LuftWaffle

Hi ByFaithAlone, I'd like to comment on this point if I may. It seems you're saying that the fourth day had to be a long period of time for the earth to produce vegetation, but I don't believe the text implies that at all. Let me use an analogy to bring my point across: Suppose a Hebrew, called Yitshaq, a coffee lover, decides to build an espresso machine. He turns to his friend and says, "Moshe, let us go hence to my workshop and create a machine. Let this machine be powered by electricity and let it have knobs and buttons and a water tank; And let this machine bring forth rich, dark, strong coffee" Notice how in this sense, Yitshaq isn't saying, "Let's wait until this machine brings forth cups of espresso by itself". Instead it's clear that he's talking about the intended function of the machine, once it's created. I believe the fourth day account is meant to be understood in the same way. God isn't saying that the earth should bring forth vegetation out of nothing, all by itself, but rather God is saying that the earth will continue to renew its vegetation once it's there. God therefore, isn't just saying, "Let the earth have plants", but He is saying, "Let the earth have plants and let these plants reproduce and continually fill the earth". The reproductive aspect is actually quite evident in the text: Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Notice that in the creation account, the "Let the earth bring forth" phrase is always used for things that reproduce. When God is talking about stars He is saying "Let there be", but when He is talking about things that can reproduce, He uses "...bring forth". Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. Notice that God created the whales, and that the sea bringing forth whales indicates that these, once created, will reproduce on their own. In other words, God isn't waiting for the sea to produce whales by itself, but once he has created whales, the sealife will continually renew. I think another problem with your interpretation is: You say, "However, it is still the earth bringing forth the plants so it must happen in the time that the earth can feasibly do so... correct?" What is a feasible time for the earth to bring forth plants? Without appealing to abiogenesis, the answer is "never". If there are no plants on the earth, no amount of time can suffice for rocks and sand to feasibly bring forth plants. So in a sense you're reading a materialistic naturalistic view into the text, in order to refute the literalist view.

Aren't the clades generally determined by their genetic markers? So if organisms are sorted into clades because of their genetics, then using the similarity of genetics in clades as evidence for evolution would be circular? Also, I don't think that homology mecessarily proves evolution. If genes are blueprints for an organisms physical characteristics then similar looking organisms will by implication have similar genotypes. Similar genotypes would mean that those genes that are more prone to mutate, will more likely be mutated in those creatures that share that design. Likewise the genes that are less prone to mutation, or will kill/be less beneficial to the creature if mutated, will more likely remain unmutated. Take an early nineties model BMW 7 series and 5 series. They have similar faults with their alarm systems, because their alarm systems are similarly designed. Finding a 7 series with a faulty tilt sensor and a 5 series with a faulty tilt sensor doesn't really prove they evolved from a common ancestor. The fact of the faulty tilt sensor can be explained in two ways. Anyway, thanks for the explanations, it's been very enlightning. I need to take some time off from discussions as I have some work to catch up. God bless.

Okay, but that's not at all reasonable. If you're not prepared to accept any term other than evolutionary terms, then it's the quivalent of saying, "Prove Christianity using only Buddhist terms". I'm under no obligation to defend what I believe using your worldview's terms. It's clear that you're not at all open minded about this, and by the fact that you're not even going to read we what say, any discussion with you would be rather pointless. I wish you well.

Good to hear you're doing well. I'm okay too. I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean in the above statement. I don't believe that intelligent design necessarily requires a certain level of optimal-ness (or lack thereof). Sorry, I made a typo in my post, which completely confused the point. What I meant to say was that it seems to me operational sciences rely more on induction than deduction, and origins sciences appear to rely more on deduction than induction. Evolution excludes origin by an intelligent agent, YEC doesn't. You may say invoking an agent is unscientific, but yet forensic science, is precisely about determing whether an agent is responsibible for a certain scenario and attempting to identify the agent. Wow, impressive and congrats on finishing your honours course. Sure, equations scare people off, but as I said, I don't believe the science behind evolution is any more difficult to understand than most operational sciences. I watched a show the other day about J. Robert Oppenheimer, and the first atomic bomb. It explained in quite understandable terms how the various nuclear bombs work, but I don't think either of us can say nuclear physics is easy. To me that's a case in point. Here's something that boggles my mind: In terms of homology, it really comes down to odds right? If a human and a chimp has the same mutation in the same place, then it's considered that the odds are so staggeringly rare that this could be coincidental, that it serves as evidence for common descent, right? But those odds are calculable, because if a human has 30 billion base pairs, that mutation has a 1:3 X 10^10 odds. But then I understand that the eye evolved something like 30 times independently. Such a complicated mechanism has far greater odds against it happening independently, and yet evolution explains it as convergent evolution, which I consider to be nothing more than saying it's pure coincidence. How does that work?

So, what you're saying is that you'd believe in God if the universe was smaller?

Why should we care what your moral compass tells you? Will you answer my question, "Should we all agree that reducing sufferance in this world is really good, then?" Surely it was the intention of your dilemma that we do in fact all agree that reducing sufferance in this world is good, which would make it an objective moral standard, not so?

Yet, earlier you pretended not to know about the distinction. *sigh* The games people play.... Fortunately reality does not conform to your enthusiams. Sticking your head in the sand, doesn't make that which you refuse to see, disappear. Suppose I lack enthusiam for "evolution". Would you accept that as a valid objection to evolution? Which begs the question. If only those who agree with the current paradigm are to be considered peers, then "peer review" is a circular concept. Fact is you're running a rabbit trail. Your objection was that creationists don't do their own research, but "peer review" doesn't require those reviewing to be involved in the particular research they're reviewing. So in that sense if creationism is objectionable for critiquing from the sidelines (as you claim) then peer review should be objectionable for the same reason. Rant much? I'm bored... It would be an unwelcome discovery. What happens to ideas that are unwelcome?

No, that's not really a problem with my analogy. I have adequately explained what the analogy is analogous of. Any analogy, by definition will be different to the real thing, and merely seeking out irrelevant differences does not make an analogy problematic. Venter's experiment is not a case of life coming from non-life, unless you consider DNA to be intrinsically alive.

So....you're saying that it's *good* to reduce sufferance in this world, and you're assuming we agree? Should we all agree that reducing sufferance in this world is really good, then?

No problem, it's been a while since we chatted. How are you keeping? No, there is a difference between applying intelligence to an experiment, and applying intelligence to the subject of an experiment. Consider the difference between a computer programmer and a beta tester. The one uses intelligence to construct, and the other uses intelligence to test what has already been constructed. Venter used intelligence not only in evaluating the experiment, but he also used intelligence to construct the subject of the experiment. I think theoretically one can always draw the line though. Origins science tries to explain how certain things came about, operational science studies the laws governing nature. I'll say that some fields, will use both, but I believe one can always make the distinction. Perhaps I'm wrong in that regard;I'm open to comments. I totally agree. The distinction certain is a philosophical one and creationists use it in a philosophical sense as well. I also believe that both are valid; where would we be without forensic science (which I consider a type of origins science)? I don't have a problem with origins science, creationism is also an origins science. The thing with origins science is it relies more on deduction and induction, and deduced conclusions depend on starting assumptions. The two opposing origins sciences here YECism vs Evolution/Big Bang etc. work with different starting premises, and that's the real contention. I totally agree that laypeople don't want to know the nitty gritty of the data. I'm not expecting to see that sort of thing. Isn't it interesting though that generally the equations that scare people off(such as the ones you gave examples of) occur in operational sciences? I'm not too sure I agree that the science behind evolution is any more difficult to explain than physics or chemistry or medicine. Let's face it, most of evolution makes connections based on homology. The problem is that homology isn't all that convincing especially when considering how evolutionary lineages are determined and I wonder if this isn't the real reason why evolution tends to rely so heavy on appealing to authorities. One group of scientists will say A is descended from B because they have a similar footbone. Another group will say A is descended from C because they share a similar eye. Then new research reveals that A is "actually" descended from D because they have a similar mutation in a certain gene. Or am I grossly oversimplifying things here?

Wow, we already discussed the distinction we make between the two sciences here: http://www.worthychr...p?/topic/137994 That was in April, and there you also seemed to treat the distinction as invalid because they're not "scientific terms". Did you really forget that discussion? We've discussed that "Creationists don't do their own research" objection in the past as well. I find this objection strange because if only people who are doing the research are allowed to comment on that research, then how do you handle peer review? Peer review is supposed to be scientists commenting on other scientists' work while not being involved with that work. So, what's good for the goose, must be good for the gander, not so? This appears to be a sort of go-to argument for you, but how does any of this address the differences between how origins science and operational science deals with- and presents to the public? You can't possibly be that naive?

I'm not arguing that living organisms aren't alive. The Mona Lisa analogy is about intelligent design. If you read the previous posts you'll notice we were commenting about intelligence being smuggled into the Venter experiment. If Venter's experiment can be used to show that life can arise naturally then equally copying the Mona Lisa should show that paintings can come about through natural processes. Well, this entire discussion is about abiogenesis and you offered Venter's experiment as evidence that the law of biogenesis can be violated. Ok

You've totally missed my point. My point was, "There is a very distinct different in the way origins science deals with objections versus the way operational science deals with objections." I used various examples including Mythbusters to show that there is a general push to bring science (limited to operational science, it seems) to the people and to get people involved in doing science; to question and interact. I did not say that Mythbusters' methodology is flawless. Do yourself a favour and watch TV shows on Discovery, BBC Knowledge or NatGeo. You'll see a distinct pattern, in that operational sciences will be explained to the viewer. How the researcher determined their conclusion will typically be given, the methodology followed, the laws behind it etc. Then compare that to a documentary on origins, and in most cases it will be narrated in story format and things will be claimed matter-of-factly without any in depth description on how the conclusions were reached and what the raw evidence consisted of. All I did was point out this difference.

Observation is one thing. Intelligently putting something together in a specific order and then claiming that no intelligence is required for life is something else. I have a problem with the latter, not the former. Let me ask you again, does copying the Mona Lisa, show that it can happen through natural processes? The abiogenesis issue is being tackled in two ways. There's the bottom-up approach, where you start with what you believe to be the initial conditions where life started (primordial soup) and you see if life arises. This is what the Miller-Urey experiment attempted. Then you have Venter's top-down approach, where you take existing life and deconstruct it to see what the minimum requirements are. The problem with this approach is that it seems the minimum requirement for a self-replicating organism is pretty complicated, and therefore intelligence is required to recreate this process. This is an inherent problem of the top-down approach if the intention is to show that life initially arose through an unguided process. As far as I can tell, he assembled non-living chemicals, into non-living RNA and injected into a living organism. The genome itself is coded information, not intrinsically living. As I said before, I have no doubt that scientists will eventually create life, but this experiment isn't it.

This is also a point which I recall addressing before. The reason why the cause must be personal is because it seems the universe coming into being was act of the will. If the cause was impersonal and all the necessary and sufficient conditions for the universe were there from eternity, then the universe would have happened an eternity ago, which leads to infinite regression. Since the universe happened a finite time ago we can only conclude that it was willed at that time. Will implies personhood. Firstly I don't believe that the universe is billions of years old for various reasons, contradiction with scripture is one of those reasons. My acceptance of scripture is not a priori as you say but based on cumulative evidence that scripture is trustworthy. I differ with you in terms of the divide between mainstream science and the YEC view. We YECs accept operational science, it's really just the origins stuff we differ on and those differences are not based on data, but are based on interpretations of the data. You may smile at us. Christianity isn't popular, I'm well aware of that. Even if I did base everything purely on scripture? Why would that be wrong? Suppose there really is a God, and suppose He really did create everything and record it in a book. Would His account of His actions not be valid? In fact, would such an account not trump any scientific interpretation that we can come up with? So really, your comment preassumes the non-existence of God. I've asked you, "why don't you like it when certain scientific conclusions are accepted by certain persons while others are rejected, and more importantly, why are your likes and dislikes important in this regard?" You haven't really illustrated why your likes and dislikes are important in this regard. Also, in terms of us rejecting certain scientific interpretations because it conflicts with another source of knowledge (such as the Bible) why do you dislike it? You haven't answered that either. Is your dislike limited to the Bible as source or would you dislike the idea of a person rejecting certain scientific conclusions based on logical objections, or experiential objections too? What I'm getting at is that it seems you believe science to be the most superior epistomological tool of all. You're not really that naive, Viole? Tell me, the Copernican Principle, is that an a priori philosophical assumption or is it based on evidence available. If it's based on evidence available, then what evidence? That's just one example, I won't even get into the now well known quotes by Lewontin, Gould, Hubble etc. Viole, long before I became a Christian I was sceptical about evolution. I simply could not believe that the wonders of nature could come about by mere chance. It is since I became a Christian that my original suspicions about evolution were affirmed and since then I've studied much, but my I'm not anti-evolution because of my faith only. In short, you're assuming that belief in the Bible precedes scepticism of evolution and I assure you that it's not always the case. Ever heard of David Berlinski? He's a secular jew, and a mathematician (so you got atleast some things in common with him). Get a copy of "The Devil's Delusion", it's a fantastic read, and he completely demolishes evolution despite being a non-believer. I'm not really sure whether you want me to answer the caricaturised questions you've posed, but I'll try. The argument raised from evolution is how do YECs explain the fossil order in nature matching up with the geologic column. I think there are various responses such as: 1. The geologic column isn't as evo-friendly in real life, as it is in textbooks, it seems. Many fossils are dated using faunal dating, in conjunction with radio-isotope dating and dates are generally modified when it conflicts with faunal dating. So in short the fossils themselves determine their "depth" in the geologic column, so the argument really begs the question. 2. Hydrological sorting is proposed by YECs and I believe it's a perfectly valid response. It's not merely about which creatures run faster uphill, but about their means to get away from water, their altitude at which they started out, where the flood started, their ability to stay alive during the flood and finally there will be exceptions. In a flood generally things that are already in the water will be buried below lands animals. Higher mammals (using an evo term) and birds will generally fare better and will therefore generally end up buried last. This really isn't that far fetched. I'm not sure if any YEC as ever argued that T-Rexes have played with children. If you've added that absurd comment for effect, you know...in order to make us look silly, that's okay, I won't hold it against you. With regard to T-Rexes eating fruit, I'm not sure if T-Rex as we know it lived in Eden. It could be that T-Rex is a decendent of the intial good natured herbivore that God created. That's right YECs do not believe in the fixity of species, believe it or not. It could also be that God has hardwired predatory ability into those animals He foreknew would serve as predators once the fall happened. There are many ways to think about this issue. Says you who believe that the arrow of time isn't fixed and who thinks "imaginary time" is real science? Would you like a bandaid and some Savlon for that smoking hole in your foot, Viole

Popularizers like Dawkins disagree. Are you familiar with his Weasel program? It attempts to demonstrate the origin of life using natural selection on abiotic matter. I would agree that it's senseless to pretend that such could be the case, but it's not some kind of Creationist misunderstanding to address the application of evolution on non-living material. Natural selection only works through reproduction. NS selects from what's available among living organisms, cutting out organisms that are less adapted for certain environments. Without life there is no pressure from selection, i.e. nothing from which to select. The process fundamentally requires living organisms that can reproduce, otherwise it would have to be a physical force, physically moving abiotic matter around, and selecting not for survival advantage but deliberating for future potential advantage... and an immaterial force acting physically to assemble something with deliberation would simply be a description of God or some kind of ghost or whatever. Actually, my comments in the earlier post probably owe their origin to having read some of Dawkins's books. I think the Weasel program first sees the light of day in the chapter entitled "accumulating small change" in Dawkins's "Blind Watchmaker". The purpose of the chapter is not to discuss the origin of life, but to demonstrate the power of cumulative selection, because "Chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe [i.e. natural selection], but the most important ingredient is cumulative selection which is quintessentially nonrandom". The weasel program is indeed used in the context of a discussion on life's origin, but that discussion is solely within the framework of natural selection. If you read the chapter, I hope you would accept that my post sits comfortably within Dawkins's view. I'm not sure I'm following you here when you say the discussion is solely within the framework of natural selection, but I think this blogger put it well "Probably the most obvious flaw in Dawkins line of reasoning is that the Weasel Program must be supplied with information to generate information. In fact, the only information it can generate is the information that was put in to it. If you put nonsense into the Weasel Program you get nonsense out, not information. The Weasel Program is just a conversion algorithm. Dawkins’ argument assumes that you can start with something that automatically has the ability to reproduce itself. I thought the idea here was that life was represented by a meaningful sentence. Shouldn’t nonsense be considered dead an unable to reproduce? Dawkins’ argument assumes that all the selected intermediate strings can reproduce even though he acknowledges that there are vastly more was of being dead than alive. If we were to enforce some rule for what is considered to be alive, like requiring the character string be composed of only properly spelled words, the Weasel Program wouldn’t be able to find a path to its expected output. To say that “there are vastly more ways of being dead than alive” would be a gross understatement because there would be easily billions of more ways of being “dead” than “alive”" (source: http://randystimpson...el-program.html). Whether or not you're considering this as a simulation to demonstrate the origin of life or the increasing of applicable sequencing to facilitate adaptation to a certain environment, if nothing more than unguided forces are at play then either way the simulation fails to account for how the conversion algorithm (or genetic algorithm if the metaphor is to extend so far) was set up in the first place, and more importantly, how anything could survive long enough to reproduce nested generations of sequencing that's not set up to perform any valid function. This necessitates that organisms are not selected for survival advantage but for their potential suvival advantage according to some intelligently prescribed, desired future outcome. If the match between sequencing and environmental funcationality is a prospective one, then Natural Selection kills off the organism, since unguided forces have no foresight and all you have is something that's not adapted for survival in its environment. If Natural Selection were actually in effect, none of the sequences except the last one would have made the cut. To survive the sentence would have to pop into being all at once, fully formed and error free, or else it would be selected out, demonstrating that you have to start with information and an algorithm to select from changes in the sequencing, just to get started, and from there you'd have to account for variations that would come into being as complete and environmentally relevant sequences that do not come at the expense of the functionality of the rest of the sequence. I think the Weasel Program bears testimony to how stupid Dawkins thinks the average reader of his books are... Which books of his have you read? Hi DC-10, The weasel program and its workings are freely available online. I do not need to read Blind Watchmaker in order to comment on the weasel program or its inclusion in a book. Does Dawkins use the Weasel program in an attempt to prove a point about RM + NS? If so, then it's quite reasonable to conclude that Dawkins thinks his readers are idiots by using such an unrealistic example to prove a point. Furthermore not only is the weasel program freely available online, but many of Dawkin's arguments. Dismissing comments because they're not within an artibitraly determined quota of books read (if that's what you're getting at), isn't really addressing any points that have been made. How many Dawkins books would one need to read in order to qualify? Do partial readings count? Does it matter how recently I have read his books? All these things just complicate the matter, meanwhile a simple point is lost. Weasel is not even remotely an accurate representation of Dawkins point because it smuggles information in at the outset, it's selection process is ridiculously oversimplified and it assumes no fitness valleys. Inclusion of Weasel in a book speaks volumes of Dawkins view of his reader or his own credibility and bias.

Speaking of credentials. This seems to be one of many things that make evolution, and origins science in general, quite unique. Most sciences are freely accessible to laypersons, and in fact there's always been a push to get laypersons involved in operational sciences. for instance TV shows like Mythbusters and Brainiacs are geared for just that. Making science accessible to all. Viewers get to interact with the investigators and comment on certain outcomes in terms of chemistry, physics regardless of their expertise in such fields. Comments are handled according to validity and not credentials. This happens in our day to day life as well. I can go to a physician and tell them that I think I have the flu. They can diagnose me, and if I'm not satisfied with the diagnosis then I can question it or even get a second opinion. Many people question the science behind dietary supplements, mass building producs or weight loss remedies, and those queries are addressed if they're valid, regardless of qualification. Lay persons have insisted that Power Balance bracelets do not work and many people received refunds even though they're not medically or chemistry trained. If an electrical engineer repaires my TV I can ask them what they did and question whether an expensive part really required replacing. But where origins science is concerned, it seems one dare not to question the science unless one is qualified in a relevant field. Television shows on evolution tell us the conclusions, but for the most part the way those conclusions are reached are never mentioned, and, it seems, are offlimits to us. Objections are summarily dismissed and validity is secondary to one's qualifications. As OES put it, there seems to be a cult mentality where origins science is concerned, where only those ordained by the cult get to speak on the cult. If Mythbusters had to work like origins science, I can imagine it would go something like this: "Hey viewers, we've got a fan letter today from John in Arizona writing that our "Pigs can fly" experiment wasn't valid because we used a styrofoam pig and a model aricraft engine. He says real pigs are heavier and do not have the luxury of propulsion. Unfortunately his complaint is invalid because he is not a aeronautical engineer, but a hotel receptionist. What does he know? Anyway, welcome to today's show. Today, we'll be testing the myth that a duck's quack doesn't echo. This myth is Busted! Why? Because we say so and we're the experts. Goodbye!" *roll credits* There is a very distinct different in the way origins science deals with objections versus the way operational science deals with objections.

It really doesn't because if it did, then creating life out of buliding blocks would not be a doable experiment due to your disqualification of the role that the experimenter would play. This study is what it is. Taking abiotic starting materials (excluding the cell membrane) and making a functional living organism out of it. Presumably it will get more and more hands off, they will get there. Hi Don, The point Isaiah is making is that intelligence has been smuggled into the experiment. 4 bottles of chemicals + 1 computer doesn't produce life. The computer needs software which requires intelligence, and the chemicals need to be arranged in a very specific order in the correct amount, to duplicate what occurs in nature. One might use the analogy of a painter. 1 Canvas + paint will not give you the Mona Lisa. A certain intelligent agent, Leonardo Dicaprio (just kidding) was required to mix the colours in a precise way and apply them to canvas in a precise way. Suppose now a scientist doubts that DaVinci existed and sets out to show that the Mona Lisa occured by natural means. He uses a canvas and 4 bottles of paint (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black), mixes the paint using a computer and applies the paint in a very precise way to the canvas ending up with an exact duplicate of the Mona Lisa. Did he succeed in showing that art can come about by purely natural processes? Not at all. So why is that logic valid for the Venter experiment? Secondly, Venter did not create life. Scientific American is quite correct in that he created a prosthetic genome and inserted it into an already living organism. Having genes does not imply being alive. Dead things can contain genes, but aren't alive. It's possible that scientists will one day be able to create a simple self-replicating organism in a lab, which depending on a certain definition of "life" can be construed as "alive", but what Craig Venter did, is nothing of the sort. Claiming that the SA journalist isn't a scientist seems to me that you place way too much faith in credentials. Credentials alone do not make truth.

Honestly, I cannot understand how so many people thing rehashed old Hume and John Stewart Mill arguments are so devastating, so it leads me to wonder if the average readers of his books even pay any attention to what he's saying. I'm pretty convinced a lot of his fans are following his intentions, not his arguments. Indeed, atheism sells and Dawkins is cashing in big time. It's cheap consumer goods for a hungry market. Nothing more, nothing less. Hawking has also jumped on the bandwagon with his latest controvertial offering, and you'll probably find more and more scientists trying to get a slice of the pie with forays into philosophy and theology.

Hi Pahu, I am not discussing here the scientific validity of these assumptions since they are addressed in other threads. I like it when people take the results of science to make a point. I like it less when they cherry pick the parts they like and dismiss the parts they don't. I assume here that you are addressing the standard model of the big bang which is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. For the sake of completeness, let us list some other results based on the same observations and enjoy the same level of acceptance: 1 - this "creation" event took place 13.7 billions years ago 2 - atoms formed when the universe was about 380000 years old 3 - this corresponds to the time when photons stopped being scattered, in other words, when light was separated from darkness 4 - the heaviest atoms, like carbon, formed billions of years later and have been manufactured inside stars that exploded. Carbon is the main element used by terrestrial living organisms 5 - the solar system formed about 4 billions ago and life started also about 3.5 billions year ago, starting with very simple replicators I have problems to map these results with what the Bible says. If we assume that science proved God's existence, we must conclude that the same science proved that this God is not the one of the Bible. I hope He does not have a hell for people who believe in other Gods (just joking) Viole, I've told you twice already and this would be the third time. The Cosmological Argument is not an argument for the Judeo-Christian God specifically, but is an argument for the minimalist view of God, namely an uncaused, immaterial, eternal, personal agent. The objections you've raised can all be filed under the single heading, "Timing issues" and there are young earth cosmologies such as proposed by D. Russel Humphreys to tackle the timing issues. Not that mainstream cosmology is free from such issues anyways. Additionally there really is no reason why one has to either accept or reject science as a whole. I accept operational sciences such as medicine, chemistry etc. and I reject some findings of mainstream origins sciences. Is there a moral or a rational imperative that states, "Thou shalt not accept certain aspects of science while rejecting others?" Surely it will be hard for you to prove such an imperative, and the history of science seems to confound such an idea at every turn. Scientific theories, findings and conclusions are rejected while others are accepted all the time. Let me pose it as a question to you: Why don't you like it when certain scientific conclusions are accepted by certain persons while others are rejected, and more importantly, why are your likes and dislikes important in this regard?

Popularizers like Dawkins disagree. Are you familiar with his Weasel program? It attempts to demonstrate the origin of life using natural selection on abiotic matter. I would agree that it's senseless to pretend that such could be the case, but it's not some kind of Creationist misunderstanding to address the application of evolution on non-living material. Natural selection only works through reproduction. NS selects from what's available among living organisms, cutting out organisms that are less adapted for certain environments. Without life there is no pressure from selection, i.e. nothing from which to select. The process fundamentally requires living organisms that can reproduce, otherwise it would have to be a physical force, physically moving abiotic matter around, and selecting not for survival advantage but deliberating for future potential advantage... and an immaterial force acting physically to assemble something with deliberation would simply be a description of God or some kind of ghost or whatever. Actually, my comments in the earlier post probably owe their origin to having read some of Dawkins's books. I think the Weasel program first sees the light of day in the chapter entitled "accumulating small change" in Dawkins's "Blind Watchmaker". The purpose of the chapter is not to discuss the origin of life, but to demonstrate the power of cumulative selection, because "Chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe [i.e. natural selection], but the most important ingredient is cumulative selection which is quintessentially nonrandom". The weasel program is indeed used in the context of a discussion on life's origin, but that discussion is solely within the framework of natural selection. If you read the chapter, I hope you would accept that my post sits comfortably within Dawkins's view. I'm not sure I'm following you here when you say the discussion is solely within the framework of natural selection, but I think this blogger put it well "Probably the most obvious flaw in Dawkins line of reasoning is that the Weasel Program must be supplied with information to generate information. In fact, the only information it can generate is the information that was put in to it. If you put nonsense into the Weasel Program you get nonsense out, not information. The Weasel Program is just a conversion algorithm. Dawkins’ argument assumes that you can start with something that automatically has the ability to reproduce itself. I thought the idea here was that life was represented by a meaningful sentence. Shouldn’t nonsense be considered dead an unable to reproduce? Dawkins’ argument assumes that all the selected intermediate strings can reproduce even though he acknowledges that there are vastly more was of being dead than alive. If we were to enforce some rule for what is considered to be alive, like requiring the character string be composed of only properly spelled words, the Weasel Program wouldn’t be able to find a path to its expected output. To say that “there are vastly more ways of being dead than alive” would be a gross understatement because there would be easily billions of more ways of being “dead” than “alive”" (source: http://randystimpson...el-program.html). Whether or not you're considering this as a simulation to demonstrate the origin of life or the increasing of applicable sequencing to facilitate adaptation to a certain environment, if nothing more than unguided forces are at play then either way the simulation fails to account for how the conversion algorithm (or genetic algorithm if the metaphor is to extend so far) was set up in the first place, and more importantly, how anything could survive long enough to reproduce nested generations of sequencing that's not set up to perform any valid function. This necessitates that organisms are not selected for survival advantage but for their potential suvival advantage according to some intelligently prescribed, desired future outcome. If the match between sequencing and environmental funcationality is a prospective one, then Natural Selection kills off the organism, since unguided forces have no foresight and all you have is something that's not adapted for survival in its environment. If Natural Selection were actually in effect, none of the sequences except the last one would have made the cut. To survive the sentence would have to pop into being all at once, fully formed and error free, or else it would be selected out, demonstrating that you have to start with information and an algorithm to select from changes in the sequencing, just to get started, and from there you'd have to account for variations that would come into being as complete and environmentally relevant sequences that do not come at the expense of the functionality of the rest of the sequence. I think the Weasel Program bears testimony to how stupid Dawkins thinks the average reader of his books are...

Huh? What? erm... You're agreeing with something we said? Who are you and why are you posting under Viole's username?

As a young earther, I don't believe it's necessary to give purpose to man's existence in an old universe. However, reading Mark Twain's example there's a bit of sleight of hand involved. At first he uses the Eiffel Tower analogy to demonstrate the ratio of time between the age of the world and how long man has been here. This is all fine, but then he blurs the boundary between analogy and reality by applying an unrelated concept of the analogy (purpose) to mankind, by implying that since the paint is on the tip of the eiffel tower is insignificant so is man's existence. In other words he uses one aspect "time" to tie the analogy to reality, and then uses a completely different aspect of the analogy to make a point about reality. To me that seems rather sneaky. It is like saying, “People are like stained-glass windows. They sparkle and shine when the sun is out, but when the darkness sets in, their true beauty is revealed only if there is a light from within.” Then using that relationship set up between stained glass and people to say something like "Since people are like stained glass windows and since stained glass windows are held together by lead, people are also held together by lead". Or "Stained glass windows are cemented into walls, people must also be cemented into walls." While people may be like stained-glass windows in one sense, people aren't like stained-glass windows in every sense. Likewise while human existence may be like the paint on the tip of the Eiffel Tower in one sense, humanities existence isn't like unto it in every sense.

Using that logic then the command is troublesome even when factoring in death. Afterall the command is to multiply, not just break even with death, and humans are getting more and more, aren't they. So I can ask you the very same question, "How can God command us to multiply on a planet with limited space". What's wrong with saying that? Natural selection doesn't intelligently choose the fittest according to certain qualities. Natural selection tries to kill everything, but because the fit evade death a little longer than the unfit, their genes are more likely to be propagated. Given that, how is my statement that natural selection selects for death, unbelievable?

Hi D-9, Thanks for the explanation. I understand that some research has been done linking malfunctioning apoptosis to various diseases including cancer. Either way, do you think it's possible atleast that a mechanism could have existed pre-fall to replenish the telomeres that are lost during mitosis? Especially considering that all the other genetic mechanisms would not be corrupted through mutation, which means while telomerase enables cancer now, it may not have done so with the uncorrupted genomes of Adam and Eve. I understand that apoptosis plays a vital role in various processes. The thing to keep in mind, as I pointed out to Don Fanucci as well, is that "cell death" is merely an anthropomorphic term. It may as well be called "cell self-deletion" or something like that. It's like the "blue screen of death" that windows shows when it crashes. It has nothing to do with death really. I find in everyday life we do make such distinctions. I don't feel bad about pulling a carrot out of the ground, but I feel bad killing rats and mice that I find in my yard. We splatter bees on our windshield driving through the countryside, but imagine the horror splattering cats, dogs, budgies and pandas on your windshield. The bible distinguishes between levels of life, our modern scientific idea of life (which is generally limited to measurable quantities) is different from the Biblical point of view and I think it's important to keep the biblical point of view in mind when dealing with scripture. There are many things that we call 'alive' that, from a biblical standpoint are mere biological machines.