Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That's an argument from ignorance, not very convincing. Something being very unlikely happening seems a lot easier to justify then assuming enormously complicated entities with properties not found anywhere inside the detectable universe.Crick and Watson thought that DNA was so complex that they even had reservations about life just evolving in the relatively short period of time between the earth cooling enough to be livable and the appearance of life in the fossil record. That only leaves design, which they ruled out because they were atheist, or an extraterrestrial source. I believe I’ll stick with ‘God did it.’
Free will is a very difficult concept for me to get my head around. I feel like I have free will, but all my thoughts and choices are built from my experience and inclinations, so i guess it's possible that i don't have free will.But you know free will is doubted in philosophy for centuries. So it's obvious many people have problems with it. You make a problem about inferring intelligent design, from the observation that organisms look designed. So why wouldn't you be one of those people who has fundamental problems with free will altogether. And that is why you become hyper critical of theory about it, like intelligent design.
Many animal decisions can be predicted with reasonable statistical accuracy. They are also affected by their natures, instincts and experience. But it's also irrelevant. The ability of complex animals and humans to both choose and design things in way is evidence that life is itself a product of choice.Free will provides predators and prey with surprise in attack and escape. You cannot know which way a choice is going to turn out, prior to it being made. So that is one aspect in which free will of organisms provides a useful survival function. One way in which knowledge about how things are chosen is useful.
Finding choice in the universe doesn't mean the entire universe is run on choices. Just like Isaac Newton saw the pattern of motion and force of Newton's Laws, and extrapolated them to the whole universe... and he was wrong.To make a choice means to make an alternative future the present. Or it can be defined as making a possible future the present or not. It's simple and fundamental. Having secure knowledge of a single choice made, we must then generalize this finding to it's natural limits. Like Newton generalized gravity from observing an apple fall. And there are no limits, the entire universe fits with the concept that it is chosen. Everything in the universe can be or not be, which are two alternatives in a choice.
Except DNA doesn't make decisions and isn't like a human mind. It's a chemical reaction.I don't know exactly what the decision processes were by which organisms came to be. It could be many independent choices coincedentally coming together. It could be a few intelligent choices, etc. I think parsimony is the default hypothesis. The basic ordering of the universe is the same as the basic ordering of the dna system, is the same as the basic ordering of the human mind. The DNA system can develop a wide variety of organisms. So I think the DNA system acts similar to a human mind, and that the organism is chosen in the dna system. Possibly in relation to the basic decisionprocesses in the universe in general. Possibly in relation to a brain or nerve celss already developed by an organism. Nature would use things that are available to be used.
Why would we assume that is possible?Also instantaneous creation in whole is not beyond the scope of what is impossible to be chosen.
What you are describing is the chemistry of mutations and DNA replication... not choices.Intelligent design theory should predict that there is a balance between bases C and A, and T and G, or any other variation thereof. Also intelligent design theory should predict that the DNA system can be in a state where new DNA can be made. So that the DNA system has the stuff at the ready for making the new DNA, and that every combination of CATG is equally likely to occur. So you have a future of all possible combinations DNA, which can be decided on.
Correct.Evolution is not really a theory.
Don't forget that the Bible was not written as a science or history book as we understand those disciplines today.
Rather than comparing Genesis with Darwin, it would be better to compare it with the creation stories of surrounding cultures. Among other major differences, creation is a free act of God and subject to no law of necessity. I realize that Darwinism is based on the idea of random mutations, but to paraphrase Betsy ten Book, there's nothing random in God's world.
Dr. Crick wasn’t ignorant... I haven’t read it myself, but supposedly this is a quote from his book that I found online, “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (1981); New York NY: Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 88. Francis CrickThat's an argument from ignorance, not very convincing. Something being very unlikely happening seems a lot easier to justify then assuming enormously complicated entities with properties not found anywhere inside the detectable universe.
Dr. Crick wasn’t ignorant... I haven’t read it myself, but supposedly this is a quote from his book that I found online, “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (1981); New York NY: Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 88. Francis Crick
I don’t believe he ruled out the possibility of life evolving on its own, the atheist in him wouldn’t let him give that up completely I guess, but apparently doubted it to the point that I think he even preferred extraterrestrial seeding of the planet over that possibility. Like I said, I’ll stick with ‘God did it.’
Well, there's the part about "an honest man."So "we don't know, so we know."
Dr. Crick wasn’t ignorant... I haven’t read it myself, but supposedly this is a quote from his book that I found online, “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (1981); New York NY: Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 88. Francis Crick
I don’t believe he ruled out the possibility of life evolving on its own, the atheist in him wouldn’t let him give that up completely I guess, but apparently doubted it to the point that I think he even preferred extraterrestrial seeding of the planet over that possibility. Like I said, I’ll stick with ‘God did it.’
Yes, that's why I went on to say he didn't rule out the possibility.In the very next sentence he says:
"But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions."
Yes, that's why I went on to say he didn't rule out the possibility.
This is what I said, "I don’t believe he ruled out the possibility of life evolving on its own, the atheist in him wouldn’t let him give that up completely I guess, but apparently doubted it to the point that I think he even preferred extraterrestrial seeding of the planet over that possibility. Like I said, I’ll stick with ‘God did it.’" My point is that I don't think he was sold on the idea.He specifically says that what he was saying should not be used to imply what you were implying.
Seems a hair more adamant than "not ruling out the possibility."
This is what I said, "I don’t believe he ruled out the possibility of life evolving on its own, the atheist in him wouldn’t let him give that up completely I guess, but apparently doubted it to the point that I think he even preferred extraterrestrial seeding of the planet over that possibility. Like I said, I’ll stick with ‘God did it.’" My point is that I don't think he was sold on the idea.
So your take is that he believed life appeared as a result of abiogenesis.Yes, I know what you said. When I read exactly what he wrote, in full, it is quite clear that he was not expressing doubt whatsoever. You are completely misrepresenting the tone of his statement.
Does it really matter? It does not for the topic of this thread which is evolution. The theory of evolution does not rely on natural abiogenesis. It only relies upon an abiogenesis event. Though not he same even the Bible has one of those. The theory of evolution deals with life once it existed. It says nothing about how life had to come about.So your take is that he believed life appeared as a result of abiogenesis.
So your take is that he believed life appeared as a result of abiogenesis.
As I said, I don't have access to the book, but I get your point. However, he either believed it, didn’t believe it, or had reservations about it. I think I was forthcoming and fair in my statement that the articles I read seemed to suggest he held the latter view.My take on what he said is that it only seems inexplicable to us because the conditions of the early earth are both unknown to us, and much different than they are now, but it likely has natural explanations with straight forward chemical reactions.
I understand, but the OP mentions ID.Does it really matter? It does not for the topic of this thread which is evolution. The theory of evolution does not rely on natural abiogenesis. It only relies upon an abiogenesis event. Though not he same even the Bible has one of those. The theory of evolution deals with life once it existed. It says nothing about how life had to come about.
ID is only creationism in a cheap lab coat. It is a sham.I understand, but the OP mentions ID.
I think I was forthcoming and fair in my statement that the articles I read seemed to suggest he held the latter view.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?