Originally posted by jaywillIt is interesting though that most people who have these doubts are not only creationists, but don't have a clue as to what the actual numbers involved are. So how about enlightening us. Give us a ball park figure for each of the relevant figures, give us the equation, and lets see if the amount of time required is any where near what is believed to be the amount of time that has actually passed. - or you can admit that your doubts based entirely on your scepticism of evolution and you are actually ignorant of the facts.
Here then a valid concern: I doubt that there is enough TIME since the emergence of life to have gone through the enormously greater number of harmful mutations, to luck out on the good ones, to arrive at what I see around me today.
An elquently expressed idea. Even it is somewhat ingenius as a worldview philosophy.
Is it a world view philosophy? Do you honestly believe there is a religion called 'evolutionism' like RJHinds? Or have I misunderstood you?
Originally posted by twhiteheadPeople who put evolution forward as a general refutation of Christianity -- and I am not saying one way or the other that you are doing it -- give justification to the idea that it represents and embodies an opposing worldview.
It is interesting though that most people who have these doubts are not only creationists, but don't have a clue as to what the actual numbers involved are. So how about enlightening us. Give us a ball park figure for each of the relevant figures, give us the equation, and lets see if the amount of time required is any where near what is believed to be th ...[text shortened]... believe there is a religion called 'evolutionism' like RJHinds? Or have I misunderstood you?
There is also nascent institutionalization of it, as at:
http://www.evolutionaryworldview.com/
However, one of the people this site cites as an authority is John Haught, who at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Haught, is described this way: "An evolutionary creationist, Haught views science and religion as two different and noncompeting levels of explanation, asserting "Science and religion cannot logically stand in a competitive relationship with each other."
There may in fact be a nascent worldview that encompasses and incorporates evolutionary principles. But this citation puts the lie to the idea that an evolutionary worldview is necessarily anti-Christian, although YEC's may still say it is.
7 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knob
As for your concerns about not enough time, consider this analogy from Bill Bryson's wonderful book A Short History of Nearly Everything -
Say you have a time machine, and the time machine can go back one year every second. So in one minute you can travel back 60 years, five minutes would be 300 years and so on. To get back to the time of Jesus ...[text shortened]... ars to the dawn of life on this planet would take you 95 years.
Is that enough time for you?
As for your concerns about not enough time, consider this analogy from Bill Bryson's wonderful book A Short History of Nearly Everything -
Say you have a time machine, and the time machine can go back one year every second. So in one minute you can travel back 60 years, five minutes would be 300 years and so on. To get back to the time of Jesus would take a little over half an hour. To get back to the dawn of Homo sapiens, 200,000 years ago to Mitochondrial Eve would take just over 2 days. To the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago would take around 2 years, and to get back 550 million years to the Cambrian Explosion would take you over 17 years. And to get back 3 billion years to the dawn of life on this planet would take you 95 years.
Is that enough time for you?
Okay, on a time machine, back 95 years to a theorized dawn of life -
Lets go back to the primordial goo puddle or pool and wait for ONE protein molecule to be assembled from non-living chemicals.
One protein molecule has about 100 amino acids. To get one protein molecule, just one, by chance would be the same as a blindfolded man finding one marked grain of sand in the Sahara Desert three times in a row.
And ONE protein molecule is not life . To get life, you would need to get 200 of those protein molecules together.
So I jump off my time machine and go stoop expectantly over the primordial pool where alledgedly life may have first sprung into existence. The probablity of seeing the FIRST protein come together by luck is virtually zero. And I have to wait for 200 of them to get the DAWN OF LIFE.
Both the emmergence of life and the devolopment of life exclude big time and chance as the only source.
Panspermia advocate Chandra Wickramasinghe submitted - "The emergence of life from a primordial soup on Earth is merely an article of faith that scientists are finding difficult to shed. There is no experimental evidence to support this at the present time. Indeed all attempts to create life from non-life, starting from Pasteur, have been unsuccessful."
Microbiologist Michael Denton, an Atheist, says - "The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable event, Such an occurrence would be indistnguishable from a miracle."
So you are asking me to take a time machine back 3 billion years in 95 travel years, jump off and wait for a miracle.
Poor proud mankind. The Almighty is playing with you.
What natural mechanism could possibly create the dawn of life. I believe intelligence was involved. We can give chance a chance. You can see the odds are more than astronomical.
Mind you, this says nothing of the precision tuning of the universe to establish an environment that life could exist in the first place.
By the way, is there some kind of repeatable experiment by which we could observe what 500 million years might do for us in a laboratory experiment ? Of course not. But your thought experiment is interesting.
9 edits
Originally posted by jaywill“...He said Evolution does not involve accidents ...”
NO NO NO, I did NOT say anything of the sort. Of cause evolution “involves accidents” -they are called mutations.
What I said was evolution ( i.e. evolution process itself ) is NOT an accident but an INEVITABLE process under the three right conditions I specified.
Aren't most o o secure the highest and best for human life.
So I trust God and His purpose.
Aren't MOST of the mutations harmful and non- benefitial ? (my emphasis)
yes, and they are quickly weeded out by evolution before they spread to the whole population.
“Most” is the operative word here: What about the beneficial ones?
Here then a valid concern: I doubt that there is enough TIME since the emergence of life to have gone through the enormously greater number of harmful mutations,
what? Billions of years is not enough time? So how much time is required then if not billions of years? How do you KNOW that billions of years is not enough? -show your calculations/premise.....
But either way - mutations either negatively effect the organism of positively do. And by far most mutations are bad
-which is irrelevant because the bad ones are all weeded out. Only the good ones are selected by the environment.
How are you diminished if we have to accept that intelligence either aided or programmed this fantastic process ?
there is no evidence that an intelligence is involved in evolution.
There is no evidence for supernatural intelligent design.
What then would you say to Charles Manson or Jack the Ripper who ALSO says he has a right to define his purpose of homicide and destruction of other humans ?
I would disagree with their choice of purpose; just as I would disagree with the choice of purpose of those that fly aircraft into tall buildings and other delusional religious fanatics.
Is there something stopping me choosing a purpose that is harmless and benefits humanity? -if so, what?
If I let religious fanatics determine my purpose rather than think independently then other people may choose a harmful or evil purpose for me -such as flying aircraft into tall buildings. Fortunately I am not one of those idiots that lets other people say and determine what one wants for one's own purpose for I am, and you going to hate this part, an independent thinker.
Nothing stops you or Adolf Hitler
Hitler, like you, was a delusional theist. Perhaps you should think about that. One absurd belief makes it easier to have other absurd beliefs hence we get the likes of Adolf Hitler.
I am an ATHIEST, so it is not me that should be compared to Hitler.
Originally posted by jaywilla beautiful post!
[quote]
As for your concerns about not enough time, consider this analogy from Bill Bryson's wonderful book A Short History of Nearly Everything -
Say you have a time machine, and the time machine can go back one year every second. So in one minute you can travel back 60 years, five minutes would be 300 years and so on. To get back to the time of Jesus ...[text shortened]... us in a laboratory experiment ? Of course not. But your thought experiment is interesting.
Originally posted by humyI have a medal from the eastern front, wanna buy it?Aren't MOST of the mutations harmful and non- benefitial ? (my emphasis)
yes, and they are quickly weeded out by evolution before they spread to the whole population.
“Most” is the operative word here: What about the beneficial ones?
[quote]Here then a valid concern: I doubt that there is enough TIME since the emergence of life to have gon ...[text shortened]... e likes of Adolf Hitler.
I am an ATHIEST, so it is not me that should be compared to Hitler.
5 edits
Originally posted by humyAren't MOST of the mutations harmful and non- benefitial ? (my emphasis)
yes, and they are quickly weeded out by evolution before they spread to the whole population.
“Most” is the operative word here: What about the beneficial ones?
[quote]Here then a valid concern: I doubt that there is enough TIME since the emergence of life to have gon ...[text shortened]... that should be compared to Hitler.
“...He said Evolution does not involve accidents ...”
yes, and they are quickly weeded out by evolution before they spread to the whole population.
“Most” is the operative word here: What about the beneficial ones?
Without intelligence ? Without an intelligent plan ?
I don't think any "quick" weeding out could take place just on its own.
Here then a valid concern: I doubt that there is enough TIME since the emergence of life to have gone through the enormously greater number of harmful mutations,
what? Billions of years is not enough time? So how much time is required then if not billions of years? How do you KNOW that billions of years is not enough? -show your calculations/premise.....
I think large amounts of time do not make what I see around me more plausible as an unintelligent process.
How many years do I have to repeat throwing a grand piano down the side of a rocky mountain, before the time comes when as it tumbles over rocks I hear Bach's Goldberg Variations coming out ?
Doing the experment again and again for 3 billion years hardly helps. I venture that I will always hear something like chaos sounding out as the instrument crashes down the rocks.
But either way - mutations either negatively effect the organism of positively do. And by far most mutations are bad
-which is irrelevant because the bad ones are all weeded out. Only the good ones are selected by the environment.
There has to be some "look ahead" capacity to steer the results to the outcome I observe. I see a "concept" to arrive at. A creative concept to which the accidents are being steered to develope, is far more believable.
“...How are you diminished if we have to accept that intelligence either aided or programmed this fantastic process ? ...”
there is no evidence that an intelligence is involved in evolution.
There is no evidence for supernatural intelligent design.
But I was asking the question behind that. If there were evidence how are you undercut in human dignity that such evidence exists ? I have a suspicion that the evidence you somehow regard as the enemy.
People who are chiefly concerned with science but come to the Spirituality Forum to debate usually have a metaphysical worldview that is personal and to be defended.
To me the Atheist who loudly protests belief in God is not as bothersome as the Agnostic who shrugs and says its not worth talking about.
Why do you protest so ? You expect me to rationalize that big time caused mud and dirt to become a thinking, planning, creative, intelligent human mind ? You're asking too much. I don't have enough faith to be an Athiest.
“...
What then would you say to Charles Manson or Jack the Ripper who ALSO says he has a right to define his purpose of homicide and destruction of other humans ? ...”
I would disagree with their choice of purpose; just as I would disagree with the choice of purpose of those that fly aircraft into tall buildings and other delusional religious fanatics.
Is there something stopping be choosing a purpose that is harmless and benefits humanity?
Do you think that since 9/11 atheists have pounced on the event to seek to drive home that ANY belief in God is equally evil and destructive ?
I think 9/11 was a terrible event. I think New Atheists were delighted at it as an opportunity to say "Told ya so! God believers are all fanatic murderers."
If there is no Governor and everyone does what is right in their own eyes you will get injustice.
At least in my Christian faith there is Redemption and there is final Judgment. And that judgment as Paul said is "according to truth".
With God there is judgment according to truth. But there is also redemption and reconciliation to God through Christ.
“...Nothing stops you or Adolf Hitler. ..”
Hitler, like you, was a delusional theist. Perhaps you should think about that. One absurd belief makes it easier to have other absurd beliefs hence we get the likes of Adolf Hitler.
I an an ATHIEST, so it is not me that should be compared to Hitler.
“...He said Evolution does not involve accidents ...”
Okay. There are some good Atheists. Why not ? Tell me WHY you are here in the universe ? You didn't tell me. You said you don't need any god to tell you why.
Fine, why then do you breath? Why does your heart beat? When you look into the mirror at "humy" WHO are you in this universe ?
As for me, my purpose is wrapped up in God's eternal and inseparable love for me as manifested in Christ Jesus. God is building me into a collective expression of the union of God and man called New Jerusalem.
For this He created the universe. And for this I was born and exist. This is not elite knowledge. You can read all about in the Bible.
It is really hard for me to drop my sense of at homeness in the vast eternal love of Christ and in God's eternal purpose for your atheist "who knows what?"
Give me two or three consecutive sentences on WHY you exist in this universe.
Originally posted by jaywillIts interesting how when challenged on your claim you try to side step it and go for another separate claim. You are being dishonest. Why? Why do you feel such a strong urge to justify your faith even to the extent of being dishonest about it?
Okay, on a time machine, back 95 years to a theorized dawn of life -
Lets go back to the primordial goo puddle or pool and wait for ONE protein molecule to be assembled from non-living chemicals.
Address the original issue and either admit that you are wrong, or explain why you think your claim is justified. It won't diminish your faith. It won't prove your God doesn't exist.
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillI thought we were talking about evolution?
[quote]
As for your concerns about not enough time, consider this analogy from Bill Bryson's wonderful book A Short History of Nearly Everything -
Say you have a time machine, and the time machine can go back one year every second. So in one minute you can travel back 60 years, five minutes would be 300 years and so on. To get back to the time of Jesus us in a laboratory experiment ? Of course not. But your thought experiment is interesting.
I see you didn't answer my other question, why don't you just read your copy of The Blind Watchmaker?
3 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead
Its interesting how when challenged on your claim you try to side step it and go for another separate claim. You are being dishonest. Why? Why do you feel such a strong urge to justify your faith even to the extent of being dishonest about it?
Address the original issue and either admit that you are wrong, or explain why you think your claim is justified. It won't diminish your faith. It won't prove your God doesn't exist.
Its interesting how when challenged on your claim you try to side step it and go for another separate claim. You are being dishonest. Why? Why do you feel such a strong urge to justify your faith even to the extent of being dishonest about it?
Address the original issue and either admit that you are wrong, or explain why you think your claim is justified. It won't diminish your faith. It won't prove your God doesn't exist.
I don't see it as a seperate claim.
Excuse me if I justify my faith. You damn sure justify your lack thereof.
Here's the deal. Evos have long tried to disassociate origin of life from the process. I just link them together as they well should be.
He said go back to the DAWN OF LIFE, Did he not ? So I went back to the dawn of life according to the typical Evolutionists.
You want me to just assume somehow the Evo process got kicked off ? Who knows how? Assume it just got kicked off?
Maybe God kicked it off. Maybe the great Athiest in the Quantum Fluxuation kicked it off. Okay lets go from so called "simple" life to a fish crawling out of the mud to become the first pioneering land walking amphibian or reptile.
Three billion is still not impressive. How many changes do you think have to occur between a protien molecule and a land walking fish ? Put a number on it.
Then you have to have one life REPRODUCE another one with that modification. The first one cell that becomes and ameoba is not enough. It has to be one that reproduces with positive modifications.
You have to have not only a modified life form. That individual life form has to be a PARENT. So you have to have the modification take place enough times. And you have to have the lucky occurence that each stage of the modifcation hits a PARENT organism.
You not only have to have a fish that tried to walk on land for the first pioneering time. You have to have one who succeeded and was a parent. Not every modified creature will be a parent.
That's a lot of waiting. You say three billion years can handle that ? I go to the National Zoo and see the result of what three billion years of this mindless, intelligence-LESS luck produced ?
Start with the first AMEOBA then. We have to have the trick done enough times to get one that divides to reproduce.
Without intelligent design ?
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillIf you're so sure how life didn't come about, you must be sure how life did. Could you explain to me then how God went about creating the first or any lifeforms.
[quote]
As for your concerns about not enough time, consider this analogy from Bill Bryson's wonderful book A Short History of Nearly Everything -
Say you have a time machine, and the time machine can go back one year every second. So in one minute you can travel back 60 years, five minutes would be 300 years and so on. To get back to the time of Jesus us in a laboratory experiment ? Of course not. But your thought experiment is interesting.
Originally posted by Proper Knob
If you're so sure how life didn't come about, you must be sure how life did. Could you explain to me then how God went about creating the first lifeforms.
If you're so sure how life didn't come about, you must be sure how life did. Could you explain to me then how God went about creating the first lifeforms.
I don't know. And I don't mind at all scientists try to find out if they can.
One thing I think I know. It involved INTELLIGENCE. And another thing I suspect. It may have gotten kicked off in the beginning by a miracle.
In Genesis 1 and 2 whatever else we understand, we understand that the writer intends us to see that the origins of mankind and his world is rooted in a supernatural introduction.
But to spend many happy research years trying to figure out how it was done ? Go for it. I'm as curious as you are. I don't suggest we give up studying the problem.
Some useful things may be discovered on the way.
(Do you have an easier question?)
Originally posted by jaywillDo i have an easier question, - yes!! Why haven't you read your copy of The Blind Watchmaker yet?If you're so sure how life didn't come about, you must be sure how life did. Could you explain to me then how God went about creating the first lifeforms.
I don't know. And I don't mind at all scientists try to find out if they can.
One thing I think I know. It involved INTELLIGENCE. And another thing I suspect. It may have got ...[text shortened]...
Some useful things may be discovered on the way.
(Do you have an easier question?)
Originally posted by jaywillOne thing I think I know. It involved INTELLIGENCE.If you're so sure how life didn't come about, you must be sure how life did. Could you explain to me then how God went about creating the first lifeforms.
I don't know. And I don't mind at all scientists try to find out if they can.
One thing I think I know. It involved INTELLIGENCE. And another thing I suspect. It may have got ...[text shortened]...
Some useful things may be discovered on the way.
(Do you have an easier question?)
You don't know that, that's what you believe. Nobody knows really that much about how the origins of life, and you certainly don't know anything about it.
This is where your argument falls down for me, you say life on this planet can't have originated without intelligence, so how did the intelligence arise?
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillYet a separate claim it is. Whats more, it is blatantly clear that when challenged on the first claim, you tried to shift the conversation to the new claim, or at the very least make it look as if the one was dependent on the other. You are being dishonest.
I don't see it as a seperate claim.
Excuse me if I justify my faith.
But why do you need to be so dishonest to justify your faith?
You damn sure justify your lack thereof.
Of course I do, but I am honest when I do so. I am always happy to explain why I believe what I do and always ready to be corrected if I am wrong.
Here's the deal. Evos have long tried to disassociate origin of life from the process. I just link them together as they well should be.
No, you tried to avoid answering any questions regarding your original claim and deflect the focus onto something you think you have a better chance of defending.
You want me to just assume somehow the Evo process got kicked off ? Who knows how? Assume it just got kicked off?
No, I want you to be honest. I want to you either admit that you were wrong about your original claim or that you are ignorant of the subject matter or give us a reasonable explanation for your claim.
Three billion is still not impressive. How many changes do you think have to occur between a protien molecule and a land walking fish ? Put a number on it.
You are making the claim, you put a number on it. The fact is you cant because you haven't got a clue.