The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex · 02-12-2010 10:54PM

J C wrote: »

... so it must have been created then!!!

No, it evolved. Given that you appear not to know what that means I appreciate you don't understand the concept.

J C wrote: »

... there is no inconsistency ... science is confined to the observable ... and we can observe that living organisms have such quantity and quality of of CSI that they could only have originated by the appliance of inordinate levels of intelligence ... science cannot prove that this intelligence was God

You claimed that you had proved it was God. Were you lying, or merely mistaken?

"mathematically proven intelligent design of life shows that Materialism is an unfounded belief"

So were you wrong when you claimed this?

J C wrote: »

... but logic tells us that if it was a material 'alien' ... then the next question is who created the 'alien'

That would certainly be one of the questions. But since you can't yet observe this creator alien you logically cannot make any judgments as to what its structure tells us about its origins, since its structure is unknown to us (another reason why ID is not a scientific theory)

If the alien had a material origin, and this alien created us, then all life on Earth ultimately has a material origin. Since you cannot see this alien you cannot rule that out in the same way you are attempting to (and failing to) rule our a natural origin of life on Earth.

So how again have you proven that materialism is an unfounded belief and that the design must be God?

J C wrote: »

... and therefore whatever way you look at it, the ultimate cause can only be a transcendent immaterial entity that is identical to God.

Or a naturally occurring alien species.

Or are you jumping from your claim that observations of life on Earth demonstrates intelligent design to saying that all life demonstrates intelligent design, even life you have never observed?

I would be very interested to see the mathematical proof you have for that.

wolfsbane · 03-12-2010 05:08PM

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
From the above you appear to accept that such events can be assessed as unusual. Yet your argument has been that those who witness such are not able to make that assessment. Which is it?
The second one, obviously. Thinking that seems unlikely and worthy of study is not the same as saying that is unlikely and evidence that God exists.

You said one could not assess if the events were unlikely. Now you accept one can. That's all I was asking. What caused the unlikely event is another matter.

As I said here

Of course. I've no idea what the likiyhood of any of those natural events would be? Do you? I would say unlikely, but I could be wrong.

Without assessing empirically the odds of any of these events it would be impossible to say with any accuracy how likely or unlikely they are. You could guess, but that is all it would be.

All we need to assess is the ball-park figure: frequent, occasional, rare, beyond reasonable chance. (Not the event alone, but the event in association with a specific prayer to that end). We do not need to know if it is 50-1 or 100-1. We need to know if it is 50-1 or 1M - 1. Common sense and experience give us that ability.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Contrary to your assertion, I have had positive answers to specific crucial prayers more often than not. I expect most Christians can say the same.
I suspect you would have a very hard time actually demonstrating that to others or even to yourself.

I cannot prove to anyone else that such things happened to me, but I remember them as well as any other important personal event.

Like I said if you or others could actually do this you would have a phenomena worthy of massive scientific study. But of course when ever anyone tries to actually measure these things it turns out that what people claim isn't as they claim it is, events are not as unlikely as they think, prayers are not as detailed as they claim etc.

Some careless or boastful people may well make wild claims. But you are saying no one can experience such things and honestly report them. A big jump, one that is motivated by the desire to discredit spiritual things.

Don't take my word for it, this is relatively easy to measure yourself, if you are prepared to be open minded and honest of course.

I have measured my experiences. But I gather you want me to set up an experiment where I ask God for something beyond reasonable chance and then see if it happens. With the request dated and noted by witnesses beforehand.

God is not my lab. technician. And I'm not trying to prove His ability. I'm only telling you what I have experienced. If you think I'm incapable of recognising an unlikely event or remembering if I had specifically asked for it, then that's up to you.
_________________________________________________________________
Matthew 1:20 But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins.”

Zombrex · 03-12-2010 05:58PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

You said one could not assess if the events were unlikely. Now you accept one can.

No I didn't. I said one could not assess if the events were unlikely purely on their own personal assessment. Empirical study is required.

wolfsbane wrote: »

What caused the unlikely event is another matter.

Its not because without knowing what caused them you cannot possibly hope to accurately assess how likely they are.

It becomes, as I suspect your arguments for the miracles you believe you have experienced, a claim from ignorance. I don't know how these things might have happened but I imagine they couldn't all happy together so I'm going to believe they are very unlikely.

wolfsbane wrote: »

All we need to assess is the ball-park figure: frequent, occasional, rare, beyond reasonable chance.

You cannot assess even a ball-park figure on your own without some sort of empirical data. Otherwise again it simply becomes an argument from ignorance.

Or to put it another way, something being unlikely and something simply seem unlikely because you are ignorant of alternatives, ends up looking the same.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Common sense and experience give us that ability.

No that is exactly what they don't give us. Common sense means nothing because again it is an argument from ignorance. I don't think this is likely therefore it isn't.

If you believe otherwise it goes a long way to explaining why you are a theist and why you reject scientific theories like evolution.

Common sense tells us that evolution won't happen. It tells us this because human brains are very bad at imagining large complex processes, which is what evolution is, and as such we cannot imagine billions of life forms producing trillions of mutations interact with other trillions of mutations some of which are selected by millions of natural processes acting in millions of different ways.

To understand evolution you need to look at it with mathematics because our brains simply cannot hold the information in our heads.

Likewise with your miracles. Your brain cannot accurately process the millions of things that happen to you in a given day, the billions of permutations of how you interact with the world and how it interacts with us. It simply can't. We fall back on much more basic understandings of the world in order just to get by. Our brain pattern matches because if we tried to store and process everything we simply couldn't, our brains aren't powerful enough.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I cannot prove to anyone else that such things happened to me, but I remember them as well as any other important personal event.

Such a claim is irrelevant. If your memory was inaccurate you wouldn't know since you only have one memory and without any external measurement you cannot tell if you are simply remembering wrong.

The only fall back is the assertion that you wouldn't remember wrong. Given that we know humans do this that assertion is invalidated.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Some careless or boastful people may well make wild claims. But you are saying no one can experience such things and honestly report them.

No, first of all I never said anything about honesty. I do not believe you are lying when you say you remember it this way, nor do I believe you are lying when you say you have assessed it as being highly unlikely that this would just happen.

Honesty is not the issue. Accuracy is.

I'm saying no one can experience such things and know they are accurately reporting them if that assessment is left entirely up to them.

Anytime anyone has tried to assess the accuracy of these claims using something more than simply personal assessment they have found it increasingly difficult to show the claims are actually accurate.

It is easy to say something is in your opinion very unlikely. It is much more difficult to actually show that.

wolfsbane wrote: »

A big jump, one that is motivated by the desire to discredit spiritual things.

I'm not going to pretend that some people are not interested in discrediting spiritual things, but you have to ask yourself a) why does that matter, surely you either can or cannot show that something is likely or unlikely what ever your motivation and b) why is decrediting spiritual things a bad thing if they are demonstrating that some spiritual claim is not supported? Isn't truth more important?

wolfsbane wrote: »

I have measured my experiences.

I would be very interested in the process and the data you used to do this.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But I gather you want me to set up an experiment where I ask God for something beyond reasonable chance and then see if it happens. With the request dated and noted by witnesses beforehand.

If you want to assess the accuracy of your claims. You say that as if it is a bad thing, I suspect because you know deep down your claims would be shown to have little support, certainly not the support you believe they have now.

wolfsbane wrote: »

God is not my lab. technician. And I'm not trying to prove His ability.

That is some what contradictory because you have already given these as justification for how you know he exists. So you have already done this, you just haven't done it to any particular high standard.

Say you are going to refuse to test God's existence to a higher standard seems like a hollow argument, an excuse to simply not test God's existence to any standard beyond personal assessment that opens up the possibility that your original assessment is inaccurate.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm only telling you what I have experienced. If you think I'm incapable of recognising an unlikely event or remembering if I had specifically asked for it, then that's up to you.

True. I can't make you do any of this, but I can ignore claims that you have personally assessed that your God exists without doing any of this.

Also it makes your claims about evolution, scientists and your own personal assessment highly hypocritical. You hold scientists up to a standard far beyond the low standard you hold your own assessments and those of your religion to.

Soul Winner · 03-12-2010 07:22PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Or are you jumping from your claim that observations of life on Earth demonstrates intelligent design to saying that all life demonstrates intelligent design, even life you have never observed?

I would be very interested to see the mathematical proof you have for that.

There is no mathematical proof as such, just an inference to the best explanation. Life (as we know it) has at its very foundations a computer like code dictating everything from the formation of proteins to the instructions for what each cell in an organism is supposed to do. The only known source for code that we know of in our everyday experience comes from an intelligent agent. Codes don't write themselves unless they are programmed to do so. Therefore it is quite logical to conclude based on the hard evidence that we have now concering how DNA works, that life was programed with its codes by an intelligent mind. That mind might have belonged to aliens or it might have belonged to God but life formation was absolutely not an accidental chance happening which evolved over time by a process of blind luck. Intelligent Design makes more sense as a theory and ties in very well with how we understand coding in language and computer programs.

And isn't it ironic that at just about the same time that Crick and Watson discovered the double helix structure of the DNA molecule, we were inventing Information Technology? We can now write code in a virtual environment using two dimensional space understood by the hardware as a series of 0s and 1s. Whereas life was designed in the real world using real life three dimensional structures coded for in various sequences of bases of A T C G in DNA. Much more complex than what we can do and yet we're supposed to believe that it all came about without any input from any kind of guiding intelligence? Give me a break.

Improbable · 03-12-2010 07:32PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

There is no mathematical proof as such, just an inference to the best explanation. Life (as we know it) has at its very foundations a computer like code dictating everything from the formation of proteins to the instructions for what each cell in an organism is supposed to do. The only known source for code that we know of in our everyday experience comes from an intelligent agent. Codes don't write themselves unless they are programmed to do so. Therefore it is quite logical to conclude based on the hard evidence that we have now concering how DNA works, that life was programed with its codes by an intelligent mind. That mind might have belonged to aliens or it might have belonged to God but life formation was absolutely not an accidental chance happening which evolved over time by a process of blind luck. Intelligent Design makes more sense as a theory and ties in very well with how we understand coding in language and computer programs.

And isn't it ironic that at just about the same time that Crick and Watson discovered the double helix structure of the DNA molecule, we were inventing Information Technology? We can now write code in a virtual environment using two dimensional space understood by the hardware as a series of 0s and 1s. Whereas life was designed in the real world using real life three dimensional structures coded for in various sequences of bases of A T C G in DNA. Much more complex than what we can do and yet we're supposed to believe that it all came about without any input from any kind of guiding intelligence? Give me a break.

The problem with this argument, yet again, like all arguments stemming from a religious source, is that it is an argument from personal ignorance or incredulity. You can't seem to comprehend the fact that humans are not the absolute pinnacle of intelligence. We may be the species best evolved to manipulate our environment on our little planet in our little solar system in our single galaxy in an entire universe of possibility. But that does not mean that you simply get to posit that everything we are incapable of doing or understanding is proof of the supernatural. The supreme arrogance of such a view of the universe is beyond astonishing.

Soul Winner · 03-12-2010 07:51PM

Improbable wrote: »

The problem with this argument, yet again, like all arguments stemming from a religious source, is that it is an argument from personal ignorance or incredulity. You can't seem to comprehend the fact that humans are not the absolute pinnacle of intelligence. We may be the species best evolved to manipulate our environment on our little planet in our little solar system in our single galaxy in an entire universe of possibility. But that does not mean that you simply get to posit that everything we are incapable of doing or understanding is proof of the supernatural. The supreme arrogance of such a view of the universe is beyond astonishing.

An yet you can casually come along with all knowledge and foresight and without a quiver of uncertainty say that it was all done by a natural processes. Some insight that, especially coming from a being that (as you say) is not the pinnacle of intelligence. Great counter argument thanks.

Improbable · 03-12-2010 08:09PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

An yet you can casually come along with all knowledge and foresight and without a quiver of uncertainty say that it was all done by a natural processes. Some insight that, especially coming from a being that (as you say) is not the pinnacle of intelligence. Great counter argument thanks.

We know that natural processes occur. We do not know that supernatural beings exist. Which is the more probable cause?

Soul Winner · 03-12-2010 08:15PM

Improbable wrote: »

We know that natural processes occur. We do not know that supernatural beings exist. Which is the more probable cause?

We know that natural processes occur but they do no write code. We know that intelligent minds do write code. Who wrote our DNA code? A non human intelligent mind. There are two options to pick from, either aliens did it or God did it. The fact that its there is proof that someone did it. You pick your option and I'll pick mine. I already believe in God anyway so I've no problem with my choice.

Improbable · 03-12-2010 08:17PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

We know that natural processes occur but they do no write code. We know that intelligent minds do write code. Who wrote our DNA code? A non human intelligent mind. There are two options to pick from, either aliens did it or God did it. The fact that its there is proof that someone did it. You pick your option and I'll pick mine. I already believe in God anyway so I've no problem with my choice.

Er, no, you don't know that natural processes do not write code. You assume that because the only agent you know that writes code is humans. That's why its called an argument from personal ignorance. You're only considering personal arguments, not objective facts.

Morbert · 03-12-2010 08:23PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

We know that natural processes occur but they do no write code. We know that intelligent minds do write code. Who wrote our DNA code? A non human intelligent mind. There are two options to pick from, either aliens did it or God did it. The fact that its there is proof that someone did it. You pick your option and I'll pick mine. I already believe in God anyway so I've no problem with my choice.

You have been corrected on this over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Natural selection of randomly mutating, self-replicating systems can write code.

J C · 03-12-2010 10:07PM

Morbert wrote: »

You have been corrected on this over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Natural selection of randomly mutating, self-replicating systems can write code.

... it cannot!!!

J C · 03-12-2010 10:14PM

Improbable wrote: »

Er, no, you don't know that natural processes do not write code. You assume that because the only agent you know that writes code is humans. That's why its called an argument from personal ignorance. You're only considering personal arguments, not objective facts.

... the objective facts (DNA Code) and the mathematical proof (that the sequence for even a small specific protein could never be produced by a non-intelligently directed process) shows that it is the Materialists who are arguing from personal ignorance!!!
... and who are behaving as irreligious zealots ... in complete denial of reality!!!!!:eek:

... irony doesn't even begin to describe the fact that it is the Materialists who are in denial of material reality!!!

Morbert · 04-12-2010 12:30AM

J C wrote: »

... it cannot!!!

You have been corrected on this over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. It can.

Soul Winner · 04-12-2010 10:46AM

Improbable wrote: »

Er, no, you don't know that natural processes do not write code. You assume that because the only agent you know that writes code is humans. That's why its called an argument from personal ignorance. You're only considering personal arguments, not objective facts.

So Natural Selection, which is a blind, mindless and goalless process writes code? Oh please, talk about having faith in shakey foundations.. It has never been observed or tested that Natural Selection writes code. In fact before the first self replication system came about there was no Natural Selection, so how could it have written the code for that first self replicating system? It couldn't, didn't, wouldn't, never would, never will, your living in the real delusional world if you believe it did, not us. The chances that basic amino acids would somehow self assemble themselves into just 1 functional protein alone is 1 in a billion years. And yet thousands are needed for proper function in the most basic of cells.

Morbert · 04-12-2010 03:29PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

So Natural Selection, which is a blind, mindless and goalless process writes code? Oh please, talk about having faith in shakey foundations.. It has never been observed or tested that Natural Selection writes code.

Yes it has. Selection of random, blind, mindless goalless processes is a method frequently used in optimisation problems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm

And since this conversation has occured over and over and over and over, I know that the next thing you will say will be

"But those coding algorithms have some in-built set of rules initially designed by the programmer."

I will then say

"These initial rules are analogous to natural laws. All that is needed for natural selection to write code is for there to be a self-replicating system, capable of random, mindless mutations, and some selection pressures. Granted, it is not a very efficient process (It took over 3 billion years to get to us.)"

You will then change the subject from 'NS can't write code' to abiogenesis by saying

"But natural selection can't build the first self-replicating system."

I will then direct you to our previous conversation, where we talked about the mechanisms of abiogenesis (hypercycles, peptides), and the uppor bound of chance of abiogenesis being 1 in 10^40. I might even mention the recently discovered versatility of chemicals like arsenic.

You will then not respond, the conversation will be forgotten, only to re-emerge a couple of weeks later.

Also, J C might interject with vapid comments and emoticons.

Zombrex · 04-12-2010 04:30PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

There is no mathematical proof as such, just an inference to the best explanation.

JC has claimed otherwise, repeatably stating that there is mathematical proof. You probably don't want to go down that road trying to defend the more crack pot claims of JC.

As for best explanation to you best seems to be the Christian explanation, rather than the one that welds further scientific thesis and theories. There we will have to agree to disagree.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Life (as we know it) has at its very foundations a computer like code dictating everything from the formation of proteins to the instructions for what each cell in an organism is supposed to do.

I work in computers. DNA is not computer like.

Soul Winner wrote: »

The only known source for code that we know of in our everyday experience comes from an intelligent agent.

That was true up until Darwin. It is now no longer true.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Codes don't write themselves unless they are programmed to do so.

Again DNA is not computer like. I am a professional computer programmer, I spend my life writing computer programs. The process DNA produces worker proteins is very unlike the way a machine processes computer code.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Therefore it is quite logical to conclude based on the hard evidence that we have now concering how DNA works, that life was programed with its codes by an intelligent mind.

Only if you don't understand computers and/or biology.

Zombrex · 04-12-2010 04:39PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

So Natural Selection, which is a blind, mindless and goalless process writes code? Oh please, talk about having faith in shakey foundations.. It has never been observed or tested that Natural Selection writes code.

I think the software code analogy is unhelpful as DNA is very unlike computer code, but mutations and natural selection have been shown to produce new DNA sequences which in turn produce new functionality in the organism.

That is what bacterial resistance is.

So more accurately it is true to say that mutation plus natural selection have been shown to alter the DNA sequences of a species to produce new functionality in the species. This has been shown many many times.

Part of the unhelpfulness of the code analogy is what you are saying here "writes code", implying that the code is an extension of an idea held in the mind of the coder. This is one of the reasons (though not the only one) of why this analogy doesn't fit DNA. Time and again we find that new functionality arises in species not due to some forward thinking but due to a response to the environment.

For example with bacterial resistance 99% of the bacteria may die. That is necessary for bacterial resistance to evolve, without it no natural selection would take place. This is clearly not goal orientated since surely the goal would be to keep the bacteria alive, not bring them to the brink of extinction.

Soul Winner wrote: »

In fact before the first self replication system came about there was no Natural Selection, so how could it have written the code for that first self replicating system? It couldn't, didn't, wouldn't, never would, never will, your living in the real delusional world if you believe it did, not us. The chances that basic amino acids would somehow self assemble themselves into just 1 functional protein alone is 1 in a billion years.

The current biological theories of proteins say they evolved, they did not randomly self assemble.

You have been told this. If you disagree with the theory far enough, but to continuously misrepresent it as a straw man, pretending it says something it doesn't, is annoying to say the least.

Every time you repeat it back to us as if it is a problem with the current theory of evolution you suggest that you are not listening and just interested in Creationist propaganda.

I hope that is not the case but it really does try patience when you simply blindly repeat back Creationist nonsense you have heard.

Improbable · 04-12-2010 05:02PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

So Natural Selection, which is a blind, mindless and goalless process writes code? Oh please, talk about having faith in shakey foundations.. It has never been observed or tested that Natural Selection writes code. In fact before the first self replication system came about there was no Natural Selection, so how could it have written the code for that first self replicating system? It couldn't, didn't, wouldn't, never would, never will, your living in the real delusional world if you believe it did, not us. The chances that basic amino acids would somehow self assemble themselves into just 1 functional protein alone is 1 in a billion years. And yet thousands are needed for proper function in the most basic of cells.

I've told you, again and again, that you are not doing anything aside from arguing from personal ignorance. When you say "So Natural Selection, which is a blind, mindless and goalless process writes code?" in that disbelieving tone, all you are really saying is "I don't know how it could happen". You are not basing your argument on any rational reason why natural selection cannot write code.

Your statement that "It couldn't, didn't, wouldn't, never would, never will", is really saying "I don't think it could, I dont think it did, I don't think it would, I don't think it will".

As to your little J C - esque blurb at the end, I suggest you go find yourself a book on the RNA World hypothesis. Or better yet, go spend 4 years in university doing a degree in genetics and then you can come back and tell me what evolution and natural selection can and can't do. Maybe then I'll give it some consideration. I wouldn't take your thoughts on what evolution can do any more seriously than I would your thoughts on the astrophysics of stellar evolution. It's just too complex a subject for non-specialists to comprehend and truly understand the intricacies of how and why it works.

J C · 04-12-2010 07:14PM

Improbable wrote: »

... As to your little J C - esque blurb at the end, I suggest you go find yourself a book on the RNA World hypothesis. Or better yet, go spend 4 years in university doing a degree in genetics and then you can come back and tell me what evolution and natural selection can and can't do. Maybe then I'll give it some consideration. I wouldn't take your thoughts on what evolution can do any more seriously than I would your thoughts on the astrophysics of stellar evolution.

I did the years in University ... and I once was a 'died in the wool' Evolutionist ... so less of the patronising condescension please!!

I know exactly what NS can and can't do!!!

The bottom line is that NS is a natural mechanism that helps creatures with pre-existing functional genetic diversity to adapt to changes in their environment on a population genetics basis ... but there is no plausible mechanism to account for the production of the functional genetic diversity, in the first place.
Mutagenesis degrades genetic information, just like all other random changes to information degrades it!!!

Soul Winner · 04-12-2010 07:38PM

I'll answer all three of ye together. The main point I'm trying to get across to you guys is this. We understand that it takes faith to believe what we believe in, we are happy to admit that. But we have very good reasons for having that faith. Granted, they are reasons that you wouldn't agree are good enough reasons for you. But that is matter of debate. But when we consider all the so called facts about evolutionary theory you have to (but you won't) admit that you also rely on faith in order to fill in the gaps in that theory. I just like to poke holes in the theory in order to get you guys to realize that there should be a level playing field here. You don't seem to want to accept that though.

Morbert points me to a theory that he believes proves that life can come about by itself. But it cannot be tested in the lab. Nor has it been observed in nature. Therefore under your criteria this is not science. but only ID is allowed into that corner.

Wicknight goes on like the RNA world hypothesis is how it happened. Not true. Again there are a lot of problems with this theory that he either chooses to ignore or is simply ignorant about.

Improbable accuses me of arguing from ignorance. Maybe thats true but saying that is not refuting the arguments I put forth is it?

You just can't seem to accept that there are people out there who have PhDs after their names in all areas of science including biology who don't accept that the facts necessarily support the theory. And because of which they are put into a box labeled insane or wicked even though they present a scientific basis for why they don't accept it. You then reply that it is religiously motivated and refuse to give ear to anything else they say no matter how much science goes into it. Ye are biased, close minded and incapable of seeing any other arguments simply because they go against your atheistic world view.

The great names and founders of modern science were all religiously motivated. Galileo, Kepler, Newton to name a few, all had deep religious beliefs that drove them to search out the creator's universe which they believed was God. So what if someone is religiously motivated, what's wrong with that? Nothing at all. Darwin was atheistically motivated and yet his science is fine. I have no trouble with him at all, I just think that he was wrong but his idea has got such a hold on science that it has warped it out of all proportion. And that's not because of the science behind his ideas, rather it is because of the ideology behind them, namely atheism. But atheism is not science, nor is it necessarily supported by science, the only people who seem to think it is are atheists. Go figure.

Rant over, I think... :pac:

Morbert · 04-12-2010 11:39PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

I'll answer all three of ye together. The main point I'm trying to get across to you guys is this. We understand that it takes faith to believe what we believe in, we are happy to admit that. But we have very good reasons for having that faith. Granted, they are reasons that you wouldn't agree are good enough reasons for you. But that is matter of debate. But when we consider all the so called facts about evolutionary theory you have to (but you won't) admit that you also rely on faith in order to fill in the gaps in that theory. I just like to poke holes in the theory in order to get you guys to realize that there should be a level playing field here. You don't seem to want to accept that though.

But you have not poked a hole in the theory. Saying there is a hole in evolution because natural selection cannot write code/produce gene sequences is like saying there is a hole in Christianity because Jesus was a hamster.

Morbert points me to a theory that he believes proves that life can come about by itself. But it cannot be tested in the lab. Nor has it been observed in nature. Therefore under your criteria this is not science. but only ID is allowed into that corner.

This is a straw man.

As an aside, theories of abiogenesis can and are routinely tested, studied, and analysed.

http://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/ebm/record/11536595/abstract/Impact_frustration_of_the_origin_of_life_

http://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/ebm/record/2347997/abstract/[The_simultaneous_synthesis_of_peptides_and_oligonucleotides_on_kaolinite_with_the_participation_of_aminoacyladenylates]

Such evidence affirms (not 'proves') the plausibility of a natural emergence of life.

Soul Winner · 05-12-2010 01:50AM

Morbert wrote: »

But you have not poked a hole in the theory. Saying there is a hole in evolution because natural selection cannot write code/produce gene sequences is like saying there is a hole in Christianity because Jesus was a hamster.

Are you seriously suggesting that Darwin's theory of evolution is a sealed tight argument that has no holes that need filling?

Morbert wrote: »

This is a straw man.

As an aside, theories of abiogenesis can and are routinely tested, studied, and analysed.

http://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/ebm/record/11536595/abstract/Impact_frustration_of_the_origin_of_life_

http://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/ebm/record/2347997/abstract/[The_simultaneous_synthesis_of_peptides_and_oligonucleotides_on_kaolinite_with_the_participation_of_aminoacyladenylates]

Such evidence affirms (not 'proves') the plausibility of a natural emergence of life.

I can't really find anything meaty enough in their that convinces me that such evidence affirms anything at all. Just lots of citations and links that don't really lead to much except other citations and links

. I can point you to just as many links that would go some way in refuting the idea that life just happened to come into existence all by itself without any influence by a guiding intelligence at all. Like this from Darwinism Refuted.com (A Muslim site I think):

"Let us now examine in detail why the evolutionist scenario regarding the formation of proteins is impossible.

Even the correct sequence of the right amino acids is still not enough for the formation of a functional protein molecule. In addition to these requirements, each of the 20 different types of amino acids present in the composition of proteins must be left-handed. There are two different types of amino acids-as of all organic molecules-called "left-handed" and "right-handed." The difference between them is the mirror-symmetry between their three dimensional structures, which is similar to that of a person's right and left hands.

The same protein's left- (L) and right- (D) handed isomers. The proteins in living creatures consist only of left-handed amino acids.

Amino acids of either of these two types can easily bond with one another. But one astonishing fact that has been revealed by research is that all the proteins in plants and animals on this planet, from the simplest organism to the most complex, are made up of left-handed amino acids. If even a single right-handed amino acid gets attached to the structure of a protein, the protein is rendered useless. In a series of experiments, surprisingly, bacteria that were exposed to right-handed amino acids immediately destroyed them. In some cases, they produced usable left-handed amino acids from the fractured components.

Let us for an instant suppose that life came about by chance as evolutionists claim it did. In this case, the right- and left-handed amino acids that were generated by chance should be present in roughly equal proportions in nature. Therefore, all living things should have both right- and left-handed amino acids in their constitution, because chemically it is possible for amino acids of both types to combine with each other. However, as we know, in the real world the proteins existing in all living organisms are made up only of left-handed amino acids.

The question of how proteins can pick out only the left-handed ones from among all amino acids, and how not even a single right-handed amino acid gets involved in the life process, is a problem that still baffles evolutionists. Such a specific and conscious selection constitutes one of the greatest impasses facing the theory of evolution.

Moreover, this characteristic of proteins makes the problem facing evolutionists with respect to "chance" even worse. In order for a "meaningful" protein to be generated, it is not enough for the amino acids to be present in a particular number and sequence, and to be combined together in the right three-dimensional design. Additionally, all these amino acids have to be left-handed: not even one of them can be right-handed. Yet there is no natural selection mechanism which can identify that a right-handed amino acid has been added to the sequence and recognize that it must therefore be removed from the chain. This situation once more eliminates for good the possibility of coincidence and chance.

The Britannica Science Encyclopaedia, which is an outspoken defender of evolution, states that the amino acids of all living organisms on earth, and the building blocks of complex polymers such as proteins, have the same left-handed asymmetry. It adds that this is tantamount to tossing a coin a million times and always getting heads. The same encyclopaedia states that it is impossible to understand why molecules become left-handed or right-handed, and that this choice is fascinatingly related to the origin of life on earth.

If a coin always turns up heads when tossed a million times, is it more logical to attribute that to chance, or else to accept that there is conscious intervention going on? The answer should be obvious. However, obvious though it may be, evolutionists still take refuge in coincidence, simply because they do not want to accept the existence of conscious intervention.

A situation similar to the left-handedness of amino acids also exists with respect to nucleotides, the smallest units of the nucleic acids, DNA and RNA. In contrast to proteins, in which only left-handed amino acids are chosen, in the case of the nucleic acids, the preferred forms of their nucleotide components are always right-handed. This is another fact that can never be explained by chance.

In conclusion, it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by the probabilities we have examined that the origin of life cannot be explained by chance. If we attempt to calculate the probability of an average-sized protein consisting of 400 amino acids being selected only from left-handed amino acids, we come up with a probability of 1 in 2400, or 10120. Just for a comparison, let us remember that the number of electrons in the universe is estimated at 1079, which although vast, is a much smaller number. The probability of these amino acids forming the required sequence and functional form would generate much larger numbers. If we add these probabilities to each other, and if we go on to work out the probabilities of even higher numbers and types of proteins, the calculations become inconceivable."

Here's a couple of interesting videos from Youtube. Do you want to tell me that these micro machines just know what to do? That there is no preprogramming that has gone into this process? That it just happens? No information processing going on whatsoever and that it bares no resemblance to information processing that we execute everyday in computers and other media processing machines like tape drives and such?

From RNA to Protein Synthesis

Transcription and Translation

Beyond astonishing. And Wicknight says that this bares no resemblance to how computers process information? Come on now.

ArtSmart · 05-12-2010 01:53AM

how did this thread make it beyond the first post?

Soul Winner · 05-12-2010 02:07AM

ArtSmart wrote: »

how did this thread make it beyond the first post?

Because its a fascinating debate.

ArtSmart · 05-12-2010 02:08AM

Soul Winner wrote: »

Because its a fascinating debate.

oh.

didnt realise it could be open to debate. oops. (bows out graciously, and a little nervously)

Zombrex · 05-12-2010 02:22AM

Soul Winner wrote: »

But when we consider all the so called facts about evolutionary theory you have to (but you won't) admit that you also rely on faith in order to fill in the gaps in that theory.

There is no faith. The gaps are gaps. We don't know how the first self replicating mocules formed, we may never. We don't know the exact process RNA or DNA.

But that isn't really the point. The point is finding out how it could have happened, and then attempting to test that theory based on as much evidence as one can find.

Which is exactly what scientists do. This pisses Creationists off so much because they cling to the idea that it must have been God. The more you show how it could have happened naturally (irrespective of whether it actually did or not), the worse the argument that it had to have been God becomes. It might have been God, but the argument that it had to be God is basically over and done with. It didn't have to be God, it could have happened naturally. All the natural processes are there for this to be the case.

You issue sees to be that given a natural process and "God did it" you seem to expect everyone else to pick "God did it". Well sorry, it doesn't work like that. You haven't shown this intelligence that is apparently necessary for life exists at all, let alone shown that it is God.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I just like to poke holes in the theory in order to get you guys to realize that there should be a level playing field here. You don't seem to want to accept that though.

The idea that a well supported modeled and testable theory is on a level playing field to just picking a random deity out of the air and saying he did it, is frankly laughable.

Creationists and IDers cannot support scientifically the claim that an intelligence is behind life on Earth. That is their problem, not the problem of biologists.

The theory of natural development of life is incomplete and may never be fully complete. But you find out that it could happen naturally then that is a pretty safe bet that it did happen natural.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Morbert points me to a theory that he believes proves that life can come about by itself. But it cannot be tested in the lab. Nor has it been observed in nature.

The possible processes are observable in nature, they are testable in a testable in a lab.

You cannot go back 4 billion years and see if it happened the exact same way that you think it could have, but that is true of anything. You can't go back 60 years and see if the atomic bomb worked the way you think it did.

The idea that because of this the idea that your god did it with magic is equally valid is again laughable. God did it explains everything and thus nothing. You have no idea what your god did, when, how, where etc etc. You can't model it you can't test it.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Wicknight goes on like the RNA world hypothesis is how it happened. Not true. Again there are a lot of problems with this theory that he either chooses to ignore or is simply ignorant about.

I've ignored none of your "problems". You on the other hand have ignored plenty of the answers.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Improbable accuses me of arguing from ignorance. Maybe thats true but saying that is not refuting the arguments I put forth is it?

It is an refute of your arguments because your arguments boil down to little more than I don't understand this therefore it couldn't happen

Soul Winner wrote: »

You just can't seem to accept that there are people out there who have PhDs after their names in all areas of science including biology who don't accept that the facts necessarily support the theory.

There have been people out there with PhDs after their names who thought the world is flat Soul Winner. It means very little.

Do you want me to line up all the people with PhDs who work with evolutionary biology every single day? Because my list is much much longer than your list.

Soul Winner wrote: »

And because of which they are put into a box labeled insane or wicked even though they present a scientific basis for why they don't accept it.

They don't put forward scientific basis they put forward quackery and pseudo-science.

And practically all of them do so for a religious agenda. I can count the number of working scientists who reject evolutionary biology with no clear religious agenda on one of my hands and have fingers left over.

The majority of Creationists (who are still a tiny tiny minority of scientists) reject evolutionary biology because they believe it interferes with their faith.

On the other side millions of working scientists from all faiths happily accept evolutionary biology.

Soul Winner wrote: »

You then reply that it is religiously motivated and refuse to give ear to anything else they say no matter how much science goes into it.

We are 1586 pages so far of giving ear to what they say. It is the same tired arguments over and over.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Ye are biased, close minded and incapable of seeing any other arguments simply because they go against your atheistic world view.

Which explains the millions of Christian evolutionary biologists working currently on evolutionary theories. :rolleyes:

The "atheist world view" argument every time a Creationist on this forum hits a brick wall, runs out of "problems" with evolution.

Soul Winner wrote: »

The great names and founders of modern science were all religiously motivated.

As are a heck of a lot of evolutionary biologists, who every day work in this field. Yet you feel confident in saying they are all wrong, and when the arguments drying up, that they are all motivated by an atheist agenda.

Your increasingly aggressive rants really piss me off Soul Winner. I don't mean that as an insult but as a frustration. You claim to be interested in this subject, you claim to have an open mind about evolutionary biology, and people including myself have spent awful lot of time explaining the various concepts in detail to you. Despite all this effort done for your benefit you seem to ignore the vast majority of this, placing it aside and moving on to the next Creationist argument that you think blows a whole in a scientific area millions of scientists have been working in.

You are perilously close to being dismissed as just another Creationist wack-job, no interest in understanding evolution just interest in complaining about it. There is a limit to how much people including myself will indulge claims of genuine interest when it is met with constant and utter dismissal on your part of all points.

That is my little rant over.

Zombrex · 05-12-2010 02:32AM

Soul Winner wrote: »

Beyond astonishing. And Wicknight says that this bares no resemblance to how computers process information? Come on now.

I work in computers. I would love for a change in my computer code to not have any effect on my software, but unfortunately it cause it to crash.

This is very unlike DNA. Changes in DNA do not cause the system to crash, the vast majority of DNA sequences will do something. That something is or isn't selected by natural selection.

This is nothing like software programming, I wish it was.

Improbable · 05-12-2010 02:47AM

Soul Winner wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that Darwin's theory of evolution is a sealed tight argument that has no holes that need filling?

No, what he said was that you have failed to do so.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Even the correct sequence of the right amino acids is still not enough for the formation of a functional protein molecule. In addition to these requirements, each of the 20 different types of amino acids present in the composition of proteins must be left-handed. There are two different types of amino acids-as of all organic molecules-called "left-handed" and "right-handed." The difference between them is the mirror-symmetry between their three dimensional structures, which is similar to that of a person's right and left hands.

Heredity and various proofreading proteins handle the problem of sequence integrity perfectly well. As to the other point about chirality in proteins, yes, we admit that we're not 100% certain about why it is the way it is. One of the leading theories is that proteins which contain only one type of chirality have a lower entropic state and thus are more energetically favourable. This also plugs into the nucleation condensation mechanism of protein folding quite nicely. As to the "flipping a coin" argument, well it's just nonsense. If you were to flip a coin randomly an infinite number of times, it should be 50% heads, 50% tails. However, if you have something which is stopping the coins from being heads, then you can have as many tails as you want. You can have this intervention without having to resort to god. Physical processes are entirely capable of excluding certain states. It's equating the process to either happening by chance or by divine design. These are not the 2 choices. Evolution and natural selection are perfectly capable driving forces behind processes which can cause organisms to look designed.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Here's a couple of interesting videos from Youtube. Do you want to tell me that these micro machines just know what to do? That there is no preprogramming that has gone into this process? That it just happens? No information processing going on whatsoever and that it bares no resemblance to information processing that we execute everyday in computers and other media processing machines like tape drives and such?

Haven't watched those videos but I know how transcription and translation work in probably a lot more detail than they go into there. I have had to remind you time and time again that these things do not "know" anything. They are simply performing a function based on physical principles. I don't know much about computer programming so I can't comment on their similarity or lack thereof.

The question I want to ask you is this:

Do you have any reason for not believing in evolution and natural selection which is based on something other than the argument of "I, or some other random person who's credibility I don't know, personally do not understand how this can occur."? The evidence of mutations, heredity, speciation, natural selection are numerous and to say otherwise is either a result of ignorance or of wilful deception.

I'll also just point out that even if sometime in the future evolution was disproven (not that I think it will be), that in no way means that "god wins". Just because the answer isn't A doesn't mean the answer is B. You're failing to consider the fact that you're ignoring options C to infinity. That's why unless you can discount every other possibility to the point of certainty (which you can't) or provide logical, reasonable explanations as to why your point of view is right, (which you also can't), then you're not going to be taken seriously by rationally thinking people.

Soul Winner · 05-12-2010 02:57AM

Wicknight wrote: »

There is no faith. The gaps are gaps. We don't know how the first self replicating mocules formed, we may never. We don't know the exact process RNA or DNA.

But that isn't really the point. The point is finding out how it could have happened, and then attempting to test that theory based on as much evidence as one can find.

Which is exactly what scientists do. This pisses Creationists off so much because they cling to the idea that it must have been God. The more you show how it could have happened naturally (irrespective of whether it actually did or not), the worse the argument that it had to have been God becomes. It might have been God, but the argument that it had to be God is basically over and done with. It didn't have to be God, it could have happened naturally. All the natural processes are there for this to be the case.

You issue sees to be that given a natural process and "God did it" you seem to expect everyone else to pick "God did it". Well sorry, it doesn't work like that. You haven't shown this intelligence that is apparently necessary for life exists at all, let alone shown that it is God.

The idea that a well supported modeled and testable theory is on a level playing field to just picking a random deity out of the air and saying he did it, is frankly laughable.

Creationists and IDers cannot support scientifically the claim that an intelligence is behind life on Earth. That is their problem, not the problem of biologists.

The theory of natural development of life is incomplete and may never be fully complete. But you find out that it could happen naturally then that is a pretty safe bet that it did happen natural.

It is observable in nature, it is testable in a lab.

You cannot go back 4 billion years and see if it happened the exact same way that you think it could have, but that is true of anything. You can't go back 60 years and see if the atomic bomb worked the way you think it did.

The idea that because of this the idea that your god did it with magic is equally valid is again laughable. God did it explains everything and thus nothing. You have no idea what your god did, when, how, where etc etc. You can't model it you can't test it.

I've ignored none of your "problems". You on the other hand have ignored plenty of the answers.

It is an refute of your arguments because your arguments boil down to little more than I don't understand this therefore it couldn't happen

There have been people out there with PhDs after their names who thought the world is flat Soul Winner. It means very little.

Do you want me to line up all the people with PhDs who work with evolutionary biology every single day? Because my list is much much longer than your list.

They don't put forward scientific basis they put forward quackery and pseudo-science.

And practically all of them do so for a religious agenda. I can count the number of working scientists who reject evolutionary biology with no clear religious agenda on one of my hands and have fingers left over.

The majority of Creationists (who are still a tiny tiny minority of scientists) reject evolutionary biology because they believe it interferes with their faith.

On the other side millions of working scientists from all faiths happily accept evolutionary biology.

We are 1586 pages so far of giving ear to what they say. It is the same tired arguments over and over.

Which explains the millions of Christian evolutionary biologists working currently on evolutionary theories. :rolleyes:

The "atheist world view" argument every time a Creationist on this forum hits a brick wall, runs out of "problems" with evolution.

As are a heck of a lot of evolutionary biologists, who every day work in this field. Yet you feel confident in saying they are all wrong, and when the arguments drying up, that they are all motivated by an atheist agenda.

Your increasingly aggressive rants really piss me off Soul Winner. I don't mean that as an insult but as a frustration. You claim to be interested in this subject, you claim to have an open mind about evolutionary biology, and people including myself have spent awful lot of time explaining the various concepts in detail to you. Despite all this effort done for your benefit you seem to ignore the vast majority of this, placing it aside and moving on to the next Creationist argument that you think blows a whole in a scientific area millions of scientists have been working in.

You are perilously close to being dismissed as just another Creationist wack-job, no interest in understanding evolution just interest in complaining about it. There is a limit to how much people including myself will indulge claims of genuine interest when it is met with constant and utter dismissal on your part of all points.

That is my little rant over.

Throwing slime at everything you don't like about creationists and IDers is not the same as refuting the very simple fact that life displays an intricate array of interconnected attributes that can only be attributed to an intelligent source. That you cannot see what is blatantly obvious to others is your problem. Try to explain life in as many naturalistic terms as you like, you will only ever raise more questions that you answer. All I'm pointing out is that an intelligence of some kind was behind life's formation. We can debate from now till eternity about the nature of that intelligence. We will never be able to know scientifically what the nature of that intelligence is, and IDers don't claim that they know either. You can believe its aliens and I can believe its God but that aspect of the issue doesn't have to enter the science lab at all. We can still do good science even if we abandon hitherto unsuccessful naturalistic explanations for how life arose on this planet.

The reason why this debate is so controversial is because anyone who doesn't hold to the Darwinian explanation is somehow inferior because of that stance. How can prejudice like that be progressive? Science is (or should be) all about disagreements when it comes to theories. Remember Einstein and Bohr? They disagreed vehemently with each other about their scientific theories, but they are both very well respected scientists. Why should biology be different? I'll tell you why. Its because of ideology, not science. And the ideology that rules this avenue of science is purely materialistic. No divine foot is allowed remember? Any explanation that allows a supernatural explanation is barred at the door by those who simple do not subscribe to such an idea at the get go. That's not science, that's Scientism, a completely different animal altogether and most of its advocates are simply ignorant and unaware of the grip it has on them, including most of ye lot.

Soul Winner · 05-12-2010 03:01AM

Wicknight wrote: »

I work in computers. I would love for a change in my computer code to not have any effect on my software, but unfortunately it cause it to crash.

This is very unlike DNA. Changes in DNA do not cause the system to crash, the vast majority of DNA sequences will do something. That something is or isn't selected by natural selection.

This is nothing like software programming, I wish it was.

OK I'll grant you that. But apart from that do you still think its nothing like how computers process information?

EDIT: And how advanced would a computer programmer be if he or she could write a program that could somehow utilize any errors that may occur to enlarge the program's ability to become more advanced rather than breakdown? That would take some doing wouldn't it?

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Comments