CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
New Experiment Proves Abiogenesis!!
More bad news for the Religious zealots, a fairly recent experiment involving LASER stimulation that mimicked lightening storm activity during Primordial Earth times has clearly shown that Abiogenesis is not only possible but very probable.
Of course Science has been chipping away at the Creation Myth for decades now. Evolution provides step-by-step descriptions of how we got here. The Theory has never been significantly challenged. Never. And all but the most zealous Fundies know this. So all they had left to challenge us in science was their whining about Abiogenesis being impossible.
Well hell, now even THAT slim straw of an argument from them seems to be as imperiled as a Catholic joining ISIS. LOL.
Read this link to learn why!!
Those who don't read the link and comment intelligently on it, but rather just paste meaningless bible quotes will be banned. Fire with fire, amigos.
Yes what you say is true and indeed accepted by most rational people , unfortunately America is renowned for producing a particular type of Christian who wish to remain in their collective state of blissful ignorance , your attempts at educating this lot is akin to feeding infants with caviar a complete waste of time and energy .
Interestingly enough one wonders why these confused believers don't put their collective efforts together ( with bible verses ) and present them to the Nobel committee on science and see what those ignorant scientists make of them ?
First of all, your baseless "ad hominem" arguments are very telling of your bias, so any reasonable discussion (particularly one that doesn't end in your favor) is likely impossible.
Second, if we assume that the article you linked to is completely truthful, it brings you no closer to proving the theory of Abiogenesis. To claim that, because several components of DNA and RNA have been synthesized, the theory of Abiogenesis has been vindicated is nothing short of asinine; the simple reasons being, 1. that DNA and RNA, containing information, are more than the sum of their parts, and 2. that no physical laws are capable of producing information. So, even if the ideal Abiogenesis scenario took place, you'd be left with nothing but a soup of molecules at best.
If you respond to this with a rational rebuttal, rather than deleting my post or slinging mud (as almost every single "Atheist" I've argued with before has done), then I applaud you. As for all your claims regarding the alleged fallaciousness of Theism, feel free to provide any kind of substantiation for them.
First, there were no ad hominems in the debate description.
. To claim that, because several components of DNA and RNA have been synthesized,
You seem to have completely ignored this fact. DNA and RNA were created.
simple reasons being, 1. that DNA and RNA, containing information, are more than the sum of their parts, and 2. that no physical laws are capable of producing information.
2 is only considered true because we haven't created DNA and RNA before. This experiment would disprove your claim that there is no way to produce information.
"First, there were no ad hominems in the debate description."
Other than the OP's mocking Theists?
"You seem to have completely ignored this fact. DNA and RNA were created."
Where, exactly, did the article provided state that DNA and RNA themselves were created? To quote, "scientists used a giant laser to ignite chemical reactions that converted a substance found on the early Earth into the molecular building blocks of DNA, the blueprint for life." DNA, as previously mentioned, is more than the sum of its parts, as it contains information. To say that creating the parts of DNA, in a relatively confined space, is equivalent to creating DNA is absurd.
"2 is only considered true because we haven't created DNA and RNA before. This experiment would disprove your claim that there is no way to produce information."
Honest question: did you read my post? I said that no physical laws are capable of creating information; I didn't say that creating information was impossible, period. That claim (that information can't be created) is absurd. Take, for example, books: books are filled with information, and we (humans) have created books, therefore we have created information, therefore it isn't impossible. No, what I pointed out was that the laws of physics (which are not themselves intelligent, merely orderly) cannot create information, therefore Abiogenesis, is (at least, the idea that it could occur without an intelligent, guiding force) impossible.
Zealots and fundamentalists? If you consider that mocking maybe you should rethink religion.
Where, exactly, did the article provided state that DNA and RNA themselves were created?
You said that even if the article demonstrated that it wouldn't prove anything. You are moving the goal post.
I said that no physical laws are capable of creating information;
That isn't a scientific statement. What is information? What is creation? You are using terms that aren't scientific about scientific laws. You claim has no basis for proof either. How can we determine that there is no physical law capable of creating information? We can't because that claim is completely unverifiable. That isn't scientific. Your statement can be disproven if the abiogenesis element succeeds in producing DNA.
"Zealots and fundamentalists? If you consider that mocking maybe you should rethink religion."
More like their implied dismissal of anyone who disagreed with them as such.
"You said that even if the article demonstrated that it wouldn't prove anything. You are moving the goal post."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you claiming that I said that even if the article claimed to have created DNA and RNA, nothing would have been proven? First of all, I never claimed anything remotely similar, and second, that claim is absolutely untrue.
"That isn't a scientific statement. What is information? What is creation? You are using terms that aren't scientific about scientific laws."
Information is difficult to define, as it's not based on purely physical concepts (for example, the quality of a book isn't defined by the quality of its components). It is, however, clearly evident and regular, seeing as all of our technology requires it to function. SSDs don't work on magic.
Furthermore, what, exactly, is an "unscientific" statement? You throw the word "scientific" around casually, seemingly using it as a catch-all for anything you don't like. Feel free to define it.
" You claim has no basis for proof either. How can we determine that there is no physical law capable of creating information?"
First of all, nowhere in observable space (untouched by Man) is there any evidence of information present. Second, the Scientific Theory of Abiogenesis (the idea that micro-organisms are spontaneously created in favorable conditions) was proven false through experimentation done by Francesco Redi. Both of these provide overwhelming evidence that the laws of physics themselves do not create information.
"We can't because that claim is completely unverifiable. That isn't scientific."
Oh? First of all, scientific hypotheses are never completely verifiable: the best one can be is consistent with current generations of data. Second, my claim is verifiable via direct observation, seeing that the universe itself provides evidence to either support it or deny it (in this case, supporting it).
"Your statement can be disproven if the abiogenesis element succeeds in producing DNA."
That's a huge "if". All evidence present suggests the contrary, but I suppose that doesn't matter when you have a confirmation bias.
First of all, I never claimed anything remotely similar, and second, that claim is absolutely untrue.
I guess it was just your implied dismissal.
You throw the word "scientific" around casually, seemingly using it as a catch-all for anything you don't like.
I throw around "scientific" like you throw around "information".
First of all, nowhere in observable space (untouched by Man) is there any evidence of information present.
So, now you are claiming DNA doesn't contain information.
Second, the Scientific Theory of Abiogenesis (the idea that micro-organisms are spontaneously created in favorable conditions) was proven false through experimentation done by Francesco Redi.
Redi proved that maggots do not spontaneously form. He did not disprove the possibility of abiogenesis.
Both of these provide overwhelming evidence that the laws of physics themselves do not create information.
But, we have seen new information created in DNA through mutation.
First of all, I'd like to point out that failing to address my points with anything but mockery is a great way to destroy rational discussion. Having said that...
"So, now you are claiming DNA doesn't contain information."
My point with that statement was that, other than in our world, there is no information present, meaning that we are the sole exception to the norm. In reflection, I could have worded that better (replacing "untouched by man" with "extraterrestrial").
"Redi proved that maggots do not spontaneously form. He did not disprove the possibility of abiogenesis."
The results of Redi's experiment, and the challenges of it to follow, clearly demonstrated that life (mammalian or micro-organic) does not spontaneously form. Granted, that does nor itself contradict the idea of Abiogenesis in general, but it certainly points to that conclusion.
"But, we have seen new information created in DNA through mutation."
First of all, in order to have mutation, you must first have life.
Second, the process of mutation is governed my much more than just the laws of physics (genetics and breeding come to mind).
Third, mutation doesn't even create information; all it does is modify already encoded data.
All this, and yet you've failed to address my main point: having the parts of DNA in a confined space is not equivalent to having DNA. In your original response, despite the provided article explicitly denying it, you claimed that the experiment in question created DNA and RNA. Since then, you have seemingly ignored this claim, failing to acknowledge it, much less substantiate it, in favor of mocking me and exploiting lack of clarification in my arguments. Honestly, I'm unsure of how to progress from here: on one hand, you're arguing exactly like every single other "Atheist" I've had the displeasure to discuss these issues with (sans one), but on the other, this is something to do, not to mention great typing practice.
My point with that statement was that, other than in our world, there is no information present, meaning that we are the sole exception to the norm.
Every living thing has DNA. We are not the sole exception.
In reflection, I could have worded that better (replacing "untouched by man" with "extraterrestrial")
Abiogenesis would have happened on Earth.
Granted, that does nor itself contradict the idea of Abiogenesis in general, but it certainly points to that conclusion.
It doesn't though. We wouldn't even consider Redi's experiment when discussing abiogenesis since it is completely unrelated. Science is not about ending the discussion before having it.
First of all, in order to have mutation, you must first have life.
That's irrelevant. You are trying to claim that no information can be added.
Second, the process of mutation is governed my much more than just the laws of physics (genetics and breeding come to mind).
Abiogenesis would not be governed by only laws of physics. Your original objection would be invalid.
Third, mutation doesn't even create information; all it does is modify already encoded data.
There are gene duplication mutations that cause an entire copy of the gene to be added. The duplicated gene can undergo a bunch of mutations to completely change its function. Since the original gene sill exists and the duplicated gene is different, new information has been added. Not just modified.
All this, and yet you've failed to address my main point: having the parts of DNA in a confined space is not equivalent to having DNA.
I was addressing the other issue where you claimed that having DNA would be impossible. I am trying to establish that there is no confirmation bias that you are suggesting.
In your original response, despite the provided article explicitly denying it, you claimed that the experiment in question created DNA and RNA.
I have since clarified where I was coming from. You say we shouldn't try to create DNA and RNA because it is impossible. I thought you were trying to dismiss the results of any abiogenesis experiments that would create DNA. Sorry for misinterpreting you.
Since then, you have seemingly ignored this claim, failing to acknowledge it, much less substantiate it, in favor of mocking me and exploiting lack of clarification in my arguments.
Your claim is that abiogenesis is impossible. You want to ignore the results of all abiogenesis experiments that we haven't even conducted yet. I didn't mock you. If being challenged constitutes mockery, maybe your stance isn't so great.
Honestly, I'm unsure of how to progress from here: on one hand, you're arguing exactly like every single other "Atheist" I've had the displeasure to discuss these issues with (sans one), but on the other, this is something to do, not to mention great typing practice.
You could start discussing why you feel the need to derail experiments before they have been conducted.
"Every living thing has DNA. We are not the sole exception."
"We" being the world.
"Abiogenesis would have happened on Earth."
Your basis for that being...?
"That's irrelevant. You are trying to claim that no information can be added."
Once again, you're altering my claims. I never said that "information can be added". I said that information cannot be created by the laws of physics themselves (meaning "random chance"). What you're arguing here, if I'm not mistaken, is that "mutation supports Abiogenesis. That it requires life to begin with is irrelevant".
"Abiogenesis would not be governed by only laws of physics. Your original objection would be invalid."
What processes, dare I ask, exist outside of the physical laws, when no life is present?
" You say we shouldn't try to create DNA and RNA because it is impossible."
I never claimed that "we" shouldn't try to create DNA, nor that it was impossible. By simulating favorable Evolutionary environments, definitely, but that isn't the only possible way to create it.
"You want to ignore the results of all abiogenesis experiments that we haven't even conducted yet."
So... let me get this straight... I'm wrong because I'm ignoring all experiments on Abiogenesis... that haven't been done yet? How can you know for certain that any future experiments on Abiogenesis take place, much less that they result favorably? Hypothetical future scenarios are no basis for future refutation. That's like me claiming that you're an idiot for being an Atheist because some experiment in the future might objectively prove God's existence.
"You could start discussing why you feel the need to derail experiments before they have been conducted."
If objective reality conflicts with an experiment, is it worth conducting? That I'm wrong because what I'm saying might detract from a hypothetical future experiment is infuriatingly asinine.
Once again, you're altering my claims. I never said that "information can be added". I said that information cannot be created by the laws of physics themselves (meaning "random chance"). What you're arguing here, if I'm not mistaken, is that "mutation supports Abiogenesis. That it requires life to begin with is irrelevant".
Whatever laws of nature exist that aren't preventing living things from mutating and adding information would also apply to abiogenesis because it is still a part of nature.
What processes, dare I ask, exist outside of the physical laws, when no life is present?
Nature is not able to pick and choose which laws it works with. All laws are applicable at all times.
I never claimed that "we" shouldn't try to create DNA, nor that it was impossible.
You did, and you are.
By simulating favorable Evolutionary environments, definitely, but that isn't the only possible way to create it.
You only want to simulate planets that wouldn't support evolution as an experiment for a planet that does support evolution?
So... let me get this straight... I'm wrong because I'm ignoring all experiments on Abiogenesis... that haven't been done yet?
Yeah, that would be something that isn't right to do.
How can you know for certain that any future experiments on Abiogenesis take place, much less that they result favorably?
No one has ever proposed an idea that didn't involve abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is even in the Bible. If abiogenesis didn't happen that would mean that living things existed from the beginning of the universe and that wouldn't fit with our understanding of nature.
Hypothetical future scenarios are no basis for future refutation.
No alternative scenario invalidates any refutation.
That's like me claiming that you're an idiot for being an Atheist because some experiment in the future might objectively prove God's existence.
And this is me calling you an idiot. No one ever said that abiogenesis proves God doesn't exist except theists. Someone who thinks nature works without God is called what?
If objective reality conflicts with an experiment, is it worth conducting?
You already admitted that objective reality doesn't conflict in the case of abiogenesis. If current science conflicts with an experiment, should it be done?
That I'm wrong because what I'm saying might detract from a hypothetical future experiment is infuriatingly asinine.
Thinking you know objective reality without knowing it is asinine.
"Whatever laws of nature exist that aren't preventing living things from mutating and adding information would also apply to abiogenesis because it is still a part of nature."
False equivalence. Physical laws allowing life to exist would not, because of only that, create life.
Further, assuming Abiogenesis (as a phenomenon) to exist doesn't help when trying to prove its existence.
"Nature is not able to pick and choose which laws it works with. All laws are applicable at all times."
I'm well aware, hence my asking. My point was that, when no life exists (and thus no artificial processes to sustain life), what exists to "apply" to Abiogenesis other than the laws of physics?
"You did, and you are."
If it's true, surely you should be able to prove it.
"You only want to simulate planets that wouldn't support evolution as an experiment for a planet that does support evolution?"
When did I say that? I only claimed it's impossible to create DNA by simulating Evolutionary environments, not that I'd engage in deliberately flawed experiments.
"No one has ever proposed an idea that didn't involve abiogenesis."
That statement is wrong on so many levels, I don't know where to begin. First of all, Abiogenesis is not an all-encompassing concept: it's a theory concerning our origins. I don't know about you, but most of my conversations (and thus ideas) don't revolve around our origins, much less specifically Abiogenesis.
"Abiogenesis is even in the Bible."
Evidence?
" If abiogenesis didn't happen that would mean that living things existed from the beginning of the universe and that wouldn't fit with our understanding of nature."
I doubt anyone's arguing that life has existed since the beginning of the Universe. Even the Bible (which you profess having knowledge of, given your previous statement) doesn't claim that, there being several "days" between the beginning of the Universe and life being created.
"No one ever said that abiogenesis proves God doesn't exist except theists. Someone who thinks nature works without God is called what?"
No one but you, apparently. In that statement, I said absolutely nothing about Abiogenesis, yet you assume my stating of "Atheist" involves it anyway?
"You already admitted that objective reality doesn't conflict in the case of abiogenesis."
Oh? When was this?
"If current science conflicts with an experiment, should it be done?"
Science is based on improvement. Dismissing experiments based on conflicting with the current orthodoxy in the scientific community directly contradicts the idea itself.
"Thinking you know objective reality without knowing it is asinine."
A sound argument with true premises is objective reality. Tell me otherwise, and you deny logic itself.
I don't see any reason why the laws of nature would not apply just because no life exists. That doesn't make sense.
When did I say that? I only claimed it's impossible to create DNA by simulating Evolutionary environments, not that I'd engage in deliberately flawed experiments.
If the experiment simulated an environment that wasn't evolutionary it wouldn't apply to this planet. Your complaint is that the experiment only works because it is simulating this planet.
Evidence?
Genesis says man was created from dirt. That is abiogenesis.
I doubt anyone's arguing that life has existed since the beginning of the Universe. Even the Bible (which you profess having knowledge of, given your previous statement) doesn't claim that, there being several "days" between the beginning of the Universe and life being created.
You are arguing that life always existed. That's what is so confusing. I already told you that the Bible has abiogenesis in it.
No one but you, apparently. In that statement, I said absolutely nothing about Abiogenesis, yet you assume my stating of "Atheist" involves it anyway?
You called people who believe in abiogenesis atheists. You are the one claiming you have to be an atheist, not me.
Oh? When was this?
You said Redi's experiment didn't disprove abiogenesis.
Science is based on improvement. Dismissing experiments based on conflicting with the current orthodoxy in the scientific community directly contradicts the idea itself.
You are trying to dismiss experiments.
A sound argument with true premises is objective reality. Tell me otherwise, and you deny logic itself.
"I don't see any reason why the laws of nature would not apply just because no life exists. That doesn't make sense."
What do you mean when you say "nature"? Does the word itself not imply life?
"If the experiment simulated an environment that wasn't evolutionary it wouldn't apply to this planet. Your complaint is that the experiment only works because it is simulating this planet."
First of all, whether the experiment "worked" is a matter of goals (creating DNA vs creating the components of DNA).
Second, when I said "Evolutionary environments", I was referring to environments theorized to facilitate Evolution. What does that have to do with "applying to this planet"?
"Genesis says man was created from dirt. That is abiogenesis."
Abiogenesis is the "random" creation of life from non-life. God formed Man from clay in Genesis, meaning Man's creation was guided, which is not Abiogenesis.
"You are arguing that life always existed. That's what is so confusing. I already told you that the Bible has abiogenesis in it."
Are you implying that Abiogenesis is the only way life could have not existed forever? I've already demonstrated that to be false (with the example from Genesis).
"You called people who believe in abiogenesis atheists. You are the one claiming you have to be an atheist, not me."
The term "Atheism" literally means "non-theism", indicating a lack of Theism. You claim to be an Agnostic (on your profile), meaning literally the same thing. What I said in that particular instance had absolutely nothing to do with Abiogenesis, but with you as a person, based on your own claims about your beliefs.
"You said Redi's experiment didn't disprove abiogenesis."
Acknowledging that a somewhat irrelevant experiment doesn't conflict with a theory is not claiming that theory to be feasible, much less true. You can't say something's true because of lack of evidence to the contrary, thus you can't claim that I "admitted" that Abiogenesis is possible because I said an experiment didn't contradict it.
"You are trying to dismiss experiments."
I assume you're referring to the experiment linked to by the OP? Tell me, out of the two of us, who's discussed more of the specifics of the article? Thus far, I've pointed out that the article doesn't achieve anything new, going so far as to quote the article's explicit mention of such. How, exactly, is that dismissal, especially when your only statement concerning the article (to my memory) is that it produced a result which is found nowhere in the article?
"Your premises are not known to be true."
Which one(s), and why? Just saying "oh, that's wrong" isn't helpful in a discussion.
What do you mean when you say "nature"? Does the word itself not imply life?
No. It implies natural.
Second, when I said "Evolutionary environments", I was referring to environments theorized to facilitate Evolution. What does that have to do with "applying to this planet"?
This planet for sure is an evolutionary environment. Evolution exists on this planet.
Abiogenesis is the "random" creation of life from non-life
No, it isn't.
God formed Man from clay in Genesis, meaning Man's creation was guided, which is not Abiogenesis.
If God guided life, He could do it any way He pleased. Abiogenesis does not prove life wasn't guided.
Are you implying that Abiogenesis is the only way life could have not existed forever? I've already demonstrated that to be false (with the example from Genesis).
If life didn't exist forever it would have had to come from non life at some point. You think that is impossible with or without God.
What I said in that particular instance had absolutely nothing to do with Abiogenesis, but with you as a person, based on your own claims about your beliefs.
I am agnostic because you are agnostic. "Theists" are constantly stating that Gos can't do things. Saying that God isn't responsible for science. Why would I be a theists when no one else is.
Acknowledging that a somewhat irrelevant experiment doesn't conflict with a theory is not claiming that theory to be feasible, much less true.
Aww, you already forgot what we were discussing. You were trying to eliminate that possibility of abiogenesis, not the feasibility.
You can't say something's true because of lack of evidence to the contrary, thus you can't claim that I "admitted" that Abiogenesis is possible because I said an experiment didn't contradict it.
I am not trying to prove abiogenesis is true, I am trying to prove that we should do the experiments. You brought up Redi. Now you are mad at me for discussing him.
How, exactly, is that dismissal, especially when your only statement concerning the article (to my memory) is that it produced a result which is found nowhere in the article?
You keep telling us not to do abiogenesis experiments.
Which one(s), and why? Just saying "oh, that's wrong" isn't helpful in a discussion.
The premise that physical laws prevent abiogenesis.
Before I begin, I'd like to point out that, for some reason, I was not informed by the website of your post. My apologies for responding so late.
"No. It implies natural."
So, the definition of "nature" is "natural"? Or did you refrain from answering my first question?
"This planet for sure is an evolutionary environment. Evolution exists on this planet."
First of all, that doesn't mean that this planet is an exclusive "Evolutionary" environment. Second, what evidence do you have of Evolution's existence?
"No, it isn't."
Then how do you define it? From my experience, most of your peers disagree with you on that one.
"If God guided life, He could do it any way He pleased. Abiogenesis does not prove life wasn't guided."
That's irrelevant to this particular strand of argumentation; you originally claimed that the Bible agrees with Abiogenesis, when it explicitly states the contrary. Whether God could've created Man through it is irrelevant.
"If life didn't exist forever it would have had to come from non life at some point. You think that is impossible with or without God."
When did I say that the creation of life is impossible?
"I am agnostic because you are agnostic. "Theists" are constantly stating that Gos can't do things. Saying that God isn't responsible for science. Why would I be a theists when no one else is."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you implying that, because some Theists are Deists, all Theists are Deists, therefore anyone who is not a Deist is not a Theist?
"Aww, you already forgot what we were discussing. You were trying to eliminate that possibility of abiogenesis, not the feasibility."
Hence my explicit mention of objective truth. I find it ironic that you claim I've forgotten the subject matter, when you've either failed to read the entirety of my previous statement, or deliberately failed to acknowledge it.
"I am not trying to prove abiogenesis is true, I am trying to prove that we should do the experiments."
So, are your repeated claims that Abiogenesis is accurate unrelated to this discussion?
"You brought up Redi. Now you are mad at me for discussing him."
Strawman argument help neither you nor me, so please refrain from using them. I don't take issue with your mentioning Redi, I take issue with your statement implying that I agree with Abiogenesis because I pointed out that Redi's experiment didn't solely disprove it.
"You keep telling us not to do abiogenesis experiments."
I've already stated this, likely multiple times, but I never claimed that we shouldn't perform experiments to test Abiogenesis; I merely stated that, in my opinion, such experiments would never lead to success.
"The premise that physical laws prevent abiogenesis."
My statement on the matter was that the physical laws, on their own, are insufficient for creating life, not that they prevented it from occurring.
Honestly, if we're going to have a discussion, you cannot continue to take my statements and modify them to suit your arguments.
So, the definition of "nature" is "natural"? Or did you refrain from answering my first question?
There is natural, unnatural, and supernatural. The universe contains what is natural with or without life. Your definition of nature is life, which is incomplete.
First of all, that doesn't mean that this planet is an exclusive "Evolutionary" environment. Second, what evidence do you have of Evolution's existence?
First, it can't be both, so yes it is exclusively evolutionary. Second, fossil record, DNA, observed changes, etc. prove that evolution exists on this planet. It makes sense that you would deny evolution, too.
Then how do you define it? From my experience, most of your peers disagree with you on that one.
The emergence of life from non life. I don't believe you accurately understand your own experience.
That's irrelevant to this particular strand of argumentation
Your argument is that abiogenesis can't happen because God exists.
you originally claimed that the Bible agrees with Abiogenesis, when it explicitly states the contrary. Whether God could've created Man through it is irrelevant.
The Bible agrees with a form of abiogenesis by the correct definition.
When did I say that the creation of life is impossible?
That's your main argument here.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you implying that, because some Theists are Deists, all Theists are Deists, therefore anyone who is not a Deist is not a Theist?
No, all theists say God can't do something. Therefore, all theists are actually atheists.
Hence my explicit mention of objective truth.
Objective truth would only be for eliminating the possibility, not for discussing the feasibility. Your explicit mention of objective truth is bullshit.
I find it ironic that you claim I've forgotten the subject matter, when you've either failed to read the entirety of my previous statement, or deliberately failed to acknowledge it.
If you were moving away from the subject matter I have no reason to acknowledge it.
So, are your repeated claims that Abiogenesis is accurate unrelated to this discussion?
My claims are that you are inaccurate. I don't know what repeated claims you are referring to.
Strawman argument help neither you nor me, so please refrain from using them.
Me mentioning your strawmans helps me quite a bit actually.
I don't take issue with your mentioning Redi, I take issue with your statement implying that I agree with Abiogenesis because I pointed out that Redi's experiment didn't solely disprove it.
I didn't say you agreed with abiogenesis. I said you agree that it is possible.
I've already stated this, likely multiple times, but I never claimed that we shouldn't perform experiments to test Abiogenesis
You say abiogenesis is impossible, and that we shouldn't do experiments for things that are impossible.
My statement on the matter was that the physical laws, on their own, are insufficient for creating life, not that they prevented it from occurring.
And that claim can't be confirmed.
Honestly, if we're going to have a discussion, you cannot continue to take my statements and modify them to suit your arguments.
"There is natural, unnatural, and supernatural. The universe contains what is natural with or without life. Your definition of nature is life, which is incomplete."
Stating terms is in no way related to defining them.
"First, it can't be both, so yes it is exclusively evolutionary."
My statement was referring to other, hypothetical, "Evolutionary" extraterrestrial environments, as it seemed to me like you claimed they do not exist.
"Second, fossil record, DNA, observed changes, etc. prove that evolution exists on this planet."
First of all, the current fossil record is far from complete, and in no way indicates a clear change from one species to another.
Second, how does DNA allegedly prove Darwinian Evolution (what I assume you're referring to)?
Third, if, when you said "observed changes", you were referring to the process of micro-evolution (non-capitalized "e"), you'd be horribly mistaken. Micro-evolution, or natural selection, is a phenomenon that takes place when a species is subjected to a change in environment. Over time, said species will adapt to survive better than their predecessors in the altered surroundings, Darwin's beloved finches being an example. This in no way supports, much less proves, Darwinian Evolution, as both time factors and the scale of mutation make the two wholly incomparable.
" It makes sense that you would deny evolution, too."
And why would that be?
"The emergence of life from non life."
Pretty specific definition you've got, there. If that's how you define "Abiogenesis", then we have no argument in that regard.
"I don't believe you accurately understand your own experience."
Said experience being...?
"Your argument is that abiogenesis can't happen because God exists."
When did I state that? Just because I happen to believe that God exists and that Abiogenesis is impossible doesn't mean I believe the two to be connected in any way, much less that one proves or disproves the other.
"The Bible agrees with a form of abiogenesis by the correct definition."
"Correct" according to whom, other than you?
"No, all theists say God can't do something. Therefore, all theists are actually atheists."
What do you mean by "something"? I, along with most other theists, believe God to be omnipotent.
"If you were moving away from the subject matter I have no reason to acknowledge it."
Yet you take the time to (since my last post, seemingly deliberately) twist my arguments so you can mock them.
"Me mentioning your strawmans helps me quite a bit actually."
Such a shame that you've yet to mention any.
"I didn't say you agreed with abiogenesis. I said you agree that it is possible."
Despite my explicit, repeated mention of my belief that it's impossible?
"You say abiogenesis is impossible, and that we shouldn't do experiments for things that are impossible."
First of all, I thought I agreed with you when you said that Abiogenesis is possible? You can't argue both ways.
Second, I never claimed that "we shouldn't do experiments for things that are impossible", I stated my opinion, being "I don't believe any experiments attempting to prove Abiogenesis will meet with any success". In no way does one imply the other.
"And that claim can't be confirmed."
It can, if you use simple logic:
The entirety of observable existence contradicts the claim that the laws of physics themselves are incapable of creating information, therefore it is reasonable to assume that the laws of physics are incapable of creating information. All life contains information, therefore it's reasonable to assume that the laws of physics themselves are incapable of creating life.
"That is clearly not true. ;)"
Other than me pointing out numerous times that your explanation of my claims in no way matches reality... Would you like me to compose a list of your lack of understanding regarding my claims; I.E. when I've made a point, and you say I stated something completely different?
What do you mean by "something"? I, along with most other theists, believe God to be omnipotent.
Except you don't believe that because you don't think He can do abiogenesis.
Despite my explicit, repeated mention of my belief that it's impossible?
You have your reasons for believing it is impossible and you agreed those reasons weren't true.
First of all, I thought I agreed with you when you said that Abiogenesis is possible? You can't argue both ways.
That's you arguing both ways. Not me.
Second, I never claimed that "we shouldn't do experiments for things that are impossible", I stated my opinion, being "I don't believe any experiments attempting to prove Abiogenesis will meet with any success". In no way does one imply the other
If your statement is only for abiogenesis that sounds like a huge bias.
The entirety of observable existence contradicts the claim that the laws of physics themselves are incapable of creating information,
I will assume that you had a typo here and you meant capable. That statement isn't true. We have not done the observations yet. You are making conclusions about observations that haven't been conducted.
Other than me pointing out numerous times that your explanation of my claims in no way matches reality... Would you like me to compose a list of your lack of understanding regarding my claims; I.E. when I've made a point, and you say I stated something completely different?
You said we couldn't have a discussion. That clearly isn't true.
"Except you don't believe that because you don't think He can do abiogenesis."
When did I state that God is incapable of causing Abiogenesis? Believing Abiogenesis to be a historic impossibility (meaning it has not occurred) is not equivalent to believing God to be incapable of it.
"You have your reasons for believing it is impossible and you agreed those reasons weren't true."
Examples? Just stating "you agreed with x" while I point out my explicit mention of the contrary helps no one, least of all you.
"That's you arguing both ways. Not me.That's you arguing both ways. Not me."
No, that's you claiming me to argue both ways. I never claimed that Abiogenesis is an occurring phenomenon, yet you claim that I claimed the opposite. Fabricating your opponent's statements is not equivalent to your opponent making those statements.
"If your statement is only for abiogenesis that sounds like a huge bias."
I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. I never stated that Abiogenesis is the only theory I believe to be unprovable via experimentation; I only stated that particular example because of its relevance.
"That statement isn't true. We have not done the observations yet."
Observations specifically testing the laws of physics for their information-creating abilities? Certainly not. General observations of the Universe (not specifically for that purpose) that lead to that conclusion? Most definitely.
"You are making conclusions about observations that haven't been conducted."
Oh, the irony.
"You said we couldn't have a discussion. That clearly isn't true."
Once again, you prove my point. What I said was, and I quote, "Honestly, if we're going to have a discussion, you cannot continue to take my statements and modify them to suit your arguments.". Nowhere in that statement will you find the words "discussion is impossible" or "we cannot have a discussion". Yet again, I must point out that, if we are to have a legitimate, reasonable discussion, your modification of my claims must cease. If you continue in this childish behavior, I will be forced to discontinue this line of discussion.
The things synthesized and called DNA and RNA, from what I've read, are not viable for living organisms. It's like miners finding fools gold and shouting EUREKA!!!!
The experiment I cited with my link clearly showed that abiogenesis was not only easily possible given the environmental dynamics of the Earth some 3 BYA, but was also very likely. And since we KNOW that Evolution is true, as we have accounted for its machinations and processes step-by-step, the only heretofore missing ingredient we needed to complete the picture was Abiogenesis.
See...we knew by extrapolation that it had to occur. Unless of course the Panspermia Hypothesis is valid. Some things need not be witnessed to know that they occurred. Think about it: If your car starts up in the morning, and you, say, could see inside the engine and witness all the inner workings of internal combustion, EXCEPT for the coil sending an electrical charge to the spark plugs, well, you still KNOW that the coil did just that. You need not see it so long as you have extensive proof and observations of the rest of the operations.
So, we get the same sort of dynamic here with Abiogenesis: it being the "spark" that kick-started the Evolutionary process.
With an experiment further showing how this happened, proof is present that it indeed occurred in some similar if not exact fashion. This sort of proof would fall into the "beyond a reasonable doubt" category, given the plethora of remaining evidence for the remaining processes of Evolution.
As far as my providing evidence to prove the fallacious claims of Theism, with all due respect, I need not do this, as the burden of proof lies squarely upon the shoulders of the Theists.
This is because the atheist view, ie., that there is no god, is the default position. The claims that theists make are indeed extraordinary ones: they trump "ordinary" and fact-based observations from science, by claiming there IS a supernatural entity. When in fact there is not one sinlgle solitary proof of this. Hell, not even any evidence. Not even any mildly compelling evidence.
All they have to fall back on is their own beliefs and their holy book. Which in decidedly NOT a book of science.
Whereas us atheists and Evolutionists have provided decades of experiments and observations. We have fossil evidence; DNA evidence; mtDNA evidence (mitochondrial DNA). We have shown step-by-step the processes of selective inheritance and Evolution. Ad nauseum.
The theory of Evolution has never even been successfully challenged! ALL former counter-opinions and ideas, such as intelligent design and "irreducible complexity" have been thoroughly debunked.
The only missing step we have not fully explained is Abiogenesis. Yet, we have shown how it is not only possible, but highly likely, given the environmental conditions of the Earth in its early stages.
(I say "early" but in fact it took a good 1 billion years for even the first microbial vestiges of life to form.) Why would a so-called Intelligent Creator need so much time?
The answer of course is that he would not. So the only recourse left for theists is to denounce ALL of our dozens of methods of dating. (Google "types of radiometric dating" and prepare to be amazed. The list is very lengthy!)
To throw all those datings out and say they are flawed is to discredit thousands of professional scientists and decades of proven technology. How can you possible with a straight face do this? When you rely on OTHER types of science every single day?
So, yes....the experiment in my OP showed clearly how Abiogenesis probably happened. It proved it is very possible and not even that difficult. In a few short years it will be as confirmed and as irrefutable as all the other tenets of Evolution.
There IS a reason that virtually every working professional Anthropologist and Biologist believes in Evolution and also opines that the Genesis Creation account is without any merit. There is not some big bad conspiracy going on here against you Theists. It is rather a conspiracy of Theists that attempt to denigrate good science only because it flies in the face of their beliefs.
There is no other reason.
If your bible did not "tell you so" you would be forced to realize and admit that all that science is as sound and viable as is the science that developed your computer; your car; your healthcare, and your medications and your nutritional supplements. As well as our military technology; space travel; air travel, et al.
To accept all of that science, as you do, and to refute the equally formidable science of Evolution is cherry picking and hypocrisy at its very worst.
As I expected, this isn't a new experiment. We also already know that life has begun many times on earth itself.
Also, we know that formation of multicellular organisms is pretty probable.
Even if we didn't, some low probability events happening once under almost infinite cases isn't an admissible argument. If every life evolved on every planet to be human almost instantaneously, and we knew what is the probability of this happening, then that would be a great argument. But it doesn't happen.
Up until now abiogenesis was considered to be no more than a discredited theory that life can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter.
The success of this latest experiment graphically demonstrates that this hitherto, so called theory has been proven to be an observed factual phenomenon.
Clearly this experiment is in it's early stages and will be subject to further sound scientific studies and development.
The knowledge which will be gained from pursuing this scientific breakthrough could, or, perhaps more accurately, almost certainly, will lead to the ability to create life from lifeless material.
To dismiss out of hand or pooh pooh this highly significant innovative finding is no more than a useless attempt to cling to, what is the indisputably discredited and disproven superstitious teachings of a 2000 year old book is naively futile.
Whilst I've no intention of entering into a juvenile tit for tat exchange with you it is important you recognise that your analogy is wholly inappropriate and a crude attempt to cheapen what should be heralded by everyone as a quantum leap in this particular.area of biology.
A more balanced parallel for such a far reaching radical scientific advance may be to have discovered the flying capabilities of a lighter than air kite and claiming to have invented the heavier than air jet engines or even space going rockets.
The Chinese are accredited with having invented man held kites 2000 years ago. Even a neanderthal such as you must be able to appreciate the giant strides which have been achieved in aviation since those first simple devices were used.
Just as aviation technology has advanced so shall the secrets of abiogenetics be revealed and the origins of life on earth be established.
You took the words outta my mouth. Thanks, I don't have to waste time arguing with that idiot, who clearly does not understand the science involved nor the significance of the experiment and what it signifies.
The supposed "advance" was that "scientists" were able to synthesize several components of DNA and RNA. Claiming that they created DNA and RNA is claiming their unstructured, unconnected parts to be equivalent to the whole, an absurdity.
The differences between DNA and its components are that it's structurally organized (while its components are themselves not, comparatively speaking), and that DNA contains information. This, therefore, is an issue of, in general, lack of information, so the analogy you provided (claiming a kite to be a jet engine) is irrelevant.
The analogy I provided, however, perfectly fits the issue: in it, I pointed out that a book's base components (loose wood pulp and ink) don't make a book. That statement literally takes the above mentioned issue, and replaces a couple terms ("DNA and RNA" with "book").
Finally, I'd like to point out that science based on confirmation bias is not science. Science is about finding truth, not ignoring everything that contradicts your faith and mocking anyone who disagrees with you.
A couple things I neglected to mention in my previous post:
1. You mock me for having a fallacious analogy, and explicitly denounce said analogy as such, yet you failed to explain exactly how the analogy is flawed. In what way was it inappropriate? I'm genuinely curious.
2. In what way is mocking me baselessly conducive to a rational discussion? I find that many of your kin follow the same vein of philosophy, yet I've never understood, nor seen an attempt to justify, it. Once again, feel free to clarify.
Now would you describe the Religion of Islam and the Muslims that practice that faith Religious Zealots ? Make you a post Progressive on how Muslims are Religious Zealots.
Begging the question proves LUCA, it's a logical fallacy trying to support belief in nonsense, it is nonsensical to believe life came from non-living things and not from the Living God. Life only comes from life, that is all science has ever observed and ever will.
This LUCA stuff is a joke and the joke is on fools (Psalm 14:1)
Maybe you need to google the meaning of "Begging the Question", a logical fallacy.
Here is another very accessible and informative video that does a nice job of explaining to the layman how the process of Abiogenesis most likely occurred..............
