[_ Old Earth _] Just curious..

[zeke]

What does this have to do with the theory of evolution, which explains the diversity of life from an unspecified origin?

It has everything to do with the Darwinian worldview preached by evolutionists today which presents the argument that life arose from non-life via random chance as a statement of fact. But that assumption is neither fact or science - it is a statement of religion.

Again - there are only two viable choices to explain the origin of life on this planet - spontaneous generation via naturalism (secular religion) or special creation from the mind of God (theistic religion). The Darwinian view can only accept the former because special creation is anathema to the practitioners of evolutionism.

‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’ ~ Michael Ruse, Darwinist - former professor of philosophy and zoology (University of Guelph)​

 

[zeke]

Why is it 'an absurdity'?

For the obvious reasons...

"Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?"

"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein... I am at a loss to understand biologists' widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious." (Fred Hoyle, English astronomer and mathematician​

No more of an absurdity than life arising due to the direct intervention of a supernatural agent'...

Why is God an absurdity - in your mind?

 

[Barbarian]

Life arising from non-life via naturalism - an absurdity.

God says:

And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

I so I can believe you or I can believe Him. Not much of a choice, really.

It has everything to do with the Darwinian worldview preached by evolutionists today which presents the argument that life arose from non-life via random chance as a statement of fact. But that assumption is neither fact or science

Precisely, it's a creationist strawman. Evolutionary theory makes no predictions about the origin of life. One more faked claim by Zeke.

 

[lordkalvan]

It has everything to do with the Darwinian worldview preached by evolutionists today which presents the argument that life arose from non-life via random chance as a statement of fact.

Again, evolutionary theory per se says nothing about the OOL. Proponents of evolutionary theory such as Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller would clearly disagree with your assertion.

But that assumption is neither fact or science - it is a statement of religion.

Please show that those who propose naturalistic explanations for the OOL necessarily suppose that this was a function of 'blind chance'.

Again - there are only two viable choices to explain the origin of life on this planet - spontaneous generation via naturalism (secular religion) or special creation from the mind of God (theistic religion).

But as you have been shown, spontaneous generation is an outdated hypothesis that was demonstrated to be false in the 19th Century. Also, you have yet to demonstrate that naturalistic explanations for the OOL amount to 'secular religion' and that 'special creation from the mind of God' is the only alternative (Hindus would clearly disagree with you, for example).

The Darwinian view can only accept the former because special creation is anathema to the practitioners of evolutionism.

Insofar as scientists like Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller are proponents of evolutionary theory, your assertion appears to have little merit. Please explain why it is implausible that a supernatural agent could not have set up the conditions in which life could have both developed naturalistically and evolved naturalistically thereafter.

‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’ ~ Michael Ruse, Darwinist - former professor of philosophy and zoology (University of Guelph)​

Michael Ruse is entitled to his opinion - as are you - but that does not make either of you right. Evolution is a simple phenomenon, as demonstrated by quotidian observation; evolutionary theory is the overarching account that explains how and why it occurs, soon this mundane level Ruse is clearly wrong. If evolutionary theory is 'an explicit substitute for Christianity', perhaps Ruse and you can explain why so many Christians also happen to be proponents of evolutionary theory?

 

[lordkalvan]

For the obvious reasons...

"Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?"

"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein... I am at a loss to understand biologists' widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious." (Fred Hoyle, English astronomer and mathematician​

Clearly neither you nor Hoyle are chemists or biologists or you would both understand that neither chemical nor biological processes depend on 'blind forces'. Expressions of personal incredulity, even from eminent astronomers, are not evidential.

Why is God an absurdity - in your mind?

Is God alive?

 

[zeke]

Clearly neither you nor Hoyle are chemists or biologists or you would both understand that neither chemical nor biological processes depend on 'blind forces'. Expressions of personal incredulity, even from eminent astronomers, are not evidential.

Are you a chemist or a biologist? Hoyle was an excellent scientist and he made a very valid point and all you can do is attack his integrity. You're a sad individual. You are not a scientist - right?

What did Dawkins mean when he said the universe offers nothing but "blind pitiless indifference"? Use your noodle for a change.

“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” ― Richard Dawkins​

Is God alive?

You didn't answer my question - why do you think God is an absurdity? Are you afraid to answer?

 

[lordkalvan]

Are you a chemist or a biologist?

No. Are you?

Hoyle was an excellent scientist...

In his field, yes, but this does not make him an unimpeachable authority in either that field or, most certainly, in every other field of science as well.

... and he made a very valid point...

Assertion without evidence, that Hoyle's point is 'very valid.'

...and all you can do is attack his integrity.

Pointing out that Hoyle was neither a biologist nor a chemist and consequenly not necessarily reliable as an authority on the likelihood of biochemical processes leading to a naturalistic origin of life is not an attack on his integrity.

You're a sad individual.

This would seem to be a simple ad hominem and has little bearing on the merits of my arguments. Whether I am sad, happy or something inbetween is irrelevant to whether Hoyle's opinion has any merit in this instance. Richard Dawkins, who is a zoologist and has some direct knowledge and understanding in the field, says that Hoyle's argument is misplaced (see, for example, 'The God Delusion', p. 113). One hundred years ago the simple probabilistic likelihood of you and I being here today and discussing this subject would have been so vanishingly small as to be as near zero as makes no difference, and yet here we are discussing it. Who'd've thought?

You are not a scientist - right?

Well, as most scientists appear to accept evolutionary theory and as most scientists engaged in abiogenesis research would most likely discount Hoyle's opinion, I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Are you a scientist?

What did Dawkins mean when he said the universe offers nothing but "blind pitiless indifference"?

I don't know. Why don't you tell us what you think he meant and use reasoned argument to support your understanding?

Use your noodle for a change.

I think you should consider he beam in your own eye before criticising the mote in others'.

You didn't answer my question - why do you think God is an absurdity? Are you afraid to answer?

Classic projection. For someone who assiduously avoids answering questions asked in the hopes of clarifying your understanding and gleaning some support for your various assertions, claims, opinions and denials, this is rich beyond belief. I asked if you considered God to be alive in order that I could more properly understand your position and thus answer your question in terms appropriate to that position. Do you regard the gods of Ancient Egypt, Classical Greece, Imperial Rome and Hinduism as absurdities, for example?

 

[Barbarian]

Are you a chemist or a biologist?

I'm a biologist, and have a minor in chemistry. Was Fred Hoyle a chemist or a biologist?

Hoyle was an excellent scientist

Was he a chemist or a biologist?

You are not a scientist - right?

I have a graduate degree in science, have worked in academia, industry, and had my own consulting business as well.

What did Dawkins mean when he said the universe offers nothing but "blind pitiless indifference"?

He means the universe offers nothing but blind pitiless indifference. So does a hammer. You've confused the hammer with the Carpenter.

 

[zeke]

Michael Ruse is entitled to his opinion - as are you - but that does not make either of you right. Evolution is a simple phenomenon, as demonstrated by quotidian observation; evolutionary theory is the overarching account that explains how and why it occurs, soon this mundane level Ruse is clearly wrong. If evolutionary theory is 'an explicit substitute for Christianity', perhaps Ruse and you can explain why so many Christians also happen to be proponents of evolutionary theory?

There are some Christians who are proponents of Darwinian naturalism (atheism) - but they are turned that way out of ignorance. Ruse has a valid point - evolution is presented by many of its disciples as a naturalistic ideology that equates to a secular religion. Remember, Ruse is not a Christian - he departed the Christian faith long ago as many TEs end up doing for the obvious reasons.

 

[lordkalvan]

There are some Christians who are proponents of Darwinian naturalism (atheism) - but they are turned that way out of ignorance.

Assertion without any evidence (or obvious merit), that scientists who are Christians and who are proponents of evolutionary theory are ignorant.

Ruse has a valid point - evolution is presented by many of its disciples as a naturalistic ideology that equates to a secular religion.

Opinion is not evidential. Please show these 'many...disciples' who present the phenomenon of evolution 'as a naturalistic ideology that equates to a secular religion'.

Remember, Ruse is not a Christian - he departed the Christian faith long ago as many TEs end up doing for the obvious reasons.

You mean because of the weight of evidence?

 

[Free]

Since things have continued the way they have, this thread is now closed.