Terrible news for the Creation Science museum (and Republicans)

[Into the Night]

Why does God need to be created then?

He doesn't.

 

[AProudLefty]

What would it eat? What would it poop?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Seems to me that there is one major difference between the creationist and the atheistic scientists:

- they both have faith in their respective beliefs.

- the DIFFERENCE is that the scientist have faith in the scientific method to eventually explain it all. The creationist have faith that eventually God will appear to validate what is already "explained".

Maybe they should have a conference call and compare notes. Who knows, they may figure something out all can agree with.

My two cents is that theology and science are asking fundamentally different questions.

The creationist attempt to read literal historical significance and scientific principles into the Torah is a pathetic attempt by fringe Christians to fight a last stand against the forces of modernity.

World religions, at their best, are asking questions about how to cultivate virtue, how to live a meaningful life, and how to reconcile human existence with the nature of evil and suffering in the world.

Those are the right questions to be asking -- but that intellectual tradition never going to provide insight into a grand unified theory of physics or the mysteries of abiogenesis.

food for thought, Cy.

 

[AProudLefty]

The Theory of Abiogenesis states that life originated on Earth through a series of random unspecified events.

Who said it was a series of random events?

 

[Into the Night]

It has to start somewhere. Unless you think life has always been there.

Why not: life has always existed in a universe that has likewise always existed.

 

[Into the Night]

The fundamental forces. Boundaries.

The fundamental forces so far discovered have no boundaries. They operate everywhere in the universe, as far as we've observed.

When you find a smooth round pebble in the woods, do you conclude that it's manmade?

No. I don't conclude anything.

 

[AProudLefty]

Why not: life has always existed in a universe that has likewise always existed.

I do tend to think that. I think life is an inherent property of something and it can be developed independently elsewhere in the universe.

 

[Into the Night]

The way it is measured or observed.

An observation is not information contained in the cubic meter of air. Any measurement of it is not contained in the cubic meter of air either.
I think you had better step back to try to figure out what an observation actually is, and why is different for everyone.

 

[Into the Night]

Eternal existence is an attribute of the Judeo Christian God. Eternal existence also contradicts evolution since the concept of change over time implicates a beginning or starting point: organisms evolved from simple to complex over geological time.

So you believe in the Church of Evolution. Fine. It's not science though.

 

[Into the Night]

So you think life has always existed?

Why not?

 

[Into the Night]

Proof is for mathematics.
Evidence is for science.

But only conflicting evidence. Science does not use supporting evidence. Only religions do that.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I have never been the type of person to think that just because we do not understand something now, means it is permanently beyond our comprehension.

On the other hand, I have the intellectual integrity to consider the possibility that the organization of complex, self-replicating cells from an inert pre-biotic soup may have been the result of an infinitesimally improbable series of chemical and physical reactions, rendering the possibility of life elsewhere in the galaxy remote.

I devoted an entire thread to those, and other insights:
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?162896-Origin-of-Life&p=4273023#post4273023

Agreed on supporting the ideology that the Universe is unlimited in many ways. Some people want to oversimplify it to either/or, but that's not a true picture.

In this case, just because we don't know the spark of life on Earth doesn't mean we can't study life on Earth, past and present, or look for it off planet.

It's a mystery to me why some people have no problem limiting God in defense of their religious beliefs.

 

[Into the Night]

Open systems.

I'll repeat the question since you didn't answer:

Say a cell DOES somehow get created by some random unspecified events.

What does it eat? How does it gain sufficient energy to divide?

 

[AProudLefty]

Why not?

Yeah why not? It's plausible. It's also possible that "life pattern" exists and contributed to independent origins of life everywhere.

 

[AProudLefty]

I'll repeat the question since you didn't answer:

Say a cell DOES somehow get created by some random unspecified events.

What does it eat? How does it gain sufficient energy to divide?

The same answer: open systems.

They get energy from outside agencies.

 

[Into the Night]

But not randomly arranged chemicals or arranged out of necessity according to physical laws—like ice crystals.

Are you seriously going to try to argue that life doesn't follow physical laws??

 

[Into the Night]

Nobody claimed that they're "randomly arranged". Natural selection is not random. Sure there's a few random mutations here and there.

The Theory of Natural Selection builds a paradox.

 

[AProudLefty]

But only conflicting evidence. Science does not use supporting evidence. Only religions do that.

When you get conflicting evidence, you do further experiments to collect more evidence.

 

[Into the Night]

You skipped a step or two lol.

Natural selection needs something to select *from* before it can do anything interesting. One of the [several] problems with abiogenesis is it lacks a mechanism. No mechanism, no theory. It’s a big part of the reason abiogenesis is a hypothesis.

Darwin’s contribution was that he provided a mechanism to explain the phenomena. I think the explanatory power of NS is over rated when it comes to Darwin’s broader claims [not allowed to use the term macro evolution lol] but NS wasn’t even around when there was no life.

The origin of life is inexplicable.

You kinda stated the paradox that makes the Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection a fallacy.

To have natural selection, you must have a variety to select from. To get that variety, natural selection must be abandoned.

 

[Into the Night]

The same answer: open systems.

They get energy from outside agencies.

What outside agency?