A
Al_Moritz
Guest
The question was if Adam looked as God had planned, and the answer is yes.
For both scenarios 1 and 2 under “Planning of creation” in my post:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7893029&postcount=523
- Status
For both scenarios 1 and 2 under “Planning of creation” in my post:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7893029&postcount=523
B
buffalo
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
M
minkymurph
Guest
Buffalo, can I ask what your point is in relation to the question, ‘did Adam look as God planned?’ I really don’t get what you’re point is in relation to this question. Why do you keep asking it over and over? I don’t understand what you feel a definitive answer to this question achieves.
You have been given a definitive answer to this question by more than one poster. Would it take everyone on this thread you categorize the ‘ID denying crew’ to spell out what they have already said before you will be satisfied? If they did, what in you’re opinion would that achieve? Can you give a definitive answer to this question?
Why don’t you just start you’re own poll and we not only vote, but dedicate a whole thread to the question if it’s so important.
B
buffalo
Guest
The question is really important. Think about the question in relation to the whole conversation. God is omniscient, so of course He knew what Adam would look like. As you saw most have no problem with that. What separates the wheat from the chaff is - did Adam look as God planned? That gets right to the heart of the matter. And as you saw some said definitively yes (ID’ers). The TE’s have a real issue answering it straight up. (although I give Al credit for his response). The materialists - well…
M
minkymurph
Guest
Yeah, but I still don’t get it. Why do you think it is a really important question, and how does the answer sort the wheat from the chaff?
R
rossum
Guest
Your source is incorrect. I am not aware of any lifeform that is made solely of carbon and hydrogen. You need to add nitrogen and oxygen to the mix at the very least. My biochemistry does not stretch much further than that so it is possible that other elements are required as well.
How do you propose to use the millions of tons of hydrogen present in the Sun at temperatures of thousands of degrees Centigrade to make life? You really need to think about the basic science behind the questions you are asking. Are you picking them up from some creationist website? Wherever they are coming from they show a lack of necessary scientific background.
Intergalactic space may contain one or two molecules of hydrogen per cubic kilometre. That adds up to a great deal of hydrogen, but it does not mean that life will form in intergalactic space.
Why? I can see that a complete absence of one element would prevent life forming. If all required elements are present then, assuming life begins, they will be used up until the available supplies of the least common element are exhausted. At that point the remaining amounts of the other elements will just be lying around.
If I have six eggs, three pounds of dried fruit and fifty pounds of flour but I need three eggs, half a pound of flour and four ounces of dried fruit to make a cake does that mean I can’t make any cakes because I have the wrong proportions? No. I make two cakes, using up all my eggs, and I have some dried fruit and a great deal of flour left lying around. I don’t need to have the exact proportions of everything before I start.
Could you really not think this out for yourself? It is hardly difficult. Please don’t just copy stuff from the web. Think about it first; you know there there is a lot of complete rubbish written on the web.
Elements are formed in stars, which is astrophysics, not the subject of this thread. You are drifting off the subject. If you want to discuss astrophysics and stellar neucleosynthesis then I suggest you start a new thread.
Darwin’s book is called “On the Origin of Species”. It is not called “On the Origin of the Elements and of Species”. Chemistry does not explain the origin of the elements, neither does evolution. Science works in part by breaking down large problems like, “where did everything come from,” into smaller problems: “where did the elements come from”, “where did chemical compounds come from” and “where did species come from”.
Where have I said it was inevitable? It happened, obviously we are here. I do not think it was inevitable.
Given the required causes then the effect is inevitable. The causes of evolution do not obtain everywhere. They are not present on the moon for example, hence there is no evolution on the moon. The causes are present on Earth so there is evolution on the Earth. Cause and effect.
Please do not tell me what I think. If you read the top right of my posts you will see that I am Buddhist. Life is not solely material. Evolution refers to the material components of life.
rossum
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Phosphorus and magenesium are required at the very least as well, even though it has recently been shown that some bacteria can be completely switched to arsenic instead of phosphorus (but arsenic, normally a vicious poison, is a homologous element, just much heavier than phosphorus).
Excellent answers to Tonyrey in your post. I agree, he needs to work on his knowledge of science and stop getting his info from creationist websites.
By the way, I think life on Earth was inevitable. I think life is inevitable on myriads of planets in the universe, and the universe must be teeming with life. Howwever, most of it will remain microbial life, since for higher life forms particularly sheltered conditions – like on our Earth – must exist, which will be rare. And rational life will only exist where God decides to provide rational souls – an immaterial soul obviously cannot be gained by evolution.
R
ricmat
Guest
Since Tonyrey is in the UK, he/she has probably gone to bed. I have this question however. Which creationist site are you talking about? Or is this merely an accusation that you now promote as fact because it meets your needs?
- If the universe is teeming with life, then certainly Earth on which life is “inevitable” should have more life than one (or as recently possibly maybe discovered, perhaps 2) trees of life. Earth with all its advantages should be absolutely teeming with hundreds, or thousands or billions of independently originated trees of life, with more popping up every day. But it’s not happening.
- You also insist on repeating, “Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.” Assuming that the evidence actually points to this, how do you reconcile this item with item 1 above? A universe teeming with life, but Earth only gets one lousy tree? And Earth had roughly 1/2 the entire age of the universe to make it happen?
- You seem to be saying that the origin of life on Earth was inevitable, but only actually occurred once in billions of years. How does science answer that? Where is the other life? (Note: speculating about life elsewhere in the universe is lots of fun, I do it myself, but there is obviously no evidence to support it, only wishful thinking).
R
razredge
Guest
Yes - I tend to agree with the views espoused by Fr George Coyne and others where God created a universe with the potential for life and let that life evolve by itself allowing the dynamism present in the universe to participate in creation itself.
I do not believe that humans are designed by God to have two eyes and one nose etc. (or that evolution was designed to output humans) - that would tend to be refuted by the argument from poor design.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
You’re right, I pulled the trigger too hastily on that one, which wasn’t fair.
As for your question about how many times life originated, I’ll answer tomorrow. Have a good night.
Al
R
ricmat
Guest
But to say that God didn’t intend us to have 2 eyes and 1 nose would tend to be refuted by the argument that God actually knew what he was doing.
Just out of curiosity, do you like Teilhard de Chardin as well?
R
razredge
Guest
Perhaps God could predict that evolution would result in humans as one of the outcomes?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Indeed!What???
M
minkymurph
Guest
I don’t understand why some people think that evolution = 'God didn’t know what He was doing, or had no idea what was going to happen.
The Genesis account records how God fashioned woman from a rib. Therefore, even it you interpret this passage of scripture literally, there was a process involved. The Genesis account in conjunction with other passages of scripture infers not that Adam was created in an instant, but there was a process involved. In the Gospels, there were times Jesus cured the sick instantly. There he times he didn’t; for example when he put clay on the blind mans’ eyes. This does not infer that on that occasion Jesus did not have the power to cure the man instantly, or wasn’t sure if it would work. It means he chose that method. (We could discuss forever the theological implications but that belongs on another thread)
Science is entitled to explore biological processes. It is the nature of science to establish empirical evidence in relation to biological processes. If these findings challenge literal interpretations of Genesis, maybe we should look at the Genesis account again rather than reject scientific findings that contradict literal interpretations; particularly if author never intended it to be taken literally.
Accepting the findings of science in relation to evolution does not mean believing God didn’t know what He was doing, or didn’t know what was going to happen. Certainly atheists are happy to interpret evolutionary theories as alternatives to creation and challenge us with this thinking, which is why we need a better defense for our faith than literal interpretations of Genesis.
M
minkymurph
Guest
If God engineered and directed the biological process of evolution, of course He could.
I
inocente
Guest
What happened to the probability play you have been pushing?
Have you finally seen how improbable life occurring on its own actually is?
As to progress…progress to where?
Show me the target.
Tell me what it looks like.
Tell me what this end product is.
What process built it, what chemicals were used, who is going to do it…and when.
How can you claim progress somewhere when you do not know where exactly the target is?
I see.
You are pulling words out of their proper context again in only quoting a single part of a response and leaving the meaning behind.
Par for your course, deception.
R
rossum
Guest
It is still there, but since you are not giving me any numbers beyond 1:1 it is not likely to progress much further. How many different RNA sequences make life? How many different RNA sequences do not make life? Go to those ID labs and do some research; they are probably empty at the moment as nobody else seems to be using them for anything.
We have one observed example, the the post-probability of life in that one example is 100%. If you have some better numbers then show us what you have.
Progress from “I do not have a cell wall” to “I have a cell wall”. All living bacteria have a cell wall. ID cannot show the ID designer making a cell wall. Abiogenesis can show chemistry making a basic cell wall. That is progress.
Can you show me a living bacterium without a lipid bilayer cell wall? Can you show me an ID experiment showing the ID designer making a lipid bilayer cell wall?
Abiogenesis is making progress.
A very primitive proto-bacterium with a lipid bilayer cell wall, RNA and ribozymes.
A small and very simple copy of parts of a modern bacterium with no DNA, its function being performed by RNA and no enzymes, their functions being performed by ribozymes.
A very simple proto-bacterium.
Chemistry.
Lipids, purines, pyrimidines and a few other simpler chemicals. Phosphates seem to heve been important.
Unlike Harold Camping, I am not going to put a name or a date on future achievements. A lot of different people are working in this area, as you can see from the various authors of the scientific papers I have linked to.
We know enough about the general area of the target to narrow down our search and as we progress we can narrow the search area even further. Science is well used to dealing with incomplete information. It works to fill in the gaps as it progresses.
Where is your equivalent ID research? Is all the ID research time devoted to finding new questions to ask real scientists, with none of their time devoted to actual positive ID research?
Where is your evidence of the ID designer making a lipid bilayer? Where is the evidence of your ID designer making purines? Where is the evidence of your ID designer making pyrimidines?
It is very obvious from your failure to answer any of my questions about progress made in ID research that there is no actual ID research for you to talk about. You are trying to hide that lack by asking me question, which I can answer because science has a lot of answers to give. ID cannot give any answers because it has nothing. ID is not science, it merely plays one on the internet.
rossum
- Status