[
Administrator: one response to John Paul was just returned to the sender because most of the post was quotes from the discussion so far. The following post is the same, but Jeff had an email problem and we couldn't get his post on the board for several days. So it is going up as it is. It is better for the reader if authors only quote when necessary and just refer to what has been said otherwise. Thank you.]
JEFF
Paul of Eugene:
Well, life is here, so it must have gotten here SOMEHOW! No kidding, the presence of life on earth is evidence. In view of the established fact that the great diversity of life comes from evolution, a natural process, it isn't such a big leap to believe that the creator of all could also have arranged to use natural law for the origin of life as well. Put it this way: If God wanted to, could God have arranged for life to arrive through the operation of natural law?
( )yes ( )no Of course the answer is yes.
John Paul:
Yes, life is here. If God had anything to do with it then it didnt arrive from non-life via purely natural processes.
Jeff: Why ? Where is the evidence that God is limited as to His chosen mechanisms ?
Doesn't God use clouds to make rain ? ...or is that not allowed either ? Didn't He use hydrogen to make stars ?
Paul of Eugene:
It is certain that life could have arisen by purely natural processes. Even the most adamant creationist admits it is perfectly possible for life to spontaneously form from a collection of the necessary atoms; they merely say it is so improbable that it might as well be considered to be impossible. But this argument is flawed, because in all of the vast universe, and in all the possible universes that might be out there, we only know about one instance of life originating. Therefore it is perfectly possible that life started only once as as stupendously improbable event, and here we are.
John Paul:
Hate to burst your bubble but it is in no way 'certain' that life could have arisen via purely natural processes.
jeff:
This must mean you can provide evidence that deomonstrates -once and for all-, that life could NOT have arisen via purely natural processes. You can demonstrate a negative ?
I would conclude the occurrance of life generating is - not- 100% certain, (science must always entertain a healthy degree of doubt) but so far we've only investigated one star system.
John Paul:
...We have taken all the chemicals found in life, mixed them together and nothing. Life is much more than chemical reactions and it certainly isnt any evidence that shows life can arise from non-life without help.
jeff:
All that this demonstrates is that we have more unfinished work. It doesn't mean naturally occurring life is impossible. It means we still aren't absolutely sure....YET.
The conclusion that naturally occurring life is impossible, cannot be drawn from your example. Or, more precisely, a 'Scientific' conclusion cannot be drawn from your example because it doesn't demonstrate an impossibility - only a lack of critical information. It could be the same elements and compounds, but under different physical circumstances.
Did you falsify EVERY possible scenario imaginable ? ...and even those unimaginable ?
John Paul:
Even with our intervention we can't prod life from non-life. From what we know life itself is irreducibly complex. That much science has told us.
jeff:
Where ? Cite a source, please.
Science hasn't told us that. That is nothing more than personal incredulity.
John Paul:
If someday science is corrected I will cross that bridge at that time.
jeff:
Gee, that sounds awfully like the 'God of the Gaps' hypothesis to me. Perhaps you can explain how it is not ?
John Paul:
Please define a 'rather probable event'?
Right now there isn't any evidence that life can arise from non-life via purely natural processes.
jeff:
...and even LESS evidence that life arising from non-life via purely natural processes is impossible. Actually, your claim is nothing more than your opinion, based on ignoring evidence to the contrary.
Organic chemistry has provided considerable insight into this process.
John Paul:
Seeing that premise has held up against all tests, no matter how rigged for success they have been,
jeff:
All tests ? In every conceivable & inconceivable scenario and circumstance ?
How many tests were conducted using the Ocean bottom's chemo-synthetic thermal-vent environment ?
John Paul:
what are the alternatives?
jeff:
Do You mean, "what are the 'scientific' alternatives" ?
John Paul:
However, if you are saying that God rigged it so that life could form from non-life under natural laws given some specific condition and set that condition up on several life-supportable systems (which God most likely would have rigged into existence).
Jeff:
What do you mean by 'most likely'? Where is the evidence supporting THIS assertion?
John Paul:
that would be a simplistic version of ID. We should be able to replicate those conditions and hoping that natural laws haven't changed,
jeff:
Hoping? Is that some scientific control mechanism ?
Why would we need to 'hope' ?
Perhaps you can cite evidence indicating the laws of physics have been different at some time in the past ?
How do natural laws change ?
John Paul:
[and] bring forth life from non-life. Accomplishing that may shed some light on any possibility of that occurring via purely natural processes.
jeff:
Yes, creating life in a lab, from non-life, may shed some light on the possibility of life occurring via purely natural processes.
Actually, that is an enormous understatement. But I admire how, even then, you would still entertain some degree of doubt. That's science.
John Paul:
Or remove all doubt that it could.
jeff:
Whoops ! We just fell off the science wagon again. Where did your healthy degree of doubt go ?
John Paul:
The point being is if evolution doesn't apply to non-living matter what is the mechanism that would bring life from non-life?
jeff:
Abiogenesis: Organic Chemistry. All the essential elements are here. Life just needed the right circumstances.
John Paul:
What does natural selection work on?
jeff:
Pre-existing, living organisms that have reproduction potential.
John Paul:
The reason someone was smart enough to create the illusion the two are separate is because there isn't any evidence to support the premise that life could arise from non-life via purely natural processes
jeff:
The reason abiogenesis and evolution are described as separate concepts is because they are different phenomena, with different processes, differing starting points, materials, conditions, mechanisms and results.
Solar panels collect energy from sunlight. But converting this energy into electricity is NOT equivalent to Nuclear fusion. However, the nuclear fusion had to occur FIRST, in order for silicon panels to collect & convert light rays into electricity.
Energy collection isnt nuclear fusion.
Diversification of life isnt abiogenesis.
Nuclear fusion is required for solar panels to operate.
Pre-existing life is required for evolution to occur.
Nuclear fusion allows energy collection to happen.
Abiogenesis allows diversification to occur.
but abiogenesis ISN'T diversification.
Could it be that, since you oppose both ideas and you reject them despite the evidence, that you tend to lump them together ?
John Paul:
Evolutionists are having a hard enough time trying to maintain the illusion that purely natural processes can account for the diversity of life from some genetically unknowable origin.
jeff:
Only when one denies the evidence from entering the picture. Otherwise, it's no problem at all. Just common sense.
John Paul:
How could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that progenotes evolved into procaryotes?*
How could we objectively test the hypothesis that eucaryotes evolved via procaryotic endosymbiosis?*
How could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that true multi-cellularity evolved from colonies of single-celled organisms (i.e. the Volvox)?*
Or for that matter how could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that the eye could evolve?
jeff:
That may depend on what you mean by 'objective' testing and falsifying.
Using this stringent requirement, science can make no claim on gravitational theory. We can only 'hope' that Pluto will come around. We may as well remove all reference to the existence of viruses from our science textbooks.
No one has seen them without the aide of a microscope. Its possible that what we perceive as tiny viruses is actually some optical illusion caused by the equipment.
We can safely remove nuclear physics from the science books too. No one has ever seen an atom or proton or electron 'objectively'.
But since we're dealing with 'Theoretical' science, wouldn't it be best ( and simplest ) to go about eliminating possibilities rather than attempting to 'prove' others ?
Can we accurately conclude that a specific phenomenon is absolutely impossible simply because we haven't seen it ? Couldn't it also mean that our expertise is currently insufficient to verify the possibility ?
In practical terms, it is more difficult ( if not impossible ) to demonstrate that a currently unknown, highly unlikely hypothetical explanation, occurring in the remote past is IMPOSSIBLE - in every possible scenario, under every unimaginable set of circumstances. Of course, I am referring to the scientific method here.
Having said that, we'll try again.
-How could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that progenotes evolved into procaryotes?
A: - Present evidence that the existence of prokaryotes, predates the existence of progenotes. But this doesn't rule out the possibility that some progenotes evolved into procaryotes later on not without presenting supporting evidence that such an event COULDN'T POSSIBLY occur. ( and that would be a lot of work, indeed )
-How could we objectively test the hypothesis that eucaryotes evolved via procaryotic endosymbiosis?*
A: - Demonstrate an alternative mechanism that better explains the given process. Then it would be, for the most part, falsified. Then again, we have technology that can produce a synthetic carbon-crystal gem in a fraction of the time it takes to happen in nature. Maybe BOTH means are valid;sounds like more science is required to be conclusive, but that's fine. -Job security for the researchers.
-How could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that true multi-cellularity evolved from colonies of single-celled organisms (i.e. the Volvox)?*
A: -Present evidence that suggests multi-celled organisms predate single celled organisms.
- How could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that the eye could evolve?
A: -Demonstrate an alternative mechanism where evolution isn't required.
The field is wide open. The your imagination is the only limit. Go for it !!
Well, I just demonstrated some ( but not all ) of the ways to
test and falsify your examples.
Verification must develop over time as specific explanations are tested and eliminated. Those explanations that survive testing acquire more and more verification.right up until they too are falsified.
So the ToE CAN be objectively tested and verified. But you have to use the scientific method.
John Paul:
All told the grand sweep of the theory doesn't add anything to the advance of science. Darwin could have stopped before extrapolating what couldn't be observed or tested for and we would be no worse off than we are today.
jeff:
Perhaps, but why would he not voice the conclusions to which his observations lead ?
What did Darwin have to gain by lying about his observations and conclusions ?
What has YECism offered to the advance of science ? The opinions of scientists in peer reviewed science journals suggest YECism is an obstacle, an impediment to advance of science because it denies the very methods upon which science is based- Primarily by beginning with a conclusion, then examining evidence that would support or contradict the conclusion.
I realize you are less than impressed with the positive impact that evolution has had on biogenetics, disease theory & treatments but I predict that we will find more and more practical applications as time goes on. Not less and less. ( We've put terrestrial entropy on suspension until the sun burns out )
Paul of Eugene:
DNA sequencing showing degrees of chemical similarity are objective, not subjective.
John Paul:
Then they obviously point to a Common Creator. Thank you.
jeff:
How so ?
Hypothetically speaking, how does a 98% genetic similarity between chimps and humans and a 40% genetic similarity between humans and snails - indicate a common creator ?
Logic would ( after exhausting natural explanations ) suggest multiple creators were responsible. Otherwise it's embarrassingly awkward to explain the varying degrees of genetic similarity.
Why would there be ANY genetic similarity ?
Why would there be ANY genetic difference between plants & animals, insects & fungi, Lennon & McCartney ??
How is a creator's creating bound by genetic similarity / dissimilarity ?
How is attributing this varying degree of genetic similarity to varying degrees of relatedness not objective ?
In this specific example, we're dealing with ratios; numbers, values- that correlate closely with one another. These numbers suggest a relationship.
Paul of Eugene:
The fact that the implied kinship confirms the independently derived "tree of life" is an objective finding, not subjective.
John Paul:
The 'implied kinship' confirms The Creator used similar parts for similar functions and that all life has to have some similarity in order to survive. It (the similarity) also could have something to do with some underlying protocol inherent in the genome in all DNA based life.
jeff:
To claim: there must be some genetic sameness, in all organisms, in order for them survive seems (subjectively) logical to me. But when you attempt to use this hypothesis to explain why we see genetic DIFFERENCES.it falls flat.
Because It fails to answer the question:
Why can't ALL created organisms have identical genetic makeup ?
How could something like that have any influence over a creator ?
This begs the question how could you answer ANY question about the creator ? HOW do you investigate the creator so we may discover His/Her/Its limitations and mechanisms ?
The answer could be any of these:
The Creator's Personal Aesthetics - a fashion whim
The Creator is bound by the laws of physics as we understand them
The Creator is NOT bound by the laws of physics as we understand them - but accidentally or inadvertently caused genetic similarity to suggest common descent. It was unplanned.
There are actually infinite numbers of different Creators responsible for genetic diversity & similarity, all of them borrowing code from each other though they are NOT bound by the laws of physics as we understand them
Can you help me narrow this down a little ?
In its attempt to explain everything. it actually explains nothing.
But you said it CONFIRMS a common creator.
HOW ?
Homology in biology is easily evidence for a Common Creator. IOW the only way that the tests came out in the affirmative was because that is what the testee wanted (because any alternative was excluded a priori) and has nothing to do with objectivity.
jeff:
The only alternatives excluded by science are those that can't be tested ( let alone falsified ) due to their alleged supernatural references and sources. Science can't rule out God, nor anything supernatural. It can't touch, smell, hear, see or taste God or anything supernatural.
Since science cannot rule out God or anything & everything supernatural why consider it ?
Even if it is 'true', science is unable to evaluate, verify or falsify the notion.
It doesn't mean the assertion is false,it means the assertion isn't scientific.
Your common creator scenario can be absolutely true but it's still not scientific.
It doesn't have to be scientific to be 'true'.
But it has to be scientific, if it is going to be explained in a public school science textbook. Even if it's wrong, it has to be scientific.
This may mean, your truth doesn't exist in ( or can't be verified by ) science.
If we group all 'pursuits of truth' together, science would be a subset of
All Pursuits of 'Truth'
But it would not be the only pursuit. Philosophy, Theology, Ethics, Politics, Aesthetics & good old 'Lord, Baptize me in the River'- Old Timey Religion are some other pursuits of the truth that enter the picture.
But science is different and separate from them.
Perhaps I'm mistaken. Please elucidate the scientific methods for evaluating the supernatural.
Paul of Eugene:
Consider feathers and hair. Why is their no bat with feathers and no bird with hair? A common creator making every species from scratch would have no a priori reason to make all bats with hair and never use feathers.
John Paul:
That's just ridiculous. Who are you to suppose what a Creator would do?
jeff:
I'm in total agreement. Yeah, that's what I'd like to know as well.
Who are YOU, John Paul to know the mind of a creator ? You've just supplied us even MORE reason to exclude God from scientific explanations.
John Paul:
It also assumes that at one time there wasn't any bats with feathers. Not everything that has lived and died gets fossilized.
jeff:
Can you cite evidence that bats ever had feathers ?
Can you cite a reason why we should consider it then ? ( as science )
John Paul:
And please do tell where bats got their echolocation system and birds got their migratory sense.
jeff:
Where ? They were born with them. It's encoded in their DNA.
Paul of Eugene:
We're talking about "homology being evidence for a common creator" here, aren't we? Instead, the patterns conform to what we would expect from common descent with opportunistic modification.
John Paul:
Creationists confirm 'descent with modification'.
jeff:
Not always. Not until recently would they grudgingly admit the obvious. But creationism didn't 'confirm'it. Science confirmed it. Creationists could no longer deny evolution entirely without loss of credibility so they 'copped' to limited 'micro' evolution.
But they still haven't identified the mechanism or obstacle that prevents the small changes they've acknowledged occur, from accumulating over multiple generations into new taxonomy. There still is no consensus definition of 'created kinds'.
John Paul:
We just disagree with you what from. Every kingdom is it's own orchard on one big symbiotic plantation that is the planet Earth.
jeff:
Disagreement is fine. Skepticism and factual challenges only sharpen the conclusions of science. But where you see trees in an orchard, science sees below the ground and suggests there's more to the story than just what is apparent.
John Paul:
The 'tree of life' means very little if it cant be objectively tested or verified. The trunk is virtually non-existent. Nothing but theoretical musings in there.
jeff:
Well ? It's Theoretical science. The same science we rely upon to: predict the weather, the paths of orbital bodies, the age of various geologic layers and to determine who killed Nicole Simpson.
Theoretical Science is more comfortable with reasonable doubt than with absolute certainty. This must be why theories are never proventhey are only DISproven. It's worked fine until now. Why should we want to change it ?
Why would you criticize Theoretical science which at least has supporting evidence in favor of a fanciful notion that can't be falsified and has no supporting evidence ?
John Paul:
Theoretical musings that humans are descended from some ape-like organisms has not helped us one bit in any field. Life is better explained by the 'orchard of life' as proposed by Creationists.
jeff:
And how has this 'orchard of life' explanation as proposed by Creationists helped us one bit ?
I can think ways it has HURT us. The scientific literacy in this country is already criminally inept. Creationist attempts to redefine science to meet their religious agenda only makes matters worse. They waste time and resources that could otherwise be devoted to ADVANCING our knowledge. Instead, some of our brightest scientific minds are relegated to the non-intellectual activity of warding off the political advances of those groups with a theological objection to the conclusions of science. Science is being forced to take and defend the same hill - again and again. YECism is a waste of time and precious resources for BOTH sides in this issue.
Paul of Eugene:
Their characteristics were postulated in advance and then the fossils that matched the postulates were found. That, my friend, is prediction and objective verification of the prediction.
John Paul:
If you have an alleged starting point and an alleged end result, postulating what might be expected in between would be pretty much a no-brainer, wouldn't it? 'What might we find if the cetacean evolved from some ungulate?' uhhhhh, 'remnants of legs!' Which is what they think they recently found.
jeff:
You've neglected to consider WHY such a question would be asked in the first place.
Previous evidence allowed us to make a prediction. If a common creator was responsible for whales, why are they not fish or reptile or arthropod ?
Science addressed a conundrum:
-Whales are mammals
-Mammals are almost exclusively land based.
-Whales live their entire lives in water
This begged the question: Did whales descend from land mammals whose behavior saw them adapt to sea locomotion over millions of generations ? or did a common creator make them that way for no apparent reason or pattern ?
Well, since science can NEVER address the second part of that question, they saved time, money and brain cells and just cut to the chase and attempted to answer the only part of the question that science is equipped to answer.
It turns out, there are fossil specimens of land mammals, land mammals with few water based adaptations, mammals that are equally adept at walking and swimming, and finally Sea mammals that are fully adapted to life away from land.
These specimens shared similar morphology, similar geographics, and were found in the respective geologic layers to indicate change over time, form land mammal to Whale. Even if you reject radiometric dating techniques, the SEQUENCE would still support their conclusion.
Does it PROVE, absolutely, that is what actually happened ?
No.
Have we any evidence that the explanation is IMPOSSIBLE ?
No.
Does it fit the same pattern of change over time as countless other examples ?
Yes.
So, at this point the theory IS explaining the evidence. At no point does the evidence PROVE the theory.
Do we have a better explanation for this evidence ?
No.
Do we have ANY other explanations for this evidence ?
Well
The Common creator hypothesis that suggests:
-a creator created the whale to dwell in the water.for no reason - or with His own unknown reason(s)
-a creator might have certain limitations regarding design and genetic code used
-the creator has absolutely no limitations and need not observe the laws of physics as we know them
-we can detect the evidence of the creator's creating mechanisms, except when there is no evidence of these mechanisms
-we can conclude the creator was creating despite evidence of evolution
-the creator creates using discernable patterns and mechanisms
-the creator is not bound to any set pattern or restricted set of mechanisms while creating
-the creator created all life forms- suddenly in the last 10000 years
-the creator is not obliged to make all evidence agree with a young earth
-the creator ( when allowed to ignore all known physics ) can cause global events that leave no trace
( so how did know about it ?)
-a designing creator explains the self evident increase in complexity of living things from non-complex elements
-the creator, although complex enough to design and form living things, is exempt from needing His own designerfor no apparent reason
-the creator may have created the universe 3 seconds ago, complete with dead & dying stars, Billions of years of Geological activity and our personal memories that deceive us into thinking we existed before He created us three seconds ago
-the creator may have created the universe billions of years ago but due to a divine cover-up ( for reasons known only to HIM ) , planted false evidence to deceive certain groups of people into believing the earth is less than 10000 years old and to reject the studies of how HIS universe behaves
-we can never presume to know the mind of the creator
-we can understand the intentions of the creator without real evidence
Add to this the standard attacks of how insufficiently the ToE explains the evidence, as if that adds support to only one other alternative instead of EVERY other alternative
Well since the Common creator hypothesis is not forced to demonstrate any pattern, method or time table.it explains nothing and everything at the same time. It also doesn't do so.
But it does. Except when it doesn't.
It sounds like this model needs work.
So, of the two explanations.only one seems to follow patterns, leaves discernable traces in such a way that we can even predict the type of evidence that we may find, based on previously discovered evidence.
The other doesn't.
Does this mean there is no God ?
No
It means God cannot be detected with scientific methods, because He is not bound by them.
Is Science BAD or evil because it cannot evaluate God ?
No, science is just insufficient or ill-suited to explain God.
Perhaps, this is why we have philosophy & theology ?
Yes,