Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   scientific theories taught as factual
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 4305 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 16 of 295 (440670)
12-14-2007 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by jar
12-13-2007 9:56 PM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
Dear Jar,
If I am
irrelevant, a joke and of no worth or importance.
Then why have you replied to my message?
Creationism is only willful ignorance.
Now if that an’t the pot calling the kettle black;-}
Now, Jar, you apparently haven’t been looking hard enough to find a Creation Model. However, since you asked here is something for you to sink your teeth into. (Message 28. O’ and by the way; I posted this three years ago, on this site.) You can also go to Reasons.org to find a “Testable Creation Model” and here is a Time Line for you.
The real problem is not that we can’t or don’t present a logical model, the problem seams to be that you are only willing to look at our universe in a purely mechanical way. You assume that ”if it exists in this universe it must come from something (or someone) inside (and therefore bound by) this universe.’ Even quantum mechanics is telling you otherwise, and yet you refuse to listen. Why?
What really gets me is even Evolutionist will say stuff to the effect of “The impression of design is over whelming” and then proceed to try and make people believe its’ just a coincidence.
One more question about my being
irrelevant, a joke and of no worth or importance.
If, as atheist want us to believe, there is no God, no life after death, etc. Why is it so important to atheist to make sure no one believes in God? If there are no absolute moral standards; then why try to take mine away from me?
On the other hand, if there is actually a God, then what point is there in denying it? Do you actually believe that if you ignore your Creator He may just go away?
See, it is not that I am “irrelevant”, “of no worth”, or “of no importance”; It is that if I am right then there is a Creator, and He just might want to know why your sticking your head in the sand.
I am not trying to be rude here, however, the evidence for a Creator is so overwhelming that it makes it hard for me not to laugh when some one tries to say that there is no God.
The fact that there is a Creator is so well established that, even after a hundred years of atheist trying to convince the world that God does not exist more then eighty percent of the world’s population still believe in a god(s) of one form or another. Sure, people get strange ideas, and I have heard of some really wacky beliefs; But there is usually some modicum of truth (I.E. Fact) in there some where.
I challenge you to look over the information I have provided. For just a moment strip away your preconception of what Creationism is and what Evolution is and is not. Look at the facts and then try to start putting the peaces together. (Not in an Evolution frame work or a Creation frame work) Let the peaces lead you to your conclusions; instead of using your preconceived conclusions to frame the facts.
Remember: if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like a duck; it’s probably a walrus ;-}
Edited by jrtjr1, : Link correction ”Time Line’

For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him should not perish (come to destruction, be lost), but have eternal (everlasting) life.
For God did not sent the Son in to the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, But that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him.

John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by jar, posted 12-13-2007 9:56 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Larni, posted 12-14-2007 7:54 AM JRTjr has replied
 Message 19 by jar, posted 12-14-2007 9:41 AM JRTjr has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 17 of 295 (440692)
12-14-2007 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by JRTjr
12-13-2007 11:10 PM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
quote:
You have a good point with the walking thing. However, to make the comparison valid you would have to be able to get to the moon by just walking.
Well, taking me off the planet adds a difficulty that isn't required. Evolution doesn't require such a thing, so neither does my analogy.
Given sufficient time and resources, I could certainly walk the equivalent distance from my house to the moon.
Each step is just a step.
Of course, that distance would probably exceed one person's lifetime, but then again, so does the observation of large-scale evolutionary change.
So, what is the mechanism, given sufficient time and resources, which prevents an evolutionary journey analogous to one from my house over a distance equal to that to the moon?
quote:
We see not only variants on a design, but new designs.
Define "new".
Please also show how those new designs are not in any way genetically or morphologically related to any other design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by JRTjr, posted 12-13-2007 11:10 PM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by JRTjr, posted 12-18-2007 7:32 AM nator has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 18 of 295 (440695)
12-14-2007 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by JRTjr
12-14-2007 1:45 AM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
jrtjr1 writes:
What really gets me is even Evolutionist will say stuff to the effect of “The impression of design is over whelming” and then proceed to try and make people believe its’ just a coincidence.
Impression of design?
Such as what?
The human eye? Piss poor design.
The inside of the human skull? Piss poor design.
The human ability to suffer depression and host of other psychological disorders? Piss poor design.
Reasons to believe writes:
Testing the Creation Model
The unique beauty of this biblical creation model is its ability to predict with accuracy advancing scientific discovery. This ability to predict is the hallmark of any reliable theory. By contrast, Darwinian evolution, chaos theory, and six-consecutive-24-hour-creation-day creationism fail to predict and instead contradict the growing body of data. This summary lists just 20 of the numerous successful predictions made by the Reasons To Believe model.
transcendent creation event
cosmic fine-tuning
fine-tuning of the earth's, solar system's, and Milky Way Galaxy's characteristics
rapidity of life's origin
lack of inorganic kerogen
extreme biomolecular complexity
Cambrian explosion
missing horizontal branches in the fossil record
placement and frequency of "transitional forms" in the fossil record
fossil record reversal
frequency and extent of mass extinctions
recovery from mass extinctions
duration of time windows for different species
frequency, extent, and repetition of symbiosis
frequency, extent, and repetition of altruism
speciation and extinction rates
recent origin of humanity
huge biodeposits
Genesis' perfect fit with the fossil record
molecular clock rates
Care to explain (a) how these are any kind of test for this model and (b) how much research you have done to investigate these claims?
I put money on 'not a lot.'
To get this taught in school you would have to validate it and that won't happen because it is invalid, bollocks, just plain wrong.
jrtjr1 writes:
See, it is not that I am “irrelevant”, “of no worth”, or “of no importance”;
Quite so: but the ideas you are supporting are.
jrtjr1 writes:
The fact that there is a Creator is so well established that
Is it? The reason scientific theories are taught is because they are supported by the evidence. Creationism is not.
Unless you have some new evidence and can present it here?
You also seem to forget that science does not have an socio political agenda but creationism is religion and so does.
Even your wacky US law agrees.
jrtjr1 writes:
I challenge you to look over the information I have provided.
Surely you know this has been debunked ad infinitum?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by JRTjr, posted 12-14-2007 1:45 AM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by JRTjr, posted 12-18-2007 8:19 AM Larni has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 19 of 295 (440718)
12-14-2007 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by JRTjr
12-14-2007 1:45 AM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
First, if on the off chance you recognize my avatar, you should know I am not an atheist but a theist and a theist from one of the Judaic faiths. I will go a step further and tell you that I am a Christian, so all your blather about taking away moral bases is simply classic Christian Cult of Ignorance nonsense.
I actually went and looked at Message 28 and there is no model there. The fact that you even think that is a model is a pretty clear demonstration why Creationism will never be more than a joke.
If you would like to actually try to present a model, I suggest that you begin by reading Message 1 which will give you a few guidelines on what you must do to support a model for Creationism. Remember, if you want to insert "GodDidIt", be prepared to place God on the lab table for examination as well as provide the methods God used.
Good Luck!

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by JRTjr, posted 12-14-2007 1:45 AM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by JRTjr, posted 12-18-2007 8:46 AM jar has replied
 Message 72 by ICANT, posted 01-06-2008 8:14 PM jar has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 20 of 295 (440851)
12-14-2007 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by JRTjr
12-13-2007 11:10 PM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
You have a good point with the walking thing. However, to make the comparison valid you would have to be able to get to the moon by just walking.
Why?
We see not only variants on a design, but new designs. (I.E. give me a process that gets me from never having leg to walking upright) You have to have legs, to be able to walk, to take the first step of a journey of a thousand miles;-}
Others have combined this kind of analogy with taking photographs along the way, where the photographs represent "fossil records" of the process, each one intermediate between the ones before and after in their progress across the US. Photographs that make a logical and consistent pattern from A to B.
To borrow the analogy and take it another step () further, each step made can represent a generation in the development of a species. Each step will differ from the one before it, maybe a little, maybe more (a jump over a creek, a skip). At a certain point this walking will need to adapt to a new environment, that necessary to get over mountains, and the adaptation will involve a different kind of step and additional support. Finally, when you reach the california coast you can walk out into the surf until you float, and then adapt that walking/step motion to swimming. An entirely different kind of step.
Now if you think that evolution just cannot explain "large scale change" well enough to suit you, or that there is some magic barrier to what evolution can accomplish, please define what you mean or need to see\understand on Dogs will be Dogs will be ??? or MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? or "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?. So far I haven't had a creationist able to explain what the problem is.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by JRTjr, posted 12-13-2007 11:10 PM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by ICANT, posted 01-06-2008 8:44 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 21 of 295 (440915)
12-15-2007 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by JRTjr
12-13-2007 11:10 PM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
jrjtr1 writes:
You have a good point with the walking thing. However, to make the comparison valid you would have to be able to get to the moon by just walking.
Nator's analogy in effect states that one can change any nucleotide sequence into any other nucleotide sequence by just one tiny point mutation at a time. A more than sufficient set of point mutation types would be:
  • Add one nucleotide.
  • Subtract one nucleotide.
  • Change one nucleotide to another.
The question for you is, once some number of point mutations have occurred, what prevents further point mutations? Or what prevents certain types of point mutations that might cause a species to cross the "kind" boundary?
The answer is that there is nothing to prevent such changes. Your "walking to the moon" analogy has no correspondence to observed reality.
Of course, Nator's analogy was intended only to make this simple point, not to serve as an analogy for all types of mutations. There are a large number of mutation types, some of them much more substantial than a single point mutation, so in reality the genome can change substantially in a single generation. Perhaps the most dramatic example is polyploidy in plants, where the entire chromosome set can become duplicated in a single generation.
So not only can genomic change proceed in tiny point mutation steps analogous to walking, it can also change in larger steps perhaps analogous to crossing a river, lake or canyon. Naturally the accompanying morphological change has to be within the limits required for survival and reproduction (it does no good to evolve from animal A to animal B if there are no other animal B's to mate with, so all morphological/genetic change has to be within certain limits for sexual species, which may explain why polyploidy isn't observed in animals).
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by JRTjr, posted 12-13-2007 11:10 PM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by JRTjr, posted 12-18-2007 10:39 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 33 by Wounded King, posted 12-18-2007 11:16 AM Percy has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 22 of 295 (440920)
12-15-2007 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by frannyfresh
10-12-2007 6:58 AM


So my first question is does the above make sense
No.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by frannyfresh, posted 10-12-2007 6:58 AM frannyfresh has not replied

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 4305 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 23 of 295 (441572)
12-18-2007 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by nator
12-14-2007 7:46 AM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
Dear nator,
Taking you off the planet is my point; and yes, I would say that it is necessary. (Not literally but figuratively.)
Why? Mainly because of the fossil record. From about 3.8 Billon to less then one billion years ago you have single celled life forms, and soft tissue multi-cell life forms. Then, in just over a half billion years you have everything else just showing up. No transitional forms, just a whole lot of new phyla (species, or group of animals) popping into existence in a vary short period of time (geologically speaking).
See, the fossil record goes from nothing (life form wise) to single celled and soft tissue multi-cell life forms. Then, with no so-called “Transitional forms” you all-of-a-sudden have every phyla to ever exist. That is a leap that has not been explained by Evolutionists. A leap that is so big and outrageous it’s laughable to believe it was a “natural progression event”.
The suggestion that a jellyfish washed up on a shore one day and lived long enough to grow legs might as well be a jump to the moon. Yet that would be the only conclusion you could come to if you believe that there was no intelligent agent that had anything to do with the bringing about of life on Earth.

For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him should not perish (come to destruction, be lost), but have eternal (everlasting) life.
For God did not sent the Son in to the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, But that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him.

John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by nator, posted 12-14-2007 7:46 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 12-18-2007 8:05 AM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied
 Message 25 by JB1740, posted 12-18-2007 8:14 AM JRTjr has replied
 Message 36 by nator, posted 12-19-2007 11:41 AM JRTjr has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 24 of 295 (441576)
12-18-2007 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by JRTjr
12-18-2007 7:32 AM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
Taking you off the planet is my point; and yes, I would say that it is necessary. (Not literally but figuratively.)
So it's an analogy, one that breaks down tragically because the moon is not an island of life separate from earth. There is no there there for life to walk to.
Of course your analogy would also mean that life would be homogeneous - same animals in similar ecosystems - and this too is not true. Biogeography is a fact that is explained by evolution, but not by genesis. The numbers and types of species that make it to volcanic islands - like hawaii, like galapagos - show that not all types of animals can walk on water, but that doesn't prevent life from getting there.
So your analogy even fails to apply to life on earth. Tough luck, reality is like that.
No transitional forms, just a whole lot of new phyla (species, or group of animals) popping into existence in a vary short period of time (geologically speaking).
like the 65 million years between appearances of coelacanth in the fossil record ... guess that means that they don't exist. And before you say "but they haven't changed" you better check the facts. (hint - it's an order not a species).
Enjoy.

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by JRTjr, posted 12-18-2007 7:32 AM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

  
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5944 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 25 of 295 (441579)
12-18-2007 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by JRTjr
12-18-2007 7:32 AM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
No transitional forms,
This statement is utterly false. I'm gonna call BS here and ask you to support this statement with references.
just a whole lot of new phyla (species, or group of animals)
Do you know what a phylum is, or are you just throwing around words? This sentence doesn't actually make a lot of sense.
popping into existence in a vary short period of time (geologically speaking).
Can you define "short period of time?" I have a pretty solid concept of geologic time and have parameters of "short" versus "long" intervals. Can you give me some numbers so we can see if we're anywhere on the same sheet of music?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by JRTjr, posted 12-18-2007 7:32 AM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by JRTjr, posted 12-18-2007 11:09 AM JB1740 has replied

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 4305 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 26 of 295 (441583)
12-18-2007 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Larni
12-14-2007 7:54 AM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
Dear Larni,
So, you have the blue prints to the human body? To say something is a “Piss poor design” you have to know what it was designed for. I could complain that a can opener was a bad hammer and therefore a “Piss poor design”
Just because man’s eyes were not designed to your specification dos not mean they were not designed at all or that they wore poorly designed.
As to ”testing the model’ (Creation Model) Good question. However, you must not have gone to the link. I provided and read my postings. Because it give at least one in message #28.
I’ll recount an example of the predictive abilities of the Creation model from that posting.
According to “the first chapter of genesis, the Bible starts of by proclaiming that God existed before the Universe.
“1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Genesis 1: 1
Now, we know that the universe had a beginning {I.E. the Big Bang} something or Someone had to begin it.

See, The Bible stated that the universe had a beginning some four to six thousand years before Evolutionist had to, grudgingly, admit that the universe started with a “big band” some time in the distant past.
Not only did the Bible say it first but it also gave three initial condition for the Earth {before it was made ready for live}, showed the progression of life as God added new phyla (species, or group of animals), and states that God is not continuing to Create new phyla. (Of course that is why we see fewer and fewer phyla from the end of the Cambrian period to this day.)
You also seem to forget that science does not have an socio political agenda
I would have to agree that ”Science’ does not have an agenda. However, Evolutionist do. As to my agenda, (I.E. my being a Christian and an ”Old Earth’ Creationist), how does me, having an agenda, change what the science is saying?
The facts say there is design to this universe, all the way down to the single celled life. If your going to ignore the facts just because I may or may not have an agenda, then so-be-it.
My job here is to present, and explain the facts. Whether or not you accept them is not my problem. Do not get me wrong here, I hope you will eventually accept the facts; however, If you choose to ignore them that is your problem not mine.
Edited by Admin, : Change font color in difficult to see portion.

For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him should not perish (come to destruction, be lost), but have eternal (everlasting) life.
For God did not sent the Son in to the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, But that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him.

John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Larni, posted 12-14-2007 7:54 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by reiverix, posted 12-18-2007 9:01 AM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied
 Message 29 by Larni, posted 12-18-2007 9:39 AM JRTjr has replied

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 4305 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 27 of 295 (441587)
12-18-2007 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by jar
12-14-2007 9:41 AM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
Dear Jar,
Your ”Avatar’ is irrelevant, when you say
It doesn't matter what Creationists accept, they are irrelevant, a joke and of no worth or importance. Creationism is only willful ignorance.
Your denying the vary things your now purporting to believe in. Either you accept the fact that this universe was designed by a Creator or you blindly believe that man can explain the entire universe by strictly physical, mechanical, and chemical means.
So which is it? Are you a “Irrelevant Creationism Christian” or an atheistic Evolutionist?
Please, also read my response to Larni. I ”Put to the test’ the Creation model. As far as putting
God on the lab table for examination as well as provide the methods God used.
There are fields of research that you do not have many things you can actually take into a lab and scrutinize. For instance Astronomy, you can’t bring a star (or galaxy for that matter) in to a lab and do test on it directly.
There are also processes we can only theories about because we are not {and will never be; this side of eternity} privy to all of the data. For instance, how the Creator brought the universe into existence.
However, that in no way prevents us, from a scientific prospective, from being able to say “Yes, this is designed”. By the way, admitting something is designed in no way prevents us from figuring out how it works and, on so levels, how it was made.

For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him should not perish (come to destruction, be lost), but have eternal (everlasting) life.
For God did not sent the Son in to the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, But that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him.

John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 12-14-2007 9:41 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by jar, posted 12-18-2007 10:59 AM JRTjr has replied

  
reiverix
Member (Idle past 5818 days)
Posts: 80
From: Central Ohio
Joined: 10-18-2007


Message 28 of 295 (441590)
12-18-2007 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by JRTjr
12-18-2007 8:19 AM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
The facts say there is design to this universe, all the way down to the single celled life.
Then let me see those facts. I ask this every time someone brings up design, but guess what, all I get is a page full of annoying garbage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by JRTjr, posted 12-18-2007 8:19 AM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 29 of 295 (441596)
12-18-2007 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by JRTjr
12-18-2007 8:19 AM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
jrtjr1 writes:
Just because man’s eyes were not designed to your specification dos not mean they were not designed at all or that they wore poorly designed.
Yes it does: it shows that if they were designed in a 'just good enough way'. Either that or by a bad designer.
jrtjr1 writes:
Now, we know that the universe had a beginning {I.E. the Big Bang} something or Someone had to begin it.
This is where you are in error. There is no reason to jump to the conclusion that 'Someone' caused the 'begining'.
The bible saying that there was a begining is hardly a reason to conclude that that creation 'model' is a scientific model.
jrtjr1 writes:
Not only did the Bible say it first but it also gave three initial condition for the Earth {before it was made ready for live}, showed the progression of life as God added new phyla (species, or group of animals), and states that God is not continuing to Create new phyla.
Care to provide the evidence that supports this 'prediction'? By the way the first 2 are unfalsifiable and therfore invalid within science.
Btw: by saying phyla you can't mean species. Unless you lump them both in together in the ever elusive 'kind'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by JRTjr, posted 12-18-2007 8:19 AM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by JRTjr, posted 12-23-2007 9:35 PM Larni has replied

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 4305 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 30 of 295 (441610)
12-18-2007 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Percy
12-15-2007 9:00 AM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
Dear Percy,
Your argument seams to make a lot of sense until you start looking at the shire complexity of the process you’re talking about.
Let’s start at the beginning. Before the first life forms became ”life forms’, assuming they just happened (I.E. assuming no Intelligent Agent designing them.), you have to believe that matter is self organizing to the extent that vary complex, and information rich things can come from non-complex non-information rich materials.
Lets go back to my cake example ( Message #7 on the ”first genetic material’ string)
We want to see how this cake is made. Now I have a Recipe book, eight ingredients, a mixing bowl, and an oven.
To say that this cake came about with out an ”Intelligent Agent’ would be ludicrous, would it not? However, we are talking here about only a small handful of variables. The eight ingredients, a mixing bowl, etc.
Now consider the more complex ”Protein’. A protein is just one building block of a cell; yet just one protein has something like one to two hundred amino-acids. Each of these ”amino-acids’ must be placed in the right place to have a functional protein (with some room for error). Just like our cake, if you place the wrong amount of the wrong ingredients into the mix it will not work. (And that’s not to even mentioning contaminants getting into it and messing everything up.)
So for life to have started by itself (I.E. no Intelligent Agent designing or creating it) you have to believe that you can get hundreds of ingredients, mixed in just the right way, at just the right times, without getting contaminants in it. Then there’s the programming you have to deal with. Again, you have to be able to believe that vast amounts of information (encoded in DNA, RDN, etc.) can be collated into a coherent language that can then be used to replicate a new cell. Remember, we are talking about a cake baked on an atomic scale.
Take for instance the Bacterial Flagellum. You have what amounts to an out-board motor for a bacterium. Magnified fifty thousand times you can see a hardwired motor that runs up to 100,000 rpm, and can stop on a dime; it has two gears (forward and reveres), it’s water cooled, has a rotor, U-Joint, drive shaft, and propeller. All of this is built at the atomic level. If it is so easy for something of this complexity to come together without an Intelligent Agent the why are our top scientists struggling with duplicating it?
I’m sorry, but science tells me that that kind of information rich, organization of components is the domain of an Intelligent Designer.
Now, once the cell is born, is it possible that mutations could cause more complex creatures?
Please! Any one know the ratio of so called 1 ”good’ mutations verses 2 ”Bad’ mutations verses mutations that are 3neutral? Might want to look it up.
1. ”good’ mutations: Mutations that improve the life forms survivability.
2. ”Bad’ mutation: Mutations that hinders the life forms survivability.
3. ”neutral’ mutation: Mutations that do not effect the life forms survivability.

For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him should not perish (come to destruction, be lost), but have eternal (everlasting) life.
For God did not sent the Son in to the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, But that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him.

John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Percy, posted 12-15-2007 9:00 AM Percy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024