Which is more rational? God is real or imaginary?

[otseng]

Proposition: God is a real actual thing, not something merely imagined or written about. God is intelligent and has intentionally created the universe.

Otseng will argue that belief in the truth of the above proposition is more rational than disbelieving it. McCulloch will argue that disbelieving the truth of the proposition is more rational than believing it.

[McCulloch]

Anyways, evolutionary theory has no bearing on origin of life, which is what we were discussing.

Yes it does. Evolution involves the gradual change of self replicating entities, over many generations with selection and mutation. Modern biologists think that a similar process was involved in the process from nonliving matter through self-replicating molecules to life-like entities, to life. If you reject the science of evolution then of course you reject any hypotheses from science about the beginning of life.

[otseng]

Anyways, evolutionary theory has no bearing on origin of life, which is what we were discussing.

Yes it does. Evolution involves the gradual change of self replicating entities, over many generations with selection and mutation. Modern biologists think that a similar process was involved in the process from nonliving matter through self-replicating molecules to life-like entities, to life. If you reject the science of evolution then of course you reject any hypotheses from science about the beginning of life.

I don't mind debating the theory of evolution, but it is not in scope of this thread. The subject that we were last discussing is origin of life. Typically this is not a part of the theory of evolution. Rather, it only deals with successive changes in biological life.

"Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Prior to the first cell, it would be a different theory. Some would call it chemical evolution. So, they are two separate domains.

[McCulloch]

I don't mind debating the theory of evolution, but it is not in scope of this thread.

It is in the scope of this thread if you raise the impossibility of evolution and abiogenesis as a reason to believe that there is a God. If you drop the claim then we will have no need to go into a debate about evolution.

The subject that we were last discussing is origin of life. Typically this is not a part of the theory of evolution. Rather, it only deals with successive changes in biological life.

What you understand about evolution strongly influences where you start on the debate about the origins of life. If you believe that life started magically on days three, five and six in all of its diversity, then we have a bit of ground work to do before event starting on the origins of life.

Prior to the first cell, it would be a different theory. Some would call it chemical evolution. So, they are two separate domains.

One principle of modern biology is that every life form is essentially the same as its parent. If true, then one would expect that there was no first cell any more than there was a first human or a first vertebrate.

[otseng]

It is in the scope of this thread if you raise the impossibility of evolution and abiogenesis as a reason to believe that there is a God. If you drop the claim then we will have no need to go into a debate about evolution.

In this thread, I've only made a claim about abiogenesis. I've not made any claims about evolution.

What you understand about evolution strongly influences where you start on the debate about the origins of life. If you believe that life started magically on days three, five and six in all of its diversity, then we have a bit of ground work to do before event starting on the origins of life.

I've not made any claims either about the timeframes according to the Bible in this thread.

One principle of modern biology is that every life form is essentially the same as its parent.

I agree.

If true, then one would expect that there was no first cell any more than there was a first human or a first vertebrate.

Unless the first one was created.

[McCulloch]

In this thread, I've only made a claim about abiogenesis. I've not made any claims about evolution.

A collection of claims about evolution made by otseng in this thread:

I'm not saying that a cell spontaneously arose by the chance collision of all the right elements. Rather, biologists would envision a sequence of steps from elements to a living cell. But the fundamental mechanism for each step would be chance. And if it is not chance, then what other mechanism could be involved?

All evolution is impossible!

I would tend to agree with this.

The fundamental mechanism for each step in the evolutionary model is chance and selection. That is how it works. That is how it is seen to work by biologists looking at evolution since the formation of the first cell and how it is seen to work by biologists researching how the first cell may have come about. If you have an a priori rejection of the strength of the evolutionary model, then, of course, you will reject the current thinking on how cells originated. I cannot properly discuss claims about abiogenesis without first laying the evolutionary groundwork.

What you understand about evolution strongly influences where you start on the debate about the origins of life. If you believe that life started magically on days three, five and six in all of its diversity, then we have a bit of ground work to do before event starting on the origins of life.

I've not made any claims either about the timeframes according to the Bible in this thread.

OK. If we are going to discuss biology in relation to the question at hand, "Which is more rational? God is real or imaginary?" then we should first establish where is our common ground.
Here are a few things about life that I believe to be true.

1. Life on Earth has existed for more than 3 billion years.
2. All known life forms share fundamental molecular mechanisms.
3. Many life forms now in existence, did not exist in the distant past.
4. Many life forms that had existed, now do not.
5. Life forms reproduce, and the children are always in the same classification as their parents.
6. At one time there was no life on Earth.

We need not debate any of the points that you agree with me on.

One principle of modern biology is that every life form is essentially the same as its parent.

I agree.

We agree on point (e) in my list above.

[O]ne would expect that there was no first cell any more than there was a first human or a first vertebrate.

Unless the first one was created.

Which are you arguing? That the first cell was divinely created and that natural evolution took over the process from there? OR that that the first human was divinely created because evolution from a single celled entity to a human is impossible?

[otseng]

In this thread, I've only made a claim about abiogenesis. I've not made any claims about evolution.

A collection of claims about evolution made by otseng in this thread:

I'm not saying that a cell spontaneously arose by the chance collision of all the right elements. Rather, biologists would envision a sequence of steps from elements to a living cell. But the fundamental mechanism for each step would be chance. And if it is not chance, then what other mechanism could be involved?

All evolution is impossible!

I would tend to agree with this.

When I refer to evolution, I refer to Neo-Darwinian evolution which only applies to biological life. Under this definition, the process that leads to the first cell would not be a part of evolution.

As for evolution being impossible, you were the one who made that statement. I only responded with a general agreement to that.

Here are a few things about life that I believe to be true.

1. Life on Earth has existed for more than 3 billion years.
2. All known life forms share fundamental molecular mechanisms.
3. Many life forms now in existence, did not exist in the distant past.
4. Many life forms that had existed, now do not.
5. Life forms reproduce, and the children are always in the same classification as their parents.
6. At one time there was no life on Earth.

We need not debate any of the points that you agree with me on.

I agree with points b-f. For point a, I neither agree nor disagree.

Which are you arguing? That the first cell was divinely created and that natural evolution took over the process from there?

Yes, I claim that the first cell was divinely created. I have not yet made any claims what happened after the first cell came into being. Whether evolution happened or not afterwards, I do not make any claims at this time.

[McCulloch]

When I refer to evolution, I refer to Neo-Darwinian evolution which only applies to biological life. Under this definition, the process that leads to the first cell would not be a part of evolution.

Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. All that is required for evolution to work is a population of self-replicating organisms, with variation and selection. It is applied most famously to biology but is not limited to that field. Any population of self-replicating organisms, that replicate with variations and have some kind of selective process, will experience evolution.

As for evolution being impossible, you were the one who made that statement. I only responded with a general agreement to that.

Please try to observe the context of statements made in debate. In post 107, I was making reference to your use of the Law of Biogenesis which states that all life comes from life. I was not stating that evolution is impossible, but that your application of the Law of Biogenesis would make all evolution impossible. Maggots do not come from decaying meat. Bacteria are produced from other bacteria. Every mouse had had mice parents. If you use the Law of Biogenesis to rule out any non-biological origin of biological entities then you would also rule out virtually all biological evolution as well.

Here are a few things about life that I believe to be true.

1. Life on Earth has existed for more than 3 billion years.
2. All known life forms share fundamental molecular mechanisms.
3. Many life forms now in existence, did not exist in the distant past.
4. Many life forms that had existed, now do not.
5. Life forms reproduce, and the children are always in the same classification as their parents.
6. At one time there was no life on Earth.

We need not debate any of the points that you agree with me on.

I agree with points b-f. For point a, I neither agree nor disagree.

How do you see (c) Many life forms now in existence, did not exist in the distant past? Has God been creating new varieties of life as time goes by or is there some natural process that has been giving rise to new varieties?

Which are you arguing? That the first cell was divinely created and that natural evolution took over the process from there?

Yes, I claim that the first cell was divinely created.

And your evidence is ?

I have not yet made any claims what happened after the first cell came into being. Whether evolution happened or not afterwards, I do not make any claims at this time.

Can I anticipate this argument? The formation of the first cell is impossible through natural processes due to the law of biogenesis. Therefore the formation of the first cell must have been a supernatural process. Therefore God?

[otseng]

Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.

By using the word "organism", this would limit it to biological life.

Please try to observe the context of statements made in debate. In post 107, I was making reference to your use of the Law of Biogenesis which states that all life comes from life. I was not stating that evolution is impossible, but that your application of the Law of Biogenesis would make all evolution impossible.

Yes, I realize that you do not believe that evolution is impossible. But I was clarifying that I was not the one who originally made that statement. By saying that I generally agree with your statement, that doesn't mean I'm the one making the claim and that I need to support that statement.

How do you see (c) Many life forms now in existence, did not exist in the distant past? Has God been creating new varieties of life as time goes by or is there some natural process that has been giving rise to new varieties?

I have no problem with microevolution. We have different kinds of dogs, but they are all dogs. But again, let me point out that none of my arguments for God's existence brings in the theory of evolution. So, I'm not sure where you are going with this.

And your evidence is ?

Can I anticipate this argument? The formation of the first cell is impossible through natural processes due to the law of biogenesis. Therefore the formation of the first cell must have been a supernatural process. Therefore God?

Anticipated correctly. Also coupled with the fact that there is no plausible naturalistic explanation for the first cell.

Ultimately, there is only two possibilities for the first cell. Either it came through naturalistic means or a supernaturalistic means. If we rule out the naturalistic, the only alternative is the supernaturalistic.

[McCulloch]

Evolution applies to any types of entities where there are certain conditions. Those conditions are that the entities self-replicate; that there is variation in the replication process and that there is some kind of selection process. If those conditions apply, evolution will occur. I believe that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the process of evolution implied in the current line of questioning.

Let's take an example. Languages evolve. Everyone speaks a slightly different language; different vocabulary different choices with regard to grammatical structure; different mistakes even. However, there is enough commonality for us to group a whole bunch of users of language into a class called English. Everyone who speaks English, learned it from others (often their parents) who use English. There was never a person who first spoke English. What would be the point? A language is only useful if there are others who use it. Yet, in 600 CE, no one spoke English. English evolved from Ænglisc, a Germanic language spoken by the Angles and the Saxons. Similarly, there would have been no first hominid user of language. The proto-linguistic communicative utterances of our distant ancestors would have gradually become more like true language with successive generations, eventually becoming language.

Similarly, with the theory of evolution, there would have been no first human, or first mouse or first fish. According to the law of biogenesis, each living entity reproduces according to its kind. I am human because my parents were human. A mouse is a mouse because its parents were mice. A Brussels sprout is a Brussels sprout because its parents were Brussels sprouts. New varieties do not instantly arrive on the scene. You cannot find a particular generation and say, this was the first Brussels sprout any more than you could identify the first English speaker.

Those who believe in the evidence and the power behind the evolutionary explanation for the diversity and development of life, see no reason to exclude life's origins. There would not have been a first cell any more than there was a first human or first fish or first English speaker.

All evolution is micro-evolution. That's how it works.

Ultimately, there is only two possibilities for the first cell. Either it came through naturalistic means or a supernaturalistic means. If we rule out the naturalistic, the only alternative is the supernaturalistic.

Ultimately, there is only two possibilities for the first English speaker. Either either he invented a new language or it came through a supernaturalistic means. If we rule out that he invented a new language then the only alternative is the supernaturalistic.

There was no first cell according to evolution. There was a time when there were non-cellular replicating entities, probably something like viruses, prions, plasmids and viroids. Later there were prokaryotic cells. Just because we do not currently know the mechanism that led from on to the other, does not justify the jump to the God-did-it, explanation any more than it is justified to invoke God as the originator of language. We don't know how true language first evolved. We are getting some clues from proto-linguistic communication techniques used by other species, including other primates and we're learning something from how infants learn a language and we're learning something from the field of neurology. We're not there yet, but it is not time to throw in the towel and assign it to God. Neither should we on the origins of life.

[otseng]

Let's take an example. Languages evolve.

If you're going to generalize evolution to things that change, then this will apply to everything. And I'll repeat your statement: "I agree with Popper who said, "a theory that explains everything explains nothing"."

Those who believe in the evidence and the power behind the evolutionary explanation for the diversity and development of life, see no reason to exclude life's origins.

Abiogenesis doesn't follow from evolutionary theory. Even Darwin did not theorize how the first life form(s) came about. Further, many believe in aspects of evolution, but do not posit that life naturalistically arose (including myself).

There would not have been a first cell any more than there was a first human or first fish or first English speaker.

Comparing languages to life would not be entirely accurate. Simply because something changes doesn't mean that it's comparable to life. And with your argument, there'd be no such thing as a first anything (star, planet, car, book, tree, computer, etc).

Ultimately, there is only two possibilities for the first English speaker. Either either he invented a new language or it came through a supernaturalistic means. If we rule out that he invented a new language then the only alternative is the supernaturalistic.

Bringing up anything besides the three things I've claimed for God causing (origin of universe, fine-tuning, origin of life) would be a strawman.

There was no first cell according to evolution.

Do you have a source to back this statement? I've never heard this before.