Evolution: Is There Any Good Reason To Reject The Abiogenesis Hypothesis?

[thistle]

Holy See approval :
Our Lady of La Salette

“For the time has come when the most astonishing wonders will take place on the earth and in the air… [Satan] will have great power over nature: there will be churches built to serve these spirits. People will be transported from one place to another by these evil spirits, even priests…”

Give us a break. Have you been searching the internet to come up with anything that can remotely support your claim that aliens are actually demons??
You really must be desperate. What you quoted certainly does not do the job!

 

[Gorgias]

Holy See approval :
Our Lady of La Salette

“For the time has come when the most astonishing wonders will take place on the earth and in the air… [Satan] will have great power over nature: there will be churches built to serve these spirits. People will be transported from one place to another by these evil spirits, even priests…”

It would help to refrain from selectively quoting, especially when it’s pretty easy for someone to look up the text you’re quoting and see it in context (all emphases mine):

“May the curate of my Son, Pope Pius IX never leave Rome again after 1859… May the Pope guard against the performers of miracles. For the time has come when the most astonishing wonders will take place on the earth and in the air.

“In the year 1864, Lucifer together with a large number of demons will be unloosed from hell… They will have great power over Nature: there will be churches built to serve these spirits. People will be transported from one place to another by these evil spirits, even priests, for they will not have been guided by the good spirit of the Gospel which is a spirit of humility, charity and zeal for the glory of God."

So, the “secret” is that bad things will happen in 1864.

That’s quite different than the assertion that demons are piloting UFOs today, don’t you think?

 

[buffalo]

Translation of genes more complex than expected

Researchers have shown that translation of the genetic information stored in our DNA is much more complex than previously thought. This discovery was made by developing a type of advanced microscopy that directly visualizes the translation of the genetic code in a living cell.

www.sciencedaily.com

 

[Wozza]

And so, the best we could possibly say is “things usually happen naturally; so, the odds are so did the formation of life.” And that’s about it.

Good grief, was anyone saying any different?

And we’ll leave the definition for supernatural as ‘something that cannot have happened by natural processes’. If you want to be specific: ‘A supernatural event is one that contradicts the Core Theory*’.

• The Feynman path-integral formulation of an amplitude for going from one field configuration to another one, in the effective field theory consisting of Einstein’s general theory of relativity plus the Standard Model of particle physics.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Ghosty1981]

Did you read the article? It is saying that there are more transcription errors and random proteins being made than previously suspected. This is definitely not a point for Intelligent Design, but rather for random chance. Not a good article to use for supporting your case.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty1981]

I suppose it boils down to how we interpret his Summa Theologiae, remembering to do so within the context of what the words mean today outside the Aristotelean framework in which he operates.

It isn’t really a matter of interpretation; Aquinas explicitly says that the vegetative and animal souls do not exist in a human person, and that their operations are performed by the rational soul. If you merely misspoke that is fine, but I hope you understand that I can only respond to what you actually said, not what you should have said, and I will presume that you mean what you say in my responses.

In that light, I’m sort of proud of my lack of understanding, having taken quite some effort, with God’s grace, to get there. What I do know does disprove the Theory of Evolution. That said, it’s your business what you choose to believe, as it is mine to tell others what I do know.

If you have some evidence that disproves the Theory of Evolution then by all means present it, but so far no one has done so in this thread. If you simply don’t understand the Theory of Evolution then your lack of belief is not evidence against it, however, and that is my point about the Argument from Incredulity.

Peace and God bless!

 

[edwest211]

Abiogenesis is a scam. A part of the atheist ‘God did nothing’ idea promoted here. Take note, when the word God is used it is only a word, nothing more.

 

[Gorgias]

Good grief, was anyone saying any different?

The OP, in his first post, started with the question of the proposition that all the processes that produced life “happened naturally” and “hardly anybody argues with this point.”

Rossum chipped in the assertion (in post 17, if I’m reading it right) that God isn’t involved in ‘producing’ anything.

So, yeah… people are saying things that are different.

And we’ll leave the definition for supernatural as ‘something that cannot have happened by natural processes’.

That’s a decent start, but I think I wouldn’t say “cannot have happened”. That seems too strong a case.

 

[buffalo]

Did you read the article?

Yes. The intelligence is the error correction mechanisms. Without this ability the organism would go extinct.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Yes. The intelligence is the error correction mechanisms. Without this ability the organism would go extinct.

There are no error correction measures mentioned in the article.

 

[Wozza]

That’s a decent start, but I think I wouldn’t say “cannot have happened”. That seems too strong a case.

It’s not a case to be made. Supernatural actually means over and above that which is natural. Unless you have something other to propose, the definition of a supernatural event can only be defined by classing it as ‘not natural’. It is the very definition of the term.

 

[Aloysium]

We weren’t around when everything came into being, but know from what remains, that there was a time when the planets and stars did not exist, nor molecules or even hydrogen. The way I see the world, as the material building blocks exist in themselves, they also are brought together to form living things. Complex organic molecules. form the structure and processes of cells, some of which exist as themselves, such as bacteria, and some which are organized into the interrelated tissues, and organ systems that constitute multicellular organisms.

Let’s take ourselves as an example of a living form. Each of us is an manifestation of humanity, whatever our genetic make up or gross physical form and capacities. All the atoms, the molecules, the cells and organs are united in the expression of our spirit. I am not a philosopher and most of the people I know are not intellectual, some getting on in years and suffering from dementia, so the concept of a rational soul does not resonate well with me. I prefer the idea of a relational soul.

Although everything relates to something that it isn’t, in some fashion, most of what happens is determined, either by the laws of nature or at a more complex behavioural level, by instinct. Our relationality, however, enables us to commune with what we are not, to know something in the giving of ourselves over to it. It enables us to love. At the same time, our relationality is more basic like a material object, whereby we incorporate matter to give form to our bodies and enable them to function in the world. We share in the same capacity as bacteria and plants to develop, grow and reproduce more of our kind. We do this as the thing that we are, as do bacteria, whole beings in ourselves. We are also constructed like animals, possessing bodies that allow us to perceive, feel, interpret our world and act. Again, although our bodies are similar, in our unity of being as spiritual souls, we have a free will and capacity to truly know.

The different organizational structures of existence, from atoms to single cell organisms, to plants and animals, leading to we ourselves, had to be created at every step of the way. I believe there is a true way of knowing how this happened, but I can’t say I do. Extrapolating the actual scientific evidence, in light of what we know beyond what emipricism can tell us, it seems clear that the universe, brought into existence from its beginning to its end from eternity, has diversified into the myriad of living forms, from a few original kinds of of being, which were created in a temporally staggered fashion, represented in the hierarchy of existence we see today.

Randomness and simple natural selection simply do not cut it as having any explanatory value, and a common ancestral descent is simply an assumption that cannot be proved beyond what we see in the flourishing of specific kinds of things, microevolution in other words.

 

[Aloysium]

It’s not a case to be made. Supernatural actually means over and above that which is natural. Unless you have something other to propose, the definition of a supernatural event can only be defined by classing it as ‘not natural’. It is the very definition of the term.

Do you consider mathematics a natural phenomenon?

 

[Gorgias]

Unless you have something other to propose, the definition of a supernatural event can only be defined by classing it as ‘not natural’. It is the very definition of the term.

But, here’s the thing: you go over and above “not natural” in the definition you propose. Additionally, you claim that it must be something that “cannot have happened naturally”. That’s not true, and it makes your definition unhelpful.

Think of it this way: your example of a three-foot gold cross that appears out of the blue is an event that certainly fits your definition of ‘supernatural’. However, what if it were a three-foot apple tree that suddenly appeared? Still supernatural, right?

But… what if no one were around to see it appear ex nihilo, as it were? What if you happened upon the tree a year (or millions of years, as it were!) after it appeared? Would you, of necessity, claim “natural”? And wouldn’t that claim (in this case) be invalid, since you can’t really speak of its origin at all, because you weren’t there when it appeared and you can’t distinguish it from a naturally occurring event?

(That, BTW, is what I’ve been claiming all along. If we cannot distinguish, then we can’t plausibly claim one way or another – or, more to the point, plausibly eliminate one in favor of the other. )

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

It’s not a case to be made. Supernatural actually means over and above that which is natural. Unless you have something other to propose, the definition of a supernatural event can only be defined by classing it as ‘not natural’. It is the very definition of the term.

Do you consider mathematics a natural phenomenon?

It describes natural phenomenon. One plus one is two and is entirely natural. We have developed a means by which we can express this in ways that reflect reality.

E was equal to mc squared long before we turned up. The equation is a man-made construct that describes the relationship between the three terms.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Unless you have something other to propose, the definition of a supernatural event can only be defined by classing it as ‘not natural’. It is the very definition of the term.

But, here’s the thing: you go over and above “not natural” in the definition you propose. Additionally, you claim that it must be something that “cannot have happened naturally”. That’s not true, and it makes your definition unhelpful.

Think of it this way: your example of a three-foot gold cross that appears out of the blue is an event that certainly fits your definition of ‘supernatural’. However, what if it were a three-foot apple tree that suddenly appeared? Still supernatural, right?

But… what if no one were around to see it appear ex nihilo, as it were? What if you happened upon the tree a year (or millions of years, as it were!) after it appeared? Would you, of necessity, claim “natural”? And wouldn’t that claim (in this case) be invalid, since you can’t really speak of its origin at all, because you weren’t there when it appeared and you can’t distinguish it from a naturally occurring event?

(That, BTW, is what I’ve been claiming all along. If we cannot distinguish, then we can’t plausibly claim one way or another – or, more to the point, plausibly eliminate one in favor of the other. )

I think it’s a given that we can only work with the information we have. Else it’s all Tuesday afternoon-isms.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then unless further information comes to hand, then we have a duck.

If we have a tree in the garden, then it is natural unless we have information that it appeared instantly out of thin air. In which case it would be supernatural.

It is scraping the bottom of a very large barrel indeed to even suggest that ‘because we weren’t there’ we can’t say with absolute conviction that something is most definately natural.

 

[Aloysium]

the definition of a supernatural event can only be defined by classing it as ‘not natural’. It is the very definition of the term.

It describes natural phenomenon. One plus one is two and is entirely natural. We have developed a means by which we can express this in ways that reflect reality.

So, mathematics itself, is not a natural phenomenon, but a means to understand natural phenomena.
Although clearly an aspect of reality, being one means to describe natural phenomena, it cannot, however, be used to describe itself.

E was equal to mc squared long before we turned up. The equation is a man-made construct that describes the relationship between the three terms.

Agreed that there exist those relationships in nature. The equation is an aspect of our relationship with nature that is not described by the laws of physics and chemistry. What we are utilizes the lesser, material relationships that exist in nature, in the expression of the relationships that define our being, such as mathematics, philosophy, theology, art and music.

 

[Aloysium]

It is scraping the bottom of a very large barrel indeed to even suggest that ‘because we weren’t there’ we can’t say with absolute conviction that something is most definately natural.

Yet many firmly maintain that it happened randomnly, and exists solely because it survived, rather than for other reasons such as its beauty.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

Holy See approval :
Our Lady of La Salette

“For the time has come when the most astonishing wonders will take place on the earth and in the air… [Satan] will have great power over nature: there will be churches built to serve these spirits. People will be transported from one place to another by these evil spirits, even priests…”

It would help to refrain from selectively quoting, especially when it’s pretty easy for someone to look up the text you’re quoting and see it in context (all emphases mine):

“May the curate of my Son, Pope Pius IX never leave Rome again after 1859… May the Pope guard against the performers of miracles. For the time has come when the most astonishing wonders will take place on the earth and in the air.

“In the year 1864, Lucifer together with a large number of demons will be unloosed from hell… They will have great power over Nature: there will be churches built to serve these spirits. People will be transported from one place to another by these evil spirits, even priests, for they will not have been guided by the good spirit of the Gospel which is a spirit of humility, charity and zeal for the glory of God."

So, the “secret” is that bad things will happen in 1864.

That’s quite different than the assertion that demons are piloting UFOs today, don’t you think?

“ In the year 1864 , Lucifer together with a large number of demons will be unloosed from hell… They will have great power over Nature: there will be churches built to serve these spirits. People will be transported from one place to another by these evil spirits, even priests, for they will not have been guided by the good spirit of the Gospel which is a spirit of humility, charity and zeal for the glory of God."

 

[Hobgoblin]

It’s not a case to be made. Supernatural actually means over and above that which is natural. Unless you have something other to propose, the definition of a supernatural event can only be defined by classing it as ‘not natural’. It is the very definition of the term.

I’m not sure we can produce any definition that’s verifiable. Even a golden cross appearing out of nowhere could have been the result of some technology that we don’t understand. What test could you use to conclusively say that anything was the result of supernatural intervention? Making that claim always comes back to faith.