Religion II

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Spontaneous generation, the hypothetical process by which living organisms develop from nonliving matter; also, the archaic theory that utilized this process to explain the origin of life. ... Many believed in spontaneous generation because it explained such occurrences as the appearance of maggots on decaying meat.

In the abiogensis hypothesis, likewise living organism were "begat" by inorganic matter.

Close enough.

Nowhere near close! A miss by several miles.

All experiments disproving spontaneous generation have been conducted in small, closed systems. Abiogenesis took place in a large, open system.

No such experiment has ever been conducted in a large, open system. If you know of such an experiment then cite a source.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Nowhere near close! A miss by several miles.

All experiments disproving spontaneous generation have been conducted in small, closed systems. Abiogenesis took place in a large, open system.

No such experiment has ever been conducted in a large, open system. If you know of such an experiment then cite a source.

Thank you proving that abiogenesis is pure BS. Moreover, there is no direct evidence that abiogenesis ever occurred or is occurring. Abiogenesis is nothing but a fairy tale. (And for your info, there are quite a few evolutionists who believe so.} Abiogenesis is nothing more than a convenient invention since evolutionists had to come up with something to account for the origin of life, lest they lose all credibility with the masses.

Also, can you provide a link to a source that requires abiogeneis to have taken place in an open system.

Finally,we know biogenesis is the well established rule that life only arises from life. Since biogenesis, according to you, can only occur in a closed system, can you explain how it would possible for abiogenesis, which requires an open system, to have ever occurred in this universe that is a closed system?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Are you saying that followers of non-Abrahamic religions are immoral? They make up half the population of the planet.

Are you saying Hindus, Buddhists, Confucianists, Zoroastrianists, Rastifarians, etc. commit murder, theft, perjury at a greater rate than Jews, Christians, Muslims? If so then where are you getting your numbers?

Are you saying atheists fly planes into buildings?

There is no logical connection between my question and your three questions.

Everyone in the world is a sinner. So, what is your point?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Thank you proving that abiogenesis is pure BS. Moreover, there is no direct evidence that abiogenesis ever occurred or is occurring.

God of the Gaps Argument!

"God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance." -- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Originally Posted by boxcar

Abiogenesis is nothing but a fairy tale. (And for your info, there are quite a few evolutionists who believe so.}

Name one.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Abiogenesis is nothing more than a convenient invention since evolutionists had to come up with something to account for the origin of life, lest they lose all credibility with the masses.

A statement that applies equally to theists (else Fallacy of Special Pleading). The theist explanation is "God did it".

Originally Posted by boxcar

Also, can you provide a link to a source that requires abiogeneis to have taken place in an open system.

Why a link? Why not a book.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Finally,we know biogenesis is the well established rule that life only arises from life.

It is not well established. All experiments have involved small, closed systems. What part of my explanation do you not understand?

Originally Posted by boxcar

Since biogenesis, according to you, can only occur in a closed system, ...

I did not say that. I said it has only been demonstrated in small, closed systems.

Originally Posted by boxcar

... can you explain how it would possible for abiogenesis, which requires an open system, to have ever occurred in this universe that is a closed system?

The universe is not a closed system. A closed system implies a boundary. The universe has no boundaries.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

There is no logical connection between my question and your three questions.

Everyone in the world is a sinner. So, what is your point?

The question is what is your point? You said "But if the bible is to be understood as fiction the way a comic book is, what motivates its readers to obey all the injunctions in scripture?"

Does this not imply that only those who have read "all the injunctions in scripture" could possibly have any motive to obey said injunctions? Does this not further imply that such obedience is what constitutes morality? Taking it one step further does this not automatically make anyone who is ignorant of Abrahamic scripture an immoral person?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

God of the Gaps Argument!

I didn't mention God. All I said, essentially, is that abiogenesis is science fiction.

Name one.

I can do better than that.

EVOLUTIONISTS' CANDID ADMISSIONS CONCERNING ABIOGENESIS

“It’s impossible”

In light of the extensive amount of scientific evidence against abiogenesis, many scientists have made candid admissions about it. Evolutionist John Horgan conceded that if he was a creationist, he would focus on the origin of life to prove his position, because it

is by far the weakest strut of the chassis of modern biology. The origin of life is a science writer’s dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion (1996, p. 138).

Hosts of high school, evolution-based biology textbooks commonly make comments concerning Pasteur’s experiments like, “the hypothesis of spontaneous generation was finally disproved” (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 341, emp. added), although they continue to propagate evolutionary dogma and the spontaneous generation of life, sometimes on the very next page of the book (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 342). Evolutionist and Nobel Laureate, George Wald, of Harvard University wrote: “As for spontaneous generation, it continued to find acceptance until finally disposed of by the work of Louis Pasteur” (1962, p. 187, emp. added). He further stated: “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are, as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation” (1954, p. 47, emp. added). So, “spontaneous generation is impossible, but I’m going to believe it anyway”?

Hoyle and Wickramasinghe discussed the origin of life, saying:

Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends, are in every respect deliberate…. It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect in a valid way the higher intelligences…even to the extreme idealized limit of God (1981, pp. 141,144, emp. added).

Evolutionist J.D. Bernal, one of the leading scientists among x-ray crystallographers and the man who coined the term, “biopoesis” (Bernal, 1951), stated: “It is possible to demonstrate effectively…how life could not have arisen; the improbabilities are too great, the chances of the emergence of life too small. Regrettably from this point of view, life is here on earth…and the arguments have to be bent around to support its existence” (Bernal, 1967, p. 120, emp. added). In other words, “Life could not have spontaneously generated, but I refuse to accept the only alternative. The arguments must be bent to explain everything without the need of that alternative.” Such a rationale (if it can be deemed rationale at all) is hardly scientific.

Not only do evolutionists recognize that arriving at life from non-life is impossible, but many even concede that the problem is far worse than that. They conjecture (rather wildly) about what the conditions on Earth must have been like to produce life. However, they realize that arriving at those conditions would have been equally as impossible as the actual jump from non-life to life. John Keosian, biology professor at Rutgers University, said, “Even conceptually, it is difficult to see how a system satisfying the minimum criteria for a living thing can arise by chance and,simultaneously, include a mechanism containing the suitable information for its own replication” (Keosian, 1964, pp. 69-70, emp. added). Writing in New Scientist, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe lamented concerning the “prebiotic” soup allegedly necessary before abiogenesis could occur:

Precious little in the way of biochemical evolution could have happened on the Earth. It is easy to show that the two thousand or so enzymes that span the whole of life could not have evolved on Earth. If one counts the number of trial assemblies of amino acids that are needed to give rise to the enzymes, the probability of their discovery by random shufflings turns out to be less than 1 in 1040,000 (1991, 91:415, emp. added).

John Horgan wrote in Scientific American:

DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins. But as researchers continue to examine the RNA-world concept closely, more problems emerge. How did RNA arise initially? RNA and its components are difficult to synthesize in a laboratory under the best of conditions, much less under plausible prebiotic ones (1991, 264:119, emp. added).

A statement that applies equally to theists (else Fallacy of Special Pleading). The theist explanation is "God did it".

Thanks for the tacit admission that evolutionists are guilty of Special Pleading; for evolutionists say, "Abiogenesis did it." Attacking Creationism, by the way, does not make your case for abiogenesis.

Why a link? Why not a book.

In other words, you made up your own definition. The internet is a pretty big place, but you can't come up with any source that defines "abiogenesis" and "the Law of Biogenesis", as you have? Really?

It is not well established. All experiments have involved small, closed systems. What part of my explanation do you not understand?

It's very well established. It's a scientific law and fact! There are no exceptions. Even if it is limited to closed systems, that would not be an exception to the universal principle, rather it would speak to its limitation, just as all laws have limitations.

A physical law or scientific law is a theoretical statement "inferred from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, A physical law or scientific law is a theoretical statement "inferred from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present.". (Taken from Wikipedia, by the way.)

So, if you're right...then the Law of Biogenesis is applicable "to a defined group or class of phenomena...and always occurs in "small, closed systems", which are the particular conditions required for the law to become operable.

I did not say that. I said it has only been demonstrated in small, closed systems.

Newsflash: If it has only been demonstrated under certain conditions, then it has only occurred under those certain conditions, as well.

Since the Law of Biogenesis is a well established fact by loads of direct evidence, and you it has only been demonstrated to occur in "small, closed" systems, and because Biogenesis occurs in this universe this must mean that the universe fits your definition of "small and closed". And since this must be the case, there is no way in this universe abiogenesis could ever occur or be demonstrated to have occurred here. Maybe in some in other "open" universe -- but you would have to find that other universe, do experiments and there and come up with direct evidence that abiogenesis occurred there, rather than here. (Good luck with that!)

The universe is not a closed system. A closed system implies a boundary. The universe has no boundaries.

If this is the case, then science is nose-deep in pickle juice because scientists would be unable to explain why there is no direct evidence for abiogenesis in this "open" universe, and science wouldn't be able to explain how biogenesis could possibly be demonstrated and occur in this "open" universe.

As usual...you're right there on the cusp of having another run-in with another universal law -- the Law of Noncontradiction.

[boxcar]

[quote=Actor;2277673]The question is what is your point? You said "But if the bible is to be understood as fiction the way a comic book is, what motivates its readers to obey all the injunctions in scripture?"

Does this not imply that only those who have read "all the injunctions in scripture" could possibly have any motive to obey said injunctions?

Yup.

Does this not further imply that such obedience is what constitutes morality?

Nope.

Taking it one step further does this not automatically make anyone who is ignorant of Abrahamic scripture an immoral person?

It makes him a sinner who needs be saved.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Nope.

Then what does?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I didn't mention God.

Doesn't matter. It's still a God of the Gaps argument.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Newsflash: If it has only been demonstrated under certain conditions, then it has only occurred under those certain conditions, as well.

Non sequitur!

[Actor]

For those who don't believe in watching videos I provide this transcript, beginning at 16:45.

BILL MOYERS: Do you give people who make this case, that that was the beginning and that there had to be something that provoked the beginning, do you give them an A at least for trying to reconcile faith and reason?

NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON: I don’t think they’re reconcilable.

MOYERS: What do you mean?

TYSON: Well, let me say that differently. All efforts that have been invested by brilliant people of the past have failed at that exercise. The track record is so poor that I have near zero confidence that there will be fruitful things to emerge from the effort to reconcile them. For example, if you knew nothing about science and you read the Bible, the Old Testament, which in Genesis is an account of nature, and I said to you, “give me your description of the natural world based only on this,” you would say the world was created in six days, and that stars are just little points of light much lesser than the sun, and they can fall out of the sky because that’s what happens during the Revelation. One of the signs of the second coming is that the stars will fall out of the sky and land on Earth. To even write that means you don’t know what those things are. You have no concept of what the actual universe is. So everybody who tried to make proclamations about the physical universe based on Bible passages got the wrong answer. So what happened was, when science discovers things, and you want to stay religious, or you want to continue to believe the Bible is unerring, what you would do is say, “Well, let me go back to the Bible and reinterpret it.” Then you’d say things like, “Oh, well they didn’t really mean that literally. They meant that figuratively.” So this whole sort of reinterpretation of the now figurative poetic passages of the Bible came after science showed that this is not how things unfolded. The educated religious people are perfectly fine with that. It’s the fundamentalists who want to say that the Bible is the literal truth of God, that want to see the Bible as a science textbook, who are knocking on the science doors of the schools, trying to put that content in the science room. Enlightened religious people are not behaving that way. They’re saying that science is cool, we’re good with that, and use the Bible to get your spiritual enlightenment and your emotional fulfillment.

MOYERS: But do you have any sympathy for people who seem to feel, only feel safe in the vastness of the universe you describe in your show if they can infer a personal God who makes it more hospitable to them, cares for them?

TYSON: In this, what we tell ourselves is a free country, which means you should have freedom of thought, I don’t care what you think. I just don’t. Go think whatever you want. Go ahead. Think that there’s one god, two gods, ten gods, or no gods. That is what it means to live in a free country. The problem arises if if you have a religious philosophy, that is not based on objective realities, that you then want to put in a science classroom, then I’m going to stand there and say, “No, I’m not going to allow you in the science classroom.” I’m not telling you what to think, I’m just telling you in the science class, “You’re not doing science. This is not science. Keep it out.” That’s when I stand up. Otherwise, go ahead. I’m not telling you how to think.

MOYERS: I think you must realize that some people are going to go to your show at the planetarium and they’re going to say, “Ah-hah! Those scientists have discovered God. Because God, ‘dark matter,’ is what holds this universe together.”

TYSON: So the history of discovery, particularly cosmic discovery, but discovery in general, scientific discovery, is one where at any given moment, there’s a frontier. And there tends to be an urge for people, especially religious people, to assert that across that boundary, into the unknown lies the handiwork of God. This shows up a lot. Newton even said it. He had his laws of gravity and motion and he was explaining the moon and the planets, he was there. He doesn’t mention God for any of that. And then he gets to the limits of what his equations can calculate. So, “I don’t, can’t quite figure this out. Maybe God steps in and makes it right every now and then.” That’s where he invoked God. And Ptolemy, he bet on the wrong horse, but he was a brilliant guy. He formulated the geocentric universe, with Earth in the middle. This is where we got epicycles and all this machinations of the heavens. But it was still a mystery to him. He looked up and uttered the following words, “when I trace at my pleasure the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies,” these are the planets going through retrograde and back, the mysteries of the Earth, “when I trace at my pleasure the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies, I no longer touch Earth with my feet. I stand in the presence of Zeus himself and take my fill of ambrosia.” What he did was invoke, he didn’t invoke Zeus to account for the rock that he’s standing on or the air he’s breathing. It was this point of mystery. And in gets invoked God. This, over time, has been described by philosophers as the God of the gaps. If that’s how you, if that’s where you’re going to put your God in this world, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance. If that’s how you’re going to invoke God. If God is the mystery of the universe, these mysteries, we’re tackling these mysteries one by one. If you’re going to stay religious at the end of the conversation, God has to mean more to you than just where science has yet to tread. So to the person who says, “Maybe dark matter is God,” if the only reason why you’re saying it is because it’s a mystery, then get ready to have that undone.

YouTube

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

In other words, you made up your own definition. The internet is a pretty big place, but you can't come up with any source that defines "abiogenesis" and "the Law of Biogenesis", as you have? Really?

Straw man! Red herring! Equivocation! Duplicitousness!

You did not ask for a definition. You asked for "a source that requires abiogeneis to have taken place in an open system." Yeah, I know. You are afraid to read books that might contaminate your soul.

Meanwhile you are into a Gish Gallop. You are deluging me with a lot of silly questions. Therefore I will not answer any more of your silly questions until after I have posted my views on abiogenesis, which is what you asked for in the first place. I think this will take at least four posts. Expect the first no sooner than Tuesday. I will be spending the weekend with my great grandchildren. On Monday I have a funeral to plan.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Doesn't matter. It's still a God of the Gaps argument.

Why because you say so?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Straw man! Red herring! Equivocation! Duplicitousness!

You did not ask for a definition. You asked for "a source that requires abiogeneis to have taken place in an open system." Yeah, I know. You are afraid to read books that might contaminate your soul.

Actually, I did because I asked you to provide a link to a source that believes as you do that abiogenesis had to take place in an "open" system, which was a very important part of your peculiar definition. In fact, it was so important that you used this part of your definition to try to make a sharp distinction between spontaneous generation and abiogenesis. But the fact is that there is virtually no real distinction between the two that I can see or even some scientists can see. Certainly, Dr. Wilson, an accredited biologist didn't think so. Nor did Dr. Jeff Miller of Apologetics Press whose doctorate is in biochemical engineering and also has a B.S. in physical science.

Then from our beloved MW we have this definition for abiogenesis:

: the origin of life from nonliving matter; specifically : a theory in the evolution of early life on earth : organic molecules and subsequent simple life forms first originated from inorganic substances

And from the same dictionary we have this definition for spontaneous generation:

:a now discredited notion that living organisms spontaneously originate directly from nonliving matter

Then from the Encyclopedia Brittannica we have this very interesting, slightly expanded definition of abiogenesis:

Abiogenesis, the idea that life arose from nonlife more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth. Abiogenesis proposes that the first life-forms generated were very simple and through a gradual process became increasingly complex. Biogenesis, in which life is derived from the reproduction of other life, was presumably preceded by abiogenesis, which became impossible once Earth’s atmosphere assumed its present composition. (emphasis mine)

Whoa! Really? Did you catch that last part!? They're saying abiogenesis ain't where it's at any more! It's not occurring any longer! It's a thing of the long, forgotten past. In other words, science has been telling us, "Once upon a time [our god] Abiogenesis created life". And if it's not occurring any longer then science cannot possibly demonstrate the process of abiogenesis with direct evidence to meet scientific standards. Wow! How convenient. We're just supposed to take it on blind faith that rocks or volcanic lava or the supposed "primordial soup" or whatever else was inorganic one day gave birth to something. (And by the way that "something" would have had to have been nothing less than a free-living, complete, very complex cell, according to Dr. Wilson, because life requires at least seven minimum biological requirements in order to form in the first place, let alone survive and thrive.)

And if the Brittannica is right (and it very likely is since I have found other sources that materially agree with it), and abiogenesis is a thing of the past because earth's conditions back THEN were very different than they are NOW, then what does that do evolutionists' most cherished and fundamentally important theory of Uniformitarianism? Put a geological crack in it? (Pardon another bad pun.) This theory is so important, Brittannica says that it's "fundamental to geological thinking..." But if earth's atmosphere underwent some huge change (perhaps even Catastrophic Change?) from ancient times subsequent to the heyday of Abiogenesis, then who can say with certainty that only the atmosphere underwent radical change? And who can say that that radical change wasn't precipitated by the Great Precipitation (forgive the bad pun), most especially when this precipitation came from the heavens above and the earth's crust below!?

Further, can science tell us precisely what happened to the earth's atmosphere? And why? And how? Does science have any direct evidence to prove what happened? And do scientists know that most Creationists have postulated radical changes to the Postdilluvian atmosphere of the earth? So...when the high priests of scientism tell us that this planet's atmosphere of antiquity underwent some radical changes in the distant past in order to offer up an excuse to the unwashed, unwary masses for why there is no direct evidence for abiogenesis today, then they have unwittingly left the door open for a Flood of other inquiry (good pun intended).

Meanwhile you are into a Gish Gallop. You are deluging me with a lot of silly questions. Therefore I will not answer any more of your silly questions until after I have posted my views on abiogenesis, which is what you asked for in the first place. I think this will take at least four posts. Expect the first no sooner than Tuesday. I will be spending the weekend with my great grandchildren. On Monday I have a funeral to plan.

Don't waste your time, sir. Unless you know of some scientist who has met the Abiogenesis Challenge that I posted in 5478. But we both know you cannot possibly provide us with any direct evidence because none exists and never will!

Besides, it appears you have your hands full with family matters, and have suffered a loss of a family member? If so, please accept my sincere condolences.

Meanwhile, in your absence I will try to capitalize on it by redeeming the time to discuss the Second Achilles' Heel to Biological Evolution. It's bad enough that some worldview or philosophy or theory has one of these but Evolution is cursed with two, which truly demonstrates its intellectual impoverishment. So...in your absence I plan on taking the time I would be dialoguing with you and spend it instead on a series that will expose this Second Heel by discussing a very important universal principle that is largely unknown because evolutionists tend to avoid broaching this subject, since this pesky principle doesn't fit very well into the evolution narrative. In fact, I wasn't even aware of this universal principle until I read it in Dr. Wilson's book and he expanded on it in some detail. And interesting aside: He had to give a doctoral "prelim" dissertation, among six other tests on biology-related subjects, on this very principle in order to qualify for entering the doctoral program.

[boxcar]

I might be a wee bit overly-optimistic that I'll be able to cover the thrust of this important biological principle in only three posts. But to encourage myself toward the end of brevity, I labeled this post as the first of three parts. (But if it takes a fourth, so be it.) It's important to get in as many of the key, salient points as possible to show that evolution is virtually impossible. I say "virtually" because this is the term Wilson uses in his book. But personally, I believe that this biological principle, too, makes evolution absolutely impossible. The odds against evolution are beyond astronomically huge. So...there I've said it, and I'm on record as doing so.

Introduction to the Universal, Holistic Principle of Homeostasis

If this term "homeostasis" looks familiar to you it's because it was used by Wilson when I quoted him in my 5487 that dealt with his seven minimum biological requirements for life. He mentioned it briefly under the third requirement which was Regulate its internal environment. Okay, so let's jump in without further ado.

I never cease to be amazed at life's processes are so complex, interactive, intricate, dynamic and vital beyond understanding. I also stand in awe at how purposeful, self-regulating and interconnected all life's processes are; not one occurs in isolation from any other, and ever one affects every other in every organism and from organism to organism. Although biologists routinely study even the smallest life process isolated from others to accurately characterize it, they must always take account of "how" the process is integrated into every other life process of an organism. This integration can only be accomplished through the holistic principle of homeostasis in terms of the organism's physiology. (emphases author's)

Applying the principle of homeostasis to evolution results in a near death sentence to the theory that new organisms can and do arise (evolve) from existing ones. Curiously, evolution theory does not address, explain or take into account either homeostasis or an organism's physiology in asserting the certainty that new organisms can and do arise from existing ones. And yet, these two biologic principles form the foundation of every life process in every organism known. (emphasis mine).

The critical point of knowing about homeostasis is that no organism that has ever existed, presently exists or ever will exist is exempt from the absolute need for internal, integrated control of all its life processes. So, no plant, no bacterial type, no protozoan, no sponge, no jellyfish, no mosquito or crab, not the largest or smallest dinosaur, nor any mammal (including us) can live without its internal environment being tightly controlled within certain limits...

Maintaining homeostasis is the absolute foundation for biological life.
(emphasis mine)

And the principle of homeostasis began with the nineteenth century French physiologist Claude Bernard.

This biologist Bernard is thought to be the first one who studied life's processeses as an integrated whole, and not just in isolation from one another. As such he is considerfed to be the first "systems biologist".

While Bernard originally applied the principle of homeostasis to only certain organ systems of the whole animal, nevertheless it is abundantly clear today that it is the underlying principle for any life that exists to thrive. It applies equally to any multi-celled organism any individual free-living cell, whether it is a bacterial cell or a single celled organism, such as a protozoan, amoeba, etc.)

Apparently some (perhaps even many) evolutionists have objected to this biologic homestasis principle as being universal in scope. (Why am I not surprised?) Wilson addresses this objection:

Evolution points to parasitic organisms such as viruses because they do not contain their own environment; thus, evolution proponents
would argue that homeostasis is not a universal principle. However, such organisms either completely or partially depend on their host to provide the specific, stable invironment, as well as all the biochemical machinery they need to survive and reproduce. (emphasis author's).

In the next installment on this series, we'll try to gain an even stronger appreciation for the homeostasis principle by lookikng at how it works.