the fallacy of the constancy of physical laws

[randman]

So you have taken the leap of faith to believe in a wholly unscientific propisition, namely that inorganic matter can spontaneously produce life. Got any "hard evidence" for that? ROTFLOL

In answer to your question, it is indeed more logical to accept the idea of a Creator, and is for the person who has a different idea of who that Creator is as well. Evidence for a Creator does not in itself say much about whether Jesus is the son of God for instance.

 

[RufusAtticus]

What evidence for a creator?

 

[randman]

the evidence that life exists in the first place

 

[theyre here]

Originally posted by randman
the evidence that life exists in the first place

Circular logic. You've used aspects of the scientific method in the early phases of your discussion, but then ignore it for the close.

The fact that life exists is a given. Proteins forming single cell organisms is a chemical possibility, not impossibility. The fact that we haven't completely replicated the process under controlled conditions doesn't detract from the possibility that it can happen.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by randman
the evidence that life exists in the first place

You can't use the existance of life to prove that a creator exists since you haven't ruled out the possibilities that natural processes are responcible. In fact the only thing you have done is used the existance of a creator to claim that origin of life is not a natural process. That is circular.

What explains life? The Creator.
What explains the creator? Life.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
Hmm... so what it your point? Regardless, either way, people asre from your perspective, taking a leap of faith. The evolutionist, non-theistic, accepts a starting point that spontaneously generated all on its own from inorganic matter. The theist believes God did it.

Personally, the theist here is at least logical. I suspect you are in the non-theist camp though. Am I right?

That life exists and was at one time only characterized by a few one-celled forms is not a leap of faith.

I am ignorant of how those first cells got here, as are the naturalistic evolutionist, the theistic evolutionist, and the "intelligent design" advocate.

No leap of faith to declare ignorance...

 

[LewisWildermuth]

quote: Randman
So you have taken the leap of faith to believe in a wholly unscientific propisition, namely that inorganic matter can spontaneously produce life. Got any "hard evidence" for that? ROTFLOL

The bible is hard evidence for you is it not?

GEN2:7 the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Did you forget to read your book again Randman?

 

[randman]

The Bible is not hard evidence in the sense of science at all. Furthermore, to accept the logic of the Creator being inferred from the creation's existence is not circular. One fact clearly exists, and it gives rise to the logic that the other does too.

Maybe some self-analyis by the evolutionists here would help. Evolutionists find a fossil, and assume it evolved from an earlier fossil. This is just as much circular logic as using the existence of the creation as evidence for the Creator. While ultimately, due to our limited technology, we cannot empirically prove God exists, nor can we prove species evolved into life as we know it, but neither idea is particularly illogical in itself.

For me personally, God has proven Himself to me irrefutably, but if you want Him to do hat for you, you will have to put considerable effort into soul-searching, and seeking Him out. But a simple parayer in the name of Jesus confessing the true level of faith and doubt you have is a good start.

 

[Hank]

Well let's butt in here also.

I read buzz words like theistic evolution camp LOL
What is that? You can label people with a specific religion, but that's it.

I tread science in it's contexts. When something is proven something is, that just makes me reasonable, nothing more. Science does not have a believe structure, religion has.

Therefore evolution exists, it is proven. Abiogenesis is a theory, I may adapt it or dismiss it. For now I dismiss it. Evolution is the gradual mutation of life. Abiogenesis is, well, highly speculative.

The atom must have come into existence by force. There is no 'natural' occurrence for the atom to exist. If so show it to me. The same goes for animo acids. There is no reason for molecules to have bonded in such complex structures. If so show it to me.

Therefore to conclude someone took raw building blocks like hydrogen, carbon, oxygen etc and made life is a quite reasonable thesis. On the other hand, if you are able to show the natural sequences involved then yes, believing in God is stupid.

Prove for God. There is none. I am not out to convert you into my believes, I am just glad I can share them. I just don't believe in luck. Before you slam me ...
Take the most complex being the homo sapiens. Take each step which can not be naturally sequenced (for humans to exist) and add it up. Therefore I think the chances for God to exist is/are the same numerical equivalent than for each unnatural sequence, in other words quite high. To think that those sequences could have occurred for whatever reason other then through a God, does not eliminate the possibility of God; but it does require to believe in luck, or at least in coincidences.

 

[Oliver]

The same goes for animo acids. There is no reason for molecules to have bonded in such complex structures. If so show it to me.

Ever heard of the Miller-Urey experiment, or of Juan Oro?

from this site

Those two experiments showed that under different conditions (just read the article to know more), amino acids can form naturally.

So there definitely ARE reasons why molecules bind "in such a complex structures": it has been done.

To think that those sequences could have occurred for whatever reason other then through a God, does not eliminate the possibility of God; but it does require to believe in luck, or at least in coincidences.

Why should we choose only between God and Lady Luck? Why couldn't this be the consequence of chemical properties that we do not fully understand? As those experiments show, the amount of luck needed (in this case to form complex structures) is sometimes not as big as some people imagine...

 

[randman]

Lab experiments used human intelligence and design. From what I have heard, abiogensis has not been demonstrated, nor does anyone claim to have shown it in a lab.

 

[theyre here]

Originally posted by randman
Evolutionists find a fossil, and assume it evolved from an earlier fossil.

You really don't know anything about evolution, do you? Your only evolution training seems to come from Jack Chick's Big Daddy.

 

[randman]

Gosh, that last post really set me staight.
LOL

 

[theyre here]

Aw... c'mon... that's no fun.

 

[Hank]

Originally posted by Oliver


Ever heard of the Miller-Urey experiment, or of Juan Oro?

from this site

Those two experiments showed that under different conditions (just read the article to know more), amino acids can form naturally.

So there definitely ARE reasons why molecules bind "in such a complex structures": it has been done.

Yes, I am fully aware of that and you probably anticipate I give you the following counter argument from the very same site.
There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules.

Also this experiment showed only the possibility that under certain circumstance amino acids form. Heck they are all over the universe. The problem I have, are those certain circumstances. Let's put it mildly I am as much in awe over our fortunes then C. Sagan was on nature and the universe. In other words I still stay with that amino acids do not just happen to form, there is not reason to. Even if the circumstances are correct, they do not have to form.

Originally posted by Oliver
Why should we choose only between God and Lady Luck? Why couldn't this be the consequence of chemical properties that we do not fully understand? As those experiments show, the amount of luck needed (in this case to form complex structures) is sometimes not as big as some people imagine...

Your question are much deeper then words I have command of - Still learning the English - Perception is relative from one's view point. Even if you could 'create' a homo sapience from scratch, you still only proved the probable mechanism involved. You have not disproved God.
On the other hand if those chemical actions are consequences by default then yes God existence makes no sense. Yet, if those consequences do actually exist the universe should be full of life. Just go to mars, earth is litterally overflowing with life, where mars has not even one lifeform. Not sure if you can see my point yet why I see it as either God or Lady Luck.

 

[Oliver]

Originally posted by Hank

Yes, I am fully aware of that and you probably anticipate I give you the following counter argument from the very same site.
There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules.

Also this experiment showed only the possibility that under certain circumstance amino acids form.

Yes, I know of these limitations, but they don't really relate to my point. My point was that, contrary to what you seemed to think, there are many possible reasons for "molecules to have bonded in such complex structures". Were those conditions present on Earth at one point? This is not really relevant: as you may have read in this article, we know that those molecules exist in outer space and one theory is that they could have been "imported" to Earth.

In other words I still stay with that amino acids do not just happen to form, there is not reason to. Even if the circumstances are correct, they do not have to form.

This is precisely where those experiments show you wrong: these experiments are reproducible. So whenever the circumstances are correct, those amino acids will form.

Even if you could 'create' a homo sapience from scratch, you still only proved the probable mechanism involved. You have not disproved God.

Of course not, and this was not my point (N.B: I'm not an atheist, but rather an agnostist who thinks that the existence of gods is neither scientifically provable, nor falsifiable).

Yet, if those consequences do actually exist the universe should be full of life. Just go to mars, earth is litterally overflowing with life, where mars has not even one lifeform.

The conditions on Mars are very different than the conditions on Earth. I don't see your point here. Are you saying that if the conditions favorable for life to naturally appear are gathered on one planet in the universe, then we should see life everywhere?

 

[Oliver]

Originally posted by randman
Lab experiments used human intelligence and design. From what I have heard, abiogensis has not been demonstrated, nor does anyone claim to have shown it in a lab.

I didn't quote those experiments as a final proof for abiogenesis (I know they aren't), but as evidence that under given circumstances (which may or may not have been gathered on earth), amino aicds can form naturally.

 

[Hank]

Originally posted by Oliver
Yes, I know of these limitations, but they don't really relate to my point. My point was that, contrary to what you seemed to think, there are many possible reasons for "molecules to have bonded in such complex structures". Were those conditions present on Earth at one point? This is not really relevant: as you may have read in this article, we know that those molecules exist in outer space and one theory is that they could have been "imported" to Earth.

(This quote system is a little vague, you can't follow a train of thought here)
I got your point. Can you not see that it had to be an awesome coincidence for the conditions on earth to be correct at the right time?

Originally posted by Oliver
This is precisely where those experiments show you wrong: these experiments are reproducible. So whenever the circumstances are correct, those amino acids will form.

Well reproducible by whom? Natural occurrences? If so, why did they only happen on planet earth?

Originally posted by Oliver
Of course not, and this was not my point (N.B: I'm not an atheist, but rather an agnostist who thinks that the existence of gods is neither scientifically provable, nor falsifiable).

Well on an atheist forum they classified me as an theist/agnostic. I.E. I believe in God but are not sure what and who God is.

Originally posted by Oliver
The conditions on Mars are very different than the conditions on Earth. I don't see your point here. Are you saying that if the conditions favorable for life to naturally appear are gathered on one planet in the universe, then we should see life everywhere?

Well this is where my lack of English fails. What I am thinking is, if the hypothesis that chemical reaction and abiogenesis is a natural occurrence in some format, and evolution adapts to the environment we should see more live forms. Not homo sepias, basic micro organism, anything. We have a found a horde of amino acids and nothing else. - Granted we have not been around much. So here again I am not trying to prove you wrong or that I am right, I am trying to voice my opinion.

 

[Oliver]

Originally posted by Hank

(This quote system is a little vague, you can't follow a train of thought here)

you're right, so I'll limit my comment to your first point right now (besides, I have to leave in about 5 minutes so I'll get to your other points tomorrow.)

Originally posted by Hank

I got your point. Can you not see that it had to be an awesome coincidence for the conditions on earth to be correct at the right time?

Why "at the right time"? Isn't it more logical to assume that life only evolved (if it did) once the conditions were correct? It doesn't have to be a coincidence that it happened just at the same time. Would you say it is a coincidence that this glass broke just when it hit the ground? No: it is simply a consequence.

So, given the huge number of planets in this universe, I would say that it is not an awsome coincidence that those conditions were gathered somewhere. In fact I think that scientists tried to evaluate how many planets should statistically gather favorable conditions, and THIS number was awsome.

Originally posted by Hank

Well reproducible by whom? Natural occurrences? If so, why did they only happen on planet earth?

Reproducible by anyone who can reproduce these conditions in a lab or in nature.
And we don't know if they only happened on earth. To date, we only know of a few planets in the universe (those of our solar system). And since the other planets we know have very different conditions, it is not surprising that things did not "evolve" in the same way there. But maybe our missions to Mars will give us new indights... who knows?

Originally posted by Hank

Well this is where my lack of English fails.

you probably noticed (and the little flag on the left of this post leaves little doubt) that english was not my native language either. I'm just curious here: what's your native tongue?

 

[Hank]

Originally posted by Oliver
Why "at the right time"? Isn't it more logical to assume that life only evolved (if it did) once the conditions were correct? It doesn't have to be a coincidence that it happened just at the same time. Would you say it is a coincidence that this glass broke just when it hit the ground? No: it is simply a consequence.

So, given the huge number of planets in this universe, I would say that it is not an awsome coincidence that those conditions were gathered somewhere. In fact I think that scientists tried to evaluate how many planets should statistically gather favorable conditions, and THIS number was awsome.

I just let a glass hit the floor, ironically it did not break. You would expect it to break but it did not. (It landed on carpet, I cheated LOL)

I do hope in the future we can visit other solar systems and find out. Let's assume we can search some of those planets, how many would you accept as being completely void of life and still maintain the possibility of abiogenesis? If planet earth turns out to be the only one having life and that in such tremendous abundance would we need to alter the premise of abiogenesis and it's logic?

Originally posted by Oliver
you probably noticed (and the little flag on the left of this post leaves little doubt) that english was not my native language either. I'm just curious here: what's your native tongue?

German

I am a Canadian now , but when it comes to The World Cup, my side is on the German Team, even so they lack one thing, the winning team or at least spirit.