Originally posted by huckleberryhoundDo you mean with our current knowledge or in general (i.e. if it's not impossible)?
Is it possible to disprove that the origins of human life on Earth was precipitated by a higher being, or that a higher being was responsible for life on this planet?
Huck
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundno its not possible to disprove it, the arguments focus around the plausibilities. Those with a purely materialist view believe that life originated in a pre organic soup, that amino acids formed themselves into proteins which self replicated to produce the amazingly complex cell, which self replicated and formed the basis for the diversity of all life. It must be noted that the probabilty of life have arisen this way is somewhere in the region of one chance in 10^113, that is,
Is it possible to disprove that the origins of human life on Earth was precipitated by a higher being, or that a higher being was responsible for life on this planet?
Huck
1 in a
[WORD TOO LONG] chance
or in other words a junk yard forming itself into a jumbo jet
then again they also believe that spare scales on some reptiles formed themselves into feathers and that the nearest relative to the whale is an aquatic deer,
but to answer your question directly, no they cannot disprove that there was no supernatural agency.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieA mute point Rob, but a hippopotamus is the closest living relative to whales.
no its not possible to disprove it, the arguments focus around the plausibilities. Those with a purely materialist view believe that life originated in a pre organic soup, that amino acids formed themselves into proteins which self replicated to produce the amazingly complex cell, which self replicated and formed the basis for the diversity of all ...[text shortened]... to answer your question directly, no they cannot disprove that there was no supernatural agency.
Originally posted by Proper KnobI stand corrected,
A mute point Rob, but a hippopotamus is the closest living relative to whales.
Hippos, the closest modern relative of whales, also dive for water when threatened, a behaviour that may have been lost over time by other modern species such as sheep and antelope.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8137000/8137922.stm
whales became whales because they decided that plankton were tastier than grass! Never the less my dear friend, we are not here to discuss your fantasies, the Op asked about the origin of life and whether one can disprove evidence of a supernatural agency.
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundI think the question is misguided. With our current state of knowledge it's hard to imagine how, but who knows what types of technologies we'll have in 100000 years?
I mean, is it actually possible to disprove that a higher being had a part or hand in our creation?
You see, possibility, is a very weak concept. Almost anything is possible unless it implies a logical contradiction.
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethe Op asked about the origin of life and whether one can disprove evidence of a supernatural agency.
I stand corrected,
Hippos, the closest modern relative of whales, also dive for water when threatened, a behaviour that may have been lost over time by other modern species such as sheep and antelope.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8137000/8137922.stm
whales became whales because they decided that plankton were tastier th ...[text shortened]... p asked about the origin of life and whether one can disprove evidence of a supernatural agency.
This is true Rob, but you know me, i have to correct when you are wrong. Actually hippos spend 90% of their life in water, they give birth in the water, they suckle their young in the water.
Maybe i'll start a thread on the topic. It should be a laugh.
Originally posted by Proper Knobthank you my friend, if the righteous one should strike me it would be like honey to my lips!
[b]the Op asked about the origin of life and whether one can disprove evidence of a supernatural agency.
This is true Rob, but you know me, i have to correct when you are wrong. Actually hippos spend 90% of their life in water, they give birth in the water, they suckle their young in the water.
Maybe i'll start a thread on the topic. It should be a laugh.[/b]
Please excuse the cut and paste approach...
"The calculation which supports the creationist argument begins with the probability of a 300-molecule-long protein forming by total random chance. This would be approximately 1 chance in 10 to the power 390. This number is astoundingly huge. By comparison, the number of all the atoms in the observable universe is 10 to the power 80. So, if a simple protein has that unlikely chance of forming, what hope does a complete bacterium have?
If this were the theory of abiogeneisis, and if it relied entirely on random chance, then yes, it would be impossible for life to form in this way. However, this is not the case.
Abiogenesis was a long process with many small incremental steps, all governed by the non-random forces of Natural Selection and chemistry. The very first stages of abiogenesis were no more than simple self-replicating molecules, which might hardly have been called alive at all.
For example, the simplest self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 10 to the power 40, which is much more likely than the 1 in 10 to the power 390 claim creationists often cite.
Though, to be fair, 10to the power 40 is still a very large number. It would still take an incredibly large number of sequential trials before the peptide would form. But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be billions of trials taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather conditions of the Earth.
In fact, if we assume the volume of the oceans were 10 to the power 24 liters, and the amino acid concentration was 10-6M (which is actually very dilute), then almost 10 to the power 31 self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 10 to the power 40, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed."
(http://www.evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life)
Edit - Not a proof, of course, but certainly feasible, and really that's all you need in order to outweigh the 'infinite' or 'magical' alternative.
Originally posted by avalanchethecatactually no! it begins with the idea that there are over 100 known amino acids, 20 or so of which need to be the correct type and in the correct sequence, here is a rather excellent yet simple analogy
Please excuse the cut and paste approach...
"The calculation which supports the creationist argument begins with the probability of a 300-molecule-long protein forming by total random chance. This would be approximately 1 chance in 10 to the power 390. This number is astoundingly huge. By comparison, the number of all the atoms in the observable u really that's all you need in order to outweigh the 'infinite' or 'magical' alternative.
It could be likened to having a big, thoroughly mixed pile (pre organic soup) containing equal numbers of red beans and white beans. There are also over 100 different varieties of beans. Now, if you plunged a scoop into this pile, what do you think you would get? To get the beans that represent the basic components of a protein, you would have to scoop up only red ones—no white ones at all! Also, your scoop must contain only 20 varieties of the red beans, and each one must be in a specific, preassigned place in the scoop. In the world of protein, a single mistake in any one of these requirements would cause the protein that is produced to fail to function properly ,
courtesy of your friendly neighbour hood spider witnesses, at a participating bible study near you! 🙂
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis calculation I would be happy to see. It's a merry figure, of course, nothing more. Use the number zillions of zillions instead, makes more sense.
1 in a [WORD TOO LONG] chance
To the original question "Is it possible to disprove that the origins of human life on Earth was precipitated by a higher being" I would say a clear "No, neither". You cannot ever prove, nor disporve, supernatural things, it's impossible. If it was possible, it wouldn't be supernatural anymore.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI just deleted a huge amount of statistical data I've been dredging up. Fact is, there's a helluva lot of stats out there that claim either to show that the 'godless' origin of life is impossible, unlikely, possible, likely or inevitable, depending on whose theories you favour, and as far as I can see, without specific knowledge of the actual mechanism by which life came into being, none of 'em are worth that heap of beans of yours. A believer is always gonna buy into the god version and will favour stats that support that. Unbeliever the other. Personally I'm agnostic, but I still don't see the need for a god in order for life to start - if there is some sort of creator, my view is that he would have created a universe where life would spontaneously happen without his direct intervention. The christian god is all a bit ad-hoc for my tastes.
actually no! it begins with the idea that there are over 100 known amino acids, 20 or so of which need to be the correct type and in the correct sequence, here is a rather excellent yet simple analogy
It could be likened to having a big, thoroughly mixed pile (pre organic soup) containing equal numbers of red beans and white beans. There are also ...[text shortened]... y of your friendly neighbour hood spider witnesses, at a participating bible study near you! 🙂