Nuclear Submarines and Living Cells

[Mark Corbett]

I am not a chemist or a biologist. I'm actually a physicist/mathematician. So I can't really speak as to the requirements of what would have to happen. It seems like you've got a pretty good handle on it, though.

Sapper, I'm also not a chemist or biologist, but intelligent design has been a type of intellectual hobby of mine for many years. I'm not a scientist, but I'm "science minded". My undergrad was in Mechanical Engineering and I worked for the US Navy as a Nuclear Engineer for 5 years. But that feels like a long time ago. I love physics and math. Do you teach or use them in another way?

And I found several secular scientist who claimed that Creationist made it unnecessarily complicated, and the chances were much greater than we claimed.

I'm not surprised several secular scientists say that. I'm convinced they are wrong.

If you're interested in this topic I can recommend a few good books by people with top notch scientific credentials:

Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer

Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe

The Edge of Evolution by Michael Behe

But, in the end, it doesn't matter how small the chances are. I still hold to if we about there is even a chance, we've lost.

As a side note, I hate the term "mathematically impossible" attached to really low odds, like some preacher's do with this issue. I had it drilled into my head by many math profs that "if it's not zero, it's not zero".

I think that "probability arguments" in Intelligent design are really just a more precise and scientific version of the type of reasoning we use every day.

It's not absolutely statistically impossible that forces of erosion could produce the equivalent of Mt. Rushmore. But it is so incredibly unlikely that no reasonable person would believe it.

Here's another example. Tell me if I'm wrong (this is more your area than mine), but I think that statistical mechanics/thermodynamics says that it is not exactly IMPOSSIBLE for an ice cube to spontaneously form in a glass of water sitting at room temperature. But it is super incredibly improbable. So super incredibly improbable that we can PRACTICALLY treat it as impossible because it is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. In a sense, isn't the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, from a statistical mechanics viewpoint, a law based on probability (or, more precisely, improbability)?

At some point things become so super incredibly improbable that no reasonable person should believe they would occur (without God's intervention). That's the type of argument Intelligent Design people make. And they make it very carefully and conservatively and, imo, convincingly.

Grace and Peace, Mark

 

[Mark Corbett]

The validity of evolution does not depend on abiogenesis. Evolution only accounts for how species and diversity of life came about once life existed. And here we have a robust scientific model with plenty of supportive genetic, fossil and ongoing living evidence of its processes at work. Our God is an amazing God for giving life the ability to adapt to changing environments and create new species, even in the harshest of environments.

Thanks!

In everyday language, people often refer to abiogenesis as a part of evolution (it has been called chemical evolution at times, but I think that term is less common now). But you are correct that in technical literature people often differentiate between abiogenesis and evolution, with evolution beginning with life.

You seem to be implying that unguided evolution could have produced all the life forms we see today starting with the first simple cell. But I'm not sure this is what you mean. Is this what you mean?

 

[Sapper Woody]

Sapper, I'm also not a chemist or biologist, but intelligent design has been a type of intellectual hobby of mine for many years. I'm not a scientist, but I'm "science minded". My undergrad was in Mechanical Engineering and I worked for the US Navy as a Nuclear Engineer for 5 years. But that feels like a long time ago. I love physics and math. Do you teach or use them in another way?

Right now I am still an undergrad with a dual major pursuing a BS in Physics and Math. Up until this semester I was also a Secondary Education minor. However, I have come to realize that with my mental conditions I will not be able to teach in a high school setting. After doing several "student teaches" at various high/middle schools, I've realized that I cannot handle the crowd, noise, etc.

Like you, Intelligent Design has been a hobby of mine for a long time. In fact, I wrote a high school level one semester course called "Apologetic Creationism" that was used in a Christian school for a while. I first became interested in the Creation/Evolution debate around the age of 9, and have been studying up on it ever since.

Currently, I am hoping to become an Adjunct Professor upon achieving my BS. Adjuncts at my University make a decent amount (for adjuncts) and also have their tuition paid to take graduate level courses.

I was also an engineer in the military. But not what people think of when they think of engineer. I was a Combat Engineer in the Army. Explosives expert.

I'm not surprised several secular scientists say that. I'm convinced they are wrong.

And they very well may be wrong. Most likely are. And I would change up which figures I would use based upon my target audience (that is, if I used the probability argument in the first place). If I were trying to convince an evolutionist of the improbability, I would have to use the numbers their scientists put out, or I'd lose credibility, and all my arguments would be lost on them. If I were trying to strengthen the faith of a new Christian, I would likely inform them of the number that secular scientists use, and then explain why we Creationists have come up with a different number.

I think that "probability arguments" in Intelligent design are really just a more precise and scientific version of the type of reasoning we use every day.

It's not absolutely statistically impossible that forces of erosion could produce the equivalent of Mt. Rushmore. But it is so incredibly unlikely that no reasonable person would believe it.

Here's another example. Tell me if I'm wrong (this is more your area than mine), but I think that statistical mechanics/thermodynamics says that it is not exactly IMPOSSIBLE for an ice cube to spontaneously form in a glass of water sitting at room temperature. But it is super incredibly improbable. So super incredibly improbable that we can PRACTICALLY treat it as impossible because it is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. In a sense, isn't the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, from a statistical mechanics viewpoint, a law based on probability (or, more precisely, improbability)?

At some point things become so super incredibly improbable that no reasonable person should believe they would occur (without God's intervention). That's the type of argument Intelligent Design people make. And they make it very carefully and conservatively and, imo, convincingly.

Grace and Peace, Mark

I think that you and I both look at it at roughly the same way. As near as I can tell, however (just by looking at this thread, so I may be wrong) I think we are looking at different target audiences with our idea of the effectiveness of the argument. I get the feeling that your target audience is either a new Christian struggling with the idea of Creation vs Evolution, or a non-Christian who is open to discussing the possibility of Intelligent Design. My target audience, on the other hand, are the hardcore evolutionists with a background in Academia.

I do look forward to other chats with you in this arena, ,brother.

 

[AwesomeMachine]

It's not creation vs evolution. It's creation and evolution. Satan presents a false reference frame in which creation and evolution are opposed, but they're probably both true. To mankind evolution seems random, because we have limited intellect. But to God evolution produces a 100% predictable result.

The problem results from placing man's understanding as a reference point for truth, and relegating everything beyond our ability to understand as random. But God is the true reference of truth. If we put Him in the center, then we are just ignorant creatures whose understanding is limited to what God has preordained.

Our ability to calculate probabilities for random occurrences is wrought of our inability to intelligently predict future outcomes. Statistics is based on ignorance. It gives the illusion of control to those who control nothing.

 

[Sapper Woody]

. Statistics is based on ignorance. It gives the illusion of control to those who control nothing.

I was going to formulate a reply to you, until I read this. Then I realized there's no point.



Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[Gold Dragon]

In everyday language, people often refer to abiogenesis as a part of evolution (it has been called chemical evolution at times, but I think that term is less common now). But you are correct that in technical literature people often differentiate between abiogenesis and evolution, with evolution beginning with life.

Yes. It is unfortunate that abiogenesis has been conflated into evolution because in one field (evolution), we have a lot of solid modeling and evidence supporting that model while in the other (abiogenesis) we have weak models with very little evidence to support them. Maybe the models for abiogenesis will strengthen in the future but at the moment they are very poorly supported and problematic.

You seem to be implying that unguided evolution could have produced all the life forms we see today starting with the first simple cell. But I'm not sure this is what you mean. Is this what you mean?

Yes. Once you have life that can adapt, pass on genetic information and naturally select, given enough time you can explain the diversity of life we see on earth today.

I am also open to the possibility one or more species may have come about separate to evolution. But there is no scientific evidence of this as yet.

It is by faith in God's holy, authoritative, inspired and trustworthy scriptures that I believe God intimately and purposefully created all of creation and life. This includes in my view, the processes that bring about genetic diversity and natural selection to bring about the diversity of life we see today.

I understand that many intelligent and well meaning Christians differ from my interpretation of scripture and the scientific evidence, including members of my church and family and that is ok.

 

[Gold Dragon]

My target audience, on the other hand, are the hardcore evolutionists with a background in Academia.

That is definitely a challenging target audience.

I have had discussions with hard core atheists before about whether there is room for God in a worldview that does not reject evolution and scientific evidence.

My approach is to challenge the premises of atheistic materialism that all things are measurable and that concepts like love, beauty, sacrifice and morality that we often consider intuitive can be explained by purely measurable or evolutionary reasons. But I think what ultimately will make an impact for an atheistic materialist or any other person for that matter, is when they see the undeserved love and compassion of Christ poured on them. Only God can make that happen but we be a part of it as God's ambassadors on this earth.

 

[Mark Corbett]

My approach is to challenge the premises of atheistic materialism that all things are measurable and that concepts like love, beauty, sacrifice and morality that we often consider intuitive can be explained by purely measurable or evolutionary reasons. But I think what ultimately will make an impact for an atheistic materialist or any other person for that matter, is when they see the undeserved love and compassion of Christ poured on them. Only God can make that happen but we be a part of it as God's ambassadors on this earth.

I agree with your approach. You do reason with them about their ideas related to materialism, but you also realize that LOVE is the most powerful apologetic. The message of the love of Christ. Seeing us love one another. Feeling Christ's love for them through us. Truth empowered by love! I love it!

 

[Sapper Woody]

It's not creation vs evolution. It's creation and evolution. Satan presents a false reference frame in which creation and evolution are opposed, but they're probably both true. To mankind evolution seems random, because we have limited intellect. But to God evolution produces a 100% predictable result.

The problem results from placing man's understanding as a reference point for truth, and relegating everything beyond our ability to understand as random.

Actually, the problem is God's word clearly outlines how things became created, but people choose to ignore it and look at the evidence from a paradigm of rejecting God's Word.

But God is the true reference of truth.

I agree with this statement. That's why, if God says he created everything in six days, I believe it.

If we put Him in the center, then we are just ignorant creatures whose understanding is limited to what God has preordained.

God has given us an intellect. He gave us an ego and id. He did not give these to us so we would be mindless. Rather, God is glorified when we learn what we can of his creation. About the what, about the why, about the how. Many sciences are devoted to the what. My physics, for example. Very few sciences are devoted to the why. Theology and philosophy come to mind. Unfortunately, the "how" becomes very tricky, because each science gives us only a small glimpse. And taking any of these sciences on their own only gives us a small picture. Biology without theology gives us an atheistic evolutionary approach. Theology without biology gives us the truth of creation, but leaves us with questions as to why there is an appearance of evolution in the sciences.

It is my opinion that both science and the Bible offer truth, and are perfectly aligned. If they ever disagree, then our understanding of one or the other or both is wrong. But I am an avid believer in a literal six day creation. So I have to then ask why does it appear that the earth is so old? Well, my response comes back in the form of the apparent age theory. I believe that the earth was created a relatively short time ago, but that it was fully equipped with oil, diamonds, coal. In other words, it was a fully mature universe that appeared to be much older than it was.

Our ability to calculate probabilities for random occurrences is wrought of our inability to intelligently predict future outcomes. Statistics is based on ignorance. It gives the illusion of control to those who control nothing.

I honestly don't know how to respond to this. I figure there's three possibilities; either I'm just not understanding what you're trying to say, you're not saying it very well, or it's an idiotic statement. For now, though I naturally want to develop a bad attitude towards you for the statement and assume the third possibility, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that I am not understanding your intent. With that in mind, would you mind clarifying what you mean?

 

[AwesomeMachine]

Picture this: Someone is flipping a coin. You have the ability to analyze all physical criteria involved in the coin toss. Since the outcome of heads or tails is based purely on physical criteria, the ability to correctly analyze such criteria would remove chance from the toss outcome. Sufficient intelligence would render chance moot.

Similarly, if someone understood the physical interactions of each subatomic particle in the Universe with every other one, at any moment, and throughout time, everything in the physical world would be predictable with 100% certainty.

Statistics is based on man's ignorance of these things, the fact that man cannot predict everything with 100% certainty. Probability is just an expression to describe outcomes that cannot be precisely determined ahead of time. But nothing is random to God, because He understands everything.

Saying that there's no point to responding is actually just a cop out which means, "I don't like what you wrote, but I can't refute it." It's really a matter of humility, and understanding just how limited the mind of man is compared to God.

 

[AwesomeMachine]

It is the beginning of humility to acknowledge that the mind of man is very limited. I have one of the greatest minds in the world, a standard deviation of 4 from the mean. I understand--from a modern scientific perspective--how God The Father conceived the Christ child in the womb of Mary Most Holy.

I understand--again, from a modern scientific perspective--how Roman Catholic Holy Eucharist can become the Body of Christ, but give no appearance to that change.

If you shoot an arrow at a target, at some point it will be 1/2 way to the target. At some point it will be 1/2 of 1/2 way. But if you keep dividing the distance in half, the arrow will never get to the target. This problem perplexed the best minds for the last 2,600 years. I solved it.

If I reveal everything, people cannot accept it. I tried that, but I received over a thousand death threats, and suffered 23 attempts on my life. I give all the credit to God that I survived! But I have also learned that when I deem my own mind limited, people take offense. I even had one person tell me, "Well then what does that say about the rest of us?"

 

[Sapper Woody]

I have one of the greatest minds in the world, a standard deviation of 4 from the mean...
If I reveal everything, people cannot accept it. I tried that, but I received over a thousand death threats, and suffered 23 attempts on my life. I give all the credit to God that I survived! But I have also learned that when I deem my own mind limited, people take offense. I even had one person tell me, "Well then what does that say about the rest of us?"

Ok, now I see. You're an internet troll. Got it. Anyone who claims to be in the same IQ range as Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein, I immediately dismiss as either a troll or insane, unless they can provide some form of proof.

 

[AwesomeMachine]

Years ago I was having problems in school. But to me it wasn't a problem. I just didn't do much school work. But I got straight As. As part of my assessment, I was tested for intelligence and academic level. I wasn't told my IQ, because the test I took measures intelligence relative to a group. I suppose it could be converted to an IQ number, but that is relative to age, so I just use what I was told: standard deviation of 4 from the mean.

The point is, the greater the mind, the more it understands how really small it is, and the more it understands how feeble the ability of the human mind is in general. Plato says, "He who is wise is he who thinks he knows nothing." I have to remark that others have utterly abused me, because of my academic and professional accomplishments, and the fact that I give all Power, Glory, Honor and Praise to the Name above all other names.

It hurts me, but I do no harm. I feel isolated no matter how many people are around, but I have God, Who is far above my level on every level, Who will never be impressed by any accomplishment I make, Who views me just like he views every other person; Who calls me His son with an inheritance to go along with it.

Imagine looking at an ant hill and trying to determine the individual virtues of each ant. Differences in human intelligence are as impressive to God as are differences in ant intelligence to humans. I have personally experienced how people react to the truth. Simple people don't understand it, and sophisticated people reject it, often times with homicidal rage.

Satan endlessly harasses me. They take from me everything they're allowed to; cause me to suffer every injustice God will permit; place adversity in my path out of spiteful wickedness, knowing it will not deter me, obtaining nothing for themselves but the satisfaction of harming me.

You'll find I'm not a troll. But Satan incites persecution for me wherever I go. I came to BB because I thought things might be different among those who claim to know God. I feel confident that this group will at least try to understand. That's the most I can ask of anyone.

Regarding proof of my claims, I don't know what proof I could furnish. The online world is easily deceived, and so they are circumspect to self-serving claims. That's good. The alternative would be chaos. I'm happy people doubt me. That shows I'm speaking to a discriminating group.

 

[AwesomeMachine]

I wasn't aware that I rank with Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein. How did you figure that out?

 

[Sapper Woody]

I wasn't aware that I rank with Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein. How did you figure that out?

Stephen Hawking's estimated IQ is 160. Or exactly 4 standard deviations from the median. Einstein's estimated IQ is 4-6 standard deviations. Or 160-190.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[AwesomeMachine]

Thanks for the info. But I don't think I'm as lofty a thinker as those famous physicists.

 

[Mark Corbett]

. . . I think we are looking at different target audiences with our idea of the effectiveness of the argument. I get the feeling that your target audience is either a new Christian struggling with the idea of Creation vs Evolution, or a non-Christian who is open to discussing the possibility of Intelligent Design. My target audience, on the other hand, are the hardcore evolutionists with a background in Academia.

I do look forward to other chats with you in this arena, ,brother.

Sapper, I think there is some truth to your statement above. I started another thread around the same time I started this one which has more of the type of evidence and sources which could be effective with a more skeptical audience. Although I admit it would need some tweaking and "repackaging" to be ideal. Here is a link to that thread (I actually prefer this one more, but it has gotten less attention):

How the Smallest Cells Give Big Evidence for a Creator