Rhea

I'll just repeat the relevant question.

You appear to have NO CLUE on how science, evolution, biogenesis or chemistry work.

(I love the little "clinton" remark. Chortle. Good one)


Seriously, what is your scientific education? You're calling one poster a high-schooler. Do you know this? What's your background?

Rhea

Oh, and...

I am?

Care to quote me?

Mageth

Here is an earlier comment by xian in the "chance" line of reasoning:

i want to know how chance had nothing to do with life arising from non-life?

I think this a strawman, as no one I know claims that chance had "nothing to do with life arising from non-life". I don't think anyone on this thread has made that claim, either. And I don't think anyone here has claimed a totally deterministic universe, either.

xian's response was to a post by Andres, who in a later post said:

Chance most likely had some part of it, but life didn't just pop out of chance.

I agree with that statement, and I think most if not all others on this thread would as well.

The chemistry argument here is a slightly different issue. "Chance" is only indirectly involved in chemical reactions; for example, one may consider it by "chance" that two chemicals ended up in the same primordial puddle, or by "chance" that two particular molecules come into close proximity to react. However, when chemicals come into contact, chance has little or nothing to do with the reaction. The chemicals react according to the deterministic, predictable laws of chemistry. If it was otherwise, then we obviously woudn't see the rather orderly interactions we do see.

xian's pleas to quantum mechanics, chaos theory, etc. are, in my opinion, misdirected as they apply to different levels of matter/energy, if you will, than the pure chemistry level being discussed. One doesn't need to consider quantum theory or chaos theory when examining or describing purely chemical interactions.

Mageth

Therefore certain chemicals will ALWAYS react the same (forget about the trillions of random events on a micro-scale. we just see the big macro effects...ug ug

Yeah, that's pretty much correct. At the macro scale, the randomness of quantum events (if that's what you're referring to) become statistical, and are thus statistically predictable. If this weren't so, we would see no order in the universe (indeed, we probably wouldn't be here to observe the universe).

The same is pretty much true at the chemical level. In a beaker with trillions of molecules, any randomness involved among the molecules in a reaction (as in one particular molecule of one chemical interacting with a particular molecule of another chemical, which is a "chance" occurrence), becomes statistical, and we see the predictable macro effects (e.g. of certain predictable quantities of molecules of one or more other chemicals being generated).

Rhea

The straw man gets even more complex, though. And this is a learning moment for me, because never before have I seen a straw man constructed literally about PEOPLE. Which is kind of a revelation in the genesis of the phrase "straw man" and that's kind of cool, in a way.

There it is. A straw man being built and MY FACE being painted on it.

It's a pretty neat illustration. Thanks, xian. That was kind of cool.

Mageth

That's not just one strawmen, that's a whole field of strawmen.

xian

and this is all hodge podge faith. WHy dont YOU tell me, Mr Scientist, what chemicals are necessary in order to cause a determined reaction to cause life? I want to know, so I can get a bowl and mix them together. Since chance is not involved (according to you) except getting the chemicals together (which would actually vindicate my entire statement- life arising from non life through randomness)-- then its time for you to bring the beef to the table.

i am happy to know that the only randomness involved in NONLIFE-->LIFE is simply getting the chemicals together.

I would like to recreate this. I will remove the random elements....and I myself will aquire the chemicals so that they can do their "deterministic" thing.

so tell me- what chemicals do I need to create life? I will remove the random elements and bring them into the same puddle.

Mageth

and this is all hodge podge faith.

It doesn't require faith to know the obvious fact that life "began" on earth at some time in the past. That's self-evident, since life is here now. And that's true whether one thinks that life arose through abiogenesis or special creation.

Nor does it require faith to accept abiogenesis as the best available hypothesis for how life arose on earth. I lack belief in god; that pretty much does away with that hypothesis, and I don't require faith to lack belief. Other hypotheses (e.g. alien seeding) just push the issue back a level. So, by the process of elimination, I accept abiogenesis as the best available hypothesis.

Where faith comes in is in taking the extra step to believe that life arose from a pre-existing life, a god, as there's no evidence that god exists, or that god created life.

Biological life exists on earth - known fact; no faith required. God exists - unknown speculation; faith required.

WHy dont YOU tell me, Mr Scientist, what chemicals are necessary in order to cause a determined reaction to cause life?

I have neither claimed to be a scientist nor claimed to know what chemicals are necessary to cause a "determined reaction" to generate life. If I could do so, I would present my findings to scientific journals and wait for my Nobel prize.

I do know that chemical reactions happen, including complex biochemical reactions, and that various principles and mechanisms of self-organization (see autocatalytic systems, for example) show that complexity can arise from less complex systems.

I want to know, so I can get a bowl and mix them together. Since chance is not involved (according to you) except getting the chemicals together (which would actually vindicate my entire statement- life arising from non life through randomness)-- then its time for you to bring the beef to the table.

You're building a strawman again. Nothing in my post implied that life arose from non-life through randomness, nor does it "vindicate" your assertion.

i am happy to know that the only randomness involved in NONLIFE-->LIFE is simply getting the chemicals together.

I don't recall saying that either, actually. But "getting the chemicals together" is perhaps the biggest bit of "chance" required. Perhaps you've learned something here today after all.

I would like to recreate this. I will remove the random elements....and I myself will aquire the chemicals so that they can do their "deterministic" thing.

so tell me- what chemicals do I need to create life? I will remove the random elements and bring them into the same puddle.

While you're mixing chemicals in a bowl, provide me with the mechanism god used to create man from dust and woman from a rib and I'll conduct my own experiments.

In addition to the strawman, you're also committing a bit of an argument from ignorance, I suspect. I can't name the chemicals required, therefore it's not possible that abiogenesis happened! Note that this is not the case; me or anyone else not knowing exactly what reacted or how it reacted to to generate life does not prove that abiogenesis did not happen. The very presence of life on earth, and the lack of a better hypothesis than abiogenesis for how life happens to be on earth, are enough for me to accept abiogenesis (involving whatever chemicals and by whatever process, as yet unknown) as the best available hypothesis for the origin of life on earth.

xian

no faith at all. that is an obvious fact.

yes it does.

#1. you personally BELIEVE it is the best hypothesis. YOu have no basis to make an objective claim that it IS the best. If God does not exist, then of course it is the best hypothesis, because it is the only one.

#2. if you believe it to be true (you accept the hypothesis) then you have faith once again.

#3. don't fret about having faith. its normal. when you set your alarm clock you have faith that:
1) it will electronically/mechanically function and buzz at the right time
2) power will remain
3) time will be accurately measured
4) you will awake when it buzzes
5) you set the alarm properly
6) you will be alive to actually wake up
7) you will not get in a car accident on your way to work

now, we have empirical data that the following things regularly happen every single day:

1) alarm clocks mechanically/electronically fail
2) power is not guaranteed to be consistent
3) clocks can sometimes keep sloppy time
4) people do not always wake up at an alarm
5) people do not always set their alarm properly
6) everyone on earth will die at some point- 100%
7) accidents happen every single day



despite the certainty that you will die...and the likelihood there will be automobilie accidents in your vincinity, and the fact that all of those things happen on a daily basis to people....you still make plans to be at your 8:00am office meeting. FAITH.
i dont care if it worked for you 1000 times in the past....the FACT is that it does not work for everyone because those 7 elements happen continuously so because of the fact that those 7 elements are always happening, you have FAITH they wont happen to you.

again, don't worry about it....we live by faith, i know its hard to admit as an atheist, but you do.

as for evolution....it is faith based. if you accept the theory (which I believe you do)...then you take it on faith.


well obviously complexity arises from a fertilized egg (for example) but this is deterministic. any deterministic process with informational input can have such an effect. random processes, however, do not have a propensity to increase in complexity. you need to demonstrate this. when you say "complexity can arise from less complex systems" this is vague because it does not state anything about randomness or determinism with the input of information.


you seem to be leaning that life originated through determinism...then you waiver back....i get the sense you are waffling. which is it? If both, then describe how they work together.

after you give me frothing mug of space-time foam (shot of vanilla) with some pink inflationary quantum fluctuations and a wad of cash uncaused from "borrowed" energy from the void, then I will show you.

trillian

Xian,

Do you suggest that scientists are in a futile search for the mechanism of the origin of life? That they should throw up their hands, put their instruments away, and believe that it is all God's doing? If they don't yet have conclusive evidence of a theory, should they stop looking?

I'm sure you realize this has been argued many many times in history by religious zealots with very poor results. This "mystery" of the ultimate origin of life is simply one of the only ones left for Xians to hang their hats on.

I'm thankful that the "heretic" scientists didn't listen to the church before and will continue their quest for rational theories.

Also, I don't have "faith" in my alarm clock, I have knowledge and evidence which statistically tells me that it's highly likely to go on and that I won't die on my way to work.
I take chances sitting here that a plane could crash into me.
I take a chance that breathing may cause a deadly virus to enter my lungs.
Any number of things could kill me as I type. NONE of my choices are free of danger. But I have confidence that these things WILL NOT happen but acknowledge that they COULD happen (and occasionally do to others).
Faith in God does not have two sides like that. You cannot, as a believer, believe that it is highly likely for him TO exist while leaving a possibility that he DOES NOT exist. Or do you?

Trillian