[_ Old Earth _] Evolution

[Vaccine]

The problem with "maybe a space alien designed life" is that it doesn't provide any useful explanation.

Intelligent Design theory depends on evidence, not faith. It fits comfortably with a belief in God. I suppose a negative aspect of either theory is evolution fits comfortably with Atheism, and ID fits comfortably with “aliens”. The difference is in order to conclude “aliens” from ID we would have to empirically prove aliens exist, and empirically prove they are capable of intelligence. Nothing is necessary to conclude atheism from evolution. In fact, if evolution is true it seems to prove naturalism.

nature to produce life, as it did.

"it did" is an unwarranted conclusion. Where my belief differs from yours, is I believe nature did not produce life, an intelligent agent ie God produced life, whether or not he used nature has yet to be proven.

Suppose we put a prokaryote (single cell organism) and some sterile, balanced salt solution in a test tube. Then poke a hole in the prokaryote, let everything spill out and the DNA unravel. That will dispense with all the problems of nature being able to produce all the ingredients necessary for life. Now, everything needed to make life is in that test tube. Nothing in nature exists that could assemble that back into a cell. The only tools at natures disposal are things like gravity, heat, lightning, wind. Where natural causes alone fail to explain, an intelligent cause provides a very useful explanation. It says this did not happen on its own, an intelligent agent was involved. I suppose you are indirectly involving intelligence ie God caused nature, nature caused life. The problem with that is nature is incapable of producing life. Chemistry, Physics, Astronomy will all try something and if it doesn't work move on. Biology won't progress until they try new theories.

 

[Barbarian]

Intelligent Design theory depends on evidence, not faith.

Not according to the guys who invented it. They say that its goal is to promote theism. It's a semi-religion. And they object to most of the evidence.

It fits comfortably with a belief in God. I suppose a negative aspect of either theory is evolution fits comfortably with Atheism, and ID fits comfortably with “aliens”.

Science has no religious implications, so it fits comfortably with almost all religions (or none at all). A few religions, like ID, have been formed mostly to object to science. But that's another issue.

The difference is in order to conclude “aliens” from ID we would have to empirically prove aliens exist, and empirically prove they are capable of intelligence.

Likewise, to conclude "God" from ID, we'd have to empirically prove God exists. Which is impossible, and blasphemous to try, it being a sin to test God.

Nothing is necessary to conclude atheism from evolution.

It would be impossible, in fact.

In fact, if evolution is true it seems to prove naturalism.

Unless you're a Christian, and accept His word in Genesis.

"it did" is an unwarranted conclusion. Where my belief differs from yours, is I believe nature did not produce life,

God says it can, and did. And I believe Him.

Suppose we put a prokaryote (single cell organism) and some sterile, balanced salt solution in a test tube. Then poke a hole in the prokaryote, let everything spill out and the DNA unravel. That will dispense with all the problems of nature being able to produce all the ingredients necessary for life. Now, everything needed to make life is in that test tube. Nothing in nature exists that could assemble that back into a cell. The only tools at natures disposal are things like gravity, heat, lightning, wind. Where natural causes alone fail to explain, an intelligent cause provides a very useful explanation.

So we just have God's word, and a great deal of scientific evidence showing that nature did produce life.

I think I'll go with that. If you're a Christian, isn't God's word good enough for you?

It says this did not happen on its own, an intelligent agent was involved.

That's true of everything in the Universe. Nothing exists without God. But God says that the earth brought forth living things.

I suppose you are indirectly involving intelligence ie God caused nature, nature caused life.

You're confusing deism and Christianity. God didn't just make things and walk away. He continues to be active in nature, just by consistent rules to make it possible for us to be.

The problem with that is nature is incapable of producing life.

God says it is. And I believe Him.

Chemistry, Physics, Astronomy will all try something and if it doesn't work move on. Biology won't progress until they try new theories.

Biology is the cutting edge of science in our time, not just new theories, but new discoveries and useful new ways of doing things. This is why Darwin's theory isn't what it was a hundred years ago. Theories grow and change as evidence accumulates.

 

[cupid dave]

Intelligent Design theory depends on evidence, not faith.

Don't we grade human intelligence by accepting explanations which refer to the Natural Laws that account for things that have taken place?

Isn't it "intelligent" to say that electrons left a Sodium atom and bound itself, ionically, to a Chlorine atom, which explains common salt appearing in the bottom of a becker?

 

[Vaccine]

Don't we grade human intelligence by accepting explanations which refer to the Natural Laws that account for things that have taken place?

I agree with that to a point. We should always start with natural laws for our explanations. But I believe there are times when we shouldn't look to nature for an explanation. For example, we shouldn't look to nature to explain a book. We would have to explain how the ingredients paper, ink, and glue, occur naturally. Even if we could explain all the ingredients occurring naturally, we have to explain how nature assembled it, and all the information in it. A simpler solution is someone made it.

Isn't it "intelligent" to say that electrons left a Sodium atom and bound itself, ionically, to a Chlorine atom, which explains common salt appearing in the bottom of a becker?

Punctuated equilibrium makes sense in chemistry. If we apply that to the origin of life problem we have left biochemistry and are now talking about chemical evolution. I will go into this in detail later.

“we have not the slightest chance of a chemical evolutionary origin for even the simplest of cells.” and added ID “made a great deal of sense, as it very closely matched the multiple discoveries in molecular biology.” Dean Kenyon interview in “unlocking the mysteries of life”.

The origin of life isn't the only thing that needs explained. The origin of information has to be accounted for as well. DNA is alanguage, not that it is similar to a language but meets all the requirements of a language, similar to binary language in computer code. Computer code has 2 characters 0 and 1, DNA has 4characters, A (adenine), C (cytosine), T (thymine), and G (guanine). Those characters combine to make words (codon) and those words combine to make sentences (genes). Put together enough sentences and we have a book (RNA), put together enough books and we have a library (DNA). DNA stores information in chemicals.

The issue with punctuated equilibrium is it would produce a simple pattern. The genetic information in DNA is not just random or just a simple pattern, it can be read like computer code. If A bound to C naturally, the genetic information would read like this ACACACACACACACACACAC. "DNA is like a software program,only much more complex than anything we've ever devised."-Bill Gates.

More and more scientists are making the connection between information and intelligence and realize using natural laws to explain information AND the origin of life, is like trying to prove the hieroglyphs or a book were produced by nature. This is why ID theory makes sense. ID says nothing, as it should, about the “who”, and only says we can tell the difference between natural causes and intelligent causes.

God says itcan, and did. And I believe Him.

Since this is your personal belief I won't challenge it. But the idea nature “can produce life", doesn't that transfer the power to create life from the Creator to the creation?

 

[jasoncran]

merah and Logos are greek thinking. the later was the idea of order. and the former was from the torah and in that genesis one. God is breathe to the jews. JOHN was combining jewish and greek thought to present the Truth.

 

[Barbarian]

Don't we grade human intelligence by accepting explanations which refer to the Natural Laws that account for things that have taken place?

Not that I know of. Mostly, it's logic and thinking. ID is pretty much limited to "the designer did it."

Isn't it "intelligent" to say that electrons left a Sodium atom and bound itself, ionically, to a Chlorine atom, which explains common salt appearing in the bottom of a becker?

I don't see what intelligence has to do with it.

 

[Barbarian]

But the idea nature “can produce life", doesn't that transfer the power to create life from the Creator to the creation?

It's like saying that concrete's power to harden transfers the ability to make sidewalks from the contractor to the cement.

I don't get that.

 

[Vaccine]

We both agree life is a miracle of God. What confuses me is whats wrong with God directly creating life? It seems to me that's just what happened. But your position is nature produced life? Isn't nature undirected, unguided, random?

Comparatively, concrete is chemically simple, inanimate, whereas life is chemically complex animate, sentient,and contains information, its apples to oranges. What I'm getting at is if nature can produce life isn't that naturalism?

 

[cupid dave]

merah and Logos are greek thinking. the later was the idea of order. and the former was from the torah and in that genesis one. God is breathe to the jews. JOHN was combining jewish and greek thought to present the Truth.

I am not certain in regard to your point here, but I like that you sum the two ideas to the word Truth.

Truth is the Word.
It is one word.

Brevity is the essence of wisdom, and Christ could not have been more brief that to have summed the whole of Scripture to just "logos," or a single word, i.e.; Truth.

Applying this identification and definition of the Greek word, Logos, the following verses make modern rational sense:

John1:1

In the beginning was the Word, (i.e.; Truth: [John 14:6]), and the Word, (Truth, itself), was (synonymous) with God, (i.e.; Reality), and the Word, (Truth: [John 14:6]), was (indistinguishable from Reality), God, (the almighty for all men).

2 "He," (Truth, the symbolic Word to come: [Jud 1:3]) was with God, (i.e.; the ever unfolding Reality), in the beginning, (that is, the initial unfolding of material Reality in what was the actual physical Creation).

Jn 1:3 ALL (real) THINGS, (phenomenally, i.e.; mentally), came into existence, (for man), through him, (i.e.; this concept of Truth), and apart from him, (this ideal of Truth), not even ONE (real) thing came into (actual) existence (for men).

 

[cupid dave]

What I'm getting at is if nature can produce life isn't that naturalism?

The interconnected web of The Laws behind the Nature of Reality is the spirit of God.
Why is it necessary to assume that the external World we loosely call "Nature" is separate or distinct from the natural laws that create that Nature???

 

[cupid dave]

Posted by cupid dave


Don't we grade human intelligence by accepting explanations which refer to the Natural Laws that account for things that have taken place?


Vaccine:
I agree with that to a point.

What is intelligence if you quibble over what I said above?????

 

[Free]

merah and Logos are greek thinking. the later was the idea of order. and the former was from the torah and in that genesis one. God is breathe to the jews. JOHN was combining jewish and greek thought to present the Truth.

I am not certain in regard to your point here, but I like that you sum the two ideas to the word Truth.

Truth is the Word.
It is one word.

Brevity is the essence of wisdom, and Christ could not have been more brief that to have summed the whole of Scripture to just "logos," or a single word, i.e.; Truth.

Applying this identification and definition of the Greek word, Logos, the following verses make modern rational sense:

John1:1

In the beginning was the Word, (i.e.; Truth: [John 14:6]), and the Word, (Truth, itself), was (synonymous) with God, (i.e.; Reality), and the Word, (Truth: [John 14:6]), was (indistinguishable from Reality), God, (the almighty for all men).

2 "He," (Truth, the symbolic Word to come: [Jud 1:3]) was with God, (i.e.; the ever unfolding Reality), in the beginning, (that is, the initial unfolding of material Reality in what was the actual physical Creation).

Jn 1:3 ALL (real) THINGS, (phenomenally, i.e.; mentally), came into existence, (for man), through him, (i.e.; this concept of Truth), and apart from him, (this ideal of Truth), not even ONE (real) thing came into (actual) existence (for men).

Even based on the definitions which you give, it is error to equate "Word" or "logos" with "Truth". Your interpretation of John 1:1-3 has far too much of your own interpretation in it and as such is quite off the mark.

 

[cupid dave]

Even based on the definitions which you give, it is error to equate "Word" or "logos" with "Truth". Your interpretation of John 1:1-3 has far too much of your own interpretation in it and as such is quite off the mark.

That is why the make choc and vanilla, of course.

I am certain that if you or others with different "takes" on John 1:1 would post those here that exact same statement you make here would as appropriate.

But, what I have posted comes from the vantage point that I have previously and consistently equated Christ to Truth.
And, the spirit of Truth I have equated to the one holy spirit available to men in all my previous contentions.

Hence, what I post in John 1:1 above is merely another nail in the coffin of this over view that I have maintained from the very beginning.
Therefore, criticism need be directed at the larger issue, whether the sum of Christ is love, as people tend to say, or whether Christ is Truth,... both one logos or word summaries.



John 14:6 Jesus saithunto him, I am the truth,… the way, and the life: no man cometh unto theFather, but by me.

 

[cupid dave]

NOTE:

"Heraclitus FIRST used the term logos... around 600BC...
He used it to "designate... the plan which COORDINATES" with "a changing Universe."

Truth is that one and ONLY thing that corresponds directly with the ever unfolding next frame of the Reality we call Universe at any instant or moment in time.

SEE FOOTNOTE AT BOTTOM OF STRONG DEFINITIONS:

(Remember, readers, for me, "Truth is lord," not your particular church's private interpretations)

 

[Vaccine]

What is intelligence if you quibble over what I said above?????

I agreed, but only as far as nature can explain things. Natural laws can't explain everything. When I read your question, should I only look for a natural law to explain the words I see on my screen? What I see on my screen can only be accounted for by nature? How is nature intelligent? I've always thought it was random? It is obvious the words I see are the produced by intelligence. I believe intelligence can be a cause as well.

 

[jasoncran]

thanks but that is when you combine the two. the concept of Logos is order.

the jewish thought On God is breathe and had little to do with order. they were more concerned with his speaking things and the worlds moving at His pleasure then the greek idea of order.yes the jews believed that there was order but they didn't approach the idea of God that way.I don't call God truth. sorry he is beyond that as he defines it and can change it will.

ie the truth is that there is sin on this planet. the truth is that when he comes there will be no more sin. thus the truth of sin's existence has changed. God didn't. he was always pure and thus sinfree.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

What is intelligence if you quibble over what I said above?????

I agreed, but only as far as nature can explain things. Natural laws can't explain everything. When I read your question, should I only look for a natural law to explain the words I see on my screen? What I see on my screen can only be accounted for by nature? How is nature intelligent? I've always thought it was random? It is obvious the words I see are the produced by intelligence. I believe intelligence can be a cause as well.

"Random" can get confusing to some believers in God.

If a believer in God is teaching another believer in God how to play a game that involves dice, the teacher might use the word "random" while knowing that, philosophically, every action is connected in God's creation. A math teacher who believes in God might use the words "random" or "chance" while knowing that God's plan is a given factor.

It's like the word "alone".

Christians use the word "alone" all the time. When they say "alone", it is understood that they mean "only me and God"(unless they are specifically talking about being alone without God, which is usually clarified by the speaker/typist).

 

[Vaccine]

What is intelligence if you quibble over what I said above?????

I agreed, but only as far as nature can explain things. Natural laws can't explain everything. When I read your question, should I only look for a natural law to explain the words I see on my screen? What I see on my screen can only be accounted for by nature? How is nature intelligent? I've always thought it was random? It is obvious the words I see are the produced by intelligence. I believe intelligence can be a cause as well.

"Random" can get confusing to some believers in God.

If a believer in God is teaching another believer in God how to play a game that involves dice, the teacher might use the word "random" while knowing that, philosophically, every action is connected in God's creation. A math teacher who believes in God might use the words "random" or "chance" while knowing that God's plan is a given factor.

It's like the word "alone".

Christians use the word "alone" all the time. When they say "alone", it is understood that they mean "only me and God"(unless they are specifically talking about being alone without God, which is usually clarified by the speaker/typist).

I think I understand what you mean, I gave up the idea a while ago there is any such thing as an accident in my life, everything happens for a reason. Be patient, I'm beginning to grasp the concept of “nature” here is like Col 1:17, which is totally different from what I'm used to. I'm surrounded by unbelievers all day, I'm the only christian in my family, and I'm burnt out debating atheists. They used a lot of the same terms but totally different meanings. I came here for a change, lol. Do theistic evolutionists believe Gen 2:7 “Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”?

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Do theistic evolutionists believe Gen 2:7 “Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.�

I obviously can't speak for everybody, but I don't think they take it literally to mean that God has physical earthly lungs and performed CPR on the man.

 

[Vaccine]

[MENTION=92792]VirginShallConceive[/MENTION] That made me lol irl.