For Danmac - Abiogenesis

[McBell]

I can't believe this is even an argument . . .

I agree.
Says quite a lot about the Biblist when an atheist is telling them to check the Bible....

 

[DarkSun]

Danmac, I posted a brief explanation of the scientific explanation for how the universe came to be in another thread, I'll report it here.

Before you read this, you'd probably be well off knowing that I do believe in a Designer. But I still realise that belief is not a scientific one, since science deals with what can be proven, and belief in a Creator cannot be proven unless you assume it exists to begin with.

Science deals with what can be proven and what is quanitfiable - and that being said, Intelligent Design and Creationism are not scientific theories because there is no evidence for either. Just because something is complex doesn't automatically mean it was designed. Here is the brief scientific explanation for how things came to be. If some of the things here are slightly inaccurate, then I apologize. I'm not an evolutionary biologist or a physicist - I'm a chemist, so this might not be one-hundred percent spot on. But from what I know. In the beginning, there was nothing but energy in its most un-condensed form, tightly backed together, and forced to move in an extremely slow vibration. Within an incomprehensible space of time, something remarkably improbable occurred. What you must understand is that given an infinite amount of time, anything can happen, because everything is possible but there are just varying levels of improbability.

This remarkably improbable event was the Singularity, or the moment at which the Big Bang was initiated, where the energy was forced to explode and expand, creating the universe. Anyway, to really dumb it down, the Singularity led to the big bang, and whole heap of something autonomously spawned itself from nothing. The energy gradually became more complex - particles merged together, and we eventually got the most basic element we know today. Hydrogen. There doesn't need to be a cause for the Singularity for it to have happened. Just remember that this is only possible because of the massive time-span over which this happened. It would have taken trillions of years. It may not sound like much, but if you think about it, science says this Earth we live on is only 4,500,000,000 years old. A trillion years is 1,000,000,000,000 years. The time span in which this occurred is orders of magnitude greater than anything we could ever comprehend. So given this virtually limitless amount of time, of course something as improbable as the singularity could happen by chance (even if it took trillions, and trillions, and trillions and trillions of years). In fact, all of this was BOUND to happen eventually at some point in eternity, it was MEANT to happen. Given the time scale we're talking about, even the most improbable things are possible, and indeed, inevitable. But for the energy to condense to hydrogen, that would have taken only a few trillion years. (Of course, I'm only giving rough figures).

Once the hydrogen had formed, it would have only taken a few trillion years for heaps of it to cluster together into a relatively small volume, to form a star. Since a star has so much mass in such a small amount of space, this causes a perturbation in space-time, a kind of hole in the fabric of space, and in this way, other forms of mass are attracted to this bend in space time much like a ball rolling down a hill. The attraction of two masses is called gravity. When gravity's acceleration acts on an mass, it creates a force. Therefore, with a sun, since there is a lot of mass in a small unit of space, there is a lot of force acting on such a small surface area. This creates a massive amount of pressure acting on the mass, which makes the constituting hydrogen atoms within a sun extremely energetic. They're moving around so quickly, colliding with each other and letting off heat so rapidly, that their nuclei can fuse and create even larger elements. This is known as stellar nucleosynthesis. And then when the stars got too massive, ie, the matter in the stars has fused into much heavier elements so that the pressure inherent with the particular star can no longer provide then energy required for fusion - the stars will either explode in a massive supernova, or become even more dense and become a black hole consisting only of neutrons with no electrons between. From the numerous supernova that have occurred in the solar system, much heavier elements like iron were able to form.

These heavier, more complex elements congregated together to form minerals like rocks, molecules like water. Huge, massive, rocks of iron and carbon, and various other substances, eventually congregated together to form a huge, massive lump. Our planet, Earth, began as a HUGE rock with masses of water vapor and methane and gasses in the atmosphere. Over something close to a billion years (that's 1,000,000,000 years) the water vapor condensed onto the rock surface and we got oceans that were red due to the methane atmosphere. This water was volatile, however. You must realize that the climate was in a constant state of disorder and chaos. The terrain was constantly shifting, volcanoes erupting, thunder storms raging... and amidst it all, with the energy and heat provided by everything, trillions, upon trillions, upon trillions, upon trillions of chemical reactions were occurring each second. And no, that is not an exaggeration. The sheer number of chemical reactions occurring at this point in Earth's history was astronomical. Incomprehensible. Utterly-mind blowing. And again, we have a huge amount of time in which this could happen. So with these two factors in mind, since anything is possible given enough time, and since a lot of reactions were happening at once, it only makes sense that EVENTUALLY, something resembling a cell would be formed. A whole bunch of organic molecules (formed in the volatile conditions) congregated together, in the water, in such a way as to form a cell. And eventually, a cell would be formed that not only has molecules inside it, but has the right molecules with which to allow the cell to replicate itself. So not only do we have a cell - we have a cell that can multiply. THIS IS KNOWN AS ABIOGENESIS THEORY.

And from that one self-replicating cell, if not multiple self-replicating cells, we get natural selection, where only the best cells suited for survival, actually survived, and the other cells which were inferior, died out. So over generations and generations of cells, we eventually get only the best cells living. These superior cells engulfed other cells, and gained what we call organelles - little "organs" within cells. These cells gradually evolved through generations. But for 2 billion years of Earth's history, the only cells out there were prokaryotes. Eventually, though, more complicated life forms started to emerge. Cells started working together, functioning as a whole, and all the while natural selection played its role, so only the best multi-cellular organisms survived. The first multi-cellular organisms to live on land resembled algae, then came plants, then came insects, then came reptiles (dinosaurs), then came mammals. And two billion years after the prokaryote age... Here we are.

This is the scientific point of view. Notice that this explanation does not require a Creator to be present. At all. But with that in mind, I still believe in one anyway. Most definitely not the same creator that you believe in - because I personally don't view the Abrahamic God as a possibility. But who knows really. It could exist. But just because things are complex and follow a repeating pattern doesn't necessarily mean that a Creator made them. Therefore, since there is another explanation for the complexity and the fact that we all have similarities with each other (we descended from a common ancestor), the fact that there are repeating things in nature is not proof for a creator. I don't know how to explain it much clearer than that. Just because things are complex does not mean that a creator designed us all, therefore, this is not proof of a creator, which means that there is still no empirical proof for a creator. Thus, the belief in a Creator is not a scientific one. But it is still valid as a personal belief. There is absolutely nothing wrong with believing that. I do. I can't imagine how there couldn't be a Creator. I just feel awe at everything I see when I look at it. I can't see how the world couldn't be designed. What if God initiated the Singularity? But I can still see that this opinion is not a scientific opinion. I hope you have read this and considered everything I've said. I would hate to think that I've just wasted half an hour of my life.

Okay, so in summary, this is how science explains the origin of everything:

1. Singularity followed by the Big Bang.
2. Stellar nucleosynthesis.
3. Abiogenesis theory.
4. Natural selection and evolution.

If you want to believe in a God that designed everything, then that's fine. If you wind up believing this way, then it would be within reason to also conceive of a God who guided these natural processes, increasing the probability that they could happen. That's a perfectly valid way of looking at things. It's a form of Intelligent Design, where science would then be providing an explanation for HOW God did everything. It wouldn't be rejecting the possible existence of God at all.

But as I've said, belief in Intelligent Design is not necessarily a scientific view, because God is unnecessary to explain how things could have happened. But it's still quite likely that a God exists if you ask me. Maybe not the Abrahamic God, though, because all the evidence seems to reject the idea that the world was made in seven days, etc. But there can still be a Creator.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Check your Bible.

I've checked my Bible, frequently, that's why I asked what all that nonsense is about.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I agree.
Says quite a lot about the Biblist when an atheist is telling them to check the Bible....

When the atheist is mistaken it makes no sense at all.

 

[Autodidact]

I've checked my Bible, frequently, that's why I asked what all that nonsense is about.

Yes, it's nonsense. That's my point. I doubt that Danmac thinks it is anything but. He may want to adopt the same view toward certain other portions of his old testament.

Unless you're claiming these things aren't in the Bible?

 

[RedOne77]

So do you believe that bats are birds?

The ancients grouped them together, much in the same way you evos place them together through convergent evolution, but they are not the same kind.

That there is a solid arch above the sky, with windows in it through which the waters above it sometimes falls?

This was taken from pagan religions the Jews grew up around; it was a cultural thing, it just needs to be understood in the correct context.

That showing sheep speckled sticks will cause them to bear speckled lambs?

This never was a claim about the natural world; it was a statement about faith. Much the same way that raising people from the dead isn't natural, it happened through God's divine providence, and is about faith, not ancient breeding techniques. This falls in the same category as saying the Bible cannot be interpreted literally because in one passage it says God is an arrow. There are poetic and non-literal language in the Bible as well as literal.

That there is a winged creature with 4 legs?

Revelations is a tricky text. Nearly everything in there is symbolic. Using it to disprove the literalness of the Bible is foolish.

I hope not, since these are all false. If you build your faith on believing false things, you are building on a foundation of sand. Would it not be better to take the Bible as a book about God, rather than science?

It is a book that is about God, but also makes certain statements about the physical world that indirectly have scientific claims to them.

 

[Autodidact]

The ancients grouped them together, much in the same way you evos place them together through convergent evolution, but they are not the same kind.



This was taken from pagan religions the Jews grew up around; it was a cultural thing, it just needs to be understood in the correct context.



This never was a claim about the natural world; it was a statement about faith. Much the same way that raising people from the dead isn't natural, it happened through God's divine providence, and is about faith, not ancient breeding techniques. This falls in the same category as saying the Bible cannot be interpreted literally because in one passage it says God is an arrow. There are poetic and non-literal language in the Bible as well as literal.



Revelations is a tricky text. Nearly everything in there is symbolic. Using it to disprove the literalness of the Bible is foolish.

Exactly my point. Just as you don't think a bat is a bird, just because the Bible says so, or that the sky is a solid surface, etc., and you are still a Christian, you can accept modern Biological science regarding how we get new species of organisms, and still be Christian.

You don't have to reject modern science to remain Christian, and it's a bad approach to do so. It places your religious faith on a false foundation--that science doesn't work. You know science works. So better to build your religious faith on your views about God, not on a rejection of scientific progress, in general or in any particular area.

 

[Autodidact]

Revelations is a tricky text. Nearly everything in there is symbolic. Using it to disprove the literalness of the Bible is foolish.

It's Leviticus, actually.

It is a book that is about God, but also makes certain statements about the physical world that indirectly have scientific claims to them.

Which unfortunately are mostly wrong.

 

[McBell]

When the atheist is mistaken it makes no sense at all.

The atheist has not made a mistake.
The Biblist is either in denial or ignorant of the contents of the Bible.

 

[fantome profane]

The ancients grouped them together, much in the same way you evos place them together through convergent evolution, but they are not the same kind.

How do you know this? What criteria, what test, what standard do you use to determine what is and what is not the same “kind”? And can I use this same method to determine whether or not humans and chimps are the same kind? It does seem that the authors of Genesis grouped bats and birds together so why don’t you?

This was taken from pagan religions the Jews grew up around; it was a cultural thing, it just needs to be understood in the correct context.

Exactly the point, the Bible is the product of humans and human culture and should be understood as such.

 

[RedOne77]

How do you know this? What criteria, what test, what standard do you use to determine what is and what is not the same “kind”? And can I use this same method to determine whether or not humans and chimps are the same kind? It does seem that the authors of Genesis grouped bats and birds together so why don’t you?

The full definition of kind is a work in progress. Often evolutionists like to point out that just because we don't understand something now doesn't mean we wouldn't understand it or figure it out in the future. I admit there are many problems in classifying what organisms go in which baramin (kind), and I unfortunately haven't kept up with recent developments, but I do think that progress is being made.

 

[Gunfingers]

The full definition of kind is a work in progress. Often evolutionists like to point out that just because we don't understand something now doesn't mean we wouldn't understand it or figure it out in the future. I admit there are many problems in classifying what organisms go in which baramin (kind), and I unfortunately haven't kept up with recent developments, but I do think that progress is being made.

It's true, "i don't know" is an acceptable answer. It affords you the opportunity to find the real answer.

The problem here is that your entire hypothesis is built around something you not only don't know for sure, but don't have any evidence to support. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis without enough evidence to be considered a real theory, but it has evidence. Nonetheless it is considered appropriate to pursue other possible explanations of the origins of life, because they have evidence too.

Baraminology, on the other hand, has no evidence. In fact it runs contrary to much existing evidence. And yet creationists want to stop all biological research and replace it with baraminology. They want to remove abiogenesis and evolutionary theory from school science curriculums and put judeo-christian creation myths.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The full definition of kind is a work in progress. Often evolutionists like to point out that just because we don't understand something now doesn't mean we wouldn't understand it or figure it out in the future.

But you cannot assert that something is true if you don't have a working definition of what that thing is. How can you assert that all life forms belong to a "kind" when you cannot define exactly what a "kind" is? That's no different to me saying "evolution can't be true because all animals only reproduce their own wafflespoon", and when asked what a wafflespoon is I just shrug and say "we'll figure it out at some point".

It makes no sense.

I admit there are many problems in classifying what organisms go in which baramin (kind), and I unfortunately haven't kept up with recent developments, but I do think that progress is being made.

Progress such as...?

 

[Commoner]

Progress such as...?

The circular arguments are getting longer and longer...

 

[Autodidact]

The full definition of kind is a work in progress.

Meaning that you don't have one.

Often evolutionists like to point out that just because we don't understand something now doesn't mean we wouldn't understand it or figure it out in the future. I admit there are many problems in classifying what organisms go in which baramin (kind), and I unfortunately haven't kept up with recent developments, but I do think that progress is being made.

Nope. No progress is being made. There is no working definition of this term, no agreement among creationists as to what it is, how to tell what's in it, and no way to use it. Other than that you're doing fine.

Tell you what, once you work out what on earth it is, and how to tell, then we'll look at it and see whether there is any such thing. Sound good?

 

[RedOne77]

Exactly my point. Just as you don't think a bat is a bird, just because the Bible says so, or that the sky is a solid surface, etc., and you are still a Christian, you can accept modern Biological science regarding how we get new species of organisms, and still be Christian.

The Bible is a very hard text to interpret, and with regards to how we get new species, 'creation science' hasn't always been what it is commonly viewed as today. As early as the late 1600's creationists have proposed that species change over time giving rise to multiple new species from a single one. So the idea of speciation being part of creationism has been around for over 300 years. Creationists believe that the Bible is fundamentally correct, but there are many mysteries yet unsolved surrounding the Bible.

You don't have to reject modern science to remain Christian, and it's a bad approach to do so. It places your religious faith on a false foundation--that science doesn't work. You know science works. So better to build your religious faith on your views about God, not on a rejection of scientific progress, in general or in any particular area.

Science was originally a Christian undertaking to understand the natural world so we (humans) could exercise dominion over the world and make it a better place. It is a shame that history coupled with ignorance hasn't been all that kind to either, creating animosity towards one another with false dichotomies capitalizing on public antithetical feelings.

 

[RedOne77]

But you cannot assert that something is true if you don't have a working definition of what that thing is.

I assert that it is true on religious grounds, not necessarily scientific ones.

How can you assert that all life forms belong to a "kind" when you cannot define exactly what a "kind" is?

How do neuroscientists assert that humans have consciousness without knowing exactly what consciousness is?

That's no different to me saying "evolution can't be true because all animals only reproduce their own wafflespoon", and when asked what a wafflespoon is I just shrug and say "we'll figure it out at some point".

The difference is that "wafflespoon" gives us absolutely no information on any level. When you say "kind", while the definition isn't complete, people have an idea of what you are talking about - even my biology textbook talks about animals producing after their own "kind", granted not meant in the exact same way creationists talk about it.

Progress such as...?

As I said before, I'm out of the loop on creation research, I don't know what's going. Last I heard Todd Wood was doing research into baramin based on statistical models, and if I remember correctly said that his research was beginning to suggest baramin as ruffly equal to the taxonomic rank of "family" for land animals. I would look into it but I just don't have the time.

 

[camanintx]

Science was originally a Christian undertaking to understand the natural world so we (humans) could exercise dominion over the world and make it a better place.

So Aristotle, Pythagoras and Theophrastus were Christians?

 

[camanintx]

Lets start with the first cell. It must have grown and growth requires food. What method did this first cell use to produce it's own food? Since this cell was the first living thing there were no there living things to sustain it. How did this first cell convert energy, since that is all there was, into food?

While many complex cells convert food into energy through oxidative metabolism, simple cells are perfectly capable of using energy directly through processes such as photosynthesis.

In a previous post you used words like, could, possible, and may have. Those are all uncertain terms. Why is it ok for you to use them, but not me?

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Albert Einstein

 

[Autodidact]

The Bible is a very hard text to interpret,

Yeah, that's one of the many reasons it makes a poor basis for a religion.

and with regards to how we get new species, 'creation science' hasn't always been what it is commonly viewed as today. As early as the late 1600's creationists have proposed that species change over time giving rise to multiple new species from a single one. So the idea of speciation being part of creationism has been around for over 300 years. Creationists believe that the Bible is fundamentally correct, but there are many mysteries yet unsolved surrounding the Bible.

Creationists believe all sorts of things, and generally no two alike. Lacking in the scientific method, they have no way to reach consensus, or to make progress.