The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

santing

rockbeer wrote: »

Santing, the first thing I notice about your reduced list of modes is that it includes two - biological and spiritual - that do not appear on the full list of fifteen. Can you explain your reasoning for this - in particular, why did you decide to include the spiritual mode?

The biological mode would map to the organic mode, I liked the name biological more. In Dooyeweerd's original model the Biological mode would map to Biotic and Sensitive. see http://www.dooy.salford.ac.uk/asp.html

The Spiritual Mode contains the modes "logical, historical, linguistic, social, economic, aesthetic, jural, moral and pistical"

rockbeer

Thanks for the clarification.

I have to say my first impression is that this system is a potentially interesting representation of the way (some) human beings think and behave, but has little or nothing to do with any objective reality.

As Wicknight suggests, this can only end up with a lot of conjecture and little solid evidence on which we can all agree.

You seem to start out from the position that 'life' is a great mystery, and systems such as the one you post only reinforce that view. Science comes at things from the opposite persepctive. Things are made no more complex than they need to be. Science is capable of great complexity (e.g. modern physics and astronomy), but in many ways life just isn't that much of a mystery at all. I'm not saying everything is known, not at all, but chemical reactions and evolution go a long way towards revealing the truth and it turns out that for the most part life is adequately explained by chemistry with no need for recourse to god, souls, spirits or anything else. We are just a bit slow to accept this.

As for how and why humans are different from animals: bigger brains, mouths capable of refined articulation and opposable thumbs. There's really nothing we do that isn't mirrored or echoed somewhere else in the natural world. We are a comfortable part of the spectrum of life and our behaviour is not qualatively different to that of other species. You don't really need anything more; all our features are explained by evolution.

We are basically machines. It seems to me that this makes most people uncomfortable, and they need to feel we are somehow more than that. But there isn't really any objective evidence to support the idea.

I heard one of those fantastic reports the other day that scientists have 'discovered' that dolphins are much more intelligent than originally thought. Whenever I hear something like this it reminds me that faiths such as christianity that attempt to elevate humans to a position of inherent superiority over the rest of nature are largely responsible for the strange mixture of arrogance and contempt we have historically shown towards our co-inhabitants of this planet; an attitude that as a species we are slowly struggling to cast off, and that can only be helped by the realization that although our intellects might be superior, in every other way we are their equals. Or, in some cases perhaps, inferiors. Why did we previously think dolphins stupid? Why are we amazed when they turn out to be brighter than we thought? Because as a species we have an unpleasant tendency to think of everything else as stupid. Or at least as a lot more stupid than ourselves.

We would do well to remember that for all our misguided sense of superiority, most animals are our superiors in one way or another, and we are pale shadows of the creatures that may evolve from us. If we don't destroy the planet first.

santing

WickNight, Rockbeer, et. al.,

Your reactions don't surprise me. But let's take a step back. The original question was related to limitations of Science, to be exact physical/chemical science. My post to show how and why I think their are major limitations to this science, because there are aspects of the reality that cannot be explained through physical/chemical reactions, aspects such as (to give the original aspects as on http://www.dooy.salford.ac.uk/aspects.html):

• Biotic (life functions)
• Sensitive (sense, feeling, emotion)
• Analytical (distinction)
• Formative (deliberate shaping: history, culture, technology, goals and creativity)
• Lingual (meaning carried by symbolic)
• Social (social interaction)
• Economic (frugal use of resources)
• Aesthetic (harmony, surprise, fun)
• Juridical (due)
• Ethical (self-giving love, generosity)
• Pistic (vision, aspiration, commitment, creed)

In his post Wicknight seems to agree with me, but calls it pointless:

Wicknight wrote: »

That is because that is the only realm we can test.

You can say we can't reduce human experience to the physical world, but ultimately that is pointless because all that means is that we can't know about human experience in an proper fashion.

We, again, go back to guessing about stuff. You think your love is "greater" than my love. Ok lets build a model of your love and then test this model against observation. Except we can't because we are just guessing at stuff, with no way to determine if we are actually correct or not.

It is only pointless if we keep building test and testsystems based on physical/chemical aspects. To test anything beyond that is hard, complex, but that is what real life is about. If you wear glasses with red lenses, than the colour white has disappeared. It becomes pointless to test for the colour white. Unless of course, you are willing to take off your glasses. This becomes even apparent in my discussion on the miraculous.

Wicknight wrote: »

Again, you can guess as to what it was (It was God!) but that is ultimately pointless. Someone else could guess something completely different (It was Aliens!).

Here you basically admin that if God would tap you on the shoulder, if He would turn your world upside down, you would not notice it because of the restrictions of your glasses, earplugs etc. If God doesn't come according to your rules, you will not accept Him at all. Well the good news of Christianity is that God in His grace did come and "played" according to "your" rules, He came into His creation and was born about 2015 years ago.

Wicknight wrote: »

You will notice that "guessing" is a term I have used a lot.

Yes, I did. I accepted it as an obvious incapability of the people whose faith is rested on Physicism to accept the reliability of scientific methods used by others.

rockbeer wrote: »

You seem to start out from the position that 'life' is a great mystery, and systems such as the one you post only reinforce that view. Science comes at things from the opposite persepctive. Things are made no more complex than they need to be. Science is capable of great complexity (e.g. modern physics and astronomy), but in many ways life just isn't that much of a mystery at all.

Life might not be a great mystery to you, but it is definitely more complex than anything you have seen in modern physics. Ever seen the Citrix Cycle of biochemical reactions? Just the notations of all reactions taking place to change sugars in energy will take up a wall of small print!
Ever since Louis Pasteur we do not belief in spontaneous generation. So the origin of life is still a big puzzle.

Wicknight wrote: »

What makes animals different to plants is cell walls and about 2 billion years of evolution. And humans are animals.

I admire your faith in father time, my faith isn't big enough. But I guess I am right to say that animals are more than a mixture of plants, new cell walls and 2 billion years. I would like to take part in this scientific observation and as an indepent scientist perform this. Can you give me the exact dimensions of my lab, the ingredients and the method for measuring so I can repeat this experiment and evolve animals from plants

rockbeer wrote: »

We are basically machines.

I completely disagree. We have a purpose in this life and we are made in the image of God

rockbeer wrote: »

Because as a species we have an unpleasant tendency to think of everything else as stupid. Or at least as a lot more stupid than ourselves.

I guess you consider Christians a different species than yourself?

AtomicHorror

2Scoops wrote: »

What a complicated answer to a rather simple question! A simple 'yes' would have done. :pac:

2Scoops can I just say your sig is genius. If it's real, someone has an incredible amount of time on their hands and lots of PCR reagents.

Zombrex

santing wrote: »

Your reactions don't surprise me. But let's take a step back. The original question was related to limitations of Science, to be exact physical/chemical science. My post to show how and why I think their are major limitations to this science, because there are aspects of the reality that cannot be explained through physical/chemical reactions, aspects such as (to give the original aspects as on http://www.dooy.salford.ac.uk/aspects.html):

• Biotic (life functions)
• Sensitive (sense, feeling, emotion)
• Analytical (distinction)
• Formative (deliberate shaping: history, culture, technology, goals and creativity)
• Lingual (meaning carried by symbolic)
• Social (social interaction)
• Economic (frugal use of resources)
• Aesthetic (harmony, surprise, fun)
• Juridical (due)
• Ethical (self-giving love, generosity)
• Pistic (vision, aspiration, commitment, creed)

In his post Wicknight seems to agree with me

A few things here. Firstly the vast majority of things on that list can be studied and explained by science. I'm not sure where that list came from but its very flawed if it is a list of things highlighting the limitations of the scientific method.

Secondly, science is limited but that simply reflects the realities of the limitations of learning. Science is limited but that doesn't imply there are better methods over science. Every other method, particularly the one you appear to be using, are far far more limited. Turning to them because science cannot answer a question is pointless, because they won't answer the question either.

santing wrote: »

It is only pointless if we keep building test and testsystems based on physical/chemical aspects.

No, it is pointless because you can never determine if your guess is correct or not. So what is the point.

An example is the assertion God is perfect. You might say he is. I might say he isn't. Can we test either guess? No. Can we determine how accurate either guess may be? No. Can we in anyway judge if either of us are correct? No.

So what is the point. We know as much after the assertion as we would know having never made it. It doesn't increase our understanding or our knowledge. It is just an act of blurting out things that may or may not be true.

Another example would be saying that a strange light is a "ghost". You might say it is. I might say it isn't. Can we test either guess? No. Can we determine how accurate either guess may be? No. Can we in anyway judge if either of us are correct? No.

So, again, what is the point?

santing wrote: »

To test anything beyond that is hard, complex, but that is what real life is about.

Once you start testing something you are doing science. So you aren't talking about going beyond the limitations of science, you are talking about doing science.

Science is the process of modeling something and then testing the predictions of this model against observation. If you can do this with something you are doing science.

santing wrote: »

This becomes even apparent in my discussion on the miraculous.

I would be very very interested if you have figured out a way to model and test miracles.

If you have you have figured out a way to scientific study miracles.

santing wrote: »

Here you basically admin that if God would tap you on the shoulder, if He would turn your world upside down, you would not notice it because of the restrictions of your glasses, earplugs etc.

That is a rather nonsense assertion because you insert into it "if God would ..." So you are inserting a conclusion at the start.

The point is if the world turned up side down (an observed phenomena) how would you test and determine that it was actually God who did it.

The idea that well it must have been God is nonsense. It is a guess. It is pointless, because someone else could just as easily guess that it wasn't God it was space aliens.

You have to find a way to determine which hypothesis is more likely to be correct (God or space aliens, or none of the above) and the only way to do this is to test the hypothesis further through modeling and prediction. And once you are doing that you are doing science.

santing wrote: »

If God doesn't come according to your rules, you will not accept Him at all.

Well yes because if God doesn't come according to the rules I can't determine if he actually exists or not. All I have is you telling me he does, and lets be honest you could just be wrong.

santing wrote: »

Well the good news of Christianity is that God in His grace did come and "played" according to "your" rules, He came into His creation and was born about 2015 years ago.

A perfect example.

That sentence ("God did come ...") is a guess. As Rock says it is just conjecture. It is pointless. You don't know it is true. I don't know it is true. And you can't demonstrate it is true, you can't test it is true, you can't determine how likely it is to be true etc etc.

Making such a statement is pointless because you have absolutely no way of determining that it is actually an accurate reflection of reality, if it actually happened or not.

santing wrote: »

I admire your faith in father time, my faith isn't big enough.

Your faith isn't big enough to accept 100 years of scientific modeling of evolution (millions of scientists performing billions of verifiable tests), but it is big enough to accept the ramblings of a Jewish cult 2000 years ago who believe their leader was a deity and who wrote this down?

santing wrote: »

I would like to take part in this scientific observation and as an indepent scientist perform this. Can you give me the exact dimensions of my lab, the ingredients and the method for measuring so I can repeat this experiment and evolve animals from plants

Not really considering animals didn't evolve from plants ...

I think possibly you are making the age old mistake of thinking that modern animals are more evolved than modern plants. They aren't.

According to evolutionary biology animals did not evolve from plants. Animals and plants evolved at the same time down different paths from a common ancestory.

You can certainly evolve plants from this common ancestor (or animals) if you wish and you have the time. I think it would probably be easier though to simply study the, to quote Blue Petter, "one we prepared earlier" (ie the Earth) rather than waiting a billion years to perform your own creation of plants.

santing wrote: »

I completely disagree. We have a purpose in this life and we are made in the image of God

Another pointless guess. You don't know that, nor do you have any way to test if that is true or not.

You can say it is true but that is meaningless. You could be wrong. How would we know either way?

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

Since creationists have got the start so badly wrong, it's unlikely that they'll be any more accurate about the future.

Still, I'd like to hear a solid, concrete prediction from a creationist.

Glad to oblige!

Already fulfilled and present with us, a denial of the Flood:
2 Peter 3:3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.”

To be followed by:
2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.

But before the day of the Lord we will see:
2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Flamed Diving

wolfsbane wrote: »

Glad to oblige!

Already fulfilled and present with us, a denial of the Flood:
2 Peter 3:3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.”

To be followed by:
2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.

But before the day of the Lord we will see:
2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Wow. Is that whats actually written in the bible? No wonder you guys have a hard time reaching a consensus on it.

2Scoops

AtomicHorror wrote: »

2Scoops can I just say your sig is genius. If it's real, someone has an incredible amount of time on their hands and lots of PCR reagents.

All my blots are happy blots! :pac:

I wonder if a creation scientist ever performed one?

AtomicHorror

santing wrote: »

I still owe AtomicHorror an answer on a question ... I was offline for a day and fear the discussion has moved on, so my answer maight be irrelevant.

The answer to this questions lies in my limitations of Science. But let me first explain what I mean by those limitations. To do this, I have to introduce a bit of philosophy, to be specific reformed philosophy. You can find detailed discussions on this in a page called "Dooyeweerd's Theory of Aspects.(http://www.dooy.salford.ac.uk/asp.html)" In wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformational_philosophy) it discusses the Modal Theory:


If, for the sake of this threat, we reduce the Modal Theory to just have four modes (Physical, Biological, Psychical and Spiritual), than it means that every mode is based on the previous mode but introduce a new aspect that cannot be reduced to the previous mode. So the Physical mode includes "stones," the Biological mode includes "Trees," and the new aspect is "life." The Psychical mode includes "animals" - quite distinct from "trees" and the spiritual mode includes humans.

Philosophy, or at least good philosophy, is also based upon evidence. It is perhaps distinct from conventional science in that a philosopher may accept subjective evidence such as Descarte's fundamental first assertion that the self, in some manner, exists based upon the evidence that it is present to pose the question. Cogito, ergo sum.

What is the evidence that the modes you speak of here represent a real division and are not simply abstractions or labels? In the physical sciences, we biologists do not labour under the illusion that there is some "aspect barrier" between our science and the more fundamental science of chemistry. Similarly, chemists recognise that their field exists to make the study of the world on a given scale easier, that it is merely very complicated physics. The divisions between biological, chemical and physical are paradigmatic, not real. We study the sciences in artificial contexts, as a sort of shorthand.

There is, at this time, no particular reason for us to assume that the psychological and social are not similarly artificial divisions that are founded on the biological.

santing wrote: »

The tendency within Science is to reduce say a human to a biochemical machine trying to explain everything from a physical/chemical viewpoint.

Not really. What we've really done by creating the field of biology is to an extent deliberately set aside the reductionist explanation. It's not that it is considered unreasonable, or untrue, but it does not allow us to learn more because that reduction would paradoxically make biology impractically complicated.

santing wrote: »

According to the Modal Theory, we cannot reduce human behaviour to just biochemical reactions - although we can always measure these biochemical reactions - we have to take into account the Psychical and Spiritual aspects.

Do you think that the current scientific understanding of animal life demands the inclusion of some extra "aspect"? Can that aspect be defined in such a way as to explain some gap in our knowledge?

santing wrote: »

These aspects can of course be subjected to Science, but Science has than to understand the nature of the underlying modal aspect.

Can you define the psychical aspect in a manner that allows us to test for its existence?

santing wrote: »

I think not much work has been done on understanding what “Life” (biological) really is, or what makes animals different from plants, or humans than animals.

And in thinking that you'd be quite wrong. What sets plants and animals apart is very well understood on many levels. What sets humans and animals apart, on the other hand, appears to be very little indeed.

santing wrote: »

Coming back to the question. If I observe a phenomenon with an unknown cause, I would first try and classify the phenomenon in its proper Modal Aspect.

And immediately you would bias yourself in your investigations. To assume that a "biological" phenomenon can be so neatly classified would be a mistake. It might cause one to exclude possible "lower" chemical and physical causes, or "higher" psychologocical or social causes.

santing wrote: »

After that I would indeed try to – using the scientific process – explain the phenomenon within known functions, laws etcetera belonging to that Mode, supported by the known functions and laws of lower Modal Aspects. So at first, no wild guessing...

I'd be very interested to know what known functions, laws and models exist within the context of the psychical and spiritual aspects. I'd like you to explain how these may be tested and used.

santing wrote: »

However, I would also know that some events will never fit in the Scientific Model. For instance, the miracles the Lord Jesus performed cannot be explained scientifically.

We can assess the evidence available and attempt to explain them scientifically. They are not categorically beyond explanation, the limitation that exists is the paucity of evidence.

santing wrote: »

We can attempt to come up with a not miraculous explanation, but with that we dismiss the real nature of the event and equal the miraculous with a well performed magicians trick.

We don't reach that conclusion because the evidence is so weak.

santing wrote: »

So I am aware that events outside of my horizon can (and do) influence the world today.

What is influencing the world in this situation is entirely measurable and observable. It's the evidence cited for the event. It's the bible and the associated non-canonical writings. The rest is just whatever you've assumed to be true.

santing wrote: »

So what are the limitations of Science? Science is – by its own definition – only looking at the world we can observe. That brings outside intervention immediately outside of science, and Science cannot say anything truthful about outside intervention as it is not looking at it.

If there is outside intervention or cause(what we would call the supernatural), we should be able to observe the outcome, the effect. Otherwise we cannot say such an intervention has occurred at all and it becomes mere fantasy. If the cause truly is outside of observability then what we should have is an effect without a discernible cause. We've often seen such events, but then found the cause. In fact we've got a long history of finding the causes to these things that once perplexed our ancestors. So it would be rather premature and irrational to jump on effects with unidentified causes as being proof of the supernatural. If any of them remain utterly unexplainable, we can justifiably start becoming more imaginative in our hypotheses.

santing wrote: »

Science is also only interested in repeatable events. This part of the Scientific process, that everything must be repeatable by other (independent) scientist with similar (or same) results. That brings my birth outside the scientific realm, as it only happens once, and is not repeatable. (I wouldn’t do that to you!)

What aspects of your birth are unexplainable by science? Given enough information, what aspects of it would be unpredictable?

santing wrote: »

This is opposite to the science that researches births in general and which has given us (well, expectant mothers) a lot of support and well being. But the individual, the unique event is not predictable, not even an object of scientific research.

I get the distinction between "your birth" and "births". But science is not just about generalisation. Unless models are applicable to unique events, what use are they? It's also not just about predictive power, although that is an important element of theory. Explanatory power is also important. Your birth, with all of its unique elements does not defy scientific explanation.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Glad to oblige!

Already fulfilled and present with us, a denial of the Flood:
2 Peter 3:3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.”

To be followed by:
2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.

But before the day of the Lord we will see:
2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

The great thing about science are that the predictions aren't quite so totally open to personal interpretation or, you know, vague coincidence.

The rejection of elements of Christianity is predicted by various prophesies, often related to the End Times. But such rejection also would be expected if people just started to judge the religion untrue by reason. It seems likely that the prophesies, written by people who had seen religions come and go, were intended to pre-empt any and all rejections of the religion and frame them as if they were part of the plan. If I were starting a religion, I'd do the same thing.

Zombrex

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The great thing about science are that the predictions aren't quite so totally open to personal interpretation or, you know, vague coincidence.

The rejection of elements of Christianity is predicted by various prophesies, often related to the End Times. But such rejection also would be expected if people just started to judge the religion untrue by reason. It seems likely that the prophesies, written by people who had seen religions come and go, were intended to pre-empt any and all rejections of the religion and frame them as if they were part of the plan. If I were starting a religion, I'd do the same thing.

Yeah, starting a cult and then prophesying that people will dismiss/mock/reject you isn't exactly rocket science.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The great thing about science are that the predictions aren't quite so totally open to personal interpretation or, you know, vague coincidence.

The rejection of elements of Christianity is predicted by various prophesies, often related to the End Times. But such rejection also would be expected if people just started to judge the religion untrue by reason. It seems likely that the prophesies, written by people who had seen religions come and go, were intended to pre-empt any and all rejections of the religion and frame them as if they were part of the plan. If I were starting a religion, I'd do the same thing.

Very far-sighted and altruistic of them, to recognise the fate of false religions ( which they must have regarded their own if they thought it would eventually be exposed), and to care about something that would happen long after they were gone. And amazingly perverse of them to lay down their lives in a cause they knew to be false.

On the other hand, if they believed their religion was true, then they would be delivering a prophecy they believed true also. They would even be prepared to lay down their lives rather than renounce it.

J C

JoBlog wrote: »

The thread has 'Prophecy' in the title. The first post said '... also to tease out what prophecy has to offer in where we came from and where we are going.'

I'm fairly new here, has the prophecy part ever been discussed?

....we have never got past the Creationism part...perhaps after 20,000 posts or thereabouts we will get to prophecy...if the Good Lord doesn't rapture me first!!!!:pac::):D

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

We were discussing abiogenesis a few pages ago and I suggested that a viable first "replicator" would be self-replicating RNA molecules. For the first time, a lab in California are about to publish the synthesis of just such a molecule. Self-replicating and also evolving by natural selection according to one of the two basic selective pressures I also mentioned: replication rate. The molecules compete for nucleotides in their growth environment and the molecules which replicate fastest due to induced mutations prevail over the others.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-artificial-molecule-evolves-in-the-lab.html

I've yet to read the primary paper which will be appearing in Science, but this is an historic finding. It does not prove that RNA life was the means by which abiogenesis occurred of course, and nor does it really simulate the process as it would have occurred (the strands are synthesised by people and mutations were induced- albeit randomly- by people). But it is a beautiful proof of concept. Simple self-replicating molecule can exist, and their frequencies change in response to natural selection. The complex cellular machinery associated with higher life is not needed at "step 1".

.....a very interesting experiment indeed....copying the (RNA) Designs of the Creator...I guess imitation is the best form of flattery!!!!:D

....more tellingly, however, the following quote, from the above linked article, illustrates the problem of producing new functional information without an input of intelligence (which the authors call 'laboratory tinkering')
More fundamentally, to mimic biology, a molecule must gain new functions on the fly, without laboratory tinkering. Joyce says he has no idea how to clear this hurdle with his team's RNA molecule. "It doesn't have open-ended capacity for Darwinian evolution."

....nor will it EVER have any capacity to generate new functional information .... without an intelligent input from it's Human 'Creators'!!!!:pac::):D

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I'm sure it will be taken as evidence that intelligence is needed to create such self-replicating molecules. There's lots of stuff in the publication that the creationists will use as a reason to dismiss the work entirely.

Having done a little digging, it seems that this is actually not "a first" at all. The same group have done loads of work on RNAs with enzymatic functions, including ligation self replication as seen here. These are the first ones to demonstrate perpetual self-replication and natural selection though.

And the replication is not quite what I'd like to see- ligation rather than polymerisation. But it's baby steps. We can't expect to do in a decade what takes a billion years by itself.

.....I can do in 5 seconds what 'blind' non-intelligently directed natural forces could NEVER do ...even in a billion years...things as simple as writing this sentence, for example!!!:pac::):D

MackDeToaster

J C wrote: »

.....I can do in 5 seconds what 'blind' non-intelligently directed natural forces could NEVER do ...even in a billion years...things as simple as writing this sentence, for example!!!:pac::):D

If you break down the sequence of writing a sentence you'll find it isn't actually so simple, try it. And since you and that ability are the product of that 'billion years', I'll also resist the temptation of reusing 'blind' and 'non-intelligent' :cool:

J C

.... and speaking of Intelligent Design, and all that ....... I came across a very interesting project entitled 'Darwin and us - a comparative study of modern attitudes to Darwin's work' at the BT Young Scientist Exhibition in the RDS last week.

The project set out to measure the attitudes of young people aged 16-18 years old to the question of 'origins' in two Irish Schools and one American school.

What makes the study particularly fascinating, is that the Ameican School chosen was Rhea County High School in Tennessee .... which was the school in which John Scopes once taught science ... and was dismissed for mentioning Evolution... triggering the infamous 'Scopes Trial' ... which he duly legally lost ... but ultimately 'won' in the 'court of public opinion'....

....ironically something like what is happening with Intelligent Design today ... which has also been busy losing court cases ... but continuing to gain scientific and public credibility!!!!

Anyway these very enterprising young Irish students surveyed 115 Irish and 94 American students with a questionnaire on their views on different aspect of the 'origins' question...with some very interesting results!!!

On the issue of the 'Age of the Earth' 84% of the Irish students and 70% of the Americans said that it was 4.5 Billion Years old ... and the Young Earth Creationists could be measured in single digit percentages on both sides of the Atlantic.


However, when it came to Evolution, things weren't quite as 'rosy' for the Evolutionists. When asked if there is evidence for Evolution in the Fossil Record, 51% of the Irish students said there was ... an only 19% of the Students in the school that 'launched' the teaching of Evolution in American Public Schools said that there was fossil evidence for Evolution!!!!

....and it was downhill from there on for the Materialistic Evolutionists....

When asked what a species was 70% of the Irish students and 43% of the American Public School students (who can only be taught Materialistic Evolution and who cannot be given ANY religious education by law in their school) said that a Species was "the descendants of original types created by God" ... a Creation Science definition, if ever I saw one!!!!

....and the coup de grace came for the Materialistic Evolutionists when the young people were asked if "the complexity of the natural world is evidence of a Divine Creator" ...
....76% of the Irish students and 91% of the American students answered in the affirmative.....proof that Intelligent Design is 'alive and kicking' amongst young people on both sides of the Atlantic .... despite the best efforts of Materialistic Evolutionists at suppressing it!!!:pac::):D

The Mad Hatter

So you think you're winning because a bunch of schoolchildren agree with you?

Good grief, this is a new low.

Anyhow, I'm sure there's a copy of AtomicHorror's pesky list of thirteen unanswered questions around here somewhere. How about you try answering some of them. And no more of your clumsy evasion - real answers this time.

J C

MackDeToaster wrote: »

If you break down the sequence of writing a sentence you'll find it isn't actually so simple, try it. And since you and that ability are the product of that 'billion years', I'll also resist the temptation of reusing 'blind' and 'non-intelligent' :cool:

...please DO reuse 'blind' and 'non-intelligent' ....because these words are yet another conundrum for Evoutionists....how can you know that your brain is thinking logically and intelligently .... if you believe that it is a product of non-intelligently directed processes???

....an eternal problem for all 'moronic design' advocates in the Materialistic School of Evolution!!!:pac::):D

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

So you think you're winning because a bunch of schoolchildren agree with you?

....just shows that Evolutionists may fool some people on some aspects of Evolution ... but claiming that "pondslime became Man" over billions of years is something that even a seventeen year old, can see through.....while 'glued' to an ipod !!!!!:pac::):D

The Mad Hatter

me wrote: »

Anyhow, I'm sure there's a copy of AtomicHorror's pesky list of thirteen unanswered questions around here somewhere. How about you try answering some of them. And no more of your clumsy evasion - real answers this time.

I suppose not, then?

MackDeToaster

J C wrote: »

.

....ironically something like what is happening with Intelligent Design today ... which has also been busy losing court cases ... but continuing to gain scientific and public credibility!!!!

Lol, whatever about public credibility, that's not a measure of the validity of scientific theories, but if you could provide me with a single peer-reviewed scientific ID paper I'd love to see it.

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

I came across a very interesting project entitled 'Darwin and us - a comparative study of modern attitudes to Darwin's work' at the BT Young Scientist Exhibition in the RDS last week.

I, for one, am flabbergasted that school-aged children have a poor grasp of a topic that is not even comprehensively taught in school. [/sarcasm]

I am sincerely flabbergasted that a single digit % of our children are de facto YE creationists! Surely, they were just taking the mickey? :eek:

MackDeToaster

J C wrote: »

how can you know that your brain is thinking logically and intelligently .... if you believe that it is a product of non-intelligently directed processes???

....an eternal problem for all 'moronic design' advocates in the Materialistic School of Evolution!!!:pac::):D

And if you believe it's a product of intelligently directed processes, can you describe to me the source of those intelligently directed processes ?

That would be an eternal problem for ID advocates, except that rather than answer the question they'd sooner evade it because of the obvious circular logic.

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I suppose not, then?

.....I have already done so.... repeatedly....the fact that you don't like the answer doesn't mean that I have to waste my time repeating myself!!!!:pac::):D

....anybody see Prof Dawkins on Network 2 this evening questioning other people's religious beliefs...but carefully avoiding any awkward questions about his own faith in (the absence) of God!!!!:pac::):D

....anyway I look forward to him eventually meeting a Creation Scientist ... who will answer all of his scientific questions ...as well as 'setting him straight' on a few theological issues!!!:pac::):D

....I have noted that Prof Dawkins only interviews people who are not scientifically literate ... with the exception of the occasional Evolutionist ... he should try interviewing a top Creation Scientist, for a change and give the 'theologians' a break!!!!:pac::):D

2Scoops

MackDeToaster wrote: »

Lol, whatever about public credibility, that's not a measure of the validity of scientific theories, but if you could provide me with a single peer-reviewed scientific ID paper I'd love to see it.

I'd settle for just a scientific paper, doesn't even have to be peer-reviewed. The only example of creation science alluded to on this thread is the secret stuff that J C refuses to tell anyone about. I'd love to see it.

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

.....I have already done so.... repeatedly....

What about the new questions?

MackDeToaster

2Scoops wrote: »

I'd settle for just a scientific paper, doesn't even have to be peer-reviewed. The only example of creation science alluded to on this thread is the secret stuff that J C refuses to tell anyone about. I'd love to see it.

Ah right, I'm new here and have only seen this page of this thread, but I'm observing a few telltale signatures which lead me to fear the battle may be futile other than for the sake of any lurkers.

J C

MackDeToaster wrote: »

And if you believe it's a product of intelligently directed processes, can you describe to me the source of those intelligently directed processes ?

That would be an eternal problem for ID advocates, except that rather than answer the question they'd sooner evade it because of the obvious circular logic.

.....the 'intelligence' directing the process must be greater that the product of the process .... and transcendent to it ....and the only ultimate candidate as author of such a process is God....no circular reasoning...just a continuum of pure LOGIC!!!!:pac::):D

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

.....the 'intelligence' directing the process must be greater that the product of the process .... and transcendent to it ....and the only ultimate candidate as author of such a process is God....no circular reasoning...just a continuum of pure LOGIC!!!!:pac::):D

wow .. it would have been hard to make up a better example of circular reasoning

bravo JC, bravo :rolleyes: