Abiogenesis and Evolution

[BobRyan]

It was just "not that hard" to follow the point above - that ONLY an atheist evolutionist would normally "be expected" to resort to that tactic.

You can't be upset by Christians simply "observing" that such is the case and then accuse them of "calling you an atheist" when they express SURPRISE that such a tactic is embraced on this board by Christian Evolutionists.

This point "just isn't that hard" to understand.



Bob

 

[Edgeo]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
You can't be upset by Christians simply "observing" that such is the case and then accuse them of "calling you an atheist" when they express SURPRISE that such a tactic is embraced on this board by Christian Evolutionists.

As I explained, I am not upset at all. I simply made an observation. But let's see just what you wrote:

Nope. I am observing that our atheist friends make that appeal above - since THEY have no alternative after all for THEM - "there is no God" to DO any of this.

Just who are your 'atheist friends?'

 

[BobRyan]

The "atheist friends" mentioned above are in fact "Atheist" and are not posting on this board.

"As it turns out" I have been posting on more than one Creationist vs evolutionist board and the others are not limited to "Christian evolutionists".

I really mean - that Atheists - "real professed atheists" make that appeal when they get stuck.

Covering up that fact - is not a form of "kindness" to CHRISTIAN evolutionists on THIS board.

Bob

 

[Edgeo]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
[QB] The "atheist friends" mentioned above are in fact "Atheist" and are not posting on this board.

When you said 'above' as in "our atheist friends make that appeal above" I thought you meant on this thread. My apologies if that was not so. But you might choose your words a bit more carefully.

I really mean - that Atheists - "real professed atheists" make that appeal when they get stuck.

However, I think to associate Galatian with atheists in any way is a bit of a stretch.

Covering up that fact - is not a form of "kindness" to CHRISTIAN evolutionists on THIS board.

I do not understand what you mean here, but I'll take your word for it. By the way, I do not expect any kindness. Particularly kindness in quotation marks...

 

[Steven O. Sawyer]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
Do not put your hopes in what we have not yet learned. It often lets you down. The preponderance of evidence is not always correct, but that's where the smart money is.

The fact is, that in science, historically speaking, the majority has always been wrong. It has often been the rougue thinker and the serendepetous discovery that has lead to great breakthroughs. That is not to say that the origin-of-life experiments are not fruitful... they consistantly give creationists better arguments against the naturalists.

When creationists appeal to a supernatural God, one that is unknown to the atheistic tendencies of pure naturalism, they are considered irrational to put their faith in a scientificly unknown force. Yet when naturalists appeal to an unknown naturalistic force or tendency that cannot be demonstrated, their faith is somwhow not to be questioned.

Abiogenesis is truely a naturalistic philopsophy which has corrupted even Christianity. It is MERELY a projected hope and faith of the naturalist. And I have been trying to establish that faith in abiogenesis is just that, FAITH, and it has no true scientific underpinning. I have asked... repeatedly... for ONE experiment that has produced evidence of chirally pure polypeptide strands of short but significant length (I suggested a 150 peptide length) to prop up the evolutionary argument as this has been presented as a fairly simple and even inevitable probability. I'm not really from Missouri, but show me anyway.

I'm sorry to have to repeat myself here in order to try to bring this discussion beck to the basic premis of the topic, but:

Originally posted by Steven:

One of the simplest proteins we know of, an insulin protein, is a chain of 150 amino acids… all L-form. The insertion of even one D-form into the chain makes that chain biologically inactive. This is still “short” in my book as most proteins are longer than that, the average consisting of between 300-400 peptides. But I recognize that in the naturalistic view of things, the early proteins would not be as advanced as most modern proteins. Yet, in order to produce the symphony of chemical reactions found in even a rudimentary form of a hypothetical primordial living cell, some complexity would seem to be called for. I therefore propose that the 150 number of all L-form amino acids be used as the significant figure to demonstrate the threshold of a true biologically active protein.

I would like to hear objections from the creationists also to the above proposal.

So I still want to know of experimental data showing that PROTEINS (not 10 unit peptide chains) can be produced from Miller-Urey type experiments modeling a hypothetical but possibly real natural environment or in meteor finds or in any natural situation where the non-biological production of amino acids occur.

Please stop dodging the question.

 

[The Galatian]

The fact is, that in science, historically speaking, the majority has always been wrong.

So when scientists concluded that the Earth was round, and about 25,000 miles around in 435 AD, they were wrong? Are they wrong now for believing that?

Are they wrong because most of them believe atoms exist?

This is refuted by endless counter-examples.

It has often been the rougue thinker and the serendepetous discovery that has lead to great breakthroughs.

That's true. Kepler, Newton, Darwin, McCormick, etc.

That is not to say that the origin-of-life experiments are not fruitful... they consistantly give creationists better arguments against the naturalists.

Wouldn't seem so. Note the tapdancing going on here, to try to show that the evidence isn't what it is.

When creationists appeal to a supernatural God, one that is unknown to the atheistic tendencies of pure naturalism, they are considered irrational to put their faith in a scientificly unknown force.

Unscientific, to be exact. But it's not necessarily a bad thing to be unscientific. I am unscientific for just such purposes.

Yet when naturalists appeal to an unknown naturalistic force or tendency that cannot be demonstrated, their faith is somwhow not to be questioned.

No, that's wrong. The arguments, experiments, and evidence for abiogenesis are very lively affairs.

Abiogenesis is truely a naturalistic philopsophy which has corrupted even Christianity.

If so, then God is actively involved. He says that He created life by natural means.

It is MERELY a projected hope and faith of the naturalist.

Properly speaking, we can trust God to tell us the truth, but in science, we can't use religious beliefs to confirm scientific theories. So, even if God assures us that He did it that way, we still have to get more evidence before we confirm it as a scientific fact.

And I have been trying to establish that faith in abiogenesis is just that, FAITH, and it has no true scientific underpinning.

Hopeless task. Already, the evidence, while not compelling, clearly tilts toward abiogenesis.

Do we have such a preponderance of evidence as to settle the question? No. But we have God's word for it.

And that should count for something.

 

[BobRyan]

quote:Bob said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Covering up that fact - is not a form of "kindness" to CHRISTIAN evolutionists on THIS board.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edgeo said --
I do not understand what you mean here, but I'll take your word for it. By the way, I do not expect any kindness. Particularly kindness in quotation marks

We can always expect "kindnesses" - but we should not be offended by the truth. Particularly in this case where "the truth is" that it is surprising to a YEC - hear a similar faith-based approach taken by both Atheist and Christian evolutionists when they "run out of answers" in science.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Steve -

In every instance you have "shown" abiogenesis to be flawed - in fact not only flawed but "non-science" in its speculations and statements of "faith" expressed as a "proof from the void of what we have not found to be true".

Yet Galation "claims" to be a Christian who only accepts the non-science of abiogenesis because it IS so well "proven" - such that all th evidence is SHOWING the formation of nothing but life-building amino acids, the evidence is "showing" the assembly of life-building proteins out of life-building amino acids and the evidence "showing" the assembly of life-building cell structures out life-building proteins, etc etc.

The argument that Galation makes is that all this imperical "evidence" is SHOWING the process of abiogenesis confirmed at every critical step and so Christian-or-not he MUST conclude abiogenesis is fact.

But how can that be - if every "fact" he has tried to establish as a key milestone critical point of the theory of abiogenesis - has failed?

It appears that Galation is relying upon "pure faith".

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by The Galatian:
Do not put your hopes in what we have not yet learned. It often lets you down. The preponderance of evidence is not always correct, but that's where the smart money is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Galation "appears" to be warning us NOT to place our hopes in all the gaps of abiogenesis. Not to "hope" that those gaps will never be "solved".

In saying this - Galation affirms his own Faith-In-the-Gaps that one day his faith in abiogenesis will be "rewarded in hard science" having imperical data to support him.


Your argument appears to be that the IMPERICAL data is actually BUILDING evidence FOR YEC.

Steven Sawyer - That is not to say that the origin-of-life experiments are not fruitful... they consistantly give creationists better arguments against the naturalists.

True enough.

And as you note - the "faith" of the OEC seems to be that of the Atheist who has NTHER choice when confronted with the void or even confronted with disconfirming "data" - Faith in abiogenesis IN SPITE of the data rather than BECAUSE of it.

Yet when naturalists appeal to an unknown naturalistic force or tendency that cannot be demonstrated, their faith is somwhow not to be questioned.

Steve --
Abiogenesis is truely a naturalistic philopsophy which has corrupted even Christianity. It is MERELY a projected hope and faith of the naturalist. And I have been trying to establish that faith in abiogenesis is just that, FAITH, and it has no true scientific underpinning.

In fact, in each of your responses - you have made that point obvious and without question. It would be very difficult to "pretend" that the utter lack of response to your observations has done anything but confirm the obvious in what you have stated about the "faith" being placed in the myths of abiogenesis.

Steve --
I have asked... repeatedly... for ONE experiment that has produced evidence of chirally pure polypeptide strands of short but significant length

Here is a question for you. Obviously the point you are making here is that the modest "square zero" at which our evolutionist friends are "stuck" should be "instructive" to them.

However the creationist argument must always be "two-part" when it comes to abiogensis.

Part 1 is as you point out - observing the embarrassingly stalled point at which the imperical data has left the hopeful faith-based evolutionist.

Part 2 is that there is a proposed "limit" assumed to exist for the amount of intelligent design our evolutionist friends are "Capable" of placing INTO their goal-oriented experiments.

There is expected to be "a limit" to which they ever COULD be successful?

And is that limit that they could never infuse ENOUGH intelligent design into their goal oriented experiments to ever gain 100% chiral purity for the amino acides formed? Surely not.

Surely we would say that though it is surprising that they show such "faith" without having reached "step 1" - still we can not argue that to ever GET to step 1 is tantamount to "creating life".

Rather the "limit" for creationism would seem to state that no amount of fabrication and intelligent design on the part of the evolutionist will ever generate living cell strucutres that in fact assemble themselves into a living functioning cell?

In other words - the Bible believing Christian YEC view is NOT ONLY that God DID created life - but that ONLY GOD CAN author life.

Steve
(I suggested a 150 peptide length) to prop up the evolutionary argument as this has been presented as a fairly simple and even inevitable probability. I'm not really from Missouri, but show me anyway.

Your point is abundantly clear. They have NOT reached EVEN the "basics" in establishing the SIMPLEST beginning for their hopes and faith in abiogenesis.

Agreed.

Bob

 

[Steven O. Sawyer]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
Note the tapdancing going on here, to try to show that the evidence isn't what it is.

Already, the evidence, while not compelling, clearly tilts toward abiogenesis.

Do we have such a preponderance of evidence as to settle the question? No. But we have God's word for it.

And that should count for something.

Yes, we Do have God's word for it and both Genesis and Exodus proclaim that the creation took 6 days with an evening and a morning. For there to be evening and morning, there does NOT need to be a sun... there only needs to be light (created the first day) and the rotation of the earth.

And let the record also show that the evolutionists have absolutely failed to deliver even the most basic forms of evidence even though I repeatedly requested it.

 

[BobRyan]

quote:Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I have been trying to establish that faith in abiogenesis is just that, FAITH, and it has no true scientific underpinning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Galation --
Hopeless task. Already, the evidence, while not compelling, clearly tilts toward abiogenesis.

Having lost every exchange with Steven so far - you seem to be making a satement of blind faith here.

Having failed to establish that ANY salient argument of abiogenesis has been substantiated IN the data - you seem inclined to put forward a statement of faith-in-abiogenesis no-matter-what-the-data as your "evidence clearly titling toward abiogenesis".

Surely you do not expect such hopeful statements of faith in the future for abiogenesis - to be viewed as "compelling" in a forum of this type.

Where is your objectivity?

Bob

 

[The Galatian]

I understand how much you want to make the evidence go away.

But it won't go away. And it's foolish to hope so. God already told you that He created life by natural means. Why not just accept that He did it the way he told you?

As far as the evidence for abiogenesis, it is certainly leaning toward God's version, but we don't have quite enough to consider it settled.

(Bob denies the evidence)

Not good enough, Bob. It won't go away. You can take comfort in the hope that eventually, when (and if) we can verify it for sure, it won't say that the earth and waters brought forth life.

Surely you do not expect such hopeful statements of faith in the future for abiogenesis

Perhaps, you are supposing that "we don't have enough evidence, but it leans this way", means "faith and hope"? Silly idea.

to be viewed as "compelling"

I told you it wasn't yet "compelling". Don't you remember?

Where is your objectivity?

I have to admit I am somewhat biased toward God's account, even if I can't scientifically show it yet.

If we someday get the evidence we need to know for sure, I'll be surprised if it contradicts His word, though.

You'll be surprised if it does not.

And that should give you some pause, I think.

[ July 07, 2003, 09:18 AM: Message edited by: The Galatian ]

 

[Helen]

You are so arrogant, Galatian! Did you know that humility is a virtue?

God's word says that He created everything by the power of His Word in six days. Exodus 20, John 1, Thessalonians 1, and Hebrews 1, at the VERY least, all confirm that.

So don't say you believe Bible when you really don't. You find excuses to disbelieve everything in it which disagrees with your interpretations.

In the meantime, the evidence does sit there -- a good part of it ignored and pooh-poohed by evolutionists. But it is there just the same, indicating how wrong and mistaken the concept of evolution is.

 

[The Galatian]

You are so arrogant, Galatian! Did you know that humility is a virtue?

I never presume to call anyone "arrogant". It sounds so... well.. arrogant.

God's word says that He created everything by the power of His Word in six days. Exodus 20, John 1, Thessalonians 1, and Hebrews 1, at the VERY least, all confirm that.

They all say that it's literal, not figurative? Or are you saying if someone repeats an allegory, that makes it literal? I don't think so.

So don't say you believe Bible when you really don't.

That's not true. I don't believe what you believe about it. But that's not the same thing.

You find excuses to disbelieve everything in it which disagrees with your interpretations.

I'm just pointing out what it says.

In the meantime, the evidence does sit there -- a good part of it ignored and pooh-poohed by evolutionists.

Maybe you could show us?

But it is there just the same, indicating how wrong and mistaken the concept of evolution is.

So far, that's not been the case. Do you have something new?

 

[BobRyan]

Galation --
I understand how much you want to make the evidence go away.

But it won't go away. And it's foolish to hope so...

I can appreciate your frustration Galation - but wouldn't it have been "better" if you could have made at least "one" of your suppositions stick?

I mean - "no evidence"?

Surely you can do better than that!

You are now limited to simply hanging your hat on "the belief that abiogenesis MIGHT one day have actual data to support it".

What blind faith!

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
Evolution's doctrines produce a kind of "faithful devotee" ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edgeo said --
Please explain what you mean by a 'faithful devotee'. All I know are evolutionists who believe that evolution is the best way to explain life on earth. Most would drop evolution in a minute if there were a better explanation.

Exactly right Ed!! That is "supposed to be" the Christian evolutionist position.

Which is why we find it "so contradictory" that Galation appeals to "faith in evolutionism's abiogenesis" when confronted with the fact that ALL their claims to a significant "proof" for abiogenesis are bogus.

AS each of his suppositions were shown to go up in smoke - he eventually backs into the corner of "pure blind faith in abiogenesis" stating that just because science has NOT YET provided the critical data to support salient points of abiogenesis - does not mean that we can not hope that ONE DAY (by faith ONE DAY) - it will.

Such "blind faith" of evolutionism's true devotee to its abiogenesis myths and fables was 'unnexpected' on this board of Christians.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Galation said --
If you are asserting that no conditions at any time in nature existed to produce biologically active peptides, then evidence should be presented.

here the devotee of evolutionism's abiogenesis argues that evolution's salient argument should be "Assumed" rather than "proven" and that it is the scientists who LACK ANY natural way to generate 100% pure chiral chains in NATURE that must now prove that NO other mythical environment in nature ever existed that might have provided support for Evolutionism's abiogenesis.

Instead of POSITIVE proof being the "support" of Abiogenesis - it is NEGATIVE assertion about the untestable past COMBINED with "assuming" the salient points NEEDED for Evolutionism's argument today for abiogenesis.

Use of such patently collapsed arguments by evolutionism's "faithful" is "surprising" on a Christian board where the "claim was supposed to be" - "I believed in Creationism as God teaches in His Word UNTIL I found the overwhelming evidence for Abiogenesis, for evolutionism, for life evolving INSTEAD of being CREATED".

Bob

 

[The Galatian]

Remember what's being argued. I'm not arguing that the evidence is compelling for abiogenesis at this time. I'm merely pointing out that what's there supports it.

You, on the other hand, are asserting that it could not have happened. Such a claim requires evidence.

 

[Edgeo]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
quote:Bob

Edgeo said --
Please explain what you mean by a 'faithful devotee'. All I know are evolutionists who believe that evolution is the best way to explain life on earth. Most would drop evolution in a minute if there were a better explanation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly right Ed!! That is "supposed to be" the Christian evolutionist position.

Which is why we find it "so contradictory" that Galation appeals to "faith in evolutionism's abiogenesis" when confronted with the fact that ALL their claims to a significant "proof" for abiogenesis are bogus.

I have seen no 'appeals to faith' by Galatian. He has made simple factual statements that he accepts as being in the realm of science, while you do not. End of story.

Also, I see that you still do not understand science at all if you think that science is supposed to find 'proof' of anything. Galatian and I have accepted that evolution is the best scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth. Abiogenesis may or may not be likewise accepted, but it appears likely. You have presented us with nothing better. He and I also have no problem rationalizing the true Christian religion with evolution.

AS each of his suppositions were shown to go up in smoke - he eventually backs into the corner of "pure blind faith in abiogenesis" stating that just because science has NOT YET provided the critical data to support salient points of abiogenesis - does not mean that we can not hope that ONE DAY (by faith ONE DAY) - it will.

Nonsense. Galatian is simply stating the evidence that he finds compelling. You disagree, that is fine. But, you provide nothing that likewise explains the way life is on earth.

Such "blind faith" of evolutionism's true devotee to its abiogenesis myths and fables was 'unnexpected' on this board of Christians.

Simply wrong. There is no 'blind faith' when a belief is guided by the evidence. If you want to provide us with a better model, please have at it. We have seen nothing yet from your side on this, just a bunch of (apparently) angry accusations, and very specialized details.

 

[Steven O. Sawyer]

Originally posted by Edgeo:
There is no 'blind faith' when a belief is guided by the evidence. If you want to provide us with a better model, please have at it. We have seen nothing yet from your side on this, just a bunch of (apparently) angry accusations, and very specialized details.

Whenever you believe in something without ANY real evidence to support that belief, it can certainly be called a "blind faith". I have repeatedly asked for evidence and none has been provided. In order to support naturalism and a naturalisticly produced abiogenesis, then it is not unreasonable to ask for evidence of natural processes and experiments to support such claims. To date, only the basic building blocks have been shown to appear under natural conditions and these are ALWAYS produced with enough contaminants to destroy any substantial polypeptide chain of chiral purity (I again suggest a minimum length of 150 amino acids as this is the number found in one of the simplist proteins known). Chiral purity appears to be one of the requirements for life to form... one of the simplist and most basic. Once that is accomplished (which has not happened yet) we would also need to show that these true proteins can be produced in enough concentrations to be biologically significant... but we have to get past the first step first. Again, where is the evidence?

As to the RNA/DNA first abiogenesis scenario, I have also pointed out that there are also quite a bit of problems with that effort also and that the self-assembling and self-replicating RNA world experiments may be a remarkable achievement there are a number of true experts in the field, like NYU Professor Emmeratis Robert Shapiro who have pointed out MAJOR problems with these experiments and indicated their irrelivancy to abiogenesis even though they themselves are naturalistic evolutionist and believes the universe is teeming with naturalisticly produced lifeforms.

Life is very much like a complex chemical symphony and, again, nature may produce shapes and wind that produce musical notes, but nature will NEVER produce a complex symphony without the aid of Intelligent Design (if you think it can, please produce the evidence or you will again be operating in "blind faith").

Now, as there has not been ANY evidence presented truely relevent to abiogenesis, it is quite a stretch to say that the evidence from such experiments "lean towards" that goal... they do not. If anything, they show the limits of un-directed natural processes to organize into life.

 

[The Galatian]

Whenever you believe in something without ANY real evidence to support that belief, it can certainly be called a "blind faith".

That's the predictable response scientists have learned to recognize from creationists. If evidence is offered, they merely insist that it is not "real" evidence.

Any rationalization is better in their worldview than accepting that they might be wrong.