Jump to content


Photo

Abiogenesis.


  • Please log in to reply
104 replies to this topic

#41 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 10 February 2017 - 03:33 PM

With that comment, we can lay to rest the claim that God's creation was "perfect." If man was imperfect, the creation can not be perfect because it had a flaw (in man).

Even the Bible says creation was only "very good."



I have to admit, It is extremely rare for me to see a "Theistic Evolutionist" Quote the Bible as if it had any relevance at all to the topic of Man's Origins...

Nice to see for a change

#42 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

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

Posted 11 February 2017 - 12:43 AM

You do if you want to call the inclusion of supernatural causes into the physical and natural sciences.Of course, if you merely propose the supernatural as a philosophical avenue of investigation, that's totally different."Expected material consequences" implies materialism.  Materialism is another favorite creationist complaint right along with the naturalistic methodology of science. My comment that "naturalistic methodology" is a "realistic recognition of the limitations of the physical and natural sciences" seems to right along the lines of your statement about "pragmatic naturalism."   We may not be all that far apart.

 

That's fine, but you can't simply suspend the natural and physical laws and claim you're still doing natural or physical science science.  You also need to propose a way to test your hypothesis. Of course, planetary motions have been fully explained by purely "naturalistic processes.  It is interesting that you would cite Newton because of the Newtonian synthesis.....  that the natural laws apply at all times and in all places.

 

While it could be that something doesn't look plausible under "only naturalistic processes" could mean it is not the result of natural processes, it is also possible that it is the result of natural processes we don't fully understand.  The planetary motions example is a good one.  Newton was not able to explain the orbit of Mercury by his laws.  It was not until Einstein developed the theories of relativity that Mercury's orbit was fully explained ..... by purely natural processes.

 

I find it amusing you would invoke Newton to support introduction of non-natural processes for two reasons:

1)  Newton's scientific explanations proposed only natural processes and solutions.

2)  The Newtonian Synthesis which basically says the natural laws apply at all times and in all places.

 

Before I answer your questions, I ask you to reply to one that I previously presented.....

Why do we call them NATURAL and PHYSICAL sciences?

 

I suspect your answer will show we may not be that far apart here either.  Instead of a "hijacking of science by naturalists," the limitations of "naturalistic methodologies" are a pragmatic recognition of the necessary limitations of natural and physical science.Gould also recognized that along the margins, the magistra of science and religion do bump into each other.I agree Gould wasn't a philosopher.  It is equally true that such "real philosophers as Plantinga are not paleontologists or molecular biologists either.What on Earth makes you think I haven't actually studied the philosophical arguments of the other side?  You need to understand, it was the philosophical arguments (and direct observational evidence) that led to my rejection of YEC and acceptance of evolution as a process of creation used by God.

 

First of all I'll try to answer your question: "Why do we call them NATURAL and PHYSICAL sciences?"
 
The answer is simply that we don't, we call it science. Abiogenesis belongs to the group Life Science rather than Physical Science. And natural science only refers to science used to investigate nature, which could be both Life Science or Physical Science. Nothing of this as anything to do with methodological naturalism.
 
Who(except you) is suggesting that supernatural methods is needed in order to allow a hypothesis in science to make references to God? What do you even mean by something called "supernatural methods"? Or to be concrete. What "supernatural test" or which "supernatural method" is needed, if I want to evalute if the hypothesis that God created kinds is consistent with the current fossil record? Can't I just use the hypothetico-deductive method to see if the fossil record gives support for my hypothesis or not? When and why do I need these supernatural things you are talking about?
 
Why couldn't a hypothesis that makes reference to God be part of science? Which philosophical reason do you have to believe such things?
 
You haven't even begun to try and explain why you think this is the case. The article I referred to earlier on the other hand goes through and discuss this, you don't. For example do you think that Methodological Naturalism is true by definition, or is it that you think that "Functional Integrity" requires Methodological Naturalism? Or what do you believe?
 
And why do you believe that planetary motion is "fully explained"? Newton’s comment on the instability of the planets is worth quoting: “the Planets move one and the same way in Orbs concentric, some inconsiderable Irregularities excepted, which may have arisen from the mutual Actions of Comets and Planets upon one another, and which will be apt to increase, till this System wants a Reformation.” Evidently Newton believed that the solar system was unstable due to the n-body problem, and that occasional divine intervention was required to restore the well-spaced, nearly circular planetary orbits that we observe today. Does that mean that Newtons work on planetary motion is not science, just because he refereed to God in his published work?


#43 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 20 June 2017 - 04:39 AM

... and atoms joining to atoms isn't random. ... atom joining isn't random. ... if (sic) it isn't random, then it must have a direction. ...

.
Can you--or anybody--provide an example of anything random?

#44 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 20 June 2017 - 09:54 AM

Piasan said:

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.

While I agree with the general idea of what Piasan is communicating above I think referring to science in poetic terms by personyfying it leads to confusion. Science is not an entity. It is simply another name for our innate ability to reason or think. Nor, is our reasoning process limited to certain subjects. We can think any thoughts we wish.



#45 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 20 June 2017 - 10:10 AM

The other day I opened a can of primordial soup. Someone told me that all the igredients for life are avaiable in the average can of food. All that is needed is some enterprising scientist to make a can of tuna live again. lol

I think it is an assumption that life has not always existed. Life, it is often said, only comes from life. But, then we proceed to negate that claim. We assume life had a beginning?

We have the concept "eternal" which says something could always have existed. I believe biology is life animatingg matter rather than biology creating life. There is after all the same DNA code in a dead plant or animal (at least 'til it deteriorates) but sans life. Life may leave us but it does not go very far. :)

As thornton Wilder the great playwright said, "We all know somethig is eternal."
 



#46 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 20 June 2017 - 11:43 AM

...I think it is an assumption that life has not always existed. Life, it is often said, only comes from life. But, then we proceed to negate that claim. We assume life had a beginning?...

.
I think we can state with certainty that we don't have persuasive evidence for or against eternal life. We all can hold hands as Agnostics on this, except for those who have invested a great deal in the truth or falsity of the issue, which might be the vast majority here...

We may have great hope in discovering something important with respect to this subject on one or several of the moons of Jupiter (or Saturn).


#47 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 434 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 20 June 2017 - 11:52 AM

 

... and atoms joining to atoms isn't random. ... atom joining isn't random. ... if (sic) it isn't random, then it must have a direction. ...

.
Can you--or anybody--provide an example of anything random?

 


I think the confusing thing about randomness is that it's usually phrased as the property of one thing - a coin flip "is random", a planet's orbit "isn't", and this leads to thinking it means think like non-determinism or lack of causality. The mistake there is that randomness doesn't describe one thing, it describes the relationship between two things. So a coin flip is random with respect to something - how many flips there have been so far, what the flipper wants or expects the result to be - but isn't random with respect to other things, like the exact physical micro-movements of the hand flipping the coin.

That's how you can have most physical quantities have random and non-random components when you graph them; for example if we plot the temperature every day throughout the year somewhere with seasonality we'll see a definite trend going up in summer and down in winter, but the dots won't follow that trend perfectly; if we cancel out the trend we might find we're left with a cloud of dots that has no clear pattern - that's called "random noise", and the randomness can be determined mathematically. But that random noise doesn't represent the extent to which temperature is uncaused or non-deterministic; it represents the extent to which temperature is caused by factors that aren't related to what day of the year it is. If we plotted instead the temperature on a given day versus the temperature of the previous day, or the temperature on that same day the previous year, different causal factors would show up as trend and as noise.


  • mike the wiz likes this

#48 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 20 June 2017 - 01:37 PM

Most likely a human agent tossed the coin in your example. Humans with intelligence can control randomness by decidig they wannnnt one side of the coin to appear (of their choice) and then placing the coin with the side up they want it to be. LOL Intelligence rules!



#49 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 20 June 2017 - 01:46 PM

Schera Do said:

I think we can state with certainty that we don't have persuasive evidence for or against eternal life. We all can hold hands as Agnostics on this, except for those who have invested a great deal in the truth or falsity of the issue, which might be the vast majority here...

Baloney! Life as evidence is everywhere--all arround us. It's hard to prove a negative?



#50 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 21 June 2017 - 02:30 PM

Most likely a human agent tossed the coin in your example. Humans with intelligence can control randomness by decidig they wannnnt one side of the coin to appear (of their choice) and then placing the coin with the side up they want it to be. LOL Intelligence rules!

.
Peculiar use of "randomness" as it is by definition not susceptible to being controlled.

#51 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 21 June 2017 - 04:37 PM

Schera Do said:

Peculiar use of "randomness" as it is by definition not susceptible to being controlled.

And who or what is going to stop an intelligent agent from intervening and controlling a "random" process?



#52 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,742 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 21 June 2017 - 09:41 PM

Piasan said:

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.

While I agree with the general idea of what Piasan is communicating above I think referring to science in poetic terms by personyfying it leads to confusion. Science is not an entity. It is simply another name for our innate ability to reason or think. Nor, is our reasoning process limited to certain subjects. We can think any thoughts we wish.

Why do creationists keep bringing up "personifying" things like science?  Do they think we're not fully aware science is not an entity?

 

Just to be absolutely clear .....

Science is a tool.  Science can not "deal" with God or "handle" His actions in the same way a hammer can't "deal" with or "handle" removing a screw.



#53 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 434 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 22 June 2017 - 02:31 AM

Most likely a human agent tossed the coin in your example. Humans with intelligence can control randomness by decidig they wannnnt one side of the coin to appear (of their choice) and then placing the coin with the side up they want it to be. LOL Intelligence rules!


But nobody would call that "random". In the case of a coin toss, the randomness of interest is usually whether it's random with respect to what the people involved want the result to be. So when they do a coin toss at the beginning of a football game to decide who picks the side they'll start playing on there would be no point in the referee just taking the coin and setting it down on the side they choose: if you were doing that you could skip a step and just ask the referee "which team gets to pick the side they start on?"

#54 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 22 June 2017 - 03:29 AM

Schera Do said:

Peculiar use of "randomness" as it is by definition not susceptible to being controlled.

And who or what is going to stop an intelligent agent from intervening and controlling a "random" process?

.
What bearing does that have for the definition of "random?"

#55 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 22 June 2017 - 08:21 PM

I would say intelligence trumps random. Moreover  you negated random     when you used the  word 'use' which implys an intelligent agent. In the concept of evolution there is no one to "use" random  as things order themselves. Use is a mental  term.



#56 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 22 June 2017 - 09:07 PM

Aelyn said:

France
Posted 22 June 2017 - 03:31 AM
Mike Summers, on 20 Jun 2017 - 3:37 PM, said:

Most likely a human agent tossed the coin in your example. Humans with intelligence can control randomness by decidig they want one side of the coin to appear (of their choice) and then placing the coin with the side up they want it to be. LOL Intelligence rules!

But nobody would call that "random". In the case of a coin toss, the randomness of interest is usually whether it's random with respect to what the people involved want the result to be. So when they do a coin toss at the beginning of a football game to decide who picks the side they'll start playing on there would be no point in the referee just taking the coin and setting it down on the side they choose: if you were doing that you could skip a step and just ask the referee "which team gets to pick the side they start on?"

You suggest intelligent use of "random." Unforunately, you have the same dilima as Darwin. Only intelligent beings can create theories. So to "use" random, intelligence is input "to' toss the coin. That makes random seem not so random! :) LOL



#57 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 23 June 2017 - 04:33 AM

Schera Do said:

Peculiar use of "randomness" as it is by definition not susceptible to being controlled.

And who or what is going to stop an intelligent agent from intervening and controlling a "random" process?

.
What bearing does that have for the definition of "random?"
.

I would say intelligence trumps random. Moreover you negated random when you used the word 'use' which implys an intelligent agent. In the concept of evolution there is no one to "use" random as things order themselves. Use is a mental term.

.
What I did is take a stand for intellectual standards and the promotion of moving the discussion forward, while your contradiction of the definition of the word brings discussion to a halt. Therefore, the bearing your question has and had is that it brings discussion to--ought to bring it to--an end on the subject. It ought for the reason that I ought not agree to indulge in an intellectual perversion.

The meaning of "random" is now in dispute in this thread. Congratulations.


#58 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 434 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 24 June 2017 - 01:13 AM

You suggest intelligent use of "random." Unforunately, you have the same dilima as Darwin. Only intelligent beings can create theories. So to "use" random, intelligence is input "to' toss the coin. That makes random seem not so random! :) LOL


Do I suggest that? I'm not sure what it is you're replying to; I'm struggling to see how your replies relate to what I thought I was saying. Could you tell me what it is you read in my posts that led to the replies you made?



#59 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 24 June 2017 - 01:48 AM

You suggest intelligent use of "random." Unforunately, you have the same dilima as Darwin. Only intelligent beings can create theories. So to "use" random, intelligence is input "to' toss the coin. That makes random seem not so random! :) LOL

Do I suggest that? I'm not sure what it is you're replying to; I'm struggling to see how your replies relate to what I thought I was saying. Could you tell me what it is you read in my posts that led to the replies you made?


Since the theme of this thread is "Abiogenesis" you would need that coin to "randomly" land on Heads 20 Times in a row as ONLY left handed amino acids with the same chiralty are able to make a protein..

The Odds against AbioDarwinism are so massive that it takes so much more faith to believe in it than Creationism..

http://radaractive.b...om-non.html?m=1

Creationists just dont have enough faith to be an Atheist..

"I think in fifty years, Darwinian evolution will be gone from the science curriculum...I think people will look back on it and ask how anyone could, in their right mind, have believed this, because it's so implausible when you look at the evidence."

(Dr. Johnathan Wells, author of the book, "Icons of Evolution")

#60 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 24 June 2017 - 03:43 PM

Hi Blitz

The Odds against AbioDarwinism are so massive that it takes so much more faith to believe in it than Creationism..

That and the fact that the only way we hummans can bring anything into existence is use our intelligence to create it . So if we are not scientific what is?

Darwin used his creativity to create a just so story.

Keep in mind odds only apply to events before they happen. So evo's could easily argue "it" did happen because life exists.
But evos are not practicing science because they have created no testable hypothesis of how to create life. They are speculatig--using their creativity to create what they want to believe. If that were not so they would be much more objective. They could admit that creation is possible as we humans create things all the time.

Life has always existed as one of the characteristics of God the eternal life giver.
It is not chemical.

 


  • Blitzking likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users