Abiogenesis and Evolution

[A_Christian]

So, what Galatian is saying is that there is
no need for GOD. Our existence is totally a
fact of natural phenomenon. I guess you NEED
the pope to even believe there is a god somewhere. Sad... Everything Helen wrote was
wasted on you.

 

[Meatros]

Aesop might disagree with you there. Go ahead, tell us the works of Aesop are without value because they are fables. But Scripture allegories are more than fables, even if we know they are not literally true. Jesus quoted the scriptures because those to whom he spoke revered the scriptures, tho they misused them. If they are allegories, they are God's chosen allegories.

I just wanted to say, great point, Paul of Eugene!

So, what Galatian is saying is that there is no need for GOD.

That's not what he's saying at all? Did you read his post?

Our existence is totally a
fact of natural phenomenon. I guess you NEED
the pope to even believe there is a god somewhere. Sad... Everything Helen wrote was
wasted on you.

Sounds like to me that you are upset at the thought of being related to other animals. My existence is a result of a natural phenomenon, my parents came together, then did "naught things", and bam, here I am.

I suggest you consider the Galatian's argument before you brand him an atheist.

 

[Helen]

Let's see -- is anyone going to actually read and remark on the material I posted instead of indulging in snide remarks?

 

[The Galatian]

So, what Galatian is saying is that there is no need for GOD.

No. I don't see how you got that out of it. I'm pointing out that Helen's objections to Miller-Urey are answered by the fact that we find the amino acids have formed naturally, with more L-forms than R-forms.

Our existence is totally a fact of natural phenomenon.

Since God says in Genesis that he created life naturally, you're partly right. But it took God to create nature. You are here because you were created by natural means. It doesn't mean God doesn't love your or didn't create you.

I guess you NEED the pope to even believe there is a god somewhere.

What gave you that idea?

Sad... Everything Helen wrote was
wasted on you.

Helen was arguing on the scientific evidence for abiogenesis. So was I. I think you've read a lot into it that isn't there.

 

[Helen]

Galatian, you simply slid around my post by claiming amino acids form 'anyway' and in a preponderance of the left-handed variety.

1. Only ONE right-handed will destroy any attempt at abiogenesis.

2. Please consider the other factors involved.

Your meteorite aside, what we actually see is increasing evidence that abiogenesis is IMpossible.

Nor does Genesis say God brought about life through natural means. The entire point of Genesis is that it was supernaturally created within days, in fully developed kinds.

 

[A_Christian]

Genesis says NOTHING about creating in a
natural way. It does indicate that CREATION
was a SUPERNATURAL event. I say what I said
about your pope and the Roman Catholic church,
because I find it anything but scientific.
In fact, I consider it bordering on superstitious paganism. The very fact that the Roman
Catholic church embraces evolution seems more
of an effort to give the impression of "modern"
thinking; however, all it's doing is digging
a deeper hole for itself. Now, don't prescribe
5 "Hail Marys" and 10 "Our Fathers"----I don't
ascribe to vain repetitians (acts of contrition).
GOD assures me that HE would much rather we trust
HIS Word.

 

[The Galatian]

Galatian, you simply slid around my post by claiming amino acids form 'anyway'

I pointed out that arguing against Miller-Urey is pointless, because we know amino acids form naturally.

and in a preponderance of the left-handed variety.

Yep. More left than right. Remarkable, um? Just happens that they form preferentially in the form that living things happened to use.

1. Only ONE right-handed will destroy any attempt at abiogenesis.

I'd have to see some evidence for that. It seems an unwarrented assumption, given the evidence.

2. Please consider the other factors involved.

I thought I did. Which other factors would you like me to consider?

Your meteorite aside, what we actually see is increasing evidence that abiogenesis is IMpossible.

There's too much evidence to just put it "aside". Besides, isn't there something wrong with an approach that deliberately ignores the evidence?

Nor does Genesis say God brought about life through natural means.

God says so. He says that the Earth and waters brought forth living things. Why not accept it?

Does it matter if He uses nature for His purposes? He created you that way. Is that wrong?

The entire point of Genesis is that it was supernaturally created within days, in fully developed kinds.

No, that's just an unorthodox re-interpretation.

Oh, and "a Christian"; if you had more confidence in your own beliefs, you probably wouldn't feel compelled to attack those of other Christians.

 

[Helen]

IN other words, Galatian, you cannot respond to the points in the post so you are squiggling around trying to avoid them.

OK, your choice...

But truth by declaration from you is not truth. The evidence, as posted above, declares abiogenesis impossible.

 

[A_Christian]

Mr Galatian:

It is Y O U who is UNORTHODOX. The disciples
of Jesus Christ would NEVER have believed that
the earth was created in over 6 days and that
the Flood never happened.

As a "Christian" the burden of proof squarely
rests on Y O U R shoulders and not mine.

 

[The Galatian]

IN other words, Galatian, you cannot respond to the points in the post so you are squiggling around trying to avoid them.

Um, let's see...

1. I pointed out that Miller-Urey is not controversial any longer, since we have unequivocal evidence that amino acids form in nature.

2. I pointed out that in such cases, L-forms are more common than R-forms. Which is certainly some evidence as to why the earliest living things adapted to L-forms.

I guess I also asked why you thought the existence of R-forms made abiogenesis impossible, but you chose not to answer the question.

However, if you have any additional questions, I'd be pleased to answer yours. What are they?

But truth by declaration from you is not truth.

Well, the facts I cited do support the idea that living things formed naturally.

The evidence, as posted above, declares abiogenesis impossible.

I know you believe so, but it's not very clear why.

 

[The Galatian]

It is Y O U who is UNORTHODOX.

Nope. Your opinion isn't even the most common one in this country, and it's a tiny minority among Christians elsewhere. Not that being unorthodox is going to send you to hell. But you are outside of normal Christian belief.

The disciples of Jesus Christ would NEVER have believed that the earth was created in over 6 days and that the Flood never happened.

I'd like to see your evidence for that.

As a "Christian" the burden of proof squarely rests on Y O U R shoulders and not mine.

You made the assertion. Up to you to present evidence to support it. If you want anyone to believe it.

 

[Helen]

Maybe giving you just a little of the above at a time will help. We will start with some conclusions by those very qualified to give them:

Nobel Prize laureate Harold C. Urey once stated:
"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did."

F. Dyson, 'Origins of Life' (1985, Cambridge University Press, p. 31): "The Oparin picture was generally accepted by biologists for half a century. It was popular not because there was any evidence to support it, but rather because it seemed to be the only alternative to biblical creationism."

Yet Dyson admits, and many other evolutionary scientists were fully aware, even in the 1950's and 1960's, that these experiments were not solutions to abiogenesis but rather magnified the problems with any notion of abiogenesis.

Evolutionist A. Cairns-Smith, "Genetic Takeover and the Mineral Origins of Life" 1986. Points out that experiments like Miller-Urey demonstrate that critical prevital nucleic acids are highly implausible:

"But so powerful has been the effect of Miller's experiment on the scientific imagination that to read some of the literature on the origin of life (including many elementary texts) you might think that it had been well demonstrated that nucleotides were probable constituents of a primordial soup and hence the prevital nucleic acid replication was a plausible speculation based on the results of the experiments. There have indeed been many interesting and detailed experiments in this area. But the importance of this work lies, in my mind, not in demonstrating how nucleotides could have formed on the primitive Earth, but in PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE: these experiments allow us to see, in much greater detail than would otherwise been possible, just why prevital nucleic acids are highly implausible." [emphasis mine].

R. Shapiro, Ph.D. Chemistry, "The Improbability of Pre-biotic Nucleic Acid Synthesis" 14 Origin of Life 565, 1984, relates how experiments like Miller-Urey have very limited significance because of the implausible conditions under which they are conducted: "Many accounts of the origin of life assume the spontaneous synthesis of a self replicating nucleic acid could take place readily. However, these procedures use pure starting materials, afford poor yields, and are run under conditions that are not compatible with one another. Any nucleic acid components that were formed in the primitive earth would tend to hydrolyze by a number of pathways. Their polarization would be inhibited by the presence of vast numbers of related substances which would react preferentially with them."

Speaking as an evolutionist, and therefore, a an apriority believer in abiogenesis, Klaus Dose, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 1988, 13(4) 348.
writes:

"More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in a stalemate or in a confession of ignorance."

"Considerable disagreements between scientists have arisen about detailed evolutionary steps. The problem is that the principal evolutionary processes from pre-biotic molecules to pregenotes have not been proven by experimentation and the environmental conditions under which these processes occurred are not known. Moreover, we do not actually know where the genetic information of all living cells actually originates, how the first replicable polynucleotides (nucleic acids) evolved, or how the extremely complex structure function relationships in modern cells came into existence."

 

[Helen]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It is Y O U who is UNORTHODOX.

Nope. Your opinion isn't even the most common one in this country, and it's a tiny minority among Christians elsewhere. Not that being unorthodox is going to send you to hell. But you are outside of normal Christian belief.

The disciples of Jesus Christ would NEVER have believed that the earth was created in over 6 days and that the Flood never happened.

I'd like to see your evidence for that.

As a "Christian" the burden of proof squarely rests on Y O U R shoulders and not mine.

You made the assertion. Up to you to present evidence to support it. If you want anyone to believe it. </font>[/QUOTE]Galatian, I believe "A Christian" and I am an 'anyone.' Maybe you should stop talking as though you spoke for the majority of born-again, Bible-believing Christians. I'm not talking about Pope-believing, baptized in the RC church folk, most of whom have never even read the Bible, but of true followers of Christ. You do not speak for us. Please don't pretend you do.

Nor is 'orthodox' (no matter what definition you choose to give it) the be-all and end-all. The truth is what matters. And the truth is not always 'orthodox'!

You wanted to see evidence for a belief by the disciples in the Flood: try Peter in both his epistles. Try Jesus Himself in referring to the fact that just as it was in the days of Noah...

It is you and your ilk who are outside -- and wandering further away by the looks of things -- the biblical truths believers have known and believed since Creation itself.

 

[Meatros]

Originally posted by Helen:

Galatian, I believe "A Christian" and I am an 'anyone.' Maybe you should stop talking as though you spoke for the majority of born-again, Bible-believing Christians. I'm not talking about Pope-believing, baptized in the RC church folk, most of whom have never even read the Bible, but of true followers of Christ. You do not speak for us. Please don't pretend you do.

I want to see evidence that *most RC church folk haven't read the bible*.

It is you and your ilk who are outside -- and wandering further away by the looks of things -- the biblical truths believers have known and believed since Creation itself.

Helen, the creation story presented in Genesis is absurd. No offense (call me doubting), but it takes a lot to believe a literal Genesis when it has absurdities such as plants being created before the sun (which means no light and no heat).

 

[aefting]

the creation story presented in Genesis is absurd. No offense (call me doubting), but it takes a lot to believe a literal Genesis when it has absurdities such as plants being created before the sun (which means no light and no heat).

Well, there was light starting with day 1. And where do you read that there was no heat?

Andy

 

[The Galatian]

Galatian, I believe "A Christian" and I am an 'anyone.' Maybe you should stop talking as though you spoke for the majority of born-again, Bible-believing Christians.

Actually, the Pope does that. We are, as you know, the majority. Slightly more Roman Catholics than all other Christians combined. And yes, we believe in the Bible. So much so, that we even kept all of it, instead of discarding some parts.

I'm not talking about Pope-believing, baptized in the RC church folk, most of whom have never even read the Bible, but of true followers of Christ. You do not speak for us. Please don't pretend you do.

Gee, if I thought Catholics put their trust in the Pope instead of God, I wouldn't like RC either. But as you know, people who think they hate Catholics usually hate a cartoon version of orthodoxy.

Nor is 'orthodox' (no matter what definition you choose to give it) the be-all and end-all. The truth is what matters. And the truth is not always 'orthodox'!

True. I'm just observing that your views are a minority among Christians.

You wanted to see evidence for a belief by the disciples in the Flood: try Peter in both his epistles.

I looked the last time. I still can't find the part where it says it's literal. Can you tell me where to find it?

Try Jesus Himself in referring to the fact that just as it was in the days of Noah...

I looked there, too. But no luck. You do understand that Jesus citing an allegory doesn't change it to literal, don't you?

It is you and your ilk who are outside -- and wandering further away by the looks of things -- the biblical truths believers have known and believed since Creation itself.

So every breakaway sect declares. "They are all out of step but me."

Sorry. No one has God in a box, and anyone who tries to separate other Christians from God is just separating himself from God.

Don't do that.

 

[Helen]

still avoiding the subject of the thread I see.

 

[The Galatian]

If you didn't want to hear about it, why did you bring it up?

I did ask you what issues I hadn't addressed, but you haven't yet told me.

 

[Helen]

Never mind, Galatian. Anyone else reading the thread will be able to see the evidence, and they are who it is for.

 

[Edgeo]

Originally posted by Helen:
Regarding the Geenland ice cores: the ice age came AFTER the Flood! Read Job. Why should they show any signs of the Flood at all?

You mean then that the flood was more than 160,000 years ago?

Instead, they are record of the turbulence of the weather patterns for some time after.

Would you say that this turbulence continues today? The ice layers say so...

Paul's idea of a local Flood falls flat on its face given his 'reasons' for Noah having to build the ark in that scenario!

Right. No one has ever seen a local flood and no one has ever tried to escape one in a boat...

Regarding radiometric dating -- it falls flat on its face in terms of accurately describing orbital time if there have been changes in the atomic constants such as Planck's 'constant' or the speed of light. And these changes have been measured. Radio decay rates were much faster in the past.

Please provide your evidence of this last assertion. If radiometric decay rates were so inconsistent, why do they make sense compared to the geological record? What wast the world like back when rates were so high? How much radiation did biblical people have to take? Please provide more evidence for your assertions.

Using dendrochronology to check C14 dates is also inaccurate past just a few thousand years:
" target="_blank">[url]http://www.setterfield.org/RadiometricDating.htm#dendro

[/url]

Please define a 'few thousand years.' Why is it accurate up to a 'few thousand years', but then suddenly break down?