Intelligent design and Science

[fiicere]

fiicere:



Personally, I would say "inadmissable as a theory" in science counts as "unscientific". I agree with your point about physical laws, excepting supposed miracles and the like.

Oops. Sorry. Really bad phrasing. Let me correct. I meant to say "anti-scientific" rather than unscientific

Isn't your argument just an argument from ignorance? "I can't think how it happened, so I'll assume God did it."

No. You're assuming that "God did it" is any less valid an assumption than "random chance did it" or "physics did it."

The problem is that I can only think of two alternatives. God did it, or science did it. (you can, of course, claim aliens or some such did it, but that merely removes the problem by 1 time step). And while there is tons of evidence against science being able to do it (the whole basis for the anthropic principle), that leaves God. And, so far as I know, you have absolutely NO evidence AGAINST the theory that God did it. So, as a logical being, I must conclude that that is the more likely theory, until some evidence is proposed to the contrary.

BTW, the anthropic principle is not merely limited to biology. Physics also shows remarkable coincidence in that if nearly anything changed, our whole universe as we know it could not exist. A lot of people have said something along the lines of "but then we would have had life, just not life that looked like us" but those are the people who don't really understand the anthropic principle. If, for example, the cosmological constant were different by one part in a hundred trillion, there'd be no stars or planets, but instead fine dust of a density of about one molecule per half-light-year cubed.

What's your positive evidence that God did it?

I believe God exists and human souls exist. If you want evidence, read this: http://www.4shared.com/account/dir/18296364/49f11f08/sharing.html?rnd=96 (usename:fiicere@yahoo.com, pword: free)

But I could resort to something simpler. In all my life, I have had positive evidence affirming my ability to make choices. I have never once had an experience which implied I was not in full control of my actions. Science says that I do not, in fact, have control, but my actions are predetermined. Therefore, either I (and all my evidence) are wrong, or science (having been incorrectly extrapolated) is. I tend to believe the evidence, rather than the vague assertion (which cannot be proven) that ALL things follow certain physical laws.

Which creationist arguments do you think are viable? Can you give a few examples?

Have you been sleeping on me? I just named the one creationist argument which I felt had any right to be taught in SCIENCE classrooms. The anthropic principle. Namely because, it's rigorous and falsifiable on a scientific level and according to the secular humanist method of evaluation. Please read this for more info:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

A lot of objects are not created through evolution - most of them, I'd say. So in that sense most things are irreducibly complex, by your definition. I suspect, however, that you're referring to forms of life that can't be created through evolution. I don't know of any of those. Do you?

The first organism to exist can't have been created through evolution. Nor by any other scientific process currently known to man.

You seem to be taking a teleological view of the process of evolution or abiogenesis - that is, assuming that these processes have an "end goal" in mind as they occur. For example, you assume that amino acids exist in order to have a "function" in proteins or whatever. If they don't have a clear function, you think, then what are they doing? Nothing useful. Nothing functional. So, we can probably just ignore any processes that might be going on, until some "function" comes along. Then, suddenly, we have a "functional", "irreducibly complex" thing. Never mind that the supposedly IC thing came about by processes that appeared to have no function at the time; let's assume from the start that such a thing could never occur. Because how could something functional arise from something with no function?

What are you getting at? There are lots of ways something functional could arise from something with no function. My microwave, for example, is made of smaller parts which do things (the door, the extension cord, and the microwave generator all do things). However, at a smaller level, it is made of steel and plastic and glass, all purposeless components. My point is that the microwave could either have been built by a rational being for a purpose, or could have been assembled randomly.

I thought they tried to reproduce conditions that would have existed prior to the emergence of life, and put the chemicals in that would have been around then.

They did. Scientists have since found evidence (although no proof) that the atmosphere was different. Miller-Urey also interfered with the experiment by not letting it run to completion. Some of the by-products of the reaction they used are heavily favored to react with amino acids, thereby rendering them inert, which is kind of a huge problem. Finally, the "organic compounds" produced by the experiment were cyanide and formaldehyde, which are two of the most toxic substances in existence and almost certainly would have prevented the formation of early cells.

I don't see how. You've just created millions and millions of possibilities for self-replicating molecules to arise, as far as I can see.

No, I didn't. I'm saying that it is physically impossible for there to have been more than 10^120 distinct protein combinations in the history of the universe. In contrast, at the least 1 out of every 10^26,000 protein combinations will yield life.

I wouldn't expect the earliest life forms to look anything like the lifeforms that exist today. Would you? As life got more complex, a lot of the simplest lifeform precursors would have become food for the more complex forms.

My friend, I think you need to take a biology class. 200 proteins in a cell is absurd. The simplest cells today have a few tens of thousands of proteins. Why do you keep pressing me when I'm trying to be generous? Saying a simple cell has 200 proteins is the approximate equivalent of estimating 2000 grains of sand on a beach.

In any case, I still don't see how the fact that we have an unsolved scientific problem means we default to a position of "God must have done it." Why is God the default?

He's not default. He's another possibility. If you'd care to come up with a third possibility for me to consider, be my guest.

But you're starting with a false assumption. "unsolved SCIENTIFIC problem." Would you mind explaining to me why the creation of life (or anything else for that matter) is a "scientific" problem.

Unfortunately, that's the problem with modern science. They make the unspoken claim that everything is scientific, which is a huge assumption. If we aren't hypocrites and follow our own rules, we should realize that science cannot justify itself. Just because something has always followed a certain set of rules doesn't mean it always will, and just because some objects follow certain laws of physics doesn't mean that other objects do too. I see no reason why, just because our current laws of physics and chemistry explain a lot of things, it stands to reason that they explain everything. So tell me, what makes you so sure that we will ever find a "scientific" explanation for the existence of life and the existence of the universe?

 

[James R]

fiicere:

Isn't your argument just an argument from ignorance? "I can't think how it happened, so I'll assume God did it."

No. You're assuming that "God did it" is any less valid an assumption than "random chance did it" or "physics did it."

I'm actually not making any assumptions about how life started. I'm content to admit that this is an unsolved problem right now. I agree with you that pure "random chance" couldn't have done it, but I've already made the point that the laws of physics and chemistry do not permit all possibilities, so pure randomness is ruled out from the start.

I like to think that the origin of life is a problem that science can solve. If you believe that a miracle is required, then you're certainly no longer doing science. "God did it" is certainly not a scientific explanation, since it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. It also doesn't tell us anything very useful, because an omnipotent supernatural being can presumably do anything he wants. If we answered every problem in nature with "It is that way because God wants it that way", then we'd never find out anything useful about the world.

And while there is tons of evidence against science being able to do it (the whole basis for the anthropic principle), that leaves God.

You haven't convinced me that there is tons of evidence against a scientific explanation. The anthropic principle comes in two flavours, strong and weak. What you are espousing is the strong anthropic principle: that there must be design in order to account for the apparent fine-tuning in the emergence of life and in the physical constants that govern the universe. The weak anthropic principle, on the other hand, requires no such design. It simply says that if the factors has been different from what they are, then we wouldn't be here to observe our universe. No God required.

It is an assumption on your part that things like the constants of nature have been fine-tuned by a deity. It could well be the case that those constants are constrained to have the values they have by at-present-unknown physical laws of nature that have nothing to do with God.

And, so far as I know, you have absolutely NO evidence AGAINST the theory that God did it.

No such evidence is possible, as far as I can see. God is unfalsifiable. You can reduce any part of science to God if you want to:

Why do objects fall to earth when dropped?
Gravity (see Newton, Einstein etc.)
Why does gravity exist?
God did it.

I can't think of any conceivable piece of evidence that would negate the "God did it" hypothesis. But nor can I see any need to invoke such a hypothesis to account for something like the force of gravity.

I should mention also that I have no evidence that a pink and yellow spotted unicorn did not create the first life forms, either, so presumably you'll also have to consider that hypothesis now.

If, for example, the cosmological constant were different by one part in a hundred trillion, there'd be no stars or planets, but instead fine dust of a density of about one molecule per half-light-year cubed.

As I said, though, we can't say that we won't find that there are constraints on the possible values of the cosmological constant that are entirely explainable by an appropriate scientific physical theory.

I believe God exists and human souls exist. If you want evidence, read this...

I will take a look when I have more time.

But I could resort to something simpler. In all my life, I have had positive evidence affirming my ability to make choices. I have never once had an experience which implied I was not in full control of my actions. Science says that I do not, in fact, have control, but my actions are predetermined.

I'm not sure that that is what science says. It is one idea. Besides, your perception that you have full control might turn out to be an illusion.

I tend to believe the evidence, rather than the vague assertion (which cannot be proven) that ALL things follow certain physical laws.

There's no scientific evidence, as far as I am aware, of anything that does not follow physical laws.

The anthropic principle. Namely because, it's rigorous and falsifiable on a scientific level and according to the secular humanist method of evaluation.

I don't think it is falsifiable. What kind of information could falsify it?

The first organism to exist can't have been created through evolution.

I'm not so sure about that.

Nor by any other scientific process currently known to man.

That's true, but then again it is ok not to know everything now. There was a time when nuclear fission couldn't be done by any scientific process known to man, but that doesn't mean that nuclear fission is impossible, does it?

My point is that the microwave could either have been built by a rational being for a purpose, or could have been assembled randomly.

My point is that if you have the body of a microwave oven and a door to a microwave oven, they can only really fit together in a limited number of ways. There are restrictions on the extent to which the two parts can be "randomly" assembled, due to the very nature of the parts themselves.

They did. Scientists have since found evidence (although no proof) that the atmosphere was different. Miller-Urey also interfered with the experiment by not letting it run to completion. Some of the by-products of the reaction they used are heavily favored to react with amino acids, thereby rendering them inert, which is kind of a huge problem. Finally, the "organic compounds" produced by the experiment were cyanide and formaldehyde, which are two of the most toxic substances in existence and almost certainly would have prevented the formation of early cells.

At best, you've established that the Miller-Urey experiment had problems. You still have a way to go to show that life could not have arisen without God.

No, I didn't. I'm saying that it is physically impossible for there to have been more than 10^120 distinct protein combinations in the history of the universe. In contrast, at the least 1 out of every 10^26,000 protein combinations will yield life.

My friend, I think you need to take a biology class. 200 proteins in a cell is absurd. The simplest cells today have a few tens of thousands of proteins. Why do you keep pressing me when I'm trying to be generous? Saying a simple cell has 200 proteins is the approximate equivalent of estimating 2000 grains of sand on a beach.

I admit that I'm not a molecular biologist. I assume that you are, so I will defer to your greater expertise. Nevertheless, I have a hunch that there are other molecular biologists out there who disagree with your analysis.

But you're starting with a false assumption. "unsolved SCIENTIFIC problem." Would you mind explaining to me why the creation of life (or anything else for that matter) is a "scientific" problem.

"creation" is a loaded word; let's try "origin" instead.

Science has always been concerned with explanations of origins. How did the Earth come to orbit the Sun? Where does rain come from? How did human beings come to exist on Earth?

Why do you think that the origin of life is any different, such that it should not be a valid scientific question?

Unfortunately, that's the problem with modern science. They make the unspoken claim that everything is scientific, which is a huge assumption.

As far as I can see, you can't do science without assuming that nature is amenable to the processes of analysis by human reason. And so far, making that assumption has proven to be amazingly fruitful, wouldn't you say? Just look at the history of scientific progress. If everybody had answered every question with "God did it" and turned off their curiosity at that point, then where would we be?

If we aren't hypocrites and follow our own rules, we should realize that science cannot justify itself. Just because something has always followed a certain set of rules doesn't mean it always will, and just because some objects follow certain laws of physics doesn't mean that other objects do too.

You're talking about the very assumption of "lawfulness" in nature here. Of course it is possible that miracles occur all the time, breaking the laws of physics every day. And yet, strangely, no really convincing examples of miracles are ever recorded.

I see no reason why, just because our current laws of physics and chemistry explain a lot of things, it stands to reason that they explain everything. So tell me, what makes you so sure that we will ever find a "scientific" explanation for the existence of life and the existence of the universe?

I'd say there are signs that we're already well on our way to explaining both of those things. The fact that we've already come so far suggests to me that going the rest of the way is likely to happen sooner or later.

Regarding life: there was a time when we didn't know about the mechanisms of heredity, a time when we didn't know cells existed, a time when we didn't know how babies are made. We have come to understand all of these things in some depth. We seem to have a good handle on how life evolved from the earliest organisms. It seems like a relatively small step to explaining how the first organisms arose.

Regarding the universe: there was a time when we didn't know the universe was expanding, when we didn't know how the solar system formed, when we didn't know what powered the stars. We have come to understand all of these things in some depth. We seem to have a good handle on how the universe evolved from its earliest form to what we see today. It seems a relatively small step to explaining how it all began in the first place.

New insights and theories will be required to solve both unsolved problems, but I see no reason to fear that they are unsolvable as scientific problems.

 

[iceaura]

The first organism to exist can't have been created through evolution.

That's false. Darwinian evolution is capable of generating arbitrary complexity from inorganic substrates, even from transistor settings in a computer, under fairly common and quite possible (at the time) circumstances.

Tip: drop the "first" descriptor, if discussing evolution. The most likely history is that there was no "first organism to exist", in Darwinian theory- assuming there was is almost assuming the consequent of the creationist argument (one reason the ID people so often slip into that language).

 

[swarm]

In philosophy/theology classes?

Its a waste of time there as well.

The problem with the former is that Miller-Urey experiments actually use both an inaccurate atmospheric composition, AND an improper scientific procedure.

There as been significant advances in this since the 1950s. In particular its been redone with current estimations of the early atmosphere and they've also shown amino acid and peptide production from the conditions at fumaroles and from impact events. They've also made significant gains on self organizing films. The first experiment is often rough but there is now more than sufficient evidence that they had the right idea.

Furthermore, the second idea fails due to the sheer statistical impossibility of creating even the simplest life form from irreducibly complex parts (amino acids, say).

So the absurd idea "god" is more probable than something merely improbable? Yes you are deluded.

A little lesson in statistics. The odds against me typing exactly this string: 17427289765471287682398745761235479064371078236471236540978456 are astronomical, and yet I just did. Does that mean god did it?

Play close attention: it doesn't matter how unlikely something which actually happened was, it still happened.

Also none of the parts are irreducibly complex, the eye, for example, has myriads of intermediates still around to show how it developed. The rotor proteins have been shown to have been assembled out of components already present in bacteria which don't use flagella. Your ignorance and inability to understand is not proof of god.

So now brush it all aside with some deluded absurd claim.

 

[swarm]

The odds of randomly assembling, say, a protein system from its constituient amino acids?

Take the volume of the earth's hydrosphere and the size of of the protein and unlimited reaction time. No what were those odds again?

In the flash of a second we can turn raw atmosphere into brown goop full of complex peptides. What are the odds? Who cares? It isn't necessary to "assemble" anything. Smash comets into an active planet for a few 100 million years and you get life.

 

[swarm]

It did. On earth at least.

No it starts with amino acids, which form all over the place, even in deep space. Add energy and liquid water and you get peptides. Peptides beget proteins. Films of hydrocarbons collect this goop.

But of course magic sky fairies did it by harvesting unicorn poop and farting rainbows.

 

[swarm]

You say creationist front in such a... hostile way. Just because they're creationists doesn't mean they have NO viable arguments.

Just because have NO viable arguments and are dragging the whole of humanity down?

 

[fiicere]

Its a waste of time there as well.

What, because you say it is?
Some of us like to have a well-rounded knowledge base and to be familiar with ALL the arguments, not just the ones we agree with.

There as been significant advances in this since the 1950s. In particular its been redone with current estimations of the early atmosphere and they've also shown amino acid and peptide production from the conditions at fumaroles and from impact events. They've also made significant gains on self organizing films. The first experiment is often rough but there is now more than sufficient evidence that they had the right idea.

Indeed, I have done an experiment which gave me amino acids in a lab (modified version of the MU experiment). I can also tell you that we had to take a great many steps to prevent, say, the amino acids from bonding to reactional byproducts.

So the absurd idea "god" is more probable than something merely improbable? Yes you are deluded.

A little lesson in statistics. The odds against me typing exactly this string: 17427289765471287682398745761235479064371078236471236540978456 are astronomical, and yet I just did. Does that mean god did it?

Only if that number had a special significance to distinguish it from all the others. If you typed something on the keyboard, and I could run it functionally in Java, or Python, or even in English, and it made sense, I would be forced to concede that the letters did NOT in fact appear randomly.

Play close attention: it doesn't matter how unlikely something which actually happened was, it still happened.

Obviously. So therefore it must have happened randomly? Where did you come by that conclusion?

For example, I'm reading your "response" (If one can actually call it that, you clearly have not been reading my arguments). I can either conclude that you thought up your statement and typed it up, or I can conclude that a computer malfunctioned somewhere, generating a random string of data which was randomly posted in this forum. I concluded the first scenario BECAUSE the second was so unlikely as to be ruled out in favor of a more probable hypothesis. For example, if I were playing poker and the dealer dealt himself a straight flush 20 times consecutively, I would (obviously) not question whether the straight flush was played 20 times in a row. I would, however, question whether he dealt the cards randomly in favor of the much more likely theory that he is cheating.

Your problem is you pre-suppose that ONLY a random event could create life. In that case, yes, something extremely unlikely occured. But if there is an alternate theory... Well, anyone with any physics background would tell you that 10^-100 equals zero for all intents and purposes. Let alone 10^-20000

Also none of the parts are irreducibly complex, the eye, for example, has myriads of intermediates still around to show how it developed. The rotor proteins have been shown to have been assembled out of components already present in bacteria which don't use flagella. Your ignorance and inability to understand is not proof of god.

How old are you? Because I'm sure I was competent in Reading Comprehension (stress the comprehension part) before I was 10. If you'll notice, I specifically referenced the eye as being something which was part of a FLAWED argument for IC. Allow me to quote:

Traditionally speaking, it's been used in the weak creationist argument that certain organs could not have evolved from anything simpler because those simpler things would have served no purpose. Like having half an eye is useless. But that's a stupid argument.

 

[swarm]

What, because you say it is?

Because it is waste of ink which contributes nothing to either philosophy or theology.

Some of us like to have a well-rounded knowledge base

And then there are people like you who will believe any old crap as long as you think its magic sky fairy approved.

I can also tell you that we had to take a great many steps to prevent, say, the amino acids from bonding to reactional byproducts.

Only if you are trying to optimize production. If you have an entire planet and essentially limitless resources and tiem, you can afford to be as inefficient as you care to be and still produce tons and tons of peptides to make proteins from.

Only if that number had a special significance to distinguish it from all the others.

It needs no significance. Just what are the odds I would type that exact number? You can figure that out yes?

So therefore it must have happened randomly?

You sure love the word "randomly." Is it scary?

Raaandomlyyy....Are you scared yet?

Your problem is you pre-suppose that ONLY a random

No I don't...Raaandooommm!!! Oooooo!!!

How old are you?

Older than you, student. In fact my younger sister's kids are older than you, so show some respect.

If you don't behave I'll say Random again.

1) creationists believe the universe was created (and therefore not random)

For being at MIT you sure have trouble with simple sentences...try again:

I hate to break it to you but the religious are the only people I ever hear the word random from in this context. Evolution is random, creation is random, blah, blah, blah.

2) scientists believe it was ultimately random

Nope. Are you sure you want to try and become a physicist?

We do not know how probable or improbable the formation of a cell is.

But we are finding evidence that every place in the solar system remotely able to sustain life seems to have evidence it did or does.

the laws of physics and chemistry do not permit all possibilities, so pure randomness is ruled out from the start.

Read an interesting article that seem to have evidence that the various radiations the early earth was exposed to favor levo organic chemistry.

Probably should have book marked it...if I bump into it again I'll post it up

 

[fiicere]

That's false. Darwinian evolution is capable of generating arbitrary complexity from inorganic substrates, even from transistor settings in a computer, under fairly common and quite possible (at the time) circumstances.

Tip: drop the "first" descriptor, if discussing evolution. The most likely history is that there was no "first organism to exist", in Darwinian theory- assuming there was is almost assuming the consequent of the creationist argument (one reason the ID people so often slip into that language).

Ummm. Are you saying there was no first organism to exist? Because we know for sure that there was a point in time that there were no organisms on earth, so either there was a first to exist, or several spontaneously appeared.

Oh, and I completely agree that evolution of the first cell from a replicating molecule is infinitely more probable than the random formation of the first cell. However, there still remain huge holes in the theory.

I'm actually not making any assumptions about how life started. I'm content to admit that this is an unsolved problem right now. I agree with you that pure "random chance" couldn't have done it, but I've already made the point that the laws of physics and chemistry do not permit all possibilities, so pure randomness is ruled out from the start.

Actually, any amino acid can bond to any other. So while not all possibilities of bonding of molecules is possible, all possible sequences of amino acids theoretically are.

I like to think that the origin of life is a problem that science can solve. If you believe that a miracle is required, then you're certainly no longer doing science. "God did it" is certainly not a scientific explanation, since it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. It also doesn't tell us anything very useful, because an omnipotent supernatural being can presumably do anything he wants. If we answered every problem in nature with "It is that way because God wants it that way", then we'd never find out anything useful about the world.

Excellent. Take note everyone. Finally someone who realizes that there is more than one method of evaluation of various theories. Incidentially, this is the only argument for which I have no ready counter. Well, actually I do, but that leads us into another deadlock (I argue that life is not scientifically explainable, and you say that it is and we just haven't found it yet). I'll return to this in a bit.

You haven't convinced me that there is tons of evidence against a scientific explanation. The anthropic principle comes in two flavours, strong and weak. What you are espousing is the strong anthropic principle: that there must be design in order to account for the apparent fine-tuning in the emergence of life and in the physical constants that govern the universe. The weak anthropic principle, on the other hand, requires no such design. It simply says that if the factors has been different from what they are, then we wouldn't be here to observe our universe. No God required.

Ah. My argument revolves around the existence of two possibilities: God and Science. It should be obvious that we have by now left the realm of science, namely because science cannot explain things that are not of this universe. Essentially, the argument goes as follows: Consider a poker game. The dealer has just dealt himself a royal flush, for the hundredth time in a row. There are two possibilities: He is either really lucky, or he is cheating. Nobody doubts that getting 100 royal flushes is unlikely, or that it did in fact occur. Yet him cheating is a far more reasonable response.

Namely speaking, the weak anthropic principle is merely the strong anthropic principle for people who refuse to follow that line to it's logical conclusion. They refuse to state outright that cheating is far more likely than an honest dealing of the cards.

It is an assumption on your part that things like the constants of nature have been fine-tuned by a deity. It could well be the case that those constants are constrained to have the values they have by at-present-unknown physical laws of nature that have nothing to do with God.

In this case, I'm going to say that science will never find answers because it's out of it's arena. Essentially, if I ask "why" enough times, you're going to have to eventually respond "that's just the way it is, and further experimentation is impossible." It's the reason I believe that secular humanism and philosophy deserve equal ground: because they cannot really eclipse each other.

No such evidence is possible, as far as I can see. God is unfalsifiable. You can reduce any part of science to God if you want to:

...


I can't think of any conceivable piece of evidence that would negate the "God did it" hypothesis. But nor can I see any need to invoke such a hypothesis to account for something like the force of gravity.

I should mention also that I have no evidence that a pink and yellow spotted unicorn did not create the first life forms, either, so presumably you'll also have to consider that hypothesis now.

Finally! You have no idea how long I was waiting for this. I must admit something: I've been dishonest. Personally, I don't think God's existence can ever be scientifically verified, because, if he interacts with the universe, it will either happen by physical law, or in the event of miracles. And, even if we saw a miracle, we couldn't prove that it wasn't just an unexplained branch of physics.

In my defense, I will say that this was my way of getting people to admit of their own volition that standards other than the purely scientific must be taken into account when talking about God. All I can say is, depending on how amenable one is to new ideas in the first place, one will find my argument either convincing or a connecting of the dots. What one sees as a miracle, another might see as an unexplained phenomena. It looks rather pretty, but is hardly proof. I think it's the best we'll be able to do here though.

I'm not sure that that is what science says. It is one idea. Besides, your perception that you have full control might turn out to be an illusion.

I have no evidence to believe that.

There's no scientific evidence, as far as I am aware, of anything that does not follow physical laws.

No scientific evidence that everything does follow physical laws either. But, if you've been reading my points (and given the intelligence of your responses, you probably have), you'll realize that we've hit another of those areas where many atheists assume anything which cannot be shown to follow physical laws is merely explained, and many religious folk assume that any such thing is a miracle.

I don't think it is falsifiable. What kind of information could falsify it?

Only science demands falsifiable theories. And, as I have just demonstrated, scientific criteria do not apply to everything.

My point is that if you have the body of a microwave oven and a door to a microwave oven, they can only really fit together in a limited number of ways. There are restrictions on the extent to which the two parts can be "randomly" assembled, due to the very nature of the parts themselves.

1) all amino acids can bond to all other amino acids. Any further complications (molecule orientation, for example), I gave to you as a given. I ASSUMED that they'd orient in the correct way when I did my calculations, for example. Essentially, I took all restrictions of the nature you mention into account.
2) I actually resolved all the restrictions you mentioned in your favor. If 2 amino acids hit at the wrong orientation, for example, no reaction would occur, yet I assumed that they would react once every microsecond, which is already an absurdly fast rate of reaction.

As far as I can see, you can't do science without assuming that nature is amenable to the processes of analysis by human reason. And so far, making that assumption has proven to be amazingly fruitful, wouldn't you say? Just look at the history of scientific progress. If everybody had answered every question with "God did it" and turned off their curiosity at that point, then where would we be?

Excellent question. I in no way implied (or, I did not mean to imply) that we stop looking. Consider a chess game by world champion Garry Kasparov. Just because we know that every move was made "because he did it" doesn't mean there was no rationale or implication of that move. Similarly, we should consider to pursue knowledge of science because the question of whether God or random chance first created the air is of no importance when developing an airplane wing.

You're talking about the very assumption of "lawfulness" in nature here. Of course it is possible that miracles occur all the time, breaking the laws of physics every day. And yet, strangely, no really convincing examples of miracles are ever recorded.

Which is why I don't believe miracles occur every day. Despite what you may think, I consider myself to be a scientist (although many would disagree as I have not yet gotten the degree I'm currently working on, and am therefore still a student). Actually, I don't believe at all in blind faith, and believe in faith only when backed by evidence.

The last statement, however, is incorrect. The bible is first-class historical record of miracles. But even today, every year the Catholic church reports 500 (or a thousand, I can't remember the exact number) cases of demon-possession and [attempted] exorcism. One of the criteria for reporting a demon possession is the subject's speaking in languages he had no prior knowledge of. The reason you've most likely never heard of this? Since so many people now believe blindly that the supernatural is mere fiction, the Church has taken to doing exorcisms in private so as to not invite ridicule. Personally, I have no experience in the matter, so I will make no claim either way as to the validity of the alleged "exorcisms." Personally, I'm skeptical and will be until I witness one. I merely bring it up to show that, despite what many people think they know, there are still a good many things which people take for granted that are simply not true.

Thanks for a good discussion-
Fiicere

 

[Cris]

fiicere,

The bible is first-class historical record of miracles.

During the research on Q it is estimated that the Jesus miracle myths were created soon after the early development of Christianity to aid with credibility of Jesus as a god. No gods were considered at that time as valid unless they performed miracles and the early Jesus stories did not have them. It is estimated that the miracle myths were created around 50CE and were eventually incorporated into the first gospel, Mark, around 80CE.

 

[swarm]

Oh, and I completely agree that evolution of the first cell from a replicating molecule is infinitely more probable than the random formation of the first cell.

While it certainly didn't actually work that way, the spontaneous formation of a cell is infinitely more probable than the spontaneous formation of a god.

There is no statistical objection you can raise against the scientific explanations which doesn't go in spades against your "god did it" theory.

 

[swarm]

They refuse to state outright that cheating is far more likely ...

So you think your god is a cheat.

I must admit something: I've been dishonest.

Like we can't tell.

 

[fiicere]

fiicere,

During the research on Q it is estimated that the Jesus miracle myths were created soon after the early development of Christianity to aid with credibility of Jesus as a god. No gods were considered at that time as valid unless they performed miracles and the early Jesus stories did not have them. It is estimated that the miracle myths were created around 50CE and were eventually incorporated into the first gospel, Mark, around 80CE.

Excellent. At least someone realizes that the bible (most likely) existed before 100 AD.

If you have any sources for this data, please post them. I'd be very interested in taking a look.

I'm reluctant to say too much about this until I see the evidence, but I personally think the witnesses are too reliable to have this made up. For example, the deaths of the twelve and others painfully and under torture would have revealed any changed testimony (Of all the twelve after Judas, only John was not killed painfully for his testimony. According to law at the time, they would have been given the chance to recant before being executed). Furthermore, given the decentralized nature of the church, it would have been impossible to change ALL the testimonies, given that branches spread as far as Rome by the time frame you're talking about. Any attempt to change the gospel's testimony would result in a fractured church, with each territory believing their own separate stories.

Finally, the bible itself makes a response to your claim. Several NT books call for those who witnessed those events to confirm what was written in the books. If this myth, as you say, originated in AD 50, it originated a mere 15-20 years after Jesus' death! There would have been hundreds of Jesus' early followers who would have been able to contest the events put forth by the church. So, who would be tortured and killed for knowingly supporting a falsehood?

 

[Not my puppy]

Alright, alright, I can settle this whole debate right now. The universe was not created and it didn't appear out of nothing either. It has always existed.

Is that pro ID or anti ID?

 

[Cris]

fiicere,

Sure. Try reading "The Lost Gospel" by Burton L Mack. It's the final result of some 300 years research into Christian origins. It doesn't conclude that Jesus didn't exist, although they can't see him being anything like the bible says and they can find virtually nothing to subtantiate all the claims of what he is meant to have said. I.e. the gospels are essentially all myth. The analysis does show how many myths were developed and included in final bible stories.

 

[iceaura]

Ummm. Are you saying there was no first organism to exist?

I am saying that appears to be the best supported hypothesis so far put forth - that life evolved, in Darwinian fashion, from a non-living substrate.

And of course in such a Darwinian evolutionary process there would be no "first" organism - the transitional era would be marked by a whole bunch of stuff that we would be hard put to classify on a "living/nonliving" scale.

Because we know for sure that there was a point in time that there were no organisms on earth, so either there was a first to exist, or several spontaneously appeared.

That simply reveals that you are not familiar with evolutionary theory, or the mechanisms of evolutionary change. That's a pretty big hole in your education.

 

[fiicere]

I am saying that appears to be the best supported hypothesis so far put forth - that life evolved, in Darwinian fashion, from a non-living substrate.

And of course in such a Darwinian evolutionary process there would be no "first" organism - the transitional era would be marked by a whole bunch of stuff that we would be hard put to classify on a "living/nonliving" scale.

That simply reveals that you are not familiar with evolutionary theory, or the mechanisms of evolutionary change. That's a pretty big hole in your education.

OK, the transitional era and the first organism are not mutually exclusive. Hard to define is not the same thing.

You see, lots of people like to pretend evolution is a continuous change, and for the most part it is. However, when you get down to the chemical level, evolution is actually comprised of either mutations or genetic transfers. Or, in this case, a transfer or mutation of organic compounds. These changes actually take place incrementally, and therefore a "first" organism can be established based on the definition of organism.

While, yes, it is hard to classify what is "alive" and what is not, the fact remains that for any definition of "alive" there is only one first organism. Just like the difficulty in knowing when the first human originated is not based on the fact that there was no first human but rather that the term "human" is hard to define. If you give me, for example, a DNA sequence which an organism must have in order to be considered human, it is elementary to find the first human.

Your problem is that you've been arguing based on the assumption that evolution is continuous, whereas it is in fact incremental.

In any case, I was using the definition for life which requires said life to be composed of cells. In other words, whatever it is that was to be considered "alive" must have been surrounded by some kind of membrane. IMO, this is the definitive point as the membrane is what allows evolution to take its course. Self-replicating chemicals, while definitely feasable in a lab, tend to quickly become inert if they're not isolated from other active compounds. That's the primary problem with the current theory. There is no good method currently known which prevents these non-living substrates from reacting with everything in their environment. Simply put, the shelf-life of a replicating chemical in the typical environment of early earth is far too short to allow for any significant number of replications to occur.

 

[fiicere]

Alright, alright, I can settle this whole debate right now. The universe was not created and it didn't appear out of nothing either. It has always existed.

Is that pro ID or anti ID?

It is anti ID, but it is false (according to physicists anyways).

The big bang is hardly ever argued anymore among scientists, just like evolution is hardly ever argued among them anymore (or gravity, for that matter).

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

-=-

Hardly anyone claims the Big Bang came from nothing.