Evidence for God from Science

I believe that is why many say abiogenesis is not based on Darwinian evolution..

Gabrielman wrote:Really? I am an OEC I believe that the universe is billions of years old. I enjoyed the show, and you didn't give an answer.

What is the correct ansswer to a strawman arguemtn, I wonder?

So how did a bunch of atoms (protons nuetrons, and electrons) come to life, begin to self actualized, and type this to you?

I have no idea, but this is irrelevant to the Theory of Evolution.

I should have thought that a crack team of great minds, like yourselves, would at least have a basic understanding of what they are arguing against, but I see that is not the case.

I believe in God and science. Learn about the different types of believers, we are not all the same, and we are not all YECs. Looking forward to having a constructive disscussion on this, let's see if that will happen....

It is hard to have such a discussion when those attacking the Theory of Evolution do so by conflating it with things that it is not.

Gman wrote:I don't believe there are any RNA molecules or proteins in non-living chemicals.

All chemicals are non-living.

I'm simply starting from scratch here.. I believe that is what abiogenesis or the chemical origin of life teaches. If so, there is no natural selection to get the process going.

NS needs something to work on. If there is nothing to work on, then there is no NS. To then declare that NS cannot explain something it was never meant to is to set up a strawman argument.

Gman wrote:I believe that is why many say abiogenesis is not based on Darwinian evolution..

Many might say that because it is the truth.

Darwinian evolution is about the origin of SPECIES, i.e., the changes that produce new species. Species that are already alive. Why would a theory on the production of new species say anything about abiogenesis?

derwood wrote:

Gman wrote:I don't believe there are any RNA molecules or proteins in non-living chemicals.

All chemicals are non-living.

I'm simply starting from scratch here.. I believe that is what abiogenesis or the chemical origin of life teaches. If so, there is no natural selection to get the process going.

NS needs something to work on. If there is nothing to work on, then there is no NS. To then declare that NS cannot explain something it was never meant to is to set up a strawman argument.

That is exactly what I said... Thanks for the confirmation. That is correct, NS can't do anything to start life... Absolutely nothing.

derwood wrote:Darwinian evolution is about the origin of SPECIES, i.e., the changes that produce new species. Species that are already alive. Why would a theory on the production of new species say anything about abiogenesis?

Baloney... Why? Because religion and philosophy and science must conflict when we talk about origins. Science and religion deal with the same thing. Human life. But they try to understand it under different types of considerations. One physical or natural and the other spiritual. And that is why they conflict because that are trying to come to an understanding of the same thing, human life, from two different points of view. People try to divide them where they don't interfere, but you can't do that. As an example, scientific research into human life will want to account for it in terms of events dealt with the so called natural sciences. Physics, chemistry, biology and the likes.. This philosophical approach to this is called naturalism. However those who adhere to philosophical naturalism often don't even get an eyebrow raised when they do mix their atheistic philosophy with scientific practice. Science does not take philosophical stances, people do. If a position takes a positive philosophical stance on a matter such as God's existence or non-existence then surely it can be guaranteed someone is mixing their science with their philosophical opinions.

This is not science vs religion, this is a battle between two different fundamental philosophies. Two different world views.

Although Darwinian evolution is about the origin of species, it still is considered all encompassing to life.. Like cosmic evolution and such..

Also abiogenesis is clearly taught in biology classes along with evolutionary theory. Darwinian evolution is the philosophical glue that holds it all together (supposedly). Although not called abiogenesis, the Biology book below called "Biology: Concepts and Connections" (copyright 2008) explains very clearly the origin and evolution of microbial life through prokaryotes and protists. Purchase this book then read the various sections on "The Origin of Species" and the "The Origin and Evolution of Microbial Life:

Go to chapter 15 under the subject “Tracing evolutionary History” and you will see the conditions on early earth which made the origin of life possible (according to evolutionary beliefs). It clearly depicts the observations and experiments that have led scientists to believe that chemical and physical processes on early earth have produced very simple cells through a sequence of 4 main stages:

1. The abiotic (nonliving) synthesis of small organic molecules, such as amino acids and nucleotides

2. The joining of these small molecules into macromolecules including proteins and nucleic acids

3. The packaging of these molecules into "protobionts,” droplets with membranes that maintain an internal istry different from that of their surroundings

4. The origin of self-replicating molecules that eventually made inheritance possible. In the next two modules, we examine some of the evidence for each of these four stages. “

This is clearly an evolutionary process from the books perspective. The whole chapter devotes itself to evolution and how life arose from nonliving matter… Evolution IS being used by scientists to explain the origins of life.. Plain and simple.

As they state about the Miller-Urey-type experiments ...

“Similar experiments using various atmospheric conditions have also produced mixtures of organic compounds. Scientists now think that the composition of the atmosphere of early Earth was somewhat different from what Miller assumed in his historic first experiment. There is growing evidence that the early atmosphere was made up primarily of N2 and CO2, and so far, Miller-Urey-type experiments using such atmospheres have not produced organic molecules. Still, it is possible that small "pockets" of the early atmosphere-perhaps near volcanic openings-were similar to those used by Miller.

Alternatively, submerged volcanoes and deep-sea hydrothermal vents-gaps in the Earth's crust where hot water and minerals gush into deep oceans-may have provided the initial chemical resources for life. Such environments are among the most extreme in which life exists today, and some researchers favor the hypothesis that life may have begun in similar regions on early Earth. Miller-Urey-type experiments demonstrate that the abiotic synthesis of organic molecules is possible. Support for this idea also comes from analyses of the chemical composition of meteorites. Fragments of a 4.5-billion-year-old meterorite collected in 1969 contain more than 80 amino acids. Remarkably, the proportions of these amino acids are similar to those produced in the Miller-Urey experiments.- ”Biology: Concepts and Connections" (copyright 2008) Pg. 295.



Contents

1. Biology: Exploring Life

III. CONCEPTS OF EVOLUTION
13. How Populations Evolve
14. The Origin of Species
15. Tracing Evolutionary History

IV. THE EVOLUTION OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
16. The Origin and Evolution of Microbial Life: Prokaryotes and Protists
17. Plants, Fungi, and the Colonization of Land
18. The Evolution of Invertebrate Diversity
19. The Evolution of Vertebrate Diversity

"Theory of Necessity

Evolution is an attempt to offer a naturalistic explanation for the existence of our complex ecosystem. On creation vs. evolution debate forums, evolutionists frequently claim that abiogenesis is not a part of evolution. This debate tactic is simply used to avoid the issue because it has never been proven despite repeated attempts under every conceivable circumstance. Every college level course on evolution will address abiogenesis at length, as will any evolutionary biology textbook. Most dedicate an entire chapter to the origin of life."

http://www.nwcreation.net/abiogenesis.html

Or even this..

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v11i9e.htm

Why would a theory on the production of new species say anything about abiogenesis?

It depends on which evolution you are talking about.. Apparently NOVA thinks that life (from inorganic materials) can appear via Cosmic Evolution.

PBS's NOVA series presents "Origins - Fourteen Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution."

Origins - How Life Began - Part 1

But no... They really don't teach that in schools..

This four-hour PBS documentary explores the origins for three pivotal events in the history of the universe. Although the material is presented from a secular point of view, most of the time it's not overly heavy-handed. People who are new to science apologetics will appreciate the visual presentations of complex topics such as big bang cosmology or the origin of life.

Yes.. Cosmic evolution... But you see evolution doesn't really address origins.

Did you hear anything about God in it? Oh, wait. That is religion, can't have that..

I think people need to understand philosophy of science or in this case Pragmatism which is used as a tool to embrace Darwinain evolution.

As a philosophical movement, pragmatism originated in the United States in the late 1800s. The key figures of pragmatism where John Dewy, William James, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and Charles Peirce. You might say that they were the first to offer “universal” Darwinism. The core of their thought was that if life evolved then the human mind has evolved as well and that all of the human sciences need to be rebuilt on that bases as well. That being philosophy, law, science, education, etc.. They stressed that our minds were the product of nature and nothing more. That mind was transcendent to the physical realm. Much like a mental natural selection where ideas arise in the human brain by chance, just like Darwin's chance variations in nature.

There has to be a distinction of terms here; the word evolution when applied to the Theory of evolution has a very specific meaning compared to the more general meaning when used in a phrase like cosmic or chemical evolution (neither of which fall under the umbrella of the Theory of evolution). It's comparable to how the word theory is different when used to refer to, e.g., evolutionary or atomic theory as opposed to the colloquial sense of the word.

As for natural selection - if you define it as only acting only on living things then of course it can't account for the origin of living things. Natural selection is a class of phenomena, namely that things more suited to their environment last longer. It is not a process. Certainly something analogous to natural selection could apply to chemicals and other inorganic matter.

touchingcloth wrote:There has to be a distinction of terms here; the word evolution when applied to the Theory of evolution has a very specific meaning compared to the more general meaning when used in a phrase like cosmic or chemical evolution (neither of which fall under the umbrella of the Theory of evolution). It's comparable to how the word theory is different when used to refer to, e.g., evolutionary or atomic theory as opposed to the colloquial sense of the word.

As for natural selection - if you define it as only acting only on living things then of course it can't account for the origin of living things. Natural selection is a class of phenomena, namely that things more suited to their environment last longer. It is not a process. Certainly something analogous to natural selection could apply to chemicals and other inorganic matter.

Yes, however, if we are looking at the word "evolution" in general, it is mainly used all-pervasive in science. In this case the "Origin and Evolution of Microbial Life: Prokaryotes and Protists." That is why I brought up the philosophical movement, pragmatism. I tend to like this definition of evolution from creationwiki as a break down.

"The word evolution basically means "gradual change". In the broadest sense the word is all-pervasive; stars, galaxies, languages, attitudes, maturity and political systems all evolve through time.

Beyond this broad definition, the word evolution is used in a number of different ways, leading to a great deal of confusion. Three major uses of the word evolution include:

• Biological evolution: the observable scientific fact that the genetic characteristics of species change over time, as a result of recombination, mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

• Stellar evolution: the field of astronomy that describes the theoretic changes that stars are believed to undergo during their life cycle, including star formation. Since these changes are believed to occur over millions or even billions of years, astrophysicists theorize about how stars evolve by observing numerous stars, each at a different point in its life cycle, and simulating stellar structure with computer models.

• General theory of evolution: the speculation that all life originated naturalistically without any act of creation (abiogenesis). All life on the planet is related because it originated in a single cell or population of cells (common ancestry). All the biological complexity, adaptivity, and artistry on the planet is solely the result of random changes and natural selection over millions and billions of years.

The distinction between these two uses of the word "Evolution" is important, because creationism acknowledges that biological evolution is a true and scientific reality, but argues that the theory of evolution is a speculative farce, overwhelmingly discredited by the scientific evidence."

Source: http://creationwiki.org/Evolution

I think part of the problem here comes to mixing philosophy with science. I believe it is inevitable that this will occur at some point. However, the goal of science is not to establish "truth" in any absolute sense, but rather to generate ever more accurate and consistent depictions and explanations of phenomena in our universe. At its very heart, scientific methodology is an exercise in rational thought and critical thinking. But nonetheless it does happen (people mixing their faith into science like pragmatist) as we can clearly see.

I thought this is good too..

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... TyFcVVmTQE