Natural selection v Intelligent design

DogmaHunter · Aug 3, 2015

stevevw said:
I think pshun2404 was meaning that because you believe that life came from non life which is impossible

Clearly, it's not impossible.... once there was no life. Then there was life.
This means that life came into being where there was no life before.

then you are assuming that it happened purely because you believe it had to happen without a God or supernatural force somehow and someway.

I have never made any claims about HOW life came into existance.
I merely stated that it came into existance in some way.

However, it sure is a LOT more likely that it came into existance through natural means rather then some supernatural shenannigans.

Why? Because natural processes demonstrably exist. Supernatural shenannigans ... not so much.

The idea that it came into existance through chemical processes doesn't require assuming the existance of undemonstrable entities.

Does that mean that it WAS a natural process? No. It merely means that a natural process is more likely.

You understand the difference, I assume?

Because we have life now your only conclusion is that it had to happen through a naturalistic process even though there is no evidence for this.

Again, I never said that. At best, I might have said that it is more likely. And the reason why is explained in the previous paragraphe.

IN fact in some ways its not only an assumption but it is faith based.

And faith-based ideas are a bad thing, right?

You believe it happened that way despite having absolutely no direct evidence it did or could.

I don't "believe" anything in particular about things that are unkown.

stevevw · Aug 3, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
Clearly, it's not impossible.... once there was no life. Then there was life.
This means that life came into being where there was no life before.

Yes we know something started life because its here. I guess what I am saying is that normally people will fall into one of two camps for the origin of life. One is a divine creation and the other is a non divine creation what ever that may be.

I have never made any claims about HOW life came into existence.
I merely stated that it came into existence in some way.

However, it sure is a LOT more likely that it came into existance through natural means rather then some supernatural shenannigans.

Thats what I mean. People will fall into one camp or the other. Even f they say we dont know they will still more or less say that the unknown answer will still lie in one camp or the other. This is how some scientists come up with some pretty far fetched ideas supporting the world view of how life and existence started. One idea is that aliens planted life here. Another is that we are just one dimension of many parallel worlds where other life may exist.

These are still naturalistic beliefs but they begin to take on a supernatural element after a while when you start to read some of the stuff they posture. Even though they say it happened by a naturalistic cause you have to appeal to unreal scenarios to be able to explain it. Saying that one day some chemicals appeared out of nowhere and got together to make life doesn't seems to wash. It cant be explained that way so they have to turn to other ideas that begin to sound a little hard to believe.

Why? Because natural processes demonstrably exist. Supernatural shenannigans ... not so much.

Yes but natural processes can only do so much. They cant create miracles or something out of nothing.

The idea that it came into existance through chemical processes doesn't require assuming the existance of undemonstrable entities

It does assume the ability of that natural process and chemicals. In fact it goes against logic. I am not sure that science can even come up with a hypothesis for the beginning of life.

Does that mean that it WAS a natural process? No. It merely means that a natural process is more likely.

If it doesn't assume it was a natural process then what other way/s could it be.

You understand the difference, I assume?

I think so though I dont quite understand your line of thinking as to what else could there be if you discount God and a natural process.

Again, I never said that. At best, I might have said that it is more likely. And the reason why is explained in the previous paragraphe.

OK thats fair enough.

And faith-based ideas are a bad thing, right?

Right oops I mean wrong. They seem to be when it comes to evidence and science.

I don't "believe" anything in particular about things that are unkown.

As I mentioned before for those who dont believe in God the unknown will still fall into something that has yet to be explained through a naturalistic process or a world view or the science or maths in one way or another. There wont be any consideration for the supernatural.

DogmaHunter · Aug 3, 2015

stevevw said:
Yes we know something started life because its here. I guess what I am saying is that normally people will fall into one of two camps for the origin of life. One is a divine creation and the other is a non divine creation what ever that may be.

Obviously, since I don't believe in any gods, I have no reason to even consider gods when I'm asked to list "possibilities" concerning this event.

Just like when I came downstairs at the age of 10 and found presents under the christmass tree.... If I don't believe in Santa, I will not consider it to be a possible source of the presents.

Thats what I mean. People will fall into one camp or the other. Even f they say we dont know they will still more or less say that the unknown answer will still lie in one camp or the other. This is how some scientists come up with some pretty far fetched ideas supporting the world view of how life and existence started. One idea is that aliens planted life here. Another is that we are just one dimension of many parallel worlds where other life may exist.

These are still naturalistic beliefs but they begin to take on a supernatural element after a while when you start to read some of the stuff they posture. Even though they say it happened by a naturalistic cause you have to appeal to unreal scenarios to be able to explain it. Saying that one day some chemicals appeared out of nowhere and got together to make life doesn't seems to wash. It cant be explained that way so they have to turn to other ideas that begin to sound a little hard to believe.

You have to understand the difference between these two camps, first.

The thing is, the ideas that scientists put forward, are just that: ideas.
They aren't "beliefs". That's what YOU engage in: beliefs. You accept your beliefs as true. While ideas/hypothesis are rather just lines of investigation. It might yield result and it might not.

But they are not considered to be "true" BY ANY MEANS until the actual investigation is done and has positive outcomes. And even then, we are still only talking about tentative acceptance of the ideas.

Contrast that with your beliefs....
The religion you adhere to, makes it a requirement to have specific beliefs concerning the origins of life. For you, it is out of the question that what you believe is wrong.

Yes but natural processes can only do so much. They cant create miracles or something out of nothing.

The idea of abiogenesis is NOT "something out of nothing".

Molecules undergoing a chemical reaction and having a new chemical compound as output is anything BUT "something from nothing".

Nore is a chemical reaction a "miracle".

It does assume the ability of that natural process and chemicals. In fact it goes against logic. I am not sure that science can even come up with a hypothesis for the beginning of life.

No. Chemical reactions happen all the time.
Molecules reacting with eachother, forming other molecules in the process, happens all the time.

There is nothing "miraculous" or "supernatural" or "illogical" about chemistry.

Please note that living systems are literally ruled by chemistry.
There is nothing going on in our cells or bodies that is not just chemistry and physics.
We aren't made of rare isotopes or something either. Carbon based life, rather, is build from the most common elements in the universe.

It's not at all a stretch to imagine the idea that it also started out through physics and chemistry.

If it doesn't assume it was a natural process then what other way/s could it be.

Science will only investigate the natural process route. For the simple reason that it can't investigate other routes.

You can't test for supernatural shenannigans, because those things aren't demonstrable. This is why science looks for natural causes for natural phenomena.

Not because of some kind of dogmatic stance concerning theistic beliefs or "materialism" or whatever, but rather out of necessity...

If the supernatural was demonstrably real and testable, it would be part of science.
But it's not, so it isn't.

I think so though I dont quite understand your line of thinking as to what else could there be if you discount God and a natural process.

I've just told you that I don't discount anything. But to consider something, I require a reason to do so.
I see no reason at all to consider supernatural/artificial causes. None whatsoever. Which is the sole reason why I don't.

Right oops I mean wrong. They seem to be when it comes to evidence and science.

No, they simply are a bad thing. At least....they are if you care about what is actually true. If you care about being justified in your beliefs. Then evidence becomes important.

Now, if you don't care and you simply hold your beliefs because you want to.... that's another story. But not an interesting one.

As I mentioned before for those who dont believe in God the unknown will still fall into something that has yet to be explained through a naturalistic process or a world view or the science or maths in one way or another. There wont be any consideration for the supernatural.

No. The unkown is just the unkown.

God could exist. But to accept it as a true-ism, I require some type of rational reason. And I don't have any.

stevevw · Aug 3, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
Obviously, since I don't believe in any gods, I have no reason to even consider gods when I'm asked to list "possibilities" concerning this event.

Just like when I came downstairs at the age of 10 and found presents under the Christmas tree.... If I don't believe in Santa, I will not consider it to be a possible source of the presents.

Big difference between a present that even out intuition as a child knows that it has a materialistic presence about it to something that is about how life began. There is evidence that children have a natural inbuilt belief in a divine agent and divine creation. When it comes to assessing how life came form non life it is easier to see how the possibility of something divine and supernatural can be involved because to be able to make life come from non life is something miraculous.

You have to understand the difference between these two camps, first.

It is important to research and get to know how things work. But at the end of the day when it comes to how life began I dont think there is hard evidence. So there has to be some faith in what a person thinks in how it happened even if they dont believe in God. The difference between the two camps comes down to what you believe. I think this is something that in each of us. Either you believe or you dont. No amount of evidence will make you believe. If you have all the evidence in the world then you wont need to believe.

The problem with how life began is that we dont have a lot of direct evidence. Both camps can walk along the path of evidence which is made by science until they get to a point where the science cant answer that question. This is where the faith comes in. This is where science may not ever be able to answer. This may be where science cant answer. But a person of faith must also walk along the path of science at first otherwise they will be stumbling in the dark and not knowing where they are going. They may believe anything and everything. So science and faith need to go together.

The thing is, the ideas that scientists put forward, are just that: ideas.
They aren't "beliefs". That's what YOU engage in: beliefs. You accept your beliefs as true. While ideas/hypothesis are rather just lines of investigation. It might yield result and it might not.

True but the methods may only be able to yield so much and then they break down. This is where even science has to step out into the speculative and have some faith/assumption in what they say can happen. When we look at how life began or how the universe began the methods cannot prove what happened. In fact what they are finding is that the evidence shows that the normal maths and physics breaks down and doesn't add up anymore. 2 + 2 is equaling 7 and they cant find out how to make it add up. Thats because when they look at the tiny world where something is so small that its practically nothing its very strange and doesn't conform to the normal physics.

So the information they are getting is telling them that the answer to this may have very strange ideas. This is being seen in things like the thought experiments of quantum physics. Ideas like hologram worlds or multiverse stem from this as well. So they are actually based on the evidence. Unless they find some other evidence the answer to how something comes from nothing is going to be something along the lines of these very strange ideas. But because they have to include these very strange ideas we can also hypothesize about other ideas that science calls strange that may fit the bill like divine and supernatural ideas. They also have unusual aspects about them that may fit the evidence of what is being found.

But they are not considered to be "true" BY ANY MEANS until the actual investigation is done and has positive outcomes. And even then, we are still only talking about tentative acceptance of the ideas.

Some scientists say that they have proven things like a multiverse or hologram theory. But the fact is they have come up with many ideas along these lines and they all are stepping into the unreal. So this tells us that even though none have been proven the answer will be along those lines. Otherwise they wouldn't be coming up with all these far fetched ideas that have the same aspects about them being out of this world. They are only doing this because the evidence points to something unreal that doesn't conform to the normal physics or maths.

Contrast that with your beliefs....
The religion you adhere to, makes it a requirement to have specific beliefs concerning the origins of life. For you, it is out of the question that what you believe is wrong.

Its not just a total blind faith. Like I said we need to also walk along the path of science to get to the point where we can see that the science cannot work any longer to answer that question. By understanding what goes into making life we can see the greatness of it and how complex it is. By understanding how cause and effect works we can understand when it cant answer a question.

The idea of abiogenesis is NOT "something out of nothing".

Something out of nothing is for existence of matter. Life from non life is abiogenesis. But where the chemicals come from in the first place is another question related to existence. This will be traced back to how existence began. You can say it came from other places in the universe but then we have to ask where they came from and so forth. You can say it came from another parallel universe but then you have to ask where that came from and so forth until you come back to the very beginning of everything.

Molecules undergoing a chemical reaction and having a new chemical compound as output is anything BUT "something from nothing".

I agree. But like with so many explanation with evolution they start with a big assumption. Such as with bacteria to explain the beginnings of evolution but where did the bacteria come from. Such as the so called simple eye the eyespot to explain the evolution of the eye. But where did the eyespot come from. They start with a big jump which misses out a big chunk of explanation as to how it all started. So where did the chemicals come from.

Nore is a chemical reaction a "miracle".

Its a miracle for chemicals to create life.

No. Chemical reactions happen all the time.
Molecules reacting with eachother, forming other molecules in the process, happens all the time.

A chemical reaction is no more a life form than a rock.

There is nothing "miraculous" or "supernatural" or "illogical" about chemistry.

I agree.

Please note that living systems are literally ruled by chemistry.
There is nothing going on in our cells or bodies that is not just chemistry and physics.
We aren't made of rare isotopes or something either. Carbon based life, rather, is build from the most common elements in the universe.

There is a code of life. A written language that is amazingly complex and written coherently and not jumbled up to be a lucky chance occurrence that fell together to make the right chemicals and proteins in the right places at the right time. The code for life doesn't just happen and it speaks of design. Chemicals on their own are just chemicals just like a piece of metal in the ground is just a piece of metal and not a sophisticated machine.

It's not at all a stretch to imagine the idea that it also started out through physics and chemistry.

Yes it is. It hasn't been proven in lab tests where science is suppose to verify it. It cannot even be explained as to how it could happen.

If the supernatural was demonstrably real and testable, it would be part of science.
But it's not, so it isn't.

Even if the supernatural was real science would explain it away. They would explain the process and then say even though it is acting like magic and against all the logic and maths that science says is evidence it is not supernatural but some natural occurrence that must happen that we havnt discovered yet. Science already explains things like this except they say it is something they dont understand yet. How do we know that it isn't something supernatural they are seeing such as in the quantum world.

Take spooky action at a distance. Two entangled particles will act like they are connected with each other instantaneously even if they are on opposite sides of the universe. This is completely against the way physics behaves for what we see in our reality yet it acts like magic. How do we know that this is a quality of God we are seeing. What we see in our material world is not what is really happening with how everything works. Maybe what we see is just a surface image of something else.

I've just told you that I don't discount anything. But to consider something, I require a reason to do so.
I see no reason at all to consider supernatural/artificial causes. None whatsoever. Which is the sole reason why I don't.

Fair enough. Where as I consider that there is more to what we see. I dont need the proof as I believe there is something at work that is beyond mine and everyone's understanding and explanation. That doesn't mean I will go to the extreme and believe everything and anything. But my belief is not totally unfounded because I can sense and know of the evidence in myself through various means. I can test this against imagination and feelings and know that it has substance. It densest cause any ill affects and adds to my life and experience.

No, they simply are a bad thing. At least....they are if you care about what is actually true. If you care about being justified in your beliefs. Then evidence becomes important.

It is important to use your logic and reasoning to ensure your not being deluded into something. This is a God given ability that we have with our minds. Its not just for belief but its also for our feelings as we can be duped in love as well. But humans can be like that. But we also have a spiritual side that is not based in our mind or our feelings. It is a separate aspect of us that is just as important if not the most important.

Considering that I believe that our bodies, minds and emotions will end our spirits will go on. This could be our soul or consciousness or whatever that something is that is beyond our material self and world. Science and evidence is important but sometimes there is a point where you just cant have all the evidence but you still need to decide. Sometimes science and the evidence dont have the answers you are looking for and you have to trust and look else where. But if you restrict things to just the evidence then you are denying an important part of yourself and life.

No. The unkown is just the unknown.

Yes but dont you think that those who dont believe in God or the supernatural will say the unknown is still something that hasn't been explained yet. That the unknown will never be explained by God or the supernatural. Unless you are truly having an open mind and saying the unknown could be anything including God. That would truly be open to the unknown.

God could exist. But to accept it as a true-ism, I require some type of rational reason. And I don't have any.

Fair enough at least you are willing to consider it even if it means needing some evidence. Maybe that evidence is there but you cant see it because you are setting to high a criteria for what sort of evidence you need. Sometimes its a case of a change of the frame of mind or attitude that may open up windows of perspective which then allow things in that you may not have seen before.

I read that even some scientists are asking to change the criteria for science falsification because the theories they are having to come up with to explain the universe may never be able to be falsified. Things like multiverses are something that cant be tested so they want a bit more flexibility in what constitutes evidence to prove a hypothesis. Maybe they can apply this to proving God.[/QUOTE]

Archaeopteryx · Aug 3, 2015

stevevw said:
And your are an expert who has played the game and learned the rules. Ummm. You make them up as you go. When I ask if you have learned the subject of biology and evolution at Uni you tell me you havnt but try to say that you have a background in it whatever that means.

As a matter of fact, I have studied it at university. However, I never implied that a basic understanding of evolution requires one to have studied it formally at university.

stevevw said:
To me that means you havnt studied it directly enough as a qualification on its own at Uni to be an expert like most of us. Thats the level you are saying we should be at to be able to know isn't it. Yet you still think this gives you the qualifications to know more than most others and even those who have studied it.

Is strawman the best you've got?

stevevw said:
Then in the next breath you are saying that a brain surgeon who covers biology and chemistry as part of their course cant give any qualified comment because they didn't study biology directly. So it seems good for you to stand in judgement without ant direct qualification but not for someone who has a greater degree of qualification studying a closer related subject that actually includes biology as part of the course.

Or at the very least give them as much leeway as yourself. Instead you discount everything they say because you say they are not directly qualified in biology and at the same time say its OK for you to judged without direct qualifications. You make it up to suit what you want. Like I said anyone who disagrees with you is wrong irregardless of their qualification. You judge them wrong simply because they disagree with what evolution says and nothing else which is biased.

My objection to your claim that Carson is an expert on this matter was twofold: First, Carson is a neurosurgeon. He performs surgery on the brain. It doesn't necessarily follow that he understands how the brain works or what would be required for the brain to evolve. Second, based on his comments, Carson doesn't appear to understand evolution all that well. That doubly disqualifies him as an expert on the subject of cerebral evolution.

stevevw said:
You keep saying that but never qualify what you say.

Its easy to say that. I can say the same thing If I wanted to with having to justify my comments. They mean nothing without support. At least I give support. At least loveofourlord was good enough to give some feed back even if we disagreed and explain why he disagreed which shows some respect and makes it a two way conversation rather than be dismissive all the time.

Even if you were to disagree and actually prove me wrong and I had to accept it from your evidence I would rather that than having this guessing game as to what it is that I am wrong on. Is it everything or somethings are a little bit. Are the links I posted wrong a little or a lot. Who knows because you never qualify yourself.

steve, this is an unfair assessment of my comments. At various points, I have examined the evidence you have presented in support of your claims. As I've noted on many of those occasions, the evidence your draw on does not support the claims you are making. I've even shown you this, using your own sources. The problem seems to stem from a lack of understanding of the fundamentals of evolutionary theory. In essence, you are criticising a theory that you do not properly understand, which is why I've urged you, as politely as I can, to remedy that situation by learning about the theory you are criticising. Otherwise, your criticism won't hit the mark. It will be miss every time.

Archaeopteryx · Aug 3, 2015

stevevw said:
Big difference between a present that even out intuition as a child knows that it has a materialistic presence about it to something that is about how life began. There is evidence that children have a natural inbuilt belief in a divine agent and divine creation. When it comes to assessing how life came form non life it is easier to see how the possibility of something divine and supernatural can be involved because to be able to make life come from non life is something miraculous.

We don't know how life came from non-life. It doesn't follow that a miracle happened.

stevevw said:
It is important to research and get to know how things work. But at the end of the day when it comes to how life began I dont think there is hard evidence. So there has to be some faith in what a person thinks in how it happened even if they dont believe in God. The difference between the two camps comes down to what you believe. I think this is something that in each of us. Either you believe or you dont. No amount of evidence will make you believe. If you have all the evidence in the world then you wont need to believe.

No, if we don't know, then we are ignorant. It doesn't follow that we must accept some supernaturalistic explanation on faith. We can admit that we don't know.

stevevw said:
The problem with how life began is that we dont have a lot of direct evidence. Both camps can walk along the path of evidence which is made by science until they get to a point where the science cant answer that question. This is where the faith comes in.

No, that's the point where our knowledge fades to ignorance and we admit that we don't know.

stevevw said:
This is where science may not ever be able to answer. This may be where science cant answer.

If science cannot answer it, it doesn't follow that religion can.

stevevw said:
But a person of faith must also walk along the path of science at first otherwise they will be stumbling in the dark and not knowing where they are going. They may believe anything and everything. So science and faith need to go together.

No, they don't. We can admit that we don't have the answers.

stevevw said:
Some scientists say that they have proven things like a multiverse or hologram theory. But the fact is they have come up with many ideas along these lines and they all are stepping into the unreal. So this tells us that even though none have been proven the answer will be along those lines. Otherwise they wouldn't be coming up with all these far fetched ideas that have the same aspects about them being out of this world. They are only doing this because the evidence points to something unreal that doesn't conform to the normal physics or maths.

We've been through this before:

Archaeopteryx said:
steve, you don't seem to understand why this line of reasoning is fallacious. If science shows us that we lack understanding, then it's not "revealing God more and more." It's revealing our ignorance.

In that sense you are confused. Science doesn't tell us that the answer must be supernatural or "beyond our natural world." It only tells us that the answer is beyond our current understanding. You seem to be conflating "beyond our current understanding" with "beyond all understanding" and "beyond the natural world." That something is beyond our current understanding doesn't imply that it is beyond all understanding or that it must be supernatural.

Archaeopteryx said:
I think you are confusing "beyond our understanding" for "beyond the natural world." It's "out of this world" in the sense that it is not within our current understanding. That's not to say that it's necessarily "out of this world" in some supernatural sense.

stevevw said:
Its not just a total blind faith. Like I said we need to also walk along the path of science to get to the point where we can see that the science cannot work any longer to answer that question.

If science cannot work to answer a particular question, it doesn't follow that religion can.

stevevw said:
There is a code of life. A written language that is amazingly complex and written coherently and not jumbled up to be a lucky chance occurrence that fell together to make the right chemicals and proteins in the right places at the right time. The code for life doesn't just happen and it speaks of design. Chemicals on their own are just chemicals just like a piece of metal in the ground is just a piece of metal and not a sophisticated machine.

Who says that it just "fell together"? No one is claiming that it just "fell together" and formed out of nowhere.

stevevw said:
Even if the supernatural was real science would explain it away. They would explain the process and then say even though it is acting like magic and against all the logic and maths that science says is evidence it is not supernatural but some natural occurrence that must happen that we havnt discovered yet. Science already explains things like this except they say it is something they dont understand yet. How do we know that it isn't something supernatural they are seeing such as in the quantum world.

How do we know that it is supernatural, steve?

stevevw said:
Fair enough. Where as I consider that there is more to what we see. I dont need the proof as I believe there is something at work that is beyond mine and everyone's understanding and explanation.

If it is beyond our understanding, then it is beyond our understanding.

stevevw said:
That doesn't mean I will go to the extreme and believe everything and anything.

It could mean that! You could find yourself accepting supernatural explanations for everything you don't understand. That isn't productive though, is it? It doesn't further your understanding; it just masks your ignorance.

stevevw said:
Considering that I believe that our bodies, minds and emotions will end our spirits will go on. This could be our soul or consciousness or whatever that something is that is beyond our material self and world. Science and evidence is important but sometimes there is a point where you just cant have all the evidence but you still need to decide. Sometimes science and the evidence dont have the answers you are looking for and you have to trust and look else where. But if you restrict things to just the evidence then you are denying an important part of yourself and life.

That something is beyond our understanding doesn't imply that something supernatural must be going on. It just means that it is beyond our understanding. The only way to remedy that situation is to inquire deeper, not to abandon the inquiry and settle for whatever supernatural explanation we happen to find palatable. Forgoing inquiry is likely to keep us ignorant.

stevevw said:
Yes but dont you think that those who dont believe in God or the supernatural will say the unknown is still something that hasn't been explained yet. That the unknown will never be explained by God or the supernatural. Unless you are truly having an open mind and saying the unknown could be anything including God. That would truly be open to the unknown.

I think we've covered this before:

Archaeopteryx said:
We can allow all manner of possibilities without necessarily accepting them as realities. You seem to continually miss the point: accepting that some state of affairs is possible does not entail accepting that that state of affairs must be real.

We don't know what the real answer is. It could indeed be something supernatural, but bear in mind that supernatural explanations have a dismal track record when it comes to furthering our understanding of the world.

Viren · Aug 3, 2015

To OP: Thomas Edison created thousands of light bulbs before he came across one that worked. That's natural selection or trial and error used by an intelligent person. There is no contradiction between ID and natural selection.

Archaeopteryx · Aug 3, 2015

@stevew, I hope you don't consider this question rude: do you want to know what's really going on or would you prefer that it all remains a mystery so that you can then claim that something supernatural must be at work, as you always do?

FrumiousBandersnatch · Aug 3, 2015

pshun2404 said:
... You saying you cannot follow my point demonstrates the kind of logic block that usually is indicative of indoctrination or possibly even brainwashing (and I am not saying YOU are brainwashed).

I said that because the reasoning behind your question it wasn't clear to me, and suggests a misunderstanding of how natural science progresses. That biogenesis is well established has no bearing on how living organisms originated. If there is a time on Earth when it was uninhabitable (e.g. a molten ball of rock), followed by a time when it was habitable (e.g. liquid water was present), and life subsequently appeared, then anyone with curiosity will ask where it came from.

Science looks for naturalistic explanations, so investigates to discover whether life could be generated by natural reactions of the chemicals that were present at that time. There's good geological evidence of the types of chemical environment that would have been present during that pre-biotic period, and we can simulate those conditions in the lab, so that's where attention is focused. Other explanations have not been ruled out, but unless there's evidence for them and they're testable, science can't address them.

The point is YOUR SIDE demands only scientific materialistic evidence (and within that ONLY that which must have already been said by a number of CURRENT evolutionary biologist articles in alleged objective journals which only post materials that agree with YOUR side of the debate…its called “stacking the deck”) and after nearly 200 years of research all the actual evidence, ONLY points to biogenesis and refutes abiogenesis’s spontaneous generation model.

I'm interested in explanations that have explanatory and predictive power. That's my 'side'. Biogenesis is only possible if life already exists. If life doesn't already exist, I'm curious to know it came about, whether it could develop from a 'soup' of organic chemicals. If you prefer to invoke divine intervention, that's your prerogative.

Given that we know that in suitable environments such organic molecules can interact, polymerize, and self-organize into more complex structures (bi-lipid menbranes, micelles, liposomes, etc),

Again you know that is not true but perhaps you are convinced. The fact is we do NOT KNOW and the alleged possible environments hypothesized when applied in the lab have ALWAYS had to be tweaked and adjusted until the preconceived conclusion could be somewhat (never perfectly) derived. AND NO NOT EVER have we EVER witnessed or demonstrated these organic molecules (which are but the building blocks for life not the cause) self organize into bi-lipid membranes (which require functional proteins to act as such a membrane acts), or micelles (which are nothing more than an aggregate of molecules dispersed in an aqueous environment and have always and only been observed to form inside an already living system), and certainly NOT Liposomes which themselves are PREPARED by disrupting already formed bi-lipid layers.

Maybe you'd better tell the people who are making phospholipid (and other bipolar) membranes, micelles, and liposomes in the lab; particularly for medical research.

Perhaps you said this to confuse the less educated or perhaps some alleged authority has used this faulty logic to convince you of evidence for abiogenesis but it is nothing of the sort.

Anyone who's interested can find out for themselves (Lipid Bilayer is a start). I haven't said it's evidence of abiogenesis - living membranes are more than phospholipid bilayers, but was an indication that self-assembly could generate types of membranes and vesicles that would be necessary for any model of abiogenesis.

and that the evidence also suggests there were energetically suitable environments for this kind of interaction and self-assembly at that time,

Of course there were and are energetically suitable environments for lawful chemical interactions to take place….”self-assembly” however is an interpretation of the data contrived to fit the preconceived conclusion that life must have risen from inanimate matter by a slow gradual process over billions of years (which has NEVER, no not EVER, been shown to be true).

Molecular self-assembly and self-organizing systems are fields of study in their own right...

They rarely but occasionally assemble in this way but do not show assimilation, elimination, respiration, reproduction, will, intent, choice, and so on…

That is a long way from what is currently claimed. But self-assembly and self-organization are important requirements for any model of abiogenesis, and their discovery has opened new areas of research.

A lot of research has demonstrated that all the component molecules and structures of the earliest cells can be generated in plausible simulations of these early environments (the best candidates currently are the volcanic sea vents called 'smokers'
OF COURSE the component molecules and structures can be produced in intelligently designed experiments in labs…and after adjustments, and creation of intelligent designed apparatus like Miller’s cold trap devise, it can be made to appear such things are possible….

Assembling a basic replicator in an artificial environment would be fascinating and tell us a lot about such systems, but it wouldn't show it was possible in early Earth. Demonstrating all the steps necessary, in a plausible emulation of an early Earth environment, would be a major advance.

the research is an attempt to falsify claims that exotic hypotheses are necessary
That certainly is NOT the purpose of research….well maybe yours but that is not a fair assessment of science or testing….

The full context is, "In a way, the research is an attempt to falsify claims that exotic hypotheses are necessary to explain our observations". By this I mean that, in a Popperian sense, science attempts to falsify hypotheses (the null hypothesis). In this case, the null hypothesis, that only some exotic explanation can account for life, can be falsified by demonstrating that a simple form of life could plausibly arise naturally in the chemical conditions of the pre-biotic Earth.

pshun2404 · Aug 3, 2015

stevevw said:
I think pshun2404 was meaning that because you believe that life came from non life which is impossible then you are assuming that it happened purely because you believe it had to happen without a God or supernatural force somehow and someway. Because we have life now your only conclusion is that it had to happen through a naturalistic process even though there is no evidence for this. IN fact in some ways its not only an assumption but it is faith based. You believe it happened that way despite having absolutely no direct evidence it did or could.[/QUOTE

Precisely...a blindest of faiths!

Precisely! A blindest of faiths!

stevevw · Aug 3, 2015

Archaeopteryx said:
As a matter of fact, I have studied it at university. However, I never implied that a basic understanding of evolution requires one to have studied it formally at university.

So your a biologists now. Irregardless of what qualifications you claim you have I still dont see anything from you that shows you know more than anyone else. Thats because you rarely comment of anything. So its easy to say your are this or that or that I am wrong or other people re wrong when you dont expose yourself to any scrutiny about what in particular we are wrong about to be able to clarify anything.

Is strawman the best you've got?

How is it a strawman that I am asking how you can sit in judgement on others when you either dont know yourself or you are not clarifying what you mean when you say someone is wrong. When someone keeps saying that someone else is wrong and they dont engage in qualifying that to me it means they have something to hide. They are just saying they are wrong for the sake of it and either cant reply because they know they are wrong or they dont know. If you have studied this topic at Uni then you should know and be able to point out where I am wrong. Thats how a debate goes.

My objection to your claim that Carson is an expert on this matter was twofold: First, Carson is a neurosurgeon. He performs surgery on the brain. It doesn't necessarily follow that he understands how the brain works or what would be required for the brain to evolve. Second, based on his comments, Carson doesn't appear to understand evolution all that well. That doubly disqualifies him as an expert on the subject of cerebral evolution.

Carson studied biology, chemistry and organic chemistry as part of his degree as a brain surgeon. So he has covered the topics. I cant see what you think he said that was wrong in that video unless you object to the part when he said the brain couldn't have evolved as its too complex. In the rest of the video he was explaining how a simple thought process worked within the brain which he went into detail about. He explained the many steps which he knew well because he is a brain surgeon. Those steps along with his knowledge of evolution/biology allows him to know what it would take to evolve the brain by mutations and natural selection. Some of those steps involved many other steps which require random multi mutations.

The main point I was making though is that you claim that Carson isn't qualified to speak on evolution because he isn't qualified to. You said he was "only a brain surgeon". I am saying he has covered those subjects as part of his degree. That being the case then how can you sit in judgement on him when you are the same and have no better qualification or even less qualifications. You seem to be setting the criteria of who can comment and who cant yet you are not in that position to do so no more than he or most others. You says he doesn't know what he is talking about so you are taking the position that you know better. Yet you dont specify what he is wrong on nor do you expose yourself as to what it is you know better that he is wrong on.

Steve, this is an unfair assessment of my comments. At various points, I have examined the evidence you have presented in support of your claims. As I've noted on many of those occasions, the evidence your draw on does not support the claims you are making. I've even shown you this, using your own sources. The problem seems to stem from a lack of understanding of the fundamentals of evolutionary theory. In essence, you are criticising a theory that you do not properly understand, which is why I've urged you, as politely as I can, to remedy that situation by learning about the theory you are criticising. Otherwise, your criticism won't hit the mark. It will be miss every time.

AS far as I understand you have just criticized me for not understanding evolution. You havnt gone into any detail of how or why. I have even made some new points which you havnt made any comment on but just once again said I am wrong. I appreciate you saying I need to get further education and I agree but it is very frustrating to be told that you are wrong without clarification on the particular things I am wrong on. Most of the debate I have seen has always gone into the reasons why people disagree on certain points. Thats what makes a debate.

The problem I have with your assessments is that their are experts in the field of biology and evolution of which I have posted on many occasions that also criticize the Darwinian theory in which I have studied. But you dont even comment on how they are wrong either which is what most people do in a debate. It would be different if I was taking this position on my own but there is a growing number of experts that also agree that the Darwinian theory needs rethinking. It just seems that you are being very dismissive.

Archaeopteryx · Aug 3, 2015

stevevw said:
So your a biologists now.

No. I didn't claim that.

stevevw said:
Irregardless of what qualifications you claim you have I still dont see anything from you that shows you know more than anyone else. Thats because you rarely comment of anything. So its easy to say your are this or that or that I am wrong or other people re wrong when you dont expose yourself to any scrutiny about what in particular we are wrong about to be able to clarify anything.

I've already done that steve. Whenever I do, you just ignore my comments and ramble on. It's a giant waste of time.

stevevw said:
How is it a strawman that I am asking how you can sit in judgement on others when you either dont know yourself or you are not clarifying what you mean when you say someone is wrong. When someone keeps saying that someone else is wrong and they dont engage in qualifying that to me it means they have something to hide.

But I have clarified it, steve. Multiple times! You don't listen.

stevevw said:
They are just saying they are wrong for the sake of it and either cant reply because they know they are wrong or they dont know. If you have studied this topic at Uni then you should know and be able to point out where I am wrong. Thats how a debate goes.

That's exactly what I have done! Yet when I do that, you just ignore it, and ramble on as if I never said anything. You don't listen.

stevevw said:
Carson studied biology, chemistry and organic chemistry as part of his degree as a brain surgeon. So he has covered the topics.

And? How does that qualify him as an expert on cerebral evolution? I've studied evolution, neuroscience, and psychology. Does that make me an expert on cerebral evolution? By your standard, it does.

stevevw said:
I cant see what you think he said that was wrong in that video unless you object to the part when he said the brain couldn't have evolved as its too complex. In the rest of the video he was explaining how a simple thought process worked within the brain which he went into detail about. He explained the many steps which he knew well because he is a brain surgeon. Those steps along with his knowledge of evolution/biology allows him to know what it would take to evolve the brain by mutations and natural selection. Some of those steps involved many other steps which require random multi mutations.

I've already addressed this steve:

Archaeopteryx said:
According to his Wikipedia page, Carson said the following in a 2006 debate: "I don't believe in evolution...I simply don't have enough faith to believe that something as complex as our ability to rationalize, think, and plan, and have a moral sense of what's right and wrong, just appeared" (emphasis added). Based on that comment, Carson either doesn't understand evolution well enough or he is misrepresenting it.

You see, you really don't listen. You expect me to go into detail in every comment I make, but you just ignore it, so what's the point?

stevevw said:
The main point I was making though is that you claim that Carson isn't qualified to speak on evolution because he isn't qualified to. You said he was "only a brain surgeon". I am saying he has covered those subjects as part of his degree.

So have I. I've studied evolution, neuroscience, and psychology. So does that make me an expert on cerebral evolution?

stevevw said:
That being the case then how can you sit in judgement on him when you are the same and have no better qualification or even less qualifications. You seem to be setting the criteria of who can comment and who cant yet you are not in that position to do so no more than he or most others. You says he doesn't know what he is talking about so you are taking the position that you know better. Yet you dont specify what he is wrong on nor do you expose yourself as to what it is you know better that he is wrong on.

I did specify steve! For goodness sake, do you even read my comments before hitting reply? I've already addressed this.

stevevw said:
AS far as I understand you have just criticized me for not understanding evolution. You havnt gone into any detail of how or why.

I have done so on multiple occasions. You don't listen.

stevevw said:
I have even made some new points which you havnt made any comment on but just once again said I am wrong. I appreciate you saying I need to get further education and I agree but it is very frustrating to be told that you are wrong without clarification on the particular things I am wrong on.

I have clarified on multiple occasions. You never listen, so I don't bother clarifying anymore.

stevevw said:
The problem I have with your assessments is that their are experts in the field of biology and evolution of which I have posted on many occasions that also criticize the Darwinian theory in which I have studied. But you dont even comment on how they are wrong either which is what most people do in a debate.

Yes I have! I even linked to it in my previous post!

stevevw said:
It would be different if I was taking this position on my own but there is a growing number of experts that also agree that the Darwinian theory needs rethinking. It just seems that you are being very dismissive.

steve, you are not listening. I showed you that the experts you are drawing on for support do not agree with your position. I demonstrated this to you using your own sources! But once again, as always, you aren't listening.

It bears repeating:

Archaeopteryx said:
I have gone through some of the papers you posted and shown you that your interpretation of them is not correct. I have gone through and exposed some of your misconceptions regarding evolution and have repeatedly urged you to seek out reputable resources to remedy that. We can't have a debate if you don't understand the topic being debated.

Sarah Campbell · Aug 4, 2015

paulm50 said:
Many claim everything on Earth is from a god or Intelligent Design. Claiming Natural Selection couldn't create something as involved and complex as all the species on Earth.

And yet, evidence comes up all the time of how unintelligent the design of these species are. Early humans migrated out of Africa through Egypt rather than Ethiopia, new study says.

Natural selection, which is proven. Isn't intelligent. It's hit and miss, creatures evolve and become extinct as climates change, continents shift, and even asteroids hit the Earth. Or even one animal, Man, develops faster than others and kill off other species.

To claim that was gods work or remotely intelligent is, in my opinion, ignoring the obvious.

Sarah Campbell · Aug 4, 2015

God is the causer of causes. What I mean by that is that evolution was a process that I deeply believe proves the existence of God. They found that the original makeup of humans was the same found in dirt. Did the Bible not say that God formed man from the soil of the ground? God created mankind, his plan is mysterious and all his own. I like to call it "Guided Evolution".

Archaeopteryx · Aug 4, 2015

Sarah Campbell said:
God is the causer of causes. What I mean by that is that evolution was a process that I deeply believe proves the existence of God. They found that the original makeup of humans was the same found in dirt. Did the Bible not say that God formed man from the soil of the ground? God created mankind, his plan is mysterious and all his own. I like to call it "Guided Evolution".

Doesn't it also say that the first woman was made from a rib?

paulm50 · Aug 4, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
Clearly, it's not impossible.... once there was no life. Then there was life.
This means that life came into being where there was no life before.

His definition of non life, is very tight and very wrong.

New discoveries have opened the possibility that some of the elements to create life are on Asteroids. We know that volcanic action can create life, we can create life in a laboratory.

Arguing this is pointless with those who don't recognise the truth.

Sarah Campbell said:
God is the causer of causes. What I mean by that is that evolution was a process that I deeply believe proves the existence of God. They found that the original makeup of humans was the same found in dirt. Did the Bible not say that God formed man from the soil of the ground? God created mankind, his plan is mysterious and all his own. I like to call it "Guided Evolution".

Linking the bible's version to evolution with the scientific one opens a can of worms for creationists.

And yes some of the elements in the Earth are the same as those in us. Like Carbon.

DogmaHunter · Aug 4, 2015

Sarah Campbell said:
They found that the original makeup of humans was the same found in dirt.

They found what, where now?

FrumiousBandersnatch · Aug 4, 2015

paulm50 said:
New discoveries have opened the possibility that some of the elements to create life are on Asteroids.

Complex organic molecules have also been found in interstellar clouds throughout the galaxy. For example, see Complex Organic Molecule Found in Interstellar Space.

We know that volcanic action can create life, we can create life in a laboratory.

Do you have references for this? as far as I'm aware, the former is plausible but hasn't been demonstrated, and the latter needs some qualification (synthetic genomes have been assembled and inserted it into empty cells, and they reproduce successfully, but the cell structure itself isn't synthetic - pragmatically there's little point synthesising the cell structure when it's already available 'for free').

pshun2404 · Aug 4, 2015

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Complex organic molecules have also been found in interstellar clouds throughout the galaxy. For example, see Complex Organic Molecule Found in Interstellar Space.

Do you have references for this? as far as I'm aware, the former is plausible but hasn't been demonstrated, and the latter needs some qualification (synthetic genomes have been assembled and inserted it into empty cells, and they reproduce successfully, but the cell structure itself isn't synthetic - pragmatically there's little point synthesising the cell structure when it's already available 'for free').

True and doing so only supports the idea that intelligent design works...

pshun2404 · Aug 4, 2015

some of the elements to create life are on Asteroids

Lego Robots do not make themselves...elements have no power to create, but are utilized in all "Things"! Granted there are significantly fewer organic molecules outside of earth (and as pointed out we are not sure of their source yet) but other places may have higher numbers of them...

Organic molecules are building blocks...

Natural selection v Intelligent design

Code Monkey

inquisitive

Code Monkey

inquisitive

Wanderer

Wanderer

Contributor

Wanderer

Well-Known Member

Newbie

inquisitive

Wanderer

New Member

New Member

Wanderer

Well-Known Member

Code Monkey

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency