Evidence for God from Science

August wrote: 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?[/quote]
Sorry no.

You ruled out random chance as a possible scenario not a cause.

The cause would be the environment and chemical reactions.

So no.

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...

Kurieuo

You're quite right Kurieuo, there are several unanswered questions regarding the origin of life.

However I wouldn't characterize it as trying to fit a round peg into a square peg just yet.

Of course its just a matter of opinion.
=)

Totoro wrote:

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?

Sorry no.

You ruled out random chance as a possible scenario not a cause.

The cause would be the environment and chemical reactions.

So no.

Why don't you explain all of this to me then? I asked you what chance was, and what causal powers it has, you did not answer.

What is "the environment and chemical reactions"? Where did it come from? What does it cause and why? Are those the cause or the effect?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

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...

Kurieuo

You're quite right Kurieuo, there are several unanswered questions regarding the origin of life.

However I wouldn't characterize it as trying to fit a round peg into a square peg just yet.

Of course its just a matter of opinion.
=)

Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't abiogenesis be God's preferred method of creation in a theistic model? The miracle was the creation of the first living cell, abiogenetically. (just thinking out loud; too early Monday morning to theorize; it hurts).

Byblos wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

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...

Kurieuo

You're quite right Kurieuo, there are several unanswered questions regarding the origin of life.

However I wouldn't characterize it as trying to fit a round peg into a square peg just yet.

Of course its just a matter of opinion.
=)

Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't abiogenesis be God's preferred method of creation in a theistic model? The miracle was the creation of the first living cell, abiogenetically. (just thinking out loud; too early Monday morning to theorize; it hurts).

The problem I see with that is that we have to then assume that all the genetic information for all life was put into that first living cell, with provision for all the subsequent climate changes, meteor strikes, droughts, famines, pandemics, floods etc. It is not possible to "front-load' all of that information into the first living cell. If we deny front-loading in the theistic evolution model, then we are back to a "God of the gaps" argument, or a deistic model.

August wrote:

Byblos wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

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...

Kurieuo

You're quite right Kurieuo, there are several unanswered questions regarding the origin of life.

However I wouldn't characterize it as trying to fit a round peg into a square peg just yet.

Of course its just a matter of opinion.
=)

Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't abiogenesis be God's preferred method of creation in a theistic model? The miracle was the creation of the first living cell, abiogenetically. (just thinking out loud; too early Monday morning to theorize; it hurts).

The problem I see with that is that we have to then assume that all the genetic information for all life was put into that first living cell, with provision for all the subsequent climate changes, meteor strikes, droughts, famines, pandemics, floods etc. It is not possible to "front-load' all of that information into the first living cell. If we deny front-loading in the theistic evolution model, then we are back to a "God of the gaps" argument, or a deistic model.

Agreed. Perhaps I was a bit too narrow in my description. Would abiogenesis not be God's method in any model, for that matter? If we are to entirely discount random evolution, God would have had to create life from non-life (whether it was one cell or an entire being is irrelevant). Would that be a valid argument?

Byblos wrote:
Agreed. Perhaps I was a bit too narrow in my description. Would abiogenesis not be God's method in any model, for that matter? If we are to entirely discount random evolution, God would have had to create life from non-life (whether it was one cell or an entire being is irrelevant). Would that be a valid argument?

This is such a great question.

Did God progressively create life from non-life, or did He "transfer" His breath of life into His creatures at the instant of their creation? In that sense, you would be correct with a literal translation of a-bio-genesis, non-biological-origins.

Unfortunately I still have to disagree with you that it could have been just the single-cell creation, since I find it hard to correlate that with Scripture, so it remains relevant for me.

In common language though, the terms is used as a synonym for spontaneous generation, which is what I take issue with.

August wrote:

Byblos wrote:
Agreed. Perhaps I was a bit too narrow in my description. Would abiogenesis not be God's method in any model, for that matter? If we are to entirely discount random evolution, God would have had to create life from non-life (whether it was one cell or an entire being is irrelevant). Would that be a valid argument?

This is such a great question.

Did God progressively create life from non-life, or did He "transfer" His breath of life into His creatures at the instant of their creation? In that sense, you would be correct with a literal translation of a-bio-genesis, non-biological-origins.

Unfortunately I still have to disagree with you that it could have been just the single-cell creation, since I find it hard to correlate that with Scripture, so it remains relevant for me.

In common language though, the terms is used as a synonym for spontaneous generation, which is what I take issue with.

Thanks August.

I tend to favor a combination of the two. God created the universe via the big bang and things evolved as they did, including the evolution of human-like creatures. Adam and Eve came about when God breathed his essence into already existing human-like creatures (soul, conscience, love, sense of right and wrong, good and evil, etc). In essence, there were two creations, the physical (eons ago via abiogenesis) and the spiritual (the biblical creation). rather simplistic I know, but for me it reconciles many seemingly irreconcilable things.

August wrote:

Totoro wrote: Sorry no.

You ruled out random chance as a possible scenario not a cause.

The cause would be the environment and chemical reactions.

So no.

Why don't you explain all of this to me then? I asked you what chance was, and what causal powers it has, you did not answer.

What is "the environment and chemical reactions"? Where did it come from? What does it cause and why? Are those the cause or the effect?

Look August its real simple there are three scenarios.

Life is inevitable given the right conditions.

God diud it

And finally the right things happened and the one in a million occurred.
We called this last one chance.

The reason's not chance, we just called the last scenario chance to refer to it. But you focused on what we called the scenario and ran with it.

one more time so I am clear we called the scenario the chance scenario, meaning it has a small chance of happening. Like winning the lottery.
This does not mean chance is the cause.
What logical error is this called? Oh ya Equivocation.

Stop trying to confuse me.


See begood and sandy being to technical you went over augusts head.
kiss
keep it simple stupid.
especially you begood.

Totoro wrote: Look August its real simple there are three scenarios.

Life is inevitable given the right conditions.

God diud it

And finally the right things happened and the one in a million occurred.
We called this last one chance.

The reason's not chance, we just called the last scenario chance to refer to it. But you focused on what we called the scenario and ran with it.

one more time so I am clear we called the scenario the chance scenario, meaning it has a small chance of happening. Like winning the lottery.
This does not mean chance is the cause.
What logical error is this called? Oh ya Equivocation.

Stop trying to confuse me.


See begood and sandy being to technical you went over augusts head.
kiss
keep it simple stupid.
especially you begood.

How do you know "life is inevitable given the right conditions"? What is that logcal fallacy called? Oh yeah, circular reasoning or begging the question...

How do you know "God diud it"? What did He do?

Oh, and how did the "right things happen" and why? What was the cause? You keep flapping around between chance as a cause and chance as a"scenario"? What is the difference? Where did I equivocate, you did not state the cause for the "chance scenario". You are the one doing the equivocation between chance and the unknown cause. What is the difference between your scenarios 1 and 3?

Nice insults, by the way.

Totoro wrote: Look August its real simple there are three scenarios.

Life is inevitable given the right conditions.

God diud it

And finally the right things happened and the one in a million occurred.
We called this last one chance.

The reason's not chance, we just called the last scenario chance to refer to it. But you focused on what we called the scenario and ran with it.

one more time so I am clear we called the scenario the chance scenario, meaning it has a small chance of happening. Like winning the lottery.
This does not mean chance is the cause.
What logical error is this called? Oh ya Equivocation.

Stop trying to confuse me.


See begood and sandy being to technical you went over augusts head.
kiss
keep it simple stupid.
especially you begood.

I'm sorry Totoro,

I haven't been responding to you publically because you do come across as rather abrasive. I implore you to tone it down. Pretty Please.

Thanks
=)

Byblos wrote:

August wrote:

Byblos wrote:
Agreed. Perhaps I was a bit too narrow in my description. Would abiogenesis not be God's method in any model, for that matter? If we are to entirely discount random evolution, God would have had to create life from non-life (whether it was one cell or an entire being is irrelevant). Would that be a valid argument?

This is such a great question.

Did God progressively create life from non-life, or did He "transfer" His breath of life into His creatures at the instant of their creation? In that sense, you would be correct with a literal translation of a-bio-genesis, non-biological-origins.

Unfortunately I still have to disagree with you that it could have been just the single-cell creation, since I find it hard to correlate that with Scripture, so it remains relevant for me.

In common language though, the terms is used as a synonym for spontaneous generation, which is what I take issue with.

Thanks August.

I tend to favor a combination of the two. God created the universe via the big bang and things evolved as they did, including the evolution of human-like creatures. Adam and Eve came about when God breathed his essence into already existing human-like creatures (soul, conscience, love, sense of right and wrong, good and evil, etc). In essence, there were two creations, the physical (eons ago via abiogenesis) and the spiritual (the biblical creation). rather simplistic I know, but for me it reconciles many seemingly irreconcilable things.

Byblos, I am always quite curious as to this approach, as I believe it requires some compromises on both sides, both the side of evolution and the side of Christianity. It depends of course from which perspective you start, and how you rationalize making the compromises. Have you thought about which parts of both you discard?

For example, scripture speaks about Adam and Eve. Using your approach, do you believe there was a physical Adam and Eve?

August wrote:

Byblos wrote:I tend to favor a combination of the two. God created the universe via the big bang and things evolved as they did, including the evolution of human-like creatures. Adam and Eve came about when God breathed his essence into already existing human-like creatures (soul, conscience, love, sense of right and wrong, good and evil, etc). In essence, there were two creations, the physical (eons ago via abiogenesis) and the spiritual (the biblical creation). rather simplistic I know, but for me it reconciles many seemingly irreconcilable things.

Byblos, I am always quite curious as to this approach, as I believe it requires some compromises on both sides, both the side of evolution and the side of Christianity. It depends of course from which perspective you start, and how you rationalize making the compromises. Have you thought about which parts of both you discard?

For example, scripture speaks about Adam and Eve. Using your approach, do you believe there was a physical Adam and Eve?

Let me start by saying the view I hold is certainly far from perfect and the whole YEC/OEC argument utterly insignificant theologically. As such, I have no qualms about changing positions. It's just that this is the one that made the most sense to me. Having said that, I'm not sure what you mean by compromises but I'll follow along and see where it goes:

Yes, I do believe there was a physical Adam and Eve. I believe God chose an existing, living creature into whom he breathed a soul, a conscience, an awareness. That's the moment we, as human beings (via the first recipients, i.e. Adam and Eve), were separated from the rest of the animal kingdom. We were given the spiritual image of God (who is not physical, but spiritual). We were also given the gift of free will (and the rest, as they say, is history in the making).

Byblos wrote:
Let me start by saying the view I hold is certainly far from perfect and the whole YEC/OEC argument utterly insignificant theologically. As such, I have no qualms about changing positions. It's just that this is the one that made the most sense to me. Having said that, I'm not sure what you mean by compromises but I'll follow along and see where it goes:

Yes, I do believe there was a physical Adam and Eve. I believe God chose an existing, living creature into whom he breathed a soul, a conscience, an awareness. That's the moment we, as human beings (via the first recipients, i.e. Adam and Eve), were separated from the rest of the animal kingdom. We were given the spiritual image of God (who is not physical, but spiritual). We were also given the gift of free will (and the rest, as they say, is history in the making).

I understand that we are all struggling with the issues and how to properly reconcile what we learn from observing and documenting creation, and trying to figure out how it all happened.

In terms of compromise, you said:

I believe God chose an existing, living creature into whom he breathed a soul, a conscience, an awareness.

Do you not see that as a compromise towards evolution and away from scripture? For example, scripture states that Eve was made from Adam, and was not created like Adam was. Also, humans were formed by God's hand out of the "dust of the earth" while evolution states that life came from the oceans.

I just wanted to make the point that to hold to a view that creation and evolution is compatible, compromises happen one way or the other. Which is fine, of course, but I would caution against compromising to far one way or the other. I will leave the discussion here, unless there are some specific questions or comments.

[Caution: This post contains an analogy.]

Kurieuo wrote:I do not understand your question. ... 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. It just so happens that this discovery is inline with predictions made by RTB's model.

My question is: In this case, how is the evaluation made?

RTB wrote:4. rapidity of life's origin ... Naturalism offers no explanation for such a rapid appearance of life. The Bible, on the other hand, does.

Let's assume that the earth was suitable for life 4 billion years ago. Within how many years from this time must life be present to be considered rapid? How many years from this time must pass before naturalism can offer an explanation? In order to decide with any degree of confidence whether the appearance of life is consistent with RTB, with evolution, with both, or with neither, it is first necessary to have answers to these two questions.

Analogy (not very good):
In order to determine whether a signal is low or high, we have to measure the voltage and compare it to the values for high and low signals.

1) For TTL,
a) a voltage below 0.8 signifies a low
b) a voltage above 2.0 signifies a high
c) a voltage between 0.8 and 2.0 signifies an undetermined state

2) For CMOS,
a) a voltage below 1.3 signifies a low
b) a voltage above 3.7 signifies a high
c) a voltage between 1.3 and 3.7 signifies an undetermined state

3) For a system where every voltage signifies low, the signal does not even have to be measured. The answer is always low.

So can anyone provide estimates for the appearance of life?

1) For Theistic Theory of Life
a) a first appearance of life time (FALT) of less than X years means life could not have arisen by abiogenesis
b) a FALT of between X and Y is inconclusive
c) a FALT of greater than Y means life could have come about on its own

2) For the Creation Model of Origin of Species
a) a FALT of less than U years means life appeared rapidly
b) a FALT of between U and V is inconclusive
c) a FALT of greater than V means life did not appear rapidly

I'll start it off. X > 1 second; if life appeared within 1 second after conditions on earth were suitable, life did not come about via abiogenesis.

Assuming the smallest value from RTB of 40 million years, is it less than X? less than Y?
If life did not appear until 1 billion years after conditions were suitable, is that "rapid" or not?
If there is no value for V, then any amount of time can be considered rapid and every time is consistent with RTB.

Original Question: How was it determined that the data are consistent with RTB but not evolution? I still maintain that it can be consistent with both, given our present state of knowledge.


[Note: I am not even asking where the "rapid" comes from.]