How to choose between creation and evolution.

[Astrophile]

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.

I think that you are still missing the point. 'Another Atheist' said,

Evolution applies equally well whether or not the origin of life on earth was:

1] Natural abiogenesis
2] Creation of first cell by a God
3] Creation of first cells by advanced (but natural) aliens
4] Arrival of first cells by panspermia
5] Other origins that I haven't thought of.

Do you accept that if the first cells were created by a God they would be able to evolve into more complex life-forms, including ourselves? To put it another way, if we found compelling evidence that the first living cells were created by a God, would that make it more or less probable, in your opinion, that we share common ancestors with chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utans? Please give reasons for your answers.

 

[VirOptimus]

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.

One accepts science, no belief necessary.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I think that you are still missing the point. 'Another Atheist' said,



Do you accept that if the first cells were created by a God they would be able to evolve into more complex life-forms, including ourselves? To put it another way, if we found compelling evidence that the first living cells were created by a God, would that make it more or less probable, in your opinion, that we share common ancestors with chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utans? Please give reasons for your answers.

God would have a purpose for creating anything including cells. He wouldn't tarry waiting for those cells to evolve into the organism he created them for in the first place.

We are all related but only in the sense that God uses the same basic material and processes for most everything. I'm building a dresser in my shop right now, using the same materials and tools that I use to build my bird feeders, but 'evolution' isn't involved. In fact I usually discard things that are outdated or worn out. I don't add new parts to them to try to bring them up to date. I just build a new one.

 

[Astrophile]

God would have a purpose for creating anything including cells. He wouldn't tarry waiting for those cells to evolve into the organism he created them for in the first place.

We are all related but only in the sense that God uses the same basic material and processes for most everything. I'm building a dresser in my shop right now, using the same materials and tools that I use to build my bird feeders, but 'evolution' isn't involved. In fact I usually discard things that are outdated or worn out. I don't add new parts to them to try to bring them up to date. I just build a new one.

You could have answered my questions more clearly by saying either 'Yes' or 'No'. However, so far as I can understand your reply, your answer to both my questions is 'No'.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

I like this opinion; makes sense.

Why abiogenesis is possible? | Socratic

There is no agreed upon hypothesis of how biogenesis migh ct have occurred. There are a number of hypothesis but all are based on speculation not empirical evidence.

This is wrong. As in the links I gave before, there is evidence suggesting certain forms of abiogenesis.

The laws of energy seem to work against the hypothesis of biogenesis. In a closed system everything goes from order to disorder. Abiogenesis requires that an extremely ordered structure ( the first cell) came about by natural causes from the surrounding chaos of the environment. There may be a natural law not yet discovered that works against the laws of entropy, that might make abiogenesis possible.

This is wrong. The earth is not a closed system. Hence the second law of thermodynamics does not apply.

The laws of information state that information comes from information and that every transfer of information results in a loss of information. How the formation of the DNA code that programs for complex proteins came about by natural causes is a mystery.

This is wrong. There is no such 'law of information' and genetic algorithms show that unthinking feedback mechanisms can create information out of random inputs.

The idea of irreducible complexity argues against abiogenesis. Both the DNA and the proteins most likely had to be present at the same time. The synthesis of DNA requires proteins. The proteins require DNA to synthesis the proteins. Also the DNA actually codes for amino acids which join to together to form the proteins. How all three of these required elements could be independently created by accidental changes at the same time and place is difficult to conceive

This is wrong. There is no requirement that DNA and proteins had to appear at the same time and modern theories of abiogenesis do not predict that this happened. Which you would know if you actually knew something about abiogenesis.

There's not much point thinking that something 'makes sense' if it's wrong.

So, I repeat my question: What step of abiogenesis is implausible? Note: To answer my question you actually have to know theories of abiogenesis.

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

Here we're talking about the plausibility of abiogenesis. Which is plausible if any one theory of it is plausible. We don't need to know exactly how abiogenesis happened; just that there is a plausible mechanism by which life could have arisen by natural means.

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

It is clear from your postings that you have no idea at all what the 'opinions of science', or better: current theories of science, are. E.g. it 'makes sense' to you that DNA and proteins would have appeared together.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Precisely,

You can't go ahead and say "precisely" and then disagree.......

DNA evidence is precise enough to show who is related and who is not.

Yes. And not only that, it can also tell us the level of relatedness.
And as it turns out, EVERYTHING is related. The point exactly.

Humans are more related to eachother then to chimps.
Humans are more related to chimps then to gorilla's.
Humans are more related to gorilla's then to cats.
Humans are more related to cats then to frogs.
Humans are more related to frogs then to salmon.
Humans are more related to salmon then to pine trees.

Etc.
It's right, in our collective DNA.

What is "frustrating" about having this discussion is that creationists don't seem to be realising that you can't accept this kind of DNA testing to establish family ties among humans only. The technique either works or it doesn't.

And if it does, it works cross species just like it works within species.
It works within species, just like it works within single families (like determining parenthood, siblings etc).

It either works or it doesn't.
You can't accept one and not the other. Well... no, you can do that, but the problem is that it doesn't make any sense.

It's like saying that adding two numbers can give you a big number, but adding a bunch of big numbers can't give you a very big number.

It shows humans and other humans are related. It shows we are not the same as a chimp or a cow or a spider.

Just like it shows that a human is only himself and not another human.
Your "objection" makes no sense.

It also shows that we are related to both chimps and cows. And every other living thing.

It shows humans are humans, cows are cows and spiders are spiders.

And you are you and not me.
This is irrelevant to the fact that we are related.

ps: "being related" doesn't mean that we have identical DNA. You don't seem to understand that.

It doesn't show we are related to cows or chimps.

Yes it does.

In fact it shows the opposite

No it doesn't.

It shows that all these creatures are distinctly different from each other.

And related.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ive googled. And you know that's not what I'm talking about

Yes, I know that you are arguing a strawman.

What you are seeing is adaptation not evolution from a common ancestor.

Pot8to, potato

You see micro evolution of a creature evolving in order to survive yet remaining in the same family.

...which is evolution.

It's not eloving to be something else.

Yes it is. It speciates into a sub-species. And after some time, it is incapable of reproducing with it's cousin species, wich is a sub-species of the exact same mother population.

Sounds like you are trying to say that evolution is about cats producing dogs or alike.
Which is a PRATT that has been addressed so many times already, I lost count.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So what that an ant evolved into another ant with bigger jaws. It's still an ant and belongs in the ant family. The peppered moth is still a moth. It will never be anything else.

Evolution doesn't say otherwise. As has been explained to you so many times.

The ancestors of humans and chimps were primates. Both humans and chimps "are still" primates. Our descendents, will forever be primates. And mammals. And tetrapods. And vertebrates. And eukaryotes.

Common ancestry says all things came from one thing

Indeed. Which doesn't violate the nested hierarchy of life at all.

Ants cows bees cats monkeys and humans all evolved from one creature.

Yep. All those are members of the kingdom of "animalia". They are all eukaryotes.
They are all "still" animals and "still" eukaryotes. And that is exactly what all their descendents until the end of time, will remain.

Yet observation has NEVER show that to have occurred or that it's even possible.

Perhaps that is due to the fact that we can't run a simulation of a process that takes hundreds of millions of years to unfold, in a lab within a single human lifetime?

The good news, is that we don't have to.
Our collective inheritable DNA is more then enough to demonstrate that we all share ancestry.

It assumes it did because that's the only way it could have in the evolutionists mind.

False. It is a (demonstrable, testable) conclusion, based on actual evidence.

Whereas God told us how he did it.

Which is a religious belief.

He didn't create a blob which over millions of years turned into something else which split and turned into something else which split and turned into something else. You can't show how that is even possible.

We can show exactly that, through comparative genetics.
And it matches all the evidence from other, independent, lines of evidence. Like the fossil record, comparative anatomy, geographic distribution,...

Meanwhile, the only thing your creationist religious beliefs have going for them...is that you believe it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why can't ants with stingers just be ants with stingers? Why do they have to be related to the wasp?

They don' have to be.

Their DNA just happens to show that they are.
If you want to complain about that, you can complain about the DNA if you wish.

But the DNA is what it is. Complaining about it, won't change it.

If they took a blind DNA test of thus ant and a wasp would they be able to tell rhe difference?

Yes. They would also be able to tell that they are closely related.

Of course they would. Similarities do not prove evolution.

Similarities don't, indeed. But nested hierarchies do.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Patterns don't either.

If patterns aren't evidence of common ancestry, then DNA can not be used to determine if you and your sibling share the same parents.

 

[DogmaHunter]

To the OP, do you see scripture mentioned? Evolution stands or falls on the science of it. Actually post #2 says it all.

Ow please, give me a break!!
Doesn't your religion say something concerning bearing false witness?

We all know that the reason people object to evolution theory has NOTHING to do with the science and EVERYTHING with a certain interpretation of their religion.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Why would you even try to deny that??

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It is clear from your postings that you have no idea at all what the 'opinions of science', or better: current theories of science, are. E.g. it 'makes sense' to you that DNA and proteins would have appeared together.

Let me get this straight. Only scientific theories are plausible. Others are not. Correct?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Ow please, give me a break!!
Doesn't your religion say something concerning bearing false witness?

We all know that the reason people object to evolution theory has NOTHING to do with the science and EVERYTHING with a certain interpretation of their religion.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Why would you even try to deny that??

As I said I look at complex, specialized organisms and conclude that they were designed. No religion required. Further, it is science that reveals just how complex and unique things are, thus removing them further from the possibility that they evolved from a common ancestor.

 

[DogmaHunter]

As I said I look at complex, specialized organisms and conclude that they were designed.

ONLY because you presuppose a designer.
Without that presupposition, you'ld just say "i don't know" (assuming you have no understanding and/or knowledge about evolution theory, that is).

Further, it is science that reveals just how complex and unique things are

Neither complexity, nore uniqueness, are indicators of design.
Once again: the only reason you "conclude" design, is because you already believe design even before asking the question.

, thus removing them further from the possibility that they evolved from a common ancestor.

Except off course, that complexity and function in biology is exactly what evolution theory explains.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Let me get this straight. Only scientific theories are plausible. Others are not. Correct?

I tend to agree.

Care to give me an example of a "non-scientific theory" which is plausible?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Let me get this straight. Only scientific theories are plausible. Others are not. Correct?

Thanks for asking for confirmation.

No.Not correct.

Theories that are backed by evidence and do not conflict with other things that we know are plausible. Theories that conflict with the evidence are not plausible. Some things have intermediate levels of plausibility because (e.g.) they conflict with something that we know about the world.

So, in theory, a religious theory could be plausible. But, plausible is a very weak word. It's plausible that there's someone in my city who is wearing the exact same clothes as me, and has an identical haircut. It's not very likely however.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I tend to agree.

Care to give me an example of a "non-scientific theory" which is plausible?

Creation and design. Stuff had to come from somewhere. If the universe didn't exist 4.6 billion years ago where did it all come from?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Creation and design. Stuff had to come from somewhere. If the universe didn't exist 4.6 billion years ago where did it all come from?

Design of the type you describe is not plausible without a designer. How is your designer plausible?

BTW: The universe is about 13 billion years old. It's the Sun that's about 4.6 billion years old.

 

[Speedwell]

God would have a purpose for creating anything including cells. He wouldn't tarry waiting for those cells to evolve into the organism he created them for in the first place.

You know this about God exactly how? Or are you telling Him what He is supposed to do?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Thanks for asking for confirmation.

No.Not correct.

Theories that are backed by evidence and do not conflict with other things that we know are plausible. Theories that conflict with the evidence are not plausible. Some things have intermediate levels of plausibility because (e.g.) they conflict with something that we know about the world.

So, in theory, a religious theory could be plausible. But, plausible is a very weak word. It's plausible that there's someone in my city who is wearing the exact same clothes as me, and has an identical haircut. It's not very likely however.

I sort of agree. It's implausible that a microscopic life form became a brontosaurus in just a few million years. Of course the problem is more difficult than that. A mate, and a supporting environment had to evolve simultaneously. Same with other species. Creation is more plausible.