Creationism v. Intelligent Design v. Evolution

[vz71]

Matthew 4:8 – “Again, the devil took him up into an exceedingly high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them.”

That was only possible if the earth is flat.

Time is not addressed here.
Over a period of time the entire surface of a planet is visable from a single location.

 

[tonyrey]

You have selected* one***

You are the one who is incorrect. There are only two elements that are the basis of all life: carbon and hydrogen. This is indisputably a miniscule target.

Again you are presupposing evolution had to

occur, that biological processes had to emerge and that matter **had to **exist. How do you justify your belief in physical necessity?
The work science has done so far shows that chemistry can result in self-reproducing molecules, see the Spiegelman Monster. Chemistry can make all the parts for RNA. Currently abiogenesis research is working on getting long enough RNA chains to produce something resembling a Spiegelman Monster. Abiogenesis is up to about 120 bases, see Generation of Long RNA Chains in Water, while the Spiegelman Monster is 220 bases.

Once we have an imperfect replicator then evolution can start. All abiogenesis has to do is to get that first imperfect replicator going. Since we are currently 100 bases short, that is below Dr Dembski’s Universal Probability Bound so it is not impossible by that measure: 4^100 = 1.6 x 10^60.

The work science has done so far shows that chemistry can result in self-reproducing molecules, see the Spiegelman Monster. Chemistry can make all the parts for RNA. Currently abiogenesis research is working on getting long enough RNA chains to produce something resembling a Spiegelman Monster. Abiogenesis is up to about 120 bases, see Generation of Long RNA Chains in Water, while the Spiegelman Monster is 220 bases.

Once we have an imperfect replicator then evolution can start. All abiogenesis has to do is to get that first imperfect replicator going. Since we are currently 100 bases short, that is below Dr Dembski’s Universal Probability Bound so it is not impossible by that measure: 4^100 = 1.6 x 10^60.

You have omitted the** initial improbability** of just two elements occurring in the precise quantities required for life, one of which is unique in being able to form over a quarter of a million compounds! A most curious coincidence…

Nor have you explained why matter **had to **exist, biological processes had to emerge and evolution had to occur… How do you justify your belief in physical necessity?

 

[StAnastasia]

Time is not addressed here.
Over a period of time the entire surface of a planet is visable from a single location.

That’s not what Matthew 4:8 says. I take it you are not a biblical literalist.

 

[StAnastasia]

You are the one who is incorrect. There are only two elements that are the basis of all life: carbon and hydrogen.

Why do you omit oxygen and nitrogen?

 

[ricmat]

Indeed.

To equate randomness with purposelessness would be to lower ourselves to and embrace shallow atheistic thinking. We should be more sophisticated than that. God may well have planned true randomness in his creation, but it would still have been planned to have a purpose and fall uder God’s providence.

According to St. Thomas Aquinas, one of the greatest theologians and teachers of the Catholic Church, who lived in the 13th century:

“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 purpose. The TOE says what about that?

 

[Glennonite]

Clement of Alexandria:
"And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist? (A.D. 208)

Wow. So perhaps time (therefore, the sequence) is not at all the issue. When constructing a car, (or any other multi-component “contraption”), the thing does not slowly perform until it is complete. It functions only upon completion.

Just because the order of creation was given in the the linear fashion that it was written, does not necessarily mean that was the case. Maybe it was described differently.

I might describe the construction of an automobile from the headlights-back. That wouldn’t mean that that was the order of construction. None-the-less, I would have given the complete assembly of a car.

BTW, 7 is a metaphor for completeness, not amount of time.

Glennonite

 

[Glennonite]

Hi, honestquestions,

The Cambrian Explosion was an abundance of life appearing out of nowhere. Don

Not out of nowhere; life attained “critical-mass” (and diversity) to evolve relatively abundantly and diversely. Like it had never done previously.

Glennonite

 

[ricmat]

To equate randomness with purposelessness would be to lower ourselves to and embrace shallow atheistic thinking.

Perhaps.

But then where does embracing purposelessness get us - as the TOE requires.

It seems to me that it gets you to shallow atheistic thinking.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Perhaps.

But then where does embracing purposelessness get us - as the TOE requires.

The TOE requires Purposelessness? I have never heard of that before.

 

[edwest2]

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

Peace,
Ed

 

[ricmat]

The TOE requires Purposelessness? I have never heard of that before.

Try suggesting purpose as one of the factors in how we got here. You will then hear about it.

 

[rossum]

What???

Why the problem? The surface of sphere cannot be seen from one point. The surface of a plane can be seen from one point. How do you interpret “all the kingdoms”?

rossum

 

[Al_Moritz]

Perhaps.

But then where does embracing purposelessness get us - as the TOE requires.

It seems to me that it gets you to shallow atheistic thinking.

The TOE requires nothing like that. As a mere scientific theory, it cannot say anything about purpose or lack thereof. These kinds of issues lie outside the scope of science.

Purpose or lack thereof are philosophical issues. Of course, many atheists claim that the TOE as a scientific theory implies purposelessness, but with this they confuse science with philosophy. This is bad for science, bad for philosophy, and bad for a rational-analytic approach to things.

We should not emulate them in their confusion. We should take the TOE as mere science, strip it from atheistic philosophical connotations and point out that these are not implied in the science proper. Then we should incorporate the TOE as science into our philosophical worldview – while fully knowing and explicitly pointing out that we argue from a philosophical perspective while the science itself is neutral to any worldview (that neutrality is something that most atheists, if not explicitly then implicitly, deny).

This will show proper analytical thinking that is superior to and far deeper than the shallow, simplistic thinking of most atheists.

 

[buffalo]

The TOE requires nothing like that. As a mere scientific theory, it cannot say anything about purpose or lack thereof. These kinds of issues lie outside the scope of science.

Purpose or lack thereof are philosophical issues. Of course, many atheists claim that the TOE as a scientific theory implies purposelessness, but with this they confuse science with philosophy. This is bad for science, bad for philosophy, and bad for a rational-analytic approach to things.

We should not emulate them in their confusion. We should take the TOE as mere science, strip it from atheistic philosophical connotations and point out that these are not implied in the science proper. Then we should incorporate the TOE as science into our philosophical worldview – while fully knowing and explicitly pointing out that we argue from a philosophical perspective while the science itself is neutral to any worldview (that neutrality is something that most atheists, if not explicitly then implicitly, deny).

This will show proper analytical thinking that is superior to and far deeper than the shallow, simplistic thinking of most atheists.

Ahhh - you may become an IDvolutionist yet.

 

[rossum]

Is life in the chemical combination?

Some chemical combinations are alive, other chemical combinations are not. By examining the differences between the different combinations we can work our way towards making a combination that is alive.

How would we know?

Can’t you tell the difference between alive and dead?

Can you prove this assumption?

Science doesn’t do “proof”. If you want proof then stick with axiomatic systems like mathematics or philosophy.

You speak as though you know how to make life.

I don’t, but I can read the scientific literature and see what progress is being made. Here is a recent summary from last year: Getting Past the RNA World: The Initial Darwinian Ancestor.

You have still not shown any progress from the ID side. What is the longest chain of RNA bases that the ID designer has been shown to be able to assemble? Where is the ID equivalent of the article I linked to above?

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Why the problem? The surface of sphere cannot be seen from one point. The surface of a plane can be seen from one point. How do you interpret “all the kingdoms”?

rossum

Again the devil took him up into a very high mountain, and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them, [9] And said to him: All these will I give thee, if falling down thou wilt adore me. [10] Then Jesus saith to him: Begone, Satan: for it is written, The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and him only shalt thou serve.
[8] "shewed him"... That is, pointed out to him where each kingdom lay; and set forth in words what was most glorious and admirable in each of them. Or also set before his eyes, as it were in a large map, a lively representation of all those kingdoms.

 

[rossum]

Time is not addressed here.
Over a period of time the entire surface of a planet is visable from a single location.

No matter how long I stay in London I never see Australia. Or are you talking about continental drift here?

rossum

 

[vz71]

I don’t, but I can read the scientific literature and see what progress is being made.

Progress toward what? How do they know they are closer without knowing the end?

Are you really comfortable with all of the assumptions?

 

[buffalo]

No matter how long I stay in London I never see Australia. Or are you talking about continental drift here?

rossum

Well a denier of supernaturalism could never see how it would be possible. In addition Scripture speaks of the devil, the father of lies.

This was a bogus example.

 

[vz71]

Time is not addressed here.
Over a period of time the entire surface of a planet is visable from a single location.

No matter how long I stay in London I never see Australia. Or are you talking about continental drift here?

rossum

Why would you assume the single point I was speaking of is in London?
I have not provided any evidence whatsoever to lead to the conclusion…yet there you are.

Perhaps this indicates the larger issue at work here.
There are a a great many unfounded assumptions being made.
There is no scientific basis for them, yet they are there.
And many seem absolutely blind to the assumption in some belief that it is simply fact.