Isn't all religion a matter of opinion?
Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Interfaith Dialogue
Forum Description: It is for Interfaith dialogue, where Muslims discuss with non-Muslims. We encourge that dialogue takes place in a cordial atmosphere on various topics including religious tolerance.
URL: https://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31739
Printed Date: 21 November 2024 at 8:48am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Isn't all religion a matter of opinion?
Posted By: Ron Webb
Subject: Isn't all religion a matter of opinion?
Date Posted: 28 September 2014 at 11:52am
I thought it best to start a new topic for this comment, rather than risk hijacking Jami's discussion:
But isn't all religion a matter of opinion, pretty much by definition? I mean, religion is a matter of faith, not fact. Muslims believe one thing, Christians another, Hindus something else. However strongly they might believe, none of them can prove their beliefs. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
abuayisha (in http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31713 - Household payments ) wrote:Replies:
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 28 September 2014 at 12:08pm
Faith can be backed up with proof and reason. For example, the existence of God can be supported by the sheer vastness and complexity of the universe. To argue that the universe, and indeed life itself, is a mere "accident" is absurd. Atheism is also just a matter of opinion. Atheists cannot prove their beliefs (for example, "God does not exist"). ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 28 September 2014 at 2:46pm
I have no idea why the "sheer vastness and complexity of the universe" argues for the existence of God, but in any case that would be a matter of opinion, not proof of anything. As for the existence of life: as long as the probability of such an "accident" is non-zero, if the universe is truly infinite, then it must have happened not just once but an infinite number of times. Of course, the assumptions of non-zero probability and of an infinite universe are mere speculations too, but we have no reason to suppose otherwise. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 28 September 2014 at 3:08pm
 "We have no reason to suppose otherwise"? How do you figure? Oh, right..it's just an opinion, nothing more. Gotcha.As for the complexity of the universe and life, consider the curious case of DNA. You might want to read Stephen Meyer's book " http://www.amazon.com/Signature-Cell-Evidence-Intelligent-Design/dp/0061472794/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1411941770&sr=1-1&keywords=signature+in+the+cell - Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design " for a detailed explanation of how DNA cannot have formed by itself. The odds are infinitesimally small. In fact, the probability that DNA formed by itself is something like trillions of years. In other words, it would take more time than the age of the universe (and then some) for DNA to form spontaneously. In short, in the time allowed, it is impossible for DNA to have formed by itself, as the result of an "accident". So, if it was not by "accident", then what caused DNA to form? ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 28 September 2014 at 4:18pm
Yup. Just like your opinion to the contrary.
I don't care how small the probability is. As long as it's non-zero, then multiply that by an infinite universe and the spontaneous appearance of life becomes a certainty. How big is the universe, according to Stephen Meyer? And how does he know? ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 28 September 2014 at 8:01pm
Yeah, that's what I said before, remember? So then, what exactly is the point of this thread?
Oh, you don't care "how small the probability is"? Well, it does matter in spite of your nonchalant attitude. The universe is 14 billion years old. The probability of DNA or even a protein molecule forming spontaneously would require much more time than that. As Stephen Meyer puts it: "Scientists have increasingly recognized that the probabilistic resources of the observable universe are insufficient to explain - by chance alone - the origin of a minimally complex cell or even a self-replicating system of RNA molecules (or eve, for that matter, a single protein of modest length)" (p. 499).
Maybe you should read the book. It is quite detailed and spans over 500 pages, so obviously, I cannot summarize it in a few sentences. But as I said, given the age of the universe, and the infinitesimally small probability that even a single protein molecule (let alone larger, more complex proteins) would spontaneously form, the universe simply lacks the "probabilistic resources" to allow sufficient time for life to start by "chance". Life on earth started some 500 million years ago. In other words, it only took around 13.5 billion years for life to start on earth (earth being around 4 billion years old), and yet, that is impossible given what we know about the complexity of life. Chance simply fails to explain how this could have happened. It should take much, much, much, much, much, much, much (and a few more muches) longer if we leave it to "chance". In short, it is impossible for life to start spontaneously. ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 29 September 2014 at 5:59am
To dispute the notion that anyone can ever be certain in matters of religion. Even if you could prove the existence of some supernatural entity that created the universe (which you can't), that's still a far cry from proving that that entity is a god or gods, let alone the God described in the Quran.
No need, I've read plenty like it. What you (and he) don't understand is that in an infinite universe, the "probabilistic resources" would be infinite. No matter how unlikely you might think it is for a protein molecule to form spontaneously on this planet (which itself is a matter of opinion), the probability is not zero; and in an infinite universe, there would be an infinite number of habitable planets just like ours. Multiply any non-zero number by infinity and what do you get? ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 29 September 2014 at 6:23am
Yes I agree with you. However where truth and falsehood can be deciphered is in True statements that are contained in the Qur'an. For example, it is the only scripture where it states that the creation of the heavens and the earth is a sign that God Almighty exists. So for a non believer this won't be understood even the Christians and the Hindu's etc. ------------- La Ilaha IllAllah |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 29 September 2014 at 7:05am
Islamispeace:
The fact that we do not know( yet?) how life formed in detail does by far not mean that we have no theories and if you did a little bit of googling you'd find plenty of them, like: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25471-spark-of-life-metabolism-appears-in-lab-without-cells.html#.VClmHfmSwRA%20 - this one. Unfortunately you're riding the typical line of attack: Using things that we don't know yet(?) to put The god of the gaps in place. It is however clear for any alerted reader that this is measure of despair. It is like the ever repeated nonsensical argument that a tornado can't build an airplane. Sure it can't - but Darwins theory of evolution can - like it or not - concisely explain why life (once formed) evolved! It takes however some efforts to understand it and this is exactly why not many are willing to do it, especially when it tends to threaten their cosy view on the world. Airmano |
Posted By: TG12345
Date Posted: 29 September 2014 at 3:28pm
Salaam Alaikum, Abu Loren. I agree with you that the very existence of the natural world is a sign of God's existence, but the Quran is not the only scripture that states this. Psalm 19:1-6 The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above "#fen-ESV-14170a" - a ]">[ https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm+19&version=ESV#fen-ESV-14170a - a ] proclaims his handiwork. 2 Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. 3 There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. 4 Their voice "#fen-ESV-14173b" - b ]">[ https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm+19&version=ESV#fen-ESV-14173b - b ] goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun, 5 which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy. 6 Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them, and there is nothing hidden from its heat. Although I have no doubt of the fact that God exists, I am also aware of the fact that both the authors of the Quran and Bible made some mistakes when they wrote these books, and some of the mistakes were attributed to Him. Examples from the Bible would include Jesus allegedly saying that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds, or that rabbits chew their cud. Mistakes from the Quran would include that the minimum period of gestation is 6 months, or that there was a long-reigning Pharaoh who believed he was the only god his people knew. |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 29 September 2014 at 4:37pm
Umm, no, it's not a simple math exercise at all. I asked islamispeace how big Stephen Meyer thinks the universe is, and didn't get an answer. The fact is that one knows, but this bit of information is crucial in estimating the likelihood of a spontaneous formation of the building blocks of life somewhere in the universe by purely random chance. As I said, if the universe is truly infinite, then it doesn't matter how incredibly unlikely a given event might be. As long as something is even theoretically possible, then in an infinite universe it has happened not just once but an infinite number of times. Actually, that much is simple math. By the way, let's not confuse the observable universe with the actual universe. Just because we can only see about 46 billion light years (limited by the speed of light and the expansion of spacetime) is no reason to assume that the universe ends there. We just don't know, but Occam's Razor says that if we have no evidence that it ends, then we should probably assume that it doesn't. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: TG12345
Date Posted: 29 September 2014 at 5:08pm
I admit I am not very knowledgeable when it comes to science of the universe and have some reading up to do but out of curiosity, what makes people believe the universe is infinite? Also, how do those who deny God's existence and role in creating the universe believe it came to be that way? Feel free to consider me a complete ignoramus on this, so any sources you could recommend for reading (online would be best) would be appreciated. Thanks. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 30 September 2014 at 8:34am
But to hear this from an atheist who has only his own opinions (and nothing certain) is ironic. The pot calling the kettle black...
Who said the universe is "infinite"? The very fact that the universe is estimated to be 14 billion years old means that it is not infinite. What you don't understand (surprise, surprise) is that even if a protein was to "spontaneously" form, that is the just the beginning. A protein has to have the correct configuration and folding pattern to function properly. Any misfold in the protein, and the it will be useless. Not only that, but in order for life to exist, there have to be many different functional proteins of varying complexity. Consider the example of DNA. Even if a DNA molecule had spontaneously formed, it would still need to replicate. How does DNA replication occur? Well, it requires other molecules such as DNA polymerase, DNA ligase, helicase and topoisomerase. All of these enzymes are needed for DNA replication. Even if one of these is missing, then DNA cannot replicate. It is frankly impossible for all of these molecules to have "spontaneously" formed simultaneously to allow DNA to replicate. And as for your claim of "an infinite number of habitable planets", this is just an absurd opinion for which no evidence exists (surprise, surprise). I don't doubt that there may be many planets which have the conditions suitable for life, but to claim that there are an "infinite number" is just a matter of opinion. And even if there were, how does that explain how life started on earth? Did life come from outer space? ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 30 September 2014 at 9:43am
Irony is based on an inconsistency between expectation and reality. There is no inconsistency here. We're both "black". All we have is opinions, on either side.
The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe - observable universe is 14 billion years old. We can't see what might have existed before the so-called Big Bang, but that doesn't mean there was nothing. More to the point, I am talking about infinite in spatial dimensions, not in time. The observable universe is about 46 billion light-years in radius, but there is no reason to suppose that it ends there. How big do you think the universe actually is? What do you suppose we would encounter if we reached the edge? Is there a huge brick wall or something? As opinions go, IMHO this would rank fairly high on the absurdity index.
Not impossible. Just very very (and a few more veries) low probability.
It's called the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle - anthropic principle . Life began on earth because of this very very (and a few more veries) low probability event. However, we shouldn't be surprised by this, because with an infinite number of "earths" in the universe, it had to happen somewhere (in an infinite number of somewheres, in fact); and we had to have evolved on an earth where it happened. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 30 September 2014 at 11:54am
As an outsider to any religion any statement in any of them which depend upon simply faith in the religion for their support seem to be wishes rather than dependable facts. I don't trust the word of an atheist just because he is an atheist. I trust the idea of the world revolving and the heavens not spinning around the Earth because I can demonstrate it myself. Dropped stones don't land exactly on the spot directly beneath them. They land just to the east. I trust that the ideas of thermodynamics are right because they are what is used to make jet planes work. Just because I couldn't understand them and desperately want them to be wrong doesn't change the fact that they are right. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 30 September 2014 at 12:23pm
You're not getting it (surprise, surprise). I am basically questioning why an atheist who has only assumptions and opinions is even wasting everyone's time by trying to prove that religion is a matter of opinion. Even if it was, what difference would it make? And how would it make atheism any more or less appealing?
So, you have only assumptions. That's what I already said. It always amazes me that atheists always harp about "evidence" yet when it comes to their various "theories", there is always a conspicuous absence of evidence. Regarding the so-called "infinite universe", what you don't get is that even if there was such a universe, the impossibility of life starting spontaneously would not change. As physicist rob Sheldon explains: "Life is just as possible in a small universe, a big universe, an infinite universe, as in our own. There is no a priori reason to think that size has anything to do with the impossible presence of life. A closed universe (that ultimately collapses into the Big Crunch), an open universe (that expands into the void forever), or a flat universe (that comes to rest in infinite time), also makes no difference to impossible life, since multiplying an impossibility by infinite time does not make it possible. Now if you hold the mistaken belief that life is only possible where
there are probablistic resources to stumble over it, then you might
think that the bigger the universe, the more probability resources for
life. But life is not just an improbable event; it is a collection of
improbable events. It is a concentration of information. So if there is
an information threshold for life, it is simultaneously an information
density threshold. So let us suppose that a universe was 10 times
bigger, and contained 10 times the information. The information density
would remain exactly the same, and therefore the probability of life
would remain unchanged" [ http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/03/why_do_we_live082961.html - http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/03/why_do_we_live082961.html ].
This would be no more as absurd as claiming that life started from nothing and that even though it is impossible, it somehow became possible.
See above. It actually didn't have to happen. In fact, there was no reason for it to happen. That is why we should be surprised that it did happen. And no amount of philosophizing will change that. ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Muslim75
Date Posted: 30 September 2014 at 1:52pm
|
Ron Webb, Airmano,
Man does not come down from apes. That is common sense. I am not even talking about faith.
There is a proof of the existence of a God:
This is from traditional Islamic knowledge.
That proof is His act.
When you see footprints in the sand, you know someone walked here.
Similarly, when you see the clouds pouring abundant rain, or the sky with its constellations, you know the existence of an Almighty God.
|
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 30 September 2014 at 4:32pm
I'm not trying to make atheism more appealing. I just think that maybe if people stopped to consider that it's all just a matter of opinion, they'd also stop killing each other.
But you think you have proof. That's the problem.
Which "atheist" theories are you referring to?
Oh, really? So if it's "a collection of improbable events", then obviously it is not an impossible event. 
The average density would remain the same, but the local density would fluctuate, if for no other reason than quantum fluctuations. It's like saying that if the class size is ten times bigger, the average IQ remains the same so the probability of finding a genius in the class is unchanged. Sorry Sheldon, but size does matter.  ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 30 September 2014 at 5:05pm
No one ever said that man came down from apes. Evolution says that Man and apes have a common ancestor; and http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics - DNA proves it , in exactly the same way that DNA evidence can establish that you and your brother share a common ancestor.
We know how rain comes from clouds, and we know why the sky is blue, and we know how stars form. None of this needs God as an explanation. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 30 September 2014 at 7:42pm
Oh right, right. Just like those atheist mass murderers too. Anyway, how many people on this forum are "killing each other", do you think? How many religious people in general are "killing each other", do you think?
We do have proof. The complexity and utter impossibility of life is proof. But of course, atheist clowns think they have it all figured out. Life just came out of nowhere, they say. Riiiight...
What have we been talking about thus far, you ninny?
 Clown logic...it gets me every time! You missed the point that Sheldon was making. Life does not need just one spark to begin. It needs many sparks, and all of these sparks are just as impossible as the other. For example, just having a DNA molecule spontaneously form is not enough. You also need many molecules for DNA replication. Otherwise, the DNA molecule would simply disintegrate.
No, no, no. You got it all wrong, Bozo. You simply don't understand that life requires a lot of information simultaneously, but which simply cannot be present at the same time (if it is left to chance). It's like saying that because the world is 10x bigger, the "local density would fluctuate" and thus the probability of the Statue of Liberty forming and coming together spontaneously would be a lot higher. Of course, such an argument is quite Bozo-esque, wouldn't you say? The same principle applies to life. It needs far too many "pieces", each of which is just as unlikely to form spontaneously as the others. In an "infinite universe" (something which you haven't even proven exists), it might improve the probability of a certain "piece" forming spontaneously, but it would make it even more improbable that the other "pieces" would form at the same time and the same locality. Rather, what would be more likely is that one "piece" would form spontaneously at one place and time, while another "piece" would form at another place and time. Unfortunately, that would not bode well for life. It doesn't do us any good if the head of the Statue of Liberty formed in France, but the arms formed in America. They would first have to be formed together and then they would somehow have to come together in the right order. ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 30 September 2014 at 9:22pm
Too many. The root cause of religious (and yes, perhaps atheist too) violence is not the differences in dogma, but in the conviction among some adherents that their religious opinions, of which everyone is entitled to his/her own, are actual facts, which they believe entitles them to impose their beliefs on others -- by force, and lethal force if necessary.
I never claimed I could prove that "life just came out of nowhere." I'm saying that it could have come out of nowhere. (Perhaps. ) I would also say that (Occam's Razor again) that is the simplest assumption, and therefore should be the default assumption unless we find evidence of some more complex answer; but the truth is, we don't know. I don't know, and neither do you.My purpose here, as in so many other discussions we have had, is not to prove any particular position. It is only to show that you cannot prove your assumptions -- not even the ones you hold so strongly that you regard them as facts.
Not even Sheldon claimed that any individual "spark" is impossible. He described them as "improbable", i.e. of low probability. The odds of each of those "sparks" occurring in sequence is (roughly speaking) the product of those probabilities, which mathematically will not be zero.
Why do you say that it "cannot be present at the same time"? What you mean is that it is highly improbable that they would be present at the same time. But if the universe is infinite, then "highly improbable" times infinity equals infinity. Like I said, that part of the math is simple. So simple, even you should be able to understand it. And yes, if the universe is infinite, then on some planet there is an exact replica of the Statue of Liberty, carved out of a rock by natural erosion. In fact, there would be an infinite number of planets with such statues. It's not impossible -- just highly unlikely. But "highly unlikely" times infinity is still infinity. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 30 September 2014 at 9:24pm
Hi Ron, Do we really? We know how to explain how these things happen... but who makes, or made, the laws that make them happen?  Why does light split and form the color blue in the sky? Why does the sun lift water from the land? Stars form from dust, but why and how, and what makes the force that pulls them together? Who can explain the forces of gravity, or of magnetism? We only know that they exist. We only think we know how to explain these things. We may know how to manipulate the forces but we do not know how they came to be, and we certainly could not create them ourselves from nothing. 'in their wisdom they became fools' Peace and blessings to you, CH ------------- Let us seek Truth together Blessed be God forever "I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis |
Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 30 September 2014 at 9:28pm
 ------------- Let us seek Truth together Blessed be God forever "I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis |
Posted By: Muslim75
Date Posted: 01 October 2014 at 1:21am
Ron Webb,
Evolution says man comes down from apes. As to the rest of your post, you are not making any sense whatsoever.
|
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 01 October 2014 at 7:06am
There are plenty of people who have firm convictions but who don't feel the need to "force" them on anybody. Your silly generalizations are nothing more than melodramatic rants.
Really? The "simplest assumption" is that life came from nowhere, by accident, despite the fact that it is statistically impossible (or "improbable" )? The "simplest assumption" is that a DNA molecule formed spontaneously (despite the infinitesimally low chance of that happening) AND a DNA polymerase molecule also formed spontaneously at the same time (despite the infinitesimally low chance of that happening) AND a DNA ligase molecule also formed spontaneously at the same time (despite the infinitesimally low chance of that happening) , etc., etc.?
The only problem is that proof has been provided. You simply choose to dismiss it based on more assumptions.
The probability of these "improbable" sparks is infinitesimally low. The universe simply does not have the "probabilistic resources" to allow even a simple protein to form spontaneously, let alone the larger, more complex proteins. In other words, it is impossible.
You still haven't proven that the universe is "infinite", you ninny! Your entire premise is nothing more than a non-sequitur. Even if the universe was "infinite", the probability for each specific molecule needed for DNA replication to form simultaneously would still be infinitesimally low. So, even if by some miracle, a DNA molecule was able to form spontaneously, you would also need a number of other complex molecules (DNA polymerase, ligase etc.) to form as well to allow for the replication of DNA. Otherwise, the DNA molecule would disintegrate.
Huh?! So, this is your "simplest explanation", eh? An "infinite" universe where there are an "infinite" number of statues magically "carved out of a rock by natural erosion"? Are there also an "infinite" number of Ron Webbs in your "infinite" universe? If so, then God help us all!  ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 01 October 2014 at 11:55am
You want to play the child's game of asking "why?" after every explanation, until the teacher or the parent gives up in frustration and just says "I don't know" or "Because I said so!" Yes, we really do know why the sky is blue. It's due to Rayleigh scattering of light in the atmosphere. Why does Rayleigh scattering occur? It's because air molecules have magnetic properties and can resonate with the photons of light, and this resonance is strongest for short wavelengths at the blue end of the spectrum. Why do air molecules have magnetic properties? Because (starting to sweat a bit here) atoms are made up of negatively charged electrons orbiting a positively charged nucleus. Why are electrons negatively charged? Well, umm, for that you need to understand the Standard Model of particle physics. What is the Standard Model? I don't know! Go do your homework! I don't mind when children play that game. It's good for them to ask questions, and important for them (and us) to understand that we don't know everything and never will. There will always be another "why?" question, and that's what makes science so exciting. However, I do mind when theologians play the game, because for them it's the "God of the gaps" game. Anything that science can't (yet) explain is automatically attributed to God -- as if that were some kind of explanation. But it's not. "Because God said so!" is no more rational than "because I said so!" God is not an explanation for anything. It is a placeholder for a missing explanation. Worse, it is an attempt to shut down rational discussion and a warning not to ask further questions. A child who persists with "Why does God say so?" or "Why does God exist?" or even "Why should we care what God says?" is apt to be sent to his room without supper. Sorry for the rant, and I hope you don't take it personally; but I have to say that I am annoyed when theologians pretend that religion is a source of wisdom. Religion adds nothing to our understanding of the universe. It only gives a name to our ignorance. That name is God. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 01 October 2014 at 12:03pm
If the universe is not infinite, then how big do you think it is, and why? Also, what do you mean by "infinitesimally low"? ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 01 October 2014 at 12:29pm
Hi Ron, hehehe - I enjoyed your reply. It's not because "God said so", but simply because someone had to create these things.
There had to be some beginning, some concept, some design, some artist,
doing the creating. No work of art ever created itself.
Yes, it is true.... there are things we do not know... will never know unless and until we meet the Maker. I agree with both things you said here, adding that... 12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. but also;19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead
Here, I disagree. I don't think it is an 'attempt to shut down discussion'. In fact, I feel it only serves to stimulate discussion, and seeking for the Truth. Yes, I have frustrated people with these questions all my life... even myself... never got sent to my room without supper though.
Here again I have to disagree. It is a source of Wisdom, but only as long as we are careful to discern. ------------- Let us seek Truth together Blessed be God forever "I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 01 October 2014 at 12:44pm
You keep dancing around this issue. I am asking you to prove that the universe is "infinite" and you respond by asking me how big I think the universe is. It seems to me that you are just taking it on faith that the universe must be "infinite". Well, well. so atheists also rely on faith! Regarding what I mean by "infinitesimally low", even staunch http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life - chance-riding scientists think that a simple protein has about 10^40 chance of spontaneously forming, though they try to "quicken" the process by assuring us that there would be "billions" of "trials" happening simultaneously. So, just for the simplest protein, the chances are extremely remote. When you start talking about more complex proteins, well...you get the idea. ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 01 October 2014 at 4:00pm
|
Let's summarize the facts: Christians and Muslim argue(d) on the basis of their preferred book that the world was created in 6 Days - Wrong Both thought that the earth was at the center of the Universe: Wrong Both thought that man (and women) were made (by God) out of funny materials: Wrong Both think/thought that Noah's Ark existed: Wrong And as soon as the conflicts becomes obvious, interpretations get shifted into the "metaphoric" regime. Keep on shifting! Airmano |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 01 October 2014 at 5:16pm
I'm not the one doing the dancing. I've never suggested that the universe being infinite is anything more than speculation, and I just finished telling you that "My purpose here, as in so many other discussions we have had, is not to prove any particular position." There is no end to the spatial extent of the universe as far as we can observe, and no theoretical reason to suppose that there is an end. Following the principle of Occam's Razor, then, the simpler assumption is that it has no end. But I can't prove it, of course. Now your turn. For about the third time: How big do you think the universe is, and why? I'm not asking for proof -- just your opinion.
No, the http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life - source you just quoted goes on to say: "In fact, if we assume the volume of the oceans were 10^24 liters, and the amino acid concentration was 10^-6M (which is actually very dilute), then almost 10^31 self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 10^40, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed." That's 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 successes, not just trials, per year. And that's the simplest self-replicating protein, by the way, not just the simplest protein. Which matters, because once we have a self-replicating structure, the principles of natural selection can begin to guide further complexity, so the process is no longer totally random. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 01 October 2014 at 5:56pm
Why must there be a beginning? And even if there were, how does the God hypothesis help? Doesn't it just add an extra layer of complexity and shift the question from "what created the universe?" to "what created God?"
Well, for instance, millions of people refuse even to look at the evidence for evolution, let alone have it taught in their schools, because the Bible or the Quran already gives them the "answer".
All I can say is that I grew up as a Christian , but I never learned anything from religion that I couldn't have figured out with a few minutes of meditation or a chat with my Dad. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 01 October 2014 at 6:11pm
lol - It is true it is a question that has plagued me ever since I was a child... How could God have just existed? I still believe there is a Creator, even if that Creator is energy, or an energy source, or an energy force. I believe that there are dimensions that we can't understand.
Ah, I see. I never imagined this sort of thing might still exist in places. I thought we had all moved beyond(hehe- evolved) beyond that kind of closed mindedness.
If nothing else I find that the scriptures are the Wisdom from generations, and I do find in them Wisdom beyond anything I can get anywhere else... a higher Wisdom, a guide to healthy living, and a thread that connects all things since the beginning. I'm not much for 'religion' either, but I do believe in the scriptures. It's fun chatting with you, CH ------------- Let us seek Truth together Blessed be God forever "I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 01 October 2014 at 8:11pm
Right, your purpose is to just waste everyone's time with your crackpot theories which you know you can't prove. And I just finished telling you that there is evidence for my side of the argument. I have given you plenty of evidence. You simply dismiss it using more assumptions.
Actually, there is. But before we get to that, let me just say that the "simpler assumption" is that the universe is finite, not infinite. Since when is infinity "simpler" than finity? Furthermore, since we know that the universe had a beginning 14 billion years ago, there is no reason to think that it is infinite. Besides this, we have evidence for a finite universe . According to an http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/10/1008_031008_finiteuniverse.html - article in the National Geographic: "...a new study of astronomical data only recently available hints at a possible answer: The universe is finite and bears a rough resemblance to a soccer ball or, more accurately, a dodecahedron, a 12-sided volume bounded by pentagons."
I don't know how "big" the universe is, but even if it was "infinite", that doesn't make the chance hypothesis any more likely, for the reasons I have already given.
Oh, Ron, Ron. I had a feeling you would go after that part of the article. Why do you think I chose the article? I laid the bait and you bit like a hungry shark going after chum. The problem with the author's reasoning is that amino acids cannot spontaneously join in water. According to an http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/top_five_probl067431.html - article by Casey Luskin of "Evolution News": "Chemically speaking, however, the last place you'd want to link amino acids into chains would be a vast water-based environment like the "primordial soup" or underwater near a hydrothermal vent. As the National Academy of Sciences acknowledges, "Two amino acids do not spontaneously join in water. Rather, the opposite reaction is thermodynamically favored." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/top_five_probl067431.html#fn11 - 11 In other words, water breaks down protein chains into amino acids (or other constituents), making it very difficult to produce proteins (or other polymers) in the primordial soup." In other words, proteins form via dehydration synthesis, so amino acids in the primordial oceans would have a very difficult time coming together to form a growing protein chain. But there is more. This scenario for the simplest protein. The probability becomes even more remote when we consider complex proteins. As Stephen Meyer explains: "If we assume that a minimally complex cell needs at least 250 proteins, of on average, 150 amino acids and that the probability of producing just one such protein is 1 in 10^164 as calculated above, then the probability of producing all the necessary proteins needed to service a minimally complex cell is 1 in 10^164 multiplied by itself 250 times, or 1 in 10^41,000. [...] The probability of producing the proteins necessary to build a minimally complex cell - or the genetic information necessary to produce those proteins - by chance is unimaginably small" ("Signature in the Cell", p. 213). To put this in an even more clearer perspective, Meyer earlier noted that the "simplest extant cell", the bacterium Mycoplasma genitalium "...requires 'only' 482 proteins to perform its necessary functions and 562,000 bases of DNA (just under 1,200 base pairs per gene) to assemble those proteins" (p. 201). So, the probability for even the simplest organism is, as Meyer put it, "unimaginably small". ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 02 October 2014 at 1:07am
| Thread shifted to new subject "Abiogenesis and Evolution" |
Posted By: Muslim75
Date Posted: 02 October 2014 at 1:42pm
Ron Webb,
Evolution says man comes down from apes.
As to the rest of your post, you are not making any sense whatsoever.
|
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 02 October 2014 at 2:22pm
My purpose is to dispute your crackpot theory that you know you can't prove, namely that God created the universe. The only evidence you have presented so far is a vague reference to the "vastness and complexity of the universe", and your personal doubts regarding the spontaneous origin of life. (Declaring something "impossible" doesn't prove it to be impossible. Not even if you underline it and use bold.)
If there is no observable evidence or theoretical requirement for something (namely a boundary to the universe), it is simpler to assume that it does not exist. And I've already explained to you that while the observable universe began 14 billion years ago, we have no idea when the actual universe began, if indeed it had a beginning.
A hyperspace soccer ball? Well, he gets full marks for imagination; and given that Jeffrey Weeks had just published a book (in 2001, the same year that the WMAP satellite was launched) titled " http://www.maa.org/publications/maa-reviews/the-shape-of-space - The Shape of Space ", with all sorts of speculations about arcane hypergeometric cosmological models, Weeks would be just the guy to come up with that. (He wouldn't have been trying to drum up sales, would he?)Unfortunately, Weeks' theory (put forth in 2003) didn't pan out. His claim that the preliminary CMB data "imperfectly fit" the standard flat universe turned out to be a bit hasty. Analysis of the full database found an http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ - almost perfect match with the standard cosmological inflation model and a flat (within 0.4%) universe. No soccer balls required.
Of course it does. Let me ask again: what is 10^-40 times infinity?
Yeah, my mistake. I asked you what you meant by "infinitesimally small" and you said (1 in) 10^40, and then cited an article to support that number. It never occurred to me that you might be deliberately misrepresenting your own position, that you had no intention of standing by that number and you didn't believe your own source.
It's called trolling. Thanks for wasting my time.  We can add that to your long list of offensive behaviours on this site.
We could stop right there, because nobody is supposing that a complete cell would arise by random chance. But let's pursue Meyer's straw man and see where it goes:
So for every 10^41,000 trials, we can expect one success. How many successes can we expect in an infinite number of trials? And if you don't know how big it the universe is, how can you be sure it isn't big enough to accommodate 10^41,000 trials? ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 02 October 2014 at 8:27pm
I have provided evidence that you have been unable to refute. The
complexity of life and the impossibility (or
"improbability"  ) of it arising due to chance
should lead one's common sense to declare that it must be due to some
intelligent agent. Let's use an analogy to illustrate this. Historians have been puzzled by Stonehenge and who exactly built it. There are, of course, various theories but nothing concrete. Yet, it is assumed that someone did build Stonehenge. No one is crazy enough to assume that Stonehenge spontaneously formed by itself due to blind chance. The same principle can be applied to a computer program. No one would assume that a program wrote itself, that all the instructions somehow came together in the right order. Again, it is assumed that someone wrote the program. Given these examples, why would we assume that life, which is so much more complex, would arise by chance?
If we have evidence for the "observable" universe, then the simpler explanation is to assume that the universe had a beginning (which it does) and thus also a finite nature. To assume that because we don't have evidence for a "boundary" and therefore the universe must be "infinite" is a non-sequitur. It's something that one has to accept on faith. See? Atheists can also have "faith"!
True, the theory seems to have been refuted by the data collected by WMAP. But another recent http://www.nature.com/news/universe-may-be-curved-not-flat-1.13776 - study now shows that there are "curvatures" in the universe, indicating a "saddle-shaped" universe, instead of the flat universe suggested by the WMAP findings.
How would that help you in your protein conundrum? Let's check in on that, shall we?
Not quite, Bozo. I quoted the source to show that even staunch
materialists acknowledge the very low probability of life starting by
chance. But, I also quoted it to see if you would blindly accept the
author's inaccurate description of how proteins could have formed in the
early oceans. And you didn't disappoint!  The author's attempts to make the 10^40 figure seem less improbable exposes the a priori assumptions that atheists make in their rush to prove that life could start by chance.
Now, now, don't get mad. I know I made you look like a fool, but you should be used to that by now! I noticed that you skipped the part about the amino acids being incapable of forming protein chains in a watery environment. Why? If even a simple protein could not have formed spontaneously in the ocean, then how could life start by chance?
Again with the infinite universe? That seems to be the limit of your reasoning skills. Even in an alleged "infinite" universe, if you don't have the right conditions, then you won't even get a chance to run your "trials". As already stated, amino acids could not form protein chains in the primordial ocean. So, how could you have your "trials" in the first place? ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
We can add that to your long list of offensive behaviours on this site.Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 04 October 2014 at 5:34am
|
Islamispeace, If I get your argument correctly you are saying that amino acids don't do the joining together to form self replicating forms well in water. That different environments would be the place for this to happen. OK, so if one of these environments were to happen, say an oil bath or whatever, and that this environment was fairly big, say the size of a large lake like Lake Victoria, and that this circumstance persisted for a few million years you would expect that the process would have happened to a highly developed state. Is that your position? If it is I expect that the early Earth had a lot of weird and wonderful such chemical environments. |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 04 October 2014 at 7:03am
Because Stonehenge and computer programs do not evolve. The assumption is that life originated in some much simpler form, which no longer exists because it is so easily out-competed by its more sophisticated descendants.
Which is like saying that since you had a beginning, therefore the universe also has a beginning. Speaking of non sequiturs.
The irony of the article you linked to (assuming you actually believe it, and are not trolling again) is that it is based on cosmic inflation model, which pretty much assumes that we are in just one of an infinite number of "bubble universes" embedded in an eternally inflating multiverse: "In most of the models of inflation, if inflation is there, then the multiverse is there," Stanford University theoretical physicist Andrei Linde, who wasn't involved in the new study, said a news conference Monday (March 17). "It's possible to invent models of inflation that do not allow a multiverse, but it's difficult. Every experiment that brings better credence to inflationary theory brings us much closer to hints that the multiverse is real."http://www.space.com/25123-big-bang-inflation-reasons-to-care.html - http://www.space.com/25123-big-bang-inflation-reasons-to-care.html
If I had cited the source, I might have looked like a fool. As it is, you cited the source, without any intention of standing behind it, which makes you look like a troll.
Because it was never my hypothesis. It was yours. Now you admit that you never believed it in the first place, so why should I defend it?
Nobody knows -- certainly not me. But just because we don't know doesn't prove it's impossible, and it certainly doesn't prove that God did it. Remember, a long time ago in this discussion, that you promised to provide proof that God exists? Bottom line: I believe that life originated due to random events, but I can't prove it and I have no idea what the mechanism might have been. You believe that life originated due to God, but you can't prove it and you have no idea what the mechanism might have been. All we have is opinions. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 04 October 2014 at 8:21pm
If someone "renovated" Stonehenge, that would be like saying that it "evolved". But it did so due to an intelligent agent. Likewise, if someone modified a computer program with new instructions, that would be saying that the program "evolved", but again, it did so with help. Biologists have even found computer-like traits in life. For example, a http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2013/09/23/brain-may-rely-computer-mechanism-make-sense-novel-situations-says-cu - study conducted at the University of Colorado at Boulder showed that: "Our brains give us the remarkable ability to make sense of situations we've never encountered before -- a familiar person in an unfamiliar place, for example, or a coworker in a different job role -- but the mechanism our brains use to accomplish this has been a longstanding mystery of neuroscience. Now, researchers at the University of Colorado Boulder have demonstrated that our brains could process these new situations by relying on a method similar to the "pointer" system used by computers. "Pointers" are used to tell a computer where to look for information stored elsewhere in the system to replace a variable."
Huh?! The universe had a beginning. It was called the Big Bang. This is not a matter of "non-sequiturs".
Even if this was true, you still have to explain how proteins could form spontaneously in the primordial oceans even though that is chemically impossible. So, even with an "infinite" universe or a "multiverse", life starting by chance remains an impossibility.
I merely exposed your inability to do you own research and your blind acceptance of whatever you are told. That seems to be the case with most of you so-called "free thinkers". Someone tells you that even though the odds are really small for life to start spontaneously, it could still have started because the primordial ocean had a large concentration of amino acids, and you believed it. Then you found out that actually, it doesn't work that way.
Because you're the i-d-i-o-t who believes that life started from nothing. It is up to you to prove it.
It is impossible, you ninny! Just like making two positively-charged (or negatively-charged) ions attract each other is physically impossible, making amino acids come together to form a protein chain in a watery environment is chemically impossible. So when something is impossible, and yet happened anyway, the implication is that some unnatural (or supernatural, if you will) force was the cause of it. It certainly makes more sense than to claim that even though it is impossible, it happened anyway due to blind chance. Talk about Occam's razor!
You believe in spite of the evidence to the contrary. You believe something that could have not happened, even by blind chance, happened anyway. Yes, that is an opinion, and it is frankly a laughably absurd opinion. In contrast, I have shown that just as complex structures can only have been constructed by (an) intelligent agent(s), and since life starting by chance required an unnatural "mechanism" (to use your terminology), this is indicative of a supernatural event. When you can't explain life using natural means, the only other option is unnatural means or the supernatural. A protein could be constructed under tightly-controlled laboratory conditions, but not in the primordial oceans. This implies the presence of an intelligent agent. ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 05 October 2014 at 1:08pm
|
@Islamispeace
I lost trace here. Could you try to summarize your "evidence" that god created life (on earth) in a short bulleted list ? Not (necessarily) in detail, I'm willing to do the googling job to understand the meaning/content of your points. Airmano |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 05 October 2014 at 1:50pm
Not even close. There is no random variation or natural selection involved.
The observable universe (the part that we can see) had a beginning. We don't know what, if anything, came before the Big Bang; nor do we know whether anything existed outside the Big Bang. Most cosmological models posit the Big Bang as part of a larger multiverse/metaverse.
No, I don't. That was your theory, which you proposed and then refuted. As for myself, I am not an organic chemist (and I assume neither are you), so I wouldn't even try to guess the mechanism involved. Actually though, most scenarios I have read talk about life originating in tide pools, along shorelines, etc., rather than the open ocean. I had always wondered why they specified that; but now you've pointed out that amino acids tend to link up as they dry out, it makes sense. Thanks for that.
Sorry, even if you use bold, underline and italic, it's still just your opinion. Try a larger font, maybe. Seriously: Just because we don't know the exact mechanism, that doesn't mean it's impossible. If it did, then I could say that creation of life by God is equally impossible, because we don't know the exact mechanism for that either.
If someone tells me that they think the odds are 10^-40, then yes, I assume that's what they really think. (In your case, I'll be more careful in future, knowing that insincerity is one of your many charming virtues.) If the article they cite in support of this "opinion" actually contradicts them, then I will point that out. But as for the validity of the article itself, I don't care, because it's not my source and I'm not relying on it.
Nope, I can't prove it. Never said I could. It's just my opinion, as I've stated all along. As implied in my opening post and even in the title of this discussion, for that matter. Why do I have to keep reminding you that you are the one who claims to have proof?
So if not in the deep ocean then perhaps dehydration synthesis took place on shore, or somewhere else. Or maybe it was some entirely different process. I don't know.
You mean it could not have happened by the mechanism that you proposed. Congratulations on vanquishing your straw man.
Umm, no you haven't. You haven't even attempted to argue that as far as I can recall, and if you had I would have reminded you that evolution does produce complex structures, with no need for "intelligent agent(s)".
Ahh yes, the http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps - God of the Gaps argument. The same argument that formerly "proved" that diseases and weather and fertility and comets and earthquakes and lightning and the motions of the stars and planets were caused by God. Over and over and over again, this idea been shown to be wrong, but you guys keep coming back to it. I'm sorry, but just because I can't prove my opinion that doesn't mean I have to accept your opinion. Especially when your opinion is essentially that it happened by magic. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 05 October 2014 at 8:35pm
Except that "random variation or natural selection" do not account for all changes in life. Consider the example of Darwin's finches. We are told that the differences in beak sizes of these finches would have come about through "random variation and natural selection". Yet, a recent study showed that the process is actually not random at all. According to one of the authors, what the http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/06/reading-shapes/ - study : "...shows is that the variations in beak shapes are far from random � the birds are using these specific geometric transformations to produce morphological diversity."
You still don't get it. Even if this was true, you still cannot explain how life would have started from scratch. The conditions on earth were not conducive for life to start by sheer luck.
Uh, no. That wasn't my theory, you dumb cluck. It's the theory that many chance-riders have posited as an alternative explanation for the origin of life. And I already told you that the "mechanism" involved, whatever it is, could not happen because amino acids cannot spontaneously join together in a "primordial soup".
Obviously, you haven't learned not to blindly accept these theories. So, it seems that I don't have to do much to make you look like a fool. You do it yourself! The problem with these theories is that there are other constraints to consider. Recent studies have shown that the early earth had neutral gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen and water vapor (Meyer, p. 224). There were also "significant amounts" of free oxygen present. Why does this matter? Well, as Meyer explains: "In a chemically neutral atmosphere, however, reactions among atmospheric gases will not take place readily, and those reactions that do take place will produce extremely low yields of biological building blocks. Further, even a small amount of atmospheric oxygen will quench the production of biologically significant building blocks and cause biomolecules otherwise present to degrade rapidly" (p. 225). Where will you go from here, Bozo? 
You still don't get it. The mechanism makes no difference, you dingbat! The conditions for the mechanism to even occur were simply not there. The issue is not how amino acids come together. We know how they come together. The issue is that the conditions were simply not present to allow them to come together. Therefore, it was impossible. Is that large enough for you?
You need to learn how to read, gramps. The main reason I provided that source was to show that even staunch evolutionists accept that the odds that life could have started spontaneously are really low. I didn't disagree with the author's claim that the odds were 10^40. I disagreed with his claim that the early oceans would have provided ample "trials", since the ocean would be the last place amino acids would undergo the chemical reactions necessary to form a protein chain. I also knew that you would blindly accept what the author wrote in his vain attempt to make the highly unlikely scenario of amino acids randomly and spontaneously forming protein chains become likely. Don't blame me for your own st**idity and lack of research.
I have already shown you the proof. Who do I have to keep reminding you that you are the one who keeps dismissing it...for no other reason except the Agnostic Code?
No, that could not happen either, for the reasons shown above. In a word, it was impossible.
Congratulations on consistently showing how out of touch you are with the facts. The question is not the mechanism. If you want, I can explain the mechanism of how amino acids form protein chains. But that's not the issue. The issue is, if the conditions for that mechanism to work were not present, and yet the proteins formed anyway, how did they form? In other words, how did the impossible become possible? By definition, it was a sort of miracle. A miracle is something that is impossible but happens anyway.
Oh really? So, can you explain how evolution would have produced the bacterial flagellum? Since evolution occurs in slow, gradual steps and via "random variations and natural selection", how would that result in a biological machine like the flagellum which requires several parts, like a machine, in order to work properly?
Ahh yes, the classic atheist cop-out. The problem for you is that the alternative explanation, posited by atheists, has been disproven. So, it's not a matter of a "God of the Gaps" argument. I am arguing that since the main naturalistic argument for the origin of life has failed, and since we know from our personal experience that intelligent agents are known causes of complex structures, the logical argument is that an intelligent agent was the cause of origin of life. I identify that intelligent agent as God. As Stephen Meyer explains in his latest book, "Darwin's Doubt": "Intelligent agents, due to their rationality and consciousness, have demonstrated the power to produce specified or functional information in the form of linear sequence-specific arrangements of characters. Digital and alphabetic forms of information routinely arise from intelligent agents. A computer user who traces the information on a screen back to its source invariably comes to a mind -- a software engineer or programmer. The information in a book or inscription ultimately derives from a writer or scribe. Our experience-based knowledge of information flow confirms that systems with large amounts of specified or functional information invariably originate from an intelligent source. The generation of functional information is "habitually associated with conscious activity." Our uniform experience confirms this obvious truth" (p. 360).
That's funny, especially since you believe that something that was impossible and could not have happened, happened anyway. Talk about "magic"! ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 05 October 2014 at 9:32pm
Okay, that was far too long. Sorry, I didn't bother to read most of it. Let's just focus on this:
Really? But we haven't even discussed your theory yet! So tell me: How did God create the universe? ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 06 October 2014 at 8:06am
So, I guess you have begun planning your escape from this discussion as well! I guess when you get desperate enough to avoid the truth, that is really the only option left! How did God create the universe? Who knows? But it certainly wasn't by giving chance a chance! We know that proteins could not have formed spontaneously in the early earth. It was impossible. However God did it, He circumvented the natural process. Once He "jump-started" the process, it then took off from there. ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 06 October 2014 at 10:44am
Oh, I'm not done yet. Not by a long shot. You promised me proof of the God hypothesis, and I'm eager to see it.
Not an auspicious start. If you can't come up with a plausible scenario, by your logic doesn't that make it impossible?
Whoa there! I asked about how God created the universe, not how God created life. Pay attention. But okay, I'll accept that if you have no idea how God created the universe, you can't prove it. So let's move back to the creation of life if you prefer: How did God create life? (And please don't just say "who knows?" That would be such a disappointment! )------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 06 October 2014 at 11:00am
You already skipped over a large chunk of the discussion, obviously because you had no where to run. So, now you want to concentrate on one aspect of it. You can run but you can't hide!
Um Bozo, God is supposed to be omnipotent. In other words, He can do anything. "Impossible" is not a word you can apply to God, just to your crackpot theory that life started by "chance" even when it had no business doing so.
Whoa there! We were talking previously about how life started. Pay attention. I also stated that even if the universe was "infinite", that would not make it any easier for life to start for the reasons already given. You want to try to steer the discussion from your epic fail, but it ain't gonna happen! As far as how the universe was created, the Big Bang certainly played a role in it.
Not paying attention? Is your mind wandering? I just told you that proteins could not have formed by chance. We know the mechanism by which proteins form, so God used that mechanism but did so in spite of the fact that the conditions needed for the natural formation of proteins were not present. It was, in a word, a miracle! Alhamdulillah!Just like a scientist can allow for the creation of proteins in tightly controlled laboratory conditions, God circumvented the conditions of the early earth to create proteins. The only difference was that His "laboratory" was the earth. In short, He did the "impossible" because He is God, Glorified and Exalted be He. ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 06 October 2014 at 4:37pm
I want you to focus on proving your claim, like you promised, and to stop wasting my time by asking me to prove something I've told you a hundred times that I can't prove.
It's just that it's kinda hard to prove that something happened, if you don't even know what happened.
You told me that proteins could not form spontaneously in the straw man scenario that you proposed, i.e. in the deep ocean. You haven't shown that they couldn't form along the shore, in tide pools, on beaches, in river deltas, deep underground, in volcanic caldera, hydrothermal vents, extraterrestrially, and a thousand other scenarios that we can't even think of. Nor have you considered alternative mechanisms such as the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis - RNA World hypothesis , which envisions RNA, not protein, as the starting point. And for the record, you did not say that in principle proteins could not arise by chance. You said that the odds were "infinitesimally small", and you " http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31739&PID=190990#190990 - didn't disagree " with a figure of one in 10^40. Or are you backing away from that too?
So if I understand you correctly (and assuming you're not still trolling), you believe that life originated in exactly the same way that I think it did. The only difference is that you think God intervened somehow to boost the odds, so to speak, by creating conditions that were conducive to it. So what were those conditions, and how did God create them? And how do you know that He was involved at all? I mean, since you don't know how big the universe is, how do you know that there aren't 10^40 earths out there? For that matter, maybe we're both right. Maybe God created a big enough universe and then just sat back and waited for the inevitable. But neither of us can prove it. All we have are opinions. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 06 October 2014 at 6:42pm
|
Hi TG12345, Sorry I missed http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31739&PID=190746#190746 - your post on Sept. 29 . You asked some great questions, but unfortunately I'm letting islamispeace distract me with too much repetitive nonsense. I'll respond briefly and if you want to get into it more deeply we can open a separate topic.
I would rather ask what makes people think the universe is finite? I mean, it certainly looks like it goes on forever, in all directions. Why would anyone assume otherwise? And if not, then what would you imagine the "edge" of the universe would look like? A giant brick wall? A force field of some sort? Isn't it simpler to assume that there is no end to it? That said, there are lots of plausible models for the universe, and most of them are infinite, one way or another. In addition to the ordinary Euclidean space with three dimensions extending in all directions, Einstein's theory of General Relativity allows for space to be curved in various ways. A uniform positive curvature would result in a finite universe (a hypersphere); but negative curvatures, like the flat universe, are also infinite unless we arbitrarily truncate them. And then there are all sorts of multiverse/metaverse theories, which see our particular universe as only one of many, usually an infinite number of universes. All these theories are controversial, unproven and in many cases probably unprovable; but all are based on plausible interpretations of relativity, quantum theory, string theory, and others. Wikipedia has a brief summary of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse You might be interested in Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, Episode 1 (should be on Netflix if you have access), where Neil deGrasse Tyson recounts the story of Giordano Bruno. Bruno was an Italian Monk from the sixteenth century, who was burned at the stake by the Inquisition for his radical views about the universe. Tyson describes Bruno's unscientific but intuitively compelling thought experiment in which he convinces himself that the universe has to be infinite. It starts around the 17 minute mark if you want to skip ahead to it.
I'm not sure what you mean by "how it came to be that way" -- but if you mean how it came to be infinite, them I would like to turn the question around and ask why a Christian or a Muslim would imagine a finite universe. You believe in an infinite God with infinite power and infinite resources. Why would such a God create anything less than an infinite universe? Your God has no limits; why should His Creation? ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: TG12345
Date Posted: 06 October 2014 at 6:55pm
|
Hi Ron Webb, Thanks for the links and sources. I am doing another Palestine presentation this week and it will be Thanksgiving afterwards (I'm Canadian), but afterwards, will hopefully have some more time to check them out and comment further. Right now, I don't have enough knowledge to debate this with you, so I'll do some more reading and research and get back to you. Take care, TG12345 |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 06 October 2014 at 8:07pm
You still don't get it. I have shown you the proof. Well, I guess I can't blame you for missing it. You skipped a large portion of the discussion! We know from personal experience that complex things don't just spontaneously form. Computer programs, machines etc. are all complex and had to be designed. A 747 jet does not build itself. With this knowledge in hand, when we see complexity in life and when we realize that chance could not have played a role in it, then by inference, we realize that life too must have had a designer.
Still not getting it? Well, keep reading. Something has to click eventually inside that shriveled thing you call a brain.
Oy, this is like trying teach a monkey. I didn't propose anything! The deep ocean theory has been proposed by people like you, the chance-riders. Seriously, go back and read the post that you skipped. The information is all there.
Already dealt with. I already showed that even "along the shore" and other places on the earth, the conditions would not have allowed for spontaneous protein formation. If you are too lazy to read, there is nothing more I can do!
Way ahead of you, gramps! The RNA world hypothesis has seen better days. This is exactly why I suggested you read Meyer's book. But, you are too lazy. Meyer provides a devastating refutation of the RNA world hypothesis. Chapter 14 of his book, "Signature in the Cell", discusses the RNA world hypothesis and provides good reasons for why it does not work as a viable theory. But since I know that you will not read the book (just like you haven't read any of the books I have suggested to you in the past few months ), here is summary of why the hypothesis does not work:1. The building blocks for RNA are difficult to synthesize but can be easily destroyed. Meyer explains: "Before the first RNA molecule could have come together, smaller constituent molecules needed to arise on the primitive earth. These include a sugar known as ribose, phosphate molecules, and the four RNA nucleotide bases (adenine, cytosine, guanine and uracil). It turns out, however, that both synthesizing and maintaining these essential RNA building blocks, particularly ribose...and the nucleotide bases, has proven either extremely difficult or impossible to do under realistic prebiotic conditions" (p. 301). 2. Ribozymes make poor substitutes for proteins. As Meyer explains: "To date, scientists have shown that RNA catalysts or 'ribozymes' can perform a handful of the thousands of functions performed by modern proteins. [...] Beyond that, RNA can perform only a few minor functional roles and then usually as the result of scientists intentionally 'engineering' or 'directing' the RNA catalyst (or ribozyme) in question" (p. 304). 3. Ribozymes do not demonstrate undirected chemical evolution. Meyer notes: "Polymerases are the holy grail of ribozyme engineering. According to the RNA-world hypothesis, once a polymerase capable of template-directed self-replication arose, then natural selection could have become a factor in the subsequent chemical evolution of life. [...] To date, no one has succeeded in engineering a fully functional RNA-based RNA polymerase, from either a ligase or anything else. Ribozyme engineers have, however, used directed evolution to enhance the function of some common types of ligases" (p. 319). There are other reasons as well, but in the interest of time, I have presented the important ones. The RNA world hypothesis simply does not explain the origin of life.
Boy, you really are confused, aren't you? I did indeed say that the odds were "infinitesimally small", and I also said that the claims of some chance-riders that the early earth would have provided "billions" of "trials" were false since the early earth did not have the conditions needed to allow for protein formations. Not only could they not form but if any did, by some miracle, they would have quickly degraded. Pay attention, gramps. Your mind is wandering.
Not quite. I said that God could circumvent the conditions of the earth (which were hostile to protein formation), because God is omnipotent, just like a scientist can "engineer" proteins in the lab by using tightly-controlled conditions.
You still don't get it. Yikes. No matter how big the universe, and no matter how many earths were "out there", the conditions of our earth were not conducive for life. In order for amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) to have formed, the atmosphere would have needed reducing gases such as methane, ammonia and hydrogen (Meyer, p. 224). You may have heard of the Milley-Urey experiment. One of the assumptions of the experiment was that the atmosphere would have had these gases present. That assumptions turned out to be wrong, but the experiment was designed with it in mind, and it succeeded in producing the amino acids that would have been needed to eventually build proteins. Since we know that the atmosphere was hostile to amino acid formation, but that it is possible to produce them in tightly-controlled laboratory conditions (e.g. through intelligent intervention), we can make an inference that the first proteins would not have been produced by sheer luck, but by the intervention of a designing intelligence.
Except that it would not have been "inevitable" on earth, for the reasons I have already given. ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 06 October 2014 at 8:10pm
Awww, he is complaining again. Somebody needs a hug!  Sorry TG12345 if I caused Grandpa Webb to miss your post! You are of course more than welcome to post your thoughts on the matter. ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 07 October 2014 at 6:13am
Aw shucks, islamispeace, there you go again -- burning up bandwidth, wasting your time and mine, trying to disprove other hypotheses instead of trying to prove yours!  No matter how many alternate hypotheses you reject, you'll never be able to eliminate the possibility that some as yet unknown process or circumstance facilitated the formation of early life or proto-life, which eventually evolved into ours. The only way to prove a hypothesis is to develop a theory that explains it, and then provide evidence for that theory. So let's hear your theory. You were saying that God did something to circumvent the inherent improbability of random events. So how did He do that? Was He tinkering with quantum probabilities? Did He say some magic words or sprinkle fairy dust or something? What evidence do you have? By the way, I don't know why you keep quoting the opinions of Stephen Meyer as if they were facts. Quite apart from his obvious bias, the guy is a physicist and geologist. Does he have any formal training or credentials that would make him an authority on abiogenesis? ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 07 October 2014 at 6:54am
Gramps, you still just don't get it. The evidence for a designing intelligence is seen in the failure of theory after theory for the "chance" hypothesis. First it was proteins. Then it was RNA. They have all failed. You can keep hoping for "some as yet unknown process or circumstance" to come along and save materialists such as yourself, but experience has shown us that this is a pipe dream. Once we set aside the bogus theories, and recognize that complex structures need a designing intelligence, it is not at all unreasonable to propose that a higher power was responsible for life. The bias is inherent in people like you. You question other people's "credentials" when you can't refute their arguments. What a shock! Do you have nothing to say for your dashed hopes of an RNA world? There are a number of ways God could have started the process for life. Maybe He created proteins in an environment where proteins had no business being in or maybe He created RNA first. Whatever He did, it was done deliberately. In other words, it wasn't by chance that life started. Just like a 747 jet cannot be assembled by chance but instead needs to be deliberately put together in the right order of parts, life also could not have started by chance but instead needed to be deliberately given the spark it needed. The Quran states that God simply says "Be" and it is. So, being the omnipotent being He is, all He had to do was will something into existence. Or He could have decided to simply start the process and let it go from there under His direction. ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 07 October 2014 at 11:06am
I agree, it's not at all unreasonable to propose it. Now you have to prove it.
I question other people's credentials whenever someone quotes them as an authority. IMHO the opinion of Stephen Meyer does not prove or disprove anything.
Right. Any number of ways; perhaps this, perhaps that. Sound familiar?
Aha! So there are magic words involved!
Good! So now you have at least the beginning of a theory. Now all you have to do is prove that (1) God exists; (2) God is omnipotent; and (3) God was actually involved somehow in the process. Of course, that last point is going to be a bit tricky, since you don't even know what process you're talking about. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 07 October 2014 at 11:31am
I did prove it. Since the early earth was not conducive for life, yet complex life started anyway, and given our experience that complex things do not just spontaneously build themselves, then the logical conclusion is that there was a designing intelligence involved. I will grant you that proving the identity of this designing intelligence is a different matter (see below for more on that), but at the very least, we can conclude that this intelligence was definitely involved.
If you could be bothered to actually read the book before deciding on his "credentials", you would see that he was basing his "opinion" on actual scientific studies. As it stands, the fact is that you cannot refute Meyer's "opinion", so your argument about his "credentials" amounts to nothing more than an ad hominem fallacy.
Except that we know for certain that it was not due to chance. There is no two ways about it. The word "perhaps" cannot be used here. It is not that "perhaps" chance had nothing to do with life. It is certain that it had nothing to do with it.
Aha! You assumed that just because Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) merely says a word, it necessarily means that there is no natural process involved. If He said "Be" to something, it could still be created by natural laws. Why else do you think mankind is flesh and blood and not merely spirit?
We can prove #1 by the fact that life started even though it had no business doing so. When something is impossible, yet happens anyway, that is by definition, a miracle. #2 can be proven indirectly through #1. If a being was able to create life in spite of the hostile conditions, obviously that being is vastly superior to nature. Hence, He is omnipotent. #3 is actually not that tricky. We don't know what "mechanism" started life, but via #1 and #2, we know it was God. So, in actuality, #3 is not all that important. Why is it necessary to know what God did exactly when you know that He did do something? What difference does it make? ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 08 October 2014 at 1:11pm
@islamispeace
Airmano |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 08 October 2014 at 5:33pm
Saying that "the early earth" was not conducive to life is like saying that "the universe" is not conducive to life. It may be true in general; but the earth, like the universe, is a very diverse environment. You can't know that there was not a single place on the early earth that was conducive to any form of life, especially since you don't even know what early life might have been like. We're still finding life on earth in places where no one expected it. "Given our experience" may be a fine basis on which to form an opinion, but it doesn't belong in a proof. I'm sure one of the main objections to the germ theory of disease was that "According to our experience, spirits may be invisible but mortal creatures are always visible". Besides, in my experience complex things do indeed arise spontaneously. It's called evolution, as I said before.
Have you actually read any of those studies? Would you be qualified to evaluate them even if you did? Is he interpreting the results correctly? Is he presenting a balanced summary of the studies available, or is he just cherry-picking the ones that support his claims? See, that's why credentials are important. Anybody can put together a screed in support of any opinion, no matter how wacky; and anybody can cite studies, articles and other sources to back up their point of view. I do it all the time, and so do you. A credible authority is someone who has received a formal education in the subject (including points of view with which he might disagree), and has demonstrated this broad knowledge to similarly qualified individuals.
I don't need to refute Meyer. Plenty of more qualified people (e.g., http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/francisco-ayala-on-signature-in-the-cell/ - Francisco Ayala and http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/08/28/stephen-meyers-fumbling-bumbling-amateur-cambrian-follies/ - Donald Prothero ) have done it for me. More to the point, I'm discussing with you, not with Meyer. If you want to use Meyer as a source, you need to convince me that he is an authoritative source and not just another ideologue with an axe to grind. No, it's not an ad hominem attack to question his credentials. By relying on Meyer as an authoritative source, you have made his credentials a relevant part of your argument. On the contrary, citing a physicist and geologist in a discussion of abiogenesis is a classic example of a fallacious http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html - appeal to authority .
It is by definition a paradox, i.e. an apparent contradiction. It doesn't prove that magic is real; it proves that one of the premises is wrong. Anyway, your "proof" doesn't even mention God, so how can it prove that God exists? You're assuming point #3, which you haven't proven yet.
Don't you see that you're arguing in circles here? You're trying to prove that God was able to create life, and you start off with "IF a being was able to create life..." Also, you're again assuming point #3.
Because otherwise you haven't explained anything. You'd have a tough time getting a jury to convict a criminal if you had no idea how he committed the crime, for instance. Also, you're assuming #1 and #2 to prove #3, but you already assumed #3 to prove #1 and #2, as noted earlier. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 08 October 2014 at 7:45pm
This is purely speculation. You can't argue against one scenario for which evidence exists by suggesting another scenario for which no evidence exists. The evidence that we have shows that the earth was not conducive to life. That is what we know. To pontificate on what we might not know about the early earth (e.g. there may have been "some" place where the conditions were right) does not get us any closer to the truth. For all you know, there were no such places at all. We have to go by what we know, not we don't know.
And I said that this is not always the case, as in the example of "Darwin's finches". There is no "random variation". Furthermore, "evolution" is a gradual, step-by-step process. Evolution cannot produce a complete and complex organism. It would be akin to building a computer, but only piece by piece. Obviously, a computer would not work until every piece was where it needed to be. This is another issue that Meyer explains in detail.
Until you can present a substantive argument, instead of merely throwing accusations, you are doing nothing but resorting to ad hominem fallacies.
Meyer has a PhD in the philosophy of science from Cambridge University. I am sure he is qualified, certainly much more than you or I. And so far, you have not refuted any of his arguments. All you have done is attack his credentials.
What makes you think that Francisco Ayala and Donald Prothero also don't have an "axe to grind"? Ayala is actually a former Dominican priest! I'd say he has axe to grind. Besides, both Ayala and Prothero's objections have been rebutted by Meyer and others, such as http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/12/donald_protheros_imaginary_evi029041.html - Jonathan Wells , who is a molecular biologist.
It is an ad hominem because instead of directly responding to the issues raised, you instead questioned his credentials and then claimed that other more "qualified" individuals had already "refuted" Meyer's claims for you.
So what are you, a philosopher now? When we have proof that something could not happen because the pre-requisite conditions which would allow that thing to happen were not there, and yet that thing happened anyway, how is that a "paradox"? If a building collapsed for no apparent reason, and one of the theories was that it was due to an earthquake, but no evidence of an earthquake was found, then obviously the earthquake theory has been falsified. It is not a paradox. It is simply a fact. Hence, the next step would be to determine what really caused the building's collapse. Was it a structural deficiency? Was it sabotage? I am arguing that there was no reason for life to start, but it started anyway. From what we know about the earth, it was impossible for life to have started. But it did anyway. That is, by definition, a miracle. A miracle is something that runs counter to the laws of nature. Hence, it suggests the supernatural.
How am I going in circles? I argued that God exists because the origin of life cannot be explained by natural causes but instead by supernatural causes (e.g. a designing intelligence). Hence, #2 is a given since if God (the designing intelligence) was able to circumvent the laws of nature and create life, it follows that He is far superior to anything nature can offer. In other words, the laws of nature do not apply to Him.
A criminal can be convicted regardless of how he committed the crime. If DNA evidence puts him/her at the scene of the crime, "how" the crime was committed becomes irrelevant. If a person kills another person and DNA evidence links the former to the latter, what difference does it make "how" the accused actually killed the victim? Does it really matter whether the victim was strangled? Or beaten to death? Or shot? Or stabbed? Really, what difference would it make? ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 09 October 2014 at 4:34pm
But you don't have evidence to support your scenario. As a matter of fact you hadn't even offered a scenario until I pressured you into it. All you have is the opinions of people like Stephen Meyer. Now, if Meyer had any credentials that were relevant to the subject, that opinion might at least carry some weight, though it still wouldn't be proof. But "philosophy of science"? You've got to be kidding me!
No, we don't know that. We don't even know what the first lifeforms might have been like, let alone how they might have formed or what environment would be conducive for their formation. Meyer has apparently made a bunch of assumptions about all that, then shown that life could not have formed according to his assumptions. This should have told him that his assumptions were wrong. Instead, he simply declares it impossible.
Sorry, that's one debate I'm not even going to bother with. Evolution is real. No credible scientist questions it. The DNA evidence alone is overwhelming.
By implying that his opinions are to be taken as facts, you are bringing his credentials into the discussion.
Either that, or it suggests that we don't fully understand the laws of nature. Or more likely, somebody is mistaken. If we played the God card every time we didn't understand something, we'd still be attributing influenza to the "influence" of the heavens.
Again, you are assuming that which you are trying to prove (see the bolded phrase above).
If the victim actually had a heart attack, I think that would make a big difference. No, before you can convict, you need to have at least some idea what the accused did and how he did it. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 09 October 2014 at 7:51pm
All you can do is attack Meyer's credentials, not the "opinions" he has stated, which by the way, are based on actual scientific studies. The guy has a PhD from a prestigious university! What do you have? We have evidence for what the early atmosphere was like. It was not conducive to life. You can deny it all you want. Facts are facts.
The first lifeforms would have needed proteins and other biological material. Proteins could not have spontaneously formed in the early earth, let alone even more complex molecules like DNA. So yes, we do know the the earth was not conducive to life.
Great, so now whenever an actual study contradicts your preconceived ideas, you will simply ignore them and declare anyone who disagrees as not being "credible". Regardless of your avoidance of scientific facts, the fact is that the study in question determined that there was nothing "random" about the beak size in finches. Regarding "evolution", it is simply change over time. We all undergo change over time. Immunity to diseases is a perfect example. As Jonathan Wells puts it: "...evolution can mean simply change over time, or minor changes in existing species ("microevolution"), neither of which any sane person doubts."
Except they are not his "opinions". They are based on actual studies. So until you can demonstrate that the studies he quoted did not say what he claimed, you are just grasping for straws.
You haven't demonstrated that "somebody is mistaken" (unless of course, you mean the chance-riders). You are simply grasping for straws. You are basically holding out hope that someday we will find the smoking gun that proves once and for all that life started by chance and chance is the only viable explanation for everything that happens in the universe. This has been the view of all atheists for the last 150 years. Yet every time they have claimed to have found the "smoking gun", subsequent studies disprove the initial euphoria. When Stanley Miller reported on the results of his famous study, it was hailed as a breakthrough which proved that life started by chance. But, as time went on, the excitement died down.
Atheists assume that life started by chance, which is exactly what they are trying to prove. It's no wonder that there has been theory after theory to propose how life could have started by chance. Proteins, RNA, reducing gases in the atmosphere, etc. They have all been proven wrong. Based on the available evidence, which discounts chance, I have come to the conclusion that it was no accident. Just like a computer needs to be built by someone, life was created by someone. And since that "someone" clearly had to circumvent the laws of nature, this entity must be extremely powerful. It would be like if someone figured out how to manipulate the weather. Such an entity would clearly be above the laws of nature.
What if the victim's blood was found on the suspect? What if there were signs of a struggle? It would be pretty obvious that foul play was involved. ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 10 October 2014 at 5:42pm
I'm not attacking his opinions. He is entitled to his opinions. I'm attacking your claim that his opinions constitute facts; and your claim is (presumably) based on his credentials.
The early atmosphere would not have been conducive to human life, that's for sure. Whether it would have been conducive to the earliest forms of life, we don't know, because we don't know what the earliest forms of life were like. We can only speculate.
How do you know that? I mean, given that we don't know what the earliest lifeforms were even made of?
No doubt his opinions are based on actual scientific studies. But I doubt that any of them stated categorically that "the early earth was not conducive to life". That would be Meyer's summation and (over)generalization of them. However, it's not up to me to demonstrate that. You are the one claiming it as a fact. Show me a scientific study proving that the early earth -- the whole earth, not just part or even most of it -- was not conducive to life, including forms of life that we cannot even imagine at present.
I am hopeful, yes; but even if we never find it, that will not prove the contrary. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 10 October 2014 at 8:16pm
You haven't responded to any of his claims. Attacking his credentials does not constitute as a substantive argument.
You are still struggling with this. Life needs proteins, DNA, RNA and a host of other molecules. It does not matter whether it is human life or any other forms of life. We know that proteins could not have formed in the earth. Without proteins, life is not possible.
It is a fundamental fact of biology. As George Lauritzen of Utah State University http://extension.usu.edu/files/publications/publication/FN_191.pdf - states : "Protein is an essential nutrient. There is no life without protein. Protein is contained in every part of your body, the skin, muscles, hair, blood, body organs, eyes, even fingernails and bone. Next to water, protein is the most plentiful substance in your body." And according to the http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/proteins.html - University of Oregon : "Proteins are complex molecule composed of amino acids and necessary for the chemical processes that occur in living organisms. Proteins are basic constituents in all living organisms. Their central role in biological structures and functioning was recognized by chemists in the early 19th century when they coined the name for these substances from the Greek word proteios, meaning "holding first place." Proteins constitute about 80 percent of the dry weight of muscle, 70 percent of that of skin, and 90 percent of that of blood. The interior substance of plant cells is also composed partly of proteins. The importance of proteins is related more to their function than to their amount in an organism or tissue. All known enzymes, for example, are proteins and may occur in very minute amounts; nevertheless, these substances catalyze all metabolic reactions, enabling organisms to build up the chemical substances--other proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, and lipids--that are necessary for life."
The studies refute a long-held assertion about how life could have started. And since we know that proteins are essential to life, it is not at all an "(over)generalization" that the early earth was not conducive to life. Proteins are essential. The early earth did not have the right conditions present to allow for the formation of proteins. Therefore, life could not exist.
You are making up assertions based on nothing more than your imagination and then asking for proof from me to disprove your imaginative claims. The burden of proof is not on me. It's on you. You have to prove that there could have been some place on earth that was conducive to life including "forms of life that we cannot even imagine". Whatever "forms of life" you can imagine, it needed proteins. This is a simple biological fact. If you disagree, then it is up to you to prove it.
People like you have been hopeful for 150 years. And sometimes, they have gotten very excited because of a discovery only to have their bubble burst. ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 11 October 2014 at 6:23am
I am not responding to his claims because his claims do not constitute facts. I am attacking his credentials because your acceptance of his claims as facts is premised on his credentials.
Life as we know it is not possible. But really, I don't think anybody is expecting that the first lifeforms ever to exist were anything like what we know today.
Obviously both sources are describing life as we know it. I mean, if an alien lifeform landed on this planet tomorrow, would you bet the farm that it was based on DNA, RNA and proteins?
Which studies in particular? Have you read them?
No, I don't. It is your assertion that there were no such places, and you need that premise for your argument. So you need to prove your premise. You may be thinking that it's unfair and unreasonable that I can just make up assertions without evidence, which you then have to disprove. I sympathize with that, but it's the nature of the argument which you are trying to make. Instead of making a positive argument that proves your hypothesis, you are trying to disprove all other hypotheses, leaving yours to win by default. That approach may work in theoretical subjects like math, but in the real world "all other hypotheses" covers a lot of ground; and it requires that you disprove the others, not just show them to be unlikely. It's a tough hill to climb. Your position is exactly like a theologian a thousand years ago, "proving" that disease was a sign of God's displeasure or evil spirits or something. A thousand years ago, the best I could do would be to argue that you haven't proven your case. You could then respond that there is no other explanation: there is no natural cause for this suffering, therefore it must be supernatural. And if I were to say in response, "well, it could be caused by creatures so tiny that they are invisible", you would dismiss that as a totally ridiculous suggestion, utterly foreign to our experience and with no evidence to support it. Except that it would be true. Again, I'm not trying to prove that you are wrong. I only saying that you cannot prove that you're right. All you have is opinions, just like me.
And sometimes those discoveries have turned out to be true. Sometimes what was long thought to be "proof" of God's power turn out to be natural phenomena. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 11 October 2014 at 12:32pm
|
Here is an interesting explanation of the possible method life began. The first life on earth was not the cell. Unless that is how you wish to define life.... It's very hard to define life. There are things which cross any distinct border. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 11 October 2014 at 2:30pm
You haven't proven that "his claims do not constitute facts". That is just your opinion, for which the only "support" you have provided is by attacking his credentials.
Maybe you think this way, but no one else does. Even staunch atheistic scientists acknowledge that life cannot exist without DNA, RNA and proteins.
Yes, because we have no reason to think otherwise. In fact, if all life is based on proteins, then it follows that DNA and RNA are also essential. The reason is that even if proteins could have formed spontaneously, life still would need a process by which proteins could replicate. That process requires the presence of DNA and RNA. Let me quickly summarize how this works: Transcription --> Translation --> Protein synthesis Transcription is the process by which a DNA double helix is unwound and the "template strand" is used to manufacture a complimentary RNA strand. For the purpose of protein synthesis, the RNA strand that is produced, known as mRNA (messenger RNA), will be sent to a ribosome where it will undergo translation. The process of translation leads to protein synthesis. This is the process by which all life functions. It is essential.
Here is one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC224325/pdf/pnas00145-0056.pdf - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC224325/pdf/pnas00145-0056.pdf It states regarding the early atmosphere: "The hypothesis of an early methane-ammonia atmosphere is found to be without solid foundation and indeed is contraindicated. Geologists favor an alternative view-that genesis of air and oceans is a result of planetary outgassing. Some consequences of this view are examined. Volatiles from outgassing interacted with the alkaline crust to form an ocean having a pH 8-9 and to produce an atmosphere consisting of CO, C02, N2, and H2."
I proved that the early atmosphere did not have the reducing gases needed for amino acid formation. I also proved that amino acids could not join in a watery environment (the "prebiotic soup"). Your response was that there could be places on earth where this could happen. The burden of proof is on you.
I already did make a "positive argument". I said that the early earth was not conducive to life. And I provided evidence to support this. It's not a matter of it being "unlikely".
No Islamic theologian believed that diseases could not be due to natural causes. They simply believed that everything happens according to God's will. I already mentioned elsewhere the hadith which states that for every disease, God has also sent down its cure. Regarding complex life, it is our experience which provides the impetus for the inference that a designing intelligence was responsible for life. We have no reason to believe otherwise. Complex machines need to be built. They don't build themselves. No sane person would say that it is possible for machines to build themselves and that we just "don't know" if that it is impossible.
I heartily disagree. I have shown good reasons to reject the chance hypothesis and I have provided good reasons to infer that a designing intelligence, which I identify as God, was instead responsible for life.
Which discoveries? Who ever said that natural phenomena are not responsible for the things we observe in this world? ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 11 October 2014 at 9:45pm
More to the point, you haven't proven that they do constitute facts.
"It is now widely agreed that at the origin of life there was not the current DNA/(RNA)/protein system for gene information on one hand and catalysis, regulation, and structural function on the other." - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html
All life that we currently know of. It's quite a logical leap to assume that no other process is possible. But whatever -- that's your opinion, and you're welcome to it.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this, but I thought you were going to prove your claim that "the early earth was not conducive to life" -- not just life as we know it, but any possible form of life. I don't see how your quote accomplishes this, and I don't see anything in the paper that suggests it either. On the contrary, the paper implies the opposite (see below).
Ironically, the very paper you just qouted suggests that amino acids could have formed under conditions present on the early earth. The last paragraph says: "The principal processes required to synthesize the 14 amino acids are condensations (such as those involving pyruvate, carbonate, and acetate in the Krebs cycle), hydrogenation, and transfer of NH3. Furthermore, given condensation and hydrogenation, one has a mechanism for producing fatty acids. Formate would be a convenient source of hydrogen. Simple receptors for solar radiation might have helped speed the condensation reactions. Thus one can visualize that natural conditions might have favored synthesis of increasingly complex molecules from the simple but versatile substances available." (Mind you, the paper is almost half a century old, so I'm not sure either of us should be relying on it. Or are you trolling again? )
I'm still waiting for the evidence, but anyway that's not what I meant by a positive argument. You are trying to disprove all possible alternative hypotheses -- an approach pretty much doomed to failure, as I said -- but you are not offering any direct (positive) evidence in favour of your God Hypothesis, or even suggesting a process by which God could have worked His magic.
Well, I guess I'm insane then. But I guess the entire community of evolutionary biologists is also insane. I think I'm in good company.
"Good reasons" is not the same thing as proof. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 12 October 2014 at 7:18am
True. And at some point in the future we will know how complex organic molecules that we also detect in space turned into RNA, DNA and proteins. Modern believers should reject the notion of a God of the gaps. But the ultimate explanation for some natural super law will remain open. Otherwise you need an explanation that can explain itself. And yes, all religion is a matter of belief, because there is no objective way to tell who is right and who is wrong. Islam feels true to some, while Christianity feels true to others, which is fine. Claiming absolute truth is one of several steps that leads to religious radicalization. As I wrote in some other thread, these radicalization steps apply to all religions, including Christianity (see the example of Giordano Bruno). I found at least ten: 1) Telling others that your religion is superior 2) Viewing your religion as absolute truth 3) Rejecting the notion that religions can evolve 4) Telling others that their religion contains errors and lies 5) Painting a black and white world with good people and bad people 6) Using words like unbeliever, infidel, pagan or heretic when talking about atheists, agnostics, followers of other religions or followers of your own religion who do not comply with all the rules 7) Losing both the capability to think independently and the capability to change your viewpoints during or after a discussion 8) Rejecting pluralism and the idea that human laws created by elected representatives supersede religious laws 9) Openly or secretly condoning violence against those who disobey religions laws 10) Exercising violence against those who disobey religions laws ------------- A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 12 October 2014 at 10:58am
Um, yes I did. Are you questioning that the early earth did not have an atmosphere that was not conducive to life? This is now well-established as a result of scientific studies.
You should keep reading: "Instead, it is assumed that RNA acted as a precursor of both protein and DNA, in the sense that it can serve both as catalyst (like protein enzymes) and as carrier of genetic information. Even in the modern cell ribozymes (catalytic RNAs) still play a vital, albeit limited, role. In the ribosome, the synthesis of the peptide chains of proteins from RNA code is accomplished by ribozymes. They also catalyze splicing of RNA." So, this source claims that life originated with RNA. Of course, we already dealt with the "RNA world" hypothesis and saw why it was insufficient to explain the origin of life.
No, it's a "leap" to assume that there might be other "forms" of life that do not need proteins, DNA and RNA. You have no evidence. It is just an assumption that you use to avoid admitting the shortcomings of the chance hypothesis.
You asked for an example of a study that Meyer cited to show that the early atmosphere did not have the reducing gases needed to allow for the formation of amino acids. This study states that the atmosphere did not have reducing gases but instead had neutral gases like nitrogen and carbon dioxide.
I don't know why you are still having trouble with this. Obviously, molecular biology is not one of your strong points!No one denied that the ocean did not have amino acids present. Remember the first source I cited which tried to lower the improbability of proteins forming by chance? The one that you blindly quoted? The problem with the "prebiotic soup" theory is that just having amino acids is not enough. They have to come together to form protein chains, and this reaction cannot occur in the presence of water! To quote http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/top_five_probl067431.html - Casey Luskin again: "Chemically speaking, however, the last place you'd want to link amino acids into chains would be a vast water-based environment like the "primordial soup" or underwater near a hydrothermal vent. As the National Academy of Sciences acknowledges, "Two amino acids do not spontaneously join in water. Rather, the opposite reaction is thermodynamically favored." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/top_five_probl067431.html#fn11 - 11 In other words, water breaks down protein chains into amino acids (or other constituents), making it very difficult to produce proteins (or other polymers) in the primordial soup."
When all other alternative hypotheses are disproven (and they have been disproven), then what else is left? When chance has been eliminated form the equation, what else is left?
I guess so! Perhaps when you can show an example of a complex machine, like a computer, building itself from nothing, you and your ilk can be declared sane again.
The "proof" is in the fact that complex machines do not build themselves. Your "evolutionary biologists" have not proven that living machines came from nothing, due to blind chance. ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 12 October 2014 at 2:58pm
Huh?? I've been questioning that for nearly a week now! You just noticed?!
Exactly. So much for your statement that "even staunch atheistic scientists acknowledge that life cannot exist without DNA, RNA and proteins."
Insufficient by itself but still the leading theory. From the http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html - same source : "The hypothesis that a so-called RNA World was involved in the early evolutionary stages of life is now an almost universally held view (Joyce 2002, Orgel 2004, The RNA World 2006). Could this RNA World have stood at the ultimate origin of life? This is currently still an open question. The RNA system may be too complex to have arisen without synthesis by a genetic precursor or prior enzyme-less metabolism (options discussed below). Yet while there are still substantial problems, there are now good leads for simple, spontaneous processes on the early Earth for both the synthesis of nucleotides and their concatenation to oligonucleotides." In other worlds, the RNA world itself probably did not arise spontaneously, but was preceded by something else. We don't know what that might have been; but just because we don't know, that doesn't mean it's impossible.
Get it through your head: I don't need evidence because I'm not trying to prove anything. Of course it has shortcomings -- it's not even an assumption, because we don't know if it's true. It's just a hypothesis at this stage. But in order for your God Hypothesis to win by default, you need to disprove all other hypotheses, including those for which we have no evidence (yet). It's not good enough merely to show that the other hypotheses have not (yet) been proven.
That isn't what I asked for, but anyway:
Pardon me for being .
How can you possibly disprove all other hypotheses when we don't what other hypotheses there are? As I said, we're stilll working out what might have preceded RNA World, and what processes might have led up to it -- but you've already disproven them?
I wish you would apply the same standards of evidence to your own beliefs. Can you show me an example of God creating anything? ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 12 October 2014 at 4:46pm
So you are a clown indeed and will remain as one. As I said, it is well-established that the early atmosphere was not conducive to life. You can live in your Bozo-esque denial, but it doesn't change anything!
Um i-d-i-o-t, the source states that RNA acted as a "precursor" of protein and DNA. In other words, it performed the functions of both. The bottom line is that life still needed a complex molecule to perform the functions that proteins perform in all organisms. Your contention is that there may have been organisms that did not need this system, but even with the RNA world hypothesis, that is simply not true. Furthermore, RNA is far more complex than proteins! So, now you have to explain how an even more complex molecule formed spontaneously! That's like saying you don't believe that a computer could not have formed itself, but you do believe that a super-computer could. Besides, the problem with RNA is that it cannot perform all of the functions that proteins perform, as I already mentioned.
Well how convenient! Let's just "assume" and make ourselves feel better. Unfortunately for you, just as previous theories have met their doom, the "metabolism-first" theory has also seen better days and is essentially on the way out. According to a recent http://www.pnas.org/content/107/4/1470 - paper , such a model "lacks evolvability (i.e., it cannot substantially depart from the asymptotic steady-state solution already built-in in the dynamical equations).".
Then you need to just shut your mouth. Any m-o-r-o-n can just throw out various scenarios if he doesn't feel the need to prove them. But who would listen to this "village *****" (i.e. you)? And by the way, I have been saying all this time that theory after theory for the chance hypothesis has failed. I would think that after all this time and so many failed theories, you *****s would learn your lesson. But I guess that some people just never learn!
Are you getting senile on me, gramps? Here is what you asked: "Which studies in particular? Have you read them?" I had quoted Meyer's book to show that the early atmosphere did not have the reducing gases that were assumed by Miller's experiment and stated that he based his "opinions" on actual scientific studies. Therefore, amino acids could not have formed spontaneously. You questioned whether Meyer's quotes were reliable and asked me which studies he relied on. I just quoted one.
Unfortunately, you are definitely . That's what happens when a clown doesn't know what he is talking about and has no background in a specific subject.Amino acids were probably present in the ocean, but that means nothing since they could never actually form protein chains. The reaction cannot take place in a watery environment. Why can't you get that through your senile head?
That's all you can do: suggest possible alternatives, even if you don't know what those alternatives are! It is the easiest way to weasel out of a conundrum. In your warped mind, an unknown alternative somehow serves to counteract the proof that favors the action of a designing intelligence. Riiight...
Yikes, this truly is like teaching a monkey.  God created life on the early earth even though life had no business being there. That is a miracle, no? ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
.Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 13 October 2014 at 9:29am
Which would make protein and DNA unnecessary. So much for your earlier statement.
Why not? Because "life cannot exist without DNA, RNA and proteins"?
Which is why there was probably a pre-RNA world as well. (Though of course we don't know for sure.)
Who said anything about a "metabolism-first" theory? Is this another straw man?
Still taking the rhetorical high road, I see. You are a real credit to Islam.
Who would listen to a scenario for which you have no proof, and that you frankly admit is impossible?
The lesson is, we don't know how life began. Yet. And so we keep looking. We don't just give up and say it's magic.
I was asking which studies stated categorically that "the early earth was not conducive to life". But don't bother -- you won't find any, because that is just Meyer's opinion. No scientific study would dare draw such a broad conclusion. Especially since we don't even know how early life worked or what it required.
Because you just told me that "the early atmosphere did not have the reducing gases needed to allow for the formation of amino acids."
It is impossible, as you said yourself. You then offered a http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special_pleading - special pleading argument alleging that God can do the impossible, but without any evidence of His existence or involvement, let alone justification for His omnipotence. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 13 October 2014 at 11:53am
Oh boy... Bozo, try to understand. As I already said, RNA cannot be "precursor" to DNA and protein because it cannot perform all of the functions of each! Here is what I said: Besides, the problem with RNA is that it cannot perform all of the functions that proteins perform, as I already mentioned. Why are you having so much trouble with this?
Because RNA cannot perform the thousands of functions that are performed by proteins. Get it, yet?
Oh well...case closed then, huh? Oh wait, no. It seems you are caught in an endless loop. Since proteins could not form spontaneously, then it must have been RNA. But since RNA is so much more complex than proteins and cannot even perform all of the functions of proteins, then there must have been a "pre-RNA world as well". And if that phantom "pre-RNA world" does not meet the requirements for early life, then there was probably a "pre-pre-RNA world" as well. On an on we go...
Your source did, you ninny! Here is what it states:"The RNA system may be too complex to have arisen without synthesis by a genetic precursor or prior enzyme-less metabolism (options discussed below)." It also discussed the issue in section 6, under the title "Specificity of chemical reactions and the �metabolism-first� scenario".
Awww, did I hurt your feelings again princess?  Do you think I care what some atheist clown who mocks people's religious beliefs thinks about me?By the way, I don't know if you noticed, but we were actually having a pretty cordial discussion in the last day or two. But then, you decided to get a little frisky in your last post, so I responded in kind. So stop your whining, drama queen!
It's impossible if left up to chance. Big difference. But just as it has been demonstrated that natural conditions favorable to life can be artificially created in the lab, then it is not impossible that a designing intelligence also made life possible by manipulating those conditions in the early earth. Otherwise, it was impossible.
No one said it was "magic". I said that a designing intelligence could have been responsible, just like a scientist in a lab, only on a much grander scale. It certainly makes more sense than chalking it up to "chance".
It depends on which theory you are talking about. Since all scientists acknowledge the importance of proteins, the initial assumption was that the atmosphere had the reducing gases needed. That turned out to be wrong. And as new theories are suggested, subsequent studies refute them as being insufficient.
That's because the assumption is that amino acids in the oceans were formed in hydrothermal vents (which is problematic in itself).
If something is impossible yet happens anyway, then obviously something unnatural is involved. Like I said above, if left to chance, there is no way life could have started. Yet it did anyway. ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 14 October 2014 at 8:15am
I was http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31739&PID=191336#191336 - quoting you directly : "Even staunch atheistic scientists acknowledge that life cannot exist without DNA, RNA and proteins." I hope we can set that aside now? You acknowledge that most "staunch atheistic scientists" think that the earliest lifeforms did not consist of DNA, RNA and proteins?
And you can prove that all those thousands of functions are essential to a lifeform we can't even imagine at present?
Yup. To simpler and simpler lifeforms, which are more and more likely to have emerged by natural processes. We haven't found the end yet, and we're not even sure we're on the right path, but at least we're looking.
As one of many possibilities.
One might think you would care about your own reputation. Your behaviour says more about you than about me.
No, I think you just couldn't sustain a civilized tone and reverted to type.
And how did this manipulation take place? You have no idea, just like me. The difference is that you're not interested in finding out. You are content with ignorance, as long as you can put a name to it. That's religion in a nutshell.
If you're talking about miracles, then you're talking about magic. And however unlikely the chance, it's still more likely than impossible. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 14 October 2014 at 9:41am
Um, no. There are many scientists who are critical of the RNA world theory for precisely the reason that RNA cannot fulfill all of the functions of DNA and proteins.
There you go again with your phantom "lifeform". Like I said before, we have to go by what we know, not what we don't know. Suggesting hypothetical "lifeforms" is a cop-out.
Riight. Well, at least you admitted that you have a problem. That's the first step towards recovery.
It is one of the more popular theories, but as with its forebears, it suffers from serious flaws.
Awww, you're breaking my heart again. Stop that!Again, dost thou think that I give a hoot what some clown thinkest of me?
More whining...I am playing the world's smallest violin for you.
Who said I am not "interested in finding out"? I am merely saying that the chance hypothesis fails miserably over and over again. Yet, atheist quacks like you continue to believe in it based on...drum roll please...FAITH! Well, how about that? I have also said that since scientists have been able to manipulate the conditions needed for life in a lab (such as the Miller-Urey experiment), then a designing intelligence could have done the same thing.
Again, a miracle is something that happens even though it is impossible. and yes, life in the early earth was an impossibility, for the reasons we have already discussed ad nauseum. You need to get over it. ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 14 October 2014 at 11:22am
|
Isn't all religion a matter of opinion? The opening poster's question. The answer: Yes. We take what we know and we reach our own conclusions (i.e., opinions) "Only the closed mind is certain."  We should have the good sense to realize that any of us could be wrong. (this is having an open mind) This is exactly why I would never impose my belief on another, nor is it right for anyone to impose theirs on anyone else. I've said this before... If they are going to hell, they have no right to make me go with them... and if I am going to hell, I certainly don't want to be responsible for taking anyone with me. It is belief... a thing that can not be proven... not until the day we each meet our Maker... until then we can only, as my signature says; seek Truth together and I guess I could add to that... and pray it be revealed asalaam, CH ------------- Let us seek Truth together Blessed be God forever "I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 14 October 2014 at 3:38pm
Doesn't really answer the question. Can you find me a single scientist, whether critical of RNA World or not, who believes that the earliest lifeforms were based on DNA?
Drawing conclusions based on lack of evidence is a classic http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/54-argument-from-ignorance - argument from ignorance . And before you start: you are the one drawing conclusions, not me. As I keep saying, I'm not trying to prove anything.
You're calling it a miracle, which by definition means there is no logical explanation. With that premise, I don't know how you could hope to find out anything.
You're right that I believe it (though "faith" is the wrong word). If you were content to say that you believe that God created life, then I'd say you are welcome to your opinion. But you claimed you could prove it. I'm still waiting...
And as you love to point out, so far everything we've tried in a lab has failed. If this hypothetical "intelligence" (funny how you've backed away from calling it God) did the same thing, then it would also fail. Obviously the "intelligence" did something different. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 14 October 2014 at 4:44pm
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929363.100-dnagrabbing-bacteria-hint-at-early-phase-of-evolution.html#.VD2t_xaGPgw - http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929363.100-dnagrabbing-bacteria-hint-at-early-phase-of-evolution.html#.VD2t_xaGPgw The article states: "By absorbing snippets of DNA that float in the environment, bacteria can access a junk shop of genetic material � some of which may no longer be in circulation in living things. What's more, the mechanism requires hardly any cellular machinery, suggesting it may be left over from the earliest forms of life. Long before the advent of sex, the first cells may have randomly scavenged stray bits of DNA to survive and evolve." So, even if the earliest cells were not "DNA-based", they still needed DNA to "survive and evolve".
And what is it called when you continuously make hypothetical suggestions, which may not even be true?
Ugh... In the words of Moe, I'm going to explain it so even you can understand. I am saying that life started in the early earth even though the conditions (based on the evidence) favorable to it were simply not present. Yet, somehow life started anyway. That would be a miracle. However, if for example, proteins did form on the early earth in spite of the conditions and then life took off from there, would that still not be a miracle? Say that tomorrow we find undeniable evidence that proteins were present on the early earth, despite the fact that they should not have formed in the first place, would that not give us a logical explanation for the beginning of life (since proteins are essential to life), as well as demonstrating the miraculous origin of life?
Obviously, you are not going to get it. Denial keeps you snug in your bed. Since chance had nothing to do with life, as the evidence has consistently shown, then life could not have been an accident. A designing intelligence would, therefore, have been involved.
Wrong again! The Miller-Urey experiment succeeded in creating amino acids in the lab. It just erroneously assumed the favorable conditions needed. And RNA has been successfully created in the lab, but only in contravention of "natural" processes. In other words, it has never been demonstrated that RNA can self-assemble. So, the designing intelligence could have done the same thing, but on a much more grander scale, making it vastly more superior to nature. It could have created proteins or it could have created RNA, despite the hostile conditions. And since when did I "back away" from calling it God? I have referred to both the "designing intelligence" and God consistently. They are interchangeable. ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 15 October 2014 at 12:23pm
The earliest cells. Not the earliest lifeforms.
It's called the scientific method. You make hypotheses to explain observations, then you test them. You don't just grab the first thought that comes to mind (e.g., "it must be magic"), and then declare that you have proved your hypothesis because nobody else has proven an alternative.
No and no. Simply finding proteins does not explain anything -- not how they got there, nor how they led to the beginning of life. And if you assume that this was all "miraculous", then you're not going to look any further, are you?
Unless there was some other path to life that we haven't found yet. Or some natural process that improved the odds of it happening by chance. Or both.
I'm no organic chemist, but I'm sure that any lab-based process would have used a whole pile of sophisticated equipment to synthesize RNA. So are you proposing that the "designing intelligence" had access to that sort of equipment?
Another unjustified assumption. Even if you could prove the existence of an "intelligent designer", then you're still a long way from proving your religious beliefs. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 15 October 2014 at 12:52pm
If the "earliest cells" were using DNA, then why wouldn't the "earliest lifeforms"? In any case, the article clearly stated: "...it may be left over from the earliest forms of life".
So how exactly would you "test" the theory of your phantom "lifeforms"?
Proteins would have been the first step towards life, as they are essential. But if the conditions were unsuitable for them, and they existed anyway, that would be like finding computers in ancient Egypt. They had no business being there, yet if they were found, it would be an indication of intelligence.
But you have no indication or proof to even suggest that. Like I said, we have to go by what we know, not what we don't know. A hypothesis per the scientific method has to be based on observations. If you have no such observations to begin with, then how can you formulate the hypothesis?
No, I am proposing that if human scientists can synthesize RNA, and that RNA cannot self-assemble without this "intelligent" intervention, then the first RNA molecules (assuming the RNA world hypothesis is correct) could have been synthesized (or "created") by a designing intelligence (i.e. God). That does not mean that God needed a laboratory to synthesize RNA.
I will grant you that. It would be a different issue altogether to identify the designer. Nevertheless, a designer would have major implications for theistic belief. ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 15 October 2014 at 3:27pm
I've never heard an evolutionary biologist suggesting that the earliest lifeforms were cellular.
Yeah, I read that, but remember that this is a journalist summarizing on a technical paper. Unfortunately I can't find an online source for the paper itself, but the abstract talks almost exclusively about bacteria and cellular organisms, and makes only a glancing reference to "horizontal gene transfer playing an important role early in the evolution of life".
Experimentally, as we have been doing: by seeing if these hypothetical lifeforms, or at least the self-replicating molecules on which they are based, can be synthesized under conditions that could plausibly have existed several billion years ago. How would you test your God Hypothesis?
Proteins are essential to life as we know it today, but we don't know that they are essential to all forms of life. (Frankly, I'd be surprised.) And by the way, it's quite a stretch to compare proteins with computers. Proteins are just molecules. They are considerably less complex than computers.
I could ask you the same question. The only observations that either of us have is that life did not exist, and now it does. My hypothesis is that some natural process facilitated the creation of life by pure chance. Your hypothesis is that some supernatural being facilitated it. Neither of us have any evidence to support our hypotheses (although at least we have abundant evidence that natural processes exist). So why is your hypothesis any more valid than mine?
You suggested that an "intelligent agent" could have manipulated the conditions to produce RNA by "doing the same thing" as scientists do in the lab. Well, scientists in the lab use sophisticated equipment to manipulate those conditions. What does God use? ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 15 October 2014 at 8:37pm
What have you heard? Anyway, according to the http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/htmlversion/archean3.html - Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History : "So what were the first living things and when did they appear? Studies of genetic material indicate that a living group of single-celled organisms called Archaea may share many features with early life on Earth. Many Archaea now live in hot springs, deep-sea vents, saline water, and other harsh environments. If the first organisms resembled modern Archaea, they also may have lived in such places, but direct evidence for early life is controversial because it is difficult to distinguish between complex inorganic structures and simple biological ones in the geologic record. The oldest evidence for life may be 3.5-billion-year-old sedimentary structures from Australia that resemble http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/htmlversion/glossary.html#stromatolite - stromatolites . http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/htmlversion/glossary.html#stromatolite - stromatolites are created today by living mats of microorganisms (mostly cyanobacteria, or blue-green algae). These primitive organisms trap thin layers of sediment with their sticky filaments and grow upward to get light for http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/htmlversion/glossary.html#photosynthesis - photosynthesis . Modern-day examples of stromatolites can be found in waters off Australia, the Bahamas, and Belize."
Here is what the actual paper http://www.pnas.org/content/110/49/19860.full - says : "Horizontal gene transfer is argued to have been a major evolutionary force in early life ( http://www.pnas.org/content/110/49/19860.full#ref-43 - 43 http://www.pnas.org/content/110/49/19860.full#ref-44 - ⇓ � http://www.pnas.org/content/110/49/19860.full#ref-45 - 45 ). In contrast to transformation by longer DNA sequences, which requires dedicated recombination functions, natural transformation by short and degraded DNA can occur during cellular replication. It is therefore tempting to speculate that this pathway of genetic recombination represents a plausible mechanistic model for the occurrence of passive genetic exchange in early single-celled populations, before the evolution of complex systems such as sexual reproduction or RecA-mediated homologous recombination. The genetic process described here suggests that early horizontal genetic transfer could have occurred in primitive cells after uptake of short DNA segments, which would have augmented evolutionary change. In addition to its main function as an important nutrient source, short DNA fragments may have contributed to exchange of beneficial mutations in early cells and continue to do so in extant microbial populations."
How can you test this "experimentally" when you don't even know what the "hypothetical lifeforms" were? In any case, the first lifeforms were undoubtedly cellular organisms, which needed DNA and proteins to survive. That is what the evidence has shown.
The same way I have already suggested. By "experimentally" showing that the building blocks of life and indeed life itself did not have the necessary conditions needed on the early earth, and yet formed anyway. Another way to show this experimentally is to show the complexities in nature, even in allegedly "primitive" organisms like bacteria. For example, we can show how the bacterial flagellum is a highly complex "machine" of sorts and shows signs of design, in that it needs every part in order to function properly.
If you would be "surprised", then you obviously don't know much about molecular biology. Proteins have thousands of functions. And since it is likely that the first organisms were "primitive" cells which needed DNA, then proteins were certainly needed as well as DNA is needed to form RNA which in turn is needed to produce proteins. If these cells needed DNA, then they were producing proteins.
Because we have evidence that "natural processes" cannot explain the origin of life, despite theory after theory having been proposed. Furthermore, we have evidence of complexity (such as in the bacterial flagellum) which can only be explained by the action of a designer and not by unguided evolution.
I meant that just as scientists manipulate conditions in the lab, a designing intelligence could have done the same. That does not mean that this designer needed a lab and sophisticated equipment. The earth would have been the "lab". All that was needed was the manipulation of the conditions. ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 16 October 2014 at 8:17am
Thanks for tracking down the paper. So clearly it deals only with cellular life. We don't know what preceded the first cell.
First you form the hypothesis, then you test it. But you're right that we can't test unknown hypotheses, which is why we can never prove experimentally that no natural process exists. You can't prove a negative.
"Undoubtedly"? Again, you can't prove a negative. The fact that we have no fossilized pre-cellular organisms is hardly surprising. What kind of evidence are you talking about?
But if we don't know what the first forms of life were, we can't show that conditions for them did not exist, right?
This is just more argument from ignorance (or from incredulity). Even if we don't know how the flagellum developed (and there are plenty of theories), that doesn't prove it's impossible.
Well, it may mean that I don't know much about pre-cellular biology. But then, nobody does.
Whereas your "intelligent design" hypothesis has not had even a single credible theory nor a shred of evidence to support it.
But what was this "manipulation" and how did it take place? What is your theory? ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 16 October 2014 at 9:38am
The earliest lifeforms were cellular in structure, as I previously showed. There is no evidence of anything else.
But you can test whether organisms can even survive with a cellular structure, can you not? I am unaware of any studies done that have proved that a "non-cellular" organism could plausibly exist.
If you can't test or prove a "negative", then it is not a worthwhile hypothesis. If "pre-cellular organisms" did indeed exist, it should be experimentally demonstrable. As it stands, the demonstrable evidence shows that the earliest organisms were cellular and that they needed DNA.
We do know what the first lifeforms were. They were cellular. That is what the evidence shows.
It would be impossible from an unguided evolutionary point of view.
There is no such thing because there is no evidence for "pre-cellular" life.
Sure it does. In addition to the proposed complexity of structures like the flagellum, intelligent design also posits that a "designed" organism would not have "vestigial" organs, since such organs would imply "mistakes". One of the most commonly proposed "vestigial" organs in humans is the appendix, which has been claimed to be a remnant from our ancestors who lived primarily on plant life and needed the appendix to help in the digestion of cellulose. It turns out, however, that the appendix actually has a practical use in humans. A recent http://www.cghjournal.org/article/S1542-3565%2811%2900580-5/abstract - study has suggested that the appendix may provide increased protection again C. difficile, the pathogenic organism that causes cholera.
As I said, if the RNA world hypothesis is correct, and since RNA molecules can only be synthesized by the action of an intelligent agent, then the first RNA molecules could have been created by a designer. As for the the exact mechanism that scientists have used to create RNA in the lab, that is a bit technical. As one scientist has http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2001/rna-0613 - said : "Creating a complementary strand of RNA is a challenging enzymatic reaction because it requires several things to happen at the same time. The reaction must be accurate in incorporating nucleotides based on the template strand, general enough that any template can be copied, and efficient enough to add on a large number of nucleotides." ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 17 October 2014 at 4:28pm
But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
No, first you form the hypothesis and then you test it. At the moment, nobody has a good hypothesis for what a non-cellular lifeform would be. That doesn't necessarily mean it's impossible. It may just mean that we haven't figured it out.
Exactly, but it's your hypothesis. The hypothesis that there were no pre-cellular lifeforms is not testable, and is not a worthwhile hypothesis.
That's true. That's how we'll know when we have a viable theory -- when it is experimentally demonstrable. Meanwhile, the best we can say is we don't know.
Why? We can't figure it out, therefore it must be impossible? It seems you have greater faith in human ingenuity than I do.
Which is an argument against evolution, not an argument in favour of intelligent design. In order to make it the latter, you would need a theory to explain how an intelligent designer might have created the first flagellum. Let me try an analogy. Suppose Mary dies under suspicious circumstances and her body is incinerated so an autopsy is not possible. The police found traces of Mary's blood on a kitchen knife belonging to Alice, Mary's sister. This evidence suggests a theory, i.e. that Alice stabbed Mary with the knife. Alice says that possibly Mary cut herself with the knife months ago when they were preparing dinner together. Alice suspects that Mary's husband John killed Mary somehow. As "evidence" of this she points out that she (Alice) has a fairly strong alibi. Also, Alice has severe arthritis. She would have had difficulty holding the knife, let alone overpowering Mary. Alice's evidence definitely weakens the police's theory; but it doesn't support her alternate theory because she doesn't have a theory. All she has is a vague notion that John is involved, but she doesn't know what he did or how he did it. Did John stab Mary and then somehow return the knife to Alice's kitchen to frame her? Or was the blood on the knife just a coincidence, as Alice suggested? Did John strangle Mary, or poison her, or beat her to death? Alice's evidence may create sufficient doubt that she did it, but it isn't going to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that John did it. Even if John and Mary are the only two suspects, and even if we knew for sure that a murder had been committed, they would still need to see some positive evidence linking John to the alleged crime, and some theory as to how he killed her.
And the tail that early stage human fetuses grow in utero? What design purpose does that fulfill?
No doubt, and I'm assuming that neither of us has the technical expertise to answer the question directly. However, my point is that to synthesize RNA molecules, a lab would use sophisticated equipment -- stuff like DNA sequencers, autoclaves, centrifuges and the like. If you think your hypothetical "intelligent agent" did the same thing, would he/she/it have had access to that kind of equipment? If not, what would he/she/it have used instead? In other words, what mechanisms are involved? You keep asking me how (i.e. by what natural process) an RNA molecule could have been formed. I'm asking you the same question about your intelligent design hypothesis. By what supernatural process could an RNA molecule have been formed? ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 17 October 2014 at 8:33pm
And that is not a valid argument in defense of the "pre-cellular" theory. I am saying that, based on the evidence, there is no reason to presuppose "pre-cellular" organisms.
So, if there isn't even a hypothesis, then there is no reason to presuppose pre-cellular organisms.
No, the hypothesis is that the earliest organisms were cellular. This hypothesis has strong evidence to back it up. You claimed that there could have been "pre-cellular" organisms, yet you acknowledge there isn't even a valid hypothesis for this which could be tested.
Not at all. We can say that, based on the evidence, the earliest lifeforms were cellular. There simply is no reason to suppose that there could have been "pre-cellular" organisms.
It's not just that "we can't figure it out". Darwinian evolution supposes that the a structure like the flagellum would have evolved via a step-by-step process involving random variations and natural selection. That's like saying that a machine will be created piece-by-piece, but that even without all the pieces, the machine will still fulfill its desired functions. A better argument would be that the flagellum was designed, just like a machine, with all its parts working together.
It's an argument in favor of intelligent design based on the premise that a fully functional structure like the flagellum needs foresight, just like a machine that is designed by humans requires the foresight of its builder. I have no idea how a nuclear reactor is built. Does that mean that because I cannot explain the how, it means that the theory that someone built a nuclear reactor is invalid?
But the presupposition is that someone did kill Mary and burned her body. We may not be able to prove that John did it, but for starters, we can disprove that Alice did it. An air-tight alibi and lack of evidence would clear Alice of any wrongdoing. Once that is done, then we can continue the search for the actual killer. Suppose that John actually did kill Mary. The police determine this during separate interrogation sessions where John contradicts himself and begins changing his story. That would raise suspicion of guilt. Why would he change his story if he had nothing to do with the crime? On top of that, say that the police find traces of Mary's blood in John's car. That would add to the evidence of his guilt. They still haven't determined how he killed her, but they have good evidence that he did kill her.
Are you referring to Haeckel's embryos?
Again, assuming that the designer was God, then He would have no need of "sophisticated equipment". We may not be able to determine "how" He did it, but we can say with almost near-certainty that He did do it. The point is that since RNA cannot self-assemble, but has to be designed, then the chance hypothesis is disproven. If it was not an accident, it means that, by definition, it was deliberate.
Actually, we know how RNA can form...in the lab. A supernatural agent could have created RNA by creating the conditions, step-by-step processes and the ingredients needed for its synthesis. What we know is that RNA cannot self-assemble. It has to be deliberately assembled under tightly-controlled conditions. That implies design and the work of a designer. But as I said before, identifying that designer would be a different matter. ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 18 October 2014 at 12:38am
Islamicity:
Airmano |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 18 October 2014 at 5:53pm
Gosh, how many times do I have to say it? I'm not defending or presupposing anything. Maybe there was no pre-cellular life. I don't know. What I'm saying is that you don't know either. It is an invalid argument to presuppose that there was no precellular life, just because we haven't found direct evidence for it yet.
No, I said that the converse cannot be tested, i.e. your hypothesis that there was no precellular life. The hypothesis that there was such a thing is definitely testable. Scientists are constantly suggesting theories to support the hypothesis and testing them. One maybe we'll find a theory that works. Until then, we don't know.
Science is not about supposing. We don't simply suppose their existence or non-existence. We develop theories to support hypotheses, and then we test those theories. Which is why, if you want to support your intelligent design hypothesis, you need to develop a coherent theory to explain how it works, and then test that theory. Where did this supposed intelligent designer come from? How did he/she/it create life?
Just out of curiosity, have you actually looked for an evolutionary explanation for the flagellum, or are you just reciting dogma? Because even a quick https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=ssl#safe=off&q=flagellum+evolution - Google search will give you plenty of answers -- if you're interested in answers, that is.
Of course you can explain the how. You've probably never actually seen a nuclear reactor being built, but you've seen lots of similar buildings under construction. You know there were hundreds, maybe thousands of workers involved-- architects, engineers, carpenters, bricklayers, plumbers, electricians, etc. -- and although you may not have their specific skills, you surely have a general idea of what they do and how they do it. You've seen the kinds of equipment they used and have a general idea how that equipment was made and where they got it. But you haven't the first idea how your intelligent designer created the first cell.
Well no, I'm actually not assuming that. Maybe she was drunk and fell into a waste disposal bin. The point of my story is that there are lots of other explanations, including ones that we can't even think of.
Exactly -- we can continue our search for the actual killer. We don't just assume that the other suspect is guilty. Even if there are only two suspects, we still need to build a positive case against John.
They would have positive evidence that connects John to the crime, and at least the beginnings of a theory (that he transported her in his car, and that she was already injured at that point). Not just negative evidence that exonerates some other suspect.
I'm referring to human embryos at around four weeks:  "By four weeks, the embryo has a head, tail, backbone and limb buds - which will eventually become arms and legs." (from http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/whoami/findoutmore/yourbody/wheredidyoucomefrom/howdoyougrowinthewomb/whathappensinweek4.aspx - http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/whoami/findoutmore/yourbody/wheredidyoucomefrom/howdoyougrowinthewomb/whathappensinweek4.aspx ) A few weeks later the tail has shrunk and eventually becomes the coccyx or tailbone -- which itself is a useless vestigial body part. Why would an allegedly "intelligent" designer give humans a tailbone, much less a tail?
We may not be able to determine "how" life evolved naturally, either. Why is it that you insist on that from me, without which you declare my hypothesis "impossible"; and yet with even less information available for your hypothesis, you think yours is "proven"? ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 18 October 2014 at 9:08pm
You can say it as many times as you want, but the fact is that merely suggesting that there could have been "pre-cellular" life is a worthless argument. The evidence we do have suggests that life was and always has been cellular in nature.
But again, there is strong evidence that the earliest life was cellular. In order to disprove that, you would need to provide evidence of pre-cellular life. You can keep dreaming and hoping that "one day maybe we'll find a theory that works", but that's like saying "one day maybe we'll find evidence for the Loch Ness monster". I can't prove that Nessie does not exist, but I can say that the evidence suggests that Loch Ness does not have a prehistoric, unknown animal.
Well that's funny, all you have been doing is "supposing".
Intelligent design can be tested, as explained in the following article: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/intelligent_design_is_empirica001819.html - http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/intelligent_design_is_empirica001819.html Intelligent design proposes that there is design in life. This is testable, as in the case of the bacterial flagellum.
Well, first of all, it's hilarious for someone like you to suggest that I am "just reciting dogma". What have you been doing all this time? Oh yeah...reciting dogma! Of course, your "Google search" is enough to convince you that since there are "plenty of answers" to the ID argument, then the flagellum must have evolved through random variation and natural selection! But yeah, there are various theories by evolutionists about how the flagellum could have evolved. One is the co-option theory, that claims that the flagellum would have used proteins biological systems. But this theory has its http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/05/irreducibly_com085571.html - weaknesses .
But I still could not explain how they build a nuclear reactor. The fact that I know the "general" processes involved still would not explain the exact step-by-step process of construction.
Obviously, you're trying to make your "analogy" as vague and complicated as possible. Of course, it is quite convenient that Mary dies "under suspicious circumstances" and her body just happens to be "incinerated" so that an autopsy was not possible!
You missed the point. In order to continue the search, you have to prove that Alice is not guilty. Once you do that, then you can consider the theory that John did it. In other words, you disproved one theory and moved on to the next. Similarly, if you can disprove the chance theory, you can move on and consider the alternative.
Right, but they still have not been able to determine "how" he committed the crime.
Thank you for proving that you are just "reciting dogma". It amazes me that this myth still persists among people who nonetheless wave the flag of science. The so-called "tail" that you are referring to is known as the "caudal eminence". It is http://blog.drwile.com/?p=7621 - defined as: "...a neurological structure that is necessary for the development of the spinal cord and many other caudal structures." So no, it's not a "tail". As one http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15237191 - study puts it: "The eminence produces the caudal part of the notochord and, after closure of the caudal neuropore, all caudal structures, but it does not produce even a temporary 'tail' in the human."
Because we have determined that life did not have the conditions it needed to evolve by chance. Therefore, to determine "how" it evolved is irrelevant. It's like saying that we know that Mars does not have the conditions suitable for life, but since we cannot explain "how" life could exist on Mars, the theory that Mars does not have life is still plausible. Why would we even consider whether Mars has life when we know that the conditions on Mars are not suitable for life? ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 19 October 2014 at 12:09am
islamicity:
No ! Airmano |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 19 October 2014 at 8:39pm
(Here we go again!) I'm not trying to disprove it. I'm trying to show that you can't prove it. And you can claim "strong evidence" as much as you want, but the fact is that there is no evidence, for or against the hypothesis. Your only argument is that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, which is a classic fallacy.
Actually, the article itself contradicts this: "How does one test and discredit Behe's claims? Describe a realistic, continuously functional Darwinian pathway from simple ancestor to present motor. The flagellum might still be designed, but Behe's means of detecting such design would have been falsified." So even if we show how the flagellum might have evolved naturally, Behe can still claim that it was designed. That's because intelligent design is just a hypothesis, not rooted in any physical process. You need a theory, an actual mechanism by which the Designer might have been created a flagellum, in order to make the theory testable. You know, like the actual mechanisms you (rightfully) demand of evolutionists before we can claim to have proven abiogeneis.
Not must have evolved -- might have evolved. As a matter of fact, we're pretty darn confident, because evolution has explained so much already; but I wouldn't say that it must have evolved according to a particular theory, without being able to test that theory.
At least we have a theory. See, this is where intelligent design has an advantage over real science. In order to make meaningful progress, science needs to formulate an actual theory, so that its strengths and weaknesses can be tested. On the other hand, intelligent design feels no need to put forth a coherent theory of exactly how it works. The most it will do is make assertions like "we think the flagellum is irreducibly complex"; but (as Jonathan Witt admits) even if such a statement is shown to be untrue, that won't shake Witt's belief that it was designed.
But you don't even know the "general" processes of intelligent design. There was no life, the Intelligent Designer waved his magic wand (no wait, that would be a process!), and -- poof! -- suddenly life appeared. That's not science. That's magic.
In case you haven't noticed, life is vague and complicated. That's the point. It's not as simple as saying it's either John or Alice, and disproving one is tantamount to proving the other.
You seriously think that if the police can't disprove that Alice did it, they will never even consider whether John did it?
Except that there are lots of "chance theories", as you call them. You can never hope to disprove all of them because we can't even enumerate all of them.
To paraphrase Shakespeare, "a tail by any other name would be just as vestigial." Call it whatever you like, but it is morphologically identical with a tail, it is the same structure that becomes the tail of every other vertebrate animal, and it is the structure that becomes the "tailbone" in humans. There is no reason for it to exist in humans. Both the "caudal eminence" and the tailbone are vestigial.
FYI, the hypothesis that Mars has life is still plausible. We've had Mars rovers looking for life for years now, but they haven't explored every crevice and every underground cavern on the planet. Mars is big place with a diverse environment. I'd agree that on the whole it's not looking very hospitable for life, but we cannot say that suitable conditions do not exist anywhere. The same could be said for the early Earth, not incidentally -- with the added complication that we cannot explore the early Earth. Which is just one more reason why it's fatuous to confidently assert that the conditions life needed to evolve did not exist anywhere. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 20 October 2014 at 11:19am
And you can claim that "there is no evidence" all you want, but the fact is that there is such evidence. Your denial does not change that.
The article states that a scientific theory has to be falsifiable. It then demonstrates that intelligent design is one such theory. What it is saying is that if the "the means of detecting" design in life is falsified, then intelligent design would be falsified as well, but it does not necessarily mean that the flagellum might still have been designed. It is just that we would not be able to prove it scientifically. It's like saying that life might still have arisen due to chance, even though the means by which this could have happened has been falsified, and we just don't know, which is what you have been claiming all this time about the origin of life.
Oh really? "We're pretty darn confident", huh? Even though so much of the theory's initial assumptions, such as vestigial organs (see below for a refutation of your appeal to the coccyx), have been disproven?
Hilarious, given that we have seen so much evidence that contradicts the atheistic worldview, which clearly has not shaken your belief that life that came from nowhere. Poof! What is even more hilarious is your claim that "at least we have a theory". So, just because "we have a theory", it somehow means that intelligent design is automatically false?
No, that's you committing a straw man. I said before that just because God designed life does not mean that natural processes (which obviously we created by Him as well) were not involved. For example, if the RNA world hypothesis is correct, and we know that RNA can be designed in the lab using complex chemical reactions, that shows us the "general processes" that God could have used to create RNA as well.
Huh? Life is "vague"? It certainly is complicated, which is why saying that it is one big cosmic accident is absurd, but "vague"? What does that mean?
The police usually consider the most likely suspect first. But yes, they could certainly investigate multiple suspects simultaneously. But if Alice was the prime suspect, then the police would tend to concentrate on her.
Well, what would you call them? And yes, there are lots of these preposterous theories, and one after the other, they have been discredited. See, the problem is that atheists simply keep proposing new theories to make up for the lack of evidence for previous theories. They are just trying to compensate for repeated failures at proving their dogmatic worldview. It's like saying that the Loch Ness monster is a plesiosaur. But when evidence is presented to discredit this view, the believers in the monster simply say that it could be some other pre-historic animal, even though no concrete evidence has ever been presented, aside from a http://www.unmuseum.org/nesshoax.htm - hoax here and there, kind of like the evolutionist http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution_and_Cases_of_Fraud,_Hoaxes_and_Speculation - hoaxes .
To actually quote Shakespear, "I say there is no darkness but ignorance". Again you show that you are just reciting dogma. It amazes me that people like you just repeat this nonsense like mindless drones instead of actually doing some research. The so-called "tailbone in humans", otherwise known as the coccyx, is also not "vestigial", as we shall see shortly. But first, let me once again quote the previous source to show that the caudal eminence is also not "vestigial": "So what is the caudal eminence? It is a neurological structure that is necessary for the development of the spinal cord and many other caudal structures." Now, let's consider the coccyx. Is it "vestigial"? NO! According to medical http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/309486-overview#aw2aab6b2b2 - sources , it actually serves several functions: "In humans, the coccyx serves important functions, including as an attachment site for various muscles, tendons, and ligaments. Physicians and patients should remember the importance of these attachments when considering surgical removal of the coccyx." And furthermore: "The coccyx serves somewhat as a weight-bearing structure when a person is seated, thus completing the tripod of weight bearing composed of the coccyx and the bilateral ischium. The ischial weight-bearing surfaces are, more specifically, at the ischial tuberosities and inferior rami of the ischium." So what other "vestigial" structures can you find for us? Gills perhaps?
As we learn more about Mars, it is becoming more and more likely that there is no life there, even bacterial life (it actually would not surprise me if bacterial life was eventually found). Of course, that has not stopped conspiracy theorists from spotting things like " http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGn5pXsAZtA - cannons " and " http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMUQXYlThBE - faces " on the surface of Mars!
We have a ton of evidence about the early earth, which calls into question the chance hypothesis/hypotheses. And the more we learn, the more unlikely chance becomes. Similarly, we have a ton of evidence about Mars, which calls into question that it has life or had life at one point. The more we learn, the more unlikely it becomes. ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 22 October 2014 at 11:56am
It means exactly that. The article you quoted even says so, and I bolded the phrase so I'm not sure how you missed it. Or are you backing away from your own source again?
I agree, you can't prove it scientifically, because it's not a proper theory. That's what I've been trying to tell you.
Yes, that's what I've been claiming all this time. We just don't know. Neither of us. The only point you have wrong above is that "the means by which this could have happened has been falsified." That is impossible because just like the creationists we don't know the means by which this could have happened. We don't have an adequate explanation either. We're still looking for a viable theory, a natural process, a mechanism by which the first lifeform could have evolved.
Why can't you get it through your head? I'm not trying to prove that intelligent design is false!
The "general process" for creating RNA in a lab requires lab equipment. I don't know the process, and I don't suppose you do either, but for instance a lab technician might use a centrifuge to concentrate and isolate proteins. What would God have used for a centrifuge? And if He's not using a centrifuge, what does it even mean to say that He is following the same process?
It means, among other things, that we don't even have a clear definition for "life". Is a self-replicating RNA molecule "life"? I'm not sure. Are http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/yellowstone/viruslive.html - viruses alive? It's still an open question.
But we're still looking, while you guys don't even try. You think that "it's a miracle!" is an explanation. It's not. It's an admission that you don't have an explanation, and an excuse to go making up fairy stories instead of trying to figure out what actually happened.
The difference is that the Loch Ness monster does not exist, whereas we know that the first living cell must have come into being somehow and somewhere. So we keep proposing theories, and testing them, as science does.
Your source goes on to quote from Barr�s The Human Nervous System as follows: "The vesicles are derived from the caudal eminence, a mass of pluripotent cells located dorsal to the developing coccyx." So strictly speaking the caudal eminence is not the coccyx/tailbone/tail. It is located "dorsal" (i.e. behind, as seen from the front) to them. Yes, the caudal eminence provides vesicles which form the spine. No, that doesn't exlain why the Designer would extend the spine well past where the legs are forming.
I think you're missing the point of that reminder, which is that surgical removal of the coccyx has impacts beyond the coccyx itself, not that the coccyx per se has any vital function. The muscles, tendons and ligaments attach to the coccyx because it's there. If it weren't there, they could just as efficiently attach directly to the pelvis.
I had a bit of a chuckle when I read that. First of all, if you are putting any significant amount of weight on your tailbone when you sit, then you have terrible posture. Second, and once again., the coccyx is only a weight-bearing structure because it's there, and you're sitting on it. That doesn't mean it was "intelligently designed" to bear weight -- on the contrary, it's a very poor structure for that purpose. Chronic improper posture which puts too much weight on the coccyx can cause pain.
Unlikely, or impossible? You keep bouncing back and forth between the two positions as if they were the same, but they are not. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 22 October 2014 at 6:47pm
Actually, I just realized that I made a typo. What I meant to say is that even if the theory was falsified, it does not necessarily mean that the flagellum was still not designed. In other words, even if the theory was scientifically invalidated, it could still be true but we just could not prove it scientifically.
That would be true if intelligent design was falsified. That is what was the point of the article. It was arguing that intelligent design is a "proper theory" because it can be tested and is falsifiable. It then stated that even if the theory was scientifically falsified, it could still be true but we just wouldn't know it.
But I am not agreeing with you. I was merely saying that the point of the article was that if the theory was falsified, it could still be true but we could not prove it using science. But, as far as I can see, the theory has not been falsified, despite the best efforts of atheist scientists and their dogmatism.
Not at all. If we can detect design in life, that is evidence for the theory. In order to falsify the theory, you have to prove that the means of detecting design is false. The issue is how you detect design, not the processes involved in the design itself. For example, if you look at the Statue of Liberty, you can detect design, though you may not necessarily know the "process" by which it was designed (e.g. what tools were used).
Calm down, Ron. Relax! Don't pop a vein!Now, even if you are not "trying to prove" that ID is false, you certainly oppose it as a viable theory and blindly accept the various chance hypotheses that are being offered by like-minded individuals in the scientific community.
I am referring to the chemical reactions required to synthesize RNA. Those are the fundamental "processes" that allow for RNA synthesis. I don't think God needs a lab to perform those reactions.
I would say that RNA is not a "living" entity. Neither are prions, even though they are infectious agents. A virus? Yes, it's difficult to determine whether it is a "living" entity, but viruses aside, we know that cells are living things. Cells make up the basic unit of life. All organisms, whether bacteria, plants , fungi or humans, are made-up of cells. All are living entities. With this in mind, I would not describe life as "vague".
What a load of crock! You guys are "still looking" to prove an a priori assumption. You need/want life to have started by chance, so you parade theory after theory, no matter how preposterous, to try to explain how life came about by chance. It's like saying that you believe in the Loch Ness monster, and then you look for proof of its existence. And when you fail over and over again, you just keep "looking".
You can't prove that the Loch Ness monster does not exist. Remember: you can't prove a negative hypothesis. So, as far as we are concerned, the Loch Ness monster could actually exist. Of course, no one would buy this line of argumentation. So, why would we believe that life started by chance, even though all the evidence presented so far shows that chance had no chance?!
But what it does "explain" is that the caudal eminence is not "vestigial" as atheists have tried to claim. It has an important function in embryonic development.
Regardless of what would happen if it "wasn't there", the fact is that it is "there" and it serves as an attachment site for muscles, tendons and ligaments. Therefore, it has a function. A "vestigial" structure has no function. In other words, it is "useless". The coccyx, while certainly not the most important part of the body, is certainly not "useless".
Oh, Dr. Ron has it all figured out, huh? Oh wait, no he doesn't!Regardless of your musings, the fact remains that the coccyx, though clearly not vital for survival, still has functions. First, you claimed that human embryos have a "tail". When that didn't work out, you then claimed that the coccyx was "vestigial", which would mean that it has no function and is essentially "useless". Well, guess what? It does have functions!
 You really are getting desperate, aren't you? It seems semantics is your last line of defense. The chance hypothesis becomes more and more "unlikely" as the evidence piles up. I think it has reached the point of critical mass and is about to implode. So yes, it is essentially "impossible". However, speaking probabilistically, if something has even a 1 in a trillion trillion chance (or some other ridiculously large number), it is technically not "impossible", though common sense would tell us that it is. But this is simply a matter of semantics. ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 23 October 2014 at 1:17pm
The bolded phrase is probably the silliest thing you have said in this discussion. Do I really have to point out that if a theory is falsified, that means it's shown to be false? In Intelligent Designland, can a theory be both false and true?
Right. That's because it's not falsifiable. Even the article says so: "It's true that there's no way to falsify the bare assertion that a cosmic designer exists." And that's all you've got: just a bare assertion, no actual theory of how the Intelligent Designer did his work. It's as if I asserted without evidence that the first cell came into existence by pure chance, and then just left it at that. No attempt to explain how it happened, whether the RNA or the protein or the morphology came first, etc. You can claim all you want that it's impossible, because every theory you can think of to explain the process fails. I will just respond that obviously that wasn't the process then. But as for what the process was, well, it's all just a mystery; humankind was never meant to know the details. You wouldn't for a moment accept such a bare hypothesis as a "scientific theory", nor should you. You certainly wouldn't accept it a proven, merely because the none of the alternative hypotheses have viable theories associated with them either.
Okay, I'll bite. What is the means of detecting design? Is something designed by default, unless we can think of a natural process to explain it?
I'm not blindly accepting anything. I agree, none of the theories presently proposed for evolution of the first cell are especially promising. None are impossible, but my bet is that when we figure it out it will be something nobody has thought of yet.
Then what did He use?
Whereas you have made an a priori assumption and then stopped looking.
Because Occam's Razor says the Loch Ness monster does not exist. Just as, IMHO, it says the same thing about your Intelligent Designer. There is no benefit to accepting that hypothesis, unless you can develop it into a viable theory that actually explains something. Until then, I would rather believe that an unlikely event happened through a process that we haven't yet identified, rather than that an impossible event happened by magic.
As I just explained, we're not talking about the caudal eminence. We're talking about the section of spine that extends beyond the hips. It doesn't matter what you call it, although in most other vertebrates it is called a tail.
It has no function that couldn't be better served by the pelvic bones. If it is designed, it is a poor design.
This is not just semantics, and common sense is of little value in "ridiculously" large or small numbers. As I've explained before, if the odds are 1 in a trillion trillion, then in a trillion trillion universes one would expect at least one occurrence; and in an infinite multiverse it would happen an infinite number of times. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: robertjohn5814
Date Posted: 28 September 2022 at 3:29am
| Alectrofag is UK's leading E-Cigarette specialist serving the passionate and ever-growing vaping community. |