Evolution versus Creationism

[Taras Bulba]

That's fine, but why do you think that the existence of a law above God making the universe should be part of the picture?

how can it not be a part of the picture. It encompases everything. And for the same reason why there are laws above us that we cannot control, such as gravity.... there are aspects of the universe, the only way I can explain it, is that they just are. Just as entropy MUST be maintained, and other laws like that, the laws of the universe must be maintained

"Explain" is too loose of a word for formal logical argumentation, so you'd have to elaborate on which sense you are talking about when you mean explain before I can tell you why it fails.

explain, in this sense meaning, the reason behind... the details of... the facts supporting

 

[Perfection]

how can it not be a part of the picture. It encompases everything. And for the same reason why there are laws above us that we cannot control, such as gravity.... there are aspects of the universe, the only way I can explain it, is that they just are. Just as entropy MUST be maintained, and other laws like that, the laws of the universe must be maintained

But why do you think justice one of those laws?

explain, in this sense meaning, the reason behind... the details of... the facts supporting

that's 3 senses.

 

[Aramazd]

so you believe that atoms just randomly aligned to form something, and those atoms that randomly aligned SOMEHOW gained life, and those atoms worked together in the primative Earth surviving against the odds the harsh conditions to form more and more of them, until mutations caused them to become multi-cellular organisms? Those are A LOT of unlikely circumstances to occur simultaneously for life to arise and flourish

Give it a billion years and its much more likely

I know you say that... I'm asking you to back up that opinion

well... I know I implied that, but that isn't what I was trying to get across.
ok... how about this.
Person A has never told a lie. He never will tell a lie. He says one statement that makes sense to you, and you agree that it is fact. He says another statement that you don't quite get, but you know its true because you know he won't lie at all.

How do you know Person A never lies? And if that is the case, what if he is wrong?

That is what I'm trying to say, that I believe this overall picture is correct, but there are a few parts of that picture that I still don't understand completely enough to defend WHY they are correct.

Well that is kind of important.

and I'm just curious... going back to my statement thing. What is your logic as to why statements B & C don't have to be correct if statement A is and they explain it

Just because something explains something else doesn't mean it doesn't have to stand up to scrutiny. For example, Lamarckism explains why evolution occurs, but it didn't stand up to scrutiny.

 

[Perfection]

so you believe that atoms just randomly aligned to form something, and those atoms that randomly aligned SOMEHOW gained life, and those atoms worked together in the primative Earth surviving against the odds the harsh conditions to form more and more of them, until mutations caused them to become multi-cellular organisms? Those are A LOT of unlikely circumstances to occur simultaneously for life to arise and flourish

There are three important points to be made here:

1. There's no reason that Darwinian selection mechanisms couldn't have bootstrapped the development of the earliest cellar life from noncellular organic chemicals. This makes life development a more probable.

2. There's a shear immensity of chances here, millions of years on our planet, billions of planets in our galaxy (and there's more to be made in the future), billions of galaxies in the observable universe, and a potentially infinite number of universes.

3. Naturalism is so successful at explaining other facets of the world we live in it makes sense not to abandon it just because we don't know how it works in this instance.

 

[GoodGame]

4. Test the hypotheses, and don't crown untested hypotheses as doctrine.

 

[Perfection]

4. Test the hypotheses, and don't crown untested hypotheses as doctrine.

Is that directed against me?

 

[puglover]

But why assume God did anything if there are other reasons that have been proven that account for everything?

There are other arguments than creationism for God's existence. Jesus Christ's birth, life, and death are enough for me to accept his place as a Creator-God.

Quite a change since the visit to the creationist museum, eh? Despite our arrogance, don't give up learning about biology, since we have a paucity of biological understanding in today's society.

Hey, the wheels are still turning. I'm asking questions and examining answers all the way.

But the flip-side of that is to insist that we be satisfied to remain in ignorance. How can satisfaction with ignorance be better than dissatisfaction with ignorance, and then replacing it with knowledge?

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Could you elaborate?

 

[Aramazd]

There are other arguments than creationism for God's existence. Jesus Christ's birth, life, and death are enough for me to accept his place as a Creator-God.

I never was arguing that God doesn't exist, I know it came across that way, I really don't care about beliefs as long as they don't intersect facts. Quite honestly, I don't have a problem with Taras' beliefs, I just don't agree with them.

 

[civ_king]

Behold, the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

 

[Simple Simon]

so you believe that atoms just randomly aligned to form something,

nope, neither abiogenesis nor evolution is random.

and those atoms that randomly aligned SOMEHOW gained life

nope, neither abiogenesis nor evolution is random

, and those atoms worked together in the primative Earth surviving against the odds the harsh conditions to form more and more of them

nope, you make it sound as if it happened once, and that this one cell survived. In fact, it happened trillions of times, probably, and we need only one survivor...... and, guess what, we KNOW it survived. Otherwise we'd not be here

, until mutations caused them to become multi-cellular organisms?

No, probably the single cell - multi cell thing was not really a DNA thing (or RNA thing) at first. Just incomplete separation. Only later did mutations add new capabilities.

Those are A LOT of unlikely circumstances to occur simultaneously for life to arise and flourish

Why simultaneously? And what's the problem with tiny chances? People do win the lottery, too.


I know you say that... I'm asking you to back up that opinion[/quote]

 

[Agent327]

There are other arguments than creationism for God's existence. Jesus Christ's birth, life, and death are enough for me to accept his place as a Creator-God.

I don't think God needs arguments, only people do. (Also, during most of Jesus' life he didn't think of himself as the Messiah; and when he became convinced he was, he urged his followers to keep it a secret - as it would be blaphemous to the general Hebrew population, as well as the priests -, which ofcourse eventually they didn't, causing the first fefinite rift between Judaism and early Christianity. Jesus was only entitled Christos many years after his death; the Christian Christ concept is very different from the Judaic Messiah concept. Finally, I fail to see why God would create not one religion centering on his worship, but many.)

 

[El_Machinae]

really? so how did life originate on Earth?

if cells can only come from other cells, where did the first cell come from?

For years, there has been something called the RNA World Hypothesis. You don't need cells to have self-replication, merely certain types of molecules.

 

[GoodGame]

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodGame
4. Test the hypotheses, and don't crown untested hypotheses as doctrine.

Is that directed against me?

Don't be insecure Perf, I was just expanding the list.
I meant it more as a rebuttal against creationism engaging in science under a God hypothesis.

The truth can be a double-edged sword though.

 

[Perfection]

What does that have to do with what I quoted from Taras.

 

[GoodGame]

What does that have to do with what I quoted from Taras.

Well if that is too obtuse, I suggest the better rebuttal to Taras comment is to have Taras read about Miller-Urey. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
Natural spontaneous assembly of life doesn't seem too haphazard at all.

 

[holy king]

it's like watching a drunk brain damaged with one leg fight mike tyson.

 

[civ_king]

I forgot to remove the pin from the Grenade
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

 

[Taras Bulba]

But why do you think justice one of those laws?

I believe justice is one of those laws because I believe ALL of what I have previously told you about, and that is a part of it.

that's 3 senses.

that seems like 3 ways of saying the same thing to me.

Give it a billion years and its much more likely

I'm not quite sure how giving infinite amount of time would even allow for something to come from nothing. I still find it hard to believe that atoms randomly come together and act together without some sort of stimulus to initiate that life

How do you know Person A never lies? And if that is the case, what if he is wrong?

that is part of the hypothetical.... he never lies

Well that is kind of important.

but the thing is.... science can't explain a lot of things... at least knowledge humans have today.

Just because something explains something else doesn't mean it doesn't have to stand up to scrutiny. For example, Lamarckism explains why evolution occurs, but it didn't stand up to scrutiny.

that's true... but evolution can be explained without having to reference Lamarckism, and if I mentioned Lamarckism, you wouldn't immediately think of "fact that explains evolution"

nope, neither abiogenesis nor evolution is random.nope, neither abiogenesis nor evolution is randomnope

so you tell me what's going to happen next, what will evolve next if it isn't random

you make it sound as if it happened once, and that this one cell survived. In fact, it happened trillions of times, probably, and we need only one survivor...... and, guess what, we KNOW it survived. Otherwise we'd not be here Noprobably the single cell - multi cell thing was not really a DNA thing (or RNA thing) at first. Just incomplete separation. Only later did mutations add new capabilities.Why simultaneously? And what's the problem with tiny chances? People do win the lottery, too.

guessing numvers is quite a bit simpler than forming life, I'm afraid.... and saying that life started trillions of times seperately seems rather absurd to me

For years, there has been something called the RNA World Hypothesis. You don't need cells to have self-replication, merely certain types of molecules.

but the same goes for RNA.... what makes that combination of molecules replicate... they're just atoms

 

[GoodGame]

but the same goes for RNA.... what makes that combination of molecules replicate... they're just atoms

http://ssrl.slac.stanford.edu/research/highlights_archive/ligase.html

The discovery 25 years ago that RNA can be enzymatic permits us to speculate that pre-biotic self-replicating molecules may have been RNAs (1,2)


The RNA nucleotide triphosphate ligation reaction required for RNA polymerization and self-replication.


But there's a catch.

In order to copy RNA, fragments or monomers that have 5'-triphosphates must be ligated together.
RNA in vitro evolution and selection has however enabled several research groups to discover RNA sequences that can in fact catalyze the required chemical reaction (shown above) for 5'-triphosphate RNA fragment ligation, and one group has even produced a primitive but functional RNA-based RNA polymerase ribozyme (4). This provides a Proof of Principle that RNA is capable of such feats(.)

In summary, the L1 ligase ribozyme (as well as other in vitro evolved ligase ribozymes) is an empirical proof of principle that RNA is capable of catalyzing the phosphodiester isomerization reaction that would be required of any self-replicating RNA in a prebiotic RNA World.

Also: http://www.im.microbios.org/0801/0801063.pdf Read the parts about forming adenine from hydrogren cyanide.

If you really want to talk scientifically about atoms forming into biological molecules, you have got to approach it as an organic chemist.

 

[Perfection]

Well if that is too obtuse, I suggest the better rebuttal to Taras comment is to have Taras read about Miller-Urey. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
Natural spontaneous assembly of life doesn't seem too haphazard at all.

While Miller-Urey certainly is a very important experiment that sheds light on the development of life it certainly is not a knockdown argument for believing life had naturalistic origins! It's only a baby step in the development of complex life.

I believe justice is one of those laws because I believe ALL of what I have previously told you about, and that is a part of it.

That doesn't really help me understand. Why do you believe it is a part of it?

that seems like 3 ways of saying the same thing to me.

I give up.

Until you give me a better definition of what exactly it is for A to explain B I cannot decipher WTH you are saying.