Camaban

Just concerning the creationist argument that Ambiogenesis is incredibly unlikely (coupled with the calculations that show it's 1 in 10 to the power of 200 or whatever)

If we don't know how it happened, how can you (anyone who believes that argument) possibly make any informed argument as to how likely/unlikely it is?

Doubting Didymus

They start with som faulty assumption or other, calculating the probability of a prokaryotic cell spontaneously occuring, or a strand of DNA randomly occuring.

However, there is no theory that suggests that these things were the first replicator, so you are right. We don't know for sure what it was, so we can't talk about probability.

For example, my favourite Abiogenesis theory is the clay crystal theory. I don't thnk it is the most likely or best supported, but it is the most fun! (and the simplest to talk about)

Anyway, what would you say is the probability of a clay crystal forming at random? Pretty darn high! This is what creationists are overlooking: the abiogenesis 'thing' is theorised to be so simple that the probability of its happening sooner or later was just a matter of time.

Grumpy

Surely you mean "ambulogenesis," the origins of the first walking organisms.

RBH

DD wrote Hey, I like the thought of all those clay crystals, information encoded as irregularities in their structures, blowing around the landscape from dried up creeks infecting other creeks!

RBH

Doubting Didymus

I like it too. That's what I said in my post, after all. However, I am just none too certain that clay crystals' fairly weak replication and mutation 'abilities' are really profound enough to make them a serious contender.

However, They do prove the theoretical possibility of abiogenesis. And they are fun! I love the look on creationist faces when they ask 'what do you think the first life came from?' and I say: 'there's a good chance it came from clay'.

Neruda

never had I heard such a beautiful and rational explanation for the origins of life as when I read "Roger's Version" by John Updike. The part where Dr. Kriegmann intellectually thrashes Dale (a creationist) and explains to him the clay crystal theory had me awed. It also appears to be Richard Dawkins' favorite theory as to the origins of life, which gives it big points IMO.

By the way, I heartily reccomend that book to everyone on this forum. go down to the library and pick up a copy sometime!

Vanderzyden

Camaban,

It is indeed possible for a creationist to argue here.

You are failing to consider the creation accounts in Scripture. When considering HOW life comes from non-life, it would seem that the supernatural must be involved. There we find answers to questions that otherwise have no answers:


1. How does life come from non-life?


which is nearly equivalent to:


2. How does mind come from non-mind?


Both of these are nearly equivalent to:


3. How does something come from nothing?


Of course, you may not take seriously the notion of revelation from God, but an informed creationist argument (i.e. one that isn't invented) must necessarily be one from a non-natural authority. The non-creationist has the burden in demonstrating these answers to be incorrect.


Vanderzyden

Doubting Didymus

1. How does life come from non-life?

When a replicating thing randomly comes into existence, like a clay crystal, then it has the capacity to evolve into more advanced things that we would consider biological. That is how life comes from non-life. If you want to suggest that 'life' is some kind of mystical substance that must be breathed into inanimate matter, I suggest you demonstrate this magical 'life' stuff.

2. How does mind come from non-mind?

Mind is totally dependant on the brain, which is both physical and evolvable. I personally consider that we humans know very little about how the brain results in a mind. For this reason I do not think we will know how to create A.I. any time soon. This is, however, a far cry from claiming that the supernatural 'must' be involved.

If you want to say 'god is the cause of Mind', I will say "prove it". Burden of proof in this case is on the theist.

3. How does something come from nothing?

I have no idea. You would have to ask a physicist. Science and skepticism may be a more appropriate forum for this question.

On another note, Hi there, vander my old chum! I missed you.

CND

Concerning the origin of life, this site is interesting:
<a href="http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/" target="_blank">http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/</a>

Doubting Didymus

Wrong. This is a total reversal of the burden of proof. Burden of proof is always on the person making the claim.

You see, in the absence of any evidence, it is rational to say that one will not accept said hypothesis until there is positive proof, otherwise we would have no choice but to accept all hypotheses by default, including the scientologist model of creation.

You have spent a lot of time arguing that non-empirical proof should be sufficient. I do not yet accept this, but I will allow the hypothetical. So, what is the evidence, empirical or otherwise, that god is the cause of life, mind and matter?