'How Life Began'

[Jay_7]

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/123/123_01.asp

You should read it

[BGoodForGoodSake]

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/123/123_01.asp

You should read it

This article makes a valid point about the origin of life however it also has logical flaws as follows.

"Submarine vents don't make organic compounds, they decompose them. …the entire ocean goes through those vents in 10 million years. So all of the organic compounds get zapped every ten million years. If all the polymers and other goodies that you make get destroyed, it means life has to start early and rapidly. If you look at the process in detail, it seems that long periods of time are detrimental, rather than helpful."

It states that the entire ocean goes through these vents, however the correct statement should be an amount of water equal to the volume of the entire ocean.

The origins of life are not required from a scientific perspective in order to decribe the evolution of life.

In other words if science required one to tackle all the question rather than one at a time the prospects would be bewildering.

Also the origins of life first and foremost probably occured in contitions no longer prevalent on the Earth today. So it is a much more difficult question to tackle.

At this point any of the following answers are equally valid.
Life came to earth on a comet.
Life came to earth on an asteroid.
God created life.
Life formed spontaneously.

However the third answer is outside the realm of science, due to our inability to replicate, or find evidence for it.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

At this point any of the following answers are equally valid.
Arrow Life came to earth on a comet.
Arrow Life came to earth on an asteroid.
Arrow God created life.
Arrow Life formed spontaneously.

Oh come on, only one makes sense...you're not going to get life on a comet once it hits the earth-it will be vaporized...and you're just begging the question by moving where life evolved somewhere else

[BGoodForGoodSake]

At this point any of the following answers are equally valid.
Arrow Life came to earth on a comet.
Arrow Life came to earth on an asteroid.
Arrow God created life.
Arrow Life formed spontaneously.

Oh come on, only one makes sense...you're not going to get life on a comet once it hits the earth-it will be vaporized...

Are you sure?

and you're just begging the question by moving where life evolved somewhere else

The origin of life on Earth is the question. One question at a time.

"if science required one to tackle all the questions rather than one at a time the prospects would be bewildering. "

So you know the answer?

[Jac3510]

Are you sure?

Yes. My first reply in that thread is particularly applicable.

The origin of life on Earth is the question. One question at a time.

"if science required one to tackle all the questions rather than one at a time the prospects would be bewildering. "

So you know the answer?

Technically, you are right in that darwinian evolution doesn't have to deal with the origins question. But, if evolution is true, as its proponents claim it to be, then the same principles that govern it must also govern the origin of life. When it comes down to it, there is a general philosophical principle being put to the test: naturalism.

KMart does believe he has the answer. It's just not found in naturalism. Your ruling it out a priori because it doesn't line up with your philosophical notions doesn't make it any more or less valid.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Are you sure?

Yes. My first reply in that thread is particularly applicable.

The origin of life on Earth is the question. One question at a time.

"if science required one to tackle all the questions rather than one at a time the prospects would be bewildering. "

So you know the answer?

Technically, you are right in that darwinian evolution doesn't have to deal with the origins question. But, if evolution is true, as its proponents claim it to be, then the same principles that govern it must also govern the origin of life. When it comes down to it, there is a general philosophical principle being put to the test: naturalism.

That's great but philosophy, politics, and religion should not and need not impede scientific persuits. As far as science is concerned, it is just an unanswerwed question.

KMart does believe he has the answer. It's just not found in naturalism. Your ruling it out a priori because it doesn't line up with your philosophical notions doesn't make it any more or less valid.

Don't tell me I am ruling it out, I listed it as one of the possibilities.
I am speaking from the paradigm of science.
Why do people have trouble seeing that there are differenent perspectives in life?

From a scientific perspective we can one make conclusions on measurable events. Am I incorrect?

So obviously if God did create the first form of life, science will be almost unable to determine this.

Outside the realm of science.

The general populations dependance on science, or it's demand that science have all the answers is rediculous. Science is not a religion, nor an authority. It is a tool, and as a community acts as an advisorial role in society.

[Jac3510]

First, BGood, all three of the scientific possibilities have been systematically ruled out. You were advocating the possibility of space . . . I offered resources to the contrary.

As to the more general discussion, I have no problem with science in its purest sense. I have a proplem with naturalistic science. Science is the Christian's friend. It is your philosophy of science that is causing the problem.

All science is, is the systematic gathering of observations and the organization of those facts into a workable system. Period. It is naturalism, NOT SCIENCE, that says things like the Resurrection of Jesus isn't an observation. It is naturalism, NOT SCIENCE, that says that God cannot be observed. It is naturalism, NOT SCIENCE, that says that denies such ideas as irreducibility complex.

Science = good.
Philosophical naturalism = ungood.

I typed all that in about two minutes, so if it sounds like a rant, accept my apologies. I'm on my way out the door

[BGoodForGoodSake]

First, BGood, all three of the scientific possibilities have been systematically ruled out. You were advocating the possibility of space . . . I offered resources to the contrary.

As to the more general discussion, I have no problem with science in its purest sense. I have a proplem with naturalistic science. Science is the Christian's friend. It is your philosophy of science that is causing the problem.

This sounds like a philosophical viewpoint.

All science is, is the systematic gathering of observations and the organization of those facts into a workable system.

Tell me then, what observations are not naturalistic?

Period. It is naturalism, NOT SCIENCE, that says things like the Resurrection of Jesus isn't an observation.

How is the ressurection of Jesus supposed to be a scientific observation? Not everything falls under science. So if the pope is shot that is a scientific observation?

It is naturalism, NOT SCIENCE, that says that God cannot be observed.

How does one observe God empirically?

It is naturalism, NOT SCIENCE, that says that denies such ideas as irreducibility complex.

What is irreducible complexity but another way of saying we don't know yet?

Science = good.
Philosophical naturalism = ungood.

The best experiments lead to unexpected results because nothing was ruled out.

I typed all that in about two minutes, so if it sounds like a rant, accept my apologies. I'm on my way out the door

=)

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

BGood....stop. Just stop. You're annoying "it means we just don't know yet" is rather old. We can use that with evolution too you know. We think things evolved because we don't KNOW that it couldn't have. How bout that? Have some of your own medicine.

If all you can do is assert this, then SILENCE! My dang. You've had plenty of time to build a devastating attack on irreducible complexity? Where is it? Where have you won and been given the right to make assertions?

YOU don't know, so cut the crap.

And to top things off, you ask how God can be empirically observed-but how can evolution be empirically observed?

[IRQ Conflict]

@Kmart

I need to ask, is the theory of evolution 'falsifieable'? if so, how?

And is ID 'falseifiable'? if not why?

This seems to be the crux of another thread on another forum I've been chatting on, but I have very little evolutionary education (thank God) to say anythig concrete. Any info would be greatly appreciated!

God Bless!

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

@Kmart

I need to ask, is the theory of evolution 'falsifieable'? if so, how?

And is ID 'falseifiable'? if not why?

This seems to be the crux of another thread on another forum I've been chatting on, but I have very little evolutionary education (thank God) to say anythig concrete. Any info would be greatly appreciated!

God Bless!

Evolution, not falsifiable, ID, yes

[BGoodForGoodSake]

BGood....stop. Just stop. You're annoying "it means we just don't know yet" is rather old. We can use that with evolution too you know. We think things evolved because we don't KNOW that it couldn't have. How bout that? Have some of your own medicine.

The idea that evolution is an old one, before Darwin. Are you sure that there is no reason to reach this conclusion? From a muscle cell in a sprinter to a cell in a tobacco leaf to a protozoan the basic structure of life is the same. Animals can be grouped together in a series of more and more diverse groups which share charachteristics.
Dogs are like wolves. Bears, weasels and racoons share similar skull and other skeletal charachteristics. Lions cat, and hyenas share similar dentition. Mice Elephants and humans, share the placenta. Kangaroos and echidna's share hair and mamillary glands. Reptiles, Birds, Fish share vertebrae. etc.etc.

If all you can do is assert this, then SILENCE! My dang. You've had plenty of time to build a devastating attack on irreducible complexity? Where is it?

How do you know something is irreducible?

Where have you won and been given the right to make assertions?

Hmm? Are you saying I have no rights to post? lol

YOU don't know, so cut the [poop].

You're right I don't know. Do you?

And to top things off, you ask how God can be empirically observed-but how can evolution be empirically observed?

So if I look at a duck and a chicken, wouldn't even a child see that they are both birds? Is it not ok for me to say that maybe a zebra and a horse are related somehow?

Going even farther all animals of a certain population share the same genetic sequence for certain proteins. Other species have similar sequences. This similarity corresponds with other observations.

Lets take mineral deposits as an example. Gold and other precious mineral deposits are thought to occur when magma flows towards the surface and cools. This only occurs in certain areas of induction or mountain formation. Elsewhere the weathering of the earth has diluted the minerals into the ocean. We don't observe the magma, only the results. But we can observe the processes in its various stages.

For evolution the same occurs. We can see evidence for past forms in fossils. We can see the varying patterens of adaptability in living forms. We can see mutations occuring and spreading. We can observe isolated populations and see genetic drift. And we can even observe the beginnings of speciation.

Here's a paper on the origins of Eukaryotes for an example of empirical evidence in the case for evolution.
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultran ... iosis.html
Case studies of speciation.
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultran ... ation.html

Note these examples are from a text book and therefore supply conclusions and guidance. If you want to see the actual scientific papers let me know.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

The idea that evolution is an old one, before Darwin. Are you sure that there is no reason to reach this conclusion? From a muscle cell in a sprinter to a cell in a tobacco leaf to a protozoan the basic structure of life is the same. Animals can be grouped together in a series of more and more diverse groups which share charachteristics.
Dogs are like wolves. Bears, weasels and racoons share similar skull and other skeletal charachteristics. Lions cat, and hyenas share similar dentition. Mice Elephants and humans, share the placenta. Kangaroos and echidna's share hair and mamillary glands. Reptiles, Birds, Fish share vertebrae. etc.etc.

Non sequitor. You're going metaphysical. Similarity does not show common ancestry. And the idea of design ALSO goes back to the Greeks BGood...so if we can prove it's one day older...we win!

How do you know something is irreducible?

Selective memory BGood? We kinda went over this, remember? You and you're not so witty remarks?

Hmm? Are you saying I have no rights to post? lol

Yes

You're right I don't know. Do you?

Yes

So if I look at a duck and a chicken, wouldn't even a child see that they are both birds? Is it not ok for me to say that maybe a zebra and a horse are related somehow?

Non sequitor. Similarity does not infer common ancestry!

Going even farther all animals of a certain population share the same genetic sequence for certain proteins. Other species have similar sequences. This similarity corresponds with other observations.

So what?

And no more crappy stories.

[Zenith]

wow, you guys really don't know what naturalism is, do you.

naturalism does NOT say that god cannot be observed, in fact it says the contrary. naturalists believe that if there is a god, then he can be observed because he would have to be part of the physical universe (or physically outside the universe) in order to act on it. naturalism does not exclude the supernatural, but rather says it can be explained as natural. naturalism comes down to this: the supernatural cannot be distinguished from the natural as they are both physical processes of the universe.

and to 'KMart--
i notice you talk a lot about how bad it is to make an assertion, and yet that is what you and i and everyone else do every time we open our mouths. you cannot communicate without making an assertion.

if we admitted that assertions are pointless and that we know nothing (which is quite possibly true) then we would be able to do nothing. all of our theories and ideas are merely assumptions, but without those assumptions, we cannot do anything. it is safer to make an assumption, even if it is wrong, than to trudge along blindly without thinking about the world around you.

evolution is falsifiable, though i agree that there are scientists who would make it their duty to make sure it isn't. ID is falsifiable as well. the thing about the falsifiability of both of these theories is that there are so many people who blindly believe them that even if they were disproven, many would ignore it and still believe in them.

also, there is no way to disprove god because you will never find proof that he doesn't exist, whether he is here or not. if he does exist, you might physically find him, but if he doesn't you will never know. this makes it kind of hard to prove your point scientifically, that is why creationism and ID are not taken seriously in the scientific community. but i do agree that the methods of creation can be studied and determined if they happened or not, and that this is the best method for finding evidence for god.

Non sequitor. You're going metaphysical. Similarity does not show common ancestry. And the idea of design ALSO goes back to the Greeks BGood...so if we can prove it's one day older...we win!

human logic can prove nothing, thats why we make assumptions. sometimes we're right, sometimes we're wrong, but we can't really know until we prove ourselves wrong.

we see that similarity in humans is usually due to common ancestry. why should there be a difference in how all organisms are?

also, are you trying to say that because ID is an older theory, that it is right?

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

naturalism does NOT say that god cannot be observed, in fact it says the contrary. naturalists believe that if there is a god, then he can be observed because he would have to be part of the physical universe (or physically outside the universe) in order to act on it. naturalism does not exclude the supernatural, but rather says it can be explained as natural. naturalism comes down to this: the supernatural cannot be distinguished from the natural as they are both physical processes of the universe.

That is not God though. So, yes, naturalism does say God does not exist.

i notice you talk a lot about how bad it is to make an assertion, and yet that is what you and i and everyone else do every time we open our mouths. you cannot communicate without making an assertion.

But axiomatic ones are ok. It's the ones that aren't self evident that must be proven. You're reading to much into it...

evolution is falsifiable, though i agree that there are scientists who would make it their duty to make sure it isn't. ID is falsifiable as well. the thing about the falsifiability of both of these theories is that there are so many people who blindly believe them that even if they were disproven, many would ignore it and still believe in them.

See? This is not axiomatic. How is evolution falsifiable?

human logic can prove nothing, thats why we make assumptions. sometimes we're right, sometimes we're wrong, but we can't really know until we prove ourselves wrong.

But if human logic can prove nothing, how can we prove ourselves wrong?

also, are you trying to say that because ID is an older theory, that it is right?

This is tongue in cheek.