Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[dlamberth]

'Life' on Earth is distinguishable, by us, from 'the Earth', y'know(?)
That's what we develop objective tests and defintions for.

What is the definition of life?

 

[SelfSim]

What is the definition of life?

Varies .. its provisional and depends on the context/environment also.

 

[dlamberth]

Varies .. its provisional and depends on the context/environment also.

Kind of subjective one might say?

 

[SelfSim]

Kind of subjective one might say?

Depends on what level of consistency you can achieve by giving it that interpretation!

 

[dlamberth]

Depends on what level of consistency you can achieve by giving it that interpretation!

It looks to me that neither one of us have been able to give a definition of life.

 

[SelfSim]

It looks to me that neither one of us have been able to give a definition of life.

Looks to me like you haven't specified a consistent context.

There are many objective tests to determine whether something is alive, or not .. depending on the context and the purpose of doing so.

There are many consistent ways of distinguishing life in a given scenario, at multiple levels.

What you're seeking is meaningless without a context.

 

[dlamberth]

Looks to me like you haven't specified a consistent context.

That's kind of the point. Life doesn't have a consistent context, at least that I can see. That's why I don't think life can be defined. Yet it exist. Kind of a funny thing there.

 

[SelfSim]

That's kind of the point. Life doesn't have a consistent context, at least that I can see. That's why I don't think life can be defined. Yet it exist. Kind of a funny thing there.

No .. life has specific contexts which are very consistent. You just haven't specified any of them.

 

[disciple Clint]

How do you tell? Why is that not the way one detects design in human-made objects?

it is

 

[disciple Clint]

Why should I want to refute any of it? I'm an Anglican, educated up to and including a Bachelor's degree by Roman Catholics. I'm familiar with the content of your link and agree with most of it. You can play definition games all you want, but as the term is customarily used in this forum, "Intelligent Design" refers specifically to an hypothesis about the development of biological complexity concocted by the Discovery Institute. If you use the term "Intelligent Design" here without explaining that you are intending it merely as a synonym for divine creation you will only cause confusion--as you did. I know enough about the Catholic Church to know that you are wrong. If nothing else, Roman Catholics reject the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura which is fundamental to creationism.
"Catholics are free to believe, or not believe, in evolution..." So there you have it: by your own admission, the Pope himself is not a creationist and does not require faithful Catholics to be, either.
Those are all evidence that God exists and created the universe. I see no evidence of creationism at all. If you think otherwise, show me the evidence for the literal historical inerrancy of Genesis and that accepting it as such is a requirement for Salvation. In the meantime stop insulting Roman Catholics by calling them creationists.

how do you qualify to say how things on this forum are defined?

"Catholics are free to believe, or not believe, in evolution..." So there you have it: by your own admission, the Pope himself is not a creationist and does not require faithful Catholics to be, either.

Did you miss the statement of dogma, I doubt that the Pope disregards it, it clearly addresses creation of everything by God. He is simply saying that creationism can coexist with evolutionism.
Any Catholic theory must adhere to the following Dogmas:

1. God created everything out of nothing ("ex nihlo" in Latin)
2. God created an orderly universe (the universe is not a product of chance)
3. God sustained everything in being (everything depends on God for existence) Creation

 

[disciple Clint]

Intelligent design is NOT a scientific theory, not even a scientific hypothesis

1. 
   THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR
   I. The Big Bang
   II.The Borde-Vilenkin Guth Proof
   III. Evidence From Entropy
   IV. Something, Nothing,and Creation
   V. Fine-Tuning
   VI. Conclusion
   Obviously reading the linked resource would have eliminated much confusion and provided more than adequate evidence. The 7 Essential Modules - Credible Catholic

None of the above is scientific evidence for design.[/QUOTE]
I would have to disagree as would the author of this article: Are We Special? The Anthropic Coincidences*

 

[VirOptimus]

I would have to disagree as would the author of this article: Are We Special? The Anthropic Coincidences*

You dont seem to understand what scientific evidence (or even science period) entails.

 

[disciple Clint]

How do you identify when a need is present?

You define it when you unable to accomplish a task or have a difficulty accomplishing a task. At that point you have a need for something to help.

 

[SelfSim]

You define it when you unable to accomplish a task or have a difficulty accomplishing a task. At that point you have a need for something to help.

So if there is a purpose for say, humans, then our so-called 'creator', must have identified a need where humans could somehow help that 'creator'?
Same goes for the purpose for 'the universe'?

 

[disciple Clint]

You dont seem to understand what scientific evidence (or even science period) entails.

Is physics part of science, I have to ask because I do not want anyone to say these things are not part of science. If you are looking for the specific values of these things and the probabilities of all of those values all coming together to create an environment favorable to life on earth, that information is in the original linked evidence that you rejected. The 7 Essential Modules - Credible Catholic
There are a number of other constraints, limited values for forces—gravity, electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear—and fundamental constants, including that for particle masses and number of particles that are needed for life to evolve. In summary, Ellis puts the Anthropic Principle as the following:

“Life is possible because both the laws of physics and the boundary conditions for the universe have a very special nature. Only particular laws of physics, and particular initial conditions in the Universe, allow the existence of intelligent life of the kind we know. No evolutionary process whatever is possible for any kind of life if these laws and conditions do not have this restricted form.” Are We Special? The Anthropic Coincidences*

 

[disciple Clint]

So if there is a purpose for say, humans, then our so-called 'creator', must have identified a need where humans could somehow help that 'creator'?
Same goes for the purpose for 'the universe'?

God does not need humans, God need nothing. What could you possibly need when you are all powerful.

 

[VirOptimus]

Is physics part of science, I have to ask because I do not want anyone to say these things are not part of science. If you are looking for the specific values of these things and the probabilities of all of those values all coming together to create an environment favorable to life on earth, that information is in the original linked evidence that you rejected. The 7 Essential Modules - Credible Catholic
There are a number of other constraints, limited values for forces—gravity, electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear—and fundamental constants, including that for particle masses and number of particles that are needed for life to evolve. In summary, Ellis puts the Anthropic Principle as the following:

“Life is possible because both the laws of physics and the boundary conditions for the universe have a very special nature. Only particular laws of physics, and particular initial conditions in the Universe, allow the existence of intelligent life of the kind we know. No evolutionary process whatever is possible for any kind of life if these laws and conditions do not have this restricted form.” Are We Special? The Anthropic Coincidences*

Thats not how probility works.

The probability for life on earth is 1:1 as there are life on earth.

 

[SelfSim]

God does not need humans, God need nothing. What could you possibly need when you are all powerful.

You have arrived at a logical contradication then ..
Ie: there must be no purpose evident in God's supposed creations, of both humans and the universe, because he has is no needs. There is thus also, no design evident ..
?

 

[Larniavc]

Need rock to break window. This rock was designrd.

Crikey. My phone was designed by God to type this to you.

What a world we live in.

 

[Larniavc]

IC is not measured but rather inferred when the trait (such as the eye) is too complex to evolve by Darwinian mechanisms.

If it is not measured how can one reliably infer ‘too much complexity’? The very concept implies a quantitive measurement.