Jump to content


Photo

Two Giant Stop Signs Against Evolution


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

#81 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 30 June 2012 - 10:42 AM

He gives a solid argument against abiogenesis based on evidence.


As I understand it, the first DNA is supposed to have "replicated" from a non-DNA analogue - i.e. a simpler molecule or molecules on which DNA could be built. It would be helpful to my understanding, and perhaps others, if AFJ could explain why that is impossible.

#82 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 30 June 2012 - 10:50 AM

As I understand it, the first DNA is supposed to have "replicated" from a non-DNA analogue - i.e. a simpler molecule or molecules on which DNA could be built.


Supposed to have? You don't sound very confident...

It would be helpful to my understanding, and perhaps others, if AFJ could explain why that is impossible.


It would be helpful if you provide a reference, or perhaps some evidence for these claims.

#83 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 30 June 2012 - 10:54 AM

Nobody is suggesting "chance reaction sequences" so I hope you'll forgive me for not responding to your objections to them.

But chance reation sequences would be self evident by the fact that abiogenesis was not guided, neither is there a universally observed biogenesis. So if it was to happen, it would be the rarest of events.

As for sequence, obviously, even in the cell, there is a cascading (non-chance) sequence of reactions, whether we speak of transciption, glycolysis, krebs cycle, the electron transport chain, protein modification, etc. etc. It is understood without saying that abiogenesis had a sequence of chemical events. So it will be strongly supposed that even a prebiotic world would have some sorts of continuing mechanisms. This would be necessary for the continuance of the 'species.'

The question then is causation, rather than sequence. Since the "a" in abiogenesis implies something happens of itself, or on it's own, the etymology of the term implies that the initial chemical pathways were not controlled by intelligence, but the right chemicals in the right place at the right time. This is by nature a chance occurrance--not universally observable chemistry, as in ionic reations, crytallization, oxidation, or hydrogen bonding.


What is suggested is chemistry very similar to what does happen in every living cell. The only difference is that reactions that require DNA/RNA in the cell would proceed by a different mechanism in the prebiotic world.

In the cell you have isolating chemistry. You have membranes, and enzymatic mechanisms that separate, and organize the required reactions (e.g. separating membranes and embedded enzymes in the mitochondria which create the ion drive of ATP synthase). Even in vitro production of self replicating RNA requires a constant supply and isolation of the proper constituents--all done by the guidance of man.

Abiogenesis suggests no isolating guidance, to produce and supply the constituents that would be required to maintain anything living. Mainly because there is nothing observed in the 'wild' that isolates and organizes chemicals to the extent life does. Whatever that result would be IDK, as we have many organic molcules (i.e. alkanes, alkenes) today that are not living. It would seem that acedemic endorsement, rather than real chemistry, is the only thing that gives abiogenesis any credibility at all.

#84 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 30 June 2012 - 10:54 AM

Supposed to have? You don't sound very confident...


I'll admit to not being nearly as confident as you guys are. :)

It would be helpful if you provide a reference, or perhaps some evidence for these claims.


Sorry. What claims?

#85 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 30 June 2012 - 11:11 AM

Since the "a" in abiogenesis implies something happens of itself, or on it's own, the etymology of the term implies that the initial chemical pathways were not controlled by intelligence, but the right chemicals in the right place at the right time.


In biological evolution, there's a random process (mutation) combined with a non-random process (selection). There can be an analogous situation in chemistry where some reaction products are removed by other reactions and some are left. Individual steps are random but a sequence of reactions can be "directed" by changes in pH, temperature, etc. all of which happen in the natural world.

Even in vitro production of self replicating RNA requires a constant supply and isolation of the proper constituents--all done by the guidance of man.


The guidance of man only selects from natural processes that already exist. Given the same reactants and the same results, the same reactions will occur. Granted, the exact sequence is improbable but still possible with a long enough time scale.

#86 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 30 June 2012 - 11:44 AM

In biological evolution, there's a random process (mutation) combined with a non-random process (selection). There can be an analogous situation in chemistry where some reaction products are removed by other reactions and some are left. Individual steps are random but a sequence of reactions can be "directed" by changes in pH, temperature, etc. all of which happen in the natural world.

You're ignoring basic biochemistry-- anabolism and catabolism. You're speaking of a theory without a means of execution. You are speaking of secondary reactions, which will eventually result in thermodynamic equilibrium which is what catabolism produces--laymen's terms a total break down into organic molecules. Unless there is correct metabolic input (anabolism--building up of metabolic systems/contituents) you will stop the reactions, no matter what the pH, or what is left over.

Imagine an organism which functions by catabolic principles only. It would not last long, because the reactive constiuents (nutrients) must be replenished. What you are suggesting is not observed for continuing life. Hence a total digestive and respitory system which keeps the cells supplied with the proper chemical constituents (e.g. nutrients, oxygen, water).

And what you have in self replicating RNA is catabolic. Man provides the isolated constituents, the RNA has no means in itself of anabolism (building up).





The guidance of man only selects from natural processes that already exist. Given the same reactants and the same results, the same reactions will occur. Granted, the exact sequence is improbable but still possible with a long enough time scale.

Wrong,the guidance PROVIDES. A chemical reaction expells/absorbs energy until equilibrium occurs. If you want the proper chemical reactions, then you have to provide the proper constituents, then you will have the products. A system of constituent delivery must be in place, and you do not find that in natural settings.

You are basically saying abiogenesis produced anabolism while catabolism was happening, yet a model can not be even imagined of such an event happening in a chemically mixed ecology.

#87 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 30 June 2012 - 12:12 PM

I'll admit to not being nearly as confident as you guys are. Posted Image


That's fine, just don't pedal your speculation as fact, or back up your assertions.

Sorry. What claims?


Do you have issues following simple conversations? I even quoted the claims that I was talking about, so I don't know what your excuse for misunderstanding me is...

"the first DNA is supposed to have "replicated" from a non-DNA analogue - i.e. a simpler molecule or molecules on which DNA could be built." -ringo

This same claim you want us to rebut. I am asking you to provide evidence for these claims.

Furthermore, you are sidestepping AFJ's points made in post #76 with a smoke screen of speculation. You sure do like to change the subject a lot.

#88 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 30 June 2012 - 12:21 PM

A chemical reaction expells/absorbs energy until equilibrium occurs. If you want the proper chemical reactions, then you have to provide the proper constituents, then you will have the products. A system of constituent delivery must be in place, and you do not find that in natural settings.


In a natural setting like a tidal pool, you'd have changing conditions as different chemical constituents washed in and out - a feeding process. There would be a series of transitory equilibria. Yes, a particular chain of events leading to biomolecules is improbable but I'm not seeing impossile.

#89 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 30 June 2012 - 12:27 PM

This same claim you want us to rebut. I am asking you to provide evidence for these claims.


I'm sorry. I didn't think of it as a claim, which is why I called it a supposition. I freely admit that the actual pathways of abiogenesis are speculation at the present time. My only argument is against the word "impossible".

I'm not here to convert anybody. My best hope is to improve understanding on both sides

#90 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 30 June 2012 - 12:41 PM

Fair enough, but now you want people to rebut your suppositions? That is essentially what post #76 was doing. I am highly curious to see if you have a rebuttal to that post.


I think I've already said about all I can say about post #76. It may not have been addressed "on this site" but it is addressed in the literature. Call it an argument from authority if you like but the chemistry community at large accepts the possibility of abiogenesis.

#91 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 30 June 2012 - 12:50 PM

I think I've already said about all I can say about post #76. It may not have been addressed "on this site" but it is addressed in the literature. Call it an argument from authority if you like but the chemistry community at large accepts the possibility of abiogenesis.


Yes you have told us the speculation of the "chemistry community at large" many times. It is possible for a large group of scientists to speculate, come to a consensus and still be wrong. It has happened before a few times.

#92 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 30 June 2012 - 12:57 PM

It is possible for a large group of scientists to speculate, come to a consensus and still be wrong. It has happened before a few times.


Of course. And the reason we know they were wrong is because they found a better answer. What has been suggested by some in this thread is that something like the "law of biogenesis" can never change, can never be wrong.

#93 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 30 June 2012 - 07:03 PM

Quote: "The obvious problem: all replication fork enzymes are encoded by DNA. But they could not be encoded unless DNA replicates. But DNA can not replicate without the replication fork. Hence the evidence of impasse for abiogenesis."

That statement is as strong as evidence can be against even the possibility of abiogenesis.

But another argument strongly against it: common sense.

Do the promoters of such a theory actually (hope!) realize what they are asking for in the creation of life? Do they even grasp a little what is required? You see there are no simple life forms among living organisms. The living cell of each organism is to such a degree of complexity that it is not enough to think of nature making a machine...or even a factory. No, no, no, what we are talking about is natures creation of an entire manufacturing region with many factories and many machines in each factory. That's what the cell is like.



Quite frankly, fellas, it is an insult to the wisdom, knowledge, and power of Almighty God who so carefully encoded the only thing that would bring life on earth to just chalk it up to blind chance of nature. As it says in Romans 1, they are without excuse.

Best wishes.

#94 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 30 June 2012 - 09:23 PM

On the contrary, I'm arguing against that claim. It has been claimed in this thread that abiogenesis is impossible. Because we haven't done abiogenesis in the lab yet, it is claimed that it will never be done - i.e. the absence of complete evidence for abiogenesis is taken as evidence against abiogenesis. Worse yet, it is claimed as "proof" that abiogenesis is impossible.

When I say we have no evidence of anything preventing abiogenesis, I'm simply stating a fact. I'm not saying there is no evidence of a barrier, just that we haven't found any yet.


Actually no, even if we are able to create life in the lab, that would only support the notion "that we can create life in a lab". It is ironic since when analysed logically the search for abiogenesis within laboratories only gives evidence of creation since it shows that intelligence is required to create life. As I have said a few times previously is that the only evidence you can have directly supporting abiogenesis is if you observe life coming from non-life randomly with no outside intervention.

And as I also wrote there already IS an evidence barrier, refer to the chirality thread. That is a barrier based on the natural characteristics of molecules and how their nature would defy an unguided formation of DNA / RNA / proteins.

#95 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 01 July 2012 - 06:36 AM

As I understand it, the first DNA is supposed to have "replicated" from a non-DNA analogue - i.e. a simpler molecule or molecules on which DNA could be built. It would be helpful to my understanding, and perhaps others, if AFJ could explain why that is impossible.

I like the way you want me to jump through hoops, while you lay down an unteseted gauntlet--the incremental fantasy which has never been demonstrated, nor observed in nature. Below are the biochemists--see what they say.

I do not know what kind of organic chemistry background you have. If you do not have much, you will become bored with this information. You seem to be giving me vague principles that are not proven by science. Only acedemically endorsed, speculative hip shots, with no demonstrable confirmation.

http://en.wikipedia....orld_hypothesis

The molecular biologist's dream is a phrase coined by Gerald (Jerry) Joyce and Leslie Orgel to refer to the problem of emergence of self-replicating RNA molecules as any movement towards an RNA world on a properly modeled early Earth would have been continuously suppressed by destructive reactions.[40] It was noted that many of the steps needed for the nucleotides formation do not proceed efficiently in prebiotic conditions.[41] Joyce and Orgel specifically referred the molecular biologist's dream to "a magic catalyst" that could "convert the activated nucleotides to a random ensemble of polynucleotide sequences, a subset of which had the ability to replicate".[40]

http://www.arn.org/d...rnaworld171.htm

Joyce and Orgel further argued that nucleotides cannot link unless there is some activation of the phosphate group, whereas the only effective activating groups for this are "totally implausible in any prebiotic scenario", particularly adenosine triphosphate.[40] According to Joyce and Orgel, in case of the phosphate group activation, the basic polymer product would have 5',5'-pyrophosphate linkages, while the 3',5'-phosphodiester linkages, which are present in all known RNA, would be much less abundant.[40] The associated molecules would have been also prone to addition of incorrect nucleotides or to reactions with numerous other substances likely to have been present.[40] The RNA molecules would have been also continuously degraded by such destructive process as spontaneous hydrolysis, present on the early Earth.[40] Joyce and Orgel proposed to reject "the myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides"[40] and hypothesised about a scenario where the prebiotic processes furnish pools of enantiopure beta-D-ribonucleosides.[42]

Reference not available http://gow.epsrc.ac.uk/Error.aspx


The associated molecules would have been also prone to addition of incorrect nucleotides or to reactions with numerous other substances likely to have been present.

This is a no brainer Ringo. Contamination. You said "transitory equilibrium" could possibly happen in a pool of water, with constitunts continuously wahing in and out. I'm absolutely positive that in minutes, if every pool on earth was suddenly isolated as it sits, thermodymic equalibrium would take place, because all the chemical reations that could happen would happen. You would have all sorts of products, but no life. In fact, the biochemists point out that the phosphate products in a prebiotic Earth would not even be the ones FOUND IN RNA!! You may MAYhave some short RNA chains, but they would break down, as they ar much more subject to hydrolysis than DNA. This leads me to the point I have been making about catobolic and anabolic principles in life.
http://en.wikipedia....arison_with_DNA

The RNA molecules would have been also continuously degraded by such destructive process as spontaneous hydrolysis, present on the early Earth.[40]
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htm

RNA, because it is contains ribose sugar, instead of deoxyribose (DNA), is much less stable, and more open to degradation than DNA. They're saying that there is a hydroxyl group (-OH) in the " pentose ring in the 2' position..." in RNA that is not present in DNA. This makes more open to hydrolysis, a degrading catabolic reaction. As you might know, hydrolysis happens in many biochemical readtions. Amino acids contain carboxyl groups (COOH) which link to the (NH2) amine portion of the amino acid. These link by dehydration sythesis (the removal of an H20--an H from NH2, and an -OH from the COOH) and break by hydrolysis (an insertion of an H2O--restoring seperate NH2 and COOH). This is how proteins form and break down. But proteins are well bonded, and therefore more stable (protein has to be broken more by acids or enzymes, and it does not denature as easily as RNA, because it is already well bonded). Single strand RNA is much more open to the hydrolysis break down than proteins, because of that open hydroxyl group on the '2. See it below? An RNA nucleotide. From left to right you have the phospate, and then the pentose molecule is in the middle (the ribose sugar). That's the molecule that wiki is saying makes it more susceptible to hydrolysis--because it is connected to the 2nd carbon (the carbons are inferred in organic chemistry structures. There is no C but where ther is a corner--that's a carbon). Go to middle ribose. Now go to the carbon on the right of the "O"--that's '1 carbon. Now go to the left and down to the '2 carbon. The -OH is a hydroxyl. RNA has this but DNA has an H. This makes it more susceptible to hydrolysis.


Posted Image

hy·drol·y·sis (hPosted Image-drPosted ImagelPosted ImagePosted Image-sPosted Images)
n.
Decomposition of a chemical compound by reaction with water, such as the dissociation of a dissolved salt or the catalytic conversion of starch to glucose.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#96 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 01 July 2012 - 07:19 AM

Furthermore additional barriers can come in the form of the environment


Premise 1: UV light is detrimental to DNA / RNA
Premise 2: UV light is reduced via the ozone in the atmosphere
Premise 3: Ozone is a product of oxygen and cycles between oxygen, ozone and oxygen radicals
Premise 4: Oxygen in an atmosphere is also detrimental to DNA / RNA due to oxidation via these oxygen radicals


Therefore there is no environment pertaining to oxygen, with or without in which DNA / RNA can form properly... Either the UV light degrades it or the oxygen radicals oxidises it. There is no middle ground either way is falsified.

A peer reviewed article stating that oxygen plays a part in DNA degredation. Consider that PCR is done in special solutions / buffers then this result may not be as detrimental as if DNA (somehow) formed in the ocean or lakes or land etc without these additional ingredients to protect from other factors (pH, other free radicals, temperature, UV / sunlight- drying out if on land)

"By monitoring a 889 bp polymerase chain reaction (PCR) product and genomic DNA degradation, we find that heat and oxygen
(especially heat) are both crucial factors influencing DNA degradation."


http://www.ias.ac.in...dec2005/599.pdf
  • AFJ likes this

#97 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 01 July 2012 - 07:46 AM

Furthermore additional barriers can come in the form of the environment


Premise 1: UV light is detrimental to DNA / RNA
Premise 2: UV light is reduced via the ozone in the atmosphere
Premise 3: Ozone is a product of oxygen and cycles between oxygen, ozone and oxygen radicals
Premise 4: Oxygen in an atmosphere is also detrimental to DNA / RNA due to oxidation via these oxygen radicals


Therefore there is no environment pertaining to oxygen, with or without in which DNA / RNA can form properly... Either the UV light degrades it or the oxygen radicals oxidises it. There is no middle ground either way is falsified.

A peer reviewed article stating that oxygen plays a part in DNA degredation. Consider that PCR is done in special solutions / buffers then this result may not be as detrimental as if DNA (somehow) formed in the ocean or lakes or land etc without these additional ingredients to protect from other factors (pH, other free radicals, temperature, UV / sunlight- drying out if on land)

"By monitoring a 889 bp polymerase chain reaction (PCR) product and genomic DNA degradation, we find that heat and oxygen
(especially heat) are both crucial factors influencing DNA degradation."


http://www.ias.ac.in...dec2005/599.pdf

Like it, like it! SO radiation or oxidation, hydrolysis. and heat. The prebiotic earth (check oxygen crisis) supposedly started with the first non oxygen atmosphere, by volcanic gases. Then the water vapor condensed into oceans (how? check Venus greenhouse water vapor/gases), life followed making the 2nd atmosphere (oxygen). But anyway the life was in water or ice, with radiation, so the RNA was rusting (oxidation), dissolving (hydrolysis). and denaturing(heat).
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#98 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 01 July 2012 - 09:04 AM

Excellent stuff, gentlemen. I commend both of you.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#99 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 01 July 2012 - 09:48 AM

Like it, like it! SO radiation or oxidation, hydrolysis. and heat. The prebiotic earth (check oxygen crisis) supposedly started with the first non oxygen atmosphere, by volcanic gases. Then the water vapor condensed into oceans (how? check Venus greenhouse water vapor/gases), life followed making the 2nd atmosphere (oxygen). But anyway the life was in water or ice, with radiation, so the RNA was rusting (oxidation), dissolving (hydrolysis). and denaturing(heat).


Exactly this all serves to demonstrate the absurdity of the idea of abiogenesis when we consider the nature of reality and what laws and characteristics of nature a naturalist is supposed to abide by with his / her "theories" / claims.

It is also an ironic demonstration of human behavior of bias, since in order to substantiate their belief they must first contradict one of its founding tenets, naturalism believes in 100% nature and no outside intervening forces. However to first believe in no outside forces one must assume that everything and its origin is solely naturalistic, thus pertaining to natural laws and how nature / reality operates. Yet as we have shown here that in order to have a naturalist claim for origins he / she must defy natural laws in which by doing so infers something beyond nature itself, (thus supernatural since by definition supernatural means "above nature"), this demonstrates that naturalism defeats itself by its attempts to explain origins.

Yet as I said I mentioned bias which is what occurs when these contradictions are brought to the fore. Rather than admitting the possibility that naturalism is logically incoherent on the issue of origins, some naturalists will attempt to divert the problem by way of fallacies.. ie- popularity vote, hoping to evidence from the future, attempts at bending natural law / equivocation. However there are some who really don't care if its wrong, its just more comfortable to believe in it.
  • AFJ likes this

#100 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 01 July 2012 - 12:14 PM

Exactly this all serves to demonstrate the absurdity of the idea of abiogenesis when we consider the nature of reality and what laws and characteristics of nature a naturalist is supposed to abide by with his / her "theories" / claims.

It is also an ironic demonstration of human behavior of bias, since in order to substantiate their belief they must first contradict one of its founding tenets, naturalism believes in 100% nature and no outside intervening forces. However to first believe in no outside forces one must assume that everything and its origin is solely naturalistic, thus pertaining to natural laws and how nature / reality operates. Yet as we have shown here that in order to have a naturalist claim for origins he / she must defy natural laws in which by doing so infers something beyond nature itself, (thus supernatural since by definition supernatural means "above nature"), this demonstrates that naturalism defeats itself by its attempts to explain origins.

Yet as I said I mentioned bias which is what occurs when these contradictions are brought to the fore. Rather than admitting the possibility that naturalism is logically incoherent on the issue of origins, some naturalists will attempt to divert the problem by way of fallacies.. ie- popularity vote, hoping to evidence from the future, attempts at bending natural law / equivocation. However there are some who really don't care if its wrong, its just more comfortable to believe in it.

Yep




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users