Recreating the Origins of Life
David B. Greene
One of the most enduring problems in biology is that of
abiogenesis i.e. how life originated in the first place.
Until life began evolution was a moot process. Earlier
attempts at shedding light on how life began involved
subjecting a chemical soup to discharges of energy and
seeing what new compounds resulted. Among the first
experimenters were Miller and Urey who filled a flask
such organic compounds as ammonia and methane in a
water environment having a hydrogen atmosphere. With
repeated electrical discharges they sought to recreate
the chaotic environment of the earth as it might have
been billions of years ago.
The result of the experiment was a mother-load of organic
chemicals commonly found in life today, most notably many
kinds of amino acids. Thus, while it was not proven, it
was shown that life could have developed in a chemical
soup that might have existed long ago. What most science
textbooks omit from this fascinating story is that the
experiment required the outside agency of an intelligent
designer without whom these building blocks of life would
never have been created.
Dave Greene
Spark
>
>
> The result of the experiment was a mother-load of organic
> chemicals commonly found in life today, most notably many
> kinds of amino acids. Thus, while it was not proven, it
> was shown that life could have developed in a chemical
> soup that might have existed long ago. What most science
> textbooks omit from this fascinating story is that the
> experiment required the outside agency of an intelligent
> designer without whom these building blocks of life would
> never have been created.
>
> Dave Greene
This isn't intelligent design. They had no idea what they would
get. They simply tried to replicate the environment that these
processes might have happened in.
By the way I think people have found several organic molecules
in astroids.
Molecules like HCN can significantly lower the potential energy
barier to polymerize peptides too which makes it very likely that
proteins would form.
Mark
Spark
Eric Christy wrote:
> Eric to Elf:
> Perhaps you don't understand the problem David is bringing out?
> If an amino acid chain is broken at any point along the links, you cannot
> have eventual proteins. The problem is so difficult, that most origin of
> life theorists don't like to discuss it. An amino acid chain in a
> chemically active environment is going to be broken up.
> There's no question about that happening.
> And, if it's not in a chemically active environment, it won't have the
> chance of increasing in complexity by accidents of nature.
There are many simple catalysts (ie. HCN) that allow
amino acids to form. You can have a chemically active environment
without the likelyhood of the peptides comming apart.
>
> So, it's a catch 22, damned if I do damned if I don't, scenario.
> The very thing which adds complexity to the amino-to-protein chains is
> -also- the very thing which makes sure they cannot develop!
There is also evidence that suggests that evolution was happening
before proteins were established as biological molecules.
Look at the genetic code and you can see this because
the third nucleotide is usually redundant. The first evolutionary
molecules are likely to have been RNA molecules but we don't
know that for sure. It is impossible to tell what the mechanism was
at this time. This doesn't mean that evolution doesn't happen
it simply means we aren't really sure how abiogenesis happened
if it did happen.
Mark
>
> Eric.
>
Eric Christy
You bring up the key in your HCN catalyists. You are assuming that HCN is
present while the chemically active environment is in the process of breaking
up the amino chains.
What is amazing about evolutionary biogenesis is this:
It requires that the amino acids -be- in a chemically active environment to
bring about greater orders of complexity.
Yet, this same chemically active environment would destroy the evolving amino
chains which might be developing into the required protein structures necessary
for the first life.
It's an odd position to be in.
If I were an amino acid, I would tremble at my prospects of ever becoming a
protein, much less a future cell.
Eric.
Spark
HCN is a catalyst and can polymerize
aminoacid sequences. There are many
other similar catalysts. HCN isn't known
to be the catalyst that was used. There
are many many available catalysts.
This eliminates the need for the "chemically
active" environment. That is the point that
I am trying to make.
Is your body a chemically active environment? Yes.
Are your amino acids flying apart? No.
Why? Catalysis.
Otherwise all the reactions would
require very high temperatures which would
cause molecules like DNA and proteins to
fly apart.
By the way you are picking on Abiogenesis. Not evolution.
The evidence for evolution is akin to we know
that the sun existed (evolution) long before we had ideas on
how it was born (abiogenesis).
Mark
Eric Christy wrote:
> Eric to Spark:
> You bring up the key in your HCN catalyists. You are assuming that HCN is
> present while the chemically active environment is in the process of breaking
> up the amino chains.
> What is amazing about evolutionary biogenesis is this:
> It requires that the amino acids -be- in a chemically active environment to
> bring about greater orders of complexity.
That is not true. Remember catalysis.
Aaron I. Spielman
> In article <37c5cb0...@news.u.washington.edu>
> da...@u.washington.edu (David B. Greene) writes:
>
> >The result of the experiment was a mother-load of organic
> >chemicals commonly found in life today, most notably many
> >kinds of amino acids. Thus, while it was not proven, it
> >was shown that life could have developed in a chemical
> >soup that might have existed long ago. What most science
> >textbooks omit from this fascinating story is that the
> >experiment required the outside agency of an intelligent
> >designer without whom these building blocks of life would
> >never have been created.
>
> David, David. What a sad attempt this one is. Your claim
> is akin to saying that if a child tosses some Leggos into a box and
> some happen to stick together, the child "designed" the Leggos and the
> tossing is such a way to cause that to happen. It's a ridiculous
> claim.
>
> Is something wrong? Your grasp of science used to be much
> stronger.
Elf, his EAC file shows him doing the NO2/wasabi/rabid gerbil thing
again, and doing it often. He appears to be losing braincells at an even
more alarming rate.
He's down to about a dozen, according to the last report.
--
Aaron I. Spielman | Atheist #1467 | "The good die young - because they
aa...@rockethouse.net | Cussard #.357 | see it's no use living if you've
www.rockethouse.net | BAAWA Knight! | got to be good."
Official Lunatic Biker of the EAC | ---John Barrymore
Goyra
<37C6E86F...@uswest.net>...
> The very thing which adds complexity to the amino-to-protein chains is
> -also- the very thing which makes sure they cannot develop!
Car engines are tuned by computers.
But the computers run on electricity produced
by the car engine. Clearly these two interdependent
things came into being at the same time. There
is irreducible compexity - the first car must have
had a computer in it. Therefore the auto industy
began in the 1980s.
Oh hang, on, I am thinking like a Creationist......
Goyra
Goyra
> If I were an amino acid, I would tremble at my prospects of ever becoming
a
> protein, much less a future cell.
If you were an amino acid, your IQ would be higher.
Goyra
David B. Greene
>> The result of the experiment was a mother-load of organic
>> chemicals commonly found in life today, most notably many
>> kinds of amino acids. Thus, while it was not proven, it
>> was shown that life could have developed in a chemical
>> soup that might have existed long ago. What most science
>> textbooks omit from this fascinating story is that the
>> experiment required the outside agency of an intelligent
>> designer without whom these building blocks of life would
>> never have been created.
>>
>> Dave Greene
>
>This isn't intelligent design. They had no idea what they would
>get. They simply tried to replicate the environment that these
>processes might have happened in.
So why do you think they were dumb?
>By the way I think people have found several organic molecules
>in astroids.
A given since there are in fact carboniferous asteroids.
>Molecules like HCN can significantly lower the potential energy
>barier to polymerize peptides too which makes it very likely that
>proteins would form.
Perhaps but that has little bearing here. Besides, proteins are
not self-replicating molecules as are required for heredity and
thus evolution as we currently suppose it to be.
Dave Greene
David B. Greene
> Car engines are tuned by computers.
>But the computers run on electricity produced
>by the car engine. Clearly these two interdependent
>things came into being at the same time. There
>is irreducible compexity - the first car must have
>had a computer in it. Therefore the auto industy
>began in the 1980s.
The odd thing is that for automobiles there is an
irreducible level of complexity. That this is so
is even proven by the mere fact that we have a
definition of "automobile." Other than that the
rest of your post is just a garden variety non-
sequitur fallacy.
Dave Greene
David B. Greene
>>chemicals commonly found in life today, most notably many
>>kinds of amino acids. Thus, while it was not proven, it
>>was shown that life could have developed in a chemical
>>soup that might have existed long ago. What most science
>>textbooks omit from this fascinating story is that the
>>experiment required the outside agency of an intelligent
>>designer without whom these building blocks of life would
>>never have been created.
>
>is akin to saying that if a child tosses some Leggos into a box and
>some happen to stick together, the child "designed" the Leggos and the
>tossing is such a way to cause that to happen. It's a ridiculous
>claim.
You know, Elf, that is a crazy claim and one I'm glad I never made
nor implied. What I fail to understand is why you want to compare
scientists to preschool children. The child has no goal but Miller
and Urey did. The child is haphazard and careless but Miller and
Urey were not.
>Is something wrong? Your grasp of science used to be much stronger.
I think what separates us from the other apes and allows us humans
the grasp science is our ability to have opposible ideas. Get back
to me on this when you have something substantive to say.
Regards,
Dave Greene
David B. Greene
>In sci.skeptic David B. Greene <da...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>. Recreating the Origins of Life
>.
>. One of the most enduring problems in biology is that of
>. abiogenesis i.e. how life originated in the first place.
>. Until life began evolution was a moot process. Earlier
>. attempts at shedding light on how life began involved
>. subjecting a chemical soup to discharges of energy and
>. seeing what new compounds resulted. Among the first
>. experimenters were Miller and Urey who filled a flask
>. such organic compounds as ammonia and methane in a
>. water environment having a hydrogen atmosphere. With
>. repeated electrical discharges they sought to recreate
>. the chaotic environment of the earth as it might have
>. been billions of years ago.
>.
>. The result of the experiment was a mother-load of organic
>. chemicals commonly found in life today, most notably many
>. kinds of amino acids. Thus, while it was not proven, it
>. was shown that life could have developed in a chemical
>. soup that might have existed long ago. What most science
>. textbooks omit from this fascinating story is that the
>. experiment required the outside agency of an intelligent
>. designer without whom these building blocks of life would
>. never have been created.
>
> Sorry to learn you don't know what an "experiment" is. The texts
>probably assume the reader knows that.
What!? The miller-urey experiment was not an experiment?! How can
you say that?
>Experiments are *always* designed. I mean, like, duh.
Like BINGO man ...
> This one was designed to test a hypothesis about early
>*natural* conditions on earth. If conditions were as per the hypothesis
>of the experiment, the same compounds would have formed on the early
>earth, without having to have been directed.
And in that last statement you have clearly departed from the realm
of science into the realm of faith.
>If not, the experiment
>doesn't say anything about the ancient history of the planet. Oh, wait, I
>keep forgetting, there is no such thing as "ancient"...
Well I think you are now being silly. The Earth has been around for
billions of years. The weird thing is that just recently scientists
have found evidence that life was here on earth about a billion years
before previous estimates. Ergo, the window of time available for
the first replicating molecules to self assemble by chance out of the
early primordial soup has been cut by orders of magnitude. So now
everyone can break out their probablity calculators and recompute ...
Dave Greene
David B. Greene
>da...@u.washington.edu (David B. Greene):
>
>>Recreating the Origins of Life
>>
>>
>
>They also don't point out that Galileo's experiments of rolling balls
>down an incline show the intelligent design behind gravity.
That is true. However, Galileo's experiment was one of observation
rather than one of synthesis so I think your point is not applicable.
Still it is worth noting that Galileo along with Newton and Einstein
came to the conclusion that there was an intelligence behind natural
phenomenon.
Dave Greene
Tim
"David B. Greene" wrote:
> Recreating the Origins of Life
>
> One of the most enduring problems in biology is that of
> abiogenesis i.e. how life originated in the first place.
But it seems you ignore that IT CAN explain evolution and
bio-diversity in such extradinary detail...
> Until life began evolution was a moot process. Earlier
> attempts at shedding light on how life began involved
> subjecting a chemical soup to discharges of energy and
> seeing what new compounds resulted. Among the first
> experimenters were Miller and Urey who filled a flask
> such organic compounds as ammonia and methane in a
> water environment having a hydrogen atmosphere. With
> repeated electrical discharges they sought to recreate
> the chaotic environment of the earth as it might have
> been billions of years ago.
>
Oh no, and mankind have never built a sun either. Gee, I guess suns
don't exist....
> The result of the experiment was a mother-load of organic
> chemicals commonly found in life today, most notably many
> kinds of amino acids. Thus, while it was not proven, it
> was shown that life could have developed in a chemical
> soup that might have existed long ago. What most science
> textbooks omit from this fascinating story is that the
> experiment required the outside agency of an intelligent
> designer without whom these building blocks of life would
> never have been created.
>
Nice logic jump.....
Unfortunatly, once again, you ignore the overwhelming evidence and
focus on the small bits that science is yet
to fully explain... Give it time, young nutcase, give it time.....
>
> Dave Greene
steven pirie-shepherd
David B. Greene wrote:
> Perhaps but that has little bearing here. Besides, proteins are
> not self-replicating molecules as are required for heredity and
> thus evolution as we currently suppose it to be.
>
> Dave Greene
Prions, self replicating proteins, Nobel Prize last year. Nuff said.
--
Steven Pirie-Shepherd Ph.D.
***insert pithy phrase here***
Matti Kaikkonen
steven pirie-shepherd wrote:
> Prions, self replicating proteins, Nobel Prize last year. Nuff said.
Prions actually modify the *conformation* of ready protein molecules.
It is an interesting phenomenon, but I would not call it replication.
R. (Bob) Dean
David B. Greene <da...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:37c75c66...@news.u.washington.edu...
> Spark <sp...@unm.edu> wrote:
>
> >> The result of the experiment was a mother-load of organic
> >> chemicals commonly found in life today, most notably many
> >> kinds of amino acids. Thus, while it was not proven, it
> >> was shown that life could have developed in a chemical
> >> soup that might have existed long ago. What most science
> >> textbooks omit from this fascinating story is that the
> >> experiment required the outside agency of an intelligent
> >> designer without whom these building blocks of life would
> >> never have been created.
> >>
> >
> >This isn't intelligent design. They had no idea what they would
> >get. They simply tried to replicate the environment that these
> >processes might have happened in.
>
> So why do you think they were dumb?
>
> >By the way I think people have found several organic molecules
> >in astroids.
>
> A given since there are in fact carboniferous asteroids.
>
> >Molecules like HCN can significantly lower the potential energy
> >barier to polymerize peptides too which makes it very likely that
> >proteins would form.
>
Goyra
<37c74422...@news.u.washington.edu>...
> >irreducible compexity - the first car must have
> >had a computer in it. Therefore the auto industy
> >began in the 1980s.
> The odd thing is that for automobiles there is an
> irreducible level of complexity.
Ever driven a Lada?
> That this is so
> is even proven by the mere fact that we have a
> definition of "automobile."
What is that definition? And how
does that follow?
Goyra
steven pirie-shepherd
Matti Kaikkonen wrote:
admittedly, but there was an interesting paper in nature last year/two
years ago, showing that a peptide helix can act as a template for the
assembly of another peptide helix from smaller peptides. Essentially a
self replicating phenomenon.
Spark
> >This isn't intelligent design. They had no idea what they would
> >get. They simply tried to replicate the environment that these
> >processes might have happened in.
>
> So why do you think they were dumb?
>
They weren't dumb but this doesn't mean intellegent design.
They were replicating previous conditions of the earth.
The didn't design the molecules that they came up with.
>
> >By the way I think people have found several organic molecules
> >in astroids.
>
> A given since there are in fact carboniferous asteroids.
>
> >Molecules like HCN can significantly lower the potential energy
> >barier to polymerize peptides too which makes it very likely that
> >proteins would form.
>
> Perhaps but that has little bearing here. Besides, proteins are
> not self-replicating molecules as are required for heredity and
> thus evolution as we currently suppose it to be.
>
This is part of the original strawman. Proteins aren't
self-replicating molecules even today.
>
> Dave Greene
David B. Greene
>> >had a computer in it. Therefore the auto industy
>> >began in the 1980s.
>
>> The odd thing is that for automobiles there is an
>> irreducible level of complexity.
>
> Ever driven a Lada?
Actually no. I'm not sure I ever want to!
>> That this is so
>> is even proven by the mere fact that we have a
>> definition of "automobile."
>
> What is that definition? And how
>does that follow?
I use the Webster's definition. Anything less would
not be an automobile.
Dave Greene
Matt Silberstein
da...@u.washington.edu (David B. Greene):
>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>>da...@u.washington.edu (David B. Greene):
>>
>>>Recreating the Origins of Life
>>>
>>>One of the most enduring problems in biology is that of
>>>abiogenesis i.e. how life originated in the first place.
>>>Until life began evolution was a moot process. Earlier
>>>attempts at shedding light on how life began involved
>>>subjecting a chemical soup to discharges of energy and
>>>seeing what new compounds resulted. Among the first
>>>experimenters were Miller and Urey who filled a flask
>>>such organic compounds as ammonia and methane in a
>>>water environment having a hydrogen atmosphere. With
>>>repeated electrical discharges they sought to recreate
>>>the chaotic environment of the earth as it might have
>>>been billions of years ago.
>>>
>>>The result of the experiment was a mother-load of organic
>>>chemicals commonly found in life today, most notably many
>>>kinds of amino acids. Thus, while it was not proven, it
>>>was shown that life could have developed in a chemical
>>>soup that might have existed long ago. What most science
>>>textbooks omit from this fascinating story is that the
>>>experiment required the outside agency of an intelligent
>>>designer without whom these building blocks of life would
>>>never have been created.
>>
>>They also don't point out that Galileo's experiments of rolling balls
>>down an incline show the intelligent design behind gravity.
>
>That is true. However, Galileo's experiment was one of observation
>rather than one of synthesis so I think your point is not applicable.
And you would be wrong. All experiments are observations. Your
"synthesis" is a red herring. They set up conditions in a lab and see
what occurs. They also try to figure out what conditions occurred
during the early Earth. If the lab conditions lead to life and the lab
conditions are similar to those of the early Earth, then the idea that
life came about due to similar conditions would be well supported.
>Still it is worth noting that Galileo along with Newton and Einstein
>came to the conclusion that there was an intelligence behind natural
>phenomenon.
No, it is not worth noting that. You have slipped over into argument
by authority. And using it to change the subject and knock down a
strawman while you are at it. The subject is not whether there is an
intelligence behind things, not unless you wish to say there is an
intelligence behind a falling rock, exactly the same kind of
intelligence. In which case I will reply "So what".
>Dave Greene
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------------------
Testing the proposition that you can find out anything
if you just say it wrong on the usenet:
I assert that no one recorded an a capella version of
_Rhapsody In Blue_ during the 1980s/90s.
Matti Kaikkonen
"David B. Greene" wrote:
> That is true. However, Galileo's experiment was one of observation
> rather than one of synthesis so I think your point is not applicable.
Before Galileo conventional wisdom was that acceleration due to gravity
was mass-depended. Galileo did not just sit by an apple tree and watch
apples of different size drop spontaneously. No, he built an incline,
produced highly symmetrical spheres, and let them roll down an incline.
Special experimental conditions were set up, from which conclusions about
gravity were made.
> Still it is worth noting that Galileo along with Newton and Einstein
> came to the conclusion that there was an intelligence behind natural
> phenomenon.
I think none of them believed that God interferes with natural laws.
Scientists studying abiogenesis use the same assumption.
Morat
Matti Kaikkonen wrote:
I think it is worth noting that Einstein didn't believe in God. Or at
least, God in a sense that most Christians would accept. He was a pantheist.
God-as-universe. The universe was God and the only way God interacted with
anything was through the laws of nature. Nor did he espouse any particular
intelligence behind the universe. So perhaps you might want to chop his name
out of there, hmm?
--
spam blocking in effect. To reply remove "not"
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mankind must without a doubt be the most conceited race
in the universe, for who else believes that God has
nothing better to do than sit around all day and help
him out of tight spots? ---Alan Dean Foster
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Silberstein
da...@u.washington.edu (David B. Greene):
>"Goyra" <Da...@spamoff.goyra.com> wrote:
>
>> Car engines are tuned by computers.
>>But the computers run on electricity produced
>>by the car engine. Clearly these two interdependent
>>things came into being at the same time. There
>>is irreducible compexity - the first car must have
>>had a computer in it. Therefore the auto industy
>>began in the 1980s.
>
>The odd thing is that for automobiles there is an
>irreducible level of complexity. That this is so
>is even proven by the mere fact that we have a
>definition of "automobile." Other than that the
>rest of your post is just a garden variety non-
>sequitur fallacy.
>
David, intentionally or not you have given one of the most concise
arguments against the IC nonsense I have seen. The *name* automobile
refers to a set of characteristics, if something is missing a
particular characteristic it would not be *named* automobile. But that
does not mean it would not exist, just that we would call it something
else.
R.D. Heilman.
Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:37d5482c...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
> In alt.religion.christian I read this message from
> da...@u.washington.edu (David B. Greene):
>
> >"Goyra" <Da...@spamoff.goyra.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Car engines are tuned by computers.
> >>But the computers run on electricity produced
> >>by the car engine. Clearly these two interdependent
> >>things came into being at the same time. There
> >>is irreducible compexity - the first car must have
> >>had a computer in it. Therefore the auto industy
> >>began in the 1980s.
> >
> >The odd thing is that for automobiles there is an
> >irreducible level of complexity. That this is so
> >is even proven by the mere fact that we have a
> >definition of "automobile." Other than that the
> >rest of your post is just a garden variety non-
> >sequitur fallacy.
> >
> David, intentionally or not you have given one of the most concise
> arguments against the IC nonsense I have seen. The *name* automobile
> refers to a set of characteristics, if something is missing a
> particular characteristic it would not be *named* automobile. But that
> does not mean it would not exist, just that we would call it something
> else.
>
tends to obscure the real issue. i.e. that to be a functional vehicle
there has to be a minimum number of component parts, in place and
operational. I don't know what the miminum parts would be, motor,
drive shaft, wheels, steering mechanism, frame???. Even so,
I believe an automobile is a very poor analogy, since it not nearly
as integrated as a living system. For example, Dr Aw writes, "when
considering cell structure and function there is the "all or nothing"
the principle of continunity is the logical extention in the dimension of
time The principle may be illustrated this way. The living cell can
be regarded as as a highly complex and integrated metabolic
machine. To what extent can the component parts be deleted or
altered without a derangement in total function? What is the
absolute minimum number of cellular components (organelles,
enzimes proteins, nucleic acids etc) necessary to constitute
a living cell.
(S.E. Aw 1982)
Clearly, this was the I.C. concept before Behe.
If I remember correctly, Francis Crick also suggested
this, when he wrote, concerning the origin of the DNA, that once
established any change in it would have been lethal. This
approach, however, was one step beyond Behe's in that Crick
acknowledged the evolution of the code and his "all or nothing"
view implied that "once _established_ nothing could be removed or
changed". ( the validity of this statement is seen in the fact that all
living systems utilize the exact same code and architecture)
"The original code must have been a triplet code" (though not all 3
bases need not be read)" because any change in Condon size
necessarily makes nonsense of previous messages". This
is universal and argues for the common ancestry of all organisms".
( not an exact quote, but this was from Crick in the late 60's or
early 70's)
Best Wishes,
RD Heilman
David B. Greene
>"David B. Greene" wrote:
>
>> That is true. However, Galileo's experiment was one of observation
>> rather than one of synthesis so I think your point is not applicable.
>
>Before Galileo conventional wisdom was that acceleration due to gravity
>was mass-depended. Galileo did not just sit by an apple tree and watch
>apples of different size drop spontaneously. No, he built an incline,
>produced highly symmetrical spheres, and let them roll down an incline.
>Special experimental conditions were set up, from which conclusions about
>gravity were made.
Yes, I agree.
>> Still it is worth noting that Galileo along with Newton and Einstein
>> came to the conclusion that there was an intelligence behind natural
>> phenomenon.
>
>I think none of them believed that God interferes with natural laws.
>Scientists studying abiogenesis use the same assumption.
Why would a creator God need to interfere with the natural laws He
created?
Dave Greene
David B. Greene
>Matti Kaikkonen wrote:
>> "David B. Greene" wrote:
>>
>> > Still it is worth noting that Galileo along with Newton and Einstein
>> > came to the conclusion that there was an intelligence behind natural
>> > phenomenon.
>>
>> I think none of them believed that God interferes with natural laws.
>> Scientists studying abiogenesis use the same assumption.
>
really ... ?
>Or at least, God in a sense that most Christians would accept.
ah Ha!
>He was a pantheist.
a rose by any other name ...
>God-as-universe. The universe was God and the only way God interacted with
>anything was through the laws of nature. Nor did he espouse any particular
>intelligence behind the universe. So perhaps you might want to chop his name
>out of there, hmm?
Then again perhaps not:
"My religiosity consists in a humble admiratation of the infinitely
superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with
our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality."
[Albert Einstein, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side",
edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]
This seems to me to indicate his belief in an intelligence behind the
universe. I also believe I have read a quote where he directly stated
the the univese indicated an intelligence at work.
Dave Greene
Matti Kaikkonen
"David B. Greene" wrote:
> Why would a creator God need to interfere with the natural laws He created?
I don't know. However, the Bible seems to be full of stories about his
interventions (also called "miracles"). Of course, I think they are fairy
tales, but some seem to think they are literally true.
Richard E Reboulet
>>I think it is worth noting that Einstein didn't believe in God.
>
>really ... ?
>
>>Or at least, God in a sense that most Christians would accept.
>
>ah Ha!
>
>>He was a pantheist.
>
>a rose by any other name ...
>
>>God-as-universe. The universe was God and the only way God interacted with
>>anything was through the laws of nature. Nor did he espouse any particular
>>intelligence behind the universe. So perhaps you might want to chop his name
>>out of there, hmm?
>
>Then again perhaps not:
>
>"My religiosity consists in a humble admiratation of the infinitely
> superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with
> our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality."
>
>[Albert Einstein, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side",
>edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]
>
>This seems to me to indicate his belief in an intelligence behind the
>universe. I also believe I have read a quote where he directly stated
>the the univese indicated an intelligence at work.
>
>Dave Greene
You are correct! Einstein believed in an intelligent designer of the
universe. he did not believe in a 'personal' God.
Matt Silberstein
<slid...@uswest.net>:
>Eric to Elf:
>Perhaps you don't understand the problem David is bringing out?
>If an amino acid chain is broken at any point along the links, you cannot
>have eventual proteins.
Nonsense. The issue is one of rates of creation vs rates of
destruction. Even if the rates are equal that does not mean the
expected chain length is 1. And then there is the possibility of
autocatalytic reactions. That is if molecule A increases the chance of
molecule B forming. And B increases the chance of C and C of D and so
on to P which increases the chance of A. If such a cycle forms pretty
soon you get lots (most?) of the available material caught up in the
cycle. And K', for example, helps L form more easily you will see more
K'. And if F'' skips G and helps form H, then G leaves the loop.
> The problem is so difficult, that most origin of
>life theorists don't like to discuss it.
Really? Have you done a literature search yourself or do you take
Behe's word for this? Accusing the people of ignore the tough
questions is a pretty serious charge, I hope you have tried to support
it.
>An amino acid chain in a
>chemically active environment is going to be broken up.
>There's no question about that happening.
Sure there is, it is a nonsense claim. It depends on the
characteristics of that environment, "chemically active" is not a
sufficient qualifier to support the claim. In some environments the
chains will form, not break up.
[snip]
Tony Fajer
Its hard to gleen a theology from Einseins' works- including his
autobiography. His biographers tend to conclude that even though he
renounced his judistic past, he did have a very personal god. One
which "...doesn't play dice...". His god was not supernatural, but
supranatural. That is: God is the prime mover and intregral with,
all that is. Simple, but profound. God need not be beyond the
natural to make things work.
I've done much research on his philosophy, incorporated ideas of the
Native American pantheism, and a few ideas of my own, for my theology
[which is scientific/rational as far as I can take it]. The
metaphysical end, I won't bore you with.
David B. Greene
Regardless, even the Bible does not require God to act by miracle. Over
the thousands of years there were only a few anyway. What I question is
if a creator God is incompatible with a creation that acts in accordance
to natural law. I don't think creation and natural law are mutually
exclusive.
Dave Greene
Morat
Tony Fajer wrote:
Considering he flat out STATES his lack of a religious belief in irritation at
those who cannot understand metaphor and used his words in ways he didn't
mean....It's hard to see Einstein believing in god...
>
> I've done much research on his philosophy, incorporated ideas of the
> Native American pantheism, and a few ideas of my own, for my theology
> [which is scientific/rational as far as I can take it]. The
> metaphysical end, I won't bore you with.
--
Matt Silberstein
<rd...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net>:
>
>Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:37d5482c...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
>> In alt.religion.christian I read this message from
And yet actual early cars were quite functional without a motor, they
were called carriages.
>Even so,
>I believe an automobile is a very poor analogy, since it not nearly
>as integrated as a living system. For example, Dr Aw writes, "when
>considering cell structure and function there is the "all or nothing"
>the principle of continunity is the logical extention in the dimension of
>time The principle may be illustrated this way. The living cell can
>be regarded as as a highly complex and integrated metabolic
>machine. To what extent can the component parts be deleted or
>altered without a derangement in total function?
Quite a bit, actually. Or did you think that all cells were exactly
the same?
>What is the
>absolute minimum number of cellular components (organelles,
>enzimes proteins, nucleic acids etc) necessary to constitute
>a living cell.
>(S.E. Aw 1982)
>
And when it does not have all those components we would not call it a
cell. I fail to see the point. The question is not what would we call
something, the question is whether the system would have reproductive
viability. And no one suggests that the earliest life was cellular.
>Clearly, this was the I.C. concept before Behe.
>
Of course. I doubt anyone familiar with the field, other than possibly
Behe, thinks he has said anything particularly original.
>If I remember correctly, Francis Crick also suggested
>this, when he wrote, concerning the origin of the DNA, that once
>established any change in it would have been lethal.
Why? We do know that slight variations on the DNA code in fact exist.
>This
>approach, however, was one step beyond Behe's in that Crick
>acknowledged the evolution of the code and his "all or nothing"
>view implied that "once _established_ nothing could be removed or
>changed". ( the validity of this statement is seen in the fact that all
>living systems utilize the exact same code and architecture)
No, they don't. Mitochondria, for example, use a slight variation of
the code.
>"The original code must have been a triplet code" (though not all 3
>bases need not be read)" because any change in Condon size
>necessarily makes nonsense of previous messages". This
>is universal and argues for the common ancestry of all organisms".
>( not an exact quote, but this was from Crick in the late 60's or
>early 70's)
>
I agree that the near universality is a powerful argument for Common
Descent. It is not an argument for IC and design.
R.D. Heilman
source and ropes attached to a bit in the horse's mouth as a steering
apparatus. Changes were rather abrupt.
>
> >Even so,
> >I believe an automobile is a very poor analogy, since it not nearly
> >as integrated as a living system. For example, Dr Aw writes, "when
> >considering cell structure and function there is the "all or nothing"
> >the principle of continunity is the logical extention in the dimension of
> >time The principle may be illustrated this way. The living cell can
> >be regarded as as a highly complex and integrated metabolic
> >machine. To what extent can the component parts be deleted or
> >altered without a derangement in total function?
>
> Quite a bit, actually. Or did you think that all cells were exactly
> the same?
>
take any functioning cell.
>
> >What is the
> >absolute minimum number of cellular components (organelles,
> >enzimes proteins, nucleic acids etc) necessary to constitute
> >a living cell.
> >(S.E. Aw 1982)
> >
> And when it does not have all those components we would not call it a
> cell. I fail to see the point. The question is not what would we call
> something, the question is whether the system would have reproductive
> viability. And no one suggests that the earliest life was cellular.
>
>
> >Clearly, this was the I.C. concept before Behe.
> >
> Of course. I doubt anyone familiar with the field, other than possibly
> Behe, thinks he has said anything particularly original.
>
> >If I remember correctly, Francis Crick also suggested
> >this, when he wrote, concerning the origin of the DNA, that once
> >established any change in it would have been lethal.
>
> Why? We do know that slight variations on the DNA code in fact exist.
>
other than nucleic acid serves the purpose, or that the a non-triplet code
exist? I fail to understand your point.
When all around us change has occured, yet the DNA code has remained
virtually unchanged from the beginning of life is itself remarkable.
>
> >This
> >approach, however, was one step beyond Behe's in that Crick
> >acknowledged the evolution of the code and his "all or nothing"
> >view implied that "once _established_ nothing could be removed or
> >changed". ( the validity of this statement is seen in the fact that all
> >living systems utilize the exact same code and architecture)
>
> No, they don't. Mitochondria, for example, use a slight variation of
> the code.
>
Mitochondria is not a separate self-reproducing organism. It is an
integral part of a cell. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the DNA
which specificies the Mitochondria resides in the nucleus of the cell.
>
> >"The original code must have been a triplet code" (though not all 3
> >bases need not be read)" because any change in Condon size
> >necessarily makes nonsense of previous messages". This
> >is universal and argues for the common ancestry of all organisms".
> >( not an exact quote, but this was from Crick in the late 60's or
> >early 70's)
> >
> I agree that the near universality is a powerful argument for Common
> Descent. It is not an argument for IC and design.
>
I personally think this is in reality a dogmatic pronouncement. One can
make the opposite claim i.e. that similarities dictates the common design.
of a single designer. It would be extremely unreasonable and certainly
unexpected for a logical, thoughtful, rational designer to utalize different
methods; different codes; different architectures etc. in integrated
systems.
Why should a rational, intelligent designer been so capricious as to employ
a hoge-poge of radically different codes for different living systems.
Had this had been this been the case, I would have believed it was random,
unplanned and "just happened".
>
Regards,
RD Heilman
Al Klein
<rd...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:37d1b184....@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
> When all around us change has occured, yet the DNA code has remained
> virtually unchanged from the beginning of life is itself remarkable.
Remarkable? Since all life evolves from previous live USING DNA as
the basis upon which to evolve, it would be truly remarkable if we
discovered non-DNA-based life on this planet.
> > No, they don't. Mitochondria, for example, use a slight variation of
> > the code.
> Mitochondria is not a separate self-reproducing organism.
It was, at one time.
> I personally think this is in reality a dogmatic pronouncement. One can
> make the opposite claim i.e. that similarities dictates the common design.
> of a single designer. It would be extremely unreasonable and certainly
> unexpected for a logical, thoughtful, rational designer to utalize different
> methods; different codes; different architectures etc. in integrated
> systems.
> Why should a rational, intelligent designer been so capricious as to employ
> a hoge-poge of radically different codes for different living systems.
Why should a rational, intelligent designer not use an opposed
gasoline engine for motive power?
> Had this had been this been the case, I would have believed it was random,
> unplanned and "just happened".
Since life with different coding systems couldn't react chemically, it
would almost be an argument for design.
--
Al - aklein at villagenet dot com
Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr.
>
>Al Klein <nxy...@ivyyntrarg.pbz> wrote in message
>> Since life with different coding systems couldn't react chemically, it
>> would almost be an argument for design.
>>
>would have been seen as evidence for multiple examples of abiogenesis,
>rather than one. This is one of the remarkable things about evolution it
>is so plastic it can account for anything.
Even if it were so, it would still be orders of magnitude less plastic
than "goddidit."
--
Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr. KG9ME | Small wheel turn by the fire and rod,
postm...@hoxnet.com | Big wheel turn by the grace of God,
http://www.hoxnet.com | Every time that wheel turn 'round,
PGP Key ID 138BCEE1 | Bound to cover just a little more ground.
David B. Greene
>> >This isn't intelligent design. They had no idea what they would
>> >get. They simply tried to replicate the environment that these
>> >processes might have happened in.
>>
>> So why do you think they were dumb?
>
>They weren't dumb but this doesn't mean intellegent design.
So far the experimental data indicates it is required.
>They were replicating previous conditions of the earth.
Maybe, a statement of faith on your part though.
>The didn't design the molecules that they came up with.
True, they designed the process that produced them.
Dave Greene
David B. Greene
>. If conditions were as per the hypothesis of the experiment, the same
>. compounds would have formed on the early earth, without having to have
>. been directed.
>
> You call this "a statement of faith". How so? The only implicit
>assumption is that the laws of nature as we know them - in particular,
>chemistry - would have governed the situation. Hardly what I'd call a
>"statement of faith". If you're going to assume the contrary, you've
>taken the discussion outside the realm of science anyhow. So - are you
>*assuming* that the laws of nature did NOT apply? And if so, why are you
>making such an assumption? And is *that* what you want taught *as
>science*?
I'm not making that assumption at all. OTOH, you are the one admitting
to implicit assumptions.
> It seems to me that the assumption that the laws of nature didn't apply
>is the assumption of faith - both in substance and in motivation.
straw man fallacy
> In addition, there's quite a stew of organic compounds in Jupiter's
>atmosphere. Would you care to explain the "intelligent design" behind
>them?
Nope, I'd care to find out if there is life on Jupiter.
> Furthermore, large quantities of lots of organics have been observed in
>interstellar space - methane, methanol, ethanol, aldehydes, ethers and
>others. Cyanide radicals, too. Must be quite a party God's been having
>up there, what? :)
> From observation then, it seems quite obvious that organic compounds do
>indeed, form quite easily "by chance" under all sorts of conditions. As
>to the "probability" of that happening on Earth - given the *fact* that
>we're here and have lots of company in the biosphere, I'd put that
>"probability" at 1.00.
Maybe, a probability of 1.00 works just as well with an intelligent
designer.
Dave Greene
David B. Greene
>> rather than one of synthesis so I think your point is not applicable.
>
>Before Galileo conventional wisdom was that acceleration due to gravity
>was mass-depended. Galileo did not just sit by an apple tree and watch
>apples of different size drop spontaneously. No, he built an incline,
>produced highly symmetrical spheres, and let them roll down an incline.
>Special experimental conditions were set up, from which conclusions about
>gravity were made.
Yes but he did not conclude that there was no intelligence behind the
design of the universe.
>> Still it is worth noting that Galileo along with Newton and Einstein
>> came to the conclusion that there was an intelligence behind natural
>> phenomenon.
>
>I think none of them believed that God interferes with natural laws.
>Scientists studying abiogenesis use the same assumption.
If God created and works by natural law then there is no interference.
As a boy I once asked my dad for a new English Racer bicycle. To my
surprise he got me the bike and he broke no laws natural or otherwise
to accomplish that.
Dave Greene
David B. Greene
>>rather than one of synthesis so I think your point is not applicable.
>
>"synthesis" is a red herring. They set up conditions in a lab and see
>what occurs. They also try to figure out what conditions occurred
>during the early Earth. If the lab conditions lead to life and the lab
>conditions are similar to those of the early Earth, then the idea that
>life came about due to similar conditions would be well supported.
I disagree, while all experiments have observations there are some
experiments that are much more than that. The Miller experiment went
much farther beyond mere observation than did Galileo's experiment.
And that life might have come about due to conditions similar to the
Miller experiment is your own strawman for that is not disputed.
However, the experimental data indicate that an outside intelligence
may have been a required ingredient. Future data may show that is
not the case as science is a self correcting series of successive
approximations.
>>Still it is worth noting that Galileo along with Newton and Einstein
>>came to the conclusion that there was an intelligence behind natural
>>phenomenon.
>
>No, it is not worth noting that. You have slipped over into argument
>by authority. And using it to change the subject and knock down a
>strawman while you are at it. The subject is not whether there is an
>intelligence behind things, not unless you wish to say there is an
>intelligence behind a falling rock, exactly the same kind of
>intelligence. In which case I will reply "So what".
Nonesense, for your complaint to have merit I would heve needed
to indicate that they drew the same conclusions from the Miller
experiment. So far as I am aware none of them commented on it.
It is worth noting because many of those on your side of the
fence preach that the existence of natural laws makes belief
in a supreme intelligence a false belief.
Dave Greene
Matt Silberstein
>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>>da...@u.washington.edu (David B. Greene):
[snip]
>>
>>And you would be wrong. All experiments are observations. Your
>>"synthesis" is a red herring. They set up conditions in a lab and see
>>what occurs. They also try to figure out what conditions occurred
>>during the early Earth. If the lab conditions lead to life and the lab
>>conditions are similar to those of the early Earth, then the idea that
>>life came about due to similar conditions would be well supported.
>
>I disagree, while all experiments have observations there are some
>experiments that are much more than that. The Miller experiment went
>much farther beyond mere observation than did Galileo's experiment.
Well you should do more than assert this. All I have seen from you so
far is the claim that people set up the experiment, so intelligent
design is required. If you have another argument, make it.
>And that life might have come about due to conditions similar to the
>Miller experiment is your own strawman for that is not disputed.
How is it a strawman?
>However, the experimental data indicate that an outside intelligence
>may have been a required ingredient.
So you keep on claiming. But you have not even claimed (no less argued
for) anything that distinguishes the experiment from any other
scientific experiment. Why does this experiment, not experiments in
general, imply intelligent design?
> Future data may show that is
>not the case as science is a self correcting series of successive
>approximations.
>
>>>Still it is worth noting that Galileo along with Newton and Einstein
>>>came to the conclusion that there was an intelligence behind natural
>>>phenomenon.
>>
>>No, it is not worth noting that. You have slipped over into argument
>>by authority. And using it to change the subject and knock down a
>>strawman while you are at it. The subject is not whether there is an
>>intelligence behind things, not unless you wish to say there is an
>>intelligence behind a falling rock, exactly the same kind of
>>intelligence. In which case I will reply "So what".
>
>Nonesense, for your complaint to have merit I would heve needed
>to indicate that they drew the same conclusions from the Miller
>experiment. So far as I am aware none of them commented on it.
>It is worth noting because many of those on your side of the
>fence preach that the existence of natural laws makes belief
>in a supreme intelligence a false belief.
>
There are those who make that claim. They are silly and not on my side
of this argument. Science says nothing about God. (Now don't say you
were not talking about God unless you can distinguish this "supreme
intelligence" from God.)
Matt Silberstein
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Baptists celebrating with praises to the Lord
Rednecks celebrating with gin
Me and Suzy are just celebrating the joys of sleeping in.
M.T.
Matt Silberstein
<b...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net>:
[snip]
>Why do people keep parroting the same old time worn phrases! Where
>is the origional thinking?
>>
>To say that that "evolution did it" merely replaces the "God did it"
>scenero. What is the difference? What has happened is that "mutation
>and natural selection" takes on godlike attributes of being omnipotent,
>omnipresent and in fact, Evolution replaces God and thus becomes
>the new creator god.
You want more detail than "evolution did it"? Read the FAQs at
www.talkorigins.org. Read a biology textbook. Take an appropriate
biology course. Read the primary literature. There is plenty of
detailed evidence backed descriptions and explanations out there. OTOH
in the entire intelligent design movement and the entire creationist
movement the most detailed statement available is "ID did it" or "God
did it". That is it. No details of how or when or what sequence of
events. Just "God did it". Why? "Because".
Ken Cox
> To say that that "evolution did it" merely replaces the "God did it"
> scenero. What is the difference? What has happened is that "mutation
> and natural selection" takes on godlike attributes of being omnipotent,
> omnipresent and in fact, Evolution replaces God and thus becomes
> the new creator god.
Perhaps *you* think evolution has those attributes, but in reality
it doesn't. It must operate within the known laws of physics and
chemistry, especially as those are embodied in genetics, and is must
also agree with the historical evidence. It *can't* do absolutely
anything.
To drop back a couple of attributions, you said that evolution could
equally well explain thousands of different DNA coding systems. This
is not correct, because those systems are highly constrained by the
way genetics and cellular biochemistry operate, and by the historical
record and timescales obtainable from fossils.
If, for example, humans and chimpanzees had completely different DNA
coding systems, but everything else about them was the same as we
observe today, then we would have to say that evolution could not
explain the evidence. There just is no way to do a complete DNA code
replacement on something the size of a eukaryotic genome in the time
allowed by the fossil evidence, and particularly not while preserving
the great protein-sequence similarity between humans and chimps.
Contrast that with the "God did it" explanation. Can that explain
the current situation, where humans and chimps use the same code?
Yes. Could it also explain the above hypothetical, where humans and
chimps use completely different codes? Yes. Could it explain a
hypothetical where all the current evidence for the recent common
ancestry of chimpanzees and humans -- the fossils, the DNA sequences,
the morphology, the protein comparisons -- all was *exactly* as it
is now, but the human biochemistry was "mirror-reversed" (using the
stereoisomers of all amino acids, nucleotides, etc.) from that of
every other animal on Earth? Yes. Is there anything at all that
it could not explain? No.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr.
>
>Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr. <postm...@hoxnet.com> wrote in message
>news:slrn7te65q.j...@linus.wnet.hox...
>> In article <lQyB3.59$eW4....@news2.mia>, R.D. Heilman wrote:
>> >
>> >Al Klein <nxy...@ivyyntrarg.pbz> wrote in message
>> >> Since life with different coding systems couldn't react chemically, it
>> >> would almost be an argument for design.
>> >>
>> >And if it had turned out to be thousands of coding systems, then the fact
>> >would have been seen as evidence for multiple examples of abiogenesis,
>> >rather than one. This is one of the remarkable things about evolution it
>> >is so plastic it can account for anything.
>>
>> Even if it were so, it would still be orders of magnitude less plastic
>> than "goddidit."
>>
>is the origional thinking?
Where is the original thinking in attributing a "goddidit" to anything
you don't understand or don't feel like looking into?
>>
>To say that that "evolution did it" merely replaces the "God did it"
>scenero. What is the difference? What has happened is that "mutation
>and natural selection" takes on godlike attributes of being omnipotent,
>omnipresent and in fact, Evolution replaces God and thus becomes
>the new creator god.
There is at least evidense of "evolution did it." Why doesn't God
provide any? According to his book, he had no qualms about it in the
past.
--
Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr. | What good is spilling blood?
postm...@hoxnet.com | It will not grow a thing;
http://www.hoxnet.com | Taste eternity the swords sing:
PGP Key ID 138BCEE1 | Blues of Allah In 'sh'Allah.
Ben Washington
Ken Cox <k...@research.bell-labs.com> wrote in message
news:37D7E4...@research.bell-labs.com...
> Ben Washington wrote:
> > To say that "evolution did it" merely replaces the "God did it"
> > scenario. What is the difference? What has happened is that "mutation
> > and natural selection" takes on godlike attributes of being omnipotent,
> > omnipresent and in fact, Evolution replaces God and thus becomes
> > the new creator god.
>
> it doesn't. It must operate within the known laws of physics and
> chemistry, especially as those are embodied in genetics, and is must
> also agree with the historical evidence. It *can't* do absolutely
> anything.
>
God created life and all living organisms quite as they are found.
Presently, a large number of people accept the scientific explanation
that natural forces brought about life and the countless forms we find
were brought about by mutation and natural selection. Therefore, the
*role* God played in the past is presently being played by Evolution.
>
> To drop back a couple of attributions, you said that evolution could
> equally well explain thousands of different DNA coding systems. This
> is not correct, because those systems are highly constrained by the
> way genetics and cellular biochemistry operate, and by the historical
> record and timescales obtainable from fossils.
>
same coding system, the same genetics and cellular biochemistry
as you wrote, but if different coding systems had be found then there
would also be different constraints for different living systems.
>
> If, for example, humans and chimpanzees had completely different DNA
> coding systems, but everything else about them was the same as we
> observe today, then we would have to say that evolution could not
> explain the evidence. There just is no way to do a complete DNA code
> replacement on something the size of a eukaryotic genome in the time
> allowed by the fossil evidence, and particularly not while preserving
> the great protein-sequence similarity between humans and chimps.
>
so does ever other living organism. Only the difference is in the
arrangement or the order of the bases (G, A, C, U, and T ). It would
seem rational that where similar forms are required similar architecture
and arrangement would be logical course to follow.
>
> Contrast that with the "God did it" explanation. Can that explain
> the current situation, where humans and chimps use the same code?
> Yes. Could it also explain the above hypothetical, where humans and
> chimps use completely different codes? Yes.
>
>
Could it explain a
> hypothetical where all the current evidence for the recent common
> ancestry of chimpanzees and humans -- the fossils, the DNA sequences,
> the morphology, the protein comparisons -- all was *exactly* as it
> is now, but the human biochemistry was "mirror-reversed" (using the
> stereoisomers of all amino acids, nucleotides, etc.) from that of
> every other animal on Earth? Yes. Is there anything at all that
> it could not explain? No.
>
be so capricious?
>
Why do you assume that a rational, intelligent, Creator would not be
logical and rational in his design? The point is most Christians in the
past thought by studying the handiwork of God, they could learn
something about the mind of God. If they had seen a hog pog of
afro-engineered schemes everywhere, then God would have come
across as a capricious amateur. (I would like to be able to claim
credit for this line of reasoning, but I read it on another post.)
>
> --
> Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ben Washington
> In article <%ZFB3.903$eW4....@news2.mia>, Ben Washington wrote:
> >
> >Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr. <postm...@hoxnet.com> wrote in message
> >news:slrn7te65q.j...@linus.wnet.hox...
> >> In article <lQyB3.59$eW4....@news2.mia>, R.D. Heilman wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Al Klein <nxy...@ivyyntrarg.pbz> wrote in message
> >> >> Since life with different coding systems couldn't react chemically,
it
> >> >> would almost be an argument for design.
> >> >>
> >> >And if it had turned out to be thousands of coding systems, then the
fact
> >> >would have been seen as evidence for multiple examples of abiogenesis,
> >> >rather than one. This is one of the remarkable things about evolution
it
> >> >is so plastic it can account for anything.
> >>
> >> Even if it were so, it would still be orders of magnitude less plastic
> >> than "goddidit."
> >>
> >Why do people keep parroting the same old time worn phrases! Where
> >is the origional thinking?
>
> Where is the original thinking in attributing a "goddidit" to anything
> you don't understand or don't feel like looking into?
>
>
> >>
> >To say that that "evolution did it" merely replaces the "God did it"
> >scenero. What is the difference? What has happened is that "mutation
> >and natural selection" takes on godlike attributes of being omnipotent,
> >omnipresent and in fact, Evolution replaces God and thus becomes
> >the new creator god.
>
> There is at least evidense of "evolution did it." Why doesn't God
> provide any? According to his book, he had no qualms about it in the
> past.
>
There is virtually nothing in the Bible concerning Creation. Only one
or two short chapters in the Jewish Torah. However, the Old Testiment
is NOT binding upon the Christian. And since there is nothing in the
Christian New Testiment concerning origins, one can only conclude
that as far as the writers of the New Testiment were concerned, this
was something they did not feel the necessity to deal with. Obviously
the matter of origins was of no real importance. It would seem they left
the matter open.
David B. Greene
>In alt.religion.christian I read this message from "Ben Washington"
>
>>Why do people keep parroting the same old time worn phrases! Where
>>is the origional thinking?
>>>
>>scenero. What is the difference? What has happened is that "mutation
>>and natural selection" takes on godlike attributes of being omnipotent,
>>omnipresent and in fact, Evolution replaces God and thus becomes
>>the new creator god.
>
>www.talkorigins.org. Read a biology textbook. Take an appropriate
>biology course. Read the primary literature. There is plenty of
>detailed evidence backed descriptions and explanations out there. OTOH
>in the entire intelligent design movement and the entire creationist
>movement the most detailed statement available is "ID did it" or "God
>did it". That is it. No details of how or when or what sequence of
>events. Just "God did it". Why? "Because".
Not so! First off let me state that "intelligent design" and "creationist"
are not synonymous terms. While intelligent design does imply some type
of creation, be it by natural or anatural events, it does not imply the
standard young Earth special creation favored by Bible fundamentalists.
Creationism has almost exclusively been used to describe the young Earth
Bible interpretation.
Second, there are those scientists such as Behe who do explain their
point of view from a scienctific standpoint rather than parrot "godidit."
While I personally may not agree with Behe's criticisms of evolution
I do note that he has in fact put in more details than did Richard Dawkins
did in his descriptions of how life began. in his book _The Selfish Gene_
Dave Greene
David B. Greene
>There is at least evidense of "evolution did it." Why doesn't God
>provide any? According to his book, he had no qualms about it in the
>past.
Ahhhh yessss, the old "why doesn't God march to the beat of my drum."
Dave Greene
Goyra
<Q6_B3.1288$mM.1...@news1.mia>...
> Presently, a large number of people accept the scientific explanation...
> the *role* God played in the past is presently being played by Evolution.
And the role of babysitters can be played by
television - but television is not intended to be a babysitter.
To use it as such is abuse. To use science as a god is
abuse of science. Thank goodness this abuse does not
prevent scientists getting on with the real work.
Goyra
Dave Haas
da...@u.washington.edu says...
........ do anything?
D. Haas
Matt Silberstein
da...@u.washington.edu (David B. Greene):
>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>>In alt.religion.christian I read this message from "Ben Washington"
>>
>>>Why do people keep parroting the same old time worn phrases! Where
>>>is the origional thinking?
>>>>
>>>To say that that "evolution did it" merely replaces the "God did it"
>>>scenero. What is the difference? What has happened is that "mutation
>>>and natural selection" takes on godlike attributes of being omnipotent,
>>>omnipresent and in fact, Evolution replaces God and thus becomes
>>>the new creator god.
>>
>>You want more detail than "evolution did it"? Read the FAQs at
>>www.talkorigins.org. Read a biology textbook. Take an appropriate
>>biology course. Read the primary literature. There is plenty of
>>detailed evidence backed descriptions and explanations out there. OTOH
>>in the entire intelligent design movement and the entire creationist
>>movement the most detailed statement available is "ID did it" or "God
>>did it". That is it. No details of how or when or what sequence of
>>events. Just "God did it". Why? "Because".
>
>Not so! First off let me state that "intelligent design" and "creationist"
>are not synonymous terms. While intelligent design does imply some type
>of creation, be it by natural or anatural events, it does not imply the
>standard young Earth special creation favored by Bible fundamentalists.
>Creationism has almost exclusively been used to describe the young Earth
>Bible interpretation.
>
You say "Not so!", but you fail to make your case. Other than "ID did
it" what else do ID proponents have to offer? Can you give one detail
that connects up to "ID did it"? Any details of how or when or
sequence? If not, then your "Not so!" is false.
>Second, there are those scientists such as Behe who do explain their
>point of view from a scienctific standpoint rather than parrot "godidit."
>While I personally may not agree with Behe's criticisms of evolution
>I do note that he has in fact put in more details than did Richard Dawkins
>did in his descriptions of how life began. in his book _The Selfish Gene_
>
And I do note that Dawkins has published his material on the topic in
the peer-reviewed press.
B
says...
>
>postm...@hoxnet.com (Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr.) wrote:
>
>>There is at least evidense of "evolution did it." Why doesn't God
>>provide any? According to his book, he had no qualms about it in the
>>past.
>
>Ahhhh yessss, the old "why doesn't God march to the beat of my drum."
>
Because god's a white guy and everyone knows white guys have no rhythm.
--
BJM #1519
Al Klein
<rd...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Al Klein <nxy...@ivyyntrarg.pbz> wrote in message
> news:38155cd1....@newshost.li.net...
> > On Mon, 6 Sep 1999 23:47:34 -0400, "R.D. Heilman"
> > <rd...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > > news:37d1b184....@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
> > > When all around us change has occured, yet the DNA code has remained
> > > virtually unchanged from the beginning of life is itself remarkable.
> > Remarkable? Since all life evolves from previous live USING DNA as
> > the basis upon which to evolve, it would be truly remarkable if we
> > discovered non-DNA-based life on this planet.
> Who said _anything_ about a non-DNA based life? Certainly not I. However,
> retroviruses have no DNA!
They have RNA. And are viruses alive?
> > > > No, they don't. Mitochondria, for example, use a slight variation of
> > > > the code.
> > > Mitochondria is not a separate self-reproducing organism.
> > It was, at one time.
> This is speculation, first advanced a century ago and most
> reciently championed by Lynn Margulis. But the evidence
> is purely subjective.
The evidence is purely inconclusive.
> > > Why should a rational, intelligent designer been so capricious as to employ
> > > a hoge-poge of radically different codes for different living systems.
> > Why should a rational, intelligent designer not use an opposed
> > gasoline engine for motive power?
> This does not relate to anything I wrote!
It's a paraphrase of what you wrote.
> Besides,
> answering a question with a question is an evasion!
Answering a question with a paraphrase of it, to show how ridiculous
it is, is a normal method of discussion.
> > > Had this had been this been the case, I would have believed it was random,
> > > unplanned and "just happened".
> > Since life with different coding systems couldn't react chemically, it
> > would almost be an argument for design.
> And if it had turned out to be thousands of coding systems, then the fact
> would have been seen as evidence for multiple examples of abiogenesis,
> rather than one.
Just as is the current situation seen as multiple instances of special
creation.
> This is one of the remarkable things about evolution it
> is so plastic it can account for anything.
So is the bible. How did whales survive in a fresh-water ocean for a
year? Goddidit. How did any totally impossible thing happen?
Goddidit.
William
>There is virtually nothing in the Bible concerning Creation. Only one
>or two short chapters in the Jewish Torah. However, the Old Testiment
>is NOT binding upon the Christian. And since there is nothing in the
>Christian New Testiment concerning origins, one can only conclude
>that as far as the writers of the New Testiment were concerned, this
>was something they did not feel the necessity to deal with. Obviously
>the matter of origins was of no real importance. It would seem they left
>the matter open.
I think christians have a real problem here. There may not be much in
the NT about creation, but there is plenty to support the Genesis
account of the first man Adam. Those who think they have 'got off the
hook' by throwing out the OT and claiming they only take their
authority from the NT have the problem that the gospel genealogies
firmly endorse the approximate 4000 year span from the first human to
Jesus.
Paul clearly believed this with 1 Cor 15:45 "Thus it is written, "The
first man Adam became a living being"; and in 1 Tim 2:13 "For Adam
was formed first, then Eve;".
Jude writes in Jude 1:14 "It was of these also that Enoch in the
seventh generation from Adam prophesied, . ."
I'd be interested to hear any sensible christian comments on how this
NT view can be reconciled with the overwhelming scientific evidence
for a human ancestry of many millions of years.
William
Al Klein
<b...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr. <postm...@hoxnet.com> wrote in message
> news:slrn7tg56o.6...@oig082.godfrey...
> > In article <%ZFB3.903$eW4....@news2.mia>, Ben Washington wrote:
> > >Why do people keep parroting the same old time worn phrases! Where
> > >is the origional thinking?
> > Where is the original thinking in attributing a "goddidit" to anything
> > you don't understand or don't feel like looking into?
> I have looked into it! I have changed my position a couple of times.
From "it just happened" to "it was a miracle" to "goddidit"?
> There is virtually nothing in the Bible concerning Creation. Only one
> or two short chapters in the Jewish Torah. However, the Old Testiment
> is NOT binding upon the Christian. And since there is nothing in the
> Christian New Testiment concerning origins, one can only conclude
> that as far as the writers of the New Testiment were concerned, this
> was something they did not feel the necessity to deal with. Obviously
> the matter of origins was of no real importance. It would seem they left
> the matter open.
There is virtually nothing in the NT referring to anything that was in
the OT. It would seem that Jesus, being Jewish, assumed the entire
OT, just as any Jew would.
Ben Washington
William <ta...@mail.clara.net> wrote in message
news:37d9a1fc...@news.clara.net...
> "Ben Washington" <b...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >There is virtually nothing in the Bible concerning Creation. Only one
> >or two short chapters in the Jewish Torah. However, the Old Testiment
> >is NOT binding upon the Christian. And since there is nothing in the
> >Christian New Testiment concerning origins, one can only conclude
> >that as far as the writers of the New Testiment were concerned, this
> >was something they did not feel the necessity to deal with. Obviously
> >the matter of origins was of no real importance. It would seem they left
> >the matter open.
>
> the NT about creation, but there is plenty to support the Genesis
> account of the first man Adam. Those who think they have 'got off the
> hook' by throwing out the OT and claiming they only take their
> authority from the NT have the problem that the gospel genealogies
> firmly endorse the approximate 4000 year span from the first human to
> Jesus.
> Paul clearly believed this with 1 Cor 15:45 "Thus it is written, "The
> first man Adam became a living being"; and in 1 Tim 2:13 "For Adam
> was formed first, then Eve;".
> Jude writes in Jude 1:14 "It was of these also that Enoch in the
> seventh generation from Adam prophesied, . ."
>
> I'd be interested to hear any sensible christian comments on how this
> NT view can be reconciled with the overwhelming scientific evidence
> for a human ancestry of many millions of years.
>
anyone
change his mind - once it is made up.
>
> William
David B. Greene
>da...@u.washington.edu (David B. Greene):
>>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Why do people keep parroting the same old time worn phrases! Where
>>>>is the origional thinking?
>>>>>
>>>>scenero. What is the difference? What has happened is that "mutation
>>>>and natural selection" takes on godlike attributes of being omnipotent,
>>>>omnipresent and in fact, Evolution replaces God and thus becomes
>>>>the new creator god.
>>>
>>>You want more detail than "evolution did it"? Read the FAQs at
>>>www.talkorigins.org. Read a biology textbook. Take an appropriate
>>>biology course. Read the primary literature. There is plenty of
>>>detailed evidence backed descriptions and explanations out there. OTOH
>>>in the entire intelligent design movement and the entire creationist
>>>movement the most detailed statement available is "ID did it" or "God
>>>did it". That is it. No details of how or when or what sequence of
>>>events. Just "God did it". Why? "Because".
>>
>>Not so! First off let me state that "intelligent design" and "creationist"
>>are not synonymous terms. While intelligent design does imply some type
>>of creation, be it by natural or anatural events, it does not imply the
>>standard young Earth special creation favored by Bible fundamentalists.
>>Creationism has almost exclusively been used to describe the young Earth
>>Bible interpretation.
>>
>You say "Not so!", but you fail to make your case. Other than "ID did
>it" what else do ID proponents have to offer? Can you give one detail
>that connects up to "ID did it"? Any details of how or when or
>sequence? If not, then your "Not so!" is false.
Again, not so! Even if I cannot make a direct connection to a creator
God that does not mean that I'm in any worse position than those who
deny His involvement yet have not made the link between abiogenesis
life. And we all have the same evidence which is open to all reasonable
interpretations. There is at least one "ID" proponent who postulates
the problem of overcoming irreducible complexity without ID which is
an offering far beyond a mere "ID did it."
I postulate ID did it with DNA so even I have fulfilled your challenge.
You might rebut by saying that while I propose ID did it with DNA I
haven't made the connection between the two but my response would be
that you have not disconnected ID from the DNA either so we sit opposed
with equally valid assumptions.
>>Second, there are those scientists such as Behe who do explain their
>>point of view from a scienctific standpoint rather than parrot "godidit."
>>While I personally may not agree with Behe's criticisms of evolution
>>I do note that he has in fact put in more details than did Richard Dawkins
>>did in his descriptions of how life began. in his book _The Selfish Gene_
>>
>And I do note that Dawkins has published his material on the topic in
>the peer-reviewed press.
Maybe, I've asked for cites in another thread and none were forthcoming.
He may have posted some of his stuff in peer-reviewed literature but a
lot of what I read in _The Selfish Gene_ went straight to the public
first I'll bet. Dawkins lists 13 cites of his own material in the 1989
edition and only four of them are journals (one is about philosophy).
The threee scientific ones appear only to cover a small bit of what
he presents in the book so I don't think it has a strong undergirding
of peer-reviewed science. I note that Behe has also published peer
reviewed science too. Can you show me any peer reviewed material by
Dawkins that support the major broad themes he advances in his book
_The Selfish Gene_?
Dave Greene
David B. Greene
I think this can be answered on several levels. First the Bible is
metaphorically correct in that all humans alive today descended from
one human male in the distant past. There were other males at the
time but their lines have died out. In examining the Y chromosome
which is passed only from father to son science has traced us back
to our common father who has been called "the Y chromosome Adam."
Second, the 4000 year geneology in the New Testament is in question
because comparing it with that in the Old Testament reveals gaps in
the geneologies so it may have been other than 4000 years. Also the
record in Genesis seems to indicate by any fair interpretation that
the original Earth far outdated the creation of man.
Finally, Paul (and Jesus too) use Adam as a type rather than as
a historical reference. Adam departed from a relationship of life
with the Father to a relationship of rules and regulations when
he shunned the Tree of Life to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge
of Good and Evil and we have been suffering under an onerous
burden of slavery to performance ever since.
Dave Greene
David B. Greene
What makes you think whales cannot survive in fresh water, they do it
often enough nowadays as they have been known to swim far up river?
What makes you think the Bible postulates a fresh water ocean anyway?
Dave Greene
William
>William <ta...@mail.clara.net> wrote in message
[snip]
>> I'd be interested to hear any sensible christian comments on how this
>> NT view can be reconciled with the overwhelming scientific evidence
>> for a human ancestry of many millions of years.
>>
>Frankly William, I don't think it is worth the effort! I have yet to see
>anyone change his mind - once it is made up.
I couldn't decide what you meant by 'his mind'; were you referring to
someone I was relying to before you, or to me, or to christians who
believe the NT isn't hampered by the Adam story in the OT?
In the context I'll assume you were referring to christians who
believe the NT isn't hampered by the Adam story in the OT. Well, it
probably is worth the effort; sensible people will always consider
other view points even when their mind is made up.
William
Ben Washington
> "Ben Washington" <b...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >William <ta...@mail.clara.net> wrote in message
>
> [snip]
>
> >> I'd be interested to hear any sensible christian comments on how this
> >> NT view can be reconciled with the overwhelming scientific evidence
> >> for a human ancestry of many millions of years.
> >>
> >Frankly William, I don't think it is worth the effort! I have yet to see
> >anyone change his mind - once it is made up.
>
> I couldn't decide what you meant by 'his mind'; were you referring to
> someone I was relying to before you, or to me, or to christians who
> believe the NT isn't hampered by the Adam story in the OT?
>
For years I have watched *crossfire*, *point and counter point*
etc. I have yet to see anyone acknowledge his opponent was right
and he was wrong. In religious discussions I have seen Mormans
Jehova Witnesses come and go. Eventhough I will always hear
them out, I never changed my mind nor did I change anyone else's
mind. They invariably think I am closed minded and biased against
them. In the evolution / creation debate I see the same problem
on both sides of the issue. Often what one sees that when a good
point is made what happens is skipped over and another lesser
point is attacked.
William
>ta...@mail.clara.net (William) wrote:
>> "Ben Washington" <b...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>There is virtually nothing in the Bible concerning Creation. Only one
>>>or two short chapters in the Jewish Torah. However, the Old Testiment
>>>is NOT binding upon the Christian. And since there is nothing in the
>>>Christian New Testiment concerning origins, one can only conclude
>>>that as far as the writers of the New Testiment were concerned, this
>>>was something they did not feel the necessity to deal with. Obviously
>>>the matter of origins was of no real importance. It would seem they left
>>>the matter open.
>>
>>I think christians have a real problem here. There may not be much in
>>the NT about creation, but there is plenty to support the Genesis
>>account of the first man Adam. Those who think they have 'got off the
>>hook' by throwing out the OT and claiming they only take their
>>authority from the NT have the problem that the gospel genealogies
>>firmly endorse the approximate 4000 year span from the first human to
>>Jesus.
>>
>>Paul clearly believed this with 1 Cor 15:45 "Thus it is written, "The
>>first man Adam became a living being"; and in 1 Tim 2:13 "For Adam
>>was formed first, then Eve;".
>>Jude writes in Jude 1:14 "It was of these also that Enoch in the
>>seventh generation from Adam prophesied, . ."
>>
>>I'd be interested to hear any sensible christian comments on how this
>>NT view can be reconciled with the overwhelming scientific evidence
>>for a human ancestry of many millions of years.
>
>I think this can be answered on several levels.
Thanks for this response, which I think is in the category of sensible
comment. I put this as a serious question because I believe it is a
crucial one which christians tend to scoot around.
>First the Bible is
>metaphorically correct in that all humans alive today descended from
>one human male in the distant past. There were other males at the
>time but their lines have died out. In examining the Y chromosome
>which is passed only from father to son science has traced us back
>to our common father who has been called "the Y chromosome Adam."
>
>Second, the 4000 year geneology in the New Testament is in question
>because comparing it with that in the Old Testament reveals gaps in
>the geneologies so it may have been other than 4000 years.
I didn't know that. But if these occurred in the line from Abraham to
Christ then it seems to raise even more questions about the basis for
NT authority. The writer of Matthew specifically stated that there
were 42 generations from Abraham to Christ (Matt 1:17)
However, assuming the only room for gaps to be from Adam to Abraham
which (according to Luke) was no more than 20 generations, I wouldn't
have thought there was much chance of getting far beyond 4000 years
from this (bearing in mind that the generation spans would have been
more dependent on the child bearing age of the women than the actual
lifespans).
>Also the
>record in Genesis seems to indicate by any fair interpretation that
>the original Earth far outdated the creation of man.
Ex 20:11 "for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and
all that is in them" seems to pretty categorically place the making of
the earth in the six day period. And since the sun, moon and stars
were made on day 4, there doesn't seem much room for having the earth
around for long without them.
>Finally, Paul (and Jesus too) use Adam as a type rather than as
>a historical reference.
I just don't see Paul's quotes above (a living being etc) as referring
to a 'type'. If you have some evidence that this was his meaning then
I would be interested to see it.
>Adam departed from a relationship of life
>with the Father to a relationship of rules and regulations when
>he shunned the Tree of Life to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge
>of Good and Evil and we have been suffering under an onerous
>burden of slavery to performance ever since.
Adam (and Eve) had no knowledge of good and evil before they made
their choice. How could such innocents perform an act that justified
such indescribable horrors (diseases, congenital defects, natural
disastors) which plague our world? But this is off the point.
It seems to me that the NT still clearly endorse the timescale from
Adam to Christ (give or take a gap or two). And unless we do a hatchet
job on the words 'day' and 'made' we have the earth being made a short
time before Adam. This must surely present a problem for those who
acknowledge the scientific timescales for human (and cosmic) history
and who, at the same time, wish to claim a reliable authority for the
NT?
William
Al Klein
Greene) wrote:
> nxy...@ivyyntrarg.pbz (Al Klein) wrote:
> >On Wed, 8 Sep 1999 15:37:19 -0400, "R.D. Heilman"
> ><rd...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> This is one of the remarkable things about evolution it
> >> is so plastic it can account for anything.
> >So is the bible. How did whales survive in a fresh-water ocean for a
> >year? Goddidit. How did any totally impossible thing happen?
> >Goddidit.
> What makes you think whales cannot survive in fresh water, they do it
> often enough nowadays as they have been known to swim far up river?
And stay there for a year?
No whale has been known to survive for a year in fresh water and, in
fact, it is known that they can't.
> What makes you think the Bible postulates a fresh water ocean anyway?
OK, where did the salt-water rain come from, and how did all the
fresh-water fish survive in the salt water for a year?
Or did god magic it so that only fresh water fell on the land, while
salt rain fell on the oceans?
Warren
He has performed larger merciless than that before!
Al Klein
Greene) wrote:
> Finally, Paul (and Jesus too) use Adam as a type rather than as
> a historical reference.
Since they spoke Hebrew, why is that surprising? They knew what the
word means.
David B. Greene
The NT teaches that Jesus is an experiential reality and that He is the
authority for the scriptures.
>However, assuming the only room for gaps to be from Adam to Abraham
>which (according to Luke) was no more than 20 generations, I wouldn't
>have thought there was much chance of getting far beyond 4000 years
>from this (bearing in mind that the generation spans would have been
>more dependent on the child bearing age of the women than the actual
>lifespans).
If one does go by the geneology in Genesis and assumes no gaps then
Noah, in his old age, becomes a contemporary of Abraham. I don't
think such is the case.
>>Also the
>>record in Genesis seems to indicate by any fair interpretation that
>>the original Earth far outdated the creation of man.
>
>Ex 20:11 "for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and
>all that is in them" seems to pretty categorically place the making of
>the earth in the six day period. And since the sun, moon and stars
>were made on day 4, there doesn't seem much room for having the earth
>around for long without them.
Well if the sun was created on day four then how could the prior three
days have been 24 hour days. In the KJV Genesis 2:4 calls these days
the "generations" of creation instead and thus implies they were not
24 hour days.
>>Finally, Paul (and Jesus too) use Adam as a type rather than as
>>a historical reference.
>
>I just don't see Paul's quotes above (a living being etc) as referring
>to a 'type'. If you have some evidence that this was his meaning then
>I would be interested to see it.
In Roman's 5:14 Paul indicates that Adam is a pattern of the one to come.
Through Adam death came to man but through Christ life came to man.
>>Adam departed from a relationship of life
>>with the Father to a relationship of rules and regulations when
>>he shunned the Tree of Life to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge
>>of Good and Evil and we have been suffering under an onerous
>>burden of slavery to performance ever since.
>
>Adam (and Eve) had no knowledge of good and evil before they made
>their choice. How could such innocents perform an act that justified
>such indescribable horrors (diseases, congenital defects, natural
>disastors) which plague our world?
Innocents sometimes fall off cliffs too - their innocence does not
suspend the law of gravity. But look at it this way - the eating
of the forbidden fruit was not a sin against a moral code (as they
had no knowledge of good and evil yet) but was instead a sin against
a relationship. Most of us understand the betrayal of relationship
and the estrangement it causes.
> It seems to me that the NT still clearly endorse the timescale from
>Adam to Christ (give or take a gap or two). And unless we do a hatchet
>job on the words 'day' and 'made' we have the earth being made a short
>time before Adam. This must surely present a problem for those who
>acknowledge the scientific timescales for human (and cosmic) history
>and who, at the same time, wish to claim a reliable authority for the
>NT?
I think no hatchet job is required. Day does not always refer to a
24 hour period of time in Hebrew anyway. Genesis says that Earth
was created and it was without form and void. I don't think God
would create a chaotic world so it seems something must have happened
between creation of the earth and the Garden of Eden. Jesus taught
that there was war in the heavens and now today we know that asteroids
have his the earth in the past with destructive results. Much of the
story in Genesis seems to me to be one of restoration.
Dave Greene
Ben F. Washington
David B. Greene <da...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:37def155...@news.u.washington.edu...
> ta...@mail.clara.net (William) wrote:
> > da...@u.washington.edu (David B. Greene) wrote:
> >>ta...@mail.clara.net (William) wrote:
> >>> "Ben Washington" <b...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net> wrote:
As a fellow Christian, Dave Greene, do you agree with my position that
the Christian is under the New Covenant which is the covenant of Grace
contained in the New Testament? Consequently he or she is _not_ bound
by the Old Covenant which is the covenant of the Law which is contained
in the Old Testament?
Ben F. Washington
William
>ta...@mail.clara.net (William) wrote:
>>I didn't know that. But if these occurred in the line from Abraham to
>>Christ then it seems to raise even more questions about the basis for
>>NT authority. The writer of Matthew specifically stated that there
>>were 42 generations from Abraham to Christ (Matt 1:17)
>
>The NT teaches that Jesus is an experiential reality and that He is the
>authority for the scriptures.
You've missed the point Dave. If the NT writers got it wrong for
something as ordinary and fundamental as a genealogy then on what
grounds are you claiming they got it right on extraordinary things
like it's supernatural claims?
'Experiential reality' usually means subjective belief - which you
know as well as I do is notoriously unreliable (just look at some of
the cults who's experiential reality leads them to believe all kinds
of quirky and dangerous things). Is this where christian authority
now lies?
>>However, assuming the only room for gaps to be from Adam to Abraham
>>which (according to Luke) was no more than 20 generations, I wouldn't
>>have thought there was much chance of getting far beyond 4000 years
>>from this (bearing in mind that the generation spans would have been
>>more dependent on the child bearing age of the women than the actual
>>lifespans).
>
>If one does go by the geneology in Genesis and assumes no gaps then
>Noah, in his old age, becomes a contemporary of Abraham. I don't
>think such is the case.
We were talking about the genealogy in Matthew, but it still applies
to Genesis. If you are saying the writers got something as ordinary
as this wrong, then my question is a very valid one.
>>>Also the
>>>record in Genesis seems to indicate by any fair interpretation that
>>>the original Earth far outdated the creation of man.
>>
>>Ex 20:11 "for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and
>>all that is in them" seems to pretty categorically place the making of
>>the earth in the six day period. And since the sun, moon and stars
>>were made on day 4, there doesn't seem much room for having the earth
>>around for long without them.
>
>Well if the sun was created on day four then how could the prior three
>days have been 24 hour days.
Just pointing out the anomaly doesn't actually answer the question,
which was, if the writers were wrong about ordinary, naturally
observable things, on what basis do you claim authority for
extraordinary supernatural claims?
>In the KJV Genesis 2:4 calls these days
>the "generations" of creation instead and thus implies they were not
>24 hour days.
Genesis 1 clearly implies they were 24 hour days (morning and evening
etc) and so does the context (no serious translator has even tried to
use words to imply anything different). However, you rather make the
problem worse by implying long periods between the creation days,
since the sequence of earth, then plants and trees and then the sun,
moon and stars, becomes more than just a serious problem.
>>>Finally, Paul (and Jesus too) use Adam as a type rather than as
>>>a historical reference.
>>
>>I just don't see Paul's quotes above (a living being etc) as referring
>>to a 'type'. If you have some evidence that this was his meaning then
>>I would be interested to see it.
>
>In Roman's 5:14 Paul indicates that Adam is a pattern of the one to come.
>Through Adam death came to man but through Christ life came to man.
I don't see how that implies that Paul didn't believe that Adam was a
real historical person. He uses the same word for Adam's 'pattern' as
he does for himself and other real people (Philipians 3:7, 2Thess 3:9
and many others).
>>>Adam departed from a relationship of life
>>>with the Father to a relationship of rules and regulations when
>>>he shunned the Tree of Life to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge
>>>of Good and Evil and we have been suffering under an onerous
>>>burden of slavery to performance ever since.
>>
>>Adam (and Eve) had no knowledge of good and evil before they made
>>their choice. How could such innocents perform an act that justified
>>such indescribable horrors (diseases, congenital defects, natural
>>disastors) which plague our world?
>
>Innocents sometimes fall off cliffs too - their innocence does not
>suspend the law of gravity.
We are not talking about accidents. We are talking about moral
culpability and accountability. Its more like throwing a child off a
cliff because it messed the carpet and when it had no knowledge of
the rights and wrongs of doing so.
>But look at it this way - the eating
>of the forbidden fruit was not a sin against a moral code (as they
>had no knowledge of good and evil yet) but was instead a sin against
>a relationship.
You are saying that someone can 'sin' without knowing right from
wrong?
>Most of us understand the betrayal of relationship
>and the estrangement it causes.
Betrayal means someone is morally accountable; someone who knows that
loyalty is a good and that betrayal is (or can be) evil.
If someone betrays someone in innocence then how are they morally
accountable? On what basis is horrendous punishment heaped on them
and their descendents?
>> It seems to me that the NT still clearly endorse the timescale from
>>Adam to Christ (give or take a gap or two). And unless we do a hatchet
>>job on the words 'day' and 'made' we have the earth being made a short
>>time before Adam. This must surely present a problem for those who
>>acknowledge the scientific timescales for human (and cosmic) history
>>and who, at the same time, wish to claim a reliable authority for the
>>NT?
>
>I think no hatchet job is required. Day does not always refer to a
>24 hour period of time in Hebrew anyway.
It seems clear that it refers to a day in much the same way that other
languages - including English - do. It can mean a period in the sense
of "in my father's day" and for a 24 hour day in the sense of "on the
first day of his holiday my father went to Italy". We have
absolututely no problem expressing or understanding the context. An
omniscient inspirer would also have no problem; and the context of
'day' in Genesis 1 is clearly understood to be a 24 hour day. And
therein lies the problem.
>Genesis says that Earth
>was created and it was without form and void. I don't think God
>would create a chaotic world so it seems something must have happened
>between creation of the earth and the Garden of Eden.
I'm afraid your "not thinking God would . ." doesn't really help to
solve the anomoly.
>Jesus taught
>that there was war in the heavens and now today we know that asteroids
>have his the earth in the past with destructive results. Much of the
>story in Genesis seems to me to be one of restoration.
I can't see what point you are making with that.
William
Al Klein
<d...@HATESPAMshelbynet.net> wrote:
> Al Klein <nxy...@ivyyntrarg.pbz> wrote in message
> news:37ea908e...@newshost.li.net...
> | On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 03:41:00 GMT, da...@u.washington.edu (David B.
> | Greene) wrote:
> | > nxy...@ivyyntrarg.pbz (Al Klein) wrote:
> | > >On Wed, 8 Sep 1999 15:37:19 -0400, "R.D. Heilman"
> | > ><rd...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net> wrote:
> | OK, where did the salt-water rain come from, and how did all the
> | fresh-water fish survive in the salt water for a year?
> | Or did god magic it so that only fresh water fell on the land, while
> | salt rain fell on the oceans?
> He has performed larger merciless than that before!
With all that waving, it's a miracle that your hand doesn't fall off.
Matt Silberstein
<d...@HATESPAMshelbynet.net>:
>Al Klein <nxy...@ivyyntrarg.pbz> wrote in message
>news:37ea908e...@newshost.li.net...
>| On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 03:41:00 GMT, da...@u.washington.edu (David B.
>| Greene) wrote:
>|
>| > nxy...@ivyyntrarg.pbz (Al Klein) wrote:
>| > >On Wed, 8 Sep 1999 15:37:19 -0400, "R.D. Heilman"
>| > ><rd...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>|
>|
>| OK, where did the salt-water rain come from, and how did all the
>| fresh-water fish survive in the salt water for a year?
>|
>| Or did god magic it so that only fresh water fell on the land, while
>| salt rain fell on the oceans?
>| --
>
>
>He has performed larger merciless than that before!
>
Is that a typo or a joke? If a joke, it is rather funny.
Matt Silberstein
David, I see no reason to change the subject here. I have not either
denied nor affirmed God's involvement in history. Nor is that the
subject at hand. The question was whether ID proponents have anything
to offer other than "ID did it". You claim they do, but you have yet
to tell us what they have. Any issue of the Journal of Evolutionary
Biology will give you lots if detailed explanations, far more than
"Evolution did it". So what do we have from the ID proponents other
than "ID did it"?
> And we all have the same evidence which is open to all reasonable
>interpretations. There is at least one "ID" proponent who postulates
>the problem of overcoming irreducible complexity without ID which is
>an offering far beyond a mere "ID did it."
>
No, Behe does not have anything else to offer. He proposes (weakly
IMO) that some systems cannot have been formed via evolution. Let us,
for this discussion, accept that those (and a myriad others) did not
form via evolution. That does not say anything about Intelligent
Design. So what does Behe (or anyone else) have to say *for* design
other than "ID did it". Attacking evolution does not do it, finding
some currently not understood phenomena does not do it. I want an
explanation from the ID people.
>I postulate ID did it with DNA so even I have fulfilled your challenge.
Huh? The ID did it with DNA. What in the world does that mean?
>You might rebut by saying that while I propose ID did it with DNA I
>haven't made the connection between the two but my response would be
>that you have not disconnected ID from the DNA either so we sit opposed
>with equally valid assumptions.
>
Sorry, but you don't get that privilege: you have to make a case for
you side, you can't assert equality. Where at the details? What did
the ID do (not what result do we end up with)? When? How? What tools
were used?
>>>Second, there are those scientists such as Behe who do explain their
>>>point of view from a scienctific standpoint rather than parrot "godidit."
>>>While I personally may not agree with Behe's criticisms of evolution
>>>I do note that he has in fact put in more details than did Richard Dawkins
>>>did in his descriptions of how life began. in his book _The Selfish Gene_
>>>
>>And I do note that Dawkins has published his material on the topic in
>>the peer-reviewed press.
>
>Maybe, I've asked for cites in another thread and none were forthcoming.
Have you made any attempt to find them. I have not, but I have not
made any claim on it either.
>He may have posted some of his stuff in peer-reviewed literature but a
>lot of what I read in _The Selfish Gene_ went straight to the public
>first I'll bet.
Have you attempted to find out the information? Why not check up on
your prediction and see if it was correct. And tell us how long it was
from pop publication to peer-reviewed. (BTW, there is a long delay in
the peer-review press.)
> Dawkins lists 13 cites of his own material in the 1989
>edition and only four of them are journals (one is about philosophy).
Ah, so he did publish in the scientific press and it was before he
wrote the book. Thanks.
>The threee scientific ones appear only to cover a small bit of what
>he presents in the book so I don't think it has a strong undergirding
>of peer-reviewed science. I note that Behe has also published peer
>reviewed science too.
On the topic at hand?
> Can you show me any peer reviewed material by
>Dawkins that support the major broad themes he advances in his book
>_The Selfish Gene_?
>
No. Not that I consider most of the topics in Selfish Gene to be
science. They are interesting speculation, not science. Behe, OTOH,
thinks he has one of the best ideas since Newton. He does claim his
ideas are science and overthrow accepted science, so I would expect to
see the work in a scientific journal.
David B. Greene
I'm not changing the subject but drawing a parallelism. Science has
not delinked us from the possibility of an Intelligent Designer just
as it has not linked us to one either. To insist that an ID proponent
is required to prove it while the no-ID proponents get off the hook
is a double standard. What is shown in the JEB works as well for ID
as it does for the absence of ID. You have yet to show me that the
obsevations we have made with regard to science are owned by the no
ID crowd.
For my part I merely observe that every experiment we have ever made
into abiogenesis has required intelligence as a prime ingredient. I
do not deny the possibility that it could have occured without ID but
so far this has not been demonstrated. So, at this time, it seems to
me that the ID scenario is more likely based upon the experiments we
have done.
>> And we all have the same evidence which is open to all reasonable
>>interpretations. There is at least one "ID" proponent who postulates
>>the problem of overcoming irreducible complexity without ID which is
>>an offering far beyond a mere "ID did it."
>>
>No, Behe does not have anything else to offer. He proposes (weakly
>IMO) that some systems cannot have been formed via evolution. Let us,
>for this discussion, accept that those (and a myriad others) did not
>form via evolution. That does not say anything about Intelligent
>Design. So what does Behe (or anyone else) have to say *for* design
>other than "ID did it". Attacking evolution does not do it, finding
>some currently not understood phenomena does not do it. I want an
>explanation from the ID people.
As a rhetorical tool the argument that one has no right to criticise
something unless one has something better to offer in its place is
often advanced - particularly in politics, socilogy and other aspects
of public life. This argument, however, holds no sway in science.
Any scientific theory must stand on its own and it is more than fair
advance criticism without having to offer an alternative. Ergo,
Behe's observations (which should not be called attacks) need to
be answered. So far they have not been answered with much except
faith assumptions - ie "evolution could do it." The demands to
show "ID did it" are congruent to the converse demand to show the
working precursor to the Irreducibly Complex machine.
IC arguments are not new - they have often been advanced on the
physiological level i.e. "what good is half a wing." In the main
I think these arguments have been fairly well answered, particularly
by the "new uses for existing organs" argument. There are many
examples where multiple functions are performed by an organ or
external body part. But Behe is working at the biochemical level
and I would like to see some actual counter examples in nature
to his claims rather than some stale me too arguments handed
down from other domains of evolutionary biology.
>>I postulate ID did it with DNA so even I have fulfilled your challenge.
>
>Huh? The ID did it with DNA. What in the world does that mean?
He created a universe where on our world descent with modification could
occur with DNA as the basis for replication.
>>You might rebut by saying that while I propose ID did it with DNA I
>>haven't made the connection between the two but my response would be
>>that you have not disconnected ID from the DNA either so we sit opposed
>>with equally valid assumptions.
>>
>Sorry, but you don't get that privilege: you have to make a case for
>you side, you can't assert equality. Where at the details? What did
>the ID do (not what result do we end up with)? When? How? What tools
>were used?
Sure I can assert that privledge, I draw on the same data as the other
side. They add faith assumptions beyond our shared data and then have
a cow when the opposition does the same. There is no reason, for example,
to conceed the tool of natural selection to the no-ID side.
>>>>Second, there are those scientists such as Behe who do explain their
>>>>point of view from a scienctific standpoint rather than parrot "godidit."
>>>>While I personally may not agree with Behe's criticisms of evolution
>>>>I do note that he has in fact put in more details than did Richard Dawkins
>>>>did in his descriptions of how life began. in his book _The Selfish Gene_
>>>>
>>>And I do note that Dawkins has published his material on the topic in
>>>the peer-reviewed press.
>>
>>Maybe, I've asked for cites in another thread and none were forthcoming.
>
>Have you made any attempt to find them. I have not, but I have not
>made any claim on it either.
Yes, I think they would have been prominately featured as references in his
book. Even if it took some time for them to wade through the peer review
process they should have hit the second edition which was 13 years after
the first.
>>He may have posted some of his stuff in peer-reviewed literature but a
>>lot of what I read in _The Selfish Gene_ went straight to the public
>>first I'll bet.
>
>Have you attempted to find out the information? Why not check up on
>your prediction and see if it was correct. And tell us how long it was
>from pop publication to peer-reviewed. (BTW, there is a long delay in
>the peer-review press.)
Not 13 years. If the peer review was in process when the first edition
came out in 1976 they should have made it into the greatly expanded and
revised second edition that was released in 1989.
>> Dawkins lists 13 cites of his own material in the 1989
>>edition and only four of them are journals (one is about philosophy).
>
>Ah, so he did publish in the scientific press and it was before he
>wrote the book. Thanks.
Perhaps you should read on before you comment. I think most people would
agree that the nature of the material he published was relevant. Of the
four journal articles only one was directly about the selfish gene and it
appeared in the journal _Philosophy_ so I doubt it had much significance
for biologists. The other three were about kin selection, mate desertion,
and arms races between species - peripheraly related minor points at best
for such an earth shaking major theory as he raised in his book.
>>The threee scientific ones appear only to cover a small bit of what
>>he presents in the book so I don't think it has a strong undergirding
>>of peer-reviewed science. I note that Behe has also published peer
>>reviewed science too.
>
>On the topic at hand?
Again, prallelism - both have published peer reviewed science but
seemingly little in direct support of their theories. What is fair
for one ought to be fair for both so I see double standards in play
by the critics of Behe. IMO both go beyond science to delve into
the interpretation of science and the meaning of life.
>> Can you show me any peer reviewed material by
>>Dawkins that support the major broad themes he advances in his book
>>_The Selfish Gene_?
>>
>No. Not that I consider most of the topics in Selfish Gene to be
>science. They are interesting speculation, not science. Behe, OTOH,
>thinks he has one of the best ideas since Newton. He does claim his
>ideas are science and overthrow accepted science, so I would expect to
>see the work in a scientific journal.
Nice dodge. That Behe has made scientific observations cannot be denied.
That Behe has raises issues which should be answered cannot be denied.
I just got the book from the library so I'll find out if he claims his
ideas are more than speculation as you say he does. OTOH Dawkins comes
out and boldly says that while his ideas were astonishing when he first
proposed them in 1976 they are today an orthodoxy no longer questioned
by any competent scientist. I would expect that level of hubris to be
backed by a greater body of literature than I am aware of.
Dave Greene
Matt Silberstein
That is not a parallel, that is a different subject. Again, the
question was what do the ID proponents have to offer other than "ID
did it". And to that question you have not offered an answer.
> To insist that an ID proponent
>is required to prove it while the no-ID proponents get off the hook
>is a double standard.
And that is a strawman. I am not asking for "proof", I am asking for
something with a bit more detail than "ID did it". And "it probably
did not evolve, so ID did it" does not fit the bit. I would like
something like "evidence shows that the ID from X did it with tool Y
around year Z".
> What is shown in the JEB works as well for ID
>as it does for the absence of ID. You have yet to show me that the
>obsevations we have made with regard to science are owned by the no
>ID crowd.
>
Huh?
>For my part I merely observe that every experiment we have ever made
>into abiogenesis has required intelligence as a prime ingredient.
Every experiment we have made into gravity has required intelligence
as a prime ingredient. You have yet to show (or even assert) a
difference between the two subjects.
> I
>do not deny the possibility that it could have occured without ID but
>so far this has not been demonstrated. So, at this time, it seems to
>me that the ID scenario is more likely based upon the experiments we
>have done.
>
Great. Now give me the next step. I accept (for the moment, for the
argument) that it (for whatever referent "it" you want) was designed.
Now tell me more. Can you tell me anything else other than "it was
designed"? Can you tell me who or what or when or how or why? I am not
asking for each last detail, I am asking for the smallest slightest
*evidence* backed detail. Do you have one?
>>> And we all have the same evidence which is open to all reasonable
>>>interpretations. There is at least one "ID" proponent who postulates
>>>the problem of overcoming irreducible complexity without ID which is
>>>an offering far beyond a mere "ID did it."
>>>
>>No, Behe does not have anything else to offer. He proposes (weakly
>>IMO) that some systems cannot have been formed via evolution. Let us,
>>for this discussion, accept that those (and a myriad others) did not
>>form via evolution. That does not say anything about Intelligent
>>Design. So what does Behe (or anyone else) have to say *for* design
>>other than "ID did it". Attacking evolution does not do it, finding
>>some currently not understood phenomena does not do it. I want an
>>explanation from the ID people.
>
>As a rhetorical tool the argument that one has no right to criticise
>something unless one has something better to offer in its place is
>often advanced - particularly in politics, socilogy and other aspects
>of public life. This argument, however, holds no sway in science.
Good, because I am not forwarding that argument. As you say below, the
arguments stand on their own. I am trying to find out what, other than
"ID did it" you have to offer. If your actual argument is not for ID,
but against evolution, then your strawman above would have some value.
But you have claimed to have an alternative and I would like to know
what your alternative consists of, other than "ID did it".
>Any scientific theory must stand on its own and it is more than fair
>advance criticism without having to offer an alternative.
Great, so give me the theory of Intelligent Design without resting on
an attack on evolution. I guess I underestimated you and you have more
than Behe. All he does is argue that system X probably did not evolve
so it must have been designed. But you now claim to have an
independent support for ID other than criticism of evolution.
> Ergo,
>Behe's observations (which should not be called attacks) need to
>be answered. So far they have not been answered with much except
>faith assumptions - ie "evolution could do it."
What other than faith does he give to the other side? Irreducible
Complexity does not imply, in any way, that something did not evolve.
And it certainly does not argue *for* design.
> The demands to
>show "ID did it" are congruent to the converse demand to show the
>working precursor to the Irreducibly Complex machine.
>
Which has been done. Remember, it does not have to have the same
function and it can have more parts or work in a different
environment.
>IC arguments are not new - they have often been advanced on the
>physiological level i.e. "what good is half a wing." In the main
>I think these arguments have been fairly well answered, particularly
>by the "new uses for existing organs" argument. There are many
>examples where multiple functions are performed by an organ or
>external body part. But Behe is working at the biochemical level
>and I would like to see some actual counter examples in nature
>to his claims rather than some stale me too arguments handed
>down from other domains of evolutionary biology.
>
Primarily because you do not have enough biochemistry to find the
alternatives. Nor do I. But the fact that the chemicals in question
tend to come in families (there are a bunch of different globins, for
example) and that there are differences in the chemicals in different
organisms all argues that IC system can evolve and can come from
different systems.
>>>I postulate ID did it with DNA so even I have fulfilled your challenge.
>>
>>Huh? The ID did it with DNA. What in the world does that mean?
>
>He created a universe where on our world descent with modification could
>occur with DNA as the basis for replication.
>
This does not deal with any of Behe's arguments. In the end, all you
offer is Theistic Evolution, that God was involved. Fine. Nothing in
science argues against God's existence or actions. If it makes you
happier to say "and God did it" at the end of every chapter (or
paragraph) go ahead. Ockham's Razor snips it out, but that is just
because it is not necessary, not because it is not true.
[snip]
Matt Silberstein
>
>Ken Cox <k...@research.bell-labs.com> wrote in message
>news:37D7E4...@research.bell-labs.com...
>> Ben Washington wrote:
>> > To say that "evolution did it" merely replaces the "God did it"
>> > scenario. What is the difference? What has happened is that "mutation
>> > and natural selection" takes on godlike attributes of being omnipotent,
>> > omnipresent and in fact, Evolution replaces God and thus becomes
>> > the new creator god.
>>
>> Perhaps *you* think evolution has those attributes, but in reality
>> it doesn't. It must operate within the known laws of physics and
>> chemistry, especially as those are embodied in genetics, and is must
>> also agree with the historical evidence. It *can't* do absolutely
>> anything.
>>
>Be that as it may, previously the vast majority of people believed that
>God created life and all living organisms quite as they are found.
>Presently, a large number of people accept the scientific explanation
>that natural forces brought about life and the countless forms we find
>were brought about by mutation and natural selection. Therefore, the
>*role* God played in the past is presently being played by Evolution.
And the *role* God played in disease and weather is now played by
germs and heat conduction. Or, rather, these roles were always played
by these forces but now humans know about it.
>>
>> To drop back a couple of attributions, you said that evolution could
>> equally well explain thousands of different DNA coding systems. This
>> is not correct, because those systems are highly constrained by the
>> way genetics and cellular biochemistry operate, and by the historical
>> record and timescales obtainable from fossils.
>>
>This is true for all present living organisms, since they are utilize the
>same coding system, the same genetics and cellular biochemistry
>as you wrote, but if different coding systems had be found then there
>would also be different constraints for different living systems.
>>
>> If, for example, humans and chimpanzees had completely different DNA
>> coding systems, but everything else about them was the same as we
>> observe today, then we would have to say that evolution could not
>> explain the evidence. There just is no way to do a complete DNA code
>> replacement on something the size of a eukaryotic genome in the time
>> allowed by the fossil evidence, and particularly not while preserving
>> the great protein-sequence similarity between humans and chimps.
>>
>Not only do humans and Chimps have the same DNA coding system,
>so does ever other living organism. Only the difference is in the
>arrangement or the order of the bases (G, A, C, U, and T ). It would
>seem rational that where similar forms are required similar architecture
>and arrangement would be logical course to follow.
And yet Penguins, Sharks, and seal have similar morphological features
and very different internals.
>>
>> Contrast that with the "God did it" explanation. Can that explain
>> the current situation, where humans and chimps use the same code?
>> Yes. Could it also explain the above hypothetical, where humans and
>> chimps use completely different codes? Yes.
>>
>But why? This would be complete illogical and irrational.
Why would it be illogical for an omnipotent God to develop a tailored
set of mechanisms for each organism? How do you know what God would
find logical to do?
>>
>Could it explain a
>> hypothetical where all the current evidence for the recent common
>> ancestry of chimpanzees and humans -- the fossils, the DNA sequences,
>> the morphology, the protein comparisons -- all was *exactly* as it
>> is now, but the human biochemistry was "mirror-reversed" (using the
>> stereoisomers of all amino acids, nucleotides, etc.) from that of
>> every other animal on Earth? Yes. Is there anything at all that
>> it could not explain? No.
>>
>Still the question is, why would an intelligent and rational designer
>be so capricious?
Why not? Why would an omnipotent being be constrained by human
concepts of efficiency?
>>
>Why do you assume that a rational, intelligent, Creator would not be
>logical and rational in his design?
How is this way the most "logical and rational"? What is "logical and
rational" about using a wrist bone for a thumb (Panda) or using
homosexual rape for reproduction (fleas) or having the same basic
structure for giraffes and humans and whales?
>The point is most Christians in the
>past thought by studying the handiwork of God, they could learn
>something about the mind of God. If they had seen a hog pog of
>afro-engineered
Huh?
> schemes everywhere, then God would have come
>across as a capricious amateur. (I would like to be able to claim
>credit for this line of reasoning, but I read it on another post.)
>
We do see a hodge podge (was yours a misspelling or an alternative
phrase? I hope the latter, it is neat. And I don't know if my is spell
right either.) in biology. We see a bit of lip and a bit of nose
become a grasping tool. It is the contingent nature of biology that
leads us to the conclusion of evolution. Living things look like they
have changed over time rather than being designed all at once. Sure,
an omnipotent being could have done it this way or could have caused
all that change over time. If you are looking for the world to show
you God's mind, then it does. But do not confuse that with the world
implying that God did it.
David Jones
would have come across as a capricious amateur.'
That would be hodge-podge? Was your God not involved in Africa or does
careless abuse like 'afro-engineered' not count when you're totting up your
sins for the day.
The weird thing I see no Christian mentioning is this : why on earth would
you *want* to worship someone who was resposible for this mess?
Ben Washington <b...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Q6_B3.1288$mM.1...@news1.mia...
>
> Ken Cox <k...@research.bell-labs.com> wrote in message
> news:37D7E4...@research.bell-labs.com...
> > Ben Washington wrote:
> > > To say that "evolution did it" merely replaces the "God did it"
> > > scenario. What is the difference? What has happened is that "mutation
> > > and natural selection" takes on godlike attributes of being
omnipotent,
> > > omnipresent and in fact, Evolution replaces God and thus becomes
> > > the new creator god.
> >
> > Perhaps *you* think evolution has those attributes, but in reality
> > it doesn't. It must operate within the known laws of physics and
> > chemistry, especially as those are embodied in genetics, and is must
> > also agree with the historical evidence. It *can't* do absolutely
> > anything.
> >
> Be that as it may, previously the vast majority of people believed that
> God created life and all living organisms quite as they are found.
> Presently, a large number of people accept the scientific explanation
> that natural forces brought about life and the countless forms we find
> were brought about by mutation and natural selection. Therefore, the
> *role* God played in the past is presently being played by Evolution.
> >
> > To drop back a couple of attributions, you said that evolution could
> > equally well explain thousands of different DNA coding systems. This
> > is not correct, because those systems are highly constrained by the
> > way genetics and cellular biochemistry operate, and by the historical
> > record and timescales obtainable from fossils.
> >
> This is true for all present living organisms, since they are utilize the
> same coding system, the same genetics and cellular biochemistry
> as you wrote, but if different coding systems had be found then there
> would also be different constraints for different living systems.
> >
> > If, for example, humans and chimpanzees had completely different DNA
> > coding systems, but everything else about them was the same as we
> > observe today, then we would have to say that evolution could not
> > explain the evidence. There just is no way to do a complete DNA code
> > replacement on something the size of a eukaryotic genome in the time
> > allowed by the fossil evidence, and particularly not while preserving
> > the great protein-sequence similarity between humans and chimps.
> >
> Not only do humans and Chimps have the same DNA coding system,
> so does ever other living organism. Only the difference is in the
> arrangement or the order of the bases (G, A, C, U, and T ). It would
> seem rational that where similar forms are required similar architecture
> and arrangement would be logical course to follow.
> >
> > Contrast that with the "God did it" explanation. Can that explain
> > the current situation, where humans and chimps use the same code?
> > Yes. Could it also explain the above hypothetical, where humans and
> > chimps use completely different codes? Yes.
> >
> But why? This would be complete illogical and irrational.
> >
> Could it explain a
> > hypothetical where all the current evidence for the recent common
> > ancestry of chimpanzees and humans -- the fossils, the DNA sequences,
> > the morphology, the protein comparisons -- all was *exactly* as it
> > is now, but the human biochemistry was "mirror-reversed" (using the
> > stereoisomers of all amino acids, nucleotides, etc.) from that of
> > every other animal on Earth? Yes. Is there anything at all that
> > it could not explain? No.
> >
> Still the question is, why would an intelligent and rational designer
> be so capricious?
> >
> Why do you assume that a rational, intelligent, Creator would not be
> logical and rational in his design? The point is most Christians in the
> past thought by studying the handiwork of God, they could learn
> something about the mind of God. If they had seen a hog pog of
> afro-engineered schemes everywhere, then God would have come
> across as a capricious amateur. (I would like to be able to claim
> credit for this line of reasoning, but I read it on another post.)
>
> >
> > --
> > Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
>
>
>
>
David Jones
B <mcb...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:7rb29a$akc$4...@winter.news.rcn.net...
Therion Ware
<da...@amoeba.demon.co.uk> wrote in alt.atheism:
>That's true, he is white, I've seen the paintings of him.
IN fact, he's Japanese. Walk into any RC Church in Japan, and you can
see the statues for yourself.
- ----- ------
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
- attrib: Pauline Reage.
------ <http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/6671/entry/hell.html>
ICQ: 29168081
---
drop the "the.eac" for mail, because the EAC doesn't exist.
--
Video2CD? An inexpensive video To MPEG-1 conversion service!
Details? See <http://www.video2cd.co.uk>