« Making Sense of the Emerging/Emergent Church | Main | Darwin's Black Box »

August 28, 2009

Comments

Come on atheists, come defend, bail out, and save your hero Dawkins! Come on, I can't hear you!

I’m not buying this. It seems as if Dawkins is writing to a gullible first grade audience. I specifically like the ”magic of large numbers”, I can see the Count Von Count on Sesame Street taking us through this lesson.

I am not sure I follow. You seem to be saying that it is irrational to hypothesize that a process exists if you don't know how it started.

Consider the Fall. We know why it happened, but we don't know how it happened. Did God alter Adam's and Eve's chromosomes? Or did he anticipate the Fall and preprogrammed their genes? How was the fall of the rest of creation accomplished? Or was the Fall implemented through some process not involving genetics? Did the Fall also encompass the inanimate universe? Is the Fall a continuing process (as might be hypothesized from decreasing life spans through the generations from Adam)?

We have to address our fallenness without having to know all the details, or any details, about how it happened.

Melinda,

If you're going to use quotes...from Dawkins, then you should included...all of the words that surround the quote. Present all of the words found in the several pages...before...and...after...the quote, and then one can argue... about how "irrational" Dawkins may or may not be.

Where is it claimed in science, let alone in evolutionary theory, that something came from nothing?

What is the philosophical problem with life from non-life?

Why do we have to know how life started to be convinced that life evolves?

There was a time when there was no life on Earth. Just matter and energy. Now there is matter, energy, and life. That seems to suggest life came from non-life.

If you claim some supernatural being was somehow involved, show some evidence or drop the claim.

RonH

I think the problem is RonH, there is right now simply no conceivable way how life could come from non-life. Therefore, the evolution game doesn't in my opinion get started. Life has to be able to come from non-life in order to say naturalistic evolution is a possible explanation for life in this universe. I don't think it's enough to postulate that maybe one day science can explain this. I don't think it's enough to show that evolutionary theory gives a possible explanation for the subsequent development of life on earth (which it does). If evolution can't explain how life got started at all, why hold evolution as the answer?

...an admission from Richard Dawkins that evolutionists have no idea how consciousness came about from purely materialistic sources and forces.

If the first cell came from nowhere, consciousness, too, must've come from nowhere. Everything came from nowhere. Heh.

Anywho...

If ALL life started with one cell which, at the time, from its very beginning, worked perfectly with all the equipment needed to turn into roses, monkeys, bugs, us and swine flu, why doesn't human life begin with one cell in the womb?

What is the philosophical problem with life from non-life?

Who cares about philosophy. It solves nothing. It is never-ending.

How, in reality, to something that was never intended to live, doesn't live and never had life come to life?

Why do we have to know how life started to be convinced that life evolves?

Cuz somebody must show that it evolved from something. If evolution is true, the beginning is critical.

There was a time when there was no life on Earth. Just matter and energy.

God, however, says that everything was a void. That means there wasn't even matter and energy.

Now there is matter, energy, and life.

First you say that there wasn't any life. Only matter and energy.

Then you say that, now, there is matter and energy.

Wusupwitdat?

That seems to suggest life came from non-life.

Non sequitur.

God created it all. It's irrelevant how He did it. Irrelevant to the spiritual journey. I don't care how He did it.

If you claim some supernatural being was somehow involved, show some eviden philosophy sells nothing ce or drop the claim.

God testifies of it. The Son witnessed it.

Consider the Fall.

What "Fall"? It was no accident. Adam and Eve jumped.

We know why it happened, but we don't know how it happened.

Sure we do.

God told them, "Don't you eat from THAT Tree, or else!" Eve ate, then tempted Adam, and he ate and blamed it on the woman. It was the acting on the temptation that did them in.

Did God alter Adam's and Eve's chromosomes?

No. It was a spiritual thing, not a physical thing. Although they were physically barred from the Garden.

Or did he anticipate the Fall...

God knew that, given choice, Man would be lured to the dark side and that it would be too much for him. God had the plan from the beginning to give Man a way out, if Man chose that way out.

... and preprogrammed their genes?

"Love" is not force.

How was the fall...

The jump.

... of the rest of creation accomplished?

Disobedience.

Or was the Fall...

The jump.

... implemented through some process not involving genetics?

Physical genetics had nothing to do with it.

Did the Fall...

The jump.

... also encompass the inanimate universe?

The "inanimate universe" did not disobey. It had no capacity to disobey. There is/was no Covenant between those things -- like rocks -- which don't have the capacity to agree with Him.

Is the Fall...

The jump.

... a continuing process (as might be hypothesized from decreasing life spans through the generations from Adam)?

Yes.

We have to address our fallenness [sic]...

Our "jumpedness."

... without having to know all the details, or any details, about how it happened.

If we don't know the details, as God tells us, we won't know what it is, nor how to resist it.

Marcus,

Actually there are conceivable ways that life could come from non-life. They are not only conceivable they have been conceived. Here's some interesting recent news about one of them - the RNA world hypotheses:

http://tinyurl.com/ojbsak

Anyway, it is common in science for an explanation to apply to a situation but not to what started it. A candle burns the same way no matter what you light it with. A clock runs the same whether you push the pendulum to the left or the right to start it. We have good models that describe well how these processes run. These models are totally independent of what starts the process.

The equations on this page...

http://tinyurl.com/c2p8er

...accurately describe the path of an object flying through space. That they are helpless to explain how it was launched in the first place casts no doubt on them at all.

That abiogenesis is unsolved doesn't even weigh against the evidence for evolution - let alone overbalance it.

RonH

Mr. Incredible:

I didn't ask about the jump. I asked about what happened after the jump. The Fall. What is inferred from the fact of our fallenness. Which is a word that is well understood.

Try your answer again. With sources, especially what details God gave us.

Evolution is not about abiogenesis.

RonH

Mr. Incredible,

Let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that God created the first cell. Any reason why evolution could not have subsequently produced the tens of millions of species that have existed since that point in time?

By the way, when you say "God said this" and "God tells us that", you do realize that it was actually human beings who said all of these things, yes? The Bible was written by men, not gods.

Don't imagine that in abiogenesis there was non-life and the next moment a cell just like now.

Today, we know there are things - viruses, plasmids, prions - that are almost life, depending how how you define it, yet not quite life, and certainly not cells. All these, as far as I know depend on life. But there maybe some things even now that are mid-way between being non-living and living.

RonH

... mid-way between living and non-living which are not dependent on life.

At the top of the candle capillary action draws liquid wax into the wick. Further heated in the wick, the wax evaporates into a cloud of wax vapor surrounding the wick. At the edge of the cloud, wax vapor combines with oxygen in the surrounding air yielding light, CO2, and H2O, and heat which melts more wax at the top of the candle.

There's no way to find out from this description how the candle got lit. Yet it explains a candle flame accurately. The failure of this explanation of a candle flame to say how the candle got lit is no reason to doubt it's accuracy. The description is not about matches and the flame burns the same way regardless of how it got lit.

There are examples like this throughout the natural world.

RonH

RonH,

We could never hope to observe evolution taking place, since this theoretic process requires millions of years to operate. We can observe natural selection taking place, and genetic variation. But evolutionary theory takes these factors and applies them retro-actively to account for the entire history of speciation. It would be disingenuous to restrict the explanatory obligations of this theory only to have to account for present diversity without going all the way to the origins of life itself. If evolution truly explains the origin of species, then how did the supposed first living materials arise that allowed this process to occur? How did chemicals eventually react in such a way as to build themselves naturally into living constructs? The theory seems elegant and tidy up to a certain point in pre-history, but at the crucial beginnings is where it gets rather dicey. And since we cannot demonstrate that evolution actually occurred for the past umpteen billion years with scientific accuracy, the seeming contradiction of abiogenesis will always present a challenge to evolution as a theory purporting to explain the causes leading up to present conditions.

You folks must get down on your knees every day and pray that we remain ignorant.

Joe,

The point about abiogenesis is not that evolution does not at present offer a viable explanation given the current limits of science, but rather that it cannot do so.

When the theory leaves empirical data, testable evidence, and ventures into speculations about processes it cannot demonstrate (macro-evolution over millions of years), then it reaches an eventual contradiction in the very beginning of the supposed process. Life deriving entirely from non-living matter is not a puzzle that science can crack; it is a logical contradiction. If I do not share your confidence in the ability of science to prove unobservable phenomena that happened apparently millions of years ago, this is not due to a religious superstition on MY part.

Sage 5,

Do you also reject forensic science, astronomy, and geology?

These fields all tell us about past events we can't see repeated.

Yet many of the conclusions they point to are testable. They are reliable ways of gaining knowledge.

Joe,

A logical contradiction boils down to a statement of the form: A and not A. Why is life from non-life a logical contradiction?

RonH

Ron,

Um, I think that it's Sage that's saying life from non-life is a logical contradiction, not me.


Sage,

"The theory leaves empirical data, testable evidence, and ventures into speculations about processes it cannot demonstrate (macro-evolution over millions of years)".

In all honesty, I don't think that you understand the evidence for evolution or understand how science works. There's no "religious superstition" at work here.


"Life deriving entirely from non-living matter is not a puzzle that science can crack; it is a logical contradiction."

You sure about that? Are you sure that you can know what we will not know in the future? I have no idea what we'll know in the future, but I'm not about to say that something is a "puzzle that we can not crack". Who knows what we'll know?

You are counting very heavily on the continuation of current ignorance. You seem to think, wrongly, that evolution can be dismissed or negated as long as we don't know how life began. Abiogenesis a separate event from all of the evolution that followed the origin of life, and our ignorance about abiogenesis does not negate our knowledge about evolution or "disprove" evolution or create a logical contradiction. And you'd better pray that scientists don't figure out a mechanism for abiogenesis, because our ignorance about this phenomenon is about all that's left for those who dislike and are disturbed by evolution.

In the meantime, you offer absolutely no testable hypotheses, no mechanisms and/or no demonstrable explanation of your own for abiogenesis. Those who attack evolution can't even agree about whether God created cells thousands of years ago or billions of years ago. So, what use are the religious ideas about abiogenesis?

And let me emphasized that I don't understand the "logical contradiction" bit at all. This doesn't make any sense to me. As RonH says, where's the logical contradiction?

Joe,
Yup, I should have addressed Sage.

And Sage,

You speak of 'unobservable phenomena' meaning we can't go back in time and see doves descend from dinos. But there are things we could observe that would falsify evolution. Famously, we could find a bunny in the Precambrian. But we don't. Instead, every fossil we find is consistent with evolution.

Neil Shubin went to Ellesmere Island looking for fossils of what one might call a fishy animal with leggy things. He looked there because the earliest quadruped fossils were 365 million years old and Ellesmere Island had rocks that were both just a little older (375 milliion years) and from a coastal area. Shubin found a new fossil, Tiktaalik: a fishy animal with leggy things.

Evolution said this kind of animal had to live in a place like that at some time before the first quadrupeds. And it did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZbvKMz2oDQ
Watch around 17:00 (or all).

RonH

I dont really see the rob with his quote.

Even christians admit that abiogenesis is a STATISTICAL possibility.

Mr. Incredible:

I didn't ask about the jump. I asked about what happened after the jump. -- -- Posted by: Johnnie | August 28, 2009 at 04:26 PM

You said, "Consider the jump." So, I did.

The Fall. What is inferred from the fact of our fallenness.-- -- Posted by: Johnnie | August 28, 2009 at 04:26 PM

The word, "fall," leaves one with the impression that it is an accident. Adam and Eve jumped. They were not victims of an accident. God told them beforehand, "Don't do it!" and what would happen if they disobeyed. They disobeyed, and what He told them would happen, happened. This has not changed.

Which [Fall] is a word that is well understood.-- -- Posted by: Johnnie | August 28, 2009 at 04:26 PM

It is understood in worldly terms, not biblical terms. That's unfortunate, in view of the fact that God explains what He means, and His explanation jibes with, "it was no accident." Therefore, for clarity, the word, "jump," is the better cuz it summarizes precisely what God means.

The idea in using the word, "Fall," is to leave everybody with the impression that what happened to Adam and Eve after they disobeyed God is an accident. As I say, it is not an accident. Neither is it an accident today. This is why men are guilty before Christ comes into their lives. Those who are born again are no longer guilty.

Try your answer again.-- -- Posted by: Johnnie August 28, 2009 at 04:26 PM

No need. I got it right and correct the first time.

With sources, especially what details God gave us.-- -- Posted by: Johnnie | August 28, 2009 at 04:26 PM

My Source is The Word of God, as reported by KJV.

You folks must get down on your knees every day and pray that we remain ignorant. -- -- Posted by: Joe August 28, 2009 at 08:28 PM

We "must"?

God isn't the one who wants us to remain ignorant. He says He wants to give us everything in Knowledge, through Christ, not in men's arrogance. It's the Devil, who masquerades as an angel of Light, who wants to keep you in the dark.

Notice I capitalized the word, "Knowledge." By that, I mean to indicate God's Knowledge, not men's knowledge in arrogance.

The kind of knowledge YOU'RE talking about is men's knowledge without God. Men who think they know more than God, at THAT'S why this world is in so much trouble.

If ALL life began with one cell, then ALL human life also begins with one cell in the womb.

Mr. Incredible:

"Fall" does not imply an accident. It can refer to those slain in battle, as in the Word of God, as reported by KJV: "a thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right side; but it shall not come nigh thee" (Ps. 51:7).

I didn't say, "consider the jump". I said, "consider the Fall".

The Word of God, as reported by KJV, does not refer to the actions of Adam and Eve as a jump. If it was a jump, how would you answer the question, "Adam and Eve jumped, we didn't, so what difference does it make what they did?"

Scholars of the word of God, even before its form as reported by the KJV, have referred to the actions of Adam and Eve and their consequences, as "the Fall", or "the Fall of Man". So why should we go by your convention instead?

I am just looking for answers to some questions. If you want it restated without the word Fall, try this: how do we inherit the consequences of the actions of Adam and Eve?

I didn't ask about the jump. I asked about what happened after the jump. --Posted by: Johnnie | August 28, 2009 at 04:26 PM

As I say, YOU said, "Consider the jump." So...

In order to understand what happened after the jump, and to understand what happened after the jump, we must know about and understand the jump, itself. We must acknowledge that the jump happened. It is the point around which everything that happened after the jump is focused.

Anywho...

I'm not as concerned about physical life -- in view of the fact that God tells us not to be concerned about what can kill the physical body, rather to be concerned about what can kill what is eternal. That doesn't mean that we ignore the physical; rather we are to consider the physical in terms of the Godly eternal.

The Devil is quite pleased that people are taken off the subject God intends.

Mr. Incredible:

You are a prevaricator. I simply did not say "Consider the jump".

Mr. Incredible:

"Fall" does not imply an accident.-- -- Posted by: Johnnie | August 29, 2009 at 01:06 PM

Yes, it does. The word, "jump," in view and context of God's explanation of the event, better describes what happened.

It can refer to those slain in battle, as in the Word of God, as reported by KJV: "a thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right side; but it shall not come nigh thee" (Ps. 51:7).-- -- Posted by: Johnnie | August 29, 2009 at 01:06 PM

The word, "fall," in THAT context, has a different meaning. It is a physical falling.

I didn't say, "consider the jump". I said, "consider the Fall".-- -- Posted by: Johnnie | August 29, 2009 at 01:06 PM

I meant to say that you said, "Consider the Fall." So, I considered the event to which YOU applied the word, "Fall."

The Word of God, as reported by KJV, does not refer to the actions of Adam and Eve as a jump.-- -- Posted by: Johnnie | August 29, 2009 at 01:06 PM

I didn't say He does.

I wrote that the Word of God uses the word, "fall," then goes on to explain what happened. The word, "jump," best suits the explanation.

If it was a jump, how would you answer the question, "Adam and Eve jumped, we didn't, so what difference does it make what they did?"-- -- Posted by: Johnnie | August 29, 2009 at 01:06 PM

Cuz they were Mankind. What THEY did is what WE did. Before those who are born again were born again, they did the same thing.

Adam and Eve chose. They didn't just fall. They stepped in the wrong direction, thinking that the Devil's suggestion "enhancing" the Word of God actually enhanced the Word of God. All they needed to do was to compare what the Devil told them to what God told them, and they would have been home free. Instead, thinking, at the suggestion of the Devil, that they could improve upon God, they chose a direction different from God' direction, then acted on that choice. They jumped. They must take responsibility. We must recognize that responsibility, and WE must own it until we are born again.

Scholars of the word [sic] of God, even before its form as reported by the KJV, have referred to the actions of Adam and Eve and their consequences, as "the Fall", or "the Fall of Man". So why should we go by your convention instead?-- -- Posted by: Johnnie | August 29, 2009 at 01:06 PM

Cuz the word, "jump," better summarizes the explanation God gives of the actions of Adam and Eve. It puts the onus directly on them. "Fall" leaves one with the impression of an accident. "They fell" is almost passive, leaving no indication whether they chose to fall, or whether they accidentally fell. The word, "jump," clears that up and accurately reflects the explanation God gives.

I am just looking for answers to some questions.-- -- Posted by: Johnnie | August 29, 2009 at 01:06 PM

I'm here to help.

If you want it restated without the word Fall, try this: how do we inherit the consequences of the actions of Adam and Eve? -- -- Posted by: Johnnie | August 29, 2009 at 01:06 PM

I suppose that's all right, but it doesn't recognize/acknowledge responsibility. The Word of God is all about men recognizing and acknowledging responsibility. If we don't know how to recognize and acknowledge responsibility, we cannot be born again and Christ's sacrifice is in vain.

So, as to your question: "How do we inherit the consequences of the actions of Adam and Eve?"

Through their filthy, spiritual DNA. It is the reason we must be born again.

There are three creations:

1. God's Special Creation of Man in His Own Image;
2. Man's re-creation of himself in his own image; and
3. God's Re-creation of men, who are born again, in His Image.

Until you are born again, you are stuck in number two.

(Rom 5:12) Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

(Rom 5:14) Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

(Rom 5:15) But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

(Rom 5:17) For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

(Rom 5:19) For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

(1Co 15:22) For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

(1Co 15:45) And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

(1Ti 2:13) For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

(1Ti 2:14) And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Mr. Incredible:

You are a prevaricator. I simply did not say "Consider the jump". -- -- Posted by: Johnnie | August 29, 2009 at 01:29 PM

I have already acknowledged that.

That said, the event to which you refer by using the word, "fall," is the same event to which I refer by using the word, "jump." God's explanation of the event most closely resembles a jump, not a fall. That's cuz they were not victims of an accident. It was deliberate. They actually stepped in the wrong direction.

Having the Knowledge of God, Adam and Eve backslid and elevated the importance of their own knowledge, disregarding the Knowledge of God. Then, they acted on their own knowledge, as suggested by the Devil. It was an act of choice. Not God's choice, which He made known to them. That is no accident. As I say, the word, "jump," more accurately reflects that, which is precisely God's explanation.

If we didn't inherit the sin of Adam and Eve, why did Christ have to come and die?

If we are ALL children of God, what's the purpose of the Cross?

Is faith blind? Not at all.

Those who receive Christ, see. Those who don't, don't.

So, it isn't the faithful who don't see, it's the faithless.

Secularists and other scoffers like to ask questions like, "Does God have a beginning?"

If they would only look to some of the posts on this site, regarding evolution, they would see that, according to some, a beginning doesn't matter, that only what is, matters.

Those of us who are born again recognize and acknowledge that God merely is, that He is a beginning with no beginning. Everything begins with Him. So, how and when God began is irrelevant. It is moot. It is a given. Just as those who say they believe in macro evolution also say that the beginning of any evolution is moot, that it just is.

So, if they can believe that we must just recognize what is, why can't they recognize their own silly, pseudo-intellectual misgivings about the existence of God? Why can't they just accept that He just is, and go on from there?

If they can deny what is is of God, why can't we deny what is is of evolution? If the "beginning" of God is relevant, the beginning of evolution is relevant, no?

Mr. Incredible:

Finally, in Comment 36, you have untangled this whole thread! In your fourth paragraph, "Why can't they [those who believe in macro evoluation and have misgivings about the existence of God] just accept that He just is, and go on from there?"

Many who believe in evolution have done just that. They have accepted Jesus' gift of salvation.

They cannot serve two masters.

No one can just accept the Gift of Salvation without accepting the entire Message. No one can be lukewarm. It's either in, or out.

Mr. Incredible:

And thanks for your responses in your comments before Comment 36. I acknowledged this in a comment I posted just before my last one, but I don't see it in the thread and it must have gotten lost in the celestial bit bucket.

Many who believe in evolution have done just that. They have accepted Jesus' gift of salvation.

And, yet, they don't accept that everything was made through Him, that He is the beginning, that there was a beginning.

If they receive Christ, they must accept that there WAS a beginning.

However, some people want us to begin somewhere down the line, ignoring the fact of beginning. They want to sterilize the debate.

Now that I think of it...

What "life" are we talking about? The life that started when God created, in His Image, the spirits of Man; or the life He created when He formed Man's physical body; or the life He breathed into that body; or the life that started after Man made himself in his own image; or God's re-creation of men in His Own Image?

>> Why is life from non-life a logical contradiction?

Because the difference between life and non-life is agency.

Non-life is bound by causal law, and agency violates causal law.

It is logically impossible for that which is bound by causal law to violate that law - either it *is* bound by causal law, or it's not.

lol, I have accepted cheesus crust.

Agilius,

>> Non-life is bound by causal law, and agency violates causal law.

do viruses or one celled organisms or zygotes "violate causal law"?

So, again, I aks:

What "life" are we talking about:

[I have revised my earlier count]

1. The life that started when God created, in His Image, the spirits of Man; or

2. The life He created when He formed Man's physical body; or

3. The life He breathed into that body; or

4. The life that started after Man made himself in his own image; or

5. God's re-creation of men, who are born again, in His Own Image?

We know that there are many out there choking on this.

==Why is life from non-life a logical contradiction?==

The logical contradiction is contained in that question.

Now, presenting my Questions:

If ALL life began with one cell -- that was equipped for life and working from the very beginning -- was that cell alive?

If that cell was alive, why is it inconceivable that ALL human life begins with one cell?

If that one, human cell is not alive, then that one cell that is alleged to have begun ALL life was not alive, and we wouldn't be here.

If that one cell in the womb is not alive, we wouldn't be here.

Life proceeds from life, not from non-life. A rock will NEVER be alive.

ToNy,

>> do viruses or one celled organisms or zygotes "violate causal law"?

Viruses, et al, seem to at least violate the law of motion?

Could you have opted to word your question differently?

Agilius,

viruses violate Newton's laws of motion?

may i ask how?

Mr. Incredible

>> Life proceeds from life, not from non-life. A rock will NEVER be alive.

well Mr. Incredible is mostly made of carbon nitrogen oxygen and hydrogen.

So if i had four jars of the molecules here, and little robots to put them together into the shape of, say, Mr Incredible, would said shape not be "alive"?

ToNy,

Again, could you have opted to word your question differently?

>> viruses violate Newton's laws of motion?
>>
>> may i ask how?

An object at rest tends to stay at rest. Viruses do not stay at rest.

The comments to this entry are closed.