evolution question

[Anguspure]

Since it happened once it could possibly happen again.

This is a baseless, evidenceless and consequently non-scientific assertion. The OP asked for a scientic reply not one based on faith that one day the high priests of scientism might free us one fine day from the constraints of logic and common sense.

 

[Anguspure]

Didn't your parents teach you about the "birds and the bees"? Do you really think that babies just pop into existence from nowhere?

So where did self replicating organisms pop into existence from? The scientistic proposal is worse than magic. Creation postulates a source, a cause and a reason from whereby all things come. Materialistic Scientism provides no reason, no primary cause and ultimately is unable to identify a source.
Clearly babies don't pop into existence from nowhere but this is the assertion of Scientism, not Creationism.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

So where did self replicating organisms pop into existence from?

I don't know.

The scientistic proposal is worse than magic.

Why? The origin of life is a hard question. Is forming a hypothesis and then throwing them out when it doesn't correctly answer the question a bad thing? It's how science works. Ask a question, then test it. Repeat the process until you have the answer.

Creation postulates a source, a cause and a reason from whereby all things come.

This is not a testable and verifiable answer to the question. It's more like an argument from personal incredulity. "I don't understand question A, therefore X must be true"

 

[Anguspure]

Why? The origin of life is a hard question.

Indeed, trying to conceive of a process from nothing to logical impossibility is very hard. One might say it is impossible. Materialistic biogenesis clearly belongs in the same basket as perpetual motion.

Is forming a hypothesis and then throwing them out when it doesn't correctly answer the question a bad thing?

Clearly not, so why on earth has materialism/methodological naturalism been retained as a hypothesis for origins?

It's how science works. Ask a question, then test it. Repeat the process until you have the answer.

Yes, but we're supposed to refine our questions in response to the outcome of the test. Scientism is simply banging its head against a brick wall on this one, over and over again and is bigoted against anybody who might suggest that the evidence demonstrates something different i.e. Thomas Nagel.

This is not a testable and verifiable answer to the question. It's more like an argument from personal incredulity. "I don't understand question A, therefore X must be true"

Causation is testable and is tested daily. All things that begin to exist have a cause. Reason is also testable and relates to causation. All things that exist have a reason for their existence. Source also relates to causation and is testable. Nothing comes into existence unless there is a source of the thing that it comprises from which that thing can be drawn.
The assertion that "By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth.", and by extension all other things were also made by His command, is logically consistent with all of the observed evidence.
On the other hand the assertion that things come into being from no identifiable cause, reason or ultimate source (Materialistic Naturalism) is not.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Indeed, trying to conceive of a process from nothing to logical impossibility is very hard. One might say it is impossible.

Why? Who says it's impossible?

Clearly not, so why on earth has materialism/methodological naturalism been retained as a hypothesis for origins?

Because science only attempts to explain the natural world. Attempting to define causal relationships with the supernatural are dead ends. Science goes with natural explanations because it can be measured and studied. The supernatural just leads to God of the gaps. We learn nothing.

Scientism is simply banging its head against a brick wall on this one, over and over again

According to who? Should they just give up because the question is hard to answer? "God did it and that's the end of it" might be how you prefer to operate but scientists want to figure out the answer. They'll continue to do so despite your vitriol towards them.

and is bigoted against anybody who might suggest that the evidence demonstrates something different i.e. Thomas Nagel.

Woah! Bigoted is a harsh word to use here. Are you saying that because Nagel's peers criticize him that makes them bigoted? Give me a break.

Nothing comes into existence unless there is a source of the thing that it comprises from which that thing can be drawn.

And that source is God? How do you know?

The assertion that "By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth.", and by extension all other things were also made by His command, is logically consistent with all of the observed evidence.

"It's true because it says it's true" is not a logical argument. It is circular reasoning. If there was a creator how can you be certain it was the Christian God? There are many other creation myths besides the Genesis story.

http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/CS/CSIndex.html

 

[Ken-1122]

Does anyone know, according to scientists, if life still forms today out of non-living material?

How are you defining living vs non-living material? Is a seed living or non-living? What about a tree?

Ken

 

[[serious]]

Since it happened once it could possibly happen again.

Not quite. Take a deck of cards. Shuffle them well. The order they end up in will almost certainly be the first deck of cards ever to be in that exact order. That exact order will likely never occur again.

 

[Anguspure]

Not quite. Take a deck of cards. Shuffle them well. The order they end up in will almost certainly be the first deck of cards ever to be in that exact order. That exact order will likely never occur again.

True except that it would not be reasonable for the cards to be in any particular order after they have been shuffled, would it? If for example the cards have been shuffled it was found that they were in numerical order and in the order of suit it would tell a reasonable person that somebody had put them that way, not that some as yet unknown natural process was causing the shuffled cards to order in this way.

 

[Anguspure]

Why? Who says it's impossible

LOL Que? What planet have I arrived on? The onus of proof for such a ridiculous counter claim lies with the claimant I'm afraid. You tell me where in all of history, recorded or otherwise has it even been heard of? It is only in the field of biology governed by materialistic assumptions is the suggestion even put forward. That it is taken seriously is just plainly brain numbingly astounding.

Because science only attempts to explain the natural world. Science goes with natural explanations because it can be measured and studied.

This is all well and good as a methodology until somebody tries to tell that science governed by materialism is capable of expressing all truth about the natural world. At this point it becomes fallacious.

Attempting to define causal relationships with the supernatural are dead ends. The supernatural just leads to God of the gaps. We learn nothing.

I don't see how this is the case. Appreciating the existence of Henry Ford never stopped anybody inquiring as to the details of how motor cars work, and never stopped anybody from developing the concept either.
The fact that people who had a very strong religious bigotry thing going on, who were fearful of knowledgeable masses doesn't make it so. Remember Biblical study was also stifled during the same times. The great of early science were all theistic or deistic and explored the natural world precisely because of this, not in-spite of it. The fact that that they often worked in defiance of the religious authorities of the time says nothing about the Creator

According to who? Should they just give up because the question is hard to answer?

The answer they are trying to find is not hard, the hypothesis I have read are exceedingly simple in concept and yet they they are absurd and become increasingly absurd the more that is discovered about the nature of the beast.
There is a difference between outright emperor has no clothes absurdity and difficulty.
A difficult question is: "how did the system come about?"
An absurd question is: "how did the system come about from processes and sources that only exist within the system after it has come about?".

"God did it and that's the end of it" might be how you prefer to operate but scientists want to figure out the answer. They'll continue to do so despite your vitriol towards them

The way I wish to operate is, God did it now lets learn something from Him, find out what He did, how He did it, how we can use it, categorize it, be amazed at it, care for it. We can after all expect to observe intelligible processes, things we can understand if He placed it there in the first place.
The end of exploration lies in the absurdity of refusing to follow the path of the evidence because it leads to somebody that we don't like.

Woah! Bigoted is a harsh word to use here. Are you saying that because Nagel's peers criticize him that makes them bigoted? Give me a break.

Peer criticism is one thing but what Nagel and others like him are experiencing is sidelining and ridicule because the views they express leave a crack in the door for the divine door to enter in. This is a form bigotry I also have been familiar with in my work place for 25 years now and it is never acceptable but it always hides behind the respectable appeals.

And that source is God? How do you know

The source is what it is, you can call it what you want. I happen to call Him my God.

"It's true because it says it's true" is not a logical argument.It is circular reasoning.

Not sure what you're saying here, but what I am suggesting is that it is logically consistent with the observed evidence that a being, a timeless, spaceless, very powerful, very intelligent person might bring something about by the "breath of His mouth". It is not illogical to suggest such a thing. It might not be true that such a thing happened but at least it conceivably fits the evidence which the hypothesis of Materialistic Scientism does not.

If there was a creator how can you be certain it was the Christian God?

That is the question of the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, a separate question that has little relevance to evolution/creation discussion and itself relies upon the existence of the Creator in order to even be possible.

There are many other creation myths besides the Genesis story.

Yup...and?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Does anyone know, according to scientists, if life still forms today out of non-living material?

That is something that has crossed my mind before as well. Abiogenesis, if being able to be created naturally, should be something observable or, at the very least, made in a controlled lab with every resource available.
It's funny that antimatter, which hardly exists naturally in nature, can be made, but not the most simple organism.

I can go ahead and tell you that the only argument that even attempts to defend on the contrary is the notion of the gap of time- we've only barely begun to study life at the micro level, in relevance to the billion odd years it took for such life to occur.
It's not a very strong argument. Evolutionists rely on something like a miracle themselves, really.

 

[[serious]]

True except that it would not be reasonable for the cards to be in any particular order after they have been shuffled, would it?

The point is that saying "Since it happened once it could possibly happen again." doesn't work. Something happening once (a particular order of cards) does not mean it is likely to ever happen again. The statement i was replying to was a faulty premise.

If for example the cards have been shuffled it was found that they were in numerical order and in the order of suit it would tell a reasonable person that somebody had put them that way, not that some as yet unknown natural process was causing the shuffled cards to order in this way.

Correct, but that order is only meaningful because we have identified it ahead of time. A-K separated by suit in the order Spades, Diamonds, Clubs, Hearts is not less likely than any other order cards may end in. It's only special because card manufactures ship decks in that order. The deck of cards next to me is in an order just as unlikely. Statistically, a deck of cards will be shuffled into that original order just as often as the order in this deck next to me. The only thing special about the order of the deck of cards i have is that someone at some point shuffled cards into that order already.

Likewise, the only thing special about the life present on earth is that it has occurred. We don't expect to find huminoid life on other planets for the same reason I don't expect anyone to ever see cards in the order of 8 of spades, 3 of diamonds, 9 of clubs, ... so on. We can say that any new life we find similar to ours was either designed or shares a common history because our type of life has already occurred. We can't meaningfully talk about the odds of one instance of our type of life for the same reason we can't meaningfully talk about the odds of one instance of the order of this deck of cards. It's only special because it already happened. If it happened differently, we would reach the same conclusion about K of hearts, 4 of spades, 2 of hearts, etc.

 

[[serious]]

That is something that has crossed my mind before as well. Abiogenesis, if being able to be created naturally, should be something observable or, at the very least, made in a controlled lab with every resource available.
It's funny that antimatter, which hardly exists naturally in nature, can be made, but not the most simple organism.

I can go ahead and tell you that the only argument that even attempts to defend on the contrary is the notion of the gap of time- we've only barely begun to study life at the micro level, in relevance to the billion odd years it took for such life to occur.
It's not a very strong argument. Evolutionists rely on something like a miracle themselves, really.

Existing in nature does not equate to being easy for us to make. Black holes are not exactly uncommon, but we can't make them. Nylon is easy to make, yet occurs no where in nature.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

LOL Que? What planet have I arrived on? The onus of proof for such a ridiculous counter claim lies with the claimant I'm afraid.

This is Earth. I am not claiming anything. You claimed abiogenesis was impossible (Correct me if this isn't your claim, your argument is kind of all over the place). I am just asking why is it impossible?

You tell me where in all of history, recorded or otherwise has it even been heard of? It is only in the field of biology governed by materialistic assumptions is the suggestion even put forward.

Are we talking about abiogenesis or evolution? If it's abiogenesis, you're going to be studying a lot of chemistry. If we're talking about evolution, that is demonstrated by multiple fields of study.

That it is taken seriously is just plainly brain numbingly astounding.

Asking questions about life's origin is brain numbing astounding? Maybe to you. Is it because if an answer was found you'd have to seriously question your faith? I hope that is a fair question to ask.

The way I wish to operate is, God did it now lets learn something from Him, find out what He did, how He did it, how we can use it, categorize it, be amazed at it, care for it. We can after all expect to observe intelligible processes, things we can understand if He placed it there in the first place.

It surprises me that you don't acknowledge a theistic view of evolution when you say this.

The end of exploration lies in the absurdity of refusing to follow the path of the evidence because it leads to somebody that we don't like.

I agree. You should take your own advice. There is evidence stacked miles high from several different lines of study in favor of evolution. Perhaps you should study further before you reject it outright with incredulity. May I suggest the books "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins and "The Language of God" by Francis Collins? You may enjoy Collins book a bit more since he is a devout Christian.

Peer criticism is one thing but what Nagel and others like him are experiencing is sidelining and ridicule because the views they express leave a crack in the door for the divine door to enter in.

Again, science doesn't deal with the supernatural. It can only study the natural world. This seems to be a fact you don't understand. But answer me this question. How would one study the supernatural? What is this falsifiable test for supernatural claims? Also Nagel is a philosopher not a scientist. He is an atheist too. I don't know why creationists love him so much, he doesn't agree with your views, he simply takes them into consideration. If any creationists would like to demonstrate that their claims are true, write a paper and have it peer reviewed. Making claims and skipping this process and claiming it as facts deserves ridicule in the highest degree.

Not sure what you're saying here, but what I am suggesting is that it is logically consistent with the observed evidence that a being, a timeless, spaceless, very powerful, very intelligent person might bring something about by the "breath of His mouth".

What is the falsifiable test for this claim? What evidence are you talking about? You want to rip the hypothesis of abiogenises and the theory of evolution apart by calling it magic but then say some invisible being spoke it into existence? Yikes!

Yup...and?

The point is there are thousands of creation myths. How do you know that yours is the right one? Because it says it is? So do all the other myths.

 

[Loudmouth]

Don't let them fool you into believing it's not a evolution problem. Science declares every effect must have a prior cause. Then don't let them fool you into thinking abiogenesis is relevant.

Then abiogenesis is as much a problem for the theory of evolution as it is for germ theory. Do you reject the Germ Theory of Disease? After all, no abiogenesis, no germs.

 

[Loudmouth]

So where did self replicating organisms pop into existence from? The scientistic proposal is worse than magic.

First, the scientific proposal is chemistry, not magic. Please explain to us how observable chemical processes are worse than magic.

Also, if we don't know where germs came from do we have to throw out the Germ Theory of Disease? Yes or no?

Creation postulates a source, a cause and a reason from whereby all things come.

And that source is magic. At least with abiogenesis, we can observe the proposed mechanisms in action. Not so for creationism.

Clearly babies don't pop into existence from nowhere but this is the assertion of Scientism, not Creationism.

The theory of evolution says that offspring come from ancestors. Perhaps you have heard of this theory?

 

[1213]

...
Making a new sort of life using chemicals not found on Earth today has been done...

Thanks for interesting articles. However, we have to remember that sort of life is not real life.

 

[Anguspure]

Please explain to us how observable chemical processes are worse than magic.

There is no chemical process that produces life from non-life, neither is there any chemical process that will produce the sort of information that is observed in the DNA molecule. This is not difficult it is as much a law of nature as any other that has been observed. Specified complex information and life are always demonstrated to originate from an intelligent and living source, never a non-living or non-intelligent source.
Postulating a process that does not exist to explain how something happened is worse than magic because at least with magic we may know that there is a process, a trick of some sort behind the event even if we don't know what it is.

Also, if we don't know where germs came from do we have to throw out the Germ Theory of Disease? Yes or no?

No, and this is not because of what we don't know, rather it is because of what we do know. We do know that germ theory is not logically absurd (although if in retrospect it turns out to be logically absurd then it should also be discarded) whereas we know that chemical theories of biogenesis are inane.

And that source is magic. Awe can observe the proposed mechanisms in action.

The proposed mechanisms do not even come close to accounting for the effect within the real probabilistic resources of the observed universe.

Not so for creationism.

Given that the proposal of an intelligent source of origins is not logically absurd, and is consistent with the observed evidence, and given that the scientific method has proved to be quite successful in revealing many other laws and systems that the Creator has put into place in the material universe, then it is quite conceivable that the process that God chose to create by may well be revealed at some point through diligent scientific study and it is even conceivable that He may have chosen to use an evolutionary type process to do the job.
Resorting to absurd theories that invoke logically inconceivable and unobserved so called processes is not the answer to the problem.

The theory of evolution says that offspring come from ancestors. Perhaps you have heard of this theory?

The term Evolution is often used very flexibly so as to give it a veneer of coherence that would be silly to deny. Nobody disputes that populations change over the generations through a process of Natural Selection and through this process may vary quite markedly even to the point of speciation. It is absurd proposals that demand spontaneous perpetual systems that defy known laws of creation that should be rejected.

 

[Loudmouth]

There is no chemical process that produces life from non-life,

Prove it.

neither is there any chemical process that will produce the sort of information that is observed in the DNA molecule.

Need evidence for that claim as well.

Specified complex information and life are always demonstrated to originate from an intelligent and living source, never a non-living or non-intelligent source.

Prove it.

I am seeing a lot of empty assertions. You need to present some evidence.

Postulating a process that does not exist to explain how something happened is worse than magic because at least with magic we may know that there is a process, a trick of some sort behind the event even if we don't know what it is.

That's exactly what you are doing. You are proposing that magic created life.

No, and this is not because of what we don't know, rather it is because of what we do know. We do know that germ theory is not logically absurd (although if in retrospect it turns out to be logically absurd then it should also be discarded) whereas we know that chemical theories of biogenesis are inane.

If evolution requires abiogenesis, then why doesn't the germ theory of disease?

The proposed mechanisms do not even come close to accounting for the effect within the real probabilistic resources of the observed universe.

Prove it.

Given that the proposal of an intelligent source of origins is not logically absurd,

It is unsupported. It is made up. You have no evidence demonstrating magical production of life. All you keep pointing to is our ignorance of how it could happen naturally. That is an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy.

Resorting to absurd theories that invoke logically inconceivable and unobserved so called processes is not the answer to the problem.

The irony is getting thick in here.

The term Evolution is often used very flexibly so as to give it a veneer of coherence that would be silly to deny. Nobody disputes that populations change over the generations through a process of Natural Selection and through this process may vary quite markedly even to the point of speciation. It is absurd proposals that demand spontaneous perpetual systems that defy known laws of creation that should be rejected.

It is only used flexibly by the anti-science, creationist crowd.

 

[Anguspure]

Are we talking about abiogenesis or evolution? If it's abiogenesis, you're going to be studying a lot of chemistry. If we're talking about evolution, that is demonstrated by multiple fields of study.

The problem is exactly of how much chemistry will produce biology. Hoping that this can happen without deliberate input is a belief in a form of information perpetuity

That it is taken seriously is just plainly brain numbingly astounding.

Asking questions about life's origin is brain numbing astounding? Maybe to you. Is it because if an answer was found you'd have to seriously question your faith? I hope that is a fair question to ask.

The miscontextualisation of your first question creates a strawman. The question is not fair.

I agree. You should take your own advice. There is evidence stacked miles high from several different lines of study in favor of evolution. Perhaps you should study further before you reject it outright with incredulity. May I suggest the books "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins and "The Language of God" by Francis Collins? You may enjoy Collins book a bit more since he is a devout Christian.

LOL and then you mention Dawkins? The arch bigot of the new atheist movement (Who by the way has acknowledged the principle of ID as long as it was aliens that dunnit).

Again, science doesn't deal with the supernatural. It can only study the natural world. This seems to be a fact you don't understand. But answer me this question. How would one study the supernatural? What is this falsifiable test for supernatural claims? Also Nagel is a philosopher not a scientist. He is an atheist too. I don't know why creationists love him so much, he doesn't agree with your views, he simply takes them into consideration. If any creationists would like to demonstrate that their claims are true, write a paper and have it peer reviewed. Making claims and skipping this process and claiming it as facts deserves ridicule in the highest degree.

I like Nagel for having the guts to present truth in-spite of his own misgivings about the implications of his position and in-spite of the open hostility of scientism devotees who refuse to acknowledge the possibility of reality beyond materialism.

What is the falsifiable test for this claim? What evidence are you talking about? You want to rip the hypothesis of abiogenises and the theory of evolution apart by calling it magic but then say some invisible being spoke it into existence? Yikes!

All matter is formed from energy and at a quantum level originates from non-physical, invisible source (called the quantum vacuum whatever that might be). It is logically consistent with the observed evidence that a being, a timeless, spaceless, very powerful, very intelligent person might bring something about by the "breath of His mouth". The evidence that this being can reasonable considered to exist comes from at least 4 arguments:

The Kalam Cosmological argument

The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

The Cosmic Fine Tuning Argument

The Moral Argument

I would also appeal to the experience of millions including myself of the supernatural realm.

All of which above arguments are falsifiable.

The point is there are thousands of creation myths. How do you know that yours is the right one? Because it says it is? So do all the other myths.

In the same way that cosmological models are assessed. The story that has the best explanatory and predictive power is likely to be the one to go with.

Clearly the Chemical Abiogenesis/Darwinian/Materialistic Naturalistic Origin Myth fails to provide sufficient explanatory power and clearly the Jewish account is vastly superior in both respects.

 

[Loudmouth]

The problem is exactly of how much chemistry will produce biology. Hoping that this can happen without deliberate input is a belief in a form of information perpetuity

How so? How do hydrogen and oxygen know to combine into water, and then how do they know to always form intricate and complex hexagonal crystals?

Where does that information come from? Do we need a deity forming each and every ice crystal?

All matter is formed from energy and at a quantum level originates from non-physical, invisible source (called the quantum vacuum whatever that might be). It is logically consistent with the observed evidence that a being, a timeless, spaceless, very powerful, very intelligent person might bring something about by the "breath of His mouth".

That's like saying that rainbows are consistent with fun loving Leprechauns. Just because you believe that God created the universe does not make it true.