Modularity, A distinguishing property of life

It does the same for all phenomena.The study of gravity does not consider supernatural intervention, the study of proto-planetary formation does not consider supernatual intervention, so why would abiogenesis consider supernatual intervention? Which comments specifically suggested that?Wouldn't the intelligence require an explanation as to how it formed before we even begin to investigated what it made?Wouldn't the 'intelligence' also be considered 'life'? How is it different from life?- Oni

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

You should talk about it with this guy then:

quote:

---

Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation.

---

quote:

---

One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation

---

George WaldOf course, he does not mean spontaneous generation as bread+cheese = maggots.He also said:

quote:

---

The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position.

---

Thus, since there are only two options, if abiogenesis is proven to be impossible, then it becomes proof for a supernatural creation.Thus someone who believes life was made by God, based on the fact that he thinks abiogenesis is impossible (because of racemization, etc.) does not have blind find, but it is evidence-based faith.

Sure, but if you got accurate information that you *did* order the pizza you could not dismiss it out of hand. You might try to attack the accuracy of either datum based on your experience that you cannot be in different places at the same time, but assuming that they are both accurate you must conclude that you *did* order the pizza no matter that it destroys your other assumption. This isn't an appropriate question; two plus two equals five by fiat. Mathematics is a conceptual system that operates by rules we define, so the proof you request is in essence saying "It does not because I say it does not." Yes: You cannot dismiss accurate information regardless of its violation of previously established norms, including logical contradictions. This means that even if evidence points strongly toward something not happening, the possibility always remains of new information becoming available.

quote:

---

But it is a fact. Abiogenesis happened. What is being investigated is the how it happened. The phenomenon is a fact; life exists, abiogenesis occured. How? Well I guess it was either natural chemical reactions of known elements, or, a celestial invisible being waving a magic wand. But the fact remains, abiogenesis occured.

---

Maybe I misunderstood you, it seemed to me that abiogenesis included both from this comment, when I thought it did not. If it doesn't, then I think Hyroglyphs is right: the fact that life appeared at some point in time is not proof that abiogenesis occured.

quote:

---

Wouldn't the intelligence require an explanation as to how it formed before we even begin to investigated what it made?

​

Wouldn't the 'intelligence' also be considered 'life'? How is it different from life?

---

If you identify the intelligence as an alien, of course your questions are relevant.But if you identify the intelligence as the God of the bible, then it is irrelevant since by nature he is eternal, and also outside of time. So no starting point where you can say: before there was no intelligence, now there is intelligence.

Was gravity a fact before or after we figured out how it worked? No, I believe you are confusing the matter.I don't believe anything "created" anything. Nor am I claiming anything as fact other than life didn't exist and then it did. That is abiogenesis, life not existing then existing; the process of abiogenesis occured, now how is another matter.Science is studying the phenomenon, but you can't study a phenomenon that doesn't exist. Life occured, that is the phenomenon. The occurance of life is 'abiogenesis', that is the name of the phenomenon. So we perform science to find out how. Ahhhh, so we get to the root of your misunderstanding. No, it doesn't, Hydro.I suggest you take a look throught this site, the 'spontaneous generation' argument has been covered many times. Abiogenesis does not mean spontaneous generation. In fact, a quick Wiki search will show you the many different fields of abiogenesis and none of them cite Louis Pastuers experiment as evidence.Abiogenesis is the orginization of smaller chemical components that, through time, develop into proto-life, and eventually life.Sponataneous generation is life popping up from inorganic material in one sudden moment. Yes, but you are wrong in your comparison.- Oni

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

Yes, but only because it is a non-answer. Science can only answer physical questions, right? How then can it answer superphysical questions? Science doesn't say God exists or doesn't... It just doesn't care either way.Suppose God or whatever has ultimate dominion over everything. Does God cause the rain clouds to rain over New Zealand or does meteorology have a more useful way of explaining things? No, not exactly. Following the order of things, it is hypothesized that inorganic matter preceded organic matter. That being the case, it is theorized that non-living matter gave rise to living matter.

---

"The problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money." --Margaret Thatcher--

This is a false dichotomy; there are plenty of other possibilities available. For instance: 1) Everything was always alive, matter just eventually assumed forms that we recognize as life. 2) Sometime in the future we invent time travel and seeded our own creation. 3) Life naturally appeared on the planet out of whole cloth, without any supernatural guiding influence, 4) etc...Note that I also disagree with the Pope, so quoting random people who have contrary opinions to me is unlikely to form a strong argument in and of itself.

quote:

---

This isn't an appropriate question; two plus two equals five by fiat. Mathematics is a conceptual system that operates by rules we define, so the proof you request is in essence saying "It does not because I say it does not."

---

If there is one domain where you can prove something, it is in mathematics. (some even say it is the only domain where proof is possible). In any mathematical semantics, two plus two will never be equal to 5.

quote:

---

Yes: You cannot dismiss accurate information regardless of its violation of previously established norms, including logical contradictions. This means that even if evidence points strongly toward something not happening, the possibility always remains of new information becoming available.

---

By saying this, aren't you proving a negative (after all, 'you can't prove a negative' is a negative ...)Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

George Wald is the guy who wrote: the origin of life.I don't understand the last one (out of whole cloth). But you really consider these other options as legitimate, scientific possibilities ?

Exactly, and it is only possible because you have determined by fiat that it is possible. A purely mental exercise can do anything, and I think it is clear that was not what I was arguing. Note the similarity between the above example and this one. Logic is a mental framework and does not necessarily have any bearing on the world.

And this is supposed to mean what exactly? That I have to agree with everything he says? Do you really consider supernatural creation by an invisible sky wizard a legitimate scientific possibility?

Huh? Then what is it 'proof' for? We don't have life, then we have life, what is that proof of?Abiogenesis: "In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter."Even IF god did it, he still had to use inanimate matter since that is what there was.Do you have another suggestion as to how life was made? Ok, wait. How did you narrow it down to 'the god of the bible'...?You said an 'intelligence', now your making the leap to a 'god', and more specifically, the god of the christians?This may make sense to you, but it has no evidence so I'll simply not address it.- Oni

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

I'm sorry slevesque, but you are still very far from understanding creationism.

quote:

---

I meant it to say that creationists do not propose either evolution or creationism (as the only two options), but rather they propose that the debate is either abiogenesis or Intelligent Design.

---

Intelligent design is a specific label which describes a specific sub-set of creationists. Sure, all creationists believe that life was designed and that the designer was intelligent. Not all creationists however are proponents of "Intelliegent Design". Here is AiG on the ID movement. SourceAiG still has much positive to say about ID, but there exists a wide gulf between the two. Creationism and ID should not be used as synonyms in all cases. All IDers are creationists, but not all creationists are IDers.

quote:

---

CMI and AiG are the two organisations who take care not to propose this dilemna. Their tactic is still two fold: they critic evolution, and they promote a young earth perspective.

---

CMI and AiG are slightly cannier than Hovind about how they phrase their arguments, but they still employ the same fallacies. A brief browse of CMI's site turns up plenty of attacks on evolution but positive evidence for creation is much harder to find.As for Ken ham, he is the man who said this to a group of schoolchildren; SourceFor Ham it is God OR science, biblical literalism OR atheism, there is no middle ground. He embraces the flase dichotomy as much as Hovind, he is just a slightly better lier, that's all.You are right that this is off-topic though! If you still disagree, I could always propose a new thread and we can continue the discussion there. Let me know if you're interested.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

It was a fact that what goes up must come down long before Newton. I already know where you are going with this and will answer that question when I get to it. You are conflating that with abiogensis. Abiogenesis is the specific study of how inorganic matter spawned organic matter. Anything else is irrelevant.In a previous post I said,

quote:

---

No, because abiogenesis specifically means spontaneous generation.

---

You replied, It does though. If we are going over Louis Pasteur's experiment (or that one Italian scientist with the meat and flies experiment) then, no, they don't correlate. But what else are we talking about other than spontaneous generation? Life coming from non-life, spontaneously! Right, which spontaneously occurred somewhere in that chain of
events. It could also be something like conception. In a single moment, when spermatozoa meets ovum, a reaction occurs where a new being has been procreated. But a human as we know it is a slower process. It may be like that, as you allude, but we don't really know anything for certain. And I'm not really sure that it matters. It's all just a way to satisfy our curiosity. Nothing wrong with that, just an observation. How so?

---

"The problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money." --Margaret Thatcher--

Changing "create" to "spawn" doesn't change the notion that you are looking for a momentary act of life emerging, this is not the case in the study of abiogenesis. It's a gradual process up the chemical chain. Just as proto-suns aren't fully formed stars, early life may have had stages where we wouldn't define it as life but it was in the process of becoming it having most of the integral parts for it. No, we're talking about a gradual increase of chemical complexity, no one in the abiogenesis camp is claiming life occured sponataniously...well, except for creationist.Using the term 'sponatneous generation' is refering specifically to Pastuer's experiment. The term 'spontaneous' is not used in the modern day study of abiogenesis. No, it does not. You can't pin-point a momentary emergence of life. There is no evidence to support such a claim. Life was gradual. Because there is no 'anti' religious stance in science. There is however a NO intellgent designer stance. Or 'anti' intelligent designer stance. But most scientist are of a religious faith, so there is no 'anti'religion in science.- Oni

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.