Search This Blog

Sunday, July 11, 2010

The category of Faith - The Logical Creator and the Benchmark



Who is your Savior?   Is it your intellect?




Is it Jesus Christ the Lord of Heaven and Earth?

Do you understand why Jesus came to be crucified and resurrected? 


I usually stay pretty much on the secular side of the evidence so that I stay in places that naturalists normally go.  The analogy would be that if I am a team, I am almost always playing on the road.  Today I am at home with the Bible and claims the Bible makes and how the Bible is integrated into my daily life.  I will actually mention some scriptures and how they impact the discussion of origins.

Everyone who has ever studied origins of the Universe or of the Earth or of life itself is aware that the Bible declares that God created all things, including all matter and time.   He does not merely claim it in the book of Genesis but there are many other references to His creative work.  My words will be in this color today, scripture in normal script.  The Bible is category one evidence in that it is absolutely tangible and historic.   The importance one gives to the Word of God ranges from a strong category one to complete and total denial that it has any significance at all.  It is important to understand that whether or not you consider the Bible to be accurate and a message from God is a faith choice.  You either decide to believe it or decide not to believe it.  No one denies that it exists so both the most devout Christian and the most radical atheopathic atheist do so from a position of faith.

The Old Testament begins thus:  

Genesis 1 (New International Version)

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

God then gives the order of Creation and before beginning the specific history of mankind he caps off the creation week with this, in the very last verse of Genesis One that::

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

Genesis 2 (New International Version)

 1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
 2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested [a] from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

 Footnotes: 

       a. Genesis 2:2 Or ceased

(Footnotes are not scripture.  Since English Bibles are translated from Hebrew and Aramaic and Koine Greek there are nuances of meaning that do not always allow for a one-to-one word translation.  This is true with all language translations.)

The New Testament also attests to God as Creator.  Here is the start of the Gospel of John:


John 1 (New International Version)

John 1

The Word Became Flesh
 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.  3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it.

Footnotes:
  1. John 1:5 Or darkness, and the darkness has not overcome

My assertion about the Genesis account of creation is that there is no room for evolution as Neo-Darwinists would call it for God made all things good.  No death, no predation, no sin, no illness or disease and certainly no plan for billions and billions of creatures to die in a messy and cruel cycle of long millions of years of evolution to get to where we are now.

Theistic Evolutionists need to get off the fence.   If you are a Darwinist then you are hostile to the Words of God and so at some point you must choose.  Will it be Darwin or Jesus?   If there was no Good Creation at the beginning, if there was no literal Adam and Eve then there was no original sin and no kingdom lost.  For you see, if Jesus did not come to take the sins of the world on himself and provide a sacrifice for sin and death and simply was a good teacher who was martyred symbolically then Christianity is of no use and we should all just meet up at the local bar and hoist a few before preparing for the work day coming on Monday.

Jeremiah 32:17 (New International Version)


 "Ah, Sovereign LORD, you have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and outstretched arm. Nothing is too hard for you.

Here is another example:

Isaiah 40:21-23 (New International Version)


 21 Do you not know?
       Have you not heard?
       Has it not been told you from the beginning?
       Have you not understood since the earth was founded?
 22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
       and its people are like grasshoppers.
       He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
       and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
 23 He brings princes to naught
       and reduces the rulers of this world to nothing.

Now, the Hebrew word for "circle" is actually a word that means "roundness" so it is an example that God understood that the world was a globe and directed Isaiah to write the words down hundreds of years before Christ was born.  Many creation scientists also believe that because God created light before creating stars that He made the light first, then both made the stars and stretched out the Universe and caused the various components of the Universe to continue to move outwards away from Earth.  This would explain the "problem" of background radiation that confounds Big Bangers and takes care of the problem of the apparent billions of light years worth of light that are visible from Earth.   While God does not leave behind his step-by-step manual for creating universes, He has left his signature behind in the form of DNA, which in concert with the way the cell controls reproduction falsifies Darwinism.  I have often asserted this because I believe that once the common man and woman on the street understand the basics of DNA they will laugh off Darwinism like a bad joke.

For today I am sharing a Proverb with the readers along with the Bible Gateway footnotes:

Proverbs 8 (New International Version)

Proverbs 8

Wisdom's Call
 1 Does not wisdom call out?
       Does not understanding raise her voice?  2 On the heights along the way,
       where the paths meet, she takes her stand;
 3 beside the gates leading into the city,
       at the entrances, she cries aloud:
 4 "To you, O men, I call out;
       I raise my voice to all mankind.
 5 You who are simple, gain prudence;
       you who are foolish, gain understanding.
 6 Listen, for I have worthy things to say;
       I open my lips to speak what is right.
 7 My mouth speaks what is true,
       for my lips detest wickedness.
 8 All the words of my mouth are just;
       none of them is crooked or perverse.
 9 To the discerning all of them are right;
       they are faultless to those who have knowledge.
 10 Choose my instruction instead of silver,
       knowledge rather than choice gold,
 11 for wisdom is more precious than rubies,
       and nothing you desire can compare with her.
 12 "I, wisdom, dwell together with prudence;
       I possess knowledge and discretion.

Remember that The Word, (gr logos), Jesus the Son, is also the Greek root word for logic.  Once scientists discerned that the Universe was made by a logical God they could freely expect to examine said Universe and find that the systems and processes by which it moves and exists and the powers that are displayed would all be comprehensible.  

 13 To fear the LORD is to hate evil;
       I hate pride and arrogance,
       evil behavior and perverse speech.
 14 Counsel and sound judgment are mine;
       I have understanding and power.
 15 By me kings reign
       and rulers make laws that are just;
 16 by me princes govern,
       and all nobles who rule on earth. [a]
 17 I love those who love me,
       and those who seek me find me.
 18 With me are riches and honor,
       enduring wealth and prosperity.
 19 My fruit is better than fine gold;
       what I yield surpasses choice silver.
 20 I walk in the way of righteousness,
       along the paths of justice,
 21 bestowing wealth on those who love me
       and making their treasuries full.
 22 "The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, [b] , [c]
       before his deeds of old;
 23 I was appointed [d] from eternity,
       from the beginning, before the world began.
 24 When there were no oceans, I was given birth,
       when there were no springs abounding with water;
 25 before the mountains were settled in place,
       before the hills, I was given birth,
 26 before he made the earth or its fields
       or any of the dust of the world.
 27 I was there when he set the heavens in place,
       when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,
 28 when he established the clouds above
       and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,
 29 when he gave the sea its boundary
       so the waters would not overstep his command,
       and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.
 30 Then I was the craftsman at his side.
       I was filled with delight day after day,
       rejoicing always in his presence,
 31 rejoicing in his whole world
       and delighting in mankind.

Here God asserts that the laws governing the Universe were His Creation, that just as an inventor would have an idea and then begin to plan a way to actually bring the invention to fruition, God had to design the laws governing the Universe before bringing said Universe into being.

 32 "Now then, my sons, listen to me;
       blessed are those who keep my ways.
 33 Listen to my instruction and be wise;
       do not ignore it.
 34 Blessed is the man who listens to me,
       watching daily at my doors,
       waiting at my doorway.

 35 For whoever finds me finds life
       and receives favor from the LORD.

 36 But whoever fails to find me harms himself;
       all who hate me love death."


If you have decide to fight God on every front, you may well hold out against Him successfully all the way to death.   But God is not going to quit on you until your breath fails you and your heart will no longer beat.


Footnotes:
  1. Proverbs 8:16 Many Hebrew manuscripts and Septuagint; most Hebrew manuscripts and nobles-all righteous rulers
  2. Proverbs 8:22 Or way ; or dominion
  3. Proverbs 8:22 Or The LORD possessed me at the beginning of his work ; or The LORD brought me forth at the beginning of his work
  4. Proverbs 8:23 Or fashioned

This portion is also from John Chapter One:

9The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.[b]

10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent,[c] nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

 14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

 15John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' " 16From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another.  

17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,[e][f]who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

Footnotes:
  1. (previously posted)
  2. John 1:9 Or This was the true light that gives light to every man who comes into the world
  3. John 1:13 Greek of bloods
  4. John 1:14 Or the Only Begotten
  5. John 1:18 Or the Only Begotten
  6. John 1:18 Some manuscripts but the only (or only begotten) Son
  7.  
Those of you familiar with scripture know that the Jewish people of the the time of Christ would use the name of Moses to describe the first five books of the Old Testament. 

My God can never tell me how He created all things because my finite brain cannot comprehend it all.   I simply study all of creation with a wonder born from the awe and respect I have for my God and an understanding that He knew what He was doing when He made it all.   It is no longer a surprise to me that, as we learn more about organisms, it becomes more and more obvious that an Intelligent Designer made them.  I look forward to continually learning more about creation.  Being a Christian is intellectually satisfying but spiritually challenging, for He continues to call me to make my best better and my mind more aligned with His Truth.  

Because I know God, I have absolutes that give me a benchmark for morality and behavior.   As an ISO Auditor I knew we were required to have a benchmark for weights and measurements and calibrations that could be inspected upon demand.   We had to calibrate all instruments and weights and means of measurement by benchmarks and those benchmarks had to be compared to those of the official audit team if we were audited.  It was not enough to demonstrate that all weights and measurements and tests had been done and that all instruments and tools were calibrated on a schedule but also that we had true benchmarks by which we calibrated instrumentation.   Our benchmarks were by ISO regulation kept in a safe in the Laboratory and only accessed for calibration or audits.  The keys to passing audits were three:


Proper processes and standards maintained
Proper records kept
Proper benchmarks and proofs of performance


I have the Bible.  Within its pages are the benchmarks for behavior and morality and the means by which I can be spiritually calibrated to meet the requirements of the Auditor of All.  It was difficult to admit to myself that I had no authority to measure and calibrate myself, I needed a Savior who could do the job for me.  I have no way to cleanse myself from sin and take myself back to the sinless benchmark required by God.  But Jesus can and has done it for me.   My improper processes have been forgiven, my records of sins have been expunged and Jesus lives as proof of performance.   The Bible as a benchmark condemns us all, but it also gives us the means by which we can be re-calibrated and declared a 100 per cent adherence to standards.


Every day is a new day!




John 3 (New International Version)

16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

40 comments:

Anonymous said...

BEST POST EVER! DebB

Jon Woolf said...

"As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly."

(Proverbs 26:11)

radar said...

Jon...exactly. But until the dog gags and dies God will keep the food dish out.

radar said...

"BEST POST EVER! DebB"

Wow. Thanks! Guess I was inspired.

Anonymous said...

"Everyone who has ever studied origins of the Universe or of the Earth or of life itself is aware that the Bible declares that God created all things, including all matter and time."

Where does it say God created time?

Anonymous said...

"My assertion about the Genesis account of creation is that there is no room for evolution as Neo-Darwinists would call it for God made all things good. No death, no predation, no sin, no illness or disease and certainly no plan for billions and billions of creatures to die in a messy and cruel cycle of long millions of years of evolution to get to where we are now."

1. So why did God kill off just about the entire population of Earth (including innocent animals who were "made good") in the flood scenario?

2. The many many millennia of organisms living and dying were not a "plan". Creatures lived and died, much like today. What's the problem?

3. Are you now saying that God did not design predators?

-- creeper

AmericanVet said...

creeper, the Hebrew word for the kinds of animals taken into the ark were vertebrates "nephesh". It is notable that it appears that vegetation and insects (who do not apparently experience pain) were given for food originally and that neither death nor predation existed before the Fall. It has been proven that even today carnivores can subsist on vegetation.

In any event, only man has an eternal spirit in that he was made body, soul and spirit. Vertebrates are body and soul. All of creation suffered because the King of creation, man, fell and with him his dominion suffered with him. But no animal has an afterlife and no animal has a moral standard.

Once sin and death entered the world, God allowed predation and eventually switched "on" the aging gene that causes us to begin to decline physically after around age 21. Thus creation has been declining ever since.

AmericanVet said...

So oddly enough Charles Darwin's words "the descent of man" are quite accurate. All genomes now have some mutations and have lost some information through the centuries. There are some bacteria that cannot survive unless within a host organism. There are many forms of life that have lost the ability to live alone, in fact, which means symbiosis sometimes becomes a requirement rather than a choice. Natural Selection only runs downhill.

Anonymous said...

Some creatures are adapted for being predators - canine teeth etc. Are you saying that this evolved after the Fall? Are you saying that God designed such creatures with the intention that they be herbivores?

-- creeper

radar said...

Again, the creation narration seems to indicate that vegetation and possibly insects were food for all other animals. There was to be no death.

Both creation and evolution require faith in the interpretation of the rock records and what we can discern from what living organisms tell us, what is recorded by history, etc.

On the other hand, analysis of living creatures is actual operational science. This is where creationism is casting evolution aside. The continually more complex design found in the cell are really not helpful to the Darwinist narrative.

I will begin the reprise of dating methods after I finish allowing Woolf to paint himself into a corner with his assertions on information.

BTW I really do wish Darwinists could actually laugh at the youtube post. I think the yup yup Martians are hilarious myself.

Anonymous said...

"Again, the creation narration seems to indicate that vegetation and possibly insects were food for all other animals. There was to be no death."

It's a nice little creation myth to explain where death comes from. Makes sense to have something like this, since religion is about those big questions like mortality, why are we here, what happens after we die etc.

Can we take it that God wasn't too concerned about overpopulation though?

"Both creation and evolution require faith in the interpretation of the rock records and what we can discern from what living organisms tell us, what is recorded by history, etc."

Not really. Scientists follow logical processes in the interpretation of rock records, noting that fossils are sorted by layers in a way that lines up perfectly with the theory of evolution. They can make testable, falsifiable predictions that are confirmed over and over again.

Creationists look at this sorting and dismiss the logical explanation that fits, since it clashes with the narrative of the Bible; yet they are unable to provide an alternative explanation that matches what we find in the fossil record. They are unable to make any testable, falsifiable predictions of any kind.

Notice the difference?

"On the other hand, analysis of living creatures is actual operational science. This is where creationism is casting evolution aside. The continually more complex design found in the cell are really not helpful to the Darwinist narrative."

An argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy, not "operational science". The complex design is not an obstacle for the theory of evolution, especially since it includes such evidence for evolution as endogenous retroviruses, which YEC cannot account for.

"I will begin the reprise of dating methods"

I can smell the evasions and strawmen already...

"after I finish allowing Woolf to paint himself into a corner with his assertions on information."

Yes, I can see how your inability to answer his question "If information isn't material and it isn't abstract, then what is it?" is really just a clever ploy. You're toying with him, right?

"BTW I really do wish Darwinists could actually laugh at the youtube post. I think the yup yup Martians are hilarious myself."

Martians = hilarious
Your attempt to paint them as actual scientists = the usual desperation.

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

Creeper: Martians = hilarious
Your attempt to paint them as actual scientists = the usual desperation.


I would've said "the usual concealed malice," but otherwise I tend to agree.

Radar: I will begin the reprise of dating methods after I finish allowing Woolf to paint himself into a corner with his assertions on information.

Yeah, right. Answer my questions, Radar:

1) how can there be any information in the genome when there is no intelligence there to receive it?

2) how much new information is required to make macro-evolution possible? How much new genetic information is required to go from Coelophysis to Allosaurus, or Hyracotherium to Equus, or Homarus to Cambarus?

highboy said...

"Creationists look at this sorting and dismiss the logical explanation that fits, since it clashes with the narrative of the Bible;"

no it doesn't.

Anonymous said...

yes it does.

radar said...

Where does it say God created time?

"In the beginning..."

Time is a measurement of change within our material Universe. Until matter (energy and entropy) were in existence there was no material change and therefore no time as we experience time.

Jon,

If I call your house and the message machine allows me to leave you a message, is my message NOT information because you personally were not there to receive it? No.

The cell is designed by God to receive the message of DNA and also to transmit that same kind of message to the next generation. God designed both cell and DNA and thus is both the sender and receiver. An organism provides the medium for the information but the original information within the genome was input by God. There is no known source for inputting information within the gene but we have evidence that all the information was emplaced in the beginning.

highboy said...

"yes it does"

no, it doesn't, not even close.

Jon Woolf said...

God designed both cell and DNA and thus is both the sender and receiver.

Non sequitur.

How can there be any information in the genome when there is no intelligence there to receive it?

How much new information is required to make macro-evolution possible? How much new genetic information is required to go from Coelophysis to Allosaurus, or Hyracotherium to Equus, or Homarus to Cambarus?

Anonymous said...

"no, it doesn't, not even close."

oh yes it does, very much so.

radar said...

How can there be any information in the genome when there is no intelligence there to receive it?

I just answered that question. Every organism contains information that was input by the Designer and we call it DNA. So there is intelligence in every cell.

How much new information is required to make macro-evolution possible? How much new genetic information is required to go from Coelophysis to Allosaurus, or Hyracotherium to Equus, or Homarus to Cambarus?

Your assumption is backwards. How much information has been LOST from the original horse kind Equus to the modern forms seen today? How much information has been lost from the original Canis on the way to Canis Lupus and Canis Familiaris? I doubt that Hyracotherium is even a form of horse at all. It doesn't resemble the other horse types found in the fossil records. Nor do I know if it is a Hyrax. You cannot show me any proof either way.

Anonymous said...

"Where does it say God created time?"

"In the beginning..."


It doesn't say what it's the beginning of. It's a common enough phrase at the beginning of a story.

So you really want to stretch this to claim that God created time itself? Is this a common view among creationists?

"Until matter (energy and entropy) were in existence there was no material change and therefore no time as we experience time."

The Bible doesn't say that God created energy and entropy. It says that he created the heavens and the earth, and it doesn't specify that he created them out of nothing.

"If I call your house and the message machine allows me to leave you a message, is my message NOT information because you personally were not there to receive it? No."

Yet another in a long line of poor analogies. In this case the message machine is a part of the system designed to convey the information to its recipient.

In the questions that Jon posed to you about what it is that receives the genetic information, there is no intelligent recipient at any point to receive the DNA information even as that information fulfills its function.

"The cell is designed by God to receive the message of DNA and also to transmit that same kind of message to the next generation."

Conjecture. A factual statement would be: "The cell receives the message of DNA and also transmits that same kind of message to the next generation." Now, is the cell intelligent?

"God designed both cell and DNA and thus is both the sender and receiver."

In your scenario, God may have been the original sender as he input the information into Adam and Eve, but he is not the sender that transmitted, say, the genetic information from your parents to you. Or even from Adam and Eve to Cain and Abel.

"An organism provides the medium for the information but the original information within the genome was input by God."

Conjecture.

"There is no known source for inputting information within the gene"

You're forgetting about genetic mutation plus natural selection.

"but we have evidence that all the information was emplaced in the beginning."

That evidence being what exactly? Be specific. No disparaging, no evading, no hemming and hawing, no promising "series", no blaming of "worldviews", no pointing at something that may at a stretch be barely compatible with such a view, and so on.

What specific evidence is there that all the information was emplaced in the beginning?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Your assumption is backwards."

Yet supported by the evidence that creatures have evolved over time.

"How much information has been LOST from the original horse kind Equus to the modern forms seen today? How much information has been lost from the original Canis on the way to Canis Lupus and Canis Familiaris?"

Your evasion is duly noted, but if that is the way you want to approach it, then can you answer your own question?

How much information has been lost?

You keep making these claims about information loss but are unable to point to any quantification. It's pure free speculation based on trying to come up with a scenario to make the Bible work as a science textbook. It's not working from the evidence.

What would DNA look like if your claims were true? Surely one of those scientists in those lists of yours must be able to come up with a falsifiable testable prediction to test such a hypothesis. The fact that they can't or won't should tell you something.

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

I just answered that question.

Your "answer" was two unconnected, unsupported propositions. That doesn't qualify as a logical argument.

Every organism contains information that was input by the Designer and we call it DNA. So there is intelligence in every cell.

Still a non sequitur. Using your definition of information, there must be an intelligence on both ends of a transmission before the transmission can be said to contain any information. What pre-existing intelligence receives the information you claim is in the genetic code?

Your assumption is backwards.

I'm not assuming anything. I gave you three pairs of organisms that evolutionary theory says are closely related, but require "macro-evolutionary" changes to get from species A to species B. You say macro-evolution is impossible and therefore those species can't be related. Very well. Prove it. How much information would have to be added to explain those changes? If you can't produce a reliable number to answer that question, then how do you know the number isn't 0?

highboy said...

"oh yes it does, very much so."

I'd love for you to give an explanation instead of simply repeating it over and over again. But I won't hold my breath.

Anonymous said...

"I'd love for you to give an explanation instead of simply repeating it over and over again. But I won't hold my breath."

Guess you didn't notice that this string of comments was a parody of your comment here.

How about you give an explanation of why you disagree instead of saying "no it doesn't"?

highboy said...

"Guess you didn't notice that this string of comments was a parody of your comment here.

How about you give an explanation of why you disagree instead of saying "no it doesn't"?"

Oh I see, its just another one of your stupid troll like attempts at being obnoxious. Sorry about the misunderstanding. As for my explanation, its pretty simple. As I have often discussed on this blog with creeper and co, the sorting is only challenged because of the timeline involved. The creation narrative in Genesis however, doesn't have to mean a literal 24 hour period, as the Hebrew word for "day" (which is yom) has about 25 different meanings, all different spans of time, ranging from literal days to actual seasons. The world being billions of years old has no effect on the creation narrative whatsoever in that regard.

Anonymous said...

"Oh I see, its just another one of your stupid troll like attempts at being obnoxious."

Funny, that's what your first comment above looked like. Next time why not comment with a tiny bit of clarity in the first place so other people don't have to make fun of you?

And thanks for the actual explanation, for which I am exceedingly grateful. Looks like one doesn't have to subscribe to this unsupportable YEC stuff to believe in Jesus...

Anonymous said...

"As I have often discussed on this blog with creeper and co, the sorting is only challenged because of the timeline involved."

Well... not JUST the timeline. There is also the matter of evolution over time, for example man not appearing until quite late in the geological timeline, and other organisms evolving, dying out etc. Dinosaurs die out, mammals evolve etc.

Even a "day-age" concept (which AFAIR this is called) doesn't account for the sorting of the fossils in that particular way in the fossil record.

-- creeper

highboy said...

"Even a "day-age" concept (which AFAIR this is called) doesn't account for the sorting of the fossils in that particular way in the fossil record."

How do you figure that?

Anonymous said...

For the reasons explained in the paragraph preceding the one you quoted.

-- creeper

highboy said...

That doesn't explain to me how its conflicting.

Anonymous said...

Do you think that God creating basic cells (either eukaryotes or prokaryotes) and allowing them to evolve into complex organisms and species and at some point dinosaurs and eventually humans (with many different organisms evolving and dying out throughout all this) over many millions of years is compatible with the day-age theory?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

BTW, just curious - do you use some kind of RSS reader for the comments, or do you just check the posts consistently? Just asking because you've answered very quickly a few times.

I've been using cocomment.com, which is useful, but sometimes a bit slow. Do you know any better ones?

-- creeper

highboy said...

"Do you think that God creating basic cells (either eukaryotes or prokaryotes) and allowing them to evolve into complex organisms and species and at some point dinosaurs and eventually humans (with many different organisms evolving and dying out throughout all this) over many millions of years is compatible with the day-age theory?"

Why wouldn't it be? That's what I'm asking.

As for your other question, when I post a comment on any of radar's post, I click the email notification icon so I know when someone has posted a comment.

Anonymous said...

"Why wouldn't it be? That's what I'm asking."

Because of God having created "kinds" (baramin) that are more or loss locked into place. There's no room for species going extinct and/or new ones evolving.

Not sure how seriously to take your question, much as I appreciate it. It seems to have been beaten to death on this blog as it is.

Appreciate your willingness for open discussion though.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

And even in a day-age scenario, how could man be created before animals and plants? How would they survive without each other?

If anything, the problem seems to be exacerbated by long ages while still adhering to the sequence of events.

-- creeper

highboy said...

"And even in a day-age scenario, how could man be created before animals and plants? How would they survive without each other?"

By an infinitely powerful God creating him and putting him in a garden, making plants grow. You're assuming that the two were dependent on one another to survive before the Fall. But in your worldview, where is the defining point between life/non-life? At what point did life form and what was the cause?

Anonymous said...

"You're assuming that the two were dependent on one another to survive before the Fall."

1. As I understand it, before the Fall, man was dependent on plants. It was his only source of food. What am I misunderstanding here?

2. If you wish not to presume this, does that mean that this dependency subsequently evolved?

"But in your worldview, where is the defining point between life/non-life?"

This seems like a non-sequitur to me. The difference between life and non-life? Off the top of my head, it would be the point at which an entity is capable of functioning in the sense that it can continue to exist until it can reproduce more of its kind. I'm sure this definition has its flaws (which I'm equally sure you and Radar and Hawkeye will point out to me in short order), but it's a start.

"At what point did life form and what was the cause?"

I recently posted a few youtube articles that nicely illustrated current understanding of this. I feel confident in predicting that Radar will dismiss it without expending a moment's thought on it. It's a good thing that there are people far more intelligent than us researching this topic and making progress.

In order for life to form (and I'm sure Jon would do a far superior job of putting this into words), what is needed is for a selective pressure to exert itself. The youtube videos did a nice job of explaining how such a process can get started with "mere" chemicals.

-- creeper

highboy said...

"As I understand it, before the Fall, man was dependent on plants. It was his only source of food. What am I misunderstanding here?"

That God created plants for him. What you're leaving out of the narrative is the most crucial point: God dwelt among them and personally provided all that was needed.

"If you wish not to presume this, does that mean that this dependency subsequently evolved?"

You're speaking over my head now I'm afraid. Not to be a d-bag, but it would help if you could break down what you're talking about.

"The difference between life and non-life? Off the top of my head, it would be the point at which an entity is capable of functioning in the sense that it can continue to exist until it can reproduce more of its kind. I'm sure this definition has its flaws (which I'm equally sure you and Radar and Hawkeye will point out to me in short order), but it's a start."

You already know its flawed so I won't bother pointing them out. As for the rest, what has not been addressed is the cause behind how something becomes alive. That is where you lose theists. To suggest that something or some things can just form into life with no cause and no reason is the dividing point. You yourself just demonstrated quite clearly that the definition of when life begins (generally speaking) is in no way conclusive. If science is unable to pin down the defining point between life and nonlife how then can we take these theories seriously?

Anonymous said...

"As for the rest, what has not been addressed is the cause behind how something becomes alive."

No, that is currently being addressed in abiogenesis research. Here's a user-friendly presentation of the cause behind how something becomes alive.

"That is where you lose theists. To suggest that something or some things can just form into life with no cause and no reason is the dividing point."

Which science can explain. I would suggest that rejecting it is more a matter of faith and preserving one's worldview than following a logical process.

"You yourself just demonstrated quite clearly that the definition of when life begins (generally speaking) is in no way conclusive."

I would think my basic definition off the top of my head is quite specific about then life begins: when an entity begins to reproduce and makes copies of itself that make copies of themselves.

"If science is unable to pin down the defining point between life and nonlife how then can we take these theories seriously?"

What makes you think science is unable to pin down this defining point?

And how can you take the theories seriously? Because they do what scientific theories do: they explain a specific set of facts.

-- creeper

highboy said...

"No, that is currently being addressed in abiogenesis research. Here's a user-friendly presentation of the cause behind how something becomes alive."

That near 10 minute presentation was all good and interesting, but here's all it did:

1. over-simplify, mock, and twist general arguments made by creationists against life happening in a spontaneous fashion.
2. explain a process involving life formation, and didn't explain why or what makes it life. The best part was where it even said "how does it become life? HERE'S HOW" in all nice big caps and did nothing more than confirm that the entire process is a result of time+matter+chance, which is exactly how creationists have characterized it in the absence of a creator.

"Which science can explain. I would suggest that rejecting it is more a matter of faith and preserving one's worldview than following a logical process."

science has done no such thing. The explanation science offers suggests that it happened(s) strictly with no cause or reason, and the presentation you posted actually didn't address it any other way. It is a gross assumption to conclude that one looks at this differently to preserve a world view when most would consider it common sense. Science tells us every effect has a cause, so the life process described as a matter of fact HAS to have a cause.

"I would think my basic definition off the top of my head is quite specific about then life begins: when an entity begins to reproduce and makes copies of itself that make copies of themselves."

So until we procreate we're not alive? In any case, my point was in your statement you yourself said your own defining of when life becomes life has flaws, meaning its not conclusive. I didn't say it wasn't specific. No matter how you want to word it or argue it, in the end the argument you posit is that life has indeed been formed from non-life, with no cause or reason. Even abiogenesis is incapable of giving us anything more than a process by which life happens. That is completely different.

"What makes you think science is unable to pin down this defining point?"

Because it hasn't, because life began, the universe as a whole began, by means that science can't explain. Science by definition can only study the natural order, but that order did not always exist. Order did not exist. You posit that the universe was formed by chance all by itself, that disorder ordered itself and evolved and evolved and evolved all by itself by sheer chance. Sorry, but for most, regardless of religious doctrine, that is a giant leap of faith.

"And how can you take the theories seriously? Because they do what scientific theories do: they explain a specific set of facts."

But without an accurate or reliable theory of why non life would become life.....