On The Impossibility Of Abiogenesis.

Hmmm,...
What about Spontaneous Creation,... is that possible?

 

?
I have time and again stated that, if you mean by "evidence" something "scientific," then the Copenhagen Interpretation does that job.

Copenhagen tells us that before a wave form can collapse into matter it must be observed.
Hence before matter appeared in the Universe, a creator had to exist.

 

Not without an act of God.

 

You're the one asking questions, not me. I already understand the concepts.

 

And yet you have not not refuted anything from the article. Did you even read it? How do you explain the information content of DNA? There is no way that it could have happened by accident. It fly's in the face of all logic and understanding. You cannot explain how complex specified information just happened all by itself. No one can. Every other known form of information is the result of a intelligent mind. So, why does DNA get a pass?

 

Because it can. Probably a deeper issue is they don't want God to exist. If God exist then we better know who he is, what he wants, and do what he said.

I think this video proves my point.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XKSRo0tT52g

 

You do realize that DNA is not really information content? Humans gave it information so we can describe the process. DNA is biochemical reactions.

 

DNA does contain information. It contains all the instructions to create a human being. It regulates all of the activity in every cell in our bodies. It meets all of the requirements of a high level language. What you fail to realize is that DNA is simply the medium for this information. Information exists independently of matter and energy. Take this forum, for instance. We are exchanging information. It is the result of electronic ones and zeros. We could communicate by written correspondence, or any other medium, including smoke signals. The information content doesn't change. So chemical reactions are simply another form of information storage.

 

which was soundly refuted the first time you claimed it.

nope, that isn't what Copenhagen tells us.

 

We figured out how to read it.

Your claim is like saying a book contains no information if you can't read.

And, no, a strand of DNA is an actual physical object.

 

Oh. I do believe your "people" refers to me since I am the one who believes that God is the author of the laws that predict physical and chemical reactions--very few of which--IMO, are random events. I am not saying God wags his fingers to make these reactions happen. What I do believe is that the universe is too awesome for everything to be random events. For you to say that I have theories like this because I am afraid of death is insulting, and doesn't make sense. And yes I believe that there are rules of the universe and these rules and laws are immutable.

 

That guy just doesn't know scientific method. And, i though you did!

The hypotheses concerning how a pen came about are quite easily falsifiable. We can study archeological sites, etc. And find lots of confirmation concerning human construction of writing equipment and find no evidence of its arrival by other means.

However, science doesn't allow for the hypothesis that God gave us pens. There would be no way to falsify that hypothesis, as it is always possible that a magical being (of any type) was involved and covered her tracks.

The same is true for other things God could have done or could be doing today.

Is god moving earth and other objects around the sun? Science can not deal with that. Did god make ants? Science can not deal with that. Etc. In NO case can science deal with god.

This is NOT an anti God thing. It is a limitation that comes from the fact that science is based on evidence and thus requires that hypotheses be refutable. And, suppositions made about god's acts are NEVER refutable when restricted to evidence.

How could you ever use evidence to prove that something was not done by god?



Also, note that any belief that "God did it" closes down investigation. Look at the attempts on this board that make horrendous accusations against those who continue exploration! Years back, it involved risk of life. Today, it is used against education - and not just science education. Colleges get accused of being hot beds of evil. Results from climatology get ignored because they come from science. People on this board make assumptions that those who take part in science are atheisrs!

We need more and better science education so we can compete in the high tech world we have created, so we can properly weigh public policy on ALL topiics (since ALL public policy is better when informed by techniques of science - ask if this isn't obvious), so we can reduce the paranoia about religion and live together.

 

I can already tell this is going to be a fun thread.

Awww, that was way to easy. Guess I'll have to move on to some of the ignorance to follow.

Get back to me when automobiles and plastic are able to reproduce on their own.

That's how scientists study natural processes, by setting up controlled environments and then watching what happens. You don't really expect them to find a new planet somewhere and just sit around waiting for life to arise, do you?

The only information content in DNA is what we give it. To the proteins which interact with it, DNA is nothing more than chemical reactions.

Languages have productivity, recursion, and displacement. Where do you find any of these in a strand of DNA?

 

Yes, our universe does have laws that appear to be immutable. That seriously reduces the amount of randomness. And, it constrains where and how the remaining randomness works, too.

On the other hand, the randomness we have appears to be an absolute requirement for the progression of this universe.

 

I'm trying to think of an absolutely random event--an event that occurs without any outside interference like gravity, or being bombarded by synchrotron radiation; changes that occur without heat, force, cold, etc. I can't think of any. All the things I think of require some kind of outside interference, the result of which can be predicted with accuracy if all the laws of nature were known. Therefore, it seems to me that there might not be anything that is purely random.

Can you think of a perfectly random event?

 

I stopped at the first Straw Man. Let us know when you learn the difference between reactive and non-reactive chemicals, metals and minerals.

It's chemicals....you should have already known that.

You mean, no way that you're aware. You're ignoring the fact that there were Billions of random combinations taking place simultaneously each second of each minute of each hour of each Earth day.

Those instructions are chemicals, and it took Billions of years of mutations to arrive at modern humans.

But it isn't an high level language.

Why don't you take a few chemistry classes at university level and get back to us?

 

The Miller-Urey experiment confirmed chemical evolution happens.

 

No it didnt, in fact just the opposite.

http://creation.mobi/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis

 

That's an off-the-cuff statement.

So if you didnt, then what?

The idea is that it takes a designer to create design. Not whether God made the pen.

Like?

God set them in motion and let the laws of physics take over.

 

I believe you may need better critical reasoning skills.

It is possible; but no one is claiming it is the only method anymore. Modern science has provided evidence of amino acids raining on Earth from astrological phenomena.

 

How can it be possible when a lack of oxygen would let radiation get through killing it and with oxygen the experiment would oxidize?

 

Who is claiming chemical evolution needs oxygen as a catalyst?

In any case, no one claims it all didn't happen over millennia.

 

No one. My point is the experiment excluded oxygen which would oxidize it. But in nature oxygen is important in making the ozone layer which blocks UV light. Without it the UV light would kill the experiment. So you are caught between a rock and a hard place. You can't make life with oxygen and you can't make life without it.

 

Water also provides sufficient protection from cosmic radiation, and since the oxygen is chemically bound to hydrogen, it is less likely to react with other chemicals.

 

Lack of oxygen would have next to nothing to do with the amount of surface solar radiation a particular body might absorb.

Do you have any idea what biological oxides are?