In a message dated 11/19/01 9:49:21 AM, hvantill@novagate.com writes:
<< We seem to be having a communication problem here. The point is this: What
atoms & molecules _are_ and what atoms and molecules _are able to do_ is a
package deal. You cannot change the formational capabilities of atoms and
molecules independently of the rest of the "package." Unless the "character
of matter" (including such things as the rules of QM, the nature of
interaction forces, the values of the fundamental physical constants, the
nature of space, etc.) is modified in some way, the formational capabilities
of atoms and molecules cannot be modified.
That's why I said that if _you_ want to posit a change (by addition) in the
formational capabilities of atoms & molecules, then _you_ must allow for
some change in the "character of matter.">>
My latest comments are in CAPS so you can locate them with a minimum of
difficulty.
I'M OUT OF MY DEPTH HERE, BUT I STILL DISAGREE. I FALL BACK ON SYSTEMS
THEORY IN WHICH THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE ELEMENTS IN THE SYSTEM ARE AS
IMPORTANT, IF NOT MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE "CHARACTER" OF THE ELEMENTS. IN
THIS WAY OF THINKING, THE CHARACTER OF THE BRICKS IN DIFFERENT STRUCTURES,
FOR INSTANCE, IS NOT AS IMPORTANT AS HOW THEY ARE RELATED TO EACH OTHER -- IN
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BRICK WALL, A GARAGE, OR A MAGNIFICENT CHURCH. BY
BEING RELATED TO EACH OTHER IN DIFFERENT WAYS IDENTICAL BRICKS CAN BE USED TO
BUILD VERY DIFFERENT STRUCTURES.
I'LL STICK MY NECK OUT NOW. LIKEWISE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS LINE OF
THINKING, A CARBON ATOM, WHICH IS A VERY VERSATILE ATOM, IS UNCHANGED IN
CHARACTER WHETHER IT IS FOUND IN A BLOCK OF ANTHRACITE, OR IN MY BODY. TO BE
SURE, A DIFFERENT PART OF ITS VERSATILITY IS UTILIZED IN COAL, FROM THE
VERSATILITY USED IN A LIVING ORGANISM. OR ARE YOU SAYING THAT A CARBON ATOM
IN MY BODY IS DIFFERENT _IN CHARACTER_ FOR BEING PART OF A LIVING ORGANISM
FROM A CARBON ATOM IN A NONLIVING, INANIMATE OBJECT? IF SO, HOW IS IT
DIFFERENT?
HVT:<<My hypothesis, on the other hand, is that there is no need for such a
>
> change; that the character of atoms and molecules includes -- without
>
> further additions or modifications -- the formational capabilities to
>
> actualize the system of life.>>
BOB: <I_also fail to see why this is true. Perhaps what you wrote below is
your
> explanation?
>
HOWARD: <<I envision them as resident in the system of the Creation's
potentialities,
>
> a system that is an integral aspect of the Creation's being.
>
> <<Example: Very early in the formational history of the universe there was a
>
> brief period of time when free quarks existed, but it was too hot for them
>
> to form nucleons (protons and neutrons). At that moment nucleons were
>
> potentialities resident in the character of quarks. As the temperature
>
> dropped (as a result of the universe's expansion), nucleons formed;
>
> potential structures became actual structures as the constituent parts
>
> exercised their formational capabilities.
>
>
> <<In a similar manner, there was an extended time period (most of the first
>
> few hundred thousand years after the beginning) during which the temperature
>
> of the universe was too high for atoms to form from the plasma of atomic
>
> nuclei and electrons. During this period atoms were potentialities resident
>
> in the character of nuclei and electrons. As the temperature dropped (as a
>
> result of the universe's expansion), atoms formed; potential structures
>
> became actual structures as the constituent parts exercised their
>
> formational capabilities.>>
>
BOB> I agree, in so far as I understand it, with everything you said thus far.
HOWARD: OK. So far, so good.
BOB: > But are you saying this is the model of how life rose out of resident
> potentialities of atoms and molecules?__Is the next step that molecules are
> formed from potentialities resident in the character of atoms, actualized by
> further drop in temperature?
HOWARD: In some cases a simple temperature drop might be sufficient. But in
general
it gets far more complicated than that. In the case of some of the
interstellar molecules I once mentioned, it appears that many of the
chemical reactions must take place, not in the gas phase, but on the
surfaces of interstellar "dust" grains.
BOB: > What is the relationship between inherent
> potentialities that you envision and the external environment in which they
> reside?
HOWARD: Clearly it's a very close relationship. Even now, given all of the
formational capabilities of atoms, molecules, cells, etc., what gets formed
is highly dependent on the environmental circumstances.
BOB: AS PER MY COMMENTS ABOVE, I ADD THE CONCEPT THAT OF A SYSTEM TO THAT OF
THE ENVIRONMENT. THE RELATIONSHIPS, ESPECIALLY AMONG CELLS, IS PERHAPS EVEN
MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE CHARACTER OF THE CONSTITUENT CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES.
BOB: > Or was some other stimulus needed to actualize biology out of
chemistry? I
> have questions both about just what those resident potentialities of
> molecules were and what was it that served as a stimulus to actualize them.
HOWARD: <<I guess the fundamental question that separates us is: Was some
(as yet
unspecified) _non-natural_ stimulus required, or is the system of _natural_
stimuli sufficiently robust to make possible the actualization of the full
range of configurations, structures, systems, and life forms now present?>>
BOB: LET ME MAKE AN ADDITIONAL COMMENT NOW THAT I DID NOT MAKE IN MY
RESPONSE BELOW: YOUR "SYSTEM OF _NATURAL_ STIMULI", IS ALSO _AS YET
UNSPECIFIED_, N'EST-CE PAS?
BOB: > It requires a leap of faith to use the scenario that you drew of the
> actualization of atoms as a model of how life arose. It's too large a leap
> for me to make, Howard.
HOWARD: <It's clear that our judgments differ here. Yes, I do indeed have
high
expectations of the system of "natural" (God-given) formational capabilities
resident is the Creation.>
BOB: I'M NOT GOING TO SURRENDER THE HIGH GROUND HERE. A STAGED
DEVELOPMENTAL MODEL OF CREATION HAS FULLY AS HIGH EXPECTATIONS FOR CREATION
AS YOUR "SYSTEM OF "NATURAL" (GOD-GIVEN) FORMATIONAL CAPABILITIES RESIDENT IN
CREATION." FOR INSTANCE, YOU AND I HAD HIGH EXPECTATIONS FOR THE FULL
DEVELOPMENT OF OUR INFANT CHILDREN INTO MATURE ADULTS WHEN THEY WERE BORN
EVEN THOUGH WE FULLY EXPECTED TO HAVE TO MAKE INTERVENTIONS FROM TIME TO TIME
IN ORDER FOR THOSE EXPECTATIONS TO BE REALIZED.
HOWARD: <What I have been trying to do in our conversation is to understand
your
proposal better, especially what kinds of non-natural _divine action_ you
are have in mind as the links between the "stages" you have proposed.>
Howard Van Till>
BOB: I'VE GIVEN IT MY BEST SHOT AS OF NOW. I RESPECT YOUR EFFORT, AND HAVE
BEEN PLEASED THAT WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO "SPEAK THE TRUTH IN LOVE" TO EACH
OTHER AS WE SEE IT. YOU MAY HAVE HE LAST WORD, IF YOU WISH.
AND HAVE A GOOD THANKSGIVING.
BOB
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 20 2001 - 21:30:56 EST