T
- Status
You expect life to be like Edison’s light bulb.
That there is a number of ways to reach it and we simply have to find one.
We have no evidence for that to be the case.
D
donsnow
Guest
And 'round and 'round they go.
I
inocente
Guest
I
inocente
Guest
Let me once more post the infinite and beautiful complexity that emerges from the dead simple iteration z = (z * z) + c. See just a little into the mind of Almighty God.
youtube.com/watch?v=WAJE35wX1nQ
Why interpret Luke 12 in such a way that God individually has to hand out feed to each raven and personally sows every last blade of grass? There’s no wiggle room? Either God does that or must be absent? It might just be that Jesus knows these are not such blind, ruthless processes after all, since if they were we probably wouldn’t be around to worry so much about them.
Glad you finally saw the light bro, now we’re getting somewhere.
R
rossum
Guest
It is not self evident at all. You are forgetting chemistry. If I mix two billion hydrogen atoms with one billion oxygen atoms, what are the chances that they will combine exactly two hydrogen with exactly one oxygen? The answer depends very strongly on chemistry. You do not get random triples of atoms, you get a very strong bias towards H[sub]2[/sub]O as opposed to O[sub]2[/sub]H.
Evolution is perfectly capable of increasing complexity, as are other biological processes.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
I do no such thing. Vitalism, your “spark of life”, was discredited a long time ago. Some DNA sequences can code for a living organism. You have one such sequence and I have another.
Same argument, it is just that people here seem more comfortable with DNA. There is a one-to-one correspondence between a DNA sequence and its equivalent RNA sequence. RNA is less capable as a data store and far more capable as a catalyst/enzyme.
It is probable that RNA came before DNA, so very early life would be RNA-only with DNA and proteins being added later.
As I said, the arguments are the same for RNA, and the RNA-only viruses are arguably not alive in the sense that most other living organisms are.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
We have more than we had 50 years ago. Every few years we find another piece of the jigsaw. Powner’s paper on pyrimidines was a useful advance as before then it had not been possible to produce pyrimidines and any plausible way. Now that Powner has removed that roadblock we can proceed further. Szostak is continuing his work on random RNA sequences; a surprising number are showing some potentially useful activity. More work is continuing on how to generate longer stable RNA sequences. Science is working on all sorts of ways. Some will turn out to be dead ends. Some will not.
rossum
N
Neildown
Guest
Well said, lol
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Yes.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
So are you comfortable with the standard geological timeframe of 4.5 billion years? How short is "short"for you?
M
minkymurph
Guest
You know I have the ultimate respect for you Neildown, :hug1: but I’ve got to come to Al Moritz defense here.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, or in day and age a scratched CD, the basis of ID is not only literal interpretation of the Genesis account, but belief that the author of the Genesis account intended it to be interpreted literally. The Genesis account is a theological account of creation; not a scientific one. Neither was it written for the the purpose of proving the science of evolution wrong which is what is often used to do.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.
Acceptance of evolution in the religious world did not come about solely for these reasons. It came about through developments biblical scholarship. The very text of Genesis itself tells the author did not intend to be understood as a literal account of the physical manner in which God created us. Therefore, we have to question a literal reading of Genesis - not because we want to appease atheists or evolutionists, or make our believe in creation more acceptable because the popular culture of our time, but to acquire a deeper understanding of the divine truths communicated to us in the bible. Consequently, a more harmonious relationship can exist between science and religion. This does not reconcile us in a scientific sense with atheistic evolutionists by any stretch of the imagination. Rather, it enables to meet the challenges and needs presented to us by contemporary society in terms of faith development.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
No that is not what I said. Here is what I actually said before your response (emphasis added):
Let me break it down for you, bit by bit:
1. The actualization of creation:
Since God is outside time, He knew exactly what Adam would look like at the very instant the Big Bang was actualized.
Therefore, He did not “have to wait” what Adam would look like “until it happened” (from our point of view as linear progression of time).
2. The planning of creation:
Obviously, quantum processes with their random indeterminism are built into the laws of nature and thus into creation.
Now he have to distinguish two scenarios. We cannot decide which one is true since only God knows.
From our perspective quantum processes are random (by chance). Therefore, when it comes to the contrast ‘necessary’ vs. ‘contingent’, they are contingent from our perspective. Quantum events can play a role in gene mutations or, as many cosmologists believe, they also may have shaped our universe as a whole at the very beginning, when it was still incredibly small in size. These are just two of many examples.
The question is now: are quantum processes contingent not just from our perspective, but also from God’s perspective?
Scenario 1: From God’s perspective, quantum processes are not random and contingent, but every quantum event is guided by God strictly and by necessity.
If that is the case, God would have known the precise outcome of the Big Bang, including what Adam would look like, even at the planning stage, even before the Big Bang was actualized.
Scenario 2: Not just from our perspective, but also from God’s perspective, quantum processes are random and contingent – at a level precisely planned by God.
Here holds what St. Thomas Aquinas said:
“The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1).
And Communion and Stewardship (emphasis added):
“Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation.”
and:
"Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist…’
In scenario 2, God would not know the exact outcome of the Big Bang at the planning stage. Yet God would still get exactly what He wanted, according to the precise level of contingency that He planned and deliberately allowed for.
However, at the stage of actualization (as opposed to mere planning), the same holds for scenario 2 as for scenario 1, which is what I said before:
Since God is outside time, He knew exactly what Adam would look like at the very instant the Big Bang was actualized.
Therefore, He did not “have to wait” what Adam would look like “until it happened” (from our point of view as linear progression of time).
God knows with perfect foreknowledge everything that will happen in creation until the end of time, since creation is actualized, as opposed to just being in a planning stage.
In the planning stage God would have known everything that will happen in creation until the end of time only under one condition: everything was planned to happen by strict necessity (“infallibly”, St. Thomas Aquinas above), and there is was no contingency (from God’s point of view) planned. However, we do not know that this is the case. And both St. Thomas Aquinas and Communion and Stewardship allow for the possibility that this is not the case.
(For this outline I deliberately left out the issue of human freedom, which adds an extra level of complexity.)
M
minkymurph
Guest
My answer to this would be, Catholics do not believe in a God controls everything that happens. That image of God is for Calvinists. However, we do not believe in a God that simply lets ‘accidents’ happen. We believe we see evidence of God’s intimate involvement with creation and his guiding hand. That does not involve biologically or cosmologically controlling everything.
I would argue they have not. Creatures evolve all the time. If you look at the physical appearance and biological make up of many creatures over years and centuries, there are vast differences. Do we know there were giraffe’s in Garden of Eden and physically, the looked exactly as they do today? Before anyone says, ‘how do you know there weren’t giraffes in the Garden of Eden that looked exactly as giraffes look today,’ there is any amount of evidence of physical evolution, and it’s up to them to prove that there was an original giraffe who’s physical appearance has not changed in support of that. ID’ers would argue new species do not evolve. Yes they do and again, there is evidence of that. If ID’ers are going to argue there was a ‘blueprint’ of every species of flora and fauna that exists today in the Garden of Eden, again it is up to them to provide evidence to support the argument. ID’ers argue this is not evidence of evolution. What is it evidence of? In addition, refuting a biological mechanism of evolution exists does not prove we were created by God. Neither does a literal interpretation of Genesis; particularly not to someone who not only does not believe the bible is the Word of God, but God does not exist which is the challenge today. I see existence of God as a separate argument from evolution. Unfortunately, atheists and theist alike seem to be unable to make that distinction.
The birth of every child is a miracle in the physical sense as much as in the spiritual. Look at the physical changes we go through before we emerge into the world.In the early days of pregnancy, we look nothing like a human. At one time we all had a tail and gills. If this is not evidence for physical evolution, why not? This argument is very relevant in current debates about abortion with regard to evolution and person-hood.
ID’er’s may argue ‘Adam was not formed by God in this way.’ How do you know he wasn’t? Are we back to the literal interpretation of Genesis? ‘It doesn’t mean we share a common ancestor.’ Why not? Who’s to say God didn’t model various life forms in a variety of ways from one physical form? ‘Apes didn’t become humans.’ It’s a common misconception that’s what sharing a common ancestor means. ‘Did God know what Adam would look like?’ I think it’s fair to say he did, if of course you believe in God which the atheist doesn’t, so he/she doesn’t care. If God knew what Adam would look like, does this prove He created Adam in an instant, or humans do not share a common ancestor with other life forms? No, it doesn’t. 'But Genesis says …Ah, we’re back to the literal interpretation of Genesis again. In that case, the church is wrong to say we were created from dust. Only men were. Women were created from a rib. ‘But the word ‘man’ is used in relation to both men and women.’ Nope, you can’t have it both ways. If it’s a literal account to explain how God physically created us, it’s a literal account.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Very well said, thank you. And this fits perfectly with my previous post.
E
edwest2
Guest
“faith development”? What sort of faith development? Does a person knock at the door of the Church of his choosing and say, “Hi. I’m thinking of joining your Church, do you accept evolution?” Is this the critical criteria?
Among the Divine Truths we need to accept is the Gospel of Jesus Christ which is quite literal. Yes, He spoke parables to others but He gave explanations to His disciples. He died, rose from the dead, and is alive at this moment.
Peace,
Ed
N
Neildown
Guest
If it were true, I would not have a problem adjusting to that belief. However I side with Creation because it is the oldest common belief held by Christians and Jews alike. I was raised in it and I contend for it because I know it is an honest belief in, and search of how God made us. To be honest, I cannot look at every scientist and believe everything he or she is saying - even some who might contend for Creation. Evolutionists and IDvolutionists both claim that they can explain how God started us, but the thing is that only one can be true, or at most, very close to the truth - if truthful at all. I’m sure 99% of scientists mean well, but I cannot stand it when people throw aside evidence and odds [whether they be big or small] and emphasize on what they want to prove to push their own agendas. I don’t see conflicting ideas in science anymore - all I see is, “This is this, and that’s final”. It is essentially a perversion of the scientific method, be it discreet. In this day and age I wouldn’t be surprised if this perversion were utilized in every mainstream theory.
That’s why near everything on this blog goes in a circle, because no one can bring up the minor pros & cons to prove all their points to come to a general conclusion. This is either because posters are too lazy to look things up and put them on, not all of our scientists or the people publishing/editing/writing their works are filling in the gaps that they should be, or we’re searching with the wrong [scientific] eyes.
We started with the belief that we were made in 7 days, and when Christ came down to earth I don’t recall Him telling us, “No, you came about as part of an extremely long evolutionary process, there was no ‘seven days.’” Jesus came to earth to teach us - and whether or not He wanted to put a bit of focus on science at all is above me, but I do not recall Him telling us to think otherwise about our origins. Obviously, if He didn’t address it, what we thought of our origins was either of no relevance or we had it right the first time. Therefore, although I could accept either theory as the truth, I side with Creation.
Short to me could have been anywhere from an instant, to 7 days, to maybe a few hundred or thousand years. That would be my general view of “short” in reference to the universe’s age. However I still go for 7 days for the sake of tradition and my posts above^. 6 if you discount the day of rest.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Are you comfortable then with worshipping a falsehood? The Hebrew scriptures reflect a flat earth – do you accept that as well?
M
minkymurph
Guest
Well in this day and age you just never know.
That’s fair question. There are those who are of the opinion that nothing in the Bible should be taken literally. I don’t fall into that category. In my last post I was referring to the Genesis account alone. Not any other passage of scripture. I was also talking about discerning the intension of the author. Believing God created the world in a 24 hour period is not fundamental to the Catholic faith and the text of Genesis does not indicate the author is communicating this as something that needed to believed in order to be a Jew or a Christian. There is no doubt that the authors of the Gospels wanted to communicate the divine truth that Jesus was the Messiah and rose from the dead and this belief is fundamental to Christianity. One could hardly call oneself a Christian if they not believe Jesus rose from the dead. One could call oneself a Christian if they believed the creative days were longer than 24 hours.
As his followers, Jesus asked us to take the message of the Gospel to all people’s. This presented certain challenges and difficulties to the Apostles and the early Christians. Today, we also face challenges, but our challenges are different. We in the West do not live in a society were people are ignorant of the Gospel. RE is taught in schools, bibles are readily available, there are numerous Christian websites and reading material readily available and easily accessed, there are religious debates in the media - the list is endless. In my part of the world people tell you Christ rose from the dead every day. They have open air Gospel meetings were they shout through loud speakers, they put tracts through your door, they hand them to you in the street whether you want them or not, and RE is taught as a compulsory subject in every school. Therefore, people know what Christians believe about Jesus. In this area, they don’t need any more information.
The challenge we face today is faith development. If people know what the message of the Gospel is, why do they fail to act on it or outrightly reject it? We could jump to all sorts of conclusions and offer all sorts of reasons as why. In order to understand what others need from us in terms of their faith development. This which means listening with discernment, not being judgmental or condemnatory, and not dismissing what someone says because it challenges what we think, or because it’s not what we want to hear. That does not mean you have to agree with them, but all too I often I hear debates on the radio between different religious groups and theists and atheists that go nowhere because neither side is really listening to what the other has to say, and have decided what they are going to say in advance of a question; meaning they don’t really understand what’s being asked.
Faith development is centered on the spiritual needs of both ourselves, and others. It is not possible to develop faith in others without sincerely attempting to understand what they lack in terms of faith, and why. In terms of the debates on this thread, ID and literal interpretations of the Genesis account of creation serve to satisfy those who need no convincing of the message of the Gospel. Reasoning that enhances our own individual faith is fine for us, but it may fail to meet the needs of others. That is why I would argue that if we are sincerely seeking to meet the spiritual needs of others, the religious world needs to come up with a better in response to the challenges scientific advancement presents to us today than ID and literal interpretations of Genesis.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
I can’t pick a choice in the poll. I believe in a theistic theory of evolution which meets Church criteria, one of which is that God created everything ex nihilo. So I believe in both evolution and creationism.
If you are referring to creationism as God creating living organisms in their current form - no, I do not believe that although I am positive that God, being omniscient, was certainly aware of what those current forms would be when He created everything ex nihilo.
And, being omniscient and omnipotent and really darn smart, God may have used Intelligent Design when He created everything ex nihilo. I’ve tried to understand what “Intelligent Design” really means and have failed miserably, so this is the best I can do.
I could click on three possibilities, two or one, or any combination and I don’t think I’m allowed to do that.
Sorry.
If you are referring to creationism as God creating living organisms in their current form - no, I do not believe that although I am positive that God, being omniscient, was certainly aware of what those current forms would be when He created everything ex nihilo.
And, being omniscient and omnipotent and really darn smart, God may have used Intelligent Design when He created everything ex nihilo. I’ve tried to understand what “Intelligent Design” really means and have failed miserably, so this is the best I can do.
I could click on three possibilities, two or one, or any combination and I don’t think I’m allowed to do that.
Sorry.
- Status