecules, even resembling shorter versions of RNA, are generated from basic organic molecules.

Even if without any evidence, abiogenesis would still be the preferred theory because of Occam's Razor.

Please check your facts first if you want to continue your condescending tone.

he cant
wikipedia is on blackout

 

[astroturfing]

popular astrology is worthless. but after taking the time to look into the more serious variety, it's impossible for me not to believe in it. all the information i've gleaned from it about myself, my relationships with other specific people has been true. as for why it doesn't work in the 1 or 2 (that's it) scientific experiments, i don't know. but that's not enough to change my own personal opinion on the matter. the popular scentific consensus on weight gain at the moment is completely wrong, and that's a subject that has had much more attention and much more evidence in favor of the the consensus being wrong than astrology.

and about near-death experiences, it seems to go agianst occam's razor to assume that hallucinations that all show similar events happening to people after death would occur during cardiac arrest when the brain is not functioning at all. the brain-induced trickery explaination is more of a way of trying to ignore evidence against the popular "no conciousness after the body dies" hypothesis than fact, as i see it anyway.

you believe i should fall into the "theist" category for believing in the above? theism and athiesm are only stances on the existence of at least one diety or not. but they've become very loaded words, much like socialism or anarchism. i think it would be very beneficial if we could find new terms, as atheists main arguements against theists are about the silly christian god and have very little to do with say, buddhism which says there is no god who creates the universe. that would appear to be very much like actual atheism but not the common use of the term, and the same with theism but reversed.if i'm asked if i'm an atheist or not, i have no clue how to respond. it's the same with saying i'm an anarchist, many people would assume i'm a proponent of anarchy.

there is a serious variety of astrology? you're kidding me. give me at least 5 examples of serious non-silly astrological arguments. don't selfishly hold on to such imporant info, i/we need to know this shit!

all near-death experiences are the same? not really, most of the stories i've heard are different. some see a dead relative, some see their chosen version of god, some see only light, some see a tunnel... etc. i think it's safe to assume that you'll see whatever is your expectation/hope. i'm pretty sure that if i have such an experience, i will see bright lights or events from my life passing by, or feel the presence of "something" bigger than me. simply because that is my expectation. i will know that those will be just hallucinations though, no matter how powerful and how real they feel. because the brain is a powerful thing, ask any lucid dreamer... so tell me, what evidence exactly is there that these experiences come from outside the brain? nothing as far as i know. you claim there is evidence, so please show me.

 

[Satyamdas]

It is not based on faith, but a trust in the efforts of scientists the globe over. I can be wrong, these discoveries can take longer.

If life comes from life, then how do you propose life began, does life beget life backwards into infinity? Or did it start somehow.

Is the thought that basic molecules arising to becoming life forms in early conditions on earth truly as fantastical as a being creating life from its thoughts? Do you really believe that?

I'm not proposing anything. I'm pointing out that people who claim to operate solely on the basis of empirical evidence and that which can be proven, will gladly believe something which has no empirical evidence and which has not been proven, so long as it jives with their prior beliefs. You have been a perfect example of this.

I have said multiple times it is incomplete. But we have replicated aspects of the process in a real and practical way, meaning it is not purely speculative.

We have replicated aspects of what is believed to be the process. Not only are the steps far from conclusive, we aren't sure if that process is the correct one. Is speculative a dirty word for you? Why the aversion to a word which accurately describes the theory?

Wrong. Abiogenesis posits life arose from organic compounds.

Look up what organic compounds are before you respond.

Correct. Inert matter is what I meant to say.

Wrong. Abiogensis posits necessary chemical reactions occured within favourable environmental conditions. The materials, the environment, and the mechanics of chemical interactions over time are not "nothing".

Semantics. The theory is that it was random chance as opposed to caused by an agent.

This is completely untrue. Various experiments have shown self replicating molecules, even resembling shorter versions of RNA, are generated from basic organic molecules.

Even if without any evidence, abiogenesis would still be the preferred theory because of Occam's Razor.

Please check your facts first if you want to continue your condescending tone.

I'll condescend all I please, chumly.

Very interesting article which does nothing to provide evidence that abiogenesis is true. As usual, the article is filled with "might have", "is believed to have", "could have", etc., and this is extrapolated into what might have happened billions of years ago. If this is good enough for you then knock yourself out. I'll remain skeptical.

Biebricher had loaded the deck somewhat, because he wasn’t growing RNA chains from nothing. Before he froze his samples, he added an RNA template—a single-strand chain of RNA that guides the formation of a new strand of RNA. As that new RNA strand grows, it adheres to the template like one half of a zipper to the other. This must be how the first genes, made of RNA, would have copied themselves. But the first step was the formation of the original RNA molecule that served as a template, and how that step happened remains a mystery.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I'm not proposing anything. I'm pointing out that people who claim to operate solely on the basis of empirical evidence and that which can be proven, will gladly believe something which has no empirical evidence and which has not been proven, so long as it jives with their prior beliefs. You have been a perfect example of this.

Abiogenesis is based on observations and factual evidence in a variety of fields. There are many theories entertained as to the birth place and the exact circumstances of origin of life. I do not dogmatically ascribe to any one of them. I could not even tell you if the first life forms were more similar to viruses, or bacterium. I do believe in the basic "life from non-life" argument because it is supported by various scientific fields and observations of the chemical reactions which are shared by most lifeforms.

Scientists are working towards creating designer life from absolute fundamental molecules. This work does not spring from an ancient text, it is spearheaded by assumptions and theories developed from prior observations. This is fundamentally different from creation belief which holds a sole text as the authority to the question of how life and existence began and will not change, only interpretations of an unverifiable book of stories.

I also fundamentally believe that we will develop artificial intelligence on the level of the human brain, and be able to reconstruct the human brain wholey with a computer. This is based on the progress made in biology and the understanding of the brain AND the progress in technology. Some would argue that human intelligence could never be replicated and is something inexplicable.

 

[Mario]

Semantics. The theory is that it was random chance as opposed to caused by an agent.

Only insomuch as "random chance" causes the Earth to be in orbit around the Sun then.

 

[Satyamdas]

Abiogenesis is based on observations and factual evidence in a variety of fields. There are many theories entertained as to the birth place and the exact circumstances of origin of life. I do not dogmatically ascribe to any one of them. I could not even tell you if the first life forms were more similar to viruses, or bacterium. I do believe in the basic "life from non-life" argument because it is supported by various scientific fields and observations of the chemical reactions which are shared by most lifeforms.

As opposed to your everyday observation that life comes from life.

Scientists are working towards creating designer life from absolute fundamental molecules. This work does not spring from an ancient text, it is spearheaded by assumptions and theories developed from prior observations. This is fundamentally different from creation belief which holds a sole text as the authority to the question of how life and existence began and will not change, only interpretations of an unverifiable book of stories.

These scientists who are trying to design life are probably pretty intelligent, would you agree? If they succeed and manage to design and create life, do you not see the irony in then turning around and saying that we could not possibly have been designed by an intelligent entity?

I'm trying to fathom the cognitive dissonance needed for this but it is way beyond my capability.

I also fundamentally believe that we will develop artificial intelligence on the level of the human brain, and be able to reconstruct the human brain wholey with a computer. This is based on the progress made in biology and the understanding of the brain AND the progress in technology. Some would argue that human intelligence could never be replicated and is something inexplicable.

I admire your faith, bro, and unlike you I will resist the urge to mock it or make fun of you for it. Hopefully you live long enough to see it come to fruition.

Only insomuch as "random chance" causes the Earth to be in orbit around the Sun then.

Why does admitting that the theory rests upon random happenstance irk you?

 

[Mario]

Why does admitting that the theory rests upon random happenstance irk you?

The only thing that irks me is your use of the word "random" to describe every action that isn't caused by an intelligent agent.

 

[Freezie KO]

something which has no empirical evidence

You keep saying this, despite people posting things to the contrary. There's plenty of evidence about the process of how proto-cells move up the ladder. This process is, well, part of the process. The fact that we know stuff about it is important.

Now, yes, there are important steps missing. But to say we have "no" empirical evidence is flat-out incorrect.

Not to mention the fact that we can trace the materials found in living things to the base elements that are naturally found on Earth. This may seem like a given, but it's really not. It's a huge point in favor of suggesting the continuing chain of natural occurrences. After all, if we were made supernaturally, our cells might as well be made of God-ite and other non-naturally occurring materials.

Furthermore, we're not even sure if your simplistic argument of "life comes from life" is even defined correctly. There may be intermediate steps from non-life to life that are difficult to put in either dichotomous category.

It's not a simple process of "chemicals -> bacteria." That's never been the argument, and the simplification to that is frighteningly similar to Creationists who say evolution works like this: "chimp -> human." Both are wrong.

The fact that there are steps missing in the process is no reason to throw out the entire theory of abiogenesis. Reading your posts about how there's "no evidence" and how it's just as likely that God put these naturally occurring materials together is like reading every other person who's been on the wrong side of history in these debates, whether about Evolution, the Big Bang Theory, or any other major scientific theory that challenges conventional belief.

 

[Satyamdas]

The only thing that irks me is your use of the word "random" to describe every action that isn't caused by an intelligent agent.

I'm not talking about every action, I'm talking about the specific action of life arising from non-life.

So the interactions of various chemicals, in a particular environment, at a specific point in time, but which was not guided by an intelligent or conscious entity, is somehow anything other than random?

If it isn't random then that implies purpose or determinism. Or is there some third option I'm missing?

 

[Freezie KO]

These scientists who are trying to design life are probably pretty intelligent, would you agree? If they succeed and manage to design and create life, do you not see the irony in then turning around and saying that we could not possibly have been designed by an intelligent entity?

I'm trying to fathom the cognitive dissonance needed for this but it is way beyond my capability.

You have no idea how science works do you?

If "these scientists" are able to bring about life from the earliest building blocks, do you really think they're going to pop a bottle of champagne and that's going to be the end?

The next obvious step is to create a simulated environment with the naturally occurring materials and see if the experiment can be replicated with no direct intervention.

Scientific progress doesn't stop. But that experiment too will take a while. After all, it did take the Earth a million years to get it right.

edit: I meant billion, but I'll leave it up there since it was quoted before I caught the error.

 

[Satyamdas]

You keep saying this, despite people posting things to the contrary. There's plenty of evidence about the process of how proto-cells move up the ladder. This process is, well, part of the process. The fact that we know stuff about it is important.

Now, yes, there are important steps missing. But to say we have "no" empirical evidence is flat-out incorrect.

Not to mention the fact that we can trace the materials found in living things to the base elements that are naturally found on Earth. This may seem like a given, but it's really not. It's a huge point in favor of suggesting the continuing chain of natural occurrences. After all, if we were made supernaturally, our cells might as well be made of God-ite and other non-naturally occurring materials.

Furthermore, we're not even sure if your simplistic argument of "life comes from life" is even defined correctly. There may be intermediate steps from non-life to life that are difficult to put in either dichotomous category.

It's not a simple process of "chemicals -> bacteria." That's never been the argument, and the simplification to that is frighteningly similar to Creationists who say evolution works like this: "chimp -> human." Both are wrong.

The fact that there are steps missing in the process is no reason to throw out the entire theory of abiogenesis. Reading your posts about how there's "no evidence" and how it's just as likely that God put these naturally occurring materials together is like reading every other person who's been on the wrong side of history in these debates, whether about Evolution, the Big Bang Theory, or any other major scientific theory that challenges conventional belief.

Have I said that the theory should be thrown out? I have no problem with the theory in and of itself. And for the 12th time, my only point was to have a laugh at those who claim to accept nothing that isn't empirically proven but who gladly forget their own rules when it comes to things like abiogenesis. That's all. And we don't have empirical evidence that abiogenesis is true. At best we have circumstantial evidence, and even that is flimsy at best.

I'm sorry you got so worked up about it.

You have no idea how science works do you?

If "these scientists" are able to bring about life from the earliest building blocks, do you really think they're going to pop a bottle of champagne and that's going to be the end?

The next obvious step is to create a simulated environment with the naturally occurring materials and see if the experiment can be replicated with no direct intervention.

Scientific progress doesn't stop. But that experiment too will take a while. After all, it did take the Earth a million years to get it right.

LOL, holy shit dude. This is good stuff.

 

[Mario]

So the interactions of various chemicals, in a particular environment, at a specific point in time, but which was not guided by an intelligent or conscious entity, is somehow anything other than random?

Chemical reactions are not random.

 

[Log4Girlz]

As opposed to your everyday observation that life comes from life.

Scientists are not satisfied, and neither am I, with simply seeing a complex process already in progress and not question how it may have arisen.

I believe it is fair to say that the observable universe, and by extension, the earth, is not infinite in age. There are many observations that support this claim.

Therefore, life cannot have begotten life for an infinite amount of time. There should have been a "beginning".

Additionally, there are no "unique" atoms in life forms, all life is made up of elements described in detail by scientists and charted on the periodic table and which behave in manners described by the standard model of particle physics.

Any atom shed by a living creature is not inherently alive.

So what defines life?

It appears that living creatures are a complex form of chemical reactions.

So if life is made of non-living atoms, and life did not exist for an infinite amount of time...then life must have begun as non-living atoms which after a very long period of time (the fossil record goes back some 3 billion years, which leaves about a billion and a half years of no fossilized life of any form) encountered favorable conditions to react in concert in what we define as life.

Its not much of a stretch.

These scientists who are trying to design life are probably pretty intelligent, would you agree? If they succeed and manage to design and create life, do you not see the irony in then turning around and saying that we could not possibly have been designed by an intelligent entity?

Scientists are ultimately trying to replicate the conditions of an early earth which did not require human intervention to exist, and to create life from non-life in a believable, replicable experiment. The idea is to show how life could have formed without human intervention.

If we assume life required an intelligence to begin, why does this same intelligence not require another intelligent being to describe its origin?

I'm trying to fathom the cognitive dissonance needed for this but it is way beyond my capability.


I admire your faith, bro, and unlike you I will resist the urge to mock it or make fun of you for it. Hopefully you live long enough to see it come to fruition.

How is the logic used above to describe why we would come to the conclusion, through observation, that life arose from non-life flawed, as opposed to an ancient text written under dubious circumstances by primitive men? I mean, you said so yourself, you believe its ironic to our intelligence to create life, yet not allow intelligence to be involved with the original beginning of life? So you believe that an ancient text in perfectly comparable to a theory which is new and a result of decades of research and observation.

So who's having the cognitive dissonance issue here? Is it still me?

Why does admitting that the theory rests upon random happenstance irk you?

Why does the theory resting on random happenstance irk you? Evolution involves random mutations selected by non-random events. Life was a random happenstance that occured in a non-random environment. The environment is what promoted the chemical reactions we see as life.

 

[Satyamdas]

Chemical reactions are not random.

I didn't say reactions. I said the interactions which happened to spark life. Were they random or predetermined?

 

[beastmode]

there is a serious variety of astrology? you're kidding me. give me at least 5 examples of serious non-silly astrological arguments. don't selfishly hold on to such imporant info, i/we need to know this shit!

popular astrology:
what sign the sun was in on the day you were born

serious astrology:
the position of the sun when you were born
the position the moon and planets when you were born
the location of all of these in 12 signs and 12 houses and the angles they make to each other

pretty big difference. one says there are 12 different kinds of people, the other says there are thousands.

but i don't have a "serious non-silly argument" for astrology, other than it works completely for me. you don't need to know how something works to know that it does.

all near-death experiences are the same? not really, most of the stories i've heard are different. some see a dead relative, some see their chosen version of god, some see only light, some see a tunnel... etc. i think it's safe to assume that you'll see whatever is your expectation/hope. i'm pretty sure that if i have such an experience, i will see bright lights or events from my life passing by, or feel the presence of "something" bigger than me. simply because that is my expectation. i will know that those will be just hallucinations though, no matter how powerful and how real they feel. because the brain is a powerful thing, ask any lucid dreamer... so tell me, what evidence exactly is there that these experiences come from outside the brain? nothing as far as i know. you claim there is evidence, so please show me.

well, one very common experience is to instantly review the events of their life and see how their actions affected others, both positively and negatively, with no feeling of regret or judgement by someone other than themselves. doesn't sound like any kind of expectation given by most religions or some sort of fantasy.

the evidence for this taking place outside of the brain is that they are "reported" by 10-20% of people who survive cardiac arrest. cardiac arrest is basically death. if it's taking place in the brain, why is there recollection of anything as opposed to something akin to fainting?

it's really up for interpretation.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I didn't say reactions. I said the interactions which happened to spark life. Were they random or predetermined?

The exact moment of the very first living thing was probably random, depending on how you view the concept of time. If this primitive life form did not form exactly when it did, then it would have formed in a very similar location (if not the same relative location) within a short span of time. There are precursors to life forms, the area where life originated was probably in an area dense with molecular precursors to life based on everything we currently know in science. As opposed to an ancient book someone read and assumes is true.

 

[Satyamdas]

Scientists are ultimately trying to replicate the conditions of an early earth which did not require human intervention to exist, and to create life from non-life in a believable, replicable experiment. The idea is to show how life could have formed without human intervention.

And they will be doing this by having humans set up the precise chemicals and environment needed for life to arise. Are you really incapable of seeing the irony?

How is the logic used above to describe why we would come to the conclusion, through observation, that life arose from non-life flawed, as opposed to an ancient text written under dubious circumstances by primitive men? I mean, you said so yourself, you believe its ironic to our intelligence to create life, yet not allow intelligence to be involved with the original beginning of life? So you believe that an ancient text in perfectly comparable to a theory which is new and a result of decades of research and observation.

So who's having the cognitive dissonance issue here? Is it still me?

Yes, it's still you.

Why does the theory resting on random happenstance irk you? Evolution involves random mutations selected by non-random events. Life was a random happenstance that occured in a non-random environment. The environment is what promoted the chemical reactions we see as life.

It doesn't irk me. But seeing as I have thousands of years of evidence pointing to life only coming from life, and I have zero evidence of life spontaneously arising from non-living matter, I think a little skepticism about the theory is warranted.

The exact moment of the very first living thing was probably random, depending on how you view the concept of time. If this primitive life form did not form exactly when it did, then it would have formed in a very similar location (if not the same relative location) within a short span of time. There are precursors to life forms, the area where life originated was probably in an area dense with molecular precursors to life based on everything we currently know in science. As opposed to an ancient book someone read and assumes is true.

Well at least you are willing to call a spade a spade. I respect that.

 

[Mario]

I didn't say reactions. I said the interactions which happened to spark life. Were they random or predetermined?

As I said, abiogenesis posits that life arose from necessary chemical interactions which are not random.

But keep misrepresenting it with statements such as "life arose from nothing" and "life was caused by random chance" if you wish. I'm done trying to help you learn.

 

[Satyamdas]

As I said, abiogenesis posits that life arose from necessary chemical interactions which are not random.

But keep misrepresenting it with statements such as "life arose from nothing" and "life was caused by random chance" if you wish. I'm done trying to help you learn.

You mean you're done trying to play word games and avoid the basic tenet of the theory.

 

[Freezie KO]

And they will be doing this by having humans set up the precise chemicals and environment needed for life to arise. Are you really incapable of seeing the irony?

When these "precise chemicals and environment" are akin to the conditions of Earth billions of years ago, then that's the closest we're going to get. Abiogenesis is never going to provide you with a photograph of the first life on Earth billions of years ago, however you want to define "life."

Each experiment is a piece of the puzzle. Choose to believe something with overwhelming support from chemists, biologist, geologists, etc etc etc. or remain in the dark with people who still think the Earth is the center of the universe.

But seeing as I have thousands of years of evidence pointing to life only coming from life

Do you admit that life is made up of non-life?