Is There Visible Proof of God?

Theology

#247

that again determined by the gene length.

its like saying that if we have seen a (self replicating) watch appearing first at a fossil record we can conclude that this watch just evolved by a natural process.


#248

Not at all. Genes of different length can have the same function.

What would you expect to see in the fossil record if abiogenesis is true? Wouldn’t you expect to see just unicellular life at the very beginning of the fossil record?


(Herculean Skeptic) #249

Agreed. Completely… My point was that, at least for now, there are only two options regarding OOL… that life was created or that life originated on its own.

It was not my statement, but I agree with you. Dale said:

Some seemed to respond in a way that this statement was contentious. I was saying that I do not believe that this was so. He was merely stating the obvious, namely, if one does not accept that there is a God or god, one is not going to believe in creation. So the alternative is abiogenesis. An opinion that one could also have is yours. You are unsure for now. I agree with all of this.

This is, in fact, the reason why I posted. I think that a few here were reading more into Dale’s post than I believe was intended.


#250

true. but they still need a minimal length to do their function.

i think that it can be true for special creation too. a bacteria has the largest population on earth. so even if all creatures were made in the same time we should see a bacteria appearing first in the fossil record.


(John Harshman) #251

Isn’t God merely moving the goalposts too? I don’t see it as legitimate to say that God doesn’t have to be explained, though it’s certainly convenient.


(Herculean Skeptic) #252

Where did I say that God doesn’t have to be explained? I don’t believe that I said any such thing, or even suggested it by my words.

I merely stated that (and I believe this to be universally understood) that panspermia is not a “solution” to the origin of life issue. It merely passes the responsibility along to some other cause.


(John Harshman) #253

There’s so much wrong with that notion that it’s hard to know where to start. First, you are postulating ghost lineages for everything except bacteria of at least 2 billion years. Second, you don’t take taphonomy into account. Bacterial are less preservable as fossils than vertebrates are. The size of the population isn’t the most important factor. Third, the greater part of the bacterial fossil record consists of stromatolites, and they largely disappear from the record after the appearance of organisms that eat bacteria. Fourth, it isn’t just the start with bacteria that show the fossil record to accord with evolution. The order of appearance of groups in all organisms is highly correlated with the order of their appearance in phylogenetic trees. I’ll stop there for now.

This and other posts show that you don’t think much before posting and have no coherent idea of the history of life, not even from a creationist perspective.


(John Harshman) #254

Would you then agree that God isn’t a solution either?


(Herculean Skeptic) #255

No. I would not agree with this statement. As I said, in regards to the origins of life issue, there are two accepted potential solutions. One is that life came about on its own, and the other is that life was created. If life was created, it is also universally understood that such a creation would have been caused by an intelligent force, which we refer to as God or god.

I would agree that you might agree that God isn’t a solution. But I would not agree that God is not a solution. God, as a cause, has been explained to my satisfaction. Panspermia merely says that life on earth was seeded by some other cause. This “solution” merely pushes the focus back to the other two options: creation and evolution. If life was seeded, one still should ask from where the life originated.


(Neil Rickert) #256

That’s an example of dichotomous thinking (I stole that term from your post in another thread).

I have long considered it a possibility that there was always life. And if there was always life, then there was no abiogenesis and there was no creation. (Maybe that’s trichotomous thinking).


(Herculean Skeptic) #257

Excellent, Neil. That would be a third option for sure!! As with those who disbelieve in God, and would therefore (likely) reject creation, it seems that those who accept the Big Bang would also reject your third option. But it is definitely so.


(John Harshman) #258

I know it’s fashionable to claim that “What caused God?” is a not a legitimate question, but what’s your justification?


#259

What couldn’t be true for special creation as it relates to the fossil record? Special creation seems to be unfalsifiable.


#260

One of the concepts that probably divides us the most is the requirements for a valid explanation. Atheists tend to be skeptics which is much more about the method one uses to acquire knowledge. Theists rely on faith and personal experience, if I am understanding their position correctly. What each of us need in order to be satisfied with an explanation can vary greatly, as this thread has demonstrated.


(Herculean Skeptic) #261

I’m sure that you know enough about physics to know what my response would be to this challenge. I’m no physicist, so I cannot adequately articulate the response. My understanding is that time (as we experience it) is a property of the Big Bang creation event. As such, time is linear and pertains to our environment (the universe.) One can move ahead in time into the future as long as the universe continues to exist. One can look back in time, but only to the very moment of creation. As such, the concept of “before” is only relative to our linear time and only goes back as far as the creation event (zero days, zero minutes, and zero seconds after the Big Bang.)

I am certain that the physicists in the forum can more adequately respond.


(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #262

Sure if we see evidence that a God or some other metaphysical entity created life 4 billion years ago that wouldn’t make it evidence that it was the Jesus God who lied in Palestine 2000 years.


(John Harshman) #263

No, it came as a surprise. It also seems to be an argument that the universe was uncaused, which might not have been intentional, but the argument doesn’t appear to have any explicit connection to God.


(Herculean Skeptic) #264

Agreed. I think that you make a very important point. For each of us, the tipping point where we go from belief to unbelief, or the reverse, is different. Different people lean more on physical evidence than others. My wife, for instance, does not care one bit about physical evidence, because she has a relationship with which she is certain. I am somewhere in the middle. I needed to see that the physical world allowed for a God, and then I was able to explore the relationship aspect. Others, maybe like many here, lean entirely (or almost so) on the physical evidence.


(Herculean Skeptic) #265

Well, that may be the case. As I said, I’m not a physicist and unable to adequately articulate the response. Maybe some physicists will jump in and assist.


(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #266

But Pansermia allows for billions of years of time and billions of locations where OOL could have happened. Perhaps given all that time and all that space, OOL is a property of the universe.