The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

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 don't know what you understand by "conclusively shows", so no it doesn't particularly bother me. You seem solely motivated by religious theology in this regard, and I can't help but find it rather amusing that you, like Wolfsbane before you, demand standards of evidence far far far in excess of what you yourself use to justify your own religious faith. It is difficult to not conclude that what ever we showed you you could simply say it isn't "conclusive" enough for you.

But anyway, assuming that you are genuinely interested in the evidence for evolution and not just attempting to stall from facing up to it, can you, for comparison so we can gauge your standards here as to what you consider to be a conclusive article, point out an article book or paper that does "conclusively" show something in science you do accept, such as electricity.

With out such a frame of reference you could, as Morbet points out, claim you have not found "conclusive" evidence the sky is blue if it was in your interests to claim that it wasn't, and any thing we showed you in support of it could be dismissed as not conclusive enough.

So can you give examples of things you consider are conclusive enough for you.

darjeeling

Soul Winner wrote: »

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:

I think your question is the wrong one to ask. We're not going to find one piece of evidence which, in isolation, proves that humans can evolve from unicellular ancestors through mutation and selection.

We started with a working hypothesis that all of life has a common ancestor, and that life evolves largely through natural selection acting on random mutations. To test our hypothesis, we've had to ask what effects it would have on the distribution in space of living creatures and in space and time of fossils, on the inherited genetic information present in all living things, on observed changes in populations under selection and so on. This has given us a huge range of possible testable predictions, dealing on very different timescales from individual lifetimes to billions of years, and covering very diverse fields of biology. Scientists have been testing these predictions for decades, and their findings have been seen to fit our present theory of evolution. So the evidence is a synthesis of a vast number of individual findings - not, say, five minimal facts.

Poeple who want to put 'intellilgent design' (ID) up against evolution have to show that it's a scientific hypothesis. Your advocacy of intelligent design has gone no further than saying that the genetic code of life is very complicated, and that you can't accept it could have arisen naturally. This is just another incarnation of Paley's watchmaker notion, and easily dismissed as argument from personal incredulity. For credibility, what's needed is an approach of:

• If ID is true, then we expect to observe phenomenon X. Do we observe X? If so, don't reject ID. If not, modify ID if possible or else reject it outright.

• Repeat thousands of times, never coming up with evidence to reject ID, and then you would have a scientific theory of ID worth talking about.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't know what you understand by "conclusively shows", so no it doesn't particularly bother me. You seem solely motivated by religious theology in this regard, and I can't help but find it rather amusing that you, like Wolfsbane before you, demand standards of evidence far far far in excess of what you yourself use to justify your own religious faith. It is difficult to not conclude that what ever we showed you you could simply say it isn't "conclusive" enough for you.

But anyway, assuming that you are genuinely interested in the evidence for evolution and not just attempting to stall from facing up to it, can you, for comparison so we can gauge your standards here as to what you consider to be a conclusive article, point out an article book or paper that does "conclusively" show something in science you do accept, such as electricity.

With out such a frame of reference you could, as Morbet points out, claim you have not found "conclusive" evidence the sky is blue if it was in your interests to claim that it wasn't, and any thing we showed you in support of it could be dismissed as not conclusive enough.

So can you give examples of things you consider are conclusive enough for you.

WOW!!! You didn't mention the word 'Creationists' once there?? Hhhmmm

Look Wicknight. I'm not against any scientific theory because it goes against a particular religious belief I have. I didn't come to my belief through science so I don't see how science will ever be able to dislodge it anyway. All science can say is that it cannot measure that which is not made up of the stuff of nature. And no Christian I know ever claimed that God is made up of the stuff that nature is made up of and hence can be measured or detected by the scientific method. So that's a non sequitur.

BUT...

When atheist scientists start telling us that they have done away with God through science then what else do you want me to do but poke holes in their stupid and ridiculous theories? You and all the others in here have shown that you cannot demonstrate how natural selection acting on random mutations can produce a human being yet the likes of Professor Richard Dawkins expects everyone to accept it as a fact? Its not a fact, its an illusion of the highest proportions.

Now to the theories that I think have validity.

Gravity - can be measured directly and observed and repeatedly tested.

Adaptation: I agree that morphological changes in species over time can be logically explained by changes in their environments where those changes are not detrimental to the species but force (for want of a better word) the species to adapt to these changes. That is a logical explanation and does not have to (or need to) appeal to natural selection action on random mutations. Random mutations are just that, random, they are not dependent on unforeseen external forces that cause dramatic changes on the planet forcing species to adapt to those changes. You could call it natural selection but not natural selection acting on random mutations. Random mutations are things that happed at the DNA level that don't necessarily have and outside force causing it.

The Big Bang Theory: We can observe the universe expanding right now. The cause of that expansion can be logically explained by some sort of force. The rate of expansion can be calculated and if we were to rewind (like a movie) what we actually observe happening then everything in the universe will eventually go back to a state of non existence or singularity. Something happened to kick this off. That cause is debatable and that's fine but theory itself is sound as far as I can say.

Is that enough?

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

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:

You are bordering on childishness. You asked for evidence for Darwinian evolution, Wicknight provided a link with lines of evidence. Those lines were:

1) Genetic evidence, revealing not only a near-identical similarity in genetic code across life, but a structure to the code reflecting a hierarchy of life with a common ancestor at the base.

2) Comparative anatomy, exploring structure and morphology of animals. While this line in isolation does not support a common ancestor explicitly, it serves to support the tree of life structure revealed by genetic, fossil, and geographical distribution evidence.

3)Paleontology, revealing the change in life over time. This is a line of evidence vigorously attacked by creationists. But "transition" fossils are well documented, and even though there is not a smooth, continuous, list of every single generation change, there are more than enough to reveal a tree of life. A tree that matches the one reflected by genetic data. This is one massive coincidence if evolution is false.

4) Geographical distribution, a very powerful line of evidence, reveals a tree of life that corresponds to both the genetic and fossil tree of life.

5,6,7,8) Observed natural selection, observed natural selection, observed speciation, artificial selection, and computational simulation all explore the "nitty gritty" behind the mechanism, and refute your assertion that natural selection acting on random mutations cannot produce functional advantages.

Why do you take evidence with these lines of evidence? What is inconclusive about them? What is "garbage language"? Do you want to look at a particular line in detail?

When atheist scientists start telling us that they have done away with God through science then what else do you want me to do but poke holes in their stupid and ridiculous theories?

What holes?

Also, we have already pointed out that both Christians and atheists accept evolution. It is not about doing away with God. It is about accepting the natural history of life.

Genghiz Cohen

Soul Winner wrote: »

Gravity - can be measured directly and observed and repeatedly tested.

But for me to believe gravity you have to conclusively demonstrate that it is gravity that causes Saturn's rings to remain in orbit.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Gravity - can be measured directly and observed and repeatedly tested.

Can you point out one article or paper that conclusively shows a scientific theory of gravity (of which there are currently about 10) is correct.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Adaptation: I agree that morphological changes in species over time can be logically explained by changes in their environments where those changes are not detrimental to the species but force (for want of a better word) the species to adapt to these changes.

Can you point out one article or paper that conclusively shows this non-Darwinian system of adaption is correct?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Random mutations are just that, random, they are not dependent on unforeseen external forces that cause dramatic changes on the planet forcing species to adapt to those changes.

So you believe in adaption but not caused by natural selection of random mutations (ie Darwinian evolution). Ok.

So we have a frame of reference to try and explain to your standard Darwinian evolution, can you point out a paper or article that "conclusively shows" the correctness of what ever non-Darwinian version of adaptation you subscribe to?

Soul Winner wrote: »

The Big Bang Theory: We can observe the universe expanding right now. The cause of that expansion can be logically explained by some sort of force. The rate of expansion can be calculated and if we were to rewind (like a movie) what we actually observe happening then everything in the universe will eventually go back to a state of non existence or singularity. Something happened to kick this off. That cause is debatable and that's fine but theory itself is sound as far as I can say.

Can you point to a single paper that conclusively shows that the the Big Bang theories (of which there are many, including the expanding universe, inflation, zero point energy etc etc) are correct?

(on a side note, interesting you say "rewind"? I thought we couldn't assume anything about the past based on observed processes in the present? Or just when it comes to evolution?)

Soul Winner wrote: »

Is that enough?

You haven't provide any yet

You are rejecting 150 years of combined evidence and demanding a single paper or reference that "conclusively shows" that neo-Darwinian evolution is an accurate scientific theory.

In order so we can figure out what the heck your standards for what is or isn't something that conclusively shows anything I ask for you to give examples of the other single papers or articles that conclusively showed the correctness of these other areas of science.

Zombrex

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

But for me to believe gravity you have to conclusively demonstrate that it is gravity that causes Saturn's rings to remain in orbit.

I'm just excited to see the paper that conclusively shows the correctness of a theory explaining quantum gravity. My guess is M-theory. The person who summed up M-theory in one paper is a man I would like to meet :pac:

wolfsbane

himnextdoor wrote: »

I don't think it is.

Whilst it may be the case that 'Research Funding' and 'Government Grants' are stong motivating factors in what science is researched and developed, scientific discoveries are still made. It may happen from time to time that an undergraduate may have to wait years for his discovery to be announced that proves that a current 'project' is doomed but truth will out in the end. Just as religious organisations have a history of political intrigue, so too does science.

Have you noticed on these fora that when someone who is perceived to be an atheist involves themselves with a discussion with Christians, the Christians unite against a common enemy; even when their opinions vary greatly, Christians don't challenge each other?

Have you noticed that?

Whereas, on the other hand you will find that atheists often argue with each other too. In fact, for a while, I thought Wicknight and Morbert were Christians themselves. And they may have thought me one too.

That's the difference; the church is happy to live without a consensus and science is not. Scientists will argue with each other and that results in the furtherance of knowledge. Eventually.

Evolution is science. It is a study of evidence. And you can bet your bottom dollar that as soon as observation fails to back up the theory, the theory will be modified or rejected. Would that hurt some scientists? Perhaps. Would it hurt science? No!

So, would it hurt religious leaders if their version of history is wrong? Yes. Would it hurt religion to change its doctrine in order to reflect the current best understanding? Absolutely. Religion would be redundant.

Intelligent Design - religion's last best hope, but is it science?

Well, what is their claim; DNA is too complex to be understood and this proves the truthfulness of the Bible.

No, it's not science.

You cannot look to religion for science but perhaps you can look to science for religion.

Finally, I just wonder: Why did an Intelligent Designer not utilise the 'wheel' or 'cog' or the internal combustion engine? Why don't we have titanium skeletons, for example, and wouldn't it be handy if we could bounce when we fall off a ladder?

Why would an intelligent creator create an unstable planet and them populate it with such fragile forms of life?

Generally scientific theories can be modified or abandoned without hysteria - except from the 'discoverer' of the theory, who often resorts to desperate attempts to defend his position (from several examples I have read). But when it comes to evolution, so much ideological/spiritual baggage is involved that normal responses not manifested. If evolution falls, some form of creationism is the likely replacement - and that is an assault on the egos of every atheist.

You ask, Why did God not make us indestructible? Because we didn't need to be, given we were not exposed to sickness or death when originally created.

Why did God not use the wheel or internal combustion engine? We didn't need them for the happy labour He designed us for. Tending the garden was not a struggle with weeds and disease, rocks and drought we have today.

But He did make astounding engines, eg:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470015902.a0000744.pub3/abstract

******************************************************************************
Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.
23 And Adam said:
“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Wolfsbane is more impressed by the testimony of scientists to their persecution by the establishment, than by the excuses offered for their (undeniable) punishment.
Why? You think just because a scientist is ignored (or "persecuted" as you put it) by the scientific community it means he is on to something?

No. Just that he is the victim, not the perpetrator. All the 'justification' for persecuting him is deplorable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
He has read justification of this treatment that sounds positively Stalinist, right here on this thread.
You have? Can you link to this "Stalinist" persecution of scientists? Does it involve banning, censorship and forced labour prison camps?

Or is it more the "That is unscientific nonsense, we aren't publishing it" type of Stalinism. Stalin was a stickler for scientific standards, apparently

No, it is the agreement with those who fire and harass that constitutes my claim of Stalinism. Agreeing to the tactics of persecution is participating in it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Such is the power of the evolutionary delusion. People just get mad, go crazy at any challenge to this modern 'faith'.
Yeah they start websites claiming massive conspiracies, claim wide spread persecution, and campaign for millions of dollars in "support for the truth" from their followers ... oh wait

They have the power, we are the insurrectionists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If it were just science, a more relaxed approach could be expected.
You would think so, wouldn't you, almost as if eternal souls are at stake

Yes, only a matter of spiritual antagonism would generate such a response.

***********************************************************************
2 Corinthians 4:3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

Morbert

Wolfsbane, you once posted a couple of scientific 'papers' on creationism. As a scientist, I said they were an absolute disgrace (and I explained why they were a disgrace). Creation "scientist" aren't being persecuted. They're just not doing science.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

No. Just that he is the victim, not the perpetrator. All the 'justification' for persecuting him is deplorable.

Can you give an example of a scientist who has been "persecuted" in a Stalinish manner?

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, it is the agreement with those who fire and harass that constitutes my claim of Stalinism.

So the bad thing about Stalin was that he fired people? You sure that is it, that firing people means you are acting like Stalin. Must tell that to my boss who had to fire someone last month

Can you give an example of a scientist who has been harassed in a Stalinish manner?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, only a matter of spiritual antagonism would generate such a response.

Yes you do get a lot of scientists claiming belief in evolution is necessary to save one's immortal soul ... oh wait

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

If evolution falls, some form of creationism is the likely replacement - and that is an assault on the egos of every atheist.

Well at least you are admitting that is what you believe.

Many Creationists try and hide this belief lest they invoke ridicule, since of course disproving evolution means nothing for the support of Creationism, any more than disproving Darwinian evolution means Lamarkian evolution is correct. Those Creationists who realize this try and avoid "Creationism wins by default" style appeals since they are so silly and simply show the person making the claim to not understand science at all.

himnextdoor

wolfsbane wrote: »

Generally scientific theories can be modified or abandoned without hysteria - except from the 'discoverer' of the theory, who often resorts to desperate attempts to defend his position (from several examples I have read). But when it comes to evolution, so much ideological/spiritual baggage is involved that normal responses not manifested. If evolution falls, some form of creationism is the likely replacement - and that is an assault on the egos of every atheist.

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...

Have you ever heard of 'Phospholipid Molecules' and would you accept that such molecules could occur naturally through simple chemical processes?

Have a little look at them and let me know if you think that these molecules are simple enough to be well understood by science and that like water molecules, their existence can be explained without recourse to God.

At the very least would you agree that simply by creating the elements available to chemistry, God had done all that was necessary to allow the formation of phospholipids in the same way that He allowed the formation of water-molecules?

Also, are you aware that in all known species of animal, the first structure to develop is the alimentary canal; mouth at one end and the anus at the other. All the other structures develop in relation to the digestive system?

Evolution is actually the story of the increasing sophistication of food-processing plants.

Soul Winner

Morbert wrote: »

You are bordering on childishness. You asked for evidence for Darwinian evolution, Wicknight provided a link with lines of evidence. Those lines were:

1) Genetic evidence, revealing not only a near-identical similarity in genetic code across life, but a structure to the code reflecting a hierarchy of life with a common ancestor at the base.

And that proves/shows/is evidence for natural selection acting on random mutations to produce a human being how???

Morbert wrote: »

2) Comparative anatomy, exploring structure and morphology of animals. While this line in isolation does not support a common ancestor explicitly, it serves to support the tree of life structure revealed by genetic, fossil, and geographical distribution evidence.

OK now you're back tracking the common decent quote above. So if this doesn't even support common decent then how do you think that it shows natural selection acting on random mutations to produce a human being? Plus the cambrian explosion simply blows the tree of life idea completely out of the water. Trees start off as seeds and seeds grows in various stages to become well 'trees'. They don't go from seed to tree in one jump.

Morbert wrote: »

3)Paleontology, revealing the change in life over time. This is a line of evidence vigorously attacked by creationists. But "transition" fossils are well documented, and even though there is not a smooth, continuous, list of every single generation change, there are more than enough to reveal a tree of life. A tree that matches the one reflected by genetic data. This is one massive coincidence if evolution is false.

Again the tree of life argument has been totally refuted by the Cambrian explosion, you can't escape that.

Morbert wrote: »

4) Geographical distribution, a very powerful line of evidence, reveals a tree of life that corresponds to both the genetic and fossil tree of life.

Snorsville at this stage... Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

Morbert wrote: »

5,6,7,8) Observed natural selection, observed natural selection, observed speciation, artificial selection, and computational simulation all explore the "nitty gritty" behind the mechanism, and refute your assertion that natural selection acting on random mutations cannot produce functional advantages.

In very rare cases maybe but its not like its like one of the laws pf physics or one of the constants of nature. Natural Selection acting on random mutations doesn't know that its going to produce a human being. If and when it does work in nature is anyone's guess. You cannot measure when it might work or when it does work never mind when it did work which is what all of Darwinism is based upon.

Morbert wrote: »

Why do you take evidence with these lines of evidence? What is inconclusive about them? What is "garbage language"? Do you want to look at a particular line in detail?

You look at the so called tree of life and see natural selection because that's what you've been conditioned to see. And all your attempts to make me see what you want me to see does not fly with me. I'm not seeing it, sorry. And because I'm not seeing what you see, you attack me, and accuse me of being stupid, insane or wicked (well not you specifically but others).

Morbert wrote: »

What holes?

The holes that I already pointed out. i.e. it has never been demonstrated that natural selection acting on random mutations has or can produce a human being. It is an article of faith, just like any other religion. You jump over the holes in faith that it will someday be born out in future time. That's faith my friend like it or lump it.

Morbert wrote: »

Also, we have already pointed out that both Christians and atheists accept evolution. It is not about doing away with God. It is about accepting the natural history of life.

Ask Professor Richard Dawkins, is it about doing away with God or not and see what he tells you.

Listen to what he says @ 5:04 to 5:07

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMqTEfeqvmM

"I think there is something more absolute about truth than that , and I care about truth."

Something more absolute about truth? What is truth? How do we define truth?

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Snorsville at this stage... Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

Yup, that comment pretty much sums up how utterly non genuine you are when it comes to this discussion :rolleyes:

Sorry I wasted so much time on you Soul Winner. Enjoy blissful ignorance.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Yup, that comment pretty much sums up how utterly non genuine you are when it comes to this discussion :rolleyes:

Sorry I wasted so much time on you Soul Winner. Enjoy blissful ignorance.

Not genuine about the discussion? Or not genuine about buying all your BS about natural section acting on random mutations to produce a human being who just so happens to be able to understand where he sprang from by postulating theories that are unverifiable?

Soul Winner

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

But for me to believe gravity you have to conclusively demonstrate that it is gravity that causes Saturn's rings to remain in orbit.

For me the theory of gravity explains that quite well. We can see it actually happening in front of our eyes. But when the rings of Saturn start dancing around unpredictably then we have a problem...

Soul Winner

himnextdoor wrote: »

Also, are you aware that in all known species of animal, the first structure to develop is the alimentary canal; mouth at one end and the anus at the other. All the other structures develop in relation to the digestive system?

Evolution is actually the story of the increasing sophistication of food-processing plants.

Really? I didn't know that. I was under the impression that the first self replicating organisms came about by accident. So which came first, the mouth or the anus?

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Not genuine about the discussion?

Not genuine about the discussion. You ASKED for evidence and when presented with it in good faith you respond with this sort of nonsense.

You have zero interest in actually studying what Morbet is saying to you, zero interest in actually understanding Darwinian evolution.

Everytime you are presented, again in good faith, with the evidence you ask for you throw up more conditions and barriers that we are all supposed to jump through because you don't find it "conclusive" enough, despite show barely a Junior Cert level of understanding of this subject and continously repeating falsehoods about what evolution says that have been corrected every time previously.

You refuse to define what that actually means, what your standards are, what would be conclusive for you because it is pretty clear you just using this excuse as an opt out clause, when ever I or Morbet or any other poster presents you with evidence you can't find a quick dismissal from a Creationist website you throw up another ridiculous demand or say something stupid like stop using fancy language, or you want it all in a single article. :rolleyes:

So no Soul Winner, you are not being genuine and I'm sorry I wasted so much time on you.

himnextdoor

Soul Winner wrote: »

Really? I didn't know that. I was under the impression that the first self replicating organisms came about by accident. So which came first, the mouth or the anus?

Neither, it's just a tube. It's not until a hormone 'washes' over the tube, top to bottom, that the mouth and anus are defined.

Did you look at 'phospholipids'? They're interesting.

I'm trying to get you involved in a discussion about cytoplasmic structures and how they can form tubes through chemistry that pre-dates the existence of DNA.

Maybe then we could understand life as an emergent property of matter.

In the same way that flagellum are an emergent property of bacteria and the internet is an emergent property of electronics.

Robert ninja

Soul Winner, users here have explained in detail how evolution works, clarified and re-stated many things about it - provided sources for a lot information related to it AND ways for you to independatly find information about it too. We have the fossil record + the mechnaisms of evolution within our understanding... and yet you don't 'see' how this can conclusively show that evolution takes place, did take place and is the reason why we and other creatures are the way we are.

Well sorry dude, but if you can't see that then you are being willfully ignorant in order to preserve your current beliefs of how living organisms are the way they are... magic.

Sometimes from the way you ask for more 'conclusive' evidence I think you're expecting some sort of magic ball to show you images throughout time following the story of first organic life to present day humans or something.

PDN

Soul Winner wrote: »

Really? I didn't know that. I was under the impression that the first self replicating organisms came about by accident. So which came first, the mouth or the anus?

How do I just know that any discussion of assholes in this thread is going to end badly?

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Not genuine about the discussion. You ASKED for evidence and when presented with it in good faith you respond with this sort of nonsense.

You have zero interest in actually studying what Morbet is saying to you, zero interest in actually understanding Darwinian evolution.

Everytime you are presented, again in good faith, with the evidence you ask for you throw up more conditions and barriers that we are all supposed to jump through because you don't find it "conclusive" enough, despite show barely a Junior Cert level of understanding of this subject and continously repeating falsehoods about what evolution says that have been corrected every time previously.

You refuse to define what that actually means, what your standards are, what would be conclusive for you because it is pretty clear you just using this excuse as an opt out clause, when ever I or Morbet or any other poster presents you with evidence you can't find a quick dismissal from a Creationist website you throw up another ridiculous demand or say something stupid like stop using fancy language, or you want it all in a single article. :rolleyes:

So no Soul Winner, you are not being genuine and I'm sorry I wasted so much time on you.

I've told you time and again that there are some theories that make sense intuitively, that can be agreed with in the mind because they makes sense logically and in some cases because you can actually observe the effect that the theory predicts. In the case of natural selection acting on random mutations to produce a human being, there are holes. Now I have no problem with theories having holes but still being used as a working hypothesis until those holes eventually get filled with further discovery and observation, but saying it has no holes and calling me willfully ignorant is a bit rich.

And calling people ignorant, stupid, insane or even wicked for not accepting evolution in Darwinian terms as a undeniable fact is not presenting evidence in good faith, sorry. I'm not saying that you are guilty of this but you're not far off, and neither are Mobert and the others. There is just this cocky arrogant attitude of we have the answers and if you don't accept it then there is something wrong with you.

You never listen to the counter arguments to the theory. Arguments which to me make more sense than natural section ACTING ON RANDOM MUTATIONS. Are there holes in these theories? Yes but the proponents are not calling people names for not accepting them (well maybe some creationists do). They're just trying to show the holes in Darwinian theory and for that they have incurred the wrath of the scientific community.

So basically why I post in here is to try to show that Darwinian evolutionist have not got the stable ground that they think they have. So if creationists and ID proponents deserve ridicule for their theories then likewise Darwinian evolutionists. You don't think so and I disagree.

And I'm sorry for wanting an abridged version of the theory of natural selection acting on random mutations to produce a human being. But I know why you can't give one, because one does not exist. You need me to take certain things for granted and to make certain assumptions and then read the literature that is out there on the subject using those rose tinted lenses and then I will accept the theory. Of course I will, but why should I have to?

One of the things that I must take for granted is thus. The earth is 3.5 billion years old. Now I have no problem with this idea (and no I do not think that the earth is only 6000 years old) but in order to accept that the earth is 3.5 billion years old I need to accept that the rate of decay in radiometric dating methods which assumes that the rate of decay has always been the rate that it is today. Now maybe it was but we don't know that. It could have been slower or faster but the point is we cannot know. To get that age of the earth it is assumed that the rate was always at the rate it is today. That's is an assumption that is made. But don't get me wrong, that method is fine with me but a little humility (from some of the arsholes) on the subject would be nice.

Natural Selection acting on random mutations to produce a human being is so improbable that Darwinists are forced to appeal to an age of the age that can cater for it and that is why Lyell's theory of uniformitarianism is just accepted as a fact as well, that everything has proceeded at the same rate throughout history. That strata has laid down at the same rate, that there was never any major upheavals in the earth's crust to account for mass extinctions and the like. But there is very strong evidence that can be looked at today which suggests upheavals have taken place in the earth's history which should put pay to Lyell's theory. But it doesn't. Like Darwinian evolutionary theory it has a magical way of finding a way around such anomalies and learn to adapt. If that was done in any other scientific discipline like physics then that science would break down. The reason it can happen in geology and biology is because there is plenty of leeway for it. Loads of stuff we just don't know yet which is why I wish those who think that have all the answers (or will have some day) that supports their particular hypothesis would stop and take stock of the actual facts on the matter and STFU or just be a little more humble on the subject and listen to other ideas for a change.

Soul Winner

himnextdoor wrote: »

Neither, it's just a tube. It's not until a hormone 'washes' over the tube, top to bottom, that the mouth and anus are defined.

Did you look at 'phospholipids'? They're interesting.

I'm trying to get you involved in a discussion about cytoplasmic structures and how they can form tubes through chemistry that pre-dates the existence of DNA.

Maybe then we could understand life as an emergent property of matter.

In the same way that flagellum are an emergent property of bacteria and the internet is an emergent property of electronics.

The internet is not just an emergent property of electrons though is it? It is much much much more than that. Intelligent agents are involved right from the get got. Before computers were invented their existence was postulated by Alan Turing's idea of the theoretical device called the 'Turing Machine' which manipulates symbols on a strip of tape according to a table of rules. Rules which themselves are set up by intelligent agents and some of which are the pure truths of mathematics. The hardware which goes into making a computer is designed and created by intelligent agents. The operating systems and software applications which are used in computers were also designed and created by intelligent agents. The reasons that these machines were invented by intelligent agents was to perform work that serves these intelligent agents and nowadays to provide much much more, i.e business applications, telecommunications, entertainment and so on, all for the benefit of intelligent agents. Networking computers together was also designed and created by intelligent agents and the idea was so good that it has grown to the degree we see today enabling intelligent agents to have discussions like this on Boards.ie. In order for a computer to be part of this network it must be programed and configure with certain protocols which have specific settings, which again were all designed and created by intelligent agents, get just one tiny digit wrong, (an IP address for example) and it won't work. IP addressing is central to everything on the internet and that very complicated process was also designed and created and implemented by intelligent agents.

So no, the internet is not just an emergent property of electrons.

You see, this is one of the the dangers that blindly accepting as fact stupid theories like natural selection acting on random mutations can produce. It has the effect of producing in otherwise normal and intelligent people an ability to loose all sense of rational thought and makes them forsake their natural intuitions and come out with nonsensical statements like the above. You can use it to explain anything including things we actually know were the specific and actual creation of intelligent agents. My word... :rolleyes:

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

There is just this cocky arrogant attitude of we have the answers and if you don't accept it then there is something wrong with you.

You asked for evidence supporting evolution, you were given it for you to turn around and ignore it.

You asked for observations of natural selection producing new genetic information, you were given it and you ignored it.

You asked for evidence of this process working in the past to produce new species, you were given it and you ignored it.

When you continued to ignore any evidence presented to you in good faith we asked you to define what you were expecting and give examples of scientific theories you do find "conclusive" and you ignored this request instead giving a silly answer that named gravity which is an observed phenomena not a scientific theory.

When you claimed that scientists were ignoring intelligent design you were asked to explain how scientists are supposed to test for this, and you ignored that question as well.

You ignore any answer to your questions and ignore any requests to clarify what the heck would convince you of a scientific theory. You clearly don't understand the first thing about the scientific method or what constitutes a supported scientific theory. You talk a lot about intitution and things "making sense" and nothing about testability, falsifiability and other scientific requirements.

You then have the gaul to turn around and say that we are the ones who are being stubborn and not listening when we have gone out of our way to answer every single question or query you have had about evolution, only to have you turn around and ignore these answers and continue to spout Creationist nonsense.

Again I'm sorry I wasted so much freaking time on you when you have been shown to be nothing more than a dishonest Creationist.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

You asked for evidence supporting evolution, you were given it for you to turn around and ignore it.

You asked for observations of natural selection producing new genetic information, you were given it and you ignored it.

You asked for evidence of this process working in the past to produce new species, you were given it and you ignored it.

I answered all these, you just don't like my answers.

Wicknight wrote: »

When you continued to ignore any evidence presented to you in good faith we asked you to define what you were expecting and give examples of scientific theories you do find "conclusive" and you ignored this request instead giving a silly answer that named gravity which is an observed phenomena not a scientific theory.

You never presented any evidence though? You pointed me to links that showed evidence for common ancestry not how natural selection acting on random mutations can produce a human being. I said already that I have no problem with the theory as long as you understand that it does not explain everything. You think it does and then cannot show me how. What do you want me to say??? You're the one making the claims here not me. I'm not quoting any creationist websites and I'm not postulating any theories. I don't have to support any other theory just because I don't accept that the evidence is as strong for NS acting on RM that you think it is.

Wicknight wrote: »

When you claimed that scientists were ignoring intelligent design you were asked to explain how scientists are supposed to test for this, and you ignored that question as well.

If you look at a rock can you determine if it was designed or not? Not really. I makes much more sense to go with the idea that it was produced by time, pressure, heat and cold. The matter that is in rocks can be change today by applying heat and cold and pressure so we can observe the effects here and now.

Life on the other hand is different. Its is complex for starters, even at the molecular level in the most basic of living systems. This complexity cannot be accounted for by simple time, pressure, heat and cold in the way rocks can. No, life requires a better explanation than that. For people who believe in God the answer is simple enough. God did it. For those who have difficulty with this simple thing a fuller explanation is required. For those who have pre-concluded that such a being as God doesn't exist then the explanation must be shoehorned into strictly materialistic terms. All suggestions of supernatural agency are to be left outside the science lab. So these people are now engaged in finding strictly materialistic causes to account for living systems and what they are finding in living systems are things which cannot be explained in strictly materialistic terms. So enter the people who do try to explain these anomalies operating outside the constraints of the confines of the materialist. These guys postulate an intelligence. Why? Because there are things that go on in all living things that to them 'scream' intelligent involvement. Things like the encoding of information in the DNA molecule. Information that holds the instructions for what the amino acids are supposed to do. They are instructed to fold themselves into certain types of proteins which themselves seem to have a predefined purpose before there are made. A purpose which is held inside the DNA code in the form of information.

Now the questions is, how can something which is not yet formed have a pre-defined purpose encoded as information in a molecule without an intelligence being involved?

The Darwinian view is that life has no purpose but yet tiny microscopic proteins have. They don't get purpose after they are formed. They are formed to perform a certain function. But for that function to be carried out the amino acids must be folded in a particular way to produce the right protein for the job in hand. The instructions for this folding is contained in the information encoded in DNA which must be first decoded by another very complex procedure and then executed with the effect of producing said protein. This is where materialism breaks down and at the same time we have hard evidence for Intelligent Design. Now my question to you is this, what tests would be sufficient for you to accept that there is evidence for deign here? If I find a rock I have hard evidence that I have a rock. I don't need to do any tests to confirm or deny that I have a rock. its right there in my hand. But if I throw the rock away and tell someone later that I had a rock then they would need to do some test to find out if I really did have a rock or not. They could look at my hand under an electron microscope to see if they can find traces of the rock and if they do then my claim that I had a rock is somewhat confirmed. If strictly materialistic terms cannot explain how the purpose for proteins got into the DNA in the form of information then what other options are there?

Wicknight wrote: »

You ignore any answer to your questions and ignore any requests to clarify what the heck would convince you of a scientific theory. You clearly don't understand the first thing about the scientific method or what constitutes a supported scientific theory. You talk a lot about intitution and things "making sense" and nothing about testability, falsifiability and other scientific requirements.

I think you're living on another planet Wicknight. Haven't you read anything I've posted?

Wicknight wrote: »

You then have the gaul to turn around and say that we are the ones who are being stubborn and not listening when we have gone out of our way to answer every single question or query you have had about evolution, only to have you turn around and ignore these answers and continue to spout Creationist nonsense.

You are only giving me answers that you yourself have accepted as adequate. I don't accept them as being adequate though. I'm sorry if that pisses you off.

Wicknight wrote: »

Again I'm sorry I wasted so much freaking time on you when you have been shown to be nothing more than a dishonest Creationist.

I suppose what other way to make yourself feel better about the BS that you've bought into than to end up calling me a dishonest creationist. Whatever works for you I suppose...

Genghiz Cohen

Soul Winner wrote: »

For me the theory of gravity explains that quite well. We can see it actually happening in front of our eyes. But when the rings of Saturn start dancing around unpredictably then we have a problem...

So you can't show it then?

Soul Winner

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

So you can't show it then?

What? Gravity? Of course not, nobody can. But its the best explanation for why things fall down and all the tests that have been done have confirmed that it is a universal constant in the universe, so unless you can show that the theory of gravity is somehow wrong then I have no problem with it. I'm not sure I'm getting what you're getting at though. Can you expand please?

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Now my question to you is this, what tests would be sufficient for you to accept that there is evidence for deign here?

A single scientific test.

Just one will do, but given that you don't seem to know what is or isn't a scientific test I won't hold my breath. Maybe the scientists should just pick it up and look at it really hard :rolleyes:

Prove me wrong Soul Winner, prove me wrong.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If strictly materialistic terms cannot explain how the purpose for proteins got into the DNA in the form of information then what other options are there?

Thank you for once again demonstrate you have absolutely no idea what the theory of Darwinian evolution actually says.

Proteins do not have a purpose Soul Winner, evolutionary biology does not teach that. They do what they do based on the laws of chemistry. There is no branch of evolutionary biology that supposes that proteins are formed for a purpose.

Such an idea is equiviliant to saying that a river forms for the purpose of making it to the sea.

Go on, say another stupid thing about evolutionary biology. I dare you. We can all have a good laugh and you can complain about how arrogant we all are :pac:

Soul Winner wrote: »

You are only giving me answers that you yourself have accepted as adequate. I don't accept them as being adequate though. I'm sorry if that pisses you off.

That doesn't piss me off. You asking for explanations and then ignoring them pisses me off. Me wasting a huge amount of time answering your questions about evolution to have you ignore the answers and continue to spout Creationist lies about what evolutionary biology claims, pisses me off. Case in point, the utterly ridiculous idea that evolution biology teaches that proteins have purpose.

Again you have zero interest in actually understanding evolution, or science for that matter.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Thank you for once again demonstrate you have absolutely no idea what the theory of Darwinian evolution actually says.

Proteins do not have a purpose Soul Winner, evolutionary biology does not teach that. They do what they do based on the laws of chemistry. There is no branch of evolutionary biology that supposes that proteins are formed for a purpose.

Such an idea is equiviliant to saying that a river forms for the purpose of making it to the sea.

Go on, say another stupid thing about evolutionary biology. I dare you. We can all have a good laugh and you can complain about how arrogant we all are :pac:

Laugh?

The word 'Purpose' as defined by Dictionary.com

1. the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc.


The word 'Function' from Dictionary.com

1. the kind of action or activity proper to a person, thing, or institution; the purpose for which something is designed or exists; role.

Now to proteins.


Protein function from About.com - Biology section

Proteins are very important molecules in our cells. They are involved in virtually all cell functions. Each protein within the body has a specific function. Some proteins are involved in structural support, while others are involved in bodily movement, or in defense against germs.

Proteins vary in structure as well as function. They are constructed from a set of 20 amino acids and have distinct three-dimensional shapes. Below is a list of several types of proteins and their functions.

Protein Functions

Antibodies - are specialized proteins involved in defending the body from antigens (foreign invaders). One way antibodies destroy antigens is by immobilizing them so that they can be destroyed by white blood cells.

Contractile Proteins - are responsible for movement. Examples include actin and myosin. These proteins are involved in muscle contraction and movement.

Enzymes - are proteins that facilitate biochemical reactions. They are often referred to as catalysts because they speed up chemical reactions. Examples include the enzymes lactase and pepsin. Lactase breaks down the sugar lactose found in milk. Pepsin is a digestive enzyme that works in the stomach to break down proteins in food.

Hormonal Proteins - are messenger proteins which help to coordinate certain bodily activities. Examples include insulin, oxytocin, and somatotropin. Insulin regulates glucose metabolism by controlling the blood-sugar concentration. Oxytocin stimulates contractions in females during childbirth. Somatotropin is a growth hormone that stimulates protein production in muscle cells.

Structural Proteins - are fibrous and stringy and provide support. Examples include keratin, collagen, and elastin. Keratins strengthen protective coverings such as hair, quills, feathers, horns, and beaks. Collagens and elastin provide support for connective tissues such as tendons and ligaments.

Storage Proteins - store amino acids. Examples include ovalbumin and casein. Ovalbumin is found in egg whites and casein is a milk-based protein.

Transport Proteins - are carrier proteins which move molecules from one place to another around the body. Examples include hemoglobin and cytochromes. Hemoglobin transports oxygen through the blood. Cytochromes operate in the electron transport chain as electron carrier proteins.

Summary

Proteins serve various functions in the body. The structure of a protein determines its function. For example, collagen has a super-coiled helical shape. It is long, stringy, strong, and resembles a rope. This structure is great for providing support. Hemoglobin on the other hand, is a globular protein that is folded and compact. Its spherical shape is useful for maneuvering through blood vessels."


Proteins are made up of amino acids which are folded into the three dimensional shapes specifically to carry out specific functions in the cell. These 3D shape configurations are coded for in the nucleotide bases of the DNA molecule. They are actually encoded. Which means that the information contained in DNA is there before the protein is formed. Which means that the purpose or function for which the protein will carry out is pre-programmed into DNA. And you want me to accept that natural selection acting on random mutations is responsible for this programming when everyone knows that natural selection does not have any goals or purpose to it. It is a blind process not knowing what the outcome will be. It acts on random mutations that take place and selects for some and not for others, with the beneficial being selected for the most because they keep the organism alive whereas detrimental mutations don't and as such are not selected for. So if natural selection acting on random mutations in the code of DNA is not responsible for the code in the first place then what is?

Oh yeah you answered that already - the laws of chemistry. If the laws of chemistry are responsible for the information in DNA, and explain how proteins are formed, and why they do what they do, and that these laws are universal, then why is life so improbable? Basically crediting life to the laws of chemistry your saying that it is simply inevitable that life will form by itself. That's like saying that the laws of chemistry will eventually write out the works of Shakespeare. No wait, that is what you're saying. And you laugh at me?