thesometimesaint Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 (edited) So who cranks the hand crank? What makes abiogenesis more plausible? Where are the facts that support this "more plausibility"? What is interesting is your contention that we've never discovered any trace of special intervention in the cause of any natural phenomena. Oh? What is the cause of the universe then? What is the cause of intelligence? You might claim they are naturally caused. Yet, that claim goes against the observable evidence. Chemical energy. More specifically electron exchange. Chemistry makes it more plausible. The Big Bang. Electron exchange in a systematic way. While there is still plenty to learn the Big Bang and brain function are pretty well understood. Edited April 4, 2014 by thesometimesaint
Brian 2.0 Posted April 4, 2014 Author Posted April 4, 2014 What is interesting is your contention that we've never discovered any trace of special intervention in the cause of any natural phenomena. Oh? What is the cause of the universe then? What is the cause of intelligence? You might claim they are naturally caused. Yet, that claim goes against the observable evidence.You're missing the point. We haven't seen any trace of special intervention. There are things that are unknown and undiscovered... but that's not evidence for special intervention. You seem to be pointing to things that science does not yet understand as if that is a case for special intervention, it's not. It's like saying that the fact that we haven't explored every inch of our deep oceans is evidence for the lost city of Atlantis.
Gray Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 So who cranks the hand crank? What makes abiogenesis more plausible? Where are the facts that support this "more plausibility"? What is interesting is your contention that we've never discovered any trace of special intervention in the cause of any natural phenomena. Oh? What is the cause of the universe then? What is the cause of intelligence? You might claim they are naturally caused. Yet, that claim goes against the observable evidence. Abiogensis has plausible models postulating how it could work. Certain steps in the process have been replicated in the lab. The challenge is that amino acids don't get preserved in the fossil record. Oh? What is the cause of the universe then? I don't know. What is the cause of intelligence? Intelligence seems to be emergent from the evolution of the brain. You might claim they are naturally caused. Yet, that claim goes against the observable evidence. I'm just saying, of the many answers we've found, there has never been a confirmed case of special intervention. So far it's turned out that all things in nature have natural causes.
Rob Osborn Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 Evolution runs on a naturally-occurring algorithm that does create designs. In any case, in Mormon theology, there doesn't seem to be an intelligent designer, only an intelligent builder.Evolution does not create intelligent information. No observation as ever documented evolution creating new and inteligent information. God is a designer just as both of us are also designers.
cdowis Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 You're missing the point. We haven't seen any trace of special intervention. There are things that are unknown and undiscovered... but that's not evidence for special intervention. You seem to be pointing to things that science does not yet understand as if that is a case for special intervention, it's not. It's like saying that the fact that we haven't explored every inch of our deep oceans is evidence for the lost city of Atlantis. Scientists are still looking for dark matter. Do you think that is in the category of a "search for Atlantis"?
Rob Osborn Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 A lot of BS is being put forth in here. Its quite humerous that small parts of chemical ingredients have been constructed by intelligent designers in the lab and yet they still havent generated life and laugh at intelligent design. Perhaps they should look in the mirror.
thesometimesaint Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 Evolution does not create intelligent information. No observation as ever documented evolution creating new and inteligent information. God is a designer just as both of us are also designers. Incorrect. Evolution is changes in the genetic code(Chemical information). That is a religious belief and has nothing to do with the science of genetics.
thesometimesaint Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 (edited) A lot of BS is being put forth in here. Its quite humerous that small parts of chemical ingredients have been constructed by intelligent designers in the lab and yet they still havent generated life and laugh at intelligent design. Perhaps they should look in the mirror. It is worse that. Gravity is a universal force of all matter, but we still have no clue as to what gravity really is(Only a theory to explain it). Even worse we haven't generated it in the lab. Gotta throw out gravity. Edited April 4, 2014 by thesometimesaint
Rob Osborn Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 It is worse that. Gravity is a universal force of all matter, but we still have no clue as to what gravity really is(Only a theory to explain it). Even worse we haven't generated it in the lab. Gotta throw out gravity. You can actually see and test the effects of gravity. You dont see life emerging from non-life ever. Big difference, big difference.
Rob Osborn Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 Incorrect. Evolution is changes in the genetic code(Chemical information). That is a religious belief and has nothing to do with the science of genetics.Evolution is not the mechanism for my DNA existing.
MiserereNobis Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 Round and round we go... We need to get some old school Jesuits on the scene to lay down the law on how to think clearly.
thesometimesaint Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 You can actually see and test the effects of gravity. You dont see life emerging from non-life ever. Big difference, big difference. You can't see gravity. what we do see is the effects. No one is claiming that.SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html
danielwoods Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 You're missing the point. We haven't seen any trace of special intervention. There are things that are unknown and undiscovered... but that's not evidence for special intervention. You seem to be pointing to things that science does not yet understand as if that is a case for special intervention, it's not. It's like saying that the fact that we haven't explored every inch of our deep oceans is evidence for the lost city of Atlantis. The point is that just because someone says there is no evidence for special intervention, doesn't make it so. We don't know everything that happened in the beginning, but it had to have a beginner. Logic dictates that much. If that's not evidence for special intervention, then what is? We don't know what causes our intelligence or consciousness, but we can establish with complete consistency that it doesn't arise naturally from just a few chemicals and heat.
danielwoods Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 Abiogensis has plausible models postulating how it could work. Certain steps in the process have been replicated in the lab. The challenge is that amino acids don't get preserved in the fossil record. I don't know. Intelligence seems to be emergent from the evolution of the brain. I'm just saying, of the many answers we've found, there has never been a confirmed case of special intervention. So far it's turned out that all things in nature have natural causes. There are many more challenges to abiogenesis. In the presence of oxygen everything dies. No oxygen and UV light kills it. As for "plausible models" it is interesting that in the light of no direct observable evidence that these are considered plausible. So far, those who are only looking to confirm their belief that only natural causes exist, have done so.
Brian 2.0 Posted April 5, 2014 Author Posted April 5, 2014 The point is that just because someone says there is no evidence for special intervention, doesn't make it so. I think we mean there is no evidence that we have found for special intervention. That doesn't mean none exist or won't be found ever for sure, just that we haven't found any yet. Unless you have evidence for God starting it all. We don't know everything that happened in the beginning, but it had to have a beginner. Logic dictates that much. If that's not evidence for special intervention, then what is? Like you said... We don't know everything that happened in the beginning. You placing God at the beginning is still an assumption without scientific evidence. The mere fact that our universe has a beginning doesn't necessitate a God. 1
danielwoods Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 I think we mean there is no evidence that we have found for special intervention. That doesn't mean none exist or won't be found ever for sure, just that we haven't found any yet.Unless you have evidence for God starting it all.Like you said... We don't know everything that happened in the beginning. You placing God at the beginning is still an assumption without scientific evidence. The mere fact that our universe has a beginning doesn't necessitate a God. The opposite is equally a non-scientific assumption. (One that violate logic, unless one posits a infinite existence for matter and energy, and again evidence not there for that.) When you see something begin without a cause let me know.
Brian 2.0 Posted April 5, 2014 Author Posted April 5, 2014 The opposite is equally a non-scientific assumption. (One that violate logic, unless one posits a infinite existence for matter and energy, and again evidence not there for that.)When you see something begin without a cause let me know.So we both agree we don't know yet what happened before our universe came to be. We both propose our own assumptions. I propose that the unknown contains more of what we see now and have evidence for now... natural laws at work. You propose the unknown contains something we can't see now and have yet to have any evidence of... A God designer at work.
thesometimesaint Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 Evolution is not the mechanism for my DNA existing. Incorrect.
thesometimesaint Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 (edited) There are many more challenges to abiogenesis. In the presence of oxygen everything dies. No oxygen and UV light kills it. As for "plausible models" it is interesting that in the light of no direct observable evidence that these are considered plausible. So far, those who are only looking to confirm their belief that only natural causes exist, have done so. No one says there aren't plenty of challenges for Abiogenesis to overcome. Without oxygen everything dies. UV light is a known mutagen. Fortunate many things can absorbs or reflect it. The thing about science is that it can only go from possible, to plausible, to probable, to impossible depending on the observable evidence. Edited April 5, 2014 by thesometimesaint 1
thesometimesaint Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 The opposite is equally a non-scientific assumption. (One that violate logic, unless one posits a infinite existence for matter and energy, and again evidence not there for that.) When you see something begin without a cause let me know. The Big Bang. As to what caused the Big Bang there is no way of knowing from any science.
Rob Osborn Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 The Big Bang. As to what caused the Big Bang there is no way of knowing from any science. Thats even "if" the big bang even occurred.
thesometimesaint Posted April 6, 2014 Posted April 6, 2014 (edited) Thats even "if" the big bang even occurred. While there are other theories for the beginnings, There is substantial evidence for the Big Bang model. SEE Big Bang:First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.- See more at: http://www.big-bang-theory.com/#sthash.2zZwwpoq.dpufhttp://www.big-bang-theory.com/ And http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/17/tech/innovation/big-bang-gravitational-waves/ Edited April 6, 2014 by thesometimesaint 1
Rob Osborn Posted April 6, 2014 Posted April 6, 2014 While there are other theories for the beginnings, There is substantial evidence for the Big Bang model. SEE Big Bang:First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.- See more at: http://www.big-bang-theory.com/#sthash.2zZwwpoq.dpufhttp://www.big-bang-theory.com/ And http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/17/tech/innovation/big-bang-gravitational-waves/There are questions abundantly clear as to why it would start the way it did and how it got that way to begin with. AS LDS, we believe that matter itself is eternal - it cannot be created nor destroyed only that it can be formed. It really begs the question of why should all matter that exists be coming from one small point and then expand so rapidly? What caused the expansion if according to the big bang this matter was so tightly wound for an apparent infinite amount of time before that?
thesometimesaint Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 Matter itself is not eternal. E=MxC(squared). At some point in the far distant future all the matter in the universe will dissolve into energy. Second law of Thermodynamics. Why I'll leave to God. How I'll leaved to the scientists. It is unknown at this time what caused inflation. Whether it was caused by God, little green men, or some other factor in another universe is irrelevant once inflation started.
Rob Osborn Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 Matter itself is not eternal. E=MxC(squared). At some point in the far distant future all the matter in the universe will dissolve into energy. Second law of Thermodynamics. Why I'll leave to God. How I'll leaved to the scientists. It is unknown at this time what caused inflation. Whether it was caused by God, little green men, or some other factor in another universe is irrelevant once inflation started. Matter is eternal. When we are resurrected we will be resurrected to matter that will forever be eternal
Recommended Posts