How does life arise from dead materials with no intelligent help?

Faith & Science Conversation
7

Jammycakes,
I have asked you this before but have not been able to review your answer so I’ll ask it again:

The RATE research measured parent and daughter product remnants that indicates an equivalent of billions of years radioactive decay had occurred.
Also within the same measurement set it was found that only enough helium atoms had escaped from the zircon crystals equivalent to roughly 6000 years worth of leakage. The rest of the helium remained in the crystals.

Now the question arises - given that the measurements are consistent [ AND confirmed by a completely independent set of measurements by evolutionists involving argon atoms ] - what meaning/explanation do YOU offer for the results?

I’d like to hear YOUR interpretation of those measurements instead of your consistent hammering of their interpretation. What do YOU make of it?

8

Perhaps one should review the claims made by evolutionary “theory”:
If the organism was not created mature how did replication arise all by itself?
Or put it another way - how would it have been possible to have procreation of the human species if there wasn’t a mature and fully functional set of sex organs and womb [and requisite supplementary equipment] available?
If it was inherited from some previous ancestor, just where in the line of ancestors did this fully complementary set of systems arise - all by itself with no outside design and error correction and repair built in? AND how did the species survive without replication before that?
To put that into perspective - replication is one of the most complex operations ANY manufacturing system could ever attain to. So far human efforts at creating such an autonomous self-replicating factory either does not exist ( I certainly am not aware of any ) or else is dismally insufficient. What this means is that such incredible complexity would have had to exist within the first life form or else it would not survive. Where did this knowledge/information [an abstract entity] come from given a purely materialistic origin?

Unless one can demonstrate how such a miraculous self-creating complex entity could have arisen by itself, one is forced to conclude that the maturely created life-forms (for functional reasons as you say) is the ONLY viable option.

You as a software engineer [please correct me if I’m mistaken] should know this.

9

About that RATE thing.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate-ri.htm

10

Hi Prode,
I think you’re shifting the burden of proof here. If we would reject all things that can’t be explicitly demonstrated, not much would remain of human knowledge and life in general. To appreciate the strength of evolutionary theory, we don’t need to show that the emergence of life from dead materials is probable. See what I wrote in my article on the Big Bang:

[Evolutionary theory] is a powerful explanatory tool for understanding how present-day species emerged from past populations. It already integrates the findings of diverse fields such as paleontology and genetics in an elegant manner. The scientific merit of evolutionary theory is derived from its ability to do exactly that. It does not hinge on theories concerning the development of the first life-form (abiogenesis), which is still largely beyond the reach of empirical research.

Hope that cleared up some things. However, people are curious so we still want to know more about the possibility of abiogenesis. Suppose one would be able to demonstrate exactly that, that a complex self-replicating system can arise by itself. Would that take away from God’s glory in any way, in your opinion? I myself don’t believe so, because God provides the circumstances under which the system can arise. He is still the one who deserves all the praise.

Fun fact. A team of chemists at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands has actually achieved something like that! They have produced circumstances in their laboratory under which self-replicating molecules can arise. These molecules provide an interesting model for understanding the evolution of life from “dead materials”. See this abstract: “Diversification of self-replicating molecules.” Once you have the replication in order, the system can, in principle, grow towards higher levels of complexity.

Finally, a side question. What do you think about common descent? Would you be content with a picture in which the first self-replicating cell was produced miraculously in an instant and then gave rise to all other life forms through evolution? I think this picture wouldn’t fare well with you either, so I’m curious to hear your thoughts.

Casper

1 Like
11

Hi Prode,

I don’t know if you realise this, but “consistent hammering of their interpretation” is standard practice in science for any novel hypothesis, especially one that introduces radical new physics. It was true for cold nuclear fusion; it was true for superluminal neutrinos; it was true for quantum mechanics; it was true for special and general relativity; it’s true for string theory and the Higgs boson. It serves a very important purpose of eliminating mistakes that would invalidate the conclusions being drawn. Do you have any reason why accelerated nuclear decay – a proposal that would qualify for a Nobel Prize if it were to be shown to have any merit – should be exempt from this vital aspect of the scientific method?

The RATE team’s study of helium diffusion in zircons has been scrutinised in depth by Gary Loechelt and Kevin Henke, who have catalogued numerous errors, some of them elementary. It confuses two dimensions with three dimensions. It confuses natural logarithms with base 10 logarithms. It uses an unrealistic diffusion model. It makes assumptions about the thermal history of the samples that are demonstrably incorrect. It misidentifies the rock samples and reports that they were processed in ways that seriously compromised the integrity of the results (crushing rather than cutting).

There have actually been a whole lot of other studies of helium diffusion in zircons by other scientists over the past decade or so, and unfortunately they don’t confirm the RATE team’s findings. For example, RATE treated the diffusion as isotropic, making a hand-waving and unsubstantiated claim that the anisotropic nature of zircons would only make a difference of “a factor of two or so.” By contrast, Reich et al (2007) have shown that the diffusion rates can vary by as much as five orders of magnitude between the different dimensions, and made this recommendation:

Furthermore, care should be taken when making geologic interpretations (e.g., exhumation rates, timing of cooling, etc.) from this thermochronometer until the effects of anisotropic diffusion on bulk ages and closure temperature estimates are better quantified.

In short, the observations are neither consistent nor confirmed by “evolutionists” as you claim. The most favourable thing I can say about RATE’s study of helium diffusion in zircons is that it falls far, far short of making a case for accelerated nuclear decay or otherwise calling into question the integrity of conventional radiometric dating. As I said elsewhere, you do not overturn well established and extensively tested laws of physics on the basis of demonstrably flawed studies of poorly understood subjects by a single team working with a predefined agenda.

4 Likes
12

Sexual reproduction evolved very far back in the history of evolution, with a common ancestor of animals and plants.

1 Like
13

Instead of asking “How does life arise from dead materials?” it would be better to ask “How did life arise from non-life?”

14

I’m sorry, Prode, but that is a non-sequitur.

First of all, uncertainty about how something happens does not imply uncertainty whether something happens. We don’t know everything about how tornadoes form, for example, but nobody denies that they do.

Secondly, abiogenesis, common descent, and the age of the earth, are all separate issues. Disproving abiogenesis does not disprove common descent, and disproving common descent does not disprove an ancient earth.

The idea that there are only two options – an atheistic, undirected abiogenesis or a recent, 6/24 creation 6,000 years ago – is a false dichotomy and complete nonsense. I think you’ll find that the majority of us on this forum do not adhere to either position for starters.

You can call me that if you like, though for various reasons I personally prefer the term software developer. My university degree is actually in physics.

15

Right, I get you. You are basically dismissing the research and therefore it doesn’t count in the big scheme of things.
Your choice.

16

Perhaps, but surely the meaning is the same? That which is dead does not have life in it, yes?
What distinction do you see between your words and mine?

17

Actually if it can be shown that certain sub-elements or events cannot happen then we can be very certain that there is no way for the super thing to occur either. This eliminates your uncertainty either way.

You say that abiogenesis and common descent are separate issues. I do not see it that way. Firstly in order for you to have common descent you first need to have a living entity. The evolutionist is painted into a corner here.
If you do not know in what shape or form the first life arrived, you cannot make the undisputed claim that life then proceeded to multiply according to the descending scheme. But, be that as it may, if you assume a first life then it necessarily has to have replication built in. But more importantly you now are left with the requirement that new functionality has to be constructed, tested and integrated into an existing life form in order to advance to the next step.
Again, here you have to assume certain abilities or limitations in the genetic make up of that first life - and you just do not know. How scientific is that?

So my point regarding the separation of abiogenesis and darwinian evolution is this - they are both reliant on random physical processes that have to generate information or knowledge which is an abstract entity. How is that going to happen? I therefore make this statement - Darwinian evolution is true if and only if abiogenesis is true.

One can visualize the requirements placed on these supposed random processes by simply viewing the rather splendid videos of un-imploding a building here Un-Imploding a Building (Video in reverse) - YouTube and here ULTIMATE Reverse Demolition and Implosion Compilation - YouTube.

Basically this is what people are requiring from those random processes - the equivalent of buildings arising from the storm of dust and debris into fully functional units - all by themselves. Just think about what the end result represents - think of all the conceptualization, planning, aquisition of materials, building ( where does the knowledge and means of the arrangement of physical elements come from) and finally commisioning of the systems within and outside of those buildings. That last bit also includes the integration of the infrastructure with the surrounding environment, plus the start of and continuation of the management of the building.
Now that lone building would represent the equivalent of new Darwinian functionality for an organism.

For the equivalent representation of abiogenesis, one would have to envision the whole town or city arising from a huge dust storm and debris all on its own because that is just how complex even the most simple self-reliant single cellular organism is. There cannot be anything simpler or else it will be a dependent parasite or just dead.

I’ve used these videos and those buildings as the analogies for what people are really asking of Darwinian evolution and abiogenesis because it can be quite difficult to see the bigger picture if you’re buried under a whole lot of red herring details.

Those videos should also spell out the absurdity of what is required - clearly buildings cannot arise from a random physical storm and heaps of rubble into a fully functional unit all by itself, yet this is precisely what evolutionist want people to believe!

I know that there’ll be all kinds of reasoned and logical sounding responses to this posting. The fact will remain though that whoever believes in abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution wants the world to believe that buildings and cities can arise out of tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes and other random physical processes all by themselves, i.e. purely random physical /chemical processes can create, store, retrieve, decode, use and maintain information - which is an abstract entity - all by itself.

To spell it out for clarity sake - the information regarding the materials and their composition that are required e.g. cement, water, gravel, steel, how much, what quality, what sizes, what strength, what shape, what durability, the timing of the arrival of that material, when it’s to be inserted and how and with what tools and for how long etc. The information regarding the use of that functional unit - how does it get integrated with existing items, how is it activated and the functionality utilized for the benefit of the existing infrastructure. How is it decommissioned if need be. Etc.Etc.

It should be clear that what happens in the cell and the body far exceeds the simplistic organisations humans have put together - and those took a great deal of conceptualization and planning to achieve. So it is simply a task to far to ask of random processes to create what goes on in the cell and body. If you disagree - well then the building and city builds itself out of the dust storm. Your choice.

18

No, if something is dead it was once alive.

2 Likes
19

Prode,

When a research paper–any research paper–“corrects typos” in another researcher’s data, without providing strong evidence that such corrections are warranted, “basically dismissing the research” is the only appropriate response.

When it fails to distinguish between natural and base 10 logarithms correctly, again, “basically dismissing the research” is the only appropriate response.

When it disregards pressure or anisotropy, blindly assuming that these effects will be small, and when other research exists clearly showing that they will not, “basically dismissing the research” is, again, the only appropriate response.

When it refers to the biotite shells as spherical on page 46 and as “disk-like (not spherical)” on page 48, “basically dismissing the research” is, again, the only appropriate response.

And I could go on.

It’s as simple as this. The scientific method has rules, and one of these rules is Thou Shalt Not Take Shortcuts. If the RATE team aren’t prepared to play by the rules of science, they have no basis on which to claim the support of science. They need to go through all the objections systematically, and for each and every one of them, either (a) fix the problem, (b) re-do any experiments whose results are ambiguous or unclear or whose original lab notes are unavailable, or (c) provide a rigorous mathematical justification as to why they should be considered inconsequential.

“Your choice” doesn’t enter into it.

5 Likes
20

So you are saying that the gravel or tiles or pavement you walk on was once alive?
But I get what you are trying to say even if it is obscured by the meaning you are attaching to it.

21

Dear Christy,
This statement is basically fact-free. There is no supporting evidence that this happened in the past. The only indication that such an evolutionary development occurred is on cladograms and wishful thinking because it’s simply impossible.
Furthermore, it contradicts what Jesus himself said regarding the genders. In Mark 10:6 “However, from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.”
This of course follows on from Genesis 1:27 “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
And Genesis 5:2 “He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created”.
So the bible clearly disagrees with the evolutionary paradigm with regards to the origin of gender.
“In the beginning” can surely not be millions or billions of years after the creation of the heavens and the earth – that just wouldn’t compute from how we understand “beginning”.
Of course, one might say that Jesus was uninformed and didn’t know what he was talking about, hence one might excuse his ignorance. Except that Jesus is the Word and in the beginning He was with God and in fact is also God. So the question is who are you going to believe? The scientists who are making fact-free statements thousands of years after the fact or Jesus who was right there at the beginning of time?

22

So this has been dealt with extensively by our friends at Reasons to Believe. A breif summary here: http://www.reasons.org/articles/helium-diffusion-in-zircon-a-response-to-questions-by-the-rate-team, and the techincal report here http://www.reasons.org/files/HeliumDiffusionZirconTechnicalpPaper.pdf. Also Talk Origins has a good summary of the exchange. RATE's Ratty Results: Helium in Zircons

To very quickly explain one obvious problem, the YEC interpretation of the helium data by the RATE team assumes that helium diffusion is independent of pressure. We know from direct experiments this is false. High pressure, like these rocks were subjected to under the earth, slows helium diffusions dramatically.

Of course, we are not going to litigate this now. That has already been done. There is a large amount of data that shows how the YEC helium contradiction is not really a contradiction at all.

So, we have offered an alternative explanation for the results. One that does not invoke any new laws of physics or require miraculous intervention (like accelerated nuclear decay). Pretty cool, right?

23

Actually it does, because one can follow the reasoning behind the research, make the minor corrections and test to see if it makes sense. Then, one can make a choice. You’ve made yours, I’ve made mine. I choose to believe what the bible says regarding creation - it was all done within the space of six human understandable days, after all how much more clear ly must it be spelled out - evening followed by morning, day 1,2,3,4,5,6? So whatever else one encounters in the physical world I interpret via what I believe to be the authority on our origins - the bible. I put my faith in what I believe is a historical document that relates to us at this time what happened in the past. Whatever scientists have to say about it has to be viewed in the light of the biblical text. In this case, it just doesn’t cut it for me. YMMV.

24

Swamidass,
Yes, I’m sure that Reasons to Believe have dealt with it extensively. In a similar vein my friends at creation.com and answeringenesis have also dealt extensively with why Reasons to Believe are on the wrong track.

Take a few simple things - the universe arising out of nothing, stars forming all by themselves out of clouds of gas with no outside help [ check the scientific theory on that if you haven’t done it yet ], planets that form all by themselves from clouds of dust in contradiction of Newtonian mechanics etc, life arising out of dead(non-living) materials all by itself via random chemical and physical processes, darwinian evolution from one single cellular organism to all of what we see around us today. And so by the way, all of this in contradiction to what the word of God has to say on how it happened. God said he created it and commanded it into existence in six days.

I’d rather go with those who do not believe in such miraculous self-creation that also contradicts what the word of God has to say about our origins.
Your choice.

25

Hi Prode,

Respectfully: There’s really no contradiction here, if you look at the verses you’re citing in context and don’t come looking for a fight. Jesus was drawing a distinction between the time of Moses on the one hand (v.5), and the beginning of the human race on the other (v.6). The two verses you cite, Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 5:2, are clearly not referring to the very beginning of God’s creative activity, when the Spirit of God hovered over the water in the darkness. They are referring to the moment when mankind was created. We now know that God created mankind many billions of years after He created the universe, but we can still easily affirm the truth of Jesus’s words: When mankind was created, they were male and female. Nobody believes that humans were at one point created unisex.

This is a manufactured controversy, my friend. There are plenty of real issues to discuss here, but I don’t think this is one of them.

AMW

2 Likes
26

[quote=“Prode, post:20, topic:5933, full:true”]
So you are saying that the gravel or tiles or pavement you walk on was once alive?[/quote]

No, of course not, unless it contains remnants of dead organisms.