How to choose between creation and evolution.

[OldWiseGuy]

It is an open research question, but it's not part of 'evolutionary science'. I described that, I believe, quite clearly in my previous post. It doesn't matter how life started; once we had living things which can reproduce and all that, evolution proceeds. Evolution will not 'collapse' if we don't 'discover the origin of life'. It's backed up by evidence entirely unrelated to, and independent of, the origin of life.

Also, open research questions are not 'frustrating'. They are an opportunity. And many people are following that opportunity. As I pointed out.

Supernatural creation is rejected because it's not the best theory that fits the evidence. As you say, the 'hand of God' cannot be demonstrated. Doesn't that mean that it's religion that should 'collapse' as there is no evidence? But, as you can see, it doesn't.

You say that 'which by science's own reckoning is virtually impossible.' How do you back up this claim for abiogenesis? There is plenty of research continuing on abiogenesis, and there is no step in the process which is implausible or 'virtually impossible'. Which step do you claim science say is virtually impossible?

If this is an example of the current research, impossible is more plausible than possible. It's also very humorous.

New Equation Tallies Odds of Life Beginning

The question is did life begin with a simple life form, and what was included/contained in that life form? The way I see it is that if a simple life form was 'struck' at some moment in time it would have contained certain characteristics/elements/parts/ongoing (living) processes, etc. that evolution would need in order to proceed. If true then evolution is inextricably bound to the origin of the first life form, because that 'simple' life form would necessarily have had to evolve it's complexity as well. It's like "love and marriage"; you can't have one without the other.

Now science can plead that it doesn't know what the first life form looked like, but what is certain is that the necessary constituents for evolution had to be present in that first life form, else how could evolution have proceeded; that life form being the 'tool box' from which all species to the present day were produced.

Purposeful, supernatural creation is so much easier to believe.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

There is a stench of intellectual dishonesty in that reply. You have been told multiple times that the Theory of Evolution is independent of the origin of life. Multiple explanations are possible for the origin. If and when we eventually identify which one is correct it will not alter the evidence for the ToE one iota. So, why do you keep recirculating the lie?

Seriously, OWG, if you intend to continue to post statements that are patently false, that you know to be patently false, then I shall be Reporting them. I have confidence in the honesty and integrity of the moderator team to respond appropriately. You have a grace period, since you are now going on Ignore. Shape up, or ship out.

I'm sorry that you don't understand what I'm saying. And a reminder, it's my thread and you are just a guest here.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

If this is an example of the current research, impossible is more plausible than possible. It's also very humorous.

New Equation Tallies Odds of Life Beginning

Please read your own reference. It doesn't calculate a probability for life starting. In fact it says:

"It's not an answer; it's a new tool for trying to think about the issues involved," Ed Turner, an astronomer at Princeton University, told Space.com

And:

"We don't know the mechanism whereby nonlife turns into life, so we have no way of estimating the odds … It may be one in a trillion trillion (it's easy to imagine that), in which case, Earth life may be unique in the observable universe," Davies told Space.com in an email. "But Pa may be quite large. We simply can't say."

And:

"We just need one other sample of life (second genesis) and the field is transformed, because we would know Pa can't be exceedingly small," Davies said. "And that sample might be right here on Earth. Frankly, almost nobody has looked."

So, I return to my question that you haven't answered.

What step of abiogenesis is implausible?

 

[pitabread]

Wow. When you're wrong, you are STUNNINGLY wrong.

This makes me wonder... Would it be possible to learn about the Theory of Evolution by doing nothing but reading creationist material, but then accepting the inverse of whatever they tell you?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Please read your own reference. It doesn't calculate a probability for life starting. In fact it says:



And:



And:



So, I return to my question that you haven't answered.

What step of abiogenesis is implausible?

Tossing in the "falsifiability" test as a perpetual placeholder is disingenuous at best.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Tossing in the "falsifiability" test as a perpetual placeholder is disingenuous at best.

I have no idea what you mean. I can't see how this answers the question:

What step of abiogenesis is implausible?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

This makes me wonder... Would it be possible to learn about the Theory of Evolution by doing nothing but reading creationist material, but then accepting the inverse of whatever they tell you?

Good question. I'll have to try that sometime. Right now I'm focusing on the loose bricks in the science literature.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I have no idea what you mean. I can't see how this answers the question:

What step of abiogenesis is implausible?

What are the steps of abiogenesis, according to science (the link was just one highly speculative opinion of many).

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip-

Purposeful, supernatural creation is so much easier to believe.

Belief has nothing to do with science. Using magic to explain physical reality is not rational and also an autoloss in an science debate.

There is no need to use magic to explain diversity of life, the ToE explains the data and facts.

If you want to challenge the ToE write an article for peer-review. Posting nonsense does not do your position any good.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

What are the steps of abiogenesis, according to science (the link was just one highly speculative opinion of many).

Given that you are saying that it's implausible, I wanted to see if you knew the steps of abiogenesis. If you don't, then this clearly indicates that you are in no position to comment on the plausibility of abiogenesis.

 

[Herman Hedning]

I'm sorry that you don't understand what I'm saying. And a reminder, it's my thread and you are just a guest here.

Nope, that's not the way it works.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Given that you are saying that it's implausible, I wanted to see if you knew the steps of abiogenesis. If you don't, then this clearly indicates that you are in no position to comment on the plausibility of abiogenesis.

I'm using the opinions of science to support my position. They agree that it is implausible, improbable, or impossible (in so many words).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Belief has nothing to do with science. Using magic to explain physical reality is not rational and also an autoloss in an science debate.

There is no need to use magic to explain diversity of life, the ToE explains the data and facts.

If you want to challenge the ToE write an article for peer-review. Posting nonsense does not do your position any good.

You cannot honestly redefine the meaning of 'believe'. Millions of people believe evolution who have no knowledge of it whatsoever. They have confidence (read faith) that science has got it right.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Nope, that's not the way it works.

So the way it works is if someone doesn't agree with or is offended by another's opinion they can "report" that person even though no forum rules are broken?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Given that you are saying that it's implausible, I wanted to see if you knew the steps of abiogenesis. If you don't, then this clearly indicates that you are in no position to comment on the plausibility of abiogenesis.

No one knows the 'steps' of abiogenesis, which is theory in and of itself.

 

[Herman Hedning]

So the way it works is if someone doesn't agree with or is offended by another's opinion they can "report" that person even though no forum rules are broken?

Nope, that's not the way it works either.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Nope, that's not the way it works either.

Are you defending Ophiolite?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Given that you are saying that it's implausible, I wanted to see if you knew the steps of abiogenesis. If you don't, then this clearly indicates that you are in no position to comment on the plausibility of abiogenesis.

I like this opinion; makes sense.

Why abiogenesis is possible? | Socratic

 

[Herman Hedning]

Are you defending Ophiolite?

I don't know who, if anyone, have reported any posts - neither do I care. But I firmly believe that there should be open discussion in forum threads, and no one should believe he can determine what should or should not be discussed.

 

[pitabread]

I like this opinion; makes sense.

Why abiogenesis is possible? | Socratic

That just reads like a smattering of creationist/ID arguments. And that's supposed to be a site for students to get help from? Yikes!