Reconciling Creationism with Evolution: both are correct...

a reply to: cooperton

Thank you , so life is impossible to occur by random chance, therefore if God is considered life
then God too also was created as God couldn't have randomly just appeared

And so we end up with a never ending chain of creator and progeny


Also in your abiogenesis thread you mention

This would mean that approximately 13,500 beneficial mutations would have to occur to create just one protein involved in the metabolic electron transport chain

the universe has apparently existed for 13.772 billion years , in that time you are suggesting that it is statistically impossible for 13,500 mutations to occur somewhere in the universe and for that genetic information to work its way to earth.

Life or the precursory materials may have happened elsewhere and just found its way to earth through panspermia
it may not have even happened on earth , these required protein chains may have existed first elesewhere millions of years before earth even existed and through panspermia have found their way here via comet

The assumption is that something did something........
Why can't whatever is just BE what it is?

There is no 'this' causing 'that' ..... what is is being what is.

There is an assumption of two.....

Check out..... 'Dr David R Hawkins:There is no ' this' causing a 'that'......... on youtube.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

this is because we have ego and need to know the answer , we have to judge and understand , we cant just appreciate it for what it is !

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: Itisnowagain

this is because we have ego and need to know the answer , we have to judge and understand , we cant just appreciate it for what it is !

So you are saying that the ego caused it..........
No nothing caused anything..... do you not understand?

There is no this causing that!!!

In fact there are no things..... just happenings.....
Selfing is what the word 'ego' refers to.

There is a presupposing of something that does not exist.....

Check out..... Paul Hedderman What is Selfing? ... on youtube (there are two vids with same name.... both are worthy of watching for grokking).

'The selfing does nothing but imply that there is a noun.' Paul Hedderman.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

No I am not saying Ego caused it , I am saying because of Ego we cant just appreciate a phenomenon for its beauty
we have to determine its origin , how it works, why it works and what it means !

Thanks for the suggested vids, I shall grokk them at my leisure

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: cooperton

Thank you , so life is impossible to occur by random chance, therefore if God is considered life
then God too also was created as God couldn't have randomly just appeared

That is a game of semantics, I was referring to biological material life. The Conscious Living God always existed, and never did not exist. It always was and always has been, the philosophers of antiquity deduced this long ago. You're a 3D creature claiming that 4D+ Beings cannot exist. Just because we are limited by the progression of time does not mean everything is. Obviously whatever created life is a Being much higher in complexity than its creation can currently fathom.

Also in your abiogenesis thread you mention

"This would mean that approximately 13,500 beneficial mutations would have to occur to create just one protein involved in the metabolic electron transport chain"

the universe has apparently existed for 13.772 billion years , in that time you are suggesting that it is statistically impossible for 13,500 mutations to occur somewhere in the universe and for that genetic information to work its way to earth.

Yes because they wouldn't have been able to save any of the data because there was no means for replicating genetic data yet. Remember, before life existed, there was no genetic replication. So this is the dilemma, how did random chance create over 10,000 nucleotides in their proper meticulous order to create that one protein? And this is just for one of the many proteins required for the most rudimentary life. Please see this objectively. It is beyond the realm of natural possibility

a reply to: cooperton

Yes because they wouldn't have been able to save any of the data because there was no means for replicating genetic data yet. Remember, before life existed, there was no genetic replication. So this is the dilemma, how did random chance create over 10,000 nucleotides in their proper meticulous order to create that one protein? And this is just for one of the many proteins required for the most rudimentary life. Please see this objectively. It is beyond the realm of natural possibility

You've made this statement so many times that it's probably a cut-and-paste answer.

Please cite one paper that says that 10,000 nucleotides organized and structured occurred by random chance.

While you're at it, please explain what you think "random chance" is. I bet you don't have a clue.

a reply to: cooperton

You're a 3D creature claiming that 4D+ Beings cannot exist.

No. We are saying you have no evidence of a 4D being existing. Such an entity is a hypothesis at best, unless you have figured out a way to test and confirm a being of such nature. First you would have to sufficiently define and demonstrate the 4th dimension and prove beyond reasonable doubt that it houses creatures not bound by space and time. Until you do, all such claims are based in assumption and cannot be trusted.

a reply to: Raggedyman

I have. Read what I've cited. When you do, try again.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

I have. Read what I've cited. When you do, try again.

You posted a couple of links and claimed they were empirical
They are not empirical, you are delusional, you were never a premier in Queensland were you?
Repetable
Observable
Testable

a reply to: TzarChasm

I have met extra dimensional beings , but have no proof they exist other than my own testimony, they didn't claim to be god !

you can try it yourself though have a business mans lunch !

a reply to: cooperton

if we are all a part of god then consciousness is life itself
its not semantics , if we are a part of the whole then god is life !
If the universe is god then it is supreme consciousness , like everything is the same thing according to Bohms wholeness and the implicate order . Then we are god anyway , so I guess in that sense the universal one is alive and well in us!
and every piece of matter and anti matter in the universe all matter .
But not some bearded dude in the sky like in the bible , that to me is just a load of rubbish.

Anyways so if you can accept that a "god" or universal oneness has always existed infinitely, if that is possible then how can you not accept the random chance of DNA nucleotides forming .

Didn't Hawking say that we only consider humans to have free will because we cannot accurately determine what a human will do with any great certainty using math's , we just don't know enough about quantum physics , we may well discover that every single action has already been pre-planned every single choice we have made.

Maybe the then if you consider the possibility of a supreme consciousness having always existed, what are the chances of that occurring naturally , then sure I can see the occurrence of these nucleotides, I mean the universe is already fantastical and mysterious so anything is possible.


So if we are so complex to have required design , then so to must god , because something that complex couldnt not arise spontaneously

I guess we just dont have enough information to determine the origins yet , we theorise extra dimensions but we have no proof

but as I suggested maybe consciousness is the key to extra dimensions , where your body physically cannot go but your consciousness can!

Thanks for your chat

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: cooperton

if we are all a part of god then consciousness is life itself
its not semantics , if we are a part of the whole then god is life !

It is a process of remembering our eternal existence. That is the purpose of this transient existence. To not re-member in our life is to sin, which means "to miss the mark"

But not some bearded dude in the sky like in the bible , that to me is just a load of rubbish.

That is not the description of God ever given in any part of the Bible. You will be guided if you look.

Anyways so if you can accept that a "god" or universal oneness has always existed infinitely, if that is possible then how can you not accept the random chance of DNA nucleotides forming .

Because ordered systems are created by intelligent, not random chance. Computer chips do not form by random chance, no matter how much time you allow things to react randomly. Every protein in our body is like a micro-robot meticulously performing its task with other synchronized micro-robots and nanoparticles.

Didn't Hawking say that we only consider humans to have free will because we cannot accurately determine what a human will do with any great certainty using math's , we just don't know enough about quantum physics , we may well discover that every single action has already been pre-planned every single choice we have made.

My bet would be that we do have free will, the freedom to choose... but the things we will choose are already known by the Being that exists throughout all time.

Maybe the then if you consider the possibility of a supreme consciousness having always existed, what are the chances of that occurring naturally , then sure I can see the occurrence of these nucleotides, I mean the universe is already fantastical and mysterious so anything is possible.

I am only saying it is impossible by natural means. This is evident because we have never seen an organism change into another organism (Evolution), nor have we seen life come from non-life (abiogenesis) in a lab setting. And remember a lab setting is not random chance, it involves intelligent intervention, and we still are not capable of demonstrating either of these theories. Therefore, from the empirical evidence, evolution and abiogenesis have so far been demonstrated to be not possible with human intervention, and by extension even harder by random chance without human intervention.

Could the higher being that created life cause something to evolve? Certainly, but if it had such an ability to create and manipulate life, it would more intuitively have created everything rather quickly, not relying on the fabled billions of years for cosmic and biological development.

So if we are so complex to have required design , then so to must god , because something that complex couldnt not arise spontaneously

This is the alpha-omega, it encompasses all time and space. It never didn't exist, so therefore never needed to be created.

but as I suggested maybe consciousness is the key to extra dimensions , where your body physically cannot go but your consciousness can!

I would have to agree. To me, this physical world is like a larval stage. Could you imagine telling someone ignorant of caterpillars that one day it will harden an envelopment around itself, liquefy itself, transform into a creature with wings and fly away? They would think that's preposterous. But it's true. Such is the promise to those who keep looking for truth. Avoid dead-end philosophies. Evolution is a dead end, it yields nothing worthwhile.

Thanks for your chat

It's been a pleasure

a reply to: cooperton

Because ordered systems are created by intelligent, not random chance. Computer chips do not form by random chance, no matter how much time you allow things to react randomly. Every protein in our body is like a micro-robot meticulously performing its task with other synchronized micro-robots and nanoparticles.

do you think Einstein invented E=mc2 or just the symbols used to express that equation and its manifest properties? do you know the difference between those two things?

I would also suggest that computer chips are not found in nature because we humans have come a very long way in the art of turning nature into something unnatural. Humans used to take inspiration from natural formations and interactions, but now we are exploiting loopholes and it is taking a massive toll on the ecosystem.

This is the alpha-omega, it encompasses all time and space. It never didn't exist, so therefore never needed to be created.

Once again, you are basing your claims in assumption unless you have invented a way to measure stuff that happens outside of space time. In which case, you will soon be the richest person on earth. Unless they do you like they did Tesla.

a reply to: cooperton

Because ordered systems are created by intelligent, not random chance. Computer chips do not form by random chance, no matter how much time you allow things to react randomly. Every protein in our body is like a micro-robot meticulously performing its task with other synchronized micro-robots and nanoparticles.

You have yet to cite any research article which says that evolution is random chance. Nor have you described your definition of random chance. The fact is you don't understand what random chance is. You've simply made up some definition which fits your view.

Science has never said that evolution is random chance. You're making it up as you go along, repeating the same lies without ever substantiating your claims.

Unanswered random lies do not stick no matter how many times you post the same dribble.

a reply to: Phantom423

Some good info to consider about Randomness and evolution
Definition of Randomness and more or less guided and unguidedness are discussed in these two articles:

This is the third in a series of reviews of Alvin Plantinga’s important new book, Where the Conflict Really Lies.

One of the more difficult parts of Plantinga’s book is his discussion of “randomness” in Darwinian evolution, and the related questions of “Darwinism” and the “scientific theory of evolution.” In fact, the discussion is easily misinterpreted and potentially confusing, so let’s consider it at length.

What’s in a Word? “Randomness” in Darwinism and the Scientific Theory of Evolution

And a response from Alvin here:

What I wanted to show about these latter theories is that even if they constitute good science, they don’t provide defeaters for the Christian beliefs with which they are incompatible.

Seeking an Official Definition of “Randomness”: A Reply to Jay Richards

This definition of Random by Elliot Sober seems to be of contention.

Sober defines “random” even more carefully: “There is no physical mechanism (either inside organisms or outside of them) that detects which mutations would be beneficial and causes those mutations to occur.”2 Mutations’ “being random in that sense,” Plantinga notes, “is clearly compatible with their being caused by God” (p. 13). Certainly, given theism, it’s logically possible that an event such as a genetic mutation could be guided directly by God and independently of any physical mechanism. As a result, Plantinga can say that the Christian view “that God intended to create creatures of a certain kind” is “consistent with Darwinism, the view that the diversity of life has come to be by way of natural selection winnowing random genetic mutations” (p. 11). Note that he’s defined Darwinism using Sober’s, um, sober definition of “random.”

What’s in a Word? “Randomness” in Darwinism and the Scientific Theory of Evolution

Lots of reading. But seems there is a lot to assume about Darwin’s intentions and what kind of evolution Darwin followers are intending.

I doubt all of this will help clear the conflict but it shows that it is not a simple yes or no issue.

a reply to: Observationalist

The article you cited discusses "randomness" as a philosophical idea, resolving the various arguments by opinion. Evolution is a science and as a science, we use mathematics to analyze for randomness.

The article is replete with contradictions and errors as well:

The alternative to intelligent design would be an unimaginably improbable run of chance. Now, would any Darwinist think this is a perfectly acceptable outcome for his theory? Chance here is no explanation at all, yet surely no Darwinist would be happy to appeal to purposefully guided mutations in order to explain this (or any) biological system. No Darwinist would say, “No problem. The official Darwinian definition of ‘random’ allows for the possibility that God (or someone) is guiding outcomes without using any physical mechanism.” On the contrary, this is exactly the dilemma the Darwinist hopes to avoid. A cautionary note: This discussion, like so many discussions involving God and evolution, risks giving the impression that there is good evidence that genetic mutations can build new biological systems, and we’re just considering whether God could have guided them. There is no such evidence. We must avoid the temptation to move straight to reconciling Darwinian claims to theology without first evaluating the evidence for Darwinian claims.

There are over 500 recognized scientific journals which have published thousands of articles on the science of evolution. The evidence is overwhelming. That some people ignore the evidence is their problem. Science continues to march on with new discoveries and new evidence.



The following two examples demonstrate how evolutionary data is analyzed. You can refer to the links for more detailed information.

DNA shuffling by random fragmentation and reassembly:
In vitro recombination for molecular evolution
WILLEM P. C. STEMMER
Affymax Research Institute, 4001 Miranda Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94304

www.pnas.org...

ABSTRACT

Computer simuations of the evolution of linear sequences have demonstrated the importance of recombinatlon of blocks of sequence rather than point mutagenes alone. Repeated cycles of point mutagenesis, recombination, and slosnhould allow in molecular evolution of complex quences, suh as proteins. A method for the reassembly of genes from their random DNA gments, rting in in vitro recombini s reported. A 1-kb gene, after DNase I digesto and purification of 10- to 50-bp random a nts, wasr todtoal size and function. Similarly, a 2.7-kb plasmid could be fitly reambled.

Complete recombination was obtand between two markers separated by 75 bp; each marker was located on a separate gene. Oligonucleotides wIth 3' and 5' ends that are homologous to the gene cam be added to the frag mentiure N incorporated into the reassembled ne.

Thus, mix of sthetic oligonuclotides and PCR a can be mixed into a gene at defined positions based on homolog. As an example, a library of cmera of the hunan and murine genes for interleukin 10 has been prepad. Shu g can also bi used for the in vitro equivalent of some s genetic mapulaions, such a a bakros with parental DNA.

The advantages of recombination over exiting mut methods are likely to increase with the numbers of cycles of molecular evolution.

Diversitree: comparative phylogenetic analyses of diversification in R
Richard G. FitzJohn

besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Introduction

The tree of life is remarkably uneven in both taxonomic and trait diversity; describing this unevenness and revealing its underlying causes are major focuses of evolutionary biology. Comparative phylogenetic methods have been widely used to study patterns and rates of both trait evolution (Felsenstein 1985; Pagel 1994) and diversification (Nee, May & Harvey 1994). A recently developed set of models unites both trait evolution and species diversification, avoiding biases that occur when the two are treated separately (Maddison 2006). This includes the ‘BiSSE’ method (binary state speciation and extinction; Maddison, Midford & Otto 2007), as well as similar methods that generalise the approach to nonanagenetic trait evolution and to quantitative traits.

In this note, I describe the ‘diversitree’ package for R (R Development Core Team, 2012). Diversitree implements several recently developed methods for analysing trait evolution, speciation, extinction, and their interactions. Below, I describe the general approach of the package and the methods that it contains.

I introduce a generalisation of the BiSSE method to multistate characters or to combinations of binary traits (MuSSE: multistate speciation and extinction). Finally, I demonstrate the package, and MuSSE, with an example of social trait evolution in primates.

a reply to: Phantom423

There are over 500 recognized scientific journals which have published thousands of articles on the science of evolution. The evidence is overwhelming. That some people ignore the evidence is their problem. Science continues to march on with new discoveries and new evidence.

All these journals may prove that Evolution works, but do they prove that evolution is not compatible with a god guided process? It doesn’t have to be the “big bearded dude in the sky” that religion points to.

Is it the job of these scientists to prove if it’s guided or not? Or is that the task given to Darwin’s followers who happily ignore the philosophical undercurrent that drives Darwin’s theory.

a reply to: Observationalist

Is it the job of these scientists to prove if it’s guided or not? Or is that the task given to Darwin’s followers who happily ignore the philosophical undercurrent that drives Darwin’s theory.

Science is about discovery and evidence. That's it. If there were evidence of a guide, god or whatever, then science would investigate. But to date, there is no evidence. Therefore, it's not a topic that you'll find in research papers. That said, there are papers that ask these philosophical questions. And that's fine. But the hard evidence for the existence of a creator or guide just isn't there.

The job of the scientist is to study the natural world and find out how it works. The universe doesn't follow our rules. We follow its rules. We simply can't insert something into the natural world that isn't there - at least to the extent that it is detectable to us.

A good scientist is open to all possibilities. But it's only the hard evidence that counts as a discovery.

originally posted by: Observationalist

All these journals may prove that Evolution works

Don't fall for their go-fish game. None of those experiments exhibit an organism changing into another organism (evolution).

It doesn't even happen in a lab operated by intelligent humans, and therefore is even less probable to occur without intelligent intervention.