Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-18-2019 1:53 PM
133 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, edge, kjsimons, PaulK, ringo, Tangle (6 members, 127 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,429 Year: 3,466/19,786 Month: 461/1,087 Week: 51/212 Day: 12/39 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
15Next
Author Topic:   the source of life
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3573 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 136 of 211 (496283)
01-27-2009 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by homunculus
01-24-2009 3:41 AM


Re: mr. jack
"homunculus" writes:

First, bacteria would constitute organic life. I'm not aware of any such bacteria in the 'observable universe', outside of earth.


It may interest you then that bacteria (Streptococcus sp.) survived unprotected on the moon for more than 30 years. Astronaut Pete Conrad was astute in his observation:

"I always thought the most significant thing that we ever found on the whole...Moon was that little bacteria who came back and lived and nobody ever said [anything] about it."

Microbes surviving in deep space is not such a far fetched idea. That’s why an Earth-only abiogenesis seems so ridiculous to me. “Vital dust,” as De Duve calls it, may be drifting around out there as the "source of life."


I can see Lower Slobovia from my house.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 3:41 AM homunculus has not yet responded

    
homunculus
Member (Idle past 3508 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009


Message 137 of 211 (496285)
01-27-2009 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Taz
01-24-2009 11:59 AM


Re: Goldilocks
taz writes:

Ok, let's sit back for a moment and look at this. Let's assume that evolution is completely wrong. Let's assume that all "evolutionists" have recanted. How in the world does this prove a supernatural being?

Are you aware that you've just given a live demonstration of what I've been saying for years about creationists?

Rule 1 about creationism: disprove evolution ---> creation is proven by default.

It doesn't, but that's obvious.

There may be some people that follow creationism, or a religious doctrine unquestioning. But, that applies to every line of belief. I personally know quite a margin of people that "believe" in evolution, as an example, as that's what they were taught in school. Not really knowing much about it. Also not having discerned the speculative nature of the theory, or sometimes even being kept from the fact is was an unproven theory.

So, no disprove evolution --- does not ---> prove creation by default.

The formula you are looking for is; correlating observations/suggestive evidence in favor of creation (+supernatural revelation or intervention) -----> belief in creation.

'Also note: (Topic for another thread) when assuming a supernatural being, per say, supernatural intercession on an individual level encourages belief to said individual(s), assuming supernatural being is capable, not being bound by supernatural law, to intercede on personal behalf, for sake of revelation or providential purpose.'

I say I don't understand, when really I do. As I had said before, if I had stated on here that everything came from nothing or created itself (I.E. the big bang THEORY)

Then I would say you've been grossly misinformed and that you really really really need to seek out a cosmologist.

I said that not really expecting you to do so simply because you're a creationist, and creationists have a track record of knowing everything.

if I said that life originated from nothing or created itself (abiogenesis, or whatever name it be tagged for the season),

Then I would say you've been grossly misinformed and that you really really really need to seek out a biologist whose discipline is abiogenesis.

But again, I really don't expect you to do so because you seem to know everything already.

First, I would like to make clear that I have a high respect for anyone who pursuits a field of science in a progressive, objective manner, Evolutionary or otherwise. Suffice to say, my only discontent in this issue is, from first person perspective, is the preconceived notion that because I believe in creation/god I am somehow ignorant, misinformed, clueless, misguided information to what I'm talking about or attacking science. None of these are true.

Simply put that I believe in creation, because that's where the observations take me. I have studied Evolutionary science and simply have no reason to believe it. I haven't seen any substantial evidence. Since my original stance, saying

quote:
It has only been observed that life produces life.
That is the observation, that is the obvious, it does not fall on me to provide evidence for that. We just haven't seen the contrary happen.

Concerning the "god of gaps";

I believe there is an engineering prospect that can scientifically explain how life came to be, there is no argument there. In fact, I tend to follow the polymerization model in this consideration, as it does help to illustrate a process that makes sense and not unmitigated to naturalistic definition. I tend to use a lot of Evolutionary models when elaborating different aspects of science, because I believe Evolutionary scientists have better access to tools and budgets to pursuit the aspects.

I have also seen some impressive results from Evolutionary theories. But these models and aspects do not outlaw the possibility of supernatural intercession. When considering the 'origin of life' or the 'origin of the universe', supernatural intercession is practical, behind thorough research. The contradiction here is the models strictly professing naturalistic protocol, or deferring evidences with 'doctrinal disciplines'. The only place where I see precluding dismissal of supernatural intercession is with the aggressive supporters of Evolutionary theory. Saying "goddunit", is a dismissal in the interests of pursuit. No one can hope to know a whole lot if they relinquish their thoughts of interests to "goddunit". "Goddunit" doesn't explain anything, And has no place in science.

Another 'thorn in the side', is this "attacking science" bit. If believing in creation, or believing it to be practical, is not considered "science", fine. It doesn't have to be, to you. Or, if believing in creation, or believing it to be practical is an "attack on science", fine. You may call it an attack, if you want. You may call it want you want. I look and see an extreme bias and as of yet, have no reason to change my position. I will continue give credit to the supernatural for the engineering of science, the physical universe and life, as the complexities of each field demands much attention.

Edited by homunculus, : typos, couple of missing words in sentence breaks

Edited by homunculus, : bracket after intervention

Edited by homunculus, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Taz, posted 01-24-2009 11:59 AM Taz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Percy, posted 01-27-2009 2:02 PM homunculus has not yet responded
 Message 139 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-27-2009 3:23 PM homunculus has not yet responded
 Message 157 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2009 11:02 PM homunculus has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18307
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 138 of 211 (496295)
01-27-2009 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by homunculus
01-27-2009 12:47 PM


Re: Goldilocks
homunculus writes:

I believe there is an engineering prospect that can scientifically explain how life came to be, there is no argument there. In fact, I tend to follow the polymerization model in this consideration...etc...

So you accept the possibility of a natural origin of life.

What we see in your post is that in the on-topic portion you find the scientific position tenable, but in the rest of your post you're off-topic, and this keeps happening to you because you like to declare all your grounds for objecting to evolution in every thread. If you want to talk about your mistaken beliefs about the nature of science then you should discuss them in a thread where they're on-topic, like What is a Theory? where you're already contributing.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by homunculus, posted 01-27-2009 12:47 PM homunculus has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 211 (496305)
01-27-2009 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by homunculus
01-27-2009 12:47 PM


Since my original stance, saying

quote:
It has only been observed that life produces life.

That is the observation, that is the obvious, it does not fall on me to provide evidence for that. We just haven't seen the contrary happen.

But we know that the claim "Life only comes from life" (aka Law of Biogenesis) is wrong even though we haven't observed the contradiction.

The logical extension of this is that life has always existed. But we know that is impossible because in the distant past, not even atoms existed. And yet, life exists today. That means that there had to be a first lifeform and that it did not come from a previous lifeform.

It doesn't matter that we haven't observed it yet. We know that it had to have happened.

Simply put that I believe in creation, because that's where the observations take me. I have studied Evolutionary science and simply have no reason to believe it.

You need to stop reading what creationsts think is evolutionary science and start learning about actual evolutionary science.

There's plenty of reasons to believe it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by homunculus, posted 01-27-2009 12:47 PM homunculus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Rahvin, posted 01-27-2009 3:42 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1260 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 140 of 211 (496308)
01-27-2009 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by New Cat's Eye
01-27-2009 3:23 PM


The logical extension of this is that life has always existed. But we know that is impossible because in the distant past, not even atoms existed. And yet, life exists today. That means that there had to be a first lifeform and that it did not come from a previous lifeform.

It doesn't matter that we haven't observed it yet. We know that it had to have happened.

Indeed, even the direct creation of the first life through "God magic" would qualify as abiogenesis - in Genesis, when God "breathed the breath of life" into his clay Adam, non-living matter became living. Even Creationists have to accept that abiogenesis happened on principle.

The disagreement is over the plausibility of abiogenesis through natural processes versus divine intervention.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-27-2009 3:23 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-27-2009 3:46 PM Rahvin has responded
 Message 144 by ICANT, posted 01-27-2009 6:47 PM Rahvin has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 211 (496309)
01-27-2009 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Rahvin
01-27-2009 3:42 PM


The disagreement is over the plausibility of abiogenesis through natural processes versus divine intervention.

Maybe I misunderstood him...

Even Creationists have to accept that abiogenesis happened on principle.

He seemed to be supporting the Law of Biogenesis without even realizing that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Rahvin, posted 01-27-2009 3:42 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Rahvin, posted 01-27-2009 4:46 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1260 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 142 of 211 (496318)
01-27-2009 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by New Cat's Eye
01-27-2009 3:46 PM


He seemed to be supporting the Law of Biogenesis without even realizing that.

I don't think he does realize that. I don't think he's thought of it much farther than "I read this site that theres a law saying life only comes from life" without understanding that this violates the Genesis story as much as a naturalistic view.

If humans only come from humans, then how could humans have come from a first human who was made from dust by a deity?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-27-2009 3:46 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
homunculus
Member (Idle past 3508 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009


Message 143 of 211 (496320)
01-27-2009 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Blue Jay
01-24-2009 12:54 PM


Re: Darwin loves you.
Hi Bluejay,

Do you have a specific interest in birds? or is the bird a symbiosis of a discipline you follow? just interested.

Bluejay writes:

In science, we are not particularly interested in explaining everything with a single theory. Rather, science is interested in practicality. So, we divide up the physical realm into chunks to make it easier to understand. We define our “chunks” by similarity of the underlying mechanisms, and build up a theory to explain those mechanisms.

So, something like the Theory of Evolution (hereafter: ToE) was constructed to describe a specific “chunk” of nature. ToE’s jurisdiction is the process of change over time in biological populations. It does not have jurisdiction over the processes that resulted in the initial emergence of life, just as doesn’t have jurisdiction over the processes that cause planets to move in elliptical orbits.

Let’s take an example. Let’s say God created a bacterium, and placed it on the earth. Then, over time, this bacterium evolved into myriad kinds of life.

In this scenario, God created life, and life evolved. ToE holds true, even though the bacterium did not arise through autopoiesis (your term).

The Theory of Evolution does not require life to have come spontaneously from non-life.

“Evolutionism” is not a grand worldview, but just a small theory that explains a subset of the physical phenomena that this universe contains.

I can respect that. In my recent posts, I had explained my position in science and in creation. I do not disagree with what you are saying. I do feel a bit partial to my "conspiracy theory" about how "evolutionists are trying to kill everyone and take over the world". Just kidding. I really do feel, however, that opposites are being played. You say,

"In religion, there is great emphasis on universality." and

"In science, we are not particularly interested in explaining everything with a single theory. Rather, science is interested in practicality. So, we divide up the physical realm into chunks to make it easier to understand. We define our “chunks” by similarity of the underlying mechanisms, and build up a theory to explain those mechanisms".

I feel Evolutionary science is entitled to be as diverse and branched off as they please. On that note, I feel the same for creation science. However, it has been argued by some that "Creationism" and science have nothing to do with each other, by the naturalistic platform of which it is argued.

This is bologna.

You would have me to argue against a "multidiverse" science, based on, predominantly, an Evolutionary stance. While predisposing the notions of Biogenesis, Baraminology, morphogenesis, adaptation, geocentrology, astrodating (lunar recession) and geoinundation as "creationist stuff" which obviously "has nothing to do with science".

I stand as a living testament to the ridiculousness of your claim. You are receiving negative reviews of your arguments, and extrapolating from that that your opponents despise you, your God and everything about both, and will only be satisfied when your morale is completely crushed and all mention of your God is erased from the face of the universe.

Ha ha ha.

To the rest of the post, I'll suffice to say I believe Creationism and non-Creation-pro-Evolution-not-so-science-to-branches of athiestic science inc. So, abiogenesis, (macro) Evolution, the big bang, common ancestry are science and different kinds of science. Anything that is associated with creation"ism" is ... not. That's great.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Blue Jay, posted 01-24-2009 12:54 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Percy, posted 01-27-2009 8:42 PM homunculus has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 144 of 211 (496326)
01-27-2009 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Rahvin
01-27-2009 3:42 PM


Re Life
Hi Rahvin,

Rahvin writes:

Indeed, even the direct creation of the first life through "God magic" would qualify as abiogenesis - in Genesis, when God "breathed the breath of life" into his clay Adam, non-living matter became living. Even Creationists have to accept that abiogenesis happened on principle.

Incorrect.

Life can only come from life.

The English words in Genesis 2:7 seem pretty plain.

God breathed into him the breath of life.

Life had to exist for God to transfer life to the man He had formed.

God is alive.

He has a Mind, Spirit and Body.

So no, God believing creationist do not have to accept that abiogenesis happened period.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Rahvin, posted 01-27-2009 3:42 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Rahvin, posted 01-27-2009 7:30 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 146 by Capt Stormfield, posted 01-27-2009 8:13 PM ICANT has responded

    
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1260 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 145 of 211 (496331)
01-27-2009 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by ICANT
01-27-2009 6:47 PM


Re: Re Life
Incorrect.

Life can only come from life.

The English words in Genesis 2:7 seem pretty plain.

God breathed into him the breath of life.

Life had to exist for God to transfer life to the man He had formed.

God is alive.

He has a Mind, Spirit and Body.

So no, God believing creationist do not have to accept that abiogenesis happened period.

God Bless,

ICANT, the Law of Biogenesis being used to claim that abiogenesis is impossible is a specific reference. It does not claim simply that living things create life - it says that maggots come from maggots and not rotting meat, that people come from people and not clay or dust. It's about reproduction, not being manufactured by an external entity.

And as far as God being alive or not...well, it would be awfully tricky to fit God with any scientific definition of life, since we can't observe him. Usually we say that all living things respire, reproduce, respond to stimuli, etc. In no scientific definition of "life" do "mind, spirit, and body" ever come into play. Does God respire, meaning process energy to survive? That would imply he needs air or food or is otherwise dependant on a chemical process for survival - which of course wouldn't fit with any description of God I;ve ever heard of. Does he reproduce? Maybe - possibly one could count Jesus as his direct offspring, but it really doesn't seem to fit since Jesus was human. For the rest of his "children" it seems to be more of a "creation" process and less of a "reproduction." Does he respond to stimuli? Not that anyone currently can demonstrate - studies involving prayer and other tests of God's response to stimuli invariably end as being ineffective, and that no deity responded to the stimuli.

There are other definitions of life (living things are very difficult to define in general - life doesn't seem to be so black/white a distinction), but none of them seem to fit well with a "spiritual" entity. It would seem that "spiritual" life and terrestrial life are apples and oranges, and the two are not the same.

But all of that is besides the point. Genesis specifically states that God Created man from dust, and made that dust live. Nonliving matter became alive. That is abiogenesis, simply not by the naturalistic methods that are typically implied by the word. Life as defined in terrestrial terms did not eternally exist in the Bible - it had to be Created by God. Plants sprung from the ground, fish spawned in the sea...everywhere living things were appearing where nothing living existed before. We could separate it out if you'd like, and call it "Divine Abiogenesis," but we're still talking about life coming from non-life, whether by naturalistic means or via divine machintions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by ICANT, posted 01-27-2009 6:47 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Capt Stormfield, posted 01-27-2009 8:50 PM Rahvin has not yet responded
 Message 153 by ICANT, posted 01-27-2009 9:25 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Capt Stormfield
Member
Posts: 402
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 146 of 211 (496337)
01-27-2009 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by ICANT
01-27-2009 6:47 PM


Re: Re Life
God breathed into him the breath of life.

Life had to exist for God to transfer life to the man He had formed.

So what exactly was transferred to the physical form? All the chemistry going on in our bodies (and in the bodies of newts, monkeys, bacteria, etc.) seems to work pretty much along the same lines as chemistry does outside those bodies. What were all those cells lacking before they came alive? Was he adding electrons? Atoms? What exactly?

I have noticed that some chunks of body stay alive when they are moved to a different body, even to a body of a different species in many cases. Hell, some living parts keep on living in lab environments. What is it that moves around with that chunk of liver that keeps it alive, and if you pull the plug in the lab, how does the life know to go away?

I'm assuming it must go away, because if it just stopped, it wouldn't be something that had to be added in the first place, now would it?

Capt.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by ICANT, posted 01-27-2009 6:47 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-27-2009 8:19 PM Capt Stormfield has not yet responded
 Message 155 by ICANT, posted 01-27-2009 9:44 PM Capt Stormfield has responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1174 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 147 of 211 (496339)
01-27-2009 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Capt Stormfield
01-27-2009 8:13 PM


Re: Re Life
Cardiac cells (as well as many other body cells) can be kept alive nearly indefinately (at least to the end of there natural cell cycle unless they can be coaxed to reproduce), given the right chemical nutrition to sustain its life.


For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan
This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Capt Stormfield, posted 01-27-2009 8:13 PM Capt Stormfield has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18307
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 148 of 211 (496345)
01-27-2009 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by homunculus
01-27-2009 5:19 PM


Re: Darwin loves you.
Homunculus, this is your topic, it's about "the source of life." Please start discussing your topic or stop participating in this thread. If you want to talk about the nature of science, find a thread where that's the topic, like What is a Theory?.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by homunculus, posted 01-27-2009 5:19 PM homunculus has not yet responded

    
Capt Stormfield
Member
Posts: 402
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 149 of 211 (496346)
01-27-2009 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Rahvin
01-27-2009 7:30 PM


Re: Re Life
God is alive.

He has a Mind, Spirit and Body.

God has a body? Who knew!
Where is it? What's it made out of?
Did it need the breath of life too?
Does he eat? Does he crap?
And yes, I think we all know that Kansas is the answer to that question ;o).

Or are you using the word "body" to mean something completely different from, ummm..., body.

Capt.

edit: sorry Rahvin, accidentally responded to your response to ICANT.

Edited by Capt Stormfield, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Rahvin, posted 01-27-2009 7:30 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
homunculus
Member (Idle past 3508 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009


Message 150 of 211 (496348)
01-27-2009 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by lyx2no
01-25-2009 12:18 AM


Re: Attention Human Clueless
Carbon dioxide: Wikipedia says,

varies between 0.036% (360 ppm) and 0.039% (390 ppm)

source; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

I say, 1-3% carbon dioxide and other gases. I think there is more carbon dioxide in the air than .036% or .048% as listed in some references. I actually remember in an older text book (1995 or so), saying that there was nitrogen, oxygen and some 3-4% carbon and other gasses around there. Irrelevant. Would make an interesting topic for another thread. I thought plant life actually inhaled co2 as compulsory process. No matter.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by lyx2no, posted 01-25-2009 12:18 AM lyx2no has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
15Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019