Posted by Robert O'Brien on July 10, 1998 at 00:01:47:
In Reply to: questions posted by Walker on July 09, 1998 at 17:16:27:
: Why wouldn’t he use an abiogenesis process to precede evolution?
Abiogenesis is life from lifelessness. If God created us (which He did), then that wouldn't be abiogenesis, now would it? Here, let me make this clear: abiogenesis doesn't have a leg to stand on.
: Why would God govern "behind the scenes"?
Do I look like a prophet? I can only surmise that He wants us to be able to grow without His constant visible and/or overt intervention. I believe that God helps those who help themselves.
: So are we. What then distinguishes Him from us?
He is far more intelligent, powerful and good than we could ever be.
: Why do you prefer to say "God did it" over "It hasn’t been found yet."?
Because I have experienced God in my life, that is why. I refuse to turn my back on Him like many do when they become disillusioned with their respective religions. I also believe that there is strong evidence for intelligent design in all the sciences and mathematics.
: 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.
1) You are correct in that we don't know the conditions of the primordial earth. So, why speculate about abiogenesis at all, when Pasteur did such a great job of refuting it? 2) The "math argument" against evolution is correct; evolution is only reasonable with a Creator guiding it.
: 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?
There is a PLETHORA of scientists that don't espouse abiogenesis. In fact, many of those scientists are chemists and physicists. As for myself, I have a strong chemistry background. So, I find your implied assumption to be asinine.
: I find it strawman at best. Who used that argument?
The biologist I spoke with, for starters.
: That’s a small number. Can we see mathematics?
You really show how ignorant you are here. Who in the hell are you to tell me, an applied mathematics major, that 1x10^58 is a small number? Guess what, pookie, the mass of the known universe is approximately 1x10^53 kilograms. 1x10^53 is only 1/100000 of the number I cited. The data behind that number can be found at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/6562/problife.html. It was compiled by Dr. Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist. I have seen a similar estimate from another source.
: 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?
You'll need to explain what a "Jovian type atmosphere" is, as I am unfamiliar with the term. Also, the information I posted about primordial conditions came right from Dr. Bell, the biologist with whom I spoke.
: If the universe conforms exactly to the laws of mathematics then what is the purpose of God "governing behind the scenes"?
God still needs to fine turn His "apparatus" from time to time and He still governs everything (i.e., He still creates, destroys, shapes, manipulates, etc.)
: Isn’t the sun a powerful outside agent of the earth? Isn’t geothermal energy an outside agent of the atmosphere?
The sun is not sentient and, as far as I am concerned, is not capable of ordering life as we know it. As for geothermal energy, it is part of the earth (hence the name). Again, I don't believe that such energies are capable of ordering life as we know it.
Robert O'Brien