Evidence and Conclusions. (Revelations, Christ, religion, Earth)

[andyc0803]

It's a theory, one of many, more than it is an actual belief. People can take a belief and say that it's true without any evidence to back them up. But with a theory it's more like people suspect something to be true based on evidence but if evidence comes up to refute that theory then they can move on to a new theory that supports the new evidence.

[Maia160]

Check out counter apologetic sites, such as talkorigins.org. Many of your questions have already been answered there with references on where to find more in depth info. I usually dislike posting links without commentary but I'm not an expert on the detailed questions you asked and these links will get you started.

Originally Posted by stuckinbalad

Well, to begin with, how did the first proteins spontaneously develop? They don't just do that in real life, given enough energy. Proteins denature at high temperature.

CB050: Abiogenesis is speculation?
CB030: Decay of prebiotic molecules

Originally Posted by stuckinbalad

Also, how can DNA spontaneously be made when there are complex enzymes which need to be part of the equation, but how could these enzymes be there without the proteins on which they act (this is kind of the chicken vs egg argument).

CB015: DNA or protein: Which came first?

Originally Posted by stuckinbalad

Once we get past those arguments, how could all these things spontaneously come together and form a living structure, and then how does that structure go from single cell to multi-cellular, then to comlpex organisms with specialized cells? We have not shown that kind of transition in any lab to date.

CB300: Evolution of complex organs

The main point I'm trying to make is that the 'holes' you mention are being researched and new answers are coming in all the time. Can you say the same for the 'god hypothesis'?

[rifleman]

Hi folks! I'm back! Now then... let's see here...

Originally Posted by stuckinbalad

Blindly believing in science is as bad as blindly believing in God...

I was told just this year that the science behind Anthropogenic Global Warming was settled, by many scientists who should have known...

known better than to say such a thing.

Science is constant test and experimentation. If, as Mircea states, the experiments can not be replicated, it is not science at all...

I am not going to debate the "science" behind your post, but I will ask you one question...

If we are to believe that life came out of Africa, like you say has been proven, where did that life come from? Meaning, how did life begin in the first place?

As to your opening statement, I don't actually know ANYONE (professionally at least, and that's quite a few in my case...) who BLINDLY BELIEVES IN SCIENCE. This is, in fact, the essential point of my OP; that we in fact have a mass of well-verified, reproduceable and validated evidence, all peer-reviewed, over and over, de-javu, until it's certainly worth your honest consideration.

You should not look upon it as all suspect, and that each claim should be taken apart willfully to find it's flaws and errors. You claim some have blind faith; I'd say by your posts that you have a blind faith that any science that clearly points to evolution or an ancient earth or any version of non-godly abiogenesis, is automatically wrong.

What I meant to say in my OP intro was that original hominid life has been shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have arisen in southern Africa, the mot recent Ardi, preceded by Lucy (Luci?)

Ancient Skeleton Could Rewrite the Book on Human Origins - washingtonpost.com

(forgive the Washington Post link; it came up first on Google. The info's essentially correct though.)

Originally Posted by andyc0803

rifleman's posts about science are always very impressive and logical.

I still don't like guns though.

Hey; with over 15 years at University, and then 25 years in the field, and observing animals in the Canadian And Alaskan Arctic, and elsewhere, and finding a mammoth out in The Brooks Range (I'm looking at the tusk right now...) emerging from the mud, and with my geology background, and by digging around with my anthropologist and archeologist and "paleo" friends, some stuff just jumps up out of the clay right at you.

To just deny it as "blind faith", or say "it all happened one week" is, well..... warped and based entirely on frantically clung-to faith-based fablism (lessee: FC2FBD!). IMHO of course...

Now then: Maia160: excuse me for point-forming your excellent points here, but I want them to really stand out for the deniallists here...

Originally Posted by Maia160

1. I agree that 'blindly' believing in anything isn't a good idea but ...

2. most skeptics don't just accept scientific speculations without evidence. Skeptics often discuss unproven ideas as plausible explanations but reserve final judgment until the evidence is in.

3. I accept the theory of evolution due to overwhelming evidence.

4. Your comment puts faith in a god on par with acceptance of established scientific theories. The two are not even close as the god hypothesis does not have any credible evidence while

5. scientific theories have heaps of evidence to back them up.

As to the question of abiogenesis, skeptics will say that we don't know. However, scientists have some good ideas that are being worked out.

Thanks! Very well said, and all true.

Originally Posted by stuckinbalad

I can't, but neither can you prove life came from space debris...the simple concept of life being sustained in outer space is something we have yet to prove is possible (we have found what appear to be dead bacterium on debris yes, but living bacterium or other living things on space debris we have not found)...

Hence the argument that you are trading one faith based belief for another....

1: Wrong. Mine is based on verifiable evidence including my own field work. Your scientific specialty and actual in-hand observations?

BTW, I don't recall making any such statements about the origins of life. ???? Has my thread been hijacked here! Moderator! Where are you???

Anyhow. Please do check up on the recent British research, about to be published (with anticipated huge tsunami-like "ripples" within the Christian community I'm sure...) where they get amino acids to form up from very primordial soupy origins. like that old experiment, what was it named? With synthetic lightning and all that? But now, given modern techniques, they actually got the necessary amino acids for life to form up on their own. And then, Craig Venter, who pioneered the Human Genome Project, just this last spring put some DNA into an empty cellular baggie, and darned if the cell wall didn't close up , and the DNA "decided" to get to work living and all.

Why not, after all? You build a perfect replica of a Rolex™, you wind it up, and what else would you expect? Tick-Tock, tick-tock!!! Except that with DNA/RNA, it is programed to do it all by itself! Huzzah! No Godly breath required!

So...anyone want to make an ABSOLUTE STATEMENT that scientists will NEVER get it all together, from protoplasmic soup to amino acids to DNA to RNA to simple lipid cell walls to a living, reproducing cell?

Well then: Go ahead: Make that statement, sign and date it, along with your check to me for $5M US$ if you lose that bet in the next 50 years. (Actually, I'm, betting more on 10 to 15 years but then I'm not intellectually hampered by any faith-based mandates...).

Critical Note: Science simply asks and then logically answers questions, and then provides the results for millions of others to peer-review. This is a LONG LONG way from simple, unproven and implausible faith-based information, stuckinbalad. There's simply no comparison between what the church or bible proffers as truth and what science continues to evolve, create or refine. If it's not iron-clad proven, then we just keep hammering away until it is.

Originally Posted by stuckinbalad

I never said it isn't fantasy; but you have to agree, if you are a rational person, the belief we all came from some primoridal soup is as much a stretch of fantasy as it is to say we came from a lump of clay.

Both ideas are based on beliefs, no science, just beliefs.

For you, the belief that a lump of clay could spring forth life is as crazy as it is for me to believe we all sprang forth from a soup...

All I am trying to say is that both are belief systems, since neither are provable by science (yet).

Well, again, you're not being entirely intellectually honest are you? We have all sorts of recent evidence and, in fact, proof that amino acids can and do form up on their own. Not my job to run science/biology class here. you do the Googling. But as I said: no comparison to biblical ideas versus what science continues to unfold. And again, my entire OP is that the evidence, verified by not one or five or 20 guys, but now by literally MILLIONS of independent researchers, each relentlessly nibbling away at their own tiny pet hypotheses, or clarifications and validations of ongoing work or partially proven ideas, working together to generate a pretty well-supported universal theory of how things happened.

Are you a regular reader and critic of, say, Scientific American, or Nature, or Modern Biology, or The Journal of Genetics Research, or Geology? Just curious.

Fact: we "arose" [evolved, specialized, branched off, however you'd like to phrase it...] in Africa. Fact. We then migrated out of Africa over tens of thousands of years. Fact. The American Apache Indians have mtD/RNA that matches that of current Africans. Fact: isotopic and geological dating methods, despite what The Creation Institute will yell at you, is now proven as completely acceptable, verifiable and quite dependable. Fact: my own research on sedimentary varves clearly showed, at minimum, the sediments in my northern Rocky Mountain lake were well over 25,000 years old, and we stopped because we weren't trying to disprove god, we were just working for a mining company.

Certainly, you'd have to agree, it shows things originated far further back than 6037.8 yrs ago. Hee hee , give or take a few million, we've been around for 13M+ years. Not 6000+. That's just (provably) nutball fantasy.

Originally Posted by Maia160

As you said, we still have to work out the holes but scientists are a lot further along than many people realize. Could you point out the holes you find in the idea?

Here's the thing, we have testable ideas for abiogenesis. Time travel and warp speed are not even feasibly testable. Abiogenesis is much further along and has real world evidence to support the idea. Conflating abiogenesis with 'time travel' is disingenous.

Agreed. A common tactic, to conflate the implausible with the simply yet-unproven, and then confidently call it all unlikely or, better yet, "impossible!" Golly, are they gonna be in for a surprise in the next few years, if they aren't already.

Originally Posted by stuckinbalad

Well, to begin with, how did the first proteins spontaneously develop? They don't just do that in real life, given enough energy. Proteins denature at high temperature.

Also, how can DNA spontaneously be made when there are complex enzymes which need to be part of the equation, but how could these enzymes be there without the proteins on which they act (this is kind of the chicken vs egg argument).

Once we get past those arguments, how could all these things spontaneously come together and form a living structure, and then how does that structure go from single cell to multi-cellular, then to comlpex organisms with specialized cells? We have not shown that kind of transition in any lab to date.

That's a start...not just small holes but large caverns need to be filled there.

Point: the primordial soup was not boiling, old chap. It was just plain comfortably warm. Uncountable bah-zillions of molecules all interacting furiously as we now know they want to, trying things out in uncountable replications, in vastly uncountable volumes of water for nearly uncountable billions of years.

So... whaddah yah expect? Eventually, some of them formed into little proteins, which can be quite simple, actually.

You are altogether too awestruck by the concept of "life", stuck m'boy! That, BTW, is a common misconception and error of the religious, borne of their relative scientific illiteracy, as if life is so danged miraculous that only a God could have done it. Wait until we biotechnicians fabricate a really simple but living proto-viral particle... It's like a Briggs & Stratton one-lunger compared to a Ferarri F1 engine. but htey are both functioning engines nonetheless. Chugga-dah-chugg... Vroomy-vrooom!

It's simply that some organized proteins then react to each others molecular shapes, under the right conditions, and they react in predictable ways to spin off new proteins. There's literally hundreds of millionss of genes that work to do this, and yet Venter's recent work shows, irrefutibley, that they do it all on their own.

Anyhow, again, my point is that the evidence at hand, and verified by so many different approaches and disciplines, certainly makes the statement that the biblical alternative, an Insta-Poof Creation event, is simply not logical or demonstrated by ANY evidence in the field. You want to argue some biochemical details, and I'm saying we're finding the answers almost daily now. What we can confidently technically do now most Christians would have serious denied as possible even ten years ago. Go back to my bet....

For instance, you want to say things like "How can a complex molecule form such and such when the conditions weren't right for it..." etc. etc. In other words, you're trying to get all bio-technical on me. But, if that's the game, then perhaps you could answer for us all: "How did a God just waggle his nose of fingertips and "create" it all, instantly, out of what you guys all claim to be NOTHING, and then there we all were?"

You find one concept improbable or illogical, yet the other one is just Okey-Dokey Fine?

What's in that soup they're feeding you then? Imaginactium? Fantasoricon? (Just kidding. Don't take offense, just keep arguing. It's not only enlightening, but it's also fun! )

[stuckinbalad]

Rifle, I get you, I really do. I understand your pride in your research, and I canunderstand how you think the issue is as simple as it is. But as a fellow scientist, you have to agree that the issue is largely unresolved (this may be a point of contention as it is kind of "glass half full" vs "glass half empty" ) but even if you don't agree with the argumen that the issue is largely in the air you have to agree the argument is at least still in the air. There may be some good ideas and some good work on the subject being done, but it has not really cleared much water yet.

Having said all that, you may be surprised to find out I have learned none of this in church or through apologetics, it has been throughstate funded universities and years of research into the field of biology/molecular biology/microbiology/genetics/etc, hence my arguments....I have no arguments about your research and hypothesis of Africa origination of life, that is not my forte or field of study.

To say I am being intellectually disingenuous is not really fair either. I present the argumen only that the steps needed to create life from simple building blocks is far more complex than presented and may not ever be proven, but it may be proven. Scientific rags present a lot of theory and idea but are light on actual good science, as all scientific journals and rags, so I look at all that stuff with a sincere skepticism which I would hope any true scientist would look at things with. As a coontinuation on that theme, anytime I hear "the science is settled" or some variation of that, I respond with extreme skepticism since it is almost always followed by some irrational conclusion or just simple junk science (I.e. AGW) and I would hope you do the same, as a scientist.

I am not denying there is good work going on in the field of abiogenesis, however, my point that it is far from proven science is completely valid, and completely not relevant to the belief I have in creationism.

Finally, I know this may sound contrary to science, but I know there is a lot in science that is difficult to explain. It
Gives me a good feeling knowing I can fall back on The "goddunit" argument to explain the mysteries of the universe, and when these mysteries are explained away with science, it will marvel at the ingenuity and knowledge we have been able to acquire.

I do think there will be things we can not explain, but that is a different argument altogether...

One last thing, please excuse any typos and run-ons as I am typing this from my iPhone and the format is not the same as on desktop

[Maia160]

Originally Posted by stuckinbalad

To say I am being intellectually disingenuous is not really fair either. I present the argumen only that the steps needed to create life from simple building blocks is far more complex than presented and may not ever be proven, but it may be proven. Scientific rags present a lot of theory and idea but are light on actual good science, as all scientific journals and rags, so I look at all that stuff with a sincere skepticism which I would hope any true scientist would look at things with. As a coontinuation on that theme, anytime I hear "the science is settled" or some variation of that, I respond with extreme skepticism since it is almost always followed by some irrational conclusion or just simple junk science (I.e. AGW) and I would hope you do the same, as a scientist.

That's not how you presented your argument. Your posts read as if you think that the 'god hypothesis' is just as valid as science when it, clearly, is not. Then, you proceeded to conflate abiogenesis with the implausible ideas of warp speed and time travel. Finally, you called the 'god hypothesis' and abiogenesis a belief system as neither has been proven. But, nobody is arguing that abiogenesis has been proven; we are only pointing out that it is being studied and has evidence to support the idea. I don't have a problem with your faith in god; I do take issue when a person tries to disingenuously assert that their faith should be placed on par with science. Own your faith for what it is, belief without evidence, and don't try to drag real science down to that level.

Originally Posted by stuckinbalad

Finally, I know this may sound contrary to science, but I know there is a lot in science that is difficult to explain. It
Gives me a good feeling knowing I can fall back on The "goddunit" argument to explain the mysteries of the universe, and when these mysteries are explained away with science, it will marvel at the ingenuity and knowledge we have been able to acquire.

Why is it so hard to simply say, "I don't know"? The goddunit argument explains absolutely nothing and, in fact, raises more questions than it answers.

[stuckinbalad]

Originally Posted by Maia160

That's not how you presented your argument. Your posts read as if you think that the 'god hypothesis' is just as valid as science when it, clearly, is not. Then, you proceeded to conflate abiogenesis with the implausible ideas of warp speed and time travel. Finally, you called the 'god hypothesis' and abiogenesis a belief system as neither has been proven. But, nobody is arguing that abiogenesis has been proven; we are only pointing out that it is being studied and has evidence to support the idea. I don't have a problem with your faith in god; I do take issue when a person tries to disingenuously assert that their faith should be placed on par with science. Own your faith for what it is, belief without evidence, and don't try to drag real science down to that level.




Why is it so hard to simply say, "I don't know"? The goddunit argument explains absolutely nothing and, in fact, raises more questions than it answers.

What you are failing to see is that the "God argument" is on par with abiogenesis at this point in time...no one has proven anything to make it more than a good idea backed with basic understanding of how things might have occurred. The concept of abiogenesis is nothing more than creationism backed by science.

I don't suppose you are a biological scientist? If you are, you would understand what I am saying. Good ideas are just that, abiogenesis is a good idea, as yet proven by science....has a long way to go.

Again, settled science is almost an oxymoron, the whole point of science is to constantly be testing new things and putting old theories through new tests as we learn more about nature. Rarely is science ever settled...

I don't know the answer, will likely never know, but for your side (not saying you have said this yourself, just saying what people arguing with me about this have said) to say that the creation of life from essentially nothing but building blocks is essentially proven fact and for me to say life was created from a higher power is completely insane is totally wrong. Who is to say a creator didn't form us from those building blocks and guide the process along??

There are many possibilities out there, you feel abiogenesis is the best idea to pursue given the natural world around us. But given the extreme complexity of the world and it's creations (natural or supernatural??) I find it far more plausible in my mind to believe there is more to this system than just luck and "soup"...

In the end you have your reasons for believing the way you do...you look to science for all the answers and use science to try and explain things away. Nothing wrong with that. I have had far too many experiences to just totally rely on science...

[Maia160]

Originally Posted by stuckinbalad

What you are failing to see is that the "God argument" is on par with abiogenesis at this point in time...no one has proven anything to make it more than a good idea backed with basic understanding of how things might have occurred. The concept of abiogenesis is nothing more than creationism backed by science.

I don't suppose you are a biological scientist? If you are, you would understand what I am saying. Good ideas are just that, abiogenesis is a good idea, as yet proven by science....has a long way to go.

Yes, I've agreed that abiogenesis is not proven. However, it has testable ideas and some credible evidence to back it up. That makes the idea more plausible than the untestable no credible evidence god hypothesis. Note, I said plausible. I would not be crushed if a new and better idea came along tomorrow and knocked abiogenesis out of the running. I'll admit, though, I will be disappointed if we never figure it out but I will not say, "I know x" until it has been proven just to make myself feel better.

I don't need to be a biological scientist to look at the facts and see which side has the evidence. As you've stated, the idea still needs a lot of work but that in no way means that this is just some idea pulled out of a hat with no evidence.

I am curious. You call yourself a creationist. What sort of creationist are you? Are you a YEC or do you believe god's hand was involved in evolution?

[stuckinbalad]

Originally Posted by Maia160

Yes, I've agreed that abiogenesis is not proven. However, it has testable ideas and some credible evidence to back it up. That makes the idea more plausible than the untestable no credible evidence god hypothesis. Note, I said plausible. I would not be crushed if a new and better idea came along tomorrow and knocked abiogenesis out of the running. I'll admit, though, I will be disappointed if we never figure it out but I will not say, "I know x" until it has been proven just to make myself feel better.

I don't need to be a biological scientist to look at the facts and see which side has the evidence. As you've stated, the idea still needs a lot of work but that in no way means that this is just some idea pulled out of a hat with no evidence.

I am curious. You call yourself a creationist. What sort of creationist are you? Are you a YEC or do you believe god's hand was involved in evolution?

Sorry, not big into the titles people give these things...Young Earth Creationist (YEC?) vs intelligent design...I think that is what you are saying here....

I will really toy with this question, because if I say I am a YEC (in line with the Bible as a good Christian) then I reject all that good geologic science which has "proven" the earth to be millions of years old...yet if I just say intelligent design I am lumped into those Christians who don't hold that the Word of God is true...nice double edged sword quesiton...yikes...which side do I fall on, both get me slaughtered in the debate...

In the end, I believe God created all things, I believe there are mysteries which we will never fully comprehend as humans which are open for debate...the first one being the creation days. God created the Earth, but God has no time, therfore he could have really made each day eons and just for timing purposes called these steps days...

However, things have transpired in my life and the lives of those around me enough to suggest there is a higher power at work. Could these be pure coincidence, sure, but when taken as a whole, it sure seems fishy for just pure coincidence. When I look at life as a whole, I see more than just evolution and primoridal soup, I see purpose...this is enough evidence for me to weigh heavily on the side of "godunnit" rather than the side of "science could explain it eventually"...

The nice thing is, we will never convince each other of our arguments...

[Maia160]

Originally Posted by stuckinbalad

Sorry, not big into the titles people give these things...Young Earth Creationist (YEC?) vs intelligent design...I think that is what you are saying here....

I will really toy with this question, because if I say I am a YEC (in line with the Bible as a good Christian) then I reject all that good geologic science which has "proven" the earth to be millions of years old...yet if I just say intelligent design I am lumped into those Christians who don't hold that the Word of God is true...nice double edged sword quesiton...yikes...which side do I fall on, both get me slaughtered in the debate...

In the end, I believe God created all things, I believe there are mysteries which we will never fully comprehend as humans which are open for debate...the first one being the creation days. God created the Earth, but God has no time, therfore he could have really made each day eons and just for timing purposes called these steps days...

However, things have transpired in my life and the lives of those around me enough to suggest there is a higher power at work. Could these be pure coincidence, sure, but when taken as a whole, it sure seems fishy for just pure coincidence. When I look at life as a whole, I see more than just evolution and primoridal soup, I see purpose...this is enough evidence for me to weigh heavily on the side of "godunnit" rather than the side of "science could explain it eventually"...

The nice thing is, we will never convince each other of our arguments...

Oh, I wasn't trying to score points with my questions. I couldn't place you as you really don't seem to fit into the traditional YEC or ID category. I was just curious about your perspective.

I don't expect to convince you; I just enjoy a good debate.

[stuckinbalad]

Originally Posted by Maia160

Oh, I wasn't trying to score points with my questions. I couldn't place you as you really don't seem to fit into the traditional YEC or ID category. I was just curious about your perspective.

I don't expect to convince you; I just enjoy a good debate.

Ditto...it is not my place to convince you anyway...