Evolution and the origin of life.

[~candice~]

So IL, you don't even believe in the ID form of evolution? I really wish you would explain how you interpret Gen 1-11 *scratches head*. Are you supporting the local flood theory, or no flood at all?

It's possible, but not apparently necessary. The Intelligent Design folks started everything wrong and played themselves into a corner by beginning with biology and holding up "irreducibly complex" systems as evidence. It was a gaps argument from the beginning and as those gaps shrink so does their evidence. They should have started with some of the basic properties of matter like water; water is an incredible material that displays all kinds of unique features that could be called "designed". Water molecules are put together so that they are very good at dissolving ionically bonded materials like salt, at the same time it's not very good at dissolving things that have covalent bonds like organic molecules. This makes it really nifty for moving ions around our bodies without dissolving our own cell fluids.

Water is also pretty unique in that when you turn it into a solid it not only expands but also floats. Imagine the horror of a universe in which water behaved like most other solids and sank, ice sheets would flow majestically towards the ocean then drop straight to the bottom where ice would quickly pile up, freezing most of earth's oceans and turning the rest into little more than an icy sludge.

Additionally, because of it's molecular structure water molecules are attracted to each other (hydrogen atoms of one water molecule are attracted to the oxygen atoms of others). These strong attractions mean that it takes quite a bit of energy to break them apart and change water's state of matter. Because of this large bodies of water take a really long time to heat up and a really long time to cool back down making earth's oceans essentially enormous heat reservoirs which play a major role in regulating the climate of the entire planet.

The only reason that I can figure out as to why ID proponents didn't/don't lead with is that water's ability to organize itself into an incredibly strong structure when it freezes kind of destroys the claim that natural process' can't bring about order on their own. Essentially the ID crowd is so focused on evolution they've missed out most of the evidence that would actually support their overall point.

Oh, and I support a local flood caused by the melting of ice sheets at the end of the last ice age.

Somehow, this question got overlooked. How do you interpret Gen 1-11? Ta.

[~candice~]

Somehow, this question got overlooked. How do you interpret Gen 1-11? Ta.

I think it was written with a didactic purpose; to teach about how God interacts on a personal level with human beings, that God has a plan for humanity, and that plan involves both rewards and consequences for people, rather than as a literal history in the modern sense. To achieve this purpose it's author used contextual images that it's audience could process, much as would any one of us if we were trying to explain an ATM to an isolated tribe of Congolese pygmies. God gave us creation to tell us about how He created the universe, He gave us his word to tell us why.

Lurker

Lurker,

This is an idea I toyed with for a while, before rejecting it due to the extreme exegesis issues it creates. For example, the references to Adam and Noah in the New Testament that speak as if they are real and literal people. Genealogies in the New Testament continue back from Abraham to Adam. The flood is referenced. You must have come across these issues on your journey to arrive at the place where you are now. How do you deal with these issues?

[leoxiii]

For something to be scientific, it can only deal with natural phenomena.

I utterly reject your Enlightenment definition of science. Science is knowledge. Some knowledge cannot be known through experimentation. For that you need philosophy, which is the queen of the sciences, and at the top of the branches of philosophy is theology.

Science is not knowledge, science is just a method by which we learn about the world through observation and experimentation.

You do not realize it, but you are a slave to the philosophy of naturalism, which you shamelessly use to render your erroneous definition of science.

methodological naturalism does not equal philosophical naturalism.

Main Entry: sci

[Sir Gareth]

I think it was written with a didactic purpose; to teach about how God interacts on a personal level with human beings, that God has a plan for humanity, and that plan involves both rewards and consequences for people, rather than as a literal history in the modern sense. To achieve this purpose it's author used contextual images that it's audience could process, much as would any one of us if we were trying to explain an ATM to an isolated tribe of Congolese pygmies. God gave us creation to tell us about how He created the universe, He gave us his word to tell us why.

Lurker

[Sir Gareth]

But youare admitting yourself that science is defined, at least in part, as knowlege or refereing to knowing something.

[~candice~]

Somehow, this question got overlooked. How do you interpret Gen 1-11? Ta.

I think it was written with a didactic purpose; to teach about how God interacts on a personal level with human beings, that God has a plan for humanity, and that plan involves both rewards and consequences for people, rather than as a literal history in the modern sense. To achieve this purpose it's author used contextual images that it's audience could process, much as would any one of us if we were trying to explain an ATM to an isolated tribe of Congolese pygmies. God gave us creation to tell us about how He created the universe, He gave us his word to tell us why.

Lurker

Lurker,

This is an idea I toyed with for a while, before rejecting it due to the extreme exegesis issues it creates. For example, the references to Adam and Noah in the New Testament that speak as if they are real and literal people. Genealogies in the New Testament continue back from Abraham to Adam. The flood is referenced. You must have come across these issues on your journey to arrive at the place where you are now. How do you deal with these issues?

Bump.

IL, I'd really like to hear your answers to these questions.

[Arthur Durnan]

No person, dead or alive, has ever seen an explosion that created order.

[MorningGlory]

No person, dead or alive, has ever seen an explosion that created order.

Very true; it's really hard to get around that basic premise.

[Sir Gareth]

maybe it's time we stopped arguing this, Lurker, me and you will never agree, we'll never convince each other to believe the others point of view, no matter how much competting evidence we throw at each other.

You want to cling to science, go ahead, as for me and my house, we shall serve the Lord.

[~candice~]

Somehow, this question got overlooked. How do you interpret Gen 1-11? Ta.

I think it was written with a didactic purpose; to teach about how God interacts on a personal level with human beings, that God has a plan for humanity, and that plan involves both rewards and consequences for people, rather than as a literal history in the modern sense. To achieve this purpose it's author used contextual images that it's audience could process, much as would any one of us if we were trying to explain an ATM to an isolated tribe of Congolese pygmies. God gave us creation to tell us about how He created the universe, He gave us his word to tell us why.

Lurker

Lurker,

This is an idea I toyed with for a while, before rejecting it due to the extreme exegesis issues it creates. For example, the references to Adam and Noah in the New Testament that speak as if they are real and literal people. Genealogies in the New Testament continue back from Abraham to Adam. The flood is referenced. You must have come across these issues on your journey to arrive at the place where you are now. How do you deal with these issues?

Bump.. IL?