Spontaneous Life Generation in Lab is Impossible

[Michael]

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

Let's get a few things straight first.

A) I don't need *eternity* to explain a living universe. It could be 5 billion years since the universe first became self aware, or it could have been 100 trillion years ago. It could have been *eternity* ago. It's no skin off my nose *when* it occurred.

B) I'm not making any grandiose claims about being able to describe "creation events", or any "surfaces of last scattering". I don't have any particular agenda in terms of explaining galaxy rotation patterns, or photon redshift observations.

The only thing I can be reasonably sure of is that it is *at least* 4.6 billion years old based on radiometric dating methods. Beyond that is pure speculation.

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

No, it was an appeal to "experiential reality" outside of your subjective self. Just because you *personally* might never see a kangaroo in real life does not mean that *nobody on Earth* has ever seen one. Your personal experiences, or lack thereof cannot be considered "definitive" in any rational way. Only by *collectively* looking at *all* human experiences could you hope to draw any conclusions from the data set. It's not like I'm the only human being on Earth to have such internal experiences of Gods presence.

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

Says who? Did you suddenly become Christ's right hand man, with final say over all "righteous Christian dogma"?

Yep. Not one name.

No names apparently go through because you don't wish to hear them, consider their *mathematical models*, or deal with the fact that their mathematical models *passed their tests*, unlike the mainstream's impotent on Earth dark matter deity that has failed every prediction on Earth to date.

 

[Michael]

Wrong thread. Sorry.

 

[mzungu]

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.

Your reply can only mean one thing since you have claimed that the universe is infinite (in another thrtead) and you do not accept BB:

Infinite universe means a universe that had no begining and thus cannot have age. Your claim that it is ancient then is refuted by your very own claims. For the sake of clarity; please answer the following questions:

1: Is the universe infinite?
2: Was it created by some deity?
3: Did it come to be through natural means?
4: Do you accept Newtonian gravity?
5: Do you deny black holes?
6: Do you believe in a static universe?

You may add more if you so wish.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

Look dude... There's a blocking wall here between us. It's called intellectual honesty.

You are being dishonest.

You are arguing against abiogenesis and while doing so, you completely misrepresent what abiogenesis is all about.

If you wish to discuss a certain topic, you need to take a step back and approach the topic in the context where it lives.

That context is:
- and earth with the age of 4.5 billion years
- a solar system with the age of some 4.6 billion years
- life existing on the earth for at least 3.6 billion years (which has been evolving into the modern life we know and see today)


Abiogenesis is an event that, if it happened, happened somewhere between 3.9 and 3.6 billion years ago (before 3.9 billion years, the earth was pretty much a molten rock where no such chemistry could be taking place).

Abiogenesis is an event that, if it happened, resulted in very simple self-replicating molecules that are subject to darwinian mechanisms and processes.

This is the framework it operates in.

Pulling it out of this framework and then arguing against it, would be pretty much like me arguing against Jezus from a context of believing in Zeus. It makes no sense at all and it is intellectually dishonest.

 

[ChetSinger]

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

Sorry, but if I'm not following you, then repeating the same thing won't enlighten me.

 

[Davian]

Let's get a few things straight first.

A) I don't need *eternity* to explain a living universe. It could be 5 billion years since the universe first became self aware, or it could have been 100 trillion years ago. It could have been *eternity* ago. It's no skin off my nose *when* it occurred.

To be clear, you cannot demonstrate that the universe ever became "self aware", correct?

B) I'm not making any grandiose claims about being able to describe "creation events", or any "surfaces of last scattering". I don't have any particular agenda in terms of explaining galaxy rotation patterns, or photon redshift observations.

You do have a particular agenda in terms of promoting your pantheistic deity.

The only thing I can be reasonably sure of is that it is *at least* 4.6 billion years old based on radiometric dating methods. Beyond that is pure speculation.

Speak for yourself.

No, it was an appeal to "experiential reality" outside of your subjective self. Just because you *personally* might never see a kangaroo in real life does not mean that *nobody on Earth* has ever seen one. Your personal experiences, or lack thereof cannot be considered "definitive" in any rational way. Only by *collectively* looking at *all* human experiences could you hope to draw any conclusions from the data set. It's not like I'm the only human being on Earth to have such internal experiences of Gods presence.

But you cannot demonstrate that this experience is anything other than internally generated by your imagination. Correct?

Says who? Did you suddenly become Christ's right hand man, with final say over all "righteous Christian dogma"?

Quote to me a bible passage that would have the Christian God "100 percent empirical, 100 percent 'visible'".

No names apparently go through because you don't wish to hear them, consider their *mathematical models*, or deal with the fact that their mathematical models *passed their tests*<snip irrelevant text>

Passed their tests? So where is this God then? Or do you still have no names?

 

[Davian]

Your reply can only mean one thing since you have claimed that the universe is infinite (in another thrtead) and you do not accept BB:

Infinite universe means a universe that had no begining and thus cannot have age. Your claim that it is ancient then is refuted by your very own claims. For the sake of clarity; please answer the following questions:

1: Is the universe infinite?
2: Was it created by some deity?
3: Did it come to be through natural means?
4: Do you accept Newtonian gravity?
5: Do you deny black holes?
6: Do you believe in a static universe?

You may add more if you so wish.

Add to the list: Is the universe subject to entropy?

 

[Michael]

Your reply can only mean one thing since you have claimed that the universe is infinite (in another thrtead)

I technically don't know if it's infinite or eternal, but I have no evidence to suggest it's either finite, or "time limited" in any way.

and you do not accept BB:

Definitely not. It's just another version of 'creationism' IMO.

Infinite universe means a universe that had no begining and thus cannot have age.

It (as in the whole thing) cannot have an age, but various object can have an "age" in terms of when they originally formed.

Your claim that it is ancient then is refuted by your very own claims.

How? I'm not trying to claim it has any specific age *as a complete thing*.

For the sake of clarity; please answer the following questions:

1: Is the universe infinite?

I don't know. Maybe.

2: Was it created by some deity?

Not necessarily. It could simply *be* "some deity" as you put it.

3: Did it come to be through natural means?

Perhaps.

4: Do you accept Newtonian gravity?

For puttering around inside our solar system, sure. I prefer GR however, but without all the metaphysical extensions.

5: Do you deny black holes?

Scientist says neutron stars, not black holes, at center of galaxies

I doubt that anything achieves 'infinite density', or contracts to a "point", but I'm sure large gravitational objects exist in spacetime.

6: Do you believe in a static universe?

It seems 'more likely" IMO, but I'd be fine with an expanding *object* universe. It's frankly easier (mathematically) to explain redshift with an expanding universe, but I suspect it's not actually expanding at all.

 

[Michael]

To be clear, you cannot demonstrate that the universe ever became "self aware", correct?

"Demonstrate" it to your personal satisfaction? Surely not. I can however provide more empirical evidence to support a living universe than you can provide to support Lambda-dark-magic theory.

You do have a particular agenda in terms of promoting your pantheistic deity.

Well, yes and no. I was a theist and a Christian before getting into EU/PC theory and then ultimately taking a new look at panentheism/pantheism as a result of that "scientific conversion". I'm fine with my "faith" just being a pure form of faith actually. If I have an "agenda" it's actually more related to my preference for *empirical physics* over supernatural explanations whenever and wherever possible, particularly as it relates to topics in "science".

Speak for yourself.

I thought that was the whole point of asking me these questions?

But you cannot demonstrate that this experience is anything other than internally generated by your imagination. Correct?

That depends on what you'll subjectively look at as "evidence". Why isn't such an experience limited to me personally? Why did one guy (Christ) get so popular out of the deal?

Quote to me a bible passage that would have the Christian God "100 percent empirical, 100 percent 'visible'".

Even I don't claim to see the *whole* universe. Christ did in fact suggest that the Kingdom of Heaven is found within us, and we are all children of God. Find me anything from the lips of Jesus that you believe is in conflict with my beliefs, and I'll be happy to take a look at it.

Passed their tests? So where is this God then? Or do you still have no names?

This "God" is all around us IMO. Penrose et all have evidence for *soul* as well. In comparison to the impotent invisible sky deities of Lambda-CDM you have nothing to complain about in terms of a lack of empirical cause/effect justification.

 

[[serious]]

Sorry, but if I'm not following you, then repeating the same thing won't enlighten me.

OK, I'll explain it again.

Basically, in this scenario, any specific sequence of cards (analogous to a specific set of proteins/nucleotides) is highly unlikely to occur through random chance even though spontaneous arbitrary ordering is possible (picking up cards or spontaneous polymerization of bases). We know most such sequences wont win the game (be life or suitably robust self replicating protolife) but we don't know how many alternate arrangements could have worked. Further more, we don't know how many other planets similar processes prior to the rise of life could have been occurring on. There don't appear to be any others in our solar system (the room we are in) but we don't know if there are more in our galaxy (the city in the card analogy) or how many may be in the visible universe (the continent in the card analogy) so we don't know how many players are playing. It gets even worse because there is no reason to assume that the universe actually stops beyond our ability to observe it. There could be billions of other universes causally separated from us due to the expansion of space. In fact, it's entirely possible that the broader universe is infinite. Astronomically speaking, our little star is in no privileged place in the universe. Any other star around which life developed would look up and see a similar smattering of stars as we do.

 

[Davian]

"Demonstrate" it to your personal satisfaction? Surely not.

Can you demonstrate the 'awareness' to anyone's satisfaction that does not already believe it? No?

I can however provide more empirical evidence to support a living universe than you can provide to support Lambda-dark-magic theory.

No, I been down that thread of yours. You have not done so to date.

Well, yes and no. I was a theist and a Christian before getting into EU/PC theory and then ultimately taking a new look at panentheism/pantheism as a result of that "scientific conversion". I'm fine with my "faith" just being a pure form of faith actually. If I have an "agenda" it's actually more related to my preference for *empirical physics* over supernatural explanations whenever and wherever possible, particularly as it relates to topics in "science".

What do you mean yes and no? If you did not think the universe was 'aware', why would you drag around this EU-PC-static-universe-is-true-and-the-bb-theory-is-doo-doo line into virtually every thread on in this forum?

I thought that was the whole point of asking me these questions?

It seemed you were implying that the speculation of the age of the universe applied to everyone, not just you.

That depends on what you'll subjectively look at as "evidence". Why isn't such an experience limited to me personally?

Common ancestry.

Why did one guy (Christ) get so popular out of the deal?

Dunno. Good PR, carried on the end of a sword? Why isn't everyone Christian? Why are there still Jews?

Even I don't claim to see the *whole* universe. Christ did in fact suggest that the Kingdom of Heaven is found within us, and we are all children of God. Find me anything from the lips of Jesus that you believe is in conflict with my beliefs, and I'll be happy to take a look at it.

Quote to me a bible passage that would have the Christian God "100 percent empirical, 100 percent 'visible'".

This "God" is all around us IMO.

Which god? You do need to be more clear what you mean by that word.

Penrose et all have evidence for *soul* as well.

Just not a "soul" as conceived by the typical theist.

 

[Michael]

Can you demonstrate the 'awareness' to anyone's satisfaction that does not already believe it? No?

I don't know. Maybe. Some folks *already share* my belief in a living universe without me doing *anything* at all.

No, I been down that thread of yours. You have not done so to date.

Oh yes I have. You've got *nothing at all* that even comes close to what *Penrose* came up with for soul. Every CDM experiment got *falsified* in the lab whereas Penrose's prediction was *verified*. Notice that difference?

What do you mean yes and no? If you did not think the universe was 'aware', why would you drag around this EU-PC-static-universe-is-true-and-the-bb-theory-is-doo-doo line into virtually every thread on in this forum?

Astronomy happens to be my passion and I am a big fan of EU/PC theory. I've been promoting the EU/PC idea on *lots* of various websites, usually *without* the theistic aspects.

It seemed you were implying that the speculation of the age of the universe applied to everyone, not just you.

The actual age of the universe does apply to everyone, whereas their "beliefs" on this topic may not.

Common ancestry.

Huh? Common ancestry also explains and influences my capacity for vision and smell. So what if some folks are born blind? Does that mean that my "sight" and everyone else that claims to experience "sight" is also "delusional".

Dunno. Good PR, carried on the end of a sword? Why isn't everyone Christian? Why are there still Jews?

Statistically speaking there aren't many. Of course Jesus is revered in Islam as well as Christianity. Between them the "consensus" seems to be that Jesus knew his stuff on the topic of God, whereas they agree that you don't.

Quote to me a bible passage that would have the Christian God "100 percent empirical, 100 percent 'visible'".

Are you under some illusion that all my scientific beliefs *must* be related to the Bible in some way? As I pointed out, even *I* do not claim to be able to see the *whole* of God, just a tiny little sliver at best.

Which god? You do need to be more clear what you mean by that word.

From my perspective that's a bit like asking "which universe". By definition, there is only one. On the other hand, there are *tons* of religions.

Just not a "soul" as conceived by the typical theist.

Why does that even matter? Most theists wouldn't necessarily try to *quantify* it and give physical meaning to it, but they all *assume* it exists.

 

[lifetips]

Hi Everyone, I'm Paul from Australia, my first post here

Back to the original post, yes the holy grail of naturalists is to somehow prove abiogenesis (inorganic matter producing organic matter) so that it in their view it will clearly prove that God did not create life on earth but that it came from purely natural processes.

As the post pointed out, once humans become involved the random process is removed. Naturalists will reject this by claiming that scientists are simply combining elements to reproduce what they believe to be those of the early atmosphere of the earth.

But did the atmosphere of the early earth have a science lab, phd level scientists from various fields, electricity, microscopes and loads of other complex scientific equipment to help it combine all the elements and produce life? Obviously not. The human and technology factors must also be included in the total experiment, not isolated from it.

Naturalists who believe that scientists creating life in the lab automatically disproved creation, must also address a major issue of faulty logic. Clearly, if scientists created life in the lab then that would prove intelligent design, not disprove it. Unless of course you think the scientists to be a pack of unintelligent fools . What are they doing, they are creating and they are intelligent designers. However, it will never happen because only God is the author of life!

 

[Smidlee]

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.

What does heliocentric has to do with abiogenesis?

Look dude... There's a blocking wall here between us. It's called intellectual honesty.

You are being dishonest.

You are arguing against abiogenesis and while doing so, you completely misrepresent what abiogenesis is all about.

If you wish to discuss a certain topic, you need to take a step back and approach the topic in the context where it lives.

That context is:
- and earth with the age of 4.5 billion years
- a solar system with the age of some 4.6 billion years
- life existing on the earth for at least 3.6 billion years (which has been evolving into the modern life we know and see today)


Abiogenesis is an event that, if it happened, happened somewhere between 3.9 and 3.6 billion years ago (before 3.9 billion years, the earth was pretty much a molten rock where no such chemistry could be taking place).

Abiogenesis is an event that, if it happened, resulted in very simple self-replicating molecules that are subject to darwinian mechanisms and processes.

Cells are not a simple "self-replicating molecule".(even viruses are more complex) They are more like a city of nano-machines.
Frankencell is just as believable as Frankenstein as long as you don't look at the details.

 

[Smidlee]

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.

This is like saying just because man went to the moon we can now go to the next galaxy.
Self-replicating machines has to be able to find it's own energy source and convert that energy into work, find it own materials, build it's own parts, assemble those parts, pass on this knowledge to the copy. That is a serious engineering feat.

 

[Davian]

I don't know. Maybe.

Maybe? Does no one find you convincing?

Oh yes I have. You've got...<snip>

Providing evidence means you providing evidence, not demanding it from others. No, you have not provided it.

Astronomy happens to be my passion and I am a big fan of EU/PC theory. I've been promoting the EU/PC idea on *lots* of various websites, usually *without* the theistic aspects.

I said, if you did not think the universe was 'aware', why would you drag around this EU-PC-static-universe-is-true-and-the-bb-theory-is-doo-doo line into virtually every thread on in this forum?

Huh? Common ancestry also explains and influences my capacity for vision and smell. So what if some folks are born blind? Does that mean that my "sight" and everyone else that claims to experience "sight" is also "delusional".

No, it means that your experiences of sight and smell are very similar to other humans.

Statistically speaking there aren't many. Of course Jesus is revered in Islam as well as Christianity. Between them the "consensus" seems to be that Jesus knew his stuff on the topic of God, whereas they agree that you don't.

I am still waiting for one of them to step up to demonstrate to me where I am wrong.

Are you under some illusion that all my scientific beliefs *must* be related to the Bible in some way? As I pointed out, even *I* do not claim to be able to see the *whole* of God, just a tiny little sliver at best.

You said that your god and the Christian God are one and the same, and that your god is "100 percent empirical, 100 percent 'visible'". Back it up or retract.

From my perspective that's a bit like asking "which universe". By definition, there is only one. On the other hand, there are *tons* of religions.

By the definitions presented to date, there are no gods of any significance.

Why does that even matter?

If what Penrose means by "soul" is not what you mean by "soul" why keep bringing it up?

 

[Michael]

Maybe? Does no one find you convincing?

Sure, but I also seem to be in agreement with people I've never even met!

Providing evidence means you providing evidence, not demanding it from others. No, you have not provided it.

Yes I did. I provided plenty of evidence that the universe is electrical in nature and has "structures" that resemble biological systems on Earth. Penrose even provided more evidence of soul than you have for CDM. Everything I've suggested can even be demonstrated in terms of pure *cause/effect* relationships. The only thing I cannot do is "control' the universe itself.

I said, if you did not think the universe was 'aware', why would you drag around this EU-PC-static-universe-is-true-and-the-bb-theory-is-doo-doo line into virtually every thread on in this forum?

In terms of publicly supporting EU/PC theory, I did it *before* I even took another look at panentheism. It just is a *great* way to compare "evidence' is terms of cause/effect justifications. You haven't got *any* such justifications.

No, it means that your experiences of sight and smell are very similar to other humans.

Yep, just like my spiritual experiences. The fact a few folks are spiritual blind isn't my fault anymore than it's my fault that people are born without ordinary vision. My *experiences* aren't suddenly "unreal" just because it's not a *universal* experience.

I am still waiting for one of them to step up to demonstrate to me where I am wrong.

Who? Jews? I'm afraid you'll be waiting a very long time apparently. I did however once meet a whole bunch of people that called themselves "Jews for Jesus". It was quite an entertaining conversation actually.

You said that your god and the Christian God are one and the same,

Do you grasp the concept of 'monotheism'? There are many *religions* to choose from but there is only one monotheistic *God*. You claim is a bit akin to suggesting I live in a different "universe' simply because I don't buy into the whole Lambda-magic theory.

and that your god is "100 percent empirical, 100 percent 'visible'". Back it up or retract.

I already started several threads on the topic of an empirical theory of God.

By the definitions presented to date, there are no gods of any significance.

You have that backwards. There are no "WIMP" of any significance, whereas Penrose made *accurate* predictions that worked out in the lab.

If what Penrose means by "soul" is not what you mean by "soul" why keep bringing it up?

How would I know that what Penrose means by 'soul' is different from what I mean? Care to demonstrate that claim?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Hi Everyone, I'm Paul from Australia, my first post here

Back to the original post, yes the holy grail of naturalists is to somehow prove abiogenesis (inorganic matter producing organic matter) so that it in their view it will clearly prove that God did not create life on earth but that it came from purely natural processes.

As the post pointed out, once humans become involved the random process is removed. Naturalists will reject this by claiming that scientists are simply combining elements to reproduce what they believe to be those of the early atmosphere of the earth.

But did the atmosphere of the early earth have a science lab, phd level scientists from various fields, electricity, microscopes and loads of other complex scientific equipment to help it combine all the elements and produce life? Obviously not. The human and technology factors must also be included in the total experiment, not isolated from it.

Naturalists who believe that scientists creating life in the lab automatically disproved creation, must also address a major issue of faulty logic. Clearly, if scientists created life in the lab then that would prove intelligent design, not disprove it. Unless of course you think the scientists to be a pack of unintelligent fools . What are they doing, they are creating and they are intelligent designers. However, it will never happen because only God is the author of life!

It isn't an easy thing to test, but having trouble testing it doesn't mean abiogenesis cannot happen and did not happen in the past. Glad that you said naturalists and not evolutionists or atheists though

 

[lifetips]

It isn't an easy thing to test, but having trouble testing it doesn't mean abiogenesis cannot happen and did not happen in the past. Glad that you said naturalists and not evolutionists or atheists though

Of course there are many atheists (probably most) and many evolutionists who believe in abiogenesis. Do you believe that abiogenesis happened?

 

[Davian]

Sure, but I also seem to be in agreement with people I've never even met!

But no one else finds you convincing.

Yes I did. I provided plenty of evidence that the universe is electrical in nature and has "structures" that resemble biological systems on Earth.

Look - it's a mermaid on Mars! Or Bigfoot. Or a cheerleader.

In terms of publicly supporting EU/PC theory, I did it *before* I even took another look at panentheism.

I said, what do you mean yes and no? If you did not think the universe was 'aware', why would you drag around this EU-PC-static-universe-is-true-and-the-bb-theory-is-doo-doo line into virtually every thread on in this forum?

Yep, just like my spiritual experiences. The fact a few folks are spiritual blind isn't my fault anymore than it's my fault that people are born without ordinary vision. My *experiences* aren't suddenly "unreal" just because it's not a *universal* experience.

Your experiences are universal. People have a natural inclination to believe in souls, spirits, ghosts, gods, demons, angels, aliens, intelligent designers, and government conspiracies.

Why People Believe Invisible Agents Control the World - Scientific American

Who?

The people that form that "consensus" that do not think I know my stuff about gods. Why can they not demonstrate where I am wrong (if I am actually wrong)?

Do you grasp the concept of 'monotheism'? There are many *religions* to choose from but there is only one monotheistic *God*.

So how many gods do you have?

I already started several threads on the topic of an empirical theory of God.

I think there are several threads that you have not derailed with your obsession with this topic. You said that your god and the Christian God are one and the same, and that your god is "100 percent empirical, 100 percent 'visible'". Back it up or retract.

You have that backwards.

If there are gods of any significance, feel free to define them.

How would I know that what Penrose means by 'soul' is different from what I mean? Care to demonstrate that claim?

Sure. Define "soul" for me right now. Something testable, demonstrable.