So, what does IDvolution say about what happened before man existed? Is standard biological evolution correct up to that point?The IDvolution position is He did get things right but allows man to have an influence in the outcome.
Gen 1 reveals to us the order of creation.So, what does IDvolution say about what happened before man existed? Is standard biological evolution correct up to that point?
No it does not. Genesis 1 has birds (Gen 1:20 before land animals (Gen 1:24).Gen 1 reveals to us the order of creation.
The consequent does not follow immediately from the conditional. Do you have a middle term to support your consequent?If intelligence is required for the origin of life, then you need a non-living intelligence to start life off.
And substituting “matter” for “intelligence” in the conditional above:If intelligence is required for the origin of material life then a living-intelligent being necessarily exists before all other intelligent-living creatures.
What non-material being do you propose for the origin of bodily creatures?If matter is required for the origin of bodily creatures then you need a non-material being to begin the existence of bodily creatures.
The consequent does not follow immediately from the conditional. Do you have a middle term to support your consequent?
Are bacteria intelligent in your definition? Are viruses both alive and intelligent? Is an acorn intelligent? You do not appear to be using a standard definition of intelligence here.Since there is no evidence of a living material being that is not intelligent
Pumpkins are intelligent. Hmmm… you need a lot more evidence here I think.a presumption that a being exists that is both living and non-intelligent is unfounded
I do not. The material for living organisms comes from non-living material. We drink non-living water. The water molecules in our bodies were once non-living water molecules outside our bodies. The oxygen atoms originated in non-living stars. The hydrogen atoms originated when the early universe had cooled sufficiently for hydrogen to condense out.What non-material being do you propose for the origin of bodily creatures?
As argued previously, Premise 2 remains an oxymoron.
- An intelligent entity (IE) originated life.
- Nothing alive existed before the origin of life.
- The IE that originated life existed before the origin of life.
=> The IE was not alive.
Any corporeal being which contains active DNA and RNA is intelligent.Are bacteria intelligent in your definition? Are viruses both alive and intelligent? Is an acorn intelligent? You do not appear to be using a standard definition of intelligence here.
If the living pumpkins contain DNA and RNA then pumpkins are intelligent.Pumpkins are intelligent. Hmmm… you need a lot more evidence here I think.
What non-living material contains active DNA and RNA?The material for living organisms comes from non-living material.
Metabolized elements are transformed and incorporated into living beings only by beings already alive.We drink non-living water. The water molecules in our bodies were once non-living water molecules outside our bodies.
I think we are looking specifically at the origin of the carbon. Can the lab produce carbon from non-carbon materials?The oxygen atoms originated in non-living stars. The hydrogen atoms originated when the early universe had cooled sufficiently for hydrogen to condense out.
Your conclusion is faulty. It should read:Restated:
- An intelligent entity (IE) originated corporeal life.
- Nothing corporeal and alive existed before the origin of corporeal life.
- The IE that originated life existed before the origin of corporeal life.
=> The IE is alive, intelligent and non-corporeal.
We will have to differ on the meaning of “intelligent” here.If the living pumpkins contain DNA and RNA then pumpkins are intelligent.
DNA from fossils, such as mammoths or Neanderthals has been sequenced. Those fossils are dead and contain DNA. I an not sure about RNA, it is less stable and so would likely decay faster.What non-living material contains active DNA and RNA?
A tautology, if the being is “already alive” than you are not talking about abiogenesis. Science has shown the origin of amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, lipid bilayers and short strings of RNA in non-living environments.Metabolized elements are transformed and incorporated into living beings only by beings already alive.
No need. The carbon was already produced in stars. It was present on earth from the start, well before the appearance of life.Can the lab produce carbon from non-carbon materials?
The joy, the concepts and emotions that we may feel are aspects of our nature, like the molecules that are one with the perceptions, establishing us here in time and space, as we are brought forth into existence as one being, a person. The elements contained within the physical, psychological and spiritual dimensions that describe that unity of being, are not reducible to the relationships that define matter but are aspects of the kind of being that we are. Humanity required a new creation, separate from those that brought forth plants and animals, and the building blocks of life before them.All creatures of our God and King,
Lift up your voice and with us sing,
Alleluia! Alleluia!
Thou burning sun with golden beam,
Thou silver moon with softer gleam!
O praise Him! O praise Him!
Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!
Thou rushing wind that art so strong,
Ye clouds that sail in heav’n along,
O praise Him! Alleluia!
Thou rising moon, in praise rejoice,
Ye lights of evening, find a voice!
Thou flowing water, pure and clear,
Make music for thy Lord to hear,
O praise Him! Alleluia!
Thou fire so masterful and bright,
That givest man both warmth and light.
And all ye men of tender heart,
Forgiving others, take your part,
O praise Him! Alleluia!
Ye who long pain and sorrow bear,
Praise God and on Him cast your care!
Let all things their Creator bless,
And worship Him in humbleness,
O praise Him! Alleluia!
Praise, praise the Father, praise the Son,
And praise the Spirit, Three in One!
O praise Him! O praise Him!
Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!
Thanks Aloysium; that’s just what i needed this morning.if we live long enough, will shrivel up leaving us without any sense of who we were.
Your conclusion is weaker but possible and does not negate my stronger conclusion.Your conclusion is faulty. It should read:
=> The IE cannot be both corporeal and alive.
To examine the difference in hopes of a synthesis, you will need first to give us your definition.We will have to differ on the meaning of “intelligent” here.
Fossilized remains of plants, animals and Neanderthals are safely presumed to have been alive and the DNA is no longer active. So the question remains: Do we have any examples of “non-living material containing active DNA and RNA”?DNA from fossils, such as mammoths or Neanderthals has been sequenced. Those fossils are dead and contain DNA. I an not sure about RNA, it is less stable and so would likely decay faster.
No, the reply was in response to the claim that elements through the metabolic activity of living things is equivalent to abiogeneisis.A tautology, if the being is “already alive” than you are not talking about abiogenesis.
The material for living organisms comes from non-living material. We drink non-living water. The water molecules in our bodies were once non-living water molecules outside our bodies.
Yes, for RNA. See Ekland, Szostak and Bartel (1995) Structurally complex and highly active RNA ligases derived from random RNA sequences.Do we have any examples of “non-living material containing active DNA and RNA”?
I remain unconvinced. Science speculates and has assumptions and no empirical evidence.All the evidence indicates that Genesis is wrong to assign that order. Birds came after the first land animals, not before them.
We have fossils, those are empirical evidence. Show us a bird fossil dating from before the first land animals.I remain unconvinced. Science speculates and has assumptions and no empirical evidence.
Intelligence is required for the origin of physical life. Therefore, you don’t need a non-living intelligence to start life off, just a spiritual intelligence which is intelligent.If intelligence is required for the origin of life, then you need a non-living intelligence to start life off.
I think it’s obviously correct. A “non-intelligent being” wouldn’t possess the volition to create life, would it? I mean, puppies don’t come from rocks, do they? (OK, I’m being facetious, but you get my point, right?)Your earlier statement about intelligence being required to start life is obviously wrong.
As I pointed out above, buffalo’s idea requires equivocation about the type of ‘life’ that is meant.Intelligence is required for the origin of physical life. Therefore, you don’t need a non-living intelligence to start life off, just a spiritual intelligence which is intelligent.
Here I disagree. Chemicals do not possess volition. Does an oxygen atom possess volition to bind with two hydrogen atoms, not one, not three but two? There is no volition involved.I think it’s obviously correct. A “non-intelligent being” wouldn’t possess the volition to create life, would it? I mean, puppies don’t come from rocks, do they? (OK, I’m being facetious, but you get my point, right?)
Water is not “life”, though, no?Here I disagree. Chemicals do not possess volition. Does an oxygen atom possess volition to bind with two hydrogen atoms, not one, not three but two? There is no volition involved.
The Abrahamic God is not physical, nor composite, and therefore is a special case. Some would call this “special pleading”, but they would be wrong, since that only is relevant if there’s no reason to posit a difference. Here, there is – God is not a creature, is not composite, and is not physical. The demands of ID simply do not apply.The Abrahamic God is a counter-example to ID; a very complex entity that was not designed.
You are resting on having 10 pieces of a million piece puzzle that has been mixed up many times by catastrophic events?We have fossils, those are empirical evidence. Show us a bird fossil dating from before the first land animals.
You are the one with assumptions and no empirical evidence.
No I am not. It is you creationists who do not have the evidence. Where is the evidence of divinely created purines and pyrimidines? Where are the divinely created amino acids?You are resting on having 10 pieces of a million piece puzzle that has been mixed up many times by catastrophic events?
If you want a more complex example, then science has all the ingredients to make RNA, and has done so. Scientists can make short random pieces of RNA in the lab, and some of those pieces have enzyme-like actions, such as ligation. The chemical reactions involved did not require volition.Water is not “life”, though, no?
ID would seem to disagree with you. I have not seen any exceptions allowed in the ID literature: all complex specified things require design. This is what I would expect, given the political purpose behind ID.The Abrahamic God is not physical, nor composite, and therefore is a special case.
I do not call it special pleading, I call it an exception to ID’s claim, which disproves that claim. If the information in human DNA, as present in the mind of God, does not require design then that exact same information as present in the human genome does not require design either. In both cases the information is identical.Some would call this “special pleading”, but they would be wrong, since that only is relevant if there’s no reason to posit a difference. Here, there is – God is not a creature, is not composite, and is not physical. The demands of ID simply do not apply.
I think not.God refutes the ID claim that complex information requires design.