Abiogenesis

[Vulgaris Prime]

And I quote (never trying to twist your words you know)

“There's no such thing as "atheistic evolution". Theists and nontheists alike accept the same damn theory, you moron.”

 

Are you saying there is only evolution that was initiated by God?

 

You idiot. He's trying to say that evolution has nothing to do with the existence of a god. Lemme repeat that so you'll understand this:

 

EVOLUTION

HAS NOTHING TO DO

WITH THE EXISTENCE

OF A GOD.

 

Oh the hurdles one must jump through to call someone else a moron

----That has a familiar ring to it. Oh well, probably me just being smug.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Or you just being the usual fucking idiot you are. Odd thing, that - you being "smug" and you being stupid sound very much alike.

[invictus1967]

No one has shown any proven models for abiogenesis, because none exist.

 

Abiogenesis relies on random chance (a nice way of saying haphazard luck) and billions and billions of years (some even say an infinite time line) to get started.

 

Don’t take my word for it, ask Google. That’s what everyone else seems to be doing.

[Ouroboros]

And I quote (never trying to twist your words you know)

“There's no such thing as "atheistic evolution". Theists and nontheists alike accept the same damn theory, you moron.”

 

Are you saying there is only evolution that was initiated by God?

 

What does this mean for the abiogenesis crowd?

 

Is that what the whole Darwin/God debate was about?

 

Not trying to twist your words, just asking for some clarification.

 

Oh the hurdles one must jump through to call someone else a moron

----That has a familiar ring to it. Oh well, probably me just being smug.

You really have some problems with logic don’t you?

Or is the language a problem for you?

 

1. Before evolution there was a god, alien or whater OR abiogenesis.

 

2. After step 1 comes evolution; which doesn’t require an answer to the step 1.

 

Evolution doesn’t care if God exists or not.

[Hero of Hyrule]

I might add that Darwin Himself started as aChristian, he was married to a christian wife and he considered himself an agnostic.

[invictus1967]

It all goes back to my initial post on this thread. You want to separate abiogenesis from evolution because you recognize the absurdity of it.

 

But to not understand what atheistic evolution is, COME ON!!!!

 

Now you are trying to be funny.

 

Do any of you read outside of this website?????

 

In order to have evolution, you must have life. Now, either you think that life comes from random chance (abiogenesis) or you think it comes from God.

 

If you think evolution stems from random chance and God played no part in the evolutionary process either before it started or while it was (or is) in progress, that would be atheistic evolution.

 

If you believe God created life and then it evolved, that would be theistic evolution.

 

HOW EASY IS THAT TO UNDERSTAND!!!!!

 

You think I invented those terms myself???

 

Really, there is this little place called Barnes & Nobles, you should go some time.

[Mr. Neil]

If you believe God created life and then it evolved, that would be theistic evolution.

That's like saying that if God created the universe, it would be theistic astronomy. Do you not realize the ridiculousness of what you're trying to do?

 

Evolution is scientific theory that describes a phenomenon of nature. Why do you keep trying to overlay people's personal beliefs about theism on top of their acceptance of biological science?

 

And I quote (never trying to twist your words you know)

“There's no such thing as "atheistic evolution". Theists and nontheists alike accept the same damn theory, you moron.”

 

Are you saying there is only evolution that was initiated by God?

No!

 

I'm saying that evolution happens... period! Whether God exists or not, it happens. Like gravity. Like magnetism. It's not a matter of God doing anything or not doing anything. It's a matter of a particular phenomenon that takes place. Alleles change in the genome. Positive mutations occur.

 

What is there not to get, Invictus?

 

What does this mean for the abiogenesis crowd?

There isn't an "abiogenesis crowd". No one has faith in abiogenesis. Many of us simply don't know enough about biochemistry to make statements about it and thus don't comment on it. Spooky is the exception, as he can answer pretty much any question about it that you can throw at him.

 

That's not to say that I don't know anything about abiogenesis. Just not enough as Spooky, so I leave it to Spooky to dispense with your nonsense.

 

Invictus, I think what you're trying to do (correct me if I'm wrong) is that you're trying to drill us to account for things like the origin of life and shit like that, as though we need to have complete scientific theories on hand in order to reject theism, or as though we must have scientific theories that replace God.

 

But some of us reject theism in ways that have nothing to do with scientific discoveries. I, for example, rejected theism simply because it was a fifth wheel. It was filling in one hole with crap that it dug out of another. It just creates the same problem that it attempts to solve, and that problem is that something exists without creation. Either it's the universe or God.

 

I don't know where the universe comes from, but at least I will admit it. My assumptions also have one less step than yours does. You seem to think that the universe exists because God exists. I just assume that the universe exists. How it exists and how things occur are things that I may or may not be able to answer. I don't know everything.

 

But my inability to answer a question doesn't justify theism, nor does it prove that God exists. Understand?

 

Is that what the whole Darwin/God debate was about?

I don't understand this question. As far as I'm concerned, there shouldn't be a Darwin/God debate. Evolution only describes a phenomenon in nature. It's neutral to God. Just like gravity. Just like every other theory in science. There is not one theory in science that addresses the existence of God. Why do you keep trying to slip God into the evolution question?

 

Oh the hurdles one must jump through to call someone else a moron

----That has a familiar ring to it. Oh well, probably me just being smug.

Well, how many times do we have to keep telling you the same thing, Invictus? Evolution doesn't address the existence of God nor is it meant to explain the origin of life. You just keep trying to nail it with an unwarranted expectation. What do you want?

 

If you don't want to be called a moron, then don't say stupid things like "atheistic evolution". The more you contemptuously try to synonymize evolution with atheism, the more I'm going to assume that you're a moron.

 

Eventually, after having my arguments ignored over and over, I have to call into question the integrity and/or intelligence of the person with whom I am arguing. After all, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is the very definition of insanity.

 

 

Invictus, you've had every single question answered for you. I even gave you a link showing you evidence of evolution, which you ignored and continued to claim that no evidence exists. You misrepresented Darwin quotes --TWICE-- even after I debunked your quotes. I've done everything I could do to get through to you, and yet you still sit there arguing something that is completely unwarranted.

 

You're a moron, and I don't expect you to critically examine the evidence for evolution, because I handed it to you on a platter twice. You don't want to know the evidence for evolution, and you don't care to know. You don't want to accept evolution as a theory of biological change. You just want to mischaracterize it as an anti-God theory so you can reject it. You intellectually-bankrupt moron, you.

 

 

Now if you don't mind, I've got more constructive things to do than talking to a moron. Namely...

 

[Ouroboros]

MrNeil, have you seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail?

 

If you have, do you remember the scene with the Black Knight?

 

That’s how it feels.

“Oh, it’s just a flesh wound!”

“No it’s not, you have no legs!”

[Druid]

Charles Darwin started to "lose" his faith not as result of his theory but more a result of the death of his wife. Like Mel Gibson in that film Signs. (Words cannot express how much that film sucks).

 

This whole question about the improbabilities of abiogenesis is kinda stupid. Using probablity to prove or disprove past events is the mathematical qualitive of hammering a nail with a saw.

 

Simple experiment

 

1. Take one perfectly shuffled deck of cards.

2. Take 26 out randomly noting the suit/value.

3. Shuffle these and take on out at a time noting the order.

3. Stare at them for a while to make sure this event happened.

 

Let's find out the odds of this event. (I admitly slept alot in probablity so if someone says my calculations are wrong please correct me, what I did is multiplied the number of possible combinations of 26 from 52 by the number of arrangements the 26 can come in).

 

199 999 709 700 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 to 1.

 

This is a big number. The odds against my event are very very very unlikely. Did it happen? Yes. Does the probablitiy against it happening matter? No.

 

Would the people who say that the improbability of an event occuring rules it out throw away their ticket if they won the lotto?

[MrSpooky]

No one has shown any proven models for abiogenesis, because none exist.

 

What exactly do you mean by "proven?" Does this mean that because we have no explicit proof yet that it doesn't exist?

 

Normally, you CAN discount a substantive idea if there is no supporting evidence for it. However, if we have a CONTEXT for that idea (and I've shown you that abiogenesis DOES have a context for us to start from) we can approach the issue scientifically.

 

It's because of this that abiogenesis is more than hypothetical. Admittedly, current models ARE hypothetical, but abiogenesis itself as a biochemical field is quite well-justified as a scientific theory.

 

 

 

Abiogenesis relies on random chance (a nice way of saying haphazard luck) and billions and billions of years (some even say an infinite time line) to get started.

 

Look at my posts about how "billions and billions of years" can be trimmed down to mere seconds once you actually do the experiment.

 

 

 

Don’t take my word for it, ask Google. That’s what everyone else seems to be doing.

 

Fine. Cite your sources.

[Ouroboros]

invictus1967,

 

I think your problem to understand us comes from the notion that you think we are denying faith in God because we think Evolution is such a better explanation. That is not necessarily the reason for us being agnostic or atheists. Most of us came to the conclusion of “no-god” by life experience and many days and nights of studying and thinking. It didn’t come over night, and not like, “Oh, today I’m going to be an atheist instead, how cool!” We don’t use Evolution or any other method to prove that God doesn’t exist. We don’t use cosmological arguments to prove or disprove anything. We just don’t have the knowledge or notion of any god in our lives, and until we have evidence to the opposite, there is no need to have faith in such an idea. Maybe there is a God, but if there is, I am even more convinced then anything else that he is not the God depicted in the Bible! So if you manage to convince anyone of us that God exists, you will end up with a crowd that would turn to Islam, Deism, Hinduism, Naturalism, Wicca, and Satanism before they even put a second thought into Christianity. So what is your purpose of this preaching here? Do you expect us to bow down and become convinced? Do understand that some of us spend their whole life as Christians, and realized that the supposed god image everyone tries to sell and the bible speaks of is actually fake?

 

I'm not denying your belief in God, but don't expect us to fall on our faces because you came up with a proof that was invented 500 years ago.

[Hero of Hyrule]

Remember, I'm on your side. But this

You intellectually-bankrupt moron, you.

is why some people think that evolution beliefs also cause moral degeneration...

I fully agree that invictus could have posted much more reasonable replies but he didn't do any name calling yet...His knowlege of science may be inferior but he has at least the strengts of hearth to keep replying.

Unless he is a web-masochist...

[Ouroboros]

Would the people who say that the improbability of an event occuring rules it out throw away their ticket if they won the lotto?

 

Very nice that you brought that thought up. Good thinking.

 

If there were an infinite number of universes that came to being at the same time as ours, we know this as much: this universe was at least one that had all the parameters to be able to develop and sustain life. We know nothing more than that.

 

This is a funny thought:

 

Even if the probability to win lotto is less than to be struck with lightning, yet someone wins almost every week, and no one get struck with lightning.

[Ouroboros]

The theory of abiogenesis has all but been proven false.

And yet you maintain your faith in a God! You need proof to accept abiogenesis, but you don’t need proof to accept God?

 

In my opinion, to be an atheist requires a much greater leap of faith than it does to believe in God.

Oh, does it now?

 

Let’s see:

 

Which one is totally proven to be absolutely true, 100% proven?

God: nope

Abiogenesis: nope

 

But let’s do it in amount of evidence instead, less than 100%:

 

Proof of God: zero

Proof of abiogenesis: some

 

 

Which one tipped the scale?

[Dhampir]

Since I jumped in very late, I just want to make an observation on this probility thing Invictus keeps harping on (hey, buddy, remember me?)

 

I'm looking at this scroll lock key on this computer. And I'm considering this: 1. the universe formed with or without god, with all its atoms, and all the atoms that will ever be extant in it.

 

2. the gaseous hydrogen that composed the entire matter spectrum at that time cooled.

 

3. Said hydrogen coalesced in pools that eventually gave birth to the rudiments of galaxies, nebulas and stars.

 

4. These forms gave off particles of themselves that recombined to form more complex atoms

 

5. More complex atoms arose from this evenutally forming planetoids and later planets.

 

6. forces of energy that had been acting on the matter of the universe formed this galaxy, this solar system, and this planet.

 

7. With or without god, life began (which fact is more or less irrelevant to this point)

 

8. It grew up to this point

 

9. some guy started Gateway computers

 

10. Some factory took raw materials

 

11. Built the computer I'm sitting at.

 

All this taken in, what are the odds that the 6 trillion or so atoms that compose this scroll lock key would come from being pure hydrogen at the beginning of time, be moved in such a way that they would be apart of the chemical reaction that gave birth to the earth, become apart of the complexity that made them the raw materials needed to create the plastic that created it, then be harvested as those materials, formed into plastic, then into this particular scroll lock key, then placed into this keyboard?

 

I'm not a numbers guy, but if I had to hazard a guess, I'd say somewhere in the neighborhood of 6,000,000,000,000 * 10 ^270,000 or so. greater at least than the probability of life on one planet out of billions. given that measurement, it seems like a once an eternity event, and yet it happened. So why do people like invictus harp on the probability of something happening that happened?

[Ouroboros]

I'm not a numbers guy, but if I had to hazard a guess, I'd say somewhere in the neighborhood of 6,000,000,000,000 * 10 ^270,000 or so.  greater at least than the probability of life on one planet out of billions.  given that measurement, it seems like a once an eternity event, and yet it happened.  So why do people like invictus harp on the probability of something happening that happened?

 

I don’t think Invictus really believe in probability.

 

What is the probability that I’m the one putting this post on this web site right now, and not someone else?

 

The chance would at least be 1 out of 6 billion?

 

Yet it happened.

[invictus1967]

I must be away for a few days so this will be my last post for a while.

Hold the applause, please.

 

But I will leave you with one parting shot that I will post here and in other threads.

 

Until you learn to see the parts as a whole, you will never develop an understanding for them individually. I don’t just mean as I understand, but your own independently developed understanding.

 

You must see how it all interacts together. Not just the appearance of a species, but how does this appearance fit with the beginning of life. How does the beginning of the universe fit with the species. How does what exists now fit with what existed before life. How does what existed prior to the “Big Bang” fit with what exist now.

 

Don’t just read the rehashed gibberish that floats on this and other websites; research, go to libraries and book stories. Go to college campuses, take courses and talk to people. Let it all sink in. Let your mind be free to wonder through the all the stimulation without any pre-imposed destination.

 

Put all the individual parts together and see the big picture. Then put yourself in the picture and look around.

[MrSpooky]

You must see how it all interacts together. Not just the appearance of a species, but how does this appearance fit with the beginning of life. How does the beginning of the universe fit with the species. How does what exists now fit with what existed before life. How does what existed prior to the “Big Bang” fit with what exist now.

 

You DO realize that a lot of scientific inquiry is a bottom-up procedure, right?

 

 

 

Don’t just read the rehashed gibberish that floats on this and other websites; research, go to libraries and book stories. Go to college campuses, take courses and talk to people. Let it all sink in. Let your mind be free to wonder through the all the stimulation without any pre-imposed destination.

 

I'll be sure to do that while I'm here in Berkeley going into my fourth year as a double major in Genetics and Cognitive Neurobiology.

[Dhampir]

I don’t think Invictus really believe in probability.

 

What is the probability that I’m the one putting this post on this web site right now, and not someone else?

 

The chance would at least be 1 out of 6 billion?

 

Yet it happened.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I should probably have said greater than the probability that god would start life on this planet out of billions.

[crazy-tiger]

And I quote (never trying to twist your words you know)

We'll see...

“There's no such thing as "atheistic evolution". Theists and nontheists alike accept the same damn theory, you moron.”

 

Are you saying there is only evolution that was initiated by God?

And he twists Neil's words...

 

You're a lying moron.

What does this mean for the abiogenesis crowd?

Fuck all, 'cos you're pulling stuff out of your arse.

Is that what the whole Darwin/God debate was about?

THERE IS NO DEBATE!

 

You just keep trying to shoe-horn God into a theory that depends on neither it's existence or non-existence.

 

You're a two-faced, lying moron.

Not trying to twist your words, just asking for some clarification.

Too fucking late...

 

You twisted our words and ignored any clarification we've given you.

 

You're an ignorant, two-faced, lying moron.

Oh the hurdles one must jump through to call someone else a moron

----That has a familiar ring to it. Oh well, probably me just being smug.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay... you're a smug, ignorant, two-faced, lying moron.

 

 

Is that what you came here to prove?

[crazy-tiger]

It all goes back to my initial post on this thread. You want to separate abiogenesis from evolution because you recognize the absurdity of it.

Nothing to do with them not being connected or dependant on each other, then?

 

You don't know what you're talking about, but you're damn sure you know why we do things...

But to not understand what atheistic evolution is, COME ON!!!!

Evolution is evolution is evolution...

 

What part of this don't you understand?

Now you are trying to be funny.

 

Do any of you read outside of this website?????

Yes... have you ever tried using your brain?

In order to have evolution, you must have life. Now, either you think that life comes from random chance (abiogenesis) or you think it comes from God.

Good enough, I suppose...

If you think evolution stems from random chance and God played no part in the evolutionary process either before it started or while it was (or is) in progress, that would be atheistic evolution.

 

If you believe God created life and then it evolved, that would be theistic evolution.

 

HOW EASY IS THAT TO UNDERSTAND!!!!!

I repeat...

 

EVOLUTION IS EVOLUTION IS EVOLUTION!

Whatever came before it has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!

 

Is it getting through to you now, or are you still being a complete dunce?

You think I invented those terms myself???

 

Really, there is this little place called Barnes & Nobles, you should go some time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you know what Theistic evolutionist is?

 

It's a Christian who accepts evolution.

 

 

Read that again... A CHRISTIAN that accepts evolution.

 

Why doesn't it mean a THEIST that accepts evolution? Because you twats are so fucking arrogant, you think that "Theist" means "Christian"

Well, get this... IT DOESN'T!

Start using the proper fucking terms... CHRISTIAN evolution, ISLAMIC evolution, BHUDDIST evolution, AGNOSTIC evolution, PAGAN evolution, and so on.

 

Now that you see just how stupid such a tactic is, maybe you'll head back to the only true term... EVOLUTION.

[Java]

Remember, I'm on your side. But thisis why some people think that evolution beliefs also cause moral degeneration...

I fully agree that invictus could have posted much more reasonable replies but he didn't do any name calling yet...His knowlege of science may be inferior but he has at least the strengts of hearth to keep replying.

Unless he is a web-masochist...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

He DID quote-mine though, and that's pretty iffy, bordering on dishonest if done "correctly."

[Mr. Neil]

Here's what he did.

 

He posted a few Darwin quotes. Then I refuted them. Then he posted them again, omitting the parts that were refuted and making them appear that Darwin was saying something that, if you read the full quote in context, you will plainly see he said no such things. Note the vox populi one, which is so obviously talking about appealing to the majority, yet he twisted the quote so that it appeared as though Darwin was talking about theism and the existence of God.

 

That's pretty dishonest, and I have every right question his integrity after such a filthy, dispicable tactic.

 

You know what? Maybe I shouldn't have called him a moron. I was being nice. I should have called him a fucking bitch-ass liar!

[♦ ficino ♦]

No one has shown any proven models for abiogenesis, because none exist.

 

Abiogenesis relies on random chance (a nice way of saying haphazard luck) and billions and billions of years (some even say an infinite time line) to get started.

 

Don’t take my word for it, ask Google. That’s what everyone else seems to be doing.

 

You said before, "abiogenesis has all but been proven false." Now you slide from that strong claim to the weak "no one has shown any proven models for abiogenesis, because none exist." Accounting for the fudge factor of your "all but," you have not acknowledged the significant gap between your earlier claim and your argument for it. "It is not the case that X is proved true" is nowise equivalent to "it is the case that X is proved not true;" you've misapplied your negative operator.

 

The fact that models for abiogenesis are at the hypothetical stage does not constitute their near falsification. On the contrary, the coherence of a model provides direction for further research which may strengthen the model's claim to explanatory and predictive power. This is how scientific research works. It's up to you to show the holes in the model; saying that evidence for it has not yet reached the scope to convert hypothesis to theory (or demonstration) just amounts to pointing out that research is still underway.

 

As to time, your allowance of billions of years may be enough.

 

It is not a consensus among biochemists that abiogenesis is close to falsification.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Until you learn to see the parts as a whole, you will never develop an understanding for them individually. I don’t just mean as I understand, but your own independently developed understanding.

 

.....

Don’t just read the rehashed gibberish that floats on this and other websites; research, go to libraries and book stories. Go to college campuses, take courses and talk to people. Let it all sink in. Let your mind be free to wonder through the all the stimulation without any pre-imposed destination.

 

 

 

Invictus, this is great advice, and I agree wholeheartedly. I don't know whether you take your own advice, to be honest with you. I don't think you start without pre-imposed destinations and follow the argument where it leads. I think you have a prior commitment to Christian doctrine, maybe Calvinist?, as a set of true propositions - a commitment you have reached for reasons unknown to me - and then you fit your thinking about cosmology, the origin of species, underneath that set of propositions.

 

I deny that you have reached understanding in the sense, say, that Aristotle uses the word "episteme" to mean understanding of a field of knowledge. Your first principles don't come from the domain you are studying, they come from an ancient jumble of texts as interpreted by N. European divines in the 16th-17th centuries or the like. You're using the first principles of a different science, theology, to try to tackle biochemistry. To be cute, I'd say you might as well insist that Marxism is scientific.

 

the walking around, studying, reflecting, etc. is a great challenge. I've done a lot of that in my field, Greek and Latin philology, in which I have a Ph.D. from an Ivy League university. I also have a fairly solid training in certain branches of philosophy. Mr. Spooky's doing the walking around now in fields that come into the domains of biology, physics and chemistry. I'm not sure about Mr. Neil, Lokmer, Han Solo (computer science, I think?), Crazy Tiger and others on here... nor what your area of expertise is, Invictus. Maybe those who are in on this ought to say something about our backgrounds, if we haven't done so previously.

 

Anyway, citing sources is a great help. Invictus, you keep making claims but don't cite sources to overturn what Spooky said about abiogenesis a few pages ago.

[Druid]

Maybe those who are in on this ought to say something about our backgrounds, if we haven't done so previously.

 

Gradutating top of my class in Electrical Engineering in two weeks from one of the most prestigious colleges in my country. (Only found out last friday so I'm in that "sweet" buzz). Starting PhD. September.