Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What matters is that the big bang theory predicted it. Theories are considered to be confirmed when their predictions are confirmed. That's how science works. If one is allowed to insert a non-scriptural miracle to cover over anything one doesn't like about the evidence, then anyone's belief is equally valid.The background hiss could be a leftover impact of the Big Bang or the result of a cosmos-wide or maybe even regional supernatural judgment that came later, how can we possibly know either way?
Yes. Creationism will have much to answer for at judgement.Much that has been assumed to be true and much that the wise of this world have invested so much into constructing will indeed be exposed as folly in time.
Indeed.In essence, he is saying there is no chemistry that shows how abiogenesis could work in practice. It simply does not happen, there are no facts or demonstrable experiments that support it. The credibility of the theory is incredibly shaky and without it, the whole edifice of naturalistic macroevolution is also challenged. If emergence from inanimate matter never produces life then why should we assume naturalistic processes also governed a billion-year process of evolutionary changes? If at any point in the development of life on earth we have to assume supernatural intervention to make it work then naturalism is no longer a sufficient modus operandi beyond the scope of what the scientific method can actually prove.
But they are. The Murchison meteorite, for example. The chemical reactions at deep sea vents.Also if the chemical events were at all likely (ie bulk statistics were meaningful) then some of the intermediate processes would still be happening. They are not.
See above. Turns out, chemistry isn't random. Remember?You can search new and newer volcanic pools and none of the intermediate stages exist. So we really are dealing with one or more extremely unlikely random events.
Which leads to another problem. There is common DNA between most species. If we are to believe the idea there were separate starts to life and no guiding hand, then we would expect different forms of life that diverge.
As you learned, it isn't about luck. The universe is organized so as to produce life, as God mentions in Genesis.The quantum chemistry and energy jumps say that the idea that multiple chemicals just happened by lucky proximity to jump into life, did not happen.
You know that even Michael Behe now admits that irreducible complexity can evolve. Would you like to learn how? But I'd be interested in seeing your evidence that the first living cell could not be simpler. In general biology doesn't work that way.On the other hand the first living cell was irreducibly complex.
Well, that's a testable assumption. Show me a cell with minimum complexity and quantify the information in its genome. Use the Shannon Equation for genomes.In information theoretic terms the genome has an entropy. A minimum complexity and size, it cannot be arbitrarily reduced without preventing darwinian evolution..
Sounds interesting. Show us the odds and your calculations.Nobody can say what when where or how it happened and the odds against it are staggering.
But they are. The Murchison meteorite, for example. The chemical reactions at deep sea vents.
Synthesis of α-amino and α-hydroxy acids under volcanic conditions: implications for the origin of life
Synthesis of α-amino and α-hydroxy acids under volcanic conditions: implications for the origin of life
Facile synthesis of α-hydroxy and α-amino acids is observed at temperatures from 145 to 280°C with catalytic Ni2+, with cyano ligands as source for C …www.sciencedirect.com
But unless you have a sterile environment, those chemicals are quickly metabolized by bacteria.
See above. Turns out, chemistry isn't random. Remember?
Probably did. One particular form seems to have won out. Not surprising. Common DNA merely shows common ancestry. We can test that with organisms of known descent, so we know it's a fact. But it turns out, that it's not precisely the same in all organisms. Would you like to learn about that?
As you learned, it isn't about luck. The universe is organized so as to produce life, as God mentions in Genesis.
You know that even Michael Behe now admits that irreducible complexity can evolve. Would you like to learn how? But I'd be interested in seeing your evidence that the first living cell could not be simpler. In general biology doesn't work that way.
Well, that's a testable assumption. Show me a cell with minimum complexity and quantify the information in its genome. Use the Shannon Equation for genomes.
Sounds interesting. Show us the odds and your calculations.
It seems that you are now aware that evolution is not about abiogenesis, and does not depend on it. Which is good.
But they are essential for life. As you now realize they form abiotically, and even short protein molecules can form abiotically. So the Miller-Urey results have been confirmed.A recurrence of false memes. Amino acids are not life.
As you learned, chemistry is not random. In fact, we see the precursors to living things forming at hydrothermal vents. And it's not just random; it always works that way.Back to the real question.
The simplest cells we know of are horrendously complex factories of many thousands of proteins guided by big genomes.
They are not the start of life and can never have been the start of life (for those who think it was chemistry all of which is random chance).
Just checking to see if you were serious. I assume that means we won't see your calculations for the information in a minimum genome?Do not ask me for the minimum cell.
What do you think is in a "present minimum cell?" Be specific.You seem unaware that the question of life is not just the first cell, but how it came to be our present minimum cells?
How do you measure the entropy of a gene? You realize you have to specify alleles, do you not?You define it. But even two genes have a minimum entropy of 2.
That's what Darwin wrote. So you're a Darwinian in that respect. O.K. It's possible. Just not very likely, given the evidence.I am not a believer in gradual abiogenesis. I believe at some stage life was created.
That's a very weak objection. Trying to support a belief on what is not yet known is a very risky business. When I started studying biology, we had no confirmation of Miller-Urey. We weren't aware of how eukaryotic cells had formed, and many other things we now understand.Most of that journey is assumed to be evolution yet it is completely unknown.
Yes. Abiogenesis continues to be a difficult field, in spite of many advances in our understanding. As you know, Darwin just assumed that God created the first living things. But what we don't know, isn't evidence for anything. You are far too simplistic in your thinking.It is a far bigger challenge than how a cell came to be a mammal.
What part of common descent after the appearance of cellular life, do you think is not known? Be specific.The idea the "first cell happened" then all after that was evolution which is understood is utter nonsense propagated by high priest Dawkins of the atheist faith. He has no evidence whatsoever..
I don't blame creationists. I blame the ideology. You're right. Creationists won't be punished for their views on Genesis.I don’t think God will punish us for believing in error. At least not about that.
God says it did. I believe Him.
Well, let's take a look...
In the 1920s, A.I. Oparin suggested that conditions in the early Earth could produce the organic molecules (like amino acids) necessary for life.
The Miller-Urey experiment, in 1953, verified his prediction.
In 1969, the Murchson meteorite was found to contain abiotic amino acids, further confirming Oparin's prediction. More than that, the meteorite contains short protein sequences (peptides) of amino acids polymerized together.
About that time it was discovered that the one organelle necessary for cellular life (cell membrane) is the simplest organelle, and will self-assemble from organic molecules to form vesicles.
View attachment 323442
Lipids can form abiotically:
The results indicate that condensation reactions and abiotic synthesis of organic lipid compounds under hydrothermal conditions occur easily, provided precursor concentrations are sufficiently high.
Abiotic Condensation Synthesis of Glyceride Lipids and Wax Esters Under Simulated Hydrothermal Conditions - Discover Life
Precursor compounds for abiotic proto cellular membranes are necessary for the origin of life. Amphipathic compounds such as fatty acids and acyl glycerols are important candidates for micelle/bilayer/vesicle formation. Two sets of experiments were conducted to study dehydration reactions of...link.springer.com
You've been badly misled about that. Evolutionary theory assumes life began somehow, but makes no predictions about that. Darwin, for example, just supposed that God created the first living things. Since macroevolution has now been directly observed, that's not an issue. I think you've confused macroevolution with a consequence of macroevolution (common descent).
As you see, we don't have to make that assumption. Indeed, the evidence and God's word tells us that the universe was already made in such a way as to make the emergence of life inevitable. Perhaps you are unaware that science is only methodologically naturalistic, and does not (in fact cannot) say anything about the supernatural. Can't assert that it exists, and can't deny that it exists. If you want to believe that God created the Earth to bring forth life, I'm with you. If you'd rather just say natural laws happened that way without God, I'd disagree, but science can't help resolve that issue.
And, as you just learned, none of this has anything to do with biological evolution. If you learn nothing else from this discussion, remember that.
What matters is that the big bang theory predicted it. Theories are considered to be confirmed when their predictions are confirmed. That's how science works. If one is allowed to insert a non-scriptural miracle to cover over anything one doesn't like about the evidence, then anyone's belief is equally valid.
I don’t think God will punish us for believing in error. At least not about that.
Do you believe there Is a dome surrounding the earth? Because I was on Creation.com just a little while ago and they have an article about that. I just skimmed it but I don’t believe it.I think it depends on why we hold the positions we do. An honest man can believe a lie and a dishonest man can proclaim a truth. God sees our hearts and will judge us. For me, I believe in God first and that means reading scripture in a straightforward manner as it is. I am not prepared to reevaluate traditional interpretations that are millennia old unless there is overwhelming evidence to support that shift. That evidence does not exist in this origins debate on Big Bang or Abiogenesis and it is not conclusive in the case of Evolution.
Let's look at your misconception here. Here's a comment from the Institute for Creation Research, which shares your assumptions about creation, but admits:Again your idea of prediction is to make a theory and then see if it can rationalize an event that was meant to have happened 13 billion years ago.
Notice even your fellow creationists know better than that. As I showed you earlier, when predictions of the theory are confirmed, that is considered confirmation of the theory.That is an explanatory description, not a prophetic prediction.
Indeed - God told the Earth and the waters to bring forth life _ nowhere in Scripture did he tell the Earth or the waters to cease.One more note about abiogenesis -- it happens if God designed for it to happen. A reasonable Christian guess is that since God made the Universe (all creation) "very good" (Genesis chapter 1)... "31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good." -- that therefore we should not be even slightly surprised if we discover some future day that simple life forms arise out there in the "very good" creation that God made, which is 'very good' for life! After all, it's His work... His chemistry, His physics, right?
So, it's quite possible that abiogenesis happens out there, if God so designed nature to be good for life not only on Earth alone, but generally.
But Earth is very special, because it's has not only life-favoring chemistry alone in its favor as a home for extensive life, but very many additional favorable conditions that together in total make Earth seem rare and especially favorable to life long term, and that many astronomical observations in the last 20 years are showing are much less common out there among other planets than one might guess. For example, a strong magnetic field that protects us and the atmosphere from degradation from radiation and solar wind and CMEs, along with a just-right amount of surface water to be especially favorable -- with very helpful plate tectonics that help maintain our atmosphere -- and a very nice helpful arrangement of gas giants to both reduce dangerous asteroids heading towards Earth but together mutually cancel out the tendency of a large gas giant (like Jupiter) to tug a smaller planet (like Earth) out of orbit over time, forcing the smaller planet's orbit to migrate out of the habitable zone, and here I've only touched on just a few of the favorable conditions here on Earth that make Earth so good for complex extensive life over lengthy time periods.
A literal hermeneutic says that the earth brought forth living things. That's what God said. You can believe Him or not. That's the choice you have.A literal hermeneutic says special creation.
The problem for creationists is that the endogenous retrovirus remnants in the DNA of jawed vertebrates sorts out according to evolutionary phylogenies. It's difficult to see how such material, the result of ancient viral infections, would be something a Creator would build into genomes, unless that creator was seeking to confuse and mislead us. But it makes perfect sense in light of common descent. There are many other things in DNA that clearly indicate common descent. We'll talk about those in a bit.One big question Mountain Mike asked you about common ancestry is an important barrier to your view here. There seems to be a commonality in the DNA of all life that a single Creator could explain.
If abiogenesis happened once we would expect it to occur again as these natural processes are still with us.
That is better explained by a Creator than by a naturalistic process that has as yet never been proven to work
Do you believe there Is a dome surrounding the earth? Because I was on Creation.com just a little while ago and they have an article about that. I just skimmed it but I don’t believe it.
Let's look at your misconception here. Here's a comment from the Institute for Creation Research, which shares your assumptions about creation, but admits:
the existence of the CMB radiation, is a successful prediction of the Big Bang. We observe very faint but uniform electromagnetic radiation—radiation not associated with particular stars or galaxies—coming from all directions in space, and the intensity of this radiation is brightest in the microwave part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Big Bang scientists interpret this to be the oldest light in the universe, light emitted when the universe became cool enough for neutral hydrogen atoms to form. As the universe expanded, the wavelengths of these traveling photons were stretched so that most of them had wavelengths corresponding to the microwave part of the electromagnetic spectrum. The intensity of this CMB radiation (as a function of wavelength or frequency) very closely matches the intensity of the radiation given off by an ideal emitter/absorber that physicists call a blackbody. Such a blackbody would have a temperature of 2.7 Kelvins, or about -270° Celsius (Figure 1).
Does the Cosmic Microwave Background Confirm the Big Bang?
Introduction Three main arguments are commonly used to support the Big Bang model of the universe’s origin: The apparent expansion of the universe, inferred from redshifted spectra of distant galaxies; The fact that the Big Bang can account for the observed relative abundances of...www.icr.org
Notice even your fellow creationists know better than that. As I showed you earlier, when predictions of the theory are confirmed, that is considered confirmation of the theory.
Indeed - God told the Earth and the waters to bring forth life _ nowhere in Scripture did he tell the Earth or the waters to cease.
A literal hermeneutic says that the earth brought forth living things. That's what God said. You can believe Him or not. That's the choice you have.
Of course, you could argue that Genesis 1 is merely figurative, and God only meant it as metaphor or parable. Is that your argument?
The problem for creationists is that the endogenous retrovirus remnants in the DNA of jawed vertebrates sorts out according to evolutionary phylogenies. It's difficult to see how such material, the result of ancient viral infections, would be something a Creator would build into genomes, unless that creator was seeking to confuse and mislead us. But it makes perfect sense in light of common descent. There are many other things in DNA that clearly indicate common descent. We'll talk about those in a bit.
We don't know how many versions of life there were. Only one or two have survived to the present. Since extinction is the fate of all organisms, it's not surprising. It's entirely possible that only one sort of life is feasible on this planet. And as you see, the "errors" in DNA such as endogenous retroviruses and much of the rest of non-coding DNA don't have functions. The L-Gulonolactone oxidase gene in humans is the gene that produces vitamin C. But in humans and other primates, it's broken and doesn't work. Why God would build a defective gene into some animals is an unsolvable difficulty for creationism,but makes perfect sense in light of common descent and evolution.
As you learned, evolution is observed all around us constantly. Do you remember the scientific definition of biological evolution? I think you're again confusing the observed phenomenon of evolution with a consequence of evolution, common descent.
Sure amino acids are needed. They are not life. Computers use copper. The existence of copper does Not prove Computers self designed ot even exist. So your argument is a straw man.But they are essential for life. As you now realize they form abiotically, and even short protein molecules can form abiotically. So the Miller-Urey results have been confirmed.
As you learned, chemistry is not random. In fact, we see the precursors to living things forming at hydrothermal vents. And it's not just random; it always works that way.
More and more evidence shows God was right; the earth did bring forth living things.
Just checking to see if you were serious. I assume that means we won't see your calculations for the information in a minimum genome?
What do you think is in a "present minimum cell?" Be specific.
How do you measure the entropy of a gene? You realize you have to specify alleles, do you not?
That's what Darwin wrote. So you're a Darwinian in that respect. O.K. It's possible. Just not very likely, given the evidence.
That's a very weak objection. Trying to support a belief on what is not yet known is a very risky business. When I started studying biology, we had no confirmation of Miller-Urey. We weren't aware of how eukaryotic cells had formed, and many other things we now understand.
Yes. Abiogenesis continues to be a difficult field, in spite of many advances in our understanding. As you know, Darwin just assumed that God created the first living things. But what we don't know, isn't evidence for anything. You are far too simplistic in your thinking.
What part of common descent after the appearance of cellular life, do you think is not known? Be specific.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?