Posted by Walker on July 09, 1998 at 17:16:27:
In Reply to: My beliefs & the case against abiogenesis. posted by Robert O'Brien on July 09, 1998 at 03:16:49:
Sorry to butt into your debate but I am interested and have a few questions.
: 2) I believe that the Supreme Being created us and all other life forms via the evolutionary process.
Why wouldn’t he use an abiogenesis process to precede evolution?
: 3) I believe that He takes an active but "behind the scenes" role in governing our planet.
Why would God govern "behind the scenes"?
: 4) I believe that He is subject to the laws of the universe.
So are we. What then distinguishes Him from us?
: 1) There is nothing (and I do mean nothing) that scientists have encountered that is both simple enough to be our first "ancestor," yet complicated enough to replicate itself (at which point natural selection would prevail).
Why do you prefer to say "God did it" over "It hasn’t been found yet."?
: 3) The probability of such an event occurring is astronomical. Being a mathematician, I can safely say that with the estimates I have seen thus far, you couldn't even imagine the number of lives you'd have to live to count to such an enormous number.
How can I rely on such estimates when the forces which supposedly brought it together are not exactly known? The composition of the primordial soup is not known. Relative abundance of building blocks throughout earth’s history is unknown. Note this same math argument is incorrectly used against evolution.
More than a few scientists (who obviously reject abiogenesis) have speculated that there is not enough matter in the universe for abiogenesis to occur (anywhere).
So, five scientists? Six? Note that there are more than six scientists in the world who know very little about chemistry. What were their assumptions on the composition of primordial soup?
The usual retort to this is: "Well, we are here, so that's the proof!" Well, I find such an argument hokey at best.
I find it strawman at best. Who used that argument?
We are here, but that does nothing in the way of supporting abiogenesis. If you really believe we are that 1 in 1x10^58 chance, then go ahead.
That’s a small number. Can we see mathematics?
: 5) The conditions of the earth that they (biologists et al) propose is not conducive to any form of life (or the beginnings thereof) as we know them. Of course, we don't even know what the earth was like back then. RNA is fragile, and it is difficult to imagine how such a molecule could survive to "reproduce." In fine, the proposed conditions of the primordial earth present a big problem for all the models (i.e., you need the right "stuff" in the atmosphere to promote "life", but you also need some heavy-duty protection for that life to keep it that way).
As I understand it, a popular model has the earth starting out with a Jovian type atmosphere which changed over time. What’s wrong with that?
: 6) In a somewhat unrelated vein, I believe that the undeniable fact that nature and the laws of the universe conform exactly to the laws of mathematics is strong evidence that there is a Supreme Being behind it all.
If the universe conforms exactly to the laws of mathematics then what is the purpose of God "governing behind the scenes"?
Order does not proceed from chaos without an outside agent or (nonconservative) force at work.
Isn’t the sun a powerful outside agent of the earth? Isn’t geothermal energy an outside agent of the atmosphere?