Is Abiogenesis a fact?

Sorry but that has nothing to do with what I asked. The current question is:

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

how come your post has the same number as mine above it ???

What are people supposed to respond to? You haven't yet made anything close enough to an argument that it is possible to respond to it. You shouldn't be surprised that all you get is hand waving when your argument amounts to little more than an unpleasant emanation from the nether regions.TTFN,WK

quote:

---

Is there evidence that hydrogen and oxygen and carbon and even more complex things like rock existed before there was life on earth?

---

Yes and no. Empirical evidence would be difficult to source however given circumstancial evidence and our unsderstanding of how Earth was born, yes.

to check continuity.Let's continue.Edited by AdminJar, : Open thread back up.

---

That`s exactly my complaint. Your pseudo-proof against abiogenesis amounts to nothing more that hand waving. Not one of us has made any statement about whether abiogenesis is possible or not (you are the only one doing that).To tell you the truth, I don`t know the answer to that question. I have never seen any convincing evidence either way. I have an open mind about that. May be you are right when you talk about intervention. I don`t particularly subscribe to that point of view, but as far as I know it`s not inconsistent with any observations.But I most definitly know that your pseudo-proof is no proof at all. All you are doing is saying, and I paraphrase "Physical laws are constant" and "there can be no abiogenesis". Just putting two phrases together in the same paragrath does not constitute a proof of linkage between them.if you really think you have a case, for christ sake, put your thoughts together and lay down a defendable position, because all you've given us so far was nothing but fluff.

Describing the implications of mathematical relationships is as substantive as a point could be. Now if you have anything to add other than my point is unsubstantiated then kindly do so. I wait in anticipation for you to explain how nature can break the mechanics of the universe i.e. fundamental mathematical relationships to transform inanimate matter into life given that inanimate matter results in inanimate matter - and that’s the point - a point substantiated by the relationship between mass and energy in a deterministic universe.

quote:

---

But I most definitly know that your pseudo-proof is no proof at all.

---

And I know for certain you have no idea as to what you are talking about. I repeat myself again, there is no such thing as proof in science, just evidence hence science works on falsification.The thing is, you have nothing to offer because if you did you would've presented your facts. You haven't disagreed with any of the facts I mention. This is not a question of substantiating my point [which it is], as seen before, it doesn't take a substantiated point for some of you to respond in detail, including fallcycorp.Either explain why inanimate matter colliding with inanimate matter doesn’t result in inanimate matter, or why constants do not impose limits to the behavior of mass in the universe, or quit the hand-waving. Take your pick.Edited by Lex_Luthor, : No reason given.Edited by Lex_Luthor, : No reason given.Edited by Lex_Luthor, : No reason given.Edited by Lex_Luthor, : No reason given.

But no one except you thinks that fundamental physical constants do imply a barrier between animate and inanimate matter. Since all you have done is say that it is so it is no more substantive than any other unsupported assertion.If you could actually show how a physical constant would prevent this process then I think we would all be very grateful. At the moment this sounds like an oblique and abstruse way of making the same tired old 2nd law of thermodynamics argument.TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : to make the subtitle relevant

quote:

---

But no one except you thinks that fundamental physical constants do imply a barrier between animate and inanimate matter.

---

First of all, can you quantify the difference between animate and inanimate matter, if so, what is it? Secondly, it’s not just about the physical constants. Mathematical relationships impose limits and this is fact whether you like it or not. So let’s take this one step at a time. Do you deny the notion that the explicit relationship between mass and energy in a deterministic universe impose limits to the behaviour of mass?Do you not understand? In the known observable universe all mass is deterministic since it is ordained by the laws of physics. If all mass is deterministic, how do you explain the behaviour of life? In that, it does its own thing? Time and chance? Edited by Lex_Luthor, : No reason given.Edited by Lex_Luthor, : No reason given.Edited by Lex_Luthor, : No reason given.Edited by Lex_Luthor, : No reason given.

You were the one banging on about inanimate matter. If you don't think that there is a difference between animate and inanimate matter then your argument is even more ridiculous. I don't think there is a difference, animate matter is simply the label we attached to matter which is part of what we consider a living system.I don't see any difference between the matter itself, except by association with a particular class of object. Which is why your argument seems ridiculous to me. Not at all, I am quite happy to agree that the conservation of energy holds universally and imposes limits on the behaviour of matter and energy. Now you are running into the same problems which you previously identified with studying Quantum Mechanics.You are saying that life does its own thing, but there is no evidence to suggest that life does anything which is not allowed by classically deterministic physics. Merely because we are not able to study a system in sufficient depth to determine if it is fundamentally deterministic doesn't mean that at isn't.The only evidence in your favour is our own subjective experiences of the phenomena of free will. So in fact your point seems to be not to life as such but to those living things posessing free will.TTFN,WK

Surely the fact that we see stars aged over 5 billion years old demonstrates this emprically?

I never said there wasn’t a difference, please read the sentence again. The difference between inanimate matter and animate matter is what constitutes life. I merely asked you whether we could quantify the difference. You are correct, there is no physical difference, but difference is between the behaviour of animate and inanimate matter.

quote:

---

Now you are running into the same problems which you previously identified with studying Quantum Mechanics. You are saying that life does its own thing, but there is no evidence to suggest that life does anything which is not allowed by classically deterministic physics. Merely because we are not able to study a system in sufficient depth to determine if it is fundamentally deterministic doesn't mean that at isn't.

---

Let’s assume for a minute that we are able to account for all variables of a specified event, surely this would then render life completely deterministic? And if this is the case, biological mechanisms based on arbitrary cause [say random mutation] would no longer be random and the ramifications are that the mutations are the direct result of a cause and effect relationship.

quote:

---

The only evidence in your favour is our own subjective experiences of the phenomena of free will. So in fact your point seems to be not to life as such but to those living things posessing free will.

---

Well, I do propose intervention as a mechanism and free will is an example of intervention. Going back to the example of snooker, once a ball is motion I [my free will] can alter the determined path of a ball by intervening. This is a good example of intelligent intervention altering the path of mass in a deterministic universe.

Yes, this is true. If the universe is fundamentally deterministic then obviously the 'randomness' of mutations is simply due to our own inability to gain suficient information about the system or develop sufficiently detailed models of the system to accurately predict them. I'm not sure about your last sentence though. No one is claiming that mutations aren't the direct result of cause and effect relationships, the most you might find is someone claiming they are the indirect effect of initial acausal effects on particular elements which subsequently lead to the mutation, there is a clear classical chemical/physical basis to many mutations. As yet human free will seems to be the only example of any such phenomenon and it is still hotly disputed whether or not free will, or at least the appearance of free will, is not in fact a product of deterministic forces. We feel that we have our own volition as to whether or not we will take a particular action, but that does not mean that we actually do have such a choice.Your arguments seem to be verging more on the metaphysical than the scientific.TTFN,WK

quote:

---

I'm not sure about your last sentence though. No one is claiming that mutations aren't the direct result of cause and effect relationships, the most you might find is someone claiming they are the indirect effect of initial acausal effects on particular elements which subsequently lead to the mutation, there is a clear classical chemical/physical basis to many mutations.

---

Indirect cause is not the same as direct cause. If we assume that life is completely deterministic then it is deterministic through a direct cause and effect relationship; each action is preceded with cause. Point being, mutations would no longer be classed as random but completely deterministic.

quote:

---

As yet human free will seems to be the only example of any such phenomenon and it is still hotly disputed whether or not free will, or at least the appearance of free will, is not in fact a product of deterministic forces. We feel that we have our own volition as to whether or not we will take a particular action, but that does not mean that we actually do have such a choice.

---

There is no physical or chemical force that initiates the process of thought and choice, yes, our decisions instigate chemical reactions but if you insist that there is no such thing as freewill then every action including every thought of yours and every word you utter on this forum is 100% deterministic [assuming all variables are known].

quote:

---

Your arguments seem to be verging more on the metaphysical than the scientific.

---

There is nothing metaphysical when empirically verifying the universal forces and the corresponding properties. There is nothing metaphysical about human intervention either. The example I mentioned is an empirical one demonstrating the effects of intervention. Edited by AdminNWR, : off topic warning