Has science truly eliminated God as an intelligent cause.

[Bart007]

I dedicided it would be prudent to start a new topic since the old one was intended solely to flame scientists who happen to also be creationists.

Grumpy says. "I too do not know of any creation scientists since a scientist cannot study supernatural subjects and there is no evidence to support a supernatural creation."

OK, so atheism is your religion and your dogma includes the assumption that God does not exist. You need evolution in order to justify your adopted materialistic worldview.

However, science is a program by which we seek to understand the world around us. There are two kind of causes in this world. Natural causes and intelligent causes.

We observe Mt. St Helens blow its' top and we see nature in action and realize the blown top is the result of natural cause. We see the faces on Mt. Rushmore, and even though we may not have seen it done or know who did it, we clearly know that an intellgent cause brought this about. What seperates intelligent cause from natural cause is that intelligent places boundary conditions on the laws of physics and chance to produce a predetermined result. Thus we have a means by which to determine an intelligent cause, and if the intelligence is determined not to be that of any living creature, the evidence logically leads us elswhere, and it requires putting one's head in the sand to disqualify God from being the intelligent cause simply because your an atheist.

Grumpy says: "There are many scientist involved in the study of evolutionary sciences, it is not a matter of belief, simply acceptance of reality. There are mountains of evidence supporting evolution as a fact with several valid theories explaining some of the processes involved. Faith in the existance of something is not required if evidence is readily available validating that existence, such is the case with evolution."

OK, per your statment, please provide me a few examples of the conclusive evidence you have that common ancestry solely by natural means is reality, as you so claim.


How does evolution explain the origin of the different classes of proteins? and, in particular, how did hemoglobin originate solely by natural causes?

Grumpy says: "And as a scientist I can tell you from experience you could not be more wrong about scientists not careing, they care very much indeed, more than your average person by a lot. After all nothing in biology makes any sense without evolution."

You have misunderstood, they are caring people, they care about there families, they care about their non-evolution science work, they care about civic matters, many believe in and care about God, but they just don't give a copper dam about evolution.

[steen]

Spontaneous generation was an idea in Europe of the Middle Ages and is NOT Abiogenesis. Again, it would benefit the discussion if you actually learned the stuff you are talking about.

Spontaneous Generation or Abiogenesis, ancient theory holding that certain lower forms of life, especially the insects, reproduce by physicochemical agencies from inorganic substances.
"Spontaneous Generation," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2000. © 1993-1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Encarta is wrong. S.G is the generation if life from dead materials. e.g., moldy hay would spontaneously generate mice. Or Burrying an ox would give you wasps. No science, only direct observation of events without understanding of their mechanism. It did not deal with how life itself originated.

Abiogenesis, on the other hand, specifically is a scientific field in Chemistry that investigates the chemical processes needed for chemical compounds to be able to form self-replicating nucleotide sequenses.

The two concepts are very different. Your attempt at coupling them, relying solely on an erroneous dictionary segment shows again extreme ignorance if the subject.

That is false. Evolution is about how life changes once it is there. Once again your claim is flat-out false.
You sure have difficulty admitting when you are wrong, don't you?

.OK. Was life then created or did it evolve?

Neither.

And if you believe it "evolved" then that's when "evol(ve)-ution" started here on earth.

Life didn't originate through Evolution. It changed through Evolution. You really need to learn what evolution actually is before continuing this nonsense. I think I suggested that previously, but once again this is becomming apparent.

But if you agree that life did not evolve but was created from inorganic material then yes, evolution deals only with the actions after creation.

Evolution only deals with how life changed after it existed. It doesn't say anything about how life came to be in the first place. Now that this is clear, I expect you to not anymore make silly and false claims about this.

Complete nonsense. These are two completely different scientific fields. Once again, your expressed ignorance is astonishing, and I would recommend you actually learning the stuff you spew those falsehoods about. Becaus eright now, you are merely making yourself look dumb.

So you don't go for chemical "evolution" at all

What is that? Right now, the issue is that you claimed chemistry and evolution to be the same. That claim is outright false, that's it.

Why should they? Are you again trying to show how truly ignorant you are about evolution? because you sure are doing a good job at it.

I would suggest that from virus to bacterium is a far easier step in your theory than from crocs to birds.

Irrelevant to that your claim shows ignorance of what evolution is. Sophistic speculation are not facts. Please recognize that.

You may consider me ignorant, that's your perrogative. From my part I consider that you're living in cuckoo land.

yes, with limited understanding about the world, people pointing out facts to you may seem incomprehensible.

[Bart007]

steen,
Haven't got the time at present to engage in lengthy discussions, maybe later, but I would like to point out that Abiogenesis is just a fancy word for spontaneous generation and it has to do with the creation of lower life forms from matter, a theory that has not held water for quite some time. Regardless if you maintain it is chemistry rather than biology it is still part of the evolutionary process, the very first step in evolution-the evolution of life itself. The differentiation between chemistry and biology is plain semantics and is used by evolution believers to side track the issue. Before you can explain the working of evolution you must tackle the beginning of life. By the way, how many viruses do you know that have evolved into bacteria?

You are correct Pyrrhonist. Macro-evolution, as defined by Gould, is long term major trends in evolution above the species level. However, many evo's on forums like this one try to re-define is as speciation and thus make the term Macro-evolution true by definition.

Spontaneous generation and abiogenesis have the same meaning, the origination of life from inert chemicals. It could be from some primordial soup or a piece of bread. Thomas Huxley knew that for evolution to support atheistic worldview, the spontaneous generation of life is essential. However, because Louis Pasteur had debunked the then examples of spontaneous generation and his Biotic Law says life only comes from life, Huxley deecided to distance any discussion of spontaneous generation from Pastuer's work, so he coined the term Abiogenesis. But any evolutionists worth his salt knows the two terms are one and the same.

Since Huxley, science has clearly demonstrated that life does not arise from non-life. The scientific evidence aginst it ever occuring has been overwhelming, and leaders in the field have conceded this. It is only a commitment to atheism that keeps them searching.

And you are correct in reasoning that evolution is not disconnected from abiogenesis. If the configuration of molecules for intial life can't come into existence by natural cause, then evolution theory becomes mute. The same intelligence required for ordering lifeless chemicals into a living being automatically becomes the best explanation for the diversity of creatures we observe here on earth.

[McCulloch]

Spontaneous generation and abiogenesis have the same meaning, the origination of life from inert chemicals. It could be from some primordial soup or a piece of bread. Thomas Huxley knew that for evolution to support atheistic worldview, the spontaneous generation of life is essential. However, because Louis Pasteur had debunked the then examples of spontaneous generation and his Biotic Law says life only comes from life, Huxley deecided to distance any discussion of spontaneous generation from Pastuer's work, so he coined the term Abiogenesis. But any evolutionists worth his salt knows the two terms are one and the same.
Since Huxley, science has clearly demonstrated that life does not arise from non-life. The scientific evidence aginst it ever occuring has been overwhelming, and leaders in the field have conceded this. It is only a commitment to atheism that keeps them searching.

Or maybe it is a commitment to the scientific method. Empirical evidence shows that species change over long periods of time and that over long periods of time species disappear and new species arise. Evolution is the best objective explanation for these data. But, as the creationists all too frequently point out, evolution does not answer the question where did life first come from. There are two approaches to this important question.

1. Supernaturalism. "We don't know how life started, therefore, a great supernatural being, God, must have done it.
2. Science. "We don't know how life started, therefore we should seek possibilities and evaluate them. Maybe we will find an answer."

And you are correct in reasoning that evolution is not disconnected from abiogenesis. If the configuration of molecules for intial life can't come into existence by abiogenesis, then evolution theory becomes mute. The same intelligence required for transforming inert chemicals into a living being automatically becomes the best explanation for the diversity of creatures we observe here on earth.

This is false. Abiogenesis is connected to a naturalist viewpoint. Clearly, there was a time before life existed on our planet. So if it can be proven that all forms of naturally occurring abiogenesis are impossible, then one has to conclude that a supernatural form of abiogenesis occurred. However, it has not been proven that all possible forms of naturally occurring abiogenesis are impossible. Has it?

[Jose]

You are correct Pyrrhonist. Macro-evolution, as defined by Gould, is long term major trends in evolution above the species level. However, many evo's on forums like this one try to re-define is as speciation and thus make the term Macro-evolution true by definition.

When I was a kid, creationists defined macroevolution as speciation, and claimed that speciation was impossible. Now that is has been proven beyond doubt, creationists accept speciation, and re-define macroevolution as you suggest Gould has done. As it turns out, the evolutionary biologists I know do not use this definition of macroevolution, but use the original definition: evolution of morphology. However, it's fairly silly to argue about semantics, when it's possible to use plain English.

Spontaneous generation and abiogenesis have the same meaning, the origination of life from inert chemicals. It could be from some primordial soup or a piece of bread. Thomas Huxley knew that for evolution to support atheistic worldview, the spontaneous generation of life is essential. However, because Louis Pasteur had debunked the then examples of spontaneous generation and his Biotic Law says life only comes from life, Huxley deecided to distance any discussion of spontaneous generation from Pastuer's work, so he coined the term Abiogenesis. But any evolutionists worth his salt knows the two terms are one and the same.

As has been said before, "spontaneous generation" refers explicitly to the once-fashionable idea that things like mice or flies could appear spontaneously if you left wheat or rotten meat lying around. It was not life from chemicals, it was life from nowhere. Abiogenesis is typically used to refer to the origin of life through a very long and slow progression of chemical reactions. They are not the same even if Microsoft Encarta doesn't know the difference. But again, this is quibbling with semantics, and not using plain English. On the other hand, quibbling with semantics is the only way to make a case against the science.

Since Huxley, science has clearly demonstrated that life does not arise from non-life. The scientific evidence aginst it ever occuring has been overwhelming, and leaders in the field have conceded this. It is only a commitment to atheism that keeps them searching.

The last survey I examined indicated that the same percentage (40%) of scientists as of the general public accept evolution and are religious. There is no "commitment to atheism" here. As for your first sentence here, yes--science agrees that living things currently are produced by their parents. This has no bearing whatsoever on the chemistry of the earth several billion years ago, when conditions were wildly different.

And you are correct in reasoning that evolution is not disconnected from abiogenesis. If the configuration of molecules for intial life can't come into existence by abiogenesis, then evolution theory becomes mute. The same intelligence required for transforming inert chemicals into a living being automatically becomes the best explanation for the diversity of creatures we observe here on earth.

Again, you misrepresent the facts. As has been repeatedly pointed out, the "Theory of Evolution" is a mechanistic description of how life changes over time, even as every organism reproduces according to its kind. The facts are very clear--as demonstrated by the observation that creationists now accept microevolution and speciation. Microevolution and speciation are evolution.

But this is all off-topic. The question is whether science has eliminated god an intelligent cause. The answer is unambiguously No. There are absolutely no data whatsoever about gods of any kind, so science has nothing at all to say about gods. No proof of existence, no proof of non-existence. Science merely interprets the observations that are available to anyone who investigates them, seeking inferences that are consistent with all of the data. One such inference would be that god has created everything just as we see it, complete with convincing evidence for evolution--but that he did it so cleverly that we can't tell the difference between what he did and purely natural events.

[QED]

Since Huxley, science has clearly demonstrated that life does not arise from non-life. The scientific evidence aginst it ever occuring has been overwhelming, and leaders in the field have conceded this.

What is this clear demonstration? Where is the overwhelming scientific evidence against it ever occurring? It might seem improbable that three pebbles could become stacked one on top of another without having been deliberately placed like that -- but I think you would find it utterly impossible to gain overwhelming scientific evidence against it ever occurring.