301 replies to this topic

[Springer]

Chance, I would like to take a comment you made of another post and use it to begin a discussion of abiogenesis, which I think sits at the heart of the evolution fallacy.

Quote

I am not asking you to show me how God did anything, I think we are safe in presuming a miraculous mechanism, yes? I’m saying the tools we use in science are inadequate in testing for miraculous causes. E.g. if you had the tools of science at your disposal at the biblical parting of the red sea, what do you think the instruments would be reading as you walked along the bottom of the red sea? I would presume that natural law had been suspended and the waters were held apart by some supernatural force (divine will), or gravity was being directed at some un-natural angle (again by divine will). Either of which could not be explained by the science tool at our disposal.

So if you were a witness to the parting of the Red Sea you would perhaps look for a naturalistic explanation and rationalize away the fact that it was the power of God that caused it. Even though you saw Moses command the Sea to divide, you would look for some other naturalistic cause, because God “cannot be tested.” There are innumerable examples in nature of phenomena that we observe but cannot explain how. We accept that someday we will understand. Yet at the moment, we do not have the tools or the understanding to explain the how and why. So why is it that you categorically exclude an external source of intelligence as a possibility? You cannot use the excuse that you cannot measure it or test it, because you cannot measure or test the cause of a lot of things. You deduce that something exists based on the evidence. You observe that birth occurs but you cannot explain what is directing a zygote to differentiate into three germinal layers. It just happens, and you assume that laws are operational that account for what you observe. Why does some mesoderm differentiate into skeletal muscle and some into a heart? What is telling the quadriceps to form? You can say it’s in the DNA, but you cannot explain how and why a nucleic acid sequence causes such a miraculous thing? If I say it is the power of God you will categorically exclude that possibility because it “cannot be tested.” Yet you will entertain any other naturalistic explanation even though you cannot test any of them.
You assume that abiogenesis occurred through naturalistic means and exclude the possibility of ID because it’s “not testable”. Yet you will entertain any non-testable naturalistic hypothesis as long as it doesn’t evoke divine intelligence. It’s amusing to me that evolutionistists are always praising science as this great tool, yet they don’t use any science whatsoever in explaining the origin of life.

[Greyhound]

Springer, on Mar 7 2007, 09:19 AM, said:

Yet you will entertain any non-testable naturalistic hypothesis as long as it doesn’t evoke divine intelligence.  It’s amusing to me that evolutionistists are always praising science as this great tool, yet they don’t use any science whatsoever in explaining the origin of life.

Why is abiogenesis untestable?

[Springer]

Greyhound, on Mar 7 2007, 09:43 AM, said:

Why is abiogenesis untestable?

If you can set up an experiment to prove something happened 3.5 billion years ago, by all means do so.

If you think you can prove abiogenesis is possible, then show me the experiment. All attempts to demonstrate this have failed.

Please tell me how you can use science to defend abiogenesis.

[Greyhound]

Springer, on Mar 7 2007, 10:55 AM, said:

If you can set up an experiment to prove something happened 3.5 billion years ago, by all means do so.

You can't set up an experiment to "prove" anything. I believe we've covered that several times.

Quote

If you think you can prove abiogenesis is possible, then show me the experiment.    All attempts to demonstrate this have failed. 

Please tell me how you can use science to defend abiogenesis.

And yet you confirm that, in principle, such experiments exist. If one of them threw up a self-replicating molecule, would you just cry "fluke"? If one threw up DNA, would you do likewise?

[chance]

Springer, on Mar 8 2007, 02:19 AM, said:

Chance, I would like to take a comment you made of another post and use it to begin a discussion of abiogenesis, which I think sits at the heart of the evolution fallacy.


QUOTE
I am not asking you to show me how God did anything, I think we are safe in presuming a miraculous mechanism, yes? I’m saying the tools we use in science are inadequate in testing for miraculous causes. E.g. if you had the tools of science at your disposal at the biblical parting of the red sea, what do you think the instruments would be reading as you walked along the bottom of the red sea? I would presume that natural law had been suspended and the waters were held apart by some supernatural force (divine will), or gravity was being directed at some un-natural angle (again by divine will). Either of which could not be explained by the science tool at our disposal.


So if you were a witness to the parting of the Red Sea you would perhaps look for a naturalistic explanation and rationalize away the fact that it was the power of God that caused it. Even though you saw Moses command the Sea to divide, you would look for some other naturalistic cause, because God “cannot be tested.”

No, my response would be that science has no explanation for the observed event, this is quite an acceptable position for science to take.

Quote

There are innumerable examples in nature of phenomena that we observe but cannot explain how. We accept that someday we will understand. Yet at the moment, we do not have the tools or the understanding to explain the how and why. So why is it that you categorically exclude an external source of intelligence as a possibility?

because no theory has been put forward to test for ID, as I keep reminding you ID is not the default state when some aspect is unknown.

Quote

You cannot use the excuse that you cannot measure it or test it, because you cannot measure or test the cause of a lot of things. You deduce that something exists based on the evidence. You observe that birth occurs but you cannot explain what is directing a zygote to differentiate into three germinal layers. It just happens, and you assume that laws are operational that account for what you observe. Why does some mesoderm differentiate into skeletal muscle and some into a heart? What is telling the quadriceps to form? You can say it’s in the DNA, but you cannot explain how and why a nucleic acid sequence causes such a miraculous thing? If I say it is the power of God you will categorically exclude that possibility because it “cannot be tested.” Yet you will entertain any other naturalistic explanation even though you cannot test any of them.

You are correct that there is much science has yet to explain, but what it can explain and eventually test will be limited to the natural world. If you present some naturalistic method for testing for ID or God, then that would become a part of science, currently these things have no method thus they are beyond the scope of science, its that simple.

Quote

You assume that abiogenesis occurred through naturalistic means and exclude the possibility of ID because it’s “not testable”. Yet you will entertain any non-testable naturalistic hypothesis as long as it doesn’t evoke divine intelligence. It’s amusing to me that evolutionistists are always praising science as this great tool, yet they don’t use any science whatsoever in explaining the origin of life.

What you are overlooking is that it would at some future date be possible to test abiogenesis (assuming it could be simplified to a recipe), because there is no non naturalistic mechanisms proposed. If you want to include supernatural explanation for any aspect of life you must show us how such a thing could be tested using science, now or in the future.

It is up to you to demonstrate how we can test for ID or Devine influence, if you can’t propose a way to test for this, what is science to do?

[Al650]

I'm not against "science" examining the world and presenting the evidence. What I am against is the evidence as interpreted by naturalists being presented as an intellectual way to deny God and the Bible. I had someone ask me, "Show me God" years ago.

What I am also seeing is a faith in science that it will eventually have all of the answers and an attempt, by some, to put God away. Pope Benedict, the head of the one billion plus member Catholic Church, has said that those "fooled by atheism" cannot see God's hand in Creation. And miracles still occur. The Church is in the process of granting sainthood to more than a few people.

Life cannot come from nonlife, it's as simple as that.


Al

[chance]

Al650, on Mar 9 2007, 06:08 AM, said:

I'm not against "science" examining the world and presenting the evidence. What I am against is the evidence as interpreted by naturalists being presented as an intellectual way to deny God and the Bible. I had someone ask me, "Show me God" years ago.

Indeed Science (by it’s very nature) cannot investigate the supernatural, any conclusions drawn by an individual about God, must, by definition, be a philosophy. The exception to this of course is if one ‘believes’ they have experienced/witnessed a vision/apparition, in which case that person believes they have experience a material phenomena produced by a supernatural origin.

Quote

What I am also seeing is a faith in science that it will eventually have all of the answers and an attempt, by some, to put God away.

I don’t think that is possible, science may be able to say certain historical aspects of the bible do not conform to naturalistic explanations of geological processes, but if you want to take that further, then it becomes a philosophic argument. the classic argument I think you are referring to a ‘slippery slope argument, i.e:

Science – “The Noachian flood is impossible, The bible must be wrong on this, if the bible is wrong on this, it might be wrong on other aspects”, and so on…. Until one leaps upon “if the bible is wrong about one thing it must be wrong about all things” Clearly this view cannot be supported by logic nor is it testable by science.

Quote

Pope Benedict, the head of the one billion plus member Catholic Church, has said that those "fooled by atheism" cannot see God's hand in Creation. And miracles still occur. The Church is in the process of granting sainthood to more than a few people.

Unfortunately the catholic church does no scientifically test for miracles (I assume) it investigates claims, “hear say evidence”.

Quote

Life cannot come from nonlife, it's as simple as that.

Is that a statement of belief, or can this be proven with science?

[Al650]

I recently read about a particular candidate for sainthood, the miracle attributed to her and the Church's thorough investigation. It involved the doctors that were about to operate on a man and do a lens transplant. Things did not look good. After saying a prayer to the saint candidate, asking for any help, and that it would be greatly appreciated, the doctors examined him the following day and his eye no longer needed the surgery, having gone from a swollen, damaged state to a healed one.

Life cannot be created by science. I am aware of the properties of some molecules to bind a certain way, and to form certain shapes under certain conditions. I submit that it is not possible for them to acquire the information and internal machinery necessary to become functioning cells.

I also know that miracles do occur and that God interacts with His people. This is not to say people cannot believe what they want, but everyone has some type of belief system. Faith is a free gift from God.


God bless you,
Al

[Seth]

At least for myself, it was science that led me to God and away from evolution. Searching evidence to confirm the validity of ToE proved itself an amazing eye opener. Especially since no evidence existed. Truly Amazing! In essence, I found God in Biology

There were plenty of speculative arguments to be sure, stories really, but no evidence to support them. There were plenty of claims how so and so became such and such but no evidence to support such claims. There were plenty of microevolutionary examples that attempted to extrapolate the known mechanisms for micro into macro but that was as far as it can go. Science was left with the only solution they had available which is to extrapolate the mechanism because evidence to support macro events were unfounded. There was plenty of evidence to show that DNA uses a code but no evidence to support the idea that such a complex language could have been the result of natural means. etc. etc. etc. Not only can't scientific experiments test for the reality of God, it can't even support it's own claims with evidence for evolution.

[chance]

Al650, on Mar 9 2007, 07:02 AM, said:

I recently read about a particular candidate for sainthood, the miracle attributed to her and the Church's thorough investigation. It involved the doctors that were about to operate on a man and do a lens transplant. Things did not look good. After saying a prayer to the saint candidate, asking for any help, and that it would be greatly appreciated, the doctors examined him the following day and his eye no longer needed the surgery, having gone from a swollen, damaged state to a healed one.

(my bold)

This is what I mean, it’s a story you read, there’s no way to determine if the story was reported accurately, or the author or editor did a bit of ‘creative editing’, is there?

Also the problem fixed its self, without knowing precisely the complaint, it could be a case of misdiagnosis.

If this was to be tested scientifically, there should be video cameras, impartial observers, and a ‘control’, and follow up experiments. In addition if one were to be doing this investigation to gage the “power of prayer” the type of case that should be examined is one that cannot possibly attributed misdiagnosis, or any other form of ambiguity, like badly broken bones. If prayer did work the bones would heal (presumably within 24 hrs), this would eliminate anomalous findings.

Quote

Life cannot be created by science. I am aware of the properties of some molecules to bind a certain way, and to form certain shapes under certain conditions. I submit that it is not possible for them to acquire the information and internal machinery necessary to become functioning cells.

(my bold)

currently this is true, but just because current technology is lacking, it does not lend weight to a claim of impossibility, does it?

Quote

I also know that miracles do occur and that God interacts with His people. This is not to say people cannot believe what they want, but everyone has some type of belief system. Faith is a free gift from God.

how do you know for certain that they occur? I submit to you that this could only be determined scientifically, else you are relying on faith, yes?

[Al650]

Thanks to forums like these, I have learned more about God and how He works. My faith is in God, not science. With God, all things are possible.

When I worked in a hospital, I asked the chaplain if he knew of miracles. He said yes.

The miracles reported in the Bible happened and are still happening today. That they have been relabeled "things science can't explain yet" does not make them less real.

I have read many times that science does not deal with the supernatural. Of course it does. There have been experiments to investigate prayer, remote viewing, the soul and other aspects of the supernatural.

There is no possible way for a primitive cell to create itself, to develop sensory apparatus, structures for movement and structures to absorb energy/chemicals/food, much less obtain the necessary information to reproduce.



God bless,
Al

[Springer]

chance, on Mar 7 2007, 02:41 PM, said:

You are correct that there is much science has yet to explain, but what it can explain and eventually test will be limited to the natural world.  If you present some naturalistic method for testing for ID or God, then that would become a part of science, currently these things have no method thus they are beyond the scope of science, its that simple.
What you are overlooking is that it would at some future date be possible to test abiogenesis (assuming it could be simplified to a recipe), because there is no non naturalistic mechanisms proposed.  If you want to include supernatural explanation for any aspect of life you must show us how such a thing could be tested using science, now or in the future.

Your suggestion that evolution explains the world by naturalism and ID by supernaturalism is an artifical, false perspective. You are suggesting that God does not work by natural means. There is no such thing as "supernatural". That is a made-up term which only confuses the issue. God does not use magic. He understands and uses natural laws. Faith is a real power that can work miracles. We may not be able to explain the mechanism, but that doesn't mean we can't observe its effects. There are all kinds of things in science that are "miraculous" in the sense that we don't understand the mechanism. Can you explain how and why a baby develops from a zygote, or what human consciousness actually is? These things surpass all human understanding. The only reason they're not generally considered "miraculous" is because we know that they occur.

In the case of abiogenesis, you're invoking "supernatural" forces in the sense that you suppose that somehow DNA can self-organize and overcome all known laws of probability. I'm sure you'll admit that whatever forces of nature were in effect that caused single cell life to form, those forces are presently beyond human understanding. Agree?

Why, then, do you make an artificial distinction between the power of God (you call it supernatural because you don't understand it) and unseen powers of nature which you equally do not understand?

If we're going to be intellectually honest, then we must admit that man knows only a tiny fraction of what would be necessary to know to understand life. That said, over 99% of the forces of nature are "supernatural" in the sense that we don't understand them.

[chance]

Al650, on Mar 10 2007, 02:57 PM, said:

Thanks to forums like these, I have learned more about God and how He works. My faith is in God, not science. With God, all things are possible.

When I worked in a hospital, I asked the chaplain if he knew of miracles. He said yes.

The miracles reported in the Bible happened and are still happening today. That they have been relabeled "things science can't explain yet" does not make them less real.

But this opinion you have is not based on science is it, it is one of faith, yes? It may be possible that they are/were real, but science stops at 'can’t explain yet', after that point all explanations have some other mechanism.

Quote

I have read many times that science does not deal with the supernatural. Of course it does. There have been experiments to investigate prayer, remote viewing, the soul and other aspects of the supernatural.

Not the same thing, a claim was made that the power of prayer was measurable and the statistics backed up this claim, that’s now a material question that can be investigated by science. What can’t be examined are claims where no evidence is available, e.g. Person X claims God spoke to him, or that he prayed for a relative and they got better. You have to cross the evidence boundary, e.g. a Noachian flood is a good example (currently being discussed elsewhere) this can be examined because if we presume that God does not interfere with basic things like sedimentation, radioactive decay, deliberate misinformation, then the evidence should be found to support the Noachian flood. If however we presume that God did deliberately hide his handiwork, then “no” this aspect is not able to be investigated by science.

Quote

There is no possible way for a primitive cell to create itself, to develop sensory apparatus, structures for movement and structures to absorb energy/chemicals/food, much less obtain the necessary information to reproduce.

Again, how can you know this for certain, if science has not yet found a satisfactory mechanism for abiogenesis, how can you state such a thing is an impossibility, it is you that is concluding the answer before all the facts are in.

[deadlock]

chance, on Mar 11 2007, 05:55 PM, said:

Again, how can you know this for certain, if science has not yet found a satisfactory mechanism for abiogenesis, how can you state such a thing is an impossibility, it is you that is concluding the answer before all the facts are in.

Excuse me, But Again the onus of proof is yours.Nobody has to prove that abiogenesis is possible.It´s impossible until somebody proves the contrary.

[chance]

Springer, on Mar 10 2007, 03:03 PM, said:

chance>
You are correct that there is much science has yet to explain, but what it can explain and eventually test will be limited to the natural world.  If you present some naturalistic method for testing for ID or God, then that would become a part of science, currently these things have no method thus they are beyond the scope of science, its that simple.
What you are overlooking is that it would at some future date be possible to test abiogenesis (assuming it could be simplified to a recipe), because there is no non naturalistic mechanisms proposed.  If you want to include supernatural explanation for any aspect of life you must show us how such a thing could be tested using science, now or in the future.


Springer>
Your suggestion that evolution explains the world by naturalism and ID by supernaturalism is an artifical, false perspective.

I think I am somewhat justified in this opinion. Evolution has the evidences we are all familiar with and debate about. ID has yet to claim anything more that, “X is too complex to have a natural origin” plus various attack on evolution (more or less along the same lines as those used by YEC), there is no scientific theory of ID. The possibilities of who or what the source of ID is limited to Aliens, time travellers, and God. The first two don’t really solve anything as then the problem is just taken back one step to how the aliens or time travellers came about (presuming there very complex as well), this only leave God as a viable option.

Quote

You are suggesting that God does not work by natural means. There is no such thing as "supernatural". That is a made-up term which only confuses the issue. God does not use magic. He understands and uses natural laws.
<moved> Why, then, do you make an artificial distinction between the power of God (you call it supernatural because you don't understand it) and unseen powers of nature which you equally do not understand?

I don’t use the term supernatural to mean “hocus-pocus”, I use it to mean some miracles event that could not possible have occurred without manipulating the natural laws. One might like to use the term “super science” in your case as you seem certain God uses natural laws, but somewhere in that mix is a manipulation of energy that is beyond regular science to investigate because it leaves no trace of it’s passing.

Quote

Faith is a real power that can work miracles. We may not be able to explain the mechanism, but that doesn't mean we can't observe its effects. There are all kinds of things in science that are "miraculous" in the sense that we don't understand the mechanism. Can you explain how and why a baby develops from a zygote, or what human consciousness actually is? These things surpass all human understanding. The only reason they're not generally considered "miraculous" is because we know that they occur. 

Not sure I can explain them to anyone’s satisfaction, but as they can be investigated they fall under the umbrella of science. I would maintain that because these things are material they can eventually be explained.

Quote

In the case of abiogenesis, you're invoking "supernatural" forces in the sense that you suppose that somehow DNA can self-organize and overcome all known laws of probability. I'm sure you'll admit that whatever forces of nature were in effect that caused single cell life to form, those forces are presently beyond human understanding. Agree?

Abiogenesis, must produce a naturalistic explanation, if and when it’s figured out, I would expect, A + B + C, simmer for X time in a moderate oven = life.

No I do not agree that such things a beyond human understanding, they may be difficult to “retro engineer” because evidence of the history is not understood or is missing.

Quote

If we're going to be intellectually honest, then we must admit that man knows only a tiny fraction of what would be necessary to know to understand life. That said, over 99% of the forces of nature are "supernatural" in the sense that we don't understand them.

Totally agree re we understand a tiny fraction.

What we don’t understand is not supernatural by definition, however I do see the possibility of some aspect that was once classified as supernatural, being reclassified as natural, it happed all the time when science began, but less often now to the point of nil (I can’t think of a recent example).

[chance]

deadlock, on Mar 12 2007, 07:26 AM, said:

Excuse me, But Again the onus of proof is yours.Nobody has to prove that abiogenesis is possible.It´s impossible until somebody proves the contrary.

Sorry but you are quite wrong on this:

Al650 quoted in part,

Quote

There is no possible way for a primitive cell to create itself…….<snip>

, in which case anyone can justifiably ask “how one can be so certain” of this statement.

For abiogenesis, the current state is “process unknown” (implying that it may or may not be possible) this does not imply it is impossible.

[deadlock]

chance, on Mar 11 2007, 06:43 PM, said:

Sorry but you are quite wrong on this:

Al650 quoted in part, , in which case anyone can justifiably ask “how one can be so certain” of this statement.

For abiogenesis, the current state is “process unknown” (implying that it may or may not be possible)  this does not imply it is impossible.

So , prove me that God does not exist.

[jason78]

deadlock, on Mar 11 2007, 02:26 PM, said:

Excuse me, But Again the onus of proof is yours.Nobody has to prove that abiogenesis is possible.It´s impossible until somebody proves the contrary.

No, the onus of proof is on you to prove that a man can be made from mud. Can it be done?

[chance]

deadlock, on Mar 12 2007, 08:59 AM, said:

chance>
Sorry but you are quite wrong on this:

Al650 quoted in part, , in which case anyone can justifiably ask “how one can be so certain” of this statement.

For abiogenesis, the current state is “process unknown” (implying that it may or may not be possible)  this does not imply it is impossible.


deadlock>
So , prove me that God does not exist.

How you imply that I need to prove the existence or non existence of God from my posts I cant imagine. From experience in other forums the general consensus is that, God can neither be proved nor disproved, the reasoning is that, ‘proof’ implies some science, and as science is bound to materialism, thus God is beyond detection.

What I have been attempting to show is that Evolution is science, ID is not science, and when claims of “This or that is impossible” then the burden of proof is upon that person to make good the claim, and not reverse the question with a request to prove a negative.

Extract from the wiki

Quote

The fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative is a logical fallacy of the following form:

"X is true because there is no proof that X is false."

This is a fallacy whereby the normal burden of proof is reversed. It is asserted that a proposition is true, only because it has not been proven false. Formally, the burden of proof should be on the proposed idea, not the challenger of the idea.

The negative proof fallacy often occurs in the debate of the existence of supernatural phenomena, in the following form:

"A supernatural force must exist, because there is no proof that it does not exist".
However, the fallacy can also occur when the predicate of a subject is denied:

"A supernatural force does not exist, for I have not seen proof that something supernatural does exist.".

As you can see, proving a negative is equally impossible for me to disprove as it is for you to prove.

[Al650]

I once thought, purely out of respect for authority, that amino acids, the "building blocks of life" and water would equal life. Not true. Having faith in a naturalistic explanation is unjustified. Therefore, having faith in evolution is unjustified.

Right now, the theory of evolution is being taught as a fact. No need to bring up semantics or that abiogenesis is separate from evolution. In my view, these sorts of debates are artificial. I've seen them on other Christian forums. The goal appears to be to create doubt, confusion and conflict. Among Christians, we all know that God created all things and nothing was created without Him. It's unfortunate that the Theory of Evolution is being used as a tool in an attempt to change hearts, minds and beliefs.

God bless you,
Al