Abiogenesis

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else below.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: Abiogenesis

#41  Postby UnderConstruction » Mar 02, 2010 2:03 pm

rainbow wrote:
UnderConstruction wrote:
So are you going to drip feed us the definition then as we question it?

No, I've provided a definition. You have the opportunity to improve it if you feel you can do better. You will not however get away with trying to demand a definition for every definition. For that buy a dictionary. OK?


First of all, if we are free to "improve" upon your definitions, does that mean you do not have a clear definition to begin with?

Secondly, it s not so much the dictionary definition of "directed" that is the issue. It is the contect in which you are seeking to use it.


In that case, if purpose is required, what is the "purpose" of an enzyme and the chemical reactions it catalises?

In the case of an enzyme such as monoamineoxidase, its Purpose is to oxidise amines. The clue is normally in the name.


To say that that is the effect something has is not the same as describing it's purpose. Also, like Spearthrower, I am curious about the capital P.
"Origins from God/Genesis are secular actually as we see it." - Robert Byers
User avatar
UnderConstruction
 
Posts: 1297
Age: 44
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Abiogenesis

#42  Postby rainbow » Mar 02, 2010 2:05 pm

UnderConstruction wrote:
Why should I define your terms for you?


You shouldn't. You should accept my definitions, or provide a better one. The choice is yours.

OK then, I will suggest we proceed with a definition of "directed chemical reaction" as something along the lines of "one deliberately instigated by an intelligent agent".

Do you agree to this? Do you have any suggestions to refine it? There is little point proceeding unless we agree on definitions.


Not unless you believe that enzymes are 'deliberately instigated by an intelligent agent'. If so please define this 'intelligent agent' that is responsible for enzymes.
Kill the Wise One!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155419

"Það er ekki til betri tími en núna til að fresta"
User avatar
rainbow
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Señor Moderato
Posts: 6903

Mozambique (mz)
Print view this post

Re: Abiogenesis

#43  Postby Mazille » Mar 02, 2010 2:07 pm

May I remind you, rainbow, that this still is a moderated forum and that personalising comments have no place here?
With personalising comments I mean things like this:
rainbow wrote:
No, I didn't.
YOU did.
If you wish to make the case for other intelligences, that is up to you. Include beavers if you wish, but make sure you make a robust case for it. We don't suffer fools here you know?

(My bold.)

Please, keep it civil, folks. :cheers:

Have a nice day,
Mazille
- Pam.
- Yes?
- Get off the Pope.
User avatar
Mazille
RS Donator
 
Posts: 19741
Age: 37
Male

Austria (at)
Print view this post

Re: Abiogenesis

#44  Postby UnderConstruction » Mar 02, 2010 2:08 pm

rainbow wrote:
UnderConstruction wrote:
Why should I define your terms for you?


You shouldn't. You should accept my definitions, or provide a better one. The choice is yours.


So you will accept our definitions in place of your own?


OK then, I will suggest we proceed with a definition of "directed chemical reaction" as something along the lines of "one deliberately instigated by an intelligent agent".

Do you agree to this? Do you have any suggestions to refine it? There is little point proceeding unless we agree on definitions.


Not unless you believe that enzymes are 'deliberately instigated by an intelligent agent'. If so please define this 'intelligent agent' that is responsible for enzymes.


Apparently not. :roll:

I am waiting for you to point me in the direction of a reputable source suggesting that the term "directed" is in common usage in the chemistry lexicon, at least in regard to the actions of enzymes. If you can do this, I will revise my definition.
"Origins from God/Genesis are secular actually as we see it." - Robert Byers
User avatar
UnderConstruction
 
Posts: 1297
Age: 44
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Abiogenesis

#45  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 02, 2010 2:10 pm

rainbow wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
rainbow wrote:
You will really battle to convince anyone that an enzyme is being 'deliberate', but let me not stop you. Good luck!


That is just a blatant bait and switch - sort it out, please Rainbow - it does not make for quality discussion when people engage in obfuscatory tactics like this.


Spear, contribute to the discussion, or butt out. If you've got nothing useful to say - don't say it.


Ignored in favour of equivocating:

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=844&view=unread#p16573

The car rusting and the water boiling are then perfect examples of the thing I kept trying to explain to you in the other forum.

Whether a guy chooses to leave his car to rust, or the car is just left with no consideration to its circumstances.... it will still rust. Chemistry still happens, regardless of teleology. By the same definition, a scientist taking a car into a laboratory, setting up the same conditions that permit the car to rust, then recording the results is not directed, by any stretch of the imagination.

Same goes for the boiled water. Water boils in nature too, no one's even watching it most of the time, but there's boiling water in numerous places and numerous times. Natural processes causing water to boil, and human processes causing water to boil... still both result in boiling water. That's because they are not intervening in a process, but merely bringing two parts together and permitting that process to occur.

So can we bury the erroneous notion now that numerous experiments conducted in labs can be handwaved away as misrepresentative due to their being under experimental conditions?

And while I'm making requests; can we get a little more transparency with you Rainbow? We're all here discussing this here together, yet you never stake a claim, you just nibble at the edges of what people say. Why not just lay what you think down and we'll discuss that for a change? It's a genuine offer to engage in your ideas.

How did abiogenesis occur in the scenario you entertain as more valid than undirected chemical reactions?



How about you actually engage in substantive discussion for once instead of trolling?


Furthermore - to back up my comment about your blatant bait and switch, that once again highlights a lack of desire to really engage with members of this forum:


rainbow wrote:A directed reaction is one that is controlled through enzymes within a living system, or by artificial intervention.


The definition proposed by Rainbow.

UnderConstruction wrote:
Now that strikes me as just a little vague and ambiguous....

Secondly, does the word "directed" not imply some form of deliberate action?


UC notes that it is vague and ambiguous - one point of contention is that the word directed, as used by rainbow, does not fit well with the example provided: enzymes within a system are themselves produced by other reactions - does this make the cells the directors? Why the abrupt stop at enzymes?


rainbow wrote:No.
Not unless you consider the workings of an enzyme in a cell to be 'deliberate'. If you do, then please define 'deliberate'.


UC is quite clearly saying that 'directed' implies deliberate as in the other of your examples "artificial", and that therefore the process you are referring to was not defined clearly.... quite clearly he does not mean that he thinks that enzymatic operation is deliberate.

rainbow wrote:You will really battle to convince anyone that an enzyme is being 'deliberate', but let me not stop you. Good luck!


The final switch.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 33854
Age: 47
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Abiogenesis

#46  Postby rainbow » Mar 02, 2010 2:13 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
What purpose, and why does it have a capital P?

...so you would notice it.
I put in a Capital "P" so you would ask the question, why a capital P.
It was therefore a directed reaction. :plot:

A directed reaction must have a purpose.
Didn't I already say this?
In any case I'd have thought that it should be obvious.
Kill the Wise One!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155419

"Það er ekki til betri tími en núna til að fresta"
User avatar
rainbow
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Señor Moderato
Posts: 6903

Mozambique (mz)
Print view this post

Re: Abiogenesis

#47  Postby UnderConstruction » Mar 02, 2010 2:16 pm

rainbow wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
What purpose, and why does it have a capital P?

...so you would notice it.
I put in a Capital "P" so you would ask the question, why a capital P.
It was therefore a directed reaction. :plot:

A directed reaction must have a purpose.
Didn't I already say this?
In any case I'd have thought that it should be obvious.


But this is just another example of loaded, ambiguous language.

Why say "purpose" when words like "action", "effect" or similar would describe what these enzymes do, without any suggestion of planning or intent (intended or otherwise)?
"Origins from God/Genesis are secular actually as we see it." - Robert Byers
User avatar
UnderConstruction
 
Posts: 1297
Age: 44
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Abiogenesis

#48  Postby rainbow » Mar 02, 2010 2:16 pm

Mazille wrote:May I remind you, rainbow, that this still is a moderated forum and that personalising comments have no place here?
With personalising comments I mean things like this:
rainbow wrote:
No, I didn't.
YOU did.
If you wish to make the case for other intelligences, that is up to you. Include beavers if you wish, but make sure you make a robust case for it. We don't suffer fools here you know?

(My bold.)

Please, keep it civil, folks. :cheers:

Have a nice day,
Mazille


Huge apologies :pray: Omnipotent one!
Do we suffer fools?
Kill the Wise One!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155419

"Það er ekki til betri tími en núna til að fresta"
User avatar
rainbow
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Señor Moderato
Posts: 6903

Mozambique (mz)
Print view this post

Re: Abiogenesis

#49  Postby rainbow » Mar 02, 2010 2:26 pm

Spearthrower wrote:

How about you actually engage in substantive discussion for once instead of trolling?


Making unsubstantiated accusations of me 'trolling', when I've not done so - is guaranteed to derail this discussion.
I will not engage in further discussions with you if you persist.
Am I clear?
Kill the Wise One!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155419

"Það er ekki til betri tími en núna til að fresta"
User avatar
rainbow
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Señor Moderato
Posts: 6903

Mozambique (mz)
Print view this post

Re: Abiogenesis

#50  Postby Mazille » Mar 02, 2010 2:28 pm

rainbow wrote:
Mazille wrote:May I remind you, rainbow, that this still is a moderated forum and that personalising comments have no place here?
With personalising comments I mean things like this:
rainbow wrote:
No, I didn't.
YOU did.
If you wish to make the case for other intelligences, that is up to you. Include beavers if you wish, but make sure you make a robust case for it. We don't suffer fools here you know?

(My bold.)

Please, keep it civil, folks. :cheers:

Have a nice day,
Mazille


Huge apologies :pray: Omnipotent one!
Do we suffer fools?


Yes, we do suffer fools, as long as they stick to the rules. If they don't, we do not suffer them.
Besides, it is not on you to openly call people fools, whether it is true or not.

Now stick to the topic, everyone, quit accusing people of trolling and/or foolishness and behave like rational people.

Thank you.
- Pam.
- Yes?
- Get off the Pope.
User avatar
Mazille
RS Donator
 
Posts: 19741
Age: 37
Male

Austria (at)
Print view this post

Re: Abiogenesis

#51  Postby hackenslash » Mar 02, 2010 2:39 pm

rainbow wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
What purpose, and why does it have a capital P?

...so you would notice it.
I put in a Capital "P" so you would ask the question, why a capital P.
It was therefore a directed reaction. :plot:

A directed reaction must have a purpose.
Didn't I already say this?
In any case I'd have thought that it should be obvious.


Right, now we're getting somewhere.

Please demonstrate, in a rigorous fashion, that there is such a thing as purpose. And by this I don't mean subjective purpose, as in that which is directed by man for his own ends, but purpose in objective, universal terms*.


*Just to cut off your line of equivocation.
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22910
Age: 54
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Abiogenesis

#52  Postby rainbow » Mar 02, 2010 2:45 pm

If you consider your examples:

If I were to take a car down to the swamp, where I know it will rust - I will be directing a reaction. The car rusts because I've done something, intervened. One assumes I've a reason, a purpose if you like for doing so. The car if left in the garage, wouldn't rust as fast, and if I wanted it to rust faster, I could blow a few holes in the body with a shotgun.
One assumes a purpose, since If I didn't have any purpose, why would I do it?

Same with the boiling water. It wouldn't boil if I didn't put it in a pot and put the pot over a fire. What purpose?
I want to make tea!
Kill the Wise One!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155419

"Það er ekki til betri tími en núna til að fresta"
User avatar
rainbow
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Señor Moderato
Posts: 6903

Mozambique (mz)
Print view this post

Re: Abiogenesis

#53  Postby rainbow » Mar 02, 2010 2:53 pm

hackenslash wrote:
Please demonstrate, in a rigorous fashion, that there is such a thing as purpose. And by this I don't mean subjective purpose, as in that which is directed by man for his own ends, but purpose in objective, universal terms*.[/size]


Love to, hack - but then we haven't quite established the truth of an objective reality.
Of course you realise that to go into this would derail the discussion here.
Please in the meanwhile open a thread in the philosophy forum, proving once and for all the existence of an Objective Reality, and when you've done so, I'll get back to you.

So are we all agreed on the definition of directed reactions now?
Kill the Wise One!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155419

"Það er ekki til betri tími en núna til að fresta"
User avatar
rainbow
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Señor Moderato
Posts: 6903

Mozambique (mz)
Print view this post

Re: Abiogenesis

#54  Postby UnderConstruction » Mar 02, 2010 2:54 pm

rainbow wrote:If you consider your examples:

If I were to take a car down to the swamp, where I know it will rust - I will be directing a reaction. The car rusts because I've done something, intervened. One assumes I've a reason, a purpose if you like for doing so. The car if left in the garage, wouldn't rust as fast, and if I wanted it to rust faster, I could blow a few holes in the body with a shotgun.
One assumes a purpose, since If I didn't have any purpose, why would I do it?


So we are still talking about purposes? In that case, do the oxygen atoms that react with the iron atoms demonstrate purpose in any of these examples?

What about if the car is take to a location where it is more likely to rust, but this factor is not considered and the real purpose of the trip had nothing to do with testing oxidisation rates in different conditions? Would it then be directed or undirected?


Same with the boiling water. It wouldn't boil if I didn't put it in a pot and put the pot over a fire. What purpose?
I want to make tea!


Point of order but I never said anything about boiling water. I said burning wood. There are numerous reasons why I might burn wood. Not all show any sign of purpose. For example, I could simply be careless with a match. Would the resulting forest fire and the related chemical reactions be directed or undirected?

However, I don't mind accepting there is usually some form of (subjective) purpose if intelligence and planning are involved. That does not help us with the enzymes example. It also does not help us if you are not admitting your intention when you say "artificial" is to mean "intelligence".
"Origins from God/Genesis are secular actually as we see it." - Robert Byers
User avatar
UnderConstruction
 
Posts: 1297
Age: 44
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Abiogenesis

#55  Postby UnderConstruction » Mar 02, 2010 2:57 pm

rainbow wrote:So are we all agreed on the definition of directed reactions now?


I'm sorry, can you please remind us where you either stated a clear definition, or else agreed to anyone elses?
"Origins from God/Genesis are secular actually as we see it." - Robert Byers
User avatar
UnderConstruction
 
Posts: 1297
Age: 44
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Abiogenesis

#56  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 02, 2010 3:20 pm

rainbow wrote:If you consider your examples:

If I were to take a car down to the swamp, where I know it will rust - I will be directing a reaction. The car rusts because I've done something, intervened. One assumes I've a reason, a purpose if you like for doing so. The car if left in the garage, wouldn't rust as fast, and if I wanted it to rust faster, I could blow a few holes in the body with a shotgun.
One assumes a purpose, since If I didn't have any purpose, why would I do it?

Same with the boiling water. It wouldn't boil if I didn't put it in a pot and put the pot over a fire. What purpose?
I want to make tea!



That is supposed to respond to this?

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=844&start=30

Spearthrower wrote:The car rusting and the water boiling are then perfect examples of the thing I kept trying to explain to you in the other forum.

Whether a guy chooses to leave his car to rust, or the car is just left with no consideration to its circumstances.... it will still rust. Chemistry still happens, regardless of teleology. By the same definition, a scientist taking a car into a laboratory, setting up the same conditions that permit the car to rust, then recording the results is not directed, by any stretch of the imagination.

Same goes for the boiled water. Water boils in nature too, no one's even watching it most of the time, but there's boiling water in numerous places and numerous times. Natural processes causing water to boil, and human processes causing water to boil... still both result in boiling water. That's because they are not intervening in a process, but merely bringing two parts together and permitting that process to occur.

So can we bury the erroneous notion now that numerous experiments conducted in labs can be handwaved away as misrepresentative due to their being under experimental conditions?



I've clearly shown that no teleology is required for either of those processes to occur.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 33854
Age: 47
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Abiogenesis

#57  Postby hackenslash » Mar 02, 2010 3:31 pm

rainbow wrote:Love to, hack - but then we haven't quite established the truth of an objective reality.


Ah, so you wish to thread your equivocations into the territory of solipsism now, do you? Good luck with that.

Of course you realise that to go into this would derail the discussion here.


Well, your past posting history demonstrates that you have no problem with that, as long as it suits your purposes.

Please in the meanwhile open a thread in the philosophy forum,


Sorry, I don't do navel-gazing.

proving once and for all the existence of an Objective Reality, and when you've done so, I'll get back to you.


Prove it.

So are we all agreed on the definition of directed reactions now?


Apparently not, because you seem to think that inevitable and directed are interchangeable, yet another demonstration of your superior equivocation skills. Your entire argument rests upon the serial trials and one true sequence fallacies, and have done from the start.
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22910
Age: 54
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Abiogenesis

#58  Postby xrayzed » Mar 03, 2010 4:07 am

hackenslash wrote:Your entire argument rests upon the serial trials and one true sequence fallacies, and have done from the start.

I beg to differ. I have yet to see rainbow actually present an argument.

I'd love to see him do so, but it's become rather clear that that's not part of the game he plays, and he gets rather resentful when it's pointed out. The chances of getting him to present one here are vanishingly small.

I'll keep an eye on this thread on the off-chance that he might actually say something substantive. I'm sure he's capable of it.
A thinking creationist is an oxymoron. A non-thinking creationist is just a moron.
(Source: johannessiig, here)
User avatar
xrayzed
 
Posts: 1053
Age: 65
Male

Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Abiogenesis

#59  Postby ScholasticSpastic » Mar 03, 2010 4:29 am

rainbow wrote:
Love to, hack - but then we haven't quite established the truth of an objective reality.

Then we are not having a science discussion, but rather a more general sort of philosophical discussion. I will concede that science is a philosophy, but I would point out that not all (and probably not even most) philosophy is science. When discussing science, we pretty much premise all that follows upon the truth of an objective reality. Science just doesn't work without this premise. Given that science has been demonstrably more productive than any other philosophy, I think it reasonable to accept the premise of an objective reality until a more successful philosophy comes along.
"You have to be a real asshole to quote yourself."
~ ScholasticSpastic
User avatar
ScholasticSpastic
 
Name: D-Money Sr.
Posts: 6354
Age: 48
Male

Country: Behind Zion's Curtain
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Abiogenesis

#60  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 03, 2010 5:20 am

xrayzed wrote:
hackenslash wrote:Your entire argument rests upon the serial trials and one true sequence fallacies, and have done from the start.

I beg to differ. I have yet to see rainbow actually present an argument.

I'd love to see him do so, but it's become rather clear that that's not part of the game he plays, and he gets rather resentful when it's pointed out. The chances of getting him to present one here are vanishingly small.

I'll keep an eye on this thread on the off-chance that he might actually say something substantive. I'm sure he's capable of it.


QFT
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 33854
Age: 47
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to General Debunking

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest