Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

1…467468470472473…822

Comments

  • #14072
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    J C wrote: »
    ....it doesn't matter that there might have been simpler molecules 'earlier on'....what the maths is showing is that it is impossible to produce a specific functional protein using non-intelligently directed processes, even if it is repeated billions of times simultaneously over 2 billion years ...
    ...in fact, the odds against producing a specific protein are such that even if every one of the 10^80 electrons in the known Universe produced a 100 AA sequence a million times every second for 5,000 million years, the number of possible attempts would only be 3.42X10^108...which is nowhere near the 10^130 non-functional permutations for a specific functional 100 AA protein!!!!:D

    This isn't what anyone thinks happened during abiogenesis and you haven't provided your full calculations, just your results.
    J C wrote: »
    ....it has indeed been scientifically established....the fact that various Atheists and their buddies are in denial about it, doesn't alter the fact that it has been scientifically established that Intelligence WAS applied in the production of life !!!:D

    So show us the mathematical proof, or the scientific evidence.


  • #14073
    rockbeer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭rockbeer


    J C,
    You propose a 'mathematical' 'proof' of the impossibility of abiogenesis. I believe your 'proof' is flawed, nonetheless, let's say for argument's sake that it's valid.

    Please explain to me why you are prepared to accept it yet reject the following equally valid mathematical 'proof' of the non-existence of the christian god:

    Number of religions/faiths/deities that can be imagined or proposed: infinite

    Number of deities that can actually exist (if we assume monotheism): 1

    Possiblity of any particular deity (i.e. the christian god) existing: 1/infinity
    i.e. just as as impossible mathematically as abiogenesis is according to your 'proof'.

    I await your refutation with interest.


  • #14074
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    J C wrote: »
    ...I believe in everybodys right to exercise their God-given free will .... which obviously includes their God-given right to free speech!!!

    They are not god-given. We made them up, and we can lose them just as easily. Christianity doesn't exactly have a good track record when it comes to free speech.
    J C wrote: »
    ...if God has seen fit to give you free will, WHY would I, as a Christian, try to stop you exercising your God-given rights ... even if I totally disagree with you???

    Why not ask your creationist buddies that? They seem to attempt to suppress criticism of their ideas whenever possible. For example, not submitting their research for scientific peer-review. You say they have done this, but you have yet to produce a rejection letter to prove this.

    J C wrote: »
    The suppression of free speech is NOT a God-ordained activity.

    History would suggest otherwise, as would any Old Testament-age people who dared question your God, its in the bible, after all!
    J C wrote: »
    As Christians we have an obligation to point out errors in somebodys speech ... but we do not have any right. nor would we wish to deny anybody the right to be wrong!!!!:D

    You have an obligation, but not a right? I'm not sure what you mean here.
    J C wrote: »
    ....He doesn't sit back and do nothing ... He has provided us with the means to be Saved ... by believing on Him ... but He will not force anybody to be Saved ... we have the free will to choose to be Saved ... or not to do so, as we see fit!!!:D

    If he decides to pay me a visit, I may change my mind. I see no evidence of him or any god anywhere.
    J C wrote: »
    You seem to want God to forcibly Save you ... even if you hate Him ... WHY would you think that a loving and a just God would do such a thing???

    Because he loves me, and wants to save me, regardless of my faults? Because he has the power to do so? Yet, he does nothing. Impressive...
    J C wrote: »
    ...the tooth fairy and abiogenesis are both myths made up to impress children!!!!

    Really? I don't know a single child who knows about abiogenesis, nor would I teach a child about a scientific hypothesis. Better to stick with solid theories, if they are so eager to learn, like evolution, gravity, etc.
    J C wrote: »
    ....however, a lot of very powerful forces are invisible ... but they are very real nontheless.

    Of course, but we can test to see whether they are there or not. We have a means of detecting even the most elusive forces, such as dark matter/energy. Yet god/s cannot be found anywhere, and the only people ever to have actually witnessed them are bronze-age tribes from the desert. Sorry, that isn't good enough.
    J C wrote: »
    God is a very real entity ... and everyone knows this in their hearts already .... and it will be confirmed when they die!!!:D

    No such thing. Never was. Never will be.


  • #14075
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rzyf9biCe4


    I find this video very relevant to the current topic of probability.


  • #14076
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    rockbeer wrote: »
    J C,
    You propose a 'mathematical' 'proof' of the impossibility of abiogenesis. I believe your 'proof' is flawed, nonetheless, let's say for argument's sake that it's valid.

    Please explain to me why you are prepared to accept it yet reject the following equally valid mathematical 'proof' of the non-existence of the christian god:

    Number of religions/faiths/deities that can be imagined or proposed: infinite

    Number of deities that can actually exist (if we assume monotheism): 1

    Possiblity of any particular deity (i.e. the christian god) existing: 1/infinity
    i.e. just as as impossible mathematically as abiogenesis is according to your 'proof'.

    I await your refutation with interest.
    ...an excellent question ...

    ...the 'proof' for the intelligent design of living organisms is physically observable in the organisms themselves (organs, cells, biochemical cascades, DNA, etc) ... and it is therefore open to scientific study and evaluation.

    ... the 'proof' for who was the 'intelligent designer' is NOT available to physical observation or scientific evaluation ... and that is why there are many very interesting debates within the Inteligent Design movement, for example, as to who the 'Designer' was/is ... for Muslims the 'Designer' is Allah ... for Christians it is Jesus Christ ... for Luciferians it was Lucifer ... for Atheists it was 'Aliens'... for some Pagans it is Gaia ... and for pantheists it is some kind of 'god essence' or 'inherent intelligence' in matter!!!

    The only thing that science can definitively conclude, based on the physical evidence, is that life was Intelligently Designed ... who the 'Designer(s)' was/were is not currently scientifically accessible ... and it therefore remains within the realm of FAITH.:D


  • Advertisement
  • #14077
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    ...the 'proof' for the intelligent design of living organisms is physically observable in the organisms themselves (organs, cells, biochemical cascades, DNA, etc) ... and it is therefore open to scientific study and evaluation.

    That isn't true.

    You cannot demonstrate that something was intelligently designed because it is impossible to demonstrate that it could not have arisen naturally. And that is the only way to demonstrate intelligent design.

    You can say that scientists are at a loss as to the natural process that could produce such a thing, or you can say that it certainly could not have been naturalistic evolution, but you cannot rule out all natural processes because you don't know all natural processes.

    You aren't after all a god, you don't know everything.

    That is the flaw of Intelligent Design from a scientific point of view. You can't model it, because no one has any clue how to model who the designer is or more importantly what he is supposed to have actually done.

    Without a model the idea that ID is accurate requires that you rule out everything else and then are left with it as the only alternative. But it is not possible to rule out everything else.


  • #14078
    rockbeer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭rockbeer


    J C wrote: »
    ...an excellent question ...

    ...the 'proof' for the intelligent design of living organisms is physically observable in the organisms themselves (organs, cells, biochemical cascades, DNA, etc) ... and it is therefore open to scientific study and evaluation.

    ... the 'proof' for who was the 'intelligent designer' is NOT available to physical observation or scientific evaluation ... and that is why there are many very interesting debates with the Inteligent Design movement, for example, as to who the 'Designer' was/is ... for Muslims the 'Designer' is Allah ... for Christians it is Jesus Christ ... for Luciferians it was Lucifer ... for Atheists it was 'Aliens'.

    The only thing that science can definitively conclude, based on the physical evidence, is that life was Intelligently Designed ... who the 'Designer(s)' was/were is not currently scientifically accessible ... and therefore remains within the realm of FAITH.:D


    In other words, if I'm reading you correctly, you are quite happy to invoke mathematical probability selectively, using it when it suits your argument and disregarding it when it doesn't.

    Do you imagine that approach holds any intellectual credibility?


  • #14079
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    J C wrote: »
    ...an excellent question ...

    ...the 'proof' for the intelligent design of living organisms is physically observable in the organisms themselves (organs, cells, biochemical cascades, DNA, etc) ... and it is therefore open to scientific study and evaluation.

    ... the 'proof' for who was the 'intelligent designer' is NOT available to physical observation or scientific evaluation ... and that is why there are many very interesting debates with the Inteligent Design movement, for example, as to who the 'Designer' was/is ... for Muslims the 'Designer' is Allah ... for Christians it is Jesus Christ ... for Luciferians it was Lucifer ... for Atheists it was 'Aliens'.

    The only thing that science can definitively conclude, based on the physical evidence, is that life was Intelligently Designed ... who the 'Designer(s)' was/were is not currently scientifically accessible ... and therefore remains within the realm of FAITH.:D

    You have yet to provide this mathematical proof. After failing to provide this, despite several requests, I can only assume you made it up.


  • #14080
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    They are not god-given. We made them up, and we can lose them just as easily. Christianity doesn't exactly have a good track record when it comes to free speech.
    ....our free will ... and therefore our free speech is God-given. Our expression of our free will can be circumscribed if we choose to abuse it by, for example, by physically attacking other people ... so it is not absolute.

    All true Christians recognise the right to free speech ... any 'Christianity' that doesn't recognise this right isn't behaving in a truly Chrisitan manner.


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    Why not ask your creationist buddies that? They seem to attempt to suppress criticism of their ideas whenever possible. For example, not submitting their research for scientific peer-review. You say they have done this, but you have yet to produce a rejection letter to prove this.
    ....the recognition of free speech does not require somebody to deliberately invite vilification!!!!.

    ....and submitting a paper to an Evolutionist who a priori rejects the subject of the paper as not scientifically valid and who would have your science degrees rescinded, if they could, would be just an open invitation for vilification!!!!:D

    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    History would suggest otherwise, as would any Old Testament-age people who dared question your God, its in the bible, after all!
    ....you are confusing the principle of a people labouring under the Law of God (in Old Testament times) ....with a people enjoying the Grace of God (in the Church Era) in which we are at present.

    The Law of God forbade many things ranging from not consuming Pigmeat to not questioning the existence of God ... today, under the Grace of God, we can eat Pigmeat and non-Christians can question the existence of God!!!!:D

    ....Jesus Christ is so liberating!!!!!:D:D


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    If he decides to pay me a visit, I may change my mind. I see no evidence of him or any god anywhere.
    ...you are quite entitled to your belief ... and your God-given free will gives you the right to be wrong!!!:D


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    Because he loves me, and wants to save me, regardless of my faults? Because he has the power to do so? Yet, he does nothing. Impressive...
    ....yes He loves you and wants to Save you ... but He will not force you to be Saved.
    It is something like a man loving a woman and wanting her to marry him .... but because he is a man of integrity and recognises her free will in the matter, her he doesn't force her to marry him!!

    ....indeed what kind of man would he be .... and what kind of love would he have for the woman IF he did force her to marry him????


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    Of course, but we can test to see whether they are there or not. We have a means of detecting even the most elusive forces, such as dark matter/energy. Yet god/s cannot be found anywhere, and the only people ever to have actually witnessed them are bronze-age tribes from the desert. Sorry, that isn't good enough.
    ....but, wwhen it comes to proof for God's existence, we have more that the revealed Word of God in the Bible ... we ALSO have the revealed Word of God in CREATION!!!!


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    No such thing. Never was. Never will be.
    ...you may deny the existence of God ... but your heart and all of Creation will continuously remind you of His existence ... whether you like it or not!!!:pac::):D


  • #14081
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    ...an excellent question ...

    ...the 'proof' for the intelligent design of living organisms is physically observable in the organisms themselves (organs, cells, biochemical cascades, DNA, etc) ... and it is therefore open to scientific study and evaluation.

    ... the 'proof' for who was the 'intelligent designer' is NOT available to physical observation or scientific evaluation ... and that is why there are many very interesting debates with the Inteligent Design movement, for example, as to who the 'Designer' was/is ... for Muslims the 'Designer' is Allah ... for Christians it is Jesus Christ ... for Luciferians it was Lucifer ... for Atheists it was 'Aliens'.

    The only thing that science can definitively conclude, based on the physical evidence, is that life was Intelligently Designed ... who the 'Designer(s)' was/were is not currently scientifically accessible ... and therefore remains within the realm of FAITH.


    rockbeer
    In other words, if I'm reading you correctly, you are quite happy to invoke mathematical probability selectively, using it when it suits your argument and disregarding it when it doesn't.

    Do you imagine that approach holds any intellectual credibility?
    ...but I'm NOT invoking mathematical proof selectively.

    Mathematical proof relies on PHYSICAL evidence ... in the case of living organisms it relies on the PHYSICAL fact that proteins are observed to be made up of chains of Amino Acids where any one of 20 different AAs can be present at any point along the chain. It is also physically observed that proteins with specific functions have highly specific amino acid sequences (in some cases only one specific sequence) and therefore it can be mathematically calculated that the number of permutaions of non-functional protein sequences are so overwhelmingly numerous that a non-intelligently directed process like NS would simply be overwhelmed by the amount of useless non-functional sequences and would have no statistical chance of ever being presented with a functional sequence from which it could make its selection, in the first place.:D

    When it comes to God, as I have already said, the 'proof' of WHO the 'intelligent designer' was, is NOT available to physical observation or scientific evaluation ... and therefore NO mathematical proof is possible because of a lack of physical evidence!!!:D

    ....basically we have scientifically established that some 'Intelligence(s)' did it .... but we simply don't scientifically know WHO the 'Intelligence(s)' was/were!!!!


  • Advertisement
  • #14082
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Wicknight wrote: »
    You cannot demonstrate that something was intelligently designed because it is impossible to demonstrate that it could not have arisen naturally. And that is the only way to demonstrate intelligent design.
    ...of course we can conclude scientifically that something could not have arisen naturally....it's done every day by CSI teams, for example. A knife stuck in a dead body can be conslusively stated to NOT be the product of natural processes ... equally a complex specific computer can be scientifically assessed as NOT having arisen naturally .... ditto 'with bells on it' for the much more complex specific processes found in living systems!!!:D

    Wicknight wrote: »
    You can say that scientists are at a loss as to the natural process that could produce such a thing, or you can say that it certainly could not have been naturalistic evolution, but you cannot rule out all natural processes because you don't know all natural processes.
    ...we don't need to know all possible natural processes to rule out a knife in the back as a natural process or to definitively conclude that a computer wasn't made by natural non-intelligently controlled processes ... ditto 'with bells on it' for the much more complex specific processes found in living systems!!!:D

    Wicknight wrote: »
    You aren't after all a god, you don't know everything.
    ...I'm not a God and I don't know everything .... but I know enough to rule out a knife in the back as a natural process and to definitively conclude that a computer wasn't made by natural non-intelligently controlled processes ... ditto 'with bells on it' for the much more complex specific processes found in living systems!!!:D

    Wicknight wrote: »
    That is the flaw of Intelligent Design from a scientific point of view. You can't model it, because no one has any clue how to model who the designer is or more importantly what he is supposed to have actually done.
    ...we don't need to know the murderer to conclude that some intelligent agent stabbed a murder victim in the back ... and we don't need to know the computer engineer personally to conclude that the computer was intelligently designed ... ditto 'with bells on it' for the much more complex specific processes found in living systems!!!:D

    Wicknight wrote: »
    Without a model the idea that ID is accurate requires that you rule out everything else and then are left with it as the only alternative. But it is not possible to rule out everything else.
    ....that is not how science works ... if we are required to rule out everything else, we would NEVER be able to make any definitive conclusions about anything, because we never have complete knowledge of all possible explanations for any phenomenon!!!:D


  • #14083
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rzyf9biCe4


    I find this video very relevant to the current topic of probability.
    ....I would make the following points about the video:-

    1. Prof Dawkins is honest in stating that he rejects all religion (rather than merely rejecting Creationism) ... other Atheists on this thread have implied that they accept Christians who are Evolutionists but they don't accept Creationists ... presumably in the hope that the Theistic Evolutionists will continue to promote evolution within their circle of influence ... thereby making it relatively easy for Atheists to then subsequently come along and convert them into full-blown Atheistic-Evolutionists.
    It is a fact that up to 90% of children brought up in Evolutionist Christian homes cease to attend church by the time they are 20 years old!!!

    2. Prof Dawkins admits that the probability of life arising spontaneously is very small (but he doesn't put a figure on just how IMPOSSIBLY small it actually is).
    He then says (without providing any evidence) that Evoultion provides a 'gradual ramp' up which life can evolve. I have to say that such a 'ramp' DOESN'T exist. All living processes are observed to be highly complex tightly integrated and highly specific processes without any observed or even theoretical intermediate forms to provide for the 'gradual ramp' that Prof Dawkins speaks of.

    3. Prof Dawkins failed to explain how Evolution could produce designs, which he defined as merely 'Complex' ...
    ...Designs are actually BOTH complex AND specific ... and it the specificity aspect of living systems that actually makes them IMPOSSIBLE to have arisen via non-intelligently directed processes!!!:D


  • #14084
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    J C wrote: »
    ....I would make the following points about the video:-

    1. Prof Dawkins is honest in stating that he rejects all religion (rather than merely rejecting Creationism) ... other Atheists on this thread have implied that they accept Christians who are Evolutionists but they don't accept Creationists ... presumably in the hope that the Theisic Evolutionists will continue to promote evolution within their circle of influence ... thereby making it relatively easy for Atheists to then subsequently come along and convert them into full-blown Atheistic-Evolutionists.
    It is a fact that up to 90% of children brought up in Evolutionist Christian homes cease to attend church by the time they are 20 years old!!!

    2. Prof Dawkins admits that the probability of life arising spontaneously is very small (but he doesn't put a figure on just how IMPOSSIBLY small it actually is).
    He then says (without providing any evidence) that Evoultion provides a 'gradual ramp' up which life can evolve. I have to say that such a 'ramp' DOESN'T exist. All living processes are observed to be highly complex tightly integrated and highly specific processes without any observed or even theoretical intermediate forms to provide for the 'gradual ramp' that Prof Dawkins speaks of.

    3. Prof Dawkins failed to explain how Evolution could produce designs, which he defined as merely 'Complex' ... when designs are observed to be BOTH complex AND specific ... and it the specificity of living systems that actually makes them IMPOSSIBLE to have arisen via non-intelligently directed processes!!!:D

    Don't you think it a little hypocritical of you accuse Dawkins of failing to provide evidence, when you continually do this?

    For example, why do you not provide evidence for : 'It is a fact that up to 90% of children brought up in Evolutionist Christian homes cease to attend church by the time they are 20 years old!!!'

    Do you not think it is a bit much to expect Dawkins to provide all this evidence in a single lecture?

    Do you not realise that Dawkins has already explained all of these phenomenon in bestselling books, such as The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker?

    Do you not realise that science has already provided the evidence for the assertions he is making, and that he realises that the audience doesn't require him to go over all of this?


  • #14085
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    For example, why do you not provide evidence for : 'It is a fact that up to 90% of children brought up in Evolutionist Christian homes cease to attend church by the time they are 20 years old!!!'

    That's an old marketing trick, actually. 'up to 90%' is meaningless, because it includes every figure below 90%. If .000001% of children brought up in sane Christian homes cease to attend church by the time they're 20, his statement will still be true.

    Of course, this doesn't excuse the (I'm gonna go with) hundreds of times he's stated figures on this thread without any sort of evidence at all. 3.42x10^148, for example.


  • #14086
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    That's an old marketing trick, actually. 'up to 90%' is meaningless, because it includes every figure below 90%. If .000001% of children brought up in sane Christian homes cease to attend church by the time they're 20, his statement will still be true.

    hehehe!

    Nicely spotted.


  • #14087
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    Don't you think it a little hypocritical of you accuse Dawkins of failing to provide evidence, when you continually do this?
    ...I have laborously and repeatedly provided the evidence and the calculations for my claim that non-intelligently directed systems are mathematically incapable of producing even simple proteins.

    ..but here it is AGAIN if you still need to see it.


    The ‘big need’ of Evolution is for naturalistic mechanisms to provide INCREASED genetic information – and no plausible mechanism has ever been identified that meets this need.

    Natural Selection can only begin to select when you have a population of reproducing viable living organisms with significant extant genetic diversity in their genome and the ability to express it. The Laws of Mathematical Probability and Big Numbers rule out ever getting to this stage in the first place, using undirected processes.
    For example:-
    There are 10 to the power of 21 stars in the Known Universe.
    There are 10 to the power of 61 ELECTRONS in our Sun (which is an average sized star).
    There are therefore ONLY 10 to the power of 82 Electrons in ALL of the STARS in the Known Universe.
    The odds of RANDOMLY producing a specific useful amino acid sequence choosing from the 20 common amino acids at each point on a 100 amino acid chain is a binomial expansion of 1/20 X 1/20 X 1/20 …… 100 times. This happens to be odds of one over 10 to the power of 130.
    There are 10 to the power of 26 nanoseconds (one thousand of one millionth of a second) in 5,000 million years.
    If every ELECTRON in the KNOWN UNIVERSE, produced a random 100 amino acid sequence one thousand million times every second for 5,000 million years only 10 to the power of 108 permutations would be produced.
    You would need 10 to the power of 23 Universes to guarantee the production of the specific sequence for a particular useful protein with a chain length of only 100 amino acids – and that is only the chance of getting the SEQUENCE right – never mind the problem of actually producing the protein. – and a protein is ‘nothing’ compared to even a so-called “simple cell”.
    We also have only ONE Universe – and not 10 to the power of 23 of them!!! Also an electron isn’t capable of producing a protein sequence and ALL stars are obviously too hot for life. Even using evolutionary timescales, there is simply not enough MATTER or TIME in the Universe to randomly produce the SEQUENCE for a SIMPLE protein.

    What the maths is MEASURING is something that we know intuitively – that complex, tightly specified machines are the result of Intelligent Design – and the more complex and tightly specified, the more intelligence is required to design them.
    What the gigantic figures for even small 100 amino acid proteins are indicating, is that living systems are approaching infinite specificity, infinite density of information and infinite probability of design by an infinitely Intelligent Designer.

    To go to the other extreme, if you came across something as basic as a steel nail you would immediately identify it as an artefact of the appliance of Intelligence. The nail exhibits tight specificity by having a formed head and a sharpened point as well as a cylindrical smooth wire linking both ends. In addition it is made of steel, which has never been observed to be spontaneously generated, nor indeed could a mechanism for an undirected wire forming and nail manufacturing process be even theoretically postulated.

    What IS amazing however, is that many scientists, who would stoutly defend the Intelligent Design of a simple steel nail, refuse to countenance the Intelligent Design of the infinitely more complex and tightly specified, Intelligent Designer of the nail!!!

    There are two levels of applied intelligence observable in living systems:-

    The first level of applied intelligence shows an ability to SPECIFY specific sequences to order. A 10 year old can specify any particular 100 amino acid sequence choosing from 20 amino acids at each point on the chain in 20 minutes – yet all of the electrons in the known Universe would fail to produce enough permutations to do this by undirected processes in an effective infinity of time.

    The second level of applied intelligence shows an ability to CHOOSE and GENERATE specific sequences and to coherently assemble these sequences to perform precisely co-ordinated functions. This would require an intelligent and creative power approaching infinity and therefore it is proof of Direct Divine Creation.

    The relatively simple task is SPECIFYING the order of the amino acids.
    The really intelligent ability is to know WHAT sequences to specify and how to coherently assemble them. A particular sequence might specify for a really useful Peptide that would be critical to producing a vital structural protein, for example, or it could be totally useless. However, merely examining the sequence superficially wouldn’t give any idea as to whether it was useful or not.

    There are very limited combinations of Critical Amino Acid Sequences that produce useful proteins – and even one “wrong” Amino Acid along a Critical Sequence will utterly change the three dimensional shape of the protein – making it functionally USELESS.

    Natural selection can’t solve the problem – I am talking here about the chances of PRODUCING SEQUENCES for a simple protein – i.e. long before Natural Selection would have any role in “selecting out” anything.

    Natural Selection doesn’t provide a mechanism to GENERATE genetic information – it merely SELECTS alternatives amongst PRE-EXISTING genetic information. Mutations are equally not observed to generate genetic information – they merely degrade it.

    There is no disagreement from Creationists about the evidence for Natural Selection, or indeed it’s scientific validity.
    The ‘Emperor without the clothes’ is NOT Darwin’s ingenious concept of Natural Selection (which he described as analogous to Artificial Selection i.e. using pre-existing genetic diversity WITHIN Kinds). The ‘Naked One’ is its impostor first cousin, the theory of Evolution - which states that ‘primordial chemicals evolved into man’ – but fails to provide any observable mechanisms for the process.

    The only observationally i.e. scientifically valid conclusion at present, is that DNA had an external intelligent Creator. Science cannot observe this Creator – but it can validly conclude that such an intelligence existed at the time when life originated.
    The evidence for Creation is overwhelming and repeatably observable – and so there is no issue in relation to it’s scientific validity.:pac::):D


  • #14088
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    For example, why do you not provide evidence for : 'It is a fact that up to 90% of children brought up in Evolutionist Christian homes cease to attend church by the time they are 20 years old!!!'
    ...I would have thought it would be OBVIOUS to anybody who has recently attended any Mainstream Church service... there are typically a small number of older people often accompanied by their grandchildren .... and 'twenty somethings' are as rare as 'hens teeth' at such services!!!!

    ...but if you don't believe your eyes ... have a look at the following article on the demise of the Roman Catholic Church.

    http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2005/05/02/catholic_church_withers_in_europe/
    The reasons for the demise are probably varied ... but the fact that the Vatican officially declared Evolution to be 'more than a theory' undoubtedly finished off whatever little trust and faith that many young (and indeed not-so-young) 'scientifically literate' Catholics had in religion of any description.
    Here are some quotes from the above article
    ".....the massive church was nearly empty during Mass on a recent Sunday -- its cold, cement walls echoing with the thin coughs of elderly women, who seem to make up the majority of parishioners in many Irish parishes....

    ....In some of Catholic Europe's largest dioceses in Germany, France, Italy, and Ireland, the percentage of Catholics who attend Mass regularly has slipped to as low as 20 percent, and in a few cities, like Paris, has reached as low as the single digits, according to figures compiled by the church.".....

    ......At the Most Precious Blood parish in Dublin's Cabra West, parishioners over age 30 say they remember when the church, which seats 1,700, was packed for all four Sunday Masses. There were about 75 -- including only five children -- at the 11 a.m. Mass at Most Precious Blood on a Sunday last month."

    You may argue over the fine details of these figures .... but a visit to any Roman Catholic Church (or indeed any Mainstream Protestant Church either) on an average Sunday will certainly confirm their VALIDITY!!!!

    The sex abuse scandals may have accelerated the decline in the Irish Roman Catholic Church .... but they DON'T explain the equally precipituous decline in Roman Catholocism in the rest of Europe ... nor do they explain the decline in Mainstream Protestantism!!!

    ...creeping Atheism, fuelled by growing Evolutionism, were the PRIMARY reasons for church decline in the 20th Century ...

    .....and Prof Dawkins has confirmed the caustic effect of Evolutionism on Christian Faith and declared himslf (and his Evolutionist Theory) to be an implacable enemy of ALL Religion ... and NOT JUST Creationism!!!!:eek:


    Stop arguing over 'Gnats' ... whilst swallowing 'Camels'!!!

    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    Do you not think it is a bit much to expect Dawkins to provide all this evidence in a single lecture?
    ...the problem is that he didn't provide ANY evidence for his assertion that a 'gradual ramp' exists, up which life can evolve.

    The fact is that such a 'ramp' DOESN'T exist.
    All living processes are observed to be highly complex tightly integrated and highly specific processes without any observed or even theoretical intermediate forms to provide for the 'gradual ramp' that Prof Dawkins speaks of.


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    Do you not realise that Dawkins has already explained all of these phenomenon in bestselling books, such as The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker?
    ... I have read them all and I have found that no observable evidence has been provided for the 'gradual ramps' that supposedly exist around 'mount improbable'!!!!


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    Do you not realise that science has already provided the evidence for the assertions he is making, and that he realises that the audience doesn't require him to go over all of this?
    Science has done no such thing ... the whole conjecture about 'gradual ramps' is just wishful thinking, in an attempt to become an 'intellectually fulfilled Atheist' ... which is another IMPOSSIBILITY actually!!!:D:eek:


  • #14089
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by The Mad Hatter That's an old marketing trick, actually. 'up to 90%' is meaningless, because it includes every figure below 90%. If .000001% of children brought up in sane Christian homes cease to attend church by the time they're 20, his statement will still be true.

    Flamed Diving
    hehehe!

    Nicely spotted.
    ....hee..haw!!!:eek::D

    ...see my answer above !!!

    ...in item 1 of posting #14088.


  • #14090
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    J C wrote: »
    The ‘big need’ of Evolution is for naturalistic mechanisms to provide INCREASED genetic information – and no plausible mechanism has ever been identified that meets this need.

    This is untrue. Genetic information increase can occur in two steps and has been demonstrated countless times.

    1. A gene is duplicated during cell replication.
    2. The duplicate gene (or the original) undergoes a functional mutation.

    Done. This phenomenon is responsible for the generation of most protein families such as the GPCR family.
    J C wrote: »
    Natural Selection can only begin to select when you have a population of reproducing viable living organisms with significant extant genetic diversity in their genome and the ability to express it.

    Also untrue. Natural selection is an extension of the principle of "persistence of the stable". That which can exist for a long time or can self-renew/replicate, will survive in preference to that which is transient. Natural selection will act on anything that can self-replicate. This would include nucleic acid strands down to a length of two nucleotides.
    J C wrote: »
    The Laws of Mathematical Probability and Big Numbers rule out ever getting to this stage in the first place, using undirected processes.
    For example:-
    There are 10 to the power of 21 stars in the Known Universe.
    There are 10 to the power of 61 ELECTRONS in our Sun (which is an average sized star).
    There are therefore ONLY 10 to the power of 82 Electrons in ALL of the STARS in the Known Universe.
    The odds of RANDOMLY producing a specific useful amino acid sequence choosing from the 20 common amino acids at each point on a 100 amino acid chain is a binomial expansion of 1/20 X 1/20 X 1/20 …… 100 times. This happens to be odds of one over 10 to the power of 130.

    Which is why we never see 100 amino acid proteins popping into existence spontaneously. And also why nobody claims that spontaneous protein generation from an amino acid mix is what happens in abiogenesis.
    J C wrote: »
    There are 10 to the power of 26 nanoseconds (one thousand of one millionth of a second) in 5,000 million years.
    If every ELECTRON in the KNOWN UNIVERSE, produced a random 100 amino acid sequence one thousand million times every second for 5,000 million years only 10 to the power of 108 permutations would be produced.
    You would need 10 to the power of 23 Universes to guarantee the production of the specific sequence for a particular useful protein with a chain length of only 100 amino acids – and that is only the chance of getting the SEQUENCE right – never mind the problem of actually producing the protein. – and a protein is ‘nothing’ compared to even a so-called “simple cell”.

    Not how abiogenesis is claimed to happen.
    J C wrote: »
    What the maths is MEASURING is something that we know intuitively – that complex, tightly specified machines are the result of Intelligent Design – and the more complex and tightly specified, the more intelligence is required to design them.

    What the maths is measuring is a phenomenon that nobody claims happened.

    I say again, if we "specify" a snow flake of some exact configuration and then calculate the odds that subatomic particles will come together to form it, we'll also find that the odds are massively against the event and the that time and particles required make the event "impossible". Yet this ignores the tendency of snowflakes to form according to physical laws (it's not a random combination of particles in 3-space but an expression of atoms' affinity for each other and the range of angles at which they can bond to one another) and it also ignores the fact that we can only specify structures that are actually possible by extension of those laws. Thus specificity and function are a slave to what can be generated naturalistically. The calculation also ignores the effect of materials availability and reaction conditions.
    J C wrote: »
    What the gigantic figures for even small 100 amino acid proteins are indicating, is that living systems are approaching infinite specificity, infinite density of information and infinite probability of design by an infinitely Intelligent Designer.

    But that's nonsense. It assumes the entire structure must come into existence in a single step!

    What's the probability of generating a specified 2-nucleotide sequence in a single step in a 1000 litre broth of nucleotides at optimum temperature, pressure and pH? On the order of 16 to 1 against. That's if we assume the reactions are happening singly and in series (which is nonsense). Really the probability is 1 (certainty) because the reactions are happening continuously in parallel over an extended time.

    When we allow abiogenesis to become an incremental process, the probabilities look nothing like what you describe.
    J C wrote: »
    There are very limited combinations of Critical Amino Acid Sequences that produce useful proteins – and even one “wrong” Amino Acid along a Critical Sequence will utterly change the three dimensional shape of the protein – making it functionally USELESS.

    But that's not intelligent design for a system intended to be robust. That's a design flaw- it puts the organism at risk from a single mutation. Either that criticality is deliberate and negligent or it is accidental and non-designed.
    J C wrote: »
    Natural selection can’t solve the problem – I am talking here about the chances of PRODUCING SEQUENCES for a simple protein – i.e. long before Natural Selection would have any role in “selecting out” anything.

    Natural selection acts on anything that replicates. And survival of the stable acts on everything that exists. So there's no lower bounds of complexity you need to get to before natural selection acts, that's a line you imagine. NS sees no line. Things persist or they do not.
    J C wrote: »
    Natural Selection doesn’t provide a mechanism to GENERATE genetic information – it merely SELECTS alternatives amongst PRE-EXISTING genetic information. Mutations are equally not observed to generate genetic information – they merely degrade it.

    Untrue, as explained above. Mutation has been observed to generate genetic information. Specificity and function are not determined in absolute terms, they are defined by the environment, by natural selection itself. If a mutation allows survival, if the frequency of a new allele increases then that is function, specificity and "new information". And we see mutated allele frequencies changing over time, therefore mutation has produced function.


  • #14091
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    J C wrote: »
    ....hee..haw!!!:eek::D

    ...see my answer above !!!

    ...in item 1 of posting #14088.

    Wait now, are you telling us that part of your objection to evolution is because you think it drives people away from religion? How does that have anything to do with its veracity? If the news that the sky is blue drove people from God would that compel you to deny the truth or would it compel you to figure out why people find their faith in conflict with the truth and attempt to reconcile that?


  • Advertisement
  • #14092
    rockbeer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭rockbeer


    J C wrote:
    Natural Selection can only begin to select when you have a population of reproducing viable living organisms with significant extant genetic diversity in their genome and the ability to express it.

    Atomic Horror has already, as usual, posted an excellent deconstruction of the nonsense you posted in #14087. I just wanted to pick you up on this particular point, which seems to sit at the heart of your objection to evolution and is, as has been pointed out, complete rubbish.

    Natural selection can operate on both living and non-living entities (although I realize such a distinction in chemical terms is somewhat arbitrary) at all levels of complexity. This is well demonstrated by a whole range of data. I want to ask you two very simple questions:

    1. Are you prepared to concede that this statement of yours is incorrect? (if not, please provide evidence to support it) and

    2. What would such a concession mean for the rest of your argument?


  • #14093
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    rockbeer wrote: »
    Atomic Horror has already, as usual, posted an excellent deconstruction of te nonsense you posted in #14087. I just wanted to pick you up on this particular point, which seems to sit at the heart of your objection to evolution and is, as has been pointed out, complete rubbish.

    Natural selection can operate on both living and non-living entities (although I realize such a distinction in chemical terms is somewhat arbitrary) at all levels of complexity. This is well demonstrated by a whole range of data. I want to ask you two very simple questions:

    1. Are you prepared to concede that this statement of yours is incorrect? (if not, please provide evidence to support it) and

    2. What would such a concession mean for the rest of your argument?

    Given that we've been pointing out that he's attacking a non-plausible model of abiogenesis for about a year, I wouldn't hold my breath for him to admit that he's misunderstood natural selection.


  • #14094
    rockbeer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭rockbeer


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Given that we've been pointing out that he's attacking a non-plausible model of abiogenesis for about a year, I wouldn't hold my breath for him to admit that he's misunderstood natural selection.

    Indeed, but sometimes it's worth asking very simple, direct questions in order to obtain simple, direct evidence of serious wrongness!


  • #14095
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Wait now, are you telling us that part of your objection to evolution is because you think it drives people away from religion? How does that have anything to do with its veracity? If the news that the sky is blue drove people from God would that compel you to deny the truth or would it compel you to figure out why people find their faith in conflict with the truth and attempt to reconcile that?
    ...Evolution NEEDLESSLY causes people to reject their heart-felt belief in God.

    ....I say NEEDLESSLY because Evolution is INVALID and untrue.

    IF Evolution was true then we would just have to accept that God, if He existed, didn't Create life ... which is what the Evolutionists like Prof Dawkins WOULD LIKE US TO BELIEVE!!!

    ....but all of Creation loudly proclaims a Creator ... and strongly denies the spontaneous Evolution of life!!!!


  • #14096
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    J C wrote: »
    ...Evolution NEEDLESSLY causes people to reject their heart-felt belief in God.

    ....I say NEEDLESSLY because Evolution is INVALID and untrue.

    IF Evolution was true the we would just have to accept that God, if He existed, didn't Create life ... which is what the Evolutionists like Prof Dawkins WOULD LIKE US TO BELIEVE!!!

    What Richard Dawkins wants you to believe is not relevant. Evolution does not demonstrate that God did not create life, it just demonstrates that He didn't do it in one shot. Beyond that, we don't have any theory.


  • #14097
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Genetic information increase can occur in two steps and has been demonstrated countless times.

    1. A gene is duplicated during cell replication.
    2. The duplicate gene (or the original) undergoes a functional mutation.

    Done. This phenomenon is responsible for the generation of most protein families such as the GPCR family.
    ....NEW FUNCTIONAL information cannot be generated by matter ... it is ALWAYS a product of applied intelligence!!!!


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Natural selection is an extension of the principle of "persistence of the stable". That which can exist for a long time or can self-renew/replicate, will survive in preference to that which is transient. Natural selection will act on anything that can self-replicate. This would include nucleic acid strands down to a length of two nucleotides.
    ... and two nucleotides is just about the sum total of what non-intelligently directed systems are capable of EVER generating!!!!


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Which is why we never see 100 amino acid proteins popping into existence spontaneously. And also why nobody claims that spontaneous protein generation from an amino acid mix is what happens in abiogenesis.
    ...the maths is showing that 100 amino acid proteins cannot be generated by non-intelligently directed systems ... no matter how many intermediate stages are envisaged ... the thing is just as impossible to do via many intermediate stages as doing it all at once ... because no clear 'pathway' of functional intermediaries exist between a five AA peptide and functional 100 AA Protein ... so even if a potentially functional peptide 'building block' were to be somehow spontaneously produced it would be 'lost' in the eventual attempt to produce a 100 AA Protein!!!!


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    I say again, if we "specify" a snow flake of some exact configuration and then calculate the odds that subatomic particles will come together to form it, we'll also find that the odds are massively against the event and the that time and particles required make the event "impossible". Yet this ignores the tendency of snowflakes to form according to physical laws (it's not a random combination of particles in 3-space but an expression of atoms' affinity for each other and the range of angles at which they can bond to one another) and it also ignores the fact that we can only specify structures that are actually possible by extension of those laws. Thus specificity and function are a slave to what can be generated naturalistically. The calculation also ignores the effect of materials availability and reaction conditions.
    ....specificity and function AREN'T REQUIRED from a Snowflake ... although the number of possible Snowflakes probably exceeds 10^130 ... it doesn't matter which snowflake is produced as they are all going to end up in a snowdrift that ISN'T alive or REQUIRING the enormous amounts of INTEGRATED FUNCTIONAL information that is observed in living things!!!!

    ....in the case of living systems specificity is critical to FUNCTIONALITY... and it DOES very much matter that a particular functional protein is produced to perform a particular specific cellular task!!!!

    Any shape or combination of snowflakes will 'do' in a snowdrift....
    .....but only very specific biomolecules in a very specific sequence will produce a sight cascade, for example!!!

    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    But that's nonsense. It assumes the entire structure must come into existence in a single step!

    ....the maths is showing that 100 amino acid proteins cannot be generated by non-intelligently directed systems ... no matter how many intermediate stages are envisaged ... the thing is just as impossible to do via many intermediate stages as doing it all at once ... because no clear 'pathway' of functional intermediaries exist between a five AA peptide and functional 100 AA Protein ... or indeed between one particular functional 100 AA protein and another functional 100 AA Protein.

    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    What's the probability of generating a specified 2-nucleotide sequence in a single step in a 1000 litre broth of nucleotides at optimum temperature, pressure and pH? On the order of 16 to 1 against. That's if we assume the reactions are happening singly and in series (which is nonsense). Really the probability is 1 (certainty) because the reactions are happening continuously in parallel over an extended time.

    When we allow abiogenesis to become an incremental process, the probabilities look nothing like what you describe.
    ...incrementalism WON'T do it ... because any incremental change will destroy the functionality of a functional protein .... and we are set right back to blind chance to 'discover' another functional protein from the 'remains' of the incremetally changed protein ....which is STILL 10^130 for any 'new' 100 chain Protein ... non-intelligently directed systems don't have the ability to hold onto POTENTIALLY useful sequences nor can they efficiently produce the very small number of useful functional sequences for a particular functional protein.

    ...it's a similar problem to producing a matching nut and bolt...it can be done with certainty, EVERY TIME by the appliance of intelligence to produce the specific functionality of diameter and thread thickness between the nut and bolt ... while non-intelligently directed systems could produce a billion billion different bolt and nut diameters and thread thicknesses .... without any of them EVER matching!!!!

    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    But that's not intelligent design for a system intended to be robust. That's a design flaw- it puts the organism at risk from a single mutation. Either that criticality is deliberate and negligent or it is accidental and non-designed.
    ....criticality is an observed pheomenon of all functional machines .... try removing 1 cm of wire from a starter cable and a ship's engine won't start.
    The problem of specificity is overcome in the case of a ship (and in living systems) by backup systems or redundancy!!!!

    ....so the COMBINATION of specificity and redundance is indicative of GOOD design in living systems ... just like all other systems!!!

    ....sometimes the environment overwhelms all of the redundancy/backup systems ....and the ship flounders....and the living organism dies ...ce la vie in a 'Fallen World'!!!


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Mutation has been observed to generate genetic information. Specificity and function are not determined in absolute terms, they are defined by the environment, by natural selection itself. If a mutation allows survival, if the frequency of a new allele increases then that is function, specificity and "new information". And we see mutated allele frequencies changing over time, therefore mutation has produced function.
    ....mutation ALWAYS degrades genetic information ... sometimes with novel interesting results in complex machines .... I one had a toy car that got walked on (the equivalent of a damaging mutation) and it's headlights came on when I pressed the 'off button' of it's remote control... and it made the most interesting 'squeaking' sound when I pressed the 'horn button' on it's remote.

    ...because I was a ten year old Evolutionist at the time, with full faith in the powers of mutation to 'improve' things ... I decided to 'mutate' it further, by giving it a good kick....and sad to relate, my car 'died'....and NOTHING worked, and no further 'interesting' things happened .....no matter what button was pressed on the remote control....or how often I 'mutated' it by further kicking it!!!:D

    ...it was just about that time that I began to have doubts about Santa Claus ... and Evolution!!!:D

    ...I made the classical mistake of Evolutionists the world over....by confusing a degradation of information (all be it with interesting, novel results) ... with an increase in functional information ... and my toy car suffered an untimely 'death' as a result!!! :D;)


  • #14098
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    What Richard Dawkins wants you to believe is not relevant. Evolution does not demonstrate that God did not create life, it just demonstrates that He didn't do it in one shot. Beyond that, we don't have any theory.
    ....as one of the leading proponents of Evolution ALL of WHAT Prof Dawkins says ... and WHY he says it are BOTH important!!!!

    Prof Dawkins clearly believes that Evolution would rule out God as the Creator of life and sees it as a major 'battering ram' in securing his objective for the destruction of ALL Religious Belief.

    If Evolution WAS how life developed on Earth then Prof Dawkins would have a pretty unassailable point ... and any residual religious belief remaining would centre around the 'worship' of science, knowledge and the 'forces' of the Natural World ... which would be very much in tune with modern Atheism...and indeed Pantheism!!!

    However, because 'big picture' evolution is NOT true ... and it is demonstrably NOT CAPABLE of generating the highly complex tightly specified systems found in living organisms....Evolution has NOT replaced God as the objective Creator of all life ... and so Atheism takes a very serious philosophical 'hit' as a result!!!

    I'll give Prof Dawkins full marks for trying ... and I enjoyed reading his books.... but I think that he will have to go 'back to the drawing board' on this one ... and work out how any putative 'naturalistic system' could possibly scale the very high 'cliffs' that metaphorically surround the base of 'mount improbable' .... which should be more accurately cally 'mount impossible'!!!!:D

    ...Prof Dawkins has a brilliant mind ....and I await the result of his deliberations with great anticipation ....who knows, he might even go down the 'road' travelled by Prof Anthony Flew .... or indeed Sir Fred Hoyle ... or even St Paul!!!!:eek::D


  • #14099
    JoBlog
    Registered Users Posts: 16 ✭JoBlog


    JoBlog wrote: »
    It seems to me that aetheism depends on some version of evolution being true or its untenable. Motive enough for pushing evolution? Certainly a cause for being less than objective. But that would be operating at an unconscious level - not conscious dishonesty.

    (PS I do not for one second think that the evidence for deep time is anything but valid. )
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Only if the assertion holds that if evolution is false therefore God exists and made all life. Which it doesn't.

    It isn't an either or situation.

    What is the third way?
    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Why? Most people's definition of God is not threatened by evolution at all. If that were really the motive, would we not be much more interested in presenting abiogenesis as if it were an accepted theory?

    I agree that most people's def. of God is not threatened by evolution. Neither is mine. My point was that if evolution was disproven and accepted by all as disproven, aetheism would be untenable. [Unless some new third way of explaining life was found].
    Of course, evolution doesn't disprove the existence of a god/s.[/quote]
    rockbeer wrote: »
    So do you regard 'god' as the default position then?

    Is it not possible (not likely, as all the evidence suggests that evolution is a valid theory, but possible) that evolution is false but there is some other naturalistic explanation for the development of life? Why drop god into the gap? It's like saying oh, turns out the earth isn't flat after all so it must be made from balsa wood.

    Besides, as AH points out, abiogenesis would seem to be more critically damaging to god than evolution. If - as seems almost certain - life can start from inorganic matter without god than what function remains for him?


  • #14100
    JoBlog
    Registered Users Posts: 16 ✭JoBlog


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    I was an atheist long before I ever heard of evolution. Am I some kind of freak case? Or is it possible for someone to come to the conclusion that religion is complete and utter nonsense without science?

    Of course, evolution doesn't disprove the existence of a god/s.


    Well I have come to the conclusion that most religion is in error and perhaps should be described as nonsense. I was helped by science but I can readily see that science is not necessary to reach that conclusion.

    I do make a distinction between belief that a powerful intelligence is responsible for and has a purpose in bringing the material universe we see into existence (theism) and the dogmas and rituals of people of faith (defined as baseless belief and for mysterious reasons regarded as a virtue by many).
    rockbeer wrote: »
    So do you regard 'god' as the default position then?

    Is it not possible (not likely, as all the evidence suggests that evolution is a valid theory, but possible) that evolution is false but there is some other naturalistic explanation for the development of life? Why drop god into the gap? It's like saying oh, turns out the earth isn't flat after all so it must be made from balsa wood.

    Besides, as AH points out, abiogenesis would seem to be more critically damaging to god than evolution. If - as seems almost certain - life can start from inorganic matter without god than what function remains for him?

    Until someone suggests a third possibility my argument seems valid to me.

    I was not making a distinction between abiogenesis and evolution. Since it has been raised, it seems that a satisfactory materialist explanation for the first living creatures would make the aetheist position more comfortable. If it could be proven that no such explanation could be true, again how would aetheism be tenable?

    Sorry about all that white space in the last post - I do not know how I did that!


  • Advertisement
  • #14101
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    J C wrote: »
    This is untrue. Genetic information increase can occur in two steps and has been demonstrated countless times.

    1. A gene is duplicated during cell replication.
    2. The duplicate gene (or the original) undergoes a functional mutation.

    Done. This phenomenon is responsible for the generation of most protein families such as the GPCR family.

    ....NEW FUNCTIONAL information cannot be generated by matter ... it is ALWAYS a product of applied intelligence!!!!

    All you've done there is say I'm wrong without explaining why. I've just given you a mechanism by which new functional information may be generated in two steps by mutation.

    You have 2 options: you can demonstrate how this is outcome information is not new and functional, or you can demonstrate that the mechanism is impossible.
    J C wrote: »
    ...the maths is showing that 100 amino acid proteins cannot be generated by non-intelligently directed systems ... no matter how many intermediate stages are envisaged ...

    No, that makes no sense. The probability of a thing coming into existence in complete form is not the same as the probability of it coming into existence incrementally. Take salt crystal formation- the probability of a meter-long salt crystal coming into existence in one step is not at all the same as the probability of it forming incrementally.
    J C wrote: »
    the thing is just as impossible to do via many intermediate stages as doing it all at once ... because no clear 'pathway' of functional intermediaries exist between a five AA peptide and functional 100 AA Protein ...

    Only if you rigidly define function as some arbitrary function appropriate to the end product. That is illogical. The function of a short sequence, if present, will of course be very different to a long sequence. As for pathways... we've suggested a number of possible pathways from simple replicating sequence to protocell. You've never refuted them, just repeated your broken probability spiel.
    J C wrote: »
    so even if a potentially functional peptide 'building block' were to be somehow spontaneously produced it would be 'lost' in the eventual attempt to produce a 100 AA Protein!!!!

    What on Earth are you talking about? Evolution "attempts" nothing.
    J C wrote: »
    ....specificity and function AREN'T REQUIRED from a Snowflake ...

    Which is why I placed a specificity constraint in the analogy, to make the probabilistic requirements comparable.
    J C wrote: »
    althould the number of possible Snowflakes probably exceeds 10^130 ... it doesn't matter which snowflake is produced as they are all going to end up in a snowdrift that ISN'T alive or exhibiting the enormous amounts of INTEGRATED FUNCTIONAL information that is observed in living things!!!!

    Missing the point so badly it's painful to read. Try harder please.
    J C wrote: »
    ....in the case of living systems specificity is critical to FUNCTIONALITY... and it DOES very much matter that a particular functional protein is produced to perform a particular specific cellular task!!!!

    Which is irrelevant until the very end of abiogenesis, isn't it? There are no cells and no need for "cellular tasks" at the beginning.
    J C wrote: »
    Any shape or combination of snowflakes will 'do' in a snowdrift....
    .....but only very specific biomolecules in a very specific sequence will produce a sight cascade, for example!!!

    What need does a pre-biotic self-replicating nucleotide strand have for a sight cascade? You keep trying to introduce the most complex elements in step one. No wonder you're having such difficulty imagining abiogenesis.
    J C wrote: »
    ....the maths is showing that 100 amino acid proteins cannot be generated by non-intelligently directed systems ... no matter how many intermediate stages are envisaged ... the thing is just as impossible to do via many intermediate stages as doing it all at once ... because no clear 'pathway' of functional intermediaries exist between a five AA peptide and functional 100 AA Protein ... or indeed between one particular functional 100 AA protein and another functional 100 AA Protein.

    Now you're just repeating yourself. If you genuinely believe the above then you really must drop the probability argument entirely because you're having massive conceptual issues with how it all works and you're really starting to look very silly.
    J C wrote: »
    ...incrementalism WON'T do it ... because any incremental change will destroy the functionality of a functional protein .... and we are set right back to blind chance to 'discover' another functional protein from the 'remains' of the incremetally changed protein ....

    Oh dear me. This is embarrassing J C. The above could only be true if replication wasn't also happening. You don't have to go back to step 1 because the one billion copies of step 2 all have a their own chance to progress to step 3. Which only slightly more complex.
    J C wrote: »
    which is STILL 10^130 for any 'new' 100 chain Protein ...

    Why would we jump to a 100-mer chain in one step? And even if we did, what would natural selection be "looking for"? It sure wouldn't be looking for complex function. I'd be looking for stability, replication efficiency. Simple stuff. Many 100-mer sequences will fit that bill, and the best will prevail.
    J C wrote: »
    non-intelligently directed systems don't have the ability to hold onto POTENTIALLY useful sequences nor can they efficiently produce the very small number of useful functional sequences for a particular functional protein.

    But "function" is merely "stability" before life is complex. And potentially useful sequences are not discriminated one way or the other. Some will turn out to be functional, others will not. That's down to chance.
    J C wrote: »
    ...it's a similar problem to producing a matching nut and bolt...it can be done with certainty, EVERY TIME by the appliance of intelligence to produce the specific functionality of diameter and thread thickness between the nut and bolt ... while non-intelligently directed systems could produce a billion billion different bolt and nut diameters and thread thicknesses .... without any of them EVER matching!!!!

    Rubbish! I've repeatedly explained why this analogy is total stupid garbage.

    J C wrote: »
    ....criticality is an observed pheomenon of all functional machines .... try removing 1 cm of wire from a starter cable and a ship's engine won't start.

    Cars aren't built to last 80 years. Humans are. Critical systems are a design flaw.
    J C wrote: »
    The problem of specificity is overcome in the case of a ship (and in living systems) by backup systems or redundancy!!!!

    In good design, the need for redundancy would be based on a couple of factors. It would be based on the importance of the system (ie how likely the super-system is to break if it fails) and the fragility of the system (ie how likely it is to fail at all). Appropriate then, that we humans have a backup kidney. Confusing though, that we do not have a backup heart.
    J C wrote: »
    ....so the COMBINATION of specificity and redundance is indicative of GOOD design in living systems ... just like all other systems!!!

    If neither featured a backup, we would not find it so odd (after all- we have a limited life), but the mixture of redundant and non-redundant systems makes no sense when the relative importance and failure rates are considered.
    J C wrote: »
    ....sometimes the environment overwhelms all of the redundancy/backup systems ....and the ship flounders....and the living organism dies ...ce la vie in a 'Fallen World'!!!

    Indeed, but the design decisions still make no sense. Heart failure kills most people that cancer doesn't get.
    J C wrote: »
    ....mutation ALWAYS degrades genetic information ...

    No, it always changes genetic information. Whether that is a degradation or enhancement can be determined by looking at whether the new allele increases in frequency over time. If mutation could not enhance a gene, we'd never see such frequency increases. But we do.

    You're just stuck in a rigid concept of what "function" means. You think it is defined and immutable. You also think it must be complicated. You're very seriously wrong on both counts.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement