The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

virmilitaris

PDN wrote: »

No, I do not accept that it will inevitably happen.

Hold on now, I said that it won't happen to us as a species because of modern society, modern travel etc. Even isolated populations that do exist no likely won't be isolated for the required time.

I said it would happen if ethnic groups such as Asians and Africans (for example) were isolated for another 100,000 years or more.

I accept that it could quite possibly happen, but I have major doubts as to the very short time spans in your hypothetical scenario.

100,000 years + the time these ethnic groups have already spent separated from others (60,000 for some) is not really that short. It's on the optimistic side yes but I didn't really consider the actual time to be the important part of my post especially since modern society has made it all but impossible.

virmilitaris

The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.

Indeed it is. But for the millionth time on this thread noone is saying that's what biologists think happened. Do you understand that? Noone here is saying anything of the sort.

You yourself just quoted evolutionary biologist richard dawkins saying he doesn't know.

How can you continue to claim evolution claims x happened when biologists and more specifically evolutionary biologists say nothing of the sort

virmilitaris

No-one except racists think that the very minor changes we see between races so far (eg skin pigmentation, flattened noses etc) amount to anything much.

What are you talking about? Of course the differences are significant.

Just look at the differences in sporting performances between different ethnicities. Its no accident that certain african groups have bodies that perform significantly better than others at sprinting and running in general. People with darker skin can survive better in hotter climates. Some ethnic subgroups possess genes making immune to certain illness' that are absent in others.

There are enormous differences relatively speaking.

Soul Winner

virmilitaris wrote: »

Indeed it is. But for the millionth time on this thread noone is saying that's what biologists think happened. Do you understand that? Noone here is saying anything of the sort.

You yourself just quoted evolutionary biologist richard dawkins saying he doesn't know.

How can you continue to claim evolution claims x happened when biologists and more specifically evolutionary biologists say nothing of the sort

That's great. Now can you please tell Wicknight to stop trying to convince us that life is an inevitable emergent property of lifeless chemicals and to ask Mobert to stop linking us to research which he feels explains it all without recourse to any supernatural involvement? Thanks.

virmilitaris

Soul Winner wrote: »

That's great. Now can you please tell Wicknight to stop trying to convince us that life is an inevitable emergent property of lifeless chemicals and to ask Mobert to stop linking us to research which he feels explains it all without recourse to any supernatural involvement? Thanks.

Your post which I replied to contains a quote from Morbert in which he says

Morbert wrote:

"Nobody is claiming systems pop into existence. This has been explained over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over."

And then you straight away proceed to claim that's what he is saying!

What Wicknight and Morbert have been talking about are hypotheses of abiogenesis which first of all is not evolution and second of all are hypotheses about how life could have started. No one is saying this is what happened, no one is saying this is how life started. They are saying these are the best hypotheses we have at the moment for how life could have started.

As for what they have been saying, it bears no resemblance whatsoever to what you are claiming they have been saying.

Please read about the Miller-Urey experiment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

This experiment showed that inorganic chemicals could produce organic compounds including amino acids. A lot of what we know, what we don't know and what we hypothesize is summarized in that link.

You have been trying to claim Biologists say cells simply popped into existence or arranged themselves by accident or chance. No one has said anything of the sort.

How self-replicating molecules first came about is a major question in abiogenesis and the process likely took a huge amount of time. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#From_organic_molecules_to_protocells

And need I remind you yet again that this is all different hypotheses. No one is claiming this as scientific fact, no one is claiming this is what happened. This is not evolution which is a theory and a fact. We know very little about the origins of life and no Biologist has ever claimed otherwise.

J C

Donatello wrote: »

In that case, the faith of the atheist must be much greater than the faith of the theist.

It is indeed!!!

The Materialistic 'evolution of life story' involves billions of billions of billions ... of billions of miracles ... (at every supposed addition of CFSI along the supposed continuum between 'Pondkind and Mankind')!!!!:)

... but guess what? ... they have succeeded in having this miracle-laiden myth forcibly taught to every public school child in America ... as science!!!:eek:

... and any teacher who doesn't teach it with 100% conviction ... is putting their teaching career at risk!!! :eek:

J C

virmilitaris wrote: »

Hold on now, I said that it won't happen to us as a species because of modern society, modern travel etc. Even isolated populations that do exist no likely won't be isolated for the required time.

I said it would happen if ethnic groups such as Asians and Africans (for example) were isolated for another 100,000 years or more.



100,000 years + the time these ethnic groups have already spent separated from others (60,000 for some) is not really that short. It's on the optimistic side yes but I didn't really consider the actual time to be the important part of my post especially since modern society has made it all but impossible.

... 100,000 years eh??
... that 'kicks the can down the road' so far that you certainly won't be proven wrong (or indeed right) any time soon!!!!
... and thus your argument is purely faith based.

I don't mind that ... just as long as you tell the truth and admit that it is faith based ... and stop claiming it to be somehow 'scientific' or a 'fact'.
... and then 'force feeding' it as 'science' to children in American Public Schools!!!:eek:

... and please also don't ostracise any scientist who doesn't proclaim 'evolution' as an article of personal faith ... when there are so many other equally valid faith-positions to choose from!!!:)

Soul Winner

virmilitaris wrote: »

Your post which I replied to contains a quote from Morbert in which he says

And then you straight away proceed to claim that's what he is saying!

What Wicknight and Morbert have been talking about are hypotheses of abiogenesis which first of all is not evolution and second of all are hypotheses about how life could have started. No one is saying this is what happened, no one is saying this is how life started. They are saying these are the best hypotheses we have at the moment for how life could have started.

As for what they have been saying, it bears no resemblance whatsoever to what you are claiming they have been saying.

Please read about the Miller-Urey experiment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

This experiment showed that inorganic chemicals could produce organic compounds including amino acids. A lot of what we know, what we don't know and what we hypothesize is summarized in that link.

You have been trying to claim Biologists say cells simply popped into existence or arranged themselves by accident or chance. No one has said anything of the sort.

How self-replicating molecules first came about is a major question in abiogenesis and the process likely took a huge amount of time. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#From_organic_molecules_to_protocells

And need I remind you yet again that this is all different hypotheses. No one is claiming this as scientific fact, no one is claiming this is what happened. This is not evolution which is a theory and a fact. We know very little about the origins of life and no Biologist has ever claimed otherwise.

Brilliant! OK, with that in mind please tell us why the Design argument should be barred as a reasonable explanation along with all these other explanations and theories for the origin of life? I mean, the fact that scientists are trying (and failing) to explain how it could have happened either by necessity, chance or both suggests that the blatantly obvious cause (intelligent design) must be true.

If you then turn around and say that we must wait until science finds a naturalistic explanation then you are acting in faith, and have abandoned reason and the search for what might be the real answer and restricted all possibilities into the pigeon hole where there can be only a naturalistic answer. Is that really science? What if ID is actually true? Will science ever be able to ascertain such a thing? If not, why not?

It is blatantly obvious that life was designed by a super intellect. If the opposite was blatantly obvious then you wouldn't have all these scientists fighting over who's naturalistic theory is the correct one would you? The fact that they are trying to find a naturalistic explanation shows that the burden of proof is on them, which means that science, in this sphere, should proceed on the basis that life was intelligently designed, and only until they find a valid, testable naturalistic explanation should ID be abandoned.

I'm not saying that you should agree with this but I would like to know why you don't agree with it.

virmilitaris

Soul Winner wrote: »

Brilliant! OK, with that in mind please tell us why the Design argument should be barred as a reasonable explanation along with all these other explanations and theories for the origin of life?

Intelligent Design specifically ? With specified complexity and irreducible complexity etc as part of it ? We can dismiss it because every semi-scientific claim it has made, including the above two, have been shown to be complete bollox by the scientific community.

Here's Ken Miller taking it apart. http://youtu.be/JVRsWAjvQSg

Or do you mean the argument on it's own 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." ?

Well we can't dismiss that (entirely*) because it makes no testable hypotheses. It could well be true that "something or someone" caused life / the universe originally but because it makes no scientific claims or predictions it can not be considered science. Its unfalsifiable.

* Evolution quite easily disproves it in relation to how life has changed since life started but not the actual beginning of life itself.

This is where you probably misunderstand abiogenesis. The current hypotheses try to make testable and falsifiable predictions of how life could have started (emphasis on the could). It does not make any claim as to how life did start yet, as far as I'm aware.

The abiogenesis hypotheses are testable and falsifiable. Intelligent Design is not so, regardless of it being true or not it cannot be proven to be true or not and cannot be considered science.

I mean, the fact that scientists are trying (and failing) to explain how it could have happened either by necessity, chance or both suggests that the blatantly obvious cause (intelligent design) must be true.

No they are not. They don't know.

Nothing 'must' be true in Science.

If you then turn around and say that we must wait until science finds a naturalistic explanation then you are acting in faith,

Must wait why ? for what ? I don't know how life or the Universe started. Science doesn't know how life or the Universe started. I don't claim to know.

I'm not acting in faith for anything. I don't know the answer to those questions.

and have abandoned reason and the search for what might be the real answer and restricted all possibilities into the pigeon hole where there can be only a naturalistic answer.

I just admitted it could be true but until someone shows me some evidence I can no more believe it than I believe in ghosts or leprechauns. I don't say it's not true, I say there's no evidence for it.

Is that really science? What if ID is actually true? Will science ever be able to ascertain such a thing? If not, why not?

Explained above.

It is blatantly obvious that life was designed by a super intellect.

No it is not in any definition of the words, blatant or obvious. You are now getting into a different argument completely. You are now trying to claim your particular belief with no evidence is the answer to the question which has many possible answers. I'm not interested in this argument because until there's something to test, something to falsify, it's all complete heresy.

If the opposite was blatantly obvious then you wouldn't have all these scientists fighting over who's naturalistic theory is the correct one would you?

Naturalistic theory for what ? The origin of life ?

The fact that they are trying to find a naturalistic explanation shows that the burden of proof is on them, which means that science, in this sphere, should proceed on the basis that life was intelligently designed, and only until they find a valid, testable naturalistic explanation should ID be abandoned.

What kind of nonsense is that ? Even if it were true science cannot accept something which is unfalsifiable. This is the whole reason science can never make any comment on the supernatural.

I'm not saying that you should agree with this but I would like to know why you don't agree with it.

Because it's not science.

You know I'm an atheist so take it from this godless perspective. Aliens could have started life on Earth, our DNA could be designed by them. But there's absolutely no evidence to think they did and I'm not going to just assume they did because I don't have any other answer.

I don't know how life started. Science doesn't know how life started. Maybe in the future we will know, maybe we will never know. But the stupidest thing we could do is just pick an answer and guess it's true.

Soul Winner

virmilitaris wrote: »

Intelligent Design specifically ? With specified complexity and irreducible complexity etc as part of it ? We can dismiss it because every semi-scientific claim it has made, including the above two, have been shown to be complete bollox by the scientific community.

Or do you mean the argument on it's own 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." ?

Well we can't dismiss that (entirely*) because it makes no testable hypotheses. It could well be true that "something or someone" caused life / the universe originally but because it makes no scientific claims or predictions it can not be considered science. Its unfalsifiable.

* Evolution quite easily disproves it in relation to how life has changed since life started but not the actual beginning of life itself.

This is where you probably misunderstand abiogenesis. The current hypotheses try to make testable and falsifiable predictions of how life could have started (emphasis on the could). It does not make any claim as to how life did start yet, as far as I'm aware.

The abiogenesis hypotheses are testable and falsifiable. Intelligent Design is not so, regardless of it being true or not it cannot be proven to be true or not and cannot be considered science.



No they are not. They don't know.

Nothing 'must' be true in Science.



Must wait why ? for what ? I don't know how life or the Universe started. Science doesn't know how life or the Universe started. I don't claim to know.

I'm not acting in faith for anything. I don't know the answer to those questions.



I just admitted it could be true but until someone shows me some evidence I can no more believe it than I believe in ghosts or leprechauns. I don't say it's not true, I say there's no evidence for it.



Explained above.



No it is not in any definition of the words, blatant or obvious. You are now getting into a different argument completely. You are now trying to claim your particular belief with no evidence is the answer to the question which has many possible answers. I'm not interested in this argument because until there's something to test, something to falsify, it's all complete heresy.



Naturalistic theory for what ? The origin of life ?



What kind of nonsense is that ? Even if it were true science cannot accept something which is unfalsifiable. This is the whole reason science can never make any comment on the supernatural.



Because it's not science.

You know I'm an atheist so take it from this godless perspective. Aliens could have started life on Earth, our DNA could be designed by them. But there's absolutely no evidence to think they did and I'm not going to just assume they did because I don't have any other answer.

I don't know how life started. Science doesn't know how life started. Maybe in the future we will know, maybe we will never know. But the stupidest thing we could do is just pick an answer and guess it's true.

If you came across a sequence of stones on a beach which spelled out the words: "Soul Winner was here!" would you put that down to the forces of nature? No, you would conclude that someone (Soul Winner perhaps) placed those stones in that order for a purpose, that purpose being to convey the message that Soul Winner was in that place at some time. But why would you infer such a thing? Because you know that it is most improbable that those stones could have got in that configuration by themselves, because it is a specific and complex arrangement of stones that convey's a message.

So why is it so hard for some scientists to make the same leap of logic when it comes to the vastly more complex and specific arrangement of amino acids to make just one protein. How do simple lifeless amino acids know how to organize themselves into the specific and complex arrangement required to produce a protein to perform a specific function in the cell? If the simple sequence of stones which spell out "Soul Winner was here!" can be logically inferred to be the result of intelligent design then why not life at its most fundamental microscopic level, which as already said is vastly more complex and specific than that? You don't have to prove that Soul Winner exists in order to infer that an intelligent agent (possibly not even Soul Winner) placed those stones in that order for a purpose before concluding that intelligence was involved.

If you entered a classroom and saw the words "I must not be mean to other pupils." Written 100 times on the blackboard, would you have to find out who wrote those words before concluding that they are the product of an intelligent agent? Nope you wouldn't, and yet this is what is expected of ID proponents when they postulate ID as the best explanation for how life came about on this planet. And coupled with that, the fact that all naturalistic explanations postulated by the very best of scientific minds in the business have failed to explain it adequately. If the scientific method in its current form is not up to the job then don't you agree that the scientific method itself should be revised and updated?

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

But in the absence of any guiding intelligence please explain how the first living system came into being if it didn't pop into existence? Baring in mind that even the simplest of known living systems are thousands of times more complex than anything that humans have ever designed. To believe that such systems came about by the laws of physics and chemistry is like believing that the words: "To be or not to be, that is the question." will be spelled out by Scrabble letters when they land on the ground after been thrown into the air like confetti. How many throws would it take for that relatively simple configuration of letters to come out in that order? They have a snowball's chance in hell of ever coming out like that, and even if they did it would be a complete and total fluke.

So if that's how life got going then life too is a fluke which means that it did just pop into existence. But if, as you say, that is not the case, then that means that the only explanation left is that life was designed for a purpose, as Professor Dawkins admits, it bares all the hallmarks of having been designed for a purpose. But not just by an intelligence but a super intelligence. To believe that non living chemicals can come together in this way to form even simple RNA structures on their own is a departure of rational thought. You say that you have explained how this can happen over and over and over. Can you also explain it to these guys who appear to be experts in their respective fields.

We do not, in fact, know how or where life started...clearly none of the theories above is adequate..." Dr. Stuart Kauffman

"...but how did the whole process start?...nobody really knows how it happened..." Dr. Richard Dawkins

"The biggest gap in evolutionary theory is the origin of life itself." Dr. Chris Wills

"However, the most profound unsolved problem in biology is the origin of life itself." Dr Kenneth Miller

"One must conclude that a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written." Dr. H.P Yockey

"It must be admitted from the begining that we do not know how life began." Dr. Stanley Miller and Dr. Dr. Leslie Orgel

"..the theory behind theory is that you come up with truly testable ideas. Otherwise it's no different than faith. It might as well be a religion if there is no evidence for it." Dr. J. Craig Venter in a remark to Dr. Robert Shapiro about the absence of any plausible naturalistic theory of the origin of life.

"In truth the mechanism of almost every major step, from chemical precursors up to recognizable cells, is the subject of either controversy or complete bewilderment. At the moment scientists certainly do not know how, or even if, life originated on earth from lifeless atoms." Dr. Andrew Scott

"How this momentous event occurred is still highly conjectural. According to most experts, life arose naturally by way of processes entirely explainable by the laws of physics and chemistry. However there is no definitive proof of this statement since the origin of life is not known." Dr. Christian DeDurve

"Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts." Dr. Francis Crick

If you like I can continue with many more such quotes by other anti-creationist and anti-ID proponents.

One more what? I love this one:

"Whether the proponents of [conflicting origin of life theories] finally convince their rivals as to the most plausible origin of the first replicating structures, it is clear that the origin of life is not a simple issue...If life itself is difficult to define, you can see why explaining its origins is also going to be difficult...there is not yet consensus on the sequence of events that led to living things." Dr. Eugenie Scott

Above quotes were taken from: "Nonsense of a high order. The confused and illusory world of the atheist." by Rabbi Moshe Averick Its a great read by the way :pac:

In my last post to you, I provided a quote which contained the statement "it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists". You then responded by infuriatingly quoting people. You are quoting experts in an attempt to imply that the experts are saying we do not know enough about abiogenesis to be confident that it was a natural event that did not need a guiding intelligence. The experts are not saying that at all. For example, I have looked up the quote of Richard Dawkins you provided. It is from "Climbing Mt. Improbable". After the quote, he discusses why the fist replicators would be simple compared to DNA or RNA, and why, even though the formation of a simple replicator via a series of chemical reactions would be improbable, the improbability is by no means too large for a natural explanation to be plausible. In his book "The Ancestor's Tale", he talks in great deal about the latest research in abiogenesis, and how it is a field that studies chemical and physical mechanisms, and is by no means about pure chance (incidentally making your point about Shakespeare and Scrabble irrelevant). He talks about autocatalysis, catalytic processes which manufactures their own catalyses, and how self-replicating systems of chemicals could arise from them. The moral of the story: Even though abiogenesis is a difficult subject to study, as it is the study of a process that is not occurring today, we still know more than enough to be confident that a natural explanation (and not "just pop") is entirely plausible. Not only that, but we know the rudimentary structure of the processes that must have been responsible.

But the killer is all of this has been explained to you before, Soul Winner. Last time I accused you of repeating the same mantra over and over, you got offended, yet here you are repeating the same mantra over and over. We.. have.. been.. through.. this.. before.

Now, if you want to do the honest thing and say "Ok, abiogenesis could have happened naturally, but it might have also been due to a supernatural/intelligent designer" then go right ahead. But a) Nobody will be compelled to opt for a supernatural explanation when a plausible natural explanation exists, and b) If you want your conjecture to be scientific, rather than philosophical, you would have to provide a predictive framework that would allow scientists to test your conjecture.

Morbert

[edit]-oops double post

suarez9

Google Ken ham creationism or john blanchard evolution folks.

virmilitaris

Soul Winner wrote: »

If you came across a sequence of stones on a beach which spelled out the words: "Soul Winner was here!" would you put that down to the forces of nature? No, you would conclude that someone (Soul Winner perhaps) placed those stones in that order for a purpose, that purpose being to convey the message that Soul Winner was in that place at some time. But why would you infer such a thing? Because you know that it is most improbable that those stones could have got in that configuration by themselves, because it is a specific and complex arrangement of stones that convey's a message.

Sure.

So why is it so hard for some scientists to make the same leap of logic when it comes to the vastly more complex and specific arrangement of amino acids to make just one protein.

Because it's not logical.

We don't know how amino acids form proteins and we certainly do know that there are millions of different configurations possible.

Do you know how complex snowflakes are ? Are they intelligently designed ?

In your first scenario we know almost all the factors involved. We know that it's highly improbable that those words could be spelt out in such a way by natural forces. (wind, rain etc)

With forming proteins, we don't know. They are completely different scenarios.

How do simple lifeless amino acids know how to organize themselves into the specific and complex arrangement required to produce a protein to perform a specific function in the cell?

Two things.

First of all we don't know.

Secondly, you are either been very dishonest here or you know very little about biology. A protein does not have to be as complex or have to perform a function in the cell to exist. I have to wonder if you are doing this on purpose now. You have been told repeatably that when life started it was likely extremely simple yet you are trying to use extremely complicated examples from today to argue against it.

If the simple sequence of stones which spell out "Soul Winner was here!" can be logically inferred to be the result of intelligent design then why not life at its most fundamental microscopic level, which as already said is vastly more complex and specific than that?

Because A) We don't know how proteins originally formed whereas we know all (or almost all) the factors involved with spelling out your message in the sand and life now is very complex. When it began it was probably extremely simple (in comparison).

And coupled with that, the fact that all naturalistic explanations postulated by the very best of scientific minds in the business have failed to explain it adequately.

Do you not understand that science doesn't know some things and science doesn't claim to know them until it can actually put forward evidence for them ? We don't know. That's not an admission of been inept, it's a fact.

Medical science can't cure cancer yet. Should they just stop trying and say there's no cure you should try pray it away ?

Science doesn't claim it knows something that it doesn't have substantial evidence for.

If the scientific method in its current form is not up to the job then don't you agree that the scientific method itself should be revised and updated?

And replace it with ... ? Guesswork ?

virmilitaris

suarez9 wrote: »

Google Ken ham creationism or john blanchard evolution folks.

For a laugh ?

suarez9

Seriously

Soul Winner

Morbert wrote: »

In my last post to you, I provided a quote which contained the statement "it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists". You then responded by infuriatingly quoting people. You are quoting experts in an attempt to imply that the experts are saying we do not know enough about abiogenesis to be confident that it was a natural event that did not need a guiding intelligence. The experts are not saying that at all. For example, I have looked up the quote of Richard Dawkins you provided. It is from "Climbing Mt. Improbable". After the quote, he discusses why the fist replicators would be simple compared to DNA or RNA, and why, even though the formation of a simple replicator via a series of chemical reactions would be improbable, the improbability is by no means too large for a natural explanation to be plausible. In his book "The Ancestor's Tale", he talks in great deal about the latest research in abiogenesis, and how it is a field that studies chemical and physical mechanisms, and is by no means about pure chance (incidentally making your point about Shakespeare and Scrabble irrelevant). He talks about autocatalysis, catalytic processes which manufactures their own catalyses, and how self-replicating systems of chemicals could arise from them. The moral of the story: Even though abiogenesis is a difficult subject to study, as it is the study of a process that is not occurring today, we still know more than enough to be confident that a natural explanation (and not "just pop") is entirely plausible. Not only that, but we know the rudimentary structure of the processes that must have been responsible.

But the killer is all of this has been explained to you before, Soul Winner. Last time I accused you of repeating the same mantra over and over, you got offended, yet here you are repeating the same mantra over and over. We.. have.. been.. through.. this.. before.

Now, if you want to do the honest thing and say "Ok, abiogenesis could have happened naturally, but it might have also been due to a supernatural/intelligent designer" then go right ahead. But a) Nobody will be compelled to opt for a supernatural explanation when a plausible natural explanation exists, and b) If you want your conjecture to be scientific, rather than philosophical, you would have to provide a predictive framework that would allow scientists to test your conjecture.

Here's what Dr. Kauffman says: Is it OK to actually quote the guy? Or should I put words in his mouth?

"The fourth view is my own and that of Freeman Dyson, and may also be part of the origin of life. I noted that cellular life is based on collective autocatalysis, where catalysis is the speeding up of a chemical reaction. Thus imagine two polymers, A and B, where each catalyzes the formation of the other out of fragments of the other. That is collective autocatalysis. No molecule catalyzes its own formation, rather the set as a whole is collectively autocatalytic, and achieves catalytic closure. Cells are collectively autocatalytic today. Reza Ghadiri has made collectively autocatalytic small protein systems, and Gunter von Kiederowski has made collectively autocatalytic DNA systems. Thus self reproduction of polymers has been achieved experimentally by good chemists in a lab.


My own theory starts with stating this as a possibility then goes on the ask whether, in a large set of polymers that can act as substrates and products of reactions and also act as catalysts of those very reactions, one would expect such autocatalytic sets to arise "spontaneously". Strikingly, the answer can be yes, depending upon the ratio of reactions among the polymers in the system to the polymer diversity itself, and the distribution of catalytic capacities for those reactions among the same set of polymers. In simple models, as the diversity of polymers increases, so many reactions are catalyzed that autocatalytic sets form spontaneously with high probability. This part of the theory remains to be tested, but can by use of libraries of random DNA, RNA and proteins. The fifth view is metabolism first. Morowitz believes that metabolism can form autocatalytic cycles on its own, and indeed it does, and that metabolism and autocatalysis arose first.

Clearly none of the theories above is adequate. But one gets the firm sense that science is moving in on possible routes to the origin of life on earth. If some combination of the metabolism, polymer autocatalysis and lipid first view can be formulated and tested in a new "Systems Chemistry", we may find the answers we seek."

In short, they still have not found a working hypotheses that can be tested to demonstrate how life came about by itself on the primeval earth or whenever. Yet as we look at it today, even in the simplest of living systems we find complexity beyond anything that humans have ever designed which should mean that the default position for science should be that life was intelligently designed for a purpose - until we can prove or show otherwise.

virmilitaris

which should mean that the default position for science should be that life was intelligently designed for a purpose - until we can prove or show otherwise.

If we didn't know how snowflakes formed do you think it would be reasonable to assume an intelligence was behind it ?

himnextdoor

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yet as we look at it today, even in the simplest of living systems we find complexity beyond anything that humans have ever designed which should mean that the default position for science should be that life was intelligently designed for a purpose - until we can prove or show otherwise.

Going back to what vermilitaris asked you: Should we take the default position of assuming that cancer is the will of God and map out our scientific research accordingly?

What benefit is there in researching unfalsifiables in order to address real-world problems?

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

Here's what Dr. Kauffman says: Is it OK to actually quote the guy? Or should I put words in his mouth?

"The fourth view is my own and that of Freeman Dyson, and may also be part of the origin of life. I noted that cellular life is based on collective autocatalysis, where catalysis is the speeding up of a chemical reaction. Thus imagine two polymers, A and B, where each catalyzes the formation of the other out of fragments of the other. That is collective autocatalysis. No molecule catalyzes its own formation, rather the set as a whole is collectively autocatalytic, and achieves catalytic closure. Cells are collectively autocatalytic today. Reza Ghadiri has made collectively autocatalytic small protein systems, and Gunter von Kiederowski has made collectively autocatalytic DNA systems. Thus self reproduction of polymers has been achieved experimentally by good chemists in a lab.


My own theory starts with stating this as a possibility then goes on the ask whether, in a large set of polymers that can act as substrates and products of reactions and also act as catalysts of those very reactions, one would expect such autocatalytic sets to arise "spontaneously". Strikingly, the answer can be yes, depending upon the ratio of reactions among the polymers in the system to the polymer diversity itself, and the distribution of catalytic capacities for those reactions among the same set of polymers. In simple models, as the diversity of polymers increases, so many reactions are catalyzed that autocatalytic sets form spontaneously with high probability. This part of the theory remains to be tested, but can by use of libraries of random DNA, RNA and proteins. The fifth view is metabolism first. Morowitz believes that metabolism can form autocatalytic cycles on its own, and indeed it does, and that metabolism and autocatalysis arose first.

Clearly none of the theories above is adequate. But one gets the firm sense that science is moving in on possible routes to the origin of life on earth. If some combination of the metabolism, polymer autocatalysis and lipid first view can be formulated and tested in a new "Systems Chemistry", we may find the answers we seek."

In short, they still have not found a working hypotheses that can be tested to demonstrate how life came about by itself on the primeval earth or whenever. Yet as we look at it today, even in the simplest of living systems we find complexity beyond anything that humans have ever designed which should mean that the default position for science should be that life was intelligently designed for a purpose - until we can prove or show otherwise.

Firstly, the above does not support your claim that complex systems must have either popped into existence, or been intelligently designed. Can I assume you are retracting that statement?

Secondly, nobody is claiming that "complexity beyond anything that humans have ever designed" is the result of abiogenesis. DNA certainly wasn't initially formed by abiogenesis. It is too complex. This has been explained to you before.

Thirdly, you can see from the paragraphs you quoted that, although we don't have a complete picture, we do have a powerful understanding of the mechanisms that would have been responsible, and how these processes make a natural explanation entirely plausible. Pick up any abiogenesis paper and you will find an exploration of natural chemical and physical processes, and investigations into how these processes could shape abiogenesis.

Ash.J.Williams

Beautiful.. as seen on BBC "inside the human body"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFY_KPFS3LA

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

He has it spot on if you ask me. The arguments that the new atheists present are childish, and are totally based in ignorance.

The argument is that new atheists should be miserable and see life as pointless and absurd without God, they aren't so they are being childish and haven't realized the full consequences of atheism like the old atheists were kind enough to do.

Needless to say such nonsense is far from convincing. It is someone who knows little about atheism trying to frame atheism in a Christian context.

Zombrex

suarez9 wrote: »

Google Ken ham creationism or john blanchard evolution folks.

Ken Ham is well known on this thread. Even Creationists are embarrassed by him.

http://www.answersincreation.org/rebuttal/aig/daily/2005/20050912_ham_truth.htm

Morbert

Wicknight wrote: »

Ken Ham is well known on this thread. Even Creationists are embarrassed by him.

http://www.answersincreation.org/rebuttal/aig/daily/2005/20050912_ham_truth.htm

Hmm... old earth creationists don't like him, but I think he's still popular with young earth creationists.

Kent Hovind is the person that even young earth creationists are embarrassed by.

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

Hmm... old earth creationists don't like him, but I think he's still popular with young earth creationists.

Kent Hovind is the person that even young earth creationists are embarrassed by.

Ah yes, but have you ever seen the two of them in the same room together ...

Soul Winner

virmilitaris wrote: »

If we didn't know how snowflakes formed do you think it would be reasonable to assume an intelligence was behind it ?

Snowflakes and patterns in sand dunes are easily explainable and explained by natural forces. They are observable and predictable given the correct environmental conditions. There is no need to appeal to a supernatural cause for these patterns. But until we can explain living systems in this way then to infer design shouldn't be the big deal that it is. What's wrong with inferring intelligent design? We do it all the time in every day situations. If we see a suit we infer a suit maker, if we see a wall made with bricks and mortar we infer a brick layer and so on. Why can't we do like wise with living systems? All our experience tells us that such complexity can only have come about by design, so until we can demonstrate otherwise, design should be the default position.

Appealing to natural forces should not be the default position while it has still to be demonstrated. The '...trust us, we are working on it...' attitude is not scientific, its faith. What science should be doing is following the facts where they lead, and if they point to intelligence then so be it, and at this juncture they are pointing squarely at a designer because they don't give out Nobel prizes to people who can show otherwise if that otherwise was so obvious. When archeologists find artifacts which have obviously been designed they don't conclude that they were the product of natural forces until they can identify the designers. Identifying those designers is the job for the historian. Likewise biologists don't have to identify the designer of living systems in order to conclude that they must have been designed.

Soul Winner

Morbert wrote: »

Firstly, the above does not support your claim that complex systems must have either popped into existence, or been intelligently designed. Can I assume you are retracting that statement?

I agree, the above doesn't support that but I still maintain that life either popped into existence by chance or it was purposely designed. A step by step gradual process from chemicals to self replicating molecules to cells being the result of the laws of chemistry and physics is a pipe dream. Life is either a complete fluke (chance) or designed by an intelligence, an intelligence which exceeds that of mankind's by billions of light years.

Morbert wrote: »

Secondly, nobody is claiming that "complexity beyond anything that humans have ever designed" is the result of abiogenesis. DNA certainly wasn't initially formed by abiogenesis. It is too complex. This has been explained to you before.

You've shown me research which goes some way to explaining it in terms of gradualism but that by no means demonstrates it adequately. You think it does enough and I disagree.

Morbert wrote: »

Thirdly, you can see from the paragraphs you quoted that, although we don't have a complete picture, we do have a powerful understanding of the mechanisms that would have been responsible, and how these processes make a natural explanation entirely plausible. Pick up any abiogenesis paper and you will find an exploration of natural chemical and physical processes, and investigations into how these processes could shape abiogenesis.

I'm not doubting the efforts of these people nor their sincerity, but when other equally qualified scientists are coming up with conflicting theories that they think better explains the origin of life, who are we to side with? There is no general consensus. I agree, a lot of them explain a lot of things until they try to demonstrate it in a controlled environment. And in every case they fail to see the elephant in the room, i.e. themselves, the intelligent designers.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

The argument is that new atheists should be miserable and see life as pointless and absurd without God, they aren't so they are being childish and haven't realized the full consequences of atheism like the old atheists were kind enough to do.

Needless to say such nonsense is far from convincing. It is someone who knows little about atheism trying to frame atheism in a Christian context.

You're right. Framing atheism in a Christian context, as a bad thing, only has validity if Christianity were true. Thank God it is true so :pac:

Point taken though. If I were an atheist, then to me, being a Christin would be a life wasted. I get that. But what the atheists of old recognized was that life without God was purposeless, as in life wasn't purposed for anything by anyone, therefore there is no ultimate purpose in or for life except possibly what makes you happy here and now, and once you die that's it, game over, pure nothingness after that. And I agree with them.

But the new atheists seem to be of the impression that we can somehow give life purpose. How? Why? What could we possibly conjure up as an ideal to aim for that is higher than the concept of an all powerful, all knowing benevolent God? Whatever they come up with will just be replacing God, but will in time become just as ultimately pointless as the God idea (if that's all it is) ended up being, and we are back to square one. If we are going to choose delusions then I choose the God Delusion, that delusion at least, has some power to calm, encourage, relieve, comfort and so on.

Soul Winner

himnextdoor wrote: »

Going back to what vermilitaris asked you: Should we take the default position of assuming that cancer is the will of God and map out our scientific research accordingly?

I don't believe cancer is the will of God, so no.

himnextdoor wrote: »

What benefit is there in researching unfalsifiables in order to address real-world problems?

You ask that like I 'm defending such a position or something. In any case, is it now the goal of science to do science to address real world problems or to find out the truth about stuff? I mean, if it has become the province of science to address the world's problems then scientists should stop inventing more and more sophisticated weaponry for warfare and concentrate on finding an actual cure for cancer.

himnextdoor

Soul Winner wrote: »

If we are going to choose delusions then I choose the God Delusion, that delusion at least, has some power to calm, encourage, relieve, comfort and so on.

And you can thank evolution for that too.

It is not just physical characteristics that are subject to natural selection, mental abilities are too. Some people are more organised in their thinking than other people, some people are more analytical than other people. There is as much diversity in intellectual abilities as there is in physical ones.

The fact that you would rather bury your head in the sand than face an uncomfortable truth is a naturally selected response that has been inherited by most of the population. This tendency to have faith ensures that the majority of the population will observe hierarchical protocols which is handy if you are a King who wants to build pyramids or such-like. So literally, your faithfullness is the result of your DNA.

Some people don't have that same genetic information and instead have another gene which again has succeeded through natural selection that makes the carrier not have faith but instead has reason. Such people design pyramids and such-like.

If you think about it, a colony of ants is actually a colony of nuns, each of them faithfully devoted to a 'higher' cause.