Replies

"And something just somehow happened to come out of nothing!

If you insist that everything must have a time, place and initiator then, unless your God is outside the laws of Physics, he/she/it too needs to have a beginning. If you claim that your God is outside the laws of physics because he/she/it created those laws, those laws which you demand for everything other than God, then anything else said to originate those laws is also outside them. Simply put, if you created those laws they did not exist before you created them so do not apply to you.

"Since it is impossible for something to come out of nothing, either God is impossible or Evolution is.

This is a non-sequitur with a built in false dichotomy. It may be impossible for something to come from nothing in this universe but your own statements claimed that because God is outside of time and I assume not of this universe he is exempt from that condition. What I have claimed is that the universe we are currently discussing, that which contains all we see and all we are, did not originate in itself. This means its origin is also outside of time and this universe (itself) so is also exempt from the previously mentioned condition of needing a cause.

Since Evolution with the upper case E usually denotes biological evolution as opposed to the sweeping and all encompassing 'evolution' I'm sure you can think of many cases where both Evolution and God could exist. If however, for some reason you are including the Big Bang within the definition of 'evolution' then making them mutually exclusive is a problem for you dichotomy since it is possible for a God to exist and the BB to still be the initiator of our universe. It is even possible for a God to be the creator of the BB.

"We acknowledge that we have to start with God as our axiom based on faith.

You acknowledge that as a presupposition to all of your understanding for the universe. That is your right.

"The hyprocrisy comes from the Evolutionists who claim they have 'science' as their guide, when they know that they must believe in the impossible, life coming from non-life.

Life coming from non-life is not the same as something coming from nothing.

Knowledge of what is possible and what is not possible is heavily based upon existing knowledge of the laws of physics and the interaction of the physical components of the system being examined. There is nothing in the origin of life from simpler forms such as non-living replicating molecules that contradicts any of the physical laws. If you have evidence that Abiogenesis in any way contradicts a law of physics, any law of physics, I would be interested in hearing about such. A cite or two would also be nice.

"So in truth, both systems are faith based system.

Its interesting that you are trying to place not only biological evolution but all the other disciplines you define within 'evolution' on the same level as your belief system. It appears you believe your faith is somehow of less value than science. Interesting. Is this an admission that you believe the scientific method produces more accuracy than religion?

A field of study is not considered science because it believes only in what is currently considered possible but because of the methods and processes used to determine what is and is not possible. Science uses specific methods to develop hypotheses, tests and potential falsification criteria, eliminate external affects, then it runs the tests and compares the results of those tests with the hypotheses. From there it draws conclusions. Since the tests are limited by the laws of physics (which I use all inclusively here) the tests are indeed possible and no belief in the impossible is necessary.

Just a note here that impossible and highly improbable are not the same thing. Abiogenesis may be highly improbable but according to the current understanding of the laws of physics, it is not impossible. Unfortunately, since we do not know what the original replicator was composed of nor the environment of its development we can not truthfully produce an accurate probability.

"The only issue is which seems more reasonible and likely.

That may be true but they are of unequal weight. Any probability calculation must take that weighting into account. Evolution, as you define it, is backed by science, which means predictions based on current knowledge have been made, tests run and conclusions developed based on the results of those tests. Your belief system does not use those same, quite provably successful methods as its basis. Any decision made must include the belief system basis and account for the different weighting.

Any justification you can make for God to be outside the requirements of the universe can be made for the origin of the universe itself. That singularity, or whatever it was, was not contained in the universe, was not subject to the same laws as our current universe, and was outside of time.

"So, now you are making the Universe 'god' and a different Universe."

No I am not, I do not assume, as you do, that only a 'god' can make a universe, I only assume that the conditions outside the universe do not necessarily follow the same 'rules' as inside the universe. I am stating that the same conditions you have applied to enable you to give God the 'Uncaused Cause' attribute can also be applied to anything outside of this universe's time and space. It is an argument against your position that God does not need a creator because he is outside of the constraints of our universe. If you have other reasons for believing God does not need a creator but the universe does then present them.

The universe that we live in did not explode within its own space, it was not a matter of matter exploding from a central point and filling available space, the very space we live in was contained within that initial singularity. That singularity could have resided in a different universe or, as some have suggested for God, existed within the 'void', a place of no substance, time, or space and as such, again like God, was not subject to the same laws of physics (including causality if you want to call that a law) inside the universe.

"It still doesn't explain where this 'different' Universe came from.

When you can explain where God came from I will explain where the host universe came from although that is but one possibility.

"And from rocks came life!

Crappy straw man. Life is not something mystical and magical, it is the interaction of chemical processes which in combination function in a specific way. No one said that life came from 'rocks' but from far simpler molecules. Complex molecules are found in space, they are not unusual.

"You can spin it anyway you want, but you have life coming from non-life."

Yes I do, but as mentioned before this is not the same as something coming from nothing. My 'spin' was saying no more than 'life' does not describe a sharp line but is a matter of defining an arbitrary point based on fuzzy criteria within the chemical world. Even now there are some 'things' (prions and viruses to name two) which show some but not all properties of life that are definitely not 'non-life as you define it but are also not life such as ourselves. As long as we can observe 'things' which bridge the gap between non-life and life then life from non-life is not impossible.

I hope that you haven't gotten the idea that life cannot come from non-life from Pasteur's tests because the conditions, requirements and predictions are significantly different in Abiogenesis so his work is not applicable.

"And where did these chemicals come from?"

The chemicals used in all life (and non-life for that matter) are the atoms/molecules created in the BB, in the heart of stars, and in the violence of supernovae and comet/meteor impacts.

"Poof-like magic they were there and they just happen to combine to form some kind of life and that just happened to survive to form a more sophisciated kind of life and before you know you have mankind (give or take a few billion years).

You can attack anything by oversimplifying it but it is a hollow victory.

The molecules, including amino acids, and sugars were created by supernovae and impacts. They float around in space and have been found in meteorites. They have even been created in the lab by simulating an impact.

The only part that is difficult is the combining of those complex molecules into a simple replicator. We do not know how that happened. Our current lack of knowledge about that process does not equate to it being impossible unless you believe we know everything that we can possible know already.

Once the replicator exists then selection can guide it to develop beyond its simple origins. To what extent we do not know, but that is not a reason to stop looking.

"Yea, that is real science there!"

See my description of science above.

"And from single cell life came Man! Yes indeed, as did all other animals and plants. However, current organisms are the result of a trial and error regulated build up from simple beginnings. Do you have a problem with trial and error, or complexity coming from simplicity?

"You talk about fairy tales!"

Yes I have heard yours many times.

"Well, you have heard because it is true."

By what definition of 'true'? Are you talking scientifically verified or 'inspired' truth?

"Yes, I have a large problem with living cells going from the simple to the complex by 'evolution'."

That isn't what I asked. I asked if you have a problem with the process of trial and error. I asked if you have a problem with complexity forming from initial simplicity. We can discuss their application to evolution after we determine where the problem lies.

"It doesn't happen that way...

You sound very sure of that. What are you basing this conviction on?

"... and evolution has never shown anything to do so.

Evolution has shown many times that complexity can result from simple beginnings. The eye is but one example. Since you have loosely defined evolution to include the BB, abiogenesis and biological evolution then I will include the models of those processes. There are dozens of computer models which show the success of evolutionary processes to build complexity, including some where the 'life forms' were not controlled by the programmer who but simply changed the environment those 'life forms' inhabited. The results not only show complexity increase in the individual forms but complex interactions between evolved forms that were never programmed into the simulation.

Even if this does not show that Abiogenesis is a fact it certainly shows that random changes within a selecting environment produces the complexity you deny can happen. This has also been accomplished in models of chemical reactions.

I'm still interested in finding out your basis for claiming abiogeneis is impossible.

"What does occur is adaptation of the species, but not the changing of the species into another species, becoming a more complex and different species.

What physical limits are there on adaptation to prevent it from accumulating and resulting in speciation?

How do you define species?

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

Now this is compelling science isn't it

" As compelling as your pseudo science, which has to start with a different Universe operating under different laws and then move from non-life to life and simple life to complex life."

The question of non-life to life and simple life to complex life has nothing to do with the origin of the universe because before they can even be considered the existence of the universe is taken as a given. In fact the existence of matter and energy is taken as a given.

Care to define pseudo science for me?

"Man, you talk about having a faith!"

So, faith is bad?