Interesting New Book on Creation

[reggieM]

A bicycle is not an organism that reproduces with variation.

Chemical evolution (as it is claimed) does not require organisms for its evolutionary process to function.

There are things that I can imagine that are clearly impossible in this universe (a species of six legged mammal for example, or a slow burning massive star, or disembodied intelligence, or a monkey being born from the mating of dogs).

If you encountered a “disembodied intelligence”, for example, I think that would be enough to prove (for you) that evolution could not be responsible for its development.

 

[ricmat]

You realise that whether you believe that the biological theory of evolution explains the level of complexity found in nature or not, has no bearing on whether it does or not.

You realize that whether or not you believe that design exists in nature or not, it has no bearing on whether or not it’s really there.

 

[edwest2]

A bicycle is not an organism that reproduces with variation.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm

Yes, I know. And the organism just learned how to reproduce? I don’t think so.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Chemical evolution (as it is claimed) does not require organisms for its evolutionary process to function.

If you encountered a “disembodied intelligence”, for example, I think that would be enough to prove (for you) that evolution could not be responsible for its development.

Chemical evolution? Would you mind explaining?

God bless,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

Chemical evolution? Would you mind explaining?
God bless,
Ed

Back on post #201 on this thread, Barbarian claimed:

Indeed. For example, evolution doesn’t make any claims about the way life began or the earth was formed. Surprised? Maybe it’s time to do a little reading.

I have seen others claim that “evolution only occurs with living organisms”.

Chemical evolution is the theory about how chemical compounds evolved into life.

Chemical evolution
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_evolution
Chemical evolution has two meanings and uses. The first refers to the theories of evolution of the chemical elements in the universe following the Big Bang and through nucleosynthesis in stars and supernovas.

Chemical evolution
iscid.org/encyclopedia/Chemical_Evolution
Chemical evolution describes a variety of theories that posit the view that life originated through purely chemical transformations of nonliving matter. Starting from primoridal simplicity such chemical transformation are supposed eventually to have brought about a living cell.

Chemical evolution
library.thinkquest.org/C00376…?page=origin03
Chemical evolution is essentially the process by which increasingly complex elements, molecules and compounds developed from the simpler chemical elements that were created in the Big Bang?. Recent astronomical observations have discovered that chemical evolution has even led to the synthesis of complex organic? molecules in space, a discovery that could have serious implications on current theories of how life developed. But before we discuss the implications of organic compounds being formed in space, we must first outline the chemical history of the universe.

Chemical Evolution: Physics of the Origin and Evolution of Life (Hardcover)
amazon.com/Chemical-Evolu…/dp/0792341112

Definition: chemical evolution from Online Medical Dictionary
cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/o…ical+evolution
The theory of the process by which life arose from inorganic matter.

 

[edwest2]

Thank you very much. I do not think natural chemical reactions led to the first cell. It would contain no mechanism for reproduction aside from a possible, one time/one use mechanism. This mechanism is not an information storage and retrieval system.

God bless,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

I don’t believe chemical evolution created the first living things either.

But I do think that many people believe that chemical evolution created life.

 

[wildleafblower]

(msg. 297) A bicycle is not an organism that reproduces with variation.
edwest2;3175280:

To put it another way, if I left all the parts of a bicycle on the ground, and came back a billion years later, it would not have assembled itself.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm

To put it another way, if I left all the parts of a bicycle on the ground, and came back a billion years later, it would not have assembled itself.

God bless,
Ed

(msg. 295) Your opinion of what is ridiculous is up to you. The probability of a complex, interconnected and interdependent system, biological system, forming on its own is beyond reasonable probability. That’s what I’m saying.

To put it another way, if I left all the parts of a bicycle on the ground, and came back a billion years later, it would not have assembled itself.

God bless,
Ed
wildleafblower;3175258:

(msg. 294)Ed, you are implying by your statement above that luck is probably the third possiblity? Luck??? Ridiculas. A probable cause would result in evidence that would cancel out any chance of a possibilty.

Out of time. Got to go.

(msg. 266)The third involves probability which renders many taken taken for granted evolutionary occurrences as outside the realm of probability. Or to put it another way, life did not have to get lucky once and then the ball got rolling, many different, complex, interconnected processes had to get lucky in a continuing, ordered way, which is far beyond chance.

God bless,
Ed

Alec, I think we nailed that one to the hitching post! This whole scenario between Ed, you and me makes me chuckle. Unaware of it at the time but now pondering upon Newton’s cat flap which seems to me to have resulted in a Niels Bohr function collapsing and only one possibility is left, ‘an organism that reproduces with variation’.

Upon futher reflection my mind is drawn to Scott E. Page, a professor of complex systems who appears to me to add depth to my observations with these comments:

*Because diverse groups of people bring to organizations more and different ways of seeing a problem and, thus, faster/better ways of solving it.

People from different backgrounds have varying ways of looking at problems, what I call “tools.” The sum of these tools is far more powerful in organizations with diversity than in ones where everyone has gone to the same schools, been trained in the same mold and thinks in almost identical ways.
The problems we face in the world are very complicated. Any one of us can get stuck. If we’re in an organization where everyone thinks in the same way, everyone will get stuck in the same place.

But if we have people with diverse tools, they’ll get stuck in different places. One person can do their best, and then someone else can come in and improve on it. There’s a lot of empirical data to show that diverse cities are more productive, diverse boards of directors make better decisions, the most innovative companies are diverse.

Breakthroughs in science increasingly come from teams of bright, diverse people. That’s why interdisciplinary work is the biggest trend in scientific research.*

nytimes.com/2008/01/08/science/08conv.html?_r=2&ref=science&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

In Professor’s Model, Diversity = Productivity (Published 2008)

In the long-running debate on affirmative action, Scott E. Page, a professor at the University of Michigan, is a fresh voice.

www.nytimes.com

Pretty awesome conclusion in my opinion! (I dink in the realm of dynamic conversations.)

 

[ricmat]

Unaware of it at the time but now pondering upon Newton’s cat flap which seems to me to have resulted in a Niels Bohr function collapsing and only one possibility is left, ‘an organism that reproduces with variation’.

I thought the cat belonged to Schroedinger. How did Newton get a hold of it?

 

[ricmat]

I think that if you really understood the science you might be somewhat less incredulous.

To be more exact, it’s not the science that I think can’t do it. After all, the most complex (probably) lifeform in creation is the human body, which is just atoms, that we all know and understand

What I find incredulous is that evolution from wet dirt to complex life forms is alleged to take place in only 3(?) billion years with no intervening intelligence or guidance. 3 billion years is not very much time really.

But if I assume 3 billion years with a nudge here and there to be sure that exactly the right mutation takes place on top of the last exactly right mutation, and another nudge here and there to be sure that an asteroid hits earth (e.g.) and wipes out all the competition, etc., and otherwise, let the “natural” laws do their thing. Then I can buy 3 billion years [although I admit it is possible that it really might take much much longer.]

If you and wildleafblower, for company (and Spritmeadow to head off legal challenges) were put in a room with canisters of the basic elements, and all the equipment and evolution texts you needed, with your profound knowledge of evolution (and hence, knowing in advance all the details of how to get from A to B), could you create complex life? How long would it take even with your hands personally guiding the process? This is a serious question. How about an estimate?

By the definition of guidance, you wouldn’t need to wait for large populations and fortuitous events (gamma ray bursts from supernovas, etc.) to cause a huge number of mutations so you could pick out the right ones. You could just do the right ones, one right after the other. So you don’t even need to have the natural selection part of the process (which is itself time consuming). But you would need to wait for the next generation to be old enough to reproduce to instigate the next ideal mutation, however. So you’d do a lot of waiting.

As an aside…Have you (or anybody) ever assembled a diagram starting with dirt, and showing exactly what needs to take place to move up the chain to complex life? Since you don’t accept the idea of a guiding hand in the process, you need to do some statistics showing that it is feasible that in only 3 billion years this can happen in an unguided way.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I don’t believe chemical evolution created the first living things either.

“Chemical evolution?” Some astronomers talk about “stellar evolution”, too. But these are part of evolutionary theory. And while your beliefs might be significant to you, in science you need to bring evidence to the table, if you want to count.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Your opinion of what is ridiculous is up to you. The probability of a complex, interconnected and interdependent system, biological system, forming on its own is beyond reasonable probability. That’s what I’m saying.

To put it another way, if I left all the parts of a bicycle on the ground, and came back a billion years later, it would not have assembled itself
Ed

Anything that back up that Ed?

 

[The_Barbarian]

What I find incredulous is that evolution from wet dirt to complex life forms is alleged to take place in only 3(?) billion years with no intervening intelligence or guidance. 3 billion years is not very much time really.

Your belief, and $3.00 is worth a gallon of gasoline. Unless you have some evidence to back it up.

But if I assume 3 billion years with a nudge here and there to be sure that exactly the right mutation takes place on top of the last exactly right mutation, and another nudge here and there to be sure that an asteroid hits earth (e.g.) and wipes out all the competition, etc., and otherwise, let the “natural” laws do their thing. Then I can buy 3 billion years [although I admit it is possible that it really might take much much longer.]

The difference is evidence. So far, it’s not there. Of course, God, being omnipotent and being able to use even randomness to do His will, could easily have created the universe to work the way He wanted it to, the first time.

No tinkering necessary for an omniopotent God.

If you and wildleafblower, for company (and Spritmeadow to head off legal challenges) were put in a room with canisters of the basic elements, and all the equipment and evolution texts you needed, with your profound knowledge of evolution (and hence, knowing in advance all the details of how to get from A to B),

You’ve confused abiogenesis with evolution, again.

could you create complex life? How long would it take even with your hands personally guiding the process?

Less than a billion years, if you could completely recreated the conditions of the early earth. Some things, take huge amounts of time and massive amounts of material. We know precisely how granite forms, too. But we still can’t make it in a shorter time than it actually takes.

If you’re serious about shooting down science, you need to get some facts together.

As an aside…Have you (or anybody) ever assembled a diagram starting with dirt, and showing exactly what needs to
take place to move up the chain to complex life?

Yes.

Since you don’t accept the idea of a guiding hand in the process, you need to do some statistics showing that it is feasible that in only 3 billion years this can happen in an unguided way.

Fortunately, it’s only necessary to gather evidence to see where it leads. That’s still underway. But so far, all the evidence shows that God was right when He said the earth brought forth living things.

 

[ricmat]

Your belief, and $3.00 is worth a gallon of gasoline. Unless you have some evidence to back it up.

I’m not saying it’s worth anything. I was explaining to hecd2 what it was I found to be incredulous.

I’m not allowed to be incredulous without having evidence to back it up? Huh?

The difference is evidence. So far, it’s not there. Of course, God, being omnipotent and being able to use even randomness to do His will, could easily have created the universe to work the way He wanted it to, the first time.

No tinkering necessary for an omniopotent God.

I thought it was quite clear that that paragraph started the definition of what I would find to be non-incredulous.

So your answer is God did it. Sounds religious to me. I thought we were talking science here?

You’ve confused abiogenesis with evolution, again.

Perhaps, although I think you have me confused with somebody else.

OK - start with the simplest form of life and make man instead. That would be almost as impressive.

1. Less than a billion years, if you could completely recreated the conditions of the early earth. Some things, take huge amounts of time and massive amounts of material.
2. We know precisely how granite forms, too. But we still can’t make it in a shorter time than it actually takes.

1. Proof?
2. That’s exactly why I’m asking for an estimate of how long each step in the evolutionary process actually takes.

If you’re serious about shooting down science, you need to get some facts together.

I’m not trying to shoot down science. I’m trying to say what it is that would convince me. Don’t be so obnoxious.

Yes.

So where could I see that? With timing charts included.

 

[wildleafblower]

hildegaard, you started this topic by presenting an e-book for $6.00. There is a hard cover book too for $36. (I’m away from my desk though I have the site for the book but not with me). I would appreciate the title of each chapter from the hard bound book.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Hopefully, you’ll be kind enough to provide me with the information I’ve requested so I can review it later.

The Doctrines of Genesis 1-11: A Compendium and Defense of Traditional Catholic Theology on Origins

By Fr Victor Warkulwiz

$6 for the e-edition.

*Today the Catholic Church has well-developed theologies of redemption and sanctification but no well-developed theology of creation. That is because so many of her influential thinkers have abandoned the sound creation theology of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church and have embraced instead the false principles of evolutionism. The purpose of this book is to help restore traditional Catholic theology on origins to its rightful place in the belief of Catholics. The traditional teaching of the Church on Creation, the Fall, and the Great Flood and its aftermath is clearly presented in the form of sixteen doctrines abstracted from the text of Genesis 1-11. The doctrines are defended on theological, philosophical and scientific grounds from assaults made on them from the sectors of biblical criticism and scientism. The author attempts to present a story of origins that evokes true and vivid images of the creation of the world and the primal history of the human species. Accurate, thorough and readable answers are given to many questions about origins that perplex the modern Catholic. The exposition is kept as non-technical as possible so that the book will be accessible to everyone. Not everyone will be able to understand everything that is presented, but every reader will find enough to set his thinking straight and to nourish his Catholic faith.

Foreword by Most. Rev. Robert Francis Vasa, Bishop of Baker*

Since Hildegaard failed to provide me the information then I will share what I have found.:

**The Doctrines of Genesis 1-11: A Compendium and Defense of Traditional Catholic Theology on Origins **By Fr Victor Warkulwiz

Our price: **$32.95 **
Format: Paperback
Size: 6 x 9
Pages: 556
ISBN: 0-595-45243-4
Published: Nov-2007
iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?isbn=0-595-45243-4
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?isbn=0-595-45243-4

Browse Before You Buy
iuniverse.com/lookinside/LookInside.jsp?isbn=0595452434
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?isbn=0-595-45243-4

Why is there a difference in price? (Sorry for the error I made in my post above regarding the price being $36.) Is the e-book for $6.00 missing chapters? I didn’t see any notation by Rev. Robert Francis Vasa, Bishop of Baker when browsing the book. Ah but I did find the chapters! What the heck does essenses have to do with cosmology? !!!: NADA

 

[reggieM]

Why is there a difference in price?

When the publisher doesn’t have to provide paper, color covers and ink for printed pages (as well as shipping cartons of books) the price can come down considerably.

(Sorry for the error I made in my post above regarding the price being $36.) Is the e-book for $6.00 missing chapters? I didn’t see any notation by Rev. Robert Francis Vasa, Bishop of Baker when browsing the book. Ah but I did find the chapters! What the heck does essenses have to do with cosmology? !!!: NADA

Essences are an essential component of classical Thomistic cosmology.

 

[reggieM]

“Chemical evolution?”

I’m not sure what your question is. Chemical evolution was defined and described in the several links I posted.

I’ll post these again (third time):

Chemical evolution is the theory about how chemical compounds evolved into life.

Chemical evolution
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_evolution
Chemical evolution has two meanings and uses. The first refers to the theories of evolution of the chemical elements in the universe following the Big Bang and through nucleosynthesis in stars and supernovas.

Chemical evolution
iscid.org/encyclopedia/Chemical_Evolution
Chemical evolution describes a variety of theories that posit the view that life originated through purely chemical transformations of nonliving matter. Starting from primoridal simplicity such chemical transformation are supposed eventually to have brought about a living cell.

Chemical evolution
library.thinkquest.org/C00376…?page=origin03
Chemical evolution is essentially the process by which increasingly complex elements, molecules and compounds developed from the simpler chemical elements that were created in the Big Bang?. Recent astronomical observations have discovered that chemical evolution has even led to the synthesis of complex organic? molecules in space, a discovery that could have serious implications on current theories of how life developed. But before we discuss the implications of organic compounds being formed in space, we must first outline the chemical history of the universe.

Chemical Evolution: Physics of the Origin and Evolution of Life (Hardcover)
amazon.com/Chemical-Evolu…/dp/0792341112

Definition: chemical evolution from Online Medical Dictionary
cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/o…ical+evolution
The theory of the process by which life arose from inorganic matter.

 

[wildleafblower]

I thought the cat belonged to Schroedinger. How did Newton get a hold of it?

It’s a joke dear. Thanks for the reply which gives evidence that Newton’s Third Law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

When the publisher doesn’t have to provide paper, color covers and ink for printed pages (as well as shipping cartons of books) the price can come down considerably.

Essences are an essential component of classical Thomistic cosmology.
wildleafblower;3179672:

Since Hildegaard failed to provide me the information then I will share what I have found.:

**The Doctrines of Genesis 1-11: A Compendium and Defense of Traditional Catholic Theology on Origins **

By Fr Victor Warkulwiz

Our price: **$32.95 **
Format: Paperback
Size: 6 x 9
Pages: 556
ISBN: 0-595-45243-4
Published: Nov-2007
iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?isbn=0-595-45243-4
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?isbn=0-595-45243-4

Browse Before You Buy
iuniverse.com/lookinside/LookInside.jsp?isbn=0595452434
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?isbn=0-595-45243-4

Why is there a difference in price? (Sorry for the error I made in my post above regarding the price being $36.) Is the e-book for $6.00 missing chapters? I didn’t see any notation by Rev. Robert Francis Vasa, Bishop of Baker when browsing the book. Ah but I did find the chapters! What the heck does essenses have to do with cosmology? !!!: NADA

ReggieM, it must not be an interesting book to have to drop the price. Essences have nothing to do with cosmology!

 

[The_Barbarian]

I notice that the “chemical evolution” sources include an ID apologetics site, Wikipedia, and others of the sort. It’s like “stellar evolution”, a word borrowed for another sort of change.

Evolution, in the sense biologists use it, means “change in allele frequency over time.”

Not applicable to chemical origin of life, in that sense. Better to use “abiogenesis” a more accurate term.

 

[wildleafblower]

**The dangers of creationism in education **
Report by Committee on Culture, Science and Education
from the Parliamentary Assembly, Council of Europe:

*26. At present, scientists from all nations, races and religions agree on the existence of evolution and accordingly no longer try to find out whether it has actually taken place but “how” this has happened. A number of questions remain within the scientific community with regard to understanding all the processes that lead to evolution. In particular this work consists in revealing the mechanisms that have governed the present structuring of biodiversity2. However, no science is ever complete and new discoveries regularly enable progress to be made on understanding “how” things are as they are.

1. In addition, as Hervé LeGuyader emphasises, evolutionist thinking now pervades all areas of biology and, through the historical dimension of the process of evolution, also affects the sciences of the Earth and the universe. The advances in evolution research have in fact resulted in broadening the basis of this theory, so that today the evolution of populations, including human populations, is only part of evolution as a whole. Research being done on evolution is still providing more evidence for the truth of the theory of evolution.
2. One of the discoveries that has been made in the study of our planet and has been confirmed many times, is the dating of the major events that have marked its development:

• the solar system, which includes the Earth, was formed approximately 4.6 billion years ago;
• life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago (in the form of unicellular bacteria);
• about 200 million years ago Pangea began to split up to form the continents we know today;
• homo sapiens, ie human beings, emerged between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago.
  

  **It is thus not hard to understand why these discoveries have presented a challenge to those who apply a strict interpretation to the first part of the Bible, ie Genesis. ***

assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc07/EDOC11297.htm#P362_70012
http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc07/EDOC11297.htm#P362_70012

Best to read the entire document to understand the full scope of the dangers of creationism in education.