What does it mean for something to be possible, plausible, or probable?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... the greatest question is one they will just act like they don't understand, or they ignore or say it is of no importance to them. Where did everything come from?

The honest answer is that no-one knows. Some people can accept not knowing; some cannot, and feel the need to posit an inexplicable, immaterial, magical, causal entity instead.

Meanwhile, the curious and methodical are studying the available evidence and making and testing hypotheses to see if we can discover the answers.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

You're using "possible" in a different sense. Ha, ha, nice debating trick, but not really meaningful.

Craig is, of course, using "possible" in the philosophical sense. This is different from the probabilistic meaning of "possible."

P: P is true in this world (e.g. cats exist)
~P: P is false in this world (e.g. unicorns exist)
☐P: P is necessarily true, i.e. true in every possible world (e.g. 2 + 2 = 4)
☐~P: P is impossible (necessarily false), i.e. false in every possible world (e.g. 2 + 2 = 5)
~☐~P: P is possible (not impossible), i.e. true in some possible world (e.g. unicorns exist)

I was using the term in both senses. It is possible (though unlikely) that unicorns exist edin this world, which of course is a demonstrably possible world. That's why I used the word 'also'.

 

[Mountainmike]

And what I said was spot on in scientic terms. As a scientist that is hardly suprising.

Abiogenesis does not even qualify as a hypothesis, let alone a theory.
There is no experiment that can test the hypothesis, since there are no repeats, not is it repeatable, nor is there even a pathway projected that can repeat it, so abiogenesis does not make it as a valid hypothesis..

It is pure speculation. It is not a theory : abiogenesis is the name atheists give to a hole in the paradigm of life as a biochemical accident.

And as for a simpler form.An army of Greater minds than yours have failed to conjecture a process from lifeless chemicals to a self reproducing cell.. The minimum living cell stripped down to what biologists consider are the minimum elements of present cells for reproduction is far bigger than any of our biggest chemical factories in pathway terms.

So call abiogenesis what it is: pure conjecture in absence of anyevidence

And when you come up with a process you can test, then and ONLY then can you call it a hypothesis.
And only when it is proven,can you call it a theory!

If there are lower forms of life, where are they? And why is the reaction not still occurring with all the inevitable false starts such a process would need?
If it is possible in quantum chemistry it should have repeated. So even the absence of lower forms counts against the likelihood of your pure conjecture.


In summary:
you call it "nonsense" ONLY because it does not fit your apriori world view.
Sadly that is not the meaning of nonsense, as well you know.
What I said made perfect sense, and is proper scientific definition..

Indeed I prefer sicience.

There is FAR MORE accredited forensic laboratory tested evidence of eucharistic miracles, bread became flesh, that is life appearing where was none proven by white cells existing which should die quickly in vitro, but are still there years after. And science cannot explain that. So there is a hypothesis of life, with actual evidence, and if true is the criteriod Darwin HIMSELF said would debunk his own theory. That is life not the result of progressive change.

Look it up.

The first cell in abiogenesis would be far simpler than any currently existing life form.

That does not argue against abiogenesis. It just shows that the first cells are now extinct.

As an example of abiogenesis theory, the first cells are not likely to have been able to reproduce by themselves; it is much more likely that they would have incidentally reproduced when cells were physically disrupted by movement (etc.) in the natural world.

Yes, we know what science and what hypotheses and theories are. You need to look into actual theories of abiogenesis are, rather than ridiculous straw men such as a complex cell coming out of nowhere.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

And what I said was spot on in scientic terms. As a scientist that is hardly suprising.

Abiogenesis does not even qualify as a hypothesis, let alone a theory.
There is no experiment that can test the hypothesis, since there are no repeats, not is it repeatable, nor is there even a pathway projected that can repeat it.

It is pure speculation. It is not a theory, abiogenesis is the name atheists give to a hole in the paradigm of life as a biochemical accident.

Wrong. There are plenty of experiments that can be done to test various aspects of theories of abiogenesis. E.g. the The Miller–Urey experiment showed that organic molecules can form. Various experiments have shown that lipid cell walls can spontaneously form, etc. There's various research on the RNA world hypothesis that shows that biologically important molecules such as RNA itself can arise spontaneously. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum There are all the experiments on how pre-life lipid vesicles can arise and how they react in various physical states (temperature, forces).

And as for a simple form.An army of Greater minds than yours have failed to come up with a process. the minimum living cell stripped down to what biologists consider are the minimum elements of present cells for reproduction is far bigger than any of our biggest chemical factories in pathway terms.

Except that the state of research into abiogenesis is very different from how you portray it, and looks at proto-life much simpler than what we have today.

So call pure conjecture in absence of anyevidence whatsoever just what it is: abiogenesis.

There is evidence.

And when you come up with a process you can test, then and ONLY then can you call it a hypothesis.
And only when it is proven,can you call it a theory!

People are testing processes. The research literature is full of such research. Some experimental results fit the theories, some don't which leads to theories being modified or discarded. You are trying to depict abiogenesis research as wild speculation, but it simply isn't. As anyone who watched (e.g.) these videos by a scientists, which it appears are being attacked by a creationist '1 star bot'.

If there are lower forms of life, where are they?

Seemingly, extinct. We haven't found them. That in no way means that they didn't exist. Do you claim that dinosaurs didn't exist because there are none around today?

If it is possible in quantum chemistry it should have repeated. So even the absence of lower forms counts against your pure conjecture.

Except of course it doesn't as life itself has changed the environment. Most theories of abiogenesis require there to be a chemical 'soup' of organic molecules. Now that we have a world full of life, such molecules are consumed and the soup no longer exists. However, there are natural lipid vesicles found in nature, etc.

you call it "nonsense" only because it does not fit your apriori world view.

I called your depiction of abiogenesis 'a ridiculous strawman' because it doesn't match any reasonable theory that I know of. Can you name the scientists who are claiming that life of modern complexity appeared out of nowhere?

What I said made perfect sense, and is proper scientific definition..

It did make sense. However, it's wrong as it's based upon a number of wrong assumptions. E.g. that abiogenesis theory says that modern style complex organisms appeared from nowhere, and that early life forms must still be found today. Both are wrong.

There is FAR MORE accredited forensic laboratory tested evidence of eucharistic miracles, that is life appearing where was none proven by white cells which should die quickly in vitro, but are still there years after. And science cannot explain it. So there is a hypothesis of life, with actual evidence, and if true is the criteriod Darwin HIMSELF said would debunk his own theory. That is life not the result of progressive change.

Really? Where is the objective verifiable evidence of miracles then?

 

[Mountainmike]

Wake up call.

Much as atheists hate scientific truth:

Creating amino acids is nothing to do with abiogenesis.

It explains abiogenesis no more than does proposing that finding a way to make cement or bricks explains self creating and reproducing buildings! Cement exists. Self reproducing buildings do not!

The rest I said was all true, there is not even a piece of conjecture for a process of how the first self replicating cell came to exist by random. And I know a great deal more about it than you give me credit for.

Meanwhile there are several books of forensic tests on Eucharistic miracles involving MANY forensic labs.
All conclude heart myocardium, showing signs of trauma real blood, and white cells that aren't supposed to survive in vitro.

Check it out. Forensic evidence for miracles is easy to find:
conversely it is a process for abiogenesis that is like finding unicorn blood!

Wrong. There are plenty of experiments that can be done to test various aspects of theories of abiogenesis. E.g. the The Miller–Urey experiment showed that organic molecules can form. Various experiments have shown that lipid cell walls can spontaneously form, etc. There's various research on the RNA world hypothesis that shows that biologically important molecules such as RNA itself can arise spontaneously. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum There are all the experiments on how pre-life lipid vesicles can arise and how they react in various physical states (temperature, forces).





Except that the state of research into abiogenesis is very different from how you portray it, and looks at proto-life much simpler than what we have today.




There is evidence.



People are testing processes. The research literature is full of such research. Some experimental results fit the theories, some don't which leads to theories being modified or discarded. You are trying to depict abiogenesis research as wild speculation, but it simply isn't. As anyone who watched (e.g.) these videos by a scientists, which it appears are being attacked by a creationist '1 star bot'.

Seemingly, extinct. We haven't found them. That in no way means that they didn't exist. Do you claim that dinosaurs didn't exist because there are none around today?



Except of course it doesn't as life itself has changed the environment. Most theories of abiogenesis require there to be a chemical 'soup' of organic molecules. Now that we have a world full of life, such molecules are consumed and the soup no longer exists. However, there are natural lipid vesicles found in nature, etc.



I called your depiction of abiogenesis 'a ridiculous strawman' because it doesn't match any reasonable theory that I know of. Can you name the scientists who are claiming that life of modern complexity appeared out of nowhere?



It did make sense. However, it's wrong as it's based upon a number of wrong assumptions. E.g. that abiogenesis theory says that modern style complex organisms appeared from nowhere, and that early life forms must still be found today. Both are wrong.



Really? Where is the objective verifiable evidence of miracles then?