One Eyed Jack
New member
That's beside the point. Regardless of how much knowledge they have on the subject, they still don't have a workable model for the origin of life.
Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
That's beside the point. Regardless of how much knowledge they have on the subject, they still don't have a workable model for the origin of life.
One-eyed Jack wrote:
The big question is "How do we define what life is?" I side with the definition of life that goes like this...
Life must do the following:
(1) Maintain it's moleclar integrity
(2) replicate itself
(3) actively take molecules from outside of itself, and use that material to grow or replicate, or both.
(4) discard the unused material as waste.
There are many in the scientific community who do not want to call viral organisms "life". I disagree, since viral life behaves in a way that is deliberate -- it seems as though viral organisms do what they do on purpose, and reproduce themselves on purpose, even if they are parasitic.
Someone once told me that my above definition allows FIRE to be called a life form, but my response is that fire has no molecular structure, and does not reproduce by maintaining any molecular integrity.
Prions and other microscopic protiens, form naturally and without intervention from intelligent beings. Some prions are known to reproduce themselves perfectly, despite lacking DNA. Many molecules known to biology are "self replicators", but are not known as life forms, because they fail to meet all the criteria from my above 4 requirements.
Microbiology is a very large field, and becoming larger all the time, thanks to the biotech industry's growth. Much has been learned about how molecules grow and form, and react. According to current research, life is nothing more than a few simple chemical reactions. Of course, this is not merely a reductionism, making man "just a puddle of chemicals". That is not what I am trying to promote. LIfe, human life in particular, is fascinating and complex, and we should be in awe of ourselves and our complexity.
So the short answer to your question is this: There are many models that try to explain how life could have originated. They are concerned with the study of microbiology. I presented only one.
Actually, I have read enough to know that that's simply not true. There are many competing models for the origin of life. The big question is how low do we go (in terms of molecular simplicity) before we draw the preverbial line between "not life" and "life".
The big question is "How do we define what life is?" I side with the definition of life that goes like this...
Life must do the following:
(1) Maintain it's moleclar integrity
(2) replicate itself
(3) actively take molecules from outside of itself, and use that material to grow or replicate, or both.
(4) discard the unused material as waste.
There are many in the scientific community who do not want to call viral organisms "life". I disagree, since viral life behaves in a way that is deliberate -- it seems as though viral organisms do what they do on purpose, and reproduce themselves on purpose, even if they are parasitic.
Someone once told me that my above definition allows FIRE to be called a life form, but my response is that fire has no molecular structure, and does not reproduce by maintaining any molecular integrity.
Prions and other microscopic protiens, form naturally and without intervention from intelligent beings. Some prions are known to reproduce themselves perfectly, despite lacking DNA. Many molecules known to biology are "self replicators", but are not known as life forms, because they fail to meet all the criteria from my above 4 requirements.
Microbiology is a very large field, and becoming larger all the time, thanks to the biotech industry's growth. Much has been learned about how molecules grow and form, and react. According to current research, life is nothing more than a few simple chemical reactions. Of course, this is not merely a reductionism, making man "just a puddle of chemicals". That is not what I am trying to promote. LIfe, human life in particular, is fascinating and complex, and we should be in awe of ourselves and our complexity.
So the short answer to your question is this: There are many models that try to explain how life could have originated. They are concerned with the study of microbiology. I presented only one.
LightSon
New member
Psycho Dave, Skeptic, Zaketh, PureX and other devout atheists and or agnostics.
If God did exist, would you want to know it?
If the existence of the Christian God were an ontologic fact, would you submit yourselves to His authority?
If it were true that one of the keys to discovering God, was to suspend (albeit temporarily) your ardent disbelief, would you be willing to do that?
If God did exist, would you want to know it?
If the existence of the Christian God were an ontologic fact, would you submit yourselves to His authority?
If it were true that one of the keys to discovering God, was to suspend (albeit temporarily) your ardent disbelief, would you be willing to do that?
One Eyed Jack
New member
You've already admitted it's true.
Maybe so, but none of them work. Scientists don't know how life originated.
I don't recall asking you a question.
But none of them succeed.
Last edited:
PureX
Well-known member
We define God as an infinite entity. It's not possible for me as a finite being to measure (know) and infinite entity. This question supposes a condition that does not exist, yet that can't be answered without it. So the question renders itself impossible to answer.
I don't know, and I can't see how my answer would matter to anyone.
I don't "disbelieve" in God ardently or any other way.
Scrimshaw
New member
My critique:
I just read the whole debate and I think both sides made some mistakes. Knight's mistake was he said that they did not need to establish any particular moral behavior as absolutely right or wrong.....but then spent the rest of the debate doing just that - trying to establish that the specific moral behavior of kidnapping/raping/murdering a child is absolutely wrong. At worse, this was mistake of misspeak, double-speak, etc. A blunder no doubt, but not serious enough to undermine his position in the debate.
Zakath's error was more serious. When responding to Knight's moral example of kidnapping/raping/murder, he tried to provide an elaborate scenario where the perpetrator of the act was a hero, not a criminal. However, in that scenario, Zakath explained that the reason the terrorist was committing this retribution was because he was very upset that an Arab diplomat (the little girl's father) had ordered the torture and killing of the terrorist's wife and infant son. But in Zakath's zeal, he totally overlooked the obvious fact that the terrorist obviously felt that the torture and "murder" of his wife and infant son was morally - WRONG! If he didn't believe that murder/torture were morally "wrong", why would the terrorist be upset? Why would he try to get "payback"?? The answer is obvious. In Zakath's haste to disprove a universal/absolute morality, he ends up supporting its existence with his very own example! After that moment, he had lost the debate.
Furthermore, Knight had asked Zakath to provide any possible circumstance, in any culture, where kidnapping/murdering/raping purely for sadistic pleasure would be considered morally "right". Zakath completely dodged that very critical question at least three times, totally failing to answer it. His lack of answer gives a strong implication that no such circumstances could ever exist, and therefore, universal/absolute morality does exist.
Last edited:
LightSon
New member
This is an amazing response PureX.
First you presume to "define" God on behalf of atheists.
Second, you assert that such "condition...does not exist"
Third, you assert "I don't "disbelieve" in God ardently or any other way."
In conclusion and to summarize your points,
You do not disbelieve in that which you have defined to not exist.
I am speechless.
Scrimshaw
New member
Re: Argument from Ignorance
Re: Argument from Ignorance
No, its an argument from INDUCTION. If there is no natural mechanism to evolve a cell from non-living chemicals, then we can inductively assume that cell was created by something that wasn't a natural mechanism.
Actually, a theistic scenario *IS* an explanation. What you are doing is submitting the logical fallacy of claiming that something only counts as an "explanation" if it is a *natural* explanation. That is nothing more than a unsupported, philosophical assertion on your part, and a highly prejudice one at that.
Now you are just speculating. There is no good reason to think that we *wouldn't* have already discovered the origin of cells at this point in time. Biochemists and microbiologists have been studying biotic chemcials and compounds for decades. They have all the high tech equipment and resources they would ever need to reproduce the evolution of a cell in the laboratory, yet, they cannot do so. So why in the blue blazes should we expect that some random, mindless "natural process" can accomplish what intelligent scientists in laboratories - cannot?
Re: Argument from Ignorance
No, its an argument from INDUCTION. If there is no natural mechanism to evolve a cell from non-living chemicals, then we can inductively assume that cell was created by something that wasn't a natural mechanism.
Actually, a theistic scenario *IS* an explanation. What you are doing is submitting the logical fallacy of claiming that something only counts as an "explanation" if it is a *natural* explanation. That is nothing more than a unsupported, philosophical assertion on your part, and a highly prejudice one at that.
Now you are just speculating. There is no good reason to think that we *wouldn't* have already discovered the origin of cells at this point in time. Biochemists and microbiologists have been studying biotic chemcials and compounds for decades. They have all the high tech equipment and resources they would ever need to reproduce the evolution of a cell in the laboratory, yet, they cannot do so. So why in the blue blazes should we expect that some random, mindless "natural process" can accomplish what intelligent scientists in laboratories - cannot?
Last edited:
You have me!!!
Scrimshaw
>>No, its an argument from INDUCTION. If there is no natural mechanism to evolve a cell from non-living chemicals, then we can inductively assume that cell was created by something that wasn't a natural mechanism.<<
The problem is in proving that there is no natural mechanism possible. Since it is not possible to prove a negative, you are going to have a hard time proving that.
>>Actually, a theistic scenario *IS* an explanation. <<
True, but it raises MORE questions than it awnsers.
>>There is no good reason to think that we *wouldn't* have already discovered the origin of cells at this point in time. Biochemists and microbiologists have been studying biotic chemcials and compounds for decades. <<
We have been studying the stars for millions of years, but only since the invention of the telescope have we made some serious progress.
We have also studied the sun for 10,000 years, but only since the invention of the spectrograph have we made some serious headway into understanding its inner processes.
>>They have all the high tech equipment and resources they would ever need to reproduce the evolution of a cell in the laboratory, yet, they cannot do so. So why in the blue blazes should we expect that some random, mindless "natural process" can accomplish what intelligent scientists in laboratories - cannot?<<
Because:
1) The process is most likely to be complicated
2) Our understanding of the quantummechanical properties of large molecules such as DNA is incomplete
3) Natural processes have all the time in the world
4) Perhaps we haven't invented the "bio-telescope" yet
5) There already exists life here. It is undoubtedly better at surviving than any NEW life form we build. The new lifeform wouldn't be able to compete against it.
>>No, its an argument from INDUCTION. If there is no natural mechanism to evolve a cell from non-living chemicals, then we can inductively assume that cell was created by something that wasn't a natural mechanism.<<
The problem is in proving that there is no natural mechanism possible. Since it is not possible to prove a negative, you are going to have a hard time proving that.
>>Actually, a theistic scenario *IS* an explanation. <<
True, but it raises MORE questions than it awnsers.
>>There is no good reason to think that we *wouldn't* have already discovered the origin of cells at this point in time. Biochemists and microbiologists have been studying biotic chemcials and compounds for decades. <<
We have been studying the stars for millions of years, but only since the invention of the telescope have we made some serious progress.
We have also studied the sun for 10,000 years, but only since the invention of the spectrograph have we made some serious headway into understanding its inner processes.
>>They have all the high tech equipment and resources they would ever need to reproduce the evolution of a cell in the laboratory, yet, they cannot do so. So why in the blue blazes should we expect that some random, mindless "natural process" can accomplish what intelligent scientists in laboratories - cannot?<<
Because:
1) The process is most likely to be complicated
2) Our understanding of the quantummechanical properties of large molecules such as DNA is incomplete
3) Natural processes have all the time in the world
4) Perhaps we haven't invented the "bio-telescope" yet
5) There already exists life here. It is undoubtedly better at surviving than any NEW life form we build. The new lifeform wouldn't be able to compete against it.
One Eyed Jack
New member
Shima -- large molecules are governed by classical physics, not quantum mechanics.
Last edited:
Scrimshaw
New member
No, the problem is proving that there IS a possible natural mechanism. The cell is irreducibly complex. You cannot break it down into some pre-cell form. The only way it could have appeared is fully-formed. There is no such thing as a natural process that makes fully-formed cells pop into existence out of biotic chemicals.
>>Actually, a theistic scenario *IS* an explanation. <<
No, there are answers for all the questions it raises, you just refuse to accept those answers.
>>There is no good reason to think that we *wouldn't* have already discovered the origin of cells at this point in time. Biochemists and microbiologists have been studying biotic chemcials and compounds for decades. <<
Okay, and what does that have to do with the origin of cells? We have had microscopes, laboratories, and all the resources necessary for the study of biochemistry/cellular biology for many decades, and all we have discovered is how much more complex, and irrudicibly sophisticated cells are than what we first thought. Our increase in knowledge in these fields has been gradually UNDERMINING the possiblity of a natural explanation for the origin of cells....not supporting it.
>>They have all the high tech equipment and resources they would ever need to reproduce the evolution of a cell in the laboratory, yet, they cannot do so. So why in the blue blazes should we expect that some random, mindless "natural process" can accomplish what intelligent scientists in laboratories - cannot?<<
What process? Do you mean the process that doesn't exist?
That lack of understanding has nothing to do with the evolution of cells, and why that evolution has never been re-created in a laboratory, even when given all the same resources and conditions that would have existed on the primortial earth....and intelligent scientists manipulating the process to boot!!
That matters little if the specific natural process you speak of doesn't exist, or is powerless to create a cell. I can shake a bag full of computer parts around for trillions of years, but I will never have assembled a working computer by shaking the bag if the act of "shaking a bag" is an *insufficient mechanism* for assembling a computer. You can spend trillions of years beaming energy at a rock, but it will never turn it into a slug if "beaming energy" is an insufficient mechanism for creating a slug.
Since I don't even know what that is, and it doesn't exist, I guess I can respond by simply saying - "perhaps we haven't invented the 'god-telescope' yet"???
:bannana:
We are not talking about "inventing" a new lifeform. We are talking about re-creating a lifeform that already exist on this planet.
By the way....you left out a viable option from your list....
Yes, I agree completely!!!
Last edited:
wholearmor
Member
I agree. It's that simple. :thumb:
- Status