I know this is off topic, but I would just like to comment on the 'turn' in this thread. There is a person who has posted some comments that do not sit well with many, and though the subject is not relevant or of interest to me, the poster is. This person has been a loyal and trustworthy friend for over 20 years. One of the most dynamic people I know. He can be very tender and thoughtful, and be crude and brutal. He can be very intimidating as he is a very BIG person. But he is a gentle and loving father of three of the most well adjusted young adult children I have ever known. And a caring and loving husband to one of the most beautiful 'movie star' woman I have very had the pleasure to be in the presence of. And a man of great moral courage, (who has counseled me on my escapades with the ladies), and love for the Bible and the True God. A man of great intellect, more than my equal. He is known here as Blackguard. And I would trust my life and family in his care, anytime. Maverick
Abiogenesis
by Jerry Bergman 40 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
hooberus
Lets get back to the subject of this thread. Everyone needs to be careful in their comments so as to not engage in personal attacks. Lets discuss the issue of abiogenesis in a friendly manner.
-
Abaddon
Hi hooberus;
Abaddon, Most creationists believe that God has always existed as an eternal being outside of space and time so you comments that we believe in the "generation of a massively powerful supernatural being from nothing" are incorrect. Thus your comparison of the origin of life with the origin of God is a false argument as everyone agrees that life has an origin (the subject of this thread) while most creationists hold that God is eternal and has no origin.
I know this. And, to me at least, it is blinding obvious that creationists have a HUGE double standard. You can believe "God is eternal and has no origin", but you have no proof for it. It is presuppositionalistic. It's just something to say, an opinion. To believe something vastly powerful and complex DIDN'T have a begining is very hard to differentiate from believing something vastly powerful and complex sprang into being from nothing. If you can differentiate the two, go for it, I'll be fascinated. To me, to make such a unsubstansiated clain, and then to say to me "you can't prove how life came into being", is no more or less a double standard, a nice bit of cognotive disonance to avoid having to re-examine many assumptions about your faith.
Earlier on in this thread I made a comment about Blackguard probably not being a Hindu because "they're too sensible to believe their creation myths". I am talking of a fairly well-educated Hindu, of which there are millions in India. That doesn't mean that such a Hindu doesn't have faith when compared to a Hindu who believes the creation myths of the B'hgadvavita (must lean how to spell that one day). What it means is that they can see that the holy writings were written as an explaination of existence that is now obviously untrue, but that this does not remove the underlying principles of the faith.
I cannot for the life of me see why many Christians do not have enough faith in the simplicity and beauty of the underlying principles of their faith to let go of, what are pretty obviously to a modern educated person, explainations of existence that are now obviously untrue.
Is one word of Jesus diminished if we did evolve? If you think so, you have less faith than me in some ways.
...but Blackguard has seemed to be realtively civil at least on this thread.
In a pigs ear. He said I believe in what I believe so I could "dispense with morality" and "ejaculate all over the world?" If that is "realtively civil", you keep some strange company, pretty racey for a Christian! Just because he may (we all know he is, his subdifuge is futile) be a Christian, doesn't mean you have to support him when he is uttery wrong in his actions. If someone accused you of holding an opinion to justify the exercise of lust, you would be annoyed, to say the least.
Oh, I had a good weekend thank you, hope you had too. I was busy ejaculating all over the world, what did you do? Thinking about it, ejaculating all over the world sounds like an episode of Star Trek, you know, when they cum across a new planet...
Blackguard;
Hey abaddon,
I suppose you should be thanked for demonstrating what Bergman's experiences with athiests has largely been, namely, "they lack morals, honesty, compassion and often a sense of humanity".
Dullard, you recycle your insults; you said the same thing about stinkypants. What an utter joke you are. Not only are your insults falsehoods, they're not even original. And look at this codswallop;
It's just my observation that a majority of those who identify as xjws seem to take their cognitive dissonance disturbances with them when they depart the Orwellian watchtower world and exhibit them in their reasoning processes in perpetuum.
You talk about cognitive dissonance! So, the theory that something was always there even if there is no evidence is somehow more viable than a theory with strong evidencary trials that the Universe is entirely naturalistic in its origins? So, your disgusting behaviour somehow puts you on a moral highground? You are a liar, a bigot, and you talk to me of cognitive dissonance? Cling to your little words if they make your sorry world a little more secure, I think most people can see you for what you are.
I don't recall identifying myself as a Christian here. Creationists are found over the whole religious spectrum lest you're not aware. You've assumed too much and idenitified yourself as the intellectual fool you really are.
As I said "I guess you’re a Christian... ". Bold, colour and italics added for the hard of understanding. Can't you comprehend simple written English? I made statements with that assumption, yes, but I also made clear it was an assumption.
I'm well aware that there are Creationist movements in other religions, and they too play the same game, with the same ball (no bloody evidence) and the same results (can't prove where god/s came from so have to dodge the bullet by saying he/they was/were already there even though this contradicts their own arguementation elsewhere) .
And it's really funny how people of faith who are creationist believe different things, all mutually exlusive, depending on where they come from or what their faith is.
Those people of faith who believe evolution is a more accurate account believe roughly the same thing no matter what their faith is or where they come from.
Think about that, if it doesn't hurt your ickle head that much. Stick that in your cognotive dissonance and sit on it until your eyes water.
Your protest at my assumption of your Christianity just adds to the amusing possibilities of self deceit within what masquarades as your personality. You are either;
a/ A non-Christian Christian apologetic who lies and attacks people, a person who doesn't even answer ONE issue in the post he attacks, hoping his smokescreening works, a person who's wit is so muddled he recycles insults that were nonsensical and demonstrably false to start-off with... in short, the sort of non-Christian Christian aplogetic who most decent Christians would go to pains to avoid. but there are also many adherants of other religions who see their faith as part of mankinds attempt to understand
b/ All of the above, apart from actually being a Christian, with the additonal amusing self-deciet of being willing to be vauge about his faith. Any cocks crowing near you? If you are a Christian, you smell like one that's gone off.
As we have now had your 'Christianity' verified, we know that b/ is true. Sad.
Intellectual charlatans like yourself deliberately design their arguments around the more complex issues to take the focus from their lack of foundational support. It's a strategy that works well when others don't understand it. You remind me of the carpenter that scratches his head trying to figure out how to get his more complex roof structure to fit in when all the time his problem lies in his foundations not being true and solid.
So what does our bone-headed carpenter do? Why, he screams and curses and blames everyone else for making a fool of him. He has no answers. I take my hat off to you---through "bait and switch" you don't have to address the fundamentals---you've done a fine job of diverting!!
If, at any point, you had attempted to deal with the issues I raised in the post you initially attacked, this might be something you could say with validity. But, not only haven't you succeeded in answering those points, you haven't even tried. The points I raised regarding your behaviour in my response to you you have also ignored, choosing instead to try to cast a doubt over what you might believe. Theocratic warfare strategy at its finest, but we all had good teachers, didn't we?
It is sad that you think people are so stupid as to not see what you try to do. And, being the micturation of a diseased dog that you are, you again show your level by trying to turn around a comment I made about your arguementative style. You fail to realise that unlike "you %&$^$* ^$&^**&^$", which can be turned around on any one in any arguement as it is effectively meaningless, turning around a discription of argumentative techniques only works if it is true, which in this case it isn't. Just another lie, I'm losing count of all the lies you've made.
As if all this wasn't sterling testimony to what sort of person you are, you're apparently a bigot too; in my experience people who use terms of sexuality to insult (explicitly or implicitly) are very often bigots. Not only does it show what a nasty closed mind you have (hahaha, cognitive dissonance, you wouldn't know it if it BIT you), it is also, legally speaking, libel. I'm straight darling lovey sweetheart. I don't regard being called gay an insult though, so all you do is show what a thoroughly contemptable individual you are, rather than insult me in any way.
It's okay for your gay buddy to hang a label on this poster such as "a trash talking hypocrite masquerading as a Christian". How do you know I'm not a Moslem and am greatly offended by this comment?
Even if you are not a Christian (which may be a relief to any decent Christian given your behaviour), you are still a trash talking hypocrite, a lair, a bigot... is there no begining to your good qualities?
You'll notice your jaydub upbringing surfacing here to censor someone that is not in your inner circle. We used to call this discrimination, and that's your prerogative to be such.
See? You talk of discrimination yet are obviously bigoted to your core by the very language you use. You are trying to censor by insult and intimidation. You have an "inner circle" you are defending. Big fat hypocrite you are, white-washed grave full of corruption!
I say the same thing to you that I said to the oppressive watchtower elders that I had the misfortune to know; I'll gladly and willingly withdraw permanently from your narrow-minded association.
Hahahaha, you calling someone narrow-minded is one of the most wonderful acts of self-deception I've seen since I don't know when!
Why not be an adult human being, apologise, and have done with this?
Maverick; Blackguard might be lovely in your eyes and experienece. All I see here is a person of very low principles, who is edging towards dillusional in his levels self-deception. You are very careful not to state your opinion of his actions, probably out of loyalty, which is commendable. If you agreed with him, you would probably have already said so. However, if my friend of some twenty years behaved like Blackguard is behaving right now, I would consider it my duty as a friend to tell my friend how badly they were acting, and how they were actually using the equivalent of theocratic warfare strategy and making themselves look like a decietful hypocrite into the bargin, let alone appearing as a bad example of Christian behaviour. That would be better for my friend than acting as a character witness for the defence.
Typically I find when someone "deep ends" online like this, it's a result of something IRL, or the result of some deeply buried 'hot button'. If he is the nice guy you say he is, check up on him, as your descriptiuon and his behaviour are unreconcilable. He might need help.
-
hooberus
Abaddon said: I know this. And, to me at least, it is blinding obvious that creationists have a HUGE double standard. You can believe "God is eternal and has no origin", but you have no proof for it. It is presuppositionalistic. It's just something to say, an opinion. To believe something vastly powerful and complex DIDN'T have a begining is very hard to differentiate from believing something vastly powerful and complex sprang into being from nothing. If you can differentiate the two, go for it, I'll be fascinated. To me, to make such a unsubstansiated clain, and then to say to me "you can't prove how life came into being", is no more or less a double standard, a nice bit of cognotive disonance to avoid having to re-examine many assumptions about your faith.
The statement that God is eternal and has no origin is viewed by some as being proven, and by others as being speculation. Lets say for the sake of argument that it is not provable either way.
Abiogenesis however, is supposed to be based on natural laws in operation today, as well as bonding preferences and other elements of physics etc. Therefore while the concept of God existing outside of space and time may not be subject to scientific study, abiogenesis is. Therefore we should take the subject of abiogenesis and examine it from what we know about biology and natural laws and attempt to see how (based on physical principals) possible it is. A faith in abiogenesis is supposedly based on science therefore those who cling to it should be as you say willing to "re-examine" it.
I think that your constantly bringing up God therories may possibly be as you say "a nice bit of cognotive disonance to avoid having to re-examine many assumptions about your faith [in abiogenesis]"
Now lets all get back to the subject of abiogenesis. I suggested that Jerry start this thread so as to discuss the issue of abiogenesis. On a previous thread I said:
Jerry, I think that it would be good to start a new post on abiogenesis. I've thought about starting one. If you do I'll move my above questions there.
- These creation/evolution debates seem to do better when restricted to a specific topic (like the "DNA and Mans Origin" topic) otherwise they seem meander all over the place.
- When limited to a specific topic its harder for those who wish to engage in personal attacks to succeed as they should not be allowed to divert the issue to ad hominem attacks.
I see that this thread has turned into one that meanders all over the place with "theories of God" and one where ad hominem attacks have prevailed thus far.
If people wish to discuss abiogenesis in a friendly manner, please post here. If people wish to engage is personal battles please start a new thread or better yet switch to e-mail so that you don't violate Simons posting gudielines as well as waste his time having to referee these things.
-
Realist
hooberus,
to believe in abiogenesis is the logical conclusion based on what science has found over the last 400 years. God was made responsible for lightning and thunder, earthquakes and illness. however over the centuries it was demonstrated that all these things are the result of a small number of physical laws that guides the behavior of matter.
the questions that are not answered conclusively so far are where does the universe come from and where does life on earth come from. a lot of evidence was gathered that suggests that matter assembled itself to self replicating systems....the right conditions have not been found that allowed cells to form but to automatically conculde it had to be God who put life on earth is a LITTLE premajure considering what we already know.
-
hooberus
Realist said: to believe in abiogenesis is the logical conclusion based on what science has found over the last 400 years. God was made responsible for lightning and thunder, earthquakes and illness. however over the centuries it was demonstrated that all these things are the result of a small number of physical laws that guides the behavior of matter.
While everyone agrees that present physical process explain phenomena such as lightning and earthquakes, can present physical processes explain the origin of life effectively?
Realist said: a lot of evidence was gathered that suggests that matter assembled itself to self replicating systems....
What evidence are you referring to?
Earlier Realist said: about the theoretical limit. if you think about it 2 genes would be sufficient (as a purly theoretical limit) for a self replicating system based on nucleotides and amino acids. a RNA strand encoding a RNA polymerase and an enzyme that facilitaes protein formation based on the RNA template.
I would like to know if this would indeed function as a self-replicating system, an if so how likely is such as system to come into being?Earlier Realist said: also if clay minerals favor one stereoisomer over the other than this is quite significant since it potentially eliminates the L D problem.
To what extent to clay minerals favor for example L amino acids over D amino acids?
-
Abaddon
hooberus; Just a point; one person started the ad hom (although he has got back what he paid for), and has only been directly criticised by those on the opposite side of the debate. Hmmm.
You say;
I think that your constantly bringing up God therories may possibly be as you say "a nice bit of cognotive disonance to avoid having to re-examine many assumptions about your faith [in abiogenesis]"
hooberus, you obviously are smart enough to remember I have stated quite clearly that I personally feel there is no closure on origins, either in terms of cosmos or life. I hope I have made it clear that I believe one should look at the internal logic of unprovable theories. And of course I bring up god theories, it's what one does talking to a Creationist, just as you bring up Evolutionary theories talking to an 'evolutionist'.
A literalistic interpretation of the god of the Bible fails in terms of internal logic. I've given examples. You have not countered one.
Until you can show me that I am wrong as far as my analysis of the internal logic of a literalistic interpretation of the god of the Bible, and all the beliefs that go with it (Creaion, Flood, Miracles, Virgin Birth, Incarnated Deity, Resurection, etc.), you poking holes in a theory I happily admit is in progress is futile. I'm not saying it's provable, and you keep asking me to show it is provable. I think it's more likely than opposing theories of god, as at least it has some demonstrable basis, even if not closure.
Some of the topics you question are answered by the URLs I have posted earlier.
I do feel that if you believe that God is eternal and has no origin and this is proven, there's no point in discussing it with you. What do you believe?
You also swereve from my main point that, whatever there is, it ain't the god one would expect from reading the Bible.
And I am really interested as to your reaction to this point;
Earlier on in this thread I made a comment about Blackguard probably not being a Hindu because "they're too sensible to believe their creation myths". I am talking of a fairly well-educated Hindu, of which there are millions in India. That doesn't mean that such a Hindu doesn't have faith when compared to a Hindu who believes the creation myths of the B'hgadvavita (must lean how to spell that one day). What it means is that they can see that the holy writings were written as an explaination of existence that is now obviously untrue, but that this does not remove the underlying principles of the faith.
I cannot for the life of me see why many Christians do not have enough faith in the simplicity and beauty of the underlying principles of their faith to let go of, what are pretty obviously to a modern educated person, explainations of existence that are now obviously untrue.
-
Realist
hooberus,
While everyone agrees that present physical process explain phenomena such as lightning and earthquakes, can present physical processes explain the origin of life effectively?
well this is the point of investigation right now. one assumes that there are conditions that would allow self replicating systems to form. to identify such a system is the current goal.
certain molecules catalyze their own production.Realist said: a lot of evidence was gathered that suggests that matter assembled itself to self replicating systems....
What evidence are you referring to?
this was just a theoretical remark concerning the claim that 400 genes are required for a self replicating system. although it is impossible to do probability calculations it is clear that such a system is extremely unlikely to be the starting point for evolution. precursors must have existed.Earlier Realist said: about the theoretical limit. if you think about it 2 genes would be sufficient (as a purly theoretical limit) for a self replicating system based on nucleotides and amino acids. a RNA strand encoding a RNA polymerase and an enzyme that facilitaes protein formation based on the RNA template.
I would like to know if this would indeed function as a self-replicating system, an if so how likely is such as system to come into being?
sorry my mistake...clay minerals mainly stabalizes peptides... the preference of L aa comes directly from the salt induced peptide formation under the presence of Cu II ions. Cu II ions form a chiral center that accomodates L aa. a paper will be published about this in a few month.Earlier Realist said: also if clay minerals favor one stereoisomer over the other than this is quite significant since it potentially eliminates the L D problem.
To what extent to clay minerals favor for example L amino acids over D amino acids?
-
hooberus
Abaddon said: Until you can show me that I am wrong as far as my analysis of the internal logic of a literalistic interpretation of the god of the Bible, and all the beliefs that go with it (Creaion, Flood, Miracles, Virgin Birth, Incarnated Deity, Resurection, etc.), you poking holes in a theory I happily admit is in progress is futile. I'm not saying it's provable, and you keep asking me to show it is provable. I think it's more likely than opposing theories of god, as at least it has some demonstrable basis, even if not closure.
Abaddon, the Thread is called "Abiogenesis" not "Genesis vs. Abiogenesis" If Abigenesis is reasonably supportable, then please defend it.
I cannot for the life of me see why many Christians do not have enough faith in the simplicity and beauty of the underlying principles of their faith to let go of, what are pretty obviously to a modern educated person, explainations of existence that are now obviously untrue.
First of all evolution strikes at the heart of "the underlying principals" of the Christian faith. Secondly, the explanations of existance from Genesis are in line with observation, more so than evolution. Today we observe people coming from people. Historical records such as family trees show that larger numbers of people come from fewer numbers of people. Extrapolating backwards in time we get back to 2 people. DNA evidence shows that all livings humans decended recently from 1 woman. An extrapolation based on present observation never will take us back to people coming from fish, etc. Even with aboignesis, the simplest organisms found in nature based on DNA or RNA are of course way to complex to have come into existance completely, hense evolutionists have to propose hypothetical pre-cursers to the cell. Where are these pre-cursers at today? One would think that either some of these primitive pre-cells would have survived like "living fossils" (pun intended, I crack myself up !), or that they would be forming in the present oceans or clays.
Abaddon said: You also swereve from my main point that, whatever there is, it ain't the god one would expect from reading the Bible.
The main point here is abiogenesis. We have done two sepecific threads "DNA and Mans Origin" as well as "Abiogenesis" in which you have swerved around both topics on these threads like a drunk driver. I have spent time on your questions (such as Matthew 27:53) when I have time and when they are asked on an appropriate thread.
-
hooberus
Realist said: "certain molecules catalyze their own production."
Are you referring to prions? or are there others?
"although it is impossible to do probability calculations it is clear that such a system is extremely unlikely to be the starting point for evolution. precursors must have existed."
wouldn't the precursors have to have been self-replicating?