Questions for serious TE's

Crusadar · Dec 10, 2005

of course God can be part of it.....To say that TE's cannot have God in their origin of life views beause we acknowledge the validity of scientifc research and findings is simply erroneous.

So by your own admission your answer that God had a part in starting life - your answer no longer merits the distinction of being science.

gluadys · Dec 10, 2005

Crusadar said:
As much as I like dancing this is getting to be absurd. So go ahead already and explain the TE version of how life came about - it is after all one of the points this thread. What does the "scientific" explanation have to say about how life arose from no life - of course keeping in mind that God can't be part of the answer since that would not be "scientific".

That God is the ultimate answer is a theological belief. It cannot be verified or falsified by science. Science can look only at the natural mechanism (if any). This is not sufficient to affirm that God directed the working of the mechanism. Nor is it sufficient to say that the mechanism works on its own without God's direction.

At this point of time we have no satisfactory theory of a natural train of events that converted chemicals into living replicators. But we do have some leads, as it were.

We know that amino acids form naturally under a variety of conditions that could have occurred on the pre-biotic earth and also in space.

We know of various conditions under which simple chemicals will form more complex chemicals and monomers become polymers. Such conditions are not alien to pre-biotic earth.

We know that RNA alone can perform a number of tasks which proteins form in extant cells. It is possible that the first auto-replicator was an RNA molecule. More information on this can be found on Leslie Orgel's RNA World web site.

We know that proto-cells (cells consisting of nothing more than a protein membrane) can also form naturally. Proto-cells also replicate themselves.

From here the possible pathways are numerous and the questions centre on what happened first. Did RNA lead the way, later acquiring the capacity to interact with protein? Or was it the reverse? At what point does DNA begin to form and take over some of the functions of RNA?

Nevertheless, even this information has been enough to permit a team of biologists to construct a virus from scratch.

I expect the outstanding questions on the mechanisms of abiogenesis will be answered in due time.

Brownsy · Dec 10, 2005

So by your own admission your answer that God had a part in starting life - your answer no longer merits the distinction of being science.

Are you intentionally missing the point? Why is it so difficult for you to comprehend that just because we believe in a scientific explanation for the origins and diversification of life that it is to the complete exclusion of everything else, including God?

Blessings to you all

ebia · Dec 10, 2005

Crusadar said:
of course God can be part of it.....To say that TE's cannot have God in their origin of life views beause we acknowledge the validity of scientifc research and findings is simply erroneous.

So by your own admission your answer that God had a part in starting life - your answer no longer merits the distinction of being science.

You are trying to create a false dichotomy.

How was life created? By natural process. That is something science can investigate.

Who's will is being enacted through those natural process? God. That is something science cannot investigate.

God is present and working in everything, not just the stuff science cannot explain. The natural process that created life are the outworking of the Word of God. Science can and does study those natural process, but it cannot comment on the relationship between those process and God - that's the job of theology.

Perhaps that is the difference between why I am here and why you are here, winning has never been in my agenda - brotherly rebuke and spiritual correction has always been the reason I continue to hang around.

I hope this isn't true, because telling people they are wrong should never be an end in itself.

Crusadar · Dec 10, 2005

Again, biogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.

Of course not - so TEs rant on as usual. But it does make sense that life arising from non life through natural processes would be the logical route taken since that is what TEs are always trying to tell us.

Crusadar · Dec 10, 2005

Nevertheless, even this information has been enough to permit a team of biologists to construct a virus from scratch.

Wow, and this shows that natural processes on its own can account for life? Amazing that no mind was involved in the process isn't it? I sure would like to see the reference on the creation of this virus from scratch though.

Crusadar · Dec 10, 2005

Who's will is being enacted through those natural process? God.

Just wondering if it the will of God also that the process results in deficient organism that prey and eat its host from the inside out?

ebia · Dec 10, 2005

Crusadar said:
Nevertheless, even this information has been enough to permit a team of biologists to construct a virus from scratch.

Wow, and this shows that natural processes on its own can account for life?

No, it's a small step towards us understanding how life could be created by natural processes. As opposed to the stick-one's-fingers-in-one's-ears-and-shout-la-la-la pretence that science has made no progress towards this and never can.

Amazing that no mind was involved in the process isn't it?

In order to understand static electricity, scientists did experiments in the lab with static charges, and eventually went on to explain lightning. Since their experiments clearly involved intelligence to set up, lighting must really be thunderbolts thrown by Thor, and not a natural process at all.

ebia · Dec 10, 2005

Crusadar said:
Who's will is being enacted through those natural process? God.

Just wondering if it the will of God also that the process results in deficient organism that prey and eat its host from the inside out?

In what way is a successful organism defincient, and why is eating your pray from the inside out worse than from the outside in or chopping it up into little bits and eating it in any old order?

Crusadar · Dec 10, 2005

Nor is it sufficient to say that the mechanism works on its own without God's direction.

In other words - God did it! Your answer then becomes unscientific.

At this point of time we have no satisfactory theory of a natural train of events that converted chemicals into living replicators. But we do have some leads, as it were.

More like dead ends - that is perhaps why today's origin of life theories become tomorrows myths.

We know that amino acids form naturally under a variety of conditions that could have occurred on the pre-biotic earth and also in space.

Of the correct chirality also - I hope?

We know of various conditions under which simple chemicals will form more complex chemicals and monomers become polymers.

Which "complex" molecules are we referring to?

Such conditions are not alien to pre-biotic earth.

There is no evidence that there was a pre biotic earth. If there is I sure would like to see it in print.

We know that RNA alone can perform a number of tasks which proteins form in extant cells. It is possible that the first auto-replicator was an RNA molecule. More information on this can be found on Leslie Orgel's RNA World web site.

Been there done that, not much evidence though, just lots of speculation.

Proto-cells also replicate themselves.

I sure would like to see published work on such proto cells, if there are such critters.

Did RNA lead the way, later acquiring the capacity to interact with protein? Or was it the reverse? At what point does DNA begin to form and take over some of the functions of RNA?

There is no evidence whatsoever that an RNA world even existed - nothing but speculations and the most wishful kind of thinking.

I expect the outstanding questions on the mechanisms of abiogenesis will be answered in due time.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

Crusadar · Dec 10, 2005

No, it's a small step towards us understanding how life could be created by natural processes.

Now how you can relate "a team of biologists to construct a virus from scratch" to a natural process I am clueless - as that would mean that intelligence was required to create even such a simple lifeform as that of a virus!

ebia · Dec 10, 2005

Crusadar said:
Nor is it sufficient to say that the mechanism works on its own without God's direction.

In other words - God did it! Your answer then becomes unscientific.

The study of the mechanism is scientific. The study of God's direction, or lack thereof, is not. Despite your vain attempts to create dichotomies where none exist, it is possible to hold a view that includes a scientific element and a theological element. That science can only study part of that, and not another part, does not invalidate the view.

At this point of time we have no satisfactory theory of a natural train of events that converted chemicals into living replicators. But we do have some leads, as it were.

More like dead ends - that is perhaps why today's origin of life theories become tomorrows myths.

Click to expand...

Crystal ball gazing or wishful thinking?

Such conditions are not alien to pre-biotic earth.

There is no evidence that there was a pre biotic earth. If there is I sure would like to see it in print.

Click to expand...

Try Genesis, Chapter 1, verses 9-10.

ebia · Dec 10, 2005

Crusadar said:
No, it's a small step towards us understanding how life could be created by natural processes.

Now how you can relate "a team of biologists to construct a virus from scratch" to a natural process I am clueless - as that would mean that intelligence was required to create even such a simple lifeform as that of a virus!

I have already responded to this totally aburd assertion.

Crusadar · Dec 10, 2005

I have already responded to this totally aburd assertion.

Actually what is totally absurd is the conclusion that a group of biologists, using their intellect, and countless hours of work in creating a virus - is proof that it was "natural unguided forces" at work! Now that is absurdity of the highest form! A slap on the face of all logic - you could say.

ebia · Dec 10, 2005

Crusadar said:
I have already responded to this totally aburd assertion.

Actually what is totally absurd is the conclusion that a group of biologists, using their intellect, and countless hours of work in creating a virus - is proof that it was "natural unguided forces" at work! Now that is absurdity of the highest form! A slap on the face of all logic - you could say.

It would be, if anyone had done that. But they haven't, so congratulations on knocking over your straw-man.

gluadys · Dec 10, 2005

Crusadar said:
Nevertheless, even this information has been enough to permit a team of biologists to construct a virus from scratch.

Wow, and this shows that natural processes on its own can account for life? Amazing that no mind was involved in the process isn't it? I sure would like to see the reference on the creation of this virus from scratch though.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3268259.stm

It took human intelligence to determine that one could deliberately plant seeds and grow grain and vegetables where one wants them to grow instead of spending hours in the forest looking for them. Does that prove that plants couldn't grow on their own?

It took human ingenuity to understand the genetic basis of variation and begin genetic engineering. Does that mean no variation occurred previously?

Of course it takes intelligence to understand nature well enough to imitate it. That doesn't make a natural process intelligent or prevent it from functioning.

gluadys · Dec 10, 2005

Crusadar said:
I have already responded to this totally aburd assertion.

Actually what is totally absurd is the conclusion that a group of biologists, using their intellect, and countless hours of work in creating a virus is proof that it was "natural unguided forces" - Now that is absurdity of the highest form! A slap on the face of all logic - you could say.

How often YECists forget that this forum "Origins Theology" is for Christians only, and assume they are speaking to atheists, not fellow Christians.

No one made the claim that the construction of a virus by scientists is 'proof that it was "natural unguided forces" at work!' Because, as theistic evolutionists we don't believe in such forces. We believe that under the providence of God, natural forces are guided to achieve God's purposes.

Questions for serious TE's

Criado de Cristo

Legend

Active Member

Senior Contributor

Criado de Cristo

Criado de Cristo

Criado de Cristo

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

Criado de Cristo

Criado de Cristo

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

Criado de Cristo

Senior Contributor

Legend

Legend

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency