Would this Origin of life model work?

If you have a face-covering visor on your forehead-slappin’ helmet, you don’t need the additional splatter shield. But if you’re prone to leaning over your keyboard you may need some sort of gutter system. I find it’s best not to read creationist posts while drinking any kind of beverage – but, then, keyboards are cheap.

I don’t wear a helmet. I find it gets is the way of my face-palming.

You could just face-helmet. Thank me later.

1 Like

You must have a lower face-to-palm velocity than I do. I’d be in the ER with a broken nose for the facepalming and a concussion for the forehead-slapping. For me, creationism requires protective gear.

A very busy week for me, but I have time for a few comments.

If this is a conclusion, then there should be some way to falsify it. Are you really willing to allow the possibility the divinity of Jesus could be falsified? If not, then you are only restating your assumptions. If so, then it’s just plain wrong, because that’s not a question that can be addressed scientifically.

Your argument is based on a false premise.

Before moving on to this “new” old objection, I would like to note that you have abandoned the current objection objection under discussion, which was …

By failing to make any claims or limits whatsoever about the Designer, ID has effectively shot itself in the foot with respect to falsification. An unknown and unknowable Designer might do anything at all, at any time, and there is no means to falsify related hypotheses - not even in theory.

Does your response, “Right,” signify that you agree?

And now we might continue with …

“If it’s not falsifiable in the present, why should we expect that to be any different in the past?”

Let me note that this definitely wasn’t part of your stated hypothesis, and therefore constitutes a moving of the goalposts. If you want to restate the hypotheses, that is OK, but you keep making amendments and it is hard to follow what you are arguing.

Moving of goalposts aside, you haven’t stated how your hypothesis can be falsified in the present OR in the past.

You mean it’s falsifiable? You keep claiming this, but when asked “How?”, only state further assumptions about the nature of God. I understand that you believe in God, no objection there, but you form of proof cannot work.

Suggestion: As an exercise try applying your method to two other less controversial topics, one true and one false. What happens?

I don;t see how this help you? Quoting Tim Folger in that Wiki article …

If Penrose is right, gravity yanks objects back into a single location, without any need to invoke observers or parallel universes.

Emphasis mine.

I’m still 50 comments behind the current discussion, but a after a quick scan I don’t see anything I feel a need to respond to.

The bit about information in language is interesting though. I think language falls under “encoding” rather than information. ie: Two people must first understand and agree on the encoding they will use before exchanging information. In practice the understanding and agreement is often a tacit assumption they are speaking the same language. But as we often see in this forum, that is not always the case. :wink:

2 Likes

Read this:

“Jesus taught that God created one man and one woman (Mark 10:6) and mentions Abel, a son of Adam and Eve in Luke 11:51. Was Jesus wrong in His beliefs? Or did Jesus know there were no literal Adam and Eve and He was simply accommodating His teaching to the beliefs of the people (i.e., lying)? If Jesus is wrong in His beliefs, He is not God. If Jesus is intentionally deceiving people, He is sinning and therefore cannot be the Savior (1 Peter 1:19).”

Now, there are many models that have been proposed to accommodate the common descent model, but I found everyone of them to have serious flaws. Ultimately, the best model that has no apparent flaws and is testable is the common design model.

Well, no. I thought you were the one that was conceding. I have already provided strong evidence that shows how there is a strong analogy between biochemical and human information. This allows us to infer (rather than assume) that the intelligent designer who created the first life was human or a common designer. More importantly, it allows us to constrained the hypothesis in a testable manner like what we do in forensics and archaeology.

Do you want to argue that the evidence does not show this like @Tim? If not, then let’s focus our attention with the other objection.

That’s because I am changing it based on feedback from you guys. So if what I am presenting is wrong or incoherent, then you can see that I willing to change it.

Besides, my theory has not changed much from before:

"A quantum consciousness must exist to create all life on earth "

Definition of coconsciousness: self creation and movement of particles (I.e. self collapsing wave-function)

Definition of life: digital information in the form of math and linguistics

No, I have. You just did not agree with the scientist that described how my theory is falsifiable because he does not have the credentials of a biologist…

However, Sean Carroll understands and has expertise on quantum physics while you have suggested that you don’t. On the other hand, you suggested that…

This means that you question Sean Carrol’s claim even though he is more qualified than you to speak on the matter.

This is an additional experiment that is employed to establish that a self-existing consciousness existed prior to the inception of contingent minds.

The only differences (I see) is that my hypothesis and the methods to test it strictly apply to biochemistry AND past events. But, it is important to note that I am not relying on Penrose’s additional postulation and methods to be correct or proven correct for my hypothesis to work. Instead, I am relying on the Orch-OR theory’s support of human consciousness AND those experiments or observations I just mentioned before.

With that said, it is a possible method to disconfirm whether God is guiding evolution in the present day, nonethless.

Are you still talking strictly about the origin of life? Because that doesn’t have anything much to to with the common descent or common design models. But if you’re talking about the diversity we see today and in fossils, that all relates directly to the models.

So what are the flaws in the common descent model, and why have you ignored every flaw people have pointed out in your common design model? Further, what does all this have to do with your (once more unattributed) quote about Jesus?

Finally, the idea that you can talk about this without even once considering biology is absurd.

1 Like

You clearly did not read the context of our exchange. I was talking about the different models for the Adam and Eve story that have been proposed by Joshua and others. To say that this story did not happen at all would be to directly challenge the divinity of Christ. This is one of the many things that make my theory testable. This was my point to one of Dan’s objections.

Have you considered the fact that Jesus did not write the Gospel of Mark, so that Jesus may never have believed or said that?

3 Likes

This is absurd nonsense.

I was a Christian for around 12 years of my life. Throughout that entire period, I took the Adam and Eve story to be an ancient fable. That did not at all challenge my Christian beliefs.

4 Likes

I don’t get your point because there are other verses from other gospels that suggests the same thing.

Just because you were not convinced that there was a conflict does not mean there is not a conflict on an objective level.

There is no conflict.

Jesus was making a literary allusion to a cultural tradition. This is a very human thing to do. It is not considered to be lying, even if the cultural tradition is taken to be a fable.

Yes, creationists do make this argument. But when they make it, they are denying the humanity of Jesus. That really should be considered a major heresy of modern creationism.

3 Likes

How do you know this? Can you bring up verses or scholars that would support your claim?

You clearly have no idea how to say what you mean.

And those have nothing to do with the origin of life or common descent vs. “common design”.

Possibly, though you haven’t actually shown that. He wouldn’t have to lie in order to just use the language familiar to his listeners, just as we say the sun is rising even though we know that it’s actually the earth rotating. Or I can say that I’m using the methods of Sherlock Holmes without anyone thinking that I’m making a claim that Holmes ever really existed.

It seems to be entirely irrelevant to your theory. Can you explain how the divinity of Christ makes your theory testable? Or how your theory makes the divinity of Christ testable, if that’s what you meant? I bet nobody knows what your point was supposed to be. To remind you, you said this:

What does that mean? Models of what, exactly? Common descent of what? Common design of what? What is the common design model in this context, and how does it relate to Jesus or Adam & Eve, or whatever you may be talking about? Again, I bet nobody can answer these questions because nobody has any real clue what you’re trying to say there.

1 Like

He doesn’t have to know it. It just has to be plausible to destroy your argument, which relies on the assumption that the only reason Jesus would make such statements if they weren’t true is that he was either lying or ignorant. If there’s a third possibility, your argument fails.

1 Like

That comes from an ordinary reading of the text.

In every day life, people make similar allusions to Sherlock Holmes, and nobody suggest that is lying.

2 Likes

Read this:

"The Bible clearly presents Adam and Eve as literal people who existed in a literal Garden of Eden. They literally rebelled against God, they literally believed Satan’s lie, and they were literally cast out of the Garden (Genesis 3:24). They had literal children, all of whom inherited the sin nature, and that nature was passed down to succeeding generations to this very day. Fortunately, God promised a literal Savior to redeem us from that sin nature (Genesis 3:15). That Savior is Jesus Christ, called the “last Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45), who died on a literal cross and literally rose again. Those who believe in Christ will have literal salvation and spend eternity in a literal heaven.

Christians who deny the story of Adam and Eve essentially deny their own faith. Rejecting the literal interpretation of the Bible’s historical narratives is a slippery slope. If Adam and Eve did not exist, then were Cain and Abel not real? Did Seth exist, and did he father a godly line that led all the way to Abraham and eventually to Jesus Himself? Where in Luke’s genealogy (Luke 3:23–38) do the names stop referring to literal people and start referring to mythical characters? To dismiss Adam and Eve as non-literal is to deny the accuracy of Luke’s gospel, cast aspersions on Moses’ record, and remove the foundation of the rest of the Bible."

We can infer from current evidence that the first life on earth was created by not only an intelligent designer but by a common designer because of the remarkably similarities between both languages.

More importantly, since there could not be any life before abiogenesis and there is nothing in the physico-chemical world [apart from life] that resembles reactions being determined by the genetic code , we can conclude this common designer is also transcended.

Finally, the only mind we know of that is both divine and human is Jesus Christ.

Um…comparative religion class, anyone?

And how does a proposition like that wind up being empirically validated?

3 Likes

You follow that with a length quote. The only citation is to Genesis and to 1 Corinthians. But, quite clearly, the quote does not come from either of those.

You are presenting theology, without identifying your source.

I’ll note that the theology of original sin is not accepted by all Christian denominations.

But can at least thank you for finally being clear that this is all theology, and that it was never science.

2 Likes