[_ Old Earth _] Was Jesus an ape?

[lordkalvan]

No offense, Chatty, but you are looking at reality through the grid of your world view. If you put down the grid, then facts won't pass through it like water through a colander.

This argument applies with equal if not more force to your own view of reality.

The supernatural's influence is observable through the natural universe.

Assuming your conclusion. Experience teaches that phenomena that were once believed to have a supernatural cause - thunder, lightning, earthquakes, illness, etc - in fact have an entirely natural cause and explanation. Just because something is beyond your (or my or anyone else's) current understanding or knowledge does not mean that you are entitled to shoehorn the supernatural into the resulting gap. You need to provide at least some evidence to substantiate the claim.

Is there not a saying that you can tell a painter by his painting? Let me put it this way: If some mold was sitting in your fridge and it looked like mush, then you can not assume that it was designed. But if it had multiple colors and looked exactly like Albert Einstein's face, then you can be certain that it as designed.

And how can you be 'certain' of this? Just because somethings 'looks' designed to your untutored eye, why do you suppose that it therefore must be designed?

Take another example. Suppose you were walking through an ally when you found a trash heap against the wall of the building. It looks like it was just thrown there, so you cannot assume that it was intended to be a grand observance to others. But if the steel pipes, stray screws, and other junk was put together to look like even a moderately impressive model, then you can be certain that it was designed for somebody's pleasure. Now take that example and apply it to our own world.

This is a false analogy. We have direct, traceable evidence that the pipes, screws and what-not that you refer to were themselves manufactured by a process we can identify. Applying the example to the 'world' assumes your conclusion and is yet another case of 'looks like to me' means 'the same as to me'. There is an entirely natural explanation for the world and multiple lines of evidence to support that explanation; there is no evidence to support the intervention of a supernatural designer.

Our atmosphere had to be fine tuned to an exceptional degree or else life would not be able to exist, and if our earth were any closer to or further away from the sun, then life would not be able to be sustained, either. Not to mention that the planets keep the earth in proper orbit. Just these observances alone are powerful indicators that there was an intelligent being behind the universe' assembly. Now just consider that we humans have eyes with which to see the observances and others of extraordinary beauty in the world around us. Even earth's creature's drive to self-preservation indicates that the intelligent designer is a benevolent being who enjoys watching His creations flourish.

A better example of the anthropic principle fallacy I have yet to see.

 

[ChattyMute]

I'm not saying that science can detect God. I am merely saying that by observing the universe and everything in it, we can conclude that an intelligent being must have designed it. Look at it this way. Can you tell that the Mona Lisa was painted by an intelligent being, or was it just there for no reason? The answer is obviously that somebody painted the Mona Lisa by its complexity and precisiveness alone. Just the same, you can tell by the universe' complexity and precisiveness that it was designed. You can't flick a paintbrush through the air in random directions and expect to paint the Mona Lisa, and niether can the universe assemble itself randomly, by chance, and for no reason and become what it is now.

And what you are suggesting to do is not science, so it does not belong in a science+Christianity forum.
Except that we can detect the person who created the Mona Lisa. Either way, it still isn't science and doesn't belong in this forum.
I'm referring you back to kalvan's post for the last part.

Science takes more than just being able to observe. The discussion you want to have does not pertain to science in ANY way.

 

[azlan88]

You are not understanding what I'm saying. It makes no difference if the person who painted the Mona Lisa or put together the model can be detected or not. I am clearly saying that you can tell that somebody made those things without having to ever detect the person.

 

[lordkalvan]

You are not understanding what I'm saying. It makes no difference if the person who painted the Mona Lisa or put together the model can be detected or not. I am clearly saying that you can tell that somebody made those things without having to ever detect the person.

And what is it that 'tells' you that the phenomena in question were 'put together' as opposed to assembled by natural processes and how does this relate to your claimed ability to infer directed or intelligent design in nature?

 

[azlan88]

You can tell that the said phenomena was designed by the mathematical evidence that it could not have been assembled otherwise. The chances of the universe having assembled itself by an unguided natural process are so unlikely that it would be safer to conclude that it was designed rather than to go against the math. The chances of a designer having guided the universe' assembly are proportionately higher.

 

[lordkalvan]

You can tell that the said phenomena was designed by the mathematical evidence that it could not have been assembled otherwise. The chances of the universe having assembled itself by an unguided natural process are so unlikely that it would be safer to conclude that it was designed rather than to go against the math.

And what 'mathematical evidence' would that be? What assumptions and variables underlie whatever parameters define your model? Just because something may seem exceedingly improbable according to whatever fallacious or poorly-delineated conditions you wish to impose does not mean that it is indeed exceedingly improbable. You may also want to reflect on the fact that your assertion is yet another variation of the anthropic principle fallacy you have already used to support your arguments.

 

[azlan88]

I'll give you the math. According to Dr. Harold Morowitz, former professor of bio-physics at Yale University, he estimated that the probility of the chance formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 out of 10^340,000,000. That's 1 out of 10 to the 340 millionth power. Now just imagine how even more unlikely the odds are of the whole universe assembling itself by an unguided, natural process. The odds are virtually impossible. It takes faith beyond reason to believe that it ever could have happened.

 

[Brokendoll]

These types of calculations pop up from time to time and they all seem to miss some vital points when making their statistical statements. The error is even more grevious in the case of Morowits because as a Molecular Biologist he really should know better.

These vital points are as follows:

1.The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001).

2.The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.

3.The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler. In other words we are not talking about fully formed DNA/RNA strands here but a much simpler form of replicator which might later have evolved to greater complexity.

4.The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously. Also keep in mind that this would only have had to happen successfully -once-.


That being said Abiogenesis (the scientific discipline investigating the origin of life) is still working on several angles and we have not yet gathered conclusive data. In other words, we're working on it, but we're not quite there yet. For all we know life might not even have originated on Earth, but might have been seeded from someplace else.

But all of this is irrelevant in relation to the Theory of Evolution since the theory does not concern itself with the origin of life at all. In fact, Evolution assumes that life is already in place and deals only with what happens after.

 

[lordkalvan]

I'll give you the math. According to Dr. Harold Morowitz, former professor of bio-physics at Yale University, he estimated that the probility of the chance formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 out of 10^340,000,000. That's 1 out of 10 to the 340 millionth power. Now just imagine how even more unlikely the odds are of the whole universe assembling itself by an unguided, natural process. The odds are virtually impossible. It takes faith beyond reason to believe that it ever could have happened.

I can do no more than refer you back to Brokendoll's excellent post. Your answer, although apparently mathematically precise, quite failed to delineate any of the assumptions and/or variables that underlie it, describing none of the parameters that define the model it supposedly represents. It is also the case that you are using Morowitz's raw data out of context: Morowitz in fact argues that life is a highly probable event and not the product of random chance, but is bounded by biochemical laws that make some processes much more likely than others.

 

[jasoncran]

Then those odds should be the Florida state lottery odds of winning then, if that's considered highly probable.

 

[lordkalvan]

Then those odds should be the Florida state lottery odds of winning then, if that's considered highly probable.

Research into energy-driven networks of small molecules as the precursors and origin of life - based around requirements that are general in nature - suggest that life is, in the words of theoretical biologist and complex systems' researcher Stuart Kauffman 'vastly more probable than we have supposed'. It remains the case, however, that even if life and the Universe in which it dwells are both remarkably improbable, the fact of both's existence is not a priori evidence that the common cause of each must be supernatural.

 

[Physicist]

Then those odds should be the Florida state lottery odds of winning then, if that's considered highly probable.

Research into energy-driven networks of small molecules as the precursors and origin of life - based around requirements that are general in nature - suggest that life is, in the words of theoretical biologist and complex systems' researcher Stuart Kauffman 'vastly more probable than we have supposed'. It remains the case, however, that even if life and the Universe in which it dwells are both remarkably improbable, the fact of both's existence is not a priori evidence that the common cause of each must be supernatural.

The non-science community seems to have difficulty understanding Darwin's Theory. They latch on to the random mutation component but neglect the major role of natural selection. I have developed a simple example to illustrate the power of a selection rule like natural selection. Suppose you ask me to guess an integer between 1 and a million. With random guesses I would expect, on average, to need about a half million guesses. If I am unlucky, I may need even more. However, if you allow me a simple selection rule; " After every guess, you tell me if I am above or below the number", then I can get the right answer in less than 20 guesses.

 

[VenomFangX]

I see nothing wrong with the random mutation suggestion without the + or - guidelines due to the sheer number of species and members within the species over huge geological time. Over this scale the probabilities of change due to natural selection becomes within the acceptable range and in fact does occur, while other species due to bad luck and unfortunate physical circumstances are not able to survive for long: the probability is not on their side.
Was Jesus a species of ape: well if it accepted that he was human then he was an ape, just like all of us.
Just like us Jesus performed biological functions such as digesting food, breathing and dying when those functions were interfered with, just like every other animal on the planet. This in no way disparages Jesus's divine nature.
yours
??????????