No, it’s the increasing failure of natural explanations for abiogenesis and evolution and even the origin of the solar system and fine tuning, etc.
I would hardly count Koonin (one of the Top Evolutionary biologists) appealing to multiverses as triumph for naturalism.
Fine tuning is the argument that the particular parameters of the universe are permissive of evolution and life.
This question is answered at https://creation.com/nephesh-chayyah
Based on biblical statements, in Hebrew thought we would not call phytoplankton ‘alive’. Or bacteria. The Bible says “the life is in the blood” and these creatures do not possess blood like vertebrates do.
Yep. The FTA only works if life can arise naturally.
Lol for the sake of the argument let’s say naturalism does struggle with these 3-4. This is equivalent to me beating you in arm wrestling 96 out of 100 times and you going around saying you’re a better arm wrestler than me.
It’s more akin to confirmation bias regarding naturalism, reminiscent of the question about irrational numbers like the square root of 2.
Every number that could be nicely described during the time of the ancient Greeks was a ratio of two integers, it was heretical to think there could be irrational numbers, until there was proof-by-contradiction that demonstrated the square root of 2 was irrational.
What has happened that if we assume for the sake of argument every phenomenon is natural (as in the consequence of ordinary mechanisms) we get absurdities or incongruities with accepted ordinary mechanisms. This is akin to proof-by-contradiction, but perhaps it is better stated as argument-by-contradiction.
This was unwittingly stated by Brenner which I describe in this thread. The went from the origin of life appearing to be solved in the Urey-Miller experiment era to the present state of affairs described here:
Naturalism is has practically failed for the origin of life, it is failing for the origin of eukaryotes, it’s failing for the origin of meiosis. It’s not hard to see, practically every major step in the claims of evolutionary biologists will require miracles indistinguishable from special and/or progressive creationism. That’s hardly a triumph for naturalism.
Yeah it’s not that at all. If Alice answers ten questions right and Mike gets those same ten questions wrong, who do you think is more likely to get question 11 right?
Even creationists would say natural mechanisms are the dominant mechanism observed by humans. The issue is whether natural mechanisms were ALWAYS in play, and at what point does it become arguable that a mechanism substantially different than the ones in operation today were at work.
The 2007 Patriots had and 18-1 season. They lost the superbowl.
Right now the score for origin of life and eukaryotic evolution is favoring creationists, and the score keeps running up, like the Cardinals in the first inning of Game 5 against Atlanta 2019 NLDS.
I dispute this anyways. There is evidence for a natural origin of life. It just isn’t up to your impossible standards. So why do I think there was a natural origin of life? Because there is evidence that we would expect to see if it did in fact happen and the HORRIBLE track record of supernatural explanations. Has nothing to do with confirmation bias and more to do with evidence and probability.
No, they could not.
What does that even mean?
True. Science doesn’t do proof. That the hairlike fibers are homologous to feathers is an inference from phylogeny. It also matches a priori models of feather evolution, predicted (!) before the discovery of feathered dinosaurs. Incidentally, there are plenty of feathered dinosaurs with clear and complete feathers.
Does that mean that insects are not alive but earthworms are?
Yes, this is exactly what I’m saying. The evolutionary expectation/desire to find feathers is driving the assertion that these nondescript “hairlike fibers” must be feathers.
As I recall these “clear and complete” specimens tended to be purchased from Chinese fossil dealers on the street, not actually excavated in the field by the scientists who reported them.
If you read the article, the ‘nephesh’ creatures are the vertebrates. Earthworms do not have blood in the same way that vertebrates do, even if they do have a circulatory system. Their “blood” lacks red blood cells, so it is not the same substance found in vertebrates.
There is evidence of plumage and actual feathers preserved in amber.
Where are you getting this? Many are found by farmers, many of who have received some type of training in fossil excavation, and then donated, like Beipiaosarus for example. And im sure some have been acquired in the way you describe, but certainly not all or even most. But the more important question is, why do you think that’s relevant? Someone recently brought us a meteorite that they found on their property. Do you think because we didn’t find it we can’t accurately describe it as a meteorite?
That’s nothing like what I said. Phylogeny isn’t “expectations”; it’s a conclusion from data. And I see you ignore the part that this primitive feather morphology was predicted. And that’s a real prediction, unlike your after-the-fact musings.
You recall incorrectly. You’re probably thinking of that one never-published fossil that was two fossils glued together. But even with that one, the two separate pieces were real, and one of them had real feathers. For a person who claims to work with primary sources, you sure do bring up a lot of creationist PRATTs.
So would you say that Antarctic ice fish are not “nephesh” and thus are not alive?
Phylogeny (or cladistics, really-- phylogeny assumes genetic relationships based upon shared characteristics) can be conducted from both evolutionist and creationist camps. It’s just grouping things together based upon characteristics.
You’re asking because they lack hemoglobin? They are vertebrates with blood, albeit without hemoglobin. I would still call them nephesh.
If that’s what you think it is, you don’t know much about the subject.
No, I’m asking because they lack red blood cells, which you have claimed is the sine qua non of nephesh. They have blood in the same way that earthworms have blood; less so, in fact, since earthworms have hemoglobin.
Cladistics is indeed just “grouping things together” based upon characteristics. Claiming a genetic relationship is outside the scope of cladistics altogether. See: https://creation.com/cladistics
Interesting. Well, I don’t know about them then. I can tell you that I certainly don’t believe earthworms are “nephesh life”, but sometimes these things are a judgment call. My personal view on it is that God did not allow death and suffering for any animals (or people) capable of consciousness and the ability to experience said suffering. This view is justified at https://creation.com/animal-cruelty.
It may well be that these antarctic ice fish are not ‘nephesh life’, as you’ve said.
You do understand that I’m a systematist, right? You need to stop linking to creationist web sites for explanations of science.
Well, now, consciousness is a whole 'nother can of (dare I say it) worms, unrelated to breath, or red blood cells, or hemoglobin. Who knows what it means, and which organisms have it?
Still, the idea that there was no death before the fall is ridiculous on many grounds. That God would punish all creation for the sin of two people makes him just plain evil, just as evil as if he’d created it that way in the first place. Death is a necessary feature of any functioning ecosystem; otherwise the world would be overrun with mice (or any rapidly reproducing organisms you like) within a few years. Many species don’t work at all without death, which would require the curse of the fall to include rapid hyper-evolution to introduce all the adaptations to carnivory and such. Against that, we have your personal interpretation of a couple of ambiguous bible verses.
Not surprising you think it is misguided… to you there are no sciences that we can depend upon at all. Which is funny … science is what human civilization went to when they discovered they couldn’t rely on written poetry…
Which article is this and who is the scholar?