Jump to content


Photo

Abiogenesis.


  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

#1 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 781 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 02 February 2017 - 08:12 PM

is abiogenesis true?
i'm not talking about hypothetically or theoretically, i'm talking about the actual reality.
did life actually arise naturally?
it might have, but science has been unable to duplicate it.
here is what koonin says:
The origin of life is one of the hardest problems in all of science, but it is also one of the most important. Origin-of-live research has evolved into a lively, interdisciplinary field, but other scientists often view it with skepticism and even derision. This attitude is understandable and, in a sense, perhaps justified, given the “dirty” rarely mentioned secret: Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure – we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth. Certainly, this is due not to a lack of experimental and theoretical effort, but to the extraordinary intrinsic difficulty and complexity of the problem. A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life, from the synthesis and accumulation of nucleotides to the origin of translation; through the multiplication of probabilities, these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle.
-Eugene V. Koonin, molecular biologist, The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution (Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press, 2011), 391

i hope that i, and others, can post some of the difficulties surrounded this topic.

#2 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 781 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 03 February 2017 - 12:27 PM

here is an interesting link from tours site:
- inference-review.com/article/animadversions-of-a-synthetic-chemist
the above shows that the requisite molecules (lipids, proteins, nucleic acids and carbohydrates) are so unlikely to have occurred in the states and quantities needed, that we could never have gotten to the point of figuring out the genesis of the requisite code or information.

tour goes on:
It is clear, chemists and biologists are clueless. I wrote, “Those who think scientists understand the issues of prebiotic chemistry are wholly misinformed. Nobody understands them. Maybe one day we will. But that day is far from today. It would be far more helpful (and hopeful) to expose students to the massive gaps in our understanding. They may find a firmer—and possibly a radically different—scientific theory. The basis upon which we as scientists are relying is so shaky that we must openly state the situation for what it is: it is a mystery.

#3 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,110 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 03 February 2017 - 02:49 PM

Problem 1. Chicken and egg scenarios.

 

ATP is created because the DNA codes for it to be converted, but to get the DNA first you need the ATP. To get the ATP first you need the DNA to code for it.

 

This is an example whereby irreducible complexity has reached it's limit. That's just one example of a chicken-and-egg scenario. Logically speaking, it is far more reasonable to assume that a cell had to be designed from the start to have many of these paradoxical chicken-and-egg, cycles, because cycles are part of design. A circulatory route seems to always depend on many components being in place right from the start.

 

Problem 2. The assumptions of abiogenesis.

 

a. There was a primordial earth. (an assumption based on circumstantial evidence and ultimately an unknown)

b. Once life "starts" to build itself, it will continue despite the molecules and aminos not having any directional intelligence within them, in and of themselves not being alive. (example, build half a brick wall, will a brick wall continue to build itself because it is matter? Then why would cell parts, "do" anything? They don't do things unless they are programmed to, so like a brick, aminos or nucleutides, are not alive, they have no designer reasons to continue the build, and logically life must have started piece-by-piece, under naturalistic theory. It's particularly unrealistic to assume entropy was negated. That brick wall would rot long before it built itself into a cathedral.)

c. Biological evolution is assumed to be true. In order to have a primordial ancestor of life create itself, this assumes that giraffes, trees and people, once were prokaryotic mudecules. Not literally of course, but my point is, the only way to reduce life to cells is to say that biological evolution certainly happened.

d. Ignorance of an astounding level of miraculous creation. To assume abscission, photosynthesis, the clotting cascade, metamorphosis and the development of embryos is all expected from natural processes from scratch, is a very major assumption which seems to have no validity.

e. Inductively speaking, all of the evidence so far in experimentation, as a tally, has confirmed the law of biogenesis, and is confirmation evidence of the fact that life doesn't arise naturally. To assume this can just be ignored as evidence, seems unreasonable.

f. Real life. Real lifeforms and what they need and show, has to be ignored. Ultimately to assume you can reduce all life to cells is to basically believe something fictional, IMHO. All speculative, "primordial" forms are assumed to exist but are as real and as confirmed and factual as the spaghetti monster. There is no reason to assume the existence of something which doesn't exist. To assume an abiogenesis can create a none-existent life form is utterly pointless, because who is to say any such form ever existed to begin with? It is like creating a theory to explain the existence of Peter Pan, but forgetting that you still haven't give anyone any reasons to accept Peter pan to begin with.


  • Mike Summers likes this

#4 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 781 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 03 February 2017 - 05:48 PM

Problem 1. Chicken and egg scenarios.

yes, i believe this is probably a primary problem.

This is an example whereby irreducible complexity has reached it's limit. That's just one example of a chicken-and-egg scenario. Logically speaking, it is far more reasonable to assume that a cell had to be designed from the start to have many of these paradoxical chicken-and-egg, cycles, because cycles are part of design. A circulatory route seems to always depend on many components being in place right from the start.

it certainly seems that way doesn't it.
but as soon as science makes that assumption, then they are faced with either ET with an IQ 2000, or some kind of god.
science just cannot deal with the concept of god, except maybe philosophy.
 

Problem 2. The assumptions of abiogenesis.
b. Once life "starts" to build itself, it will continue despite the molecules and aminos not having any directional intelligence within them, . . .

there has to be some kind of direction, and atoms joining to atoms isn't random.
not all atoms can join to any other atoms, neon for example does not join with every other atom in the periodic table.
there are only 2 elements i can think of that would join with the vast majority of elements, oxygen and flourine
this in itself suggests atom joining isn't random.
if it isn't random, then it must have a direction.

(example, build half a brick wall, will a brick wall continue to build itself because it is matter?

if you replace the bricks with carbon atoms, then yes, it's very possible to build very long chains of carbon atoms.
given the right conditions, those chains can polymerize into a "sheet", essentially your wall. (what do you think saran wrap is?)
this is why abiogenesis seems so tantalizingly possible, but yet with the best engineering minds and the best technology, all they can do after 60 years of intense effort is shrug their shoulders and say "we have no idea how life got here."

Then why would cell parts, "do" anything? They don't do things unless they are programmed to, so like a brick, aminos or nucleutides, are not alive, they have no designer reasons to continue the build, and logically life must have started piece-by-piece, under naturalistic theory. It's particularly unrealistic to assume entropy was negated. That brick wall would rot long before it built itself into a cathedral.)


are you familiar with the concept of a colloid?
these compounds apparently just float around and fit into where they are needed.
the hydrogen ions used to ATP synthase just float around until they are sucked into the molecule.
the same sort of thing happens at the other end.
ADP floats around until it is sucked into the molecule.
it's a simple process to understand, but how this came about naturally is beyond what we currently know.
yes, i'm sure there are very many theories on the topic.

c. Biological evolution is assumed to be true. In order to have a primordial ancestor of life create itself, this assumes that giraffes, trees and people, once were prokaryotic mudecules. Not literally of course, but my point is, the only way to reduce life to cells is to say that biological evolution certainly happened.

i wouldn't quite use "certainly".
as a matter of fact i would say it's almost certain that science will fail in its attempt at recreating life.
even though science now has the tools to prove macroevolution, it too will also fail.
why will it fail?
because of intelligence.
it's going to be found that species interacting with one another is an important factor in evolution, and intelligence governs a large part of species interaction.
ah yes:
The study shows, for the first time, that the American evolutionary biologist Leigh Van Valen was correct in his 'Red Queen Hypothesis'. The theory, first put forward in the 1970s, was named after a passage in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass in which the Red Queen tells Alice, 'It takes all the running you can do to keep in the same place'. This suggested that species were in a constant race for survival and have to continue to evolve new ways of defending themselves throughout time.

Dr Steve Paterson, from the University's School of Biosciences, explains: "Historically, it was assumed that most evolution was driven by a need to adapt to the environment or habitat. The Red Queen Hypothesis challenged this by pointing out that actually most natural selection will arise from co-evolutionary interactions with other species, not from interactions with the environment.

This theory is widely accepted in the science community, but this is the first time we have been able to show evidence of it in an experiment with living things.
- Interactions between species Powerful driving force behind evolution -- ScienceDaily.htm

huh?
widely accepted?
who here has even heard of the "red queen hypothesis????

e. Inductively speaking, all of the evidence so far in experimentation, as a tally, has confirmed the law of biogenesis, and is confirmation evidence of the fact that life doesn't arise naturally. To assume this can just be ignored as evidence, seems unreasonable.

correct, so far the law of biogenesis has not been proven wrong, not one single time.

f. Real life. Real lifeforms and what they need and show, has to be ignored. Ultimately to assume you can reduce all life to cells is to basically believe something fictional, IMHO. All speculative, "primordial" forms are assumed to exist but are as real and as confirmed and factual as the spaghetti monster. There is no reason to assume the existence of something which doesn't exist. To assume an abiogenesis can create a none-existent life form is utterly pointless, because who is to say any such form ever existed to begin with? It is like creating a theory to explain the existence of Peter Pan, but forgetting that you still haven't give anyone any reasons to accept Peter pan to begin with.

in order to prove evolution then you must start with a cell.
we can't however neglect what glansdorf said:
LUCA does not appear to have been a simple, primitive, hyperthermophilic prokaryote but rather a complex community of protoeukaryotes with a RNA genome, adapted to a broad range of moderate temperatures, genetically redundant, morphologically and metabolically diverse.

#5 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 739 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 03 February 2017 - 09:06 PM

is abiogenesis true?
i'm not talking about hypothetically or theoretically, i'm talking about the actual reality.
did life actually arise naturally?
it might have, but science has been unable to duplicate it.
here is what koonin says:
The origin of life is one of the hardest problems in all of science, but it is also one of the most important. Origin-of-live research has evolved into a lively, interdisciplinary field, but other scientists often view it with skepticism and even derision. This attitude is understandable and, in a sense, perhaps justified, given the “dirty” rarely mentioned secret: Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure – we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth. Certainly, this is due not to a lack of experimental and theoretical effort, but to the extraordinary intrinsic difficulty and complexity of the problem. A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life, from the synthesis and accumulation of nucleotides to the origin of translation; through the multiplication of probabilities, these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle.
-Eugene V. Koonin, molecular biologist, The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution (Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press, 2011), 391

i hope that i, and others, can post some of the difficulties surrounded this topic.

 

"Is abiogenesis true?"

 

No, it is Scientifically Impossible. :think:

 

 

"Did life actually arise naturally?"

 

No, life is simply too complex, by a magnitude of approximately 800 Octillion.

(give or take a trillion or so)   :blush:

 

 

 

"it might have, but science has been unable to duplicate it."

 

And a Frog might be able to turn into a Prince given enough time. :kaffeetrinker:

 

http://evolutionfair...n-on-the-brain/



#6 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 781 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 03 February 2017 - 11:43 PM

Abiogenesis is a fascinating problem that has been awaiting a solution for decades. Most textbooks and these supplements pass lightly over the problem and simply leave the students ignorant of why the problem exists. Over time a few solution attempts have been advanced and one or another of these is often found in textbooks. But it is universally recognized that these attempts are woefully inadequate. For example New Scientist magazine quotes the famed professor Paul Davies saying, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.” Our students should be given a basic understanding of why this is and an acquaintance with the most important issues that must be dealt with
by a successful hypothesis explaining the origin of the first cells from naturally occurring nonliving chemicals.

Origin of proteins and systems:
Before the first cells could arise from nonliving chemicals a system of
proteins must be brought together to form the components of a machine. These proteins cannot be some randomly occurring set; rather, they must be highly specific in order to work together like the parts of a complex machine to perform many necessary functions. Each of these proteins is made up of a long chain of amino acids ordered in a very specific sequence. A typical chain length is 400 specific amino acids. To have a specific sequence of amino acids occur by random processes is difficult to justify so let’s first consider a very favorable idealized case. Assume we have a beaker or vat filled with nothing but the 20 amino acid molecules needed for these proteins. If only random events are at work there will be one chance in 20^400, or about 10^520, of obtaining the specific protein sequence needed. This number is so large it is difficult to comprehend. For comparison one might note that astronomers estimate that there are about 10^80 atoms in the observable universe. But even that is an extremely tiny number compared to 10^520!
So by random unguided processes there is no useful chance of obtaining any one specific protein. What is worse is that conservative estimates of the number of coordinated proteins needed to form the system of molecular machines in the simplest cell are at least several hundred. A 2006 estimate by Hamilton Smith at the J. Craig Venter Institute came up with a minimum size of 387 proteins. At present there is no reasonable way known to overcome the immense improbability of a random unguided process producing a protein system like this even under ideal conditions.
This is a major problem and a fascinating opportunity for young scientists.

Folding and Chirality:
The problem is actually much larger than just obtaining the necessary sequence of
amino acids found in the protein chains because these chains must be folded into the correct three
dimensional shape in order to function as parts of molecular machines. The necessary shape for functionality, once we have the required sequence, is most often not one of the naturally occurring shapes. In living cells there are molecular machines called chaperones that enable this folding in the correct manner and conduct the new protein to the place where it is needed. But how is this done before the first cell was complete? Further, each of the 20 amino acids naturally occurs in two different three dimensional forms or stereoisomers with a
symmetry like our left and right hand. This left and right handed symmetry is referred to as chirality. However, the proteins in living systems are made exclusively of left handed amino acids! If a right handed amino acid gets into the protein chain it usually cannot fold into the correct functional shape. So this folding and stereoisomers add two additional dimensions of complexity to obtaining a system of proteins. But here is another problem: all naturally occurring chemical processes produce a fifty-fifty mixture of the two stereoisomers of each amino acid. So how did the first cells exclude the right handed amino acids molecules – fully one-half of the naturally available molecules?

Destructive chemical processes:
Any naturally occurring environment will be far from ideal and there will be a number of processes
working against the assembly of a system of proteins with the correct sequences of amino acids of exclusively left-handed chirality all folded in the three dimensional shape that will make them
functional parts of a machine. Let’s briefly consider four of the most basic natural chemical processes that are working to take protein chains apart. First if there is a large proportion of water present, like a pond, lake or ocean, then the water itself will react with the amino acid chains and break the bonds by a process called hydrolysis. Living cells have elaborate mechanisms to protect their proteins from hydrolysis but how would this work before the first complete cell? Second, if there is sunlight or lightning present then there will be substantial amounts of ultraviolet light present. The photons of UV light have enough energy that they will
break down the amino acid bonds. Third, if there is any free oxygen present then the oxygen will vigorously react with the protein chains destroying them. The process of photo-dissociation due to UV light from the sun hitting water vapor molecules in the atmosphere ensures that there has always been some free oxygen present in the atmosphere. No solid consensus has been reached on the amount of oxygen present in the early atmosphere, but there is sufficient evidence in the geologic record to make some geologists conclude that there has always been some significant amount of oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere. Fourth, in any natural environment there will be a great variety of chemicals contaminates present that will react with the amino acids as the proteins form and that will destroy the needed sequence and three dimensional shapes and eliminate any functionality.

DNA and information:
Of course all living cells have the information necessary for assembling proteins and a
control system that regulates the operation of the cell’s molecular machines stored in DNA. So some biologists have conjectured that DNA and RNA came first before the cell.
But that would entail all of the same kinds of problems with assembly by natural processes as with proteins. In any case a living cell would require a complete system of information and a control right from the start! This obviously raises the question, where did
the information come from? Systems of information are never observed to arise from random processes. Some biologists insist that it must happen because here we are! But they can offer no physical cause and effect hypothesis that is testable. On top of that all of the same general kinds of destructive processes discussed above also operate to destroy DNA and RNA as well as proteins. The bottom line is that DNA requires the protection and operating machinery of a cell before it can do anything or even survive. And the information content of the first cell must be accounted for in a rigorous and rational way.

It is interesting that the history of science shows with surprising frequency that the most intractable problems are often solved by the innovation of fresh young minds. Perhaps knowledge of these issues will prompt a young Texas student to pursue science and eventually
provide the needed innovation. Without a doubt anyone who makes a major step forward on the abiogenesis problem will win a Nobel Prize.
- txsed.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2011-Testimony-Part-5-Abiogenesis.pdf

#7 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 739 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 04 February 2017 - 12:44 PM

yes, i believe this is probably a primary problem.it certainly seems that way doesn't it.but as soon as science makes that assumption, then they are faced with either ET with an IQ 2000, or some kind of god.science just cannot deal with the concept of god, except maybe philosophy. there has to be some kind of direction, and atoms joining to atoms isn't random.not all atoms can join to any other atoms, neon for example does not join with every other atom in the periodic table.there are only 2 elements i can think of that would join with the vast majority of elements, oxygen and flourinethis in itself suggests atom joining isn't random.if it isn't random, then it must have a direction.if you replace the bricks with carbon atoms, then yes, it's very possible to build very long chains of carbon atoms.given the right conditions, those chains can polymerize into a "sheet", essentially your wall. (what do you think saran wrap is?)this is why abiogenesis seems so tantalizingly possible, but yet with the best engineering minds and the best technology, all they can do after 60 years of intense effort is shrug their shoulders and say "we have no idea how life got here."are you familiar with the concept of a colloid?these compounds apparently just float around and fit into where they are needed.the hydrogen ions used to ATP synthase just float around until they are sucked into the molecule.the same sort of thing happens at the other end.ADP floats around until it is sucked into the molecule.it's a simple process to understand, but how this came about naturally is beyond what we currently know.yes, i'm sure there are very many theories on the topic.i wouldn't quite use "certainly".as a matter of fact i would say it's almost certain that science will fail in its attempt at recreating life.even though science now has the tools to prove macroevolution, it too will also fail.why will it fail?because of intelligence.it's going to be found that species interacting with one another is an important factor in evolution, and intelligence governs a large part of species interaction.ah yes:The study shows, for the first time, that the American evolutionary biologist Leigh Van Valen was correct in his 'Red Queen Hypothesis'. The theory, first put forward in the 1970s, was named after a passage in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass in which the Red Queen tells Alice, 'It takes all the running you can do to keep in the same place'. This suggested that species were in a constant race for survival and have to continue to evolve new ways of defending themselves throughout time.Dr Steve Paterson, from the University's School of Biosciences, explains: "Historically, it was assumed that most evolution was driven by a need to adapt to the environment or habitat. The Red Queen Hypothesis challenged this by pointing out that actually most natural selection will arise from co-evolutionary interactions with other species, not from interactions with the environment.This theory is widely accepted in the science community, but this is the first time we have been able to show evidence of it in an experiment with living things.- Interactions between species Powerful driving force behind evolution -- ScienceDaily.htmhuh?widely accepted?who here has even heard of the "red queen hypothesis????correct, so far the law of biogenesis has not been proven wrong, not one single time.in order to prove evolution then you must start with a cell.we can't however neglect what glansdorf said:LUCA does not appear to have been a simple, primitive, hyperthermophilic prokaryote but rather a complex community of protoeukaryotes with a RNA genome, adapted to a broad range of moderate temperatures, genetically redundant, morphologically and metabolically diverse.




"In order to prove evolution then you must start with a cell.
we can't however neglect what glansdorf said:
LUCA does not appear to have been a simple, primitive, hyperthermophilic prokaryote but rather a complex community of protoeukaryotes with a RNA genome, adapted to a broad range of moderate temperatures, genetically redundant, morphologically and metabolically diverse."


We cant neglect what Lansford said? LOL

Why?,does Lansford have any Evidence for LUCA ever having existed at all? (Much less details about its supposed "Characteristics"?)
Please tell us the difference between Lansford and any science fiction writer? You do remember the name of the website you are on, dont you?

#8 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,110 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 04 February 2017 - 01:10 PM

 

Blitzking:

We cant neglect what Lansford said? LOL

 


 

Lol. Tell me about it. 

 

I think, "What If" is hung up on scientific authorities.

 

You have to remember "What If", if someone has a phd in chemistry that doesn't mean they're an expert on the history of none-existent lifeforms in "prehistory", especially if that prehistory didn't even occur.

 

 Goodness grief, there was no proto-eukaryotic, mustard flavoured mudecule back in the none-existent "prehistoric" past. You've entered the twilight zone of mega-assumptions-ville gone overkill. I could also assume that monkeys built the pyramids by arguing that monkeys had human hands in the past and human brains. What does that prove? Their theory doesn't work, that's why they have to have the LUCA be some non-existent cell. 

 

Lol.

 

Dr Koonin Boffin of the phd of history informs national geographic that; "In the far distant past when the earth was a primordial mudeculization factory, where 10 squillion proteins in a soup were all collected on behalf of Dawkins, each at one second intervals,  a proto-soup, proto-life, proto-eukaryotic proto-cell got the protocol and dished up some proto-proteins. These were no normal proteins but were a special type of proto, pre- protein only experts can understand, and all proto-forms can only be understood by me, therefore we evolved from pondscum! That's right Bob you heard it here, Pope Koonin the third was caused by a prokaryotic mudecule orgy, in deep time. I can't put it any clearer than that!"



#9 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 781 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 04 February 2017 - 01:36 PM

the following is from a creationist site, but i like it anyway:
It’s very important to present these five basic evidences to non-Christians in the historical context. And here is the story you must tell: “In the beginning, there was the naturalism, and the naturalism tried to argue from ignorance that God was not Creator and God was not Designer. And then came the science, and now people have to give up their naturalism in order to not be crazy and irrational”. That’s the narrative you use when talking to non-Christians about science.

In the beginning was the naturalism:

1. In pre-scientific times, atheists maintained that the universe was eternal
2. In pre-scientific times, atheists maintained that a life-permitting universe was as likely as a life-prohibiting universe
3. In pre-scientific times, atheists maintained that the cell was a simple blob of jello that could spontaneously emerge in some warm pond
4. In pre-scientific times, atheists maintained that the sudden origin of the Cambrian phyla would be explained by subsequent fossil discoveries
5. In pre-scientific times, atheists maintained that there was nothing special about our galaxy, solar system, planet or moon.

But then science progressed by doing experiments and making observations:

1. Scientists discovered redshift and the cosmic microwave background radiation and more!
2. Scientists discovered the fine-tuning of gravity and of the cosmological constant and more!
3. Scientists discovered protein sequencing and exposed the myth of “junk DNA” and more!
4. Scientists discovered an even shorter Cambrian explosion period and the absence of precursor fossils and more!
5. Scientists discovered galactic habitable zones and circumstellar habitable zones and more!

And now rational people – people who want to have true beliefs about reality – need to abandon a false religion (naturalism).

Now naturally, science is in a state of flux and things change. But you have to look at the trend of discoveries, and those trends are clearly going against naturalism, and in favor of Christian theism.
- https://winteryknigh...of-life/page/7/
  • Blitzking likes this

#10 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 781 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 04 February 2017 - 09:23 PM

ya gotta love this:
Researchers may have solved origin-of-life conundrum
- www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum

but wait, let's take a peek inside.
here we have:
It proposes for the first time a scenario by which almost all of the essential building blocks for life could be assembled in one geological setting.

heh, heh, yeah, ALMOST all.

by what method is this achieved?
Sutherland’s team argues that early Earth was a favorable setting for those reactions. HCN is abundant in comets, which rained down steadily for nearly the first several hundred million years of Earth’s history.

doesn't sutherland realioze that ALL the outside HCN would have been vaporized through its flight through the atmosphere?.
any HCN would HAVE to be locked up (sealed) inside.
that would take a lot of hollow comets.
any idea how these things could have been produced and made their way here?

and finally this:
This general scenario raises many questions,” he says, “and I am sure that it will be debated for some time to come.”

debated?
gee dude, if you got the goods on the origins of life then prove it and claim your nobel prize.

BTW, the "comet" scenario is old hat.

this is almost like those PCH letters you get, you are a winner if you return the winning number.
of course you never have the winning number.
  • mike the wiz likes this

#11 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 739 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 04 February 2017 - 10:01 PM

ya gotta love this:Researchers may have solved origin-of-life conundrum- www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrumbut wait, let's take a peek inside.here we have:It proposes for the first time a scenario by which almost all of the essential building blocks for life could be assembled in one geological setting.heh, heh, yeah, ALMOST all.by what method is this achieved?Sutherland’s team argues that early Earth was a favorable setting for those reactions. HCN is abundant in comets, which rained down steadily for nearly the first several hundred million years of Earth’s history.doesn't sutherland realioze that ALL the outside HCN would have been vaporized through its flight through the atmosphere?.any HCN would HAVE to be locked up (sealed) inside.that would take a lot of hollow comets.any idea how these things could have been produced and made their way here?and finally this:This general scenario raises many questions,” he says, “and I am sure that it will be debated for some time to come.”debated?gee dude, if you got the goods on the origins of life then prove it and claim your nobel prize.BTW, the "comet" scenario is old hat.this is almost like those PCH letters you get, you are a winner if you return the winning number.of course you never have the winning number.


Even You can see how ridiculous the desperation of Atheism is cant you?

#12 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,651 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 07 February 2017 - 01:54 AM

science just cannot deal with the concept of god, except maybe philosophy.

Exactly.

 

The physical and natural sciences are incapable of dealing with God who is neither physical nor natural .... nor can they handle His actions.  Using science to prove or disprove God is like playing tennis by the rules of baseball.

 

there are only 2 elements i can think of that would join with the vast majority of elements, oxygen and flourine

Carbon.  Carbon combines with just about everything and in just about every way.  I know of three different configurations of the hexane (C6H14) molecule. 

 

It's the main reason I spend little time on organic chem in my classes.  One day, in class, I called carbon the "slut of the periodic table."  A couple days later I was walking past a couple boys in the hall and overheard: " she's just carbon."  You know your message got across when it becomes part of school slang.  It was a real YESSSSS moment.

 

this in itself suggests atom joining isn't random.
if it isn't random, then it must have a direction.

Sometimes what appears to be random isn't.  Mandlebrot sets come to mind.  The "butterfly effect" is another example.

 

if you replace the bricks with carbon atoms, then yes, it's very possible to build very long chains of carbon atoms.
given the right conditions, those chains can polymerize into a "sheet", essentially your wall. (what do you think saran wrap is?)
this is why abiogenesis seems so tantalizingly possible, but yet with the best engineering minds and the best technology, all they can do after 60 years of intense effort is shrug their shoulders and say "we have no idea how life got here."

And they spent most of recorded history trying to solve powered flight and dreaming of going to the moon.   The biochemistry of life is incredibly more complex than merely going to the moon. 

 

Sixty years is far too short a time to realistically expect a full understanding of how the biochemistry works on a micro scale which I would think is a necessary prerequisite to "life in a lab."

 

Robert Jastrow, writing about the Big Bang summed it up in a way that can be applied to the origin of life:

 To find that cause, the scientist must reconstruct the chain of events that took place prior to the seeming moment of creation, and led to the appearance of our Universe as their end product. But just this, he cannot do. For all the evidence he might have examined to that end has been melted down and destroyed in the intense heat and pressure of the first moment. No clue remains to the nature of the forces-natural or supernatural that conspired to bring about the event we call the Big Bang.

 

In the case of the origin of life, the evidence has been destroyed by life itself.



#13 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 781 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 07 February 2017 - 05:07 AM

Exactly.
 
The physical and natural sciences are incapable of dealing with God who is neither physical nor natural .... nor can they handle His actions.  Using science to prove or disprove God is like playing tennis by the rules of baseball.

i've wrestled with the question of god almost my entire life.
whether there is, or isn't, a god will have no effect on the laws of chemistry.
it will have no effect on how DNA acquires genetic material.
it will have no effect on how epigenetics controls gene expression.

Carbon.  Carbon combines with just about everything and in just about every way.  I know of three different configurations of the hexane (C6H14) molecule.

carbon can have a multitude of different compounds, but it can't combine with every other element.
also, carbon is the basis of organic chemistry, almost all organic molecules contain carbon.

Sometimes what appears to be random isn't.  Mandlebrot sets come to mind.  The "butterfly effect" is another example.

an even better example is lightning strikes.
if i'm not mistaken, they appear to conform to the poiison ( spelling?) distribution.

And they spent most of recorded history trying to solve powered flight and dreaming of going to the moon.

yes, but they didn't have the tools to do it.
the key component of flight was the internal combustion engine.
it wasn't long after its invention that the wright brothers made their historic flight.
the same can be said about going to the moon.
humans found they could place objects in earths orbit in october of '57 with the launch of sputnik.
we landed on the moon a scant 12 years later, earlier if you include space probes.
 

The biochemistry of life is incredibly more complex than merely going to the moon.

maybe it isn't complex at all.
it might be as simple as figuring out a "molecular language".
just like genes have a "language", maybe molecules do too.
another HUGE hurdle in all of this, is that there is some kind of effort to prevent giving creationists any ammunition.
molecules can NEVER have a "language" because that would imply intelligence.

Sixty years is far too short a time to realistically expect a full understanding of how the biochemistry works on a micro scale which I would think is a necessary prerequisite to "life in a lab."

you seem to be forgetting that we have a functioning specimen to work with.
we can probe it, we can grow it, we can test it, we know what's inside.
science is simply clueless as to how it all came together.
 

Robert Jastrow, writing about the Big Bang summed it up in a way that can be applied to the origin of life:
 To find that cause, the scientist must reconstruct the chain of events that took place prior to the seeming moment of creation, and led to the appearance of our Universe as their end product. But just this, he cannot do. For all the evidence he might have examined to that end has been melted down and destroyed in the intense heat and pressure of the first moment. No clue remains to the nature of the forces-natural or supernatural that conspired to bring about the event we call the Big Bang.

the "big bang" isn't something that is written in stone.
it's a hypothesis that fits most of the facts as we know them to be.
do you have any idea as to the amount of energy needed to set this event into motion?
where did that energy come from? it was "just there"?
what is the universe expanding into? the supernatural perhaps?
 

In the case of the origin of life, the evidence has been destroyed by life itself.

there is little doubt in my mind that science can synthesize or procure every single element/component of the cell.
there is also little doubt that science has already tried the "let's put it all together and see what we get".
the real question is, has science actually done this.
if they have, then why haven't we heard anything about it?
no, science definitely has the tools to solve the problem,.
they simply do not know how.

#14 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 190 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 07 February 2017 - 09:02 AM

"science just cannot deal with the concept of god, except maybe philosophy."

 

Exactly.

 

The physical and natural sciences are incapable of dealing with God who is neither physical nor natural .... nor can they handle His actions.  Using science to prove or disprove God is like playing tennis by the rules of baseball.

 

This is first and foremost not a scientific statement, but a philosophical statement. And why would we (as christian) accept this philosophical standpoint? This is just about trying to make theists accept methodological naturalism, which is not needed to do science, at least not if you don't believe in naturalism.

 

Or as Plantinga puts it: "This naturally suggests pursuing science using all that we know: what we know about God as well as what we know about his creation, and what we know by faith as well as what we know in other ways. That natural suggestion is proscribed by the principle of Methodological Naturalism. Methodological naturalism, however, though widely accepted and indeed exalted, has little to be said for it; when examined coolly in the light of day, the arguments for it seem weak indeed. We should therefore reject it, taken in its full generality. Perhaps we should join others in Duhemian science; but we should also pursue our own Augustinian science."

 

See: https://www.calvin.e...lism_part_1.pdf

And: https://www.calvin.e...lism_part_2.pdf

 

What science is and how science is pursued are not easy questions, but the above writing suggests that both you piasan and what if seem to have a rather simplistic view of science. 



#15 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 781 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 07 February 2017 - 02:20 PM

What science is and how science is pursued are not easy questions, but the above writing suggests that both you piasan and what if seem to have a rather simplistic view of science.

that's because "science" is a relatively simple process.
you make an observation.
you put forward some reasoned hypothesis about that observation.
you then start eliminating unworkable hypothesis with further study/experiments.

the above does not take into account factors such as "instinct" or "intuition".

professional science has added "peer review" to take into account the human condition, but it isn't as effective as some would have you to believe.
the royal society has deemed peer review as "prone to bias and abuse, and somewhat like a lottery".
  • Mike Summers likes this

#16 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 190 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 08 February 2017 - 12:54 AM

that's because "science" is a relatively simple process.
you make an observation.
you put forward some reasoned hypothesis about that observation.
you then start eliminating unworkable hypothesis with further study/experiments.

the above does not take into account factors such as "instinct" or "intuition".

professional science has added "peer review" to take into account the human condition, but it isn't as effective as some would have you to believe.
the royal society has deemed peer review as "prone to bias and abuse, and somewhat like a lottery".

 
The problem is that "science" is not one process, it's a body of techniques for investigating phenomena that may differ depending on which scientific discipline we are talking about. And it's not that easy to tell what is scientific and what is not. That problem even has it's own name, namely the demarcation problem. But in the context of this thread I was merely pointing out that you don't need to limit yourself to material causes if you are a theist. That's just an uncalled for and unnecessary philosophical limitation.
 
If you buy into methodological philosophy, the only thing you can investigate scientifically about abiogenesis is if life arose naturally. But if you dump this and is a bit more pragmatic when it comes to form your reasoned hypothesis, then you could put forward different hypothesis about the origin of life. For example:
 
1 - That life arose by a random naturalistic event, and then the evolutionary process created all life. 
2 - That God created the initial life, and then used some sort of evolutionary process to create all life.
3 - That God created the original phyla and after that used some sort of evolutionary process to create all life.
4 - That God created different kinds and that current and past animals are variations of those kinds.
 
And then you could start to scientifically investigate which hypothesis best fits the facts we have. One of the major benefits of this is that if God created life the consequences of this is not excluded from scientific investigation, just because of someones philosophical ideas.


#17 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,651 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 08 February 2017 - 11:10 AM

... science just cannot deal with the concept of god, except maybe philosophy.

Exactly.

 

The physical and natural sciences are incapable of dealing with God who is neither physical nor natural .... nor can they handle His actions.  Using science to prove or disprove God is like playing tennis by the rules of baseball.

This is first and foremost not a scientific statement, but a philosophical statement. And why would we (as christian) accept this philosophical standpoint? This is just about trying to make theists accept methodological naturalism, which is not needed to do science, at least not if you don't believe in naturalism.

Philosophical?   Maybe.   I prefer to call it a realistic recognition of the limitations of the physical and natural sciences.

 

Why do you think we call them "physical" and "natural" sciences anyway?  Science is the same whether you are Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, or atheist.

 

If you, as a Christian, want to reject methodological naturalism in science then show just ONE non-natural methodology available to science.  A single supernatural test scientists can perform will do.  Just one.  The absence of supernatural methods is exactly why science is limited to naturalistic ones.  It is also why science is incompetent to comment on the supernatural.

 

Due to the absence of supernatural methodologies and the limitations of natural and physical processes, science is methodologically naturalistic and philosophically agnostic.  When science is unable to come up with a "naturalistic" answer, the correct scientific position is "We donno" not "Goddidit."

 

If you choose the "Goddidit" option, that is your right.  Just be aware it is a philosophical opinion, not a scientific determination.

 

 

See: https://www.calvin.e...lism_part_1.pdf

And: https://www.calvin.e...lism_part_2.pdf

 

What science is and how science is pursued are not easy questions, but the above writing suggests that both you piasan and what if seem to have a rather simplistic view of science. 

Sorry, I scanned the 35+ pages of your links but have no intention of spending a couple hours reading and digesting them.  If you have something that specifically shows that science is not legitimately restricted to naturalistic methodologies, you are invited to point it out.

 

Why is it "simplistic" to recognize that science has limitations on its methodology and sphere of investigation?  Maybe you should read Gould's NOMA.  Here are a few excerpts:

Creationism does not pit science against religion (as my opening stories indicate), for no such conflict exists. Creationism does not raise any unsettled intellectual issues about the nature of biology or the history of life. Creationism is ... prevalent only among the few sectors of American Protestantism that choose to read the Bible as an inerrant document, literally true in every jot and tittle......

The lack of conflict between science and religion arises from a lack of overlap between their respective domains of professional expertise—science in the empirical constitution of the universe, and religion in the search for proper ethical values and the spiritual meaning of our lives. The attainment of wisdom in a full life requires extensive attention to both domains—for a great book tells us that the truth can make us free and that we will live in optimal harmony with our fellows when we learn to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly.....

whatever my private beliefs about souls, science cannot touch such a subject and therefore cannot be threatened by any theological position on such a legitimately and intrinsically religious issue. Pope Pius XII, in other words, had properly acknowledged and respected the separate domains of science and theology.....

..... magister is Latin for "teacher." We may, I think, adopt this word and concept to express the central point of this essay and the principled resolution of supposed "conflict" or "warfare" between science and religion. No such conflict should exist because each subject has a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority—and these magisteria do not overlap (the principle that I would like to designate as NOMA, or "nonoverlapping magisteria").

The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for starters, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty). To cite the arch cliches, we get the age of rocks, and religion retains the rock of ages; we study how the heavens go, and they determine how to go to heaven.

This resolution might remain all neat and clean if the nonoverlapping magisteria (NOMA) of science and religion were separated by an extensive no man's land. But, in fact, the two magisteria bump right up against each other, interdigitating in wondrously complex ways along their joint border. Many of our deepest questions call upon aspects of both for different parts of a full answer—and the sorting of legitimate domains can become quite complex and difficult.  .....

NOMA also cuts both ways. If religion can no longer dictate the nature of factual conclusions properly under the magisterium of science, then scientists cannot claim higher insight into moral truth from any superior knowledge of the world's empirical constitution. .....



#18 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,110 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 08 February 2017 - 01:07 PM

 

 

Piasan: If you, as a Christian, want to reject methodological naturalism in science then show just ONE non-natural methodology available to science.  A single supernatural test scientists can perform will do.  Just one.  The absence of supernatural methods is exactly why science is limited to naturalistic ones.  It is also why science is incompetent to comment on the supernatural.

 

No, you're bringing in a red-herring here. It is not the object in question Tirian was claiming but rather the present, naturalistic facts.

 

Look at axiom 4 again, it focuses on the naturalistic, methodological facts that still exist if God exists, so then a, "supernatural test" is a red-herring, for if God created the universe and all of the various types of plants and animals then it would follow that we would find as a prediction, that they reproduce according to kind and that we will therefore never find the missing links or transitionals.

 

So then there isn't any need to test the supernatural, we are merely allowing a possibility in the form of an assumption, that God did create the universe. 

 

"Science" effectively disallows this assumption meaning that secular, evolutionary science implicitly denies that God can be part of the creation, or that anyone can proceed from that assumption.

 

Secondly, while "if it is science" it may follow that, "therefore it is methodologically natural" the reverse isn't true. If it is methodologically natural doesn't mean it is science.

 

For example abiogenesis is methodologically natural but isn't really science in the sense that it is 100% conjectural codswallop.

 

I agree that science has limits, and it has went beyond them by employing the philosophy that intelligent design can happen by natural processes.


  • Gneiss girl likes this

#19 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 781 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 08 February 2017 - 01:48 PM

The problem is that "science" is not one process, it's a body of techniques for investigating phenomena that may differ depending on which scientific discipline we are talking about.

yes, the techniques of the various disciplines are different, but the "investigation" is still the "scientific method".
for example, you don't use beakers and retorts to dig up bones, you don't use shovels and radiometric dating to classify the various lifeforms.
in both of the above examples, the scientific method is used to clarify the findings.

But in the context of this thread I was merely pointing out that you don't need to limit yourself to material causes if you are a theist. That's just an uncalled for and unnecessary philosophical limitation.

i think most people are aware that they are more than what physical laws can explain.
i also believe quite a few people will say "the cell was designed that way", in privacy, but would never say that amongst a group of people.

If you buy into methodological philosophy, the only thing you can investigate scientifically about abiogenesis is if life arose naturally.

i believe you can also prove if the cell has an irreducible complexity.
so far, this question remains open.

But if you dump this and is a bit more pragmatic when it comes to form your reasoned hypothesis, then you could put forward different hypothesis about the origin of life. For example:
 
1 - That life arose by a random naturalistic event, and then the evolutionary process created all life. 
2 - That God created the initial life, and then used some sort of evolutionary process to create all life.
3 - That God created the original phyla and after that used some sort of evolutionary process to create all life.
4 - That God created different kinds and that current and past animals are variations of those kinds.
 
And then you could start to scientifically investigate which hypothesis best fits the facts we have. One of the major benefits of this is that if God created life the consequences of this is not excluded from scientific investigation, just because of someones philosophical ideas.

good point, and i agree with it.
i think most people (creationists included) do not believe that "praying to the gods" will cause the rain to fall, and that sacrificing animals for the gods is ridiculous.
OTOH, miracles do happen.

personally, my major question is why.
why, pray tell, does god create all of this?
can anybody answer this in a reasoned way?

there are 2 plausible answers i can come up with:
1. the universe is infinite and life has always existed.
2. life arose naturally.
3. if there is a god, then someone needs to come up with the answer of why.

#20 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,110 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 08 February 2017 - 03:36 PM

 

 

What if: there are 2 plausible answers i can come up with:
1. the universe is infinite and life has always existed.
2. life arose naturally.
3. if there is a god, then someone needs to come up with the answer of why. 

 

But at the end of the day it doesn't matter because a butterfly does exist, even if you don't think there is an answer. It shouldn't exist under dumb materialism, and yet it does. No matter the homework they attempt to cover up the obvious, it just is miraculous.

 

Never conflate supernatural with the miraculous, everything we see is both natural and miraculous, the two are not mutually exclusive like the half-wits of anti-theism have told you.

 

What I'm saying is, God has declared His position, and you don't accept that position. BUT, that's still what God has said, and will remain so, because God doesn't change. (immutability).

 

How can we trust God? He must have some characteristics for us to trust Him, as taught to me by Charles Stanley.

 

1. Immutability. (if He changed then He could change His mind and say, "I don't want you to be saved anymore if you believe in Jesus Christ, instead believe now in pizza.)

2. Omniscience. (How can you trust Him if He is making guesses? "Oh I'm so sorry Mike, I thought that was my will for your life but I confused you with Paul." ---> don't think so somehow! 

3. Omnipotence. (If God doesn't have the power to do everything then how can He promise. Like the bible says, "has the Lord's arm grown weak?" No - how can it grow weak?)

4. Truthful. (If God can tell lies then you couldn't bank on anything He said. Maybe then He could lie and the gospel could then be false.)

 

Nobody can ever fully understand God's motives from a position of having a finite mind that can't grasp omniscient reasons. But we are told that He sent Christ because He loves us and wants us to be in His kingdom and God is worthy of our having belief in Him. 

 

Like it says in Isaiah, in so many words it says, "why do you think your just claim is passed over and you are forgotten?" (paraphrase) - then it says, "Don't you know God's understanding is unsearchable".

 

In psalm 20 it says, "a man's steps are of the Lord, how then can he understand his own way?"

 

In other words, looking at the facts together is a sure way to get confused, because there seems to be contradictions and conflicts. There is joy yet there is misery, there is pleasure yet there is pain. This is why we have to have our focus on God and not the facts, for "the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are unseen, are eternal".

 

These answers have been given but they don't come in the form you want. For this reason your mind can't be changed because only you have power over your own freewill.

"Will" = "I WILL not believe."

 

"I WILL only accept a certain type of answer, even if you give me the correct one I will reject it unless it satisfies me."

 

But how will that stop people from falling of cliffs if they jump, just because you insist that you don't like that the answer is gravity.

 

It's not your way or the highway, it's God's high way or no way. :)

 

God-did-it. Get over it, and seek your Skydaddy in humility, you're no different from us! 

 

 


  • Gneiss girl likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users