The concept of faith

Logic and reason are limited and only as good as the premises upon which they are built.Faith, according to the apostle Paul is 'the evidence of things hoped for, the substance of things unseen'.Is the idea that life arose by chance testable science or is it a statement of faith? Is there any literature anywhere that plausibly describes how the first cell walls formed or how they first biomolecular machines came into existence? Is it even possible to design an experiment that removes the designer and proves this notion?Anyone who thinks like arose by purely naturalistic means believes so on faith. Those who sneer at theistic faith seem to be blind to their own faith.

quote:

---

Surely you believe it's possible to design an experiment that employs only natural processes? It seems to me that all you have to do is not stick your hands in the middle and muck about with it.

​

If you can't doesn't that basically send all science down the shitter?

​

Here, here's a practical example. I'm out in the field these days helping with tent-capture experiments in agricultural entomology. Now, are you telling me that our results won't apply to the unsupervised world simply because we, the intelligent "designers" of the experiment, were out there watching it? That somehow, the mere presence of our intelligence gives different results?

---

Would you agree there is a difference between an experiment designed to observe an pre-existing organism's behavior and one meant to demonstrate the validity of abiogenesis?When you are out in the field, watching your experiment, are you controlling the environment or observing participants within it?It isn't that the 'mere presence of intelligence' would give different results, that's absurd on its face! It is that an experiment would have to be designed, intelligence must define the parameters and components of the environment, since it is not possible at this point to observe events over a period of millons of eons.

quote:

---

Atheism only states that there is no evidence for the existance of a deity

---

But doesn't that mean scientific evidence? Isn't thsi begging the question somewhat? Athiests believe there is no god based upon their faith that knowlege of a diety, if it does exist, can only be 'proved' via naturalist evidence?The article your referenced doesn't seem to be a concrete proof of anything. Your blurb mentions the simple cell walls still have complex and 'rather costly biosynthesis'. It really does nothing to explain or definitavely suggest how these complexes first formed or how the support machines for the building and maintence of these walls first formed.It seems it is an unsupported belief that it must have happened via purposeless evolution.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Anyone who thinks like arose by purely naturalistic means believes so on faith. Those who sneer at theistic faith seem to be blind to their own faith.

---

​

Incorrect. Anyone who believes life arose from purely natural processes does so based on evidence. Since there is every reason to suggest life formed naturally,

---

Again, what is the evidence life arose from purely natural processes? We have evidence of adaptive behavior and different lines of fossils and such, but surely you don't mean these?

quote:

---

... and no reason at all to invoke the supernatural (since the supernatural doesn't actually explain anything anyway, and it hasn't shown itself anywhere), evolution is the rational choice. Faith has nothing to do with it - if conclusive evidence were put forth tomorrow that evolution was totally wrong and that life did not form from natural means, whoever found that evidence would receive a Nobel Prize!

---

I think invoking the supernatural to pigeonhole any notion that a god exists is a little misleading. Before we could measure and detect electro-magnetic forces, did they exist? Is the theory of all mass infinately compressed into a point of singularity scientific? It is based on the scientific observation that the universe is expanding?Basically, this is what design theorists are proposing: That observable and testable qualities of intelligence can be detected in life's most basic structures. Please show me where any of them appeal to the supernatural in making their inferences.

quote:

---

Faith, as an irrational belief in something for which there is no evidence even in the face of evidence to the contrary, is the far more immutable and unbending position.

---

Again, what is the evidence to the contrary for abiogenesis? Where has any scientist shown that say, amino acids produced in a controlled experiment could form into highly specialized structures which contain information for self-replication?I see a lot of speculation, but precious little in the way of evidence.

quote:

---

Wrong. It is possible to ascertain the composition and properties of the young Earth. We know what chemicals were present in what concentration, we know the general temperature, amounts of solar radiation, and so forth. We know a LOT about what the Earth was like a few billion years ago. We can create conditions very similar to those in the lab. No, they will not be identical. But if amino acids are spontaneously formed in a laboratory recreation of the early Earth, this is enough evidence to show that abiogenesis is at least possible.

---

I don't disagree with you here. I don't disagree that the formation of amino acids in an experimental primordial soup shows abiogenesis is possible. However, it doesn't say anything about probability. Moreover, it just reinforces what we already know: Life minus the ghost yields water and minerals. Stir them up with young Earth's chemicals and some pieces will likely form.Arranging those pieces into something self-sustaining is another matter, wouldn't you agree?

quote:

---

What is this mysterious property of life you call the "ghost?"

​

Prove that it even exists.

---

You typed these words. QED It was a rhetorical device. I could've said "A dead organism yields..." but... I didn't.

quote:

---

If the formation of amino acids can be shown to be possible in completely natural circumstances, it is not a jump in logic to conclude that the spontaneous formation of self-replicating molecules, and thus life, is entirely possible.

---

There is a difference between what is possible and what is probable, no?Moreover, that amino acids can be produced in laboratory replications of 'completely natural circumstances' is a far cry from arranging these fragile proteins into something functional for life, isn't it?This message has been edited by Highlander, 08-12-2005 11:32 PMThis message has been edited by Highlander, 08-12-2005 11:33 PM

quote:

---

Since that experiment, like all experiments, would be designed to replicate natural, unintelligent conditions to the greatest degree possible, how is that in the least relevant?

---

How does one replicate millions of years in a lab?

quote:

---

Are we to conclude that the results of that experiment, designed as it was by our intelligence, only applies to situations where corn and foxtail are growing together as a result of design?

---

I think you are missing my point. I'm saying nothing so simplistic.
Did you design the insects? Did you design the foxtails?It seems you put multiple pre-existing organisms together to observe their interaction.Isn't this greatly different from attempting to replicate the supposed origin of life from non-life?

quote:

---

If you can't design an experiment to reflect natural conditions, then again, what's the point of science?

---

I think you can design experiments to reflect natural conditions. I think it entirely possible for amino acids to form from the right goop. But getting those acids to then assemble into something functional is another thing.This message has been edited by Highlander, 08-12-2005 11:59 PM

Robin,It seems to me that faith is more a tool of reason that unreasonable, it is a 'gap filler', some fill gaps with God, some fill gaps with millions of years of random mutation and adaptive selection.I contend everyone has it - but it's just a matter of what you put your own faith in.Have you read any of the great christian apologists, like CS Lewis or Augustine? I doubt it, because you'd realize neither of those men believed what they put forward 'on a whim'.I think faith will continue to 'not make sense' so long as you deny your own capacity for it and recognize those matters and ideas in your own life where you utilize it.

quote:

---

Time isn't an "ingredient" in the experiment, it's just a condition of space-time.

---

That is my point. Time is most certainly a primary ingredient in the naturalist narrative, right? This is why researchers use critters with short life cycles when looking at genetic mutations, isn't it?It seems to me the 'millions of years' is a handy gap filler for those pre-disposed to accept the naturalist narrative where the origin of life is concerned.

quote:

---

Did we design amino acids? Did we design carbon? I don't see the relevance of the question.

---

The difference is that your real time, real life experiments are dealing with pre-existing LIFE and experiments meant to demonstrate (with a high level of certainty) that life arose out of non-life are not. The two are vastly different in scope.

quote:

---

Would we have to design carbon in order to perform that experiment? Would we have to design the laws of physics? I don't see the great difference you refer to.

---

Again, a matter of scope. You are avoiding the point with this line of rebuttal. You are experiment with life as it is, an experiment meant to demonstrate life as it came to be is a more difficult (and assumption laden) task.

quote:

---

No, of course not. Like all your apologists they had vast, elaborate networks of logical fallacies (false dillema, circular reasoning, argument from incredulity) with which to inflate their groundless beliefs.

---

If you haven't read any of them, how do you know this to be true?This message has been edited by Highlander, 08-13-2005 01:38 PM

quote:

---

Huh? No, they use them because it's more convenient and less expensive to track changes across generations when the generations are short. It's a convinience thing. It doesn't have anything to do with "time as an ingredient", whatever that would be.

---

Do you read what you type?It is convenient and less expensive to track changes because the generations are SHORT. And time is simply not a factor?You do realize how contradictory that is, don't you?

quote:

---

That's the only way that time enters into it - as a reality of space-time, not as a magic force that can do stuff.

---

Where have I stated or implied time is a magic force that can do stuff? Isn't that what the 'infinite monkey on infinite typewriters over infinite years analogy implies?What I am saying is humans have a short lifespan and our power to observe a series of events which occurred soley due to random, undirected material forces over a vast time period is limited. We have to simulate and in doing so bring certain unproven premises to the table.

quote:

---

Life is life. All living things, including these hypothetical living things that we might create in the lab, are based on the same atoms, same elements, same chemistry, same natural processes.

​

The presence of an experimenter's brain somewhere doesn't change the laws of physics, or make an experiment that occurs in the lab not have applicable results to something that occurs or occured in nature.

---

I agree life is bound by the properties of physical matter. Organisms are alive. Matter, in and of itself, is not. Atoms aren't 'alive' until arranged in such a way to be an organism - and even then, the atoms aren't 'alive' by themselves, they are only alive when joined together in a certain way.

quote:

---

It's all the laws of physics. It's all the same processes. Those don't change just because an experimenter is in the room. If they did science would be pretty useless, don't you think?

---

Where have I indicated the laws of physics change because an experimenter is in the room? Could you not put words into my mouth to make your point?I'm saying humans draw conclusions based upon what they observe of the material world. Your experiment deals with what already exists organically. An experiment meant to demonstrate abiogenesis is a tough one, considering that an experimenter must simulate conditions that existed in the far past, and in doing so must bring assumptions to the table.This doesn't mean the experiment cannot produce valid results, it just means that the environment which produced those results was manipulated by an intelligent agent, and caution should be accorded when drawing naturalist conclusions.In short: it is much more difficult to design such an experiment and reach the concrete conclusions, especially where hypothetic first cause is concerned.This message has been edited by Highlander, 08-13-2005 05:49 PMThis message has been edited by Highlander, 08-13-2005 05:52 PM

I said:

quote:

---

Have you read any of the great christian apologists, like CS Lewis or Augustine? I doubt it, because you'd realize neither of those men believed what they put forward 'on a whim'.

---

You quoted and typed:

quote:

---

No, of course not. Like all your apologists they had vast, elaborate networks of logical fallacies (false dillema, circular reasoning, argument from incredulity) with which to inflate their groundless beliefs.

---