Posted on 02/26/2005 4:45:01 PM PST by DannyTN
The existence of a creator does sorta kinda seem to be related to Christianity.
Did man "mutate" after the flood inorder for most to live without the diseases that can only survive within a man's body that must have been carried by those on the ark?
Evolutionary theory does not exclude that possibility.
And the Meyer article, in many ways, does not exclude evolutionary theory.
random reply so I can find the thread later, sorry :-)
The [religious group] say that the [corresponding religious text] must be literally interpreted, except for those passages that must be figuratively interpreted...
I agree. Meyer just proposes a designer to explain some things he considers to be problematic with evolution. He doesn't actually argue against the basics of the theory of evolution. Having said that, what's the argument about? Specifically, why do the YEC crowd consider this to be something that they can use to batter evolutionists? I mean, this article and ID in general fail to meet the standard of predictive utility needed to be good science, but IDers in general hardly provide any argument against the basic premises of evolution. I guess it's because they seem to refute the YEC strawman version of evolution, namely that evolution must have occurred without any input from a designer. The presence of a designer is not specifically part of evolution, but evolution doesn't specifically rule out the possibility either. That it does is just propoganda used by YEC'ers and atheists to promote their respective agendas.
No, the diseases weren't necessarily carried on the ark.
Many Viruses have been picked up from animals. And the animals didn't necessarily carry diseases onto the ark either. They may have obtained them from either bacteria in soil, or aquatic creatures.
And in some cases the diseases may be the result of mutations. Again consistent with decay and a cursed earth.
"Speed of Light is admittedly a problem for the age of the universe. But that doesn't mean there aren't alternative explanations. Including: Changes in the speed of light, or temporal differences affecting the creation week, propigation rates through space, and/or the distinct possibility that there were no stars on the third day and that God changed the past on the fourth day in order for starlight to arrive on time. "
Yeah, that's the ticket!
Aluminum hats for sale!
"He made creation a cornerstone for the Gospel"
t-The existence of a creator does sorta kinda seem to be related to Christianity."
Jesus Sent to Us! Jesus Crucified for Us! Jesus Died for us! Jesus Resurrected!-this is the GOOD NEWS!
Nope, no creationism in there. Sure the creator is necessary and Jesus is a part of that, but neither the Gospel or evolution contain anything about origin of life, which is the only thing creationism attacks. This attack is without merit and an apostasy. It makes Christians look stupid.
Some diseases exist ONLY in humans. They would have been carried by the humans on the ark?
And in some cases the diseases may be the result of mutations. Again consistent with decay and a cursed earth.
Ah, miracles! On this one thread you have sided with mutations and Meyers' Old Earth Theory ...
Which one of Noah's family had AIDs I wonder?
"And in some cases the diseases may be the result of mutations."
Oops, once you accept the possibility of genetic change of allele frequency, you falsify creationism.
How does God know the future? How can He predict when someone will sin and yet they have free choice? How could He have told us 2000 years ago about the evolutionists of today?
I believe.. God operates in time differently than we do. I believe He knows the future because He is already there.
"Before Moses I AM", "I am the Alpha and Omega", "Before the cock crows 3 times..."
We have been down this road rather thoroughly on the “Plato” thread with some of the most credentialed Freepers on the forum.
On that thread – in order to investigate the theory of abiogenesis – we were seeking a definition of life v non-life/death in nature. Abiogenesis of course is the theory of life from non-life, so the obvious first step was to determine the two ends so we could investigate the "grey scale" in between.
Artificial intelligence was not part of the investigation because it is intelligently designed, it does not occur in nature. We specifically addressed the von Neumann machine.
But to answer your specific questions directly (please see the Plato thread for more detail):
What if it also had the physical capability to make more copies of itself? (by mining minerals, refining them etc etc...) ie Would a Von Neumann machine that could also pass the Turing Test be alive in your opinion? No, because it does not occur in nature.
For each of these questions if not, why not? If so then why? Because such devices do not occur in nature but are the result of intelligent design of living organisms (men) which do occur in nature.
Would it be moral to turn such a machine off once it was running? IMHO, yes, though irrelevant to the discussion of the “will to live”.
Would you be able to make yourself do so if the machine used its output device to beg you to leave it running? Yes, I would.
What if the machine looked just like a human and was largely constructed from organic parts, with just a digital "brain"? Yes, I nevertheless would feel morally justified to turn it off.
Depending on your answers to these questions, where does that leave your "life force"? All of these questions are irrelevant to the “will to live” which occurs in nature.
There is however always an inception, originating, beginning of each successful communication. We have narrowed down to three types of inception: interrupt (presence of a food source, heat, radiation, etc.) cycle (rhythmic functions) and will. The will is the most interesting because we are able to break it down further into different types of willfulness: involuntary (the will to live) and voluntary (such as deciding to move a finger)
The "will to live" permeates all life - from each cell in an organism, to its functional organization which integrates with other functions to that the organism itself has a will to live. It is present in dormant phases of life cycles, from the smallest life forms to the largest - all of the biosphere (plants, animals, etc. all evidence the will to live).
This phenomenon is alternatively called the fecundity principle, the life principle, the evolution of one.
How so? Genetic diseases are obviously mutations. Bacterial infections are not new creatures. Virus may well be the product of decay.
Allowing allele frequency changes doesn't falsify creation, any more than survival of the fittest does. It's still a GIANT STUPENDOUS UNBELIEVABLE jump to assume that naturally occuring errors in DNA resulted in higher lifeforms.
Meyers is an ID guy, just like Dr. Dean Kenyon, (The guy who wrote "Chemical Predestination" back in the 70's.)
Funny thing about Dr. Kenyon, he was considered to be one of the worlds leading Evolutionary Biologists, (until he went ID, that is.)
Allele frequency change in populations of either bacteria or humans is the definition of evolution. You now accept evolution. You are an "evolutionist". Congratulations!
You can be assured that even though you are starting to understand science, the Creator still exists.
Does that also eliminate intergalactic astronomy as a science?
If God knows so much and is involved in every detail of evolution, why did He design the human eye with receptors facing backwards? Why did He design men with nipples? Why did he design humans with the appendix? Why do apes lack the ability to make vitamin C, when "lower" lifeforms have it?
Saying God designed us is a real insult to God.
My God does not need misinterpreters of the Bible defending Him. My God protects me from believing in false prophets and conmen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.