E
edwest211
Guest
That is problematic.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
R
rossum
Guest
This thread is about Darwin’s theory, not about stellar nucleosynthesis, which is part of astronomy.The rules of chemistry just came about?
You claim that God just existed; I get my free starter as well.
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
Is your claim chemistry just exists without cause?
T
Techno2000
Guest
You forgot one thing… the chemicals were guided by the… Almighty Hand of God.Buffalo, you’re missing the point. A lipid bag encloses some chemicals. Somehow, they’re the “right” chemicals. That’s when the magic happens. This bag then somehow absorbs energy, or something, develops internal machinery and goes live. Simple…? No. Then it develops more machinery and reproduces. If that works for you… Somehow. We now have life… somehow.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
No, buffalo. Whatever you think you heard, all evolutionist scientists firmly believe that it is the process by which some very basic original replicants, some billions of years ago, diversified into the complexity and variety of life on earth today. To a man, they have nothing to say to creationists when “you get them alone”. They all know the various hypotheses which have been proposed to derive life from non-living matter, and they all know the various differences of emphasis put by different scientists regarding the exact process of evolution. There are many such, all possible, some more probable than others, and all requiring further evidence before a definitive consensus is achieved. That is why scientists often, in public (there is no need to “get them alone”) agree that they do not know how abiogenesis occurred, nor the exact roles played by the various different factors involved in evolution. To give the impression that evolutionary scientists secretly do not believe in evolution is dishonest.
You have also set some store in mocking “blind unguided chance”. This is an absurd Aunt Sally set up by creationists in the hope that it will be easy to repudiate, and thereby strengthen their argument. In fact, of course, as it is easily recognised for the fakery it is, it merely demonstrates their inability to repudiate the real role of “chance” in natural selection.
You have also set some store in mocking “blind unguided chance”. This is an absurd Aunt Sally set up by creationists in the hope that it will be easy to repudiate, and thereby strengthen their argument. In fact, of course, as it is easily recognised for the fakery it is, it merely demonstrates their inability to repudiate the real role of “chance” in natural selection.
Exactly correct. Now if you’d care to join the search for a little more precision in your explanation, we might make a scientist of you yet!Buffalo, you’re missing the point. A lipid bag encloses some chemicals. Somehow, they’re the “right” chemicals. That’s when the magic happens. This bag then somehow absorbs energy, or something, develops internal machinery and goes live. Simple…? No. Then it develops more machinery and reproduces. If that works for you… Somehow. We now have life… somehow.
E
edwest211
Guest
I don’t believe in self-created life.
R
rossum
Guest
This thread is already long enough without bringing in chemistry. I have already referred you to stellar nucleosynthesis, I suggest that you study what stellar nucleosynthisis causes.Is your claim chemistry just exists without cause?
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
I linked the source and you have the chemist’s name. It was his quote, not mine. Take issue with him.
T
Techno2000
Guest
If there was anything earth shattering about this everybody would know about it.stellar nucleosynthesis
A
Aloysium
Guest
Oops . . . Deleted…
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
Nothing earth-shattering, it is the various processes by which elements beyond hydrogen get made in stars. It is a necessary precursor to chemistry.If there was anything earth shattering about this everybody would know about it.
rossum
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
James Tour hovers between biblical fundamentalism and evolution in a sensible way, which has gained him considerable deserved acclaim but also led to a certain amount of extremist devotion from which he is usually anxious to distance himself - although he clearly benefits from all the public appearances he can make on the back of it!
His website says (among other things): “So what should be taught in schools regarding evolution, in my opinion? As I wrote, I am not a proponent of intelligent design for the reasons I state above: I cannot prove it using my tools of chemistry to which I am bound in the chemistry classroom; the same tools to which I commensurately bind my evolutionist colleagues. A better approach would include more teaching about common descent using basic genetics arguments. But there should also be coverage of legitimate scientific puzzles such as macroevolution’s weak underpinning for the origin of body plans, the unexplainable functional differences between the modern human brain and that of other hominids, the ENCODE and orphan gene findings and disagreements, the huge difficulties regarding the theories on the origin of first life, and the mystery of information’s origin in the sequence of the nucleic acids. Such deliberations would be exciting and scientifically enlightening to students, and they would be changing with time as more data becomes available. In a secular classroom, one need not include an intelligent designer in order to provide the students with an appreciation for the science or an overview of the theories’ shortcomings. I think that, upon this approach, diverse camps could respectfully agree and lawsuits would be unnecessary.” It is not obvious from this extract that he knows that the difficulties of evolution are indeed taught in schools, and are one of the main reasons for teaching it, so they can be explored, and eventually resolved.
His website says (among other things): “So what should be taught in schools regarding evolution, in my opinion? As I wrote, I am not a proponent of intelligent design for the reasons I state above: I cannot prove it using my tools of chemistry to which I am bound in the chemistry classroom; the same tools to which I commensurately bind my evolutionist colleagues. A better approach would include more teaching about common descent using basic genetics arguments. But there should also be coverage of legitimate scientific puzzles such as macroevolution’s weak underpinning for the origin of body plans, the unexplainable functional differences between the modern human brain and that of other hominids, the ENCODE and orphan gene findings and disagreements, the huge difficulties regarding the theories on the origin of first life, and the mystery of information’s origin in the sequence of the nucleic acids. Such deliberations would be exciting and scientifically enlightening to students, and they would be changing with time as more data becomes available. In a secular classroom, one need not include an intelligent designer in order to provide the students with an appreciation for the science or an overview of the theories’ shortcomings. I think that, upon this approach, diverse camps could respectfully agree and lawsuits would be unnecessary.” It is not obvious from this extract that he knows that the difficulties of evolution are indeed taught in schools, and are one of the main reasons for teaching it, so they can be explored, and eventually resolved.
Last edited:
E
ericc
Guest
I didn’t realize evolution “cause” dinosaurs to become birds. One species died out perhaps due to massive environmental changes, another takes its place probably more suited to post dino conditions. Evolution doesn’t “cause”.Why did evolution cause dinosaurs to become Birds ?
E
ericc
Guest
Or perhaps there were other species with shared DNA building blocks similar to those of dinos. There are similar DNAs blocks across different species. The big dinos didn’t make it due to climate change and the ancestors of birds because of their smaller size were more suited to the post climate change environment. Gene transfer theory is nice but I find Haldane’s Dilemma a major stumbling block for it to be true.No, the climate became fatal first. Then the dinos died out saved a handful lucky guys who survived until their genes were transferred. Gene transfer must be part of the mechanism behind evolution. Bird still have some dino genes. How long time did it take? Who knows? Maybe it was sped up by necessity.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
Truth doesn’t boil down to what can or cannot be coped with. Blind undirected and unintelligent change is what we see all about us - the ravages of age and disease. What sounds ridiculous is the promotion of decay as the means by which creation happens.Most creationists can’t accept evolution because they can’t cope with blind, undirected, unintelligent, change. If change isn’t any of those, then I can’t see why they have a problem.
Some people believe in the idea that evolutionary change is the result of an order natural or supernatural, that is additional to that of atoms and molecules in themselves.
While to my mind it is an improvement on other evolutionary theories, it shares a focus on differences in physical traits as they appear in what are presumed successive generations. What is evolving then would be the complexity of matter. If we just take the brain, I’ve read that the relationships that exist between neurons outnumber those of all the stars in the universe. At an atomic level, matter has been arranged in more and more elaborate patterns. Some naturalists would attribute this to the inherent tetrahedral properties of Carbon; some with more common sense would assert that it takes an additional natural force to do this. A pantheist would conclude that it is the universe itself that does this as it grows to understand itself. I believe it to be an illusion arising from the underlying assumption that matter is the ground of being.
The reality of living organisms is their existence as themselves, individual and/or a constituent part of a greater whole. If Gaia were to exist as an individual entity in the universe, then evolution would describe her transformations over time. But I don’t think so. The earth is not ontologically structured like ourselves, where every cell, and every atom comes together, to participate in the wholeness of the person. What we have with any living creature is an existential unity having two discernable dimensions - material and psychological. It is a living being which is created.
The way I see it, intergenerational continuity exists only with regards to the multiplication of species. I’m going to call them “kinds” to differentiate what I am saying from our modern taxonomy, influenced as it is by the belief that matter is the ground of being. The “kinds” were created to diversify and to adapt to their environment. There exists a hierarchy of “kinds”, from bacteria to human beings. This development in time is reflected in our own structure. We are made of atoms and the forces that govern the physical aspect of the universe. These are arranged in the almost infinite complexity of the cell, which is multipled almost 40 trillion times in very, very diverse ways to work together as organ systems. The simplest instinctive perceptions, thoughts, if we can label them as such, and reactions of bacteria, are similarly expanded to include the visual acuity of an eagle, the automatic “calculations” of a cheetah observing its prey, the emotional reactions and social interactions of an elephant, reaching a climax in mankind who can know the glory of God.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
I believe you asked how new species arise. Currently, hoping to continuously grow in understanding for as long as God will permit, I tend toward the idea that the first placental creature was hatched from an egg. It’s for purely esthetic reasons. Everything begins with a seed, faith especially. This life in its entirety is the seed from which will we will emerge as an eternal glorious body.
It is quite a jump from a connection to a yolk, to one with a uterine wall; both sides of the relationship must happen simultaneously. The new creature with the appropriate womb would produce offspring being able to form a placenta. What would have had to happen with the conception of the this life form is a prior transformation of the gametes from the “parents”, which would then join to bring about the creation of this new being, representing the first of its “kind”. The process would be analogous to eating, where the matter that constitutes the substance and the information for development was incorporated into a new form of living being. The organism did not exist previously, neither as itself nor as a representative of a new kind, but now would be one with the transformed matter that had earlier belonged to another species. So within the presumably leathery shell, the last bit of change would see the gene that codes for eggs being transformed into one that results in a placenta in the offspring. Naturally two would have to be created, male and female.
It may of course be far easier to simply bring this creature into existence as an adult. Jesus did appear to the apostles in a closed room after all. I don’t know and there are innumerable unimaginable ways this all could happen.
It is quite a jump from a connection to a yolk, to one with a uterine wall; both sides of the relationship must happen simultaneously. The new creature with the appropriate womb would produce offspring being able to form a placenta. What would have had to happen with the conception of the this life form is a prior transformation of the gametes from the “parents”, which would then join to bring about the creation of this new being, representing the first of its “kind”. The process would be analogous to eating, where the matter that constitutes the substance and the information for development was incorporated into a new form of living being. The organism did not exist previously, neither as itself nor as a representative of a new kind, but now would be one with the transformed matter that had earlier belonged to another species. So within the presumably leathery shell, the last bit of change would see the gene that codes for eggs being transformed into one that results in a placenta in the offspring. Naturally two would have to be created, male and female.
It may of course be far easier to simply bring this creature into existence as an adult. Jesus did appear to the apostles in a closed room after all. I don’t know and there are innumerable unimaginable ways this all could happen.
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
So, the post dino conditions waited millions of years for evolution to evolve a creature suitable for the post dino conditions ?another takes its place probably more suited to post dino conditions.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
I think I broadly agree with this, except that I don’t like implication that the “additional natural force” is a tacked-on addition, rather than an integral part of the formulation of the rules of chemistry. But perhaps that’s what you meant.Some naturalists would attribute this to the inherent tetrahedral properties of Carbon; some with more common sense would assert that it takes an additional natural force or to do this.
As for your second comment, it seems very close to an evolutionary scenario. With a bit more understanding of the appearance of genetic diversity, I think you’d be happy with evolution as the origin of species.
A
Aloysium
Guest
The rules of chemistry are the bricks and mortar, necessary but insufficient in themselves to construct a home.“additional natural force” is a tacked-on addition, rather than an integral part of the formulation of the rules of chemistry
There’s no evolution; it’s an illusion. It is all about creation.With a bit more understanding of the appearance of genetic diversity, I think you’d be happy with evolution as the origin of species.
Whatever, I tried. It seems I can’t do better at describing my point of view in terms that make sense to you.
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
I think you’ve expressed your opinion very well, and am happy to agree with it. I think any Christian evolutionist could probably go along with it too. The illusion of evolution. I like that. To we humans, however, although there is truly a profound difference, in scientific terms there is no observable difference between actual evolution and the illusion of evolution. The difference can only be understood philosophically, not by a study of fossils and genetics.There’s no evolution; it’s an illusion. It is all about creation.
Whatever, I tried. It seems I can’t do better at describing my point of view in terms that make sense to you.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.