Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
... In the first case, DNA was produced by chemistry, not by biology, and I always hated chemistry so I can't answer how DNA came to be. ...
So even though you don't understand how it happened you are going to believe it based on faith. You are free to do so. I do not accept science based on faith. I have decided to let the evidence take me where ever it goes. I only accept materialistic naturalism when it has evidence.
Is it as complex as DNA? Can you scientifically demonstrate that it follows from physics? The answers are no and yes.
Ah yes, the vagueness of "complexity." What is complex enough for this argument? It would appear to be whatever doesn't invalidate it. What is your criteria for determining that DNA is more "complex" (whatever that means) than planets, stars, solar systems, and galaxies? Actually, preceding that, how do you quantify "complexity?"
__________________ Causing confusion one avatar at a time.
So even though you don't understand how it happened you are going to believe it based on faith. You are free to do so. I do not accept science based on faith. I have decided to let the evidence take me where ever it goes. I only accept materialistic naturalism when it has evidence.
What do you think I am taking on faith? DNA is an acid. It's a chemical. Just like salt or hydrogen sulphide or carbohydrates. It's structure is lot more complicated because it is a macromolecule (a polymer?) -- I really don't remember much high school chemistry and I never touched biochemistry. But it doesn't make sense to me to say that because a molecule has a more complicated structure one needs any more faith to accept what chemists tell us about it than to accept what they say about the chemistry of water.
Do I think chemists know chemistry? Well, yes.
And as long as what they say is based on their work with chemicals such as DNA and not on faith, then I don't think my accepting what they say requires faith either. I accept what they say on the basis of their knowledge, just as I accept what my mechanic says on the basis of his knowledge.
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
There seems to be a large misunderstanding surrounding how science infers causality in the case of non-reproducible historical events. The argument is made that ID does not provide an explanation because "it is not science". I think this is a demonstration of not understanding historical science.
Premise 1:
There have been significant attempts made to discover a natural mechanism through which the information contained in the DNA in Prokaryote cells could have arisen through natural mechanisms. None have succeeded. Premise 2:
We know through observation that complex collections of specified information always arise from intelligence. Conclusion:
We can through an inference to the best explanation conclude that the DNA in the first Prokaryote cells was a product of intelligent design.
Since premise 2 only relates to the intelligent acts of humans, should we therefore conclude that we built time machines and created the first complex biological organisms? It makes more sense than you probably think it does.
__________________ For free printable drum lessons with audio check out my website. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
What do you think I am taking on faith?...I really don't remember much high school chemistry and I never touched biochemistry.
That DNA arose from necessity and chance.
And as long as what they say is based on their work with chemicals such as DNA and not on faith, then I don't think my accepting what they say requires faith either. I accept what they say on the basis of their knowledge, just as I accept what my mechanic says on the basis of his knowledge.
Interesting position. You don't know anything about the subject. You trust "experts" and refer to them to prove your point. Hard to argue with that. Personally it makes me uncomfortable.
It's ironic that you push so hard for us to try to understand ID. And while I admire that you stick around when it's six against one, I am quite disappointed in this statement. When I push a rock down a hill, the place that it ends up is quite random. Or is it? It actually comes to rest where it does because of natural forces and the laws that determine where it ends up. It's final resting place seems random to us only because in this case "random" and "chance" only refer to our ability to predict it's final destination. "Chance" is not a cause.
In the same way, "chance" didn't cause DNA to form, biochemical interactions that follow specific laws caused it to form. The "randomness" of the process and the "chance" of a specific outcome only refer to our ability to predict that outcome.
__________________ For free printable drum lessons with audio check out my website. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
God does work through necessity and chance, right? What reason is there to assume that at this particular point God intervened with a miracle?
This is faith. You are unqualified to judge there work. You trust them because ... well you do.
I will consider this an acceptable criticism when you decide not to accept the judgment of your dentist that you need a root canal. After all, unless you are a dentist, you are not qualified to judge their work.
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
When I push a rock down a hill, the place that it ends up is quite random. Or is it? It actually comes to rest where it does because of natural forces and the laws that determine where it ends up. It's final resting place seems random to us only because in this case "random" and "chance" only refer to our ability to predict it's final destination. "Chance" is not a cause.
This is one of the things that never made any sense to me in ID (or at least this version of ID). Chance and necessity are not mutually exclusive categories in science, and they are not descriptions of causal processes. Apart from quantum mechanics (which has little to do with ID or evolution), describing something as being due to chance is a statement about either our knowledge of the system or the level of description we find to convenient to use; it says nothing about the process itself. In physics, every event is the result of a causal process; "chance" is just a way of grouping large sets of similar causal processes together because we can't or won't separate them.
Making intelligence the third choice in this set of causal possibilities makes even less sense to me. Intelligently directed actions are just as much the result of a causal chain of necessary physical interactions (starting with electrochemical interactions in the brain, proceeding through biomechanical interactions, and so on) as any other events, and intelligently directed actions can be described by probability distributions just like any other complex process whose details we don't understand.
The entire approach is literally nonsensical to me. It simply has no connection to how science actually dissects the natural world.
This is faith. You are unqualified to judge there work. You trust them because ... well you do. Here is an example of why you don't blindly just trust scientists.
Interesting position. You don't know anything about the subject. You trust "experts" and refer to them to prove your point. Hard to argue with that. Personally it makes me uncomfortable.
You know, I hate to tell you this, but some of us actually DO understand science. Just because you don't doesn't mean the rest of us just have to trust them.
Linear Mode
