"intelligent design refers to what, exactly?"
The events that occurred during the Cambrian Explosion. (And it couldn't have been "punctuated equilibrium")
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do you believe in spontaneous organic life from non living elements?
- Thread starter Dante Writer
- Start date
"intelligent design refers to what, exactly?"
The events that occurred during the Cambrian Explosion. (And it couldn't have been "punctuated equilibrium")
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Mitochondrial Eve does not support the event you describe. She is the most recent common ancestor from which all living humans today descend, but she was not the only living female of her time (approximately 100,000-200,000 years ago).
http://www.livescience.com/10015-age-confirmed-eve-mother-humans.html
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...d-closest-link-to-eve-our-universal-ancestor/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100817122405.htm
Last edited:
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Depends on how you interpret it.
People go both ways after analyzing evidence. It's a matter of what of an individual finds convincing or not as to whether they will change their beliefs or stay the same. In my case, it went from creationist to evolutionist.
I don't see the word "directly" anywhere in those verses.
Yes, yes, I know about mitochondrial Eve. I also know there are common misconceptions about the concept as well.
As far as I can tell from the existing scientific evidence, it's either metaphorical or it's wrong. So my stance for now is that it's metaphorical.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
I like how you made that distinction very clear. Thank you! Spontaneous suggests something very sudden and immediate, and life isn't like that. It's very gradual. There are so many forms of things that we don't consider alive but are part of the building blocks for what life is. Virus for instance or just take the steps from micelle, liposome, to bilayer. All from naturally occurring molecules, but essential to the cell, as it is the "shell", the membrane.
This is only an assumption, that distorts the evidence:
http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/genetics-research-confirms-biblical-timeline/
World population studies do not support the current hypothesis that the origin of 'modern' humans began 100,000 years ago, not even 20,000 years; but, rather, are more in line with the Biblical timeline given. Check out the algebraic equations used at the following URL, that agrees with historical world population growth:
www.ldolphin.org/Morris.html
(Unfortunately, the prevailing attitude is to decry and discredit, any view that supports the Bible....despite the facts, and common sense. Yes, I said common sense.)
The only one! Wow, I guess she was lucky!
Half right. This 'Mitochondrial Eve' (which was not married to any 'Mitochondrial Adam' and did not eat any Mitochondrial apple'), had parents. And they had parents, and so on. So, your biblical compatibility dies right there.
But it is true that all human race has a common ancestor. We share it with gorillas, fishes, trees, and fungi. Which applies the coupe de grace to any attempt to make the Bible narrative even close to what really happened.
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
First, there can't be any mitochondrial Adam.
For genetic reasons.But, anyway, the Y-Chromosome Adam lived I think some 50,000 years apart from the mt-Eve.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Energy is not intelligent, but some life forms are.
Want to try and form a coherent question?
...what? I'm not the one who proposed that energy is intelligent or can become intelligent, Dante Writer is. The question was addressed to him asking him how such a thing can occur.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
so they added so chemistry to an item already alive......and the life carried on.....
I don't see this as creating .....life
they cheated
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Thief
Rogue Theologian
such as .....any fire?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
but she would be the one not having a navel.....not born of women...
Thief
Rogue Theologian
and you are not a form of chemistry/energy having intelligence?
So after reading the whole thread, wanting to respond to other posts, I decided to come back to OP instead.
My short answer to the question is no.
It's challenging to understand what is meant by spontaneous in a technical sense. My dictionary defines it as:
performed or occurring as a result of a sudden inner impulse or inclination and without premeditation or external stimulus: the audience broke into spontaneous applause | a spontaneous display of affection.
The 'impulse or inclination' would be what produced the spontaneous action (or event). So, trying to apply it to the inquiry, it would mean non-living elements plausibly have impulses, presumably non-concious, that could result in an event known as organic life, or carbon based life.• (of a person) having an open, natural, and uninhibited manner.
• (of a process or event) occurring without apparent external cause: spontaneous miscarriages.
• archaic (of a plant) growing naturally and without being tended or cultivated.
• Biology (of movement or activity in an organism) instinctive or involuntary: the spontaneous mechanical activity of circular smooth muscle.
• (of a process or event) occurring without apparent external cause: spontaneous miscarriages.
• archaic (of a plant) growing naturally and without being tended or cultivated.
• Biology (of movement or activity in an organism) instinctive or involuntary: the spontaneous mechanical activity of circular smooth muscle.
I think it is possible, though not even sure I understand how to word it in a way that is fair, or sound. I also don't see how it is sound to assume it happened gradually. I'm tempted to cop out and say, "I don't know." Also tempted to say I don't think 'non-living elements' exist, which is another assumption and one that strikes me as reasonable as the above two.
Why?
What is the reason for having to answer that question?
I honestly don't get the rationale for having to account for that (today), from pretty much any perspective (religion, scientific, whatever). I get the desire to do it, not the need, as if someone is requiring it.
To me, if that question is so important, I could possibly think of other questions that seem as important about this tale of days gone by.
Being in the 'not' category, and having conviction in notion that life is eternal, I am unsure how to address the question. How did eternal life form? Is that a fair rephrasing of the inquiry within this thread given my position? Assuming it is, I'm far too tempted to go with the Law of Nature. Though even I recognize that as a cop out. I'm also a little hung up on the notion of 'forming' but perhaps that's taking the discussion to a place it (or OP) doesn't care to go. I'll just go with the idea that life formed by Being Itself.
The line is at all points.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
oh no....that would cover and entire field of notions.
I don't confuse dead things with the living.