Being a Theistic evolutionist?

[LeafByNiggle]

Unless I missed a post, and please correct me immediately with that post number, not one ID post mentioned that the human person is made in the image of God as taught by Catholicism. Not one post mentioned that the goal of the human person is joy eternal in the presence of the Beatific Vision.

The reason no one mentioned those facts is that they are not in dispute here, nor do they help answer the question of whether or not it is permissible to believe in evolution, since those Catholics who believe evolution is true, also believe it is consistent with the fact that the human person is made in the image of God, and that the goal of the human person is joy eternal in the presence of the Beatific Vision.

Debating the existence of the evolution model is part of a scientific, not theological, approach to how our universe operates.

Exactly!

Human nature is an unique unification of *both *the material realm and the spiritual realm.

That is true. So if you want a total understanding of human nature, you would have to take into account the spiritual realm as well. But in the discussion of whether one can believe in evolution, the total understanding of human nature is not the goal. The goal is a partial understanding of just one fairly insignificant part of human nature - the mechanism by which the human body came to be. I say it is “insignificant” from a theological point of view because it does not matter exactly how God made us. All that matters to us here and now is that He did make us. Whether He made our bodies by a long slow process of evolution, or by something resembling a magic trick from mud, that does not alter our position of total dependence on God for our existence, which is the only really important theological aspect of our bodily creation. I personally am much more impressed by the wonder of God through contemplating His use of evolution than I would be by contemplating an instant magic trick.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The usual options are design, law/regularity or chance. In the case of chemistry the relevant choice is obviously law/regularity.

If you find the truth insufficient, then I suggest that you set up a lab and work to help fill the gaps. Nobody alive now was present when Jesus was crucified. Does that mean we can have no answers about that event?

Are you saying that law regularity or chance accounts for abiogenesis? How does this get proven? Sounds more like an assumption that an atheist would be comfortable with, but it doesn’t really explain the complex organization of molecules that resulted in the creation of the biosphere.

Nobody now alive was present, but somebody alive was present when Jesus was crucified.

Nobody was alive before abiogenesis, and the Miller-Urey experiment was useless so far as proving anything except that it was an intelligently designed experiment that failed to prove how abiogenesis could happen.

An amino acid is not a living being.

 

[grannymh]

The reason no one mentioned those facts is that they are not in dispute here, nor do they help answer the question of whether or not it is permissible to believe in evolution, since those Catholics who believe evolution is true, also believe it is consistent with the fact that the human person is made in the image of God, and that the goal of the human person is joy eternal in the presence of the Beatific Vision.

It is precisely Catholic teaching that we are in the image of God and that the Beatific Vision can be ours after bodily death, which is why it is absolutely necessary to catch up with 21st century science of people evolution, not the evolution of plants and porcupines. There is a huge difference between God’s two original humans and the natural science population of thousands whose breeding habits eventually gives the material world its human species.

Readers may not be aware that the Catholic teaching on the Divinity of Jesus Christ is directly related to the original human’s Original Sin.
(CCC, 389, last sentence)

When one believes that we are in the image of God, the Catholic Church teaching is that God is the transcendent, super-natural Spirit Who gives human creatures the ability to share in His divine life on limited earth and in joy eternal following bodily death. My guess is that some people believe that God, the powerful Creator, is not able to give correct Divine Revelation to His human creatures. Therefore, some people believe that God’s Divine Revelation about human origin needs to be changed to the current “population origin” so that people can fit into the same category of plants and porcupines.

That is true. So if you want a total understanding of human nature, you would have to take into account the spiritual realm as well. But in the discussion of whether one can believe in evolution, the total understanding of human nature is not the goal.

I was right. There are people who do not mind being considered the same as porcupines. So why bother learning the “population” principle of 21st century science of human evolution (which opposes the Catholic teaching of two sole human founders) when one is satisfied with a decomposing anatomy?

I personally am much more impressed by the wonder of God through contemplating His use of evolution than I would be by contemplating an instant magic trick.

I will end our discussions with this personal granny thought. If God’s “instant magic trick” gives me the spiritual soul needed for entrance into heaven –
I would be the first in line to get one.

Links to the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*
Check out paragraphs 355-421.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[rossum]

Are you saying that law regularity or chance accounts for abiogenesis? How does this get proven? Sounds more like an assumption that an atheist would be comfortable with, but it doesn’t really explain the complex organization of molecules that resulted in the creation of the biosphere.

I took the tripartite division from Dr Dembski, the ID theorist, who is most certainly not an atheist. IIRC he got it from Jacques Monod’s “Chance and Necessity”

Nobody was alive before abiogenesis, and the Miller-Urey experiment was useless so far as proving anything except that it was an intelligently designed experiment that failed to prove how abiogenesis could happen.

The Miller-Urey experiment shows that amino acids can form spontaneously in a range of atmospheric conditions likely to have been present on the early Earth. Where are your experiments showing the similar actions of the designer? You have none. You cannot show even one designer-created amino acid. Science has been ahead of ID since the 1950s.

An amino acid is not a living being.

Correct, but every living being on Earth contains amino acids. Abiogenesis is still incomplete, but we do have many of the building blocks found in living organisms. Amino acids are just one of them. Any designer of life would also need to manufacture amino acids. Where are your experiments showing the designer manufacturing amino acids? We have the Miller-Urey experiment showing chemistry manufacturing amino acids.

The science of abiogenesis has far more to show than the science of ID. Abiogenesis is over 60 years ahead of ID.

rossum

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It is precisely Catholic teaching that we are in the image of God and that the Beatific Vision can be ours after bodily death, which is why it is absolutely necessary to catch up with 21st century science of people evolution, not the evolution of plants and porcupines.
As many times as you have said this, I still don’t understand what point you are trying to make by drawing special attention to “21st century science of evolution”.

There is a huge difference between God’s two original humans and the natural science population of thousands whose breeding habits eventually gives the material world its human species.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The Miller-Urey experiment shows that amino acids can form spontaneously in a range of atmospheric conditions likely to have been present on the early Earth. Where are your experiments showing the similar actions of the designer?

Those atmospheric conditions where amino acids formed in the experiments you refer to were intelligently designed by experimenters to allow amino acid formations.

Correct, but every living being on Earth contains amino acids. Abiogenesis is still incomplete, but we do have many of the building blocks found in living organisms. Amino acids are just one of them. Any designer of life would also need to manufacture amino acids. Where are your experiments showing the designer manufacturing amino acids?

Well, again you miss the point by millions of centuries. How can we conduct such experiments showing the designer manufacturing amino acids when the prime conditions preparing those amino acids for the part they are to play in abiognesis are long gone? Yet you manage to make the point that it takes intelligent designers today to prepare the conditions for the spontaneous creation of amino acids. Are you saying it requires intelligent designers to create conditions allowing for amino acids today, but it didn’t require, at the dawn of the biosphere, an intelligent designer to create not only amino acids but abiogenesis as well?

 

[grannymh]

As many times as you have said this, I still don’t understand what point you are trying to make by drawing special attention to “21st century science of evolution”.

They are different, but not inconsistent with each other.

Yes, that is what we as Catholics believe.

Would it be so shocking to your theology if you found out that your body really did descend from pre-human life that also happened to spawn porcupines? I am asking a purely theological question here, not a scientific question. The possibility does not shock my theology, or the theology of recent popes.

Instead of answering this post, may I respectfully ask that interested readers return to post 242. And then continue back to the preceding discussions between LeafByNiggle and myself.

The principle of evolution is “Populations evolve, not individuals.” found in Rossum’s post 168. “Population” is a current description of “polygenism” which is referred to in the 1950 Encyclical, Humani Generis, sections 35, 36, and 37.
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

One needs to read the entire context of these three sections. Here is the key sentence.
“For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.”

The human evolution population can be viewed as a process which takes time to complete. Thus, there could be human beings older than Adam or younger than him in addition to his own children. The population would eventually be composed of all human parents as the “first human parents.”

Regardless of which way one looks at “human evolution population”, it still opposes the Catholic teaching of one original human committing one Original Sin.

 

[Peter_Plato]

That is true. So if you want a total understanding of human nature, you would have to take into account the spiritual realm as well. But in the discussion of whether one can believe in evolution, the total understanding of human nature is not the goal. The goal is a partial understanding of just one fairly insignificant part of human nature - the mechanism by which the human body came to be. I say it is “insignificant” from a theological point of view because it does not matter exactly how God made us. All that matters to us here and now is that He did make us. Whether He made our bodies by a long slow process of evolution, or by something resembling a magic trick from mud, that does not alter our position of total dependence on God for our existence, which is the only really important theological aspect of our bodily creation. I personally am much more impressed by the wonder of God through contemplating His use of evolution than I would be by contemplating an instant magic trick.

Why would God using a “hit and miss” paradigm - such as Darwinism has proposed - be an inherently more awesome and impressive act than a simple rabbit out of a hat trick? In particular, since it is not clear how a series of random genetic accidents leading to the existence of human beings can ever be reconciled with either omniscience or omnipotence, in any case.

The point being that scientism must propose “unguided” forces in order that its proponents have leeway for imposing human intelligence and its own “ends” onto the paradigm. In other words, “We (humanist scientists that we are) can take it from here because we now know enough to “guide” the hitherto unguided process given that there is “no god” there to stop us.”

This is a presumption that God could, conceivably, put to chase very quickly. The problem is that we, the innocent bystanders that we are, do not have the insight into what reasons God might have for allowing humanist scientists to be confirmed in their delusion. The unprecedented “act” required to dispel the delusion is one that only God can bring about.

The humanist scientists are hedging their bets on “no god.” Yet, the little issue of Jesus’ parables concerning being faithful and the distinctive “lack of faith” shown in end times serve as reminders that human knowledge is not in control, no matter how “uppity” it gets. Which is why I would rather have faith in the Unseen that I have no reason to doubt is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, than believe in the “seen” (the aspirations of scientism) that I have no reason for thinking is any of those things; in fact, the seen isn’t as much as pretentiously benevolent, since it does not give even a sniff of being inclined in that direction. (I know our good Buddhist friend, rossum, will have a lot to say about this point and the value of detachment.)

 

[grannymh]

Why would God using a “hit and miss” paradigm - such as Darwinism has proposed - be an inherently more awesome and impressive act than a simple rabbit out of a hat trick? In particular, since it is not clear how a series of random genetic accidents leading to the existence of human beings can ever be reconciled with either omniscience or omnipotence, in any case.

The point being that scientism must propose “unguided” forces in order that its proponents have leeway for imposing human intelligence and its own “ends” onto the paradigm. In other words, “We (humanist scientists that we are) can take it from here because we now know enough to “guide” the hitherto unguided process given that there is “no god” there to stop us.”

This is a presumption that God could, conceivably, put to chase very quickly.** The problem is that we, the innocent bystanders that we are, do not have the insight into what reasons God might have for allowing humanist scientists to be confirmed in their delusion.** The unprecedented “act” required to dispel the delusion is one that only God can bring about.

The humanist scientists are hedging their bets on “no god.” Yet, the little issue of Jesus’ parables concerning being faithful and the distinctive “lack of faith” shown in end times serve as reminders that human knowledge is not in control, no matter how “uppity” it gets. Which is why I would rather have faith in the Unseen that I have no reason to doubt is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, than believe in the “seen” that I have no reason for thinking is any of those things; in fact, the seen isn’t as much as pretentiously benevolent, since it does not give even a sniff of being inclined in that direction. (I know our good Buddhist friend, rossum, will have a lot to say about this point and the value of detachment.)

Please accept my apology for cherry picking the sentence in bold. The problem is that we, the innocent bystanders that we are, do not have the insight into what reasons God might have for allowing humanist scientists to be confirmed in their delusion.

Skip the majority of media reports. When one studies the scientific (inductive) method and examines the actual research on human evolution per se, including the evidence, one will find out that the human evolution “evidence” does not warrant an extrapolation to a **confirmed delusion **or conclusion, which dogmatically denies all possibility of two sole founders of humankind. When one studies Dr. Ann Gauger’s first and fifth chapters in Science & Human Origins, ISBN -13: 978-1-936599-04-2 (paperback), one discovers that the 1995 bombshell is not written in stone. To avoid confusion, these two chapters do not reprint actual research papers. They respectfully refer to Francisco Ayala’s 1995 paper and then use a review of scientific literature as a valid comparison.

As for all those research papers stacked in warehouses (), they usually refer to specific genetic areas and not to Adam and Eve directly, because the automatic scientific assumption is that humanity evolved in populations and not as descendants of two humans.

The best that scientists can do is to say that Adam and Eve are improbable. They cannot say that Adam and Eve are impossible.

I rest my case.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Please accept my apology for cherry picking the sentence in bold. The problem is that we, the innocent bystanders that we are, do not have the insight into what reasons God might have for allowing humanist scientists to be confirmed in their delusion.

…
I rest my case.

I think you missed my point. I didn’t argue that evolution in the sense of adaptive change over time is problematic. What I was arguing is that an assumption that that process is or must be essentially unguided and blind has, as its fundamental principle, an untenable assumption.

To try to impose “unguided evolution” on God as if adding one word (theistic) to the premise - “unguided theistic evolution” - absolves the “theory” of all its nonsensicality is simply misconceived.

Certainly, theistic evolution is possible, but only if that process is a guided one, and if guided then it must be discernibly “guided.” IDvolution may answer the manner in which evolution is guided, it may not, but in the interests of proper science, that proposal ought to be given some leeway in terms of “showing its stuff” and not snuffed merely because it doesn’t accept the “unguided” part of the evolution premise.

 

[rossum]

Those atmospheric conditions where amino acids formed in the experiments you refer to were intelligently designed by experimenters to allow amino acid formations.

You are incorrect. The atmospheric conditions were designed to mimic as closely as possible the atmospheric conditions on the early Earth. The point of the experiment was to see what chemicals, if any, would be produced in such conditions and to check if any of those chemicals would be of importance to the origin of life.

Well, again you miss the point by millions of centuries. How can we conduct such experiments showing the designer manufacturing amino acids when the prime conditions preparing those amino acids for the part they are to play in abiognesis are long gone?

By doing precisely what the Miller-Urey, and other experiments, have done. We mimic those early-Earth conditions and see what happens. So far we have plenty of evidence that chemistry can produce many important compounds. We have no experimental data from the ID side to show the designer making any chemical compounds at all. As I said, ID is 60 years behind on this.

rossum

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Why would God using a “hit and miss” paradigm - such as Darwinism has proposed - be an inherently more awesome and impressive act than a simple rabbit out of a hat trick? In particular, since it is not clear how a series of random genetic accidents leading to the existence of human beings can ever be reconciled with either omniscience or omnipotence, in any case.

I am always very suspicious of any argument that starts out with “Why would God…”. These arguments invariably fail to make any real point because our inability to discern the purpose of this or that action of God is a necessary consequence of the difference between our finite nature and God’s infinite nature. Too many false conclusions have been reached by starting out assuming that God would only act in such a manner that is immediately comprehensible to Man.

The humanist scientists are hedging their bets on “no god.” Yet, the little issue of Jesus’ parables concerning being faithful and the distinctive “lack of faith” shown in end times serve as reminders that human knowledge is not in control, no matter how “uppity” it gets.

The emphasis is shifting here from evolution to specific evolutionary scientists. One can support the former and not all the later.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

By doing precisely what the Miller-Urey, and other experiments, have done. We mimic those early-Earth conditions and see what happens. So far we have plenty of evidence that chemistry can produce many important compounds. We have no experimental data from the ID side to show the designer making any chemical compounds at all.

You cannot mimic what you cannot see. Show me proof that your mimic is authentic. It’s all guess work … but I’m sure very intelligently designed.

Again,we cannot show you what the intelligent designer did eons ago. What we can see is primitive bacterium still existing that approximate the life experience of the first living organism. The functions of the first living organism are immensely complex compared to amino acids by themselves. Moreover, all these functions had to appear simultaneously in the first living organism. You would say by law or chance, which have yet to prove is possible. The Miller-Urey experiment done 60 years ago is useless so far as abiogenesis is concerned.

It would be as if you could say that a house accidentally came together of necessity or by law or by chance just because there was some wood in a forrest. There was, of course, no possibility of an architect!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Certainly, theistic evolution is possible, but only if that process is a guided one, and if guided then it must be discernibly “guided.” IDvolution may answer the manner in which evolution is guided, it may not, but in the interests of proper science, that proposal ought to be given some leeway in terms of “showing its stuff” and not snuffed merely because it doesn’t accept the “unguided” part of the evolution premise.

Right. Theistic evolution has to be a guided process, and the process is more or less accurately revealed in the days of Creation in Genesis. Revealed truth and science, as Aquinas so aptly pointed out, cannot be at dire loggerheads. To say that evolution was not guided by God is to deny Divine Providence. Now science has no interest in that aspect of eevolution; partly because God is not, properly speaking, the object of biological knowledge; but also partly because the scientific community is rife with atheists who will hear nothing about God, and whose scientific principles therefore exclude truths that are revealed and that Catholic must believe.

For example, Einstein, before he developed his theory of relativity, believed the universe to be infinite, steady state, and uncreated. The Big Bang put an end to that assumption. Einstein thus was confronted with a truth of Genesis that he had assumed to be false. This is a classic instance of the compatibility of truth in divine revelation and science.

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

Genesis, 1200 B.C. : “In the beginning God said: ‘Let there be light.’”

As astronomer Robert Jastrow pointed out in God and the Astronomers.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

 

[grannymh]

I think you missed my point. I didn’t argue that evolution in the sense of adaptive change over time is problematic. What I was arguing is that an assumption that that process is or must be essentially unguided and blind has, as its fundamental principle, an untenable assumption.

To try to impose “unguided evolution” on God as if adding one word (theistic) to the premise - “unguided theistic evolution” - absolves the “theory” of all its nonsensicality is simply misconceived.

Certainly, theistic evolution is possible, but only if that process is a guided one, and if guided then it must be discernibly “guided.” IDvolution may answer the manner in which evolution is guided, it may not, but in the interests of proper science, that proposal ought to be given some leeway in terms of “showing its stuff” and not snuffed merely because it doesn’t accept the “unguided” part of the evolution premise.

I am so sorry that we are not on the same page.

I have been learning from you and I had hoped I could adequately explain the theological problems when the evolution model directly intersects with Catholic doctrines on human origin and Original Sin. It is not your fault that I do not consider the bulk of “evolution” posts as part of the opposition to two sole human parents. In addition to God as Creator, it is when the evolution model denies the possibility of Adam and Eve that I get into the conversation. And then I feel like I need an extra head to explain the real actual Catholic doctrines which will not change because they are based on Divine Revelation.

“Theistic evolutionist” is a current topic. It is prime for this Forum. Please accept my apology for not being on the same track as yourself. From my position, I need to deal with Catholicism.

 

[dixieagle]

Exactly!. Gravity can be viewed as a law and a theory. Just like you said, the law of gravity tells us that things fall down. The theory of gravity tries to explain WHY this happens.

Also, rossum, I see that you mentioned FATHER Gregor Mendel, the father of modern genetics, who also happens to be a Franciscan friar and religious man. If a priest can manage to work with theories and genetics, I wouldn’t see why we cannot do the same thing. I enjoy learning these things and yet my faith does not waver; I would say it increases it!

Evolution: God’s modus operandi

 

[treeman39]

don’t buy what the world proclaims to be a fact - evolution.

a few things:
genesis records the history of mankind from adam and eve
Jesus believed in it- he mentions the Father of Lies (the serpent) in the beginning
St Paul spoke of Adam as being real
it’s because of the first sin that all humans are now punished - our body is guilty so it must die, as God promised in Genesis. originally however, we and all the creatures were meant to live forever on this earth. so God didn’t make evolution , a process where the strongest survive and the weaker get killed. rather in the beginning all things lived and thrived.

they are always redating things over and over… they look for new dating methods because they don’t get the answers they are looking for. they make assumptions (for dating purposes), such as the world in the beginning behaving exactly as it is now. but how can one assume that at the very beginning?? surely the beginning could be very different. ultimately, you’ll find there is no proof in it, it just comes down to how you view the beginning - created by something or gasses slowly doing there thing over time. why assume that God made it all so slowly ? you may get some brain scientist who doesn’t believe in evolution while another one who does. it comes down to what kind of glasses you’re looking through. the catholic clergy aren’t scientists and are responding seemingly in a sensible way to what the world is telling them is a fact. but if you look deeper and you’re open minded, you see that it’s not a fact.
the clergy aren’t informed well enough and probably not too smart for this kind of thing. it does take some brains to learn about it all .

the Bible is a marvelous historical record.

google on youtube creationist John Mackay vs dawkins.
youtube.com/watch?v=Cf1TpNSodDU
it’s a ripper debate that will knock you out completely. he’s a scientist and goes around digging things up and comes to other conclusions.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

“Theistic evolutionist” is a current topic. It is prime for this Forum. Please accept my apology for not being on the same track as yourself. From my position, I need to deal with Catholicism.

I feel your pain.

I too cannot reconcile the notion that evolution nixes the story of Adam and Eve.

All our theology hangs on that event. We lost our innocence right from the start, and there had to be a first sinner, unless you want to argue that all those cavemen sinned simultaneously, and that collectively they constitute Adam and Eve.

That does not work for me, and grossly violates Occam’s Razor, not to mention Revelation.

 

[Peter_Plato]

don’t buy what the world proclaims to be a fact - evolution.

…the catholic clergy aren’t scientists and are responding seemingly in a sensible way to what the world is telling them is a fact. but if you look deeper and you’re open minded, you see that it’s not a fact.
the clergy aren’t informed well enough and probably not too smart for this kind of thing. it does take some brains to learn about it all .

the Bible is a marvelous historical record.

Fact is that many Catholic clergy ARE scientists and those who are not ARE, for the most part, sufficiently competent to understand scientific claims. It does “take some brains to learn about it all,” but you had better reconsider your words here because implicit in the comment above is the claim that you are MORE competent than “the catholic clergy” to understand not just the scientific implications but also the theological interpretations that are affected. That is a rather large burden to take on. You might want to reconsider. Or do you have advanced knowledge in both the areas of science AND theology?

google on youtube creationist John Mackay vs dawkins.
youtube.com/watch?v=Cf1TpNSodDU
it’s a ripper debate that will knock you out completely. he’s a scientist and goes around digging things up and comes to other conclusions.

I watched the video (both parts) and I don’t find Mr. MacKay very convincing. Claiming to have out-debated John Polkinghorne makes me wonder about this man’s readiness to be impartial, but I won’t make any comment about that until I track down the debate.

I think he sells short the abductive reasoning of Lyell and Darwin, and makes too much of his own literalist “interpretation” of Scripture, which, by the way, falls to the same critique of seeing reality through “filters” that he claims is a sufficient reason for dismissing Lyell and Darwin’s ideas. This means he should, minimally, be willing to subject his views to the same short-shrifting he readily uses to dismiss the ideas of Darwin and Lyell, yet there is “no evidence” of a balanced and neutral assessment for why young Earth creationism withstands the “filter” test, but Darwinism doesn’t.

This is interesting, given that he purports to want to teach students “how to think and not what to think.” He seems to be doing a whole lot of “what” instruction in his “course.”

Another issue is that there were some glaring logical arguments in his critique of the way geologists treat the Grand Canyon. His claim that the layers should only amount to fractions of an inch each year, completely ignores the fact that sediment rarely, if ever, is deposited in measured amounts year by year. Massive run offs may occur infrequently but would account for very large depositions, punctuated by many years which have little or none. Curious that as a geologist he would launch such an odd critique.

 

[rossum]

You cannot mimic what you cannot see. Show me proof that your mimic is authentic. It’s all guess work … but I’m sure very intelligently designed.

Prior to the Miller-Urey experiment there were a number of papers describing the atmosphere of the early Earth. Miller and Urey used those papers to determine the mix of gases in their experiment. As further papers appeared, with perhaps a slightly different measure of the early atmosphere, so other scientists repeated the Miller-Urey experiment with the amended atmospheric composition. Science builds on earlier science, and frequently goes back and checks on its results.

Again,we cannot show you what the intelligent designer did eons ago.

Then you are outside science. ID claims to be science, not religion. If it wants to be science, then it is going to have to perform similar experiments. Abiogenesis has had Miller-Urey for sixty years now, and has made many other advances in that time…

What we can see is primitive bacterium still existing that approximate the life experience of the first living organism.

Almost certainly not. Modern bacteria have billions of years of evolution behind them. Modern bacteria can (mostly) live in an oxygen rich environment. Modern bacteria use DNA as their genetic material.

Very early life had very little evolution behind it, it lived in an oxygen-free environment and it almost certainly used RNA, not DNA, as its genetic material.

The functions of the first living organism are immensely complex compared to amino acids by themselves.

The first living organisms were very simple compared to anything living today. They may have been as simple as a membrane bag containing RNA ribozymes. At that point amino acids might not have been needed at all. They only become essential after the switch from ribozymes to protein based enzymes.

I suggest that you study more about the current state of knowledge about abiogenesis, rather than make unsupported and incorrect assertions.

rossum