Could God could have "stirred the pot"?
Most people either argue for either evolution or ID (Intelligent Design, a.k.a. Creation), but could both be correct? Here's an illustration. Many solutions in chemistry need stirring for the reaction to be completed. If not, the solution just sort of sits their and stay extremely unsaturated. Could God have been the one to stir the pot of evolution?
Yes
Side Score: 5
|
 |
No
Side Score: 3
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
No body knows what God looks like but it has always been assumed he human shaped as we were designed in his image I have always found it amusing to think that he might look like the primordial slime that we eventually evolved from and evolution was part of his plan kind of a huge cosmic joke. Side: Yes
2
points
1
point
I actually always thought of this as the way evolutionists and creationists could exist. Evolution is just about undeniable now. Yet that still doesn't explain how the first organism got here. I posted a debate recently that said maybe God's a cell, and if he is that could be the answer. We were made in his image, a cell, and through evolution we came to be what we are now. Side: Yes
|
1
point
The main problem I see with this, is what NMNMN said they are not all independent. Ross gives the probabilities of 0.1 or 0.01 and so on, but these probabilities appear to be involving every galaxy, once you rule out ten per cent, the other probabilities will change. An example can be used with salts in solutions. There are a lot of solutions and in 0.1 of them salt A the probabilities of finding salt B and C in a solution are the same. Salt Probability A 0.1 B 0.1 C 0.1 The probability of finding all three, by using the same method as it appears Hugh Ross is using, would give you 0.001. It could be however in every solution you find salt A , salt B is found and in half of them salt C is found. That is why the probabilities Hugh Ross gives should be looked at sceptically. Looking at this list , I am unsure what the probability is supposed to show. If it is supposed to show, the probability of life arising, there are a lot of unnecessary parameters, one being as it mentions intelligent life. This point alone makes me think he isn't talking about life originating. In the early atmosphere it is thought that there was no free oxygen, this would mean there was no ozone layer, so when a few of the parameters involve the amount of ozone, it also makes me think he cannot be talking about the origin of life. Also looking through the list, there are a few on the levels of certain gases in the atmosphere. One being the oxygen another being carbon dioxide, these have been changed because of life on this planet. So if he is talking about things once life has been here, then they are irrelevant. Another thing he mentions is the oxygen-nitrogen ratio in the atmosphere. This has changed throughout history. Also in the early atmosphere because there wouldn't of been free oxygen, so whatever he is arguing, it seems it would be irrelevant.
The first point would be enough to look sceptically on the probabilities, but considering it appears that there are some irrelevant probabilities for if he was arguing about the probability of life originating. It would appear that his conclusions can't be trusted. If you feel any of my points are wrong please respond to correct me. Side: Yes
I don't think you need God to explain what could have happened. As Doherty95 said, there are many things that could have "stirred the mixture". An example is the wave action in the oceans, which is where life is thought to have originated. Another possible cause is convection currents in the water, because the oceans were hotter than they are today. Yet another possible cause is the currents generated by deep sea hydrothermal vents, which is another hypothesis explaining where life arose. Side: No
1
point
While I am not denying this, this argument can also cover what led to the creation of life. See arguments for Hoyle's State Side: Yes
I have seen similar estimates before. These calculations are based on Hoyle's fallacy. They just extend Hoyle's reasoning from chemicals to the origin of the universe. There are some problems with Hoyle's assumptions when calculating these probabilities. 1. All these events listed in the links you provided are not independent, they do not occur without any relation to each other. Previous events influence later events. So for example you first have energy, out of which fundamental particles form. Only then can you get atoms. Once you have atoms you can get chemistry, which then gives rise to biology. From this you can see that the odds change drastically, because the initial conditions of the universe are what give rise to later states. These calculations do not apply to a gradually incremental process . 2. These odds are calculated towards one particular kind of life, the one found on earth. We don't know if any other life exists, what form it would take, or if it could form in different conditions. 3. The probability for an event that has already happened is 1 (or 100%). Probability calculations are only statistical, they don't determine what will actually happen or not. For example, if you toss a coin 1000 times, the odds of you getting a particular outcome is 1 in 2^1000 (roughly 1 in 10^300). This is the same probability as the one in the calculations you posted. Yet you would get this outcome on your first try despite the low odds. 4. I should mention that evolution doesn't explain the origin of life. It just explains how different species come about from a common ancestor. Side: No
|
