Spontaneous Life Generation in Lab is Impossible

[Davian]

How many galaxies can you fit into your lab? Is the number less that 2?

I supposed it depends on the size of the model, and the size of the plasma chamber.

Is there any particular reason that you're intentionally ignoring the clear difference between 'scaling problems' and demonstrating actual cause/effect relationships in controlled experimentation?

Because of your intentional ignoring of scaling problems. Your lab is too small.

Show me some of your testimonies about gods books that have a place in the science section of the bookstore.

String theory is in the same section however.

Still science.

Argument from popularity. Must you use fallacies?

Er,

That would be a "yes" then.

You have been asked to provide the name of anyone that would testify that they have had contact with what they would call "God" that can demonstrate that is it something outside of their imagination. If your response is anything other than that name, you are admitting that you cannot provide such a name.

<snip irrelevant response>

You have just admitted that you cannot provide such a name.

 

[[serious]]

No, but that doesn't stop both Christians and non-Christians from estimating the odds, anyway. After all, we're reconstructing not any possible scenario, but our own, which we're understanding better each year. In my thread about Dr. Koonin's multiverse hypothesis, he's quoted as estimating the odds against life at about 1:10^1,000. That's in the same ballpark that believers have been estimating for decades. Stymied, he turned to the multiverse to increase his odds, he claims, to 1:1.

So guess what: God did it, just as he has said. And is that so hard to accept?

I've got a shuffled deck of cards. Did God do that? You could have everyone on earth shuffle every deck of cards over and over and never get the result I have right here. Hence my analogy. Why does life have to be exactly how it is? Why would we expect to see it happen that exact way over again?

 

[Michael]

Because of your intentional ignoring of scaling problems. Your lab is too small.

No, you're intentionally trying to ignore your cause/effect *physics* problem. I'll be happy to let you scale all the invisible friends you like as long as you can demonstrate they actually exist in nature.

Still science.

Right. Nothing like just "making up" extra dimensions of spacetime in your head. String theory is *the* religion for math geeks that can't stand any mathematical constraints, and cannot be bothered to limit themselves to "reality".

You have just admitted that you cannot provide such a name.

You apparently missed the name? Penrose.

 

[Davian]

No, you're intentionally trying to ignore your cause/effect *physics* problem.

Not my problem. If you can't even fit our local cluster of galaxies into your lab, then it is your approach that has the problem.

Right. Nothing like just "making up" extra dimensions of spacetime in your head. String theory is *the* religion for math geeks that can't stand any mathematical constraints, and cannot be bothered to limit themselves to "reality".

"Reality", as defined by a theist like yourself?

You apparently missed the name? Penrose.

No gods mentioned in that article. You again admit that you cannot provide such a name.

 

[Michael]

Not my problem. If you can't even fit our local cluster of galaxies into your lab, then it is your approach that has the problem.

My approach works just fine, and it's not based upon a 1001 affirming the consequent fallacies.

"Reality", as defined by a theist like yourself?

Well, even my "God" is 100 percent empirical, 100 percent 'visible'. Compared to those 'leaps of faith' in all sorts of extra dimensions of spacetime, my religion is down right *empirically conservative* compared to the religion of string theory.

No gods mentioned in that article. You again admit that you cannot provide such a name.

Nope. Their theory offers us a *great* way to explore our connection to the universe and they have more physical lab evidence for 'soul' than you have for your entire entourage of impotent on Earth invisible sky deities.

 

[Davian]

My approach works just fine,

So where is this evidence for an eternal universe that you need for your macroscopic deities?

and it's not based upon a 1001 affirming the consequent fallacies.

No, you use other fallacies, like the argument from popularity.

Well, even my "God" is 100 percent empirical, 100 percent 'visible'.

But that's not the Christian "God", is it?

Nope.

Yep. Not one name.

 

[ChetSinger]

I've got a shuffled deck of cards. Did God do that? You could have everyone on earth shuffle every deck of cards over and over and never get the result I have right here.

If I'm understanding your example as you intend, that's the license plate analogy again. It's only valid when each of the combinations work. It's not valid in the case of chemical life, or we'd see life arising around us all the time.

Why would we expect to see it happen that exact way over again?

If it were as common as unbelievers expect, we'd expect to see life of some kind arising all around us.

Researchers such as Koonin understand this, and are looking elsewhere. But crevo forumites haven't gotten the message yet.

You're a Christian, so I have to ask: why are you fighting so hard for a Godless belief (and that's what abiogenesis is) that has so little going for it?

 

[PsychoSarah]

If I'm understanding your example as you intend, that's the license plate analogy again. It's only valid when each of the combinations work. It's not valid in the case of chemical life, or we'd see life arising around us all the time.


If it were as common as unbelievers expect, we'd expect to see life of some kind arising all around us.

Researchers such as Koonin understand this, and are looking elsewhere. But crevo forumites haven't gotten the message yet.

You're a Christian, so I have to ask: why are you fighting so hard for a Godless belief (and that's what abiogenesis is) that has so little going for it?

To view it as godless is fallacy; is your god so weak that evolution or abiogenesis being true makes it lesser?

 

[Michael]

So where is this evidence for an eternal universe that you need for your macroscopic deities?

Everywhere you look, and throughout human history. When was it ever described as not being there?

No, you use other fallacies, like the argument from popularity.

Apparently your primary favorite fallacy is an appeal to authority.

But that's not the Christian "God", is it?

It's not? How do you know that?

Yep. Not one name.

Besides Penrose and Hameroff you mean?

 

[Davian]

Everywhere you look, and throughout human history. When was it ever described as not being there?

So now the universe is only 10,000 years old?

Apparently your primary favorite fallacy is an appeal to authority.

Even if I used fallacies, it would not excuse your use of them, would it?

It's not? How do you know that?

You inability to demonstrate a connection between the two.

Besides Penrose and Hameroff you mean?

You left out Deepak Chopra - is he not in your camp also?

"The soul alleviates infinite potentiality"
- Random Deepak Chopra Quote Generator - Wisdom of Chopra



No, you still don't have one name.

 

[Loudmouth]

If I'm understanding your example as you intend, that's the license plate analogy again. It's only valid when each of the combinations work. It's not valid in the case of chemical life, or we'd see life arising around us all the time.

Already explained to you. Modern life prevents the formation and replication of simple replicators.

Also, it took millions of years and oceans worth of chemical reactions. You also have to factor in all of the planets with those types of oceans. No one is saying that all it takes is a few weeks.

 

[[serious]]

If I'm understanding your example as you intend, that's the license plate analogy again. It's only valid when each of the combinations work. It's not valid in the case of chemical life, or we'd see life arising around us all the time.


If it were as common as unbelievers expect, we'd expect to see life of some kind arising all around us.

Researchers such as Koonin understand this, and are looking elsewhere. But crevo forumites haven't gotten the message yet.

You're a Christian, so I have to ask: why are you fighting so hard for a Godless belief (and that's what abiogenesis is) that has so little going for it?

Read the original presentation again: (snipped to the scenario)

It's like that deck of cards was in some order that let you win a game, the rules of which you don't entirely understand. Maybe every 5th card happens to be a prime when you picked them up and every 6th card is a spade and that's why you won this round. But is that the only way to win? You don't know. Now imagine you don't know how many people are playing that game. You don't see anyone one else in your room playing, but for all you know there could be 10 other people in the country playing. or 100,000 people. Or no one else playing. Now let's say you don't know how many countries there are. You are physically prevented from checking because of oceans you can't cross in the way. You haven't won since that first win, but you have amnesia up until the first win (which was cured as part of the reward for winning) so you don't know how many times you lost prior to it. So, how much does it mean that you haven't won since? Does that mean the deck of cards was put in a specific order by a supernatural being? does it mean that you were that one guy out of millions who won that particular lottery? Who knows?

 

[Smidlee]

The cells you are talking about have been evolving for some 3 billion years. First life did not consist of modern cells.

Right, the first life was Frankencell; totally science fiction. Modern cells are self-replicating cities of biological machines.
Man haven't yet build a self-replicating machines. Why? Because it's a lot simpler to build a machine to perform a certain function than to build one that perform a function plus self-replicate itself.

 

[Loudmouth]

Right, the first life was Frankencell; totally science fiction. Modern cells are self-replicating cities of biological machines.

I find it interesting that creationists require that abiogenesis be tested in the lab, and then they turn around and ridicule scientists for doing that very research.

At least try to be consistent.

 

[Smidlee]

I find it interesting that creationists require that abiogenesis be tested in the lab, and then they turn around and ridicule scientists for doing that very research.

At least try to be consistent.

I never believe in abiogenesis.

 

[Loudmouth]

I never believe in abiogenesis.

Cardinal Bellarmine never believed in heliocentrism.

"First, . . . to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth . . . revolves with great speed about the sun . . . is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false."
Cardinal Bellarmine's Letter to Foscarini (1615)

Reality has this strange way of not giving two figs about what we believe in.

 

[Michael]

So now the universe is only 10,000 years old?

It's ancient. That's all I'm sure of. If you have some belief about it's supposedly finite age, it's up to you to demonstrate it.

Even if I used fallacies, it would not excuse your use of them, would it?

No, but it does ultimately demonstrate the subjective nature of 'evidence'. You apparently for instance don't need tangible evidence of inflation or dark energy or exotic matter when suggesting you can put some age on the universe. On the other hand you simply deny the *experiences* of every human outside of yourself in terms of their validity. Why? What's the *empirical* (in the lab replicable) difference?

You inability to demonstrate a connection between the two.

That was a non answer to my question.

You left out Deepak Chopra - is he not in your camp also?

Apparently he's a fan of Penrose like me. Do I have a "camp" other than respect for the work Penrose in that area?

No, you still don't have one name.

Unlike you, I can *physically define* the "God" that I believe to be eternal. It's been there for as long as any human has ever known. It's definitely been there for more than 4.6 billion years old since Earth itself is that old. It's *ancient* by anyone's standards and it's structures resemble both in form and function (information transfer) the neutrons of living organisms.

Penrose even has a way to physically explain the concept of *soul* via empirical physics.

You however seem to think you can put some 'young universe creationist' age on the age of the universe, but your sky deities are physically impotent on Earth. They have no tangible effect on anything. They make no testable predictions in the lab that have actually been shown to be *correct*, whereas they make many erroneous and *incorrect* predictions which have already been falsified four different times.

 

[Davian]

It's ancient. That's all I'm sure of. If you have some belief about it's supposedly finite age, it's up to you to demonstrate it.

If you are so sure of it, then demonstrate it, instead of endlessly insisting others shoulder the burden of evidence.

No, but it does ultimately demonstrate the subjective nature of 'evidence'. You apparently for instance don't need tangible evidence of inflation or dark energy or exotic matter when suggesting you can put some age on the universe.

I am not making that claim. The complaint about the nature of evidence is most often made by those that lack evidence. Like yourself.

On the other hand you simply deny the *experiences* of every human outside of yourself in terms of their validity. Why? What's the *empirical* (in the lab replicable) difference?

I do not deny the "experiences" of my fellow humans, or their validity, as evidence for overactive imaginations and the natural inclination to believe in souls, spirits, ghosts, gods, demons, angels, aliens, intelligent designers, and government conspiracies. This is demonstrable, and falsifiable.

Why People Believe Invisible Agents Control the World - Scientific American

Apparently he's a fan of Penrose like me. Do I have a "camp" other than respect for the work Penrose in that area?

"Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status."

Pseudoscience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unlike you, I can *physically define* the "God" that I believe to be eternal.

Not in any way that is demonstrable or falsifiable.

It's been there for as long as any human has ever known. It's definitely been there for more than 4.6 billion years old since Earth itself is that old.

I do not accept your unevidenced claim for this.

It's *ancient* by anyone's standards

By anyone's standards? Who voted for you to be our spokesperson?

and it's structures resemble both in form and function (information transfer) the neutrons of living organisms.

Look - it's a mermaid on Mars!

 

[[serious]]

Right, the first life was Frankencell; totally science fiction. Modern cells are self-replicating cities of biological machines.
Man haven't yet build a self-replicating machines. Why? Because it's a lot simpler to build a machine to perform a certain function than to build one that perform a function plus self-replicate itself.

A simple lipid bubble in a convection current about a heat source will pick up free lipids, grow, and split. Not only can this be demonstrated in the lab, but it's a reasonable first step towards life's precursors.

 

[Strathos]

That looks more like Bigfoot to me