Evidence for abiogenesis

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by SetiAlpha6, Oct 25, 2018.

  1. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    Hence, as far as empiricism goes, its wiser to simply stick with what it can achieve, as opposed to belief

    Bridging an incomplete empirical claim with belief for the sake of undercutting a belief in God seems to run contrary to a great atheistic argument.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,945
    What we know is that intelligence can only work with the existing laws of physics. That also apples to an Intelligent Designer.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    Where are you getting the idea in that last sentence from. I do not agree with your concept here. Perhaps if you would kindly explain it a bit more?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,945
    It should be pretty clear. Intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply knowlege and skills. That might not be something that you want to ascribe to your Creator. You might want to think He is "above" something as mundane as learning.
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Falsehood is not evidence of anything - except agenda, maybe.
     
  9. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    The difference from a sufficient context being?


    At the moment I am pointing out how you are stepping outside of the empirical process (in an attempt to overlay a type of cosmology that necessarily excludes God). I didn't introduce this to this thread. Nor did I demand that you rush in to defend it, once it was introduced.
     
  10. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,945
    Two dollars is sufficient for a cup of coffee at Tim Hortons. If one dollar is all I have, that is not sufficient.
    I am doing no such thing. I am looking at all of the evidence we have. If you want to add evidence of God to the pile, feel free to do so. I'm guessing that your reluctance to do so is significant.
     
  11. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    I think I might have to disagree with part of this, perhaps just the terms and definitions of some of the words we are using. Sorry for the question.
     
  12. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    I agree!
     
  13. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    Then it seems there is an obvious broader context to purchasing coffee beyond having one dollar, even if one dollar is all one has.

    You are doing quite a bit more than that. You are levelling claims beyond what the (empirical) evidence offers. You are also doing this with a specific agenda to push God out of the picture.

    You can check out my discussions with JamesR to see where we are in that department.
     
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,712
    ?? The "intelligence" in the first case was a jar of gases and a spark gap (lightning.) That was to simulate early atmospheric conditions. Those experiments showed that you did not need intelligence to create complex molecules - just the conditions that existed when the Earth was young.
     
  15. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,945
    Be specific.

    Nope.
     
  16. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    Your provincial "no earth = no life" as a sufficient context for granting abiogenesis centre stage.

    Then I guess its just a coincidence that here you are defending an empirically indefensible notion of abiogenesis in a thread focused on discussing evidence of God.
     
  17. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,945
    Abiogenesis is empirically defensible. The attacks on it have all been defeated.
     
  18. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    What are you talking about?
    There isn't even a consensus on it.
    If it is still working out its own arguments because it hasn't navigated a path to the demonstrstable, it has never left the realm of being assailed by certain attacks for which it has no defense.
     
  19. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    So are you seriously saying that something like a natural lightning bolt, which on average contains roughly one billion (1,000,000,000) joules of energy, was used to do this in the experiment.

    Or did a scientist alter it to make it work with far less power because of his intelligence, knowing full well it would not work in the natural environment?
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2018
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,712
    Yes, lightning bolts happen in nature all the time. The experiment used the same sort of energy and the same sort of chemicals to determine what happened back then. It could not, of course, happen today due to the effects of free oxygen on high temperature products.
     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Yes.
    No.
    The power densities were set within easy range of natural events. That was the whole point.

    People actually do research, you know. The real stuff.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2018
  22. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Wow!

    Jan.
     
  23. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    They proved intelligence was involved in the building blocks of life, if they proved anything at all.

    Jan.
     

Share This Page