Abiogenesis - The Impossible Theoretical Miracle

a reply to: cooperton

Yikes, aren't you sassy today. Here's Max Planck, founding father of quantum physics, summarizing its implications:

Max Planck was entitled to his opinion. But that's all the statement is - to date, no one, including him, has produced any evidence of an intelligent mind, computer, machine, or alien responsible for the universe and our existence. It's a simple matter of proof. There just isn't any. Logic says that it remains an open question. That's all anyone can say about it.

a reply to: vasaga

There IS such a thing as logical evidence. To confine yourself to only empirical evidence is a religious dedication to so-called science, i.e. scientism. Not to mention that constantly requiring research papers is an evasion of the issue. If there are no papers, it doesn't necessarily mean a position is false. Is there a paper out there that proves that I'm writing this post? No. That doesn't mean it didn't happen nor does it mean that it isn't true. People need to learn to think rather than being echo-chambers of politically driven 'scientific' views.

I think you're forgetting that it's the CUMULATIVE evidence, not a single paper or even a dozen papers. By way of example, would you want to take a drug that didn't have extensive evidence that it was safe and effective? I don't think so.

Your analogy doesn't work. If I'm responding to your post then, yes, you are "there". Disregarding mountains of evidence for evolution is attempting to hide an elephant under a rug. It doesn't work. It's not logical. Any objective person who knew nothing about the subject would question why that mountain of evidence means nothing.

So let's hear your explanation as to why research doesn't matter. Should we just close down all the labs studying evolution and declare all the evidence null and void? How do you substantiate your opinion?

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Common sense is usually someone's opinion. And that's fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, the difference here is that we're discussing a science. Science is discovery and evidence. That's it. Research papers are where you find the evidence for any discovery. As I mentioned in another post, you wouldn't want to take a drug that didn't have evidence that it was safe and effective. Where is that evidence? In research papers. In the data. In the experiments. In the clinical trials. It's the only way we have to validate anything in science.

originally posted by: om423
a reply to: cooperton

Yikes, aren't you sassy today. Here's Max Planck, founding father of quantum physics, summarizing its implications:

Max Planck was entitled to his opinion. But that's all the statement is - to date, no one, including him, has produced any evidence of an intelligent mind, computer, machine, or alien responsible for the universe and our existence. It's a simple matter of proof. There just isn't any. Logic says that it remains an open question. That's all anyone can say about it.

Not true...

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: vasaga

There IS such a thing as logical evidence. To confine yourself to only empirical evidence is a religious dedication to so-called science, i.e. scientism. Not to mention that constantly requiring research papers is an evasion of the issue. If there are no papers, it doesn't necessarily mean a position is false. Is there a paper out there that proves that I'm writing this post? No. That doesn't mean it didn't happen nor does it mean that it isn't true. People need to learn to think rather than being echo-chambers of politically driven 'scientific' views.

I think you're forgetting that it's the CUMULATIVE evidence, not a single paper or even a dozen papers. By way of example, would you want to take a drug that didn't have extensive evidence that it was safe and effective? I don't think so.

Your analogy doesn't work. If I'm responding to your post then, yes, you are "there". Disregarding mountains of evidence for evolution is attempting to hide an elephant under a rug. It doesn't work. It's not logical. Any objective person who knew nothing about the subject would question why that mountain of evidence means nothing.

So let's hear your explanation as to why research doesn't matter. Should we just close down all the labs studying evolution and declare all the evidence null and void? How do you substantiate your opinion?

I never said research doesn't matter. I said;
"To confine yourself to only empirical evidence is a religious dedication to so-called science, i.e. scientism."

The rest... Nothing you said was relevant to my points.

a reply to: vasaga

I never said research doesn't matter. I said;
"To confine yourself to only empirical evidence is a religious dedication to so-called science, i.e. scientism."

The rest... Nothing you said was relevant to my points.

Empirical evidence by definition does not require human validation or approval. You either accept it or you ignore it. But it doesn't go away. That's why its cool, you cant semantics or metaphysics your way out of acknowledging gravity or vaccines.

Moreover, criticizing the tools and methods of science by emphasizing human error only reflects back on the human psychology reinforcing actual religion, whose tools and methods have repeatedly failed to save humanity from itself except as a Santa Claus carrot and stick gimmick that rests on the philosophy of eternal damnation. Threatening society into behaving is not salvation, but vaccines, solar energy, hydroponics, gene therapy, bionic limbs, and the scientific method that enables us to perfect such technology are all a step in the right direction. Bottom line, what has actual religion done for us lately?

a reply to: vasaga

I never said research doesn't matter. I said; "To confine yourself to only empirical evidence is a religious dedication to so-called science, i.e. scientism." The rest... Nothing you said was relevant to my points.

Then what is your point? You implied that empirical evidence is a religion conviction. How does that work? I think the problem here is that you don't understand what empirical evidence is.

Beautifully thought-out & presented. Best thread on ATS this year. AWESOME ABIOGENESIS MIRACLES!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Equating atheism to despots is extremely insulting and a HUGE slippery slope fallacy.

EQUALLY - equating Christians with needy pups wishing for a 'sky daddy' is extremely insulting & a HUGE slippery slope fallacy. It actually makes you look rather pathetic. Go spiut off your sky daddy stuff to the generation of men who faced down the Third Reich while weekly listening to the greatest living apologist (CS Lewis) offering strength, fortitude, hope & regal faith over the world service to encourage them as they faced - in some instances - certain death, without hope of rescue. You are #ing unbelievably insulting to that generation who lived and died to protect your right to be a snotty, idiotic & below-the-belt argumentalist against the power of faith. Pathetic.

Incidentally, I'm not a seven day creationist. But the fact of miraculous origins cannot be denied, just look at the incredible magnitude of the odds against the institution of even the simplest of life forms.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Equating atheism to despots is extremely insulting and a HUGE slippery slope fallacy.

EQUALLY - equating Christians with needy pups wishing for a 'sky daddy' is extremely insulting & a HUGE slippery slope fallacy. It actually makes you look rather pathetic. Go spiut off your sky daddy stuff to the generation of men who faced down the Third Reich while weekly listening to the greatest living apologist (CS Lewis) offering strength, fortitude, hope & regal faith over the world service to encourage them as they faced - in some instances - certain death, without hope of rescue. You are #ing unbelievably insulting to that generation who lived and died to protect your right to be a snotty, idiotic & below-the-belt argumentalist against the power of faith. Pathetic.

When you put it that way, CS Lewis was making what they call an empty gesture.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
Incidentally, I'm not a seven day creationist. But the fact of miraculous origins cannot be denied, just look at the incredible magnitude of the odds against the institution of even the simplest of life forms.

That's not a logical argument. 0.0000000001% is still a possibility and arguably even inevitable in the span of billions of years.

On the other hand, not a single viable unified theory of creationism has been proposed. Refuting abiogenesis and or evolution does not prove creationism right.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: vasaga

I never said research doesn't matter. I said;
"To confine yourself to only empirical evidence is a religious dedication to so-called science, i.e. scientism."

The rest... Nothing you said was relevant to my points.

Empirical evidence by definition does not require human validation or approval.

But it requires human interpretation, which is subject to biases. And when your funding also wants certain results, that bias becomes a lot stronger.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
You either accept it or you ignore it. But it doesn't go away.

Same applies for logic.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
That's why its cool, you cant semantics or metaphysics your way out of acknowledging gravity or vaccines.

Therein lies the problem. Saying "gravity" is a general label. No one can disagree with 'gravity' in the sense of the effect being real. One can obviously disagree about the underlying ways in which it works, which starting point is chosen, and so on. There's a reason we have a problem unifying the large and the small, i.e. unified field theory and/or theory of everything.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Moreover, criticizing the tools and methods of science by emphasizing human error only reflects back on the human psychology reinforcing actual religion, whose tools and methods have repeatedly failed to save humanity from itself except as a Santa Claus carrot and stick gimmick that rests on the philosophy of eternal damnation. Threatening society into behaving is not salvation, but vaccines, solar energy, hydroponics, gene therapy, bionic limbs, and the scientific method that enables us to perfect such technology are all a step in the right direction. Bottom line, what has actual religion done for us lately?

The problem with this kind of thinking is that you're too stuck in duality. Science is not purely good and religion is not purely evil. Science is not pure truth and religion is not pure lies. Humans, including scientists, have biases, and it will inevitably taint the research and the perspective. What religion has or hasn't done is completely irrelevant to my point and to this discussion. To put science, especially modern day science, on a pedestal as the ultimate savior is the exact same mentality that religious people have about God being the ultimate savior. It makes people uncritical and thus subject to manipulation. This applies to both religious folks as to atheists. The issue is that atheists will gladly deny it and pretend they're completely rational, while they aren't.

And that is a trap for scientists themselves. It makes them so sure that they forget to question, which should be the main aspect of science which has been lost.
If you truly believe that science is completely neutral and has zero bias, you're simply delusional.

originally posted by: vasaga

Science is not purely good and religion is not purely evil. Science is not pure truth and religion is not pure lies.

“Evolution Is a Religion Which Masquerades as Science”: Awake!—1987

“An Associated Press-NBC News poll discovered that 76% of Americans believe that both the theories of evolution and creation ought to be taught in public schools. Only 8% wanted the evolution theory alone and only 10% wanted just the creation theory taught. Six per cent were unsure. . . .

“The central argument against teaching the creation theory in public schools is that it is religion masquerading as science. But according to Dr. Carl Sagan, evolution is a religion which masquerades as science. . . .

“No theory, whether scientific or political, can be sustained if a wall must be built to keep adherents in and opponents out. If the bondage which flows from a flawed political ideology like communism can be denounced, should not the wall surrounding the citadel of evolution be torn down and the opponents allowed to do battle on an equal basis? . . .

“Evolutionists don’t want to fight. They have already declared victory and view any assault on their domain as pretension. Could it be that the reason they want to avoid a fight is because they evolved from chickens?”​—Cal Thomas’ column in the New York Daily News, Friday, August 22, 1986.

The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies Part 1

That includes and especially counts for the so-called "chemical evolution theory of life" a.k.a. abiogenesis and chemical evolution for short (which is an unverified philosophy/idea, not a scientific theory as the name might imply to some people who think of a scientific theory when they read "theory", Haldane & Oparin were fond of using that first term I mentioned for it).

Although perhaps I should point out that I do not agree with the way Cal Thomas phrased it, as can be seen from the way I phrased it in the link at the end (evolutionary philosophies are derived from, or born out of*, ancient pagan religious philosophies and pagan religiously motivated doctrines; *: their roots or origin trace back to). And the fans and promoters of evolutionary philosophies/ideas are behaving (most of them at least) like religious zealots and fanatics with similar extreme reactions to anyone who speaks against their 'holy' men, their 'gurus' and 'priests' (metaphorically speaking, not technically of course) or their 'holy' doctrines and 'Holy Scripture' (e.g. so-called "peer-reviewed" articles about the subject, books like Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker", and text books for students).

“For those scientists who take it seriously, Darwinian evolution has functioned more as a philosophical belief system than as a testable scientific hypothesis. This quasi-religious function of the theory is, I think, what lies behind many of the extreme statements that you have doubtless encountered from some scientists opposing any critical analysis of neo-Darwinism in the classroom. It is also why many scientists make public statements about the theory that they would not defend privately to other scientists like me.” ― James A. Shapiro (American biologist, expert in bacterial genetics and a professor in the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of Chicago; teacher and promoter of his own evolutionary philosophies and different variations or versions of what he refers to as "Darwinian evolution" and "neo-Darwinism", he was also a Darwin Prize Visiting Professor from May-July in 1993 at the Institute of Cell and Molecular Biology at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland; no, that's not the same thing as the Darwin Awards, just to show which side of the fence he's on when it comes to glorifying Darwin and evolutionary philosophies as a whole, not just 1 specific variation of the storyline that 'Nature did it', 'Nature found a way', etc. and philosophical naturalism)

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: vasaga

I never said research doesn't matter. I said;
"To confine yourself to only empirical evidence is a religious dedication to so-called science, i.e. scientism."

The rest... Nothing you said was relevant to my points.

Empirical evidence by definition does not require human validation or approval.

But it requires human interpretation, which is subject to biases. And when your funding also wants certain results, that bias becomes a lot stronger.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
You either accept it or you ignore it. But it doesn't go away.

Same applies for logic.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
That's why its cool, you cant semantics or metaphysics your way out of acknowledging gravity or vaccines.

Therein lies the problem. Saying "gravity" is a general label. No one can disagree with 'gravity' in the sense of the effect being real. One can obviously disagree about the underlying ways in which it works, which starting point is chosen, and so on. There's a reason we have a problem unifying the large and the small, i.e. unified field theory and/or theory of everything.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Moreover, criticizing the tools and methods of science by emphasizing human error only reflects back on the human psychology reinforcing actual religion, whose tools and methods have repeatedly failed to save humanity from itself except as a Santa Claus carrot and stick gimmick that rests on the philosophy of eternal damnation. Threatening society into behaving is not salvation, but vaccines, solar energy, hydroponics, gene therapy, bionic limbs, and the scientific method that enables us to perfect such technology are all a step in the right direction. Bottom line, what has actual religion done for us lately?

The problem with this kind of thinking is that you're too stuck in duality. Science is not purely good and religion is not purely evil. Science is not pure truth and religion is not pure lies. Humans, including scientists, have biases, and it will inevitably taint the research and the perspective. What religion has or hasn't done is completely irrelevant to my point and to this discussion. To put science, especially modern day science, on a pedestal as the ultimate savior is the exact same mentality that religious people have about God being the ultimate savior. It makes people uncritical and thus subject to manipulation. This applies to both religious folks as to atheists. The issue is that atheists will gladly deny it and pretend they're completely rational, while they aren't.

And that is a trap for scientists themselves. It makes them so sure that they forget to question, which should be the main aspect of science which has been lost.
If you truly believe that science is completely neutral and has zero bias, you're simply delusional.

Then why do creationists hijack scientific findings to support non scientific conclusions?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: turbonium1

Humans and all life are not built like cars though. Cars don’t reproduce themselves.

Yes meaning humans are even more complex than cars because of their ability to reproduce.

Imagine a car self-assembling, and then also having the ability to reproduce - that is the assertion of evolutionary theory.

No, it is absolutely not. You are comparing machines that were assembled from parts to biological life that developed and changed over time based on the environment. It's not even remotely close to the same thing. Evolution theory does NOT say anything about life self assembling. It says that DNA is not perfect and makes copy errors.

Some see consciousness as an incident of chemistry, but quantum experiment demonstrates that chemistry is subservient to consciousness.

Please post the scientific research paper that concludes chemistry is "subservient" to consciousness. You keep repeating this nonsense over and over, the observer effect is not based on consciousness. It never has been.

The field of epigenetics is demonstrating the vast variability of our biochemistry as it relates to our state of being.

Epigenetics is not a field, it's part of evolution. This statement basically says nothing.

In light of what we see in quantum physics, this is a perfect match. The classical physical laws must be replaced, or at least submit to, the developments in quantum physics. With this comes a removal of all matter-based origin theories. If you can let go of such a material anchor, your worldview opens up to an endless realm of possibility. We don't have to keep taking the blue pill

Nope. QM is not very well understood yet. You just latch onto it because it's the latest creationist buzzword. Are you suggesting particles are not matter or energy?

originally posted by: vasaga
Evidence should indeed be considered. But don't forget. There IS such a thing as logical evidence. To confine yourself to only empirical evidence is a religious dedication to so-called science, i.e. scientism.

Logical "evidence" only proves things if the premise is based on empirical fact and the logical connections to the conclusion are valid. Sorry, but logic is contingent on science, and that's not just scientism. There is not any better method of learning than the scientific method. If you got one, then present it. Evidence needs to be testable or its not evidence. Scientism is about using science to determine everything about the world including morality and rules in society. It's not just about agreeing science is a good method for learning.

Not to mention that constantly requiring research papers is an evasion of the issue. If there are no papers, it doesn't necessarily mean a position is false.

It's not evasion of anything. It means there is good reason to be skeptical of such a concept, since it can't be backed up or verified.

Is there a paper out there that proves that I'm writing this post? No. That doesn't mean it didn't happen nor does it mean that it isn't true. People need to learn to think rather than being echo-chambers of politically driven 'scientific' views.

It's the religious folk that are echo chambers of online preachers. At least science is testable. Funny how you criticize people who agree with science as if they are closed minded, but for the creationists, their beliefs are valid despite being backed by nothing.

And people also forget that anything empirical has to start from a non-empirical assumption. That's why many theories require one initial miracle so that the rest can be explained, like evolution, like the big bang theory.

Complete nonsense.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
Beautifully thought-out & presented. Best thread on ATS this year. AWESOME ABIOGENESIS MIRACLES!

Except for the part that there is NO MIRACLE required, just chemical reactions that have already been proved to happen.

Incidentally, I'm not a seven day creationist. But the fact of miraculous origins cannot be denied, just look at the incredible magnitude of the odds against the institution of even the simplest of life forms.

It cannot be denied? Then where is the evidence? You can't just state something can't be denied, without actually giving the data that people deny. This is basically an appeal to ignorance. You basically say life is complex, therefor design and miracle. You gotta have a better argument than appealing to emotion based on unknowns and complexity.

a reply to: Barcs

We already know how cooperton misinterpreted the double slit experiment. Fortunately we are able to clear it up:

originally posted by: Tuning Spork
First of all, the double slit experiment is done with photons, not electrons.

That being said, the final line of the presentation -- "The observer collapsed the wave function simply by observing" -- is incomplete. When the photons are in transit they are amounts of energy, not matter, and exist as waves of potential to do work. So long as they are not absorbed by the slit aparatus they'll continue on their way until they reach the wall.

The measuring device, or "observer", interacts with the photons and thus collapses the wave at the slit(s). In other words: in order to observe photons you must interact with them thus changing them.

The film states that the wave function collapses "simply by observing" it as if the experiment observed the photon in the same way as we might observe the dog across the street -- from a distance. The observation of the photons in the double slit experiment, however, involves manipulation, not simple "observation".

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Then why do creationists hijack scientific findings to support non scientific conclusions?

The same reason atheists hijack scientific findings to support non scientific conclusions.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: vasaga
Evidence should indeed be considered. But don't forget. There IS such a thing as logical evidence. To confine yourself to only empirical evidence is a religious dedication to so-called science, i.e. scientism.

Logical "evidence" only proves things if the premise is based on empirical fact and the logical connections to the conclusion are valid.

No. The premise must be true. Being true is not the same as being an empirical fact. In fact, there is no such thing as "empirical fact". Fact = /= evidence = / = truth.

originally posted by: Barcs
Sorry, but logic is contingent on science, and that's not just scientism.

Bull#. Logic supersedes science. It is logic that gave birth to the scientific method. Not the other way around. Logic and math are on equal levels. Science uses math.

originally posted by: Barcs
There is not any better method of learning than the scientific method. If you got one, then present it.

That is an assumption. Learning what? About the outside world? Sure. Good luck learning about ethics, aesthetics, metaphysical truths... The fact that you believe that statement be true proves your scientism.

originally posted by: Barcs
Evidence needs to be testable or its not evidence. Scientism is about using science to determine everything about the world including morality and rules in society. It's not just about agreeing science is a good method for learning.

Oh so you agree then.

originally posted by: Barcs
It's not evasion of anything. It means there is good reason to be skeptical of such a concept, since it can't be backed up or verified.

There's a difference between being skeptical and being dismissive.

originally posted by: Barcs
It's the religious folk that are echo chambers of online preachers. At least science is testable. Funny how you criticize people who agree with science as if they are closed minded, but for the creationists, their beliefs are valid despite being backed by nothing.

You can't claim that stabbing someone is not a fault because someone else shot someone.

originally posted by: Barcs

And people also forget that anything empirical has to start from a non-empirical assumption. That's why many theories require one initial miracle so that the rest can be explained, like evolution, like the big bang theory.

Complete nonsense.

No. It's not nonsense. Give me a single scientific theory or viewpoint that does not have a non-empirical assumption.

a reply to: vasaga

The same reason atheists hijack scientific findings to support non scientific conclusions.

They do? Examples please?

That is an assumption. Learning what? About the outside world? Sure. Good luck learning about ethics, aesthetics, metaphysical truths... The fact that you believe that statement be true proves your scientism.

Please present a metaphysical truth and defend it with logic and empirical evidence.

All I want to see is a good creation thread that actually exhibits the kind of rigorous research and accuracy you see in every other field of study. Materials and tests that can be repeated and analyzed and confirmed freely in any lab. Show us DNA samples of deities or fossil evidence of angels and demons or a video of Jesus reviving the clinically dead or a literal talking snake or a tree guarded by burning swords and a dragon. We want a map of God's mansion we can use to travel to its doors and get an interview with the heavenly host. Get Satan on the phone so we can clear up a few mysteries or just prove he's alive. Because right now, these threads got nothing except the word of men. Even the shroud of Turin turned out be fake. Show us something impressive. Extraordinary evidence please.