Jump to content


Photo

Abiogenesis.


  • Please log in to reply
104 replies to this topic

#61 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 - 03:53 PM

Wow! The discussion goes on and on. I guess I don't have the powers some  people say I have. How can I stop somebody from thinking and writing what they want? I don't think I can! Nor do I want to. I don't have any more power than anyone else!



#62 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 - 04:00 PM

Piasan said:

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

Prose is not the same as poetry. Personification is the doimain of Poetry. I don't know when poetic terminology invaded prose but it confuses precision "scientific reasoninng." Science is just another name for thinking--glorified reasoning--given a cause what its effect will be and given an effect what its cause was. We use science (reasoning) to answer the asfore mentioned questions.
 

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.

Like Reagan said, "There you go again. Speak for yourself. Our thinking process allows us to think about anything we choose. You sre trying to eliminate God from our reasoning process. That won't work for me.

God says he reasons and we can reason with him.

Isaiah 1:18 King James Version (KJV)
18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord:

Romans 1:28
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.



#63 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 24 June 2017 - 04:33 PM

Piasan said:

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

Prose is not the same as poetry. Personification is the doimain of Poetry. I don't know when poetic terminology invaded prose but it confuses precision "scientific reasoninng." Science is just another name for thinking--glorified reasoning--given a cause what its effect will be and given an effect what its cause was. We use science (reasoning) to answer the asfore mentioned questions.
 

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.

Like Reagan said, "There you go again. Speak for yourself. Our thinking process allows us to think about anything we choose. You sre trying to eliminate God from our reasoning process. That won't work for me.

God says he reasons and we can reason with him.

Isaiah 1:18 King James Version (KJV)
18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord:

Romans 1:28
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.

 

It has been from my experiences that "Theistic Evolutionists" are much more Difficult, Dogmatic, Illogical, Anti Science, Anti Reason and Anti God in general that Atheists are!!!

 

My educated guess is that over 75% of them are merely "Atheists in sheep's clothing" who are simply trying to pollute and troll the discussion for nefarious and deceptive reasons..  :kaffeetrinker: 

 

 

"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's pronouncements and predictions . . Let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."

(Dr. I.L. Cohen, "Darwin Was Wrong:" A Study in Probabilities



#64 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 - 06:23 PM


Lol
I tried to point out that theistic evolution is an oxymoron to no avail.



#65 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 27 June 2017 - 04:50 AM

Lol
I tried to point out that theistic evolution is an oxymoron to no avail.

.
Where did you make that attempt?

#66 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 27 June 2017 - 07:17 AM

A couple of years ago and now.



#67 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 27 June 2017 - 11:33 AM

Lol
I tried to point out that theistic evolution is an oxymoron to no avail.

.
Where did you make that attempt?

A couple of years ago and now.

.
I'll ask again, but differently: Will you please point to the post WHERE you MADE that attempt?

#68 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 27 June 2017 - 01:45 PM

Schera Do,

Don't you understand my speech? Now!













!



#69 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 27 June 2017 - 03:17 PM

Lol
I tried to point out that theistic evolution is an oxymoron to no avail.



What do you call Moron that lacks oxygen? Anoxymoron...

#70 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 27 June 2017 - 05:27 PM

LOL

#71 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 28 June 2017 - 05:48 AM

Schera Do,

Don't you understand my speech? Now!













!

.
Welcome to ignore.

#72 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 28 June 2017 - 05:05 PM

Grow up!



#73 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 26 September 2017 - 10:26 PM

If we’re sticking with hard science, no current theory of life’s origin qualifies.

One of my friends is a prominent scientist who simply refuses to talk about Origin of Life, because he’s honest enough to admit that we know next to nothing about where life came from.

So if we’re going to be consistent and insist that we only teach science in science classrooms, then not only should discussions of God be banned, but all the other theories of life’s origin should be banned too.

The creationist believes in God with a capital G.

The atheist believes in Chance with a capital C.

I fail to see the difference. (Except that creationists generally admit their belief is based on faith, and atheists usually don’t.)

In formal scientific literature, the most truthful statement I’ve ever found is from Hubert Yockey, in his book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life (Cambridge University Press 2005). On page 176 he says:

“I have no doubt that if the historic process leading to the origin of life were knowable, it would be a process of physics and chemistry. Thus the process of the origin of life is possible but unknowable.”

Page 181: “The fact that there are many things unavailable to human knowledge and reasoning, even in mathematics, does not mean that there must be an Intelligent Designer.”

From a scientific perspective, Yockey’s answer is perfectly valid. I salute him for his candor. But it leaves the elephant stomping around in the room. It assumes our absence of knowledge is a brick wall.

But what if this is solvable – scientifically?

It might be solvable. So I am willing and eager to stick to the normal rules of science – methodological naturalism – and not abdicate to a “God Of Gaps explanation” every time we hit a wall in our understanding.

This is VERY important. Why?

Because no working scientist gets to say “God did it, that explains it” then take a 3-martini lunch. Scientists have to earn their paychecks. We must respect their jobs and their profession.

MANY religious people pit theology against science. The way many Christians, creationists and Intelligent Design advocates frame the issue, they’re practically giving scientists the finger.

It took me quite awhile to see how big this problem is. But I now see it very clearly. This is not OK.

That’s why it’s vital to search for an Origin Of Life model that is properly scientific. That is the motivation behind the prize.

Creating and funding this prize has been a very complex and expensive undertaking. Forming a corporation, hiring lawyers, conforming to securities laws, pitching investors, etc. etc. etc. Only a person who has formed an entity and legally taken on equity investors, dealt with federal regulations etc. can fully appreciate this.

Some of my friends think this is brilliant. Others think I’m crazy.

I did not create and fund this prize to “give scientists the finger.” I founded this prize so that we can put Origin Of Life on proper scientific footing.

Why? Because there may well be a principle of self-organization in nature, or consciousness, or some unknown law of physics, that explains information.

Origin of Information is one of the most valuable and fundamental questions in the entire history of science. If this is discovered, it will be one of the ten most important discoveries of the 21st century. It may be one of the biggest science discoveries of all time.

I believe there’s a 10% chance of solving this in my lifetime.

Of course we can choose to give the current (non-empirical, non-testable, non-scientific) Origin Of Life theories a free diplomatic bag of immunity. If so, why don’t we just ignore science entirely… and make up whatever we want to believe?

Secular people of all stripes are free to do that. People are welcome to believe life was a “happy chemical accident,” as long as they acknowledge that’s not science.

But they can’t have their cake and eat it too. They can’t claim to “wear the robe of science” as though it somehow supports their skepticism. And they cannot ban God from the debate, embrace a story about warm ponds and lucky lightning strikes, and claim to be fair and honest about science.

By the way, I know many deeply religious people who are also extremely uncomfortable with “God of the Gaps” arguments. They also only accept naturalistic models as real science. The BioLogos foundation is a good example.

Meanwhile, if you want to dismiss “design” in biology, you must solve information first. Until then, the inference to a Designer is still on the table.

Arthur C. Clarke said, ”Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

And I say, “Any sufficiently improbable event is indistinguishable from miracles.”

Therefore I see no empirical advantage that any of the current explanations have, vs. invoking God. Both are faith based.

The only proper scientific approach is to hypothesize that there is an undiscovered principle that explains life and information.

This is why I am totally serious about this prize. Origin Of Information may be solvable. If it is, the discovery will meet the criteria I’ve outlined in the Evolution 2.0 Prize.

May the best man – or woman – win.
cosmicfingerprints.com/evolution2-winnable/

the $5 million prize:
cosmicfingerprints.com/solve/

#74 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,384 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 27 September 2017 - 04:04 PM

The god of the gaps fallacy is something specific, in logical notation it isn't the conclusion that God done something, it's a specific fallacy which is committed when instead of knowledge someone infers a supernatural agent instead/in place, of an explanation.

 

With intelligent design, strictly speaking if we go with the bare-bones argument, it is only an argument that life is intelligently designed, therefore you could also argue the ID argument for your proposal. 

 

What I don't like is how it's falsely dichotomized as, "it's either science and naturalism we go with or a God of the gaps".

 

That just isn't the case, the features of intelligent design in organisms aren't absences of data, they are actual features of design so to argue life is designed by a designer isn't a God-of-the-gaps fallacy.

 

To actually commit the fallacy you must commit it, what you can't do is say that any argument or inference that contains, "God" is the god-of-the-gaps fallacy, because it isn't. 

 

Think about it this way - if logic is telling us that any conclusion about God is the god-of-the-gaps, then that would mean that NEUTRAL logical notation would be teaching us that no argument can ever contain "God" or the argument is flawed.

 

That is the absurd version of the atheists pseudo-fallacy, the actual GOTG fallacy, specifically means to argue this particular argument;

 

"I heard thunder and I saw the lightning, it was majestic, there is no explanation it can surely only mean that Thor exists."

 

THAT is the GOTG fallacy. 

 

 

 

What If: The fact that there are many things unavailable to human knowledge and reasoning, even in mathematics, does not mean that there must be an Intelligent Designer

 

That is correct but we as theists/creationists/IDists are not arguing that argument, we are not saying that because there are gaps in knowledge there must be an intelligent designer, we are saying that because the ID features in life are factual, it is unavoidable that life is designed. This person is committing a strawman if he is saying this is the only reason people argue ID.

 

Also, where knowledge is found, this doesn't replace a designer either. For example figuring out that a combustion engine runs without the need for the designer to ever be present in the system doesn't mean it isn't designed. In the same way finding out how gravity works might be perfectly congruent with design, especially if there is clear teleology that can be inferred. If anything it is a smart design to have us walk on a sphere, because we can never reach the edge. 

 

So finding out knowledge doesn't preclude a designer and often it actually evidences the precondition of intelligibility in the universe.

 

 

 

The fact that there are many things unavailable to human knowledge and reasoning, even in mathematics, does not mean that there must be an Intelligent Designer

 

Does this look like a gap in knowledge to you;

 

Contingency planning.

Specified Complexity.

Function. (if required)

Goals.

Viability.

Solutions to obscure problems innate to the design. (example; wheelspin in cars, is solved by the invention of a differential)

Correct materials.

Information

Information storage density

Directed energy (if energy is required)

Aesthetics and symmetry.

 

(these aren't guesses, they all exist in things all people agree are designed, and we find them all in life.)


  • Tirian likes this

#75 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Western US

Posted 27 September 2017 - 09:42 PM

I agree with Mike the Wiz. It is not a GOTG fallacy. Life requires specific complex information. Life exhibits elements of design. Information and Design both are known to have intelligent causation. It is "Inference to the Best Explanation." 



#76 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 28 September 2017 - 01:16 AM

The god of the gaps fallacy is something specific, in logical notation it isn't the conclusion that God done something, it's a specific fallacy which is committed when instead of knowledge someone infers a supernatural agent instead/in place, of an explanation.
 
With intelligent design, strictly speaking if we go with the bare-bones argument, it is only an argument that life is intelligently designed, therefore you could also argue the ID argument for your proposal. 
 
What I don't like is how it's falsely dichotomized as, "it's either science and naturalism we go with or a God of the gaps".
 
That just isn't the case, the features of intelligent design in organisms aren't absences of data, they are actual features of design so to argue life is designed by a designer isn't a God-of-the-gaps fallacy.
 
To actually commit the fallacy you must commit it, what you can't do is say that any argument or inference that contains, "God" is the god-of-the-gaps fallacy, because it isn't. 
 
Think about it this way - if logic is telling us that any conclusion about God is the god-of-the-gaps, then that would mean that NEUTRAL logical notation would be teaching us that no argument can ever contain "God" or the argument is flawed.
 
That is the absurd version of the atheists pseudo-fallacy, the actual GOTG fallacy, specifically means to argue this particular argument;
 
"I heard thunder and I saw the lightning, it was majestic, there is no explanation it can surely only mean that Thor exists."
 
THAT is the GOTG fallacy. 
 

 
 
What If: The fact that there are many things unavailable to human knowledge and reasoning, even in mathematics, does not mean that there must be an Intelligent Designer

 
That is correct but we as theists/creationists/IDists are not arguing that argument, we are not saying that because there are gaps in knowledge there must be an intelligent designer, we are saying that because the ID features in life are factual, it is unavoidable that life is designed. This person is committing a strawman if he is saying this is the only reason people argue ID.
 
Also, where knowledge is found, this doesn't replace a designer either. For example figuring out that a combustion engine runs without the need for the designer to ever be present in the system doesn't mean it isn't designed. In the same way finding out how gravity works might be perfectly congruent with design, especially if there is clear teleology that can be inferred. If anything it is a smart design to have us walk on a sphere, because we can never reach the edge. 
 
So finding out knowledge doesn't preclude a designer and often it actually evidences the precondition of intelligibility in the universe.
 

 
 
The fact that there are many things unavailable to human knowledge and reasoning, even in mathematics, does not mean that there must be an Intelligent Designer

 
Does this look like a gap in knowledge to you;
 
Contingency planning.
Specified Complexity.
Function. (if required)
Goals.
Viability.
Solutions to obscure problems innate to the design. (example; wheelspin in cars, is solved by the invention of a differential)
Correct materials.
Information
Information storage density
Directed energy (if energy is required)
Aesthetics and symmetry.
 
(these aren't guesses, they all exist in things all people agree are designed, and we find them all in life.)


Nice and convincing list..

You might have thrown in Irreducible Complexity and Symbiotic Relationships for good measure, But that might have been overkill..LOL



"Darwin's evolutionary explanation of the origins of man has been transformed into a modern myth, to the detriment of scientific and social progress.....The secular myths of evolution have had a damaging effect on scientific research, leading to distortion, to needless controversy, and to gross misuse of science....I mean the stories, the narratives about change over time. How the dinosaurs became extinct, how the mammals evolved, where man came from. These seem to me to be little more than story-telling."

(Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)

#77 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 28 September 2017 - 01:40 AM

I agree with Mike the Wiz. It is not a GOTG fallacy. Life requires specific complex information. Life exhibits elements of design. Information and Design both are known to have intelligent causation. It is "Inference to the Best Explanation."

Yes indeed..

Not to mention overcoming the problem of a few scientific LAWS thrown in for good measure..

(1) Biogenesis = Life CANNOT come from dead matter..

(2) Cause and Effect = UNIVERSAL Law of Causality

(3) SLOT / Entropy = Unstoppable slow heat death of the universe!

(4) FLOT / Conservation of Energy = NO FREE LUNCH!

Sender / Receiver REQUIREMENT for Instrumentality (Information Science)

It is indeed Science vs Religion.. But Creationists represent scientific knowledge while Accidentalists represent a religious paradigm that requires a massively huge amount of faith in order to believe.. Not to mention requiring Special Pleading of at least ONE mulligan to allow for the violation of Scientific LAWS!! (While they dishonestly assert that they represent "Science") This isnt Golf.LOL..


"Meanwhile, their [evolutionists] unproven theories will continue to be accepted by the learned and the illiterate alike as absolute truth, and will be defended with a frantic intolerance that has a parallel only in the bigotry of the darkest Middle Ages. If one does not accept evolution as an infallible dogma, implicitly and without question, one is regarded as an unenlightened ignoramus or is merely ignored as an obscurantist or a naive, uncritical fundamentalist."

(Dr. Alfred Rehwinkel)

#78 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 773 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 28 September 2017 - 06:53 AM

(1) Biogenesis = Life CANNOT come from dead matter..

Not a real law.

(3) SLOT / Entropy = Unstoppable slow heat death of the universe!

(4) FLOT / Conservation of Energy = NO FREE LUNCH!

Where/how have any of the laws of thermodynamics been violated by life?

#79 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 28 September 2017 - 07:59 AM

Yes indeed..

Not to mention overcoming the problem of a few scientific LAWS thrown in for good measure..

(1) Biogenesis = Life CANNOT come from dead matter..

there is no scientific law anywhere that says life cannot come from nonlife.

the law of biogenesis says that life comes from life.
every observation science has made in regards to the above supports it (biogenesis).
science has not witnessed any event that says life comes from non life.
in this situation, biogenesis can indeed be considered a scientific law, but it DOES NOT say abiogenesis is impossible.

about information:
i'm quite sure that most scientists are well aware of this situation.
with that in mind, then why are they concerned with getting the right elements to come together?
getting the correct elements in the correct proportions will not answer the information question.

it certainly does appear as if SOMETHING was trying to get it right in regards to the earliest stages of life.
viruses with their RNA core, then prokaryotes with their HGT, then eukaryotyes with their "tagged" transposons.
epigenetics only serves to make this situation even more complex because it appears that it arrived at the same time as DNA based life and co-evolved with it.
this is probably where and why the information bit comes into play, because it takes information to determine which genes to activate and when.

#80 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 807 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 28 September 2017 - 09:18 AM

Just being dogmatic here, but the reason why "science" will never be able to discover the origin of life is because life did not originate via a "process of physics and chemistry." So, there is no there there for science to examine.

 

Like it or not, there is a spiritual component to the universe. Until scientists recognize and deal with that truth all they are doing is trying to do science with half their brains tied behind their backs. It's self-handicapping. What a waste of precious brain power.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users