Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Just continuing to demonstrate the point about how easy it is to shoot down creationist arguments. Sometimes all it takes is asking a simple question.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution is the only theologically plausible answer
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Just a quick note that "with intelligent guidance" can be a bit misleading...
It's not that scientists "create" the amino acids. What they create, is an environment. Whatever happens in that environment, is the result of the conditions in that environment.
So Miller and Urey didn't create amino acids.
The environment they set up, created the amino acids.
The critical thinker's mind is open to consideration of evidence and attendant arguments, but not to unjustified belief. You might already know that the moderator in the debate between creationist Ken Ham and humanist Bill Nye on whether creationism is a viable scientific pursuit asked, “What would change your minds?” Nye answered, “Evidence.” Ham answered, “Nothing. I'm a Christian.” Elsewhere, Ham stated, “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."
Only one of these men is closed-minded. Both have a kind of virtual chamber of sorts in the front of their minds that comes between seeing an idea and accepting it into one's collection of beliefs. The critical thinker's evaluates evidence according to the standard rules of inference looking for justification and admits those that pass that justification test. The faith-based thinker rejects evidence as soon as he recognizes that it contradicts his faith-based belief, but accepts whatever he thinks supports it.
You answered, "What possible test could refute creationism?" That wouldn't refute creationism. I can already hear the answers if the chain from simple organic molecules to living cells is ever completed. That doesn't prove that God didn't do it, but it does prove that intelligence is needed, the last clause of which would be incorrect.
Creationism, like all metaphysical claims, can never be shown to be correct or incorrect, since it is unfalsifiable. It makes no prediction that can be tested to distinguish creationism from naturalism.
No, it hasn't. Is that an argument for creationism? If it is, it's an ad ignorantiam fallacy - the kind that want to contend that something is correct because it hasn't been ruled out.
I wrote, "One needs to demonstrate …. that the naturalistic emergence of intelligence is impossible." Same problem, if you're implying that it didn't happen if it hasn't been shown that it did.
Yes, but if it can't be done, then one is unjustified in calling naturalistic explanations incorrect or impossible.
And thanks for the kind words. It's always a pleasure trading posts with you.
That isn't necessary. It's already known to be possible in the weaker sense of the word, i.e., not known to be impossible, which is different from something that it is known can occur. Where's Joan? Is it possible that Joan died? Yes, that's something that it is known can happen. Is it possible she is in heaven? We can't declare it impossible even though that might be the case if no such place exists. These are the strong and weak forms of possible - known that it can happen, and not yet known that it can't happen.
No, you haven't proved that. Of course it's possible (weak sense) and maybe will one day be shown to be possible in the strong sense, or even actual (historical), although my hopes for that aren't high if there is no permanent record of what the earliest life looked like anatomically and physiologically.
**mod edit**
Last edited by a moderator:
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Creating the perfect controlled environment is guiding the process. Tweaking what chemicals to use is further controlling it. And with all that they didn't create anything that could become living.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Let me recommend you read this: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Nope.
You don't understand how science and evidence work.
Seriously, take some courses or something. I mean, why debate about something you know very little about?
No it isn't. That doesn't make any sense. You believe in gravity don't you.
What you think on that subject hardly matters, since your opinion on that isn't important to a Christian. What you really mean is that Christians that have thought it through, don't agree with your limited interpretation and you don't like that.
No it wouldn't and since you didn't bother to support that claim, it can be dismissed as another desperate attempt to assert your opinions into the realm of facts.
It is a fact that there is no evidence to support any conclusion other than the natural. If the supernatural is demonstrated, those that do science or accept it would do what you cannot. Adjust accordingly.
Even great men can be wrong. Those that believe in miracles have no evidence to show anyone that what they claim is a miracle is a miracle.
Is this the basis for for the erroneous creationist claim that science says that everything was created by nothing from nothing? In any event, it is wrong. The theory of evolution does not postulate the origin of life and no one in science and no theory in science is based on something creating itself or creating itself from nothing.
By now, you should know this, but you will keep repeating the erroneous statement just the same.
Quoting out of context is another mainstay of creationist arguments against science.
The quotes come from G. K. Chesterton's book "Orthodoxy". It would have been nice to be shown the courtesy of getting complete information, but I think you just mined quotes from the internet and not from the original source. I suspect you don't really know the source intimately.
Last edited:
Utter nonsense. The intelligent design movement was a mass movement to disguise religion as science to subvert the US Constitution so that religion could be taught in school at taxpayer expense. It has nothing to do with the basis of Christian belief and is unAmerican to boot.
Intelligent design isn't in scripture and conflating the two is ludicrous. We have the same Bible, but I just interpret it better.
That is all you seem to have a desire for. You are very riled up.
Sounds like projection to me. They accept the evidence of the science we are discussing as I do with clarity and honesty. You don't seem to even understand science.
The intelligent design movement isn't the basis of Christian faith and I remain unaware that God has commanded I listen to you on the subject as some sort of authority. Considering the tactics you have used throughout this thread, I can't imagine that as good witness. We have the same Bible, I just have the better interpretation.
I have no doubts about my soul. It seems to me you are just making this post as a passive aggressive attack on the faith of another Christian that doesn't blindly agree with you like some sort of sheep. You are not the Sheppard that I know. He does not need tricks and does not attempt to lead others astray based on what I know.
If we knew everything, we wouldn't need science. But we have learned a lot in the last few hundred years and we do know some things. That you reject them without understanding or serious review doesn't mean we don't know them.
Wishful thinking isn't going to win the race.
Last edited:
I worry about you. Do you think that a Christian should just make empty claims or those based on logical fallacies, obvious misinformation and hubris?
How would a Christian come to such a state?
It wasn't an experiment to create life. That it did not is hardly worthy of the attention you give it through your erroneous claims about it. As a Christian, I think one should avoid straw man arguments. Especially repeated use of them.
There is no claim in science that life accidentally created itself. You know that now, so I'm sure you won't keep repeating that misinformation.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
They attempt to recreate aspects of the early Earth . I don't think that there was any "tweaking" involved. In the case of the Miller Urey experiment the first successful experiment may have used the wrong atmosphere. It was done again several times. They still got amino acids. And yes, they did not get life. So what? That was never the intent of Miller Urey. They were just trying to see if certain molecules present in life that was thought by many to only come from life could come from some other source. They found that it could have come from some other source. We still have creationists trying to deny that today. And then it was found that certain meteorites have amino acids in them too.
Other experiments in abiogenesis were again, not designed to "make life". They were only designed to test to see if other traits of life could arise naturally. And guess what? Those traits did arise naturally. And they have not be able to get life to form totally from nothing. No one has tried to go from scratch. That may never happen. But you should know that events do not need to be repeated to have scientific evidence for it. To have evidence one just needs a testable hypothesis whose tests is based upon the positive predictions of the hypothesis,.
How do you think that one is supposed to test abiogenesis?
Yes, it does. We now know that under certain conditions the building blocks of life can form through natural chemical processes.
If you had any clue about the role of amino acids in living things you wouldn't be making so many erroneous statements.
Is it your position that Christians should avoid learning or using knowledge?
Do you think that if you believe in miracles information theory cannot be true? You are using a computer aren't you?
I'm with you on that. It was just a friendly dig, since getting an honest, well-thought out answer doesn't seem like a likely outcome from some sources.
I've had great success with questioning them too and watching the logical fallacies fly when they bother to answer at all.
It amazes me what people that claim to be morally superior will do in such situations.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Michael Behe is not the best person for you to cite. He accepts the fact that people are the product of evolution. He merely believes that people evolved but "God did it".
His arguments, like those of all creationist arguments that I have ever heard from, have been rather thoroughly refuted. That is why practically no one in the sciences accept them.
We Never Know
No Slack
"He merely believes that people evolved but "God did it"
Some are that way. Even some on here. Its the best of both worlds.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Is it? The problem is the Behe is like so many creationists. He too tries to tell God how he made man, even though he has no evidence for his claims. That is why he lost all respect of his peers. In the sciences making unevidenced claims, and then collaborating with an antiscience organization is rightfully career ending. Worse yet his arguments not only were not supported by evidence. They were all refuted. And he never acknowledged that. At that point he lost all credibility in the scientific world. One can make mistakes in the sciences. In fact if one does not make mistakes one is probably not trying hard enough . The scientists that play it safe rarely make big contributions to science. But when you take it all into consideration, making claims without evidence, collaborating with those that are against science, and then not admitting when he was shown to be wrong means that he is probably beyond redemption. The creationists love him even if he supports evolution because he used to have respect in the scientific community.
And there are Christians with massive respect even in evolution. Ken Miller is the name when it comes to biology textbooks for high school. There is no prejudice against him because he is a Christian . He may have the both of best worlds. He believes in God, but wants to know how God did it. That is far less arrogant than coming to one's own conclusions, ignoring the science, and telling others and God how he did it. The difference is between following the evidence and ignoring it:
https://www.amazon.com/Biology-Kenneth-R-Miller/dp/013036701X
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Sure, but it's not controlling the process.
Whatever happens in there, happens because of the conditions and circumstances.
Meaning that if it happens there, it can happen elsewhere as well.
It means that there are pathways for amino acids to spontaneously form without any need for any intervention.
Compare that to creating a bow for example. Without the bowmaker, there will be no bow, ever.
There are no environments capable of producing bows spontaneously. A bow requires a maker.
But there are environments capable of producing amino acids spontaneously.
An engineer creates the freezer, but not the ice.
The ice instead spontaneously forms due to the environment set up in the freezer.
Controlling the environment, yes.
That wasn't the goal, if you're talking about Miller-Urey (and you have been informed of that at length by others these past pages).
But yes, the origins of life are pretty much unknown at this point. There is a lot of stuff we DO know off course, and we're closer to solving this puzzle then you likely willing to acknowledge or even realize, but there are no conclusive answers at this point.
Not that it matters off course.
Wait, don't tell me you're setting up for a monumental argument from ignorance / incredulity?
That would be so cliché of you.
Astrophile
Active Member
Miller and Urey set up an environment that was intended to reproduce the Earth's primitive atmosphere, not one that was designed to synthesise amino acids. The fact that the experiment produced amino acids implied that they could also have been produced in the Earth's primitive atmosphere.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And definitely disproved the old claim that they could form only in living entities.
The old claim was that only life could naturally form those chemicals. Life did not form those chemicals in their experiment.