Abiogenesis and Evolution

[Edgeo]

Originally posted by Steven O. Sawyer:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Edgeo:
Why is he a "Christian?" Does he call himself such? Oh wait, you said he wouldn't call himself a Christian... Just what is your purpose in calling him such? Not sure just what your point is here.

Hello! Anybody home?

I began my statement by quoting the remark made by Travelsong: </font>[/QUOTE]But there is no logical connect here. Dawkins in not a Christian, but neither are a lot of people who link abiogenesis and evolution. Your point is really without substance.

 

[Steven O. Sawyer]

Originally posted by Edgeo:
Dawkins in not a Christian, but neither are a lot of people who link abiogenesis and evolution. Your &lt;Steven&gt; point is really without substance.

Let's try this again. It is repeatedly stated that abiogenesis is not evolution. Abiogenesis is not BIOLOGICAL evolution, but it is the theory of chemical evolution towards life. And I don't have to quote misinformed creationists or Christians to make that point, I can quote a distinguished publicly recognized spokesperson of Darwinian evolution who is militantly atheistic and anti-creationist.

Anyone who claims that only people who don't understand evolution make the claim that abiogenesis is evolution is badly mistaken. The quote by Dawkins proves that point.

 

[Edgeo]

Originally posted by Steven O. Sawyer:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Edgeo:
[qb] Dawkins in not a Christian, but neither are a lot of people who link abiogenesis and evolution. Your &lt;Steven&gt; point is really without substance.

Let's try this again. It is repeatedly stated that abiogenesis is not evolution. Abiogenesis is not BIOLOGICAL evolution, but it is the theory of chemical evolution towards life. </font>[/QUOTE]I am glad we agree then that they are different subjects. It also seems clear from your statement that the validity of abiogenesis has little to do with the validity of evolution. I think we can go from here.

Now, you seem to claim some superior position by virtue of the fact that no one has answered your question sufficiently to suit you. I ask, is there any argument that would EVER convince you? I think not. I remind you that if you are keeping track of unanswered questions, then you have a long ways to go just to tie the score.

Basically, all we have here is you denying sufficient evidence. However, I don't think that any of us are answering the question for you. We are answering each for ourselves. Your ridicule and rejection of the evidence are irrelevant. They do not change the facts. Perhaps you might get a better reaction if you actually presented an alternative model to abiogenesis, with all of the apertaining evidence and data.

And I don't have to quote misinformed creationists or Christians to make that point, I can quote a distinguished publicly recognized spokesperson of Darwinian evolution who is militantly atheistic and anti-creationist.

Who does he represent on this board? Is that your decision to make?

Anyone who claims that only people who don't understand evolution make the claim that abiogenesis is evolution is badly mistaken. The quote by Dawkins proves that point.

That was not Travelsong's point. I believe that Ts simply said that many Christians do not understand that abiogenesis and evolution are different subjects. You responded by saying that some evolutionists don't either as if it somehow refuted or discredited Travelsong's point. I just seemed like a logical disconnect with no real pertinent point. Or were you just trying to change the subject?

 

[Steven O. Sawyer]

Originally posted by Edgeo:
I am glad we agree then that they are different subjects.

Abiogenesis is chemical evolution towards life. Biological evolution is the evolution from microbes to man. They are different topics of the same subject – the BELIEF that naturalistic processes are all that exists and govern the development of everything in the universe from the Big Bang to the present.

It also seems clear from your statement that the validity of abiogenesis has little to do with the validity of evolution. I think we can go from here.

Then you must not have read what I said.

Now, you seem to claim some superior position by virtue of the fact that no one has answered your question sufficiently to suit you. I ask, is there any argument that would EVER convince you? I think not.

Well, if you could show me an experiment that models a theoretical real-world condition (like the Miller-Urey experiment) that can produce a sufficient amount of pure L-forms of amino acids to produce significant amounts of proteins with at least 150 levorotary peptides OR make such proteins from a realistically modeled natural scenario which purifies the racemized goop formed from these experiments and can form the proteins. That would be a BIG start… then we could talk about the more difficult aspects once we get past the easy part.

I remind you that if you are keeping track of unanswered questions, then you have a long ways to go just to tie the score.

If you stick to abiogenesis as the topic, it is the evolutionists who have yet to show ANYTHING of any significance. As to the lack of ability for creationists to prove that abiogenesis is impossible, you should know that trying to prove a universal negative is impossible. Creationists and those in the ID community have indicated that the increasing complexity of chemicals towards life gets more improbable with each step upwards. It is the evolutionists who need to put their evidence where their mouth is.

Basically, all we have here is you denying sufficient evidence. However, I don't think that any of us are answering the question for you. We are answering each for ourselves. Your ridicule and rejection of the evidence are irrelevant. They do not change the facts. Perhaps you might get a better reaction if you actually presented an alternative model to abiogenesis, with all of the appertaining evidence and data.

My alternative model is found in Genesis… the omnipotent creator God spoke and it was so. Historically, we have the eyewitness accounts about Jesus who claimed to be this very God incarnate (the gospels of Matthew, John, and Peter’s account in Mark). Jesus spoke and changed water into wine. Jesus created new tissue and healed all forms of sickness (not just the psychosomatic garbage that hucksters “heal” on TV). Jesus raised a young girl from a recent death and later raised Lazarus after being dead four days by His spoken words. Jesus spoke and the storms ad waves ceased. This Jesus said God created. He validated the writings of Moses. He said that Adam was a historical figure. Then Jesus did the most remarkable thing of all. He who knew no sin was murdered by His own creation. He then arose from death 3 days later to make atonement for sin and make a way for at least some in an otherwise hopeless mankind to stand justified before a holy and just God and offered this forgiveness to all.

My evidence that at least some creator exists is in the predictions of creationists based on soundly tested chemical behavior as well as the laws of thermodynamics and probability. You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear and you can’t demonstrate that life can spontaneously generate itself. Your experiments only demonstrate the limits of natural self-organization even when unfairly aided by scientists to try to do more (like some of the RNA experiments and the recent laboratory construction of a poliovirus “from scratch”).

Who does he (Richard Dawkins) represent on this board? Is that your decision to make?

Richard Dawkins is a public figure who represents quite a number of Darwinian evolutionists. Perhaps you haven’t heard of him.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Steve: Anyone who claims that only people who don't understand evolution make the claim that abiogenesis is evolution is badly mistaken. The quote by Dawkins proves that point.

That was not Travelsong's point. I believe that Ts simply said that many Christians do not understand that abiogenesis and evolution are different subjects. You responded by saying that some evolutionists don't either as if it somehow refuted or discredited Travelsong's point. I just seemed like a logical disconnect with no real pertinent point. Or were you just trying to change the subject? </font>[/QUOTE]If Christians don’t understand the point maybe it’s because so many popular evolutionists seem to be saying otherwise.

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by Steven O. Sawyer:
Abiogenesis is chemical evolution towards life. Biological evolution is the evolution from microbes to man. They are different topics of the same subject ? the BELIEF that naturalistic processes are all that exists and govern the development of everything in the universe from the Big Bang to the present.

So there you have it, two entirely different fields of study. Evolutionists are not concerned with the origin of life from the inanimate. The only real commonality between the two is that which connects all of secular science-a naturalistic approach to explain what is observed. Scientists are only able to test hypothesis from observable evidence, which must exclude God.I would even add creation scientists. Their belief is that scientic inquiry leads one to conclude a young earth when all of the observable evidence is considered.

Here's the way I see it. I whole heartedly believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. I believe that God spoke and all that is came to be. I believe that God and nothing else is the author of life.With all of those things in mind I approached the argument objectively with the understanding that no matter what the evidence suggested, God's Word is infallible. What more can be said except that I have concluded numerous fields of study demonstrate an extremely old earth? Biology, anthropology, geology, astronomy-all of these sciences are filled with volumes of evidence to support an old earth.

I wonder though, what if one day we are able to create a single celled self replicating organism from the basic building blocks of life? What if in our lifetime the evidence for common ancestry becomes so great that it is futile to argue against it? What if our dating methods are proven beyond all doubt to be completely accurate? Will your faith be shattered? Will you suddenly come to the conclusion that the God you believed in is a liar, or worse yet not even real? If the answer is yes, then I would say your faith was never in the right place.

 

[Steven O. Sawyer]

Originally posted by Travelsong:
Evolutionists are not concerned with the origin of life from the inanimate.

Another broad stroke statement... are you saying Richard Dawkins is not an evolutionist?

The only real commonality between the two is that which connects all of secular science-a naturalistic approach to explain what is observed. Scientists are only able to test hypothesis from observable evidence, which must exclude God.

The commonality of the two is a naturalistic philosophy which is atheistic as it "must exclude God" (bold added for emphasis). As Carl Sagan put it in Cosmos, "The universe is all there is, or ever was, or ever will be... We are all star stuff". Sagan was a practical atheist even though he claimed to be agnostic.

Don't you find it odd that almost all of the early founders of science were Christians or at least theists? They knew that science was LIMITED to the natural created world, the one that exists now by ongoing processes; they did not try to define all of reality in atheistic terms.

As far a the existence of God, obviously God is supernatural and cannot be DIRECTLY examined by the scientific method however His existance can be INFERRED as a logical deduction from scientific tests for Intelligent Design (ID).

I would even add creation scientists. Their belief is that scientic inquiry leads one to conclude a young earth when all of the observable evidence is considered.

I would say that creation scientists are not just limited to accepting as true the unproven assumptions clouding the various fields of naturalistic study by denying what the creator God has revealed to man in His word.

Here's the way I see it. I whole heartedly believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. I believe that God spoke and all that is came to be. I believe that God and nothing else is the author of life. With all of those things in mind I approached the argument objectively with the understanding that no matter what the evidence suggested, God's Word is infallible. What more can be said except that I have concluded numerous fields of study demonstrate an extremely old earth? Biology, anthropology, geology, astronomy-all of these sciences are filled with volumes of evidence to support an old earth.

I do not know what your personal belief actually is. I can say that the interpretation of scripture as allegory in Genesis and other parts where the creation is mentioned is within the pale of orthodoxy of Christianity... it is not an essential doctrine but one that Christians can divide over. For me to say otherwise would put Augustine, R.C. Sproul, Ravi Zacharias, Chuck Colson and other fine Christians under the umbrella of heretics and I, for one, am not prepared to do that. So I would agree that a person can be a Christian and not accept a young earth but it would come at the price of distorting the plain reading of scripture in favor of man's fallen intellect grapeling with data and interpreting that data in a way that ignores the underlying paradigms and assumptions used to interpret the data as well as the criticisims of YEC scientists. We weren't there when the creation took place but God was. If Jesus, God incarnate, could instantly turn water into wine (thus ignoring the cycle and time required for water to be absorbed by the grape plant and produce ripened fruit, the harvesting and pressing of the grapes, and the fermentation process) or feed over 5,000 people with a few fish and a few loaves of bread (thus creating from "thin air" thousands of fish that never swam in the sea nor were cleaned and prepared by human hand not to mention the growing of grain and the process of making bread) then Jesus DEMONSTRATED acts of creation during His earthly ministry. So please explain to me, in scientific terms, just how these products were produced by natural processes.

I wonder though, what if one day we are able to create a single celled self replicating organism from the basic building blocks of life?

Would we be demonstrating that natural processes could produce a living cell or would we have proven that Intelligent Design is required to force the orchestration of the symbiotic symphony of interrelated and interdependent chemical reactions to produce a "von Neumann" of incredible complexity.

What if in our lifetime the evidence for common ancestry becomes so great that it is futile to argue against it?

From the "evidence" I've seen so far, I doubt it.

What if our dating methods are proven beyond all doubt to be completely accurate?

Proven? Is that a scientific concept? We are deasling with very abcient historical events. How do you scientifically PROVE historical events? Can you scientifically PROVE that Julius Caesar lived?

How do you calibrate radiometric dating? By comparing it to evolutionary history events and by ignoring the data that does not agree with the accepted timeframe as "contaminated" in some form.

Will your faith be shattered? Will you suddenly come to the conclusion that the God you believed in is a liar, or worse yet not even real? If the answer is yes, then I would say your faith was never in the right place.

Nope, my faith is in the person of Jesus Christ. My system of hermenutics would perhaps be called into question, but my faith would be transformed to be more like that of Augustine, R.C. Sproul, Ravi Zacharias, Chuck Colson, etc.

 

[Edgeo]

Originally posted by Steven O. Sawyer:
Abiogenesis is chemical evolution towards life. Biological evolution is the evolution from microbes to man. They are different topics of the same subject – the BELIEF that naturalistic processes are all that exists and govern the development of everything in the universe from the Big Bang to the present.

Wrong. I don't believe anyone here says that naturalistic processes are ALL that exists and govern EVERYHING in the universe. You are building a strawman. This is a gross oversimplification of the evolutionary position. Not to put words in others' mouths, but I would say we are quite certain that evolution is the mechanism used to reach the current status of life on earth. Abiogenesis is not as certain, for a number of reasons, but there are lines of evidence that it was also a valid mechanism.

E: It also seems clear from your statement that the validity of abiogenesis has little to do with the validity of evolution. I think we can go from here.

S: Then you must not have read what I said.

Okay, I was needling you. But the point is that you have not created a compelling argument that evolution depends upon abiogenesis.

E: Now, you seem to claim some superior position by virtue of the fact that no one has answered your question sufficiently to suit you. I ask, is there any argument that would EVER convince you? I think not.

S: Well, if you could show me an experiment that models a theoretical real-world condition (like the Miller-Urey experiment) that can produce a sufficient amount of pure L-forms of amino acids to produce significant amounts of proteins with at least 150 levorotary peptides OR make such proteins from a realistically modeled natural scenario which purifies the racemized goop formed from these experiments and can form the proteins. That would be a BIG start… then we could talk about the more difficult aspects once we get past the easy part.

Sorry, outside my field. However, I am not opposed to alternatives to abiogenesis. I simply think that naturalistic processes are all that is necessary based on my knowledge of evolution. I would also say that you really have no scientific alternative.

E: I remind you that if you are keeping track of unanswered questions, then you have a long ways to go just to tie the score.

S: If you stick to abiogenesis as the topic, it is the evolutionists who have yet to show ANYTHING of any significance. As to the lack of ability for creationists to prove that abiogenesis is impossible, you should know that trying to prove a universal negative is impossible. Creationists and those in the ID community have indicated that the increasing complexity of chemicals towards life gets more improbable with each step upwards. It is the evolutionists who need to put their evidence where their mouth is.

Well, that is part of my point. We do not rely solely on experiments in abiogenesis. Supernatural processes have not been shown to be necessary in any other line of scientific research and I simply wonder why we should be forced to require them here. You have not provided an alternative nor any evidence for it that compels me to believe otherwise.

My alternative model is found in Genesis… the omnipotent creator God spoke and it was so.

Kind of leaves out a few details doesn't it? What were the actual processes involved?

Historically, we have the eyewitness accounts about Jesus who claimed to be this very God incarnate (the gospels of Matthew, John, and Peter’s account in Mark).

So, these describe that actual chemical reactions and assemblage of proteins, etc. that you require evolutionists to provide as evidence for abiogenesis? Seems to me that you have some kind of double standard here...

Jesus spoke and changed water into wine.

This is biogenesis?

Jesus created new tissue and healed all forms of sickness (not just the psychosomatic garbage that hucksters “heal” on TV). Jesus raised a young girl from a recent death and later raised Lazarus after being dead four days by His spoken words. Jesus spoke and the storms ad waves ceased. This Jesus said God created. He validated the writings of Moses. He said that Adam was a historical figure. Then Jesus did the most remarkable thing of all. He who knew no sin was murdered by His own creation. He then arose from death 3 days later to make atonement for sin and make a way for at least some in an otherwise hopeless mankind to stand justified before a holy and just God and offered this forgiveness to all.

All very nice and very instructive. However, these do not describe or explain the origin of life.

My evidence that at least some creator exists is in the predictions of creationists based on soundly tested chemical behavior as well as the laws of thermodynamics and probability. You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear and you can’t demonstrate that life can spontaneously generate itself.

Well, I believe that there were probably a few steps involved. Once again you oversimplify the evolutionary position.

(snip)

E: Who does he (Richard Dawkins) represent on this board? Is that your decision to make?

S: Richard Dawkins is a public figure who represents quite a number of Darwinian evolutionists. Perhaps you haven’t heard of him.

But whom does he represent here? You will note that this is a Christian-base board. I would think that some of us would be quite offended by your assumption. Well, then, in the future I will assume that any creationist likewise speaks for you.

E: That was not Travelsong's point. I believe that Ts simply said that many Christians do not understand that abiogenesis and evolution are different subjects. You responded by saying that some evolutionists don't either as if it somehow refuted or discredited Travelsong's point. I just seemed like a logical disconnect with no real pertinent point. Or were you just trying to change the subject?

S: If Christians don’t understand the point maybe it’s because so many popular evolutionists seem to be saying otherwise.

Just by my own sample, I would suggest that most fundamentalist Christians get their information from creationist websites and other literature. Do you seriously think that the layman creationist reads Dawkins?

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by Steven O. Sawyer:
Another broad stroke statement... are you saying Richard Dawkins is not an evolutionist?

No, I am saying that evolution and abiogenesis are two entirely different fields of study. An evolutionist is not testing hypothesis' and forming conclusions about common ancestry based on the work of abiogenesis. What's so complicated about this?

Originally posted by Steven O. Sawyer:
Don't you find it odd that almost all of the early founders of science were Christians or at least theists? They knew that science was LIMITED to the natural created world, the one that exists now by ongoing processes; they did not try to define all of reality in atheistic terms.

Science has and always will be explained in naturalistic terms because we can only test what is observable.I don't see how faith or lack thereof has anything to do with that.

Originally posted by Steven O. Sawyer:
As far a the existence of God, obviously God is supernatural and cannot be DIRECTLY examined by the scientific method however His existance can be INFERRED as a logical deduction from scientific tests for Intelligent Design (ID).

Perhaps this is a true statement for you but it isn't for me. If I believe all of the evidence demonstrates intelligent design, where do I go from there? What God? Why? Eventually I am forced to use an entirely different set of criteria in choosing what god to put my faith in. Our faith can only be based on moral convictions and nothing else.

Originally posted by Steven O. Sawyer:
I would say that creation scientists are not just limited to accepting as true the unproven assumptions clouding the various fields of naturalistic study by denying what the creator God has revealed to man in His word.

The same goes for me and those who are on my side of the argument. What's your point?

Originally posted by Steven O. Sawyer:
I do not know what your personal belief actually is. I can say that the interpretation of scripture as allegory in Genesis and other parts where the creation is mentioned is within the pale of orthodoxy of Christianity... it is not an essential doctrine but one that Christians can divide over. For me to say otherwise would put Augustine, R.C. Sproul, Ravi Zacharias, Chuck Colson and other fine Christians under the umbrella of heretics and I, for one, am not prepared to do that. So I would agree that a person can be a Christian and not accept a young earth but it would come at the price of distorting the plain reading of scripture in favor of man's fallen intellect...

Well I'm glad I pass muster, if only marginally. For a second there I thought you were about to condemn me.

Originally posted by Steven O. Sawyer:
Nope, my faith is in the person of Jesus Christ. My system of hermenutics would perhaps be called into question, but my faith would be transformed to be more like that of Augustine, R.C. Sproul, Ravi Zacharias, Chuck Colson, etc.

..and the reason for that is because both of us regard the Bible as the inerrant word of God.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by Helen:
The bone structure of birds is unique to them.

I am sorry for dragging up something that we have been off of for a few days, but I came across a new find.

A new 15 foot long dinosaur has been found in Utah. It is so new that it is not even officially named yet. It is a type of raptor. Think Velociraptor from Jurassic Park but about three times as long. Up to 100 animals have been found and they are "undistorted and wonderfully preserved."

A quote:

"These animals have hollow bones," Kirkland describes. "There are air chambers in the bones, like birds. Some are literally paper-thin; the neck is a web of tissue-thin bone. It weighs nothing. The bones would float in water. If you put helium in the spaces, they would float on air."

"It's a rare and beautiful thing to find such delicate old bones so well preserved," Kirkland says.

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/quest/projects/kirkland.html

 

[BobRyan]

Steven Sawyer said --
The implication of the statement by Travelsong was that ONLY Christians are so misguided as to say that abiogenesis and evolution were linked... therefore, I used quotes around the term Christian as it refered to the author of the quote which indicated that Darwinism began with earth's origin. The problem for Travelsong was that the author was supposed to be a Christian, but in fact, he wasn't. So I DID NOT CALL RICHARD DAWKINS A CHRISTIAN, I put the term in quotes to refer back to Travelsong's misguided stereotyping and completely incorrect statement.

Your point in that Dawkins post was "blatantly obvous" Steven. Clearly you were saying that anyone who "thinks" only a Christian can "see" that abiogenesis is foundation and KEY (essential) to the overal mythology that "is" evolutionism" - has not read enough of Dawkins.

And thanks for the reference - another "gold mine".

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Abiogenesis - for the honest evolutionist (like Dawkins) there is "NTHER choice".

So that leaves "I won't think about it" as the only alternative for the truly "determined" evolutionist.

And what have we seen "here"??


Bob

 

[The Galatian]

Dawkins is an atheist. For him there is no other choice.

But if you're a Christian, there are choices. God limited that for us, by telling us in Genesis that He created life by natural means, however.

 

[Meatros]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Abiogenesis - for the honest evolutionist (like Dawkins) there is "NTHER choice".

So that leaves "I won't think about it" as the only alternative for the truly "determined" evolutionist.

And what have we seen "here"??


Bob

It's interesting that you consider Dawkin's an "honest" evolutionist-thereby implying that evolution is correct -while at the same time condemning fellow Christians.

Interesting.

 

[Helen]

No Meatros....that only means that Dawkins is honest about what he believes and is not trying to squirrel around parts of it.

Personally, although I have tried to read several of Dawkins' books, I can't get more than halfway though. In my opinion he is a pompous propagandizer. So although he may be honest about stating what he believes to be true, I have zero respect for the man.

 

[Meatros]

Originally posted by Helen:
No Meatros....that only means that Dawkins is honest about what he believes and is not trying to squirrel around parts of it.

Nah, it's wishful damnation unfortunately. Remember that your opinion's as well as Bob's, are not necessarily Jesus's.

Originally posted by Helen:
Personally, although I have tried to read several of Dawkins' books, I can't get more than halfway though. In my opinion he is a pompous propagandizer. So although he may be honest about stating what he believes to be true, I have zero respect for the man.

You just admitted to not finishing his books, and claiming he is a propagandist-why on earth (other then wishful thinking) would you think his opinions on religion would be valid?

 

[Helen]

I didn't say his opinions on religion are valid. I said he honestly states what he believes. If he believed the moon was made of green cheese and stated that right out honestly, then he would be honest about his beliefs there, too.

Being honest about what one believes and being right about what one believes are two entirely different things.

 

[Peter101]

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;You CANNOT PROVE macroevolution... you extrapolate Microevolution and BELIEVE in Macroevolution, but you cannot prove it... THAT IS FAITH whether you like it or not.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;


It seems to me that if macroevolution happened, it should, at least theoretically, be possible to prove it. By proof I mean beyond a reasonable doubt and not mathematical proof. What reason do you have to think that proof is impossible? If humans evolved from something not human, it is reasonable to think that fossils might carry evidence of that evolution. Why do you think it is impossible, in theory, for proof to be found?

 

[john6:63]

I would like some honest rebuttals to this article Why Abiogenesis is Impossible. The report is written by Dr. Jerry Bergman and is published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal, which is peer-reviewed by degreed scientists. (Since there are 11 pages of this topic to surf through, if by chance this article has already been posted and commented on, let me know and I will find it.)

For Meatros’ sake, I feel that Dr. Jerry Bergman is more than qualified in this area.

 

[Meatros]

Originally posted by john6:63:
For Meatros’ sake, I feel that Dr. Jerry Bergman is more than qualified in this area.

Look, *YOU* were the one interested in qualifications, *NOT* I. It blew up in your face and now you seem to have sour grapes about it.