|
Author
|
Topic: Fine tuning/ programming
|
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3758 days) Posts: 283 Joined: 07-07-2008
|
|
Message 55 of 123 (531044)
10-15-2009 9:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 54 by Coyote
10-15-2009 9:33 PM
|
|
Re: Back to the beginning...
In response to Coyote, I'm going to withhold my answer to your question until I get more replies to the post that demonstrated my argument since I haven't received objective ones yet, and yours is great, but its a different topic. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 54 by Coyote, posted 10-15-2009 9:33 PM | | Coyote has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 56 by Coyote, posted 10-15-2009 9:53 PM | | Pauline has replied |
|
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3758 days) Posts: 283 Joined: 07-07-2008
|
|
|
Message 57 of 123 (531046)
10-15-2009 9:58 PM
|
Reply to: Message 56 by Coyote
10-15-2009 9:53 PM
|
|
Re: Back to the beginning...
coyote writes: OK. And welcome to the madhouse! Merci beaucoup. Glad to be here.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 56 by Coyote, posted 10-15-2009 9:53 PM | | Coyote has not replied |
|
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3758 days) Posts: 283 Joined: 07-07-2008
|
|
|
Message 70 of 123 (531259)
10-16-2009 5:14 PM
|
|
|
straggler writes: The thing is you haven't demonstrated anything. You have simply argued that aspects of nature are too complex to have arisen naturally. But this still amounts to little more than argument from incredulity and still has all of the problems detailed in Complexity (Message 20). All you have done here is cite a very speciific example rather than the generic case. But it still amounts to: "I don't see how this could have occurred naturally therefore it must be designed". Okay, so please explain to me how it might have occurred naturally. Actually, let me be specific: how do you explain the occurance of action potential generation/conduction in a pure naturalist fashion without the intervention of intelligence? If you can demonstrate this, I'll ask you one more question. But go ahead...
bluegenes writes: I've pointed out to you that the fact that mutations subtract features as well as adding them destroys your argument. Do you understand the concept of scaffolding in evolution as applied to complex systems like the one you're describing in the heart? This is what I was hoping to receieve: A succint statement. No, I have heard about scaffolding but I'm sure you know more than I do about it. I'm all ears. I forgot to mention: yeah, mutations sometimes subtract features.
larni writes: The point is that when we say 'goddidit' the enquiry stops. As Straggler points out. This enquiry will not stop with the claim that ascribes the design of nature to God's grand design because if you think am wrong, you will provide reasons for your conclusion and that way I can see flaws in my argument. And we'll take it further from there... The claim that my argument is from incredulity is not going to work. I am willing to provide other evidences of intelligence if thats what going to aid our discussion. And I might not have the best supported arugments, some of it might be flawed some of might be proven only through further study....I'm not here to tell everyone I'm an "Einstein". But conluding that a person is arguing from incredularity and saying just as much as that is as good as saying 'god did it' and walking out the door. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given. Edited by Dr. Sing, : clarified something Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.
|
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3758 days) Posts: 283 Joined: 07-07-2008
|
|
|
Message 71 of 123 (531270)
10-16-2009 6:23 PM
|
|
|
percy writes: We do not see a designer inserting improved genes into populations. You're postulating a mechanism for which there is no evidence. As far as the heart goes, any mutations that change the configuration and composition in a way that permits more efficient pumping will be selected for, those that do the opposite will be selected against, and that is all that is required for the design of the intricate interplay of signals and forces in the heart. okay, here's the perfect question to ask you: Do you have evidence for the natural development of the process of action potential? A step by step process *involving mutations*.
|
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3758 days) Posts: 283 Joined: 07-07-2008
|
|
|
Message 72 of 123 (531276)
10-16-2009 6:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 68 by Perdition
10-16-2009 1:28 PM
|
|
Re: Intricate complexity from on high!
perdition writes: Atheism believes that God does not exist, therefore it is a faith.
Not quite. Lacking a belief doesn't imply a belief in the opposite. I don't have to believe a god DOESN'T exist in order to not believe. For instance, I could just stop at, "I don't know," I'm still an athiest, meaning I don't actually believe, but I also don't actually disbelieve. I happen to believe a God is improbable, but I could easily be convinced if any evidence of an unambiguous nature were to turn up. If you don't see empirical evidence for the existence of God, that means you don't. Absence of proof isn't proof of absence. And I assure you, you will never see empirical evidence for God's existence no matter how long you live. Intelligent men never try to prove that God exists using scientific experiments because thats impossible. And foolish men take this as evidence for the absence of God in the real world. As humans are weak, our logic cannot comprehend the supralogical. Faith is a big part of creationism. On the flip side, scientific experiments can never disprove the existence of God either. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 68 by Perdition, posted 10-16-2009 1:28 PM | | Perdition has replied |
|
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3758 days) Posts: 283 Joined: 07-07-2008
|
Dr Adequate writes: Evolution. I'm glad we sorted that out. What an adequate post! Thank you! Your knowledge is extremely attractive and makes me want to sit at your feet and learn more about evolution because it seems like such a fanstastic theory as displayed by your one word answers. (BTW, I'm not done with this. As soon as time permits, I will respond to the above posts.Thank you for your responses, Izanagi and bluegenes.) Edited by Dr. Sing, : added the stuff in parentheses
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 73 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-17-2009 1:12 AM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3758 days) Posts: 283 Joined: 07-07-2008
|
|
|
Message 86 of 123 (532171)
10-21-2009 7:12 PM
|
|
|
Izanagi writes: I have to say, I was a bit daunted by your post. But after slogging through cardiac action potential and its various phases, the potassium channels, arrhythmia, calcium channels, etc., I think I have a handle on your question. It may not be as detailed as you may like, but I'll try my best...Forgive my ignorance. It's been awhile since I've read up on the heart. That was the objective I had in mind in creating the thread: to see how the typical evolutionist thinks. Thank you for your response. And its okay if its not detailed, I'm not saying I have all the answers either. 
Izanagi writes: Wouldn't it be logical to think that a small mutation would have changed some of the pores that allowed some substance to pass through a transmembrane protein into a pore that allowed ions to pass through? And assuming that it provided an evolutionary advantage, it wouldn't be illogical to think that cells would begin to carry this mutation over time. Whatever the original evolutionary advantage was for action potential, there is an added advantage as it relates to communication between cells. Consider that the first single-celled organisms that grouped together needed a way to communicate, action potential offered a ready option. Communication by action potential is quick, about 1/3 the speed of sound, compared to using alternative methods. Here you are making two assumptions upon which your claim is founded. Now, assumptions are assumptions, and facts are facts. The first assumption is that there was a "already existing" protein channel..... whose gene mutated and thus the cell gave birth to an ion channel. I could simply ask you, 1. how do you know how many mutations might have been required to achieve this? If you know anything about ion channels, you know that they are extremly specific in their function implying specificity in the genes encoding them too. We don't know how many mutations needed to occur to form a fully functional ion channel that passed natural selection's scrutiny. And we don't know if mutations occured that natural selection was not in favor of and eliminated the ion channel. I could also ask you, how long was it before all the extrinsic factors (like hormones, in higher organisms) that are necessary to regulate ion channel activity until they came into existence? You see, your logic is great. But there's a whole lot more than logic that we've got to take into consideration in order to thoroughly understand processes on the molecular level. Asuumption 2 is that ion channels provided an evolutionary advantage. Now, I can tell you that the Na/K ATPase pump provides an excellent "evoltutionary advantage" for a unicellular organism. But the existence of Na/K ATPase pumps is dependent on ion channel existence. Can you speculate as to what evolutionary advantage would ion channels have provided for a single celled organism? We could speculate...since the unicellular ogranism needs H+ ions to maintain its pH, and other ions to maintain osmotic pressure, and since ion channels provide a great way for ion uptake, they were selected for by natural selection. But the problem is, if the organism needed these processes to even survive, how could it have survived until it "created" these processes? Do you see my point? And we're talking unicells here! As far as action potential and single cells go, there is no need for a single celled organism to have action potential since it cannot even grasp the funtionality of action potential, its that primitive. Again, you are assuming that action potential provided an evoltuionary advantage for unicells, but I ask how?
Izanagi writes: ...The point is that skeletal muscle and cardiac muscle are similar and cardiac muscle can be seen as the intermediate between skeletal muscle and smooth muscle. In fact, it may be that cardiac muscles are the next evolutionary step between skeletal and smooth muscle but that's just my own thoughts there. Similarity doesn't always imply an evoltutionary relationship. You understand that all three muscle types are similar because duh, they're all made of muscle tissue. Could it be that intelligence designed them that way? And I say this based on two claims. 1) Where there is improbability, humans infer intelligence. It is improbable that three muscle types that are so similar in structure are polar opposites in functionality. 2) We observe a common recognizable pattern of working (technically, its the interaction between actin and myosin which = muscle contraction) between all three muscle types, (if this doesn't make sense, I'm sorry, but go look up muscle contraction on google and you'll see what I'm referring to). Again, a recognizable pattern implies prior thought. If you say "no, how do you know???? thats arguing from incredulity"...then I'll say, the fact that the same recognizable pattern appears in three diff. muscle types yet makes them functionally different implies prior thought/planning.
Izanagi writes: Do you mean "leaky" potassium channels? You never mentioned "leaky" sodium channels. I'm sorry, I don't see how "leaky" potassium channels create the heart's rhythm. The rhythm of the heart (here, I'm assuming you mean heartbeat) is set by the pacemaker cells which are typically the cells that undergo depolarization the fastest, right? Those cells are typically found in the SA Node, right? Nope, I mean leaky Na+ channels. Oh my dear, Izanagi, do me a favor and read this.
Izanagi writes: This is what you might find if you conjecture that cardiac muscles evolved from smooth muscle. Smooth muscles do not rely on action potential for contraction. Because smooth muscles are ill-suited to work as a heart, there is an evolutionary advantage in a mutation that changes smooth muscle into cardiac muscle as smooth muscles contract slowly and may hold the contraction for prolonged periods. More constant, consistent pumping means nutrients are consistently flowing which allows for sustained physical activity. Cardiac muscles evolving into skeletal muscle would be the next step as endoskeletons began to form. Actually, cardiac muscle and smooth muscle are not that simliar. Consider and re-think what you have just proposed, pure logical blunders in and out. And here's an article that might be of help: I just want to highlight one point mentioned in the article. Troponin, a major protein involved in muscle contraction is absent in smooth muscle but present and critical in cardiac muscle. So, one can ask, where did cardiac muscle get troponin from if it evolved from smooth muscle. Natural selection has nothing to say until we have even formed something called troponin. Do you see it?
Izanagi writes: You are essentially saying that God made the heart the way it is to prevent tetanus but I could just as simply ask: why didn't God not create the bacteria that causes tetanus in the first place? You are also making a logical fallacy by saying correlation implies causation. Just because tetanus is likely prevented by the way our hearts are constructed does not mean that was the reason for why our hearts are the way it is. The fact that the way the heart is might prevent tetanus would just an additional evolutionary advantage, but the more significant advantages are that our hearts allow for sustained activity, more rapid movement, a larger size, and better nutrient transport. Evolution, in fact, accounts for the development of the heart since any mutation of the heart that confers advantages for an organism that other organisms in a population would not have would make that particular organism better fit than the rest and likely more reproductively successful. Thus we have those advantages simply because the mutations created organisms that survived better in their environment....I conjecture that smooth muscle gave rise to cardiac muscle. Consider that modern invertebrates utilize smooth muscle, and considering it is the simplest of all muscle groups, it's likely that the earliest invertebrates also utilized smooth muscle. Mutations that gradually changed smooth muscle into cardiac muscles would give certain invertebrates an evolutionary advantage as they could achieve greater size and sustain longer durations of movement as well as more rapid movement. FYI, tetanus is not caused by bacteria or virus. Infact, tetanus is a direct result of bad nervous input (to put it is layman's terms). I suggest you do some research before asking questions like this. So, essentially you are comparing both our inferences from the observed phenomenon of tetanus prevention in hearts and saying yours is better. Right? I can tell you why God allowed the phenomenon of tetanus to occur based on the Bible if you are willing to listen. Scientifically, we know what tetanus is, what is does, how to prevent it etc etc...but why does it occur? who knows?! Can the evolutionary theory tell me why tetanus occurs? You made a fallacy too, my friend. You compared smooth and cardiac muscles and magically concluded that smooth muscle in the simpler of the two. Tell this to a doctor, or someone else who knows enough about it and they will laugh. Even though one might logically derive cardiac mucle from smooth muscle "in their minds", I find no basis for this to have actually happened in life. Smooth muscle is as complicated if not more than cardiac in more senses than one. For instance, smooth muscle has an intrinsic ability to respond to three different kinds of external stimuli: mechanical, chemical, and nervous. Cardiac responds to just one type. Cardiac is more specialized, not more complex than smooth. I think thats a better way to put it. Now, I might have to do more research to come to a solid conclusion, but this is where I stand at this point in time.
Izanagi writes: Yet the weather systems are intricate and complex. Did they happen without a creator? Is God out there right now controlling the weather?
Intricate and complex systems can arise out of the interaction of rather simplistic parts. We understand gravity and its effect on mass and force. We understand and inertia and the conservation of momentum. Yet if a strong wind pushes a teetering rock down a mountain, we can't predict which rocks will be dislodged or how each and every rock will fall in a rockslide. A rockslide is an intricate and complex system that arises because of simplistic parts. With limitations. There's only a certain degree of positive complexity that random processes can bring. Once you pass that degree, intelligence has to kick in or otherwise no further meaning can be derived. Complexity can be meaningful or meaningless. A bunch of dice scattered on a table is a complex arrangement, but does it follow a pattern? No. Does it convey meaning? Absolutely not. But, a bunch of dice with the three black dots facing upward and arranged in a straight line follows a recognizable pattern, it conveys meaning. And if one has atleast two neurons in their brain, they will infer to the best explanation: inteliigence, and not randomness. I hope this analogy will cause you to re-think your faulty conclusions about random processes and complexity.
Izanagi writes: After all, if I can conceive of a Flying Spaghetti Monster, and I can, does that mean he exists? By logic, the FSM that existed would be more perfect than one that did not exist. This is the essence of the ontological argument. Now, do you have any observed evidence for the FSM's existence? Absolutely not! Therefore, your FSM deity is imaginary. Now, Bobby Henderson I'm sure had much better things to do than satire his way into the minds of atheists and agnostics. Goodness. I personally have never conjured up a God in my mind. He did not origniate in my thoughts, I came to know Him through an outside source namely the Bible. Now there are other religions (including your satirical Pastafarianism) like Hinduism for example that make a great effort to "create" deity. I've lived in India for more than 10 years and have seen Hindusim practised. Its all about creating an idol, pronouncing it God, and worshiping it. Apparently, deity is non pre-existent in their minds. And thats clearly faulty thinking. Not the case with Christianity though. Anyway, I fear the wrath of the mods if I talk too much about deity in this particular forum. And may I remind you, your theory is based on assumptions; and so is the entire evolutionary theory. Now you may have evidence to support the evolutionary theory but certainly not all of the evidence is in support of it. (if it were, evolution would no longer be a "theory") I suggest avoiding using terms like "easily accomplished" and such in your theoretical explanations. Should you back up your assumptions with evidence, I will gladly give you credit. In other words, one assumes/thinks/hopes evolution can answer the question. One doesn't know for sure. Neither do I. And to me, that means, further study and deeper research. Ultimately, we are all searching for truth in science. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.
|
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3758 days) Posts: 283 Joined: 07-07-2008
|
|
|
Message 88 of 123 (532178)
10-21-2009 8:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 87 by Percy
10-21-2009 7:50 PM
|
|
percy writes: According to Wikipedia, tetanus is caused by bacteria. Tetanus symptoms are caused by a neurotoxin produced by the bacteria: ok, sorry about that. I'm going to look that up as well. Thanks for pointing that out. what I meant was: tetanus results from faulty nervous input. But I didn't realize that Izanagi was referring to the causative agent of that faulty nervous input. Bad analysis on my part. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 87 by Percy, posted 10-21-2009 7:50 PM | | Percy has seen this message but not replied |
|
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3758 days) Posts: 283 Joined: 07-07-2008
|
|
|
Message 89 of 123 (532181)
10-21-2009 8:28 PM
|
|
|
bluegenes writes: Not just sometimes, Doc, but frequently, as the absence of tails and many other ancestral features tell us, along with the presence of the modified genes that once made these things. And you have had some succinct statements from me in relation to your claim. Stuff about how arguments from magic are meaningless, and how nature will select for intricacy and complexity if they improve function. My original answer to your O.P. question was the very succinct "variation and selection". So, you know that mutations subtract features. Therefore, it's odd that you make the "irreducible complexity" argument. Here's a simplified theoretical example of scaffolding. A mutation causes simple and crude characteristic A, which is advantageous. Over time, further mutations add characteristics B,C,D, and E, each one of them combining with A to improve its function, but each on their own useless, both individually and collectively without A. Then mutation F arrives, also creating something useless on its own, but combining with B,C,D and E to perform the function in a way that is more practical and economical than the A through E system, rendering A obsolete. A is dead wood, and is eventually selected out, leaving a neat little five component system which, to the observer, would be irreducibly complex. That's just an illustration, to demonstrate that "irreducible complexity" arguments are useless to anyone trying that "demonstrate" that any living system "cannot be attained" by nature. We don't know of an alternate/primitive version of action potential. (Action potential is as primitive as it gets.) Atleast I don't, do you?
Briterican writes: You've just said (a) proving God's existence using scientific experiments is impossible (Says who? What's your source? The statement doesn't really even make sense), but more importantly you called those of us who interpret this unsupported axiom (a) as evidence for the absence of God "foolish men" I'd be more inclined to apply the word "foolish" to those who swear a lifelong oath to things for which there is no evidence, than I would to those who admit "I can't know for certain, but I see no evidence". For a good read on "What Design Looks Like", click here What Design Looks Like | National Center for Science Education This article is definitely on topic as it addresses the criteria by which people attempt to assess design or a lack thereof, and it comes to the not-so-surprising conclusion that life doesn't actually look very "designed" when you get right down to it. Okay, okay. I'm sorry if I offended anyone here. And thanks for the article, I will look it up for sure.
Straggler writes: Which still amounts to: "I don't see how this could have occurred naturally therefore it must be designed" The answer to your question regarding hearts is - By means of evolution. Gradual and cumulative changes selected for over large periods of time by means of natural selection. Cumulative changes that ultimately result in the appearance of highly complex "design". Which is the same answer you will get to every single example of incredulity you might cite no matter how detailed. Even arch Intelligent Designists such as Behe accept the evolution of the heart. Or the eye. Or whatever other organ you care to mention. They instead restrict themselves to the molecular level (with little more success even if the argumets against are more scientifically sophisticated I might add). No matter how you phrase it or how much you deny it simply citing examples of complexity that you feel must be designed on the basis of complexity falls foul of all of the arguments I accused you of in Complexity (Message 20). Until you address those issues or change your line of attack your argument will remain one of incredulity and subjective notions of complexity. No matter how detailed the examples you may cite. Well, thats probably what majority of you (or maybe even all of you) think about my argument. Fine. It doesn't do much more than drive me to do further research. All I'm doing is inferring to the best explanation by observing natural phenomena. In my mind, intelligent design and evolution are both valid, and intelligent design is the better of the two explanations. Now, I agreed that complexity is a subjective criterion. And I also made it clear that complexity is not what I'm basing my arguments entirely on. I've also taken into consideration the various things you mentioned in your post. As for my use of the word "demonstrate", its proabably not the best word to use in such a discussion. I was using it in a more loose sence which is not the best way, I realize. Thanks for pointing it out, bluegenes. In response to Straggler, Anyway, foremost IDsts may think one thing about the heart or eye and so on and you might expect me to just follow their footsteps but the fact that Darwin himself said this: "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." is indicative of how unsure of his own theory he was. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given. Edited by Dr. Sing, : corrected typos Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 90 by Percy, posted 10-21-2009 8:48 PM | | Pauline has replied |
|
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3758 days) Posts: 283 Joined: 07-07-2008
|
|
|
Message 91 of 123 (532190)
10-21-2009 9:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 90 by Percy
10-21-2009 8:48 PM
|
|
Sir Darwin's excellent response: I don't know!!!
Percy writes: Once you see the full quote it becomes apparent that Darwin's thinking process as he wrote this was, "I have such an excellent response to this objection that I shall raise it myself!" Exactly, and his "excellent response" is based on his own assumptions. And its the same old "mutation and selection" answer. What intrigues me though is how Darwin chooses to ignore the origin of life question. And in this case, he doesn't care to investigate the origin of light sensitive cells. He says... yeah we observe simpler light sensitive cells in lower forms, these evolved, and now I present to you the perfect and complex human eye. What does he expect his readers to do? Each form their own idea of how life began??
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 90 by Percy, posted 10-21-2009 8:48 PM | | Percy has replied |
|
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3758 days) Posts: 283 Joined: 07-07-2008
|
|
|
Message 101 of 123 (536373)
11-22-2009 10:34 AM
|
Reply to: Message 100 by tsig
11-22-2009 8:10 AM
|
|
So your god is a lot like you just more complex. If God could be understood by humans whose defense is their limited understanding, God is not God.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 100 by tsig, posted 11-22-2009 8:10 AM | | tsig has not replied |
|
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3758 days) Posts: 283 Joined: 07-07-2008
|
Re: We have a definition
Paramsomnium writes: God is that which cannot be understood by humans with their limited understanding. With this definition in hand we can easily dismiss any and all assertions that this or that is "the will of God". One, The above mentioned "definition" is absolutely not the definition of God. Two, knowing who God is (as in His nature, attributes, abilities, limitations (if any) etc) and knowing the will of God are two different things. The latter can be achieved only by knowing God. But knowing God can happen only if God chooses to reveal His attributes to man. Agree? Consider this,if man lists the attributes of God, are they not what his picture of God is? And is that not a subjective basis by which to "define" God? On the contrary, if God reveals Himself, for example, through Scripture, that description is true. And on this basis, is not human understanding not only limited, but also incapable of ever defining God? Instead, looking to Scripture for a knowledge of God seems the right thing to do.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 104 by Son, posted 11-23-2009 10:11 AM | | Pauline has not replied |
|
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3758 days) Posts: 283 Joined: 07-07-2008
|
|
|
Message 105 of 123 (548403)
02-27-2010 12:50 PM
|
|
|
Prove to me that there has been no evidence for the existence of the FSM and that there is evidence for the existence of your deity. If this debate has now dissolved into ontology and you are going to stop arguing scientifically, then I can, and will, argue that the FSM is responsible for the complexity of the heart. In fact, everything complex thing you see is a direct result of the goodness of the FSM and his desire to work for our benefits. All the bad things you see are a result of people's denial in the goodness of the FSM and their unconscious desire to rebel against him. Henderson was the prophet of the FSM and the desire of the FSM to reveal himself to the world. Now, prove me wrong, logically. Well, first of all, I apologize for returning to this thread after a "long" time. And I don't know if anyone is interested in this thread anymore but I feel really bad for leaving it without a last word. Apologies. I wasn't trying to escape the discussion. And I actually feel quite inadequate to answer some of the questions posed to me. Like, "prove God exists", "why did God choose to use the same mechanism for different structures i.e the lazy god idea", things like that. However, I've returned to say a few things. The God of the Bible is worshipped by far more people than the FSM. There is historical evidence to back up Jesus' physical, human existence. Why do you use B.C and A.D? The Bible was written about one man- Jesus Christ; 40 human beings over a span of 1500 years, never having lived in the same era, all wrote about one man. Compare this to the Quran, the Bhagvad gita...don't you see the difference? Even though people tried to eradicate Christianity by killing Christians their number only kept increasing. Today, people report feeling a sense of peace and hope when they believe in Jesus. They have a reason for everything they do, for life, for love, for death, for charity, for education. As an atheist, why do think murder is "bad" and charity is "love"? Why a sense of morality? Because of Genetics? Which gene? Why do you feel sad when a loved one dies? Why is death a sad thing? If you think we live in a terrible world and God doesn't care, why aren't atheists committing suicide by extravagant numbers? Do you fear death? Do you want new and improved medicine to keep you healthy? Why? Why? I though you thought this world was a disgusting place and that God is bad. How do you explain abstract qualities like character and knowledge? How did they originate? FSM? Christianity has an answer. In the beginning God created... There is tangible, proven, historical evidence for the existence of people mentioned in the Bible, Nebuchnezzar, Kind David to name a few. And the evidence today agrees with what is mentioned in the Bible about them.
And with this statement, I can see that your understanding of science is less than minimal. Let me ask you this, do you think the Germ Theory of disease is just a "theory?" Is the Theory of Gravity just a "theory?" Environment pushes the drive for improvements forward; and new improvements pushes the environment to compete. It's a constant race with one pulling the other and that's what evolution is - the results of that race. There are no assumptions in evolutionary theory has that can match the assumptions you make for a designer. The fact is, the argument for God as designer requires many assumptions, not least of which is the assumption that the book you are basing your belief is true. Evolution, on the other hand, makes no assumptions as it is an explanation for observable data. The reason why evolution is a theory is because it is falsifiable. We can go out there and make observations and collect data in the natural world and try to disprove evolution. The reason why God is not a theory is because we can't disprove the existence of God just like you can't disprove the existence of the FSM. But in science, a theory is the highest attainable status. That alone should tell you how well evolution has stood up to all the evidence. I believe that all of us have adequately explained how the complex heart could arise. The fact is that our heart is the result of eons of accumulated changes from a simplistic tube to what it is now. Evolutionary theory suggests similarity across the board, which I have shown you. The problem is, I am not a geneticist, nor is our understanding of genetics complete so I couldn't tell you the genes you would need to change to produce those results. But we know enough about genetics to know that a single mutation can have a profound impact on an individual. If one mutation can affect an organism so greatly, why can't one mutation change the structure of an organ slightly? Ultimately, the evidence for evolution is strong whereas the evidence for a deity is non-existent. Remembering that science is about what is falsifiable, to argue a deity is to stop arguing through science because there is no way we can prove a deity doesn't exist. Regardless of the existence of a deity, the falsifiable naturalistic explanation is the focus of science and that is why evolution is science. The fact that you can say that you didn't "create" God without evidence for that statement shows why religion has no place in science. I say evolution is "just a theory" because: 1. There is no evidence to prove it. -Yes, the finch story, neaderthal man, archeopteryx, fossil record and company are all but a desperate attempt to "FIND EVIDENCE". A successfully failed attempt, of course. You think microevolution produces different finch species? When you dissect finch tummies, you find the same food stuff. IF their beaks helped them to find food, why is isn't the food different. Birds that migrate. Which gene codes for "migration in winter"? Did it develop through mutations gradually? Well, did the bird fly for 5 miles or 40 miles or 1000 miles at once? Either she flew 1000 miles and got to her destination and benefitted from migration, or she flew 5 miles first and landed on the ocean waters and died. Why don't other species like gila monsters migrate too? Why only birds? Why doesn't the evolutionist migrate? What do you mean by "fit"? A organism that survives, right? Well, who are the ones that survive? The fit. What a wonderful tautology! 2. The phenomenon of irreducible complexity (explained by Behe) disproves evolution. There is evidence for structures that when deprived of their smallest constituent will cease to function. In that sense, these structures have started out as complex. Evolution cannot accept that, its got to be simple right? Well, most things (like flagella) aren't really that simple on planet earth. I agree that God is not falsifiable. Neither is He empirically observed. Which "necessitates" us to switch our thinking into the realm of the supernatural. Our minds don't meet here, evolutionist/atheist. I think in terms of the supernatural, you the natural. I have not a problem with faith, you a BIG problem. I think there is an authority beyond science to know truth, you think science IS truth. Tell me, how do I prove to you God Jesus exists? I can't. He's not physical anymore. I can't go find God in Galilee or Bethlehem. But I'll tell you one thing, I KNOW God lives in my heart. And I've seen Him change my life. I know I'm not offering you empirical proof as you would like. But I offer you all the proof I have: my own life, changed by God, lived for Him and with Him in complete bliss. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.
|
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3758 days) Posts: 283 Joined: 07-07-2008
|
|
|
Message 108 of 123 (548445)
02-27-2010 5:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 106 by DC85
02-27-2010 2:06 PM
|
|
I know this is off topic but I felt the need to answer these. If it persists I will have no problem relocating the post to a new thread Oh please, do it brother, feel free to prolong this pseudo-discussion. I returned to this wonderful thread after 5 months just so that you, DC85, would grace me with your answers. Please go ahead. (Goodness gracious)
This is irrelevant there are a large portion of people who believe humans have never been to the moon but that doesn't give the argument any weight. In a population of 100 people, if 99 believe X to be true and 1 doesn't, what do you infer about X? 99= Christianity; 1=FSM Does that not imply anything at all to you? If it doesn't, I'm sorry, but it does to me.
I may ask you to present this in another topic as I suspect many of you're "historical" evidence have been discredited such Josephus. I will if you want me to. But please, work on your english....you're historical? discredited such Josephus? Are you the one who went to the moon and got your cognition messed up or what? (JK  )
Because society was up until a few centuries ago based around beliefs? Again, based "around" beliefs. Anyway, society actually majorly drifted away from being based on beliefs since Galileo's gallant advances in astronomy. We've actually been moving away from beliefs towards science ever since man's inception. Mankind originally was a theocratic society, then a tool-using society, then a technocratic society, and finally a technopoly society (monopoly of technology) Yet, we have B.C and A.D. Simply because it is legitimate to divide history based on a phenomenal man's existence.
I can make the same argument of many ancient and modern religions. These may be stories passed on a written down by people who already believed not to mention the similarities between other stories of other religions much older then Christianity. Ever play the game when you were a child "telephone" where you sit in a circle and whisper in you neighbor's ear? -Okay, make your argument for other religions then, I'd like to hear it. -The last kid knows what the first kid says even though he never heard it first hand. Should there be no intermediate messengers, he would never have known. - The Bible is the story of man from his creation to what will happen to the earth when God returns. Information in the Bible was conveyed to its authors in segments. No one Bilical author knew from A-->Z. Prophecies were made by various prophets. Revelation was given to John. The Ten commandments to Moses. Its all one long story over a period of 1500 years written in one book in segments. For your sake lets suppose moses was the first guy who "invented" Jehovah and wrote this neat story about the ten commandments. Why do some people who have never even heard about Moses write about the same Jehovah? Like Malachi. Malachi is regarded as the youngest OT book. And there's debate between Job and Pentateuch for the oldest. Why do both Job and Malachi give distinct (mind you, not contradictory) information about the same Jehovah? And why do the prophetic books tell something completely new about Jehovah (IOW, not what moses said, or joshua said)? No one Biblical author contradicts another. How is this possible in myths? How come 40 men agree with each other even though they never saw another?
I call it wishful thinking. Call it whatever you like. You have a tongue. You don't have to call it what I call it. Infact I don't expect you to call it what I call it because you don't even know what feeling I'm talking about. OF course you call it something else than it really is.
I don't want my wallet stolen because I will suffer... Aww, but if you don't want your wallet to be stolen, the thief will suffer! As a moral atheist, do you not want this earth to be a better place for everyone? Maybe the thief is a poor guy who needs ameal and maybe you own a mercedes. Where's your sense of equality? Why is the thief not entitled to your wallet? God doesn't do much for us, right? Why don't you atleast save the day?
This is not true. I read it. Then what is true?
Many mammals in herds migrate also evidence shows many dinosaurs migrated. Why would all species keep this adaptation if there is no stresses on the species to keep migrating? Many Canadian geese here in Virginia never migrate back north... These geese either through some mutation or lack of social direction do not migrate and seem to not be harmed by not doing so. Well, I feel a stress to migrate. I wish my genome could have a mutation for migration when it gets too cold for me. You see my whole point is not why birds migrate..its why don't cats? And what do you define as "stress to migrate"? Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 106 by DC85, posted 02-27-2010 2:06 PM | | DC85 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 111 by lyx2no, posted 02-27-2010 6:26 PM | | Pauline has replied | | | Message 117 by DC85, posted 02-27-2010 9:14 PM | | Pauline has not replied |
|
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3758 days) Posts: 283 Joined: 07-07-2008
|
Well, now you're just making mistakes about biology almost at random. In some cases you don't even bother making the mistake, you merely allude to it. In what way would you like to be wrong about Archaeopteryx? You just indicate in passing that there's some sort of mistake you want to make. As for the rest of it ... sheesh. You're wrong about finches, you're wrong about irreducible complexity ... and how can anyone not know that there are things other than birds which migrate? This presents us once more with the strangest paradox of creationism --- that creationists are obsessed with a subject, biology, that they aren't remotely interested in. Okay. Great. Thanks.
We must remember that this comes from the guy who confidently assured us that tetanus was not caused by bacteria Please shut up. I never confidently assured you. I took notice of my poor analysis of one phrase, apologized for it, and shut up and listened to you guys. Tetanus is caused by bacteria. You want to know its name? its Clostridium tetani. THATS proof that you are interested in ad hominem attacks more than the discussion. Also, I'm a woman. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.
|
™ Version 4.2