treasure says:

#184, Thomas:

Yes, I have no problem accepting certain parts of the theory of evolution (referring to the most common or prevalent views as the “theory of evolution”) as long as these are supported abundantly by REAL scientific evidence. However, many aspects of the theory are backed up only by naturalistic philosophy and biased reasoning.

I really only take umbrage when individuals claim that certain, wholly unproven aspects of the theory are “scientific” or “fact” merely because he or she has reasoned that the philosophy supporting the particular viewpoint is so compelling it must be true. The reality is that many aspects of the theory of evolution are impossible to scientifically test with present technology, yet even those untestable aspects are accepted by many as scientific truth, merely because the reasoning appears so compelling. I have no problem if an individual wants to form an opinion based on philosophy or reasoning (however compelling), but just don’t try to pass the particular viewpoint off as scientific fact (even though the viewpoint can’t actually be scientifically tested using present technology).

It may seem logical, even compellingly logical, to work backwards from known evolutionary processes toward the conclusion that life originated by similar, evolutionary processes (i.e. abiogenesis). However, based on available, genuine science (rather than based merely on what many evolutionists like to treat as science), ideas as to the very origin of life are still in the realm of philosophy and logic. Further, in my view, abiogenesis is CLEARLY NOT a “fact.” In other words, the evidence is not sufficiently strong that any reasonable person, as a matter of sound logic, must necessarily accept the viewpoint as fact. Not even close.

One thing we can probably both agree on: Fundamentalist Christians are mistaken as to a great many things. They make it too easy. However, what we may not agree on is that even though Fundamentalist Christians are mistaken about a great many things, it’s still possible that God exists, that He created us, that there is a very good reason we are here, that there is a reason and need for a Savior, and that Christ is that Savior. I know it’s only a belief and/or an opinion, but I believe it, and I have very good reasons for so doing.

One final note, of course God didn’t create us to worship him. Of course Fundamentalist Christians don’t know what they’re talking about. But don’t make the mistake Carl Sagan did in Broca’s Brain, which is to smugly conclude that God does not exist in reliance on a very clever argument that effectively refutes what is essentially only a straw-man religion.

Don’t assume that (A) the truth about God is not available anywhere merely because you have not discovered it yet; that (B) the truth about God would be just as easy to refute as is Fundamentalistic Christianity; that (C) God ceases to exist because you refuse to believe in Him, that (D) Pascal’s Wager does not put you on “inquiry notice” (look it up), or that (E) if God wanted you to follow his rules, he already would have provided more proof of his existence to you (see (A) and (D) again). Otherwise, one day, you will find out that God, who is literally your Father-in-Heaven, can easily refute every one of the ingenious arguments. Trust me, it’s better to spend a little time right now discovering how pathetic the arguments against the existence of God actually are.

treasure says:

First, abiogenesis is not a fact. It’s the prevalent explanation (which for the time being still has little evidentiary support) for the origin of life on Earth held by evolutionists. By definition, it is a very specific term. From the link you provided, note that abiogenesis deals with “how life on Earth could have arisen FROM INANIMATE MATTER.” (Emphasis added). Believe it or not, I recall learning the word “inanimate” in kindergarten when the lesson was the difference between living things and inanimate objects.

–Please forgive me for the many phrases in all capitalized letters. I wanted to emphasize certain phrases, but the comment box doesn’t appear to technologically allow lesser forms of emphasis such as bold typeface and/or underlining.–

The applicable statement from TalkOrigins.org (that I previously quoted) asserted incorrectly that it was a logical certainty that regardless of the viewpoint, life began with abiogenesis. You appear to assert the same thing when you say, “That it started on its own, that a supernatural deity was the cause, or that aliens from space were the cause are all speculations (but not necessarily scientific hypotheses) about what could have caused abiogenesis.” Your apparent implication is the same, which implication is that regardless of the viewpoint, life necessarily began with abiogenesis. Not logically true.

Previously, I explained that millions of known people hold the viewpoint that “LIFE” NEVER AROSE FROM INANIMATE MATTER. In other words, the viewpoint is that there is no such thing as natural abiogenesis. That life on Earth arose from matter that was already alive, NOT FROM INANIMATE MATTER. This does NOT include the notion that “life” first arose through abiogenesis elsewhere before it was somehow transported to Earth. Again, the idea is that “LIFE” HAS ALWAYS EXISTED (in some form), and that the correct explanation for how “life” exists anywhere now, including on Earth, is that it arose from “life” already in existence (again, NOT from inanimate matter).

My point was that considering this view, then, as a matter of logical argument alone, abiogenesis is not necessarily a fact. Accordingly, the author at TalkOrigins.org is NOT CORRECT when claiming, “Abiogenesis is a fact. Regardless of how you imagined it happened (note that creation is a theory of abiogenesis).” (Emphasis added). Taken as a whole, the statement is demonstrably false.

The parenthetical claim that “creation is a theory of abiogenesis” is simply not correct for all popularly held theories of creation (of course, use of the term “theory” here is in the philosophical sense rather than in the mathematical or scientific sense). Millions of people believe that God’s “creation” of life on Earth was accomplished through “life” that was already in existence, albeit in a different form. Under this view, use of the term “creation” has nothing to do with forming “life” solely from inanimate matter. Instead, again, God created life on Earth from existing life.

Is it fair to call the formation of life from existing life “creation?” Of course it is. If I had the technology to travel with my spouse to a distant planet where life did not yet exist, bringing with me pets, plants, insects, bacteria, and every other kind of flora and fauna; and if I had the technology to ensure that all these forms of life could continue to live on that planet for ages; and if my spouse and I and every other living thing I brought with me produced living offspring on the planet and the offspring continued to survive, then wouldn’t it be fair to say that my spouse and I created life on the planet? Incidentally, if my buddy came to visit me, my spouse and my new children on this distant planet exactly twenty years after the time of my arrival there, would it be logical for him to claim that all the life on the distant planet necessarily arose solely as the result of abiogenesis occurring for the first time on the planet exactly twenty years earlier?

Leaving that sentiment and getting back to the original point, as a matter of pure logic, it is simply NOT TRUE that abiogenesis is a necessary, logical given. No matter how much you believe it is. In other words, you’re just patently wrong if you claim abiogenesis is a known fact even without any evidence of abiogenesis.

Of course, when it comes to the scientific evidence in support of abiogenesis, you better get little people to come dance around it to make it look more substantial. Remember in the movie “This is Spinal Tap” when the Stonehenge replica turned out to be way too small so they decided to have little people dance around it dressed as druids. Are you actually claiming that abiogenesis is a “fact” based on observable, replicable, scientific evidence of abiogenesis? Even though abiogenesis has not even been accomplished by scientists on purpose (by any means), let alone through experimental processes simulating natural abiogenesis? Let alone through experimental processes simulating natural abiogenesis under conditions likely to have existed at the time abiogenesis allegedly occurred? Abiogenesis is a fact? And it’s me that needs to learn more about the scientific process?

Your point about the semantic use of the term “theories” of evolution rather than “theory” of evolution is not well taken. I was very clear about the manner in which the term “theory of evolution” was being used. There was no confusion or material lack of precision on my part (I also made it abundantly clear that I was not confusing the observable fact that species evolve with “the scientific theories (plural) used to explain that phenomena”).

In the first place, I was discussing a quote from TalkOrigins.org which stated, “The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution.” Like most people, the author of the quote didn’t utilize the term “theories” of evolution. When I was growing up, none of the textbooks called it “theories of evolution.” For decades and decades, the term “theory of evolution” has commonly been used to describe the applicable concept in its broadest sense. Whether it is precise enough for you or not, you must be aware that for most people, use of the term “theory of evolution” is basically the same thing as saying “evolution theory,” and either phrase appropriately encompasses the concept that you would prefer for people to call “theories” of evolution. For instance (stepping away from evolution for a moment for purposes of this example), if I say to a friend who is a theoretical physicist, “Hey, let’s discuss Big Bang theory,” he is not going to say, “Oh, do you mean Big Bang theories?” The word “theory” can fairly and appropriately be utilized to mean “theories.”

Here’s another question, are you actually going to sit there and pretend that the origin of life is not an absolutely necessary part of the theory of evolution? Trust me, it is. There was a reason every textbook I had in school concerning the theory of evolution included a discussion of the Miller-Urey experiment under the topic of the theory of evolution (in addition to the bogus white moth, black moth B.S.). Natural origin of life (i.e. abiogenesis) is historically part of the theory of evolution, dude, it just is. And, it’s logically required.

If a magician apparently makes a coin disappear from one hand, the trick is completely unimpressive unless the magician can show you that the coin is also not in his other hand. Here, the trick is to demonstrate that life exists in its present state without intervention by God. The trick is to make God disappear. That’s always been the trick. Unfortunately, were all still waiting on the other hand to be opened, not just for the pinky-finger to be lifted up.

You stated, “You can have theories that explain how a phenomena acts and the forces that cause it without explaining what started it in the first place. Similarly, we can explain how gravity works without explaining what created all gravity in the universe.” And, also, “[I] need to differentiate the phenomena from the theories about its cause.” How about we make a deal? On this side of the debate, we’ll let you get away with speculation as to the origin of life (“scientific” speculation), and we’ll even make sure to differentiate between the phenomena and the theories about its cause. And, on your side, everyone will quit claiming that the purely speculative theories about its cause are “fact.”