Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 51

Thread: natural selection producing living things?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,227

    natural selection producing living things?

    As one who has regularly been annoyed by evolutionists and those who advocate for Natural Selection as the full out explanation for everything on earth, I found this great:

    "Living system distinguish themselves from nonliving ones by processing energy, storing information and replicating. Although it is widely agreed that the first living system must have been much simpler than the simplest modern living system, which is bacteria, a certain base level of complexity is necessary to provide these three functions. Also, simple analogies between biological evolution based on natural selection and chemical evolution should be rejected because natural selection in biological evolution presupposes systems that replicate."

    Walter L. Bradley & Charles B. Thaxton from "The Creation Hypothesis"

    I added in the bold accent.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,861
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: natural selection producing living things?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    As one who has regularly been annoyed by evolutionists and those who advocate for Natural Selection as the full out explanation for everything on earth, I found this great:

    "Living system distinguish themselves from nonliving ones by processing energy, storing information and replicating. Although it is widely agreed that the first living system must have been much simpler than the simplest modern living system, which is bacteria, a certain base level of complexity is necessary to provide these three functions. Also, simple analogies between biological evolution based on natural selection and chemical evolution should be rejected because natural selection in biological evolution presupposes systems that replicate."

    Walter L. Bradley & Charles B. Thaxton from "The Creation Hypothesis"

    I added in the bold accent.
    Thanks for sharing.

    And really more than just replication is needed, there must be a means and distinction of organisms via heredity for natural selection to act upon to get diversity.

    It is apparent that there isn't a viable hypothesis for the appearance of life by natural means except for "it must have happened, because here it is". And furthermore, "if it happened here, then it must have happened innumerable times in the universe as well". Pretty much a "law of life" kind of thing.
    Watchinginawe

    I Samuel 3:10 And the LORD came, and stood, and called as at other times, Samuel, Samuel. Then Samuel answered, Speak; for thy servant heareth.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    True north strong and free
    Posts
    6,516

    Re: natural selection producing living things?

    From some reading I did on this, the authors of the quote don't really have anything to offer as an alternative hypothesis other than some form of intelligent design which they recognize could be a deistic type model.
    Do not say, “Why were the old days better than these?” For it is not wise to ask such questions.
    Ecc 7:10

    John777 exists to me only in quoted form.



  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,861
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: natural selection producing living things?

    Quote Originally Posted by teddyv View Post
    From some reading I did on this, the authors of the quote don't really have anything to offer as an alternative hypothesis other than some form of intelligent design which they recognize could be a deistic type model.
    This points out the problem with the materialist bias of contemporary science. Of course they don't have an alternative "materialist" hypothesis.

    Consider this:

    2 Timothy 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.


    That pretty much sums up science on the topic of origins when the adherence to materialist hypotheses is dictated. What if the truth of the matter is that life doesn't originate naturally? You get "Law of life" and "multiverses" that are consistent with the philosophy but really don't have anything of substance to offer on the subject other then "it must have been". Learning without the ability to come to the knowledge of the truth.


    What would be wrong with a hypothesis of apparent design by an intelligence?
    Watchinginawe

    I Samuel 3:10 And the LORD came, and stood, and called as at other times, Samuel, Samuel. Then Samuel answered, Speak; for thy servant heareth.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    True north strong and free
    Posts
    6,516

    Re: natural selection producing living things?

    Quote Originally Posted by watchinginawe View Post
    This points out the problem with the materialist bias of contemporary science. Of course they don't have an alternative "materialist" hypothesis.

    Consider this:

    2 Timothy 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.


    That pretty much sums up science on the topic of origins when the adherence to materialist hypotheses is dictated. What if the truth of the matter is that life doesn't originate naturally? You get "Law of life" and "multiverses" that are consistent with the philosophy but really don't have anything of substance to offer on the subject other then "it must have been". Learning without the ability to come to the knowledge of the truth.
    Science and the scientific method by definition will always search out naturalistic causes (and will be rooted in the material reality) to processes and events of the universe.

    Quote Originally Posted by watchinginawe View Post
    What would be wrong with a hypothesis of apparent design by an intelligence?
    I don't think you could call that a hypothesis since it would be untestable. Scientific studies will never be able to answer certain questions. The trap of YEC/ID is that it is attempting to manipulate science into proving things that are not provable in a naturalistic/materialistic sense.
    Do not say, “Why were the old days better than these?” For it is not wise to ask such questions.
    Ecc 7:10

    John777 exists to me only in quoted form.



  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,861
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: natural selection producing living things?

    Quote Originally Posted by teddyv View Post
    Science and the scientific method by definition will always search out naturalistic causes (and will be rooted in the material reality) to processes and events of the universe.
    That makes an unfortunate presupposition where origins are concerned. I think you would be hard pressed to prove the premise that science "will always" be any which way. That would put science on the same basis of math, i.e something abstract which exists whether discovered or not. I don't believe "science" is a discovered abstract method of truth, thus it is subject to human processes and interpretation.

    Quote Originally Posted by teddyv
    I don't think you could call that a hypothesis since it would be untestable. Scientific studies will never be able to answer certain questions. The trap of YEC/ID is that it is attempting to manipulate science into proving things that are not provable in a naturalistic/materialistic sense.
    So multiverses are "testable"? Universes that create themselves out of nothing because they must are testable? No, not at all. And the thing is, life by natural processes would appear to be testable, and yet no progress has been made in verifying that claim. And yet somehow it can't be falsified because "it had to have happened. ???
    Watchinginawe

    I Samuel 3:10 And the LORD came, and stood, and called as at other times, Samuel, Samuel. Then Samuel answered, Speak; for thy servant heareth.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    True north strong and free
    Posts
    6,516

    Re: natural selection producing living things?

    Quote Originally Posted by watchinginawe View Post
    That makes an unfortunate presupposition where origins are concerned. I think you would be hard pressed to prove the premise that science "will always" be any which way. That would put science on the same basis of math, i.e something abstract which exists whether discovered or not. I don't believe "science" is a discovered abstract method of truth, thus it is subject to human processes and interpretation.
    Sure, it's a presupposition. And I don't think science is abstract like mathematics either.



    Quote Originally Posted by watchinginawe View Post
    So multiverses are "testable"? Universes that create themselves out of nothing because they must are testable? No, not at all. And the thing is, life by natural processes would appear to be testable, and yet no progress has been made in verifying that claim. And yet somehow it can't be falsified because "it had to have happened. ???
    Multiverses are probably mathematically possible, but I'm not sure anyone is making the claim that it is even testable. So far as we know we can only test within our universe.

    Has there really been no progress in testing for natural processes creating life? There are a lots of variables and lots of unknowns for that period of time when life was believed to have arisen. That does not mean there is no possible natural process. Unequivocally stating such a position is troublesome to dangerous.
    Do not say, “Why were the old days better than these?” For it is not wise to ask such questions.
    Ecc 7:10

    John777 exists to me only in quoted form.



  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,861
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: natural selection producing living things?

    Quote Originally Posted by teddyv View Post
    Has there really been no progress in testing for natural processes creating life? There are a lots of variables and lots of unknowns for that period of time when life was believed to have arisen. That does not mean there is no possible natural process. Unequivocally stating such a position is troublesome to dangerous.
    Examine the bolded portion above. Hmmm.

    Anyway, where does that leave us with something that is testable? And consistent for that matter. Life on Earth: Pre-cursor assumes presence of methane. Life on Mars: Presence of methane indicative of life. These kinds of things are crazy.
    Watchinginawe

    I Samuel 3:10 And the LORD came, and stood, and called as at other times, Samuel, Samuel. Then Samuel answered, Speak; for thy servant heareth.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    True north strong and free
    Posts
    6,516

    Re: natural selection producing living things?

    Quote Originally Posted by watchinginawe View Post
    Examine the bolded portion above. Hmmm.
    If there is a scientific proof of God, then we have no real free-will.

    Anyway, where does that leave us with something that is testable? And consistent for that matter. Life on Earth: Pre-cursor assumes presence of methane. Life on Mars: Presence of methane indicative of life. These kinds of things are crazy.
    I'm not sure where you are pulling those statements from specifically. I can pick and choose quotes all I want and make all sorts of inferences. But
    when you drill down into the data, I think there will certainly be a greater measure of consistency. BTW, I see this all the time in my line of work.
    Do not say, “Why were the old days better than these?” For it is not wise to ask such questions.
    Ecc 7:10

    John777 exists to me only in quoted form.



  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,227

    Re: natural selection producing living things?

    Quote Originally Posted by watchinginawe View Post
    Thanks for sharing.

    And really more than just replication is needed, there must be a means and distinction of organisms via heredity for natural selection to act upon to get diversity.

    It is apparent that there isn't a viable hypothesis for the appearance of life by natural means except for "it must have happened, because here it is". And furthermore, "if it happened here, then it must have happened innumerable times in the universe as well". Pretty much a "law of life" kind of thing.
    Yes, it's the argument of "billions and billions of years," or an infinite number of opportunities for a chance development, and behold, it just happened to happen. And apparently, according to the authors, in order to arrange the amino acids in such a way as to produce protein so many "accidents" of nature would have to take place as to require a virtual miracle.

    The arrangement's odds are so bad that it is either the equivalent of "miracle" or "divine design." If the design originates from outside of the building blocks of life, it likely originates with God, or we might as well call it "God."

    Even worse, we don't have an infinite amount of time for every possible arrangement to take place. We probably only have 14 billion years or so to experiment with the various probabilities. And creating protein and more complex molecules are not at all "probable," and quite likely "impossible" apart from a divine "arranger."

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,861
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: natural selection producing living things?

    Quote Originally Posted by teddyv View Post
    If there is a scientific proof of God, then we have no real free-will.
    That wasn't the point. The point is, quoting you loosely, that it would be troublesome and dangerous to exclude the possibility of intelligent design. Consider natural processes of course, but it would be troublesome and dangerous to exclude out of hand explanations the incorporate design.

    Quote Originally Posted by teddyv
    I'm not sure where you are pulling those statements from specifically. I can pick and choose quotes all I want and make all sorts of inferences. But
    when you drill down into the data, I think there will certainly be a greater measure of consistency. BTW, I see this all the time in my line of work.
    I'm not quote mining. There just isn't much for science to go on where the beginning of life is concerned.

    What do you believe is the best competing scientific hypothesis for the explanation of how life FIRST formed on Earth? Is there even a favorite or one that is taught any more?
    Watchinginawe

    I Samuel 3:10 And the LORD came, and stood, and called as at other times, Samuel, Samuel. Then Samuel answered, Speak; for thy servant heareth.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,861
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: natural selection producing living things?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Yes, it's the argument of "billions and billions of years," or an infinite number of opportunities for a chance development, and behold, it just happened to happen. And apparently, according to the authors, in order to arrange the amino acids in such a way as to produce protein so many "accidents" of nature would have to take place as to require a virtual miracle.

    The arrangement's odds are so bad that it is either the equivalent of "miracle" or "divine design." If the design originates from outside of the building blocks of life, it likely originates with God, or we might as well call it "God."

    Even worse, we don't have an infinite amount of time for every possible arrangement to take place. We probably only have 14 billion years or so to experiment with the various probabilities. And creating protein and more complex molecules are not at all "probable," and quite likely "impossible" apart from a divine "arranger."
    I find the subject very interesting and believe that it all points to a robust Natural Theology. I've been doing a lot of listening to Dr. William Lane Craig lately and have gained a new appreciation for his body of work over the years.
    Watchinginawe

    I Samuel 3:10 And the LORD came, and stood, and called as at other times, Samuel, Samuel. Then Samuel answered, Speak; for thy servant heareth.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    True north strong and free
    Posts
    6,516

    Re: natural selection producing living things?

    Quote Originally Posted by watchinginawe View Post
    That wasn't the point. The point is, quoting you loosely, that it would be troublesome and dangerous to exclude the possibility of intelligent design. Consider natural processes of course, but it would be troublesome and dangerous to exclude out of hand explanations the incorporate design.
    I was also thinking of, though I did not include it in that post, the example of Luther's error in adamantly refusing to consider the findings of Copernicus.



    Quote Originally Posted by watchinginawe View Post
    I'm not quote mining. There just isn't much for science to go on where the beginning of life is concerned.

    What do you believe is the best competing scientific hypothesis for the explanation of how life FIRST formed on Earth? Is there even a favorite or one that is taught any more?
    I was not implying quote mining in a negative sense. It just sounded like a quote.

    I don't know what the best hypothesis is at the moment. I could not even tell you what those hypotheses are, if there are any specific named ones. Plus, I'm not well-versed enough in the biology or chemistry to have much of an opinion.
    Do not say, “Why were the old days better than these?” For it is not wise to ask such questions.
    Ecc 7:10

    John777 exists to me only in quoted form.



  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    5,655
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: natural selection producing living things?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    As one who has regularly been annoyed by evolutionists and those who advocate for Natural Selection as the full out explanation for everything on earth, I found this great:...
    I stopped worrying about NS, if it's true then they have discovered is how God creates, not NS but DS (Divine Selection). Let the brightest minds create NS in the lab and let a bacteria evolve into some higher form, testable, reproducible and when they have managed create a bacteria from dead material. When we look at what they called NS in fact is super intelligent what it is able to create. All praise to the Creator.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,861
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: natural selection producing living things?

    Quote Originally Posted by teddyv View Post
    I don't know what the best hypothesis is at the moment. I could not even tell you what those hypotheses are, if there are any specific named ones. Plus, I'm not well-versed enough in the biology or chemistry to have much of an opinion.
    How we came to be is a pretty self important question IMO. I think we trust that science has answered the big question already or at least the answer is emerging through research. But I will quote again:

    2 Timothy 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

    How is that even possible?

    Unequivocally stating that life arose naturally is troublesome and dangerous, at least IMO. Yet that is how it is taught, and really with no viable explanation besides "we are here, so the natural production of life had to have happened at some point, and we will continue to learn through science how that was and thus eventually come to the knowledge of the truth".
    Watchinginawe

    I Samuel 3:10 And the LORD came, and stood, and called as at other times, Samuel, Samuel. Then Samuel answered, Speak; for thy servant heareth.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: May 12th 2014, 05:04 PM
  2. God is the God of the natural and super natural.
    By ksnsj1 in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Aug 21st 2011, 02:29 PM
  3. How can I know if I'm producing fruit?
    By MMC in forum Growing in Christ
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: Oct 19th 2009, 12:24 AM
  4. Is it natural?
    By Diolectic in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: Jul 28th 2008, 02:23 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •