By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - This is why I don't like debating religion

Alara317 on 19 December 2012
timmah said:


Throwing in a large amount of time does not automatically make something possible. You're saying it took Billions of years for life to get where it is now, I'm saying we can't even prove that living matter can come from non-living matter, even at the single cell level.

Sure, amino acids can form, we've confirmed that. That still doesn't bridge the gap from non-living matter to living matter. There is still no scientific proof of that at all.

Inorganic chemicals created purposefully by intelligence self-replicated. Ok, so can this happen without us 'making' and 'designing' those chemicals? This still does not prove that life can come from non-life without DESIGN, since those chemicals were specifically designed by intelligent beings (so you're kind of proving my point)

RNA is self-replicating, sure, but that goes back to my point that all life is self-replicating and there is always a precurser of other, pre-existing life. The RNA cannot self-replicate unless RNA already exists.

Not a single example above shows even a single living cell coming from non-living matter.

You are aware that they've come very close to recreating albiogenesis in a lab, right?  That's where they put all the stuff theorized to be swimming the ocean diring the formative years of our planet, and expose it to the equivalent of volcanic and electric activity to make the proteins and acids combine in such a way to make rudimentary forms of life.  

Look it up, kinda devastating to the creationst's case. 



Around the Network
dsgrue3 on 19 December 2012
Alara317 said:
timmah said:


Throwing in a large amount of time does not automatically make something possible. You're saying it took Billions of years for life to get where it is now, I'm saying we can't even prove that living matter can come from non-living matter, even at the single cell level.

Sure, amino acids can form, we've confirmed that. That still doesn't bridge the gap from non-living matter to living matter. There is still no scientific proof of that at all.

Inorganic chemicals created purposefully by intelligence self-replicated. Ok, so can this happen without us 'making' and 'designing' those chemicals? This still does not prove that life can come from non-life without DESIGN, since those chemicals were specifically designed by intelligent beings (so you're kind of proving my point)

RNA is self-replicating, sure, but that goes back to my point that all life is self-replicating and there is always a precurser of other, pre-existing life. The RNA cannot self-replicate unless RNA already exists.

Not a single example above shows even a single living cell coming from non-living matter.

You are aware that they've come very close to recreating albiogenesis in a lab, right?  That's where they put all the stuff theorized to be swimming the ocean diring the formative years of our planet, and expose it to the equivalent of volcanic and electric activity to make the proteins and acids combine in such a way to make rudimentary forms of life.  

Look it up, kinda devastating to the creationst's case. 

Yeah I've told him about the Miller-Urey experiment. He seems to think just because it proves that amino acids form without influence from anyone, and form based purely upon the conditions provided, that it does not refute intelligent design. lol



timmah on 19 December 2012
Jay520 said:
timmah said:
With all of our ingelligence and technological advances, we cannot even create true Artificial Intelligence yet, let alone consciousness. In fact, consciousness is such a complex and incredible thing that Science has no explanation for it. All of our technology (which required a lot of intelligent design), pales in comparison to the human mind, not even taking into account the complex and interdependent systems that support its function and the unexplainable human consciousness. In spite of this, I'm supposed to believe that systems with far more complexity than what we can create with our intelligence (again, we can't even create a SINGLE LIVING CELL from non-living matter with our big brains) somehow exist without any design behind them. To me this seems like the biggest logical fallacy that could possibly exist.


As that other guy said, it took billions of years for life/consciousness to develop. Even if we have the ability to create life from nonlife, that doesn't mean we should be able to NOW. Humans may not create life from nonlife at all during our lifetime. It may be another 1000 years before we do create life. My point is: just because we haven't done so yet, doesn't mean we can't do it at all. The humans species is incredibly young; the civilised humans are even younger. We just discovered how to harness electricity not too long ago (which many people thought was impossible at the time). To expect us to create life NOW is simply unreasonable.

Our sun is believed to be about 4.6 Billion years old, and only (maybe) a couple billion years of that would be at a temperature capable of supporting life. I don't have the figures in front of me, but that is barely enough time to even get to a single cell or rudimentary multi-cellular organisms, much less to the complexity of what we see today.



Jay520 on 19 December 2012
timmah said:

Even if you have all of those characteristics on a planet, you still have to add up all of the probabilities that lead you to even a single cell of reproducing life, as well as the fact that, if it would take billions of years for that fragile, single cell to develop, there is zero chance that the climate and conditions of the planet stay stable enough for that entire time for this fragile, first life to develop over that massive amount of time.


It seems like the only proof for you is actually recreating life (which is strange because we don't usually say, "if we can't do it, then it's not possible" to every other scientific discover). That's fine, you have your own requirements for evidence I guess, though I wish you required the same evidence for your creator. That's part of the beauty of science. You don't have to believe it right now. Scientists don't even have to believe it. So they can still research it with no faith involved, to come to the most accurate conclusion possible.



Alara317 on 19 December 2012
dsgrue3 said:
Alara317 said:
timmah said:


Throwing in a large amount of time does not automatically make something possible. You're saying it took Billions of years for life to get where it is now, I'm saying we can't even prove that living matter can come from non-living matter, even at the single cell level.

Sure, amino acids can form, we've confirmed that. That still doesn't bridge the gap from non-living matter to living matter. There is still no scientific proof of that at all.

Inorganic chemicals created purposefully by intelligence self-replicated. Ok, so can this happen without us 'making' and 'designing' those chemicals? This still does not prove that life can come from non-life without DESIGN, since those chemicals were specifically designed by intelligent beings (so you're kind of proving my point)

RNA is self-replicating, sure, but that goes back to my point that all life is self-replicating and there is always a precurser of other, pre-existing life. The RNA cannot self-replicate unless RNA already exists.

Not a single example above shows even a single living cell coming from non-living matter.

You are aware that they've come very close to recreating albiogenesis in a lab, right?  That's where they put all the stuff theorized to be swimming the ocean diring the formative years of our planet, and expose it to the equivalent of volcanic and electric activity to make the proteins and acids combine in such a way to make rudimentary forms of life.  

Look it up, kinda devastating to the creationst's case. 

Yeah I've told him about the Miller-Urey experiment. He seems to think just because it proves that amino acids form without influence from anyone, and form based purely upon the conditions provided, that it does not refute intelligent design. lol

Then why are we still responding to him if he can't even accept true, testable, proven science?  Bias much?  



Around the Network
dsgrue3 on 19 December 2012
timmah said:

 

I give you the very first synthetic cell. Synthesized Life:


http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20100420191620data_trunc_sys.shtml

 



happydolphin on 19 December 2012
dsgrue3 said:
timmah said:

 

I give you the very first synthetic cell. Synthesized Life:

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20100420191620data_trunc_sys.shtml

I'm not sure, but I'm guessing he meant "by an unguided process". Not sure.



dsgrue3 on 19 December 2012
happydolphin said:
dsgrue3 said:
timmah said:

 

I give you the very first synthetic cell. Synthesized Life:

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20100420191620data_trunc_sys.shtml

I'm not sure, but I'm guessing he meant "by an unguided process". Not sure.

I'm sure he did, but I've already satisfied that process. This is just really interesting. Probably should have left the quotation of nothing off and direct the source to all for thoughts.



happydolphin on 19 December 2012
dsgrue3 said:

I'm sure he did, but I've already satisfied that process. This is just really interesting. Probably should have left the quotation of nothing off and direct the source to all for thoughts.

@bold. You satisfied the unguided process of abiogenesis in a non-infinite amount of time? I'm trying to follow but I may have missed it.



timmah on 19 December 2012
Jay520 said:
timmah said:

Even if you have all of those characteristics on a planet, you still have to add up all of the probabilities that lead you to even a single cell of reproducing life, as well as the fact that, if it would take billions of years for that fragile, single cell to develop, there is zero chance that the climate and conditions of the planet stay stable enough for that entire time for this fragile, first life to develop over that massive amount of time.


It seems like the only proof for you is actually recreating life (which is strange because we don't usually say, "if we can't do it, then it's not possible" to every other scientific discover). That's fine, you have your own requirements for evidence I guess, though I wish you required the same evidence for your creator. That's part of the beauty of science. You don't have to believe it right now. Scientists don't even have to believe it. So they can still research it with no faith involved, to come to the most accurate conclusion possible.

I never said 'if we can't do it, it's not possible', that would be a logical fallacy. My point was that if we can't do it on purpose, it's highly improbable it would happen on its own. I would also say, if we can do it in the lab, that doesn't mean that's how it happened with 100% certainty. My broader point is that none of this is even close to concrete, there are multiple theories about how life could have sprung up out of the early oceans, and we've been able to synthesize certain components of life in the lab (but not prove how those parts could become a living whole on their own), but none of that proves or disproves that life came from non-life, just as none of it proves or dis-proves the existence of God or intelligent design. The fact that there are so many theories even within the Abiogenesis crowd that it's obvious the scientific evidence we have is very muddy and subjective based on how you look at it. You don't have to be stupid to believe in Intelligent design, just as you don't have to be stupid to believe a different theory on how abiogenesis may have happened if indeed it did.

I guess I get tired of the assumption that anybody who believes in God or Intelligent design is somehow a dolt that lives under a rock and hates science (not saying you believe that, but many people do). I can see the same data you can, but as happens even in the scientific community, we can both come to different conclusions without either of us being stupid.