A Challenge For You Atheist Apologetics

[TempestTossed]

OckhamsRazor, I'll be happy to argue with you and allow you to evaluate my opinions. Just go easy on the criticisms of my knowledge. I am sensitive about that. If I say something incorrect, please be polite about correcting me.

You asked me about what molecules were the simple self-replicating molecules that preceded life. My answe is that nobody knows. If only we could go back in time and see for ourselves exactly what molecules they were, how they changed, how they were made complex, and how they branched out into the diversity of life in the very first stages, then there would be no need for anyone to explain it with God or magic or alien intelligence. The molecular progenitors never left any fossils (they would be too small), and its fingerprints were never left on today's life (it evolved too much before branching out). This much we do know: simple self-replicating molecules have been synthesized. They are made up with as little as 32 molecular fragments (residues).

See these studies:

Lee DH, Granja JR, Martinez JA, Severin K, and Ghadri MR, A self-replicating peptide. Nature, 382: 525-8, 1996

Severin K, Lee DH, Kennan AJ, and Ghadiri MR, A synthetic peptide ligase. Nature, 389: 706-9, 1997

Lee DH, Severin K, and Ghadri MR. Autocatalytic networks: the transition from molecular self-replication to molecular ecosystems. Curr Opinion Chem Biol, 1, 491-496, 1997

I found these studies by reading TalkOrigins.org's article on Abiogenesis Calculations. You may wanna cruise through that page, then tell me what you think.

It is important to keep in mind that nobody is claiming that the first progenitor of life involved a complete protein or DNA. Critics of naturalistic evolution, like the late Fred Hoyle, pretend that it was something very complex so they can easily shoot it down with big numbers. But it really could have been something very simple, and it probably was. So there is no need to profess about how complex proteins are, because it is hypothesized that proteins only came about after a long lineage of naturally-selected reproduction, just like all other structures in today's life.

I don't know if the sort of self-replicating molecules that have been synthesized in biochemical labs have been found nature, and I don't know for sure whether or not they exist naturally. However, the existence of such molecules in labs makes it very easy for me to fathom they come about in nature through undesigned processes.

You got me on the last point about the creation of light. I am aware that there are creationist propositions that explain distant starlight such as gap-theory, Russel Humphrey's cosmology, the Hugh Ross creation theory, or decaying-C. My mother adhered to what I take to be the classical young-Earth creationist idea that light was created in transit, which is probably the simplist and most intuitive for a young universe. What I really wanted to do was to point out how nothing in the natural sciences can be proven, but we can drop that point.

[ecco]

WhySoBlind:

But when you consider all the other hog-wash theories of science, one realizes if the earth is as old as they say it is, or as old as the fossil was supposed to be, then the environment would have changed dramaticly, and world wide, throughout that time. An unevolved coelecanth should not exist if the ancestor really is 65 million years old, AND evolution is correct.

I doubt that the environment in the oceans has changed all that much. Also, cockroaches have lived for over 200 million years. If there is no need to change, why change?

[ted]

Maybe roaches were created not to evolve?

t.

[Guest OckhamsRazor]

OckhamsRazor, I'll be happy to argue with you and allow you to evaluate my opinions. Just go easy on the criticisms of my knowledge. I am sensitive about that. If I say something incorrect, please be polite about correcting me.

It was not my intention to hurt your feelings. I do have a bone to pick with this statement though. You insist on saying things that are way off the mark and slanderous about creationists but you get upset when I point it out. You accuse people of faith of believing in magic. That is incredibly demeaning. You have been really insulting toward me and others on this board. If you don't want people to criticize you then don't be ugly with them. I have been really nice about it actually. I'm very careful about making sure I don't personally attack the person; just their views and/or statements.

You asked me about what molecules were the simple self-replicating molecules that preceded life.  My answe is that nobody knows.  If only we could go back in time and see for ourselves exactly what molecules they were, how they changed, how they were made complex, and how they branched out into the diversity of life in the very first stages, then there would be no need for anyone to explain it with God or magic or alien intelligence.  The molecular progenitors never left any fossils (they would be too small), and its fingerprints were never left on today's life (it evolved too much before branching out).  This much we do know: simple self-replicating molecules have been synthesized.  They are made up with as little as 32 molecular fragments (residues).

See these studies:

Lee DH, Granja JR, Martinez JA, Severin K, and Ghadri MR, A self-replicating peptide. Nature, 382: 525-8, 1996

Severin K, Lee DH, Kennan AJ, and Ghadiri MR, A synthetic peptide ligase. Nature, 389: 706-9, 1997

Lee DH, Severin K, and Ghadri MR. Autocatalytic networks: the transition from molecular self-replication to molecular ecosystems. Curr Opinion Chem Biol, 1, 491-496, 1997

I found these studies by reading TalkOrigins.org's article on Abiogenesis Calculations.  You may wanna cruise through that page, then tell me what you think.

It is important to keep in mind that nobody is claiming that the first progenitor of life involved a complete protein or DNA.  Critics of naturalistic evolution, like the late Fred Hoyle, pretend that it was something very complex so they can easily shoot it down with big numbers.  But it really could have been something very simple, and it probably was.  So there is no need to profess about how complex proteins are, because it is hypothesized that proteins only came about after a long lineage of naturally-selected reproduction, just like all other structures in today's life.

I don't know if the sort of self-replicating molecules that have been synthesized in biochemical labs have been found nature, and I don't know for sure whether or not they exist naturally.  However, the existence of such molecules in labs makes it very easy for me to fathom they come about in nature through undesigned processes.

I checked your Nature posts. I got the general idea and I've found some comprehensive responses. I'm going to use links because I would have to nearly reproduce the persons work if I were to post it here.

http://informationcentre.tripod.com/abiogenesis.html

http://www.trueorigin.org/originoflife.asp

http://www.trueorigin.org/hydrothermal.asp

http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp

I'm sorry to use a post as aggressive as TrueOrigin but it's one of the places that addresses this issue. When they talk about evolutionists they are not talking about you; keep that in mind. They are talking about the flaws in the arguments of evolutionary biology and then the evolutionists acting as they've proven their point and they declare victory. Then when creationists criticize they get called lairs and ignorant ect. The sensitivity comes from specific and repeated experience with the evolutionary biology community. Here is a link to demonstrate my point.

http://www.rsternberg.net/

Please give that an attentive read. You'll be shocked about what happened.

You got me on the last point about the creation of light. I am aware that there are creationist propositions that explain distant starlight such as gap-theory, Russel Humphrey's cosmology, the Hugh Ross creation theory, or decaying-C. My mother adhered to what I take to be the classical young-Earth creationist idea that light was created in transit, which is probably the simplist and most intuitive for a young universe. What I really wanted to do was to point out how nothing in the natural sciences can be proven, but we can drop that point.

Fair enough, I appreciate your clarification. Again, it was not my attention to be hurtful in my response. I certainly don't want you to think that my reponse was intended to be a judgement on you as a human being or your talents and intelligence. That is not at all the case.

~Ock

Edited September 29, 2005 by OckhamsRazor

[Inti]

No human being has ever observed a self assembing, self replicating, or self organizing system, that can be proven to have an origin other than a pre-existing intelligence. As a matter of fact, other than life itself the only such systems that are known are of human origin; designed by intelligent beings.

At the Science Museum in Rotherham (I think) they have a big exhibit on ALife. Artifically created life. Namely sets of robots.

Their showpiece consists on an enclosure that has halogen lights placed directly above it. And 2 sets of different robots, the Predators and the Prey.

The Prey have solar cells on the top of them, and feed off the halogen lights. The Prey have a plug thats goes into a socket in the Prey. When attached they drain the Prey's battery, thus making them "dead".

They haven't been taught these things by another one. Just a simple set of instructions. Like "light = good" for the Prey, and "Electricity = good" for the Peadators.

Last time I went, the professor in charge of it was excited as they where beginning to display behaviour like herds and preadators attacking together. Totally self taught.

Also whilst at university I attended lectures on ALife, where the professor giving the lecture powered up several "spider" like robots, with a series of legs it could move. It began with no instructions on how to use the legs, but within seconds it had figured out to power the motors in the correct order to move around.

You may wonder what my point is. Well if you take some time out and actually read up about Alife and robotics you'll be shocked at what it can do.

Self replication:-

The M-TRAN II robot, developed by the Japanese Distributed Systems Design Research Group, looks at first glance as if it

[mrs]

They haven't been taught these things by another one. Just a simple set of instructions. Like "light = good" for the Prey, and "Electricity = good" for the Peadators.

Last time I went, the professor in charge of it was excited as they where beginning to display behaviour like herds and preadators attacking together. Totally self taught.

Ummm isn't that self defeating since an intelligence created the robots and the lights?

[Guest OckhamsRazor]

No human being has ever observed a self assembing, self replicating, or self organizing system, that can be proven to have an origin other than a pre-existing intelligence. As a matter of fact, other than life itself the only such systems that are known are of human origin; designed by intelligent beings.

At the Science Museum in Rotherham (I think) they have a big exhibit on ALife. Artifically created life. Namely sets of robots.

Their showpiece consists on an enclosure that has halogen lights placed directly above it. And 2 sets of different robots, the Predators and the Prey.

The Prey have solar cells on the top of them, and feed off the halogen lights. The Prey have a plug thats goes into a socket in the Prey. When attached they drain the Prey's battery, thus making them "dead".

They haven't been taught these things by another one. Just a simple set of instructions. Like "light = good" for the Prey, and "Electricity = good" for the Peadators.

Last time I went, the professor in charge of it was excited as they where beginning to display behaviour like herds and preadators attacking together. Totally self taught.

Also whilst at university I attended lectures on ALife, where the professor giving the lecture powered up several "spider" like robots, with a series of legs it could move. It began with no instructions on how to use the legs, but within seconds it had figured out to power the motors in the correct order to move around.

You may wonder what my point is. Well if you take some time out and actually read up about Alife and robotics you'll be shocked at what it can do.

Self replication:-

The M-TRAN II robot, developed by the Japanese Distributed Systems Design Research Group, looks at first glance as if it

[Guest OckhamsRazor]

WhySoBlind:

But when you consider all the other hog-wash theories of science, one realizes if the earth is as old as they say it is, or as old as the fossil was supposed to be, then the environment would have changed dramaticly, and world wide, throughout that time. An unevolved coelecanth should not exist if the ancestor really is 65 million years old, AND evolution is correct.

I doubt that the environment in the oceans has changed all that much. Also, cockroaches have lived for over 200 million years. If there is no need to change, why change?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, I think that the ocean has seen some huge changes in the last 200 million years. The supposed KT comet based catastrophe would have frozen huge portions of the planet and it would have definately changed the tempature and it would have changes weather trends and percipitation.

[Guest Carico]

WhySoBlind:

But when you consider all the other hog-wash theories of science, one realizes if the earth is as old as they say it is, or as old as the fossil was supposed to be, then the environment would have changed dramaticly, and world wide, throughout that time. An unevolved coelecanth should not exist if the ancestor really is 65 million years old, AND evolution is correct.

I doubt that the environment in the oceans has changed all that much. Also, cockroaches have lived for over 200 million years. If there is no need to change, why change?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, I think that the ocean has seen some huge changes in the last 200 million years. The supposed KT comet based catastrophe would have frozen huge portions of the planet and it would have definately changed the tempature and it would have changes weather trends and percipitation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And how do you know those changes have nothing to do with God?

Also, how did 2 apes pass along genes to their offspring that they themselves did not possess? If this is possible, then why have no humans produced offspring with wings?

[Guest OckhamsRazor]

And how do you know those changes have nothing to do with God? 

Also, how did 2 apes pass along genes to their offspring that they themselves did not possess? If this is possible, then why have no humans produced offspring with wings? 

I'm not arguing for evolution. I am pointing out the problem in someone elses statement about the oceans climate that's all.