|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 4/30/2008 8:25:31 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 251
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Do you define "natural" to mean "unguided by any intelligence whatsoever"? Umm, what other source of "intelligence" would there be if only non-life existed from which life could arise?
I suppose it depends on whether or not you consider a divine creator to be alive. When we speak of abiogenesis as the emergence of life from non-life, the "life" in question is biological life. Biologically speaking, divinity is "non-life", yet it is not without intelligence.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 5/1/2008 12:09:12 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3128
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I suppose it depends on whether or not you consider a divine creator to be alive. You do understand this is a Christian discussion forum! John 14:6
quote:
Biologically speaking, divinity is "non-life", yet it is not without intelligence. Biologically speaking, there is no simple single definition for life that's even widely accepted! How then can biologists "define God" as non-life? I'm sure He's chuckling over this faux-pas, gluadys! Oh sorry, I forgot - that depends on whether you consider a divine creator to be alive.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 5/1/2008 7:33:09 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 251
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
I suppose it depends on whether or not you consider a divine creator to be alive. You do understand this is a Christian discussion forum! John 14:6
Oh, certainly. And ordinarily I would not say the creator is not alive. The question is, what kind of life?
Is eternal life biological? Does a Spirit use biological mechanisms to sustain its life?
quote:
quote:
Biologically speaking, divinity is "non-life", yet it is not without intelligence. Biologically speaking, there is no simple single definition for life that's even widely accepted! How then can biologists "define God" as non-life? I'm sure He's chuckling over this faux-pas, gluadys! Oh sorry, I forgot - that depends on whether you consider a divine creator to be alive.
There is fairly wide-spread agreement on the characteristics of biological life. AFAIK, the one outstanding controversy is whether or not to include viruses.
If you include all the following characteristics:
Cellular organisation
Metabolism
DNA/RNA
Reproduction
viruses do not qualify as living.
Note that defining life by these characteristics, God is also not living, as he does not have a body with cellular organization. His life is not sustained by metabolism. He has no genetic information encoded in either DNA or RNA. And he does not reproduce (since He is eternally One). Hence, by biological definition, God is not alive.
So, for the purpose of discussion on abiogenesis, God qualifies as a "non-living" source of intelligence.
< Message edited by gluadys -- 5/2/2008 8:49:42 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 5/2/2008 4:23:08 AM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 266
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
I didn’t say anything about points.
No, but you did say "Well I am glad you have come around to my understanding here."
The 'point' in question being convincing me of something that I did not believe, and you did.
quote:
However, the main reason I find this piece compelling is because I've seen the claims (at least the montmorillonite thing) substantiated elsewhere. If I saw all of the components coming together to create life, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Rather, I think that it is a possible mechanism by which life may have arisen. I believe it to be worth investigation.
It’s never been substantiated anywhere, at least not by any ordinary understanding of the word. And these various scenarios are fairly boilerplate for abiogenesis research; if they show the slightest bit of promise they would have no shortage of money or interested researchers.
"3. to affirm as having substance; give body to; strengthen."
It doesn't meant that there has been enough evidence to move it into the realm of scientific theory, but simply that I've read things that strengthen the case for the montmorillonite RNA thing. Basically, "Montmorillonite is also known to cause micelles (lipid spheres) to assemble together into Vesicles. These are structures that resemble cell membranes on many cells. It can also help nucleotides to assemble into RNA which will end up inside the vesicles and, under the right conditions, will replicate themselves."
That being, that if there were nucleotides available, montmorillonite would be a proper vessel to help them become RNA and secrete a lipid coating for protection.
Also, arguing that "if they show the slightest bit of promise they would have no shortage of money," isn't a good argument from your side, considering that IDer's claim that ID shows promise, yet has a great shortage of money. (Perhaps not you specifically, but some IDers.) ... Unless you're saying that if something naturalistic shows promise, money will be thrown at it. In which case this portion of the comment is void.
quote:
Again, you are talking circles again; if the ‘necessary steps’ are unknown, then we can’t say that one proposed scenario is correct while the other is not.
By 'necessary steps' I mean 'processes which would make the naturalistic formation of life more likely.
No matter which side of the debate you're on, "life 'naturally' pops magically into existence is surely to be assigned a lower probability than, "Nucleotides form in montmorillonite clay. Nucleotides join together to make polynuleotides. Polynucleotides become RNA. RNA evolves to become DNA. DNA accrets a protective lipid membrane."
While we don't know how life formed (or, I'll grant, if.), if we're going to hypothesize about it, instantanous complexity is surely less likely than simple-to-complex chemical reactions.
quote:
But, as I have only a brief formal foray into chemistry, I am required to deffer to those who do have extensive knowledge of chemistry for my answers to chemical problems. They might not be right, but without the wherewithal to nay say them, I must defer to consensus. Otherwise I'm relying on my 'gut instinct' which, for thousands of years, told mankind that everything rotates around the Earth.
Actually, the consensus also said everything revolved around the earth. Best to think for oneself.
And that consensus was largely based off of that 'gut feeling'. It took evidence to make the completely counter-intuitive "Earth not the center of things." idea stick.
quote:
Well ok, then; I accept as a defense that you hate history and lack of knowledge on the subject. Perhaps you should differ to those of us who love history and have spent sometime studying it. 
In my defense, the 'rags to rats' form of SG was (from what I can find) the prevalent form of the theory for the greater majority of the theories existence. It is also the most widely known version of the theory.
Am I correct in assuming that even the latest versions of SG basically said non-complex things jumped straight into a form that fits the basic definitions of life?
_____________________________
"Instead of feeling alone in a group its better to have real solitude all by yourself."
~Faye Valentine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 5/2/2008 8:51:47 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3128
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Note that defining life by these characteristics, God is also not living, as he does not have a body with cellular organization. His life is not sustained by metabolism. He has no genetic information encoded in either DNA or RNA. And he does not reproduce (since He is eternally One). Hence, by biological definition, God is not alive. Sorry gluadys, but you've not defined "life" at all, rather you've identified several characteristics of living organisms. This is exactly what a naturalist would do to maintain the circular reasoning of her/his religious worldview. The fact is that "life" is not amenable to biological definition since life obviously exists outside limits of natural detection. So, for the purposes of discussion on abiogenesis, God cannot be restricted by naturalistic assumptions and observations!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 5/2/2008 9:46:50 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 251
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Sorry gluadys, but you've not defined "life" at all, rather you've identified several characteristics of living organisms.
Life is defined by the characteristics of life. Do you know of anything that is not defined by its relevant characteristics?
quote:
The fact is that "life" is not amenable to biological definition since life obviously exists outside limits of natural detection.
As you said, there is not a single, simple definition of "life". The biological definition of life is obviously limited to defining what it means to be biologically alive. It does not include a concept of spiritual life. One can be, as Paul describes, biologically alive while at the same time spiritually dead. And clearly, although God has no characteristic of biological life it is ridiculous to say that the source of all life is not living.
However, when one speaks of abiogenesis as "life from non-life" one means from what is not biologically alive. If spiritual life acts on what is not biologically alive to move it into a state of biological life, that qualifies as "life from non-life" as far as biology goes.
quote:
So, for the purposes of discussion on abiogenesis, God cannot be restricted by naturalistic assumptions and observations!
Do you mean "atheistic" assumptions?
Given that you agree that some types of life are outside the limits of natural detection, why would you expect observations of nature to detect them? Nature as detected and observed by the atheist is the same as nature detected and observed by the theist. This says nothing one way or another about God, since God in principle is undetectable by scientific methods of observation.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 5/2/2008 3:16:55 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3128
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Life is defined by the characteristics of life. Then list characteristics of life, NOT living organisms.
quote:
And clearly, although God has no characteristic of biological life it is ridiculous to say that the source of all life is not living. God has no "characteristics of biological organisms", except life, because He is the Source of Life! So since the source of all life is living, then abiogenesis is refuted.
quote:
However, when one speaks of abiogenesis as "life from non-life" one means from what is not biologically alive. If spiritual life acts on what is not biologically alive to move it into a state of biological life, that qualifies as "life from non-life" as far as biology goes. This obviously refers only to naturalists and naturalistic biology. I'm sorry they limit their understanding so arbitrarily, but that's not my problem.
quote:
Do you mean "atheistic" assumptions? Do you know any atheists who are not naturalists? Is belief in the God of the Bible compatible with pure naturalism?
quote:
Nature as detected and observed by the atheist is the same as nature detected and observed by the theist. This says nothing one way or another about God, since God in principle is undetectable by scientific methods of observation. Indeed, this is the whole basis of admitting that abiogenesis is a philosophical issue, not scientific. Thus it is the interpretation of the evidence that we must debate, not the evidence itself.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
