[__ Science __ ] WHO IS DEAD? GOD OR DARWIN?

[Vaccine]

I think it speaks perfectly to modern science which cannot answer where life comes and KNOWS that all life seen comes from life, no exceptions.

Excellent point. Science can't go back in time and observe abiogenesis. Abiogenesis isn't science but rather philosophy. But that doesn't stop some scientists from securing funding to espouse their philosophy.

 

[Barbarian]

Well it’s actually a theory in crises as real biology doesn’t support the theory.

When I was young, there were still quite a few predictions of evolutionary theory that were not yet confirmed. Among them:
Transitionals between birds and dinosaurs
Transitionals between humans and other apes
Biochemical evidence showing birds to be close relatives of dinosaurs.
(very long list)
All of these have now been confirmed. This is why almost all biologists accept evolutionary theory, and why many creationists have now become evolutionists.

I think it speaks perfectly to modern science which cannot answer where life comes and KNOWS that all life seen comes from life, no exceptions.

As you have seen, the evidence increasingly shows that God was correct when He said the earth brought forth living things. But of course, that's not part of evolutionary theory, which assumes life began, and describes how it changes over time.

It was highly controlled, a state not available in nature. Superior intelligence had to design it.

Since the Murchison meteorite now shows that amino acids and short proteins for abiotically, Miller-Urey has been confirmed. Again, not part of evolutionary theory, but another fail for creationism.

The origin of life was not random; the evidence shows that this universe was formed in such a way that life is produced by non-living matter. As God says. Why not just accept it His way? It isn't part of evolutionary theory, anyway.

 

[Barbarian]

Excellent point. Science can't go back in time and observe abiogenesis.

The notion that we can't know about anything we didn't directly witness is so faulty that I'm surprised anyone would even suggest it.

As you see, discoveries have increasingly indicated abiogenesis. The new philosophy of YE creationism is threated by these discoveries, even if they don't have anything to do with evolution.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Excellent point. Science can't go back in time and observe abiogenesis. Abiogenesis isn't science but rather philosophy. But that doesn't stop some scientists from securing funding to espouse their philosophy.

If it occurred spontaneously then, it should occur now.

 

[Vaccine]

The notion that we can't know about anything we didn't directly witness is so faulty that I'm surprised anyone would even suggest it.

As you see, discoveries have increasingly indicated abiogenesis. The new philosophy of YE creationism is threated by these discoveries, even if they don't have anything to do with evolution.

It seems we're saying roughly the same thing in different ways. I didn't say we can't know anything, just pointing out there is a difference between knowing and indicating. I agree discoveries about the past indicate things.

You believe abiogenesis is true. There's discoveries indicating that.
I believe abiogenesis isn't true. There's discoveries indicating that.

 

[Vaccine]

God was correct when He said the earth brought forth living things.

I see you keep pointing this verse in Genesis. Since the Earth is a place, how can "the Earth" do anything?

 

[Vaccine]

If it occurred spontaneously then, it should occur now.

Your background is in science, do the people you work with ever actually talk about Darwin's ideas?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Your background is in science, do the people you work with ever actually talk about Darwin's ideas?

About never because it has no real bearing on medicine, no practical value.

 

[TMal3]

Barbarian

We can't read modern ideas back into Scripture whether it's people who see the "Big Bang" in "Let there be light" or abiogenesis in Genesis 1. That is the fallacy of anachronism, and violates basic Hermeneutics 101 principles of biblical interpretation, which is to interpret in the context of the time and understand the passage the way the author meant it and original audience would have understood it, and there is no way they would have thought that Genesis 1 was talking about abiogenesis. They didn't even know about cells or microbes, nor is there any mention of them in Genesis 1. God creates plants, vegetation; birds; sea creatures; and land creatures; and humans. There is no mention about the origin of cells, nor does Genesis 1 show any awareness that such a thing exists. Nor is there mention of any natural process (nor was was there such a thing as "naturalism" in biblical times; our "naturalism" vs "supernaturalism" dichotomy would be completely foreign to them; everything had a supernatural element to it). God creates by His word. What does Genesis 1 say about modern science? Nothing at all. It doesn't speak to those kind of questions.

Genesis 1 must be interpreted in the proper Ancient Near East context of the time, and when we do this we see that Genesis 1 is a theological polemic against Egyptian pagan creation myths.

See, for example, Johnston, Gordon H. "Genesis 1 and Ancient Egyptian creation myths." BIBLIOTHECA SACRA-DALLAS- 165.658 (2008): 178.

Regarding, the science research you cited, it does not confirm abiogenesis like you seem to think. But I don't have time at the moment to explain in detail, so I'll have to revisit this at a later time. In short, and in answer to the question raised by Monod's famous essay: "Chance or Necessity?" It would seem to be neither. Chance 'luck' is an appeal to miracles and rightly rejected by scientists, but scientists are still unable to avoid it. But the case is even worse for "Necessity." We have no evidence of any natural process that leads inevitably to the origin of life (like we do for elements with stellar nucleosynthesis, which we observe occurring throughout the known universe). But again, I'll have to come back to this at a later time, when I have more time to discuss.

I see you have science degrees that include biology. Me too. Biology & Paleontology (with an emphasis in evolutionary biology). I think we will have a lot of fun talking. Until next time then, God bless (and same to everyone else on the forum) ?

 

[TMal3]

About never because it has no real bearing on medicine, no practical value.

You have a science background too? Cool ?

 

[TMal3]

Excellent point. Science can't go back in time and observe abiogenesis. Abiogenesis isn't science but rather philosophy. But that doesn't stop some scientists from securing funding to espouse their philosophy.

Not quite. True, there are underlying philosophical issues in all of this, but origin of life research is legitimate scientific research. (And so far that scientific research does not support abiogenesis ?). But the "can't go back in time and observe" argument is not a good argument (and would invalidate the whole field of forensic science!). We don't have to be there to observe evidence left over from the past and to make inferences from that evidence. And it just so happens that the evidence we do have is not supportive of abiogenesis. Like geochemical evidence, for example, which shows no trace of any "primordial soup" ever existing.

The bigger problem is when scientists forget that abiogenesis remains an empirically unconfirmed hypothesis, and speak as if it's an established scientific fact.

 

[Barbarian]

We can't read modern ideas back into Scripture whether it's people who see the "Big Bang" in "Let there be light" or abiogenesis in Genesis 1. That is the fallacy of anachronism, and violates basic Hermeneutics 101 principles of biblical interpretation, which is to interpret in the context of the time and understand the passage the way the author meant it and original audience would have understood it, and there is no way they would have thought that Genesis 1 was talking about abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis is the idea that life came from non-living material. Which is what God said.

The details are now becoming clear as we learn more about it. You're quite right however. All the Hebrews knew was that God created the Earth and it produced living things. They were aware that man also was from the Earth, but had been directly given a living soul by God.

Regarding, the science research you cited, it does not confirm abiogenesis like you seem to think.

It merely confirms a number of predictions of the theory of abiogenesis. In science that is how hypotheses become theories.

and in answer to the question raised by Monod's famous essay: "Chance or Necessity?" It would seem to be neither.

As St. Thomas Aquinas observed, Divine Providence can happen by contingency or by necessity. I don't see a third alternative. Can you elaborate on that?

We have no evidence of any natural process that leads inevitably to the origin of life

So how do you feel about Michael Denton's thought that the universe was front-loaded to produce life here? Genesis seems to support that notion, since the world, after being created, produced all other things here.

 

[Barbarian]

About never because it has no real bearing on medicine, no practical value.

Sir Alexander Flemming, the discoverer of penicillin, predicted that careless use of the antibiotic would lead to evolution of resistant bacteria. Antibiotic protocols are designed according to evolutionary theory, to delay the evolution of such resistance.

Which seems to me to be a valuable result.

 

[Barbarian]

The bigger problem is when scientists forget that abiogenesis remains an empirically unconfirmed hypothesis, and speak as if it's an established scientific fact.

There are observed facts like gravitation and evolution. There are theories that explain them.

There are also inferred phenomena, (which are not observed facts), like common descent and orogenesis. We accept that they are true, because the evidence for them is overwhelming, but they are not facts in the way that evolution and gravity are facts.

Most of my working life, I was an ergonomist. One company I worked for asked me to learn about fire investigation. It was quite a revelation, learning how much one could find out about the causes of a fire, given the burned-out wreckage of a building. But not observed facts; merely inferences from the evidence. Nevertheless, quite accurate if done correctly.

 

[GodsGrace]

You have a science background too? Cool ?

Barbarian is also a scientist.

 

[Barbarian]

I see you keep pointing this verse in Genesis. Since the Earth is a place, how can "the Earth" do anything?

So you don't believe God when He said it did? I believe Him. You should, too.

 

[Barbarian]

I believe abiogenesis isn't true. There's discoveries indicating that.

What discoveries? No links?

Murchison meteorite shows abiotic amino acids and peptides with excess of L-forms necessary for life:
Extraterrestrial amino acids and L-enantiomeric excesses in the CM2 carbonaceous
chondrites Aguas Zarcas and Murchison

https://science.gsfc.nasa.gov/sed/content/uploadFiles/publication_files/Glavin2020%20AZ.pdf

Abiotic origin of nucleic acids:

Catalytic Synthesis of Polyribonucleic Acid on Prebiotic Rock Glasses​

https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/ast.2022.0027

Evidence for abiotic formation of phospholipid cell membranes:
Abiotic synthesis with plausible emergence for primitive phospholipid in aqueous microdroplets

Abiotic synthesis with plausible emergence for primitive phospholipid in aqueous microdroplets

Phospholipids are the protective layer of modern cells, but it is challenging for the formation of phospholipids that require a simple abiotic synthes…

www.sciencedirect.com

The link below shows why Miller-Urey worked: corrosion of borosilicate glass in the reaction vessel helped to catalyze the reactions. This is consistent with what is known of the early Earth.

Scientists recreated classic origin-of-life experiment and made a new discovery

1952 Miller-Urey experiment showed organic molecules forming from inorganic precursors.

arstechnica.com

 

[Vaccine]

Not quite. True, there are underlying philosophical issues in all of this, but origin of life research is legitimate scientific research. (And so far that scientific research does not support abiogenesis ?). But the "can't go back in time and observe" argument is not a good argument (and would invalidate the whole field of forensic science!). We don't have to be there to observe evidence left over from the past and to make inferences from that evidence. And it just so happens that the evidence we do have is not supportive of abiogenesis. Like geochemical evidence, for example, which shows no trace of any "primordial soup" ever existing.

The bigger problem is when scientists forget that abiogenesis remains an empirically unconfirmed hypothesis, and speak as if it's an established scientific fact.

I agree there are much better arguments, such as the ones you pointed out. Sorry it sounded like I was invalidating science. It was my way of pointing out abiogenesis is an assumption.

 

[Vaccine]

So you don't believe God when He said it did? I believe Him. You should, too.

I believe God created life. You didn't answer the question, how does "the Earth" do anything?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Not quite. True, there are underlying philosophical issues in all of this, but origin of life research is legitimate scientific research. (And so far that scientific research does not support abiogenesis ?). But the "can't go back in time and observe" argument is not a good argument (and would invalidate the whole field of forensic science!). We don't have to be there to observe evidence left over from the past and to make inferences from that evidence. And it just so happens that the evidence we do have is not supportive of abiogenesis. Like geochemical evidence, for example, which shows no trace of any "primordial soup" ever existing.

The likeness to forensic science is not a good one. Abiogenesis assumes a process that never stopped. By definition forensic science never needs to observe the action and it is always finished in the past. Evolutionary process are assumed to be continuing and none of them are supposed to have stopped. So the argument against it as it cannot be observed is completely valid. Evolutionary processes are continuing and never stopped and yet we never see life from non-life.

The bigger problem is when scientists forget that abiogenesis remains an empirically unconfirmed hypothesis, and speak as if it's an established scientific fact.

Well, since we have life and evolution assumes life evolved from non-life it’s not an unconfirmed hypothesis. It’s like saying life is an unconfirmed hypothesis.