Self Organization

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by Dondi

I'm not interested in if abiogenesis happened, I'm interested in how it happened, specifically.

Mass and energy associate in a pattern that progresses; completely opposite to the macro observance of chaos.

That is a barrier that if broken, and can be proven theoretically either biologically or mathmatically, it would go far in advancing acceptance to the whole sphere of evolutionary thought.

and it was in observing biological processes that revealed that the energy upon mass is what causes the 'intent' of life... rather than the current ideas of 'potential differences' in a chemical rendition of todays biology.

So the perfection starts with observing how atoms and energy 'evolved' in to structures versus from adam and eve.

and the change that enables the comprehension to unfold is to identify energy as light (em upon mass) rather than an electical potential between bodies (mass).

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Would a workable, mathmatically supportable model for abiogenesis affect your belief in a Creator God?

Added: What holds you (or anyone) back from accepting the model of evolution of species as it currently stands? The evidence is overwhelming.

I'm open to the idea of evolution. But I haven't sifted though all that overwhelming evidence enough to allow me to decide to fully buy into it. I will tell you that I'm old earth/old universe. Nor am I afraid of what I might find. And I do not think it will affect my relationship with God. It's His game, not mine. And despite the evidence, as it were, there are still problems of both sides of the fence. I'm equally annoyed at athiests who became athiests because of evolution. There are plenty of thiests who hold to it.

FWIW, I have been reading and interesting book called "The Language of God" by Francis Collins that as gone a long way is leaning me more toward evolutionary biology. But Collins is a theist, so I'm curious about what his findings are.

Naturally, most of those in my church hold to a young earth/young universe/six day creation view. As does my immediate family. For the most part, I keep quiet about my views. I don't see any reason to jeopardize my position and service in the church or cause agnst for my family because I believe differently than they. Life has been good to me and I'm serving the Lord, why spoil a good thing.

At any rate, the fear for most Christians is that if evolution is true, then the biblical account cannot be. The idea of the Fall would make no sense, and thus the concept of sin would be invalid. And to follow further, it would stand to reason that Christ's redemptive work would be unnecessary. It would also make Christ's statements concerning Adam and Eve invalid as well.

And while that is a concern for me as well, I cannot ignore scientific evidence. When I first began reading creationist literature, it seemed to satisfy my inquiries for a time. But the deeper I got into it, I couldn't help ask myself why God would allow the 'appearance' of evolution to be so prevelent? Is He trying to test us? Or if it was a 'lie' from Satan, as some would insist, why on earth (pun intended) does it seem so convincing? I thought the idea was to get people to believe in God? So it seemed to me that, gee, God sure is making it hard for people.

I am comforted in my spiritual journey to learn that much what I've read in Jewish thought doesn't seem to mind that the six day account in Genesis is not necessarily literal. That there is some allowance to believe in an alternate interpretation whist still allowing certain core beliefs to remain intact. But I'm still trying to hash out what that all means. Suffice to say, my inquiry has been stimulating so far.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

Mass and energy associate in a pattern that progresses; completely opposite to the macro observance of chaos.

and it was in observing biological processes that revealed that the energy upon mass is what causes the 'intent' of life... rather than the current ideas of 'potential differences' in a chemical rendition of todays biology.

So the perfection starts with observing how atoms and energy 'evolved' in to structures versus from adam and eve.

and the change that enables the comprehension to unfold is to identify energy as light (em upon mass) rather than an electical potential between bodies (mass).

Would this have something to do with the formation of the left-handed amino acids that are predominately found in life? Did light have a polarizing effect in how these molecules were formed?

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Dondi

At any rate, the fear for most Christians is that if evolution is true, then the biblical account cannot be. The idea of the Fall would make no sense, and thus the concept of sin would be invalid. And to follow further, it would stand to reason that Christ's redemptive work would be unnecessary. It would also make Christ's statements concerning Adam and Eve invalid as well.

If it helps any, Dondi- I am an evolutionist. I've held the early hominid and early human skulls in my own hands; I've seen the progression with my own eyes. I can't get away from that data and I refuse to believe in a God that would allow Satan to plant things that are so appealing to our God-given logic only to deceive us.

That said, it doesn't detract from the relevance, authenticity, truthfulness, or meaning of Genesis in the least for me. With the Spirit, I am able to still embrace the meaning of Genesis, of sin, of Christ's work, and Adam and Eve without thinking it is a literal story of the details of creation. The first couple chapters of Genesis alone are crammed full of meaning and relevance for life today. I do not believe in the concept of original sin, but I do believe people sin, and I do believe people are saved through Christ. I do not believe in a fallen world or earth, but I do believe people have consistently chosen, since the origins of human thought, to alienate themselves from God and the earth, and we live with the consequences. The earth could be the Kingdom of Heaven- the Kingdom is among/within us. But if we do not bring it forth and embrace what God gave us out of grace, well- things continue as they are.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

If it helps any, Dondi- I am an evolutionist. I've held the early hominid and early human skulls in my own hands; I've seen the progression with my own eyes. I can't get away from that data and I refuse to believe in a God that would allow Satan to plant things that are so appealing to our God-given logic only to deceive us.

That said, it doesn't detract from the relevance, authenticity, truthfulness, or meaning of Genesis in the least for me. With the Spirit, I am able to still embrace the meaning of Genesis, of sin, of Christ's work, and Adam and Eve without thinking it is a literal story of the details of creation. The first couple chapters of Genesis alone are crammed full of meaning and relevance for life today. I do not believe in the concept of original sin, but I do believe people sin, and I do believe people are saved through Christ. I do not believe in a fallen world or earth, but I do believe people have consistently chosen, since the origins of human thought, to alienate themselves from God and the earth, and we live with the consequences. The earth could be the Kingdom of Heaven- the Kingdom is among/within us. But if we do not bring it forth and embrace what God gave us out of grace, well- things continue as they are.

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." - Genesis 2:7

In guess God forgot to tell us there are some intermediary steps here, huh?

But I agree that there are deeper meanings in the text of the Torah than what we see at the surface, as BB can attest. A Jewish astrophysicist by the name of Gerald Schroeder has some interesting theories from which he draws heavily from Nachmanides and Maimonides interpretations of the Genesis account. Samples from his website:

The Age of the Universe

Evolution: Rationality vs. Randomness

Existence: What the meaning of the word "is" is

The caution here is that some of his ideas have naturally been scrutinized by critics, so take them with a grain of salt. But it has led me to search deeper into the matter. I'm learning.

But I appreciate your view, path. And your firm faith in light of your scientific leanings. I hope that I can find firm ground of my own.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Dondi

I'm open to the idea of evolution. But I haven't sifted though all that overwhelming evidence enough to allow me to decide to fully buy into it. I will tell you that I'm old earth/old universe. Nor am I afraid of what I might find. And I do not think it will affect my relationship with God. It's His game, not mine. And despite the evidence, as it were, there are still problems of both sides of the fence. I'm equally annoyed at athiests who became athiests because of evolution. There are plenty of thiests who hold to it.

FWIW, I have been reading and interesting book called "The Language of God" by Francis Collins that as gone a long way is leaning me more toward evolutionary biology. But Collins is a theist, so I'm curious about what his findings are.

Naturally, most of those in my church hold to a young earth/young universe/six day creation view. As does my immediate family. For the most part, I keep quiet about my views. I don't see any reason to jeopardize my position and service in the church or cause agnst for my family because I believe differently than they. Life has been good to me and I'm serving the Lord, why spoil a good thing.

At any rate, the fear for most Christians is that if evolution is true, then the biblical account cannot be. The idea of the Fall would make no sense, and thus the concept of sin would be invalid. And to follow further, it would stand to reason that Christ's redemptive work would be unnecessary. It would also make Christ's statements concerning Adam and Eve invalid as well.

And while that is a concern for me as well, I cannot ignore scientific evidence. When I first began reading creationist literature, it seemed to satisfy my inquiries for a time. But the deeper I got into it, I couldn't help ask myself why God would allow the 'appearance' of evolution to be so prevelent? Is He trying to test us? Or if it was a 'lie' from Satan, as some would insist, why on earth (pun intended) does it seem so convincing? I thought the idea was to get people to believe in God? So it seemed to me that, gee, God sure is making it hard for people.

I am comforted in my spiritual journey to learn that much what I've read in Jewish thought doesn't seem to mind that the six day account in Genesis is not necessarily literal. That there is some allowance to believe in an alternate interpretation whist still allowing certain core beliefs to remain intact. But I'm still trying to hash out what that all means. Suffice to say, my inquiry has been stimulating so far.

Fair enough Dondi. I know you are an intelligent and sincere person, and I'm impressed by your investigation. I can see that in a way it takes courage, given that your family does not share your openness to thinking about this.

I might suggest that you don't have to understand every detailed fact and nuance of the theory of evolution before concluding that it's the best model we currently have to explain the evidence of DNA, fossils, and speciation. And, there will always (and should always) be modifications to the finer details of evolution, not to mention the large glaring hole of abiogenesis. These do not mean evolution is 'wrong,' but like a car or airplane...constant testing and evaluation leads to improvement of the model. (Although the ToE does not depend itself upon abiogenesis.)

Like Path_of_One, I'm a scientist and a theist and have never had a problem reconciling those two things. God did it all...what we understand and what we don't understand. Francis Collins' book is good. I also recently read it. Even better is Alister McGrath, although he does not write extensively about science and theology. CS Lewis is great, as you probably know, and Francis Collins and Alister McGrath both identify with CS Lewis' path from atheism to Christiantiy.

I would really like to read one of Ken Miller's books. He's an evolutionary scientist at Brown and a devout Catholic. His page is here: Ken Miller's Evolution Page

Best wishes in your search for answers.

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by Dondi

Would this have something to do with the formation of the left-handed amino acids that are predominately found in life? Did light have a polarizing effect in how these molecules were formed?

In a sense, but that has to do with the energy in pole relation to the energies source.

ie.... see how pole are caused by entangled energy. Then note the magnetosphere of earth in relation to the sun; meaning the energy of these basic building blocks of lipids can be of only a portion of the original 'photon' creating a 'polarized' resonance upon the structure.

food for thought

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Dondi

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." - Genesis 2:7

In guess God forgot to tell us there are some intermediary steps here, huh?

I guess I figure God didn't need to throw in all the intermediary steps for the meaning of the passage. I still believe that this is true. We are formed of stardust- from dust we come (quite literally, as the nutrients in the soil go into plants, and therefore into our mothers as food, and into developing us), that life exists at all is by the grace of God, and God is what animates all of life (at least, this is what I believe). This is what allows us to live.

I don't know... maybe in some ways I'm just simpler in my theology. I have little in the way of doctrine, being more or less Quaker theologically. I'm focused more on relationship with God and modeling my life after Christ than hammering out the details of what I should believe. I don't mean that at all as a criticism of you or anyone else's Christianity; I'm just reflecting on why it doesn't bother me, these types of things. I figure in time, the Spirit will unify everyone under the truth, but for now we see through a glass darkly no matter who we are. I go with evolutionary theory because it best explains the data for me and it's useful in medicine and ecology. But I have never considered the details very central to my faith, so it makes this easier.

A Jewish astrophysicist by the name of Gerald Schroeder has some interesting theories from which he draws heavily from Nachmanides and Maimonides interpretations of the Genesis account. Samples from his website:

Thanks! I will totally have to check those out!

I hope that I can find firm ground of my own.

I have no doubt you will. I believe everyone who sincerely seeks after God, finds answers that s/he is looking for. If one has a relationship with God as the starting point, I don't think one loses faith... questioning strengthens faith so long as we are open to God's leading us through our questions.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Fair enough Dondi. I know you are an intelligent and sincere person, and I'm impressed by your investigation. I can see that in a way it takes courage, given that your family does not share your openness to thinking about this.

I don't want to derail this thread in respect to Bishadi, but I want to continue this line of thought. So I've created another thread here:

Origins and the Theist

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

In a sense, but that has to do with the energy in pole relation to the energies source.

ie.... see how pole are caused by entangled energy. Then note the magnetosphere of earth in relation to the sun; meaning the energy of these basic building blocks of lipids can be of only a portion of the original 'photon' creating a 'polarized' resonance upon the structure.

food for thought

I appreciate you trying to explain this, Bishadi, but I'm afraid your explanations of the mechanics are a little vague for me. How exactly does the magnosphere of the Earth polarize the molecules? Is there a different how this is done between the Northern Hemisphere and the Southern Hemisphere?

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Dondi

Would this have something to do with the formation of the left-handed amino acids that are predominately found in life? Did light have a polarizing effect in how these molecules were formed?

Could the coriolis effect have had anything to do with it?

In physics, the Coriolis effect is an apparent deflection of moving objects when they are viewed from a rotating frame of reference.
The Coriolis effect is caused by the Coriolis force, which appears in the equation of motion of an object in a rotating frame of reference. …In a rotating frame, the Coriolis force, which depends on the velocity of the moving object, and centrifugal force, which does not depend on the velocity of the moving object, are needed in the equation to correctly describe the motion.
Perhaps the most commonly encountered rotating reference frame is the Earth. Freely moving objects on the surface of the Earth experience a Coriolis force, and appear to veer to the right in the northern hemisphere, and to the left in the southern. Movements of air in the atmosphere and water in the ocean are notable examples of this behavior: rather than flowing directly from areas of high pressure to low pressure, as they would on a non-rotating planet, winds and currents tend to flow to the right (left) of this direction north (south) of the equator. This effect is responsible for the rotation of large cyclones (see Coriolis effects in meteorology).

Coriolis effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gyroscope:

A gyroscope is a device for measuring or maintaining orientation, based on the principles of angular momentum[1][2]. The device is a spinning wheel or disk whose axle is free to take any orientation. This orientation changes much less in response to a given external torque than it would without the large angular momentum associated with the gyroscope's high rate of spin. Since external torque is minimized by mounting the device in gimbals, its orientation remains nearly fixed, regardless of any motion of the platform on which it is mounted.

Gyroscope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An interesting looking article, but I am not a subscriber and do not have access:

This review is concerned with the physical problems of fiber ring interferometry which underlies the fiber-optic gyroscopy harnessing the Sagnac effect. Locally reciprocal and locally nonreciprocal physical effects are considered, including polarization, transient, magnetic, nonlinear, and relativistic effects. These effects are responsible for the appearance of additional signals, which are similar to the rotation signal, at the output of a fiber-optic gyroscope.

Physical problems of fiber gyroscopy based on the Sagnac effect

I was curious about this “Sagnac Effect:”

The Sagnac effect is the electromagnetic counterpart of the mechanics of rotation. A gimbal mounted gyroscope remains pointing in the same direction after spinning up, and thus can be used as the reference for an inertial guidance system. A Sagnac interferometer measures its own angular velocity with respect to the local inertial frame; hence just as a gyroscope it can provide the reference for an inertial guidance system.

Sagnac effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or perhaps even the Magnus effect?

The Magnus effect is the name given to the physical phenomenon whereby a spinning object creates a whirlpool of rotating air or liquid about itself. The overall behaviour is similar to that around an aerofoil (see lift force) with a circulation which is generated by the mechanical rotation, rather than by aerofoil action.

This is the reason golf balls stay aloft so long.

In short, there seems to be something almost magical attached to a spinning or rotating object, but entirely possible via the physics (which I don’t understand well enough to be much help). Especially if that rotating something is the size of a planet. Hopefully these will provide a few clues in the direction you were looking.

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by Dondi

I appreciate you trying to explain this, Bishadi, but I'm afraid your explanations of the mechanics are a little vague for me. How exactly does the magnosphere of the Earth polarize the molecules? Is there a different how this is done between the Northern Hemisphere and the Southern Hemisphere?

and the direction of weather vortex... Good stuff ....

you are well ahead of many as well articulate and fair

maybe when I grow up I could be even a sliver of such

but i'm not getting my hopes up