Science vs. Creationism

[LogGrad98]

For me the questions come in the mechanism of change and the intermediate steps, which Pearl has alluded to. Without direct evidence of all of the intermediate steps it does require a leap of faith of some sort to get from one to the other, or at least a bunch of assumption.

It's like we are counting to 1,000,000 with no prior knowledge of numbers at all, starting from a point of being able to see clearly the #1 and the #1,000,000. We have uncovered say 1000 random numbers in between, yet we really cannot see clearly how they tie in. Those numbers fit in like Pi, and 1,218.2345, and 3/5, and the square root of 386,000. We can see that they are numbers, and that they share some things in common, but there is no clear connection directly from one to the other.

A fish bladder is kind of like a lung, so we assume, or go on faith, that the bladder simply became a lung at some point. Can someone show the mechanism of how that happened, and the intermediate steps to get from bladder to lung? That is the biggest part of Berninski's questions that got me thinking, when he talked about modeling, and that there just haven't been any successful models of biological evolution. Either we do not understand the mechanism well enough to build a predictive model, or we do not understand the starting and end points well enough (maybe it wasn't a fish bladder that became a lung, maybe it was something else entirely), or maybe the simply don't fit together. But, just like religion, without the "proof", without the burning bush or visitation from heavenly beings, or in this case without the clearly defined intermediate steps that led from invertebrates to vertebrates then it is still an act of faith, informed by what evidence we can see, but still an act of faith nonetheless, to believe that an organism with a nervous system just became a shark, then became something else. Without the full picture in its entirety, you are still trusting in something you have not seen, and believing that is the way it works. Well, just like with religion, without that complete picture, no matter how many believers you find, some just won't buy into it.

And just like lots of arguments about religion, just because you get a large number of people who believe it does not make it true.

 

[♪alt13]

You don't see the grand-canyon-like chasm between an invertebrate with a nerve chord and a shark with an entire skeleton made of cartilage, or a fish with a skeleton of bone?

Sorry it takes too much faith for me to bridge that gap with accident generation of attributes.

I am going to quote this video. Watch it

...cartilage itself is simply a modified form of connective tissue not unlike that found in worms and other non-chordate animals.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypYesuV3PoI

 

[The Midnight]

Could those in the Darwinian camp explain to me how simple cells and DNA came to exist on earth?

 

[MVP]

I guess the bible says the food and animals were created for mankind and they are subject to the same entropy.

Oh so you guess? I thought you KNOW for sure?
LMAO this is getting funny. So I get that humans may be doomed by "almighty intelligent designer" to diseases, genetic mutations and suffering as per biblical reasons in order for their soul to achieve eternal life after death but what does defective rose, fish, frog or mushroom gains after their life ends prematurely because of mutation, genetic defect or disease? And what about those plants and animals who were "created" not for mankind use? Are they exemption?

 

[MVP]

Could those in the Darwinian camp explain to me how simple cells and DNA came to exist on earth?

This theory and experiment makes more sense then any kind of "intelligent creation"

The Miller Urey Experiment
In the 1950's, biochemists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey, conducted an experiment which demonstrated that several organic compounds could be formed spontaneously by simulating the conditions of Earth's early atmosphere.

They designed an apparatus which held a mix of gases similar to those found in Earth's early atmosphere over a pool of water, representing Earth's early ocean. Electrodes delivered an electric current, simulating lightning, into the gas-filled chamber. After allowing the experiment to run for one week, they analyzed the contents of the liquid pool. They found that several organic amino acids had formed spontaneously from inorganic raw materials. These molecules collected together in the pool of water to form coacervates.
Their experiments, along with considerable geological, biological, and chemical evidence, lends support to the theory that the first life forms arose spontaneously through naturally occuring chemical reactions.

 

[The Midnight]

This theory and experiment makes more sense then any kind of "intelligent creation"

The Miller Urey Experiment
In the 1950's, biochemists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey, conducted an experiment which demonstrated that several organic compounds could be formed spontaneously by simulating the conditions of Earth's early atmosphere.

They designed an apparatus which held a mix of gases similar to those found in Earth's early atmosphere over a pool of water, representing Earth's early ocean. Electrodes delivered an electric current, simulating lightning, into the gas-filled chamber. After allowing the experiment to run for one week, they analyzed the contents of the liquid pool. They found that several organic amino acids had formed spontaneously from inorganic raw materials. These molecules collected together in the pool of water to form coacervates.
Their experiments, along with considerable geological, biological, and chemical evidence, lends support to the theory that the first life forms arose spontaneously through naturally occuring chemical reactions.

It's not as simple as that..

Many scientists now believe that the Earth’s early atmosphere would have made the synthesis of organic molecules virtually impossible under conditions simulated in the Miller-Urey experiment. For example, NASA has reported that a “reducing atmosphere” never has existed, although the experiment assumed one (Levine, 1983). Scientists also now realize that the ultraviolet radiation from sunlight is destructive to any developing life. Evolutionist Robert Shapiro stated regarding the products of the Miller-Urey experiment: “Let us sum up. The experiment performed by Miller yielded tar as its most abundant product. There are about fifty small organic compounds that are called ‘building blocks.’ Only two of these fifty occurred among the preferential Miller-Urey products” (1986, p. 105).

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1108

 

[MVP]

It's not as simple as that..
https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1108

Obviously it is not. I just gave one single scientific theory as an example which makes more sense than creationism delusions. There are hundreds of very interesting theories which are being looked into. It may as well be primitive extraterrestrial life forms which came to early Earth via comets.

 

[LogGrad98]

Obviously it is not. I just gave one single scientific theory as an example which makes more sense than creationism delusions. There are hundreds of very interesting theories which are being looked into. It may as well be primitive extraterrestrial life forms which came to early Earth via comets.

Could it have been intelligent extraterrestrials possibly "seeding" the planet with life? The gaps still require a leap of faith of some kind to get the theories to work, since there is no way to prove them. You still have to believe that is how it happened without definitive "proof".

 

[The Midnight]

Obviously it is not. I just gave one single scientific theory as an example which makes more sense than creationism delusions. There are hundreds of very interesting theories which are being looked into. It may as well be primitive extraterrestrial life forms which came to early Earth via comets.

And how do you suppose those extraterrestrial life came to be then?


Exactly.


There has to be an original originator, ultimately.

 

[♪alt13]

And how do you suppose those extraterrestrial life came to be then?


Exactly.


There has to be an original originator, ultimately.

And how do you suppose that original originator came to be then?


Exactly.


There has to be a natural spontaneous beginning, ultimately.

See how stupid that sounds. This sort of reasoning leads nowhere.

 

[The Midnight]

And how do you suppose that original originator came to be then?


Exactly.


There has to be a natural spontaneous beginning, ultimately.

See how stupid that sounds. This sort of reasoning leads nowhere.

You mean like the multiverse theory proposed by scientists? The underlying assumption though is that there has to be an infinite number of universes for life to have existed in this particular universe due to the exact conditions required for life.

 

[♪alt13]

You mean like the multiverse theory proposed by scientists? The underlying assumption though is that there has to be an infinite number of universes for life to have existed in this particular universe due to the exact conditions required for life.

I mean you can't just claim things must be the way that you imagine them to be.

As for the multiverse theory I honestly don't have an opinion as to whether or not it reflects reality. I do not understand to an appropriate level the physics involved to hold an informed opinion. That being said I enjoy speculating about the origins of the universe and the nature of reality very much.

On a strictly intuitive level I can wrap my head around multiple universes but not the creation of a new universe every time a choice is made. The latter seems ridiculous to me and the former seems reasonable. I don't know though and accept that I may be wrong.