Doubting Darwin

We are unnecessarily limiting the debate when we restrict it to two (and ONLY two) views: either creator or abiogenesis. Just to stir the soup a bit, what if there were other mechanisms for life here on Earth? Let me throw out a few, admittedly weird but no weirder than Creationism. OK, um, let's see.... OK, how about Panspermia, life spreading through the universe from some as-yet unknown source via comets and other space debris? (OK, it doesn't get to origins, but it's a start.) Or, how about "Directed Panspermia" where life is deliberately spread by some ancient race of alien beings? (Again, the same problem, but it's worth thinking about if for no other reason than to put it to rest.) And here's one to really mull over...what if life here in this local universe was pulled together out of inert matter by Consciousness (no, not talking god here, just self-aware consciousness) either in this dimension or in some other dimension for purposes that we can only guess at... maybe to play games like we play video games in virtual reality? Or what if we are truly just a hologram, a virtual reality in someone else's supercomputer, with the illusion of free will, but we're really just avatars for a bunch of higher dimension kids playing their version of a video game?

southern_freethinker wrote

We are unnecessarily limiting the debate when we restrict it to two (and ONLY two) views: either creator or abiogenesis. Just to stir the soup a bit, what if there were other mechanisms for life here on Earth? Let me throw out a few, admittedly weird but no weirder than Creationism. OK, um, let's see.... OK, how about Panspermia, life spreading through the universe from some as-yet unknown source via comets and other space debris? (OK, it doesn't get to origins, but it's a start.) Or, how about "Directed Panspermia" where life is deliberately spread by some ancient race of alien beings? (Again, the same problem, but it's worth thinking about if for no other reason than to put it to rest.) And here's one to really mull over...what if life here in this local universe was pulled together out of inert matter by Consciousness (no, not talking god here, just self-aware consciousness) either in this dimension or in some other dimension for purposes that we can only guess at... maybe to play games like we play video games in virtual reality? Or what if we are truly just a hologram, a virtual reality in someone else's supercomputer, with the illusion of free will, but we're really just avatars for a bunch of higher dimension kids playing their version of a video game?

Irrelevant.

All those solutions are still explained by 'simple to complex'. Life deposited from comets et al still had to arise somewhere else. More advanced beings that go around seeding other worlds still had to arise somewhere else. Hologram generators or supercomputers running quasi-freewill simulators still had to be built by an advanced species.

Once you stop trying to justify religion or the supernatural, you are left with one solution. The one solution that exposes itself in evidence everywhere; Simple to complex.

Authors of books like "The Case For Faith" tend to believe that life is miraculous or supernatural. And when you think that, the next thing that springs to mind is "How can a mystical, intelligent, and sympathetic force like life come from inanimate matter?" and BAM! Their minds deteriorate and they give into insanity because an easy answer that makes them feel special is always more welcome than a difficult answer that shoves their own arrogance up their asses.

LIFE ISN'T SPECIAL! All it is is another advancement in the universe's long history of continuous complexity.

psyadam wrote

I've been reading a book called "The Case for Faith" my mom sent me. I'm on the third chapter now, and I think it's making a good point about the fact that life couldn't have spontaneously generated from nonliving matter.

The guy making the case is a biologist, and he sounds impressive in making the case that cells and dna are too complex, but it's possible that it just sounds impressive to me because i'm not a biologist.

Just wondering if anyone here wanted to actually bother to try and convince me this book is wrong.

I suggest you watch the Ken Miller video. He showed the Dover courts that ID was full of bunk and he proves it in this video, and I'm not a biologist either. It is long, the best part happens around the 20 minute mark. But you wanted proof.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

Here is a shorter version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M but this isn't the whole story, you need to watch the first video for that.

BTW, Ken Miller suffers from Christ psychosis. He is a Roman Catholic. But he does know science.

[Philboid Studge]

psyadam wrote

Alright, well I don't want people to get too distracted by the title of the book. The author isn't the one making the argument in this chapter, I believe it's a renowned biologist; his name is Walter L. Bradley according to the book.

When you say 'renowned biologist' you mean 'engineer,' right?

Why are so many engineers Kool-Aid sippers? (no offence, thomas)

Philboid Studge wrote

When you say 'renowned biologist' you mean 'engineer,' right?

Why are so many engineers Kool-Aid sippers? (no offence, thomas)

Not only is he an engineer, he teaches at Baylor University, one of the most conservative Xian institutions of higher education there is:
"Chartered in 1845 by the Republic of Texas and affiliated with the Baptist General Convention of Texas, Baylor is the oldest institution of higher learning in continuous operation in the state and the largest Baptist university in the world." http://www.baylor.edu/about/

Edit: fixed link

Philboid Studge wrote

When you say 'renowned biologist' you mean 'engineer,' right?

Why are so many engineers Kool-Aid sippers? (no offence,)

None taken :nanner:

And it so happens that the vast majority of the engineers I work with are as belligerent towards religion as I am, despite having been raised Christian.

Philboid Studge wrote

When you say 'renowned biologist' you mean 'engineer,' right?

Why are so many engineers Kool-Aid sippers? (no offence, thomas)

good find PS. that page sums it all up nicely.

the universe is so well put together, that if an engineer like Walter L. Bradley was gonna build a universe, he would build one just like ours.
So god, of course, had to exist and was obviously a kick ass engineer.

DontBeStupid wrote

good find PS. that page sums it all up nicely.

the universe is so well put together, that if an engineer like Walter L. Bradley was gonna build a universe, he would build one just like ours.
So god, of course, had to exist and was obviously a kick ass engineer.

You would figure he could have made one without meteorites that have the capabilities of wiping out most of life on earth.

Philboid Studge wrote

Why are so many engineers Kool-Aid sippers? (no offence, thomas)

This IS weird, because engineer is also a profession that's well-represented among radical Islamists, with the most famous being UBL himself. There was also a famous Hamas member nicknamed "The engineer." My brother got his mechanical engineering degree at Brown and he said, at Brown at least, the training does not include any mention of the scientific method or theory, it's all applied. For whatever reason, it seems the most religiously radical of my Arab students are engineers, mostly in computer science.

[Victus]

Calls are only complex to the extent that I have to learn about neurons in class. If it only takes you a week to get a working knowledge of something, it's not complex.

[psyadam]

defanatic wrote

A counter point is that the first self-replicating molecules would have been very simply. Today's DNA is code to be plugged into a machine (the rest of the cell/bacteria/whatever). SRMs would just be able to replicate so long as the correct stuff was nearby.

What's an SRM?

psyadam wrote

What's an SRM?

I bolded it for you.

Psy, see a different tim's post (#11). The book he recommends is a great read.

The key contention you bring up is life "spontaneously" arising from non-life. There's a big problem with this, one that doesn't require a deep knowledge of genetics, biology, abiogenesis, geology, or any other branch of science in order to be seen and understood.

Life did not spontaneously arise from non-life. It very gradually arose. In other words, instead of there being an inorganic soup into which something alive suddenly popped up, or even conglomorated, the story is quite different.

Now, bear in mind that this is still somewhat hypothetical and is still being investigated. But, some chemical reactions are self-catalyzing, that is, they make themselves go. These kinds of reactions will obviously proliferate, given the right envirionment. Also, given changes to that environment (perhaps brought about by the reactions themselves) those reactions might become more complex over time.

Give that enough time and the right kind of environment (a pretty rare thing, it seems - after all, it's not like the universe is teeming with life), eventually you could get reactions which are complex enough to be called alive.

Nothing spontaneous about it.

EDIT:
One more thing -- Darwinian evolution does not concern itself with abiogenesis. I say this only to point out that your thread title, when compared with your original post, shows a lack of understanding. Not a problem if you're trying to expand that understanding (which it seems that you are).

psyadam wrote

The guy making the case is a biologist, and he sounds impressive in making the case that cells and dna are too complex, but it's possible that it just sounds impressive to me because i'm not a biologist.

Given enough time its not terribly surprising I found that this article breaks the time involved down pretty well. You might also take a look at the responses to creationists claims section if you find anything that sound inexplicable your book.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jan06.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/