lucaspa
Legend
14th March 2003 at 07:42 PM Truth in Faith said this in Post #1
1. If not even a speck of life has been discovered (I could be mistaken, although Carl Sagan couldn't find any after 25 years) outside of Earth, isn't it a little odd that there's such a huge abundance of life on 1 planet? Shouldn't it be, I don't know, a little more evenly distributed?
How many planets have we visited? None. Since the moon is airless, it can't support chemical life as we know it. We haven't been to any other planets and most of the planets of our solar system don't have liquid water, which is a necessity for life as we know it.
Now, there was a Martian meteorite that contained organic chemicals that one group said indicated that living organisms were once in that porous rock. The organisms were dead, but the organic chemicals were indicative of charred remains. Other scientists looked at the data and found alternative paths of chemical synthesis for the compounds. However, as I looked at the controversy, it seemed that the alternative pathways required different conditions and therefore couldn't account for all the different chemicals.
2. Concerning the atoms that make up everything (carbon, nitrogen, oxygen etc.): What is it in atoms that allow for consciousness, love, hate, a universal concept of good and evil?
In atoms? Nothing. It is the connections and interactions between atoms that allow for the properties you mentioned. For instance, what is there in hydrogen gas and oxygen gas that allow for the properties of water? Really nothing. It is the formation of the chemical bonds and then the interaction of water molecules with each other (hydrogen bonding) that yield the properties of water.
3. In his book, "Starlight and Time" Dr. Russel Humphreys (Ph.D. in physics) proposes a theory that fits in with all the reasons that scientists believe in a Big Bang (so there is just as much evidence for his theory as the Big Bang), although it works out to a young earth.
We can go into Humphreys' flawed math if you wish. His relativistic equations have been falsified.
4. How can irreducibly complex entitites evolve? This one really gets me. A five part irreducibly complex machine poses a significant problem, by it's nature (interdependent parts, one part not working without the simultaneous interaction of the other parts)
There are several pathways. There is a paper by Thornhill and Ussery entitled "Classification of Possible Pathways of Darwinian Evolution" that used to be at http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/dave/JTB.html Read it and get back to me with any questions.
5. In relation to the above question, what about an irreducibly complex entity with trillions of parts, like the human. Referring back to question 2: Not only is it an irreducibly complex machine with trillions of parts, but it (we) can feel, love, hate, think, reason, and are the smartest beings on earth (e.g. animals are below us).
See above. Remember, selection is cumulative. That is, you add a little bit at a time, not all at once. Even cognitive abilities can arise by small steps. And don't be too sure we are the smartest species around. We have the most extensive technology, but that doesn't equal intelligence. Our descent with modification was the ability to make tools to make tools.
You are too hung up on "irreducible complexity" If you are using it as a synonym for "something that can't have evolved" then there isn't any such thing.
6. Referring back to question 1: all living on an earth that is favorable to their existence. Not only favorable, but supportive (e.g. humans eat animals/plants -> animals eat plants -> plants take in energy from the sun) The sun governs the day, the moon the night etc. etc.
This is the anthropic principle. It is a flaw in logic. If the earth were not capable of supporting life, there simply wouldn't be any on it. The earth doesn't have to contain life. Consider this proposition: Bachelors must be single. John is a bachelor. Therefore John must be single. Does that mean John can never get married?
7. Mutations have never been shown to be beneficial.
That's simply not true. Do a PubMed search on beneficial mutations and you will get hundreds of papers. As it turns out, most mutations are neutral for the particular environment they show up in. But, when the environment changes, then they are beneficial. So there is vast pool of potentially beneficial mutations in any population.
8. The probabilities of a cell forming randomly are so slim as to be very near impossible.
The calculations are biased. They are based in getting one and only one amino acid sequence for each and every protein. But that isn't true. Each biological activity can have thousands or millions of amino acid sequences for it. We have observed life forming from non-life. See http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html
9. In his book, "In the beginning: compelling evidence for creation and the flood" Walt Brown, Ph.D. proposes a hydroplate theory of the flood which answers the "fossil record" as well as earth's many geological features.
The theory doesn't answer the fossil record nor the thousands of geological features, such as rhthmites, that are observed but could not possibly be due to a flood. As just one example of the fossil record, consider teleostean fishes (perch, cod, etc.) that appear only at the Cretaceous. Same hydrodynamic size as the earlier bony fishes and cartilaginous fishes, but always found above them. Brown has no explanation for them. They falsify is hydroplate theory.
There seems to be more evidence for a worldwide flood than for evolution.
Misconception of science. It's not the evidence for a theory that really counts because you can always find evidence for if that is what you are looking for. Instead, it's the evidence falsifying a theory that counts. And creationism has been falsified by the data.
10. How can life come from non-life? This defies the Law of Biogenesis.
See above. You can make life from non-life by one pathway in your kitchen. The so-called "Law of Biogenesis" is that fully-formed modern organisms can't come spontaneously into existence. Not that life can't arise from non-life.
11. My problem with the Big Bang is that it doesn't really explain anything. There's not really much evidence to back it up at all.
Lot's of evidence, you just don't seem to be aware of it.
Essentially, the Big Bang says: "Everything came from nothing". That's not really saying anything. All it's saying is that "It just is".
Actually, the Big Bang doesn't say that. Instead, it says that the universe we know came into existence as a very dense, very hot universe of infinitely small size. The universe has been expanding ever since. It explains the cosmic background radiation, the hydrogen:helium ratio, and the observed expansion.
12. The New Testament is historically accurate.
Now you are arguing something else. Now you are not discussing evolution but the validity of Christianity. No one in this forum is questioning that. Evolution is not about whether God exists or created or anything about the subsequent development of Christianity. Evolution simply says that evolution is the way God created.
This suggests Jesus was the Messiah and the Son of God.
That's not at issue. You are in a different debate: atheism vs theism. Take that to the Apologetics Board.
I'm really trying to look at both sides here, althought everything I see points to a Creator.
Darwin thought so too. Darwin never argued that there wasn't a Creator. Instead, the question is whether the Creator made the universe by a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 or whether the Creator made the universe by the processes discovered by science.
Someone once said "A little science leads you away from God, much leads you back to Him."
I'd suggest Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller. Or the works of Polkinghorne.
1. If not even a speck of life has been discovered (I could be mistaken, although Carl Sagan couldn't find any after 25 years) outside of Earth, isn't it a little odd that there's such a huge abundance of life on 1 planet? Shouldn't it be, I don't know, a little more evenly distributed?
How many planets have we visited? None. Since the moon is airless, it can't support chemical life as we know it. We haven't been to any other planets and most of the planets of our solar system don't have liquid water, which is a necessity for life as we know it.
Now, there was a Martian meteorite that contained organic chemicals that one group said indicated that living organisms were once in that porous rock. The organisms were dead, but the organic chemicals were indicative of charred remains. Other scientists looked at the data and found alternative paths of chemical synthesis for the compounds. However, as I looked at the controversy, it seemed that the alternative pathways required different conditions and therefore couldn't account for all the different chemicals.
2. Concerning the atoms that make up everything (carbon, nitrogen, oxygen etc.): What is it in atoms that allow for consciousness, love, hate, a universal concept of good and evil?
In atoms? Nothing. It is the connections and interactions between atoms that allow for the properties you mentioned. For instance, what is there in hydrogen gas and oxygen gas that allow for the properties of water? Really nothing. It is the formation of the chemical bonds and then the interaction of water molecules with each other (hydrogen bonding) that yield the properties of water.
3. In his book, "Starlight and Time" Dr. Russel Humphreys (Ph.D. in physics) proposes a theory that fits in with all the reasons that scientists believe in a Big Bang (so there is just as much evidence for his theory as the Big Bang), although it works out to a young earth.
We can go into Humphreys' flawed math if you wish. His relativistic equations have been falsified.
4. How can irreducibly complex entitites evolve? This one really gets me. A five part irreducibly complex machine poses a significant problem, by it's nature (interdependent parts, one part not working without the simultaneous interaction of the other parts)
There are several pathways. There is a paper by Thornhill and Ussery entitled "Classification of Possible Pathways of Darwinian Evolution" that used to be at http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/dave/JTB.html Read it and get back to me with any questions.
5. In relation to the above question, what about an irreducibly complex entity with trillions of parts, like the human. Referring back to question 2: Not only is it an irreducibly complex machine with trillions of parts, but it (we) can feel, love, hate, think, reason, and are the smartest beings on earth (e.g. animals are below us).
See above. Remember, selection is cumulative. That is, you add a little bit at a time, not all at once. Even cognitive abilities can arise by small steps. And don't be too sure we are the smartest species around. We have the most extensive technology, but that doesn't equal intelligence. Our descent with modification was the ability to make tools to make tools.
You are too hung up on "irreducible complexity" If you are using it as a synonym for "something that can't have evolved" then there isn't any such thing.
6. Referring back to question 1: all living on an earth that is favorable to their existence. Not only favorable, but supportive (e.g. humans eat animals/plants -> animals eat plants -> plants take in energy from the sun) The sun governs the day, the moon the night etc. etc.
This is the anthropic principle. It is a flaw in logic. If the earth were not capable of supporting life, there simply wouldn't be any on it. The earth doesn't have to contain life. Consider this proposition: Bachelors must be single. John is a bachelor. Therefore John must be single. Does that mean John can never get married?
7. Mutations have never been shown to be beneficial.
That's simply not true. Do a PubMed search on beneficial mutations and you will get hundreds of papers. As it turns out, most mutations are neutral for the particular environment they show up in. But, when the environment changes, then they are beneficial. So there is vast pool of potentially beneficial mutations in any population.
8. The probabilities of a cell forming randomly are so slim as to be very near impossible.
The calculations are biased. They are based in getting one and only one amino acid sequence for each and every protein. But that isn't true. Each biological activity can have thousands or millions of amino acid sequences for it. We have observed life forming from non-life. See http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html
9. In his book, "In the beginning: compelling evidence for creation and the flood" Walt Brown, Ph.D. proposes a hydroplate theory of the flood which answers the "fossil record" as well as earth's many geological features.
The theory doesn't answer the fossil record nor the thousands of geological features, such as rhthmites, that are observed but could not possibly be due to a flood. As just one example of the fossil record, consider teleostean fishes (perch, cod, etc.) that appear only at the Cretaceous. Same hydrodynamic size as the earlier bony fishes and cartilaginous fishes, but always found above them. Brown has no explanation for them. They falsify is hydroplate theory.
There seems to be more evidence for a worldwide flood than for evolution.
Misconception of science. It's not the evidence for a theory that really counts because you can always find evidence for if that is what you are looking for. Instead, it's the evidence falsifying a theory that counts. And creationism has been falsified by the data.
10. How can life come from non-life? This defies the Law of Biogenesis.
See above. You can make life from non-life by one pathway in your kitchen. The so-called "Law of Biogenesis" is that fully-formed modern organisms can't come spontaneously into existence. Not that life can't arise from non-life.
11. My problem with the Big Bang is that it doesn't really explain anything. There's not really much evidence to back it up at all.
Lot's of evidence, you just don't seem to be aware of it.
Essentially, the Big Bang says: "Everything came from nothing". That's not really saying anything. All it's saying is that "It just is".
Actually, the Big Bang doesn't say that. Instead, it says that the universe we know came into existence as a very dense, very hot universe of infinitely small size. The universe has been expanding ever since. It explains the cosmic background radiation, the hydrogen:helium ratio, and the observed expansion.
12. The New Testament is historically accurate.
Now you are arguing something else. Now you are not discussing evolution but the validity of Christianity. No one in this forum is questioning that. Evolution is not about whether God exists or created or anything about the subsequent development of Christianity. Evolution simply says that evolution is the way God created.
This suggests Jesus was the Messiah and the Son of God.
That's not at issue. You are in a different debate: atheism vs theism. Take that to the Apologetics Board.
I'm really trying to look at both sides here, althought everything I see points to a Creator.
Darwin thought so too. Darwin never argued that there wasn't a Creator. Instead, the question is whether the Creator made the universe by a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 or whether the Creator made the universe by the processes discovered by science.
Someone once said "A little science leads you away from God, much leads you back to Him."
I'd suggest Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller. Or the works of Polkinghorne.
Upvote
0
