Jump to content


Photo

Questions To Evolutionists/atheists


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
84 replies to this topic

#61 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 05 December 2012 - 08:02 PM

I got your point fine and you apparently didn't understand my explanation of why that point was irrelevant. Get back to me when you've read that explanation, understood it, and can give a rebuttal that isn't just a restatement of your original argument.

Will you please just answer the questions and quit ignoring the import of usajay1976 statement: "Yet you can conceive that nature created life (which includes complex parts) from nothing with no purpose, no thought, no anything no design..." ...and please don't give us any more mumbo-jumbo like: "Systems that replicate imperfectly and whose ability to replicate varies depending on certain constraints will undergo optimization according to those constraints, whether the replicating systems are pieces of code or chemicals and whether the constraint is a fitness function or the environment."

What systems, replications, constraints, optimizations, codes, chemicals or functions existed before the so-called 'big bang' and what created them? P.S. before you answer please remember the law of conservation of energy: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Also please remember the 1st law of thermodynamics: matter can neither be created nor destroyed.

#62 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 05 December 2012 - 08:10 PM

I got your point fine and you apparently didn't understand my explanation of why that point was irrelevant. Get back to me when you've read that explanation, understood it, and can give a rebuttal that isn't just a restatement of your original argument.


You're "rebuttal"

"And an intelligent agent couldn't make two apples plus two apples equal five apples"

Does nothing to demonstrate that your use of someting relating to an intelligent agent can also be applied to a mindless naturalistic form of causation.


You're doing the same as this

Humans use maths to use numbers
Selection uses numbers of organisms
Therefore selection uses maths

Despite the fact that in order to utilise mathematics one needs a mind capable of formulating and understanding mathematical equations.


In otherwords demonstrate how you can overcome the chasm of attributing something coming from an intelligent source as being attributable to a non-intelligent source.
  • Calypsis4 likes this

#63 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 05 December 2012 - 08:27 PM

You're "rebuttal" "And an intelligent agent couldn't make two apples plus two apples equal five apples" Does nothing to demonstrate that your use of someting relating to an intelligent agent can also be applied to a mindless naturalistic form of causation. You're doing the same as this Humans use maths to use numbers Selection uses numbers of organisms Therefore selection uses maths Despite the fact that in order to utilise mathematics one needs a mind capable of formulating and understanding mathematical equations. In otherwords demonstrate how you can overcome the chasm of attributing something coming from an intelligent source as being attributable to a non-intelligent source.


He seems determined to keep the cart in front of the horse at every corner.

#64 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

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

Posted 05 December 2012 - 09:18 PM

You're "rebuttal" "And an intelligent agent couldn't make two apples plus two apples equal five apples" Does nothing to demonstrate that your use of someting relating to an intelligent agent can also be applied to a mindless naturalistic form of causation. You're doing the same as this Humans use maths to use numbers Selection uses numbers of organisms Therefore selection uses maths Despite the fact that in order to utilise mathematics one needs a mind capable of formulating and understanding mathematical equations. In otherwords demonstrate how you can overcome the chasm of attributing something coming from an intelligent source as being attributable to a non-intelligent source.

Actually the relevant part of my "rebuttal" was this bit :
Two apples on the ground plus two apples falling off a tree equals four apples on the ground, whether or not an intelligent agent was shaking the branch.
The second bit was there to make the point intelligent agents don't have special powers to make maths work differently than maths work when intelligent agents aren't around but it was rather ancillary to the main point, which is that systems with certain properties will behave the way mathematics say things with those properties behave, regardless of whether intelligent agents are involved or not.

"Nature" or "selection" don't "use" maths, they obey maths (or to put it differently, maths are an abstract formal description of how the world works). Apples don't understand addition but two apples plus two apples will always add up to four apples. Waves don't understand harmonic equations but they still behave as those equations say they do, whether those waves are caused by the wind or by engineers making a wave machine. And imperfect replicators whose replication rate depends on external constraints etc are an optimizing system whether or not they or anyone involved understands optimization.

That humans can use these mathematical relationships illustrates that those relationships are real, and real mathematical relationships don't disappear or stop working when intelligent agents aren't involved.

@Calypsis : I have nothing to say on anything to do with "before the big bang". I don't think something came from nothing, I don't think something didn't come from nothing, I don't know enough to have any belief at all on the subject.

#65 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 05 December 2012 - 09:28 PM

Actually the relevant part of my "rebuttal" was this bit : Two apples on the ground plus two apples falling off a tree equals four apples on the ground, whether or not an intelligent agent was shaking the branch. The second bit was there to make the point intelligent agents don't have special powers to make maths work differently than maths work when intelligent agents aren't around but it was rather ancillary to the main point, which is that systems with certain properties will behave the way mathematics say things with those properties behave, regardless of whether intelligent agents are involved or not. "Nature" or "selection" don't "use" maths, they obey maths (or to put it differently, maths are an abstract formal description of how the world works). Apples don't understand addition but two apples plus two apples will always add up to four apples. Waves don't understand harmonic equations but they still behave as those equations say they do, whether those waves are caused by the wind or by engineers making a wave machine. And imperfect replicators whose replication rate depends on external constraints etc are an optimizing system whether or not they or anyone involved understands optimization. That humans can use these mathematical relationships illustrates that those relationships are real, and real mathematical relationships don't disappear or stop working when intelligent agents aren't involved. @Calypsis : I have nothing to say on anything to do with "before the big bang". I don't think something came from nothing, I don't think something didn't come from nothing, I don't know enough to have any belief at all on the subject.


O.k....if that's the best you can do. But if one doesn't have a starting point/point of origin for either (1) the physical world/universe we live in nor (2) the cause for the origin of life then just how do expect us to take credibility in anything you say about it?

#66 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

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

Posted 05 December 2012 - 09:43 PM

I don't, which is why I've never said anything about it. (the pre-big bang origin of the universe that is. The origin of life is a completely different question despite all your efforts to conflate them)

#67 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:11 AM

1. Actually the relevant part of my "rebuttal" was this bit : Two apples on the ground plus two apples falling off a tree equals four apples on the ground, whether or not an intelligent agent was shaking the branch. The second bit was there to make the point intelligent agents don't have special powers to make maths work differently than maths work when intelligent agents aren't around but it was rather ancillary to the main point, which is that systems with certain properties will behave the way mathematics say things with those properties behave, regardless of whether intelligent agents are involved or not. "Nature" or "selection" don't "use" maths, they obey maths (or to put it differently, maths are an abstract formal description of how the world works). Apples don't understand addition but two apples plus two apples will always add up to four apples. Waves don't understand harmonic equations but they still behave as those equations say they do, whether those waves are caused by the wind or by engineers making a wave machine. And imperfect replicators whose replication rate depends on external constraints etc are an optimizing system whether or not they or anyone involved understands optimization. That humans can use these mathematical relationships illustrates that those relationships are real, and real mathematical relationships don't disappear or stop working when intelligent agents aren't involved.

2. @Calypsis : I have nothing to say on anything to do with "before the big bang". I don't think something came from nothing, I don't think something didn't come from nothing, I don't know enough to have any belief at all on the subject.


1. And? It was asked of you to define what your claim was... otherwise you're merely positing a just-so-stories. Being obscure isn't a good foundation to rest your hopes on.

2. If that is the case then you should be an agnostic, not an atheist since an atheist claims there is no God whereas the agnostic claims, I don't know enough so I won't state anything either way.

#68 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

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

Posted 06 December 2012 - 02:15 AM

1) If you think anything I wrote about natural selection here is a just-so story you evidently haven't understood anything I was saying (hint : just-so stories involve a story, and everything I've said is either too general to qualify, or was a statement of mathematical fact). Without more detail I can't tell what it is exactly you had trouble with and whether your understanding of what I was saying has changed at all since the previous post so there isn't much more I can say.

2) I have no beliefs as to what happened before the big bang, that has nothing to do with whether I have any beliefs as to whether god exists or not. I also have no beliefs as to what determines the Born probabilities, or whether there's life on Europa, or what country Timbuktu is in. Being agnostic on those things doesn't make me an agnostic on the subject of god either.

#69 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 06 December 2012 - 07:13 AM

1) If you think anything I wrote about natural selection here is a just-so story you evidently haven't understood anything I was saying (hint : just-so stories involve a story, and everything I've said is either too general to qualify, or was a statement of mathematical fact). Without more detail I can't tell what it is exactly you had trouble with and whether your understanding of what I was saying has changed at all since the previous post so there isn't much more I can say. 2) I have no beliefs as to what happened before the big bang, that has nothing to do with whether I have any beliefs as to whether god exists or not. I also have no beliefs as to what determines the Born probabilities, or whether there's life on Europa, or what country Timbuktu is in. Being agnostic on those things doesn't make me an agnostic on the subject of god either.


Unless you can define the specific mechanisms of complex self-organisation of systems in life then it is simply a just-so-story. I saw no claim of an actual process rather just a story of what evolutionists THINK happened.

So essentially you just prefer to avoid the question of where did the universe come from, considering that its one of the arguments for God the fact that you choose to ignore it and then still believe that God doesn't exist could be seen as something negative.

#70 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:58 AM

I don't, which is why I've never said anything about it. (the pre-big bang origin of the universe that is. The origin of life is a completely different question despite all your efforts to conflate them)


Let me ask you this: when you drive and come to a stop sign, do you just ignore it and drive right on down the highway?

But this is what you do with natural law....you don't like what they (the law of conservation of energy & Biogenesis) tell you so you just ignore them and continue on your trip defending evolution even though you haven't got a clue as to how things originated to begin with. Those laws tell you that Darwinian evolution does not and cannot operate in our world but you just drive by them as if they don't exist.

The truth is, however, that the Creator gave us those natural 'stop signs' so that we would know that nature cannot/does not create anything. There is really nowhere else for you to go but...you won't go there. The cops would give you a traffic ticket for running stop signs or a jail sentence for repeated offences. Do you really think there are no consequences for breaking the law, that is those natural stop signs?

#71 usafjay1976

usafjay1976

    Member

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas
  • Interests:Religion, Creation, Air Force, Traveling, Cooking, Movies
  • Age: 39
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 11 December 2012 - 08:29 AM

Just because you can't or refuse to understand how evolution works doesn't change the fact that it does. Imperfect and differential replication can constitute an optimizing process; that's a mathematical fact and engineers and computer programmers use it all the time when they use genetic or evolutionary algorithms. Systems with surprisingly simple rules can generate arbitrary amounts of complexity over time, again as any mathematician or programmer knows (Wolfram wrote a huge book on it but Conway's "Game of life" might be a more famous example). Thus I have no problem believing that self-replicating chemical systems (which are necessarily subject to natural selection and random mutation) could generate the diversity of life we see today given enough time. Nor do I have a problem believing self-replicating chemical systems could arise under certain conditions, such as those around hydrothermal vents, given how complex we know chemistry can be. Now please explain to me how something can have complex behavior without any internal structure. Just because I can't conceive of it doesn't mean it's impossible, it just means that the explanation of how it's possible would blow my mind and I love having my mind blown.


Just because you can’t or refuse to believe in God doesn’t change the fact that He does exist. Computer programmers are ‘Intelligent Designers’. Their programs wouldn’t exist if they didn’t design them. You have no problem believing that self-replicating chemical systems could generate the diversity of life we see today yet it has NOT been proven, nor observed, just hypothesized. Explain to you something can have complex behavior without any internal structure? I can’t. I don’t think anyone here has claimed that, that but maybe I am wrong? Explain to me something that has complex behavior and internal structure and how it ‘came to be’ without any designer behind it. I’ll wait for a bit as I’m assuming your mind has been blown.

#72 usafjay1976

usafjay1976

    Member

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas
  • Interests:Religion, Creation, Air Force, Traveling, Cooking, Movies
  • Age: 39
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 11 December 2012 - 08:32 AM

usajay1976: That was an absolute bombshell, jay. I would be very interested in seeing a response from any skeptic on the board to that.


Thanks Calypsis. Posted Image Honestly, I don't think there can be a good response, except for something along the lines of, "Well, it did happen".

#73 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

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

Posted 11 December 2012 - 09:33 AM

@Gilbo : You're forgetting what I was responding to, which is usafjay's question of why I found abiogenesis more plausible than something with no internal structure exhibiting complex behaviour. That has nothing to do with proving abiogenesis happened naturally. I'm sharing the reasoning behind my beliefs here, as Tirian asked me to. That has nothing to do with trying to convince you or anyone of those things. I'm glad to explain my reasoning in more detail if you don't understand it, hence my responses to you, but it's a given that we disagree on the conclusions so I don't see why you feel the need to rehash that.

So essentially you just prefer to avoid the question of where did the universe come from, considering that its one of the arguments for God the fact that you choose to ignore it and then still believe that God doesn't exist could be seen as something negative.

The origin of the universe as an argument for God is a terrible one, it assumes that intelligence can exist independently of the universe and isn't bound by causality. That's a fine assumption to make but as an argument for God it begs the question.

@Calypsis : You don't obey road signs when you're off the road. The “law of biogenesis” (insofar as it even is a law) only applies to modern life forms, and the first law of thermodynamics, as a law of the universe, has no reason to apply when the universe doesn't exist. Such as before the beginning of the universe.

And it certainly doesn't rule out Darwinian evolution. None of the laws of thermodynamics do that. If they did then they'd rule out life as a whole, and life being designed by God wouldn't change that – you can't design something that breaks the laws of thermodynamics.

It's interesting though that you think the first law of thermodynamics applied at any other time in the past; after all, I don't know if this is true of you but many young Earth creationists think the laws of radioactive decay (and, for some, the speed of light) have changed in the past. Why do you think the first law of thermodynamics worked the same way, say, before the Fall ? Or the Flood ? Or three thousand years ago ?

@usafjay : Well, as you didn't explain anything my mind can't have been blown, unfortunately. As for explaining how complexity can arise from evolutionary processes, I've already explained the basics; I'm not going to go into pages-long explanations when you only engage superficially with basics in the first place. Especially when you've got a pattern of asking billions of questions that require page-long explanations as answers and then not making much effort to understand or engage with what answers you do get. If I am going to have a conversation with you, instead of continuing this hijacking of a conversation with Tirian that was itself a tangent off a conversation that was a tangent off my response to your original post, I'd rather discuss said response to your original post. For example, do you understand what I was saying when I said the Big Bang didn't involve an explosion ? If not, could you maybe tell me what it is about that you don't understand so I can explain better ?

#74 usafjay1976

usafjay1976

    Member

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas
  • Interests:Religion, Creation, Air Force, Traveling, Cooking, Movies
  • Age: 39
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 11 December 2012 - 11:56 AM

@usafjay : Well, as you didn't explain anything my mind can't have been blown, unfortunately. As for explaining how complexity can arise from evolutionary processes, I've already explained the basics; I'm not going to go into pages-long explanations when you only engage superficially with basics in the first place. Especially when you've got a pattern of asking billions of questions that require page-long explanations as answers and then not making much effort to understand or engage with what answers you do get. If I am going to have a conversation with you, instead of continuing this hijacking of a conversation with Tirian that was itself a tangent off a conversation that was a tangent off my response to your original post, I'd rather discuss said response to your original post. For example, do you understand what I was saying when I said the Big Bang didn't involve an explosion ? If not, could you maybe tell me what it is about that you don't understand so I can explain better ?


You’ve explained the hypothesis. Give me one factual example. A worm, a fish, a cat, a cell, I don’t care. Show me with fact, that for example a worm, prior to being a worm was a…. whatever it was. Show me how it evolved not through just observation (this thing looks like an ancestor to a worm, the worm must have evolved from it!) but with scientific fact. If the worm evolved from something else, what was that something else, and how is it proven that that creature or whatever it was, what was its ancestor?

The big bang is a theory that describes the early development of the universe. It’s a theory with no fact to back it up. No one has observed it. This hasn’t been experimented to prove that yes, this is how the universe originated.

Creationists observe design and the complexity of life and don’t chalk it up to random processes coming together as there is absolutely nothing to support that. Nothing in this planet has been observed to come from nothing; we witness life coming from life. We see extreme complexity in something as ‘simple’ or small as a cell. We realize that if it looks designed, it was designed. We know that without certain components, life could not exist.

Both the creationist and evolutionist thought processes are faith based. You put your faith in writings and observations of others (i.e. Darwin and other scientists). We put our faith in writings and observations of others (The men who were inspired by God, that wrote the Bible).
I do try to answer and comment on other posts but it takes time. I didn’t realize I hijacked this conversation being I was the OP and commenting on something you had said earlier in the same thread. Anyway, I apologize if I interrupted your conversation.

#75 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 11 December 2012 - 12:23 PM

erased to eliminate double posts.

#76 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 11 December 2012 - 12:30 PM

aelyn;

The “law of biogenesis” (insofar as it even is a law) only applies to modern life forms, and the first law of thermodynamics, as a law of the universe, has no reason to apply when the universe doesn't exist. Such as before the beginning of the universe.


Is that a fact? Who says that Biogenesis applies only to modern life forms(?)....and secondly, give us the date/time frame when the law became effective for biological organisms. Next: If the 2nd law didn't have any effect on things BEFORE matter was created.........then what made it LAW after matter was created? Tell us in detail and prove it. We want scientific answers, not guesswork.

P.S. the 2nd law of thermodynamics is, in part, equal to the curse upon man for sin...as stated in Genesis 3. If it existed before that it was in a different form and application than it is now and it had it's origin in the creation itself.

#77 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

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

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:20 PM

@usafjay :

You’ve explained the hypothesis. Give me one factual example. A worm, a fish, a cat, a cell, I don’t care. Show me with fact, that for example a worm, prior to being a worm was a…. whatever it was. Show me how it evolved not through just observation (this thing looks like an ancestor to a worm, the worm must have evolved from it!) but with scientific fact. If the worm evolved from something else, what was that something else, and how is it proven that that creature or whatever it was, what was its ancestor?

Look at that, you yourself can't articulate what you're asking for. A "factual example" of what ? A worm, a fish, a cat, a cell doing what ? Evolution isn't a single concept, there's a thousand things you could be asking for. And "not just through observation" is just bizarre, all "scientific facts" are deduced from observations. Even repeatable, controlled experiments are specific kinds of observations, and any "scientific fact" deduced from them relies on those experiments being generalizable to the world at large. You clearly aren't asking those questions out of a good-faith attempt to learn something and I am not interested in that kind of thing.

The big bang is a theory that describes the early development of the universe. It’s a theory with no fact to back it up. No one has observed it. This hasn’t been experimented to prove that yes, this is how the universe originated.

You didn't answer my question. How can you even hope to have a conversation about which facts back up the Big Bang theory when you don't even seem to understand what the theory says or entails ? We have to do this one step at a time if we're doing it at all.

So, do you understand what it means that the Big Bang wasn't an explosion ? If not, what aspect of that is it that confuses you ?

I didn’t realize I hijacked this conversation being I was the OP and commenting on something you had said earlier in the same thread. Anyway, I apologize if I interrupted your conversation.

That's fine, Tirian seems to have left this anyway. I don't care about people hijacking conversations, I love thread drift and if the subject gets away from stuff I want to talk about I just stop participating, it's just that in this particular case I was wondering why you were responding to tangents instead of my post that was actually responding to your original posting.

#78 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

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

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:42 PM

aelyn; Is that a fact? Who says that Biogenesis applies only to modern life forms(?)....and secondly, give us the date/time frame when the law became effective for biological organisms.

You know exactly what my answers to those things are because we've been over that before and I for one am not interested in rehashing the same debates ad infinitum.

Next: If the 2nd law didn't have any effect on things BEFORE matter was created.........then what made it LAW after matter was created?

Who said anything about making laws after matter was created, that's just absurd. The laws of the universe are a part of the universe, there's no reason to think they appeared after or before it, and in any case the question of their origin is pretty much the same as the question of the origin of the universe, and you already know what I think on that.

P.S. the 2nd law of thermodynamics is, in part, equal to the curse upon man for sin...as stated in Genesis 3. If it existed before that it was in a different form and application than it is now and it had it's origin in the creation itself.

Interesting, that makes sense as far as it goes. Does that mean that chemical reactions happened differently at the time too ?
And how about the first law ?

#79 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 11 December 2012 - 02:36 PM

Nobody cares that chirality (an inherent characteristic of molecules), defies the claims abiogenesis and makes the self-formation of RNA / DNA / Proteins literally impossible.

@Gilbo : You're forgetting what I was responding to, which is usafjay's question of why I found abiogenesis more plausible than something with no internal structure exhibiting complex behaviour. That has nothing to do with proving abiogenesis happened naturally. I'm sharing the reasoning behind my beliefs here, as Tirian asked me to.

That has nothing to do with trying to convince you or anyone of those things. I'm glad to explain my reasoning in more detail if you don't understand it, hence my responses to you, but it's a given that we disagree on the conclusions so I don't see why you feel the need to rehash that.

The origin of the universe as an argument for God is a terrible one, it assumes that intelligence can exist independently of the universe and isn't bound by causality. That's a fine assumption to make but as an argument for God it begs the question.


How can abiogenesis be more plausible when it defies the inherent characteristics of molecules themselves, additionally this self-formation has never been observed nor tested, meaning you're simply positing MAGIC as the cause of abiogenesis. There is no other way, if the nature of molecules predict its impossible, (chirality) and empirical observation / experimentation has never demonstrated anything to the contrary then there is NO cause to even believe in abiogenesis let alone believe its more plausible... This I think is an example of the extraordinary faith that is required to be an atheist evolutionist.

Abiogenesis isn't about the origin of the universe, is it? If you feel that there are problems with the argument for God as the cause of the universe I suggest you make a note of it in the relevant thread. However in the form that it takes in the thread you'd best demonstrate how it is begging the question.... (since the 3 premisses don't presuppose God thus don't beg the question), I will await your response in the appropriate thread.

#80 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

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

Posted 12 December 2012 - 01:38 PM

Nobody cares that chirality (an inherent characteristic of molecules), defies the claims abiogenesis and makes the self-formation of RNA / DNA / Proteins literally impossible. How can abiogenesis be more plausible when it defies the inherent characteristics of molecules themselves, additionally this self-formation has never been observed nor tested, meaning you're simply positing MAGIC as the cause of abiogenesis. There is no other way, if the nature of molecules predict its impossible, (chirality) and empirical observation / experimentation has never demonstrated anything to the contrary then there is NO cause to even believe in abiogenesis let alone believe its more plausible...

The issue of chirality is something a theory of abiogenesis would definitely need to explain, and it does make abiogenesis less likely, but it doesn't make it impossible. That's an extremely strong claim that can't be justified given our current understanding (and lack of understanding) of chemistry.

This I think is an example of the extraordinary faith that is required to be an atheist evolutionist. Abiogenesis isn't about the origin of the universe, is it? If you feel that there are problems with the argument for God as the cause of the universe I suggest you make a note of it in the relevant thread. However in the form that it takes in the thread you'd best demonstrate how it is begging the question.... (since the 3 premisses don't presuppose God thus don't beg the question), I will await your response in the appropriate thread.

You mean, the thread where your last post consists of you screaming like a lunatic ? Just looking at that post shot my blood pressure through the roof. I don't know if you think larger fonts make you easier to understand or what but their actual effect is opposite and they're certainly nothing I want any part in. You're the one who said, on this thread, that where the universe comes from is one of the arguments for God; if you want to discuss it further do and if you don't don't.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users