The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

What leap? Life was on Earth. The question is how did that happen, not if it did happen. If you want to argue that life wasn't on Earth 3 billion years ago go ahead but you are contradicted by the fossil record.

You appear to be claiming that life arose naturalistically on earth (chemicals combined naturalistically to become self-replicating 'life'). That complicated life is claimed to have developed from that simple form isn't something I'm objecting to here.

I'm asking how you make the leap from "it could arise naturalistically" to "it did arise naturalistically".

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

You appear to be claiming that life arose naturalistically on earth (chemicals combined naturalistically to become self-replicating 'life').

That is the most likely scenario but still unknown. The question that is not unknown is that life arose on Earth. We have evidence of proto-life right up to multi-cell organisms leading to plants and animals.

The question is how it arose, not if. There is no doubt that simple life was established on Earth 3 billion years ago and this developed into life we see today. It got there some how but there is no doubt that it was there.

Creationist claims to the contrary are nonsense.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm asking how you make the leap from "it could arise naturalistically" to "it did arise naturalistically".

I'm not making such a leap. You are suggesting that we don't know it arose at all, which is inaccurate.

Very basic proto-life appeared on Earth some how. The most likely and supported explanation is that it was via natural means. If you want to believe God did it go ahead, I think that explanation is just a cop-out but there you go.

But the Creationist claims that complex life were created as is a few thousand years ago are not something to seriously consider.

Soul Winner

antiskeptic wrote: »

You appear to be claiming that life arose naturalistically on earth (chemicals combined naturalistically to become self-replicating 'life'). That complicated life is claimed to have developed from that simple form isn't something I'm objecting to here.

I'm asking how you make the leap from "it could arise naturalistically" to "it did arise naturalistically".

In fairness to Wicknight I don't think he was making that point. He accepts that he doesn't know how it actually happened, be that naturalisticallyor not, all he's saying is that the evidence weighs heavily in the direction that it could have happened naturalistically. This is where I beg to differ. Although I agree that Darwinian principles can be applied to self replicating systems as soon as they develop, they cannot be applied to the chemicals which go to make up the individual constituent parts of these systems, at this level Darwinian principles are irrelevant, we are talking about chemical interactions here not survival mode situations, chemicals don't strive to survive hence you cannot apply natural selection to chemicals, and that is all we had on earth before life got going. So the question is, how can chemicals arrange themselves into self replicating systems if no guiding intelligence was there to intervene in the process or to start the process? What Moonsharp and Wicknight call simple processes are anything but.

All you need to do is just look into the mechanism of even the most basic of cells and you'll be confronted with something akin to an assembly line factory workplace. How do the tiny nano machines know what to do? Where to go? How to process the information that they have. Where do they get this information information in the first place? And how are they able to encode, decode, replicate, and transport this information? And remember we are just talking about simple cell life here, not complex cells like what you'd see in certain parts of the human body, cells which are preprogrammed to become certain types of tissue which in turn is to make up certain types of organs or bones, which have individual and specific functions in order to maintain the health of the body as a whole and then to have all these organs, bones and blood all working together in tandem is a mind bogglingly complex concept that it hurts to think about it.

But what is being skipped over here all too nonchalantly IMO, is the fact of the chemicals. Simple chemicals swimming around in a prebiotic soup which just so happened to have come together in just the right sequence as to bring about the first self replicating living cell. That is akin to saying that you can mix a truck full of Grey pebbles with a truck full of Red pebbles and given enough time the pattern of red pebbles with eventually spell out a legible phrase like:

"Chemicals don't know how to spell."

That's the kind of complex sequencing we are talking about in just the simplest of cells, actually much more complex than that. So no matter how basic you want to make the first self replicating system it stills requires a lot of things to just so happen to fall into just the right configuration at the same time that other parts also need to be in their places.

To say that we can replicate the conditions on earth using computer simulations is silly. What we do in these simulations is put all the ingredients that we know make up life as we know it together and then program algorithms to work on that mix. But that is not replicating the conditions on earth, that is like tasting a cake and simply judging by the taste of it you rush out and buy all the ingredients that you think is in the cake and then you go home and mix those ingredients in every possible combination of ways in order to produce a cake that has the same taste as the one you ate earlier. What this process fails to take into account are other conditions that are needed in the process, i.e. a certain amount of heat, and a certain amount of time in that certain amount of heat and so on, its not just about mixing the ingredients. These simulations have just the right ingredients that, to the best of our knowledge, make up life, because we are looking retrospectively and projecting back in time to what must have been the conditions because you know that you need these conditions to produce life. ??? So of course you'll eventually simulate self replicating systems given that you have programmed every possible combination of outcomes into your algorithms along with the conditions that are just right for the desired outcome.

Your are the designer in this scenario. In a sickly unguided process the early earth did not have a designer, nor did it have just the right ingredients mixing together in order to bring about a certain result. For one, there was no desired result, life didn't plan to come about in an unguided process. Plus there were other components also in the mix that were detrimental to the development of life which are conveniently left out of these simulations. So if it did happen in that way then it was by pure chance alone and nothing else, and we're just a fluke byproduct of this freaky fluky chance happening.

Now what IDers say is that if this unguided process can be presented as a possible explanation for how life came about on this planet then why doesn't ID deserve a similar place on the table of possible explanations of how life came about? When you think about it for a minute, the chance theory is as miraculous a happening as ID except without a Designer.

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

In fairness to Wicknight I don't think he was making that point. He accepts that he doesn't know how it actually happened, be that naturalisticallyor not, all he's saying is that the evidence weighs heavily in the direction that it could have happened naturalistically. This is where I beg to differ. Although I agree that Darwinian principles can be applied to self replicating systems as soon as they develop, they cannot be applied to the chemicals which go to make up the individual constituent parts of these systems, at this level Darwinian principles are irrelevant, we are talking about chemical interactions here not survival mode situations, chemicals don't strive to survive hence you cannot apply natural selection to chemicals, and that is all we had on earth before life got going. So the question is, how can chemicals arrange themselves into self replicating systems if no guiding intelligence was there to intervene in the process or to start the process? What Moonsharp and Wicknight call simple processes are anything but.

All you need to do is just look into the mechanism of even the most basic of cells and you'll be confronted with something akin to an assembly line factory workplace. How do the tiny nano machines know what to do? Where to go? How to process the information that they have. Where do they get this information information in the first place? And how are they able to encode, decode, replicate, and transport this information? And remember we are just talking about simple cell life here, not complex cells like what you'd see in certain parts of the human body, cells which are preprogrammed to become certain types of tissue which in turn is to make up certain types of organs or bones, which have individual and specific functions in order to maintain the health of the body as a whole and then to have all these organs, bones and blood all working together in tandem is a mind bogglingly complex concept that it hurts to think about it.

But what is being skipped over here all too nonchalantly IMO, is the fact of the chemicals. Simple chemicals swimming around in a prebiotic soup which just so happened to have come together in just the right sequence as to bring about the first self replicating living cell. That is akin to saying that you can mix a truck full of Grey pebbles with a truck full of Red pebbles and given enough time the pattern of red pebbles with eventually spell out a legible phrase like:

"Chemicals don't know how to spell."

That's the kind of complex sequencing we are talking about in just the simplest of cells, actually much more complex than that. So no matter how basic you want to make the first self replicating system it stills requires a lot of things to just so happen to fall into just the right configuration at the same time that other parts also need to be in their places.

To say that we can replicate the conditions on earth using computer simulations is silly. What we do in these simulations is put all the ingredients that we know make up life as we know it together and then program algorithms to work on that mix. But that is not replicating the conditions on earth, that is like tasting a cake and simply judging by the taste of it you rush out and buy all the ingredients that you think is in the cake and then you go home and mix those ingredients in every possible combination of ways in order to produce a cake that has the same taste as the one you ate earlier. What this process fails to take into account are other conditions that are needed in the process, i.e. a certain amount of heat, and a certain amount of time in that certain amount of heat and so on, its not just about mixing the ingredients. These simulations have just the right ingredients that, to the best of our knowledge, make up life, because we are looking retrospectively and projecting back in time to what must have been the conditions because you know that you need these conditions to produce life. ??? So of course you'll eventually simulate self replicating systems given that you have programmed every possible combination of outcomes into your algorithms along with the conditions that are just right for the desired outcome.

Your are the designer in this scenario. In a sickly unguided process the early earth did not have a designer, nor did it have just the right ingredients mixing together in order to bring about a certain result. For one, there was no desired result, life didn't plan to come about in an unguided process. Plus there were other components also in the mix that were detrimental to the development of life which are conveniently left out of these simulations. So if it did happen in that way then it was by pure chance alone and nothing else, and we're just a fluke byproduct of this freaky fluky chance happening.

But as I said, to rule out abiogenesis, you must first

A) Know what natural chance event must be considered.
Calculate the probability of that event occuring by chance.

IDers will happily calculate the probability of complex sequences occuring by chance, but they have never established that these complex sequences could not have evolved from simpler, less complex sequences. Indeed, much of abiogenesis is the application of Darwinism to molecular structures. So until IDers have A sorted, they're not really saying anything productive.

Now what IDers say is that if this unguided process can be presented as a possible explanation for how life came about on this planet then why doesn't ID deserve a similar place on the table of possible explanations of how life came about? When you think about it for a minute, the chance theory is as miraculous a happening as ID except without a Designer.

How can the ID explanation be scientifically tested?

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Although I agree that Darwinian principles can be applied to self replicating systems as soon as they develop, they cannot be applied to the chemicals which go to make up the individual constituent parts of these systems, at this level Darwinian principles are irrelevant, we are talking about chemical interactions here not survival mode situations, chemicals don't strive to survive hence you cannot apply natural selection to chemicals

Yes you can. "Survive" in a Darwinian context simply means exist long enough to replicate.

A self replicating molecule that for some environmental reason stops replicating is not selected by natural selection.

Take two replicating molecules. One has a slight chemical change that allows it to replicate at 1 degree less than the other molecule. For some reason they both find themselves in a pool that is 1 degree less than the last pool they were in (say a wave washes them further up stream.

Now the molecule with the different replicating process will still be able to continue to replicate. The other molecule won't. It becomes inert, the chemical reaction stops and it simply sits there. The other molecule on the other hand thrives in this pool and becomes the only replicating chemical in the pool.

Natural selection at its simplest.

Soul Winner wrote: »

So the question is, how can chemicals arrange themselves into self replicating systems if no guiding intelligence was there to intervene in the process or to start the process? What Moonsharp and Wicknight call simple processes are anything but.

How simple it is depends on what it is compared to. Compared to you replicating yourself it is very simple. Self replicating molecules form in a variety of conditions. It is pretty easy to make them form.

Soul Winner wrote: »

All you need to do is just look into the mechanism of even the most basic of cells and you'll be confronted with something akin to an assembly line factory workplace.

It is estimated that the cell took approx 1 billion years to evolve. 1 billion. That is an awful long time.

Starting at the cell and wondering how that magically assembled itself due to random chance is a common and rather tiresome Creationist straw man.

Soul Winner wrote: »

And remember we are just talking about simple cell life here, not complex cells like what you'd see in certain parts of the human body

No we aren't. We are talking about molecules, molecules that create other molecules like themselves through endothermic reactions (ie heat)

Soul Winner wrote: »

But what is being skipped over here all too nonchalantly IMO, is the fact of the chemicals. Simple chemicals swimming around in a prebiotic soup which just so happened to have come together in just the right sequence as to bring about the first self replicating living cell.

No one is skipping over that but you by rather foolishly declaring that evolution can't take place in this environment.

People are in fact spending a great deal of time trying to explain it to you and you are being rather disrespectful to them by simply ignoring them

Soul Winner wrote: »

That is akin to saying that you can mix a truck full of Grey pebbles with a truck full of Red pebbles and given enough time the pattern of red pebbles with eventually spell out a legible phrase like:

"Chemicals don't know how to spell."

Pebbles don't self replicate. Certain chemical modules do.

Soul Winner wrote: »

To say that we can replicate the conditions on earth using computer simulations is silly. What we do in these simulations is put all the ingredients that we know make up life as we know it together and then program algorithms to work on that mix.

That is a complete lie.

I don't know where you got that from (probably some nonsense Creationist website), but that is not at all what biologists do with computer simulations.

Again that claim is like saying that weather forecasters write algorithms to tell them it is going to be sunny tomorrow. Such an process would be utterly pointless since the purpose of these simulations is to tell what the weather will be like, not what we want it to be like.

This nonsense is quite disrespectful to biologists who spend large amounts of their time working this stuff out, since you imply they are basically frauds.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Now what IDers say is that if this unguided process can be presented as a possible explanation for how life came about on this planet then why doesn't ID deserve a similar place on the table of possible explanations of how life came about? When you think about it for a minute, the chance theory is as miraculous a happening as ID except without a Designer.

ID have no testable models. As such it is not science. Looking at something and going I can't figure out how that happened so it must have been God/Allah/Space Aliens is not science.

Soul Winner

Morbert wrote: »

But as I said, to rule out abiogenesis, you must first

A) Know what natural chance event must be considered.

The event I presume you are talking about is when the first self replicating molecule arose?

Morbert wrote: »

Calculate the probability of that event occuring by chance.

The chances that even the most simplest of self replicating systems to come about by chance alone is roughly 1 in 10 to the power of 130. The further you go back into simpler constituent parts the more unlikely the outcome that life will result if the process is unguided.

To put that number in context: Roughly 10 to the power of 17 seconds have elapsed since the beginning of the universe. 10 to the power of 130 is greater than that number by many many orders of magnitude.

Morbert wrote: »

IDers will happily calculate the probability of complex sequences occuring by chance, but they have never established that these complex sequences could not have evolved from simpler, less complex sequences.

That's just like theists requiring atheists to prove that God doesn't exist. You guys say it all the time, you cannot prove a negative. Or has that changed now so it can be applied to IDers? :rolleyes: Anyway the odds of it happening by chance in an unguided process and vanishingly small.

Morbert wrote: »

Indeed, much of abiogenesis is the application of Darwinism to molecular structures. So until IDers have A sorted, they're not really saying anything productive.

For one, as I've explained more than twice already, you cannot apply Darwinian principles to chemicals, only to living things. And even if you could, that does not mean that your second point follows logically i.e. until they have A sorted, they're not really saying much. But they are. Even if they couldn't establish A (which they have i.e. that a self replicating system must have arisen from simple chemicals by some means), the ID theory is as good, no better, in fact it is the best theory to explain where biological information came from. Information, instructions, blueprints, plans, maps, books all these are sources of information, and they all, everyone of them, comes from the minds of intelligent agents. Why not the information in DNA?

Morbert wrote: »

How can the ID explanation be scientifically tested?

The Short Answer from www.ideacenter.org

"Yes. Intelligent design theory predicts: 1) that we will find specified complexity in biology. One special easily detectable form of specified complexity is irreducible complexity. We can test design by trying to reverse engineer biological structures to determine if there is an "irreducible core." Intelligent design also makes other predictions, such as 2) rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record, 3) re-usage of similar parts in different organisms, and 4) function for biological structures. Each of these predictions may be tested--and have been confirmed through testing!"

Click here for the long answer...

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

The chances that even the most simplest of self replicating systems to come about by chance alone is roughly 1 in 10 to the power of 130.

Where the heck did you get that number from?

You know you can make self-replicating molecules with chemicals you can find in any chemistry lab?

Soul Winner wrote: »

That's just like theists requiring atheists to prove that God doesn't exist. You guys say it all the time, you cannot prove a negative.

That is the point. You can't prove this couldn't have happened. Which gives ID no basis since ID relies on the hypothesis that this absolutely could not have happened naturally.

Since you can't say that, or even work out the odds of it happening (your odds above are nonsense) nor test it ID is utterly unscientific.

Soul Winner wrote: »

For one, as I've explained more than twice already, you cannot apply Darwinian principles to chemicals, only to living things.

You have stated that twice and each that it has been stated you have been contradicted, with examples explaining exactly how Darwinian principles can be applied to chemicals.

Are you missing these or are you just ignoring them?

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

The event I presume you are talking about is when the first self replicating molecule arose?

Yes. In otherwords, what is the simplest self-replicating system?

The chances that even the most simplest of self replicating systems to come about by chance alone is roughly 1 in 10 to the power of 130. The further you go back into simpler constituent parts the more unlikely the outcome that life will result if the process is unguided.

To put that number in context: Roughly 10 to the power of 17 seconds have elapsed since the beginning of the universe. 10 to the power of 130 is greater than that number by many many orders of magnitude.

What is the simplest self-replicating system? Remember, I said that IDers are very good at calculating probabilities for complex sequences, but they have not yet determined what the simplest self-replicating system is.

That's just like theists requiring atheists to prove that God doesn't exist. You guys say it all the time, you cannot prove a negative. Or has that changed now so it can be applied to IDers? :rolleyes: Anyway the odds of it happening by chance in an unguided process and vanishingly small.

I do not know nor care about whoever "you guys" are. The calculations carried our by IDers explicitly assume the sequences are the simplest sequences possible. If it is not true that the sequences are the simplest sequences possible then their calculations are irrelevant. They might as well calculate the probability of an eye or brain forming by chance.

For one, as I've explained more than twice already, you cannot apply Darwinian principles to chemicals, only to living things.

And as I have explained countless times. You can apply darwinian evolution to chemical systems.

http://www.pnas.org/content/99/20/12733.full

"Reconciling self-replication and Darwinian evolution requires either bringing the fundamental biological principle of heritable genetic information to a chemical self-replicating system or instilling the chemistry of autocatalysis in a Darwinian system. Such an accommodation would bring history to chemistry and material continuity to biology. Rather than focus on the extreme versions of the two approaches outlined above, it may be fruitful to explore a middle ground in which self-replicating molecules direct the assembly of new copies of themselves from a modest assortment of component modules. Competition for utilization of these components might provide the basis for Darwinian evolution, while the threshold for achieving self-replication would be greatly lowered compared with that required for residue-by-residue copying of a long polymer."

And even if you could, that does not mean that your second point follows logically i.e. until they have A sorted, they're not really saying much. But they are. Even if they couldn't establish A (which they have i.e. that a self replicating system must have arisen from simple chemicals by some means), the ID theory is as good, no better, in fact it is the best theory to explain where biological information came from. Information, instructions, blueprints, plans, maps, books all these are sources of information, and they all, everyone of them, comes from the minds of intelligent agents. Why not the information in DNA?

They have not established A because they have not stated what that self-replicating system is.

As for ID being a good guess. History has shown that it is a terrible guess. People used to apply it to the eye, or the heart etc because they didn't understand Darwinism. Now they are applying it to molecular systems because they do not understand abiogenesis. It is a useless endeavour.

The Short Answer from www.ideacenter.org

"Yes. Intelligent design theory predicts: 1) that we will find specified complexity in biology. One special easily detectable form of specified complexity is irreducible complexity. We can test design by trying to reverse engineer biological structures to determine if there is an "irreducible core." Intelligent design also makes other predictions, such as 2) rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record, 3) re-usage of similar parts in different organisms, and 4) function for biological structures. Each of these predictions may be tested--and have been confirmed through testing!"

Click here for the long answer...

1) It has been covered here before: Irreducible complexity turns out not to be irreducibly complex.
2) Why does it make this prediction? What about a designer that starts simple and then slowly builds a repertoir of complex life?
3) Again, why? A designer could happily use different parts in different organisms.
4)This is not a prediction. The function of biological structures is what ID is trying to explain.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Where the heck did you get that number from?

Simple really. When you play roulette you have a 1 in 36 chance of picking the right number. Add more numbers number slots to the wheel and the odds increase. When you project out wards to the number of conditions that must be satisfied in order to have all the constituent parts in place in just the right order for self replication in an unguided process to take palce you will arrive at something like this number. Because the problem increases exponentially for each part of the sequence.

Picture it this way: Imagine throwing ten coats out of a two story house onto a ten receiver coat hanger and expecting all the coats tags to catch on one of the receivers. The chances that you'll be successful in your first try is highly highly unlikely, so you have to try and try again. Now imagine coding each coat to catch onto a specific receiving handle. When you throw them out the window this time the chances that they'll catch onto their coded receivers is even more unlikely, that's what its like with these base elements when it comes to the sequence necessary for first self replication system to come about.

Wicknight wrote: »

You know you can make self-replicating molecules with chemicals you can find in any chemistry lab?

Yes because you know which ones work. Ponds of prebiotic slime don't know this.

Wicknight wrote: »

That is the point. You can't prove this couldn't have happened. Which gives ID no basis since ID relies on the hypothesis that this absolutely could not have happened naturally.[/quotes]

ID theory is not based on the fact that chance is impossible. It is based on the position that the best explanation for how life came about is by intelligent deign. IDers simply don't hold to the view that this could have happened by chance, but they are not against anyone holding to the chance hypothesis view, nor are they against other views which contradict their views or labeling as unscientific other theories.

Wicknight wrote: »

You have stated that twice and each that it has been stated you have been contradicted, with examples explaining exactly how Darwinian principles can be applied to chemicals.Are you missing these or are you just ignoring them?

And I countered you with reasons as to why it doesn't apply. Let us agree to disagree shall we? Or better still, show us a working model of how natural selection selects the best sequence of bases in order to bring about a benefit for life which has not even come about yet? NS is a blind process which selects and eliminates traits in living systems which are non beneficial using the environmental conditions as a feedback system. How can you apply this to a pond of primordial soup, the constituents of which are at best theoretical with little or no evidence to back them up? we don't even know what the conditions were like on earth never mind what made up the hypothetical primordial soup.

Ush1

Soul Winner wrote: »

ID theory is not based on the fact that chance is impossible. It is based on the position that the best explanation for how life came about is by intelligent deign. IDers simply don't hold to the view that this could have happened by chance, but they are not against anyone holding to the chance hypothesis view, nor are they against other views which contradict their views or labeling as unscientific other theories.

Please don't tell me you think natural selection is a theory of chance.

PDN

Ush1 wrote: »

Please don't tell me you think natural selection is a theory of chance.

Abiogenesis came about by natural selection? :eek:

J C

monosharp wrote: »

T'was 2am and I was tired.



It does ? Even though it was made nearly 150 years ago ? You really want to say that ?



So this is fake yes ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

... Miller-Urey is just completely invalid ... it used the wrong conditions (no Oxygen) ... and the wrong methodology (removing amino-acids as they were produced to avoid them being broken down again) to produce the wrong products (mostly toxic poisons and a racemic mixture of minute quantities of about half of the common Amino Acids)!!!

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/51/65/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/abiogenesis.asp
http://ezinearticles.com/?Darwins-Evolution-Theory---The-Miller-Urey-Experiment-Setback&id=3787341

J C

Soul Winner wrote: »

The event I presume you are talking about is when the first self replicating molecule arose?



The chances that even the most simplest of self replicating systems to come about by chance alone is roughly 1 in 10 to the power of 130. The further you go back into simpler constituent parts the more unlikely the outcome that life will result if the process is unguided.

To put that number in context: Roughly 10 to the power of 17 seconds have elapsed since the beginning of the universe. 10 to the power of 130 is greater than that number by many many orders of magnitude.

10^130 is 113 orders of magnitude greater than 10^17.

Genghiz Cohen

PDN wrote: »

Abiogenesis came about by natural selection? :eek:

So it would seem.
Molecules that are more suited to the environment have a better chance of replicating.

J C wrote: »

10^130 is 113 orders of magnitude greater than 10^17.

I've been blinded by science!

Ush1

PDN wrote: »

Abiogenesis came about by natural selection? :eek:

Well it may have come by about by natural means however intelligent design don't seem preoccupied with abiogenesis, they are more preoccupied with natural selection being wrong.

From the Discovery Institute website:

"Intelligent Design
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
"

I'm not sure were abiogenesis comes into the debate at all.

PDN

Ush1 wrote: »

I'm not sure were abiogenesis comes into the debate at all.

It was in the debate in the post of Soul Winner's that you responded to and quoted in your last post.

Soul Winner wrote:

ID theory is not based on the fact that chance is impossible. It is based on the position that the best explanation for how life came about is by intelligent deign. IDers simply don't hold to the view that this could have happened by chance, but they are not against anyone holding to the chance hypothesis view, nor are they against other views which contradict their views or labeling as unscientific other theories.

Soul Winner's post, which you yourself quoted, refers to how life came about (abiogenesis).

You responded with:

Ush1 wrote:

Please don't tell me you think natural selection is a theory of chance.

Now I'm as to why you're

Ush1

PDN wrote: »

It was in the debate in the post of Soul Winner's that you responded to and quoted in your last post.



Soul Winner's post, which you yourself quoted, refers to how life came about (abiogenesis).

You responded with:


Now I'm as to why you're

Well okay but it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense then anyway as ID is more directed at finding flaws in natural selection, not abiogenesis.

Also, it's infering the only alternative to design, is chance. Which simply isn't the case.

monosharp

Jakkass wrote: »

It's just to counteract your downplaying of the numbers.

When did I downplay the numbers ? I never even argued with you about which type of Christian is in the majority.

If that were true, how come Christians are still being arrested on a regular basis according to all reliable sources.

'Been largely left alone' and 'some been arrested' are not that incompatible are they ?

A quick google and I get;

1. A 2003 article by the BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3002890.stm
2. An article about yank christians been arrested for speaking out against the one-child policy. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0808/S00139.htm
3. A 2007 article dealing with the arrest of christian pastors in China. http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=11008&size=A

How come a mere Google search can tell you of arrests in China based on Christianity well within the last decade, never mind the 1990's.

I never said they didn't arrest anyone.

By the by, how come PDN was denied a visa to China if the Chinese government just ignore them, or "don't care"?

Because a foreign religious evangelist coming into China for secret meetings with the underground churches is exactly what they don't want. One of the major reasons they are against religion is because of 'foreign influence'.

Don't worry I'm sure there are dozens more brave evangelist pastors willing to risk a slap on the wrist to go over to China. And if they get caught don't worry either, it'll just be the poor saps they meet up with who will go to the labour camps while our brave foreign hero gets to go home and tell his story.

Doubting the numbers, doubting all news reports concerning arrests in the last 10 years, doubting PDN's eye testimony having been in the underground churches. There's no propaganda here. It's just you downplaying the facts.

Care to show me some of these news reports from this year please ?

Keep saying these sorts of things, but the evidence indicates otherwise. Unless you can provide evidence of things being otherwise, that is. They are still persecuted because they are Christians. By the by what "other activities" are you speaking of?

Speaking out against abortion, one child per family, anything political really.

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

So it would seem.
Molecules that are more suited to the environment have a better chance of replicating.

... in the absence of intelligently controlled manipulation molecules simply follow the fixed laws of chemistry ... and the environment has no effect upon them.

Intelligent chemical manipulation can be observed where complex specified functional systems are found ... in intelligently designed apparatus in the lab and in intelligently controlled industrial processes ... and in the living cell ... but it is not observed anywhere else ... non-organic chemistry, such as mineral oxidation, for example, or the combustion of organic molecules, simply follows the rigid laws of chemistry.

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I've been blinded by science!

... and not for the first time ... no doubt!!!;)

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Simple really. When you play roulette you have a 1 in 36 chance of picking the right number. Add more numbers number slots to the wheel and the odds increase. When you project out wards to the number of conditions that must be satisfied in order to have all the constituent parts in place in just the right order for self replication in an unguided process to take palce you will arrive at something like this number. Because the problem increases exponentially for each part of the sequence.

Picture it this way: Imagine throwing ten coats out of a two story house onto a ten receiver coat hanger and expecting all the coats tags to catch on one of the receivers. The chances that you'll be successful in your first try is highly highly unlikely, so you have to try and try again. Now imagine coding each coat to catch onto a specific receiving handle. When you throw them out the window this time the chances that they'll catch onto their coded receivers is even more unlikely, that's what its like with these base elements when it comes to the sequence necessary for first self replication system to come about.

I know how probability works. I want to know where you got that probability from.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yes because you know which ones work. Ponds of prebiotic slime don't know this.

What do you mean they don't know this? They are the molecules, they don't have to know this.

I know wood floats on water. I know a rock will sink. The wood doesn't need to know it floats on water, it just does. The rock doesn't need to know it will sink, it just does.

Ponds of prebiotic slime don't need to know which ones will start self-replicating, they ones that will just do.

Soul Winner wrote: »

ID theory is not based on the fact that chance is impossible. It is based on the position that the best explanation for how life came about is by intelligent deign.

"Best" defined by what?

In science the "best" theory is the one that passes the most tests. Since ID doesn't pass ANY tests it can hardly be considered the best theory, can it.

Soul Winner wrote: »

IDers simply don't hold to the view that this could have happened by chance, but they are not against anyone holding to the chance hypothesis view, nor are they against other views which contradict their views or labeling as unscientific other theories.

What "IDers" hold to is irrelevant from a scientific point of view.

Soul Winner wrote: »

And I countered you with reasons as to why it doesn't apply.

You didn't. You simply said it didn't apply, you gave no reasons. It was then explained to exactly how it does apply and were given an example of how it applies, which you ignored.

I've explained to you in detail Darwinian evolution applies to self replicating molecules. If you want to point out the particular part I've made an error in go ahead. "Agree to disagree" is just back tracking nonsense. You know perfectly well that Darwinian evolution can be applied to self replicating chemicals.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Or better still, show us a working model of how natural selection selects the best sequence of bases in order to bring about a benefit for life which has not even come about yet?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Are you asking for a complete model of abiogenesis? We don't have one, which is why we are actually having this debate. If we did there would be nothing left to discuss.

If you want an example of how self-replicating molecules evolve this is a good one
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/01/replicatingrna/

I know exactly what you are going to say, the scientists created the initial chemicals. But then that isn't what you asked, you asked for an example of molecules evolving, which this is. You appear to be disputing that self-replicating molecules can evolve.

Actually you seem to be disputing everything a rather ad-hoc fashion, which strongly suggests to me your close minded agenda.

Soul Winner wrote: »

NS is a blind process which selects and eliminates traits in living systems which are non beneficial using the environmental conditions as a feedback system. How can you apply this to a pond of primordial soup, the constituents of which are at best theoretical with little or no evidence to back them up?

The constitutes are theoretical within a small range. We know there was carbon monoxide , we know there was carbon dioxide. We know there was hydrogen sulfide. We know there was water and we know there was nitrogen.

We know that these things combined with energy make self-replicating molecules.

We know that self replicating molecules evolve.

What exactly is the big mystery here?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Abiogenesis came about by natural selection? :eek:

Yes, most likely.

Natural selection can and does work on replicating molecules. Self replicating molecules will eventually evolve into the most primitive form of life (ie abiogenesis)

liamw

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes, most likely.

Natural selection can and does work on replicating molecules. Self replicating molecules will eventually evolve into the most primitive form of life (ie abiogenesis)

I thought abiogenesis was how inanimate matter became self replicating. A molecule that self-replicates is already past the stage of abiogenesis.

Zombrex

liamw wrote: »

I thought abiogenesis was how inanimate matter became self replicating. A molecule that self-replicates is already past the stage of abiogenesis.

My understanding is it is a bit more than that, how inanimate chemicals became life.

Self replicating molecules are ten a penny. You can make some in any chemistry lab. There is no mystery about that.

The question is how self replicating molecules can evolve to produce more complex systems that lead to life.

For example how self replicating molecules evolved to produce primative cells (ie self replicating machines surrounded by a wall of some sort), or how self replicating cells moved from basic replication to replication using a genetic encoding system like RNA.

Morbert

liamw wrote: »

I thought abiogenesis was how inanimate matter became self replicating. A molecule that self-replicates is already past the stage of abiogenesis.

To echo Wicknight, it's not really a digital case of "either a molecular system self-replicates or it doesn't." You have varying levels of fidelity which would be very low in, say, chemical hypercycles and very high in DNA. The line between which systems constitute life and which don't is therefore blurred. Abiogenesis is essentially the study of how systems with very high fidelity (i.e. DNA) can develop from systems of very low fidelity. Darwinism is found to play a role in many such proposals.

What Soul Winner (and all ID proponents) has done is assume the high-fidelity systems must have arisen by chance, as opposed to from lower-fidelity systems. This is where the astronomical imporbabilities often quoted come from.

liamw

Wicknight wrote: »

My understanding is it is a bit more than that, how inanimate chemicals became life.

Self replicating molecules are ten a penny. You can make some in any chemistry lab. There is no mystery about that.

Are they? I thought replicating the environment from an young earth to provide the necessary conditions for inanimate matter to become self replicating was extremely difficult.

The question is how self replicating molecules can evolve to produce more complex systems that lead to life.

I would classify self replicating molecules as life.

For example how self replicating molecules evolved to produce primative cells (ie self replicating machines surrounded by a wall of some sort), or how self replicating cells moved from basic replication to replication using a genetic encoding system like RNA.

With tiny infidelities in the copies of molecules, natural selection would act to select those that grouped, and formed cell walls etc. I thought this was well understood.

Soul Winner

Ush1 wrote: »

Please don't tell me you think natural selection is a theory of chance.

In an unguided process it has to start out that way at least.

Even Wicknight agrees with this:

Wicknight wrote:

The vast vast vast vast vast vast vast majority of the universe cannot support life.

We are a fluke. The idea that the universe has been set up to support us, a tiny speck in the vast universe, is frankly retarded.

If we are just a fluke as Wicknight suggests then what else can the process be except a chance happening if, at the first, it came about by chance? If it came about by chance then everything that proceeds from that chance happening are sub-chance happenings. Surely you agree with this? Even the theory of evolution itself is a chance happening.

Ush1

Soul Winner wrote: »

In an unguided process it has to start out that way at least.

Even Wicknight agrees with this:



If we are just a fluke as Wicknight suggests then what else can the process be except a chance happening if, at the first, it came about by chance? If it came about by chance then everything that proceeds from that chance happening are sub-chance happenings. Surely you agree with this? Even the theory of evolution itself is a chance happening.

Why does it have to start out that way? It may have came about by purely natural causes like natural selection. The event of abiogenesis may have been an improbable event as it only happened once(that we know of) but saying it is down to chance is simply a lack of an explanation. We are trying to remove chance as the defining factor.

"Even the theory of evolution itself is a chance happening."

What do you mean by this? In the relevant sense of chance, evolution and natural selection are the opposite of chance, they are BOUND to happen.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

If we are just a fluke as Wicknight suggests then what else can the process be except a chance happening if, at the first, it came about by chance? If it came about by chance then everything that proceeds from that chance happening are sub-chance happenings.

What is a "sub-chance" happening?

You agree I assume that if an aeroplane is not travelling fast enough it falls to the ground. That is not a random process. There isn't a 50 percent chance it will fall up and a 50 percent chance it will fall down. It is a basic principle, combining gravity air pressure and heat. Without pressure to hold them up they fall. You can work out exactly when this happens and what direction things will fall.

Now a plane is flying and it is hit by lightening. The engines fail. This was a random event.

Now it falls out of the sky. That is not a random process. It didn't role a dice and decide it was going to fall down instead of sideways.

Natural selection is not a random process, what ever way you look at. It is as random as things falling.

The Earth forming was a random event. Life forming on Earth was not a random event. It was an inevitability given the formation of the Earth, just like it is an inevitability that the plane will fall out of the sky.

philologos

monosharp wrote: »

When did I downplay the numbers ? I never even argued with you about which type of Christian is in the majority.

You've been downplaying the whole thing.

monosharp wrote: »

'Been largely left alone' and 'some been arrested' are not that incompatible are they ?

Except that the evidence points to them not being left alone.

monosharp wrote:

A quick google and I get;

1. A 2003 article by the BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3002890.stm
2. An article about yank christians been arrested for speaking out against the one-child policy. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0808/S00139.htm
3. A 2007 article dealing with the arrest of christian pastors in China. http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=11008&size=A

Do a better Google.

monosharp wrote: »

Because a foreign religious evangelist coming into China for secret meetings with the underground churches is exactly what they don't want. One of the major reasons they are against religion is because of 'foreign influence'.

Who cares about what they want. It's either right or wrong surely. One can criticise a Government very easily for human rights failures, and what they want doesn't come into it.

monosharp wrote: »

Don't worry I'm sure there are dozens more brave evangelist pastors willing to risk a slap on the wrist to go over to China. And if they get caught don't worry either, it'll just be the poor saps they meet up with who will go to the labour camps while our brave foreign hero gets to go home and tell his story.

More absolute insensitivity from monosharp.

monosharp wrote: »

Care to show me some of these news reports from this year please ?

See the link I gave to you on Google above.

monosharp wrote: »

Speaking out against abortion, one child per family, anything political really.

So freedom of speech isn't really warranted in China?

monosharp

Jakkass wrote: »

Who cares about what they want. It's either right or wrong surely. One can criticise a Government very easily for human rights failures, and what they want doesn't come into it.

You asked me why they wouldn't give our entrepreneur friend a Visa. I gave you a reason why they aren't giving him a visa.

You then change it to make it look like I'm supporting their decision and talk about human rights failures.

Please don't play that game, I despise it.

More absolute insensitivity from monosharp.

Let me tell you a story Jakkass.

The Chinese governments main problem with religions is the foreign influence on them. this can be best seen by the Catholic Church in China. The chinese government refuse to have an institution where loyalty is to an outside source, i.e > The Pope.

If you remember your history you might well remember that this was a very common attitude in the past in Western countries. The USA for example didn't 'trust' Catholics for the very same reason.

Now the Chinese government mostly leaves these religions alone as long as they stick to the religion. They couldn't care less which god you pray to or how.

It's when a church starts getting into more then religion that the authorities raise an eyebrow. When they start organising large social gatherings, when they start printing leaflets against abortion or the one child per family issue.

Basically when they start getting themselves into politics or start preaching against the system, that's when they get put down.

So while you may applaud these foreigners going over to China to bravely risk deportation, I feel that I must point out that these brave individuals are more then likely directly responsible for a large percentage of arrests, deaths, beatings, rapes and whatever else happens to the underground Christians. Because as I have pointed out before and as anyone will tell you and as any search will tell you, the Chinese government are extremely wary of any foreign influences especially when these foreign influences preach against the system.

So before you applaud these missionaries just remember how many people suffer because of them.

See the link I gave to you on Google above.

First link is North Korea not China.
Second link is from 2004.
Third link says the police destroyed a building and forced the church to move. Wheres the beatings/arrests/raping etc ?
The 4th link is a religious propaganda site and even the first few propaganda stories on it says how the Christians' building was destroyed, they were not arrested.
The 5th link is the BBC talking about the Chinese government funding building of Churches and allowing more religious freedom.

Where are all these killings ? The labour camps ? The raping ?

So freedom of speech isn't really warranted in China?

Of course freedom of speech is a good thing. But these are political issues and they are been arrested for speaking out against the government. they are not been arrested for been Christian, for worshiping the Christian god or any other god. If an atheist or a Buddhist or anything else did the same thing they would get the same treatment.