Probability of Origin of Life by Chance just went way UP.

[DogmaHunter]

It would still require the living thing to not be a mindless, meaningless and purposeless creation. The first living thing would be created with certain features and abilities.

You are again talking about the event that brought life into the world. Not the process that follows.

I disagree. The 'how' completely shapes one's worldview.

You can disagree all you like, but it won't change the fact that the origins of life and the origins of species/diversity in life are two different questions which are handled in two different branches of science.

Newton didn't need to explain the origin of matter to study gravity.
Likewise, we don't need to explain the origins of life to study evolution.

The worldview is changed according to how humanity was created. By accident or with purpose.

Making assertions isn't going to advance this point.

Again, how is the process of evolution affected, specifically, if first life was artificial rather then natural?

How does it change anything about "mutate, survive, reproduce" and the inevitable branching diversity that comes with it?

No, the question is the creation of the first living thing and if humanity is the product of a plan or chance.

No. Perhaps you should go back and read the question again.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ice forms because ......as the temperature drops the molecules form bonds and crystalize.
Life forms because........?

That's quite dishonest, changing all the terminology in there just like that....

What did you hope to accomplish here?

 

[DogmaHunter]

No problem.

What is the chemical edvantage?
What is the thermal advantage?
What is the density advantage?
What chemical process encourages life over non-life?
How does life produce a benefit over non-living material?

What is the chemical reason life formed?
What is the thermal reason life formed?
What is the density reason?
What chemical process encourages life over non-life?
How does life produce a chemical benefit over non-living material?
Etc.

Unless your language is Orange, these are serious questions thinking people want answered.

No, these are still quite nonsensical questions to me.

Well, to be correct about the details, some are just majorly loaded questions - but that's a type of nonsensical anyway.

Why should there be a reason?

Are you asking about actual chemical processes, the mechanics, or are you asking about loaded subjects like "purpose" and "intention"?

For example, consider the question:
"what is the reason that mountains exist?"

I would answer that with an explanation about geology, plate tectonics, etc...

You know, the mechanics of mountains.

But I'm guessing that that isn't the type of answer you are looking for, is it?



In any case, I find the formulation of your questions to be downright bizar.
I have no idea what you are really asking. It's just...well....bizar.

 

[justlookinla]

You are again talking about the event that brought life into the world. Not the process that follows.

The process that follows is also the product of a creator and not a mindless, meaningless and goalless process.

You can disagree all you like, but it won't change the fact that the origins of life and the origins of species/diversity in life are two different questions which are handled in two different branches of science.

They're only two different questions in the worldview which embraces entirely naturalistic creationism.

Newton didn't need to explain the origin of matter to study gravity.
Likewise, we don't need to explain the origins of life to study evolution.

If there was a being which created life, the being created it with a preconceived plan. It's one big creation event.

Making assertions isn't going to advance this point.

Again, how is the process of evolution affected, specifically, if first life was artificial rather then natural?

How does it change anything about "mutate, survive, reproduce" and the inevitable branching diversity that comes with it?

It changes the worldview that all life is consists of mutate, survive and reproduce.

No. Perhaps you should go back and read the question again.

I guess you're going to need to remind me of what the question asked.

 

[pat34lee]

Can you please summarize in your own words wich points of these articles make your case?

Posting bare links is not exactly productive (not to mention, against the forum rules).

I wish you would make up your mind. You want my words. No, you want proof. No, now you want my own words again. Read the articles, and you will get the gist of the message.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I wish you would make up your mind. You want my words. No, you want proof. No, now you want my own words again. Read the articles, and you will get the gist of the message.

I wish you could point out the points from the articles that you feel make the point you are trying to make.

You know...like the forum rules require you to...

 

[DogmaHunter]

The process that follows is also the product of a creator and not a mindless, meaningless and goalless process.

I know you like to assert this, but do you have anything more then just this assertion?

They're only two different questions in the worldview which embraces entirely naturalistic creationism.

You can say that all you like, but the fact remains that these are 2 different fields of study in 2 different branches of science.

If there was a being which created life, the being created it with a preconceived plan.

Why should that be the case?
Perhaps the "plan" was just about that first life form. Perhaps that already accomplished all that this "creator" was planning. Perhaps everything that happened afterwards was not part of the plan.

Kind of like if I baked a really nice, juicy steak with the goal of making a great picture of a juicy steak. After getting the picture I require, I just return home and leave the steak behind.

So when I created the foodplate, my only goal and purpose was to get a great picture.
That there are worms crawling out of the steak a week later was not part of my plan, but rather simply the consequence of not taking the steak with me when I was done.

Once more, we see that all your assertions are directly related to your a priori religious beliefs.

Color me unimpressed.

It changes the worldview that all life is consists of mutate, survive and reproduce.

You are again simply repeating your assertion.
Actually try to explain HOW exactly it changes anything.

Because that's exactly what I'm trying to communicate to you.

Regardless of how life starts, what follows, it seems to me, is still subject to the process of mutate, survive and reproduce............
You know...just like what we observe today...

I guess you're going to need to remind me of what the question asked.

With pleasure:

If God created life and let it evolve from there, what, exactly, would be different about the theory (of evolution)?

 

[justlookinla]

I know you like to assert this, but do you have anything more then just this assertion?

Assertion is all we have for the beginning of life and how humanity was created. Another assertion is that it was by entirely by random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms.

You can say that all you like, but the fact remains that these are 2 different fields of study in 2 different branches of science.

That may be true, but the fact remains that they're indivisibly interrelated.

Why should that be the case?
Perhaps the "plan" was just about that first life form. Perhaps that already accomplished all that this "creator" was planning. Perhaps everything that happened afterwards was not part of the plan.

In that scenario, the creator would still have to have a preconceived plan of creating life for a purpose. There's a reason life was created.

Kind of like if I baked a really nice, juicy steak with the goal of making a great picture of a juicy steak. After getting the picture I require, I just return home and leave the steak behind.

So when I created the foodplate, my only goal and purpose was to get a great picture.
That there are worms crawling out of the steak a week later was not part of my plan, but rather simply the consequence of not taking the steak with me when I was done.

I don't do analogies. The discussion then becomes about the analogy.

Once more, we see that all your assertions are directly related to your a priori religious beliefs.

Color me unimpressed.

Assertions to the contrary are directly related to previously held worldviews also.

You are again simply repeating your assertion.
Actually try to explain HOW exactly it changes anything.

Because that's exactly what I'm trying to communicate to you.

Regardless of how life starts, what follows, it seems to me, is still subject to the process of mutate, survive and reproduce............
You know...just like what we observe today...[/QUOTE]

You not observed the creation of pine trees and elephants from a common previous life form, all you have is your biased faith-based beliefs of how and why that happened. You've not observed 'mutate-survive-reproduce' doing anything but bacteria producing bacteria, finches producing finches and moths producing moths, for example.

You base your belief that 'mutate-survive-reproduce' created all of life we observe today from a single life form on something other than the scientific method.

With pleasure:[/QUOTE]

I answered the question in post #250. It changes one's worldview concerning one's existence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Assertion is all we have for the beginning of life and how humanity was created. Another assertion is that it was by entirely by random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms.

Okay, so you admit that you have nothing but an assertion.
Great. Well, not really "great".... but yeah....

That may be true, but the fact remains that they're indivisibly interrelated.

No, they aren't. Life exists and we can study it - no matter how it came into existance.

In that scenario, the creator would still have to have a preconceived plan of creating life for a purpose.

Sure, but again... it only speaks for the creation even itself. Not what happens afterwards.

There's a reason life was created.

Says you. And as you admitted in the above quote, all you have is that assertion.
Color me unimpressed...

I don't do analogies.

To devastating to your case?

The discussion then becomes about the analogy.

No. I'm merely pointing out that not everything that happens needs to be part of some plan or intention.

But you know that off course. The only reason why you brush it aside with the juvenile notion of "i don't do analogies" is because you realise that you'll have to admit that, yes, not everything happens requires to be part of some plan...

Assertions to the contrary are directly related to previously held worldviews also.

No. They are related to evidence.

You not observed the creation of pine trees and elephants from a common previous life form, all you have is your biased faith-based beliefs of how and why that happened.

No. What we have is genetic evidence, the fossil record and the observable mechanism of evolution.

You've not observed 'mutate-survive-reproduce' doing anything but bacteria producing bacteria, finches producing finches and moths producing moths, for example.

What else did you expect?
For cats to produce dogs?

You base your belief that 'mutate-survive-reproduce' created all of life we observe today from a single life form on something other than the scientific method.

No. Common ancestry of life is a genetic fact. It's not a theory. It's not a belief. It's a fact.

 

[justlookinla]

Okay, so you admit that you have nothing but an assertion.
Great. Well, not really "great".... but yeah....

That's all anyone has concerning how all life came into existence.

No, they aren't. Life exists and we can study it - no matter how it came into existance.

The simple fact that life exists begs the question of how and why it exists. The same impetus which created life would be the same impetus which populated life.

Sure, but again... it only speaks for the creation even itself. Not what happens afterwards.

It speaks of the purpose for which life was first created.

Says you. And as you admitted in the above quote, all you have is that assertion.
Color me unimpressed...

On the other hand, some believe there's not a purpose for which life was created. That's simply another assertion. Another worldview.

To devastating to your case?

Not at all. I explained why I don't do analogies.

No. I'm merely pointing out that not everything that happens needs to be part of some plan or intention.

But you know that off course. The only reason why you brush it aside with the juvenile notion of "i don't do analogies" is because you realise that you'll have to admit that, yes, not everything happens requires to be part of some plan...

I brush it aside because the argument becomes about the analogy.....like you're doing here. Well, the piece of meat represents this and cooking it represents that and it's a roast instead of a loin so how about that...huh? Oh, can't answer? Well, there ya go!

This is indicative of how analogies go.

No. They are related to evidence.

What evidence for how humanity was created.....based on the scientific method?

No. What we have is genetic evidence, the fossil record and the observable mechanism of evolution.

Genetic evidence, the fossil record does not indicate HOW life was created and humanity produced. This is a frequent tactic in an attempt to change the focus from HOW life was created and humanity produced.

The observable mechanisms of evolution doesn't produce anything but bacteria becoming bacteria, finches becoming finches, moths becoming moths.

What else did you expect?
For cats to produce dogs?

I expect evidence based on the scientific method, not empty assertions.

No. Common ancestry of life is a genetic fact. It's not a theory. It's not a belief. It's a fact.

See, here you go trying to change the issue again The issue is HOW all life we observe today was created. All you have are various and sundry assertions.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's all anyone has concerning how all life came into existence.

I'm not making any assertions.... I'm pretty content waiting till science figures it out.

The simple fact that life exists begs the question of how and why it exists. The same impetus which created life would be the same impetus which populated life.

Life exists and we can study it. No matter how it came into existance.

Not at all. I explained why I don't do analogies.

And I explained what the point of the analogy was.

I brush it aside because the argument becomes about the analogy.....like you're doing here. Well, the piece of meat represents this and cooking it represents that and it's a roast instead of a loin so how about that...huh? Oh, can't answer? Well, there ya go!

See, the only reason why the discussion now becomes about the analogy is BECAUSE YOU ARE MAKING IT ABOUT THE ANALOGY.

My only point was to make it clear that not everything needs to happen according to some plan. And that it's quite easy to imagine how there might first be a plan A and how B is a consequence of A, while not part of A.

This is indicative of how analogies go.

No, it's indicative on how you refuse to acknowledge a rather simple and obvious point.

What evidence for how humanity was created.....based on the scientific method?

How about more then 200.000 papers concerning the evolutionary process?

Genetic evidence, the fossil record does not indicate HOW life was created

Again, creation of life and evolution of life are 2 different subjects.
How many times must it be repeated?

This is a frequent tactic in an attempt to change the focus from HOW life was created and humanity produced.

The only frequent tactic here is conflating the origins of life with the origins of diversity of life.

The observable mechanisms of evolution doesn't produce anything but bacteria becoming bacteria, finches becoming finches, moths becoming moths.

Fun fact: if we would observe finches become non-finches or moths becoming non-moths..... evolution theory would be falsified.

But hey... don't let the facts get in your way...

 

[justlookinla]

I'm not making any assertions.... I'm pretty content waiting till science figures it out.

Aren't those who claim that humanity is the result of only naturalistic mechanisms making dissertations? Like Darwin?

Life exists and we can study it. No matter how it came into existance.

How it came into existence has a direct bearing on explaining it.

And I explained what the point of the analogy was.

And you wanted to argue about the analogy. That's why I don't do analogies.

See, the only reason why the discussion now becomes about the analogy is BECAUSE YOU ARE MAKING IT ABOUT THE ANALOGY.

You introduced the analogy. I told you why I didn't do analogies. We're seeing a great example of why I don't.

My only point was to make it clear that not everything needs to happen according to some plan. And that it's quite easy to imagine how there might first be a plan A and how B is a consequence of A, while not part of A.

I'm not claiming that everything happens according to some plan. I'm pointing out the fact that assertions are part of all views of how all life came into existence.

No, it's indicative on how you refuse to acknowledge a rather simple and obvious point.

Make your point. I'm not interested in discussing cooking meat.

How about more then 200.000 papers concerning the evolutionary process?

How about actually giving evidence, based on the scientific method?

Again, creation of life and evolution of life are 2 different subjects.
How many times must it be repeated?

No, the creation of life has a direct bearing on subsequent life.

The only frequent tactic here is conflating the origins of life with the origins of diversity of life.

The impetus which created the first life cannot be separated from any life which exists today.

Fun fact: if we would observe finches become non-finches or moths becoming non-moths..... evolution theory would be falsified.

But hey... don't let the facts get in your way...

Something produced finches and moths. All we have are assertions of how that happened.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Aren't those who claim that humanity is the result of only naturalistic mechanisms making dissertations? Like Darwin?

You are again changing the topic.... I was refering to assertions concerning the origins of life.

When it comes to the origins of diversity of life, it's not an assertion. Rather, it's a conclusion. A conclusion based on 200 years of study and investigation - all of which converges on the same answer: evolution.

How it came into existence has a direct bearing on explaining it.

No.

Life is what it is. Regardless if it came about naturally or artificially.
It is what it is, it has the properties that it has and it is subject to the processes it is subject to.

Knowing how it came into existance won't change what it is.
Just like knowing where matter came from won't change how gravity works.

And you wanted to argue about the analogy. That's why I don't do analogies.

For the thrid time: no. I was merely making the point that not everything needs to be part of some plan. My analogy wasn't really an analogy. It was rather just an illustration to demonstrate that not everything needs to be part of some plan.

I'm sorry that you are unable (or perhaps unwilling?) to understand that, but I can't change that.

I'm not claiming that everything happens according to some plan.

Errr.... yes, you are?
What the...?

If you aren't...then what <STAFF EDIT> are you arguing about??

Make your point. I'm not interested in discussing cooking meat.

I already did 3 times.
I don't expect a different outcome by doing it a 4th time.
I'm positive that everyone readon our exchange will comprehend my point the first time.

Clearly, you are unwilling to understand it. If you don't get it after 3 times, why would you get it after 4 times?

How about actually giving evidence, based on the scientific method?

Those +200.000 peer reviewed papers are scientific publications.

 

[SkyWriting]

No, these are still quite nonsensical questions to me.
Well, to be correct about the details, some are just majorly loaded questions - but that's a type of nonsensical anyway.
Why should there be a reason?
Are you asking about actual chemical processes, the mechanics, or are you asking about loaded subjects like "purpose" and "intention"?
For example, consider the question:
"what is the reason that mountains exist?"
I would answer that with an explanation about geology, plate tectonics, etc...
You know, the mechanics of mountains.
But I'm guessing that that isn't the type of answer you are looking for, is it?
In any case, I find the formulation of your questions to be downright bizar.
I have no idea what you are really asking. It's just...well....bizar.

Just because you don't have an answer, does't make it bizarre.

Fine. JUST MECHANICS NOW.
Just the "Laws of Science'"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_laws_named_after_people
What is the chemical explanation for why life formed?
What is the thermal explanation for life formed?
What is the density explanation for why life would form?
What chemical process leads to life over non-life?
How is life more chemically stable than non life?
How is matter more thermally stable alive than if dead.
Why would life occur where there was none?
What natural process leads to life over non-life?

 

[SkyWriting]

That's quite dishonest, changing all the terminology in there just like that....What did you hope to accomplish here?

The question I am asking is:

The reason water evaporates is....heat causes the molecules to lose cohesion.
The reason air expands is......heat causes the atoms to bounce more.

The reason life forms from non-living matter is...........?????

 

[DogmaHunter]

Just because you don't have an answer, does't make it bizarre.

No, it's not because I don't have an answer.
I might have an answer. I just don't understand the questions because they have rather bizar formulations. Perhaps it's just me and my english. But I can only be honest about it, right?

Fine. JUST MECHANICS NOW.
Just the "Laws of Science'"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_laws_named_after_people

Cool.

What is the chemical explanation for why life formed?
What is the thermal explanation for life formed?
What is the density explanation for why life would form?
What chemical process leads to life over non-life?
How is life more chemically stable than non life?
How is matter more thermally stable alive than if dead.
Why would life occur where there was none?
What natural process leads to life over non-life?

I don't know. Science is working on it.
I'll await the outcome of those investigations.

So, how do you answer those questions?

 

[DogmaHunter]

The question I am asking is:

The reason water evaporates is....heat causes the molecules to lose cohesion.
The reason air expands is......heat causes the atoms to bounce more.

Okay. Cool.

The reason life forms from non-living matter is...........?????

I don't know. Science is working on it.

 

[SkyWriting]

A habitable planet has been discovered a mere 1400 light years away. Considering our tiny galaxy spans a 100,000 light years but still has a hundred billion stars this indicates a dramatic increase in the likely number of habitable planets. Our galaxy may be full of them. If life originates by chance, the more habitable planets the greater the odds that life will originate. You guys believing in a 6 day creation event better start rethinking your positions.

Statistically, that's not what happened.
If you drop nickles centered onto a peg, half will fall to one side, half the other.
You're saying that because the first 2 nickels fell on one side, that the odds
changed. That's not how it works. The odds can't be altered until you can
count a few hundred nickles.

The discovery does not "indicate a dramatic increase."

 

[justlookinla]

You are again changing the topic.... I was refering to assertions concerning the origins of life.

When it comes to the origins of diversity of life, it's not an assertion. Rather, it's a conclusion. A conclusion based on 200 years of study and investigation - all of which converges on the same answer: evolution.

The form of evolution commonly refered to as Darwinist evolution and it's assertions, guesses, suppositions concerning how humanity was created has no no basis in the scientific method. Those within that particular camp only have faith-based conclusions.

No.

Life is what it is. Regardless if it came about naturally or artificially.
It is what it is, it has the properties that it has and it is subject to the processes it is subject to.

Knowing how it came into existance won't change what it is.
Just like knowing where matter came from won't change how gravity works.

Yes.

That which brought it into existence is what created humanity. Even the proponents of naturalistic mechanisms would claim that.

For the thrid time: no. I was merely making the point that not everything needs to be part of some plan. My analogy wasn't really an analogy. It was rather just an illustration to demonstrate that not everything needs to be part of some plan.

I'm sorry that you are unable (or perhaps unwilling?) to understand that, but I can't change that.

If you wish to discuss cooking, I suggest a food board.

Errr.... yes, you are?
What the...?

If you aren't...then what the hell are you arguing about??

I'm discussing the views of how humanity was created.

I already did 3 times.
I don't expect a different outcome by doing it a 4th time.
I'm positive that everyone readon our exchange will comprehend my point the first time.

Clearly, you are unwilling to understand it. If you don't get it after 3 times, why would you get it after 4 times?

Food board.

Those +200.000 peer reviewed papers are scientific publications.

Which one of them offers evidence, based on the scientific method, for HOW humanity was created? Actually quote them instead of making unsubstantiated claims.

 

[bhsmte]

I wish you would make up your mind. You want my words. No, you want proof. No, now you want my own words again. Read the articles, and you will get the gist of the message.

I think that is his point. The articles you post to support your claims, usually don't even come close to doing so.