Evidence for God from Science

sandy_mcd wrote:
Given all the uncertainties involved in the above, the only concept I see early fossils as evidence against is the idea of random chance, or "winning the lottery" as Bgood wrote elsewhere.

Your quite right in this analysis.
The shortened time span makes this scenario less likely.
(However chance doesn't necessarily require many trials.)

The more likely possibilities include the posibility that abiogenesis is inevitable and likely, given certain conditions.
(But what are these conditions?)

OR

Life evolved elsewhere and was transported to Earth.
(One would expect to be able to find signs of life in interplanetary material. Analysis of comet and meteoric material may provide some clues.)

OR

Life was created on Earth.

At this point it, given the lack of understanding, its a matter of individual choice which idea one wishes to prescribe to.

Hi Sandy and Bgood,

This release for for the general public which does not know this material. Therefore this does add to the discussion. To those that are in the loop, this is as Bgood said, old news, but those that are in the loop were not the audience.

Dan

sandy_mcd wrote:Coming at this with a blank slate, what timescales is this RTB interpretation consistent with or predict?

See http://www.reasons.org/resources/apolog ... ndex.shtml

sandy wrote:Is there a specific reference to an early seeding or is that just what farmers do? Given the standard accepted geologic ages, once the earth is suitable for life,
a) how much time is acceptable for this early seeding, e.g., up to 100 million years?
b) what time range is it not clear for (could be either seeding or not)?
c) what time limit, if any, is too long, e.g. if life appeared 2 billion years later, this would be inconsistent with the RTB model?

I do not understand your question.

In the book Origins of Life, a creation model on origins has been presented which makes predictions and falls inline with their Genesis creation interpretation. I believe one of these predictions was that they expect to find life appearing as soon as the conditions are right on Earth. I could open up the book and quote portions, but I don't have the time to do that at the moment. Perhaps aa118816 might oblige you if further interested.

There is a basic summary of their creation model at http://www.reasons.org/resources/apolog ... mary.shtml.

sandy wrote:Which of these are amenable to scientific explanation, which aren't, and how does one decide? In the past many questions and inconsistencies have been answered and cleared up. How does one decide whether abiogenesis will be in this category?

To be clear, this isn't a knock down argument for creation against a natural accounting via abiogensis. Rather you have certain predictions or things we would expect to see. If abiogenesis were true, we would expect certain things to be true. If RTB's creation model were true, then we'd expect certain other things to be true. One can judge the successfulness of a model's explanation by judging whether or not its predictions measure up to what we know. It just so happens that this discovery is inline with predictions made by RTB's model.

Now after reading the Origins of Life book, I was left with the impression what we have are not simply problems. One might say RTB are biassed, but then you have people such as Paul Davies who says similar things regarding origin of life being a problem. Infact Davies said in his book the Fifth Miracle:

When I set out to write this book, I was convinced that science was close to wrapping up the mystery of life's origins… Having spent a year or two researching the field, I am now of the opinion that there remains a huge gulf in our understanding… This gulf in understanding is not merely ignorance about certain technical details, it is a major conceptual lacuna.

We have severe problems with abiogenesis. The impression I've been left with reading what I have is that these are not problems that just require some thought. These are problems like trying to fit a square block into a round hole of the same width. Problems such as early Earth conditions not being right, homochirality, and others which the book Origins of Life especially goes into some depth on. I really would recommend this book if further interested in specific issues.

Kurieuo

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:(However chance doesn't necessarily require many trials.)

Good point. It is impossible (meaning it can't happen) to rule out either chance or God as an explanation of something.

sandy_mcd wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:(However chance doesn't necessarily require many trials.)

Good point. It is impossible (meaning it can't happen) to rule out either chance or God as an explanation of something.

I think we can rule out chance pretty safely, since it would mean an uncaused effect.

Kurieuo wrote:We have severe problems with abiogenesis. The impression I've been left with reading what I have is that these are not problems that just require some thought. These are problems like trying to fit a square block into a round hole of the same width. Problems such as early Earth conditions not being right, homochirality, and others which the book Origins of Life especially goes into some depth on.

I agree wholeheartedly. These are not problems which can be solved by though alone. Was Kelvin's thermal analysis of the age of the earth overturned by thought alone? No. Science at some stage involves experimentation and observation of the real world. [Math doesn't.]

August wrote:I think we can rule out chance pretty safely, since it would mean an uncaused effect.

I wrote "impossible" not "pretty safely". If something happens which has a 1 in a zillion chance, you can be pretty sure the game was rigged. But you can not know absolutely. If I understand what August is trying to say (and I usually don't), followups should probably go to the thread where people say that "1 chance in some large number" really means "0 chance in some large number".

August wrote:

sandy_mcd wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:(However chance doesn't necessarily require many trials.)

Good point. It is impossible (meaning it can't happen) to rule out either chance or God as an explanation of something.

I think we can rule out chance pretty safely, since it would mean an uncaused effect.

What do you mean?
Are you saying chance means no cause
Not in my dictionary.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
I didn't say that archaea were not chemically complex. However compared to other forms on life they are simple.

The article does not make sence. The points you made do not have any bearing on this.

Follow me carefully.

Signs of Archaea was already discovered dating back 3.5 billion years.
The discovery of a methane producing Archaea does not change the timeline at all.

The article was implying that the current theories depended on Methanogens occurring 700 million years later. This is not the case.
Whoever wrote the article was unaware of this fact.

Now your friend at Harvard beleives that panspermia must be the best explanation. Many beleive that abiogenesis occurred here on Earth. However there is not enough evidence for either case. So one may "beleive" what they want but in the mean time there is no consensus agreement.

I personally don't favor one side over the other.

Begood its been awhile but youre still too technical. Do you really think your getting your point through going over evryones head?

Totoro wrote:Not in my dictionary. ...
Begood its been awhile but youre still too technical.

What's the dvd?
So I assume your dictionary has no technical terms? Is it pictures only? Where can I get a copy?

aa118816 wrote:This release for for the general public which does not know this material.

Hi Dan,
Thanks for the clarification. I myself did not know that fossils that old were known so I mistakenly assumed that was an integral part of the argument.
mea culpa
sandy

Totoro wrote:

August wrote:

sandy_mcd wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:(However chance doesn't necessarily require many trials.)

Good point. It is impossible (meaning it can't happen) to rule out either chance or God as an explanation of something.

I think we can rule out chance pretty safely, since it would mean an uncaused effect.

What do you mean?
Are you saying chance means no cause
Not in my dictionary.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. What is chance, and what causal powers does chance have?

sandy_mcd wrote:

Totoro wrote:Not in my dictionary. ...
Begood its been awhile but youre still too technical.

What's the dvd?
So I assume your dictionary has no technical terms? Is it pictures only? Where can I get a copy?

=D
I'm just hoping she tones down her language a little. Use more simpler words not words like methanogen.

August wrote:

Totoro wrote:

August wrote:

sandy_mcd wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:(However chance doesn't necessarily require many trials.)

Good point. It is impossible (meaning it can't happen) to rule out either chance or God as an explanation of something.

I think we can rule out chance pretty safely, since it would mean an uncaused effect.

What do you mean?
Are you saying chance means no cause
Not in my dictionary.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. What is chance, and what causal powers does chance have?

What?

Chance is the possibility of a causal power of reaching a certain outcome.

Chance is not a cause but a description of the outcome. looking at it like this makes it clear that your question doesnt make any sence.

I think you are trying to confuse me.

Totoro wrote:

August wrote:

Totoro wrote:

August wrote:

sandy_mcd wrote:Good point. It is impossible (meaning it can't happen) to rule out either chance or God as an explanation of something.

I think we can rule out chance pretty safely, since it would mean an uncaused effect.

What do you mean?
Are you saying chance means no cause
Not in my dictionary.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. What is chance, and what causal powers does chance have?

What?

Chance is the possibility of a causal power of reaching a certain outcome.

Chance is not a cause but a description of the outcome. looking at it like this makes it clear that your question doesnt make any sence.

I think you are trying to confuse me.

My question does not make any sense? I think we have spoken a little bit past each other here. You said "chance is not a cause" , and that is what I said first off, we can rule out chance as a cause. This was in a response to a statement that said that it is impossible to rule out either chance or God as an explanation for something. If chance cannot cause anything, how can it explain anything?