http://www.nwcreation.net/videos/a_question_of_origins.html
You can stream or download

During the past century, much of the world has accepted the theory of Evolution as fact. Yet the molecules-to-man theory has no direct evidence to support it at all. Origins provides overwhelming evidence in favor of Creation.

The theory of Evolution has been applied to most scientific fields and this video thoroughly exposes the blind speculation and evolutionary bias in three of these areas of science including: Cosmology, Chemistry, and Biology.

This visually rich, full production reveals conclusive evidence that the universe and all life were created by a Supernatural Being, and that the God of the Bible is that Creator.

Features widely-traveled Creationist speaker, Roger Oakland, who makes the issues easy-to-understand for laypeople. Various scientific experts share evidence and proofs.

You're going to get caned for the grammatical error in that title, you do know that? That probably encapsulates the worthyness of your link/spam aswell.

Your going to get caned for the grammatical error in that title, you do know that? That probably encapsulates the worthyness of your link/spam aswell.

My spelling is poor i admit...need to get me and the oxford dictionary alone for a few days and master the art of correct spelling and grammer, but English was never my strongest subject

OK, 11 minutes in, and I have to say it's starting to annoy me. It confuses terms, uses 'evolution' in the context of cosmology, and states that 'entropy' is demostrated by people aging! Also, saying that the Universe is ordered, and that order has never been created from an explosion is just bullshit. A void is perfect. Perfectly ordered, so pefectly balanced that there is no feature to discern one area of space, or time. Then we have the big bang, and suddenly, it isn't even, or ordered. We have energy, that moves, that collides, that changes state and becomes matter, that condenses, and fuses in nuclear reactions changing it's compostion, and again exploding, to swirl, and condense again, and form a new star, ... get the idea? The Universe now, is far more complex than a void was, so the entropy requirement is satisfied.

This looks like an advertisement.

wow...a video that overthrows the central dogma of biological sciences.

a miracle indeed.

Hey, dude, it's visually rich. That's enough for me! Praise God!

The content itself doesn't matter when you are going to believe it no matter what it says.

-AntonK

Yet again some fundermentalist dogma being used to replace sound educational principals with rhetoric and idealised wanten abandonment of thousands of years of science to pander to those who are soo seriousely ego disfunctional they can not go on living whith the thought they came from a lower life form.

an a-front to the ego that has been built up through brain washing and fear
using the three basic religous systems to raise a child to be a fundermentalist soldier

Fear
Shame
Guilt

Congratulations at supporting suicide bombers and wars

Side note
it is now possible to clone humans (has been hapening for some decades now).
it is possible to effectively find life where none was known to be.
Life (organisms) have been found to life on space junk.

the world as most religouse nutters know it has long since left to find another flat earth to inhabbit but in th mean tme,
they have set about to try and kill every one and every thing on this one so they may create the second coming anf the armagedon that they soo desire.

if you wish death then simply kill yourself and stop trying to take the rest of the people and planet with you.

OK, 11 minutes in, and I have to say it's starting to annoy me. It confuses terms, uses 'evolution' in the context of cosmology, and states that 'entropy' is demostrated by people aging! Also, saying that the Universe is ordered, and that order has never been created from an explosion is just bullshit. A void is perfect. Perfectly ordered, so pefectly balanced that there is no feature to discern one area of space, or time. Then we have the big bang, and suddenly, it isn't even, or ordered. We have energy, that moves, that collides, that changes state and becomes matter, that condenses, and fuses in nuclear reactions changing it's compostion, and again exploding, to swirl, and condense again, and form a new star, ... get the idea? The Universe now, is far more complex than a void was, so the entropy requirement is satisfied.


Dude
your wasting your time
any half wit knows the reality of chaos theory and how order is created by the universal equation.
your best to employ their same tactics and start building childrens holiday camps where you train suicide bombers for science.
then go and blow up some churchs or such like.

LOL
and peolple say the palistinians and other middle eastern people are nutters, yet now the usa has suidice bomber schools for kids run by religous nutters under the name of christianity.
i watched an article on it on the news a couple of weeks ago.

10 to 15 year old kids rationalising why its ok to die for your religion,
parroting the rhetoric preached to them as the captive audience,
groomed for mental rape by their nutter parents.

They wish for war and armagedon, NEVER FORGET THAT!

I would like to hear more about how order is created by the Universal Equation, praise be unto thy Sacred Mathematics.

Feel free to use smaller letters.

I would like to hear more about how order is created by the Universal Equation, praise be unto thy Sacred Mathematics.

Feel free to use smaller letters.

trying to explain a theory of similar perameters to the theory of relativity to a flat eath proponent is not silly but purely foolish and an indignent afront to science where you could be teaching something to someone who actualy desires to learn.

I'd have expected anyone with a 'universal equation' to be able to spell 'parameters'

it is now possible to clone humans (has been hapening for some decades now).

That has been happening since the dawn of the human species.

Why do you think I'm like a flat Earth proponent? Why do you think I don't desire to learn? ...Or is it that you don't know what you're talking about?

Never mind, don't bother.

There is overwhelming evidence for evolution. Overwhleming.

Why do you think I'm like a flat Earth proponent? Why do you think I don't desire to learn? ...Or is it that you don't know what you're talking about?
Jeez, spidergoat, get with the bloody programme, why don't you. The man is saying there is no point in trying to reason with these fools, so why bother. He is not saying you are a flat-Earthist. He is saying you'll do as well arguing logic with a creationist as a flat-Earthist.

Sorry, I'm sarcastically challenged today.

There is overwhelming evidence for evolution. Overwhleming.
yes, there is.
but there is NO evidence, none whatsoever, that life arose from the elements.

i find it telling that science seperates these into two processes when in fact evolution is a continuation of the first.

yes, there is.
but there is NO evidence, none whatsoever, that life arose from the elements.

i find it telling that science seperates these into two processes when in fact evolution is a continuation of the first.

There's some.
The creation of amino acids and polymers from elements has been done in the lab and observed in nature.

There's some.
The creation of amino acids and polymers from elements has been done in the lab and observed in nature.
the last i heard these two molecules cannot reproduce themselves, therefor cannot be termed 'life'.

Isn't this the "God of gaps" argument? Where any gap in scientific explanation is room for God as an alternative explanation?

the last i heard these two molecules cannot reproduce themselves, therefor cannot be termed 'life'.

Not yet, but then, life had something like 2 billion years to happen?

Wait and see, wait and see :)

Isn't this the "God of gaps" argument? Where any gap in scientific explanation is room for God as an alternative explanation?

That's a more polite way of putting the age ol' "God dun it!" explanation.

"Wot's lightning?"
"God!"
"What's the sun?"
"God!"
ad nauseum

A rather useless approach to knowledge. Let's keep God out of science.

The two premises, the big bang and spontaneous life, are as hard to believe as any crazy theory. If you are highly educated in any field, science for example, you would be able to present data to prove any theory and stand it up like a house of cards. I think it is great that scientists are exploring god's works, but to worship his handiwork is not what he had intended.
I think it is philosophically confusing to teach scientific theory as fact to children, when we don't really know. Anyone who watched that video must have cringed when they interviewed the students who supported evolution. I thought the quotes from the bible were quite good.

Isn't this the "God of gaps" argument? Where any gap in scientific explanation is room for God as an alternative explanation?
call it what you will but it's still valid.

Not yet, but then, life had something like 2 billion years to happen?

Wait and see, wait and see :)
computers can reduce years to minutes.

You're going to get caned for the grammatical error in that title, you do know that? That probably encapsulates the worthyness of your link/spam aswell.

Let me get this straight. We have a critic saying that a grammatical error destroyes the worthYness of etc. and etc.

What about the accurate spelling of worthIness?

How many points for akurit spalin?

I'm with Riple,

Now I'm total devotee of Gandhi and M. L. King , However, after seeing this kind of muck, I find myself entertaining intolerant Fantasies.........like.........

An Atheist Jihad !
We just ask people if they believe in God, if they say yes ,we just shoot them.

Then I read in the Post article on religion in America, that only 6% were Atheist. Ok ............we make exception for any pacifists: Quakers, Mennonite, agnostics, deist, ........god doesn't matter as long as their Pacifist.

So now our Atheist Army will only need to deal with a couple hundred million.

"Religion Is BUNK" T. A. Edison

Don't go off topic or anything, guys.

Let me get this straight. We have a critic saying that a grammatical error destroyes the worthYness of etc. and etc.
What about the accurate spelling of worthIness?
Much as I consider Imaplank to be a total prat with very little of a meaningful education I think you have misjudged him here. He is not saying he thinks the typographical error is dreadful, he is suggesting the CGB (Correct Grammar Brigade) will pounce upon it.

Let me get this straight. We have a critic saying that a grammatical error destroyes the worthYness of etc. and etc.

What about the accurate spelling of worthIness?

How many points for akurit spalin?

No spaceman! the grammar doesn't destroy it, I was just commenting on how petty people of this board are and that he would get some tit picking at that.
No, the link is merely an obvious straw man and has about as much chance of being the first real challege to evolution out of the billions of others as Kate Moss awakening me and riding my dick tommorow morning and isn't worth the effort of even a glance.;)

Much as I consider Imaplank to be a total prat with very little of a meaningful education I think you have misjudged him here. He is not saying he thinks the typographical error is dreadful, he is suggesting the CGB (Correct Grammar Brigade) will pounce upon it.

Yes artard , congratulations you are getting quicker these days(are you taking something?), well done!;)

The two premises, the big bang and spontaneous life, are as hard to believe as any crazy theory. If you are highly educated in any field, science for example, you would be able to present data to prove any theory and stand it up like a house of cards. I think it is great that scientists are exploring god's works, but to worship his handiwork is not what he had intended.
I think it is philosophically confusing to teach scientific theory as fact to children, when we don't really know. Anyone who watched that video must have cringed when they interviewed the students who supported evolution. I thought the quotes from the bible were quite good.

Evolution and abiogenesis are not the same theory. Evolution is well supported. Abiogenesis is still in it's infancy. The discovery of DNA goes a long way to uniting the world of chemistry and biology.

I've got your evidence for evolution for you... right here!!!

Tall people have tall babies (not always, but more often then not)
Being tall is either an advantage or a disadvantage, therefore tall people will either multiply or die out.
Therefore the population evolves to be taller or shorter.

Throw in mutations, which are well documented events and you've got a proved theory of evolution

in the video it's states that there is variety built into the genetic code of all species, and that some varieties are better suited for different enviorments. If suddenly all people over 6' were getting systematically beheaded, eventually most everyone alive and being born would be below six feet. The species has not "evolved", just a dominant trait has succeeded. Or at least that is how I understand the video's assertion.
From what I undertsand of evolution, they use this basic premise to explain how lightning and chemicals became humans. dominant traits and mutations creating higher and higher order.

Holy crap, so I got through about 1/4 of that video before I just couldn't take the punishment any longer. Here are my take aways:

MAD ASSERTIONS (aside from 50% of the content from the 'science' introduction):
* Evolution attempts to explain reality.
* The core rule of evolution is 'survival of the fittest'.
* The universe 'started' as a literal explosion.
* Entropy contradicts evolution.

MAD ARGUMENTS:
* If the universe didn't originate from a literal explosion then the only other option for it's existence is that it was created.
* Evolution doesn't explain what happened before the beginning of oure universe... therefore 'God' exists.

The authors of this film are so poorly educated its criminal.

in the video it's states that there is variety built into the genetic code of all species,

Please explain Mendel's experiments in the light of this statement.

Let's keep God out of science.

I agree.
It is only necessary to keep this issue burning for fundies who cannot get past the idea that the bible might not be functional as a news story complete with scientific descriptions. Or perhaps it is being misread in other ways.
This issue has nothing to do with God.

i like to know how you can discount something when there is no reason to do so.
as for as life arising on this planet there is no reason to discount a creator.

in the video it's states that there is variety built into the genetic code of all species, and that some varieties are better suited for different enviorments. If suddenly all people over 6' were getting systematically beheaded, eventually most everyone alive and being born would be below six feet. The species has not "evolved", just a dominant trait has succeeded. Or at least that is how I understand the video's assertion.
From what I undertsand of evolution, they use this basic premise to explain how lightning and chemicals became humans. dominant traits and mutations creating higher and higher order.

AND YOU DON'T CALL THAT EVOLUTION?!?? (It is precisely)

Actually, evolution doesn't address the first life that is called ABIOGENESIS.

in the video it's states that there is variety built into the genetic code of all species, and that some varieties are better suited for different enviorments. If suddenly all people over 6' were getting systematically beheaded, eventually most everyone alive and being born would be below six feet. The species has not "evolved", just a dominant trait has succeeded. Or at least that is how I understand the video's assertion.
From what I undertsand of evolution, they use this basic premise to explain how lightning and chemicals became humans. dominant traits and mutations creating higher and higher order.

So, what you believe is that a God clicked his fingers and created life from NOTHING?
This video is utter horse shit, constantly claiming that evolution deals with the origins of life, it doesn't!!!!! This video is religious propaganda, nothing more.

wsionynw,
I thought the video has an interesting point that belief in a christian god does not negate science. yes, the scientific arguments are pretty thin, and I am no scientists, sir, but to say it is complete horseshit I would not. It is a point of view, contrasting "the big bang" and "abiogenesis" (thanks spidergoat), which are theories.
Evolution is a widely taught and accepted scientific theory, but there are missing pieces still. Species improve and change over time; they adapt. But does a sea horse turn into a pony? I think that was what the film was debating.

spurious monkey, I don't remember mendel being brought up in the video
spidergoat, what I inferred from the video was the support of natural selection, not evolution

Mendel is important because he did pioneering work on genetics, which was important later on in the modern syntehsis of evolutionary biology.

Besides, it is actually "Evoklution by means of natural seletion"
WHich bit of each individual has small genetic variations which then affect their fitness within the envirnment they are in, and then those that are less fit are selected out, dont you get?

from my limited knowledge, the video's main fault is trying to debunk abiogenesis, evolution and the big bang all at once. It's in affont on science.
But, all of these theories have got problems, though evolution has been upheld by observations over the years since it's postulation, and nothing has disproven it.
Given this evolution does not explain how life began (thanks spidergoat). Also, whenever a species makes a major shift in it's evolutionary path, there is no fossil record. Scientists claim that these are "abrupt shifts" and are part of macroevoltion and explain why there is a dirth of transistional species. So, nothing disproves evolution, but evolution does not explain, nor tries to explain, how we got here or fully explains the existence of all species. So you try to explain to someone, a child, how man evolved from an ape and you have no proof. I think that this allows for a debate. You have supporting observations and a theory that hasn't been disproven, but no proof. I'm not convinced and I think that the authors of the video aren't either. Hopefully scientists aren't and will continue to investigate.

I want my 61 minutes back, that was garbage. Assuming that they "proved" everything false that they claimed to, saying that creationism is the ONLY other option or that it MUST HAVE BEEN god, and expecting it to be true just because it was stated is stupid. There is SO much proof of evolution. There are so many things that can be PROVED false in the Bible. At the beginning the guy said something to the extent of: "Sadly 4 years of school brainwashed me..." WOW! The ending reminded me of Nastrodamus interpretations, creating something from nothing. Stating that al of the planets should spin the same way, and then stating that they shouldn't spin at all is not only contradictatory, but in both cases wrong. Saying that everything in the universe is in order, then stating that there are different elements and atmospheres on each planet and that planet and moons rotate in different directions REALLY doesn't help your point. There are so many inaccuracies in that movie, I can't even list them all.

I don't think the video was completely dicounting evolution, just that it dosen't explain our existence. The science was a little thin, I agree, but I think what is important is that people don't look to science for all their answers. Through the years many scientific theories have been believed and turned out false, why hold on to these theories as if they are gospel?
I don't think scientists really understand all the forces behind the creation of solar systems. They postulize and observe neighboring galaxies, but everything we see is a snapshot of what is happening, even if we observe for 100 yrs. For someone to have a different opinion about it is fine in my opinion. we don't know.
If you are a person that believes in a creator, I bet that scientists sound just as arrogant when they explain the universe as the authors of this video do to a non believer. We don't even know where our moon came from. just guesses.

I don't think the video was completely dicounting evolution, just that it dosen't explain our existence. The science was a little thin, I agree, but I think what is important is that people don't look to science for all their answers. Through the years many scientific theories have been believed and turned out false, why hold on to these theories as if they are gospel?


Ahh, but for each time a scientific theory was discounted, a more accurate one has risen to take its place. These scientific theories are the closest thing we have to the truth, and until they are proved wrong and an alternative proved more correct, they will continue to be believed

I don't think scientists really understand all the forces behind the creation of solar systems. They postulize and observe neighboring galaxies, but everything we see is a snapshot of what is happening, even if we observe for 100 yrs. For someone to have a different opinion about it is fine in my opinion. we don't know.
We don't even know where our moon came from. just guesses.
Just because we don't know something doesn't mean we can go off on a limb and and accept a theory that has nothing to even suggest it's truth, such as a creator's part. Now we do know that the moon's core has VERY similar elements to those found in earth's core, and that is where we get our theories from. That suggests that the moon was once part of earth.
If you are a person that believes in a creator, I bet that scientists sound just as arrogant when they explain the universe as the authors of this video do to a non believer.
Except science is BASED in fact.

"except science is based in fact". That isn't being disputed by the video. Is the big bang a fact? Is abiogenesis a fact? These two theories, in particular, are far from fact. The video gives an alternative explanation to what most people would say is an area that scientists don't have a good explanation for. The video does not dissuade scientific exploration or discovery. It seemed to encourage it.
There is likely more evidence of the power of prayer than there is for the big bang. Does that prove the existence of a creator? Does that make prayer a fact?

"except science is based in fact". That isn't being disputed by the video.
The video disputes EVOLUTION by stating that some all-powerful creator just poofed all of the life. But there's a lot of really big problems with that. First, it's not based on any fact. Second, what happened to the dinosaurs. Third, what happened to all the other species that have nothing resembling them alive today. Explain how carbon dating is flawed? Only showing half of a debate is propoganda.
Is the big bang a fact?
Stars are spreading apart at all times, so yes it is based on facts. What fact(s) is/are creationism based on?
Is abiogenesis a fact?
Until someone proves it wrong, yes. What else is as or more plausible? That there is some being that has always existed in the void of space? And somehow humans discovery this "god" years after the existance of humans, and somehow know the history of the first man despite that. Monotheism is a Zoroastrian principle, so christianity(from judaism) is the child of the child of something made up by men. The video is complet bullshit religious fundamentalist propoganda. Think about it, kid.
These two theories, in particular, are far from fact.
Not as far as life in a vacuum using magic.
The video gives an alternative explanation to what most people would say is an area that scientists don't have a good explanation for.
The video's explaination is far more inaccurate than what most scientists would tell you.
The video does not dissuade scientific exploration or discovery. It seemed to encourage it.
The video was under researched, and if it wasn't, they couldn't have made it with any hope of fooling someone into believing the bullshit in it.
There is likely more evidence of the power of prayer than there is for the big bang.
Really? Show me a comparison. There's more proof for Moses parting the Red Sea than for Evolution too, right? That's dumb. The video's dumb. You're dumb.
Does that prove the existence of a creator? Does that make prayer a fact?
Payer a fact? What does that even mean? If you mean "does that mean that prayer works?" No. I haven't seen any tests that can be duplicated at any time by anyone proving anything about the power of prayer. We do however know(at least we think we do) that the universe is spreading out, and so the big bang is a plausible theory.

There was just so much stuff in that movie that was strait WRONG. A scientist couldn't duplicate THE MOST AMAZING AND COMPLEX EVENT THAT WE KNOW OF, thus God MUST HAVE...MUST HAVE...MUST HAVE been the cause of the original event. We can't know for sure where the moon came from, so God HAS to be the reason it's there. The Universe is in order, yet planets are spinning in different directions, and on tilted axies, and their moons revolve in different directions, so orderly. Tell me what in that movie provd ANYTHING. You can't, which means that God MUST HAVE made it himself.

[QUOTE=rjr6;1174887
There is likely more evidence of the power of prayer than there is for the big bang. Does that prove the existence of a creator? Does that make prayer a fact?[/QUOTE]

Are you trying to blur religion and science?

oniw17,
you make so many points I wouldn't know where to start. Basically, the video's ascertion is that science does not adequately explain our existence, at this time.

I didn't here the word "poof" once in the video. Spidergoat pointed out that evolution and the origin of life are separate ideas, and the video did not suggests that the entire idea of evolution was incorrect.

Stars are spreading apart and the big bang explains why maybe. the video did not say this was incorrect. Stars could be spreading apart for any number of reasons, not just because they were shot out of a cannon.

abiogenesis is as hard a theory to believe as any idea out there. But it is a start and you must start somewhere. to defend it as truth is premature.

It's funny that you say what does prayer being a fact mean? What does the big bang being a fact mean. you have observations of galaxies spreading apart like they would in an explosion, so it's fact. that's poor logic. the big bang is a model based on observations. the video does not dispute this.

alot of the science they used was, for the third time, thin.

The video never says "god must of done it". It's not a fall back posistion.


wsionynw,

I'm not sure what you mean

but there is NO evidence, none whatsoever, that life arose from the elements. That is not exactly true. Or, to put it in different words: that is incorrect.
We know many organic molecules, including amino acids, are commonplace in space. We know that these and other pre-biotic molecules can be synthesised in a matter of days from atmospheres akin to the primeval Earth atmosphere. We can envisage pathways that could lead from these pre-biotic molecules to primitive replicating systems. Such suggestive observations constitute evidence for abiogenesis.
i find it telling that science seperates these into two processes when in fact evolution is a continuation of the first. They are separate processes. They deserve separate consideration. This does not mean there may not be overlaps of mechanisms, but rather the two concepts are distinct in character. For one thing life originates as a distinct event. Evolution continues as a process.

Not yet, but then, life had something like 2 billion years to happen?No it didn’t. It is agreed that life was present on the Earth at least as early as 3.6 billion years ago. The Earth is 4.6 billion years old. For the first few hundred million years the planet would have had a molten surface and no trace of an ocean. Even once oceans had been emplaced these may well have been evaporated by bolide impact during the Late Bombardment phase. At best we are left with 800 million years, and more likely around 300 million years for life to emerge.

From what I undertsand of evolution, they use this basic premise to explain how lightning and chemicals became humans.I think in this statement you reveal you have no understanding of evolution at all. There is nothing wrong with that, except when you then choose, no matter how mannered and restrained your tone, to pontificate on the subject.
As has been pointed out by others there is a wide world between abiogenesis (your lightning and chemicals) and evolution (the emergence of humans over a few billion years from a common ancestor to all life).
And why is it, rjr6, that you all have this obsession with evolution and humanity. The interesting bits of evolution have bugger all to do with primates, yet that is all you pore over in such detail. You bemoan the scarcity of human fossils, yet fail to consider the veritable cornucopia of say ammonites or whales, wherein the path of evolution is readily apparent.

I thought the video has an interesting point that belief in a christian god does not negate science. Nor does belief in evolution, the Big Bang and abiogenesis prevent one believing in God. What makes you think it does? (You imply that it might.)

If you are a person that believes in a creator, I bet that scientists sound just as arrogant when they explain the universe as the authors of this video do to a non believer. We don't even know where our moon came from. just guesses. No. It is not just guesses. It is anything but guesses. We have combined observations from many fields of science (geochemistry, seismology, geology, astronomy, orbital mechanics, selenology etc) to demonstrate, with a high degree of probability, exactly how the moon was formed. Now, you are correct that this may later turn out to a flawed idea. However, if it does, what will reveal it as a flawed idea is the persistent re-examination of the data by scientists. This is the great strength of science – its continual and continuous reassessment of observations and theories.

There is much wrong with the video but I will just bring up one issue because it needs no science at all to dismiss.

The video stated that man and ape share 98% DNA or thereabouts. It then talked of water melon and clouds sharing 98% water. This is such a stupid comparison I am shocked that they saw fit to even attempt to use this its so flawed.

98% DNA shared is a massive complex network beyond a single mans comprehension. It involves huge indivdual similaritys the numbers I could not give you at the moment. How many genes etc is this does anyone know?

On the other hand to share 98% water (as in cloud and melon) is one element but a lot of it (very simple).

Can you see that this is so stupid it should never be used. Religion uses these far out comparisons because it has nothing better to offer. Its common sense that this is stupid but people still buy it.

A very telling point alexb123. To use such an argument means, I think, that the producers of the video are either seriously uneducated, or monstrously cynical. Either way, they and their message are not to be entertained.

I don't think I'm pontificating on evolution, and have not argued against evolution since it was pointed out to me that evolution does not claim to describe the origin of species. The video itself states it's belief in evolution. Do scientists know all the mechanisms behind evolution? no. Is that pontificating?
I'm glad someone stated that science does not negate a deity. That's really what the point of the video is. Sometimes we get too caught up in details about whose right or whose wrong and miss the whole picture. To treat science as a total belief structure for our existence maybe in fact missing the whole point.
Abiogenesis is basically spontaneous generation, which has never been observed in nature. That's not to say we shouldn't investigate the possibility.

oniw17,
you make so many points I wouldn't know where to start. Basically, the video's ascertion is that science does not adequately explain our existence, at this time.
And all the points are where I started with the flaws in the video. I'm not even that smart, and I still pointed out all of those things. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean you can make stuff up, or go by something someone else made up.
I didn't hear the word "poof" once in the video.
What else can creationism be explained as? Especially when they say speciation of genes that already exist, not evolving into another species is how everything came to be. Do you know what that means? That means humans have always been here. That means that we came from NOWHERE, and were "poofed" here. Creationists advocating the bible would make a better arguement if they said since genesis states that man was made at the end of the 6th day, God told Moses that evolution was real, which is still bullshit.
Spidergoat pointed out that evolution and the origin of life are separate ideas, and the video did not suggests that the entire idea of evolution was incorrect.
The video pretty much says evolution isn't real, it just never really attempts to explain why.

Stars are spreading apart and the big bang explains why maybe. the video did not say this was incorrect. Stars could be spreading apart for any number of reasons, not just because they were shot out of a cannon.
I believe that the current theory is that the universe imploded and then backfired itself, like when stars explode, and actually that it will happen again, and may have happened before.
abiogenesis is as hard a theory to believe as any idea out there. But it is a start and you must start somewhere. to defend it as truth is premature.
It's the easiest thing to believe out there, and to claim prooving it wrong just because we don't know exactly how it happened, therefore have yet to reproduce it is propoganda.
It's funny that you say what does prayer being a fact mean? What does the big bang being a fact mean.
You can pray, that much is certain. Does it work? I think that's what you're asking, not is prayer a fact.
you have observations of galaxies spreading apart like they would in an explosion, so it's fact.
I did NOT say that. I said that it's based on fact, and you can see the effects of such a thing. Where do you see the effects of God creating the universe?
that's poor logic. the big bang is a model based on observations. the video does not dispute this.
The video claims to prove the big bang wrong, yet does no such thing. Or does it? Show me.
alot of the science they used was, for the third time, thin.
And that makes a BIG difference. That's pretty much the only thing that matters when trying to prove something.
The video never says "god must of done it". It's not a fall back posistion.
I'm not going to watch the video again to count how many times, but it says "creationism is the ONLY other option" quite a few times. This is my main problem with the video. That is a statement of pure nonsense. And they have the nerve to suggest in the summary that the theory of evolution is a result of bias. That's like the pot calling the kettle black. Like mad.

you either believe there is a creator or you don't. So yes there are just two posistions and they would be right to say there is only one other possibility, creationism.

you either believe there is a creator or you don't. So yes there are just two posistions and they would be right to say there is only one other possibility, creationism.

NO! If the big bang didn't happen, there are infinite possibilities to what could've happened. You can't just assume something with nothing to base your assumption on. Each of the stars could have formed by some other means. Saying that it must have been God is like saying "if you don't believe in god, you're a bad person," which is simply not true, there's more than two options.

Abiogenesis and the Big Bang DID happen, it's just not clear exactly how.

By no means am I judging anyone's values. The video was important as it showed a different point of view to the big bang and the origin of man. further video's may make better points and have better arguments to broaden the scope of investigating the origins of the universe and the origin of life beyond that of Big Bang (which is a pretty open interpretation of the beginning).

spidergoat, the creator is real, we're just not quite sure how to prove it. lol

This is not about broadening the scope of investigations, it's about making stupid people believe lies. The Big Bang is a deduction from the fact that the universe is expanding, it is based on evidence, not one person's experience. Abiogenesis is less well supported, since most evidence was lost in the process, but we know something like that must have happened. Anyway, the principle of evolution means that there is not much for God to do anyway, much less a highly advanced creative entity.

I don't think I'm pontificating on evolution,.What ever you wish to call it you are speaking with an authority you do not possess, quoting others whose intellectual honesty is called into serious question, and disregarding the meticulous work of tens thousands of researchers whose objective is to explore our origins. (Many of whom believe that the reality of the Big Bang, abiogenesis and evolution are some of the greatest marvels bestowed by God.) If you don't want me to call it pontificating I can just say you are talking crap. I was trying to be polite.
and have not argued against evolution since it was pointed out to me that evolution does not claim to describe the origin of species. .Sorry, I utterly missed that beauty. Evolution does claim to describe how species arise. Their is a small clue in the title of Darwin's work. To treat science as a total belief structure for our existence maybe in fact missing the whole point..I for one am not talking about treating science as a total belief structure. Anyone who is merits the same contempt I have for those who choose religion to provide their total belief structure. However, if a topic can be investigated by science then science's findings take precedence, since they are testable, falsifiable and repeatable.

By no means am I judging anyone's values. The video was important as it showed a different point of view to the big bang and the origin of man. further video's may make better points and have better arguments to broaden the scope of investigating the origins of the universe and the origin of life beyond that of Big Bang (which is a pretty open interpretation of the beginning).

THE VIDEO WAS CRAP!!!!!! PROPOGANDOUS RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALIST CRAP!!!!

ophiolate,
what topic cannot be investigated by science?

THE VIDEO WAS CRAP!!!!!! PROPOGANDOUS RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALIST CRAP!!!!

This reply isn't science but then again it says it all!

By no means am I judging anyone's values. The video was important as it showed a different point of view to the big bang and the origin of man. further video's may make better points and have better arguments to broaden the scope of investigating the origins of the universe and the origin of life beyond that of Big Bang (which is a pretty open interpretation of the beginning).

Please read some current science research espcially biology related reaseach or just some standard news articals. If you were to do this you would find that a day will not go by without you seeing more research that backs up evolution. I see it all the time its as clear as day, how do you miss it?

Science is about 'proof' and it throws it out every hour of every day.

ophiolate,
what topic cannot be investigated by science?The existence or non-existence of God.

I'm still not sure why not knowing the origin of the universe, or the origin of life leads to a belief in God.

I'm still not sure why not knowing the origin of the universe, or the origin of life leads to a belief in God.

Not sure on what platform of knowledge you are making the statement that the origins of the universe are known?

..... Or are you saying that IF the origin of life and the universe was known its not clear how that would lead to belief in god??

People point to the present lack of definitive knowledge about the origins of the universe and life as supportive of the God theory, and I'm not sure why.

geez,Evolution is a joke ;) someone started the "evolution theory" to become what? only one thing: to be popular! God created man in his own image.. *smokes*

u r dum

People point to the present lack of definitive knowledge about the origins of the universe and life as supportive of the God theory, and I'm not sure why.

because it falls in line with scriptural explanations of the nature of god and the living entity and the living entities relationship with both god and also the material creation

What does? Not knowing?
Supernatural explanations were not required to describe gravity for instance, or hydrodynamics, what's the difference?

What does? Not knowing?
Supernatural explanations were not required to describe gravity for instance, or hydrodynamics, what's the difference?

Actually there is a supernatural element to gravity in the sense that it is axiomatic (we don't know why gravity works - we just know that it does) - ironically this is why scientists first tried to discredit the findings of gravity as supernatural because there it is not defined or seen to be contingent on natural laws (which gives gravity its axiomatic status - obviously if gravity was contingent on some other law it would not be axiomatic)

Is that supernatural, or just unknown? How about my other example? We don't say a ship floats due to a supernatural personality, although previous to the discovery of the principle of buoyancy some may have thought that.

Doesn't it seem obvious that in the distant past, everything was thought the result of a spirit, and as we gain scientific knowledge, the things we attribute to spirits are getting fewer and fewer? Now the only things we have left to attribute to the doing of a spirit are the early universe, and early life? ....both areas that, due to various reasons are inherently difficult to figure out?

ophiolite,
Do you imagine that the existence of God will forever remain scientifically unknown?

I'm still not sure why not knowing the origin of the universe, or the origin of life leads to a belief in God.
people that believe in a creator may argue that their belief does not come from not understanding.
People point to the present lack of definitive knowledge about the origins of the universe and life as supportive of the God theory, and I'm not sure why.

your generalize statement of "people" is confusing. Which people say this? Though my experience is limited, I have never heard the argument " you know, the big bang isn't working for me, there must be a creator." The Bible, for instance, states that in the beginning God created the heavens and Earth.

Please read some current science research espcially biology related reaseach or just some standard news articals. If you were to do this you would find that a day will not go by without you seeing more research that backs up evolution. I see it all the time its as clear as day, how do you miss it?

Science is about 'proof' and it throws it out every hour of every day.

I didn't mention evolution in the post you are quoting, but thank you for the sage advice.

I can't believe anyone watched that video, after seeing that first post.

About the strength of the abiotic synthesis idea, could someone refresh my memory?

Can't we have spontaneously forming proteins from a reaction of sand? I forget the initial spontaneous reaction cause. And haven't laboratory experiments led to these being formed by automatically forming bilayers which actually reproduce and have metabolism?

That is not exactly true. Or, to put it in different words: that is incorrect.
We know many organic molecules, including amino acids, are commonplace in space. We know that these and other pre-biotic molecules can be synthesised in a matter of days from atmospheres akin to the primeval Earth atmosphere. We can envisage pathways that could lead from these pre-biotic molecules to primitive replicating systems. Such suggestive observations constitute evidence for abiogenesis.
i can invision myself the king of england, president of the US, or the worlds richest man.
i can also invision the pathways to take me there.
that by no means proves either of the above has or will happen.
They are separate processes. They deserve separate consideration. This does not mean there may not be overlaps of mechanisms, but rather the two concepts are distinct in character. For one thing life originates as a distinct event. Evolution continues as a process.
then why pray tell do you find it necessary to explain the difference to the vast majority of high schoolers?

that by no means proves either of the above has or will happen.
Leopold, you need to learn the difference between evidence and proof. The potential pathways, which observation and experiment can confirm to be probable (unlike the possibility of you metamorphosing into Vincent, or some other Queen of England), are evidence for abiogenesis. They are not proof, nor did I at anytime suggest they were.

ophiolite,
Do you imagine that the existence of God will forever remain scientifically unknown?I can imagine it, I do not, however, have any opinion on the matter.
On reflection, that is not exactly true. One version of reality I consider possible is that God may be an emergent property of the Universe in general, and specifically of consciousness and whatever further complex properties emerge thereafter. In such an instance God would not only become known to science, but would come into existence, in part, because of science.
Can't we have spontaneously forming proteins from a reaction of sand? No. Sand is generally fairly inert, since most of it is silica. You may be thinking of the work of Cairns-Smith, who postulates the first life as being a clay matrix. The replicating clay surfaces then provided templates for the assembly of DNA (or RNA) which proved more effective, thus superseding the clays.
Lab experiments have generated amino acids (and perhaps some polypeptides), but no proteins (that I am aware of, yet).
And haven't laboratory experiments led to these being formed by automatically forming bilayers which actually reproduce and have metabolism?Again this sounds terribly like a mish-mashed interpretation of Cairns-Smith, but it is theory. The problem with his idea is that though elegant and attractive there are no independent data to support it.

That is not exactly true. Or, to put it in different words: that is incorrect.
We know many organic molecules, including amino acids, are commonplace in space. We know that these and other pre-biotic molecules can be synthesised in a matter of days from atmospheres akin to the primeval Earth atmosphere. We can envisage pathways that could lead from these pre-biotic molecules to primitive replicating systems. Such suggestive observations constitute evidence for abiogenesis.
i can invision myself the king of england, president of the US, or the worlds richest man.
i can also invision the pathways to take me there.
that by no means proves either of the above has or will happen.

Some simple lipids in a water solution will, due to thier hydrophylic/phobic end, will form bi-layers which will in turn form spheres. These speres will take in more lipids when encountered (eat), will break into smaller speres when they get large enough (reproduce), and react to light by moving away from it (move).

How many traits will chemical systems have to perform before you will consider them alive?



They are separate processes. They deserve separate consideration. This does not mean there may not be overlaps of mechanisms, but rather the two concepts are distinct in character. For one thing life originates as a distinct event. Evolution continues as a process.

then why pray tell do you find it necessary to explain the difference to the vast majority of high schoolers?

Because they are poorly educated, and taught scientific theories as fact instead of as a step along a process of understanding. This occurs because bugets are limited, and kids must pass standardised tests which ask "factual" questions instead of essay question. This occurs because multiple choise is easier to score using computers.


EDIT: Ophiolite countered my post, and it seems after some reading that I am a victim in this case of my own second point. I was taught the bi-layer stuff as fact, and I took it as such. Does anyone know of secondary experiments verifying the bi-layer spheres?

Also, I failed to mention the RNA will replicate on its own due to simple chemistry.

EDIT2: lots of more advaanced studies can be googled, but wikipedia seems to agree that lipid bilayer sphere will spontaniously generate. No word on other attributes of the spheres once formed.
"A biological membrane is a form of lipid bilayer, as is a liposome. Formation of lipid bilayers is a spontaneous process when the glycerophospholipids described above are placed in water. In an aqueous milieu, the polar heads of lipids tend to oriente toward the polar, aqueous environment, while the hydrophobic tails tend to minimize their contact with water. The nonpolar tails of lipids (U) tend to cluster together, forming a lipid bilayer (1) or a micelle (2). The polar heads (P) face the aqueous environment. Micelles form when single-tailed amphiphilic lipids are placed in a polar milieu, while lipid bilayers form when two-tailed phospholipids are placed in a polar environment (Fig. 2). Micelles are "monolayer" spheres and can only reach a certain size, whereas bilayers can be considerably larger. They can also form tubules. Bilayers that fold back upon themselves form a hollow sphere, enclosing a separate aqueous compartment, which is the basis of biological membranes."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid

I misunderstood which bi-layers you were talking about river-wind. You are quite correct, as you have established for yourself through the wikipedia articles.
I have also seen research linking the origin of life to spray generated over the ocean. Many people are familiar with the expression 'primordial soup' to describe the rich collection of pre-biotic organic molecules present in the early Earth. This is not just poetic fancy. The early oceans were likley replete with a far greater concentration of such molecules than we find today. Today those molecules are food and are quickly eaten.
Before life emerged droplets of this soup would be cast into the air through the interaction of wind and sea. These droplets would be miniature chemical experiments and some would be carried aloft for a long time. Many would form a protective lipid coating, so that they might remain intact on recontacting the sea. Within a few these proto-cells, self catalytic metabolisms may have begun.

I'm surprised there are so many replies to this thread.
When it was first posted, I considered replying, but then realised it's a troll, and didn't even bother. A troll or an idiot that doesn't earn any of my reply time.

No. Sand is generally fairly inert, since most of it is silica. You may be thinking of the work of Cairns-Smith, who postulates the first life as being a clay matrix. The replicating clay surfaces then provided templates for the assembly of DNA (or RNA) which proved more effective, thus superseding the clays.
Lab experiments have generated amino acids (and perhaps some polypeptides), but no proteins (that I am aware of, yet).
Again this sounds terribly like a mish-mashed interpretation of Cairns-Smith, but it is theory. The problem with his idea is that though elegant and attractive there are no independent data to support it.

I shouldn't have said protein, but amino acid polymers. I found what I was vaguely thinking about in my book, but it is just a brief introductory paragraph and does not focus on details. It says "Researchers have produced amino acid polymers by dripping solutions of amino acids onto hot sand, clay, or rock. The polymers formed spontaneously, without the help of enzymes or ribosomes." Unfortunately that is as far as the book goes, so I don't know how this happens.

About spontaneous forming bilayer membranes, I was talking about liposomes, which could become a membrane with the amino acid polymers.

I shouldn't have said protein, but amino acid polymers. ........"Researchers have produced amino acid polymers by dripping solutions of amino acids onto hot sand, clay, or rock. The polymers formed spontaneously, without the help of enzymes or ribosomes." Of course amino acid proteins in short strings are polypeptides and in long strings are proteins. I hadn't run across this particular synthesis method.
The one I like involved firing blocks of ice, laced with organic molecules including amino acids, at supersonic velocity against a wall. The objective was to find out if the amino acids would dissociate under impact. The underlying objective was to see if relatively complex organic molecules on board comets could survive collision with the Earth. To the surprise of the researchers the amino acids linked up to form simple peptides.
What this suggests is that their is a tendency, especially under extreme conditions, for organic complexity to increase. This is counterintuitive, but helps to explain some of the steps that led to life.

That sounds pretty interesting, thanks for posting it.

spidergoat

Is that supernatural, or just unknown? How about my other example? We don't say a ship floats due to a supernatural personality, although previous to the discovery of the principle of buoyancy some may have thought that.

If anything is axiomatic, as far as fundamental physics goes, it must have unknown properties- including the principle of buoyancy - Einstein and a few others try to address this by looking for a unified theory, but it still remains that universe is composed of fundamental laws - how they got established, why they got established is unaddressable - this is why (some) scientific persons accept god, or the very least that intelligence directed the creation of the universe, since it appears most likely

Doesn't it seem obvious that in the distant past, everything was thought the result of a spirit, and as we gain scientific knowledge, the things we attribute to spirits are getting fewer and fewer?
But th e issue of addressing the mysterious nature of scientific axioms is never addressed because scientific progress means one axiom is superceded by another


Now the only things we have left to attribute to the doing of a spirit are the early universe, and early life? ....both areas that, due to various reasons are inherently difficult to figure out?

Th e pride of science lies in examining details as opposed to the cause of all causes, because they err on the later they err on the former - also thesim can err in the same way too (evidenced by the flat earth notion)

- the saintly person however is beyond the 4 frailities that plague empiricism

(namely - imperfect senses... we cannot hear sounds below 20Hz, or alternatively we can only manufacture machines that operate within certain thresholds of "reality" ---tendency to make mistakes ... perceive a rope as a snake --- tendency to fall in to illusion ....seeing a mirage in the desert ----a cheating propensity --- our perception of obejctivity is manipulated due to the influence of avaracice, wrath, lust etc

ophiolite,
Do you imagine that the existence of God will forever remain scientifically unknown?


saintly people know god - they also advocate processes how one can come to the platform - there are words for these processes in sanskrit ("sadhana" - practical means to the goal) that at least seem similar to the implications of the word "science"

I can't believe anyone watched that video, after seeing that first post.

About the strength of the abiotic synthesis idea, could someone refresh my memory?

Can't we have spontaneously forming proteins from a reaction of sand? I forget the initial spontaneous reaction cause. And haven't laboratory experiments led to these being formed by automatically forming bilayers which actually reproduce and have metabolism?

I'm not sure what you are alluding to but neither DNA nor enzymes are life - they are the chemical processes of exchanginf information that life utilizes

Yet the molecules-to-man theory.

there is no such theory.

are you a liar or just brain washed by liars ?

never has been a theory of "molecules-to-man".

if you wish to have your own religous debate about religous theorys then go for it.
but trying to call the theory of evolution (which is actualy fact now).
a theory of "molecules to man", is simply dishonest and intentional miss direction.

if you have an ounce of self respect and honesty within you then i suggest you examine the real meaning of this term and come up with a new one that actualy does define the debate properly.


NOTE to accept the concept of the theory of evolution is not a statement saying there is no god.
It is just outlining the science we have (some could call science a gift of god)
with a process by which we developed into that which we are today.

throwing the baby out with the bath water is an old trait which should be left in the history books.

this is why (some) scientific persons accept god, or the very least that intelligence directed the creation of the universe, since it appears most likely
But why does that seem likely? It seems highly unlikely to me, because of all the other things that are revealed to have natural rather than supernatural causes. A crystal has symmetry and order, just like the physical laws. I disagree that the problem of how they got established is unaddressable.

Furthermore, explaining a complex universe using a previously existing complex agent only creates further questions. If complexity is required for complexity, how do you explain the existence of God? Another God?

I'm not sure what you are alluding to but neither DNA nor enzymes are life - they are the chemical processes of exchanginf information that life utilizes

:confused: I was talking about the theories of the origin of life referred to as abiotic synthesis. The word abiotic means "the absence of life". The idea is these early abiotic things, called protobionts, were capable of metabolism and reproduction. I don't know what your definition of life is, but most people agree that these things were not alive, hence the word abiotic. Some people might, but from a biological perspective they is still lacking some traditional requirements, like homeostasis, response to stimuli, growth...

I was describing (badly) one theory of many that could explain how life started. Eventually a protobiont might have a good form of early RNA that allowed it to reach higher complexity and evolve into a unicellular prokaryote, which I would call life.

Some simple lipids in a water solution will, due to thier hydrophylic/phobic end, will form bi-layers which will in turn form spheres. These speres will take in more lipids when encountered (eat), will break into smaller speres when they get large enough (reproduce), and react to light by moving away from it (move).

How many traits will chemical systems have to perform before you will consider them alive?
fire exhibites all the traits you mentioned. is it alive? will it ever become alive?


Because they are poorly educated, and taught scientific theories as fact instead of as a step along a process of understanding. This occurs because bugets are limited, and kids must pass standardised tests which ask "factual" questions instead of essay question. This occurs because multiple choise is easier to score using computers.
or it could be for a totally different reason.

spidergoat

But why does that seem likely? It seems highly unlikely to me, because of all the other things that are revealed to have natural rather than supernatural causes.

the natural causes you mention, ie gravity, have very definite supernatural causes, hence their axiomatic status

A crystal has symmetry and order, just like the physical laws. I disagree that the problem of how they got established is unaddressable.
then you would have to establish how an axiom can be superceded by something that is not an axiom
:confused:
the closest thing for a success in this regard would be to have a unified field theory, otherwise you are just left with a plethora of (apparently) unrelated axioms

Furthermore, explaining a complex universe using a previously existing complex agent only creates further questions. If complexity is required for complexity, how do you explain the existence of God? Another God?
god is eternal - so is the living entity, so is material nature and so is time - but the previosu three are seen to be caused by god - just like if you had an eternal fire you would also have eternal heat, smoke and light - in otherwords if an energetic source is eternal, the energies are also eternal (or in short - god has no cause, otherwise he couldn't possibly be god)

:confused: I was talking about the theories of the origin of life referred to as abiotic synthesis. The word abiotic means "the absence of life". The idea is these early abiotic things, called protobionts, were capable of metabolism and reproduction. I don't know what your definition of life is, but most people agree that these things were not alive, hence the word abiotic. Some people might, but from a biological perspective they is still lacking some traditional requirements, like homeostasis, response to stimuli, growth...

I was describing (badly) one theory of many that could explain how life started. Eventually a protobiont might have a good form of early RNA that allowed it to reach higher complexity and evolve into a unicellular prokaryote, which I would call life.

it sounds very theoretical - I am surprised that people can seriously entertain such ideas and yet reject the notion of god because it sounds too fanciful

it sounds very theoretical - I am surprised that people can seriously entertain such ideas and yet reject the notion of god because it sounds too fanciful

Er, because the comparisons are on hugely different scales? We can observe chemical reactions, and understand that it is possible that a self replication protein could occur, and that once you have one, it will start making copies of itself, and then depending on reaction kinetics (temperature, pressure, concentration, catalysts), produce different products (mutation) which will replicate differently (diversion) and so on.

But where do you start with God? What is your initial clue, one little thing you can demonstrate, or even understand? First question, and it is the only question, if we are talking about Genesis, true Genesis, you can't just stop asking the question and say 'God did it'. You MUST ask the question, 'but where did God come from'. To stop asking there, is to use a dishonest method of inquisition. Want an honest answer? Ask and Honest question; 'Where did it ALL come from'!

fire exhibites all the traits you mentioned. is it alive? will it ever become alive?

Hard to say.
Fire has always been a thorn in the side of the definition of life. That doesn't make it alive, but it does make the line we've drawn between life and non-life blurry.


or it could be for a totally different reason.
Maybe. What would you suggest?

Maybe. What would you suggest?
i haven't a clue, but i find it hard to believe that the vast majority of high schoolers are "poorly educated".

edit
fire isn't alive, never has been never will be.

the natural causes you mention, ie gravity, have very definite supernatural causes, hence their axiomatic status
Explain how the supernatural cause of a physical effect is definite.

then you would have to establish how an axiom can be superceded by something that is not an axiom
:confused:
I'm confused too, what do you mean by axiom? Is it an assumption?

Is the calculation of the circumference of a circle any more supernatural if the value of Pi is indeterminate?

the closest thing for a success in this regard would be to have a unified field theory, otherwise you are just left with a plethora of (apparently) unrelated axioms
So you can't accept science until it has discovered every fundamental force? Science by definition is a method of exploring the unknown. In this case, you will never accept the proclamations of science, although privately, you will accept the practical results of it, such as medical treatment.


god is eternal
Not being eternal yourself, how do you know?

- so is the living entity, so is material nature and so is time
Not necessarily.


- but the previosu three are seen to be caused by god - just like if you had an eternal fire you would also have eternal heat, smoke and light - in otherwords if an energetic source is eternal, the energies are also eternal (or in short - god has no cause, otherwise he couldn't possibly be god
If the universe is eternal, then God never created it.

it sounds very theoretical - I am surprised that people can seriously entertain such ideas and yet reject the notion of god because it sounds too fanciful

It is literally theoretical. There are other theories too. It sounds like you think believing in something complex, even with evidence, is worse than believing in something simple, even with no evidence. To me, it makes sense that the origin of life should be something complex and hard to understand, and believing in an easy answer is fanciful.

But didn't God have to be complex as well, to know what he's doing? I've never heard a good explanation for the origin of God's complex nature.

i haven't a clue, but i find it hard to believe that the vast majority of high schoolers are "poorly educated".

for years now, US public-school educated teen-agers have done poorly in standardized tests compared to international averages. Science en Engineering in particular are weak spots.

edit: a quick google search didn't turn-up good US-based numbrs, but a UK gov't report has the US listed as about average for all included nations:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/isae1201.pdf


A poll released a few weeks back showed that the US was only above Turkey in terms of the "evolution vs. creationism" debate; whichever side you might believe, that suggests that science is not being taught effectively in either location.
http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=060810_evo_rank_02.jpg&cap=A+chart+showing+public+acceptance+of+evolution +in+34+countries.+The+United+States+ranked+near+th e+bottom%2C+beat+only+by+Turkey.+Credit%3A+Science




edit
fire isn't alive, never has been never will be.
which is my very point. We created the definition that we use for life by finding differences between that which we had already deemed "alive", and that which we had already deemed "not-alive". If something which we deem "not-alive" fits the bill for our definition of "alive", then:
1) the difference is not as clear cut as we thought.
2) the definition may need to be re-addressed.

Spider goat

“ the natural causes you mention, ie gravity, have very definite supernatural causes, hence their axiomatic status ”

Explain how the supernatural cause of a physical effect is definite.

It is defintely beyond our definitions of natural physics to determine why gravity actually works

"the results of the scientific search in which, during several decades, I have taken a small part, ... leads unavoidably back to those eternal questions which go under the title of metaphysics" - Max Born


“ then you would have to establish how an axiom can be superceded by something that is not an axiom
”

I'm confused too, what do you mean by axiom? Is it an assumption?
Its an indissolvable (or fundamental) truth (although it can be dissolved by discovering another axiom on which an existing axiom is dependant)
Like for instance the speed of light is an axiom
the magnetic constant is an axiom
the charge of an electron or proton is an axiom
etc etc

Is the calculation of the circumference of a circle any more supernatural if the value of Pi is indeterminate?
Pi and the circumference of a circle are not axioms 1+1=2 is an axiom


“ the closest thing for a success in this regard would be to have a unified field theory, otherwise you are just left with a plethora of (apparently) unrelated axioms ”

So you can't accept science until it has discovered every fundamental force?

No - I am saying that if you want to address the unadressable nature of scientific axioms you have to discover the one axiom that all other axioms operat e on, since as physics stands at the moment its kind of similar to a laundry list of odd socks (numerous apparently unrelated axioms that give us a picture of cause and effect in this phenomenal world). This was the (unsuccessful) endeavour of einstein and a few others




“ god is eternal ”

Not being eternal yourself, how do you know?

I am just presenting the foundation of theoretical knowledge that religion/god operates out of - prac (knowing) comes after theory


“ - so is the living entity, so is material nature and so is time ”

Not necessarily.
ditto here


“ - but the previosu three are seen to be caused by god - just like if you had an eternal fire you would also have eternal heat, smoke and light - in otherwords if an energetic source is eternal, the energies are also eternal (or in short - god has no cause, otherwise he couldn't possibly be god ”

If the universe is eternal, then God never created it.

I was using the analogy of how fire creates heat to explain how god creates the world, even though (in the case of god) both are eternal - perhaps slightly different from biblical and evolutionary ideas of time being linear as opposed to spiralic or cyclic (like the seasons are cyclic - just because winter has turned into spring doesn't mean winter is not on the books for next year)

phlogistician

Er, because the comparisons are on hugely different scales? We can observe chemical reactions, and understand that it is possible that a self replication protein could occur,

Even though the chemical composition of self replicating proteins is well known to microbiologists, I am yet to hear of one who can actually reconstruct one using the said chemical components.

and that once you have one,

which we are yet to have

it will start making copies of itself, and then depending on reaction kinetics (temperature, pressure, concentration, catalysts),
another thing we don't know


produce different products (mutation) which will replicate differently (diversion) and so on.

which is again a theory, since macro evolution is yet to be observed



But where do you start with God? What is your initial clue, one little thing you can demonstrate, or even understand?

My point was that what you are theorizing about is virtually 100% undemonstratable also - it wasn't clear why you reject the idea of god as fanciful.


First question, and it is the only question, if we are talking about Genesis, true Genesis, you can't just stop asking the question and say 'God did it'. You MUST ask the question, 'but where did God come from'.

I already did

god is eternal - so is the living entity, so is material nature and so is time - but the previosu three are seen to be caused by god - just like if you had an eternal fire you would also have eternal heat, smoke and light - in otherwords if an energetic source is eternal, the energies are also eternal (or in short - god has no cause, otherwise he couldn't possibly be god)

In other words god doesn't have a cause - thats how he is defined - any other version of god wouldn't fit the bill

Even if you accept your ideas of abiogenesis we ar estill left with the question of where did the chemicals come from - its not clear whether you deride the notion of god or deride the notion of an eternal cause for the universe


To stop asking there, is to use a dishonest method of inquisition. Want an honest answer? Ask and Honest question; 'Where did it ALL come from'!

And your theoretical answer is honest solely because god is not required?

It is literally theoretical. There are other theories too. It sounds like you think believing in something complex, even with evidence, is worse than believing in something simple, even with no evidence. To me, it makes sense that the origin of life should be something complex and hard to understand, and believing in an easy answer is fanciful.

you have no evidence - thats what a theory is -

you reject god because there is (apparently) no evidence but instead take shelter of something that is equally unevidenced

The complexity/simplicity of god is another thing

My point is that your general principles for accepting or rejecting something are not determined by evidence at hand since you accept an abiotic view of universal creation and reject a divine perspecive - and to complicate it further there are even theistic minded scientists who merge both ideas (that god iniated the abiotic creation of life) with no problem (which obviously innvolves quite a degree of complexity)

But didn't God have to be complex as well, to know what he's doing? I've never heard a good explanation for the origin of God's complex nature.

For the same reason that you have never heard a good description how fire is cooling - the object in question doesn't function like that

you have no evidence - thats what a theory is -

you reject god because there is (apparently) no evidence but instead take shelter of something that is equally unevidenced

The complexity/simplicity of god is another thing

My point is that your general principles for accepting or rejecting something are not determined by evidence at hand since you accept an abiotic view of universal creation and reject a divine perspecive - and to complicate it further there are even theistic minded scientists who merge both ideas (that god iniated the abiotic creation of life) with no problem (which obviously innvolves quite a degree of complexity)

But there is evidence... Scientists make theories off of evidence. Some "theories" have stood up for around a century and been put to practical use but are still theories. Just because it is not proved does not mean there is no evidence. I don't know why you say I take shelter in the theories. I think they provide a good possibility, so I take them seriously. If god created life, I don't have any way of ever knowing, and I don't concern myself with things I will never know.

Assuming you're talking about the christian god, I don't know how you can just merge god with science when it contradicts the bible, like this would.

I brought up complexity because you seemed to imply that the level of complexity made the abiotic idea less believable, and god was more acceptable because it is easy to understand. I wasn't saying that god couldn't be complex.

[QUOTE=Exhumed;1179015] If god created life, I don't have any way of ever knowing, and I don't concern myself with things I will never know.


Why do you think you will never know if God created life?

No one has ever known, why would I?

I don't know why you would, but your statement was dismissive on a topic that is (imo) clearly open for debate, I just wondered why.

phlogistician

Even though the chemical composition of self replicating proteins is well known to microbiologists, I am yet to hear of one who can actually reconstruct one using the said chemical components.

Basic amino acids CAN be made in the lab. Nature had billions of years, and widely varying physical conditions ot temperature, and pressure that we cannot recreate in the lab. We can prove part, if not all. Give it time.


god is eternal -

Look, Democritus, theorising on the nature of matter, thought that at some point matter must be indivisible. He had a 'god' moment, if you will, rejecting regression after a certain point. He called this point the 'Atom'. We all know that what we thought was the Atom, wasn't really what he described, and we can split our atom into parts, and that those parts are also divisble into quarks, ... the evidence therefore, points to regression. But you think with cosmology it stops with 'god' who has always existed? This is not an answer, but rather an escape route from logic.

If god and time have always existed, and the Universe is only 14Bn years old, what was God doing for the infinite amount of time before he created the Universe then? Why did he choose 14Bn years ago out of all previous eternity? Can you truly understand the ramafications of the question?

Exhumed

I don't know why you say I take shelter in the theories. I think they provide a good possibility, so I take them seriously. If god created life, I don't have any way of ever knowing, and I don't concern myself with things I will never know.

how do you know that?

Assuming you're talking about the christian god, I don't know how you can just merge god with science when it contradicts the bible, like this would.

I have just mentioned the concept that life comes from god - christianity doesn't have a monopoly on the subject after all


I brought up complexity because you seemed to imply that the level of complexity made the abiotic idea less believable, and god was more acceptable because it is easy to understand. I wasn't saying that god couldn't be complex.
Its not clear why god is not complex

phlogistician

Even though the chemical composition of self replicating proteins is well known to microbiologists, I am yet to hear of one who can actually reconstruct one using the said chemical components. ”

Basic amino acids CAN be made in the lab.
self replicating ones?

Nature had billions of years, and widely varying physical conditions ot temperature, and pressure that we cannot recreate in the lab. We can prove part, if not all. Give it time.
How is it determined that temperature and pressure caused life if a self replicating protien has not been manufactured? How do you know how something is done when it has never been observed done?


“ god is eternal - ”

Look, Democritus, theorising on the nature of matter, thought that at some point matter must be indivisible. He had a 'god' moment, if you will, rejecting regression after a certain point. He called this point the 'Atom'. We all know that what we thought was the Atom, wasn't really what he described, and we can split our atom into parts, and that those parts are also divisble into quarks, ... the evidence therefore, points to regression. But you think with cosmology it stops with 'god' who has always existed? This is not an answer, but rather an escape route from logic.

If you have an eternal element of matter its not clear what would initiate changes upon it unless it was conscious - these are the grounds on which democritus had difficulty with plato - reductionist models, both ancient and contemporary, experience great difficulty when examining the phenomenal world (to begin with we experience noumenan with the senses in the mind, which tends to evade the reductionist paradigm)

If god and time have always existed, and the Universe is only 14Bn years old, what was God doing for the infinite amount of time before he created the Universe then? Why did he choose 14Bn years ago out of all previous eternity? Can you truly understand the ramafications of the question?

The idea is that time is cyclic -just like in autumn the leaves disappear and return again in spring - its not like this current material cosmos is any more unique than any particular season - sometimes manifest, sometimes unmanifest.

self replicating ones?

Not yet, I said give it time.


How is it determined that temperature and pressure caused life if a self replicating protien has not been manufactured? How do you know how something is done when it has never been observed done?

Your grasp of chemistry seems to be lacking here. Variations in temperature and pressure are important. From the heat and pressure around a 'black smoker' to the cold and pressure of the Mariana Trench, to the heat and lower pressure near a volcanic outlet at sea level, to the cold and lower pressure near the poles. That's a lot of combinations of heat and pressure, and temperature, pressure, concentration and catalysation determine viability of reactions and reaction products. With so many variables, it would take far too long to repeat in a lab; it appears to have taken nature billions of years, but you want humans to recreate and document it in the short period of modern science? That is ludicrous! We can build amino acids in a lab, and maybe we'll get to build self replicating prions too. Who knows, but just because we haven't done it yet, doesn't mean we won't, or can't. But then all you do is say 'so what, the primordial earth wasn't a laboratory'!


The idea is that time is cyclic -just like in autumn the leaves disappear and return again in spring - its not like this current material cosmos is any more unique than any particular season - sometimes manifest, sometimes unmanifest.

God is stuck in a loop? So much for being all powerful!

which is again a theory, since macro evolution is yet to be observed


Macro evolution is a term coined by people attempting to tear the theory of evolution apart.

I have NEVER encountered the term in scientific settings. It is an inaccurate thing to claim that X isn't true because mod(X) isn't true.


and besides, speciation has been seen many times, both in and out of the lab:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

http://www.fishecology.ch/research/africancichlidfish.htm

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/June06/electric.fish.sb.html

Macro evolution is a term coined by people attempting to tear the theory of evolution apart.

I have NEVER encountered the term in scientific settings. It is an inaccurate thing to claim that X isn't true because mod(X) isn't true.You are disregarding the work of Stephen J, Gould, then? :confused:

Even though the chemical composition of self replicating proteins is well known to microbiologists, I am yet to hear of one who can actually reconstruct one using the said chemical components.What is your issue with this:
This thirty two amino acid peptide ligase with a sequence of RMKQLEEKVYELLSKVACLEYEVARLKKVGE is an enzyme that will self catalyse its own formation. For example,
Severin, Lee, Kennan, and Ghadiri A synthetic peptide ligaseNature 1997 Oct 16;389(6652):706-9.
The preparation of synthetic molecules showing the remarkable efficiencies characteristic of natural biopolymer catalysts remains a formidable challenge for chemical biology. Although significant advances have been made in the understanding of protein structure and function, the de novo construction of such systems remains elusive. Re-engineered natural enzymes and catalytic antibodies, possessing tailored binding pockets with appropriately positioned functional groups, have been successful in catalysing a number of chemical transformations, sometimes with impressive efficiencies. But efforts to produce wholly synthetic catalytic peptides have typically resulted in compounds with questionable structural stability, let alone reactivity. Here we describe a 33-residue synthetic peptide, based on the coiled-coil structural motif, which efficiently catalyses the condensation of two shorter peptide fragments with high sequence- and diastereoselectivity. Depending on the substrates used, we observe rate enhancements of tenfold to 4,100-fold over the background, with catalytic efficiencies in excess of 10(4). These results augur well for the rational design of functional peptides.

Stephen J. Gould talks about macroevolution only to point out that it is a misnomer, and in fact all evolution is the same thing.

Like for instance the speed of light is an axiom
the magnetic constant is an axiom
the charge of an electron or proton is an axiom
etc etc
Incorrect. An axiom is something accepted without a rational explanation.

All those things you mentioned can be measured and shown to exist by a rational process.

The Big Bang is not an axiom, it is a theory. Gravity is not an axiom, and no one accepts an axiom as to the cause of gravity. Axioms, or assumptions, are used in science, but only provisionally.

It is defintely beyond our definitions of natural physics to determine why gravity actually works
Definitions don't determine why things work, and the nature of gravity is not inherently unknowable.

You don't have to understand everything to understand something. That is what you seem to be suggesting. Our understanding of evolution is not dependent on understanding advanced theoretical physics.

-I just want to thank you, lightgigantic, for your patience. Although we don't agree, at least you are making a valiant and gracious effort.

You are disregarding the work of Stephen J, Gould, then? :confused:

I have read some of his stuff, and I have not seen the term. If it is a term with an agreed apon definition within scientific boundries, then I retract my complaint.

It seems that I am wrong. D'oh, sorry for posting mis-information:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

Stephen J. Gould talks about macroevolution only to point out that it is a misnomer, and in fact all evolution is the same thing.

spidergoat: that's what I thought. what is your take on the TalkOrigins link?

I've been following the creaionism versus evolution wars for nealy 2 years now, and have hardly seen the term used by biologists at all. This is I think mainly because craetionists have been misusing it so long, that a large number of biologists in general day to day stuff avoid using it, hence why I have hardly seen it at all.
In the sense of the talkorigins faq, macroevolution has not actually been observed, so the creationists are sort of correct. However tehir own tehories do not adequately account for this, nor do they account for the observed incidents detailed near the bottom of the talkorigins faq.

river-wind,
It seems the terms are useful in scientific discussions, but it still doesn't imply a real separation in the sense that creationists use it.

It's like talking about 10 to the power of 34 as a macronumber and .00345 as a micronumber. They are both still numbers.

PRecisely, Spidergoat.
But to the uninformed, they sound like real, useful labels, and thus the creationist sows confusion.

but there is NO evidence, none whatsoever, that life arose from the elements.


I'm still waiting on evidence for God to exist... (and please go beyond 'you have to have faith...')

There is some evidence that life arose from the elements. We are made of elements, and the proportion of salt to water in us is about the same as the ocean. Also, organic molecules can be found in space.

The two premises, the big bang and spontaneous life, are as hard to believe as any crazy theory. If you are highly educated in any field, science for example, you would be able to present data to prove any theory and stand it up like a house of cards.

Actually theories cannot actually be proven - or, well, if they are then they are no longer theories. A religious friend of mine once asked me if believing is seeing how come I believe in atomic theory etc. My response was simply this - atomic theory - whether correct or incorrect allows me (and others) to predict what will happen given a set of pre-conditions; this is functional theory. Evolution, or more correctly the theory of evolution, whether correct or incorrect has great usefullness in prediction and thus will be used whether it's correct or not. The theory of God has no functional use for what some would coin practical purposes and yet from where I stand it is one of the most functional and used theories.

God - is the greatest source of hope and comfort for much of the population of the planet. Granted more people have been killed in his (or her) name than for any other historical reason but for what it is worth practically in todays world, I really can't see a problem with it. The theory of god is the most indestructible of all theories as it's existence or at least the belief of existence has a word - faith; and despite complete lack of tangible evidence and practical application - anyone that has this 'faith' will have no problem hearing all the 'lack of facts against' existence and smiling; knowing that they will be going to a better place when they die. Opiate of the masses come to mind.


I think it is philosophically confusing to teach scientific theory as fact to children, when we don't really know.

If we hope them to apply working theories in solving future problems and creating new things - I think it's awesome. Of course you are right you know, it would be much easier to just have faith.

The theory of God has no functional use for what some would coin practical purposes...
According to the theory, you can appeal to God through prayer- an assumption that can be tested and was. Guess what, prayer for the improvement of a sick person did not cause them to heal any more quickly. In fact, it did show an effect when they knew they were being prayed for- they healed less quickly.

phlogistician

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic

self replicating ones? ”

Not yet, I said give it time.

So for practical purposes you have a theory


“ How is it determined that temperature and pressure caused life if a self replicating protien has not been manufactured? How do you know how something is done when it has never been observed done? ”

Your grasp of chemistry seems to be lacking here. Variations in temperature and pressure are important. From the heat and pressure around a 'black smoker' to the cold and pressure of the Mariana Trench, to the heat and lower pressure near a volcanic outlet at sea level, to the cold and lower pressure near the poles. That's a lot of combinations of heat and pressure, and temperature, pressure, concentration and catalysation determine viability of reactions and reaction products. With so many variables, it would take far too long to repeat in a lab; it appears to have taken nature billions of years, but you want humans to recreate and document it in the short period of modern science? That is ludicrous! We can build amino acids in a lab, and maybe we'll get to build self replicating prions too. Who knows, but just because we haven't done it yet, doesn't mean we won't, or can't. But then all you do is say 'so what, the primordial earth wasn't a laboratory'!

Assuming that the universe unfolded in the standard way that people think, with the big bang and so. There were many chemicals around that, some of which were the same as those that appear in living systems today, while some weren't the same. Somehow the first cell had to appear. Some of the chemicals would have been around, some wouldn't have been around. How it got to the first living cell is so utterly unknown. Anybody is free to speculate about what would have happened. One should recognize that one's ideas are speculations. At least they are not justified by physical evidence at this point. And some people forget that their ideas are speculations because they assume that physical processes unaided by anything were innvolved
-Behe



“ The idea is that time is cyclic -just like in autumn the leaves disappear and return again in spring - its not like this current material cosmos is any more unique than any particular season - sometimes manifest, sometimes unmanifest. ”

God is stuck in a loop? So much for being all powerful!

Actually it indicates that we are stuck in the loop, not god

Would you like to be more specific about what is speculation, given the behe quote you have just quoted? So far, intelligent design is speculation. Evolution is a scientific theory.

spidergoat


Incorrect. An axiom is something accepted without a rational explanation.

All those things you mentioned can be measured and shown to exist by a rational process.

but the basis behind why they exist cannot be explained - like it cannot be explained why the speed of light is 2.99792458 x 10 (8), as opposed to 3 x 10 (8), except to say that because that is the speed light travels at - hence the speed oflight is an axiom

The Big Bang is not an axiom, it is a theory.
obviously

Gravity is not an axiom, and no one accepts an axiom as to the cause of gravity.

Gravity is an axiom, because it cannot be explained a superior axiom - einstein tried with unified field theory but was not successful (and to date no one else is either) hence what you say is true - no one accepts an axiom as the cause of gravity

Axioms, or assumptions, are used in science, but only provisionally.

they are used essentially - science cannot operate without them


Definitions don't determine why things work, and the nature of gravity is not inherently unknowable.
Not sure what you are saying here - obviously some things are know about gravity, but those things are related to its effect and not its cause (we don't know why mass has an element of gravity, only that it does)

You don't have to understand everything to understand something. That is what you seem to be suggesting. Our understanding of evolution is not dependent on understanding advanced theoretical physics.
then what is it dependant on
:confused:

river-wind,
It seems the terms (macroevolution and microevolution) are useful in scientific discussions, but it still doesn't imply a real separation in the sense that creationists use it. spidegoat you have a vastly greater understanding of biology than I shall ever have. However, in comparison with myself you know diddly shit about evolution. The importance of macro versus micro evolution relates to the entities upon which the processes of natural selection may work. Gould says it best:

"...theoretical development and accumulating data on punctuated equilibrium allowed us to reconceptualize species as genuine Darwinian individuals, fully competent to participate in processes of selection at their own supraorganismic (and suprademal) level - and then to rethink macroevolution as the differential success of species rather than the extended anagenesis of organismal adaptation."

p26, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory 2002 The Belknap Press (ISBN 0-674-00613-5)

So for practical purposes you have a theory

More than a theory! Demonstrable fact that amino acids can be produced in a lab, in circumstances that mimic primordial earth.

If you read Ophiolites post concerning "Severin, Lee, Kennan, and Ghadiri A synthetic peptide ligase", it only takes 32 of these Amino acids to link up to start replicating. Just 32! So we have proof Amino acids can be created from primordial soup, and proof that they can self replicate. All we need now is the bit in between. So a theory with supporting evidence, is what we have. What have you got? Not even a good theory!


Assuming that the universe unfolded in the standard way that people think, with the big bang and so.

There is evidence for this, the expansion of the Universe as shown by red shift, the cosmic microwave background, and more importantly, it's anisotropy. The spectra form 1st and 2nd generation stars, observing supernovae spreading the material back into space from those stars. All proven.

There were many chemicals around that, some of which were the same as those that appear in living systems today, while some weren't the same.

Again, you show your lack of understanding of chemistry. No new chemicals have appeared on Earth since it's formation. ALL the elements now present in the Earth were created when a 1st generation star went supernova, and the heavier elements were created then, dispersed into space, and then coallesced into another star and it's surrounding planets. Elements are created in stars nuclear reactions, and the only path of change is nuclear decay.

Somehow the first cell had to appear.

You start with cells, but that's not where were should start thinking about the origin of life. Start with a prion, or self replicationg protein, then think about it getting more complex over time. Understand that mitochondria in cells might have got their due to a symbiotic relationship. Cells didn't just appear, cells are the culmination of other areas of development.

Some of the chemicals would have been around, some wouldn't have been around. How it got to the first living cell is so utterly unknown.

Not true, and not true. Your education is severely lacking here. The elements that comprise the Earth were born in a supernova, and coallesced into the Earth, and the Sun, and other planets. Nothing has arrived that wasn't already here. Why these elements are present in life is very simple, Carbon, Oxygen, and Iron are very abundant in the Earths crust, partly because they are radioactively stable elements. Iron forms helpful ligands, your blood relies on this, haemoglobin uses a ligand exchange mechanism to loosely bind oxygen. But that's not to say that other elements wo