Debunking Creationism 301 (Advanced) - Lesson 1

[treat2]

Christian creationists put the Earth's age and the age of the Universe between 6-10,000 years old, with 6,000 being the most popularly stated number.

The stars in the Universe (except for our Sun) are MILLIONS AND BILLIONS of LIGHT YEARS away from us. How we can possibly be able to either see or just scientifically detect ANY stars?

Please explain how this obvious contradition is scientifically possible with reference to any empirical evidence.

 

[Royce]

1. Because they are wrong.
2. Because they are speaking about civilization on Earth and not
the physical age of the Earth much less the universe though some
will deny that.
3. Because it is a folk tale, myth, oral tradition of creation that
all cultures have in their background that has been taken
seriously and literally because it is written in a book that they
consider holy and inspired by God and thus must be literally
true. (because if they doubt any of it, all of it comes into
doubt, so shallow is their faith and understanding.)

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by Royce
1. Because they are wrong.

Tada!

 

[Hurkyl]

How can we see stars that have burned out millions of years ago?

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
How can we see stars that have burned out millions of years ago?

Your kidding right?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
How can we see stars that have burned out millions of years ago?

Ummmm...did your little brother hack your password?

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
How can we see stars that have burned out millions of years ago?

I think what he means is the following: if creationists were right, not only would we see light from stars that would need to have been emitted much before the universe was created, but also light from stars that were never there.

In order for that to happen, a god would need to include, in his creation plan, light coming towards us containing the depiction of the demise of these stars.

This way, such god would be using quite a contrived way of helping us believe.

 

[NateTG]

One of the problems with creationism is that it's not scientifically falsifiable. It's easy to create ad hoc explanations for every observation in a system that does not require completeness -- that is, any observation can be explained by 'god made it that way'. This means that creationism is worthless as a scientific theory and that it cannot be debunked.

This suggests that the appropriate tactic for debunking creationism is not to demonstrate that it is incorrect, but to demonstrate that it is superfluous.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by NateTG
One of the problems with creationism is that it's not scientifically falsifiable. It's easy to create ad hoc explanations for every observation in a system that does not require completeness -- that is, any observation can be explained by 'god made it that way'. This means that creationism is worthless as a scientific theory and that it cannot be debunked.

This suggests that the appropriate tactic for debunking creationism is not to demonstrate that it is incorrect, but to demonstrate that it is superfluous.

Exactly...I was telling someone the other day about how to combat pseudo-science. You can't match evidence for evidence, because they can just make stuff up, and you spend all your time chasing down each individual claim. You have to attack the true foundation, which is superstition and willful ignorance.

 

[Odin]

Ha

Exactly...I was telling someone the other day about how to combat pseudo-science. You can't match evidence for evidence, because they can just make stuff up, and you spend all your time chasing down each individual claim. You have to attack the true foundation, which is superstition and willful ignorance.

You hit it on the head there. In religion the "believers", follow blindly the messages that they seem to receive from their god/gods. They call this faith. And to them without faith you are doomed for you cannot follow the god/gods. but any smart person soon realizes that these "messages" are either coincidences or are made up but the founder.

 

[Odin]

Mrrr

Unfortunately due to my comp. being on the fritz I was unable to continue my last post so here goes.

Those with "faith" seem to believe that everything good that happens to them is given by their god. If something bad happens to them it is either a test by their god, or by some sort of bad god (Just a thought, what if some of the good stuff was a test from the bad god). Not to mention the fact that either something was 'meant to be' or coincidence, with the religious the line between the two is less than paper thin and i believe these religious people get many a paper cut as they traipse their way back and forth over this line. And I have even seen evidence of some religious people saying that they had gotten a vision of two people and that they were meant to be, but those people broke up 2 years later. The only question I pose is what do we do about these people, I mean do we ignore them and their craziness? Do we prove them wrong? (This may be hard to do as proving religion wrong is about as easy as counting and grouping all the atomic material in the universe) What does anyone suggest?

 

[Fliption]

Exactly...I was telling someone the other day about how to combat pseudo-science. You can't match evidence for evidence, because they can just make stuff up, and you spend all your time chasing down each individual claim. You have to attack the true foundation, which is superstition and willful ignorance.

The problem with this approach is that you can use it against any view. Even legitimate ones. How will you ever know if a view is legitimate unless you look at the sited evidence 1 by 1? It's easy to assume based on prior experience that there is a biased foundation of belief but if the one guy with the real proof ever showed up, this approach wouldn't filter him out. I've seen this approach by you in the forums and I have to say it is one of the most frustrating things to me. No one will argue that this might not be a practical approach for the average religious wacko. But I've seen the line get blurry. Hell even I have been the victim of this approach and I think faith is for the birds. I think careful judgement has to be used in order to use this approach. It's too easy to be intellectually lazy and just assume anyone that disagrees with you has a biased foundation of belief.

 

[Odin]

Funny that!

Isn't it funny that everyone who has posted here has posted against religion. There has yet to be one statement for religion. So I have come to some conclusions. Nobody who is on here is truly religious. Nobody is willing to back up religion. Or it just plain can't be backed.

 

[physicsisphirst]

Isn't it funny that everyone who has posted here has posted against religion. There has yet to be one statement for religion. So I have come to some conclusions. Nobody who is on here is truly religious. Nobody is willing to back up religion. Or it just plain can't be backed.

I don't think this is really a religious vs non-religious issue even though historically the conflicts would seem to indicate otherwise. Many scientists are deeply religious, but they don't treat the bible as a textbook on cosmology (besides, there are plenty of other creationisms around other than that one).

NateTG has made a very profound statement a few posts up about creationism not being not scientifically falsifiable. On another forum, the debate rages, but the evolutionists are having a hard time despite presenting better scientific arguments because the other side refuses to accept them.

You don't want to fight the creationism 'fire' with fire. It's rather like trying to tell someone that an opinion is wrong.

of course, we don't have to have this conflict that has gone on for so long.
thomas henry huxley (darwin's bulldog) maintained that true reason could never quarrel with true religion - just as reason is a medium for the revelation of truth so is religion a medium for the revelation of morality:

"between science [true reason] and religion as spiritual aspiration or religion as humility, or religion as morality, he saw no conflict ..."


in friendship,
prad

 

[Janitor]

There is a special issue of Scientific American out right now, on a magazine rack near you. It has a painting of a T. Rex on the cover. Young-Earth creationists have the problem of explaining how all those species of dinosaurs came and went over just the first fraction of the last 10,000 or so years.

Old-Earth creationists might allow that there were dinosaurs tens of millions of years ago. But a problem for them is that there were clearly carnivorous dinosaurs, going by evidence such as shape of teeth. Biblical literalists like to say that prior to Adam and Eve there was no death, no pain, no suffering. But if a carnivorous predator like T. Rex didn't inflict pain on other living things, nothing has done so!

So do the Old-Earth creationists have to maintain that Adam and Eve lived even earlier than the earliest carnivorous dinosaurs?

The same issue has an article on a find of 25-million-year-old amber. The photos in the article show all kinds of creeping, crawling, stinging, biting, blood-sucking little vermin. Again, not a very nice thing for the Lord to have put on Earth before there was a sinful Adam and Eve for Him to blame it all on.

 

[Royce]

There are also creationist who don't believe in the literal intepretation of the bible, that God created the universe and all that it contains and science is simply discovering God's methods of creation, God's mind. I have often said here at the PF's; "God said let there be light. Big Bang!"

 

[physicsisphirst]

There is a special issue of Scientific American out right now, on a magazine rack near you..

well just to be equitable(?), here is a fascinating(?) article (posted by a creationist on another forum) from Creation Magazine that conclusively shows how Noah's Ark could have not only carried all (including dinosaurs) that was needed to start life all over again after the flood:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazines/docs/cen_v19n2_animals_ark.asp

The article deals with space requirements, feeding, excrement and produces a resounding conclusion as well. Enjoy(?)

in friendship,
prad

 

[loseyourname]

What would you guys say to someone that refuses to believe evolution by chance mutation and natural selection alone is feasible and that intelligent intervention of some sort is the only alternative. I've effectively shown the fallacy of Dr. Murray Eden's calculations of the mathematical improbability of single-step cell construction and of the existence of hemoglobin. I've also pointed that, even if chance mutation and natural selection are improbable, it doesn't make any competing hypothesis any more probably, as Eden and his followers seem to think. This guy is very obstinate and insists that since evolution can't be proven, we must treat it the same as any other theory. Should I just give up?

 

[Janitor]

loseyourname- I've effectively shown the fallacy of...

Where did you show it? Some sort of publication?

 

[loseyourname]

Nothing that prestigious. Just another forum. A decidely non-scientific forum.

 

[Canute]

There are also creationist who don't believe in the literal intepretation of the bible, that God created the universe and all that it contains and science is simply discovering God's methods of creation, God's mind. I have often said here at the PF's; "God said let there be light. Big Bang!"

This is the heart of the problem IMO. As has been said above Christian creationism is unfalsifiable by science (but not necessarily unfalsifiable by other means). Until science can explain how or why anything exists then Creationists are safe, and so are theists. Science can not do metaphysics yet is built on metaphysical assumptions. When these can be shown to be true then Creationists and theists will have to give up arguing. However as we know that science cannot explain the coming into existence of the universe then they are probably safe forever.

However a Creator God seems a bit of a weak idea simply on logical grounds. It begs too many questions.

I like this -

“My own personal view is that it is useless to attempt even a "vague idea of what a designer [of the universe] would be like". Now religious people will probably take me to mean by this that the designing God is so ineffable that we cannot begin to apprehend what he "would be like". No: for I do apprehend something definite --- namely, that the term "design" is completely inappropriate to any consideration of how the universe originated. It is an anthropomorphism which can no more be applied to the universe’s origin than a white beard can be. The one conviction common to the people I regard as sane mystics is that anthropomorphisms of all kinds have to be abandoned. As Meister Eckhart put it: God is not good, I am good.”
Denis Paul, Barbour, Weinberg and the Anthropic Principle
http://www.wittgenstein.internet-today.co.uk/moreiris.html

Also there are more subtle forms of creationism than the Christian one.

 

[Royce]

However a Creator God seems a bit of a weak idea simply on logical grounds. It begs too many questions.

I agree with the above; however, the big bang and multi-verse theories leaves too many questions unanswered also. The fact that so many parameters and values are so precise and necessarily so for the universe to exist as it does and for life to be possible at all much less spontaneously come about by accident is a bit hard to accept at face value also. I think that this is evidence of a design and intent by a creator. I call that creator God.

What God may be like or who God is, is a question that I have no way of knowing or answering. This is no different that how or why the universe came to be or why it is as it is. Neither excludes nor disproves the other.

As there is no answer nor anyway to prove or disprove one or the other it remains for us to take our pick and accept that others have done the same.

 

[Canute]

I agree with the above; however, the big bang and multi-verse theories leaves too many questions unanswered also. The fact that so many parameters and values are so precise and necessarily so for the universe to exist as it does and for life to be possible at all much less spontaneously come about by accident is a bit hard to accept at face value also.

I agree.

I think that this is evidence of a design and intent by a creator. I call that creator God.

I agree it's evidence for something more than science can give us. But the big question is what you mean by 'creator' and 'God'.

What God may be like or who God is, is a question that I have no way of knowing or answering.

I'm not so sure about that.

This is no different that how or why the universe came to be or why it is as it is. Neither excludes nor disproves the other.

Agree with that bit.

As there is no answer nor anyway to prove or disprove one or the other it remains for us to take our pick and accept that others have done the same.

I wonder. The fact we can't prove it one way or the other doesn't actually entail that we cannot know the answer.

 

[Royce]

I wonder. The fact we can't prove it one way or the other doesn't actually entail that we cannot know the answer.

I was referring to empirical knowledge. Our personal inner subjective knowledge of God is more in line with revelation than empirical knowledge as God reveals himself to us personally.

I have, in the past, caused too much ruckus here by stating my personal religious beliefs and convictions in topics like this one, so I try to stay clear of such statements while still interjecting the philosophical implications of a spiritual cause or realm.

 

[loseyourname]

I fail to see the virtue in choosing between two options, neither of which can be proven, based on what feels best to you. In matters of personal choice and ethics, this obviously must be done, as we have no choice but to act in some manner. But a metaphysical model of the universe's origin is not a necessity; you can live without one. You can live simply with science and ethics. Agnosticism reigns supreme.

Is there going to be any debunking of hydroplate theory in this thread?

 

[physicsisphirst]

You can live simply with science and ethics. Agnosticism reigns supreme.

good combo!
huxley all the way!

hey, can we see that refutation you did of Eden's stuff?

in friendship,
prad

 

[Canute]

I was referring to empirical knowledge. Our personal inner subjective knowledge of God is more in line with revelation than empirical knowledge as God reveals himself to us personally.

I have, in the past, caused too much ruckus here by stating my personal religious beliefs and convictions in topics like this one, so I try to stay clear of such statements while still interjecting the philosophical implications of a spiritual cause or realm.

What do mean by empirical here? You seem to mean 'inter-subjective', which is a quite different thing.

 

[Canute]

I fail to see the virtue in choosing between two options, neither of which can be proven, based on what feels best to you.

I agree. Luckily it's a complete fallacy to suppose that you can only know what's true by proving it.

In matters of personal choice and ethics, this obviously must be done, as we have no choice but to act in some manner.

What's obvious about it?

But a metaphysical model of the universe's origin is not a necessity; you can live without one. You can live simply with science and ethics. Agnosticism reigns supreme.

Yeah, that strategy's working really well isn't it.

It's based on another fallacy, namely that science is not a metaphysical model. In fact it is one for most people, as you have illustrated. The issues of knowledge and truth and morality etc are unfortunately not so simple.

Is there going to be any debunking of hydroplate theory in this thread?

Never heard of that one.

 

[Phi For All]

Isn't it funny that everyone who has posted here has posted against religion. There has yet to be one statement for religion. So I have come to some conclusions. Nobody who is on here is truly religious. Nobody is willing to back up religion. Or it just plain can't be backed.

I think religion is valid in one respect at least: it opens the mind to possibilities that exist outside our particle-based existence. The fact that too many zealots use religion the opposite way, to close their minds off, is just plain sad. They would rather believe their particular religion is the only way. Faith in what you can't prove or observe is not a bad thing, but assuming that you're right and everyone else is going to hell is just plain medieval.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Notice that PF has rules about where you can do religious arguments. The sticky that states this is in the general philosophy forum. So our experienced posters just don't bring religion up here. Maybe that means we aren't seriously champions of religion. So be it.

 

[loseyourname]

I agree. Luckily it's a complete fallacy to suppose that you can only know what's true by proving it.

Aside from self-knowledge, what might you attain otherwise?

What's obvious about it?

A challenge. Attempt to never do anything. Even then, you made a choice.

Yeah, that strategy's working really well isn't it.

It's based on another fallacy, namely that science is not a metaphysical model. In fact it is one for most people, as you have illustrated.

All I said was that you don't need a theory of the universe's origin to go about your daily life. I am right.

Never heard of that one.

Creation science's rebuttal to evolutionary theory is hydroplate theory. It attempts to explain the stratification of the fossil record without postulating any link between species and to refute the accepted age of the earth.

 

[Janitor]

Creation science's rebuttal to evolutionary theory is hydroplate theory. - loseyourname

Is that where they try to sell the idea that the fossil strata turned out that way because of the settling of dead bodies in Noah's flood?

 

[loseyourname]

Yes, although they do go into a little more detail.

 

[Canute]

Aside from self-knowledge, what might you attain otherwise?

That's a biiiig topic. Let's just say that all knowledge begins in experience.

A challenge. Attempt to never do anything. Even then, you made a choice.

I agree we make choices (although according to physical determinists we don't).

All I said was that you don't need a theory of the universe's origin to go about your daily life. I am right.

Absolutely right. But morality is arbitrary in the absence of a metaphysic so I wouldn't agree that it's the best way of going about living. .

Creation science's rebuttal to evolutionary theory is hydroplate theory. It attempts to explain the stratification of the fossil record without postulating any link between species and to refute the accepted age of the earth.

Ah. Enough said.

 

[russ_watters]

YEC is trivially simple to prove: God created the universe/earth so he created it to look 14 billion years old even though it is only 6,000.









...however, that's not a scientific argument, which is why the restraining order is still in effect. Religion and science are and must remain separate.

 

[loseyourname]

That's a biiiig topic. Let's just say that all knowledge begins in experience.

Begins, perhaps. But outside of self-knowledge, no knowledge is attained until the experience is confirmed to be repeatable by the experiences of others. I am of course assuming that different people have the same experiences when exposed to the same sensory stimuli, but I don't think that's a stretch. I think it is safe to say that the scientific method is empirical.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Begins, perhaps. But outside of self-knowledge, no knowledge is attained until the experience is confirmed to be repeatable by the experiences of others. I am of course assuming that different people have the same experiences when exposed to the same sensory stimuli, but I don't think that's a stretch. I think it is safe to say that the scientific method is empirical.

From the off-handed way you are referring to it, I suspect you are not recognizing how important self-knowledge is to some of us. In fact, I'd characterize most debates here as between those who think self-knowledge is most enlightening, and those who think knowledge of the external world is most enlightening.

Unfortunately, there are very few people who can talk competently, and from personal experience, about both. So what often happens is the guy who most values self-knowledge, and hasn't been very conscientious about learning empirical skills, ends up debating the guy who values empirical understanding but doesn't know squat about self-knowledge. It's an ugly sight to see !

Here at a science site, there are a lot more people who value empirical skills over anything else, so we have plenty of input on how much can be understood about externals. I always wonder how much empirical debaters know about what can be achieved with internal skills, or if they've just assumed there isn't much to it without having done their homework.

As someone who values both internal and external knowledge, I wish there were more evenly educated thinkers participating in the debates. Failing that, at least if there were more openness on both sides that would help. In these inner-outer debates, too often threads seem to end with nobody having learned anything from other perspectives.

 

[motai]

YEC is trivially simple to prove: God created the universe/earth so he created it to look 14 billion years old even though it is only 6,000.

That seems absurd to me... created to look older than what it is? What would God be trying to prove with that? I think some of these YECs need to plan out their theories otherwise they will be left with some ethical issues (i.e. from this past statement, it is acceptible for an omniscient entity to lie to prove its point, etc.)

 

[Canute]

Begins, perhaps. But outside of self-knowledge, no knowledge is attained until the experience is confirmed to be repeatable by the experiences of others.

Very true. This is why third-person 'knowledge' can only be relative and never certain.

I am of course assuming that different people have the same experiences when exposed to the same sensory stimuli, but I don't think that's a stretch.

We don't know. However even if it's true it does not mean that people have the same experiences. Many people do not explore their ability to experience.

I think it is safe to say that the scientific method is empirical.

If you mean rooted in experience then I agree.

 

[loseyourname]

Very true. This is why third-person 'knowledge' can only be relative and never certain.

Self-knowledge is no more certain. As I've pointed out previously, the only knowledge that doesn't buckle under your extremely strenuous standards of doubt is the knowledge that consciousness exists.

We don't know. However even if it's true it does not mean that people have the same experiences. Many people do not explore their ability to experience.

What exactly do you mean by "explore their ability to experience?"

If you mean rooted in experience then I agree.

Not exactly. Empirical means that it is rooted in sensory perception. There are plenty of experiences that do not involve the five senses.

 

[loseyourname]

From the off-handed way you are referring to it, I suspect you are not recognizing how important self-knowledge is to some of us. In fact, I'd characterize most debates here as between those who think self-knowledge is most enlightening, and those who think knowledge of the external world is most enlightening.

Relax there, buddy. I'm referring to it in an off-handed way because it isn't relevant to a discussion of creationism.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Relax there, buddy. I'm referring to it in an off-handed way because it isn't relevant to a discussion of creationism.

I am relaxed, or was when I wrote what I did. I probably should have said casual rather than "off-handed." I was trying to indicate you may be considering self-knowledge irrelevant a bit too quickly.

If the discussion were limited to myths of Biblical creationism then self-knowledge wouldn't mean much. But as usual, this discussion has broadened into the more general idea of whether some sort of universal intelligence has been/is part of the evolution and maintenance of creation. For that, I believe those who've advanced the furthest in self-knowledge offer the best subjective evidence of that (evidence which is seldom cited).

I also was pointing out why these debates get hot. Often it's because no one is debating with an open mind, listening to and trying to understand the other side. It is hard to do that when one already thinks one is right. And it always shows too . . .it comes out as intolerance and condescension. I've seen lots of it, and lots of "debunking creationism" threads as well where it's just an excuse for physicalists to sneer at the illogic of Biblical creationism. Mad about one such thread, at the old PF I started a thread called "Why Materialists Can't Think Properly." That got pretty hot! But in the end I didn't see how any of it was useful to anyone.

I'd say there are those of us here who can see real problems with physicalist theory, and so think there is "something more." I am not religious, and I don't know what that something more is, but I am willing and even eager to debate those who believe physicalist models are adequate (or one day will be) to explain things.

So rather than have threads that ridicule, I would rather see strong debates between people who can represent their side with evidence and reason. And really, here at a science site, do we really need to talk about Biblical Creationism? If someone believes it, which I am not saying is wrong, this ain't the place to debate it (or ridicule it).

 

[loseyourname]

Do you believe in some form of intelligent intervention as the mechanism of evolution?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Do you believe in some form of intelligent intervention as the mechanism of evolution?

I am probably more conservative about what "extra" might be part of evolution than it might seem from my other posts. I don't want to bore PF members who've seen me argue this point a lot in the past, but where I've focused my criticism of purely physicalist theory before is on self organization.

I believe the most unexplained and most glossed over principle of physicalism is the lack of an adequate self-organizing force/principle that would get chemistry to organize the way it had to in order to "live" (and for functionalists, would get brain functions to organize as they must to create consciousness). Before you start citing Miller-Urey, crystals, auto-catalytic reactions, polymers, etc. . . . I already know all about that, and none are proper examples because the self-organization there is repetitive, while the self-organization that led to and continued evolving life is what I call progressive.

All purely physical (i.e., outside of life) spontaneous organization just goes on for a few steps in repetitive patterns, while life’s progressive organization has been essentially perpetual. That's why the potential for spontaneously forming organic molecules is not the issue (besides, biology developed out of Earth’s chemistry, so we should expect elementary bio-stuff to show up in the right conditions).

What's needed for a believable physicalist model of life is to observe in non-living chemistry the quality of self-organization that spontaneously kicks into progressive development gear; and not just progressive development, but perpetual progressive development; and not just perpetual progressive development, but of systems; and not just any system but functioning systems; and not just any functionality but hierarchally arranged functionality; and not just any hierarchally arranged functionality, but one which develops in support of the overall organization; and finally, not just any organization but one which metabolizes, reproduces, evolves, and is self-aware.

Thus far the observed potentials of chemistry to spontaneously act fall vastly short of that level of self-organization.

So, I do think there is something more needed besides known physical principles to explain life and consciousness . . . Yes, I think there might be some sort of self-organizing principle we've yet to recognize. Is that what God is? It it intelligent? Good questions. I am open to any explanation that makes sense.

 

[loseyourname]

What's needed for a believable physicalist model of life is to observe in non-living chemistry the quality of self-organization that spontaneously kicks into progressive development gear; and not just progressive development, but perpetual progressive development; and not just perpetual progressive development, but of systems; and not just any system but functioning systems; and not just any functionality but hierarchally arranged functionality; and not just any hierarchally arranged functionality, but one which develops in support of the overall organization; and finally, not just any organization but one which metabolizes, reproduces, evolves, and is self-aware.

You do realize it took over a billion years just for the first self-replicating molecule to develop, do you not? It may be a tad bit difficult to recreate that in a lab. Once it happens, though, natural selection is a perfectly believable process for creating all the higher levels of organization observed. Experiments in which certain steps in what Michael Behe fallaciously termed "irreducibly complex systems" were removed and subsequently reappeared after several hundred generations should be enough to demonstrate that.

Even non-replicating protobionts, complete with very simple metabolism and phospholipid bilayer membranes have spontaneously assembled in lab cultures. All that should be needed to dispel your doubt is the unguided assembly of a self-replicating molecule inside of these membrane-enclosed systems. Perhaps after another billion years of laboratory experiments, we'll have that.

 

[Les Sleeth]

You do realize it took over a billion years just for the first self-replicating molecule to develop, do you not? It may be a tad bit difficult to recreate that in a lab. Once it happens, though, natural selection is a perfectly believable process for creating all the higher levels of organization observed. Experiments in which certain steps in what Michael Behe fallaciously termed "irreducibly complex systems" were removed and subsequently reappeared after several hundred generations should be enough to demonstrate that.

Even non-replicating protobionts, complete with very simple metabolism and phospholipid bilayer membranes have spontaneously assembled in lab cultures. All that should be needed to dispel your doubt is the unguided assembly of a self-replicating molecule inside of these membrane-enclosed systems. Perhaps after another billion years of laboratory experiments, we'll have that.

Well, that's the excuse physicalistst always uses . . . we need another billion years. Of course, they are postulating originally abiogenesis took place spontaneously. If you factor in the intervention of consciousness in the lab actually designing and directing things, that should reduce the time expotentially.

But I am not inflexible. Just get chemistry to self-organize non-repetitively (or "progressively" as I call it) and keep on doing that on its own, and I'll admit chemistry left to its own devices can achieve life.

Remember, I am not questioning the natural selection plus genetics formula. Quite possibly once life is achieved that is enough to evolve all life forms we see. I am questioning that chemistry can alone self-organize itself into life. It is the progressive self-organizing principle which physicalists gloss over as though they've already demostrated it (i.e., because of Urey-Miller, etc.), when all they've actually shown is repetitive self-organization.

 

[Royce]

Do you believe in some form of intelligent intervention as the mechanism of evolution?

Just to add my $.02 worth, yes, I do. I believe the intervention is/was contained in the original DNA in the form of a direction toward more complexity and higher organization leading toward more advanced life forms. I don't believe that that direction is now dormant nor superseded by mans supposedly circumventing natural selection.
I also agree with Les Sleeeth that abiogenisis is not a proven or universally accepted fact. There is something that makes inert matter become a living organism beyond chance or accident. In my mind that something is the life force the source of which is the Creator/Designer of the universe.

 

[Canute]

Self-knowledge is no more certain. As I've pointed out previously, the only knowledge that doesn't buckle under your extremely strenuous standards of doubt is the knowledge that consciousness exists.

What makes you say that?

What exactly do you mean by "explore their ability to experience?"

I meant 'explore what they can experience' or 'know what they can know'.

Not exactly. Empirical means that it is rooted in sensory perception. There are plenty of experiences that do not involve the five senses.

In philosophy 'empirical' means derived from experience.

 

[loseyourname]

Of course, they are postulating originally abiogenesis took place spontaneously.

Sorry buddy, but that just isn't the case. Nobody postulates that anything other than a phospholipid bilayer was spontaneously assembled, and that has been demonstrated in a lab. I don't want to just leave you hanging, so I'll be back later after I find some links about actual hypotheses for abiogenesis.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Sorry buddy, but that just isn't the case. Nobody postulates that anything other than a phospholipid bilayer was spontaneously assembled, and that has been demonstrated in a lab. I don't want to just leave you hanging, so I'll be back later after I find some links about actual hypotheses for abiogenesis.

Oh goody, a new debate on abiogenesis! However, if we debate this here I think it would be hijacking the overall theme of this thread. So let me start a new thread where we, and anyone else interested, can debate this issue.