Jump to content


Photo

Life Only Comes From Life


  • Please log in to reply
432 replies to this topic

#41 chigaimasmaro

chigaimasmaro

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • The Stream of Time

Posted 18 April 2009 - 06:47 PM

No, various experiments have pushed things down the path in one area of assembly or another, but it's a complex process. Even once it's been sufficient reverse-engineered, engineering it remains a challenge, in the way that reverse engineering a log circuit does not mean you can automatically build one like it yourself. You have to acquire the tools and expertise to build logic circuits in *addition* to the knowledge you've gained in reverse engineering.

Organic life as an emergent property of physical law is a daunting challenge to reverse engineer. Because the processes and mechanisms appear to have been incidental, and the materials involved have long since totally vanished, it's much more difficult than reverse engineering that a telic engineer designed.

But science keeps chipping away at it, and progress is being made. Here's an interesting paper about to come out that details some new discovers of the thermodynamic affinity of 10 of the 20 amino acids needed for the proteins thought to be used in abiogenesis:

A thermodynamic basis for prebiotic amino acid synthesis and the nature of the first genetic code

You can download the full PDF and read the whole thing. Just another piece of the puzzle. These amino acids have an "automaticness" in their interactions that we hadn't known previously, making that part of the sequence much more automatic and less coincidental/stochastic then we had thought previously.

View Post

I'm reading the paper now. Will try to digest it and make a reply later

The trick is assembly. The actual material supply is not really a problem. But nevertheless, if we run out of the raw materials life needs to survive and propagate, life's in big trouble.

View Post

This statement is a confusing one to me, because if actually material supply isn't really a problem than life wouldnt be in trouble. What is the different being "actual material supply" and "the raw materials"?

It doesn't 'know' anything in the strict sense,  of course. One way that organisms adapt is through mutations, where individuals in a population with a more advantageous set of traits, acquired through mutation tend to survive and propagate more reliably than their peers. But other mechanisms exist for adapting, as well. Gene expression, for example, can be affected by environmental stress, triggering activation or deactivation of features that exist in the genome, but are inactive.

View Post


Lynn Margulis who is a holistic evolutionist said this in an interview:

Furthermore, it was admitted, from the very beginning because it was measurable, that more than 99% of all detectable mutations, heritable changes were negative, mutations were mainly deleterious. They rationalized. One sees that less than 1% of genetic mutations, measurable heritable change, are not deleterious. They are presumably favorable. If enough favorable mutations occur, was the erroneous extrapolation, a change from one species to another would concurrently occur.

She later goes on to say that such an ideal is wish-fulfillment. Her view is that life come together through cooperation and not mutation and competition. But in both, it doesn't say explain the mechanism.. its inferred... so it begs the same question of if the amino acids did come together by chance.. and for some reason knew to replicate.. and mutations harm species rather than help, how could it know to compensate for the changing environment? There's a mutant that will die in the group, but could withstand the environmental change.. if the rest of the group dies when the environment changes occurs and the mutant will die without spawning cause well, its a deletion not an additon.. what would be the next step in that case? Please let me know if I'm still missing something.

I think the piece you are missing is the massive number of trials and failures. It's something like a search algorithm, where a great multitude of different steps and paths are explored, and the vast majority do not result in some positive development. But if you can try one million different variations, just randomly, you only need one or several to succeed to pave a path to that adaptation. The other attempts fail, and if the adaptational pressure is high, they die off. If we were just talking about a single baby, or a single organism, it would be implausible indeed, that kind of "foresight". Evolutionary theory posits no foresight per se, but a brute search that is eeffective in finding nearby, adaptive solutions through a whole lot of trial and error.

View Post

Trial and error, interesting. So, that means that the first cellular life, split, copying the same information, over and over again; one would have to infer or assume or whatever word one would want to use, postulate might be better, that the organism would to try something different. That doesn't seem random, and you've lost me. Thats indicative of a purpose. If it was trying to survive the adaptational pressure, did it know the pressure was there? If it didnt know the pressure was there, wouldnt it just continue to live and split and breed and then die off? Where would the trial and error phase need to kick in?


I don't think evolutionary biologists consider humans "highest" in any fundamental sense. A biologist is as likely to tell you that a bacterium is the most highly evolved organism as he is to tell you that a human is.  Humans certainly have complex features that are unique, like the cerebral cortex, but "higher" is a problematic term in the evolutionary paradigm. The highest forms of life, I would say, are the ones that have survived to the present day.

View Post

I give you that, neo-darwin biologist will think that. Why would "higher" be problematic word? Isn't neo-darwinism and macroevolution all about changing into a better organism? If its true, and the ones that have "survived" are the winners... boy are we in trouble! I've taught in high school in Philadelphia! <_< hahaha

Seriously, I wonder, if that is the case, why not just sit and let evolution do its things?

I messed up the quotes, i hope this is readable.
edit: I fixed the quotes for you - Adam_777

#42 oliver

oliver

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Brittany, France

Posted 18 April 2009 - 10:42 PM

I think the piece you are missing is the massive number of trials and failures. It's something like a search algorithm, where a great multitude of different steps and paths are explored, and the vast majority do not result in some positive development. But if you can try one million different variations, just randomly, you only need one or several to succeed to pave a path to that adaptation.

View Post

This demonstrates that evolutionists have either no understanding of or no respect for probability.

There are 20 amino acids used in living things. The simplest protein, insulin, has 51 amino acids. The largest has around 50,000. There is a limited set of proteins that perform a useful function. But the number of possible combinations of amino acids is inexpressibly vast.

For a very simple protein of say 50 amino acids, the possible search field is 20^50, which is 1.13e+65. The number of atoms in the universe is estimated at 1.0e+81. The search field for a protein of 100 amino acids is 1.27e+130.

With such numbers, the idea that useful proteins could form by chance is not even worth considering. Your mention of "one million different variations" shows that you have no conception of the scale of the problem. One million is 1.0e+6; it's tiny!

Then there is the concept of repeatability. The Miller-Urey experiment showed that one needs specially designed conditions to preserve naturally occurring amino acids; the special conditions include the absence of oxygen (which is a big problem) and mechanisms for removing products that would destroy the just-created amino acids. Such conditions are never observed outside the laboratory. But repeatability requires that this special environment should be common. Where's the evidence of that?

Next, your concept requires that there be a system that can be built up, step by step. But the natural direction of chemical entropy is to break down these systems.

Next, given (with great generosity) that there is a system that survives and can be added to, it must be capable of reliable reproduction or else there is nothing to build on. There is nothing about such a hypothetical initial system that could ensure that. Reliable reproduction in living things requires a very complicated system, with many checks.

Next, building proteins requires making peptide bonds, which require energy. They are also broken up by oxygen and water. This would destroy the new near-proteins before they got as far as being useful.

Next, all living things use laevo-chiral proteins. But proteins occur naturally in even quantities of laevo- and dextro-chirality. They naturally join together irrespective of chirality. The chance of a single protein of say 445 amino acids being all laevo-chiral is (ignoring an estimated 8% glycine, which does not have a chiral form) about 10^123 against.

And so on. The number of stages from basic amino acids to a single cell is very great, and each stage is massively improbable. So massively improbable that each one is not worth considering, let alone the whole chain. Only blind faith keeps the evolutionists going.

#43 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 19 April 2009 - 06:06 AM

Oliver,

That was a mouthful (I had to look up quite a few words there) and I have to say that all that is enough to show that the atheist faith is a strong one.

Is Insulin really the simplest protein?

Now I want to add another wrench into the abiogenesis fantasy. Ribosome proteins manufacture proteins and DNA code for making ribosomes. So let's imagine that a ribosome fell together by shear dumb luck. The moment it happened the DNA would have to simultaneously, by shear dumb luck, have a mutation that codes for making more ribosomes. <_<

Just look at the family of proteins needed to get from DNA to RNA...
Kyf2vokOo88

Remember the DNA being unzipped and read by these proteins is also coded to make the proteins that do the unzipping and reading of the DNA which are being unzipped and read by these proteins which are also coded to make the proteins that do the unzipping and reading of the DNA being unzipped and read by these proteins which are also coded to make the proteins that do the unzipping and reading of the DNA being unzipped and read by these proteins which are also coded to make the proteins that do the unzipping and reading of the DNA...

Well you get the picture. (Ken Miller, call your office. You can take your co-option theory and burn it with your mousetrap tie clasp.)

The reason the Labs that waste their time with these abiogenesis experiments are foolish is because the Lab is not proving anything, they are merely trying to take the role that belongs to the parent organism. They aren't showing how life began, they are just trying to cobble together a bastard organism by replacing the parent's function. That's not life from none-life, it would be a parlor trick only, just like Miller/Urey and just like RNA world.

Adam

#44 oliver

oliver

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Brittany, France

Posted 19 April 2009 - 07:16 AM

Is Insulin really the simplest protein?

View Post

I believe so. The average size in the simplest organism is around 445. They go up to 10,000 odd.

Source for probability estimates.

#45 chigaimasmaro

chigaimasmaro

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • The Stream of Time

Posted 19 April 2009 - 10:55 AM

That was an interesting paper (A thermodynamic basis for prebiotic amino acid synthesis and the nature of the first genetic code)and after reading through it, it gives you the impression that the early Earth must have been a flurry of activity; a reducing atmosphere, heavy meteorite activity, and hydrothermal venting. Glad I don't have to go to work through that kind of stuff. No wonder life is called a "miracle", between all that was happening on the Earth, its pretty amazing that we got to this point today, right?


I'm hoping for help in this area, but was the early earth hit by THIS many meteorites?

Thus, meteoritic compositional data and extrapolated impact rate are relevant for understanding pre-biotic conditions and suggest that meteorites contributed significantly to the organics present on Earth over 4 GA ago - at delivery rates of the order 10 to the power 8 kg per yr (Pierazzo and Chyba, 1999). " Page 3



10 to the power of 8 kilograms per year of these molecules for hundreds of thousands of years is a lot of meteorites hitting earth. I know in the paper that it doesn't state the amount of years, but in the theory of evolution, we know things don't happen as quickly as in other theories. Did the reducing atmosphere cause any friction for the meteorites? Or did the meteorites pass through without it hindrance? Meteorites that make it through our current atmosphere are relatively smaller size due to friction. So if they pass through without friction, that would mean less meteorites, more damage on impact. If there was friction, the meteorites would be smaller, less damage, but it would take more time to get to that amount of molecules. In both scenarios, the molecules would have to somehow, once they've landed on earth, replicate.

One question that I have, is that if this did happen, wouldn't they be able to take a meteorite that crashed on earth and subject it to these experiments and create a complete life form?


The layout of the code is far from random. It is important to note that
codons that differ by only one out of the three base positions are often assigned to amino acids with similar properties. As a result, the effects of mutations and translational errors are minimized. The canonical genetic code is better than all but a tiny fraction of randomly rearranged codes in this respect (Freeland et al. 2003). This suggests the strong role of natural selection in building up the code. Selection will favor the assignment of new amino acids to codons that previously coded for amino acids with similar properties (Higgs and Pudritz, 2007; Higgs 2009) because this will be minimally disruptive to the genes that were already encoded by the smaller amino acid set before the new one was introduced. As a result, neighboring codons in the final code will end up with similar properties - page 9 (emphasis mine)


If the layout of the code isn't random, then why for 8 previous papers was the build up to the idea that the amino acids created new amino acids through natural selection? Or is Natural selection not random mutations or trial and error anymore.

If the layout of the original smaller code isn't random, and it had error correction, where does the randomly rearranged codes come from? The mutation and errors that can occur are minimized; if errors are minimized, how is new information added? Anything new to the code sequence would be considered an error. This is like saying that 32megabytes of error correcting RAM, could somehow add more bits to itself. Even if you took a byte that favored the other bits and added it on the stick of ram, the error correcting function would STILL reject the additional bit. The only way around this is to manipulate the error correcting code. If that was done, then the result would be outside of standards and wouldn't be reproduced due to it being incompatible and would be deleted anyway. And as the researchers are bringing out, the sequence doesn't seem to be THAT tolerant of changes.

At the beginning they are saying it isn't random, but two sentences later it IS randomly rearranged? I hope that's a grammatical error in the first sentence. Or if I'm mixing things up, please feel free to correct me.

#46 oliver

oliver

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Brittany, France

Posted 19 April 2009 - 11:40 AM

I'm hoping for help in this area, but was the early earth hit by THIS many meteorites?
10 to the power of 8 kilograms per year of these molecules for hundreds of thousands of years is a lot of meteorites hitting earth.

10^8 kg is 100,000 tonnes per year. That's not a lot in comparison to the mass of the earth.

mass of Earth = 5.9742 × 10^24 kilograms

So the amount hitting the earth annually was supposedly about one fiftieth of one quadrillionth of its mass.


But you ask, was the early earth hit by so many meteorites? A YEC answer can only be No. For a start the early earth was only 6000 years ago and secondly, God created it very good. That would not include being bombarded with meteorites!

I know in the paper that it doesn't state the amount of years, but in the theory of evolution, we know things don't happen as quickly as in other theories.  Did the reducing atmosphere cause any friction for the meteorites? Or did the meteorites pass through without it hindrance?

Any atmosphere of any kind would cause friction and the volatilisation of smaller items.

Meteorites that make it through our current atmosphere are relatively smaller size due to friction.  So if they pass through without friction, that would mean less meteorites, more damage on impact.  If there was friction, the meteorites would be smaller, less damage, but it would take more time to get to that amount of molecules.  In both scenarios, the molecules would have to somehow, once they've landed on earth, replicate.

None of these evolutionist scenarios invite you to go into basic practical details. Since the reducing atmosphere is now being shown to be false, they will have to come up with a different imaginative scenario. But don't worry, they will manage it as always, and assure us that it is a fact!

One question that I have, is that if this did happen, wouldn't they be able to take a meteorite that crashed on earth and subject it to these experiments and create a complete life form?
If the layout of the code isn't random, then why for 8 previous papers was the build up to the idea that the amino acids created new amino acids through natural selection?  Or is Natural selection not random mutations or trial and error anymore.

If the layout of the original smaller code isn't random, and it had error correction, where does the randomly rearranged codes come from? The mutation and errors that can occur are minimized; if errors are minimized, how is new information added?  Anything new to the code sequence would be considered an error.   This is like saying that 32megabytes of error correcting RAM, could somehow add more bits to itself. Even if you took a byte that favored the other bits and added it on the stick of ram, the error correcting function would STILL reject the additional bit.  The only way around this is to manipulate the error correcting code.  If that was done, then the result would be outside of standards and wouldn't be reproduced due to it being incompatible and would be deleted anyway.  And as the researchers are bringing out, the sequence doesn't seem to be THAT tolerant of changes.  

At the beginning they are saying it isn't random, but two sentences later it IS randomly rearranged?  I hope that's a grammatical error in the first sentence.  Or if I'm mixing things up, please feel free to correct me.

View Post

This is evolutionary abiogenesis. It doesn't have to make sense; it's like an idol. You bow down to it, even though it's complete nonsense.

  1 You people of Israel, listen to what the LORD has to say to you.

  2 The LORD says,
"Do not start following pagan religious practices.
Do not be in awe of signs that occur in the sky
even though the nations hold them in awe.
  3 For the religion of these people is worthless.
They cut down a tree in the forest,
and a craftsman makes it into an idol with his tools.
  4 He decorates it with overlays of silver and gold.
He uses hammer and nails to fasten it together
so that it will not fall over.
  5 Such idols are like scarecrows in a cucumber field.
They cannot talk.
They must be carried
because they cannot walk.
Do not be afraid of them
because they cannot hurt you.
And they do not have any power to help you."

  6 I said,
"There is no one like you, LORD.
You are great.
And you are renowned for your power.
  7 Everyone should revere you, O King of all nations,
because you deserve to be revered.
For there is no one like you
among any of the wise people of the nations nor among any of their kings.
  8 The people of those nations are both stupid and foolish.
Instruction from a wooden idol is worthless!
  9 Hammered-out silver is brought from Tarshish
and gold is brought from Uphaz to cover those idols.
They are the handiwork of carpenters and goldsmiths.
They are clothed in blue and purple clothes.
They are all made by skillful workers.

  10 The LORD is the only true God.
He is the living God and the everlasting King.
When he shows his anger the earth shakes.
None of the nations can stand up to his fury.
  11 You people of Israel should tell those nations this:
'These gods did not make heaven and earth.
They will disappear from the earth and from under the heavens.'

  12 The LORD is the one who by his power made the earth.
He is the one who by his wisdom established the world.
And by his understanding he spread out the skies.
  13 When his voice thunders, the heavenly ocean roars.
He makes the clouds rise from the far-off horizons.
He makes the lightning flash out in the midst of the rain.
He unleashes the wind from the places where he stores it.

  14 All these idolaters will prove to be stupid and ignorant.
Every goldsmith will be disgraced by the idol he made.
For the image he forges is merely a sham.
There is no breath in any of those idols.
  15 They are worthless, mere objects to be mocked.
When the time comes to punish them, they will be destroyed.

  16 The LORD, who is the inheritance of Jacob's descendants, is not like them.
He is the one who created everything.
And the people of Israel are those he claims as his own.
He is known as the LORD who rules over all."



#47 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 22 April 2009 - 11:01 AM

I believe the term comes from Pasteur who used this phrase as a means of refuting creationists, those who thought complex forms of life spontaneous poofed out out nowhere. John Needham left out cheese, or some boiled broth, and when he later returned to find fungus, he declared that life spontaneously arose overnight.

View Post


Thanks Touchstone for responding so promptly. I have been out of town and unable to respond recently.

I think you are quite confused on your history, so I will try to help you. Creationists believed and still do believe in a one time creation event or series of events. Creationists never have believed in spontaneous generation of any life form from non-living matter. Pasteur was a creationist. The abiogenesists were those who theorized spontaneous generation, because it was contrary to creation and because it was supported by certain observations.

The Law of Biogenesis did not come from Pasteur. Fransecso Redi theorized that all living matter comes from pre-existing life. "All life comes from life". That was the theory of biogenesis which became the law of biogenesis after years of supporting universal evidence.

The "poofing" concept is not one that creationists have ever latched on to. "Poofing" comes from atheistic science. It is involved in the BBT and the OOL theories using spontaneous generation. It is non-creationists who believe in "poofing"

Pasteur published experiments that debunked that, showing that currently, we only see life arise from life. And that's still true, for us; life today only arise from non-life, observationally. As a law for today, it's quite forceful.


But you said earlier that there was no law of biogenesis. Is this a retraction? Yes it is quite a forceful law supported by countless observations. The observation list of BBT and TOE pale in comparison to the LOB.

As a universal law, it's completely implausible. The only way that law would hold is if life and the earth were infinitely old, and had no beginning.


I agree. It is completely implausible for those whose minds who use fallacious thought processes. You have just proposed a fallacy of false dichotomy. The only way you propose is not the only choice!

You see creationists theorize that life was created and designed by a creator. This is not one of your plausible choices. That's so sad. It must be like being locked into a cultural religion where you cannot by law consider any other religion. There are those kinds of religions you know. For that is what atheistic science is today. It doesn't allow the consideration of any religious explanation like creation. That's why we call atheistic science religious. That's why we call evolution religious.

You see the creationist theory of OOL is compatible with the LOB which would make it universal. The creator is alive, and yes He is also infinitely old and has no beginning. All original life forms on this earth came from Him. All life comes from pre-exiting life.

So your fallacious way of thinking is a result of your religious paradigm. I don't like fallacies, so I try and get rid of them.

We don't know of any that we can observe now, and shan't expect to find any. But we have very good reason to believe that there was a time when no life existed, and we also observe that life now exists, so we deduce from that that the history of the planet goes from "no-life" to "life" at some point.


I highlighted one very important word for you in your statement. BELIEVE. That's a faith word isn't it? You see atheistic scientists have faith also. You do yourself. And you reason with your faith. I have no problem with that at all. Creationists do this all the time. In fact we recognize it and are proud of it. I just hope that someday atheists like yourself will also recognize your own faith rather than hide behind the "scientific" myth.

Creationists also believe (that's a faith statement) that life on this earth did not exist in the past. Then God created it, and life on earth came from the Father of all the living.

So, as a matter of current observation, the idea that life comes from life is quite consistent. But given the no life->life transition that is posited by the earth's history, as well as our understanding that while life comes from life, it does so with small variations, being that over enormous spans of time, life can evolve from something very close to non-life into what it is today, we understand that law to be instructive as a current guide, but impotent as a universal one.


Now this paragraph really demonstrates how little you really understand the scientific process. Science is all about explaining the causes of phenomena. The phenomena are observed (not necessarily directly) and then hypotheses and theories and eventually laws are developed.

When it comes to the level of theory or law, the only thing that can render it "impotent" is an observation or a phenomena that is observed in the present. No theory or law can be falsified by a rationalization or another theory even. Such was the case in Biogenesis versus Abiogenesis. These were two competing scientific theories over the same phenomena. Abiogenesis was falsified. Read the Huxley address. Biogenesis was elevated to law status.

Just because science has BBT and TOE and they propose billions of years and a OOL event does nothing to render LOB impotent. Science will have to demonstrate a phenomena in the present to falsify LOB. Hypotheses, Theories, Philosophical Assumptions and any other kind of rational thought processes do not falsify anything. It takes an observation.

Now Huxley was well aware of this, because even though I think he was wrong on many things, I do think he followed the scientific method. In regard to Abiogenesis he declared:

And looking back through the prodigious vista of the past, I find no record of the commencement of life, and therefore I am devoid of any means of forming a definite conclusion as to the conditions of its appearance. Belief, in the scientific sense of the word, is a serious matter, and needs strong foundations. To say, therefore, in the admitted absence of evidence, that I have any belief as to the mode in which the existing forms of life have originated, would be using words in a wrong sense. But expectation is permissible where belief is not; and if it were given me to look beyond the abyss of geologically recorded time to the still more remote period when the earth was passing through physical and chemical conditions, which it can no more see again than a man can recall his infancy, I should expect to be a witness of the evolution of living protoplasm from not living matter. I should expect to see it appear under [257] forms of great simplicity, endowed, like existing fungi, with the power of determining the formation of new protoplasm from such matters as ammonium carbonates, oxalates and tartrates, alkaline and earthy phosphates, and water, without the aid of light. That is the expectation to which analogical reasoning leads me; but I beg you once more to recollect that I have no right to call my opinion anything but an act of philosophical faith.


You see Huxley had faith that science would learn more about the past. Atheistic science has many more rationalizations about the past today than we did when Huxley was alive. But that is all they are. Rationalizations, theories ect. But these do not nullify the LOB. That will take an experiment. Just like Pasteur's experiment falsifies spontaneous generation.

Are you suggesting that there's no sceintific publications that dispute that the earth and life upon it is infinitely old, eternal? If we pull up all the astronomy papers on the formulation of the solar system and its planets, including the earth, each on of those would discredit the law of biogenesis. Even if you suppose some kind of panspermia scenario, the scientific evidence for the beginning of the entire universe is broad and strong, again falsifying the idea of the law of biogenesis as a universal.


Nope, sorry. None of these papers or any other theory will falsify or diminish LOB. Learn this please! It will take an experiment in which life spontaneously forms from non-living matter. Nothing less is valid in science.

The irony in your objection is that Huxley was trying to refute these ideas from creationists concerning spontaneous generation, happening all around them, in the view of the creationists. Huxley was certainly aware of Darwin's theories. Do you think he was just confused? No, his argument, like Pasteur's was aimed at showing how things worked now. Darwin's theory gives an account of how things got to be the way they are in terms of all the diverse life forms, but noone on the scientific side of things was thinking that abiogenesis, especially the fantastic creationist idea of "special creation" or "spontaneous generation" as opposed to abiogesis occurring gradually just once many many millions of years ago (they didn't suppose billions back then). Pasteur and Huxley were refuting *current* accounts of spontaneous generation and special creation, not the abiogenesis of all life originally, way back then. As I keep saying, logically it is necessary that life come from non-life at some point, else the earth and life bust be eternal.


As I said earlier, your history is really mixed up here, and flat out wrong. It was the abiogenesists who theorized spontaneous generation. Not creationists.

Logical people are wrong all the time. The scientific method is a means of preventing those logical errors. I suggest you start following it in regards to Biogenesis.

And by the way, you don't have billions of years for abiogenesis according to atheistic science. You only have millions.

Evolutionary theory provides and account of how diverse life forms developed from a very simple, very rudimentary common ancestor. How that root ancestor population of living things came to be is out of scope for evolution. Evolution works as well with panspermia as the explanation for the root common ancestor as it does abiogenesis.  What evolutionary theory does say is that the existing, developed forms of life we observe are the progeny of parents, with small variations in their genes and phenotypes.

But evolution does NOT proscribe abiogenesis occurring in a natural way, even now. It's plausible that abiogenesis has happened a million times, occurring in the enabled environments (deep sea thermal vents or some such). If it does happen, we just aren't likely to notice. Spallanzani showed that the same microbe growth Needham observed did NOT occur in a vacuum, dispelling the idea that the microbes come from nothing. In the scientific of abiogenisis, the formulation of a living cell is dependent on very particular conditions -- the right materials in the right environment, and even then, it's tricky, according to all experimental evidence.


Do you see the bold part above? I agree. Now please answer why every single abiogenesis theory relies of the evolution of chemical compounds into a living organism. I agree that evolution doesn't exist prior to DNA life. But evidently you haven't told this to all those OOL scientists.

Anything that points to a finite planet, or a finite universe falsifies the LOB as a universal law. As a very solid rule of thumb for our observations currently, it works. As a scientific law in the sense and scope of, say, SLoT, it's not plausible at all, and isn't given even passing credibility as such, due to hte enormous amounts of evidence we have for finite timelines for the planet, and the universe itself.


Not true at all. You are spitting in the face of the scientific method. Theories do not falsify anything. Rationalizations do not falsify anything.

That is the limit of my quotes, so I will continue this in another post.

#48 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 22 April 2009 - 11:03 AM

We have overwhelming evidence that indicates it *cannot* be true, universally. In order to affirm the LOB as a universal law, we would have to reject all the evidence we have in astronomy and physics for the finitude of the earth, the solar system, the galaxy and the universe itself. There's very little we are less confident about than that the universe itself is not infinitely old, a conclusion which means that LOB as a universal is invalid.

View Post


Nope you have zero evidence that indicates it cannot be true. You only have rationalizations about evidence. You have no observable evidence that even suggests that LOB is not universal.

What was falsified years ago? Abiogenesis? Link?

-Touchstone


Yes, actually abiogenesis was falsified. Abiogenesis is spontaneous generation. It was falsified, but it is still pursued today. They have repackaged it on the basis of mythological entities called "simple life" "proto cells", and "proto life" primordial life”. The one fact that cannot be ignored is that whatever the title given to the non-living organic entity it still must spontaneously generate into a living organism. So I contend that there is no logistical difference.

See here.

#49 Guest_Touchstone_*

Guest_Touchstone_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 April 2009 - 10:38 PM

Thanks Touchstone for responding so promptly.  I have been out of town and unable to respond recently.

I think you are quite confused on your history, so I will try to help you.  Creationists believed and still do believe in a one time creation event or series of events.  Creationists never have believed in spontaneous generation of any life form from non-living matter.  Pasteur was a creationist.  The abiogenesists were those who theorized spontaneous generation, because it was contrary to creation and because it was supported by certain observations.

The Law of Biogenesis did not come from Pasteur.  Fransecso Redi theorized that all living matter comes from pre-existing life.  "All life comes from life".  That was the theory of biogenesis which became the law of biogenesis after years of supporting universal evidence.

A theory is not a law. One doesn't convert to the other. In any case, it's a fine rule of thumb for everyday use, but as a scientific law, it's nowhere. No matter how many mice you observe having mice, you have to deal with the overwhelming evidence for a finite universe which makes Pasteur's chestnut unworkable as a scientific law. No scientific laws exist with any kind of problem or challenge like that. A scientific law is recognized as such because it is conspicuously *free* of just those kinds of problems.

Think about it: it's an infinite regress! Do you suppose "all high tides come from low tides" is a scientific law, too? Every single high tide we've ever observed, after all, followed right on the heels of a low tide. It must be oscillating high tides and low tides back to past infinity, eh?

The "poofing" concept is not one that creationists have ever latched on to.  "Poofing" comes from atheistic science.  It is involved in the BBT and the OOL theories using spontaneous generation.  It is non-creationists who believe in "poofing"


If you go read the history of this, step-wise formation of organic molecule, and the gradual emergence of key polymers for self-replicating life is NOT what Pasteur was debunking with this tests. He was falsifying the idea that things like rats, bugs, and fully formed microbes just generated spontaneously. Modern biology still affirms what Pasteur showed -- mice, maggots and microbes do not poof out of thin air. Seal the specimen in a vacuum, and the results change from just leaving it out overnight in the open air.

Those same biologists, affirming the debunking that Pasteur delivered, understand that life did have to originate at least *once*, somewhere, see as we observe life around us and the evidence that the earth and universe are not infinitely old is compelling.

But you said earlier that there was no law of biogenesis.  Is this a retraction?  Yes it is quite a forceful law supported by countless observations.  The observation list of BBT and TOE pale in comparison to the LOB.


Every observation we make that points to a finite universe falsifies the "law of biogenesis" as a scientific law. It remains true to say that spiders come from spiders, and mice come from mice -- the don't just pop out of the air as some supposed way back then. But all of the observations we make that construct a picture and a timeline of a finite history for the earth and the universe throws down the 'law of biogenesis' as a scientific law. It's a historical topic, and a current set of observations -- indeed, mice, maggots and maggots do not pop out of nothing, and spontaneous generate into fully formed organism as was once thought. We know that while mice come from mice, every mice is different from its parents by some small amount, so at an exacting level of detail, no mice ever reproduces the same thing, but just a very close variant. Over millions of generations, these changes accumulate producing dramatic differences and diversities from one end of the timeline to another.

There's no scientific law called the "law of biogenesis". It's a historical term, and yes there is a "law of biogenesis" as a historical term. It's just not considered even remotely effectual as a scientific law -- think of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, for example... it's not regarded as a scientific law in that way. And for obvious reasons. If the planet and universe are finite, then life had to come from *somewhere* that's not life. Really, go pull out one of the highschool or college textbooks at your local campus. If you find reference to the "law of biogenesis", it will be as a historical note on Pasteur, not as a scientific law, which a term reserved for a set of observations.

I agree.  It is completely implausible for those whose minds who use fallacious thought processes.  You have just proposed a fallacy of false dichotomy.  The only way you propose is not the only choice!

If "life can only come from life", then BY DEFINITION, if we observe life, then that claim is either a) false, or b) the earth and its life forms are infinitely old.

There aren't any other options. If you have some other option, I'm ready to hear it. Even creationists understand this. Do you suppose God is a living thing, a biological creature? If not, then even by your understanding, the 'law of biogenesis' is not a scientific law.

You see creationists theorize that life was created and designed by a creator.  This is not one of your plausible choices.  That's so sad.


It's not plausible in natural terms, given the evidence we have, but it doesn't matter. Even if that *were* the case, it would falsify the 'law of biogenesis' as a scientific law. Unless you say "God is a living thing", and thus capable of being the source of life under the 'law of biogenesis', the 'law of biogenesis' fails at the point of creation -- life then came from something 'supernatural', whatever that is. And even if you were to claim that God was a "living thing", that would mean that GOD COULD ONLY BE ACCOUNTED FOR BY ANOTHER LIVING THING.

So, I'm not forgetting the creation option. It falsifies the 'law of biogenesis' just as thoroughly as modern abiogenesis does.

  It must be like being locked into a cultural religion where you cannot by law consider any other religion.  There are those kinds of religions you know.  For that is what atheistic science is today.  It doesn't allow the consideration of any religious explanation like creation.  That's why we call atheistic science religious.  That's why we call evolution religious.


It's disciplined, but I think you are confusing rigor for religion here. It's a self-healing problem; as soon as any supernatural explanation is entertained, the epistemology completely falls apart, and no one knows nothin' anymore. So we recognize the negative consequences that has on the epistemology, and avoid it going forward.

If you try it, you'll find the same results. A supernatural explanation corrupt everything natural it touches, epistemologically.

You see the creationist theory of OOL is compatible with the LOB which would make it universal.  The creator is alive, and yes He is also infinitely old and has no beginning.  All original life forms on this earth came from Him.  All life comes from pre-exiting life.

What do you mean by 'alive'? Is your definition of "life" the definition Pasteur was using? "Supernatural" is precisely what Pasteur was trying to show *didn't* happen. That was the point of the vacuum in the experiments, to show that natural conditions accounted for the phenomena of maggots or microbes.

And you're double sunk anyway, as I said, because the 'law of biogenesis' says 'life comes from life'. If that's true, and God is "alive", than He MUST have come from another life! If Life can self-exist, or somehow not owe its existence to another life, then the 'law of biogenesis' is falsified.

So your fallacious way of thinking is a result of your religious paradigm.  I don't like fallacies, so I try and get rid of them.

<InigoMontoya> "Fallacy"... I do not think that word means what you think it means.</InigoMontoya>

I highlighted one very important word for you in your statement.  BELIEVE.  That's a faith word isn't it?

There are faithful ways to believe, and reasoned ways to believe. I wasn't using the term as an expression of faith.

  You see atheistic scientists have faith also.  You do yourself.  And you reason with your faith.  I have no problem with that at all.  Creationists do this all the time.  In fact we recognize it and are proud of it.  I just hope that someday atheists like yourself will also recognize your own faith rather than hide behind the "scientific" myth.


I was raised as a YEC, and was a Christian for 30+ years. I'm familiar with faith. This is something else than that. I also felt the desire to project my indulgences on unbelievers, the need to project the things I was doing with my mind onto everyone else.

That's all for tonight. I'll continue tomorrow.

-TS

#50 oliver

oliver

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Brittany, France

Posted 22 April 2009 - 11:24 PM

If "life can only come from life", then BY DEFINITION, if we observe life, then that claim is either a) false, or :lol: the earth and its life forms are infinitely old.

There aren't any other options.  If you have some other option, I'm ready to hear it. Even creationists understand this. Do you suppose God is a living thing, a biological creature? If not, then even by your understanding, the 'law of biogenesis' is not a scientific law.
It's not plausible in natural terms, given the evidence we have, but it doesn't matter. Even if that *were* the case, it would falsify the 'law of biogenesis' as a scientific law. Unless you say "God is a living thing", and thus capable of being the source of life under the 'law of biogenesis', the 'law of biogenesis' fails at the point of creation -- life then came from something 'supernatural', whatever that is.  And even if you were to claim that God was a "living thing", that would mean that GOD COULD ONLY BE ACCOUNTED FOR BY ANOTHER LIVING THING.

View Post

God is indeed the only source of life.

For just as the Father has life in himself, thus he has granted the Son to have life in himself,

Your argument fails on two counts.

First, you view natural law as something separate from God, whereas it is best seen as a description of the manner in which God maintains the universe from moment to moment. Therefore events that happen during creation are outside of natural law (just as the first micro-instants of the big bang are supposed to be). In those six days, things did not happen as they do now.

Second, your idea of infinite regress is a fallacy. Just as it is fallacious to say that the creator of a universe of causation must himself have a cause, so it is fallacious to say that the one who has life in himself must have a pre-existent living originator.

#51 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 22 April 2009 - 11:32 PM

Life either comes from non-life or it does not. Absolutely all - every last bit of evidence available - clearly indicates it does not. What's the hang-up? Some people don't like it.

#52 Guest_Touchstone_*

Guest_Touchstone_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 April 2009 - 07:46 AM

Life either comes from non-life or it does not. Absolutely all - every last bit of evidence available - clearly indicates it does not. What's the hang-up? Some people don't like it.

View Post


As an everyday rule, it does, just like the sequence we see everyday in the tides - high tide follows low tide follows high tide and on an on. But while these processes are quite reliable in terms of observation now, clearly they weren't always this way, since the earth and universe aren't infinitely old, something we conclude with confidence base on a wealth of evidence brought to bear on the question. You can say "every bit of evidence available" over and over and over, and it won't make a dent in the evidence you are ignoring, all the evidence for finite timelines for the earth and the universe.


-TS

#53 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 23 April 2009 - 08:25 AM

As an everyday rule, it does, just like the sequence we see everyday in the tides - high tide follows low tide follows high tide and on an on. But while these processes are quite reliable in terms of observation now, clearly they weren't always this way, since the earth and universe aren't infinitely old, something we conclude with confidence base on a wealth of evidence brought to bear on the question. You can say "every bit of evidence available" over and over and over, and it won't make a dent in the evidence you are ignoring, all the evidence for finite timelines for the earth and the universe.

View Post

If you would keep going here, you could start sharing the necessity of our creator. That was almost sounding evangelistic at first. Do you see the awful double standard you're presenting here?

You insist that your faith proves life from non-life because you can conceptualize something unique occurring in the past. However, watching a dog breeder make variations must be extrapolated out over the infinite past because that is based on what we observe today. :)

A little bit of cognitive dissonance should be setting in any moment if you let it.

#54 Guest_Touchstone_*

Guest_Touchstone_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 April 2009 - 09:11 AM

If you would keep going here, you could start sharing the necessity of our creator. That was almost sounding evangelistic at first. Do you see the awful double standard you're presenting here?

You insist that your faith proves life from non-life because you can conceptualize something unique occurring in the past. However, watching a dog breeder make variations must be extrapolated out over the infinite past because that is based on what we observe today. :)

A little bit of cognitive dissonance should be setting in any moment if you let it.

View Post

It is a dissonance, the consistency of life coming from life in our current observations, combined with the evidence of the finitude of the universe. It is that dissonance that prompts an investigation for a resolution, an answer to "how can that be?". The evidence for the finitude of the earth and the universe going back in history is what is, but we do notice that while life does come from life in our current observations, each life that proceeds from another is a little bit different than its parent(s). That is a big clue to resolving the initial tension. Add to that the enormous amounts of time we have to work with, and the geological, archaeological and genetic evidence of common ancestry for all living things, and you have a model that accounts for a) the consistent chain of "life from life" observations we make today, :) the beginning of the universe, and the formation of the earth, at which points there was no life on earth, and c) the original formation of biological life in the distant past through step-wise, incremental changes.

It works. It explains, it fits the data, it makes succesful predictions. If it were false, there are any number of evidences that might appear that would discredit the idea, but they have conspicuously failed to appear. The dissonance that obtains at first glance dissipates with investigation and thinking about explanations that match the evidence that we do have. If all you have to go on is "life comes from life" and "the universe began", you are stuck. Fortunately, that's not all we have to go on, and a lot of rigorous investigation of the evidence has given rise to the explanations science currently embraces.

-TS

#55 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 23 April 2009 - 09:24 AM

It's not a scientific law. If it ever was considered such, it's been thorough discredited as a law since Darwin. A law is a general observation with no known exceptions, and according to the evidence and analysis of this evidence, it appears very much that all life comes from non-life.

In any case, even if it's just a matter of dispute, it would fail as a law until the dispute is resolved, and the alleged exceptions are shown to fail as exceptions.

-Touchstone

View Post


So in other words, you don't really have an answer, and your willing to post opinion not an answer?

I think (correct me if I'm wrong), the proposition was for someone to show evidence of life coming from non life. And all you posted was basically some fluff about something being "discredited since Darwin" (and provided no evidence), some fluff about "evidence and analysis" (and provided no evidence), and some fluff about "dispute" and "alleged exceptions" (and provided no evidence)...

#56 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 23 April 2009 - 09:30 AM

I just figured it out. If a Wiki editor is reading this they'll probably take steps to hide it from the public... :)

View Post


And that's why I just laugh when someone uses wiki as a source (esp. a soul source) of information... :)

#57 oliver

oliver

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Brittany, France

Posted 23 April 2009 - 10:02 AM

You can say "every bit of evidence available" over and over and over, and it won't make a dent in the evidence you are ignoring, all the evidence for finite timelines for the earth and the universe.

View Post

We have no problem with limited time. After all, the universe has only been existence for 6000 years.

The problem is entirely one of your own imagining, because of your fallacious assumptions.

#58 Guest_Touchstone_*

Guest_Touchstone_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 April 2009 - 10:10 AM

So in other words, you don't really have an answer, and your willing to post opinion not an answer?

I think (correct me if I'm wrong), the proposition was for someone to show evidence of life coming from non life. And all you posted was basically some fluff about something being "discredited since Darwin" (and provided no evidence), some fluff about "evidence and analysis" (and provided no evidence), and some fluff about "dispute" and "alleged exceptions" (and provided no evidence)...

View Post

If someone pointed to a building and said "this was always here", and yet, you have access to pictures and video tape taken some decades ago from various angles of the site that show a bare field, and no sign of a building, would you accept the claim? Why or why not? Would those photos be evidence toward the falsification of "always"?

-TS

#59 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 23 April 2009 - 10:30 AM

If someone pointed to a building and said "this was always here", and yet, you have access to pictures and video tape taken some decades ago from various angles of the site that show a bare field, and no sign of a building, would you accept the claim? Why or why not? Would those photos be evidence toward the falsification of "always"?

-TS

View Post


Life comes from life until proven otherwise. Understand??? Good.

An atheistic worldview requires that one believe in poofing from nothing, so life must poof from non-life.

#60 Guest_Touchstone_*

Guest_Touchstone_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 April 2009 - 10:38 AM

Life comes from life until proven otherwise.  Understand??? Good.

An atheistic worldview requires that one believe in poofing from nothing, so life must poof from non-life.

View Post


Let's apply that to the tides.

High tides come from low tides until proven otherwise. Understand??? Good.

and

Low tides come from high tides until proven otherwise. Understand??? Good.


Are you good with those formulations? Do we now have established an infinite chain of tides extending back into the past?

Or do you suppose we observe high tides that do not proceed from low tides? Maybe a low tide with no preceding high tide?

-TS




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users