Posted on 08/02/2004 7:42:46 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
No. Evolutionary theory does not address this. The author is being dishonest (he claims a PhD, therefore he hadn't the luxury of being considered ignorant.)
Chemicals reacting with chemicals is a chemical reaction, and chemical reactions do not produce life.
The fallacy of asserting the consequent. The author offers no argument in support of his point.
Life must create life.
The author offers no argument for this.
For a claimed PhD, the author makes two logic errors and one historical error in the first paragraph.
The lottery argument points out the fact that origins is, really, a philosophical discussion.
The key to understanding the difference between the lottery and the origin of life is that the lottery has zero meaning. The only reason a particular sequence of six numbers means anything to anyone is because they applied meaning to those six numbers where meaning did not exist before. You could blow balls out of a machine forever and never communicate anything to anyone without specifically designing a situation where the order of the balls has meaning.
The inherent question, then, is "Does the Universe have meaning?" If the meaning is simply imposed upon us because we demand meaning, then the idea that non-deterministic events lead to the point where we are now is a reasonable idea. If it has intrinsic meaning, then that meaning must have been designed in.
Such a question can not be resolved with scientific experimentation or hypothesizing.
On the other hand, to those of us who have met G-d, the question is so basic as to be unworthy of discussion. The issue is not whether the universe was designed, but how fantastic that desgin is.
Shalom.
Well, you said that the evolutionist belief in a universe that started without cause was the same as a theist belief that G-d exist without cause. I extrapolated from there.
I simply stated that I find the most common creationist argument, which you make in your post to me, is self-contradictory.
And I pointed out why it was not. Do you care to respond to my point or is your mind all made up?
To review: The Universe has rules which we have spent a couple of centuries studying. Science requires us to apply those rules when determining facts about the Universe.
G-d has rules which we can not access. We have no reason to believe those rules are the same that apply to our Universe. Therefore, applying the rules of the Universe to G-d is not a viable argument.
Your response?
Shalom.
I don't think of us as stupid - just challenged by finity.
If we knew everything we would understand the relationship between Biblical stories of creation and Astronomical data. But we don't so it gives us problems, unless we adopt the humble position so wisely recommended earlier on this thread.
The Bible is truth. Scientific fact is truth. Our minds are fallable. If the Bible and scientific fact seem to contradict, we are interpreting one or the other or both incorrectly.
IMHO: Probably both.
Shalom.
Life must create life. The author offers no argument for this. |
Probability of any single combination of 6 numbers = 1/5245786
Probability of a specific sequence of 25 combinations = (1/5245786)^25 = 1/9.9 x 10^167 as stated.
Hopefully no one lights a match around this article. It's so full of strawmen it would go up in flames in seconds.
Wonder what this author would call prions?
Maybe *your* ToE doesn't, Doc, but back in the day it was cool for evolutionists to address how life began. You guys are getting soft.
Renowned Harvard paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson wrote: "Evolution is a fully natural process, inherent in the physical properties of the universe, by which life arose in the first place, and by which all living things, past or present, have since developed, divergently and progressively (The Implications of Evolution, 1960, 131:969).
Simpson also wrote: "First, there is the theory of evolution in the strict sense. This states that all living organisms have evolved from common ancestors in a gradual historical process of change and diversification. The theory rejects the notion that all organisms were designed and created at the beginning of time (Life: An Introduction to Biology, Simpson, et al., 1957, pp. 25-26).
The famous zoologist P.D. Darlington wrote: "The outstanding evolutionary mystery now is how matter has originated and evolved, why it has taken its present form in the universe and on the earth, and why it is capable of forming itself into complex living sets of molecules. This capability is inherent in matter as we know it, in its organization and energy.... It is a fundamental evolutionary generalization that no external agent imposes life on matter. Matter takes the form it does because it has the inherent capacity to do so. This is one of the most remarkable and mysterious facts about our universe: that matter exists that has the capacity to form itself into the most complex patterns of life (Evolution for Naturalists, 1980, pp. 15,234).
There's even websites available! If one chooses to learn more about Darwin and the beginning of life - they can go here ToE and Life's Origin
Care for a good read?Soup anyone?
I found this stuff in about 10 minutes. If I had more time on my hands I'd start looking into academic texts for more examples of evolutionists attempting to explain life's origin.
Maybe the smart evolutionists (yeah - I'll even include you) have given up on a natural origin? It seems the ToE has evolved.
I believe you are thinking of another poster. I haven't said anything of the sort, because I don't believe it. Perhaps you should stop having imaginary conversations with me and extapolating upon things that were never said, and start reading.
Shalom.
That's you from #8.
Perhaps you weren't stating that you don't see a problem with not knowing where the Universe started. If so, I owe you an apology.
I believe it is a problem, and one that must be theoretically addressed. By all the laws of physics that I understand, there must be a first cause. The Universe can not be uncaused. I don't mind people claiming they are cool with not knowing the first cause. I do mind people claiming there is no requirement for one.
However, G-d does not require a first cause. That's because we don't have a "physics" for the continuum which G-d inhabits. We don't know its rules. You may choose to apply the rules of our universe to His continuum, but there is no reason to prefer to do that than to prefer not to do that. Therefore, it is not a contradiction to say the universe requires a Creator, but G-d does not.
Shalom.
That part of my post in #8 was a paraphrase of the argument I generally hear from Creationists, which I find faulty. I believe that if science is a product of whatever created the Universe, then the source must be responsible to the science it created. We'll have to respectfully disagree on that. That post was anything but a statement of belief.
I have no problem with not knowing how the Universe was created. However, I simply do not believe that, because we cannot prove or disprove the cause of its creation, it must be attributed to an Almighty. I see that as more of a result of people being unable to handle not knowing than truly desiring to know.
For starters, I too hold a BS in Chemistry and a Master's Degree in Organic chemistry. Like you and the author, I also have published in peer-reviewed literature.
Much of the discussion about chemical evolution was laid out by Miller and Orgel in 1974 in THE ORIGINS OF LIFE ON EARTH. Therein, they present experimental data (not biased conjecture like McCombs) regarding the possible origins of both amino acids and nucleotides. By sparking methane, ammonia, water, and hydrogen in a sealed vessel they were able to isolate residues of some twenty or more amino acids, nucleotides and small peptide chains. This clearly suggests that conditions in the primordial atmosphere were favorable for the possible synthesis of proteins and nucleotides.
Perhaps what is most interesting about McCombs's argument is his dismissal of chemical evolution due to its inherent lack of chemo- and regio-selectivity. What he fails to realize, however, is that this lack of selectivity is the very mechanism that makes chemical evolution a workable theory. The fact that you have the potetential to form thousands of isomers from a "primordial soup" (by the way, I hate that phrase) increases the potential of forming those sequences that could, upon replication possibly evolve into a living organism. Evidence suggests that the earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago, while the first fossil record of a living organism (like unto modern bacteria) is only about 3.5 billion years old. That leaves a difference of 1.1 billion years for these simple organisms to evolve from chemical evolution. The fact that the reactions would be nonselective is the very reason why chemical evolution is a plausible theory, not a reason to reject it.
Now, I am the first to admit that at this point, evidence for chemical evolution is sparse. There does, however, exist some evidence, unlike any peer-reviewed evidence arguing for a creationist version of the origins of life. Perhaps, it is not me, but the author who is making arguments based on emotion and not scientific evidence.
I will make one last comment. A simple search for Dr. McCombs in the US patent database at the US Patent Office's website reveals that none of his 20 patents has anything to do with peptide synthesis or nucleotide synthesis. It seems like ICR should recruit a legitimate biochemist to push its agenda. Perhaps they cannot find one willing to make such unsubstantiated claims.
bump
I had to read this a few times. I can't read a sentence with more than one negative until I've had some coffee.
So you do have a problem with my not requiring a reason for everything I am not able to understand. Well, I addressed that without knowing it in my post in #92.
This conversation isn't really going anywhere, because you dismiss my belief as closed-minded while clinging to yours like a boa constrictor. I can only advise you to become a little more comfortable with uncertainty.
I tried to look up Dr. McCombs as well, and couldn't find anything about his edcuation or accomplishments. I only found references to the ICR website that explain how he enjoys learning about God's love.
If he were a legitimate biochemist, I don't believe he would be at ICR.
B. S. Chemistry, CSULB; Long Beach, CA; Nominated for Phi Beta Kappa; 1973.
Ph.D. Organic Chemistry, UCLA; Westwood, CA 1978.
1978-1999: Principal Research Chemist, Eastman Chemical Company; Kingsport, Tennessee
Heaven forbid anyone work for an Institution that argues for Genesis and God! Here is a list of a few more "crackpot" Creation Scientists:
I understand. Do you understand my explanation of why it is not faulty - at least to a believer?
I believe that if science is a product of whatever created the Universe, then the source must be responsible to the science it created.
I understand your viewpoint, but have you fully examined the implications of what you say? Do you believe the Creator would be forced by some philosophy to make itself subject to the laws of its creation? What philosophy would that be? Do you believe the Creator can be no greater than the created? I can't imagine the possibility of that being true. One day man might create systems as fully complicated and intelligent as man himself. I doubt it, but I accept the possibility. In that case, the creation will be man, or enought like it to make no difference. By extension, you are saying a Universe created the Universe. Is that really what you mean?
We'll have to respectfully disagree on that. That post was anything but a statement of belief.
Understood. And you may feel free to drop the subject as uninteresting without fearing that I will claim "victory." But even a lighthearted comment can lead to interesting discussions.
I have no problem with not knowing how the Universe was created. However, I simply do not believe that, because we cannot prove or disprove the cause of its creation, it must be attributed to an Almighty.
I concur wholeheartedly. In fact, I don't believe people would have invented an Almighty if He had not revealed Himself to them. If you look at the invented gods, you will see they are not almighty at all. They are rather like super-men with all the frailties and illogical behavior of men without all the limits. Very dangerous creatures, and I'm not sorry at all they don't exist.
I see that as more of a result of people being unable to handle not knowing than truly desiring to know.
Just as smug as if I were to say to you, "someday you'll be where I am."
The reality is, I know G-d. I don't posit Him to help me with my not knowing. In fact, in knowing G-d I deal with quite a bit of not knowing. G-d is infinite, so there is quite a bit for me to not know. If I were to invent something to help me handle not knowing I think it would be something I could explain better.
In case you don't decide to continue, it's been fun. This also comprises my response to your later post.
Shalom.
Simple?
If they truly are, and we KNOW what chemical combinations are required to assemble them, then why haven't we made them by now?
Surely ADVANCED technology is NOT needed to do this. Surely ADVANCED techno
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.