Arguments against evolution

[rossum]

OK, if it is possible, do it. Publish the results, post them on this thread.

In fairness then it is up to you to do the same. Get God to create new life and show the evidence to us. You cannot win by default; in science the default position is “we do not know”. If you were able to show that what we have so far of abiogenesis was incorrect then science would default back to “we do not know” and ask creationists to show their positive evidence for God creating new life.

Science has part of the evidence for abiogenesis - we can make amino acids through natural processes for one. Where is the equivalent for the creation of amino acids through non-natural processes?

Do not lay claim that something is possible (or for that matter, impossible) until we have a full understanding of it.

Science does not yet have a full understanding of gravity. Are you going to reject all the partial evidence we have for gravity? As I said science defaults to “we do not know”, it can also work with “we know some of it but not all of it”. Netwon was not completely correct, but we could use his theory of gravity to do a great deal. Einstein’s theory of gravity is still not completely correct, but it covers more ground than Newton’s theory did and so enabled us to do even more. When Einstein’s theory is replaced by a theory of Quantum gravity then we will be able to do yet more.

Christians have partial knowledge - how can a human know the entire mind of God? You don’t even know the name of Seth’s wife. But, even with just partial knowledge you can make useful progress with what knowledge you do have. Science is the same, we often have to work with partial knowledge.

rossum

 

[tjm190]

I grow weary of reading this argument.

OK, if it is possible, do it. Publish the results, post them on this thread.

Do not lay claim that something is possible (or for that matter, impossible) until we have a full understanding of it.

We cannot say how life began. Nor can we duplicate it in a lab.

Is it impossible?
Perhaps. We cannot know.
is it possible? At least at present, NO.

It’s not an argument, it’s a reality you have to deal with if you want to interpret scientific evidence. An initial failure to recreate an event whose environment we do not fully understand does not mean the event never took place. I know for a fact that it is possible for life to be created from inorganic chemicals, and so do those who support intelligent design, they merely make the claim that it is highly improbable.

I was refuting a post that claimed science has shown “it can not happen.” However, science has done no such thing- all science has shown is that we do not at present have the capabilities to do so.

 

[edwest2]

It’s not an argument, it’s a reality you have to deal with if you want to interpret scientific evidence. An initial failure to recreate an event whose environment we do not fully understand does not mean the event never took place. I know for a fact that it is possible for life to be created from inorganic chemicals, and so do those who support intelligent design, they merely make the claim that it is highly improbable.

I was refuting a post that claimed science has shown “it can not happen.” However, science has done no such thing- all science has shown is that we do not at present have the capabilities to do so.

Please show the process for creating life from inorganic chemicals.

Peace,
Ed

 

[vz71]

In fairness then it is up to you to do the same.

No it isn’t.
Reread my post. I am pointing out the obvious, that the simple answer is “We don’t know”
No one can claim creating life in a lab is possible, no one can claim it not.
Anyone wishing to state otherwise should put up the evidence.

Get God to create new life and show the evidence to us.

God creates life at his leisure, not mine.
If you would like to command God to do so, rock on. Let me know how that goes.

You cannot win by default; in science the default position is “we do not know”.

EXACTLY.
So why are people ongoing in their efforts to say it is possible?
If it is, I would like to see this.
So why are people ongoing in their efforts to say it is impossible?
Well, proving the negative should be interesting to watch at least.

If you were able to show that what we have so far of abiogenesis was incorrect then science would default back to “we do not know” and ask creationists to show their positive evidence for God creating new life.

The fact of life at all tells us that something caused it.
Creationists need not show anything as theirs is a faith, not a science.

Science has part of the evidence for abiogenesis - we can make amino acids through natural processes for one. Where is the equivalent for the creation of amino acids through non-natural processes?

Making nails does not prove a house is possible.
The evidence science provides us shows us amino acids being made, nothing more.

Science does not yet have a full understanding of gravity. Are you going to reject all the partial evidence we have for gravity? As I said science defaults to “we do not know”, it can also work with “we know some of it but not all of it”.

Some, but not all means nothing as to the end product.
Sorry, but just because you understand how to build the basic building blocks of life does not mean you will ever achieve the ability to create life.
To believe otherwise is to stress the limits of scientific credibility.

Netwon was not completely correct, but we could use his theory of gravity to do a great deal. Einstein’s theory of gravity is still not completely correct, but it covers more ground than Newton’s theory did and so enabled us to do even more. When Einstein’s theory is replaced by a theory of Quantum gravity then we will be able to do yet more.

For all of the possibilities that can be, the answer is still ‘no’

Christians have partial knowledge - how can a human know the entire mind of God? You don’t even know the name of Seth’s wife. But, even with just partial knowledge you can make useful progress with what knowledge you do have. Science is the same, we often have to work with partial knowledge.

rossum

I do not buy the premise.
Artificially created life is a binary proposition. Either it is, or it is not.

Coming close, or building pieces required for life does not cut it, and does not address the possibility of creating life.

 

[Nec5]

Please show the process for creating life from inorganic chemicals.

This is a critical question. The only answer leading evolutionists offer is that millions of years/heat/electricity/gas will cause the transition from chemicals->life. Until that can be simulated, it is just shot in the dark, yet the fervor with which this theory is defended is decidedly unscientific.

 

[edwest2]

This is a critical question. The only answer leading evolutionists offer is that millions of years/heat/electricity/gas will cause the transition from chemicals->life. Until that can be simulated, it is just shot in the dark, yet the fervor with which this theory is defended is decidedly unscientific.

Let’s look at some current ideas. The earth is formed when dust and gas coalesces into a ball. It is very hot, and takes a long time to cool. Volcanoes are erupting under the cooling crust spewing lava and ash on a regular basis. By blocking out sunlight, the surface cools further, but it still takes a while. In the meantime, some liquid somehow forms. It is filled with volcanic ash. Then inorganic chemicals produce life for no particular reason.

Knowing something for a fact without the formula does show an unscientific mind set. It boils down to a wish that it was true.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Nec5]

Let’s look at some current ideas. The earth is formed when dust and gas coalesces into a ball. It is very hot, and takes a long time to cool. Volcanoes are erupting under the cooling crust spewing lava and ash on a regular basis. By blocking out sunlight, the surface cools further, but it still takes a while. In the meantime, some liquid somehow forms. It is filled with volcanic ash. Then inorganic chemicals produce life for no particular reason.

Knowing something for a fact without the formula does show an unscientific mind set. It boils down to a wish that it was true.

Maybe I worded my post poorly or you read it wrong. I believe I was agreeing with you about the criticism of the chemicals->life idea. They need to observe chemicals becoming life in a lab before it should be taken seriously. I don’t see that happening.

 

[edwest2]

Maybe I worded my post poorly or you read it wrong. I believe I was agreeing with you about the criticism of the chemicals->life idea. They need to observe chemicals becoming life in a lab before it should be taken seriously. I don’t see that happening.

And I was agreeing with you. I was just elaborating on the idea of how the earth supposedly formed and what the conditions theoretically were. I’ve argued against chemicals to life before. It just amazes me that a fact can be declared without knowing how it could’ve happened. That makes it wishful thinking.

Peace,
Ed

 

[theistgal]

Sorry, but as someone who is struggling to retain her fading Catholic faith, threads like this really depress me.

Please, somebody tell me I don’t have to become a scientific ignoramus in order to remain a Catholic …

 

[rossum]

Please, somebody tell me I don’t have to become a scientific ignoramus in order to remain a Catholic …

You do not have to become a scientific ignoramus in order to remain a Catholic.

The Catholic God is large enough to have arranged the universe in such a way that what He wanted to happen would happen. He set the rules of the universe. He set the starting conditions of the universe. Whatever happens in the universe is what He wants to happen.

To quote Saint Thomas Aquinas:The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency"

• Aquinas Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1
  If God wants something to happen then it happens. If He wants is to happen by a miracle then it happens by a miracle. If He wants is to happen by natural laws then it happens by natural laws. If He wants it to happen by chance then it happens by chance.

If He wants it to happen by evolution, as with our physical bodies, then it happens by evolution. If He wants it to happen by direct creation, as with our souls, then it happens by direct creation.

The Catholic Church allows you to accept both God and evolution for your physical body. You have to accept direct creation for your soul, which is easy since evolution can say nothing of souls - they do not fossilise and they do not have DNA.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Reread my post. I am pointing out the obvious, that the simple answer is “We don’t know”

We do not know many of the details I agree, but we do know something.

We know that there was no life on earth 6 billion years ago. We know that there is life on earth now. Therefore we can know that somehow life on earth originated some time in the last 6 billion years.

We know that there are four fundamental forces in the universe: gravity, electromagnetic, strong and weak. We know that there are various particles: photons, electrons, protons, neutrinos etc. We know that there are various chemical elements both in the universe and in living bodies. There is no evidence of anything beyond the four forces, various particles and elements that we have found involved in life. Therefore life must have originated from these things somehow.

We have begun to tease out some of the details of how, and so far we have found no need for anything beyond what was already known to science: known forces, known particles and known elements.

We have advanced beyond the stage of “we do not know” to the stage of “we know some of it, but not all of it yet”. Beware of trying to fit God into a gap that science is working to close, God will have to get smaller if He is still to fit into the gap. “We are to find God in what we know, not in what we do not know; God wants us to realize his presence, not in unsolved problems but in those that are solved.” - Bonhoeffer.

rossum

 

[tjm190]

Please show the process for creating life from inorganic chemicals.

Peace,
Ed

Do you deny that living things are made up of chemicals? That is all the information needed to know it is possible. (possible≠feasible)

 

[tjm190]

No it isn’t.
Reread my post. I am pointing out the obvious, that the simple answer is “We don’t know”
No one can claim creating life in a lab is possible, no one can claim it not.
Anyone wishing to state otherwise should put up the evidence.

science never produces certainty, but we go with what is overwhelming pointed to.

 

[buffalo]

You do not have to become a scientific ignoramus in order to remain a Catholic.

The Catholic God is large enough to have arranged the universe in such a way that what He wanted to happen would happen. He set the rules of the universe. He set the starting conditions of the universe. Whatever happens in the universe is what He wants to happen.

To quote Saint Thomas Aquinas:The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency"

• Aquinas Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1If God wants something to happen then it happens. If He wants is to happen by a miracle then it happens by a miracle. If He wants is to happen by natural laws then it happens by natural laws. If He wants it to happen by chance then it happens by chance.

If He wants it to happen by evolution, as with our physical bodies, then it happens by evolution. If He wants it to happen by direct creation, as with our souls, then it happens by direct creation.

The Catholic Church allows you to accept both God and evolution for your physical body. You have to accept direct creation for your soul, which is easy since evolution can say nothing of souls - they do not fossilise and they do not have DNA.

rossum

Gee Rossum, you make a great Catholic apologist. Thinking of switching?

 

[buffalo]

science never produces certainty, but we go with what is overwhelming pointed to.

Again, if one is walking on the beach and sees two left footprints in the sand as far as one can see, what should one conclude?

 

[rossum]

Gee Rossum, you make a great Catholic apologist. Thinking of switching?

The Buddha divided non-Buddhist religions into two groups. Catholic Christianity falls into the ‘useful’ group. Now if theistgal had said that she was looking at Buddhism as an alternative…

rossum

 

[edwest2]

Do you deny that living things are made up of chemicals? That is all the information needed to know it is possible. (possible≠feasible)

That is incorrect. It cannot be called a fact. It is only a wish.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

The Buddha divided non-Buddhist religions into two groups. Catholic Christianity falls into the ‘useful’ group. Now if theistgal had said that she was looking at Buddhism as an alternative…

rossum

Now why didn’t you tell me that months ago? Didn’t we have a go around about how to find truth? At least Catholicism is useful.

 

[edwest2]

science never produces certainty, but we go with what is overwhelming pointed to.

From the Catholic perspective, science can only offer partial information. What must be added is divine revelation. That is why the Church clearly identifies God as the Creator. Pope John Paul II said that the answer to the ontological leap to man cannot be found in science. Pope Benedict stated we are not some casual, meaningless product of evolution and that there are other areas of reason we still need.

Peace,
Ed

 

[tjm190]

From the Catholic perspective, science can only offer partial information. What must be added is divine revelation. That is why the Church clearly identifies God as the Creator. Pope John Paul II said that the answer to the ontological leap to man cannot be found in science. Pope Benedict stated we are not some casual, meaningless product of evolution and that there are other areas of reason we still need.

Peace,
Ed

Science offers the complete scientific perspective by definition. Our universe is one of cause and effect, so obviously observation of said universe has it’s limits given that an out side cause must have been involved.

I add divine revelation to my world view- not to my scientific knowledge.