PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Origin of Life

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
zerocool_12790

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This question is directed towards evolutionists and/or anyone else who believes in a purely naturalistic material worldview:

OK Iím going to be writing a few things so bear with me (It's long, please be understanding):

Iím curious to know what evidence exists to prove that given enough time life can originate in our universe naturally. By prove I mean reasonably conclude, and by evidence I mean any piece of data that would clearly point an objective person towards the belief (or acceptance)  that given enough time life can originate in our universe naturally. This question arises from the fact that many (perhaps most, perhaps all) evolutionists (including atheists and agnostics) believe that life can originate, using our universe as a lab (so-to-speak) given enough time. (Iím excluding those that believe in religion from this post because Iíd like to specifically question those that believe purely in the natural and material excluding the supernatural and spiritual. Now of course there might be religions that hold to a materialistic view so if anyone belongs to them please answer as well).

In any event my question remains; What evidence exists that one would reasonably conclude that given enough time (using our universe) life could originate. I'm looking for actual empirical evidence.

Now let me set some parameters so that we are all on the same page here:

1. The evidence must be unequivocal concrete proof that confirms (within reason) that given enough time life could originate naturalistically in our universe. If you believe nothing can be "proved" and that nothing is "concrete" than try to give evidence that at least comes reasonably close. I realize nothing is 100% but try to come reasonably close to giving unequivocal compelling empirical evidence that supports the theory that life could originate naturalistically in our universe.

2. Answers must be meaningful and scientific. Answers such as, ďWell weíre here arenít we, so it must be true,Ē will be ignored. That is not the evidence that would confirm a materialistic belief on origins of life. (and if anyoneís wondering a statement like that could also be used to prove the opposite; ďGod is real and created the universe, well weíre here arenít we therefore God must be real.Ē Thatís why I consider it unacceptable evidence).

3. Iím looking for the evidence in your words. Please refrain from posting links that contain 100 billion pages. Iím looking for the evidence that you believe exists given in your own words. If you show a complex formula or idea, please be kind enough to along with that, also explain the gist of what the data you are using is saying so that layman such as myself will be able to fully understand the meaning and point.

4. Pay careful attention that I use the words, ďour universe.Ē This means any attempt to appeal to fantasy multi-universes that cannot be tested, measured, or observed will be ignored.

5. Please stick to these guidelines and remember the question so that you donít get off topic when you reply. If you forgot here it is again; Please show what evidence exists that reasonably confirms that given enough time life could originate in our universe naturally.

6. Also evidence cannot include transitional fossils, comparative anatomy, or any standard evidence used to prove biological evolution and once again canít include, ďwell cells exist donít they, weíre here arenít we, so it must have happened like that.Ē The reason why Iím not accepting any evidence that proves biological evolution is because all of that evidence is used to prove (or reasonably confirm) evolution once life already exists. Obviously natural selection and mutations canít operate on something thatís not alive yet. My question deals specifically with the origins of life from non-living matter NOT what happened once life started. So please keep that in mind.

7. Once again please read this whole post before you answer so that you donít reply to it using methods that were already stated to be excluded.
Once again the question is: Please show what evidence exists that reasonably confirms and would lead an objective person to believe that given enough time life could originate in our universe naturally.
By ďlead an objective personĒ I mean that the evidence itself would lead any objective person (without any outside help) that given enough time in our universe life could originate naturally. (Some might say that evidence doesnít lead one way or the other, itís the interpretation of the evidence by people that makes conclusions so let me be clear. A lot of evidences naturally lead objective people to the same conclusions, e.g.; You find mice droppings in your house, conclusion you probably have mice. You smell gunpowder smoke in your backyard, conclusion probably someone shot a gun recently. Sure someone could have planted the droppings or the gunpowder could be part of a scientific experiment, but Iím referring to the most probable logical conclusion. So hopefully you get my drift).
Iím referring to evidence that would unequivocally sway a person to admit, ďyes, given enough time, life could originate naturally.Ē  

Once again I realize that this post is long never-the-less please remember to explain any complex idea, formula, or theory so that everyone will be able to understand. Please remember the question and be kind enough to stay within my guidelines.

I await your responses.


-------
---There is a common belief rapidly spreading, which states that scientists are unquestionably ethical and objective. This is a gross myth that must be stopped before scientists claim itís true.
 


Posts: 37 | Posted: 02:52 AM on May 6, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Iím curious to know what evidence exists to prove that given enough time life can originate in our universe naturally. By prove I mean reasonably conclude, and by evidence I mean any piece of data that would clearly point an objective person towards the belief (or acceptance)  that given enough time life can originate in our universe naturally. This question arises from the fact that many (perhaps most, perhaps all) evolutionists (including atheists and agnostics) believe that life can originate, using our universe as a lab (so-to-speak) given enough time. (Iím excluding those that believe in religion from this post because Iíd like to specifically question those that believe purely in the natural and material excluding the supernatural and spiritual. Now of course there might be religions that hold to a materialistic view so if anyone belongs to them please answer as well).
Here are some links to some sites that outline some the prevailing  scientific theories on the origins of life.

Leslie E. Orgel

NASA site with some good links

The RNA question

In any event my question remains; What evidence exists that one would reasonably conclude that given enough time (using our universe) life could originate. I'm looking for actual empirical evidence.
See above links

Now let me set some parameters so that we are all on the same page here
Uhm...If you don't know why so many scientists and researchers are convinced that life can originate from non-life then it is rather presumptuous for you to start setting parameters.  Biochemistry is a complicated subject and not many people, including myself, are able to grasp it fully.  You are essentially asking people to make it easy for you and that's not how it works.  Either do your due diligence and study the information that is out there or have the  honesty to admit that you don't want to.  
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 9:29 PM on May 6, 2006 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Significant advance in understanding of abiogenesis pathways:
Ribosyme struture revealed

Also:

UCLA scientists strengthen case for life more than 3.8 billion years ago


-------
Pogge:Ē This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.Ē
Wikipedia:Ē For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).Ē
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:17 AM on July 21, 2006 | IP
lucaspa

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Iím curious to know what evidence exists to prove that given enough time life can originate in our universe naturally. By prove I mean reasonably conclude, and by evidence I mean any piece of data that would clearly point an objective person towards the belief (or acceptance)  that given enough time life can originate in our universe naturally."

How about the ability to observe living cells arise from non-living chemicals in real time?  In the lab or in your kitchen or backyard?  Would that constitute "proof" for you?

http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

Read the whole article.  

Now, I don't fit your criteria for a responder, since you stated " Iíd like to specifically question those that believe purely in the natural and material excluding the supernatural and spiritual. "

Since I'm a theist (specifically a Methodist), I don't exclude the supernatural and spiritual. However, this is one (of several possible) material mechanism that God used to create life from non-life
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 9:44 PM on October 1, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hey Lucaspa. Don't bother responding to Zero's posts. When encountering logical resistance, Zero's number of replies tend to equate his name.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 10:01 PM on October 1, 2006 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How would you get 4000 genes to come together and last long enough to form a cell membrane? Why would the new cell do any thing? If it didn't it would virtually die.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 11:08 PM on January 7, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How would you get 4000 genes to come together and last long enough to form a cell membrane?


Genes don't form cell membranes. Scientists have experimented with the formation of cellular membranes and succeeded. Here are the protocell results for yourself:

http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=protocells&btnG=Search

As for genes forming actual cells, that is a good question, and it's an answer science will continue to pursue. The fact that we cannot do it now, however, does not disprove the abiogenesis hypothesis anymore than not being able to make functional airplanes in the medieval ages disproved flight.

Why would the new cell do any thing? If it didn't it would virtually die.


The cells that did die passed on none of their DNA. It's as simple as that.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 8:16 PM on January 8, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I believe that you do not under stand my last statement. If a cell did nothing it would never die. That that you do not want to reproduce, since reproduction requires the use of energy, you would have to obtain that energy. If you go about abstaining that energy you use energy. also the use of energy, and chemical reactions wears down a cell. so by not reproducing you ensure the survival of your species, with out having to try.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 8:28 PM on January 8, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I believe that you do not under stand my last statement. If a cell did nothing it would never die. That that you do not want to reproduce, since reproduction requires the use of energy, you would have to obtain that energy. If you go about abstaining that energy you use energy. also the use of energy, and chemical reactions wears down a cell. so by not reproducing you ensure the survival of your species, with out having to try.


I don't have any idea what you're trying to say. It can be summed up very briefly.

The cells that didn't aquire additional energy died and failed to pass on their DNA. The cells that consumed additional energy sources and failed to reproduce due to surface constraints also died and failed to pass on their DNA. Natural selection leaves us only with cells that can consume energy and reproduce.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 1/8/2007 at 10:31 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 10:29 PM on January 8, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The only reason to reproduce is to that the group does not die, but there would be no point to reproduction if you did not die.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 5:03 PM on January 9, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The only reason to reproduce is to that the group does not die, but there would be no point to reproduction if you did not die.


This has to do with cellular biology. Cells need to reproduce, or they grow too big; their cellular membranes cannot hold the internal material of the cell when it grows too large, and they burst. This is the most important reason cells reproduce. Cells also die over time when their parts are weared down. If for some reason the cells that fail to reproduce die of old age instead of surface constraints, they still don't pass on their DNA, so all we are left with are cells that reproduce successfully.

Life moved in another direction when the cells themselves started competing among one another.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 1/9/2007 at 5:51 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 5:49 PM on January 9, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A cell that takes in no substance, does not move, and does not chemically change will never wear out.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 9:28 PM on January 9, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A cell that takes in no substance, does not move, and does not chemically change will never wear out. Nor will it grow, in any way.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 9:29 PM on January 9, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A cell that takes in no substance, does not move, and does not chemically change will never wear out. Nor will it grow, in any way.


This is false. Cells require energy to stay together.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:21 PM on January 9, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I must concede with you on that point. However, than it would be more energy officiant to not have life on a planet than to have life.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 12:19 AM on January 10, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I must concede with you on that point. However, than it would be more energy officiant to not have life on a planet than to have life.


The planet doesn't have a conscious goal of making energy use efficient. It just exists.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 07:43 AM on January 10, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I know, I was just pointing out that it is less efficient. We humans are not the only organisms that are worried about energy consumption.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 2:44 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I know, I was just pointing out that it is less efficient. We humans are not the only organisms that are worried about energy consumption.


Well, as far as I, yes, we are. Human beings are the only organisms to our knowledge that even know what energy is.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 4:42 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Okay, next topic.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 4:43 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

©†YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.