T
thistle
Guest
Listen. You are flogging a dead horse. Aliens in UFO’s are not demons and no private revelations have said so.
Evolution: Is There Any Good Reason To Reject The Abiogenesis Hypothesis?
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
T
thistle
Guest
In case this is a response to me I am not going to sit through a half hour video.
The Church clearly teaches that sex (all sexual activity including intercourse) outside marriage is forbidden. The Church also clearly teaches there is no marriage in Heaven. No marriage then no sexual activity.
It also clearly teaches the bond of marriage on earth is broken upon the death of a spouse.
G
Ghosty1981
Guest
Randomness and simple natural selection are not at odds with Divine design and intent. Indeed, all natural causality of any kind derives from God’s Providence, and all natural effects are rooted in God as their ultimate cause. To say that random chance and natural selection produced animal life does not mean that God didn’t directly intend these very species and this very dog and cat; randomness in the natural world falls under the umbrella of God’s Knowledge and Causality.
The real debate here is whether or not God intervened miraculously in the natural course of things to produce effects that nature could not. I say that He does when He produces human souls, but not when protein chains became life, because protein chains becoming life is the natural process that He Himself Willed and designed from Eternity.
Peace and God bless!
W
Wozza
Guest
That technology would not conform to natural laws as we understand them. So in that sense the event would not be natural. That is, it would be supernatural.Wozza:
I’m not sure we can produce any definition that’s verifiable. Even a golden cross appearing out of nowhere could have been the result of some technology that we don’t understand. What test could you use to conclusively say that anything was the result of supernatural intervention? Making that claim always comes back to faith.
Clarke’s Third Law: Any technology suffiently advanced would be indistinguishable from magic.
H
Hobgoblin
Guest
A walkie-talkie would seem like magic to the ancients. Just because we can’t explain how it works doesn’t make it supernatural though. We have to be able to verify that something did in fact violate a natural law. But even our tests obey natural laws, so how could they detect supernatural violations? At best they can eliminate certain natural explanations. In a case like the calming of the storm there might not even be a violation of natural laws.
W
Wozza
Guest
Not being able to explain it doesn’t count. If it violates natural laws it does.Wozza:
A walkie-talkie would seem like magic to the ancients. Just because we can’t explain how it works doesn’t make it supernatural though. We have to be able to verify that something did in fact violate a natural law. But even our tests obey natural laws, so how could they detect supernatural violations? At best they can eliminate certain natural explanations. In a case like the calming of the storm there might not even be a violation of natural laws.
Check out the Core Theory equation a few posts above. It covers all known possible natural causes down to the smallest effect of the smallest components of physical reality. If there are components yet to be discovered even deeper down than we know of, then they are affecting those which we do know of. So there won’t be any surprises further up the natural causal chain.
‘We don’t know how that happened’ is not the same as ‘That cannot have happened naturaly’. Abiogenesis is covered by the first. It is not covered by the second.
B
buffalo
Guest
G
Gorgias
Guest
The problem is that you’re identifying what must be supernatural, but not accounting for what might be supernatural.
W
Wozza
Guest
Literally everything might be supernatural. It’s only when it cannot have happened naturally then we can say it’s supernatural.Wozza:
The problem is that you’re identifying what must be supernatural, but not accounting for what might be supernatural.
The tree in my garden MAY have been produced by supernatural means. But it shows all indications of having grown naturally. So we’ll class that as natural.
If it appeared overnight, then that CANNOT have happened naturally. So we’ll class that as supernatural.
This seems pretty obvious and uncontravertable to me.
A
Aloysium
Guest
In a universe determined by natural laws that reach into the smallest of things, randomness comes in where there are a myriad of factors entering into a final result, such as we can imagine in a flip of a coin or roll of a die. There are specific odds to be found when carrying out these activities that reflect an established underlying order.
In terms of chemistry, it is seen in Brownian motion. The particles in a fluid are constantly in motion, reflecting its heat , and bumping into one another. Within the imagined primordial soup, carbon atoms would collide with one another, with oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and so on, forming the complex molecules necessary for the formation of a cell. It is said that given billions of years, this is possible; some accept this and others find it untenable.
In contrast to that chaotic activity, within a cell there are enzymes which facilitate the binding of atoms and molecules. These proteins, constructed by the cellular machinery, which also involves proteins, is coded for in the DNA, which is copied into the RNA, which is then utilized in setting up a sequence of amino acids. The sequence causes the polypeptide molecule to fold into a particular shape, because the charges associated with different portions attract and repel others. The resulting three dimensional configuration allows the molecule to grab specific molecules in a respective binding site. Bringing them into close proximity, a determined reaction can occur. This results in a dramatic speeding up of the chemistry, which might possibly never take place, even in billions of years.
There is an order established in the cell that is exquisitely fine tuned. Disruptions in the organization of proteins will alter their shape, and in turn their functionality as enzymes or structural components. If this disorder happens at the level of the genome, rather than at the end production of the protein, all resultant proteins for which it codes, will be defective.
In evolutionary theory, the growing complexity of organisms that we find has been said to be analogous to winning a lottery. The problem is, where are all the billions of losing tickets, the corrupted offspring who never saw the light of day? It might be possible if living forms produced billions of fertilized eggs, that one or two might be improved versions. But, this is not the case, and we should see more evidence of this in the fossil record, if not during the history of our presence on earth.
The fact is that the impact of random genetic mutation, if not corrected or neutralized by our immunological system, results in the genetic and cellular abnormalities that can lead to cancerous growths. The random changes in genomic reproduction can be caused by viruses, toxins, radiation and the noise within the system, producing more abnormalities when it is overworked. Randomness in chemical activity, rather than being a constructive force, is destructive to the order that has been established in living organisms. It is what takes over when something dies. As one of the faces of death, it is hardly creative.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
Argumentum ad YouTube. As Abraham Lincoln said, “Everything you see on the Internet is true.”
I know he was right, I saw it on the Internet.
I know he was right, I saw it on the Internet.
A
Aloysium
Guest
There exists a differential in the reproduction of individual organisms related to their survivability, among other factors. This has to do with differences in the phenotype, how the organism develops and relates to other members of its species and overall environment. This is what is referred to as natural selection. Genetic and epigenetic processes result in the growth and development of the adult form, which goes on to reproduce organisms much like itself.
To me this is merely the shadow of the fact that while individual organisms have an existence in themselves, they are also constituent parts of their environment. I believe that creation was brought into being to be harmonious, but that sin, entering into the world even before our arrival, which in part was perhaps to fix this, to tend to the garden as it were, corrupted those relationships such that self-interest at the expense of the other, made nature a more horrid place. Animal and lower forms of life were made to propagate because each individual manifestation is not meant to live forever. The entirety of the world, as one, composed of individual organisms, is supposed to flourish and change. It was built into the original forms.
These forms, or kinds of living being are understood in different ways. A species in a scientific sense is part of a classificatory system, the tangible reality being that of a gene pool, where individual manifestations develop into phenotypes that are morphologically similar and can mate to produce offspring. While the soul of an organism can be understood as that which binds its psychophysical structure into one being, the soul itself would be not a subsistent entity, but rather an ideal or archetype held in the mind of God. Lower forms of life would be divided into different subtypes of vegetative and sensitive souls. My cat, for example, is what it is in itself, possessing catness, much of it shared by other species of felidae. To my way of seeing things, there would have been a first of this kind of being, created by God, capable in future generations, to express great diversity in their physical and behavioural beauty.
We have a spiritual soul, our being in the image of God. Added to this is the fact that the Word of God became one of us, and thereby transformed our nature, and enabled each of us to journey through life into final communion, as one body in Christ, maintaining our individuality but united in love, within the Trinity.
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
At least two reasons: 1) science has not evidenced life emanating from non life, and 2) the difference between dead cow and live cow is as mysterious to us today as it was to the ancients.
H
Hobgoblin
Guest
Ok, I follow you now. I don’t understand the equation, but I’ll take it as given that if something violated it, it would be supernatural. I suspect most (maybe all) of what’s claimed to be supernatural wouldn’t have to violate it though.
A
Aloysium
Guest
How does the equation fit in the equation? Is knowledge supernatural? How does one measure the relationship 1+1=2? In other words, how would it relate to time, space, mass, or charge and what constant would you use in its translation to Energy, which can be converted in form, but not created or destroyed?
Last edited:
H
Hobgoblin
Guest
Data and the routines to process it are stored on the physical media of our brains. Where the line exists between that and rational thought is what I was wondering on the other thread.
I was also wondering exactly how you supposed Adam physically came to be.
A
Aloysium
Guest
If I mention that there is a pressure on my bottom exerted by the chair I’m sitting on, it is highly likely that the reader will feel what it is like to be sitting as well. The information coming from the nerves is constantly present, but it isn’t communicated any further than the midbrain because it is unchanging. That is until higher cortical centres in the cortex involved in understanding these words and directing attention are involved in opening up that gate. The psychological and the neurological are one when it comes to reflexive activity and also rational thought. A blockage of blood flow to the dominant, usually the left parietal regions, and these words will stop making sense. Patterns of neuronal excitation correspond to the mental phenomena that constitute consciousness. The brain in action is more than just a storage unit; it can be said to be the data and its processing. And, it’s not just the brain; our entire body is involved in sensory, cognitive and emotional activity. Extended sensory deprivation will result in agitation, hallucinations, and delusions. It should be additionally considered that our bodies exist in time and space and being who we are, as a reflection of our relational nature, are the means by which we know the world around us, including ourselves.
In answer to your question, I would say that there is no line between the brain and rational thought. It is one and the same thing. They are two different ways to approach and understand our human nature. Let’s take what is happening here for example. The perception and the understanding come together but can be separated as we focus on the shape of each letter or the whiteness of the background. I would say that these phenomena are cellular events, quite complex, reflecting the interconnections from the retina and into the brain. The spatial configuration at the same time is a mental organization. Again, it reflects our relational nature. Within the experience is the monitor, the photons passing from it and into the eye, sensory cells and pre-processing neurons of the retina, the optic nerve, the midbrain and cortex. This is all wrapped up in one triune being - oneself-in-the-world.
I can say that I do not know exactly how Adam physically came to be. Ultimately, it would be exactly how it is described in Genesis, but I don’t know what it means. Adam did not exist until God’s Spirit gave life to dust. Again, that matter and spirit are one in the first and every other person. It could have been in a whirlwind, and no one can say it did not happen that way. Perhaps it happened at a microscopic level - a molecular spiral, that would give rise to a human being inside a simian womb. If it did, it likely would have been mentioned, as the immaculate conception was revealed to us. At any rate, it is the same information that went into the design whether Adam had an umbilicus or not. And, that information goes back to the beginning of time and the subsequent creation of atoms, cells, plants and animals, all utilized in our construction. The science fits many models.
In answer to your question, I would say that there is no line between the brain and rational thought. It is one and the same thing. They are two different ways to approach and understand our human nature. Let’s take what is happening here for example. The perception and the understanding come together but can be separated as we focus on the shape of each letter or the whiteness of the background. I would say that these phenomena are cellular events, quite complex, reflecting the interconnections from the retina and into the brain. The spatial configuration at the same time is a mental organization. Again, it reflects our relational nature. Within the experience is the monitor, the photons passing from it and into the eye, sensory cells and pre-processing neurons of the retina, the optic nerve, the midbrain and cortex. This is all wrapped up in one triune being - oneself-in-the-world.
I can say that I do not know exactly how Adam physically came to be. Ultimately, it would be exactly how it is described in Genesis, but I don’t know what it means. Adam did not exist until God’s Spirit gave life to dust. Again, that matter and spirit are one in the first and every other person. It could have been in a whirlwind, and no one can say it did not happen that way. Perhaps it happened at a microscopic level - a molecular spiral, that would give rise to a human being inside a simian womb. If it did, it likely would have been mentioned, as the immaculate conception was revealed to us. At any rate, it is the same information that went into the design whether Adam had an umbilicus or not. And, that information goes back to the beginning of time and the subsequent creation of atoms, cells, plants and animals, all utilized in our construction. The science fits many models.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
That depends on the context.
- 1 + 1 = 0 (mod 2)
- 1 + 1 = 1 (logical truth values)
- 1 + 1 = 2 (base 3 or greater)
- 1 + 1 = 10 (base 2)
- 1 + 1 = 11 (base 1)
W
Wozza
Guest
Why are you asking these questions? The equation is divided into sections that cover everything you are asking about. It’s there written down for you. I can post you reams of information about each section but that’s not the purpose of the excercise. Which is to show that we have the ability to show if something obeys the laws of nature or not.Hobgoblin:
How does the equation fit in the equation? Is knowledge supernatural? How does one measure the relationship 1+1=2? In other words, how would it relate to time, space, mass, or charge and what constant would you use in its translation to Energy, which can be converted in form, but not created or destroyed?
If something cannot be exained by that equation, then it is not natural.
- Status