Spontaneous Life Generation in Lab is Impossible

[DogmaHunter]

for all the posters here who see my belief in God and creation as a pie in the sky deluded fantasy, tell me this: what can I lose if it all turned out to be wrong? Of course it won't, but for arguments sake if it did?

Wauw.
Several points:
1. Pascal's Wager

2. the first rule of intellectual honesty is admitting that you could be wrong

3. As you have shown in this thread quite clearly, by dogmatically accepting the literal interpretation of your religion, you are excluding yourself from the knowledge of various scientific fields. You, and people like you, will not be the ones who will advance knowledge of human kind. You will not be among those who push back the frontier of our knowledge. Instead, you are doomed to uphold the status quo by answering "god-dun-it" to any and every question that remains unanswered by science (for the time being).

What you have to loose, in other words, is actual knowledge of the natural world. You might not care about that, but I do. To me it's far more important to believe as many correct things and as little wrong things as possible. You don't care about that. You only care about holding on to the beliefs you already have. You are not interested in perfecting your beliefs or correcting them.

In 100 years time we will all be dead and buried and none of us will have gained anything.

But our children will.
We have our ancestors to thank for the technological society we live in today. It's thanks to them that life expectancy today is around 80 years instead of the 35 of only a couple centuries ago. And this technology and knowledge was attained by people questioning the general beliefs of the times... Not by reading bronze-aged books without questioning anything. Not by answering every difficult question with "god-dun-it". But by study, experimentation, investigation and questioning. None of which would happen if society was dominated by people who think like you.

Considering this, I view opinions like the one you just expressed as being incredibly selfish.

But what if you are wrong, and there is a God and we are accountable to him?

If that is the case and this god is indeed "goodness" himself, then I cannot imagine that he would punish me for using the brain he supposedly gave me.

If he does, then so be it. I wouldn't worship or revere anyone who rewards gullibility and punishes intellectual honesty.


Also, let's turn that question around...
What if you are wrong and the muslims are right?

You are taking a very big gamble

Scare tactics and threats will not win the argument.

 

[stevevw]

I would have thought that abiogenesis was a form of evolution such as chemical evolution. Doesn't it take more or less the same evolutionary principles to evolve all the necessary things to create a living cell with DNA. At what point do you declare something the first living thing to start the evolutionary process. Many say that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. It seems like a subject which is hard to deal with for some. So the Darwinian evolution has to have a start point for the first organism as far away from the beginnings of life as possible as it is harder to explain and show evidence for a single cell organism to evolve into something more complex. This seems to be the same for all major points of evolution such as transitions between major animal groups like reptile to bird or land mammal to whale. There are major obstacles to get over in how complex parts which all work together and are dependent on each other could have evolved bit by bit.

The makeup of e coli bacteria and flagella are complex and resemble motors with gears. Those motors have complex mechanisms that are dependent on other parts to work. This is the same for things such as eyes and hearts including connections to the brain so that it all works together and in unison. So unless some of these things evolved in large chunks or had pre existing genetics for them to come about I cant see any way they could evolve and I cant see any evidence for it. Darwin's evolution looks like design but isn't and just happened to copy complex systems that any human would be proud of. If we had discovered these mechanisms before the first motors we would have had the first prototypes that would have put our efforts to shame. But according to the darwinian model of evolution this all happened by a random and blind process to create more and more complex life. To me the beginnings of life from the chemical evolution to the evolution of more and more complex cells is much the same as the evolution of complex body parts and systems.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

But what if you are wrong, and there is a God and we are accountable to him? You are taking a very big gamble and its one that you have already lost because there is a God and one day you will have to stand before him and give an account of your lives.
l

If you've led a fairly decent life, any god worth tuppence would be pleased to see you.

So why do you suppose a supreme being would care more about whether you believed in him than anything else? What sort of god is that? And who is responsible for trying to sell you this pig in a poke? What sort of people are they?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I would have thought that abiogenesis was a form of evolution such as chemical evolution.

You could say that, sure. The problem is the word "evolution". When speaking about biological evolution, one refers to a theory with specific mechanisms like reproduction with variation, natural selection, etc. Which are only applicable to already existing living things.

It's important to understand this difference so that you don't conflate these types of "evolution". In biology, it refers to a specific type of process with specific mechanisms: Darwinian evolution.

Doesn't it take more or less the same evolutionary principles to evolve all the necessary things to create a living cell with DNA

Cells with DNA are modern cells that are the result of biological evolution, yes. But Abiogenesis is not a process that ends with DNA based cellular life. DNA based cellular life evolved from simpler forms of life.

At what point do you declare something the first living thing to start the evolutionary process.

I'ld say, the moment an organic self-replicating molecule exists that is subject to darwinian processes and mechanisms.

There are major obstacles to get over in how complex parts which all work together and are dependent on each other could have evolved bit by bit.

This is not really true though. How such things can and do happen is well understood and well explained in biology.

Those motors have complex mechanisms that are dependent on other parts to work.

As they exist today. It's not only the parts themselves that evolve, it's also their function within the whole.

Just like convergent evolution between species... There are plenty of plants that depend on a specific type of insect for reproduction for example. Likewise, these insects depend on those flowers for food.
Take away the plant and the insect dies.
Take away the insect and the plant can't reproduce.

This is the same for things such as eyes and hearts including connections to the brain so that it all works together and in unison. So unless some of these things evolved in large chunks or had pre existing genetics for them to come about I cant see any way they could evolve and I cant see any evidence for it.

Then you probably haven't looked very hard. The evolution of for example the eye is well understood. You shouldn't have any problems finding information about this. Unless, off course, the only place you look are creationist sources.

Try an actual book or course on evolutionary biology.

Darwin's evolution looks like design but isn't and just happened to copy complex systems that any human would be proud of.

This is not really true either.
Take the human eye for example. If an engineer at Sony would design a camera that roughly works in the same manner, he would be fired instantly for such amateurish and chaotic design.

All the wiring (the nerves) is actually found in front of the light-sensitive cells. These wires come together at the back of the eye and go to the brain through the back. This place is called the "blind spot". Our brain has to put in extra effort to "fill in the blanks" to correct for this. This is the kind of tinkering we expect from a blind process like evolution. It's not what we expect from some super-intelligent engineer.

The squid for example, doesn't have this problem.

But according to the darwinian model of evolution this all happened by a random and blind process to create more and more complex life.

Natural Selection is not a random process.
Evolution as a process holds random ingredients, yes (mutation being one of them). But selection is far from random.

Blind, yes. In the sense that there is no end-goal in mind for any specific design. As in: homo sapiens was not "meant" to exist. It just turned out this way. It could have just as well be completely different. Had that asteroid not hit us 65 million years ago, chances are big that dino's would still dominate.

 

[stevevw]

If you've led a fairly decent life, any god worth tuppence would be pleased to see you.

So why do you suppose a supreme being would care more about whether you believed in him than anything else? What sort of god is that? And who is responsible for trying to sell you this pig in a poke? What sort of people are they?

You are right. Jesus said if you give someone in need water or help then you are giving me water and help. So you can be Christ like when your heart goes out to others and you live that sort of life. I believe it is within all of us to know the spirit of God and let it rein in our hearts. But it is also within us all to let the things of this world rein as well such as selfishness, hate and envy. So its all about allowing the spirit of God into our lives and being in tune with how Christ lived. This can be done greater in actions rather than words.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You are right. Jesus said if you give someone in need water or help then you are giving me water and help. So you can be Christ like when your heart goes out to others and you live that sort of life. I believe it is within all of us to know the spirit of God and let it rein in our hearts. But it is also within us all to let the things of this world rein as well such as selfishness, hate and envy. So its all about allowing the spirit of God into our lives and being in tune with how Christ lived. This can be done greater in actions rather than words.

And yet, the doctrine of your religion is very clear: there is no way for an unbeliever to end up in Paradise. Being an unbeliever is like having a one-way ticket to the eternal torture chambers. No matter what kind of life you led. No matter how great your actions were. No matter how much compassion you have shown in your life. No matter how moral you lived your life.

Being an atheist = destined for eternal torture.

What you believe is clearly more important to this deity then what you do.
Being gullible is the very first requirement to even only be a candidate for going to this Paradise. Only after establishing that you are gullible, can there be a judgement of how you have lived your life.

If you weren't gullible and thus did not "have faith" in the bible etc, then the rest does not matter. It's down to the torture chambers for you.

Ain't that right? Isn't that the central christian doctrine?

 

[PsychoSarah]

And yet, the doctrine of your religion is very clear: there is no way for an unbeliever to end up in Paradise. Being an unbeliever is like having a one-way ticket to the eternal torture chambers. No matter what kind of life you led. No matter how great your actions were. No matter how much compassion you have shown in your life. No matter how moral you lived your life.

Being an atheist = destined for eternal torture.

What you believe is clearly more important to this deity then what you do.
Being gullible is the very first requirement to even only be a candidate for going to this Paradise. Only after establishing that you are gullible, can there be a judgement of how you have lived your life.

If you weren't gullible and thus did not "have faith" in the bible etc, then the rest does not matter. It's down to the torture chambers for you.

Ain't that right? Isn't that the central christian doctrine?

I don't know, there might be an exception or two. One of the reasons I appreciate Methodists is that they view doing good for society as an expression of belief in god (the desire to help others reflects the inner belief) and that serving god is done through being of service to others. Outright belief is still important, but what qualifies as belief might be considered almost more lenient, I suppose.

So in the opinion of a Methodist, a charitable atheist might be expressing an "inner belief" in god without realizing it. While the logic of that might be iffy, it is a nice way to think about it.

Since in that case worshipping god is primarily through doing good for other people, you can't really say that what is done and what is believed in that case can have one be more important than the other, because they are viewed as the same.

 

[mzungu]

I don't know, there might be an exception or two. One of the reasons I appreciate Methodists is that they view doing good for society as an expression of belief in god (the desire to help others reflects the inner belief) and that serving god is done through being of service to others. Outright belief is still important, but what qualifies as belief might be considered almost more lenient, I suppose.

So in the opinion of a Methodist, a charitable atheist might be expressing an "inner belief" in god without realizing it. While the logic of that might be iffy, it is a nice way to think about it.

Since in that case worshipping god is primarily through doing good for other people, you can't really say that what is done and what is believed in that case can have one be more important than the other, because they are viewed as the same.

The Greek Orthodox Church says that if one does not believe it does not mean that one will go to Hell; however it is better for his soul if he does believe. If you are a good person then a place in paradise awaits you.

This however does not excuse a deity that sends people's souls to eternal torment. Such a deity cannot under any circumstances be deemed to be a benevolent and compassionate deity.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The Greek Orthodox Church says that if one does not believe it does not mean that one will go to Hell; however it is better for his soul if he does believe. If you are a good person then a place in paradise awaits you.

This however does not excuse a deity that sends people's souls to eternal torment. Such a deity cannot under any circumstances be deemed to be a benevolent and compassionate deity.

Well, not a 100% benevolent deity, anyways.

 

[ChetSinger]

OK, I'll explain it again.

Sorry for the delay. I had lost interest in this thread, but I felt I should return and respond.

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.

I'm with you here.

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.

I'm with you here, too, except that some of the equations I remember seeing didn't even assume abiogenesis was limited to planets. They used boundaries such as the mass of the entire universe, not just mass bounded by earthlike planets.

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.

I had started a thread about something like that, actually. Eugene Koonin wrote a paper a few years ago and appealed to the multiverse to improve his odds for abiogenesis. If you're interested, it's probably on page 2 or 3 by now.

I have to wonder, though, where you fit the will of God into all this. God is credited with the creation of life, and Jesus himself, the Word of God, is called the "Author of Life". It sounds to me like you're arguing for chance.

 

[Loudmouth]

True ignorance is the rejection of God.

Why not the rejection of Vishnu, Zeus, or Thor?

What about the thousands of other gods you reject? Is that ignorance, too?

No idea, I have no interest in examening these types of comparisons, only abiogenesis with the person I was discussing it with.

Of course you don't. It completely destroys your argument.

ANY environment, good or bad, is not ideal for abiogenesis because non-life cannot create life anywhere in any environment, period.

Evidence please.

 

[Loudmouth]

I totally disagree it took millions of years before life began, Life was in the beginning.

YOu could totally disagree that the Moon was made of rock, and then state a belief that it was made of cheese. Guess what? This wouldn't cause the Moon to turn into cheese.

When you are ready to look at the evidence instead of dogmatic beliefs, let us know.

 

[Loudmouth]

How about I make it a little easier for you.


Here's a few things that are either alive or not alive.

1) A cat
2) Pond algae
3) Sugar
4) Graphite

Which ones are alive and which ones are not? What do the alive things have that define them as "alive" and which the other ones lack so that they are not alive?

I would revise the list . . .

1) A cat
2) Pond algae
3) Fire
4) Virus

 

[RealityCheck]

I would revise the list . . .

1) A cat
2) Pond algae
3) Fire
4) Virus

I was aiming for baby steps but this list is pretty good too.

 

[Smidlee]

YOu could totally disagree that the Moon was made of rock, and then state a belief that it was made of cheese. Guess what? This wouldn't cause the Moon to turn into cheese.

When you are ready to look at the evidence instead of dogmatic beliefs, let us know.

Watch out swinging that two-edged sword as it cuts both ways. Science foundation is based on faith , either you believe universe created life or Life created the universe. No matter which foundation you based science on you can't turn around and use as proof oe of "the First Cause".

There is twice as much evidence proving the moon is made out of cheese as there is the universe created life. (2*0=0)

 

[Loudmouth]

Science foundation is based on faith , either you believe universe created life or Life created the universe.

The foundation of science is not based on abiogenesis. Try again.

There is twice as much evidence proving the moon is made out of cheese as there is the universe created life. (2*0=0)

Huh?

 

[Smidlee]

The foundation of science is not based on abiogenesis. Try again.

Abiogenesis is science fiction so I agree that the universe as a creator is a sorry foundation.

 

[Loudmouth]

Abiogenesis is science fiction so I agree that the universe as a creator is a sorry foundation.

Abiogenesis is not the foundation of science, no matter how badly you want it to be.

Secondly, abiogenesis is just a hypothesis that scientists are researching. What is wrong with that?

 

[Smidlee]

Abiogenesis is not the foundation of science, no matter how badly you want it to be.

Secondly, abiogenesis is just a hypothesis that scientists are researching. What is wrong with that?

In the beginning the foundation of science was based on the idea God created this universe and the universe is real and governed by laws which can be studied by man . Atheist came along and tried to based science of the universe created itself including all life around us. They assume the universe is real but God is not.
Abiogenesis is science fiction hypothesis that scientists research because people are willing to throw money at it. Give me a million dollars and I would research it too.

 

[Loudmouth]

In the beginning the foundation of science was based on the idea God created this universe and the universe is real and governed by laws which can be studied by man .

References?