the self replicating watch argument

[Jon Osterman]

so if we had a self replicating molecule it can evolve stepwise into a car?

If there were survival pressures on it such that being a car provided greater survivability, why would it not?

 

[GenemZ]

I'm incredibly capable of producing it. In the 2000+ year history of the Orthodox Church there has definitely been no lack of miraculous events and incidents. They are occurring even as I type in this moment. But, if I told you of any of it, you would only deny it, just like the other poster I presented evidence to.

Why are you making that an issue!? To continue like you are.. you should be ashamed of yourself!

The issue in salvation is what do you think of Jesus Christ. PERIOD!

You are getting into weird stuff. Stop, please. Not everyone lives on that level of superstitious tendencies. It may amuse and amaze the superstitious... But salvation is found in the Cross and resurrection of Jesus only!

 

[Ophiolite]

Why don't you examine the evidence for yourself? It's all around. In fact, there's no need to look beyond one's own psyche to become fully aware of the presence and sovereignty of the Creator. If you had enough grace you would already know this yourself. But, because you don't possess enough of it within yourself, it's as I've already told you: you're incapable of being aware of any miracles of God. If a person died and then came back to life a couple days later, you'd deny it really happened even if it did. There's simply nothing that is going to be believed by you, because everything can either be denied, or else ignored because it's not something that one desires to acknowledge as real.

Get grace, then you'll have eyes to see and ears to hear Truth. Then, having been sufficiently gifted with Godly humility, you'll be guided toward the multitudinous miracles we have become aware of.

So, in your view God gave us an intellect, curiosity and natural skepticism, but never intended us to use any of them? If these characteristics are the product of a creator and not evolution, then either he intended their use, or he was being maliciously deceitful. Your third option is excluded by logic.

 

[truefiction1]

So, in your view God gave us an intellect, curiosity and natural skepticism, but never intended us to use any of them? If these characteristics are the product of a creator and not evolution, then either he intended their use, or he was being maliciously deceitful. Your third option is excluded by logic.

Natural skepticism? I'd say no. Not when such skepticism serves to deny the presence of God. Such a characteristic is actually one of many products and byproducts of the passions, which are not "natural" to humankind, but rather, a perversion of natural emotions which causes people to lean towards unbelief. Intellect and curiosity are fine, I'd say. A skepticism that's healthy (also called discernment) is valuable too. But not every characteristic of man, as natural as these may seem, is natural. They exist because of sin, death, and the loss of Communion with God, which is by a very real power that we call "grace" (also called the Holy Spirit). Evolution, as generally taught and understood, exists in this form only because of the passions.

I'm not sure I know what you mean by my "third option". If you're referring to my suggestion that it is necessary to "get grace" in order that God's presence will become clearly visible and irrefutably obvious, then all I have to say in response is that there just aren't any other options. This is the one and only Way. There's nothing illogical about it. To the human mind that is illumined by the Holy Spirit, it's a no-brainer.

 

[truefiction1]

Why are you making that an issue!? To continue like you are.. you should be ashamed of yourself!

The issue in salvation is what do you think of Jesus Christ. PERIOD!

You are getting into weird stuff. Stop, please. Not everyone lives on that level of superstitious tendencies. It may amuse and amaze the superstitious... But salvation is found in the Cross and resurrection of Jesus only!

I don't thing that there's really anything weird about referring to the evidence of salvation in the lives of those saved by the work of God in Christ. Scripture itself records such evidence, especially in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, and instructs us to make record of the lives of those saved and to give them consideration as examples.

I appreciate your concern, but please be mindful that you're evidently not of the Orthodox Tradition: the Apostolic Tradition which hasn't been altered since the beginning. This being the case, you're perception of what Christianity should look like has been shaped by heterodox traditions far removed from the ancient faith. For what it's worth, I already know what atheists and many agnostics "think of Jesus Christ". They don't believe He is God, and they do believe that the "religion" that has been created around Him is just another "myth" that our kind develops to fulfill the need of being saved from death/annihilation.

If I'm ashamed of myself, it's because of how the sin I often commit offends the unfathomable Love and goodness of God. I don't know why you would think I should be ashamed of mentioning the fact that God's children have, can, and do exercise certain supernatural powers by the Holy Spirit. It's not "superstition" to us, nor is it weird. It's just everyday life in the world of the everyday saints.

Suggested reading: (only a suggestion, of course)

 

[GenemZ]

I appreciate your concern, but please be mindful that you're evidently not of the Orthodox Tradition: the Apostolic Tradition which hasn't been altered since the beginning. This being the case, you're perception of what Christianity should look like has been shaped by heterodox traditions far removed from the ancient faith.

Well then. You should remove chapter and verses from the Bible. That invention came later.

Revelation speaks of the future. Faith is not ancient. Its not bound by time.

We are not to remain stuck in time, living in the past. The body of Christ is to be a living organism that is always growing and learning and reproducing offspring..

When we board a plane today.. we do not board the Wright Brothers craft. Yet, they were the beginning.

Sad to say.. That is what Muslims also do. In nations controlled by Sharia law they live stuck back in time. To me, its living in a make believe world. One where they wish to freeze time as a means to control predictability.

All things are made new in Christ.... Always being made new. How can you evangelize people in the modern world, if one demands that they revert back in time to find what you have to offer? When Jesus died for our sins he was dying for sins to be committed in the the next century and beyond.

God does not remain in the past. He sees it as clearly as He sees the future. God is not afraid of the future. God does not fear change as long as the change is motivated by sound doctrinal thinking.

 

[GenemZ]

If I'm ashamed of myself, it's because of how the sin I often commit offends the unfathomable Love and goodness of God.

Believe 1 John 1:9 properly, and sins become simply a detail in this life. It teaches us not to dwell on what will always be forgiven instantly, and be made clean by grace. So, we can have happiness in life with a clarity of purpose. Dealing with our sins is taught to baby Christians like toilet training. We are to know what to do to keep ourselves clean before God. Its not something mature Christians dwell on. Its become a detail, just like knowing how to use a toilet and to wash your hands is a detail. Christians that fail to grow as God wants them to, keep dwelling upon what should have long become integrated in their spiritual life. Becoming no more an major effort as tying one's shoe laces. When we first learned to tie them we needed to concentrate and we might have even made mistakes. But, now its an automatic response.

That does not mean we so not sin. Rather, being able to forget what is behind, we press forward to the prize.

I don't know why you would think I should be ashamed of mentioning the fact that God's children have, can, and do exercise certain supernatural powers by the Holy Spirit. It's not "superstition" to us, nor is it weird. It's just everyday life in the world of the everyday saints.

Spirituality is what causes believers to be able to grow and expand their never ended process of learning (and gasping) more and more of God's Word. Venturing into passages that were not learned yesterday. Scripture is the New Frontier. Many parts have yet to be explored. We are not to remain in the small village of the past where it all began. God created time so that we would advance and progress in more and more understanding of God's Word.

 

[Kylie]

Why don't you examine the evidence for yourself? It's all around. In fact, there's no need to look beyond one's own psyche to become fully aware of the presence and sovereignty of the Creator. If you had enough grace you would already know this yourself. But, because you don't possess enough of it within yourself, it's as I've already told you: you're incapable of being aware of any miracles of God. If a person died and then came back to life a couple days later, you'd deny it really happened even if it did. There's simply nothing that is going to be believed by you, because everything can either be denied, or else ignored because it's not something that one desires to acknowledge as real.

Get grace, then you'll have eyes to see and ears to hear Truth. Then, having been sufficiently gifted with Godly humility, you'll be guided toward the multitudinous miracles we have become aware of.

I will be happy to examine it. Please produce it so I may do so.

Or are you now falling back on the tired "everyday miracle" argument from God. "Pretty sunset, therefore God."

And once again, the arrogance that I see so often - if I think about the things you have thought about, I must reach the same conclusions that you did.

 

[Kylie]

so if we had a self replicating molecule it can evolve stepwise into a car?

Did you even bother to read anything I said.

The self replicating molecules change over generations. That means the molecule found one particular generation are different from the molecule found in the previous generation. It does not mean it is the same individual molecule! It is a duplicate that has not been duplicated exactly. This happens when a new generation is made. The gene for nose shape in my body is made of different molecules than the gene for nose shape in my mother. It is not actually the same molecules from my mother that came into my cells to specify the shape of my nose.

So, this requires reproduction and several generations. Since cars do not reproduce, there are no generations. Car is not a self replicating ANYTHING. If something is a self replicating ANYTHING it is not a car because cars do not replicate by themselves!

Why is this such a hard concept for you to understand? Are you deliberately deciding not to learn this stuff so you can continue with you strawman arguments?

 

[truefiction1]

I will be happy to examine it. Please produce it so I may do so.

Or are you now falling back on the tired "everyday miracle" argument from God. "Pretty sunset, therefore God."

And once again, the arrogance that I see so often - if I think about the things you have thought about, I must reach the same conclusions that you did.

Pretty sunsets aren't the sort of evidence I'm alluding to. Christ is risen from the dead. He's been seen after having risen, and is known to be risen forever, glorified, and all powerful. He Who rose from the dead has foretold the resurrection of all at the end of the ages. By the Holy Spirit we know it to be True. Examine this.

 

[Ophiolite]

Pretty sunsets aren't the sort of evidence I'm alluding to. Christ is risen from the dead. He's been seen after having risen, and is known to be risen forever, glorified, and all powerful. He Who rose from the dead has foretold the resurrection of all at the end of the ages. By the Holy Spirit we know it to be True. Examine this.

I have examined it. The evidence for Christ's resurrection is based upon supposed eye witness testimony reported many years after the event. It may "ring true" to you, but it lacks the substance on which to base a worldview.

I can accept, with some reluctance, that one may believe that Christ "is known to be risen forever, glorified, and all powerful" through personal revelation or faith, but one cannot know this through evidence. The writer of the Gospel According to John seeks to address this by offering up the example of Thomas as a proxy for the skeptics. (I find it significant this was the last, and arguably the most elegant, of the Gospels.) Unfortunately, since I do not accept my own eye witness testimony I am hardly likely to accept that of another whose pedigree is largely unknown and who may even be a rhetorical construct.

You are convinced that your knowledge comes through a state of Grace, from the Holy Spirit, etc. and I do not doubt that the feelings of conviction are powerful within you. But I am also aware that many others have felt equally powerful convictions, attributed to all manner of things and entities that have no relation to the beliefs that are so important to you. I am not seeking to move you from your faith, merely pointing out what I perceive as the questionable quality of its foundation.

 

[doubtingmerle]

If there were survival pressures on it such that being a car provided greater survivability, why would it not?

See Could cars reproduce?.

Why do we need to explain over and over that cars could not have babies?

 

[Jon Osterman]

Why do we need to explain over and over that cars could not have babies?

Your objection is already dismissed by the premise, which was for "self replicating" objects. No-one is suggesting that a modern BMW could "have babies" so your objection is intellectually dishonest.

 

[xianghua]

If there were survival pressures on it such that being a car provided greater survivability, why would it not?

because there is no stepwise from a self replicating molecule into a car. for instance: a minimal car need at least several parts like wheels, engine etc.

 

[xianghua]

Did you even bother to read anything I said.

The self replicating molecules change over generations. That means the molecule found one particular generation are different from the molecule found in the previous generation. It does not mean it is the same individual molecule! It is a duplicate that has not been duplicated exactly. This happens when a new generation is made. The gene for nose shape in my body is made of different molecules than the gene for nose shape in my mother. It is not actually the same molecules from my mother that came into my cells to specify the shape of my nose.

So, this requires reproduction and several generations. Since cars do not reproduce, there are no generations. Car is not a self replicating ANYTHING. If something is a self replicating ANYTHING it is not a car because cars do not replicate by themselves!

Why is this such a hard concept for you to understand? Are you deliberately deciding not to learn this stuff so you can continue with you strawman arguments?

so if we do have a self replicating molecule with mutations+ natural selection+ generations we will get a car in the end?

 

[truefiction1]

I have examined it. The evidence for Christ's resurrection is based upon supposed eye witness testimony reported many years after the event. It may "ring true" to you, but it lacks the substance on which to base a worldview.

I can accept, with some reluctance, that one may believe that Christ "is known to be risen forever, glorified, and all powerful" through personal revelation or faith, but one cannot know this through evidence. The writer of the Gospel According to John seeks to address this by offering up the example of Thomas as a proxy for the skeptics. (I find it significant this was the last, and arguably the most elegant, of the Gospels.) Unfortunately, since I do not accept my own eye witness testimony I am hardly likely to accept that of another whose pedigree is largely unknown and who may even be a rhetorical construct.

You are convinced that your knowledge comes through a state of Grace, from the Holy Spirit, etc. and I do not doubt that the feelings of conviction are powerful within you. But I am also aware that many others have felt equally powerful convictions, attributed to all manner of things and entities that have no relation to the beliefs that are so important to you. I am not seeking to move you from your faith, merely pointing out what I perceive as the questionable quality of its foundation.

The short answer is that my convictions are based in reality which is evidenced through incidents, occurrences, and events which I've personally experienced, and am able to recognize them as unmistakably real on account of the grace that has been in me. There's no other way to see what's real, because if we did not have the capacity to deny reality in favor of something else, then the ability of human beings to either accept or reject grace (to choose between good and evil) could not be.

You know what's at stake if you subject yourself to the will of God - you do. It's your life in this world that is at stake, and you aren't willing to give this up: you won't throw it away like that. So, you devise a worldview more suitable to your devotions: devotions to the passions and worldly attachments. Beneath all the sophistication and clever, abstract rationalizations offered up primarily by your left hemisphere it's as simple as that. Receiving grace is a simple as humbling oneself in repentance and asking Christ for help in prayer, while striving to Live by His sayings. If you aren't afflicted with sinful self-love and the other passions, then there would be nothing standing in the way of your doing this. Your convictions would stand in the way, but from whence are the convictions? The convictions are not disconnected in any way from the passions which walked hand-in-hand with your thought processes as these were developing into your "worldview". Malevolent spirits, which you're not even aware of nor acknowledge, injecting various impressions and suggestions at key moments, have also been highly instrumental in the formation of your worldview. This is true whether you're willing to believe it or not.

We love grace, or we love the passions and are sympathetic towards them. When we embrace the passions they shape how we see (our worldview). When we embrace grace, God leads us into all Truth, and the other worldviews are seen for what they are: falsehood and emptiness, the darkness of spiritual depravity and death.

 

[PsychoSarah]

because there is no stepwise from a self replicating molecule into a car. for instance: a minimal car need at least several parts like wheels, engine etc.

-_- the parts needed to form a basic protocell, however, have formed in abiogenesis experiments, so whether or not it is feasible for anything resembling a car to develop by the same process by which life on this planet did is irrelevant. Cars don't utilize ATP for performing activities; that in and of itself could make cars from cells impossible while not making it impossible for the cell we are familiar with to exist.

I've explained the flaws in your argument before: if your self replicating car has ANY qualities different from that of actual living organisms, then expecting any of our current scientific hypotheses and theories about the origin of cellular life to be able to explain it is ridiculous. If the car DOESN'T have any traits different from an actual living organism, why call it a car? The arguments you make, if logical, should fit equally well for an actual organism, like a goldfish, so there is no point to giving it the name of a nonliving machine humans design. There's no point to the organism even being hypothetical.

But alas, you can't make any arguments that don't involve car specific things, such as combustion engines, despite that anything in cells even remotely analogous to the car parts you mention are not derived from the same materials and do not function via remotely similar processes.

 

[Ophiolite]

The short answer is that my convictions are based in reality which is evidenced through incidents, occurrences, and events which I've personally experienced, and am able to recognize them as unmistakably real on account of the grace that has been in me. There's no other way to see what's real, because if we did not have the capacity to deny reality in favor of something else, then the ability of human beings to either accept or reject grace (to choose between good and evil) could not be.

You know what's at stake if you subject yourself to the will of God - you do. It's your life in this world that is at stake, and you aren't willing to give this up: you won't throw it away like that. So, you devise a worldview more suitable to your devotions: devotions to the passions and worldly attachments. Beneath all the sophistication and clever, abstract rationalizations offered up primarily by your left hemisphere it's as simple as that. Receiving grace is a simple as humbling oneself in repentance and asking Christ for help in prayer, while striving to Live by His sayings. If you aren't afflicted with sinful self-love and the other passions, then there would be nothing standing in the way of your doing this. Your convictions would stand in the way, but from whence are the convictions? The convictions are not disconnected in any way from the passions which walked hand-in-hand with your thought processes as these were developing into your "worldview". Malevolent spirits, which you're not even aware of nor acknowledge, injecting various impressions and suggestions at key moments, have also been highly instrumental in the formation of your worldview. This is true whether you're willing to believe it or not.

We love grace, or we love the passions and are sympathetic towards them. When we embrace the passions they shape how we see (our worldview). When we embrace grace, God leads us into all Truth, and the other worldviews are seen for what they are: falsehood and emptiness, the darkness of spiritual depravity and death.

Thank you for a lengthy, sincere, well-meaning reply. I regret we will not have a meeting of minds. I will feel sad for you, for what I perceive as your self-delusions. You, perhaps, will feel sad for me. The greatest difference between us is that you think you have seen "the answer", whereas I am certain I haven't. Though disappointed by this, I am not troubled by it. I prefer an honest uncertainty, to a contrived certainty.

 

[GenemZ]

Thank you for a lengthy, sincere, well-meaning reply. I regret we will not have a meeting of minds. I will feel sad for you, for what I perceive as your self-delusions. You, perhaps, will feel sad for me. The greatest difference between us is that you think you have seen "the answer", whereas I am certain I haven't. Though disappointed by this, I am not troubled by it. I prefer an honest uncertainty, to a contrived certainty.

Both of you can be certain.

It should bother you to feel rejected if that is true. You must not allow in your thinking that understanding to reign. Its really what these kinds of debates boil down to. They are combative with an aura of intellectual reasonableness.

God is not known by those who have rejected what can be known. It begins there.

19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has
made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible
qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.​

Rom 1:19-20

 

[Ophiolite]

Both of you can be certain.

I view certainty, for the most part, as a form of arrogance. I work hard at not being arrogant, though probably not hard enough. It would be nice to be certain, but there are - typically - too many variables for this to be possible.

On a related point, I've never quite understood why some people appear to have such a strong desire for certainty they are willing to accept third and fourth rate evidence, or to simply believe what makes
them feel comfortable. [No names;no pack drill.]

It should bother you to feel rejected if that is true. You must not allow in your thinking that understanding to reign.

I don't feel rejected. I have no idea why you think I might feel rejected. Perhaps you can elaborate.

I have little or no idea what your second sentence means. The phrase "understanding to reign" does not appear to parse. I have no particular desire to reign in most contexts and have no meaningful idea as to which context you might be referring here. Again, perhaps you can clarify.

Its really what these kinds of debates boil down to. They are combative with an aura of intellectual reasonableness.

A significant proportion of exchanges I have on this and other forums are of that nature. Intellectual combat is a good thing. If conducted properly it can educate both parties and on-lookers. However, this particular exchange with truefiction1 was not such an example.

In this case I had intial hopes of reaching some common ground. It seems this won't be possible. At any rate, if you felt I was being combative here, or - and perhaps this is what you meant previously - had a desire to reign supreme in debate with truefiction1, you are wholly mistaken.

God is not known by those who have rejected what can be known. It begins there.

19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has
made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible
qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.​

Rom 1:19-20

That's your belief. I don't have a problem with that.
It is based on faith, or personal revelation. I don't have a problem with that.
If we begin with what can be known, it doesn't include, through evidence, any god, or gods. You seem to have a problem with that. (Now I'm being combative. It's probably a reaction to your unintended arrogance.)

And in regard to the quote from Romans, the clue to my reasons for rejecting it lie in the words themselves. I don't trust an alleged God who expects his creations to be able to "clearly see" his "invisible qualities".

As a matter of forum etiquette I should note that we have now taken the thread completely off-topic. I'm not unduly concerned by that, since I think the thread had run its course some-time ago. However, if you think this conversation may continue for some time I suggest you open a new thread and notify me of it by pm.