Evidence for God from Science

zoegirl wrote:Ohh...sorry!! Pardon me!!

It's fine. You are right by the way- it isn't fair to compare modern life (which has mechanisms to deal with oxygen) to prebiotic life, which did not.

However, this is largely irrelevent anyways (and this is the point I was making in my first post) because oxygen was not present in the atmosphere until about 2.3 billion years ago.

hopefulcynic wrote:That being said, you ignored the second argument, namely that early atmospheric oxygen concentrations were a fraction of what they are today. Here is a graph showing oxygen concentrations (as a percentage of "present atmospheric levels", or PAL) over geological time:



This particular graph was obtained by examining the age of particular rocks that can form only in the absence of oxygen. The article itself is published in Nature and is thus copyrighted, but if you are interested maybe I could send you a pdf by email.

Ignore what? Why is this important? We already have agreed that any presence of oxygen breaks down organic molecules... It's a double edge sword. And if you have little or no oxygen how else are biological structures going to be protected from ultraviolet rays with no ozone layer?

Gman wrote: Ignore what? Why is this important? We already have agreed that any presence of oxygen breaks down organic molecules...

It is important because a reducing atmosphere (one without oxygen) would be more conducive to abiogenesis.

It's a double edge sword. And if you have little or no oxygen how else are biological structures going to be protected from ultraviolet rays with no ozone layer?

Ozone is not the only molecule that absorbs in the UV spectrum. Some of the early components of the atmosphere, such as hydrogen sulfide, also absorb UV radiation.

hopefulcynic wrote:It is important because a reducing atmosphere (one without oxygen) would be more conducive to abiogenesis.

Reducing oxygen and eliminating oxygen, which is more conducive to abiogenesis, is a different claim altogether...

Ozone is not the only molecule that absorbs in the UV spectrum. Some of the early components of the atmosphere, such as hydrogen sulfide, also absorb UV radiation.

So under your logic, hydrogen sulfide could replace oxygen (O2) and perform the same function as the ozone? How so?

Also, no one really knows the early components of the atmosphere. There are hints in the rocks but nothing is conclusive...

It is important because a reducing atmosphere (one without oxygen) would be more conducive to abiogenesis.

Now, that is a telling statement.

Gman wrote:

hopefulcynic wrote:It is important because a reducing atmosphere (one without oxygen) would be more conducive to abiogenesis.

Reducing oxygen and eliminating oxygen, which is more conducive to abiogenesis, is a different claim altogether...

I think you may have misunderstood my use of the word "reducing". In this context, reducing means lacking in oxygen. An atmosphere which contains oxygen is oxidizing, not reducing.

Also, if you look at the graph, you will see that the prebiotic oxygen levels were .0001% of today's concentrations. This is lacking in oxygen for all practical purposes.

Ozone is not the only molecule that absorbs in the UV spectrum. Some of the early components of the atmosphere, such as hydrogen sulfide, also absorb UV radiation.

So under your logic, hydrogen sulfide could replace oxygen (O2) and perform the same function as the ozone? How so?

Also, no one really knows the early components of the atmosphere. There are hints in the rocks but nothing is conclusive...

Any chemical which absorbs light in the UV spectrum will protect against UV radiation. Ozone/oxygen is particularly effective because it has a high absorbance even at low concentrations, but other chemicals, if present in sufficient concentrations, could also perform the same function as ozone.

jlay wrote:

It is important because a reducing atmosphere (one without oxygen) would be more conducive to abiogenesis.

Now, that is a telling statement.

How so?

Because it demonstrates a prejudice.

We need an oxygen free environment (to prove a godless creation), therefore we look for an oxygen free environment.

Life sustaining environment= deadly to abiogenesis
Poisonis, toxic environment= conducive to abiogenesis

Either way you need a miracle.

Next time you travel back in time, please pick me up something.

It's simply stating a condition.

In orde for organic molecules to exist in a stable form (whether or not biogenesis is the topic), they need to be in environment free from oxygen.

hopefulcynic wrote:I think you may have misunderstood my use of the word "reducing". In this context, reducing means lacking in oxygen. An atmosphere which contains oxygen is oxidizing, not reducing.

Also, if you look at the graph, you will see that the prebiotic oxygen levels were .0001% of today's concentrations. This is lacking in oxygen for all practical purposes.

Well that is pretty much known as controversial evidence. Speculation at best... Again the evidence shows that O2 disrupts chemical bonds even in small quantities.

Any chemical which absorbs light in the UV spectrum will protect against UV radiation. Ozone/oxygen is particularly effective because it has a high absorbance even at low concentrations, but other chemicals, if present in sufficient concentrations, could also perform the same function as ozone.

Could also perform the same function as ozone? Speculation again.. Ozone/oxygen is simply the best to protect against UV radiation and is needed to sustain life. Also hydrogen sulfide, a highly toxic poisonous gas, blocks oxygen from binding and stops cellular respiration. Not good to breath in my opinion...

Gman wrote:

hopefulcynic wrote:I think you may have misunderstood my use of the word "reducing". In this context, reducing means lacking in oxygen. An atmosphere which contains oxygen is oxidizing, not reducing.

Also, if you look at the graph, you will see that the prebiotic oxygen levels were .0001% of today's concentrations. This is lacking in oxygen for all practical purposes.

Well that is pretty much known as controversial evidence. Speculation at best... Again the evidence shows that O2 disrupts chemical bonds even in small quantities.

First, the .0001% PAL represents a maximum estimate- the actual concentration was probably lower.

Second, hydrogen gas was present in the early atmosphere at higher concentrations than oxygen was.
H2 + O2 --> H2O (very favorable)
O2 + organics --> oxidation (not nearly as favorable)
So yes, I can say that .0001% is essentially nothing, because any oxygen that was around was reacting with hydrogen, not organic molecules.

Any chemical which absorbs light in the UV spectrum will protect against UV radiation. Ozone/oxygen is particularly effective because it has a high absorbance even at low concentrations, but other chemicals, if present in sufficient concentrations, could also perform the same function as ozone.

Could also perform the same function as ozone? Speculation again.. Ozone/oxygen is simply the best to protect against UV radiation and is needed to sustain life. Also hydrogen sulfide, a highly toxic poisonous gas, blocks oxygen from binding and stops cellular respiration. Not good to breath in my opinion...

You are comparing apples and oranges. H2S is poisonous (to some) organisms today, but that doesn't mean it would have inhibited the formation of organic molecules in a prebiotic atmosphere.

Interestingly, H2S is actually metabolized by some bacteria for energy. So it is definitely not poisonous to everything!

Hi all,

It was myself who posted the comment pasted into the opening of this thread over on the Atheist Toolbox.

I would like to respond to Gman's comment, whilst maintaining some semblance of manners.

I've stuck my own handle into the quote system, I use the same handle over at the Toolbox.

Gman wrote:

Proinsias wrote:For some problems in the Bible you may want to have a look the the Bible sections of the main site. What would prove the Bible false in your eyes? Contradictions within the gospels? and while we're marrying science with religion surely abiogenesis, whilst not perfect, has more going for it than the historical accuracy of Jesus as presented in the gospels.

Abiogenesis is a huge slap in the face of the Darwinists, which is why they go to great lengths to say it has nothing to do with evolution. They know it is damaging to their theory.. The historical accuracy of Jesus is however accepted by most scholars as being a true historical figure.

John Horgan, senior writer for Scientific American, has called the origin of life (abiogenesis) "the weakest strut of the chassis of modern biology." The National Academy of Sciences puts the problem in an interesting way:

“The study of the origin of life is a very active research area in which important progress is being made, although the consensus among scientists is that none of the current hypotheses has thus far been confirmed.” Science and Creationism : A view from the National Academy of sciences, 2nd ed., 1999.

In other words, it is fair to say that we do not know how life originated.

Yes it is fair to say that we do not know how life originated and that abiogenesis may be viewed as the weakest strut of the the chassis of modern biology.

I'm not about to try and distance abiogeneis, or similar ideas, from evolution for fear of a sore face anymore than I want to keep E=MC2 away from modern physics for fear of a broken equation.

I'm aware that the existence of Jesus as a historical figure is accepted by most scholars in this area. I try to remain fairly neutral on the existence of Jesus, although I lean towards it being more probable that he existed than not.

I do feel that abiogenesis, or to be more accurate the issue it is trying to tackle, has more going for it than the historical accuracy of Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels. In a similar way to which I would say string theory, or the problems it is trying to solve, has more going for it than the historical accuracy of the actions of Krishna in the Gita.

The amount of information we are currently acquiring surrounding the issues of the limits of physics & biology is fairly large. The information we are acquiring surrounding the historical accuracy of Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels or Krishna in the Gita is slim by comparison.

The issues brought up by religion are age old issues and I don't believe the current state of science has much of a bearing on them. If Jesus and Krishna never set foot upon the earth and this, by some miracle, was proven to be the case my contemplation of god and so forth is not going to dry up. In the same that if abiogenesis falls flat on it's face then my interest in science tackling the problem of how 'stuff' became 'living stuff' is not going to vanish either.

Gman wrote:

Proinsias wrote:The GodandScience website makes me sad. First to go was the age of the earth, then creation to evolution, now it's time to support god in the jump from chemistry to biology. If Abiogenesis or some other reasonable idea comes along to explain the transition from chemistry to biology these sites will not disappear they'll just drop one argument and move along with science to the next problem down the chain.

Well atheists web sites make me sad too. Their refusal to look at the facts and instead allow themselves to be brainwashed into thinking that chance and time can create human mental life, our consciousness, our intelligence, our purposes, or that it can be explained entirely in the forces involved in chemistry.

I'm not sure what science they are talking about, but their science isn't science at all. It's guesswork...

I should say that when I wrote the site makes me sad it was only from reading some of the links posted to the main site, I has no idea there was a forum here.

This in particular made me sad:

Introduction

Let us look at the origin of life. There are only two possibilities for the existence of life:

1. Spontaneous assembly of life from chemicals
2. There is a Creator who designed biological systems

If you deny the existence of a Creator, scientific studies demonstrate that you must believe each of the following things about the origin of life:.......

As seen it as:

Introduction:

Polarize people on the issue at hand. You can only pick one option.

1. It just happened
2 . God done it

If you don't believe that god done it then you must agree to this rather shaky origin of life speculation assembled from fragmentary information at the limits of current science:....

I don't think I'm refusing to look at the facts or assuming humanity and the universe can be explained by chemistry. I'm just trying to make a little sense of it all. One of the few understandings I have down well is that god is here, there and everywhere. I find it strange when I see people trying to slot god into spaces in scientific knowledge.

Surely god is part of the whole show? no god, no show. Does it really matter if god popped in to make some adjustments or not? Running the whole show seamlessly would seem more godlike to me.

Proinsias wrote: I should say that when I wrote the site makes me sad it was only from reading some of the links posted to the main site, I has no idea there was a forum here.

This in particular made me sad:

Introduction

Let us look at the origin of life. There are only two possibilities for the existence of life:

1. Spontaneous assembly of life from chemicals
2. There is a Creator who designed biological systems

If you deny the existence of a Creator, scientific studies demonstrate that you must believe each of the following things about the origin of life:.......

As seen it as:

Introduction:

Polarize people on the issue at hand. You can only pick one option.

1. It just happened
2 . God done it

If you don't believe that god done it then you must agree to this rather shaky origin of life speculation assembled from fragmentary information at the limits of current science:.....

Yes I agree it makes me sad too when people make assumptions then call it factual science... Either God created everything or He didn't. And if He didn't then only natural explanations will only suffice...

hopefulcynic wrote:Second, hydrogen gas was present in the early atmosphere at higher concentrations than oxygen was.
H2 + O2 --> H2O (very favorable)
O2 + organics --> oxidation (not nearly as favorable)
So yes, I can say that .0001% is essentially nothing, because any oxygen that was around was reacting with hydrogen, not organic molecules.

Again, no one knows truly what the atmosphere was like in the early stages.. Second, the Miller—Urey experiment, even with the so called "correct" ingredients for life, could not produce life... So we can throw our "ifs" and "coulds" and "possible" words around all we want and still come up with nothing... This is not science, this is speculation... Even if you had .0001% of O2, you still have nothing...

You are comparing apples and oranges. H2S is poisonous (to some) organisms today, but that doesn't mean it would have inhibited the formation of organic molecules in a prebiotic atmosphere.

Interestingly, H2S is actually metabolized by some bacteria for energy. So it is definitely not poisonous to everything!

You don't even have apples and oranges, let alone a molecule, so what is your point again? Trust me, H2S is a killer of biological organisms and is responsible for numerous mass extinctions. Of course H25 may have some benefits in very small amounts... But that doesn't mean we overlook the harm that it causes either. If you get too much of it, it can kill. And you would probably need a lot of it to protect against UV radiation. The Ozone/oxygen is still the superior model....

Again, scientists have been trying for years to "find" the right combination of chemicals and have come up with nothing... And that is a fact...

Gman wrote:Yes I agree it makes me sad too when people make assumptions then call it factual science... Either God created everything or He didn't. And if He didn't then only natural explanations will only suffice...

I think the existence of god is a rather moot point here, especially when the semantics of what god is are explored - is the use of the pronoun 'he' to be taken with any weight? If it is the case that god exists then natural explanations are still all that will suffice from an atheist perspective, if it is the case that god does not exist then theists will not be convinced by only a natural explanation.

I do have some difficulty with the idea of a 'natural' explanation. God would seem a fairly natural explanation to me. Is god in this context non-natural or supernatural or something else?

I tend to try and avoid the use of the word fact or factual, I find it lends little weight to a statement.

Having had a look around the forum over the past day or two I can see that this forum attempts to create a sort of safe space for Christians and those looking to explore Chritianity further. I would like to respect that whilst hopefully adding a little and taking something from it. If my questions or opinions would be better suited to another type of forum then that is where they shall go.