4 edits
Originally posted by sonhouse
The real reason you conflate evolution with life origin is because of your hatred of the idea that life could have started without the need for a deity.
It is your way of attacking the whole concept of life coming from many many many reactions from natural sources, trillions and quadrillions of trillions of little combinations going on simultaneously whi ...[text shortened]... first grade. You are like a Phd in physics dissing a 7 year old for not understanding calculus.
The real reason you conflate evolution with life origin is because of your hatred of the idea that life could have started without the need for a deity.
Genetic fallacy.
What you should be concerned with is whether it is true or not.
My or anyone else's emotional response is really secondary.
Do you think a process with no GOAL setting and no way to hold in place a target towards which it is moving randomly, meandered around to "select" the millions of species in the biosphere?
Let's' say I LOVE the idea. Let's say I really, really, REALLY LOVE the idea of no deity. Does it make a difference to the sense it makes that a goalless process produced from some proto common ancestor simple organism the biosphere you see around you?
Now let's say I HATE the idea of Evolution. Let's say I really, really REALLY HATE the idea of no deity.
What does my emotion do to the sense of the whole proposal?
I say it really doesn't matter how I feel.
What makes little sense simply makes little sense.
It is your way of attacking the whole concept of life coming from many many many reactions from natural sources, trillions and quadrillions of trillions of little combinations going on simultaneously which you can't get through your head as what was going on 3 billion years ago on Earth. Then again you diss the idea of Earth being here more than 6000 years ago also.
C'mon sonhouse. You must have gathered by now I am leaning to Old Earth in the creationist view.
My question is the same as I asked someone, perhaps you. How much should we extrapolate upon noticing that living things change ?
You look at a good animation of the workings of the cell. Look at a good animation of the activity of the machines working in the cell.
The Trial and Error evolving of the millions of inter related operations cry INTELLIGENCE.
Look at this sentence. Do you assume that the meaning of this sentence comes out of the atoms of the pixels that form the letters ? The meaning of the sentences is coming from outside of the computer system, from a mind.
No matter how you slice down the life into smaller and smaller pieces the information used to keep it going and reproducing must be imposed upon it from outside of the material of it.
You want to put down evolution studies by trying unsuccessfully BTW, to force evolution to have to explain life origins.
Look. I am expecting someone one day to say they have an Evolutionary explanation for life's origin. Whether it is true or not is another story.
Don't tell me someone is not working on that problem, some Evolutionists.
If physicist Lawrence Krauss worked on a universe coming out of "nothing" to fire God, you can be sure someone else is working on an Evolutionary origin of life to fire God too.
You seem to forget science is only a few hundred years old. How long has mankind been around? For you, a few thousand years, for us, millions.
In my opinion the prophecy of Daniel about the last days saying "Knowledge will increase" may well have been a prediction of the exponential rise of technology.
New American Standard Bible
"But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase." (Daniel 12:4)
Science simply means knowledge you know ?
Either way, what is the past three hundred years to the full lifespan of humans?
Very small percentage of time, either with your 6K reasoning or our 5Mil reasoning, so you are dissing a science that is still in first grade. You are like a Phd in physics dissing a 7 year old for not understanding calculus.
I am not like that.
I do not hold science in contempt.
I like to hear about new discoveries as much as any of you guys.
This is what I do think. I think that the Apostle Paul's words that the eternal power and divine nature of the Creator can be seen by the things which have been made are clearly known to man.
I think this was true 2,000 years ago.
I think it is still true today in the 21rst century.
And if Christ should tarry and science progress for another 2,000 years, it will STILL be true then.
He is way ahead of us. He has designed it all so that the more we know the more humbled we are that we don't know. I mean "eternal power" is too great for us to reach the end. He does not forbid us to try.
Originally posted by sonshipYour question is peculiar because of two reasons. One, we already do, to some extent, understand the origins of life (not as well as we understand its development, of course). For instance we can pinpoint at what point life arose (approximately 4 billion years ago) and we know that this primitive life was much simpler than single-celled organisms today. Two, further understanding of the origins of life may come from biologists but the explanation is not "evolutionary" in nature because the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution.
Even I leave room for the possibility that someone might solve the origin problem relating it to Evolution. Where's your confidence in Science ? I thought you believed it will always eventually explain this.
How do you know it will never be explained by the Evolutionist ?
Originally posted by sonshipOn the other hand, I think that your focus on "randomness" betrays a lack of knowledge about how evolution works. Biological evolution relies on the occurrence of mutations - whether those mutations occur because of a (fundamentally) "random" process or because of a complex, deterministic one is simply not relevant to the theory. All that matters - for the basic principles of evolution - is that mutations in DNA sometimes occur.
And I think you are trying to sneak the word "random" out of the whole evaluation of the process.
Originally posted by sonshipOK, I have read the full text and he does make the exact false assertion that I suggested he might be making. He is talking utter nonsense.
I may discuss it.
He is claiming that every letter of every gene in every living thing is the only possible letter it could be for that organism to survive and that the organisms currently living today are the only possible organisms that could survive today.
Utter nonsense.
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWith this thread I am satisfied it has been shown applying probability to the problem of life occurring with or without God, though fraught with some problems, is not nonsense.
Your question is peculiar because of two reasons. One, we already do, to some extent, understand the origins of life (not as well as we understand its development, of course). For instance we can pinpoint at what point life arose (approximately 4 billion years ago) and we know that this primitive life was much simpler than single-celled organisms today. ...[text shortened]... ion is not "evolutionary" in nature because the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution.
It is arguable as to parameters perhaps. But a lenient or a strict model of the problems can be estimated.
Don't hold you breath waiting for twhitehead to agree.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo we discuss it. Starting with this question:
OK, I have read the full text and he does make the exact false assertion that I suggested he might be making. He is talking utter nonsense.
He is claiming that every letter of every gene in every living thing is the only possible letter it could be for that organism to survive and that the organisms currently living today are the only possible organisms that could survive today.
Utter nonsense.
Did you read the whole chapter ?
Please quote the offending sentence or sentences you say are utter nonsense.
Or quote what I quoted as the offending sentence.
Originally posted by sonshipIt has been 'shown'? Where? I must have missed that. I am willing to bet that every other reader did to. Can you find a single other reader that agrees with you and can point me to the relevant posts where this was shown?
With this thread I am satisfied it has been shown applying probability to the problem of life occurring with or without God, though fraught with some problems, is not nonsense.
But a lenient or a strict model of the problems can be estimated.
Give me an example of either a lenient or strict model which has been estimated. Just one example.
Don't hold you breath waiting for twhitehead to agree.
Yes, I am not about to agree to having seen imaginary posts. You never presented a single model lenient or strict nor a single estimation nor a single argument suggesting that such models or estimations exist.
Originally posted by twhiteheadNot so fast.
I will go further and say that his arguments, if valid would lead one to believe that every mutation in every organism that every happens is directed by God. Do you believe this to be the case sonship?
Before you run off to second base, let's see if you got to first.
Quote the sentence/s I should reexamine please.
Originally posted by sonshipNo, I read page 107 to 114.
So we discuss it. Starting with this question:
Did you read the whole chapter ?
Please quote the offending sentence or sentences you say are utter nonsense.
The offending parts I mentioned are page 107 and 108, but the rest is just as bad. Google books doesn't let me copy paste so I can't easily reproduce the full two pages.
It is clear however that he is claiming that every gene in every organism is the exact perfect gene for survival and that not a single out of place letter is possible. Do you deny this?
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe discussion that I quoted was from pages 101 - 103.
No, I read page 107 to 114.
[b]Please quote the offending sentence or sentences you say are utter nonsense.
The offending parts I mentioned are page 107 and 108, but the rest is just as bad. Google books doesn't let me copy paste so I can't easily reproduce the full two pages.
It is clear however that he is claiming that every gene in every organ ...[text shortened]... rfect gene for survival and that not a single out of place letter is possible. Do you deny this?[/b]
If you are complaining about what I wrote from that chapter I think you should examine that section first.
And if you are reading the book online link me to whatever it is that you ARE reading, please.
Originally posted by sonshiphttps://books.google.co.za/books?id=J_iOFzYE6ycC&printsec=frontcover&dq="the+Science+of+God"+"Schroeder"
The discussion that I quoted was from pages 101 - 103.
If you are complaining about what I wrote from that chapter I think you should examine that section first.
And if you are reading the book online link me to whatever it is that you ARE reading, please.
It is page 107-108 in the online version.
Originally posted by chaney3Animals adapt to their surroundings.
I go back to the food issue though, because to me it's a very relevant topic......we would obviously die without it. However a particular atheist thinks humans evolved, and what they may have evolved from.....it still is amazing that when we finally became 'human', that there was food at all to sustain us.
An important adaptation is being able to eat what food is available!
It is not amazing that there was food for us.
It would be amazing (impossible) if there were none!
Originally posted by sonshipThere obviously is a probability of life occurring.
With this thread I am satisfied it has been shown applying probability to the problem of life occurring with or without God, though fraught with some problems, is not nonsense.
It is arguable as to parameters perhaps. But a lenient or a strict model of the problems can be estimated.
Don't hold you breath waiting for twhitehead to agree.
Many would argue that the probability is 1.
However, actually calculating the probability of life on this planet in the correct time
span is not possible at the moment. Even very rough estimates are not possible.
So it is nonsense for people to bandy about numbers with no scientific rationelle behind them.