WrongPlanet.net an anti-christian site?

Post Reply New Topic

That's exactly what Creationist theists believe, is it it not?
That an entity no evidence suggests exists WILLED the universe into being through processes no evidence suggests exists out of nothing?

That is not at all analogous to the Big Bang, or abiogenesis.

There have been multiple Big Bangs as evidenced by background radiation rings throughout the observable universe, suggesting the universe is of a cyclical nature.

The very question of how the universe "began" is in presupposition that it hasn't always existed, in perfect keeping with what we know of thermodynamics.

As for abiogenesis, it's mechanisms have been well-understood for quite some time, and as of several DECADES ago, REPRODUCED in a laboratory setting (Miller-Urey experiment).

"Things somehow just began happening" is an accurate characterization of your own ignorance about scientific processes-
it is not in any way what the theories involve.

The results of that in any encouraging sense are exaggerated, though. Optimal conditions for the formation of amino acids is not a stretch. The problem is jumping from a bunch of amino acids straight to organic life. And that has NEVER been demonstrated in a lab setting.

Further, the problem is complicated by the fact that if such conditions WERE created in which life could "spontaneously" form, the environment itself is not spontaneous, but rather "created" in a lab (designed by an intelligent being/beings, no less). That life could spontaneously occur in the absence of optimal conditions that also spontaneously occur is a tremendous statistical stretch. Life is a highly unlikely thing, and yet here we are.

I have a general question on that note: Abiogenesis belongs to the realm of chemistry, whereas evolution belongs to biology. At what point does one cease to be the other? "Good" evolutionists avoid getting into abiogenesis because of the distinct natures of the two (they are NOT one and the same). And why are we so careful to separate the two? If evolution happened (past tense), it does require some life-mechanism that would originate life itself. No life=no evolution. So why is evolution NOT concerned with the originating mechanism that drives it?

Good question. I would think that Abiogenisis was the creation of the original, self-replicating molecule (I'm not sure of the nature of that said molecule). Once that was created, we are dealing with evolution.

We separate the two, because...they are separate . The creation of life, and what happens to life after that said creation, are two different topics. We can know about one, without necessarily knowing about the other. We know what kind of things evolve, and how they do so (to be technical, an "evolver" is an object that replicated with incomplete hereditary fidelity, and with variable selection). We don't know what the original replicating molecule was, and what we originally came from is a question for the abiogenisists, and to a lesser degree the phylogeneticists.

It didn't happen spontaneously. It took billions of years. The idea that it happened spontaneously reminds me of this horrid Creationist propaganda video where these two guys tried to claim that abiogenesis was false because life didn't spontaneously form in a sealed jar of peanut butter. You won't observe something happen in a lab because we can't change the flow of time and observe the long processes that led to life forming in a Human lifetime. This is the main reason I see Creationists getting support from people- they just aren't interested in a solution that cannot be observed in their life time.

Geological time is generally boring to Christians. Its way more exciting to have a written down solution that doesn't have any way to verify it and thus allow them to give condescending speeches about 'God working in mysterious ways'. And as I mentioned, there are protein based infectious molecules (prions) and viruses that are not alive and probably were the first elements to begin self-organizing and replicating, if there aren't even simpler agents that we don't know too much about (nano-viruses, etc...)



I actually am of the opinion that the 'God' explanation is the most simplistic and uninteresting, and perhaps even more random- what created God?

Hi AngelRho and thanks for asking such good questions!

I have a contrary view based on my knowledge of chemistry and physics. Put the right ingredients together under the right conditions, and life is not only possible but may even be inevitable. The universe is vast enough and old enough that statistically it may not be as much of a stretch as you think. Also as you point out, we are here. The odds against a randomly shuffled deck of cards having any particular order of cards is astronomically greater than any of the statistics I've seen creationists use to try to discredit evolution, yet each time you shuffle the deck one of those astronomically unlikely combinations occurs.

Also, life need not have happened all at once. First one set of chemicals combined, maybe numerous times over millions or billions of years before another feature was added to that system. Given enough time and the right chemicals in the right conditions, eventually the system becomes complicated enough to where we call it alive, but the division between what is alive and what is not alive is purely arbitrary, with much gray area between.




By "originating mechanism" I presume you mean the origin of life. Different chemicals have different patterns and densities of energy and charges to where they combine certain ways under certain conditions, obeying the laws of physics. But what drives evolution isn't what started life. What "drives" evolution is random mutation acted upon by natural selection (and natural selection is NOT random). Other factors such as differential reproduction, horizontal gene transfer, genetic drift, etc. also play a part. Since Darwin's time, we have learned much about genetics and also discovered DNA, so we have a much greater understanding of what "drives" evolution than most people give credit for.

Most theories are only valid within certain boundaries. We do not yet have a theory of everything that explains the whole universe and all the forces and beings within it. Evolution is very good at explaining how life diversified once it started, no matter who or what started it. It doesn't apply to how life started or how the universe began, but that is a common misconception among many who argue against it. These are different problems, at least at our current level of understanding. Saying "God did it" may be emotionally satisfying, but doesn't help one use accurate descriptions of what He created to make predictions. Science is basically prophecy, using observed regularities of nature to predict the future. A scientific "law" isn't a law in the ordinary sense, but simply a pattern of observed regularities.

Within its limits, evolution is an extremely elegant explanation of the diversity and distribution of lifeforms on this planet, supported by tons of evidence and falsified by none, although it is falsifiable (meaning it is a valid scientific idea). Asking evolution to explain how life began or how the universe started is going way beyond those limits. It is not reasonable to ask evolution to provide a theory of everything, or even how life started, at least not at this point in time. Maybe someday, but not yet.

Exactly. I also think it is an inevitability. I am also of the opinion that there are different kinds of 'right conditions' for various types of biochemistries. Thus I believe that Earth-like planets are not the only potential places life could form. I strongly suspect there are multiple kinds of 'habitable zones', even in one solar system. I really do hope that we find microbes on Mars, or a flourishing aquatic ecology under the ice of Europa or Enceladus or the other liquid-water mantle moons of our solar system. There are some who suspect Titan has a unique hydrocarbon based ecology

I think that life on Europa is unlikely, if not impossible. I'm not an expert in thermodynamics, but as far as I know it impossible for an organism to utilize the surrounding heat (generated by gravitational forces) to increase its complexity. On earth, life has to utilise free energy, such as sunlight and thermal vents, localised, useful energy, rather than diffuse, useless energy. Without a source of free energy, life would be impossible on Europa, despite the internal heat of the moon.

Correct me if I am wrong, because I find bioenergetics, thermodynamics, and astrobiology fascinating, and I'd rather not hold false beliefs .

Unfortunately, I think that those who use Biblical reasons to dispute things such as evolution, who insist that carbon dating is a hoax, or stubbornly think the lunar landing was a hoax, won't believe science's proof of life forms from other planets. Hell, we could set up resorts on distant planets and personally show them these proofs and they would still probably call it a hoax.

I wonder, what are the statistics of people who dispute the science in these things in relation to religious or non-religious?

There is no "optimal condition"- the life on this planet is by nature as it is because it evolved here.
Life evolving elsewhere would reflect the conditions of THAT planet.
"A tremendous statistical stretch", in any case, could be said about the trillions of stars.....in our own galaxy...of which there are billions of others. It is quite likely STATISTICALLY that there are an untold number of planets and celestial bodies sustaining life.

Life is ASSURED to arise given the vastness of time and space, actually.

Biology properly reduced IS chemistry.

Abiogenesis refers to life arising from non-life, in our case amino acids. Evolution refers to changes in those organisms over time.
A-bio-gen-esis. E-vol-u-tion. It's not difficult.

There's no such thing as an "evolutionist", much like there's no such thing as a "round-earthist". There are those who are ignorant of what every piece of available datum indicates and the consensus of experts, and those who are ignorant of them or actively prefer to make up their own stories.

For the same reason hydrologists are not particularly concerned with atoms as opposed to molecules, and American history experts are not particularly concerned with the notion of a matriarchal African pre-history. Experts have specialties, and scientific theories are likewise relevant to specific mechanisms.


Of the people who have dedicated their lives and careers, sometimes half a century, to the study of biology, you'd be hard-pressed to find a single one who will tell you a magical being had some part in the appearance of life, since scientists by nature form theories to fit the facts, not the other way around.

Last edited by Bethie on 02 May 2011, 2:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I think some folks believe that, but I do not try to speculate as to whether an entity "willed things into being" or just did whatever with what was already there. More simply, then, I am just saying whatever likely-or-unlikely "entity" we might be referencing either did that (and I doubt that) or ... well, I really have no idea at all! However, I doubt there ever was a time when nothing at all existed. Overall, "something from nothing" makes no sense to me, and iron ore in a tumbler will never "evolve", so to speak, into anything other than iron ore.


I know nothing at all about that kind of stuff, yet I do hear that ... and so maybe my earlier statement is wrong (if I actually have heard correctly).


I can accept that statement.

Last edited by leejosepho on 02 May 2011, 2:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I underlined my answer in your post!

There recently was a discovery of a bacteria that lives on arsenic.
Our conception of the nature of life, and of which environments can sustain life, are so Terracentric as to be ludicrous.

Yep. Though I think those bacteria were originally phosphorus using, but could switch their biochemistry to use arsenic if there was a lack of phosphorus in their environment. Though I could be mistaken. I love reading about alternative biochemistry

As do I.
We should engineer an other-wordly plague and hold the world hostage for lots o'money.

I'm totally down. Also as part of our demands, Creationists and other pseudo-scientists must be sent to live in Antarctica, and cannot leave or use the internet/phones on pain of death

@BurntOutMom: I think you're right, there are a lot of people who would refuse to believe it. I am confident that the world would move on without them though. And I think the percentage of people who dispute this is vastly religious, though there probably are a few of those 'young-punk Atheists' thrown in there who don't believe in anything for the sake of being contrarian (I know a few people like this... Hades damn they piss me off)

Likewise, I was very excited when I heard about the paper. However, the experiment was very, very flawed. It isn't proof of anything, unfortunately, at the present moment, but it is possible that despite the experimental flaws, the bacteria did metabolise arsenic, and incorporate it into their DNA. Hopefully the experiment is being replicated, I image it would get the discoverer the Nobel if it pans out...



Oh Well then, it is possible. I doubt we'll find out for a long time though, it takes a special effort to drill through 4km of ice millions of miles from earth.



The classic seven traits of life are very terracentric. There are more sophisticated definitions, although they are less heard. I define life as being a system with a thermodynamic disequilibrium maintained by a source of free energy. It would likely evolve due to natural selection.