The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Sithdarth]

1. He's using organic molecules. Organic molecules that were made from other lifeforms.

Yeah and we all know that surprisingly complex "organic" molecules haven't been formed in a lab using early earth like conditions. Oh wait...

2. It hasn't worked, so therefore hasn't proven anything yet.

I refer you to this section of my previous post.

Originally Posted by me

As for not having worked; yeah they should totally give up after less than 5 years of work. Despite all the computer modeling, which is surprisingly accurate these days, they should totally just accept its a lost cause. We all know that scientific breakthroughs always happen in less than 2 years. Especially the really complex breakthroughs.

I mean its not like he had proof enough of the concept that a bunch of skeptical scientists decided to fund his research. Oh wait...

3. Even if it did, its intelligent design.

Yes just because a man thought to himself what might the very first multimolecular form of "life" might have looked like and then found a process that should work, and by itself during early earth conditions, nature didn't come up with it first. Hell this pretty much proves that the universe itself was intelligently designed because all the theories that define it were thought up by man.

Oh and:

I'm not criticizing his research. I'm criticizing your interpretation of it and its relevance to this thread because:

Yes because when the guy state multiple times that is passion was the origin of life he didn't mean in the religion vs science sense. Oh and when he referred to PNA and a possible DNA precursor, a step on the evolutionary scale from non-life to life, he so wasn't talking about the origins of life. Hell the fact that the whole thing has to do with creating life from a bunch of crap that was never alive pretty much excludes it from dealing in anyway with abiogenesis. Oh wait..

Edit:

Originally Posted by ZAKthegeek

But you see, all that would prove is that the formula happened to be right that one time. You can't prove that it's true in all cases and at all times; it's just impossible to collect all the data. Based on the massive amount of evidence that agrees with the formula, we are quite certain that it's true, but the point I was trying to make is that it isn't technically a fact and thus entails a bit of faith, meaning that an "atheist" holding no beliefs could not trust such an idea.

That's more or less crock because that argument could be made about anything. You're confusing faith with logic; in that logic tells us that you do not form a conclusion without contrary evidence. Kinetic Energy deals with laws of motions equations that have been tested again and again and again and never once have they suddenly became wrong. The rather shocking lack of evidence for the law of kinetic energy being variable suggests that it is in fact not variable.

Again a better choice to demonstrate faith in science would have been something less concrete and measurable. Things like strings, potential energy, gravitons, gravity waves, extra dimensions, ect...

[ZAKtheGeek]

That's more or less crock because that argument could be made about anything.

That's exactly my point. What I'm getting at here is that to define an atheist as someone with no beliefs whatsoever is to define atheism as solipsism.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Originally Posted by Sithdarth

Yeah and we all know that surprisingly complex "organic" molecules haven't been formed in a lab using early earth like conditions. Oh wait...

A simple amino acid isn't complex. Proteins, nucleic acids, and lipids are much more complex than glycine. So yeah, complex organic molecules required for self-replication HAVEN'T been formed in a lab.

Originally Posted by Sithdarth

I mean its not like he had proof enough of the concept that a bunch of skeptical scientists decided to fund his research. Oh wait...

You're using funding as proof??? I've got funding to clone lice DNA into fish eggs. Funding merely means he's good at writing grant applications... and yes, the point still stands. Until he's successful, his hypothesis doesn't prove or give evidence to anything. Thats why its a hypothesis. You're using an unfinished, uncompleted, experiment, which he himself doesn't know whether it will ultimately work or not, as evidence for abiogenesis. If you used this as a reference in a scientific review article, it would not hold up. There is no materials or methods, no results, no statistics, no peer review... You simply can't use it. When I say it hasn't worked yet, I'm not saying for him to scrap the project. It's quite stupid for you to even imply that I'm saying that. I'm saying it hasn't worked yet, THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE USED IN A DEBATE.

Yes just because a man thought to himself what might the very first multimolecular form of "life" might have looked like and then found a process that should work, and by itself during early earth conditions, nature didn't come up with it first. Hell this pretty much proves that the universe itself was intelligently designed because all the theories that define it were thought up by man.

You don't get it. He's DESIGNING this organism. It's not popping up randomly with no sense of direction. He's guiding it in order to make a lifeform. If he ultimately succeeds, perhaps in 4 billion years the creatures that evolve from it will debating where they came from. Guess what? It will be by intelligent design! Not random!

Originally Posted by Sithdarth

Yes because when the guy state multiple times that is passion was the origin of life he didn't mean in the religion vs science sense. Oh and when he referred to PNA and a possible DNA precursor, a step on the evolutionary scale from non-life to life, he so wasn't talking about the origins of life. Hell the fact that the whole thing has to do with creating life from a bunch of crap that was never alive pretty much excludes it from dealing in anyway with abiogenesis. Oh wait..

Two points here. First of all, have you ever been in a science lab? To create stuff from a bunch of crap to prove abiogenesis he'd have to be using nitrogen, ammonia, carbon dioxide, etc. You say the crap he's using was never alive, of course they were. Where do you think the skeleton for his nucleotides came from? How about the lipids? How about the enzymes used to modify them to his liking? They're called organic because they come from living systems. Secondly, PNA possible DNA precursor? Because thats not pure speculation or anything... oh wait. His whole project is built on a purely speculative premise. Second of all, there's two types of scientific experiments. One is, how does this happen? Two is, can I make this happen? He's performing the second type of experiment. If he does successfully make it happen, it proves nothing more than man can make this. It doesn't prove that it happens naturally, or that it ever happened. That would be the first type of experiment. The first type of experiment involves observations and recording without intervening to interrupt the natural progression of things. He's not doing that, he's intervening big time. I can order all the parts and build a computer, but without my intervention all those parts will NEVER form a functioning computer. They'd break down first. Same thing with this. He's trying to force results to fit his hypothesis... a valid experiment, but not one that can be applied to explain the natural world. If you had ever done any courses on experimental design, you'd know that.

Once he does succeed, if he does succeed, it'll be on Nature.com or Science.com and NOT on Popsci.com... and working in molecular biology, I'll likely know about it the moment he succeeds.

And if you think I'm alone in that, you might want to consider than the guy who's doing this has very little credibility, so the odds of him succeeding are very slim. That makes sense considering popsci.com isn't really considered a legitimate scientific source... if he had credibility, I'm pretty sure he'd be on Nature or Science.

So there you go. Crackpot scientist with crackpot experiment with crackpot methodology that he can't even make work. Sure its a neat idea, but until he gets proven right his hypothesis hold little to no value in the real world. I repeat, how is that valid in our current argument?

[Sithdarth]

A simple amino acid isn't complex. Proteins, nucleic acids, and lipids are much more complex than glycine. So yeah, complex organic molecules required for self-replication HAVEN'T been formed in a lab.

Except he isn't using full proteins. From looking at the scale of his organism he isn't using something a fraction of the size of a protein. Lipids and nucleic acids are significantly less complex than proteins. I mean we're talking tens of molecules vs hundreds to thousands. Hundreds to thousands of molecules that have to come together and fold a very particular way. That's a pretty big leap in complexity and if he was actually using proteins I could see the issue.

You're using funding as proof??? I've got funding to clone lice DNA into fish eggs. Funding merely means he's good at writing grant applications... and yes, the point still stands.
...
So there you go. Crackpot scientist with crackpot experiment with crackpot methodology that he can't even make work. Sure its a neat idea, but until he gets proven right his hypothesis hold little to no value in the real world. I repeat, how is that valid in our current argument?

So scientist are in the habit of throwing $5 million large at a group of crackpots. Oh and Steen Rasmussen may be the project leader but he doesn't do any chemistry. All the chemistry comes from Liaohai Chen and boy looking at his patents he seems like a crackpot to me.

I also redirect you to here:

Originally Posted by Me

Edit: Oh and the point of that guys study is not "this is how life first started". Its about "life can be a lot less complex than we think". While he may not prove that his process is the one the earliest "life" took he can prove that things much simpler than even viruses can self replicate. They really are nothing more than clumps of molecules, which come together with a little shaking (waves anyone).

Again this was never about proving that this is precisely what happened. Its about showing its possible to have live that is immeasurably simpler than the simplest known life.

Until he's successful, his hypothesis doesn't prove or give evidence to anything. Thats why its a hypothesis. You're using an unfinished, uncompleted, experiment, which he himself doesn't know whether it will ultimately work or not, as evidence for abiogenesis. If you used this as a reference in a scientific review article, it would not hold up. There is no materials or methods, no results, no statistics, no peer review... You simply can't use it. When I say it hasn't worked yet, I'm not saying for him to scrap the project. It's quite stupid for you to even imply that I'm saying that. I'm saying it hasn't worked yet, THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE USED IN A DEBATE.

So wait I can't use a theory that has at the very least convinced a panel of skeptical scientists of its plausibility. Not to mention was proven possible using sophisticated computer simulations. While on the other hand you get to pull in faith, your "feeling" of god", and any number of unprovable things. Mmmmm, I love the smell of double standards in the morning-ish.

You don't get it. He's DESIGNING this organism. It's not popping up randomly with no sense of direction. He's guiding it in order to make a lifeform. If he ultimately succeeds, perhaps in 4 billion years the creatures that evolve from it will debating where they came from. Guess what? It will be by intelligent design! Not random!

Now see it seems much more to me like he's designing an environment were this organism could form not so much the organism itself. If he wanted to design an organism he could stitch together an organism or do that top-down thing.

Two points here. First of all, have you ever been in a science lab? To create stuff from a bunch of crap to prove abiogenesis he'd have to be using nitrogen, ammonia, carbon dioxide, etc. You say the crap he's using was never alive, of course they were. Where do you think the skeleton for his nucleotides came from? How about the lipids? How about the enzymes used to modify them to his liking? They're called organic because they come from living systems. Secondly, PNA possible DNA precursor? Because thats not pure speculation or anything... oh wait. His whole project is built on a purely speculative premise.

Gee last time I checked molecules, even the organic kind, weren't considered their own individual life forms. I'll give you my individual cells are alive. I would not consider my individual proteins alive. I mean otherwise there probably wouldn't be debate over the status of viruses and prions.

Secondly, all scientific research starts, at least in part, with speculation. Otherwise why do the experiment if there is nothing to prove. This is way one must speculate. Its kind of what makes theories theories.

Also, thank you for assuming I had no scientific background what soever. I mean its not like it was possible with my obviously deep understanding of a lot of the laws of physics doesn't suggest something like I might be working on a bachelors in physics or anything.

Once he does succeed, if he does succeed, it'll be on Nature.com or Science.com and NOT on Popsci.com... and working in molecular biology, I'll likely know about it the moment he succeeds.

And if you think I'm alone in that, you might want to consider than the guy who's doing this has very little credibility, so the odds of him succeeding are very slim. That makes sense considering popsci.com isn't really considered a legitimate scientific source... if he had credibility, I'm pretty sure he'd be on Nature or Science.

So a magazine ostensibly about science can't at least once in awhile run a respectable science story? Of course its not an academic journal but just because they feature a story about a scientist doesn't make that scientist a crackpot. Especially if its an entire team of scientist with $5 million worth of grant money.

Additionally, you seem to be getting a tad worked up here, as evidenced by the sudden appearance of capitalized phrases and the sudden personal attacks on my ability to reason and my potential experience. Perhaps a break is in order.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

First of all I apologize for implying you don't know anything about science. You know more about physics than me. I'll downgrade that to I know a lot more about biology than you.

Second of all I don't pretend I can prove God's existence. Reread this thread if you want, I haven't even tried.

Originally Posted by Me

The only reason I can give to accept God and Jesus and the whole thing is the personal experience.

Thats what I said right there. No attempt to prove it or say that therefore I'm right. He can believe that if he wants, but a belief isn't proof. No different from me. I'm not saying his hypothesis is invalid, I'm saying its invalid for you to use it as evidence of abiogenesis. I love the smell of Red Herring fallacies in the morning.

Third of all, grant size and whoever the hell his chemist is doesn't make his HYPOTHESIS (stop calling it a theory... its not a theory... its a hypothesis, otherwise known as an unproven guess) any more accurate. Lots of grant money is a sign of knowing who to talk to and how to persuade people into giving you money, not a sign of legitimacy or accuracy. And I fail to see how having a talented chemist gives credence to his hypothesis? You have no way of knowing what is motivating the guy to do the chemistry for it, it could be purely financial or perhaps he wants to try and prove abiogenesis as well.

Fourthly, all organic molecules (except for those small amino acids successfully made in a lab) come from life at somepoint. A bone isn't alive, but without life you'd never get that bone. Same thing with the nucleotides and lipids and enzymes, without life being already present, he'd never have access to them.

Fifthly I realize speculation is a part of science. But speculation isn't evidence. You want to know what you said when you linked the article first?

Originally Posted by Sithdarth

Oh and this research kind of shows how life could have gone from molecules that replicate to groups of molecules that replicate.

Your statement implies that it SHOWS how life could have began... but it doesn't. Until he is successful, he hasn't shown anything. As a science major you should know better than to use an currently unsuccessful experiment as evidence. Maybe in five more years, but not today.

Sixthly, I was getting annoyed because of you sarcastic tone in your previous post (does the words "oh wait" ring a bell?), and the fact that you put words in my mouth (implying that I was saying the research should be scratched, when I was saying the research wasn't even finished).

So in conclusion, all you have succeeded in proving with this guy is that there's a couple of scientists out there who have a currently untested, unsupported hypothesis of how abiogenesis could have worked, that very few other scientists even think is right. Congratulations. Once again, I ask, until this research is finished, how does it have any impact on this thread? Answer: It doesn't.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Well, it has a small impact. If someone can't think of any way abiogenesis could have possibly happened, this is an example.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

Well, it has a small impact. If someone can't think of any way abiogenesis could have possibly happened, this is an example.

Fine. There's a small impact. But there's better ways to defend the possibility of abiogenesis than using a generally unaccepted hypothesis that has no supporting evidence that it could even work. If we had to go into every single variation of abiogenesis or intelligent design it would take a really long time, so I don't really see the point in bringing that particular experiment up until it has more conclusive evidence.

And in Sithdarth's original post he still said that it shows how abiogenesis works, and my response is still 'no it doesn't'.

[Sithdarth]

Except I never claimed it as proof. Here is what I originally said:

Originally Posted by Me

Oh and this research kind of shows how life could have gone from molecules that replicate to groups of molecules that replicate.

Note the phrases "kind of" and "could have". They imply a level of uncertainty or rather what I've since made more clear through my posts. IE. that his method may infact not be how life really did get started but it demonstrates a possible path from things that are nothing more than molecules to something approaching life. That is all I have ever maintained from the beginning. So really same claim as you just from the other side.

Third of all, grant size and whoever the hell his chemist is doesn't make his HYPOTHESIS (stop calling it a theory... its not a theory... its a hypothesis, otherwise known as an unproven guess) any more accurate. Lots of grant money is a sign of knowing who to talk to and how to persuade people into giving you money, not a sign of legitimacy or accuracy. And I fail to see how having a talented chemist gives credence to his hypothesis? You have no way of knowing what is motivating the guy to do the chemistry for it, it could be purely financial or perhaps he wants to try and prove abiogenesis as well.

Except that most theories start out as unproven guesses. Relativity, Quantum mechanics, electromagnetism, heck just about anything in physics. Perhaps not but their support tends to lend credibility to the fact that he might not be totally off his rocker. Also, according to the article their proposal was thick with chemical equations written by Chen. I don't care how much money was being forked at him he couldn't invent a series of chemical reactions that seem to do what they claim if there wasn't at least something to the research.

Fifthly I realize speculation is a part of science. But speculation isn't evidence. You want to know what you said when you linked the article first?

I refer you once again to the use of "kind of" and "could have". If I wanted to state it as absolute proof that sentence would have read "Oh and this research shows how life progressed from molecules that replicate to groups of molecules that replicate." Very big difference, eh?

Your statement implies that it SHOWS how life could have began... but it doesn't. Until he is successful, he hasn't shown anything. As a science major you should know better than to use an currently unsuccessful experiment as evidence. Maybe in five more years, but not today.

Not evidence really just a possible explanation. One of the key points in this thread is how there is basically nothing simpler between single celled organisms and molecules. This could potentially be that step. I'm also pretty sure he's not the only one hacking away at this problem from the bottom. He even expressed worry over other research projects currently underway.

Sixthly, I was getting annoyed because of you sarcastic tone in your previous post (does the words "oh wait" ring a bell?), and the fact that you put words in my mouth (implying that I was saying the research should be scratched, when I was saying the research wasn't even finished).

I just happen to be a sarcastic kind of guy. It wasn't directed at you. Oh and as for putting words in people's mouths I'd say the pot was calling the kettle black. Simply put almost this entire post is me explaining that you mistakenly assumed I was trying to use this guys research as proof when I wasn't. You don't see me getting angry. Perhaps you take this discussion a little to personally?

So in conclusion, all you have succeeded in proving with this guy is that there's a couple of scientists out there who have a currently untested, unsupported hypothesis of how abiogenesis could have worked, that very few other scientists even think is right. Congratulations. Once again, I ask, until this research is finished, how does it have any impact on this thread? Answer: It doesn't.

That was pretty much my entire point. IE. I wanted to go "hey there is a reasonably possible method predicted through science by which a bunch of currently inanimate molecules can clump together and perhaps make something that is like life." My point was not, "Hey this proves abiogenesis/this must be exactly how abiogenesis happened." That'd be utterly stupid. Something we can probably agree on.

[ZAKtheGeek]

You know what, I'd like to go back and harp on that Deem Rich site a bit more, because now I'm actually feeling that I gave it too much credit.

The first and most convincing argument it presents is that the universe must have been intelligently designed. It says that this must be so because the universe is so "fine tuned" in its constants and laws to allow a variety of elements exist.

What this actually proves is that, statistically, it's extremely unlikely that a single universe like this one could have arisen by chance. Let's just say it's impossible. Now, the multiverse theory could explain this, but the guy says there's no backing for such a theory, and like a fool, I believed him. In fact, the very idea that a single universe like this one is impossible is the very justification for a multiverse: this is but one out of infinite (?) shots.

Instead, Deem says the universe was made this way on purpose, and thus intelligently. That's only a partial explanation, though. There's still the matter of why an intelligent force would desire to create a universe like this one and not of a different form. It wants life? Worshipers? Pretty planets? Pretty (sub)atomic structures? Could be a lot of reasons, and many of those in no way imply the "loving" Christian god. Plus, it further complicates the hypothesis, since it's not just an intelligent force that created the universe, it's an intelligent force with a motive to create a universe like this one. This doesn't instantly hit me as any less convoluted than the realization of all possibilities.

[Krylo]

Also, there's no proof that if the universe had come about differently, that different forms of life wouldn't have evolved in it, and then gone off about how their universe is perfect for them, and thus it must have been intelligently desigend.

It's not that the universe is perfectly fine-tuned for our survival. It's that we are perfectly fine-tuned for the universe we arose in.