To all the Christian evolutionists/Old Earth Creationists

[Perfection]

Don't know where this number comes from

Butts, usually. That or grossly silly assumptions.

 

[MRM]

Butts, usually. That or grossly silly assumptions.

Found this

http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionabiogenesis/a/probability.htm


Here it's better explained then I could do it in english

 

[Archbob]

Well, perfection is all about empircal proof. I've read some of the studies. They've managed to produce a few ofthe amino acids that are the building blocks of protein as well as alot of other random compounds. They were randomly able to generate a few out of the 20 needed for life. Even if they were able to generate all 20, the chance that they come together in the right way to make protein is amazingly small and the chance that those proteins come together to make DNA is even smaller. Its not really a stepping stone that they've proven in experiments. Its more than they threw a grain of sand in a ocean and called than grain of sand a "bridge" across the ocean. There's not a great deal of empirical evidence that supports abiogensis, mostly just hypothesis that haven't been tested.

As for the molecules of air in my room. They could be situated in a different way with everything being shifted over a centimeter and it wouldn't make a difference. Thats not true with abiogensis.

The main question that religion(any religion) strives to answer is why are we here? What purpose are we made for?
Many people also don't like to think of death as a final end(although empirically we can't prove otherwise) so perhaps if man did create God and not the other way around, it was to explain that.

Personally I do believe in God as a being far more powerful than anything imaginable to me. I do believe that someone has to start the universe and set it in motion. Most of the rest of what happened from there I'll take the scientific explanation.

 

[Perfection]

They were randomly able to generate 4 out of the 20 needs.

In the very first experiment (Miller-Urey). Subsequent experiments have generated all 20 plus more.

Even if they were able to generate all 20, the chance that they come together in the right way to make protein is amazingly small

They've already formed polypeptides which are basicly protiens

and the chance that those proteins come together to make DNA is even smaller.

Ugh!
1. Protien doesn't come together to form DNA, nucleotides do.
2. Abiogenesis says that DNA came after the first organisms (organisms proir to it used RNA
3. RNA has been produced abiotically

Its not really a stepping stone that they've proven in experiments.

Yes it is

Its more than they threw a grain of sand in a ocean and called than grain of sand a "bridge" across the ocean.

Nope, the getting of the basic polymers of life is actually quite easy.

As for the molecules of air in my room. They could be situated in a different way with everything being shifted over a centimeter and it wouldn't make a difference. Thats not true with abiogensis.

Astute observation! Note that life may be able to happen multiple ways too

 

[El_Machinae]

FAL: that last paragraph is cute. It's not really a refutation, but it certainly is witty! Congrats.

 

[Archbob]

The Miller-Experiment has only produced 13 after further reading on Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment
Protein has never been produced from nothing from these experiments.
Please show me where it says that RNA has be created by experiments where you must started with the early elements in the earth's atmosphere. It would have been reported all voer Scientific American which I subscribe to, but I haven't seen it.
You say the getting of basic polymers is quite easy but I haven't seen one article saying they've actually done it.

Life can only happen if you have all the recipes required. There needs certain sets of things for life to appear. No true for air molecules in my room. They can be arranged in any way they want.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis

It says clearly at the end that this theory is currently untested.

Anways, I have a exam that I have to study for tommorrow, I'll debate this with you guys after 12pm central time tommorrow. Funny that Moboss and the other religious crew won't come to this debate.

 

[Perfection]

The Miller-Experiment has only produced 13 after further reading on Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment

That's only Urey-Miller, though. Subsequent experiments have produced more. It's quite understandable that Miller-Urey didn't make them all, after all there was no aromatics or sulfur to work with.

Protein has never been produced from nothing from these experiments.

Actually, Sidney Fox made them.

Please show me where it says that RNA has be created by experiments where you must started with the early elements in the earth's atmosphere. It would have been reported all voer Scientific American which I subscribe to, but I haven't seen it.

Eh, you got me there, only the basic componants of RNA have been produced. My memory of 11th grade biology is a smidge hazy.

You say the getting of basic polymers is quite easy but I haven't seen one article saying they've actually done it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_W._Fox
Sorry I couldn't find a better article. Sidney Fox also happens to be an actress messing up google.

Life can only happen if you have all the recipes required. There needs certain sets of things for life to appear. No true for air molecules in my room. They can be arranged in any way they want.

The key is that life might be able to be arranged in multiple ways, just like the air molecules in your room.

 

[Archbob]

He formed polypeptides, however, the entry on him is amazingly short and does not detail his experiments. But thats only a small step on the way to life. As far as I know, they haven't produced any genetic material from those conditions. Once I see them produce an actual cell(even the simplest type), I'll buy into this abiogensis thing.

 

[Perfection]

He formed polypeptides, however, the entry on him is amazingly short and does not detail his experiments.

Sadly it doesn't. For more than just a 101 level crash course on anything, you really need a textbook.

But thats only a small step on the way to life.

True, but it's a step nonetheless. There's also a lot of other baby steps like this that have been demonstrated.

As far as I know, they haven't produced any genetic material from those conditions.

You'd be correct here

Once I see them produce an actual cell(even the simplest type), I'll buy into this abiogensis thing.

Why must an actual cell be produced? Why do you give up on scientific methodology when it hasn't been fully explored? Why doesn't a small body of evidence convince you over a completly nonscientific idea?

 

[Archbob]

Because it takes more evidence to convince some people than others.

For instance I believe that God gave Moses the power to part the Red Sea because its written in the Bible by Moses(Moses is the author of Exodus) and he was a leader at the time. Thats enough for me. But for you, I would have to part the Red Sea myself for you to believe it.

 

[Perfection]

Because it takes more evidence to convince some people than others.

For instance I believe that God gave Moses the power to part the Red Sea because its written in the Bible by Moses(Moses is the author of Exodus) and he was a leader at the time. Thats enough for me. But for you, I would have to part the Red Sea myself for you to believe it.

There are crucial differences between my acceptance of abiogenesis and your acceptance of Moses' miracle:
1. Componants of abiogenesis are reproducible, none of Moses' miracle is.
2. Abiogenesis is fully consistant with natural law, Moses' miracle is not
3. Moses' miracle requires godly action, which is something not verified by science, while abiogenesis calls for verifiable chemical reactions.
4. Moses' miracle is based on an old work of literature, abiogenesis is based on observed phenomena.

Your comparison of the two is not apt.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Argh, every time I go to view this thread, it's spawned a new page!

Oh, no, a good God certainly could exist. I just don't accept the existence of an ALL good, ALL powerful, and ALL knowing God - not because he would 'nanny' us, but because evil exists.

Ah. The old argument of "If god exists, why is there so much evil?", is it? Counter: If there is no god, why is there so much good?

If I knowingly perform an action that has an element of evil, can I make the claim that it is 100% good? I don't believe so. I don't accept the 'definition' that a 100% good action can contain evil. I certainly accept that a 'mostly' good action can contain some evil.

So, if God is ALL good, how did he create evil? By creating (knowingly) a situation where people suffer, there is an element of evil to the creation. To be ALL good, He would have to prevent ALL evil, or not undertake the action in the first place.

Um, if I understand corrrectly, you're saying God shouldn't have given us free will to choose evil. Your argument is that we commit evil through free will, then giving us free will was evil.
In that case, everybody you've ever learned anything from is evil. All schools are evil. Your parents are evil. They teach you things and you can abuse that knowledge. All science is evil.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yes, I can accept that there is a bit of evil in the world - you're not really refuting my argument. Take my parents for example. I am certain that at certain points in their childhoods, they felt intense suffering. Despite this, they knowingly brought me in the world, knowing I would suffer at times.

Knowingly creating a creature that will suffer has an evil element in it. It's not wholly evil act, but there's a bit of evil there. It might have been 'worth it in the end', but that doesn't affect my argument. My statement makes more sense when it's put on a scale.

Suppose I want a child (a supposedly 'good' act): if I were to knowingly generate this child with some physiological impairment, when I could have chosen otherwise, the creation of the impaired child wasn't the 'right' choice. For example: if I know that knocking up my wife when she's on acid, the kid will have no legs. If I wait a day for the acid to clear, the child will be fine. Knowingly creating the child with no legs would be an immoral act, yes? Because it would suffer, yes? Even though creating a child is a 'good' thing?

It's a scale. God 'may' be on the far end of the scale, knowingly creating creatures who suffer, but he's still on the scale.

 

[ironduck]

To add to the 'all-good, all-powerful' god problem.

Even if you ignore free will, there's still much suffering for innocents in the world. Diseases without cure and natural disasters for instance. Is there not at least an element of 'bad' when a person is struck by a horribly painful disease or disaster? When this could not have been prevented by people (free will), then why does the person have to suffer unbearably and die?

There is so much suffering in this world that doesn't have the first thing to do with 'free will' - it's simply just bad luck. If god only contains good and has all the power in the world then it simply doesn't explain why he allows random pain to inflict his beloved creatures. This is not pain that helps people grow, it's just pain that hurts. And then they die. I cannot associate that with an all-good-all-powerful god.

You do realize that many beg to god for help, right?

Where is the all-good and all-powerful god then?

 

[ironduck]

Argh, every time I go to view this thread, it's spawned a new page!Ah. The old argument of "If god exists, why is there so much evil?", is it? Counter: If there is no god, why is there so much good?

The fact that there's good does not eliminate the bad. If god is only good there shouldn't be bad. You didn't counter the argument at all.

 

[bhsup]

Who are we, as his creations (which if you're arguing whether he is good or not you kind of have to accept to even argue the point) to question GOD'S judgement or moral compass?

Also, remember that this life on earth is just a brief, transitory one in our eternal life. Maybe we're all supposed to suffer at least a little bit down here as some sort of experience phase of our existence. Please note that that just came out of my head and it's not something I subscribe to, but it's as valid as presuming that God isn't good because he allows suffering.

God is perfect and we cannot presume to judge him by how we view events.

 

[Perfection]

The problem of god IMHO is not the morality but the veracity. How can one demonstrate god's existance?

 

[El_Machinae]

VRWC: you said that we have knowledge of good and evil, right? So shouldnt' we be able to recognize it when we see it? I don't personally ascribe to the 'tree of knowledge' myth, but you do. Ergo, we know evil when we see it. And you and I both know that causing/allowing innocents to suffer is evil.

Perfection: you can't even prove my existence. Proving things to 100% certainty is impossible, since you have to eventually believe one of your senses (and you know that your senses can lie to you). Any 'proof' you find of God's existence could just be a deception of your senses.

 

[bhsup]

And you and I both know that causing/allowing innocents to suffer is evil.

Sorry, man, but we can't judge God. That's just wrong on so many levels.

 

[Perfection]

Perfection: you can't even prove my existence. Proving things to 100% certainty is impossible, since you have to eventually believe one of your senses (and you know that your senses can lie to you). Any 'proof' you find of God's existence could just be a deception of your senses.

Your point?

Just because you can't prove something "100%" doesn't mean you can't demonstrate something to very high veracity. Science does that all the time. God is something that while tried numerous times has not been demonstrated to have any more than trivial veracity.