UyiIredia:


I have given a proof to back it up. Feel dree to go through my previous posts for it. Have you forgotten hoq we ended up talking about codes ?

davien:
Could you give the proof again,because your posts were filled with assertions....not proofs.

UyiIredia:


* Living things have codes in them.
* It takes intelligence to make codes eg humans making computers
* By inference, living things were made by an intelligent being (God).

joseph1832:
I never said I don't believe in God Judas! You only assumed. Anyway I am not surprised because that's what some christians do, once you don't share their brand of christianity they see you as an atheist.

UyiIredia:


* Living things have codes in them.
* It takes intelligence to make codes eg humans making computers
* By inference, living things were made by an intelligent being (God).

*Birds fly.
*it takes intelligence to make things fly. e.g humans making planes fly.
*By inference, birds were made by an intelligent being. God!

Wow, genius! this is irrefutable logic! ...why haven't I, Richard Dawkins and other Scientists thought of this
Goddidit!

davien:

Premise 1 is a natural biological function...
Premise 2 is an artificial function....
Your conclusion is false...

UyiIredia:


Your first point is a false assertion (ie if you mean codes in living things originated naturally). Your next point states the obvious. Your conclusion misses the whole point of my argument which was an inference based on point 2.

davien:
Sorry for the delayed posts(working at the moment)...

Uyilredia,my first point was about the fact that DNA is a natural biological function(i.e it is present in nature,in biological systems).

The second point was about human made codes not being present in nature nor in biological systems....they require a mind because they are not naturally present in the environment..

Then my conclusion is to point out that you cannot use the point that since we make artificial codes which require a mind...therefore biological codes also require a mind...that is an equivocation fallacy.

UyiIredia:


Its presence in nature is what needs explaining and my argument profers a solution. How am I making an equivocation fallacy ?

davien:
Its presence in nature is indeed in need of an explanation...

You on the other hand have equated the point of a mind needed in artificial codes to account for the one found in nature...

How did you deduce the one found in nature to also be from a mind like the artifical ones?

UyiIredia:


Based on their similarities and the fact that abiotic natural processes eg sun, wind, geysers etc have never been seen to make any codes of any kind.

Weah96:


You've never seen a code in the harmonious markings left by the wind in SAND?

You're in luck. Look at every fourth line and see if you notice anything.

UyiIredia:


They are just markings on the sands. They aren't codes and don"t symbolize anything other than themselves. Quit talking crap.

UyiIredia:


Based on their similarities and the fact that abiotic natural processes eg sun, wind, geysers etc have never been seen to make any codes of any kind.

davien:
True...then again those factors were vastly different at the time DNA was known to have appeared...and experiments to partially mimick those environments yield the same constituents found in DNA..

Also thinking agents are not known to poof biological DNA from scratch.....

Abiogenesis demonstrates that the organic components of DNA can be derived naturally....is there a similar experiment where thinking agents can make the components of DNA from no starting materials?

UyiIredia:


Abiogenesis experiments fail on 3 fronts. They don't mimic the environments thought to yield life. They only claim to do so. The experiments have a high degree of intelligent input and in many cases don't bother to mimic natural conditions, and almost always weed out adverse factors eg strong UV rays. Two, where they do mimic the environmental conditions as Miller's experiment did, they yield little or no chemicals, Miller BTW stopped heating his chemicals at a point if not they would have just blackened into tar the way burnt food does. Three, even with different factors the result would still be the same one can see this in the billions of lifeless planets and moons around each with their different environments.

While thinking agents don't poof DNA. They do design systems similar and we have that as a good basis to infer that life must also have been designed.

davien:
One,the abiogenesis experiments do mimick early earth abiotic factors albeit not entirely(hence my use of "partially" to describe it in my reply).....

davien:
Two,your knowledge of abiogenesis is outdated...newer experiments that match the early earth conditions more accurately,have yielded more organic matter and DNA constituents...and also being that the earth was dynamic then...factors like the strong UV were flunctuating till the ozone layer could sufficiently block it...hence the factor would be irrelevant since an equilibrium was reached and the organic matter would have already acquired sufficient energy to form proteins...guanine etc..

davien:
Three,most planets,moons etc are not dynamic I.e they do not have a stable magnetosphere,nickel-iron core etc...and are not situated to allow liquid water to form....those that do meet the prerequisites are too far away to be investigated for life...

davien:
No we don't....that is an equivocation fallacy...because one can make things with resemblance to nature doesn't mean nature is "created"...

davien:
AN ANALOGY
Your arm may be similar to a lever...the two function similarly but are derived differently and are composed of unlike parts....so one can't say since an arm is like a lever and levers need a rope to operate...therefore your arm does too...
They may work on the same principles but are entirely different in origin and property..

UyiIredia:


No, they don't.

This is demonstrably false. Anyone is free to Google 'Origin of life experiments'. You will see claims that the conditions match early earth.

But they are done in highly artificial contexts, even the chemicals have to be produced and don't occur naturally.

Your talk on the ozone layer reeks of ignorance. Please go to Wikipedia's article on abiogenesis and search the page for UV rays and radioactive.

Davien:
factors like the strong UV were flunctuating till the ozone
layer could sufficiently block it...hence the factor would be
irrelevant since an equilibrium was reached

The early earth had lots of UV rays and was strongly radioactive. Elements which are harmful to life of any sort.

That said, organic matter simply acquiring energy does not result in a protein. You are simply asserting that, that will be even more unlikely if there was truly a primeval soup since cross-reactions would prevent any meaningful results.

Actually many eg Saturn and Jupiter have a stable magnetosphere so that's not an excuse. Even the presence of water doesn't guarantee that a form of life will evolve. Some moons in our solar system have water in them and yet are lifeless.

Actually it does. Especially when we know that in principle Nature (excluding living things) is incapable of making anything remotely reminiscent of a lifeform.

The muscle in one's arms is analogous to the rope in the lever.

davien:
Like I said....the experiments do not match early earth environments perfectly but only partially,because we don't know of all the factors involved....only speculative assumptions.

davien:
They do not...not all factors are even known to be involved...

davien:
Ofcourse they are done in highly artificial contexts...how else do you replicate a process that requires utmost precision?
And you don't expect such to occur naturally today when the environment has greatly changed.

davien:
Again I keep asking you if you have flint for eyes....
Read my comment again below and see if I objected to the prescence of UV rays..


Does fluctuation imply reduction only?

davien:
This is only partly true...some forms of life don't find UV rays or radioactive materials harmful...take for example extremophiles.

"An extremophile is an organism that thrives in
physically or geochemically extreme conditions that are detrimental
to most life on Earth"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile

And most notably the characteristic domain of which extremophiles belong to,Archeae.

Their phylogenetic tree(which shows their history as among the first life forms) corresponds to their ability to withstand harsh environments present at the early earth.

[img]http://www.upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Phylogenic_Tree-en.svg[/img]

davien:
Here is the list of starting materials that were used forto the experiment...you'd find that it needed organic compounds and energy(note: the "matter" in my earlier post was a typo)

"experiment used water (H 2 O), methane (CH 4 ), ammonia (NH 3 ),
and hydrogen (H 2 ). Continuous electrical sparks were fired between the
electrodes to simulate lightning in the water vapour and gaseous mixture'
After a day, the solution collected at the trap had turned pink in
colour.
At the end of one weeks of continuous operation, the boiling flask was removed, and mercuric chloride was added to prevent microbial contamination. The reaction was stopped by adding barium hydroxide and sulfuric acid, and evaporated to remove impurities. Paper chromatography revealed the presence of glycine, α- and β-alanine."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment

davien:
Picking one prerequisite and then touting why that factor does not yield the same result....while ignoring the bulk of prerequisites needed,does not prove a compelling argument against the scarcity of life, but your ignorance of the subject...
The point here is that I only listed a few prerequisites among an unknown number of factors required for life....picking one factor and then expecting that to cover for the rest is foolhardy..

davien:
Exactly..the only thing that we observe to make life is life....not "supernatural life"..
The point with abiogenesis follows this analogy...
A diseased cell can make other cells diseased...so the process might have started with a healthy cell that was never diseased but became so...

davien:
Hence organic life can make organic life...so the process might have started with organic life that was never organic life but became so...

davien:
But one doesn't equate it to a rope as you would equate intelligence to biological codes.

davien: Here is the list of starting materials that were used forto the experiment...you'd find that it needed organic compounds and energy(note: the "matter" in my earlier post was a typo)

"experiment used water (H 2 O), methane (CH 4 ), ammonia (NH 3 ),
and hydrogen (H 2 ). Continuous electrical sparks were fired between the
electrodes to simulate lightning in the water vapour and gaseous mixture'
After a day, the solution collected at the trap had turned pink in
colour.
At the end of one weeks of continuous operation, the boiling flask was removed, and mercuric chloride was added to prevent microbial contamination. The reaction was stopped by adding barium hydroxide and sulfuric acid, and evaporated to remove impurities. Paper chromatography revealed the presence of glycine, α- and β-alanine."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment

UyiIredia:
[size=14pt]And where in Nature would you find all these elements in one place?[/size] One wonders how natural processes will know when or how to add the sulfuric acid and co to remove impurities. Not to mention the fact that the presence of chemicals like oxygen (also said to be present in early earth but in lower quantities) would hamper such a reaction. I wonder why Urey declined to put oxygen and UV rays in his experiment. If you must simulate natural conditions you can't ignore the parts adverse to life.

UyiIredia:


I see no reason to believe them.



Okay.



Such contexts don't bother to replicate natural conditions. They only claim to. Nature lacks that very precision that is used in the labs. I don't even believe in early earth scenarios. But even assuming it were true I would expect it to occur because given the number or living things available one would expect natural processes to fairly easily replicate living prototypes.




So I take it you admit that adverse conditions to life prevailed on early earth.




True. But the lifeforms resistant to them are negligible compared to those that will be harmed by it.



And where in Nature would you find all these elements in one place ? One wonders how natural processes will know when or how to add the sulfuric acid and co to remove impurities. Not to mention the fact that the presence of chemicals like oxygen (also said to be present in early earth but in lower quantities) would hamper such a reaction. I wonder why Urey declined to put oxygen and UV rays in his experiment. If you must simulate natural conditions you can't ignore the parts adverse to life.



Isn't that what scientists are doing ? Ignoring favorable prerequisites while ognoring unfavorable ones. And showcasing it as proof that life originated naturally. That meets your definition of ignorance.



No. Abiogenesis presumes life comes from non-life.



Ofcourse this remains a testable hypothesis...

It's a bogus hypothesis. One you are yet to prove.



I didn't equate intelligence to biological codes. I inferred that life was made since it's based on codes that have only been seen to require intelligence to make. What's important is that you are yet to show how natural processes can make codes. Simply begging for early earth doesn't work. And you are yet to show where my argument fails. You made a mistaken claim of equivocation.

Emusan:


If truly the life we know today comes through this process I wonder where some Atheist put their brain for unable to ask a simple question, why will Miller-Urey CAREFULLY chose those substances and a better ENVIRONMENT for their experiment when nobody was there at early earth?



@bold-NO ATHEIST CAN PROVIDE a reasonable answer to that question.
@underlined-That's what they do. They purposely ignore this and still believe the conditions for early life arouses from chemical can be melt.

davien:
If you had paid more attention to my posts and did not attack it blindly you'd notice that [size=14pt]I am not for nor against abiogenesis,[/size] as the process is but a testable hypothesis...

Emusan:


You thought I attacked your post blindly but I did not.
You're not for nor against, so which side are you?

davien:
It's good you understand the position....
Further more it is not known if the process took place or not(hence I said it remains a testable hypothesis)
And biological codes aren't known to require intelligence..artificial ones are..can you point out the process a mind can use in making biological codes?

UyiIredia:


At best, my argument can infer that living things are designed. I don't need to detail how biological codes are made for it to be correct.

davien:
It remains a testable hypothesis.....that's It.

Emusan:


And since 1950's nothing can come out of this.

I will ask you this again why will Miller-Urey CAREFULLY chose those substances and a better ENVIRONMENT for their experiment when nobody was there at early earth to do so?
.

davien:
On the contrary you do....otherwise it becomes an assertion...
How were they designed?

davien:
The environment chosen was due to how dna is deoxygenated,therefore a reducing atmosphere is required to produce the building blocks of life......

UyiIredia:


However, early earth had oxygen. Neither do I believe there was a reducing atmosphere.