Putting the 'probability argument' against abiogenesis in the grave once and for all

by bohm 51 Replies latest jw friends

  • mindmelda
    mindmelda

    I always ask people...How do you think YOU began? No one knows at what point consciousness develops, because it's literally a cell by cell process in an embryo too. Now, it's true that no one can pinpoint the exact moment inanimate process becomes animate, but if someone thinks that because it's not pinpointed that God comes in and animates every collection of blastocysts in every female reproductive system, well, that's just...silly and a little weird. What happened to all the blastocysts and embryos that don't make it to the next stage, was there not enough holy spirit or something?

    The process that makes life has to be inherent in the process itself, or you have a pretty ridiculous supernatural scenario going on. It doesn't matter to me if someone thinks supernatural power has something to do with it at some point, originally, but the process itself is self-sustaining to some degree or it just isn't very feasible. Needing supernatural intervention for every animation in every organism on earth is a very inefficient process when all that's required is for the process to be self sustaining.

    If you believe God would make something so clumsy, he's not that great a Creator, and believe me, the biological and reproductive processes, as amazing as they are, are anything but perfect in ALL organisms, not just supposedly "iimperfect" humans. Nature makes lots of mistakes every day, and not just in humans, obviously. But, the process of cellular death, if you're a biologist isn't a mistake, in fact, it's one of the best indications of cellular health. Cells that lose their ability to die and be replaced are called cancer, for that's what it is. You don't want a cell that doesn't die, believe me.

    The ability to regenerate indefinitely or quite a bit longer than human cells do is found in nature, but nothing has been found that lives "forever" whatever that means. That would require a total reworking of everything in our bodies on a genetic level. I don't know what we'd be after that, but not human anymore.

    We'd be a new species of human, and without death in the life cycle, we'd lose the need for reproduction too, which would pretty much point to what the good old WTS hints at a human paradise would be...sexless androgynous humans just existing to putter around a garden for eternity, feeding Val...I mean offering praise to Jehovah. (sorry, little Star Trek moment there, episode "The Apple"..look it up if you're not into Trek...interesting scifi take on the Garden of Eden story)

    Sounds fun, NOT! and again, we wouldn't be human as we know humanity now, because the reproductive process involves every other system of the body, not just the reproductive organs. You can't just shut it off or get rid of it without changing the organism fundamentally on every level, even the brain.

    But, it also doesn't explain how Adam and Eve could be deathless and still be able to reproduce. Deathless creatures wouldn't have the need, so there'd have to be some serious breaking of the laws of biological processes we know now for that to happen. IN other words, Adam and Eve, if they existed literally, would not have been humans as we know them, nothing like us physically.

    That's one big reason that as someone whose studied biology and medicine, the so called perfection equalling deathlessness of Adam and Eve makes absolutely no sense at all. To be human, biologically speaking, means to die, so you're not human if you can't die. So what the hell where they, if they existed, aliens?

    Death is part of the life cycle for every living creature on earth, and we share all of our DNA with everything on earth, but I'm supposed to believe that humans were created as the exception to that basic biological rule? Nah, uh uh, that dog just won't hunt.

  • sir82
    sir82

    Even assuming the "50 gazillion to one against" argument were plausible....

    What evidence is there that there haven't been "50 gazillion" universes which failed before the one we currently live in now?

    Eternity is a pretty long time. Plenty of time for the exact right combination of things to come together.

    Put another way: If I play the same 6 numbers in a lottery for a few billion years, eventually I will win.

  • Terry
    Terry

    You can't compute probability when an event occurs only once.

  • bohm
    bohm

    sssh Terry, you risk getting killed by a flock of enraged bayesians ;-)

  • mindmelda
    mindmelda

    Bayesians come in flocks?

    Is that like a pride of lions or a gaggle of geese? LOL

  • Terry
    Terry

    How can you discuss an issue predicated on a non-probability by presenting it in terms of probability???

    Do you know how we get Paradoxes? SELF-REFERENCE.

    Get yourself a Post-it note pad.

    Tear off a sheet.

    On one side write this sentence: The statement on the other side of this Post-it is false.

    Turn it over and write this sentence: The statement on the other side of this Post-it is true.

    Which of those two statements is True and which is False?

    The answer, of course, is that self-reference defeats context and renders "meaning" as meaningless.

    We are conscious.

    Analyzing consciousness BY USING consciousness is self-reference and leads to paradox-thinking.

    Why? Because you can't lift yourself up by your own bootstraps no matter how strong you are.

  • bohm
    bohm

    MM: Like geese that drink a lot of coffee!

  • Judge Dread
    Judge Dread

    I have never seen so much effort put forward in trying to prove someone does not exist.

    What a sad lot.

    Judge Dread

  • Psychotic Parrot
    Psychotic Parrot

    You honestly think that science & the pursuit of knowledge regarding our origins & existence is merely an attempt to prove that God doesn't exist? What an ignorant arsehole you are. You're a disgrace to humanity. Fuck off & don't come back.

  • bohm
    bohm

    JD, i wrote this post to thinking theists who -without knowing better- think a particular argument say something it does not. If you think caring if what one say is true or false makes a person 'sad', well, that really says it all.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit