My conversation with an orthodox Lutheran: Part 3

What do Maxwell’s equations, organic chemistry, and personal finance, all have in common?  They’re all the latest subjects in Facebook’s most awkward conversation.  (Partial credit if you answered that they are all essential steps along the way to purchasing a bread maker.)

TSL’s Friend: Again I ask you: 1) Does your definition of “theory of evolution” include you descending from anything but a human being, such as a monkey, fish or amoeba? 2) Has such a theory of evolution become a scientific law to you? Must one accept it as valid science to be a “scientist” in your dictionary? 3) How long has “Maxwell’s equations” been an active cause and part of the universe according to your thinking?March 24 at 4:16pm

TSL: 1) Yes, with the qualification that it is not my theory of evolution.

2) Theories do not become laws. This question is nonsense. Here’s a link to a definition of scientific theory that you will ignore: http://en.wikipedia.org/wi​ki/Scientific_theory

3) At least 13.7 billion years.

I have a question for you: What privileged position do you think you occupy that entitles you to ignore questions asked of you while simultaneously demanding that others answer yours? April 11 at 5:56pm

TSL’s Friend: Please forgive me; I am not trying to be rude or ignore your questions. I guess I would say the “privileged position” I would claim is that of having started this questioning and that I am trying to establish a line of reasoning on your part. It is difficult when you diverge from that line by inserting tangential questions. I would be glad to answer ALL of YOUR questions later. But, if you would indulge me, I would like to keep to the topic I introduced.April 13 at 3:32pm

TSL’s Friend: Now, it seems like all of the causes of our present existence (universe) started about 13.7 billion years ago. Am I presenting your thinking correctly without going into great detail?April 13 at 3:33pm

TSL: I would agree with you, if I were indeed asking questions that were unrelated to the topic. I’m not doing that, though. I am simply asking you to buttress the claims that you have made during the course of your questioning. For example, most recently you claimed that you could present many evidences that disprove evolution. You also claimed that the theory of evolution maintains mainstream acceptance because of bullying in the academic community, I asked that you 1) give what you think is the best evidence against evolution and 2) provide evidence of bullying in the academic community. These are not tangential questions, and they deserve an answer if your point is to be seriously considered. You can’t just make unsubstantiated claims and expect me (or anyone else) to take them seriously.

The universe has been dated at 13.7 billion years and the laws that govern its operation have been unchanged during its long history. However, some of those laws may not have been pertinent until more recently. For example, those laws governing living organisms were obviously not at work before there were living organisms.April 13 at 5:45pm

TSL: Are we done now?June 2 at 9:09am

TSL’s Friend: No. I have a feeling this will go on till one of us leaves this world.June 2 at 9:22am

TSL: I meant: have you finished making your argument? I don’t think it’s practical to keep this facebook thread going until one of us dies. June 2 at 9:50am

TSL’s Friend: I have only begun my argument. But I have many other duties in life that must take priority at this time. I plan on getting back to it ASAP. You will understand that I do not want to hurry a response that would not put forth my fully thought-out argument.June 2 at 3:24pm

TSL: That makes sense to me and I can accommodate the pause. I wonder how you justify it to yourself, though. 6 months ago when you started this you said you would defend the Bible. What other duties in life are more important than defending the Bible?June 2 at 4:15pm

TSL’s Friend: No, defending the Bible is not most important. Studying the Bible is the most important. But what you are talking about is not me defending the Bible, but showing that anything contrary to the Bible is a deception. That requires a little research into whatever deception one is currently refuting. If I had a group of workers who would have provided me with their voluntary contributions, I would be able to devote more time into studying all the deceptions that have attacked the truth of God’s Word over the centuries. But I have to provide for my own support in our current economic system, and this requires me taking on responsibilities that are time consuming. June 3 at 11:14am

TSL’s Friend: You mention that there is a difference between “biological organisms” (organic part of the universe) and “rocks” (inorganic part). Without going into a further definition of both, I am interested in knowing in your religion, which of the means by which you believe our existence came to be were the causes of the organic part and which were the causes of the inorganic? Also, which came first, the organic part or the inorganic, or did they come into existence at the same time? Thank you. June 24 at 11:48am

TSL: I want to answer your question (as much as that is possible with this medium), but it makes no sense as you have phrased it. Here are just some of the problems:

1) biological organism and organic matter are not synonyms.

2) Neither are rocks and inorganic matter.

3) The distinction between organic and inorganic matter is somewhat arbitrary.

4) The universe does not consist solely of organic and inorganic matter.

5) Many of the laws that govern inorganic matter also govern organic matter. In some sense there is no difference at all (e.g. at a QM level).

6) The list that I provided (of mechanisms that govern the universe) was by no means complete. So, if I were to take that list and explain separately how each item governs organic and inorganic matter separately, it would still not provide a complete explanation for the present condition of either.

Restate your question sensibly and I will do my best to at least point you to an answer.

I can tell you that inorganic matter predates organic matter. Most, if not all, organic compounds contain carbon, which did not appear until long after hydrogen, which is considered inorganic, appeared. Carbon is formed as a result of nuclear fusion in stars, which, early in their life at least, consist mainly of hydrogen. First generation stars consisted entirely of hydrogen. Heavier elements, such as carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen, were formed inside the star through the process of nuclear fusion. When those stars exploded in supernovae, those elements were scattered into the interstellar medium. June 24 at 6:46pm

TSL’s Friend: I do not believe one has to be a chemist, or use definitions of words used only by chemists, to be “sensible.” Yes, the strict chemical definition of “organic” may now include chemical compounds of carbon, but it is an accepted dictionary definition of “organic” to be: “characteristic of, pertaining to, or derived from living organisms.” Likewise, “inorganic” has an accepted dictionary definition of “not having the organization which characterizes living bodies.” In your 12/21 & 12/22 response you contrasted the terms “biological organisms” and “rocks.” How about “living” and “non-living”? In your thinking, is there a difference between those two concepts? Do you see a basic difference between a human being and a wooden door, for example? How about a “living” human being and a “dead” one? Or to put it differently, how do you define “life”? July 2 at 2:08pm

TSL: Obviously, one wouldn’t be expected to know chemistry to sensibly ask for directions to the nearest Applebee’s. However, one does have to be familiar with the language of chemistry to ask sensible questions about chemistry, which is what you are trying to do.

It occurred to me that you might have meant “living” and “non-living” instead of organic and inorganic. But then your question would have made even less sense since living things consist of non-living things, and you asked which came first, as if living things could predate the material of which they are made.

How’s this for a definition of life”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wi​ki/Life#Definitions July 2 at 2:22pm

TSL’s Friend: Okay, so you believe that living things came from non-living things spontaneously, without an intelligent Living Creator. Every living thing has DNA which translates coded information to proteins. This requires precise enzymes such as isoleucyl-tRNA, which requires certain amino acids to be screened out of it first. Yet, the DNA itself signals the creation of the enzymes and the screen. Thus all must be present at the same time for life to exist. In other words, for the DNA to exist there must be the enzymes and the amino acids, which cannot exist unless the DNA first exists. No evolution possible here, no natural selection over time here. Life could not have come from non-living matter. August 2 at 10:46am

TSL: At most you have come up with an argument against abiogenesis, not evolution. Regardless, could you please cite your references?August 2 at 10:58am

TSL’s Friend: Yes, it is not evolution because these things had to have been “created” simultaneously, thus life could not have occured by natural slection. It must have been by chance, but chance is not enough. For a reference check out A.R. Fesht, Sieves in Sequence, Science 280 (5363):541, 1998. Enzymes are in all living cells to speed up reactions. Phosphatase speeds up reactions vital for cell signaling by 10 to the 21st power times, thus allowing essential-to-life reactions to take place in a hundredth of a second, which, without Phosphatase would take a trillion years. It seems that the truth of your religion comes down to Phospatase being extant before DNA, but needs DNA to be extant, or you are going to need more than 14 or so billion years for life to be extant. 6 hours ago

TSL: Fersht’s paper backs up your claim regarding the mechanism by which DNA replicates. However, nowhere in the paper does he even mention the origin of life, let alone support your conclusion. It is no wonder, though, that you would not provide a citation for it since the only claims as such appear in creationist journals, most notably J. Sarfati, World record enzymes, Journal of Creation 19(2):13-14 August 2005. To claim that DNA and Phosphatase are both essential prerequisites to life one must fallaciously assume that all life has always been DNA-based. RNA, for example, catalyzes its own duplication. I refer you to D.C.Jeffares, A.M.Poole, and D.Penny, “Relics from the RNA World”, Journal of Molecular Evolution (1998) 46:18-36, the first sentence of which is “An RNA world is widely accepted as a probable stage in the early evolution of life.” And for the record, the theory of abiogenesis regards the origin of life, which is where you have steered this discussion. The theory of evolution is separate and describes the speciation of life. Natural selection is a speciation mechanism integral to the theory of evolution. 4 hours ago