Life

[Melethiel]

Apparently, TE's are know nothings that simply ask questions. I ask for a TE view, and the response is "What is the YEC view!"

This is the second thread where I have simply asked for TE's to state their views, and have been stonewalled. Obviously a seed does not sprout by happenstance, it is following its program. Did the first form of life get its "program" by happenstance or by supernatural intervention? A simply question. But do I get an answer? Nope. Apparently TE's not only do not accept Genesis, they do not accept the do unto others as you would have them do unto you part either. I asked an open ended question, not a "trap" question designed to put whoever answers in a bad light, yet the response is as if I did. Go figure.

Seems to me you got plenty of answers.

 

[gluadys]

Apparently, TE's are know nothings that simply ask questions. I ask for a TE view, and the response is "What is the YEC view!"

This is the second thread where I have simply asked for TE's to state their views, and have been stonewalled. Obviously a seed does not sprout by happenstance, it is following its program. Did the first form of life get its "program" by happenstance or by supernatural intervention? A simply question. But do I get an answer? Nope. Apparently TE's not only do not accept Genesis, they do not accept the do unto others as you would have them do unto you part either. I asked an open ended question, not a "trap" question designed to put whoever answers in a bad light, yet the response is as if I did. Go figure.

I didn't take it to be a trap question. But it is not an open-ended question either. It is a forced choice between two equally unacceptable responses. An open-ended question would not assume only two possible responses which exclude each other.

With first life as with the seed, the answer to your question can still be "neither" or "both" depending on how you want to look at it i.e. neither happenstance, nor miraculous intervention. Both a natural process and a work of God.

 

[juvenissun]

Apparently, TE's are know nothings that simply ask questions. I ask for a TE view, and the response is "What is the YEC view!"

This is the second thread where I have simply asked for TE's to state their views, and have been stonewalled. Obviously a seed does not sprout by happenstance, it is following its program. Did the first form of life get its "program" by happenstance or by supernatural intervention? A simply question. But do I get an answer? Nope. Apparently TE's not only do not accept Genesis, they do not accept the do unto others as you would have them do unto you part either. I asked an open ended question, not a "trap" question designed to put whoever answers in a bad light, yet the response is as if I did. Go figure.

Well, whether a life is programed or is a happenstance may ultimately depend on how is life defined. And, it is tough to define a life (if not careful, many non-lives may become alive). I provided one. But I am not sure it fits better the idea of TE or YEC/OEC. I would think it is one goes by creationism.

 

[juvenissun]

Sure they do. Plant cells have mitochondria and undergo cellular respiration the same way animal cells do, and produce the same waste products.

(And that's highly simplified. I'm sure you know that most cells in an organism are very specialized.)

What are the "same" wastes? Like I said, it may include water and either O2 or CO2 or both. What else? Let's assume there are something else, then where did those wastes go? Do we see a pile of waste deposited in the shade of a tree?

 

[Melethiel]

What are the "same" wastes? Like I said, it may include water and either O2 or CO2 or both. What else? Let's assume there are something else, then where did those wastes go? Do we see a pile of waste deposited in the shade of a tree?

Are we speaking cell metabolism or organism function here? The two are quite distinct, and you seem to be confusing the two.

 

[Assyrian]

Deciduous trees get rid of waste and toxins in the autumn by sealing it off in dying leaves. So all the beautiful russet and brown leaves you admire this time of year and kick your way through. Plant poo.

 

[juvenissun]

Are we speaking cell metabolism or organism function here? The two are quite distinct, and you seem to be confusing the two.

It seems to me that cell metabolism will control organism function. So there are "output" from plant cells. What are they and where do they go?

 

[juvenissun]

Deciduous trees get rid of waste and toxins in the autumn by sealing it off in dying leaves. So all the beautiful russet and brown leaves you admire this time of year and kick your way through. Plant poo.

Yeah, that is what I suspected. What a strange way, and I am not sure it is true. Plant uses its (potential) poo for half-year long to make its own food? I don't know.

It is amazing to see new leaves come out in Spring time. They came out so many and so fast. Where does the material come from in such a short period of time?

May be I should take this question to CvE forum. There are more "scientists" there. It would be fun to argue with them on that plant is NOT a life.

 

[shernren]

Money circulates. The economy is alive and it's eating us up!

... On a serious note, Van, do you remember the very next reply you got to your OP?

Depends on how you define life. I don't think you'll find any one TE view, by the way. I personally happen to think God threw in a miraculous spark somewhere but that's only because I'm too lazy to figure out if He did it by fiat or by natural process (I see very little theological difference either way).

That was post #2. "Know nothings that (sic)* simply ask questions"? That's harsh, man. And your own questions have evolved:

What is life and what is the smallest unit of life? Is a virus "alive" Is the smallest unit of "life" irreducibly complex? Could life come from non-life by happenstance, or does the occurrence require a supernatural organizing force.

What is the TE view?

Did the first form of life get its "program" by happenstance or by supernatural intervention? A simply question. But do I get an answer? Nope.

In the first place the question is not simple. Where, for example, is the "program" in a hypercatalytic chemical cycle? Where is the "program" in a bilayer lipid (which forms according to the same simple chemical principles that let soap clean oil)? Have a think about that.

Secondly, and this is more important, you don't normally get answers to questions you don't ask. If you want mind-readers, go read X-Men.

*sic because you should have used "who", not "that". We're people too. [/grammar nazi]

 

[Van]

I do not want mind readers, but I do want folks who can read. I asked the very same question in two different ways, and neither was answered. All I get is fault finding with me. The question is simple, do TE believe life began by happenstance, the outworking of the "natural processes" God created, or did God intervene to bring about the first life form supernaturally. The answer, from each and every post is stonewalling with the I do not know or it depends, but never a straight up answer.

I got the same run-a-round when I asked if TE's thought God created man in his image supernaturally or via natural processes.

 

[Van]

In post #2, I got, I believe God did it through in a spark, but maybe he did it naturally. I am too lazy to figure it out. That is a know nothing response!

 

[Van]

Theistic Evolution says one of two things. First, either there is a God, but He wasn’t directly involved in the origin of life. He may have created the building blocks, He may have created the natural laws, He may even have created these things with the eventual emergence of life in mind, but at some point early on He stepped back and let His creation take over. He let it do what it does, whatever that is, and life eventually emerged from non-living material. This view is similar to Atheistic Evolution in that it presumes a naturalistic origin of life.

The second alternative of theistic evolution is that God did not perform just one or two miracles to bring about the origin of life as we know it. His miracles were multitudinous. He led life step by step down a path that took it from primeval simplicity to contemporary complexity, similar to Darwin’s Evolutionary Tree of Life (fish begot amphibians who begot reptiles who begot birds and mammals, etc). Where life was not able to evolve naturally (how does a reptile's limb evolve into a bird's wing naturally?), God stepped in. This view is similar to Special Creation in that it presumes that God acted supernaturally in some way to bring about life as we know it.

If we label these views "A" and "B", how many posts have advocated either "A" or "B" and how many have said it might be "A or B" but I am not sure.

 

[juvenissun]

I do not want mind readers, but I do want folks who can read. I asked the very same question in two different ways, and neither was answered. All I get is fault finding with me. The question is simple, do TE believe life began by happenstance, the outworking of the "natural processes" God created, or did God intervene to bring about the first life form supernaturally. The answer, from each and every post is stonewalling with the I do not know or it depends, but never a straight up answer.

I got the same run-a-round when I asked if TE's thought God created man in his image supernaturally or via natural processes.

Well, I guess that means people in this forum are decent in general. To such a question, anyone gives a straight forward answer would be foolish. After all, origin questions are for discussion, not for test.

 

[huldah153]

I've yet to be convinced by the secular explanation for the origin of life. Quantum mechanics allows for all kinds of organic and inorganic substances to form from the Primordial Soup. But a DNA molecule? With 3.2 billion base pairs? In an environment that is sure to have a few drops of HNO3 in it? That's where I fall off the bandwagon, and can hear no more...

 

[Van]

Ok, I got one "B" in post 34! Thankyou (And I fully agree with your view.)

Anybody else willing to stake out an actual position?

 

[Melethiel]

How about: "It's a mystery?" Much in Christian theology is a mystery - the sacraments, the workings of salvation, God Himself. No need to start name calling when things do not fit into your tidy boxes.

 

[gluadys]

I do not want mind readers, but I do want folks who can read. I asked the very same question in two different ways, and neither was answered. All I get is fault finding with me. The question is simple, do TE believe life began by happenstance, the outworking of the "natural processes" God created, or did God intervene to bring about the first life form supernaturally. The answer, from each and every post is stonewalling with the I do not know or it depends, but never a straight up answer.

Well, your question is becoming a little more detailed, but I am not sure now whether you are presenting three choices or two.

In your mind do "happenstance" and "outworking of natural processes" basically mean the same thing? That was Chesterton's position. Do you agree with that?

If so, why? To me that seems to exclude God from creation. It seems to insist that the only relationship God can have with creation is that of the intervening miracle.

I am not against miracles. I think God does produce miracles. But I am against miracle as the sole means of God acting on creation. Whatever happened to that good old-fashioned theology of providence?

(When I was a kid, the hymn-book we used called its first section of hymns "God in Creation, Providence and Redemption")

I got the same run-a-round when I asked if TE's thought God created man in his image supernaturally or via natural processes.

Maybe you have to stop thinking of it as a run-around and accept it as an honest answer.

 

[gluadys]

If we label these views "A" and "B", how many posts have advocated either "A" or "B" and how many have said it might be "A or B" but I am not sure.

I would reject A, because I do not accept the proposition that God "stepped back" and simply watched nature take its course.

I would reject B because I do not accept that God has to "step in" at points where nature cannot do the job. I do not accept that God is an occasional tinkering visitor in his own creation.

 

[shernren]

Isn't "I'm too lazy to figure it out" a valid response? Life is short. I will never figure out how capitalism and Christianity are compatible, and I may never get around to figuring out whether or not life started naturally or supernaturally. I do know a whole lot about what happened to it once it got off the ground but that wasn't your question. You know, I could have been lazy enough to simply not say anything at all and leave you in the dark about how some TEs approach the problem (i.e., treating it as one not so deserving of their time). Given your profuse gratitude perhaps I should've been lazier, hmm?

 

[Van]

Gluadys, thanks, you are a "B" even though you seem unable to admit it so you mischaracterize "B" as indicating God is a part time tinkerer. ok

Melethel, first you say I have received answers, then say it is a mystery so the know nothing response is valid. ok.

Shernen, I see you are still in the know nothing camp. ok

Anybody else willing to stake out an actual position? See post 32 for the descriptions of "A" and "B".