Reply With Quote
Still dodging questions...
Seriously though.
What happens to your theory if we find evidence of life on Mars?
No.... I've directly answered this question to you on at least one other occasion. But if your mentally impaired memory can't go back that far I'll refresh it again:
GOD is three in one just as we are three in one (body, spirit, and soul)
Animals or plants don't have that attribute.
Also, from the moment we are conceived we are endowed with an immortal spirit.
That is why we have a brain. More importantly, that is why we have free will. I'm allowed to determine what I want to believe in just like you. As for the other.... try and keep up.
The Bible was never meant to be a science book. But I can sense you know very little about the OT... It all points to Christ. That is the importance of that particular compilation of writings.
Still dodging questions...
Seriously though.
What happens to your theory if we find evidence of life on Mars?
Heh, on that we can both agree, but tell that to the Christian church a thousand years ago, heretic. (j/k)
Nothing.... cause you nor anybody else would have a way of proving that it didn't land there from outer space and had originated from earth.Still dodging questions...
Seriously though.
What happens to your theory if we find evidence of life on Mars?
But you know something else.... I already believe in aliens... just not in the conventional way.... I believe that aliens are really demons set out to 'confuse the nations'. One of these days they will really 'show up', make first contact and allow themselves to be seen when they have been dodging official notice for the past 200 years or so.... People like yourself may take that as final proof that GOD doesn't exist. I would realize that the plan was perfectly executed seeing how more than half of the world will come to that same conclusion. But my faith will not waver.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Ephesians 6:12 KJV
For a lot of these "transitional species" (not the hominids), they have several examples of full skeletons. The fossil record has expanded exponentially starting around 1990.
And yet how similar they are as well.
Which would make sense, because given that a bird genome contains around 1 billion letters of information, that would indicate 99.99999% similarity between the two organisms, and probably would mean they are two toucans or two flamingos.
Which still would make them 99.9% similar. I don't think a flamingo and a toucan are 99.9% similar, so there may be quite a few more base pairs different.
Well, first of all, the idea that there should intermediate species between a flamingo and a toucan is entirely inconsistent with what evolution teaches, unless you can show that a toucan is an offshoot from a flamingo or vice versa.And said iterations would have to produce 1000's of species between a flamingo and a toucan.
Second of all, natural selection would mandate that not every single permutation of genetic pairs is going to exist. Certain permutations in each generation are going to be favored for reproduction. So those permutations are going to determine the range of variability in the next generation, and so on.
Your line of thinking actually strengthens the argument for evolution. Since the number of gene pairs that can vary within the "genetic richness" of a species is limited within one generation, within a particular reproducing population, you're simply going to be stirring the same genetic pot, and the features of that population are going to remain stable.
But when populations become isolated from one another, over several generations that limited degree of variability within each generation is going to be multiplied over several generations. Over time, you can have a significant degree of potential genetic variability between the two populations.
This is a curious argument you are making, and one that would seem to be refuted quite easily, with any trio of related species, one having some features of the first, and some features of the last. But in any regard, it is based upon a wrong assumption about what evolution teaches about speciation.
Your assumption would be the same as arguing that if my mother had a third son, he should split the difference in appearance between my brother and I. Any of us with multiple siblings understand this is not the case.
Any successful species is going to be a fully-formed species adapted to its environment. It is not going to be half-formed, looking forward to future generations in which it will be fully formed.
You are right that variations in the genetic code allow species to adapt to changes in the environment. Where I heartily disagree with you is in assuming that there are hard walls of "kinds" that species do not cross because God decreed it so. As you say, the Bible is not a science book. We are not supposed to hold God to Western standards of literality when it has not been written in that idiom (as in most of the OT). "Kinds" is simply the ready observation that in stable environments, the genomes of life settle into stable equilibria that we call "species."
It was just an example.
I don't know where the 'evolutionary tree' places the two birds with relation to each other. I was just making a point that they are very defined species both physically and genetically (the latter a pretty good assumption as I am not aware that their genomes have been mapped out yet).
No... my line of thinking suggests that for one species to drift into another, tens of millions of bases would have to change. And yet we continue to attribute random mutations (as picked through natural selection) as that process.
Do you then believe that millions of changes occur in gradual steps or in a huge punctuated one? The first model would have to leave many transitional species in the fossil record -- not the 'rare' quan y we have found... The other would have to overcome a huge biological replication dilemma -- but wouldn't necessarily leave fossil evidence of the change.
True... but science has lately concluded that they are still the same 'kind'... How so? Well although two apparently distinct species may not mate in the wild due to the incompatibility of their sense of attraction, pheromones, etc.... If they are crossfertilized in a lab the 'two' species still manage to produce viable offspring... imagine that. For example, several of Darwin's finches from the Galapagos were actually still interfertile with each other.
I brought this point up awhile back using canines as the example. Canines (all breeds of dogs, wolves, coyotes, foxes, dingoes, jackals etc...) are all the same 'kind,' despite the fact that we have chosen to categorize them as different species.
Here's a counter example: Yao Ming, Mini-me, and for the sake of glamour Eva Longoria. All very distinct (phenotypically they are all very different). All very human (genotypically highly similar). Still interfertile. But they must be different species, they have to be... because they look so disimilar!!!
Another example: My sister, my brother, and myself. Phenotypically all very disimilar, but our genomes would match (by at least an order of 10000) more than any set in the more 'famous' trio above.
That was not my assumption.
The theory of natural selection requires progressive development at every successive step. However, random evolution and mutations cannot themselves possess intelligent understanding and planning. Unthinking evolutionary processes could never produce a half-formed eye as a transition in order to ultimately form a fully functioning eye. How could the complete eye have been produced by evolution through natural selection by step-by-step random mutations in gradual stages? Obviously until the eye was fully formed and functional it was of no value whatsover.
Although on this ground many speculate that minor changes here and there to the eye over millions of years across several phylums, improved on its functionality. What that model fails to show is that many bodily systems are affected by any significant change to such an organ. In the case of the eye, the skin would have to 'know' over time how to best shield the eye from the sun (eye lashes, eye brows), wind and the environment (eyelids). The balanced occular structure in the skull would have to 'know' that recessed eyes would be better protected but at the cost of over exposing the brain's own protection. The veins in the retina would have to 'know' that although they were getting in between light rays and the rods & cones and hence diminishing our visual resolution (on the surface not 'perfect' design) that they were actually shielding them from a rate of decay that would actually render them useless, that they would be more optimally located to remove the radical intermediates produced by the rods before they had a chance to poison the vitreous humor. etc... And I haven't even talked about the neurological features of eyes that inverts the image produced by our own lenses.
It seems that evolutionary proponents (not necessarily you), whether consciously or not, have regarded the blind and inanimate forces of the environment, or nature, as having the ability to create and think.
In other words, despite their denial of the possibility that intelligent design may be a valid theory, the theory of evolution actually requires an intelligent, purposeful mind directing the process at every one of the supposed millions of imaginary intermediate stages as if these incremental changes were following a plan to produce a new life form.
The theory of ID notwithstanding... has many flaws of its own. I just wish people weren't so quick to harp on my disapproval of evolution on the grounds that they felt I was being naive. Especially when they realize how many times we have been lied to by supposedly 'objective' scientists.
It's all a matter of perspective... when I suggest that many of the pheonotypic manifestations of a species are already contained within the 'genetic richness' of that species, I get lambasted for confusing the concepts of adaptation with evolution.
Whether or not you admit it the above dynamics you explained above are still only theories because our laboratories do not spread across sufficient eras that would allow us to 1) obtain complete viable genomes for any given unearthed species, 2) observe and verify the supposed linearities and divergences found in the branched tree of the evolutionary model.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 09-21-2006 at 10:05 PM.
Seriously though.
What happens to your theory if we find evidence of life on Mars? ---RG
The artful dodge yet again. What if life on earth sprang from mars then? Doesn't that make all the "but the atmosphere on early earth wouldn't have had the right composition to allow for life to develop"
Basically, you are saying that you would not change your mind about your theory no matter what evidence you are presented with. Is this a correct assessment?
What if the life we find on other planets/moons in our solar system happens to be biologically incompatible with life on Earth? Do you then lose the "infinitessmally small" assumption?
"people like yourself"But you know something else.... I already believe in aliens... just not in the conventional way.... I believe that aliens are really demons set out to 'confuse the nations'. One of these days they will really 'show up', make first contact and allow themselves to be seen when they have been dodging official notice for the past 200 years or so.... People like yourself may take that as final proof that GOD doesn't exist. I would realize that the plan was perfectly executed seeing how more than half of the world will come to that same conclusion. But my faith will not waver.
You know for a fact that my belief in God does not preclude such beings. Your prejudices about people you perceive as secularists wins over reason.
Based on this and other hints, I would be willing to bet that your ommission of the word "radical" from in front of "muslim terrorists" wasn't innocent. I think that you really believe that Islam is a violent religion. Do you believe Islam is, by its nature, violent?
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Ephesians 6:12 KJV
Methinks the evil lurks closer to home than demons from another star.
I answered the question buddy.
That your reading comprehension skills are not up to par with a 5th grader's is not my problem.
No. <--- did you see the answer this time??? I don't have the 'walking ants' feature on this applet but if I did maybe you will see this better.
Regarding the other.... your assumption is based on the fact that you can't convince me your statistical model defines the origin of life... Oh that is rich!!!
I refuse to answer your question, because no matter what I answer you still believe I've somehow dodged your question.... so what's the point? Until you acknowledge why it is I raise concerns around the wording and purpose of your questions... then and only then will it be worthwhile to answer.
Besides you still haven't addressed any of my concerns, you just keep asking questions of your own.
But just an example of what I mean.... Your above question is still very speculative. You are basing it on a 'what if'.
Hold on now.... You asked me if finding life on Mars would change my belief structure. I answered no. I then went on to say, by one-uping your suggestion, that I already believed in 'aliens.' -- except not in the conventional way.
If I'm misinterpreting your attempts to discredit GOD's active participation in Creation... show me where you've stated otherwise. Your ambivalent stance is rather shaky if you are now claiming to play both sides. Which is it?
BTW since you never answered ES's question from a couple posts ago... your stance has remained rather one sided. At least I know where ES stands on many of these issues even though he may many at times play the 'devil's advocate.'
My characterization of your arguments is justified given the highly skewed nature of your naturalistic posts. I'm not ashamed to post that I believe GOD created the Universe, and that He still interacts with His creation on a daily basis... I'll say this even if it causes a barrage of scornful rebuttals (many coming from a certain bot).
You've been trying to simplify creation as a game of numbers and in doing so you have been stripping GOD of the glory His more than amazing act deserves.
Believe what you will.... just don't be afraid to state exactly where you stand.
What does this topic have to do with the other? Quit digressing.
But I'll answer your question: per the Q'uran - No. Per the Hadiths - most definitely.
The hadiths' condone actions Jesus would not have condoned.
They condone lies, murder and theft.
Hardly 'moral' behavior even by the loosest of interpretations.
One of the Hadiths recounts the story of how Mohammed once had a traveller dismembered by horses on the su ion that he 'felt' that the man was a spy. On a su ion!
That has EVERYTHING, absolutely everything to do with how various muslims interpret and live out their religion. Many who live by the standards in the Q'uran are peaceful and tend to be more tolerant. Those placing more emphasis on the Hadiths are less inclined to deal with westerners.
When was the last time you read the Q'uran?
The last time you visited a mosque?
The last time your college roomate was a muslim?
Unlike your trend of very similar posts and ideas, my response on that other thread, did not merit your characterization of what I may or may not believe on the subject of Islam.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 09-22-2006 at 10:39 AM.
I must continue to disagree with you on this point.
In no way does a totally naturalistic explanation of the universe rob God of any glory whatsoever.
As an example, let's take the occurrence where somebody involved in ministry needs funding to realize some vision they believe God has placed upon them, like building a church or feeding poor kids in Guatemala or something. Many of us have personally observed cases like this where nobody knows where the money is going to come from, but nevertheless somehow it shows up.
A rigorous investigation of each of these phenomena could provide a systematic, natural explanation of how the money shows up. In none of these cases does God independent of a human actor write out a check or conduct a wire transfer.
In spite of that, we understand that God is at work and we marvel at it.
What happens to your theory if we find evidence of life on Mars?
What if we find evidence of life on mars a billion years earlier than the first evidence of life on earth?
The planet is smaller and would have cooled faster, so this is a distinct possibility.
You would then have to assert that life on earth traveled back in time to maintain that life on earth created it.
What would you think if we find evidence of silicon based life, or someother life form completely incompatible with life on earth, on one of Jupiters many moons?
Would this not also preclude the "originated on earth" theory?
Your response will be "yeah this is all speculative", and yes, at the moment it is. In 25 years, it may not.
Phenom and RG are engaging in two different arguments. Phenom is arguing in favor of his viewpoint on creation. RG is engaging in a philosophical discussion about the robustness of one's theology in the face of scientific advance. There is a disconnect between them.
That is also a good point.
If god actively causes all good, what responsibility does that imply for evil?
Ah, the sovereignty of God question.
The Jonathan Edwards answer, which I like, is that God allows the existence of evil, which he hates, in order to accomplish the greater good of his plan.
Still leaving the responsibility for evil to God, yes?
Well, he alone is sovereign, so yes.
Just keep in mind that without the possibility of the presence of evil, the full nature of God, his longsuffering and patience, as well as his wrath, cannot be revealed to man.
Without evil among mankind, the contrast between man's fallenness and God's holiness cannot be seen, and the full measure of the God's unreasonable grace towards man cannot be seen.
So then if the greatest good that can be given to man is to know God in all the fullness that man can conceive, then allowing men to commit evil acts, and allowing suffering, works toward that end.
Though I see the point of your analogy... it does not measure up to suggesting that the Universe just 'happened' because it was an eventuality in some random continuum and POOF! the Universe showed up.
GOD created the Universe with a purpose - the creation of man. He is an active participant.
What if.... what if.... what if....
You want me to answer that? You realize it would all be speculation, right?
Whether God created the universe by the means you espouse or the means RG espouses, what difference does that make with regard to his purpose in creating the universe?
And, no, he did not create the universe in order to create man. He created the universe in order to glorify himself, and he created man in order to glorify himself. This is a God-centered universe, not a man-centered universe.
ES, I have multiple viewpoints on creation.... NONE are set in stone, precisely because there is still much we don't know. I don't claim to know something that is by all accounts unknowable. As science advances whatever discoveries are made will have to be reconciled with everything we already know... if they can't; then there will be challenges -- but not necessarily problems. Why? Because those challenges do not imply that my faith is somehow hinged on science... it isn't.
RG needs to realize however, that not everything revolves around naturalistic explanations. He has attempted to use statistical probability, as a way of proving that the creation of Life by random chance would be possible, but can't provide any mechanisms; only assumptions that having infinite universes, infinite time, imaginary building blocks proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that his claim is plausible. He then proceeds to question why I don't buy his numbers and insists on repeating questions that have already been answered only for the sake of pushing his points. When I force him to question the validity of using statistics as a means of modeling kinetically driven chemical reactions he digresses and suggests that Life came from Mars, or brings up my viewpoint on Islam :All the while he maintains that his probabilities are high...
While I may believe signs of life will eventually be found on Mars that doesn't mean that the Bible was forced to address that find. Yet you consider the dynamics of his arguments a 'philosophical discussion about the robustness of one's theology in the face of scientific advance'? <--- that may sound nice, but that's not how he has presented them.
I believe GOD is the quinessential definition of the Supernatural. So I try not to constrain Him to the naturalistic or physical limitations of this world. Science will not explain the existence of spirits, consciousness, GOD's miracles, GOD's omniscience, or His omnipresence -- they belong to a realm and dimension which cannot be measured. You may feel inclined to believe that GOD isn't robbed of any glory when we assume He just got creation rolling -- that is your perogative. I would however encourage you to re-read Romans Chapter 1 (as I'm sure you have read it before - in fact, I believe I've already posted it here before...):
Romans 1 (KJV)
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [Him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
This passage also addresses why GOD has allowed for evil to exist in this world.
My comment did not imply that....
What Romans 1 there is saying is that knowledge of God is self-evident from creation, yet in spite of that, men choose not to glorify God (i.e., not to acknowledge Him), and not to be thankful towards Him, or to reduce Him into a human idol.
How does RG's suggestion either:
1) Fail to acknowledge God
2) Fail to show thankfulness to God
3) Reduce him to a human idol?
And I still don't think RG is trying to have a scientific discussion with you. All of his arguments are of the form, "If scientists prove X is true about the universe, what does that do to your faith?" That is a philosophical/theological question.
You said that God created the universe in order to create man.
We are not the central focus of God's plan. You will read a lot of Bible teachers who say that we are. It's the ultimate form of humanist arrogance. God is the central focus of God's plan.
Semantics... in my heart that's not what was implied.
Speaking of semantics and, to be precise, I actually believe you'll find it is the glorification of God that is the central focus of God's plan.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
