Let's go over this again, shall we, about chances--

[shunyadragon]

It's just that this is how God has divided things up in Genesis and has said what He has done specifically. It is the Bible that has done it imo and for me that is God speaking to us.

Genesis remains an evolved compilation of a primitive Creation mythical narrative found in virtually all ancient cultures, and does not relate to possible events of our physical existence, history of our physical existence or life.

 

[Polymath257]

Life came from previously existing life, as everyday experience tells us. How God did it is through joining spirit to a body so that the dead atoms can be animated in more than an automatic mechanical way,,,,,,,,,,, with will and consciousness. I probably cannot be more specific.

Please give details about how a spirit 'animates' a body. Also, give some evidence that 'dead' atoms cannot act the way they do in living things unless they are 'animated'.

Metaphysics explains the origins of a self replicating chemical system by God creating the universe to have building blocks, the atoms which have properties which enable them to form self replicating molecules.

Except, again, that is not an explanation of how. It is a claim of who.

OK, so we know that atoms can and do form self-replicators. We know that they follow the laws of physics and chemistry. Why is a metaphysics required at that point? it seems to be claiming something outside is required that is not clearly required.

It is the data storage and use in these molecules and systems which I would say could come from God actually making a system with the genetic process in it and data and giving the system possible ways to be altered so that the data changes over time and as evolution happens.

OK, so God can manipulate the physical world of atoms and yet that manipulation is not observable? Otherwise, God would be observable through those effects. And supposedly, those effects are ones that could not be had without said intervention, so the influence should be easily measurable.

With the building blocks and initial system in place (and maybe God did this more than once in various life forms) the end product could no doubt be set at the start, the embryonic state of the end product, be it plant or bird or water creature or land creature etc.

OK, so different interventions at different times for each of these specific end results? And yet, the actual changes cannot be attributed to an outside influence because then God would be detectable by science?

That sort of eliminates the chance in the whole process I would say. The automatic takes over to head in a pre determined direction and that would be controlled by environmental factors.

Why not just say that God intervened once at the beginning of the universe and allowed for the physics and chemistry to produce the observed results? No other intervention would be required, thereby allowing you to keep undetectability.

And if you do it that way, I can agree that it is completely possible and consistent with what we have detected. It is also unnecessary.

 

[gnostic]

You say that while having faith in the scientific method as the only way to find out about reality.

That’s not only untrue, it is also ridiculous.

Scientific Method only applied to Physical Sciences, just physics, chemistry being the core, and they played key roles in Earth Sciences and astronomy. Physical Sciences also play roles in man-made objects, like engineering (eg civil, mechanical, aeronautical, spacecraft, chemical, etc) and technology, like computers.

And Scientific Method is also required in Natural Sciences, that relate to nature, so it again, would apply to physics, chemistry, Earth science, astronomy, but also Life Sciences. There are many different branches and fields within Life Sciences, and they are all related to biology (eg anatomy, physiology, zoology, botany, biophysics, biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, Evolution, etc), which would include the study of the ecology.

But Scientific Method don’t apply to some other sciences, like

1. Formal Sciences, which are related to study of logic and mathematics,
2. Social Sciences, which there are many different fields, but it related to

• the studies of human behaviour (eg psychology, psychiatry, behavioral science, mental health, etc),
• the studies of human cultures (eg sociology, anthropology, archaeology, etc),
• the studies of human activities (eg archaeology, law (legislation, legal procedure, contract), ethics, political science, economics, etc)

There are some fields in Social Sciences, where they overlap with Natural Sciences or overlaps with some studies in Humanities. For instances, archaeology is a multi-discipline study.

Like when archaeology required to use radiometric dating methods, which require knowledge of nuclear physics (which fall under the category of physicists sciences). Archaeology also require some knowledge from different fields of Humanities, like being able to translate ancient languages (hence linguistics, philology), to have knowledge of artworks (arts, like painting, sculpture, etc), knowledge of pottery styles being used in certain periods, etc.

My points is that only Physical Sciences and Natural sciences are required to follow the guidelines as set out in Methodological Naturalism, where all hypotheses and scientific theories must followed the requirements of:

1. Falsifiability
2. Scientific Method

Formal Sciences have their own set of rules, procedures, protocols or guidelines, as do Social Sciences, so neither of them have to follow Falsifiability & Scientific Method.

I find it amazing that atheists don't like the term scientism applied to them even when it is undeniable that is what should be denied.
It is a crap word however and believing in scientism does not mean you are a scientist.

I am agnostic, not atheist. But regardless of where I stand in religion, I don’t follow not scientism because I don’t believe Natural Sciences or Physical Sciences have every answers to EVERYTHING!

As I mentioned the differences between physical/natural sciences and “Social Sciences” don’t follow the same procedures. Natural Sciences have no answers for human behaviour or human cultures.

Natural Sciences don’t have answers to any fields of Humanities, like art, literature or music; these 3 require creativity and skills where Falsifiability & Scientific Method are not required and not necessary.

Scientific Method have no places in laws and ethics. It also have no place in politics and economics. And there are too many variables in human behaviour, like psychology into human emotions that would render Scientific Method being useless.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is God of the Gaps reasoning. And the problem with that is when others answer the questions that you did not understand your version of God get's smaller and smaller. He is forced into the every shrinking gaps in our knowledge until he does not exist any longer.

I like how Tyson formulated that behavior.

"If that is how you define your god, then your god is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We know what God felt like doing, getting rid of all of humanity. We know that He decided not to do that and kept Noah and family in that land and elsewhere where local floods may also have happened, it seems that others survived also.

You should really stop using the word "know" when you really mean "believe".

I don't think it is known that humans did not live much longer lives at one stage.

It is.

Genetics gives bottlenecks in human history where populations were small.

Never below several thousand. And the last one was some 70.000 years ago, likely connected to the Toba volcano eruption.

It looks like there is a scientific possibility for Adam and Eve but I imagine science has a way to go in this research.
Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered

//facepalm

Did you actually read that article?
It sounds like you didn't.

First, "chromosomal Adam" and "mitochondrial Eve" were NOT the first man and female. They were just individuals in large, healthy populations. One of many.

Second, they lived some 80.000 year apart from one another. They didn't meet or create any off spring together.

For crying out loud...................

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Also just because we have a Y-Chromosome Adam and a Mitochondrial Eve does not support the Bible myth. The two people almost certainly did not know each other.

not "almost". Rather: certainly not.
Mitochondrial eve lived 10s of thousands of years after chromosomal adam.

 

[Subduction Zone]

not "almost". Rather: certainly not.
Mitochondrial eve lived 10s of thousands of years after chromosomal adam.

Of course I was using "know" in the biblical sense.

 

[gnostic]

Physics and chemistry probably worked he same billions of years ago as now but that does not mean that the hypotheses of chemistry and physics about the formation of life actually happened according to the possible chemical processes. I hope that explanation of what I meant is better.
I do bring God into the picture of course as the creator and maker when nature could not get over hurdles it would have faced initially to make life forms that worked.

We currently understand much chemistry of molecules better than all previous decades and previous generations, whether it be inorganic or organic, but of course, there are lots more that we can learn and improve, not only from successes but also from failures.

The points being, we understand a number of things about the macromolecules (eg proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids, and others) that make up the cells. These biological compounds are the building blocks of cells and the building blocks of life.

So understanding the types of these compounds, are the first steps of understanding what make cells “living”.

We already know a great deal about these compounds now - the proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids - we know each of these are essential in every cells, and even of these have their roles or functions.

Examples.

Lipids have a number of different functions like storage of energy, but in every single cells, they served as cell membranes (like a wall) that protect the cells from being disintegrating the other soluble compounds from solvent nature of water. In eukaryotic type cell of multicellular organisms (animals, plants, fungi), the lipid-typed membranes also surrounded the cell nucleus and around organelles.

There are many different functions of proteins. In human body, it make up 20% of the body mass, because they provide structures of every tissues (muscles, skin, organs, etc). But proteins as enzymes have catalytic function of rapid chemical reactions in metabolism, which are very important to sustaining life of organisms, eg convert food into energy.

Nucleic acids you should know are DNA & RNA, are essential for passing physical and genetic traits from parent to offspring.

There are many different types of carbohydrates (sugar). Glucoses for animals and starch for plants, are the energy sources, in more complex form of carbohydrates, cellulose served as cell walls for plants. Sugar are also found in nucleic acids, and it what the types of carbohydrates - ribose & deoxyribose - are what distinguished RNA (ribonucleic acid) from DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid).

And since I have brought the carbohydrates in nucleic acids.

In every there are other components in these essential biological macromolecules.

The ribose and the deoxyribose are five-carbon sugar that make up part of nucleotide. The other components are the other compounds that make up the nucleotide:

• five-carbon sugar (ribose, deoxyribose)
• the four nucleobases
• the phosphate group

In lipids, there are different types, but the base component is the fatty acids or carboxylic acids. How molecules chain itself to the carboxylic acid, determine the types of lipid that exist, and the functions they play. So carboxylic acids is the building blocks of lipids.

Likewise, we know that proteins are made of specific types of amino acids. Hence, amino acids are the building blocks of proteins. What types of proteins, are dependent on the what types of amino acids are chained together.

The points so far, is to what functions these biological macromolecules have, but also distinguishing their basic compounds, and that where Abiogenesis comes in.

Can these building blocks that make up the cells, can occur naturally or not?

The evidence and the experiments showed that each of can occur naturally.

Creationists are dismissive of these compounds without understanding why it is essential to those testing Abiogenesis.

Creationism rely on the scriptures (eg the OT Genesis, the Qur’an) as their sources, but nothing in these explain anything biology-related.

Genesis narrated that god created man from “dust of the ground”, but nothing about the human anatomy and physiology, nothing to distinguish whom man and woman differ anatomically & physiologically (eg sex organ, how their respective reproductive systems work). There are no explanations as to what “kind”.

There are simply no explanations whatsoever.

So how is Genesis and other biblical books better than the books on evolutionary biology or even the hypothesis Abiogenesis, when scriptures explain nothing?

 

[YoursTrue]

It is fairly accurate. It is so odd that so many do not think that God had the ability to make a universe so that life would evolve on its own. Such a God is far more elegant than the incompetent "step and fetch it" God of the Young Earth Creationist. One can believe in God and not believe in a lying God is one follows that path.


The fact of evolution does not refute God. That is a claim of YEC's because they are simply worshipping an incorrect version of God. A rather incompetent and evil version of God at that.

Insofar as ability to make a universe so that life would evolve on its own, could you explain that idea, please, as you envision it might be?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Insofar as ability to make a universe so that life would evolve on its own, could you explain that idea, please, as you envision it might be?

The universe that we live in looks to be exactly that universe. There is no evidence of a god . No one can find any process that needs a god.

What on earth makes you think that the universe needs a God?

 

[YoursTrue]

We currently understand much chemistry of molecules better than all previous decades and previous generations, whether it be inorganic or organic, but of course, there are lots more that we can learn and improve, not only from successes but also from failures.

The points being, we understand a number of things about the macromolecules (eg proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids, and others) that make up the cells. These biological compounds are the building blocks of cells and the building blocks of life.

So understanding the types of these compounds, are the first steps of understanding what make cells “living”.

We already know a great deal about these compounds now - the proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids - we know each of these are essential in every cells, and even of these have their roles or functions.

Examples.

Lipids have a number of different functions like storage of energy, but in every single cells, they served as cell membranes (like a wall) that protect the cells from being disintegrating the other soluble compounds from solvent nature of water. In eukaryotic type cell of multicellular organisms (animals, plants, fungi), the lipid-typed membranes also surrounded the cell nucleus and around organelles.

There are many different functions of proteins. In human body, it make up 20% of the body mass, because they provide structures of every tissues (muscles, skin, organs, etc). But proteins as enzymes have catalytic function of rapid chemical reactions in metabolism, which are very important to sustaining life of organisms, eg convert food into energy.

Nucleic acids you should know are DNA & RNA, are essential for passing physical and genetic traits from parent to offspring.

There are many different types of carbohydrates (sugar). Glucoses for animals and starch for plants, are the energy sources, in more complex form of carbohydrates, cellulose served as cell walls for plants. Sugar are also found in nucleic acids, and it what the types of carbohydrates - ribose & deoxyribose - are what distinguished RNA (ribonucleic acid) from DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid).

And since I have brought the carbohydrates in nucleic acids.

In every there are other components in these essential biological macromolecules.

The ribose and the deoxyribose are five-carbon sugar that make up part of nucleotide. The other components are the other compounds that make up the nucleotide:

• five-carbon sugar (ribose, deoxyribose)
• the four nucleobases
• the phosphate group

In lipids, there are different types, but the base component is the fatty acids or carboxylic acids. How molecules chain itself to the carboxylic acid, determine the types of lipid that exist, and the functions they play. So carboxylic acids is the building blocks of lipids.

Likewise, we know that proteins are made of specific types of amino acids. Hence, amino acids are the building blocks of proteins. What types of proteins, are dependent on the what types of amino acids are chained together.

The points so far, is to what functions these biological macromolecules have, but also distinguishing their basic compounds, and that where Abiogenesis comes in.

Can these building blocks that make up the cells, can occur naturally or not?

The evidence and the experiments showed that each of can occur naturally.

Creationists are dismissive of these compounds without understanding why it is essential to those testing Abiogenesis.

Creationism rely on the scriptures (eg the OT Genesis, the Qur’an) as their sources, but nothing in these explain anything biology-related.

Genesis narrated that god created man from “dust of the ground”, but nothing about the human anatomy and physiology, nothing to distinguish whom man and woman differ anatomically & physiologically (eg sex organ, how their respective reproductive systems work). There are no explanations as to what “kind”.

There are simply no explanations whatsoever.

So how is Genesis and other biblical books better than the books on evolutionary biology or even the hypothesis Abiogenesis, when scriptures explain nothing?

Genesis and other biblical books do not expound on the theories of evolution and/or molecular structures such as scientists endeavor to explore. Anyway, you and I were not around when our ancestors were on the earth. We were not around when our parents were born. And following genetic traits, offspring and ancestry can not only be time-consuming but possibly misleading, depending on circumstances.

 

[YoursTrue]

The universe that we live in looks to be exactly that universe. There is no evidence of a god . No one can find any process that needs a god.

What on earth makes you think that the universe needs a God?

That's your viewpoint, and, of course, the idea of many others.

 

[YoursTrue]

The universe that we live in looks to be exactly that universe. There is no evidence of a god . No one can find any process that needs a god.

What on earth makes you think that the universe needs a God?

So you think it's possible that 'life' on earth came about by a mineral flying in from outer space, or bubbling up from a hot water spring or something like that in the earth, right? Kind of "just like that..." No intelligent force necessary, right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's your viewpoint, and, of course, the idea of many others.

No It is not my viewpoint. Please do not belittle the views of people that are supported by evidence.

If you want to claim that there is a need for a god the burden of proof is upon you. All I need to do is to state the obvious. That no one can find anything that a god appears to be needed for.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you think it's possible that 'life' on earth came about by a mineral flying in from outer space, or bubbling up from a hot water spring or something like that in the earth, right? Kind of "just like that..." No intelligent force necessary, right?

Do you know what a strawman argument is?

By the way, there is a rule that I have. When you move the goalposts you have conceded a former argument. You have not moved the goalposts to abiogenesis. That is an admission that evolution is a fact.

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you know what a strawman argument is?

By the way, there is a rule that I have. When you move the goalposts you have conceded a former argument. You have not moved the goalposts to abiogenesis. That is an admission that evolution is a fact.

Clearly you can go by your rules. Abiogenesis is integral to the theory of evolution. If you cannot/will not offer an explanation because those are not your rules but consider the making of the first, second, or third molecule on earth to be a product of that which just "happened" by chance, and yes, by now I realize I'm not playing by your rules, thanks for helping in this regard. The idea that life just evolved (yes, just evolved) from a molecule or element springing up from somewhere without any creative ability from a superior intelligent force (superior to yours anyway) is something you don't want to agree to, is that right? Sorry, but your rules are not my rules.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Clearly you can go by your rules. Abiogenesis is integral to the theory of evolution. If you cannot/will not offer an explanation because those are not your rules but consider the making of the first, second, or third molecule on earth to be a product of that which just "happened" by chance, and yes, by now I realize I'm not playing by your rules, thanks for helping in this regard. The idea that life just evolved (yes, just evolved) from a molecule or element springing up from somewhere without any creative ability from a superior intelligent force (superior to yours anyway) is something you don't want to agree to, is that right? Sorry, but your rules are not my rules.

What makes you think that abiogenesis is integral to evolution?

You need to explain that. As to their being an abiogenesis event on the Earth even the Bible agrees with that.

 

[YoursTrue]

P.S. Your idea of strawman

What makes you think that abiogenesis is integral to evolution?

You need to explain that. As to their being an abiogenesis event on the Earth even the Bible agrees with that.

You can explain what you want. lol, there you go with the bible again. Completely misunderstanding. At this point if you can't figure how abiogenesis is essential, integral to the theory of -- one cell burgeoning out to become the various clades, please, have a good day.

 

[YoursTrue]

What makes you think that abiogenesis is integral to evolution?

You need to explain that. As to their being an abiogenesis event on the Earth even the Bible agrees with that.

What makes you think abiogenesis is not integral to the theory of what is supposedly evolution sans a superior intelligent force? Anyway -- you and a couple of others have been helpful. Take care.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What makes you think abiogenesis is not integral to the theory of what is supposedly evolution sans a superior intelligent force? Anyway -- you and a couple of others have been helpful. Take care.

Evolution only discusses to life after it exists. How it got here is besides the point. Yes, the most logical and best supported concept on where the first life came from is abiogenesis. But even if there were other sources for the firs life we know that evolution occurred after that.;

The first life could have arisen naturally. There is evidence for that. Life could have been planted here by aliens somehow. That is extremely unlikely and there is no evidence for that, but do we do know that life can exist in this universe. Or a God could have magically poofed the first life into existence. This has to be the least likely source of the three since there is no evidence for even the existence of a god.