Creationism v. Intelligent Design v. Evolution

[ricmat]

False. God is outside of time, period. At the moment the Big Bang was actualized, God knew the outcome. Yet if God allows for some relaxed stringency in the guidance of quantum processes (something that may not be the case, only God knows if it is), the planning of the Big Bang would have allowed for some variation in outcome.

Yet it is inconceivable that God would not have obtained what He wanted, since the outcome of His plan would already have factored in any such relaxed stringency, if it exists.

That looks like a massively impressive way of saying that you don’t have a clue.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Note that Communion and Stewardship is not some new-fangled theology.

See how central the quote of St. Thomas Aquinas is, one of greatest theologians and teachers of the Catholic Church who lived in the 13th century.

 

[Al_Moritz]

That looks like a massively impressive way of saying that you don’t have a clue.

It is your free choice to see it that way.

Yet if you mean it in the sense that I cannot look into God’s mind and do not know exactly how He planned the Big Bang, then I certainly have to agree.

 

[Al_Moritz]

By the way, Ricmat, you answered so quickly that before you posted you could impossibly have read the paragraph of Communion and Stewardship that I cited.

Please read it carefully, it is well worth it.

 

[tonyrey]

From your point of view, that is.

From a** scientific** point of view:

1. Life on this planet has almost become extinct several times.
2. Monocellular organisms have outlasted many complex organisms.

 

[tonyrey]

Of course not. You already know what else I think science cannot explain. We have discussed that.

Can science explain why life has not become extinct and why it has developed to such an extent in spite of all the odds?

 

[ricmat]

By the way, Ricmat, you answered so quickly that before you posted you could impossibly have read the paragraph of Communion and Stewardship that I cited.

Please read it carefully, it is well worth it.

I don’t see anything about God not knowing the outcome. You seem to believe that the cited paragraph says that God himself would not know the outcome of a process which contains randomness.

God is outside time. He knows the outcome. You said so yourself.

It is nonsense to think otherwise. I refer you back to Cardinal Schoenborn’s criticism of Fr. Coyne (posted earlier by Ed West, and a few years ago by me as well).

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Can science explain why life has not become extinct and why it has developed to such an extent in spite of all the odds?

We are, very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very…

…Lucky!!! to the power of six thousand billion.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I don’t see anything about God not knowing the outcome. You seem to believe that the cited paragraph says that God himself would not know the outcome of a process which contains randomness.

God is outside time. He knows the outcome. You said so yourself.

I made the distinction between knowing the outcome at actualization and between planning. Also, read carefully the St. Thomas quote about necessity vs. contingency. It’s really not that hard.

 

[ricmat]

I made the distinction between knowing the outcome at actualization and between planning. Also, read carefully the St. Thomas quote about necessity vs. contingency. It’s really not that hard.

But the bottom line is that in your view, after “actualization”, God didn’t know what Adam would look like until it happened. I’m not going to buy that. That’s not what your reference said.

 

[tonyrey]

We are, very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very…

…Lucky!!! to the power of six thousand billion.

Now that is one of the most formidable posts I have come across!

 

[buffalo]

Which are?

God planned Adam and the plan was followed.

 

[Neildown]

On the contrary. A God who can plan out everything as a single process from the tiny seed of the Big Bang up to the development of all life in the resulting vast universe, now that is grandeur!

Mindboggling. Much more impressive than the tinkering engineer alternative. No comparison, hands down.

The process created by God is an incredible miracle if you think about it.

Sorry, Mr. Moritz, I know you’re getting dumped-on with posts but I have to add another of my own.

Quite honestly, I don’t find that at as ‘grand’ as what God is capable of. I’ve seen plenty of space explosions on the Science Channel, and they happen all the time in our vast universe. Now when do you see planets appear out of nothing and start working their life processes within 7 days, the planet being able to support itself flawlessly? completely all for the literal 7 day creation, however I do believe the earth was created in a very short time-frame] I’d say that is an event worthy of the beginning of our existence - of God’s creation of a physical being in His glorious Image. Mostly my point was that, being God is God, one can kind of expect that His creation of something is going to be magnificent… And I felt like being petty.

I’m still not sure where you get ‘tinkering’ out of God snaps His finger and the world exists It should be clear what is and what isn’t a tinkering process if I may say so.

If that is so then why have those particular “miracles” ceased in our particular era? Seems to me, since there are so many different life-forms that originated from so many different time periods [according to evolution], that we should be up to our necks in evolving creatures. I haven’t seen any I’m afraid.

 

[vz71]

Neither do I, but those were the only numbers that vz71 was giving me. With some more realistic numbers we could arrive at a more realistic answer.

Actually, I only specified two possibilities, alive or dead.
Please do not try to put words in my mouth.

There is more than one way to be alive. Without some estimate of the number of different ways there are to be alive then it is difficult to make a realistic estimate of the probabilities.

No, there is only alive and dead.
There are no zombies.

 

[vz71]

Again you make the mistake of a single target. I am alive, so I am one way to hit the target. You are alive and, since you do not have the same DNA as me, you are a different way to hit the target.

Nope. Alive is alive.
Life is the target, anything less fails.
You keep trying, but this is not about the number of ways to build a life form from other life forms, this is about how to build life.
To which, we have no idea how and cannot accurately say if we are closer or not.

Reducing that immense variety to 1 is where you are making your error, and why your numbers gives such obviously incorrect results.

You propose there are those that are partially alive?
Perhaps those that are not quite dead?
You keep trying to claim multiple types of ‘alive’ but it simply is not true.
You are either alive or you are not.

Then the chances are 50%.

You clearly haven’'t a grasp of the topic.
If the chances were 50% as you propose then we would surely have hit it by now.
Your numbers are flawed.
There are two possibilities here, death or life.
Of those, we know how to make dead things, but we have never built life.
Without the knowledge, we cannot even claim we are close.

 

[vz71]

Again you make the mistake of a single target. I am alive, so I am one way to hit the target. You are alive and, since you do not have the same DNA as me, you are a different way to hit the target.

Thinking about this later, I can see what you are saying.
But that is unscientific.
You are making assumptions that have no basis at all to arrive at the idea that every different DNA sequence is a different way of being alive.

First assumption - that DNA has anything at all to do with it.
Second assumption - That RNA (in abscence of DNA) has anything to do with it.
Third assumption - That we have any understanding at all what exactly causes life.

I’ll not make these unfounded assumptions.
And that boils it all down to two possibilities.
Anything else assumes we know more then we do.

Sure we can make educated guesses, but that is all they are…guesses.
And given the record for science and guesses…I will lay odds that the next experiment will lead to nothing alive…and the next one…and the next one.
Eventually they may do it.
And it remains to be seen if they have any understanding of what and how at the time.
And it also remains to be seen if any of the work they have done thus far contributes in any way at all to the final product.
I’ll assume that we simply do not know.
And that is a much more scientific position then the one that claims to know where we are and how close we may be to a destination that we do not know the location of.

 

[rossum]

You are making assumptions that have no basis at all to arrive at the idea that every different DNA sequence is a different way of being alive.

There are many different DNA sequences that are ways of being dead as well as other sequences that are ways of being alive. In order to get an accurate estimate of the probabilities we need accurate estimates of both numbers. Since we do not have accurate estimates of both numbers then all attempts at such probability calculations are for the moment useless.

And it remains to be seen if they have any understanding of what and how at the time.
And it also remains to be seen if any of the work they have done thus far contributes in any way at all to the final product.

Agreed. Some of the work being done today will turn out to be useful down the line, other work will turn out to be a dead end or irrelevant.

I’ll assume that we simply do not know.

We do know some things from observing contemporary life, in particular eubacteria and arche. We can observe commonalities between them: lipid bilayers for cell walls, the use of DNA, RNA and proteins, the use of amino acids, the use of the five bases: A, C, G, T, U. Scientists are working to look at the possible way such common components could have formed in prebiotic conditions on Earth.

We certainly don’t know everything, but we do know something. Scientists are working from the basis of what we know to try and extend the area of our knowledge: “standing on the shoulders of giants”.

rossum

 

[inocente]

Can science explain why life has not become extinct and why it has developed to such an extent in spite of all the odds?

Yes. These arguments are based on a faulty understanding of probability, lack of knowledge and over-generalizations.

For example, arguments that the start of life was highly unlikely ignore the fact that it wasn’t a random process, that complex molecules evolve and so don’t need to appear spontaneously, and that in vast oceans there were a whole load of amino acids developing in parallel, not sequentially.

They also relegate God to tinkering around on the edges like a mother hen. I can understand why some atheists might want to do that, but dude please don’t help them out.

Can you fathom the mysteries of God?
Can you probe the limits of the Almighty?
They are higher than the heavens above—what can you do?
They are deeper than the depths below—what can you know?
Their measure is longer than the earth
and wider than the sea. – Job 11:7-9 NIV

 

[tonyrey]

There are many different DNA sequences that are ways of being dead as well as other sequences that are ways of being alive. In order to get an accurate estimate of the probabilities we need accurate estimates of both numbers. Since we do not have accurate estimates of both numbers then all attempts at such probability calculations are for the moment useless.

It does not follow from a lack of accurate estimates that all estimates of probability are useless. It is self-evident that the fortuitous emergence of specific permutations of specific molecular structures is extremely unlikely - unless there is an explanation like natural selection at the inorganic level.

The immense complexity of life itself requires explanation. What caused the increase in complexity in the first place and why did it continue unabated until the appearance of rational beings?

 

[vz71]

There are many different DNA sequences that are ways of being dead as well as other sequences that are ways of being alive.

Then you are comfortable assuming that DNA must contain the spark of life in it.

Interesting. Where did your RNA argument go?

And why did you center on DNA instead of actually centering upon something that ALL life has in common?

I would find it admirable if you were simply dropping pieces of your argument that you are finding in error…but somehow I find that improbable.