An Argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-04-2011, 09:46 AM
 
RE: An Argument
(20-04-2011 10:38 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  So I'm interested to hear what you guys think of this particular argument for creation: Make a mechanism that can reproduce itself using only the elements available around it. If you succeed and can say truthfully that such a mechanism can come about by chance, only then will you have a basis for saying that there's a possibility that there's not a Creator. Thanks for your thoughts! Big Grin

I think the problem here is that you're implying by stating 'only if you can do x, then you can say there's no way that y' that this is the sole way to have a basis of saying there's not a creator. That is untrue, as one could show the attributes of said creator(given a definition of course) to be inherently contradictory, one could show that the possibility of a given creator existing is the same as the possibility of another given explanation for the existence of the universe(however this would give one basis for saying there possibly isn't a creator) or one could show that the existence of said creator would not give rise to the universe we have today.

Hell, there are probably a lot more ways to show that a given creator doesn't exist too, but my point is that your argument fails on the basis it assumes that it is the only way to show a creator doesn't exist.
Quote this message in a reply
21-04-2011, 10:51 AM
RE: An Argument
Hey, BlackEyedGhost.

Quote:Make a mechanism that can reproduce itself using only the elements available around it. If you succeed and can say truthfully that such a mechanism can come about by chance, only then will you have a basis for saying that there's a possibility that there's not a Creator.

Ok. This is in no way a condemnation of you, but I can't seem to penetrate this. It strikes me as interesting and I am passionate about replicators (and I assume that they have something to do with this), but I really can't figure out what you mean or what you're asking. Can I please ask you to dumb this down for me? I would appreciate it.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-04-2011, 11:53 AM (This post was last modified: 21-04-2011 12:00 PM by Glaucus.)
RE: An Argument
(20-04-2011 11:15 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  Infinite chance is useless without proof of possibility.

I don't think it's a matter of probability, it's a matter of an extremely large amount of time required to get the concentrations of elements correct (naturally), and to get those elements to bond into amino acids (naturally), and so on until RNA and DNA are formed. The problem is, we don't know yet what those concentrations might be.

But I think that there are some chemists who are trying to simulate the early Earth conditions to form amino acids, and have successfully created a few necessary amino acids. As for the "breath of life," there may not be anything special (chemically) separating life from non-life, so it would just be a matter of time and proper concentrations until you got chemicals to form into a blob of life. The beauty of superposition Big Grin

When you're talking about proving creation, do you mean the Genesis account with Yahweh, or just general creation with some prime-mover?

Of all the ideas put forth by science, it is the principle of Superposition that can undo any power of the gods. For the accumulation of smaller actions has the ability to create, destroy, and move the world.

"I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul." -W. E. Henley
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-04-2011, 11:55 AM
RE: An Argument
I have heard this argument before on a conservative talk radio show, driving through Virginia and there was nothing else on. The person who proposed it on the show was an engineer that said he had never seen a simple machine (like a wedge) reproduce itself. I almost wrecked at the stupidity of his example!

Let us just take basic geology first. Any mineral (let us use quartz) cannot reproduce itself because it is an inorganic compound. BUT during the course of geologic time that mineral gets recycled over, and over, and over again by numerous natural processes (erosion, deposition, melting, crystallization). This is all essentially driven by energy within the Earth system. This energy that exists within the Earth system has the ability to literally move mountains and create oceans (tectonics). If tectonics can drive orogenies (mountain building events) then imagine how much energy exists in this system. If life were to come into existence within this system it would need the basic building blocks of life (C, N, O, P...etc) that exist in abundant quantities throughout our solar system, then it would need an energy source (the Earth system and the Sun) and most importantly time. The origins of life are somewhere around 3.9 billion years ago and the Earth is ~4.56 billion years old. This means that if you want to replicate the formation of life in a natural system you need 1) abundant supplies of the essential elements of life 2) an essentially infinite source of energy and 3) ~600 million years worth of time. For the sake of argument ignore 1 and 2 (we will just say we have a jar of infinite quantities of the elements and have perfected the use of antimatter as an energy source). How can you replicate that much time? The simple answer is that you cannot do it in a laboratory experiment. As a geologist I would argue that the Earth IS one giant laboratory. We have the fossils that show us life as simple single celled organisms (primitive bacteria) 3.5 billion years ago, then around 2.2 billion years ago we see the eukaryotic cell, and mutlicellular life first began around 800-600 million years ago (0.8-0.6 billion years ago). From these multicellular ancestors arose all of the major phyla that exist today (most of these originated during the Cambrian Explosion 542 million years ago).

Long winded? yes! I just cannot stop myself sometimes! I love fossils and they are the definitive evidence for your question!

Evolve

Smartass
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Beard2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
21-04-2011, 12:01 PM (This post was last modified: 21-04-2011 12:17 PM by BlackEyedGhost.)
RE: An Argument
@Buddy Christ I'm not talking about the Big Bang, so that reference is irrelevant. This argument tests the plausibility of a self-replicating system coming about by chance. Such a self-replicating system is crucial for evolution to function. So, if it can't happen by chance, then there must have been an intervening force to bring it about originally. This implies some form of creator (be it aliens or God).
(21-04-2011 02:58 AM)The_observer Wrote:  True...
You got me! Confused
*I'm hit! MEDIC!* Smile


I need to look deeper into this...
For now I am just going to have to say that that question is why I'm an agnostic atheist.
But as Buddy Christ says:
Quote:At no point does the experiment test for a sentient deity existing outside of nature who has a moral code and magic powers.
nor does it acknowledge the God of the bible or any other religious writing.
If you read my signature below, you'll notice that I don't defy a deity, but I defy religious dogma and thus the worldly authority that is taken from such dogma.

+1 rep

I realize that this doesn't point to any specific creator. It takes more than a single argument to establish complete theology. Anyways, I'll be interested to hear what you find.
(21-04-2011 03:55 AM)Filox Wrote:  I don't believe this... First of all, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence! Second, you are way too uninformed to be asking questions like that, if you don't know about history, biology, physics and LHC, why don't you first educate yourself, than start arguments like this one? If you haven't noticed, people here are very well informed about everything, but it is a bit hard to start explaining to you all the basics, before we can even start to argue about the things you are interested in. And may I ask, why did you leave that other thread you started on this forum, we all were very eager to hear your side of the story after all of us gave you solid arguments and proofs...

That first sentence is somthing I constantly keep in mind. However, this is a very direct and relevant point I've made. It shows evidence of the impossibility of chance generating life. I'm using the very evolution that people here believe to make that point as well. It's an educated point as far as I can tell and you've said nothing against it. That being said, no one knows everything, so everyone's uneducated in their own way. I'm trying to improve my state of education. Please don't hold ignorance against me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-04-2011, 12:19 PM
RE: An Argument
(21-04-2011 12:01 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  So, if it can't happen by chance, then there must have been an intervening force to bring it about originally.

It seems to me that you are implying that it can't happen by chance because we are unable to replicate it (yet). Am I reading you right?

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-04-2011, 12:27 PM
RE: An Argument
@Filox I agree very much with your first sentence and it's a principle I try to keep in mind. However, the point I've made is very direct and educated as far as I can tell. It's evidence for the impossibility of life forming by random chance even before the start of evolution. That said, I know I'm fairly uneducated, but I'm trying to improve on that, so please don't hold it against me without at least giving me something to help my situation. No one knows everything, so everyone's uneducated in their own way. As for why I left the other forum. I was intrigued by just how much people were caught up by that single point of morallity. So, instead of continuing the idle debate I decided to research into it further. I'm still researching, so I don't know if/when I'll return to that forum. It was getting a bit full, so I'll probably start a new topic if anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-04-2011, 12:53 PM
RE: An Argument
[quote]It's evidence for the impossibility of life forming by random chance even before the start of evolution[quote]
I might have missed something, but I don't get what's it
Chance generating life? I don't know what the definition of life is, but I'd imagine a replicating molecule with a membrane to be on the edge of the definition.

Life did not start spontaneously by a lightning strike in a mud puddle. The first cells did not have the kind of complex metabolism, cell wall nor replication systems as the simplest cell today has. Even the journey from replicating molecules to the first cell wall must have taken an incredible amount of time. And the replicators weren't generated by chance, but by chemistry. And going from one cell organisms to multicellular organisms must have taken even longer. If you are honestly interested in the subject, check wikipedia for Abiogenesis and the RNA world hypothesis.

Correct me when I'm wrong.
Accept me or go to hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-04-2011, 01:47 PM
RE: An Argument
From my dying corpse I cast my last action: This comic...
[Image: 486.jpg]

Observer

Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-04-2011, 01:54 PM
RE: An Argument
I think the best argument against an intellegent designer is how poorly designed we are. If there is a designer, he's not very intellegent!

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: