For Danmac - Abiogenesis

[Danmac]

Pardon me--request that the thread be started. In any case, are we here to discuss religion or science?

I believe they go hand in hand

Well, it's a theological term first used by a Christian evangelist, Henry Drummond, and it's an idea you might want to brush up on.

I am not a follower of Henry Drummond. I am a follower of Jesus Christ.

O.K. that's what I feared. This is God-of-the-gaps, and it's bad theology.

1)Specified complexity is empirically detectable
2)Concerning the first life, all known natural explanations fail.
3) Empirically detectable evidence points to a creator.
4) ID is falsifiable. The Darwinist position isn't. Your position is not tentative or open to correction. Darwinists are closed minded. Therefore it is not falsifiable.

Drummond chastises those Christians who point to the things that science can not yet explain — "gaps which they will fill up with God" — and urges them to embrace all nature as God's, as the work of "... an immanent God, which is the God of Evolution, is infinitely grander than the occasional wonder-worker, who is the God of an old theology. [wiki]

The Bible is the supreme authority, not Drummond. His is merely interpretation.

Here's more:

Bonhoeffer wrote, for example: "...how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know."[4] The term gained some attention when it was used in the 1955 book Science and Christian Belief by Charles Alfred Coulson, where Coulson states: "There is no 'God of the gaps' to take over at those strategic places where science fails; and the reason is that gaps of this sort have the unpreventable habit of shrinking."[5]
The term was used again in a 1971 book and a 1978 article, both by Richard Bube. He articulated the concept in greater detail, most notably in Man Come Of Age: Bonhoeffer’s Response To The God-Of-The-Gaps (1971). Bube attributed modern crises in religious faith in part to the inexorable shrinking of the God-of-the-gaps as scientific knowledge progressed. As humans progressively increased their understanding of nature, the previous "realm" of God seemed to many persons and religions to be getting smaller and smaller by comparison. Bube maintained that Darwin's Origin of Species was the "death knell" of the God-of-the-gaps. Bube also maintained that the God-of-the-gaps was not the same as the God of the Bible (that is, he was not making an argument against God per se, but rather asserting there was a fundamental problem with the perception of God as existing in the gaps of present-day knowledge).
[all wiki]

More speculation

In other words, if your God is the God of where science leaves off, then the more we learn from science, the smaller the space for your God. Far better to argue for a God who set forth the very laws of science, who does not depend on ignorance, a grand God of all things, known and unknown. That's the God you want.

The laws of science do not permit it to be closed minded. Why do you not follow the laws of science? Your position is not falsifiable.

I'm sorry, I don't understand. I'm politely trying to ask you for an alternative explanation, other than stupidity or dishonesty, for me having to explain the same simple concept to you twenty times. Do you have one, or must I have recourse to those?

I want to know why your position isn't falsifiable.

 

[Noaidi]

Which evidence are you speaking of?

Given that you have aired your views on abiogenesis and evolution, I am talking about the evidence pertaining to them. Chemists, biologists and geologists view the physical evidence in a certain way, but people such as yourself take that same evidence and interpret in a different way, allowing you to incorporate a biblical view.

Edit: I also asked whether your views on the interpretation of the evidence are based solely on your religious views.

 

[Danmac]

Given that you have aired your views on abiogenesis and evolution, I am talking about the evidence pertaining to them. Chemists, biologists and geologists view the physical evidence in a certain way, but people such as yourself take that same evidence and interpret in a different way, allowing you to incorporate a biblical view.

Edit: I also asked whether your views on the interpretation of the evidence are based solely on your religious views.

Much of science relies on interpretation. Are you telling me that there aren't dissenters in the realm of science?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

1)Specified complexity is empirically detectable

Big, fat lie.

2)Concerning the first life, all known natural explanations fail.

Another lie.

3) Empirically detectable evidence points to a creator.

A third lie.

4) ID is falsifiable. The Darwinist position isn't. Your position is not tentative or open to correction. Darwinists are closed minded. Therefore it is not falsifiable.

A fourth, fifth and sixth lie.

I want to know why your position isn't falsifiable.

Of course evolution is falsifiable. All you need to do is either find a fossil or fossils of modern animals in the same geological strata as their supposed ancestors, find anything in the genetic code that would specifically prevent - or otherwise remove validity from the supposition of - live evolving from a common ancestor, or demonstrate that there is any kind of genetic barrier that prevents species evolving at a certain point.

If evolution was false, these things would be extremely easy to do.

Stop projecting and start responding to the actual objections raised to you.

 

[Noaidi]

Danmac
Of course there are dissenters. That wasn't my point. I feel you are avoiding my questions (which is fair enough - if you don't want to answer them, then just say so)

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Much of science relies on interpretation. Are you telling me that there aren't dissenters in the realm of science?

Well over 99% of biologists accept evolution. Add to this the fact that the majority of dissent from evolution doesn't come from science or scientists but from religious fundamentalists with a political or generally religious agenda, and dissent doesn't really seem to be all that relevant.

There are also dissenters to the fact that the world is round. Should we lend them an ear as well?

 

[Danmac]

Big, fat lie.


Another lie.


A third lie.


A fourth, fifth and sixth lie.


Of course evolution is falsifiable. All you need to do is either find a fossil or fossils of modern animals in the same geological strata as their supposed ancestors, find anything in the genetic code that would specifically prevent - or otherwise remove validity from the supposition of - live evolving from a common ancestor, or demonstrate that there is any kind of genetic barrier that prevents species evolving at a certain point.

If evolution was false, these things would be extremely easy to do.

Stop projecting and start responding to the actual objections raised to you.

The only other alternative is a creator. To that, evolutionists are closed minded. Therefore evolution is not falsifiable. If you are going to call them lies, would you at least have the courtesy to explain why you are calling them such?

 

[Noaidi]

Well over 99% of biologists accept evolution.

The professor that taught me evolution was also an Anglican minister. He had no problem accepting evolution, viewing it as god's way of unfolding creation. Christian fundamentalists, for whatever reason, seem so resolute in their opposition to evolution, despite the fact that it doesn't feature in their bible at all!

Danmac - what's stopping you from accepting evolution? It shouldn't diminish your belief in a god.

 

[Danmac]

Danmac
Of course there are dissenters. That wasn't my point. I feel you are avoiding my questions (which is fair enough - if you don't want to answer them, then just say so)

You asked me why I hold my position. I told you that it is not uncommon to find dissenters among scientists. My position relies on two things. First and foremost it relies on a real experience I had that was followed by a radical paradigm shift. I cannot prove this to you, but it is undeniable to myself. This alone nudges me to embrace the whole of Christianity. The rest I take on faith.

 

[Danmac]

The professor that taught me evolution was also an Anglican minister. He had no problem accepting evolution, viewing it as god's way of unfolding creation. Christian fundamentalists, for whatever reason, seem so resolute in their opposition to evolution, despite the fact that it doesn't feature in their bible at all!

Danmac - what's stopping you from accepting evolution? It shouldn't diminish your belief in a god.

I have stated that I am open to theistic evolution as the vehicle God chose to bring about creation. After all, the Bible states that we were first dust. I don't think of dust in the literal sense, but you get the picture. I cannot accept one common ancestor for all living things and believe the Bible at the same time. My beliefs would then contradict one another.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The only other alternative is a creator.

Nonsense. There could be countless possible explanations for the origin of life - abiogenesis is just the current best explanation due to the available evidence. Try looking up panspermia, for example.

To that, evolutionists are closed minded. Therefore evolution is not falsifiable.

Again, nonsense. Many people who accept evolution are religious and theistic.

If you are going to call them lies, would you at least have the courtesy to explain why you are calling them such?

You said that specified complexity is scientifically detectable - it is not, and the notion of specified complexity has no validity or basis in science whatsoever.

You said all known natural explanations for the origin of life fail. This is also not true, since abiogenesis has yet to fail.

You said that empirical evidence points to a creator, yet you have not presented any such evidence, and indeed I find that no such evidence exists.

You said that ID is falsifiable - it is not, since no matter how much we learn you can just keep fitting ID into the gaps.

You said evolution isn't falsifiable - it is. I specified precisely the means by which you could falsify it.

You said evolution is not open to correction - it is. The theory of evolution is being changed and developed all the time, and new thinking and facts are incorperated into the theory almost daily.

In short, you lied.

 

[Commoner]

The only other alternative is a creator. To that, evolutionists are closed minded. Therefore evolution is not falsifiable. If you are going to call them lies, would you at least have the courtesy to explain why you are calling them such?

The only alternative to abiogenesis is a creator. False.

No "evolutionist" believes in a creator and the assumption of abiogenesis is necessary for evolution. False

Evolution is not falsifiable. Do you know what falsifiable means? Do you know this thread is about abiogenesis?

You're such a dishonest person. Why? Really, why? I get that you have a religious conviction, but why do you feel the need to make things up when you can't come up with a good argument for your position?

EDIT: alas, I was too late...

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I have stated that I am open to theistic evolution as the vehicle God chose to bring about creation. After all, the Bible states that we were first dust. I don't think of dust in the literal sense, but you get the picture. I cannot accept one common ancestor for all living things and believe the Bible at the same time. My beliefs would then contradict one another.

You just admitted that you're willing to interpret the Bible as non-literal. Considering this, how can your belief that the Bible is the word of God contradict your acceptance of the fact of evolution? How does accepting common ancestry impact, in any way, on your belief in a supposed creator or the sacrifice of said creator's son?

 

[Danmac]

In short, you lied.

My intentions are not to deceive. I happen to believe differently than you. That doesn't make me a liar, it means that I sincerely disagree with you. Can you have a constructive debate without the insults? I am losing my patience with all of this schoolyard taunting.

 

[Danmac]

The only alternative to abiogenesis is a creator. False.

No "evolutionist" believes in a creator and the assumption of abiogenesis is necessary for evolution. False

Evolution is not falsifiable. Do you know what falsifiable means? Do you know this thread is about abiogenesis?

You're such a dishonest person. Why? Really, why? I get that you have a religious conviction, but why do you feel the need to make things up when you can't come up with a good argument for your position?

EDIT: alas, I was too slow...

If you cannot have a civil debate without insults I will ignore your posts. These childish insults are a bit tiring.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

My intentions are not to deceive.

I beg to differ, since you made six statements which are in direct contradiction to reality.

I happen to believe differently than you. That doesn't make me a liar, it means that I sincerely disagree with you.

We're not debating beliefs, we're debating science. You made a series of claims about science and evidence that are not true. If you had just said "I believe in God" and I disagreed, that would be a disagreement. But you didn't. What you made were a series of declaratory statements which simply aren't true. Hence, you were telling lies.

Can you have a constructive debate without the insults? I am losing my patience with all of this schoolyard taunting.

I've not insulted you once - I just claimed that the things you said were lies. Since you have still have yet to support your statements with any amount of facts, I'm going to assume I was correct in those claims.

 

[Commoner]

If you cannot have a civil debate without insults I will ignore your posts. These childish insults are a bit tiring.

Which part do you find insulting? The part where I point out you're wrong or the part where, after having gone through these point at least five times and explaining why they're wrong and you continuing to make the exact same false claims, I questioned your integrity?

You're doing it on purpose, Danmac. If you're not, then it's you who should be apologetic towards us for having made false claims, not us for calling you out on them.

 

[Danmac]

You just admitted that you're willing to interpret the Bible as non-literal. Considering this, how can your belief that the Bible is the word of God contradict your acceptance of the fact of evolution? How does accepting common ancestry impact, in any way, on your belief in a supposed creator or the sacrifice of said creator's son?

The bible has both literal and metaphoric writings. Jesus dying on a cross is literal. Jesus leading His sheep is metaphorical. We also rely on translations. Some things are lost as a result. I prefer to look at the original text to get the full meaning.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The bible has both literal and metaphoric writings. Jesus dying on a cross is literal. Jesus leading His sheep is metaphorical. We also rely on translations. Some things are lost as a result. I prefer to look at the original text to get the full meaning.

You have not answered my question. If you accept that certain parts of the Bible, such as the creation myth, as being non-literal, how does your belief in the Bible prevent you from accepting evolution?

Why not just continue to believe that God created the universe and all the life in it, and evolution is just the mechanism he set forth to do this? Why not just accept that the creation story supposed in the Bible is a non-literal symbolic tale on the origin of sin? This is what millions of people who accept evolution believe, including many scientists.

 

[Noaidi]

I have stated that I am open to theistic evolution as the vehicle God chose to bring about creation. After all, the Bible states that we were first dust. I don't think of dust in the literal sense, but you get the picture. I cannot accept one common ancestor for all living things and believe the Bible at the same time. My beliefs would then contradict one another.

ImmortalFlame gave a good response to this. If you are willing to accept humanity as not having literally been created out of dust, then why not accept what countless scientists have to say about evolution? Your religious views wouldn't be compromised.