Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9072 total)
74 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 73 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,114 Year: 4,226/6,534 Month: 440/900 Week: 146/150 Day: 0/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   No Abiogenesis, no Evolution, then what?
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 173 (251203)
10-12-2005 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Yaro
10-08-2005 10:02 AM


Re: Some alternatives
we don't need an "uncreated" thing

Yes, we do. Either some universe or God.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Yaro, posted 10-08-2005 10:02 AM Yaro has taken no action

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 173 (251206)
10-12-2005 3:59 PM


Let's remember the original premises in the OP folk.
Please let's discuss this based on those conditions. Try to provide reasoned support for your positions.

This thread has had some interesting speculation so far, let's not resort to just trading assertions.


Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures

  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:

  • "Post of the Month" Forum

  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
  • See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

      
    DBlevins
    Member (Idle past 3007 days)
    Posts: 652
    From: Puyallup, WA.
    Joined: 02-04-2003


    Message 93 of 173 (251249)
    10-12-2005 5:53 PM
    Reply to: Message 60 by Faith
    10-08-2005 12:14 AM


    Re: Some alternatives
    Except that the way we know about God is through revelation (though some are smart enough to see Him in His creation), and revelation tells us that He is uncreated. No infinite regression of the Biblical God.

    That is probably the oldest and most incredible assertion ever!

    Revelation is written by a group of people who didn't know where diseases came from, that the sun is the source of daylight, that humans can't walk on water, etc.

    That you take the word of a roughly 2000 year old collection of myth's written by people who believe in magic and think the world is flat, over the word of evidence based methodological naturalism is mind boggling. That you can make such bald-faced assertions with no evidence except your own credulity, sets my head spinning.

    I'm happy that you're happy with your beliefs but if you're going to come on and spout out nonsense, please be kind enough to add a disclaimer to the bottom of your post. Otherwise I'd be unable to tell if you're joking.

    I wonder if these poeple who are smart enough to see Him in His creation are the same one's who believe demons cause farting.
    :rollseyes:


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 60 by Faith, posted 10-08-2005 12:14 AM Faith has taken no action

      
    inkorrekt
    Member (Idle past 5313 days)
    Posts: 382
    From: Westminster,CO, USA
    Joined: 02-04-2006


    Message 94 of 173 (290058)
    02-24-2006 11:20 AM
    Reply to: Message 6 by Asgara
    10-06-2005 10:37 PM


    What is the other option?
    How many people have difficulty in assembling a puzzle? I am sure there are a lot. If this simple process requires intelligence, how could you imgine a lot, lot, lot, lot more complex structures like the cell just be brought into existence without any external power?

    Man can not even understand the complexity of the living cell.
    If it is not God, then who? Is it an alien from Mars? Superman? Computer programmer? Geneticist? Architect?

    Man attempted to create life for more than 200 years. All that he ended up with was a soup of chemicals which were no more useful.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 6 by Asgara, posted 10-06-2005 10:37 PM Asgara has taken no action

    Replies to this message:
     Message 95 by nwr, posted 02-24-2006 11:55 AM inkorrekt has replied
     Message 96 by Chiroptera, posted 02-24-2006 12:31 PM inkorrekt has taken no action

      
    nwr
    Member
    Posts: 5971
    From: Geneva, Illinois
    Joined: 08-08-2005
    Member Rating: 3.2


    Message 95 of 173 (290069)
    02-24-2006 11:55 AM
    Reply to: Message 94 by inkorrekt
    02-24-2006 11:20 AM


    Re: What is the other option?
    How many people have difficulty in assembling a puzzle? I am sure there are a lot. If this simple process requires intelligence, how could you imgine a lot, lot, lot, lot more complex structures like the cell just be brought into existence without any external power?

    The analogy is bad.

    A bird builds a nest. I expect that takes some intelligence, but not a lot. We could consider it a puzzle, take it apart, and examine the complexity of getting every piece back into exactly the same position. But the bird never needed to solve that complex puzzle. It can put the pieces back together in a different arrangement and it would still work as a nest.

    Maybe there are many different ways of building something that functions as a cell. Maybe the cell itself evolved from something far simpler.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 94 by inkorrekt, posted 02-24-2006 11:20 AM inkorrekt has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 98 by inkorrekt, posted 03-05-2006 11:13 PM nwr has replied

      
    Chiroptera
    Inactive Member


    Message 96 of 173 (290093)
    02-24-2006 12:31 PM
    Reply to: Message 94 by inkorrekt
    02-24-2006 11:20 AM


    Re: What is the other option?
    quote:
    how could you imgine a lot, lot, lot, lot more complex structures like the cell just be brought into existence without any external power?

    My body started out as a single cell. So that is billions of cells that were brought into existence without any "external power".

    -

    quote:
    Man attempted to create life for more than 200 years.

    No one has yet attempted to create life. Victor Frankenstein was a fictional character.


    "Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 94 by inkorrekt, posted 02-24-2006 11:20 AM inkorrekt has taken no action

    Replies to this message:
     Message 97 by kongstad, posted 02-25-2006 9:24 AM Chiroptera has taken no action

      
    kongstad
    Member (Idle past 2101 days)
    Posts: 175
    From: Copenhagen, Denmark
    Joined: 02-24-2004


    Message 97 of 173 (290282)
    02-25-2006 9:24 AM
    Reply to: Message 96 by Chiroptera
    02-24-2006 12:31 PM


    Re: What is the other option?
    Well actually Frankenstein only reanimated dead tissue - the only creation involved was sewing together limps of the dead.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 96 by Chiroptera, posted 02-24-2006 12:31 PM Chiroptera has taken no action

      
    inkorrekt
    Member (Idle past 5313 days)
    Posts: 382
    From: Westminster,CO, USA
    Joined: 02-04-2006


    Message 98 of 173 (292558)
    03-05-2006 11:13 PM
    Reply to: Message 95 by nwr
    02-24-2006 11:55 AM


    Re: What is the other option?
    Bird is building a nest. This is a learned behaviour. You can also call it as a response to the environment. It could also be Stimulus-response. My anology is not wrong. I have already given the analogy of the computer. i am not going to repeat this.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 95 by nwr, posted 02-24-2006 11:55 AM nwr has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 99 by nwr, posted 03-06-2006 12:11 AM inkorrekt has replied

      
    nwr
    Member
    Posts: 5971
    From: Geneva, Illinois
    Joined: 08-08-2005
    Member Rating: 3.2


    Message 99 of 173 (292572)
    03-06-2006 12:11 AM
    Reply to: Message 98 by inkorrekt
    03-05-2006 11:13 PM


    Re: What is the other option?
    My anology is not wrong. I have already given the analogy of the computer. i am not going to repeat this.

    I'm glad that you are not going to repeat it.

    Nevertheless, the puzzle analogy is bad. Treating it as a puzzle assumes that there is only one way that there could be a living cell. But you have given no argument or evidence to support that assumption.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 98 by inkorrekt, posted 03-05-2006 11:13 PM inkorrekt has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 100 by inkorrekt, posted 03-07-2006 6:21 PM nwr has replied

      
    inkorrekt
    Member (Idle past 5313 days)
    Posts: 382
    From: Westminster,CO, USA
    Joined: 02-04-2006


    Message 100 of 173 (293090)
    03-07-2006 6:21 PM
    Reply to: Message 99 by nwr
    03-06-2006 12:11 AM


    Re: What is the other option?
    Why is this bad and how? In nature, we have 3 dimentional models. I gave the analogy of the puzzle because, i could not find anything much simpler than this. The bottom line, is even in order to assemble apuzzle, some basic intelligence is necessary. If aperson does it continuously, then he develops the learned behaviour. Learning is a function of intelligence.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 99 by nwr, posted 03-06-2006 12:11 AM nwr has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 101 by Chiroptera, posted 03-07-2006 6:36 PM inkorrekt has replied
     Message 102 by NosyNed, posted 03-07-2006 7:13 PM inkorrekt has taken no action
     Message 103 by nwr, posted 03-07-2006 8:56 PM inkorrekt has replied

      
    Chiroptera
    Inactive Member


    Message 101 of 173 (293098)
    03-07-2006 6:36 PM
    Reply to: Message 100 by inkorrekt
    03-07-2006 6:21 PM


    Re: What is the other option?
    The analogy is bad because cells are not puzzles that are put together from pre-existing pieces out of a box.


    "Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 100 by inkorrekt, posted 03-07-2006 6:21 PM inkorrekt has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 105 by inkorrekt, posted 03-08-2006 9:03 PM Chiroptera has replied
     Message 107 by inkorrekt, posted 03-14-2006 5:00 PM Chiroptera has replied

      
    NosyNed
    Member
    Posts: 8968
    From: Canada
    Joined: 04-04-2003


    Message 102 of 173 (293104)
    03-07-2006 7:13 PM
    Reply to: Message 100 by inkorrekt
    03-07-2006 6:21 PM


    Puzzle solving
    The analogy is bad because it is perfectly possible to assemble a puzzle with pure trail and error and no intelligence at all. The physical nature of the pieces is such that they fit (shape and color) or not. Any mechanism which allows for that trail and error can solve it without any intelligence.

    The evolutionary model describes just such a mechanism for biological organisms. That is huge numbers of trails are made; many, many errors and some successes which are "kept" just as puzzle pieces that fit are kept.

    Your analogy is not useful in any way to attack the evolutionary model.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 100 by inkorrekt, posted 03-07-2006 6:21 PM inkorrekt has taken no action

      
    nwr
    Member
    Posts: 5971
    From: Geneva, Illinois
    Joined: 08-08-2005
    Member Rating: 3.2


    Message 103 of 173 (293116)
    03-07-2006 8:56 PM
    Reply to: Message 100 by inkorrekt
    03-07-2006 6:21 PM


    Re: What is the other option?
    The bottom line, is even in order to assemble apuzzle, some basic intelligence is necessary.

    But we still are not dealing with puzzle solving. In a typical puzzle, there is a fixed set of components, and a unique way to successfully put them together. For abiogenesis, there were many components and many possible ways to successfully put them together.

    If aperson does it continuously, then he develops the learned behaviour.

    Self reproducing life only had to arise once. It didn't have to be done continuously. If it occurred once by random combinations, that was sufficient.

    In any case, the topic we are supposed to be discussing is whether there are alternatives to abiogenesis. Let's get back on topic.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 100 by inkorrekt, posted 03-07-2006 6:21 PM inkorrekt has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 104 by inkorrekt, posted 03-08-2006 8:57 PM nwr has taken no action

      
    inkorrekt
    Member (Idle past 5313 days)
    Posts: 382
    From: Westminster,CO, USA
    Joined: 02-04-2006


    Message 104 of 173 (293478)
    03-08-2006 8:57 PM
    Reply to: Message 103 by nwr
    03-07-2006 8:56 PM


    Re: What is the other option?
    For abiogenesis, there were many components and many possible ways to successfully put them together

    I gave the example of a puzzle to explain intelligent activity. This analogy has nothing ot do with a biogenesis.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 103 by nwr, posted 03-07-2006 8:56 PM nwr has taken no action

      
    inkorrekt
    Member (Idle past 5313 days)
    Posts: 382
    From: Westminster,CO, USA
    Joined: 02-04-2006


    Message 105 of 173 (293480)
    03-08-2006 9:03 PM
    Reply to: Message 101 by Chiroptera
    03-07-2006 6:36 PM


    Re: What is the other option?
    I do not think so. This analogy was given only to demonstrate that self assembly of proteins cannot occur and they do nto occur.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 101 by Chiroptera, posted 03-07-2006 6:36 PM Chiroptera has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 106 by Chiroptera, posted 03-09-2006 8:33 AM inkorrekt has taken no action

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.1
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022