Current Events > Existence of aliens does not actually make sense since abiogenesis is NOT proven

(+) Yeah! (+)

Ratchetrockon posted...

Did ppl think exoplanets were real prior to 1992

We knew they must exist, we just couldn't see them. It would make no sense if our solar system was the only one with planets in the entire universe

And the concept of an exoplanet was in pop culture. Star trek has them. And star wars. Also Superman was from an exoplanet

Garabandal posted...

God made Adam and Eve not someone from the planet Antares!

Antares is a star

NO2_Fiend posted...

What makes more sense?

All life must come from some intelligent creator... who we can't explain the existance of since that creator would also have to been created by another creator who also is created by another creator on a loop off into infinity.

Or

Life just sparks up every now and then naturally without the need for a creator.

Which is a less messy theory, honestly?

No it doesn't work that way. Time is a dimension. And if a creator made the universe, it made time as well. Thus, the creator could have existed and still exists today infinitely.

Our passage of time is probably a blink of an eye to the creator's perspective

K181 posted...

A) It's incorrect to say that abiogenesis cannot be proven. Don't conflate that fact that it hasn't been proven with permanent inprovability.

You yourself are committing the god of gaps fallacy right here. "Just because it can't be proven yet doesn't mean it isn't real." Well, duh? Unicorns could very well exist too then.

B) Even if we're too dumb to prove it, or the conditions for life are too narrow and specific to prove, thay doesn't remotely preclude life from forming elsewhere. Even if the mere formation of life is a one in a billion thing, that means there are likely dozens of circumstances of life in the Milky Way alone and untold trillions of circumstances in the universe.

Again, Fermi Paradox.

C) Abiogenesis is not evolution. Evolution, which is extremely well-documented and understood, is what happened after life formed in the first place. There's admittedly a gap in our knowledge one what existed that caused the catalyst from before life to life, but science is about unraveling our ignorances with further study. Even if the root cause of life is ultimately some out of left field thing that hasn't dawned on us, that'd still be abiogensis as the term is really nothing more than a blanket term for studying how life formed.

Evolution has absolutely zero connection and basis to abiogenesis. Evolution is about life after it's already formed. It explains absolutely nothing about HOW life came to be in the first place.

DnDer posted...

But the rub is that the things you're saying are only said by a very small and very specific subset of Christian fundamentalists. Now it looks like you're scrambling for damage control after being called out about it.

Because we can only be theists or athiests? How narrow-minded you are.

Never heard of agnostics before, have you? Here's a banger for you... most people who claim they're athiests are actually agnostics. They don't dismiss the possibility of a god any more than they do of one.

FYI Darwin himself was agnostic

Equiprobability isn't a good argument because there are way more options than God did it or abiogenesis. There's everything is a computer simulation, aliens did it, extra dimensional beings did it, some other religion's god or gods did it, everyone is dead and this is a test and if you believe in God you failed the test and the demon that is running the test will torture you forever because he's evil, etc.

Saying there's no evidence doesn't just allow only one other no evidence explanation. It allows all of them.

ssjevot posted...

Equiprobability isn't a good argument because there are way more options than God did it or abiogenesis. There's everything is a computer simulation, aliens did it, extra dimensional beings did it, some other religion's god or gods did it, everyone is dead and this is a test and if you believe in God you failed the test and the demon that is running the test will torture you forever because he's evil, etc.

Saying there's no evidence doesn't just allow only one other no evidence explanation. It allows all of them.

Yet we all seem to only lean toward abiogenesis. Why? That's my question.

Mackorov posted...

Yet we all seem to only lean toward abiogenesis. Why? That's my question.

Well you only present God as an alternative and until recently explicitly the Christian idea of God. So my question is why was that presented as the only alternative?

ssjevot posted...

Well you only present God as an alternative and until recently explicitly the Christian idea of God. So my question is why was that presented as the only alternative?

Because what else is there? This IS the only other alternative.

You only suggested the third alternative, some matrix-computer-simulation, but that one is actually pointing back to intelligent design as well, isn't it? LOL.
Someone has to be running the matrix.

That's what it is all about. Either life formed completely out of random, and out of meaninglessness and this whole universe exists purely out of nihilism.... or life formed out of an intelligent creator's intention.

I presented the basis for why intelligent design has just a strong case to consider and y'know what's the funniest thing? No one can refute it at all. Even the staunchest nihilistic believers in abiogenesis.

HOW are our DNA so insanely intricate, complex and so well-engineered??

This is most definitely NOT something that could just arise by some totally random, lucky freaking inorganic 'accident'. And it's extremely frustrating the mainstream community and media purposely don't cover much on this since encouraging 'intelligent design' means supporting some religious nutjobs.
Why can't we freaking separate 'intelligent design' from religion? How long will it take for humans to finally see past this stupid bias?

Intelligent design is NOT creationism.

Mackorov posted...

Because we can only be theists or athiests? How narrow-minded you are.

Never heard of agnostics before, have you? Here's a banger for you... most people who claim they're athiests are actually agnostics. They don't dismiss the possibility of a god any more than they do of one.

FYI Darwin himself was agnostic

Sure. There can be agnostics.

The things you're saying, though, aren't said by agnostics. They're said by very specific, very small group of protestant fundamentalist evangelicals. Very specific. Very small.

You don't sound like an agnostic or a deist. Because they don't posit intelligent design in place of science.

Mackorov posted...

Again, Fermi Paradox.

Asked and answered multiple times.

Mackorov posted...

Yet we all seem to only lean toward abiogenesis. Why? That's my question.

It is the most likely explanation.

Mackorov posted...

That's what it is all about. Either life formed completely out of random, and out of meaninglessness and this whole universe exists purely out of nihilism.... or life formed out of an intelligent creator's intention.

The fact that you find the idea of a meaningful universe more attractive, has no bearing on whether it is or not.

Mackorov posted...

Because what else is there? This IS the only other alternative.

You only suggested the third alternative, some matrix-computer-simulation, but that one is actually pointing back to intelligent design as well, isn't it? LOL.
Someone has to be running the matrix.

That's what it is all about. Either life formed completely out of random, and out of meaninglessness and this whole universe exists purely out of nihilism.... or life formed out of an intelligent creator's intention.

Uh, I posted a bunch of options of varying levels of absurdity to present why lack of evidence isn't a good argument. Maybe it's all a dream like in the GB Zelda game. Maybe an alien didn't even intend to make life but just left some cells behind here when they were on vacation and it became life. If we say no evidence everything becomes possible. You already want to say a creator, specifically the Christian God, did it because you have faith in a religion and want that to be true. So you aren't actually open to all possibilities, you are feigning to be in order to support what you believe.

ssjevot posted...

Uh, I posted a bunch of options of varying levels of absurdity to present why lack of evidence isn't a good argument. Maybe it's all a dream like in the GB Zelda game. Maybe an alien didn't even intend to make life but just left some cells behind here when they were on vacation and it became life. If we say no evidence everything becomes possible. You already want to say a creator, specifically the Christian God, did it because you have faith in a religion and want that to be true. So you aren't actually open to all possibilities, you are feigning to be in order to support what you believe.

It's amazing after all this and you still have to associate intelligent design only with religion, and a very specific religion at that. It's clear you can't delve any deeper so have a nice day.

Please read this again, word by word, in case you missed it.

Creationism is NOT intelligent design. Stop mixing the two together, thanks

Mackorov posted...

I presented the basis for why intelligent design has just a strong case to consider and y'know what's the funniest thing? No one can refute it at all. Even the staunchest nihilistic believers in abiogenesis.

HOW are our DNA so insanely intricate, complex and so well-engineered??

This is most definitely NOT something that could just arise by some totally random, lucky freaking inorganic 'accident'. And it's extremely frustrating the mainstream community and media purposely don't cover much on this since encouraging 'intelligent design' means supporting some religious nutjobs.
Why can't we freaking separate 'intelligent design' from religion? How long will it take for humans to finally see past this stupid bias?

Intelligent design is NOT creationism.

ai123 posted...

Asked and answered multiple times.

Since when was the Fermi Paradox ever solved??

It is the most likely explanation.

Tell me how it is any more reliable than intelligent design by refuting my basis provided for the latter. Tell me how is it DNA can be formed purely out of randomness when it's practically made up of 'programming code', a.k.a. information that needs come intelligence of some kind?

The fact that you find the idea of a meaningful universe more attractive, has no bearing on whether it is or not.

I never once mentioned the need for the universe to be meaningful. Learn to read and differentiate. It's this jumping to conclusions that is clear why you may lack some critical thinking on your part

Okay, as a guy with a degree in cellular and molecular biology that's weird because DNA is neither complex nor well engineered. That's a really weird take. Never heard such a thing before. Usually creationists talk about the human eye or something, which also isn't well engineered, but is at least complex.

DnDer posted...

Sure. There can be agnostics.

The things you're saying, though, aren't said by agnostics. They're said by very specific, very small group of protestant fundamentalist evangelicals. Very specific. Very small.

You don't sound like an agnostic or a deist. Because they don't posit intelligent design in place of science.

That's because most people (prob 99.99%) arent self-aware agnostic. The idea that you can only be thiest or athiest is sadly, one of the most fundamental flaws of the human bias.

ssjevot posted...

Okay, as a guy with a degree in cellular in molecular biology that's weird because DNA is neither complex nor well engineered. That's a really weird take. Never heard such a thing before. Usually creationists talk about the human eye or something, which also isn't well engineered, but is at least complex.

sure, explain more then how DNA is more likely formed out of pure inorganic randomness since you have a 'degree in cellular molecular biology'

Mackorov posted...

That's because most people (prob 99.99%) arent self-aware agnostic. The idea that you can only be thiest or athiest is sadly, one of the most fundamental flaws of the human bias.

Still not a cogent response as to why you're posting fundie evangelical rhetoric and pretending it's not.

Mackorov posted...

sure, explain more then how DNA is more likely formed out of pure inorganic randomness since you have a 'degree in cellular molecular biology'

It isn't inorganic. Do you even know what organic means? If you want to mock my degree, you should at least know what organic chemistry is.

Mackorov posted...

sure, explain more then how DNA is more likely formed out of pure inorganic randomness since you have a 'degree in cellular molecular biology'

And while you're at it, also please explain how DNA not only formed that way but formed in such a matter that allowed itself to quickly adapt and replicate to any environmental condition so as to continue surviving. Please, do tell.

Do explain how this very design of our genes is just out of pure utter plain randomness.

Mackorov posted...

This IS the only other alternative.

So if I were to search, say, 'alternatives to abiogenesis' there wouldn't be any results?

Kimberly posted...

So if I were to search, say, 'alternatives to abiogenesis' there wouldn't be any results?

There would be but like I said, the generic principle remains the same. It's either people claiming it's from abiogenesis or from intelligent design. The latter can pretty much be anything else so long as it posits life wasn't created on its own without intelligent intervention

Let's say you are in front of a magical random item generator that generates a new item completely at random once per minute, and you as the onlooker get to choose which items you keep, and which items you send away to the rubbish pile.

You spend one whole day doing this, and at the start of the next day your friend walks by and notices that you have 14 items, all of which you have talked about wanting for ages.

He asks "Hey, how you manage to get it to give you what you want? Can't be completely random if you just happened to get 14 items you really wanted."

But it turns out that the item generation was indeed really random. But the process wasn't random since you were there, selecting what you wanted. And while it looks like you made out like a bandit, you actually sent away 99% of the items that were generated.

Try as you might to convince him, he just cannot see how a random process would yield such order.

COVxy posted...

Let's say you are in front of a magical random item generator that generates a new item completely at random once per minute, and you as the onlooker get to choose which items you keep, and which items you send away to the rubbish pile.

You spend one whole day doing this, and at the start of the next day your friend walks by and notices that you have 14 items, all of which you have talked about wanting for ages.

He asks "Hey, how you manage to get it to give you what you want? Can't be completely random if you just happened to get 14 items you really wanted."

But it turns out that the item generation was indeed really random. But the process wasn't random since you were there, selecting what you wanted. And while it looks like you made out like a bandit, you actually sent away 99% of the items that were generated.

Try as you might to convince him, he just cannot see how a random process would yield such order.

Except you left out the most important aspect: How could the generator be designed to keep generating 'random' items in the first place?

The Fermi Paradox is a load of bullshit. The universe is unfathomably large and to assume that "we should totally have seen other life dude" is fucking absurd.

We barely have the capability to go to our own moon. If that is the extent of our technology who knows it any other civilizations are sufficiently advanced to traverse space.

That's not the part you were confused about two seconds ago. Your unwillingness to address how the analogy makes it extremely clear to pretty much anybody how order arises, and your choice to jump to an unrelated argument leads me to assume this is not in good faith.

COVxy posted...

That's not the part you were confused about two seconds ago. Your unwillingness to address how the analogy makes it extremely clear to pretty much anybody how order arises, and your choice to jump to an unrelated argument leads me to assume this is not in good faith.

I did address it. You seem to be the one avoiding the problem at hand. Also funny considering you're the one that called it a 'magical random item generator'

Mackorov posted...

Since when was the Fermi Paradox ever solved??

There are many ways to resolve it, yes. Some have been posted in this thread and you have ignored them.

Tell me how it is any more reliable than intelligent design by refuting my basis provided for the latter. Tell me how is it DNA can be formed purely out of randomness when it's practically made up of 'programming code', a.k.a. information that needs come intelligence of some kind?

Again, evidence has been posted and you have ignored it. 'Programming code'? Fanciful analogy. Not an argument.

I never once mentioned the need for the universe to be meaningful. Learn to read and differentiate. It's this jumping to conclusions that is clear why you may lack some critical thinking on your part

Learn that your rhetoric isn't as smart or as plausibly deniable as you think it is.

Mackorov posted...

Abiogensis CANNOT be proven at all.

We don't know this. Just because it hasn't been proven doesn't mean it cannot be proven, just that it hasn't been proven yet.

The Fermi Paradox is a load of bullshit. The universe is unfathomably large and to assume that "we should totally have seen other life dude" is fucking absurd.

We barely have the capability to go to our own moon. If that is the extent of our technology who knows it any other civilizations are sufficiently advanced to traverse spac
e.

ai123 posted...

There are many ways to resolve it, yes. Some have been posted in this thread and you have ignored them.

Speculation isn't resolution. There's a reason why it's still a paradox.

Again, evidence has been posted and you have ignored it. 'Programming code'? Fanciful analogy. Not an argument.

There's none. Show it to me in detail then.

Learn that your rhetoric isn't as smart or as plausibly deniable as you think it is.

You should be telling that to yourself

IfGodCouldDie posted...

We don't know this. Just because it hasn't been proven doesn't mean it cannot be proven, just that it hasn't been proven yet.

That itself is the god-of-gaps fallacy. Ironic.

Mackorov posted...

There would be but like I said, the generic principle remains the same. It's either people claiming it's from abiogenesis or from intelligent design. The latter can pretty much be anything else so long as it posits life wasn't created on its own without intelligent intervention

I think it's convenient for your argument to treat it as such, yes.

Mackorov posted...

I did address it. You seem to be the one avoiding the problem at hand. Also funny considering you're the one that called it a 'magical random item generator'

I never know what people get out of being a jester. Well, I suppose real jesters did it to not die. But seems unlikely in this case.

Mackorov posted...

This is most definitely NOT something that could just arise by some totally random, lucky freaking inorganic 'accident'

I've already explained there is nothing random or accidental about it. Life as we know it is the most efficient way of storing, consuming, and dissipating energy. It is a natural consequence of any life supporting system with an abundance of energy.

Mackorov posted...

Speculation isn't resolution. There's a reason why it's still a paradox.

The resolutions point out the limitations of the Paradox. That is not speculation.

There's none. Show it to me in detail then.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature08013.epdf

You should be telling that to yourself

Ha. A 'no u'. Well done!

why do you discount that we are in a simulation!!!

TC doubling down, eh?

It's people like TC that give us religious people a bad name

Mackorov posted...

That itself is the god-of-gaps fallacy. Ironic.

no, it's just yet another thing you don't understand. saying something could be explainable isn't the same as saying 'god did it'. you should probably learn what words and phrases mean tbh lol

also this topic is a crash course in why uneducated people who are ignorant about a subject shouldn't try and argue about it. tc tried to claim that aliens couldn't exist to massively backpedal into abandoning that absurdity and trying to argue for evangelical nonsense.

Mackorov posted...

And while you're at it, also please explain how DNA not only formed that way but formed in such a matter that allowed itself to quickly adapt and replicate to any environmental condition so as to continue surviving. Please, do tell.

Do explain how this very design of our genes is just out of pure utter plain randomness.

They... don't? You know that not only do the majority of mutations not actually help pass genes on, but the overwhelming majority of species on Earth have gone extinct, right? Hell, the issue we're facing with climate change isn't that the planet will die if things get a couple of degrees hotter, but that the speed with which this is happening means it's impossible for life to adapt. You don't actually understand biology, do you?

Mackorov posted...

That's because most people (prob 99.99%) arent self-aware agnostic. The idea that you can only be thiest or athiest is sadly, one of the most fundamental flaws of the human bias.

Actually, that's correct. Agnostic can't stand in for theism. You can be an agnostic atheist (honestly this is most agnostics) or an agnostic theist. You can also be a gnostic atheist or a gnostic theist. Agnosticism is only concerned with whether the existence (or lack thereof) is knowable.

Mackorov posted...

I presented the basis for why intelligent design has just a strong case to consider and y'know what's the funniest thing? No one can refute it at all. Even the staunchest nihilistic believers in abiogenesis.

HOW are our DNA so insanely intricate, complex and so well-engineered??

This is most definitely NOT something that could just arise by some totally random, lucky freaking inorganic 'accident'. And it's extremely frustrating the mainstream community and media purposely don't cover much on this since encouraging 'intelligent design' means supporting some religious nutjobs.
Why can't we freaking separate 'intelligent design' from religion? How long will it take for humans to finally see past this stupid bias?

Intelligent design is NOT creationism.

No, you've (unsuccessfully) tried to poke holes in abiogenesis and tried to use that to say that intelligent design (which would require some supernatural being btw) must be true by default. That's so horrifically unscientific that I question if you understand the scientific method.

Let's just say that we thoroughly disprove abiogenesis for the sake of argument. That says absolutely nothing about the validity of intelligent design. There is no evidence supporting it and quite a lot of evidence that hurts it. You keep saying how DNA is amazing and well engineered, but that couldn't be further from the truth. There are animals with amazing and unique abilities, should these not be everywhere if things were well designed?

Let's look at humans for a counter example. Our eyes are trash. Even with perfect vision, we have a very narrow range of vision where we actually have sharp vision, a narrow range of frequencies we can perceive, a relatively narrow field of view and a freaking blind spot, as well as things like our nose obstructing our vision. If you purchased a camera with the capabilities of the human eye, you would take it back as defective. That's before you get to people like me who struggle to see more than about 30cm in front of us without visual aids due purely to genetics.

I could go into useless/harmful organs, allergies, inefficient design (the laryngeal nerve is the classic example), genetic disorders and straight up harmful mutations, but I don't feel that's necessary. If you specifically were designing humans, you could do a better job than what we have now.

You being incredulous doesn't disprove anything, especially given how much had to go right for you to be able to discuss this in the first place. To be born in the first place, your parents had to get together and you had to be the sperm and egg that won. That's already less likely than pretty much anything else in your life, but you now need to repeat this at least as far back as the dawn of humanity for each generation that came before you. That's so unlikely that any rational person would dismiss it as impossible, yet here you are.

So let's finally get to intelligent design. Given the complete lack of evidence supporting it, it's very easy to dismiss. Observe:

Who designed everything? An intelligent designer.

Who designed that designer? If another designer, repeat this question ad infinitum.

If the designer didn't need to be designed, then by definition, that means that things can exist without a designer, which means there is a possibility that anything we see could have existed without a designer.

Abiogenesis is most likely how life started. It's the only thing that makes sense (other than aliens creating us, but then how were they created?) God creating us in the blink of an eye 6000 years ago does not make any sense. Inorganic material becoming basic organic material over a large time frame makes sense. We know there's all kinds of life on Earth. There's a bunch of basic life spurring on Earth as we speak. One day they will become an animal or a plant in a few million years.

There's a lot of time and physics to allow this to happen. It doesn't happen over night. The sun and the Earth weren't created overnight either. And yes, the universe is over 13 billion years old, not 6000. The Earth is not flat, neither are we in the center of the universe.

Now you can argue there could be other mechanisms and factors that might further contribute to life. But we don't really know. What we do know is that DNA being complex is just a part of chemistry (and maybe gravity). The same way planets are complex because of chemistry and gravity. It doesn't mean god made it (overnight), nor does it mean aliens don't exist. What we do know is the science and it's pointing us towards abiogenesis. Add that with a septillion planets, and I can almost guarantee you aliens exist.

One more thing: maybe god gave the universe the tools during the big bang, but certainly did not do anything further than that. We can see this because the universe and life is pretty chaotic (chemistry wise, evolutionary wise, death, entropy, etc.) As with all things in nature, DNA isn't perfect, and errors can occur when it makes copies. DNA is also susceptible to environmental factors such as cigarette smoke and ultraviolet light. Changes can occur in the DNA sequence in our genes (mutations), and these can either be inherited or acquired.

Anyways, expand your mind.

Dark_Arbron posted...

TC doubling down, eh?

Are religious fanatics who have willingly let religion rot their brains into nothingness known for anything else?

TC probably has a self humiliation fetish or something which is why he keeps regurgitating BS in this thread despite getting reamed over and over again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e80Tj1WIHbs

I DON'T BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION
I KNOW CREATION'S TRUE
I BELIEVE THAT GOD ABOVE
CREATED ME AND YOU

Mackorov posted...

Creationism is NOT intelligent design. Stop mixing the two together, thanks

It literally is though. There was even a court case related to this and teaching intelligent design in schools. It was found that intelligent design was a rebranding of creationism to sound more scientific (which it is not) and as such is not allowed in science classes...

If God exists, it's probably a Type 7 civilization on the Kardishev scale that figured out way later how to transcend time and space into something we can't see or understand. At least if you want to look at a god concept scientifically. We'll never reach a Type 1 anyway though so meh.