Jump to content


Photo

The Philosophy Of The Creation Idea

Philosophy Creation idea Cosmology Physic world view Science Christian philosophy epistemology Hendrik Stoker

  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#21 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 21 October 2016 - 03:12 PM

 
This thread is about the philosophy of the Creation Idea. It's not centered on the Evolution vs Creation debate. It's not about the "age of the Earth or Universe". 
It's not by necessity focused on the bible, while one can of course take it as a text that presents certain concepts. It's a question of zooming in and where you put the pencil on in the categorical conceptual tree.  
 
It merely asks the question, if the universe was created, what would one expect it's nature would be. One may however also turn it around and ask, If we look at the Universe, Nature, Physics, Biology empirically, what can be concluded about creation. For the highly specialized question other threads would be more adequate.
 
I think there are several options on how the universe came into being:
1. Orderly created universe by a supreme being (God), which created matter, space, time, light, living beings, physical laws which govern the physical world. 
2. The universe existed already forever that way. There is just sporadic or cyclical change in it. 
3. The Universe can into being spontaneously and became as it is at present solely by physical processes.
 
And now we can have a look at what philosophical implications that has. 


#22 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 22 October 2016 - 06:08 PM

 

I noticed that you didn't explain how thermodynamics, QM, laws of information, cause and effect, and "ground squirrel level reasoning" contradicts cosmology. Instead you complained that I used the phrase "modern science" instead of "cosmology".

 

 

 

I've 'noticed' for quite some time and even called you out on "BLOCK QUOTING" posts without answering what's in the BLOCK .  When you gonna fix that??

 

 

1.  Cosmology is tied to the big bang...  Matter/Space already existing.

 

1st Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT): The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant. NATURE (Natural Law/Phenomena) CAN NOT CREATE or DESTROY Matter/Energy
 
So where'd you get the Matter and Space....?
 

 

2.  Quantum Mechanics quintessential tenet is: Matter doesn't exist without "Path-Information" Existing First !!  AND...the NECESSARY CONDITION for existence of "INFORMATION" is..."A Knower".

 

So who was the "Knower" @ the time of the big bang...?

 

 

3. Laws of Information:  For Information to Exist, you must have "A Knower" first (SEE: above).

 

 

4.  Cause and Effect: For 'The Effect' (DEPENDENT VARIABLE) --- "INFORMATION" to EXIST...."The CAUSE" (INDEPENDENT VARIABLE) --- "A KNOWER" MUST EXIST FIRST !!

 

 

5.  Ground Squirrel Level Reasoning: There MUST BE "A Cause" ---- for 'The Effect"... Matter/Space.  The big bang "Just-So" Story merely Whistle's Pasts the Graveyard by that little gem.

 

 

The point about google is that you don't need me, or anyone else, to tell you various tests within astronomy and related fields as it is easily accessible; not to mention someone with your background should already be familiar with some.

 

 

There isn't any TESTS, let alone Formal Scientific Hypotheses, in fairytale astronomy/astrophysics/cosmology pretender...and your continued Elephant Hurling Fallacy DODGES are a tacit SCREAMING Testimony to the very fact.

 

 

 

I don't know what you mean by "formal scientific hypothesis"

 

 

Yes  :rotfl3: I know, that's the POINT!!!  Here ya go pretender...

 

 
"Forming Testable Hypotheses:
 
The key word is testable. That is, you will perform a test of how two variables might be related. This is when you are doing a real experiment. You are testing variables.
 
Formalized Hypotheses example: If skin cancer is related to ultraviolet light , then people with a high exposure to uv light will have a higher frequency of skin cancer.
If leaf color change is related to temperature , then exposing plants to low temperatures will result in changes in leaf color.
Notice that these statements contain the words , if and then. They are necessary in a formalized hypothesis.
 
Formalized hypotheses contain two variables. One is "independent" and the other is "dependent." The independent variable is the one you, the "scientist" control and the dependent variable is the one that you observe and/or measure the results.
The ultimate value of a formalized hypothesis is it forces us to think about what results we should look for in an experiment.
 
Notice there are two parts to a formalized hypothesis: the “if” portion contains the testable proposed relationship and the “then” portion is the prediction of expected results from an experiment.  An acceptable hypothesis contains both aspects, not just the prediction portion."
 
 
....but people have been testing hypotheses in astronomy for thousands of years. Like I mentioned last post the ancient Greeks used parallax to test whether we live in a Sun-centered or Earth-centered solar system.

 

 
 
And I told you (Like 5 times now) that was a Load of HOGWASH.  So to Refute my claim, Errr AGAIN...post ONE Formal Scientific Hypothesis (Since now you know what IT IS)...?
 
 

 

You can think of the independent variable as the observations made during the different seasons, and the dependent variable as the parallax measurement.

 

 

 

THANKS !!! thumbsup.gif   This is tantamount to a Carpenter showing up on your doorstep then showing him a Framing Square...and he's completely BAFFLED by it.

 

 

Errr, Independent Variables are...

 

"An independent variable is the presumed cause, whereas the dependent variable is the presumed effect.'
 
 
So in your Trainwreck above: "The Effect" (Dependent Variable) is measurements (LOL) and "THE CAUSE" (Independent Variable) of those measurements is... Observations.   :get_a_clue:
 
You'd Fail 5th Grade General Science.   
 
 
 
"The independent variable is the core of the experiment and is isolated and manipulated by the researcher. The dependent variable is the measurable outcome of this manipulation, the results of the experimental design."
 
 
So in your above Trainwreck, your Independent Variable --- the one being isolated and manipulated (Observations) is....Your Eyelids !!  :gilligan:
 
 
 
"In an experiment, the independent variable is the variable that is varied or manipulated by the researcher, and the dependent variable is the response that is measured."
http://www2.uncp.edu...llierw/ivdv.htm
 
 
Independent Variable -- is what is varied during the experiment; it is what the investigator thinks will affect the dependent variable. 
http://www2.lv.psu.e...m57/irp/var.htm
 
 
Independent (Manipulated) Variable - variable changed by the scientist; what the investigator is testing. 
 
 
"The independent variable is the one you, the "scientist" control and the dependent variable is the one that you observe and/or measure the results."
 
 
"The independent (or MANIPULATED) variable is something that the experimenter purposely changes or varies over the course of the investigation. The dependent (or responding) variable is the one that is observed and likely changes in response to the independent variable."
 
 
 
"An independent variable is a variable that is presumed to cause a change in another variable, and in experimental research, the independent variable is the variable that is manipulated by the researcher. The dependent variable is a variable that is presumed to be influenced by one or more independent variables."
 
 
Do you understand??  Or would you like me to post another 68 CITATIONS all saying the same thing ??  Or will you just remain Willfully Ignorant ?
 
 
Can you tell me why I should go on Pummeling your Fairytales when you don't even know what a Scientific Hypothesis (Independent Variable) is ??
 

 

 

The crux of the issue is that we differ on how a hypothesis can be tested. 

 

 

The "Crux" of the issue is you're a wiki/google scientist (aka: Pretender) that couldn't pass 5th Grade Science.

 

 

Others on EFF have already explained to you that careful examination of the data can test a hypothesis.

 

 

Well that's because "The Others" are wiki/google scientists like yourself that wouldn't know what actual "SCIENCE" was if it landed on their heads, spun around, and whistled dixie.

 

 

For example we can test Einstein's theory of Relativity by measuring the location of stars close to the Sun during a solar eclipse. No lab experiment necessary, yet we can test the hypothesis/theory through measurements understanding that whether or not the model is true will give us different observations.

 

 

1.  "hypotheses/theory" ??  Ahh there is no " / " pretender, two different animals...

 

"Words have precise meanings in science. For example, 'theory', 'law', and 'hypothesis' don't all mean the same thing."

http://chemistry.abo...a/lawtheory.htm

 

And since you haven't the First Clue what a Formal Scientific Hypothesis or Independent Variable is, it would be the Acme of Foolishness to even remotely consider you would have the foggiest idea what an ACTUAL Scientific Theory is!!

 

 

2.  "Einstein's Theory of Relativity"??...  Post The Formal Scientific Hypothesis that SUPPORTS this 'theory'...?

 

Oh btw...

 

So Relativity, sr and gr via different mechanisms (Speed vs. Gravity), can: Dilate/Bend/Warp...TIME ??

 
Primary School Falsification: 
 
Sir, TIME is a "Conceptual" relationship between 2 motions.  Specifically, it's based on an "Alleged" single rotation of the Earth on it's axis in respect to the Sun (A Day). 
It's a "CONCEPT" (Non-Physical).  It is without Chemical Formula/Structure, no Dimensionality/Orthogonality, and no Direction or Location.  You can't put some in a jar and paint in red.
 

I mean c'mon now, let's reason together....can you Dilate/Bend Warp Non-Physical "Concepts"?? 
Is it your contention that if you have Poison Ivy on the brain you could scratch it by thinking of Sand Paper??

That which you are using to measure....isn't the thing you're measuring.  

** A Football Field is 100 Yards long but a Football Field isn't Yardsticks!! If I bend a Yardstick...does the Football Field Bend also**

So if something affects say...Cesium Atomic Clocks, or any modern "Clock" for that matter, does that then IPSO FACTO mean the Earth's "Alleged" rotation is Affected?
These Two Mytho-matheMagical Fairytales (sr and gr) were falsified 30 seconds after their respective publications by 3rd graders @ recess, for goodness sakes.
IN TOTO, each are Massive Reification Fallacies on Nuclear Steroids!!
 
 
Here's the Grown-Up Falsification:  

 

"Non-Locality"-- a brief synopsis ( http://www.physicsof...onlocality.html )

 

Nonlocality occurs due to the phenomenon of entanglement, whereby particles that interact with each other become permanently correlated, or dependent on each other’s states and properties, to the extent that they effectively lose their individuality and in many ways behave as a single entity.

 

 

(Because of this Well Established Phenomena in 1935, which Pummeled his Fairytales gr and sr, Einstein coined the phrase "Spooky Action @ a Distance", then he and his buddies conjured a 'thought experiment', (SEE: 'EPR Paradox' 1935 ) in a feeble clumsy attempt to 'Debunk' Quantum Mechanics. 

Why?  Well... he couldn't have anything traveling faster than the Speed of Light, cause his 'theories' would IMPLODE. (Side Note: He never published in Physical Review Letters again because he didn't appreciate the Paper being "Peer-Reviewed" i.e., Pompous Pseudo-Science *** -- 

http://journals.aps..../PhysRev.47.777

 

Because of the seemingly Impossibility of TESTING his 'thought experiment', it apparently covered the "pseudo-science mytho-mathemagical" philosopher's ass and the very public argument between he and Niels Bohr (who was of the opposite position) was relegated to the dustbin of history never to be reconciled.  

 

BUT THEN, Ha ha ha ha...

 

 

In the 1960's, John Bell explored Einstein et al thought experiment and proposed an Inequality (Bell's Inequality).  If it was shown to be false, Einstein and his theories would take a dirt nap.
http://www.drchinese...ell_Compact.pdf

 

Then John Clauser, a frustrated Grad Student...because of his poor grades in QM, was rustling through books and papers in the campus library when he came across John Bell's Paper.  And that, as they say folks, is HISTORY   :gotcha: !!!! ...

 
Bell's Inequality was first Violated Experimentally in 1972 by John Clauser and Stuart Freedman:
http://dieumsnh.qfb.umich.mx/archivoshistoricosMQ/ModernaHist/Freedman.pdf 

Then in 1982, Alain Aspect PhD Physics Jacked it "Yard"  FOREVER !! Ergo....Einstein and his "theories" = Dirt Nap !! (He got "de-bunked")
http://www.qudev.eth.../epr/aspect.pdf
 
Ever since Aspect's Falsification, "Non-Locality" has been CONFIRMED BY EXPERIMENT roughly 1875 times, Without Exception!!! See...
 

New Scientist "RealityCheck" 23 June 2007: Speaking to the Landmark Experiment: Gröblacher, S. et al; An experimental test of non-local realism Nature 446, 871-875 (19 April 2007) | doi :10.1038/nature05677. 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7138/full/nature05677.html 

"There is no objective reality beyond what we observe". Leggett's Inequality along with Bell's (again) have been violated. "Rather than passively observing it, WE IN FACT CREATE REALITY". 
Physicsworld April 20 2007http://physicsworld....dbye-to-reality ), also speaking to this experiment, went as far as to claim that, ‘quantum physics says goodbye to reality.’

 

 

Validated/CONFIRMED AGAIN (for the 1874th Time) here:

 

 

"Our experiment confirms Bohr’s view that it does not make sense to ascribe the wave or particle behaviour to a massive particle before the measurement takes place".

Manning A.G et al. (2015): Wheeler's delayed-choice gedanken experiment with a single atom; Nature Physics 11, 539–542, doi:10.1038/nphys3343.

And another, just a Flurry of Blows...
 
"Our data hence imply statistically significant rejection of the local-realist null hypothesis." i.e., Goodbye Realism.

Hensen, B et al: Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres; Nature 526, 682–686 (29 October 2015) doi:10.1038/nature15759

http://www.nature.co...ature15759.html

 

 

Who else wants to Chime In on Realism (??) ...

 

 

Xiao-song Ma et al. (2013): Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, pp. 1221-1226. 
The authors PUMMEL Naive Realism and take Local-Causality to the Woodshed (again). 

"The presence of path information anywhere in the universe is sufficient to prohibit any possibility of interference. It is irrelevant whether a future observer might decide to acquire it. The mere possibility is enough."

[**Ergo, The LACK of 'which-path Information' anywhere in the Universe is sufficient enough to prohibit any possibility of Wave Function Collapse. i.e. Formation of Matter!!]

"No NAIVE REALISTIC picture is compatible with our results because whether a quantum could be seen as showing particle- or wave-like behavior would depend on a causally disconnected choice. It is therefore suggestive to abandon such pictures altogether."
 
 
THEREFORE: There are 2 Doors that can be breached per the results of these Experiments:
 
Door # 1: Information (however they conjured that) can travel Faster than the Speed of Light.  Einstein's 'theories' KABLOOIE !!!
 
Door # 2: Space and Time are Illusions.  Einstein's 'theories' KABLOOIE !!!

 
Take your pick....?

Einstein himself after 30 years of attempting a Unified Field Theory finally reckoned with it prior to his death and was partial to the Latter Door (as am I)...
 
"I must confess that I was not able to find a way to explain the atomistic character of nature.  My opinion is if that the objective description through the field as an elementary concept is not possible then one has to find a possibility to AVOID the continuum (together with SPACE and TIME) ALTOGETHER but I have not the slightest idea what kind of elementary concepts could be used in such a theory".---  Letter from Albert Einstein to David Bohm, 28 October 1954.

Colodny, Robert G; From Quarks to Quasars--Philosophical Problems of Modern Physics: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1986, p. 380

 

 
 
To overturn the Scientific Falsification of "Locality" and by direct proxy ---- Materialism/Realism (Atheism); whereby invalidating Idealism "Christianity" (which is not a "religion", btw) and as an ancillary benefit collect yourself a 'Feather in your Cap' Nobel Prize...
 
Please take up the Quantum Randi Challenge (arXiv:1207.5294, 23 July 2012)
http://www.science20...challenge-80168  .... ( The Quantum Randi Challenge, hence forth QRC, challenges any pseudo-scientist [YOU, as it were] who claims that quantum physics is not true and that quantum entanglement experiments can be explained by a classically realistic and locally causal model.


A Nobel Prize AND $1,000,000(USD) is being offered: All you have to do is...
 
Prove Naive Realism or Local Realism is True and not Observation Dependent.

4 Years + and still no takers, I wonder why?  
 
I'll monitor the Presses!!

 

 

And to "Cherry on Top" it ...

 

"The Laws of Physics are always Quantum Mechanical Laws...you don't have separate laws for big and small things. The real question is: how do these very same laws when applied to big things, by big things I mean the things you see in daily life, GIVE THE IMPRESSION that the world is Newtonian?". 
Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale. 
Quantum Mechanics II.  (33:50 minute mark)

 

 

With...

"One could see that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, the 2 most fundamental theories of matter, really contradict each other in the sense that Relativity is local, it's causal, it's determined, it's continuous and Quantum Mechanics is just the opposite."

David Bohm (Renowned Professor Physics and Einstein's Personal Friend): https://www.youtube....h?v=r-jI0zzYgIE (Time 7:13)
 
KaBooM !!!

 

 

3.  "Model" ??

 

Errr...

 

"The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity."
 
"A model is used for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has a limitation on its validity." 
 
Allow me to translate: Pseudo-Science !! ... a "Model" is conjured when the 'alleged' Hypothesis is UN-TESTABLE!!! That means, there never was an 'ACTUAL' Scientific Hypothesis to begin with !!

 

 

4. "... by measuring the location of stars close to the Sun during a solar eclipse" LOL, Errr, what's the Independent Variable that was Isolated and Manipulated here to confirm/validate "THE CAUSE", professor ?? i.e., Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis....?

 

 

 

 I noticed that you cut off the part of my quote that explained why those people consider astronomy and related fields science: it's testable.

 

 

I didn't cut anything off... save for that Science Pretender WART you got growing in the middle of your forehead.

 

We don't much care what "those people" SAY pretender, we are more into what they can SHOW.

 

 

According to Strong's Concordance Nachash means "serpent", and does not reference any kind of "shining". According to the NAS Hebrew Lexicon the word can also mean things like "divination", but again no reference to any kind of shining. In addition the word is used throughout the Bible to mean a regular snake. I could not find any scholarly source that confirms the shining interpretation. The closest I have found was one layman article that claims some Hebrew scholar says that when the word is used as an adjective it means "shine", but it sure looks like the word is used as a noun rather than an adjective in Genesis 3 anyway. I did find a few other layman articles that simply assert that the word means "shining one", but without some sort of reference or explanation for me to confirm it I am disinclined to accept it at face value due to Strong's Concordance and the NAS Hebrew Lexicon contradicting such assertions.

 

 

Oh Really...

 

"The following article is based on information taken from the work of Dr. Michael Heiser.  Dr. Heiser earned his PhD in Hebrew Bible and Semitic Languages at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.  He can do translation work in roughly a dozen ancient languages, among them Biblical Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Egyptian hieroglyphs, and Ugaritic cuneiform.  He has also studied Akkadian and Sumerian independently.....
 
The word serpent is the Hebrew word, nachash, which can be translated as serpent or snake but has other meanings as well.  According to Heiser, the Hebrew root is the basis for a noun, verb, and adjective.  Of course as a noun it is usually the word for serpent.  The verb form means deceiver or diviner with divine knowledge.  The adjective version means bronze or brazen with a bright shine.  Therefore, used as an adjective it should be translated as shining one.  Shining or luminosity is a quality that is characteristic of divine beings in the Hebrew bible and other near east literature."

 

Here's another: http://www.therain.o...ixes/app19.html

 

 

@ least you're consistent ---as in consistently wrong.

 

 

 

The context is that it is a prophesy from Yahweh concerning the king of Tyre

 

 

Ahhh, so the King of Tyre was in: "Eden, the Garden of God" ??  

 

I guess we can chalk this one up to the "self-admission" of your challenges with Exegesis and Hermeneutics.

 

And a Prophecy is Foretelling of FUTURE events, professor...not looking back.

 

 

 

I understand Newtonian mechanics has been superseded by quantum mechanics. However, I want to know if you think we should throw out classical mechanics altogether like a fairytale, or if you see it as a useful approximation for classical systems and a necessary step to learn before students of physics tackle more complex subjects like quantum physics? 

 

 

Personally, I'd toss it...it's a Fairytale.

 

 

This perfectly explains why God put the one Tree with the fruit to screw over his creation in the middle of the Garden where anyone could get it, then give the Tree appealing fruit, then let Satan roam around the Garden tempting A&E, all the while A&E not knowing good from evil, and then due to Yahweh's omniscience he knew that setting it up this way would lead to the Fall, and this was all done because of love.

 

Wait! That makes no sense at all. In a court of law we call that entrapment. It would seem Yahweh is less moral than present day humanity. Of course if the story is allegorical then these problems tend to go away on their own.

 

 

You'll forgive me if I don't respond...it's like explaining Trig to a 3 month old.

 

 

You do realize that "non-spontaneous" doesn't mean "violates thermodynamics", right? The power of open systems.

 

 

It does if you mindlessly adhere to it happening "Spontaneously", professor....You do 'Realize' that your Entire Fairytale is based on it happening "Spontaneously", right?  :rotfl:

 

And your feeble appeal to "Open Systems" is a Tear Jerkin Belly Laugher.  But I'll bite, Go ON... (Wait, let me get the Nail-Spiked 44" Louisville Slugger ready, Ok, I'm ready !! ) GO.....?

 

And this is just the Physical Molecules!!  We haven't even touched the WHOLLY MAMMOTH in the Room..."Information".  

 

 

oy vey 



#23 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 22 October 2016 - 08:15 PM

First off, do you have any interesting stories to tell as a Mau Mau fighter pilot?

 

 

After you tell us where you got that trainwreck Science Acumen...evolutionists -R -Us?

 

 

 

I think your source is right that no nucleotides have been found in meteorites, but we have found nucleobases. 

 

 

Yep, not even Nucleosides.  "Purportedly" found some remnants of nucleobases.

 

 

This paper doesn't want to copy-paste neatly so I can't quote it directly, but it says that by analyzing the isotope ratios of the carbon atoms for uracil (a pyrimidine) and xanthine (a purine) of the Murchison meteorite they have determined that those compounds are non-terrestrial in origin (edit: found more user friendly version): http://astrobiology....insetal2008.pdf  

 

 

Show Cytosine...?

 

And, you've climbed a Half-a Step (save for Cytosine) up Mt Everest.  Climb the rest with no arms or legs...?

 

 

So are these non-terrestrial nucleobases a trick from Yahweh to test our faith, or did they form naturally?

 

 

Well Straw Man (Fallacy), my main argument is NUCLEOSIDES then NUCLEOTIDES forming "Naturally".   And we'll be waiting for Cytosine...?

 

 

This is an interesting article where they talk about creating all four nucleobases of RNA by simulating high asteroid impacts on the early Earth with a laser, with temperature spikes reaching beyond 4,200 degrees Celsius with subsequent ultraviolet and x-ray radiation: http://www.sciencema...building-blocks  

 

 

And...?

 

 

 

The overarching theme I am aiming at is that this is still a relatively new field of active research. We know more than we did a decade ago, and while it is certainly a tough problem that will not be solved overnight there are clues that it did happen in the past through natural processes. 

 

 

1.  It's not a "Field".

 

2.  It's not Scientific, "duh".

 

3. And the Pseudo-Science has been going on for nearly 70 Years (LOL)...and you still can't get ONE Functional DNA or 30 mer RNA or Protein, Naturally.

 

Maybe if you tried "If Pigs Could Fly" Hypothetical Chemistry ??

 

 

 

The observed versus conjured phenomena is interesting. I think the answer lies in that abiogenesis itself is not a hypothesis but a field of research, with several hypotheses in it that have been brought forth from observation.

 

 

Maybe while you trying to scare up some semblance of a Grade School Science Acumen, you may want to stop off in an 80 Level Basic Reasoning Course.

 

Abiogenesis has to be the OBSERVED PHENOMENA FIRST so as to the open up the subject to Scientific Inquiry via the Scientific Method.

 

 

 

For example we observe that RNA is simpler than DNA (e.g. one instead of two stranded)

 

 

Profound!!  RNA is also about 100 Times more reactive because of the Hydroxyl Group on Carbon 3.  But you don't even have a Functional 30 mer RNA yet, so you're Whistlin Past the Graveyard.

 

 

...and unlike DNA RNA can also double as a catalyst.

 

 

You don't have either, and the 'CATALYST' (Ribozyme) is located in the RIBOSOME --- a Nucleo-"Functional" Protein Complex.

 

Question:  Where'd you get the "Functional Proteins" of the Ribosome when it takes "Functional Proteins" and Functional RNA to make "Functional Proteins??

Is this like the Space Shuttle giving birth to the Space Shuttle Assembly Plant?

 

Oh and...

 

"This discussion concerning the first RNA replicase ribozyme has, in a sense, focused on a straw man: the myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current understanding of prebiotic chemistry, but it should strain the credulity of even an optimist's view of RNA's catalytic potential."
Gerald F. Joyce, and Leslie E. Orgel, "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," p. 13 The RNA World, R.F. Gesteland and J.F. Atkins, eds. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993 

 

I'd categorize it as more of a Begging The Question Fallacy from the Black Lagoon.

 

 

With those observations we could hypothesize that early life...

 

 

Great!!  What's your Independent Variable in your Hypothesis... your Imagination??  :get_a_clue:

 

And what Phenomenon did you Observe, for the record please...?

 

 

 

or perhaps proto-life used RNA instead of DNA and shift research of OOL towards an RNA world hypothesis.

 

 

What on Earth is "PROTO-LIFE" ??

 

RNA World, Ha ha ha...

 

"Unless the molecule can literally copy itself, that is, act simultaneously as both template and catalyst, it must encounter another copy of itself that it can use as a template. If two or more copies of a particular 50-mer RNA are needed, then a much larger library, consisting of 10^54 RNAs and weighing 10^34 grams, would be required. This amount far exceeds the mass of the earth." 
Gerald F. Joyce, and Leslie E. Orgel, "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," p. 11. The RNA World, R.F. Gesteland and J.F. Atkins, eds. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993
 
 
"Scientists interested in the origins of life seem to divide neatly into two classes. The first, usually but not always molecular biologists, believe that RNA must have been the first replicating molecule and that chemists are exaggerating the difficulties of nucleotide synthesis. They believe that a few more striking chemical "surprises" will establish that a reasonable approximation to a racemic version of the molecular biologist's pool could have formed on the primitive earth and that further experiments with different activating groups and minerals will solve the enantiomeric cross-inhibition problem. The second group of scientists are much more pessimistic. They believe that the de novo appearance of oligonucleotides on the primitive earth would have been a near miracle. (The authors subscribe to this latter view.)"
Gerald F. Joyce, and Leslie E. Orgel, "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," p. 19. The RNA World, R.F. Gesteland and J.F. Atkins, eds. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993.
 

 

 

 We can look at conserved genes across domains to get an idea of what the first life may have been like

 

 

Begging The Question Fallacy; where'd you get Genes??

 

 

 

and scientists have done this, and while not conclusive the data indicates that early life lived in deep sea vents

 

 

LOL, can you explain how you overcame Delta G constraints and then... speak in depth how Proteins can Form in WATER ??   :laugh_point:

 

And for Laughs, post the Temp in Deep Sea Vents and the Temp @ which Proteins " DENATURE ".

 

 

 

 Perhaps it is not so much a leap in my mind than in yours because I accept ToE, and with ToE we get the idea that all life (or almost all life) is genetically related via ancestry

 

 

1. What is ToE ??  Could you define it...?  The Please post the 'Scientific Theory' of evolution...?

 

2.  Oh it's a LEAP alright.

 

3. Genetically Related ?? 

 

If the ancestry is not assumed from similarities, then there is no correlation between similarities and ancestry; ergo, to make the argument you need to make that "assumption".
 
All you have is a TEXTBOOK.....Affirming The Consequent (Formal Logical Fallacy) --- 
http://www.logicalfa...the-consequent/
 
If P then Q.
Q.
Therefore P.


The logical fallacy is that P doesn't necessarily follow from Q. 

1. IF Evolution is true: Then Insert any "Darwinian Grab-Bag"  Post Hoc Observations (Fossils/Homology/Similarity/Genetic Variation et al)
2. We observe (Post Hoc Observation)
3. Therefore, Evolution is true.
 
Or
 
If Common Ancestry is True we will Observe Similarities.
We Observe Similarities.
Therefore, Common Ancestry is True.
 
1) If I had just eaten a whole pizza, I would feel very full;
2) I feel very full;
3.) Therefore: I have just eaten a whole pizza.
 
Couldn't I have eaten a 20 ounce Ribeye with Fries?  I can with equal Scientific Vigor say....Common Designer!
 
 
"There is no tree of life....it's an artifact from early scientific studies that aren't holding up". 
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics); Arizona State Origins Project; 12 February 2011
 
Here that sound...that's "Common Descent" circling the drain @ Light Speed. ("as if" he actually needed to say it)

 
"Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination."
N. A. Takahata, "Genetic Perspective on the Origin and History of Humans," Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics (vol. 26, 1995), p. 343.

 

 

Don't fret, you're not alone...they too have their Imagination as the "Independent Variable".  

 

 

 

As for the law of biogenesis, all it really says is that rotting meat doesn't morph into flies.

 

 

For cryin out loud...

 

Abiogenesis- The study of how life originally arose on the planet, encompasses the ancient belief in the spontaneous generation of life from non living matter. ---biology online
Spontaneous Generation -- The previously popular notion that living organisms arise or develop from nonliving matter.--- biology online

Abiogenesis and Spontaneous Generation are "Synonymous", clearly.  Non-Living is Non-Living, whether it be rotting meat or a rock.

So more accurately:

The Law of Biogenesis --- "Nature/Natural Phenomena" CAN NOT create Life from Non-Life.

Ergo...

Abiogenesis ---- "Nature/Natural Phenomena" CAN create Life from Non-Life.

 

 

As an analogy, when I first heard of the double slit experiment I decided to get a flashlight and make two slits in a sheet of paper a foot or two in front of a wall and shine the flashlight to see if the interference pattern would show up (don't make fun of me I was in high school, and not the best student). Obviously the interference pattern didn't show up, and to my disappointment classical mechanics was confirmed. While my little makeshift experiment does tell us something about reality, it simply doesn't speak to the actual double slit experiment performed in a modern lab where the slits are extremely tiny and the emission of photons is more controlled, and in such conditions the quantum world makes itself known. A crude analogy, but I think it gets the point across.

 

 

 

Crude analogy ?? It's Moronic.

 

 

 I believe some organisms use slightly different AA's; 

 

 

Really, astonishing!!  Of course that wasn't my argument (Mr. Straw Man), I asked you where did you get the 20 Essential ALPHA AA's, Naturally...?

 

 

I know off the top of my head that prokaryotes use a slightly modified methionine AA (from the AUG start codon) than the eukaryotes

 

 

:get_a_clue: Really??  @ What Position...?

 

 

Professor, that First Methionine in Prokaryotes is METHYLATED ( Initiator F-MET tRNA )---"charged", inside the Cytoplasm...it's not a 'different' AA.

Can you tell us why that is ?? 

 

Also... In Prokaryotes, what if Methionine is called for @ other instances besides position 1 in the Peptide Chain...that "Methyl Group" is gonna GUM UP the works, so what's the answer (??), in other words

 

How does the 'Charged F-MET tRNA' know where to place that Methionine as opposed to other Methionines in the subsequent growing chain ?

 

 

but I believe there are other exceptions as well - a quick google search with wiki (I know I am thus a pseudo-scientist despite never claiming to be a scientist in the first place) confirms that there are 2 other AA's used in life besides the standard 20, 3 if you count the modified methionine in prokaryotes. However, that is beyond the scope of this discussion much like how there are exceptions of life using D-AA's, including our own bodies from the mitochondria given the right stimulus IIRC.

 

 

1.  SEE Above for your ("wiki") trainwreck with Methionine.

 

2.  Collapsing a Paper Bag without "wiki" is clearly well beyond your 'scope' sir.  But Please, let's see how far 'wiki' goes...please list the instances of D-AA's in humans and WHY...?

 

 

 

cont...



#24 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 22 October 2016 - 09:46 PM

 

I can't do all 20 amino acids, but perhaps this will substantiate the idea that amino acids can and do form naturally:

 

 

You can't do all 20 Essential ALPHA amino acids to be precise; and ahhh, I know...because it's a FAIRYTALE !!!

 

All this is ACADEMIC 'Whistl'n Past the GraveYard' Begging The Question Fallacy from the Black Lagoon Anyways...because if you don't have a...

 

"KNOWER of the Which-Path Information"

 

----  You don't have Matter: AA's, Sugars, Bases...ANYTHING!!!  They Exist in a Wave Function !!!  ...

 

Independent of the existence of the " which-path " information -- A KNOWER, Photons (including ...Elementary Particles/Atoms/Molecules) have no defined properties or location. They exist in a state of a Wave Function which is a series of Potentialities rather than actual objects. That is, Matter/Photons don't exist as a Wave of Energy prior to observation but as a Wave of Potentialities. Therefore...

Unless, ROTFLOL, you can explicitly identify "a Knower" who witnessed these substances... AND the "observer's" Name recorded (i.e., something conscious and able to ask questions --- "LIFE" --- observing "PRE-LIFE" Substances LOL)  THEN, you're SCREWED before you even START on your Metaphysical Incoherent Fairytale!! 

 

“It begins to look as we ourselves, by our last minute decision, have an influence on what a photon will do when it has already accomplished most of its doing… we have to say that we ourselves have an undeniable part in what we have always called the past. The past is not really the past until is has been registered. Or to put it another way, the past has no meaning or existence unless it exists as a record in the present.

Prof. John Wheeler "Referenced in"; The Ghost In The Atom; Page 66-68.

 

 

 

 

 

 

In May of 2016 the Rosetta spacecraft detected through mass spectroscopy the amino acid glycine in the coma of comet 67P (the gas/dust surrounding the comet). Glycine is the simplest AA and does not require water to synthesize.

 

 

1.  Glycine is the simplest eh?  Why.... cause it's "R-Group" is just "H" ??  ROTFLOL

 

2.  Spacecraft??  "Space", as in a VACUUM, eh?  Ok Professor...

 

 

If there is no physical barrier between Earth's Atmosphere and Space, which there isn't...

 

THEN...
 
How can you have a Vacuum (Space) attached to a Non-Vacuum (Earth) and still retain the Properties of a Vacuum and a Non-Vacuum in the same system, simultaneously....?
 
 
If there's a "Non Perfect" Vacuum surrounding the Earth's Atmospheric layers as we are 'TOLD', then there should be a colossal cascading chain of envelopment from the Exosphere to Thermosphere to Mesosphere down to your feet like dominoes faster than you can say "ENTROPY" until equilibrium is reached. Hard Stop!
 
Have you heard of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, per adventure?
 
Please explain this in a Law of Entropy context?  i.e., Law of Entropy:  Unless it is hindered "purposely", in "Nature"....

Heat Flows from Hot to Cold (Always!), Energy Concentrated to Dispersed (Always!), High Gas Pressure to Low Gas Pressure (Always!).

 
So @ a minimum sir, How are you still breathing...?

 

 

I assume finding something out in space like this means that it had to come about naturally; the interpretation of Yahweh or Satan planting amino acids and such in comets, asteroids, and meteors to test our faith and whatnot seems rather farfetched and intellectually defeating as an unfalsifiable ad hoc. Earlier this century another spacecraft actually took samples from another comet, W2, and those samples were analyzed here on Earth and glycine was detected then as well. By analyzing the carbon isotopes it was determined that the glycine in the W2 sample was not a terrestrial contamination.

Source for glycine in comet W2: http://stardust.jpl....ws/news115.html

Source for glycine in the coma of comet 67P (first link is a press release from the journal, the second is the abstract): https://www.aaas.org...mov-gerasimenko  

 http://advances.scie...nt/2/5/e1600285

 

This is another paper where scientists conducted laboratory experiments simulating cometary impacts with ice mixtures and a steel projectile. Various organic compounds were produced including the AA alanine, in both the D and L forms, as well as other AA's: http://www.nature.co...s/ngeo1930.html

 

Scientists have also analyzed fragments of a meteoroid that impacted Earth in 2000, and found the AA's alanine and aspartic acid, and ruled out contamination through carbon isotope analysis. In addition the article explores why some AA's in meteorites have a preference for L enantiomers rather than the 50-50 racemic ratio:  http://www.nasa.gov/...urned-left.html

 

That is 3 AA's that clearly do not need a biological origin for their synthesis. Then of course there is the famous Murchison meteorite that contains even more AA's as well as other critical compounds for life like uracil. Here is a Nature article explaining that the AA's from said meteorite, which favor a left handed chirality (perhaps a clue as to why life on Earth predominantly favors L-AA's) are extra terrestrial in origin based on carbon and nitrogen isotope ratios:  http://www.nature.co...l/389265a0.html

 

This is a layman article from the NASA sponsored Astrobiology Magazine that looks into whether or not the Murchison meteorite has been contaminated by life on Earth. In addition to the isotope line of evidence I presented above they also talk about the chirality ratios and how they favor an extra terrestrial origin; namely that while the meteorite favors L-AA's it is not to the extreme rate exhibited by life on Earth. In addition the meteorite has more than 50 AA's not present on Earth: http://www.astrobio....inted-evidence/  

 

This is another layman article from NASA exploring one possible way in which AA's may be formed in meteoroids and asteroids through Fischer-Tropsch-type reactions (FFT), and explain that any AA's formed in such a reaction are likely to form straight chain molecules, which is what is mostly found in the 14 meteorites they looked at. They also mention that for one of the meteorites they sampled the snow around the meteorite, and only found trace amounts of AA's which suggests that the AA's in the meteorite found were not due to terrestrial contamination: http://www.nasa.gov/...components.html

 

 

Incoherent Straw Man Fallacy.  Show all 20 Essential ALPHA Amino Acids (!!!!) ...????

 

 

Then for the ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM, show a 30 mer "FUNCTIONAL" Protein (most are 250 or larger) form, Naturally??

 

Then for the WHOOLY MAMMOTH Begging The Question Fallacy from the Black Lagoon: SEE..."Whistli'n Past The Graveyard", "Knower", "Which-Path Information", ect above.

 

 

While life predominantly uses L-AA's, and many lab experiments which produce AA's abiotically produce a racemic ratio

 

 

How many Labs and Chemists were there on your "PRE-Biotic" (Whatever that means) Earth...?

 

 

 

How life went completely left handed regarding amino acids is still a mystery, I will grant you that.

 

 

1.  That's mighty white of you.  

 

 

2.  Ahhh, Begging The Question Fallacy (x 2): you're Presupposing Life "Naturally" and Presupposing Life used right handed AA's.

 

 

 

However, let me provide a scenario that may explain it. I haven't heard this anywhere, but I think it is a possibility.

 

 

Here's Reality, Not a Scenario....

 

Your Fairytale RELIGION ----  Materialism/Realism (Atheism) is so Incomprehensibly Absurd it makes Phlogiston and 13th Century Alchemy look CUTTING EDGE !!!

 

I'm really not interested in your Pseudo-Scientific "Just-So" Story Imaginings...if I feel inclined at some point to entertain such a genre, I'll watch re-runs of Romper Room or Capt Kangaroo.

 

 

 'Non-spontaneous' doesn't mean 'violating thermodynamics'. In essence all you need is an open system where there is an influx of energy. Otherwise our own bodies couldn't produce polypeptides.

 

 

Oh goodness gracious.

 

Hey Professor, Errr.. Begging The Question (Fallacy) --- for what 50th-60th time?? What Bodies??

 

We're discussing your Incoherent "Pre-Biotic" Scenario, Remember(??) There are no "Bodies" just yet:

 

So...

 

In Biologic Systems, to build "Functional Specific Complexity" (Cellular Structures) you need a SPECIFIC Energy Converter (i.e., Mitochondria/Chloroplasts/Metabolic Pathways--- "Functional Proteins") and INFORMATION Program (DNA) ALREADY EXISTING FIRST so as to capture, convert, and use the energy meaningfully.  
Extracellular Nucleo-Bases and Amino's are DESTROYED by Sunlight ( http://www.vuletic.c...cefec/3-10.html ) as is virtually everything on the planet without the Energy Converter/Information Program already existing...and is prima facia intuitive as digging a hole in the dirt with a stick is to a Pre-Schooler.  The Sun's energy (or any "ENERGY") is like a Bull in a China Shop!!

 

 

once the proto-cell engulfed AA monomers

 

 

AA monomers is Redundant

 

 

 one idea is that polymerization occurred

 

 

 

I have an Idea--- and it's about 5 posts too late, is:

 

Take the next week off... then Quit. 

 

 

which the semi-permeable plasma membrane (amphiphilic molecules will spontaneously form micelles, bi-layers, and liposomes in aqueous environments depending on how long the hydrocarbon tails are)

 

 

Ha ha ha.  Really??

 

Where'd you get SEMI-Permeable Membranes from...?

 

Can you show us how Phospholipids, "Complex Lipids" e.g., see Cholesterol ect (which make up Actual Biological Membranes) not just "Fatty Acids" or "Bubbles"... wicker themselves together??  You are aware that the Energy Density (kcals) of 'Fats' is more than twice that of Sugars and Proteins per gram, right?
Thermodynamically, are "Fats" more or less likely--- than sugars and proteins---to spontaneously form?
 
Can you tell us what happens to Fatty Acids when exposed to Oxygen and/or Sunlight?  Does the term RANCID, Ring a Bell ??
 
What happens when Fatty Acids come into contact with Calcium and Magnesium Ions (Hard Water)?
 
You also realize that an "Actual Cell" needs to export/import substances in/out of the cell with/without Concentration Gradients, right?
 
So we can be sure you @ least have an 80 level Biology Acumen, can you briefly touch on: Osmosis, Passive Diffusion, Facilitated Diffusion, and Active Transport....?
 
Can you briefly state the 'Rate Limiting Step' for both Facilitated Diffusion and Active Transport??  THEN...
Pray Tell...
 
Where on Earth did you get the Highly Functionally Specific Complex Trans-Membrane/Integral Proteins?? (This is the answer to the previous question, so don't ever say it wasn't 'Be Kind to dumb Animal Week'  ;) 
Just fyi, the majority of genomes on the planet devote some 25% of there entire Protein Coding Capacity to "Membrane Proteins"; It's somewhat important.
 
Can just a Pure Lipid Membrane (which would be "Non-Polar") have the ability to even 'Passively' uptake Micro-Nutrients (positive and negatively charged ions) into the cell?
How bout even WATER...?
 
Call Jack Szostak and ask him!!  And while you got him on the line...ask him where he got that FIRST RNA from: Sugars, Nucleo-Bases, and "Activated" Phosphates!! If you hear a "click", just keep calling; hope you have free long-distance.
 
Mind Numbing 
 
 
How's that "wiki" page working out for you @ this point?
 
 

 

In my mind there is no doubt; it's not a question of "if", but "when" we find a realistic pathway of how life could have emerged from non-life

 

 

1.  Argument to the Future (Fallacy).

 

2. In your mind??  Mr. Materialist, Please post the Chemical Structure of your mind...?  Then, Post the Chemical Formula of TRUTH...?

 

Here try this pathway...

 

Dr. Leslie Orgel's last Published Words after more than 50 Years of OOL Research...
 
"However, solutions offered by supporters of geneticist or metabolist scenarios that are dependent on if pigs could fly” hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help."
Orgel LE (2008): The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth, PLoS Biology.

 

 

 

I really don't know what you expect from me at this point.

 

 

A Scientific Acumen that rivals a 5th Grader would be a reasonable start.  And you really ought to get that Basic Reasoning looked @...if Logical Fallacies were Knives, I'd be shredded!!

 

 

What I did was, by the definition you gave above, unequivocally not elephant hurling.

 

 

It was, TEXTBOOK.

 

 

If your objection is simply that there is too much material to go over (which would be hilarious given your own posts; literally dozens upon dozens of pages in links, and hours of video content), then asking me to support the claim that you can write a book about it is simply dishonest.

 

 

Well the difference is pretender: I can and do SPEAK @ LENGTH to my SUPPORTING Citations...errr, you can't. brightidea.gif

 

It's your answer, but my citations are merely SUPPORT for MY ANSWER.  See The Difference ??  (It's Rhetorical)

 

 

 Oh, and welcome back!

 

 
 
Thanks, but I never left.
 
 
 
regards


#25 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,050 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 22 October 2016 - 10:47 PM

Apologies to Mark for the off-topic conversation. I started a new thread, "A conversation with Enoch", to separate the two. Didn't know what to call it since there isn't really a specific topic we are discussing. http://evolutionfair...ch/#entry134731


  • MarkForbes likes this

#26 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 30 October 2016 - 06:40 AM

Apologies to Mark for the off-topic conversation. I started a new thread, "A conversation with Enoch", to separate the two. Didn't know what to call it since there isn't really a specific topic we are discussing. http://evolutionfair...ch/#entry134731

 

Thanks for doing that. Debates can get off track sometimes. 

This one here really is just philosophical. The specific stuff may deserve further attention, but that is best done in threads of their own subject. Some feedback can then be worked in later. One may touch upon issues like orderliness, providence, law character of the behavior of nature, but also the perishability, suffering and other issues. Dealing with it can be a conundrum in the beginning, but after a while it can give one a good understanding on origin and being. 



#27 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 01 November 2016 - 01:02 PM

Mark, it seems to me that a defect must always be introduced after the original with the none-defect. As I have shown, diseases come about over time, defects are only problems with the original that has no defect. It seems to me, "evil" in a sense, can be defined philosophically, as the absence of original meaning/function. To tell a lie, you first must have the truth. Without the truth (the intended way of function) then you can't have the lie. Thus evil is the breaking/abuse/absence, of good. It is only a, "less than" what was originally meant. A lie is less than the truth, a twisting of truth. For me this proves the creation was originally totally good, or, "very good" because all evil is dependent upon corrupting good, without good there is no evil, but without evil there is good.

 

For example, someone may be born with a genetic defect, but originally this was not so. Someone may catch a disease, but on a finite scale if we go back in time, there must be a time when the disease first occurred and the disease DEPENDED upon a good and healthy body. (without good there is no evil).

 

So many problems are modern, so many new diseases arise, and the system becomes more and more defective and disorderly. 

 

Usually we can show a defect or a disease is always something that has gone wrong, a function is incorrect. For me this means that evil, suffering, and defectiveness all are not in and of themselves a state of being, but an absence of correct original function. Thus we can infer that the original state was correct function for all such malfunctions always have their origin in a point of time, whereby they previously did not exist because before that time there was only a correct function in that particular area. 

 

The real question is why God allows evil and suffering but we know there are so many issue pertaining to that;

 

1. God Himself came to suffer, and is therefore both aware of suffering and partaken of it Himself.

2. A temporal system. God has said that there will come a time when there will be no more suffering or evil when His kingdom fully comes. We know He took away eternal life from the first humans, so that the suffering that would come upon the earth because man had dominion over it but would not run it as God intended, would not be eternal suffering.

3. God works all things for the good, to those who love Him. (Romans 8.28.)

4. The issue of something being better than it was previously now it has been broken and mended. In other words, there are some things that can lead to an eternally wonderful result, that just can't be achieved with the absence of the negative. We have to consider this possibility, that had we all lived in a paradise since birth, we may never experientially, "know" the value of it and the value of God's way. In a very real sense it seems to me, earth really is just a training program. 

 

These are just some of my opinions on this matter. Really I have not formulated any formal arguments, they are mostly my provisional beliefs. I refer to my own opinions as, "provisional" because lots of things I think automatically go into the "provisional opinions" category, which means that while I have formed the opinions because they are only formative, they can be modified very easily, because they contain 0% dogma-content. As an analogy, imagine the straw that broke the camel's back, that is how easily I can change my mind about provisional beliefs and thoughts I have. You may say, "but Mike what about X" and that alone might change my whole thinking on that issue.


  • MarkForbes likes this

#28 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 09 September 2017 - 05:37 AM

Mark, it seems to me that a defect must always be introduced after the original with the none-defect. As I have shown, diseases come about over time, defects are only problems with the original that has no defect. It seems to me, "evil" in a sense, can be defined philosophically, as the absence of original meaning/function. To tell a lie, you first must have the truth. Without the truth (the intended way of function) then you can't have the lie. Thus evil is the breaking/abuse/absence, of good. It is only a, "less than" what was originally meant. A lie is less than the truth, a twisting of truth. For me this proves the creation was originally totally good, or, "very good" because all evil is dependent upon corrupting good, without good there is no evil, but without evil there is good.

.....

 

Indeed, even in quality management and control, you need first to know what the desired condition of a good is, before you can detect and sort out the defects. 

For the sake of argument I would however like to focus what can still be detected of a good creation. E.g. what makes good life possible. That would be what is recognizable good in nature and even still in the faculties of men. 

 

So the one is the question of good creation, the other or next issue would be evil and decay. 



#29 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 09 September 2017 - 05:00 PM

.... In the pre-flood world there wasn't any habitation in extreme environments, there was no winter or summer, according to the bible, until after the flood. 

Error of fact.
 
"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years"  (Gen 1:14, KJV)
 
So, according to the Bible, there were seasons before the flood.  Even the YEC ministries such as AIG and CMI acknowledge that there were seasons from the time of creation.

yes, strictly speaking.
but we are basically talking about Mediterranean weather, and more specifically mid eastern weather here.
i would assume this to be rather "constant" in terms of temperature.
IOW, winter would be relatively mild, probably milder than florida weather.

#30 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,727 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 09 September 2017 - 07:25 PM

 

 

.... In the pre-flood world there wasn't any habitation in extreme environments, there was no winter or summer, according to the bible, until after the flood. 

Error of fact.
 
"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years"  (Gen 1:14, KJV)
 
So, according to the Bible, there were seasons before the flood.  Even the YEC ministries such as AIG and CMI acknowledge that there were seasons from the time of creation.

 

yes, strictly speaking.
but we are basically talking about Mediterranean weather, and more specifically mid eastern weather here.
i would assume this to be rather "constant" in terms of temperature.
IOW, winter would be relatively mild, probably milder than florida weather.

The claim was that before the alleged flood "there was no winter or summer, according to the bible."  That statement was not correct as the Genesis account specifically states there were seasons.

 

Mediterranean weather tends to avoid extremes because large bodies of water act as heat reservoirs and moderate wide temperature swings.  But one need not go far from the Med to find sweltering summers and snow in (at least some) winters.

 

I was living in Cocoa Beach, Florida when it snowed.  That same storm brought snow to Miami.  I also lived in Jacksonville when 4 inches of snow fell there.  It's fun watching Florida drivers in the snow.



#31 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 10 September 2017 - 07:36 AM

.... In the pre-flood world there wasn't any habitation in extreme environments, there was no winter or summer, according to the bible, until after the flood. 

Error of fact.
 
"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years"  (Gen 1:14, KJV)
 
So, according to the Bible, there were seasons before the flood.  Even the YEC ministries such as AIG and CMI acknowledge that there were seasons from the time of creation.

yes, strictly speaking.
but we are basically talking about Mediterranean weather, and more specifically mid eastern weather here.
i would assume this to be rather "constant" in terms of temperature.
IOW, winter would be relatively mild, probably milder than florida weather.

The claim was that before the alleged flood "there was no winter or summer, according to the bible."  That statement was not correct as the Genesis account specifically states there were seasons.
 
Mediterranean weather tends to avoid extremes because large bodies of water act as heat reservoirs and moderate wide temperature swings.  But one need not go far from the Med to find sweltering summers and snow in (at least some) winters.
 
I was living in Cocoa Beach, Florida when it snowed.  That same storm brought snow to Miami.  I also lived in Jacksonville when 4 inches of snow fell there.  It's fun watching Florida drivers in the snow.

i would assume that the latitude we are talking about is roughly the same as jacksonville florida (almost the northern limit of florida, i had to check it on my globe).
however, the climate in the area we are discussing is almost all desert.
this doesn't sound like "winter" to me.
to be specific, i assume the area we are discussing is the southern part of iraq and possibly the eastern shores of the med.

#32 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,727 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 10 September 2017 - 04:29 PM

 

The claim was that before the alleged flood "there was no winter or summer, according to the bible."  That statement was not correct as the Genesis account specifically states there were seasons.
 
Mediterranean weather tends to avoid extremes because large bodies of water act as heat reservoirs and moderate wide temperature swings.  But one need not go far from the Med to find sweltering summers and snow in (at least some) winters.
 
I was living in Cocoa Beach, Florida when it snowed.  That same storm brought snow to Miami.  I also lived in Jacksonville when 4 inches of snow fell there.  It's fun watching Florida drivers in the snow.

 

i would assume that the latitude we are talking about is roughly the same as jacksonville florida (almost the northern limit of florida, i had to check it on my globe).

The latitude is very close.

 

however, the climate in the area we are discussing is almost all desert.

Deserts are determined by precipitation, not temperature.  The largest desert on Earth is Antarctica.  Deserts also typically have large temperature swings both daily and seasonally.  This is mostly due to very low humidity.

 

this doesn't sound like "winter" to me.
to be specific, i assume the area we are discussing is the southern part of iraq and possibly the eastern shores of the med.

The average temperature in Jerusalem in January is 8C and July is 23C.  That's a 15C or 27F swing.

In Baghdad, it's 10C in January and 34C in July.  That's a 24C or 43.2F difference.

 

I suspect much of the difference has to do with Jerusalem being fairly close to moderating influence of the Mediterranean.

 

To my thinking, a 30-40 degree (F) difference in temperature is enough to qualify as a different season.

 

But my original point stands..... mike the w claimed the Bible says there were no seasons before the flood.  I produced a biblical reference showing there were.

 

Now what climates may have been like before that claimed event would be purely speculative.  But the Bible clearly says there were seasons from the time of creation.



#33 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 10 September 2017 - 05:34 PM

But my original point stands..... mike the w claimed the Bible says there were no seasons before the flood.  I produced a biblical reference showing there were.

see, this is the thing with the bible (and probably everything else you want to haggle over), it can be interpreted in various ways.
blitz likes to make a big deal out of evolution proceeding fast, slow, never, only on tuesdays, etc, but isn't the bible in the same predicament?
maybe the sun signified the seasons by how high it was at noon, not by climate.
taking your antarctica example, i would hardly call summer in antarctica a pleasing experience, but the sun still signified the season.
another thing, taking the sun and moon positions as "signs".
signs of what?
impending doom?
what is this, astrology 101?
excuse me, but i wish to leave.

so, what exactly is the philosophy of creation idea?
i don't know man, i find the idea irrational TBH.
why and how does a perfect god create imperfect beings, then murder those beings because they were imperfect.
then turn around and tell the survivors "believe in me or BURN FOREVER".
ridiculous.
OTOH, there are the little niggling things that you can't seem to sidestep.
life, consciousness, morality, the universe itself.

i've said this before in my abiogenesis thread, this seems to be a relevant place for it:
i have my own little scenario for god, and it goes something like this:
think about what it would be like to be the only immortal being in existence.
the devil doesn't actually exist, it's a construction by god for his plan.
god soon becomes "bored" with his place in the universe simply because of the vast length of time he has existed.
what does god do?
he sacrifices his immortality to become human and instills in them the "tools" needed to attain godlike perfection.
what are these tools?
the placebo effect and the bible which contains the simple phrase "to come as children".

the above is a very reasonable accounting and it seems to solve a lot of questions.

#34 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 11 September 2017 - 07:09 AM

"What If" technically I was incorrect like Piasan said, however what is significant is that God mentions the seasons immediately after the flood and He mentions that animals can now be eaten as food. 

 

Immediately one has to ask the question, "why even mention those things?" It seems obvious to me, as to the answer. AFTER the flood the earth had been pummelled, lost a lot of it's vegetation. Indeed, our world now is basically a desert compared to what the fossils show, and sizes of the insects they find in them, such as 1 foot long dragon flies, etc...so it seems mighty reasonable to conclude that the antediluvian world was another world. God was in a nutshell saying this; "Gonna be tough now home-child, gonna be tough. No more free veggie burgers, in fact it's so bad now it's beef burgers for you. That's right, no more pet cows and keepin' chickens in hamster cages, seasons gonna continue child, better be ready, winter and summer you're gonna sure notice the difference now, earth is a new place, home-slice."

 

;)



#35 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,727 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 13 September 2017 - 09:39 PM

God was in a nutshell saying this; "Gonna be tough now home-child, gonna be tough. No more free veggie burgers, in fact it's so bad now it's beef burgers for you.

What ? ? ?   No veggie burgers ? ? ?  Beef burgers instead ! ! !

 

The horror.

 

BTW, as I understand it, the "free" part had been taken away at the fall. 



#36 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,050 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 14 September 2017 - 02:24 AM

"What If" technically I was incorrect like Piasan said, however what is significant is that God mentions the seasons immediately after the flood and He mentions that animals can now be eaten as food. 

 

Immediately one has to ask the question, "why even mention those things?" It seems obvious to me, as to the answer. AFTER the flood the earth had been pummelled, lost a lot of it's vegetation. Indeed, our world now is basically a desert compared to what the fossils show, and sizes of the insects they find in them, such as 1 foot long dragon flies, etc...so it seems mighty reasonable to conclude that the antediluvian world was another world. God was in a nutshell saying this; "Gonna be tough now home-child, gonna be tough. No more free veggie burgers, in fact it's so bad now it's beef burgers for you. That's right, no more pet cows and keepin' chickens in hamster cages, seasons gonna continue child, better be ready, winter and summer you're gonna sure notice the difference now, earth is a new place, home-slice."

 

;)

 

The obvious problem about switching from a plant based diet to a meat based diet immediately after the flood due to a lack of vegetation, is that for a good while after the flood whenever you kill an animal you are wiping out an entire species. But it is worse than wiping out an entire species because after the flood, according to creationists, each species quickly 'evolved' ("adapted" as creationists like to say) into multiple species. So every time you go out hunting you are making a taxonomic family extinct.

 

Okay maybe not that dire; most animals went on the Ark in pairs, so every other hunt. And the few "clean" animals were in groups of seven. However, the fundamental problem remains, and it is not just humans that are hunting but also all the carnivores and omnivores too. The scenario presented by creationists is simply ecologically unsustainable.

 

There is an allegorical understanding to the allowing of eating meat according to Judaism. Eating meat is not ideal, but God knew that the human condition was so sinful that something had to give or an even worse (violent) outcome would occur. To prevent an even greater evil God permitted man to consume meat. It's been a while since I read up on this so I don't remember the details, but that is the gist of it.



#37 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 14 September 2017 - 03:46 PM



 

mike the wiz, on 11 Sept 2017 - 09:09 AM, said:

"What If" technically I was incorrect like Piasan said, however what is significant is that God mentions the seasons immediately after the flood and He mentions that animals can now be eaten as food. 
 
Immediately one has to ask the question, "why even mention those things?" It seems obvious to me, as to the answer. AFTER the flood the earth had been pummelled, lost a lot of it's vegetation. Indeed, our world now is basically a desert compared to what the fossils show, and sizes of the insects they find in them, such as 1 foot long dragon flies, etc...so it seems mighty reasonable to conclude that the antediluvian world was another world. God was in a nutshell saying this; "Gonna be tough now home-child, gonna be tough. No more free veggie burgers, in fact it's so bad now it's beef burgers for you. That's right, no more pet cows and keepin' chickens in hamster cages, seasons gonna continue child, better be ready, winter and summer you're gonna sure notice the difference now, earth is a new place, home-slice."
 


The obvious problem about switching from a plant based diet to a meat based diet immediately after the flood due to a lack of vegetation, is that for a good while after the flood whenever you kill an animal you are wiping out an entire species. But it is worse than wiping out an entire species because after the flood, according to creationists, each species quickly 'evolved' ("adapted" as creationists like to say) into multiple species. So every time you go out hunting you are making a taxonomic family extinct.
 [quote]
There were only only eight people to feed. How much food do you think they needed? They could also fish!
[quote]
Okay maybe not that dire; most animals went on the Ark in pairs, so every other hunt. And the few "clean" animals were in groups of seven. However, the fundamental problem remains, and it is not just humans that are hunting but also all the carnivores and omnivores too. The scenario presented by creationists is simply ecologically unsustainable.

What you have done is "create" an answer as befits what you want to believe (anti-supernatural bigotry and bias).

Simply unsustainable? Thus saith Goku!
Were you there? No! So how do you know? You are assuming your premise that evo has no limits on what it can do. So you think your position is reasoable. Therefore intelligence falls far short even though you use intelligence to generate your "just so" stories. Your bias against inteligence is almost beyond belief!


 

#38 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 14 September 2017 - 07:53 PM

Were you there? No!

i like questions like this.
i wasn't there holding the trinity device when it triggered.
i can however SWEAR it got pretty hot.

another question along similar lines is one about someones education.
it seems if you don't have 4 years of uni specifically in evolution, that you are somehow unqualified to discuss it.
this may generally be true, but it's hardly a hard and fast rule.

#39 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,050 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 15 September 2017 - 02:16 AM

 

There were only only eight people to feed. How much food do you think they needed? They could also fish!

 

Ignoring the problems that the flood would have on marine life, are you proposing that all the animals that eat meat decided to only eat fish? When did they decide this? When did they decide to eat land animals again? Please elaborate.

 

I can see it now, a starving lion is walking towards the Savannah from Mt. Ararat, and sees a zebra going the same way. The lion says to himself that he would really enjoy the zebra, but the zebra needs to stay alive so it can reproduce and make more zebras so my descendants can feast upon their flesh. So I will go into this river despite that I, being a lion, don't particularly like water, and I will hunt for fish which are not only hard for me to catch but are also small and don't provide the energy I need unless I catch a lot.
 

What you have done is "create" an answer as befits what you want to believe (anti-supernatural bigotry and bias).

Simply unsustainable? Thus saith Goku!
Were you there? No! So how do you know? You are assuming your premise that evo has no limits on what it can do. So you think your position is reasoable. Therefore intelligence falls far short even though you use intelligence to generate your "just so" stories. Your bias against inteligence is almost beyond belief!

 

 

I admit, I am biased against proposed events that have no evidence for them where all the evidence we do have not only indicates that they did not occur but also could not have occurred.

 

Does the flood sound sustainable to you? Salt and fresh water mixing annihilating entire aquatic ecosystems. Waters so violent it carves vasts canyons which would not bode well for any fish or similar creature. The waters were so high that all land was covered, so all land animals would have died, and so would all plant life. Plants need photosynthesis, but if you get 200 meters (650 feet, a mile is 5280 feet) of water light isn't going to penetrate it well enough for plants to use it. After a year or so of such a flood all plant life would have been killed. All coral reefs would have been destroyed under these conditions. Never mind pH changes or the thermodynamics behind such a deluge. Realistically Noah and his party would have departed the Ark to find a world barren of all macroscopic life on land, air, and sea. Food would be an inescapable problem, as would drinkable water. Everyone on the Ark would have died shortly after, even if they were all in peak physical/mental condition post-flood which itself is laughable.

 

Then we have the problem of how all the animals got to their native lands, or how they managed to survive such an intense bottleneck of two individuals when even the most accommodating population genetics requires about 50 individuals of a population to survive.

 

Clearly I am being biased against intelligence for using intelligence to assess absurd claims. Makes perfect sense. Your bias against rationality is almost beyond belief.



#40 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 15 September 2017 - 10:16 AM

Clearly I am being biased against intelligence for using intelligence to assess absurd claims. Makes perfect sense. Your bias against rationality is almost beyond belief.

there is nothing at all irrational in assuming an alternate reality.
the pre big bang, and what the universe is expanding into, are 2 typical examples.
both of these can have physical laws very different than what we know.

it's perfectly rational to assume the cell came together of its own accord.
however, upon closer inspection, we find that we can't duplicate it even though we have the tools and functioning specimens to do it.
maybe this is why epigenetics was ignored for so long, it eluded a natural explanation.

what's the natural explanation for transposons encoding their own transcriptase?
what's the natural explanation for prokaryotes with a preponderance of HGT transforming into eukaryotes with a preponderance of "tagged" transposons?
as crazy and irrational as it sounds, it certainly seems as if something was trying to get it right.

no, yes, no, yes, no, yes, no, yes.
AAAAGGGGHHHH
zksjhsrtk





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Philosophy, Creation idea, Cosmology, Physic, world view, Science, Christian philosophy, epistemology, Hendrik Stoker

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users