The concept of faith

This is true, and that's why science rigorously tests its own premises. The highest honors in science are gained when established theory is disproven with evidence. This is irrelevant. Atheism only states that there is no evidence for the existance of a deity. Even if evolution were disproven conclusively, there would still be no reason to jusmp to "Goddunit!"As to your statement itself... Here is a document you may find interesting about cell walls.

quote:

---

Algae are the plants with the simplest organization. Many of them are single-celled, some have no cell wall, others do though its composition and structure differ strongly from that of higher plants. They are good specimen for tracing back the evolution of the cell wall. Primitive cell walls do not fulfil the same requirements as that of higher plants.

​

It seems quite likely that a structure like that of the cell wall has developed several times in the course of evolution. All archaebacteria, eubacteria and blue-green algae (cyanobacteria or blue-green algae) have complex walls with an energetically rather costly biosynthesis. Neither in composition nor in biosynthesis do they have any common ground with the cell walls of plants.

​

Although the evolution of plants from early eucaryotic cells is not known in detail, is it commonly agreed on that primitive algae are flagellates closely related to the non-green flagellates. Many, though not all species of this stage of evolution, among which the euglenophyta are typical green representatives, have no cell wall. It is not only a simple membrane, but by a pellicle of already quite complex organization, that separates them from the surrounding. It consists mainly of glycoproteins organized in regular patterns the way two-dimensional crystals are. Helical ribs wind round the cell's surface.

---

More importantly, laboratory experiments duplicating the conditions of the Earth millions of years ago have, in fact, produced amino acids, the building blocks of life, in the laboratory. Remember that the beginning of life as predicted by the theory of evolution does not have to be a cingle-celled organism - it was simply a self-replicating molecule, similar to a primitive form of RNA. The process of imperfect replication (as in tiny differences between generations) and natural selection (which molecules continued to self-replicate) eventually led to the formation of a more complex life-form - a single-celled organism. The rest proceeded from there. 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, 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!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.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Is there a reason for defining 'faith' out of existence?

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.

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.The fact that an intelligent being set it up is irrelevant - those elements unter those conditions can spontaneously form amino acids. The experimentor is irrelevant.To say otherwise invalidatyes all laboratory science, wich has particular cpmsequences for medical science. If an experiment set up by an intelligence to recreate a certain environment is not a valid way to test that environment....well, you had better go and tell some doctors that their medicines don't work.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

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?

What is this mysterious property of life you call the "ghost?"Prove that it even exists. Not at all. 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.It IS a rather large leap in logic to state that some edditional entity, ie God, was involved. There is no evidence of His existance, and no reason (in light of the amino acid experiments) to conclude that abiogenesis requires a supernaural "explanation."It's all Occam's Razor. Evidence supports the notion that life arose through natural means. There is no evidence to support any supernatural hypothesis. Occam's Razor tells us to cut out any extraneous entities unless they are absolutely necessary for the equasion to work.In other words:abiogenesis + evolution = modern life-forms.abiogenesis + God + evolution = modern life-formsTherefore, God = 0 and is irrelevant. There is no reason whatsoever to throw the supernatural into the mix.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

In order to demonstrate that a concept matches reality, it must be checked against reality.Checking my concept of Frodo against LOTR ain't gonna demonstrate that Frodo exists.This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 08-12-2005 08:58 PM

No, I wouldn't agree. 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?One of the experiments we're doing is a refuge experiment, to see if weeds like foxtail can provide a refuge for certain pest insects while they develop in their life cycle to the point where they can overcome the intrinsic defenses of transgenic corn hybrids. 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?If you can't design an experiment to reflect natural conditions, then again, what's the point of science?

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

Why would you need to? Time isn't an "ingredient" in the experiment, it's just a condition of space-time. Did we design amino acids? Did we design carbon? I don't see the relevance of the question. 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. I don't see that it's "another thing" at all. What "other thing" is it, exactly?

Yes. "Faith" doesn't make sense. No one who has any sense at all believes something on a whim.

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.

Why would a reasonable person, when faced with a gap in his knowledge, simply make something up? How is that reasonable?Faith is the ultimate act of substituting make-believe for reality. I'm not sympathetic to persons who reserve it for the areas where the reality cannot be known; "I don't know" is an entirely appropriate conclusion for those areas. No need to simply make things up. Maybe you've heard of a group of persons who do not have it? They're called "atheists", and they are persons who, like me, reject the concept of faith. What you need to understand is, not everyone is like you. Not everyone has your obessive need to avoid saying "I don't know." 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.