"Expelled"

[The_Barbarian]

And the energy came from where?

The origin of the universe is indeed a theological/philosophical issue. Where matter came from is not.

And we can find evidence that science has created life from non-life where?

We can’t build stars, either. But we observe them forming naturally. So it is with life, if you can believe God in Genesis.

Science is still working out exactly how. God merely says that the earth brought forth living things.

creationists have no answer at all to the question of the origin of life.

To be fair, it’s not something religion can answer.

The obvious answer to both questions is "God’

Turns out that there are more precise answers. The “how” is what is important in science.

The only answer science has is “we’ll figure it someday, meanwhile the great unwashed just have to take our word for it.”

You don’t know what science knows about it, so you just made up an answer. Not a very good one, either.

 

[Brian_Millar]

Staying within scientific parameters, we’ll start with chemistry. We’ll assume DNA already exists just to give that side a cheating head start. This DNA is floating around in random order everywhere, now let’s calculate the laws of averages that a single strand by chance happens to bump into each other to form a complete chain, then out of that random chance, after enough of them have combined through trial and error managed to form a strand that actually was condusive to allow for a living organism to survive. Then out of that random chance, it manages to program itself for reproduction. The out of that random chance, the elements it exists in over the eon’s never changes dramatically enough to force it to go extinct because it didn’t have to adapt to climate and enviromental changes. Then out of that random chance, it manages to figure out through it’s own self programming code that it’s condusive to change form to a different creature, more complex then before. Then out of random chance this new creature has adapted yet again to the never changing enviroment and thrive. Then out of that random chance, it decides that it is to split off and become different species from this same origin, all of which even though radically different from each other, manages to co-exist filling in nitches that happen to be there, again due to random chance.

I don’t want to even look at the odds on this one happening on their own, even with the cheating head start, it’s dramatically worse if I don’t let science cheat on this scenereo, keeping in mind, the planet is only a finite number of years old, everything has to fit within that time frame to boot increasing the odds even further.

Ok, so we go back to the lab, this time we can throw out random chance since we are able to direct the molecules to do our bidding, we can literally move them around and arrange them in any way we want, speeding up the process. Have we produced a single DNA molecule in that lab? Have we formed a single primitave strand of DNA molecules from scratch? Ok, let’s say we manage to do this, now what, it’s dead matter still, we now must overcome the obstical of breathing life in it. Ok, we’ll take another shortcut here, we’ll start out with something that used to live and breath some life into it. How do we go about that one? Doesn’t it say in Genesis how God breathed life into Adam. Ok, so we now have to create a supernatural means in the lab to do this, I’d continue along this tangent but all of my lab workers walked off of the job, frankenstein won’t revive so I was going to fire them anyway, hehe…

 

[drpmjhess]

What religion would you like to know about?

With respect to what?

 

[rossum]

And the energy came from where?

I answered the question you asked. I note that you have no objection to my answer. So, to answer your second question: there are many hypotheses and not a lot of data about the origin of the energy from the Big Bang. For one possible, and I stress the “possible”, answer there is string theory: see The Myth of the Beginning of Time for a non-mathematical introduction. Another possible answer is that the total energy of the universe is zero; the positive energy is balanced by the negative potential energy inherent in the separation of matter against gravity. If the total energy is zero then there is no problem with having to explain where it came from. This is a question on which scientists are still working so I do not have a definitive answer.

Are Scientists able to duplicate this in laboratories?

Not all science is done in laboratories. Would you expect an astronomer to duplicate a full-size star in a laboratory? Your question is irrelevant.

And we can find evidence that science has created life from non-life where?

No scientist has claimed to have produced life. Do you have a reference to show otherwise? I have indicated that we do not have a complete answer so it is premature to ask for one at this point. Science does not know all the answers at this point, but that does not invalidate the work that has been done.

Is there evidence that this unknown, no verifiable process continues in nature today? If not why not? Or do we just have to take you word for it (faith?)

No, I suggest that you start by repeating the Miller-Urey experiment and than move on to others, such as the Spiegelman Monster. The descriptions of the experiments are available in the scientific literature and you are at liberty to repeat them for yourself.

The obvious answer to both questions is "God’

Your “obvious” answer to the origin of life is obviously wrong. I asked you to read Psalm 42:2 before answering. Did you? Have another look at it:“My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When shall I come and behold the face of God?”
(Emphasis added)Do you see the problem. God is already living, so God cannot be an explanation for the origin of life. If I said “life was started by living aliens from planet Zog” would you think that was a satisfactory answer. Genesis is a description of the first living thing creating the second, third, fourth etc. living things. It is not a description of the origin of life. I did ask you to read the Psalm and I did warn you that the “evident” answer is not correct. You will need to think more deeply on your answer to this question.

As to the origin of matter, then where did God get the energy from? You asked me the same question at the start of this post and I gave you the best answer I have. Can you do any better?

The only answer science has is “we’ll figure it someday, meanwhile the great unwashed just have to take our word for it.”

Science does not yet have the complete answers but we are working on them. Creationism does not have any answers at all.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Staying within scientific parameters, we’ll start with chemistry. We’ll assume DNA already exists just to give that side a cheating head start. This DNA is floating around in random order everywhere, now let’s calculate the laws of averages that a single strand by chance happens to bump into each other to form a complete chain, then out of that random chance, after enough of them have combined through trial and error managed to form a strand that actually was condusive to allow for a living organism to survive.

You need to read more on the subject if you are going to produce a worthwhile model. Firstly DNA is probably a late arrival in life; all living organisms use RNA, most also use DNA but there are a very few that only use RNA without DNA - retroviruses are an example. You would do better to start with RNA than DNA. See RNA world.

Secondly RNA is a chemical and has chemical effects, see ribozyme. Unless your model incorporates the chemical effects of RNA ribozymes then it will not correctly reflect reality. For example, your model needs to account for the Spiegelman Monster.

Then out of that random chance,

As you said above, you start with chemistry. Chemistry is not a random chance process. If I mix oxygen atoms and hydrogen atoms do you think that it is “random chance” that I end up with molecules of H[sub]2[/sub]O, water? If you are trying to apply random chance to chemistry then you will get false results out of your model. If your model does not reflect the realities of chemistry then the results you get from your model will not reflect reality either.

You need to do a lot more work on your model before it will produce any reliable results.

rossum

 

[estesbob]

I answered the question you asked.rossum

\

The only answers you have given to my questions is “Science hasnt figured it out yet.” I assume i am to take it in faith?

BTW-I am not a Creationist.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Where do these guys get the idea that it’s random?

 

[ricmat]

So, to answer your second question: there are many hypotheses and not a lot of data about the origin of the energy from the Big Bang. For one possible, and I stress the “possible”, answer there is string theory: see The Myth of the Beginning of Time for a non-mathematical introduction. Another possible answer is that the total energy of the universe is zero; the positive energy is balanced by the negative potential energy inherent in the separation of matter against gravity. If the total energy is zero then there is no problem with having to explain where it came from. This is a question on which scientists are still working so I do not have a definitive answer.

But the basic question isn’t so much where did matter come from, or altermatively where did energy come from. The real question is where did anything come from. Including time, space, gravity, the laws on nature in general, the alternative realities and/or alternative universes which provide the energy for this universe, everything.

Not all science is done in laboratories. Would you expect an astronomer to duplicate a full-size star in a laboratory? Your question is irrelevant.

Ed’s point is not irrelevant. Scientific “proof” is much more solid when predictions can be verified under controlled conditions. When talking about things that take billions of years to happen, or require super amounts of mass (e.g. black hole), or span millions of light years - things are more difficult to prove. For example, there have been for a long time mutually exclusive theories of planetary formation. Or even how the earth got its moon. One can make all sorts of theories (and even predictions) but the bottom line is that we’ll never know for sure.

Your “obvious” answer to the origin of life is obviously wrong. I asked you to read Psalm 42:2 before answering. Did you? Have another look at it:“My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When shall I come and behold the face of God?”(Emphasis added)Do you see the problem. God is already living, so God cannot be an explanation for the origin of life. If I said “life was started by living aliens from planet Zog” would you think that was a satisfactory answer. Genesis is a description of the first living thing creating the second, third, fourth etc. living things. It is not a description of the origin of life. I did ask you to read the Psalm and I did warn you that the “evident” answer is not correct. You will need to think more deeply on your answer to this question.

Well, Rossum, I applaud your effort to integrate religion and science here (really). I know that you are not a YEC (I’m not either). But I disagree with your conclusion.

1. “God is already living, so God cannot be an explanation for the origin of life.” I think what you are saying here is that God cannot be the explanation for his own “life.” But this is the revelation of I AM. The very essence of God is existence. God’s most basic trait, his name. The first uncaused cause. The only reality, since God holds the universe in existence…
2. Aliens from Zog could conceivably be the answer to some life in the universe somewhere, but it just pushes the question back to “So who created the Zoggians?” There needs to be a first uncaused cause.
3. The Psalms frequently speak of idols being dead things, unable to speak, hear, or act in other ways (and those who worship them become like the things they worship). Your quote above is an intentional contrast of the living God who is not dead, who actually exists eternally, to those idols.
4. “Genesis is not the description of the origin of life.” It is a description in the sense that it identifies the cause of life (if not the mechanism in detail).

 

[drpmjhess]

1. “God is already living, so God cannot be an explanation for the origin of life.” I think what you are saying here is that God cannot be the explanation for his own “life.” But this is the revelation of I AM. The very essence of God is existence. God’s most basic trait, his name. The first uncaused cause. The only reality, since God holds the universe in existence…

I would never predicate “life” of God, as that term seems too closely tied to organic and biological existence. Rather, life is a pale (albeit important to us) reflection of the plenitude that is the divine being.

Petrus

 

[rossum]

The only answers you have given to my questions is “Science hasnt figured it out yet.”

The answers I gave were “science hasn’t figured it all out yet, but here is what we have so far”. We do not have everything but we do have something.

I assume i am to take it in faith?

You assume wrong. You are at liberty to repeat all the relevant experiments yourself and confirm that their results are correct. You are at liberty to examine the reasoning used to derive the current hypotheses on abiogenesis and confirm for yourself that there are no errors. This is not an easy task, but if you are really interested then you can confirm everything without resorting to faith.

BTW-I am not a Creationist.

You may not be a YEC specifically, but I suspect that you still believe that God created the universe and everything in it. All science does is to try and elucidate the methods He used.

rossum

 

[ricmat]

I would never predicate “life” of God, as that term seems too closely tied to organic and biological existence. Rather, life is a pale (albeit important to us) reflection of the plenitude that is the divine being.

Petrus

I use the term because it is used throughout the scriptures. Of course God’s “life” is beyond anything in our vocabulary, or our understanding.

 

[estesbob]

The
You may not be a YEC specifically**, but I suspect that you still believe that God created the universe and everything in it**. All science does is to try and elucidate the methods He used.

rossum

Yes I do. I am not nearly as interested in the “how” as i am the “who”.

 

[drpmjhess]

I use the term because it is used throughout the scriptures. Of course God’s “life” is beyond anything in our vocabulary, or our understanding.

To be sure! Hebrew theological culture was not preoccupied with multiplying Greek philosophical concepts, so “life” no doubt served double duty.

 

[drpmjhess]

Yes I do. I am not nearly as interested in the “how” as i am the “who”.

I am becoming acquainted with the “who,” and the “how” fascinates me as well.

Petrus

 

[estesbob]

I am becoming acquainted with the “who,” and the “how” fascinates me as well.

Petrus

Me too-HOWEVER go back to the OP-he was having a crisis of faith becuase he couldnt reconcile God with evolution. I was pointing out to him that even science is unable to answer some basis fundamental questions about the origin oflife.

 

[drpmjhess]

I was pointing out to him that even science is unable to answer some basis fundamental questions about the origin oflife.

Which it is not the responsibility of evolutionary theory to answer!

 

[estesbob]

Which it is not the responsibility of evolutionary theory to answer!

Exactly-and evolution is not incompatible with our Faith-which was the point i was trying to make to him.

 

[rossum]

But the basic question isn’t so much where did matter come from, or altermatively where did energy come from. The real question is where did anything come from. Including time, space, gravity, the laws on nature in general, the alternative realities and/or alternative universes which provide the energy for this universe, everything.

For that you will have to ask a cosmologist. I suspect that the answer will be “we don’t know everything but we are working on it.”

Ed’s point is not irrelevant.

estesbob was asking about the origin of the universe. I do not really want to be on the same planet as a laboratory where a scientist is creating a new universe. There are limits to what is safely possible inside a laboratory, which is why we conduct solar astronomy at a safe distance from the Sun.

Scientific “proof” is much more solid when predictions can be verified under controlled conditions. When talking about things that take billions of years to happen, or require super amounts of mass (e.g. black hole), or span millions of light years - things are more difficult to prove. For example, there have been for a long time mutually exclusive theories of planetary formation. Or even how the earth got its moon. One can make all sorts of theories (and even predictions) but the bottom line is that we’ll never know for sure.

As you imply, scientifc theories are never “proved”. All we can know about any theory is that is has not been disproved yet. Different theories of the origin of the universe make different predictions about e.g. the ratio of hydrogen to helium in the early universe. By looking at what effect those different ratios would have now we can eliminate some hypotheses. Any hypothesis that predicts the current universe would be 100% hydrogen is obviously wrong and must be rejected. A laboratory for examining full-size black holes would be nice in theory, but rather impractical. Science does not provide absolute knowledge, it just gives the best answer we have at the moment.

Well, Rossum, I applaud your effort to integrate religion and science here (really). I know that you are not a YEC (I’m not either).

I am Buddhist, so I am not directly interested in the specifics of Christianity. I was attracted to this thread by the OPs falling victim to the false dichotomy “evolution or God” which ID and YE creationism like to push. Mainstream Christianity, including Catholicism, is mostly a force for good and should not be abandoned because of that false dichotomy. It is perfectly possible to be Christian and to accept evolution.

But I disagree with your conclusion.

1. “God is already living, so God cannot be an explanation for the origin of life.” I think what you are saying here is that God cannot be the explanation for his own “life.” But this is the revelation of I AM. The very essence of God is existence. God’s most basic trait, his name. The first uncaused cause. The only reality, since God holds the universe in existence…

This is getting perilously close to “No true Scotsman”. If God is alive then God cannot explain the origin of life; the question becomes: “what is the origin of God?” If God is not alive then we need to find a different word to describe what God is, “faarn” say. So the origin of life is explained by a non-living but faarn God. It is an explanation of sorts, but not a very satisfactory or illuminating one. I prefer the incomplete, but more satisfactory, answers provided by science.

1. Aliens from Zog could conceivably be the answer to some life in the universe somewhere, but it just pushes the question back to “So who created the Zoggians?”

Note that if I say that the Zoggians are non-material with technology so advanced that it appears to us to be supernatural and further that they are extremely long lived it does nothing to remove the question of the origin of the Zoggians. The same applies to God.

There needs to be a first uncaused cause.

False. We are getting well away from the OP, but in short Nagarjuna has shown that cause and effect are mutually conditioned - there can be no effect without a cause and no cause without an effect. You cannot have a first cause without also having a first effect. A cause without an effect cannot be a cause, any more than a parent without children can be a parent.

1. “Genesis is not the description of the origin of life.” It is a description in the sense that it identifies the cause of life (if not the mechanism in detail).

If God is alive, then Genesis is not the origin of life. If God is not alive, but faarn, then Genesis describes the origin of life but leaves open the question of the origin of faarn. What did create faarn? Must have been the Zoggians!

rossum

 

[ricmat]

For that you will have to ask a cosmologist. I suspect that the answer will be “we don’t know everything but we are working on it.”

That’s actually not a bad answer. Better than saying “We know for sure that this is how things happened.”

estesbob was asking about the origin of the universe. I do not really want to be on the same planet as a laboratory where a scientist is creating a new universe. There are limits to what is safely possible inside a laboratory, which is why we conduct solar astronomy at a safe distance from the Sun.

I don’t think you need to worry about being on the same planet…new universe…anytime soon.

There’s another consideration here which I don’t want to get into since it’s off-topic, but we all need to remember that science provides us models of reality, which are useful to some degree, but they are not the same as a total understanding of reality.

As you imply, scientifc theories are never “proved”. All we can know about any theory is that is has not been disproved yet.
snip…
Science does not provide absolute knowledge, it just gives the best answer we have at the moment.

I absolutely agree. We must all remember that whatever the “current” theory of X is, tomorrow it may turn out to be proven wrong. “…he has scattered the proud in their conceit. He has cast down the mighty from their thrones…”

I am Buddhist, so I am not directly interested in the specifics of Christianity. I was attracted to this thread by the OPs falling victim to the false dichotomy “evolution or God” which ID and YE creationism like to push.

I’m not up on YE creationism, but ID is not pushing “evolution OR God.” It’s pushing both. Materialistic based evolution on the other hand pushes “evolution or God.”

I just found the “wedge document” and a response from the DI - if you’re interested, here is the link. It’s fairly short and a quick read.

Mainstream Christianity, including Catholicism, is mostly a force for good and should not be abandoned because of that false dichotomy. It is perfectly possible to be Christian and to accept evolution.

Absolutely true.

It’s also possible to be a Christian (Catholic) and accept ID.

This is getting perilously close to “No true Scotsman”. If God is alive then God cannot explain the origin of life; the question becomes: “what is the origin of God?” If God is not alive then we need to find a different word to describe what God is, “faarn” say. So the origin of life is explained by a non-living but faarn God. It is an explanation of sorts, but not a very satisfactory or illuminating one. I prefer the incomplete, but more satisfactory, answers provided by science.

I’m having difficulty with your whole “If God is alive then God cannot explain the origin of life.” Even looking just at plants and animals, life comes from life. I agree that God’s “life” is of a totally different aspect and we can’t really understand it or explain it. But what we’re merely saying is that God caused life - details to be explained somewhere else.

No true Scotsman? Huh? Must be a European thing

Note that if I say that the Zoggians are non-material with technology so advanced that it appears to us to be supernatural and further that they are extremely long lived it does nothing to remove the question of the origin of the Zoggians. The same applies to God.

False. We are getting well away from the OP, but in short Nagarjuna has shown that cause and effect are mutually conditioned - there can be no effect without a cause and no cause without an effect. You cannot have a first cause without also having a first effect. A cause without an effect cannot be a cause, any more than a parent without children can be a parent.

This is deep into philosophy (beyond me), but it seems to me that God decided to “effect” a universe, and therefore for this universe, with its laws of cause and effect, became the first cause. Before that, God existed as I AM, and didn’t cause anything in this universe.

You’ve probably been through Aquinas’ 5 proofs of God’s existence - since Nagarjuna seems to be attempting a counter-proof based on your statement above.

 

[rossum]

Exactly-and evolution is not incompatible with our Faith-which was the point i was trying to make to him.

I think we all agree on that, the movie is putting forward a false dilemma.

rossum