I propose a rational, scientific debate over Origins. I see 2 basic theories/beliefs/opinions about the origin of life, the universe, & the complexity of species: 1. Naturalistic. The theory of evolution is part of this model. 2. Supernaturalistic. Intelligent design, or creationism, is part of this model. I propose that evidence be give, either for or against either model, & that the claims of each can be examined critically, with logical & scientific analysis. Other models or theories can also be included, such as alien seeding, or any other 'theory' of origins. I know there are a lot of threads on this subject, & have been, over the years. I have been involved in many of them. I hope that this one might avoid the pitfalls of emotional hysteria, ad hominem, & jihadist fervor that this subject seems to generate. By keeping it factual, based on science, & comparing the evidence, for and against either basic theory, we can evaluate each on their own merits, & not by the propaganda of the True Believers, in either belief system. Here are a few rules i request. Be civil. This is an examination of scientific theories & opinions.. no need to be insulting. Be logical. Try to use sound reason & avoid logical fallacies. Be factual. Verify your facts, & source them. 'What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence'. Provide arguments. Make your case, support it with evidence, & present a conclusion. Provide a premise in your posts, or a rebuttal to someone else's premise. Be concise. Make a general overview, or expand on a specific point. Obviously there is much to be said in this discussion, & soundbites or one liners will be inadequate. But walls of pasted text do not aid communication. Keep your points simple & specific, & use links or quotes to support them. Don't feed the trolls. Ignore hecklers, even if they seem to support your 'side'. They do not aid in communication or understanding. I will also engage in this discussion, & will not be a moderator for these parameters for debate that i request. I hope for a rational, civil debate over a perennial 'hot topic' in almost every forum where this topic comes up.
I'll start with a simple comparison of models. The beginning of Life. Abiogenesis Special creation these are the 2 basic possibilities for the origin of life. It either happened by natural means, spontaneously, or it happened by Special Creation, from some mysterious Higher Power. What is the evidence? Not much, either way. We have life, but HOW it got here remains an empirical mystery. We cannot replicate abiogenesis, so that remains wishful thinking, or speculation. I consider the hard evidence a wash.. since neither model can be repeated or observed. Both are matters of belief or opinion, & the hard evidence does not compel a conclusion. IF we could replicate life, or 'create' it in laboratory settings, i would lean toward an abiogenesis theory for this.. but since every attempt to 'create life' has failed, under the most rigorous laboratory conditions, we cannot conclude this as a valid scientific theory. it is a belief, only.
How do you define "supernatural"? Nobody has yet to give a legitimate definition. Ditto when trying to define "magic." Oh, and don't give a non-definition (e.g., "that which is not natural").
Evolution is true. There is zero evidence for any "creator," much less for this creator having actually created. Lol.
The creator is a programmer. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/ There is an interesting quote that relates to this: "'We are beginning to see how universes can be created,' Professor Harrison says [in an article in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society and published in the London Times about June 1999]. 'A small amount of matter -- roughly 10 kg -- at very high energy is forged into a black hole. Under the correct conditions, the interior of the black hole inflates into a new universe that endures for billions of years and contains billions of galaxies.' " At most, he argues, human intelligence is only one million years old. 'If we can already see how in principle universes can be created, then surely our descendants in the far future will have the knowledge and technology to design and create them.'"
While it is correct to say that Abiogenesis has not been conclusively established via replication in a laboratory there is existing scientific evidence that demonstrates the natural occurrence of the building blocks of life. What is still unknown is how they combined but even there research is making progress. https://phys.org/news/2015-06-evidence-emerges-life.html It is accurate to say that Abiogenesis is a work in progress. On the other hand there is no evidence of any kind nor any progress of any sort to establish the validity of "special creation". It is nothing more than speculation based upon primitive superstitions. In summation "special creation" is going nowhere because it has nowhere to go whereas Abiogenesis is making measurable progress by providing actual peer reviewed scientific evidence of how it occurred. The former is belief based whereas the latter is reality based. When comparing the two the contrast is as stark as black from white. The former is a complete absence of any knowledge whatsoever while the latter is entirely knowledge based albeit incomplete.
I think i am using the terms in a fairly common manner. Supernatural is including a deity or some Higher Power (which could include aliens) as the 'source' of origins. Natural is not. Only natural processes are the 'source' of all origins. This seems to me to be a binary choice. It is either one or the other. Is this a rebuttal? It looks like an unevidenced assertion. If evolution is true, as you assert, why not present your arguments & evidence for this belief?
My statements stand, unrefuted. Wishful thinking is not scientific evidence, and all we have at this time is wishful thinking. There is NO EVIDENCE that life can begin by purely natural means. There are no mechanisms to do this. The origins of life are a cosmic mystery, that we are no closer now to solving than we were a thousand years ago. So regarding the beginning of life, i still see them as both beliefs.. either a naturalistic belief, or a supernaturalistic one. We have no evidence HOW life originated. No clue. We are here, but we cannot conclude the 'how'. You may believe your opinion about a naturalistic abiogenesis is the 'best one!', but that is only a belief, with no empirical evidence. You could just as easily say that, 'Evidence for special creation is a work in progress'. But since NEITHER has any evidence for 'HOW life began', both are mere opinions, beliefs, & speculations. The hard reality is we don't know.
So you ignored the link to the relevant science because you cannot "refute it"? If you cannot address the following factual scientific evidence and provide fact based refutations on a point by point basis then this OP is nothing more than theist science denial. Here is the scientific evidence supporting Abiogenesis to date; https://phys.org/news/2015-06-evidence-emerges-life.html
I did not ignore it. I addressed it directly. There is still NO naturalistic explanation for abiogenesis. You can claim they are close, or that it will happen any day now, but that is speculation, not empirical evidence. All that article posted was a wish & a prayer, that 'someday!' they will figure it out. But that same argument can be made for supernatural claims of life's origins. 'Someday, we'll understand how God (or aliens) created life!' There is nothing to refute, because they have not created life. So my premise stands, unrebutted. Your reply is merely wishful thinking, bereft of science. Oh, it is shrouded in walls of techno babble, but the end result is that nobody knows HOW life originated, which is my premise. Get back to me when you have actually created self replicating life in the labs. This is just conjecture & speculation.
I will also point out the obvious ambiguity in the article: "Our work shows that the close linkage between the physical properties of amino acids, the genetic code, and protein folding was likely essential from the beginning, long before large, sophisticated molecules arrived on the scene," said Carter, professor of biochemistry and biophysics at the UNC School of Medicine. "This close interaction was likely the key factor in the evolution from building blocks to organisms." Their findings, published in companion papers in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, fly in the face of the problematic "RNA world" theory, which posits that RNA - the molecule that today plays roles in coding, regulating, and expressing genes - elevated itself from the primordial soup of amino acids and cosmic chemicals to give rise first to short proteins called peptides and then to single-celled organisms. "Dr. Wolfenden established physical properties of the twenty amino acids, and we have found a link between those properties and the genetic code," Carter said. "That link suggests to us that there was a second, earlier code that made possible the peptide-RNA interactions necessary to launch a selection process that we can envision creating the first life on Earth." Thus, Carter said, RNA did not have to invent itself from the primordial soup. Instead, even before there were cells, it seems more likely that there were interactions between amino acids and nucleotides that led to the co-creation of proteins and RNA. Complexity from simplicity Proteins must fold in specific ways to function properly. The first PNAS paper, led by Wolfenden, shows that both the polarities of the twenty amino acids (how they distribute between water and oil) and their sizes help explain the complex process of protein folding - when a chain of connected amino acids arranges itself to form a particular 3-dimensional structure that has a specific biological function. "Our experiments show how the polarities of amino acids change consistently across a wide range of temperatures in ways that would not disrupt the basic relationships between genetic coding and protein folding," said Wolfenden, Alumni Distinguished Professor of Biochemistry and Biophysics. This was important to establish because when life was first forming on Earth, temperatures were hot, probably much hotter than they are now or when the first plants and animals were established. A series of biochemical experiments with amino acids conducted in Wolfenden's lab showed that two properties - the sizes as well as the polarities of amino acids - were necessary and sufficient to explain how the amino acids behaved in folded proteins and that these relationships also held at the higher temperatures of Earth 4 billion years ago. The second PNAS paper, led by Carter, delves into how enzymes called aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases recognized transfer ribonucleic acid, or tRNA. Those enzymes translate the genetic code. "Think of tRNA as an adapter," Carter said. "One end of the adapter carries a particular amino acid; the other end reads the genetic blueprint for that amino acid in messenger RNA. Each synthetase matches one of the twenty amino acids with its own adapter so that the genetic blueprint in messenger RNA faithfully makes the correct protein every time." Carter's analysis shows that the two different ends of the L-shaped tRNA molecule contained independent codes or rules that specify which amino acid to select. The end of tRNA that carried the amino acid sorted amino acids specifically according to size. The other end of the L-shaped tRNA molecule is called the tRNA anticodon. It reads codons, which are sequences of three RNA nucleotides in genetic messages that select amino acids according to polarity. Wolfenden and Carter's findings imply that the relationships between tRNA and the physical properties of the amino acids - their sizes and polarities - were crucial during the Earth's primordial era. In light of Carter's previous work with very small active cores of tRNA synthetases called Urzymes, it now seems likely that selection by size preceded selection according to polarity. This ordered selection meant that the earliest proteins did not necessarily fold into unique shapes, and that their unique structures evolved later. Carter said, "Translating the genetic code is the nexus connecting pre-biotic chemistry to biology." He and Wolfenden believe that the intermediate stage of genetic coding can help resolve two paradoxes: how complexity arose from simplicity, and how life divided the labor between two very different kinds of polymers: proteins and nucleic acids. "The fact that genetic coding developed in two successive stages - the first of which was relatively simple - may be one reason why life was able to emerge while the earth was still quite young," Wolfenden noted. An earlier code, which enabled the earliest coded peptides to bind RNA, may have furnished a decisive selective advantage. And this primitive system could then undergo a natural selection process, thereby launching a new and more biological form of evolution. "The collaboration between RNA and peptides was likely necessary for the spontaneous emergence of complexity," Carter added. "In our view, it was a peptide-RNA world, not an RNA-only world." Now, this is a fine study, & i applaud the findings. It is a new 'theory' of how things 'might' have gone, if you presuppose naturalistic abiogenesis. That is good science. We speculate, posit possibilities, & craft theories to see if the facts can support them. We call this the 'scientific method'. But there is a huge leap between the speculations of 'what if', and the hard facts of empirical reality. There have been thousands, if not millions of 'theories' about 'how' or 'why' things act, and just because someone posits a plausible theory does not make it Absolute Fact. Next week, some new findings may come along that completely debunk this article. Or, more info may corroborate it. That is science. That is what this debate is about, the science of origins. But posting speculative theories, & trying to pass them off as 'settled science!' will not fly here. Skepticism & scrutiny will be the tools for any claims. In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact". Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.  ~Marcello Truzzi
you need to search the OP's other threads. This is like the 5th one hes created that is identical. Hes been gone for several months. His constant MO when presented with evidence like you posted, is to simply say "nuh uh" and hand waive it away. He will never refute what you present. He will not cite any peer reviewed work. He will simply hand waive away and say "nuh uh"
I agree, evolution, that it happens is true. But the mechanics of some of it is lacking in evidence, but it still happened. But IMO, something important is missing. Hundreds of physicists think that when it comes to the quantum level of reality, there is information involved. That is the metaphor they choose to use. And their predictive math is based upon probability distribution. And that math has been very fruitful. Now, there are implications involved here to which basic logic can be applied, and yet if you want to talk about this in academia, the materialism which still permeates much of academia makes such talk off limits. This is not me saying this, but it has been said by numerous physicists. So, if these physicist are correct in regards to information, what is the source? Well, you run into a wall, for you have the inference of information, without a means to discover the source. Tom Campbell, a physicist for NASA and author of My Big TOE, says the source is outside, a superset of the subset we call the universe. He also says, QM infers by implication of experiments that we live in a virtual reality, his metaphor, created by data, information, as a computer creates a video game. Again, he uses metaphors. If the universe is a metaphorical virtual reality, with the source outside of the universe, which supplies the information as understood as probability distribution, and there are implications from QM experiments which point in this way, one has to be open to the possibility of this. Of course this would add information to the process of evolution whether it be the evolution of life or the universe. And logically information has a source. Or you could choose to believe in chance and randomness, happy accidents which is also not backed up with evidence, just supposition, and yes, even a bit of faith. Personally I think the Rosetta Stone of origins, and the more complete understanding of evolution lies in the implications involved in QM. This Stone will also throw more light on consciousness, its primary role in what we call reality, and will give us a paradigm change moving away from Newton and philosophical materialism which still permeates academia. The change in paradigm seems to advance at the pace of tombstones, the tombstones of materialistic stuck physicists who followed Feinman's advice, and indeed only concerned themselves with the QM equations and not pondering the implications or understanding of what the experiments were revealing about our reality. You cannot blame them perhaps given the hard time science had in beating back the religious priests of long ago who claimed to be the keepers and explainers of reality. There is a fear that the implications of experiments might give rise to this idea of some god, and it took a long time to rise above that. Yet the source of information cannot be defined, nor anything can be known about it other than it being a source of info. If you start putting human faces on it, qualities, etc, this is done only with imagination and must be seen as only that.
Ok, I personally think beyond our limited range of observation is other civilisations, I think they are different to us in that we have a disease called emotions. I think they because of this disease that leads to our self destructive nature, the other distant civilisations killed off all the adults. They then imprisoned the children on a planet called Earth , the few memories of child like drawings on the cave walls of the ''gods'' who brought the children here remain to this day. Then we went on from there to gain knowledge and advance in killing each other off. This is how I think it went down, so what ever that falls under.
If you cannot answer a man's argument, all it not lost; you can still call him vile names. ~Elbert Hubbard Hecklers already.. spouting absurd falsehoods & attacking the poster, rather than addressing the reasoning. Yes, it was posters like you that caused me to avoid the forum for a while.. months. And if all i get is hecklers, with nobody wanting a reasoned discussion & debate, i'll likely give up on this forum, as being too toxic & hysterical. Doesn't matter to me, & i doubt it matters to you, either. I addressed this on point 6 in the OP: 6. Don't feed the trolls. Ignore hecklers, even if they seem to support your 'side'. They do not aid in communication or understanding.
where did you go for so many months? Why did you start a thread that is practically a carbon copy of............http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/fake-science.494056/ http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/fallacies-of-evolution.490664/ http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-central-flaw-of-evolution.442211/ In every one of those threads, you did exactly what I pointed out. You are given numerous peer reviewed scientific papers, and you hand waive them away and say "nuh uh". You do not offer a single shred of scientific evidence to refute what you are given. You do not cite any peer reviewed papers to rebut what you are given. Lol, calling you out on your bullshit isn't "heckling" or "trolling". It's calling you out on your bullshit. My post was meant as a warning, as to the folly of trying to debate with you.
Chance and randomness do factor into evolution and the history of life in many different ways; however, some important mechanisms of evolution are non-random and these make the overall process non-random. For example, consider the process of natural selection, which results in adaptations features of organisms that appear to suit the environment in which the organisms live (e.g., the fit between a flower and its pollinator, the coordinated response of the immune system to pathogens, and the ability of bats to echolocate). Such adaptations clearly did not come about "by chance." They evolved via a combination of random and non-random processes. The process of mutation, which generates genetic variation, is random, but selection is non-random. Selection favored variants that were better able to survive and reproduce (e.g., to be pollinated, to fend off pathogens, or to navigate in the dark). Over many generations of random mutation and non-random selection, complex adaptations evolved. To say that evolution happens "by chance" ignores half of the picture.
1. You haven't given an objective definition of "supernatural." Give a solid definition such that we can point at something and call it supernatural. Oh, and now you need to give an objective definition for "god." 2. If evolution is true? You can't be serious. This is 2017. Are you going to challenge heliocentrism next? As for evidence, just use a search engine or go back to high school bio class. I don't know what else to say.
Sad to think of all those molecules that tried but, just couldn't do it. Like some of those experimental creatures of the Cambrian era that whose design didn't make it to the Ordovician.
Techno babble translation is something that you don't understand, thus you dismiss it. You use that term often here.
No, the problem is, i do understand most of the techno babble.. pathetic, i know. And i can see through the bluff when it is used to obfuscate, rather than enlighten. My points stand, unrefuted. There STILL has been NO LIFE created in the lab. Abiogenesis is a fantasy & a myth, from a scientific perspective. ..unless you have some groundbreaking new studies or tests, that demonstrate how life can be spontaneously started, from non-life. I'm all ears, if you have the evidence. What is hard to understand about that? No abiogenesis. No evidence. How does my 'understanding' have anything to do with the lack of evidence for this claim?
I would request that you present the evidence for this belief. Why would you believe something, if there is no evidence for it? Do you have some information or defined mechanisms that can demonstrate the claims of increasing complexity, added chromosome pairs, added genes, traits, etc? Observation & the modern knowledge about DNA says this does not happen.. cumulative changes adding up to major structural ones in the genome. Unfortunately, the origins of life & the universe cannot be reduced to probability. There are no parameters that can show what any odds are. Merely saying, 'given enough time, anything is possible!' is not a scientifically testable hypothesis. It is a tenet of faith. One may believe that if they jump up & down enough times, eventually they will overcome gravity & fly to the moon. But how could you put a statistic on that? If you cannot test it, repeat it, observe it, or postulate HOW it can happen, there are no statistical odds that can be made. And if we are all in a dream world.. a matrix-like virtual reality that is merely a sensory illusion, then empiricism has no place here. Nothing is stable or real. All is dream. Science has no meaning or purpose, if one can merely tweak the programming & change things. I live in the only reality i know. I put my trust in observational, repeatable science, that has been verified by many people.. some of it myself. I can have confidence that an airplane will fly, due to the science or aerodynamics. I can trust that the brakes on the car will work, & have been engineered to do the job. I can walk across the floor, & know that structural calculations were made to design it. That is the function & wonder of science. We would not have the advanced technological society without the stable, orderly systems of the universe, & natural laws. Thanks for the reasoned, thoughtful post. It is quite refreshing in this forum.
No you don't. I argued with you before. Your understanding is superficial at best. Your request for evidence is one specific kind and ignoring all other types. You and others claim this is real evidence, but no matter the adjectives that you use, it does not make your claims correct. Just to remind you of our discussions, you refused to clarify your definitions of species. Calling any explanation that I cited as techno babble. You are using the same tactic here. Don't you have something better to do?
1. i certainly did. A Supreme Being, God, Higher Power, or however you wish to label it. Humans have talked about & believed in this for millennia. Shirley, you have heard of them? 2. This is a scientific debate. If you have evidence, present it. I am not discussing the widespread indoctrination of the citizens, or their beliefs in revisionist history, fake science, or Govt fantasies. Merely asserting it as 'common knowledge!' is a fallacy. Make your premise, present it logically, supported with empirical evidence, & we can examine it. I began with a short examination of abiogenesis, or the beginning of life. We can branch out to the origin of species, or matter, or anything you wish. Nobody else has presented a premise or argument, but mostly just commented on mine.. sometimes with just assertions. Care to take a shot at presenting your case? Or do you just want to criticize the posts of others, & make no arguments of your own?
