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)
Options
Comments
-
himnextdoor wrote: »If the Muslims are right about Jesus, that would seem like a pretty good reason to become a Muslim; wouldn't it be natural to 'prefer' their sources of information over the Christians'?
They'd not only have to be right about Jesus but they'd also have to right about Mohamed and Allah. Are their source better than Christian sources? If so why so?0 -
Because 1, Jokes are totally welcome to me from either side. It's 101 of human interaction. 2, If he made continous posts about the same joke and instead of a joke it was a serious matter and about something unrelated to the thread, then I might say something. But that's not the case, so I'm not.
As for that dig at my post count, very mature. Your e-penis is bigger than my e-penis. I really don't care how many posts you have in this thread or any other. I take things at face value. I read forums more than I post in them although I have been more active on boards.ie than ever before. (because i'm more mature now and have more to say)0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »I have 314 post in just this thread.
In fairness, it is probably just the same two or three posts, repeated 314 times.0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »They'd not only have to be right about Jesus but they'd also have to right about Mohamed and Allah. Are their source better than Christian sources? If so why so?
Because Christian sources would have been shown to you to be wrong.
Surely, if you thought Islam was right about Jesus then you might give some attention to their other claims?0 -
I am not spamming the thread. I am not qualified to discuss science, so I post links to those who are.
Here's another link!
http://www.idvolution.org/
Do you believe that on the day that legs, fins, tails, wings or any other method of propulsion employed by higher order organisms appeared on Earth, that flagellum apeared too?0 -
Advertisement
-
Soul Winner wrote: »Natural selection acting on random mutations. That enough?
Do you deny natural selection or are you denying that random mutations can occur?0 -
In fairness, it is probably just the same two or three posts, repeated 314 times.
I could say the same thing about yours Mobert. Swings roundabouts etc..
EDIT: Plus I've engaged in debate with J C and Wolfsbane on the subject of the Bible and Prophecy in this thread many times, which said posts were also on topic. Whereas you tend to engage in just the Creationism section only. So its a bit rich of you to say that my posts are just the same two or three posts repeated 314 times. That was a low blow Mobert and I would have expected better than that form you to be honest.0 -
himnextdoor wrote: »Because Christian sources would have been shown to you to be wrong.
But they weren't though ???
himnextdoor wrote: »Surely, if you thought Islam was right about Jesus then you might give some attention to their other claims?
But I don't think they are right about Jesus. If I did then I wouldn't be Christian would I? But even if I did think they were right about Jesus that doesn't mean that I would automatically believe everything else they say would it?0 -
himnextdoor wrote: »Do you deny natural selection or are you denying that random mutations can occur?
I believe random mutations occur and I believe that natural selection works in certain cases but I don't believe that given enough time natural selection will work on random mutations enough to produce the complexity that we see in nature today. I COULD BE WRONG. I just don't think that the case made for natural selection is strong enough to warrant the reaction that it is a fact done dusted not worth arguing about anymore. That is what it says on the tin isn't it?
Granted there are cases where a lot of research is being done that can give some credence to this idea but certainly not enough to convince me that in 3.5 billion years brains as advanced as human brains can evolve from a mindless and purposeless process of an accidental coming together of chemicals to form organic molecules to form proteins to provide function in a cell which can become a certain type of tissue to become a certain type of organ to perform a certain kind of function in order to aid the survival of a certain type of organism in a particular environmental setting. That is too big a thing for it to explain by itself and I fail to see how anyone can be convinced of it so much as a theory. As a naturalistic explanation for how life arose it is a good start though, I'll grant that. But life even at its most fundamental level is just too complex to be explained by natural selection acting on random mutations alone. I believe there are very strong reason for thinking that other (intelligent) forces are at work, life is rife with the evidence of it, even at sub cellular level. Does that explain my position better?0 -
I think so...
You believe evolution happens... it just also doesn't happen. As in, all the processes in evolution that would lead to complex creatures like us and the ones around is there... but it just doesn't or didn't do anything for us to be like that and instead, we were created a certain way.
Well, unfortunately there's no evidence suggesting that we were created for anything and only mountains of evidence that suggests that us and other creatures have the organs we do because of the enviornment.
Another thing that blows my mind is that you think that we were created this way in order to resist hazardous enviornments. For example, skin and white blood cells to protect against infection... and yet that same thing that created us also designed the things that infect us. Seems rather stupid, no?
Designer: "I'm going to make it so that humans constantly need to breath in oxygen or else they die. But wait... here comes the genius part... I'm going to give them lungs to do that."
Some design.0 -
Advertisement
-
Soul Winner wrote: »These guys:
http://www.amazon.com/Delicate-Arrangement-Strange-Charles-Wallace/dp/081290883X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1303140412&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Just-Before-Origin-Wallaces-Evolution/dp/1583481117/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1303147824&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Alfred-Russel-Wallace-Peter-Raby/dp/0691102406/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1303140551&sr=1-1-spell
http://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Conspiracy-Origins-Scientific-Crime/dp/0952310961/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1303140614&sr=1-1
I'm not saying they are right or wrong but usually when there is smoke in the woods its because there is a fire.
Fair enough, it isn't a narrative that I'm familiar with. Wallace was a strong supporter of Darwin's work, discussing it with Darwin and writing many articles defending it. If he was unhappy with it or felt that it had been stolen from him he did not let it get in the way of proclaiming the brilliance of the theory.
Perhaps he saw past Darwin himself (who was, after all, just a man) to the theory itself.Soul Winner wrote: »Look, if Jesus was a fraud I want to know about it. But casting aspersions hardly helps now does it?
Who's casting aspersions, it says in the Bible he was supported by wealthy women that funded his party.Soul Winner wrote: »Not at all, there are many atheists who don't think there are good grounds for believing that Jesus claimed to be God. I thought this was common knowledge??
Interesting.0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »I believe random mutations occur and I believe that natural selection works in certain cases but I don't believe that given enough time natural selection will work on random mutations enough to produce the complexity that we see in nature today. I COULD BE WRONG.
Man, if only there was some sort of process, or methodology, that could be used to figure out if you are or not. Some sort of collection of verifiable evidence that could be constructed into a falsifiable hypothesis modelling how the notion relates to observed phenomena.
If only something like that existed :PSoul Winner wrote: »Granted there are cases where a lot of research is being done that can give some credence to this idea but certainly not enough to convince me that in 3.5 billion years brains as advanced as human brains can evolve
That is probably because as advanced as your brain is it is very bad at judging vast time or length. 3.5 billion years is a ridiculously long time. It is so long in fact that we can't actually understand it (not just you, me either) and the natural instinct of our brain is to, ironically, think isn't actually that long at all.
Queer isn't it. When faced with such vast notions we tend to think of them as actually not all that bad. Which is why shows like Star Trek work for us. If we actually understood the size of the universe Star Trek would seem ridiculous, the distances so vast and the numbers of stars in this galaxy alone that humans getting to know most of the quadrant is nonsense. We would be barely out of our local sector.
Same with time. We can imagine back about 10,000 years as we have historical reference points. After that we tend to jump a bit. We think human migrations out of Africa 100,000 years ago were actually not that far more back in time that 10,000 years. 1 million years, not actually that far back either.
When we get to these types of numbers an intersting thing happens. The actual number becomes less important than the multiplier. This is how we work with these large numbers. 1 million years ago is "only" 100 times more than 10,000 years ago. And 100 isn't that big.
Same with mutation rates. It is easy for you to look at an individual and their mutation rate, it is about 60 mutations. Working in the matrix of those 60 mutations combined with the other billions of people alive, coupled with the other trillions of life forms alive, and you simply cannot compute that. So again we fall back on multipliers.
This is why a lot of science is done with maths rather than in the head perceptions. This leads to the famous statement If you think you understand quantum physics you don't understand quantum physics. These massive systems can only be modelled mathematically, broken down like a computer program and pieced together. If you try and understand how big the universe is, or how many stars there are, you can't. You can write out the number but you won't understand it, you have no frame of reference.
Same with evolution.
To say you don't think it could happen in 3.5 billion years is some what ridiculous since neither you (nor anyone) has the mental capacity to actually imagine what can or can't happen in 3.5 billion years of trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trilllions upon trillions .... etc of replicating systems. You couldn't process that information, so saying you judged that it could or couldn't happen by simply thinking about it means nothing.
You simply can't. Biologists can't. They don't try to, they return to scientific models.0 -
Where are these mountains of evidence that shows that natural selection acting on random mutations produced the diversity and complexity that we observe in all living systems on this planet today?
Showing that something is badly designed is not evidence for natural selection acting on random mutations. You need a lot more than that for that to be the cast iron case that some people believe it is.
DNA is a carrier of information, it actually is information. Information that instructs how amino acids should be folded in order to make certain proteins which perform certain functions in order to have proper functionality for each cell. At this level we observe decoding of encoded information within the DNA molecule, transcription and so on. This encoded information has all the instructions for every single cell in your body (trillions of them) to work in tandem so that you can stay alive. Yes all for that one simple goal, that you can be and stay alive, nothing else.
Do you really believe that natural selection acting on random mutations can explain this to an intellectually fulfilling degree of certainty?0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »Where are these mountains of evidence that shows that natural selection acting on random mutations produced the diversity and complexity that we observe in all living systems on this planet today?
In biology libraries across the world.Soul Winner wrote: »Showing that something is badly designed is not evidence for natural selection acting on random mutations. You need a lot more than that for that to be the cast iron case that some people believe it is.
How about 150 years of research carried about by hundreds of thousands of scientists carrying out millions of experiments and studies producing billions of pages of papers and journals.
This is the problem, you aren't bothered to actually dedicate your time to studying all that (I don't blame you, and no one expects you to) but you then say that this evidence hasn't been presented to you.
It has. The problem is that it is large and complicated and requires dedication of time. Or you could read a popular science book and assume the person who wrote it did actually put the time into all this.Soul Winner wrote: »DNA is a carrier of information, it actually is information. Information that instructs how amino acids should be folded in order to make certain proteins which perform certain functions in order to have proper functionality for each cell. At this level we observe decoding of encoded information within the DNA molecule, transcription and so on. This encoded information has all the instructions for every single cell in your body (trillions of them) to work in tandem so that you can stay alive. Yes all for that one simple goal, that you can be and stay alive, nothing else.[/COLOR]
Do you really believe that natural selection acting on random mutations can explain this to an intellectually fulfilling degree of certainty?
It explains it beautifully. No other system comes close.
DNA by its very nature is a system that lends itself to mutation. It is exactly what you would expect to find in a evolving system. There are plenty of non-evolving systems, and unsurprising you don't find anything like DNA. Biologists predicted that something like DNA had to exist in us otherwise evolution would make no sense at all.
If you are genuinely looking at DNA and saying Man that is hard to explain within evolution then you really don't understand evolution.0 -
That is probably because as advanced as your brain is it is very bad at judging vast time or length. 3.5 billion years is a ridiculously long time. It is so long in fact that we can't actually understand it (not just you, me either) and the natural instinct of our brain is to, ironically, think isn't actually that long at all.
Queer isn't it. When faced with such vast notions we tend to think of them as actually not all that bad. Which is why shows like Star Trek work for us. If we actually understood the size of the universe Star Trek would seem ridiculous, the distances so vast and the numbers of stars in this galaxy alone that humans getting to know most of the quadrant is nonsense. We would be barely out of our local sector.
Same with time. We can imagine back about 10,000 years as we have historical reference points. After that we tend to jump a bit. We think human migrations out of Africa 100,000 years ago were actually not that far more back in time that 10,000 years. 1 million years, not actually that far back either.
When we get to these types of numbers an intersting thing happens. The actual number becomes less important than the multiplier. This is how we work with these large numbers. 1 million years ago is "only" 100 times more than 10,000 years ago. And 100 isn't that big.
Same with mutation rates. It is easy for you to look at an individual and their mutation rate, it is about 60 mutations. Working in the matrix of those 60 mutations combined with the other billions of people alive, coupled with the other trillions of life forms alive, and you simply cannot compute that. So again we fall back on multipliers.
This is why a lot of science is done with maths rather than in the head perceptions. This leads to the famous statement If you think you understand quantum physics you don't understand quantum physics. These massive systems can only be modelled mathematically, broken down like a computer program and pieced together. If you try and understand how big the universe is, or how many stars there are, you can't. You can write out the number but you won't understand it, you have no frame of reference.
Same with evolution.
To say you don't think it could happen in 3.5 billion years is some what ridiculous since neither you (nor anyone) has the mental capacity to actually imagine what can or can't happen in 3.5 billion years of trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trilllions upon trillions .... etc of replicating systems. You couldn't process that information, so saying you judged that it could or couldn't happen by simply thinking about it means nothing.
You simply can't. Biologists can't. They don't try to, they return to scientific models.
But I think the explanation might not be as complicated as science thinks it is. Under unguided processes we are forced to conclude that billions of years must have elapsed in order for life to get to the stage it has because with that constraint placed upon it we have to make that jump. But we can never really know either way. Darwin's idea was to come up with a theory that constrained itself by excluding any outside intelligence. That is to say that he proceeded on the premise that no outside intelligence was involved and every time his theory confronts an obstacle that screams that intelligence seems to have played a part here, the proponents of the theory are forced to do strenuous mental gymnastics in order to explain these anomalies in purely naturalistic terms.
I believe this is doing major damage to science and to mankind's ability to be truly able to understand the universe. Darwin didn't know that there was no guiding intelligence involved, he just proceeded on the faith assumption that there was none. I just don't think that science should be held to ransom with that gun to its head any longer. It should be allowed to postulate an outside intelligence when it confronts evidence for one and proceed on the basis of that. And if in the course of what was regarded as an intelligent agency at work it becomes apparent that it wasn't then we can move on from there.
What's happened to science now is that it is divided into two camps. One camp, due to their worldview cannot allow the idea of any outside intelligence because their worldview cannot accept that as a possibility. The other camp is made up of people who don't specifically hold to such a view and have no problem in allowing that idea. The war is not with the science, it’s with metaphysical assumptions, and real science will end up the worst for it in the end.0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »It should be allowed to postulate an outside intelligence when it confronts evidence for one and proceed on the basis of that.
Ok, off you go.
It is really that easy Soul Winner. Simply do it. Scientifically test God. Do it and then we can all do it and we can demonstrate he exists. Wouldn't that be great. You can put forward a falsifiable scientific theory for God. All other religions will be forced to accept Christianity is right, so yeah Christianity.
So, off you go. Scientifically come up with a way to test if God (or any other intelligence) directed life on Earth.
Or if you don't want to PLEASE explain how I can do it and I will. Happily do it, since I will win a Nobel prize for it. Guaranteed.
Apparently we can, but scientists just don't want to because it conflicts with their world view. Ok, world view out the window. I will follow any scientific procedure you want me to in order to test the existence of this intelligent being. Just explain it to me. I will put up my own money to pay for any equipment or materials one needs to do this.
When you have get back to us. Until then stop complaining that scientists don't do this, and stop ignoring when it is explained to you that it isn't possible to do this. You clearly don't accept this, so off you go. Go test God. :rolleyes:Soul Winner wrote: »And if in the course of what was regarded as an intelligent agency at work it becomes apparent that it wasn't then we can move on from there.
Explain to me how one does that and I will happily do that.0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »I believe random mutations occur and I believe that natural selection works in certain cases but I don't believe that given enough time natural selection will work on random mutations enough to produce the complexity that we see in nature today. I COULD BE WRONG. I just don't think that the case made for natural selection is strong enough to warrant the reaction that it is a fact done dusted not worth arguing about anymore. That is what it says on the tin isn't it?
No Evolutionary scientist thinks that the issue is settled and indeed many would say that evolutionism has raised as many questions as it has answered.
I think we can agree, as decent individuals, that plagiarism or suppression of ideas is an unpleasant business and that by all means possible, credit should be apportioned correctly to those whom have been cheated out of their place in history. And on the basis that it seems to offend your sensibilities (perhaps understandably) I am prepared to refer to 'Darwinian theory' simply as 'Evolutionary theory'.
The term 'Random Mutation' creates an impression of chaotic outcomes but that's not really how it is. When DNA becomes damaged it tries to repair itself; damage causes a kind of instability in the molecular arrangement of DNA and can give rise to 'bulges' or modified structures that can compromise the double-helix organisation.
When the repair is complete, the double-helix structure is restored but it can happen that some base-pairs have been altered. This can have a number of effects on the cell; the cell might 'commit suicide', it might become malignant, it might have no effect or occasionally, the cell may aquire or lose some functionality. In the vast majority of cases though, there is no overall effect on the organism.
However, if the mutation occurs and is manifest in the sex cells involved in conception, the new arrangement of base-pairs could have wide ranging effects on the development of the embryo. There are three possible effects; a positive one, a negative one or no discernible effect at all. It seems likely though, that any mutation of the cells involved in conception would have some effect on a developing embryo, however seemingly insignificant. The mutation would also appear in the sex-cells of the fully developed human. Then it is a matter of natural selection.
It is interesting to note that the mother is the most likely sources of mutations since she carries her limited number of sex-cells from birth whereas a mutation carried by a spermatazoa is competing against millions of unaffected sperm (unless the father carries the mutation from conception). Because of this, it could be said that it is the females who drive the engine of evolution. Genetic diversity is caused by the Mother! (Which is why I think Jehovah would be a Godess.)Soul Winner wrote: »Granted there are cases where a lot of research is being done that can give some credence to this idea but certainly not enough to convince me that in 3.5 billion years brains as advanced as human brains can evolve from a mindless and purposeless process of an accidental coming together of chemicals to form organic molecules to form proteins to provide function in a cell which can become a certain type of tissue to become a certain type of organ to perform a certain kind of function in order to aid the survival of a certain type of organism in a particular environmental setting. That is too big a thing for it to explain by itself and I fail to see how anyone can be convinced of it so much as a theory. As a naturalistic explanation for how life arose it is a good start though, I'll grant that. But life even at its most fundamental level is just too complex to be explained by natural selection acting on random mutations alone. I believe there are very strong reason for thinking that other (intelligent) forces are at work, life is rife with the evidence of it, even at sub cellular level. Does that explain my position better?
3.5 billion years is a very long time.
All life has certain things in common; it eats, respires, reproduces, creates waste, grows. It's a kind of template and arrangements of matter that exhibit these processes can be said to be alive. I think snowflakes are a good analogy; they all have six sides but the range of patterns is infinite and their hexagonal shape is an emergent property of arrangements of identical spheres.
Life is an emergent property of DNA and in the same way that snowflakes have common characteristics whilst exhibiting infinite variety because of the shape of the water molecule, life-forms have common characteristics and exhibit infinite variety because of the shape, and operation, of the DNA molecule.
All we need to know is, How did the fusion of molecules occur in order to create the most basic form of life? The answer to this question could be the final piece of the jig-saw that completes the picture and our understanding of the origin of life.
However, Natural Selection, 'Random' Mutations and 3.5 billion years does seem scientifically credible.0 -
In biology libraries across the world.
OK, out of all the libraries in the world, give me just one book that conclusively shows how natural selection acting on random mutations explains how we got from a single celled organism to strapping chaps like us. Just one. I need you to explain to me in your own words how you think this one source gives you the satisfaction of knowing for sure that Darwin’s theory was bang on the money.How about 150 years of research carried about by hundreds of thousands of scientists carrying out millions of experiments and studies producing billions of pages of papers and journals.
Since Darwin's theory became the dominant theory in biology to explain how life evolved biologists proceeded on the basis that his idea was actually true. So of course they are going to see it everywhere. But is it really there? Show me. Don't refer me to libraries of information just give me one example (or two or three whatever you like) showing that natural selection acting on random mutations explains human beings. I know the theory behind it and it sounds great but show me the evidence that supports it. And don't refer to the fossil record, that cannot and does not show it. It might show the stages of evolution in certain case but it doesn't show the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations. You'll need something else.This is the problem, you aren't bothered to actually dedicate your time to studying all that (I don't blame you, and no one expects you to) but you then say that this evidence hasn't been presented to you.
It hasn't. I want to see it. Just one study that someone has done that shows conclusively how natural selection acting on random mutations can produce a human being.It explains it beautifully. No other system comes close.
I agree, in theory it explains it beautifully but we need solid supporting evidence for it too.DNA by its very nature is a system that lends itself to mutation. It is exactly what you would expect to find in a evolving system. There are plenty of non-evolving systems, and unsurprising you don't find anything like DNA. Biologists predicted that something like DNA had to exist in us otherwise evolution would make no sense at all.
If that's the case then how come we cannot explain conclusively how DNA came about in the first place? If you think you have a source for that as well then I’d like you to explain to me it came about in your own words. Don’t point me to hyperlinks please.If you are genuinely looking at DNA and saying Man that is hard to explain within evolution then you really don't understand evolution.
I do understand evolution, it’s really not that hard of a concept to get your head around. But when its constrained by the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations it makes it impossible to fathom how such a constraint on the theory could account for the diversity of life we see today. And when we take into to account what you said about conceiving of billions of years of time and the size of the universe etc…, how can we ever be sure that such an immeasurable and unobservable thing as natural selection is the all inclusive explanation of how life evolved? With all those constraints it’s impossible to know for sure.
Lets say that 90% of random (is there any other kind?) mutations are mostly neutral or detrimental to living systems then that leaves 10% of mutations to be beneficial. So given 3.5 billion years of time how many random mutations were good and bad for the organisms which happened to be around during that time? What effect did they actually have? If random mutations are really random then how can we measure how many take place in any given length of time? We can’t, we have to guess. Plus because we are working back in time and not actually observing random mutations taking place in nature now we have no evidence that any random mutations actually took place at all, but in order for the theory to work we must postulate these random events. So how come it is OK to postulate these unobservable and un-testable events when we cannot postulate intelligent design? Look I know what you are going to say, there is no better explanation. But that’s because science won’t allow anyone to work outside the constraints of Darwin’s theory.0 -
Ok, off you go.
It is really that easy Soul Winner. Simply do it. Scientifically test God. Do it and then we can all do it and we can demonstrate he exists. Wouldn't that be great. You can put forward a falsifiable scientific theory for God. All other religions will be forced to accept Christianity is right, so yeah Christianity.
So, off you go. Scientifically come up with a way to test if God (or any other intelligence) directed life on Earth.
Or if you don't want to PLEASE explain how I can do it and I will. Happily do it, since I will win a Nobel prize for it. Guaranteed.
Apparently we can, but scientists just don't want to because it conflicts with their world view. Ok, world view out the window. I will follow any scientific procedure you want me to in order to test the existence of this intelligent being. Just explain it to me. I will put up my own money to pay for any equipment or materials one needs to do this.
When you have get back to us. Until then stop complaining that scientists don't do this, and stop ignoring when it is explained to you that it isn't possible to do this. You clearly don't accept this, so off you go. Go test God. :rolleyes:
Explain to me how one does that and I will happily do that.
Now now no need to rant.
But if we were to start with the assumption that everything was deliberately created for a purpose then we must at least try to define what type of being could perform such a thing. If we're going to talk about God then we must have some sort of definition. That being would must not be made up of the stuff that it has created so it cannot be a material being, and it cannot be bound by time or space. This is a pretty good starting point for a definition of God. Immaterial, timeless and space-less. But are there any clues that such a being exists? Well again it depends on your world view. Some world views are very open to the idea and others like nihilism, materialism, naturalism and especially atheism have barred that idea at the gate. But are there any clues?
Well science has shown that the universe had a beginning so at some point it didn't exist i.e. there was nothing, no matter, no space and no time. So how do you get from a nothing state to an everything state without any supernatural (i.e. outside of what we regard as normal nature) agency involved? From nothing, nothing comes, therefore there must be a supernatural explanation for why there is anything at all. I think that is a very logical position to take.
Then if you go from that then we can infer that the creation of life must have been purposed by this being also unless he did just wind up the clock and let things run their course naturally. But we have tried to explain the complexity of life using just naturalistic explanations for many years and we are no nearer to solving the problem than we were when we started. The more discoveries that are made the more questions are raised and by trying to explain them in purely natural ways we restrict ourselves to that one avenue. Whereas if we were just open to the idea of an all powerful creator maybe things would start to make more sense. I mean due to the complexity of living system I think it makes better sense to say that it must have been designed for a purpose as apposed to trying (and failing) to explain it in purely naturalistic means and spending a lot of time, effort and money on it to boot.
Anyway that's what would make me happy and I know its not going to happen but I was just answering your rant.0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »OK, out of all the libraries in the world, give me just one book that conclusively shows how natural selection acting on random mutations explains how we got from a single celled organism to strapping chaps like us. Just one.
Define "shows". Given that you can't fit billions of scientific papers and research into one book you can't compile all the evidence into one book.
You can provide any number of summaries of what this research says, but you seem to be rejecting anything that is a summary of a position.
If that is the case then sorry you have to do it the hard way. If you don't trust anyone to sum up an area of biological research then you need to take the time to study the research itself and understand it.
So which is it?Soul Winner wrote: »Since Darwin's theory became the dominant theory in biology to explain how life evolved biologists proceeded on the basis that his idea was actually true.
They tend to do that with scientific theories that are consistently shown to be accurate.Soul Winner wrote: »So of course they are going to see it everywhere. But is it really there? Show me. Don't refer me to libraries of information just give me one example (or two or three whatever you like) showing that natural selection acting on random mutations explains human beings.
What the 1,614 pages of examples wasn't good enough. :rolleyes:
Try here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
I await your inevitable "I still don't get it" responseSoul Winner wrote: »I know the theory behind it and it sounds great but show me the evidence that supports it. And don't refer to the fossil record, that cannot and does not show it.
The fossil record can and does show it, stop being silly.Soul Winner wrote: »It might show the stages of evolution in certain case but it doesn't show the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations. You'll need something else.
The "mechanism" of natural selection acting on random mutations is observed in thousands of labs every day.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=evolution-details-revealed-through-2009-10-18Soul Winner wrote: »It hasn't. I want to see it.
It was. You ignored it. It makes this excersise some what pointless.Soul Winner wrote: »Just one study that someone has done that shows conclusively how natural selection acting on random mutations can produce a human being.
How about 76. Pick one and read it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionSoul Winner wrote: »I agree, in theory it explains it beautifully but we need solid supporting evidence for it too.
"We" do need this. Luckly "we" have this.Soul Winner wrote: »If that's the case then how come we cannot explain conclusively how DNA came about in the first place?
Why would we be expected to in order to say what I said?Soul Winner wrote: »I do understand evolution
The vast majority of your posts suggest otherwise.Soul Winner wrote: »But when its constrained by the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations it makes it impossible to fathom how such a constraint on the theory could account for the diversity of life we see today.
You don't understand evolution.
Natural selection is not a "constraint", it is the process, the only one in nature, that can actually do this. If we didn't see natural selection at work we couldn't say animals evolve.Soul Winner wrote: »And when we take into to account what you said about conceiving of billions of years of time and the size of the universe etc…, how can we ever be sure that such an immeasurable and unobservable thing as natural selection is the all inclusive explanation of how life evolved?
Natural selection is neither immeasurable nor is it unobservable. It has been measured and observed for the last 100 years.
Given that all of this has been explained, with references, to you already Soul Winner it really makes me wonder about how genuine you are actually being here.Soul Winner wrote: »Lets say that 90% of random (is there any other kind?) mutations are mostly neutral or detrimental to living systems then that leaves 10% of mutations to be beneficial. So given 3.5 billion years of time how many random mutations were good and bad for the organisms which happened to be around during that time? What effect did they actually have? If random mutations are really random then how can we measure how many take place in any given length of time? We can’t, we have to guess.
We don't have to guess.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rateSoul Winner wrote: »Plus because we are working back in time and not actually observing random mutations taking place in nature now we have no evidence that any random mutations actually took place at all, but in order for the theory to work we must postulate these random events.
Once again, the fossil record ftw :rolleyes:Soul Winner wrote: »So how come it is OK to postulate these unobservable and un-testable events when we cannot postulate intelligent design?
Because mutation rates in DNA are not unobservable nor are they untestable.0 -
Advertisement
-
Soul Winner wrote: »But if we were to start with the assumption that everything was deliberately created for a purpose then we must at least try to define what type of being could perform such a thing. If we're going to talk about God then we must have some sort of definition. That being would must not be made up of the stuff that it has created so it cannot be a material being, and it cannot be bound by time or space. This is a pretty good starting point for a definition of God. Immaterial, timeless and space-less. But are there any clues that such a being exists? Well again it depends on your world view.
Which should be irrelevant if you are doing science
If the model I produce can only output "God" if my world view is aligned to this answer, and your model doesn't output "God" unless you too are aligned to this world view, you aren't doing science.
Imagine a theory of the atom which only worked if you were a Buddist. Utter nonsense.
So I'm assuming you have a testable model that doesn't rely on the world view of the scientist actually running the tests. Correct?
Can you present it here please?Soul Winner wrote: »Well science has shown that the universe had a beginning so at some point it didn't exist i.e. there was nothing, no matter, no space and no time. So how do you get from a nothing state to an everything state without any supernatural (i.e. outside of what we regard as normal nature) agency involved? From nothing, nothing comes, therefore there must be a supernatural explanation for why there is anything at all. I think that is a very logical position to take.
Ok. Form a testable model. I assume you have already done this, correct?
Can you present it here please?Soul Winner wrote: »Then if you go from that then we can infer that the creation of life must have been purposed by this being also unless he did just wind up the clock and let things run their course naturally.
And I'm assuming you have a test that can help determine which of those two notions is more accurate, correct?
Can you present it here please.Soul Winner wrote: »Anyway that's what would make me happy and I know its not going to happen but I was just answering your rant.
Er, you will notice you haven't actually done what I asked you for.
Can you present the tests and models used to determine that an intelligence adjusted the evolution of life.0 -
Soul Winner, we have been through this before. Scientific investigation is the application of empiricism and methodological naturalism to observed phenomena, in order to uncover the underlying structures and patters of these phenomena. Scientists have postulated a modern synthesis of Darwinian evolution, tested it against the evidence, and found it to be a hugely successful theory. This is independent of any particular world-view, which is why both theists and atheists, from Francis Collins to Richard Dawkins, can accept the science. So there are not two "camps". There is the scientific community, a community with a diverse set of world-views, who have employed the scientific method of investigation to understand the diversity and natural history of life.
Philosophers can postulate intelligent design as an explanation, but if you cannot test the postulate, it is not a scientific postulate.0 -
Philosophers can postulate intelligent design as an explanation, but if you cannot test the postulate, it is not a scientific postulate.
Soul Winner has had this explained many many times before. He apparently doesn't except it as being the case.
So I will more than happily carry out any scientific study or test Soul Winner comes up with that allows for the scientific modeling of said intelligent designer.
He just has to figure out how to do this. Or stop complaining that scientists don't do this.0 -
Well science has shown that the universe had a beginning so at some point it didn't exist i.e. there was nothing, no matter, no space and no time. So how do you get from a nothing state to an everything state without any supernatural (i.e. outside of what we regard as normal nature) agency involved? From nothing, nothing comes, therefore there must be a supernatural explanation for why there is anything at all. I think that is a very logical position to take.
No no no no no. Quantum mechanics tells us that "nothing", in the philosophical nihilo sense, never occurs. Under quantum mechanics, even "nothing" has an underlying structure described by a Hilbert space. In the same manner that particles can be created and destroyed in a vacuum under quantum field theory, universes can be created from an atemporal super-space of quantum gravity. I.e. Not just particles and mechanics embedded in a spacetime, but spacetime geometries themselves, can evolve from nothing.0 -
What could one possibly predict with a 'theory' of intelligent design? I'm convinced it has no predictive properties. I mean, even if I did postulate at the start of some theory that the universe is designed... what is it designed for? Being full of rocks, sand and black holes?
It's wrong even calling ID/Creationism a theory... it barely qualifies as a hypothesis. It's not science, never was and (probably) never will be.0 -
Soul Winner has had this explained many many times before. He apparently doesn't except it as being the case.
So I will more than happily carry out any scientific study or test Soul Winner comes up with that allows for the scientific modeling of said intelligent designer.
He just has to figure out how to do this. Or stop complaining that scientists don't do this.
Also, if there is a creator God then He obviously confined Himself to the laws of Physics. I mean, we don't look at DNA and conclude that forces other than those known by science are are at work.
This would indicate that the existence of God and the ability of humans to understand the 'work of God' are not incompatible.0 -
Robert ninja wrote: »What could one possibly predict with a 'theory' of intelligent design?
The end of Creationism?0 -
Define "shows". Given that you can't fit billions of scientific papers and research into one book you can't compile all the evidence into one book.
You can provide any number of summaries of what this research says, but you seem to be rejecting anything that is a summary of a position.
If that is the case then sorry you have to do it the hard way. If you don't trust anyone to sum up an area of biological research then you need to take the time to study the research itself and understand it.
So which is it?
They tend to do that with scientific theories that are consistently shown to be accurate.
What the 1,614 pages of examples wasn't good enough. :rolleyes:
Try here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
I await your inevitable "I still don't get it" response
The fossil record can and does show it, stop being silly.
The "mechanism" of natural selection acting on random mutations is observed in thousands of labs every day.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=evolution-details-revealed-through-2009-10-18
It was. You ignored it. It makes this excersise some what pointless.
How about 76. Pick one and read it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
"We" do need this. Luckly "we" have this.
Why would we be expected to in order to say what I said?
The vast majority of your posts suggest otherwise.
You don't understand evolution.
Natural selection is not a "constraint", it is the process, the only one in nature, that can actually do this. If we didn't see natural selection at work we couldn't say animals evolve.
Natural selection is neither immeasurable nor is it unobservable. It has been measured and observed for the last 100 years.
Given that all of this has been explained, with references, to you already Soul Winner it really makes me wonder about how genuine you are actually being here.
We don't have to guess.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate
Once again, the fossil record ftw :rolleyes:
Because mutation rates in DNA are not unobservable nor are they untestable.
Eh, none of your links conclusively shows how natural selection acting on random mutations can produce a human being. Doesn't that bother ye? I've just read all your links and failed to find anything in them that clearly shows how natural selection acting on random mutations can produce a human being. Please narrow it down for me and show me where exactly any of the books in the millions of libraries around the world can show this. Wick? Mobert? Himnextdoor? Robert Ninja? I am waiting... Thanks...0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »Eh, none of your links conclusively shows how natural selection acting on random mutations can produce a human being. Doesn't that bother ye? I've just read all your links and failed to find anything in them that clearly shows how natural selection acting on random mutations can produce a human being. Please narrow it down for me and show me where exactly any of the books in the millions of libraries around the world can show this. Wick? Mobert? Himnextdoor? Robert Ninja? I am waiting... Thanks...
Firstly, the last time I tried to "narrow it down" and discuss a specific topic on a rigorous, formal level (abiogenesis), you pulled out of the conversation.
Secondly, your reply is a non-answer. It means nothing to say you've "failed to find anything that clearly shows how natural selection acting on random mutations can produce a human being". You could fail to find anything that clearly shows the sky is blue and we couldn't argue with you. All we can do is present the lines of evidence. For any meaningful exchange, you would have to tell us what you take issue with regarding the evidence. Do you want us to provide technical papers? Do you want us to explain a particular line of evidence?0 -
Advertisement
-
Firstly, the last time I tried to "narrow it down" and discuss a specific topic on a rigorous, formal level (abiogenesis), you pulled out of the conversation.
Secondly, your reply is a non-answer. It means nothing to say you've "failed to find anything that clearly shows how natural selection acting on random mutations can produce a human being". You could fail to find anything that clearly shows the sky is blue and we couldn't argue with you. All we can do is present the lines of evidence. For any meaningful exchange, you would have to tell us what you take issue with regarding the evidence. Do you want us to provide technical papers? Do you want us to explain a particular line of evidence?
Why not just stop using garbage language to make your point and give us something that gives everybody a solid foundation for affirming that natural selection acting on random mutations can produce a human being? You can't do it, just admit it. :rolleyes:0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement