Which Came First?

[pastorkevin73]

Ah but obviously only people who interpret Genesis like pastor kevin are really led by the Holy Spirit.

1Cor 13:9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part,
10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.
11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.
12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

What is the context of this passage?

 

[Assyrian]

Love. But that hardly takes away from Paul's statement we only know in part and only see through a mirror dimly.

 

[gluadys]

How do you know if the Holy Spirit is leading you?

Sometimes we don't know. Sometimes it seems as if there is no guiding of the Holy Spirit on some matters. We should consider that a possibility when there are many opinions floating around. That is a time for prayer.

As for when we do know, various signs such as the Wesleyan quadrilateral have been suggested.

One sign that it seems to me is often neglected is the concurrence of the Church. Some people seem to think the Holy Spirit is a personal guide who tells each of us individually what to believe. But while the Spirit works through individuals, the role of the Spirit is to guide the Church into all truth. Offering what we believe to be a word of the Spirit to the Church is an important way of testing whether we are really guided by the Holy Spirit. For if we are, then the same Spirit will be working in others to bring the Church to consensus around the matter in question. The unity of the Church on an issue is a very important sign of the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

An equally important sign, as Assyrian suggests, is love. A person led of the Spirit can approach all participants in the debate in love--even those who currently disagree with him/her. No name-calling. No pointing fingers and claiming a special access to the Holy Spirit denied to the other. Rather a willingness to listen to what the other has to say in the expectation that perhaps the Holy Spirit wants me to listen to them.

Along with love goes patience. A willingness to wait on the Lord and on the Church for its decision rather than force the issue.

I expect you want me to say something about scripture too. Yes, of course, the Holy Spirit never disagrees with scripture. But that is not the same thing as saying the Holy Spirit never disagrees with a hermeneutical principle like literalism.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

But at this point in our dialogue I don't know if I really need to say anything about ID in particular, so much as about your philosophy of science in general.

You've done nothing to discredit my understanding of science.

I must ask you something about your understanding of conventional science though.

Please do ...

I am not aware of any researcher of the origin of life who believes that we have completely elucidated its theoretical mechanism or historical sequence. Yes, they give us some tantalizing tidbits on the edges.

And that is all they have done. These tidbits are in no way evidence enough to extrapolate, or even come close, to a completely materialistic theory of abiogenesis.

But I am not aware of any researcher who has called them more than tantalizing tidbits. Do you read the source material of conventional OOL science?

Yes, peer reviewed papers are always careful not to make grand claims. The public eye is where the bald assumptions are made about the materialistic theory of abiogenesis.

In any case. Back to the philosophy of science.

Really? I'm not sure that you understand the need and role of problem reduction.

Yes, really. I'm srue I do.

I'll repeat the freezing water analogy and expand on it to show you what's wrong with your reasoning.
...
You are trying to appropriate the credibility of Boy B, while acting for all intents and purposes like Boy A. The bolded reasons you gave were:

You did nothing to discredit my understanding of the need for reduction. You tell a trivial anecdotal story meant to demean my understanding. First, your analogy is simply a parroting of the baseless idea that ID can not be a legitimate scientific endeavor. Second, you claim I'm boy A who uses no reasoning, and then quickly follow it up by explaining why the reasoning I just gave was invalid. You've built a wordy non sequitur that fails to make your point.

Let's look at them in turn:

"In vitro": is there any reason to believe that early life originated in a condition that was not in vitro? Given that in vitro means in the absence of life or biological activity, by definition life must have originated in vitro (if it originated naturalistically). In this aspect at least we know for sure that the experiment was faithful to original conditions.

You're emphasising a nuance of the definition to make a contrived and invalid point. In vitro is clearly meant to describe an artificially controlled environment. Abiogenesis did not initiate and sustain in a controlled environment.

"Right chemical and thermodynamic conditions": is there any way you can demonstrate that early life originated in somehow "wrong" chemical and thermodynamic conditions?

This question is non-sensical. First, you are begging the question.

I can tell you the exact procedure of the experiment:
...
Which of these were missing from the origination of life? Which chemical wasn't around at the dawn of time, or which one was? Were the concentrations wrong? Was the temperature wrong? Can you really tell me?

Second, the burden of evidence is on the person claiming the validity of materialistic abiogenesis. You apparently are the one who misunderstands the role of science. In science the offered hypothesis does not win by default. That is silly. I don't need to demonstrate anything to be honest. The researcher who is making the claim needs to demonstrate plausible evidence that the experiment does in fact have meaning and relevance to the OOL.

"Artificially maintained homeostasis": really? "Homeostasis" is by definition the maintaining of internal biological equilibrium, so there could have been no homeostasis whatsoever neither in this experiment nor in the original conditions for origin of life.

Since we both know that we are not talking about real life it is clear my use of the term homeostasis was not intended to convey biological homeostasis. The purpose of homeostasis in a biological organism is to protect a very complex set of reactions from the external environment. It is a form of control. This broader use of the term homeostasis is what is provided in all the RNA engineering experiments.

In any case, the paper also says something about this:

At the end of each incubation, a small aliquot was transferred to the next reaction vessel, with the dilution increasing from 100-fold to 1,000-fold over the course of 40 transfers.​

By simple kinetic theory, diluting by a factor of 10 should slow any chemical reactions down by a factor of about e^10 ~ 22,000. Whatever else you care to say about these enzymes, they were certainly not coddled.

Dilution followed by an increased concentration says nothing, absolutely nothing, about the controlled conditions of the experiment. You baldly claim "no coddling" by saying the experiment produced more RNA? This is very strange reasoning. I doubt they would have published the paper had they not had an increase in RNA.

You can say all you want that this experiment could not have faithfully captured at least a part of what happened at the origin of life.

You say this based on faith and nothing more.

But can you credibly say why?

As I said, the burden of evidence is on the OOL life researcher to demonstrate plausible relevance. They did not, and they can't because the tiny set of existing experiments are no where near filling in a sequence that would begin to provide a plausible explanation of how life arose.

Or are you just going to be a Boy A with feisty argument but little evidence?

You attempted to demonstrate my "lack of understanding of the philosophy of science" by using two semantic misdirections and an argument based on your misunderstanding of the role of experiment in science.

I'm not sure what exactly your issue is here. Why should we in the case of OOL theoretically be able to fully reproduce the correct theory?

Maybe because it is not true. Clearly the creation of life is believed by materialistic OOL researchers to be repeatable. The SETI folks sure are betting on it. If you believe it is not repeatable then you need to explain why.

Also, if ID says nothing falsifiable about the Cambrian explosion (which might only be what you implied, certainly not what you explicitly said), wouldn't that justify its exclusion as a scientific approach to studying the Cambrian explosion?

Hmmmm ... this is odd I answered that earlier in the thread. Let me repeat ...

First, I was not saying that ID says anything about the Cambrian Explosion. I was contrasting an accepted study of modern evolution (the Cambrian Explosion) with one that is not (ID). I was demonstrating that it is hypocritical to reject the study of one while accepting the study of the other based on the argument of the latter not meeting the criteria of being science.

The point is that the theories about the Cambrian Explosion are not falsifiable, yet you embrace them.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

And that is the essential reason ID is problematical. Or any theology that insists we can only see God's action in the form of obviously miraculous intervention.

You are misrepresenting ID. This is not what it says.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

What was it Jesus said about seeking signs, again?

It is very saddening to see the implication that anyone who looks for and appreciates evidences of God is somehow spiritually astray. Anyone who believes this has a serious flaw in their understanding of scripture. Jesus spent 3 years demonstrating with signs and wonders culminating with the most important sign in human history. There is nothing wrong with looking at His natural revelation and appreciating it through evidence.

 

[gluadys]

You are misrepresenting ID. This is not what it says.

Does the design inference not depend on excluding law and chance in order to identify design? Does it not infer design (and hence a designer) by excluding all that can be and is explained by science and looking precisely for those bit which it contains cannot be explained by science?

ID does not explicitly identify the alleged designer, but by inferring design only in what science cannot explain, it effectively points to those areas of scientific ignorance as the only ones of which we can say "God did it."

But God did NOT do only those things we cannot explain. God did it all---all that ID excludes from consideration using its explanatory filter.

I wonder how those who fail to see God in what we know can find God in what we don't know.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

And that is the essential reason ID is problematical. Or any theology that insists we can only see God's action in the form of obviously miraculous intervention.

ID does not deny God working through the natural laws.

Does the design inference not depend on excluding law and chance in order to identify design? Does it not infer design (and hence a designer) by excluding all that can be and is explained by science and looking precisely for those bit which it contains cannot be explained by science?

ID does not explicitly identify the alleged designer, but by inferring design only in what science cannot explain, it effectively points to those areas of scientific ignorance as the only ones of which we can say "God did it."

This is wrong. They do not infer design by simply excluding necessity and chance. As I explained the last time I had this exchange here ... it requires functional complexity as well. No matter how much people want to caricature it it is not a simple God Did It argument.

But God did NOT do only those things we cannot explain. God did it all---all that ID excludes from consideration using its explanatory filter.

Yes, and ID proponents do not deny this.

I wonder how those who fail to see God in what we know can find God in what we don't know.

They don't not see God, and they use evidence to see design.

 

[gluadys]

ID does not deny God working through the natural laws.

Then why do they exclude evolutionary means as productive of design?

This is wrong. They do not infer design by simply excluding necessity and chance.

Nevertheless, they do exclude necessity and chance.

Yes, and ID proponents do not deny this.

They keep pretty quiet about it.

They don't not see God, and they use evidence to see design.

Not if the evidence is in the form of evolutionary process.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Then why do they exclude evolutionary means as productive of design?

Design by definition is done via intelligence. Even strict Darwinists don't deny this. The contention is whether or not all aspects of life are products of non-design.

Nevertheless, they do exclude necessity and chance.

No they don't exclude it. How many times do I have to repeat myself. They accept that much of the natural world including many aspects of evolution are driven by necessity and chance.

They keep pretty quiet about it.

Not at all. I suspect you just don't listen to them.

Not if the evidence is in the form of evolutionary process.

False. You can accept part but not all.

 

[gluadys]

Design by definition is done via intelligence. Even strict Darwinists don't deny this. The contention is whether or not all aspects of life are products of non-design.

It looks to me as if you are quite plainly contradicting yourself.

You said: "ID does not deny God working through the natural laws." Now you say "Design by definition is done via intelligence." So the designer/God does not work through natural laws.

No they don't exclude it. How many times do I have to repeat myself. They accept that much of the natural world including many aspects of evolution are driven by necessity and chance.

Of course they do. But they exclude them when it comes to inferring design. So they exclude necessity or chance as expressions of the activity of the designer/God.

You can accept part but not all.

My point precisely. That is why I reject ID. I accept all and I accept all as God's creation.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

It looks to me as if you are quite plainly contradicting yourself.

You said: "ID does not deny God working through the natural laws." Now you say "Design by definition is done via intelligence." So the designer/God does not work through natural laws.

That is because you are intent on creating a false choice. The definition of design is given by the English language. God created the natural world. In that world there is both necessity and chance at play producing results. He also has intervened in the game at times in a way that defies necessity and chance. Christ's physical resurrection is a case where He had designed a plan of salvation. This plan would not have come about had He let necessity and chance run its course. The initial conditions of the Universe also show evidence of design. I believe DNA shows evidence of design.

Of course they do. But they exclude them when it comes to inferring design. So they exclude necessity or chance as expressions of the activity of the designer/God.

Oh you mean black is not white when it is black. Please, don't be ridiculous. Clearly, given N possible scenarios, some elements can be due to design and others to necessity or chance.

My point precisely. That is why I reject ID. I accept all and I accept all as God's creation.

Then you reject evidence and accept some materialistic explanations based on no evidence.

 

[gluadys]

That is because you are intent on creating a false choice. The definition of design is given by the English language. God created the natural world. In that world there is both necessity and chance at play producing results. He also has intervened in the game at times in a way that defies necessity and chance.

The question is whether God accomplishes his designs through necessity and chance or only through interventions that interfere with necessity and chance. ID comes across to me as asserting the latter.

Christ's physical resurrection is a case where He had designed a plan of salvation. This plan would not have come about had He let necessity and chance run its course.

Are miracles the model of intelligent design?

The initial conditions of the Universe also show evidence of design.

Are you speaking of the strong anthropic principle?

I believe DNA shows evidence of design.

How so? Any more than any other large molecule, that is.

Clearly, given N possible scenarios, some elements can be due to design and others to necessity or chance.

I don't dispute that. The question is are only the designed elements evidence of a designer or are necessity and chance, as part of creation, also revelatory of the action of God? Does God work through necessity and chance as well as through design?

Then there is the question of how does God work through design. You alluded above to a miracle. Is design always miraculous? Is God's hand visible only in the miraculous and not in ordinary nature?

Then you reject evidence and accept some materialistic explanations based on no evidence.

What evidence do you think I reject?

There is a great deal of evidence for the evolution of species. I don't know why you would refer to this as "no evidence".

 

[OrdinaryClay]

The question is whether God accomplishes his designs through necessity and chance or only through interventions that interfere with necessity and chance. ID comes across to me as asserting the latter.

Then you understand it wrong. God accomplishes His will through necessity, chance and miraculous intervention. When he intervenes in a miraculous way He has a design in mind. This design is detectable because God is intelligent (maximally so). Yes, I do also believe that God's will has been, and is, accomplished through His very act of creation.

Are miracles the model of intelligent design?

ID does not care, nor does it need to care, about how the design was implemented. It's goal is to detect the design. ID proponents do not deny being Christians. I am a Christian. I believe God uses miracles.

Are you speaking of the strong anthropic principle?

You have to be careful of the term "anthropic principle". It is overloaded. It is used with abandon by atheists in a very different way then you may intend. I'm referring to the fact that there are conditions in the universe, initial conditions, and constants that are not governed by the fundamental physics, which allow life to exist. Many physicists, not just Christians, are very bothered by this. There is huge effort expended to explain these facts. The scientific evidence points to either an imponderably improbable event occurring or that God miraculously set the Universe up to be right for the support of life.

How so? Any more than any other large molecule, that is.

No other large molecule has encoded in it the ability to produce the nano-technology that we now know the Cell is.

I don't dispute that. The question is are only the designed elements evidence of a designer or are necessity and chance, as part of creation, also revelatory of the action of God? Does God work through necessity and chance as well as through design?

Yes and yes. The whole of the universe reveals the glory of God!

Then there is the question of how does God work through design. You alluded above to a miracle. Is design always miraculous?

God does not have elves.;-) He has us, the angelic realm, and the Trinity. If something is not done via His servants, necessity or chance then it has to be done through the miraculous.

Yes, I believe miracles are rare events.

Is God's hand visible only in the miraculous and not in ordinary nature?

I believe God's hand is visible in all of His creation.

What evidence do you think I reject?

The possibility of a design inference.

There is a great deal of evidence for the evolution of species. I don't know why you would refer to this as "no evidence".

As I have stated over and over and over again. ID supporters do not reject many of the mechanisms of evolution. For example, I accept many of the ideas behind common ancestry.

 

[gluadys]

Then you understand it wrong. God accomplishes His will through necessity, chance and miraculous intervention. When he intervenes in a miraculous way He has a design in mind. This design is detectable because God is intelligent (maximally so). Yes, I do also believe that God's will has been, and is, accomplished through His very act of creation.

Doesn't God have a plan, a design in mind just as much when God uses necessity and chance? Why limit the term "design" to the miraculous as if that is the only form of event in which God's hand is seen?

ID does not care, nor does it need to care, about how the design was implemented. It's goal is to detect the design. ID proponents do not deny being Christians. I am a Christian. I believe God uses miracles.

It is not a question of whether God uses miracles from time to time. Of course God uses miracles. But does God use miracles where ordinary providence would do? When Elijah prophesied no rain and it did not rain for three years and then, at his prayer, rain came---that was miraculous. But ordinarily neither drought nor rain are considered miraculous. What requires the generation of new species to be a miraculous occurrence? Why demand miracles ("design") when ordinary providence will do---and when there is no evidence that specific interventions are required.

I'm referring to the fact that there are conditions in the universe, initial conditions, and constants that are not governed by the fundamental physics, which allow life to exist.

I am not sure what you mean by "initial conditions....not governed by the fundamental physics". Could you be more specific?

No other large molecule has encoded in it the ability to produce the nano-technology that we now know the Cell is.

So it is not actually the molecule that is improbable, but its unique biological function?

God does not have elves.;-) He has us, the angelic realm, and the Trinity. If something is not done via His servants, necessity or chance then it has to be done through the miraculous.

I will take that as a "yes". As you present it, intelligent design is equivalent to miraculous intervention. There are not many ID proponents who are that honest.

Yes, I believe miracles are rare events.


I believe God's hand is visible in all of His creation.

Then why call on ad hoc miracles? Do you think God made a defective creation that could not carry out his purposes without miraculous intervention in ordinary natural processes?

I can understand the need for miracles when it is necessary to stop nature from acting naturally --- as in opening a way for the Israelites through the Red Sea. What I don't understand about ID is that it calls on design/miracles as if they were necessary for nature to do what nature naturally does.

The possibility of a design inference.

The design inference is bad logic.

As I have stated over and over and over again. ID supporters do not reject many of the mechanisms of evolution. For example, I accept many of the ideas behind common ancestry.

They just think those mechanisms are insufficient to do what they were made to do. And that miracles are needed to supplement evolution. I don't understand why they think God made a defective process in evolution.

ID looks to me like it is trying to insert gaps in nature in order to justify calling on miracles they can point to as evidence of divine action. Yet, if you really believe that the whole of the universe displays the glory of God, surely a gapless nature, one that does not have lacunae which must be bridged by ad hoc interventions, is better evidence of divine action.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Doesn't God have a plan, a design in mind just as much when God uses necessity and chance?
...
Why limit the term "design" to the miraculous as if that is the only form of event in which God's hand is seen?
...
What requires the generation of new species to be a miraculous occurrence?
...
Then why call on ad hoc miracles? Do you think God made a defective creation that could not carry out his purposes without miraculous intervention in ordinary natural processes?
...
They just think those mechanisms are insufficient to do what they were made to do. And that miracles are needed to supplement evolution. I don't understand why they think God made a defective process in evolution.
...
ID looks to me like it is trying to insert gaps in nature in order to justify calling on miracles they can point to as evidence of divine action.

You make the same point and ask the same question over and over as if I have not answered the exact same question multiple times. Do you think this is some clever debating tactic. It is transparent and silly. I've seen this form of debating on this site several times.

It is not a question of whether God uses miracles from time to time. Of course God uses miracles. But does God use miracles where ordinary providence would do?

Ask Him.

Why demand miracles ("design") when ordinary providence will do---and when there is no evidence that specific interventions are required.
...
What I don't understand about ID is that it calls on design/miracles as if they were necessary for nature to do what nature naturally does.

Give me evidence for the produciton of DNA without preexisting DNA.

I am not sure what you mean by "initial conditions....not governed by the fundamental physics". Could you be more specific?

An example would be the initial entropy.

I will take that as a "yes". As you present it, intelligent design is equivalent to miraculous intervention. There are not many ID proponents who are that honest.

Are you a Christian? No one is hiding anything. You know full well I said multiple times that I and all IDers admit they are Christians and believe God was the designer. Please drop the snide remarks.

I can understand the need for miracles when it is necessary to stop nature from acting naturally --- as in opening a way for the Israelites through the Red Sea.

Personally, I don't know when or why God chooses to use miracles. I just know He does from time to time.

The design inference is bad logic.

Please explain.

Yet, if you really believe that the whole of the universe displays the glory of God, surely a gapless nature, one that does not have lacunae which must be bridged by ad hoc interventions, is better evidence of divine action.

God has chosen to intervene. Why, when, where or how is His choice. His reasons are not our reasons. My beliefs are not based on what I think God ought to do.

So it is not actually the molecule that is improbable, but its unique biological function?

It is the fact that it encodes nano- technology. How much plainer can I say it.

 

[gluadys]

You make the same point and ask the same question over and over as if I have not answered the exact same question multiple times. Do you think this is some clever debating tactic. It is transparent and silly. I've seen this form of debating on this site several times.

If you answered those questions even once, I missed it. Please direct me to the post(s) where I can find the answer.

Ask Him.

So you don't know. Then why presume a priori that he did in the absence of any evidence that he did and in the absence of any rationale for doing so?

Give me evidence for the produciton of DNA without preexisting DNA.

Ask a chemist.

An example would be the initial entropy.

Entropy IIRC is a measure of unusable energy (usually heat). Can you explain what you mean by saying the initial entropy is not governed by fundamental physics?

Are you a Christian? No one is hiding anything. You know full well I said multiple times that I and all IDers admit they are Christians and believe God was the designer. Please drop the snide remarks.

Actually most ID proponents don't admit that by "intelligent design" they mean miracles. You are the first I have come across that says up front that miracles are what you are talking about.

Personally, I don't know when or why God chooses to use miracles. I just know He does from time to time.

No problem with that as a general statement. But ID proposes that one can detect when God did use a miracle through empirical evidence. It is whether one can really do so that is the issue.

Please explain.

It assumes that we already know that all possible natural explanations have been ruled out. But we can only know that if we have 100% knowledge of all natural explanations. But we don't. There could be umpteen dozen natural causes we know nothing about yet.

Take an example: Put yourself in the shoes of a peasant in northern Italy c. 800 C.E. Every morning you take your few animals out to pasture. From time to time you see bunches of mushrooms that have sprouted overnight. Not unusual. If they are edible you take them back home and give them to your wife for the kitchen.

But one day you see the picture in the thumbnail. So apply the explanatory filter.

Does this happen by necessity?
No. Never seen mushrooms grow like that before.

Does this happen by chance?
Can't be chance. You don't get something like this by chance.

Well, it is highly improbable, but let's ask one more question. Is the pattern specified ?
You can see for yourself, it's a nice little circle.

So, it is a design that must have been made by an intelligent agent.
Yes, and I know who. It was the fairies that did it.




Which is why this is called a fairy ring.


Now switching back into 21st century thinking, we know our peasant is wrong, because we know how this species of mushroom reproduces and we know it is a consequence of necessity.

The design filter is bad logic because it omits the possible explanation of a natural law or cause or process we haven't learned of yet---just as our 9th century peasant did not know of the natural process that produces fairy rings.

Conjuring up miracles just to explain what you don't know is both bad science and bad theology--even when you believe in a God who works miracles.

God has chosen to intervene. Why, when, where or how is His choice. His reasons are not our reasons. My beliefs are not based on what I think God ought to do.

Then there is no reason to insist that God ought to work miracles any more than insisting that he ought not. ID does not just propose that God works miracles from time to time as he chooses. It proposes that God has to work miracles because the natural powers he invested in nature can't do what God wants them to do even with his constantly sustaining power and presence. If ID is right, God cannot NOT work miracles. God has to work miracles to keep his creation going.

Now you may be comfortable with that, but I find it an unappealing way to think of both God and God's creation.

It is the fact that it encodes nano- technology. How much plainer can I say it.

That's plain enough, but that was not what your question was asking. You were asking how DNA originated. The fact that it encodes anything is not a question of how DNA, the molecule, originated, but of 1) how its molecular structure became the carrier of a genetic code and 2) how that code came to include the recipe for making cellular machinery.

And those are certainly very big and still open questions for abiogeneticists.

But remember the fairy ring. Not knowing the answers to these questions doesn't mean there are no answers. There are just answers we haven't found yet.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

So you don't know. Then why presume a priori that he did in the absence of any evidence that he did and in the absence of any rationale for doing so?

Of course not. I don't presume anything. I follow the evidence.

Ask a chemist.

I did and do. They don't have a clue as to how DNA was formed in such a way so as to encode nano-technology.

Entropy IIRC is a measure of unusable energy (usually heat). Can you explain what you mean by saying the initial entropy is not governed by fundamental physics?

The laws of physics describe the change in entropy as time progresses. The initial state of the universe, which defines the initial entropy is not given by modern physics.

Actually most ID proponents don't admit that by "intelligent design" they mean miracles.

They don't say this because ID does not say or need to say anything about miracles. In other words they understand ID.

You are the first I have come across that says up front that miracles are what you are talking about.

As I have said ID is not making any statements about miracles. It is about detecting design. What most prominent ID'ers admit is that they are Christians and they believe the designer was God.

No problem with that as a general statement. But ID proposes that one can detect when God did use a miracle through empirical evidence.

No it doesn't. It infers one can detect design.

When inferring in cases like the Cambrian Explosion it is impossible to conclude with 100% certainty what is the true explanation. So you infer. You don't do this mathematically. You take multiple factors into account ...
1) How much work has been done to unsuccessfully warrant competing explanations. The more there has been the stronger the case that they are not valid. This is actually a case where the lack of evidence does support the evidence of falsity. It is a form of lose Bayesian inference.
2) We do know that clearly designed objects are always produced by human intelligence. We know unequivocally that there is a strong and undeniable distinction between what humans produce and what necessity and chance produces. This is evidence that supports the conclusion that intelligence produces distinct inimitable designs.
3) We know humans did not exist at the time DNA was first produced.

We have lack of evidence given natural causes for producing the clearly distinct and inimitable specified, functional complexity of DNA. We have proven evidence that intelligence produces distinct inimitable designs. Therefore we have evidence that intelligence produced DNA. It does not prove it, but it is the best explanation because it is the only one left standing.

The design filter is bad logic because it omits the possible explanation of a natural law or cause or process we haven't learned of yet---

The design filter clearly does not omit anything. The inference process accounts for this.

Then there is no reason to insist that God ought to work miracles any more than insisting that he ought not.

No they do not. They claim they can detect design. They make no statements as to miracles.

If ID is right, God cannot NOT work miracles. God has to work miracles to keep his creation going.

Incorrect. If ID is right we can detect design.

Now you may be comfortable with that, but I find it an unappealing way to think of both God and God's creation.

What I'm comfortable with is knowing that God uses miracles when and how He chooses. I make no effort to presuppose or exclude His use of any method He chooses. I let the evidence take me where it will. I have no desire to limit God to using any particular method.

That's plain enough, but that was not what your question was asking. You were asking how DNA originated. The fact that it encodes anything is not a question of how DNA, the molecule, originated, but of 1) how its molecular structure became the carrier of a genetic code and 2) how that code came to include the recipe for making cellular machinery.

You confused who was asking what. You asked what was special about DNA. I told you. I asked you how DNA originated. You did not answer and pleaded no knowledge of Chemistry and the willingness to not even attempt to understand. I ask my question because of the fact that DNA is special.

And those are certainly very big and still open questions for abiogeneticists.

Obviously.

Not knowing the answers to these questions doesn't mean there are no
answers. There are just answers we haven't found yet.

Remember your Bible. God does use miracles when and if He chooses independent of our desire not to believe He did or does.

 

[shernren]

You've done nothing to discredit my understanding of science.

Indeed. You discredit yourself more than I could ever attempt to.

You're emphasising a nuance of the definition to make a contrived and invalid point. In vitro is clearly meant to describe an artificially controlled environment. Abiogenesis did not initiate and sustain in a controlled environment.


This question is non-sensical. First, you are begging the question.


Second, the burden of evidence is on the person claiming the validity of materialistic abiogenesis. You apparently are the one who misunderstands the role of science. In science the offered hypothesis does not win by default. That is silly. I don't need to demonstrate anything to be honest. The researcher who is making the claim needs to demonstrate plausible evidence that the experiment does in fact have meaning and relevance to the OOL.


Since we both know that we are not talking about real life it is clear my use of the term homeostasis was not intended to convey biological homeostasis. The purpose of homeostasis in a biological organism is to protect a very complex set of reactions from the external environment. It is a form of control. This broader use of the term homeostasis is what is provided in all the RNA engineering experiments.


Dilution followed by an increased concentration says nothing, absolutely nothing, about the controlled conditions of the experiment. You baldly claim "no coddling" by saying the experiment produced more RNA? This is very strange reasoning. I doubt they would have published the paper had they not had an increase in RNA.

Thanks for clarifying your expressions: you are concerned that because the experimental conditions were "controlled" somehow, the experiment does not serve as a faithful representation of early abiogenetic conditions.

What you are forgetting is that "controlled" is not an experimental variable that chemical reactions see. Chemical reactions run based on ambient temperature, reactant and catalyst concentrations, pH, and so forth. Whether those conditions are deliberately controlled by human agency or not has no effect on whether or not the reactions proceed.

For example, my room is maintained at about 25 degrees Celsius. This is a controlled temperature, carefully maintained with a thermostat (and a high utilities bill).
The temperature back in Malaysia is also 25 degrees on a rather cool day. This is entirely outside human control (unfortunately).

On the other hand, the temperature outside my room is about 13 degrees Celsius. This is also, unfortunately, entirely outside human control.
But the laser lab in which I spent the summer was also kept at about 13 degrees Celsius, and that was entirely controlled with a thermostat (and another high utilities bill, thankfully picked up by the magnanimous ANU).

But suppose I had a reaction that proceeded at 25 degrees Celsius, and not 13 degrees Celsius.

This reaction would run in my room (at a controlled 25 degrees C) and in Malaysia (at an uncontrolled 25 degrees C).

This reaction would not run outside my room (at an uncontrolled 13 degrees C) nor in my lab (at a controlled 13 degrees C).

You see? Whether or not experimental conditions are controlled does not directly affect whether or not experimental conditions are faithful to non-experimental conditions.

Now, of course, suppose the controller of an experiment had actually set his controlled conditions wrongly: then the experimental conditions certainly wouldn't be faithful to non-experimental conditions. But that isn't to be blamed on control per se. My reaction above would fail in the controlled laser lab: but it would also fail in the uncontrolled conditions outside my room.

And back to the RNA experiment. The researchers reported performing the experiment under extreme dilution at moderate temperatures in aqueous solvation. Now, of course, those conditions were chosen by the researchers. They were controlled. But that doesn't make them invalid per se. Most of the world's water indeed contains RNA at extreme dilution and moderate temperatures, and there is no a priori reason to assume that that was not true of the early seas of this planet as well.

Unless, of course, you begin by assuming that abiogenesis could not have happened, and then concoct whatever reason you can find to "prove" your point.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

You see? Whether or not experimental conditions are controlled does not directly affect whether or not experimental conditions are faithful to non-experimental conditions.

Yes, I understand that constructed experimental conditions may exist to reflect some hypothesised true conditions. This was the point in most early OOL research. It failed to produce anything of significance beyond basic peptides and nucleic acids. Today the researchers tend to jump to un-justified controlled conditions in order to produce the facade of new evidence. If a paper is going to make claims meaningful to the OOL then they must also justify their conditions as somehow relevant to the early conditions.

And back to the RNA experiment. The researchers reported performing the experiment under extreme dilution at moderate temperatures in aqueous solvation. Now, of course, those conditions were chosen by the researchers. They were controlled. But that doesn't make them invalid per se. Most of the world's water indeed contains RNA at extreme dilution and moderate temperatures, and there is no a priori reason to assume that that was not true of the early seas of this planet as well.

The very introduction of evolvable RNA enzymes is biasing the conditions beyond justification. Please provide the evidence that the early earth contained RNA enzymes of adequate complexity to support the position RNA engineering represents.

If this is indeed true then why don't we see new life spontaneously arise in niche environments? Why don't we see an ecosystem of biotic independent prebiotics?

Unless, of course, you begin by assuming that abiogenesis could not have happened, and then concoct whatever reason you can find to "prove" your point.

And likewise, one could start with, and assume, that the only possible explanation of abiogenesis is a materialistic cause and then extrapolate beyond reason given current evidence to justify this belief.