Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: AndrewC
I claim assumption of something, namely a pre-biotic soup, without evidence is like faith.

I know that the pre-biotic soup, if it ever existed, is a problem for your belief system, but let's put that aside for a moment and see if we can't reason this out.

1. If we find a dead man with no apparent cause for his demise except for a knife sticking out of his back, we can reasonably assume that someone stabbed him in the back. (It could have been done by an angel or a demon from hell, but we will probably assume a human killer, based on our experience.)

2. If we find a huge hole in the ground, such as the one at Meteor Crator, Arizona, and all around it we find evidence of fused sand and scorched metalic chunks buried in the soil. We have the experience of seeing meteors. We can reasonably assume that a meteorite cause the crator. (It could have been Zeus, jabbing the earth with his pinky, but reasonable people usually don't leap to that "explanation" as their first choice.)

The foregoing are two simple examples of rational, experience-based, cause-and-effect thinking, something scientists and others do all the time. I know you're with me so far, even if you're dragging your feet a bit, sensing where this is going, so I shall continue.

If you see a planet full of life, such as the Earth, you can -- quite reasonably, based on our knowledge from chemistry and biology -- suggest that it developed over a long time from a pre-biotic soup. (Or you could, as some here do, assume that space aliens or supernatural creatures are responsible.) Occam's Razor is a useful tool in such cases.

517 posted on 02/23/2002 8:22:49 AM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 510 | View Replies ]


To: PatrickHenry
suggest that it developed over a long time from a pre-biotic soup

I believe Pasteur showed that was not likely. But I'm in a hurry and can't check that. Out for a while

518 posted on 02/23/2002 8:26:11 AM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 517 | View Replies ]

To: PatrickHenry
I know that the pre-biotic soup, if it ever existed, is a problem for your belief system

I missed this. How do you know that it is a problem for my belief system? It isn't. I just don't believe there is evidence of pre-biotic soup.

552 posted on 02/23/2002 12:06:43 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 517 | View Replies ]

To: PatrickHenry
The foregoing are two simple examples of rational, experience-based, cause-and-effect thinking, something scientists and others do all the time. I know you're with me so far, even if you're dragging your feet a bit, sensing where this is going, so I shall continue.

If you see a planet full of life, such as the Earth, you can -- quite reasonably, based on our knowledge from chemistry and biology -- suggest that it developed over a long time from a pre-biotic soup. (Or you could, as some here do, assume that space aliens or supernatural creatures are responsible.) Occam's Razor is a useful tool in such cases.

Not in this one.

Your foregoing examples, the dead man and the crater, are based on circumstances which have a history of previous observation. Such is not the case with pre-biotic soup, space aliens, or supernatural creatures.

We've never seen life arise from lifelessness, not in even the one example where we've seen a planet with life.

Invoking Occam in this instance is no more compelling than "abra cadabra," a genuflection, or "take me to your leader."




560 posted on 02/23/2002 12:29:55 PM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 517 | View Replies ]

To: PatrickHenry
If you see a planet full of life, such as the Earth, you can -- quite reasonably, based on our knowledge from chemistry and biology -- suggest that it developed over a long time from a pre-biotic soup.

No you cannot assume such a thing. You cannot prove the existence of something for which there is no evidence. You are making an assumption (that there is no God) and using it to prove that there is no God. Such reasoning is called a tautology in logic and sophistry in common speech.

638 posted on 02/24/2002 7:21:17 AM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 517 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson