Who has the burden of proof?

william_374
william_374's picture
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-11-10
User is offlineOffline
Who has the burden of proof?

If we were to discover a fully automated factory of some kind on the Moon or Mars, we would have to assume it is the product of design, at least until we could satisfactorily show that it is not.

This situation "defaults" to a designer, and the burden of proof resides on those who champion an alternate, much more complicated explanation. The existence of the designer *is* an explanation, in fact it is the simplest one. And please, no "who created the designer" questions, IF he is necessary, then he DOES exist, and he has the property of having always existed.

And even if you can show that life does not require a designer, you still need something at a very fundamental level to have "always existed". The fact that the Big Bang occurred means there was something before the Big Bang. If there was absolutely nothing before the Big Bang, there would be absolutely nothing right now. The universe needs an uncaused cause, the only question is whether this "uncaused cause" has intelligence or not.

Let's make one small thing clear though: none of the revealed religions are correct. If you spend any time researching the origin of the so-called sacred texts, you see that the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), the New Testament and the Koran were all written by MEN. They are *not* the "Word of God".

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2061773048178434620

So who's actually making the more extraordinary claim here, the idea that something that looks designed WAS designed, or the idea that life gives the astounding illusion that it was designed, but that in fact it was not. The second claim requires EXTENSIVE demonstration to be valid. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

So, as of 2007, what is the pathway, starting from rocks and water, that leads to the LUCA?


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
william_374 wrote: If we

william_374 wrote:
If we were to discover a fully automated factory of some kind on the Moon or Mars, we would have to assume it is the product of design, at least until we could satisfactorily show that it is not.

That example uses something already known to be designed, so you're begging the question here.

william_374 wrote:
This situation “defaults“ to a designer, and the burden of proof resides on those who champion an alternate, much more complicated explanation.

Based on your terrible 'factory' analogy.

william_374 wrote:
The existence of the designer *is* an explanation, in fact it is the simplest one.

To biology, it explains nothing. I'll come back to this at the end.

william_374 wrote:
And please, no “who created the designer“ questions, IF he is necessary, then he DOES exist, and he has the property of having always existed.

1. Why do you declare the question off limits?

2. Your statement about the designer's designer having always existed is an ad hoc.

william_374 wrote:
And even if you can show that life does not require a designer, you still need something at a very fundamental level to have “always existed“.

Why?

william_374 wrote:
The fact that the Big Bang occurred means there was something before the Big Bang.

I hear space and time are intertwined, so 'before' is meaningless in Big Bang Theory.

william_374 wrote:
If there was absolutely nothing before the Big Bang, there would be absolutely nothing right now.

What basis do you have for saying this? Not that I'm making an ex nihilo argument.

william_374 wrote:
The universe needs an uncaused cause, the only question is whether this “uncaused cause“ has intelligence or not.

That's a false dilemma; why couldn't there be, for instance, an infinite regress? I'm not saying there is, but I want to know what the basis of your assertion is.

william_374 wrote:
Let's make one small thing clear though: none of the revealed religions are correct.

And yet you steal arguments from them.

william_374 wrote:
If you spend any time researching the origin of the so-called sacred texts, you see that the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), the New Testament and the Koran were all written by MEN. They are *not* the “Word of God“.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2061773048178434620

*Is aghast*

william_374 wrote:
So who's actually making the more extraordinary claim here, the idea that something that looks designed WAS designed,

You haven't demonstrated anything natural 'looks' designed, only stated that an artificial thing (factory) looks artificial.

william_374 wrote:
or the idea that life gives the astounding illusion that it was designed, but that in fact it was not. The second claim requires EXTENSIVE demonstration to be valid.

If you consider the anthropocentrism that causes us to say something 'looks' designed -- the same way a cloud can 'look' like a face -- a basis for a conclusion, then you're right.

william_374 wrote:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Don't drag Sagan into your drivel.

william_374 wrote:
So, as of 2007, what is the pathway, starting from rocks and water, that leads to the LUCA?

The theory of evolution is used in biological science. If Creation Science/ID is science, and hopes to replace the theory of evolution, what predictions does it make and what applications does it have?


Edison Trent
Theist
Edison Trent's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-11-10
User is offlineOffline
william_374 wrote: Let's

william_374 wrote:

Let's make one small thing clear though: none of the revealed religions are correct. If you spend any time researching the origin of the so-called sacred texts, you see that the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), the New Testament and the Koran were all written by MEN. They are *not* the "Word of God".

Of course they were written by men.  What do you want, God to write stuff on paper and send it on down?  Perhaps that's your view of how the "Word of God" should be, but I think that God would use the most obvious choice of giving his instructions to people by telling them what to write.  You should read Lee Strobel's book "The Case For Christ" if you want to do some good research on the NT's origins.


shelley
ModeratorRRS local affiliate
shelley's picture
Posts: 1859
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
william_374 wrote: If we

william_374 wrote:
If we were to discover a fully automated factory of some kind on the Moon or Mars, we would have to assume it is the product of design, at least until we could satisfactorily show that it is not.

This is silly, but I'll humor you.  Wouldn't we use our scientific knowledge to come to this conclusion?  Such as:

- Well this factory is built from steel and there is no steel here so perhaps someone else brought it - or-

- We arrived here by spaceship.  Who else could have spaceship technology? (maybe the russians did it...) - or -

- Perhaps try to communicate with the factory workers.  If they are all computers we could try to interface with them. 

These three things I just mentioned seem to be logical ways to conclude someone came to the planet and "designed" not just someone looking up to the sky and saying I don't know where that sun comes from but it sure is a good, reliable, lightbulb therefore there must have been one hell of a designer.  


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
william_374 wrote: If we

william_374 wrote:
If we were to discover a fully automated factory of some kind on the Moon or Mars, we would have to assume it is the product of design, at least until we could satisfactorily show that it is not.

This situation "defaults" to a designer, and the burden of proof resides on those who champion an alternate, much more complicated explanation. The existence of the designer *is* an explanation, in fact it is the simplest one. And please, no "who created the designer" questions, IF he is necessary, then he DOES exist, and he has the property of having always existed.
Obviously some form of life built this factory. However, you change the subject completely in your next paragraph below, from creating factories to creating life itself. There is no analogy.

Quote:
And even if you can show that life does not require a designer, you still need something at a very fundamental level to have "always existed".
What exactly is a "very fundamental level" and do you have any proof that "it" always existed?
Quote:
The fact that the Big Bang occurred means there was something before the Big Bang. If there was absolutely nothing before the Big Bang, there would be absolutely nothing right now. The universe needs an uncaused cause, the only question is whether this "uncaused cause" has intelligence or not.
It's your claim so the burden of proof is on you.

Quote:
Let's make one small thing clear though: none of the revealed religions are correct. If you spend any time researching the origin of the so-called sacred texts, you see that the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), the New Testament and the Koran were all written by MEN. They are *not* the "Word of God".
Indeed, I agree with that!

Quote:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2061773048178434620

So who's actually making the more extraordinary claim here, the idea that something that looks designed WAS designed, or the idea that life gives the astounding illusion that it was designed, but that in fact it was not. The second claim requires EXTENSIVE demonstration to be valid. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

So, as of 2007, what is the pathway, starting from rocks and water, that leads to the LUCA?
Seriously dude, you think people have time to watch every 1 1/2 hour documentary that comes along?
 How about you giving us a short summary of what this movie is about.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


william_374
william_374's picture
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-11-10
User is offlineOffline
My point was that the idea

My point was that the idea that you can start from rocks and end up with self-replicating organisms made of interdependent molecular machinery is a HUGE claim, and the burden of proof is on those making it.

Yes or no?


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
william_374 wrote:

william_374 wrote:
My point was that the idea that you can start from rocks and end up with self-replicating organisms made of interdependent molecular machinery is a HUGE claim, and the burden of proof is on those making it.

Yes or no?
I do not think anyone here claimed life came from rocks. How did you derive this erroneous belief?

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
william_374 wrote: My point

william_374 wrote:
My point was that the idea that you can start from rocks and end up with self-replicating organisms made of interdependent molecular machinery is a HUGE claim, and the burden of proof is on those making it.

Yes or no?

'Rocks,' eh? Are you a Hovind fan? 


Edison Trent
Theist
Edison Trent's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-11-10
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote: william_374

aiia wrote:
william_374 wrote:
My point was that the idea that you can start from rocks and end up with self-replicating organisms made of interdependent molecular machinery is a HUGE claim, and the burden of proof is on those making it.

Yes or no?
I do not think anyone here claimed life came from rocks. How did you derive this erroneous belief?

It's along the lines of life coming from non-life. 


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Edison Trent wrote:

Edison Trent wrote:

It's along the lines of life coming from non-life.

Until there is evidence to the contrary, it is a viable hypothesis.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Edison Trent
Theist
Edison Trent's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-11-10
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote: Edison Trent

aiia wrote:
Edison Trent wrote:

It's along the lines of life coming from non-life.

Until there is evidence to the contrary, it is a viable hypothesis.

So the theory of life from non-life is true until proven wrong?  I think we could say the same of a God here.  And besides, can you really prove a negative?  Theories are wrong until proven right, not the other way around.


Zombie
RRS local affiliate
Zombie's picture
Posts: 573
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Evolution is simply the best

Evolution is simply the best working theory we have, until someone gives me solid evidence to think otherwise, i'll stick with it.

Morte alla tyrannus et dei


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
william_374 wrote: If we

william_374 wrote:
If we were to discover a fully automated factory of some kind on the Moon or Mars, we would have to assume it is the product of design, at least until we could satisfactorily show that it is not.

Actually it shows the factory exists. You ASSUME someone made it. Though in all actuallity, the fact is overall you could say it was made by someone, because you are using an example of something on our planet, and to our understanding NEEDS to be created, or designed.

william_374 wrote:
This situation "defaults" to a designer, and the burden of proof resides on those who champion an alternate, much more complicated explanation. The existence of the designer *is* an explanation, in fact it is the simplest one. And please, no "who created the designer" questions, IF he is necessary, then he DOES exist, and he has the property of having always existed.

He would not be needed in your example. It is also not the simplest one, the simplest answer would be "we don't know" until an explanation is proven. NO MATTER THE SITUATION, UNLESS IT IS PROVEN, IT DOESN'T HAPPEN. Period. The negative view is to be taken, unless it can be proven.

william_374 wrote:
And even if you can show that life does not require a designer, you still need something at a very fundamental level to have "always existed". The fact that the Big Bang occurred means there was something before the Big Bang. If there was absolutely nothing before the Big Bang, there would be absolutely nothing right now. The universe needs an uncaused cause, the only question is whether this "uncaused cause" has intelligence or not.

Before the big bang? Which big bang. Explain. The big bang was a singularity, or similar to a black hole, matter condenced into a single point in time and space, a huge amount of matter(185 billion galaxies worth, in the space of a millionth of a photon in size) was crushed together due to gravity, causing a large amount of friction, causing heat, causing the matter to hit critical heat limit, causing massive expansion, causing universe to expand.

 

In thermodynamics, a law exists. The first one infact, that matter or energy can not be destroyed, nor create, but can only be converted to the either or. Meaning, if matter exists, or energy exists, IT ALWAYS EXISTED. If someone exists, that can not be created, it always existed. Sorry. So matter, that always existed, came together into a giant black hole, causing expansion, making this universe. Space could go on forever, filled with matter, and every so much space could have it's own big bang, when matter comes together.

 

william_374 wrote:
Let's make one small thing clear though: none of the revealed religions are correct. If you spend any time researching the origin of the so-called sacred texts, you see that the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), the New Testament and the Koran were all written by MEN. They are *not* the "Word of God".

I agree.

 

william_374 wrote:
So who's actually making the more extraordinary claim here, the idea that something that looks designed WAS designed, or the idea that life gives the astounding illusion that it was designed, but that in fact it was not. The second claim requires EXTENSIVE demonstration to be valid. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The extordanary claim here is yours, that life seems designed. It doesn't.

 

william_374 wrote:
So, as of 2007, what is the pathway, starting from rocks and water, that leads to the LUCA?

Electricity, the essential matter for life, water, can create amnio acids. Scientists have produced this a few times. Though not completely, it was reproduced somewhat. Give the right amnio acids time, they can create RNA.

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Edison Trent wrote: aiia

Edison Trent wrote:
aiia wrote:
Edison Trent wrote:

It's along the lines of life coming from non-life.

Until there is evidence to the contrary, it is a viable hypothesis.

So the theory of life from non-life is true until proven wrong?  I think we could say the same of a God here.  And besides, can you really prove a negative?  Theories are wrong until proven right, not the other way around.

Theories of abiogenesis have been substantiated by lab tests replicating amino acids, and self-replicating molecules. Further testing will determine whether it remains a viable hypothesis or not (it's falsifiable). Aside from substantiating yet another theory that excludes the possibility of invoking supernatural agents, I don't know what methods could be used to falsify claims that 'god did it.' On that same token, I don't know what possible evidence you could find that would actually support a supernatural agent, since such an idea would be a suspension of natural principles as we understand them and thus be incomprehensible as evidence.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Zombie wrote: Evolution is

Zombie wrote:
Evolution is simply the best working theory we have, until someone gives me solid evidence to think otherwise, i'll stick with it.

Not that you're making the mistake, but now that I see where the thread is going it's important to differentiate here and now.

Evolution = science regarding the development of life.

Abiogenesis = science regarding the origin of life. 


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Edison Trent wrote: aiia

Edison Trent wrote:
aiia wrote:
Edison Trent wrote:

It's along the lines of life coming from non-life.

Until there is evidence to the contrary, it is a viable hypothesis.

So the theory of life from non-life is true until proven wrong? I think we could say the same of a God here. And besides, can you really prove a negative? Theories are wrong until proven right, not the other way around.

You dare question the possiblility of life coming from non life when all the material for it is everywhere? Where the hells your evidence of this "god" you claim exists!!? HUH Can you even define it?!

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


JeremiahSmith
Posts: 361
Joined: 2006-11-25
User is offlineOffline
The only burden in this

The only burden in this thread is having to read yet more idiotic iterations of the argument from design and the first cause argument, along with the ignorance regarding abiogenesis. Now I remember why I don't get into Internet religious debates much anymore. It's all the same damned thing over and over.

Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Well I have to make a

Well I have to make a little point here.

If nothing is presumed and we use the scientific method to figure out what the heck is going on then it will point toward an answer.  Of course it's going to take centuries if not millenia to figure out every bitty tiny detail and prove it beyond all doubt.

But just looking at the facts that have been proven so far it points toward one thing.

Life arose into an extremely simple state from materials we call organic, gradually became more sophisticated, branched out into different lines of evolutionary direction, and ended with all the life we currently have on earth. 

Ended as of right now that is.

I've yet to hear otherwise except from people who have first bought into a religion, with no evidence to support it, and then start making false claims, misquoting respectable scientists, and using confusing logic.

Looks like shit, smells like shit, I'm betting it's shit.

 

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:

william_374 wrote:
My point was that the idea that you can start from rocks and end up with self-replicating organisms made of interdependent molecular machinery is a HUGE claim, and the burden of proof is on those making it.

Yes or no?

yes

You are

Oxygen (65%)
Carbon (18%)
Hydrogen (10%)
Nitrogen (3%)
Calcium (1.5%)
Phosphorus (1.0%)
Potassium (0.35%)
Sulfur (0.25%)
Sodium (0.15%)
Chlorine( 0.15% )
Magnesium (0.05%)
Iron(0.0004%)

Copper, Zinc, Selenium, Molybdenum, Fluorine, Manganese, Cobalt, Lithium, Strontium, Aluminum, Silicon, Lead, Vanadium, Arsenic, Bromine (trace amounts)

This is a HUGE claim that is backed up by evidence lots and lots of evidence, claiming some invisible deity created life is also a HUGE claim, with absolutely no supporting evidence,

The weight of evidence although not absolutely conclusive at the moment, points with a degree of certainty towards self-replicating organisms from rocks, ? would you like me to elaborate


Edison Trent
Theist
Edison Trent's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-11-10
User is offlineOffline
Quote: You dare question

Quote:

You dare question the possiblility of life coming from non life when all the material for it is everywhere? Where the hells your evidence of this "god" you claim exists!!? HUH Can you even define it?!

Just because the material is there doesn't necessarily mean that the material can form together into a living organism.  I'm working on compiling a list of evidence, but it will take some time.  Defining God is a hard task, seeing as how you can really only give characteristics of God.  Since we have never seen God, I don't think we can fully define him in physical descriptions.  My best answer would be that it is a non-physical spirit, I'm not going to give you the never-ending tirade of descriptions and omni's because I'm sure you've all heard them before.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Edison Trent wrote: Just

Edison Trent wrote:
Just because the material is there doesn't necessarily mean that the material can form together into a living organism.

The materialist view has the advantage of evidence of, well, the material. As I've stated before, and not even having kept up with the latest experiments, aspects of abiogenesis have been reproduced artificially. The hypothesis can be supported by further evidence, or it will be proven false. Since the 'theory' of a supernatural agent creating life is only dependent on there being a lack of evidence ('god is real if it looks like life started abruptly&#39Eye-wink, and the description of the creation contradicts known physical principles, 'proof' of creation would be functionally identical to a lack of evidence either way, and the conclusion not differentiable from an argument from ignorance fallacy.

 

[...]


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
william_374 wrote: My point

william_374 wrote:
My point was that the idea that you can start from rocks and end up with self-replicating organisms made of interdependent molecular machinery is a HUGE claim, and the burden of proof is on those making it.

Yes or no?

Yes. The claim that life arose from non-life is one that needs to be proven (leaving aside the difficulty in defining what life is for the time being). To this point it is unproven. Does this mean that the default answer is that something magicked life into existence? Of course not. That claim would need to be proven as well.

At this point there are some solid scientific avenues, evidenced and testable type hypothesis, being investigated that hold decent possibilities of explaining how life arose from non-life. There are exactly zero evidenced avenues that explain how it is possible for life to be magiked from non-life, by a non-material entity, no less (whatever that is supposed to mean).

I would have to think that one is much more likely than the other. Guess which one.

I dont think you will find anyone here claiming that there is a proven theory of abiogenesis. This  however has no effect on the truth of the theory of evolution. Evolution is beyond any reasonable doubt the means by which life came to exist in all the varied forms we see on the planet today.

Evolution is proven.

Abiogenesis isn't yet.

Creation can not, and never will, be. 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Edison Trent wrote:

Edison Trent wrote:

Just because the material is there doesn't necessarily mean that the material can form together into a living organism.
But of course material did not form itself into life as you are insinuating because material doesn't have a mind. I never said anything about matter forming itself into life. But living things are made of matter, we have proof of this. The mathematical probabilities are that different substances became close enough to react chemically to cause life to begin. Its really not that difficult to hypothesize. And we know magic doesn't exist.
Quote:
I'm working on compiling a list of evidence, but it will take some time.
You will be the first human on the planet to do so.
Quote:
Defining God is a hard task, seeing as how you can really only give characteristics of God.
None of which has ever been verified.
Quote:
Since we have never seen God, I don't think we can fully define him in physical descriptions. My best answer would be that it is a non-physical spirit, I'm not going to give you the never-ending tirade of descriptions and omni's because I'm sure you've all heard them before.
Now tell us what a non-physical spirit is.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Edison Trent
Theist
Edison Trent's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-11-10
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:

aiia wrote:

But living things are made of matter, we have proof of this. The mathematical probabilities are that different substances became close enough to react chemically to cause life to begin.

Yes, living organisms are matter. I like probabilities, but what kinds of chemicals would react to produce life? Maybe I need to do some reading on the subject, but if you have a good source go for it.

Quote:

You will be the first human on the planet to do so.

Well, it won't be easy but research is fun.

Quote:

None of which has ever been verified.

Agreed, we can only theorize about the qualities of God from something God has given us, like a written source or having a conversation (though they are rare if they do happen).

Quote:

Now tell us what a non-physical spirit is.

Blast, I knew this was coming. Well...I guess it would be something you can't physically touch, but can communicate with. I really don't know, I guess you can't define God because no one has seen God, much less met God.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Edison Trent wrote:

Edison Trent wrote:

go for it.

There's plenty of information about forming probabilities. Google away.


Quote:

Agreed, we can only theorize about the qualities of God from something God has given us, like a written source or having a conversation (though they are rare if they do happen).

I have no idea what you are talking about. As long as there is no definition for "god" anything can be said about it, so there can never be a theory. Everything you've read about "god" is imaginary.

Quote:
Quote:
Now tell us what a non-physical spirit is.

Blast, I knew this was coming. Well...I guess it would be something you can't physically touch, but can communicate with. I really don't know, I guess you can't define God because no one has seen God, much less met God.

Of course it cannot be touched, its nonphysical and communication is impossible also because all communications is physical.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1234
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
Edison Trent wrote: aiia

Edison Trent wrote:

aiia wrote:

Now tell us what a non-physical spirit is.

Blast, I knew this was coming. Well...I guess it would be something you can't physically touch, but can communicate with. I really don't know, I guess you can't define God because no one has seen God, much less met God.

How do we distinguish between the non-physical and the non-existent? 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


william_374
william_374's picture
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-11-10
User is offlineOffline
Edison Trent wrote: aiia

Edison Trent wrote:

aiia wrote:

But living things are made of matter, we have proof of this. The mathematical probabilities are that different substances became close enough to react chemically to cause life to begin.

Yes, living organisms are matter. I like probabilities, but what kinds of chemicals would react to produce life? Maybe I need to do some reading on the subject, but if you have a good source go for it.

Why sir, allow me!

A brief summary of abiogenesis:

1. Bases derived from purine and pyrimidine form naturally in the primordial earth ocean, giving out adenine, guanine, cytosine and uracyl.

2. These molecules react with pentose (which also formed naturally), producing the corresponding nucleosides.

3. The nucleosides are phosphorylated into nucleotides (which is quite a feat, since kinases don't exist yet).

4. The nucleotides assemble randomly, giving out an RNA molecule. However, the information spelled out in that RNA molecule is pure gibberish, since the monomers assembled in no particular order.

5. The RNA acts as a catalyst in the formation of proteins, where the amino acids are also in random order.

6. Let us now turn away for a billion years or so, to let natural selection do its magic.

7. Wow! The earth is now brimming with life! Thank you natural selection!

 


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
william_374 wrote: Why sir,

william_374 wrote:
Why sir, allow me!

A brief summary of abiogenesis:

1. Bases derived from purine and pyrimidine form naturally in the primordial earth ocean, giving out adenine, guanine, cytosine and uracyl.

2. These molecules react with pentose (which also formed naturally), producing the corresponding nucleosides.

3. The nucleosides are phosphorylated into nucleotides (which is quite a feat, since kinases don't exist yet).

4. The nucleotides assemble randomly, giving out an RNA molecule. However, the information spelled out in that RNA molecule is pure gibberish, since the monomers assembled in no particular order.

5. The RNA acts as a catalyst in the formation of proteins, where the amino acids are also in random order.

6. Let us now turn away for a billion years or so, to let natural selection do its magic.

7. Wow! The earth is now brimming with life! Thank you natural selection!

 

The sad thing is, you described evolution, as a part of abio-genisis. Evolution was proven to happen, abio-genisis has evidence, a lot of it infact, though it's not proven. Oh, and as for the bases of life, and the way described in your copy-paste version of "abio-genisis" you/it makes the absurd claim that it would use the same materials. We only can hypothesie what the building blocks were, and formed, with our understanding of life, and our understanding and testing of life coming from non-life. To make a claim such as "X formed Y, but Z needs to exist for Y to form, and Z forms from Y" type arguement is absurd in the least. The understanding on how these types of material can form is off, and also does not always have to be that exact way. 

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!


Edison Trent
Theist
Edison Trent's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-11-10
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote: I have no idea

aiia wrote:

I have no idea what you are talking about. As long as there is no definition for "god" anything can be said about it, so there can never be a theory. Everything you've read about "god" is imaginary.

Not everything can be said about God, what I am saying is that the only place we can get qualities from is religious texts, otherwise we're left guessing.

aiia wrote:

Of course it cannot be touched, its nonphysical and communication is impossible also because all communications is physical.

I don't think that communication would be impossible, if this being did indeed create the world then we should hope it would be able to communicate with us somehow, perhaps through our thoughts or some other subtle method.

zarathustra wrote:

How do we distinguish between the non-physical and the non-existent?

By their actions.  I'm not saying here that when we see something mysterious we should automatically say "Oh, Oh! A miracle just happened!"  Science does a good job of explaining things like that, but there are some things in personal experience that happen and cannot necessarily be explained easily without divine intervention. 


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
I'd like to point this out

I'd like to point this out if it hasn't been pointed out before.

Factories, aren't alive, and can't mate. 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Edison Trent wrote: aiia

Edison Trent wrote:


aiia wrote:


I have no idea what you are talking about. As long as there is no definition for "god" anything can be said about it, so there can never be a theory. Everything you've read about "god" is imaginary.



Not everything can be said about God,
How could you possibly know that?
Quote:
what I am saying is that the only place we can get qualities from is religious texts, otherwise we're left guessing.
What?! How could the people who wrote those know anything?
Quote:
aiia wrote:


Of course it cannot be touched, its nonphysical and communication is impossible also because all communications is physical.



I don't think that communication would be impossible, if this being did indeed create the world then we should hope it would be able to communicate with us somehow, perhaps through our thoughts or some other subtle method.
The supernatural is beyond nature. That means it cannot communicate with anything in nature. In fact, it is impossible to even know if supernature exists by definition. If we knew supernature existed it wouldn't be supernatural. The word was made up to refer to something that is beyond knowledge (and that doesn't mean a higher knowledge, it refers to 'knowledge' that is unobtainable... ever. It is equal to nonexistent knowledge)

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Edison Trent
Theist
Edison Trent's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-11-10
User is offlineOffline
Quote: How could you

Quote:

How could you possibly know that?

I'm not making a generalization here, I'm talking about specifice "gods" we have from different religions.  In general terms, we could say anything about "god".

Quote:

What?! How could the people who wrote those know anything?

Quote:

The supernatural is beyond nature. That means it cannot communicate with anything in nature. In fact, it is impossible to even know if supernature exists by definition. If we knew supernature existed it wouldn't be supernatural. The word was made up to refer to something that is beyond knowledge (and that doesn't mean a higher knowledge, it refers to 'knowledge' that is unobtainable... ever. It is equal to nonexistent knowledge)

If a supernatural being created us, then it would certainly know how to communicate with its creation using the methods of communication it created.  If we knew the supernatural existed but didn't know everything about it (i.e. what it looks like, what it is, what all of its characteristics are), it could still be called supernatural.  How would a supernatural being expect us to follow it if we couldn't communicate at all with it?


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Edison Trent

Edison Trent wrote:


Quote:


How could you possibly know that?



I'm not making a generalization here, I'm talking about specifice "gods" we have from different religions.
How is it possible to talk about a specific "god"?
Quote:
In general terms, we could say anything about "god".
And that is what is happening. People claiming to know anything about the supernatural are either lying or psycho.

Quote:


Quote:


The supernatural is beyond nature. That means it cannot communicate with anything in nature. In fact, it is impossible to even know if supernature exists by definition. If we knew supernature existed it wouldn't be supernatural. The word was made up to refer to something that is beyond knowledge (and that doesn't mean a higher knowledge, it refers to 'knowledge' that is unobtainable... ever. It is equal to nonexistent knowledge)



If a supernatural being created us, then it would certainly know how to communicate with its creation using the methods of communication it created. If we knew the supernatural existed but didn't know everything about it (i.e. what it looks like, what it is, what all of its characteristics are), it could still be called supernatural. How would a supernatural being expect us to follow it if we couldn't communicate at all with it?
Where did you ever get the idea that something beyond nature can create nature?

You've been lied to by so many people and for so long it will take a couple of days for this to sink in.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
william_374 wrote: My point

william_374 wrote:
My point was that the idea that you can start from rocks and end up with self-replicating organisms made of interdependent molecular machinery is a HUGE claim, and the burden of proof is on those making it.

Yes or no?

 

Yep, if you're talking about the question "how did life evolve?"

 And science has answered that burden with mountains of evidence.

 

But for the question "does x god exist?" the burden of proof rests  on the theist. 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
If no one's going to respond

If no one's going to respond to my posts in this thread, fuck y'all.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: If no one's

magilum wrote:
If no one's going to respond to my posts in this thread, fuck y'all.

Magilum, I've noticed a lot of times that people ignore what I add here in these discussions.

I just take that to mean they either can't refute what I say or they are not willing to call BS because they can't logically back it up.

I'm here to learn.  If you find fault with what I say call BS and let me learn something.  Otherwise ignore what I say.

Even if you fundamentally agree with the basic idea I am adressing...if I make a logical mistake in any aspect of it FUCKING TELL ME.

I want to learn from my mistakes.  So point the damn things out.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


rook_hawkins.
rook_hawkins.'s picture
Posts: 2
Joined: 2007-11-11
User is offlineOffline
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6x

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6xyiA_Vtp0E

 

MOD MESSAGE: This is an imposter


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
rook_hawkins.

Thanks for the stunning counter.

"Neener, neener." is such a highly valued aspect of humanity. You have reached new heights. Without people like you we would still be in the dark ages.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
rook_hawkins.

rook_hawkins. wrote:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6xyiA_Vtp0E

 

MOD MESSAGE: This is an imposter

No shit. 


Edison Trent
Theist
Edison Trent's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-11-10
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: If no one's

magilum wrote:

If no one's going to respond to my posts in this thread, fuck y'all.

It probably means that no one can refute your points logically.

aiia wrote:

How is it possible to talk about a specific "god"?

By specific "god", I mean gods such as Yahweh, Allah, etc.  These gods have certain characteristics as described in the Bible and Koran, respectively.  Whether or not these gods really exist is still subject to rational logic, but when talking about these "gods" you can assign them the characteristics given them in their respective book.

aiia wrote:

Where did you ever get the idea that something beyond nature can create nature?

How would nature create itself? 


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Edison Trent wrote: aiia

Edison Trent wrote:

aiia wrote:

Where did you ever get the idea that something beyond nature can create nature?

How would nature create itself?

You're dodging my question by asking a question

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote: Where did you

aiia wrote:

Where did you ever get the idea that something beyond nature can create nature?


 Well of course he likely got the concept from his parents,  teachers, friends, church, etc. 

I imagine the more interesting question would be to ask for cases where we can account for nature being "created" by something "beyond nature."  This would help us greatly research such a claim.


Edison Trent
Theist
Edison Trent's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-11-10
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote: Edison Trent

aiia wrote:
Edison Trent wrote:

aiia wrote:

Where did you ever get the idea that something beyond nature can create nature?

How would nature create itself?

You're dodging my question by asking a question

Ok, sorry.  What I'm getting at is that something beyond nature had to create nature because nature can't create itself, the statement is self-contradictory. 


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1234
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
Edison Trent wrote: Ok,

Edison Trent wrote:

Ok, sorry. What I'm getting at is that something beyond nature had to create nature because nature can't create itself, the statement is self-contradictory.

Why does nature have to be "created"?  Why can't it have always been here?

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Eight Foot Manchild
Eight Foot Manchild's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Edison Trent wrote: Ok,

Edison Trent wrote:

Ok, sorry. What I'm getting at is that something beyond nature had to create nature because nature can't create itself, the statement is self-contradictory.

You're begging the question by assuming nature was "created" in the first place. 

Suppose I grant you that it was - then explain the mechanism by which something "beyond nature" can interact with nature. If you can't, it is YOU who are being self-contradictory. 


Edison Trent
Theist
Edison Trent's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-11-10
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:

zarathustra wrote:

Why does nature have to be "created"? Why can't it have always been here?

Point well taken. It could have always been here. What I'm saying is that it's self-contradictory to say that nature created itself. For example, if I say that I created myself, then the statement would be contradictory because I had to exist to create something, but I couldn't create myself if I already existed.

Eight Foot Manhcild wrote:

You're begging the question by assuming nature was "created" in the first place.

Suppose I grant you that it was - then explain the mechanism by which something "beyond nature" can interact with nature. If you can't, it is YOU who are being self-contradictory.

Perhaps nature wasn't created, it could have always existed, see my point above. This is where the supernatural comes into play - we can't understand everything about it if it does indeed exist. But - if I created a universe so vast and complex as this one, do you not think I would be able to communicate with the people I created, even if I was not a physical being? I would certainly hope so, otherwise, God's got serious problems if he can't even communicate with his/her/its creation.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Edison Trent wrote: aiia

Edison Trent wrote:
aiia wrote:
Edison Trent wrote:


aiia wrote:


Where did you ever get the idea that something beyond nature can create nature?



How would nature create itself?

You're dodging my question by asking a question


Ok, sorry. What I'm getting at is that something beyond nature had to create nature because nature can't create itself, the statement is self-contradictory.
I see what you mean. Supernature is nothing. "something" cannot exist beyond nature.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Eight Foot Manchild
Eight Foot Manchild's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Edison Trent wrote: Eight

Edison Trent wrote:

Eight Foot Manhcild wrote:

You're begging the question by assuming nature was "created" in the first place.

Suppose I grant you that it was - then explain the mechanism by which something "beyond nature" can interact with nature. If you can't, it is YOU who are being self-contradictory.

Perhaps nature wasn't created, it could have always existed, see my point above. This is where the supernatural comes into play - we can't understand everything about it if it does indeed exist. But - if I created a universe so vast and complex as this one, do you not think I would be able to communicate with the people I created, even if I was not a physical being? I would certainly hope so, otherwise, God's got serious problems if he can't even communicate with his/her/its creation.

That's not what I asked. If you're going to decree by fiat that there is something "beyond nature" - with no physical attributes - I would like to know HOW it interacts with the natural world. What is its MECHANISM for functioning in this manner. Don't just tell me that you "hope" it would. Tell me how something with no physical attributes can interact with the physical world.


Edison Trent
Theist
Edison Trent's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-11-10
User is offlineOffline
Eight Foot Manhcild

Eight Foot Manchild wrote:

That's not what I asked. If you're going to decree by fiat that there is something "beyond nature" - with no physical attributes - I would like to know HOW it interacts with the natural world. What is its MECHANISM for functioning in this manner. Don't just tell me that you "hope" it would. Tell me how something with no physical attributes can interact with the physical world.

Ok then, I'll say it again. I don't know.

I'll give some thoughts though. If I am merely a natural human being, how can my natural brain understand what is beyond nature? It may be able to comprehend that something may exist that is beyond its knowledge, but it cannot know what it is, because it is beyond the natural brain's comprehension.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
william_374 wrote:

william_374 wrote:
If we were to discover a fully automated factory of some kind on the Moon or Mars, we would have to assume it is the product of design, at least until we could satisfactorily show that it is not.

This situation "defaults" to a designer, and the burden of proof resides on those who champion an alternate, much more complicated explanation. The existence of the designer *is* an explanation, in fact it is the simplest one. And please, no "who created the designer" questions, IF he is necessary, then he DOES exist, and he has the property of having always existed.

And even if you can show that life does not require a designer, you still need something at a very fundamental level to have "always existed". The fact that the Big Bang occurred means there was something before the Big Bang. If there was absolutely nothing before the Big Bang, there would be absolutely nothing right now. The universe needs an uncaused cause, the only question is whether this "uncaused cause" has intelligence or not.

Let's make one small thing clear though: none of the revealed religions are correct. If you spend any time researching the origin of the so-called sacred texts, you see that the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), the New Testament and the Koran were all written by MEN. They are *not* the "Word of God".

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2061773048178434620

So who's actually making the more extraordinary claim here, the idea that something that looks designed WAS designed, or the idea that life gives the astounding illusion that it was designed, but that in fact it was not. The second claim requires EXTENSIVE demonstration to be valid. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

So, as of 2007, what is the pathway, starting from rocks and water, that leads to the LUCA?

Watch The Blind Watchmaker to learn how something that isn't designed can look like it was designed.

 

>

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I haven't plugged myself in

I haven't plugged myself in a while so

 

Read this topic

 

On ID/creationism.