Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So thus you admit there are flavors of KoolAid but KoolAid nonetheless.
Thankfully the logic never left me and in my quest for truth, the church, nor the bible could provide it. After researching (in detail) the early church history (not really taught in churches) placed the nail in the coffin of the fairy tale myth(s) of the "faith"
Did I say that? No I did not, what I did was use your own discription to show you have not completely tested the waters before discounting them.
You call it cause and effect when the cause is God's breath and the effect is the instant creation of everything?....He must have had a terrible case of halitosis.......Have you lost track of the fact that it is you who are attempting to defend majik?
I'm the one that's saying the effect was caused...you're the one who's claiming that it all just "popped" into existence, then somehow all came together by magic to start life.
I'm the one that's saying the effect was caused...you're the one who's claiming that it all just "popped" into existence, then somehow all came together by magic to start life.
Ok then, the ball is in your court...Explain to me how you think that life was caused.
I'm the one that's saying the effect was caused...you're the one who's claiming that it all just "popped" into existence, then somehow all came together by magic to start life.
kd, are you daft? What scientific practitioner have you met that's said we're preaching an instant pop into existance?
The only true remaining question to the larger Unified Theory would be how the base atoms, & thus molecules, came into being. Literally. It seems they may not have been there before, but now they are, and we'll possibly never know how, unless the Klorgons stop by in their time/space warp-drive machine and patiently explain it to someone like Stephen Hawking. You and I won't be invited to that discussion because we're not smart enough. Well me anyhow. You perhaps are.
What we can show in any lab, on any day, is that....
MOLECULES INTERACT. On their own! In ways we can now predict, according to laws (theories, really) that we've come to understand. You know, the reasons why oil molecules don't mix with water molecules for instance. Polarized molecules versus non-poliarzed molecules; remember that from Science in Grade 8?
So... you agree that molecules interact all on their own? Please say yes!
Then, next phase... Under different pHs, different temperatures, and in the presence of certain other molecules, those processes may "facilitate" or "catalyze" new or stronger of even entirely different interactions. You agree?
Finally, we know what the simple chemical precursors can or might have been; really simple molecules, ions, particles, etc., floating about in a warm ocean that, for instance, gets reliably zapped about 2000 times every second:
You remember? The mad Doktor Zapenfuzill, wiring the test-tubes up to his lightning pole, the v. attractive Assistant Bridgette standing back, her hands masking the amazed & terrified look on her face...
and....ZAAAPPPPPP...
Well, no, life doesn't automatically then "spring" into existence, but certainly some new molecular groupings, new organizations, new previously unheard of compounds come into existance.
Lesseee: a bit of simple scientist's mystery math: 2000strikes/sec X 60sec/min X 60min/hr X 24hr/day X 365 days/yr X 2B years =
WOWWWWOOWOWOWOWOWOOW! That's a LOT of experiments!
(6.038 X ten to the 16th; 10 with 16 zeros after it!).
...and that's just the opportunities via simple lightning zaps. What about volcanic / chemical / meteorite mpact / sunlight /solar radiation / radiation flares / natural mineral radiation - facilitated "experiments?
You gonna tell me this all didn't happen? It's happening now, furchyssayk! Photochemical smog, for example: all new molecules formed because of the interaction of sun and oddball hydro-carbons.
You just didn't think it through, now did you? That's OK. Now you realize the vast, almost incalculable number of simple chemlab experiments that were, have, and are even now going on, all with the simple expedient of creating some amino acids and other simple precursors to functioning life.
Hey. Not so unlikely, huh?
Then they bumped into each other and, voila, started purposeful interaction (life).
So. You see now that it's not some highly unlikely magical event. Rather it's highly likely, and to boot, it's kinda reverse-predicted given what we find, chemically, in the ocean and in life's essential molecules, today.
So... please!!!! Don't just blurt out some reflexive AiG answer. Try to comment thoughfully here, kd! Can you see how this process is in no way magic or "instant life"?
Last edited by rifleman; 05-08-2009 at 09:07 AM..
Reason: corrections
There is absolutely no evidence for single celled organisms becoming multicelled organism other than pregnancy.
Now, I'm by no means a biologist and know little about the research in this area. However, it seems to me that the apparition of multi-cellular organisms is not particularly unlikely. After all, mono-cellular organisms reproduce by division. All it would take, it seems, is an imperfect division, where the two new cells remain stuck to each other. Am I horribly wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich
Just because you haven't seen good enough proof for God's existence doesn't mean He doesn't exist....right?
Just apply the same logic. Abiogenesis flies in the face of accepted science....but people are willing to give it a pass because they'd rather believe in it than a creator.
Life on earth exists now. Life on earth didn't exist in the past. Therefore, life had an origin.
That origin could be natural or supernatural. However, by definition, the supernatural could not be studied by science. It is therefore "dangerous" for science to decrete anything to be supernatural. How are we to tell the difference between "the unkowable supernatural" and "we just didn't find the answer yet"? If, for example, science decided that diseases were caused by God, modern medicine would not exist.
Therefore, science assumes any phenomenon to have purely natural causes. (And they've yet to be proven wrong .) Abiogenesis was also studied through this lens. And while no single hypothesis has been sufficiently proven, it no longer appears impossible.
While we're at it, please explain why abiogenesis "flies in the face of accepted science". I'm sure the numerous qualified biologists who study that specific topic would disagree.
Of course, if there was any evidence that an outside entity was responsible for the origin of life, things would be different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich
what you call a "small probability" (what science calls "impossibility")
Probability failure.
Remember, it only needs to have happened once.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich
I'm the one that's saying the effect was caused...you're the one who's claiming that it all just "popped" into existence, then somehow all came together by magic to start life.
Everybody is saying the effect was caused. Natural causes are causes nonetheless. And, by definition, natural causes are not "magic" - while God certainly use what could reasonably be called magic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman
Then they bumped into each other and, voila, started purposeful interaction (life).
So. You see now that it's not some highly unlikely magical event. Rather it's highly likely, and to boot, it's kinda reverse-predicted given what we find, chemically, in the ocean and in life's essential molecules, today.
Good post overall, but I would disagree with that specific part. While it does appear that the natural formation of molecules important to life is likely, the probability of the whole abiogenesis process is unquantifiable at this point.
so again, rifleman....bottom line is that although science teaches that life does not come from non-life, you'd rather believe in omnipotent chance than a creator?
You can spin it any way you want...but ultimately the impossible happened when life began from non-life....according to your beliefs. I'm sorry...that's just not plausible. The only logical conclusion is that there was a creator.
Abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation basically says that complex lifeforms (bacterias, maybe even insects) will spontaneously appear (without being born) in a favorable environment. For example, this hypothesis claims that a piece of rotting meat will engender maggots, even if no eggs were present and if the meat was isolated from outside air. This hypothesis was disproved by numerous experiments (the most conclusive being one by Louis Pasteur in 1859) and is now definitely obsolete.
is in fact incorrect, at least according to original definitions of the terms. It is in fact correct to call abiogenesis "spontaneous generation". By the original definition, Pasteur did not disprove spontaneous generation. Rather, he disproved the specific hypothesis that modern, complex forms of life could appear on food isolated from air. In his own words:
I do not think that spontaneous generation is impossible and one must admit that without spontaneous generation, it would be impossible to explain the presence of living beings on Earth without invoking acts of supernatural creation.
[quote=Roxolan;8712942]Now, I'm by no means a biologist and know little about the research in this area. However, it seems to me that the apparition of multi-cellular organisms is not particularly unlikely. After all, mono-cellular organisms reproduce by division. All it would take, it seems, is an imperfect division, where the two new cells remain stuck to each other. Am I horribly wrong?
No I do not think you are horribly wrong, I am not a biologist either. What I am seeing as I shared is more like coral and I know the example was a sponge and even though they were connected, were they truly a multicelled organism or a colony? I realize that a multicelled organism is not impossible from a single celled organism but, and I say this with all sincerity, neither is it impossible for a designer to have a hand in it.
Now I found the first part of your last sentence to be very interesting because it coincided with a creation theory. An imperfect division, or mutation causing two cells to remain together. Now in creation of course we have the theory of sin causing such imperfections and therefore causing mutations which encourage adaption on many levels that would most likely not occur in a perfect system.
Hope this does not offend but I still believe conversations such as ours can lead to much common ground so long as we can get the levels of discussion squared away. You know like abiogenesis with creation and evolution with the Biblical accounts. I realize there can be further divisions that need to be examined for similarities for honest discussion.
so again, rifleman....bottom line is that although science teaches that life does not come from non-life, you'd rather believe in omnipotent chance than a creator?
You can spin it any way you want...but ultimately the impossible happened when life began from non-life....according to your beliefs. I'm sorry...that's just not plausible. The only logical conclusion is that there was a creator.
I'm still waiting for your explanation of how life began. You do know that our planet was seeded with organic molecules from comets, right? So life did not come from rock or minerals.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Zappooooffff X quintilliions!
.) Abiogenesis was also studied through this lens. And while no single hypothesis has been sufficiently proven, it no longer appears impossible.
