Inevitable problem with abiogenesis

[Doveaman]

As for a historical demonstration... there was a time when there was no biological life on earth. Now there is. At some point, life came from non-life.

I take it you don't believe in extraterrestrial life.

 

[pshun2404]

They would be replicating the conditions which brought about the first life form. It wil be a simulation of what happened.

For example, if you want to prove that a royal flush is a possible hand then you could pick out the cards. That seems to be what you think they'd be doing - like they'd have some machine delicately stringing a molecule together. I agree - that would not be acceptable, though it would be progress. But what they're doing is more like shuffling and dealing the cards repeatedly until the hand emerges. And that is the proof of concept.

Right so if we take all the organic component elements and shuffle them repeatedly (without the assistance of intelligence or design as is present in a lab), allowing for covalent and hydrogen bonding to take place, eventually we should come up with a self-replicating organic molecule in nature outside of a living system. Right? Even though we have never found a single case or have evidence that infers it actually ever happened. But even so, we should believe the made up hypothesis driven historical narrative imposed on the actual facts. Is that it? Hmmm?

 

[Doveaman]

The only way you can know it is by faith.

If it is known it doesn't matter if it is known by faith or by observation. It is still known.

In my experience, those who attempt to "prove" God with science usually have a political motive--ranging from the desire of YECs to get fundamentalist Protestant prayer and Bible study into the public schools officially to the totalitarian calvinist theocracy the Discovery Institute dreams of.

We observe/experiment on earth today that life comes from life. Based on this observation of life from life we can theorize that life on earth emerged from a life-form not of this earth. We can then give that theoretical life-form the name God.

Coincidentally, we have a historical account of a man name Jesus who claimed to be the son of a life giving God. He demonstrated this by being found alive three days after he had died. This resurrection event was then recorded and preserved to serve as confirmation of the life giving God.

I must say, the observational evidence of life from life and the historical account of a dead man being restored to life makes the theory of the life giving God even more plausible.

Based on all this evidence, I think this theory is worth exploring much further.

 

[Chriliman]

Then you agree with the critics here...

1) the God hypo, in origin of life, is unscientific because it cannot be falsified?

2)Therefore need not be considered when seeking a first cause of biolife here?

I wouldn't expect the truth to be falsifiable in the first place, it'd be a contradiction.

Truth is always true, never false, therefore unfalsifiable.

Falsifiability is only for things that we don't yet know the truth about. Those of us who know God, know he exists and this knowledge comes through faith and belief in Him, which may have included some form of falsifiability /doubts along the way.

 

[Chriliman]

I don't think so. The fact that nowadays modern chemists would have to synthesise non-living organic compounds and put them together in a suitable environment for them to react to produce a living organism doesn't prove that these organic compounds couldn't have originated non-biologically in space or on the early Earth or that the same suitable environment couldn't have existed on the early Earth. In short, the experiment would show that the presence of intentional living beings was a sufficient condition for abiogenesis but perhaps not a necessary one.

Didn't say it would prove organic compounds couldn't have originated non-biologically. I said it would prove abiogenesis could happen through intentional conscious means.

You'd still be free to ignore that evidence and instead, believe what there's no evidence for.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I take it you don't believe in extraterrestrial life.

It's a possibility, but it just sets the same situation back to some other place.

 

[quatona]

While I agree we can't see how life arose back when it did, my point is that even if we replicated the conditions exactly and were able to make life from non-life, this would only prove life arose from an intential conscious effort.

No, it wouldn´t prove that.

Besides, you're presupposing life arose from non-life back then, apart from any intentional effort, apart from any intentional effort,

Not really - I am just scrutinizing your argument (which is pretty troublesome, because your point changes all the time, btw.).

when you know this can't ever be demonstrated to be true.

Bummer. Past events cannot be empirically experienced or "demonstrated". Not that revolutionary an insight, I would say.
And yes (even though you don´t want to hear it): the same goes for the evolutionary state before humans had evolved. It cannot be "demonstrated" either - because no human was around to observe it.

Following your point: Nothing can be "empirically demonstrated" to happen in the absence of humans. So postulating that life came into being in the absence of humans would be irrational (according to your standards of "rationality".).

 

[quatona]

Its not possible to demonstrate that life came from non-life.

1. It´s not possible to demonstrate the opposite, either.
2. "Life came from life" wouldn´t explain where life "came from".

 

[AV1611VET]

1. It´s not possible to demonstrate the opposite, either.
2. "Life came from life" wouldn´t explain where life "came from".

2. Self existent.

 

[quatona]

2. Self existent.

Ok, life is self-existent - which makes the question "where did life come from?" obsolete, in the first place.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok, life is self-existent - which makes the question "where did life come from?" obsolete, in the first place.

No argument there.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Its not possible to demonstrate that life came from non-life.

Not at this point in time, at least.
(ps: in the sense of identifying the process that made it happen.... that life originated *somehow* in this universe, is pretty much a given).

Think with me for a second: imagine scientists finally successfully demonstrate how life came from non-life and everyone celebrates the amazing proof for abiogenesis. What they may not realize is, had there not been a living conscious being to perform the demonstration then there'd be no demonstration, therefore the demonstration would actually prove life came from a living being, not non-life.

That's like saying that a refrigerator is proof that the ice caps at the arctic were "designed".

I'll let you think about that one for a while, just to see if you can realise the fatal flaw in your reasoning.

Now, despite this clear logic, you may still desire to believe life originated from non-life somehow, but you should realize that any demonstration showing life arise from non-life, actually logically requires an intentional living being as the cause.

Congratulations... you just threw out all of science and the idea of conducting experiments under controlled conditions.

 

[DogmaHunter]

While I agree we can't see how life arose back when it did, my point is that even if we replicated the conditions exactly and were able to make life from non-life, this would only prove life arose from an intential conscious effort.

Yes, yes.... just like building a refrigerator/freezer, would only prove that ice forms due to an "intentional conscious effort".

Besides, you're presupposing life arose from non-life back then, apart from any intentional effort, when you know this can't ever be demonstrated to be true. Essentially, this means your belief can never be shown to be true, but it could be shown to be false, if indeed, an intential conscious being(God) is the initial cause of all life.

The only one presupposing things here, is you.
And you go so far in this nonsense, that you're even willing to say rather extremely silly things concerning conducting experiments under controlled conditions.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The first cause of bio life here involves the intervention of a living Being.

I look forward to your demonstration of that truth-claim.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Actually, I'm saying if life arose through natural causes and we were able to demonstrate how life came about in that way, then this would prove that life can arise through natural causes only if conscious effort is applied.

Does a freezer show that ice can only form if conscious effort is applied?

No? Why not?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Inference to the best explanation given the totality of facts and its alternative hypo as inferior having zero explanatory power or precedent.

The "totality of facts" being: we don't know.

Great argument, you got there.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Garbage. The whole gogdidit dismissal is sarcastic in the first place and thus unscientific. You don't advance hypos or do science with appeals to sarcasm. You eliminate hypos with superior hypos (not the inferior and contradictory alternative) that jibe with the known facts.

"superior hypos", being "hypos" that explain MORE facts and which are.... are you ready for it... testable and verifiable.

How do we test and verify your "superior" "god-did-it" hypo?

Garbage

No. Instead: spot on. You can't verify or test unfalsifiable propositions by definition.
Unfalsifiable propositions are infinite in number, only restricted by your own imagination.

When an idea is unfalsifiable, it means that you are unable to verify if it is correct or wrong. They are entirely useless ideas.

It does not have to explain.

LOL!!!

It only has to eliminate the alternative hypo to advance

No. That's called negative evidence. An idea doesn't advance in credibility simply by poking holes in alternative ideas.

You could disprove ALL OF SCIENCE later today, and your own "god-did-it" case wouldn't have advanced an inch in credibility.

You need actual evidence for your case.

God explains the first cause of bio life and is compatable with all we know about life.

ANY unfalsifiable idea about ANYTHING is "compatible" with everything we know.
Which is exactly why such ideas are utterly useless.

It means you can hold mutually exclusive and flat out contradicting ideas - and yet all would still be compatible with reality. Not because they actually explain reality, but because rather they simply don't really deal with reality.

For example:
Undetectable pixies make my grass grow.

This is perfectly compatible with reality. After all... my grass grows, doesn't it?

That does not mean it explains nothing.

Would you say that the phenomena of "grass growing", is explained by my undetectable grass growing pixies?

It explains something unless you consider life nothing. If does no good for science to eliminate valid hypos as unscientific and then refusing to consider them. Its a con job.

Here's the problem: there is nothing there to consider. Because there is nothing there to test and verify. That's what it means to "consider" an idea: to cross check it with reality to see if it holds up. But due to its unfalsifiable nature - this is something that is impossible to do.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Falsifiability means something could be shown to be false. God doesn't fall into that category because God can never be shown to be false. IOW, he's always true.

No, no....

Rather: he's never true nore is he ever false.
That's kind of the entire thing with unfalsifiable propositions: they can't be tested in any way. They can't be shown to be correct and they can't be shown to be false.

Just like my undetectable pet dragon.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I wouldn't expect the truth to be falsifiable in the first place, it'd be a contradiction.

Truth is always true, never false, therefore unfalsifiable.

Ow dear.....

Falsifiability of ideas isn't about the ideas being right or wrong.
It is about them being testable / verifiable.
It is about being able to tell if they are right or wrong. It is about having the potential of being shown false IF it is in fact false.

My undetectable pet dragon is an unfalsifiable proposition: you can't detect it, so you can't prove he exists. You also can't prove he does not exist. In other words: the idea of said dragon being real is untestable and thus unfalsifiable.

Now consider a statement like "product X causes cancer".
Now that IS a statement that is falsifiable. If that proposition is wrong, then you should be able to show it wrong... you can TEST it. You can take a bunch of lab rats and feed it product X and then see if they get cancer.

If the statement is wrong, you could SHOW it to be wrong. There is a pathway for doing so.
If the statement is accurate, you could SHOW it to be accurate. There is a pathway for doing so.


Get it now?

Falsifiability is only for things that we don't yet know the truth about.

No. Falsifiability is what enables us to distinguish that which is true from that which is false.

In fact, you wouldn't even know "the truth about" a thing, if the thing is unfalsifiable.
That's the entire point of falsifiability... to be able to tell if it is truth or not.

Those of us who know God, know he exists and this knowledge comes through faith and belief in Him, which may have included some form of falsifiability /doubts along the way.

"know"? I think you spelled "believe" wrong.

 

[Doveaman]

Its not possible to demonstrate that life came from non-life.

1. It´s not possible to demonstrate the opposite, either.

Are you saying it's not possible to demonstrate that non-life came from life?

Ever heard of a miscarriage?

2. "Life came from life" wouldn´t explain where life "came from".

But it would explain what life came from. Life came from life.

If we can locate the original form of life that gave rise to life on earth, I believe we will find God.