Author Topic: God vs. Spontaneous Generation (Read 6478 times)

Chaplain 69 · « **on:** August 07, 2009, 07:39:42 AM »

So, I woke up the other morning with the thought that living things don't come from non-living things. This has been standard science since Louis Pasteur convinced us back in the 19th century. I believe this. Spontaneous generation is not science. Living things coming from non-living things has never been observed and has never been reproduced in any of the great laboratories of the world. And believe me there are plenty of scientists working on it. However, the atheist and the evolutionist want me to believe that the source of life is non-living matter. But I say again, that belief is not scientific. Science is observable. Science is reproducible. A living thing coming forth from non-living matter has never been observed nor reproduced. And somehow some of the same people who believe that living things came from non-living matter think I am delusional for believing in God. The thing about blind spots is that you don't see 'em.

HAL · « **Reply #1 on:** August 07, 2009, 07:45:38 AM »

FAIL.

Just because we don't understand something now, doesn't mean it can't be understood in the future.

Please bring a new idea to the table.

Emergence · « **Reply #2 on:** August 07, 2009, 07:46:13 AM »

Chaplain, if abiogenesis isn't scientific, then why do you think - as per your own words - "plenty of scientists [are] working on it"?

William · « **Reply #3 on:** August 07, 2009, 07:58:13 AM »

Quote from: Chaplain 69 on August 07, 2009, 07:39:42 AM

So, I woke up the other morning with the thought that living things don't come from non-living things.

Think of it like this instead: Complex living things don't come from non-living things. But very simple living things did come from non-living things, and then evolved into complex living things.

See now? The problem goes away.

Do some research on your own into abiogenesis (we are not here to provide basic education) and then come back with any questions you have please.

Emergence · « **Reply #4 on:** August 07, 2009, 08:00:51 AM »

Quote from: William on August 07, 2009, 07:58:13 AM

we are not here to provide basic education

We can at least provide some starting-points: Click here

HAL · « **Reply #5 on:** August 07, 2009, 08:02:53 AM »

Quote from: Chaplain 69 on August 07, 2009, 07:39:42 AM

And somehow some of the same people who believe that living things came from non-living matter think I am delusional for believing in God.

But it's perfectly sane to think a deity, if existing being the most complex thing in existence, has just been there for all eternity never having been created.

Put away your crack pipe Chaplain.

William · « **Reply #6 on:** August 07, 2009, 08:16:59 AM »

Quote from: Emergence on August 07, 2009, 08:00:51 AM

Quote from: William on August 07, 2009, 07:58:13 AM
we are not here to provide basic education

We can at least provide some starting-points: Click here

Tips hat, Emergence. I'd forgotten about that excellent thread - we should keep it on the boil with new stuff

PinkMilk · « **Reply #7 on:** August 07, 2009, 08:24:23 AM »

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/
It can be reproduced in a laboratory setting.

Emergence · « **Reply #8 on:** August 07, 2009, 08:27:12 AM »

Quote from: William on August 07, 2009, 08:16:59 AM

Tips hat, Emergence. I'd forgotten about that excellent thread - we should keep it on the boil with new stuff

Do you know of any newer research success'?

I recently found Exploring Life's Origins, which is a nice resource and summary. It mainly focuses on the RNA world hypothesis, though.

Chaplain 69 · « **Reply #9 on:** August 07, 2009, 08:52:22 AM »

Thanks for taking the time to read my post. I am proud to report because of your support and encouragement I have decided to stop smoking crack.

I don't have a problem with anyone's belief in spontaneous generation. I just don't believe it. I don't believe it because there are no examples of a living thing, simple or complex, coming forth from non-living matter and there is no one claiming to have observed it.

If someone believes that living things do, or have, come forth from non-living things, no problem here but it is simply a belief that person holds on faith. It is similar to a religious belief. It is held as truth even though it cannot be proven.

One difference between belief in God and belief in spontaneous generation is that no one claims to have observed spontaneous generation, while billions of people from all societies, time periods, education, and socio-economic levels claim to have experienced the presence of God.

Neither side can prove their beliefs have actually happened. It is only a belief that it has happened. Again, science is observable and reproducible and spontaneous generation has never been observed nor reproduced.

OK, two new posts just came in. I am fairly familiar with the "new" research. Are amino acid chains living things?

Chaplain 69 · « **Reply #10 on:** August 07, 2009, 08:59:34 AM »

I am going on vacation tomorrow so I need to go make some preps. I will try to check out some of the "new" info while I am away.

Cheers,
Chaps

HAL · « **Reply #11 on:** August 07, 2009, 09:04:43 AM »

Quote from: Chaplain 69 on August 07, 2009, 08:52:22 AM

Thanks for taking the time to read my post. I am proud to report because of your support and encouragement I have decided to stop smoking crack.

No you haven't, keep reading -

Quote

One difference between belief in God and belief in spontaneous generation is that no one claims to have observed spontaneous generation, while billions of people from all societies, time periods, education, and socio-economic levels claim to have experienced the presence of God.

Don't be ridiculous. People have claimed any and all manner of stupid and unverifiable things throughout history. Are you blind to historical evidence of this? Also, people have claimed all kinds of gods have existed, not just yours. So then you must admit all these gods are real, since people have claimed them to be so and your basis for thinking your god is real is that "billions of people from all societies, time periods, education, and socio-economic levels claim to have experienced the presence of God". That's a simple logical fallacy - appeal to the masses.

Keep smoking that pipe, that way you can avoid rational thought and be satisfied with your delusion.

William · « **Reply #12 on:** August 07, 2009, 09:16:53 AM »

Quote from: Emergence on August 07, 2009, 08:27:12 AM

Do you know of any newer research success'?

Well PinkMilk's reference is a very nice addition

That pretty much smashes the "probability hurdle" for conditions for spontaneous RNA synthesis

Something quite interesting looking at reproduction with L-form bacteria (stripped of their cell walls) potentially pushes the development of complexity in cell walls further out along the evolutionary timeline:

Quote

'What we have uncovered seems to be a primitive mode of growth probably used by the very earliest cells on the planet,' says Professor Errington,

While it's not a major breakthrough, it certainly fits comfortably with and strengthens the current theory for abiogenesis:

Quote

'All modern bacteria are used to living inside their wall which is a great sheltered place to be but it's an engineering feat to be able to expand it, keeping it intact at all times and then pinch it off into two. We now think that before the wall was invented, very early in evolution, cells used this squirting method to increase in number.'

It demonstrates that current observed complexity is by no means an essential feature of the simpler life forms that came before - modern cell walls are not at all life-critical "designs"

Chaplain 69 · « **Reply #13 on:** August 07, 2009, 09:24:09 AM »

HAL, do you consider argumentum ad hominem rational thought or just emotional rant? Your argument that I must be smoking crack is unpersuasive.

Is it logical to assume that billions of people must all understand God the same way in order for him to exist? Couldn't the billions of theists be right about the existence of God in spite of differences about some of the details? That seems reasonable (rational thought), doesn't it? Of course, it does.

Now, about your belief in spontaneous generation...

Petey · « **Reply #14 on:** August 07, 2009, 09:28:03 AM »

Quote from: Chaplain 69

But I say again, that belief is not scientific. Science is observable. Science is reproducible. A living thing coming forth from non-living matter has never been observed nor reproduced. And somehow some of the same people who believe that living things came from non-living matter think I am delusional for believing in God.

Quote from: Chaplain 69

I don't have a problem with anyone's belief in spontaneous generation. I just don't believe it. I don't believe it because there are no examples of a living thing, simple or complex, coming forth from non-living matter and there is no one claiming to have observed it.

I find it rather ironic that your reasons for not believing in spontaneous generation are precisely the reasons (well, some of the many reasons) that atheists have for not believing in god(s). The concept of a divine creation is also not observable and not reproducible. The main difference between the two concepts is that the idea of god(s) creating can never be tested, while abiogenesis can. We may someday find that it is indeed impossible for living matter to develop from non-living matter naturally, but that point would be well into the future. To give up now when we're just beginning to really understand the mechanics of life on a molecular level would be extremely irresponsible.

Quote from: Chaplain 69

If someone believes that living things do, or have, come forth from non-living things, no problem here but it is simply a belief that person holds on faith. It is similar to a religious belief. It is held as truth even though it cannot be proven.

I would imagine that there are very few people who hold abiogenesis as "truth". They simply view it as the best naturalistic explanation that we have. It is not similar to a religious belief, because a "believer" in abiogenesis would have absolutely no problem changing his/her views based on tested, peer-reviewed evidence that is contradictory to their "belief". Religious belief, for the most part, is immune to this type of evidence.

Quote from: Chaplain 69

One difference between belief in God and belief in spontaneous generation is that no one claims to have observed spontaneous generation, while billions of people from all societies, time periods, education, and socio-economic levels claim to have experienced the presence of God.

Which god? Are you saying that all gods are real, or that all claims of experiencing god are real/true?

In 1000 BCE, nobody on earth had observed evidence that the sun was the center of the solar system, while everyone in all societies, education, and socio-economic levels claimed that the earth was the center of the solar system/universe. Did that make it true?

hickdive · « **Reply #15 on:** August 07, 2009, 09:36:11 AM »

Quote from: Chaplain 69 on August 07, 2009, 08:52:22 AM

I don't have a problem with anyone's belief in spontaneous generation. I just don't believe it. I don't believe it because there are no examples of a living thing, simple or complex, coming forth from non-living matter and there is no one claiming to have observed it.

The difference is that there are, as you say, plenty of people who claim to have experienced god but they have absolutely no evidence whereas scientists researching the field of abiogenesis have some evidence of the necessary precursor stages - such as the formation of RNA.

Quote from: Chaplain 69 on August 07, 2009, 08:52:22 AM

If someone believes that living things do, or have, come forth from non-living things, no problem here but it is simply a belief that person holds on faith. It is similar to a religious belief. It is held as truth even though it cannot be proven.

See above. There is some evidence pointing to possible mechanisms for abiogenesis, research is continuing and is likely to produce more evidence. There is no evidence for the existence of gods and none is likely to be forthcoming. You have faith, which is belief in the absence of evidence, but abiogenesis has some hypotheses backed by evidence.

Quote from: Chaplain 69 on August 07, 2009, 08:52:22 AM

One difference between belief in God and belief in spontaneous generation is that no one claims to have observed spontaneous generation, while billions of people from all societies, time periods, education, and socio-economic levels claim to have experienced the presence of God.

Apart from being a logical fallacy, argument from majority, this ignores the fact that many of those people's experiences will be of different gods to that which you believe in. Which of those gods is correct and why?

Quote from: Chaplain 69 on August 07, 2009, 08:52:22 AM

science is observable and reproducible and spontaneous generation has never been observed nor reproduced.

Prior to July 1969 man hadn't walked on the moon, science and engineering made that possible. Prior to earlier this year whole, living, fertile mice hadn't been produced from mouse skin cells, science made that possible.

Although there's no evidence that he ever actually said it, the misquote of Charles Duell, head of the US Patent Office in 1899, that "Everything that can be invented has been invented" seems appropriate. Do you think, misquote or not, that anyone can reasonably ever make that claim?

Just because abiogenesis hasn't yet been reproduced in the laboratory it doesn't mean it never will be, especially considering the extent of existing research. This is quite unlike a belief in god.

screwtape · « **Reply #16 on:** August 07, 2009, 09:37:20 AM »

Quote from: Chaplain 69 on August 07, 2009, 09:24:09 AM

Now, about your belief in spontaneous generation...

That is a mischaracterization, chappy. Spontaneous generation is an obsolete idea. No one believes that. I suggest you research the difference between spontaneous generation and abiogenesis. I also suggest you stop using that phrase to characterize the current science or you will be accused of being ignorant or worse - dishonest.

William · « **Reply #17 on:** August 07, 2009, 09:46:34 AM »

Quote from: Chaplain 69 on August 07, 2009, 09:24:09 AM

Now, about your belief in spontaneous generation...

Chaplain 69, did you read and understand the reference that PinkMilk gave? Can you explain the significance of it?
Can you tell it's not about belief? These people actually got RNA to "spontaneously generate". That is now a fact - no longer a hypothesis and definitely not a belief.

RNA is just one type of molecule but a very important one in the theory of abiogenesis. Lot's of the other pieces of the life puzzle are already falling into place. You cannot expect science to suddenly produce all the results in a few lab experiments - it's damn hard painstaking work.
It took nature billions of years to do it with an incomprehensible number of trials.

Try to understand the significance of the research and the FACTS they are uncovering instead of rejecting ideas because they do not fit with your belief.

bigdamhero · « **Reply #18 on:** August 07, 2009, 09:53:34 AM »

um... search teh interwebs for abiogenesis news and then come back. man has created rna from non living
materials just this past summer.

Chaplain 69 · « **Reply #19 on:** August 07, 2009, 10:03:04 AM »

Thanks for the replies. I am heading out now.
But a belief that living things coming from non-living matter, whatever you call it, has never been observed or reproduced. It is an interesting theory but if you believe that it happens, or has happened, you are believing it on faith. It may be your hope that it will be proven true but it is not founded upon observable evidence. And we currently know that no living thing has ever been observed to have come from non-living matter. On the other hand, I am experiencing God. I do not know of anyone who claims to have observed or reproduced living matter coming forth from non-living matter. Am I delusional, perhaps. But no more delusional than those who believe living things come from non-living matter.

Cheers.

HAL · « **Reply #20 on:** August 07, 2009, 10:13:12 AM »

Quote from: Chaplain 69 on August 07, 2009, 09:24:09 AM

HAL, do you consider argumentum ad hominem rational thought or just emotional rant? Your argument that I must be smoking crack is unpersuasive.

Ok, so you aren't smoking crack then.

What are you smoking?

Petey · « **Reply #21 on:** August 07, 2009, 10:18:30 AM »

Quote from: Chaplain 69

Am I delusional, perhaps. But no more delusional than those who believe living things come from non-living matter.

We've already covered how religious belief differs from scientific belief. Stating over and over that they are the same thing doesn't make it true.

screwtape · « **Reply #22 on:** August 07, 2009, 10:19:42 AM »

Quote from: Chaplain 69 on August 07, 2009, 10:03:04 AM

But a belief that living things coming from non-living matter, whatever you call it,

Listen chappy, you have been corrected several times now. That you continue to get it wrong is willfully ignorant and disrespectful to the efforts we have put forth to help you. You are quickly pissing away any good will you may have started with.

Quote from: Chaplain 69 on August 07, 2009, 10:03:04 AM

has never been observed or reproduced. It is an interesting theory but if you believe that it happens, or has happened, you are believing it on faith. It may be your hope that it will be proven true but it is not founded upon observable evidence.

As I suggested in your introductory thread, you should ask more questions rather than assume what we think or believe. This is a strawman you are presenting here.

Quote from: Chaplain 69 on August 07, 2009, 10:03:04 AM

On the other hand, I am experiencing God.

Define "God". Give me observable data that shows this is what you are experiencing. You may be experiencing something, but you have to show that it is this "God" you have yet to define.

Omen · « **Reply #23 on:** August 07, 2009, 10:24:47 AM »

Quote from: Chaplain 69 on August 07, 2009, 07:39:42 AM

So, I woke up the other morning with the thought that living things don't come from non-living things.

Great, I don't think that either.

Quote

This has been standard science since Louis Pasteur convinced us back in the 19th century.

What? Nothing you just described, has been considered 'standard science'. Not a single scientific theory or hypothesis, makes the statements or implications you just made.

So what exactly are you talking about?

Quote

I believe this. Spontaneous generation is not science.

It was considered theory until Pasteur disproved it, but theory in the loose sense.. seeing how this is nearly 2-300 years old when 'science' in the general sense was still in its infancy.

So, we have a problem. You're making sweeping statements about science and history, based on a dichotomy of belief in god vs non-belief in god. Your statements are simply wrong, error riddled assertions that expand from your own ignorance. We need you to either explain the error or acknowledge the error.

The other problem is your logic, nothing in science can or has ever stated that a 'god' doesn't exist anymore then it says a god can exist. We, being atheist, are not atheist simply because one day we opened a science book and it said,"NO GOD!" So its not true to draw a causation between some kind of scientific principle ( which in your case.. you can't even get it correct ) and atheism itself. Life could rise on its own with or without a god, one has nothing to do with the other. Which begs the question of why are you presenting this polemical case? Why the false dichotomy? What is your dichotomy based upon? Why are you presuming a dichotomy where one side is 'absolute'? That seems rather dishonest of you.

Omen · « **Reply #24 on:** August 07, 2009, 10:35:28 AM »

Quote from: Chaplain 69 on August 07, 2009, 08:52:22 AM

Thanks for taking the time to read my post. I am proud to report because of your support and encouragement I have decided to stop smoking crack.

I don't have a problem with anyone's belief in spontaneous generation. I just don't believe it. I don't believe it because there are no examples of a living thing, simple or complex, coming forth from non-living matter and there is no one claiming to have observed it.

Actually, self organization is a pretty readily observable thing both in physics and biology.

The error you're making here is that you've latched on to a label such as 'living' or 'life' giving it special credence over other matter. You're using it in a quick and generally undefined fashion, where you never bother to explain the special exemption you keep referring to like a mantra.. and you likely don't actually know the 'scientific' definition of life.

See, life.. and non-life are both matter. What makes life different from non-life is a series of attributes subjectively defined to describe 'life' which is nothing more then matter. Sometimes 'non-life' has some or most of the attributes of 'life', we can give you examples of self replicating molecules that are not necessarily 'alive' because they don't match all the criteria for life. Crystals, snowflakes, molecular self organization, and countless others examples exist in biology/physics of matter organizing and replicating on any number of levels.. directly observable and playing an everyday role in our understanding of modern science/economy/industry etc. Nothing about 'life' is magically derived, so could you either kindly explain what you are defining as life vs non-life ( if not the scientific definition for life ) or explain why you keep using a fallacy such as special pleading ( an unexplained qualifier )?

Quote

If someone believes that living things do, or have, come forth from non-living things, no problem here but it is simply a belief that person holds on faith. It is similar to a religious belief. It is held as truth even though it cannot be proven.

You're presenting a series of error riddled generalizations, using premises that are necessarily false or need not be accepted as face value. You are also assuming these false positions on your imagined 'opponents', creating a false dichotomy between your view and their own. You are also not really bothering to ask what atheist actually accept or do not accept as true, communication seems to be the least of your interest.

Dragnet · « **Reply #25 on:** August 07, 2009, 11:00:45 AM »

Quote from: Chaplain 69 on August 07, 2009, 10:03:04 AM

Thanks for the replies. I am heading out now.
But a belief that living things coming from non-living matter, whatever you call it, has never been observed or reproduced. It is an interesting theory but if you believe that it happens, or has happened, you are believing it on faith. It may be your hope that it will be proven true but it is not founded upon observable evidence. And we currently know that no living thing has ever been observed to have come from non-living matter. On the other hand, I am experiencing God. I do not know of anyone who claims to have observed or reproduced living matter coming forth from non-living matter. Am I delusional, perhaps. But no more delusional than those who believe living things come from non-living matter.

Cheers.

You are making a positive claim that you are experiencing a deity that you call God. It is your responsibility to present evidence in support of this claim.

You seem to be saying on one hand that you do not believe in like coming from non life and on the other hand stating that your version of a deity did exactly that. Created life from dust (non living thing).
You seem to want it both ways.

Crocoduck · « **Reply #26 on:** August 07, 2009, 01:24:58 PM »

Quote from: Dragnet on August 07, 2009, 11:00:45 AM

You seem to be saying on one hand that you do not believe in like coming from non life and on the other hand stating that your version of a deity did exactly that. Created life from dust (non living thing).
You seem to want it both ways.

exactly. it boils down to the lack of knowledge of how life could start from non life, since no one knows at the moment... any answer is better than no answer.

they dont believe life can come from non life through a natural occurrence... but they believe life can come from non life once magic is applied.

this subject will go the way of lightning, rainbows, earthquakes, etc...someday. just because it is an unknown atm it doesnt mean it always will be unknown. crediting it to a magical god in the meantime will be looked back upon as silly by future generations just as we look back at the people who didnt understand electricity or disease.

it is sad really, i have a video in the works covering this topic.

velkyn · « **Reply #27 on:** August 07, 2009, 03:31:22 PM »

Quote from: Chaplain 69 on August 07, 2009, 10:03:04 AM

Thanks for the replies. I am heading out now.
But a belief that living things coming from non-living matter, whatever you call it, has never been observed or reproduced. It is an interesting theory but if you believe that it happens, or has happened, you are believing it on faith. It may be your hope that it will be proven true but it is not founded upon observable evidence. And we currently know that no living thing has ever been observed to have come from non-living matter. On the other hand, I am experiencing God. I do not know of anyone who claims to have observed or reproduced living matter coming forth from non-living matter. Am I delusional, perhaps. But no more delusional than those who believe living things come from non-living matter.
Cheers.

It would be so nice if Christians would at least read about the topics that they think are ever-so wrong.

Right now, scienctists, specifically "synthetic biologists" are working on doing what you claim is impossible. What happens when they suceed? Well, I know that, you will come up whine that "well, scientist now have to invent new elements because they are useing what God gave them", being totally ignorant, as usual, of the fact we *have* made new elements. You'll always have some other reason to denigrate science, that same science that you enjoy everyday. The utter hypocrisy of Christians knows no limit.

You claim to be experiencing God, every Mulsim claims that about Allah, and ever other theist that has ever exists has claimed the exact same thing.

You really should read the forums more before coming back with more of the same old nonsense.

Chaplain 69 · « **Reply #28 on:** August 07, 2009, 03:37:10 PM »

Quote

We've already covered how religious belief differs from scientific belief.

The belief that living things come from non-living things is not science. Science is observable and reproducible. No living thing coming forth from non-living matter has ever been observed or reproduced. Therefore, if you believe that it has happened then you believe it on faith. But actually worse than religious faith because religious faith is founded upon an encounter with God.

I guess the belief that living things comes from non-living matter is what you would call blind-faith.

News:

Author Topic: God vs. Spontaneous Generation (Read 6478 times)