Jump to content


Photo

How Can God Use A Cause If Evolution Is A Cause?


  • Please log in to reply
209 replies to this topic

#41 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 18 March 2017 - 09:51 PM

..... do you actually believe a broth of chemicals can give rise to lifes diversity?
don't start the "that isn't what evolution says" crap.
even after 60 years of intense effort, science STILL has no clue as to how it arrived.
and that's given the head start of having a functioning specimen to work from.......

WOW ! ! !   A whole 60 years.  That's a lot of time.

 

It took almost 6,000 years to figure out heavier than air flight , by YEC reckoning.... much longer by mainstream science thinking .... and were "given the head start of having a functioning specimen to work from" on that one too.

 

Which do you think is harder to figure out, life or flight?



#42 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,024 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 18 March 2017 - 11:50 PM

WOW ! ! !   A whole 60 years.  That's a lot of time.
 
It took almost 6,000 years to figure out heavier than air flight , by YEC reckoning.... much longer by mainstream science thinking .... and were "given the head start of having a functioning specimen to work from" on that one too.
 
Which do you think is harder to figure out, life or flight?

an interesting point, but is it valid.
i think the point above doesn't apply because humanity wasn't fully aware of the problems involved, plus they lacked the materials needed, and the model they came up with in no way mimics a flapping birds wing.
the most obvious problem is the bernoulli effect (lift).
the most obvious material was aluminum and its alloys.
it wasn't long after all the parts were found that humanity took to the air in droves.
no, i don't think your example applies, but it seems science would have put a lot of effort into bird anatomy, at least for awhile.

science is fully aware of the problems concerning abiogenesis, and probably fully capable of creating every component of the cell.
post 6 in my abiogenesis thread gives some of the problems associated with abiogenesis.
it also brings up the question of "information", which i haven't been able to nail down.
what is this information?
the "kernal" of phyla?
james tour also speaks of this "information".
as a programmer, "information" must be built into the program, and this cannot be changed without a rewrite (sometimes the entire program must be rewritten), it cannot just be edited.
and that's just a start.
we would still be faced with consciousness
the sudden arrival of animal phyla is equally enigmatic.
it certainly appears each phyla could indeed have its own origin.

#43 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,005 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 19 March 2017 - 05:15 AM

Not to me, not to Goku, not to Wibble.

 

faith =/= god

 

Ah, the god of the gaps. The shrinking god.

 

close to 70% is not christian. If yours is an argument, mine is too.

 

Oké, I'll better convert to islam then.

 

Mostly polytheism.

 

"Oké, I'll better convert to islam then."

 

YOU MIGHT AS WELL DO JUST THAT

THERE IS ESSENCIALLY ZERO DIFFERENCE

BETWEEN ISLAM AND ATHEISM, THEY BOTH

DENY THE DIETY OF CHRIST AND HIS GIFT

OF SALVATION..AND THAT IS ALL THAT

MATTERS. :mellow:



#44 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 19 March 2017 - 12:26 PM

WOW ! ! !   A whole 60 years.  That's a lot of time.

 

It took almost 6,000 years to figure out heavier than air flight , by YEC reckoning.... much longer by mainstream science thinking .... and were "given the head start of having a functioning specimen to work from" on that one too.

 

Which do you think is harder to figure out, life or flight?

an interesting point, but is it valid.
i think the point above doesn't apply because humanity wasn't fully aware of the problems involved, plus they lacked the materials needed, and the model they came up with in no way mimics a flapping birds wing.
the most obvious problem is the bernoulli effect (lift).
the most obvious material was aluminum and its alloys.
it wasn't long after all the parts were found that humanity took to the air in droves.
no, i don't think your example applies, but it seems science would have put a lot of effort into bird anatomy, at least for awhile.

So you think humanity is fully aware of the problems involved with forming life?  Seriously?  Even if we fully understand all of the problems, that doesn't distract from the fact that the formation of life is immeasurably more complicated to solve than flight.

 

Early aircraft were made of wood, cloth, and wire.  Materials that have been available for thousands of years.

 

I've sat on the beach many times watching seagulls and pelicans fly while almost never flapping their wings.  First flight was with similar gliding aircraft. 

 

About the only thing you got right is that early aircraft mimicked birds.

 

science is fully aware of the problems concerning abiogenesis, and probably fully capable of creating every component of the cell.
post 6 in my abiogenesis thread gives some of the problems associated with abiogenesis.

Which serves only to reinforce my comment that abiogenesis is vastly more complicated than flight.  Yet you argue that the riddle of life should be solved in only 60 years while flight took virtually all of human history. 

 

it also brings up the question of "information", which i haven't been able to nail down.
what is this information?

Don't feel too bad.  No one has yet come up with a way to measure, or even define, biological information.

 

the "kernal" of phyla?
james tour also speaks of this "information".
as a programmer, "information" must be built into the program, and this cannot be changed without a rewrite (sometimes the entire program must be rewritten), it cannot just be edited.
and that's just a start.
we would still be faced with consciousness
the sudden arrival of animal phyla is equally enigmatic.

Does this simplify the problem of life, or does it add to the issues that must be dealt with?

 

Seems to me most of the objections you raise simply serve to reinforce my initial point ..... that life is vastly more complex than flight.  Why should it be surprising that after only 60 years, the riddle of life has not been solved?

 

it certainly appears each phyla could indeed have its own origin.

That certainly is a possibility.  I've read that the most recent research points toward multiple "original" life forms.

 

BTW, I don't expect the riddle of first life to ever be solved.  The evidence science would need to find that has long since been destroyed.... by life itself.



#45 driewerf

driewerf

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 626 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 19 March 2017 - 01:25 PM

even after 60 years of intense effort, science STILL has no clue as to how it arrived.
and that's given the head start of having a functioning specimen to work from.
added to that, if it's found that epigenetics co evolved with the DNA strand, then there is no way, none, that this arose naturally.

It took more than 250 years before Fermat's theorem was proven.

  • It took 250 years before the mathematicians proved Fermat's Theorem.
  • Only 300 years after Copernicus and Galileo proposed heliocentrism, stellar parallax was observed by Friedrich Bessel.
  • 115 years after Einsteins formulation of the Theory of Relativity we first recorded a gravitational wave.
  • We still have not found a cure for cancer
  • and to this date there is absolutely no cure for the disease of Hutchinson, we can't even slow down the disease.
  • We still don't know why we sleep.

Just saying.



#46 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,024 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 19 March 2017 - 05:31 PM

So you think humanity is fully aware of the problems involved with forming life?  Seriously?

yes, science is fully aware of why it hasn't solved the riddle of life.
a number of these has been spelled out in the post i mentioned.

Even if we fully understand all of the problems, that doesn't distract from the fact that the formation of life is immeasurably more complicated to solve than flight.

would you expect that from a naturally occurring process?
science doesn't even know how the first proteins came together.
it could also be that science is working from the wrong assumption of replication first, but after 60 years science has probably tried every conceivable angle, even to the point of taking parts from "freshly dead" cells and combining them.

Yet you argue that the riddle of life should be solved in only 60 years while flight took virtually all of human history.

i think you are phrasing the question wrong.
how long did it take after humanity discovered all of the problems? 

Don't feel too bad.  No one has yet come up with a way to measure, or even define, biological information.

but yet it exists in regards to abiogenesis, and this must be accounted for somehow.
 

Does this simplify the problem of life, or does it add to the issues that must be dealt with?

the information bit is relevant, yes.
consciousness is an entirely different animal than abiogenesis, and this too must be explained in higher lifeforms.
the sudden appearance of animal phyla is again entirely different from the first two, but must also be dealt with.
the "gradual accumulation" bit is not the answer.
it's quite possible that by the time eukaryotic super groups arrived on the scene that transposons and epigenetics was already operational, and i would guess that transposons was here from the very beginning.
 

Seems to me most of the objections you raise simply serve to reinforce my initial point ..... that life is vastly more complex than flight.  Why should it be surprising that after only 60 years, the riddle of life has not been solved?

because we know what the problems are and we have a functioning specimen to work from.
we have no clue how a group of proteins could come together in the right amounts before they are destroyed by such things as UV and water (among others)

That certainly is a possibility.  I've read that the most recent research points toward multiple "original" life forms.

this comports well with the biblical accounting, does it not?
with this in mind, we can conclude that the ark needn't carry a member of every single species, but just members of each phyla.

BTW, I don't expect the riddle of first life to ever be solved.  The evidence science would need to find that has long since been destroyed.... by life itself.

maybe, maybe not.
the fact remains that my post 6 in the abiogenesis thread doesn't even mention this fact, so it's apparently irrelevant.

#47 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,024 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 19 March 2017 - 05:55 PM

It took more than 250 years before Fermat's theorem was proven.

  • It took 250 years before the mathematicians proved Fermat's Theorem.
  • Only 300 years after Copernicus and Galileo proposed heliocentrism, stellar parallax was observed by Friedrich Bessel.
  • 115 years after Einsteins formulation of the Theory of Relativity we first recorded a gravitational wave.
  • We still have not found a cure for cancer
  • and to this date there is absolutely no cure for the disease of Hutchinson, we can't even slow down the disease.
  • We still don't know why we sleep.
Just saying.

was the associated problems fully understood and did they have a functioning specimen to work from?
see, this is the thing about abiogenesis, science fully understands the problems involved.

don't forget driewerf, evolutionists have lied through their teeth in regards to "gradual accumulations" even to the point of DELIBERATELY lying to the public and forging fake science papers.
this ayala scandal is proof of it.

also, i believe koonin is wrong when he says there are 2 modes of evolution.
i am convinced that macroevolution is the result of epigenetics being unable to stabilize the genome.
of course, these organisms didn't "poof" into existence, they resulted after just a few generations, 15 maybe?
and they weren't the result of any kind of "gradual accumulation".
my thinking along these lines must be correct because i was able to come up with a "restart" scenario before i knew such a thing existed.

but i digress.

#48 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,024 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 19 March 2017 - 06:04 PM

  • and to this date there is absolutely no cure for the disease of Hutchinson, we can't even slow down the disease.

HD is typically inherited from a person's parents, with 10% of cases due to a new mutation.[2] The disease is caused by an autosomal dominant mutation in either of an individual's two copies of a gene called Huntingtin.
https://en.wikipedia...ngton's_disease

with the discovery of CRISPR, this disease can be prevented.
this borders on the ethics of science, it isn't a matter of whether we can, but if we should.

#49 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,005 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 19 March 2017 - 09:07 PM

So you think humanity is fully aware of the problems involved with forming life?  Seriously?  Even if we fully understand all of the problems, that doesn't distract from the fact that the formation of life is immeasurably more complicated to solve than flight.
 
Early aircraft were made of wood, cloth, and wire.  Materials that have been available for thousands of years.
 
I've sat on the beach many times watching seagulls and pelicans fly while almost never flapping their wings.  First flight was with similar gliding aircraft. 
 
About the only thing you got right is that early aircraft mimicked birds.
 

Which serves only to reinforce my comment that abiogenesis is vastly more complicated than flight.  Yet you argue that the riddle of life should be solved in only 60 years while flight took virtually all of human history. 
 

Don't feel too bad.  No one has yet come up with a way to measure, or even define, biological information.
 

Does this simplify the problem of life, or does it add to the issues that must be dealt with?
 
Seems to me most of the objections you raise simply serve to reinforce my initial point ..... that life is vastly more complex than flight.  Why should it be surprising that after only 60 years, the riddle of life has not been solved?
 

That certainly is a possibility.  I've read that the most recent research points toward multiple "original" life forms.
 
BTW, I don't expect the riddle of first life to ever be solved.  The evidence science would need to find that has long since been destroyed.... by life itself.



"BTW, I don't expect the riddle of first life to ever be solved"

Oh, It has already been solved, you just dont like the solution so you will keep on trying to shove that square peg into the round hole becasue as one of your fellow travelers put it "We cant allow a divine foot in the door"...

Sorry, your worldview of Metaphysical Naturalism has failed you, A self replicating DNA molecule, encoded with millions of lines of specified and irreducible complexity could NEVER have emerged by random chaotic chemical reactions..

Life MUST HAVE been caused by an intelligence agent.. One that has powers and knowledge FAR SUPERIOR to ours.. But you will keep on deluding yourself into forcing yourself to believe what you know in your heart is a lie..

“…evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on unproven theory. Is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation. Both are concepts which the believers know to be true, but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.” L.H. Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of the Species,

#50 eddified

eddified

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Mormon
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Utah

Posted 20 March 2017 - 12:03 PM

"what if", what is the "ayala scandal"? I googled it and know who you must be speaking of, but the scandal itself, I can't find any information about it.



#51 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 20 March 2017 - 12:26 PM

 

 

Eddified: "what if", what is the "ayala scandal"? I googled it and know who you must be speaking of, but the scandal itself, I can't find any information about it.

 

Oh no,....why did you go an have to ask that? Don't you know that the "ire of the many outweighs the ire of the few?" 

 

:rotfl3:

 

(in case you don't get the joke, "What If" is obsessed with two guys called Ayala and Koonin. The Koonin quote he always repeats, says something about the "ire of the many" which I have used to change Mr Spock's popular phrase.) ;)



#52 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,024 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 20 March 2017 - 02:42 PM

"what if", what is the "ayala scandal"? I googled it and know who you must be speaking of, but the scandal itself, I can't find any information about it.

it all centers around the following quote and the corresponding "retraction":
In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis in the United States, said: "We would not have predicted stasis from population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate."-Science, vol. 210 no. 4472 pp: 883-887

there is no indication that anyone said a word to "science" concerning said quote.
keep in mind that this wasn't a peer reviewed paper and therefor "science" is directly responsible for it.

#53 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,024 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 20 March 2017 - 02:51 PM

Oh no,....why did you go an have to ask that? Don't you know that the "ire of the many outweighs the ire of the few?" 
 
:rotfl3:
 
(in case you don't get the joke, "What If" is obsessed with two guys called Ayala and Koonin. The Koonin quote he always repeats, says something about the "ire of the many" which I have used to change Mr Spock's popular phrase.) ;)

what, you think this stuff is funny?

a few more i'm "obsessed" with:
ross, lynch, noble, oakely, glansdorf, jablonka

#54 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 20 March 2017 - 05:48 PM

Driewerf,

It takes is great intelectual honesty to admit problems in our cognitive constructs. That's why the scripture says, "He that rules himself is greater than he that takes a city." Will we willingly lie to hold on to a favored position--because we think it such a horror to be wrong? The answer to that question depends on the war we fight in our mind.

I used to be a control freak--had an opinion on who could or couldn 't exist. My position allolwed me to be against beings I didn't know--an incredible level of bias. I now honestly admit I have no control and influence on the existennce of others.
God exists as a part of my mentality.  I do not need your confirmation of that.

I no longer entertain the idea that it is somehow my responsibility to decide and publicize beings who  I or others  claim do or don't exist. Rather, I accept the existence of everyone I meet--extending a hand of friendship as I meet them.

God exists as a part of my mentality.  I do not need your confirmation of that.


It's not that there has to be or has not to be a God but that you have appeared to take the negative. Thus, dichotomous reasoning--a form of cognitive dissonance.

 



#55 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,005 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:23 PM

what, you think this stuff is funny?

a few more i'm "obsessed" with:
ross, lynch, noble, oakely, glansdorf, jablonka

 

In Mikes defense, it seems like 90% of your posts mentions Koonins name for some reason.. (whoever Koonin is, I havent a clue)

maybe you should get some new material as it could get stale... It might also avoid some unhealthy reification issues as well :worship:

 

It might be good to expand your horizons, Just a thought :putertired:



#56 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,024 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:28 PM

It might be good to expand your horizons, Just a thought :putertired:

how can a person expand an open mind?
you cannot possibly say i haven't looked at all the angles.

#57 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 21 March 2017 - 03:31 AM

It's all meant in healthy jest, "What If". Look at my "interests" on my profile. I don't know if you have this phrase in the U.S. "He's taking the micky". Or, "pulling your chain", or, "putting me on?" (I think the last one is old American, I only ever heard that one in an 80's movie, it might be out of fashion now,.)

 

We all have certain personality traits, which can make for humour if we exaggerate them. I mock you but it isn't genuine mockery.

 

But I think you know that really, because you're a pretty good judge of character, and you know there is no malicious intent in my silliness.  (the ire of the many outweighing the ire of the few refers to all of the most common posters at this forum, having to suffer more of those quotes you repeat. ;) whereas the "few" would be the one requesting the quotes, for he would feel 'ire' if you didn't explain, thus if you were to quote Koonin and Ayala again, all of the common posters would have ire, and the ire of the many outweighs the ire of the few, "or the one". - Mr Spock. In this case, the poster, Eddified. 

 

That's why it amused me. Forgive my endless and many mischiefs. :D



#58 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 21 March 2017 - 03:44 AM

For those who haven't seen the movie, "Star Trek - The Wrath Of Khan", Mr Spock gives his classic phrase, when in a space-battle, Khan arms the Genesis device for activation which will destroy everything in the vicinity, including Captain Kirk's ship, and all of the crew, so Mr Spock sacrifices his own life by exposing himself to radiation so as to repair the warp drive so that they can escape the blast from the Genesis device. Mr Spock succeeds and when Captain Kirk goes to find what happened to him, Spock gives his explanation, in response to what Kirk had initially said at an earlier stage in the movie, that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". By Spock sacrificing his own life, he put his own needs aside for the many more needs of the crew.

 

A pretty famous Star Trek quote, I thought most people would recognise given they offed Spock in that film. Goku would have probably got it, as he seems up to speed given he isn't a dinosaur yet you like you guys. :rotfl3: 

 

;)



#59 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 21 March 2017 - 08:31 AM

Actually mischief and playfyulness is a sign of of good mental health. Most people take life all too seriously. After all, Life is to enjoy!

They call it Dark Matter bcause they don't wish to ackn owledge the non physial (spirit state). The physical state is the physical state and the mental state is the spiritual state. Most will at least acknowledge that both states have different characterisicts. THowever, they don't wish to acknowledge there is no physics to the spiri or mental state--so they call "it" dark matter. LOL


  • mike the wiz likes this

#60 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 21 March 2017 - 08:55 AM

A pretty famous Star Trek quote, I thought most people would recognise given they offed Spock in that film. Goku would have probably got it, as he seems up to speed given he isn't a dinosaur yet you like you guys. :rotfl3: 

Watch it, junior ! ! ! 

 

Growing old is a privilege denied to many..... and it's way better than the alternative.


  • mike the wiz likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users